SEP-17-2004 04:38 PM 7::::55395583 P.

01

LAW O~FIC:I OF l6)1! e I! IIW1!~

M. NETHERTON
RENE
IXECUTIVE weODS OFFIC! MRt<
1803 SoW,37TH 5TFI!ET
lfU MAR 2 1 2002 lSl
TOPEKA. KANSAS 66611
T'ljl,.l,",",ONe: lil3) 2eN!7!J1
TliiL.~A)l(.'3) "'7-1'''" DIVISION 2

March 20, 2002

The Honorable Richard Anderson

Judqe of the District Court
Division 2
Shawnee County Courthouse
200 S.E. 7th
Topeka, KS 66603

Re: In the Matter of the Marriage of Richardson and

Dombrwski, Case No. 96 D 217

Dear Judge Anderson:

On March 11, 2002, I met with the Court, the parties and their
respective countiel, Harry Moore and Dr. Bud Dale for an informal
meeting regarding the status ot this matter. The purpose tor my
attending this meeting W&5 your request that I consider a guardian
ad litem appointment for the parties ~inor daughter.

At the meeting, I felt that the Court made itself perfectly

clear that the Court was requesting a psychological evaluation of
mother, as had been previously ordered by Judge Buchele. The Court
ultimately decided that Or. Bud Dale woul~ perform the testing and
ahy follow-up counselling for the parties, however, the Court was
not interested in reli tigating the ~ecision to place residency with
the father.
On March 13, 2002 at 1:00 p.m., I had an appointment with Dr.
Console who shares office space with Dr. Bud Dale. While 1 was
w&iting for my appointment, Or. Dale came into the waiting room and
asked if I was going to be the G.A.L. on "that case.". In an
attempt to preserve the parties confidentiality, Dr. Dale motioned
for me to join him in his office to discuss the matter further.
Dr. Dale made the statement that, liThe Court picked the wrong
parent to place this little girl with." We had further
discussions, none of which are relevant at this time.
Dr. Dale s I statement that the Court. had made an error in
awarding residency to the father causes me great concern!
Dr. Dale
has not met with any of the parties, and I feel he has prejudged
 the case based only on things he has r~~d. To allow Dr. Dale to
revisit the issue of residency would only cause regression in this
case. Dr, Dale's charge was to perform a psychological eVoluation
of the mother to determine her flight risk, nothing more. I feel
having Dr. Dale in this matter after his statements will only cause
more litigation, which is not in this child's interest.

As I can see the course this case will take with Dr. Dale'a
involv~ent, I am respectfully declining appointment as a G.A.L. in
this matter.
After twelve years as a G.A.L. in Juvenile Court, I actually
feel that no amount of intervention is yoing to affect these
parties. My only recommendations re9'ardingthi~ matter are a$
follows:

1. Appointment of Hatcher & Associates as case manager-the

parties are very set in their ways, and do not seem to be able to
set aside the past for their daughter. The case does not need more
therapy, but simply a daily referee on parenting issues.

2. No order for psychological

testing on mother-Dr. Maxfield
has already performed a MMPI on both parties with the result$ of
the testing' being found by Dr. Maxfie.ld not to be reI iable. A
second MMPI on the mother cannot really address her flight riSK.
3. Finality to parenting time-motheI" should have a eet
unsupervised parenting time, with an ~nd~rstandin9 that if she does
_not follow the schedule to the letter, her parenting time will
terminate.
I am sorry to decline the appointment as G.A.L., aa I I"eally
hoped I could help this little girl cope with eituation her parents
have createdJ however, I feel this ia a case that cannot be fixed,
and the only thing the Court can do is set up stringent orders for
parentinq tim., and sanctions for non-compliance.

Sincerely,

'~I!!JJ~
Rene M. Netherton
RMN/mrh