in the Campbell County Court House, Newport, Kentucky.
[a verbatim transcript from the public record video tape of the trial]
[Amanda and Mrs. G___ are the same person; Khalid and Mr. E___ are the same person; Carolyn and Mrs. A____ are the same.]
Ladies and Gentlemen, before I get to the matter at hand I wanted to thank you all. I don’t have the opportunity to observe you during the trial, but I know you’ve been paying attention to all the documents. We really appreciate it. You’re the backbone of the judicial system, and we appreciate your time and effort.
We came here three days ago, and I’m sure for many it seems longer than that. You’ve had a chance to see many documents. That’s the nature of this process. The termination of parental rights is a serious matter, and whether you’ve made a decision yet, we hope you understand some of the work that goes in to that decision.
I don’t disagree with Ms. G___ or any birth parent that has issues regarding what they’re doing. It’s an amazing decision. If we’re sitting in her shoes…how do we understand unless we’ve been there ourselves? That’s something they do with much decision making, especially if they can’t call on friends or relatives.
These are the facts in the case. What do we know? We know that Mrs. A____ and AOK did not contact Ms. G____. This was not an expedition to see if they could find a birth mother. In fact we know that Ms. G___ for whatever reasons had a relationship with an individual that in a sense almost terrorized her. I mean, there are countless documents; you’ve seen them; you’ll have the opportunity to read them. But, this process begins with that [relationship], not with Carolyn ___ or AOK. That was a process that put Ms. G___ into an emotional state; it wasn’t anything to do with being pregnant. She was concerned, and made -- I’ll give her credit – a courageous decision. She was facing what she suggested might be her own death. She said that: pushed in a car going 65 miles an hour down an expressway. Now when did she take out the [Emergency Protective Order]? That was on August 26, 2003. Is there any evidence to suggest that AOK or Carolyn A___ knew anything about that [at the time]? No, absolutely nothing. The descriptions that she put forward in those documents are imperative for you to review in making your decision because they reflect upon what she was thinking was the best thing for her child. She was single; she had an abusive relationship which she left; she wanted to make a decision. She contemplated abortion, and that was something she thought about, and, to her credit, she decided not to.
But she tried to place her child with other people, but they wanted to know who the birth father was. Kentucky law doesn’t require that and she called adoption agencies and made contact with Carolyn A___. Now about Carolyn A____, what do we know? We know that at the first contact Carolyn A____ made a decision to meet with her, take notes about her…A telephone conversation, placed in the file, no one had any reason to hide that. If it didn’t go through, it didn’t go through. She [Carolyn] made a decision to visit with her [Amanda] and see her, and she [Carolyn] made the trip up here [Covington]. She didn’t say, “There’s a charge involved; you have to pay me; how are we going to make ends meet?” She [Carolyn] said, “Sure, I’ll be glad to discuss this.” And what is on that initial document that we saw today? We saw that that telephone call comes in. First question on the document, standard form: “Do you want to identify the birth father?” “No.” What else does she say? The handwriting of Mrs. A____ says, “Birth father abusive….restraining order…Egyptian…may be going back there.” Where does that information come from, folks? It comes from her [Amanda]. It comes from Mrs. G___. Now, is she lying about that information? Is she tricking Mrs. A____? What obligation does Mrs. A____ have to figure out if that’s not true? She doesn’t have to take this case.
She’s providing a social service to this individual [Amanda], and she [Carolyn] decides to meet with her [Amanda], and they follow up, and she [Amanda] is given a statement of representation on the day that they meet. [The statement indicates:] “I’ll be your attorney if you decide to go forward. This document doesn’t mean you’re consenting. You have the right to move forward." And you saw the documents. You saw this file which contains the documents -- you’ll have this back with you when you deliberate –- the majority of which were touched, seen, signed, and discussed with Mrs. G___. Now to suggest that Mrs. G____ was out of the loop is ludicrous. To suggest that Mrs. G____ was cajoled, or forced, or deceit was placed to make her make this decision is beyond the evidence in this case.
But how do we know that? If it’s simply one document, and Mr. S____ [attorney] has spent an inordinate amount of time of showing you about three documents. “This says this..” and he blows up portions of the document; he ignores the portions that say “ask if you have questions; I’m being paid by the adoptive parents; I’m being paid by the adoptive parents; I’m being paid by the adoptive parents.” Three times on one page, and then that document the 12/22/03 letter: What do we know about that document that goes to Mrs. G____? She signs it, and it says at the bottom: “Here’s your copy for your records and, please, call if you have any questions.” Now, the plaintiff wants you to believe, through their expert witness, that, my goodness, she couldn’t possibly have understood that. She wouldn’t have known what to do when she signed that, wouldn’t have know what it meant, wouldn’t have known why she was going forward, wouldn’t have known that she could call, wouldn’t have known who was representing her, wouldn’t have known any of these issues. Even if you believe that she didn’t know any of that, the bottom statement on the last page states, “If you have questions, ask me.” Now, she came to Mrs. A____; she wanted to place her child for termination. Isn’t there an underlying obligation for every person involved in a situation that has a question to ask it?
And what is her [Amanda] damage by not knowing or not understanding that the fees were paid by the adoptive parents? Or that Mrs. A____ worked for a profit agency? How did that hurt her? She didn’t lose any money; she paid not dollar one for this. So how did that knowledge or lack thereof or her failure to ask about it affect her decision to go forward? Did Mrs. A____ say to her, “You have to provide me with ‘My Story’ before I meet you on November 19?” She [Amanda] wrote that herself; typed it herself; described it. Now, Mrs. G___ wants you to believe that the document regarding the EPO did not have the name of the birth father blacked out. Her suggestion is that that document with the blacking out was done by Mrs. A_____. [She would have you believe that] Mrs. A____, for $6,500 placed herself in jeopardy of this court and before you, met this woman at this woman’s request, she brought the name of the birth father knowing full well that if the name is known you must name him, and that Carolyn A_____ crossed out the name and said, we’ll do this; let’s commit a fraud. Because that’s what Mrs. G___’s telling you. She [Amanda] is asserting that’s what occurred, and that is the beginning of the fraud.
Now, let’s assume that was true, because there would be no reason for Mrs. G___ at other times not to tell others who the father was. It would be out there, so tell them. We have a letter here, a conversation there, and there is not one document [naming the birth father]. If Mrs. G_____ was so concerned that she couldn’t back out of this, all she had to do was tell the father, tell the birth father’s name. But, instead, she was afraid, that if the birth father was involved, not only would she be potentially abused or harmed (might face death in the writing she said), but so would her child, and so would her unborn child. Is it reasonable for her to suggest, “I don’t want this kind of a man before the court, and further more is it permissible in Kentucky.” Absolutely permissible.
The final testimony in this case was the video tape [of the termination]. You saw that document signed again in court by Mrs. G____ which states, “The biological father of the infant, Hayden ____ _____... (Now, let’s talk about that for a minute. Do you believe, that if Mrs. G____ did not desire that this [termination and adoption] go through, she would have gone to the trouble of naming the child for the adoptive parents? Do you want to know someone who’s defrauded in this case? Do you want to know someone who suffered in this case? It’s the adoptive parents who suffered in this case. They spent the entire time from when they were identified in January 2004 in conversation, picked by Mrs. G____, telephone conversations with her, meetings with her, saying you are going to be the parents of my child; you are the ones I want to be the parents.
In fact, she says this in writing to her [unborn] child. Do you think she was so distressed and not knowing what’s going on that she could write a letter to her child; was her arm being twisted? Did anybody tell you that’s required? [She writes] “One thing I believe (talking about the adoptive parents) is the fact that your parents [names of adoptive parents] were always meant to be your parents; you were always their son; they need me to help you enter the world; that was the role I played in your life. Now, if we weren’t here today, and you ran into Amanda G____ on the street and she told you that story, saying, “This is what I did with my child,” you would laud her. You would say you’re a bigger person than I am! You would say, “What a step to take when things were tough!” She wrote that and had them involved.
What else do we know? She brought them in when she was having false labor. She called them when she went into the hospital because they were closest to her. They come down and spend ten days with her before the birth. Now did she say she told them she knew the birth father; was she being forced; did she discuss the fee; what was she thinking then? She was thinking, “I want you to have my child.” Now, is this confirmed anywhere else? She writes a letter to the hospital: “Only allow these people in my room: the adoptive parents, my ex husband (Isn’t that interesting—she’s asking that her ex-husband be present. That went to the hospital; that didn’t go to the agency, they didn’t tell her to write that. She didn’t write for Khalid E___ to be there. No one forced her to write them. These are all in her handwriting.) So on that day [birth date] she wanted the adoptive parents to be present and no one else. She didn’t want to be talked to about whether it was the right decision or wrong decision; she’d made up her mind. Was she uneducated or emotionally distraught; was she being stepped upon by Mrs. A____? She said nobody’s making me do this except me. This is what I want. This is the same thing she told the court on April 12 , 2004.
Here’s what we know, until April 12, 2004, at any time in the process all she had to say was I don’t want to do it. You’ve heard from the foster home, Mrs. T__ and from Jan O____, and you’ve heard from the workers and employees of AOK. If a mother calls with a legal question it goes to Carolyn A____. If a mother wants to back out, it’s over. The adoptive parents have no rights until the termination. 60 days was the description of Mrs. T__ in one case. Sixty days the baby had been there when the birth mother said I’m sorry, and the baby was given back – another fee gone down the tube. Well, that is not what made this case come about.
What made this case come about is that on or about April 22, 2004. How do we know that?…this terrible agency that doesn’t tell anybody what they’re doing and Mrs. A___ is not doing her job, this agency documents in the record that they get a phone call, and Amanda has heard that the birthfather is looking for the child. Isn’t this interesting, if Amanda is having conversations with the birth father prior to that, why doesn’t she say that Khalid E____ is calling me on the phone. He’s trying to find me. But the documentation and the testimony of Mrs. A___ is that even then [April 22,2004] she doesn’t know the name. It’s past the termination, but she doesn’t know the name.
And even before that before the termination, we have clear evidence. Jan O____ testified that two days after the birth of the child, she asked Amanda how she was doing, and that she was sleeping and eating ok and was not depressed. On the 17th of April, 2004, consistent with the practices of Carolyn A___ and AOK, Jan O____ makes a visit up here to Northern Kentucky and meets with Amanda to find out how are things going. She described her and said she never looked better. Amanda asked Jan if she could have contact with the adoptive parents, and Jan said, “Sure! Let’s get them on the phone,” and Amanda talked with those people [adoptive parents] again. After the termination, five days previously, is there a mention of the birth father? Is there a concern about him? No, there is not. Mrs. O___ who was trained as a social worker to provide those non legal contacts with the client was seeing Amanda on that date. Jan O___ wrote a letter to Amanda on April 21, 2004 telling her how great it was to see her. There was no mention of the birth father when Jan met with Amanda on the 17th or you would have heard about that.
If this agency had been sanctioned or the license suspended, any of those things, that information would have been put forward [by the plaintiff’s attorney, but there was nothing to put forward.] What the plaintiff’s expert witness wants you to believe is that you have to do all this, but I’m going to review what the plaintiff gives me. I don’t want to see Amanda’s deposition. Don’t confuse me with the tape of the proceedings, because I don’t want to know about that. I just want to know what my opinion is about Mrs. A____. She had done two adoptions twenty years ago and she just wanted to look at a few documents. She didn’t even want to talk with Mrs. G____ to learn what her level of sophistication was.
Now we put forth a person [R.M. from Kansas] who does do this [adoption work]. He does it similarly to the practice of Mrs. A____. He doesn’t have birth parents asking, by the way how much does all this cost, because up front (just as in this case) they know it’s not going to cost them anything. How did not knowing that she was not going to pay anything cause her not to want to go forward? Let’s assume that we told her it cost $50,000 to do this [adoption]. Do you believe from the evidence and what you’ve seen that Mrs. G___ would have said I’m not going forward if they’re going to pay that amount? She [Amanda] never questioned it. It was not an issue. That didn’t stop her.
What stopped her after April 22 was this: She ran into the former abusive boy friend that was being represented by Mr. S____. And prior to even having a relationship within two weeks she was married. May 1, 2004 Amanda married this individual, and that, of course, was the end of the adoptive placement for this child. Her choice had been sealed and finalized.
You saw the April 12 tape where she appeared before the judge. You can make a determination whether that was a sham, that Carolyn A___ forced her to say that, that none of that information was true, that it was incorrect, that the guardian ad litem knew and was part of this entire fraud, that all those things were going on where the court asked those questions knowing full well that everyone was tricking Mrs. G___. Now Mrs. G___ had the sophistication to say, “What happens if the people I’ve selected don’t want this baby?” And what was the answer? “Mam, after today you don’t have any choice in who the adoptive family is going to be.” She [the judge] told her that, point blank. And she [the judge] said, “If you don’t want to go forward with this just say so and we’ll stop.” I asked Amanda in the complaint she filed about her claim that she was told to lie that she didn’t know the birth father. That was a question directly from the judge to her: “Mam, it’s my understanding that you know who the birth father is.” And her response was, “I do.” but the judge said, “It’s my understanding you don’t want to name him because of an issue of abuse. You’ve got a [domestic violence] order.” [Amanda] “That’s right.” [Judge] “Does he know about the birth.” [Amanda] “He thinks I had an abortion.” [Judge] “Have you had any contact with him?” [She answered, “No”] And here she is, folks, this is a legal [hearing]– you talk about important document and time. This time is the moment. If you’re going to go before the court for any reason, raise your hand (as people have done in this case), and swear you’re telling the truth, that’s the moment in time to begin doing it. And either she lied on that day [April 12, 2004] or she is lying now [Jan 2009] when she took the stand, because they’re both inaccurate. She cannot have it both ways.
Now, what she wants you to believe, is that she was forced to give that statement [on April 12]. Did you hear Mrs. A____ say anything, coach her, tell her what to say? No. What interest would she have to do that; she practices throughout the state; if her reputation is that [of a manipulator of facts] then her reputation is through. It’s over. And that’s what this case is going to do, because if you are saying that she [Carolyn] and her agency have done these things….you’ve hear the plaintiff’s expert witness talk about reviewing newspaper articles about this [case]. Well, do you think Mrs. A____ is putting out newspaper articles?
What’s this about? Is it about dealing with the baby? That poor Mrs. G___ can’t be with her child? Well, she’s had almost five years; she married the gentleman who was deported, who with no evidence to the contrary has this child in Egypt; and she can’t go over and see him? It’s such a loss to her! She can’t do anything; she can’t be with her husband? Now you talk about sham and fraud, that was what was done [for Khalid] to secure this child. Because I will tell you this, if you are thinking about awarding a damage to Mrs. G____ for the separation or loss of her child or a damage that came about as a result of that, then what has she done to show you she wants to be with that child? What has she done? From the day she handed that child to the adoptive parents in the hospital where they had their own separate room until this date when she sits here asking for $1,200,000 she hasn’t seen the child.
Now maybe the money’s enough; she doesn’t need the child, but you can only recover in her case if you find that what occurred in this case caused her damage. What was done that caused her damage? And you heard testimony from the expert that we put forward that all she has to do if Mr. E___ in Egypt sends over an affidavit stating that you can be the mother she’s back taking care of the child. She can file a petition in Florida where she’s now living. Now who do you think is stopping her. Who do you think doesn’t care about that process? Do you think that your husband whom you were engaged to and was a loving companion would not come up with the cost of the airfare to get you near him? Because his deportation won’t allow him to come back here. And the child can certainly come visit, even if that wasn’t the case because he’s a United States citizen, born in the U.S. and has that right to be here. But not once has that happened. And she wants money because that’s occurred. And that’s been totally in her control since the marriage.
So we have documents, pages of them, numerous ones signed by Mrs. G____, and the plaintiff did not put forth any of those to suggest that there was overstepping. And that’ll be the decision you’ll have to make. You’ll need to answer the instructions:
The first instruction is malpractice. Did Mrs. A___ exercise the degree of care and skill expected of a reasonably competent lawyer acting under similar circumstances. Did she act as a person for the purposes of securing what her client wanted. And have you seen any evidence that Mrs. G___ did not want that termination.? No, that’s what she wanted, that’s why she picked the family; that’s why she wished they’d have the child; that ‘s why she wrote letters to them; that’s why she contacted AOK in November 2003.
So it says you have to find that, and you also have to find there was a damage. You have to find that what Mrs. A___ told her caused her a damage.
Next, they’re saying, if it’s not that, then Mrs. A___ and AOK acted in such a way that it’s outside the bounds of common decency as would be observed by a civilized community. In other words, Mrs. A____ did something so outrageous with a disinterest toward Mrs. G___; tricked the court; tricked Mrs. G___ to place this child in a termination proceeding, and that as a result, Mrs. G___ was severely emotionally distressed. Have you heard any testimony about that at all? Other than I slept a lot, I didn’t feel good, I didn’t know what was going on. That’s what she said. Have any doctors taken the stand and said we treated Mrs. G___ for psychiatric and emotional damages as a result of the treatment rendered her by Carolyn A___? And, we think she suffered mentally. No, they don’t have any proof of that. So on that instruction you can’t find on their behalf.
Then finally, they say, “Fraud!” In all of these you have to find each of these: “and, and, and” “Defendant A___ knew and acted with reckless disregard towards her.” Where is the evidence for that?
So, if you go through these [instructions to the jury] three and say, “no, no, and no” you’re through. “No” as it relates to Mrs. A___ not having done these things in this case. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s always hard to sit in judgment for individuals. We have a natural tendency to have in our heart an emotional bond for people that we feel for. You were picked as jurors because you were being impassioned in that regard. You have to sit back and reflect. You have to make the decision based on the evidence not with a sense of “Wouldn’t it be great if Mrs. G___ could go over to Cairo, and wouldn’t it be fine if everything would work out.” It would be great if all those things could happen, but that’s not what this case is about. Sometimes we have to reach closure. Some people have to be told as we said at the beginning and we laughed about it, “Anybody can file a lawsuit.” Sometimes you have to say, “I’m sorry. It’s got to be over now.” We all have to go on. But this has certainly been a trying experience for Mrs. A___, and it’s up to you, in making that decision to end it.
And I want to say one other thing in closing for I think the last document we presented bears looking at again. It’s of great concern to me as an officer of the court, and I hope that you all will take the full import of this document, when I say this came after the termination proceedings, and this is the statement by Mrs. G____, in a court, in a court like this, like in the voluntary proceedings when she had her rights terminated, [the record states:] “The petitioner was coerced into filing this [Domestic Violence Order of Sept 3, 2003] by adoption agency. . .” It’s an absolute lie [Carolyn and AOK first contact with Amanda was November 19, 2003, over two months later], and that went against Mrs. A____. That cannot happen. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment