Excerpts from the Custody Evaluation conducted by the court appointed PHD Psychologist in the below captioned cases

in Sixth Circuit Court

IN RE: CASE NO:

James McLynas , Petitioner and Laura McLynas, Respondent 13-6789-FD-25 and 10-7346-FD-2

1. Lauras MMPI-2 profile suggests the presence of some serious psychological problems and the interpretation is not a function of someone who was faking bad. Laura responded to the MMPI-2 with a number of elevated scales throughout the test. Among these were the Hypochondriasis, Depression, Hysteria, and Paranoia clinical scales. Her very high score on Hypochondriasis suggests that she possibly may be experiencing extreme and sometimes bizarre somatic complaints possibly to the level of somatic delusions. 2. The elevated score on the Depression scale suggests a discomfort and dissatisfaction with her life situations and a lack of self-confidence. Her score level tends to be indicative of a general attitude or lifestyle characterized by poor morale and lack of involvement. Individuals with scores similar to Lauras seem to have a lifestyle characterized by withdrawal and lack of intimate involvement with other people. The kind of intimacy Laura has with others would not be described as being bonded or attached on an emotional level. 3. The very high score on the Hysteria scale suggests that Laura may feel overwhelmed and may react to stress and avoid responsibility by developing physical symptoms. A salient feature of the day to day functioning of individuals who score at the level Laura did is a marked lack of insight concerning their own motives and feelings. 4. It is hypothesized that the MMPI-2 results may be suggesting that much of Lauras behavior relevant to this case may be related to her personality and more specifically to some serious psychological problems. For example, she involved law enforcement, child protection, and filed legal motions obsessively in her familys affairs. She truly believes she is not safe and needs to be protected, rescued and supported, but the level and chronic fear of not being safe is negatively affecting her life and her ability to appropriately parent her children. What is important to understand is that her difficulties go beyond this paranoid belief but how it has become so distorted by her abnormal thinking. James comments that many of Laura complaints about him are really his comments about her. James may be identifying Lauras use of projection as a defense mechanism.

5. First, she may not feel a sense of emotional closeness to Jordan. This absence of emotional bonding may be reflected in a pattern of rather cold parent-child interactions. This pattern is associated with callousness, lack of social-emotional connection or psychopathy in the child. The second interpretation is that Laura may have a real or perceived inability to observe and understand the childs feelings and or needs accurately. Low levels of parental monitoring and vigilance in relation to the childs behavior is a common trait among parents who rated high on Attachment. Lack of vigilance and monitoring may be the result of noninvestment in the role of the parent, but it also occurs in parents who abuse alcohol and drugs. Laura presents with both of these interpretations. She has called law enforcement several times on Jordan and has had her arrested. As of this the time of this report, Jordan has a felony on her record and reports to a probation officer because of Laura. In addition, she has been known to have left her daughters while she was allegedly partying. She denies that this is a frequent event, but considering the legal involvements and her apparent social life, the second interpretation seems possible as well. It is important to keep in mind that Laura was rating Jordans behavior and she perceives a lack of attachment to her 10 year old child. When Jordan is with her father she is reported not to display any disruptive or psychopathology. Finally, James alleges that Laura is addicted to prescription medications, this too, if true could be related to this high score. 6. Jordan rated her relationship with Laura in the range between the 1 and 3 percentile and rated her relationship with James between the 35th and 66th percentile. 7. Lauras ratings describe a seriously emotionally disturbed child. It is questionable that given how her school described her, she presently meets the level of severity that Laura depicts. It was reported that Jordan did have significant difficulties in her previous school, but given the disparity between the parents perception of her, it is doubtful that Jordan is as out of control as Laura indicates. Another hypothesis is that Jordans behavior is as Laura describes it when they are together and hence the law enforcement involvement, DCF and the hospitalizations. If Jordan was seriously emotionally disturbed then it might be expected that her out of control behavior would be witnessed in a variety of settings, not just at home with Laura. 8. It is hypothesized that, given the CAIR results presented above, the specific difficulty is with her mother. 9. Most of the collateral informants suggested by James were interviewed and they supported his side of the case. Of particular interest was the information received by Kelsey Lynas, James daughter from his previous marriage, who stated that Laura and her mother conference frequently and

she had heard her mother coaching Laura in how to file motions and get law enforcement involved in the case. These were the tactics Kelsey and James indicated that Kelseys mother employed with James during their divorce. Kelsey also stated that James did not beat the children, neither she nor Taylor when she lived with James and Laura. 10. Most of Lauras collateral informants refused to discuss the case with this evaluator 11. Dr. Klein validated that the CPI did not reveal any violence between James and the children. He was previously appointed to conduct a child custody evaluation but was asked to be removed by Laura. 12. In a news cast presented by Adam Walser on ABC News on October 10, 2013, regarding a PCSO Deputy, it was revealed that the Deputy was involved with Laura. Mr. Doug De Vlaming was interviewed during this televised interview. This evaluator contacted Mr. Walser on October 15, 2013 to determine is the nine year old mentioned in the news cast was Jordan. Mr. Walser confirmed that it was. This evaluator contacted Mr. De Vlaming on October 14, 2013 to discuss the televised broadcast to determine how valid the allegations were that Laura was involved with the Deputy the information about their relationship. Mr. De Vlaming emailed the Deputys discipline report along with photos of Laura and the Deputy. 13. Erin Viola, a Senior Associate Producer of the Dr. Phil show was interviewed on November 15, 2013. She stated that Laura had agreed to be on the Dr. Phil with James up to about November 13, 2013, the day she filed an emergency motion to the court indicating James was taking Jordan to California to appear on the Dr. Phil show. This evaluator asked Laura prior to the October 31, 2013 hearing if she consented to appear on the Dr. Phil show, she stated no, yet the Dr. Phil staff indicated otherwise. In fact, Laura attached a letter from the Associate Producer to her inquiring about arrangements for her appearance on the show. It is clear from that letter that the Dr. Phil staff was expecting Laura to appear and was making arrangement for her trip. Around the same time, Laura files an emergency motion to the court to stop James from taking Jordan to the show. Once Laura notified the Dr. Phil show staff she was not going, all the appearances were canceled, yet she filed the emergency motion anyway. Lauras behavior regarding the Dr. Phil show reveals a consistent pattern of behavior where she involves the judicial system and misrepresents facts about James. 14. James played recorded 911 calls, showed the corresponding documents, police reports and Child Protective Investigation reports one by one that he claimed showed his innocence. He provided documents from the beginning of the conflict between this couple from July 31, 2009. James also provided SO09-178845/1, SO09-178845/2, SO09-178845/3, the corresponding Domestic Violence Injunction 09009704FD-023 and the Child Protective

Investigation report (2009-124813-01). These showed that Laura had recanted her accusations from the first report on 7-31-09 and admitted on the record that she had made up the accusations against James in order to have him arrested. 15. Several things were immediately clear from the documentation provided by James. These reports clearly showed that Laura had stated that there were no incidents of domestic violence of any kind between the husband and wife previous to her statement in CPI report 2009-124813-01 dated 7-31-09 and that the first report where the mother claimed violent abuse by the father (731-09) was a fabrication. This evaluator questioned where the 8 years of violent abuse claimed by Laura had taken place [Note: this was recorded by the same investigator one month after the first report]. It is further evident from the subsequent reports filed by Laura after 7-31-09 that there was no accusation that James had ever hit or struck Laura. However, the reports were replete with broad non-specific accusations from Laura that James had been violently beating her or physically abusing Laura for the duration of the marriage when no such evidence of any such violent behavior by James appears to exist. After review of the documents that Laura provided, there were no reports of physical violence by James included in Lauras documentation either. 16. However in police report after police report and DVI after DVI from 2009 through the present date, this specific event is raised over and over again as a new fresh incident by Laura and stated in a manner as to lead the person reading or taking these report to believe it just occurred. These pieces of documentation caused this evaluator to focus more specifically on what the documents themselves could reveal without having to rely on the statements of either party. 17. James also played a very recent 911 call recorded on October 12, 2013, where Laura called the police on James because Jordan had not called her on Friday October 11, 2013. Within that 911 call, Laura stated that she had not been called since she dropped off her daughter but initially failed to clarify that it was just the day before. The 911 operator asks Laura when was the last time her husband (James) had attempted to contact her and Laura responded oh gees, attempted to contact me?... I guess about three and a half years ago. Lauras admits that James has not even attempted to contact her for over three and a half years, yet according to Lauras statements in dozens of police reports and DVIs James has been abusing, stalking her, obsessed with her and was going to kill her if she filed for divorce. This is inconsistent with Lauras previous statements and accusations regarding James. 18. . Out of the 140 plus police reports filed by Laura against James within the last four years, he showed this evaluator that there was not one police action

based upon him going to Lauras residence, place of business, friends homes, or even happening to merely run into her anywhere. Conversely the reports showed that every time there was a police action, Laura was at James house, near his cars, at the home of James friend where she initiated the contact with James. James also showed this evaluator literally hundreds of photographs retrieved from the mothers cell phone apparently taken by Laura herself over a three year period showing Laura taking photos of James home, cars, license plates, through his car and home windows as well as inside of James home. 19. This evaluator asked James, if this were true, then why would the police not do anything to stop Laura. James presented text messages, police investigation reports, newspaper clippings, TV broadcast news links, Internal Affairs investigation reports that all supported the claim that Laura was simultaneously intimately involved with multiple police officers from multiple jurisdictions. All of these relationships with these officers were ongoing simultaneously along with multiple other sexual and dating relationships. 20. This evaluator was also shown a newspaper article and a local ABC Action News report which reported naked photos of a law enforcement officer. These were discovered on an electronic device inside then 9 year old Jordans backpack. This evaluator validated this information by contacting the ABC Action News reporter as well as a local attorney involved in the news report. 21. The documentation was validated by the information that a CPD officer had been intimately involved with Laura and that officer was not only personally responsible for several of the Clearwater Police actions against James, but that the officer would sit out in front of James home in his police car at 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on multiple occasions, while off duty, and search the license plates of the cars parked in front of James home. James contended that it was Lauras relationship with the CPD officer that allowed Laura to continually attack James. James alleges that Laura stalked him, vandalized his boat and cars, burglarized his home multiple times. Laura denies these allegations. This evaluator was shown hundreds of photographs that Laura took on her cell phone where she was at James home, in his home, in the alley behind his home and following him around, all taken over a three plus year period while James is having no contact with Laura according to her own statements. 22. James also provided examples of Laura working with a CPD Lieutenant to have James arrested for custody interference throughout 2011. These events started in June of 2011 and culminated in the arrest of James on December 22, 2011. 23. James described as another timesharing issue when Laura tried to take Fathers Day from him which fell on that Sunday. James suggested by email that Laura have her lawyer set up a hearing between the two lawyers to have

the judge clarify the orders; Laura declined. Laura agreed in a written email to Jamess interpretation of the court order, but then worked with the CPD Lieutenant to attempt to have James arrested on June 10, 12,16, 17 and the twice on June 19 (Fathers Day). This was evidenced by CPD reports CW1168613, CW11-69549, Incident Report Number 061611-00564, Incident Detail Report Number 071711-000626 and two from 6-19-11 CW1169549/2. These police records also show that Laura was in touch with the CPD Lieutenant during these attempted arrests and directed him to go to the home where James was with Jordan and take James into custody in the middle of the night while Jordan was present and that Laura would come get Jordan if they were able to arrest James. 24. James provided additional documentation in the form of multiple police reports that Laura continued this conduct and pattern of using the police at the drop off point every time the father would come to pick up or drop off Jordan throughout the summer. According to James police officers would approach the father and demand proof of insurance, license, search him, look in his car and basically attempt to find anything that they may be able to charge or use to arrest him. The mother meanwhile would be holding Jordan within the police station drop off point until the police were finished with the father; Jordan witnessed this each week. According to James, Jordan would refer to this as police Sundays. 25. As this evaluation continued it became evident that weeks could be spent going over the documentation that James possessed. 26. The first incident revolved around what the father claimed was his false arrest for Felony Interference in Custody on December 22, 2011. This evaluator was shown the detailed court orders and the Court ordered Parenting Plan. The parenting plan was clear that all drop off points were to be at the school with the exception of when the child was not in school then the drop off point would be at the CPD. The court order, specifying the pickups and drop-offs, prevented any contact between James and Laura. James could drop or pick up Jordan after school on Friday and at school on Monday when the mother was not there. Even with that courts order in place James presented photographs from Lauras cell phone where she had been photographing him picking up and dropping off Jordan at school on several occasions. 27. James presented documents that showed that at the end of Summer break in 2011 while the child was in school the drop off point was clearly at the school, not the CPD. This was further evidenced by Lauras own recorded testimony from her deposition by James lawyer in the criminal Felony Interference in Custody case. Laura read aloud the court orders in the deposition and agreed under oath that the court order was clear that the drop off point was to be at the school when the child was in school. James

showed that despite the court order and his email to the mother notifying her that he would be dropping off Jordan at the school once school commenced in August of 2011 that Laura commenced to file weekly police reports against James. 28. Laura went to the CPD from August 28, 2011 through spring of 2012 filing multiple police reports alleging that James was violating the court orders by not bringing or picking up the couples child to the police station on Sundays. Laura filed the following criminal reports against James: a) 08/08/2011 CPD Report CW11-104320 Interference in Custody, b) 09/04/2011 CPD Report CW11-1077511 Interference in Custody, c) 09/07/2011 CPD Report CW11-104320/1 Interference in Custody Invest, d) 09/12/2011 CPD Report CW11-104320/2 Interference in Custody, e) 09/25/2011 CPD Report CW11-117326 Interference in Custody, CPD Lieutenants actual report states Laura McLynas advised that James McLynas has become increasingly brazen and erratic in his behavior with their daughter Jordan McLynas specifically, James has ceased answering his cell phone and apparently will not come to the front door of his residence. f) 09/30/2011 CPD Report CW11-69549/3 Interference in Custody invest, g) 10/09/2011 CPD Report CW11-123502 Interference in Custody CPD Lieutenant makes the following comments within this report. James McLynas failed to return his daughter Jordan McLynas to Laura McLynas per the court order.he has failed to return her to the police department at 16:00 hours to Laura McLynas. When contacted by phone, James is confrontational, uncooperative and argumentative. h) 10/10/2011 CPD Report CW11-117326/1 Interference in Custody Invest, i) 10/23/2011 CPD Report CW11-129943 Interference in Custody, Lt. Crean Author. j) 10/30/2011 CPD Report CW09-110722 Interference in Custody, k) 11/06/2011 CPD Report CW11-129943/1 Interference in Custody, l) 11/07/2011 CPD Report CW11-129943/2 Interference in Custody SAO Warrant Attempt, I was asked why James has never been arrested and I told Falkowski he is avoiding law enforcement. m) 11/13/2011 CPD Report CW11-129943/3 Interference in Custody, n) 11/13/2011 CPD Report CW11-129943/4 Interference in Custody, o) 11/23/2011 PCSO Report SO11-398949 Laura attacks Jordan at the drop off point, p) 12/04/2011 CPD Report CW11-129943/5 Interference in Custody, there are numerous incidents where the father, James McLynas does not return Jordan as required in the court orders. I had prior knowledge of her continued issue regarding James McLynas refusal to cooperate with the court order. q) 11/15/2011 Text Message from Laura McLynas to CPD Lieutenant Sgt. , if James McLynas does not get pick up today then you wont be able to find

him. He takes Jordan to school by 830am and picks her up at 250pm in Palm Harbor. If you go to his house and he is not home his roommate will notify him that u were there and he will run again and u wont find him. r) 11/22/2011 James McLynas arrested for Felony Interference in Custody. 29. James showed case after case and report after report similar to the ones in the above examples. The remaining 100 plus police reports filed by Laura are similar in that there appears to be no basis in fact or circumstance that is accurate or valid within these reports filed over the last four years. 30. James also pointed out that as of January of 2013 there were 294 separate court filings in the Custody action; 244 of them were filed by Laura and only 33 of them were filed by James and his attorneys. Out of the 33 documents filed by James he claims that approximately half of them were filed based at the direction of the court. The purpose of pointing this out according to James was to show that the same pattern of filing excessive police reports is also extended to Lauras filing of excessive pleadings and motions as well. 31. James also provided copies of six Domestic Violence Injunctions (DVI) that Laura had filed against him, the basis of each that was investigated and proven to be meritless. However, Laura used these DVIs to take over the fathers home on multiple occasions and block him from seeing his daughter. 32. It was evident that James could have presented dozens and dozens of abusive and false filings for several days but there was no point. 33. This deputy was recently terminated from the PCSO. There are also text messages that clearly indicate that Laura was involved with other sexual relationships, both male and female. 34. This evaluator was also provided the entire library of Child Protective Investigation (CPI) reports from the PCSO. These reports chronicled a myriad of complaints and issues between the parents as it related to the children Taylor and Jordan. The CPI reports started during the first accusation of domestic violence by Laura which resulted in the arrest and prosecution of James. The reports are however revealing from a number of different perspectives. Throughout the CPI reports it is clear that Laura attempted to vilify James. The mother alleged numerous times that the father beat the children and her, however. each time these allegations were investigated by CPI and were proven to be unfounded. Both children repeatedly denied being abused or beaten by their father. Laura also repeatedly claimed that both children were afraid and even terrified of their father because of the years of violent abuse that the children have been the victim of and had witnessed. However, both children clearly stated, whenever asked that they were not afraid of their father, he had not abused them and they wanted to see him and be with him. 35. The above quotations and report references are the complete accounting from the sum total of all police and CPI reports where the children were

questioned about any physical abuse. Not once did either child ever claim that James has ever been abusive to them or their mother. Interestingly enough, there is an absolute absence within every single report where Laura herself actually accuses James of striking or hitting her. There are no police reports where Laura filed a report on any specific incident of domestic violence at the hands of James. Even in the original 07/31/2009 report where Laura had James arrested she does not claim that he hit her. Her only claim is that he pushed her and scratched her and then she later admitted that even this was a lie. 36. There are however dozens of non-specific allegations of horrific abuse at the hands of James. Statements such as James has beaten and abused her for 8 years. These statements, however, are not accompanied with specific dates or details. It is this evaluators position that all such accusations by Laura are highly questionable and in all appearances not true. They appear to be meant to vilify James in order to gain an unjust advantage over him in this custody case. 37. On 10/06/2013 after a request for something to drink by Jordan, Laura breaks out into a physical altercation between them. Laura is quoted in PCSO CPI report 100772711 as the mother stated that she was trying to get away from Jordan the whole time. Jordan weighs approximately 60 pounds. Lauras response to the altercation is to attempt to hospitalize Jordan under the Baker Act. This attempt is unsuccessful, however, from this point forward it is reported that Laura threatens Jordan with Baker Act hospitalizations as a form of punishment. PCSO CPI report 100772711 goes on to state Jordan reports liking to see her father and misses him when she does not see him. and the only verified report was when the mother was allowing Jordan to be cared for by her sister. This suggests that CPI was well aware that there were no verified findings of wrongdoing at any time by James, however, the CPI reports label James as a violent. 38. It is apparent that James is the parent who is more likely to foster a continuing relationship between Jordan and Laura. 39. James is anticipated to assume the majority of parental responsibilities as it is recommended that he have the majority of timesharing. 40. James has demonstrated the capacity and disposition to determine, consider and act upon the needs of the child. Laura has repeatedly involved law enforcement and child protection into her family affairs. It is the opinion of this evaluator that such involvement in this case is harmful to the child. 41. This child has had very little time in a stable, satisfactory environment in the past and it is hoped that her present living arrangement with her father is the beginning of such stability. 42. Generally morality is not the domain of mental health workers. In this case, however, there is evidence that the mother engages in extreme forms of

aberrant sexual behavior and has exposed the children to photographs of these acts. This would be a major consideration in recommending a timesharing schedule. 43. The mother is presenting with psychological test results that need to be further assessed by a psychiatrist who can rule out major mental health issues and if present prescribe appropriate treatments. 44. At present the child is settled into a new school in close proximity to the fathers residence and is reported to be doing well. 45. It hypothesized that the father is more capable and willing to provide a consistent routine for the child. The extreme conflict between the mother and Jordan is and has been a major concern for this evaluator. The last school reported that Jordan would at a weekly rate come to school unprepared, especially on Fridays. It was determined that this was during the time the mother had the majority of timesharing and the father only saw the child on weekends. School personnel also expressed concern that Jordan was left unattended some evenings and apparently had gone to school to express some fears she had when left home without her mother. 46. Many allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, neglect, etc. have been levied against the father for the last four years with literally no validation to any of them. 47. It is highly suspected that the above referenced (m. above) allegations were false reports by the mother and in fact she admitted to lying and later recanted her statements. 48. With Jordan presently in her fathers care, she should be protected by information regarding this litigation. It is not clear that the mother has the psychological soundness and executive function to protect her child from such information. 49. At this time, it is the undersigned evaluators opinion that the father has the capacity and willingness to meet Jordans developmental needs. 50. DETERMINATION: Jordan remain in the residence with James a. Laura be evaluated by a psychiatrist to rule out psychiatric disorders and the possible need for medication b. Laura have supervised timesharing until such supervision is released by an examining psychiatrist and perhaps consulting psychologist. Subsequent to supervised timesharing the attached Parenting Plan is recommended. c. The mother must seek an evaluation by a psychiatrist and psychologist to rule out the presence of a mental disorder and prescribe the appropriate treatment.