On Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:36 AM,
Mrs. Abramowitz emailed Mr. Abramowitz:
Dear Harold,
I have not been able to secure a monitor for today's visit.
Theodore was sick on 2/8/09. He had a horrible infection under his eye. Luckily, I got to take care of it for a few hours. On 2/11/09, you went to Chicago and left him with a babysitter. Theodore was still sick on 2/15/09. He had a high fever during the entire visit. He slept and sweated in my arms. He wanted to stay here, but I didn't dare ask you. You sent him back to school and daycare before he was well. Because of this, he lost the opportunity he'd cherished (and earned) to participate in the Monterey Hills Elementary School Talent Show (2/20/09). Okay. I respect your decisions, but he needs time with his mother.
Harriet spent her eleventh birthday with a babysitter while you were out of town. She asked to see me and you told her no. Okay. I respect your decisions, but she needs time with her mother.
Today is the third anniversary of your mother's funeral. I'm thinking about your mother.
I took care of your mother (and your father) when your mother was dying. Afterwards, your sisters sent me a gold charm that they'd given to your mother years before. It says, '#1 Mom.'
Today is my birthday. I'm sick with worry about 'my' children.
I know I might be wrong, but I do believe that Harriet and Theodore still need their mother.
We have been living this way for more than a year now. The children are surviving, not thriving. The children clearly understand and consistently demonstrate their respect for the fact that you are the boss and that what you say goes. I, too, understand that I must show respect for your authority over the children and over my interaction with the children. If your system allows for compassion at all, then, please, for their health, for my health, allow me, their mother, to be with the children today.
Please know that I did not neglect my duties--absurd as they are--Since when does the prisoner hire his own warden?--and that I tried my hardest to get a monitor for today's visit.
Yes, this week's exercise in humiliation/stigmatization of the mother still occurred on schedule.
Sorry this is so long.
Thanks for listening.
Your old friend,
Lani
On Sunday, February 22nd 2009 at 12:04 PM,
Mr. Abramowitz emailed Mrs. Abramowitz:
Mira-Lani,
Thanks for letting me know that you will not be having your visitation with Harriet and Theodore today.
As for the rest of your message, I consider it to be an attempt at provocation on your part and I will be forwarding it to the South Pasadena Police Dept. in accordance with the terms of the Restraining Order, which also covers email communication.
Thank you.
Best,
Harold
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM,
Attorney Charles Ver Hoeve emailed his client,
Mr. Abramowitz,
and cc’d Mrs. Abramowitz:
Hello Mr. Abramowitz:
Thank you for keeping informed regarding status and issues regarding custody and visitation. I continue to be dismayed by Ms. Bernard-Abramowitz's tactics to seek a modification of the custody and visitation orders while REFUSING to comply with the long-standing orders to comply with the child custody evaluation.
In addition, I am pursuing the issue as to why Ms. Bernard-Abramowitz is not complying with the child support orders.
Sincerely,
Charles A. Ver Hoeve
On Sunday, February 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 PM,
Mrs. Abramowitz emailed Mr. Ver Hoeve:
Hello Mr. Ver Hoeve,
Since you are 'pursuing issues,' and since you Cc'd me, I suppose it's appropriate for me to respond to your email.
I still don't have an attorney or money for an attorney. My understanding is that legally Harold and I are divorced, that he has 'won' sole custody of the children, that there is a restraining order against me, and that my meager wages are being garnished to be wasted on after-school care and babysitting that I, the children's mother, a teacher with more than 25 years of professional experience, could joyfully and would gratefully provide free of charge.
Harold's actions and emails indicate that he wants to keep fighting, that he does not feel that he can ever share custody with me, and that he does not want me in the children's lives anymore. He seems to want sole custody, but still does not demonstrate compassion regarding the children's social and emotional needs. He is neglecting them and 'blaming' it on me. At Harold's behest, his family has dismissed me and encourages the children to do the same. PAS? These issues will not go away without help from therapeutic providers (not evaluators), even after the legal issues are resolved.
As Commissioner Michael J. Convey indicated at the June 2009 hearing, and as you are well aware, without an attorney and more than one custody evaluator, my children and I will not receive fair treatment in the Los Angeles Family Court.
This case has been going on since September 18th 2007 when, for some mysterious reason (since neither attorney requested it), the first hearing was held in chambers out of my presence. I still have no idea what went on.
Also, for some mysterious reason, in all this time, neither of the two presiding Court officials has seen fit to actually meet with the children and their so-called 'counsel.'
Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake. The first hearing was August 20th. It was an exparte hearing between you and Judge Goldstein of which no record was made (not by the court reporter, not by the electronic means available in all the courtrooms at Hill Street). Maybe that was when you asked for the September 18th chambers meeting. It's not mentioned in the August 20th Minute Orders. The week prior to that, you, Charles, 'disappeared' from the August 15th mediation appointment. You were there one minute and gone the next. Because you left, we were not even able to try mediation. Why did we have to go to court in the first place? Why couldn't we have tried mediation? Was it because you knew that I didn't have any money or adequate representation? That I was psychologically battered, unprotected, without resources and that you could just railroad me at whatever cost to the children? Tactics?
And now Harriet and Theodore suffer, continue to suffer. I understand that this is your profession, that it is adversarial and not collaborative, and that, even when--or especially when--you are working as a favor to a friend, you are obligated to use all available tactics to decimate your opponent. But don't you, as an attorney, have an ethical responsibility towards the children and their welfare? I don't know. Maybe not.
When, G-d willing, I am able to hire/gain access to a competent attorney and an unbiased Custody Evaluator, I will comply, if necessary, with an evaluation procedure that follows state and local laws and the profession's standards of practice. I hope your client will also comply. Evaluations of parents are supposed to happen concurrently, at least that's what I've read. When there are allegations of abuse and neglect (backed by sworn witness statements), tests beyond the MMPI are supposed to be administered, because the MMPI doesn't test for the problems Harold (and his family) has and that the children will have to live with.
Believe it or not, not everyone who refuses to participate in a custody evaluation has something to hide. Sometimes, as in my case, they are actually trying to follow G-d's law and avoid an escalation of hurt and problems. I don't believe in fighting in family court (or wasting money that could be better spent on the children) and would still rather work this out in a non-adversarial, collaborative, and forgiving way.
In the meantime, the children need more time with their mother and unmonitored time with their mother, regardless of who won custody. Since the court is your arena, since you are so obviously friendly and on good terms with the judges and clerks, since the 'unbiased' evaluator sees fit to have private communication with you and make private fee arrangements with you, since, during the hearings, the children's counsel whispers advice to you, Petitioner's counsel, regarding removing his clients' own witnesses from the courtroom, and since, before the hearings, the children's counsel and evaluator inappropriately confer with you in the court house hallway (without including me, the self-represented Respondent, despite the fact that I am obviously present), I think that you should be the one to ask for this relief for the children.
Furthermore, Ms. Yvonne Moore, the Chief Business Officer at Cleveland Chiropractic College tried several times to get in touch with you regarding setting up the wage garnishment. Despite the friendly encouragement you offered in your letter to 'call you with questions,' you were never available to speak with her when she called your office. She left messages for you, but you did not return her calls. According to my paycheck, the wage garnishment is now in place.
Similarly, I, the unwilling and unwillingly 'self-represented' Respondent, have not heard anything from you, Charles Ver Hoeve, attorney for the Petitioner, (until today, and today only indirectly) since you neglected/refused to respond to the certified letters I sent you last March 2007 and April 2007, almost a year ago now. In November and December, you lied in court when you said you'd had me served with papers. I wasn't there, but I read the transcripts. Are attorneys allowed to lie in court about serving papers? About anything?
Finally, you still don't even know my name. In your future communications with me or about me, you may correctly refer to me as: Harriet and Theodore's Mother.
For instance,
'Dear Harriet and Theodore's Mother,
I am aware that the children need their mother and I will do my best to help my client(s) understand that, while it is good not to hurt or eat animals, it is just as important not to hurt or eat people....'
Sincerely,
Harriet and Theodore's Mother
'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'
On Sunday, February 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 PM,
Mr. Ver Hoeve wrote:
Ms. Bernard Abramowitz:
I have not received any calls from Ms. Yvonne Moore since sending her the child support order.
Regarding the issue of cooperation, would you agree to sign a stipulation re joinder of yourself to the paternity action filed by Mr. Oglesby. That way we can set a hearing to resolve the issue of paternity that Mr. Oglesby, not Mr. Abramowitz, raised.
I am happy to work with you if you are willing to cooperate. Cooperation, however, begins with complying with the already existing court orders and requesting any changes you think are appropriate through the court.
Sincerely,
Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
On Sunday, February 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 PM,
Mrs. Abramowitz wrote:
Mr. Ver Hoeve,
Please send all of your correspondence to me via United States mail. Please cooperate with my request and address me as 'Harriet and Theodore's Mother.'
You are lying about Ms. Moore. She called you and left you messages, to which you did not respond.
As I explained, unless and until I have an attorney, I cannot 'stipulate to,' 'cooperate with' or 'request any changes' through the court. That is what the Judge/Commissioner said. You know that. Please do not continue to try to manipulate me, or trick me, into working against my own and the children's best interests.
I am not married to Mr. Oglesby. Mr. Oglesby is Harriet's biological father. Although I was married to Mr. Oglesby for several years (1987-1994), I was not married to him when Harriet was conceived. Harold may be Harriet's 'father,' but Mr. Oglesby is Harriet's biological father. Harold knows this; he and I were not intimate during the time Harriet was (or could have been) conceived. Why Harold felt compelled to lie about the 'biology' of his paternity in his sworn declarations is an issue that, truly, ought to be addressed by therapeutic professionals. Why not just say, 'I am the father' instead of 'I am the biological father'? That's the problem with lying, of course, once you start it's very difficult to stop without giving up the appearances you're working so hard to maintain--especially when you are lying to your sweetheart/partner and to your attorney. Even if I were dead, Mr. Oglesby's paternity action would still be valid. I am not a part of it. If Harold swears under penalty of perjury that he is Harriet's 'biological' father, why does he refuse a DNA test?
Sincerely,
Harriet and Theodore's Mother
On Sunday, February 22nd, 2009 at 7:10 PM,
Mr. Ver Hoeve wrote:
Ms. Bernard-Abramowitz:
If you have Ms. Yvonne Moore's call log, please provide me a copy. Otherwise, I do not appreciate your cavalier use of words such as "cooperation" and your accusations regarding "lying." As in most cases, actions speak louder than any words can.
Sincerely,
Charles A. Ver Hoeve
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
On Sunday, February 22nd, 2009 at 7:55 PM,
Mrs. Abramowitz wrote:
Mr. Ver Hoeve,
Did you not understand what I meant when I asked you to correspond with me through the U.S. mail?
You are right. Harold's actions speak, and will continue to speak, louder, than any words. They are also hurting Harriet, Theodore and many people who love them and miss them.
And since you are telling me what you do not appreciate, I will tell you that I do not appreciate your cavalier refusal to address me by the name I asked you to address me by.
I am Harriet and Theodore's mother. Again, please address me as: Harriet and Theodore's Mother, or, if you'd like a little more flexibility, as: Harriet and Theodore's Mama (that's what the children call me). One or the other will do. Thank you.
Ms. Moore is the Chief Business Officer of a college. You have her address. I have a copy of the letter you sent her. If you would like to request a copy of Ms. Moore's 'call log,' please send me a letter through the U.S. mail stating so, or, better yet, call or write Ms. Moore yourself. I don't work for you. Perhaps you should be paying closer attention to your staff’s call logs. If Ms. Yvonne Moore said that she called you, and called you more than once, then she did.
Sincerely,
Harriet and Theodore's Mother
