5-10-12-Galindo Full 095032 20

Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - LAMOREAUX JUSTICE CENTER
In re Marriage of:
)
Petitioner: KIRSTEN COOK, )
)
and ) Case No. 04D004333
)
Respondent: KENNETH ALAN COOK )
)
___________________________________)
Deposition of: MIRIAM GALINDO

Date and Time: Thursday, May 10, 2012
10:06 a.m.
Place: 4675 MacArthur Court
Suite 700
Newport Beach, California
Reporter: Karen Carlton Davis, CSR, RPR, CCRR,
CLR, Certificate No. 6774
SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994
Page 1
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Deposition of MIRIAM GALINDO, taken before

2 Karen Carlton Davis, a Certified Shorthand
3 Reporter, for the State of California, with principal
4 office in the County of Orange, commencing at 10:06 a.m.,
5 Thursday, May 10, 2012, in the law offices of
6 PAUL J. NELSON & ASSOCIATES, 4675 MacArthur Court,
7 Suite 700, Newport Beach, California.
8
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
9
10 For the Petitioner:
11

12

13

14
PJN & ASSOCIATES

BY: PAUL J. NELSON, ESQ.
4675 MacArthur Court
Suite 700
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 760-8888
paul@pjnassociates.com
15 For the Respondent:

16

17

18

19
LAW OFFICES OF ANN E. KYHLTASH

BY: ANN E. KHYLTASH, ESQ.
1107 E. Chapman Avenue
Suite 106
Orange, California 92866
(714) 771-0775
(NOT PRESENT)
20 Also Present:
21 KIRSTEN COOK
KENNETH ALAN COOK
22
23
24
25
Page 2
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 I N D E X
2 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
3 Mr. Nelson ........................................ 4
4
5 E X H I B I T S
6 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
7 Exhibit A Notice of Taking Deposition 4
8

9

10
Exhibit B Letter dated March 12, 2012 to Paul J. 6

Nelson from Miriam J. Galindo
11

12

13

14

15
Exhibit D Document headed Kirsten Cook employment 93

search
Exhibit C Retainer Agreement for Professional 11

Appearances
Exhibit E Letter dated August 5, 2011 to John 107

York, Ann Khyltash and Steve Dragna
from Miriam J. Galindo
Exhibit F Letter dated August 29, 2011 to APA - 112
Office of Ethics from Kirsten Cook
16 Exhibit G Intake Sheet 126

17

18

19
Exhibit H EOB from Dr. Kenneth N. Sokolski dated 138

7/16/11
Exhibit I EOB from Dr. Kenneth N. Sokolski dated 142
7/16/11
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Newport Beach, California - Thursday, May 10, 2012

2 MIRIAM GALINDO,
3 called as a witness, having been administered the oath,
4 was examined and testified as follows:
5 EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. NELSON:
7 Q. Can you state and spell your name for the
8 record.
9 A. Miriam Galindo. Spelled M-i-r-i-a-m. Galindo
10 is G-a-l-i-n-d-o.
11 Q. Dr. Galindo, I'm marking as Exhibit A your
12 Notice of Taking Deposition, and along with that was an
13 exhibit requesting you to bring documents to this
14 deposition.
15 (Whereupon, Exhibit A was marked for
16 identification.)
17 Q. BY MR. NELSON: Have you brought any documents
18 with you to this deposition?
19 A. Yes, I have.
20 Q. And are those documents all documents on which
21 you relied upon in conducting any custody evaluation in
22 the above-referenced matter?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Are they documents that contain your notes and
25 hypotheses?
Page 4
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Are there any documents from any third parties
3 which you utilized -4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- in conducting your custody evaluation?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Are there any documents which were requested
8 on the Notice of Deposition that you did not bring with
9 you?
10 A. Not to my knowledge.
11 MR. NELSON: At the outset of the deposition we have
12 a stipulation with Ms. Khyltash, who is counsel for
13 Mr. Cook, and as part of that stipulation I'm going to
14 read into the record that stipulation.
15 This deposition is moving forward by
16 stipulation over Ms. Ann Khyltash's objection due to an
17 illness. We have agreed by stipulation that Ms. Khyltash
18 has the right to cross-examine Dr. Miriam Galindo before
19 trial and that all objections, based upon questions at
20 this deposition, are expressly reserved by Ms. Khyltash.
21 There was an ex parte notice that was given to
22 our office yesterday for continuance of this deposition
23 and in consideration of this stipulation that ex parte
24 was continued.
25 Ms. Galindo, can you please briefly state,
Page 5
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 what is your current educational degrees that you hold.

2 A. I'm a licensed clinical psychologist, a
3 licensed clinical social worker, and a registered play
4 therapist.
5 Q. For what period of time have you been a
6 licensed clinical psychologist?
7 A. Since approximately 2007 or 2008.
8 Q. Now, marking as Exhibit B a letter in response
9 to our subpoena to you -10 (Whereupon, Exhibit B was marked for
11 identification.)
12 Q. BY MR. NELSON: I'll give you a copy of that.
13 -- requesting that you bring documents today;
14 is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And your contention is that you do not have
17 any authority to release any of the documentation of this
18 report to Ms. Cook's counsel at this deposition.
19 Is that your contention?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And that contention is based upon a family
22 code or a couple of family codes; is that correct?
23 A. No.
24 Q. What is that contention based upon?
25 A. It's based on a couple of family codes, a
Page 6
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 couple of civil procedure codes, a couple of

2 Juvenile Court requirements.
3 It is based on the laws and ethics of my
4 profession. And it's a standard of practice within the
5 psychological community.
6 Q. Let's talk about the standards and ethics.
7 What standards and ethics are you talking
8 about?
9 A. That whenever a psychologist has a record that
10 there's a holder of privilege, somebody that's in charge
11 of those records, in the case of the child custody
12 evaluation, the Court is in charge of those records.
13 When it comes to child abuse records,
14 Juvenile Court's in charge of those records, and it is
15 inappropriate for me to rerelease child abuse records
16 without the approval of Juvenile Court.
17 Q. Did I request any child abuse records?
18 A. That's part of the records.
19 Q. Okay.
20 And if -- is it possible that you could redact
21 the child abuse records and give us the rest of those
22 then?
23 A. I described that in the letter that I sent to
24 you. That was only one paragraph. The other is -25 Q. Well, my question is, do you have everything
Page 7
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 redacted that you state are pertaining to child abuse,

2 and do you have those ready to produce here at this
3 deposition?
4 A. No.
5 Q. And why is that?
6 A. Okay. That's one piece.
7 Second piece is when there's minors' counsel
8 appointed to represent children, minors' counsel holds
9 privilege over whatever pertains to the children. And so
10 without a specific waiver of privilege from him, I can't
11 release anything pertaining to the children.
12 Three, there are third parties involved.
13 Without an order of the Court, I can't share anything
14 from the third parties.
15 Four, without specific signed waivers from mom
16 and dad, I can't share anything from them.
17 So truly what this widdles down to, is if
18 there are certain documents that you want released about
19 mother, that's one possible way you can do it is to get a
20 subpoena for those documents with a notice to consumer
21 attached. And I release the interviews -- the interview
22 notes pertaining to mother only.
23 The rest of the file needs to be by order of
24 the Court.
25 Q. Well, if my client is sitting here and agrees
Page 8
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 that you may release anything related to her, she

2 certainly would not need a subpoena within those consumer
3 [sic] for you as holding those documents in order for you
4 to discuss those and give us those records, correct?
5 A. Um -6 Q. You're not an attorney, but that would not be
7 the case.
8 A. I was very, very clear in my letter that the
9 best way to get all these documents is an order of the
10 Court. And I also shared that it would be very important
11 that if you're wanting documents for this deposition,
12 that we do it the right way.
13 Q. Well, you just said the best way. I'm here -14 A. That's what I'm going to stick to is a court
15 order.
16 Q. And do you get advice of counsel of this
17 [sic]?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. And who was that counsel?
20 A. There is a counsel with Brent Caudill's office
21 that advised us on this. We have a peer consultation
22 meeting among child custody evaluators where we've
23 discussed this.
24 There have been numerous other incidents
25 involving other child custody evaluators where particular
Page 9
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 judges have been very clear that the only way the file is
2 released by way of court order, Judge Linda Miller being
3 one of them, Judge Claudia Silbar being another.
4 I think the most conservative way of going
5 about this is the Court order.
6 Q. We had requested also in a letter yesterday,
7 which we received no response, about your fees. Your
8 $2,000 per day.
9 I had requested clarification as to whether or
10 not that would be 1,000 per half day.
11 Can you clarify that?
12 A. On the back of my letter that is sent to you,
13 March 12, 2012, I include a retainer agreement. In a
14 subsequent letter I refer to that retainer agreement.
15 It's very clear what constitutes a half a day and what
16 constitutes a full day.
17 I was led to believe that today would be a
18 full day.
19 Q. How were you led to believe that?
20 A. Because I was told I was going to be here for
21 a full day by way of the subpoena, and today was going to
22 start at ten o'clock.
23 I was paid $2,000 for a full day, and I was
24 told late yesterday by way of a letter, perhaps, it
25 wouldn't exceed a full day; however, I have canceled my
Page 10
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 entire day and the expectation is I'm here for the day.
2 Q. Can you show me in the subpoena where it says
3 you'll be here for a full day. That was Exhibit A. I'll
4 show you Exhibit A here.
5 A. Thank you.
6 Okay. Date, May 10th, time 10:00 a.m., and I
7 was paid $2,000 for a full day.
8 So unless I'm told otherwise, I think it's
9 reasonable to come to the conclusion that it's a full
10 day.
11 Q. You just assumed it was a full day. Okay.
12 A. Here's my retainer that I sent over to you.
13 You may keep it.
14 Q. Okay.
15 MR. NELSON: I'll mark that as Exhibit C.
16 (Whereupon, Exhibit C was marked for
17 identification.)
18 Q. BY MR. NELSON: How many different evaluations
19 did you conduct in this case?
20 A. Two.
21 Q. What was your understanding of what you were
22 to conduct on the first evaluation?
23 A. Stated in the scope and purpose. So it was a
24 full custody evaluation with a specific scope. I'm not
25 sure if you want me to review the scope.
Page 11
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. And the scope and purpose is -- are you

2 talking about the date of June 23, '10?
4 Q. The scope and purpose is not listed on a
5 header; is that correct?
6 A. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine
7 the appropriate custody and visitation with the parties'
8 three minor children, and it's in the first paragraph on
9 the first page.
10 Q. What was the scope?
11 A. That is it.
12 Q. Is there a difference between scope and
13 purpose?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Based upon -- let's just get to the end of
16 that.
17 What did you opine at the conclusion of your
18 first evaluation?
19 A. Sure.
20 Q. If you can identify the page as well of that
21 evaluation where your opinion is located.
22 A. Okay.
23 The opinion is on page 36 to 38, concluding
24 with parenting plan recommendations.
25 In summary, my biggest concern was Ethan. And
Page 12
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 among all of the variables that were affecting this

2 family, and there were many, Ethan was the most emergent;
3 and my recommendations centered around making sure that
4 his emergent needs were met.
5 Q. When you say "emergent," what do you mean by
6 that?
7 A. The child was emotionally disturbed at the
8 time I was doing the evaluation. He was going downhill
9 fast. I had grave concerns about his safety, about the
10 safety of others.
11 Q. His safety from whom or by whom?
12 A. Himself.
13 And so with this being the most compelling
14 variable, and what I opined is that we needed to leave
15 custody alone, make sure the family got into case
16 management, but the most pressing issue was to get Ethan
17 some help.
18 Q. When you say "leave custody alone," in your
19 first recommendation on page 38, you say joint legal
20 custody.
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. So how is that leaving it alone?
23 A. I think that at the time dad wanted increased
24 physical custody.
25 Q. I'm talking about joint legal custody, not
Page 13
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 physical custody.
2 A. What was it before?
3 Q. I don't know. You did the evaluation.
4 A. Right.
5 It remained the same as it was before.
6 Q. So your opinion was legal custody to remain
7 the same?
9 Q. Okay.
10 So basically from what I'm hearing, after
11 doing the first evaluation, the only thing you opined was
12 that Ethan needed to have some intervention immediately;
13 everything else needed to remain the same.
14 Is that basically in summary?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay.
17 Then help me understand that, please.
18 A. Not everything needed to stay the same. That
19 in order to sort through all the variables, we had to at
20 least attend to Ethan. And so -21 Q. When you say "all the variables," be a little
22 more specific, please.
23 A. When I was looking at this particular family,
24 there was a lot of contention, there was a lot of strife.
25 One of the most difficult -- let me define variables
Page 14
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 first.
2 Variables are many different factors that are
3 affecting this family that are causing conflict. The
4 question that was given to me is what kind of custody and
5 visitation should these three children have.
6 One of the most difficult things was to
7 determine what Elliott and Lilli would benefit from when
8 Ethan was in so much trouble. So until we got Ethan some
9 help, I couldn't filter through the other factors. The
10 other factors being mother's anger. The other factors
11 being what appeared to be overprotectiveness on dad's
12 part. Sometimes contrary to what I felt were in the best
13 interest of the children.
14 Some oppositionality on dad's part. Major
15 conflict going on with the parents. Some undermining.
16 Some triangulation.
17 Q. Let me stop you. You're using terminology
18 that you've used substantially throughout your reports,
19 typically, triangulation.
20 If you could please explain what you mean by
21 that.
22 A. Sure.
23 Triangulation is best described as two parties
24 who enlist or recruit a third party to be part of the
25 conflict. So if the conflict is going on between mom and
Page 15
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 dad, as it did in this case, then a third party is

2 recruited to take a side.
3 And what I saw in the initial report is a lot
4 of recruiting by way of disclosing court-related
5 information to third parties.
6 Q. Like whom?
7 A. Some of those third parties were people that
8 could disclose that information to the children. Some of
9 those third parties were friends of the family or people
10 who took care of the children. Some were professionals.
11 And it was destructive, in my opinion, in my
12 first report, not only because the child Lilli was being
13 exposed to it, but because it was creating a warfare of
14 sorts where one parent was recruiting some people to be
15 on one side against the other.
16 Q. Which parent?
17 A. Mother.
18 Q. And so your references in the first report to
19 triangulation reference mother?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And those various people we talked about,
22 friends, professionals -23 A. And the child.
24 Q. -- and the child were all being triangulated
25 by mother?
Page 16
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In the end after your conducting of testing -3 which you did, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. After interviews which you did, correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- you opined that there should be joint legal
8 custody of Elliott and Lilli, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Mother be granted sole legal custody of Ethan;
11 is that correct?
12 A. Pertaining to something in particular?
13 Q. Residential treatment.
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Joint physical custody and primary physical
16 custody of Lilli and Elliott?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. And then father have alternate weekends?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Every Wednesday overnight, correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. That report was issued June 23, 2010?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And you finished your interviews -- your last
25 interviews approximately when for this report?
Page 17
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 I'm looking at page 7, as I read it, it looks

2 like June 23, 2010, something was done, a consultation
3 the same day you wrote the report.
4 Does that sound correct?
5 A. Yeah, it looks like it.
6 Q. So who is Kay Davison?
7 A. Kay Davison is an educational consultant who
8 has expertise in residential for teenagers.
9 Q. Who is Manny Tau?
10 A. Manny Tau is an expert in threat assessment
11 and school violence.
12 Q. So you talked with both of these experts the
13 same day you issued this final report, correct?
14 A. Yes, it appears so.
15 Q. And then two days before that you also talked
16 with some collateral phone interviews, about four
17 different people: Ethan's school psychologist, mother's
18 therapist, Ethan's probation officer, and father's
19 reference.
20 Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, it appears so.
22 Q. So the entirety of the report and the
23 interviews took place over a period of about three
24 months, right, according to the dates on your report?
25 A. Yes.
Page 18
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Over that three-month period you have

2 collateral interviews, you have testing background checks
3 it looks like. You do conjoint meetings, interviews with
4 the children, psychological testing.
5 And then you opine as to what's in the
6 interest of the children with respect to legal and
7 physical custody and that comes out in June 2010,
8 correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. To your knowledge, did that physical custodial
11 arrangement go into place at any time after your opinion?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. Well, you conducted a follow-up 730
14 evaluation, did you not?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And when did that commence?
17 A. That began in July of 2011.
18 Q. So a year later?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. At the commencement of that 730 evaluation,
21 what was the custodial arrangement or the visitation
22 arrangement that was currently in place?
23 A. It was a bit confusing at first.
24 Q. To whom?
25 A. To me.
Page 19
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012

2 A. Because, number one, I didn't have all the
3 documents -- the Court documents at the time that I
4 started the evaluation with the first interview.
5 Q. Is that normal?
6 A. Yes, it is normal. And the reason they don't
7 always do that is because they want to make sure that I'm
8 not biased.
9 Q. Reason who doesn't always do that?
10 A. Attorneys. As well, evaluators try to protect
11 against bias by making sure we're not receiving one set
12 of documents over the other.
13 Number two, I was under the impression at the
14 time mother was still here and only learned later that
15 she wasn't and that the kids were in the full custody of
16 their father, physical custody.
17 So when you ask me what was the custody at the
18 beginning, that's what I mean when I say I was a bit
19 confused initially.
20 Q. Is that important to you in some way?
21 A. It was important because I was under the
22 impression when I received the Court order that this was
23 a move-away, i.e., that the move was going to happen,
24 future tense.
25 And then in July after I commenced the
Page 20
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 evaluation process, I learned that the move-away had

2 already occurred.
3 Q. What, the mother had moved away?
4 A. I was going to add that. Without the
5 children, yes.
6 Q. That's not uncommon certainly, is it?
7 A. That is not prohibited.
8 Q. What do you mean, by law or prohibited by
9 what?
10 A. Of course not. People in the United States
11 can move. So I wouldn't say that it is completely
12 typical, but you're right, it's not atypical.
13 Q. Certainly you were aware that she didn't have
14 a job, correct?
15 A. No. And you're asking me at the beginning of
16 the evaluation did I have any knowledge of this case at
17 this point, no, I didn't.
18 Q. Did you later become aware that she didn't
19 have a job?
20 A. That's right, yes.
21 Q. So based upon those facts, whenever you became
22 aware of them and the fact that she moved in order to get
23 employment, not atypical someone would do that, correct?
24 A. It has happened before.
25 Q. Not my question.
Page 21
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Not atypical someone would move in order to

2 get employment?
3 A. No, I can't say that it's not atypical because
4 I don't know the standard. Is it atypical for me based
5 on the 170 evaluations I've done, I would say maybe four
6 out of 12 move-away cases the person has already moved.
7 But is it atypical for the Court, probably not. I don't
8 know.
9 Q. Did the fact that Ms. Cook had moved play into
10 your opinion in any way?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Not at all?
13 A. Nope. And I'll tell you why.
14 Because the assumption when I start a
15 move-away evaluation is that the move-away will occur.
16 It will. There's not going to be a question about it for
17 the parent.
18 Q. Why is that? Is that your assumption? That
19 certainly is not the assumption of every 730 evaluator
20 that I've -21 A. It's based on appellate cases; that the
22 assumption is to be that the parent is moving. And now
23 the question is what shall we do about the children. Is
24 it in the best interest for them to move with, or is it
25 in the best interest for them to stay.
Page 22
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. It depends who's requesting the move. When

2 you say it's based on the appellate cases, what's your
3 understanding when you say that?
4 A. The appellate cases in 2011 that make it very
5 clear that when a person files for a move-away that the
6 assumption needs to be that they're moving.
7 Q. Well, the appellate cases have to do with not
8 temporary custodial arrangements.
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. Right?
11 A. All I can tell you is what Judge Clay Smith
12 presented to us. And Judge Clay Smith was very clear to
13 all of us when we do our evaluations, the assumption is
14 the parent is moving.
15 So, therefore, when I wrote this evaluation,
16 my assumption was the parent is moving; now what's in the
17 best interest of the child.
18 So the fact that mother had moved made no
19 difference to me. If it was in the best interest for the
20 children to join her, that's great. If it's in the best
21 interest for them to stay, that's great. That was my
22 job.
23 So I'm just answering your question about
24 whether I was influenced by mom already moving or not.
25 Q. Did you -- now, under the second report you
Page 23
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 state you analyzed it under La Musga.

2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Based upon that, is it your understanding or
4 was it your understanding the mother had primary physical
5 custody, at least under your report that was done in June
6 2010, correct?
7 A. Can you restate that.
8 Q. Your recommendation under the June 2010, the
9 first 730 evaluation, was the mother have primary
10 custodial care of the two minor children, correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. If that occurred under La Musga and Burgess,
13 she would have the presumptive right to move.
14 Is that of what you're speaking?
15 A. I can't comment on the law.
16 Q. You just did. You said Judge Smith told you
17 when they state they're moving, they are moving.
18 A. Right.
19 Q. The appellate cases comment on that, and
20 that's what you state and you actually put in your
21 report, La Musga, and you analyzed it under the La Musga
22 factors.
23 A. I was asked to under the scope.
24 Q. By whom?
25 A. The scope and purpose of this update was
Page 24
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 provided to me in the Court order and it requires an

2 analysis of a proposed move-away by mother according to
3 La Musga criteria.
4 Q. So the La Musga criteria -- did you read the
5 La Musga case?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Did you read it prior to doing your
8 December 19, 2011 report?
9 A. Yes. It was prior to doing this report.
10 Q. What's your understanding of La Musga and
11 Burgess, as we sit here today?
12 A. I'm not going to analyze the law.
13 Q. I'm asking you what's your understanding of
14 La Musga and Burgess.
15 A. The -- I'm not going to comment on the law. I
16 was asked -17 Q. I'm entitled to your opinion. You've
18 conducted an entire 730 evaluation and your assignment,
19 scope and purpose start out with an analysis of a
20 proposed move-away by mother according to the La Musga
21 criteria.
22 My question to you is, what are those La Musga
23 criteria?
24 A. Okay. Now I understand your question. That's
25 not what you were asking before.
Page 25
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. I'll ask what I asked before again.

2 A. The La Musga criteria -3 Q. And just for the record, since we have
4 Livenote, La Musga is L-a M-u-s-g-a. And Burgess is
5 B-u-r-g-e-s-s?
6 A. I described the criteria on the bottom of page
7 25.
8 Q. So where did you get these criteria from?
9 A. Two sources. One is the move-away literature,
10 which includes, but is not restricted to -- excuse me,
11 let me strike that.
12 This criteria was based on the La Musga case.
13 It was a criteria that's enumerated in the La Musga case.
14 Q. Where did you obtain this criteria that you
15 have listed on page 25 which delineates 13 factors?
16 A. The La Musga case.
17 Q. You read the La Musga case and you obtained
18 that yourself; is that correct?
19 A. Well, I did, and a number of us other child
20 custody evaluators. So a group of us read the documents,
21 read the literature on the move-aways and drew these
22 conclusions.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. And the items on 26, 9 through 13, are other
25 factors that are based on the literature by
Page 26
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 William Austin.
2 Q. And who is William Austin?
3 A. He's an authority on move-away cases in the
4 psycholegal literature.
5 Q. And where is he based? Is he in California?
6 A. I don't know. I'd have to let you know.
7 Q. Wouldn't that be important since we're dealing
8 with California law?
9 A. Not necessarily because William Austin is not
10 necessarily talking about the law. He's talking about
11 the psychology and some psychological factors that impact
12 the best interest of the children when we talk about
13 move-aways. And these criteria are not necessarily
14 included in La Musga, which is why it is important to
15 also consider them. So these are psychological factors
16 rather than legal.
17 Q. Well, tell me then, according to your
18 understanding, factors 1 through 8, which you are
19 identifying as legal factors; is that correct? Is that
20 what you identify them as?
21 A. All I can say is they're the La Musga criteria
22 and -23 Q. You identified them as legal factors.
24 A. They are under a particular case, so they're
25 based on case law. Many of them are psychological in
Page 27
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 nature, but they're taken from the La Musga case and,

2 therefore, when people ask me to analyze a case based on
3 La Musga, they're typically referring to those factors.
4 When -- as a psychologist and as a child
5 custody evaluator I also have to consider all factors
6 affecting best interest, and I also extend that list to
7 include the additional factors proposed by
8 William Austin.
9 Q. And on what are you basing the fact where you
10 state as a 730 you need -- or as a psychologist and child
11 custody evaluator you have to analyze all factors
12 affecting the best interest; on what are you basing that
13 opinion?
14 A. California rules of court.
15 Q. What California rule of court is that?
16 A. 5.220.
17 Q. Would you have that available to you?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 5.220 and 5.225.
20 5.230 is also talking about domestic violence
21 factors.
22 5.250 which takes into consideration the
23 preferences of the children.
24 And there are very, very specific inclusions
25 or considerations child custody evaluators have to review
Page 28
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 in order to make recommendations about the best interest

2 of children.
3 Q. Based upon what?
4 A. Well, first of all, I make a list, that might
5 be helpful, on page 24 and 25 so I could summarize some
6 of the things I'm looking at when I consider the best
7 interest of the children.
8 First, we're looking at is there a presence of
9 child abuse.
10 Have the children been exposed to domestic
11 violence, particularly recent domestic violence.
12 Q. Which page are you looking at?
13 A. There's a list on page 24 and 25, and I'm
14 starting with Family Code 3011, which is describing the
15 best interest of the child; four criteria, or it proposes
16 four criteria.
17 So I'm starting with whether the child has
18 been exposed to abuse, whether the child has been exposed
19 to domestic violence, the continuity and frequency of
20 contact between the child and each parent. Whether the
21 parents are abusing substances.
22 Other things I look at are mental illness, and
23 whether the mental illness has a detrimental affect to
24 the child.
25 I'm looking at parental capacity.
Page 29
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 I'm looking at the relationship between

2 siblings.
3 I am looking at each parent's capacity to
4 co-parent, and which parent is more likely to support the
5 relationship between the child and the other parent.
6 I'm looking at parenting strengths and
7 weaknesses.
8 Q. Why don't we go back to your assignment, scope
9 and purpose.
10 How come those factors you just delineated
11 aren't listed on your assignment, scope and purpose?
12 A. Because what they wanted -13 Q. "They" who?
14 A. What the attorneys and the Court wanted was an
15 analysis of the move-away.
16 Q. And aren't you the Court's expert here?
18 Q. So when the Court ordered you to do an
19 analysis of the move-away and you have a court order that
20 gives you specific factors from which you are to conduct
21 this analysis, you've identified six, correct?
22 A. Six?
23 Q. I'm looking at your report.
24 A. Eight. Eight La Musga criteria.
25 Q. I'm looking at your December 19, 2011.
Page 30
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Which report are you looking at?

2 A. December 19, 2011.
3 Which six factors?
4 Q. Assignment, scope and purpose.
5 The scope and purpose of this update was to
6 provide the following. You've listed one, two, three,
7 four, five, six.
8 A. Got it.
9 Q. Okay.
10 None of the things you just told me are listed
11 on those six things, correct?
12 A. That's right.
14 A. Because when I am asked to do a full custody
15 evaluation, I must analyze the best interest of the child
16 or children.
17 Q. Based upon what? Not court order?
18 A. California Rules of Court.
19 Q. What California Rule of Court says you must do
20 that, if you might?
21 A. You can look at 5.220 and 5.225.
22 Q. Let's look at those.
23 I'm handing you -- I'm looking at the same
24 time, California Rule of Court 5.220.
25 If you might, you can scroll down, if you can
Page 31
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 show me 5.220, which is entitled Court Ordered Child

2 Custody Evaluations.
3 Show me where you state that you must look
4 into things which you have testified to.
5 A. California Rules of Court 5.220, Subsection B,
6 under Purpose, The Courts order child custody evaluations
7 to assist them in determining the health, safety, welfare
8 and best interest of children with regard to disputed
9 custody and visitation issues.
10 Q. Okay.
11 Well, it states -- you've paraphrased that.
12 The Courts order child custody evaluations,
13 investigations and assessments to assist them in
14 determining the health, safety, welfare and best interest
15 of the children with regard to disputed custody and
16 visitation issues.
17 So there's no question that is why they order
18 them.
19 A. Right.
20 Q. But the Court ordered it -- you can keep that.
21 I'm going to have you look at it in a second because you
22 certainly didn't answer my question.
23 The Court may have that purpose in mind, but
24 here the Court specifically gave you an assignment, scope
25 and purpose, as you have delineated. That assignment,
Page 32
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 scope and purpose delineated six particular items, and

2 you put that specifically in your report.
3 Your assignment, scope and purpose was an
4 analysis of a proposed move-away according to La Musga
5 criteria.
6 A parenting plan if the move-away is granted.
7 A parenting plan if it's not granted. An opportunity to
8 speak with all of the children, interim and final
9 visitation orders, visitation to Hong Kong, whether
10 travel monitor is needed, and whether petitioner shall
11 have visitation, and whether it shall be monitored on
12 December 17, 18th, 2011.
13 So, again, show me -- I don't see under 5.220
14 where you must analyze the best interests of the
15 children. I see where the purpose of court-ordered child
16 custody evaluations is to assist the Court to determine
17 what's in the best interest of the children. Here the
18 Court has identified what it needs in order to do so.
19 Do you see what the difference is?
20 A. No, I don't.
21 Q. You don't?
22 A. Nope.
23 Q. Okay.
24 Other than what you've shown me, what else in
25 5.220 do you believe says you must look at the best
Page 33
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 interests of the children as part of your analysis?

2 A. Family Code 3011.
3 Q. Okay.
4 And was that part of your assignment and
5 scope?
6 A. No. When child custody evaluators are
7 assigned a full evaluation as opposed to a focused
8 evaluation, then the assignment is to consider the best
9 interest of the children pertaining to the scope that's
10 identified by the Court.
11 Q. And where are you getting that from?
12 A. Well, it's typically on every single order I
13 receive.
14 Q. Was it on this order?
15 A. And it's based on California Rules of Court.
16 Q. Which rule of court?
17 A. The one I just mentioned, 5.220.
18 Q. Please show me on that rule of court where it
19 is.
20 A. Under the Purpose, which is Subsection B.
21 Q. Well, that's just the definition. It
22 states -23 A. Right. That is our charge as child custody
24 evaluators unless we receive an order for a focused
25 evaluation. But even in that case what we're asked to do
Page 34
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 is provide information to the Court about the best

2 interest of the children. That's the standard for child
3 custody evaluations at this point in time.
4 Q. The standard as defined by whom?
5 A. I would say pretty much everybody in the
6 psycholegal community here in California has an
7 understanding that in California the standard is the best
8 interest standard for assisting the Court in making a
9 recommendation about custody and visitation.
10 So whenever -11 Q. Wait. It's just an understood standard?
12 There's no California Rule of Court? There's nothing
13 else according to what you stated; is that correct?
14 A. No, that's not what I stated.
15 Q. You stated, quote, I would say pretty much
16 everybody in the psycholegal community here in California
17 has an understanding that in California the standard is
18 the best interest standard.
19 A. Yes. Which is California -- which is Family
20 Code 3011.
21 Q. Which states what?
22 A. I described that already.
23 Q. Well, Family Code 3011 talks about making a
24 determination of the best interest of a child and this
25 talks about a legal determination by a judicial officer
Page 35
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 and a proceeding describing 3021.

2 It says, do you know what -- a proceeding
3 describing 3021, do you believe that that's what you were
4 conducting?
5 A. I'm not going to comment about any legal terms
6 or issues.
7 Q. Let me go to 3021.
8 3021 talks about, This part applies in any of
9 the following situations: A proceeding for dissolution
10 of marriage, a proceeding for nullity of marriage, a
11 proceeding for legal separation of the parties, an action
12 for exclusive custody, a proceeding to determine physical
13 or legal custody or for visitation in a proceeding
14 pursuant to a domestic violence protection act.
15 Did you believe that you were involved in a
16 judicial proceeding as part of your 730 evaluation?
17 A. I think you're asking me about 3021 and I had
18 mentioned 3011.
19 Q. The reason I did is because 3011 describes
20 3021 and I'll go back to 3011 where it says, quote, in
21 making a determination of the best interests of the child
22 in a proceeding described in 3021. That's the preface.
23 A. But 3011 also has a specific definition of
24 what constitutes the best interest of children.
25 Q. No question about that.
Page 36
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. However, 3011 specifically is limited to
3 proceedings as described in Section 3021, which I just
4 discussed. Those proceedings in 3021 are judicial
5 proceedings.
6 Do you understand that?
7 A. I have no idea where you're going with this.
8 No, I don't understand.
9 What would you like me to answer?
10 Q. Well, I think you have answered that you
11 are -- you believe that you are to look -- you believe
12 that you are looking and making determinations based upon
13 the broad knowledge in the psycholegal community that you
14 are to look at 3011 best interests, and that is
15 understood in the psycholegal community as part of the
16 child custody evaluation; correct?
17 A. I think you're misstating what I said.
18 Q. Then please tell me what you mean.
19 A. There's very specific -- there's a very
20 specific charge that's given to us.
21 Q. By whom and when?
22 A. California Rules of Court.
23 Q. Which California Rule of Court?
24 A. I already said.
25 Q. 5.220 again, correct?
Page 37
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. And then when you asked who knows about this,
4 that's what I said, well, it's well understood by child
5 custody evaluators in our community.
6 Q. Well, so even though the Court did not order
7 you to conduct this evaluation under any California Rule
8 of Court, be it 5.220 or any Family Code, be it 3011 or
9 under a judicial proceeding under 3021 or 3022, you still
10 believe that that was part of your charge, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, let me go to the preamble you have as far
13 as your scope, assignment and purpose.
14 It appears that when you wrote this order -15 I'm sorry, when you wrote -- let me back up.
16 Pursuant to the minute order in June 17th you
17 were appointed to conduct a custody evaluation updating
18 evaluation involving the minor children; Ethan, Elliott,
19 and Lilli, and their children [sic].
20 First question, where was Ethan at the time
21 that you got this charge?
22 A. He was living with his father.
23 Q. Scope and the purposes was to provide the
24 following analysis of a proposed move-away according to
25 La Musga criteria.
Page 38
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Parenting plan if the move-away is granted;

2 parenting plan if the move-away is not granted; and
3 opportunity to speak to all the children.
4 What did you mean by that?
5 MR. NELSON: Sir, if you continue to smirk at me, I
6 will stop this and ask for a protective order.
7 You have no opportunity to speak at all. I'm
8 just going to be clear on that.
9 MR. COOK: I'm going to say that I was not smirking.
10 But if you want to attack me for a look that I
11 have on my face in some kind of effort to create a
12 disruption or to heighten tensions for your purposes, you
13 can continue do that.
14 MR. NELSON: If you continue to smirk at me, I will
15 end the deposition and get a protective order and you
16 will not be able to attend.
17 MR. COOK: That would be fine with me.
18 Q. BY MR. NELSON: What was your understanding of
19 number 4?
20 And if you would refrain from -- with the
21 tensions between you and my client, I would also ask you
22 to please not do that with my client, as well.
23 MR. COOK: I would like to add that your client
24 turned to me and smirked at me in response to her
25 attorney's comments. And my attorney is not present.
Page 39
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. BY MR. NELSON: What was your understanding of

2 number 4, an opportunity to speak to all of the children?
3 What was your charge with respect to that?
4 A. To interview all the children.
5 Q. Did you do that as part of the assignment for
6 this December 19th report?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Did you do that with each of the children in
9 person?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, number 5 intrigues me somewhat.
12 It says an interim and final visitation
13 recommendation regarding visitation to Hong Kong for the
14 children and whether a travel monitor is needed.
15 Explain to me, was that the initial charge to
16 you on the order?
17 A. Which order?
18 Q. The order for the evaluation.
19 A. June 17, 2011?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. No. It was added by way of stipulation order
22 filed November 2nd, 2011.
23 Q. Okay.
24 And was number 6 added as well?
Page 40
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. And that was because Ms. Cook had already

2 traveled to Hong Kong; is that correct?
3 A. I don't know what the purpose was in that. I
4 just know that the judge had made a statement, and a
5 stipulation was drawn up based on something the judge had
6 said.
7 Q. Let's get to the recommendations in this
8 order.
9 What page do they reside on?
10 A. They start on page 34.
11 Q. So the recommendations here are approximately
12 a little over a year after the recommendations from the
13 first order, correct?
15 Q. And in the interim Dr. Liberman had conducted
16 some -- I guess, some referee work.
17 Is that what was done?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was that at your recommendation?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What was the reason you recommended that he
22 conduct, I guess, it was special master; he would become
23 a special master?
24 A. There were two reasons. One was this was -25 it was very apparent this was a high-conflict situation
Page 41
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 between the parents. And the most pressing issue that

2 needed to be addressed is Ethan's residential treatment.
3 Q. Were you done?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay.
6 And that was what Dr. Liberman addressed
7 specifically was his residential treatment?
8 A. He did. There were other things that he
9 addressed, but he did make a reference to Ethan's
10 residential treatment.
11 Q. The recommendations on page 34 of your
12 second -- or your update, I guess, is what you called
13 this; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You start out with legal custody. You say
16 This decision exceeds the scope of a psychologist and is
17 therefore directed to the Court for decision.
18 Now, I'm a little confused because your first
19 730 evaluation you actually make a recommendation for
20 joint legal.
21 Why now the change?
22 A. Because a change was needed, and I wasn't
23 simply saying we need to keep things the same.
24 In other words, I'm not touching anything in
25 the first evaluation except for a recommendation for
Page 42
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Ethan's care.
2 The second evaluation I'm very clearly saying
3 something needs to change. Here are the psychological
4 factors that I'm seeing that may persuade the Court to
5 consider a change in the legal status. But I am leaving
6 that decision to change things to the Court.
7 Q. So if I'm understanding you correctly, you
8 recommend joint legal custody in the first report and
9 that's okay, but that does not exceed your scope as a
10 psychologist; is that correct, or does it?
11 A. I, at the time, beyond Ethan's concerns, did
12 not have any information that would help the Court make a
13 decision about whether or not to change the legal custody
14 status.
15 What I was in effect saying is leave it alone
16 because I don't have anything to give you otherwise. In
17 this case I had a lot to give.
18 Q. Well, when you say I don't have anything to
19 give you in the first report, you nonetheless do give the
20 Court something, correct?
21 A. Uh-huh. Not pertaining to the joint legal
22 custody status.
23 Q. In fact, you do. Let's look at page 38 of
24 your first report.
25 Parenting Plan Recommendations, joint legal
Page 43
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 custody to mother and father of Ethan and Lillian.

2 Is that a "yes"?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That's a parenting plan recommendation that
5 doesn't say as you do on page 34 of your second report
6 this decision exceeds the scope of a psychologist and is
7 therefore left to the Court. You actually make a
8 recommendation of that, right?
9 A. Okay. I do.
10 Q. So is that an oversight on your part?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did something change in the scope of
13 psychologists in that one-year period where it was okay
14 in 2010 for you to make, as you call it, a decision -- I
15 assume you meant recommendation not decision -- in 2011;
16 am I right?
17 A. I'm not sure where I wrote "decision."
18 Q. Page 34 of the second 730 evaluation under
19 Legal Custody you say, This decision exceeds the scope of
20 a psychologist.
21 A. Because the Court makes the decision, the
22 ultimate decision.
23 Q. I understand.
24 You only make recommendations?
Page 44
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. So and, in fact, on the first report you do,

2 in fact, because you state joint legal custody to mother
3 and father; that's a recommendation.
4 A. There you go.
5 Q. Right?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. So you make a recommendation of joint legal
8 custody in 2010, and yet you defer and say, I'm not going
9 to make a recommendation in 2011 because I'm going to
10 leave it to the Court, right?
11 A. No.
12 Q. What do you say?
13 A. The ultimate decision is the prerogative of
14 the Court. The recommendation you can see follows that
15 paragraph and I have one, two, three, four paragraphs
16 where I describe from a psychological perspective why I
17 believe joint legal custody is not going to work. So I
18 do make recommendations, but the ultimate decision is
19 left up to the Court about whether to maintain the joint
20 legal status or whether to change it, modify it. Grant
21 somebody sole legal as opposed to the joint legal. So I
22 hope that clarifies.
23 Q. Is it your practice -- you quote extensively
24 Rules of Court and Family Code in your reports. Is that
25 your practice to do?
Page 45
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 So when you submit a report to the judge, in

2 other words, who's quite familiar with these codes, why
3 are you quoting the Family Code in these things?
4 You're not an attorney; why would you do that?
5 A. So that the Court has easy access to the code.
6 Q. You think the Court needs easy access to the
7 code in your report? It strikes me as a little bit odd,
8 that's all.
9 A. I appreciate your feedback. I don't find it
10 odd, but thank you.
11 Q. Is there something in Rule of Court or in your
12 Rules of Professional Conduct that -- where you believe
13 that you should be doing the legal research in providing
14 what you believe is the applicable code to the Court
15 within these custody evaluations?
16 A. No, there's not.
17 Q. Did you hear something from Linda Miller or
18 Judge Smith that they stated where we would like to have
19 you quote a code that you think is applicable in your
20 reports to us?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Who told you that?
23 A. Judge Linda Miller, Judge Mc Carten has
24 appreciated that, Judge Belz has appreciated that because
25 they can then refer to it.
Page 46
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Tell me the big change. What really happened

2 between the first report and the second report where you
3 say Ms. Cook should get primary custody of the two small
4 children in the first report; and a year later you
5 completely change your mind on that.
6 What are the -- give me the top three things,
7 in your mind, that made that big change in your mind.
8 A. The top factors are, number one, Ethan's
9 circumstance. If you remember in the previous evaluation
10 Ethan was living with father. My concern was Ethan's
11 emotional, psychological, physical welfare. I was
12 concerned about the children's -- the younger children's
13 access to Ethan, and whether they were -- whether their
14 health, safety and welfare was protected.
15 Q. Well, hold on. I don't understand that.
16 So at the first report you recommended the
17 younger children with mother and Ethan physically stay
18 with father.
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. When you say you're concerned about the
21 younger children's access to Ethan, what do you mean;
22 that they don't have access to Ethan or they do have
23 access to Ethan?
24 A. No. I did not see under the supervision of
25 either parent that Ethan would be imminently harmful to
Page 47
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 the younger children; however, if you recall one of the

2 things that I was saying is that Ethan was in a dangerous
3 place at the time of this evaluation and I wanted him in
4 residential care immediately.
5 Q. Okay.
6 So isn't it true the father was resistant to
7 that from the beginning?
8 A. All I can tell you is what I know in this
9 evaluation.
10 Q. Well, was father resistant to it in the
11 evaluations?
12 A. Yes, was.
13 Q. And mother thought it was a good idea,
14 correct?
16 Q. And did you opine anything with respect to
17 that?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. And what was your opinion with respect to
20 that?
21 A. I found dad's response to be overprotective.
22 Misguided. Maybe a bit naive. I found mother -- in
23 terms of the residential placement for Ethan and
24 recognizing how seriously disturbed he was, I found
25 mother to be right on and accurate in her perceptions.
Page 48
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. So do you know when Ethan was actually placed

2 at the RTP program?
3 A. Yes. It happened shortly after I began the
4 second evaluation.
5 Q. So back to when the first -- when they asked
6 you the top three things that made you change your idea
7 between the first report and the second report and you
8 stated the access of the younger children to Ethan, help
9 me understand what you meant by that.
10 Ethan is now in the RTP program. Children -11 the younger children don't have access to Ethan because
12 he is away in Montana, correct?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. What do you mean by the access to Ethan? How
15 does that affect your second recommendation that father
16 have primary custody?
17 A. Ethan is gone, so that's one variable.
18 Ethan's needs have been -- to my knowledge, at the time
19 of this evaluation they were taken care of so we
20 eliminated that variable which freed me up to then look
21 at other variables pertaining to custody and visitation.
22 So that's one. One thing.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Second thing is there is a move-away.
25 Third thing is I looked at the children's
Page 49
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 preference and that changed significantly.

2 Q. Changed significantly, meaning what?
3 A. Meaning that Lilli and Elliott, in terms of
4 the first evaluation, indicated an equal amount of love
5 and affection toward both parents. While that still
6 remained true in the second evaluation, they were very
7 specific and consistent in their request to remain with
8 father and not move to Hong Kong with mother.
9 So that's the difference between what was
10 stated in the initial evaluation when everybody was
11 living in the same community, and then in the second
12 evaluation when everybody was not in the same country.
13 Q. How old were Ethan and Lilli at the second
14 evaluation?
15 A. Ethan?
16 Q. I'm sorry. Lillian and Elliott.
17 A. Lilli was 13 and a half years old, she'll be
18 14 this June. And then Elliott was 11 and a half years
19 old.
20 Q. And who -- which one of the two or did they
21 both express equally the desire to stay back in
22 California?
23 A. They both expressed equally.
24 Q. And did you explore whether or not the father
25 was involved in sort of whispering in their ears about
Page 50
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 that?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. And how so did you explore that?
4 A. A couple of ways. One was to interview the
5 kids two times. Second is -6 Q. Only two times?
7 A. With me.
8 Second is I was able to speak with minors'
9 counsel who interviewed the children.
10 Q. How many times did he interview them?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Isn't that important to know?
13 A. Not necessarily.
14 Q. Why not?
15 A. Because he is representing the best interests
16 of the children and so he shared with me what the
17 children had shared with him.
18 Q. He doesn't have any psycho training at all,
19 does he?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Wouldn't that be important to know?
22 A. No, because I was going to say that the
23 third -- I'll just answer your questions, no.
24 Q. What's the third?
25 A. The third is I spoke with the detective who
Page 51
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 interviewed Lilli and specifically mother had asked her

2 to interview Lilli to determine if she was being
3 prevented from making contact to mother.
4 And I specifically asked the detective if she
5 felt like there was some interference by father.
6 Q. What did the detective say?
7 A. No. She said her opinion was no.
8 Q. And in that interview with Lillian was -9 occurred over how long of a time; how long was the
10 interview?
11 A. With me or the detective?
12 Q. Detective with Lilli.
13 A. You would have to ask her. I don't know
14 exactly how long the interview was.
15 Q. Not important to you then, right?
16 A. It would be important if that was the only
17 interview, but this was one of three sources that I
18 wanted to compare and contrast. So no, it wasn't that
19 important whether it was ten minutes, 30 minutes, an
20 hour. That was less important than was there consistency
21 over time in different locations with different persons.
22 Q. What about Elliott?
23 A. Elliott, I spoke to two times and then I also
24 spoke to minors' counsel about Elliott's statements to
25 minors' counsel.
Page 52
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. What did he tell minors' counsel?

2 A. I don't know what he told minors' counsel.
3 What I can tell you is what minors' counsel told me.
4 And minors' counsel was very clear that the
5 children wanted to stay here in California with their
6 father.
7 Q. At some point we have monitored even phone
8 calls, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that's a recommendation that you
11 institute; is that correct?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Or that you recommend?
14 A. That's -- why don't you restate your question
15 because I may have missed the question.
16 Q. Did you recommend monitored phone calls for
17 mother from Hong Kong for the children?
18 A. I wasn't the original one who recommended it,
19 but I did reinstate it.
20 Q. You reinstated it or you recommended that they
21 be reinstated?
22 A. I recommended that they be reinstated.
23 Q. Who recommended them?
24 A. My understanding is that they were in effect
25 from the November 2nd, 2011 stipulation and order, and
Page 53
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 that's when Mr. Bob Weiss was appointed as the monitor.

2 That was my understanding.
3 Q. And you say -- and when -- to your
4 understanding, when were they not in effect and you
5 reinstated them?
6 A. From November until the end of this evaluation
7 the monitored phone calls were still in effect, and my
8 recommendation was that they continue to be in effect.
9 Q. And that was based upon what?
10 A. It was based on the statements of the
11 children. It was based on my recommended plan for
12 treatment. It was based on a recorded phone message that
13 I had an opportunity to hear.
14 Q. A recorded?
15 A. Phone message.
16 Q. One recorded phone message?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. By whom?
19 A. The voice in the phone message is mother to
20 Lilli.
21 Q. And did Lilli hear the message?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what did that message say?
24 A. It is described in my report, so I could
25 either refer you to the page, or I can tell you a summary
Page 54
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 version.
2 Q. Sure.
3 A. It's on page 4. August 4th, 2011.
4 Would you like me to read it?
5 Q. Is this the full message or is this the key
6 portion of it?
7 A. This is the portion that I was able to hear
8 enough in order to be able to write it down.
9 So the ellipse marks indicate that there are
10 words that were in the message, but I wasn't able to
11 write down.
12 Q. So -- and this was left on an answering
13 machine; is that correct?
15 Q. On the father's phone?
16 A. I don't know which phone. I don't know.
17 Q. Do you know if Lilli had her own cell phone?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Would it be important if it was left on
20 father's phone and he let Lilli listen to it?
21 A. (No audible response.)
22 Q. Assume for a second that you know mother is
23 upset, she leaves something on father's cell phone.
24 Father then hears an upset comment by mother because of
25 this contentious divorce and he purposely takes it over
Page 55
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 and lets Lilli listen to something. That would be

2 different, would it not, if Lilli had a cell phone and
3 mom leaves it on Lilli's cell phone and she picks it up
4 and listens to it herself; would that be different?
5 A. Yes and no.
6 Q. It can't be yes and no, obviously. So yes or
7 no.
8 A. Would it be different as far as what?
9 Q. Well, on the one hand father would create the
10 situation or at least exacerbate the situation. On the
11 other hand, that he could prevent some, as you obviously
12 determined, damage to Lilli on the other hand, perhaps he
13 was unable to; that could be a difference, right?
14 A. That could be.
15 Q. You don't know which -- how it occurred; is
16 that correct?
17 A. No, I can't say.
18 Q. So you listened to this.
19 Who provided this phone message to you?
20 A. I received it from -- I believe a copy was
21 made to all counsel and I received a copy.
22 Q. And what in this message -- tell me -- I mean,
23 I guess I can read this.
24 You will never live with me again, dot, dot,
25 dot. The games have begun, dot, dot, dot. Your dad
Page 56
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 won't pick up the phone. You're responsible for this,

2 Lilli, because you didn't come clean with me regardless
3 of all I've done for you. Do you think I would have done
4 this without you telling me yes? Your words mean
5 nothing, nothing. You could have -- you couldn't have
6 hurt anyone any more. Your words are supposed to mean
7 something. The consequences of this are so difficult.
8 Tell me what did you ascertain or opine from
9 this message?
10 A. That it is detrimental to Lilli.
11 Q. Currently detrimental?
12 A. No. Presently detrimental.
13 Q. Presently as we sit here today?
14 A. Presently detrimental during the course of
15 this evaluation.
16 Q. This occurred nearly a year ago, correct?
17 Close, nine months?
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. Right. Ten months?
20 And is this one of the main reasons you
21 recommended that mother have continued monitored phone
22 visitations?
23 A. "This" meaning the message itself or the
24 children's responses to the message or the children's
25 reactions to the message? What is "this"?
Page 57
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Well, I'm only talking about this message,

2 that's all I've discussed. So you can certainly expound
3 upon all of those things if you'd like.
4 A. Okay. As far as this message, this is one of
5 the factors I took into consideration when I suggested
6 that the monitored phone calls remain.
7 Q. Tell me about the other factors that you just
8 talked about.
9 A. Lilli's response to the message.
10 Q. Which was what?
11 A. Extreme upset.
12 Q. In what way?
13 A. Tears.
14 Q. So she cried?
15 A. Self blame, guilt.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Feeling like the weight of the world was on
18 her shoulders.
19 Q. For how long?
20 A. Until I ended the evaluation.
21 Q. And the evaluation -- okay.
22 A. So I don't know if it continues to exist or if
23 it's been resolved.
24 Q. Did you recommend counseling for her?
25 A. I recommended counseling for mother.
Page 58
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. You didn't recommend counseling for Lilli?

2 A. I think once the environment is healed, the
3 children will be fine.
4 Q. Why, if the world is on her shoulders and
5 she's blamed herself would you not recommend counseling
6 for her if it was so detrimental to her?
7 A. I think dad did a good job of telling her it's
8 not her fault; it's not her decision to make and I think
9 minors' counsel did the same thing. And I know that
10 because the child was able to articulate that to me.
11 Q. But you just stated that for another two
12 months she continued to have the blame of the world on
13 her shoulders.
14 A. I think this affected her a lot. I think it
15 did.
16 Q. Now, certainly in a highly contested divorce
17 and in a situation this -- statements like this amongst a
18 family are not unusual, correct?
19 A. I disagree.
20 Q. You disagree?
21 A. I certainly do.
22 Q. How many hours total did you spend with this
23 family?
24 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you off the top of
25 my head. We'd have to count that up.
Page 59
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Give me an estimation.
2 A. I can't even estimate.
3 Q. Dozens?
4 A. At a minimum dozens.
5 Q. Well, since you've quoted so many family
6 codes, you certainly are aware of the code that says that
7 it is policy of the State of California that both parents
8 spend substantial time with their children, correct?
10 Q. Now, obviously we have a huge geography
11 distance between mother and the children, right?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. We have now an order in place for monitored
14 phone calls that currently is not taking place because of
15 financial reasons as well as some other things.
16 Were you aware of that?
17 A. No, I wasn't aware of that.
18 Q. Do you think that that has detriment on Lilli
19 of not having mother be involved in her life at all?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Which do you think is the greater evil here,
22 this phone call that happened nine months ago or not
23 having mom in her life at all right now?
24 A. Can I have a third option, which is, I would
25 say that they would be equally detrimental.
Page 60
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Well, what would you recommend -- so do you

2 have any recommendations as a psychologist here? I
3 mean -4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I mean, should mother continue to pay for this
6 phone message, you know, or can an apology of her
7 suffice?
8 A. I actually describe exactly what I think would
9 be helpful on page 35, and then I also describe what I
10 think would be helpful for a step-up plan toward
11 unmonitored visitation, which is on page 36.
12 So I definitely do not think that paying for
13 phone calls or even statements or even behaviors should
14 ever continue for the rest of a person's life.
15 Q. You don't think the what, I'm sorry?
16 A. That any kind of behaviors or voice messages
17 or statements should be paid for for the rest of a
18 person's life, and in this particular case I mean mother.
19 Q. Well, I'm glad to hear that, otherwise, none
20 of us would be able to ever talk with anybody again;
21 don't you agree?
22 A. Exactly.
23 Q. It certainly seems like nine months is a long
24 time; mother is paying for this for a long time, right?
25 A. It's not just the phone message. When you say
Page 61
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 nine months paying for a phone message, that's not -2 Q. What else is it?
3 A. Well, I describe everything else in the report
4 and I am very specific on page 35, the six points that I
5 list what else it is.
6 And I make it very clear if these things don't
7 happen, then I think it would be in the best interest of
8 the children to have a healthy relationship with their
9 mother.
10 Q. So the treatment you're talking about -- tell
11 me where you outline the treatment the mother should go
12 through. You talk about on page 35 the treatment.
13 A. Page 36 is actually the step-up plan. And the
14 treatment is on page 38, number 9. And under the
15 treatment I ask -- this is my suggested treatment plan, I
16 suggest anger management. I suggest a psychiatric
17 consultation to determine whether or not a medication
18 might be helpful with the anger, irritability and verbal
19 aggression, and I suggest a year of cognitive therapy.
20 And I can explain what that is if you'd like.
21 Q. Before mother has unmonitored even phone calls
22 she needs to go through an anger management course, have
23 a psychiatric consultation and year of a cognitive
24 therapy; am I understanding your recommendation
25 correctly?
Page 62
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. I don't think I was specific in this that she

2 had to finish an entire year of treatment before
3 monitored phone calls would be eliminated.
4 Q. Look at number 9. When you say treatment for
5 mother, it's recommended that mother's visitation be
6 monitored until the following two criteria be met.
7 What did you mean then?
8 A. Okay.
9 Do you see page 36?
10 Q. Let me ask you what you meant there.
11 A. I could do that.
12 Treatment, this page 38, number 9, describes a
13 treatment plan so that is a separate entity. The -14 Q. I'm specifically asking you about treatment
15 for mother where you say it's recommended mother's
16 visitations be monitored until the following two criteria
17 are met and then you have A, and you have three subsets.
18 You have mother keep certificates, and then
19 you have B, minors' counsel should interview the
20 children.
21 I don't know what two criteria you have there.
22 You've listed more than that.
23 A. A and B.
24 Q. So A and all its subsets and B?
25 A. Correct.
Page 63
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. And monitored phone calls or visitations are

2 in place, at least a year.
3 Is that your recommendation?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Why did you put that in there?
6 A. Because on page 36 I reference a treatment
7 when I'm talking about the phases for eliminating the
8 monitoring.
9 Q. Do you see how one could perhaps misunderstand
10 what you've written on page 38 then?
11 A. Yes. When it's taken out of context, I
12 certainly can. However, within the context of all the
13 recommendations, it makes sense.
14 Q. What did you mean then on 9, under item 38
15 it's recommended mother's visitations be monitored until
16 the following two criteria are met; what did you mean?
17 A. That treatment needs to be implemented before
18 any kind of liberalization of monitored visitations can
19 be considered.
20 Q. So implemented?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Not completed, correct?
23 A. No. That's not correct.
24 Q. Please explain then.
25 A. Because page 36 where I describe -SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994
Page 64
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. I'm just asking page 38. Please explain 38.

2 A. It can't be taken out of context. All I can
3 tell you, it says what it says.
4 Q. You just told me it's not what you meant, what
5 is written.
6 I want you to please explain what you meant.
7 A. What I meant is this is the treatment plan,
8 monitoring will remain in place. These are the
9 suggestions for treatment, and the treatment needs to be
10 integrated with a step-up plan toward unmonitored
11 visitation.
12 Q. Why don't you say that?
13 A. I will take that into consideration the next
14 time I write a report.
15 Q. Well, that certainly does not help Ms. Cook
16 since you've written this report and apparently have made
17 a gross error as I read it.
18 Do you agree?
19 A. No, I don't agree.
20 Q. Well, when you say it is recommended mother's
21 visitations be monitored until the following two criteria
22 are met and then you list something that has a one-year
23 time frame. For one, on your part, who has quoted the
24 Family Code extensively, who has quoted the California
25 Rules of Court extensively, who has quoted La Musga,
Page 65
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Burgess extensively, certainly we can all read the

2 English language quite clearly you are recommending that
3 she complete a year of cognitive therapy before monitored
4 visitation cease. That is the plain meaning of that
5 paragraph.
6 Do you disagree?
7 A. I see your interpretation.
8 Q. Do you disagree, ma'am?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Then tell me what, in fact, you mean by that.
11 A. I have been trying.
12 Q. I don't understand.
13 A. We can move on to another question.
14 Q. I do not wish to move on to another question.
15 A. I feel like I'm being bullied right now.
16 Q. I'm sorry. I want you to tell me specifically
17 what you mean then?
18 A. I already did.
19 Q. When under paragraph 9 should, in your
20 opinion, monitored visitations cease?
21 A. Unless you read that paragraph within the
22 context of all other recommendations, I can't help you
23 with this. If you would like me to read the other
24 recommendations or refer you to another page, it makes
25 perfect sense.
Page 66
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Ma'am, you've written a paragraph that stands

2 alone here, and it has a sentence that stands alone, so I
3 would like you to please explain.
4 And my question simply is this: This
5 paragraph states that her monitored visitations -- she
6 has recommended mother's visitations be monitored until
7 the following two criteria are met.
8 What did you mean if you did not mean that she
9 needs to complete a year of cognitive therapy before
10 monitored visitations cease? What did you then mean?
11 A. I've already answered the question. I don't
12 know how else to help you with this one.
13 Q. Did you mean that -- let me ask it another
14 way.
15 Did you mean that she needed to begin or
16 enroll in a cognitive therapy class first and then
17 monitored visitations may end?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you mean that she needed to begin and
20 complete a partial portion of cognitive therapy before
21 your recommendation be that monitored visitation end?
22 A. Without referring to the rest of the
23 recommendations, I can't help you.
24 Q. What rest of the recommendations are you
25 referring to?
Page 67
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. Page 36, number 5.

2 Q. In other words, I'm going to have to -- in
3 order to understand page 38, clause 9, I have to refer
4 back to page 36, number 5, correct?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Show me how to interpret page 38, number 9, by
7 referencing 36, 5.
8 A. So page 36, 5, there's a description of what
9 happens before unmonitored phone calls should be granted.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. Phase two, I'm very specific that under sub
12 item 3 mom's participation in treatment for at least six
13 months as described in subsequent recommendations, which
14 obviously you've talked about.
15 And then I describe in phase three what to
16 consider when -- when looking at unmonitored visitation
17 in Hong Kong as opposed to in California.
18 Q. Let's start with phase one, unmonitored phone
19 calls should be granted upon mother's compliance with the
20 rules of unmonitored visitation as outlined in
21 recommendation 4.
22 Where is recommendation 4?
23 A. It's on page 35, under number 4, visitations
24 for mother, and I list out six rules for interaction.
25 Q. So then unmonitored phone calls, if mother is
Page 68
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 complying with page 35, clause 4, A through F, the

2 recommendation would be for unmonitored phone calls; is
3 that correct?
4 A. That's one of this subfactors. The other is
5 the child's preference or children's preference and
6 stated level of comfort as determined by minors' counsel.
7 There's two criteria.
8 Q. Those two conditions then lead to unmonitored
9 phone calls or at least a recommendation for unmonitored
10 phone calls; is that correct?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. Unmonitored visits in California then is
13 solely based under phase two; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And phase three, unmonitored visits in
16 Hong Kong is solely listed under C; is that correct?
17 A. It is not solely listed, but that is the bulk
18 of the recommendation. And then, of course, on page 37
19 at the bottom I describe a general protocol for travel.
20 So with both of those we're talking about a sole
21 description of travel to Hong Kong, yes.
22 Q. So back to clause 9.
23 I don't understand still -- how I am to
24 understand -- read clause 9 and integrate that with what
25 you have just explained in the other steps. It does not
Page 69
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 seem to flow with what you've just described.

2 A. What would you like from me?
3 Q. To help me understand.
4 Here's the problem. Clause 9 seems to add
5 three or four additional things as conditions for
6 unmonitored visitations that do not occur in clause 4, 5.
7 In 5, phase A, B, C. It seems to just stand alone.
8 A. I don't know what you're asking. You're
9 saying it just seems to stand alone.
10 Q. Yes.
11 For instance, you're talking about you have an
12 unmonitored visitation step-up plan under clause 5. In
13 that you have phone calls, visits in California, and then
14 you have visits in Hong Kong. And you have -- for
15 instance, phone calls we have two steps. And those steps
16 include -- you reference clause 4, okay.
17 If you go back and look at clause 4, you have,
18 you know, A through F, mother follows -- as I read it, I
19 mean it's -- in order to get unmonitored phone calls she
20 needs to one, go -- 4, A through F, follow that, and then
21 minors' counsel determines preference and level of
22 comfort and then boom, you have unmonitored phone calls.
23 Now, if I was to then look at 9, 9 doesn't
24 quite jibe with any of that, okay. Do you understand
25 that? 9 seems to be much more restrictive or at a level
Page 70
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 of complexity to that.
2 Please explain that.
3 A. I guess my explanation would be that you are
4 interpreting it in a different way than it was presented
5 and so that might explain why it seems to be more
6 restrictive than the unmonitored visitation plan that I
7 lay out.
8 So I think it's -- if we could summarize it,
9 it's a matter of interpretation, and I'm happy to clarify
10 as I've been clarifying if that would help.
11 Q. I would love to have it clarified.
12 A. So if there's any doubt at all, the best way
13 to interpret this is to go to page 36 and use the step-up
14 plan as your main source, and then from the step-up plan,
15 refer to the items as listed.
16 The treatment should -- the complete treatment
17 should occur for a year. However, as I described in the
18 step-up plan, there is the option to liberalize
19 visitation prior to that year, obviously, because as you
20 can see with the unmonitored phone calls, I don't even
21 indicate she needs to start treatment. I'm simply saying
22 these are the things that need to happen so that we can
23 do unmonitored phone calls.
24 So this can start right away and should have
25 started right away.
Page 71
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Should have started right away.

2 A. Yes. If these two criteria are met.
3 Q. Being 4, A through F, and minors' counsel talk
4 with the children?
6 Then phase two, the unmonitored visitations in
7 California, this portion of the step-up plan should be
8 read which then references the treatment and also
9 indicates the treatment simply needs to proceed for at
10 least six months.
11 And since I wrote this back in December, we
12 should be at the six-month mark.
13 Q. What do you mean by treatment needs to be for
14 at least six months?
15 A. I say that in number 5, (B) (3), mom's
16 participation in treatment for at least six months, and
17 then the treatment is described in number 9 where I
18 suggest that she get anger management therapy. I don't
19 give her a specific amount. I simply say I want anger
20 management, a psychiatric consultation, and then
21 cognitive therapy.
22 She could commence cognitive therapy in
23 December. It is now May. At some point in June we're at
24 the six-month mark.
25 Q. She's in Hong Kong. Are you aware of whether
Page 72
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 or not these things are even available in Hong Kong?

2 A. I am almost certain. It is a very progressive
3 area. Mom had described the medical care that's provided
4 there, the psychiatric and social work care that's
5 provided. I am very certain that it's available.
6 Q. Since mother's here now, she is here for a few
7 days, don't you think it might be in the children's best
8 interest to see mother even if it's in a monitored
9 situation?
10 A. I do think it would be in their best interest
11 to see mother even if it's a monitored situation, yes.
12 Q. What would you recommend?
13 A. You know, unfortunately, I haven't met with
14 the parties since December so I'm limited as far as what
15 I can recommend that is beyond what I wrote about.
16 But what I could suggest is that minors'
17 counsel consult with the children as I suggested and that
18 there be some review -- I had recommended a case manager,
19 so some review of whether or not the rules are being
20 followed and whether or not there's -- treatment has
21 commenced.
22 Q. There's probably not time for that, okay.
23 So the question is, you know, we probably have
24 time or we may have time to say, let's -- either by
25 agreement of counsel or ex parte notice, whatever, if we
Page 73
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 can't get agreement, either have Liberman set up

2 appointments, have somebody with whom everyone feels
3 fine, set up a meeting and a therapeutic-type situation
4 and see what happens.
5 It could be -- it could be anyone. Wouldn't
6 you be comfortable with that? You know, the kids aren't
7 going to be obviously in danger by seeing their mother in
8 some sort of setting where, Hey, mom haven't seen you
9 forever. It might be a joyous thing. Could be awkward.
10 Could be anything.
11 It's probably better than nothing, don't you
12 agree?
13 A. I agree.
14 May I add something?
15 Q. Sure.
16 A. The kids love their mother very, very much and
17 she loves them.
18 Q. I know she does. I can't even imagine not
19 seeing my children for this period of time. Can't fathom
20 it.
21 Do you want to take a half-hour lunch?
22 A. Okay.
23 (Lunch break taken 11:56 a.m. to 12:41 p.m.)
24 Q. BY MR. NELSON: Back on the record.
25 Prior to issuing this second report it was
Page 74
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 your understanding the mother was then on monitored phone

2 visitation; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you know the reason for that?
5 A. Not entirely, no. Except for the stipulation
6 and order.
7 Q. If I told you that it was because mother was
8 not getting phone calls completed from Hong Kong, would
9 that refresh your recollection as to why there was a
10 stipulation entered into that monitored phone calls would
11 occur so phone calls would be completed with the
12 children?
13 A. I know the mom told me that. I don't believe
14 that's the entire reason that the stipulation order was
15 created.
16 Q. What's your basis for not believing the entire
17 reason?
18 A. My discussion with minors' counsel.
19 Q. What did minors' counsel say that contradicted
20 that?
21 A. Minors' counsel indicated there was a phone
22 message that the child had heard that had upset her and
23 the child was concerned about talking to the mom on the
24 phone.
25 Q. That's the phone discussion we already
Page 75
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 discussed; is that correct?

2 A. That's right.
3 Q. The stipulation of which you speak, what was
4 the date of that stipulation?
5 A. November 2nd, 2011.
6 Q. And the phone message was dated when?
7 A. I believe it was August 4th. I can look
8 through the report. Yes. August 4th, 2011.
9 Q. Once you heard that -- at the outset of the
10 order for the second visitation mother initially made an
11 appointment at the end of June, correct?
12 A. It was actually at the very beginning of -- I
13 don't want to guess, but I believe it was around the end
14 of June, early July.
15 Q. Look on page 3. It says June 29, '11, the
16 second item there.
17 You received a message from mother 1:34 p.m.
18 scheduling an intake.
19 Does that refresh your recollection?
20 A. It does. Thank you for directing me to that.
21 So the intake appointment was scheduled for
22 the morning of July 1st. It was right in the middle.
23 Q. And then there was some -- something that, as
24 I read in here, you state you needed to obtain a correct
25 copy of the order.
Page 76
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 You had an order in your possession; is that

2 correct?
3 A. I had an order, but it referred to something
4 completely different than a child custody evaluation. I
5 was mentioned in the order in passing but there was no
6 description of what the Court wanted me to do. There was
7 no outline of the scope and purpose of the evaluation.
8 And in talking with both mom and dad they -- on the phone
9 in order to schedule the intake appointment, what they
10 shared with me led me to believe this was not the correct
11 court order.
12 Q. Did you later obtain an order that was
13 different than the original order that you had?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. Now, Ms. Cook eventually did schedule an
16 appointment with you; is that correct?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. When she finally scheduled that appointment
19 with you, did she not contend she attempted to schedule
20 an appointment with you multiple times between July 1st
21 and July 29th and that you did not return her calls?
22 A. No. I don't recall her ever saying that she
23 attempted to try to make an appointment with me between
24 the 1st and the 22nd because what she shared with me is
25 that she had moved. So I know that she said she left
Page 77
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 messages and indeed she had. She left messages on my

2 office machine as I indicate here.
3 Q. When had she left messages?
4 A. She left messages, you can see under July 22nd
5 that I retrieved a phone message -- a few phone messages
6 from my land line at the office. One came in at
7 1:22 a.m. and that's the first I had heard she moved to
8 Hong Kong.
9 And then if you can look at page 3, under
10 July 1st, you can see the dates that I attempted to
11 contact mom. And again, I didn't realize it at the time
12 that she had moved to Hong Kong, and so it's conceivable
13 that I was calling the wrong number or that I was leaving
14 messages and she wasn't receiving them. But either which
15 way, she and I were able to connect thereafter.
16 Q. You go into quite some detail about you left
17 three messages between 7/1 and 7/29 requesting a call
18 back to schedule her intake and that she did not return
19 your calls until 7/21.
20 Do you see that? It's the line item dated
21 7/1/11.
22 A. To be clear with the wording, it may be that
23 she didn't even receive my messages, but I did not hear
24 from her until 7/21.
25 Q. Now, contrasting that with your language for
Page 78
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 father, you simply have a line item that says, Met with
2 father face to face on 7/21.
3 A. Right.
4 Q. There's nothing in here that I saw -- maybe
5 you can point it out if I missed it -- where you left
6 messages for father. All I see is on 7/21 you met with
7 him.
8 A. That's correct. Because on June 29th when I
9 called him, he picked up. So I was able to schedule an
10 appointment with him.
11 Q. So what is of significance and why would you
12 put this in your report that you left multiple messages
13 between 7/1 and 7/29 and she did not return your calls
14 until 7/21?
15 A. Just an accounting of time, as I indicate on
16 the front. Accounting of time, bottom of page two.
17 Q. There's no actual time accounting though. It
18 doesn't have a billing time. It doesn't have anything.
19 A. That's not the purpose. It's simply to
20 indicate what was happening on particular days.
21 As you notice, I didn't render an opinion. I
22 simply said this is what's happening. Here's when the
23 appointments happened. Here's the attempts I made.
24 Here's the phone calls that happened. No meaning was
25 drawn at this point.
Page 79
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. The problem I have with that is that mother

2 actually made a complaint to the American Psychological
3 Association, correct?
5 Q. And mother told you that she attempted to
6 contact you multiple times between 7/1 and 7/29 and you
7 did not return her calls, correct?
8 A. What was the dates again? Between -9 Q. In the month of July.
10 A. Between 7/1 and 7/29 and I did not return her
11 calls.
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. The crux of the complaint was actually that I
14 would not use Skype.
15 Q. She actually told you -- my question was she
16 told you that she tried to contact you multiple times and
17 your message machine was full; you didn't call her back,
18 correct?
19 A. How could I get a message if I didn't get a
20 message? If my message machine was full, how would I get
21 a message?
22 Q. That was one of the complaints; that you have
23 a message machine that won't accept messages.
24 A. The machine she was leaving the phone messages
25 on is not the number that is on my business card or my
Page 80
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 letterhead or the intake packet.

2 Q. Where did she get that machine?
3 A. I don't know.
4 Q. That number?
5 A. She may have called information. But the
6 number that I use is this number right here. So if there
7 was an issue, that could have been used. If there was an
8 issue, she could have called her attorney. If there was
9 an issue, the attorney could have provided more
10 information to me.
11 Q. Do you not check the machine, the number that
12 she called?
13 A. I do check the machine.
14 Q. And is it your contention she never left a
15 message on that machine?
16 A. No, it's not my contention.
17 What I'm saying is that if she left messages,
18 I wrote them down. If she didn't leave a message, I
19 didn't write it down. If she attempted to leave a
20 message and on that particular day the message machine
21 was full, I couldn't have known that she was calling
22 because I wouldn't have gotten a message.
23 Q. Part of the -- you know, if she -- knowing she
24 is moving to Hong Kong, is doing everything in due
25 diligence that she can to set up an appointment after you
Page 81
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 canceled the appointment in late June that does bear out

2 to her detriment in the evaluation, does it not?
3 A. No, it doesn't because A, what I learned later
4 was that she was already in Hong Kong, so we needed to
5 make some kind of effort to figure out a way to get -- to
6 coordinate schedules with her. And I wasn't aware of
7 that. Initially -8 Q. You weren't aware of what?
9 A. That anybody had left California.
10 What I found out after the fact is that the
11 children were not in California and mother was not in
12 California with the exception of Ethan. Ethan was here
13 in California. So I was not told about this. I was not
14 told -15 Q. You say "this," what are you talking about?
16 A. That the children were not in California,
17 neither was mom. I didn't know about this. Apparently
18 dad didn't know about this because -19 Q. Dad didn't know the children were in
20 California?
21 A. He did not know that they were in California.
22 Q. Where were the children?
23 A. Apparently they were at camp in a different
24 state.
25 So all I can tell you is from the information
Page 82
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 that I received from the attorneys, from the information

2 that I received from the parties, the first that I knew
3 that the -- that mom was in Hong Kong was on the 22nd
4 when I retrieved that message from the 21st. That's all
5 I can say about that.
6 Q. Did you read the court orders prior to
7 conducting this evaluation?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was there anything about a court order about
10 camp?
11 A. I don't recall. I don't recall if it had
12 specific dates.
13 Q. You don't recall if there was anything about a
14 camp in the court orders?
15 A. I don't recall if that particular court order
16 reflected the camp, no, I don't.
17 Q. So once mom's in Hong Kong then you mentioned
18 that it was important to coordinate schedules, correct,
19 in order to finish the 730 evaluation?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Now, you go to some extent talking about how
22 you will not conduct basically this 730 through Skype.
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Or through testing centers, you refused to do
25 that as well, correct?
Page 83
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. I didn't say anything about testing centers.

2 Q. You had taken on this job to do a 730
3 evaluation, correct?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. What does the American Psychological
6 Association ethic -- principles say about finishing the
7 job once you've taken it on when monetary issues put
8 obstacles in the way of -- such as we have here with such
9 distance and geography; what are you to do?
10 A. Are you talking specifically about Skype?
11 Q. The use of technology in order to finish or
12 conduct an evaluation.
13 A. They're silent at this point. It's a new
14 interest that's been pursued in a literature to some
15 extent. But there are some difficulties with the use of
16 Skype.
17 One difficulty is that -- that's been proposed
18 is that the use of any electronics compromises
19 confidentiality, and so without protections, the basic
20 tenet of a psychological evaluation is compromised.
21 They haven't addressed Skype yet in that but
22 that's a blanket understanding as far as electronic
23 technology.
24 The other thing is, you cannot practice in
25 another state when you're licensed in one state. So
Page 84
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 somebody licensed in California cannot practice

2 psychology in another state, and in this case another
3 country.
4 Q. It's your understanding that -- have you
5 obtained a legal opinion that that would be practicing in
6 Hong Kong?
7 A. I did.
8 And I also brought this up in our last
9 training, 5.225 training where Nancy Olsen was training.
10 And another evaluator had indicated that in order to even
11 do a home visit in a different country let alone
12 conducting interviews on people living in different
13 states or different countries, you're actually breaking
14 the law by doing those things if you're only licensed in
15 California.
16 You have to obtain a license in the state or
17 country within which you're conducting the evaluation.
18 Q. That seems a little bit implausible to me.
19 A. No, it's -- a lot of psychologists were pretty
20 upset because a lot of psychologists will actually go to
21 a different state simply to do a home visit, and some
22 even go to conduct an interview because the person can't
23 come to California and that's the law.
24 Q. And you're basing that law on what, California
25 Rule of Court 5.225?
Page 85
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. No. It's the Business and Professions Code.

2 I can't cite it. I'd have to tell you -- refer you to
3 the resources that I collected.
4 But, yeah, it's -- not everybody is happy
5 because it restricts what people can do in evaluations
6 but that's what the limitation is.
7 So when it comes to Skype you've got a lot of
8 things that haven't been fully explored. You don't have
9 a clear law or ethic pertaining to Skype.
10 The most conservative way to go is, I can't do
11 this. Let's think of another option, and that's what I
12 presented. And you can see that -13 Q. What did you present? What is the option you
14 presented to mother?
15 A. That we could do correspondence by way of
16 mail.
17 Q. How is that different?
18 A. It's the same thing as a fax machine. They
19 don't count that as electronic communication either.
20 U.S. mail -21 Q. "They" who?
22 A. The Board of Behavioral Psychology, the
23 American Psychological Association, HIPAA.
24 Q. Are you telling me that you can conduct
25 therapy with someone via fax who's in Hong Kong?
Page 86
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. No. No, you can't conduct therapy.

2 Q. You can conduct an evaluation via fax?
3 A. No.
4 Q. What can you do?
5 A. You can correspond by way of fax.
6 Q. But you can't correspond by Skype?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. That's somehow different pertaining to the
9 Business and Professions Code; is that your position?
10 A. Talk to the attorneys.
11 Q. What attorneys?
12 A. You can call up CAMFT, California Association
13 of Marriage and Family Therapists.
14 Q. Is that who you spoke with?
15 A. I consulted with an attorney with them.
16 Q. And that's why you refuse to conduct any
17 interviews with Ms. Cook on Skype?
18 A. That's one of the factors. I've mentioned all
19 the others.
20 And what I presented to the attorneys is,
21 here's my criteria for proceeding forward. If this isn't
22 acceptable, I can't proceed forward.
23 Q. And was it acceptable to the parties?
24 A. It was acceptable by way of their attorneys
25 who were speaking on behalf of the clients.
Page 87
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. And that process was what, to complete it via

2 fax and questionnaires?
3 A. The understanding was that there was going to
4 be at least one face-to-face interview and then -5 Q. Did that happen?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And Ms. Cook flew in especially for that; is
8 that correct?
9 A. I don't know if she flew in especially for the
10 interview, but I do know that I arranged my schedule in
11 order to accommodate her flying into California and we
12 tried to conduct things as efficiently as possible.
13 Q. And did you have conjoint sessions with her
14 and the children at that time?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. How did those conjoint sessions go?
17 A. I thought they went positively. I described
18 one borderline issue in that, I mean, borderline as
19 inappropriate.
20 It may have bordered on inappropriate, and
21 that disclosure was about dad's payment of a sports
22 activity. But other than that, I thought it was very
23 positive for both the kids and mom.
24 Q. When did that occur?
25 A. That occurred on December 16, 2011. And that
Page 88
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 was during the time that mom was here in California.

2 Q. And when the children -- so how did that -3 how did that go down? I mean, mother's in your office
4 and the children come in to see her?
5 A. Yes. What we did is mom was in my office and
6 I had father bringing the children, and then father
7 stayed in the waiting room, mother was in a separate room
8 and I brought the children in to see their mother.
9 Q. What was the initial reaction to the children?
10 A. They loved seeing her.
11 Q. A little more descriptive.
12 A. They hugged her. They quickly -- all three of
13 them quickly engaged in conversation. Mom shared little
14 gifts with them. They had a wonderful time.
15 Q. How long had it been since they had seen her
16 in person?
17 A. I believe since the summer.
18 Q. So based upon that meeting doesn't it seem
19 plausible that unmonitored visitation would be in the
20 best interest of the children in order to facilitate the
21 healthy relationship between these children and the
22 mother certainly between the youngest two at least?
23 A. No. At the time there was some very positive
24 things, but there were also some concerns shared by the
25 children. There was some restrictions that made it
Page 89
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 difficult for me to simply make a recommendation that we

2 go for unmonitored so that's why I created the step-up
3 plan.
4 Q. Like what?
5 A. Some of the concerns expressed by Lilli, some
6 of the concerns expressed by Elliott.
7 Q. Such as?
8 A. Both kids were concerned that because mother
9 had not given full assurance that they would be able to
10 stay in California that they feared that mom just
11 wouldn't bring them back.
12 Q. What if that full assurance was given, take
13 care of that pretty quickly, couldn't it?
14 A. I think that that is sufficiently addressed in
15 that minors' counsel could then check in with the
16 children once that assurance is given -- I believe that
17 assurance is even spelled out in the rules.
18 Q. What do you mean "the rules"?
19 A. Rules for visitation, page 35. Yes, number
20 4 (C), mom should refrain from pressuring the children to
21 move to Hong Kong.
22 Q. My question was that obviously can be done
23 quite easily?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. So assume that's done, what else stands in the
Page 90
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 way of getting some regular visitation that's not

2 monitored that puts these children in a situation where
3 they can see their mother?
4 A. Page 36, page 2, would be describing the
5 unmonitored visits here in California. If those four
6 criteria are met, there's no problem with moving forward
7 unmonitored visitation as far as where I saw the family
8 at this particular point in time.
9 Q. Did you use any books in order to make these
10 recommendations?
11 A. Of course I did.
12 Q. What books did you use?
13 A. Probably every child development book and
14 there's a book on custody and visitation plans that was
15 published by the American Bar Association. There's
16 numerous custody and visitation books that are presented,
17 but ultimately I have to make recommendations based on
18 the family, based on my education, based on my experience
19 and then I put them all together.
20 So is there specific books that enumerated
21 these particular items, no. But did I base some of these
22 things on books and my own education, yes.
23 Q. In your second report, page 3, July 22, you
24 have a little blurb about online news story about mother
25 filing a lawsuit against the City of Laguna Beach.
Page 91
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Why is that in your report?

2 A. Because it was given to me as part of my -3 the documents that I accumulated over the course of this
4 evaluation. I don't know why it was important at the
5 time and that's why I just left it standing without an
6 interpretation.
7 Q. You don't know why it was important to you at
8 the time?
9 A. Correct.
10 I simply listed, I received a story, here it
11 is.
12 So that's why there's no interpretation,
13 there's no meaning at this point applied to that
14 particular news story.
15 Q. Well, the fact that you list -- that she
16 stresses she incurred post traumatic stress disorder,
17 lost income, et cetera, did that play into your
18 evaluation with respect to some of the things that -19 some of her actions?
20 A. Yes. In fact, her mother also talked to me
21 about post traumatic stress disorder, and that was
22 certainly a hypothesis to explain what was going on. The
23 lost income was certainly something that was part of the
24 assessment in this evaluation and it was collaborated by
25 several sources as well as including one of mom's
Page 92
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 references who talked about the job search process.

2 Q. What about mom herself with respect to the
3 job -4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- did she give you a list of all the job
6 searches she conducted?
7 A. She had indicated that her attorney would
8 forward me a list of 95 efforts on her part to get a job.
9 Unfortunately, I never got that list, but I have no
10 reason to disbelieve that she didn't pursue almost 100
11 options. I have no reason to believe it. I have no
12 reason to disbelieve it.
13 Q. No reason to believe it or disbelieve it?
14 A. Sorry. No reason to disbelieve it.
15 All I can say is that mom indicated that she
16 had made numerous efforts here in the United States and
17 that was corroborated by a collateral who helped her in
18 the process.
19 Q. Showing you what we will mark as Exhibit D.
20 (Whereupon, Exhibit D was marked for
21 identification.)
22 Q. BY MR. NELSON: Is that a list of employment
23 search?
24 My client states or would state that she had
25 sent that in the packet that she sent to you.
Page 93
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Is it your testimony that you did not receive

2 that from her?
3 A. It's possible I did, but she had indicated
4 when I asked her about it that her attorney also had a
5 copy of this and he would forward it to me.
6 Q. That's different than you just testified a
7 minute ago.
8 A. Right. She had indicated to me that her
9 attorney would forward me a copy of the list, which I
10 didn't receive.
11 Q. Well, that's different than you just said a
12 second ago again.
13 A. It's possible I received this, but it doesn't
14 matter because she told me, and it was corroborated by
15 another source so I no reason to disbelieve that she did
16 do all these searches.
17 So if I did receive this and this is in my
18 packet, it gives me a list of Kirsten Cook employment
19 search.
20 Q. Well, in asking you the question three times,
21 you've basically nuanced it three different ways as I
22 understand your testimony.
23 One, you stated you didn't receive it because
24 she said her attorney would receive it and her attorney
25 didn't send it. You said that first.
Page 94
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Secondly, when I handed it to you, and I said

2 my client would testify that she sent it in her packet to
3 you, you stated that that may be the case but it didn't
4 matter because she said her attorney would send it to
5 you; and her attorney did not send it to you.
6 A. No, that's not what I said.
7 Q. I can have it read back.
8 A. Then let me clarify -9 Q. Hold on. I'm not done.
10 The third time when we nuanced it, you said,
11 Well, it may be the case it's in -- it may be in your
12 packet, but it doesn't matter because it was corroborated
13 by a third source.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. So you nuanced it in three different methods,
16 never admitting that you have it or don't have it; but
17 one, it doesn't matter; or two, because her attorney
18 didn't send it or you have it and it was corroborated by
19 someone else.
20 I'm just wondering why it's nuanced as opposed
21 to knowing whether or not you have it.
22 A. Because I don't know whether or not I have it.
23 It's been a while since I've looked at my records.
24 What I can tell you is what I wrote down in my
25 report. What I can tell you is what I got as
Page 95
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 corroborating information and what mom stated to me.

2 I don't recall if I have this particular
3 document.
4 Q. Well, it seems the reason for her move with
5 that type of a detail for job search is important with
6 respect to a proposed move, particularly when that is
7 your charge as a 730 evaluator.
8 A. It's my charge to determine if she has a good
9 reason to move. She can move.
10 Q. I understand that.
11 A. My role is not to figure out whether it's in
12 her best interest to move. It's to determine and make a
13 recommendation about what's in the best interest of the
14 children with respect to the move.
15 Q. So stipulated.
16 Nonetheless, when you're looking at, as you've
17 stated in your report, the La Musga factors, the Burgess
18 factors, at the time this report began, according to your
19 previous report, she was the primary custodial parent,
20 and as such, presumptively had the right to be able to
21 move according to your knowledge of those factors as
22 detailed by the appellate courts.
23 Therefore, the job opportunities or lack
24 thereof here certainly play into that -- into those
25 factors.
Page 96
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Do you agree?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So her showing you her job search here or lack
4 thereof, her attempts to schedule appointments with you
5 prior to moving would have a substantial bearing on the
6 process of that 730, that is, looking into her ability to
7 move with the children.
8 Do you agree?
9 A. Those are -- one of those are factors, and the
10 factor was actually described in my evaluation page 28,
11 item G, the reason for the proposed move; and I laid that
12 out. Mom states she had to move to Hong Kong because
13 there are no jobs within her field here in the
14 United States. And mom believes move to Hong Kong would
15 provide educational advantage for the children.
16 So I do consider that among the La Musga
17 factors.
18 Q. What was the one main factor, if there was
19 one, that you felt it was not in the best interest for
20 the children to move to Hong Kong?
21 A. There were several factors.
22 Q. I want you to pick out the key factor.
23 A. I can't narrow it down to just one. There are
24 several factors.
25 Q. Give me a top. What was the number one
Page 97
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 factor?
2 A. Cannot do that.
3 Q. What was the top two?
4 A. Children's preference and mom's gatekeeping.
5 Q. What does that mean?
6 A. Gatekeeping is a concept to describe the
7 custodial parent's ability and capacity to support
8 frequent and continuing contact with the other parent in
9 the healthiest manner possible.
10 And the gatekeeping is referring
11 metaphorically to the opening and closing of the gates,
12 which allows the children to move out freely toward the
13 noncustodial parent.
14 Q. So as we sit here today, if I was to tell you
15 that father has not allowed phone calls at the outset,
16 that's why we -- that's why monitored phone calls were
17 instituted in the first place; that would be an example
18 of gatekeeping or lack thereof on father's part, correct?
19 A. Is this a hypothetical?
20 Q. No, it's not a hypothetical. It's a fact.
21 A. I don't know if your premise is accurate.
22 I do not believe that that's why monitored
23 phone calls were established to make sure that dad
24 facilitates the phone calls. I do not believe that's the
25 case at all.
Page 98
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. But you don't know, do you?

2 A. My understanding, based on conversations with
3 minors' counsel, was that it was primarily based on the
4 kid's resistance to making calls or accepting calls from
5 the mother because of historical things that happened on
6 the phone; and so therefore what they established is a
7 monitored situation so that phone calls could happen in
8 the healthiest way possible.
9 Q. Well, the incident that you described, the
10 phone call to Lilli occurred in August, correct?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. And mother moved sometime in June; is that
13 correct?
14 A. I have no idea when she moved.
15 Q. And there was an assertion there was really no
16 phone contact for approximately three months, or at least
17 a couple of months during that time period.
18 Are you aware of that?
19 A. Mom had indicated that to me, yes.
20 Q. Now, at that point there was no order for any
21 monitored phone visitation; isn't that correct?
22 A. That was my understanding and that was
23 discussed, I believe, in the -- that was the issue to
24 which that stipulation order drawn up in November 2011
25 addressed.
Page 99
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. But the fact is is that that predated that

2 phone call to Lilli, right?
3 The no contact from July until that phone
4 contact to Lilli where there was no phone calls at all to
5 the children.
6 A. I see what you're saying. You're saying
7 between July and August -8 Q. There's no phone contact according to mother,
9 right?
10 A. You know, she gave me an approximate time, so
11 I wouldn't be able to be specific about whether it was in
12 July or August. But she was pretty clear that she had
13 had no contact with the children at least since summer.
14 And -15 Q. So under that example, that is father
16 gatekeeping the children away from mother, right?
17 A. It could be an example of a gatekeeper's role.
18 Q. And it could be an example of what else?
19 A. Because I -- because we're talking about two
20 separate issues, gatekeeping is ensuring healthy contact
21 with the other parent; and so part of gatekeeping is to
22 make sure that the contact is going to be in the
23 healthiest way possible.
24 So facilitating monitored phone calls would be
25 part of gatekeeping.
Page 100
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. So father not allowing the phone calls would

2 just be going against 3011 of the Family Code, basically,
3 correct?
4 A. If indeed father was the one who was
5 disallowing the phone calls.
6 Q. We have got a 11-year-old and a 13-year-old.
7 Who do you think was disallowing them, the 11-year-old
8 and the 13-year-old?
9 A. I had a 13-year-old who was 13 and a half at
10 the time -- 12 and a half, excuse me, 13 and a half, who
11 was scared to talk to her mom.
12 Q. Why?
13 A. Because it was a scary phone message.
14 Q. Not at the time in June or July -15 A. Oh.
16 Q. -- right?
17 You know nothing of in July or prior to that
18 August phone call why there would have been no phone
19 contact between mother and Lilli, correct?
20 A. Beyond what they told me, you're right.
21 Q. What do you mean beyond what they told you?
22 A. Beyond what they told me, that they were
23 nervous about talking to mom; that they were scared about
24 some of the contacts they received from mom, that's what
25 I know.
Page 101
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 And you're correct, I know nothing beyond what

2 I was told.
3 Q. And you know nothing wherein dad helped to
4 facilitate healthy contact from these children with their
5 mother during that period; is that correct?
6 A. Beyond what I was told. And it was mom's
7 contention that dad was not helping to facilitate the
8 phone calls so I certainly was aware of that contention.
9 Q. Well, did dad tell you that any phone contact
10 occurred during that period of time?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. You don't recall if he told you whether it had
13 occurred?
14 A. I don't recall if he told me that.
15 Q. That wasn't important to you?
16 A. Yes, it was important, but I don't recall if
17 he shared with me whether or not the kids had had contact
18 with their mother between July and August, that specific
19 portion of time.
20 Q. Well, that's right when this kind of all
21 started to go down and it's absent in your report.
22 Why?
23 A. Between July and August as opposed to July and
24 the end of the report?
25 Q. Yeah.
Page 102
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. Probably because I was looking at contact over

2 the entire time rather than what happened between July
3 and August.
4 Q. Well, the entire time includes between July
5 and August, does it not?
6 A. You're right.
7 Q. And July and August is the initial time period
8 when 3011 would really come into effect, would it not?
9 A. Why would that be?
10 Q. Well, because that's when mother initially has
11 gone and one who's trying to facilitate contact between
12 the other parent who has left the country would show
13 their colors, so to speak, would they not?
14 A. I don't know that to be true at all.
15 Q. You don't know that to be true specifically -16 A. That people show their colors when another
17 parent moves out of country.
18 Q. Well, when they move out of the country and
19 don't make any efforts to help facilitate contact with
20 the other parent, doesn't that kind of show that they are
21 not willing to look at the best interests of the children
22 and help facilitate that contact with the children?
23 A. I don't know if what you're -- I don't think
24 it's necessarily true that the best interest standard is
25 most critical between July and August.
Page 103
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. That's not what I was saying.

2 The best interest standard is critical,
3 correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Certainly when the children are used to having
6 both parents around and facilitating contact between both
7 parents is important as delineated in 3011 of the Family
8 Code?
10 Q. Now, go to the scenario that we know. Mother
11 moves to Hong Kong. Mother says dad's not letting the
12 children talk to me for three months.
13 What does that tell you about father?
14 A. It raises one hypothesis about father. It
15 raises a hypothesis about mother, and it raises a
16 hypothesis about the children.
17 One hypothesis is, is dad interfering with
18 these phone calls. One hypothesis is, is mom doing
19 something that is pushing the children away from wanting
20 to make phone calls or receive her phone calls.
21 And the final hypothesis is, did something
22 happen or have the children experienced something or
23 opined something that is making them resistant to phone
24 calls.
25 Q. Hold on. We're beyond the raises hypotheses
Page 104
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 stage here. It should have raised hypotheses.

2 A. That's right.
3 Q. So if it -- did it raise hypotheses, these
4 hypotheses?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So based on those hypotheses, what did you
7 opine?
8 A. What I opined is during the time of the
9 evaluation -10 Q. That's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking
11 about a specific time period.
12 A. And I can't do that.
13 Q. Why not?
14 A. Because I looked at the whole time in its
15 entirety, and what the children reported to me is that
16 they received phone calls; they reported to me that they
17 were receiving postcards. Dad indicated to me that he
18 was passing postcards to the children.
19 And the children also indicated, as I already
20 told you before, that there was some resistance on their
21 part to speaking to mom by herself.
22 So there's a number of hypotheses and my
23 conclusion was that it seemed most likely that there was
24 some resistance that was generated by mom's reaction to
25 the children, children's interpretation to that reaction,
Page 105
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 and it seemed to be resolved, at least at the time, by

2 making sure that there was a monitor who could ensure
3 healthy contact between mother and the children.
4 Q. Why was it assumed that there needed to be a
5 monitor to ensure healthy contact between mother and
6 children?
7 A. Why would it be assumed that there needed to
8 be a monitor?
9 Q. Yeah.
10 A. I wasn't the one who initially recommended it
11 or stipulated to it. That was -12 Q. But you continued the recommendation.
13 A. I did.
14 Q. Ask the question again.
15 Why -- just because it's in place is that why
16 you continued the recommendation?
17 A. No. Because the children at the time that I
18 saw them were still resistant to talking to mother and
19 even seeing mother; and there was so much difficulty
20 trying to organize the lunch visit that eventually took
21 place during the time that I was doing this evaluation,
22 that I was very concerned that without a monitor we would
23 have some real problems getting the children to see their
24 mother.
25 So I had suggested that a plan be in place
Page 106
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 that would allow for liberalization of visits contingent

2 on completion of some of the things that I laid out, and
3 we talked about that already.
4 Q. You sent a letter August 5th which I'm marking
5 as Exhibit E to counsel.
6 (Whereupon, Exhibit E was marked for
7 identification.)
8 Q. BY MR. NELSON: And you detail your limits of
9 the service. Basically you won't correspond via email.
10 What's the reason for that?
11 A. Because A, I don't have email at my office and
12 B, it's not my primary source of communication with
13 clients.
14 However, I do understand that there are times
15 when people want to send me things that cannot be given
16 to me in another way, like photographs, videotapes, audio
17 recordings, and so they forward them to me by way of
18 email. I know that mom forwarded me some things by way
19 of email.
20 And I leave that option open for out-of-state
21 clients who are doing child custody evaluation in this
22 case out of country. Sometimes what they want to do is
23 videotape their home environment and then forward me
24 pictures and what's going on in their home environment
25 and that seems to be the best way.
Page 107
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Now, you quote in that letter -- you quote the

2 American Psychological Association ethical principles,
3 correct?
5 Q. And, in fact, as you know, Ms. Cook reported
6 you to that association, correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Were you aware she received a letter back from
9 them?
10 A. No, I wasn't.
11 Q. That letter stated that they were unable to
12 look into any alleged violations of ethical principles
13 because you were not a member of that association.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. Is that true, you are not a member?
17 Q. Is that something -- why, if I might ask, are
18 you quoting the American Psychological Association when
19 you are not a member of that association?
20 A. Because it's the ethical standards that we
21 follow as psychologists.
22 Q. Yet you do not need to be a member of that?
23 A. You don't need to be a member.
24 Q. Who's your governing ethical board?
25 A. The Board of Psychology.
Page 108
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Is that the California Board of Psychology?

3 Q. And do they have ethical principles?
4 A. No. It's the American Psychological
5 Association.
6 Q. So the California Board of Psychology simply
7 refers to ethical principles as detailed by the
8 American Psychological Association; is that correct?
10 Q. In your second report you go to quite some
11 extent talking about how the Court ought to basically
12 indemnify you or have Ms. Cook indemnify you against any
13 cost associated with her report of you to any board for
14 any violations of standards.
15 A. That is not true.
16 I indicated that if anybody in this evaluation
17 were to file a complaint. So I did not say Ms. Cook. I
18 said both.
19 Q. How many times have you put that in a report?
20 A. This is my first time. My colleagues have put
21 it in their reports prior to.
22 Q. That's not what I asked you.
23 You've done 170 reports, right?
25 Q. And you put it in this report because prior to
Page 109
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 finishing this report, Ms. Cook wrote you a letter on

2 August 29th stating that she was filing a complaint
3 against you, correct?
4 A. No, that's not correct.
5 And I specifically say that on page 39 the
6 family is at high risk of continued litigation. That is
7 why I put it in there.
8 Q. You received her letter dated August 29th, did
9 you not?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. And you -- this report was completed almost
12 two months later, maybe three months later; is that
13 right?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. And it's your testimony that this letter had
16 no bearing on you including that provision in your
17 report?
18 A. That is not what I testified to.
19 Q. Just -20 A. You're misstating what I'm saying.
21 Q. We'll -22 A. It was one factor, but it was one of several
23 factors that I noticed in this family over a period of
24 time. And I've known this family over a long period of
25 time. And I've heard their complaints and I've seen
Page 110
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 their litigation over a long period of time.

2 This is one of many factors.
3 And to be clear when mom came in to see me,
4 she didn't express the same concerns at the point in
5 time.
6 Q. When she came in to see you when?
7 A. When she had her appointment with me.
8 Q. For the first report or the second report?
9 A. For the second report.
10 Q. When she came in to see you after August 29th?
12 Q. So she sent this letter to you, and then she
13 came in December to see you. You're saying she did not
14 have these same concerns?
15 A. Some of the concerns were very different. For
16 example, one of the concerns that she writes about is
17 that it was my fault that Ethan wasn't quickly placed
18 into a residential treatment center, but when I
19 interviewed her, she was very clear that it wasn't my
20 fault, in fact, she was grateful for this report and had
21 forwarded it to Sylvie Cote, Dr. Sylvie Cote, that what
22 she was frustrated with was that the judge had not made a
23 decision about it and so as a result Ethan's treatment
24 had dragged out for a long period of time.
25 When I also look at some of the other factors,
Page 111
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 it looks like -- that there might have been a

2 recommendation in between the time that I saw them for
3 the last evaluation and the time that I sent out this
4 report that also may have contributed to Ethan not being
5 in the RTC placement as quickly as I would have liked him
6 to be.
7 But she seemed to be in agreement that the
8 report itself that I put out the first time is actually
9 very, very helpful. And she was clear with me that I
10 wanted him in a RTC that moment without delay. I agreed
11 with her. I thought she was right on.
12 Q. Well, based upon the wording that you have in
13 your report, to me, it seems like it's almost -- it would
14 be almost impossible to be unbiased in your
15 recommendations to the Court after making the types of
16 statements that you did with respect to indemnifying you
17 against any complaints against boards or bodies that
18 would take action against you as reported by mother.
19 Would you agree?
20 A. No, I wouldn't agree.
21 (Whereupon, Exhibit F was marked for
22 identification.)
23 Q. BY MR. NELSON: You think that mother writing
24 this letter, as she did, that I've put as Exhibit F,
25 where she states -- and she copies you on it, did she
Page 112
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 not?
2 A. She did.
3 Q. I'm writing to file a complaint against
4 Miriam Galindo, and she tells you -- registered child
5 custody 730 evaluator. You were appointed to perform a
6 730, the first one, and it was completed seven months
7 later.
8 And then you start another one that was to
9 begin and it didn't begin for two and a half months.
10 And then she goes on to list complaint after
11 complaint. Resolving ethical issues problem, competence
12 and maintaining competence. Human relations. Outdated
13 technology and canceling an appointment with her.
14 Putting your children at risk. And then the very last
15 line, I want Dr. Galindo formally investigated and
16 penalized for her uncaring and professional practices.
17 I mean, that is a scathing letter that would
18 put anyone's hair on the back of their neck stand up
19 straight and you're sitting here telling me that did not
20 bias you at all.
21 A. You have to remember that I've spent time with
22 this family back in June 23, 2010, and I describe
23 mother's anger in this report.
24 I describe it in this report. I've described
25 the contention between the family members and their
Page 113
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 continued litigation. This is one piece of several

2 examples of blaming professionals. Blaming the judge.
3 Blaming minors' counsel. Blaming me.
4 And, you know, it's one thing when mom came in
5 and she met with me and, you know, indicated to me that
6 she had just been angry at the time and frustrated, but
7 what she was really frustrated with was the process. And
8 then it's quite another when within days she is
9 misinterpreting things I'm saying and leaving me messages
10 blaming for me to failing to turn a report in before the
11 ex parte.
12 So what I saw is ongoing contention, ongoing
13 projection of blame, and I put both parties into it, and
14 the tendency to triangulate other people into their
15 conflicts, including professionals. And I did not see
16 myself as immune to that.
17 Q. Well, how did father do that then?
18 A. Father didn't do it directly to me in the
19 second evaluation. However, my prediction was that this
20 would continue to play out in court; that there would be
21 continued fighting based on the history which is the
22 strongest predictor for future behavior.
23 Q. Is that some psychological analysis?
24 A. It's -25 Q. Or isn't that Winston Churchill?
Page 114
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. Are you wanting a response?

2 Q. Yes.
3 A. I have no idea.
4 Q. Okay.
5 Back to the big question.
6 After all that you're holding to the fact that
7 you do not believe getting this letter basically at the
8 outset of the second 730; that it did not prejudice you?
9 A. It did not prejudice me to any more degree
10 than any of the other information I received, and I
11 received a lot of information.
12 Q. Okay.
13 So it did prejudice you?
14 A. No.
15 Q. You said not to any more degree than any of
16 the other information.
17 A. That might be a convoluted statement. I'll
18 say is very simply, it did not.
19 Q. I want to explore that convoluted statement
20 because it wasn't an uncontroverted statement.
21 So when you say it didn't prejudice you any
22 more than any other of the -23 A. That's right.
24 Q. -- but that it prejudiced you to some extent.
25 I want to know to what extent it did.
Page 115
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. What I interpreted was that this was one

2 example of triangulation that I had talked about in my
3 previous report. However, it could have been an isolated
4 incident. It could have been the result of frustration.
5 It could have been just a bad day. And my job was to see
6 if this was a pattern or if it was an isolated incident.
7 Just like father, when I started this
8 evaluation, Ethan was still living with him. One
9 hypothesis that I can begin with is is dad still in the
10 same place that I saw when we did the evaluation back in
11 the summer of 2010, and is that why Ethan is still here.
12 As far as I was concerned, Ethan should have
13 been in placement back in June of 2010.
14 So it became one of several factors that I
15 looked at, and my job was to find corroboration to
16 determine is this an isolated incident; does it have a
17 deeper explanation; or is this a continuation of the
18 problems that I was seeing in the previous evaluation.
19 Q. When you say "Is that why Ethan is still
20 here," what do you mean by that?
21 A. Well, when I interviewed Ethan, which was in
22 July, what I needed to figure out is why was he still
23 here in California. Shouldn't he be at an RTC. Isn't
24 that what I recommended back in the summer of 2010.
25 And my concern in the summer of 2010 was this
Page 116
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 boy was going downhill rapidly, and that the next thing
2 that was going to happen was he was going to be arrested.
3 He was going to get into big time trouble. In fact, what
4 I found out is he did.
5 But my point is, I wanted to know -- my point
6 is that's an example of something that started off in my
7 previous evaluation that I then needed to explore to see
8 is it a pattern, a continuing problem and a pattern, or
9 is it an isolated incident.
10 I'm using that as a comparison so you can see
11 that taken out of context little things may -- may be
12 nothing or there may be something. And it's my job to
13 see if they're part of a pattern or if it's just a bad
14 day.
15 Q. And what did you determine about why Ethan is
16 still here; is that a bad day or a pattern for father?
17 A. My -- when I talked to mom it sounds like she
18 was very frustrated because she felt like this was
19 dragged out by dad. That dad was resistant to the
20 process of placing Ethan in RTC.
21 It sounds like Kay Davison was not as helpful
22 as I would have liked to see.
23 And, according to mom, it sounds like, from
24 dad's point of view, that he felt like lesser intensive
25 treatments should be tried first before going to an RTC.
Page 117
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 There was a factor of money.

2 Sylvie Cote was working with the family at the
3 time. And then I also noticed that -- two more.
4 Mother had indicated that the judge from
5 mother's perspective had delayed making the ultimate
6 decision about the RTC. And I also noticed that the case
7 manager had made a recommendation that was different than
8 what I recommended.
9 And as of December -- and I can show that to
10 you -- as of December 23rd -- this is on page 23 -11 Dr. Liberman recommended against sending Ethan to a
12 residential treatment center but wanted both parents to
13 continue investigating RTCs in case it became necessary
14 in the future so that might have contributed to the delay
15 as well.
16 But it was very clear in my report, and I know
17 that mother felt it was very clear that I wanted him in
18 an RTC back then. Back in the summer of 2010.
19 And that my concern was that I could see where
20 this was heading and where I thought it was heading was
21 ultimately that he would be involved in the
22 Juvenile Court system, which I found out later he was.
23 So to sum it up, there's about six or seven
24 factors that may have contributed to why Ethan was still
25 in dad's care when I started the second evaluation. One
Page 118
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 of those factors may have been and seemed to be dad's

2 protectiveness, misguided protectiveness in my opinion,
3 naivete, hoping things will get better, which I describe
4 in the June 2010 report.
5 But that was one of six or seven factors that
6 seemed to contribute to Ethan still being here.
7 Q. You talk about -- in your report about mother
8 being a flight risk to Hong Kong on page 31.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And then you talk about the Hague Convention.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, China is a signor of the Hague, is it
13 not?
14 A. We're talking about Hong Kong, so do you mean
15 Hong Kong?
16 Q. Hong Kong is not China, but Hong Kong has been
17 a signor of the Hague for some time, has it not been?
18 A. Yes, it has.
19 Q. And obviously when we're talking about the
20 Hague Convention, one knows that that can be easily
21 overcome by granting custody, sole custody, and to one
22 who resides in the states; can it not?
23 Are you familiar with that process?
24 A. It can be easily overcome if custody is
25 granted to one party living in the United States?
Page 119
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Correct. If there's a flight risk.

2 A. I think easy is in the interpretation. It
3 certainly assists. But my understanding in talking with
4 the -- I believe I talked to the ambassador was that
5 that's one step in the process, and that if there were an
6 abduction, there would be a legal proceeding before the
7 child is then brought back to the United States. That
8 was what I was told.
9 Q. There's always a legal proceeding.
10 A. Then that would be consistent with what I was
11 told.
12 Q. What led you to believe the mother was a
13 flight risk with the children?
14 A. I describe that.
15 Q. And on top of that you've recommended that
16 Dragna hold the passports.
17 A. Or somebody that Mr. Dragna appoints.
18 Q. Without passports, a single parent traveling
19 with children in this day and age, there's zero chance
20 that you're going to cross into an Asian country or any
21 other country without some sort of permission slip.
22 You're aware of that, are you not?
23 A. That would be something the judge could
24 decide. All I can tell you is what I recommended.
25 Q. Who even brought up the fact that mother was a
Page 120
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 flight risk? Father?

2 A. What got me -- what begged the question is the
3 kids' concerns.
4 Q. A 13-year-old and 11-year-old's concerns made
5 you believe the mother was a flight risk?
6 A. It generated some concern.
7 The other thing that generated concerns is the
8 other things that I mention in my analysis, which
9 included some of the statements mom made.
10 So I think the best way to answer that
11 question is look on page 31, 32 and 33, and I just
12 describe why I believe there's some risk here. And that
13 until things get resolved that this is something the
14 Court would need to keep in mind when considering a
15 decision about either visiting or living in Hong Kong.
16 Q. The second report you focus an awful lot on
17 Ethan.
18 A. The second report or the first?
19 Q. The second.
20 A. I don't think I did, actually.
21 Q. Well, you say the children. In fact, right at
22 the very beginning, you say the assignment, scope and
23 purpose, I was appointed to conduct a child custody
24 evaluation update involving the minor children Ethan,
25 Elliott and Lilli and their parents.
Page 121
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You say an opportunity to speak with all the
3 children.
4 A. That's right. But I don't think I spent a lot
5 of time -- you can show me where, but I don't think I
6 spent a lot of time on the second report as opposed to
7 the first, that's why I wanted to clarify.
8 Q. The question is this, it's come up. Ethan has
9 had some issues in the RTC and your recommendation has
10 been for both parties to be able to talk with Ethan where
11 he currently is.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. However, in this report because most of it,
14 and I agree, I think your intent was to deal with Lilli
15 and Elliott, yet you repeatedly say "the children"
16 throughout this report. Okay. Talking about monitored
17 phone calls, monitored visits, monitored, and so forth.
18 A. I see what you're saying.
19 Q. The question is this, when I look at the -20 all of the orders in total and the recommendations by
21 their self, it seems to me your intent was that mother be
22 able to speak with Ethan without a monitor freely, but
23 that the monitored visits, certainly as I understand
24 through our deposition, that she follow what your
25 recommendations are.
Page 122
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Was that your intent?

2 A. That was my intent and I can explain why.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. Ethan was in a self-contained setting with
5 professionals who were determining how treatment should
6 occur with Ethan. And I was very careful to ask, okay,
7 is anybody interfering with this process, is anybody
8 misbehaving. They were very clear with me, at least at
9 the time I was doing this evaluation, that everybody was
10 being respectful of the process so that's self contained.
11 They have their own people. They have their
12 own rules. They specifically wanted to involve everybody
13 in treatment, and they would manage it their own way.
14 So when I speak of children, that's why I
15 questioned you in saying when I speak of children, I'm
16 talking about Elliott and Lilli because those are the two
17 children that are remaining here in California. Ethan,
18 at that point, right after I had the initial interview
19 with him was shipped off to a different state.
20 And so that different state with its RTC and
21 its staff, I trust their judgment and I trusted at the
22 time how they want to handle their treatment.
23 Now, if something has changed between the last
24 time I talked to them when I issued this report and now,
25 I don't know because I have no feedback from anybody.
Page 123
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 But that's what I was -- that's the basis on

2 which I made these recommendations.
3 Q. The only thing that's changed has -- there
4 have been situations there and they're contemplating
5 moves, but as the report and recommendations and the
6 ensuing orders read because your report has been adopted
7 as an order, the term "the children" puts into -- it
8 obfuscates it a bit and appears as if communication with
9 Ethan would need to be monitored.
10 And so I want a clarification.
11 So if I might, it was your understanding, and
12 it would be your recommendation, correct, that mother
13 would be able to, under the circumstances, in the RTC
14 that she may communicate with Ethan because he has
15 sufficient guidance in that setting; is that correct?
16 A. I can't answer in the present tense.
17 What I can answer is as of December 2011,
18 that's definitely what my intent was.
19 Q. And if that situation has not changed
20 substantially, then your recommendation would be the same
21 now; is that correct?
22 A. Yeah. If there wasn't a substantial change in
23 that the child -- I'll simplify this.
24 If there wasn't a substantial change with the
25 parties that we're talking about which are mom and Ethan
Page 124
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 and the treatment facility, my recommendations would

2 stand.
3 If there's a change in the treatment facility,
4 the way treatment is conducted, Ethan or mom, there might
5 be a change. I don't know.
6 Q. Certainly -- well, Ethan's about, what, almost
7 16 now. I imagine he would be able to say, Hang up, mom,
8 right, if he didn't want to talk to her? Don't you think
9 he would be at a point where he would be able to do that
10 if he didn't want to?
11 A. Knowing Ethan, he likely would be. But
12 whether the treatment professionals want him to, you
13 know, have therapeutic contact with mom, I don't know.
14 Having not talked to them in a while, I don't know how
15 they want to do their therapy at this point.
16 Q. If conducted, obviously -- if coordinated, I
17 should say, with the therapeutic officials at the RTC;
18 that would be a safe way to say in the present contact as
19 coordinated through the therapeutic officials there at
20 RTC would be safe, would it not?
21 A. Yes. If it's appropriate, that's actually a
22 very good way of writing it.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 And just since I'm there, when you wrote "the
25 children" in the second report, you meant the two younger
Page 125
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 children because Ethan had been shipped off to RTC,

2 correct?
4 MR. NELSON: Take five or ten.
5 (Break taken 02:02 p.m. to 02:20 p.m.)
6 MR. NELSON: I want to notate that Mr. Cook, I've
7 just noticed, was tape recording the deposition in
8 violation of what I believe to be state law, and I have
9 told him that -- to shut off his phone, and I intend to
10 take appropriate action against that.
11 MR. COOK: I'd like to note for the record no such
12 notice was given to me. Because my attorney is not here,
13 I'm sure she would object to that, because no such notice
14 was delivered to me of any sort regarding what my rights
15 are or are not in this deposition.
16 Thank you very much.
17 MR. NELSON: Off the record one more second, please.
18 (Off the record 02:21 p.m. to 02:22 p.m.)
20 Marking as next in line, which was Exhibit G.
21 (Whereupon, Exhibit G was marked for
22 identification.)
23 Q. BY MR. NELSON: Ms. Galindo, have you seen
24 this intake sheet that was provided to you by my client?
25 A. Yes.
Page 126
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. And did you review this prior to completing

2 your report?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. On this intake sheet Ms. Cook details some
5 concerns about Mr. Cook and issues with respect to the
6 police reports.
7 Do you recall that?
8 A. Can you direct me to where you're looking?
9 Q. It's item number 14, which is, I think, the
10 third page from the back.
11 A. I see it.
12 Q. And toward the bottom where -- about the fifth
13 bullet item, He would demand to speak with the children
14 during their sports practice time and threaten that if he
15 did not he would do safety checks. Twice the police were
16 waiting for us when we arrived home from the soccers
17 kids' practice [sic].
18 Did you look into that with or ask the police
19 if there were any reports or incident reports on that?
20 A. What I received is what I reviewed in this
21 evaluation. I do know that there were a number of -- a
22 number of reports made back and forth as far as their
23 involvement with law enforcement.
24 Q. Did you review any of those reports, those
25 actual police reports?
Page 127
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. May I look?
2 Q. Sure.
3 A. For the first evaluation I did. For the
4 update I consulted with the detective that was appointed
5 to -- or who was overseeing Ethan's case at the time I
6 did my first evaluation.
7 But as far as an analysis of call-out logs,
8 that was covered in my first report and I can direct you
9 to that if you'd like.
10 Q. Was this evaluation given to you for the first
11 report or the second report?
12 A. This was for the second report. And if you
13 see on page 18 of my first report, it indeed reflects
14 accurately what mom is talking about, that there's a
15 number of call-outs.
16 Q. When you say "call-outs," what do you mean by
17 that?
18 A. It's not necessarily a written report, but if
19 I specifically asked for the call log from the particular
20 police department or the sheriff's department and I can
21 tell them specifically what address, what location they
22 may have a call-out log.
23 Sometimes they don't have any documentation;
24 sometimes they do. What I have to have is an address, a
25 specific location, police -- name of the police
Page 128
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 department and the date. That's typically what they ask

2 for.
3 Q. Now, in this report -- I'm sorry, in this
4 intake sheet, Ms. Cook talks about the lack of support
5 for putting Ethan into the RTC center, correct?
6 A. She does.
7 Q. As you stated she was, this is according to
8 you, basically smack on on that, correct?
9 A. For the initial evaluation, the first one, she
10 was right on about his need for an RTC.
11 Q. She also describes the incident with respect
12 to the flood and how that affected her in this intake
13 sheet, correct?
14 A. She does.
15 Q. Did you make any diagnoses of post traumatic
16 stress syndrome with her?
17 A. I didn't because -- for two reasons.
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. One is the psychological testing did not
20 necessarily corroborate what she was saying so I didn't
21 get corroboration from that; and the other is that she
22 had indicated to me that she had seen a psychiatrist in
23 Hong Kong, but when I asked to have contact information
24 from that psychiatrist, she either couldn't or thought
25 that that might be impossible for me to get.
Page 129
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 So I haven't been able to corroborate that

2 that indeed is something that has been diagnosed by a
3 previous professional. It may have, it may not. I don't
4 know.
5 Q. But your testing did not corroborate that?
6 A. It didn't.
7 Q. Did you test for that?
8 A. Yeah. MMPI actually had as PK scale that is
9 typically elevated when a person has -- is suffering from
10 post traumatic stress disorder, and that wasn't elevated.
11 It's just an issue of corroboration at this point.
12 If there's a diagnosis out there by a
13 professional, that would be corroborate what she is
14 saying.
15 At this point mom is simply saying she had
16 post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the flood.
17 Q. What diagnoses, if any, did you make in either
18 of the two reports?
19 A. What it appeared is that both parties had
20 longstanding personality styles.
21 Q. What report are you looking at?
22 A. Page 29.
23 Q. Of the second or first?
24 A. Second.
25 And -SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994
Page 130
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. Is the primary source of the diagnoses the

2 DSM IV?
3 A. No. It is the psychological testing.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. And -- so I do not come up with a specific
6 diagnosis, but I say that it is quite possible for mother
7 that she at the time of this evaluation was suffering
8 from some kind of mood disorder, and that she had a
9 personality style which seemed to have some borderline
10 tendencies, and then according to the testing there was
11 some other things going on; while dad had a personality
12 style that seemed to be, and I described that.
13 So I offer a provisional diagnosis that there
14 might be a mood disorder going on and that was simply
15 based on mom's description of what she was going through.
16 Mom's discussion of her interactions with the
17 social worker in Hong Kong and the psychiatrist in
18 Hong Kong.
19 Mom's weepiness at times in her phone messages
20 to me and at other times she was angry, other times she
21 was, you know, a different mood.
22 So it seemed -- what I was seeing with her
23 seemed to be consistent with what she was reporting,
24 which is that she had some -- you know, her mood was not
25 the way she typically felt it should be.
Page 131
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. The way -- as you've written this, I think -2 I go to a lot of words that seem to be -- you know, I
3 guess in the clinical sense they are what they are.
4 A. Right.
5 Q. Paranoia, persecutory ideation, schizotypal
6 thinking and so forth. However, I see that you say no
7 diagnoses can be rendered based on testing alone; that's
8 thrown in the middle there.
9 It seems to me that although I know the judges
10 read a lot of these, that that came out in big bold type,
11 you know, because -12 A. You want people to pay attention.
13 Q. You're not making a diagnosis here, correct?
14 A. Exactly.
15 Q. But when you start using words like -- I mean,
16 in this one paragraph for mother, anger, paranoia
17 schizotypal, bizarre thinking, paranoia, persecutory
18 ideation, schizotypal thinking again, longstanding mood
19 disorder, aggression, reactivity, projecting; although
20 you've not made a diagnosis, those can be very
21 detrimental in a child custody evaluation; do you not
22 agree?
23 A. No, I don't agree. It can be interpreted that
24 way.
25 Q. Do you think there's a probability or a high
Page 132
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 possibility that someone reading this report that's not

2 trained to pick out that one line that I saw that says no
3 diagnoses can be rendered based on testing alone that
4 someone might say, there's some real problems here?
5 A. That is exactly why this is a confidential
6 report because this should not be released to other
7 people who aren't trained.
8 Q. How many times have you, as particularly in a
9 high contentious divorce like you've described here, seen
10 these reports released to friends, to relatives, to new
11 spouses, to new boyfriends, to others; how many times
12 have you seen that happen?
13 A. I saw it in this case.
14 Q. You did?
15 A. Yeah.
16 MR. COOK: I'm sorry. Your client is staring at me.
17 MR. NELSON: Okay. Thank you.
18 Q. And then that almost begs, you know, the
19 question, why put the type of stuff in there if it has
20 that high probability of being released out with no
21 diagnoses associated thereto, it's just simply words that
22 are already there with no meaning?
23 A. Because, number one, my job is to be
24 transparent with the results of psychological testing.
25 So if mother endorsed criteria in the previous evaluation
Page 133
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 that is inconsistent with what's going on in the current

2 evaluation, I need to point that out and make sense of
3 it.
4 And the sense I made of it is that she seems
5 to have a mood disorder, NOS, which means not otherwise
6 specified. I did not indicate that there was any
7 schizophrenia, right, when I made the provisional
8 diagnosis.
9 I simply compared the results of earlier
10 testing to current testing, and that's my job to do as a
11 psychologist.
12 The issue of releasing a report contrary to
13 the law is quite a different scenario. And I don't know
14 what to say to that.
15 There's a cover sheet that says, Do not
16 release this report to any unauthorized party without a
17 court order. I can't soft-sell the contents of my report
18 simply because I'm afraid somebody is willing to break
19 the law. So I write everything that I gather so that
20 it's all transparent, and then I try to draw conclusions
21 so people can understand in lay language.
22 And the lay language is very clear, same with
23 dad's. There's a lot of things that he endorsed on his
24 testing and I try to bring it all together. He's got
25 some underlying anger that probably comes out in
Page 134
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 passive/aggressive ways.
2 Would you like me to explain one more thing
3 that would be helpful?
4 Q. Sure.
5 A. Psychologists are prohibited from either
6 overstating or understating the test results of
7 psychological testing. They just need to state the
8 results. That is one of the requirements. Once you do
9 psychological testing, you need to say what did you see;
10 what elevations were there; why would there be
11 inconsistencies one year ago as opposed to now. Draw
12 some kind of conclusion.
13 So hopefully that answers your question.
14 Q. Are you required to recuse yourself if it's
15 likely that you are unable to be unbiased in a custody
16 evaluation?
17 A. If there is a conflict, it is not necessarily
18 required, but it is strongly recommended that that
19 conflict be expressed and that an option is to recuse
20 yourself. Yes, there is such a provision.
21 Q. So after receiving that August 27th letter
22 from Ms. Cook, don't you believe that probably would have
23 been the best course of action, to recuse yourself at
24 that point?
25 A. I don't agree. I don't agree.
Page 135
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. You think putting the language in there asking

2 for indemnification was the better course of action?
3 A. That wasn't any different than what I was
4 experiencing in my first evaluation. It was one of
5 several experiences that I had during my first evaluation
6 with both parents. So you're taking something out of
7 context.
8 And indeed, even as I talked with you before,
9 when I talked to mom she didn't share that opinion at the
10 time that I interviewed her. So it is plausible that
11 that was -- that could have been an isolated incident or
12 that could have been part of a pattern. And at the
13 conclusion of my report, I determined that this is part
14 of a pattern, not only to me but to other professionals.
15 Q. On page 29 when you start going into mother's
16 likely to suffer mood disorder NOS on the bipolar
17 spectrum and also appears to have personality style which
18 is on the -- borderline in nature.
19 I mean, you're really going out on a limb
20 there.
21 A. With the provisional diagnosis, no, I'm not.
22 That's a provisional diagnosis.
23 Q. Where does that say that is a provisional
24 diagnosis?
25 A. "Most likely."
Page 136
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. And that is based on what?

2 A. Exactly what I told you before.
3 Q. The testing?
4 A. No. Testing just being one factor. Mother's
5 disclosures being another.
6 Q. Aggressive phone calls?
7 A. One factor. Not to be seen in isolation.
8 Q. Monitored visitation and clinical interview.
9 The things within that paragraph?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you receive the medical releases from my
12 client?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did you obtain the medical files and the
15 diagnoses from her treating physicians?
16 A. She couldn't give me that information at the
17 time. I asked her for it. I'm not sure if it was
18 because it was difficult to get that from Hong Kong, but
19 I wasn't -- during the initial interview with her she
20 wasn't able to give me that information.
21 Now, if there's new information, that's
22 something that you can review, but I didn't have that at
23 the time of this evaluation.
24 Q. So you did or did not receive the medical
25 releases?
Page 137
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. She signed a release as did father, yeah.

2 It's a release that allows for me to obtain information
3 on the children as well as the parents.
4 MR. NELSON: Take a two-minute break here.
7 I'm showing you Exhibit what I've marked as
8 Exhibit H.
9 (Whereupon, Exhibit H was marked for
10 identification.)
11 Q. BY MR. NELSON: Which appears to be an EOB,
12 Explanation of Benefit for a Dr. Kenneth Sokolski at
13 Dove Street, dated June 13, 2011.
14 Did Ms. Cook give you a signed release for
15 Dr. Sokolski?
16 A. This precedes my evaluation. This isn't the
17 doctor she was talking about in Hong Kong.
18 Q. Your evaluation was December 19, 2011, is when
19 the report was written.
20 A. Right. But remember, I started the evaluation
21 process at the beginning of July, and the psychiatrist
22 she was talking about was somebody in Hong Kong, and
23 there was a social worker in Hong Kong; and that's what I
24 was interested in.
25 And apparently there was possibly a hospital
Page 138
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 involvement. That's what I was interested in.

2 But you can ask me questions about this. I'm
3 happy to answer them. It's consistent with what I
4 described, which is -5 Q. This visit predates your first meeting with
6 Ms. Cook, does it not?
7 A. Right. But she described seeing a
8 psychiatrist in Hong Kong.
9 Q. Did you ask if she was seeing any other
10 psychiatrists?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. Wouldn't you -13 A. I don't recall. I think the most pressing was
14 the one in Hong Kong because that was the most recent.
15 And she had described how much distress she was in and
16 she found the social worker wonderful, and that the
17 healthcare system in Hong Kong was wonderfully
18 supportive. That was the one I was interested in. That
19 was the difficult one I'm talking about.
20 Q. You don't recall asking for releases or asking
21 a question about all treating physicians; that's not
22 typically what you would ask about?
23 A. Not for an update, no. And again, this is -24 this is not the psychiatrist that she and I were talking
25 about.
Page 139
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. For an update, when you're making provisional

2 diagnoses, it seems like you would ask about all treating
3 or any other treating physicians, would you not?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. But you did not?
6 A. (No audible response.)
7 Q. Obviously you did not, correct?
8 A. I think I already answered the question.
9 Q. No, you did not answer the question.
10 A. That I do recall what she and I talked about.
11 I do not recall that she shared with me that there was
12 another psychiatrist here in California. What I recall
13 is that we spent a lot of time talking about the one in
14 Hong Kong, and that was the most recent and that was the
15 one from whom I wanted information.
16 Q. That didn't answer my question.
17 My question was, you did not ask if she had
18 any other treating physicians, correct, other than the
19 one in Hong Kong?
20 A. I don't recall. I don't recall if I asked for
21 elaboration. I just know that we talked about
22 psychiatric and psychological care.
23 Q. You did not ask for any releases for any other
24 treating psychologist other than the one in Hong Kong,
25 correct?
Page 140
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. I already had the release signed by her; that

2 wasn't an issue. She already signed a general release.
3 So all I can say is what I wanted to see was the records
4 from the psychiatrist in Hong Kong because that seemed to
5 be what mom was describing.
6 Q. I understand that.
7 But having signed a general release, isn't it
8 a true statement that it would be important to seek
9 diagnoses from other treating physicians?
10 A. It could be.
11 Q. Well, give me an example of where it would not
12 be important to seek diagnoses from other treating
13 physicians.
14 A. If it's relevant A, and -15 Q. It would not be important if it was relevant?
16 A. No, it is important.
17 Q. My question was, give me an example of where
18 it would not be important to see diagnoses from other
19 treating -20 A. I don't have an example because it would be
21 important.
22 If we're doing an update; here's the
23 evaluation. During the update what we discussed is the
24 doctor in Hong Kong and the social worker in Hong Kong.
25 I can't respond to anything beyond that.
Page 141
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Q. So then I'm back to -2 A. So if you have the paperwork from the doctor
3 in Hong Kong, I can discuss that.
4 Q. I'm just trying to understand why you didn't
5 get the paperwork from this doctor.
6 A. I have no idea.
7 (Whereupon, Exhibit I was marked for
8 identification.)
9 Q. Well, as you look here, I've marked as
10 Exhibit I -11 A. How did you get the paperwork?
12 Q. I got it from my client. I asked her for it.
13 A. I would have liked to get it from your clinic,
14 too.
15 Q. I'm sure if you would have asked her for it,
16 you would have gotten it, when you're doing an
17 evaluation.
18 A. Why not just provide it?
19 Q. I think she would state she gave you the
20 releases for that; she give you a general release and
21 provided those names. I think she would say that.
22 A. Okay.
23 Would you like to ask me a question about the
24 particular paperwork that you've given me?
25 Q. Well, the first one was, yes, if she gave you
Page 142
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 those names, why didn't you get that?

2 I guess the answer is you don't know.
3 A. That would be my answer.
4 Q. Second one, after looking at the diagnoses on
5 those EOBs, he's made a diagnosis and not a provisional
6 diagnosis, correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And that does not comport with your
9 provisional diagnosis; isn't that correct?
10 A. No, it does. A mood disorder NOS is -- it's a
11 mood disorder that is not otherwise specified.
12 In other words, don't quite know what it is,
13 but there's lots of components to it. My provisional
14 diagnosis was it was likely on a bipolar spectrum. His
15 thought, based on this interview, and I don't know if
16 there were more, was that it was major depression
17 recurrent. In other words, there's ups and downs and
18 there's a panic disorder with agoraphobia associated with
19 it.
20 It could be he and I are talking about the
21 same thing, but the easiest way to summarize that is to
22 say mood disorder not otherwise specified. You can't
23 really pinpoint what it is.
24 (SIMULTANEOUS TALKING.)
25 Q. Major depression recurrent does not mean there
Page 143
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 are ups and downs. "Recurrent" does not mean ups and
2 downs.
3 A. It means that you're going this way,
4 recurrent.
5 Q. "Recurrent" means to happen again and again.
6 A. Exactly.
7 Q. What you're describing with your finger is ups
8 and downs like a sign wave.
9 A. Here's the baseline.
10 Q. That is not recurrent.
11 A. Then you draw the current.
12 Q. "Recurrent" means when it happens again and
13 again, when you quote Webster's.
14 A. Then I appreciate you correcting me on my use
15 of grammar.
16 Recurrent is it happens again and again.
17 Q. So when -18 A. By ups and downs I meant good days and bad
19 days.
20 Q. That's totally different than recurrent.
21 Do you not agree?
22 A. Bad days meaning depressed states; good days
23 meaning baseline. I think we're mincing words.
25 Q. Words mean things.
Page 144
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. This is what he concluded.

2 Q. If I might see it.
3 He states major depression recurrent, below
4 that is single episode. We have single episode which
5 occurs once; recurrent, which means it occurs again and
6 again.
7 A. You got it.
8 Q. Now that's contrasted with the medical
9 terminology with the ups and downs, which is associated
10 with the bipolar, correct?
11 A. Um.
12 Q. The highs and the lows.
13 A. We're using -14 Q. Euphoria and low depression.
15 A. Now you're using different terminology,
16 euphoria and depression.
17 Q. Give me the terminology.
18 A. I said ups and downs. I did not say highs and
19 lows.
20 Q. I'm trying to get the medical terminology for
21 someone who suffers from the bipolar state where you have
22 the highs and lows.
23 What is that?
24 A. First of all, let's be clear, there is no
25 bipolar disorder. There's a bipolar disorder spectrum.
Page 145
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 And within that spectrum there are several manifestations

2 of a mood disorder.
3 Sometimes -- oftentimes you are going to see
4 lows, as in depression. The depression can be
5 repetitious, and sometimes you see a manic state;
6 sometimes you can see a hypomanic state; sometimes you
7 can see irritability and anger, but it's a bipolar
8 spectrum.
9 And my provisional was that there was some
10 kind of mood disorder that was likely. Now, it seems
11 consistent in that he's describing something that looks
12 like a mood disorder. I do not know from this document
13 if mom saw him more than one time, but I'm basing my
14 conclusions on many, many, many, many months.
15 Q. You stated a minute ago you didn't know from
16 those documents whether a doctor saw her more than once.
17 I've shown you two documents where the doctor had seen
18 her twice, correct?
19 A. And thank you for giving me the second
20 document. The two documents I was holding were the
21 replicates of the same document and, therefore, I was
22 asking, I don't know if the doctor has seen mom more than
23 once.
24 The one document that was replicated was
25 July 6 of 2011, and that's why I was raising the
Page 146
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 question.
2 Q. Let me clarify. I have previously shown you
3 H, which was -- so we have H, and the next exhibit I gave
4 you was the follow-up. So there are -- I.
5 A. H is July 6, and I is July 6.
6 Q. Mismarked. So I should be -- I is June 13th,
7 okay.
8 Now, we were talking about the bipolar
9 spectrum. You talked about the manic state and the
10 hypomanic state.
11 Please tell me the difference.
12 A. Hypomanic state is to a lesser degree than the
13 manic state, and typically the distinguishing factor is
14 whether to what degree it impairs functioning.
15 Q. Now, what is the opposite of manic state with
16 someone on the bipolar spectrum?
17 A. There's no opposite.
18 Q. Is there a manic depressive, is that on the
19 bipolar spectrum?
20 A. That's the old terminology.
21 Q. What's the new terminology?
22 A. Bipolar. Manic depressive is outdated.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. So I think what you're alluding to is the
25 depressive state, and there's -- there are extremes in
Page 147
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 depression and, again, that's on a continuum rather than

2 static.
3 So your question was about these two documents
4 that I'm now holding; one dated June 13 and one dated
5 July 6.
6 What did you want me to look at?
7 Q. Well, I was getting back to the discussion
8 about recurrent and actually definitionally the
9 difference, as you were stating, that recurrence is the
10 same as the ups and downs, and I disputing that with you.
11 A. You were.
12 Q. And in the old terminology, I would say the
13 ups and downs would be like the manic depressive, the
14 highs and the lows; that would be -- that was what you
15 were describing would be the highs and the lows.
16 A. That was what you interpreted me describing
17 and then I tried to clarify for you what I meant.
18 Q. Please do.
19 A. Because we were using lay language rather than
20 professional language.
21 Q. I would like the professional language.
22 A. Right.
23 And so then you stated alternative terminology
24 which was euphoria and depression. Euphoric states
25 versus depressive states, which is closer to what you
Page 148
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 were trying to convey, which was very different than what

2 I was trying to state which was a baseline low, baseline
3 low, baseline low, which could describe major depression
4 recurring.
5 Q. So my original question was after seeing
6 this -- these two sheets where the doctor has diagnosed
7 as depression recurrent, that doesn't seem to comport
8 with your -- how did you state it? Tentative?
9 A. Provisional.
10 Q. Provisional diagnosis of -- on the bipolar
11 spectrum.
12 A. Mood disorder, NOS, on the bipolar spectrum,
13 it certainly could comport.
14 Q. Anything could be correct -15 A. That's right.
16 Q. -- but it doesn't seem to be on the same
17 diagnoses scale.
18 Would you not agree with that?
19 A. Mood disorder is in the same category.
20 He has the right to his opinions based on what
21 he saw within his clinical sitting. He seemed to have
22 two different opinions on these two dates.
23 The psychiatrist that mom saw in Hong Kong
24 might have a different opinion, but I -- it would be
25 likely that we would all agree that there's a mood
Page 149
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 disorder.
2 Q. And what's the effect of that?
3 A. The effect of that is that it's treatable, and
4 that's good news. It's a good thing.
5 Q. As long as someone is taking medication, then
6 really that is the main thing, correct?
7 A. That's right. That's right.
8 Q. And as far as your diagnoses of father,
9 father's got a disorder as well, correct?
10 A. He's got personality characteristics that
11 were -- most of it in his testing, and also in his
12 clinical presentation and -13 Q. Was that treatable then or not?
14 A. It is not treatable with medication, but it
15 could certainly be amenable to psychoeducation. Some
16 external sort of direction. And I speak about that in my
17 recommendations in the report.
18 Q. Is that more like a character flaw than it is
19 a diagnosis of some disease?
20 A. I think that's -- I think when we're looking
21 at the results of testing, we're just looking at how are
22 people built. Some characterological patterns are
23 actually strengths and others can be weaknesses; but with
24 intervention, the weaknesses can be bolstered and the
25 strengths can be highlighted.
Page 150
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 So I don't think there's value put on it as

2 far as a character flaw. It's just characterologically
3 how this person is built.
4 And in dad's case he has a personality style
5 that's compulsive. He has a lot of good qualities that
6 come from being compulsive, like organization, attention
7 to detail, kind of a perfectionist quality.
8 A lot of successful people have compulsive
9 qualities. What I also notice, though, is that -- and
10 this was based on both clinical interviews and the
11 testing -- is that there seemed to be underlying anger
12 that likely manifested in a passive/aggressive way.
13 That would be a weakness that he could work on
14 and I gave specific recommendations. But as far as
15 medication, there's no medication that would be able to
16 treat a personality style and a characterological
17 make-up.
18 Q. So do you recommend, because of his underlying
19 anger, that he attend anger management classes as well?
20 A. Let me see if I did in my previous report.
21 No, because what I thought would be the best
22 approach for him is to be very specific about what rules
23 he needed to follow and those rules are described on page
24 37, and there's a lot of them.
25 Because, remember, the passive/aggressive
Page 151
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 behavior is what's manifesting the underlying motive is

2 not as easily discernable; but what mom seems to be
3 contending with, this passive/aggressive behavior. So
4 what I clarified was exactly what was expected of father.
5 Q. Are you talking 6 A through J for father?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. And mom helped me with some of these because
9 she found it so frustrating.
10 Q. So father's anger, does it affect the
11 children?
12 A. They denied it. During the second evaluation,
13 they deny it.
14 Now what I would say -- I would go back on
15 what I was saying before, the combination, the dynamic
16 between mom and father, absolutely affects these kids.
17 The ongoing litigation absolutely affects the kids. The
18 fact that we're doing this right now absolutely affects
19 the kids. They need normalcy.
20 Q. Because honestly as I read these seven or
21 eight things you've asked father to do versus what you've
22 asked mom to do, they are almost laughable to me.
23 A. Why would they be laughable?
24 Q. Because they are.
25 A. These are huge and mom herself -SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994
Page 152
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
2 Q. Dental checkup, one. Dad needs to follow that
3 rule?
4 A. That's right. And that's something that was
5 very concerning to mom.
6 Q. Take them to the dentist. Take them to the
7 orthodontist, two?
8 A. Huge.
9 Q. Maybe you think it is.
10 A. Mom thought so, too, your own client thought
11 so.
12 Q. Hey, I'm not saying that's not in the big
13 scheme of things great for the kids, but I'm saying from
14 a character flaw, from an anger management, from a
15 passive/aggressive person with a mood disorder to do this
16 is -17 A. He doesn't have a mood disorder.
18 Q. He's got passive/aggressive issues. He's got
19 things that can't be controlled through medication. And
20 the first two things are doctor related.
21 The third thing is get health insurance for
22 the kids.
23 A. Right.
24 Q. Produce evidence of two quotes for insurance
25 for Ethan.
Page 153
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 A. That was a big concern for your client.

2 Q. Follow the ordinances for skateboarding.
3 A. Yes. Huge. That's a health-and-safety issue.
4 Do you want me to direct you to the portion of
5 my report why I'm so concerned about that?
6 Q. I'm not saying that's not a big deal. But I'm
7 saying with respect to parenting with respect to the
8 overall issues, with respect to the anger and the
9 triangulation, and the issues that my client has put in
10 her intake sheets, these are laughable, frankly.
11 A. I don't see why. I mean, I understand this is
12 your opinion.
13 Q. Elliott's skateboarding occur at a skate park.
14 We're halfway through and he's supposed to follow the
15 normal rules. We already know father can't do that. He
16 surreptitiously records people; doesn't even know it;
17 doesn't know how to follow the law because his attorney
18 didn't tell him so he thinks okay.
19 Go to the dentist, go to the orthodontist, get
20 some health insurance check-ups, that's what you
21 recommended, okay.
22 While mom is supposed to go to anger
23 management. Have therapy for a year. Have monitored
24 visitations before she even sees her kids. She's a
25 flight risk so she can't travel to Hong Kong. Have her
Page 154
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 passports with Steve Dragna. She's bipolar. She has

2 schizophrenic tendencies.
3 I mean, need I go on? Really?
4 A. Let me clarify. Some of those things you're
5 misstating. For example, the passports, that's for both
6 parents. And part of the reason that we need a third
7 party involved with the passport issue, including the
8 Court, including an attorney, is because the parents
9 don't communicate. And when they do, it's extremely
10 contentious. They don't get anything resolved.
11 The passport issue that you're bringing up,
12 that's a separate issue.
13 Q. I heard you say one thing; that the parents
14 don't communicate -15 A. That's right.
16 Q. -- which means both of them.
17 What I don't hear and see in any of these
18 recommendations is for Mr. Cook to do anything about
19 that. He's one of the parents -20 (SIMULTANEOUS TALKING.)
21 Q. He's one of the ones that doesn't communicate.
22 I don't see anything right here in A through J
23 that he's supposed to do to help facilitate that
24 communication. Not one thing.
25 A. Go for treatment -SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994
Page 155
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
2 THE REPORTER: Okay. I'm sorry. Can you guys slow
3 down and stop talking over each other.
5 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. Really, please. Can you
6 guys stop talking over each other and slow down. I'm
7 having a really hard time.
8 THE WITNESS: Please look at 38 for treatment for
9 father.
10 Q. BY MR. NELSON: Hold on. I want to get
11 through H, I and J first.
12 H, dad's to enroll and transport the kids to
13 their activities.
14 I, demonstrate he can earn income and provide
15 for the children.
16 And then J, finally support a plan in which
17 mother has a planned visitation with the children, open
18 communication by email and some phone time. Remain
19 flexible on visitations.
20 Frankly, that's the part of the report that
21 almost makes it certain to me that it's impossible for
22 you to have received the letter from Ms. Cook and not
23 have written an ultra biased report because this portion,
24 although important to some degree, is certainly laughable
25 in comparison and contrast with the things that you have
Page 156
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 asked Ms. Cook to jump through as a little circus poodle

2 in order to see and spend time with her kids based upon a
3 phone call message that you didn't even hear the whole
4 message.
5 A. What are you talking about?
6 Q. What am I talking about?
7 A. What phone call message that I didn't hear the
8 whole message?
9 Q. The one to Lilli.
10 A. I heard the whole message.
11 Q. No, you didn't because you didn't quote the
12 message.
13 A. I heard the whole message is what I asked and,
14 yes, I did hear the whole message.
15 Q. Why did you dot, dot, dot the part where she
16 said, I love you, and all the things were positive before
17 the other stuff; why did you kind of X that part out?
18 A. I see what you're saying that there were words
19 that I missed in the message.
20 Q. No. There were whole phrases before where she
21 says, Hi, Lilli. This is mom. I love you, so forth, and
22 went on about that, and the only portion you take is kind
23 of the little snippet that we hear on the radio where you
24 take the portion that is the most detrimental and that's
25 the portion that you quote in your report.
Page 157
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 That's what I'm talking about.

2 A. Okay.
3 Do you want me to talk about the treatment for
4 father yet on page 38, and then also the special master
5 on page 39?
6 Q. I thought you told me that's what you -- 37
7 was.
8 A. No. I've been trying to tell you.
9 Page 38 is treatment for father where I
10 recommend that he enroll in both parenting classes and
11 treatment with a licensed psychologist, and his goal is
12 to eliminate his tendency to be oppositional toward
13 mother, i.e., doing the exact opposite of what mother
14 wants.
15 I did see a lot of progress with dad. I saw
16 that, but I was concerned that because of the continued
17 conflict and because there was an underlying personality
18 style, that it would continue without intervention.
19 So I did recommend that dad would see a
20 licensed psychologist who's experienced in family law
21 matters.
22 I also wanted him to take a parenting class.
23 I saw some deficits in his parenting that I wanted
24 remediated. And if you noticed, I didn't ask mom to take
25 a parenting class. I think she has a lot of strengths
Page 158
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 with parenting.
2 Q. She doesn't have time to with all the anger
3 management and -4 A. I didn't tell her how many anger management
5 classes to take. That's her choice.
6 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. I need a break.
8 Q. BY MR. NELSON: You were saying I didn't tell
9 her how many anger management classes to take. If you
10 want to finish that sentence.
11 A. Sure.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. So as you can see on page 38, number 9, was
14 the treatment for mother. I simply say subcategory A,
15 item 1, anger management. I don't indicate whether it
16 needs to be a class. I don't indicate whether or not it
17 can be part of the cognitive therapy. It can be part of
18 whatever professional she sees.
19 I simply say just address the anger
20 management, that's it. So that's manageable, I think.
21 The psychiatric consultation, it sounds like
22 mom might actually have a professional in Hong Kong that
23 she has seen before. I don't know because I haven't
24 asked her right now if she's already checked with a
25 psychiatrist to find out if a medication might be
Page 159
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 helpful. Maybe she has and maybe she's already taken

2 that medication.
3 If that's the case, she's done the psychiatric
4 consultation. That's manageable. That's easy.
5 As far as the cognitive therapy, in my step-up
6 plan, just participating in therapy with a cognitive
7 component is going to be helpful toward unmonitored
8 visits here in California. So it should be easy.
9 Q. Can you explain the cognitive therapy for me.
10 A. Absolutely.
11 Cognitive therapy is usually something that
12 intelligent people benefit from because it appeals to
13 intellectualization of what's going on.
14 For example, what is the trigger? What is the
15 response? How can I change my response by understanding
16 the trigger?
17 So typically there's something outside of
18 yourself that's causing some stress, then you develop a
19 conclusion inside of you and put meaning onto that and
20 then you have a reaction or a feeling based on your
21 thought.
22 So it's not the incident itself that is
23 meaningful, it's the conclusion you have drawn that then
24 causes you to get upset.
25 So, for example, there might be somebody -SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994
Page 160
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 somebody's behavior that is outside of yourself and

2 you're finding yourself getting upset because you have
3 concluded this is intentional, this person is out of
4 line, they do it all the time, and you get yourself
5 worked up and you respond.
6 With cognitive therapy you can slow down that
7 process so that your response remains calm based on the
8 conclusions that you have about this person.
9 So it's a very valuable form of therapy and
10 it's very appealing for highly intelligent people. And I
11 wouldn't recommend it if I didn't think mom could handle
12 it.
13 Q. Earlier in the deposition I mentioned this
14 part where it says mother's visitations be monitored
15 until the following two criteria be met.
16 You discussed that at some length.
17 Just so I'm clear, my understanding is that
18 mother has been in psychiatric -- has gone through some
19 anger management with -- and psychiatric consultation
20 already. Okay.
21 Assuming that's the case, she has been in
22 therapy/cognitive therapy, continues to be in that.
23 I don't know if any of those have
24 certificates, as you have described below. I guess
25 letters from those therapists would be okay.
Page 161
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Would you agree?

2 A. Absolutely.
3 Q. Okay.
4 So -- and you say in the letter to demonstrate
5 compliance. Okay.
6 So assuming all those things had been met or
7 let's assume that those had been met, then according to
8 9, unmonitored visitations would then be -- what would
9 the recommendation be?
10 A. You go back to page 36 with the phase two.
11 First of all, the phase one is based on the
12 rules that we talked about before, but phase two is
13 talking about the unmonitored visitation in California
14 and that's where we're talking about the treatment.
15 So assuming all those things have been done,
16 all that would be needed is somebody to just check in
17 with the kids about, Hey, are you ready to go? It's
18 going to be good, and things have changed.
19 And it happens.
20 Q. Now, you mentioned minors' counsel.
21 My experience is minors' counsel goes months
22 and months, sometimes -- I don't know when Steve has last
23 talked with them, but it's quite some time.
24 Is that really the best avenue to hey, call up
25 the kids. Hey, I'm back. Are you ready to see mom? Do
Page 162
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 you think that's the best way to approach it?

2 One, they don't know mom has done any of this.
3 Nothing can be explained to them. I just saw mom, like
4 you have, just saw mom, she's in town. She really
5 expressed to me she would like to see you, really
6 concerned, you know, and so forth, and maybe doesn't have
7 that training that you have, you know.
8 I love Steve, but he doesn't have the training
9 you have. We'll all agree, right?
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. So my question is Steve the right guy to kind
12 of make that call? The kids are going to say what the
13 kids are going to say, in other words, so I just throw
14 that over there.
15 A. I see your point.
16 It sounds like what you're saying is there
17 might be a delay in getting the children's voices heard.
18 His job is to hear their voices rather than counsel them
19 to consider another option.
20 Certainly the best of scenarios would be that
21 a family member could talk to them, but unfortunately my
22 experience has been that it is just really difficult to
23 get anything off the ground if we don't have a third
24 party involved.
25 Do you have other thoughts about who could do
Page 163
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 it besides minors' counsel? Who could check in with the

2 kids?
3 Q. I mean, I have lots of other thoughts.
4 As an example, let me just tell you, the
5 monitor Bob Weiss quit, whatever happened, you know. I
6 got involved and have been trying to get another monitor.
7 I was able to put together another sheriff
8 with Steve via email. This happened almost about a month
9 ago.
10 And yesterday when I met with Kirsten it
11 reminded me I had put them together via email and I
12 hadn't heard anything.
13 So I emailed Steve. Steve, did you hear what
14 happened with that connection I made?
15 Yeah, I heard from him. Is he okay -- I
16 said -- to be the monitor?
17 Yes.
18 Did you communicate that with the new sheriff?
19 I didn't. Okay.
20 So now, attorneys, attorneys, whatever, busy,
21 busy. I understand all this.
22 You know, when I asked Steve -- you know,
23 Steve is going to read this, he wanted me to have them
24 connect to him through email. I did that.
25 And me being busy, Steve being busy, it got
Page 164
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 lost in the shuffle.

2 Certainly I would love to have -- it sounds
3 like if I'm right, Kirsten has kind of jumped through the
4 hoops for unmonitored stuff right now.
5 Now I could run in there ex parte and do all
6 that and go through that, but she doesn't have the money
7 to do that. I don't want to do that.
8 I want to have something in place to say, if
9 that's all happened, how do we make that happen.
10 And if it can't be this trip, she's back for
11 trial next month. What do we do?
12 I'm just concerned. I hate to see her come to
13 the states twice in three weeks and not see the kids.
14 A. Should we go off the record and pow wow?
15 Q. Sure. We can go off the record for a second.
16 (Off-the-record discussion 03:33 p.m to
17 04:14 p.m.)
19 Ms. Galindo, under the second report, if you
20 could turn to page 7, there is an -- at the very end -21 I'm sorry, page 8, at the very top there it says, Elliott
22 is reluctant to talk to mother on the phone because he
23 does not like mother pressuring him about the move.
24 If she didn't talk to him about the move, I'd
25 would be okay. Elliott minimizes the impact on her
Page 165
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 statements on him.
2 What did you mean by that?
3 A. He indicated how reluctant he was to talk to
4 mom on the phone because of this issue, but when I asked
5 him about his feelings, he minimized the impact.
6 He in one sentence is saying, it bothers him,
7 and then in the other sentence says it doesn't bother him
8 deeply. So that's what I meant.
9 He seems to understand -- he can see things
10 from his mother's perspective. He's a very empathetic
11 young man.
12 Q. So for someone who has the empathy he does,
13 that's maybe not unusual to say the statements -- the
14 empathetic response on the one hand, and yet the
15 statement -- the other statement on the other hand,
16 correct?
17 A. Yes. Because instead of worrying about one's
18 own feelings, they'll be concerned about the other
19 person's feelings.
20 So no, it's not unusual when a child is
21 empathetic and to some degree taking care of the adult's
22 feelings, at least intellectually.
23 Q. So if mother's position is now, you know,
24 almost, I guess, it's -- as we've had discussion off the
25 record, kind of -- what's the word?
Page 166
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 MS. COOK: You can say it.

2 MR. NELSON: I'm trying to think of the fancy word.
3 Q. Basically, you know, I give up as far as -4 you know, I'm not asking the kids to move to Hong Kong.
5 That's where I live now, you know, at least for the time
6 being, the near future.
7 Sounds like from at least the report that's
8 probably going to relieve some stress and pressure on the
9 children, right?
10 A. Huge.
11 Q. Not discussing that with the children, not
12 even asking that with the children, huge relief on the
13 children?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Probably will go a long way towards
16 normalizing the relationships with the children, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And perhaps even moving towards step three,
19 which is maybe even getting that cultural experience and
20 saying, Hey, kids, let's spend summertime in Hong Kong.
21 How many children get to do that, right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. At some point.
24 I mean, assuming she stays over there for a
25 few years.
Page 167
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 Okay.
2 Well -3 MS. COOK: One more question.
4 MR. NELSON: All right. One second.
5 Q. The mother took the route of the job searches,
6 the 100 jobs or so, couldn't find work, moves to
7 Hong Kong where the work was.
8 In your view, had she stayed here and gotten
9 unemployment, as father did, would she have been better
10 off or been a better mom by doing that in a sense?
11 A. No. I'm not going to ascribe any value
12 judgment to it.
13 She -- better off is such a subjective term
14 anyway. A better mother.
15 MS. COOK: Would I have been a better mother to take
16 food stamps?
17 MR. NELSON: You can't ask questions, though.
18 Q. Let me ask that.
19 Would she, in your estimation, have been a
20 better mother had she decided just to stay here, you
21 know, kind of gone on the dole, takes food stamps, and/or
22 taken unemployment rather than move to Hong Kong?
23 A. No. She wouldn't have been a better mother.
24 But I also want to make it clear that I don't think
25 people who are taking food stamps are not good mothers.
Page 168
YVer1f
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 There's a lot of good mothers who are needing public

2 assistance, and there's lots of good mothers who go
3 elsewhere to find work to support their children and
4 sometimes people leave temporarily to do that. And it's
5 out of love. And then they come back.
6 So the definition of a good mother, I think,
7 is not at issue here. I think there is absolutely no
8 doubt that you love your children very much and that your
9 children love you.
10 So the issue is one of how do we make this
11 work with the geographical distance and all the issues
12 that are going on in this family, and the strain the
13 conflict is posing on these children.
14 MR. NELSON: Okay. Well, I thank you for your time,
15 and I would -- I don't really have anyone to propose a
16 stipulation to.
17 Can we go off the record for a second and
18 think about that.
19 (Off the record 04:22 p.m. to 04:23 p.m.)
20 MR. NELSON: I propose the stipulation to relieve
21 the court reporter of her duty under the code; and
22 That the original transcript would be sent to
23 you at your office, and you'll provide the address to
24 her;
25 That you will have ten days after receipt of
Page 169
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 that transcript to review it and to sign it under penalty

2 of perjury and make any changes that you have on the
3 errata sheet that is attached.
4 You will send the original transcript to my
5 office.
6 Should you not send the original transcript to
7 me within that time period, that the certified copy that
8 I will maintain may be used for any purposes, including
9 admissibility in any court proceeding.
10 I think that's it. Would you agree to that?
11 THE WITNESS: I agree.
12 (WHEREUPON, THE DEPOSITION WAS CONCLUDED AT
13 4:24 P.M.)
14 (DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ATTACHED
15 ON FOLLOWING PAGE HEREOF.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 170
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1 * * * * *
2
3
4 I do solemnly declare under penalty of perjury
5 under the laws of the State of California that the
6 foregoing is my deposition under oath; are the questions
7 asked of me and my answers thereto; that I have read same
8 and have made the necessary corrections, additions or
9 changes to my answers that I deem necessary.
10 In witness thereof, I hereby subscribe my name
11 this______day of___________________________, 20_____.
12
13
14 __________________________
MIRIAM GALINDO
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 171
Miriam Galindo
05/10/2012
1
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3
4
5 The undersigned Certified Shorthand
6 Reporter licensed in the State of California
7 does hereby certify:
8 That the foregoing deposition was taken
9 before me at the time and place therein set
10 forth, at which time the witness was duly sworn
11 by me;
12 That the testimony of the witness and
13 all objections made at the time of the
14 examination were recorded stenographically by me
15 and were thereafter transcribed, said transcript
16 being a true copy of my shorthand notes thereof.
17 In witness whereof, I have subscribed my
18 name this date: May 21, 2012.
19
20
21
22
_____________________________
23 Karen Carlton Davis
Certificate Number 6774
24
25
Page 172

5-10-12-Galindo Full 095032 20

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

5-10-12-Galindo Full 095032 20

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Miriam Galindo

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Deposition of: MIRIAM GALINDO

SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994

1 Deposition of MIRIAM GALINDO, taken before

PJN & ASSOCIATES

15 For the Respondent:

LAW OFFICES OF ANN E. KYHLTASH

SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994

Exhibit B Letter dated March 12, 2012 to Paul J. 6

Exhibit D Document headed Kirsten Cook employment 93

Exhibit C Retainer Agreement for Professional 11

Exhibit E Letter dated August 5, 2011 to John 107

16 Exhibit G Intake Sheet 126

Exhibit H EOB from Dr. Kenneth N. Sokolski dated 138

SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994

1 Newport Beach, California - Thursday, May 10, 2012

1 what is your current educational degrees that you hold.

1 couple of civil procedure codes, a couple of

SIMPSON DEPOSITION SERVICES (800) 505-9994

1 redacted that you state are pertaining to child abuse,

1 that you may release anything related to her, she

1 Q. And the scope and purpose is -- are you

1 among all of the variables that were affecting this

1 dad, as it did in this case, then a third party is

1 I'm looking at page 7, as I read it, it looks

1 Q. Over that three-month period you have

1 Q. And why is that?

1 evaluation process, I learned that the move-away had

1 Not atypical someone would move in order to

1 Q. It depends who's requesting the move. When

1 state you analyzed it under La Musga.

1 provided to me in the Court order and it requires an

1 Q. I'll ask what I asked before again.

1 nature, but they're taken from the La Musga case and,

1 in order to make recommendations about the best interest

1 I'm looking at the relationship between

1 Which report are you looking at?

1 show me 5.220, which is entitled Court Ordered Child

1 scope and purpose delineated six particular items, and

1 interests of the children as part of your analysis?

1 is provide information to the Court about the best

1 and a proceeding describing 3021.

1 Parenting plan if the move-away is granted;

1 Q. BY MR. NELSON: What was your understanding of

1 Q. And that was because Ms. Cook had already

1 between the parents. And the most pressing issue that

1 custody to mother and father of Ethan and Lillian.

1 Q. So and, in fact, on the first report you do,

1 So when you submit a report to the judge, in

1 Q. Tell me the big change. What really happened

1 the younger children; however, if you recall one of the

1 Q. So do you know when Ethan was actually placed

1 preference and that changed significantly.

1 interviewed Lilli and specifically mother had asked her

1 Q. What did he tell minors' counsel?

1 that's when Mr. Bob Weiss was appointed as the monitor.

1 and lets Lilli listen to something. That would be

1 won't pick up the phone. You're responsible for this,

1 Q. Well, I'm only talking about this message,

1 Q. You didn't recommend counseling for Lilli?

1 Q. Well, what would you recommend -- so do you

1 A. I don't think I was specific in this that she