Sunday, June 05, 2011

Transcript of the shrink's error

My ex-wife has filed a motion to hold me in contempt of court for telling the story of how she tricked the psychologist into giving her sole legal custody of our kids.

The simple story is that we had 50-50 joint custody, until my ex-wife complained to CPS and petitioned the court for temporary sole legal and physical custody. The court denied her request for temporary sole legal custody, and granted temporary sole physical custody pending a hearing and an evaluation from a psychologist. The court appointed Kenneth B. Perlmutter to evaluate her allegations. My ex-wife somehow persuaded Perlmutter, over my objections, that she already had sole legal custody. This was in spite of the fact that we gave him the court papers, and I explained it clearly to him. The Perlmutter wrote the order that took away my joint legal custody.

Here is the story in Perlmutter's own words. It is from p.46-53 of the transcript of his June 7, 2010 deposition. I asked the questions, and he answered. It is verbatim and unedited, except for the pseudonyms in square brackets.

These transcripts are tedious to read, but it is the only way I can demonstrate the evil of what this man has done.
7 Q. Are you saying you have no idea whether her
8 concerns have any merit at all?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And even if they had merit, are there any
11 concerns that -- that -- where you can even describe
12 how serious the allegation is?
13 A. I can't answer that hypothetical.
14 Q. I don't think it's a hypothetical. I'm asking
15 you if there were any serious allegations that, in your
16 opinion, seem serious to you.
17 A. I did not assess it. I figured out that I
18 couldn't assess it.
19 Q. So for all you know joint custody worked
20 flawlessly for four years?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Okay. Is it true that the CPS did an
23 investigation in November 2007 but closed the case
24 without recommending any action?
25 A. That's my understanding.
1 Q. Is it true that your evaluation was
2 precipitated by an ex parte motion that [Jill] brought
3 to the family court on November 16th, 2007?
4 A. I don't recall that document, but that's
5 generally my recollection.
6 Q. Is it true that [Jill]'s sole allegation was
7 emotional abuse?
8 A. I don't recall.
9 Q. Is it true there was no allegation at that
10 time of co-parenting difficulties, move away or any
11 other change of circumstances?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Is it true that I had no notice of the motion
14 and was not present in court?
15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. Is it true that [Jill] asked for and received
17 an emergency order for the police to seize our kids at
18 my home?
19 A. That I recall. I believe that that's true.
20 Q. Was there any court ruling that gave [Jill]
21 sole legal custody of our kids?
22 A. I believe that there is a document that gives
23 her temporary custody of the kids.
24 Q. Does it give her temporary sole legal
25 custody?
1 A. We have to pull it out to look at it.
2 Q. Let's pull it out.
3 A. I believe we're talking about --
4 Q. If it helps, you might want to refer to the
5 last paragraph of page 7 of your report where you
6 discuss this very point.
7 A. Okay. I believe we're talking about document
8 number 157.
9 So the one document is -- the minute order of
10 12/6/07 says: "All temporary orders remain in effect
11 pending further hearing and order of the court."
12 And before that we have the November 16th, '07
13 order which I believe says that [Jill] has temporary
14 legal and physical custody of the children.
15 Q. Can we pull that and mark it as an exhibit?
16 A. Yeah. That's number 121. Actually, that's
17 122.
18 MS. [ANGRYMOM]: Those tabs survived the copy
19 machine. You can put those papers into a copy machine
20 and the tabs stay there. The tab you don't need to
21 pull off to copy that.
24 Q. So is the -- is that the order you are
25 claiming gives [Jill] sole legal custody?
1 A. What this order says is on page 1 you are
2 ordered to comply with the temporary orders attached,
3 and then attached to it is the order of apparently
4 temporary legal and physical custody to [Jill].
5 That's that --
6 Q. Can you show me where it says that?
7 A. Well, on page 1 it says, "You are ordered to
8 comply with the temporary order attached."
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. And on here it says "to be ordered pending the
11 hearing," and it says legal custody to [Jill], physical
12 custody to [Jill].
13 Q. Okay. Can you please read the large block
14 letters at the top of the page.
15 A. It says, "This is not an order." So you can
16 even see I wrote a question mark.
17 Q. So is that an application or is that an
18 order?
19 A. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
20 I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. This is what
21 was confusing to me and this is my understanding of
22 it. It says this is a temporary order.
23 Q. Okay. If you turn to a later page, isn't
24 there an order later on?
25 A. It says "temporary order." Same thing.
1 Q. And then what is, in fact, ordered in a
2 temporary order?
3 A. Legal custody to [Jill], physical custody to
4 [Jill].
5 Q. Where does it say that?
6 A. Same thing. It's the same exact page.
7 Q. On the page that says, "This is not an order"?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Can you find a page that does not say, "This
10 is not an order" and find a page that is an order?
11 A. Not in here. Not in here. However, it does
12 say under "temporary orders" on the last page, "Minor
13 children, Petitioner, subject to the other party's
14 rights of visitation professionally supervised."
15 Q. And does it say "sole legal custody"?
16 A. It doesn't say "sole legal custody."
17 Q. So, in fact, legal custody was not ordered to
18 [Jill]?
19 A. You're asking for me to form a legal opinion.
20 I'm not competent to do that.
21 Q. I'm asking you to read the order.
22 A. I just did. I don't understand it. In my
23 history I tried to explain the history. I don't know
24 the answer.
25 Q. Well, let me refer you to the last page where
1 it says in big block letters at the top "Temporary
2 Orders."
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Okay. And then what does it say is actually
5 ordered in connection with the minor children?
6 A. It says, "Will have the temporary physical
7 custody, care and control of the minor children subject
8 to the other party's rights of visitation as follows:
9 Professionally supervised."
10 Q. So, in fact, that is ordering a change in
11 physical custody but not a change in legal custody?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. So was there ever order granting [Jill]
14 sole legal custody?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Were you looking at the order? What does it
17 say?
18 A. How many binders do I have here? I have seven
19 binders of documents. I did not review every single
20 document. I don't know whether there is a document
21 that says that. I tried to figure it out.
22 Q. Okay. Well, look at what you wrote on the
23 bottom paragraph on page 7.
24 A. In the context of that is my attempt to recite
25 my understanding of the history of your matter. I am
1 now looking at the bottom of page 7.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. Would you like me to --
4 Q. Yeah. Read the sentence starting "based on
5 this filing" in the middle of that last paragraph.
6 A. Based on this filing dated November 16th,
7 2007, the court ordered that pending the hearing on
8 November 6 -- on December 6th, she would have temporary
9 legal custody and physical custody of the children and
10 that [George] should only have professionally supervised
11 visitation.
12 Q. Do you now admit that that is wrong?
13 A. I admit that it's very possible that it's
14 wrong. If my interpretation of that is incorrect, then
15 I'm wrong.
16 Q. Well, you just looked at the court order.
17 A. I -- clearly. Again, if that's true, then --
18 if that document is true, then what you're saying is
19 true. There's nothing that specifically states legal
20 custody.
21 Q. Is it also true that I explained to you that
22 there was no order changing legal custody?
23 A. That is true.
24 Q. Okay. Let me refer to you page 1 of your
25 recommended orders, paragraph number 1.
1 A. I see it.
2 Q. Can you read that, please.
3 A. "Mother shall continue to have temporary sole
4 legal and sole physical custody of the minor
5 children."
Perlmutter is obviously incompetent to read a court order. He could not even get as far as reading the large boldface block letters saying what is and is not an order. And yet the court has used him to write court orders, and I am currently subject to the order that he wrote.


Anonymous said...


You proved that Perlmutter IS COMPENTENT. A competent thief, or charlatan. The court, they're adept at facilitating him, and his associates.

Remember judge Kelly, or Kelsay, was it ? He said, something like," these are good people, that's why they're on the list." ? Think any of they prof.s on the list have any actual patients, other than those that are assigned to them by the court ? Nope, that's WHY they're on the list.

They're "whores of the court" as author Margaret Hagen put it.

Anonymous said...

I think Angrymom slept with the shrink to have him "commit" the mistake

Mike said...

I was lucky, I caught the therapist banging my ex-wife!

George said...

Yes, Perlmutter's actions cannot be explained by simple incompetence. He knows what he is doing, and he profits from it.

Anonymous said...

I am curious if Angrymom went through any psych tests? It appears to me that she has all the traits of certain personality disorders (borderline or narcissistic). Unfortunately, US family law only consider druggies, alcoholic, and prostitute mothers as unfit parents, while fathers are presumed to be flawed and defective and need to prove themselves as normal human being to be able to participate in their children's lives.

George said...

The court ordered several evaluations. I prefer to only comment on the public court record.