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
               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
               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
               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
               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
               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
               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
               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
               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. . . .