IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) ) SUSAN SAMORA COUTSOUKIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) Case No. ) 94-3846-D-3(2) vs. ) ) PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, ) ) (s3B Volume 1 of 3(s0B Respondent. ) __________________________________) &dDTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS&d@ (s3B Volume 1(s0B Medford, Oregon September 12, 1997 9:00 o'clock a.m. Before: The Honorable G. Philip Arnold, Circuit Judge. &dDAPPEARANCES&d@ For the Petitioner: Cristina Sanz Attorney at Law P.O. Box 443 Medford, OR 97501 For the Respondent: Beth Lori Attorney at Law 220 N. Oakdale Avenue Medford, OR 97501 September 12, 1997 9:00 o'clock a.m. . . . THE COURT: This is the time set for Coutsoukis and Coutsoukis. Is the Petitioner ready? MS. SANZ: We are, Your Honor. THE COURT: And is the Respondent ready? MS. LORI: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: We have set this matter for a bifurcated hearing. The issues to be determined today deal with child custody and visitation. All other issues will be dealt with at another time. One other thing I want to say: I have met with the attorneys this morning, and just to state this on the record, there are depositions that will come into evidence partially or completely. There are some telephone witnesses, that is, people we need to talk to by phone, that we don't expect to get to today. All of this evidence will needs to be received, and I anticipate that before the petitioner closes her case we'll need to receive all of that evidence. Ms. Lori, you have filed a motion in limine. You have requested that the witnesses wait outside. MS. LORI: Yes, Your Honor, I do note for the record I do have witnesses in here, including Dr. Oas. I don't know if you want Dr. Oas to step outside as well, but I had requested the Court to do an en mass instruction to the witnesses about what the exclusionary rule means and then have them step outside. THE COURT: Ms. Sanz, do you object to Dr. Oas remaining? MS. SANZ: If he is going to be the first witness, Your Honor, I don't see that as an issue. My witnesses are not here, Your Honor. I have asked them to come at a later time. THE COURT: Well, we'll post a sign as soon as the Bailiff comes back that witnesses may not enter. Witnesses are normally excluded from the courtroom until they've testified, that is, have testified finally, and that's done if either party requests it, so I will grant that. What this means is you are to wait outside, and you're not to discuss with anybody who has testified previously anything about their testimony. You are not to discuss your anticipated testimony with other people. The whole point of this is so that when I listen to you, I understand what you have to say uninfluenced by other people. You will find, or at least I have found, it makes your testimony clearer, as well, so it's to everybody's benefit. So please follow that rule as you wait outside. If you're talking with each other, talk about other things, but not about the facts of this case. So the witnesses are excluded from the courtroom at this point. Doctor, you may stay. Ms. Lori, your motion. MS. LORI: Yes, Your Honor, before I begin, at the outset you indicated that this case was bifurcated. I understand that, and I have instructed my client that this was a final hearing, as opposed to perhaps a temporary one. THE COURT: That's correct. MS. LORI: The other thing, if the record can reflect all of the witness have gone out of the courtroom, with the exception of Dr. Oas. I appreciate that. THE COURT: The record reflects that. MS. LORI: Thank you. With my motion in limine, Your Honor, what I'm seeking to do is limit the amount of particular opinions that come in on this case. This is in reference to not only two perpetuated depositions that were taken in this case concerning Ms. Kozol, and I'll mispronounce this name -- Mencina (phonetic). Some of that information is improper for the reason that the opinions are based on hearsay. Some of the opinions are not indicative of the witnesses having the qualifications to give such opinions, and on top of that, they don't have the personal knowledge to give these types of opinions, and in my motion in limine I identified several evidentiary codes that pertain to the rules about when opinions can come in and when they need to stay out. On top of that, I cited the statute, 105.127, and in particular, I believe it's Paragraph 2 states that the parties' conduct and environment and lifestyle are something that really don't enjoy relevance unless it is shown that any of these factors are causing or may cause emotional or physical damage to the child, and I pointed out in my motion the child in this case is rather unique. She has a number of medical conditions including brain damage and developmental delay and language problems, and it would be difficult to demonstrate because of her condition whether or not she is being caused or could be caused emotional damage. So on those bases, hearsay, lack of personal knowledge, relevance, the statute, 107.137, as well as other reasons I cite in my memorandum that accompanies my motion in limine, I'm asking for the Court to limit the amount of opinion testimony that undoubtedly you will hear in this case. THE COURT: Ms. Sanz? MS. SANZ: Yes, Your Honor, I wanted to respond briefly. First off, Ms. Lori cites 107.137, Subsection 1. She didn't address this in her statement, but I would like to have my position clear that when this statute discusses the four factors that the Court can consider in determining a child custody matter, this list is not an exclusive list. In fact, there has been case law where the Court has considered other factors in determining which parent shall have sole custody. For example, in one case we had the issue of ancestral heritage, how that would play in a custody matter. We also had an issue where it involved the comfort level of a child in discussing their medical or medical decisions with a parent. Since she cites that, or sort of alludes to it, I wanted to make sure that this is not the only list. Specifically to Subsection 3, I read this statute to state -- and I think the Family Law CLE by the Bar I think gives us some guidance on common practice. I read this to state that the Court can hear a lot of different evidence. It has the discretion to hear evidence. The court, however, when it makes it's decision cannot base it on just one particular factor, or if it was going to base it on the misconduct avenue parent, then there had to be some relevance that it would cause or may cause emotional or physical damage to the child. I think the statute is dealt with broadly. These are family matters. They involve many different issues, but I believe that should be the interpretation, that the Court can't just rely on the evidence unless it has a basis. Thirdly, the issue concerning personal knowledge and opinion testimony. A lay witness can provide the Court with opinion testimony, as long as it's rationally based. I believe that happens all the time, and it's up to the Court in its discretion to determine how much weight to give the opinion testimony. With respect to the expert witnesses relying on hearsay evidence, I think the record, particularly with Ms. Kozol of the Rogue Valley Medical Center Child Development Center, the first ten pages of my deposition do go quite into her background. And the definition of an expert is not just a technical person, like we assume in a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a doctor. Experts include -- their knowledge can be based on skill, experience, and education, and that is very much case law reflects that. For example, land owners can testify as to values of land. They have personal knowledge and they have dealings in land, and that alone allows them know give that type of opinion. Their reliance on hearsay, then, is allowable. With regard to Ms. Messina (phonetic), I do not think the testimony that she provided the Court was meant to -- I think she gave primarily opinion testimony, and I did not propose any of her statements to actually indicate any kind of a medical diagnosis about Mr. Coutsoukis or the child or anyone else. So I think with that in mind, the Court should allow this testimony in, and also should opposing counsel have an objection to any other issues that she may raise at the time that our witnesses are testifying, I think she needs to make that on the record at that time. THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Sanz. I find that ORS 107.137 addresses issues in two ways; one is weight of evidence, rather than admissibility, and the second is guidance to me in making my decision as to what are the relevant factors, and so I will not exclude any evidence before the issue comes up. We are limited, of course, to relevant evidence, and then all of the various aspects of relevant evidence under the evidence code. I anticipate that I will allow opinion testimony from a number of witnesses both expert and lay witnesses, under the evidence code 701, etcetera. So you will need to make, Ms. Lori, your objections, on the basis of relevance or otherwise, at the time, rather that having any blanket or larger ruling at this time. Are we ready to proceed? MS. SANZ: Yes, Your Honor. MS. LORI: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, call your first. MS. SANZ: Your Honor, if I could make a quick -- THE COURT: Okay. I have your trial memoranda, and I have viewed those. MS. SANZ: You stated that one of the issues was custody and visitation. there has been specifically a pleading by Mr. Coutsoukis that it also included child support, and I don't know whether the Court will address that at this time or not, but since that was plead -- THE COURT: Thank you. I intend to address child support. MS. SANZ: They have also noticed us in their memorandum that they want to proceed with the issue of two newly pled issues. One is that the Petitioner be prohibited from changing the last name from Coutsoukis. That is not an issue for the Court to hear today, and we do not plan to change her name, anyway, or proceed in that manner. Secondly, they also request in the custody custodial parent be prohibited from moving her residence 50 miles from the other. I think that's a modification issue and that can be addressed at the time whenever any of the parents are going to move away from each other, rather than having the Court deal with that today. THE COURT: Ms. Lori, what about that last issue, the -- There is no issue, Ms. Sanz tells me, changing the child's last name, and so that would -- there would be some statement that that wouldn't be done absent notice, etcetera, appropriately. But the last one is about changing the child's residence. Is this a newly raised issue? MS. LORI: Well, I don't consider it to be a newly raised issue. Back in March of 1997, Ms. Coutsoukis did the Court for permission to leave, and she was granted that permission to leave to New York. My client then moved to New York because he wanted to continue to be a part of his daughter's life. He simply doesn't want to be cut off from his daughter's life, and he can't keep moving his business around whenever Ms. Coutsoukis moves somewhere, whenever the Petitioner wants to change her residence. He will always want to be part of his child's life whether he is the custodial parent or the noncustodial parent. So I think the issue was raised before and it was heard before. In addition to that, this is being considered a final hearing, and I think I should be entitled to get these kinds of rulings now rather than require the parties to come back on a modification basis. THE COURT: So is there going to be any additional testimony on this issue? MS. LORI: Well, I had not anticipated that. That's simply a request that I would like the Court to make -- THE COURT: I mean if he's going to testify about he wants to be near the child and she's testifying that if she doesn't have custody, she wants this, etcetera, it's not going to be any new testimony related to this, is there, Ms. Sanz? MS. SANZ: I don't know, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm going to find that that's a part of the issue of custody and visitation, the aspect of changing the child's residence, and I will address that issue in my ruling. MS. LORI: And Your Honor, I do have an opening statement. I don't know what your position is on that, but I do have one prepared. THE COURT: I'll hear what you have to say. I hope you won't to be repeating what is in your trial memorandum. MS. LORI: No. Did Ms. Sanz want to make one or -- MS. SANZ: I would be willing to waive it, since it's a time issue. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. LORI: And of course, I incorporate my trial memorandum into my opening statement here. Imagine a world in which the parents deeply care for their parents, and imagine a world in which people are child oriented, not parent oriented, and where they care more for their children than their jobs or their houses. If you imagine that world, you know the world of Photius Coutsoukis. He deeply cares for his child Teddy Coutsoukis. I predict that every witness will tell that, whether they're for the Petitioner or for my client. I predict that all of these witnesses will also tell you that just about everything Mr. Coutsoukis did was because he wanted to help his child. In his zeal to help and care for Teddy, you will hear that he argued with day care providers and medical care providers. When you hear this, bear in mind that he is a brilliant man and he will not hesitate to tell you that you are wrong. Bear in mind that his issues also revolve around matters which really have no definitive answer. He gained his knowledge about how to take care of Teddy because he was her primary caretaker from about the time she was born until when the parties signed a mediation agreement in the summer of '96. He gained his knowledge of how to take care of her because he sought medical advise here and in Greece. He has done a considerable amount of research to learn all he can about what is best for Teddy. You will hear that Teddy saw a host of medical specialists. I anticipate that you will hear also that there was conflicting information about how to treat her, about what her condition is or will be. One thing that you will hear is that they all agree they can't agree about how she got her condition. You will hear that Mr. Coutsoukis relied on the medical advice of Dr. Helen Skouteli, who is a neurological pediatrician from Greece who has a research fellowship in Boston. She will testify that what Teddy needs is interpersonal relationship and that she needs a lot of physical activity. Mr. Coutsoukis gave Teddy the one-on-one attention that Dr. Skouteli recommended she receive. He also gave her the physical activity that Dr. Skouteli recommend she receive. He was doing all of these things for Teddy and with Teddy until he began to disagree with the medical care Teddy was receiving in the Rogue Valley. In hearing the testimony, bear in mind that Mr. Coutsoukis' position stemmed from in part the information he was receiving from Dr. Skouteli and also that parents were often receiving, maybe not conflicting, but different medical advice about how to take care of Teddy. In October of '94 when Teddy's mother filed for divorce, the competition to become Teddy's primary caretaker began. In late 1994 and in early 1995, his access to Teddy became less and less. Teddy's mother began putting her in day care centers such as the YMCA. Mr. Coutsoukis was, and still is, adamantly opposed to putting Teddy in day care centers, particularly when he is available to take care of his child. He believes that Teddy's medical condition resulted from her being put in a child care center when she was abruptly taken away from him, and because she was very bonded to him. As a result of his concern about Teddy being in day care centers, he was trying to instruct people on how to take care of Teddy. When you are hearing all of this, bear in mind the factors that 105.137 list for determining custody. You will hear testimony that Teddy is very bonded and attached to Mr. Coutsoukis. Dr. Oas, who conducted a custody evaluation of these parties, will tell you that of the two parents Mr. Coutsoukis is more emotionally present with Teddy. You will also hear that Mr. Coutsoukis is devoted to Teddy. He includes the child in his business. Even with nannies there, he will participate in the care of Teddy. He'll help cook -- in fact, he'll cook, he will feed her, bathe her, change her diaper. Mr. Coutsoukis will also tell you that Teddy suffers when she is not with him, that she becomes ill and loses weight. He will tell you he better supervises her. When Ms. Samora, the mother, returns the child to him, he'll tell you that Teddy often has colds, diaper rashes, bruises, and cuts. You will also hear that Ms. Samora denies access to Mr. Coutsoukis to see the child. In particular, just recently, in August of '97, the child was hospitalized for four days. Ms. Samora, the mother, did not inform Mr. Coutsoukis about that. he found out about that inadvertently while Teddy was still hospitalized, and when Mr. Coutsoukis found out, he still was not permitted to go see his daughter in the hospital. Ms. Samora's denial of access to the child hurts the child. Mr. Coutsoukis recognizes that Teddy should have access to Teddy's mother, and he would not exclude Ms. Samora from the shared responsibility for being Teddy's parent. Dr. Oas perceives that Mr. Coutsoukis will permit the mother to have access; whereas, he perceives that the mother will deny Mr. Coutsoukis access to that child. For this and other reasons, Dr. Oas recommends that Mr. Coutsoukis be the primary custodial parent, and we ask the Court to go along with Dr. Oas' recommendation. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Lori. And I gather Dr. Oas is the first witness. Is he your witness, Ms. Lori? MS. LORI: Yes. THE COURT: Come up, Dr. Oas, and be sworn. . . . DAVID A. OAS, PhD was called to testify on behalf of the Respondent, and being first sworn by the Clerk, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: My name is David A. Oas. My Last name is spelled O-A-S. &dDDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. LORI: Q. Dr. Oas, did you bring a resume with you? A. Yes, I did. MS. LORI: If I could submit that into evidence, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: It's about a year old, so it doesn't show that I'm now officially retired from the college where I taught for 30 years. MS. LORI: Your Honor, if the Court would be inclined to stipulate that Dr. Oas has the requisite qualifications and expertise to discuss the custody evaluation he conducted in this case and express an opinion, rather that having him go through that -- THE COURT: I know Ms. Sanz will stipulate to that, and -- MS. SANZ: I will, if I can have a copy of his resume. THE COURT: And certainly, I will, too. MS. LORI: I have marked as Respondent's Exhibit 109 Dr. Oas' resume. THE COURT: We'll see that you get a copy, Ms. Sanz. 109 is received. BY MS. LORI: Q. Dr. Oas, do you know the parents who are seated here in the courtroom? A. Yes, I do. Q. Were they ordered by the Court to undergo a custody evaluation? A. That's correct. There was an agreement between the two attorneys that I do the custody evaluation. At the time, Patricia Crain was one of the attorneys and Ms. Sanz was the other one. Q. When did you begin the custody evaluation? A. In November of '96. Q. When did you finish it? A. In March of '97. Q. What did you do to do your custody evaluation? A. The first thing I did is I try to take the time to meet with each parent until I'm satisfied that I have a reasonable understanding of the personality and the general character and each parent's conversation about how they see their effectiveness as a parent to Teddy. Teddy was born 9/28/93, so at the time that I was seeing the parents, Teddy was just a little over three years old -- or no - know, just a little over four years old -- no, '96, so three years, old, that's right, and then -- So I spent a certain amount of time listening to them talk about not only there own backgrounds, but to get some perspective on how they feel they parent their child, and also their perspective on how they see the other parent in terms of how they parent their child. Call her Teddy. That's what she's always called. A certain amount of testing will go on with that. Oftentimes so of the testing will involve personality testing. In this case there was a resistance to the personality testing on the part of Ms. Samora, and we did quibble about that to some degree, and finally, that part of the evaluation was not completed, and felt that I could maintain and draw my conclusions based to some degree on my own perspective of the interviews with both parents. Q. Did you do a psychological evaluation of Mr. Coutsoukis? A. No different than what I would have done with Ms. Samora. And so there was an evaluation of both of them, and I'm satisfied that the evaluation is complete, although toward the end of the evaluation there were a few more things that I sought to get from Ms. Samora, and whether it was in preparation for her move or whatever, we weren't able to complete, maybe, some other additional questions that I had for her, but I was satisfied that I could write a report on my evaluation. The second part of the evaluation, though, involves taking some time to look at the interaction between each parent and Teddy. You know, you can have an evaluation that takes place over a 20-minute period to an hour period of time to ten hours, and sometimes you may not learn a great deal, or you may learn a lot even in the first 20 minutes. So again, what I have to do is I have to look at each parent's perspective about the other parent's effectiveness with the child and then draw my own conclusions about what I see during the interaction between the apparent and the child. Teddy's motor development, as you have heard, is delayed. She has reasonably good receptive intelligence. She can understand the spoken language. She can understand the actions of adults and then be able to somehow attempt to respond in kind, but she has this tremendous motor delay so that she has a hard time walking. She can fall easily. She can bruise easily. When she is on the floor and she's playing with blocks or a puzzle or something, she has to have a certain amount of time in terms of motor movements to accomplish tasks, and you can see that she has something inside, sensorial, inside the brain, that she wants to do, and oftentimes she is not able to do that. Her speech is also delayed, so that at the time that I saw her, she had just a small number of words, such as pappa, mamma, eat, look. These are some of the words that she was able to initially squeeze out. I don't know to what degree her vocabulary has increased, but she certainly had a very strong understanding of a lot of language coming from myself, from the father, and from the mother. She understood the nuances of each of the parents. When I was at Susan's home making a home visit, and she was eating scrambled eggs, if I recall correctly, at the time, and it was really kind of a nice arrangement there, but that whole process in terms of trying to negotiate a spoon as opposed to her fingers to get scrambled eggs to her mouth was a very interesting experience in watching what she had to do to find a way to get food to her mouth, but it was almost a struggle. It was very, very laborious and very hard work for her, and is an adamantly determined little girl. Not a little girl; she's a big girl for the age she is; but she is very, very determined and one who tries to find some means to communicate, but there are very, very clear handicapping conditions that vary all the way from speech to visual coordination and being able to get the eyes to track, and at the time that I saw her, she was wearing a patch some of the time on her eyes and had to continually work to straighten her legs to some degree, especially when she was on the floor so that she would kneel correctly rather than allow herself to sprawl out incorrectly, which could possibly increase some of the handicapping conditions. And so there needed to be a certain amount of continuous scrutiny of this child in terms of handicap conditions she had to try to rectify some of the incorrect things that may be taking place in her motor actions and so forth. So I felt that I had a sufficient knowledge of each of these parents to say, and in my report I believe I said, that I saw both of these parents as capable parents in terms of interacting and providing from an independent interactive process between that parent and the child an effective interaction that was an attempt to be the best parent that they could be for this child. What is at issue for the Court, from my perspective, is that there is a difference in the way that each parent approaches their daughter Teddy and the assertiveness and vehemence around those differences are from my perspective very significant, and they're significant in that the issue of whether a parent's rights are usurped by another parent who believes differently about what a child shall have as in order, and a view that I developed by studying the character of each of these people is that I believe that the one parent, I believe maliciously made a decision based on her own emotional needs and the feeling that she thought what her daughter needed, began to deny the access of that daughter to the other parent, and sometimes that was done even spontaneously, and not done through an interactive dialog, saying "This is what I needed to do." It was done without the other parent's knowledge. And I want to drop back for just a moment and maybe just some quick background here -- MS. SANZ: Objection, Your Honor, at this point. I haven allowing some courtesy, but it's not responding to the original question of counsel, and I would like it be in response to -- THE COURT: I'm going to allow Dr. Oas discretion here to present his testimony in the way he sees fit, so I'm going to overrule your objection. If you find him moving into areas that you think are not relevant or appropriate in some way under the rules, make your objection at that point, and we'll deal with that, but I'm going to let him go without responding to specific questions, at least at this point. The way we normally do it is you have to ask a question so we're able to determine is that going to be good testimony, and so that's why this has been raised. Dr. Oas has done this often enough and has the experience to focus on relevant testimony, and I want to hear it that way. MS. LORI: Your Honor, if I may interject, he did do a written report, and I can submit it into evidence and that way he can refer to it and you can look at. Ms. Sanz does have a copy of it. THE COURT: Why don't you go ahead and ask him about that and submit that and see if we can get than in. BY MS. LORI: Q. Dr. Oas, I'm handing you what has been marked as Respondent's Exhibit 101. This is a copy. I'm not handing you the original. The reason is that I marked up the original in a moment of confusion. Would you identify that, please? A. Yes, this is a copy of a report that was submitted May 10th, 1997. Q. Is that the custody evaluation, the written one that you did of Mr. and Mrs. -- A. It's the custody evaluation. MS. LORI: Move for admission of 101. MS. SANZ: No objection. THE COURT: Received. As I indicated, I'll let Dr. Oas go ahead and testify in the way he was doing, and were you about at some point to back up, as I remember. THE WITNESS: Yes, I guess I want to back up because I think the strongest issue in my mind, Your Honor, is that I feel that their has been -- and this is making a strong statement -- I believe that there has been what I consider to be a contrived denial of access by one parent to the other parent in terms of having the opportunity to parent Teddy, and I guess I want to digress a little bit to say something about the character of Mr. Coutsoukis and Ms. Samora from my perspective in terms of interviewing them with their backgrounds and so forth, and through that digression I would like to get back, then, to the issue of custody. First of all, Mr. Coutsoukis was born in Zaire, and his parents worked there in that African nation for a number of years until he was about nine years of age, and he came back to Athens and then went to a boarding school, and from that time on he was continually in some form of educational program until he received a scholarship to come to the United States at 18 years of age. At 18 years of age I think he went back to Iowa and Cornell and, a quality school, and from Cornell he then went to Columbia University, and from Columbia University he went to, I think, The School of Social Research in New York. From there he went to and got a an MBA at a technology institute -- I forget the exact name -- and from there he had some additional work in the area of computer technology, and he is a computer technologist entrepreneur -- That's the way he described himself to me -- and that he has for a number of years taught. He has a couple of siblings, and there was a traumatizing experience, but actually, there was one of his siblings, a younger sister, who died in an accident, and this has left strong emotional effects on his life. Being brought up in Zaire and Greece, he has quite a different perspective on the significance of family and the concept of the network of family and its importance and his concept of marriage. Ms. Samora grew up in New York, Yonkers, New York. She is the youngest of four siblings. Her mother has been diseased since 1970. She ultimately graduated from high school and had some time at I think it was City College of New York or New York State University. She said she went to some junior college for a short period of time is what she quoted to me. She has been working in the area of merchandising and worked for American Express for a number of years, was at Harry and David until last March, when she resigned from her job there. She was here in Medford approximately three years working for Harry and David. These people came together -- these people came together probably in '79 or '80 and began to see each other and did some dating, and they eventually got married about 1984, so a number of years went by before she became pregnant with Teddy. She was actually 42 or 43 years of age when she became pregnant with Teddy. They had gone -- It was a very late pregnancy. They had gone to fertility experts to find out what their problems were. The problems were fallopian blockage, endometriosis, and so forth. But to some degree both of them struggled with the idea of wanting to have a pregnancy and wanting to have a family, and finally she did become pregnant. Prior to that pregnancy there was a certain amount of volatility in this relationship, because we had two very different varied sort of people. I think Susan actually said it best herself. I was going to try to make a quote here from Susan. It will take just one moment. Well, she basically said that they were probably a perfect couple, or could have been a perfect couple. She a very social, very capable of facilitating new friendship and having friendships. He was more quiet, more shy, more reticent. Being a Greek in the United States, he found that he had friendships with colleagues, classmates, neighbors, but in terms of any long-term friendships here in this country, he had not easily established those, so the deal was that to some degree, she was able to help facilitate the friendships. He was, from her perspective, absolutely charming, absolutely brilliant, absolutely humorous, and at the same time, they butted heads frequently, and in the process, she would leave the relationship. I asked her how many times she left the relationship, and she said "tons." I don't believe he ever left the relationship, as far as I know, except for one critical time that I will talk about in a moment. So by the time the pregnancy occurred, there had been some separation, there had been some difficulty, because of two very strong dependent assertive personalities. After the birth of Teddy, within two months, when he and she described that she said "Why would you want to be a mother rather than a father?" And she was working full-time in Medford, and in November, two months after the baby was born, and he was essentially staying home and being the primary caretaker of Teddy, they began to fight about their differences of how they saw the care of Teddy. This even got down to the issue of when Teddy cried, the different kinds of things they should do. His European background -- the whole notion of a family network in that sense does not take a child and leave a child in these situations, but holds that child, soothes that child, cradles that child, stays in the presence of that child. It's something that is very strong in terms of his convictions about the nature of child rearing, and the whole concept of tender years from birth to at least when that child goes to school, the involvement investment of the family is the top priority for these children as they grow up. He has scathing statements about what happens in the United States. And we know, and I know through the research what has happened since the 1960s through the presence which is the 1990s, when we have at least 60 percent of the kids in some form of day care, and the mothers are essentially working in the United States. His view is that in many cases with a newborn child, someone ought to be home with that in infant. Someone must be there, must be providing some kind of continuous affectionate, responsible care with routines established for a newborn. To some degree, she has said "I would have stayed home in a millisecond." He does not believe that. I'm not sure I believe that. I'm sure that her conviction and her belief is not to say that family is not important, but that at that time at least her career is more important. And she may have a number of reasons that she can offer this Court, but that her career was more important, and in many ways the importance of friendships and being with a network of other people was important. For Mr. Coutsoukis, his believe was that family was more important than anything else. So in that first two months after the birth of Teddy, she was leaving this relationship. Now, I have different kinds of arguments as to why she left the relationship, but she was the one who left this relationship. She was the one who would pick up and leave without telling him where she was going, what she was going to do, and then she may return a day or two later. But she was not announcing to him "I am leaving this situation," so he was on pins and needles every moment, especially as the primary caretaker. "What is going to happen to the daughter that we have and that I'm the primary person for caretaking and being the parent of this daughter? What is going to happen?" What happens? Well, it was a situation where they had a major battle after they came back together from the separation. During that time, she took a job in Los Angeles. This is prior to little Teddy being three and a half months of age. During this time, within a little over a month, I think it was, she moved up -- I'm not sure exactly, but it may have been in February of 1993. Teddy was born in September of 1993 -- in October, excused me. In October of 1993 or somewhere in there, she was up here in Medford. She does not want him to come along. She basically wants him to stay where he is in Los Angeles. She is here with the daughter after he has been doing a lot of the care for Teddy. She is here. She wants to be separated from him, not looking at his peace of heart as a parent. He talks her into allowing to him move to Medford. He moves to Medford. He cooks the meals. He goes back to his routine of taking care of Teddy again. She goes to work in late November for Harry and David. She goes to work at 6:30, 7:00, 7:30 in the morning, she comes back at 6:00, 6:30 in the evening. During the day he is doing the primary care of Teddy. Nobody at this time has any sense that there's any delay, although Ms. Samora said later on she thought that there -- she gave two statements to me. One said that she thought that some of the people who knew Teddy at that time did not see Teddy as having any kind of mental delay, and after the fact, she said she thought she remembered Teddy as having some form of delay. Mr. Coutsoukis says "I saw no delay in the development of our young daughter," and that by the time January came around, three and a half months after Teddy guy was born, in January, she is concerned that he is going to hurt her or something. As far as I know, there has not been any physical violence between the two of them. Their has been some shouting; there was some mental abuse from her perspective; there has been mental abuse from his perspective. His view is that the mental abuse oftentimes takes place by her making decisions without communicating with him about those decisions involving their daughter. In my view, she has continued to make decisions about the daughter very early that have been to the detriment of his opportunity to be a parent to the child, and in some cases, potentially to the detriment of the development of this child -- we can't be sure -- but certainly usurping of the father's rights in this situation. Teddy being three and an half months of age, they have this huge fight. He gets in his car. He said "How far do I have to go to allow you to see that I'm not going to somehow be a danger to you or Teddy?" And so he takes off for Mexico. So he drives and he calls every day, and she insisted to me that one day he called 13 different times. Now, I'll back up again just for one moment. This man has felt unloved by his wife and has been determined to make this marriage survive because that's what he believes in. MS. SANZ: I'm going to object to further statement, Your Honor. I think the issue -- His opinion of whether the marriage should work or not is really irrelevant to the case at hand. We're in a position where both parties are seeking a dissolution of marriage. THE COURT: Unless there's some relationship, Dr. Oas, to the recommendation on child custody, I agree with the objection and will sustain the objection. So focus on the child custody issue. THE WITNESS: I will. The issue as far as the relevance to child custody is that he was desperate to somehow retrieve this relationship, but in the process he was also desperate to not lose his daughter Teddy. All of this was happening at the same time. He conferred with psychologists in Los Angeles to some how get some sort of reconciliation, and the reconciliation was he was able to come back, move back to the house again after he was gone for approximately three weeks. What is relevant here is in that three weeks he was anguished about the loss of the relationship with his wife, but also anguished about the potential of a loss of the relationship with is daughter, and it is that anguish that has never ceased from that time to the present that he has lived with, are and to some degree that anger has turned into a certain amount of rage because of his determination to be a parent to his daughter. He came back, and when he came back, she continued to work during this time, and so Teddy was placed in day care at that time. When he saw his daughter, there was a profound change in his daughter. He looked at her. She had a fist thrust into her mouth. She was listless. She was not able to effectively communicate as she did before he left with her eyes, with what I call synchrony. When you take a two-month-old or a three-month-old, you develope a form of synchrony between the parent -- MS. SANZ: Objection, Your Honor. I'm going to object in terms of it seems to me Dr. Oas was not present at that time to be able to make that kind of observation. I understand that he is relying on statements made by Mr. Coutsoukis, but to proceed further than that I think would be irrelevant and call for speculation. MS. LORI: If I may respond, that was one of the points in tendering my motion in limine, and I think under 105.137, it probably should come in admissibility-wise, and the Court may then give it what weight this Court thinks is appropriate. THE COURT: Again, I'm going to overrule the objection, but ask Dr. Oas to relate it to child custody, and I know that's what you're doing. Sometimes it kind of seems broader than that, and that's why we're getting the objection. THE WITNESS: I believe I have been, Your Honor, and I'll go back. In my observation of Mr. Coutsoukis at my home, and my observation of him at his home and office, and in my observation of Ms. Samora at her home, there was a small difference in the amount of what I call interrelative, interactive dialog, if you will, between each of these parents with the child. I think that's going to come up as an issue in this Court as we go over the other witnesses. I think you're going to hear words such as maybe his obsessive desire to interact with this child. I did not see that as obsessive. I saw his interaction with this child tailored to something that I call synchronicity. It's a scientific term that has been used in the field of psychology that has to do with a parent and child's style of interaction and how fundamental that interaction is for the development of attachment. Attachment is one of the criteria that we look at when we look at custody, Your Honor, and the level of attachment and the strength of attachment meant. And it is this synchronicity that I saw between Mr. Coutsoukis and his daughter that to some degree Ms. Samora saw as kind of an obsessive concern about the daughter. That was a major concern to me about the attitude of each of these parents toward this daughter. The thing that is even more important to me is that when you have a daughter that has unique delays of one kind or another, so that the inner reality struggles to make sense of this world and the inner reality struggles to make sense of outer reality, the importance of synchronicity becomes even more fundamental in the treatment -- in the treatment of a small infant to sustain that -- to sustain that synchronicity in the treatment outside. That means whether over at the child development center or whether with a physical therapist or at the day care center, one of the most fundamental things is you've got to continue to work to maintain that synchronicity or that rhythmicity. MS. SANZ: Your Honor, I'll object. THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: So the issue -- Whenever Teddy was left at day care or wherever she was left, Mr. Coutsoukis was there. He had his nose in there. He wanted to know what these people were doing with his daughter and how they were doing it. I want to reflect back one more time, and that is that the greatest theorist, development theorist who has had the greatest impact on child development is Piaget. Piaget did all his research with his own children and developed his models for human development based on how children behaved around him. He exhaustively spent time with his own children. Mr. Coutsoukis believes that. He believes that, and that is a strong fundamental part of the developmental research that we see as important for what I call the developmental maturity of children. So whatever you hear today, I have to tell you that his beliefs are founded on what I consider substantial, strong research strategies that have become a part of the science of developmental psychology. He hasn't gone in haphazardly and with some kind of obsessive feeling about what children need without some thoughtfulness. And as I said. Piaget was fundamental in looking at single cases and studying those cases and on the basis of that knowledge saying "I think this is what this child needs." Mr. Coutsoukis says this, but he does it with a lot of passion and sometimes with vehemence: "This is what I believe this child needs." And I believe that he does this not because it's at the expense of his daughter, but because he is deeply committed to his daughter. That the does not mean that she is not committed; it just means that there may be a different view as to how she wants to approach this. She may have a greater trust in day care. And earlier I was going to talk about -- (At this point the Reporter interrupted, being unable to hear with sufficient clarity the words of the witness.) THE COURT: Okay. Just a minute, Dr. Oas. Ms. Sanz? MS. SANZ: Again, Your Honor, I anticipated Dr. Oas would continue to talk about the issue of day care, and I think it's getting a little cumulative here, and, I guess I would like to have my objection on the record again that not all of what he is testifying to, since it is not in direct response to questions, is getting beyond the reasonable scope of the evaluation of the parties involved. THE COURT: Well, I had hoped by allowing it that the testimony would move -- without specific question and answer it would speed it up, but I'm not sure that's working, but I think in fact, while it's always interesting what you have to say, but we ought to focus on it more, so if you could do that, I would appreciate it. I'm going to overrule your objection with that caveat, Dr. Oas. THE WITNESS: If we take the situation that shortly after three and a half months, from that time forward, there was a significant recognition on the part of Mr. Coutsoukis, and then ultimately the pediatric nurses and physicians and so forth, that there was something terribly wrong with Teddy, and from that time that there was a certain amount of disagreement, as Ms. Lori presented, about the physician's prescriptive program, the child development specialist's prescriptive program. Mr. Coutsoukis learned about this. What is important for me is that in this process there was a gradual denial of Mr. Coutsoukis' right as a parent to his own child, and that has continued, even though up until the sixteenth month he was clearly the primary caretaker for Teddy. So even though there were baby-sitters who assisted him during the day while he was working, and that he participated in hiring some of these baby-sitters, and to some degree tried to train them to do the kinds of things that they did with Teddy, Susan Samora was also hiring baby-sitters at this time, and the two to some degree had a conflict about who shall take care of this child. And so from that time forward to the present, I believe that there has been a situation where he has been denied the right to parent his child, and he has lost many, many rights, and this has been a very grievous situation. Q. Did you in your evaluation arrive at an opinion as to who should be the custodial parent of Teddy Coutsoukis? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what is that opinion? A. That opinion is that Mr. Coutsoukis should be the custodial parent, for the following reasons: And I may have stated it here, but one is I think that he will cause every bit of his energy, even as an informational technologist, to find out what will serve his daughter best, and I think that he will then from that even take as a father's right to try to discern what he sees would be most fitting for his daughter based own his own involvement with his daughter. I do not believe he would leave Ms. Samora out of that whole -- that loop in terms of -- I don't believe he wants to deny her access to their daughter. I believe he wants very much for her to be a part of it. He feels that she has not given him the same privilege. And so he has a unique capacity in terms of his own work experience, as well, because of his capacity to create software, to have an office at home. He is able to have some control over the kind of care that his daughter would have from other providers. I believe that he should have that right. I believe that parents should have the right to have some control. I don't think that right should be taken away from them. And I believe that he would honor her right as a parent to be a participant in it. I believe that she has not honored his right to be a participant, and so I see that as a major factor in this issue, as well as his capacity to interrelate effectively with his own daughter. I see the other -- and she has admitted to this. She has said that when the two of them are alone, he does well with his own daughter. So I feel that it is a denial of access that is an issue her, and that he has been the primary caretaker at one time, and she has denied him access, and he can look out for her future in terms of what her needs will be and that he will use the resources, but he will use them under his own scrutiny, and he will not easily succumb or yield to outside expert opinion until he is satisfied that that expert opinion is going to be something that is going to work for his daughter. There has been no one at any time -- and Ms. Lori has said that -- that has ever said that at any time he ever wanted to undermine or endanger his own daughter, and to me it's very damaging when someone makes that kind of allegation against him. MS. LORI: No further questions. THE COURT: Ms. Sanz, cross-examination. MS. SANZ: Thank you. &dDCROSS-EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Dr. Oas, you stated in the beginning that you felt that this was an agreement, that there was an agreement to have you do the evaluation. You don't have a copy of a court order that actually states that you will do this evaluation, do you? A. No, I do not have that. Q. In fact, I take it you would be surprised if I told you that there is no such court order that states that the parties agree that you would be doing this evaluation? A. If there is no court order, there certainly was an agreement between the attorneys. MS. SANZ: Your Honor, I address this issue in my memorandum. THE COURT: Is there an order that you want me to take judicial notice of? MS. SANZ: Yes, Your Honor. The first time the issue of a psychological evaluation was raised was in an order dated January 29, 1995. That issue dealt with a postponement of a custody hearing, a trial, and that Dr. Michael Knapp would do the evaluation. That was a stipulated order specifically naming Dr. Knapp. THE COURT: So was that order entered by the Court? MS. SANZ: Yes it was, Your Honor. THE COURT: So do you have your copy there? MS. SANZ: I have -- THE COURT: My file is thick and unindexed, and you said it was -- MS. SANZ: If I could approach the Court, this is a copy. THE COURT: Can we stipulate -- Maybe, Ms. Sanz, you could tell me what the orders in here are. The first time there was a stipulated order, this shows January 29, '96, That Dr. Knapp is to do the evaluation, and then I gather there was some dispute. I remembered what you said in you your trial memorandum -- MS. SANZ: That's essentially it, Your Honor. I just -- THE COURT: There was some dispute, and then you brought that dispute to the Court, and the Court ruled that Dr. Oas do the -- Is that what happened? MS. SANZ: I think a motion was filed to postpone, and I objected at that point in time. I think at that time Mr. Coutsoukis' attorney was Patricia Crain, and even though that original order was filed in January 29, '96, stating a psychological evaluation, it would be one of my -- One of my memorandums discussed that there was never any attempt to actually have the psychological done. It was to paid by Mr. Coutsoukis, and we basically were waiting for him to have it done by Dr. Knapp, and subsequently, when Ms. Crain filed a motion to postpone, she then resurrected the issue for Dr. Oas to do the evaluation. I objected. It was with the understanding that it would only be Dr. Oas because we would only have two weeks before the hearing, and of course, two weeks before the next custody hearing the case got postponed again. THE COURT: So what order do you want me to take? Gave me the date. MS. SANZ: The 29th, Your Honor, January 29, 1996. THE COURT: I'll take judicial notice of the prior order. MS. SANZ: Thank you. Q. Dr. Oas, your report states that you took statements from Teddy's babysitter, Donna Carrillo. A. That's correct. Q. Your report, however, does not mention any of Ms. Carrillo's statements at all? A. It may have indirectly been brought in, but that's correct, I did not make any statements about her contribution. Q. Thank you. As you know, I had attempted to -- You stated that you had been working on this evaluation from November 1996 until about April of '97. Were you working on this evaluation for that continuous period of time? A. No, I all of a sudden stopped. Everything stopped because there was apparently some kind of an agreement that had been made between Mr. Coutsoukis and Ms. Samora, because all of a sudden, I wasn't needed anymore. Q. And prior to that, it had stopped about December of 1996; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And I had called you or attempted to contact you? MS. LORI: Objection. Counsel cannot testify. THE COURT: You might put that in -- This is a question you're asking, Ms. Sanz? MS. SANZ: Maybe I can rephrase that, Your Honor. BY MS. SANZ: Q. You received a message from me wanting to talk to you about this case, did you not? A. Yes. Q. About December of 1996? A. Yes. Q. In fact, I also wrote you a letter requesting a copy of your report in December of 1996? A. Yes. Q. And we never were able to speak directly? A. That's correct. I wouldn't have spoken directly. I think that there might have been a message that came to you that this was an incomplete evaluation at the time. Q. And then I received in about February of -- February 26 a release for psychological records was forwarded to me by Ms. Patricia Crain. MS. LORI: I'm going to again object. It sounds like counsel is trying to testify. THE COURT: It's a question. Everything she says is a question and everything you say is an answer. So respond to that, if you will, Dr. Oas. BY MS. SANZ: Q. Is that correct? A. Is what correct? Q. Okay, let me go back. There was an issue of obtaining a release for psychological records for both parties; is that correct? A. That came to my office? Q. That you were dealing with. You wanted to have a release of records, psychological records from the parties? A. Yes. Q. And you did not send me that release? You did not mail me a copy of that release requesting that my client sign the release; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. That release went through Ms. Crain's office, who at that time was acting as Mr. Coutsoukis' attorney; is that correct? A. I believe so. Q. You never contacted me -- I think I had contacted you soon thereafter, in March 4, telephoned you. Do you recall my leaving a message to discuss this matter with you? A. I do recall. Q. And you did not -- We never spoke; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And in fact, we it came to -- You never received a release from Ms. Coutsoukis; is that correct? A. From. Ms. Samora? Q. Yes? A. That's correct. Q. Did you ever receive a release from Mr. Coutsoukis? A. No. Q. At one point in time in your discussion of releases with Ms. Coutsoukis -- I'm going to refer to her as Mrs. Coutsoukis. Much you had a discussion with her that releases would involve all pertinent records since the time of Teddy's birth? A. Since? Q. The time of Teddy's birth. All records thereafter. A. Yes. Q. Later you changed your -- And she then -- She agreed that that would be appropriate; is that correct? A. I believe that's right. Q. And then you contacted her later on and said Mr. Coutsoukis did not agree with that, and he wanted all records from their entire life, and that's -- you decided that that was what you -- you changed your mind, and that's what you wanted? A. That's correct. Q. You changed basically an agreement that you already had with Mrs. Coutsoukis? A. That's right. That's probably because I had not talked with Mr. Coutsoukis and wanted to find out what the emphasis would be in terms of this information about what had happened in terms of Ms. Coutsoukis prior to the birth of Teddy. Q. In that release that you asked Mrs. Coutsoukis to sign, did you draft that? A. No. Q. You did not draft that release? Do you have a copy of the release? A. I don't believe I have a copy of the release. Q. Did you ask Ms. Crain to draft it? A. I believe that she drafted that release. Q. You consider yourself a neutral -- Do you take your position as a neutral party or a neutral evaluator in this proceeding? A. Until I wrote my report, that's correct. At the time I put together all my thoughts about this, I developed a clear bias, or something that may not be a bias; it may just be stating the strengths and the weaknesses of each parent, but sometimes at the time I write a report I draw a bias. Q. I suppose, then, you're not surprised that I'm surprised that the release was not generated by you and given to the individual parties, but it actually went through Ms. Crain's office? A. There was a reason for this. Q. But do you understand my position on this? A. Yes. Q. One of the issues -- You go on in your report about, you know, the goals you saw in conducting this evaluation. Did Ms. Coutsoukis refer you to Barbara Kozol of the Child Development Center of the Rogue Valley Medical Center? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever contact Ms. Kozol? A. No, I did not. Q. And you a were aware that Teddy, having health and medical issues, was being seen or evaluated at the Child Development Center? A. Yes. Q. You did not contact any of the staff members of the Child Development Center? A. That's correct. Q. You only contacted Donna Carrillo, who was one of the baby-sitters of Teddy? A. She had baby-sat for I think maybe the longest of the baby-sitters -- I'm not sure -- but from January 1996, probably, to March before she left, 1997. Q. Were you aware that there are at least 12 or more caretakers -- that there have been at lease 12 or more caretakers of Teddy from the time that they were residents here? A. I'm very much aware of that. Q. You did not in your report elaborate on the reasons for the parties' separation, although in your testimony you talked about volatility in the relationship; correct? A. That's correct. Q. You were aware that this Court, the Jackson County Courts, have granted two restraining orders pertaining to the parties? A. That's correct. Q. And in those restraining orders it was Mr. Coutsoukis who was restrained from interfering with Ms. Coutsoukis? A. That's correct. Q. And so were you aware that there were issues of abuse between the parties? A. That's correct. Q. Were you aware that one of the petitions for a restraining order in 1994, January, was a threat to kill Mrs. Coutsoukis? A. That's correct. I'm aware of that. Q. Your report, however, does not deal with -- does not really discuss abuse or domestic violence issues between the parties? A. That's correct. Q. You make a statement on the last sentence on page 2 that -- I can just read it. "Gradually Ms. Samora reduced the amount of time she allowed Teddy to be with Mr. Coutsoukis, hiring baby-sitters, child care providers, and taking Teddy to the Child Development Center at Rogue Valley Medical Center instead." First off, were you aware that Mr. Coutsoukis was also hiring baby-sitters himself? A. Yes. As a matter of fact, many of the early ones he did. He was the first to take Teddy to the Child Development Center. He was involved before she was involved, as I understand it. Q. As you understand it from Mr. Coutsoukis? A. From both. Q. But you've never actually confirmed that with the Child Development Center? A. No, I haven't. Q. When you were dealing -- You agree that Mr. Coutsoukis has always had the assistance or the services of a baby-sitter or a nanny from the time that that was agreed upon by the parties up to probably up to the time that you completed your evaluation in April of '97? A. That's correct. Q. When you make the statement that -- I assume it was -- The next part of that sentence takes about the Child Development Center. Is it your opinion or is it Mr. Coutsoukis' opinion that Teddy's involvement in the Child Development Center was a means to deny him access -- that it was a means of Ms. Coutsoukis to deny him access to the child? A. Can you show me where you are looking at the -- Q. I'm looking at that same sentence, "Gradually Ms. Samora reduced the amount of time -- THE COURT: What page is that? MS. SANZ: Page two. "-- hiring baby-sitters, child care providers, and taking Teddy to the child development center at RVMC." THE WITNESS: Well -- BY MS. SANZ: Q. My question is is that reading it the way it actual states it, that you felt that the child going to the Child Development Center was a method that Ms. Coutsoukis was using to deny him access? A. I probably would want to try to correct that in some way, that statement. Q. Your report talks -- You use certain language. I assume you chose your words very carefully when you prepared this report, Dr. Oas. A. I attempt to do that. Q. And some of the words that you repeat in describing Mr. Coutsoukis is that he is "One-dimensional" in his beliefs; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. You also describe that he has a "rage," and that is in page three, the second paragraph, the higher portion of the paragraph. I quote: "His rage is most strongly directed at women who choose to return to work in their careers over remaining home with their babies, toddlers, and small children." A. That's correct. THE COURT: Ms. Sanz, I need to interrupt at this point. We'll take a break, we'll resume Court in approximately 10 to 15 minutes. . . . (The trial was resumed following the recess.) . . . THE COURT: Be seated. Go ahead, Ms. Sanz. MS. SANZ: Thank you, Your Honor. BY MS. SANZ: Q. Dr. Oas, I think you've testified today that it was also your perspective that Ms. Samora chose to return to work when Teddy was an infant. A. Well, I wouldn't say it quite that way. Q. Well, you said that you felt that she was much more -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but she determined that her career, or you determined that she had higher career interests, and that's why she returned to work? A. You raise the question on decision making. When you have a child in crisis at three and a half months, especially the kind of crisis that this child was showing, and then you try to make a decision as to whether you should go to work or not work. The question is was there a possibility that other decisive action that could have been taken on her part. My view is that there was a possibility of other decisive action that could have been taken on her part. Q. At this point when she went back, would you have been surprised, though, or would you agree that Teddy was two months when she went back? A. Yes, Teddy was two months when she went back to work. Q. Were you aware that Mr. Coutsoukis also applied for the job at Bear Creek at the same time Mrs. Coutsoukis applied for that job? A. Yes. Q. Did you know, then, that she ended up receiving employment and he did not receive an offer for employment? A. That's correct. Q. Were you aware that he was either fired or had a conflict with his prior job and was unemployed at the time? A. Yes. Q. Were you aware of the parties' financial situation at the time the decision was made for her to work outside of the home? A. Yes. Q. You knew that they had five mortgages that they were dealing with? A. Yes. Q. You knew that they had significant credit card debt? A. Yes. Q. You were aware that Mrs. Coutsoukis, even though she was working outside of the home, was breast feeding Teddy? A. Yes. Q. Were you aware of the fact that she was pumping breast milk in order that she could continue to breast feed Teddy? A. Yes. Q. Would you agree that as -- you know, for a nursing mother to have pumped and to continue to nurse, that is a certain amount of commitment on her part? A. It's a major commitment. Q. And you agree that that is a very positive commitment and a very positive effect for a child to continue to be nursed? A. Very much so. Q. As compared to being bottle fed? A. Absolutely. Q. In the middle of the second paragraph on page three, you talk about Mr. Coutsoukis' having had that trauma from being separated from his family for approximately three weeks. Fou describe that as a trauma. You agree that he continues to have significant anger to this day about his perceptions of what happened earlier on? A. More than that. He has anger to this day for a variety of decisions that were made from prior to that time to the present. Q. But including that? A. But including that. Q. Really, the word anger -- The word you've tended to use here is "rage," a stronger word? A. Yes. Q. And that rage is focussed -- is an incredible amount of anger against Mrs. Coutsoukis? A. It's not against just Ms. Coutsoukis; it's greater than that. Q. Including Mrs. Coutsoukis? A. That's correct, but discriminating. It's not just kind of a global anger about some form of discrimination and philosophical underpinning for the anger. Q. When Mrs. Coutsoukis makes a statement -- and I'm referring to your last paragraph -- where she says that "it was his way, and that was the only way," do you agree with that, that's maybe a way to describe his one-dimensional philosophy? A. I have to correct you on that, in the sense that the word one-dimensional basically is a word that Mrs. Coutsoukis used, not a word that I would use. I would use the word single-minded. She used the word one-dimensional and used it more than once, and my view is there's a difference between being one-dimensional and being single-minded in terms of purpose. Q. Well, you used the word one-dimensional -- if I may bring your attention to -- in describing -- It's paragraph two. It starts "Mr. Coutsoukis, a native of Greece," and you corrected yourself. You say he was born in Zaire. It's the fourth sentence -- the 4th line from where that paragraph begins. It says "Coutsoukis is well read, brilliant, and clearly one-dimensional." That's your word that you chose put in that -- A. That's my word. I would correct that. As I think about that, I suppose I chose that word based on the fact that I heard that word through my interview with Mrs. Coutsoukis. Q. And later in page seven -- A. Uh-huh. Q. Do you see the paragraph that starts "His one-dimensional personality is one that I highly value." Again, you chose the word one-dimensional in that paragraph, did you not? A. That's right. Q. You found -- In your evaluation of Mrs. Coutsoukis, you found her to be capable to be a primary caretaker for Teddy? A. In her direct relationship with Teddy, yes. Q. You're aware of the fact that during the times Mr. Coutsoukis has had access to his child, he has always had the assistance of a nanny or a baby-sitter? A. Yes. Q. I think you described Teddy as being depressed, and "failure to thrive." Did you confirm that with any of her health providers, either her pediatrician or her -- A. Where did you see that? Q. That's back in the -- let's see -- first full paragraph. A. What page? Q. I'm sorry. Page 4. A. Thank you. Q. First full paragraph, third line from the last line of that paragraph. It starts "vulnerability to illness, depression, and failure to thrive." A. Uh-huh. Q. Did you confirm that with any of her health providers, that she is a depressed child? Let's take that first. A. I would take a look at that again. No, I did not confirm that with anybody else. Q. Or her failure to thrive? Did you confirm that with anyone else? A. I did not confirm that with anybody else. Q. When Mr. Coutsoukis talked about how traumatic it was that he was not part of the family those three weeks while she was an infant, did he ever acknowledge that, you know, his own failures, perhaps, which led to that situation? A. He was desperate to -- I can't say that he acknowledged his own failures. He was desperate to try to make this relationship work and did whatever he could to make it work. Q. If anything, he really blames that separation for a lot of Teddy's situation; correct? A. That separation was very strong. Q. So would you agree that he blames the fact that he was not involved for those three weeks as sort of a cause, whether indirect or direct, to the kinds of medical issues that Teddy apparently has? A. Yes. We had a dialog on that numerous times about his beliefs on that. Q. And he had never raised, or rarely raised that perhaps his own failures or imperfections could have also led to the problems that brought about that three-week separation? A. I'm trying to -- Q. It doesn't ready come to mind, Dr. Oas? A. In that way that you have stated it, counselor, it doesn't come to mind in that way. We talked about relationship difficulties, and that's what was talking about in the sense of being unloved. That's what I brought up earlier as really a key issue, and trying to make up for that. So it wasn't a case that he is saying that "there is something wrong with me," but he was saying there's something that I'm attempting to do to make this relationship work. Q. He didn't actually affirmatively -- A. Say "This is where I've failed in this relationship," that's correct. Q. Okay, I won't go back to that. Did you ever attempt to test, to give Mr. Coutsoukis standardized psychological testing? Did you initiate any of that at all? A. No, I didn't, I felt it had to be equal for both parties. Q. Well, your report, in page 6, in the first paragraph you conclude that Mr. Coutoukis' cultural background did not make standardized psychological testing appropriate? A. That's right. Q. So you made that determination early on? A. Yes. Q. But you requested Mrs. Coutsoukis to do psychological testing, even though you knew that you had determined that Mr. Coutsoukis -- (The question was interrupted by the witness. The Reporter requested repetition of the question.) BY MS. SANZ: Q. You asked Mrs. Coutsoukis to consider psychological testing, despite the fact that you had concluded that Mr. Coutsoukis would not make a good -- that it was not appropriate to have him do standardized psychological testing because of his cultural background? A. Yes. Q. You have in essence adopted Mr. Coutoukis' view that it's better -- that if the world was perfect, it would always be better to not be a parent working outside of the home? You feel you have that same philosophical understanding? A. No, I don't. Q. You don't? A. It doesn't mean that I have the opposite point of view, either; it means that I have something I can say to the Court about that if you wish. Q. I'll have other counsel address that, thank you. You agree that having other caretakers other than the parents themselves is not in itself a bad thing for the child? A. That's correct. Q. Do agree that having other family members assist in caretaking of the child, other than the parents, is not a bad thing for the child? A. That's correct. Q. Do you agree also that having other baby-sitters or nannies be caretakers, even for a significant time during the work day, is not in itself a bad thing for the child? A. That's correct. Q. And even this child, Teddy Coutsoukis, who, as we know, has some special needs? A. That's correct. But no, I disagree with that. Q. You disagree with that? However, both parents have retained nannies and baby-sitters throughout this entire period? A. That's right. Q. Do you agree that at one point during your evaluation you had informed Mrs. Coutsoukis that you would be recommending to the Court that she have custody of Teddy Coutsoukis? A. Not quite. What I oftentimes will do is that I'm an advocate for each parent as they come to me. It's like trying erase personal past -- Q. I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. A. Yeah. the view is that one side seeing one side, I'm and advocate for that side when that person is there, and then when the other person comes in, the other parent comes in, I'm an advocate for that parent, and in being an advocate for each parent, I will often say that "If this is as you say it is, you have a strong case for being a custodial parent. What we have to do is get to the bottom of it and find out where we have the contradictions, where we have the potential for sins of omission, where we have, in some cases, the sins of commission, and then when all is said and done, then I will make a final recommendation. But at no time did I say to her that she should be the custodial parent, but I may have said to her and probably did say to her: "If this is as you've said, you have a strong case for being a custodial parent." It's when you take all of this apart and listen to the testimony of each parent over a period of time and you get the interviews over and over again, and you go back and have a second interview, which I did with both parents, and then you begin to tease out some of the factors that become significant in terms of the final recommendation to the Court. Q. You said just in your statement right now you had two interviews with each parent? A. Well, I had more than two, I believe, with Photius. I saw Susan on 11/24, did a home visit with Susan on 12/1, saw Susan again on either 2 or 3/7. Q. Two or 3/7? A. Yes. Q. February or March, 19 -- A. Yeah, of '97 or '96. I can't tell whether I've got two there or three there. I saw Photius with his mother and Teddy on 11/22, and again on 11/24, and at the home with Photius and Teddy at 12/1, and then I saw him again sometime in March. As I said, I attempted to see Susan one more time also before she left, and had difficulty completing that task. Q. One of your recommendations to the Court is that Teddy be coparented with the least amount of interparental conflict. Would you agree that that is very difficult when there is a history of domestic violence between the parents? Let me just stop there. A. Well, I agree that if you have a history of domestic violence that you can still have coparenting by parents. Q. My question is that it would be very difficult to do coparenting with a history of domestic violence? A. Not necessarily. Q. Would you agree that there are perhaps experts in the field of domestic violence who would actually conclude that coparenting when there's issues of domestic violence is actually inappropriate? A. You have to look at the nature of the domestic violence and you would have to look at the nature of the coparenting. Q. Well, Dr. Oas, if you could answer my question. Would you agree that there are experts who would conclude that with a history of domestic violence or ongoing domestic violence, it might even be inappropriate to have coparenting? A. I would have to understand what their definition is of coparenting. Q. Joint legal custody of the child. A. Okay, if you use joint legal custody of a child, I would agree with you. Coparenting is a different concept than joint legal custody. Q. Coparenting, would you agree, involves interactions between both parents, codecision-making --or how would you define coparenting? A. I would refer to the Oregon Revised Statute that defines that. What we do is we have an opportunity for the noncustodial parent -- Q. I'm sorry -- A. We have opportunities for the noncustodial parent to have access to the medical records, to have access to educational records, to have access to, you know, some kind of understanding of what the decisions are about religious training, that the noncustodial parent has access to the school -- Q. Okay, you're quoting the Oregon Revised Statute in terms of continued access of that noncustodial parent to information concerning the child. A. And visitation, and you know, depending on the nature of the contact, you take a look at what level of visitation is most appropriate for the protection of each parent. Q. Do you see in your definition -- You know, since you recommend coparenting, in your definition of coparenting are you also wanting to encourage the parties to go beyond just his access from providers for information, but in terms of communication between them on decision making for the child? A. I was always in favor of that and wished for that. That was one of the inherent problems. Q. Do you see that as still something you would recommend to this Court, despite your knowledge that there have been issues of domestic violence between the parties? A. That's correct. Q. And have you gone -- You've stated -- Your report does not actually discuss the nature of the domestic violence between the parties; correct? A. That's correct. Q. Have you actually in your evaluation gone into and looked into the nature of the level of domestic violence between the parties? A. Yes, I did. Q. Have you reviewed any of the Court documents? A. No, I haven't reviewed any of the Court documents. Q. Have you discussed any of these issues with any staff members at Dunn House? A. No, I have not. Q. At the time you conducted your evaluation, Dr. Oas, Mrs. Coutsoukis was still working at Bear Creek here in the Rogue Valley? A. That's correct. Q. In fact, her employment ended in December 31, 1977 -- or 1996, I'm sorry? A. 1996. Q. I think your report stated that it ended in April. Are you sure of that or -- A. No, I'm not sure of that. Q. Are you aware of the fact that Mrs. Coutsoukis since that time has not been employed outside of the home? A. I have heard that through a telephone conversation with Photius. Q. When you described to me earlier the different contact you've had with the parties, those were actually meetings. Have you had -- A. Those were actually what? Q. Face-to-face meetings with the parties; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you also have a lot of telephone contact with the parties? A. Very little with Susan. More so with Photius. Q. So in fact, you had had more telephone contact, as well as an additional meeting with Mr. Coutsoukis, as compared to your interaction with Mrs. Coutsoukis? A. After the bias was established, telephone contact mainly took place. That means after this report was written, that's when I had more telephone contact with them. Q. But I assume that you continued to address this case at the time that you -- if Mr. Coutsoukis had given you some signature information in that telephone conference with him after you completed your report and made your conclusion, you could have changed your recommendation, could you not have? A. I could have, that's correct. Q. At one time you were asked by Mr. Coutsoukis to intercede on his behalf on the issue of when Teddy was going to start taking a drug that was -- a medication that the was prescribed by I believe Dr. Skouteli? She's the Greek physician. A. Uh-huh. I understand there was something to do with drugs. Are you saying that Mr. Coutoukis asked me to intervene in this situation? Q. Yes. A. I don't recall that he asked me to take some responsibility for intervening in the situation. I'm not a physician, and that would not be my role. I know there was a dialog about the merits of this medication. Q. Well, maybe the word intervened -- I don't mean to use the word "intervened" and have you consider it something else. You actually contacted Mrs. Coutsoukis and wanted -- because Mr. Coutsoukis had talked to you about when this drug was going to -- when this medication was going to begin and that he had several concerns about it; is that correct? A. I may have contacted her. I'm not sure I recall that conversation. But there certainly was no recommendation with that. It was maybe voicing a concern. I'm not a physician. I would not make any kind of a recommendation regarding medication. Q. And do you recall that Mrs. Coutsoukis' response to you was that we should have Dr. Narus give -- who was the neurologist -- give his advise to the parents about what should happen? A. That he -- Q. That she thought it would be more appropriate that Dr. Narus advise the parties as to when the medication was to begin. A. If she would, I probably would have concurred. I know Dr. Narus relatively well. MS. SANZ: Thank you, Doctor. THE COURT: Any redirect, Ms. Lori? MS. LORI: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Lori, we will stop about 10 minutes before 12:00, so I hope you will be able to conclude with Dr. Oas' testimony. &dDREDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. LORI: Q. Dr. Oas, can you definitely state what this issue concerning getting these psychiatric records or psychological records of Susan Coutsoukis was? A. It's a muddy business. She was always resistant to testing. It didn't make any difference what kind of testing it was; it's as simple as that. and then with some pressure, she began to say "Well, if I go here, then he's got to go there," and so I asked him if there was anything in his history that was problematical, because she said, you know, "You could go all the way back 30 years when he tried to commit suicide," and I said "If necessary, you know, I could do that." I said "The problem with trying to get all of these records -- you know, it's really difficult to try to chase this down and get all of this information, so then I have to say is this really going to be relevant? Do I think that I can on the basis of my knowledge as a clinical psychologist of each of these people be able to come up with an opinion regarding custody without going after those medical records?" To some degree Mr. Coutsoukis is saying "I think we need to have those records to help convince you that she has this clinical depression that he saw as being a part of her life that may affect her parent effectiveness, and I'm sitting there saying "Well, it may affect their relationship. I can't be sure that it's affecting her parent effectiveness." And so I'm puzzling about this and trying to make some decision, and I said "Did you try to commit suicide 30 years ago?" And he was a part of an hallucinatory drug experiment way back when they were doing the drug experiments back in 1963, Timothy Leary and some of the people back there. He was a part of this experiment, and I don't recall the exact words that he used, but you know, the hallucinogenic drugs at that time could make people go relatively wacko for a short period of time. It had nothing to do with his own unique psychological state aside from something that was ingested. But I simply said "I think I can testify to this Court with a degree of confidence without getting access to those records. So in my way I have to admit in this answer to you that I was kind of equivocal about this and I was ambivalent about this, and to some degree I said "I think I'm just going to leave all of this alone and just go with my own ability to look at these two people and make my own decision regarding assisting the Court." Q. With regard to the release, what is the story about why it came through Pat Crain's office? A. I don't know. In the end, I think it's because I think Mr. Coutsoukis was adamant at that time about wanting to get more information about Susan's state, psychological and emotional state, and knowing that she had been in some kind of therapy, knowing that she had had some kind of medication of one kind or another for possible clinical depression, he wanted to get that to be a part of the record. Q. Is it customary for you to develop a bias when it comes to the time you do your report? A. Absolutely. Well, I should not say that. I shouldn't say it that way. In Jackson County and Josephine County it's fairly customary, because sometimes I'm asked by the attorneys to offer that bias to the Court. I have come to Court and said "Your Honor, I do not have a bias; I see both of these parents as equivalent, and what I'm gone to do is talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each parent, and you know, it's your baby, Your Honor." But in this case I was able to form a bias. Q. Why didn't you contact the Child Development Center people? A. Why didn't I? Q. Yes. A. I have been over there, you know, I have worked with Barbara Kozol before. She's an ex-student of mine. I have worked with Ann Batzer somewhere along the way. I have been over and visited their agency a number of sometimes. I think I know the level of professionalism that's there. I think they do a lot of good for some kids. What is clear to me is we do not have a child who had cerebral palsey, we did not of that a child that had autism, infantile autism. We had somebody even at three years of age with some kind of an unknown disease entity, and I kind of puzzle about it, you know, the fact that they're using applied treatment strategies with an unknown disease entity, and I'm not sure there's a good match there. What I'm saying is I don't know if they did bad for this child, but I'm not so sure that they did good, either, and I'm puzzling about this myself. Yes, I probably could have gone over and sat down and had a professional interplay with them, but by the time this was to take place, I knew so clearly that they had a very, very strong bias and that they were basically -- and that bias was tied to the fact that Susan was deemed as a temporary custodial parent, at least, and that was the person that they were going to work with and that he had been ousted from interactions with them, and possibly because of some of his own biases about what he thought should have been done or not done regarding treatment of this child, and those biases, as I said to the Court were tied to his own interpersonal time that he spent with his daughter, in much the same way that Piaget spent with his children trying to attest to what may or may not work, and I think there was a battle between the professional staff over there and his convictions, but the thing is his convictions suddenly were not important anymore because she was the person that they were going to have to deal with, and she had her own set of convictions about what she sought from the professionals, and that was that. Q. Does the fact that you focussed on the parties and observed them, how they treated the child, and talked to Donna Carrillo and didn't contact CDC or any other person you could have contacted, does that make your evaluation invalid? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I was satisfied with my own ability to discern what the issues were in this custody case, and while I seek outside assistance, it's really important for me to try to seek assistance from people who may not have a been compelled or forced into a biassed position, where I was still trying not to have a biassed position myself. And so based on that, and I guess based on some of my own knowledge about crippling diseases for children and various handicapping conditions for children, I felt I could make my own judgment, and I knew there wasn't just Barbara Kozol, there was a large number of physicians also, and I feel that, Your Honor, you'll have the opportunity to hear some of that testimony and make your own judgment about the variations in the scientific enterprise of a lot of opinions regarding this handicapping condition that Teddy has. Q. Why doesn't your report talk about the restraining orders? A. Well, because to some degree I spent sometime interviewing Susan about the restraining orders and a certain amount of time interviewing Mr. Coutsoukis about the restraining orders, and I'm a psychologist, and Your Honor would know more about it than I would know, that restraining orders are constantly abused, and they're used for different reasons, and they're used perhaps for reasons to try to manipulate a situation, and they do not always bear the brunt of truth. Q. With regard to your report on page 2 with your reference, last sentence there about taking Teddy to the Child Development Center, you indicated on your cross that you would want to correct that statement. How would you want to correct that statement? A. Just to point out that Mr. Coutsoukis was the person who started that, if I'm not mistaken, that he was the one that began it, and not Mrs. Samora, and she became a participant belatedly, and about the time that he first started, I am not sure that at that time -- and probably this would be an appropriate question for the Court -- I'm not sure that at that time Ms. Kozol would have, you know, a view of Mrs. Coutsoukis that she maybe had later on. Q. With regard to the rage that you discuss in your report, do you based upon what you've observed and learned about these parties, and particularly Mr. Coutsoukis, do you consider that to be a characteristic or a feature, or is it related to certain contacts or situations? A. Let me give you a context. This comes verbatim from Mr. Coutsoukis. He says "I can't imagine what is so loving about incarcerating a baby into a daytime orphanage" -- and you see the strongness of terms -- "daytime orphanage for hours at a time, especially when a loving father is available to do the job. I can't imagine that loving care consists of leaving Teddy with perfect strangers who, among other duties, must give her potentially lethal medication. There is nothing loving about the fact that time and again I would get her on Mondays with diaper rashes, bruises and colds whenever Susan decided that Teddy and I should not see each other on the weekend. Perhaps Susan's kind of child care by proxy is considered loving by the standards of a society of detached, neglectful, cruel and abusive parents who have turned America into the sewer of the universe." These are very strong statements that he makes. "But it's most certainly not loving care by traditional human standards or by the standards of anyone who truly cares about children." He goes on and says "My conscience will not allow me to desensitize myself, to detach myself from my child who needs me so badly and whose suffering I can feel in my bones, that is my soul mate. In my self-imposed semi-exile from this society, the only time a smile comes to my gloomy face is when Teddy brings it about. She can move me to tears easily, so although she may not necessarily be the reason of my being" -- because I put that in the report -- "to the best of my ability, at any cost to me, it has become my mission in life. I hope you agree that there is no more noble mission than serving an infant or a small child. If American parents felt that way, this would be a better society." Those are his convictions. Q. And so my question to you, then, is in your description in the report about his rage, is it related to situations or contacts or both, or is it a characteristic of him? A. It's all of these combined. Situations and characteristics are part and parcel of a basic set of beliefs that he has about what is wrong in our society. Q. On page four of your report, the information about Teddy's vulnerability to illness, depression, and failure to thrive, did that information come from both parties? A. Well, it came from her, from the standpoint that she strongly disagreed with that and she felt there were alternative explanations, and as far as the restriction is concerned, both explanations have been offered numerous times, and I have in my classes taught both explanations, the explanation that if a child were deprived -- MS. SANZ: Your Honor, I think the witness is not answering the question put to him. He is expanding on it, and I would like to keep it in the bounds. THE COURT: Sustained. The question was -- Maybe you could repeat the question, Ms. Lori. MS. LORI: I don't think I could do it verbatim, but my question is on page four of the report where you're referring to Teddy's vulnerability to illness, depression, and failure to thrive, is that information something you got from the parents, both parents? A. Information from both parents with a different coloring, but a strong substantial belief by Mr. Coutsoukis that that was a critical variable and from the standpoint of Ms. Samora that that variable was something that she did not see as critical. Q. In her cross-examination, Ms. Sanz asked you if you had checked with the medical care providers about the vulnerability to illness, depression, and failure to thrive. Did the information in your report which you list here, did that come from her parents, her vulnerability to illness, depression, and failure to thrive? A. That came from Mr. Coutoukis. Q. Did Mrs. Coutsoukis at all indicate that she felt that Teddy was also vulnerable to certain illnesses, depression, or any of those three factors you indicate in your report? MS. SANZ: I'm going to object, Your Honor. I think for the record, it's a compounded question. He needs to respond to the specifics as to which of the three -- THE COURT: I will overrule your objection but ask him to answer that if she gave any of those three, to specify which she gave and which she did not. THE WITNESS: I'll need a repeat of that, it had so many -- BY MS. LORI: Q. Did any of the information about Teddy's vulnerability to, one, illness, two, depression, three, failure to thrive, come from Mrs. Coutsoukis? A. I have to say as best I can recall, that that was not the case. Q. With regard to child care, you were indicating on cross-examination in response to a philosophical view what your position on it was. Could you please explain to the court what your position is? A. Could you repeat that one more time? THE COURT: Your position on child care. Am I right? A. Okay, my position on child care. I'll try to do this fast. There has been a small change. You'll recall back in the '50s, everybody talked about the bottle was great for kids. We got into the '80s and we said hey, child care is where it's going to be, there's inexpensive child care, we have both working parents. Another source of information says what about disadvantaged families? Good child care -- we're talking about good child care. With good child care there are some advantages, especially for kids three and older. You go back to two years of age, and even in disadvantaged families, you struggle and you say well, that's better than nothing at all. But you look at advantaged families -- and I look at this as an advantaged family -- then you begin to look at the merits of child care, and you say if there is a chance for a primary provider within the family, as opposed to child care for someone who is two someone who as in their first year, the advantages begin to flow in the direction in advantaged families, why not have a primary provider be at home if the possibility exists? If the possibility does not exist, look hard for advantaged child care where you have day care providers that are not doing behavioral intervention in terms of trying to keep them obedient and so forth, but child care centers that are able to facilitate cognitive growth and development in children, where they have some understanding of that. I find very few child care providers who have a basic understand of what it means to facilitate and enrich the cognitive growth and development of children, so I can understand the need to be very discerning what kind of child care providers that we have. Q. Okay. With regard to Teddy in day care, is there a distinction about -- I don't mean to offend anybody, but normal children in day care versus Teddy in day care centers? A. Yes. Q. What is that distinction? A. Well, my view is that Teddy has an inner reality that is going to take a fair amount of effort to make sense of, and no day care provider is going to have an easy opportunity to understand that without some kind of training. She needs some special training. She needs some special -- She needs day care providers that have had special training. That's the view that I have. She's not there for socialization purposes; she needs more than that. Q. From what you know of the child care centers here in the Rogue Valley, do they provide the type of special care you perceive Teddy needs? MS. SANZ: Objection, Your Honor, as to relevance, as well as it may call for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. LORI: Q. Ms. Sanz raised an issue about domestic violence. Why, in this case, knowing about the restraining orders, would you still recommend that Mr. Coutsoukis be the primary parent? A. I do not believe him to be a physically violent man. Maybe there would be something under extreme conditions, but he would never be this to his own daughter, as a parent to his daughter. I believe that if he had equal rights, I don't believe that he would ever be this in relationship to Susan Samora. Q. If Mrs. Samora or Mrs. Coutsoukis had telephoned you, would you have talked to her? A. Yes. MS. LORI: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Anything in five minutes, Ms. Sanz? MS. SANZ: I'll try to keep it within five minutes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. &dDRECROSS-EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Going back to that consent, you never -- have you ever looked at that consent? A. No. Q. Do you agree that the language, the scope of the consent is critical when a person is releasing private information to any third party? Is that correct? A. The scope of the -- Q. The language in the consent is an important issue? A. It can be an important issue. Q. And you never received a signed consent from Mr. Coutsoukis, from his attorney or from him himself? A. No, I did not. Q. Would you been surprised to learn that the child, Teddy Coutoukis, was referred to the Child Development Center by Dr. Diane Williams, her pediatrician? A. I understand that. Q. You made a statement that you did not think they did Teddy any good, but you have never actually -- A. Did I say that? I don't believe I said it quite that way. I said I can't be sure whether they were doing good or not doing good I think is what I said. Q. So you don't really know what kinds of services that they were providing for Teddy? A. I do not know the specific kinds of services that they were providing for Teddy. Q. And when you made the statement that CDC had a strong bias for Mr. Coutoukis, you were accepting Mr. Coutsoukis' -- A. A strong bias for Mrs. Coutsoukis? Q. A strong bias against Mr. Coutoukis or for Mrs. Coutsoukis, either way. You're accepting Mr. Coutoukis' sort of concern or position that CDC was against him in some way? A. Well, I'm accepting hers, as well. We talked at length about her views in regard to using that agency. Q. She talked to you about concerns that the providers at CDC were having difficulties in dealings with Mr. Coutsoukis? A. That's correct. Q. But the assumption that CDC last a bias against Mr. Coutsoukis, that's an assumption that you have? A. It's an assumption that comes from both parents. Q. Do you agree that that information from CDC as to what action was going on could have been helpful in your report? A. It could have been. I can't deny that. Q. You describe this family as an advantaged family. Are you talking about in terms of financial means? A. In terms of first of all intelligence, and in terms of maybe an on openness to try to get information about a child's difficulties and how to get that information, access that information. I think those are advantages, and actually, they're having a certain amount of difficulty, as I understand, but I haven't paid attention. That's not really my role. Q. And you agree that you made the assumption that there was no physical violence between the parties? A. That's correct. Again, there was a parade of different kinds of physical violence, which I have to ask at what level is that physical violence being done mutually or is it being done by one person to another person, and I was satisfied that domestic violence was not an issue as far as raising the issue of custody, of who should be the custodial parent. Q. You make the statement that restraining orders, Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining orders are abused often or can be can be abused often. A. They can be abused. Q. But that's not always the case; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Every case has to be dealt with on its own merits; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you stated I think -- I don't want to misquote you -- that you're guaranteeing that Mr. Coutsoukis will not be violent towards his daughter? That's the last question, I believe, that Ms. Lori asked you. Is that actually -- A. I didn't use the word guarantee. Again, we know that no psychologist, no professional person can predict violence or predict dangerousness. We understand that. What I have to say is that I know from what I know of his personality and character, I see it as very improbable that he would use violent actions against his own daughter. Q. How about, for instance, Mrs. Coutsoukis? A. It would depend on what her behavior was in regard to the daughter and whether she did something that was a denial of the right of the daughter to have safety. Q. And so you are not as certain of his use -- that he would not use violence if he perceived he was being denied access to his daughter? A. I'm not sure of what the history was in terms of the specific situation that you're going to allude to at sometime today about his actions in regard to whether the daughter was present or not present and he was showing violent behaviors toward Ms. Samora or what the violent behaviors were. She did not specifically satisfy me, other than verbal an mental abuse, that there were other kinds of physical actions that he took against her. She did talk about the fact that there was verbal abuse from her perspective in the presence of Teddy, and so when we talk about domestic violence, we have to incorporate verbal, mental, to physical. Basically, what came from her were things that were verbal and mental, not physical. Q. But by your response, you're really not as confident that -- in admitting -- You're not as confident in saying that the likelihood of violence toward Mrs. Coutsoukis versus -- as compared to with Teddy -- You can't be certain that there won't be violence against Ms. Coutsoukis? A. I cannot make a statement to you with certainty -- I can't even make that in regard to Teddy. I have to say about improbability of actions on the part of a human being based on my understanding of that person's personality or character. Q. One last question. You agree that if there is an issue of deprivation of visitation or access, one of the forums that parent can take is to have a Court hear that issue? THE COURT: The answer is yes, Dr. Oas. MS. SANZ: Thank you. THE COURT: He agrees with that. We're finished with the testimony of Dr. Oas. Do you want him to stay or leave? You're released. Thank you. We'll start back at 1:15. MS. SANZ: Thank you. . . . IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) ) SUSAN SAMORA COUTSOUKIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) Case No. ) 94-3846-D-3(2) vs. ) ) PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, ) ) (s3BVolume 2 of 4(s0B Respondent. ) __________________________________) &dDTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS&d@ (s3B Volume 2(s0B Medford, Oregon September 12, 1997 1:30 o'clock p.m. Before: The Honorable G. Philip Arnold, Circuit Judge. &dDAPPEARANCES&d@ For the Petitioner: Cristina Sanz Attorney at Law P.O. Box 443 Medford, OR 97501 For the Respondent: Beth Lori Attorney at Law 220 N. Oakdale Avenue Medford, OR 97501 September 12, 1997 1:30 o'clock p.m. . . . THE COURT: Thank you. Be seated. Let me apologize to all of you for asking you to come back early. I didn't make it. I thought I would be able to, and I want to finish today, and I was hoping to pick up the time. Call your next witness. . . . FAYE ALTMAN was called to testify on behalf of the Respondent, and being first sworn by the Clerk, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: Faye Altman, A-L-T-M-A-N. &dDDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. LORI: Q. Ms. Altman, are you employed with the U.S. Postal Service? A. Yes, I am. Q. Are you a letter carrier? A. Yes. Q. Do you know Mr. Coutsoukis? A. Yes. Q. Do you know his daughter Teddy? A. Yes. Q. Have you known him for about three years? A. Yes. Q. Did you meet them by delivering mail to them? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall the address at which you delivered mail, or the a approximate address? A. No, because I got off of that route, and the memory just goes when you're absent. Q. Was it here in Medford? A. Yes, on Bellinger Lane. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Coutsoukis and his daughter Teddy at a restaurant called Sizzler? A. Yes, I have. Q. Was that located near your station? A. Next door. Q. When you delivered mail to Mr. Coutsoukis, at his home in Medford, what did you observe about Mr. Coutsoukis? Was he friendly? A. Yes. Q. Did he invite you to see his daughter? A. Yes. Q. Did he talk to you -- MS. SANZ: Your Honor, I realize there's time constraints, but to a certain extent it's completely leading testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. Did he talk about his daughter with you? A. Yes. Q. Did you deliver mail on an almost daily basis to his house? A. Well, I delivered mail, but I went to his door maybe three or four times a week. Q. Did you happen to see what Teddy was like when you were there at Mr. Coutsoukis' house? A. Yes. Q. Did she appear happy? A. Yes. Q. Did she appear contented? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall ever seeing her cry or have a tantrum? A. No. Q. Do you recall observing whether Mr. Coutsoukis helped Teddy to learn to sit or stand or crawl or walk? A. He was the baby-sitter, and a baby-sitter does this stuff. I mean he's the only one I saw her with. Q. When you saw him with Teddy, did you also see him trying to help her walk or sit or stand, those types of activities? A. Yes. Q. Did he ever complain to you about Teddy's Monday diaper rashes? A. He mentioned that she had diaper rashes. Q. Did he ever talk to you about her getting colds when he didn't see her during certain weekends? Do you recall that at all? A. No. Q. With regard to the Sizzler restaurant, did he -- was he there with just his daughter or with somebody else? A. He usually had a lady with him. Q. With the lady there, did you know what the lady's role was? Like was she a friend, a baby-sitter or -- A. I just assumed she was the baby-sitter Q. With the baby-sitter there, did Mr. Coutsoukis help feed Teddy? A. Yes. Q. Do you know if he ever helped prepare her food? A. Yes, he would cut stuff up on her plate. Q. How would you describe the type attention that he gives to her? A. Beautiful. Q. Did you ever see him playing outside with Teddy? A. Yes. Q. When did you see him doing that? A. At the Sizzler after they had eaten. Q. Would you describe him as a dedicated father? A. Yes. Q. Did you perceive when you were watching Mr. Coutsoukis and Teddy was close to her father? A. Yes. MS. LORI: I have no further questions. Counsel may inquire. MS. SANZ: Thank you. &dDCROSS-EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Ms. Altman, you were delivering mail to Mr. Coutsoukis' home, and you would see Mr. Coutsoukis and his daughter about three to four times a week when you would approach his home; is that right? A. Yes. Q. When did you begin doing that, and when did that contact end? A. I believe the last part of '93 or the first part of '94, and then I believe it was around October of '94, I didn't do that route any longer, so -- Q. So it was from the end of '93, at the earliest, through October of '94? A. Not through. Around there. Q. And when you would go see Mr. Coutsoukis at the front door, you would just visit very briefly? A. Yes. Q. And then you would move on and continue with your job delivering other mail? A. Yes. Q. And when you would see Mr. Coutsoukis and Teddy at Sizzler, that was just by chance meetings that you would see him there, or was it a regular basis? A. No, either I would be there for lunch before he would come, or he would be there before I came, and they would usually sit near us. Q. And so you would just see them during the lunch hour? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. No further questions. MS. LORI: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. You may step down. And may this witness leave? MS. LORI: Yes. THE COURT: Or you may stay with us if you wish, in the back. MS. LORI: Thanks for helping me out, or whatever. THE COURT: Call your next witness. Come right up here, please, ma'am. If you'll come up and stop right here, you'll be sworn in. . . . SUE CHRISTENSEN was called to testify on behalf of the Petitioner, and being first sworn by the Clerk, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: My name is Sue Christensen. It's spelled C-H-R-I-S-T-E-N-S-E-N. &dDDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Ms. Christensen, how do you know Mr. or Mrs. Coutsoukis? A. I was employed by Mr. Coutsoukis, and I met Susan through the employment with Mr. Coutsoukis. Q. Your employment with him -- could you describe what your job was, what your responsibilities were? A. I was a baby-sitter and also office assistant. Q. Can you please state when you began working there and when you ended working there? A. Yes. I began employment in December of '96, through April 7th of '97. Q. And approximately how many hours a work day would you be employed with Mr. Coutsoukis in either capacity? A. Well, the hours were variable, probably from about 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., sometimes longer. Q. Sometimes you assisted him in the evenings or on the weekends when he requested? A. Well, I only assisted in the evenings a couple of times when Mr. Coutsoukis had Teddy staying with him for the week when Susan had to leave to go out of town to move to New York, and I believe one other time. The rest of the time it was just during the day and during the week. Q. And where was the location where you were working at? A. 2368 Crater Lake Avenue. Q. That was Mr. Coutsoukis' home and office at the same time? A. Yes, it was. Q. Now, in your capacity as the baby-sitter for Teddy Coutoukis, what instructions would Mr. Coutsoukis give you? What would he expect of you? A. As far as the baby-sitting? Q. Yes. A. Well, just basically to play with Teddy and to put her down for her nap, and to take her into the potty, and help her with dressing, and sometimes assist her with feeding. Q. Did he have certain instructions which you felt were a little odd, kind of out of the ordinary, for example, not wanting you to talk to Teddy? A. He didn't want us to talk to Teddy. He just wanted her to, you know, play on her own, and you know, he thought that if you did anything out of the ordinary with her that it would be distracting for her, so he didn't want us to take the lead with anything, just let her do what she basically wanted to do, other than he didn't like her to sit on the floor. He wanted us to keep her standing. Q. You said a couple of things there. Let me take them one at a time. He didn't want her to sit on the floor, or just sit down perse? A. Right. Q. He didn't want her to sit down at all? A. No. Q. He wanted you to keep her standing at all times. A. Yes, he wanted to keep her standing. Q. And why did he ask you to do that? A. Because he felt like it would strengthen her legs to keep her standing. Q. When you say that he asked to you kind of let Teddy take her lead, basically, could you initiate specific activity with Teddy, or was Teddy to indicate what she wanted to do? A. Teddy indicated what she wanted to do. We were to do what Teddy wanted us to do. Q. At the time you were caring for Teddy, how old was Teddy? A. Three. Q. Could you think have specific time you had to follow Teddy's lead on something that you felt maybe this wasn't such a great idea and it brought some concern to you of some safety issues? A. Well, I didn't really think it was a good idea for Teddy to be playing in the bath tub. That was kind of bad, you know, because she was, you know, kind of tripping round on the bath tub and stuff, you know, and I would have to get in the bath tub with her, and she kind of, you know, had a balance problem, and it was kind of hard to, you know, keep her from falling and hurting herself in that situation. Q. When you say "playing in the bath tub," was she taking a bath? A. No, that was just something that at that time she decided she wanted to do, was to play in the bath tub. Q. Was there also and incident where she would want to take the lead in terms of car keys or something like that? A. Yes, she used to like to play with the car keys all the time, and, you know, try to stick them in the door of the car. Q. End up with any damage to the car or the keys? A. Yes, there was a couple of times that he had some bad car keys on that. Q. Would you say that Mr. Coutsoukis is over protective of his child? A. Yes, he's very protective of the child. Q. Would you say that in terms of your involvement with Teddy, you were basically in the strict definition just to watch her and to follow whatever lead she wanted to you do? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. You were expected to follow her lead, even though you felt it was not a good idea? A. Right, that was the way it was. I mean we had to do everything Teddy wanted. We had no -- you know -- well, we weren't able to make any decisions on our own as far as what we thought we should do with Teddy. We were to do what Teddy wanted us to do. Q. Did he make any statements to you about, you know, whether you could take any initiative at all, and if he did, how did he phrase that to you? A. No, he just told us to do what we were told to do, and not no be thinking about what to do on our own, and to do what we were told to do, because we weren't supposed to think, we were just to do what we were told about that. Q. Teddy would go to the Child Development Center facility in Table Rock Road? A. Yes. Q. You recall that? A. Yes. Q. And you were with Teddy at some of the sessions that she would go to? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did Mr. Coutsoukis make any statements to you about how he felt about the Child Development Center? A. Well, he didn't like the Child Development Center at all. He just felt like that they weren't, you know, qualified people, and that it wasn't a good place for children to be, and he didn't like it. Q. Did you see him arguing with the teachers or the service providers that were there? A. Yes, I did. He used argue with them because he didn't agree with their methods. Q. And you were asked to sit in in some of those sessions or therapy that Teddy was receiving; is correct? A. Yes. Q. Specifically, what were you asked to sit in on? A. Well, I was just supposed to be there so that when Teddy was through, then I could, you know, take her out. It was at a time, I believe, when Susan was out of town and she couldn't be there. It was when I believe she went to New York to get ready for the move, and so Mr. Coutsoukis wanted somebody to be there, and so I was there to, you know, just to be there just to observe and so on. Q. And you were there when you saw them doing certain kinds of physical therapy? A. Right. It was very structured, you know, shooling. Q. Exercises that they were doing with Teddy, speech therapy or physical therapy? A. Right, they did all that. Q. Did you see when Mr. Coutsoukis was at -- When you were with Mr. Coutsoukis at the home with Teddy, did you see Mr. Coutsoukis following any of those therapy sessions, you know, some of the things that you saw going on at CDC? A. No, she didn't do none of that at home. Q. None of the exercises, speech or physical exercises? A. No, he didn't agree with their procedures at the school. He didn't do any of that at home. Q. There was one time you said that you took care of Teddy while Mrs. Coutsoukis was out of town? A. Right. Q. Do you remember specifically when that was? A. I believe that was probably -- I'm not positive -- maybe the last week of March, when she had to be out of town to prepare to move to New York. Q. And that's of this year? A. Yes. Q. And what were you asked to do in terms of helping out with Teddy? A. Well, just the usual things that I always did with her, but I would have to go back in the evenings because Mr. Coutsoukis, you know, always, you know, needed to have a helper there with her because it would be too, you know, tiring for him to take care of her for long periods of time, because she had a lot of energy, and he needed extra helpers there, and so I just helped out with her and so on. Q. And so you were there during the evenings? A. Yes. Q. How was Teddy that week? A. Teddy was very upset at that point because she wanted her mother. She was crying for her mother and she was unconsoleable wanting her mother because she knew during the day, you know, that it was okay to be with "Fatha," as she calls him, but I don't know whether it was just an inborn thing or whatever, but by 4:00 or 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, it was like she knew that it was time to go home to momma, and about time of the evening she was pretty unconsoleable. It was hard to get her to go to sleep or anything else, because she was just really upset over not being able to be with momma at nighttime when it was time to go to bed. Q. And Mr. Coutsoukis was aware of this? A. Yes. Q. And how did he respond, or how did he react to seeing Teddy so upset? A. He would just try to change the subject and just try to take her mind off it as best he could. Q. Before Mrs. Coutsoukis left, did you see that she provided Teddy with some kind of cardboard calendar of when she would be away? A. Yes. Q. Can you describe that? A. Yes, that's what I tried to use as a tool for Teddy, and also she also provided -- the mother provided a picture of herself so that Teddy could, you know, look at that, and we tried to use this little cardboard tool that showed the different steps -- I forget exactly how it went now, but leading up to the time when she would be getting on the plane to flying home, and then the mother would be at the airport waiting for her, and each day we would take one of these little pieces off of this cardboard thing so that she would know that the days were going by, because by about the second day that Susan was gone, she was really getting, you know, upset about where is her momma, you know. She wanted her momma. Q. Was there anything you could do to console Teddy? A. Not really. Not a whole lot. I mean she would stay up really late at night and crying and stuff because she really wanted to be home with her mother. Q. Were you ever present when Mr. Coutsoukis would make derogatory remarks about Mrs. Coutsoukis? A. Yes, unfortunately, he thinks of American women as being pigs, and especially the mother, you know, calling the mother pigs and stuff like that. That's kind of you know -- kind of bad, you know, to be -- MS. LORI: Objection, Your Honor. She can just respond to the question. THE COURT: Yes, the question is what did he say about -- THE WITNESS: He called her a pig. BY MS. SANZ: Q. And was it a lot more than that? Would he berate her, for the most part? A. Yes, he would talk about her, you know, running her down a lot. Q. Did he ever do this in front of Teddy? A. Yes. Q. Now, aside from yourself caring for Teddy during the time you were employed for Mr. Coutsoukis, was there another baby-sitter who was also working with Teddy? A. Yes, Donna Carrillo. Q. In your estimation, in the time that you were there, what was the maximum amount of hours Mr. Coutsoukis did not have a baby-sitter present when he was carrying for Teddy? A. I think there was a baby-sitter there all the time. One of us was there. Q. Well, I asked this question because you kind of made a comment that he would, you know, kind of get tired. Why did you think so? A. Well, because he would tell us he was tired, you know. I mean he would be with her for maybe an hour or an hour or two or something, and then he would say "Well, I'm too old for this, I'm tired, and Teddy wears me out," and so one of us would take over. Q. Did he ever talk to you about his health? A. Yes, he used to tell us he was sick all the time. Q. Did he ever lose his temper with you? A. Yes, he has a very bad temper. He would lose his temper with me and the other employees and his customers and just about everybody. Q. Was this -- By your comment I'm assuming it wasn't a rare incident that he would lose his temper around you when you were present. A. No, he's got a bad tamper. He would be mad at all of us just about every day. Q. Mrs. Christensen, when I first asked you to testify, you were not -- you did not want to be here today? A. No, I didn't want to be here. Q. Do you agree that Mr. Coutsoukis in all of this still loves his daughter? A. Yes, I do. Q. And do you agree that he probably is trying to do what he thinks is best for his daughter? A. Yes, I think so. MS. SANZ: MS. LORI: I don't have any questions. THE COURT: Thank you, Mrs. Christensen. You may step down. You may leave if you like, or you may stay in court. Call your next, please? MS. SANZ: I would like to call David Miller. . . . DAVID MILLER was called to testify on behalf of the Petitioner, and being first sworn by the Bailiff, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: My name is David Miller, M-I-L-L-E-R. &dDDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Mr. Miller, you're currently employed? A. Yes, I work at Rogue Valley Medical Center as a physical therapist. Q. And specifically, with the Child Development Center? A. Yes. Q. How long have you been there? A. I have been at the hospital ten years and at the Child Development center about eight and a half. Q. Can you give us very briefly a description of your previous jobs in the health relationship? A. That was my first job as a physical therapist. Q. That makes it easy. And your educational background? A. I did my early years at SOSC in Ashland, and then I took physical therapy at the University of Washington at Seattle and got a bachelor's degree. Q. Is there a license? A. State license in Oregon. Q. And Do you remember receive any specific training or ongoing training in your profession? A. Well, the physical therapy curriculum is the main training, but yes, there is continuing education yearly two or three times a year, and then especially in the pediatric area. I'm a pediatric specialist. Q. So I take it you were -- I'm sorry. You are with a pediatric specialist? A. In the area of physical therapy, yes. Q. Now, you've been involved with Teddy Coutsoukis and her parents? A. I was, yes, when she was younger. Q. Do you remember approximately when you became involved with Teddy, your services? A. Yes. Based on my records, I started with her when she was 11 months old in August of '94, and I stopped seeing her as a physical therapist in June of '95. Q. And Mr. and Mrs. Coutsoukis were not separated at the time you began working with Teddy? A. That's true. Q. What were your goals in working with Teddy? What sort of services would you provide to her? A. Well, my area is gross motor development, and she had gross motor delays, and so I was focussed on helping her to improve in her gross motor development. Q. And how often did you see her? A. I saw her about four times a month, two to four times a month. Q. And was the goal to see her along with a parent or a caretaker? A. Yes. Q. And why was that important? A. Well, because my job is to help the child improve, and yet I only have one time with them maybe an hour once a week, and that is minimal. My real job is to teach the parents or care givers things they can do to help the child improved. That's why I love to have the parents there. Q. There were times when both Mr. and Mrs. Coutsoukis were together at these sessions? A. Yes. Q. How would you say those sessions went? A. Tense. They did not get along very well at all, and that tended to interfere with the concentration on Teddy's physical therapy. Q. Would Mr. Coutsoukis make any derogatory remarks about his wife? A. Yes. Q. What, for example? A. Oh, he would cut her down on a lot of fronts as far as her role as a mother, her role as a wife, largely focussed on his perception of her role as a mother. Q. Anything come specifically to mind? A. Well, that she just didn't understand Teddy, her child, she didn't understand her needs, she had a -- he felt she had a poor sense of how to mother their daughter. Q. And he would make these remarks at times when Mrs. Coutsoukis was present? A. Yes. Q. He would make these remarks when Teddy Coutsoukis was present? A. Yes, Teddy was always present at my sessions. Q. And did he ever criticize her for nursing Teddy or something to that effect? A. Yes, he said things to the effect that she would go to -- she would nurse Teddy at inappropriate times, just whenever anything went wrong, that she jumped to put the breast to Teddy as though she was misinterpreting what Teddy wanted, that she was just using her breast feeding as an excuse to get in with Teddy. Q. And when you were there, Teddy was still nursing? A. Yes. Q. Did you feel that Ms. Coutsoukis was using the fact that she was nursing Teddy as a way to interrupt what you were doing? MS. LORI: Objection as to feeling. I mean what he feels is kind of irrelevant. If he has made any observations -- THE COURT: If you have any observations or any opinion, you may answer the question. THE WITNESS: What was the question? BY MS. SANZ: Q. In your opinion, did you think that, or you know, in your opinion, did you observe Mrs. Coutsoukis to want to nurse Teddy or nurse Teddy as a means for her own means rather than for Teddy's having to get nourished? A. I didn't really get a sense get a sense that that was the case. Q. Then you started working exclusively with one parent? It ended up working out that way; right? A. On their own, as they separated and had their conflict, they tended to recognize that it worked better if they weren't both there, so it was either with Photius or with Susan present. Q. Let's start with Mr. Coutsoukis. What was your experience like working with Mr. Coutsoukis and Teddy? A. Well, it was varied. He was -- I can tell you the good and the bad. He always attended on time. He was there for the sessions. He called if they couldn't make it or Teddy was sick or something was going wrong, and he was very attentive to Teddy and her needs and his perception of her needs, and he was very controlling and had a lot of concern about Teddy and her development, and he indirectly expressed guilt in that this was happening to their daughter, that she was having problems and all that. Q. When you say he was controlling, what do you mean by that? A. Well he was controlling of my therapy, which was one of the conflicts that we had -- a relatively mild conflict, in that he did not always agree with what I was trying to do with Teddy and what I thought she needed, and he often asked me to do things differently or not do things that I thought were appropriate. Q. And how would you respond to that? A. I would accommodate him as best as possible, and I do with that with parent, try to accommodate their beliefs and their directions and their philosophies. Q. And there was earlier testimony that he was very concerned about a therapy ball. A. Right. Q. He did not want Teddy on that therapy ball? A. That's correct. Q. And how did you with that? A. I stopped using the therapy ball. Q. You thought that there were other mechanisms or other methods to provide therapy than the ball? A. The therapy ball is kind of a main tool with therapists, physical therapists, especially with small kids, and I am quite comfortable in achieving a lot effects with children with balls, but Photius -- During one of my sessions, she fell on my ball. She didn't fall off, but she fell back and landed on the ball itself, you know, and that scared him, he felt like it scared her and it wasn't good for her, and he didn't see any point in her being up there on this high, precarious ball anyway, and he insisted that we not use it, and I stopped using it in his sessions. I believe I used it once or twice in the sessions with Susan. Susan wasn't against it. Q. He was very strong in his beliefs as to what kinds of services you should provide Teddy? A. Yes. Q. And what were his beliefs? What did he think Teddy needed? A. Well, he and I did not have total agreement on what she needed as far as where she was now in the gross motor development, her movement abilities, and I felt like she needed this as far as developing sophistication in her movements, her gross motor progression, so we had some philosophical differences, but also in my management of her directly, he didn't like me to use certain things such as the therapy ball, and it gradually evolved to where he didn't like me doing anything that involved hands on. He wanted mostly ideas, observe what she was doing and give him and them idea that would be activities that she could participate in without me doing hands on, which generally, hands on is a big part of my job. Q. Hands on would actually be -- You feel that hands on would actually benefit Teddy in terms of her gross motor development? A. I like to think so. I like to think that my skills with my hands and the way I manipulate a kid as they're playing with toys or whatever, the way I push them slightly or challenge their balance or get them to get on their hands and knees or whatever, I feel like that's a big part of my job as far as the "therapy handling" we call it. Q. Did he object a majority of the time to the kinds of services you were trying to provide to Teddy? A. I would say probably not a majority. I accommodated him as best -- and I tried to pay him respect and he agreed with this, so we didn't have a majority of conflict, so I was trying to accommodate and do what I perceived he wanted. Q. What you were trying to accomplish with Teddy was nothing radical in terms of treatment for her in your experience? A. That's right. Q. There came a point, I think, when you felt you could no longer accommodate him? A. Well, there came a point in my thinking about -- I think we were together for about 10 months, and somewhere in the last two months I started realizing that I was accommodating his wishes so much that I was not achieving what I felt Teddy could, so I started being a little more resistant and a little more argumentative about where we were heading and why I felt we needed to be doing these things, and so yes, I was less accommodating and a little more confrontational regarding his ideas. Q. At one point in time you're involvement as a therapist for Teddy ended? A. Yes, it did. Q. And what incident occurred? What happened that made that come about? A. Well, I have it documented. I'm sure you all have seen the chart notes, but in June of '95, we really got into an argument, heated, but not -- a heated argument about our differences, and basically, I didn't back down. I felt strongly that Photius and I needed to talk about our differences, and he wasn't giving on his opinion, and I was not backing down on my opinion, and specifically, it was regarding sitting versus standing, that she was sitting quite well, in his opinion, and he felt like she needed to be working on standing activities, she needed to learn to walk by herself, and I was trying to make the point that she still -- even though she sat well, she still needed to work a lot on developing more sophisticated sitting balance and her sitting equilibrium responses, and we were not agreeing on that. He got mad at me and stormed out of the room, and basically that ended -- he did not want to participate with me as a physical therapist, so we assigned another physical therapist. Q. Before he left that day, did he make any kind of threat toward you or -- A. In our argument he was demanding that I arguing with him, and it came to a point where he said "If you don't shut up --" something about "if you don't shut up, I'm going to punch you," or something like that. I defused it by saying "I'm not going to fight you, Photius," and that's when he stormed out. Q. Did he ever discuss with you or make statements as to putting blame on who he would blame or who he felt -- who he found fault with with regard to why Teddy was -- why she was having the conditions that she had? A. He on more than one occasion blamed some people, and American society in general, but largely he blamed Susan. That was the focal point of his blame mostly, was that Susan was mostly responsible for everything that happened to Teddy and why she was having problems. Q. Have you worked with Susan Coutsoukis also? A. Yes. Q. She was working for Bear Creek Corporation at the time? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. And given that she was working full time, did you try to accommodate her in terms of scheduling with her? A. Yes. Q. How did you do that? A. I think we did it later in the day, or sometimes we did it during her lunch break. Q. How would you describe your working with her during the times that you saw her with Teddy? A. Well, Susan and I got along great. She was a loving mother, she made all of her appointments. One time I recall something came up and she accommodated Photius' demands as best she could. She was, I thought, really honorable in her interactions with Photius and their conflicts. You know, he would rag on her and she would say "Let's don't talk about that now." But I felt she was appropriate with Teddy and loving and caring for her. Q. And Teddy responded to her in just a similar loving and caring manner? A. Oh, yeah, Teddy loved her mom. Q. What do you mean by she would accommodate Photius, Mr. Coutsoukis, in his demands? A. Well, when they were together, like I said, he would go on and on yelling at her, cutting her down, all kinds of stuff, and she would basically in an honorable way just say "Let's don't do this now, let's go outside, or let's talk about it some other time." And when he wasn't there, sometimes he would try to manipulate what was going on as far as getting -- Sometimes he would bring Teddy to the therapist session and Susan would be there, and she would try to accommodate whatever he was doing, even if it created a conflict for Susan. MS. SANZ: Thank you. &dDCROSS-EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. LORI: Q. Mr. Coutsoukis loves Teddy; right? A. Yes. Q. Very deeply? A. I think so. Q. And you sense that his disagreements or his idea of how to he treat Teddy was out of his motivation to help Teddy; true? A. Yes. Q. Teddy loves her dad; is that true? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. With regard to Teddy's medical condition isn't it true that nobody really knows what caused her to be in that condition? A. I can't say that nobody knows, but I certainly do know that there was that information out there. I mean I couldn't tell you everything that -- all of the people that did workups on Teddy and her past. I don't know that there was anybody defining exactly why she was like that. Q. Did you set up extra sessions for Mr. Coutsoukis attending the physical therapy with Teddy? A. I don't know about extra, but I would accommodate for him to be there and for Susan to be there at other times, yes, and they kind of worked out between themselves. Q. Initially we this physical therapy started, was Mr. Coutsoukis the one who was attending the majority of the appointments, or was it Susan? A. As I recall, in the beginning it was both of them together. I know that Photius was the home caretaker with Teddy, so he may have come more often. Once they separated, I would say that he was coming a little more than Susan, and can I check my notes on the specifics of that, but -- Q. Was I correct in hearing that you were describing the disagreement that Mr. Coutoukis had with you at least initially about how to treat Teddy in the physical therapy as a relatively mild conflict? A. Yes, in that I accommodate a wide variety of parents' family situations, parenting philosophies, and yes, he was somewhat controlling and opinionated, but I wouldn't say it was worse than some of the other cases that I have dealt with. Q. With regard to the therapy ball, after he saw Teddy fall and became scared, did he become more insistent at that time that you not use it? A. Maybe not at that very moment. I think when that happened, it scared him and he wanted to stop that, and in the next couple of sessions we had, if I tried to introduce it -- I don't know -- I can't remember if he actually stopped it right then or if in the next couple of sessions he expressed he just did not want that. Q. When the disagreement started right in around June of '95 about whether Teddy should be sitting versus standing, was Teddy approximately a year and a half years old at that time? A. Yes. Q. With regard to the incident with the heated argument that occurred in June of 1995, did you stop doing therapy for Teddy because of the threat Mr. Coutsoukis made, or because you two were at logger heads about the treatment with Teddy? A. I didn't stop it because of the threat. And in fact, that was the last I saw of Photius, but Susan came in for our next session a week or two later, and then basically I heard through my boss that basically Photius did not want me to be the physical therapist, and so that's when we offered up another one of our physical therapists who could accommodate both parents. Q. I take it with this so-called threat you didn't call the cops or anything like that; is that correct? A. No, I did not feel physically threatened. He verbally threatened me, and I felt like even though he was mad, it was defused when I said I'm not going to fight you, and I just didn't -- (Witness' volume trailed off to point of inaudibility. Reporter interrupted.) THE WITNESS: Okay, what was I saying? THE COURT: What you said was you didn't think it was in Photius to fight you. THE WITNESS: That's right. I felt like it was defused by what I said in response to him and that I never felt physically threatened. I think that's it. BY MS. LORI: Q. And I assume you formed and opinion. Did you assume that Mr. Coutsoukis' idea of how to treat Teddy in any way worsened her condition? A. No. Q. And isn't it fair to say that just as there's more than one way to skin a cat, there's probably more than one way to treat somebody like Teddy Coutsoukis? A. That's right. MS. LORI: I have no further questions. &dDREDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. You say you don't believe it worsened her condition, but would it be fair to say that your having to accommodate his many requests or demands wouldn't necessarily improve her situation, either? A. That's probably true. I feel like my contribution as a physical therapist was limited by his opinions and his control of what was going on, and I like to think that what I wanted to do would have helped her improve, but I think that there's a lot of ways to skin a cat, and not necessarily my way. MS. SANZ: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Anything else? All right, Mr. Miller, you may step down. You may leave or stay in the courtroom. MS. SANZ: I would like to call Shirley Stinson. THE COURT: Let me just say to both parties while the witness is coming in that I find that both parents love Teddy, Teddy loves both parents. We don't need to spend any time discussing that, and that each witness who knows the parent or parents will testify that they believe that the parent or parents both love her, or and that she loves that parent, so when do not need to focus on that particular finding. . . . SHIRLEY STINSON was called to testify on behalf of the Petitioner, and being first sworn by the Clerk, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: Shirley Stinson, S-T-I-N-S-O-N. &dDDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Mrs. Stinson, are you employed? A. Yes, I am. Q. Where, and for how long, and what do you do? A. Rogue Valley medical Center Child Development Center. I have been there almost 12 years, and I'm currently the early intervention coordinator. Q. Were you previously employed in a similar field working with children? A. No. Q. Has your previous employment been in the health field? A. Yes. Q. What would that be? A. In mental health. Q. And what was your job there, and can you describe it? A. I was a residential coordinator for adult chronically mentally ill patients. Q. And for how long were you in that position? A. Approximately seven years. Q. Any other employment related to the health field? A. No. Q. Can you please briefly state your educational background? A. Yes. I have a Masters degree in early childhood special education and a teaching credential in early childhood special education and an undergraduate degree in social services and psychology . Q. Are you licenced in Oregon? A. In Oregon for teaching. Q. When did you start working with Teddy Coutsoukis and her parents? A. August of 1994. Q. And what was your role with this family? A. I was what is called a family consultant, which basically means I would go out to the home, meet with the family, and work directly with the child looking at all areas of development. Q. When you say you worked with the child, what are you hoping to achieve? A. Skill development. Q. Just observing the home life itself and -- A. It's not really looking at the home life. It's more looking at the child's development and providing suggestions to the parents about things that they can be doing with the child when the child is developmentally delayed to help facilitate developmental skills. Q. Can you just give me a quick example? A. Sure. For a child to -- maybe he doesn't understand how objects work, how to explore objects or how to make something happen, simple cause and effect kinds of things. You would teach them by modeling for them and helping them recognize how to do it. Q. So it's learn play, more or less? A. Right, it's all done in play. Q. Now, how were the parents of Teddy in your dealings with them in the beginning in general? What was the situation when you walked in? A. The situation on my first visit was primarily Photius in the home. It seems to me he handed me Teddy almost the first day and said "Here she is, you know, what do you do," and was open to suggestions and ideas that I might have in terms of helping to facilitate her development. I got to meet Susan later in the day. I'm not positive she was at the first visit, but she was at many visits thereafter. I would schedule home visits later in the afternoon so that Susan could home and be there too, so it was with Photius and Teddy and also Susan and Teddy. Q. What was your experience with working with Mr. Coutsoukis and Teddy? A. Initially, I would say very positive. He certainly was very interested in Teddy's development and what she was doing. He was open to suggestions. As more tension developed in the home, I think around the divorce and those kinds of things, it became a bit more difficult, in that while my focus was on Teddy at that time and what was going on, he was not always, but often more interested in talking about Susan and talking about things that he felt were wrong with the American day care system, and American women and working American women and those kinds of things. It became difficult for me. Q. When he would discuss these things, would he get very emotional about these issues? A. Yes. Yes, he felt very strongly about them. Q. I take it that during those times he was no longer focusing on the task at hand and the reason why you were there to work with Teddy? A. Yes. Q. And when he would go into these types of topics, American women, Mrs. Coutsoukis, her faults, and child care, did that happen rarely, or almost every time you were working with Teddy? A. There was a period of time about January where it became most of the focus that that's what he would talk about. I mean I would be trying to work with Teddy and trying to listen, you know, to what he had to say, but he would spend a fair amount of time talking about those kinds of things. Q. Now, did he ever make a comment to you that he felt he understood Teddy telepathically? A. Yes, he did. Q. What did he say, exactly? THE WITNESS: Are you asking for a quote? THE COURT: As close as you can tell us what he said, please. A. We were talking about communication, because Photius often would -- he would answer to Teddy's every need, or what maybe was a perceived need, and I didn't understand how he was understanding what Teddy -- you know, what she was communicating to him. Q. Let's stop there. What do you mean by that? Can you give me an example? A. An example would be I would be playing with her with toys, and he would come and bring her food and say that she was hungry or a diaper change or a drink, something like that, but I couldn't tell that there was anything that she had, you know, done, and he was explaining me how he understood what she needed, that there were ways that he knew, and some of those had to do with sounds that she made, and at one point he said to me telepathically he understood what she wanted, and whether that was a -- I don't know what that was, but he did use those words. Q. In your dealings with Mrs. Coutsoukis, how would you describe your experience in dealing with her? A. Well, it was a good experience. We would schedule the visit late in the day because of her job so that she could also be there. You know, often I was getting to the home just as they were returning, and she was very open to ideas about development, about Teddy, you know, what to do with her, those kinds of things. Q. In your feelings with Mr. Coutsoukis was there something where he had a very definite way of what services he felt were needed to provide to her? A. Not with me. He was very open to my suggestions. Q. Were there any -- Did you feel in terms of accommodating his schedule or accommodating what, you know, services to him that you were able to do that? A. He was working out of his office, his office in the home initially when I was there, so he was already at the house, and he was open to whatever time. My schedule adjustment had to do more with Susan's schedule so she was able to participate, but he was open to any time. Later on, when I was doing the visits at Susan's house, Photius was there at whatever time I scheduled those visits, up until the time I quit seeing her with him. Q. Eventually, your working relationship with Mr. Coutsoukis ended. Why did that happen? A. There were a couple of reasons. One had to do with comments that he was making during the home visits, and the other had to do with comments he was making during the parent-infant class. Q. What were those comments? Were they the same comments at both locations? A. It was similar. The comments at home were -- he was more emphatic about it and stronger in his words, and in the classroom situation he would mumble about the American system and the American set of rules and that kind of thing, and it was disruptive, and in the home he made some very strong comments about doctors, about women, about Susan, about working women. At one point he made a comment that American women ought to be sterilized at birth and not allowed to race children. I found that very upsetting. Q. Upsetting to you personally? A. Upsetting to me personally. Q. Did he make similar comments during the parent-infant group? A. Those were more just comments about the American system, about our system, American women. It was all women there, American women. Q. And when he would make those comments, did the cause you any concern in terms of the setting in which it was made? A. Most certainly. The group was a support group. There was also a group to help stimulate kids, so there was all of us, and most of the people there who came were American women, so he was making comments in that context and was also making comments at home that were somewhat stronger, and we had great concerns that he couldn't keep from making these types of comments and how that would be for the other women in the group, the other mothers. Q. The parent group never really focussed on sort of the philosophical opinions or any opinions about day care or society; there were very specific things you were going to do in those sessions? A. Correct. Q. And so -- I'm sorry, I think I interrupted you. Go ahead. These were your concerns, and somehow did this lead to your not being involved with the family? A. The comments during the classroom time and the comments at home kind of happened around the same time. I believe it was January of '95, and at that point, especially after one particular home visit, I went back my supervisor and asked did I really have to keep providing services to Teddy under your these circumstances. Not that I didn't want to give the service, but I felt really uncomfortable and that we were very uncomfortable with the situation in the group, as well, and so she then consulted with our regional supervisor, who agreed that we could certainly continue providing services to Teddy, but not within the context of working with Photius. We wouldn't not provide him with information. You know, we were more than happy to maintain contact with him about results we were getting and information about Teddy, but felt we could not work directly with him. Q. And how did you make this known to Mr. Coutsoukis? A. I believe it was a letter. Q. You wrote a letter to him on January 23 of 1995? A. I believe so. Q. And what was his response? Did he respond to you in writing? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Did he also show respond to you through a telephone call or personally, or anything to that effect? A. We did have -- Yes, he had returned -- he had phoned me, I guess, after he received the letter, and I wasn't there. I got the message and I had to return the call. Q. Did you ever end up speaking to him? A. Yes, I did. Q. Please relate the contents of that conversation. A. He was very upset with me. He was upset that I wouldn't be working with him. I had made an appointment with Susan. He wanted me not to keep that appointment with Susan. He wanted me to make all of my appointments directly through him. I explained that I would need to call Susan to make different arrangements. He told me that I would not call Susan, that he would take care of it. I said that I needed to talk to my supervisor. He told me I would not talk to my supervisor. He was very strong in -- It wasn't just saying he didn't want me to do this. He told me "You will not." Q. After the end of that conversation, how did you feel? A. I was very upset. I was shaking. I had never had any interaction with a parent like that before. Q. I take it you work with a lot of families. A. A lot of families. Q. Who are in crisis, essentially? A. And I have worked with angry parents before. Nothing to that extent. Q. I'm handing you what has been marked as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. Would you please describe the first page -- identify the first page of that document? A. This is a letter that I wrote to Photius dated January 23rd, 1995, talking about the home visit where he had made comments that were difficult, also talking about the parenting group and stating that, you know, we felt that we wouldn't be providing services in that way. Q. Can you turn to the next page, please? Can you identify this document dated February 8, 1995? A. Yes, this is a letter that Photius sent back to me. Q. And there is another, the last page, a document dated February 13, 1995. A. That was the letter that he wrote following our telephone conversation. Q. Bring your attention to the second to the last paragraph in that February 13 letter. If you could just take the time to review that. MS. LORI: Your Honor, I'm going to object for time constraints. I think this is going to be admitted as an exhibit, and I certainly don't have any objection to it. You can read this yourself. THE COURT: Overruled. I trust Ms. Sanz is not going to belabor the points that I will read from this letter. BY MS. SANZ: Q. I want to bring your attention to the particular sentence that "When Teddy was in tears upon your entrance to the house the last time, we theorized that it must have been because you last saw her in the day care center," etcetera, etcetera. Can you give us the context? I mean what was he speaking of, or what do understand he was talking about when he wrote that letter? A. I'm not sure about theorizing part, but I know that I had seen her in the day care setting prior. There were a couple of times when I saw her in various day care settings. Susan had asked me to do that to see how Teddy was doing in those settings to see if she was interacting with the kids and how she was doing developmentally there and those kinds of things, so I had seen her in that setting. Q. So when he says "We theorize" and then he talks about day care and problems therein, is he talking about you theorize with him or that Teddy theorized with him, or do you know? A. I don't remember ever having the theory that Teddy was upset because she had seen me in the day care setting, so I'm not sure. MS. SANZ: Your Honor, I would like to submit Petitioner's Exhibit 1 for the record. THE COURT: Received. Q. Thank you. Your witness, counsel. &dDCROSS-EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. LORI: Q. Ms. Stinson, do you have children? A. Yes, I do. Q. And when they were learning to talk, were there times you understood what they said but had to either tell either a grandparent or a neighbor what they said? A. I'm sure there were. Q. And likewise, strangers might not understand what your little children were saying, but you could understand them? A. Yes. Q. And likewise, Mr. Coutoukis, as you indicated, being a caretaker of the child, could understand Teddy in the same vein; correct? A. Yes. Q. How many times were there home visits with Mr. Coutsoukis and Teddy? A. I would have to go back and look at the notes. I couldn't tell you without that. Q. Can you estimate? Was it more than five? A. Yes. Q. Was more than ten? A. I'm not sure. Q. Was it more than 15? A. I don't know. Q. Was this over an approximate year and a half, these home visits? A. No, it was over an approximate five-month period of time, August of '94 to January of '95, when I stopped seeing Teddy with Photius. Q. With regard to the remarks that he was making, you indicated you talked to your supervisor about the remarks; correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you talk to other people as well about Mr. Coutsoukis? A. I'm not sure. Q. Did you tell other people within CDC, the Child Development Center, about what Mr. Coutsoukis was saying? A. There where people who also were attending the group with us, the parenting group -- not attending -- I should say co-workers who were also there who were seeing what was happening in the group, so those people were aware of what was going on. Q. Did your co-workers talk about Mr. Coutsoukis? A. Yes. Q. In this parenting group, was he the only man? A. I believe so, but I'm not positive. I believe so. Q. And the rest were obviously women? A. I believe so. MS. LORI: I'm so logical, Judge. THE COURT: I'm glad you answered that yes. Q. Likewise, they were all American women; correct? A. Yes. Q. And you understand that he was reared in Greece; right? A. Yes. Q. It's possible, isn't it, that because of his gender and because of his nationality, there might be differences within this group; correct? A. Yes. Q. Had you ever gone to a supervisor before and said "I can't work with this person"? A. Prior to that? Q. Yes. A. I don't believe so. Q. When you sent the letter to Mr. Coutsoukis, did you expect him to be angry? A. It was a long time ago. I'm not sure what I expected. Q. Well, did you expect him to be happy? A. Probably not. I don't remember thinking about that. You know, I guess I would assume that he might have been upset about it. Q. His reaction -- although you may not agree with his views -- but his reaction to not being permitted to participate at CDC, his reaction in terms of being angry about it, that's normal, isn't it? A. I would think so. MS. LORI: I have no further questions. &dDREDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. His reaction to be angry would be normal, but the phone call you received from him was very upsetting? A. Yes, it was. Q. And when you said that -- When opposing counsel first started asking questions about, you know, it's normal for parents who are able to interpret what their children are saying when they're not speaking clearly, but the setting that you observed, was it different from that normal parent caretaking relationship that one would ordinarily expect? A. Yes. A parent interpreting what a child says if a child makes a vocalization or a gestural communication of some sort is one thing. When he used the word telepathy, I wondered about that. That's different. That's not something I have heard parents tell me. I think there are some things that people do intuitively know that kids want, but I don't -- I have not heard someone say before that they communicated that telepathically. Q. It occurred to you that maybe acting too much on her behalf rather than -- MS. LORI: Objection. (Reporter asked for restatement of question.) BY MS. SANZ: Q. Would it be fair to say that you thought that perhaps he was doing something for Teddy rather than letting Teddy act for herself? THE COURT: The objection is that's a leading question, and it is a leading question. Sustained. BY MS. SANZ: Q. Was he acting -- Was his behavior inappropriate, or did he hamper Teddy from acting on her own? MS. LORI: I'm going to object as to the first part of that, because I don't think she's qualified -- THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question? THE COURT: The question was was his action inappropriate, and did it prevent her from acting on her own. Am I correct? MS. SANZ: Thank you, Judge, yes. A. In terms of communication, when I saw that happening, I would say yes. What we try to get kids, and what we tell parents to do is to give kids the opportunity to communicate what their needs are, and that might not be a word. It might be a gesture or it might be looking towards something. It could be any number of things, but it's communication that the child has a want or a need. In my estimation, if Photius would either, you know, have some idea or a guess or something about what he thought she wanted, he would immediately do it. An example of that would be feeding. He always had food right there, and out of the blue he would bring a spoon full of food over for her, and he would do that both at the parenting group and at home, and he explained to me at one point that if she like said "Ma," that meant she was hungry, or if she was mouthing, that meant she was hungry. Our interpretation of those kinds of behaviors might be different. She might just be uttering a word, or maybe that is something that she was saying for food, I don't know. In terms of the mouthing, kids typically do mouth toys at a certain developmental level. That doesn't necessarily mean they're hungry. It might mean they're teething. It might -- it's just a natural way that kids do sensory exploration, so I wouldn't interpret that that was she was hungry. So we had discussions about communication and allowing Teddy to communicated her needs. MS. SANZ: Thank. Nothing further. MS. LORI: Nothing further. THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Stinson. You may step down. You may either leave or stay with us, whichever you prefer. MS. SANZ: Ann Batzer. . . . ANN BATZER was called to testify on behalf of the Petitioner, and being first sworn by the Clerk, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: My name is an Batzer, B-A-T-Z-E-R. &dDDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Ms. Batzer, are you employed? A. Yes, I'm employed at Rogue Valley Medical Center as a family consultant in child development. Q. How long have you been with the CDC? A. Just over five years. Q. Before your employment with the Child Development Center, were you employed in other health related or health oriented employment? A. Yes. Q. What would that be, and for how long? A. I worked with families who have children birth through three for 18 years. I started out as a certified child birth educator. I was then employed by the Jackson County Health Department in the teen parent program. At that point I co-founded a parent program that was sponsored by several agencies in the county including the Health Department. It was specifically aimed at parents who were at risk for child abuse and neglect, and this was in the early '80s. It was a regular occurrence during that time to have parents mandated either by the Court or by what was then Children's Services Division to attend the program as a part of retaining or regaining custody of their children. It was during that time that I got interested in families who have children with disabilities, because there's a higher percentage of kids with disabilities in that population, so I started attending workshops and classes about families who have kids with disabilities, and about the different developmental patterns that children with disabilities have. After that, I worked as a case manager for a teen parent program for Youth Works as part of the welfare reform, and again there's a larger percentage of disabilities in the teen parent population, so I continued taking classes and workshops. Q. What is your education? A. My background is in communications with an emphasis in psychology and sociology. I have a BS. Q. Now, we have had several other members of CDC already testify, so I'm just going to try to focus on certain areas in particular or at least jump right to them. Do you recall the first time you met Mr. Coutsoukis? A. Yes. I met Photius at a parent-infant group that I was co-facilitating with Shirley Stinson, and it was at our Jefferson site, and that was in the fall of 1994. Q. And was there something significant in that first meeting that made you sort of remember an episode that happened then? A. Yes. It was it first meeting of our group, and I had arrived early to set up, and Photius arrived early with Teddy also and came in and sat down, and we were just chatting, and he asked me -- He made the comment at that point that he felt there were other cultures in the world that did a better job with young children than our culture does, and I told him I totally agreed with that statement, and he started to talk about that a little bit and some of the faults in this culture, where we had some real areas of agreement on, and after we had talked for maybe about five minutes, he asked me if I would be willing to testify in Court that Teddy's problems were the result of separation from her parent during her early infancy, and I told him that I certainly didn't have enough information at that point at all to be able to testify, and at that point he became just furious and stood up and came and stood just, oh, a few inches shall or about a foot away from me and started yelling at me, and calling me an unprincipled moron and doing a lot of name calling and being really angry with me because I wasn't sticking to my principles if I wouldn't commit at that point to testify about it because of his child's disability. So I remember that really well. Q. You had only met -- at that point you had only been were him for about 30 minutes at the most? A. Yes. Less time than 30 minutes. Q. Eventually -- and Mr. Coutoukis attended that parent-infant class for several sessions? A. Yes, that's my memory, for a few times. Q. And eventually he was asked not to return again? A. Yes, that's right. Q. And do you know why he was asked not to return again? A. Because -- in my memory there were two reasons. He was informed by Shirley, as I recall it, about Health Department regulations in terms of where you could diaper children and where you could feed them, and he would get so upset when the regulations were told to him, he would get really angry and he would start again talking about American parenting, putting down American women. There was another father and child in that class. In my experience, two of those parents came to me after the class and told me that -- MS. LORI: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: That they would not attend the class. One of them was in fact the other father who came to me and said that he didn't feel it was a safe environment for his child, and he wouldn't return if Photius was allowed to continue there. And then another mother came to me, too, after that same class and said "This isn't safe, what are you thinking? I can't bring child here if he's there." BY MS. SANZ: Q. Eventually, you started working with the family at a satellite site from Rogue Valley Medical Center, in east Medford? Is it in east Medford or -- A. Yes. I actually worked with the family at our site on Table Rock Road where we rent space at the Joy Christian Fellowship. Q. And you had contact with Mr. Coutsoukis during that time? A. Yes. Q. The contact was limited, I take it. A. Yes, it was. I started case managing that summer of 1996, and at that point we had a regulation that Photius could not come onto our property. Q. When you say "we," who are you referring to? A. Rogue Valley Medical Center. Q. He was banned from Rogue Valley Medical Center? A. Right, or any of our other properties, too, from coming on site. So my goal at that time was keeping in close phone contact with him. Q. And what was the purpose of your phone contact with him? A. I wanted information from him about Teddy, about her progress. I was seeing her in a group. She was coming to a parent toddler group at that point, and I was doing home visits, regular home visits with Susan. THE COURT: Tell me this time period again. I'm sorry, Mrs. Batzer. THE WITNESS: This was the fall of 1996. THE COURT: Thank. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: And so -- Well, a couple of things happened where Susan requested -- When I called to make my first home visit appointment, she asked me if it would be all right for her to invite Photius to be at that visit, and I said I would have to check with my administrators, and I did, and they said no, but they offered an alternative. They said that we could invite him to come on the site, as long as we had no children and families there, as long as we had hospital security there, and he could meet there on the site with myself and a speech therapist, if we felt comfortable doing that, in an effort to try and build a bridge there. Q. Build a bridge with Mr. Coutoukis? A. Yes. Q. And this was already after he had been asked by the hospital not to be on the property? A. Right. There was to be an exception made in this instance. Q. Okay. Go on. A. And so we did that, and we had a meeting there at our site. Photius cancelled the first time. He got busy with work is what he said, and he called and cancelled it, so we reset that up and did that, and we did a lot of interviewing with him of where Teddy's skill levels were when she was with him, and we had the speech therapist that she would be working with. And then after that my goal was to keep in close phone contact with him, and I really tried to do that, at first especially. It was at least weekly and sometimes twice a week, to call him and say "This is what we saw at school, have you seen this at home;" you know, "What else is she doing," you know, those kinds of things, just to share information. Q. Did you also provide him with a video of therapy? A. We did one video of the speech therapist working with Teddy in order to let him see how she was doing with that speech therapist and what the methods were at that time. Q. In your dealings with Susan Coutsoukis, did she in any way try to stop you from dealing with Mr. Coutsoukis? A. No, my experience was the exact opposite of that. The first meeting we had where we had to write the IFSV plan for the year -- Q. IFSV stands for -- A. Individualized Family Service Plan. It's a legal contract between us and the families we work with. Generally, it's most of the time by the end of that meeting we write the contract and we all sign it. At that meeting Susan requested that instead -- We had come up with three different ways that services might be provided to Teddy, and we talked about what did the family want. Susan requested that instead we give those to her in writing so that she could then share them with Photius so he could be in on that decision, so she was advocating that he be involved then, and as I said, when I set up the home visit with her, she again asked me if she could specifically invite to him come to that. At the home visit she repeatedly asked me when we were talking about developmental things about Teddy and trying to discover why certain behaviors were happening, she would asked me if I had I asked Photius about this, and this was something that you know, she was doing at cross settings, and so in my experience her effort was always to get his opinion. Q. You were at the Joy site. That's the parent -- A. The parent-toddler group. Q. There was some concern about Mr. Coutsoukis being in the property? A. Yes. Q. Can you describe what that concern was? A. Well, you know, unfortunately, he had already been told that he couldn't set foot on our property. We agreed, however, that it would be all right for him to pick Teddy up after class, as long as he stayed in the parking lot. So he would come and pick her up there. In October, right after we started, my class had already been outside. We were back inside. The preschool had gone outside on the playground, and parents park right by the playground, right off of Midway Road -- I think it's Midway Road -- and the preschool teacher came in to me in October and said -- MS. LORI: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Let's ask the question -- You intend to get this in. Ask the question so I understand whethr it meets any of the exceptions or not, will you? MS. SANZ: I believe it meets the state of mind exception, Your Honor. THE COURT: It sounds like it's going to, but I can't follow it at all, given how it has gone here. MS. SANZ: I'll just try to shorten it. THE COURT: All right. BY MS. SANZ: Q. There was a statement that you were asked to look at a gentleman to identify someone? A. Right. Q. And when you looked at that person, who was it? A. It was Photius. THE COURT: And that's what you wanted to tell about when someone came to you and said something? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. Go ahead and tell me what was said. THE WITNESS: The preschool teacher said "I just brought my children in and have taken them in the classroom. There's a man with some pretty odd behavior out there. Do you know anything about this?" And I looked through the window, and it was Photius, and he was walking on the other side of the chain fence. It's about a four and a half foot high fence, and he looked agitated and he was pacing back and forth and he was talking to himself, and he -- What the preschool teacher said to me is "Do you think we're safe here? Do you have any idea who this person is?" And it was at that point that we -- well, we did several things after that, but we really relooked at safety and having the children on the site, and there's a lot of things that we did following that, and one of them is set up security measures so we felt like we were doing everything we possibly could to make sure of the safety of families and of the staff there. Q. Did your change of protocol or policy include conferring with the Medford Police Department? A. Yes. Yes, I talked with the Medford Police Department, met with hospital security, and -- Could I put this in a certain context? THE COURT: So what is the relevance of this? I mean I have heard of him waling along the fence talking to himself. That's relevant. What is the relevance of the policy change? MS. SANZ: The policy change was for safety issues, Your Honor. I think I have made my point on that. THE COURT: I do too, so we don't need the context is what I'm saying, Ms. Batzer. It's not that it's not interesting. It's that we're running short on time. BY MS. SANZ: Q. Has Mr. Coutsoukis ever made a statement to you in terms of taking Teddy to Greece with him essentially to deprive Mrs. Coutsoukis of access to her? A. Yes. Q. When did he say that, and what did he say? A. He said that on the phone a couple of times to me, but the time I remember the most was one of the last conversations we had in march standing in the parking lot when I had taken Teddy out to him, and when he told me that as soon as Teddy could speak that he would take her before a judge in this country, and she would tell the judge that she wanted to live with him, and that he would then take her to Greece and she would never see Susan again. And that was said to me on at least three occasions. MS. SANZ: Thank you. Your witness, counsel. &dDCROSS-EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. LORI: Q. So you understood that the first thing he would do procedurally was get a judge's permission by having Teddy talk to the judge before -- I mean he wasn't saying "I'm going to kidnap Teddy;" correct? He was going to ask a judge? A. That's right. Q. Now, when you first met Mr. Coutsoukis, in that meeting he asked you if you would be willing to testify about separation from a parent at early infancy and the connection to Teddy's problem? A. Yes. Q. Do you have an opinion that Teddy's problem could have been in part caused by separation from a parent at early infancy? A. I don't have an opinion about that. Q. Do you think it's possible? MS. SANZ: Objection. Asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. LORI: Q. Not referring to Teddy, but in general, do you have an opinion that there can be children who have, for instance, developmental delay problems or neurological problems that's caused in part by separation from a parent in early infancy? MS. SANZ: Objection. THE WITNESS: Sure. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. LORI: No further questions. &dDREDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. You do not know that specifically as far as Teddy is concerned? A. No, and in my experience, a child with not the type of child that Teddy has would I ever see related to separation. I'm saying there are developmental delays that could be caused by profound separation in early infancy, but not the physical type of problems that Teddy has. THE COURT: Thank you, Mrs. Batzer. You may step down. You may leave or stay in the back. Let's take our break at this point. Mrs. Sanz, how are you doing on witnesses? MS. SANZ: Well, I can probably have a witness come in for about 10 minutes at the most. Ms. Batzer was for 15 minutes, so I think I can make it shorter, and then I'll call my client. MS. LORI: Your Honor, if I could make a request of the Court, which is if I could get my witnesses on, obviously, we're going to have to come back again, and then at our second hearing if we could have both parents testify at that time, that way it maintains an even playing field. THE COURT: We'll take a break and I'll tell you when we come back. MS. LORI: Five or 10 minutes? THE COURT: Ten. . . . IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) ) SUSAN SAMORA COUTSOUKIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Case No. vs. ) 94-3846-D-3(2) ) PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, ) ) Respondent. ) (s3B Volume 3 of 4(s0B __________________________________) &dDTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS&d@ (s3B Volume 3(s0B Medford, Oregon September 12, 1997 3:15 o'clock p.m Before: The Honorable G. Philip Arnold, Circuit Judge. &dDAPPEARANCES&d@ For the Petitioner: Cristina Sanz Attorney at Law P.O. Box 443 Medford, OR 97501 For the Respondent: Beth Lori Attorney at Law 220 N. Oakdale Avenue Medford, OR 97501 September 12, 1997 3:15 o'clock p.m. . . . (The trial was resumed in open court at the above date and time following a recess.) THE COURT: You may have a seat. Did you talk about witnesses and how we're going to do this during the break? MS. LORI: Yes, and what I'm understanding is Cristina as agreeable to getting all of our witnesses that we've got, but then the issue is can the parties afford to come back. I have no objection if one or both appear by telephone, or if one or both are her and the other one is not. THE COURT: It would proceed in a normal fashion. It would be your client who may not get on today to testify. And is he agreeable to testifying by phone? MS. LORI: I imagine so. He's supposed to be here -- THE COURT: Would you like for us to wait on this conversation? MS. LORI: Right. THE COURT: Ms. Sanz, let me ask you, if your client testifies and is finished today and doesn't want to spend the night and come back for the other hearing, is there any objection from your side if she is not her but we go ahead with the hearing? MS. SANZ: I think the disadvantage, of course, is I wouldn't be able to confer with her. THE COURT: Absolutely. MS. LORI: But if she could at least be present by telephone -- THE COURT: I don't mind allowing her to be present by telephone. It's just that we may be talking about a two or three-hour long distance call. We didn't mean to start without you, sir. I just wanted to confer with the attorneys trying to figure out how we're going to get all the witnesses in and if there's a need to come back. Ms. Lori, just take a moment to talk to your client. (Ms. Lori conferred off the record with Mr. Coutsoukis.) MS. LORI: What my client is indicating is that if -- I think what he prefers is that we get all the witnesses that we've got done and over with today, and then again, as a playing field, which is if she is going to testify by phone, then he wants to testify by phone, and if she is going to appear physically, then he'll appear here physically. THE COURT: So it may require him to actually come back for that testimony. That's the way I see it playing out her today, and if you -- What about it? If he comes back, does she want to come back or -- MS. SANZ: I think she'll have an option to come back, and if she decides not to come back, then she'll be present by telephone, and after he testifies, I assume the court will allow me to take a break, speak to her on the phone -- THE COURT: Exactly. MS. SANZ: And then allow me to -- THE COURT: And that would be true, of course, Ms. Lori, for you and your client if you need it. If he decided he did want to testify by phone, you would have a chance to confer with him outside -- just outside the presence of anyone else just to be sure that you were -- you know, you could maybe deal with issues that would come up. I would like to give you a chance to confer like you do sitting in the courtroom, but hear everybody's testimony in as good a way as we can. So let's see where we go. My inclination is to let Mrs. Sanz finish her case, and that's obviously, I think, going to mean that her client is going to testify today in person. That puts you on the horns of that dilemma. We've discussed it. You tell me how we proceed. MS. LORI: And I guess I'll just let you know I think it would be disadvantageous to me if she testifies direct in person son, but then I can only cross by telephone. THE COURT: Okay. I think if she testifies, we're going to hear the cross today, as well. MS. SANZ: I just assumed that would be the case. MS. LORI: Okay. MS. SANZ: Your Honor, I do want to raise one more issue so we're clear. Since the Court is not going to actually end up making a final decision, we are going to ask the Court to at least consider making a preliminary visitation issue, because as the Court is aware, the New York Court had issued a restraining -- their version of a restraining order, a temporary protective order, giving Mr. Coutsoukis one time a week visitation, supervised visitation. Since the New York Court -- my understanding, the New York court is going to defer, have this Court handle the custody and visitation issue, so we would want this would then leave without a decision today would leave the visitation schedule still in existence under the mediated agreement. However, circumstances have changed since Teddy is in school, and my client would not be able to comply with that visitation schedule, given -- THE COURT: And the New York order will dismissed as of today? MS. SANZ: No, the New York order is in effect, but the new order does, but the new order does not actually make any orders concerning visitation. The previous one did. It gave weekly visitation, so either the Court understands that to be the same visitation schedule -- It just is not addressed. THE COURT: I see. I don't know what I'm going to do. I'll know what I'm going to do by 5:00 o'clock. Thank you. MS. SANZ: I would like to call Donna Carrillo. THE COURT: Do you have a copy of the New York order? MS. SANZ: I do, Your Honor. Do you want it right now? THE COURT: Yes. . . . DONNA CARRILLO was called to testify on behalf of the Petitioner, and being first sworn by the Clerk, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: Donna Carrillo, C-A-R-R-I-L-L-O. THE COURT: Ms. Carrillo, I just want to tell you now, Mr. Gault here is taking down what you say. You need to speak up so he can hear you. There's a microphone over there by you. It needs to pick you up. &dDDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. How were you involved with -- How did you get to know Teddy Coutsoukis and her parents? A. I answered an ad in the newspaper, and I called up and spoke with Photius, and he called about a week later and asked me to come to watch Teddy. Q. And were you employed by Mr. Coutsoukis? A. Yes. Q. What time period? A. From January 4th of '96 until maybe April of '96. Q. Of 1997? A. And then Susan rehired me back. Q. Okay. So you've worked for the family from what time period to a what time? A. January of '96 until April of '97. Q. April of '97? A. Yes. Q. That's when they moved to New York? A. Yes. Q. So you would go back and forth between Mr. Coutsoukis' home to care for Teddy and Mrs. Coutsoukis' home also at times to care for Teddy when she was at work? A. Yes. Q. In your dealings were Mr. Coutoukis was there ever a time when he would get very angry? A. Yes, three or four times. Q. Was there a time when he would be so angry that where you afraid for your own safety? A. Yes, once. Q. Can you describe the particular situation? A. We were walking. He came to the Superior Court to pick up Teddy and I, and Teddy had kind of got attached to me, and I was carrying her, and Photius had this thing about not to talk to her when he is talking to her, and she insisted on having my attention, and he got really upset and said that, you know why should I keep talking to her, what's the purpose, and she was getting mad. She does this mad mad thing, because she wanted my attention and not her father's attention, and she just kept getting upset, hitting me, pulling my hair, and I had to ask her "Teddy, stop, stop," you know trying to redirect her in another way. Q. Redirect her to paying attention to Mr. Coutsoukis? A. Well sort of, but to redirect her so I'm not telling her no, more like telling her it's not nice to pull my hair, you know, look at this, look at that, redirecting her, and Photius abruptly yelled at me hand said "Why in the -- do you American women -- Q. Did you leave a word out? A. Yes. THE COURT: You may say that word, if you don't mind. Would you mind? THE WITNESS: He said "Why in the fuck should you American women keep talking that way? You know, it's nothing but chit chat," is what he said. And then he went on and Teddy kept getting upset, and we just kept walking, and he raised his arms, and when he yelled that, I thought he was going to hit me, I really did, because he had already had a bad morning, I suppose. Q. Teddy was in your arms? A. Yes. I was holding Teddy, and Teddy's face was at him. Q. Facing him. A. Facing him. I was holding her and he was behind me behind me. I could feel him behind me, he was that close, and Teddy's face was right here. Q. Right there by your shoulder facing towards him? A. Yes. Q. Was there another episode, another incident? A. Yes, there was another time we were walking up it stair case. Photius had just gotten off the phone and he had heard us coming up the stairs, and I was supposedly not holding Teddy hands the right way as we were coming up the stairs, and since he was already upset, he didn't like the way I was doing it, so when he came down he told me I was doing it wrong and he slapped both of my wrists. Q. And -- A. Well, then he took Teddy, and Teddy bumped her head on the wall at the same time. Q. When Teddy was -- A. Yes, because I had to -- you know, he slapped my wrists, and she was falling because neither one of us had Teddy, because he was slapping my wrists. Q. Teddy was -- your understanding was that Teddy was required to wear a brace on her leg? A. Yes. Q. That was part of her requirements? The CDC wanted her to wear a brace? A. Yes. Q. When Teddy was in Mr. Coutsoukis' care and you were caring for Teddy, would Teddy wear her brace? A. Only if she wanted to. If she wanted to. If she didn't want to wear it, she didn't have to. Q. Are you familiar with braces on children? A. Yes. Q. And why so? A. My son also had leg problems, and I personally took Teddy in for this orthotic, which was another time that I thought Photius was going to raise his voice at me and wasn't being very nice, so I just learned. My child was also in the child development program, and I think that's why Teddy and I hit it off like we did, because I understood her. Q. And wearing a brace, you have to wear it for an extended period of time? A. Yes, I think it was a couple of hours, take it off, take a break, put it on a couple of hours, take it off, take a break, but not wear it more than six hours, because it can give her a rash on her foot or on her ankle. Q. But when were you caring for her, it was Teddy who would decide whether the brace was on or off? A. Yes. Q. Would you sometimes take Teddy -- When you were carrying for Teddy in Mr. Coutsoukis' care, he was at what location? A. Cardley Street. Q. Sort of an office space? A. Yes. Q. And sometimes you would take Teddy to a child care center close by? A. Yes. Q. What place was that, and how often? A. Superior Court, sometimes twice a day, but most of the time just once a day in the morning from like 10:30 to maybe 11:30, and then Photius would come and pick us up for lunch and we would go over and have lunch. Q. And that happened because where Mr. Coutsoukis was was his office, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. It was a business place? A. Superior Court was across the street from Photius' office, yes. Q. So that gave Teddy and opportunity to -- A. To play with the other children. Q. And this was a courtesy that was given to Mr. Coutsoukis by Superior Court? A. Yes. Q. Just for Teddy? A. Yes, just for Teddy. Q. Did he give you specific instructions before you would take Teddy to Superior Court child care facility? A. Keep her dry, keep Vaseline on her bottom, and keep her standing at all times. He didn't want to see -- she wasn't allowed to have crackers, which most of the children in there did have them, and it's kind of hard to tell Teddy no when everybody else is eating them. He instructed Vaseline on her bottom, keep her dry, and he was to never ever come in and find her with a wet diaper on, and if he did, then he insisted that you change her. But you know, she wore diapers. She's going to wet a lot. Q. Why was the instruction about never sitting down, standing all the time? A. So that it would be strengthen her legs. Q. In his view? A. Yes. Q. Eventually, Mr. Coutsoukis would go to the Superior Courts Child Care Center once in a while? A. Yes, he would go there for 10 or 15 mines and play with Teddy, sometimes half an hour. It depends on what the day was, if he wasn't busy. It was usually a Monday or Tuesday that he would go there because he was not quite as busy. Q. At one point in time, however, he could no longer be in the Superior Court's property? MS. LORI: Objection. It must be in the witness' personal knowledge. BY MS. SANZ: Q. Did Mr. Coutsoukis tell you that he could no longer go to the Superior Courts? A. Yes, he did, as soon as it happened. Q. What did he say? A. He told me that him and another -- an employee of the Superior had gotten into it, that he didn't approve of her views and she didn't approve of his, and it had been a long time that it had been going on with him, and she just got tired of him harassing her, putting her down as an American woman, and that we didn't know what we were doing because we're American women, and so she just got tired of it and took it to her boss, and her boss came and talked to him and asked him that he was not allowed, but we could bring -- I could bring Teddy back, but he was not allowed back on the grounds, so we just didn't take Teddy back at all. Q. And so by not taking Teddy back at all, where were you taking Teddy to when he was working at his office? A. Usually across the street up some stairs, out in the parking lot. We read the letters on signs on the ground. By that time it was just maybe a month later Photius had gotten his new house and she had a nice yard and, you know, her own room and things like that. Q. For about a month you sort of made the marking lot and the office facilities Teddy's make-shift play ground? A. Yes. MS. SANZ: Thank. Your witness, counsel. &dDCROSS-EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. LORI: Q. Do you remember signing an affidavit in early 1997? A. Yes, and so did my sister. MS. LORI: May I approach the witness? THE COURT: Yes. Q. Take a look at that and tell me is that the affidavit that you signed? A. Yes, I have a copy of this. MS. LORI: Judge, if I might be I permitted, if I can make a copy of this Exhibit -- MS. SANZ: I think it would help me for my cross. THE COURT: Mr. Valavala can make it. MS. LORI: If I may approach the witness. BY MS. LORI: Q. This is your affidavit that you signed; correct? A. Yes. MS. LORI: And for purposes of identification, this is Respondent's Exhibit 106. Move for admission of 106. THE COURT: She has moved for admission of 106. MS. SANZ: If the Court would allow me to have some questions. MS. LORI: I'm going to go over the affidavit with her. THE COURT: We, I understand, but we haven't admitted it yet, so -- BY MS. SANZ: Q. Did you draft this affidavit? A. Draft it? Q. Yes. A. I didn't write it, personally, no. Q. Who wrote it? A. Photius did. Q. Did you sign this willingly? A. Only to protect me, because at the time I needed the money. I was moving also the same day that they moved. What I saw in here was Photius speaking the truth about what -- THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. Don't tell us what it says yet. You saw him speaking the truth. BY MS. SANZ: Q. At the time, did you agree with all of the statements that are here in this affidavit? A. Yes, because they are true, but there's a point to each one of them, though. MS. SANZ: I guess I'll -- No objection. THE COURT: Received. BY MS. LORI: Q. You indicate in your affidavit that he trained you how to take care of dead Teddy; right? A. Trained? I have three children of my own. I don't need to be trained. Q. In your affidavit you signed -- A. That's Photius' word, "trained." Q. Did he give you instructions about how to take care of Teddy? A. A few, but if you'll look further down, it says Photius also learned from me. Q. And so is it fair to say, then, that he taught you and you taught him? A. Yes. Q. Is it also true that in your opinion he is very aware of her developmental problems? A. He is very aware, yes. Q. In your opinion, he has tried to seek the best health care providers for her? A. In his way, yes. Q. And has he spent a lot of time studying Teddy's condition? A. Studying? No, not studying as what I would say is studying, but more like -- Well, Photius contradicts things. He says one thing, and then it's all right for him to do it, but not for you, you know. Q. So in the affidavit it's not your statement, then, that he spent a lot of time studying her condition? A. If you study it for Greece, but not for here, no. Greece to him is the best place for Teddy, but nobody here is good enough for Teddy. Q. Did he indicate that Greece -- that the medical care providers in Greece a better job for Teddy? A. In here it says that he thought so. Q. Okay. What I'm asking you, is that what he is telling you? A. Yes, that people in Greece know far more than people in the U.S. Q. And when you would talk about he spent a lot of time studying about her condition, did you mean by that that he was doing it through his perspective of how medical care providers in Greece would care for her? A. Yes. Q. Did he help her learn motor skills and help her with her speech? A. He talked to her like a normal father would. Q. Did he help her with her movements? A. Yes, like a normal father would. Q. Is it true that because of Teddy's neurological problems she required a lot more attention and care than quote-unquote "normal children?" A. No. Q. So you disagree on the second page -- A. That's what a lot that we did disagree about, because I figured that Teddy would learn from trial and error, and we did not agree on that, and that's when Susan rehired me back in April of '96, when Photius fired me, because we didn't agree, but she agreed, and other people, they agreed with what I said was right. Q. So you had a disagreement with Mr. Coutsoukis which was -- A. Yes, over the way that children do not learn from trial and error. He says they learn from love. Q. Other than your experience as a mother, you haven't gone to colleges to earn degrees about child development? A. No, but I have had a child in child development. I have been through all sorts of classes. I know everybody in the centers. They know me. My son didn't learn to walk until he was almost 18 months old. I had to take classes, lessons, how to take care of him, so I already knew how to take care of Teddy. That's why I fit with Teddy, and Photius knows this, that Teddy and I worked. Q. Does your son have the same exact medical condition as Teddy? A. He didn't talk until he was almost three. Teddy is 4 and learning to talk. My son didn't walk until he was 18 months old. Teddy was 18 months old -- Q. Do you know if Teddy has the exact same medical condition as your son? THE COURT: You don't know medically what the issue is -- but you know what -- THE WITNESS: No. I know that Teddy had some types of imbalance in her brain that Photius says was due who her mother and not something natural. He blamed her mother for it. Q. Did he blame her mother or the prolonged separation that occurred when Teddy was an infant? A. They go together, don't they, blaming it on the mother for separating them? Q. But is that what he means when he says he blames, is the separation, and Susan is the one who -- A. Yes, and I disagreed with that, too, but we just put that in because he wanted it left. Q. Well, in the affidavit it's indicating that he's saying in this affidavit that Teddy's condition resulted from the separation. I mean he says that, correct? A. He says it, but I didn't say that. I did not type this letter out; Photius did, and you didn't dare disagree with him, or you lost your job, and the job was more important to me than a piece of paper. Q. And also in your affidavit you're stating that he's claiming -- Again, the affidavit is indicating that this is information that he's giving to you, correct? A. Repeat it, please. Q. At the last page of your affidavit it State's that "Photius insists that Teddy's neurological problems came about because of his intense sudden and prolonged separation when Teddy was an infant." A. That's what he says in the affidavit, correct. Q. And that's what he says verbally to you; correct? A. Yes, all the time. Q. And in the affidavit it also says that he claims that upon his return "Teddy was motionless and speechless," and there are more words that follow that, but again, in your affidavit it's reflective of what Coutsoukis is telling you; correct? A. Yes, it's what he's telling me, and you didn't dare to argue with him or your lost your job. Q. But in the affidavit at that last paragraph on the first page, it's indicating that he is the one who is saying this in your affidavit. A. Yes, he's saying it, not me, he is. Q. And it's fair to say that that's what your affidavit reflects. In other words, your affidavit is not saying "I say this." A. Yeah, it's saying he says this. Q. And he does indeed say that? MS. SANZ: Asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. LORI: Q. In your affidavit you're indicating that Teddy is definitely a daddy's girl; is that true? A. Yes, she is daddy's girl. Like any normal girl, she's daddy's girl. Q. Does she -- In this affidavit you're saying adores her "fatha?" Does she adore door her father? A. Yes, like any normal girl would. Q. Is it true that Teddy -- In the second to the last paragraph on your affidavit there is a statement that "More likely than not, when Teddy came down with an occasional cold or minor diaper rash, it would be during weekends when Susan would not let Photius and Teddy see each other." Is that true? MS. SANZ: Your Honor, I think it calls for -- Withdraw my objection. THE WITNESS: No, because that's Photius putting words in my mouth, and I didn't want to lose my job, so I just agreed with him. Q. Now, in 1997 you were working for Mrs. Coutsoukis; correct? A. Yes. Q. You were not working for Mr. Coutsoukis; correct? A. Susan was paying me and Photius was supervising me. Q. But again, you weren't working for Mr. Coutoukis; correct? A. No. Susan was paying me. Photius was supervising me, because he didn't want Teddy -- Even after a year and a half, he didn't want Teddy with a stranger. I considered myself not a stranger. Q. In this affidavit there are things in which you agree are true; correct? A. Yes, like she loves her father, yes. My children love their father, yes. My children also love their mother, but Teddy loves her mother, too, very, very much. Q. And in the beginning of your affidavit -- Well, look at your affidavit -- THE COURT: Ms. Lori, help me here. What is it you're going to get other than she's told you how this came about, and you've got that very clear in the record. What are you going to get other than my reading this? MS. LORI: Well, what I want to make certain is she's indicated that these are Mr. Coutsoukis' statements, not hers, but when I'm going through parts of the affidavit, I'm also hearing her say "No, this is true, this is really my statement." THE COURT: Why don't you just ask her the question, whatever it is you want to know, you know, I don't know what -- I haven't seen the affidavit yet, but whatever the issue is, instead of examining her on the affidavit, it would just go a lot better if you would just say -- and maybe it says he loves her, but we don't have to ask that, because we've already established that. But maybe it says some other things. But just ask her is this true, is this true, rather than cross-examine on the affidavit. Could we save some time that way? Could you just do that? MS. LORI: Sure. Do you want me to go through it line for line? THE COURT: I would like you to stop, in fact, is what I would like you to do, is stop with this affidavit, but since you tell me you're going to get her to make some statement favorable to your client, just ask her that question. Don't ask her about the affidavit anymore. Try that. BY MS. LORI: Q. If I may, Your Honor, if I can just say are there any statements in the affidavit which you totally disagree are not true? A. Teddy on the weekends getting diaper rashes because she didn't see her father and runny noses? Maybe once every three months she would have a runny nose. Maybe once every six months she would have a diaper rash. She would get these little spots on her but where a hair follicle would grow in, and to him that's a rash. That's not a rash. I changed Teddy from 5:30 to 8:00 o'clock at night most of the time, and I never saw a rash. Once she got one, and it was due to the -- I think it was a change of laundry soap, and that was the only one I ever saw. And the runny noses, they came once every three months. You know, most kids do get runny noses once every three months or so, but it was not because Teddy was separated from her father. Q. Are there any other statements other than the one that's second to last in the affidavit with which you utterly disagree and think are not true? MS. SANZ: I'm sorry, the second to the last statement of what page? MS. LORI: Page two. THE COURT: It had to do with the diaper rash. MS. SANZ: I understand. THE WITNESS: I don't believe that Teddy's neurological problems have to do with the separation between her father and Teddy. I don't think those things are true. Q. Okay, we went over that, and that's the last paragraph there, and that's what Mr. Coutsoukis as saying, as opposed to you saying it? A. Yes, Photius says it. Q. Okay, anything else? A. No, that's it, just the colds and the neurological thing. Q. Did Mr. Coutsoukis fire you for dishonesty? A. Yes, but that was his idea, not mine. MS. LORI: No further questions. THE COURT: Redirect. &dDREDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Were you ever dishonest with Mr. Coutsoukis? A. Never. Q. There's a statement here in the first page that says that "Photius is very loving, caring, affectionate, and as a father is more likely to be accomodating than controlling." Do you agree with that statement? A. Spoiling, maybe. Q. Okay, so you want to qualify what you mean by accommodating and controlling? A. It's more if Teddy wants it, she gets it. If Teddy doesn't, she doesn't have to. Q. Teddy takes the lead and he follows? A. Yes. If Teddy wants to play in the road, Teddy plays in the road. If Teddy wants to climb to the top of the stairs and decides to change her mind, Teddy climbs to the top of the stairs and changes her mind. Q. And you had to follow -- A. Constantly. Q. You didn't agree with it, but you did that? A. Yes, because Teddy always knew that if somebody was there, that somebody would catch her. She wasn't learning on her own that she needed to -- MS. SANZ: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Carrillo. You may step down. You may leave the courtroom, or you may stay in here, if you like. . . . SUSAN JANE ORTH was called to testify on behalf of the Petitioner, and being first sworn by the Clerk, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: Susan Jane Orth, O-R-T-H. &dDDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Ms. Orth, where are you employed? A. Currently I work part-time for the Medford School District and part-time for Providence Hospital. Q. In what capacity? A. As a speech pathologist. Q. At one point in time were you employed for the Rogue Valley Medical Center Child Develop Center? A. I was. Q. And for how long were you employed with them? A. Two years. Q. What was your job? And describe it. A. I was a speech pathologist. I worked with young children developing their speech and language skills. Q. Prior to your work here in the Medford area, were you employed in a similar health care field are or with children? A. I was. Q. And describe it quickly, and for how long? A. I worked almost 30 years. Part of that has been in the public schools and part of it in hospitals. Q. In your capacity as a speech therapist? A. That's true. Q. You're licensed in Oregon as a speech therapist? A. I am. Q. And your education background? A. I have an MA, master of arts, in speech pathology. Q. You worked with Teddy Coutsoukis and her parents; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Why did your work -- Your work with the family ended? A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you because I coughed. Q. I'm just trying to make it go quickly straight to the point. You had been working with Teddy Coutsoukis and her parents, and at one point in time your involvement with them ended? A. This is correct. Q. And why did your involvement with this family end? A. Because the youngster transitioned to another part of our program. Q. Was there an event that happened close to that time that caused you to be quite concerned about yourself in your dealings with Mr. Coutsoukis? A. There was an event that occurred at the beginning of my service to Teddy and her family. Q. Can you describe that event, please? A. But it wasn't at the end. Q. I stand corrected. Can you please describe that? A. I believe it was the first time that I saw Teddy. She came to the east Medford site. Both Mr. and Mrs. Coutsoukis came. There was a lot of emotional emergency around that. They were concerned that I would be a good therapist for their youngster, and during that time -- I'm rendered speechless -- some things happened which concerned me and -- THE COURT: A speechless speech therapist. A first. BY MS. SANZ: Q. Ms. Orth, what concerned you specifically? A. At the end of the therapy session, Mrs. Coutsoukis stayed to talk with me. He had difficulty in leaving. He was quite concerned about Teddy. I had to lock up the site, and I was alone on the site. It was in the fall, and so it was getting dark, and I did not know him, and he picked up Teddy in his arm arms, and presented her to me, saying "Hers Teddy." So I would go to one part of the building and lock a door and turn a around and he would be saying that to me. And at the end of that, after we had locked up, he followed me into the parking lot and placed Teddy on the ground. I can't remember whether Teddy walked out. I can't remember how little she was at that time, but anyway, he placed her on the ground, and as I was in the driver's seat -- no, I wasn't in the car yet -- close to the left front fender of the car. And when I got into the car, then I had to turn the car to make sure that I was out of the way of her. Q. So he put Teddy in front of your car? A. He didn't put Teddy in front of my car, but he put her close to the right -- no left -- excuse me -- front fender of my car. Q. And then where did he go? A. I'm sorry? Q. Where did he go? A. He was there, and you know, visually I can't recall exactly where he was, but he was there. Q. And were getting into your car to leave the site? A. That's true. Q. Could you have left -- could you have driven off in a safe manner, knowing that Teddy was in close proximity to the car? A. Well, I didn't feel I could, and that's why I turned the car. I didn't feel comfortable doing that. Q. How long did it take you to close up that day? A. Not very long. Q. After a while -- That put -- You felt uncomfortable in that situation? A. I did. I felt that there was a lot of emotions around all of this, and I didn't feel comfortable working alone in a site without some kind of backup or someone else there. Q. So when you worked with Mr. Coutsoukis at a later time, what was the arrangement that was made? A. I don't remember now chronologically, and I haven't looked at the notes, and it was like more than two years ago, so I can't remember exactly chronologically, however, I did talk to my boss and said we need to have some kind of a policy in our company about people working alone and late in unlocked building, because we're working with people where there is a lot of emotional content around their children and their problems, and as a consequence of that, then, we changed hours, and I can't remember exactly the chronological order of all of that. MS. SANZ: Thank you. No further questions. &dDCROSS-EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. LORI: Q. Ms. Orth, We've talked before, haven't we? A. Yes, we talked on the phone for a long time. Q. And in that conversation you indicated that when you met parents they both appeared shattered? A. They were both -- They both had a lot of emotional energy, not just Mr. Coutsoukis, but both parents. Q. In your meetings with them they didn't say anything bad about each other; correct? A. That's correct. Q. They did feel uncomfortable with each other in the same room; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you never witnessed them being nasty to each other; correct? A. No. Q. Mr. Coutsoukis is very bright and proud; correct? MS. SANZ: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: If she knows, she may answer it. THE WITNESS: You want to know my read on his personality? Q. Yes. A. I think he is a very intelligent person and I feel he's a very proud person. Q. In your assessment of him, do you think it's hard for him to accept help? A. Yes. I felt that he would really like to do all of the things that Teddy needed himself for his youngster and that he also wanted to participate in everything that happened. Q. With regard to the car incident, again, he did not place the child directly in front of your vehicle? A. That is true. Q. Instead, he put the child beside the car? Is that what you indicated? A. Yes. Q. Do you know why -- Did he state why he was doing that? A. No. Would you like to know what I felt? Q. Yes. A. Maybe I'm not supposed to say that. I really felt that this was part of the emotional energy that was around this particular situation. Q. Did you interpret what he was doing as a request for help? A. Yes. I felt that when he was saying "Here's Teddy," he was saying "Please help me with this problem," And that then he would pull her back, and that that was part and parcel of how he felt. He wanted some help, but indeed it was hard to ask for that, and he wanted to do some things himself for his youngster. He wanted to provide a family structure for his youngster himself. Q. With regard to your request for security, it's true, isn't it, that it's not just Mr. Coutsoukis that prompted you to ask that, but rather dealing with parents who had a lot of emotional issues going on round these special needs children? A. No, it was that incident that prompted me to ask that I not work alone on the site. Q. Is it true also that other parents have similar emotionally charged states? THE COURT: Of course, it's true, Ms. Lori. MS. LORI: Beg your pardon? THE COURT: Of course, it's true. Let's get to something relevant here. MS. LORI: Okay. Q. Mr. Coutsoukis and Mrs. Coutsoukis weren't the only emotionally charged parents you dealt with; is that correct? A. That is true. Q. And you would still have security in the same situation whether or not you were dealing with Mr. or Mrs. Coutsoukis; correct? A. I'm sorry, repeat. You lost me, I'm sorry. Ask me that one again. Q. Would you continue to have security for the reason that your dealing with emotionally charged parents evenings alone? MS. SANZ: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. When these parents are going through dealing with children with special needs, you indicated they're emotionally charged; correct? A. There are emotional issues around having a child who has special needs. Q. There is denial and grief, anger? A. That's true. Q. Self blame? A. That's true. Q. And the parents have to work through this process? A. That's true. Q. And it is a process; correct? A. That's true. Q. And isn't the true that you perceived both Mr. and Mrs. Coutsoukis as having difficulty moving through this process? A. That's true. MS. LORI: No further questions. &dDREDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. At one point in time did you feel Mrs. Coutsoukis was making significant progress moving forward? A. This is true. Q. Can you describe that? A. Yes. And chronologically, again, I'm sorry, I fail you -- Q. Just to the best of your memory, in summary form. A. I'm sorry. At some point I began to work with Ms Coutsoukis and Teddy, and Donna. Q. Donna Carrillo? A. Correct. And I didn't see Mr. Coutsoukis, and I didn't see him for a long period of time in the therapy process, are and as we worked through therapy, as with most parents, I could see her moving through the stages. MS. SANZ: Thank you. No further questions. THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Orth. You may step down. You may leave now or stay with us in the courtroom. MS. SANZ: My remaining witness, Your Honor, is my client. THE COURT: But you know, I'm going to allow Ms. Lori to cross-examine her live, and it seems to me we're going to need about -- I'm going to reserve ten minutes to talk about this custody issue that you tell me that there's is a visitation aspect that I need to deal with. If, you know, it seems to me that if you take more than half the time, and Mrs. Lori isn't finished with the other half of the time, I'm going to tell her she's got a right to do it. If you take half of the time that's available, which will be 25 minutes, and Ms. Lori has 25 minutes, I'm going to tell her she's had enough. See what I'm saying? Can we do the that way? If you can't do it in 25 minutes, I'm going to tell you that it seems to me you ought to be able to do it that way. If Ms. Lori has 25 minutes cross, I'm going to tell her that I've gotten what she has to say. MS. SANZ: Your Honor, of course, I can recall my client by telephone on redirect? THE COURT: You can do that. MS. SANZ: Okay, I think I will try to do that, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MS. LORI: I'm going to just briefly tell the witnesses they can go on home, because we're clearly not going to get to them. THE COURT: Thank you. Come on up and be sworn, please. . . . SUSAN SAMORA COUTSOUKIS was called to testify on behalf of the Petitioner, and being first sworn by the Bailiff, was examined and testified as follows: THE WITNESS: My name is Susan Samora Coutsoukis, C-O-U-T-S-O-U-K-I-S. &dDDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. Ms. Coutoukis, where do you reside? A. I live in New York. Q. West Chester County? A. Yes. Q. You left for New York in what month? A. The end of March. I believe it was March 31. Q. And you resided in Jackson County for how long? A. Since November of '93. Q. Now, what brought you to Oregon? A. I was recruited by Harry and David. Q. You a applied -- You yourself and Mr. Coutsoukis applied for a job at Harry and David? A. I was recruited. When they found out that he was in the information technology department, they also asked him to interview, as well. Q. And only you obtained employment for that company? A. Yes. Q. When you moved to Oregon, how old was Teddy? A. Teddy was just about two months old. Q. You heard Dr. Oas' testimony. I believe he implies or directly stated that the issue was whether you wanted to work, put that first versus caring for Teddy. What is your response to that? A. I didn't have any choice. Q. Why not? A. This is hard. THE COURT: Sorry. THE WITNESS: Health care issues. BY MS. SANZ: Q. For Teddy or for -- A. For everyone. There was a financial situation. We had five mortgages, there was credit card debt. There was also the situation where Photius in the last couple of jobs had either been dismissed or had difficulties in his last couple of jobs, and I didn't see him actively seeking a job, and felt that I was the only one that could. You know, this was an opportunity -- not an opportunity, but it was a situation where -- I didn't know what else we could do. How could we pay those bills? Q. And so you then went ahead and accepted that position? A. I did, and it was very difficult. Q. Were you nursing Teddy at the time? A. Yes. Q. And what were you doing in trying to continue to nurse her? A. I would nurse in the morning, and then at 10:00 o'clock I would pump to make sure she did get as much natural milk as she could. Then I would bring some home, nurse her again, and Photius would always tell me she would know it was about the time for me to come home. It was like she would look for me. At 3:00 I would again pump and get it home as quickly as I could and then spend the evening with her, and then the next day started, except for weekends, of course. Q. Now, there was a mediation agreement that became a court order in December of 1996? A. Right. Q. That was the first -- Prior to that there was a restraining order that gave Mr. Coutsoukis visitation four hours a day? A. That's correct. MS. SANZ: And eventually that got dismissed. I believe the Court will take judicial notice there was a restraining order in October of 1994. THE COURT: Part of this file? MS. SANZ: Yes, part of this file, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll take judicial notice. BY MS. SANZ: Q. You agreed -- Mr. Coutsoukis asked you to dismiss that restraining order? A. Yes. Q. And you did that? A. Yes. Q. And ever since that time until the mediated agreement of December 1996, there was no other schedule as to who would have access to Teddy? A. That's correct. Q. What was the schedule, then, that you and Mr. Coutsoukis ended up with? A. Well, there was a lot of various schedules, and I think the changes that happened because of incidents with Mr. Coutsoukis in terms of lessening the schedule if we could. For example, the only reason that Teddy went to the "Y" was because we had this horrible situation happen, and there was no other place for her to go, or to Blossom Hill. I'm sorry, I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself here. A. Blossom Hill was when Photius -- Q. It's a day care center? A. It's a day care center in Medford that I researched, you know, to the best of my ability, and the same situation happened. I would take her there at 7:30 in the morning, I would go back at lunch time to nurse her, and I would, you know, pick her up immediately right after 5:00 o'clock. I didn't know anyone in Medford. I didn't have any contacts. I asked my colleagues where best possible place, and I felt that without having the time to interview baby-sitters or anything, I felt that a situation where there were people, you know, multiple people talking care of a child, would be safer, and it was a church, and the people were very, very nice, and the children looked fine, and I was there every day. Q. Where was Mr. Coutsoukis during this time? A. This was the time when he went to Mexico in that three-week separation were he claimed that Teddy suffered this damage. Q. Did he know where you were? A. Well, not initially, because this was the night of a terrible argument where he threatened to kill me. He did not let Teddy cry. She was not a child who could cry. So he locked himself and Teddy into the bedroom, and she cried, and he wouldn't let me in there. She cried for over 20 minutes to a half an hour, and I'm thinking to myself here's someone who doesn't let a child cry. You know, what is going on in there? So I called the police. The police got him on the phone. When finally he came out, he was saying "Call the doctor, there's something wrong with her," because she won't stop crying and she had all her clothes off. She was three months old, and of course, as soon as I had her, she stopped crying. So it was so out of character for him, I didn't know mentally what was going on, the trying to kill me, this totally inappropriate behavior, locking himself behind a bedroom door with Teddy. So that night he slept on the couch, and I barely -- I don't think I slept. I was thinking how do I get out of here? So I padded her diapers as best I could, and I just snuck past him with her and called my boss. You know, I'm sorry, but I'm going to go to a hotel, and she invited me, please go to my house. So I stayed there for three days, and ultimately, you know, I had contact with Photius. I don't remember how it happened, but I was terrified. I was a mental state. You know, bad enough, threatening me, being so horrible to me. But that he let her cry, that was so totally uncharacteristic. If she made a peep from the bedroom, I would get up to go get her, he would race past me. You know, he just -- it was not allowed for her to cry. Q. Would he physically abuse her? A. When he was -- you know that saying, "in your face." And he was with such a distorted, angry face and so hostile that -- you know, I never had anybody tell me they were going to kill me before, I mean it was pretty frightening. Q. Was he sleeping well? A. I don't know you know -- I don't know. He was -- Q. You don't recall that, either? A. I don't remember. He was having difficulties with the had landlord. I don't know. Q. So that, then, led to your decision to put her in day care. A. The only reason I put her in day care was I had no place else to put her. Q. You went back to the home, I take it. A. I went back to the home. He said that he would -- you know, how far away do you need me to be?" You know, just stay away from -- That's when I had the order of protection. Just stay away from us until we get settled or whatever the Court helps to settle this situation, and you know, go on from there. Q. And he left for Mexico? A. Right, and every morning I took her there and I cried. Q. At day care? A. Yes, I had to get up at 7:00 o'clock in the morning and take her out of the bed. It's awful. And those people could testify. Q. Eventually -- so progressing from there -- A. Okay, then the phone calls, and you know, not knowing anybody in Medford, feeling terrible about the situation, I called back, and as is common in domestic violence situations, it's a cyclical thing, you know, "Everything is going to be fine, it will be okay," you know: We'll work this out, and I'll stay away from you, and I won't do anything," and you know, so what would you rather do, have a father taking care of the child or have to be schlepping your kid to day care at three months old? Q. So you ended up reconciling? A. He moved back into the house. Q. And eventually, you ended up separating again? A. We did that following October when his behavior was just too bizarre. I mean I would be nursing her and he would pull her off my breast. I would be nursing and he would be screaming at me. It was just -- When they're about four months old, when it's time for a child to have cereal, I got this organic cereal, the best kind of cereal, and "Oh, you're giving her American junk food." I couldn't bathe her. There wasn't a thing that I could do for this child that wasn't totally crazy. Q. And after where you physically separated from each other, aside from that time where that restraining order gave him visitation, you basically negotiated times that he would be there? A. Right. Q. After Blossom Hill, she ended up at the Rogue Valley YMCA? A. Well, actually, in between that there was the Bellinger Lane place with a Lori person, because I tried the YMCA, and they didn't have any room, and I thought that was a good place for her. Q. And eventually he convinced you that maybe hiring a nanny would be a better way to go? A. Well, I had tried to hire a nanny myself when I finally got things together and was able to interview people and there was time, and he was so awful to that person, he would say -- you know, she was just a 20-year-old girl. He would say "fuck" in front of her, in front of her, in front of baby. I mean this poor girl was driven so crazy that it wasn't worth it, and that's why I felt at that point that the day care was better, that there would be stability for Teddy and it would be a better situation. Q. On the average after that, for the most part, she had been cared for by day care providers with Mr. Coutsoukis while you were working at Harry and David? A. Right. Q. What was the schedule, just very briefly? A. Okay, the last schedule was Donna would come to my home at 7:30. She would take Teddy, I guess, to Photius at 11:00, and then Donna would bring her back -- Well, no, Donna wouldn't bring her back. Photius never allowed third party exchanges, so he would insist on bringing her back to me rather than have Donna bring her back, which would be much less confrontational and much easier. Q. Eventually you ended up -- During that period of time were you trying to deny him access to Teddy? A. No, absolutely not. Q. You wanted to have Teddy for yourself time in the evenings and on the weekends? A. Right. Q. Eventually, you signed a mediated agreement that give him significant visitation? A. That mediation agreement when I'm dealing with domestic violence should never have happened, because mediation does not work in domestic violence. It's too much of a power and controlling issue. I was having terrible -- I just -- It was mistake. I shouldn't have ever signed it. Q. He would have visitation from 11:30 -- A. 11:30 to 5:00. Q. And you continued to have conflicts throughout that -- A. And then I learned more and more of the thread that was following through the baby-sitters, and this was a threat of them being in an abusive situation, of a baby-sitter crying, of them being threatened and feeling a lack of security, and here their job was to take care of the most precious, wonderful child in the world, and they need to be subjected to this, that you can't talk in front of this child. Q. At one time did you take a baby-sitter home and she was crying in the car? A. I took Barbara Ann home and she was crying that he made her feel worse than a dog, and this is in front of Teddy. THE COURT: Dr. Oas states that you maliciously tried to deny Mr. Coutsoukis visitation. A. Absolutely not. Mr. Coutsoukis is the only person that has denied himself to Teddy through his inappropriate actions and his anger and his horribleness, not I. Q. Despite the fact that you did not -- After a while you realized that the mediated order was not working? A. Right. Q. You ended up filing a motion for this custody hearing to come about today in February of 1997? A. Right. Q. Two months after that it was signed? A. Right. Q. In fact, at the time you signed that mediated agreement, you were still employed at Bear Creek on a full-time basis? A. That's right. Q. You were no longer employed as of what date? A. The end of the year, December 31, 1996. Q. So when you were no longer employed -- let me ask the question -- you were still trying to comply with that mediated agreement, even though you were now available? A. Right, and that's why I wanted to have the mediation agreement, have the Court hear the situation, so that I could take care of my child and not have a third party watching her while Photius was working. Q. While this case has been pending, have there been other incidents where he has deprived you of seeing Teddy? A. There were a couple of incidents. Q. I want to you speak specifically about one that happened at the airport. Would you describe that quickly? A. Photius took Teddy to Oregon for an eye examination. Donna told me the plane was coming in at 7:15. I was there a 6:30. The plane came in at 7:15. He was not on it. Q. When you say "Oregon," you mean Portland? A. I'm sorry, Portland. Q. Okay. A. So I panicked and thought maybe he came in early. I drove to his house and then I called the airport and found out through a very nice person that he was on the next plane which was 7:30, 7:45. By the time I got there, he was loading the car at the curbside, his mother was in the back seat, Teddy was in the front seat, so of course, I immediately go to the window to Teddy where she sees me. She's happy. He would not let me get my child. My mother-in-law tried to help. He screamed at her "Sit down." He said, you know, "You're not here. You go and wait in the waiting room. You can't see her." You know, he won't let me see my child who I hadn't seen for three days and who she hadn't seen her mother. She was virtually hysterical, and he through harassment and fear made -- and I'm like and idiot. I go. And what else am I going to do, upset her even more? Get a policeman, maybe? I don't know. It was awful. So I had to go stand in the waiting room until he was good and ready to decide that his revenge was over and that I could get her. Q. Were there other incidents when some physical violence or physical -- A. Yes, and lots of it was part of the exchanges. In January, I think it was like the 15th or something, I went to bring Teddy. I was a little bit early. He felt that she was being -- you know, that I should have -- he couldn't -- I wasn't home, so I came, brought Teddy, and he wanted to take her to Rogue Valley Mall instead, and he was upset that Teddy had to get in and out of the car twice, so he said we shouldn't even be here, so an argument ensued. He came over, and Teddy was crying because of the argument, so I tried to comfort her, and he was there, so I kind of tried to, you know, get to Teddy a little bit, and he pushed me out of the way. He held my arm, and he kicked me. I can't even imagine that anyone could kick another human being. Q. Did you file for a restraining order at that point? A. No, because we were having a court date soon or something was happening, and you know, there was always extenuating circumstances as to when the next court day was, and I sent a note to Silverman, Fred Silver -- not Fred -- Q. Peter? A. Peter Silverman -- thank you -- who was the mediation agreement, saying that, you know, third party exchanges, please, and you know, then we just couldn't do it, and it was just awful. Q. You ended up, then -- What happened to your job at Bear Creek? A. I lost my job. Q. Did Mr. Coutsoukis try to contact one of the vice presidents? A. Yes, he tried to contact one of the vice presidents. He also called me incessantly. He left messages that were horrible. One time he would call and say, you know, Donna has Teddy out, and she has probably left her at the Rogue Valley Day Care. You know, these things that all of a sudden like Oh, my god, Teddy is at some strange place, so I would have to call over to the Rogue Valley Mall's day care. Q. Now, you haven't been employed since you lost your job in January of '97? A. I do not intend to be. Q. You were looking for work at first? A. I was at first, and then my sister has been very gracious to support us. Q. You are living with your sister, Barbara Tucker, in Austin. A. In Austin, yes. Q. What is your plan in terms of employment? A. Well, I'm not going to go back to work until Teddy is in school at least full-time, and what I would like to do is be able to work out of the house. I would like to be able to be there for Teddy, you know, now that there is a choice, at least. Q. That's possible in your line of work in marketing? A. I hope so. Q. What is Teddy's current schedule right now? A. Teddy's current schedule is she has just enrolled in a beautiful school Monday through Friday. She goes from 9:00 to 12:00, and then she has therapies on Tuesday day and Thursday from 3:45 to 4:30 on both days. THE COURT: You say Tuesday and Thursday? THE WITNESS: Tuesday and Thursday, 3:45 to 4:30. Q. Teddy's main residence, the place where she sleeps every night, is where? I mean is it in your home? A. Always. Q. Has always been? A. Always. Q. She has never been away from you? A. Except for if I had to take a trip. She has always been in my home. Q. Now, based on the filings that happened in New York -- Your Honor, will the Court take judicial notice of the Court file that I have marked for identification? THE COURT: Yes. BY MS. SANZ: Q. Mr. Coutsoukis was receiving supervised visitation per the Court order? A. Right. Q. When you were before the New York court, did you ever ask the Court to deny him visitation? A. Absolutely not, never. Q. Did you inform the Court of the proceedings here in Oregon? A. Absolutely, yes. Q. Did you inform the Court that you had a mediated agreement? A. Yes. MS. SANZ: And we have transcripts, and you have provided me with those transcripts. Honor, I would like to submit certified copies of the transcripts that show the progression of the visitation process. MS. LORI: Your Honor, I'm going to reserve objection. If it's to demonstrate that she's in there saying -- THE COURT: How about we reserve objections? Let's do that. You've tendered the exhibit, she has identified it. You reserve your objection, and we'll discuss that at some time after today; all right? MS. LORI: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. BY MS. SANZ: Q. When you went back to New York, in the very few minutes left, you tried to comply with that mediation agreement that was still in effect? A. That's right. Q. Where you doing all the transportation? A. I was. I was driving 20 to 30 minutes every day back and forth from my home to Photius' home to deliver Teddy. Q. At this point in time you still feel that that is not a workable schedule, given Teddy's new schedule? A. Absolutely not. It's not workable. Q. And what would you like to see happen? Is it your understanding that he can continue visitation at the YMCA in New York? A. As long as we have a court order. MS. SANZ: Your Honor, I would like to tender to you the YMCA rules that have been, I think, part of the New York plan. THE COURT: This order says supervised visitation to occur at the YWCA. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry if I said YMCA. THE COURT: It's YWCA? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Visitation to occur at YWCA. THE WITNESS: Yes, right. BY MS. SANZ: Q. And you feel those visits have been working? A. Yes. Q. Have they allowed you to, you know, to provide Teddy with the medical care that she is currently receiving? A. Absolutely, yes. Q. In fact, can you describe very quickly the new diet that Teddy has that needs to be followed at this point and why she has this new diet? A. Teddy has what is called atomic seizures, which means that she loses muscle tone, and the only happen in series. They happened in December, they happened in May, and then they happened again in July. She can be standing in front of you and in one second she loses muscle tone and will be on the ground. She can be sitting in front of you, she loses muscle tone. She went to see Darrel DeVivo (phonetic), which is the Columbia University Department of pediatric neurology doctor, and there is a specific diet that helps with this kind of intractable type of seizures where children are on three types of medications. Teddy was currently taking three types of medications -- MS. SANZ: I'm going to have to stop you because our time is up. &dDCROSS-EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. LORI: Q. Back in May of 1994, Dr. Williams, a local pediatrician here, diagnosed Teddy as having benign hypotonia; correct? A. Correct. Q. At that time -- After then, you and Mr. Coutoukis went to Greece; correct? A. Yes. Q. And you saw there Dr. Helen Skouteli, a pediatric neurologist; correct? A. Correct. Q. And her diagnosis was that Teddy had psychomotor delay; correct? A. Psychomotor retardation is what she said. Q. She indicated that Teddy should go through a battery of tests; correct? A. Yes. Q. And that there should be early intervention; correct? A. Correct. Q. You then returned to New York with Teddy; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And in addition to what Dr. Skouteli asked or indicated should be done is that Teddy should have an EEG; is that correct? A. I don't remember that. Q. When you went to -- A. I took her -- if I may -- I took her to Cornell University Medical Center, which again is one of the best hospitals in New York, to the Department Chair. We called her pediatric ophthalmologist in San Francisco, and he referred us to this guy in New York. THE COURT: When was that? THE WITNESS: That was in July of 1994. She was nine months old. And she went there, she had an MRI, she had genetic testing and everything else, blood work. MS. LORI: Your Honor, if I can make a request, Mrs. Sanz will have an opportunity to do rebuttal, and I'm going to ask that if she could save her explanation for rebuttal, it will help me get through my -- THE COURT: We'll try that. A. I'll try. Q. Okay, and with that doctor in New York EEG was not done; is that correct? A. No, it was not. Q. Mr. Coutsoukis wanted it done; correct? A. I don't remember that. Q. Teddy is back in New York being treated by your physicians; is that correct? A. Now, yes. Q. Do you prefer the New York medical care providers than the Rogue Valley ones? A. Yes, only because of the volume that they see. This a 60,000 unit population; it's millions down there. Q. After you had seen that New York doctor back in 1994, approximately a year later Teddy did have an EEG done; correct? A. I don't remember the exact date, but she definitely did have an EEG done, yes. Q. And that was as a result of her having seizures; correct? A. If that the was July of '95, yes. Q. Back in 1994, when you and Mr. Coutsoukis returned from Greece, isn't it true that Mr. Coutsoukis began researching where Teddy could start receiving some type of care? A. Absolutely. Q. And that included the Child Development center; correct? A. Yes. Q. While he's doing this research, do you recall that you returned to Dr. Diane Williams? A. Possibly. I don't remember the specific situation, but I'm sure we did. Q. At that time Dr. Williams prescribed the CDC, the Child Development Center, for Teddy; is that true? A. She did do that, yes. I don't remember the time frame. Q. And there was a delay between when Teddy started CDC and when Dr. Williams recommended that she go there; correct? A. I don't know. I don't remember any delays. Q. Is it true that Mr. Coutsoukis started Teddy in physical therapy before you got her started with the CDC? A. I don't remember that, unless that was this Ken Gosling. Is that him? Q. Yes. A. Yes, then he did. Q. Okay, and isn't it true that Mr. Coutsoukis has done some of the exercises that the doctors are identifying that Teddy needs, that he's -- A. If he agreed with them. Q. With regard to your attendance at medical appointments, he attended prenatal classes with you? A. He did. Q. He attended prebirth at the hospital? A. He did at my insistence. Q. He has taken Teddy to San Francisco for the eye surgery? A. We took her to San Francisco for the eye surgery. Q. And you and Mr. Coutsoukis took Teddy to Greece to see Dr. Skouteli; correct? A. She was going for her baptism, and that was a secondary thing. Q. He has also taken Teddy to Boston to see Dr. Skouteli there; right? A. He did. Q. Now, Dr. Skouteli has a research fellowship in Boston? A. Dr. Skouteli went to Boston once. Dr. Skouteli has seen Teddy twice. Q. Mr. Coutsoukis has provided Dr. Skouteli with Teddy's medical records; correct? A. Copies of medical records. I'm not sure. I did not see him do that, but my guess is there has been correspondence. Q. He has also been in communication with Dr. Skouteli? MS. SANZ: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: If she knows, she can answer the question. Overruled. A. I think he has. Q. He respects Dr. Skouteli's opinions or medical advice; correct? A. You are asking me if he does? I believe he does, yes. Q. Mr. Coutsoukis has also taken Teddy -- and you may have accompanied him, too, but he has taken her to see a Dr. Laurie Christiansen (phonetic) in Portland? A. That's the example I was giving you at the airport coming back, yes, and I've also taken her there myself. Q. He has also taken her to many medical appointments, therapy appointments, etcetera; right? A. Absolutely. Q. After Teddy was born, and between the years '93 and '97, you were working full-time; correct? A. Not '97, no. The end of '96 I was, yes. Q. Teddy last seen a lot of doctors; true? A. True. Q. And you guys have probably been given a lot of medical advice about what her condition is and how to treat her; true? A. Not so much -- When you say "condition," if you mean what is the disease or what is the explanation -- Q. The disease or the etiology? A. Really, more the aspects of what -- the after thoughts, it -- how can I say this quickly? The -- I'm sorry. What you see, her -- the issues that she has. Q. Her symptoms? A. Thank you. Q. Isn't it fair to say that there is some disagreement about how she should be treated? A. Like? I don't know -- Who's disagreeing with who? Like David Photius? What do you mean? Q. For example, whether or not she should have an EEG. A. No, absolutely not. Every time -- We had an EEG. This allusion to this Dr. Skouteli asking for an EEG, I do not remember that. If I knew that an EEG, I would who have had it. I had every test in the world done in New York. Why would I not have it? I wanted to find out what was wrong with my child. Q. If the doctor in New York back in 1994 had said "Don't do an EEG," you would have complied with that? A. I doubt it. I doubt it. THE COURT: Objection sustained. No need to answer that question. BY MS. LORI: Q. Now, she had an MRI done in August of 1997; correct? A. She had an MRI, yes. Q. That MRI shows that her brain is basically atrophying, correct? A. I don't know that. I haven't heard any results of that yet. I don't know that, no. I don't know that -- THE COURT: You've answered. THE WITNESS: And I hope to God that's not true. Q. You've already indicated this, I believe, and let me just confirm it. No one can exactly say what has caused Teddy's condition; correct? A. I don't know. Some people say -- Q. There's a disagreement? A. Right, there is a disagreement. Q. Okay. Likewise, no one can really say what she is going to be like in the future, exactly what she will -- A. That's correct. Q. Now, Mr. Coutsoukis has done research on Teddy's condition; correct? A. I don't know. What do you mean by research? He has researched the fact that what he believes infantile traumas happen we he was separated from her for three weeks. Okay, this child was fine for three weeks. She developed a cold. She did not suffer infantile trauma, in my opinion. Q. So the answer is yes, he has done research; correct? A. In that instance, yes. He also did research on DQT shots and the possibility that that caused it. You know, there's a lot of things happening here. Q. He also researched how she might be treated; correct? A. I don't know. I think so. I don't know what research you're talking about. Q. He has consulted with him doctors; is that right? A. Like who, Helen Skouteli? I don't know who -- what many doctors. I'm sorry. What do you mean by many doctors? I was the one who brought her to -- THE COURT: When she asks these questions about what he has done, you just answer what you know, and so if your answer is "I don't know," then that's a good answer. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: Or if you know a little bit, there may be something to say. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MS. LORI: Q. Do you agree that Mr. Coutsoukis is very intelligent? MS. SANZ: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. LORI: Q. Do you agree that he can interpret Teddy's medical records? MS. SANZ: Objection, Your Honor. MS. LORI: Well, I think this goes to his ability to know, his ability to form -- THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. Do you know if he can interpret those medical records or not? A. Sure, I think he can. Q. And do you agree that he has knowledge about how to help her with her condition? A. As long as it fits into his mode only, not, you know, not allowing any other expert or any other person to have their opinion if he doesn't agree with it. It's called my way or the highway. Q. You mentioned that she is on a Ketogenic diet; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that was started when she returned to New York in 1997; correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall that Mr. Coutsoukis gave you a T.V. transcript about this diet approximate two years ago? A. No. Q. You also agree that there is probably more than one way to treat Teddy's condition? A. There is. Q. Now, Mr. Coutsoukis has worked for large multinational corporations and governments; correct? A. Yes. Q. Saudi Arabia, New York; correct? A. Yes. Q. And he has also done a lot of volunteer work; correct? A. Yes. Q. He can be very compassionate and helpful; correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, his employers did not ban him from coming onto the premises, correct, to your knowledge? A. Yes, as a matter of fact, when his employment was terminated he was banned from coming onto it -- Q. Well, the incident with Barbara Kozol was a banning of not coming onto to her premises, I mean that didn't occur in his employment; correct? A. Not that I'm aware. Q. Not that you're aware of? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And likewise, he wasn't banned from the hospital where Teddy was born; correct? A. Correct. Almost banned from Lamaze class, though. Q. Dr. Skouteli from Athens, Greece didn't ban Mr. Coutsoukis; correct? A. Correct. Q. Dr. Foyt (phonetic) from San Francisco did not ban Mr. Coutsoukis? A. That's correct, and Dr. Christiansen, Q. Dr. Christiansen from Portland did not ban Mr. Coutsoukis; correct? A. Right. Q. The banning occurred here in the Rogue Valley; correct? A. You know what, Dr. Christensen -- Q. Just -- THE COURT: Correct? THE WITNESS: Correct. THE COURT: It occurred here. Thank you, ma'am. Q. Now, compared to Athens San Francisco, Portland, and New York, would you agree that the Rogue Valley is in comparison provincial? MS. SANZ: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. LORI: Q. Back in December of 1996, when you signed that mediation agreement, you were represented by counsel, correct? A. Yes. Q. In fact, you began being represented by counsel in the fall of 1994; correct? A. Correct. Q. And that it was Attorney Sanz, correct? A. Correct. Q. She has been representing you throughout these four years; correct? A. That's correct. Q. So at the time you signed the December, 1996, mediation agreement, you knew that you had attorney Sanz to confer with about the agreement, correct? A. No, I don't know. Of course, I knew that. I don't know if I knew that. It was a very, very difficult time. Q. Now, you admitted to Dr. Oas, at least in his report, that you had been denying Mr. Coutsoukis access to -- A. That is untrue. I never admitted that. Q. Is it your testimony that you've never denied him access to Teddy? A. That is my testimony. Q. Now, in these Court proceedings you've not been very candid with some of the courts; correct? MS. SANZ: Objection. BY MS. LORI: Q. For example, when you filed for divorce in California, you made a misrepresentation to the Court; right? A. I don't know what you're talking about. Q. Did you -- At one time were you represented by a Ms. Babette Flaschman (phonetic)? A. Yes. Q. Did you write her a letter back in January, 1994? A. I don't remember. Q. If I may approach the witness, if I can show her what has been -- A. I know I wrote her a letter. When it was I haven't the faintest idea. Q. -- what has been marked as Respondent's Exhibit 110 and ask you to take a look at it and tell me if this is the letter that you wrote to her. A. This letter was never sent. This is my personal file, and has never been sent, I don't believe. Q. But you were the author of that letter; correct? A. Yes, but I never sent it. So anything I write down, that means it's part of what? Q. And is this a copy of the petition that was filed for divorce in California? A. I don't know. Possibly. I mean it looks like it. I don't remember. This is -- I don't remember. MS. LORI: How are we on time? THE COURT: I would say you've got ten minutes. BY MS. LORI: Q. All right. So with regard to the letter I just showed you, you're indicating it is a letter that you wrote; true? A. The letter was never sent. Q. But I'm saying it's a letter that you wrote. If counsel could keep her gestures to hers, this is not a time to be -- I would appreciate it. THE COURT: Ms. Lori -- MS. LORI: I'm sorry, Your Honor. If I could move for admission of 110. MS. SANZ: I would like to have a copy. THE COURT: Could you make her a copy after the day ends? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sanz. MS. SANZ: With that in mind, then Your Honor, I'm going to reserve my objection to this one, too. THE COURT: She's going to ask her questions about it. We're going to decide -- MS. SANZ: Okay. BY MS. LORI: Q. And basically what you were telling this attorney was that you had signed a document that was filed with the Court under oath in which you misrepresented your residency status in Ventura County; correct? A. I don't know. If that's what it says, maybe. I don't know. I don't remember that. Q. Likewise, when you filed for the protective order in New York, you never -- in the paperwork, at least the initial paperwork that allowed you to get the protective order, told the Court about the fact that there was a mediation agreement here in Oregon; correct? A. Incorrect. Completely incorrect, as the transcript will show. Q. But I'm talking about when you initially filed to obtain the protective order, you never told the New York courts about this mediation agreement; correct? A. I filed an allegation of someone who -- I don't know what you're referring to. THE COURT: She said says you didn't -- when you initially filed, you did not -- THE WITNESS: I filed -- THE COURT: I understand. And you did not say in the initial filing anything about the mediation agreement in Oregon. That's the question. THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. If I was just filing the allegation, I didn't know that that was pertinent. I didn't, no. You're right. It came up in court. BY MS. LORI: Q. You have obtained how many prior restraining orders? Three? A. I believe so. Q. So you're quite familiar with the process; isn't that true? A. No in New York. Absolutely not. It's the most contentious, horrible situation. Q. Do you agree with Dr. Oas' statement that Mr. Coutsoukis was Teddy's primary caretaker for approximately the first 14 months of Teddy's life? A. No, I don't agree. Q. Do to you degree that Mr. Coutsoukis and Teddy have bonded? A. Yes. Q. Do you agree that Teddy likes to see her father? A. Yes. Q. Do you agree that when she is not permitted to see her father or when she does not see her father, that that the has an emotional impact on her? A. I have not seen that happen. Q. You've never seen her register any sort of -- A. Not within the last three months when she has not seen her father, except for one time a week. Q. Now, in August of 1997, Teddy was hospitalized; correct? A. Correct. Q. You didn't tell Mr. Coutsoukis that she was hospitalized; correct? A. I was not allowed to speak to Mr. Coutsoukis because of the order of protection. I called my lawyer. I told the law guardian. It was their responsibility to tell him. Q. You did not in any way directly communicate this to Mr. Coutsoukis; correct? A. Correct. Q. When Mr. Coutsoukis found out, you did not permit him to see his daughter in his hospital; correct? A. Incorrect. Q. He was not permitted to see his daughter in the hospital; correct? A. That was not my decision. Q. But you had an option of making it possible; correct? A. I told the nurse -- I understood from the nurse that -- I told her we had an order of protection. She said security can come up. I said I think we're getting dismissed today, so let's wait and see what happens in the afternoon. No one came back to me. Q. My question is you had the power to permit him to see his daughter in the hospital; correct? You had that -- A. I did have the power, but the circumstances did not avail themselves of that power. I was willing to acquiesce if we were staying there that night, and then I never heard anything back from the nurse. MS. LORI: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Any redirect? &dDREDIRECT EXAMINATION&d@ BY MS. SANZ: Q. In your discussions with the New York Court it first time you appeared before the New York Court, you informed the judge of the Oregon mediation agreement? A. You know what, you're right, because I was thinking the first time was not the first time. There was an incident May 15th, and that's when I went for the temporary order of protection, and I did inform those two different judges from the judge we saw the last time, yes. Q. You filled out a form when you filed your petition for a temporary order? A. Yes. Q. And that form itself, you did not understand that the form should provide that information? A. Of course not. Q. But when you were before the Court, did you provide that information? A. I believe I did. Q. Given the fact that you think that -- Is it your position that Teddy continue, at least for the time being, with the supervised visitation at the YMCA until this Court makes the final decision? A. Yes, I think that would be much easier on Teddy. Q. And with regard to the hospitalization of Teddy, it was your -- you never said no, he could not see Teddy? A. Correct. Q. You informed the hospital that there was this protective order? A. Yes. Q. When you said you informed the legal guardian, that was Teddy's attorney who represented her in the temporary order, in the protective order proceeding in New York? A. That's correct. He was in daily communication with Photius, or frequent communication with Photius. Q. That was your understanding in your dealings with the legal guardian? A. That's correct. Q. And when you informed your attorney that she was in the hospital, did you ask your attorney to relay the information to your husband? A. I don't remember if I specifically asked. I think she said like, you know, "He's going to go through the roof," and I said "Well, you have to deal with it." Q. Have you ever tried to deny -- Do you try to share information of Teddy's medical condition with Mr. Coutsoukis? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to show you this Document. Would you please describe what it is? A. This is an e-mail where -- this is right -- we had just seen a pediatrician in New York, a new pediatrician, and I wrote him an e-mail saying how important it was for Teddy to see a neurologist. I told him about the doctor at Columbia, and I told her the earliest appointment that we could get was June 3rd, and the just goes on and on and on. Q. The bottom half of that document is a fax from you on June 3, 1997, addressed to Mr. Coutsoukis? A. Right. Q. The fax on the top half is what? A. It's his reply. Q. And it fax itself indicates the dates and times that those were received. A. Yes. MS. SANZ: Your Honor, I would like this marked as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and ask that it be admitted. THE COURT: Any objection? MS. LORI: No objection. THE COURT: Received. BY MS. SANZ: Q. Recently were you investigated by the Child Protective Services of New York? MS. LORI: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This isn't proper rebuttal. THE COURT: Overruled. BY MS. SANZ: Q. You were investigated by the Child Protective Services of New York? A. I was. Q. And the allegation against you was that you had physically abused your daughter? A. Yes. Q. And what is the result of their investigation? A. Totally unfounded. Q. And so your not -- They're not seeking any kind of juvenile protection on behalf of Teddy? A. And it put Teddy through some strains to have some stranger come in the house, you know, and monitor what was happening. Q. Has anyone told you who made the allegations against you? A. Sandy Sabo (phonetic), who is an employee of Photius -- MS. LORI: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. THE WITNESS: She said that -- MS. SANZ: Objection sustained. THE COURT: Yes, I'm not going to let you talk to anything about that. Ms. Sanz, if we're going to deal with the issue of visitation between now and the next time we get together, I wanted to reserve that ten minutes. It's my understanding that this New York order is not in effect at this point. MS. SANZ: I believe it is in effect, the last one. It was entered on September 9, 1997. THE WITNESS: The order of protection is in effect, but the visitation is not in effect, because Judge Brazlow (phonetic) was letting you handle that here. THE COURT: And we thought we would have the answer to that question by this afternoon, and so that part of the order, the visitation aspect, is not there. We're going to focus on that for ten minutes. You may step back down to the table. Thank you. I'm going to allow Teddy to go to the school and the therapy that has been scheduled and testified to. In that context, Ms. Lori, what are you requesting on visitation between now and then? MS. LORI: He wanted the approximate same hours he had before as a result of the December, 1996, but in the evenings and weekends, so it won't interfere with her school or therapy. THE COURT: All right, thank you. Ms. Sanz, you're requesting that there continue to be one day per week supervised visitation at the YMCA and no more; is that right? MS. SANZ: Well, the reason I suggested that, Your Honor, is that was what was already in place and what everybody is familiar with. I think we would agree to additional supervision time, as long as -- Obviously, the New York Court felt that that was necessary at the time, that it be supervised at least. We would certainly accommodate greater time, as long as it be supervised. THE COURT: I would like to hear about the supervision. MS. LORI: It's my understanding that what occurred is she got a temporary protective order, and there wasn't a hearing until September 9th, and in that protective order they gave her a number of things which would have been dealt with earlier, except there were a lot of things that went on. I think the -- THE COURT: So was there not a hearing in which both sides were represented that came up with this? Is that your understanding, Ms. Lori? MR. COUTSOUKIS: May I? THE COURT: All right, very briefly. MR. COUTSOUKIS: The September 9th hearing was the one regarding Susan's petition -- THE COURT: Can you answer that question? There was a hearing on September 9th. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Right. THE COURT: Were both parties present and represented in that hearing? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. And that resulted in an order that said it would be supervised at the "Y"? MR. COUTSOUKIS: No, no, no, no. That was during the temporary order -- THE COURT: Was there ever a hearing on the supervised visitation at the "Y" where you both were present in court? MR. COUTSOUKIS: No. THE COURT: No and no. You're both agreeing with that. Excuse me. I want to know about that. MS. SANZ: Well, I think a transcript -- It's all in the transcript, and my understanding is -- I just received it during the lunch hour and I haven't even read it. My understanding is that both parties were represented, both parties addressed the Court on that issue. It was the Judge who ruled, not at the advocacy of Mrs. Coutsoukis, that it was going to be supervised visitation. So something happened during the time of that appearance that made the Judge amend her original order that said visitation would be by third party's only. After a Court appearance, she then decided that the third party exchange wasn't enough and than it had to be a supervised visit a week, and so that's what happened. So there was an appearance and the Court made that decision, but I think the transcript will probably describe the events better. MS. LORI: And my position is the New York Court has said Oregon -- THE COURT: Teddy is not being nursed now? Between now and our next hearing, I want Teddy to have visitation with the father every other weekend beginning the weekend of the 20th and 21st from 10:00 o'clock on Saturday until 5:00 o'clock on Sunday. That's not supervised visitation. I want an order to that effect that will allow that order to be registered in New York. MS. LORI: Can you stipulate only third party exchanges? THE COURT: Yes, I will. Only third party exchanges. I will stipulate to that. MS. LORI: Where will they exchange? THE COURT: Can they exchange at the "Y," the YWCA where the visitation has been occurring? Is that about in the middle from each person's house? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Away from both of us. THE COURT: Tell me about another place that's a good neutral place. MS. LORI: Is there a police station that's close to you folks? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Peekskill police station. THE COURT: I didn't quite hear what the name of it was. You'll get that down, that police station. MR. COUTSOUKIS: P-E-E-K-S-K-I-L-L. THE COURT: Anything else we need to take care of here? I want to talk with you, but we can do that off the record. I want to let my staff go, except for Mr. Valavala who will stay with me. Because he's a special person, he gets to stay. The others, Ms. Hope and Mr. Gault, may leave. . . . IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) ) SUSAN SAMORA COUTSOUKIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Case No. vs. ) 94-3846-D-3 ) PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, ) ) Respondent. ) (s3B Volume 4 of 4(s0B __________________________________) &dDTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS&d@ (s3B Volume 4(s0B Medford, Oregon November 24, 1997 3:45 o'clock p.m. Before: The Honorable G. Philip Arnold, Circuit Judge. &dDAPPEARANCES&d@ For the Petitioner: Cristina Sanz Attorney at Law P.O. Box 443 Medford, OR 97501 For the Respondent: Photius Coutsoukis, pro se November 24, 1997 3:45 o'clock p.m. . . . THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis, this is Judge Arnold again. We're on the record now with the Court Reporter. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Oh, terrific. THE COURT: The issue that we're dealing with today is the proposed order prepared by Ms. Sanz dealing with the hearings that we held on September 12 and October 7th. We had previously addressed off the record -- but I want to make a statement on the record now -- paragraph 5 on page two, you had objected to that, and Ms. Sanz has agreed that should be removed, and it has been removed. You have objected to the phrase "based on the child's medical needs and the importance of stability for the child" in paragraph seven, and I had denied that objection. And then on paragraph seven you have objected to the way that was proposed -- I'm sorry, that's paragraph seven on page eight. You had objected to the way that was proposed, and I had changed that to state "The Petitioner shall seek to amend the New York State order of protection," and leaving in the rest of it as proposed. Are all of those statements correct, Mr. Coutsoukis? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes, but there was additional information for the record, if I may. THE COURT: Go right head. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. On item seven, I had brought out a motion which apparently before I was on board Ms. Sanz told the Court she did not receive, although I had faxed it, and after I spoke with her, actually she called back with the number, and I asked if she got it, and she said she did. I sent two faxes, and she should have one by now, and the other one is for Tony to keep in her records in case it gets lost in the future, in which I mentioned that my daughter's health had taken a dramatic turn for the worse, and that the reason for that motion was that -- well, I'm sure if the Court is sincerely interested and concerned about my child's health and her life and it is my duty and my responsibility as a father, it is my desire because I love this child, and my legal right to try within the bounds of what I'm allowed to do in this society to prevent her health from getting worse. That was that motion. THE COURT: And that's your motion to remove custody from the Petitioner? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Correct, which will probably, you know, following the procedures of the Court, will be filed as a motion to show cause at some future time. THE COURT: Yes, and I've indicated to you that that's the correct way to do it. We can't do that without and evidentiary hearing. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Right. Regarding seven, the one you just mentioned, what I had read the Court was the New York decree which stated that "This order of protection is not on behalf of the child, so there is no provision with regard to visitation," and therefore, it states in item number seven that she has to change -- that the visitation aspect is not relevant. What we're changing here is the communications limitations of that decree, namely, that neither Susan -- and I believe how it states in here, it says that if either party wishes to communicate with the other, they will do so through a third party. THE COURT: Okay, I'm going to -- We also stated before when we were off the record that -- And I might state that we were off the record because I had not understood you had paid the recording fee. We were not trying to do it off the record, I just didn't realize that you had requested that it be on the record. What I would like to do is -- It has been indicated that Ms. Sanz and you have talked. She has a list, and I want to take her list, because she has the list that you have discussed. If there are any other issues you want to take up, we'll do that after we've gone through her list. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. THE COURT: Ms. Sanz, what's the next one on the list? MS. SANZ: I'm only bringing up those items, Your Honor, that Mr. Coutsoukis and Mrs. Coutsoukis still disagree on. THE COURT: I understand. MS. SANZ: The next one has to do with Thanksgiving visitation. THE COURT: Paragraph what and page what? MS. SANZ: Page 4, paragraph C. THE COURT: Do you have that, Mr. Coutsoukis? MR. COUTSOUKIS: I do. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SANZ: And we are proposing the language that's there, and Mr. Coutsoukis is requesting that he have visitation in odd years on Thanksgiving day and the day thereafter; in other words, to have them overnight. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Which is the customary thing to do for visitation. MS. SANZ: The reason my client is proposing to limit it more than usual is because there have been some complications with communication back and forth in terms of Teddy. She was hospitalized, she had seizures, we question whether the ketogenic diet is being followed -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Objection, Your Honor. I would like to point out -- THE COURT: Just a second, Mr. Coutsoukis. You're going to get your turn, but I'm going to give Ms. Sanz a chance to finish -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Erroneous and misleading information is coming out. THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis, now, you're going to wait your turn. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. MS. SANZ: That was a concern that she had. The child was just hospitalized last weekend with some seizures. You know, this is an ongoing situation, and I just wanted to see how this went first. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Coutsoukis, your position is that customary is two days? MR. COUTSOUKIS: My daughter had a grand mal seizure accompanied by vomiting. This is the first time my daughter has had a grand mal seizure since Dr. Skouteli put her on anticonvulsant medications years ago, and prior to that she had a seizure only on Susan's watch. This seizure took place two weeks after I last saw my daughter. This has nothing to do with me. This is a vicious rumor which I'm trying to also address in my motion that I had something to do with this. This happened two weeks after I last saw Teddy. I got a call from the hospital on Friday two weeks after the Sunday that I returned her to Susan in better condition that when I received her. And for Cristina to somehow accuse me of not following the diet or having something to do with that seizure is not only vicious, it is also trying to cover up the fact that it is their side who had her for two weeks before the seizure, and on the day of the seizure, if it had anything to do with it, that seizure happened that morning that her brain activity took place, not two weeks before. What she is doing here again, is malicious rumors, trying to deny me access to my child. That is the only way -- THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis, you're just repeating yourself now. Give me just a moment here now, and I'll make the decision. I will allow visitation from 10:00 a.m. on Thanksgiving Day through 5:00 p.m. on the day after Thanksgiving Day. The next issue, Mrs. Sanz? MS. SANZ: It's the same page, page 4, letter G and letter H. Letter G -- They're similar, so I'm going to try to address them both at the same time. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SANZ: Letter G is Mr. Coutsoukis' birthday. He's suggesting that he have his visit from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. We object because his birthday may fall on a day that Teddy is in school or that she has therapies, whether it's vocational, speech, or -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. SANZ: Therapy. Letter H, he's requesting that he have his visit with Teddy on her birthday between 1:00 and 7:00, and for the same reasons we're objecting, because that day may fall on a day when she has therapy or is in school. MR. COUTSOUKIS: May I address those? THE COURT: Of course. You're turn now. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. Regarding the day car, the so-called school, number one, the therapy that they receive there which is speech therapy, you can call it that -- I've observed it, and it's lacking -- but regardless, that is supposed to be according to the School District, when I was in contact with them before this Court order, that she is an itinerate speech therapist and can change the schedule accordingly. This is not somebody who works intensely from 8:00 in the morning until the evening with 35 patients. Okay. The same applies to her birthday, and if that is not possible, how about if either my birthday or her birthday falls on a weekend? Can we at least do that? That's all. THE COURT: Okay. I will agree with that, that if it falls on a weekend day, that it would be 10:00 to 7:00. MR. COUTSOUKIS: And can we say non-school? THE COURT: Non-school is even better. thank you, Mr. Coutsoukis. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Thank you. THE COURT: And on Respondent's birthday, and if it's a non-school -- or maybe we need to define school, but we know what we're talking about right here. You may call it -- you may add another term, Ms. Sanz, if it makes it clearer. And on the child's birthday, if it again is a non-school day, from 1:00 o'clock to 7:00, I'll agree with that. MS. SANZ: Your Honor, if she is scheduled for any type of therapies, then I think there is a provision in the order that says that he will continue to bring her to therapy and keep those scheduled appointments. THE COURT: Correct. MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, if it's a school day, I have no problem taking her to the day care school place myself. I've been there. THE COURT: Okay. We've clarified it. It will be 4:00 to 7:00 if it's a school day. If it's a non-school day, it will be the additional hours that we've set out. The next issue? MS. SANZ: The next issue is that same page, page 4, line 24, where it talks about where the exchange, a neutral exchange will take place for the parties and the child. My proposed order mentions BJ Wholesale. It's a store. On second thought my client decided that that probably isn't appropriate. Where they're actually exchanging right now is the Peekskill Police Department. The problem with that -- What we're proposing is that the exchange be made at a different police department at Croton-On-Hudson. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay, may I -- THE COURT: Just a second. MS. SANZ: Just a few more comments. The reason we would like to change is because Peekskill is five minutes -- I understand five minutes from Mr. Coutsoukis' home, but 35 minutes from my client's home, so it's not equidistant. I think the Croton-On-Hudson would be a lot more equidistant, and that's the reason for that proposal. THE COURT: Okay, go ahead Mr. -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. I don't know that it is such a big inconvenience for Susan to bring Teddy here, or for Teddy to come here some way or another. I have never been to the Croton-On-Hudson Police Department. I don't know what the parking situation is, what the child-friendliness situation is. I don't know how busy Susan is that spending 35 minutes with the child in her car is such a big deal. It's not 35 minutes, by the way, you know, but it's still closer than here. I just don't if it's appropriate, that's all. Otherwise, I would be happy to -- THE COURT: I'm going to order that it be equidistant. If Croton-On-Hudson is -- You go check that place out. If there is some problem with that . MR. COUTSOUKIS: I don't mind driving there to pick up my child. It's just that I have never been there. I don't know if it's warm enough, if it's friendly enough, if it's cozy enough, and parking and all that. THE COURT: Okay. Apparently, your client has checked out the police station at Croton-On-Hudson? MS. SANZ: She has only been there one time, and she said there was awaiting room, so it might work. THE COURT: I'll order it at the police station at Croton-On-Hudson, then. MS. SANZ: The next item, Your Honor, deals with child support, and that is on page six. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SANZ: If I can just clarify, Photius, I know there are other provisions you wanted to discuss, but I'm just going based on my list, and I may be going a little out of turn. THE COURT: We're going to get everything you want. MS. SANZ: We're going to get everything you want. THE COURT: Page six -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Item? THE COURT: Apparently item 4. MS. SANZ: Yes, child support. He wants payment to be made to DHR. We have no objection to that, except that he hasn't paid since we've been arguing about the form of this order, hasn't paid from October on, so we're requesting -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'm sorry, I haven't paid what? MS. SANZ: Child support. THE COURT: From October until -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: I wasn't asked to. MS. SANZ: And so we're requesting that payment be made up to date directly to Susan Coutsoukis until December 31, and then starting January 1st that those payments be made through the DHR. THE COURT: Any problem with that, Mr. Coutsoukis? MR. COUTSOUKIS: How many payments am I making to Susan? THE COURT: October, November, December. MR. COUTSOUKIS: October is past. THE COURT: October is ordered and hasn't been paid, they're telling me. Do you have any problem with setting it up that way? MR. COUTSOUKIS: No. THE COURT: Okay, We'll set it up so that October, November, and December are paid directly, and then beginning January they're paid through the DHR. MS. SANZ: And also this is one area that I didn't have a chance to speak to Mr. Coutsoukis about, are but there are apparently some co-payments of costs that are not covered by insurance, and we're requesting that the standard language be used that each party be responsible for one half. MR. COUTSOUKIS: I have no clue of what she's talking about. THE COURT: Any payments for medical bills that are not covered by insurance, the standard procedure is they'll be paid equally by the two parties. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, depending on what plan Susan chooses, there could be a payment of $20,000.00. I don't want to be at the mercy of Susan's decision of choosing -- you know, she's not an arithmetic genius -- THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis, just a second. These will be medically necessary. If there is a challenge to whether they're medically necessary, We'll deal with them at that time. MR. COUTSOUKIS: No, I'm not concerned with that, I'm concerned with whether the person who chooses the insurance plan, meaning Susan, has the ability to choose one that will not cause horrible financial hardship. I mean keep in mind I was rich before, you know -- THE COURT: I will require that she send you a copy of the insurance plan, but We'll also set up the language that requires equal payment for items that aren't covered by insurance. If you want to challenge that insurance plan, you'll have a copy of it. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. And also I have no input as to what we're doing medically, so for the record, you know, I'm going to be responsible for Susan's decisions here, and Susan has not traditionally made wise decisions. THE COURT: And as I've told you, they will have to be medically necessary before they fit the standard. Go ahead. MS. SANZ: The next items are not addressed in the order itself. Mr. Coutsoukis -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: We didn't finish. On item four mine is blank as to the amount. MS. SANZ: Sanz that's the child support amount, Your Honor. He and I had discussed that. Based on the calculation it's $363.50. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Total? MS. SANZ: No. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. Can you give me the total, please? MS. SANZ: It's $429.00 total. Apparently, Mr. Coutsoukis -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: I'm sorry, what was that? MS. SANZ: $429.00. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Even? MS. SANZ: Even. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Zero cents? MS. SANZ: That's correct. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. MS. SANZ: Apparently, Mr. Coutsoukis did not want to pay the medical insurance that he has been paying, so she is going to pay that -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, let's phrase that accurately, please. That is not what we're saying here. What Mr. Coutsoukis said is that if Mrs. Coutsoukis is to select the insurance company and deals with that, I would rather pay her the amount and she can pay the money or whatever she does without me having to pay people that I'm not allowed to talk to. MS. SANZ: He's under the impression that he cannot pay the insurance because of the -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: No, I'm not -- Please don't put words into my mouth. I know my impression. I will pay for the insurance. I want the insurance to be part of the total payment, and I make one total payment to Susan for as long as I'm required to make them, and it's Susan's business. There are plans where she can save money if she wants to choose that over what I'm asked to pay. She can spend that on other things. I would rather have one total payment to Susan for child support and leave it up to her to deal with the insurance company, because I'm not allowed to speak with the insurance companies and the doctors, and she is. THE COURT: So the number is 429? MR. COUTSOUKIS: That's correct. THE COURT: It will be 429. Let's go to the next thing. MS. SANZ: Mr. Coutsoukis is requesting that if the Monday following his weekend is a holiday, that he have his visitation extend to that Monday, and the objection from my client was that again that would interfere if she had therapies and things to that effect. MR. COUTSOUKIS: On a holiday? On a Monday holiday she would have therapy? No. They don't do therapies on holiday Mondays. They don't do day care centers on holiday Mondays, either. MS. SANZ: For example, Veterans Day. I don't know whether we would define that as a holiday or not. She had therapy on Veterans Day. THE COURT: I will allow that request by Mr. Coutsoukis. MS. SANZ: Okay. The next item is that he would like a provision to state that he be able to send letters or talk with the child on the telephone. THE COURT: And what is your client's position? MS. SANZ: Well, it really gets into -- You know, it's kind of touchy with the restraining order there. We don't mind, if he wants to send letters, no problem, but the telephone contact has become a problem, and we just need clarification on that. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. The Consent Decree in New York does not have any -- any -- and it specifically says so -- restrictions regarding my communication for visitation in any form with Teddy. This order of protections says its not on behalf of the child, so there is no provision with regard to visitation where there is no order of protection for my daughter. THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis, you may send letters without limitation to your daughter. You may have one telephone visit per week for up to 15 minutes, and you'll designate the time of that visit, Ms. Sanz. MS. SANZ: Okay. The next item he proposes -- it's that if my client is -- We have agreed that if the parties are running more than 15 minutes late, each will call and notify the other party. If a situation comes up where the party is late an hour -- and he is saying that my client may be late an hour -- he wants his visit to be extended that one hour, and I think we have reached an agreement on that, that that would be -- we would work that one out. He doesn't know that. I just wanted to up date the Court on that one. The last one is health emergencies for the child. On page six, line B it states that Mr. Coutsoukis shall be able to visit the child if and when she is hospitalized. He would like it to be an additional provision that he also be notified of every health emergency at any time she's in the hospital. Now, this last time she was hospitalized my client made sure that the hospital notified him. They're having trouble. My client can't find a third party who will volunteer to contact him, but she will try to find hospital staff to do that. We get into a situation of what is considered a health emergency. I think if we want to include a provision like that, since she is willing to give that information to Mr. Coutsoukis, that it be defined as a perceived life-threatening situation. MR. COUTSOUKIS: May I -- THE COURT: Your turn, Mr. Coutsoukis. MS. SANZ: The reason I'm requesting that is the time when Susan was hospitalized for four days at Columbia Medical center -- and that happened about a month or so ago for the first time ever -- things are getting worse here with that side -- I found out from a third party three days after she was already in the hospital that Teddy was in the hospital, and when I called to ask the staff whether I could visit, they said it was up to her mother, and her mother had told them to instruct me not to visit. THE COURT: So what is the language you want? The language here on page six, line 14, is to visit the child if and when she is hospitalized. What else is it you want? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Where is that? I'm sorry. THE COURT: Page six, line 14. It starts with a small D. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. Well, all it says here is for Susan to inform us of medical emergencies. There have been other cases after I obtained medical records for Teddy for the purposes of the hearing we had. I found out that Teddy was taken to emergency by Susan on her time -- THE COURT: Stop, Mr. Coutsoukis. Tell me what you want. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. THE COURT: What do you want this line to say? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Respondent to be notified when Teddy is having a health emergency or when she is in the hospital or near the time of the event, not at its conclusion. THE COURT: Okay. What I'll do is I'll say "To receive notice and to visit the child if and when she is hospitalized." That requires Ms. Samora to notify you. MR. COUTSOUKIS: But it does not require her to notify me if she is in the emergency room for eight hours. THE COURT: I agree. Well, it depends on whether it's in the hospital or not. MR. COUTSOUKIS: In other words, if she takes Teddy to an emergency room, I'm not supposed to know that something happened to her? THE COURT: I've asked you now several times to give me some language that give my some language that -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: I will. THE COURT: And you won't do it. I'm willing to say if she's taken to the emergency room or hospitalized. How about that? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Fine. THE COURT: All right, so he is to receive notice and he is allowed to visit if and when she is taken to the emergency room or hospitalized. MR. COUTSOUKIS: I apologize, Your Honor. For instance, she might have a seizure, you know, a grand mal seizure like now, and Susan might decide not to take her to the emergency room. Shouldn't I be notified? THE COURT: I'm going to leave it at the emergency room and hospitalization, Mr. Coutsoukis. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay. THE COURT: Are there any other items? MS. SANZ: Yes. I missed this one. Page six, Paragraph B. The language now says this -- This is where we're amending ORS 107.154. THE COURT: Correct. MS. SANZ: He would like this -- and I don't know how more to draft it. Letter says from Ms. Lori "This paragraph should be modified so that when both parties are present at a school function mere presence will not be a violation of the protective order." I think that's common sense already is it is, but if you want that in there, I guess I have no objection to it, but it's -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, are we going to violate the consent decree? THE COURT: Well, let's just add that sentence, then, that it's not to be construed as a violation when both parents present. MS. SANZ: The next item is 3 F, no contact with the school staff, medical staff, etcetera, and he wants language to say that any inadvertent contact is permitted. THE COURT: I'm going to leave it like it is. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Where do you see that? THE COURT: This is on page six, line 18. MR. COUTSOUKIS: No, no. Cristina, where do you see that I asked for that? MS. SANZ: On Beth's letter, her paragraph 12. It's page four of her letter. THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis, have we covered everything? MR. COUTSOUKIS: No. Let's see. MS. SANZ: There is one issue that he raised with me, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, tell me about it. I'm sorry, I thought you said we had the last one. MS. SANZ: I had forgotten about this one. MR. COUTSOUKIS: A lot of forgetting on the other side. MS. SANZ: Last weekend Mr. Coutsoukis was supposed to have -- Two weekends ago Mr. Coutsoukis was supposed to have his visitation for the every other weekend. Teddy was hospitalized, so Ms. Samora scheduled that his visit would be made up this past weekend, since he missed that last weekend. Mr. Coutsoukis essentially wants make-up visits for whenever the child is hospitalized, and -- MR. COUTSOUKIS: Well, no, no, no. THE COURT: Okay, what do you want, Mr. Coutsoukis? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay, number one, when Teddy was out of the hospital on Sunday, Susan refused to allow me to bring her over, and -- THE COURT: So what is it you want, Mr. Coutsoukis? MR. COUTSOUKIS: When she decided on this weekend, I said If I see her this weekend, fine, but, but let's not deprive me every the regularly scheduled -- THE COURT: Mr. Coutsoukis, tell me what you want. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Okay, I wanted to say that if she misses a visitation, she will make it up the following week, and then we go to the normal schedule, meaning the following week. In other words, If I have week two and four, and on week two I'm not allowed to see her because Susan has some reason, and I see her on week three instead, I still get to see her week four as previously scheduled, that we do not move the schedule forward every time Susan misses a visitation, because then I get screwed on schedule. THE COURT: You're correct. MR. COUTSOUKIS: And I asked Susan about this, and she doesn't want me to -- THE COURT: Well, I've ruled, and you're correct. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Can we say that, Cristina, some way? THE COURT: Yes, we can. Anything else, Mr. Coutsoukis? MR. COUTSOUKIS: Yes. THE COURT: What? MR. COUTSOUKIS: There is a statement from the CDC which we requested -- THE COURT: No, sir, this is about this decree. That's all we're talking about today. Anything else on the language of this order? MR. COUTSOUKIS: No. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir. That concluded the hearing on this. Ms. Sanz will make the changes that we've talked about that I've ordered, and then they'll be presented to me for signature, they'll be submitted to you, Mr. Coutsoukis, in accordance with the local rule that requires them to be submitted to you first. Thank you, sir. MR. COUTSOUKIS: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. SANZ: Thank you. . . . STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF JACKSON ) I, BEN GAULT, a Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of Oregon Judicial Department, hereby certify that the foregoing 288 pages of printed matter constitute a full, true and correct transcript of my verbatim stenographic notes taken at the time and place specified in the caption hereof. DATED at Medford, Oregon this 14th day of September, 1998. __________________________ Ben Gault, CSR State of Oregon Certified Shorthand Reporter Certificate No. 90-0031 &dD INDEX OF WITNESSES&d@ &dD FOR PETITIONER D X ReD ReX &d@ Sue Christensen 104 David Miller 117 130 134 Shirley Stinson 135 148 152 Ann Batzer 156 168 169 Donna Carrillo 177 186 198 Susan Jane Orth 200 205 209 Susan Coutsoukis 212 232 252 &dD FOR RESPONDENT&d@ David A. Oas, Phd 17 44 76 90 Faye Altman 98 102 ________________________________________________ &dD INDEX OF EXHIBITS&d@ &dD PETITIONER'S &d@ &dD NO. DESCRIPTION OFFERED REC'D&d@ 1 Letter 148 148 2 Faxes 255 255 &dD RESPONDENT'S&d@ &dD NO. DESCRIPTION OFFERED REC'D&d@ 101 Report 5/10/97 25 25 106 Affidavit 186 188 109 Resume 18 18 110 Letter 248 -- 261 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Marriage of: ) ) SUSAN SAMORA COUTSOUKIS, ) ) Jackson County Petitioner-Respondent, ) Trial court No. ) 94-3846-D-3(2) and ) ) CA# A102477 PHOTIUS COUTSOUKIS, ) ) Respondent-Appellant. ) __________________________________ ) REPORTER'S PROOF OF SERVICE AND FILING OF TRANSCRIPT I, BEN GAULT, a Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of Oregon Judicial Department, hereby certify that on September 17, 1998, the original copy of the Transcript on Appeal of the above entitled matter, consisting of four volumes, together with a copy of this Proof of Service, is being filed with the Trial Court Clerk at Jackson County, and the original hereof is being mailed to the State Court Administrator, Case Records Division, 1163 State Street, Salem, Oregon 96310. I further certify that on September 17, 1998, copies of this Proof of Service and the above mentioned transcript are being served on the attorneys for the parties to this appeal as follows: For Appellant, Mr. Clayton C. Patrick, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 884, Salem, OR 97308; and for Peittioner-Respondent, Susan Samora Coutsoukis, 10 Hudson Street, Ossining, New York 10562. DATED at Ashland, Oregon this 17th day of September, 1998. ______________________ Ben Gault, CSR