IN THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAI'I
|
DARA M. HOLBROOK YATSUSHIRO ) Plaintiff/Appellee ) vs. ) LAWRENCE J. HOLBROOK ) Defendant/Appellant )
|
FC-UCCJEA No. 03-1-0011
CORRECTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF THE RECORD ON PLAINTIFF'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
HEARING OF: 12/22/2006 JUDGE: CHRISTINE E. KURIYAMA |
Appellant, LAWRENCE J. HOLBROOK, (Father, appellant, defendant), pro se, pursuant to HRAP Rule 10(e)(1) and HFCR Rule 60, hereby files these Corrections and Modifications of the Record on Plaintiff's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOF/COL). Appellant retains the right to submit further corrections and modifications upon Plaintiff's filing of briefs and any other document that does not conform to the truth. Appellant also retains the right, under Rule 10(e)(2), to submit materials omitted from the record by error or accident.
1. Correction: On page 3 of the FOF/COL (paragraph 6), Plaintiff sets forth arguments that are derived from the hostile and adversarial actions she has taken since abandoning our home in Virginia in 2000:
a. Plaintiff states, "Based upon the credible testimony of Mother and her witnesses, the court found that it was in the best interests of the children that Mother be awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties two children…" In truth, the Court was unable to award joint custody because of the provisions of the now defunct HRS Section 571-46(9).
b. It has long been recognized under the UCCJEA that an abducting parent will shop for a jurisdiction that allows access to Temporary Restraining Orders without evidence. The parent then uses that TRO, even when based upon false allegations, as grounds to prevent joint custody, thereby locking the non-custodial parent out of the children's lives. In truth, this is what happened.
c. In the same paragraph, Plaintiff states "The court found that Father did physically abuse Mother during their relationship." In truth, this determination was based upon Defendant's admission and expressed remorse of a single moment of indiscretion that occurred in 1997, over six years prior to the Custody trial. This incident occurred after Plaintiff assaulted Defendant for two-hours. Since that event, over ten years ago, Defendant has never treated Plaintiff with any disrespect or demonstrated any anger towards her in any way.
d. In the same paragraph, Plaintiff states "Having recognized that Father had been abusive to Mother throughout the relationship…" In truth, the record shows no such instant of recognition anywhere in the procedural history. The statement is a complete fabrication of the record and an attempt to rewrite the opinion of the Honorable Judge William K. Wallace III rendered on September 23, 2003.
2. Correction: In paragraph 8, Plaintiff states, "Between October 2003 and February 2006, numerous motions were filed by Father in this case." In truth, Plaintiff not only initiated numerous motions, but also filed multiple Police Reports and instigated several CPS investigations based upon false allegations of domestic and sexual violence against the children. Defendant acknowledges filing motions filed to defend against Plaintiff's repeated and false allegations of abuse.
3. Correction: Also in paragraph 8, Plaintiff states "On June 2, 2005, the court ordered Father to get a private rental to provide the children with more privacy, safety and security and recommended that Father buy an economy car to reduce unnecessary hardship on the children." There are no facts anywhere in the record supporting this statement.
4. Correction: In paragraph 9, Plaintiff misleads the Court with inaccurate statements and utter falsehoods:
a. Dr. Tsushima is portrayed as a competent psychologist reporting on alleged incidences of abuse from a disaffected child. In truth, Dr. Tsushima is a required reporter who requested and received a CPS investigation. Defendant was subsequently cleared of the children's false allegations of domestic violence.
b. The doctor is portrayed as having "learned about matters impacting the safety" of the children. In truth, in his letter to the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), the doctor reveals that he had no evidence.
c. The doctor requested further investigation into the children's allegations. In truth, the GAL and every other person directly involved in this case conducted no investigation.
d. The doctor did not recommend termination of visitation. Yet, in truth, the Father's visitation was simply terminated, indefinitely, without investigation and without cause.
5. Correction: In paragraph 10, Plaintiff falsely intimates that Plaintiff and Defendant were at this status conference to hear the allegations against Defendant. In truth, Defendant was not at this hearing and was not apprised of the allegations.
6. Modification: In paragraph 11, Plaintiff sets in motion a series of false assumptions harmful to Defendant:
a. Plaintiff states, "A series of review hearings were set by the court throughout the following year to monitor Father's compliance with therapy and treatment and to deal with concerns about his ongoing abusiveness." In truth, during these hearings, this Court failed to acknowledge voluminous evidence in support of Father against the false allegations of abuse. Because this Court has suppressed evidence, Father's defense was then, and continues now, to be limited to my statement of innocence.
b. Plaintiff, severely obstructing therapy, dismissed the Court appointed therapist, Dr. Barbara Alethea. She placed KLH and KTH in the care of unapproved therapists without the knowledge or consent of the Courts or Defendant until after the children had established relationships with the unknown therapists. Plaintiff then used this deceit to claim that Defendant was uncooperative. In truth, the Court erred in accepting Plaintiff's ruse and failed the best interests of the children to appoint a single, family therapist as was originally ordered.
c. Plaintiff misleadingly alleges that Defendant did not comply or participate in therapy. In truth, Father complied with therapy. Dr. Aimee McCullough required Defendant to admit to the false allegations. Thereupon, this therapist refused therapy to Father.
7. Correction: In paragraph 12, Plaintiff continues a series of false assumptions of varying degrees that are maliciously harmful to Defendant:
a. Plaintiff's states "On February 9, 2006, the parties appeared before Judge Kuriyama…" In truth, no hearing was held on this date.
b. According to Plaintiff, the parties "reiterated their agreement to have the evaluations done by Dr. Tsushima provided to the parties' current therapists and the children's therapists as well as the Parenting Coordinators (PCs)," In truth, the parties agreed, on September 1, 2005, that "The intent of the evals from Dr. William Tsushima is that they shall be used for therapeutic purposes." Instead, Plaintiff used the statements of the doctor as proof of Defendant's abuse.
c. Plaintiff states that certain individuals would be named as PCs. In truth, PCs are not authorized by any statute in the State of Hawaii.
d. Further, unbeknownst to Defendant, these Court appointed persons did not have the minimum credentials recommended by the national organization, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). The unprofessional actions of these appointees helped to destroy the tenuous parent child relationships that were already at risk.
e. Plaintiff asserts that the PCs "would have full powers therefrom regarding the visitation plan in accordance with prior orders." In truth, this intentional misstatement reflects a bias forced upon the PCs to enforce Plaintiff's numerous misinterpretations of prior Court orders.
f. The order filed February 10, 2006 states that the named parties "shall be PCs in matters of visitation plans based on the Court orders filed in this case and to make recommendations for adjustments to visitation." In truth, the language of the order is in direct conflict with the task of a PC to assess the parent-children relationship and strengthen the family bonds broken in hostile divorce cases.
g. A qualified PC would have had the education and experience to act on the best interests of the children to improve the relationship of the children to each party. In truth, this PC failed because she was unqualified, predisposed to be biased, and was coerced into acting in accord with Plaintiff's motives to deny visitation between the children and their Father.
8. Correction: In paragraph 13, Plaintiff attempts to portray the PC, Ms. Fukuhara-Barclay, as a victim. In truth, this PC was given free reign to destroy a Father's relationship with his son. Defendant apologized on three separate occasions for the emotions he expressed on paper. But this PC chose to deny visitation citing her own emotional harm. In other words, this PC denied visitation because she was incapable of handling hostile parent relationships. The actions she pursued are characteristics of an unqualified PC and an unstable personality.
9. Correction: In paragraph 14, Plaintiff repeats the false statement that Defendant lives in a "boarding house." In truth, Defendant's home is a small space with private bathroom facilities and adequate cooking facilities. Defendant's living space has privacy from every other adult tenant in his apartment and the children have always been safe while on visitation with their Father.
10. Correction: Also in paragraph 14, Plaintiff accuses Father of filing a motion to require "Mother to implement communications between Father and the children." The Court order of September 23, 2003 states "Father shall have up to daily contact with the children…Such access is intended to ensure that the children know that they have ready access to both parents, and that they have open communications and support from both parents." In truth, Plaintiff has denied Father's request for minimal access to his children.
11. Modification: In paragraph 15, Plaintiff notes that the PC consulted with the GAL and Kalen's therapist, yet she neglected to mention the influence of the hysterical Plaintiff, the strident attorney and, conveniently forgot to interview the Father accused of the false allegations. In truth, only an unstable, untrained PC would have observed "unanimous concern" based upon the opinions of two of the eight individuals involved. A trained PC would not have acted to damage the Father/Child relationship. A trained PC would have included the observations and mental states of all parties, including herself. In fact, this PC was too emotionally unstable to even email the Father about the events upon which she would refuse visitation.
12. Correction: In paragraph 18 and 24, Plaintiff alleges that "Father has been physically abusive to KLH/KTH." In truth, the record contains no supporting evidence.
13. Correction: In paragraph 19 and 25, Plaintiff alleges that the GAL and the psychologist "attested to [the children's] abuse at Father's hands." In truth, the GAL has no evidence nor did she make any statements in Court attesting to abuse of the children by the Father's hand. The psychologist explicitly stated that he had no evidence in his letter cited above.
14. Correction: In paragraph 20, Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Taum and the psychologist made findings of abuse by Father against his daughter. In truth, while the testimony of Ms. Taum may be credible, she made no findings that KLH was the victim of physical abuse by Father. In addition, Dr. Tsushima gave no testimony under oath and the record cannot support any assertion of physical abuse. Further, a CPS investigation was conducted and all allegations of abuse by Father were dismissed.
15. Correction: In paragraph 21, Plaintiff repeats the false statements of paragraph 11 that are shown to be without basis in fact. In truth, KLH's therapist has failed to fill the needs of a family therapist and has failed to provide the services envisioned under the September 23, 2003 Court order.
16. Correction: In Plaintiff's duplicitous manners, paragraph 22 may be reviewed:
a. Plaintiff states that a Court order is in effect for Father to get appropriate housing (without guarantee of any additional or minimal visitation rights). In truth, all visitation has been denied and Father has not requested any visitation that requires "appropriate housing." Until this Court deems a change of custody is in order, Father should be deemed compliant with the order.
b. Also, Plaintiff asserts that there is a recommendation for Father to get a car. In truth, there is no such order. Defendant has adequately addressed transportation issues for the last four years. However, Plaintiff has failed to respond to numerous transportation issues and has created numerous problems because of her adamant refusal to discuss transportation issues.
17. Modification: Paragraph 23 is Plaintiff's conclusion from all of her false allegations. In science and religion, when you start with bad data, you get bad results. Plaintiff supplements false allegations with new and undocumented allegations of KLH's positive and negative behaviors. In truth, Plaintiff lists behaviors of any child of divorce for which no parent can be held solely responsible:
a. Plaintiff's conclusion is typical of a custodial parent's relationship with a female child approaching puberty.
b. The statements also describe the processes of alienation through the influential years, 8 through the age of 12, KLH's current age.
c. Plaintiff neglects to list the emotionally decompensating and alarming behaviors of mental illness when the child was not being forced to see the Father.
d. Defendant has witnessed KLH assaulting her classmates, curling up in a ball during after-school care, and walking around the perimeter of Kailua Elementary School Park while hundreds of children played all around her.
e. Today, the child is completely disenamored with both parents.
f. While KLH learns to despise the custodial parent, she will treat her noncustodial parent as a lower class human being for the rest of her life.
18. Correction: In paragraph 26, Plaintiff alleges that the GAL and PC's testimony were credible based upon minutes of interaction with KTH. They allege abuse where the record cannot support even a smidgeon of evidence. In truth, the GAL and PC heavily influenced by ten years of continuous false allegations from the custodial parent. No reasonable person can rely upon the testimony of two individuals so detached from the dynamics of this family. No reasonable person would find this unstable PC credible.
19. Modification: In paragraph 27, with so much less enthusiasm for the "male child-victim," Plaintiff presents her bias and conclusions, all based upon false allegations, that the Father is harmful to the son. In truth, Plaintiff presents no evidence but continues to repeat false allegations made for Defendant's daughter.
20. Modificaton: In subsection "D," paragraphs 28 through 35, Plaintiff blames Father for every emotional want and need of her children while starving her children to the possibility that their Father is a normal human being and can be a good Father to them. In truth, this Father has gone to extraordinary measures to establish residency on a remote Pacific Island to be near his children. It is evident that the Mother has not encouraged a positive relationship between the children and their Father and does not seem to be remotely aware that it is in their best interests. In subsection D, it is evident that the Mother has gone out of her way to ensure that the children will not have a relationship with their Father.
21. Correction: In subsection "E," paragraphs 36 and 37, Plaintiff and this Court have refused to acknowledge the burgeoning body of evidence suppressed for the convenience of prosecuting an innocent Father. In truth, a Mother who has taken every opportunity to demean a Father's relationship with his children cannot be a credible witness. A Mother who encourages her children's relationship with their Father does not participate in such incessant, disparaging, and negative behavior.
22. Correction: In subsection "F," paragraphs 38 through 41, Plaintiff continues to portray Defendant as an abuser without any evidence. In truth, she relies, solely upon unsubstantiated allegations and makes demands that are not consistent with the true facts in this case. The Family Court has ignored Defendant's pleas of innocence against the best interests of his children. No reasonable person would come to the same conclusion as Plaintiff.
23. Correction: In paragraph 42, Plaintiff alleges that the children are better off in therapy while they are refused access to their natural parent. In truth, the logic is absurd and ignores the purpose of the UCCJEA. The children's Mother, the GAL, the PC, and the therapists feed the children domestic violence experiences based upon false allegations created by their Mother. Impressionable young children parrot the false allegations for approval and acceptance. This Court can assist the custodial parent to alienate the children from the other natural parent. Or, this Court can break the cycle of alienation by ordering visitation.
24. Correction: In paragraphs 45, 46, and 47, Plaintiff repeats the case for a failed formula for therapists to talk to one another about other patient's cases. Since HIPAA took effect on April 14, 2003, there isn't a psychologist in Hawaii who will kowtow to the contrivance demanded in this case. Even in September of 2003, Judge Wallace had the wisdom to approve one, and only one, family therapist. To stray from that knowledge, guidance, and wisdom is to promote the destruction of this family.
25. Modification: In subsection "H," paragraphs 48 through 52, Defendant asks the Court to find these points moot. However, should this Court order a change in child custody and support, Defendant shall obtain adequate housing and transportation responding to all of Plaintiff's concerns.
26. Correction: All of Plaintiff's Conclusions of Law are erroneous:
a. The best interests of the children are maintaining a relationship with both parents. There are no reasons, based upon facts, for denying visitation. Children denied their Father are denied their childhood and a lifetime of love.
b. The PCs were unqualified, unstable, and damaged the parent child relationship. For this reason, they were released.
c. Both GALs have had no positive influence on this case. This second GAL remains ineffective and inconsequential and should be released.
d. All prior orders have had no effect in re-establishing the children's relationship with their Father after the Mother abducted the children from their home in Virginia. The Mother has ignored every order that she can legally flout. A new order needs to be made that conforms to the reality of the parties involved and that addresses the needs of the children, not the needs of one parent against another.
e. This case should be reviewed de novo for its blatant flouting of the rule of law under the UCCJEA and the Hawaii Revised Statutes.
f. In truth, Plaintiff's continuing abuse of Defendant is clear to any reasonable person who recognizes the pattern that has repeated itself for the last ten years.
________________________________ _________________________
Lawrence J. Holbrook, Signature Dated, Honolulu, Hawaii
Appellant, Pro Se