FILED Court of Appeals Division I State of Washington 812912018 4:27 PM Supreme Court No. ______96259-6
Court of Appeals No. 76571-0-I
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Melissa Eckstrom
Respondent,
v.
Sigurd Hansen
Petitioner.
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Lafcadio Darling, Michael D. Helgren, WSBA No. 29963 WSBA No. 12186 HOLMES WEDDLE & Matthew J. Campos, BARCOTT, P.C. WSBA No. 40777 999 Third Avenue, Suite 2600 MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & Seattle, WA 98104 HELGREN PLLC (206) 292-8008 One Union Square 600 University Street, 27th Fl. Seattle, WA 98101-3143 (206) 467-1816
Attorneys for Petitioner Sigurd J. Hansen TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. IDENTITY OF PETITIONER, CITATION TO APPELLATE DECISION & INTRODUCTION ...... 1
II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ...... 3
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...... 3
IV. ARGUMENT WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED ...... 7
A. Standard for Discretionary Review ...... 7
B. The Decision is in Direct Conflict with this Court’s Precedent ...... 7
1. This Court’s black letter collateral estoppel precedent...... 7
2. The decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent regarding when a minor represented by a GAL is bound by the outcome of a proceeding...... 8
3. The decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent regarding the participation and privity elements...... 13
4. The decision is contrary to this Court’s precedent regarding the justice element of collateral estoppel...... 16
C. The Decision Conflicts with a Published Appellate Decision ...... 18
D. This Case Raises Issues of Substantial Public Interest that Should be Determined by this Court—at this Time ...... 18
E. This Court Should Apply Any Rule Change Prospectively...... 19
IV. CONCLUSION ...... 20
i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Beal for Martinez v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 954 P.2d 237 (1998) ...... 12, 17
Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 429 P.2d 207 (1967) ...... 13, 14
Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299, 96 P.3d 957 (2004) ...... 2, 8, 16, 18
Doe v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 141 Wn. App. 407, 167 P.3d 1193 (2007) ...... 12, 13
Feature Realty, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, 161 Wn.2d 214, 164 P.3d 500 (2007) ...... 14, 15
Guardianship of Robinson, 9 Wn.2d 525, 115 P.2d 734 (1941) ...... passim
McDevitt v. Harbor View Med. Center, 179 Wn.2d 59, 316 P.3d 469 (2013) ...... 19
Nielson v. Spanaway General Medical Clinic, Inc., 135 Wn.2d 255, 956 P.2d 312 (1998) ...... 8
Quesnell v. State, 83 Wn.2d 224, 517 P.2d 568 (1973) ...... 12, 17
Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 830 P.l2d 318 (1992) ...... 19
State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 937 P.2d 1052 (1997) ...... 8, 18
Thompson v. State Dept. of Licensing, 128 Wn.2d 783 (1999) ...... 16
ii Wagner v. McDonald, 10 Wn. App. 213, 516 P.2d 1051 (1973) ...... 18
Statutes
RCW 26.09.002 ...... 4, 13, 15
Other Authorities
(SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS, § 41 (1982) ...... 9
FRANCIS C. AMENDOLA, 50 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS § 1116 (SEPT. 2016) ...... 9
Rules
RAP 13.4(b) ...... 2, 7, 18
iii
I. IDENTITY OF PETITIONER, CITATION TO APPELLATE DECISION & INTRODUCTION
Defendant/Appellant Sigurd J. Hansen (“Father”) seeks review in
Eckstrom v. Hansen, Washington State Court of Appeals No. 76571-0-I
(published July 30, 2018) (“Op.”). The decision is attached hereto as
Appendix A.
The Court of Appeals announces a new rule breaking unbroken Washington precedent: a minor may relitigate the central question of fact resolved at a full trial in which the minor was separately represented by an independent GAL, after the minor becomes an adult after and material evidence has been destroyed. If this is to be the new rule, it should be prospectively applied and should come from this Court. More than 25 years ago—in the midst of a bitter and acrimonious dissolution, and after making other false accusations against Father— Respondent’s mother (“Mother”) falsely accused Father of sexually abusing their then two-year-old daughter, Plaintiff/Respondent Melissa Eckstrom (“Daughter”). The sole foci of the six-day trial in 1992 were to determine whether the abuse allegations were true and to protect Daughter’s best interests. To that end, the court considered evidence and testimony from both sides, including from Daughter’s court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”); the court-appointed independent expert (a psychologist); and the social workers who supervised visitation – all of whom believed the abuse allegations were false. The court also heard Daughter’s testimony, through conversations between Daughter and her
therapist and court-appointed independent expert. Judge Peter Steere concluded that Father had not abused Daughter.
Daughter now seeks to re-litigate these same disproven allegations.
She alleges no new claims, offers no new evidence, and seeks the very outcome rejected in 1992. The only difference now is that memories have faded, evidence has been lost, and important witnesses are unavailable.
This Court’s precedent is clear that collateral estoppel “bars relitigation of an issue in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties.” Christensen v. Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299,
305, 96 P.3d 957 (2004). This Court’s precedent is also clear that a minor represented by a GAL at a proceeding is bound by the outcome. See
Guardianship of Robinson, 9 Wn.2d 525, 536, 115 P.2d 734 (1941).
This Court should grant review under RAP 13.4(b) because the decision is contrary to this Court’s and the Court of Appeals’ well- established precedent and involves important issues of public interest. If this Court does not accept review, the decision’s error will cause irreparable damage to Father that cannot later be undone, even if a jury finds again that he did not abuse Daughter, or if this Court determines later that collateral estoppel bars Daughter’s claims here.1
1 By contrast, no harm will come to Daughter by this Court’s decision to accept review beyond, at most, a modest delay in pursuing her already stale claims.
- 2 -
Indeed, if the well-settled rules of collateral estoppel were to be changed as the Court of Appeals proposes, this Court should apply any such changes prospectively to future cases, not to this one. At the time of the 1992 trial, the rules of collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of the issue of whether Father abused Daughter. Because of this, Father relied on the court’s finding of no abuse in not preserving critical evidence and exhibits. It would be manifestly unfair to force Father to relitigate these disproven allegations 25 years later when important evidence is no longer available because of reliance on the then-existing law.
II. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Should Daughter’s claims have been dismissed under collateral estoppel where the same allegations underlying these claims were litigated and rejected in 1992, after a six-day trial held to resolve the same issues, at which the abuse claims were aggressively pursued, an independent expert was appointed by the Court, a GAL was appointed for Daughter, and where crucial evidence is no longer available?
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Over 25 years ago, Mother became pregnant with Daughter and she and Father married. See CP at 128-35. Mother filed for dissolution shortly after their wedding. Id; Appendix B (“App.”) at 16. After Mother made other false and disproven allegations against Father, Mother falsely
- 3 -
claimed that Father had sexually abused Daughter. Id; CP at 382-86; 359-
380; App. at 41-45; 49-80; 92-105. The social workers who assisted with
Daughter’s visitation with Father expressed concerns—even before
Mother made these abuse allegations—that Mother would falsely accuse
Father of abusing Daughter to prevent him from having a relationship with
her. CP at 382-86.
Unfortunately, this prediction came true. Even though Daughter’s
pediatricians had never seen evidence of abuse, App. at 40, Mother took
Daughter to Harborview Medical Center and had her examined. Id. at
38. While the results of the physical examination were not themselves indicative of sexual abuse, Mother falsely told the Harborview doctors that
Father had a history of abusing Daughter. App. at 38-40; 49-80; 92-
105. This false statement tainted the doctor’s examination and resulted in a CPS investigation. Id. While Daughter made no allegations at the time of her initial Harborview examination, see App., at 38-39, she later (after more time alone with Mother) made statements that could suggest possible abuse, though her statements were interpretable and unclear. Id. at 49-80.
The dissolution litigation focused on custody, which turned solely on the issue of whether Father had abused Daughter (and Daughter’s best interests, see RCW 26.09.002). CP at 128-35. The court appointed a
GAL to independently protect Daughter’s separate interests, investigate
- 4 -
the allegations of abuse, and provide a report to the court. CP at 311-
13. The GAL conducted a 20-month investigation and concluded that
Father had not abused Daughter. App. at 81-89; CP at 128-35.
The court also appointed an independent expert (a child
psychiatrist), Dr. Dunne, to determine if Father had abused Daughter. CP
at 128-35; 359-80; App. at 49-80; 92-105. Dr. Dunne conducted numerous interviews with the family including Father, Mother, Daughter, and Father’s and Mother’s parents. Id. He concluded that the probability that Father had abused Daughter was “extremely low.” CP at 130-31. On the other hand, he found that Mother had significant psychological problems, could have invented the abuse, and that there was an “extremely high” possibility that Mother had influenced Daughter against Father. Id.
Judge Steere held a six day trial and considered evidence and testimony from Mother (who aggressively pursued the abuse claims through multiple attorneys), Daughter (through her conversations with her therapist and Dr. Dunne), Daughter’s GAL, the treating physicians at
Harborview, the independent court-appointed expert, the social workers,
Daughter’s pediatrician, and others. CP at 123-35; App. 40. After considering all of the evidence—and Mother’s motion for reconsideration—Judge Steere concluded that Father (and Father’s parents, whom Mother also accused of abuse) had not abused Daughter,
- 5 -
and that the Court could not and should not terminate his parental rights.
Id. Had Judge Steere harbored doubt about Mother’s claims of sexual
abuse, he would not have upheld Father’s parental rights. Instead, he
specifically ruled: “Neither Sigurd J. Hansen nor Respondent’s parents …
sexually abused Melissa.” Id. at 131.
Because of the unfortunate but lasting impact Mother had on
Daughter’s perception of Father, and on the advice of professionals
working to repair the relationship between Father and Daughter, Father
voluntarily relinquished his parental rights on November 16, 1993, long
after the trial was over. App. at 106-108.2
In 2016, Daughter filed the instant lawsuit. Father brought a
Motion to Dismiss Daughter’s new action because collateral estoppel precludes Daughter from relitigating allegations that were conclusively determined to be not true after a full trial on the merits. CP at 96-102. The trial court denied Father’s motion but granted his Motion for Certification
Per RAP 2.3(b)(4) and stayed the proceedings. Id. at 17-18; 83-85. The
Court of Appeals accepted review, but upheld the trial court’s decision in violation of this Court’s precedent, and its own. See Op. at 9.
2 After Father did so, Father and Daughter did not have contact until 2010 when Daughter was in her early twenties. CP at 450-60.
- 6 -
IV. ARGUMENT WHY REVIEW SHOULD BE GRANTED
A. Standard for Discretionary Review
This Court will accept review of a decision of the Court of Appeals if it is in conflict with a decision of this Court or a published decision of the Court of Appeals or if it “involves an issue of substantial public interest that should be determined by the Supreme Court.” RAP 13.4(b).
B. The Decision is in Direct Conflict with this Court’s Precedent
The decision correctly applied this Court’s precedent in finding:
(1) that the identical issue to be decided here—whether Father abused
Daughter when she was two years old—was decided at the 1992 trial; and
(2) that Judge Steere’s decision was a final judgment on the merits. Op. at
5. However, the decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent in holding that Father had not established that: (1) Daughter was a party or in privity with a party to the 1992 trial; and (2) no injustice would result by applying collateral estoppel here. Id. at 5-9.
1. This Court’s black letter collateral estoppel precedent.
This Court has issued numerous rulings on the importance and application of collateral estoppel. As this Court recognizes:
Collateral estoppel … stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice. It means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.
- 7 -
State v. Williams, 132 Wn.2d 248, 253-54, 937 P.2d 1052 (1997). “The
collateral estoppel doctrine promotes judicial economy and serves to
prevent inconvenience or harassment of parties. It also implicates
important principles of repose….” Christensen, supra, at 306-07; see also
Nielson v. Spanaway General Medical Clinic, Inc., 135 Wn.2d 255, 262,
956 P.2d 312 (1998) (collateral estoppel “encourages respect for judicial
decisions … by providing for finality in adjudications”).
This Court has explained that the requirements of collateral estoppel
are: “(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication must be identical with
the one presented in the second; (2) the prior adjudication must have ended
in a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea of
collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party or in privity with a
party to the prior litigation; and (4) application of the doctrine must not
work an injustice.” Williams, supra, at 254.
2. The decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent regarding when a minor represented by a GAL is bound by the outcome of a proceeding.
This Court’s precedent is clear that where a person attempts to
relitigate issues subject to collateral estoppel, the fact that the person was a minor in the previous case does not change the application of the doctrine
- 8 -
if the minor was represented by a GAL.3 In Robinson, supra, this Court
addressed the application of res judicata to two minors whose estate was represented by a GAL. Id. at 527-29. Originally, the minors were represented by GAL Hussey. Id. But, Hussey sought to transfer his duties to a new GAL, Terhune. Id. The trial court held a hearing on an accounting of the estate, Hussey’s management of it, and the transfer of his GAL duties to Terhune. Id. A separate GAL was appointed to protect the minors’ interests in the matter and to provide a report to the court. Id.
After the minors’ separate GAL submitted his report, the trial court entered an order discharging Hussey, approving his final accounting, and approving the appointment of Terhune as GAL. Id.
After reviewing subsequent reports from Terhune, the minors later claimed that the accounting filed with the court was false and that Terhune should be removed as GAL. Id. This Court held that because the minors’ claims were based on the accounting accepted by the trial court (in connection with which the minors were represented by a GAL who
3 Indeed, it is black letter law that “[a]n infant properly represented is bound by an adjudication to the same extent that he or she would have been had all the parties been adults.” FRANCIS C. AMENDOLA, 50 C.J.S. JUDGMENTS § 1116 (SEPT. 2016). And where, as here, a GAL is appointed for the minor, re-litigation is barred by collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS, § 41 (1982) (“A person who is not a party to an action but who is represented by a party is bound by … [it] as though he were a party … Such is the case in the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a minor”).
- 9 -
submitted a report on the matter), the minors were barred from pursuing such claims. Id. As the Court explained: “All of the matters which appellant now seeks to raise … could have and should have been raised at the hearing.” Id.
Although, unlike Daughter here, the minors in Robinson never participated directly in the previous proceedings or had the benefit of a trial on the merits (or, indeed, any substantive review of their claims) this
Court held that the minors there were nonetheless bound to the rulings in the earlier proceedings and were barred from relitigating issues that were determined in those earlier proceedings. Id. This Court’s binding precedent is clear: where a minor is represented by a GAL, the minor is bound by the rulings of the court. See Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 536.
The decision conflicts with this precedent in holding that collateral estoppel cannot apply to Daughter because she was not a party to the 1992 case. Op. at p. 7-8. Daughter was represented by a GAL in connection with the 1992 case on the subject of whether Father abused Daughter.
Daughter’s GAL spent 20 months investigating the allegations of abuse
(including conducting interviews of the parties and witnesses and reviewing court documents and depositions) and provided a report to the court that Father had not abused Daughter. App. at 81-89. Daughter’s
- 10 -
GAL is the only person, other than Mother, Father, and their attorneys,
whom the court provided access to the sealed files. See CP at 232-33.
The Court of Appeals ignores this precedent in holding that
collateral estoppel cannot apply to Daughter because, according to it, she
was not a party to the 1992 case. Op. at 7-8. This holding is based on the
Court of Appeals’ determination that the GAL for Daughter did not have
the authority to accept service for Daughter or assert a personal injury
claim on her behalf and that, therefore, Daughter was not a party. Id. But,
Robinson did not hold that collateral estoppel depends on the scope or context of the GAL appointment. See Robinson, supra, at 534-7. The
Court of Appeals’ analysis does not arise from Robinson itself. Id. This
Court should accept review to determine whether the Robinson holding
should be so limited, when on its face it is not.
Moreover, it is entirely irrelevant whether the GAL had the power
to perform those tasks at the time the 1992 trial occurred (though the
Court of Appeals is mistaken—the GAL was served with court papers and
was the only other person aside from Mother, Father, and their counsel, to
be given access to the sealed file). CP at 135; 232-33; 311-13. The
GAL’s duty with regard to the 1992 case was to protect Daughter’s best
interests. See CP 311-13. “Best interests” by any common sense and
legal standard means the GAL had a fiduciary duty—the highest duty—to
- 11 -
do all that was necessary to protect the Daughter from harm. See Beal for
Martinez v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 780-81, 954 P.2d 237 (1998)
(GAL has a fiduciary relationship with minor). Indeed, this Court has
approvingly quoted from another case that “it is the duty of a guardian ad
litem to submit to the court all relevant defenses or legal claims his client
may have.” Quesnell v. State, 83 Wn.2d 224, 236, 517 P.2d 568 (1973)
(citation omitted). The “best interests” order was not, as the decision
mistakenly concluded, a limitation on the GAL’s powers, but rather a
broad grant of powers to do that which is necessary to protect Daughter’s
interests. And, of course, a GAL can always take action to pursue legal
claims—if there is a factual basis—and may be duty-bound to do so. See
id. GALs can and often do pursue lawsuits, including personal injury
lawsuits, on behalf of those they represent. See e.g., Doe v. Corp. of
President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 141 Wn. App.
407, 420, 167 P.3d 1193 (2007).
As such, the Court of Appeals’ reasoning is flawed. It puts the cart before the horse. To hold that there cannot be collateral estoppel because the GAL did not file a claim for monetary damages ignores that a GAL can take action to pursue claims for damages on behalf of those the GAL represents, but that the GAL in this case did not, because the conclusion of his investigation and the result of the six day trial were that Father had not
- 12 -
abused Daughter. The Court of Appeals’ analysis confuses the GAL’s decision not to seek to have a claim filed because the GAL concluded that
Father had not abused Daughter, with the mistaken notion, see Doe, supra, at 420, that the GAL lacked the authority to do so. The threshold question—which had to be answered before the GAL took any further action—was whether Father had abused Daughter. The GAL determined that Father had not abused Daughter and acted accordingly.
Daughter was represented by a GAL at the 1992 proceedings—the focus of which was Daughter’s right to be free from abuse and Daughter’s best interests, see RCW 26.09.002; CP at 128-35; 311-13—and Daughter is therefore a party to that proceeding and bound under this Court’s precedent by the court’s 1992 judgment. See Robinson, supra, at 536.
3. The decision conflicts with this Court’s precedent regarding the participation and privity elements.
Collateral estoppel is established if Daughter was “a party [to the prior proceedings], a participant, or in privity with either.” Bordeaux v.
Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 396, 429 P.2d 207 (1967). Collateral estoppel is satisfied through participation because the rationale underlying the doctrine is that “a stranger’s rights cannot be determined in his absence from the controversy.” Id. Daughter was unquestionably a participant in—and was certainly no stranger to—the 1992 trial. The allegation that
- 13 -
Father abused Daughter was the entire focus of, and reason for, the trial.
See App. at 81-89; CP at 128-35. Not only were Daughter’s interests separately represented by a GAL and an independent expert (as well as by
Mother and Mother’s attorneys’ advocacy), but Daughter participated and
offered testimony in the 1992 trial as her ambiguous statements regarding
potential abuse—including those highlighted in Daughter’s prior briefing
(as well as Daughter’s statements to experts, made outside Mother’s
presence, that her Father had not harmed her)—were admitted through
Daughter’s therapist and the independent expert. See e.g., CP 511-14.
Because Daughter participated in the 1992 proceedings, collateral estoppel
applies. See Bordeaux, supra, at 396. The decision fails to address her
participation and, thus, conflicts with this Court’s precedent.
The decision also fails to recognize that Daughter was also in
privity with Mother under this Court’s precedent. “A nonparty is in
privity with a party if that party adequately represented the nonparty's
interest in the prior proceeding.” Feature Realty, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick &
Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, 161 Wn.2d 214, 224, 164 P.3d 500
(2007). Here, Mother and her attorneys vigorously pursued the allegation
that Father abused Daughter, retained experts, and called numerous witnesses in support of their case during the six day trial on the matter.
See CP at 123-35. Mother and her attorneys could not have done anything
- 14 -
more to represent Daughter’s interests (as she now asserts those interests
to be) at the 1992 trial than they did. Thus, under this Court’s precedent,
Daughter is bound by collateral estoppel because she is in privity with
Mother. See Feature Realty, supra, at 224.
The Court of Appeals also found privity did not apply because
Mother and Daughter’s rights were different—Mother’s right was to
prevent her Daughter from being abused and Daughter’s right was to not
be abused. See Op. at 8. But, even assuming that was correct—and it is
not4—the decision fails to acknowledge that the privity requirement is met
because Mother adequately represented Daughter’s interests at the earlier
proceedings. See Feature Realty, supra, at 224.
The decision is also in conflict with this Court’s precedent, in
that—when applying the third criteria of collateral estoppel—the decision
used res judicata, not collateral estoppel, law. The decision states that the
“party” and/or “privity” element of collateral estoppel was not satisfied
because the claim for relief sought in the 1992 trial was whether child
abuse precluded custodial/visitation rights and here is whether that same
4The focus of the 1992 trial was the best interests of Daughter, not Mother’s rights. See RCW 26.09.002. Mother’s right to the relief she was requesting—termination of Father’s parental rights—could only be granted if Father violated Daughter’s right to be free from abuse and it was in Daughter’s best interests. Id. Mother had no independent right to restrict Father’s parental rights. Id. Mother and Daughter thus had a mutual relationship in the same right at the 1992 trial.
- 15 -
child abuse should support a monetary claim for damages, Op., 7-8. But, while the nature of the relief sought can be relevant to res judicata (claim preclusion), it is irrelevant to collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) in which the question is whether the same issue—not the same claim or requested relief—is at issue in the two proceedings. Christensen, supra, at
306. The question is whether the GAL was appointed to represent
Daughter on an issue common to both lawsuits, which he was.
4. The decision is contrary to this Court’s precedent regarding the justice element of collateral estoppel.
In determining whether collateral estoppel would work an injustice, this Court’s focus is on procedural fairness—Washington courts typically do not look to the substance of the underlying decision in determining whether the justice element is satisfied. See Thompson v.
State Dept. of Licensing, 128 Wn.2d 783, 795-96 (1999) (“collateral estoppel calls for an examination primarily of procedural regularity”).
“Washington courts look to whether the parties to the earlier proceeding received a full and fair hearing on the issue in question.” Id. The allegation that Father abused Daughter was thoroughly litigated. Daughter had not one, but three advocates at the 1992 trial: (1) her own independent
GAL; (2) Mother and her attorneys; and (3) an independent child psychiatrist. CP at 123-35. The court carefully considered all of the
- 16 -
evidence over the course of the six day trial and concluded Father had not abused Daughter. Id. Under this Court’s precedent, Father established the justice element. Id.
The Court of Appeals held that the justice element of collateral estoppel is not met here because Daughter “was too young to testify, too young to understand the nature of the legal proceedings, and too young to be aware of her right to pursue a tort claim.” Op., at 8. Yet, this describes nearly every minor involved in a legal proceeding, which is precisely why
GALs are appointed to protect minors’ interests. Here, Daughter’s GAL did so by thoroughly investigating the abuse allegations over the course of a 20-month investigation. The GAL concluded that Father had not abused
Daughter. The GAL clearly had the “power to act for her,” contrary to the decision, because he had a fiduciary duty to investigate whether the alleged abuse had occurred and to “represent” her best interests. See Beal, supra, at 774; Quesnell, supra, at 236; CP at 311-13.
Under this Court’s precedent, there is no injustice in holding
Daughter to the outcome of a proceeding where the same abuse allegations being alleged here were fully litigated and found to be not true, and where
Daughter’s separate interests were represented by a GAL. The 1992 trial established that Mother’s allegations against Father—like Mother’s
- 17 -
previous allegations against him—were false. Justice is not served by breathing new life into Mother’s false allegations.
C. The Decision Conflicts with a Published Appellate Decision
This Court should also accept review because the decision conflicts with Wagner v. McDonald, 10 Wn. App. 213, 214, 516 P.2d
1051 (1973), a published decision. See RAP 13.4(b). The decision conflicts with Wagner’s holding that a minor represented by a GAL is bound to the same extent as if the minor were an adult. Id.
D. This Case Raises Issues of Substantial Public Interest that Should be Determined by this Court—at this Time
Child sexual assault is a very serious matter of substantial public interest. See RAP 13.4(b). The principles underlying collateral estoppel are also “extremely important” and matters of substantial public interest.
Williams, supra, 253-54. Indeed, while Washington has a strong interest in ensuring that allegations of sexual abuse are reviewed by the courts, it has at least as great an interest in finality and repose after those allegations are proven to be untrue. See e.g., Christensen, supra, at 306-07.
Certainly, there is a substantial public interest in whether res judicata principles should effectively nullify collateral estoppel, as the decision did. Much unnecessary litigation will be pursued until this Court rules as to whether the decision is now the new rule in this State. Whether that is
- 18 -
the new rule, should be addressed sooner rather than later. Balancing such
concerns is a matter of public interest that this Court should address.
Finally, this Court should address such matters now, rather than
waiting until the outcome of a second trial. Father has already stood trial
once on these ugly allegations and was exonerated. The decision would
force Father to stand trial for these disproven allegations yet again—this
time without much of the evidence earlier weighed—and with all the
attendant harm a second trial could cause. If the decision is not corrected
now, Father will suffer these harms—even if it is later found that the
decision is erroneous. Collateral estoppel is designed to prevent a second
trial. This Court should accept review now to timely decide these important issues before further harm occurs.
E. This Court Should Apply Any Rule Change Prospectively
Washington law permits an appellate court decision to be applied prospectively, and not to the case at bar, when clear past precedent has been overruled and “applying the new rule to parties who relied on the old would offend basic notions of justice and fairness.” Robinson v. City of
Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 830 P.l2d 318 (1992); McDevitt v. Harbor View
Med. Center, 179 Wn.2d 59, 316 P.3d 469 (2013) (concurrence).
Even if this Court were to overrule its past precedent, retroactive application of the new rule would offend basic notions of justice and
- 19 -
fairness. Father, his counsel, other attorneys involved in the 1992 proceedings, and the Superior Court, all relied on black letter collateral estoppel law in not preserving important evidence from the 1992 trial and critical evidence and records were discarded over time. See CP at 308-57.
Father and his attorneys rightly believed, under the then-existing law, that the maintenance of such evidence was no longer reasonably necessary.
The decision fails to acknowledge, let alone address, the injustice of its ruling as to Father.
IV. CONCLUSION
Father respectfully requests that the instant Motion be granted.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of August, 2018.
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, P.C.
By: s/ Lafcadio Darling Lafcadio Darling, WSBA No. 29963 999 Third Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98104 T: (206) 292-8008 / F: (206) 340-0289 [email protected]
McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN
By: s/ Matthew J. Campos Michael D. Helgren, WSBA No. 12186 Matthew J. Campos, WSBA No. 40777 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 [email protected] [email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner Sigurd Hansen
- 20 - DECLARATION OF SERVICE
The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the State of Washington that on August 29, 2018, I caused a copy of the
foregoing PETITION FOR REVIEW to be served on the following in
the manner indicated below:
Lincoln C. Beauregard • Via Messenger Connelly Law Offices • Via U.S. Mail 2301 North 30th Street 0 Via Email (Per Tacoma, WA 98403 Agreement) Telephone: (253) 593-0377 linco lnb@connell y-law .com [email protected] Attorneys for Daughter Dean Standish Perkins • Via Messenger Dean Standish Perkins and Associates • Via U.S. Mail st (Per 119 1 A venue South, #310 0 Via Email Seattle, WA 98104 Agreement) Telephone: (206) 467-0701 [email protected] Attorneys for Daughter
Melissa Eckstrom • Via Messenger Eckstrom Law Firm, PLLC • Via U.S. Mail Via Email (Per 119 1st Ave S., Suite 310 0 Agreement) Seattle, WA 98104-3429 Telephone: (425) 879-2700 [email protected] Pro Se DATED this 29th day of Augus~/-201~, at S/tle, Washington.
\ ~ / ·~ Th~ Legal A:rsistant
- 21 -
3608-001 hh27fx08mg 2018-08-29
APPENDIX
A
The Court of Appeals of the DIVISION I RICHARD D. JOHNSON, State of Washington One Union Square Court Administrator/Clerk 600 University Street Seattle 98101-4170 (206) 464-7750 July 30, 2018 TDD: (206) 587-5505
Lincoln Charles Beauregard Dean Standish Perkins, JR Connelly Law Offices Dean Standish Perkins & Assoc 2301 N 30th St 119 First Ave S Ste 310 Tacoma, WA 98403-3322 Seattle, WA 98104 [email protected] [email protected]
Lafcadio H Darling Michael David Helgren Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C. McNaul Ebel Nawrot Et Al 999 3rd Ave Ste 2600 600 University St Ste 2700 Seattle, WA 98104-4011 Seattle, WA 98101-3143 [email protected] [email protected]
Matthew J. Campos McNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helgren PLLC 600 University St Ste 2700 Seattle, WA 98101-3143 [email protected]
CASE #: 76571-0-I Melissa Eckstrom, Respondent v. Sigurd Hansen, Petitioner King County, Cause No. 16-2-12120-9 SEA
Counsel:
Enclosed is a copy of the opinion filed in the above-referenced appeal which states in part:
“We affirm the trial court decision allowing her suit to go forward."
Counsel may file a motion for reconsideration within 20 days of filing this opinion pursuant to RAP 12.4(b). If counsel does not wish to file a motion for reconsideration but does wish to seek review by the Supreme Court, RAP 13.4(a) provides that if no motion for reconsideration is made, a petition for review must be filed in this court within 30 days.
In accordance with RAP 14.4(a), a claim for costs by the prevailing party must be supported by a cost bill filed and served within ten days after the filing of this opinion, or claim for costs will be deemed waived.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Johnson Court Administrator/Clerk
Enclosure c: The Honorable Suzanne Parisien 2018 JUL 30 AM 8: 31
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
MELISSA ECKSTROM, ) ) No. 76571-0-1 Respondent, ) ) DIVISION ONE V. ) ) SIGURD HANSEN, ) PUBLISHED OPINION ) Petitioner. ) FILED: July 30, 2018 ______)
BECKER, J. - Respondent Melissa Eckstrom has filed a personal injury claim against her father, petitioner Sigurd Hansen, alleging that he sexually molested her when she was two years old. At the time of the alleged abuse,
Eckstrom's parents had just been through an acrimonious marriage and divorce.
Eckstrom's mother accused Hansen of molesting the child, and the court was called on to decide whether Hansen should be allowed to continue having residential time with her. After a full trial in March 1992, the court found that
Hansen had not abused Eckstrom. Hansen asserts that the 1992 finding of no abuse estops Eckstrom from litigating the present claim. Because Eckstrom was not a party to the 1992 proceedings, the trial court properly denied Hansen's motion to dismiss. No. 76571-0-1/2
FACTS
Eckstrom's parents married in 1987 and separated about a month later.
Eckstrom was born in 1988. The marriage was dissolved by decree in 1989.
Under the parenting plan, Eckstrom resided primarily with her mother. Hansen, a commercial fisherman who spent several months per year in Alaska, exercised his right to residential time when he was in town. Then, in 1990, the mother began to accuse Hansen of. molesting the child. Although Hansen denied wrongdoing, his residential contact with his daughter was suspended by temporary order.
Eckstrom was assessed by a number of professionals during the ensuing investigation. Sometimes she made statements that indicated Hansen had molested her. In other interviews, she denied that he had touched her inappropriately. A court-appointed psychiatrist concluded there was no convincing evidence to support the allegations of sexual abuse. A guardian ad litem appointed for Eckstrom filed a report stating his opinion that Hansen had not abused Eckstrom and recommending that his visitation with her be reinstated.
A trial occurred in 1992 on Hansen's motion to resume residential contact with Eckstrom. The court made a finding that Hansen had not abused his daughter. The court provided for gradual reinstatement of his residential time with her, under therapeutic supervision intended to overcome the estrangement that had developed and to promote a close parent-child relationship.
2 No. 76571-0-li3
Efforts to reunite father and daughter were unsuccessful. In 1993,
Hansen relinquished his parental rights. Eckstrom's mother assumed sole custody and control of the child.
Eckstrom grew up having no contact with Hansen. In 2010, she reached out to Hansen and told him that she was planning to go to law school. She asked Hansen to give her money for tuition and other expenses, which she estimated as more than $250,000. Hansen told her that he would first want to get to know her better. They attended a joint counseling session. They had no further contact thereafter. Eckstrom went to law school and is now a practicing attorney.
This suit began in May 2016, when Eckstrom filed a complaint against
Hansen seeking damages for child rape and molestation. Eckstrom claimed to have memories of Hanse.n's abuse and said that she was prepared to testify about her experience. Hansen denied liability and asserted the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel. He moved for dismissal in July 2016 on the ground that the 1992 finding of no abuse precluded Eckstrom's suit. The trial court denied the motion but granted Hansen's request for a certification under
RAP 2.3(b)(4). This court granted discretionary review. 1
1 Hansen attached to his opening brief an appendix containing relevant documents filed in the earlier superior court action. These documents, originally filed under seal, were unsealed by the superior court in the present action of Eckstrom v. Hansen. Although the documents are not part of the record in this current case, the court was aware of their contents. See, ~. Clerk's Papers at 285 n.2. We grant Hansen's request to take judicial notice that these documents are, in fact, documents that were filed with the King County Superior Court in the earlier proceedings. That fact, supported by a copy of the court's docket, is not subject to reasonable dispute. ER 201 (b)(2).
3 No. 76571-0-1/4
ANALYSIS
Res judicata and collateral estoppel are kindred doctrines designed to prevent repetitive litigation. Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 395,
429 P.2d 207 (1967). Whether an action is precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel is reviewed de novo. Ensley v. Pitcher, 152 Wn. App. 891, 899, 222
P.3d 99 (2009), review denied, 168 Wn.2d 1028 (2010); Christensen v. Grant
County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299,305, 96 P.3d 957 (2004).
We have little difficulty concluding that res judicata does not apply here.
One of the requirements of res judicata is that the two suits involve the same cause of action. Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc., 171 Wn.2d 726,730,254
P.3d 818 (2011). These two suits do not. The suit between the parents addressed Hansen's right to have residential time with his daughter, whereas
Eckstrom now raises a claim for personal injury damages.
The closer question is the application of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion. Pederson v. Potter, 103 Wn. App. 62, 69, 11 P.3d 833 (2000), review denied, 143 Wn.2d 1006 (2001 ). Collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of a particular issue in a later proceeding involving the same parties, even if the later proceeding involves a different claim or cause of action. Pederson, 103 Wn.
App. at 69. The requirements of collateral estoppel are: (1) the identical issue was decided in the prior action; (2) the prior action resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party to be estopped was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier proceeding; and (4) precluding relitigation of the issue will not work an injustice. Williams, 171 Wn.2d at 731. When the elements of collateral estoppel
4 No. 76571-0-1/5 are met, the doctrine serves to prevent inconvenience or harassment of parties and provides for finality in adjudications. Christensen, 152 Wn.2d at 306-07.
The factual issue to be decided in Eckstrom's personal injury claim is whether Hansen sexually abused Eckstrom during the same time period as alleged in the 1992 proceeding. In the parenting plan trial in 1992, the trial court was presented with the identical issue and decided Hansen did not sexually abuse Eckstrom. The result was final judgment on the merits permitting Hansen to resume residential contact with his young daughter. Because the first two elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied, we must consider the third: whether
Eckstrom, the party to be estopped, was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier proceeding.
Eckstrom was not a named party to the earlier action. The caption of the case was "In Re the Marriage of Lisa Dawn Hansen, Petitioner, and Sigurd J.
Hansen, Respondent." Hansen argues that his daughter was nonetheless
"effectively a party" because a guardian ad litem was appointed for her.
Hansen cites Guardianship of Robinson, 9 Wn.2d 525, 536, 115 P.2d 734
(1941 ). Robinson exemplifies the general principle that a minor represented by a guardian in an action is bound by the resulting judgment. RESTATEMENT
(SECOND} OF JUDGMENTS§ 41 (1982).
Robinson was an estate dispute. The George Washington Foundation,
' serving as guardian of the persons of three minors, petitioned for removal of
Robert Terhune, who was then serving as guardian of their estates. Robinson, 9
Wn.2d at 534. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the foundation
5 · No. 76571-0-1/6
appealed. The foundation argued that the trial court should have removed
Terhune because Terhune had allegedly filed a false final account overstating
the cash on hand when he took over from his predecessor, who had resigned.
At the earlier hearing on the final account, the foundation did not choose
to appear though it had notice. The minors were personally served with notice of
the hearing on the final account. A guardian ad litem was appointed "to appear
and represent their interests" at the hearing. Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 528-29, 536.
The final account was approved, and no appeal was taken. Robinson, 9 Wn.2d
at 529.
The Supreme Court ruled that the claim of false reporting was no longer
available in the second proceeding as a ground for removing Terhune because it
could and should have been litigated at the earlier hearing on the final account.
Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 536. The minors were held to be bound by the previous
order approving the final account. Robinson, 9 Wn.2d at 536.
Hansen argues that under Robinson, whenever a guardian ad litem is
appointed to protect a minor's interests, the minor is bound by the rulings of the
court and cannot relitigate the issues resolved by those rulings. Robinson does
not support stating the law so broadly. The effect of the appointment of a
guardian ad litem depends on the type of case and the authority given.
The Marriage of Hansen case, King County Superior Court cause number
87-3-09135-3, was a domestic relations matter. The order appointing a guardian
ad litem for Eckstrom in 1990 provided that the guardian ad litem "shall conduct a
reasonable investigation of the circumstances of the child in relation to Parenting
6 No. 76571-0-1/7
Plan matters and shall, in that capacity, represent the best interests of the minor child."2 The order did not authorize the guardian ad litem to receive service of process for Eckstrom or to assert claims and counterclaims on her behalf.
Nothing in the terms of the order of appointment authorized the guardian ad litem to act for E.ckstrom so as to make her "effectively a party" as Hansen contends.
Even if the guardian ad !item had concluded that Hansen abused Eckstrom, he did not have the authority to pursue a personal injury claim on her behalf. The guardian ad litem was appointed to represent Eckstrom's interests only in connection with the pending decision on whether her father should be allowed to have residential time with her. This concern is immaterial to the present suit.
In addition, we find no authority permitting collateral estoppel to operate against a minor who is represented by a guardian ad litem in an earlier proceeding when the minor's interests in the second proceeding are not the same as in the first proceeding. In Robinson, the foundation was asserting the minors' interest in having their assets handled honestly. The exact same interest was at stake at the earlier hearing on the final account. Here, the interest now asserted by Eckstrom is to receive monetary compensation for the damages she has allegedly suffered as the result of Hansen's conduct. This is different from the Marriage of Hansen matter, where her interest was in being protected from sexual abuse, not in receiving compensation.
2 Clerk's Papers at 113-14. · 7 No. 76571-0-1/8
'l We conclude that the appointment of the guardian ad litem did not make
Eckstrom a "party" to the dispute between her parents for purposes of collateral estoppel.
Hansen next contends that Eckstrom, if not a party, was in privity with her mother, who was a named party to the adjudication in Marriage of Hansen.
Privity denotes a mutual or successive relationship to the same right or property.
McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 306, 738 P.2d 254 (1987). Eckstrom's mother was pursuing her right as a parent to protect her child from abuse.
Eckstrom did not have that same right. As a child, she had to depend on others to protect her. And Eckstrom did not succeed to her mother's rights as a parent.
Eckstrom is pursuing her own distinct right as an adult to sue for personal injury damages. The requirement for privity in collateral estoppel is "strict." McDaniels,
108 Wn.2d at 306. We conclude Eckstrom was not in privity with her mother.
The fourth requirement of collateral estoppel is that precluding relitigation of the issue will not work an injustice on the party against whom the doctrine is to be applied. McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 303. Washington's case law on the injustice element "is most firmly rooted in procedural unfairness." Thompson v.
Dep't of Licensing. 138 Wn.2d 783, 795, 982 P.2d 601 (1999). It would be procedurally unfair to Eckstrom to bind her to the outcome of an earlier proceeding that occurred when she was unrepresented by anyone with the power to act for her in litigation. At the time, she was too young to testify, too• young to understand the nature of the legal proceeding, and too young to be aware of her right to pursue a tort claim.
8 No. 76571-0-1/9
As noted by the trial court, the injustice of precluding Eckstrom from bringing her own suit is underscored by the public policy of RCW 4.16.340(1).
The statute provides "a broad and generous application of the discovery rule to civil actions for injuries caused by childhood sexual abuse." C.J.C. v. Corp. of the Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699,712,985 P.2d 262 (1999). It recognizes that victim~ may for many years "repress the meaning of the abuse or be unable to connect the abuse to any injury." C.J.C., 138 Wn.2d at 712-13.
We conclude Eckstrom is not collaterally estopped by the earlier finding that Hansen did not abuse her. She is entitled to her own day in court to try to prove that he did. We affirm the trial court decision allowing her suit to go forward.
WE CONCUR:
i ::i-
9
APPENDIX
B
APPENDIX B1
Custody and Visitation Report by Michele Gregg, dated January 20, 1989 ...... App. 1
Decree of Dissolution, dated June 30, 1989...... App. 16
Harborview medical record, dated July 8, 1990 ...... App. 32
Declaration of Elizabeth Stanton, dated July 10, 1990 ...... App. 33
Harborview medical record by Mary Gibbons, dated July 23, 1990 ...... App. 38
Letter by William Forney, dated September 20, 1990 ...... App. 40
Declaration of Elizabeth Stanton, dated September 25, 1990 ...... App. 41
Letter by Lynda Bridges, dated November 5, 1990 ...... App. 46
Psychological Evaluation of Sig Hansen, dated November 19, 1990 ...... App. 49
Psychological Evaluation of Lisa Eckstrom, dated November 19, 1990 ...... App. 53
Psychiatric Assessment of Melissa Eckstrom, dated November 26, 1990 ...... App. 57
Letter by John Dunne, dated January 16, 1991 ...... App. 80
Guardian Ad Litem Report by Victor Larson, dated February 10, 1992 ...... App. 81
1 The documents included in Appendix B were submitted to the trial court and Court of Appeals and were encompassed within the Court of Appeals’ ruling taking judicial notice of such documents. See Appendix A at p. 3, n. 1; Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Notice filed on August 9, 2017
- 23 -
List of Exhibits, dated March 19, 1992 ...... App. 90
Supplemental Psychiatric Assessment of Melissa Eckstrom by John Dunne, dated January 14, 1992 ...... App. 92
Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, dated December 17, 1993 ...... App. 106
Order on Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, dated May 4, 2017...... App. 109
Stipulated Order on Fees Pursuant to Order Denying Motion to Compel, dated June 16, 2017...... App. 112
- 24 -
3608-001 hh292r08k5 2018-08-29 WASHJHGTON 1H THE SUPERIOR COURT or TF.E STATE OP ['OR Knm COUNTY FAMILY COURT SERVIC~S
HO, 87-l-09135-3 Mother FJ\MlLY COURT HO.&B-559 l ANb CUSTODY AND VISITATION RE.POR't
Father the Re: Welfare of ~.d, 4-22-88 Minor Child Melissa,
Services in an 1::.r.der n,,tter wtis refen:ed t.o r'ami}y court This 0:1 9-6-88. The signed by commi1:1!llonec Velate•;HJ,i Ja investigation by this worker on received for 2-ZJ-89. a trial scheduled on the matter for
natural tuother of Melissa, Lisa Eckstrom Jtansen, age 22, Is the soon Hansen, age 22, is the alleged fathex, age 9 rnon ths. Sigurd partif'!s wore by results of blood test•. The to be deterrnined on 11-24-13-7. A review 9f the mar.ried on 10-23-87 and separated legal file indicates the following:, on 9-6-88, thf! an (Jt::der signed by Comrni$sioner V¢lategui 1. tn cust:oay of Melissa. The court mother- was awan.l~.a te.w.p,onn:y shall bave \./hen the father is in Seattle, rl(! orde:r:ed that pnt: week, one vi,sit for visitation w:ith Melissa t;.o times visit fot one and on,; half hours upon one' hour and the other to e::q}tcise not:l.ce to the mother of his intent ,a hours to cooperate to insure vii,itaticn. Th-,, mother was ordered • aid visitation takes place. is out of the further ordetej that ~hen the father 2, The court may exercise visitation area that the paternal graLdparents mother's hot:1e subjBct to the cond.ltion w.ith Melis.sa in the meetings 1 wo the paternal gtat,dP1othe:: attend Alanon th2t order of the court. ll the times per week pending further they ts comply "-'1th the al::ove condi tfon. p2ternal grano~1are1, two times per visitation with their granddaughter may Lava l t foi: one hC•'Jr; the other week in the rnothet '::; home, one vis for one and one half hours, both parties c,_,mmfasioner Velnte;mi ordered that 3. On 11-29u8g blood testing regardin9 sub.r,it Uvems~lves and Melissa for par:enta~e. 5i':d umrL.tlt.e fo:! 1o.... 1_pg,,;_ !.b.1e~QJ'.~ruLr~!;.QI11mr:ndru:'J. (,t)f; a_r:.r: ba b:' the mcthet and th0 l. Rev,ie,w 0f inforIDat I.m, L,rn1s cubrnittee father.
3. Review of the legal file. 4. Review of re1,;:,rts fLth~r by dr~g/~lcohol report regardjny the a. 9-36-88 rfo~;_s case ll:li!tiage:. Stilt ley E. tettett.on, CCD".:' H),
App. 1 HA.NStN REPORT PAGE 2
b. Par:mer's Insurance report regarding father's ll-19-87 accident. c. Letter of J -U-8.9 to roe from Jst;,rgatet Doy].1;1' FH:ipatrick regarding the pat~rnal qranarather's boat. d. M,:mntlake Terrace police reports dated S-19-Bfl; 9-25- BB; 12-4-881 and 12-10-88. 5. Office intervie1>.•1;: on J?.--7-3$ with the mother; 12-H-88 \.lith the father; and 1-12-89 with the rr1other. 1-4- £. Home visit::: oi1 J2-19·'BS with thi.:! paternal gr1n1dparent:;; 89 'n'ith the fat:ht1r; and 1-7-89 with the mother and Melissa; 1.-7-SS with the :maternal grandrnothei:; atid 1-7-E:l with the father and Melissa,
RE: MOTHER The mother: was inlt ir.ll)' interviewed on 12-7-88. J.'he mother states she was told by a gcne:tic specJaUst that tbere was a 99% chance the father is not the father. 2'he b~by does not look anything Hkc, th1;, father. He it very pale ti_mi the baby is darker. The pecents dated foe two years pc1cc ta marriage'.· The fath~r, a corn,neccial fisherman, is :in Ahs!-;a most of the time. Mtei: an aigument with the father, the motbo.r sle:pt w:itb a man named Bi..11. Sha ilnd Bill were friends for four years. Melissa lock;; like BilL Bill know;; he might b~ th£ father and he's really excited about it. '.l'he father has seen Mt1liGsa ,;;mly five to seven t.itnes. He has supervised visitation because he's violent. He beat the mother up several. tir.1es. After: the mother- i.'ln
App. 2 H7'.NSEN REPORT PAGE 3 visits Me.Hssa, het mother mother states that when the father The v.isits. Melissa is aft:a,i,d oft.he 11nd sister su-pervize the whim he cornea to The father; does not look at Melissa, father. whole time". visit. "Be Hghts with me the witb the mother believes ttis contact 'lf the father is the father, does not want alwil,ys bf! cruper;,ised. The rnothet Melissa should grandparnnts. Tho mother is z.t the honHi of the pat:ci:nal m:mcl !4e1Jssa paunts will take Malissa a.rid afraid Lhat the father and his told bg,r that: The father and paternal gr.andrnother her to }b:rway. a baby from a mothiu: and helped the father and his fornH~· stole other pe,;p'.le take it to >Iorway. i,n Family Court: s parent questionnaire t~ceived In the ,nH:>thec' makes the followi11g additional Service on 12-7-SS, the mother aUegatfom,; away for a dr1J9 check. ) . The father-' s boat was taken s. 2. The father has many PW!' fraud charges pending from November 3. The fathet has insurance 27 - all slept all day, threw up a:J.1 over everythJ.ng 4. The father for day:; at a time, on drugs the tirne, ah,iays disappeared w1th his friends. c:hHdren at the blink of fin eyelash. 5. The father likes to hit BB: F/'SHER it1terviewed in this Th!?: father was foitially with When he is in town, the father resides grandparents. think the he is the father bec;;use he doesn't The father believes out and fool around". was the tY!:_4i of person to "go rnother ·..... family will turn Me liss,a is afraid the mother and her 'the f!'lther they're sick. 'j.'hc father complains against him. He believes him take video tna t: the rnotbet refosed to Jet about the fact not had wuch contact with c,f Nelhaa, The father has says p;ii;::ture~ 1Tiother to schedule visits, she t-lelissa, When he calls the mother and hec or. one occasion, the: mother's he's harassing because he held Melissa and she sister s~id it was child abusa "''as cry in9 . 7 - 9 months pee year. a cub fisherman and is gOM The rather :ls Tbe sec•~nd season bf!gins alway& home at Christ:-i1as time. is Re is approxitn;,itcly May. The father ,January 15th ana lasts until Auqust. ,July._ He ·sometimes is gone in usually ho-roe in June and be able to see I slwuld thinks that when be' s hon•t:: he The father ill old enough, he ,..an\:s to have Me:H.ssa m,:;,re often. Wllen Melissa her, for weekends. no alcohol. that when he is fishing he dd.nks 'fhe fataf':r states ~ Alaska has a o he doi;:,s pot use Illegal drugs. otJ the H~ states People 1,>J,o l;iae drtJgs or App. 3 HANSEN RE:POR'!' Pl!!GE 4 er was home, be would go o\lt ,md have two to three When the £<1th '!'he drink• with fr ienclrr. Be's had no PWI 's or other ;urests, father states that his father and two brothers (a9ea Zl and 161 do not have problems with dr01;,s ,:n;d alcohol. He bas no aunts, with drug or alcohol probl~ms. The uncles, or grandparents that father states that the mother does not dcink ver.y often and she uses no dcugs. said When 2iskec'l i.ibout the 1T1othcr • s parentJng .. biJ Uy, the father seen het be a rootber, 1 don't think sbe' s a "1 haven't really as a good m9lJ1c-a:· because r don't th int :::be.' s tr;e:;:,,:ting Yt¢Hs:1a person. She is tr.eat.1)ig her: ;'!S a doll". For example, li'hen J•',eHss~ was a couple of months old, the niothec pierced Mt!lissa's eats. Th,e father complains the mother spoils Melissa. She wot des about silly things i.e. "1,"1:1etner ther baby w:Ul be prntty enough". When asked why the p;,,re,nts separated, tbe father r,e,,pondeo that ona time when the panmts argued, he 1 eft. "i like to drive ar.otrnd and think. '' The mother "calls her mothsit lik~ 'Re's left o'-dhin, makintJ a soap cpcrn out of sa1·Jng things 0 it and she starts believing it bacself.' the mothl;\r • s statc1rn,mt that the father :md his When f!ske:d about said i'arnJ.ly helped kidnap and seru1 the baby tc, Nor,..•ay, t}1e futher lvz. thinks C:lsie, the mother's c1t1nt, p-;;r tici p~ted 1n the of the baby, When ask~td about the mother's statements kidnapping on that he htjd bBen violent towctrd her, the father stated that -onn occasion, the parents were ,tgulng in t:he car .and he slapped the mnther ac::oss the face. Thi ti occurred prior to the maniagB. about the mother's statement that; he broke into her When asked It .;mo house, the, father responded that he i.ws on time for a vis to let this brat tell me what tc:i do. 1 walked "I wB.sn' t ,;Jc)ing left in". The mother: started screaming for hiw1 to gGt out. lie and she then called the police. when the father; came for a ,;isit, the mother was on one oc~!auion, 'f:he angry ab-0u t some leg App. 4 RAJHlf.N REPOR2" PAGE 5 her her to Norway, lie also uants father wants to be able to take wants to the Norwegi.ari la11g1.iagc. Re further to learn to speak t • s ¼'hen }1or.-'egia.ns on TJecei,1ber 24 Lh bccatLSe trw have her b'Jlieves that when he returns celebra\;I?) Chris:tmas. The father to get used H: will take a •,Hiile for Melissa home from fishint:L his father bein9 gone for again. :rbe father remembers to his to him took him a while to get used Hve months at a time. 1t that it's now easier he returned. The father states hther when th1l!Y can fly home. foe fisherman to visit lx!:cause home, he wonts Melissa to become rf the father Pttrchases a grandparents. with Mm at the home of the paternal reac,:ciuainted don't want to cause her mental •1 want to be fair with her, I confusion". qrandi:1other smokes. He harm• t The father states the maternal that. The smoke .lround Melissa and he appi::eciates seen her: parents won't smoke around Melissa. [&ther states that he and hls She was appealing, nine nw:mt:h old child. Melissa is an alert, her: mother and with her with her: ,nothei:: at the ho:me or observed home of her mother. Ber mother fath~r in her bedroom at the Th<;) mother groomed and in ftilly cmtfHs. keeps her impeccably aoifety, She has !ili:lnY age cautious regar;ding MeJissa's is very her, the mother was pl1ys kaUy appropdate toys available for affectionate with Melissa. the father with of the mother that I observe 1 bad requested Shortly af-ter the father arr h•ed, MeHssa in Helisva • :1 be.dro-om. into the father he coula take r,t;:;lissa the mother told t:he bef<,re doing so, The father waited a few minutes his bedroom. that t·lelissa was C•!llfortable with ,.ppa:cently to be assured appeared During tha observation, Melissa picking her up. her:. :n,a father was w;i th her tather. arid he wHh cornfor table He as a i'fectiona.te with Melissa careful regarding hec sa.fety. wh:Ue father daughter action was appr<.,ptiate. and all observed the father gtated "I just love Melissa explot:i1:d her environwent, watching her". Jn their: ht.'lne ott lZ- patl';.rn21l grandparents "'ere interviewed •rh,e. and orderly. '.l'he p,aternal gr,mdmothot 19-SB. 'rhe home was clean was three for ten minutes when Melissa stated she saw MeHss;:i the pate:i:nal at th1:1 home of the maternal aunt. her: weeks old_. and asked some q11estions abot-1!; grandmother picked up Melissa grandmothe:: states did flOt answer. Thu paternal but the mr:,thei: starnd at me. 'l'hey go back there. "They sat and she can't c:: iminal''. didn't say hi, I felt like a 1nother w¢rtt to returned home from Ba1Jta.Li, the_ After the par;;;ntz :five days and thB father with he::- m<:>tber for approx.i1n;-1tely in their stay The f)arentr· then both res iaed went to his apai: tment. them at their l'.'aternal 9rartdmother visited apartrn1;:nt. The fine. apartment and they :scem-ed to be drunk stat!:!s she's riever seen the fa.thee The paternal grand!!lothet with him. He w;;is an averaoe that she never had any problews ycnr old and the oldest of three sons.. 21 st:mknt. The father ls 18 Yenr old Edgar; vu at home and wot ks as a mech,mic. tkir:rnal li The paternal grandparents state is till senJor in high .i:;chool. 9randfuthei: have hel.'ln an:e;,;tt?rL The patern.il none of theJr !;ort,:; drug:;; on his b-o;,it. He bas h,: does not il:Uow drinklng ot or statt'G £::taling th App. 5 HMlSEN Rt?ORT PA.GE 6 he's had dn1g::; on the bo.:iL 1'he pate:rn.iJ g:r;:indf.:lthei:- states thirty years, the last one being ten ye;,,rs thre¢ DWis in the past 1/2 months ago. He states he's had no alcohol foe the last l a borderline diabetic condition. HJs physician because ol now nnd then but he aovi.sed hiw, he. t.<;)U]d have a couple cf drints gr;,ndrnnther st.:ite.s she t1asn' t gone to hasn't. Thi; paternal but does nol Alanon meeting"'. orJginalJy she 1J<1.id she would 90, believe there ia a need foe it. 1 the mother: a '..!'he paternal gra:;pj111ot.her states she dio r1Qt ca] ~she sald '1 don't want anything to do with you "fucking bitch'', swore at her." guys'. I star tea to cry. That's when she said ! grandmother states thllt she does net dr irik. When The TI,aternal be1ten up the asked about the mother's statement that he had 's mother-in-1 aw, the pa tern al gra,ndfathcr 1w::,the1:' s :;,i ster s }iat. Me and responded that "·the wom2n js a bartender at R.itti.e' a couple of beers ~t Hattie's Hat, She said hi. a friend had came there. went ta lhe next bar. hater she and her husband the wind. She laid a picture of the baby on was three sheets to stool. bar. Her husb.c1nd pulled m~ off the back of the bar the her aci:oss the face, t There "tJil.S ;i_ i::m:\rns, 51'.m\ebody slapped did11 't ~. state that, as an adolescent. the 'The paternal gron gr App. 6 HANSEN REPORT PA.GI;': 7 generation S1<•edish and the The matetn!!.l grandmoth~r fa third 'J'he maternal is second. generation sw~di.sh, matermil grandfather family is "so Norwe9i,::rn they orandmother cl.dins the fol.hers· own to do with anybody outnide of their don't have anything C::!;'ap abt>ut the family being people." Furthei:trit:ire,"tha.t Norwegian sh8ke in thdr father rules the roost and they an so close - the state5 tbe father tolil her h;ir, bocits. '' The maternal grandmother father be.it hia mother. 'f',l)RTIES ~fl)lJ...lif.illbJ:,,.J";;QRTl,.CT W11ll TILE the MQ.llmr• ..QD. )·•111,=1~ L ~lij&Q...J)lte~.Yj!'cw with 1;,.1po::vi::;ed visit that tbe father: h.ivo a $ hour l rc,;:ommcnded of the paternal Meliss;.i. on 1-s~s9 at the home i-:ith ugreedthat the supiarvisor would grandparents. The attorneys info.:med of this Stanton, i\fter the 1nother was be Blit;talieth office ins:itting that my teecmnrem:iaUon, she c211mi to this on my lntervi.,:w 1-:ith .,mother clienL secretary inter:rnpt to be nearby when the mother told me, ::;he wants that date, Melissa zcrcams and turns the fa.ther has Meliss;. bcca1.rne blue. wheneVf¼t she sees the father:. for his visit with Melissa, the When tnc father a:ci:;ived betccr mood?" the iromedJ.atelY said "are YOU in a mothe:: father: brnught Melissa to end of the visit when the off. The asked why MeHssa' s shoes were mother, the mo thee shoes and tights oH rcwpondcd that he had taken her father . 'rhe mother responded Ui,.it when he changed h~t diaper off 1,/hen you tnows you j. submitted to Farnil:1 court Jn het parent questionnaire aw,;3y for a mother sta.tes "ffis boat was taken Set·,d..ces th-e c:onvernation on 1-7-139, the dn.1g check", ln a. telep:1cme because of a told me his father's boat wa.li seized father and the company which installed diopute between his father and there is .in 'l'he engine broke clown in Alazka an engfoe. much the paternal gcandfather ongoing dispute :cegac61ng how owes the company, m'!! from ga_r:garct Doyle hi a letter datc,:1 l~ll··l\9 to Ms. attotney for the patetnal grandfather. Fitzpatrick, confirm thot the :,:dzur:c of Fitzpatrick states "This is to Thirr ab§Siliilll.;:,.,,JJ.Q.t.hiJ)J:L...tU_Q....ld,ill]_di;:_~. the vessel had ].iEn for ncm-payment was seize App. 7 liAffSEN REPORT :?.M;l:F; ll n an ofU ce in tetv:iew ou l-J 2.-89, 1 told the mother about Ks. Fitzpatrick's lettec, The mother denied she'd told me the htHit J;o.d 'been lr.k1:t1 due to di-\lge,, She s;,:ld :,he'd l0ld me .schc'd heard from someOlH? :b snlhr 4 , hlJsli!J:ttj__l!L§lt¾~UL:JilJsi: 1.'he rnother sul::1/l\ittGd a p.;Jt:ent questionnaire to F.intiJy Court servicfl:s on 12~17-88. in response to the questions, ''Does eJtlrnr P<'lt!?nt have imy ct:hnina1 i:'i<::t:b:;,n pem:i:l,nr;.r":", the mc,ther stated thtl t the hther has ~ insurance fraud from r,ov~mber 1987". The father told me he'd been racing and ,:recked hii;; car:. !)ave l,nel], Pi,,rtaer 's 1 n1,urance ,1gent, submitted an insurance statement to PamilY Court: Ser."vices. '.l'he father did ma!:rn a da.i.n regarding an ll-J9-87 i:!Ccldent. The fatiu:r's statement to the lt1S1.1J:tmce coi11pany wac ''1 was traveling too fa.st to negotiate th(:! cornt:c. 1 }oat control of the car and went backwar:ds into a fence.•·. On l.-l:Z-D9 1 discussed the insurance state.ment with the mother. She responded "They are btiddies with the J.nstira.nce cc>mµ,my". 5. t'at]~r's Drtnkim:r Behavtru::: at D\lfj,Y's: On 1··7=t\9, the mother: told iws the father li'iled in bars., '.rhe fath!.1'.t and his family arm frequently llt Duffy's. The father is often at Duffy's firnt thing :in the morning drinking vodka and water. The mo the:: does not thin~ the oi.•ner of Duffy's would tell me the tcuth because he's friend with the Hi'lnsene and the llansens br in9 m0st of the 1w::mey in there. In a telephone conve~•ation 1-7-89, the father told me he and his ''buadfos" go to rL He Hke to play pool .and shuffleboard. on 1~13-89, ;,rnkecl Urn mother fot the address of Duffy's. She responded "forget I said that-the Ot,.,'ner is one of Sig's really good friend::;''. On 1-13-89, r :interviewed Mr. Edward Duffy, owne:: of Duffy's, at Duffy's, He stated th• father is a •nice kid. He comas in oc'c;J;sionalJ.y and has maybe on~ dr inlc He dr: 5.rilrn voc1k;, cokea", 1'he father "never getl, out of 1ine, never: causes $UY troutle." Also, he does not stay lot19. Sig li<,nsen is the or.l'.i" Hansen who co111es to Duffy's. Mr. Duffy has met the paternal grandfather a couple of timas but the paterrrnl grandfather is not a customei: at Duffy• s. Mc Duffy states he had seen the father perhaps 20 times. The father does not come into Duffy's in the moi:ning. 1 also spcike with Margaret Moss, battem:ier. She states the rather docs not come ;l;ti ln the wor:n:l.ng:. tlG dt inks vodka cokes. !le comes in every two weeks or $0. Tbe father is trying to learn to play pool. Soflletirnes he com~::, in in the pl;,in coJ.;e1:1 and shoots pool. Ms. 1'\oss afternoon, drinks 0 states that father js "a very decent kid , mother stated that tbe paternal grandmother moth"'t WGuldn 't htive her baby for Jong because the paternal 9randrnother would stoal her and take ht'., to Nor.1.•ay. The mother stateii tr1e patcn1,;J gr ;;ndfatl'ler told l:in they h0lµr.Hl !"h)uJ anoUicr bi.lbY and takt Jt to App. 8 HANSEN REPOR'.I' PAGE 9 about it. 1n a telephone conversation Norway. '.l'hey laugh to]d me that 20 y~ars on l-lZ-89, the paternal grandfather was man ;in New Bedford, Massachusetts, ago, a Nor,,.·cg:lan took his two children to Norwar. going through a divorce and the man but had 1$ years ago.· '!'he B,msens knew 'J'he man di.ed going lo Norway. m:,thing to do with the childr App. 9 H.MlSEN REPORT ' PAGE 10 2. no :l.ndication that the mother told lu these reports l Hno ;;he the police the father had hurt Melissa and no indication told the poUce he h;;d tipped the phc,nc off the well. 3, ivas~"I state T'a troJ Cr.imjnal Records Chfil;;.~ill'.Jii.ruLJ;JJ.~ father: filed Results :received J-18-89 imHcated "li,o record WASJS bci!:"Dd on descriptions provided. ~-"--:-'f:---::?~-J;'..Llh;:rn § Conver sa:tiQtL.!illh...12f~Jl~.U.rY.,Jili,.il~.,....fil.QJfil c'an: br. ltelfry's patient since 19156. The The father has been tim(,!s fother ha.s esophagi.tis and has be~n sesln a number of irritation. There is nothing to say that the for stomach s father's esophagi tis is caused by alcohol. The father• overall health i& good. On 7-30-BB the father reguested a blood test for alcohol. 'The bloo 6' ilm-1aii Dr. :rnvidi state.:; th;,t when thri mother returned from u;:,set ;;ind zaid hei: husband was abusing drugs and Ghe was the mother alcohol, Dt. Travidi dof:s not recall for sure if father beat her. The mother told Dr:; Travidi sne said the the was 9et.titJg a divorce becaum~ she had realized that father ;;,rn a tot;illy different i;.,euon i,ind that he ,h:anlL 7, J,-;H19 'l'eL App. 10 HANSEN RtPORT PNJE 11 of Hs, Abou\: 7 yt1ars tigo Urn faU1ex h0bysat for three children. De babysat for the children en Nelson·s six likca the hthii!r sev,;;:r:al occasinru;, Ms. tleJson' G cMldr:en at the time and they :.;till Hke hlm. 9. l -9-61._tQ].~QQITJL-'-~;:sat J oi::L~t!JJ..J;,UJ:;.~J;h.Ji1;_>\iJ.lt.QU.,, fuIDll~~:i,:iQ.~ the father Ms, Stanton irnpcn;v:l sec a five hm,ir vis$ t between and Melissa oo l,=8-89 on the hon,e of the paternal Stilnton r-eparts that given what occurred gr.indpar;ents. Ms. patent visit, she believes the fathe~ is a competent on that Melissa. In and has skills to provide adequate care for he has support frnm bis mother who !'ls. Stanton addition, the baby .ind repot ts ,in i.n te,ading atipropr UitfJ.lY with care to the father. !'is. Stanton reports leaving the primary &t NlernaJ grandmother was noUceably aggrie\red that the assume to tole of the loss of 8 months without being ;:;ble to grandmother wH:h her first grandchild. the paternal i'is. Stanton notes that during this v.is.HaUon, a guiet soutr.::e of strength in the backgto,tna gtamHather \<'a.s first visit and was ver.y i;eniiJ.U.ve to this being Melit.sa's w:ith them. He cautfoned his wife about iri the hems-a the attention of overwhelmi:n9 Meli1:1sa with hei: attention or: )rnow. Ms. St;;mton reports the other people she didn't when father genuinely enjoys children. He was teacful He ilhtcd tc, J,.\:;. Gtantcm that .tt would vecy Mellssa left. He wa« th;;iJ,led hard to 7 :00 <1:.m. to ,::;.::, to 1\laska. Melissa gave to hitr1. Hs. at any recogniUon genuin0 ~m,ftr•t~ the father "~•ae~.•• in a laving, Stanton upn;:,;;,r w,:ni)d c:au.se manner, expi:e;;;;ed fears all this Melissa to have mental problems. ,,.,Jtb a smoke Hs. 5t;int6n recommenJs that Helissa be provide mn:mally and appe.ars comfortable w:Hh both Melissa is developing my observation parents. Eased on my interview w.H.:h !:he f,9ther, i)ilO i.nfm;mation obtained from ~ollateral of him 'with tlieliss.i. to be an contacts, 1 believe the fath~r has i::be potential fotbet' s statements to the excellent parent. While. the hio counselor regarding his drinking differ fi::om drug/alcohol bar:te:m:1er of Duffy• s, dtiti!titlg behavior as noted bt· the o¼'ner· and I find no evid'l:mce that he ls a, inking alcoholically. occasion slapping the mDtber and The fathc.c acknowledges on one to counselor indicates the father has says things the father's much to the father 's mother lie: ;,,• j shes he hadn • t. 1 t is vm:y the to help him deal with his anger credit he has sought counaellng he h<1n the mother. Jt is al::;o to hi.r- credit that .regarding who is verv conti111,1ed in coun.seUng with the therapist The father could i,eneU t Crom c,.,n tin•J,z:d accountabi Hty or .iented. U1.e in ord,1r to lj deal with his anger regarding c:otmseling communicate with rr,othet and Z} to learn more isffoc;tive ways to her. s1.Jpport arid maternal grandmoi'.he:c appear to offor no 'rhe mother Because of this, I mn for the fathttr:'s bonding w.ith this ch:f.ld. ter,.rnlor contact wi.th the p&ternzil recommending thnt l'lelHsa hove home. so that she in fami] far with them and their gnmdparents irc-;nl ro-d>.Jce Mc1:tss4· to 1.'1:1e paternal ;rca.ndpnrents ca.n i:11cn tw}p tlte f.:ither when hn rctu.:n::; frmn sea. App. 11 HMSEN il.EPORT '.E'A{;E 12 how her b12!rnv1,:.n to h;;ivc 1:tmi ted bu1i9ht into 'l'he mother at,plolars could benefit from counseU.ng others. I do believe she le.arn 1w.:ire affects anger .it the father. Z) in order to l) cope with her i.ssues with the father regarding the eHecU.ve communictition techniques foe de-escalating affecting Melissa, l) develop ,;ppusal conflict. rnc,\:he:r • s cc,ntinuing <1ccusation5 1 am coricenHed ::ibout the when I discuss and the mother• s Cfi!nr,onses regai:ding the: fa\;het' her accusatfons. :i am tindjngs .ifter investigating wj th he::' wy submlt to a family psychiatric that both parents The n,comroending a9t11ed upon psychiatrist. evaluation by n mutually assessment of both should include the evaluator"s an !.!valuation it relates to patenting and parties emotional health as Melissa's of each party's abJllty to suppoct 1anessment p.ar¢nt. relationsMp with the other .a.ms1dcan on her:: cultural heritage wHh Swedish t>,d:issa ha.s "' rich and Norweg5an on her side: and Norwegian run~r,ican both mother's have adequate 1;;)(posure to .father's side. She should cultLlTes. Hansen on the assm11ption that Sig ni.corrtt,e.ndaUons ;:u;e based should they be These They are subject to revision is Melissa's father. noted in the family p.sychi;;.tric. contraindicated by the findings evaluation. shall C{)ntinue for this child, 1. Cuar App. 12 HAt.SEN REPORT PliGE 13 Com1nenc:ing fo'.illodl~tely, Uie:r nha]} :in.HialJy ht>ve MeJ:iss,: for four houcs a day, two days pee week for two weeks. The next two wec~:s they sh;,,:JJ have her for sh hours, two d;:rys !c'Cr w~1ek. l'bere - Be~inning summer of 1991, the f;,ther shall extended suf!llner v;;.cation with ?>h::lissa; t1;10- three weeks in 1193; four l.'Oeks in 1994; ana thereafter. Dudng blocb of two longer, th,e; rw::ithet shall have Melissa 1.;tve,ry othet w~:e~:erid During th!:: summer, the father shall have tr,<:~ first opportunity to provide day care fot Melissa. If the mother is not li'Otking out of the home, he nh.iH h1'lve her for two weBk days per week for up to eight houcs per; day. lie shall a.lso h"1Ve w•,Iekends as outlined J,:n the Beet ion above. <1. Each Mother's Day weekend with the mottler and each r'ather 's Day weekend with the father. odd b, Pre:1:i,der1\;.' s Day weekend and Memot ial Day weekend iii numbt'!red years with the mother and even numbered years ½' ith the father. c. Martin Luther King Day weekend, 1..'.lbdt nay t-'eekend, and Veteran• s bay weekend in odd nmnbe::ed years with the father and eVem numbered years with the mother, d, Thanksg,i v ,i,119 vacation from Wednesday before Thanksgiving at 5:00 P.M. until Sunday at 6:0G r.M, with the mother in odd nurnb".'l::cd years and with tho father in av2n numbarad Yeats. e. Horwegjan Independence Day (May 17) with the father from 10:00 a.m. May 11 until 10:0Q a.rn. May JS. Jf the father Ls not in town, tho paternal ,,n:a11dparenls sh,11 have Melissa. f. Th~ (at;ner or the palcrn.il l,lraridparents, fr, his absence, shall have Mc}jssa for the ble::isir,9 or the fll~et. '.1'h"cY, ::in.a) 1 provide the mother with two weeks. not[ce of when thls ls to occur. App. 13 HANSE:N RE.PORT Pt\GE H Christmas Eve ~iLh the fnthet until 10:00 a.m. Chr.Lsti1ia.s Day. Chr iztmas Day with the mother. Dudng the holiday i,enson, tho fnthm:: .r.ha} l hav~ two addiUoMl dav.s from 10:00 a.m, th~ fit5t day until f.:00 l'.M. UH/ second day until 199L HI December J.991. the father ohall have five ;.ddlt:fonal days wltb Mclir;sa during the lmhdays. Beginr)ir,g fo December 1£<92, the father may take Melissa to Norway for Chr:i.Rtrnas even' other year. Mellssa for the shall be i:mm1 a maxjmu111 of 10 days, h1 order mother to-be spared anxiety regarding Melis!a'9 return from Non-1.iy, the attonie}'S should come up w:i.th a plan that would irlsure the mother: that H the fothet refuses to conic'! b;:,ck the incthec would have adequate legal fees to obtain \:hf: child's return. The father shall provida the mother w:i th the n.;;n1g, address and te lepl"wne numbfi:t: of relative w1th whom he and Melissa vill be staying. The father shall, at his expense, have Melissa call the mother twfoe The mother shaJ l make major ded.sfons as they c;eL,tc to Melissa's reUgfous upbringing, eoucatiomil plans. and medical cace. Except for routine &tld. emergency 111edic;,l ,.;:are, the rttuther 1,hall with the father prior to making any major decisions financially obligate the H the father does not ,Hitee with the mother's father. the decisfon regardin9 .J.st;ue which finam:ially obligate him, mother shall obtain a c,:i1Jrt ccdei:; prior to J.mplementing her decision. 011 decision In l;he "!Vent that the parties do not agree a affectinq Melissa's wel fore, the mother shall make t.he decishm with the father retaining the right to bring the m,;,tter befo~e the ~:.ing county f.,mUy taw li\ptlon calendar. tape :U.. The exchM1ge of Melissa between the pacties :ihalJ be recorded by b-Oth partias. rr the parties ate dissatisf icd regarding the communications that occurs during the transfer, they shall take their tapes to their counselors for assistance in learning rnoce effective co.1@mi:i.cat10n ,dth the ot!'iei: parent. be 12. If :-!t. Hansen Js Mclisss!'s father, M&J.icisa's name- :,htJJ Melissa Dawn tckstrom-Hansen. watter 13. 1 t th:l s pL:m is adopted, the court i1lw:u review the in December 1989 in order to determine: ;;;. '.l'IN progrc:;;n in ri.J:J:mfrfog U,e fol her'$ re)aUonship ·,dth MeJi.:rnn. b. 'l'he approprialeuess of· th~ re.rrh:fo:ntial ~chedule. The parUt~!'> ::;h,tlJ GlJbn;H to a filmily pnychlatric cva]u;ition 14. uc1tor by <> mutuaJ 1y a,;;i:eed 1.,1ptn'l ,:ir;ychJ att.in L The o.vn] App. 14 flhNS8N RE?ORT PAGE 15 of :,h;;J 1 bi: Pt•Ydd~d a copy of th.le report. Both seb gtandpacents shall ba interviewed, .15. MeUssa sha.11 be provl MG;j,;, .Janu;;.ry 2D, l'.?89 App. 15 • 3: 23 2 3 4 5 6 l N 1HE SJPER IOR O)JRT CF lHE STATE Cf WASH I f'Gl"OO IM 1W FDR THE COJNlY OF KI I\(; 7 8 IN RE lHE Mt'\RR I /.CE Cf: } ) 9. USA DftWN H'.\NSEN, } ) 10 Petitioner~ ) ) 11 and ) Da::.l-' ignature; and the st91ature of counset affixed hereto, arid the Court, having re and records herein, having heard the testimny of petitioner, considered statenents of counse\, and the Court having hereto- Cf OISSOWTION - 1 L---l---tt--,rr i age of Hansen se ~er: 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. ORDESO ATTORNtY AT LAW 705 SECOND AVENUE surrE 401 HOGE BUil.DiNG SEATTLE. WASHli'IIG'fON 98104 (2061 624·0130 App. 16 - 1 itself fore entered its Findings of Fact ctld Conclusions of Law, .nd deening 2 fut ly a:ivised in the premises, rov THEREFORE, it is hereby 3 I be OfOERID, /OJUXiID #.P DECREED that the marriage of the parties shal 4 ard hereby is dissolved; and it is further 5 OfOERED, ADJUXiED ttn oa::REED that the permanent parenting pla'i entered 6 each party into by and between the parties herein shall be fully effective aid 7 p\an; sa\d shalt coo:ply with each of the terms and conditions of said parentlng 8 .nd every parenting plan shal I be incorporated herein by this reference and each 9 4'.)00 the parties provision thereof shat 1 becOl"lle oo Order of this Court b\nding 10 herein; aod it is further 11 sha\ 1 Of App. 17 - 1 three ~loyment tax, federal income tax, will be appro:x:imatety three thousand 2 per hundred fifty to three thousand five hJndred c:bt tars ($3,350.00~$3,SOO.OO) 3 Street month, shal I pay to the m:>ther, \'\hose residence ocldress is 54114 212th 4 ty Southitilest, K-204, illbunt I ake Terrace, Washington 98043, ,1J1ose Socia I SeCtJri 5 reception- nlliber is 533=83-HOO,, was recently employed by Diamond Parking as a 6 reemploy . ist, btit has been laid off within the last few days; but anticipates 7 thousand two ment arid shou Id be i~iRd wi th a net incane of one thousand to one twenty 8 hUhdred chi lars ($1,000.00-$1,200.00} per rmnth, the sum of six rundred 9 day of each dollars ($620.00) per rronth, payable on or before the first (1st) day of 10 month, cOOYOOncing with the nonth of July 1989, and continuing on the same 11 born each rronth thereafter, for the support of Mal i ssa Qcl'l{,/!l Hansen-Eckstn::rn,. 12 be !'fBde 2:Z J!,pri f 1988, oo Sociai Security rurrber. Said support pay.rents shall 13 such fonns to the Washington State Support Registry and each party will ccmptete 14 be rrore as necessary in order to faci1 hate said payrnent. 9wuld respondent 15 the support than fifteen (15} days past die in an anount equal to or greater than 16 other payrol 1 payable for one (l) ®nth, a payrol I deduct ion may be issued or 17 RQ'I, withoUt withhoiding act ion imy be taken ..nder RCW' 26 .. 18 or O.apter 21+.23 18 Washington further notice to respondent. Each parent sha 11 not I fy the State of 19 Support Registry of any changes in their residence address; and it is further 20 21 1 I able throug, dental insurance coverage for W'el issa s benefit,. if and as avai 22 I be re their ell)loyment or other organiz:at ion at reduced costs.. Respondent shal 23 insurance sponsible for paying seventy-five percent (75%) of such reasonable 24 25 26 DECREE CF DISSOWTION - 3 0AVlO J. 0RDELL Marriage of Hansen 87-3-09135-3 ATTORNe:'!' AT I.AW Cause ~~r 705 SECOND AV'ii'.NUE SUIT£ 401 HOGE SUILDlNG SEA:rrt::li; WASH lNGTON 98104 1200} 624-0130 App. 18 1 premiun, not paid by the ~toyer md directly related to insurance provided for 2 said dli Id ooly. The nnther sha 11 be responsible for paying the balance of said rmdi- 3 premiu:n. Pddi t ional ly, aiy end at! reasonable and necessary expenses for 4 cal, hospitalization, dental, orthodontai, phal"'!'naceuticaL optical and ~ntaJ 5 health care ,\hich are not covered by insurance, sha!1 be paid seventy-five per- 6 cent (75%) by the father, twenty-five percent (25%) by the ®ther. Each parent claim 7 shall provide the other1 on a regufar basis with identification car-ds and 8 forms available through that parent for p.irposes of obtaining services aid making 9 cl~irns for rehrburs:ement. ln ackiitiora to the support set forth herein, each par- 10 ent sha It iro i nta in Weti ssa, or a trustee for We Ii ssa, as the exc Ius i ve benefi- 11 ciary oo all life insurance coverage a:s is available throog-i their enployer or 12 other ~loyment-retated organlzatioos; provided., rowever, that at such time as 13 either parent remarries, the coverage ptovided for the exclusive b:i:neflt of 14 Me I i ssa :my be reduced to one-ha I f ( 1 / 2) of the ava i tab I e benef f ts. Each par- 15 ent 's 16 timely death a,d shal I be a charge and continuing daim against that parent's 17 e5tate to the extent that the support obi igations are not discharged by payments 18 from insurance proceeds, Social Security and/or any other death related benefits; 19 and it is further 20 ORJERID, IOJUXi.£:D IN:) DECREED that the parties have acquired certain 21 items of real and personal property as set forth on Exhibits A and B* Petition- 22 er shal I be awarded those items of property oo Exhlbi t A, free and clear of a1y 23 interest of respondent. Respondent shall be awarded those items of property set 24 25 26 DECREE CF Dl S~WTION - 4 ~4arriage of Hansen DAVID J. 0RDE:LL Cause !'urber: 87-3-09135-3 ATTORNEY AT LAW 705 SECOf•ID AVE:NUE St.HT£ 401 HOGE BU\LOiNG SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 \206) 62;4-0130 App. 19 I forth on Exhibit B, free and clear of any interest of petitioner. 91ould either 2 , party fa i 1 to de l t ver items vki i ch were awarded to the other that ar"e or \11K:lre in 3 1, their care or possession, said party shall be required to pay the other the rea- 4 sonable replaanent costs of said property; and it is further 5 OIDERED, /\DJU,X;EO A'O DECREID that each of the parties sha 11 be a.varded 6 each and every legal riglt of action that said party has acquired against aiy 7 individual, unless said rig1t of action has been othenvise av.'arded herein. Fur 8 ther, each party shal I be awarded those ri <;;,ts and benefits not otherwise award g ed herein \'lhich were derived as a result of hi5 or her past or present anptoy 10 ment¥ mion affiliation, military service (United States or other), citizenship 11 and/or residencey within a state, al\ of ,-.hlch include, but are not I imi ted to: 12 Various forms of insurance, ri91ts of social security pay 13 ments1 1Ne:dfare payments, unempf oyement o::>mpensat ion ri g,ts, disahi Ii ty 14 benefits,. rmdkare and rredicaid beneflts, retirement oonefits, sick 15 leave benefits, educational benefits and grants, and all other legisla 16 ted; contractual a1d/or donated benefits, 'Ahether vested or non-vested 17 and/or directly or indirectly derived through the act lvi ty of that spe 18 cific party; provided, activity of that specific party; provided, how 19 ever# that said benefit or benefits have not othen~ise specifically been 20 awarded herein; and provided, further, that marriage of the party 21 thrrug1 '.-.hose act hr i ty said benefits have been accrued sha 11 not be an 22 indirect basis for an av1ard of that benefit; and it is further 23 OR:>ERID, /OJIJ)GB) PN:> DECREED that the the parties have acquired doots 24 25 26 , DECREE a= 01 SSOUJTlOl'-4 - 5 Marriage of Hansen DAVID J. OR0ELl Cause hllrtber: 87-3-09135-3 705 SECONO AVENUE surrE 40t HOGE SUILOING $EATT~i:f. WASHINGTON 98104 12oe1 s24-01:~o App. 20 - - l and ool igations as set set forth on Exhibits C cl')d D,, ,,hidi are incorporated 2 herein by this reference. Petitioner shal r be req..1ired to pay those det>ts crid 3 obi igat ions set forth on Exhibit C, and respondent shal I be required to pay those 4 Idebts and obi igations as set forth on Exhibit D. Each party shal I pay those 5 ' da::its and cbl igations assig1ed to them, ood hotd the other party hanliless there- 6 from. Should either pa,·ty fail to pay a debt or ool igaHon assi~d to said 7 party, then. in that event, said party shall be required to indernify the other 8 for ooy reasonable expenses or costs incurred as a result of the other party's 9 failure to pay said debts or obi igations v.hen d..te. Said expense and costs snal 1 10 include reasonable attorneys' fees \'\here appropriate; and it is further 11 OIDffiED, ADJtDGBJ PN:J Dl:CREED that respondent shalt be entitled to claim 12 a tax exerrpt ion for ~ 1i s sa. Pet i ti oner shat \ be requ \ red to execute any ood 13 at l fonns required by the lnternat Revenue Service in order to effectuate this 14 t prov i s ion; and i t is fur" ther 15 11 OIDERBJ, AD.JUJGID flW DECRtlD that each party shal I notify the other of 16 Iany change in e,pl O)lll"nt status, inc Iud i ng the name and address of e,pl oyer, ood 17 telephone rurber at place of erptoyment~ or reasonable rressage nurber to be used l8 for eoorgency pJrposes, pn:mpt ly 1.900 the change occurring in the ~toyrrent sta 19 tus. For the ("rposes hereof, change fron enµJoyment to me;1ployrrent status or 20 from unBrptoyment to ~loyroont status constitutes a change in e~loyment status; 21 and it is further 22 OFOERBJ~ ADJUXED )IN) 08:REED that the parties shall file separate re 23 turns for the year 1988~ and each year thereafter for incane tax p.1rposes. Toe 24 25 26 DB:REE CF O ISSOWTION - 6 Marriage of Hansen DAVID J. 0RDE:LL Cause ltmer: 87-3-09135-3 AT1't;)f1Nio."Y AT LAW 705 :SE.COMO A\IENUE SIJlTE 401 HOGE 9WH.. PlNG S~ATiLE:, WASHINGTON !;!S1C)4 l:20GJ 626<1130 L App. 21 - 1 parties m1all corrrriunicate regarding matters of dispute related to the 1988 income 2 taxes and wi l I endeavor to reach an agreement regarding said matter. J,,ny agree 3 ment reached by and bet,-veen the parties shalt be fol towed by the parties. N-?.t 4 ther party is mder obligation to reach a'l agreement, but each party shaH have 5 any and all rig1ts provided by Federal tax laws; and it is further OIDffiED .. ADJUJGID IN) DECREED that there are certain items of personal 7 property of the parties, lnduding an oak entertairwnent centre, television set 8 putchased shortly prior to rrarriage, stereo receiver, speakers, m.icrc,.,-.ave, vacuum 9 cleaner,. brass boat and miscellaneous other items µ.irchased prior to nBrriage, 10 award of ;,-.hfch remains in dispute between the parties. lhe parties wi If endeavor 11 to resolve issues regarding ownership of said items of property wl thin sixty (60) 12 days of entry of the Decree of Disso\utfon provided, if they are 1.nable to so rn agree,, ~dther party may, by m::,tlon,, present this matter on the Fa11i ly Law J.ltotion 14 Calendar to be heard on affidavit only, and the ru( ing of the Judge/Court G:mnis 15 sioner hearing the s~ shat I be binding on the parties,, subject to revision. 16 The restraining orders entered by the parties regarding sale or disposition of 17 any of said assets, as wel I a:s assets awarded to the other party herein shall re·• 18 main io ful 1 force and effect; and it is further l9 OfOERB), />DJU::CID Pl-0 DECREED that each party shat 1 pay h Is or her own 20 attorneys' fees and costs without further contdbut ion frtt11 the other party, ex~ 21 cept as otherwise provided in the Findings of Fact ~cl Conc\usions of Law or in 22 the parenting plan executed by the parties; and it is further 23 OfOERID, 1~lJu:x:;EO faNJ DECREED that each party shaf I be reqJired to take 24 25 26 DECREE 0:: Dt Ss:>WTlON - 7 Marriage of Hansen DAVID J. 0ROELL Cause t,urber: 87-3-09135-3 AlTORN!;Y AT !.1-,W 105 SECOND AVENU!i.: SWTE'. AOl HOGE: SUH.DJNG SE:ATT'k(i,- 'NASHiNGTON' se1c,1 !2061 624•0130 App. 22 - 1 any and atl steps necessary to see that the provis\ons contained in the Findings 2 of Fact aod Conclusions of law and Decree of Dissolution are given fut I force 3 and effect .. Each party shall execute those doaments of conveyance and/or docu 4 ents of ti tie so as to effecutate the property division incorporated herein. 5 Each party shat ( deliver to the other party within thirty (30} days of the date 6 of entry of the Decree of Dissolution, those items of personal property awarded 7 to the other \\hich are at the present time tn his or her possession4 Each party 8 shal r det iver to the other those insurance pot ides awarded to the other v,hich 9 are in his or her possession as 1#e11 as those records relating to assets a App. 23 - 1 oroERID, NJ.JlJX.E> /lNJ OOCREED that prior to rerroving Melissa fran the 2 United States, Respondent place ten thousand ool lars ($10,000-00) in his attor 3 ney's trust account with irrevocable instruct ions that said funds remain in the 4 trust account pending Melissa's return. Provided, however, that if rkl i ssa is 5 not returned within five (S) days of her schedu\ed return date, sa\d funds sha1\ 6 be imnadiatefy transferred to Petitioner's attorneyr s trust/general account to 7 be used to pay any and al I attorneys I fees incurred in an atterupt to return 8 I i ssa to the Uni ted States and her 1mther; and it is further 9 OFOERED, /CJU:GED Ar.rJ DECREED that support continue tnt i I the child 10 reaches the age of eig,teen ( 18) years or completes hig-i school, ,..hicltever 11 occurs later, with the court retaining jurisdiction to determine vklether and in 12 what proportion each party should contribute to the cost of post-hig-, school ed 13 ucation for the child, said jurisdiction eXµiring if post-majority support is 14 not set prior to 15 DA1ID: 16 17 18 19 Presented by: Copy Received 24 Approved for Entry and l\bt ice 'of Presentation Waived: 25 26 Oa:::REE. OF OlSSJWTION - 9 0AV10 J. OR0E1..L tJlarr i age of Hanse., ATTORNEY AT 1.AW Cause t',lm::ier 87-3-09135-3 '705 SECQNO AV!;'.NUE $UlTF. 401 HOGf/: BIJII.OlNG . · Se'.ATI'U!, WASHlNGTON 98!04 (2061 &24•01'.3Q App. 24 - 4 5 JP2.0625E 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECREE CF' OJS=OWT!ON ~ 10 ~'°larriage of Hansen DAVID J. OR0ELL Cause l'brber 87-3-09135-3 ATi'Ol'!NEY AT I.AW 705 SE:CONO AVl'::NU!:: SUITE 401 HOGE BUILOlNG . SE:ATT'L!::. WASHING'roN 98104 120\'11 e2A·o130 ' App. 25 - 1 EXHIBlT A 2 lhe fo 11 owing i terns of rea I and (Jersona I property :shou Id be atvarded to 3 petitioner-wife, free and clear of any interest of respondent-husband: 4 1,. 1986 Toyota Celi ca automobile, subject to any a'ld al I 4. Ail clothing1 jewelry and f)ersonal effects of petitioner-wife; 11 Furnitura~ furniture, ar,;ipl iances and other personal property ln pe:ti 12 s. t ioner's possession or under her control 1 other than wedding gifts received fr<1il 13 respondent's relatives or otherwise attributable to respondent I s side of the fam 14 set forth in the Findings of Fact and ilin 15 i ly, and disputed items of property as clus ions of Law and Decree of Oissolut ion; said disputed i terns of property to be 16 17 settled in the rrianner set forth therein; of insurance insuring I ife, health, or property 18 6. kly and al I pol ides herein. 19 awarded to petitioner 20 21 JP2.0625A 22 23 24 25 EXHlBlTA-1 26 Marriage of Hansen Cause ~r: 87~3-09135-3 OAVt0 J. 0RDELL ATTORNEY AT LAW 705 SECONO AVENUE SU!iE 401 HOGE'. EIU1LDfNG SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 12061 524•0130 App. 26 3 The fol lowing items of real and personal property should be a.varded to petitioner-wife; 4 respondent-husband1 free S'ld clear of any interest of 5 1. 1985 Thunderbird aitcmobi le, subject to ;;r1y l'f)d aH ooUgations 6 thereon or related thereto; 7 2. AU accounts with 'i§'IY banks or financial inst Hutions in respondent- 8 husband 1 s r,aroo or ooder his control; g 3,. Pny and a I I r i 9"t ts or benefl ts of respondent--husband arising out of 10 any former ~loyment or affi Ii tat ion in a labor mion; 11 4. All clothing, jewelry .rid personal effects of respondent-husband; 12 S. lhe foi I owing items of personal property presently in possession of 18 petitioner: 14 (a} Si tver serving (tea) set; (b) chrystal vase; {c} N:>rwegian 15 s i Iver candle holders; (d} N::irwegian silverware; (e} N:>rwegian cake cut- 16 ter and salad tongs; (fl mo (2) oil paintings; and (g) silver chest. 17 Mdltionally respondent shall receive any and ali ~~dding gifts received frcm re- 1 18 spondent *s reiatives or otherwise attributable to respondent s side of the fam- 19 ily, presently in possession end control of petitioner, with the exception of 20 disputed items of property as set forth in the Findings of Fact and G:>nctosions 21 of Law and Decree of Dissolution; said disputed i terns of property to be sett led 22 in the manner set forth therein; 23 6. krf 26 EXHIBIT B - 1 ~~rriage of Hansen DAVm J, 0RDELL Cause l'-Urber: 87-3-09135-3 ATTORNEY AT LAW 705 SECOND AVENUE: SUlTE: 40f HOGE 6Uft.DiNG SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 12.0t'il 624-0130 App. 27 1 awarded to respondent herein. 2 3 4 JP2.0625B 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 EXH\B\T B - 2 Marriage of Hansen DAVID J. OR0E'.L.L Cause f\UTbert 87-3-09135-3 ATTORINE:Y AT V.W 705 SECOND AVcNUIE SUffE;; 40! HOGE BUIL,DJNG SEATT'LE. WASHiNGTON 98104 420EH 624-0t30 App. 28 EXHIBIT C 2 Petitioner-wife should ass~ .rid pay those d;)ligatioos set forth here- 3 on, should hold :respondent-husband hannless therefron, and indem,i fy him for a1y 4 5 ] reasonabte costs and expense Vlhich he may incur, including attorneys• fees., as a of her failure to pay said debts or ooligations i.men we: 6 , result 1. /Joy a1d an debts or obUgat ions ,ncurred by petitioner frOO'l and 7 after date of separation; 8 2. Pny 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBIT C - 1 26 Marriage of Hansen Cause Numer: 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J, OR0ELL ATTORNE:Y AT I.AW 705 SECOND AV!::NUE SUITE 4ot HOGE !!Ult.mNG SS:Ai"TL!i'., WAS!-llNGTON 98104 t20Sl 624·0\30 App. 29 1 D ?. I EXHIBIT "" a Respondent-husband should assume a1d pay those ooli gat lons set forth hold petitioner-wife harmless therefron, and indem i fy her for any 4 hereon, should I and expense vihkh she milY incur, including attorneys fees, as 5 reasonable costs a result of his failure to pay said debts or obi igat ions \'.hen die: 6 kly and all debts or ®ligations incurred by respondent from GW1d 7 i. S after date of separation; 2. k,y and al I separate obi igations of respondent; 9 3. Pny and al I debts or obligations constituting liens or encurbrances 10 upon any real property of respondent; 11 obligati App. 30 EXHlBlT E 2 basis :J '.! 1he support set forth herein shall be revieN&i on a bi-annual r; lhe -± ':; (every two l2) years), based 1..pon the financial situation of the parties. ,vage a-i.d ; parties shat I exd'tange the prior year's income tax: return .rid current i) year, in inc.one information for the year in date on or before 15 June of said agree by order to effectuate said adjustment. 9lould the parties be t.nab1e to 7 the roning 30 June of said year, regarding the aoot.tnt of said support payable for 8 for a :, year, either party may apply to Court on the Fami Iy Law II.int ion Calendar 9 in determination of said issue. 9,ould either party fai I or refuse to exchange 10 be re format ion with the other in the rrenner set fo...-th cbove, said party shall 11 a:::Jjust spons ib[e for costs related to incurring said infonnation. said support 1...,-, ln calcula ment shal I be effective 01 July of said year, CO'lTl'lencing Juiy 1991. 13 child sup ting said support adjustment, the parties shal 1 use the then existing 14 port schedule effective for King County~ Washington. 15 17 JP2.0625F 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 E - 1 26 EXHIBIT Marriage of Hansen DAVID J. OR0ELL cause t,brber: 87-3-09135~3 ATTORNEY A't LA'tl 705 SECOND AVE'.f,IUE SUJTE AO! HOGE BVllDING SFATTLf!:. WASHINGTON 9BJ04 (206) 624·01:30 App. 31 MeOICAL HISTORY (CONF\RMSW. HISTOft.YOr A.SSAUl.:r) OBTAIN RELEVANT MEDJCAL He,; I -,------,-- ·t ,-.~;-.;-lA~B:;O~R;,A;;:T;:;O;;R;;Y-;T:;E;:;S;::;T::;:S:"'_-;;R;;ES:;:U~lT:;::S;:.:---,----::M::E::P::l::CO-:--:-'_LE:"G':A"':"~LT-ES-:-:T-:-:$:--_-R_i:S_U_L_T"'.""S---,.,:'"""".,------~~-,;,--. ( ✓ CHECK eox Ir DONE) ·:. UCHECK a.ox if' DONEl . : POST corr AL co~ACE"..:,l?N) · :\:' 0 ?UBlC HAIR COMBINGS 'f'JA, / If !'OST COITAL CONTRACEP'l'toN W I Cls 00 i/>'OODS UGHT t\.-0 SC,i_:'t,,;.,v,._, PRESCRIBED, INDICATE THAT f'.J(rtENl I GONORRHEA w,.,.tl.. CT WST MOUNT HA$ BEEN INFORMED or pQCCS\13,LE RISKS ENDOCERVlCAL D ------~ AND SIDE EFfEC"'fS OF S ..-1• lREATMENT OCCUR. UR!'f"l'HRAL, 0 (DOCUMENT ASSENCS OR PRESENCE OF SPERM) H' PREGNANCY WERE RECTAL lx) IN #/H?f /~ND %OF MOTILE/NON MOTILE ORAL Kl ~ 'VAGINA C ' SA c w<. ,,.,.,,JJL ()'fHER • 3. TRANSFER OF SPf;CIME'.N$ l Hef\EEY CERTIFY 'THAT t HAVE RECEIVED F~OM; AT HARBORVlE:'W MEDICAL CENTER i'HE FOLLOWING ITEMS; 5, ...l,.... '------1 P'KYS!ClAN 2 ::___ ··-··----·-······,--··r•~-=,--- --··~---·-···•-, ·" ·· ·· . ~Nl/'.t,G;.MAfEf""°_--:-~-:---~--,--,--,icc:,}EE~PTT:--, -::-,-~-T,pr11:ii,io'1tt\::ii1 i;:,------f;;:;pJt~~~R~·Ti;~~~&N;,.;;;-1" {.,(r~,~~::'.:::'.!_:X~v,.:--==. . f.e&.,{,a:.O..,.:,t:'./2 OAT& IHOUA App. 32 2 3 4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ,5 6 LISA D. ECKSTROM, ) ) No. 90-2-0274-7-1 7 Petitioner, ) ) DECLARATION OF STANTON 8 v. ) ELIZABETH I ) g j, SIGURD J. HANSEN, ) ; ) j 10 Respondent. ) l ) 11 I am a Social 12 Elizabeth Stanton hereby declares as follows: Family Services 13 Worker Supervisor with the Division of Children and visitation 14 of the State of Washington. Additionally, I do 15 supervision on referrals from private attorneys who frequently of the 16 receive my name through Family Court Services. I know both of the 17 parties involved herein and Melissa, have personal knowledge srune. 18 matters contained herein and am competent to testify as to the and Melissa 19 1. I first became acquainted with the parties hour visit 20 when requested by Family Court Services to supervise a 5 21 between Sigurd Hansen and Melissa Hansen and report on my 22 observations to Michelle Gregg, the Family Court worker assigned to 23 the case. 24 25 DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STANTON 26 Eckstrom v. Hansen j Cause No. 90-2-02747-1 DAVID J. OR0ELL ATTORNF:Y AT LAW 705 SECOND AVE;NUIE ll SU!T!;. -101 HOCE l'JUIU)ING WAS!-llNGTON !i/810'1 11 SEAT'rLE'., Ii 1204$) 62.4-0130 ~1 App. 33 Prior to observing the visitation, I met with Lisa 2 Eckstrom to discuss her concerns and to identify items she wanted 3 me to look for during the visitation. During this conversation, 4 Ms. Eckstrom expressed concern about smoking, alcohol consumption 5 and further express concern about the potential for Sig to sexually abuse Melissa. This was to my knowledge the first time that any ever 7 question of sexual abuse, or the potential therefor was 8 mentioned in the proceeding. I 9 3. After observing the visitation, which went very well, potential 10 reported to Michelle Gregg, including Lisa' s concern about and were 11 sexual abuse~ Michelle Gregg and I discussed this issue 12 in agreement we observed nothing in the Hansen family interaction 13 which would suggest, any inappropriate sexual behavior. I was Court worker, indicated 14 concerned and Michelle Gregg I the r'amily 15 that she was concerned that there would be further allegations by 16 Lisa of unfounded sexual abuse. Lisa had previousl:l made unfounded 17 allegations about Sig's behavior and we were concerned that these 18 allegations could move into the sexual child abuse realm. rn 4. My observation and evaluation in this case was a direct 20 result of the concern of the Family Court worker about false 21 allegations, as well as her desire to make a very detailed and 22 thorough report which caused my appointment in the first place. The 23 report was completed and there was no indication whatsoever of any 24 inappropriate sexual behavior on the part o:f Sigurd Hansen or any 25 DECLARATION Of ELIZABETH STANTON -2 2£3 Eckstrom v. Hansen Cause No. 90-2-02747~1 DAVID J. 0RPELI... ATTORN£Y AT LA¼' 705 SECOND AVENUE SUITE 40! HOG£ !:ltlttmNG SEATTL.E:. WASHINGTON 98104 42061 6t.4·0t30 App. 34 J!· l i member of his family. for visitation 2 i 5. I have assisted in the transfers of Melissa of Dissolution which 3 purposes since the entry of the Decree ! had an opportunity 4 1I' incorporated the parties' Parenting Plan. I have occasions, and I have seen 5 l to observe Melissa and Sig on many I of the Hansen family 6 nothing in their behavior nor in the dynamics 11 abuse of any kind 7 which would cause me concern regarding child to the needs of children to be 8 l whatsoever. l run very sensitive of child abuse, whether 9 protectedT am very cautious when allegations are made; but once again, have seen no 10 \ physical or sexual 1 Ii in the interaction between Mr. Hansen and Melissa, the ll ii indication Hansen family or otherwise which would create any concern regarding 12 I· I between Sigurd 13 the occurrence of any inappropriate sexual behavior 14 11 Hansen and Melissa. \, is to be very 15 6. Finally, one of rny roles in my profession ii issues to evaluate lfi l, sensitive ..,,,hen parents are involved in custodial j 17 their ability to protect their bonding with the child and the l Hansen's 18 child• s parents. Continued interference with Sigurd impact the very 19 residential access to Melissa could in the future 20 positive bond that e~ists between them. of perjury pursuant 21 THIS DECLARAPION is made under penalties ')<) ,( and the foregoing is true ..,;;. to the laws of the State of Washington, jl 23 24 \ 25 \ DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STAN.TON -3 26 I Eckstrom v. Hansen Cause No. 90-2-02747-~1 DAVID J. 0ROE:LL ATIORN!IY AT LAW 705 SECOND AVE:Nt.Jlii: Sl.ltTR 4.0t Ht'lt..!" JRIJiLPlNG SEATTLE.. WASHtNGTON 98104 120(;) 624-0130 App. 35 and belief. This 1 and correct to the best of my knowledge 2 Declaration is dated and Washington. ") __ day of July, 1990 at Seattle,· Q SIGNED this 4 11I STANTON 5 .l ELIZABETH 6 HANSEN.DC4 7 8 g 10 11 l 12 13 .i 14 !' 15 I 16 I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STANTON -4 26 Eckstrom v. Hansen Cause No. 90-2-02747-1 DAVID J, OR0ELL ATTORNEY AT LAW 705 SECOND AVENlHE $U!TF AOl HOl'..E J"llill.OiNG SC:Ai"TL!:'... WASHINGTON 9810-4 120fll E\24-0)30 App. 36 . / \- r:<::::'S: ;., :::r ff ~-~ ..;,. .=.. ~ 7-lC~':l~ s:JeAt I j ·,! 1 ,i Thix :~ ;j_ D•ol«r~tio~ 11 i~ dtt&d ~nd 1f : 3 S!GN'!t thi;t JJ.'J:Jivi1.y of July,. : 990 e.t Se~tt1e1 waahin~on. 4 i ). //~ 5 .I ,1~ t 8 g . L 15 ~f 30 :/ 25 I DECL.l'Jth.T!ON OF l:.-1 ZA:;,1r:1H ;;,'!ANTON Eckstrom v. Han~wn Cau~e No. 90-2-02747rl ii DAV!O J. OPll!lll.t l! 1\.-Clo'.o!i.rr' At loAW 'tt• U'~ON0 AVCm.lr: IL IIUl'l'i .{('.,I ~O(Jlt •t.m.O!N;3 ll ~!!:ATTlE.. '.NASklN(,';;TQ.'t C.::il0.4 App. 37 .( - I DATA OF CLINIC VISIT: 7-23-90. St:rSJ"RCTIVK; HelisG~ ls a two 4nd one~half year old female who preBants to SAC d'lnic-with her mot.her, Lis.a !;'or ~:-gency Room follow up f;;:orn 7/8/90. ,i§,.t th;<1,t: t~ she was brought to the Ztoergency Room by hE!r ~ther complaining tha.t her bottom hurt. Har mother at that: ti-me gave a. hJ.. etory that her dad on physical exa.."\1 sha was noted to have a. linear patte:rn of erythe..rnatocll [email protected] a.nd a.hcasions ac~oes her back. aer genital exam revgaled er:;rthema posteriorly around the perin9al body a~d pos~erior £crchette and a ao«te~hat dilated a.nua. cult~rgs were obtalned, which were negat:J.Y1;i. Th..;:re also eppa.::ently was a history of phtsical abus~ when the child was an infant, by her father. Ther~ is legal action taking place regard~ng custody b~tween the mother and the father; Attorneys are involved. There ts a guardi~n ad libitQ~ who la involved, and now there ls a p!:'.:osecute Hetissa w2,,. seen a second ti;:;e cm 7/14/90, b.cought in her by her maternal aunt. Th.rt concern ~as a purplish discoloration cf the perineum that the ltlCther had noticed. juet pt'ior to t;he oft.Lee vLsLt on 7/14. '!'.he aunt ,gave a history that: the cnlld was not exhibiting any unusual beha,ior except that BO!OOtimes -.,,hen cha.ngir:.q into d:i::y clothe,:; a.ftar :;:,3..ng swi,t:'J:'t,l,r,g, the aimt had nct PMT ~IC,?\.L 1llSl'ORl': lndicateg that ahe haa had multiple yeast irtffreftions int ha di~per area and she hashad bro hospitalizations for dehydration. CUrr,ently the parents a:ce divorced~ th'3 child has visitation with he:c dad twice a week, and every other we:,ekende OBJ:S:C:l'!VR: A wel),.-developed, well-nourished girl, occasLonal.ly playfol and interactive, but moatly shy f>?male, in no a.cute diJ!'!tress. HEE:NT: EntL:::ely HNL. No exudate or erythema tn the pozterior pharfnx. NECK: Supple ~ithout lym9hadenopatny. LONGS. Clear to auscultation. CA.RDIAC: reg--..11.a.c ;::-ate and rhythm without murmur, .r,..1b or: gallop. · · BREASTS: S;r·trimetrical, Tanner stage ! ; non tender. .i\£00.HZN: Benign~ PositiYe bowel tones, so!t, non tender. No ma$Ses or hepatosplenomegaly. EX'TRZHITIES: Non tender~ .. ... , ...... ~-...... --~-.., --~. -- --,---- - PA'.:l::lE~ NAME: ECK.51$0H, HBL!SSA 11 PAT:tElrr !-{O:. :14-87-78-09 tnITVKRSI'r'T OF riASE:l:RG'.!'OH KEOICA~s DA-:r.E~ 23 JUL 90 Harl:;x;lr-vie-~ Hedicai Center ·- ?E!XSlCIM: Hl\RY S. GISOONS; H.O. University of waahington Medical c2nte Seattle, Washington App. 38 .(._ 2 and aymm@tric. Mo ed~. BACK: No rosidu.al f!ndl.nga• froe:t. thelesl.ona described GEN!TAL!A: Tanner stage I female with nocmal external genit~li&~ The:-clitoral. hoodr labia. inajora/mlnora:. were all no.t'lllal. t.ha posterior forch~tte wai> normaJ.. There wa~ some posterio~ labial fusion ncted~ which was new. Tho 'Urethra Md periurethrat tls~ue appeared normeJ.. ':be hymen was: quit a redundant but di.d. reveal a, l-2 ;:in round ori!ide-...-. _-_-. -_ - Tha ·.;a.ginat muc~ea waa not well-·tis'liali::r.ed and no disvcharge w;,,..s noted+ Th& poaterior" fossa revealed a fairly demarcated white area of tissue ln the left p,oaterior foasa. The blood vessels -,.ere probably normal. Peroneal body was normal. the· a.nua. revealed sos:ne laxity, particularly Ln the knee-chest position. Immediately. Thia was consiatent: with tho irregular pattern noted in th~ photographs from 7/8 with an ar,g-ulated notching of tho clrcu~ference of the anus at 3 o'clock in the knee-chest position. Th~ mucosas was vLsuallzetl ~ith prominence oe the anal verge~ No stc~l waa noted, no ditLtal exam was cone. !rnpression: A child with a history of sexual abuse. r-"1 e:xa:n today revealed posterior lat;,ial fs.;sion and oorn'I': tLs$ue in the posterior :ossa suggestive of scar tissue and an um.1s"1al ana.l exam with dilatation and angulation a.t .3 o'clock. All of thei;Hi findings "-'Ol.lld b9 cori;,istent with a. histor,t of i;exual abuse and the photographr,; fr,om tho initial e•taluat1on re·.;ea.led significant erythei:n.,1 around the posterior forchette and, ant'.:l"ri.or p '2. 'the leslon,;. on her back a.re resolved. ?to cle 3«. DJS:!,:tia x.? 1 not able to gi·f·e urine! $pelCLm-£!n tOO:!.y.. Irritation thQ 2.Lk-aly cauzo« Should dysuria recur, woulc r-ule out 1..1rina..ry tract infection. ?L./V-f ~ ?hotc,colposccpy waa dGne. Slides wtl l h-e roview;;;-j at a lat-'"': date. GC and Chlamydia cultures we:ce done on the oropbarynx, rectum and: vagl.o.a.. RPR will be done at eight W£HJ!ks pc,et 7/8/90, 1?roba.bly At;: ?!-IDs office. DD~ 7/24/90 DT: 8/04/90 C ,,...... • ~:---:-- ~,,._ • ?Al'IEN'l" N~: ~CKSTROK, HELrSSA PATIENT NO! H4-B7-78-D9 mttvK'F..SI'IT oi;~ WASHINGTON· HX.DICM,, ~..:S 23 JUI. 90 5aroot:"V ie-w Xedical Center M.1'.R~ S. GIEBONSr K-D~ Uni.ve:csity of Washington Mectic,ll.l Center;· Seattle, Wa$hingtort App. 39 Wiluom R Forney, M.D., F.AAP. - Harley C. Wohl, M.D•. FAAP. Sill S. Schnall M.D,. FA.AP. (206) 546-2421 RICHMOND PED!Ai'Rte CUN!C 355 l'tW, ~ a.aoctl llood s«att11t,, l/itlllail,o!o119t1;; September 20~ 1990 Hr. David V. Ardell 705 2nd Ave Suite 401 Hoge Building Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Melissa Eckstrom-Hansen I have been asked to comment regarding any possible sexual abuse of Melissa. During the many visits to our office there have been no signs or symptoms suggesting sexual abuse. sw·.r=.er·e·l~..l ft'· . . ,~L Q t ,AA:V William R. Forney, M.D. EXHIBIT _f.;____ App. 40 2 KfNG COUNTY -....\!;Pi:Oftir .... "' ~n l~ ... ..~, 1"':'."1f1.o-1·~"L"'•... ~:.i c.:LEf". ·fl'.,,.. '.j 3 S[t7fl E, WA. '' 4 IN THE: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHING1'0N IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING 5 6 In re the Marriage o:f: No. 87-3-09135~3 7 LISA DAWN HANSEN, DECIJ\RATION OF ELIZABE'I'H STANTON r MSW 8 Petitioner 1 9 a.nd 10 SIGURD J. HANSEN, 11 Respondent. 13 ELIZABETH STk>~NTON hereby declares as follows: I have personal 14 knowledge of the matters contained herein and am competent to 15 testify as to the same. 16 I am and have been a social worker since 1959. I am in the 17 employ of Children's Protective Services, a position I have held for 18 the past 22 years. Additionally, I have and do accept referrals 19 through Family Court and private referrals~ It was in the capacity 20 of assisting in a Family Court investigation that I became familiar 21 with the parties in this proceeding and Melissa Eckstrom-Hansen. 22 Even after completion of the Family Court report, r have continued 23 to be involved in this matter as set forth herein. 24 I have regularly supervised the exchanges between Lisa Eckstrom 25 DECLARATION OF ELIZF,BETH STANTON, MSW -1 2-6 rn re Marriage of Hansen Cause No. 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J, 0RDE:L.L AT'TORNEY AT LAW ,,1 705 SECOND AVENUE; SUITE 401 HOGE Sl/ll.DING Sl:::A"fTLE'.. WASHINGTON 98104 12cm 1,2.:-01:10 App. 41 1 and Sig Hansen of their daughter, Melissa. The exchanges took place 2 on Tuesday and Thursday mornings at 7:00 a.m. at Lisa Eckstrom•s I 3 home. In addition, I have supervised the exchanges between Litja I 4 Eckstrom and Melissa's paternal grandmother, Mrs. Hansen. l j 5 The majority of the exchanges that l have witnessed have been 6 when the paternal grandmother picked up Melissa for her ·1.dsit. I 1 7 stopped going to the door with Mrs. Hansen after Lisa s attorney t me that her parents would sue me for trespassing if I "put 8 advised f 9 foot •1 on their property. From the street, I have had a full vi1w 10 of the door and the faces of all parties. 11 The behavior of all parties has been consistent through the 12 visits. There is a significant pause before the door is opened. 13 Lisa is at the door with a blanket in her left hand. After a long 14 pause, I can see Melissa climbing the steps to her mother. Lisa is 15 frequently not looking at her, but turns toward her as she comes up 16 the steps. Lisa. puts Melissa's coat on, farewells are prolonged 17 with kisses, Lisa puts he:r arms around Melissa and holds her. In 18 most recent v;eeks, 1 have observed another child at the door and 19 many farewell exchanges take place between that child and Melissa. 20 From my place in the street, it appears as though the goodbyes are 21 to a child going to a terrible fate. Melissa is somehow on most 22 occasions able to v1c1lk out the door and go to her grandmother. 23 On two occasions, she has whimpered, but I have noted there has 24 never been any sign of tears. I have always remained to see Melissa 25 DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STANTON, MSW ·--2 2G In re Marriage of Hansen Cause No. 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. O~DEL.!.. ATTORNEY AT LAW 705 SE;CQNO AVENUE 5UJ1"E 401 HOGE BUILO!NG SEATTLE. WAStt!NGTON 98104 f:'.>Ofil fil:''1·01::10 App. 42 1 strapped in the child's seat. and she has always been playful and 2 laughing when she left. I 3 l have observed Melissa at her paternal grandparents ho:me. 4 She is very comfortable there and goes freely through the house 5 organizing her play. Her favorite thing is swinging. On one heard her ask for him. 6 occasion1 while her fat.her was fishing, I 7 There was a period of time \vhen Sig was not permitted to see 8 Melissa. I was asked by the Hanserrn to observe the first hour of g the first visit tha.t he had following that period of suspended 10 visits. Melissa had been playing comfortably and having a good time 11 in the living room prior to hir, arrival. When he arrivedr her demeanor changed notably. She beca111e elated and joyful and acted 13 this ont by crawling on the couch giggling and saying "meow meow 14 meow''. This was a very touching moment for everyone present. 15 Since that time, I bave observed another visit at the Hansen 1G home. Again, Melissa was playing comforta.bly in the living room and 17 interacting with her grandparents. Mr. Han sen asked "Where is 18 daddy?" Melissa said, "I don't know". Mr. Hansen said "Oon•t you 19 want to see Daddy?" Melissa said "No", Mr. Hansen then said, 2-0 ;'Why?" and Melissa r~sponded 1'No" , Shortl:;{ after this exchange, Sig 21 arrived.. Melissa hid 'Under the table. I looked at her and she was 22 smiling and looking to see if he wonld £ind her. Sig pretended to 23 look for her and then pretended to be leaving because he couldn't 24 find her. She came out laughing. I then observed them playing for 25 DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STANTON, MSW -3 In re Marriage of Hansen Cause No. 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. 0F{DEt.L ATTORNEY AT I.AW 705 SE;CONO AVENUE SUITE 401 HOGE SUILDJNG 5E'.A'rrt.. E;:. WASHINGTON 9:8104 App. 43 1 about 45 minutes before I left. Melissa a.sked him to toss her into the air and he did so several times. I noted that she had complete 3 confidence that he would catch her. I also noted that he stopped 4 immediately ·w·hen she aslced him to do so. 5 I have noted Lisa always gives a blanket to Mrs. Hansen when 6 Melissa leaves, but I have never seen Melissa pay any attention to 7 it during the visits I observed. 8 In other exchanges of children whose parents are in custodial parent to have 9 disputes, I have consistently observed the sending to the 10 the child dressed and at the door or to lend encouragement doing 11 visit, even in cases where I knew the parent had difficulty this and probably w:i.t.h good reason. Melissa seems to be left on her ow'n to get to the door and carried through the· situation by what 14 I interpret. to be her affection and trust of her grandmother. 15 ' I have had substantial opportunity to observe the interaction 16 between Melissa and Sigurd Hansen as ,,;ell as the interaction between 17 Melissa and her paternal gra.11.dparents in a professional capacity. 18 Throughout the time I have been involved in this proceeding, I have 19 seen absolutely nothing which would indicate the Melissa has 20 suffered any physical, emotional, mental or sexual abuse at the 21 hands of Sigurd Hansen or his parents or any member of his family. 22 Because of my background, rny employment with Children's Protective 23 Servicest and my mm nature, I am very protective of children, but 24 a:m convinced that Melissa is not at risk while in the care of her 25 DECtARA'l'ION OF ELIZABETH STANTON, MSW -4 26 In re Marriage of Hansen Cause No. 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J, •RDElL A'f1bPNE'.Y 1'.T LAW 70!5 SECONO AVENUE SUJTE 401 HOGE aun.O)NG SEA11U':, WASHINGTON 9!;!104 f:2061 624•0130 App. 44 1 father or paternal grandparents. 2 THIS DECLARATION is made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 3 the laws of the State of Washington, and the foregoing is true and 4 correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This Declaration 5 is dated and 6 SIGNED this ~ day of September, 1990 at Seattle, Washington. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH STANTON, MSW -5 26 In re Marriage of Hansen Cause No, 87-3-09135-3 DAVID J. 0RDELL ·."" -· ATTORNEY AT LAW 705 SECOND AVENUE SUITE:; 401 HOGE BUILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON !;!Bl04 i:>.om 6~4-01.l!O App. 45 r LYNDA BRIDGES MSW. 116 FIRST AVENUE SO!J .. SUITE 333 SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 447-2384 ll-5-90 Diane chesterfield child Protective Services Depertmenc of social and Health Services 1900 3~d Avenue w. Lynnwood, WA N-33-3-98036 Dear ~s. Chesterfield: In resp0nse to our conversation on l0-29-90, this letter is a ::n.:.IT1..rn,ary my c: im:erviews with Melissa Hanson en lG-19-90. I wa;;:; r~o 1-les-::;:eci Lisa by Eckstrom,. M~lissars mother, tQ Provide the.tatt~ -----~n~ --·-~-Ma1~ss~ wh~ -c... ,.._..,'-,,I.._.cae=-~• ._.~}~..,.,.->,..,:,;. +ob•- • - hav...... _ ...... ~g a~iu-~man~ -J ;,;;;,i.,..,...... ,,,. ....,,.,__~--....Y~p~~i~"- .... ---y..,...,...., •o.... ,,._~:~ .... ,_.~ ~ns:.t:3.ticn. with :.cer fathsr. 1'I w~nt l:':er to be ~s h'2:althy as she 3:1':1 ;..~·,_;-;:•;, can be. She is preseL~ly very =~i~gy. 3he ~as rsgrEss0a and ::iow is pcn:ty1ng in her :;;:iants. She is refu.sin.g to be bathed in. the ba:h cub. she has nightmares at nisht and s!eeping ?:o~le~s. ad t~ent S~e, overall, seems LO be not the happy little girl she useci to be. 0 ! have not had individual interviews with Lisa nor Missy's fa~he~, Hanson, Therefore, I hava no background information about &his case, nor am I aware of the full extent of previous evaluations or allegations cf sexual abuse. During my first inter-view with Melissa, she seemed quite preoccupied with the dell house bathroom toilet and bathtub. spent most She of her time forcing the doll to sit on the toiletr as well as the bath tub, n1..1merous times. When I attempted :c move to get her to other rooms in the dell house, she kept reverting back ~6 the bathroom where she continued bathing and pottying aver again. over and When I asked Missy if she bathed in the bath tub, she said, "No, the sink. H During her second interview, she skillfully played puzzles demonstrating with axce.ptiona.1 hand eye coordiuat±.on. She was able to quickly put puzzles together that most children would have her aga difficulty managing, In the playroom, there is also a App. 46 c:i.esterfi'i:lci .?.e: Me11s:.s.a • ll-5.,,:90 ?age 2 • family of dolls, consisting ot tour dolls, male/female (father and mothe~) and two male/female children, The dolls are anatomically correct, soft fabric dolls, Often, ! u.se .:nese dolls 1 £or evaluatino a child s level of attachment and rest>cnsiveness to his/her family members. In our play, I placed the little blond chil~ doll i~ the ar~s of the mommy doll and asked ~hat she was doiztg. She replied, "she is hugging her. 0 I then placed the ternals child doll in the arms of the daddy doll and asked what he was doing. She :::epl i eci, nEe is hurting her potty pot." I then askeci., "Whe!'e .1.s hi.;r potty pot?u she then pointed to the vaginal area of the clothed female child dell. I then asked Missy where her pctcy po: was and she pointed to her own vaginal area, I asked, "Does the ii~tle girl have her clothes on when the daddy 0 is .nurting h.e:r in s:.::.e potty· pot? She .said, "No." S'.:le then took the ciol ls cl cthe.s off. I then asked where is her potty pot and sh'!;! =esponded by poin~ing again to the vaginal area of the doll, which was :1ow unclothed. I then asked, rtDoes the daciciy do 11 t have his .-;,...,.,...,.<: '"'";' r she saici, "No." she then took the clothes off th$ ci~dciy doll and point<':!d to his penis. she stated, nEe hurts her wi .:h his w-ear:.i e." r th'.;!n asked, ''How does hse hurt her with his 0 wean:1.e? Show me. She placed the two dolls together and then :~rsw ~hem on the floor. At that point, she curled up i~ a feta! posit:oc wit~ her legs drawn to her chest, physically scooting away :=rorn me.. ~he ther1 said, "Ycru do it .. rr I th.en s.sked. nDo-as yc,11r i~ flu::~-: yo 11 JC·U~ in ~atty po::?lt ar:ci she said., tr:tes. rt I askecif nzices !!~ U.utc you wit~ his weanie in yo?..1..r potty pot? rt and she said, nYes" 0 Missy appeared very tr:gncened. Her facial expressions and behavior caused me to beleive she was very upset and afraid. I reassured her we were going to step playing with the dolls. She :::,.en ca.me over and wrapped her a.::-rns aror.h"'td my neck and gave me a v~ry intense hug. ! then comforted her and we proceeded to play again with the doll house. During ihe third inte~view with Meliss~ on 10-22-90, she again was playing with the doll house, primarily the bathroom. She was much quieter during this visit. We talked about the visits with her father and I asked her if she enjoyed visiting 0 with him. She said ... No, daddy hurts my potty pot. 0 r then asked if anyone else. hu:tt !i.Cr, ;'Dici. your mornmy hurt you? 0 she said, nHo." "Did your grandmother hurt you? Did your gt'andfather .hurt you? Did a friend hurt you?'' !n asking this series of questions, she replied each time, ''No, my daddy hurts me." ! then asked, ''Did Morn.11y tel 1 you. to say Daddy hurt you?" and she replied, nNo. u I also have drawings where Missy discloses that her father hurt her potty pot and wet on her leg. Since I em net evaluating Missy for sexual abuse, I conveyed App. 47 chesterfield ?.~: .:;felissa ll-5-·90 ?age 3 • this information to John Dunne, H.D., the court appoint~d evaluator, so he could continue the evaluation of Melissa. After conr.acting John Dunne, I contacted Larry Vey at CPS on 1-0~19-90, who suggested that I make a direct referral ta CFS intake. ! spake with intake on 10-23-90. an 10-25-90, I spoke with Candis at CPS, t,.;"n,o :.•::'.ld: my statement. I .spoke with Diane Chesterfield at CPS en 10-30-90. At this poi;:it, my primary ohjecti•;e is ta assist Maiii;:.:-::a, in resolving the trauma she beleives has occurred to he;; t~~oug~ a ~herapeutic r~lationship~ Lynaa Bridges MSW App. 48 ' I Southlake Professional Group Renton Plaza Building John E. Dunne, JVi.D., F.A.P.A. ~ Child Psychiatry 1400 Talbot Road South, Suite 203 Wren Hudgins, Ph.D. • Psychology Renton, WA 98055 Barnett M. Kaplan, M.D. • Psychiatry (206) 235-7383 Clinical Associates Pablo R. Proano, M.D .• P.S. • Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D .• Psychology Barbara Mayers, Ph.D.• Psychology Lee Carlisle, NLD. ~ Child Psychiatry Barbara Barry, Ph.D.· Psychology PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION SIG tIANSEN NOVEMBER 19, 1990 REFERRAL INPORMATION Sig IIansen was referred for psychologic:al evaluation th.rough Dr. John Dunne as a component of his psychiatric evaluation witb respect to parenting responsibilities of Sig's three year-·old daughter, Melissa. Specifically, Sig and Melissa's mother, Lisa Eckstrom, is asking the court to assiat them in determining appropriate parenting responsibilities with respect toward Melissa. ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS UTILIZED In order to complete this ev~luation t:he following assessment instruments were administered: One 50 minute clinical interview, dated 10-12-90. Administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, (MMPI), dated 09-24-90. Administration of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II, dated 09-24-90. nmIAVIORAL ODSERVATIONS Mr. Uansen did not attend his first appointment, as there seemed to he a scheduling mix-up. He did however, make the second scheduled appointment and w,'!ls on time to meet the examiner. Mr. Hansen was casually dressed, but wearing a gold watch and a diamond ring. Ile spoke easily with the examiner, showing no signs of ,gross psychological or cognitive impairment. It is the examiner's opinion that this evaluation is an adequate representation of Mr. Hansen's current level of psyc:hological fiinctioning. Mr. rransen looks his stated age and talks with a slight accent indicative of his bilingual abilities in both Norwegian and t:1nglish. ne appeared somewhat angry during the evaluation as he spi:::,ke about his feelings of being manipulated App. 49 PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION RE: SIG HANSEN PAGE: TUREE It is possible that he is in.vol ved in a sophisticated attempt to present himself in a favorable light. Sig is reporting a great deal of somatic complaints, some of which may be a reaction to stress and conflict. Sig might be described as self-centered, emotionally mature, demanding, and manipulative. Ile has little insight into the psychological nature of his problems, and ·when under stress, he is unlikely to experience any subjective distress. While Sig is somewhat friendly and outgoing, his relationships tend to be somewhat superficial and involve excessive demands for attention and affection. When important values are threatened, it is likely that Sig will become blameful of others while denying that he is angry and upset. Mr. Dansen also could be described aa having unjustified jealousy, a poorly regulated temper, and is very sensitive of other people's opinions and actions. Mr. Dansen would more than likely have a difficult time of forgivin.g others even after minor disagreements, which can lead to power struggles with those he is closest to. The results of the MCMI tend to corroborate the finding$ of the MMPI~ With the results of the MCMI, thei;e appears to be a tendency of avoiding self disclosure, It is possible that Mr. Hansen is not pz>.1;ticula.dy psychologically minded but also that he is,. perhaps, somewhat evasive. While he produced a valid profile, it is important to note that !\.ome $Cores may be lower than what they in fact actually are. Mr. Hansen could be described as: being ver:y concerrie:d about getting exte;:nal approval and respect from others. He conforms to the expectations of others and is very adaptable. This ada_pt.abilit:y seems to be a way of dealin9 with his inability to admit to psychological problems. Thus, by be:coming so adaptable and re~dy to modify his behavior, he avoids criticism which he expects for his shortcomings. Mr. Hansen h,:ts a strong fear of expre~rning negative emotions and losing his control. ne will deny any discord or unhappy feelings which will again make his public self much less prone to criticism. Ile fears making mistakes and provoking humiliating comments. Mr .. flans.en may tend toward perfectionism and an over concern with minor public appearances. Surges of ang:err however, can periodically break through, bu.t as a result of his struggle to repress these urges, he may have a history of tension and somatic problems. CONCLUSION Mr. Dansen is a 24 year-old male referred for brief psychological evaluation through Dr. John Dunne. Results indicate Mr. Hansen to be somewhat defensive about admitting to problems within the -- evaluation but also within fhe - wodd at large. Ue is quite concerned with making mistakes and, therefm.-e, will become very adaptable in order to avoid criticism and rejection by others. When in conflict with others1 he will also become hlarneful and App. 50 PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALDATION RE: SIG DANSEN PAGE: TWO for his property and material wealth. It was somewhat difficult for Mr. Uansen to talk about his daughter, Melissa, and, in fact, it was only when the examiner brought her up specifically that he was able to talk about her. Mr. Hansen instead chose to talk a great deal about his ex-wife and the wrong doings that occurred during their courtship, dating, and separation and divorce proceedings. TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION M.r. Hansen reports growing up in the Seattle area with an older and younger brother. ilis father is a fisherman, and subsequently w,':is gone from the home for extended periods of time. Sig speaks v~ry highly of both of his parents and describes hi$ mother as being a tough woman who was quite capable of maintaining a household when Sigrs father was away. Sig, however, also speaks of his father with a great deal of respect and, in fact, states that at one level as a child he knew that he needed to obey his father or the consequences would be severe Lf he did not. Mr. Hansen reports doing average in school; having graduated from high school. ne began working with his father as a fisherman at age 12 and, in fact, would at times be late for the beginning of school, as he wa$ busy working with his father. Mr. Hansen did not date in high school and reports that he did not even kiss a girl until the age of 18. Lisa was his second girlfriend ~hom he met through mutu.al friends. 'I'hey co:t"responded a great deal through letters,, and after Lisa beca.me pregnant there was a mutual decision to get married. However, initially, when Lisa found out she was pregnant$ Sig wanted to ter,m:inate the pregnancy, whereas Lisa didn't. According to Sig, the couple was mar-ried in October, Sig not remembering the exa.ct date. They were separated in November and their d,'iughter was born in April. The wedding was held at his parents' house and the couple had a honeymoon in Hawaii for 9 days.. Sig reports this as being terrible, as there was a great deal of fighting during the honeymoon. Shortly after they returned from. the honeymoon, Lisa left to go live with her parents and file for divorce. Sig was not present for the birth of his daughter and :found out several days aftet" she was born, then went to the hos:pit-al to see her. Sig reports wanting to be more involved in his daughter, Melissa's, life so that his parents can raise her, as be has a great deal of concern about how Melissa is currently being raised. The results of the ~~1PI reflect a valid profile and that Sig was cooperative and understood the questions. Results of the Mr-1PI indicate Sig is somewhat moody and experiencing periodic psychological distress. Sig has relatively good ego strength, positive self-concept, and is fairly adaptable and resourceful. App. 51 PSYCHOLOGICAL EVAL0ATION RE: s:IG HANSEN PAGE: FOOR defensive, rarely acknowledging his contribution to the dif£icul ty. Mr. Hansen denies ps:tchological components of his behavior, and rather tends to react to stress by denying it verbally but with resulting somatic problems. With respect to parenting issues, the examiner has some concerns about his abilitx to work with others and c:ornp.i:ornise, rather than be totally adaptable or quite angry. It is also important that he be able to relate to stress and be able to acknowledqe his own shortcomings. Overall, the examiner finds no eviden~e in this evaluation to indicate that ht;) would be an inadequate parent. Respectful~ii) submitted by, - /1&-L--~,,-,- v--- is P. -Mayberry, Ph.D. Licensed Clinical Psychologist JPM/tvv App. 52 Southlake Professional Group·- Renton Plaza Building John E. DuMe, M.D., F.A..P,A. • Child Psychiatry 1400 Talbot Road South, Suite 203 Wren Hudgins, Ph.D. - Psychology Renton, WA 98055 Barnett M. Kaplan, M..D. ~ Psychiatry (206) 235-7383 Clinical Associates Pal>lo R. Proano, M.D., P.S. - Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D. - Psychology Barbara .Mayers, Ph.D. - Psychology Lee Carlisle, .M.D. • Child Psychiatry Barbara Barry, Ph.D. • Psychology PSYCOOLOGICAL EVALUATION LISA ECKSTROM DOD 12-20- 65, AGE 24 NOVEMDER 19, 1990 Lisa Eckstrom was referred for psychological evaluation through Dr- John Dunne as a component of his psychiatric evaluation with respect to parenting responsibilities of Lisa's three year old daughter, Melissa. SJ?ecifically, Lisa and Melissa's father, Sig IIansen, are asking the court to assist them in determining a1;>propriate parenting responsibilities with respect toward Melissa. ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS UTILIZED In order to complete this ev-aluat.ion, the .follo\'i'ing assessment instruments were administered: 60 minute interview with Lisa, dated 10-2,6-90. Administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personal i ty Inventory, dated 9- 11- 90. Administration of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II , dated 9-20-90. DEJlAVIOR AND ODSERVATIONS Lisa was on time for her scheduled appointment with the examiner. She is a very attractive woman looking some~hat younger than her stated age. She spoke freely with the examiner but also appeared somewhat upset that she needed to engage in the evaluation process. She had di.:fficulty in feeling that people did, in fact, believe her o:r: supf?ort the concerns she bad ~ith respect to Melissa's father. She seemed to feel that no one was, in fact , listening to her and that her daughter would continue to be at risk. Throughout the evaluation, there continued to be good- eye contact and there was no evidence of gross psychological or cognitive impairment. It is this examiner's opinion that this evaluation represents an adequate level of Lisa's current level of psychological functioning. App. 53 - PSYCllOLOGIC.AL EVALGATION RE: LISA ECKSTROM PAGE 2 TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS Lisa reports growing UJ:? in Edmonds the_ 5th of 6 children. !1er parents are currently married and living in Edmonds, and tisa lives with them. In school she reports doing adequately, and after high scbool went to study the travel business at a community college. She then enrolled as a medical transcribel'.' and eventually got a job with a plastic surgeon. Lisa reports getting laid off, as she was quite tire, blaming Sig for taking her out late at night. She then moved to California where she modeled and sold condominiums. Lisa reports that she got to know Sig through letters and phone calls, and that when he was nice to her she couldn't have asked for a better partner. rrowever, Lisa also states that he hit her prior to their marriage but that she didn't report this. She also states that she did not know about Sig's heavy smoking . or drinking and that on their honeymo.on he drank so much that he threw up . Lisa also reports that on the honeymoon he hit her and that she filed a police report regarding this incident. Lisa states that she planned to marry Sig in the summer of 1988, but that due to her une,-pected pregnancy they got married in October, 1987 . Lisa states that the couple went to counseling several times but that Sig punched her and that she, at that point, chose to end the marriage and, as she states, chose the bab:'.i· over the marriage~ Lisa is quite concerned about her daughter, Melissa, and feels that no on is, in fact, addressing the concerns regarding her daughter. She fears for Melissa's safety when Melissa is with her father and has started Melissa in counseling due to Melissa 1 s statements regarding her alleged se,;.ual abuse. Currentl:r, Lisa is not working , as she was in an auto accident and is unable to work at this time, It is difficult for Lisa to envision or support Sig having any relationship with Melissa, particularly as she now has concerns rega.rding Melissa's safety. Ilowever, the examiner feels that Lisa is not. able to envision any shared communication between the couple with respect toward any parenting responsibilities. Results from the MMPI reflect results in which the validity must be taken as being doubtful. Responses that were. given by Lisa are very guarded, reflecting an unwillingness to admit to personal problems or weaknesses that at'e beyond her ability to solve or con.trot. There£01:e, results of the MMPI need to be taken somewhat tentatively. Dased on Lisa's results, she might be described as being somewhat restless and independent and enjoying variety and change. She would be described as being capable of being assertive and of identifying and expressing anger appropriately. Ilowever, Lisa also has the ability to over control her anger and can, at times,· be out of touch with he.t" rootiv~es and feelings.. She wants very much to present a good public front but periodically can act out her anger in perhaps App. 54 PSYCilOLOGICAL EVALUATION - RE: LISA ECKSTROM PAGE 3 unpredictable outbursts. As rejecti on is painfu l for her, she is perhaps somewhat cautious about confronting others in a face to-face manner. Therefore, she might try to please people and can, at times, selectively report things in order to protect other peoples's feelings. It is possible that people might mist~ke Lisa's emotional reserve for being cold or indi fferent. The results of the MCMI tend to substantiate those of the M.'1PI. Results of the MCMI indicate Lisa having a strong need to be seen by others favorably and how easily she will give in t o the wishes of others, particularly those in authority. She tries very hard to be considerate and cooperative without a great deal of self will or personal desi~e. Lisa will go out of her way to appear capable and confident in her attributes, although she feels somewhat inadequate and unsure of herself. ll.ny sign of disapproval from others causes her a great deal of tensiion. Rather than having this happen, she will become overly respectful,perhaps even ingratiating with those she perceives in authority. Periodically Lisa's anger may overpo~er her sense of propriety. nowever , a fear of exposing these feelings can lead to being overly organized and showing rigid self~restraint. She does not trust others to provide the approval and security she desires and is, therefore, feeling a great deal 0£ tension right now. Although Lisa may appear conscientious and capable, she at times, can be indecisive, want to procrastinate, and can be easily upset by deviations in her daily routine. She wants very much to appear in a good light and, therefore, adheres to social conventions. She dreads making mistakes or taki.ng risks as they could be humiliating for her or provoke disapprmral from persons in authori ty. Lisa has a rigorous internal conscien ce and seeks to control her angry urges and thought. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lisa Eckstrom is a 24 year-old woman participating in a psychological evaluation to help determine parenting responsibilities with respect to her two year-old daughter. Lisa had a difficult time in acknowledging any problems and yet is quite distressed that people will not acknowledge her difficulty. She's tense and worried but lacks insight as to the psychological component of her dif ficulties. She is very much su;bject to others' opinions of her and will alter her behavior in order to present a good public front. She is very dependent on others' opinions and behavior and gears her life toward pleasing those that ~he car es about. While there is no indication that- Lisa would not be an adequate parent for her daughter, there is - ·' App. 55 ·, PSYCUOI.OGICAL EVALOATION• • RE: LISA ECKSTROM PAGE 4 concern with respect toward her ability to be asse.rti\Te as well as to acknowledge Melissa's father's role in her daughter's life, i.f, in .fact, there ca.n be a safe rel~tionship between the two. Respectfully .submitted by T Janis P. Mayberrjt, Ph.D. Licensed Clinical Psychologist JPMJtvv App. 56 • Renton Plaza Building John E. Dunne, M.D .• F .A.P .A. - Child Psychiatry 1400 Talbot Road South, Suite 203 Wren Hudgins, Ph.D. - Psychology Renton, WA 98055 Barnett M. Kaplan; M.D. • Psychiatry (206) 235~7383 Clinical Associates Pablo R, Proano, M.D., P.S. - Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D. - Psychology Barbara Mayers, Ph.D. • Psychology Lee Carlisle; M.D. • Child Psychiatry Barbara Barry, Ph.D.• Psychology PSYCilIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS POR MELISSA 11:Cf\STROM-IIANSEN NOVEMDER 26, 1990 Mother father Lisa Dawn Eckstrom, Age 24 Sigurd Johnny Dansen, Age 24 7503 228th Ave SW 17107 76th Ave W Ed.11orids, WA 9 8 CJ 2 0 Edmonds, WA 98020 Telephone: 774-6409 Telephone: 745-2065 Attorney for Mother Attorney for Father Peter D. Francis David J. Ordell 1600 Seattle Tower 705 2nd Ave, Suite 401 1218 3rd Ave Uoge Building Seattle, WA 98101-3080 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 682-9910 Telephone: 624-0130 Dependant Child Melissa Dawn Eckstrom-Uansen, Age 2 yrs. 6 mos. nirthdate; 04-22-88 IDENTIFYING DATA AND REASON FOR EVALUATION Melissa is the only child from the marriage of her parents, Sig Dansen and Lisa Eckstrom, who separated 5 months prior to her birth. Sig Hansen works as a corruneroial fisherman on his father~s boat in Alaskan waters and Lisa Eckstrom is unemployed, al though she has 1.vorked as a model, and an offic,e worker in the past.. stg recently moved into his own house and Lisa, and Melissa live in the home of her parents. Melissa visits her father twice a week and every other weekend when he is not away fishing. There had been so raany conflicts between Lisa and Sig that their Parenting Plan called for psychological evaluations of all parties if further allegations arose. In the past 6 months Lisa has alleged that Sig has assaulted her and also has sexually ORIGINAL App. 57 • I PSYCTIIATRIC ASSESSMENT RB: MDLISSA BCKSTROM-DANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 2 abused Melissa. These allegations prompted the agreed order of psychological evaluation of all parties, including both sets of grandparents. Although the cost of the evaluation was originally to have been divided equally between the parties, Sig Uansen agreed to pay the entire amount pending t'eview by the court. SOURCES OF INFORMATION l:'or the purpos(! of this evaluation the following interviews were conducted: 09=26-90 One hour interview with the father, Sigurd £fan sen. 10~·08-90 One hour interview with the mother, Lisa Eckstrom. 10~10-90 One hour interview with the f<'lther. lO-ll-90 One hour intervie~ with the mother. 10--12~·90 One hour interview with the paternal grandparents, Sverre and Snefryd Uansen. 10-17-90 One half hour session with MeJissa nansen and her mother followed by one half hour ses~ion alone with the evaluator. 10-18··90 One hi:il f hour with Melissa Il<'!nsen and her father followed by one half hour session alone with the evaluator. 11-05-90 One hour session w.il:h Mel:issa ilIH1sen. U-07-90 One hour interview with Victor Larson, !>LS. w.' guardian ad litem for Meliss,9 Llar1sen. , 11-07-90 One hour interview with the mat~rn~l gr~ndparents, Theodore and Jean Eokstrom. f'or the purposes of thi!'; e\'";d,uation the fol lowing telephone conversations occurred: 01-12-90 T.C. from David Ordel], attorney for father. 08--17-90 T.C. from David Ordell's office. 08-23 90 T.C. from David Ordell's office. 0 9~10·· 90 T.c. from Lisa Eckstrom. 09-11-90 T.C • to Lisa Eckstrom. .09-12-90 T.C. to Peter Francis, attorney for mother. 09"•17w90 T.C. from Sig Hansen. 09-26-90 T.C. to Davi.] Ordell. 09-W--90 T.C. to Peter Francis. 10-05-90 T.C. f1-om Sig Hansen. 10-10-90 T.c. from Sig Hansen. 10-11-90 't.C. from David Ordell. 10~18~90 T.C. from Sig Hansen. 10-19-90 'I'. C. from Sig Hansen. App. 58 f , I PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELISSA ~CKSTROM-IJA.NSBN 11-26-90 PAGE 3 10-22-90 T.C. from Linda Dridges, M.s.w. 10-22-90 T.C. to Lisa Eckstrom. 10~·23'"·90 T.C. from Lisa Eckstrom returned. 10-29-90 T.C. from David Ordell. l0-31-90 T.c. from Diana Chesterfield, CPS caseworker. 11-01-90 T.c. from Victor Larson, M.s.w., guardian ad litem for Melissa ITansen-Bckstrom. 11-01-90 T.C. from David Ordell. 11-02-90 T.C. from Charles Davis, D.MIN., former therapist for Sig and Lisa nansen. 11-06-90 T.c. to Pete~ Prancis. 11-06-90 T.C. to David Ordell. 11-·06-90 T.C. from Mr$. nansen, paternal grandmother. 11-07-90 T.c. from Diana Chesterfield. ll-08-90 T.C. to Peter Prances. 11-08-90 T.C. to David Ordell. ll-08-90 T.c. to Linda Dridges, M.s.w~ 11-08-90 T.C. to Linda Dtidges, M.s.w. 11-08 90 T.C. to William Forney, M.o., Pediatrician for Melissa Uansen-Eckstrom. 11-08-90 T.c. to Elizabeth Stanton, M.s.w. 11-,12·"90 T.C. from David Ordell. ll-15-90 T.C. from Peter Francis. 11-19-90 T.C. to Larry Voie, CPS caseworker. ll·-19-·90 T.C. to Peter Francisf office. 11-21-90 T.C. from David Ordell. For the purpose of this evaluation the following documents were reviewed; 01) ITornily Court Par~nt Questionnair(;; f;or :t,isa Eckstrom, undated approximately 1988. 02) Family Court Parent Questionnaire for Sigurd Dansenr undated approximately 1988. 03) Family Court Custody and Visitation Report by Michelle Gregg, dated 01-20-89. 04) Motion and Declaration for Continuance of Trial Date, dated 01-26-89. 05) Order of Continuance, dated 02-08-89. 06) Declaration of Tim nai-tnian; dated 06-02-89. 07) Declarations of Jean and Theodore Eckstrom, dated 06 08- 88. 00) Permanent Parenting Pl~ri, dated 07-26-89. 09) Responsive Declaration of Lisa Eckstrom, dated 10-24-89. lO> Replied Declaration of S:iguxd Hansen, dated 10-25-89. 11) Temporary Order for Protection from Domestic Violence, dated 05-09-90. App. 59 • • PSYCliIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MEL! SSA ECl{STROM-UANS r:rn 11-26-90 PAGB 4 12J Declaration of Counsel (David J. OrdellJ. dated 05-10-90. 13) One Year Order .tor Protection from Domeistic Violence, dated 05-10-90. 14) Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem, dated 05-15-90. 15J Medical Records for Melissa Eckstrom from Uarborview Medical Center Emergency Roomr dated 07-08-90 to 07-14-90. 16) Temporary Order for Protection from Domestic Violence, dated 07-09-90. 17) Declaration of Snefryd Tiansen, dated 07-10-90. 18) Declaration of Laila Perkingstad, dated 19) Declaration of Rlizaheth Stanton, dated 07-10-90. 20) Declaration of Johan Manns 21) Decl~ration of David J. Ordell, dated 22) Order, Case #90-2-02747-1, dated 23) Declaration of Marcy Rust, dated 07-16-90. 24) Temporary Restraining OJ:der a.nd Order. to Show Cause, dated 07-17",90. 25) Officers Statement, net. J. Jones, dated 07-11-90. 26) Statement of Jane Eckstrom, dated 07-20-90. 27) Declaration of Michelle Gregg, dated 01-20-90. 28) Declaration of J~ne Eckstrom, dated 29) Declaration of Ronald T. Eckstrom. dated 07-23-90. 30) Let teer to the evaluator from David ~T. Ordel 1, dated 07-26-- 90. 31) Letter RE: Polygraph Ex.and nation of Sigurd ,J. tJansen bf Terry J. Dall, dated 07-30-90. 32) Letter to Lisa D. Eckstrom from Paul, Stern, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, dated 0B-06-90. 33) Letter to Paul Stern f rora J~mes Martin Roe, dated 08-07-90. 34) Video tape of Melissa Eckstrom-·Hansen in tho?. Hansen house, dated from 0B-16-90 to 09-16-90. 35) Sworn statement from Ronald T. Eckstrom, dated 09-11-90. 36) Sworn Statement of Jean Eckstrom, dated 09-12-90. 37) Motion to Terminate Visitation and for Other Releas~, dated 09-18~90. 38) Sworn Statement of Peter D. Francis, dated 09-18-90. 39) Declaration of Sigurd UanRan. dated 09-19-90. 40) Order to Show Cause, RB: Contempt, dated 09-19-90. 41) Declaration of Snefryd Uansen, dated 09-19-90. 42) Sworn Statement of Peter D. Francis in Opposition to Motion to Remove Supervised Visitation, dated 09-24-90. 43) Sworn Statement of Lisa Eckstrom in Opposition to Motion fol" Contempt and Other Relief, dated 09-24-90. 44) P.8!sponding Declaration of Sigurd Uanse.n, dated 09-24=90. 45) Declaration of Elizabeth Stanton, M.s.w., dated 09-25-90. 46) Reply Declaration of Snefryd Hansen, dated 09-26-90. 47) Declaration of Marcy Drodet, dated 09-26 90. App. 60 :1 • • PSYCDIATRIC ASSESSMENT RB: MELISSA ECKSTROM-ITANSEN .11-26-90 PAGE 5 43} Deposition upon Oral Testimony of Jean Eckstrom, d::tted 09- 26-90. 49) Letter to the evaluator from David J. Ordell, dated 09-28- 90. 50) Letter; to the evaluator from Peter D. l:'rances, dated 10-02~ 90. 51) Letter to Lisa Eckstrom from the evaluator, dated 10-17-90. 52) Video tape of Sig Hansen and Melissa, d;;.ted 10-25-90. 53) A family drawing jointly done by Linda Dridges, M.S.W. and t1e1:i.ssa Ec:kstrom-Uansen, dated 11-07-90. (copy attached) 54) Letter to the evaluator from David J. Ordell, dated 11-13- 90. 55) Report of psychological evaluation of Lisa Eckstrom b_y ~Tanis P. Mayberry, Ph.D., dated 11-19-90. 56) Report of psychological evaluation of Sigurd nansen by Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D., dated 11-19-90. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT nrs·:roRY The fa:d.lowing summary is compiled from ,"¼ll sources. It is not meant to represent "findings of fact" but only the evaluators best understanding of the significant hiatory. Where discrepancies of information exist from different sourcee, this will, be noted as much as possible. RBCENT U!STORY Sometime in March or early April, 1990t Melissa t~ld her :maternal grRndmother that her father had touched her "potty pot". At the time Melissa was visiting her father intermittently at the paternal grandparents home where lie lived. This was reported to Children's Protective Services in Snohomish County but no action was taken. Somewhere in this same time period Lisa notified the Edmonds police that Sig was in town and would be arriving at her residence at a particular time to pick up Melissa. At the time Sig had an outstanding warrant for his arrest because of hia failt:u-e to respond to a DWI cha.r:ge in late 1989. The police did arrive and arrest Sig when he came to pick up Melissa. On May 8, when Sig an:-ived to pick u.p Meli$Za fo1~ hi~ 'regular daytime Tuesday visit, Lisa, who believed that he did not have a valid driver's license, asked if his mother was with him. Sig ·· indicated that she was and when Lisa realized that Sig had lied she became alarmed and tried to grab Melissa when Sig waa trying to put her_ into t.he car seat. Some kind of an altercation occurred at that time between Sig and Lisa, although they're versions are quite different. According to Sig, he was in the driver's seat, strapping Melissa into her c~r seat,. Lisa opened App. 61 • • PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELISSA ECJtSTROM-HANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 6 the door, reached over him and tried to grab Melissa. De pushed her out of the way, told her to stay clear, closed the car door and, backed out of the driveway. He denied that he eve:r hit or harmed Lisa in any way. Lisa, on the other hand, said that Melissa was screaming, that he grabbed her by the wrist and threw her to the ground twice. It was not clear from her description whether this occurred while Sig was still in the car. Later that same dayr Melissa's paternal great-grandfather was arriving at Sea-Tac Airport from Norway. The plane was late in arriving and Sig ma.de an attempt to notif;t Lisa of the delay through his attorney, since he could not call her directly because of the restraining order. Lisa did not get the message that there would be a delay in returning Melissa. She ,.;ent. to the Uansen hou.se and waited for them at a 7-11 parking lot nearby. Dy the time the Uansen ts arrived borne, jnst before 4; 00 pm, Lisa was intensely angry. Again, there wae a confrontation, although only verbal- Again, the two stories are quite different. Lisa describes Mr. nansen as very ~ngry and physically threat~ning and Sig describes Lisa as enraged and accusatory. It was in this highly charged atmosphere that Melissa returned to her mother. On July 1, Sig moved into a house that he had purchased in Edmonds. July 7 and 8, were to be the first overnight visit for Melissa at his new house. Lisa was apparently quite anxious about this and called numerous times that evening to talk to Melissa. When Sig and his friend. Johan Manns, who was there ~isiting with his wife, refused to let Lisa ta~k with Melissar she apparently became verbally abusive. The neKt mornini;_1 when Sig and Melissa were at the patenvd grandparents home, Lisa again callsd frequently demanding to talk with Melissa. Apparently Melissa did not want to talk with her mot.her but Lisa could n1:,t accept this. Nhen Melissa was ret.uxned to the Ed:;!i,;trorn household later that day, there was a birthday party in progress for one of Lisa's brothers. In contrast to Lisa's highly agitated state, described by Sig, ~1ohan Manns, and Mrs. nansen, Lisa described herself as calm when Melissa returned home. Melissa changed into a bathing suit and played with other children who were in a wading pool in the backyard. She apparently complained of »an owie on my butt" but no one pursued this. Also at this same time, approximately an hour or so after Melissa returned home, two "M" shaped marks were noticed on her back. The i:-dze of thoSe marks are not clear to this evaJtiator. nowever, again, no one responded with alarm about these marksr attributing them to natur•l causes. These marks were variously described as a rash or scratches, perhaps like a blunt abrasion. That evening when Mrs. Bckstrom was giving Melissa and another child a bath, Melis~a continued to complain of pain in her anal App. 62 • • PSYCUIATRIC ASSESSMENT RB: MELISSA ECKSTROM-UANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 7 area. When Mrs. Eckstrom finally examined this directly, ahe noticed a protuberance of the rectum and that the area seemed blue or discolored. She described th~ anus a • bqing "open". Children's Protective Services were called and on their advice Melissa was taken to narborview Medical Centers Emergency Room where she was ex.:un±.ned by Paula Lozarro; M. D., a pediatric resident. she noted erythema of the labia area and possible dilatation of the anus. Six days later Melissa was brought back to Dr. Lozarro for re-evaluation by Lisa's sister-in-law, Jane Eckstrom, (Lisa was not feeling well enough herself to take Melissa) because the family had noticed a bluish area near the anus. Dr. Lozarro indicated that there was no bluing and bruising but that the perinea! body had a bluish hue that was within normal limits (NP. the perineal body is a small bump in the midline between the vagina and anus.) At that time, Meliasa a 1 so told Dr. Lo;;;arro th;t ''daddy puts his .finger in my potl:.y pottt. At that time, another CPS report was made. After an investigation by Larry Voie, the case was closed because he felt the mother was taking appropriate action to protect Melissa. There were further changes in the visitation arrangements so that initially only the paternal grandpat:ents cc>uld be with Melissa, and after two visits the father could be included but the father could not have any sepBrate time unsupervised by the paternal grandmother. On Aug~ 30, Melissa made a st?!;temeht to the maternal grandmother, Mrs. Eckstrom, that "daddy pottied on my leg". This was later repeated to the paternal grandmother. This evaluation was begun in late September. In mid-qctober, Melissa began seeing Linda Dridgesr MSW, at Lisa's instigation even though this had been specifically prohibited by recent court agreements. At the initial session with Linda Dridges, Melissa said her daddy poked her with his "weeny" and th,~t her fat:her hurt her "potty". Linda Dridges made a report to Children's Protective Services. 'l'his report was ir-1vestigated by Diana Chesterfield, who had also handled the report in March or April, The parties agreed that Melissa could continue to visit her paternal grandparents but have no further contact with her father pending the outcome 0£ this eva 1 nation. Just prior to th;i.$ last CPS report, Melissa told her father in a videotaped conversation, th.::..t he had not touched her potty. PAST UISTORY Lisa and Sig met in l 986 and dated sporad1caJ. .t y for two years, mostly by long distance, since Sig spent 8 to 9 months a year fishing in the coastal waters of Alaska. At least at times there were intense emotional upheavals in this relationship and on at least two occasions they mutually decided to end the App. 63 ') ' • • PSYCDIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELISSA BCf\STROM-IIANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 8 relationship. Lisa wa• considerably more intereated in marriage than Sig, and it was Li$a, apparently, who repeatedly talked about marriage, engagement rings, houses, etc. Early in 1987, Lisa moved to California where she worked part time as a model and managed an apartment complex with a friend. During the time she was in California, Sig visited her several times. Then in August she became pregnant with Melissa. The pregnancy precipitated their decision to roa,n:Y. However, their relationship continued to be turbulent: There was intense conflict about what to name the baby. Sig wanted an ethnic Norwegian name and Lisa wanted a more common American name. At the wedding, Lisa claimed that Sig was drinking heavily, although no one else noticed that there was a problem. On their flight to Dawaii for their honeymoon, they sat separately, apparently because Sig ~anted to smoke cigarettes and Lisa wanted to sit in the non-smoking section. The honeymoon was very turbulent with many arguments. Sig left several times, once for an extended period of time overnight, and drank heavily. Ile acknowledged coming back to their room once so drunk that he vomited in the bathroom. T,,isa callqd her mother repeatedly each day ber::ause she was so upset. After their return to Edmonds, the arguing continued. Apparently, Lisa would spend most of each day with her mother, talking with her about the situation. When the two of them would argue would leave. Apparently, during this time he continued to drink heavily. During thig time Lisa claimed that Sig was physically abusing her, although the only indication of that were observed were some bruising on the upper eye lids seen by her mother. The final separation occurred about 4 to 6 weeks after the wedding. Sig went to Norway uto clear his mind". After his return, Lisa wanted to reconcile but he refused. She appat·ently was guite enraged with him because he refused to reconcile. Following that they had little to do with each other. Again, Sig was not present when Meliaaa was born. Shortly after Melissa's birth Lisa raised the issue that Sig might not be the biologi~al father and acted accordingly. She actively excluded Sig and resumed a relationship with a man named Dill, whom she claimed was the biological father. Sometime in October of that year ( 198()} Lisa met Tim Hartman and began dating him. They began living together in December and actively talked about marrying. llowevar, the relationship ended sutnrnai::-i ly in mid-January, 1989, appaJ~fently because Lisa was advised by her atto:rney that having this relationship was' not in her best interest. Aleo about this time, Michelle Gregg was doing her evaluation for the family Court Services. Dlood tests 0£ Sig na_nsen demonstrated that he was the probable father. Despite this Lisa continued to exclude Sig and frequently showed concern that Sig would somehow harm Melissa, leave the crnintry or App. 64 • • PSYCHIATRIC lkSSESSMENT RE: MELISSA ECKSTROM-UANSEN H-26-90 PAGE 9 in other ways act inappropriately. She made several efforts to bar or limit Sig's time with Melissa, made a variety of allegations about Sig or his family which later proved false. At the recommendation of Michelle Gregg, Sig hired Elizabeth Stanton, MSW, in early 1989 to monitor the transitions of Melissa between Lisa and himself because these transition times had become so frequently scenes of conflict. CHILDHOOD AND FAMILY tlISTORIES Sig Uansen is the oldest of three brothers in an intact family. Doth parents are Norwegian immigrants. They have a stable family with a somewhat ,suthoritarian family style. The £ather bas worked as a commercial fisherman all his adult life as had his father and grandfather before him. Sig was described as a very active preschooler but that when he reached school age he had no difficulties and was well liked by teachers and classmates. Sig admired his father and clearly identified with the life of fishing. ne started accompanying his father during s~~mers when he was 12 and began working as a paid hand at age 14. Since graduating from high achoo! he has worked full time as a commercial fisherman, spendin9 between 7 <1nd 9 months of each year £ishing in Alaskan coastal waters. There is no family history of etm:::,tional, behavioral, or psychiatric problems. Lisa is the 5th of 7 children in an intact, stable family of Swedish heritage. Both parents were born in th~ United States. Lisa's oldest sibling is a sister, 10 years her senior. All of her other siblings are brothers who often catered to her. Iler father often worked overtime so that her mother was in charge of the household. Lisa described he~self as close to her father as well as to her younger brother's, Mike and Rob. She was an a-v-erage student;:.. As an a.dolescent she won a. beauty contest: and entered at least two others. She went to modeling ~chool and worked occasionally as a model. She has also worked as a medical transcriber, managed an apartment complex, and did clerical work in a business office. Lisa~s maternal aunt was apparently sexually abuse by the maternal grandfather prior to divorce when the maternal aunt was 7 years old. There is no other history of sexual abuse in the family or history 0£ behavior, emotional or psychiatric problems. PSYCHIATRIC AND SUDS'l'ANCE AOUSB HISTORIES Sig first began drinking beer with friends at age 17, although he denied it created any problems for him. He stated that since the separation his drinking has subsided significantly but only App. 65 • • PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE~ Mf.LIS.SA ECI on those weekends that he does not have r-,elissa with him. Ile drinks less when he does d:r;ink once or twice a month. He denies a history of blackouts or work related problems from the alcohol. He has two DWI arrests, one in 1984 when he was 19, and ohe in late 1989, but he apparently was not convicted of either offense. Ue denies a history of getting into fights either while intoxicated or sober. Ile saw Charles Davis, D.MIN., several times with Lisa and on sporadic occasions by himself during 1988. Lisa Eckstrom· has no history of emotional or behavioral problems as a child or adolescent. She denied the use of marijuana or cocaine. She described herself as being "allergic to alcohol" and denied having anything more than an occasional drink. However, she W<'lB somewhat inconsistent in this as another time she claimed she was intoxicated when she had intercourse with Dill, the man she alleged was the biological father of Melissa. She saw Charles Davis, D.MIN., on several occaaions with Sig in 1987. Most recently she has been seeing Ken autchinson, a minister with the Antioch Dible College, for counseling. she was involved in an auto accident May 19, 1989 and suffered back and neck injuries sufficient to interfere with her employment doing office clerical work for Diamond Parking. she current takes TENS treatment almost daily and has not wo~ked since the acciilent. DEVELOPMENT~L HISTORX FOR MELISSA ECf App. 66 • • PSYCDIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELISSA ECKSTROM-UANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 11 According to Lisa, Melissa started being afraid of the dark can. with her t.c:, sometitne in ,July and since then has needed someone Although toilet trained for daytime she continues fall asleep. wets. to wear diapers at bedtime and still occasionally ,July~ Apparently~ she has been more frequently ,•.tet since INTERVIEWS WITU TUE FATilER., SIGORD BANSBN average height, a handsome young man with nearly Sig is of each length wavy blond hair. He dressed casually fot· shoulder and but was neatly groomed. Ue related in a pleasant interview himself and cooperative fashion. He seemed eaget" to talk about difficulties he has had trying to maintain his relationship the askE::d ,3bout Ue v.',:liS notably unguarded except when with Melissa. defensive his substance abuse history. Then he was moderately appears to be and probably tended to minimize. Despite that,,. he well within a reliable historian. Uis mood and affect were a about the rHHmal range. Al though he appea.red :somewhat angry he feels Lisa ha• caused, he eKpcessed primarily difficulties "craxy• feelings of anx or caution. ae sees her as ecmehow Although he primarily blames these current or unpredictable. to his own difficulties on Lisa he has at least some insight and acknowledges drinking excessively many times contribution He month that they were togethei: after ma.n:ying. during the ways being sexually inappropriate with Melissa or in other denied to harm doing things that might harm her. Ue also denied trying himself when tisa and described ~imself as only trying to defQnd "hysterical«. ITe believes that Lisa and/or her mother she became him. lle sornft!hOt,; · coached Me I issa to sa.JT things about has and he Lisa and her .fami 1y h.;.~ enti};ely rejecting him described and that they will do whatever they can to discredit him believes time, him from a role in Melissa's life. At the Rame eliminate it very has a very low opinion o,f the Eckstrom• s and made he despise him. clear that he despises them as he believes that they as loosening of There is no e\"idence of thought disorder such or paranoid ideation. Although he tended to be poor associations his memory on dates and inconsistent about remembering details, within normal appeara intact. Dis judgement appears to be limits. INTERVIEWS ~-HTII TUE MOTIIER, LISA J:!:CKSTROM She was Lisa is a trim, attractive, young woman with blond hair. formally dressed for the first interview, perhaps somewhat in a initial anxiety. She ~elated to the evaluator reflecting At times pleasant, coo~erative but slightly guarded fashion. such as making she was somewhat more guarded than at othersr App. 67 • ASSESSMENT• PSYCilIATRIC RE: MELISSA BCKSTROH-UANSEN 11=26 90 PAGE 12 arrangements for appointments with Melissa. Despite this slight guardedness she tended to respond to qu~stions candidly and ie viewed as a reliable historian. Der mood appeared well within the normal range. llowever, her affect seemed remarkably bland and sometimes seemed inconsistent with what she was describing. For example, when she talked about Sig throwing her to the ground twice in her driveway, rather than showing ange~ or agitation she seemed calm and matte1; of fact. Similarly, the,re was no change in her affect when she talked about her concerns about the possibility of Mel iesa being sexually abused by si,-3. She has nc:, insight into her own role in the present difficulties. She presents herself as though innocently drawn into the allegations. She sees herself as not believing that Sig could do Ruch a thing but only following through filing complaints when urged repeatedly by others, such as her attorney or caseworkers. She views Sig as having been sweet, kind, and considerate before the marriage and she tended to minjmize any conflicts during that period. She sees him as having changed after the marr and discovered the extent of his drinking and smoking. She believes he drinks heavily, is irresponsible, unpredictably angry, sometimes violent, and unwilling to communicate with her. At the same time she acknowledges that she does not want to be around him. She views the !Jansen famil~f has hostile and angry and that Sig f s father, particularly, is a potentially violent m~n. She clearly fears that Sig or his parents will mistreat Melissa in some way and that it will be emotionally distressing or traumatic ·to her. There is no evidence of thought ~isorder such as loosening of associations or paranoid ideation. Ile~ memo~y i$ intact and her judgement appe,H·s to bi~ wit:hin l::.he normal range. INTERVIEW WITH TIU! PATERNAL GRANDPARCNTS, SNBFRY'D AND SVERRC: HANSEN Snefryd and Sverre are a late middle aged couple who both spoke with a heavy Scandinaviari accent. They were both neatly groomed and related easily to the evaluator. They both seemed eager to talk about the current difficultiea and about their family. Snefryd, in particular, was able to give many details and seemed to be a highly reliable historian. They expressed a sense of righteous indignation that they and Sig have been treated so badly by Lisa Eckstrom. They see her as easily upset and quick to blame anything on them or Sig. They feel that when she is upset she is irrational and threatening. Mr. Uansen acknowledged that he became very angry at Lisa the day he picked up hia father ft:oro the airport. tle indicated that he called her "'a punk" and told her to "get the hell away from the house." They see Lisa as demanding, material ist.ic, and self--centered. 'rhey see Melissa as App. 68 • • PSYCDIATRIC ASSESSMENT RB: MELISSA ECKSTROM-UANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 13 initially cautious when they pick he:r:- up but that within a half hour she is relaxed and has a close relationship with her father. Neither Snefryd or Sverre had any obvious disturbance of affect or thinking. INTERVIEW l'HTJJ THE Ml\TERNAL GRANDPARENTS, JEAN AND TED ECKSTROM Jean a~d Ted are also a late middle aged couple who were neatly groomed for their session. Jean was almost exclusively the spokesperson and related in a rather unusuMl fashion. She seemed angry, hostile and guarded. She talked in clipped sentences and often looked irritated. In contrast, Ted was pleasant and relaxed but had little to offer in the way of information. lie indicated that he works long hours and is not much involved in what happens at home. Jean worried that she would be accused of making things up but appeared to be a fairly r~liable historian. She talked at length about the progressive difficulties between Sig and Lisa including a time that Lisa said that she had been hit by Sig but acknowledged that she had not told her husband about that. lier rationale was that their was no reason to upset him. She indicated that she was sur~iised about all the difficulties that occurred on the honeymoon and Ted described himself as feeling baffled. They bot~ described themselves as feeling insulted by the social worker (Elizabeth Stanton) who would stand there watching the transfer of Melissa. They view Sig as "spoiled" ,snd Mr. Hansen as angry and verbal Jy abusive. they see the present problems as relating almost ,entirely to and the Uansen'e hostility toward them. SESSION WITH MELISSA ECKSTROM-IJANSEN AND HER MOTUER Melissa is an attractive blond haired girl wearing a coordinated playsuit and has blond hair below her shoulders. In the waiting room she played at the play table with her mother but turned away when introduoed to the evaluator. Lisa also seerned cautious, did not refer to the evaluator as a doctor but instead by the first name and indicated that the evaluator was a nice man, although she seemed somewhat anxious in saying this. As the mother was being oriented to the playing area, Melissa held back. The two of them explored the dollhouse with Melissa standing on a chair and her mother kneeling next to her. Doth Melissa and her mother explored although her mother tended to assist and verbalize what they were doing. There was good eye contact. Melissa tended to sniffle and occasionally had a shallow cough. (Mother indicated that Melissa had been sick with an upper respiratory infection) Melissa's verbal development seems well within the normal range and she uses about 5 word sentences. She has good fine motor App. 69 • I PSYCUIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE; MELISSA ECKSTROM-BANSrnN 11-26-90 PAGE 14 development and appears to feel comfortable with physical closeness ta her mother. Mother seemed well focused on Melissa. tracking her focus of attention. They played with a schoolhouse and bus and mother seemed to have some difficulty in understanding how all the parts of the school fit together. There were no sexual themes in the play. 1~,wever, there was one general issue around safety when the mothe,~ said "donrt st-ting her' too hard, she is scared,tt referring to a child on a playground swing. When it came time for the mother to leave Melissa became immediately distressed and clung to her mother. lier mother tried to reassure her and distract her and finally said that she had to go to the bathroom, would get some juice for her and be bftok soon.. Then aside to the evaluator she indicated that Meliss., was; more fearful be with men than with women. With the mother's promise to be back quickJy Melissa accepted her mother leaving. Although crying and distressed about her motherts leaving, Melissa did not avoid the evaluator. She walked with the evaluator to get a tissue and allowed the evaluator to dry her tears. She said that she wanted her mommy. She continued to cry for about 9 minutes after her mother left but gradually allowed herself to be distrac~ed by play with the school. She tended to focus on pu,tting the children in the:ix cba irs or putting tlv~ir hats. She frequently asked the evaluator for assistance. The "teacher" told the "students" a story about a little girl whose ~other and father lived in different places and aia not like each other. Melissa wanted to know why they did not like each other and said that she did not know ,,.rhy her pa.rents did not J ike ead, other. When asked if she liked her mother and father she said that she liked her mother but did not like her father, because "daddy hurt my bottom". She did not remember how her father hurt her bottom but did say that her bottom does not hurt anymore. At the end of the eeeaion she helped clean up with minimal encouragement and did not complain. She seemed somewhat eager to leave and indicated that she did not want to come back the next day with her father to play. SESSION WITH MELISSA llANSEN AND HER FATimR In the waiting room Melissa was sitting together with her father at the play table where they were coloring. Melissa glared at the evaluator when he went by and did not seem eager when it was time to start the session. Melissa coughed occasionally but did not seem as ill as she had the previous day. She brought with her a doll and a baby bottle of juice. This time Melissa was wearing a dress over her p.;1nts and was wearing her hair in a App. 70 • • PSYCDIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELISSA, ECKSTROM-HANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 15 ponytail. Melissa and her father explored the dollhouse together with Melissa standing on a chair and her father standing next to her. Father ~nitially held onto her to prevent her from falling. nowever, several minutes later when father had his hand on her hip to stabilize her, she reached behind her and pushed his hand away without saying anything. In contrast to the good eye contact that she had with he~ mother, she tended to have infrequent eye contact with her father and when she did it was brie,t and tentath·e. IIowever:, she readily talked with him, at least as much as shi? did with her mot.her. Fat.her initially tended to be somewhat anxious and asked her to do things. Uoweverr this behavior seemed to decrease as the session progressed. At times, they had difficulty relating about the play materials. For example, Melissa wanted the toy dog and cat to talk on the dollhouse telephone. Father was concerned that she would break the phone and refused to let her do it. After a minor struggle, he reluctantly yielded so that the dog and cat could use the phone. There was a similar but less intense interaction when Melissa wanted the dog and cat to sit on the chairs at the kitchen table which father objected. When it came time for father to leave. Melissa again looked somewhat anxious but did not overtly protest. father picked her up and said that he would be in the waiting room and asked if she would be ok. It was only with some hesitation that she said that she would be. After fat~er left she returned immediately to her Play with the dollhouse. Although she quic~ly ~ccepted the presence of the evaluator, there was little eye contact, She continued the theme of the dog and cat throughout the rest of the session. There was a repetitious theme of putting the dog on top of the cat, first inside the carriage and then with the cat on the under carriage but with the dog inside the baby carriage. She was asked if this hurt the cat and how the cat felt, but there was no response. The evaluator asked her about her hurt bottom ;,.nd a.;:,ked her t,o show the ev.a 1 u,;;tor wi l:h ;;. dol J where she was hurt. She ignored this request and did not interrupt her play, although her bod;y posture seemed to stiffen. On at least two occasions she had me 1 i.ft.: he.1..· up by the waist: while she played with objects on the dollhouse balcony. She seemed entirely comfortable with this. At the end of the session she was again aaked if sh~ would show the evaluator using the doll where~her bottom was hurt. She pointed to the anal area on-the doll and again said that she did not know what her father did to hurt her bottom. She denied hurting it while going "poopie". Then as she walking toward to door with her doll she spontaneously sajd "daddy didn't hurt it". In the waiting room she rejoined her father and paterlli:i,l grandmother but b,rnded to App. 71 PSYCUIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELISSA ECKS'l'ROM-HJ\.NSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 16 stay close to her father. ONE HOUR SITSS!ON wx·rn MELISSA HANSEN seemed Melissa was brought to the session by her mother. Melissa reluctant to go with the evaluator and seemed to cling slightly to to her mother. She only agreed to go when the mother agreed obvious walk ht:!r to t:he off ice. She th,~n separated without sh~ protest. She seemed quite emotionally guarded, although with the freely allowed the evaluator to assist in her play and cat. dollhouse. She again focused them~tically on the dog She She referred to the dog as a bay and to the cat as a girl. included the mother, girl, and baby doll in her play but ~lso At generally ignored the grandparents, father, and boy dolls. in the play she excluded the grandfather doll entirely. one point She She repeated a scene of the cat hiding in a garbage can. hut::: said that it wa.s hiding £ror.i the dog and was quite fd.ghtened did noi; want to hurt the cat. Then she reversed the the dog the theme fo have the dog hide in the garbage can but said that bottom and sa.id that. doq ¼'f.H;; r,ot afraid. She ,... as App. 72 ,, i ~ PSYCUIATRIC ASSGSSMCNT RE: MELISSA EClW'rROM-UANSEN ll-26-90 PAGE 17 DISCUSSION This haa been an unusu~lly difficult and complicated evaluation, principally because there has been a long history of difficulties and turmoil that preceded the current issues. The principJe focus of this evaluation is whether or not Melissa has he~n sexually abused, and if so, was it her father who sexually abused her. Th~ evaluation has included both clinical and psychometric assessment of both parents. In part, this evaluation assessed the possibility of sexual deviancy in the father and the question of reliability and emotional instability in the mother. There have been s;condary questions about the roles of the two grandmother's in the present conflicts and their relationship~ with Melissa. Although thi5 evaluation cannot entirely answar all of these questions, it does shed some light on the relevant issues that pertain to these questions. The psycho1ogica] assessment of the father, Sig [Jansen, demonstrates that he has narcissiRtic traits that to some degree interfere with his relationshipR with others and abili to tolerate conflict. lie may at; times be demanding or manipu,l ve. In dealing with conflict he tends to either withdraw o~ react with an9er and impulsive actions. rlis psycholo9ical tasting suggests that he has more difficulty than was readily apparent in the clinical interview. Uowever, in the clinical interview he appeared relatively unguarded and candid. One of the major areas -~£ difficulty is his history of alcohol abuse. AJthough he tenrls minimize this as an actual problem for himself, it is clear that his drinking waa guite substantial during his marriage and the period following the separation. There is indication that he sees alcohol as a potenti~l problem and has taken some steps to both minimize the amount of drinking and to decrease the risks involved, such as not drinkinq while Melissa is with him and taking a taxi on the nights-that he plans ta go drinking. Doth the video tapes that were reviewed and the direct observations of hiR interactions with Melissa suggests that has some minor difficulties in hie ability adequately relate to her. ~t tim0R, he attends more to his internal agenda, wanting her to perform in $Orne wa:yt l:"othEH" than attending to Mel 's cues. Ue has: some tendency to misinterpret her symbolic play in adult terms, for example, reacting to her play with the dog and cat in the dollhouse at an adblt ·1ev~l~ · That is, he tried t~ Melissa £rom having the toy dog and cat sit at the table as he •ight if a dog and cat really were trying to get up on the kitchen chairs at home. In one of the video tapes he also seemed to misread Melissa when he was having her perform for him by jumping into his arms. In that sequence, he eventua]ly put her App. 73 PSYCDIATRIC ASSESSMENT RC:: MELISSA EC!tSTROM-IIANSIZN 11~26-90 PAGE 18 on top of the refrigerator, elicJting a protest from her. nowever, there had been indications earlier that MelisRa was · uncomfortable, which he did not respond to. These are relatively minor difficulties and are not obviously harmful in and of themselves. there ie no indication at all of sexualization in his manner of relating to Melissa. There is also no indication either in the history or the clinical presentation of sexual deviance. Admittedly, this is very difficult to adequately ascertain, hut there is nothing in this evaluation that would lead ~e to suspect sexual deviancy. The psychologic:;i 1 assessmt?:nt. of Lisa Eckstrom is rnore problematic. She has significant narcissistic histrionic and dependent traits. She appears willing to exploit others without regard to their feelinas or concerns. Sha seems never to have fuily emotiona.lly emancip App. 74 PS'iCHlA'l'R re ASSESSMEN'I.' RE: MELISSA. CCIISTROM-HANSl~N 11-26-90 PAGE 19 Melissa is quite appropriate and intact. She has the capacity to accurately attend to Melissats needs and meanings without c.teating overt difficulties. To the extent that:. there are difficulties the~e, they are more subtle and probably outside of her own awareness. A good example of this is the way that she introduced me to Melissa. Although consciously she was making an effort to assist in the process and to reduce Melissa's potential ,;:1nxiety, she unconsciously conveyed he.r own anx iq:ty that this was going to be a potentially difficult situation. This undoubtedly had the effect of subtly making the separation mor~ difficult for Melissa. The nonverbal message did not convey accurately that the evaluator w~s a person that Melissa's mother trusted and felt comfortable with. 'I'be assessment of Melissa suggests that ithe has a strong attachment to h~r mother and a. more ambivalent: or weakened atbichment to her .father. There .are clearly evidence of separation anxiety that sh~ experiences both in the direct observations and by histo~y when Melissa leaves her mother to go with her father or grandmother. Since this kind of anx 1s usually found during this early developmental stage, the degree of separation anxiety that Melissa experiences cannot be said to be ~bnormal. Uowever, it is important Lo recognize that the source of the anx has to d,~aJ wit:::h t.he uncertairity that thB child feels in the relationship with the person she is leaving rather than any t.hr·eat that the child fer:'cls .about the person with ·w1v:::,m she is going. Uowev,~r, it is common for f1 child in this situation to make some kind of statements that would rationalize why she does not want to go. These statements are often a source of conflict and misunderstanding in divorced or divorcing couples where the.re is a br,eak down itt trust i:¼nd cornm1:m ication. That is certainly true of the relationship between Sig and Lisa. Melis,a tends to be a highly functioning child for her age and shows little sign of regression except some reoent clinging to her mothe~ and difficulties at bedtime • Some of the separation anxiety appears to be represented somatically in Melissa by her complaints of abdominal pain when it comes time to ]save to go with her t<1ther or grandmother. Al though she is described ;;.,s: having diarrhea at the Bckstrrnns, Ahe is apparently constipated at the Hansen's. It would not be unusual for this situation to occur even though these symptoms seem paradoxical. There does not appear to be any physical evidence of sexual abuse. The descriptions of the anus on ,July 8 most likely represent a minor rectal pr-olaps:e, t-.rhich is a common pedic;1tric Pl'ob.lem an;:;oc>iated with constipation. The reported vaginal erythema most likely is a result of the recurrent yeast infection that both parents acknowledge Melissa has had. The marks on Melissa's back cannot App. 75 PSYCITIATfUC AssgssMENT RB: MELISSA ECKSTROH-UANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 20 be explained from any of the information available to me through this evaluation. Although it is not clear what caused those marks, there is .no reason to believe that either parent deliberately or unintentionally inflicted them on Melissa. I suspect that they were caused by some natural event during her play at the birthday party at the Eckstrom home. Uowever. this is speculative and not supported by any other information. Melissats statements that her father had touched her genital area and had hurt her are more problematic. Tiowever, her statements here are quite inconsisten~. Uer statements to Linda Dridges were quite graphic and associated with intens~ emotion. Uowever, it is not clear if the emotions represents an actual feeling of having been harmed bv her father or her own internalized conflict about.saying things ~hich she does not believe to be true. In a spontaneous statement to me during her second session, she clearly indicated that her father had not hurt her anal area. This seems to be supported by he~ statements in a video·tape in which she says that her father did not touch her and that her mother h.)d thought these st,":itements "funny''. Despite Melissa• s statements to rne, Linda Dridges, and numerouA other people, that her father has touched her "potty pot", these statement do not seem to be convincing evidence in and of themselves for sexual abUS{:!. '.rhe· assessments of the Hansen's suggest that they are a stabJ e traditional family. The paternal grandmother presents as a secure, experien(:ed care:giv·er and Melissa ap,peil:t'S to have a comfortable, safe relationship with her. This is a relationship that should be Rustained, and their is no convincing reason that it should be disrupted. The evaluaticm of Mr. and Mrs, Ik::,kstrom raises some distm~bing questions. The maternal grandmother is clearly the dominant figure in this family, and maternal grandfather plays a more peripheral role. Mrs. Bckstrom presents as an unhappy, hostile, and guarded person. She seems to be part of a powerful dependant axis, consisting of herself, Lisa, and Melissa. She does not appear to be able to see difficulties in Lisa and is clearly convinced that all of the difficulties that her daughter has had should be blamed on someone else, principally Sig. She was so elosed and hostile that I ~as unable to assess her psychological .,functioning.· Al though she appe~1rs to be an accu.r.~te· h:i.st·t:n.·:lah, one wonders about the degree of disb:>rtion that her own psychology may have in her interpretation of events. Decause of the possibility of skillful concealment, it is always impossible to completmly exclude the po~sibility nf sexual abuse. App. 76 PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: MELJ SSA ECf{STROM-Hl\NSBN 11-26-90 PAGE 21 nowever, in this situation it seems extremely unlikely that sexual abuse has actually occurred. A far more likely possibility is that of the so called »parental alienation syndrome• in which the child progressively gets drawn into a powerful exclusive relationship with one parent as a way of meeting that parent's psychological needs, in this case, Lisa. This is a very difficulty pattern to successfully alter. Uowever, it would suggest that the in time with the father be increased. There might be sufficient rationale for alte~ing the primary residential arrangGrnents for Melissa so that she ac~ually lives with · her father or secondarily with the paternal grandparents. Unfortunately, because of the father's occupation, it is unlikely that he could be more consistently available, and actually assume the primary parental role. This also would seem to be a risky alternative because of the subtle difficulties that Sig has in accurately responding to Melissa. The impact of this alternative on Melissa would be highly unpredictable and probably a mixture of both posit~ve and ive effectA, The most seriously d,;tmaging of them might be $Orne lon9 tcrrn impairment in Melissa's capacity to form secure stable attachments. A more conservative approach would be foe mother Lo continue to he the primary caretaker but to maintain the regular time that Melissa has with her patern~l grandmother and to maximize the available time with her father when he is in town. Decausc the possibility t'riat Sig has se:n1a l deviancy ~nd may have sexual abused M0liss.;:1 is so remote, th~re does not seem to be any adequate or ~ompelling reason to have Sig undergo a ,exual deviancy evaluation, f";V-en though :it: would be easy to see how this could be thought of as a pi:ude:nt. recommendation. CONCLUSIONS The predominance of evidence of this evaluatio11 suggests that there was no sexual abuse of Melissa. A more likely explanation of the issues is that she is developing the so called "pa~ental alienation syndrome" in which she is drawn into a progressively more exclusive relationship with her mother to meet her mother's psychological needs. Also there is no evidence that Sig Hansen hHs a sexual deviancy. llowever, he does have narcissistic traits which interfere, in some degree, in his ability to accurately respond to MeJissa. However, in other ways he appears to be a . .co:mp.etent and caring parer-i.t. - He clea:rlT h~H3 had a··signi·f·icant· problem with alcohol which appears to be under control currently. llis difficulty with alcohol at this time seems to be more of a potential problem which could emerge in the future. Lisa has serious pe1:-sonal ;U;y disturbances with prominent nain:issis:tic histrionic, and dependant traits. She meets the diagnostic App. 77 PSYCTIIATRIC ASSESSMENT RB: MELISSA ECRSTROM-ITANSEN 11-26-90 PAGE 22 for Uistrionic Personality Disorder. This disorder, criteria to treat, all personality disorders, are extremely difficult like insight or no especially ~hen the individual has little for treatment. Despite her psychological difficulties motivation parent. in general a competent, caring and appropriate she is involved a real difficulties in her rehationship vdth Melissa Ile:r relationship subtle drawing of Melissa into a tight excilusive her own dependant needs. Despite Lisa's with her to help meet has psychological difficulties, I doubt that she powerful her in making the deliberately harmed Melissa or actually coached she has undoubtedly statements that Melissa has made. TTowever, consciously encouraged or suggested these statements. RECOMMENDATIONS for sexual deviancy 1} There is no reason to re..fe:r Si.g tJansen evaluation. her father residential arrangeme11te for Mcli8Ba with 2) The ie. eve17 should reb_1r11 to the :Lt· origina 1 unrest.-ic.tcd form, oth,~i- weekend. She Tuesday ~1nd Thm-sday ?.Jfternoon :1 nd every her pa te';rna l should continue to spend that tirne v,,,ith grandmother if her fath0r is not available. her mother as the 31 Melissa should continue to reside with primary residential parent. a qualified 4) Liaa Eckstrom should seek treatment with or psychiatrist. The treating psychologist or psychologist evaluation to psychiatrist should be given a copy of this help guide in the tre,;itment planning. continue in treatmen~ with Linda Oridges, 5) Melissa should copy of H.s.w., and Linda Dridges should also be given a to guide in her treatment of Melissa. Doth this evaluation in Sig shoold be involved with Ms. Dridges L:i.sa and way Ms. assisting in the treatment of Melissa in whatever n~idges deeme appropriate. in which both 6) Melissa should be enrolled in a preschool pa~ents are allowed to participate. submi I; ted by t JED/tvv App. 78 App. 79 ~ ~·-) ~ Renton Plaza Building Southlake· Professional Grou; ·. ~; 1400 Talbot Road South. Suite 203 • Child Psychiatry John E. Dunne. M.D., F.A. P.A. Renton. WA 98055 Wren Hudgins, Ph.D, - Psychology {206) 235· 7383 Barnett M. K~plan, M.D. - Psychiatry C:tinical Assodates Pablo R. Proafio, M,D., P.S. • Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D. - Psycl10fogy Barbara Mayers, Ph.D. - Psyclwlogy lee Carlisle, M.D. - Child Psychiatry Barbara Barry, Ph.D. - Psychology January 16, 1991 Joan Green Ferguson, M.s., A.D. Division of Children and Family Services Dept. of Social and Uealth Service& Dox C-97r BJ12 19000 33rd Ave W, N52-2 Lynnwood, WA 98036 RE: Evaluation of Melissa Eckstrom Dear Ms. Ferguson: Thank you fol'.' sending me the r-esults of the cuJposcopy examination that was preformed on Aug. 3, 1990. I, indeed, did not .have that available to me at the time that I conducted my evaluation or produced my report on my assessment. I also did not have the results of the serology or multiple cultures that were done on July 9, or July 23. Unfortunatelv, none of this additional information is at all conclusive.·: The erythema of the vulva area, the superficial laceration of the posterior fourchette or muscle laxity of the anus can haov~ multiple explanations and thev are cer-tainlY also consistent w::Cth the conclusions that I d.t:'ew~ in my evalu;tion. This additional, although useful, does not alter my basic asses~ment or conclusion. JED/tvv cc: Pete Francis 1600 Seattle Tower., 1.218.Jrd Ave Seattle, WA 98101-3080 David. Kastle 3500 188th Ave SW Lynn;,,:(:i,.::.id, h'A 9::1046 App. 80 Guardian Ad Lilum Report Eckstrom vs Hansen ~s1~ 1-0913 s-3 I .. FEB I I •; ,~ i ,"':, 11 ... \r February 10, 1992 - , ; ,: ; 1 I sur;EEiJH cl)-Ji(T CLi:r~:~: I have prepared this report. as the Court appointed oo~J1hh~~d'.Litum. As the G.AL. my role is to recommend a course of action which I believe will be in the best interest of Melissa. The issue before. the court is whether it is in the best interest of Melissa to resume contact with her father, Sig Hansen, and her paternal grandparents. This necessarily requires resolution of t.vo precursor issues, First; was Jvlclissa the victim of sexual abuse? Secondly, if Melissa was sexually victimized, was Sig Hansen the perpetrator? OPlli'1ON AND RECOM'.tl.mNDATION l can not. determine \Vhether Melissa has been sexually victimized. Assuming she has be.en the victim of sexual abuse, I am of the opinion that Sig Hansen was not the perpetra:or. Based on this opinion 1 am recommending that this court anmv Sig Hansen and his parents to reinstate visitation \\'ith Meliss.a. I have come to this opinion after carefully revie\ving my entire contact ,vith this case (contact whlch has occurred over approximately 20 months), reviewing the professional evalualions, reviewing court documents including depositions, reviewing my numerous contacts 'INith the parties and their attorneys; my phone conversations and interviews, and reviewing other materials which document both the long tem1 family conflicts bet,veen the parties and the allegations of abuse. CHRONOLOGY 05-11-90 to 07-09-90 I received a refom1l from Lisa Eck,,;trom1s attorney, Stuart Scruff, I was appointed the G.AL. on May 15. 1990. I began work by interviewing Lisa Eckstrom and Siguard Hansen. I also interviewed both paternal grandparents. I ob.served the child, 1'1elissa. Eckslrom, with both parent~. observed an exchange during visitation 1 interviewed Elizabeth Stanton, and reviewed accumulated court documents. r also had a number of phone contacts with Lisa and Sig. App. 81 2 Lisa mediate several disagreements between Additionally, I was called upon to and phone contact. and Sig regarding make up visits 07-09-90 room at Hatborview seen by Dr. Paufa Lozano in the emergency McJissa was a reforral statements an.d the doctor\s findings, Medical Center. Based on Lisa's Services. A case worker waB as.signed. ivas made to Children's Protective 07-10-90 order. Edmonds police Sr1<.)homish County court for restraining Lisa petitioned a be set order and ordered the matter to involved. The court denied the re.straining County Family Court. for a hearing the next day in Kirlg 07~11~90 abuse held a hearing. Allegations of sexual King County Commissioner Hershey visits with the father and Commissioner ordered supervised were heard. The was parents and the child. A hearing a psychiatric evaluation of both ordered 1-11~90 hear oral testimony. Prior to the scheduled for the 25th tJf Ju1y to and her supcn:isor, Dr. Gibbons. hearing, I interviewed Dr. Lozano 07# 13~90 1 Sen•iccs and l11e Edmonds police J met with both Children s Protective of August the Edmonds police Near tho end of July or beginning department. have no abuse of McHssa. Sig agreed to arrested Sig Hansen for the sexual investigation. Sig took Melissa until completion of the police further contact with regular grandparents conti@cd to have passed a polygraph test The paternal and RN_, was hired by the During this period, Marilyn Leibert. visits with Me.Jissa. County of possible sexual abuse. Snohmish Hansen's to observe Melissa for signs visit.c; were re-(,umed. declined to prosecute Sig and supervised 08~07-90 I a visit with Melissa. Later in August, At the request of Sig I observed he.r observations during the re.sumed jutcrviewed Elizabeth Stanton regarding supervised visits, 09~03-90 AJHson. The was hdd before King County Commissioner A heaxing a \vith the 7~ J l ~90-ordcr requiring Commissioner ordered Usa to comply was to be done by Dr. Dunn. The psychiatric evaluation. This evaluation a new GAL. Cormnissioner declined to appoint 09-10-90 Dr. Dunn begins his evaluation, App. 82 3 10-I 8-90 ln the middle of Dr. Dunn's evaluation process and contrary to existing court orders Lisa took Melissa to Linda Bridges fgr therapy. On 10-22 after the third session in four days Ms. Bridges infonns Dr. Dunn of her concerns regarding the sexual abuse of Melissa. On l0-23 she makes a fom1al referral to Children's Protective Services. 10~31-90 A dependency petition is filed in Snohomish County Juvenile Court alleging the sexual abuse of Melissa by Sig. The grandparents are at first offered supervised visits and later these are denied. 11-26-90 Dr. Dunn issues his report stat.ing among other things that it is highly unlikely that Sig sexually abused his daughter and that the child's statement~ are a result of Parental Alienation Syndrome. He diagnoses Lisa as Histrionic Personality Disorder and recommends treatment He also recommends the return to unrestricted visitation for the Hansen's. His recommendations are not followed b:y Snohomish county which continues to maintain jur:isdi.ctfon on the case through March 31, 1991, ai. which point they drop the dependency petition. 04-16~91 A. hearing was held before Commissioner Slusher, regarding reinstitution of the Hansen's visitations. Commissioner Slusher ordered a supervised visit with the paternal grandparents in the office of Linda Bridges. He also suggested that a hearing date be set, to hear ora.i testimony, at the earliest possible time. He ordered that there be no cont.act between Melissa and her father, 06-B-91 The paternal grandmother visited wHh Melissa in Ms. Bridges' office. Melissa sat jn Ms. Bridges' lap the entire time. refused to acknowledge the grand:mother, and appeared to fall asleep. No further visits were attempted. 07-03-91 Stuart Greenberg begins a sexual deviance evaluation of Sig. He concludes that it is highly unlikely that Sig is a sexual deviant His evaluation of Sig parallels that of Dr. Dunn's. Both find it unlikely that Sig ,vmdd sexually abuse others, particulady his daughter. Dr. Greenberg believes Sig has more difficulties with alcohol and impulsive outbursts than noted by Dr. Dunn. 01-14-92 Dr. Dunn updated his evaluation. He again concludes that it is highly unlikely App. 83 - - 4 that Parental Alienation that Sig sexualiy abused ~,:teJissa. He concludes Melissa's disclosure. He Syndrome is the most .likely explanation for his parental righti:;. He reasons that recommends that Sig he allowed to relinquish MeHssa could cause further an attempt to reest.ablish parental bonds i.vith devefopmental disturbances for Melissa. SU~fiv!ARY OF CONTACTS 05~11-90 One hour interview Lisa Eckstrom. and patents. 05-l 1=90 One hour interview Sig Hansen 05-18-90 One hour intervie\-v Lisa and Melissa. 05-18-90 One, hour interview Sig Hansen. Stanton. 05-25-90 One hour interview Elizabeth 05-25-90 Two hour rcvie,v of court records. Melissa and paternal grnndparenfs. 06-09-90 T\vo hour inlervfow Sig Hansen, accumulated phone contacts Lisa and Sig. 06-09-90 through 7-5-90 One hour of and Family Court hearing. Six hours Interview at Harborview Hospital 07-11-90 Alden Protective Services, Detective Jones, and 07-12-90 Phone contacts 1,vith Children's Garret, one hour. Protective Services and Edmonds Police 07-13-90 Three hours meeting with Children's Dcpaitmcnt with Melissa and paternal grandparents. 08~07-90 One and one, half hours interview Stanton. 08-15-90 One half hour meeting with Eli7,,.aheth 09-03~90 Four hour Family Court hearing, 10-31-90 Four hour Juvenile Court hearing. Dunn. 11-07-90 One hour intotview Dr. John with Linda Bridges and Melissa. 04-08-9 I One hour observation of interview 04-08-91 One hour interview with Lisa Eckstrom. Bridges. 04-11-91 One, hour interview with Unda grandmot11er. 04-12-91 One hour interview with matema.l grandparents. 04-12-91 One hour inte:rvie\v \Vith. paternal 04-12~91 One hour interview With Sig Hansen. 04-16-91 Four hour Family Court hearing. Linda Bridges' office between 111atcmal 06-13¼9 I. One hour observation of' visit at g;andmothcr and Melissa App. 84 5 01-22-92 One hour interview with Dr. Greenberg regarding results of sexual deviancy evaluation. 0l-23w92 One half hour interview witlt Lisa. Her attorney Peter Frances was present 01-25-92 One hour interview with Linda Bridges. 02-04-92 One hour interview witl'i Ken Hutchenson, Lisa's cmmselor 02wl0~92 One hour interview with Sig. In addition to face to face interviews a number of phone contacts \Vere made during the course of this case, J have also reviewed a large number of court docmnenis as well as written material obtained from the attomeys representing both parties. The above briefly deSctibes my involvement \vith this case. One earlier event., documented in the court mes, is also worthy of note. This event occurred in January of 1989. ln l 989, the original court evaluator commented on the apparent lack of suppmi Lisa or her mother vvould lend to the task of Melissa forming a relationship with her father. This evaluator recommended that both patties submit to a family psychiatric evaluation and that both parti.es participate in counseling. Neither of these recommendations \Vere followed. DISCUSSION I originally spoke with Mr. Scarff who relayed infomrntion regarding an allegation that Melissa had been sexually abused by Sig. Base.cl on this, I intervfowed Sig, Lisa and Sig's parents. My clinical impressions at that time did not lead me to conclude that sexual abuse had occumed. I also spoke ·with Elizabeth Stanton who, after making independent observations, concurred \Vith me. Later, I became aware of the polygraph te...;,;t result and three separate evaluations of Sig, au of which supported my and Ms. Stanton's observations. I later received information regarding the physical findings of Dr. Lozano. Although the medical findings were inconclusive, I found them very disturbing. l began to investigate my concerns and spoke with both the examining doctor and her supervisor. The examining doctor made a report to CPS. I later spoke with CPS regarding the medical findings. The evidence I found whic.h supported the notion of Mr. Hansen as the perpetrator were statements made by Lisa regarding Melissa's disclosures and a history of previous physical and sexual abuse given to the emergency room doctor by Lisa. App. 85 6 Although Lisa's statements concerned me I viewed them in the context of previous allegations made to the original court evaluator which were unsubstantiated. On March 28, 1990, Lisa made a referral to CPS which generated both a CPS and Edmonds police investigation. During these investigations Lisa stated that Melissa was fearful and showing regressive behavior. None of this information was given to me during my initial investigation. This infonnation , and the infonnation now compiled before this court makes this a difficult care. If the court were to find that Sig sexually abused his daughter, resuming visitation would be unthinkable. However, after my involvement with this case, I find the Parental Alienation Syndrome diagnosis offered by Dr. Dunn, as the most credible explanation for the conflicting opinions in this case. The early court documents support such a notion. Clearly, Lisa has never encouraged visitation \'i.,ith the Hanscns, She has consistenUy sought to limit, restrict, and control l'vfelissa's access to the Hansens. This started as early as Lisa's attempt,:; to prove that Sig was not Melissa's b1ological father. According to Dr. Dunn's view Melissa was subconsciously drnwn into a tight, exclusive relationship viriU1 her mother and maternal grandmother and began to identify with their anger and fear of the Hansen family. The behavior of though not fully explained, is of the type known and documented in other family law cases, The difficulties in this case are not easily resolved because the professional opinions are so obviously polarized. The responses from the various professionals who have sought to investigate, evaluate; treat and protect 1-felissa from a nmnber of real or .imagined dangers is difficult to understand. Certainly the allegation of sexual abuse provokes a strong emotional response. One expects this in parents, relatives, and family friends of the alleged victim. One hopes, however, that the professionals charged with investigating and evaluating such allegations will bring to the problem the objectivity needed in decision making. I hclievc the polarization has occurred because those professionals who believe that Sig is the perpetrator of Melissa's possible sexual abuse have consciously chosen to disregard information which does not confom.1 to one or the others preconceived notions. Those ,vho believe Sig to be the perpetrator have never interviewed him, nor have they observed the interaction between Sig and Melissa. They have never sought the observations of myself or Elizabeth Stanton, and most importantly, have virtually ignored the long history of family court involvement in this matter. App. 86 7 When I originally spoke with the CPS An example of this occurred withln CPS. children, not to investigate. Later supervisor she stated that their job was to protect disregard the family court history and focus Diane Chesterfield stated that she chose to evidence. She also chose to ignore Dr. only on Melissa's stalements and the physical the observations of Elizabeth Stanton. Dunn's evaluation, Sig's polygraph test, and she did not interview Sig. She did not observe Though she was aware of this information with her paternal gr,mdparcnts before Melissa with Sig, nor did she observe MeHssa later djsmissed. .filing the dependency petition, which was of Children's Protective Services did a According to Ms . .Bridges the Lynnwood office Ms. Bridges has also ignored the family job of protecting Melissa for six months, good v,dth others who have observed Melissa's behavior court history, Dr. Dunn's report, and treated Melissa for the effects of trauma the Hanscns. Over the last year she has stated the court appointed evaluator has clearly associated with sexual abuse even though was not based on a thorough an event probably never occurred. Her assessment that such a It was based on her clinical judgement of eval:uation of all of the relevant information. 1 in her office. I find Ms. Bridges' assessment two and one half year o1d child s heha,vior CPS and their subsequent zeal in protecting methodology puzzHng. Her statements to Melissa's alienation from her father, which this child from her fatl1er has compounded may be imeparable. indicated a ,villingncss to participate in a In spite of Dr. Dunn ts evaluation, .Mr. Hansen l 99L Yet the evaluation did not take Sexual Deviance evaluation as early as March, 199.1, it was suggested that oral testimony place until July. At the court hearing in April, Fcbruary,1992 for this to be scheduled, a full be given immediately, yet it has t.aken until but. this lengthy delay has eight months later. Some defay is understandable, of l\·1elissa from the Han sens. compounded the clinically documented alienation of ChHdren's Protective Services, and the The conrt delays, the over zealous behavior and treatment of Melissa have an ,vell meaning but iU advised clinical assessment the Eckstrom family lo alienate Melissa from actively supported lhe original impulse of whatever relationship Mei.issa had ·with the the Hanscns. Dr. Dunn has suggested llial that the trauma associated with a Haoscns no longer exists. He is concerned worth the risks involved. I strongly suspect reestablishing their relationship may not be to disagree with Dr. Dunn1s view agrees witi1 this asse..;,sment It is difficult Ms. Bridges In is at stake than Mefo:;sa;s short term, development for the short term. Howevcr1 more App. 87 fact, the long term effect of Melissa having no contact with the Hansen's may be severe indeed. Recent literature on adoption suggests that an adopted child's need to know about his or her birth parents is critical to later developmental tasks. Professi.onals in this field have responded by promoting Life Books about birth parents and supported the chiJd's need to know about their birth parents. The recent trend to,vard open adoptions is also an example of this change. Questions refated to "who am l? Where did I come from? and who are my relatives?'' are all important as one approaches the developmental task of identity formation. If One must assume that Melissa, like other children, \ViU one day ask these questions. there is no further contact between Melissa and Mr. Hansen the answers to these questions will be given from the perspective of Lisa and her family. Given Dr. Dunn's diagnosis Qf the mother and description of the dependent triad consisting of Li.sa, Meli~.;;a, and the maternal grandmother, difficult issues related to separation and individuation may arise for Melissa. She is already described as fearful nf men and as isolated in her play at day care. One nrnst aEk what difficulties this child might likely experience and how these problems \vm be understood. Lisa dearly does not take responsibility for the difficulties she creates. She consistently describes herself as a victin1 of events, compelled to do things because those in authority tcU her it must be done. This inability to accept responsibility, coupled \Vith a sanctioned myth of sexual abuse, may combine to reinforce the notion that normal developmental. conflicts associated with identity formation may be seen and treated as a symptom of prior sexual abuse. It is clear that Sig has many difficulties of his own. It is also clear that at one point Sig and his parents had a healthy relationship with Melissa. This relationship may have effectively hecn destroyed by the combination of events that make up this very difficult case. If the cou1i believes that the sexual abuse of Melissa by her father was unlikely burthen refuses contact I believe the court will inevitably compound Melissa's problems by reinforcing a myth tl1,at wm foUow Melissa into her aduU life. It will reinforce the notion that the Hansens ,vere evil and dangerous people who refused to protect her, and that her father not only did not love her but was a very bad and sick man who horribly abused App. 88 9 her. It would also reinforce the image of Melissa as a victim and, given her mother as her only model, may perpetuate the generational damage that has already occurred in Lisa Eckstrom. The dangers inherent in no further contact are at least as real M the probable trauma associated ,vith attempts at reunification of Melissa with the Hansens. CONCLUSION 1 do not believe that Sig sexually abused J:vielissa. There are risks associated with the reinstitution of visitation. However, the risb inherent in no further contact are at least a.s great. The inconclusive physical findings are disturbing. I do not rnle out that something happened to Melissa, only that it is tmHkly that. Sig is the perpetrator. \Vith this in mind I recornmend the following: L That visitation be reinstated. 2. That a female GAL be appointed who's task it would be to establish a relationship, first. with Melissa (Ms, Bridges May be helpful in this process), and later wii.h both Lisa and Sig. The GAL \vould initially supervise the visits with 1Mclis.sa and the Hans.ens, providing all transportation in the beginning. 3. That Lisa remain in counseling on a regular ba.~is and that Sig begin treatment with a certified therapist to work on his anger and alcohol related difficulties. The therapist should also help him to understand the trauma Melissa rnay experience during the nmnification process. Victor Larson M.S.W. App. 89 FI l E K!NG C.OUNTr WA.SH!i'{GTQN # List of Exhibit,. MAR 191992 SUPERIOR oom=rr CLERK SY UJJRIE KENDfo.LL f 1.1 se No. s 7 ... 3 .. o 9135 - 3 OE?UTV fil ti , t~: ..~ Dept. No. ___g:____ Page-·~1 of k :rn Rt 71?.e marria'?- of: @d _.Lis& l>awa lian.-.s£...... ti. ____ll S(jwd J_ 11@_,,,s;-4'.e::....,,,~"'---__ IV No. 7r ..0,. /R Date Re-0 & A 1 2 3 MARO 3 1992 MARO 3 1992 I I MARO 3 1992 MARO 4 1992 MARO 4 t992 15 ' /16 t,,__-~-r--t--"-~~-~-..:::z.---~-f----!--1r-m[l!.!-!::._::_..::.===--4-___---lf---f-...... J..---U- J_~ 7~~--U~ULl¥m.1l2QU'4!J~tll.l)J.~.'---'-t-~M_AR_0_5_19_92--+---~--.ff------h-.J_., .... ,lL- l 11Q8 ~· ~C-bp~ r(f?«t cf -+"-Lf--M_AR_· _0_5_i9__ 92-¼-~---l4---J.-...l~- .\,,-/_19--...J-.~~41:·~J ~-~~~~~A. MAR O5 1992 7r = Plaintiff!Petitioner AIR =::: Admitted/Refused .a. = Defendant/ Respondent t~s~ Re~O & A = Re~ottered & Admitted ID = For ldentifrcation Only W ~-- Withdrawn (Returned to Counsel or Retained by the Court) App. 90 "· List of Exhibit- SUPt:t:'J:,R 00/JRT Cl.ERK Cause No. 8 7 .. 3 .. O 9 13 5 • 3 BY LAURIE KENDALL ., DEPUTY Dept. No. 'o / Page 2... . of LL____ _ \...\~A OAWti i:lAtJ~ g. 61eu.eo (f. ttANilal. I No. 1r A Description ¾ Date Re•O & A 10 F\}RJ~;~~lw MARO 5 1992 ?l) X ~.... '\~.,\~~~~~ A jif¥ . . ( · ta,+/~ of ~.,;I MARO 5 1992 '1ZL - ~ 111_ful~1 ~ d Childt.A/t&MIM A MAR 1 8 1992 \ i2z_ ---, ~ ~et 4 ·- {Jo~#~~et>pies n~ms an ?tU!ln.fs I fl_ MAR 1 8 1992 ;;...,..,.,;.w,,_,..,,,~ Jii[23 .. XIp,;: m/<.:.sjL 1/anSUI.. MAR 1 8 1992 (2.t/ /Jlh-,-/t5S_W~J{!Jig._$~s If '- ,-··· lr----· rx ~ ·- I~ )( J ~<'/JIAJdt'rrn r I MAR 1 8 1992 15 l"l"D IJIihfNitt!W " I J '✓ . l ., ,, ! .. . . __l_ ~- App. 91 1-lK, _s_o_u_th_l_a_ke_P_r_o_fe_s_s_i_o_n_a_l_G_r_o_u_p______Pu~~ES======R=e=n=to=n=P=l=a_z_a=_B~u_i=ld=in=g John E. Dunne, M.D., F.A.P.A. - Child Psychiatry 1400 Talbot Road South. Suite 203 Wren Hudgins, Ph.D. - Psychology Renton, WA 98055 Barnett M. Kaplan, M.D. - Psychiatry 1fEP•tCT (206) 235-7383 Clinical Associates Pablo R. Proano, M.D., P.S. - Psychiatry Janis P. Mayberry, Ph.D. - Psychology Barbara Mayers, Ph.D. - Psychology Barbara Barry, Ph.D. - Psychology Sherry Hanan, Ph.D. • Psychology SUPPLEMENTAL PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT RE: PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR MELISSA ECKSTROM-HANSEN JANUARY 14, 1992 Mother: Father: Lisa Dawn Eckstrom, age 26 Sigurd Johnny nansen, age 25 7503 228th Avenue SW 17107 76th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 774-6409 745-2065 Attorney for Mother: Attorney's for Father: Peter D. Francis David J. Ordell 1600 Seattle Tower 705 2nd Avenue, Suite 401 1218 3rd Avenue Iloge Duilding Seattle, WA 98103-3080 Seattle, WA 98104 682-9910 624-0130 David I Dependent Child: Melissa Dawn Eckstrom-llansen Age: 3 years, 9 months DOD: 04/22/88 IDENTIFYING DATA AND REASON FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION: Melissa is the only child from the marriage of her parents, Sig nansen and Lisa Eckstrom. An evaluation of Melissa and her parents is described in a report by this evaluator, dated November 26, 1990. Since then, the issues continue to be unresolved. Lisa continues to maintain that Melissa was sexually abused by her father and should not have further contact with App. 92 IlANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE TliO him. Sig denies that he ever sexually mistreated Melissa, contends that Lisa has tried to exclude him all along, and has pressed for resumption of regular time with Melissa. Children's Protective Services has supported the contention that Melissa was sexually abused by her father and has barred any contact by Melissa with Sig since the last report •. The issues are scheduled to be heard in court in February of 1992. This evaluator requested the supplemental evaluation for two reasons: 1. To update this evaluator on any changes in the parties, particularly Melissa, since the prior evaluation, and 2. To re-examine the conclusions in the prior report based on additional information. SOURCES OE' INFORMATION: For the purpose of this supplemental evaluation the following interviews were conducted: 11-07-91 One hour interview with Tonee L. Wax, Sig llansen's girlfriend. 12-18-91 One hour session with the father, Sig Uansen. 12-20-91 One hour session with Melissa Eckstrom-Uansen at the office of Melissa's therapist, Linda Dridges, MSW. 12-27-91 One hour interview with her mother, Lisa Eckstrom. The following telephone calls have occurred since the previous evaluation was completed: 12-03-91 TC from Krystal Silva, guardian ad !item for Melissa Eckstrom-Uansen. 12-03-91 TC from Elizabeth Stanton, former supervisor for Melissa's visits with her father. 03-22-91 TC from Marcy Droder, paralegal for David J. Ordell. 03-26-91 TC from Marcy Droder. 04-03-91 TC from Marcy Droder. 04-10-91 TC from Mary Gibbons, M.D., Medical Director of the Sexual Assault Center. 04-10-91 TC from Vic Larson, former guardian ad !item for Melissa Eckstrom-llansen. 04-18-91 TC from Marcy Droder. 04-19-91 TC to David Ordell, attorney for father. 04-26-91 TC from Marcy Droder. 07-22-91 TC from Dr. Greenberg's office. 07-23-91 TC to Stuart Greenberg, Ph.D. 08-12-91 TC from David Ordell. 08-26-91 TC from Marcy Droder. 08-27-91 TC from Stuart Greenberg, Ph.D. App. 93 UANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE TIIREE 09-09-91 TC from David Kastle, attorney 09-18-91 for father. TC to Lynda Dridges, MSW, Melissa's therapist. 09-25-91 TC from David Ordell. 10-24-91 TC from Marcy Droder. 10-30-91 TC from Marcy Droder. 11-04-91 TC from Marcy Droder. 11-05-91 TC from Lisa Eckstrom. 11-07-91 TC from David Ordell. 11-11-91 TC from Sig llansen. 11-11-91 TC from Lynda Dridges' office. 11-12-91 TC from Lynda Dridges' office. 12-12-91 TC from David Ordell. 12-13-91 TC from Marcy Droder. 12-16-91 TC from Sig Uansen. 12-31-91 TC from Anita at office of Peter Francis, attorney mother. for The following documents have been received and reviewed original report: since the 01. Therapy notes for Melissa Eckstrom-Ilansen by Lynda Dridges, MSW, dated January 9, 1990, and various dates from October 12, 1990 to May 3, 1991. 02. Medical records from llarborview Medical Center Sexual Assault Center with various dates from July 8, 1990 to April 17, 1991. 03. Letter to Diane Chesterfield, Child Protective Services, from Lynda Dridges, MSW, dated November 5, 1990. 04. Letter Re: Melissa Eckstrom-Hansen from Lynda Dridges, MSW, dated December 21, 1990. 05. Letter to Mary Gibbons, M.D. from Joan Green Ferguson, MS, dated January 10, 1991. 06. Letter to the evaluator from Joan Green Ferguson, MS, dated January 10, 1991. 07. Letter to Joan Green Ferguson, MS, from the evaluator dated January 16, 1991. 08. Letter to Whom It May Concern from the evaluator dated March 29, 1991. 09. Responsive Declaration of Mary Gibbons, M.D., dated April 10, 1991. 10. Notice of Association by David J. Ordell and David A. Kastle, dated April 10, 1991. 11. Responsive Declaration of Lynda Dridges, MSW, dated April 11, 1991. 12. Deposition Upon Oral Examination of Lynda Dridges, MSW, dated May 6, 1991. 13. Letter to the evaluator from Peter D. Francis, dated 1991. May 24, 14. Letter to the evaluator from Peter D. Francis, 1991. dated June 4, App. 94 HANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE FOUR 15. Letter to Mr. Seth Dawson, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Snohomish County, from Ronald T. Eckstrom, dated July 11, 1991. 16. Letter to the evaluator from David J. Ordell, dated August 16, 1991. 17. Motion for Reconsideration of Court Commissioner's Ruling of the Honorable Carlos Velategui (a document from an unrelated case sent by David J. Ordell), dated August 29, 1991. 18. Declaration of Lisa Eckstrom in opposition to additional examination in evaluation by Dr. Dunne, dated October 30, 1991. 19. Declaration of Peter D. Francis in opposition to motion for second evaluation by Dr. Dunne, dated October 30, 1991. 20. Family Law Order, dated November 1, 1991. 21. Letter to the evaluator from Marcy Droder, paralegal for David J. Ordell, dated November 4, 1991. 22. Rebuttal to Dr. Dunne's report by Lisa Eckstrom, dated December 10, 1990. 23. Letter to the evaluator from Todd c. Nichols, attorney for the mother, dated December 24, 1991. 24. Letter to the evaluator from Peter D. Francis, dated December 30, 1991. 25. Subpoena Duces Tecum to the evaluator from Peter D. Francis, dated December 30, 1991. 26. Notice of Records Deposition to the evaluator from Peter D. Francis, dated December 30, 1991. 27. Letter to Peter D. Francis from the evaluator dated December 31, 1991. 28. Affidavit of llarald Simon, dated January 7, 1992. 29. Affidavit of Timothy aartman, dated January 8, 1992. 30. Letter to the evaluator, from Peter D. Francis, dated January 20, 1992. 31. Gordon c. Naqayama-Ilall, et. al., "Utility of the MMPI with Men Who Dave Sexually Assaulted Children," Journal of Consulting and Clinical PsychologY.• 1986 Volume 54, No. 4, pp. 493-496, received January 20, 1992. 32. Gordon c. Nagayama-Ilall, et. al, Validity of Physiological Measures of Pedophilic Sexual Arousal in a Sexual Of~ender Population, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1988 Volume 56, No. 1, pp 118-122, received January 20, 1992. RELEVANT INTERIM IIISTORY: Since the prior evaluation Melissa has had no contact with her father. Visits with the paternal grandmother, Mrs. llansen, were to resume in March but Lisa resisted that by not being home with Melissa when Mrs. Ilansen came over to pick her up. Subsequently, a session was arranged for Melissa to be with Mrs. Ilansen at App. 95 [JANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE FIVE Lynda Dridges' office as a way of easing this transition. Melissa's reaction during that session was quite dramatic. She essentially avoided Mrs. llansen, withdrawn and seemingly fell asleep. Since September, 1991, Melissa has been attending preschool two days a week and also a dance class. She continues to see Lynda Dridges, MSW, for therapy once a week. Predominantly she plays with her cousins, 8 year old Lishia and 6 year old Jenny. She is described by her mother as being somewhat shy, sometimes reluctant to separate from her mother, but otherwise functioning well. Mrs. Eckstrom continues to be involved in the daily care of Melissa and is generally the one who brings Melissa to her sessions with Lynda Dridges. There have been two babies born into the Eckstrom family in November and December of 1991, one to the maternal aunt, Marcie, and the other to Lisa's sister-in-law. Sig continues to work as a commercial fisherman on his father's fishing boat in Alaskan waters. As before, he is gone for several weeks to two months on an intermittent basis. Ile has apparently assumed more responsibility for repairs, maintenance and preparation of the boat. Lisa started working in January, 1991, as a receptionist at a Japanese-owned import/export company. In about June or July she was promoted to handling the accounts receivables. She works seven hours a day, five days a week, in downtown Seattle. She and Melissa are generally able to meet for lunch once a week when Melissa comes for her session with Lynda Dridges, MSW. Sig started dating Tonee Wax during the summer of 1990. Ile had met Tonee through his friend Johann in early 1987 and had dated her a few times when, as Sig described, he was still trying to get rid of Lisa. Doth he and Tonee indicated that after they started dating again he was very slow to open up to Tonee and trust her. Doth indicate that the relationship is very stable but that their relationship is "on hold" while the legal issues are still unresolved. Lisa also has been dating a man named Steve for about six months. She met Steve when he came to the office where she works to repair their computer. She describes Steve as more of a "day to day person," someone who obviously feels comfortable doing relatively mundane things like watching T.V. or going to the store with her. She contrasted that with Sig, "who was always on the go, wanting to do something all the time." She says that it has been much easier for her to feel that she really knows Steve and likes that he does not use drugs and drinks only rarely. She says that she has developed a kind of trust in him that she never had with Sig. She described Melissa as initially being somewhat shy with Steve as she is with most men. nowever, she says that now Melissa likes him and enjoys playing with him. Despite her trust in Steve, he has never been with Melissa by himself. App. 96 IIANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE SIX Lisa's reaction to my report was apparently very intense and angry. This obviously made it very difficult for her to agree to and participate in the update of this evaluation. I received a very angry call from Krystal Sylva on December 3, 1991, shortly after my report was released. Uowever, she had not seen the report but had only talked to Lisa Eckstrom, apparently conveying a sense of outrage that was consistent with Lisa's perspective on my evaluation. There was another incident which also suggests the intensity of Lisa's feelings that has occurred following the release of my report. This occurred at a restaurant where Sig and Tonee Wax were dining together. As they prepared to leave Sig was attacked by a young woman he did not know who was screaming at him that he was a "child molester" and pulling hair. his INTERVIEW WITII SIGURD HANSEN'S GIRLFRIEND, TONEE WAX: Tonee Wax is a blond attractive neatly dressed woman who bears some similarity in her appearance to Lisa Eckstrom. She was clearly eager to talk with the evaluator and express her concerns. She clearly has a strong attachment to and affection for Sig nansen. She believes it is inconceivable that Sig would have sexually misused Melissa or harmed her in any way. She believes that the allegations are entirely a plot by Lisa as a way of getting rid of Sig. She talked at length about her relationship with Sig and her observations of him and the Oansen family. She recalled meeting Melissa and observing Melissa with her father and grandparents. She recalled Melissa's question to her "Do you like my mommy? My mommy doesn't like my daddy." Although her comments and recollections about Lisa, whom she had distantly known as an upperclassman at high school, were consistently negative, her reflections on Sig appeared more balanced and reliable. For example, when she was giving a relatively detailed account of his drinking patterns, she acknowledged that he drinks with his commercial fishing friends and that this sometimes "gets out of hand." Ilowever, she says that with herself and his friends from high school, he drinks very little. She acknowledged that much of what she knew ·about Lisa she knows only indirectly by rumor and reputation and from Sig. Overall she appeared to be a reliable historian. INTERVIEW WITD SIGURD IIANSEN: Sig was casually dressed in jeans and a print shirt for his interview. De has collar length hair and appears somewhat heavier than when he was interviewed a year ago. Although he appeared to have a tense demeanor he seemed open in talking with this evaluator. Ile responded openly when asked about a variety App. 97 IIANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE SEVEN of issues, providing more detail than in the prior evaluation. Uowever, he was obviously more angry about what has been happening, both having his relationship with Melissa barred and the enormous cost of the litigation which he feels is a waste. Ile continues to believe that Lisa is pursuing these allegations because she enjoys doing this to him. De expressed relief that Melissa had never seen him without clothes, believing that he probably would have been arrested and jailed if she had. Ile expressed regret that his family had not been more open about girls or that he had a sister so that he would not have been so naive and awkward when he had been dating Lisa. SESSION WITil MELISSA ECKSTROM-IlANSEN: This session was arranged to be at Lynda Dridges' office, so that the setting would be more familiar to Melissa. Melissa was standing next to her mother who was seated in Lynda Dridges' waiting room when I came in. Neither Melissa nor her mother acknowledged me when I arrived. Melissa turned her back and then crawled onto her mother's lap. Lisa seemed somewhat uneasy and carried on a conversation with the office secretary. After I went into Lynda Dridges' office, Lynda Dridges talked with Melissa in the waiting room about where to meet with me. Melissa was whining and clinging to her mother, clearly very reluctant to go with Ms. Dridges. Eventually, Melissa went with Lynda Dridges to the playroom and I joined them a few moments later. Melissa was clinging to Lynda Dridges, not wanting to engage in any play and avoiding Lynda Dridges' efforts to engage her in play. I sat down on a pillow about four or five feet distant from Melissa and shortly afterwards Lynda Dridges left in the pretext of getting some clean paper for drawing. Shortly after Lynda Dridges left Melissa seemed to relax. She started talking with me and showed me her elaborate Christmas outfit which had three elves on it with legs sticking down. As she relaxed she became more playful, for example, teasing me about the number of legs on her dress. She then played with a stacking toy, actively involving me. I asked her about her living arrangements and she noted that she still lives with her mother at her grandparents house, that she has a cat named Muffet and two dogs, Dosco (?) and Duchess. She made no response when I asked if her mother had a boyfriend. After playing with the stacking toys for awhile she shifted to drawing a picture. I asked her about preschool. Initially she denied that she went to preschool and only went to dance school. Later she acknowledged that she went to preschool but did not know the name of her teacher there. She spoke affectionately about her dance teachers, Jenny and Karen. When I asked about playing with other children at the preschool, she said that she does not play with any of the children there and only draws pictures. She explained that she did not like playing with other App. 98 IIANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE EIGIIT children and preferred playing by herself. Later she playing with her referred to two cousins, Lishia and Jenny. She she was upset that said that Jenny did not think she drew very well. this time she wanted to About go to the bathroom and explained that mother had to take her her in. When we got up to leave the play to find her mother in the room waiting room, she spontaneously held my hand. We encountered Lynda Dridges along the way who took her to the bathroom. After her return she hand' again spontaneously held my when we walked back to the playroom. engaged After we were re in play, I asked her about her never daddy. She said that she thought about him and did not miss why she him. When I asked her did not see her father, she said that mean. When her daddy had been I asked her to explain she just gestured finger held some with her distant above her in a wiggling motion, someone getting ready like to tickle her. She pointed to her area and explained that vaginal he had used his finger on the front (vaginal) of her "potty part pot." She seemed relatively calm talking about this and it in did not seem to disrupt play. She resumed drawing and had a playful demeanor. into Iler drawing evolved a silly drawing of me which had a similar playful teasing quality, to her way of relating in session. the earlier part of the During this part of the session I asked wished she had her if she ever a daddy. She said yes, that she wished would be her daddy that Steve and referred to him as "mommy's friend." said that he is She nice but did not add any further detail what he was like or what about he did that she liked about him. When told her that it was time 1· to stop, she seemed reluctant to stop playing but did so without protest. Again as we were leaving the room, she spontaneously reached up and held my little finger as we went back to Lynda Dridges' waiting mother. room where we met her llowever, after she rejoined her mother withdraw again. she seemed to INTERVIEW WITil LISA ECI{STROM: This appointment was arranged for one week after the session with Melissa, in part to obtain follow-up about Melissa's reaction to her session with me. Lisa was casually the session and neatly dressed for and had below shoulder length hair. quite anxious She was clearly and guarded and immediately presented critique of me with a my prior report. She readily acknowledged uncomfortable she was how with this interview and indicated that had wanted to bring her attorney. she She believed that I had not listened to what she had said, although about she was not concerned my professionalism when I raised that Although she as a possible issue. seemed to relax and become more open progressed, she as the session always seemed somewhat guarded throughout session. She provided the new information to me about Melissa's reactions following her initial sessions with me a year ago. She App. 99 [JANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE NINE also clarified her characterizations of Melissa's reactions after she returned from her visits with Sig as well as the session that she had with Mrs. llansen at Lynda Dridges' office. She indicated that Melissa was excessively tired and that rather than having constipation she complained of a stomach ache and had some diarrhea. She clarified that Melissa never had had problems with constipation. She indicated that Melissa had no apparent adverse effect following her session with me. She said that Melissa's separation anxiety at her session with me was somewhat worse than she had expected but acknowledged that she had never left Melissa with a stranger before. She described again in detail the things that Melissa has said that lead her to believe that Sig sexually abused her on more than one occasion. She finds it astounding that anyone could not believe Melissa and just call this parental alienation syndrome. Despite her obvious discomfort in the session she was cooperative and appears to be a reliable.historian. DISCUSSION: This has been an unusually complicated and contentious situation and both sides find themselves highly polarized. What at one time was simply a conflict between two parents about the arrangements for the child visiting the non-residential parent has become even more highly charged with the possibility that the child, Melissa, may have been sexually abused by her father, Sig Uansen. My initial findings and formulation are summarized in a report dated November 26, 1990. This evaluation was undertaken because the case is about to come to court for trial. It is imperative because of the long time span since the initial evaluation that I had the opportunity to reassess developments, particularly with Melissa, since then. It has also given me the opportunity to evaluate new data and to re-examine data that was available at the time of the original evaluation. This summary will attempt to touch on my thinking about all of the major issues relevant to my current conclusions. First, let me comment on factual errors that appeared in my initial report. Lisa Eckstrom has pointed out a number of them to me in a written critique dated December 10, 1990. Although most of these are useful in correcting minor factual inaccuracies, most do not bear directly on the psychological assessment. Ilowever, many of them also seemed more defensive in their content. llowever, there are some aspects of the original evaluation that were underemphasized and do have a bearing on my overall evaluation. I will try to highlight these areas in this discussion. App. 100 IIANSEN EVALDATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE TEN Missy, as she is generally known and who is now approaching four years of age, continues to be a verbal, well functioning child. She apparently has adjusted well in her current family setting. She has a close relationship with her mother and presumably maternal grandmother and also has an affectionate relationship with her mother's boyfriend. She is apparently functioning well in a preschool setting, although she may have a tendency to be somewhat shy and to play by herself. Despite this description of her functioning, she appears to be a very sociable child. There is still some suggestion of separation anxiety suggested by her reluctance to start preschool in September, 1991 and her reluctance to separate from her mother and from Lynda Dridges, MSW, during my session with her in December. llowever, this is certainly confounded by the rather intense negative feelings that Lisa has toward me. It seems remarkable that after so many months the mere mention of my name would have sent Melissa into acute distress as described in Lisa's affidavit of October 30, 1991. It is also remarkable that after Lynda Dridges left Missy in the playroom with me, her demeanor toward me changed fairly rapidly. Within a minute she was not only playing but actively including me in her play. This is in contrast to her clinging behavior when Lynda Dridges, MSW, was still in the room with her. Iler playfulness and willingness to talk with me as well as her seeking out my hand to hold as we walked down the hallway, also contrasts with her mother's description of her being shy with men. In comparing this with my earlier evaluation of her, she also seemed more relaxed and comfortable. This may reflect the preparation that Missy had for the session by her therapist, Lynda Dridges, MSW. Lisa also confirmed that there were no obvious signs that Missy had been distressed by her seeing me again, although she had seemed somewhat tired and irritable immediately afterward. In the initial evaluation Missy had been quite adamant that her father had hurt her anal area. Iler enactment at the time was rather confusing, since she put the buttock areas of the male and female dolls together in a back to back position, even though she had indicated that he had hurt her with his "pee pee."· This reference is further confused by a notation from Lynda Dridges that Missy has "two potty pots," presumably referring to the anal and vaginal areas. A further note, made on October 19, 1990, indicated Missy referring to the vaginal area. There are also references to daddy wetting on her leg, presumably semen or urine. There are also many references in Lynda Dridges' notes that Missy says that she does not like her daddy. Dy the time I saw Missy in December these recurrent concerns about her father had essentially disappeared in the therapy sessions. I have con£ idence in Lynda Dridges as a therapist and do not believe that Missy's recurrent statements represent Lynda Dridges' leading Missy in saying these things. Probably both the I Tillr App. 101 EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE ELEVEN adequacy of therapy and the passage of time free from seeing her father has relieved Missy of these concerns. When I saw her on December 20, 1991 her affect related to her feelings about her father were remarkably neutral, stirring neither a sense of loss nor apprehension. It suggests her attachment to her father is completely gone for any practical purpose and her father as a real person is nothing but a distant memory. She clearly recalled that her father had been "mean" to her but this time described the abuse in a very different way. She held her finger over her, moving it around in a motion suggesting someone about to tickle her. She then indicated that the finger went to her vagina. She made no reference to his penis or to her anal area, even when I asked if he had hurt her in other ways. This new description is more consistent with the Ilarborview Emergency Room notation of erythema surrounding the posterior fourchette and the notation of the second culposcopic of a very superficial laceration of the posterior fourchette on July 23, 1990. It needs to be noted that the possible superficial laceration was not noted on the initial culdoscopic exam on July 8, 1990, although this might very well have been overlooked at the time. This is a very disturbing finding and certainly consistent with some of Missy's descriptions of what had happened. Unfortunately, the inconsistency of her descriptions (vaginal vs. anal, digital vs. penial penetration) are equally disturbing. Another interpretation of this might be that both vaginal and anal penetration occurred in which both or either the finger or penis were involved. I do not believe that Missy's statements are at all coached in the usual sense. Iler statements do not have a mechanical or rehearsed manner and seem entirely spontaneous, such as one sees in a person retelling recalled events. Certainly, faced with only the data presented by Missy, such as Lynda Dridges, MSW, has been, one would have little choice but to conclude that Missy has been sexually abused. Unfortunately I have had to evaluate this information in a larger context, which includes evaluations of the alleged perpetrator, Sig Uansen, of Missy's primary caretaker, Lisa Eckstrom, and the history of a progressively deteriorating, highly destructive relationship between the two of them. My interpretation of the meaning of Missy's statements and her emotional responses to contact with her father and father's family are heavily determined by these other factors and the context in which Melissa's rejection of her father occurs. Sexual abuse and misuse of children is an action and not a psychiatric disorder or a personality characteristic. Short of admission by the individual, the possibility that someone may be inclined to sexually abuse a child is based entirely on clinical judgment. There are no specific and reliable diagnostic tests to make this judgment, either by inclusion or exclusion. Penile App. 102 IlANSEN EVALUATION JANOARY 14, 1992 PAGE TWELVE arousal using plethysmograph can readily have both false positives and false negatives. The evaluator is left with taking a detailed sexual history and a careful assessment of the individual's attitudes towards others in making this clinical judgment. Although I do not have a written report from Stuart Greenberg, Ph.D. of his sexual deviancy evaluation of Sig Ilansen, he did describe his findings to me by telephone. Ilis conclusions are parallel to my own regarding the likelihood that Sig llansen would be inclined to sexually abuse others, particularly his daughter, Melissa. Ilowever, his assessment suggested that he may have more difficulty with alcohol and with impulsive outbursts of anger than I had indicated in my original assessment. This seems to be corroborated in the declaration of IIarald Simon. I was also impressed when I re-evaluated Sig that he appeared more generally angry and bitter about the current situation. Ile also seemed more open and spontaneous with expressing himself, which may reflect his belief that 1·had viewed him fairly and favorably. This general openness and willingness to be scrutinized also is characteristic of his parents who seemed eager to open their lives to me, sharing both good and bad. Despite Sig clearly having minimized his drinking and difficulty with inpulsive anger, one gets the impression that this is a straight forward, hard working, uncomplicated, but somewhat immature and naive young man. One additional comment needs to be made, that an aspect of his style of relating that was not mentioned in my earlier report. This was brought to my attention by Lisa in her statement that Sig always needed to be on the go. This seemed to fit with my observations of Sig in the video tape in which he appears with Melissa. In that video tape he persistently interacts by trying to get Missy to perform and is generally overstimulating. There is relatively little recorded time when he seems simply content to be with her. If this is indeed generally representative of his way of relating to his daughter, Missy may have found this difficult and perhaps even unpleasant to cope with. Although it probably represents his eagerness to engage in a relationship with her, it may also reflects some degree of insecurity and relative lack of empathic understanding of Melissa's feelings and needs. Overall, it appears improbable that Sig would have deliberately or repeatedly sexually abuse Melissa. With this conclusion in mind one must look for other possible explanations for Melissa's statements and behavior. The re-evaluation of Lisa does not substantially alter my initial assessment. Although she indeed was more hostile and guarded, this is not a particularly unusual reaction following printed statements that the person found unfavorable. She actively opposed having further contact with me and acknowledged that she wanted her attorney with her. In view of this extreme guardedness it was only remarkable that she was as open as she App. 103 IlANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE THIRTEEN was in talking about Melissa and about the character of her relationship with her boyfriend, Steve. Uowever, it appears that both Lisa and her parents viewed my attempts to understand them as individuals as intrusions into their lives. Their guardedness contrasts strongly with the openness of the Ilansens. Lisa acknowledged that for about the first six months of Melissa's life she wanted to exclude Sig entirely. nowever, it would appear from this assessment that there has never been a period where she truly accepted Sig as a part of Missy's life nor trusted her with him. She approached every visit with apprehension, and every sign of difficulty with great alarm. Even assuming great care on her part not to discuss her negative feelings about Sig in Melissa's presence, her feelings of apprehension must have been readily apparent to Melissa. The apprehension carries an unspoken meaning that Melissa's father is somehow dangerous or bad. Melissa has lived with this apprehension throughout her life. I believe that it is this insidious message that creates the alienating influence in Melissa's mind. This is not something that is directly or deliberately created by Lisa but is bo.rne out at her unconscious or at least unspoken attitudes about Sig. Just as it is not possible to definitely conclude that Sig did not sexually abuse Melissa, it is also not possible to exclude the possibility that Melissa was sexually abused. Given the circumstances of the time Melissa spent with her father, it seems extremely improbable that sexual abuse could have occurred as Melissa described it. Most of their time was spent in the company ·of other family members and there is no evidence of any attempt by Sig to be secretive or to conceal any of his behavior or time with Melissa from other members of his family. I would conclude that the probability of Melissa having been sexually abused by her father is extremely low. In contrast the likelihood that she progressively rejected her father, based on her own emotional identification with her mother's hostility towards her father, is extremely high. Memory is an extremely fickle human tool which is readily prone to distortions, condensation and suggestion. Children's memory tend to be quite fragmented, concrete and devoid of context. It is often· impossible to accurately understand the meaning of a child's communication in adult terms without additional information from an adult observer. Melissa was initially quite consistent in her statements that "daddy hurt my potty pot." What is not clear to me is exactly what this refers to and the context and meaning in which it occurs. Although I do not question that this is an accurate portrayal by Missy of remembered event or events, I do not know if this refers to an incident that was sexual in nature. App. 104 IlANSEN EVALUATION JANUARY 14, 1992 PAGE FOURTEEN CONCLUSIONS: Although I cannot completely eliminate the possibility, it seems improbable that Melissa Eckstrom-Hansen was sexually abused by her father, Sig llansen. It still appears that the more likely explanation is the progressive emergence of parental rejection of her father by Melissa, the so-called "parent alienation syndrome," which evolves from Melissa's incorporation of her mother's apprehension about her father. This is not a situation deliberately created by Lisa. At this point, however, Melissa appears to have lost any real attachment to her father. She seems fully integrated into her life with her mother and has no apparent longing for her father. This brings up a difficult dilemma. Working from the assumption that Melissa was not sexually abused by her father and her father does not pose any risk to her directly, should contact with her father resume and if so, how? The problem with resuming contact with her father is that any contact is likely to be marked by tremendous apprehension by both Melissa and her mother. Richard A. Gardner, M.D., a noted child psychiatrist who coined the term "parent alienation syndrome" recommends that the child be placed for thirty days on a temporary basis with the alienated parent. I have seen two recent cases in which this was tried and successfully restored the child's relationship with the previously alienated parent. However, in one of these cases the benefit was temporary, lasting only several months before the child reverted to the initial rejection. In the other case, the original parent refused to maintain contact with the child after the child re-established a good relationship with the other parent. One needs to keep in mind in such highly charged and deeply polarized family situations that the efforts to reunite the child with the rejected parent may have unforseen consequences to the child's development and attachment to either or both parents. Even though I have great sympathy for the plight of the father, Sig Ilansen, I find it extremely hard to justify the turbulence likely to be created in Melissa's life and her development by re-instituting contact with her father. Therefore I would recommend that Sig llansen be allowed to relinquish his parental rights and that attempts to reunite Melissa with her father be abandoned. JED/alj App. 105 - 93 DEC I 7 f H 2: l 5 2 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 4 In Re: ) ) NO. 87-3-09135-3 5 LISA DAWN ECKSTROM, ) ) PETITION FOR TERMINATION 6 Petitioner, } OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ) 7 and ) ) 8 ) SIGURD J + HANSEN, ) 9 Respondent. ) } 11 I, SIGURD J. HANSEN, the father of Melissa Hansen-Ecl-"'...strom, 12 hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state 13 of Washington as follows: 14 I .. CHILD was born 15 I run the birthfather of Melissa Hansen-Eckstrom who Lisa 16 April 22, 1988. Melissa resides with her mother, my ex-wife, 8th 17 Dawn Eckstrom, in Seattle, Washington. I reside at 18631 18 Avenue N. W., Seattle, WA 98177. 19 I. RELINQUISHMENT that 20 I realize that it is in the best interests of my daughter 21 I relinquish my parental rights, and I hereby con:firm that I desire of her mother. 22 to relinquish the child to the sole care and custody itme child and to have the 23 rt. t;. iE 24 :.:_,~ary care, medical an'% 25 PETITION FOR TERMINATION RIGHTS - 1 OF PARENTAL IBM Building, Suiie 1925 • Seallie,1~0F~J!o WA 00101-i 127 2001628-0800 Fax: 20GJZ)3.i9'19 App. 106 dental treatment, and evaluations of the child. I desire that an order permanently terminating all of my parental rights to my 2 daughter be entered by the court. 3 !II. LEGAL EFFECT 4 I understand that the legal effect of this relinquishment will 5 be to divest me of all legal rights and obligations with respect to $ Melissa, and that she will be freed from all legal obligations with 7 respect to me .. 8 IV. APPROVAL OF COURT 9 This consent is given subject to the approval of the Superior 10 1 court of the state of Washington, and it is to have no force or effect until approved by the court. 12 V. FINALITY 13 I understand that after this consent is approved by the Court 14 it is not revocable except for fraud or duress practiced by the 15 person, department or agency requesting the consent or for lack of mental competency at the time the consent was executed by me. VI~ INDIAN CHILD 'WELFARE ACT 18 The Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 use sec. 1901, et. seq., does 19 not apply. 20 VII. SOLDIERS AND SAILORS RELIEF ACT 2i The Soldiers and Sailors civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 use Sec. SOl, et. seq., does not apply. 23 VI::E-I • CONSENT 24 I hereby consent to the termination of my parental rights. 25 PETITION FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS - 2 App. 107 - This consent is voluntarily ~ecute~. i IX. VOLUNTARINESS 2 In executing this relinquishment, I am not acting under any 3 fraud, ~uress or infl.uenoe of anyone. :t have read the foregoing 4 and hereby understand the same. :r have reviewed the same with my 5 :. attorney. 6 !l ii I understand that my decision to relinquish the child is an 7 t extremely important one, that the legal----' effeet ot: this 8 ' relinquishment will be to take from me all legal rights and 9 obligations with respect to the child, and that an order 10 I : permanently terminating ail of -my parantal rights to the child will ! 11 1 ' )) be entered. 12 I· ·-t 13 .I[ 14 1 '1 15 1· 16 It STATE OF WASHINGTON~ ss. T I COUNTY OF KING ) ,1 I I on this date personally appeared before me. Sigurd J. Hansen, iS )to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the !within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed ,e the same as his free and voluntary act and deed ror the uses and purposes therein mentioned. 20 GIVEN TJNDER MY HAND ANO OFFICIAL SEAL this /t.i± day of 21 Nove:rnbe.r, 1993. 22 23 NOT in and fort . ~t. W~shington, residi,n:;<;1 at 24 My Commission · expire,s:: · ...~~/4~=- Print name: 771,ii,,;.,f m1!'ry'dftll ·. 25 ::. ";,_,"'I.! t' ,1, 1 • PETITION FOR TERMINATION ; r OF PAABNTAL RIGHTS - 3 ,.f ;,,, t J l ' .i ~ App. 108 1 Hon. Veronica Alicea-Galvan 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 8 D.H., No. 17-2-09152-9SEA 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S 10 V. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 11 MAYOR EDWARD MURRAY, CLERK'S ACTION REQUIRED 12 Defendant. 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Sanctions. In connection with 14 Defendant's Motion, the Court has reviewed the following: 15 (1) Defendant's Motion for Sanctions; 16 (2) Declaration ofMalaika M. Eaton in Support of Defendant's Motion for 17 Sanctions and Exhibits A- B attached thereto; 18 (3) Response to Frivolous Motion for Sanctions; 19 (4) Declaration of Lincoln C. Beauregard in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and Exhibits 1-7 attached thereto; 20 (5) Declaration of Julie A. Kays in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for 21 Sanctions and the attachment thereto; 22 (6) Declaration of Vickie Shirer in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and the attachment thereto; 23 (7) Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions; 24 (8) Second Declaration ofMalaika M. Eaton in Support of Defendant's Motion 25 for Sanctions and Exhibits C- D attached thereto; 26 (9) Declaration of Arthur J. Lachman in Support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and the attachment thereto; and LAW OFFICES OF ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC 600 UniVCJSity Street. Suite 2700 SANCTIONS - Page I Sc1nle. Washington 98101,Jl4J (206) 467-1816 App. 109 1 (10) Declaration of John A. Strait in Support of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and Exhibits A-C, attached thereto. [and] 2 (11) Supplemental Authority 3 (12) Declaration of Maurice Levon Jones; 4 (13) Declaration re: Deposition of Mayor Ed Murray; 5 (14) Declaration of Lincoln C. Beauregard re: Photo of Jones 6 (15) Declaration of Lincoln C. Beauregard re: Motion for Sanction 7 (15) Defendant's Surreply in Support of Motion for Sanctions; and 8 (16) Third Declaration of Malaika M. Eaton in Support of Defendant's Motion 9 for Sanctions and Exhibit E attached thereto. 10 The Court has also reviewed the records on file herein. The court hereby adopts and 11 incorporates it's oral ruling on the issue from May 4, 2017, And being otherwise fully 12 advised, now, therefore, 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant's 14 Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED. The Court assesses sanctions against attorney 15 Lincoln Beauregard in the amount of $5000, to be paid to the Clerk of the Court 16 immediately but in no event later than IO days from the date of entry of this Order. 17 18 19 20 IT IS SO OFIDzy. 21 DATED this day of May, 2017. 22 23 Hono King 24 25 26 LAW omcES OF ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MCNAUL EBEL NA WROT & HELGREN PLLC 600 llni•ersity Srreet, Suue 2700 SANCTIONS - Page 2 Seanle, w.. hmgton98101·3143 (206) 467-1816 App. 110 1 Presented by: 2 McNAUL EBEL NA WROT & HELGREN PLLC 3 By: s/Malaika M. Eaton 4 Robert M. Sulkin, WSBA No. 15425 Malaika M. Eaton, WSBA No. 32837 5 Attorneys for Defendants 6 With copies to: 7 Lincoln Beauregard [email protected] Julie Kays [email protected] 8 Lawand Anderson [email protected] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LAW OFFICES OF ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MCNAUL EBEL NAWRO T & HELGREN PLLC 600 UniYffSil)' Street, Sui1e 2700 SANCTIONS - Page 3 Seattle, Washington 98101-3143 (206) '67-1816 3759-001 ge03480395 2017-05-04 App. 111 1 Hon. Veronica Alicea-Galvan 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 8 DELVONN HECKARD, No. 17-2-09152-9SEA 9 Plaintiff, STIPULATED ORDER ON FEES 10 v. PURSUANT TO ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL [DKT. 92] 11 MAYOR EDWARD MURRAY, l?R.OPOSEB 12 Defendant. 13 Pursuant to this Court's Order Denying Motion to Compel [Dkt. 92], which 14 granted Defendant's request for fees, the parties have stipulated that $3,516.00 in fees is 15 awarded to Defendant. 16 DATEDthis Uejlt. dayofJune,2017. 17 McNAUL EBEL NA WROT & HELGREN PLLC 18 19 By: ___,__,p(J'--~--u.,.!.---,~.,...... ,.....-#._,-'--)-~~- Robert M. Sulkin, WSBA No. 15425 20 Malaika M. Eaton, WSBA No. 32837 21 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, Washington 98101 22 Telephone (206) 467-1816 [email protected] 23 [email protected] 24 Attorneys for Defendant 25 26 LAW OFFICES OF McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC ORDER ON FEES PURSUANT TO ORDER 600 University Street, Suite 2700 DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL [DKT. 92] - Page 1 Seattle, Washington 98101-3143 (206) 467-1816 App. 112 1 CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC Lincoln Beauregard 2 By: ______WSBA No. 32878 3 Lincoln C. Beauregard, Julie A. Kays, WSBA No. 30385 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 6 L.A. LAW & ASSOCIATES, PLLC for 7 Lincoln Beauregard, 8 By:------Lawand Anderson, WSBA No. 49012 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 11 ORDER 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant is 13 granted $3,516.00 in fees pursuant to this Court's Order Denying Motion to Compel [Dkt. 14 92]. Plaintiff is ordered to pay these fees within 5 days of the date of this order. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED this / (a day of June, 2017. 17 18 19 Presented by: 20 McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC 21 22 By: _{);(_cd<_¼_fu._~dt-----'.,______,,,_i~~-- Robert M. Sulkin, WSBA No. 15425 23 Malaika M. Eaton, WSBA No. 32837 24 Attorneys for Defendant 25 With copies to: Lincoln Beauregard [email protected] 26 Julie Kays [email protected] Lawand Anderson [email protected] LAW OFFICES OF MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC ORDER ON FEES PURSUANT TO ORDER 600 University Street, Suite 2700 DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL [DKT. 92] - Page 2 Seattle, Washington 98101-3143 (206) 467-1816 App. 113 MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT AND HELGREN PLLC August 29, 2018 - 4:27 PM Transmittal Information Filed with Court: Court of Appeals Division I Appellate Court Case Number: 76571-0 Appellate Court Case Title: Melissa Eckstrom, Respondent v. Sigurd Hansen, Petitioner Superior Court Case Number: 16-2-12120-9 The following documents have been uploaded: • 765710_Petition_for_Review_20180829162203D1093993_2258.pdf This File Contains: Petition for Review The Original File Name was 18-0829 Petition for Review with Appendices.pdf A copy of the uploaded files will be sent to: • [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected] Comments: Sender Name: Thao Do - Email: [email protected] Filing on Behalf of: Matthew J. Campos - Email: [email protected] (Alternate Email: [email protected]) Address: 600 University Street Suite 2700 Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 467-1816 EXT 362 Note: The Filing Id is 20180829162203D1093993