Liberti v. Liberti Transcript of 2/22/2011 Hearing

7/29/2019 Liberti v. Liberti Transcript of 2/22/2011 Hearing

1/32

NO: FA09-4037658 : SUPERIOR COURT

SUNNY LIBERTI : JUDICIALDISTRICT

OF MIDDLESEX

v. : AT MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT

ROBERT LIBERTI : FEBRUARY 22, 2011

BEFORE THE HONORABLE LYNDA B. MUNRO, JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S :

Representing the Plaintiff:

ATTORNEY JAMES M. SMITHATTORNEY KRISTINA BORDIERI1331 Main StreetSpringfield, MA 01103

Representing the Defendant:

ATTORNEY NOAH EISENHANDLER, ESQ.1164 Townsend AvenueNew Haven, CT 60512

Guardian Ad Litem:

ATTORNEY MAUREEN MURPHY

234 Church StreetNew Haven, CT 06510

Recorded and Transcribed by:

Nancy Gill-ReaCourt Recording Monitor

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

4546

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

2


2/32

One Court StreetMiddletown, CT 06457

212

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

910

3


3/32

THE COURT: Court Reporter, were on the record

briefly on a case, docket number FA09-4037658, its

a regional case out of New Haven, Sunny Liberti,

L-i-b-e-r-t-i vs. Robert Liberti.

Counsel, state your names for the record, please

and who you are in the case.

ATTY. BORDIERI: Kristina Bordieri, here on

behalf of the plaintiff.

ATTY. SMITH: James M. Smith of Springfield, Im

pro hac vice before the Court on behalf of the

plaintiff.

THE COURT: And youre licensed in Connecticut,

right?

ATTY. BORDIERI: Im licensed.

THE COURT: Youre the sponsoring attorney?

ATTY. BORDIERI: I am.

ATTY. SMITH: Shes the sponsoring attorney and

Im --

THE COURT: Okay, I just want to make sure I

knew who was who, thank you.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: Attorney Noah Eisenhandler

representing Robert Liberti whos present, Your

Honor.

ATTY. MURPHY: Your Honor, Maureen Murphy,

Guardian Ad Litem for Max Liberti.

THE COURT: All right. Im not going to ask for

any responses. You all -- counsel were entirely

112

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


4/32

appropriate to notify each other obviously that this

was pending and are here with the parties.

What I have in front of me is something

entitled, Emergency Motion For Immediate Suspension

of Plaintiffs Supervised Visitation, with an

attached affidavit in plaintiffs opposition to

defendants application to suspend plaintiffs

contact with the minor child.

Its not my goal in life to try form over

substance. But it appears, Mr. Eisenhandler, that

your motion was not intended to be ex parte. This is

a question, because you notified counsel?

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: I would have notified

counsel no matter what, Your Honor. No, I contacted

counsel after this incident occurred, and indicated I

was going to be filing an emergency motion, and I was

going to present it to the Court this morning and

give them an opportunity to respond and to show up.

It wasnt intended to be an ex parte order.

Though I expect the Court would have taken it on the

papers if the Court was so inclined.

THE COURT: Well actually, not in accordance

with the law once you didnt make it ex parte, I

cant.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: Thats fine.

THE COURT: Because the Practice Book says all

custodial -- no, all matters in family Court are

212

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


5/32

arguable, although were working on changing that on

discovery at least.

There are a couple of practice realities. Im

about to start a trial that is every bit as troubling

as yours that I was in the middle of before God

granted me a vacation, and the trial starts in about

one minute.

And I dont have time for a full hearing. So

thats problematic. And Judge Gordon is away, and

Judge Calmar is away, who is our go-to third Judge

here. And the other Judge with familiarity of family

matters is covering Judge Calmars docket right now

upstairs.

So we have a problem here. So I at least wanted

to come out and explain to you that we have a

problem.

I do want to ask a couple of questions that were

not covered in the motion and the affidavit so that I

can help myself decide what I want to do.

Who is the supervisor?

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: Nick Sarno, Your Honor,

Nick Sarnos company, he has a couple people that

work for him when he supervises parenting time.

THE COURT: Yes, I know who Mr. Sarnos company

is.

ATTY. MURPHY: I do believe, Your Honor, that

Mr. Sarno is under subpoena and is going to be here

312

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


6/32

at ten oclock.

THE COURT: And was the supervisor charged with

any specific responsibilities or limitations in the

supervisors duties other than supervise?

ATTY. SMITH: No, theres no order to that

effect.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: I would agree, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. And the order of Judge Gordon

granting sole custody to the defendant until the

hearing, did it have any further language in regard

to it other than describing the plaintiffs access?

In other words, did it say, the plaintiff may do

this, the defendant may do this, the defendant may

not do that?

ATTY. SMITH: Not to my knowledge.

THE COURT: So it was sole custody?

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: The order of November 9th

said sole custody, supervised visitation. But my

recollection was that the transcript indicated that

this childs been put through quite a bit of --

THE COURT: No, no, I didnt ask you to argue.

Were working real hard on this, okay, Mr.

Eisenhandler?

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: The order, Your Honor, the

orders the order. The order says supervised

visitation, sole custody to my client with some

scheduling time, things like that.

412

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


7/32

THE COURT: All right.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: And not to speak about

custody and litigation.

THE COURT: All right. Now, Attorney Murphy,

youre the GAL, is that right?

ATTY. MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. And your ward is how old?

ATTY. MURPHY: He is seven years old, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: I see that. If I were to have a

hearing, is it a matter for which you would want to

be heard?

ATTY. MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor. And I have

additional concerns that have been conveyed to me by

the childs individual therapist, Dr. John Collins.

THE COURT: Dr. Collins is the therapist.

ATTY. MURPHY: Hes the childs therapist.

THE COURT: Who is the evaluator?

ATTY. MURPHY: The evaluator was Dr. Adamakos,

Your Honor. I have a letter from Dr. Collins who is

out of state. I have been in --

THE COURT: This is vacation week in Connecticut

apparently.

ATTY. MURPHY: Yes it is. And he has -- I have

been in significant conversations with Dr. Collins

over the weekend. I was actually on vacation when

this incident occurred, but I nonetheless spoke to

512

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


8/32

Dr. Collins at that time, and Nick Sarno.

THE COURT: Okay.

ATTY. MURPHY: I have a letter from Dr. Collins

that both counsel have agreed that the Court may

review. And the -- and Dr. Collins is making some

recommendations, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is the agreement that I may review

it regardless of whether I hold a hearing?

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: Yes.

ATTY. SMITH: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: All right, pass it up. Thank you.

Before I read it, is there -- well mark it in a

second, is there a question of privilege that I

should be looking at before I read this?

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: No, Your Honor.

ATTY. SMITH: No, Judge.

ATTY. MURPHY: Your Honor, it had originally

been my intention to assert the privilege because I

felt that Dr. Collins relationship with this child

was absolutely essential that it be preserved.

But in light of the events that have occurred, I

no longer feel that it is in the best interest of the

child that I assert that privilege.

THE COURT: All right. Im not as fast a reader

as you might think, so take a seat and settle in.

Mr. Mickelson, feel free to stay with us. If

they ask you, tell them Im about five more minutes.

612

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


9/32

Thank you. They look like they want to know, thats

why Im saying it, thank you. (The Court referring to

the next case coming into Court.)

(Court takes time to review letter.)

Mr. Sarno.

MR. SARNO: Yes, Maam.

THE COURT: Your timing is perfect.

MR. SARNO: Im sorry, we hit traffic coming up,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: No, thats okay, thats all right.

MR. SARNO: Thank you, Maam.

THE COURT: Do the parties take a position on

Dr. Collins wish for an evaluation by Dr. Robson?

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: Were somewhat concerned

about the potential delay of three months, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Of what? You dropped your voice at

the end, Im sorry.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: Of -- Im sorry. Were

somewhat concerned that mothers (indecipherable

word) will take approximately twelve weeks for this

full evaluation to be done. However, theres

potential for a records review which would, I

understand, would be within a week and wed certainly

have no objection to that.

THE COURT: So its something between one and

twelve weeks is okay with you, but not twelve weeks?

712

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


10/32

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: Well, were not -- were

opposed to continuing the trial. It was my

understanding that Dr. Robson can do a record review

within the week and have a report back --

THE COURT: Okay, so its because youre opposed

to continuing the trial --

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: Were --

THE COURT: -- not on general principle, I

understand.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: On general principle, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: I understand that. The Guardian?

ATTY. MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor, I just wanted to

give some additional information about my

conversation with Dr. Robson. Which I communicated

with him over the weekend, and had a rather lengthy

discussion with him yesterday.

He has indicated to me that he would be able to

do a record review and be available to testify on the

morning of the 3rd. He might have some availability

on the 2nd, Your Honor, which I believe is the first

day of the scheduled trial.

I told him that I would be able to get him --

THE COURT: Hes out of town on the 4th, right?

ATTY. MURPHY: Im sorry?

THE COURT: I needed him for something else on

the 4th and he couldnt do it. I remember that from

812

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


11/32

before my vacation.

ATTY. MURPHY: Hes leaving for vacation. Yeah,

hes leaving for vacation the 4th through the 11th,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

ATTY. MURPHY: So -- but he did say to me that

if I got him all the records, which I could do -- I

could actually have everything scanned and emailed to

him today if the Court allowed, that he could do a

record review and be available to testify on the

morning of the 3rd. I believe that was the date, Your

Honor, but I could check for certain and make sure.

I could make a phone call to make sure about that.

THE COURT: And if he did a full psychiatric

evaluation of the parties and --

ATTY. MURPHY: He indicated to me he would need

twelve weeks, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So thats where the twelve weeks

comes from?

ATTY. MURPHY: Yes. I had indicated both of

those facts to counsel when I -- I received this

letter from Dr. Collins after much back and forth.

Even though hes on vacation, at the risk of

destroying his vacation, he sent this to me at 8:26

this morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thats fine.

ATTY. MURPHY: So, I just wanted to indicate --

912

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


12/32

THE COURT: Thats all right.

ATTY. MURPHY: -- that I have not had this in my

hands.

THE COURT: All right. At least no one

destroyed my vacation. I have my priorities.

Counsel, whats your position?

ATTY. SMITH: Judge, Im very concerned about

only a record review. The record is parsimonious in

this case and incomplete with respect to the

questions that are being asked by this doctor.

And thats one of the problems in this case.

So my concern is that my client has supervised

visits to begin with, and thats troubling. And she

would -- and we dont think thats an inappropriate

thing to have done, and we think its problematic to

the child.

But nevertheless --

THE COURT: But it is what it is.

ATTY. SMITH: -- it is what it is. And on the

other hand, this child is having some problems that

are reflected in this report.

THE COURT: So your client is agreeable to Dr.

Robson as a full evaluator?

ATTY. SMITH: If the Court orders it and -- she

would only want a full evaluation. That would be the

only thing that would make sense in this case.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Eisenhandler, you

1012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


13/32

know, Im not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but

the more you do this work you do understand what some

of the terms are that are being thrown around.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: All right.

THE COURT: And my understanding of a shared

delusional disorder, folie a deux, I believe its

called, Ive learned that, and munchhausen, are that

you could not rule out or rule in those kinds of

questions on a record review if youre a

psychiatrist.

I suspect he would need to interview as to the

defendant -- the plaintiff, her and the child on

those claims, on the claims of your client having a

personality disorder, that could only be dealt with

by interview.

I cant imagine any of those flags that hes

raised as to your client, the plaintiff or the child

being dealt with on a record review. I just cant

imagine it.

And knowing what the recommended course is, the

more troubling rule-outs. I cant imagine how a

judge could make those decisions.

Lets just say that one of those rule-outs

becomes what Dr. Robson says and the Court accepts

it, I just want to go down the path with you from

your clients perspective.

I believe a grossly different order would come

1112

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


14/32

out than if those were not in place. And so we would

not be serving this little boy very well if indeed

these are real concerns. And we all are aware, at

least those of us in Connecticut, that Dr. Collins is

a credible psychologist.

I cant believe he would have written the letter

he wrote unless he had the concerns he was raising in

a legitimate way, at least as to rule-outs.

Thats my concern with not giving the

continuance. I understand the pressure this places

on a child who is in an extraordinary dilemma and

your client wanting it over. But I dont know what

else to do after having read that.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: The Courts certainly

empowered at the end of the trial after It makes Its

findings and decision to enter any appropriate orders

that could address further therapy, further

therapeutic visitation.

THE COURT: Let me give you a for instance.

Ill tell you how educated I am.

One recommendation on a shared delusional

disorder would be, I am sure, for the adult who has

the delusion to be separated from the child for a

period of time, totally, totally separated for a long

period of time, which at age seven is pretty

significant. It is a very, very difficult age to

risk something like that.

1212

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


15/32

And thats a lot different than even saying, we

should have some supervision. Its just grossly

different in terms of the psychological well-being of

the child because the attachment gets completely

disrupted by design.

What you may not be aware of --

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: I appreciate what the

Courts saying.

THE COURT: -- so Im just sort of giving you

the picture that is playing in the back of my mind --

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: I appreciate -- I

appreciate that, and the claim for relief which has

already been previously filed, so this isnt a

revelation, but our claim for relief is that there be

therapeutic visitation --

THE COURT: Wont do the bill. I would be told

by at least one mental health professional, theyll

be disagreements if we go down that road, but at

least one mental health professional would tell the

Judge pure separation, no contact for an extensive

period of time, and then other things to follow.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: But theres no one whos

gonna testify to that in this trial. Theres no one

in this trial whos gonna say mother should have no

contact with the child.

THE COURT: Right. But the childs therapist is

saying if that is a rule-out, we need to know,

1312

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


16/32

because otherwise, we have done the child a

disservice, if its true. I dont know if its there

-- if thats the diagnosis.

But Im being told this is a potential

diagnosis. And if it is, then your claims for relief

could harm the child is what Im saying to you.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: I understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Its -- the playing field has

changed potentially, and it may not have at all. But

the childs own treater is concerned.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: I understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And I feel like I would be doing a

tremendous disservice to this child to ignore and on

both sides of the equation, but Im using that

because its the most explicative to your client, I

assume.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: We still have some

concerns, Your Honor, over last weeks action.

THE COURT: Right. So Im going to do something

entirely unorthodox and you all can take exception.

Mr. Sarno?


THE COURT: Would you mind finding your way to a

microphone, and is the woman with you the evaluator

from last week?

MR. SARNO: Shes the supervisor.

THE COURT: Supervisor, sorry about that, wrong

1412

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


17/32

word.

MR. SARNO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Would the two of you join the

Guardian at her microphone?


THE COURT: Im taking longer than I thought,

Mr. Mickelson, Im sorry. Maybe theyll settle. Not

so much, right?

Could you just state your names and business

address, if you would please?

MR. SARNO: Nicholas J. Sarno, 4 Daniels Farm

Road, Trumbull, Connecticut 06611.

THE COURT: Maam?

MS. CHIODO: And Im Allison C. Chiodo at 4

Daniels Farm Road, Trumbull, Connecticut 06611.

THE COURT: Okay. Youre here to help me, not

to have any concerns raised as to your work.

Mr. Sarno, you may not recall me, we all look

the same in a black robe, but you were in Stamford

when I was.

MR. SARNO: I recall you very clearly, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Thats the right answer. Anyway,

Im going to put limits on the nature of the

plaintiffs supervised visitation, and which means

its going to impose responsibilities on the

supervisor. And I want to go over them with you on

1512

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


18/32

the record to make sure its something that your

office is and supervisors are capable of and

comfortable with doing. Fair enough?


THE COURT: Okay. Right now as I understand it,

Mr. Sarno, when Ms. Kelly has contact with her child,

youre simply there to observe, is that right?

MR. SARNO: Correct.

THE COURT: Do you understand yourself to any

prophylactic responsibilities as not leave the State

of Connecticut or anything like that presently?

MR. SARNO: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything beyond, dont take the

child out of Connecticut?

MR. SARNO: It was -- we do three things mainly,

Your Honor, we observe, we report, we protect.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SARNO: The only thing that we were under

the direction from the Guardian Ad Litem was that the

child could not leave the State.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SARNO: And that a written report was

submitted per visitation on a weekly basis.

THE COURT: All right. Does Ms. Kelly enjoy her

visitation at any particular locations normally?

MR. SARNO: Ill leave that up to the on-site

supervisor.

1612

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


19/32

MS. CHIODO: Normally, at her home in Bethany.

You know, sometimes they will go to different stores,

but mostly at the home.

THE COURT: All right. What about restaurants?

MS. CHIODO: Different restaurants for the most

part. For the most part, food at home.

THE COURT: Okay. The home in Bethany,

restaurants, shopping?

MS. CHIODO: Yes, shopping, Target, Walmart --

THE COURT: Is that a good way to put it?

MS. CHIODO: -- those kinds of places, toy

stores.

THE COURT: And do you go in the car with them

when they travel?

MS. CHIODO: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Who drives?

MS. CHIODO: It depends, sometimes Ms. Kelly

drives, sometimes her mother Diane drives, sometimes

Ada Shaw drives. For the most part, it is her

mother, Diane.

THE COURT: Mr. Sarno, would it violate the

regulations of your supervisor business to have the

supervisor drive?

MR. SARNO: Not at all, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SARNO: We would have to bill for that, but

not at all.

1712

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


20/32

THE COURT: Okay. Does the supervisor observe

-- or listen to conversations?

MR. SARNO: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And are they recorded in summary

fashion in notes afterwards?

MR. SARNO: Yes, and she has her notes with her.

And then a written report is sent from those notes.

THE COURT: Im thinking.


THE COURT: You could see the smoke, right?

MR. SARNO: I know not to interrupt you, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Maybe you do remember me.

MR. SARNO: Yes, I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If I were to empower the supervisor

only to determine whether a medical emergency

existed, is that something your office is comfortable

with?

MR. SARNO: Yes. But our procedure is that the

supervisor notifies me, Ill talk to the supervisor

in detail, Ill talk to the parent, Ill make an

assessment.

I did that once where we sent the child to the

emergency room because of abdominal pains. I was

concerned about appendicitis. I instructed my

supervisor to take the child to the emergency room.

I also called the father of the child, informed

1812

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


21/32

him what was taking place. I directed him to go up

to the emergency room because I felt that he has a

right. Also, hes the temporary custodial parent and

-- so were used to doing that, and thats our

procedure.

THE COURT: Okay. As the person whos been

supervising, is there any reason in the normal course

of Maxs enjoyment of his time with his mother that

she should be able to take the child anywhere other

than her home in Bethany, restaurants, shopping or

what I would call amusements of the nature of like

bowling or -- you understand what I mean by

amusements?

MS. CHIODO: Yes. A birthday party would come

under amusements, right?

THE COURT: We will call -- a childs birthday

party?

MS. CHIODO: Something like that.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CHIODO: I think that that covers almost

everything.

THE COURT: Okay. Im making notes to myself.

Mr. Sarno, Im going to walk a very fine road

here, because I dont want to give the parties an

opportunity to cross-examine you because I dont have

the time.


1912

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


22/32

THE COURT: So is there anything that has been

reported to you by your supervisor or supervisors, if

theres been more than one, that would cause you, as

a the experienced owner of your business, to

recommend anything beyond the following as limits on

the supervision, okay? Im going to read them to you

and then you answer me, okay?


THE COURT: Not only not leave the State;

supervisor drives; child may be taken to moms home

in Bethany; restaurants; shopping; amusements; child

birthday parties only; only the supervisor determines

if there is a medical emergency and what conduct

should follow from there; and the mother shall engage

in no conversation with the child regarding any

claimed assaultive behavior of the father.

MR. SARNO: Correct, Your Honor. The one thing

Id like to see, if possible, Id like to have on

some of the visitations, I understand the family

members, the grandmother, et cetera, Im not adverse

to them taking part. But I would also like to see

the mother, the child and the supervisor only at some

visitations.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SARNO: And that could be divided 50/50.

THE COURT: Yes. Am I going to hear any

strident objection to that?

2012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


23/32

ATTY. SMITH: No.

THE COURT: Okay.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: I think thats Ms. Kellys

choice, but --

THE COURT: The answer was no.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: The answers no, but I do

have one objection to one of the Courts

recommendations.

THE COURT: What?

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: The driving. I prefer the

supervisor be able to dedicate all her time to

listening to whats going on between the mother and

not be distracted by driving.

THE COURT: I know how to deal with that, okay?

ATTY. MURPHY: Your Honor, if I could add one

recommendation --

THE COURT: Yes.

ATTY. MURPHY: -- that Dr. Collins and I

discussed about the supervision, and I have discussed

it with Mr. Sarno.

The child is engaging in certain behaviors that

are --

THE COURT: I read that. He wanted me to -- Im

sorry to cut you off.

ATTY. MURPHY: Thats okay.

THE COURT: He wants me to order that the

mothers visits cut short if the child hits

2112

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


24/32

themselves --

ATTY. MURPHY: Or her or another person, because

he is engaging in hitting his mother and other people

during his visits.

THE COURT: And Im concerned about it. He may

well be engaging it in his dads home too. I think

--

ATTY. MURPHY: Your Honor, we have had some

supervised visits at dads --

THE COURT: Yes.

ATTY. MURPHY: -- to give a view of that just to

see the difference in his behaviors. And the -- we

had, I believe there was one last week that I have

not seen the notes for. There have been three all

together to observe the childs behavior at dads

house.

And one other thing, Your Honor, just before I

leave that, is that Dr. Collins is willing to do some

therapeutic visits on a weekly basis.

THE COURT: Okay. All right, these are going to

be the rules. And the Court is modifying the order

of supervised visitation to be the following:

Said supervision shall be as follows:

Ms. Kellys visitation time with Max shall be

subject to the following:

The supervisor shall drive the car and the child

shall not be on the same seat as the mother. So the

2212

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


25/32

mother is either in the front and the child in the

back, or the child in the front and the mother in the

back.

The visits may take place at her home in

Bethany, at restaurants, shopping, at amusements and

childrens birthday parties.

The mother has no authority to exercise decision

making in the event of an emergency. In the event of

a medical emergency, the supervisor shall determine,

number one, whether theres a medical emergency, and

number two, what is the proper course of conduct and

as soon as feasible, notify both the father and then

the Guardian Ad Litem of the same. Guardian comes

last, least important, no offense.

There shall be no conversation by the mother

with the child regarding any claimed assaultive

behavior of the father.

If the child hits either himself or another

person, the mother shall say the following to the

child, no hitting, it is not good for you. If its

to another person, no hitting, that is not right to

do to another person.

If the supervisor determines as a result of the

hitting that the child needs a time out, the

supervisor may impose it.

The Court will also authorize therapeutic

visitation with Dr. Collins, to the extent he is

2312

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


26/32

willing to do so, and the supervisor is willing to do

any transporting necessary. I dont know how the

timing would work, so Id leave it that way.

Mr. Sarno, also you had asked and so the Court

will also order as part of the visitation, that Ms.

Kellys time with her child shall be exclusive with

her for no less than half of her time with the child,

and it can be alternating visits or half of each

visit.

Yes?

ATTY. SMITH: Yes, excuse me, Judge. I think

its a good idea to have the therapeutic counseling,

but I would suggest that it not interfere with the

current ordered supervision time.

THE COURT: Its not in lieu of. I should have

said its not in lieu of, its in addition to, if Dr.

Collins so desires. I leave it to him because hes

treating the child.

ATTY. SMITH: Thats fine, Judge.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: So shes getting -- so any

therapeutic --

THE COURT: I dont know if shes getting more

time, its not her, thats your clients perception.

Its whether the child should be seen by the mother

-- by his own therapist with the mother.

What Dr. Collins clearly wants to do is observe

the relationship, Mr. Eisenhandler, got it?

2412

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


27/32

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: I understand.

THE COURT: Okay?

ATTY. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, the orders are so

modified.

Now, the next problem is Dr. Robson, hes not a

problem, I dont mean to put it that way.

I dont know whos going to pay for it. I dont

who has the money to pay for it. I dont have time

to do a financial hearing on that.

I intend to order it, and I dont even have

affidavits here. So what Im going to do is start

the trial Im going to start unless you all can come

up with -- and give you guys five minutes to come up

with a without prejudice order to have it sort of

reapportioned at hearing.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: I think we could resolve

it, Your Honor. Theres money being held in escrow

and I certainly have no objection using those funds

for Dr. Robson.

ATTY. SMITH: We would concur.

THE COURT: Okay.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: One other question, Your

Honor, one other concern I have, and I think its

going to be perfectly clear that Ms. Kelly cannot

have Dr. Newberger meet with this child at her house.

This was an issue that Judge Gordon --

2512

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


28/32

THE COURT: I didnt realize that that was even

an issue.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: That was an issue.

THE COURT: No medical access whatsoever through

the mother. No access to anyone other than children

at parties or amusements; family, within the limits

as provided; Ms. Kelly and non-medical mental health

family friends that would normally in due course be

there.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. SMITH: Just for the record, we were

before Judge Gordon the other day requesting an

evaluation with the child because we understood that

mother could not do that. So mother -- and Dr.

Newberger will not, nor without Courts permission

meet. And Im a little bit concerned that that was

just raised.

THE COURT: All right, so weve done our tit for

tat on that and were good.

ATTY. SMITH: We did. Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay, I get it, all right.

ATTY. EISENHANDLER: My turn.

THE COURT: No, youre done. Okay, thank you.

The trial is continued. Ms. Franchi will pick

the dates. What I would really like -- yes, shes

our caseflow person, so youre going to stay and meet

with her.

2612

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


29/32

The evaluation is ordered with Dr. Robson.

There is no limit on his ability, in other words, Im

not giving him specific questions, as he deems

necessary.

And the parties are to make themselves and the

child available as Dr. Robson determines. Youre not

to seek continuances of any of the dates he gives

you, you have to be there when he says he wants you.

Otherwise, we wont get it done on the timeline he is

providing, Im quite sure of that.

And counsel are not to contact Dr. Robson. If

he wants to talk to you, hell call you. That rule

hasnt passed yet.

Yes?

ATTY. SMITH: Just one question. My client is

in therapy with Ms. McGuire, and I think it would be

-- we would waive the privilege for Dr. Robson to

communicate with her therapist as we think that would

be an important piece in this to render a conclusion.

THE COURT: All right. Thats noted on the

record. Dr. Robson can communicate, as he deems

necessary, with other providers.

And Attorney Murphy as the Guardian Ad Litem is

charged with the responsibility of communicating all

this to Dr. Robson and how the parties should

immediately contact him, okay?

ATTY. MURPHY: Your Honor, just one other thing

2712

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


30/32

if it could be part of the orders.

In the event that Dr. Robson determines that a

particular type of evaluation should be done and he

wants to --

THE COURT: Like a neuropsych or a

psychologically -- he may confer with such other

evaluators as are necessary.

Counsel, hes a psychiatrist, sometimes they

send people to a psychologist for certain kinds of

testing, or a neuropsychologist for certain kind.

Okay? Thank you.

ATTY. SMITH: I understand, Your Honor.

ATTY. MURPHY: Thank you.

THE COURT: So ordered.


THE COURT: And the money comes without

prejudice out of the escrow.

ATTY. SMITH: Thank you very much, Judge.

THE COURT: Thank you.

ATTY. MURPHY: Thank you.

MR. SARNO: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, thank you, Mr. Sarno, for

finding your way. Good luck to you, all right?


THE COURT: Thank you. Okay, Dean and Valinho.

Im entering an order on that last case quickly.

Im sealing Dr. Collins letter under our statutory

2812

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3


31/32

provisions regarding a childs treating therapist.

Thank you.

ATTY. SMITH: Thank you.

THE COURT: Would you tell Mr. Eisenhandler?

ATTY. SMITH: I will, Judge.

THE COURT: Thank you, until further order of

the Court.

(End of hearing.)

2912

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3


32/32

NO: FA09-4037658 : SUPERIOR COURT

SUNNY LIBERTI : JUDICIALDISTRICT

OF MIDDLESEX

v. : AT MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT

ROBERT LIBERTI : FEBRUARY 22, 2011

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I hereby certify the foregoing 29 pages are a true and

correct transcription of the audio recording of the above-

referenced case, heard in Superior Court, Judicial District of

Middlesex, Middletown, Connecticut, before the Honorable Lynda

B. Munro, Judge, on this 22nd day of February, 2011.

Dated this 23rd day of February, 2011 in Middletown,

Connecticut.

_____________________________Nancy Gill-ReaCourt Recording Monitor

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Liberti v. Liberti Transcript of 2/22/2011 Hearing

Documents

Transcript of Liberti v. Liberti Transcript of 2/22/2011 Hearing