DR Michael H Pfeiffer & Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles Child Corruption in Arlington, Vriginia - 2011 Letter and Exhibits Against Her Reappointment

ROY L. MORRIS, ESQ.
 PO Box 100212
 Arlington, VA 22210
 202 657 5793
 509 356 2789 (Fax)
 Roy Morris@alum.mit.edu
 Member of the Bars of the:
District of Columbia and
United States Supreme Court
(Not a member of the Virginia Bar)
December 20, 2010
Members of Senate Committee for Courts of Justice

and the House Judicial Panel
c/o Mary Kate Felch, Senior Research Associate
Judicial Election Process Administrator
Virginia Division of Legislative Services
General Assembly Building
910 Capitol Street, Second Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
804-786-3591
MFelch@leg.state.va.us, MFelch@dls.virginia.gov
Senator, Henry L. Marsh III Delegate David Albo:

Chairman, Chairman,
Courts of Justice Committee, Senate Courts of Justice Committee, House
422 East Franklin St, Suite 301, 6367 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102,
Richmond, VA 23219 Springfield, VA 22152
Donald Curry,
Counsel
Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission
P.O. Box 367
Richmond, Virginia 23218-0367
Re: Documentation Regarding Opposition to Reappointment of Judge Esther Wiggins (JDR Arlington)
Dear Chair Senator Henry Marsh, Chair Delegate Dave Albo,

Other Distinguished Members of the Courts of Justice Committees, and
Counsel Donald Curry
Thank you for the privilege of speaking at the annual Judicial Interviews in Richmond on December 10,
2010 before the Courts of Justice Committees of the Senate and the House. As the Committees requested, I am
supplementing my remarks opposing the reappointment of Arlington JDR Judge Esther Wiggins with additional
supporting documentation,1 specific transcripts from hearings before Judge Esther Wiggins, recent local newspaper
articles publicizing the problems caused by Judge Wiggins [Wiggins-COJ-19 through 26] 2, corrections to some of
the misstatements of Judge Wiggins in her answers before the Committee, and documentation of the damages
caused by the serious failures and misdeeds of Judge Wiggins – namely one seriously ill seven year old child, and
the destruction of her family in her JDR Court (even though the husband and wife remain married to this day)..
A copy of my remarks from December 10, 2010, “Judge Wiggins: Deriving Pleasure from the Pain of
Mothers,” is found attached to this letter as Attachment I. As pointed out in my remarks, Judge Wiggin’s cases
1
List of the 437 pages of Exhibits and Page References can be found at Attachment II.
2 References to Exhibits to this Letter are noted as “Wiggins-COJ-XX”.
Morris Letter to COJ
Re: Denial of Rappointment of JDR Judge Wiggins
follow a pattern of devaluing the mother, and then using that degraded characterization to justify her actions of com-
pletely eliminating the mother from the child’s life. Her genocide approach to natural mothers is systematic, and
was followed in the well-publicized cases of Naomi Parrish, Nancy Hey, Benita Washington, and Dr. Ariel King.
I will focus here on the nine month long case, Michael Pfeiffer (Husband/Father) v Dr. Ariel King
(Wife/Mother), which was before Judge Wiggins. I personally attended all the hearings except the one on June 6,
2008 (however, I have reviewed and provided the transcript for that hearing, thus my knowledge is complete regard-
ing all matters that occurred in that case). In that proceeding, Judge Wiggins awarded full legal and physical custo-
dy to the father in an ex parte hearing, even though:
a) Judge Wiggins had not heard any testimony from the Husband/Father in the nine months of hearings,
yet still gave him full legal and physical custody of the child,
b) Judge Wiggins had not received a full psychological from the Husband/Father (even though he was or-
dered to provide one),
c) Judge Wiggins never talked to the child or had seen the child or seen the child with the Hus-
band/Father,
d) Judge Wiggins gave full legal and physical custody to the Father on June 6, 2008 even though a Mary-
land Circuit Court Judge on June 2, 2008, who was the only Judge who had interviewed both the child
and the mother in a hearing, had entered a Temporary Protective Order where he found evidence to
suspect sexual and physical abuse, and medical neglect of the 5 year old daughter, and stalking by the
Husband/Father of his Wife,
e) Judge Wiggins took no testimony or evidence on whether such an award of custody to the Father had
met the statutory requirements for awarding custody under Virginia law; and, as demonstrated by her
having to be corrected in the June 6, 2008 hearing, Judge Wiggins clearly did not know what that
standard was.
f) Judge Wiggins award of custody to the unknown father ignored the only custody study done by the
Court officer, Michele Woods. In that custody study Ms. Woods recommended that custody be jointly
awarded to both the Wife/Mother and the Husband/Father, and that full physical custody of the little
girl to remain with the wife/mother – who had been the primary caregiver of the child up until that
point in time,
g) Judge Wiggins never looked into the concerns raised by Michele Woods that the father was living in a
one bedroom apartment, sleeping with the small five year old child in a queen sized bed that the Father
bought especially for the child,
h) Judge Wiggins allowed the unconstitutional malicious questioning of a Nancy Hey, who was in the au-
dience at the June 6, 2008 hearing, as an impromptu witness even though that Ms. Hey, whose child
was previously taken away by Judge Wiggins, demanded that she have an attorney present, and
i) Judge Wiggins entered two conflicting custody orders on the same day (June 6, 2008), marking one as
“final” while the other is “temporary”.
j) Judge Wiggins was given information in the docket that the Wife/Mother had met the conditions of
both conflicting orders but Judge Wiggins took no action to resume the Mother’s physical custody of
her then 5 year old daughter and has taken no action to reunite the child with the only mother she has
ever known, even though there has never been a finding by Judge Wiggins (or any other judge) that the
Mother poses any harm or potential harm to the child.
k) Judge Wiggins took the case in JDR court, and failed throughout to take into consideration that the
parents were and remain married.
l) Judge Wiggins failed to take into consideration that, at the time of his being awarded full legal and
physical custody, the Father was unemployed, had been denied a medical license in Washington DC
for inability to provide a valid medical school transcript from Germany. Judge Wiggins did not know
these material facts because when she granted the Father custody, she had never placed the Father on
the witness stand nor allowed the taking of his testimony.
In sum, Judge Wiggins routinely operates outside the law in a closed courtroom. She consistently and
systematically devalues and then eliminates nurturing loving mothers from their children’s lives. In the case of
Pfeiffer v King, Judge Wiggin’s actions have caused the child to be in the custody of a Father who has had several
protection orders against him because of concerns of safety of the child, and has been highly suspected by a Mary-
land Circuit Court Judge of sexual and physical abuse. Moreover ever since the child came into the Father’s physical
custody the child has suffered from the potentially fatal severe chronic neutropenia (i.e., critically low immunity,
2
like that suffered by those with AIDS) that experts now believe, based on test results to date, is “induced by tox-
ins”/drugs used to facilitate and cover up abuse. The child’s untreated condition is life-threatening and so severe
that the German Embassy has appealed to the father (who is a German citizen) to get an independent medical exam-
ination of the child (who also holds German citizenship) to get her a proper diagnosis and GCSF, the only lifesaving
medicine for severe chronic neutropenia, The aberrant Father has refused the pleas of his own German government,
and thanks to Judge Wiggins, he feels immune in the US from having to answer to his own Government. The Fa-
ther continues to do defy his own German government to the detriment to the health and well being of a now-7 year
old little girl. [Wiggins-COJ-430]
The Case of Michael Pfeiffer (Husband) v. Ariel R. King (Wife):

Judge Wiggins Ignored the Law and the Record to Illegally Give Full Legal and Physical Custody to an
Abuser (Who Continues to Put the Life of the Child in Direct and Immediate Danger).
The Pfeiffer v King case suffered from irregularities of Judge Wiggins Court from the very beginning. The
case was filed in Virginia in August 2007 by Michael Pfeiffer (a German citizen on a visa that expires 2012). At
that time and to this day, Dr. Pfeiffer was and continues to be the husband of child’s natural mother, Dr. Ariel King.
The couple had lived in Maryland until Dr. Pfeiffer had abandoned the marital home and moved to Washington DC.
Michael Pfeiffer left Dr. King and their child, Ariana-Leilani, penniless and without a home in June 2007.
Before filing his Virginia custody case in August 2007, a temporary protection order was issued in July 2007
in Washington DC against Michael Pfeiffer as a result of his attack on both Dr. King and their daughter at a recep-
tion held at the Zambian Embassy for the Ariel Foundation International (See, TPO at Exhibits at Wiggins-COJ-
54).3 In retaliation in July 2007, Pfeiffer filed in Washington DC for divorce and full custody of their then 4 year
old daughter. Pfeiffer had falsely claimed in his Washington DC custody/divorce complaint that his wife, Dr. King
was a resident at the Zambian Embassy. The DC Superior court dismissed Pfeiffer’s case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because no party had lived in Washington DC for the required six months. [Exhibits at Wiggins-COJ-
34] At the dismissal hearing, both parties agreed that Maryland was the child’s “home state.” 4
While Pfeiffer had his Maryland counsel negotiating a “parental agreement”, Pfeiffer hired a Virginia attor-
ney to secretly file a custody complaint in Virginia in August 2007, only 29 days after Dr. King had sought emer-
gency housing and safety (that did not require a substantial deposit) for herself and her daughter in Arlington Virgin-
ia. As of the date Father’s filing in Virginia, neither party had satisfied the six month residency requirement for ei-
ther divorce or custody jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).
[Exhibits at Wiggins-COJ-27, - 30, and - 59] Dr. King, the Mother, and her child had remained legal residents of
Maryland, where she returned with her child less than three months later (October 2007).
Ignoring the Lack of “Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” Judge Wiggins Refused to Dismiss the Custody Case in
JDR Court of this Married Couple, None of Whom Had Lived in Virginia for the Required Six Months.
Judge Wiggins never had a hearing to take evidence as to whether Virginia had jurisdiction to hear the case.
Instead, Judge Wiggins prematurely held an impromptu premature hearing on September 5, 2007 prior to the date
set by the Petition of September 6, 2007 (See, Original Summons, attached hereto at Wiggins-COJ-27 and compare
to date of September 5, 2007 Initial Custody Order, attached hereto at Wiggins-COJ-37, which contains no finding
of subject matter jurisdiction). The parties were led to believe that the September 5, 2007 hearing was solely for the
purpose of postponing the September 6, 2007 hearing date (which was unilaterally set by the Father in his Petition)
to provide more time to respond. As a result of the premature hearing, the Mother and her attorney were not pre-
pared to respond to the Husband’s custody petition at the September 5, 2007 hearing, to make proper argument, nor
to prepare testimony or give evidence that Virginia did not have jurisdiction.5 Subject matter jurisdiction can nei-
3
As a result of the violent incident on July 7, 2007 at the Zambian Embassy, in Washington, DC the US Se-
cret Service (who had responded to the incident) advised Dr. King to obtain a Temporary Protective Order for their
daughter and herself against her husband, Michael Pfeiffer.
4
Dr. King’s counsel told the DC Superior Court that the couple could not be divorced in Virginia, because
"nobody has been there for six months." DC Aug. 1, 2007 Transcript at 19 and 23. He also pointed out that six
months is also required for establishing Virginia as the "home state" for subject matter custody jurisdiction under the
UCCJEA. Counsel for both parties agreed that six months was required for Virginia to be the home state, and that
the child's home state was Maryland. DC Aug 1, 2007 Transcript at 18-19, -23.
5
See, e.g., Burdick v. Brooks, III, 160 Md. App. 519; 864 A.2d 300 (2004).
3
ther be consented to nor waived by the parties or the court.6 Thus, it is a fundamental rule that no custody case
can proceed until jurisdiction is established, which Judge Wiggins clearly failed to do.7
Judge Wiggins Failed to Recognized that, Even if Original Jurisdiction were Present in August 2007, Virginia
Lost Continuing Jurisdiction Automatically in October 2007 When All Parties No longer Lived in Virginia”
Furthermore, even though the Wife/Mother and child quickly returned to Maryland in October 2007, and the
Father was still living in Washington DC, Judge Wiggins refused to recognize that under Virginia law it automati-
cally lost “continuing jurisdiction” when all parties had left the state in October 2007. In February 2008, the Wife/
Mother’s attorney, Mr. Miller, brought this legal fact to Judge Wiggin’s attention, and the Court refused to address
its lack of continuing jurisdiction:.
MR. MILLER: Before we get into that, though, Your Honor, we kind of eased into this visitation matter.
This Court, under 20-146.13 has lost exclusive continuing jurisdiction.
THE COURT: I’m not hearing a jurisdiction motion here. I ordered the mother to return the child to the fa-
ther.
MR. MILLER: And the previous motion was regard to subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not --
THE COURT: I’m not hearing a motion to dismiss. That’s not before the Court. I’m not going to hear it.
MR. MILLER: But the Court has modified its visitation and custody order, which it can’t do because under
146.13 when the parties left the Commonwealth of Virginia lost continuing exclusive jurisdiction.
…
MR. MILLER: But the statute doesn’t --
THE COURT: I’m not arguing with you about this. I’ve already ruled. The case is still pending here. The
Court ruled that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The case is still pending; we have not come to a
conclusion in this case. This Court is going to maintain jurisdiction in the case.
- Transcript, February 8, 2008 at 46-48 [Wiggins-COJ-108].
Judge Wiggins ruling was not only substantively wrong, it was procedurally incorrect because, by law, ques-
tions of jurisdiction are required to take precedence over all other matters. 8
[Note For Correction to Judge Wiggins Representation at the December 10, 2010 Judicial Interviews:
The Court’s initial custody order specifically permitted the free movement of the Mother and child anywhere in the
Washington DC metropolitan area. No permission of the Court was required for her to move back across the river to
Maryland. Thus, the Mother and child were free to move back to their “home state” of Maryland without violating
any order or rule.]
Judge Wiggins Ignored the Father’s Sleeping in the then Five Year Old Child’s Bed in her Windowless “Bed-
room” in His Cramped Walkup “ Small Student Apartment” in Washington, DC
Soon after overnight visitation with the Father began, the child started to show severe behavioral changes
(peeing in pants, biting herself, seeing “bumble bees”, stating she was scared at her father’s house). The then four-
year-old child disclosed to the Court’s appointed social worker Michele Woods that the father was sleeping in the
child’s queen sized bed (an oversized bed that the father had specially bought for the small five year old child to
sleep in [see, photo at Wiggins-COJ-33]) over the protests of the child.9 Michele Woods documented in a reported
signed on October 24, 2007 the child’s disclosure in her report to the Court:
“This counselor feels it is also important to relay to the Court that [the child] has also made several com-
ments to this counselor that her father [Dr. Pfeiffer] comes into her bed at night….this counselor would
6
[T]he record is never conclusive as to the recital of a jurisdictional fact, and the defendant is always at liber-
ty to show a want of jurisdiction, although the record avers the contrary. If the court had no jurisdiction, it had no
power to make a record, and the supposed record is not in truth a record." Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 222 Va.
787, 793, 284 S.E.2d 824, 827 (1981) (citation omitted). "[A]ny subsequent proceeding based on . . . a [jurisdiction-
ally] defective judgment is void or a nullity." - Morrison v. Bestler, 387 S.E.2d 753, 755-56 (1990)
7
The UCCJEA requires that any petition for custody have in its certain sworn statements establishing custody
jurisdiction. The Father’s custody petition specifically stated facts that prima facie established Maryland as the
child’s home state.
8
Virginia Code § 20-146.6. Priority. If a question of existence or exercise of jurisdiction under this act is
raised in a child custody proceeding, the question, upon request of a party, must be given priority on the calendar
and handled expeditiously.
9
According to Michele Woods reports, “This counselor feels it is also important to relay to the Court that [the
child] has also made several comments to this counselor that her father [Dr. Pfeiffer] comes into her bed at
night….this counselor would hope the Dr. Pfeiffer would stop this behavior and understand that it is not appropriate
considering his daughter's age.” See, Report of Michele Woods, November 8, 2007 (Wiggins-COJ-01)
4
hope the Dr. Pfeiffer would stop this behavior and understand that it is not appropriate considering his
daughter's age.”
- Michele Woods, Probation Counselor, Custody Investigation Arlington Juvenile And

Domestic Relations District Court, October 24, 2007 at 16 [See, Wiggins-COJ-1, -16]
The child gave information to a pediatrician that corroborated the independent disclosure of the child to the Michele
Woods. The Mother asked the Court to address this problem immediately through reconsideration of the initial
“overnight visitation” schedule in an Emergency Motion, filed on October 3, 2007. (See Emergency Motion
Petition, (See, Wiggins-COJ-40)). Subsequent forensic interviews confirmed the father continued his practice as a
result of Judge Wiggins failing to take action. [See, Maryland Forensic Interview, Wiggins-COJ-329A] Judge
Wiggins refused to schedule a hearing on the Mother’s Emergency Motion despite the compelling evidence that the
Father was sleeping in the child’s bed, and was suffering severely from the arrangements set forth in Judge Wiggins
Initial Custody Order. As a result, the child has unnecessarily suffered years of great psychological stress , and is
now diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, from the father regularly entering her bed, suffered from
nightmares, wetting her pants, biting herself and seeing “bumble bees.”
Judge Wiggins Spent All of the Hearing Sessions Focusing on the Mother, Ignoring the Father, and Never
Meeting the Child, as Illustrated by the February 8, 2008 Hearing, Where The Mother Is Found In Contempt
of the Mother Without Taking Evidence, and Refusing to Allow Evidence:
On February 8, 2008, Judge Wiggins refused to take evidence before finding the mother in contempt based
on the ambiguous accusation of being “uncooperative” with the GAL, based solely on proffers of the GAL. The
Mother’s attorney protested that the law required an evidentiary hearing.
THE COURT: All right, let me advise the mother of the rules. All right, Ma’am, would you please stand?
It’s alleged that you are in contempt of Court by failing to comply with a specific visitation schedule. It’s
also alleged that you are in contempt of Court for not cooperating with the Guardian ad Litem and that you
are in contempt of Court for not cooperating with the custody evaluation. Why shouldn’t you go to jail
today?
MR. MILLER: Your Honor, she shouldn’t go to jail until we’ve had evidence on the matter and up until
now we haven’t had any evidence.
THE COURT: The Court can do a summary contempt.
MR. MILLER: No, they can’t, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why not?
MR. MILLER: Because summary contempt is only on several specific instances.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Summary contempt is authorized and
we do not have that today.
THE COURT: Violating a Court order.
MR. MILLER: Looking at Virginia Code 18.2-456.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. MILLER: It says cases in which Courts and judges may summarily, or may punish summarily for con-
tempt is Courts and judges may issue attachments for contempt and punish them summarily only in the fol-
lowing cases: misbehavior in the presence of the Court, violence or threats of violence to a judge or
office of the Court, vile, contemptuous or insulting language addressed to a judge, misbehavior of an of-
ficer of the Court, or disobedience or resistance of an officer of the Court. Violation of a Court order is not
within those statutory factors under 18.2-456.
THE COURT: Well, what about disobedience and resistance of an officer of the Court, jury, witness or
other persons of any lawful process, judgment, decree or order of the Court? You left that part out.
MR. MILLER: It’s a disobedience to the person.
THE COURT: It’s a disobedience of the order of the Court.
MR. OLIN: I would just say that I am an officer of the Court and --
THE COURT: Right, so I don’t think that I couldn’t, under the statute, find her summarily in contempt of
Court.
MR. MILLER: Well, with --
THE COURT: I mean, that’s what the statute says.
MR. MILLER: Well, no, it’s a disobedience or resistance of an officer of the Court, a juror or a witness or
other person to lawful process. She hasn’t --
THE COURT: To lawful process or order, judgment, decree or order of the Court.
MR. MILLER: Right.
THE COURT: You leave out that part.
MR. MILLER: Right, but it has to be the person or other lawful person.
THE COURT: I guess I’m not understanding your point.
MR. MILLER: Well, how can you find that there’s been disobedience or resistance to an officer of
5
the Court without evidence showing that?

THE COURT: Well, based on the proffer by the Guardian ad Litem.
MR. MILLER: Okay, and I disagree with that proffer, and if she wants to testify or she has evidence, then
she can come forward and put that evidence before the Court….
[The GAL then refuses to testify to support her claims and the Court does not require her to do so]….
MR. MILLER: Your Honor, that’s incorrect. Contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding. Quasi-criminal, the
presumption of innocence attaches to the defendant --
THE COURT: Civil.
MR. MILLER: We’ve got to go criminal. We have two kinds of contempt. There’s the criminal contempt
and then there’s civil contempt. And within --
THE COURT: I see no reason why the Court couldn’t hold her in contempt right at this particular moment.
MR. MILLER: Well, contempt, I’m reading from Michie’s Jurisprudence, Section 3, nature of contempt.
Proceedings for contempt of Court are of two classes. These contempts are prosecuted to preserve the pow-
er and vindicate the dignity of the Court. That’s the first kind. The second kind is contempts instituted to
preserve and enforce the rights of private parties. And what we have here is a difference between these var-
ious rules to show cause. Some of the allegations concern the rights of private parties, which would be civil
contempt. Other of these may go to whether or not it’s for the type one, which is to prosecute to preserve
the power and to vindicate the dignity of the Court.
….
THE COURT: And I definitely gave the mother a copy of the Guardian ad Litem order --
MS. OLIN: And I think at the last hearing --
THE COURT: -- with the standards under it, and those were the minimum standards that the Guardian ad
Litem has to do. She knows what she had to do. That would be cooperate.
MR. MILLER: But that’s an order to the Guardian; this order is not binding to the --
THE COURT: No, no, my point is she knows what the Guardian ad Litem is supposed to be doing and so
to -
-
MR. MILLER: No, this order tells the Guardian ad Litem what to do.
THE COURT: It informs the parties what the duties of the Guardian ad Litem are.
MR. MILLER: That’s correct.
THE COURT: So my whole point, she knows what the duties are.
….
MR. MILLER: Because the Guardian ad Litem is appointed to represent the child and shall have access to
the following persons: parties to the proceedings, that’s it. The GAL has had access to Dr. King. Now, she
may not like that she didn’t have all the access that she wanted.
THE COURT: Mr. Miller, I don’t agree with you, not at all, not even close to agreeing with you.
MR. MILLER: Because the September order --
THE COURT: This is just really unbelievable.
….
THE COURT: Well, we could be going back and forth all day. I already told you I don’t agree with you.
The Court can find her summarily in contempt, and the Court will find her in contempt for failing to co-
operate with the Guardian ad Litem. I think she has.
Transcript, February 8, 2008 at 24-36 (See, Wiggins-COJ-86 through -98)
Despite being presented with the statutory language and citation otherwise that the Court cannot hold the
Wife/Mother in contempt based solely on ambiguous proffers of the GAL, Judge Wiggins stood by her unlawful and
illogical conclusion that she could find summary contempt for actions that took place outside the courtroom without
taking any evidence. Such actions by Judge Wiggins illustrate her disregard for the rights of the parties and the law
of Virginia.
In an adulterated order with a typed in ordering clause, Judge Wiggins transferred primary physical custody
to the Father, away from the Mother. [Wiggins-COJ-123] Judge Wiggins made this change to punish the Mother
(an only child) for going to the ICU hospital bedside for two weeks of her own gravely ill mother (who had a poten-
tially fatal brain hemorrhage) in Atlanta, Georgia. Judge Wiggins condemned the Mother for taking this loving,
responsible and humanitarian action. Judge Wiggins falsely claimed that it violated the Initial Custody order even
though that order specifically provided that the Mother was allowed to take the child to Atlanta, Georgia, even in
non-emergency situations. [See, Initial Custody Order, Wiggins-COJ-37]
Judge Wiggins stated in the hearing that the child would be returned to the previous arrangement of primary
physical custody with the Mother when the Mother a) returned from caring for her own sick mother in Atlanta,
Georgia and b) began a psychological exam (which both parents were required to undergo). However, the adulter-
ated order issued by Judge Wiggins failed to state that fact, making it sound more permanent. Compare the “typed-
over” ordering clause of the February 8, 2008 Order [Wiggins-COJ-123] which is clearly inconsistent with Judge’s
oral directives in the February 8, 2008 Transcript at 53 (Wiggins-COJ-115) [“Like I said, if the Mother comes back
to the area and can provide verification as to where she is going to be living and she started a psychological, I will
6
return physical custody to the mother.”]
Arbitrarily Transferring Custody Again to the Father (Who Continued to Sleep In the Child’s Bed)
Based on Bogus Claims of Failure to Properly Inform the Court Several Days Earlier that Conditions Were
Met. After the Mother met all the conditions and brought her own mother back to Maryland to provide her with
24-hour care, and rehabilitation, the Wife/Mother, with advice of her counsel, picked up their daughter. On Febru-
ary 21, 2008, Judge Wiggins would not even allow the mother to testify on her own behalf about how she satisfied
the conditions imposed on February 8, 2008. Judge Wiggins even entered an order that date that falsely stated she
had taken evidence at the hearing, when in fact she clearly had not. [Transcript, February 21, 2008 at 48-49 [Wig-
gins-COJ-173-174]] When this discrepancy was brought to Judge Wiggin’s attention, she laughed but did not cor-
rect it.
Judge Wiggins again – without allowing witnesses or taking any evidence, including the recording of the 911
call and the missing of several days of the German School, once again transferred “Temporary Full Custody” back
to the Father. Judge Wiggins gave custody back to the Father even though Judge Wiggins still had not taken up the
October 2007 Emergency Motion, which raised questions about the Father sleeping in the child’s bed, and taking her
to men’s bathrooms, Ms. Wood’s November 8, 2007 report reported that such sleeping in the child’s bed by the
father was taking place. (See, Transcript, February 21, 2008 Hearing, Wiggins-COJ-126)
Judge Wiggins Was Not a Neutral, but Took Sides, Including Coaching the Father’s Attorney On How
to Question the Wife/Mother on the Witness Stand During Rules to Show Cause Hearing and Allowing the
Same Attorney to Dismiss the Father from the Hearing to Prevent Him From Taking the Witness Stand: On
April 8, 2008, the Judge Wiggins aided and guided the Father’s counsel on how to question the Mother on the wit-
ness stand. [See, April 8, 2008 Transcript, Wiggins-COJ-189] The trial judge refused to listen to or allow the
Mother to present a police 911 emergency call tape of the incident (where the child is screaming, crying and banging
to escape from the fathers one bedroom apartment). Without hearing the tape, Judge Wiggins concluded the 911
tape did not come within the business records exception to the “hearsay rule,” and nor did it contain an “excited ut-
terance” of the child as she desperately tried to get away from her Father who unexplainably kept the child at home
on a day that was both a work day for him and school day for the child:
THE COURT: But why is it admissible?

MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I mean, both parties knew they were being recorded. 9-1-1 calls are always record-
ed.
THE COURT: But still, you’ve still got to go with the problem with hearsay.
MR. CALLAHAN: It’s an emergency technician
making a call in the ordinary course of business.
THE COURT: No.
MR. CALLAHAN: She can lay the foundation,
testify she made the call on that date and requested --
THE COURT: No, but you still need an exception to the hearsay rule to get it in.
MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the exception to the hearsay rule, it’s the ordinary course of their business,
but excited utterance --
THE COURT: Well, who’s excited, there’s not an excited utterance. She called --
MR. CALLAHAN: She’s here.
THE COURT: She called the police and had a conversation, how is that an excited utterance?
MR. CALLAHAN: The child, you can hear the child in the background and there has been representations in
this Court by people who weren’t there
--
THE COURT: I don’t understand what this has to do with the three reasons why we’re here today.
MR. CALLAHAN: Well, it has to do with her meeting the conditions, and we think we’ve established
that and we think that her actions were not in violation of the Court’s order. If the Court thinks otherwise,
then the Court needs to know all the circumstances regarding what happened.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
- Transcript of April 8, 2008 at 87-88 (Wiggins-COJ-276 through – 277)
Judge Wiggins also ignored that the Father had inappropriately kept the child captive at home for three
school days, when she was supposed to be at school. In addition, Judge Wiggins after swearing her in on the wit-
ness stand, refused to allow the child’s Grandmother (Dr. Margo King) testify about the seriousness of her own ill-
ness and hospitalization in Atlanta, Georgia; which was the focus of the rules to show cause that were at issue
against the Wife/Mother. (See, Transcript, April 8, 2008 Hearing, e.g. at 84-93, and 97-105, Wiggins-COJ-272
through - 293)
Once again, as she did throughout the case, Judge Wiggins did not require the Father to take the stand to
testify as to why it would be in the best interests of the 4-year-old girl that he have custody of the child.
7
Four Days After A Temporary Protection Order Was Issued By a Maryland Circuit Court Against the
Father for Evidence that gave Suspicion of Sexual Abuse, Physical Abuse and Medical Neglect of the Child
and for Stalking of the Mother/Wife, Judge Wiggins Issued Two Conflicting Orders, Based Solely On Prof-
fers of the Father’s Attorney), Unlawfully Giving Full Legal and Physical Custody to the Husband/Father
(Who Had Never Testified) and Prohibited the Wife/Mother’s Contact with Her Child:
On June 6, 2008 (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing, Exhibit VII):
i) Judge Wiggins held an ex parte hearing despite two motions for continuance filed by the Mother (Pro Se),
and the Court failing to issue subpoenas for the Mother’s witnesses, [See, Motions to Continue, Wiggins-COJ-340
ant Wiggins-COJ-346]
ii) Judge Wiggins showed her bias when she stated her unequivocal prejudicial belief – based on nothing in
the record that she believed that Mother was a member of a “bashing Judge Wiggins group.”10 Judge Wiggin’s in-
terjection of this bizarre fact was not supported by any evidence presented in the case, nor did she suggest she came
to that conclusion based on any evidence in the record in the case. (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing at 28-
33, Wiggins-COJ-365 through -368)
iii) without legal authority, Judge Wiggins vindictively gave legal and physical custody of the five-year-old
child to the Husband/Father (who still had not testified in Judge Wiggin’s court, and for whom the sleeping in the
daughter’s bed had not been addressed by the Court) and barred all communications with the Wife/Mother. Judge
Wiggins came to this draconian outcome based solely on proffers of the Father’s attorney and hearsay testimony
from the only one person in the JDR court (Michele Wood), whose testimony was limited to hearsay statements
about what she heard at another hearing in a Maryland court the prior day. At the time of the hearing, Judge Wig-
gins clearly did not know what provisions of the statute applied to the determination of custody, nor had she taken
evidence to support any of the “factors” that the statute sets forth. (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing at 52-59,
especially 59, Wiggins-COJ-395)
iv) Judge Wiggins entered two conflicting custody orders, (with one noted as being “final”) despite the fact
that no notice was given that a “final” custody hearing was to take place on June 6, 2008. [Wiggins-COJ-397
through -398] The only prior notices for a hearing on June 6, 2007 received by Wife/Mother (who was pro se) were
for two motions filed by the Wife/Mother (a motion for mediation, and a motion for reconsideration of the February
18, 2008 temporary custody order) to be heard on June 6, 2008. The notices did not indicate that any “final” custo-
dy order was to be entered on that date.
v) Judge Wiggins entered the two conflicting orders, even though Judge Wiggins had never spoken to or met
the 5 year old child, or had never heard the Husband/Father on the witness stand at any time during the nine months
of hearing (none of which focused on either the 5 year old child, or the qualifications of the Husband/Father). In
addition, the Father had never completed the co-parenting classes, or produced a full psychological exam that she
ordered (while the Wife/Mother had completed both). In addition, only days before, a Maryland Circuit Judge, who
is the only Judge who had seen and spoken to the child, concluded that there was strong evidence to believe the
father was sexually and physically abusing and medically neglecting the 5-year-old girl. Judge Wiggins ignored
that the Maryland Court had ordered a full Child Protection Investigation, which was blocked by the Father through
his attorney before the CPS of Montgomery County Maryland had an opportunity to interview the father.
5) Judge Wiggins never scheduled a hearing for the Motion for Sanctions filed against the Father’s attorney
and the GAL for their direct violation of Dr. Margo Kings (child’s grandmother) Medical Information and the Illegal
Manipulation of the Family Tragedy. (See, Motion For Sanctions And To Strike Pleadings By Petitioner, Motion
For Sanctions Against The Guardian Ad Litem, Motion To Dismiss The Guardian Ad Litem, Motion To Reopen
Motion To Show Causes Regarding Dr. Christopher Lane, The Guardian Ad Litem And February 8 2008 Order,
filed with the clerk of the JDR Court on June 9, 2008, Wiggins-COJ-399.)
6) Judge Wiggins was requested to recuse herself from the case, but ignored that motion and never ruled on
it. [Wiggins-COJ-418]
7) Judge Wiggins vindictively allowed the spur of the moment calling of Nancy Hey (who was simply in the
10
MS. OLIN: Tell me, was this sort of a custody support group, or what kind of support group was it?
THE COURT: It was a bashing Judge Wiggins group is what it was.
MS. OLIN: Oh, really?
THE COURT: Yes. It's a fan club to me. Isn't that what it was?
- Transcript June 6, 2008, See, Wiggins-COJ-365 through -368
8
audience to observe the hearing) to the witness stand at the June 6, 2008 hearing in violation of her constitutional
rights to an attorney, Judge Wiggins spitefully ignoring her objections to have her counsel present, and allowed her
to be maliciously questioned on private and potentially incriminating matters unrelated to the case. [See, June 6,
2008 Transcript at 18-44]
MR. O'CONNELL: Can we put her on the stand and you ask her some questions?
MS. OLIN: Absolutely. Ma'am, please take -- with the Court's permission.
THE COURT: Is this a witness?
MS. OLIN: Yes.
MS. HEY: Okay. Well, I wasn't scheduled to be on the stand. I was just here as a friend of the mother.
MS. OLIN: You're here, and we're requesting you to take the stand.
MS. HEY: Well, I don't have a lawyer here.
MS. OLIN: You don't need a lawyer to be a witness.
THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, will you raise your right hand.
Whereupon --
NANCY HEY,
a witness, called for examination, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
[Judge Wiggins then allowed Nancy Hey to be questioned for approximately 15 more pages]
-- Transcript June 6, 2008 at 18, Wiggins-COJ-354
In the December 10, 2010 Judicial Interviews, Judge Wiggins attempted to justify her disregard for the right
to an attorney for Nancy Hey because “she was a witness.” However, Judge Wiggins’ erroneous legal conclusion is
not supported in law and is in violation of the US Constitution. Ms. Hey clearly asked to be represented by an at-
torney and that Ms. Hey already had an adversarial relationship with Judge Wiggins. Furthermore, Judge Wiggins
had already questioned the mental competence Nancy Hey when she took Ms. Hay’s child away from her in another
proceeding. Thus, Judge Wiggins should have been particularly scrupulous in assuring that Ms. Hey was represent-
ed by counsel when questioned.
***
In sum, there was ample evidence in the record supporting a conclusion that Judge Wiggins, consciously or
subconsciously, harbored bias and prejudice against the child’s Mother and disregarded the evidence and record.
There was no evidence to support a finding that the Father was fit to have custody. The father had not provided a
full psychological exam to the court, nor completed a parenting class, and never provided any testimony at any time
in the proceeding. Yet, Judge Wiggins, without having taken any evidence to establish subject matter jurisdiction,
gave full legal and physical custody to the Husband/Father while ignoring the legal rights of the child, the Moth-
er/Wife, and Nancy Hey (an innocent court observer).
In this case, the effects of Judge Wiggin’s malice and negligence have been particularly devastating to this
now 7-year-old child. The child is now confined to the same a small one bedroom apartment living with her father,
who still sleeps in her bed. She is now suffering from the diagnosed but untreated posttraumatic stress disorder and
an untreated very rare life-threatening severe chronic neutropenia. According to written opinions of world experts,
who reviewed all the medical evidence, her life threatening severe chronic neutropenia condition is most likely tox-
in/drug-induced. [Wiggins-COJ- 430] The Husband /Father refuses to give her the only medical treatment for the
condition (GCSF) to avoid unnecessary risk of untreated severe chronic neutropenia of “toxic shock, loss of limbs
or loss of life.” Id. He also refused to have a toxicology test done. The Husband/Father, who is a German citizen,
is so mentally ill and narcissistic that he has defied his German Embassy’s request that their daughter receive an
independent psychological and medical examination (she is also a German Citizen with only a Germany passport) –
requiring an appeal to the President of the United States to Intervene in this, now, international matter. [Wiggins-
COJ-427 through -432] As evidenced by recent articles in the Washington DC area, Judge Wiggin’s irregularities
in this case follow a pattern of her seeking to break the natural and loving bonds of children with their natural moth-
ers. (See, Wiggins-COJ-19 through -24)
I would be happy to come to Richmond to go over these materials and answer any more of your questions.
Again, I urge that you deny Judge Wiggin’s reappointment to the JDR Court. She does not have the qualities neces-
sary for being an effective and fair JDR Court judge.
Sincerely,
Roy Morris
9
Attachment I
Judge Wiggins: Deriving Pleasure from the Pain of Children and their Mothers
Comments of Roy Morris, Arlington Virginia
December 10, 2010
The list of cases of children and mother’s wrongly denied their rights in Judge Wiggins court keeps mounting, in-
cluding: Naomi Parish, Nancy Hey, Benita Washington, Dr. Ariel King, and (now) threatening Tiffany Johnson.
They all follow the same pattern: the court treats the mothers as subhuman, everything they do is wrong, and nothing
they do is right. This sets the stage for bogus justification for permanently cutting off the child from their mother and
her families’ normal ties and time with the child. It is, in effect, genocide of relationships of children to their natu-
ral mothers from their lives.
The facts of the case of the still 10-year married couple, Dr. Michael Pfeiffer v. Dr. Ariel King, shows the injustice
and lack of judicial rigor of Judge Wiggins courtroom. First is the obvious, the parents are married and were ineli-
gible to file for divorce in Virginia, but Judge Wiggins allowed a custody-only proceeding to be held in her Virginia
JDR court. Second, the case should not have been heard at all in Virginia, since it did not have “subject matter ju-
risdiction” as none of the parties had lived in Virginia for the six months required by the UCCJEA. In addition,
when all parties had left Virginia after only 3 months, Virginia lost continuing jurisdiction. Yet Judge Wiggins in-
sisted on keeping the case of a married couple where one parent was living in DC and the other in Maryland respec-
tively. In the only official custody evaluation report issued in the case, the Court assigned social worker, Michele
Woods, warned: “This counselor feels it is also important to relay to the Court that [the child] has also made sever-
al comments to this counselor that her father [Dr. Pfeiffer] comes into her bed at night….this counselor would hope
the Dr. Pfeiffer would stop this behavior and understand that it is not appropriate considering his daughter's age.”
Ms. Woods strongly recommended physical custody remain with her mother, Dr. King and shared joint legal custo-
dy with the father. However, Judge Wiggins chose to: a) ignore the recommendations of the Court’s own social
worker’s reports, and b) did not insist on the completion and submission of the full psychological exam she ordered
from the father, and c) never asked questions to or placed the father on the witness stand in the ten months of pro-
ceedings..
On June 6, 2008, in an ex parte hearing without proper notice, Judge Wiggins entered two separate “custody” orders
with distinctly different wording addressing custody of the 5-year-old girl, but marking only one a “final order.” In
the version marked “final order,” the Court without “subject matter jurisdiction” and “continuing jurisdiction” gave
Michael Pfeiffer (who lived in DC) full legal and physical custody without any evidence or demonstration that the
requirements for awarding custody had been met. Judge Wiggin’s orders also cut off all contact with the Wife/
mother (who lived in Maryland). However, the second order (which was never served on the parties), did not give
Michael Pfeiffer a “final order” for legal and physical custody and, by materially different sentence structure and
working, imposed a conflicting meaning and significance. Thus, each order invalidated the other order. To date the
Virginia order has not been registered in either Washington, DC or Germany.
Also, at that hearing, Judge Wiggins denied the request of a person sitting in the audience, Nancy Hey, to be
represented by an attorney while she was vindictively called as an impromptu witness at that June 6, 2008 hearing.
Judge Wiggins allowed the father’s attorney and the GAL to question Ms. Hey despite her protests. Judge Wiggins,
who for years had overseen Ms. Hey’s child case, that led to the permanent separation of Ms. Hey from her daugh-
ter, participated in a “feeding frenzy” of interrogation of Ms. Hey on her various personal and potentially legal mat-
ters that were mostly irrelevant to Pfeiffer v King case, in violation of Ms. Hey’s constitutional rights to an attorney.
Adding to this legal impropriety and ambiguity, Judge Wiggins made this ruling despite the fact that a Montgomery
County Maryland Circuit Court Judge , after a one hour hearing on June 2, 2008 with the 5- year old child and her
mother, had found evidence to suspect sexual and physical abuse and medical neglect and harm by the father. Un-
like Judge Wiggins, that Judge was the only judge who had ever seen or spoken to little girl, about the father sleep-
ing in her bed, seeing “Mr. Piggy’s Penis,” that the “popo that gets harder and harder,” being “kissed on the mouth”,
and the father’s administration of “green medicine to make me sick.”
After showing clear bias, Judge Wiggins refused to rule on the Motion to Recuse herself. She also failed to rule on
the motions to sanction the GAL and opposing counsel for clearly collaborating against the Mother, and making
knowingly false representations to the Court.
10
The consequences of Judge Wiggin’s unauthorized and uninformed rulings and biases were that there is evidence
that the child has been sexually and physically abused and medically neglected and harmed for over two years.
Since the father has had physical custody of the little girl, she has unexplainably suffered from a very rare severely
compromised immune system referred to as “severe chronic neutropenia.” Tests indicate the condition is likely
being caused by toxins/drugs that the husband/father has free access to at his work. Thanks to Judge Wiggins ille-
gally mandated, ambiguous and conflicting orders, the father has used her orders to manipulate others without even
registering the orders outside of Virginia. In addition, he as used the orders to prevent the child from getting life-
saving GCSF medicine, appropriate medical care or have any contact with her mother, all other family members, her
Jewish religion and her African and German heritage. He has used those illegal and conflicting orders to isolate,
abuse, and harm their daughter. Even though the father is a German citizen, he has defied his own Embassy’s re-
quest to get medicine for the child and an independent medical and psychological examination for her in order to
save her life [the child is also a German citizen]. Wiggins-COJ-430 Thus Judge Wiggins has created a safe haven
for abuse and neglect of a child, while she has made no effort to address or correct the damage that she has caused to
this seven-year-old child – who she never met.
***
The closest a court can come to physically torturing a mother and her child is to cut off their ability to communicate
with each other, while allowing safety for the other parent to abuse and harm the child to the point of possible death.
Judge Wiggins clearly hates biological mothers, and she appears to derive pleasure from making them and their
children miserable (as evidenced by Judge Wiggins common bouts of histrionic episodes of laughter in the court-
room when doling out insults to the mother and her attorney).
Judge Wiggins need to be immediately retired from the very important role of a family court judge. She has neither
the psychological profile (e.g., empathy for parents and their children), respect for following the law of the Com-
monwealth of Virginia, nor expertise required. Judge Wiggins is harmful to children and families. She must be not
be reappointed to prevent any further harm to those children and families. .
11
Attachment II
List of Exhibits to Opposition to Judge Wiggins Reappointment
2007-11-08 Custody Evaluation of Court Official Woods Recommending Custody to King 1

2010-12-10 DC Examiner Article: Three strikes for Arlington judge Wiggins 19
2010-12-15 DC Examiner (Print) Article: Arlington Judge Donʼtʼ Have Unchecked Authority to Separate
Kids from Parents 21
2010-12-15 DC Examiner (Web) Article: Arlington Officials Ignore Jurisdiction 22
2008-04-10 “Gather” Article (Web): Another Case of Judicial Abuse (Observerʼs Personal Account of
Judge Wiggins Courtroom) 24
2007-08-09 Fathers Original Virginia Petition Setting Hearing Date of September 6, 2007
(Filed After He Had Filed in Washington DC) 27
Photo of Queen Sized Bed in Windowless Bedroom of Child 33
2007-08-01 DC Court Order Dismissing for Lack of Jurisdiction 34
2007-09-05 Wiggins Initial Custody Order – Adopted One Day Before Noticed Hearing of 9/05/07 37
2007-10-03 King Emergency Motion Re Visitation With Exhibits (Never Ruled On) 40
Exhibit I: Email King to Pfeiffer, dated June 25, 2007
Exhibit II: Washington DC TPO Issued Against Pfeiffer, July 9, 2007 51
Exhibit III: Email of Hopkins to Pfeiffer, dated September 19, 2007
Exhibit IV: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 20, 2007
Exhibit V: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 25, 2007
Exhibit VI: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 27, 2007
2007-11-30 King Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction from Virginia 59
2008-01-17 Wiggins Order Denying Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (without any reasons) 62
2008-01-25 King Motion for Continuance of February 8, 2008 Hearing Due to Sudden Severe Illness of 62a
Childʼs Grandmother (Kingʼs Mother) Who Was In ICU with a Stroke (Never Ruled On)
2008-02-08 Transcript of February 2, 2008 Hearing 63
2008-02-08 Wiggins Order Changing Custody to Father to Penalize the Mother Because She Went to Aid 123
Her Mother In ICU in Atlanta, With Return to Mother Upon Completion of Conditions (With Suspicious
Substitution Text Typed Over Original Ordering Clause)
2008-02-21 Transcript of February 21, 2008 Hearing 126
2008-02-21 Wiggins Order Falsely Stating Evidence Was Taken, and Again Changing Custody to Father 187
to Penalize Mother
2008-04-08 Transcript April 8, 2008 Hearing 189
2008-06-02 Temporary Protective Order Issued by Maryland Circuit Court Judge Finding Suspicion of 330
Abuse and Neglect by Father
2008-06-03 King (Pro Se) Second Motion for Continuance of June 6, 2008 Hearing Based On Finding of 340
Abuse and Neglect by Maryland Circuit Court Judge and Pending Full Investigation by
Montgomery County Child Protective Services, with Full Protective Hearing Scheduled
for June 9 2008 (Never Ruled On)
2008-06-02 King (Pro Se) Motion for Continuance of June 6, 2008 Hearing Based On Pending Petition for 346
Writ of Mandamus (Never Ruled On)
2008-06-06 Transcript of June 6, 2008 Hearing 352
2008-06-06 One of Two Conflicting Custody Orders Issued on June 6, 2008 397
2008-06-06 Second of Two Conflicting Custody Orders Issued on June 6, 2008 (Never Served on King) 398
2008-06-09 King (Pro Se) Motion for Sanctions Against Fatherʼs Counsel and GAL (Never Ruled on) 399
2008-08-21 King (Pro Se) Filing of Praecipe Noting Completion of Psychological and Meeting Conditions 409
2008-08-21 King (Pro Se) Filing Child Psychologistʼs Report that The Child Is Likely Being Sexually 410
Abused
2008-09-02 King (Pro Se) Motion to Recuse Judge Wiggins from Further Activity in Case (Never Ruled 418
On)
2010-09-29 Morris Letter to President Obama Asking for His Help In Getting the Father To Comply with
the German Embassyʼs Request for An Independent Medical Examination of the Child 427
- German Embassy Request to Father for Independent Examination 430
- Letters from Leading Doctors Concerning the Potentially Fatal Condition of Child (Sprint 2008) 432
- Blood Results Showing Conditionʼs Onset At the Time Wiggins Gave Father Physical Custody 436
12
CUSTODY INVESTIGATION
ARLINGTON JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI MARGARITA ADDRESS: 4001 9" ST. NORTH #824

ALEXANDRA KING-PFEIFFER ARLINGTON, VA 22203
D.O.B.: 5/7/03 (4 YEARS OLD) P.O.B.: Houston, Texas
RACEISEX: AFRICAN AMERCANI

GERMAN FEMALE
MOTHER: DR. ARIEL ROSITA KING ADDRESS: 4001 9TH ST. NORTH #824
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FATHER: DR. MICHAEL HERBERT PFEIFFER ADDRESS: 4836 RESERVOIR ROAD #3

WASHINGTON, DC 20007
DATES OF CUSTODY HEARING: 11/8/07 DOCKET NO.: J-31848-01-WL
CURRENT COURT SITUATION: The child's father, Dr. Michael Pfeiffer, filed a petition
with this Court on August 9,2007, requesting that he be granted legal and
physical custody of his daughter, Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer, pursuant to Section
16.1-241 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
JUDGE: Honorable Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles
GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Deborah Olin, Esq.
ATTORNEY: Mother's Attorney, Dan Dannenbaum, Esq.

Father's Attorney, Sean O'Connell, Esq.
COURT ACTION: On September 5,2007, Dr. King and Dr. Pfeiffer appeared
before the Honorable Judge Wiggins Lyles for an Advisory Hearing, in which the
petitioner, Dr. Pfeiffer filed a petition requesting full custody of his daughter,
Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer. At that time, both parties were advised and mutual
discovery was ordered. The Court also ordered the Court Service Unit to
conduct a Custody Evaluation. In addition, the Court ordered that both parents
take a parenting class and participate in a Custody Evaluation by a qualified
expert.
Wiggins - COJ - 000001

NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL
The Court also entered an Initial Order addressing custody and visitation
pending the next Court hearing that included the following conditions:
Both parents and child to participate in a custody evaluation;

Father ordered to pay temporary support in the amount of $500 a
month;
Child is allowed to travel within the metropolitan area. Mother also
allowed to travel with child to visit with family and friends in New Jersey,
Atlanta, and Pennsylvania;
Temporary visitation with father to include every Wednesday from
6:OOpm to Thursday at 8:00am, and every other Saturday from 10:OOam
to Sunday at 10:OOam and every other Sunday from 10:OOam to Monday
at 8:OOam. Overnight visitation will not commence until child's German
passport is submitted to the Court;
Both parents ordered to take a parenting class;
Court orders Court Services Unit to conduct home visits of both parents
and write a custody evaluation.
THE PETTIONER: Dr. Michael Herbert Pfeiffer
Relationship to Child: Father
D.O.B.: 2/18/63
Place of Birth: Nuremberg, Germany
Education: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he earned his M.D. and PhD. in
Germany. He also completed a Post Doctorate Program at Baylor
University.
Health: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he is in good health.
Substance/Alcohol Abuse: None reported

. <
NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01-WL
EMPLOYMENT: Dr. Pfeiffer is completing a fellowship at Georgetown University

Hospital in Clinical Neurophysiology and Epilepsy. Dr. Pfeiffer works Monday
through Friday from 9:OOam to 6:OOpm. He also has to be available by phone on
weekends.
It is important to note that Dr. Pfeiffer had signed a contract on 4/15/07, with
Englewood Community Hospital, Inc. that on or before September 1, 2007, he
would "engage in full-time private medicine as a Neurologist in the community".
His said salary would be approximately $340,000 annually plus additional signing
bonus he would receive. In total, Dr. Pfeiffer was looking at a monthly salary of
approximately $28,000 a month. Al plans had been made by Dr. King in order
for her husband to secure this job. Dr. King reported that she was going to
manage his private practice and provided documentation in which Dr. Pfeiffer
signed a notarized letter on 3/25/07, appointing his wife to represent him in the
administrative processes of establishing a solo Neurology Practice in Englewood,
Florida". By all indications, the family was scheduled to move to their home in
Florida around June 15, 2007. Dr. King reported that a week prior to their move
Dr. Pfeiffer was scheduled to attend a ten day conference in which he informed
his wife just prior to his departure that he would not be taking the job in Florida.
According to Dr. Pfeiffer, he reported to this counselor that he felt his wife has
forced the job upon them because of their financial situation stating that he felt
this was his only way out. He stated that he did not want to accept the job but
felt it was the only way to keep his family together. He further stated that
accepting this job would have been a "huge sacrifice" for him.
Lenath of Employment: Dr. Pfeiffer has been employed at

Georgetown University Hospital since June of 2007, and is scheduled
to complete his fellowship by 6/30/08. Dr. Pfeiffer stated that upon
completion of his fellowship, he would like to transition into teaching
Academic Medicine.
S a w : $52,000 annually
RECORD CHECKS:
Criminal Record Check: Dr. Pfeiffer has only legal contact in the
District of Columbia for a Protective Order filed by Dr. King against Dr.
Pfeiffer. Records indicate that on July 6,2007, Dr. Pfeiffer appeared at Dr.
King's place of work at the Zambian Embassy in Washington, D.C. He
reportedly tried to put his daughter in his car, in which Ariana-Leilani then
ran inside the Embassy to her mother crying. Dr. King was reportedly

holding her daughter when Sr. Pfeiffer approached her and grabbed at
their daughter. Dr, King reportedly ran with her daughter and locked
herself in a room. The Embassy staff reportedly asked Dr. Pfeiffer to leave,
at which time he refused to leave. Reportedly, Dr. Pfeiffer was yelling and
being disruptive, which was observed by many people. As soon as the
room was opened again, Dr. Pfeiffer reportedly pushed his way back into
the room. The Secret Service was called and had advised Dr. Pfeiffer to
leave the premises. Police advised Dr. King to file for a potection order. In
addition, one of Dr. King's colleagues who witnessed the incident, also
advised Dr. King to obtain a protective order. Records indicate that a
temporary Protective Order was granted on 7/9/07, for 14 days in which
Dr. Pfeiffer was order to stay away from Dr. King, her home and also her
place of work. He was also ordered to stay away from their child's school.
Temporary custody of their daughter was also given to Dr. King pending
the next court hearing on July 20th. At this hearing, Dr. King requested that
the protection order be extended for up to twelve months but was
reportedly denied by the Judge on the technical grounds that the event
occurred on international grounds of the Embassy and therefore was not
within the jurisdication of the District of Columbia Courts.
Child Protective Services Record Check: Dr. Pfeiffer does not have a
record with Child Protective Services.
HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD:
Physical Description of Home and Neiahborhood: Dr. Pfeiffer resides

in a rented one bedroom apartment in the area known as
Georgetown in Washington, D.C. Dr. Pfeiffer resides in one of four
apartments contained in this building. His apartment is of an older
style, but is clean and orderly. Ariania-Leilani's has the only
bedroom in the apartment that is furnished appropriately. There
are few toys and activities, such as books and videos in her
bedroom. Hopefully, Dr. Pfeiffer will be purchasing more items for
his daughter since she is very active. He is also in need of more
clothing for his daughter. Since Ariani-Leilani occupies the only
bedroom in this apartment, Dr. Pfeiffer has his bed in the corner of
the only other living space in his apartment. Overall, Dr. Pfeiffer's
does not have the most "homey" presence, but it is adequate. The
neighborhood is well kept and there are many extra-curricular
activities available within walking distance of his home.

Lenath of Residence: Dr. Pfeiffer has resided in this home since July
of 2007.
FAMILY FINANCES:
Income: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he earns approximately $52,000

annually.
RentIMortgaae: $1,500 monthly rent
Household Bills: Dr. Pfeiffer pays approximately $100 a month in

utilities.
Outstandina Debts: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he owes $20,000 on his

credit cards which he claims the majority of this was because of his
wife's purchases. He also stated that he may be held liable for the
last eight months of rent from the family's previous home in
Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Pfeiffer claims that his wife did not pay the
last eight months in rent totaling approximately $27,000. However,
Dr. King claims that she had paid the monthly rent, but that the
homeowner did not make payments to the mortgage company
and therefore the house went into foreclosure. Dr. Pfeiffer also
reported that he owes his parents money that he had to borrow
from them in recent years.
Health Insurance: Dr. Pfeiffer currently pays for health insurance for
the family (Blue Cross and Blue Shield). He pays approximately
10.63, bi-weekly. It is unclear as to whether his insurance has vision
benefits and apparently his dental benefits do not provide
coverage for children.
THE RESPONDENT: Dr. Ariel Rosita King
relations hi^ to Child: Mother
D.O.B.: 6/25/62
Place of Birth: Queens, New York
Education: Dr. King earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from the
University of Hawaii in 1988, and obtained a Master's of Public
Health in International Health Management, from the Texas School

of Public Health in 1994. She also obtained a Master's of Business

Administration in International Health Management from
Thunderbird, the American Graduate School of International
Management in 1996. Dr. King then obtained her PhD. in Public
Health and Policy from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine in 2002.
Health: Dr. King reported that she is in good health. However, she
did state that she has lost a lot of weight due to the stress of her
separation and current custody case. She further stated that she is
in need of dental work, but does not have the money to pay for the
expensive dental work that needs to be done.
Substance/Alcohol Abuse: None reported.
EMPLOYMENT: Dr. King reported that she has not been employed for the past
several years as she has primarily been a house-wife taking care of her and her
husband's now four year old daughter. During the past few years, Dr. King has
been involved in many projects and is the founder and CEO of Ariel Consulting
Internation, Inc (ACI). ACI is worldwide and works with private and public
sectors in implementing public policy and public health programs that primarily
focuses on developing countries such as Africa, the Middle East, Latin America,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands.
Dr. King is also involved in many projects through her non-profit organization. In
2004, Dr. King was appointed by the National Council of Women (NCW) as the
representative in Washington, D.C., and also for the United Nations in Geneva.
Dr. King also founded The Ariel Foundation International in 2002, which is a non-
profit organization focusing on improving the lives of youth and their families in
developing countries.
Lenqth of Employment: As previously reported, Dr. King has not

had steady employment for the past several years as her time has
been devoted to raising the couples daughter. Dr. King does own
her own international consulting buisness, but has not had the
oppurtunity in recent years to devote her time to this career as she
has been raising the couple's daughter. Due to the nature of her
work, Dr. King's career requires her to travel frequently throughout
the country.

.. NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL
Salarv: Dr. King's reported income for 2007 has been less than
$4,000. Dr. King will be able to earn a reasonable salary once she is
able to devote her time to her consulting business.
RECORD CHECKS:
Criminal Record Check: A criminal record check for Dr. King was
negative.
Child Protective Services Record Check: Dr. King does not have a
record with Child Protective Services.
MARITAL HISTORY: Dr. Pfeiffer and Dr. King met in Europe approximately ten
years ago where they were both living and working. The relationship progressed
in which they became engaged for two years before marrying in the United
States on September 16,2000. Both parties reported that they decided to come
to the United States so that Dr. Pfeiffer could complete his medical residency in
neurology in the United States. Dr. King stated that she had made all of the
arrangements for Dr. Pfeiffer to come to the United States including, sponsoring
of his Visa, purchasing a place for them to live, and also buying them a car. Dr.
King reported that she placed her career on hold in order to support her
husband's education and to raise their child. It was understood that the move
to the United States was only temporary in order for Dr. Pfeiffer to complete his
residency. Dr. King reported that her husband had promised her that once he
received his medical training in the United States, he would work as a medical
doctor wherever Dr. King's international career would take her.
After their marriage, Dr. Pfeiffer and Dr. King moved to Houston, Texas so that Dr.
Pfeiffer could complete his internship at Baylor University. It was during this time
that Dr. King became pregnant eventually gave birth to their daughter, Ariana-
Leilani King-Pfeiffer. After completing his first internship, the family then
relocated to Levittown, Pennsylvania so that Dr. Pfeiffer could complete his one
year residency. Upon completion, the family then moved to the Washington,
D.C. area in order for Dr. Pfeiffer to complete his three year residency at
Georgetown University Hospital. On June 9, 2007, Dr. Pfeiffer graduated from
the Georgetown University Residency program and shortly thereafter, received
licensure.
Dr. King reported that during her husband's last year of residency at
Georgetown, her husband decided that the family would remain in the United
States upon completion of his education. Dr. King reported that her husband

promised to obtain a job as a practicing neurologist and earn a full salary, and
that he would work "locus tenens" (hospital rounds) in the interim to supplement
the family's income and cover their expenses. She also stated that he her
husband agreed to attend family counseling in order to improve their
relationship. Dr. King stated that her husband had been earning an income of
about $50,000 per year. She stated that their income was also supplemented by
Dr. Pfeiffer's parents and her limited work income. Dr. King reported that in
January of 2007, her husband began to pursue high paying physician jobs in
Florida. As previously reported, Dr. Pfeiffer signed a contract in April of 2007,
accepting a position to run a private neurology practice in the community of
Englewood, Florida. The couple also purchased a home in Florida. These plans
were then shattered when Dr. Pfeiffer reported to his wife days prior to
relocating that he no longer wanted the job in Florida. This appears to be the
last major incident that ultimately led to the couple's separation.
Dr. King reported a difficult marriage that showed signs of distress in October of
2006 when the family moved to their rental home in Bethesda, Maryland. Dr.
King reported that the family moved from the Georgetown area to be closer to
their daughter's German School. Dr. King had been transporting Ariani-Leilani to
school daily but it was taking a lot of time due to traffic. Instead, the family
decided to move closer to the German School. Dr. King reported that upon
moving to their home in Bethesda, Dr. Pfeiffer separated himself from the family
by residing in the downstairs bedroom with its own door to the outside. Dr. King
stated that her husband would leave early in the morning and return home late
at night. She reported that he had little to no contact with her and their
daughter. Dr. Pfeiffer also confirmed to this counselor that he had distanced
himself from the family during this time.
One of the major disputes that continues to be an issue is the situation regarding
the couples seven months rent that was paid during the time the family resided
in their rented Bethesda home. Dr. Pfeiffer reported that his wife was in charge
of handling and ensuring that all of their bills were paid. Dr. Pfeiffer alleged that
he later learned that his wife did not pay the couples rent each month and
relayed concerns to this counselor about whether he will be held liable for the
$27,000 in unpaid rent. Dr. King reported and provided documentation to this
writer that indicated that while she paid the rent each month, the landlord in
turn did not make monthly mortgage payments to the lender. According to
court documents it appears that the landlord filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
and the house went into foreclosure. Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he was unaware
of their housing situation, despite Dr. King's claims that her husband was well
aware of the situation. Dr. King reported that a considerable amount of her

NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL
time was spent securing storage pods for the family's personal property as an
eviction notice had been filed.
The stories regarding the couple's official separation is significantly different from
one another. Dr. Pfeiffer reported that upon returning home from his ten day
conference he found his wife and child gone. He reported that he did not know
where they were and had to hire a private investigator to locate them. Dr.
Pfeiffer claims that he did not know where his wife and child were for about five
to six weeks. He further reported that out of eleven weeks he saw his daughter
only six times that were two hour visits on each occasion. Dr. Pfeiffer reported
that this separation was very traumatizing for him and his daughter. Dr. Pfeiffer
reported that he feels his wife is financially irresponsible and unstable and feels
that this is what ultimately drove them apart. He stated that his wife ran him into
debt and that this was very draining. He stated that he was also tired of his
wife's false promises to obtain employment. Dr. Pfeiffer feels that he has been
the primary caretaker of their daughter, although there does not appear to be
much evidence to support this. This also contradicts Dr. Pfeiffer's statement in
which he admittedly reported that he separated himself from the family when
the family resided in their Bethesda home where he lived in a separate bedroom
in the home.
Dr. King reported that the couple came to the conclusion that they would
separate and ultimately divorce. She stated that Dr. Pfeiffer agreed to
contribute 50% of his income to support her and their daughter in order to help
them to obtain housing. She reported that her husband left her and her child
homeless and that they were forced to temporarily stay with different family
friends until she was able to secure housing for her and her daughter in July of
2007. She reported that Dr. Pfeiffer secured a one bedroom apartment in
Washington D.C. in which he had to put down at least $6,000 for three months
rent as a deposit. Dr. King believes that Dr. Pfeiffer used the last of the family's
cash assets in order to obtain housing for himself. Dr. King reported that she
asked her husband if she and her daughter could temporarily reside in his home
until she was able to obtain housing for them. She reported that Dr. Pfeiffer
refused to allow them to temporarily stay in his home. Dr. King further reported
that without her knowledge, Dr. Pfeiffer had removed her name from their
German Bank Account on or about June 1 1,2007. Dr. King further advised that
during the time of their marriage she was directed by Dr. Pfeiffer to deposit
substantial funds into a German back account which was used to pay and
collect expenses associated with their homes in Germany that were held in his
name. Dr. King further reported that the money in her daughter's back account
was also withdrawn at some point without her knowledge or consent.

., NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER
HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD:
Physical Description of Home and Neighborhood: Dr. King resides in

a rented two-bedroom, one bathroom condominium located in
North Arlington known as the Ballston area. It is convenient to
public transportation, shopping areas, and extra-curricular activities.
Adriana-Leilani has greatly benefited from the location of their
home and community. She attends the local YMCA that is in
walking distance from the home where she attends weekly
gymnastics, roller skating, cooking classes, home school games,
and science classes. Ariana-Leilani also is in walking distance of the
Ballston Mall Ice Rink where she participates in weekly ice skating
classes. She also participates in weekly dance class at the Arlington
Dance Center. Ariana-Leilani also attends weekly story time at the
Arlington Library on Mondays and Thursdays that is directly across
the street from their home.
Dr. King's home is clean, well kept and adequately furnished,

Ariana-Leilani has her own bedroom that is more than adequately
furnished and is child friendly. Her room is decorated in bright colors
and is filled with many toys, games and educational activities to
keep her busy throughout the day. Her walls are filled with her art
work and pictures are displayed throughout her bedroom of her
and her family. Ariana-Leilani loves her bedroom where she reports
feeling safe and at home.
Length of Residence: Dr. King and Ariana-Leilani moved to their

home in July of 2007.
FAMILY FINANCES:
Income: Dr. King has no source of income at this time. She has not
had steady employment since the birth of the couple's child in
which she has been the primary caretaker. Dr. King reported that
prior to their separation Dr. Pfeiffer removed her name from all of
their financial accounts without her knowledge. According to her
reports, she and their daughter were left homeless by Dr. Pfeiffer
with only a few hundred dollars left in the couple's joint account.
Dr. King reported that her husband obtained housing for himself

, .
and refused to provide her with financial support in order to obtain

a home for her and her daughter.
RentIMortaaae: Dr. King's rent is $2,160 per month.
Household Bills: Dr. King reported that her household bills are
approximately $800 per month.
Outstandina Debts: Dr. King reported that she is in substantial debt

as a result of her separation. She has had to take several loans from
friends in order to temporarily support her and her daughter. She is
also in debt for legal fees incurred as a result of this custody matter.
Health Insurance: Currently, Dr. Pfeiffer carries the health insurance

for Dr. King and Ariana-Leilani. Dr. King reported that their health
insurance does not cover dental costs for children. Dr. Pfeiffer has
stated in emails to Dr. King that he expects her to pay any medical
bills she incurs for herself in full and for the dental work their
daughter needs, Dr. Pfeiffer has instructed Dr. King to pay the bill in
full and then he would reimburse her for half of the amount mid.
SUBJECT: Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer is an attractive four year old with an

outgoing and friendly personality. Ariana-Leilani was born on May 7, 2003 in
Houston, Texas and holds citizenship in both the United States and Germany.
Ariana-Leilani's has been raised Jewish, as her mother is Jewish. Ariana-Leilani's
father was born and raised in Germany where all of his family resides. Ariana-
Leilani's is very close to her paternal grandparents who reside in Germany, and
since she was five months old, she had visited her paternal grandparents in
Germany approximately three times a year along with her mother. However,
Ariana-Leilani has not seen her paternal grandparents since December of 2007.
Dr. King has insured that Ariana-Leilani continues to maintain contact with her
paternal grandparents as frequent phone calls are made to them on a regular
basis.
Ariana-Leilani is very familiar with her German roots and is a fluent in English and
German. She has books, music and videos that are written and spoken in
German. In addition, both Dr. King and Dr. Pfeiffer speak to Ariana-Leilani in
German, as well as English.

Ariana-Leilani's maternal grandmother lives in Atlanta, Georgia, and she also

has a great-grandmother, who resides in New Jersey. Ariana-Leilani also has
extended family living in the Philadelphia area and throughout the Untied S
Ariana-Leilani is very culturally diverse. She has been given the nickname "Little
Miss Ambassador" by family and friends as she has traveled along with her
mother to over ten different countries. As previously stated, Dr. King performs
international work focusing on public health policy in third-world countries and
has traveled extensively to countries like Lesotho, Zambia and the Zambian
safari. These areas have been the primary focus of Dr. King's work in the past
few years. Ariana-Leilani has rarely spent a night without her mother, as she has
traveled everywhere with her mother. It is quite amazing when you look at the
places Ariana-Leilani has traveled to and the many different cultural
communities that she has experienced during her short lifetime. Ariana-Leilani is
quite comfortable traveling to these countries along with her mother and is very
"hands-on" during these trips as she interacts with the deprived children and
people in these countries.
CHILD CARE OR SCHOOL INFORMATION: Last year, Ariana-Leilani began

attending The German School in Bethesda, Maryland. She attended school five
days a week from 8:OOam until 3:OOpm. This school year, Ariana-Leilani has only
been able to attend German School on Saturdays. There is outstanding tuition
due in the amount of $7,047.00 that needs to be paid before Ariana-Leilani can
return to day school. Dr. King has provided written documentation of a letter
dated 6/15/07, from the German School sent to the parents stating that this
tuition needs to be paid. Dr. King has also provided several emails that she has
written to Dr. Pfeiffer asking him to pay the outstanding tuition in order for
Ariana-Leilani to return to school. Dr. King is unable to pay the tuition due to her
financial situation.
Dr. King has done an exceptional job putting into place a Home School
schedule for Ariana-Leilani. The following is an example of her daily activities:
Mondays: Story Time at Arlington Library

Ice Skating -Tott-11 (Now Tott Ill at Ballston Common Mall)
Nightly swimming (at Indoor pool in mother's apartment complex)
Tuesdays: Gymnastic Rollers (YMCA)

Sunrise Nursing (Compassion & Ethics Education) Volunteer w/mom
Nightly swimming

Wednesdays: Home School Art (Arlington Art Center)

Yummy in My Tummy cooking class at YMCA
Creative Movement (Arlington Dance Center)
Nightly swimming
Thursdays: Home School Games at YMCA

Home School Science at YMCA
Nightly swimming
Fridays: Story Time at Arlington Library

Piano Lessons with 4 year olds
Gymnastics at YMCA
Nightly swimming
Saturdays: German School in the morning

Soccer
Nightly swimming
Sundays: Once a month Hebrew School (Congregation Etz Hayim)

Nightly swimming
Since their separation, Dr. King has continued to be the primary caregiver of
Ariana-Leilani. Dr. King has spent every day with her daughter as she has been
unable to work because she is basically providing 24 hours supervision and care
of her daughter, with the exception of the two timesper week her daughter has
visitation with her father.
SUMMARY AND EVALUATION:
This court was brought to the Court's attention as a result of Dr. Michael Pfeiffer
filing a petition requesting sole custody of his daughter, Ariana-Leilani,
Ariana-Leilani is a remarkable four year old with an outgoing and friendly

personality. Since being assigned to this case, this counselor has had the
opportunity to have several visits with Ariana-Leilani and her parents and was
able to gain insight into this family's current situation. Throughout the
investigation this family has been cooperative in allowing this counselor to visit in
their respective homes and provide this counselor with the necessary
information in order to complete this investigation.

Through this counselor's interactions and observations of the child and each
parent, it is apparent to this writer that Ariana-Leilani has a strong attachment
with her mother in which her mother's presence provides her with a sense of
security and comfort. It is of this writer's opinion that Dr. King has been the
primary caregiver of Ariana-Leilani. Since the time of her birth, Ariana-Leilani has
been in the care of her mother and has virtually spent every night by her
mother's side. This is evident through the many photos and videos documenting
Ariana-Leilani's extensive travels throughout the world with her mother. While Dr.
Pfeiffer claims that he was the primary caregiver of his daughter, it does not
seem realistic when he reported working 80 hours per week in order to complete
his residencies. It does seem plausible that Dr. King placed her career on hold in
order to support her husband's aspirations to complete his residency for
neurology in the United States. While Dr. King is a citizen in the United States the
majority of her life and career has been spent outside of the United States as her
degrees and studies are in International Health and Policy. Both parents are in
agreement that the couple's original plan was to come to the United States in
order for Dr. Pfeiffer to complete his studies. At some point in time, Dr. Pfeiffer
changed his mind and relayed his desire to stay in the United States in order to
advance his studies. It is appears that Dr. Pfeiffer was misleading, whether
intentionally or not, about his reluctance to have a private practice of his own.
Instead, his reluctance was relayed to the family just days prior to the family's
relocation to Florida. This could not have come at a more inopportune time in
which the family was being evicted from their current home leaving them
without stable housing in the meantime. The family appears to have devoted
the last few years supporting Dr. Pfeiffer's medical studies. That eventually led to
his signing of a contract in April of 2005, agreeing to have his own private
practice in Englewood, Florida. As a result, the family invested a lot of time in
order to do things like finding and purchasing a home in Florida. In addition, Dr.
King had the understanding that she would be handling the administrative
duties that goes along with running a private practice. Dr. King expressed
excitement about her husband's achievement in obtaining his own private
practice and also expressed her relief that the family would finally have a sense
of financial stability after years of financial struggles in order to support her
husband's career.
Despite the differing stories regarding the circumstances leading to the

separation of Dr. King and Dr. Pfeiffer it does appear that Dr. King was left
without adequate financial means and bared the brunt of the responsibility in
caring for their daughter. It appears that she tried to maintain as much stability
as possible so that Ariana-Leilani would not be so emotionally affected by her
parents' separation and living situation. While Dr. Pfeiffer has expressed his
concern about his daughter's well-being, he has not exactly provided the

".
necessary financial support to ensure his daughter's well-being. While this

counselor was unable to confirm Dr. Pfeiffer's compliance with his child support
obligation of $500 per month there is a discrepancy in the amount that Dr.
Pfeiffer has paid thus far. Dr. Pfeiffer is adamant that he has paid $500 each
month. Dr. King reported that she has only received one payment in the
amount of $500. This is concerning because Dr. King need consistent support in
order to maintain her housing. While this counselor cannot accurately
determine whether Dr. Pfeiffer had knowledge of his wife and child's
whereabouts, Dr. King did provide written documentation in the form of emails
she sent and responses received from Dr. Pfeiffer dating from June 25,2007. In
these emails, Dr. King relayed to her husband her desire for him to have contact
and maintain a relationship that would promote the health and welfare of their
daughter. Dr. King has consistently expressed her desire for Dr. Pfeiffer's
continued contact and involvement in their daughter's life. This feeling appears
mutual in that Dr. Pfeiffer also agrees that Ariana-Leilani needs to have
continued parental involvement from both parents throughout their daughter's
life.
While Dr. Pfeiffer is asking for full custody of his daughter, there does not appear
to be concrete plans in place for her if he obtains full custody. When Dr. Pfeiffer
was questioned about what he would do with his daughter on a daily basis
while he is working, he simply stated that she could go to the YMCA all day or
one of the local schools. Since the primary goal of each parent is to maintain as
much stability as possible for their daughter, it does not seem appropriate to
remove her from her present environment where she is very happy and
comfortable with all of her classes and activities each day. Although Dr.
Pfeiffer's home is in close proximity to Dr. King's home, this counselor is leery
about Dr. Pfeiffer's ability to maintain his daughter's schedule considering his
current work schedule. It seems more appropriate for Ariani-Leilani to continue
with her current status instead of forcing her to adapt to a new environment.
This counselor would like to comment on the concerns Dr. King has reported to
this counselor regarding Ariana-Leilani's overnight visitations with her father. Dr.
King has reported to this counselor the behavioral problems Ariana-Leilani has
been experiencing since the overnight visitations were started. Dr. King has
reported that her daughter has been displaying behaviors such as throwing
temper tantrums, scratching and biting herself and having accidents
surrounding the times prior to and after overnight visitations with her father.
These behaviors are evidently recent behaviors that have never occurred in the
past. This counselor is aware of Dr. King's attempt to relay her concerns to her
husband and asking for some type of alternative visitations until Ariana-Leilani
becomes more comfortable with her parents' new living arrangements. It

, . NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01 -WL
appears that Dr. Pfeiffer is unwilling to temporarily suspend his overnight visitation
which is clearly understandable since he wants to spend time with his daughter.
Whether this is right or wrong this counselor can only report that there has been
a decline in Ariana-Leilani's behavior during the time of this counselor's first and
last visitation with Ariana-Leilani. It is difficult to determine whether her behavior
is a result of the emotional distress she is experiencing regarding her parents'
separation; nor does this counselor have the expertise to make any accurate
conclusions. Due to her age, she probably does not have the capacity to fully
understand her parents' situation as she has made comments to this counselor
that she wants to sleep with both her parents in her home. She is also confused
about what is her home. This counselor can only report that Ariana-Leilani has
made comments to this writer that while she enjoys visits with her father she has
stated that she is scared in her father's home and wants to spend the night with
her mother. Perhaps Ariana-Leilani needs more time to become familiar with
her father's home so that she feels more comfortable with overnight visitations
with her father. After all, Arian-Leilani has virtually spent every night with her
mother throughout her lifetime thus far. This counselor feels it is also important to
relay to the Court that she has also made several comments to this counselor
that her father comes into her bed a night. In addition, Dr. King has tried to
address this issue with her husband requesting that it stop. This counselor cannot
confirm whether this is occurring, but if it is, this counselor would hope the Dr.
Pfeiffer would stop this behavior and understand that it is not appropriate
considering his daughter's age.
Lastly, this counselor would like to relay to the court Dr. King's worries that she
expressed about her concerns that Dr. Pfeiffer will flee the country with their
daughter. This counselor would defer to the court in that this counselor does not
know the possible legal actions, if any that are available to ensure the safety of
her daughter.
Overall, all is not lost in this case in which this counselor strongly feels that both
parents are capable of maintaining a positive relationship in a positive manner
for the purposes of their daughter. It is felt that there will be less conflict
between both parents once resolutions have been made in terms of living
arrangements, child support, financial responsibilities, etc. It appears that these
issues are causing conflict between both parents in which a final resolution
needs to be established.

.. NAME: ARIANA-LEILAN1 KING-PFEIFFER J-31848-01-WL
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the parents, Dr. Ariel King and Dr. Michael
Pfeiffer, share joint custody of their daughter, Ariana Leilani, with physical
custody being given to Dr. Ariel King.
-
~ichele Wood Christopher Edmonds
Probation Counselor Probation Supervisor
Date: /pip0-1, Date: 1 0 / z//o 7

Three strikes for Arlington judge? 12/20/2010 9:04 AM
Published on Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com)

Home > Three strikes for Arlington judge?
By Barbara Hollingsworth
Created Dec 9 2010 - 5:04pm
Three strikes for Arlington judge?

Comments (9)
Tomorrow in Richmond, members of the General Assemblyʼs Courts of Justice Committees will
hear public testimony to help them decide whether a group of Virginia judges should be
recommended for reappointment to the bench. One of those judges, whose term expires Jan.
31, 2011, is Arlington Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles, the
same judge who terminated the parental rights of Nancy Hey and Benita Washington despite the
fact that neither of these mothers were ever charged - let alone convicted - of child abuse or
neglect. After their children were snatched by Arlington social workers, Judge Wiggins Lyles
rubber-stamped their legal kidnapping.
Sheʼs still at it.
Next Tuesday at 10:20 am, Judge Wiggins Lyles has scheduled a hearing to terminate the
parental rights of Tiffany Johnson, whose one-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Talayah, has been
in the countyʼs custody since she was three months old.
Court documents filed by the county on Nov. 30 and obtained by The Examiner admit that “at
the time of the removal…Talayah appeared physically healthy,” and do not list any evidence of
abuse or neglect on Johnsonʼs part beyond vague “concerns surrounding Ms. Johnsonʼs basic
parenting skills.” Yet the 26-year-old mom, herself a former foster child who has a job and is
living in subsidized housing, is within days of losing her daughter forever.
On July 20, guardian ad litem Ellen Dague submitted another document to the court noting that
Talayeh was returned to her mother for a brief period in September, 2009 but “was removed a
second time because mother was too overwhelmed with her commitments.”
Is being frazzled the new standard for having your child taken away by Arlingtonʼs Child
Protective Services, whose own website says that children are only removed from their homes if
they are “at risk of serious harm”? If being “overwhelmed with commitments” is the new definition
of neglect, nobodyʼs kids are safe.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/three-strikes-arlington-judge-0 Page 1 of 2
Three strikes for Arlington judge? 12/20/2010 9:04 AM
Last year, before the same legislative panel, veteran attorney Roy Morris blasted then Chief
Judge Wiggins Lylesʼ handling of a custody case in which she completely terminated a motherʼs
contact with her five-year-old daughter. “Iʼve never seen a worst run court in all my years of
[litigation] experience,” Morris told legislators on Dec. 21, 2009. “My client was dragged into the
Virginia court even though Virginia didnʼt have jurisdiction… Why would a judge have taken a
case that they didnʼt even have jurisdiction to hear?”
And in a Dec. 8 letter to Arlington Chief Circuit Court Judge William Newman, Dr. Sheila Mannix,
co-founder of Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates, noted that Johnsonʼs case “evinces
the patterns of practice of alleged offenses against the criminal laws of the United States” that is
the subject of a Sept. 14 federal court order in Chicago, warning that “Freedom of Information
Act requests will be forthcoming to investigate if the misappropriation of federal funds has fueled
the removal of this child from her mother without just cause.”
This is more than enough reasonable doubt for legislators to decide that this judge needs to
step down.
Beltway Confidential Arlington Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court Chid Protection
Services Courts of Justice Ellen Dague Esther Wiggins Lyles Freedom of Information
Act Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates Judge William Newman Roy Morris
Sheila Mannix Tiffany Johnson Virginia General Assembly
Source URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/three-strikes-arlington-judge-0

http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/three-strikes-arlington-judge-0 Page 2 of 2
Bukrt F,II,lli_sn.,t.
ArlingtonjOOges doo't have unchecked
autholi1y to separate kids from parents
··t··,_<""'
......... -------_.- _._-
• __"' ......... _ ._. _~ '. IOOI~I·lW
......,,... ............,... ................. .-..... -,...

.....,. .
.. _ __ ...
....~intf
_...--_ -_..." " ...

-~" -'·-"~o==,···-
-_ _._--
_., ...... - .,
.. ....
~ ~--
'""'".------
---~-
'------
~
-----
_ ."",,,,-
,~
,--~
,
Arlington officials ignore jurisdiction 12/15/2010 6:29 AM
Published on Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com)

Home > Ar ngton off c a s gnore jur sd ct on
By Barbara Hollingsworth
Created Dec 14 2010 - 8:05pm
Arlington officials ignore jurisdiction

Comments (0)
Judgeswield enormous power, but that power is not absolute. They are duty-bound to obey legal
rules that protect defendants' constitutional rights. One of those rules is jurisdiction, loosely
defined as the court's authority to hear the cases before it. On July 22, Arlington County social
workers took a 10-year-old girl away from her 64-year-old grandmother and placed her in foster
care based on a Feb. 19, 2009, emergency court order that cited "allegations of neglect" as well
as the grandmother's "history of instability in housing, employment and poor judgment ... [and] a
history of legal problems including check fraud that is currently under investigation by
Montgomery County."
But the girl and her granddaughter were living in Stafford County at the time, not Arlington. And
their "home state" as defined by the Virginia statute was Maryland, not Virginia.
Arlington social workers obliquely acknowledged their lack of jurisdiction when they took the
child to Chevy Chase on Aug. 31 and used her state of Maryland "Healthy Smiles" Medicaid card
and her former Bethesda address to get the girl's teeth cleaned, X-rays taken and two small
cavities filled. But jurisdiction wasn't the only legal requirement Arlington decided to ignore.
In a five-page rebuttal filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Delores Heffernan-
O'Brien testified that she had never been served with the 2009 removal order, and only saw it for
the first time on July 26, 2010 -- four days after her granddaughter was taken into foster care.
As a result, she could not defend herself against any of the charges against her in an apparent
violation of her constitutional due process rights.
Then it happened again. "I never received written notice of the most important hearing of my
life," O'Brien, a Mormon, former model and widow of a prosecutor, said of the Aug. 19 hearing
she missed as a result.
Arlington JDR Chief Judge George Varoutsos found her guilty of neglect and abuse in absentia,
and suspended her one-hour-per-week visitation with the child she had raised from infancy. The
only contact she was allowed was a once-a-week phone call monitored by the foster parents so

http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/opinion/columnists/2010/12/arlington-officials-ignore-jurisdiction Page 1 of 2
Arlington officials ignore jurisdiction 12/15/2010 6:29 AM
O'Brien would not upset her granddaughter with her "adult" problems.
Yet just two days later, she says, her granddaughter's court-appointed guardian ad litem allowed
the same Montgomery County detective investigating check-kiting charges against her (which
have since been dropped) to interrogate her granddaughter until she became hysterical.
Calls to the guardian ad litem, the Arlington commonwealth's attorney's office, and the social
worker involved were not returned.
This was not the first time that violations of defendants' due process rights in Arlington's JDR
Court have been reported. In September, attorney Roy Morris petitioned President Obama,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder to intervene on behalf of Ariel
King, who not only lost custody of her then 5-year-old daughter but was barred from any future
contact with her seriously ill child even though King, like O'Brien, was not an Arlington resident.
Another anomaly: Morris received two slightly different final court orders, both dated June 6,
2008, and both signed by Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles.
That same day, court transcripts show, Judge Wiggins Lyles forced a woman who had not been
subpoenaed as a witness to testify on the stand without benefit of the legal representation she
clearly requested. A federal investigation into such violations of due process rights should be
next.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.
Columnists Barbara F. Hollingworth NEP
Source URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/arlington-officials-ignore-jurisdiction

http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/opinion/columnists/2010/12/arlington-officials-ignore-jurisdiction Page 2 of 2
Another Case of Judicial Abuse by Mother Toad (Gail, Love th... http://www.gather.com/viewArticlePF.action?articleId=281474...
Close Window
Print This Page
Another Case of Judicial Abuse

April 10, 2008 08:01 AM EDT
© 2008 by Mother Toad (Gail, Love the Spring, season and step
Average Rating: 10/10 (12 votes)
Tags: children, people, most read, abuse, most comments, judicial system, child abuse, child protective services, information,
justice system, custody, invite comments, npr, court system, chat, food for thought, family, comments please, gather, spouse
abuse, divorce, virginia, real life story
Tuesday, April 8, 2008, I accompanied Dr. Ariel King, Founder and President of the Ariel Foundation, to the family court
of Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles in Arlington, VA.
The following are my observations and interperatations of the events.
I have heard about this Judge, but had never had, what I now consider to be, the displeasure of sitting in on one of her
hearings. It was an eye opener for me that such a judge continues to dispense her self interpreted brand of justice
from the bench. And, I am left wondering who is in charge of that courtroom and why she continues to be paid for
occupying the position of judge.
I had spoken to Dr. Ariel King for only a few minutes the night before court and we mostly spoke of my own situation,
not hers. I arrived at her home in Maryland after 9AM on April 8th, while she was out on an errand. When she arrived
home close to 9:30 or so, it was time for her to get ready for court, showering dressing and doing her hair. As soon as
she was ready, we left in separate cars. I mention all this so that you understand that we had no time together to
discuss her case. I had little if any background available to me until the end of the court day. As happened, this was
positive for being an observer. I had little or no information on which to base my observations.
We were accompanied to court by Dr. King's mother, who had suffered a massive stroke in February, 2008. Along the
way, we stopped to pick a friend of Dr. King's who is a lawyer, but does not practice in the family court system, nor in
the Commonwealth. He was simply along for the "legal ride" and has taken an interest in her case.
Prior to court, we met her lawyer, the latest in a string of attorneys to represent Dr. King. The others had been
dismissed by her for inaction and mishandling of her case. This lawyer had failed to bring with him a set of documents
Dr. King felt was important to the case. He had completely jumbled other papers that were to be presented to the
court. As Dr. King and her friend made attempts to set the paperwork right, the lawyer representing her acted as if
these were natural mistakes. After about a half hour or so, we headed toward the courthouse.
As we exited the elevator on the fourth floor, Dr. King mentioned something that is vital to her case. I had heard her
mention at least twice during the just prior meeting and the lawyer had reassured her that everything was in order. As
if it were completely normal, the new lawyer tossed out "We're not filing that today." No explanation, no reasoning, not
a further word was said by him.
I was the only observer in the courtroom. Judge Wiggins Lyles attempted to delay the case even further, saying that
none of the four contempt charges stemming from Show Cause Orders were due to be heard that day. I can only
surmise that this tactic was a lame attempt to possibly delay the case until I exited the courtroom. After all, no one
knew who I was, and later, I would not be sworn in as a witness, which was visually noted by the judge with an intense
stare toward me while everyone else raised their right hand. The only person to leave the courtroom was Dr. King's
mother, frail and frightened.
The Guardian ad Litem was the first to speak. She offered, though Dr. King was cooperating with the courts at this
time, she had a history of being very uncooperative. After court, I asked Dr. King what this was in reference to. Dr.
King replied that she did not know why this was being said. This, I am again surmising from hearing a good part of the
story, stemmed from the original phone call she received from the GAL in Virginia. She was living in Maryland, after
only living in Virginia for twenty-nine days. At the time of the abandonment, her husband moved to DC for two months
and then returned to Maryland, but filled for full custody in Virginia. Her husband was living in DC, when he filed for
full custody in Virginia. This was directly following the abandonment by her husband of her and her than 4 year old
child without money or a place to live one week after completing a Neurology Residency. Upon receiving the call, Dr.
1 of Wiggins
4 - COJ - 000024 7/2/09 10:32 PM
King sought advice from counsel. She was told not to talk to anyone, and so she followed the advice her then lawyer
gave her. At the point in time the call was received, the child was living with Dr. King in Maryland.
The fact that she and her child had only spent twenty-nine days in Virginia before the husband filed for full custody in
Virginia and returned to Maryland following that period, and with the husband living in Washington, DC, again, not
Virginia, begs one to ask why a custody case is being heard in a courtroom in Arlington, VA. The law is very specific
on this point and leaves no room for interpretation. In order for custody to be heard in a Virginia courtroom, at least
one of the litigants has to have lived within the borders of this state for no less than six months. Neither of the litigants
involved, nor the child, meets that stipulation. With the child living in Maryland with her mother at the time the case
was filed, and the father living in DC, a civil case should have been filed in one of those jurisdictions. From my
understanding, Dr. King has pointed this out to the judge in the past. When there was an attempt to bring it up again
on Tuesday, Wiggins Lyles abruptly cut her off and informed her that she did not want to hear it. The judge had based
the jurisdictional issue on the fact that Dr. King had, at one point, signed a one year lease on an apartment, which she
admits to having done at the time of the abandonment, but only used the apartment for a total of three months during
the lease period. Their daughter's private school, place of worship, extra-curricular activities, pediatrician, playmates all
remained in Maryland the entire time.
As court proceeded, Dr. King was put on the stand. As is now my understanding, though she was ready and willing,
Judge Wiggins Lyles had not allowed her to speak in court since the case had started. In that vein, the judge refused
to see offers of evidence presented on Tuesday. One by one, she ruled that they were of no relevance or not
admissible as hearsay, without examining most of the documents herself and basing it solely on the word of Mr.
O'Connell.
Time after time, the lawyer for the other side, Mike O'Connell, pounded on the podium in an attempt to upset Dr. King.
During first of the two recesses in the five and one half hours we spent in the courthouse, I informed her lawyer that the
act of the pounding was a deliberate badgering of Dr. King and an attempt to upset her. He spoke to the husband's
lawyer during that recess, and following that, although not present for the conversation, I have to believe that he
informed Mr. O'Connell that I was there to observe the proceedings as a possible future witness to the happenings in
the courtroom, as he discontinued the practice. At one point, however, Mr. O'Connell, raised his voice and in an angry
tone asked Dr. King if she knew what the penalty was of perjury. This is lawyer speak for "You are lying", something
they are forbidden from saying to anyone on the witness stand without being able to back it up. Again, this is used as
an intimidation technique.
During the entire time that her husband was present in the courtroom, and having full view of him, I noted an
uncontrollable and constant facial twitching. He held his hands tightly together and below the table level where the
judge could not see them. Now knowing that he is a Neurologist, I have to question the cause of the twitching. These
types of bodily behaviors would give me concern in a medical environment. On the other hand, when people lie,
whether themselves or through a third party, they will often display such behaviors, as do people with certain organic
brain disorders ranging from Tourette's syndrome to Generalized Anxiety disorder with any number of serious brain
disorders in between, including untreated or with the off label use of Lexapro for Bipolar disorder as reported by
patients who are using the drug for it's unintended use.
When the subject of Dr. King's mother came up, Judge Wiggins Lyles choose to offer, in what can best be described as
editorializing, that Dr. King had made a bad choice in bringing her to Maryland from Atlanta. With no support system in
Atlanta for her mother, no insurance to cover further hospital bills (her mother was stablized and released due to lack of
insurance at 3 AM) and her mother having the physical capacity of a six month old, the judge said that she would not
have moved her mother to the DC area via car (the mother was not allowed to fly due to a bleed condition in the brain)
and that Dr. King should have remained in Atlanta, away from her child, her employment and two other people to help
care for her mother. In essence, the judge was telling her that she should have made the choice between her child and
her near death mother and that the act of bringing her mother here, where she could receive proper care, was an
unthinking act on Dr. King's part.
From the beginning, I question the abilities or willingness of Dr. King's new lawyer. One of the first things he told her
was that a key witness, living a few miles away in Maryland, could not be subpoenaed to testify. It is my understanding
that if a person is within a 1200 mile radius, they can be called. Further than that, they can be deposed.
When asked about notifying the courts upon her return from Atlanta (the husband had been given temporary custody
while she was away), Dr. King said that she notified her lawyer, the GAL and her CPS probation officer, a Ms. Woods,
by email just after 1 PM Tuesday, after returning on Monday and amassing the proof that the CPS worker required.
Ms. Woods stated from the observers seating, "Oh, yeah, a week later." Dr. King was able to produce a copy of that
email. Judge Wiggins Lyles responded that it was after the attempt by Dr. King to retrieve her child and ruled a
contempt charge be upheld.
2 of Wiggins
4 - COJ - 000025 7/2/09 10:32 PM
Dr. King is in possession of a tape of a 911 call placed on the Tuesday morning and stemming from the attempt to pick
up her child upon her return from Atlanta and upon amassing the required documents for the court. The father refused
to hand the child over. On that tape, the child can clearly be heard screaming, banging on a door and crying for her
mother. The judge refused to hear that tape.
The husband was allowed to leave the courtroom early. Mr. O'Connell outwardly stated that he could leave to pick up
the child from school, although he was fully aware that Dr. King had arranged for the child to be picked up by the
nanny. It should be noted that it was not the judge who excused the husband, but his own lawyer. I believe this is an
indication of the judge's propensity to just go along with one lawyer over the concerns of the entire courtroom and the
rules of said courtroom. When his lawyer was on track to make a statement or ask a question that would be objected
to, Judge Wiggins Lyles told him how to phrase them so that they would not be overruled. She did this time and again,
yet did not extend the same courtesy to Dr. King's lawyer. At one point, Mr. O'Connell ordered that a disallowed
question be stricken from the record while no such utterance came from the judge.
When it came to the matter of Dr. Lane, it was noted by the courts that Dr. King had discontinued seeing him. In what I
believe to be a deliberate set-up for failure, Dr. Lane would initiate the appointments with a call or email her with times
and dates he could see her. She kept all but one appointment with him. Eventually, for reasons I have yet to learn, Dr.
King was forced to contact the medical board about Dr. Lane. When the attorney for the husband asserted that Dr.
King had missed several appointments, she again informed him that she had only missed one. Mr. O'Connell than
stated that no one would ever know that for sure because Dr. King exercised her right to make what she thought and
continues to feel, was a valid complaint. Dr. Lane has had complaints filed against him in the past. Dr. McFarlane, an
associate of Dr. Lane's, has now been appointed by the judgeto do the evaluations.
When Dr. King's mother came into the courtroom to testify, Judge Wiggins Lyles refused to allow the testimony to take
place. In a previous hearing, the father's lawyer had asserted that Dr King exaggerated the mother's illness in order
not to attend a previously schedule full custody hearing. They asserted that Dr. King had gone to Atlanta to venue
shop, a fact that could have been disputed by the mother.
The cruelest part of the day came about a half hour before bringing the gavel down for the day. Dr. King was found
guilty on two counts of contempt of court. Mr. O'Connell, citing the Dr. King's alleged noncooperation, angrily insisted
that Dr. King be jailed. Judge Wiggins Lyles, in what appears to me to be a deliberate attempt to destabilize Dr. King,
informed those present that she "needed to think" about the punishment until the next hearing date, once again leaving
Dr. King in a state of limbo.
Court was dismissed for the day when Dr. King's mother began to feel ill with what is believed to be, based on her
blood pressure and medical history, a mini stroke and had to be removed from the courtroom. Ms. Woods, the CPS
probation officer, assisted us in getting her down stairs. When doing so, she stated to Dr. King that she thought the
husband could use help with parenting by taking "a few parenting classes."
Submitted by
Gail Lakritz April 10, 2008
3 of Wiggins
4 - COJ - 000026 7/2/09 10:32 PM
Wiggins - COJ - 27
Wiggins - COJ - 28
Wiggins - COJ - 29
Wiggins - COJ - 30
Wiggins - COJ - 31
Wiggins - COJ - 32
Wiggins - COJ - 33
Wiggins - COJ - 34
VIRGINIA:
IN THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF ARLINGTON
Case ~o.(s): J-31^W I
-T IS E I. You should read and understand the entire

order. If you do not understand the order you should seek legal counsel. Failure to
follow the terms o f this order may result in you being found in contempt of court.
Because matters of support andlor custody o f children are pending in this court, all parties are ORDERED as follows:
I
AN ATTORNEY I f you wish to be represented by an attorney, your attorney tnust

notify the Court of his or her representation within 14 days of your advisory hearing. If you are
unable to retain an attorney within this time, you must notify the Court before the above date of
when you expect to get counsel A lengthy extension will not be granted. You must give the
attorney a copy of this order.
m U A N C E P Q L X Y (See also written poticjd

1) Continuances are not favored.
2) Continuances may he granted upon a written request stating a good reason for the
continuance.
3) Continuances will not be granted if the request is not in writing or does not show a good
reason for the continuance.
4) The following are good reasons for a continuance:
a. The failure to hire an attorney within 14 days of service.
-
b. Lack of preparation.
c. ~ g r e e m e nof
t the parties without further reason.
d. The failure to timely request discovery, home study, witness subpoenas, or
professional reports.
1) If prior court orders exist which determine custody and support of the minor chil.d(ren),
the parents are required to abide by such prior court orders
2) Unless specifically contradicted by prior court orders both parents are the joint custodians
of the child(ren) are ordered to conduct themselves as follows until further order o f this
court:
a. Each parent shall keep the other parent notified of his or her address and
telephone number and permit the other party to have reasonable contact with the
child(ren) unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent the chitd(renj or a party from
harm. If either parent denies the other access to the child(ren) and the Court finds
such denial to be unreasonable, this will be a strong factor against that parent
retaining custody of the child(ren).
b. The child(renj shall continue to attend their usual school and childcare provide1
unless there exists a compelling reason to do otherwise.
c. The parties shall continue in effect all insurance policies, including, but not limited
to, health, life, automobile, and homeowner's insurance for the duration of the
proceedings or further order o f Court.
d. Each parent shall consult the other, if possible, of important health care or
educational issues involving the child(ren). Both parents may have access to the
child(ren)'s school and medical records.
e. Neither parent shall submit the child(renj to psychiatric or physiological
the court enters a child support order, both parents shall to the child(ren's)
su port to the best of thei a il~ty.'F'a^-tr- Or &^f
A)& 5i^-,,pi^-f IXUiu, a.'<^^x^^^^- $4 -$I
*~ft^r^^i
Neither party shall harass the other party, call or appear at the other parties' place of
employment except as necessary for the well being of the child(ren). All parties are required
by law to refrain from any abuse against each other or the child(ren).
The parties or their attorneys are hereby directed to promptly notify the Court in writing of a
reconciliation.
YOUR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER IS MANDATORY.

Order Entered: %9 - C?? Judge: ^Xi~{Ã§oÃ§o^

Arlington Juvenfim & Domestic
RÃˆ1alion Di'itrIcn'.nun
i,the d c r s i g n c t c - w Â ¥ a neprty ,;le;i.
of the ahow c. .-:,(.,I 4 e , ~.,N,.
~yrsiin-Tu:.';. Â¥J.H.E ( 3 n'.",$l ( en
this date that tha doc&m tu which thte
fluthanIration is affixed is a ifue corn of

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:
THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
Michael H. Pfeiffer
Petitioner
v Case No. J-31848-01
Ariel R. King
Respondent
IN RE: ARIANA-LEILANI MARGARITA ALEXANDRA KING-PFEIFFER

DOB: 05/07/2003
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING TO MODIFY PENDENTE

LITE CUSTODY
COMES NOW Respondent, ARIEL R. KING, by counsel, and moves this Court for an
emergency hearing to modify pendente lite custody. The Initial Order entered in this case
directed the parties to allow Petitioner to have visitation that included overnight stays with the
parties’ four year old child, twice a week. As demonstrated below, overnight stays have created
untold amount of stress on the child, taking its toll and manifesting itself psychologically and
physiologically.
Respondent respectfully requests that the Initial Order be modified to not require
overnight stays with Petitioner until it can be shown that overnight visits will not negatively
impact the child. As grounds therefore, Respondent states as follows:
1. At the hearing on Respondent’s Motion for Continuance on the morning of September
5, 2007, the Court issued an Initial Order on Petitioner's pendente lite request for custody.
In its Initial Order, the Court required Petitioner, a German citizen, to surrender the
child's German passport to the Court prior to allowing any extended visitation with
Wiggins - COJ - 000040 1

Petitioner. Once the child's German passport was surrendered, extended visitations of
two overnight visits per week were allowed with Petitioner -- one on each Wednesday
night and one associated with alternating Saturday and Sunday visits. Petitioner had a
history of attempted snatching of the child while she and Respondent had attended an
event at the Zambian Embassy on July 6, 2007. The incident was serious enough to
prompt the US Secret Service (which guards the embassies) to be called to the Embassy.
The US Secret Service agent -- after interviewing the Petitioner -- recommended that the
Respondent seek a restraining order against Petitioner, which she successfully did. (See,
Exhibit II, Temporary Protective Order Issued by the District of Columbia, July 9, 2007).
In addition, the DC police escorted the Respondent out of the District to the Virginia
border to afford her protection. The child stated on the escorted ride home that: "Papa
tried to take me." "I'm gonna be broken." "I don't want to be broken." "Papa's not my
friend."
2. This Court has scheduled for November 8, 2007 the hearing on the Petitioner's Petition
for Custody.
3. Since entry of the September 5 Initial Order, the child has gone on two weekday visits
to the Petitioner's home and three weekend days to the Petitioner's home. The Petitioner's
"home" is a one bedroom apartment, where the father has from time to time slept with the
child in the child's "queen size" bed. The bedroom that houses the child provides no
privacy, as one wall contains a series of large window-like openings into the kitchen of
the apartment. Those window-like openings to the adjacent room were misrepresented
by Petitioner's attorney in the September 5th hearing as being solid glass windows to the
outside.

4. After each overnight visit to the Petitioner's home, the four year old child has shown
severe signs of stress, both emotionally and physically, including:
a. complaining about seeing and being attacked by "bumblebees,"

b. biting and scratching herself,
c. peeing in her pants (even though she has been potty trained for almost two
years),
d. throwing unusually long and severe temper tantrums immediately after
returning from the overnight visits, coming back hungry (suggesting she is not
eating adequately at the Petitioner's home), complaining about being scared
and it being dark at Petitioner’s home,
e. returning from visitation severely tired (suggesting that she is not sleeping well
at Petitioner's home), unkempt, and at times in her pajamas, and
f. strongly clinging to the Respondent after an overnight visit to the Petitioner's
home.
5. The child has also stated directly to Petitioner that she is scared and that she does not
want to stay overnight. In addition, the child has asked Petitioner to bring her home from
the visits, but Petitioner has refused -- insisting that she stay the entire time.
6. The frequency and nature of the overnight visits have been disruptive the child's life,
causing her to either miss out on, or be sleepy or irritated on the day following one of the
overnight visits to Petitioner's home during the many home-school program activities that
have been regularly scheduled on the day of her return to Respondent's Arlington home,
including gymnastics, piano, art, dance, ice skating, sciences, and volunteer activities at a
local assisted living center.
7. Respondent has attempted to work with Petitioner to work out arrangements that
would be less stressful, however, Petitioner refuses to acknowledge that there are any
problems, and continues to demand that he take the four year child to visit his home
under any circumstances -- even when the four year old is sick and running a
temperature, and even when the four year old is in a deep sleep (which has the negative

effect of the four year old fearing that when she falls asleep in her home, she will likely
wake up in Petitioner's home).
8. Petitioner’s behavior has become more erratic, showing little empathy for the child.
For example, in a recent overnight visitation on the evening of Thursday, September 27,
Petitioner showed up at Respondent's building and demanded to take the child even
though the child was sound asleep. Petitioner became irate in the lobby of Respondent's
apartment building and harassed the employees at the front desk, taking their pictures
when they objected, and threatened to call the police. His behavior was extreme enough
to prompt the building’s management to bar him from the building. Similarly, when
Respondent invited Petitioner to attend the Saturday morning (September 8) first day of
the child's class at the German School, Petitioner disrupted the child's classroom and
refusing to leave the room after all the other parents had left, causing the head of the
school to make a complaint to Respondent that other children were disturbed by
Petitioner's behavior, in turn causing several parents to call the head of the school to
complain about Petitioner's behavior. The next week, the director of the school (of 600
students) asked the Respondent take measures to prevent such an incident from
happening again. (See, Exhibit III, Email of Kerstin Hopkins to Ariel King, dated
September 19, 2007)
9. Respondent has tried to cooperate with Petitioner, including making a plea with him to
work together, in a non-adversarial way to resolve the custody and visitation, to reduce
the stress on the child, and other issues, and that the money spent on litigation would be
better spent on the child's future. Petitioner has wasted judicial resources by seeking full
custody, only to admit to Respondent and third parties that he did not really want full

custody as he had requested. (See, Exhibits I, IV, and V, and VI, Emails of Ariel King to
Michael Pfeiffer, dated June 25, 2007, September 20, 2007, September 25, 2007, and
September 28, 2007).
10. Historically, Petitioner has been mostly uninvolved in the daily and long-term care and
raising of the child during the child’s entire life.
11. Petitioner is not a fit and proper person to have custody of the child. Petitioner is not
capable of -- and has demonstrated he is incapable of -- regularly providing the proper
care for the child on an extended basis overnight. Petitioner has little, if any, extended
experience in taking care of the child for periods longer than a few hours. Even when in
his custody for a short period of time, Petitioner has failed to properly feed the child
(instead feeding the child candy and other sweets which sweets have resulted in a
mouthful of cavity), protect the child, and protect the health and safety of the child, failed
to keep to bedtime schedules required for a growing four year old, and routinely and
bizarrely taken the female child into the men's bathroom (even when other women are
available who can take her into the women's bathroom, and even though the four year old
is capable of taking care of herself in a public women's bathroom if let in the door).
12. Petitioner has displayed an inability to maintain the child's safety when the child is
under Petitioner's control and properly set boundaries in terms of how he handles the
child and what he allows the child to do.
13. The child is very attached to Respondent, her mother.
14. The child is only four years old and has special needs, including having a need to have
special physical contact with the mother as a way of coping with stress and an inability to
fall asleep.

15. Respondent fears that the child will be emotionally scared and/or physically hurt by
the continuation of the existing overnight schedule. Petitioner's increasing erratic,
bizarre, and unempathetic behavior suggest a deepening manifestation of the Petitioner's
antisocial behavior, creating an unhealthy environment for any extended stay by the child
until the Court can be convinced that Petitioner has addressed the underlying cause of
these behaviors.
16. The Arlington County Child Services Unit has visited Respondent's home and
interviewed the child, has confirmed the stress the child is undergoing from the visits
with Petitioner, and, according to court records, has requested the appointment of a
Guardian Ad Litum.
17. The Court needs to prescribe a visitation schedule that minimizes stress on the child,
provides a free weekend when the child can take a trip to visit relatives in the allowed
areas set forth in the Initial Order, accommodates the German School's request that
Petitioner's behavior not be repeated, and accommodates the child's normal evening 7 pm
bedtime.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein and for such other and further reasons as will be
presented before this Court, Respondent respectfully requests the following relief:
A. The Court order that Respondent be awarded sole custody pending the final outcome
of these proceedings;
B. Petitioner be allowed visitation each Wednesday night from 5 pm to 7 pm (without
any overnight);
C. Petitioner be allowed visitation only on alternating weekends, from 1 pm on the
Saturday (after the German School classes on Saturday morning) of the visitation

weekend to 7 pm on Saturday, and from 8 am on Sunday of the visitation weekend to
7 pm on Sunday. No visitation should be provided on the weekends in between
those alternating weekends;
D. The Court award Respondent her attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection
with this Motion; and
E. The Court award Respondent such other and further relief as this Court deems just
and appropriate.
Ariel Rosita King

By counsel
DANNENBAUM LAW FIRM, PLLC
_______________________________
Daniel G. Dannenbaum, VSB # 34621
1331 H Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 703-405-4899
Fax: 202-347-8607
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by facsimile to Sean W. O’Connell,
4113 Lee Highway, Arlington, VA. 22207, fax number: 703-522-07865, counsel for
Petitioner, on this ____day of October, 2007.
_____________________
Daniel G. Dannenbaum

Exhibits for King Emergency Motion
Listing of Bookmarks
Exhibit I: Email King to Pfeiffer, dated June 25, 2007
Exhibit II: TPO Issued Against Pfeiffer, July 9, 2007
Exhibit III: Email of Hopkins to Pfeiffer, dated September 19, 2007
Exhibit IV: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 20, 2007
Exhibit V: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 25, 2007
Exhibit VI: Email of King to Pfeiffer, dated September 27, 2007

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dr King <drarielking@yahoo.com>
Subject: Matters
To: michaelhpfeiffer@netscape.net
June 25, 2007
Dear Michael:
First and foremost, you and I need try to maintain a relationship that
will promote the health and welfare of our four year old child, Ariana-
Leiani. Towards this end, open communications and a collaborative
attitude towards addressing her needs and assuring that she has
access to all resources, both now and later, are critical to meeting
those needs, including all rights due her under both US and German
law, as she is a citizen of both.
Towards this end, I want to reiterate what I understood you to say,

and hope you will rethink, change and/or refine some of those ideas,
to avoid any misunderstandings. When you moved out of the house
last week, we were left with little financial resources (a few hundred
dollars in the bank) and no place to live -- even though you
apparently had access to thousands of dollars for yourself, income
from both your regular job and also for other work you have been
doing. I hope this was simply an oversight on your part, and a
misunderstanding on mine as to what you intend. I know you care
about Ariana-Leilani and she loves her "Papa."
The following is what I heard you say or understood that you have
done, and I have relied upon your representations:
Prior to your moving out, you promised that you would give us
50% of your income, which would include your salary and extra on-
call work. When I asked you to write a letter to a prospective landlord
to tell them of this promise, you did not dispute that this was your
representation to me and Ariana-Leilani. However, you did not follow
through with writing the letter, instead saying that I should relocate to
New Jersey and try to move in the one bedroom apartment of my
elderly grandmother or friends in Pennsylvania.
During one of our phone conversations you told me that you

were renting a one bedroom apartment in Georgetown at a cost
$1,500 per month and, because of your credit, the landlord asked for
3 months rent and 1 month deposit. I now understand that you were
able- to
Wiggins - COJ pay $6,000.00 with a check that came from another account
000048
1
which apparently contains money that has not gone into our joint
account. As a general matter by law, all of our assets acquired
during our marriage (which would include this $6,000 since we remain
married) are joint property and need to be shared -- particularly
applied towards the welfare and housing for our four year old child.
Please share those assets immediately.
I also asked if we could come live with you at your new address,
but you refused.
To date you have not given us verification of your new home

address. Until you do so, I will be forwarding all correspondence to
Georgetown University Hospital, care of your name.
You have previously taken out most of the money from our
child's German bank account (which was several thousand Euros), and
have failed to replace it. Please replace the money of our child
immediately.
I now understand that you have attempted to remove my name

from our joint account in Germany, in an attempt to deny my access
to that account. Please refrain from engaging in this unlawful activity
and be sure that my name remains on any accounts unless I
specifically indicate otherwise.
It also appears that you have created an account in the USA

where you are placing funds. Those funds should be jointly shared
between us. Please provide to me an immediate accounting for those
funds and divide them equally between us.
We have been left virtually penniless, as I asked you about

money for Ariana-Leilani and I to live on and you said that I could use
the money in our joint account. However, there are little if any funds
there, and you have been using what is there for paying your own
expenses (in addition to using other sources that you have been
denying us access to). For example, the work check deposited on 15
June was for about $1400, yet you wrote a check for your DC Medical
License for over $625 and took out $100 in cash. That left only $700
for the month for all three of us to live on. When I asked you about
this you said that I could go borrow money (which you know would be
impossible since, as a married couple, you and I share the same credit
issues) or wait for the next check to go into the account on Friday, 29
June.
You have made no attempt since moving out to talk to or contact

our daughter. She misses you and I hope you will try to maintain
quality contact with her -- including spending time with her -- as we
2
go forward. I strongly encourage that you do so.
Michael, I hope you will reconsider how you are approaching this. All
indications are that you have abandoned us and left us to fend for
ourselves, without adequate resources to even maintain a roof over
our heads. I hope this was not your intention, and that you will
immediately take action to correct the situation. I think you would
agree that a highly skilled medical physician (MD/PhD) who is a
Fellow of Neurology at one the leading hospitals in the United States
should not be or would want to be known to the legal system of the
United States or to Germany as a "dead beat dad" who will not take
the steps necessary to provide the financial and emotional support of
his daughter and wife. I hope that is not what you want or intend, as
it is not what I wish either.
Please let me know of any changes to your thinking, and approach,

including, but not limited to, providing equal sharing of all income and
assets immediately, provide an accounting for all assets, provide
access (and do not deny any access) to our accounts, replenish our
child's funds which you took out previously, secure the needed
resources for Ariana-Leilani and I to live in a secure and safe
environment, try to reserve time to spend with Ariana-Leilani, call her
whenever you can, and please keep in touch on a regular basis so that
we can move forward in a collaborative and positive manner and avoid
any miscommunication.
Sincerely,
Ariel
Cell: 202-730-5111
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar

<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48226/*http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/
toolbar/features/norton/index.php> and rest assured with the added
security of spyware protection.

3
Subject: GLC incident Dr.King/Dr. Pfeiffer
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:21 PM
From: Kerstin Hopkins <glc@dswash.org>
To: ‘Dr King’ drarielking@yahoo.com, glc@dswash.org
Cc: ‘Dorte Hardage’ dwhardage@mac.com
Conversation: GLC incident Dr.King/Dr. Pfeiffer

Dear Dr. King:

In order to avoid a repeat of the events that occurred on Sept. 8, 2007 (outlined below), it is
important that the school receive the appropriate court order outlining any custody and
visitation arrangement between you and Dr. Pfeiffer as soon as possible. I’m sure that you
understand that the school must remain neutral in any custody situation and it is important
that we are informed by the court about how to proceed.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Kerstin Hopkins
Director
German Language Courses
German School Washington, D.C.
8617 Chateau Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
301.767.3824
glc@dswash.org

Dear Dr. King:

On September 8, 2007 the following incident occurred at our school - see statement from our
teacher, Doerte Hardage.
Please provide proper court documentation by September 22, 2007 about the custody
situation for Ariana Leilani. We need to know if you and/or your husband Dr. Pfeiffer is/are
picking up Ariana Leilani.

Kind regards,

Dear Ms. Hopkins:

I would like to report a somewhat unpleasant incident I had during the first day of school.

Ariana Leilani King-Pfeiffer, joined our class on 09/08/2007 and was accompanied by both of

her parents. They introduced themselves to me and while I talked with Dr. King, her husband
started to play with his child in the classroom. When it was finally time to start our lesson, all
parents, except for Dr. Pfeiffer, left the room. On her way out, Dr. King informed me that she
and her husband had separated and she had sole custody of the child.
Ariana Leilani was not happy about the prospect of her father leaving, but he was assured
that if a child is not comfortable being in school, we do indeed let the parents know.
Dr. Pfeiffer continued to play with his daughter during the lesson. I told him again that it
would be fine to leave Ariana Leilani with me, and he suggested sitting right outside the
window on the playground bench. He still did not leave the classroom and after about 15
minutes, Dr. King returned to the room and was upset to find her husband still there. They
started to argue, but Dr.King finally managed to make her husband leave the classroom. She
then stayed briefly to ensure that Ariana Leilani was alright, and then also left. The girl was
fine, settled down quickly and easily and had a great time.

D. Hardage


Subject: Ariana-Leilani’s Visit on Tuesday
Date: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:22 AM
Conversation: Ariana-Leilani’s Visit on Tuesday

Dear Michael

Could tell me what happened during Ariana’s overnight stay on Tuesday
night?. When was she able to sleep,? What were the sleeping
arrangements?

How, where and if she awoke in the middle of the night. What other
activities did she engage in? Were there any incidents that she
experienced? Did you observe any disturbance on her part at any time
during the visit? Was she bothered by anything?

When she came home she behaved very disturbed, sleepy, and grouchy,
much of which that continued for most of the day. This was out of
character for her. Any light that you can shed on her behavior would be
appreciated.

Your prompt response would be appreciated, so we can figure out how to
prevent this from happening again.

Thank you.

Ariel

Cell 202-730-5111

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48224/*http://sims.yahoo.com/>

Subject: Let ‘s do it... Let’s work together
Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 3:06 PM
Conversation: Let ‘s do it... Let’s work together

25 September 2007

Dear Michael,

We are at a cross roads, where we both need to choose between whether

we spend the next several years litigating issues of full custody, child support,
spousal support etc. in the court system, or we can resolve these issues on
terms that are mutually acceptable to all involved.

If we do the arithmetic, anyone who is familiar with the costs of contentious
custody and family proceedings will tell you that costs easily run between
$50,000 to $200,000 — that we will both be asking from our own family and
friends to fight each other. Costly depositions of each of us and those around
us (work, friends, colleagues, relatives, acquaintances, who would be forced
to set aside time and go to a court reporter and answer all questions under oath
in the US and Abroad), document discovery (request without limitation any
document that is within your possession or control), interrogatories (detailed
questions in writing with sworn answers),...and a request to admit (asking for
sworn admissions of the accuracy of facts) they all add up quickly in cost.
After the family court finally issues an order, one or both of us will likely go
to the circuit court, which will hear the entire case as a “do over” from
beginning to end in an even longer proceeding lasting about a year. If the
circuit court outcome is unacceptable to either of us, one or both of us will
appeal to the Court of Appeals, and if those appeals succeed, the case will be
sent back to the lower court. Only to start again. The only winners in these
battles are the lawyers, experts, and those others who collect fees for
something. You and I will have successfully depleted our current and future
resources, and more importantly the resources for our child’s future. More
costly than even the money is what such a long drawn out battle will cost in
emotional, mental and spiritual depletion of all of us, with Ariana-Leilani
being the biggest loser.

As your attorney may have told you, the next hearing will be only the
beginning. Once in the family court system, they have control over the future
of all of us, and that future will be determined for many years by people who
do not know us, have no compassion for our hopes and dreams, for ourselves
or our daughter. Based on actual cases I have become aware of in this court
system, it is within the realm of possibility that through this litigation and
subsequent evaluations, we could both be publicly damaged enough that
neither of us will get custody and she will be placed in the foster care system,
and could remain there until she is eighteen. No lawyer can give either of us
any assurances that that this will not occur.

We leave our futures in their hands, if we do not find a way, to come
together as two intelligent adults, without the lawyers, and make

decisions for our future. We both may have made some missteps here

in both miscommunications and poor judgments, which caused us both

to end up in a situation neither of us want to be in.

We can either correct this now, or regret it later. Talk to anyone who has
gone through these litigation wars, and you will find no-one would ever wish
to be in one again. So, why should we go to that place where we can avoid
going?

If it takes mediation, let’s do it. If it also takes family counseling, then let’s go
to it. If it requires a written agreement, then let’s do it.

If it requires thinking outside the box, and considering all options ---
including living at the under the same roof - whatever it takes to address
the concerns you have, I have, and Ariana-Leilani has, then let’s consider
them. All options are possible at this point to address our concerns
creatively.

Let’s put the same effort into this that we did as a team to get us through
the years of hard work that brought your intelligent mind here, helped get

it the first class education it deserved, provided us with wonderful
experiences, and most importantly, a smart, intelligent, and loving child
who loves us both.

But we have to do this now, not later. Before the money gets wasted, and,
more importantly, before we say things before this or any other tribunal
that we will want to take back, but won’t be able to. The witness and the
victim of this tragedy will be our daughter. She does not deserve it, she
did not ask for it, and we owe her to protect her from it.

Let me know you are interested in this, by emailing back by tomorrow with a
list of what concerns you want addressed in any agreement, or, at least, by
indicating your willingness to engage in and complete a mediation in the next
seven days. In either case, a written agreement must be agreed to by both of
us that ends this litigation within seven days.

I am copying all of the grandparents, because we all have a stake in
this...and we all need to realize that avoiding litigation is a real option
if we want to seriously consider it.

Thank you.

Ariel

Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48248/*http://search.yahoo.com/
search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz>

Subject: Ariana-Leilani’s Overnight Visit
Date: Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:02 PM
Conversation: Ariana-Leilani’s Overnight Visit

Dear Michael:

Sorry I missed your call. I was in the other room with our daughter.

As we discussed yesturday at about 3pm, to accommodate your work schedule

you can pick up Ariana-Leilani today at 6pm sharp and drop her off at 8am tomorrow.

I would like to remind you that Ariana-Leilani is quite anxious and upset about the overnight visits. She sais
that she is sceared and wants to sleep in her own room. Please do all that you can to accommodate her and if
she does not want to stay overnight please her home instead of letting her fall asleep in axiety.

We always need to do what is best for her.

Thank you.

Ariel

Tonight’s top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/tv/mai
tagline/tonightspicks/evt=48220/*http://tv.yahoo.com/ > on Yahoo! TV.

ORDER Case No
Commonwealth of Virginia
ARLINGTON J&DR COURT Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court

.COMMONWEALTH OF VA V. I In re: ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER
THE FOLLOWING PARTIES WERE PRESENT:
Juvenile [Ã‘ Attorney: Probation Officer ------.-----------------------------
[S Guardian a d Litem DEBORAH OLIN

a Father [Ã‘ Mother LJ Guardian:
RespondenuDefendant Attorney: S. O'CONNELL

--.----------.a--...-.----------.------.---------------------------.--.-.--.
CUSTODY
T e of Case: ------.-----------------------------------------------------------.-----------------------------
8Felony a
Misdemeanor 0CHINS Custody Visitation Support Foster Care Other a
Type of Hearing:
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. CONTINUED FOR FULL HEARING.
This case is continued to: .--------..-----.--------*m.a-------..-
-
-
--
--
-
--
.-
-
-.
.-
-
--
--
-
--
--
-
-
0111-712008
Wiggins - COJ
-
..
.
.-
--
-
--
--
a000062 -*-. -*-----------
DATE
FORM DC-570 (PAGE ONE OF ONE) 12/98 PDF

Wiggins - COJ - 62a
Wiggins - COJ - 62b
V I R G I N I A
IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT
OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MICHAEL. H. PFEIFFER,
Petitioner,
versus CASE NO. J-31848-01
ARIEL R. KING,
Respondent.
IN RE: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
DOB: 05/07/2003
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Arlington, Virginia
Friday, February 8, 2008
The above-entitled action came on to be heard
before the Honorable Esther Wiggins Lyles, a Judge for
the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court of Arlington
County, in Courtroom 4A, 1425 N. Courthouse Road,
Arlington, Virginia 22201, beginning at 11:00 o'clock
a.m.
- - - - - - - - - - -
1
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
9007 Windflower Lane
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner:
SEAN W. O’CONNELL, ESQUIRE
For the Respondent:
MICHAEL MOORE, ESQUIRE
Guardian Ad Litem:
DEBORAH OLIN, ESQUIRE
For Dr. Lane:
WILLIAM REICHHARDT, ESQUIRE
P R O C E E D I N
G S :
MR. MILLER: Good morning, Your Honor. I’m
Michael Miller; I’m the counsel for the mother replacing
Raymond Benzinger.
THE COURT: Is there a motion to, of
substitution of counsel?
MR. MILLER: I have a signed order.
MR. REICHHARDT: William Reichhardt, Your
Honor, and I represent Dr. Christopher Lane here this
morning. I don’t know if the Court has had an
opportunity to see my motion that we had to file this
week.
THE COURT: No.
2
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. REICHHARDT: I’m here, if you do not have a
copy of that, I had a motion on behalf of Dr. Lane to
withdraw as the custody evaluator in this case. With the
Court’s and counsels’ permission, I’d like to address the
Court on that matter as a preliminary matter this
morning.
This is occasioned, and if I may just pass the
motion up to you --
THE COURT: I haven’t, I don’t see any motions
filed; everything was just stuck into the file. We’ll
see if the Court can locate it.
MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, I have another
copy.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. REICHHARDT: And that’s the cover letter to
counsel. Counsel has received this.
THE COURT: This right here?
MR. REICHHARDT: No, it’s a motion to withdraw.
MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, may I approach the
Court on this matter, please?
THE COURT: Motion to withdraw as custody
evaluator?
MR. REICHHARDT: That’s correct.
3
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
Your Honor, very briefly, as the Court well
knows, Dr. Lane has been involved in this case; he’s
designated by your order as the custody evaluator for the
child and the parents. I was contacted and had occasion
to file his motion to withdraw because he was served last
Friday with notice from the state licensing board that
the mother in this case has filed a grievance against him
with the board and he received that notice last Friday.
Without going into any more detail about that,
suffice it to say that Dr. Lane is in a position now
where he is an adverse party to one of the parties in
this case, the mother. He, of course, will respond to
the state board. The request of the mother in her
complaint is to have the board challenge Dr. Lane’s
licensing in this state.
The bottom line is this, Judge. Dr. Lane by
virtue of this is absolutely prohibited under ethical
standards and we contend also by the Virginia
Administrative Code from any further participation as a
neutral custody evaluator as required by guidelines under
the APA that prescribe the ethical guidelines for custody
evaluations in children.
And also as I’ve mentioned under Virginia State
Code, he may not --

4
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: He could not give a report based on
what he observed, opinion before the violation was filed?
MR. REICHHARDT: No, Ma’am. And let me explain
that.
THE COURT: But that doesn’t make sense. That
means that anybody could eliminate any type of custody
evaluator by just filing a complaint to prevent them
from, then they could never proceed.
MR. REICHHARDT: Well.
THE COURT: Unless that might be what they
would intend.
MR. REICHHARDT: That’s exactly correct.
Here’s the dilemma, okay, and --
THE COURT: Because it doesn’t make sense to
me.
MR. REICHHARDT: Except, it sounds Draconian, I
know.
THE COURT: Because it doesn’t make sense. We
could almost, anyone who has not liked what a custody
evaluator says in their opinion, all they would have to
do is file a complaint and that would be the end of it.
And then, you know, you would never get, how could you
ever get anything done if that was the case?
5
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. REICHHARDT: Well, let me address it
specifically with you, Your Honor, because the Court
needs to understand exactly the situation that Dr. Lane
is in. First of all, the evaluation has not been
completed. The database is not complete.
And there is correspondence that has been
shared with counsel as to concerns to Dr. Lane and others
about why that is true. Okay. The Guardian Ad Litem is
fully informed in this case as to that. Okay.
So there’s an element, first of all, and I’ll
characterize it as non-cooperation, but the bottom line
is that his database is not complete, for starters.
He then is in a position where he is adverse by
virtue of one of the parties in this case, not just
anybody, it’s a parent, it’s a party that challenges him
ethically and seeks a revocation of his license before
the start board. That puts him in what’s called an
adversarial or not objective posture.
So on two points, we’ve got two points, Dr.
Lane ethically is in a situation where he cannot give an
opinion. He is not objective. He is adverse.
THE COURT: I think he could be objective. I
have not seen that he’s not objective.
6
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, that’s not for the
Court to determine because he is bound by ethical
constraints that tell him, and this is absolutely true,
and let me give you the hypothetical. If a lawyer calls
Dr. Lane to the stand --
THE COURT: Uh huh.
MR. REICHHARDT: -- and asks him a question, I
have to tell the Court as I’ve told counsel, he’s advised
by counsel who represents him now in this situation that
he may not answer these questions.
Now, on the question as to whether he can be
objective, he’s going to tell the Court, I’m telling the
Court on his behalf, he is not objective. He is not by
definition. He’s not by definition. He is an adverse
party.
THE COURT: I don’t understand how he cannot
be, he’s not objective.
MR. REICHHARDT: Because he’s being --
THE COURT: He’s a professional; he’s
objective. I can’t believe you say he’s not objective.
MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, he’s a fine
person. I’ve known him for a long time. The Court has
seen before, I’m sure.
THE COURT: He’s --

7
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. REICHHARDT: All of those things.
THE COURT: He always seemed objective to me.
MR. REICHHARDT: To require Dr. Lane to
participate any further in this, and I can’t make this
more clear, to require him to participate in this case
any further over these circumstances, subjects him to
liability on ethical issues before the state board. I
don’t think the Court wants that. I don’t think any
lawyer in this courtroom wants that and I don’t want that
for my client. And that’s exactly his situation.
Let me say it another way. We are on the
record here today doing what responsibly is dictated to a
psychologist under the guidelines in Virginia. When this
occurs, he is required to seek withdrawal. That is the
remedy. That’s what he’s told to do. That’s what he’s
told to do by the people that grant him a license to
practice in this state. We can put him on the stand and
subject him to breaching that. I’m not going to say
ultimately, obviously the Court retains final
jurisdiction here, but I’m pleading the situation to you
today to put him on that witness stand --
THE COURT: I don’t understand because it would
totally, I mean, in my opinion, I can’t believe they
would have that result. That would mean that anyone, and
8
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
I keep saying this, who didn’t like what an evaluator
would say would just file a complaint and then that’s the
end of it.
MR. REICHHARDT: Well, he hasn’t said anything
yet and he hasn’t completed it, which I wanted to
emphasize to the Court.
THE COURT: Well, that’s a different issue.
MR. REICHHARDT: Well, that’s a different
issue, but it exists in this case. By the non-
cooperation --
THE COURT: Well, that’s a little different.
MR. REICHHARDT: Well, that’s different, but it
also goes to his ability to say anything. In other
words, even if there was not a complaint.
THE COURT: They can say he doesn’t have an
opinion because he hasn’t completed his evaluation.
MR. REICHHARDT: Well, that’s one part of it
that exists here. So there’s a two-fold problem.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, may I be heard for
a moment because I think there’s a way around it.
THE COURT: Sure, one person at a time.
MR. REICHHARDT: It’s a two-fold problem,
Judge, as I’ve said, so we have both here today, this
morning.
9
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
On the question of what, the Court’s concern
that you stated a couple of times, which is, does this
scenario, in other words, does this problem mean that
anybody that doesn’t like the custody evaluator, can they
poison the well essentially and require the custody
evaluator ethically to withdraw.
You know, maybe that’s true, but does that
preclude a Court, does that preclude forever or in every
situation, an examination of what’s in the best interest
of the child. I think not. It’s a balance.
But there’s another custody evaluation ordered
in this case, and I understand from looking at the order,
I have had conversations with counsel who have approached
me to say, well, if Lane withdraws, what about access to
data information, and so forth, and I’ve told them that I
will coordinate with them in that regard.
The Guardian Ad Litem in this case is fully
informed of what is going on here. We’ve had
discussions. As soon as I got into this case, I
contacted each of the attorneys. I only talked to Mr.
Miller this morning because I thought Mr. Benzinger was
in the case.
But we are in a position of trying to do what
is necessary to help the Court because you appointed my

10
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
client and we don’t take that lightly and we want to help
this Court.
But I ask you, Judge, not to put this
professional in a situation, you can order it, but I’m
asking you not to. It is, it puts him in an untenable
situation. Long after this hearing is over, he has to go
down and deal, as he will, with the state board of
licensing. And that doesn’t have to do with anybody in
this courtroom except for the complainant.
And what he says or does over our objection may
have ramifications on that and it’s my obligation as his
attorney to protect that situation and to ask the Court
to understand it. It is regrettable; we apologize to the
extent that we think we have to. We didn’t ask for this.
But that’s where we are today, Judge.
MR. REICHHARDT: I understand I mean subject to
whatever they tell you this morning. I understand that
all but one of these attorneys does not object to Dr.
Lane withdrawing and I think Mr. O’Connell that I’ve had
a conversation with can explain his situation or his
position, although I did understand him to say he didn’t
have any objection to Lane not testifying today.
THE COURT: Okay.

11
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. MILLER: Yes, Your Honor. I think we’re in
a position that no matter what Dr. Lane does, one of the
parents is going to say that there’s bias. If Dr. Lane,
yes, he may objectively do his report and he comes in and
testifies favorably to the mother, the father is going to
say, well, Dr. Lane is doing that because he has this
outstanding complaint and hopefully the mother will
withdraw the complaint or it will be resolved in some
other fashion.
Contrary wise, Dr. Lane comes in, testifies
favorably to the father, the mother says, see, I told you
he was biased. Anyway, he’s violated these other things
and now he’s violated this and an appeal is going to
result no matter what. Neither parent can be satisfied
with the outcome.
And that’s not to say that Dr. Lane wouldn’t be
objective. I think there’s a practical objectivity and
then there’s an ethical professional objectivity. Any
lawyer who has met with one spouse in a divorce case
could sit there and say practically speaking, I can be
objective and not use that information and I can
represent the other spouse, so I can represent an
opposing party.
12
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
But the profession is not governed by these
practical objectivity. It’s governed by the professional
objectivity. What does the outside person outside the
profession looking at this say or see. And that’s why
attorneys have these conflicts of interest and I think we
essentially created something analogous here for a mental
health professional. And so for that reason, I’m not
sure how we’ve responded to our position, but our
position is in support of Mr. Reichhardt’s motion for Dr.
Lane to withdraw.
THE COURT: That’s no surprise, Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: I thought that would be stating
the obvious, but I wasn’t quite sure how to conclude that
remark.
THE COURT: Mr. O’Connell?
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I agree with
exactly what you’ve said in terms of your analysis of the
motion to withdraw and how it doesn’t make sense because
it would simply reward someone in any case that didn’t
like what a psychologist had to say.
In this case, I think the question is not yet
right for the following reasons: We have before us a
custody trial which, while I moved in opposition
technically to the continuance because I didn’t want to

13
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
be seeming to agree with it, have a number of other
issues, which all have to do with a lack of cooperation
of the mother --
THE COURT: I don’t understand anything you
just said.
MR. O’CONNELL: Well, that’s because it was
very confusing to say, Your Honor.
What I’m saying is, that I don’t want to be
seen to be rewarding the mother for her lack of
cooperation by agreeing to a continuance; it would be
essentially rewarding her dilatory tactics.
However, I think that before we get to those
issues, we need to address the denial of visitation, the
lack of cooperation --
THE COURT: Right now we’re dealing on the
issue of --
MR. O’CONNELL: But I am dealing with that
issue, Your Honor. What I’m saying is --
THE COURT: It doesn’t sound like it. You’re
all over the place. Can we just focus on Dr. Lane?
MR. O’CONNELL: I’m saying the issue is not
right.
THE COURT: Okay.
14
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. O’CONNELL: I’m saying the issue of whether
Dr. Lane can permanently withdraw is not right for two
reasons.
THE COURT: What are the two reasons?
MR. O’CONNELL: Reason number one, because the
issues of the lack of cooperation and the mother’s
psychological situation have not been dealt with. In
other words, the general contempt that we’re dealing with
has to be dealt with first.
And until those get dealt with, we don’t know
whether or not there can be a completion. Because one of
the issues of the contempt is, I think, that filing a
complaint against Dr. Lane at this time, in this way, is
part of the contempt. It is, in fact, the ultimate part
of the contempt.
What is the best way not to cooperate? First,
you don’t return the phone calls. Then you lie about
what he says to the Court. And then, ultimately you file
a complaint, calculated to get him knocked out of the
case. It’s the ultimate contempt, and if properly
sanctioned, that matter gets dismissed and maybe Dr. Lane
can testify. We don’t know yet at that point.
In addition to that, I haven’t received, I’ve
heard a lot about authority preventing him from

15
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
testifying and maybe that authority exists. And I’m very
sympathetic to Dr. Lane in the situation he’s been placed
in, but I haven’t seen the authority that says he can’t,
and I’m not an expert in that field that says, you know,
specifically the field, the guidelines of someone doing
custody evaluations, et cetera. So I haven’t seen that,
so I’d want to see that before I took a formal position
on it.
But ultimately until we deal with the contempt
issue and until we give him an opportunity to see how the
contempt issue gets dealt with, I don’t think the issue
of him withdrawing is right.
Also, whether he can testify to give an
ultimate opinion in the case is a separate issue from
whether or not, for instance, a Court psychologist could
glean some of the information that he has from him or
from the Guardian Ad Litem. I understand that there’s
some independent testing that’s been done. So there may
be ways to work around on this and we, since, it’s a
brand new issue. We haven’t been able to explore them
yet.
But I think the first thing to do is deal with
the contempt and then see where that leads us with
16
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
respect to where that leaves Dr. Lane. Thank you, Your
Honor.
I just, by the way, I’m not going to address
the Court on why the motion should be denied directly
because Your Honor said exactly what I would have said,
so I’m not going to repeat it.
MS. OLIN: I’ve not come across a situation
like this and I find it really disheartening. The timing
of it is awkward to say the least.
And I’ve got to look at two things, the best
interest of the child and the law. The best interest of
the child is that we have the information, and it does
not serve XXXXX or this Court’s interest to have this
information stifled. So I am very distressed at the
filing.
That said, I also have the unfortunate
experience of having to listen through many hours of
Guardian ad Litem training on professional standards on
custody evaluations and psychological evaluations.
One of those things is that these, there are
standards, specific standards and they must be fully met
before the reports can be distributed or there is, there
are sanctions for the psychologist or psychiatrist doing
17
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
the report. And this is a custody evaluation that’s been
ordered.
So if Dr. Lane was not allowed to finish his
report, I don’t see how he can give portions of that
report to the Court. So I see two things. Number one,
I do feel, and, of course, the mother’s counsel is
perfectly capable of showing evidence to the contrary,
that this seems to be a concerted effort on mother’s side
to prevent the Court from gaining that information.
A lot of money has been spent and a lot of time
has been spent. There’s just a small bit of time left
remaining to complete that evaluation and now, in fact,
Dr. Lane has been silenced.
And I do believe he has been silenced because I
do think that if he goes forward, presenting bits and
pieces of this evaluation, I do believe he’s in
violation.
Well, let me rephrase that, not that he’s in
violation, but he could be in violation of canons. And
we need Dr. Lane. We have him on a lot of cases. There
are a lot of kids that we need evaluations for. And this
is a double-edged sword.
THE COURT: It’s not that I’m not sympathetic
to him.
18
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MS. OLIN: What?
THE COURT: I said it’s not that I’m not
sympathetic with his position.
MS. OLIN: I understand that completely. And
I’m really frustrated, but I don’t know that he can go
forward. So from the legal end of things, I do agree
with Mr. Reichhardt’s motion. The best interest of the
child, completely against the best interest of the child.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, may I just address
the Court finally on this motion?
THE COURT: One second.
(Off the record.)
MR. REICHHARDT: Judge, as I listened to the
argument of counsel, let me just address a few quick
points briefly and go back to the Court’s concern about
does this mean that somebody can just come in and get
away with it.
THE COURT: That’s what it sounds like.
MR. REICHHARDT: Well, the question is get away
with. And what is the incentive not to do that or what
is the, the concern is that this sets some kind of
precedent to allow disgruntled people or people that
don’t like something to come in and -- this Court has

19
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
remedies. And if this Court, and I don’t know, I mean, I
don’t know this case, perhaps fortunately, but this Court
has remedies. And it wouldn’t be the first or the last
time, if a Court believed that a party or person involved
in a case did something that caused delay or extra cost
or inconvenience or whatever, there are clear sanctions -
THE COURT: Absolutely.
MR. REICHHARDT: -- for that. But that’s a
different matter.
THE COURT: This Court does impose some of
those sanctions.
MR. REICHHARDT: I know, Your Honor, but I
guess that’s a different matter. Counsel raised the
question, but that’s the deterrent, in other words, the
direct question of why shouldn’t people do this, or if
people did this, what prevents them from doing it? Well,
there is a deterrent, which people will learn about if it
occurs.
But counsel raised the issue of not being
familiar with authority. Well, I spoke with counsel a
couple of days ago about this. There are two issues.
There are memorialized in the canons of the APA as it
20
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
governs the ethical standards of psychologists. If
anybody wants a cite, Section 3.06, conflict of interest.
There are other related sections that have to
do with forensic psychologists, which is what Dr. Lane
is. They may, they must, they must, it is mandatory,
avoid any further situation where they have a conflict of
interest.
I want to state this clearly. He is
conflicted. He has a current conflict of interest. We
are disclosing that to the Court. He is not objective.
THE COURT: But I don’t see, where is the
conflict here?
MR. REICHHARDT: He is a defendant in regard to
one of the parties in this case and he is defending
himself on his license before the state board.
Not even talking about the merits of that
because we are very confident in that, but that’s
irrelevant. He is a defendant.
THE COURT: I just don’t see --
MR. REICHHARDT: Let me make another example.
THE COURT: I’m not feeling it actually, Sir.
I mean, I understand what you’re saying, but I just can’t
imagine this is what they would intend the result to be.
21
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. REICHHARDT: They do. And I just, I hate
to say to the Court take my word for it, but, you know,
Your Honor, we’ve been involved with the state board and,
please, take my word for it, they do.
THE COURT: I think I’ve heard enough actually
to make a ruling.
MR. REICHHARDT: The Court will grant your
motion to change Dr. Lane from the evaluator, not because
I see it as a conflict at all. I mean, he’s a
professional and I’m sure he is objective and can make
recommendations that are fair. The reason I’m allowing
him to withdraw is because the evaluation has not been
completed. If it had been completed and he had already
come to an opinion about this before the complaint was
filed, I don’t see that being a problem, him testifying.
But in this particular case, I say it’s a
problem in light of the fact that he has not completed
the report and he has not made recommendations or
conclusions at this particular point.
This is where I see the problem is. But I
think if the report was completed, I would force him to
testify. If it was completed before the complaint was
filed, he had already come to a conclusion. I think
that’s different. I think if they’re filing a complaint,

22
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
that would stifle custody evaluators, totally. They
wouldn’t be able to do anything because as soon as the
parent felt that it wasn’t going their way, they’d file a
complaint and we’d never get anything done. That’s my
rationale.
MR. REICHHARDT: Your Honor, I’ve prepared an
order. I think all counsel but Mr. O’Connell has signed
it. If I may just ask him to do it and submit it to you,
please.
MR. REICHHARDT: With the Court’s permission,
may I be excused?
THE COURT: Yes.
Are there any other preliminary matters?
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I actually had to
make a list. I have requested and the Court has issued a
rule to show cause with respect to the failure to
cooperate with Dr. Lane and that was served on Mr.
Benzinger over a week ago and it was served last Saturday
at approximately 11:00 o’clock. I filed in Georgia on
the defendant. And I would like to add that since I
filed my rule rather than hastening to cooperate, the
filing of the complaint has exacerbated the nature of the
contempt, that in other words, rather than actually

23
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
attempting to quench the contempt, she actually inflamed
it. And so that actually is before the Court now. I
would like to, rather than list all the things that might
be available next, I’d like to focus on that particular
rule to show cause.
THE COURT: All right, let me advise the mother
of the rules. All right, Ma’am, would you please stand?
It’s alleged that you are in contempt of Court by failing
to comply with a specific visitation schedule. It’s also
alleged that you are in contempt of Court for not
cooperating with the Guardian ad Litem and that you are
in contempt of Court for not cooperating with the custody
evaluation. Why shouldn’t you go to jail today?
MR. MILLER: Your Honor, she shouldn’t go to
jail until we’ve had evidence on the matter and up until
now we haven’t had any evidence.
THE COURT: The Court can do a summary
contempt.
MR. MILLER: No, they can’t, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Why not?
MR. MILLER: Because summary contempt is only
on several specific instances.
THE COURT: Yes.
24
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. MILLER: Summary contempt is authorized and
we do not have that today.
THE COURT: Violating a Court order.
MR. MILLER: Looking at Virginia Code 18.2-456.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. MILLER: It says cases in which Courts and
judges may summarily, or may punish summarily for
contempt is Courts and judges may issue attachments for
contempt and punish them summarily only in the following
cases: misbehavior in the presence of the Court,
violence or threats of violence to a judge or office of
the Court, vile, contemptuous or insulting language
addressed to a judge, misbehavior of an officer of the
Court, or disobedience or resistance of an officer of the
Court. Violation of a Court order is not within those
statutory factors under 18.2-456.
THE COURT: Well, what about disobedience and
resistence of an officer of the Court, jury, witness or
other persons of any lawful process, judgment, decree or
order of the Court? You left that part out.
MR. MILLER: It’s a disobedience to the person.
THE COURT: It’s a disobedience of the order of
the Court.
25
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. OLIN: I would just say that I am an
officer of the Court and --
THE COURT: Right, so I don’t think that I
couldn’t, under the statute, find her summarily in
contempt of Court.
MR. MILLER: Well, with --
THE COURT: I mean, that’s what the statute
says.
MR. MILLER: Well, no, it’s a disobedience or
resistence of an officer of the Court, a juror or a
witness or other person to lawful process. She hasn’t --
THE COURT: To lawful process or order,
judgment, decree or order of the Court.
MR. MILLER: Right.
THE COURT: You leave out that part.
MR. MILLER: Right, but it has to be the person
or other lawful person.
THE COURT: I guess I’m not understanding your
point.
MR. MILLER: Well, how can you find that
there’s been disobedience or resistence to an officer of
the Court without evidence showing that?
THE COURT: Well, based on the proffer by the
Guardian ad Litem.
26
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. MILLER: Okay, and I disagree with that
proffer, and if she wants to testify or she has evidence,
then she can come forward and put that evidence before
the Court.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. OLIN: Your Honor, Guardian ad Litem, the
appointment of Guardian ad Litems in Virginia State
Supreme Court, Guardian ad Litems shall not testify.
However, the lack of cooperation is enumerated in my
evaluation and for that to be questioned, to me, I mean,
of course, it can be questioned, it’s just laughable.
I do have letters from prior counsel saying
mother would not be cooperating with me or any of the
other professionals in this case pending his motion to
dismiss, despite the fact that the order stays in place
until the Judge makes a ruling on that issue. And we’re
talking about the January 17th motion to dismiss on
subject matter jurisdiction which Your Honor --
THE COURT: Denied.
MS. OLIN: So that’s a December 10th
communication from Mr. Benzinger to me. Several phone
calls to mother, which mother, asking mother to set up a
home visit. That’s all. Now, alas, in Maryland, mother
did not respond saying, okay, come out tonight, come out
27
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
tomorrow, when can you come out. I do understand that
mother had a family emergency, and I’m very sorry about
that, with her mother, but concluded the last couple of
weeks.
We’ve had, our last hearing, the motion was
November 8, this is February 8. So I’m not a wizard in
math, but that’s December, January, February, it’s been
three months. So even subtracting the last two weeks of
the mother’s unfortunate family emergency, that gives
ample time for a home visit. Furthermore, the burden is
on the mother to show whether or not she complied, not on
me.
MR. MILLER: Your Honor, that’s incorrect.
Contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding. Quasi-criminal,
the presumption of innocence attaches to the defendant --
THE COURT: Civil.
MR. MILLER: We’ve got to go criminal. We have
two kinds of contempt. There’s the criminal contempt and
then there’s civil contempt. And within --
THE COURT: I see no reason why the Court
couldn’t hold her in contempt right at this particular
moment.
MR. MILLER: Well, contempt, I’m reading from
Michie’s Jurisprudence, Section 3, nature of contempt.

28
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
Proceedings for contempt of Court are of two classes.
These contempts are prosecuted to preserve the power and
vindicate the dignity of the Court. That’s the first
kind. The second kind is contempts instituted to
preserve and enforce the rights of private parties.
And what we have here is a difference between
these various rules to show cause. Some of the
allegations concern the rights of private parties, which
would be civil contempt. Other of these may go to
whether or not it’s for the type one, which is to
prosecute to preserve the power and to vindicate the
dignity of the Court.
MR. O’CONNELL: If I might be heard on that
issue, Your Honor.
MR. MILLER: The additional issue before the
Court or that the Court has to address is the vagueness
of the orders. The orders --
THE COURT: What’s vague about the orders?
MR. MILLER: Well, if we go back to Michie’s
Jurisprudence --
THE COURT: No, what’s vague about these
orders?
MR. MILLER: Okay, the order says participate.
What does participate mean?

29
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: Cooperate.
MR. MILLER: What does cooperate mean?
THE COURT: I know what it means.
MR. MILLER: But does --
THE COURT: Of course she knows.
MR. MILLER: But does Dr. King know?
THE COURT: Of course she does.
MR. MILLER: How many times did she talk to the
Guardian? At what point does she say, okay, I’ve
cooperated?
MS. OLIN: I’m going to answer that, Judge,
because when the poor Guardian ad Litem goes, please, can
I have a home visit and the response is, number one, no,
from counsel, we’re not going to cooperate with you at
this time and then mother doesn’t return phone calls,
plus, really, there’s nothing that says the Guardian ad
Litem has to contact the parent yet again. The parent,
knowing there’s a Guardian ad Litem in the case, has full
responsibility to initiate contact. It says on the back,
some of the requirements of a Guardian ad Litem. Mother
is a very, very bright woman. She’s managed to do all
kinds of petitions and filings of her own and I’ll bet
you she’s been on the website of Guardian ad Litems
looking at those standards. So cooperate, at the very

30
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
least gets a home visit, especially when she’s left the
jurisdiction to move to Maryland in a new house.
When you look at a custody issue, the home is a
major factor. Homes must be visited. I think in prior,
I think nothing, in prior situations --
THE COURT: And I definitely gave the mother a
copy of the Guardian ad Litem order --
MS. OLIN: And I think at the last hearing --
THE COURT: -- with the standards under it, and
those were the minimum standards that the Guardian ad
Litem has to do. She knows what she had to do. That
would be cooperate.
MR. MILLER: But that’s an order to the
Guardian; this order is not binding to the --
THE COURT: No, no, my point is she knows what
the Guardian ad Litem is supposed to be doing and so to -
MR. MILLER: No, this order tells the Guardian
ad Litem what to do.
THE COURT: It informs the parties what the
duties of the Guardian ad Litem are.
MR. MILLER: That’s correct.
THE COURT: So my whole point, she knows what
the duties are.

31
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. MILLER: No, because the duties --
THE COURT: The minimum duties of the Guardian
ad Litem, she understand the minimum things that the
Guardian ad Litem should be doing and if you’re
preventing that from happening, how can that be
cooperating?
MR. MILLER: Because the Guardian ad Litem is
appointed to represent the child and shall have access to
the following persons: parties to the proceedings,
that’s it. The GAL has had access to Dr. King. Now, she
may not like that she didn’t have all the access that she
wanted.
THE COURT: Mr. Miller, I don’t agree with you,
not at all, not even close to agreeing with you.
MR. MILLER: Because the September order --
THE COURT: This is just really unbelievable.
MS. OLIN: Your Honor, if I could just
interject briefly. Mother, I do believe that mother’s
mother is ill. There’s some discrepancy as to how ill,
but I think there’s no question that she’s ill. And as
blatant as I think these, this conduct is, contempt,
disobedience to the Court, I would hate to see mother
incarcerated at this time solely because she has her own
mother to take care of.

32
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
What I would like to see, my main point today
is to see XXXXX. Mother did not bring her back with
her; mother informed me the child is still in Georgia. I
would like to see XXXX brought back to this area
forthwith. That would be my very, very narrow focus
today.
So if Your Honor is inclined to issue
sanctions, which I would ask that Your Honor do, I would
also ask that any jail time be put off until such time as
to the emergency status of Dr. King’s is not in such
question.
MR. MILLER: Your Honor, before we get to that,
there’s three rules to show cause. Which one are we
addressing? We started out --
THE COURT: I was addressing the Guardian ad
Litem one.
MR. MILLER: Okay, so if we’re going to stick
with the Guardian ad Litem, let’s stick to that. The
Guardian ad Litem is saying --
THE COURT: I think that’s what she was
speaking to.
MR. MILLER: Right.
THE COURT: I don’t think she was talking about
anything else.
33
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. MILLER: Okay. But again, all we have is
the summary representations. We don’t have any specific
evidence. She simply says she’s not cooperating. And
what factors --
THE COURT: She just said that she has not
participated in a home visit. She has not returned the
phone calls. She’s already said all of that.
MS. OLIN: That’s enough.
MR. MILLER: The other problem with this is,
correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t have a complete file
here, but there’s a motion for show cause summons of
capias that the GAL submitted.
THE COURT: Yes, I issued that.
MR. MILLER: Okay, but there’s no rule to show
cause. So is --
THE COURT: Yes, it was.
MR. MILLER: Then there’s the summons.
MR. O’CONNELL: There was, I had it served on
her.
MR. MILLER: No, look at your affidavit.
THE COURT: There’s a copy in the file.
MR. MILLER: Your affidavit said there was
three show cause summons, two rules to show cause, three
petitions, or two petitions, one motion. This is one of

34
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
the summons. This is the motion; there is no rule to
show cause on the GAL’s related rule to show cause.
THE COURT: That’s not true; I have one.
MR. MILLER: Well, it’s not reflected on the
affidavit of service.
THE COURT: Oh, you’re saying on the service
there is nothing?
MR. MILLER: Yeah, I’m assuming, the two rules
to show causes on the affidavit of service were the two
rules attached to the --
THE COURT: Oh, I see, you’re saying --
MR. MILLER: -- the petition that Mr. O’Connell
filed.
THE COURT: Or that Ms. King did not get the
third one, failure to cooperate with the Guardian ad
Litem’s investigation?
MR. MILLER: Correct. My understanding is,
that there’s --
THE COURT: I don’t even have to -- the
summons.
MR. MILLER: There’s only a summons and there’s
only a motion; there’s no rule.
35
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: Okay. A rule was issued, but the
Court doesn’t even have to have a rule. We can just do
it without it.
MR. MILLER: Only if it’s summary.
THE COURT: Summary, right.
MR. MILLER: So we’re back to the thing that
it’s not summary because we don’t have any evidence.
THE COURT: Yes, it is. I disagree with that.
MR. MILLER: Because the nature of the statute
is the contempt occurred --
THE COURT: I disagree. We don’t even need the
rule; we could just proceed summarily. That’s why I was
addressing that one, not the other two.
MR. MILLER: And again, we’re back to, you
know, the Guardian ad Litem. I mean, we start with --
THE COURT: Well, we could be going back and
forth all day. I already told you I don’t agree with
you. The Court can find her summarily in contempt, and
the Court will find her in contempt for failing to
cooperate with the Guardian ad Litem. I think she has.
The other two, we could set those down for a
hearing, the failure to follow the specific visitation
schedule and failure to cooperate with the child study,
the custody evaluation. We could set that down for a

36
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
separate hearing. This Court has no problem finding her
in contempt for failing to cooperate with the Guardian ad
Litem. Now, are we prepared to go forward today?
MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I wanted to, I’m not
sure where we are now, but before we walked in here, it
looked like we had an agreement, and I guess counsel can
correct me on that. It looked like we had an agreement
that the child would be brought back here forthwith, that
there would be joint legal and physical custody with the
child residing with the father, liberal visitation to the
mother, without prejudice.
MR. O’CONNELL: That was an offer. I didn’t
hear that --
MR. MILLER: There is absolutely no agreement
of any kind.
MS. OLIN: Okay.
MR. MILLER: I mean, I was purely in receive
mode and trying to understand the parties positions.
MR. O’CONNELL: I was trying to be as
accommodating as I could, but my main concern is to get
that child back in this area where we know she is safe.
But we do have a bunch of other matters.
MR. MILLER: Well, let me say that we don’t
know that she’s not safe in Atlanta.

37
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: Well --
MR. MILLER: I mean, this is the problem,
everybody wants to come in and make these representations
without evidence and then --
THE COURT: Is the child in Virginia or not?
Is she in the metropolitan area or not? Where is the
child?
MR. MILLER: She’s in Atlanta right now. Dr.
King flew up this morning.
THE COURT: Did the father agree that the child
could go to Atlanta?
MR. MILLER: No, but the Court’s order of
September 5th provided her travel there.
MR. O’CONNELL: I think I would be the
appropriate person to answer that. Your Honor, he didn’t
know that the child had left --
THE COURT: Well, without at least telling the
father where the child is.
MR. O’CONNELL: So he couldn’t have given,
well, number one, he didn’t agree. Number two, when he
found out about it, he asked that the child be brought
back. Number three, when it was represented the child
wouldn’t be brought back, he offered and asked that he be
38
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
allowed to go down and collect the child. All these were
refused. Your Honor, the problem with proceeding --
THE COURT: That is the order of November 8th; I
ordered that the child remains in this country and not
allowed to travel outside of the United States. If
mother leaves the country for work, child should be left
with her father and father ordered to maintain child in
her German school.
MR. O’CONNELL: That is correct, Your Honor.
And we represented that we would actually keep the child
in the Georgia school, excuse me, in the German school
while--
THE COURT: The case was pending.
MR. O’CONNELL: The case was pending. But
there are a number of other issues which have come up
since we’ve been in Court that have effectively
frustrated the proper presentation of this case for
today.
And while I didn’t file a motion to continue, I
think that we do need a number of other kinds of relief
for --
THE COURT: But Mr. Benzinger asked for a
continuance and I asked the Clerk to contact the parties
and see if you all had agreed to it or not.

39
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I did file --
THE COURT: No one responded, so I guess that
meant everybody objected.
MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I wasn’t contacted, I’m
sorry.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I did actually file
a motion in opposition to his motion to continue and I
can go back and pull the copy of it. I believe it’s file
stamped. But I understand with all the paperwork it’s
probably hard to keep track of. Should I hand it to the
Court, Your Honor? It was filed on February 5th.
THE COURT: The order, had the Court allowed
her to go to Georgia to visit family, it does not mean to
leave the child there when the mother is here. I don’t
think she can rationalize that when the father is here.
MS. OLIN: Well, I also believe that there’s a
visitation schedule in place.
THE COURT: Uh huh.
MS. OLIN: Every other weekend day.
THE COURT: Every Wednesday from 6:00 to
Thursday 8:00 and Saturday from 10:00 to Sunday at 10:00.
MS. OLIN: So taking the child to Georgia in
and of itself is not an issue, but denying visitation,
and especially since we have an ongoing investigation,

40
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
trying to, as the Courts are intending, that’s just not
really --
THE COURT: I don’t understand why the child
wasn’t brought back today. The Court had allowed the
child to visit with the parents in Atlanta, but not to
leave the child in Atlanta.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I would like the, I
believe the --
THE COURT: Well, obviously we can’t go forward
today.
MR. O’CONNELL: I believe we need a
psychological evaluation of the mother. We need
something to replace -- by the way, my client so far has
paid $10,200 of Dr. Lane’s fee and that’s not all of his
fee. And --
THE COURT: Look, that’s a separate issue all
together.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I understand that,
but the point is he has borrowed the money to do that and
he’s ever cooperating and on the other side --
THE COURT: As I was saying -- look, clearly
the case cannot go forward today. We don’t have the
custody evaluation. We don’t have, the child is not
here.
41
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I don’t know if you had
the time to read my report.
THE COURT: I did not read your report in light
of, the Clerk had told me there was so many motions filed
back and forth I decided not to read the report in case
one of them was for me not to read your report.
MS. OLIN: And, Your Honor, I don’t even know,
I read my report, I read so many other pieces of paper.
But I actually did. And there’s a couple of things that
I thought I’d like to offer that I think that is useful
and certainly in the best interest of XXXXX and that,
number one, she be brought back forthwith as soon as
either father can get her or mother can bring her back,
whichever comes sooner.
The second thing I would ask is that, and I
don’t know about the timing of this, but before the next
hearing, I think looking at mom’s conduct and I want this
to be mutual, just for fairness, that a full
psychological evaluation be done according to
psychological standards, not just a little mental health
evaluation, but a full testing. And I think our safest
route is to use the Court psychologist because she is a
neutral. She’s a representative of the Court. I think
42
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
bias is less of an accusation and I will stop there
because it looks as if you want to --
THE COURT: What the Court is going to do is
continue the case because I don’t believe it’s ready for
hearing today, continue it for a full hearing. The Court
is going to order a full psychological on both parties.
The Court is going to order the mother to bring the child
back and hand the child over to the father, physical
custody with the father until the next Court hearing.
MS. OLIN: Your Honor, what kind of time frame
are we talking about for the child to be returned?
THE COURT: Within 48 hours.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, there may be some
concern about the structure of the psychological
evaluation. I’m not objecting to it, even though I
didn’t ask for it. I don’t think my client needs it,
but, nevertheless, I’m not objecting. The issue might
be, and I’m not an expert in this field, but perhaps the
Court psychologist could inform the Court about this, the
time between doing various sets of testings --
THE COURT: I’m not saying that my Court
psychologist is going to do it.
MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.
43
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: Because I don’t know if she can do
it.
MR. O’CONNELL: No, I’m not talking about the
Court psychologist, whoever does it. I think that there
might be some issue between, and I don’t know this, but I
think it’s an issue that might exist, that if you do a
certain kind of testing that has already been done, how
much time has to be between --
THE COURT: Sir, I don’t know what you’re
talking about.
MR. O’CONNELL: Well, the reason I’m addressing
it is you could ask whoever does the evaluation to
consult with Dr. Lane so that --
THE COURT: Dr. Lane is out. There is no
consulting with Dr. Lane.
MR. O’CONNELL: All right, well then not Dr.
Lane, but so that they might actually take advantage of
third party testing. In other words, Dr. Lane didn’t do
some of this testing. This was done by third-party
testers. They might be able to access that is what I’m
saying.
THE COURT: Dr. Lane is out.
MR. O’CONNELL: And any testing that third
parties did that weren’t him is also out?

44
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. O’CONNELL: Very well.
THE COURT: What date can we set it?
THE CLERK: The 26th.
THE COURT: All day? Is that a good day for
you, Mr. Miller, Mr. O’Connell, Ms. Olin?
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, may I check that
day?
MS. OLIN: No, that’s not a good day. April
9th?
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I really need to
have this heard in March and I can explain why.
THE COURT: I don’t have an all day in March.
MR. O’CONNELL: Well, there is an issue here.
It’s in the best interest of the child that this matter
be heard finally in one place wherever that is. We’ve
had the jurisdictional issue raised and there is an issue
if the child has been in Maryland for six months. Of
course, the child wouldn’t be in Maryland for six months
because the child is now living with the father.
THE COURT: This case is pending here. April
9th. We don’t have any dates in March.
MR. MILLER: I’m not available that day; I have
a hearing that day.

45
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: What?
MR. MILLER: I have hearing on April 9th.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, this is someone who
has had, with all due respect by my account, four
attorneys as lead counsel and seven attorneys involved
total. I think she can find someone to represent her on
April 9th. Time is of the essence; this case has
dragged on too long.
MR. MILLER: Before we get into that, though,
Your Honor, we kind of eased into this visitation matter.
This Court, under 20-146.13 has lost exclusive continuing
jurisdiction.
THE COURT: I’m not hearing a jurisdiction
motion here. I ordered the mother to return the child to
the father.
MR. MILLER: And the previous motion was regard
to subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not --
THE COURT: I’m not hearing a motion to
dismiss. That’s not before the Court. I’m not going to
hear it.
MR. MILLER: But the Court has modified its
visitation and custody order, which it can’t do because
under 146.13 when the parties left the Commonwealth of
46
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
Virginia the Court lost continuing exclusive
jurisdiction.
THE COURT: The case is still pending here; no
final order has been entered here.
MR. MILLER: But it doesn’t say a final order.
It says that, except as otherwise provided, a Court of
this Commonwealth that has made a child custody
determination --
THE COURT: I haven’t done that. I haven’t
made it yet.
MR. MILLER: In the September 5th order --
THE COURT: That was a temporary order pending
the determination. I have not made the determination. I
had not done that yet.
MR. MILLER: But there is a, well, the
September 5th order --
THE COURT: That was not a determination.
MR. MILLER: Visitation and custody were
established.
THE COURT: It was a temporary order.
MR. MILLER: And now, apparently with this
they’ve modified it, or it’s modified.
THE COURT: It’s a temporary order until we
have a full hearing on this.

47
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. MILLER: But the statute doesn’t --
THE COURT: I’m not arguing with you about
this. I’ve already ruled. The case is still pending
here. The Court ruled that the Court had jurisdiction to
hear the case. The case is still pending; we have not
come to a conclusion in this case. This Court is going
to maintain jurisdiction in the case.
MR. MILLER: And the second part of this is by
ordering the child’s return, the Court has not addressed
how the child is going to be cared for.
THE COURT: It’s up to the father. The father
is going to care for her while she’s here.
MR. MILLER: And the father has never done that
and if the father --
THE COURT: Well, he’s going to have to learn.
MR. MILLER: And he’s not presented his plan to
the Court.
THE COURT: He’s going to do it; he’s going to
have to figure it out.
MR. MILLER: How can the Court say what he
figures out is better for the child than what the mother
is presently doing?
MS. OLIN: I’ll do a lot of visits.
48
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: She has to bring the child back and
return physical custody to the father until we have a
hearing on this.
She has 48 hours to do it. This is a direct
order of the Court.
MS. OLIN: I have a review in Fairfax I won’t
be available until 11:00.
MR. O’CONNELL: April 7th is good for me.
THE COURT: Mr. Miller, April 7th? At what
time?
THE CLERK: 10:00.
MS. OLIN: Just one more thing to annoy Your
Honor, I’ve been handling this case for about four months
and have yet to submit an invoice. Would you allow me to
submit a partial invoice?
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, we still need to
address the timing and the dates for other issues, the
contempts and motions.
THE COURT: All, we’ll put everything, the
disposition for the contempt that the Court found as far
as failing to cooperate with the Guardian ad Litem. I
order the mother to cooperate again with the Guardian ad
Litem. That includes home visits, telephone calls,
49
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
visitation, everything. The Court is going to order both
parties to cooperate and complete the psychological.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, could you also
order the mother to provide discovery?
THE COURT: I ordered that a long time ago.
MR. O’CONNELL: I filed a motion to compel.
You ordered discovery.
THE COURT: I’m not, look --
MR. O’CONNELL: I filed a motion to compel.
THE COURT: I have already ordered discovery.
MR. O’CONNELL: I was asking for a motion to
compel the mother so I could then file a rule to show
cause when she didn’t comply.
THE COURT: Well, if she doesn’t comply, that’s
what you do.
MR. O’CONNELL: Well, what I believe when I
filed a --
THE COURT: There’s going to be a hearing on
the other two rules for the contempt on that date too.
The child has to be back with the father by February 10th,
which is Sunday by 3:00 p.m.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, with respect to
discovery, I just want to say one thing and I promise
I’ll sit down and be quiet about it. The issue of that
50
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
mother hasn’t provided any documents. I have no copies
of leases of any of her apartments. I have no
information on income from her. At some point Your Honor
is going to be addressing child support, whether it be,
because my client, as we expect, will receive custody or
whether the mother will receive custody.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know who’s going to
receive custody. That’s what we’re going to have a
hearing for.
MR. O’CONNELL: Well, the point is, whoever
receives custody, they are going to be entitled to
support. We have an order in place on support right now
and we would ask that the mother be directed to actually
provide the information, the financial information that
was requested because she has not. And that has been
requested. So we’d simply ask for an order requiring her
to comply.
THE COURT: The Court is going to order both
parties to comply with discovery.
MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. MILLER: Your Honor, with regard to the
financial matters, the father’s petition was solely on
the issue of custody. He’s not filed a petition, there
is no petition for child support.

51
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
The case before the Court is JJ-31848; that’s
custody only.
THE COURT: You’re right.
MR. MILLER: If there were a support case, it
would be a JA something.
THE COURT: I don’t see, you’re right. I don’t
see support.
MR. MILLER: And I don’t think under UIFSO,
Virginia is going to be the proper forum for a support
action.
MR. O’CONNELL: Well, Your Honor, actually, I’m
looking at my pleading and it says, petitioner be awarded
such other relief as the best interest of the child may
require. The best interest of the child clearly
requires child support, Your Honor. I apologize for not
stating it.
THE COURT: Well, you have to file a child
support petition. The Court is going to order the
parties to comply with discovery. Obviously, it has to
be relevant to the custody or visitation.
MR. MILLER: What’s the mother’s rights of
access to visitation going to be until April 7th, Your
Honor?
52
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: When she comes back, when is she
coming back to the area? When does she plan to come
back?
MR. MILLER: At this point it’s uncertain. Her
mother is still in the ICU. Her treating medical
personnel are looking at whether or not she’ll be
stabilized enough or be capable to be transported up here
to Maryland or --
THE COURT: Well, when she returns to, the
issue would come up for the visitation. She can have the
child on the weekends, every other weekend if she comes
up for visitation. Or if she comes up during the week to
visit the child I think the father should make the child
available. The Court is going to order the father to
make the child available, that the mother could come up
for visitation during the week.
When she returns to the area and could provide
verification that she has started her psychological
evaluation, the Court will consider return of physical
custody to her prior to the Court hearing.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, could we have a
surrender of a passport because we had asked for that. I
mean, she’s been leaving the jurisdiction and she’s a
history of traveling.
53
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: The passport?
MR. O’CONNELL: Excuse me?
MS. OLIN: There was a motion for it in one of
these things.
MR. O’CONNELL: I filed a motion for it, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I thought that I had ordered the
passport surrendered.
MR. O’CONNELL: That was his passport, Your
Honor, and we did surrender it. And we had, actually
XXXXX’s passport, but she had two passports and one of
the passports is with the mother and we’d like that
passport surrendered, Your Honor, because otherwise she
could leave the country, and she has a tendency to move
rapidly without notice.
MR. MILLER: I’d like to be heard on that.
This is just pure harassment. She’s a U.S. citizen.
They have traveled individually, as family; I think the
child has been to 10 foreign countries. They travel
frequently. The nature of Dr. King’s business --
THE COURT: I think I’ve already ordered the
child not to leave the country.
MR. MILLER: If the child is ordered not to
leave, the child’s passport has been surrendered, like I

54
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
said, this is just piling on on top the mother at this
point.
MR. O’CONNELL: I’m sorry, the child’s
passport, the child has two passports, one of the
passports has already --
THE COURT: Well, I have already ordered her
not to leave the country.
MR. O’CONNELL: But if she doesn’t have a
passport, she can’t leave the country.
THE COURT: Yes, she can, she’d just go get a
new one.
MR. O’CONNELL: So Your Honor would not order
the child’s passport --
THE COURT: I have ordered her not to leave the
country.
MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.
THE COURT: And so you could let the State
Department know. They won’t let her out of the country.
(The Court has a brief discussion with the
Clerk.)
THE COURT: Someone else could probably come in
and hear the case for me.
55
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MS. OLIN: Judge, you’ve heard so much we
really would like you to continue on. And if I have to
do it, Your Honor --
THE COURT: I don’t have a problem with another
judge hearing it.
MS. OLIN: I do.
MR. MILLER: That’s fine with us, Your Honor.
We’re going to start from scratch anyways.
THE COURT: The 14th.
MS. OLIN: I’ve got an all-day trial.
THE COURT: 18th.
MS. OLIN: If that is good for other counsel, I
will come back from New York especially for that.
MR. MILLER: I couldn’t hear the date.
THE COURT: April 18th.
MR. MILLER: The 18th is fine.
THE COURT: Like I said, if the mother comes
back to the area and can provide verification as to where
she is going to be living and she started the
psychological evaluation, I will return physical custody
to the mother.
All right, did everyone hear me?
MR. O’CONNELL: I apologize, Your Honor.
56
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
THE COURT: I just made a ruling that may
impact your client. That if the mother comes back to the
area after her mother gets better and starts the
psychological evaluation, the Court will return physical
custody to the mother.
MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I thought you had
previously ruled that you would entertain a motion for
custody.
THE COURT: I’ll return physical custody to the
mother if she can provide verification that she’s back in
the area, where’s she’s living, and that she started the
psychological evaluation.
MR. O’CONNELL: And with respect to visitation,
Your Honor?
THE COURT: I said, obviously the mother is in
a difficult position, if she’s in Georgia to care for her
elderly mother. So my order was that when she’s
available to come up to visit the child, the father
should allow it.
MR. O’CONNELL: That’s unquestioned, Your
Honor; I understood that. But I mean, the visitation
then with the mother then having custody again.
THE COURT: Would go back to what it was
before.
57
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. O’CONNELL: Very well.
MR. MILLER: Just to summarize, I know we’re
beating this horse to death --
THE COURT: You all are really beating this to
death.
MR. MILLER: So now we’re on for April 18th. It
will be the final custody hearing.
THE COURT: Uh huh.
MR. MILLER: The other two rules.
THE COURT: Everything.
MR. MILLER: The outcome on the rule regarding
the GAL.
THE COURT: And disposition, right.
MR. MILLER: And what else is there besides
that?
THE COURT: The two rules, the disposition on
the one I found her in contempt for today, full hearing
on the custody.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
THE COURT: I do see a motion to compel.
MR. O’CONNELL: Yeah, I filed a motion to
compel.
THE COURT: I didn’t see that. There is a
motion to compel also.

58
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
MR. MILLER: Mr. O’Connell and I --
MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, Your Honor, I
appreciate and respect counsel, but I filed this motion
to compel early in the case, excuse me, some time ago and
I’ve been asking Mr. Benzinger for cooperation and it was
promised to be forthcoming. I think we need an order so
that she can actually --
THE COURT: I just ordered both parties to
cooperate and Mr. Miller has just said that he’s going to
cooperate with you. I have no reason to doubt him.
MR. O’CONNELL: I don’t doubt him, Your Honor.
MS. OLIN: Are we finished, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I think so. I hope your mother is
better.
DR. KING: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, 12:13 o’clock p.m., the hearing in
the above-captioned matter was concluded.)
59
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER
I, CAROLYN J. TIMKO, a Verbatim Reporter, do
hereby certify that I took the notes of the foregoing
hearing by Stenomask and thereafter reduced to
typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing is a
true record of said hearing to the best of my knowledge
and ability; that I am neither related to nor employed by
any attorney or counsel employed by the parties thereto;
nor financially or otherwise interested in the action.
CAROLYN J. TIMKO
Court Reporter
60
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES
Annandale, VA 22003
(703) 25-8147
ORDER .
Case No JJ03 1848-01-00
COMMONWEALTH OF VA
--...-T--ee--.--T-.---.---.m------.-.---.
V.I la re: ARIANA
- LEILANI
.~---.---.-.-.--.---~KING-PFEIFFER
~.m---.----~--.-.~.---~--..-~......--.-.------
THE FOLLOWING PARTIES WERE PKESENT:
Guardian ad L h t ~ DEBRA OLIN
T e of Case: CUSTODY
8 Felony Misdemeanor a CHINS Custody Visitation a Support Foster Care Other
Type of Hearing:
DeteminatiodAppointment of Counsel Detention Hearing Transfer Hearing
Adjudicatory Hearing Disposition Hearing Continuance Review Preliminary Hearing
Show Cause Trial 0Motion .-.------.----..---.-.--.--.-----.-----*--.-.-.
0
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
CASE CONTINUED BECAUSE CHILD IS OUT OF THE STATE AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION WAS
NOT COMPLETED AND MOTHER DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE GAL.
MOTHER ORDERED T O RETURN T H E C H I L D BACK T O T H E FATHER W I T H I N 4 8 HOURS

BY 2 / 1 0 / 0 8 A T 3 : O O p.m. P A R T I E S A R E ORDERED T O C O O P E R A T E W I T H A F U L L
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION. MOTHER ORDERED T O C O O P E R A T E W I T H T H E GAL
AND P S Y C H O L O G I C A L E V A L U A T I O N .
This case is continued to: 0411812008 1O:OO AM

-
Wiggins
-*.....---" - COJ 02/08/2008
- 000123
--...*.-.---..-.*.---.--.-....--e-.----.--..-.--..-.p.-*-..---.-.-.
DATE
FORM DC-570 (PAGE ONE OF ONE) 12/% PDF

-
C O P Y
V I R G I N I A
IN THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, :
Petitioner, :
versus, : CASE NO. J-31848-01
ARIEL R. KING, :
Respondent. :
IN RE: ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER
DOB: 05/07/2003
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Arlington, Virginia
Thursday, February 21, 2008
the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Arlington
Arlington, Virginia 22201, beginning at 3:56 o'clock p.m.
- - - - - - - - - - -
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

Annandale, Virginia 22003
(703) 425-8147

2
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner:
SEAN O’CONNELL, ESQUIRE
For the Defendant:
JOHN E. DRURY, ESQUIRE

ROY MORRIS
Guardian Ad Litem:
1 P R O C E E D I N G S :
2 THE COURT: Why is this case back so soon. We
3 were just here. What is the problem?
4 MR. O’CONNELL: May I address the Court, Your
5 Honor?
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, my motions are two,
8 one the Sunday that the, may I have a rule on witnesses,
9 Your Honor?
10 THE COURT: I’m not going to hear it. I mean,
11 what’s this all about?
12 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, would you like a
13 Guardian ad Litem’s opening briefly?
14 THE COURT: I just want to know what this is
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

3
1 all about. We were just here not even what, two weeks
2 ago?
3 MS. OLIN: I think we were here 12 days ago.
4 THE COURT: I’m not going to be here all night
5 hearing something.
6 MS. OLIN: What we’ve got is, when we were here
7 last --
8 THE COURT: What is the problem?
9 MS. OLIN: The problem, from my point of view,
10 is the mother’s continuing unilateral decisions and
11 actions as pertains to Ariana-Leilani, the little girl.
12 She moved her down to Atlanta without conferring with the
13 father who is joint legal custodian, without conferring
14 with the Guardian ad Litem. And I understand there is a
15 family emergency, but this is a child we’re talking
16 about.
17 When we were last here, Your Honor, stated that
18 father would have temporary custody until Dr. Margo King,
19 who is present here 12 days later out in this weather,
20 improved and that mother could verify her address to the
21 Court and that she had initiated her psychological
22 evaluation.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

4
1 THE COURT: Right.
2 MS. OLIN: Now, this is going to be a matter of
3 the Court’s interpretation. Mother came to father’s
4 house several days -- she did bring the child back as
5 ordered within 48 hours, but several days later, I think
6 both counsel can speak to the exact date --
7 MR. O’CONNELL: On Tuesday morning.
8 MS. OLIN: Mother came to father’s door and
9 demanded the child.
10 MR. O’CONNELL: With the police, using the
11 order --
12 THE COURT: Only one of you can talk --
13 MR. O’CONNELL: Sorry.
14 MS. OLIN: And father had no choice, other than
15 to end up with a Solomon’s baby kind of tug of war, but
16 to, and I think what, you know, I was in here not a week
17 ago hearing a pretty well articulated argument of what
18 joint legal custody means. And that means at least an
19 obligation to confer with the other parent. And this
20 consistent unilateral action of the mother is not in the
21 best interest of the child.
22 I do believe that father’s counsel’s petitions
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

5
1 are well founded and I think this has just got to stop.
2 Mom has already been found in contempt; you put off
3 sentencing. It is not 12 days later and we’re back in
4 this Court, I think justifiably, but only due to mother’s
5 actions. And frankly, Your Honor, I’m sick of it.
6 THE COURT: What’s so hard? I mean, I ordered
7 that the father maintain physical custody of the child
8 until the mother comes back to the area, provides a
9 verified address to the Court and she starts the
10 psychological. What is so complicated about that?
11 MR. O’CONNELL: Nothing.
12 MS. OLIN: Well, she thinks she started her
13 psychological. She did not provide verification to the
14 Court until after the fact, and I know this because I
15 spoke to previous counsel. You may notice that we have
16 another counsel here again, which, you know, I’m glad we
17 have counsel, but this is an abuse of the system.
18 Frankly, I think it’s abuse of this little girl.
19 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I comment since
20 obviously Ms. Olin, my name is John Drury. I represent
21 the respondent in this matter. I filed an order of
22 substitution yesterday and I filed a four-and-a-half-page
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

6
1 defense to the rule.
2 I really believe that the GAL, her
3 representations are argumentative. I believe that Mr.
4 O’Connell is perfectly capable of representing the
5 petitioner’s position and the GAL’s opinions are, well, a
6 little bit over the top as far as I’m concerned.
7 I know the Court, it’s late in the day. It’s
8 4:00 o’clock. I have testimony that I would like to
9 present to the Court in defense of this rule.
10 THE COURT: This is not to hear the rule
11 itself. I mean, on the issue, the rule should be issued.
12 We can just take that by a shown affidavit. The Court
13 can decide just on the affidavit itself and set it down
14 for a hearing.
15 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, we could do that. I am
16 merely saying, you asked counsel, you asked Mr. O’Connell
17 and myself, we’re the litigants counsel, to make
18 representations. I know that Ms. --
19 THE COURT: I’m talking about why we’re here.
20 That was my question. Why are we here. That was my
21 question.
22 MR. DRURY: Yes, and 250 words later, let Mr.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

7
1 O’Connell make his presentation and then let me comment
2 if I might, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: All right.
4 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, had the order, the
5 Guardian ad Litem, Debbie Olin correctly described it,
6 and in fact, what occurred was, last Tuesday, the mother
7 showed up at the house unannounced having just half an
8 hour before in a telephone conversation told my client
9 that she was in Georgia. Apparently she wasn’t in
10 Georgia; she shows up at his door. She says give me the
11 child right away. She starts screaming; she’s banging on
12 the door. He calls me asking me what to do. I try to
13 call other counsel, who I had already talked to to try to
14 work out some of the issues that we were dealing with at
15 the time. She had not talked to her attorney.
16 I asked her attorney to call her. He said that
17 she was not answering her phone. We were trying to work
18 this out.
19 Meanwhile, she takes, she calls the police.
20 She has the police come. She takes a copy of the
21 September order, when she does have custody of her, which
22 has been subsequently changed. She shows it to the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

8
1 police and my client says what do I do. I don’t want to
2 create a scene. I say, you’re right, let’s not create
3 any more trauma than this woman has already and we let
4 the child go and we subsequently have had our visitation,
5 although there have been some attempts to change it.
6 Nevertheless, we don’t have visitation legally. We have
7 custody until the Court gives custody back to the mom,
8 which the Court said it would do, but she wasn’t doing it
9 by the numbers. She was doing it by self-help,
10 fraudulently with the police, and it’s very damaging to
11 the child.
12 So the bottom line is, Your Honor, we’re here,
13 Your Honor, because the main focus needs to be on the
14 emergency transfer back to the father of the custody of
15 the child because this woman is again showing complete
16 disregard for the emotional health of the child.
17 That’s the essence of why we’re here. I do have other
18 things I’m asking for, including a psychological
19 evaluation directed by Michelle Wood as opposed, selected
20 by Michelle Wood as opposed to the parties, a neutral
21 person that the Court Services would appoint and Michelle
22 Wood has someone in mind.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

9
1 I believe that the Guardian ad Litem has, could
2 select someone to do a custody evaluation. One was
3 needed in September. One is still needed. And just
4 because the defendant continues to pay no attention and
5 try to undermine the orders of the Court and the
6 psychological evaluation doesn’t mean that one isn’t
7 needed. It’s still needed, so we would like an expedited
8 one appointed. That’s why I’m here, immediate custody of
9 the child because of the mother’s in effect kidnaping of
10 the child through fraud by use of the September order and
11 without contacting her own attorney before she did it.
12 And I handed Your Honor a copy of the
13 transcript; Your Honor already has copies of the order.
14 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, my client would like to
15 testify.
16 THE COURT: When did she go pick up the child?
17 MR. DRURY: On Tuesday.
18 THE COURT: What date?
19 MR. DRURY: On the 12th.
20 THE COURT: But she didn’t tell the Court until
21 February 15th.
22 MR. DRURY: She didn’t believe she had to tell
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

10
1 the Court.
2 THE COURT: No, no, no.
3 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, if I --
4 THE COURT: No, no, no.
5 MR. DRURY: Please?
6 THE COURT: No, no, no, no. We’re not going to
7 play this game. We went over this when she was here
8 before and I made it clear what I was ordering, you know,
9 everyone, you know, I tried to be fair to the mom and
10 when the child came back, when the mother came back from
11 caring for her elderly mother and provided an address to
12 the Court and proof that she had started counseling, then
13 the Court would allow her return physical custody.
14 It didn’t mean that she could just run in there
15 and take the child without first giving the Court notice
16 that she had done this. But she did it and she filed the
17 notice after the fact. This was filed on February 15th.
18 MR. DRURY: She had met all of the conditions
19 of your order --
20 THE COURT: She had not filed it with this
21 Court.
22 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, let me explain what had
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

11
1 happened.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. DRURY: This rule was intended to deflect
4 my client’s discovery that Dr. Pfeiffer was not taking
5 the child to school.
6 THE COURT: But that’s a separate issue all
7 together.
8 MR. DRURY: I know it is, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: And if you want to file a rule on
10 that, by all means, file the rule on that. This is, I’m
11 not going to get sidetracked about he didn’t follow the
12 rule; he didn’t have her in the German school. If you
13 want to file a rule about that, then I’ll be happy to
14 hear it and hold him accountable if he’s found guilty.
15 But today is purely for whether she complied
16 and she didn’t comply.
17 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, if the Court takes a
18 look at the wording of the Court’s order.
19 THE COURT: I know what I said.
20 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I invite the
21 Court’s attention to the original transcript? Here is
22 the original transcript. Page 61, I offer that to the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

12
1 Court.
2 MR. O’CONNELL: Only after you give me a copy.
3 MR. DRURY: You don’t have a copy?
4 MR. O’CONNELL: No, I have a copy of just the
5 last part of the transcript.
6 MR. DRURY: Here, we’ll give you, I’ll take
7 mine, I’ll give the Court. And I think my co-counsel has
8 one.
9 THE COURT: Does the Guardian have a copy?
10 MR. DRURY: Ms. Olin, would you be so kind as
11 to look over Mr. O’Connell’s shoulder. I invite the
12 Court’s attention to the Rule to Show Cause.
13 THE COURT: Do you want me to look at the
14 transcript or --
15 MR. DRURY: Not the whole thing, no, Your
16 Honor.
17 THE COURT: On page 61.
18 MR. DRURY: Page 61. Let me invite the Court’s
19 attention to the requisite -- Court’s indulgence for one
20 moment.
21 MR. O’CONNELL: There is no 61, Your Honor,
22 according to my document.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

13
1 MR. DRURY: The page numbering is different on
2 the written copy than it is on the copy that Mr.
3 O’Connell used in his pleading. This often happens.
4 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I’m talking about
5 what he just gave me, just now, there is no 61 in what he
6 just gave me. I’m just trying to follow along with what
7 he’s saying because I have, what I did, Your Honor, is I,
8 before I filed the motion, I asked for an emergency
9 production from Ms. Timko of just the ruling. And that’s
10 what I used and that’s what I handed to the Court.
11 MR. DRURY: Court’s indulgence. I think that
12 this copy, the Court would just bear with me, I will --
13 THE COURT: I can read the transcript. I don’t
14 understand the problem with it. It says, start on page
15 60. Like I said, if the mother comes back to the area
16 and provides verification of where she’s going to be
17 living and she starts the psychological, I will transfer
18 custody to the mother. Did everyone hear me?
19 Then I go over to the next page and it says, I
20 will return custody to the mother if she provides
21 verification she’s back in the area, where she is living
22 and that she’s started psychological evaluation.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

14
1 MR. O’CONNELL: Right.
2 MR. DRURY: Mr. O’Connell says, I apologize,
3 Your Honor. If you move to page 61 --
4 THE COURT: I’m looking at page 61.
5 MR. DRURY: Okay. Line 17 through 22, Your
6 Honor, the Court says, obviously the mother is in a
7 difficult position if she’s in Georgia to care for her
8 elderly mother. So my order was that when she’s
9 available to come to visit the child, the father should
10 allow it. Mr O’Connell, who had already said this should
11 act as a motion for custody, he said up on line 3 and 2,
12 here you go, Mr. O’Connell, Your Honor, I thought you
13 previously ruled that you would entertain a motion for
14 custody. The Court, I’ll return physical custody to the
15 mother if she can provide verification that she’s back in
16 the area, where she’s living, and that she’s started the
17 psychological evaluation.
18 Then on line 9, page 61, Mr. O’Connell, and
19 with respect to visitation? The Court responds. I said,
20 obviously the mother is in a difficult position if she’s
21 in Georgia to care for her elderly mother, so my order
22 was that when she’s available to come to visit the child,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

15
1 the father should allow it.
2 Mr. O’Connell then says --
3 THE COURT: What’s the whole point of all of
4 this?
5 MR. DRURY: Here’s my point, Your Honor. I’ll
6 get to my point as soon as I read it. Mr. O’Connell does
7 not include the last colloquy that he has with you.
8 That’s unquestioned.
9 THE COURT: My question is, what is the point?
10 MR. DRURY: But I mean, the visitation --
11 THE COURT: The point is, the only issue is,
12 did she comply with the Court’s order to do these things
13 before physical custody returned to the mother.
14 MR. DRURY: This Court, here’s what she said.
15 She says I listened to the Court’s ruling. As soon as I
16 met those three conditions, I could go see the child and
17 take the child then.
18 THE COURT: But what about the verification?
19 It says upon providing verification?
20 MR. DRURY: She had verified it.
21 THE COURT: Who has she verified it with?
22 MR. DRURY: With Michael Pfeiffer.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

16
1 THE COURT: No.
2 MR. DRURY: Everybody knew that she was back in
3 the area.
4 THE COURT: No, no.
5 MR. DRURY: She called him on the phone.
6 THE COURT: No, no, she shows up and takes the
7 child. That’s not verification. I’m in the area; I’m
8 going to take the child. That’s not, there’s
9 verification to the Court.
10 MR. DRURY: You didn’t say that, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Well, what did she think we were
12 talking about?
13 MR. DRURY: She felt --
14 THE COURT: That she could just show up at his
15 house and take the child without the Court even knowing
16 anything about it?
17 MR. DRURY: She comes back --
18 THE COURT: No, no.
19 MR. DRURY: The testimony will be --
20 THE COURT: No, no, no, no.
21 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, the testimony will be -
22 -
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

17
1 THE COURT: There’s no way that she could have
2 thought that I meant that she just let him know and that
3 will be it. It’s verification to the Court.
4 MR. DRURY: The testimony will show that before
5 she ever entered that premises, she called her lawyer,
6 Mr. Miller, and said here’s what I’m going to do, I’m out
7 front. He says, okay, fine. Now, let’s talk about the
8 Maryland case.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: A, it’s hearsay and B, it’s not
10 what I understand from Mr. Miller.
11 MR. DRURY: This is what my client will
12 testify. I ask that she be allowed to --
13 THE COURT: I’m going to grant the motion for
14 the Rule to Show Cause and order that she return the
15 child to the father.
16 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, would you allow my
17 client to testify?
18 THE COURT: No. We could have, we have these
19 rules here. We can set the rules with the rest of the
20 case.
21 MS. OLIN: The trial date.
22 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I would prefer a
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

18
1 hearing before the trial date.
2 THE COURT: I don’t think we can do that.
3 There’s nothing in this case.
4 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, we’ve had how many
5 hearings now and how many attorneys?
6 THE COURT: I’ve been extremely reasonable with
7 her. I didn’t put her in jail last time. I continued
8 the disposition. I think I’ve been extremely reasonable
9 with her.
10 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, we’re not questioning
11 the reasonableness of this Court.
12 THE COURT: And this really goes too far I
13 think. I mean, this is playing games, and I don’t
14 appreciate it because --
15 MR. DRURY: Your Honor --
16 THE COURT: I was, I bent over backwards giving
17 her the benefit of the doubt with all these things coming
18 in, back-and-forth allegations. I’ve always given her
19 the benefit of the doubt.
20 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I make a statement
21 to the Court?
22 THE COURT: Yes, Sir.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

19
1 MR. DRURY: I’m not challenging the
2 reasonableness of this Court. I’m not challenging it at
3 all. What I would like to do is have the opportunity for
4 this Court to hear the reasonableness of my client’s
5 testimony, not through the representations of Mr.
6 O’Connell or not through the representations of Ms. Olin.
7 I would like this Court to evaluate my client based on
8 her testimony alone. That’s all I’m asking for.
9 THE COURT: Well, I said that she could do that
10 at the hearing.
12 THE COURT: But I’m basing this on what the
13 Court’s recollection is as to what I told her, the whole
14 discussion, the whole tenor. I mean, I was going to
15 leave the child with the father. But then I reconsidered
16 and even when she was coming up here and I thought about
17 it and I was like, well, you know, the mother has been
18 the primary, this is not the, because Mr. O’Connell was
19 correct, initially I said stay with the father until the
20 next hearing, but I thought about it and I was like well,
21 the mother has been the primary care giver. If she comes
22 back and resolves her family emergencies, it would be
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

20
1 appropriate for the child to return to the mother’s
2 physical custody.
3 That’s what my rationale behind it was. And
4 but --
5 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I --
6 THE COURT: But then I completely changed from
7 what I originally said.
8 MR. DRURY: Well, you can read that, Your
9 Honor. I can read --
10 MS. OLIN: Your Honor --
11 MR. DRURY: Excuse me, Ms. Olin.
12 THE COURT: You know what, I’ve already
13 decided. I’m going to issue the rule, set it down for
14 the same date as this and order the mother to return
15 physical custody to the father.
16 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, let me make a
17 representation with respect --
18 THE COURT: The Court is going to order the
19 psychological evaluation, the child custody evaluation at
20 the mother’s expense because --
21 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I interject for a
22 moment. Not to dissuade this Court. I understand the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

21
1 Court has ruled. Here is my concern.
2 It is a fact that Dr. Pfeiffer one, did not
3 take the child to school on Monday or Tuesday.
4 THE COURT: I’m not talking about that.
5 MR. DRURY: Period.
6 THE COURT: I’m not talking about that.
7 MR. DRURY: Period. Period.
8 THE COURT: That is not my issue today. And --
9 MR. DRURY: And second --
10 THE COURT: If she wants to file a rule, we’re
11 not going to go into a whole lot of these digressions
12 because we’ll be here all day. If she wants to file a
13 motion for a rule alleging that and swearing that on an
14 affidavit, I’ll consider it.
15 MR. DRURY: Okay.
16 THE COURT: You going to have to file a motion
17 for the Court to consider the issue and I’ll be willing
18 to listen to an issue if I think that it qualifies for a
19 violation.
20 MR. DRURY: Judge, I’d be the last counsel to
21 try and convince you otherwise, that you are going to
22 find for a rule today. But let me, let me ask that the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

22
1 determination of who cares for the child is much more
2 important. And here’s the evidence that I’d like to
3 present to you. I have documentary evidence, Your Honor
4 --
5 THE COURT: We, first of all --
6 MR. DRURY: That he has enrolled the child in
7 the YMCA in Bethesda in contravention of this Court’s
8 September and November order. May I offer that proof to
9 the Court?
10 THE COURT: That’s not before the Court today.
11 MR. DRURY: Here’s the problem, Your Honor.
12 You have an order outstanding that the child should go to
13 the German school. He has already enrolled the child in
14 the YMCA and it is his intent to take her out.
15 Now, if this Court is going to change custody,
16 then obviously we’re going to be back in here when he
17 doesn’t take the child to the German school, or when he
18 does something else.
19 THE COURT: Well, you have to do what you think
20 is right under this circumstances. And if that’s what
21 you, you have to do what you think is right. And I would
22 hope that the parents would do what’s in the child’s best
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

23
1 interest.
2 MR. DRURY: That’s exactly what they’re trying
3 to do. My client has enrolled the child --
4 THE COURT: No, you went and showed the police
5 and demanded the child. No, that is not in the child’s
6 best interest to be caught, I don’t know how you could
7 say that was possibly in the child’s best interest to be
8 having this type of conflict.
9 MR. DRURY: My client didn’t do this --
10 THE COURT: I feel sorry for the child.
11 MR. DRURY: My client didn’t do this alone.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MR. DRURY: Michael Pfeiffer did it.
14 THE COURT: I said the parents. I said the
15 parents are not thinking about what’s in the child’s best
16 interest.
17 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I think at this point
18 we’re just lucky that, you know, that I’m not going to
19 make an argument for mother to be summarily sentenced
20 under the Rule to Show Cause. Dr. Margo King is here
21 today, 12 days later, after mom represented to the Court,
22 and it’s so good to see her here, and it’s a blessing,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

24
1 but I know that --
2 THE COURT: But that’s not what she, she gave
3 the Court the opinion that the mother was very, very ill.
4 MS. OLIN: Well, mother was here --
5 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, Your Honor, I would
6 prefer this Court --
7 THE COURT: You know what, we’re going to set,
8 I’ve already ruled, you know --
9 MR. DRURY: I would --
10 THE COURT: I’ve already ruled. We’ll issue
11 the rule and set it down for the same day everything else
12 is set.
13 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I make --
14 MS. OLIN: One more suggestion.
15 MR. DRURY: No, Ms. Olin --
16 THE COURT: No, no, I said no.
17 MR. DRURY: Ms. Olin, excuse me.
18 THE COURT: No one else is going to make a
19 statement. I have ruled.
20 MR. DRURY: Would you inquire of Margo King as
21 to her health?
22 THE COURT: No.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

25
1 MR. DRURY: So that obviously, Deborah Olin’s
2 opinion as to her health is less convincing than Dr.
3 Margo King’s representation as to her health. If that is
4 a factor here today --
5 THE COURT: I said I don’t want to hear
6 anything else and you’re still talking. I said I ruled
7 and that’s the end of this discussion.
8 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I have a concern
9 about the location of the child, not about the ruling
10 because --
11 THE COURT: I’ve ordered the mother to return
12 the child to the father tonight.
13 DR. KING: Your Honor --
14 THE COURT: No. Do you have anything before
15 April 18th for that rule? It will take some time I think.
16 MR. DRURY: Yes, Your Honor, it will.
17 THE COURT: Four hours you think?
18 MR. DRURY: On this rule?
19 THE COURT: Yes, the one that I’m issuing right
20 now.
21 MR. DRURY: And I’ll be filing one as well.
22 THE COURT: How long will this one take, the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

26
1 one that we have before the Court now? How long do you
2 think that will take?
3 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, my, part of the
4 rule will be part and parcel of the case that we’re going
5 to be trying. I don’t see it as a separate thing; it’s
6 just --
7 THE COURT: There’s no way we’re going to do
8 all of that on April 18th. Nothing in this case has
9 taken, we’ll see if we have a date that will --
10 MR. DRURY: Excuse me, Your Honor --
11 MS. OLIN: The custody evaluation --
12 THE COURT: I already ordered the custody
13 evaluation and it will be at the selection of the Court
14 Services Unit.
15 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, with respect to the
16 selection --
17 THE COURT: Do you have somebody you have in
18 mind?
19 MR. DRURY: Well, I’d like to have an
20 opportunity, maybe three or four days to make a
21 determination.
22 THE COURT: No.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

27
1 MR. DRURY: I believe that because of --
2 THE COURT: Who are you suggesting is --
3 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, how I presented it as
4 the issue was coming up as to who would be an appropriate
5 evaluator. My, in talking with Mr. O’Connell --
6 MR. O’CONNELL: We talked about a custody
7 evaluator.
8 THE COURT: She’s talking now, Mr. O’Connell.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Very well.
10 THE COURT: You all need to --
11 MS. OLIN: What I had said is that we could
12 possibly consult with Dr. Robert Nablack (phonetic)
13 because we contract out a lot of our evaluations.
14 THE COURT: Uh huh.
15 MS. OLIN: And in that sense we have an idea of
16 the work that these people do.
17 THE COURT: I tell you what, this is what we’ll
18 do. You can submit three names. You can submit three
19 names and you can submit three names, and the Court will
20 decide which person, but it has to be made by next
21 Wednesday. And you can consult with Ms. Nablack on which
22 you would recommend.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

28
1 MS. OLIN: And this is for the custody
2 evaluation or the psychological?
3 THE COURT: Custody evaluation.
4 MR. O’CONNELL: And what about the
5 psychological evaluation, Your Honor? I had asked that -
6 -
7 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I have no problem with
8 counsel, Mr. O’Connell offering his suggestions. I would
9 oppose any offering by the GAL. She’s obviously, her
10 opinions have been very contrary to my client and the
11 question of objectivity is very important in this case.
12 THE COURT: Why I think her --
13 MR. DRURY: Well, Your Honor, the comments.
14 THE COURT: I have to say it, you don’t, you
15 haven’t been here.
16 MR. DRURY: I know.
17 THE COURT: But I will have to tell you,
18 initially I think Ms. Olin was very supportive of the
19 mother.
20 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I had the distinct
21 pleasure --
22 THE COURT: And quite, you know, way on the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

29
1 mother’s side of it.
2 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I had the distinct
3 pleasure within 10 seconds of meeting Ms. Olin to find
4 out that she did not like my client at all.
5 THE COURT: Well --
6 MR. DRURY: Well, the point of it --
7 THE COURT: She doesn’t have to like your
8 client. She has to advocate in what she thinks is the
9 child’s best interest --
10 MR. DRURY: Well, I mean --
11 THE COURT: -- as you know.
12 MR. DRURY: Well, despite a little humor, it
13 just didn’t float. It was like, you know, it was like a
14 bag of wet cement, no opportunity whatsoever, Your Honor.
15 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor --
16 THE COURT: I can tell you, Sir, that Ms. Olin
17 is a fine GAL. She does a good job for the children.
18 And when the case initially came in, the initial report,
19 Ms. Olin was very favorable to your client. The report
20 was very favorable to your client.
21 MR. DRURY: I have heard that, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: It’s true. It’s really not
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

30
1 hearsay.
2 MR. DRURY: But that’s --
3 THE COURT: It’s actually true.
4 MR. DRURY: But that’s history in the mist of
5 time. So when, you want these opinions by next
6 Wednesday, Your Honor?
7 THE COURT: Yes.
8 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor ruled moments ago
9 that --
10 THE COURT: Wait a minute.
11 MR. O’CONNELL: -- that there would be a
12 psychological evaluation selected by the Court Services
13 Unit?
14 THE COURT: No, I was talking custody
15 evaluation. If I said psychological, I didn’t mean that.
16 I meant custody evaluation.
17 MR. O’CONNELL: Okay.
18 MR. DRURY: You actually said --
19 MR. O’CONNELL: She’s already started the
20 psychological.
21 THE COURT: The psychological evaluation has
22 already been ordered.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

31
1 MR. O’CONNELL: It has been ordered, but what
2 has happened is she’s gone out and selected her own
3 psychological evaluator.
4 THE COURT: I don’t care; she can pick her own
5 psychologist. I don’t care about that. I mean, she can
6 pick her, I don’t have a problem with her picking her own
7 psychologist. The custody evaluator, however, is a
8 different story.
10 THE COURT: Because I’ve already ordered
11 psychological evaluations.
12 MR. O’CONNELL: I understand that, Your Honor.
13 I just was confused about your ruling.
14 THE COURT: I misspoke. If I said
15 psychological, that’s not what I meant. I meant custody
16 evaluation.
17 MR. DRURY: Judge, I understand that if the
18 child is going to be turned over to Mr. Pfeiffer this
19 evening, then obviously all the terms and conditions of
20 prior orders, including school, at the times will be
21 recognized, appreciated and followed, is that right?
22 THE COURT: I’m not giving you the --
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

32
1 MR. DRURY: Well, Your Honor, I’m merely
2 trying, clarity is important because you understand what
3 my defense is.
4 THE COURT: Yeah, I understand exactly why
5 you’re doing it because you’re right, clarity is very
6 important.
7 MR. DRURY: And I’m not trying to parse. I’m
8 trying to get it as clear as Mr. Sean O’Connell tried to
9 get it from you back on February 8th. So am I right to
10 assume, because I don’t want to come back here on another
11 rule, Your Honor? We’ve already got one.
12 THE COURT: Well, you already said that she’s
13 not in the German school.
14 MR. DRURY: No, she is. He tried to pull her
15 on Monday by going to the --
16 THE COURT: Well, look, everyone knows what the
17 Court order is.
18 MR. DRURY: Okay.
19 THE COURT: Right? Well, I hope they do. The
20 order hasn’t changed, other than obviously the father
21 having physical custody of the child, which means
22 visitation has to be determined.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

33
1 MR. DRURY: Visitation?
2 THE COURT: The mother.
3 MR. DRURY: Three times a week and on weekends.
4 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I would just
5 reverse the visitation. It would be Wednesday and on the
6 weekends, just as it was with the father. There may be
7 some additional visitation worked out between the parties
8 as well.
9 THE COURT: Are they going to be able to do
10 that?
11 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, as far as the visitation
12 on Wednesday nights and the weekends, yes. And my client
13 will provide additional time at some time, at one other
14 time during the week as the parties -- otherwise, I would
15 just say if it was good enough for the father, then it’s
16 good enough for the mother.
17 And I’m just saying that it may be that the
18 father would --
19 THE COURT: I don’t think it works that way
20 with children. I mean, isn’t it to consider what’s in
21 the children’s best interest?
22 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, absolutely, Your Honor,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

34
1 but I’m saying that --
2 THE COURT: Wasn’t the mother the primary
3 caregiver? It’s why she was given --
4 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor has got Your Honor’s
5 findings in mind and I’m not going to dispute Your
6 Honor’s reasons. It certainly wouldn’t be, we wouldn’t
7 agree that that would be --
8 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, every other day and on
9 weekends.
10 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, that’s just
11 splitting custody. Your Honor has changed custody.
12 THE COURT: I --
13 MR. DRURY: This is a man --
14 THE COURT: Wait a minute, I’ll make my ruling
15 on this. The Court will order visitation every Wednesday
16 at whatever time they can agree on.
17 MR. DRURY: And each weekend.
18 THE COURT: The Court is going to order the
19 mother can have three weekends out of the month. The
20 father can have two if there’s two weekends or one
21 weekend.
22 MR. DRURY: Now, is that Saturday and Sunday?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

35
1 THE COURT: Yes.
2 And the mother can choose another day during
3 the week to visit the child.
4 MR. DRURY: And these are unsupervised. She
5 can take them back to the house the day runs from 8:00
6 until 6:00?
7 THE COURT: Yes.
8 MR. DRURY: Any holidays intervening?
9 THE COURT: I don’t think there’s a holiday;
10 Easter is the only holiday.
11 DR. KING: Passover. We’re Jewish.
12 MR. DRURY: She’s Jewish.
13 THE COURT: Oh, when is Passover?
14 DR. KING: The same time as Easter.
15 THE COURT: You don’t know when Passover is?
16 MR. DRURY: For the first time I’m going to
17 shut my mouth because I don’t know when Passover is.
18 THE COURT: I think it falls on Easter this
19 year.
20 MR. DRURY: Okay. Your Honor --
21 DR. KING: It’s the 19th, Your Honor. It’s the
22 day after our hearing on the 18th of April.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

36
1 THE COURT: Passover starts that late? Easter
2 is --
3 DR. KING: It doesn’t always follow --
4 THE COURT: It’s not --
5 DR. KING: I think it begins the night of the
6 18th, Friday night, Shabbat.
7 THE COURT: Okay. It follows the full moon,
8 right?
9 DR. KING: No.
10 THE COURT: I mean, it’s determined by the
11 moon.
13 THE COURT: When is, do you know when is
14 Passover?
15 MR. DRURY: In terms of timing of things, Your
16 Honor, let’s address --
17 THE COURT: I keep telling you and you won’t
18 let me resolve one thing at a time. That’s why we get
19 all --
20 DR. KING: My calendar and my mother say
21 Passover starts the evening of the 18th.
22 THE COURT: Of what month?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

37
1 DR. KING: April. So that would be April 18th,
2 sundown.
3 THE COURT: On a Friday?
4 DR. KING: Well, it changes every year, but
5 it’s going to be Shabbat, which means it’s a very long
6 service.
7 MR. O’CONNELL: We’re going to have a full
8 hearing on the 18th.
9 THE COURT: We’ll decide that day.
10 MR. O’CONNELL: When is Easter?
11 MR. DRURY: The 23rd of March, Easter?
12 THE COURT: You just told me she’s Jewish.
13 MR. DRURY: I understand.
14 THE COURT: So that would not be a holiday that
15 --
16 MR. DRURY: It is a holiday for school.
17 THE COURT: No, it is not. Easter is not a
18 holiday for school. You mean like spring break?
19 MR. DRURY: Yes, Your Honor. There is spring
20 break. I’m sure the German school --
21 MS. OLIN: Hold on, the child is four and a
22 half years old.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

38
1 DR. KING: She goes to Hebrew school every
2 Sunday, Ms. Olin. She’s Jewish. She’s been Jewish from
3 the day she was born.
4 MR. O’CONNELL: Has she been the last three
5 weeks?
6 DR. KING: Yes, she’s gone to Hebrew school
7 actually and I can prove that to the Court. She has
8 every Sunday.
9 MR. DRURY: Well, then it’s his --
10 THE COURT: I hope you folks are taking notes.
11 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, may I address the
12 Court?
13 THE COURT: Did you print the rule? Yes, Sir.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: Okay, I just didn’t hear a yes
15 and I wasn’t going to do it without getting permission.
16 On the morning that the child was kidnaped, Your Honor,
17 by the mother --
18 MR. DRURY: Objection to the phrase kidnaped.
19 MR. O’CONNELL: Using the fraudulent document
20 that she used, I was actually talking, I had previously
21 talked to the GAL. I had previously talked to --
22 THE COURT: We’re doing a temporary custody
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

39
1 order.
2 MR. O’CONNELL: I had previously talked to the
3 Court Services personnel, Michelle Woods, and I had also
4 made several attempts and finally had been able to get
5 what, Ms. Elizabeth Rossingy (phonetic) on the phone
6 because Michael Miller was not available at that time to
7 discuss the issue of schools because what we had
8 discovered on Monday was that while when you issued your
9 order on November 8th, I had indicated that 3:00 o’clock
10 may be a problem because we thought that’s when the
11 German school got out.
12 We had discovered in conversations with the
13 registrar of the German school, what’s her name, Reese,
14 Ms. Reese, that she had been registered on November 2nd
15 and that actually is confirmed by the transcript where
16 she said in the transcript on page 20 she had registered
17 the Tuesday before we were in Court and that she at that
18 time was registered through 3:00 o’clock.
19 THE COURT: What does that have to do with why
20 we are here today?
21 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m about to tell Your Honor.
22 And what I was trying to do, Your Honor --
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

40
2 MR. O’CONNELL: May I finish what I’m saying?
3 MR. DRURY: Yeah.
4 MR. O’CONNELL: At the podium, please?
5 MR. DRURY: Oh, you want the podium?
6 MR. O’CONNELL: Yeah.
7 What I was trying to do at that time was
8 discuss, number one, when the mother and how the mother
9 would get custody handed over in a, if she had returned
10 to the area and if she had begun her psychological
11 evaluation. That was one thing.
12 And the other thing was in the interim, we had
13 a problem because as I told the Guardian ad Litem and
14 Michelle Woods, we had just discovered that approximately
15 two to three weeks before, according to Ms. Reese, mother
16 had actually unregistered the child, which will, of
17 course, be the subject of another Rule to Show Cause, but
18 wasn’t at this time because it wasn’t the pressing issue,
19 this time, had unregistered the child from the 3:30
20 program and put the child in the 12:30 program. And as a
21 result --
22 THE COURT: What does that have to do with why
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

41
1 we are here today?
2 MR. O’CONNELL: And as a result, my client was
3 exploring alternate alternatives because he didn’t want
4 her in two different day cares during the day, Your
5 Honor. And that was what I was discussing with counsel
6 when mother snatched the child.
7 THE COURT: I don’t --
8 MR. O’CONNELL: We weren’t going to do anything
9 unilaterally. We were simply exploring alternatives and
10 we had not withdrawn the child from the German school and
11 we had not told the German school we weren’t going to go.
12 The reason I bring it up now --
13 THE COURT: She has to give the father a 24-
14 hour advance notice that she’s going to exercise another
15 day’s visitation.
16 MR. DRURY: Okay.
17 MR. O’CONNELL: The reason I’m bringing this up
18 now, Your Honor, is because what we’re faced with is the
19 mother having taken, what the Court previously ordered,
20 which was the German school until 3:00 o’clock, even
21 though the Court didn’t actually say the German school
22 until 3:00 o’clock. That was the understanding on that
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

42
1 day. And it wasn’t contradicted on the record, to the
2 German school until 12:30, which would have meant that
3 the child would have been in two day cares during the
4 day. And that wouldn’t have been good for the child and
5 I was trying to discuss with then counsel, opposing
6 counsel, with Michelle Wood, and with the Guardian ad
7 Litem what the best thing to do for the child was at that
8 point.
9 And so when I’m asking the Court, now that the
10 Court has granted us custody, we will do whatever is
11 necessary to comply with the Court’s order.
12 THE COURT: I’ve ordered temporary physical
13 custody is what I did.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s correct. And we will do
15 whatever the Court orders. And what I’m saying --
16 THE COURT: I’m not going to get into a dispute
17 with the parents to decide on what school the child
18 should go to. They need to decide that for themselves.
19 MR. DRURY: Well, Your Honor, I just want to
20 respond.
21 THE COURT: No, please don’t.
22 MR. DRURY: Please, I just want to respond. I
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

43
1 don’t want Mr. O’Connell to leave --
2 THE COURT: No.
3 MR. DRURY: This courtroom and then me
4 challenging him in the hall because I want to show Mr.
5 O’Connell, I’d like him to rescind his comments --
6 THE COURT: I don’t want you challenging him in
7 the hall now.
8 MR. DRURY: I certainly would not; he’s bigger
9 than me and younger than me.
10 THE COURT: That’s not a good thing.
11 MR. DRURY: May I offer this up as evidence of
12 the fact --
13 THE COURT: Why don’t you let me show you the
14 temporary order I’m doing.
15 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, he has actually
16 enrolled the child in the YMCA and here is an email --
17 THE COURT: You’ve been telling me that all
18 afternoon.
19 MR. DRURY: And you know something, I’m --
20 THE COURT: I know he has enrolled the child in
21 the YMCA. You told me this all afternoon.
22 MR. DRURY: But here’ s Mr. O’Connell, which
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

44
1 I’d like him to rescind his comments because they’re
2 false. Here, here’s the email.
3 MR. O’CONNELL: They’re not false, Your Honor.
4 I’m not --
5 MR. DRURY: Here’s an email.
6 MR. O’CONNELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. I’m not
7 going to address that because I haven’t made any false
8 comments.
9 MR. DRURY: Well, his client has obviously told
10 him some erroneous stuff. And the problem is, is that we
11 have emails that are placed on the YMCA website that say
12 that I want to let you know we will be welcoming a new
13 child to Room 12 on Thursday, February 14th, and her name
14 is Ariana Leilani King-Pfeiffer. This is from one of the
15 teachers and home --
16 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, all we were doing
17 was providing alternatives --
18 MR. DRURY: On Monday.
19 MR. O’CONNELL: You know what --
20 MR. DRURY: Look at the date; it’s February
21 11th.
22 THE COURT: I don’t know why you all are going
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

45
1 on about this because I told you I’m not addressing this
2 issue.
3 MR. O’CONNELL: I apologize and I’m sitting
4 down.
5 MR. DRURY: My problem is with counsel’s
6 representations. They’re erroneous.
7 THE COURT: Don’t fight when he goes outside.
8 MR. DRURY: I will not, Your Honor. We have
9 strong sheriffs around and Mr. O’Connell and I will
10 obviously be friendly throughout this whole thing and
11 treat each other as gentlemen.
12 THE COURT: Well, we’re going to have to, at
13 the trial, at the full hearing of this, I think I’m going
14 to have to take control over you two.
15 MR. DRURY: Yep.
16 THE COURT: Show this to Mr. O’Connell and to
17 Mr. Drury.
18 MR. DRURY: Drury, yes, Your Honor, it’s a
19 pleasure.
20 THE COURT: Could you show it to Mr. Drury?
21 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, did you schedule a date
22 for the other rule or are we having it on the trial date?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

46
1 THE COURT: She hasn’t given me a date yet.
2 THE CLERK: April the 8th.
3 THE COURT: How much time do we have on the 8th?
4 THE CLERK: You only have --
5 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I have to call my
6 office to determine what the dates are. I did not expect
7 to set another date.
8 THE COURT: How come you never bring a calendar
9 with you?
10 MR. O’CONNELL: I could tell you the details of
11 that, Your Honor, but I won’t bore Your Honor with that
12 unless you really want me to.
13 THE COURT: You need to bring a calendar with
14 you every time we come to Court and we have to set a date
15 and you have to go outside to call your office or to find
16 out the date. Every, this has happened every time we’ve
17 been in Court.
18 (Brief discussion off the record.)
19 THE COURT: All right, we can do it on April 8th
20 then.
21 MR. O’CONNELL: Can I just check, Your Honor?
22 THE COURT: Did you review that order?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

47
1 MR. O’CONNELL: April 8th, what time, Your
2 Honor.
3 THE COURT: How much time?
4 MR. DRURY: I’m going to be filing a rule; four
5 hours do you think, Mr. O’Connell?
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MS. OLIN: I have a 10:00 o’clock hearing in
8 Fairfax, but I’ll be free by noon.
9 MR. DRURY: We’ll gladly go forward without
10 you.
11 THE COURT: 12:00 o’clock then.
12 MS. OLIN: 12:00 o’clock.
13 MR. O’CONNELL: 12:00 o’clock. And we just
14 won’t hear anything that’s on the docket unless --
15 MR. DRURY: Ms. Olin will be missed, Your
16 Honor.
17 THE COURT: She’ll be here.
18 MS. OLIN: What’s that?
19 MR. DRURY: We were going to miss you.
20 MS. OLIN: I’ll be here.
21 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, may I make one
22 amendment?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

48
2 MR. DRURY: It says that there was evidence,
3 there wasn’t any evidence presented. My client, you
4 declined to hear my client on the issue. So I challenge
5 that respectfully. With deep respect I take exception to
6 the Court’s --
7 THE COURT: Okay, can I see it?
8 MR. DRURY: Yes, Your Honor.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Here you go, counsel.
10 THE COURT: I’ve taken other evidence that the
11 child has been --
12 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, maybe to satisfy my
13 concerns, limited evidence.
14 THE COURT: No, I’m saying that this goes to
15 the Court -- we’ve got a huge hearing. This is just that
16 the Court finds that the child is within the jurisdiction
17 of this Court. That was the previous finding of the
18 Court.
19 MR. DRURY: Uh huh. Well, obviously I’ve put
20 my objections on the record and Ms. Tingen is listening
21 to them, Your Honor. So I’ll just get a copy of that
22 order and thank the Court for its patience.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

49
1 THE COURT: I’m sorry?
2 MR. DRURY: I thank the Court for its patience.
3 Your Honor, the Court should know that there is
4 a hearing in Maryland on this on Monday. There is dual
5 jurisdiction in this case.
6 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I just want Ms. Tingen
7 to --
8 THE COURT: I just want you to know, tell the
9 Judge to please call me.
10 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I just want Ms. Tingen
11 to be able to say that Mr. Drury noted to the Court that
12 there was dual jurisdiction.
13 THE COURT: No, well, you tell the Judge I’ll
14 be happy to hear from the Judge. We’re supposed to talk
15 to each other.
16 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I have a feeling it’s
17 going to be like a basketball, here, you take it.
18 THE COURT: And I’m available by phone.
19 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I filed a motion to
20 dismiss. No response has been filed. It is now late in
21 the Maryland case. It’s not relevant; I’m just --
22 MR. DRURY: I think the opposition by Mr. Fox
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

50
1 is due on Friday, Mr. O’Connell, but thank you very much.
2 I’ll certainly call him.
3 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s fine. Mr. Fox is a new
4 attorney in the Maryland case and hasn’t even entered his
5 appearance.
6 MR. DRURY: I have no idea.
7 THE COURT: Did you give me the copy of the
8 order back?
9 MR. DRURY: No, Your Honor, I haven’t.
10 THE COURT: Thank you.
12 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, are you making a copy
13 of the transcript part of the record?
14 THE COURT: Would you make a copy for me?
15 MR. DRURY: Yes, the original.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Did I give you the other
17 orders?
18 THE CLERK: Yes.
19 THE COURT: If I don’t get any recommendations
20 for the custody evaluations by Wednesday, I’m just going
21 to pick Thursday morning.
22 MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you, Judge.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

51
1 THE COURT: I’ll give you a call back with the
2 name.
4 MR. DRURY: Judge, I understand the General
5 Services Section, the Court has already done a custody
6 evaluation, is that right?
7 THE COURT: No.
8 MR. DRURY: No, okay.
9 THE COURT: Dr. Lane started one, but --
10 MR. DRURY: Okay. I have to go back through
11 the orders, Your Honor.
12 Your Honor, may I invite the Court’s attention
13 to an order on 9-5-2007. It says a custody evaluation
14 was ordered.
15 THE COURT: It was, but that was with Dr. Lane.
16 MR. DRURY: To be done by the Court Service
17 Unit.
18 THE COURT: She did. That’s a different, it
19 wasn’t -- it’s a different, yes, Ms. Wood did that
20 report, but then we came back to Court and they asked for
21 a custody evaluator. It was like a home study by Ms.
22 Wood.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

52
1 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, Your Honor ordered
2 both at the same time.
3 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, if the Court would read
4 this order it might clarify it.
5 THE COURT: No, we did, it was two orders.
6 MR. O’CONNELL: And we agreed, and we all knew
7 what was going on.
8 THE COURT: Everybody agreed on Dr. Lane.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: And we all, in fact, it was Mr.
10 Dennenbaum’s (phonetic) selection of Dr. Lane and then I
11 checked it out and agreed with it. So she picked Dr.
12 Lane, her attorney picked Dr. Lane.
13 MR. DRURY: I listened to what Mr. O’Connell
14 says and all I do is have an order before me, Your Honor.
15 MR. O’CONNELL: For two evaluations.
16 MR. DRURY: The Court orders both parents to
17 take a parenting class and participate in custody
18 evaluation by qualified expert. The paragraph above,
19 here --
20 MR. O’CONNELL: Please don’t do that; I told
21 you --
22 MR. DRURY: Oh, you don’t need it, okay.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

53
1 THE COURT: The qualified expert is not the
2 Court Service Unit.
3 MR. DRURY: Okay. There are two aspects to
4 this order, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Do you want me to take a look at
6 it? I don’t know what you want.
7 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I didn’t get the high
8 sign from you, I’m sorry.
9 THE COURT: I’m pretty good at remembering what
10 I ordered. Yes, the first one was by the Court Services
11 Unit, custody evaluation. It’s like a home-visit type
12 evaluation. And then I ordered with a qualified expert,
13 I’m talking about psychologist, PhD.
14 MR. DRURY: Okay.
15 THE COURT: It’s not the same as the Court
16 Services Unit.
17 MR. DRURY: Okay.
18 THE COURT: I don’t understand what you’re
19 saying.
21 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, I think I have three
22 copies of the order and I think they’re all the same.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

54
1 The best I can determine they’re all the same. So I
2 don’t want to be in a position where I fail to object. I
3 think this is the same. Yeah, they are the same.
4 There’s no difference.
6 THE COURT: Just so we’re clear, the weekends
7 are Saturday and Sunday because I don’t know if I put
8 that in that order.
9 MR. DRURY: No, you did not.
10 DR. KING: Excuse me.
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 DR. KING: I’m Jewish and we celebrate Shabbat
13 every Friday night. So I would be very appreciative if I
14 could have Shabbat with our daughter. She says the
15 prayers. She’s done it from the time that she was born.
16 Shabbat is extremely important in our family. It’s at
17 sunset. We light the candles; that’s what women do. We
18 say the prayers --
19 THE COURT: I understand what it is.
20 DR. KING: Yes, Ma’am.
21 MR. DRURY: Could we have it from Friday
22 evening from 6:00 to --
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

55
1 THE COURT: Does the father have an objection?
2 MR. O’CONNELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. Are you
3 asking whether I object to that or not?
4 THE COURT: Yes.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: The Court’s indulgence, Your
6 Honor.
7 Well, we would object to it the weekends we
8 don’t have it, but if we could get the child back a
9 little earlier on Sunday, we don’t think that that would
10 be --
11 MR. DRURY: 4:00 on Sunday.
12 THE COURT: Okay. Is that agreeable?
13 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s agreeable. Friday, 6:00
14 until Sunday at 4:00.
15 THE COURT: Do I need to write that in the
16 order?
18 THE COURT: I’ll write on my green sheet from
19 Friday at 6:00 --
20 DR. KING: Actually, Shabbat starts at 6:00.
21 MR. O’CONNELL: But that’s not on the weekends
22 that we don’t, I mean that she doesn’t have her.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

56
1 MR. DRURY: I understand that.
2 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s just on the weekends
3 that she does.
4 THE COURT: On her weekends.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: Yes.
6 MR. DRURY: Sunday at 4:00.
7 MR. O’CONNELL: All right, she says the service
8 starts at 6:00, so we’ll say at 4:00.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, there has been a
10 statement made on the record by someone, and I have to
11 say that I’m familiar with an issue. So for the record,
12 for Your Honor’s recollection, the agreement of the
13 parties that my client has communicated to me in the past
14 was that the child would be raised in both faiths, not
15 Jewish. But we’re not objecting to --
16 THE COURT: I don’t understand what the problem
17 is.
18 MR. O’CONNELL: No, there is a problem. We’re
19 not objecting to it, but there’s been a representation
20 made that the child is Jewish and that is actually not
21 the agreement of the parties prior to this litigation.
22 And I need that representation be there. But we don’t
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

57
1 have a problem with the schedule, Your Honor.
2 MR. DRURY: Wait a minute. Mr. O’Connell is
3 now raising a completely different issue. We had an
4 agreement and somehow the train fell off the tracks.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: No --
6 MR. DRURY: 4:00 o’clock Friday to Sunday at
7 4:00. There’s no order that she has to be raised in the
8 Jewish or the Christian faith.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Counsel, excuse me. I’m not
10 disagreeing with that and we still have an agreement.
11 I’m simply saying that I didn’t want the representation
12 to go as acquiescence because that is not my client’s
13 understanding of the history of the child.
14 MR. DRURY: Mr. O’Connell may not be aware of
15 this --
16 THE COURT: Please, don’t.
17 MR. DRURY: In the Jewish faith --
18 THE COURT: No, please don’t.
19 MR. DRURY: Will I be held in contempt, Your
20 Honor?
21 THE COURT: I’ll --
22 MR. DRURY: I’m approaching it.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

58
1 THE COURT: There are three bailiffs up here.
2 MR. DRURY: Good.
3 THE COURT: I already sent for an extra.
4 MR. DRURY: Thank you, Judge.
5 THE COURT: I’m writing on my green sheet that
6 the time is from Friday at 4:00 until Sunday at 4:00 on
7 the mother’s weekends.
8 MR. DRURY: I got it.
9 THE COURT: The mother is allowed additional
10 visitation with a 24-hour advance notice.
11 MR. DRURY: Correct.
12 THE COURT: Just can’t show up with police and
13 demand the child.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you.
15 THE COURT: And I already ordered the custody
16 evaluation again by a qualified expert.
17 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor ordered it at
18 mother’s expense?
19 THE COURT: Yes, I did.
20 MR. DRURY: No, both expense.
21 THE COURT: No, no, I ordered it at the
22 mother’s expense, considering that expense that went
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

59
1 towards Dr. Lane. I ordered it at the mother’s expense.
2 You can go back, Mr. Drury, and read the transcript, but
3 I said that early on.
4 MR. DRURY: Your Honor, my only point about the
5 issue about Dr. Lane, it’s a valid complaint and it’s
6 been accepted.
7 THE COURT: But before we even got to that,
8 when you weren’t involved in the case --
9 MR. DRURY: I know I wasn’t. So it’s unfair.
10 THE COURT: You need to talk to your client
11 about how difficult it was and -- I mean --
12 MR. DRURY: It’s confusing, Your Honor, for me
13 to defend my client on this matter.
14 THE COURT: It’s hard because you weren’t here.
15 MR. DRURY: That’s exactly right. So I --
16 THE COURT: She’s had three different lawyers.
17 MR. DRURY: So I would ask you to just hold
18 that ruling in advance. We’ve gotten across this bridge
19 now with respect to Shabbat and all these other matters.
20 THE COURT: I’m going to order the mother to
21 pay it at her expense.
22 MR. DRURY: Would you reconsider it?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

60
1 THE COURT: No, Sir, because the father is
2 already paying Dr. Lane.
3 MR. DRURY: Okay, thank you, Your Honor.
4 That’s what I wanted to hear. I understand there’s a new
5 rule to have my client reimburse the petitioner for Dr.
6 Lane. So I didn’t, I’m not going to do an O’Connell on
7 you, Your Honor. I’m not going to raise a third issue.
8 I’m going to stay away from that.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: An O’Connell?
10 THE COURT: All right, now like I said, let me
11 hear from you by the end of the day on February 27th,
12 then I will just decide on the therapist.
13 MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you, Judge.
14 THE COURT: All right, that’s it.
15 Are you waiving advisement of the rule?
16 MR. DRURY: I beg your pardon? Am I waiving
17 what, Your Honor?
18 THE COURT: Advisement of the rule.
19 MR. O’CONNELL: That I’ll be filing.
20 MR. DRURY: Yes, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: So then if the Court issues it,
22 we’ll set it on the same date.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

61
1 MR. O’CONNELL: On the 8th?
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 MR. DRURY: I’m still going to be requesting
4 the rule that I was asking for in my rule, but we’ve been
5 advised of this rule.
6 (Whereupon, the hearing in the above-captioned
7 matter was concluded.)
CAROLYN J. TIMKO
Court Reporter
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147

/ Arrided JJ031848-01-07
ORDER FOR CUSTODY/VISITATION Case No. ...........................................................................................................
GRANTED TO INDIVIDUAL(S)
CommonwealthofVirginia VA. CODE 6Â 16.1-278.15. 20-174.2 ............................................................................................................................
02/21/2008
DATF. OF I-IEARIMG
ARLINGTON J&DR COURT

..............................................................................................................................................................................
Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Cuiirt
ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER
I n re: ................................................................................................................................. 05/07/2003
........................................................................................................
NAME OF CHILD DATt "Or DIRTH
Present: Father . ~ ~ , ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ................... . ~ ~ 8 Father's

~ 6 attorney
~ ~ .?.i.,.0,~.!X&!)M!%L
~ . ~ ,..........................................
~ ~ . ~ ~ E ~
other ARI.ELRQS.ITA.KING............................................. U Mu1hcr.s anomey JQI-tN..DRU.KY...............................................
Guardian ad litem
a Attorney .........
a Attorney
The above-named child has been brought hefnrm this Court upon the filing of a written petition or motion conccming custody or
visitation or for which transfer of custody is a dispositional alternative. Legal notice has been given to all proper and necessary
parties. All provisions of the Juvmile and Domestic Relations District Court Law have been duly complied with in assuming
jurisdiction over the child, and all deterrninationa have been made in accordance with the standards set forth in Virginia Code 5 16.1-
278.4.5 16.1-278.5. 5 16.1-278.6 or 5 16.1-278.8 or 16.1-278.15 and #Â 20-124.1 through 20-124.6.
MAVJNGCONSIDERF,D ALL RRI W A N T AND MATEItIAL EVlDEMCV PRE5JiN 1 ED AND THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE CHILD, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE CHILD IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT AND
FURTHER FINDS AND ORDERS THAI:
1. The parties are in agreement on the arrangement for the child's custody and visitation:
a as set forth in the attached docurnmt, which is incorporated.
a as set forth below.
2. Custody/Visitation
TEMPORARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY IS GRANTED TO THE FATHER. MICHAEL HERBERT PFEIFER. MOTHER
ALLOWED VISITATION WITH THE CHILD EVERY WEDNESDAY AND THREE WEEKENDS OUT OF THE
MONTH AND WITH GIVING FATHER TWENTY-WUR HOUR ADVANCE NOTICE, MOTHER CAN HAVE
ANOTHER DAY DURING THE WEEK.
The basis for the decision determining custody or visitation has been communicated to the panics orally or in writing.
3. A supplemental sheet with additional findings andlor orders is attached and incorporated,
4. Relocation. Each party intending a change of address shall give 30 days advance written notice ufsuch change of address to the
murt and ottier party, pursuant to Virginia Code 5 20-124.5. Unless otherwise provided in this order, this notice shall contain, the
child's fall name, the case number of this case, the party's new telephone number and new street address and, if different, the
party's new mailing address. Unless otherwise provided in thia order,the uvlicc shall be mailed by first-class or delivered to this
court and to the other party.
5. Access to Records. In accordance with Virginia Code 3.0 124.6, neither paicnt, regardless of whether such parent has custody,
shall he denied access to the academic or health records of that parent's minor child, unless otherwise provided in this order or, in
the case ofhealth records, if the minor's treating physician or clinical psychologist has made a part of the child's health record a
written statement that furni-hing to or review by the parait ufsuch health records would he reasonably likely to cause substantial
harm to the minor or another person,
6. This Order is FINAL TEMPORARY md a final hcaiing on this matter will be held on
Wiggins - COJ
FORM DC-573 - 000187
(MASTERS REVISED 11W
C O P Y
V I R G I N I A
IN THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, :
Petitioner, :
versus, : CASE NO. J-31848-01
ARIEL R. KING, :
Respondent. :
IN RE: XXXXXXXXXXXX
DOB: 05/07/2003
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Arlington, Virginia
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Arlington
Arlington, Virginia 22201, beginning at 1:30 o'clock p.m.
- - - - - - - - - - -
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
2
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner:
SEAN O’CONNELL, ESQUIRE
For the Respondent:
MICHAEL CALLAHAN, ESQUIRE
Guardian Ad Litem:
C O N T E N T S :
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
Dr. Ariel King
Dr. Marvel King
E X H I B I T S :
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 1 112 112

--Email
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
3
1 P R O C E E D I N G S :
2 MR. O’CONNELL: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Good afternoon.
4 MR. O’CONNELL: I do have my calendar today,
5 Your Honor.
6 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, while counsel is getting
7 settled, if I could just bring up a couple of things -- I
8 think counsel has already agreed to it.
9 As the Court and counsel knows, my health has
10 been really compromised so if no one objects, I’d like to
11 explain to the Court a couple of positions and then leave
12 if there are no objections.
13 The first one is --
14 MR. O’CONNELL: No objections.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: No objection to the first thing
16 I think she’s going to say. I may have some comments on
17 the other that I have already told her.
18 MS. OLIN: Let me clarify, I don’t mean, I mean
19 if Counsel has no objection to me leaving once I have my
20 say?
21 MR. CALLAHAN: None whatsoever.
22 MS. OLIN: As to the rule --
23 THE COURT: That’s the only thing we’re here
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
4
1 for.
2 MS. OLIN: Yes, that would be the frame work.
3 The only thing we’re here today is the rules to show
4 cause.
5 THE COURT: It’s just one.
6 MS. OLIN: I’m sorry?
7 THE COURT: It’s just one rule today. One was
8 for contempt.
9 MS. OLIN: Yes.
10 THE COURT: And set it out for disposition and
11 then the second one was, let’s see --
12 MR. O’CONNELL: That one you wrote yourself,
13 Your Honor, having to do with the removal of the child
14 from the father’s custody and you didn’t like the way I
15 drafted it and you wrote one out yourself.
16 THE COURT: No, I found her in contempt, the
17 one that she was found in contempt for but was set for
18 disposition if she failed to cooperate with the guardian
19 ad litem. That’s the one that the Court found her in
20 contempt and set that for disposition.
21 MS. OLIN: Okay. And I’m not going to have any
22 comment on that.
23 THE COURT: The second one --
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
5
1 MS. OLIN: The second one --
2 THE COURT: That’s set for April 18th too; why
3 is this here now? I don’t know why we’re here today
4 because this is April 18th. Today is April 8th. This is
5 the only thing that’s on for today. This is the only
6 thing that she is in violation of.
7 The hearing of February 24th, -- it’s set for
8 April 18th, so I don’t think that’s it. This came in
9 after that. I think all these cases are on the 18th. I
10 don’t think there’s anything set for today.
11 MS. OLIN: My recollection, which could
12 certainly be flawed, is that we were concerned with all
13 the rules filed that we wouldn’t have enough time on the
14 18th but I thought that the Court said that we were going
15 to try to hear the rules on, or as many as we could
16 today. So I’m not sure, you know, if I misheard or --
17 THE COURT: When is the custody hearing set
18 for?
19 MR. O’CONNELL: The 18th.
20 MS. OLIN: That’s for the 18th and it’s going to
21 take some time. The other thing, Judge, is that the
22 custody evaluations are going --
23 THE COURT: Okay, so that makes sense to do
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
6
1 these now. I would probably want to do them both the
2 same day.
3 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, we need guidance on
4 a custody evaluator.
5 THE COURT: What is the problem? I told
6 everyone who was here, and I had my clerk contact you to
7 tell you.
8 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, we both contacted
9 Michelle Eban and she said she can’t do it so that was
10 where we were going to bring it up to you. We both
11 contacted her.
12 THE COURT: Well, when did you contact her,
13 because that was a while back. It’s April.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: The first I heard of it was
15 from Michelle Wood last week and I contacted her today.
16 THE COURT: No, I had my clerk call you last
17 week and say who the Court had selected.
18 MR. O’CONNELL: Did you receive such a call
19 because I had not?
20 THE COURT: There were so many different
21 lawyers on the mother’s part, but it was a different
22 lawyer at that point in time. So I don’t know why you
23 just found out last week who the Court had selected. Of
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
7
1 course she couldn’t do it.
2 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, Your Honor, initially
3 we received notice that it was to be one of two
4 psychologists and we were to provide input. We both
5 actually --
6 THE COURT: That’s not what I said. I never
7 said that. I never ever said that. I said in Court,
8 open Court, when everybody was here, that you select
9 three or two or three people, that mother select two or
10 three people and the Court probation officer, Ms. Wood,
11 to submit three names and then the Court would pick the
12 one person to do it and I picked the first person and if
13 that person wasn’t available, then I picked the second
14 person.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, we have no objection
16 once she’s available.
17 MR. O’CONNELL: And that’s true of us too, I
18 mean, while I did initially put an objection in, I didn’t
19 follow it up with anything other than to try to contact,
20 actually I didn’t even know, initially there was a
21 contact that there were two individuals.
22 THE COURT: I don’t understand because I asked
23 the clerk to call you and she told me she called you and
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
8
1 left a message. And if you didn’t get the message in a
2 short period of time, it seemed like you would have
3 checked with the Court to see what the hold up was with
4 the person.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: I called several times and I
6 finally did get hold of Michelle Wood and she told me Dr.
7 Pfeiffer last week, excuse me, not Dr. Pfeiffer, Dr. Eban
8 last week. I then came to the Court. It just so happens
9 at the same time --
10 THE COURT: No, but you filed something before
11 last week. I wasn’t here last week, but I saw something
12 you filed.
13 MR. O’CONNELL: That is so true, Your Honor --
14 THE COURT: Before last week, so that’s not
15 correct.
16 MR. O’CONNELL: No, Your Honor. That isn’t
17 what I did.
18 THE COURT: Well --
19 MR. O’CONNELL: What I did was there were two
20 names that were submitted and --
21 THE COURT: All right, let’s deal with Ms.
22 Olin’s situation. I think she said she’s not feeling
23 well and she needs to leave. So let’s deal with that and
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
9
1 I guess we’ll deal with the dates.
2 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, talking about the
3 disposition, if there’s any question about the
4 disposition about the rule being heard today, I would ask
5 that it just be put off to the trial date.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MS. OLIN: Mother has been very cooperative
8 with me since that hearing and I would really like to
9 keep that relationship just the way it is.
10 THE COURT: That will be continued until the
11 hearing date.
12 MS. OLIN: For the sake of the child.
13 THE COURT: So that brings us to the rule for
14 failure to comply with the Court’s order of visitation
15 that was filed on January 10, 2008.
16 I entered the order on January 17th but the
17 father said that the respondent refused to allow the
18 Wednesday overnight visit.
19 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s correct, Your Honor.
20 MS. OLIN: I think that the evidence is going
21 to speak for itself. My knowledge of it is that the
22 visits were not, didn’t go with the Court order. Again,
23 I’m going to leave that to the rules of the Court, the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
10
1 gentlemen, just kind of not play on that one.
3 MS. OLIN: Then, it does look --
4 THE COURT: I think there’s another one too.
5 MS. OLIN: Yes.
6 THE COURT: That was a result of the one that I
7 found her in contempt for. And then there was another
8 failure to comply rule of not cooperating with Dr. Lane.
9 MS. OLIN: I do have a position there. I think
10 that’s just really been terrible for Ariana and this
11 would be long resolved by then and way back in those
12 days, in the very beginning of this case, my own contacts
13 with Dr. Lane were a lot about his frustration about not
14 being able to meet with mother and that visits were
15 canceled.
16 Now, I know mom has a different perspective and
17 probably will say something different to the Court, but
18 that’s what I have to offer on my end.
19 And then finally, to address, it looks like
20 we’re going to need a continuance to the 18th because
21 we’re not going to get a custody evaluation, and in a
22 case like this, I think that’s crucial. I think the
23 psychological evaluations of both parents are important
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
11
1 in a case like this, looking at the behavior and the
2 route that this case has taken, that the custody
3 evaluator needs to look at the psychological evaluations
4 as part of the standards of doing the custody eval. And
5 I think we’re going to need it in this case to go
6 forward. We need an expert.
7 So I think both parties are in agreement to a
8 continuance for that purpose unless they’ve changed their
9 mind in the last 10 minutes or so. I’m certainly in
10 agreement with it. So I would ask the Court to continue
11 the trial for the 18th to a date, I’d like to think it’s
12 not going to take much more than six weeks, I would like
13 to think if there’s a custody evaluator.
14 Has a custody evaluator actually been
15 identified at this point since Dr. Lane has been knocked
16 out and Dr. Irby can’t do it?
17 MR. CALLAHAN: Dr. Eban.
18 MS. OLIN: Dr. Irby.
19 MR. O’CONNELL: She said she couldn’t do it to
20 me today and I didn’t actually get the chance to tell her
21 when the trial date was. She said she was too busy. But
22 I will say this, Your Honor. I did file something and I,
23 there were two people that I was addressing.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
12
1 THE COURT: Well, let’s get through one issue
2 at a time. Let’s get a Court date here.
3 MS. OLIN: So I think the answer is, so no one
4 has been identified.
5 THE COURT: I did identify them.
6 MS. OLIN: They’re not, no one is in the midst
7 of doing, as of this date no one is in the midst of doing
8 evaluations, so we have to start from scratch. I think
9 we’re going to need probably eight weeks.
10 MR. CALLAHAN: My understanding is Michelle
11 Eban is not available until June. That’s just on brief -
12 -
13 THE COURT: I had a second person, Dr.
14 McFarland.
15 MR. O’CONNELL: I have no objection to that
16 person and that’s what I said in my filing.
17 MR. CALLAHAN: We did object to the --
18 MR. O’CONNELL: May I ask on what basis?
19 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I treated that as a
20 preemptive strike, a conflict.
21 MR. O’CONNELL: May I inquire if there was a
22 basis, what the basis is?
23 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
13
1 THE COURT: Do you want to take a moment to
2 talk to them because it’s very distracting.
3 (Off the record.)
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Dr. Lane who has withdrawn and
5 McFarland were colleagues and went to the same school and
6 graduated from the same program. I can’t help but think
7 --
8 THE COURT: But that’s not a conflict, the same
9 school.
10 MS. OLIN: They may hate each other for all we
11 know.
12 THE COURT: Yeah, I don’t agree with that
13 conflict because see we went to the same school. What
14 date can you set it, eight weeks out.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, we request that we
16 be allowed to submit additional names if the Court will
17 allow and you can decide it on the 18th.
18 THE COURT: No, no, no, no. This is getting
19 ridiculous. With all due respect, this is really getting
20 to be difficult, you know. I don’t understand how these
21 two people are going to raise a child if this is what
22 it’s going to take to even get a custody determination.
23 I’m concerned about this poor child.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
14
1 MR. CALLAHAN: My client is concerned as well.
2 THE COURT: It just doesn’t make any sense. I
3 don’t understand.
4 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m open for June 9th.
5 MS. OLIN: June 9? The hearing on the 18th is
6 continued.
7 MR. O’CONNELL: What time does that begin, Your
8 Honor?
9 THE COURT: I’m not here that day. I’m pretty
10 sure I’m off that day, that week I think I’m off.
11 MS. OLIN: Is that why you set it on that date,
12 Judge?
13 THE COURT: Absolutely.
14 June 9th is a Monday. I think the actual week
15 I’m supposed to be off starts on the 9th. But someone can
16 hear it. They probably won’t like it very much, but if
17 you want me to hear it, then find another date. June 9th
18 is not a good date.
19 MR. O’CONNELL: How about June 16th?
20 MS. OLIN: No. It might be useful for this
21 Court to hear it just because there’s been so much, so
22 many other hearings. It might save some time.
23 MR. O’CONNELL: I hate to burden Your Honor,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
15
1 but I agree. It’s the continuity that we need that we’re
2 lacking from already the --
3 THE COURT: That’s not on my list of days. I’m
4 pretty sure I’m off that week.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: Then we should pick another
6 day.
7 THE CLERK: June 18th.
8 MS. OLIN: I have an appeal that day.
9 THE COURT: How long do you expect this hearing
10 to take?
11 MS. OLIN: All day.
12 MR. O’CONNELL: All day.
13 MS. OLIN: I can do it the 23rd.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m okay for the 23rd.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: Is that the 23rd?
17 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m gone that week.
18 MS. OLIN: What about the 4th through the 6th?
19 THE COURT: The 4th will be a holiday, July
20 4th?
21 MS. OLIN: No, June.
22 MR. CALLAHAN: That’s good for me.
23 MR. O’CONNELL: You have Colbert on that day.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
16
1 I would be happy to move that one.
2 THE COURT: The 6th is fine?
3 MR. O’CONNELL: The 6th is fine with me.
4 THE CLERK: Mr. Callahan, does the 6th work for
5 you, the 6th of June?
6 MR. CALLAHAN: The 6th is good.
7 THE COURT: Are we clear about who will be the
8 custody evaluator?
9 MR. O’CONNELL: I am, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: If one is not available, I gave you
11 the second one.
12 MR. CALLAHAN: I think we’re not clear then.
13 THE COURT: The first one was Michelle Eban.
14 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay.
15 THE COURT: And if she wasn’t available, then I
16 had Dr. Alan McFarland.
17 MS. OLIN: Oh, Alan McFarland, he’s great.
19 MR. CALLAHAN: So we contact Ms. Eban with the
20 new date?
21 THE COURT: Yes, and if she can’t do it --
22 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I had actually
23 represented Ms. Eban in a case some years ago; that was
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
17
1 the basis of my representation of a conflict.
2 THE COURT: I think Dr. Alan McFarland then.
3 MS. OLIN: Then, Your Honor, I’m going to have
4 one more thing to say, believe it or not, which is that
5 it’s my understanding that counsel, Mr. Callahan, may
6 have some motions that he wants to file. Since this has
7 been taken off the docket for the 18th, I’m going to
8 endeavor to go out of town to see my surviving relatives.
9 So if anything else is going to be set, then I ask it not
10 to be set on the 3rd.
11 THE COURT: I have a motion for -- there’s a
12 whole stack of paperwork that was filed --
13 MS. OLIN: Yes.
14 THE COURT: -- since our last hearing. I don’t
15 know what else could be filed.
16 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I’m not filing anything
17 else, Your Honor. What we would like the Court to hear
18 is the motion to rehear the transfer of custody back on
19 the, back in February. The parties are here; the
20 attorneys are here. It was noticed for today.
21 THE COURT: I’m not, I didn’t set that.
22 MR. CALLAHAN: And --
23 THE COURT: That hearing was held on February
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
18
1 8th. Is that the hearing that you’re talking about,
2 February 8th?
3 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: And this is April 8th. It’s a
5 little too late for that.
6 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, Your Honor, it’s the
7 matter, it’s PL, it’s a matter that’s still before the
8 Court.
9 THE COURT: What?
10 MR. CALLAHAN: It’s PL, it’s a matter that’s
11 still before the Court. You certainly have authority to
12 revisit that decision.
13 THE COURT: I think a motion to rehear is
14 supposed to be done within 45 days; it’s been 60. And
15 you want to rehear it because I granted temporary custody
16 to the father?
18 THE COURT: I’m not going to rehear that.
19 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, respectfully you
20 changed custody without any testimony. The trial date is
21 moved out now. It’s a de facto custody decision based on
22 conduct that she’s not had a chance to explain.
23 THE COURT: Your client was represented. She
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
19
1 was here and present. She knows why it was transferred.
2 It was all, I made it very clear in Court and I think
3 there were transcripts and everything.
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: So everyone knows that.
6 MR. CALLAHAN: You did decide that, we grant
7 that, but respectfully she would like to testify
8 regarding the circumstances herself regarding --
9 THE COURT: But she had counsel here at the
10 time and she was very well represented.
11 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, she had able counsel
12 who asked what I’m asking now. She just wants the Court
13 to hear from her.
14 THE COURT: But they didn’t ask the Court to
15 hear from her.
16 MR. CALLAHAN: I believe --
17 THE COURT: As a witness, she was going to
18 testify?
19 MR. CALLAHAN: I believe he did, Your Honor.
20 Yes.
21 THE COURT: I don’t remember that.
22 MR. CALLAHAN: It’s in the transcript.
23 THE COURT: But if you said that he did and I
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
20
1 said, I’m not going to rehear that today. There’s no way
2 I can hear that today because nothing in this case has
3 taken less than, we were talking about a date for how
4 long?
6 THE COURT: There’s no way I can hear that.
7 MR. CALLAHAN: Things would move along quicker
8 if we had one witness on the stand and one lawyer at a
9 time questioning her.
10 THE COURT: It’s impossible for you all to do
11 that. That has not happened in this Court. I keep
12 redirecting people and they keep doing the same thing
13 over and over again.
14 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m done with my opening on a
15 motion to rehear. If you let me call her, I’ll just put
16 her right up there.
17 THE COURT: To testify about what?
18 MR. CALLAHAN: She would like to explain the
19 circumstances.
20 THE COURT: What we’re here today for is the
21 rule to show cause and she didn’t cooperate with Dr. Lane
22 and that she did not cooperate with the visitation
23 schedule as far as providing the Wednesday visitations.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
21
1 Those two things. Is she admitting or denying those?
2 That’s all we’re here for. That’s what we ought to hear
3 first.
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, well, she’s the witness on
5 those; she’s the witness on our motion. All the facts
6 are tied together.
7 THE COURT: Right here, we’ve got, that is why
8 we’re here today.
9 MR. CALLAHAN: It’s 20 or 30 minutes of
10 testimony, Your Honor, and it will give you valuable
11 information.
12 THE COURT: Okay, but I still would like to do
13 the two rules.
15 THE COURT: Because that’s what we’re here for.
16 So I’ve got to deal with that first. And my question is,
17 does she admit or deny those two rules, that she didn’t
18 cooperate --
20 THE COURT: -- with Dr. Lane and that she
21 didn’t comply with the Wednesday visitation?
22 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor, we’re prepared
23 to respond to those. We’ve filed a written opposition.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
22
1 She’s prepared to testify regarding that.
2 THE COURT: All right, let’s go forward with
3 that then. Will all the witnesses please stand and raise
4 your right hand?
5 (Witnesses were sworn by the Court.)
6 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, a rule on witnesses,
7 please.
8 THE COURT: I’ll ask the witnesses to wait
9 outside.
10 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, may I be excused at this
11 point?
12 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
13 MS. OLIN: Thank you so much. I appreciate
14 that.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: I call Dr. King.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 Whereupon,
18 DR. ARIEL KING,
19 the defendant, called for examination by counsel on her
20 own behalf, and, having been first duly sworn by the
21 Court, was examined and testified as follows:
22 DIRECT EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
23
1 Q State your name and address.
2 A My name is Dr. Ariel Rosita King. I live at
3 11735 Green Lane Drive, Potomac, Maryland 20854.
4 Q And your daughter’s name and address?
5 A Ariana Leilani Margarita Alexandra King-
6 Pfeiffer and she lives both in Maryland at the address I
7 just stated and also 4613 Reservoir Road.
8 THE COURT: I’m sorry, you’re speaking too low
9 because I can barely hear what you’re saying.
10 THE WITNESS: My apologies, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Speak in the microphone.
12 THE COURT: Yes, my apologies.
13 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
14 Q To repeat, your daughter lives both with you --
15 A She lives with both me in Maryland and also
16 with my husband Dr. Michael Pfeiffer in Washington, D.C.
17 Q All right.
18 And how long have you and your husband been
19 separated?
20 A We’ve been separated since June 18, 2007.
21 Q All right.
22 And briefly describe the circumstances of the
23 separation.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
24
1 A On June 9th my husband graduated from the
2 neurology program at Georgetown University Hospital and
3 by June 18th we got notice that our house was going to be
4 foreclosed on --
5 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, this is not
6 relevant.
7 THE COURT: Sustained.
8 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, she’s setting the
9 scene here, bringing us up to today.
10 THE COURT: I don’t need to know that. At the
11 full custody hearing obviously the Court can hear that,
12 but this is very limited --
13 MR. CALLAHAN: There is visitation that the
14 Court ordered. I just want to talk a little bit about
15 the circumstances before and the parenting relationship
16 before and visitation access she tried to provide.
17 THE COURT: -- because obviously if we had a
18 full hearing, you’d get into all of this as far as the
19 abilities of the parties to provide for the child.
20 MR. CALLAHAN: All right.
21 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
22 Q And did there come a time that this Court
23 entered an order regarding custody, the first order?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
25
1 A Yes, that’s correct. I was homeless for three
2 weeks, found a home but lived with friends --
3 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevance, Your
4 Honor.
5 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
6 Q We’re moving along in time here, Dr. King. Did
7 there come a time when this Court entered --
8 THE COURT: Unless you think this is relevant
9 to, I mean, I don’t see how this is relevant, being
10 homeless for three weeks --
11 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m asking her something else.
12 THE COURT: Okay, but if it is, I’d like to
13 hear it.
14 MR. CALLAHAN: I think she misunderstood my
15 question.
16 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
17 Q Did there come a time that the Court here
18 entered an order regarding custody of your child and
19 visitation and access?
20 A Yes, that was on September 5, 2007.
21 Q So briefly, what were the terms regarding your
22 husband’s visitation and access?
23 A I think the Court gave him every Wednesday to
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
26
1 Thursday and Saturday to Sunday or Sunday to Monday, and
2 actually, after we both met in the courtroom on September
3 5th, he and I met for about four to five hours talking
4 about the fact that even though the Court gave that
5 access, that it would be open access to visit Ariana
6 Leilani at our home at any time he wanted to.
7 And he actually did take us up on going to some
8 things together and so on and so forth. So he, the Court
9 ordered visitation, but we made a longer visitation
10 schedule, which is pretty much an open one.
11 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, none responsive. I
12 move to strike that.
13 THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
14 MR. CALLAHAN: The question was about
15 visitation. Thank you, Your Honor.
16 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
17 Q All right. So there was some variance from the
18 Court ordered visitation?
19 A Yes, I mean, we as parents decided that there
20 are times, for example, when the German School opened up
21 for the first day. It’s traditional that both parents
22 go, so we went together, which was very nice. The
23 Organization of American States that I work for had
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
27
1 something for children, an art program. We went to that
2 today.
3 Q All right. So --
4 THE COURT: The question, I think he asked, did
5 you all have, you all varied from the order?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, we did.
7 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
8 Q So was there some visitation, some time with
9 your child that Dr. Pfeiffer had that was not ordered?
10 A Of course.
11 Q Okay.
12 And then was there any time where visitation
13 was ordered that he did not have that exact time?
14 A Yes, there were overnights when she was sick,
15 the German School had a bout, one of the worst years the
16 teachers said --
17 THE COURT: Ma’am, just answer the question.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
20 Q Explain briefly, if you would, some of those
21 times and the reasons for them.
22 A Between, I think it was about November and some
23 parts of December, January, there were lots of viruses
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
28
1 going around the school and actually some of the children
2 actually had seizures from the viruses. And Ariana
3 Leilani, like other children, picked up the viruses.
4 Several of those times I actually took her to
5 the doctor to try to figure out what was wrong.
6 Q Did you and her father have any discussions
7 about her sickness and the impact on visitation?
8 A Yes, it was actually, he came over on
9 Wednesday. This was not unusual to come over to our home
10 and stay there and, you know, do things in the house.
11 But he came over, and he actually came sometimes with his
12 stethoscope and checked her out because she had some
13 wheezing.
14 Q Uh huh.
15 A And so he would come over and we discussed that
16 maybe it wouldn’t be good for her to go out in the snow.
17 It was very cold. So he would stay until 9:00 or 10:00
18 o’clock at night, put her to bed, read her a story, and
19 we both agreed on that happening.
20 Q All right.
21 Were there ever times that you didn’t agree on
22 whether she was well enough to go overnight?
23 A I do remember once that my husband actually
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
29
1 said to me, you know, I’m not really sure about this, I
2 don’t agree with you. And on that day I went to the
3 pediatrician. She had diarrhea. She had been throwing
4 up. And it wasn’t just those days. She was actually out
5 of school from Tuesday, sometimes until Thursday because
6 the school has a policy that when the child is sick, you
7 can’t bring them back until they stop showing symptoms.
8 Q All right.
9 Now, you understand that the Courts have
10 entered orders regarding visitation and access?
11 A Yes.
12 Q You understand that now the Court has ordered
13 that your husband has primary custody and you have the
14 visitation and access?
15 A Yes.
16 Q What’s your understanding about how binding
17 those orders are on you?
18 A They are law.
19 Q Okay.
20 And what’s your understanding about the future,
21 in the future, unless and until they are modified, what
22 are you going to do with respect to those orders?
23 A Well, I understand that they are law and I
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
30
1 believe that only if both parents agreed, then you
2 modify, for example, you give more or less like I did
3 with my husband when I had primary custody. I gave more.
4 Q The two of you can change the times of this?
5 A Yes, or make by mutual agreement. I think I
6 understand that.
7 Q Okay. Did there come a time that Dr. Lane was
8 appointed the custody evaluator in this matter?
9 A I know that both my counsel and his counsel
10 talked about someone and his counsel contacted Dr. Lane.
11 I think that the original order said that we needed to
12 have a custody evaluator.
13 Q Right.
14 A But no name.
15 Q He was not named in the order?
16 A No, but we needed a custody evaluator.
17 Q All right.
18 And eventually you got, the position was filled
19 by Dr. Lane?
20 A That’s correct.
21 Q Okay.
22 Did you ever meet with Dr. Lane?
23 A Yes, on many occasions.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
31
1 Q Okay.
2 Did you, did he do any testing?
3 A Yes, he gave me many, many tests.
4 Q Okay.
5 Did you ever meet with him with your daughter?
6 A Yes, I met with him with my daughter three
7 times and actually one day I had to meet him with my
8 daughter and my husband had to meet with him with my
9 daughter. And my daughter, for almost eight hours that
10 day, was shuffled back and forth.
11 THE COURT: That’s not responsive.
12 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. You told me a little more
13 than we needed to know.
14 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
15 Q Did you ever miss an appointment with him?
16 A Yes, I did.
17 Q How many?
18 A I missed one appointment.
19 Q Did he ever change appointments, cancel
20 appointments?
21 A Yes, there were times that he had to change the
22 scheduled appointment for whatever reason. Also, he’s
23 canceled some appointments, but mostly at the end.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
32
1 Q Did he ever ask for any records?
2 A No, he’s never asked me for any records.
3 Q Okay, no medical records, no records of any
4 kind were ever delivered to him?
5 A I think that he asked once for Ariana Leilani’s
6 pediatric records and I believe my counsel at the time, I
7 was sitting in his office, faxed it to him.
8 Q Okay. So now you understand that although he
9 was not named in the order, you had to cooperate?
10 A Yes, it was actually my pleasure to cooperate
11 with him.
12 Q Did you try to cooperate with him?
13 A Yes, I believe I did cooperate with him. I
14 went when I was asked to go.
15 Q Okay.
16 A And I participated in what I was asked to
17 participate in.
18 Q All right.
19 He has now withdrawn. You understand there’s
20 going to be another custody evaluation?
21 A Yes, I do.
22 Q And you understand that you will be ordered to
23 cooperate in that?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
33
1 A Yes, I do.
2 Q Okay.
3 Do you understand that we don’t know who it’s
4 going to be today?
5 A Yes, I did.
6 THE COURT: Dr. McFarland.
7 THE WITNESS: Dr. Eban?
8 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
9 Q No, it’s Dr. McFarland. Do you understand
10 you’ll be ordered to cooperate with him?
11 A Yes, of course.
12 THE COURT: Well, I already ordered her to
13 cooperate. It’s already in the order.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: Right.
16 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
17 Q And you’re going to do that?
19 Q Okay.
20 Now, the visitation that’s been ordered in
21 February, what’s the current status of visitation? When
22 do you see your daughter?
23 A I see my daughter on Wednesday from 8:00 to
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
34
1 6:00, but she goes to school but my last counsel and his
2 counsel worked out until 7:00 or 7:30 depending. They
3 say if I’ve done something right or if I’m good, on
4 Thursdays, the other day that we’ve chosen, once again
5 from 8:00 a.m. until about 7:00 or 7:30. And then three
6 out of four weekends starting at Shabbat, because we’re
7 Jewish, on Friday ending at 4:00 on Sunday. And if there
8 are five weekends, then --
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevance.
10 MR. CALLAHAN: That’s all about visitation,
11 Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: But that’s not a dispute of her
13 violating the last order, is it?
14 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, it’s a long case.
15 I’m just trying to give it some context. Life goes on
16 every day. The parents are bringing the child back and
17 forth and, I think, certainly in deciding whether to hold
18 her in contempt, et cetera, the Court needs to look at
19 what these parties have done regarding visitation
20 throughout the case.
21 MR. O’CONNELL: Can I be heard on that, Your
22 Honor?
23 THE COURT: No, I think we need to focus on the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
35
1 prior order and compliance with the prior order. There’s
2 no allegation, well, I don’t know if other things have
3 been filed, if there’s an allegation that someone has not
4 been following that order. But right now we’re talking
5 about this order.
6 MR. CALLAHAN: That’s true; there’s been
7 filings regarding --
8 THE COURT: I haven’t looked at it all, so I
9 don’t know what you all have filed.
11 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
12 Q And so when visitation was not precisely as
13 ordered, why was that, back when you had custody of your
14 daughter?
15 A I would call and email my husband. Usually it
16 was because Ariana Leilani was very ill, and actually
17 there are pediatric records I think that you put in, I
18 thought, as evidence to show that she had wheezing. She
19 had bronchitis. She had a diarrhea and throw up virus.
20 And it’s actually been documented by the pediatrician
21 that she was quite ill at the time.
22 Q Medical records?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
36
1 MR. CALLAHAN: Nothing further.
2 CROSS EXAMINATION
3 BY MR. O’CONNELL:
4 Q Dr. King, would you tell me when you decided
5 that Dr. Lane was not to be cooperated with any more?
6 A I never made such a decision.
7 MR. CALLAHAN: It assumes facts not in
8 evidence, Your Honor.
10 Q Well, isn’t it true that Dr. Lane made several
11 requests for appointments with you after the November 8th
12 hearing that you refused to attend?
13 A No, actually after the November 8th hearing, Dr.
14 Lane never called me, never.
15 Q Didn’t, so it’s your sworn testimony that Dr.
16 Lane never called you. Did the Guardian ad Litem ever
17 request that you cooperate with Dr. Lane by attending a
18 particular or by setting up a -- strike that. I’m going
19 to take all that back.
20 Did you call Dr. Lane to set up a hearing after
21 November 8th?
22 A I did not call Dr. Lane. I didn’t know that I
23 was supposed to or needed to. Before that he called me,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
37
1 emailed. He was in contact with me all the time. It was
2 very normal for him to tell me which dates he had
3 available. He was a very busy gentleman.
4 Q So it’s your position that the reason there
5 were no meetings after November 8th was because Dr. Lane
6 didn’t call you?
7 A Previously to November 8th when we were going to
8 have a custody trial, Dr. Lane would call me with the
9 open dates and times that he had. He did this also
10 because he had specific tests or specific items that he
11 wanted to cover and he knew how much time that would
12 take.
13 So sometimes he’d ask me for one hour, two
14 hours, three hours, or four hours. So he would call me
15 with what time and date he wanted to see me.
16 Q Is it your position that you didn’t have any
17 obligation to contact Dr. Lane after November 8th?
18 A I’m not sure about obligation. I cooperated
19 with him. When he asked me to go to a particular meeting
20 on a particular day --
21 THE COURT: That’s not the question he asked
22 you.
23 THE WITNESS: Would you please repeat the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
38
1 question?
3 Q Is it your position that after November 8th you
4 didn’t have an obligation to call Dr. Lane to coordinate
5 when the next meeting would be?
6 A I understood that I had an obligation --
7 THE COURT: Yes or no?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes or no?
9 THE COURT: It’s a yes or no question.
10 THE WITNESS: No, I did not understand that I
11 should have called Dr. Lane after November 8th.
13 Q Isn’t it true that Dr. Lane contacted your
14 lawyer, Raymond Benzinger, and requested that you
15 cooperate in setting up an appointment?
16 A I don’t know anything about that. My lawyer or
17 counsel never told me anything about that. Before that
18 Dr. Lane contacted me by phone and by email directly.
19 THE COURT: Answer the question, please.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay.
21 THE COURT: The answer is, no. I’m not aware
22 of any contact with Mr. Benzinger.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
39
1 Q Did you file a complaint with the State Medical
2 Board?
3 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, Your Honor. That’s
4 not part of the rule that’s before the Court.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, actually, Your Honor, it
6 couldn’t be more relevant and it couldn’t be more part of
7 the rule. It’s exactly that act that removed him from
8 his status as, and it’s the ultimate act of lack of
9 cooperation, to torpedo his position and to absolutely
10 defeat the purpose of the Court’s order.
11 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, first, it’s not, it’s not
12 in the rule. It’s not in the allegations for which we
13 were called here to show cause, number one. And the
14 Court shouldn’t hear it. If we can’t go outside the
15 pleading, outside the rule, they shouldn’t be permitted
16 to either. What’s good for the goose is good for the
17 gander, that sort of thing.
18 THE COURT: Well, this goes to her lack of
19 cooperation. You, when you wanted to go outside of what
20 we were talking about, if it was relevant, we would hear
21 it, and I think you agreed it wasn’t relevant to why we
22 were here.
23 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I mean, this is relevance,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
40
1 but it goes to notice and all of that. We’re talking
2 about contempt here.
3 THE COURT: Only -- it goes to whether there
4 was cooperation or not.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: Can you read back the question?
6 Quite frankly, the way I phrased it, I don’t remember
7 exactly how I phrased it and I don’t want another --
8 THE COURT: I think you need to get a little
9 more specific as to what dates you’re talking about, if
10 it’s a date before or after you filed the rule.
11 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I was going to ask her
12 when, I thought that I asked her when.
13 THE COURT: I don’t think you asked her when.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, then I’ll strike that.
15 THE COURT: You just asked her about filing it
16 or something.
17 MR. O’CONNELL: At first I said, did you.
18 THE COURT: Did you, and direct it to when.
20 THE COURT: Because that may be, in fact,
21 irrelevant.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
41
1 Q When did you -- well --
2 THE COURT: First, ask, did you.
4 Q Did you file a complaint against Dr. Lane with
5 the State Medical Board?
6 A Yes.
7 Q When?
8 A I would have to look at my notes to remember
9 exactly the exact date.
10 Q Was it in January of 2008?
11 A As I said, I would have to look at the dates to
12 remember the exact date.
13 Q Was it before or after January 31, 2008?
14 A I have to look at the exact date, but I do know
15 that it was before the end of the year.
16 Q It was -- very well.
17 A As I said, I would have to, I would like to
18 give the Court the proper information and give them the
19 exact date.
20 Q Why did you do that?
21 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I object because it
22 is by both accounts after he filed the rule that we’re
23 here on.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
42
1 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, the rule was
2 entered on February 8th.
4 MR. O’CONNELL: The rule was entered on
5 February 8th.
6 MR. CALLAHAN: And the case was filed December
7 14th.
8 MR. O’CONNELL: In any case, the rule
9 specifically states, as signed, that it’s for her lack of
10 cooperation with the custody evaluator and I think that
11 her actions clearly demonstrated that lack of cooperation
12 and I think that it’s an ultimate lack of cooperation in
13 taking an action that would simply discharge the
14 evaluator of any ability to conduct an evaluation at all.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, counsel filed an
16 application for a rule with respect to this matter, a
17 complaint that the Court has not issued. So it’s all
18 part and parcel of the same thing. He wouldn’t have
19 found it necessary to do so. So I think that proper --
20 THE COURT: But she said she filed the
21 complaint before the end of the year. She’s not specific
22 on the date that she filed the complaint.
23 THE WITNESS: I don’t --
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
43
2 Q Well, why did you do that?
3 THE COURT: Let’s go back, I was looking at the
4 dates.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, from the rule, Your
6 Honor, it looks like you signed it on December 16th.
7 February 8th is the rule on that, the date that the rule
8 was originally set for. It looks like I filed the --
9 THE COURT: Okay. This is just all so much
10 mixed up. Well, another rule that was here today, you
11 said the mother did not -- I granted physical custody of
12 the child to the father until the mother could provide
13 verification she was back in the area where she was
14 living and that she started the psychological evaluation.
15 That was part of the rule that led to the physical
16 custody change.
17 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor. We thought
18 that was on today too.
19 THE COURT: It is.
20 MR. CALLAHAN: Once Mr. O’Connell finishes his
21 cross, may I be permitted to expand the scope of my
22 direct to cover those?
23 THE COURT: Yes.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
44
1 MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you.
2 MR. O’CONNELL: May I proceed, Your Honor?
3 THE COURT: Yes, I’m trying to find your rule.
4 I can’t find that.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: I have a copy of it.
6 THE COURT: Where I signed -- all right.
7 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I guess what I’m --
8 THE COURT: You can go forward and I’ll try to
9 find it. If I decide to strike it, I’ll ignore the
10 testimony.
11 MR. O’CONNELL: I have a copy of the rule right
12 here, Your Honor, if I could pass it forward. It’s
13 essentially, the argument, Your Honor, is I know when it
14 was entered. There was an order entered which says she’s
15 to cooperate, and if you said she failed to cooperate,
16 that’s broad language, and if the broad language in the
17 middle of page 8 of the rule, and she didn’t cooperate
18 and after I filed the rule, she actually accelerated her
19 lack of cooperation.
20 So I think all of her behavior with Dr. Lane is
21 relevant to her motivations. And so I’d like to get into
22 it if I might.
23 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, should I object
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
45
1 question by question or can I have a continuing objection
2 to this line?
3 THE COURT: I’m just looking back at the rule.
4 I’m going to sustain counsel’s objection because the
5 motion clearly says that failure to cooperate with Dr.
6 Lane’s evaluation includes appointments, certain
7 information, to make further appointments and provide
8 further documentation.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, that’s certainly the last
10 time I’m sharing my order with Your Honor. No, I’m just
11 kidding. Well, if I might --
12 THE COURT: If you can connect it to her not
13 cooperating, if you think that corroborates her not
14 cooperating with these things.
15 MR. O’CONNELL: Yes, Your Honor. That’s what I
16 think.
17 THE COURT: If you can tie it in, you can
18 continue. But if you can’t tie it in, then I’m going to
19 disregard all the testimony.
21 Q Were you aware that I filed a rule to show
22 cause in this matter in December with respect to the
23 doctor?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
46
1 A Yes.
2 Q And upon being aware of that, did you then try
3 to contact the doctor to cooperate?
4 THE COURT: I’m sorry, repeat that question,
5 please?
7 Q And upon becoming made aware of the fact that I
8 filed a rule to show cause because of your failure to
9 cooperate with the doctor, did you make any attempt to
10 then contact the doctor and begin cooperation?
11 A I think I knew of the rule to show cause
12 through my counsel even in the new year actually. I
13 personally did not see --
14 THE COURT: But did you, after you gained
15 knowledge of the rule, did you call Dr. Lane to try to
16 cooperate?
17 THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
19 Q Why not?
20 A This whole process is very confusing for
21 someone who doesn’t do it every day.
22 Q Is that your reason, because you were confused?
23 A I’m saying -- I had gone by, in the past Dr.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
47
1 Lane has called me, emailed me and told me what dates and
2 what times he had available for me because --
3 THE COURT: That’s not responsive to the
4 question. The question is after you learned of the rule,
5 did you call Dr. Lane to try to cooperate, is that yes or
6 no?
7 THE WITNESS: I tried to cooperate, but, no, I
8 did not call Dr. Lane.
10 Q And what did your attempts to cooperate, how
11 did they manifest themselves?
12 A To be willing, ready and available when Dr.
13 Lane would call me or email me, as he did many times
14 before, actually before November 8th. That’s the way
15 that we communicated, by email and by calling.
16 Q And it’s your position here, under oath, that
17 your lawyer never informed you that you were supposed to
18 call Dr. Lane?
19 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection to what her lawyer
20 told her.
23 Q Tell me something, were you aware that you were
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
48
1 supposed to be cooperating with Dr. Lane throughout
2 t this period?
3 A Yes, of course.
4 Q And there came a time when you made a decision
5 not to cooperate with him any more, correct?
6 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection.
7 THE WITNESS: That’s not correct.
8 MR. O’CONNELL: So you never decided --
9 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, if the Court would
10 rule.
11 THE COURT: She’s already answered the
12 question. But I think that when your counsel objects,
13 don’t answer.
14 THE WITNESS: I didn’t mean to. I apologize.
15 THE COURT: When someone objects, stop talking.
16 That’s the easiest way to not make it more difficult for
17 your counsel, if you just keep talking.
19 Q When did you decide to file a complaint?
21 THE COURT: Let’s see if you can tell us. I
22 overrule the objection.
23 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, does that mean
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
49
1 you’re allowing it subject to tying it in?
5 Q When did you decide to file a complaint against
6 Dr. Lane?
7 A When I found out from the people that he
8 contacted that he misrepresented himself to about four or
9 five people and they were willing to actually say that
10 had happened in affidavits.
11 Q That’s fine, but when is the question, not how,
12 not what caused it.
13 A You’re asking when, as in a period of time, as
14 I said, when I had found out --
15 THE COURT: What date, what date did you decide
16 to do it?
17 THE WITNESS: It wasn’t on a date because there
18 are specific people at specific times. It wasn’t one
19 date.
20 THE COURT: Well, at some point, you’re making
21 it more difficult than necessary. At some point, you
22 must have said to yourself, I’m going to file a complaint
23 and you filed it. What date, if you recall?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
50
1 THE WITNESS: I don’t recall the exact date.
2 THE COURT: She doesn’t recall the exact date.
4 Q Where were you living at the time?
5 A October 12, 2007, I moved to Potomac, Maryland.
6 THE COURT: Let’s take a recess of this case.
7 It’s 2:00. I have a couple of 2:00 o’clock cases and
8 then I’ll, I think I need to take a break.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, we have a problem.
10 The problem is that this child needs to be picked up at
11 5:00. So he needs to go at quarter of 4:00 --
12 THE WITNESS: 4:45 actually.
13 MR. O’CONNELL: Anyway, he needs to go at
14 quarter of 4:00 to pick up the child.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. O’CONNELL: And what I’d like to do is
17 therefore --
18 THE COURT: We’ll be back with this case at
19 3:00.
21 (Recess.)
22 THE COURT: All right, Ms. King.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
51
1 Q So you testified in your last statement that
2 you moved to Maryland on October 12th, is that correct?
3 A It was a mistake, October 13th.
4 Q Okay, but you didn’t tell Michelle Wood that
5 you had moved at all ever?
6 A (No audible response.)
7 Q Did you ever tell Michelle Wood that you moved?
8 A I believe I did send her a copy of my lease.
9 That’s correct. Yes, I did tell her that I moved.
10 Q When did you send a copy of your lease to her?
11 A When the Court said that I would gain custody
12 back of my child when I moved back and I showed where I
13 was living and I started a psychological exam.
14 Q So that would be after February 8th?
15 A After February 8th?
16 MR. O’CONNELL: Strike that, Your Honor. I
17 withdraw that question.
19 Q So are you saying that that was, you didn’t
20 tell Michelle Wood that you had moved in October until
21 after the, I mean, after 2008 had begun?
22 A I informed my attorney at the time. He knew I
23 had moved and --
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
52
1 THE COURT: Did you tell Ms. Wood?
2 THE WITNESS: I did not directly tell Ms. Wood.
4 Q Did you tell Dr. Lane that you had moved?
5 A Dr. Lane has never asked me about where I
6 lived.
7 Q Really?
8 So you didn’t think it was necessary to
9 cooperate with Dr. Lane to tell him where you were living
10 when he was doing the home study?
11 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, he’s arguing with
12 her, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Sustained. You’re arguing with
14 her.
16 Q Did Dr. Lane tell you that he needed to see you
17 and your daughter in your home?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And was that, did you represent that your home
20 on November 5th, by having the home visit there on
21 November 5th with Dr. Lane, was in Arlington?
22 A I lived in several places. I lived in --
23 THE COURT: Answer the question.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
53
1 THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question.
3 Q Did you represent to Dr. Lane that that was
4 your home at that time?
5 A No, I didn’t.
6 Q And, in fact, it wasn’t until late November
7 that you notified the Court through a praecipe that you
8 had moved, isn’t that correct?
9 A My counsel wrote the praecipe. I had no
10 control over the praecipe.
11 Q Are you telling me that you told your counsel
12 to notify everybody earlier than that?
13 A I don’t tell my counsel what to do; my counsel
14 advises me.
15 Q Well, that’s strange because your counsel told
16 Dr. Lane on December 11th that, to quote, Dr. King has
17 instructed me to refrain from any actions until the Court
18 makes a determination on my motion to dismiss the case
19 for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, she declines for
20 that reason to sign the proper releases. Did you not
21 instruct him like that?
22 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, Your Honor. He’s
23 reading from something. In fairness, can he show it to
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
54
1 me.
2 THE COURT: I overrule the objection. Did you
3 instruct your lawyer --
4 THE WITNESS: My lawyer instructs me; I don’t
5 instruct my lawyer.
6 THE COURT: Did you tell your lawyer to --
7 THE WITNESS: No, I did not instruct my lawyer.
8 He instructs me.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Would you hand that to the
10 witness so that this may refresh her recollection?
12 Q Would you please look at the document that I’m
13 handing you, the December 11th fax on December 12th?
14 A I see the document; I did not write that
15 document.
16 Q Is it your testimony --
17 THE COURT: He didn’t say you wrote the
18 document. He said, did, was your lawyer being accurate
19 when he stated that you told him not to proceed, not to,
20 you know, go through anything until this motion is heard?
21 It’s a very simple question, yes or no.
22 THE WITNESS: No.
23 THE COURT: All right. That’s her answer.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
55
1 No.
3 Q Did you ever tell Dr. Lane before November 8th -
4 - excuse me, strike that.
5 Before, no, did you ever tell Dr. Lane that you
6 had rented a residence in Maryland?
7 A I never told Dr. Lane about any place I lived
8 in Arlington or Maryland and he never asked the question.
9 Q Let me move to a different topic. Isn’t it
10 true that on several days that are set out in the rule to
11 show cause, Dr. Pfeiffer showed up and tried to take your
12 daughter but you said you may not take our daughter on
13 the Wednesday visitations?
14 A When Dr. Pfeiffer, my husband came, as a
15 physician I told him what was wrong with our daughter and
16 I stated to him that she went to the pediatrician. There
17 are records to show that --
18 THE COURT: The question was, did you allow him
19 to take the child, did you or not, did you refuse him
20 visitation on the days in the rule?
21 THE WITNESS: No, I did not refuse him
22 visitation.
23 THE COURT: On those days when he came over,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
56
1 did you refuse to let him have the child?
2 THE WITNESS: No, when he came over, I did not
3 refuse to let him have the child. He visited with our
4 child at the house until she fell asleep.
5 THE COURT: No, you’re not listening to the
6 question. Did you allow him to take the child out of the
7 house?
8 THE WITNESS: He did not take the child out of
9 the house. I did not physically do anything to not allow
10 him to take the child out of the house. We agreed
11 together as parents that when the child was sick, very
12 sick, that she would stay in the house.
14 Q But she wasn’t very sick, was she?
15 A Yes, actually she was.
16 Q All right.
17 Well, let me ask you, did he take her
18 temperature?
19 A Illness is not just by temperature. She was --
20 THE COURT: Ma’am, just answer the question.
21 THE WITNESS: I don’t know. When my husband
22 came over, I --
23 THE COURT: Okay, your answer is good. You
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
57
1 don’t know. What’s the next questions.
2 THE WITNESS: I allowed him privacy, I didn’t
3 see what he did with her.
5 Q Did he tell you she didn’t have a temperature?
6 A On several occasions he did say she didn’t have
7 a temperature, but I also told him she didn’t have a
8 temperature.
9 Q And did he, listen to her breathing to
10 determine whether her respiration was compromised?
11 A I don’t know. I did not see that. He did tell
12 me that he did do that at times.
13 Q And did he tell you that it wasn’t compromised?
14 A He did. He even did it on the day when the
15 pediatric records show that she has bronchitis and is
16 wheezing. Within the records themselves, it did show
17 that she had bronchitis and she was wheezing. It was the
18 same day he told me she wasn’t.
19 MR. O’CONNELL: All right.
20 I’m going to move into evidence the letter of
21 December 11th as Pfeiffer Exhibit 1, Complainant’s Exhibit
22 1.
23 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, hearsay.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
58
2 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, business records
3 exception.
4 THE COURT: Sustained. Whose business records?
5 Who’s going to get that in?
6 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, okay.
7 THE COURT: Dr. Lane isn’t here to get it in as
8 a business record.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: No, Dr. Lane isn’t here to get
10 it in.
11 THE COURT: And it would be his business
12 record. And I guess he sent you a copy of it. So do you
13 have somebody here to get it in as business record
14 exception?
16 Q Do you have any awareness or did you have any
17 awareness that Dr. Lane was in November and December
18 seeking an appointment with you?
19 A No.
20 Q Did you have any awareness that Dr. Lane was
21 seeking to have you sign certain releases?
22 A No.
23 Q You are familiar with the laws against perjury?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
59
1 A Yes, very much so.
2 Q And Mr. Benzinger didn’t tell you about either
3 of those things?
4 A The time that I heard about the medical records
5 were literally months later when he sent that. Anyway, I
6 heard about it months later. I never knew about it when
7 he was asked about it, no.
8 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, that’s all I have for now
9 and I’m going to, since we’re coming at just about
10 quarter of and I’ve finished this and we’re about to get
11 into another area, I’m going to tell my client that he
12 can go because he’s not under any compulsion to go. And
13 if that means that he can’t testify right now, that’s
14 what it means. It means, but it’s more important that
15 the child get picked up. There has been an offer to have
16 the au pair pick the child up. That’s not acceptable to
17 us.
18 And there’s also been a representation that she
19 drives, and there’s also been a representation that she
20 doesn’t drive. My client thinks that she may have a
21 driver’s license, but it’s a judgment and he’d rather go
22 pick her up, even if it means that it compromises his
23 position in this case, I mean, not in this case, in this
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
60
1 particular rule. If that’s okay with Your Honor, is that
2 okay with Your Honor?
3 THE COURT: Were you going to call him as a
4 witness?
5 MR. CALLAHAN: I was not going to call him.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 MR. O’CONNELL: Very well.
8 THE COURT: Any redirect? You wanted to go --
9 MR. CALLAHAN: No redirect, Your Honor. I do
10 want to expand my direct to cover the other rule. I
11 would like to call Dr. King’s mother first.
12 THE COURT: Okay, you can have a seat, Ma’am.
13 MR. CALLAHAN: I call Margo King.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: Could we have a proffer of
15 relevance, Your Honor?
16 THE COURT: Counsel?
17 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, I think that just, there
18 was a motion to continue filed and I think that just the
19 pleadings, the representations was that Dr. King’s mother
20 was not really all that ill. We’d like to put on
21 evidence that she did what was necessary.
22 THE COURT: That’s not, I don’t understand the
23 relevance of that testimony.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
61
1 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I --
2 THE COURT: That’s not part of the rule.
3 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the rule is --
4 THE COURT: I don’t think I have ever
5 questioned that her mother was sick. I mean, I said that
6 she could go take care of her mom and leave the child
7 here is what I said.
8 MR. CALLAHAN: Well --
9 THE COURT: I never, I don’t think there was, I
10 don’t know if anyone ever, I read the, I guess one of the
11 motions filed by someone said that she wasn’t as sick as
12 the mother said she was, but it really is not why we’re
13 here today, is it?
14 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, that certainly played into
15 the denial of the motion to continue and you ordered to
16 bring the child back.
17 THE COURT: Yes, but that’s not why we’re here
18 today, right?
19 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, we’re here about the
20 transfer of custody and the three conditions that the
21 Court --
22 THE COURT: Well, that’s not why we’re here.
23 We’re here for allegations that she didn’t cooperate with
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
62
1 Dr. Lane, that she failed to comply with the custody
2 order allowing visitation on Wednesday night and that she
3 took the child from the father before providing
4 verification of the things that she was supposed to
5 verify with the Court, the psychological, the new
6 address, those things. That’s why we’re here.
7 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor. But it
8 certainly seems relevant. One of the three conditions
9 was to establish that you’re back in the area.
10 THE COURT: Right.
11 MR. CALLAHAN: Custody was transferred as a
12 result of her being in Atlanta with the child.
13 THE COURT: No, it was transferred, that’s not
14 why it was transferred because she was in Atlanta. It
15 was transferred because she didn’t comply with the
16 orders.
18 THE COURT: And so I said the child stays here.
19 The mother can go to Atlanta and the child stays here.
20 She didn’t comply. It wasn’t because she went to Atlanta
21 with the child. That’s not why it was transferred. She
22 didn’t, you know, how she did it.
23 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, there was certainly
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
63
1 a suggestion, I think, from reading the transcripts that
2 this was part of my client’s non-cooperation in this case
3 and --
4 THE COURT: Exactly. It’s part of her non-
5 cooperation, yes.
6 MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, we would like to dispel
7 that notion. Her mother is here; I would like six,
8 seven, eight questions --
9 THE COURT: If you proffer to me that she was
10 sick, I’ll take your word. I’ll take it as being the
11 truth as counsel agrees.
12 MR. O’CONNELL: No, I agree actually that she
13 had neurological events, Your Honor. To the extent, but
14 I don’t think, that’s sort of relevant in another, in the
15 custody hearing, but I don’t see how it’s relevant in the
16 rule to show cause hearing.
17 MR. CALLAHAN: Her life was in danger. She was
18 working as a practicing psychologist two months ago and
19 now she’s under a physician’s care.
20 THE COURT: I know, but my question is, those
21 three rules, but how does this relate to the three rules?
22 MR. CALLAHAN: I just want to give a little
23 background. All of that had nothing to do with any
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
64
1 animus towards her husband, any intent not to observe
2 those --
3 THE COURT: No, I’m not saying that the mother
4 wasn’t sick. I don’t think, my point is, she could have
5 left the child with the father while she went to take
6 care of her ailing mother. Her mother was, if her mother
7 was in that type of serious medical need and conditions
8 and needed her help, then why not leave the child here
9 for the father to take care of the child while she takes
10 care of her mother. There was not, that’s what parents
11 do.
12 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. Well, we’ll just have her
13 explain that.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I
15 missed the proffer.
16 MR. CALLAHAN: The proffer on which she would
17 testify to is that she was practicing as a psychologist
18 and she had a stroke. She had a debilitating stroke.
19 She was in critical condition. She got a call, rushed to
20 her mother’s side. Months are gone from the mother’s
21 memory and in the mother’s mind, her daughter saved her
22 life.
23 THE COURT: Okay.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
65
1 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I’m tempted to not
2 stipulate to that because it would be free discovery, but
3 actually, in the interest of expediency, I really don’t
4 see how any of that is relevant to the rule.
5 THE COURT: I don’t either. But all right.
6 Ma’am, you can have a seat.
7 MR. CALLAHAN: So --
8 THE COURT: I accept your proffer.
9 MR. CALLAHAN: Oh, okay.
10 THE COURT: But I still don’t see how, maybe
11 you’re going to tie it in to why it’s relevant to not
12 complying with the Court orders.
13 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, could she --
14 THE COURT: As I said, I accept your proffer.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: Oh, okay.
16 THE COURT: I think Counsel said he would, too,
17 even though he would be giving up free discovery, as he
18 stated.
19 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. All right.
20 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, I would still
21 invoke the rule because she’s going to be a witness in
22 the case later, I expect, unless he says she’s not going
23 to be a witness.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
66
1 THE COURT: Are you calling her back today?
2 MR. O’CONNELL: I don’t mean in this case; I
3 mean in the custody case.
4 THE COURT: No.
5 MR. CALLAHAN: We may call her.
6 THE COURT: She can stay in.
7 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay, thank you, Your Honor.
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION (resumed)
9 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
10 Q There was a hearing in this Court on February
11 8th, do you recall, that had been scheduled sometime in
12 advance, correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And did you, where were you right up to the
15 date of Court?
16 A Actually, on the morning of the 8th I flew from
17 Atlanta, Georgia, to Washington, D.C., to attend that
18 hearing.
19 Q To attend that hearing, okay. And at that
20 hearing, at that hearing the Court entered an order,
21 correct?
22 A Correct.
23 Q How did you learn of what the order was?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
67
1 A While, at the hearing, Your Honor said what
2 needed to be done, including the transfer of the child to
3 my husband.
4 Q So what did you actually do?
5 A I had to get my child by, it was a Friday --
6 Q Uh huh.
7 A So my child was in Atlanta. I had to get
8 Ariana Leilani from Atlanta to Washington, D.C., by
9 Sunday at 3:00 and actually bring her to her father’s
10 house so that he could care for her while I returned back
11 to Atlanta to care for my mother.
12 Q Okay.
13 Now, so what did you do as a result when you
14 heard that Friday? What was the next thing you did?
15 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevancy, Your
16 Honor. We can stipulate that she came all the way back
17 and dropped the child off at 3:00 with the father. We
18 can go and the father had the child at that point. We
19 can skip forward to that point, would that be okay?
20 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, there’s a suggestion
21 that she willfully disobeyed the order --
22 THE COURT: Okay, go ahead and ask your
23 question.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
68
1 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
2 Q What did you do as a result of that? What was
3 the next thing you did when you left the Court that’s
4 relevant to all of this.
5 A Right, okay.
6 I went back to Atlanta, packed up some things
7 for my daughter and the au pair that’s been staying with
8 us since July --
9 Q Okay.
10 A Came back, called my husband and arranged a
11 time that I would be dropping her off and dropped her off
12 on Sunday before the Court ordered.
13 Q Okay, so when did you fly back, what day, to
14 Atlanta?
15 A I flew here on Friday and I flew back on
16 Friday.
17 Q Friday, okay.
18 And then when did you fly back here?
19 A Because I was supposed to take care of my
20 mother.
21 Q Right, when did you fly back here?
22 A I flew back on Sunday morning.
23 Q Okay.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
69
1 A With my daughter.
2 Q With your daughter.
3 A And the au pair.
4 Q And then you returned her, you --
5 A Yes, I took her to her father’s house.
6 Q Okay.
7 What time?
8 A It was about 2:00 something or other.
9 Q Okay.
10 What did you do next?
11 A I then arranged to fly back to Atlanta.
12 Q Uh huh.
13 A And one of my family members stayed at the
14 hospital with my mother because at the time she was in an
15 altered mental state, which meant she couldn’t sign
16 anything for herself, so --
17 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevancy.
19 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
20 Q Flew back to --
21 A Flew back to Atlanta.
22 Q Okay.
23 A After, on the way flying back to Atlanta, I got
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
70
1 a call from one of her attending physicians and the
2 attending physician --
3 Q You can’t say what the physician said.
4 So as a result of that, was your mother going
5 to be discharged from the hospital?
6 A They had told me that they could not put her in
7 rehabilitation, that I should try to put her in a nursing
8 home.
9 Q And okay.
10 And what was her, just from your observation as
11 her daughter --
12 A Her state at that time, they actually said that
13 even though she was stable, she wasn’t able to sit up,
14 let alone walk or stand up. She literally was like a
15 baby at six months who doesn’t sit up.
16 Q Right.
17 A You know how babies first learn to sit up.
18 Q Right.
19 A And that’s, when she was discharged, that’s how
20 she was discharged. They said that was not an illness,
21 that was just part of the rehabilitation.
22 Q Okay.
23 And she has a home in Atlanta?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
71
1 A That’s correct.
2 Q Okay.
3 A And a private practice that involved going to
4 clinics.
5 Q Okay.
6 Who does she live with there?
7 A She lives by herself.
8 Q Okay.
9 So what did you think was necessary to do then?
10 A It was necessary --
11 Q What did you --
12 A I did not want to put her in the nursing home,
13 so it was necessary for me to bring her back to my home
14 in Maryland to take care of her.
15 Q Okay.
16 A Because it’s honor thy father and thy mother.
17 Q How did you get her back here?
18 A I drove with her. I put an aerobed in the car
19 --
20 Q Uh huh.
21 A Because once again she wasn’t moving well and,
22 I guess, it was 11 or 12 hours.
23 Q Okay.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
72
1 And when was that?
2 A I believe that was Monday.
3 Q Now, the Court ordered you to bring Ariana
4 Leilani back here and give her to her father primary
5 custody until what?
6 A Until I returned to the area, until I gave
7 proof of where I was living --
8 Q Uh huh.
9 A -- and I started the psychological exam.
10 Q Okay.
11 So and was there any, at the time of the
12 hearing, was there any suggestion that this Court was
13 going to decide this sometime later?
14 A Uh --
15 Q Did you have to file a request with the Court?
16 A No.
17 Q No? Okay. So what did you do about
18 fulfilling those conditions when you arrived back?
19 A Well, first of all, I arrived back and I sent
20 an email to Ms. Wood and Ms. Olin telling them that I am
21 back and also attached a copy of the lease for our home
22 in Potomac, Maryland.
23 Q Okay.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
73
1 A That’s the first thing I did.
2 Q And did you contact anybody regarding starting
3 psychological testing?
4 A Yes, the second thing that I did is I actually
5 contacted Virginia Social Service Agency and said that I
6 needed to take a psychological exam and they referred me
7 to an appropriate person.
8 Q Okay.
9 And did you give this information, how was this
10 information going to get to the Court, to Her Honor
11 beyond --
12 A I worked with my counsel and he actually knew
13 when I came back and knew that I had sent the information
14 of where I was living and also about starting the
15 psychological.
16 Q Okay.
17 And was it your understanding he was going to
18 do something to notify the Court?
19 A Yes, he had informed me that he would.
20 Q Don’t tell me what your lawyer said. Now, so
21 you’re back in the area on Monday. Did you see your
22 daughter on Monday?
23 A No.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
74
1 Q Did you contact her father, your husband?
2 A I don’t know. I don’t know whether we spoke or
3 not because usually he and I both speak to her every
4 night.
5 Q Okay.
6 Did you, well, where did you, did you say she
7 was at school?
8 A Yes, I think he told me that. I misspoke. At
9 10:00 actually I called him to say how was her first day
10 at school. How did she adjust --
11 Q A.m. or p.m?
12 A A.m, because she had been out of school for a
13 while.
14 Q Right.
15 A He said, I’m late, but I’m going to be bringing
16 her to school and I said, okay. That was at 10:00 a.m.
17 Q Okay.
18 And then did you talk to him again that day?
19 A Yes, that evening actually I called just to say
20 goodnight, like he does. We both do that and asked how
21 was her day and she said she didn’t go to school. She
22 went to Chuck E. Cheese.
23 Q Okay.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
75
1 So what, if anything, did he say about Tuesday?
2 A He said that he was going to take her to the
3 German School on Tuesday morning.
4 Q Okay.
5 And so what did you do on Tuesday?
6 A On Tuesday, I think about 10:30, 11:00, I
7 packed up one of her lunch boxes and brought it to the
8 school.
9 Q Okay.
10 And did you see her then?
11 A She wasn’t there.
12 Q Okay.
13 And did you, what was your reaction to that, if
14 anything?
15 A Well, I saw the headmaster. First of all, I
16 didn’t even know right away that she wasn’t there. The
17 director of the school called me into her office --
18 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection. I’m objecting to
19 any testimony about what anyone at the school might say.
21 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, actually I have a
22 letter that --
23 MR. O’CONNELL: Hearsay.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
76
1 MR. CALLAHAN: -- that she’s the recipient of
2 and I’d like to offer it for the effect on the --
3 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Exception.
5 THE COURT: What exception would that be?
6 MR. CALLAHAN: It’s not offered for the truth
7 of the matter therein asserted. It’s offered for its
8 effect on the state of mind of the recipient, Ms. King.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Except, Your Honor, excuse me,
10 except, Your Honor, this has nothing to do with the order
11 and so it couldn’t possibly be relevant.
12 THE COURT: How is it relevant to why we’re
13 here today?
14 MR. CALLAHAN: What?
15 THE COURT: I said why is it relevant to why we
16 are here today?
17 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, it’s the school saying
18 they don’t know where her child is. So --
19 THE COURT: But the issue is where has she
20 been?
21 MR. CALLAHAN: Excuse me, Your Honor?
22 THE COURT: I guess I don’t understand why that
23 would be relevant.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
77
1 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the proffer is she’s
2 testified that the father said I’m taking her to school,
3 I’m taking her to school. She gets to school, and the
4 child is not at school, hasn’t seen the child.
5 THE COURT: So you call the father and find out
6 where the child is.
7 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay, well --
8 THE COURT: Right?
9 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I mean, she spoke to him
10 twice and then she went there. It’s offered to show why
11 she went there.
12 THE COURT: Why she went where, to school?
13 MR. CALLAHAN: No, she went to the school
14 because she thought her daughter was there.
16 MR. CALLAHAN: This is offered to show, she was
17 concerned about the whereabouts of her daughter. She
18 hadn’t seen her. She wanted to make -- and she went to
19 the father’s house, for one thing, to confirm that, in
20 fact, her daughter was here.
21 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, that doesn’t show
22 that.
23 THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the objection.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
78
1 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
2 Q So when you left the school, after what had
3 transpired there, did you have any concerns?
4 A Yes, I did.
5 Q And what were they?
6 A My concerns after hearing from the people at
7 the school, was that I didn’t know where my daughter was
8 and I was advised to call the German Embassy to try to
9 find her.
10 Q Okay.
11 All right.
12 MR. O’CONNELL: Hearsay, move to strike.
13 THE COURT: Okay. I really don’t understand
14 what she is really saying here.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: I think she’s saying that on
16 that date she didn’t know where her daughter was.
17 THE COURT: Because she went to the school and
18 she wasn’t at school?
19 MR. CALLAHAN: Two days in a row she didn’t
20 know where she was.
21 THE COURT: I still don’t get it, so she goes
22 to the school two days in a row and her daughter isn’t
23 there. Why doesn’t she just call the father and find out
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
79
1 why the child isn’t in school.
2 MR. CALLAHAN: She did call the father twice
3 and twice he said I’m bringing her to school and twice he
4 didn’t.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 MR. CALLAHAN: And then she went to the cops.
7 THE COURT: Okay, ask your next question.
8 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
9 Q Okay, now, there was, the order, what, if
10 anything, did you think you had to do about the three
11 conditions, what, if anything, further did you think you
12 had to do regarding the three conditions for custody
13 being transferred back to you?
14 A I needed to inform my counsel and my counsel I
15 believe needed to also do something to inform the Court.
16 Q Okay.
17 And so I’m talking about after you informed
18 your counsel. Well, first, when did you inform your
19 counsel?
20 A I spoke with him on Monday and then again on
21 Tuesday.
22 Q And, okay, so what, if anything, after that did
23 you think you had to do?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
80
1 A After leaving the German School, I called my
2 counsel and spoke with him about getting my daughter.
3 Q Okay.
4 Without telling me what your counsel said,
5 after you gave him this information, after that, what, if
6 anything, did you think you had to do?
7 A Just call my husband and go get my daughter.
8 MR. CALLAHAN: All right. May I approach to
9 have this marked?
10 THE COURT: Yes. Can you show counsel?
11 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
12 Q Okay, I’m showing you two documents that will
13 be marked as 1 and 2. Now, what is document number one?
14 A Document No. 1 is a bill from my attorney.
15 Q Okay.
16 A At the time --
17 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevancy, hearsay.
18 MR. CALLAHAN: I think it is, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Why is it relevant?
20 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, it shows that on the day
21 we’re talking about, her attorney made time entries for a
22 call with her and a praecipe. And I think she’s
23 testified that the praecipe is about her meeting the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
81
1 three conditions and transmitting that information to her
2 counsel and the praecipe is going to come to the Court.
3 THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
5 THE COURT: Hearsay. Because she could get in
6 all sorts of trouble with attorney/client privilege.
7 She’s basically waiving it and her counsel may be called
8 as a witness against her. So, you know, I mean, you
9 know, she’s got to be careful here.
11 THE COURT: You know, with attorney/client
12 privilege here, don’t you think?
13 MR. CALLAHAN: I understand --
14 THE COURT: But then I don’t know --
15 MR. CALLAHAN: I don’t think that she can
16 testify about what they talked to.
17 THE COURT: Understand that you’re going to
18 open the door.
19 MR. O’CONNELL: I think she’s opening the door.
20 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay, well I will pull it back,
21 Your Honor, since we’re not admitting it anyway.
22 THE COURT: I mean, if you want to, if you want
23 to go there, I mean, you know, I don’t know if you want
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
82
1 to go there.
2 MR. CALLAHAN: Not any more. Not any more.
3 THE COURT: I mean, I don’t know if you thought
4 about that, but --
5 MR. CALLAHAN: Not deeply apparently, but I
6 appreciate the admonition so it’s withdrawn.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
9 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
10 Q Now, I’ve shown you what’s been marked as No.
11 2, Exhibit No.2. Would you identify that?
12 A Yes, it’s a cell phone bill from my telephone.
13 Q And for what day? Some of it is redacted.
14 What are the dates, the day --
15 A February 12th.
16 Q Who did you call on that day?
17 THE COURT: What number did you dial for each
18 call?
19 THE WITNESS: After I went to the German School
20 --
21 THE COURT: I just need to know what number did
22 you reach the father at?
23 THE WITNESS: His cell phone number.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
83
1 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
2 Q Okay.
3 A I also called my husband, which is unavailable.
4 Q Okay.
5 A I also called my counsel and was on the phone
6 with him for 27 minutes.
7 Q Okay.
8 All right.
9 What did you do next?
10 A After calling my counsel, I went to, I called
11 my husband and said that I have talked to my counsel and
12 --
13 Q Don’t tell me what you said --
14 A I called my husband and I said, I’ve met all
15 the conditions, the three conditions, and I’ve come to
16 pick up Ariana Leilani and that the next day he would
17 have the visitation, which was Wednesday. This was a
18 Tuesday.
19 Q And where were you when you called?
20 A I was in Washington, D.C.
21 Q And then did you go there, to his apartment?
22 A Yes, I did.
23 Q And did he agree to let you take your daughter?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
84
1 A No, he said, no, I don’t think so.
2 Q Did he agree to let you see your daughter?
3 A No, he opened the door and saw me downstairs,
4 actually outside and he slammed the door.
5 Q Okay.
6 And what did you do next?
7 A After he slammed the door, there was screaming
8 and crying, so I then called 9-1-1.
9 Q Who was screaming and crying?
10 A Our daughter, Ariana Leilani was screaming and
11 crying and banging on the door.
12 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. Your Honor, we’d like to
13 offer the tape of that call. She was a participant in
14 it.
15 THE COURT: The call to 9-1-1?
17 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, that’s not even a --
18 Your Honor, I do not have it in my hand, the statutory
19 citation, but I have litigated it, and essentially what
20 it says is, in a case where custody is at play or in
21 question, that a tape of such call or a tape of any such
22 conversation may not be admitted unless the other side
23 has, is advised at the beginning of the call that it is
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
85
1 being recorded and I’m frankly not sure about the
2 consent, but I don’t think there was any, and in addition
3 to that, there is an exception where if it’s actually
4 evidence of a crime, somebody saying I’m going to kill
5 you on a tape, maybe that comes in. But this is
6 inadmissible, clearly under the statute.
7 THE COURT: What basis do you think the 9-1-1
8 tape comes in?
9 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, first, we’re here on a
10 show cause.
12 MR. CALLAHAN: First, this is a show cause,
13 although this is a custody case, I’ll grant that. But
14 the part about the parties have to be advised and so on--
15 THE COURT: Not at a show cause hearing. It’s
16 not custody; it’s a show cause.
18 THE COURT: But why is it admissible?
19 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I mean, both parties knew
20 they were being recorded. 9-1-1 calls are always
21 recorded.
22 THE COURT: But still, you’ve still got to go
23 with the problem with hearsay.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
86
1 MR. CALLAHAN: It’s an emergency technician
2 making a call in the ordinary course of business.
3 THE COURT: No.
4 MR. CALLAHAN: She can lay the foundation,
5 testify she made the call on that date and requested --
6 THE COURT: No, but you still need an exception
7 to the hearsay rule to get it in.
8 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the exception to the
9 hearsay rule, it’s the ordinary course of their business,
10 but excited utterance --
11 THE COURT: Well, who’s excited, there’s not an
12 excited utterance. She called --
13 MR. CALLAHAN: She’s here.
14 THE COURT: She called the police and had a
15 conversation, how is that an excited utterance?
16 MR. CALLAHAN: The child, you can hear the
17 child in the background and there has been
18 representations in this Court by people who weren’t there
19 --
20 THE COURT: I don’t understand what this has to
21 do with the three reasons why we’re here today.
22 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, it has to do with her
23 meeting the conditions, and we think we’ve established
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
87
1 that and we think that her actions were not in violation
2 of the Court’s order.
3 If the Court thinks otherwise, then the Court
4 needs to know all the circumstances regarding what
5 happened.
6 THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
7 MR. O’CONNELL: Thank you, Your Honor.
8 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
9 Q So you testified that --
10 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I’d like to note an
11 exception to that ruling.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
14 THE COURT: The basis was hearsay and I don’t
15 see how it -- and talked to the 9-1-1 operator. If you
16 want to make excited utterance as an exception, I’m not
17 forbidding from doing that, but I don’t see it as an
18 exception.
19 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay, there’s three voices on
20 there, the 9-1-1 operator, there’s Dr. King who’s here
21 and then there’s the child.
22 THE COURT: And what is the excited utterance
23 of the child say?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
88
1 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, the words, she’s crying,
2 screaming saying, I want my mommy.
3 THE COURT: Well, that’s --
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Or let me see mommy or words to
5 that effect.
6 THE COURT: I don’t see how that’s relevant. I
7 just don’t see why this is relevant.
8 MR. CALLAHAN: The effect on the listener.
9 Your Honor, it’s only relevant --
10 THE COURT: She can testify her daughter is
11 crying and screaming for her.
12 MR. CALLAHAN: There’s nothing like hearing it
13 for yourself, Your Honor. And I will say this, it’s only
14 relevant if you are going to find she didn’t meet the
15 conditions. If you’re not going to find that --
16 THE COURT: Well, I don’t know; I just need to
17 know --
18 MR. CALLAHAN: I think it’s certainly relevant
19 to her wilfullness if, in fact, what she did violated the
20 Court’s order. You’ve got a mother; you’ve got the child
21 on the other side of the door.
22 THE COURT: But it’s obviously just what a
23 child is going to do that hasn’t seen her mother in a
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
89
1 couple of days.
2 MR. CALLAHAN: Yeah.
3 THE COURT: That’s exactly what a child is
4 going to do, cry and scream I want my mommy.
6 THE COURT: That’s not unusual or anything. I
7 don’t know --
8 MR. CALLAHAN: The unusual part is the door
9 wasn’t open.
10 THE COURT: I’m not going to --
12 THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.
13 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
14 Q So you knocked on the door and what did you
15 hear?
16 A My daughter was banging, well, actually I heard
17 my husband Michael tell her to get away from the door.
18 Q Uh huh.
19 A And she was banging and screaming. She’s never
20 done that in our home.
21 Q Okay.
22 A And when she banged and screamed, along with my
23 other thought, I thought there was an emergency. He
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
90
1 didn’t open the door for me. I always open the door for
2 him.
3 Q Okay.
4 Were you alarmed?
5 A Very, very alarmed.
6 Q Okay.
7 So what did you do?
8 A The operator told me, I talked to the operator
9 and I said my daughter is screaming. She said, yes, I
10 hear it. She said walk down the stairs and wait outside.
11 Q You can’t tell me what the operator said.
12 A What -- I walked outside.
13 Q Okay.
14 A I was told, I walked outside.
15 Q All right.
16 And then did the police arrive?
17 A Yes, about 20 minutes later they arrived.
18 Q Okay.
19 And what happened next?
20 A They went inside to talk to my husband. They
21 went into his apartment to talk to him.
22 Q Okay.
23 A I show them the one order that I had, which was
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
91
1 the order.
2 Q You showed them the order, the first order
3 entered by the Court?
4 A Yes, that’s correct, that’s the one that I had.
5 Q All right.
6 Why didn’t you show the order that the Court
7 had entered on February 8th?
8 A I didn’t have that. I didn’t see that actually
9 until I think two weeks later.
10 Q Okay.
11 THE COURT: Well, did you tell them that there
12 was a subsequent order entered by the Court?
13 THE WITNESS: What I didn’t know --
14 THE COURT: No, did you tell the police that
15 there was a subsequent order entered by the Court?
16 THE WITNESS: No, I showed them the order that
17 I had. They asked for the paper.
18 THE COURT: Okay.
19 THE WITNESS: They didn’t go by hearsay.
20 THE COURT: They asked you for the order but
21 you failed to tell them the whole story? You gave them
22 the impression that was the final order in the case,
23 which was not the case. There was a subsequent order
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
92
1 entered and you misled them.
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I please speak to
3 that?
4 THE COURT: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you. As far as I
6 understood, your directions were quite clear to me, come
7 back, show where you’re living and start your
8 psychological exam. I think that there was a time that
9 the counsel asked to come back to Court and you said, no.
10 You said, when she comes back show us where she’s living
11 and starts the psychological exam, that physical custody
12 would shift back to the mother. So when I went there,
13 that’s exactly what I thought I was doing.
14 THE COURT: That’s not the question. The
15 question was, did you tell the police the whole story and
16 the answer is no. You didn’t tell them the whole story,
17 that I had ruled that the child stay with the father
18 until you provide these things to the Court, which the
19 Court at that point had not received any of that. So
20 that’s the problem we have here.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
22 MR. CALLAHAN: Did you know --
23 THE COURT: And as you recall at that hearing,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
93
1 I reversed myself because initially I was like, no, stay
2 with the father up until, you know, stay with you, no,
3 stay with the father until we have the hearing and then I
4 reversed myself and said, no, you know, provide the
5 conditions, physical custody can be returned to you.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: So I don’t know exactly --
8 THE WITNESS: I wouldn’t have done anything to
9 jeopardize that. I was trying to follow what you told me
10 to do.
11 THE COURT: No, that’s not what happened that
12 night. You just assumed, even by your own testimony
13 that’s not what happened.
14 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
15 Q Did you know that the Court had been informed
16 by this time?
17 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, Your Honor --
18 THE COURT: I’m sorry, excuse me -- just let me
19 take a moment.
20 (Brief interruption.)
22 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
23 Q Now, we were talking about previously about the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
94
1 order the Court entered on February 8th and about the
2 conditions, there was also visitation in that order,
3 correct?
4 A Yes, that’s correct.
5 Q The regular schedule?
6 A Right.
7 Q And was there anything else? Did the Court
8 order anything else --
9 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m going to object, Your
10 Honor. I’ve been sort of listening to this. The order
11 speaks for itself. If they want to talk about how she
12 felt about the order, maybe that’s relevant, but the
13 order itself speaks for itself.
14 MR. CALLAHAN: May I proceed?
17 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
18 Q So was it your understanding then that you
19 would get visitation in addition to the scheduled once
20 you got back in town?
21 A Yes, I understood the judge to say that it
22 should be liberal and that when I came back that he
23 should make her, I want to say available, but that I
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
95
1 would be open to see her any time.
2 Q Right.
3 So then --
4 THE COURT: Which order are you referring to?
5 MR. CALLAHAN: The order of February 8th, Your
6 Honor, modifying, my question was regarding the order of
7 February 8th where you were ordered to bring the child
8 back to the Washington area to live with the father and
9 these three conditions.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, and I think also it was said
11 that I could have the weekends. I think Your Honor knows
12 what she ordered that I could have weekends and that I
13 should have some sort of liberal visitation when I came
14 back and that my husband should provide that to me.
15 MR. CALLAHAN: All right. Now, there was also
16 -- nothing further, Your Honor.
17 CROSS EXAMINATION (resumed)
19 Q You didn’t notify Ms. Wood that you were back,
20 did you?
21 A I notified her by email, along with Ms. Wood
22 and Ms. Olin.
23 Q Well, Ms. Wood is who we’re talking about right
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
96
1 now. Did you telephone Ms. Wood?
2 A I sent her an email along with the lease, which
3 I thought was very important because it’s not just a
4 matter of telling her I was back, but I did provide --
5 Q Just answer the question, please.
6 A I emailed Ms. Wood.
7 Q When?
8 A On the 12th.
9 Q What time?
10 A I think in the afternoon.
11 Q After you picked up the child?
12 A Along with a lease, which was most important, I
13 had to --
14 Q After you, excuse me, after you picked up the
15 child, yes or no?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And who else did you notify, well, who did you
18 notify before you picked up the child that you were back?
19 A My counsel.
20 Q Other than your counsel, anybody else?
21 A I notified my husband.
22 Q When did you notify your husband you were back
23 in town?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
97
1 A The day that I came back, which was Tuesday,
2 and I found out she wasn’t in school. I thought he was
3 at work actually, so I don’t usually call him. He’s a
4 physician at the hospital and usually doesn’t take calls.
5 Q What time did you tell him you were back?
6 A Please let me look at the phone records.
7 Q Do you recall independently of the phone
8 records, please?
9 A They’re right here in front of me, so I’d like
10 to look at it.
11 Q I’m not asking you about your phone records.
13 THE COURT: Let her look at the record and see
14 if that refreshes her recollection.
15 THE WITNESS: The first time I called my
16 husband was at 10:52.
18 Q I’m not asking when you called him, I’m asking
19 him when you called him and told him you were back
20 because, isn’t it true, that the first time you called
21 him that day you told him you were in Georgia?
22 A That is true.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
98
1 A I did that because I was scared that he was
2 going to, I was very afraid that he was going to take her
3 and I wouldn’t know what was going on.
4 Q He had surrendered his passport, didn’t he?
5 A No, he did not surrender his passport.
6 Q Did he surrender her passport? I misspoke, did
7 he surrender her passport?
8 A Yes, he did.
9 Q Did he do anything to lead you to believe that
10 he had taken the child out of the country?
11 A Yes, he did.
12 Q What was it?
13 A He lied to me on both occasions of taking her
14 to the German School and the headmaster of the German
15 School said to me, she was afraid --
16 THE COURT: No, that’s hearsay.
17 THE WITNESS: Okay. Ms. Woods was also told
18 this by the German School director. She was afraid that
19 my daughter was going to be taken to Germany and Ms. Wood
20 was told this too.
22 Q Why didn’t you have your attorney call me and
23 negotiate a return since you had essentially completed
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
99
1 the things that you thought that the Court wanted you to
2 complete?
3 A I called my attorney --
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, objection. Why
5 didn’t you have your attorney, that’s not a fair
6 question. Looking back after the fact, why her
7 attorney/client relationship wasn’t different and why she
8 didn’t tell her attorney. I mean, she’s the client.
9 She’s the lay person and I don’t know what her answer
10 could be, but I object.
11 THE COURT: All right. I was taught in law
12 school never to ask why questions unless you know the
13 answer.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: Well --
15 THE COURT: You have to be careful when you ask
16 why questions. What’s your next question?
18 Q What time did you call your attorney?
19 A I called my attorney at 11:05, 11:06 and 11:42.
20 Q And it is your testimony here today that you
21 told your attorney that you were going to go pick up the
22 child yourself?
23 A I actually had spoken to my attorney —
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
100
1 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, objection, objection,
2 attorney/client privilege.
3 THE COURT: Sustained, sustained, sustained.
5 Q Which attorney did you speak with at any time
6 prior to picking up the child?
7 A Mr. Michael Miller.
8 Q Did you speak to him for 25 minutes?
9 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I object to all
10 questions regarding her communications with her attorney.
11 THE COURT: Well, I’ll allow how long she
12 talked to him.
13 THE WITNESS: The first time was one minute.
14 The second time was 26 minutes, including being put on
15 hold and the third time was four minutes.
17 Q How long did you actually talk to him in the 26
18 minutes?
19 A I did not document, I only have what I have in
20 front of me.
21 Q Okay.
22 A I didn’t have a timer at the time.
23 Q More or less than five minutes?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
101
1 A I don’t have a timer, I don’t remember that. I
2 just know that I spoke to my counsel.
3 Q Now you testified that your mother was released
4 from the hospital, when?
5 A My mother was released from the hospital on the
6 morning of the 11th, well, I would say discharged.
7 Q That was Monday?
8 A That was Monday, about 2:00 a.m., 3:00 a.m in
9 the morning.
10 Q And you were under the impression that your
11 mother was very sick then?
12 A Actually she was very sick and believe it or
13 not she’s still pretty sick, but I thank god that she’s
14 alive.
15 Q Then why in the world did you take her, instead
16 of taking her home to Atlanta where she should have been,
17 and drive her all the way here on a 12-hour trip in the
18 back of your car? Isn’t that tough on someone that’s
19 very sick that just had a stroke?
20 A I believe in family and families stick
21 together.
22 THE COURT: Answer the question.
23 THE WITNESS: The question, I --
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
102
1 THE COURT: Someone who just had a stroke --
2 THE WITNESS: What you have to look at are the
3 circumstances.
4 THE COURT: No, just yes or no. Don’t you
5 think that’s tough on someone who just had a stroke and
6 just getting out of the hospital to drive that far?
7 THE WITNESS: I conferred with her doctor and
8 her doctor said that is what we should do.
9 THE COURT: I don’t want to know what the
10 doctor said. It’s a simple question, do you think, what
11 do you think?
12 THE WITNESS: I think you can ask my mother for
13 yourself how it was.
14 THE COURT: No, the question is what do you
15 think. I don’t know what’s so difficult about that?
16 THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I think
17 that she did do okay during that drive.
18 THE COURT: That’s not the question. The
19 question is do you think it was difficult, would be
20 difficult on a person who just had a stroke, who just got
21 out of the hospital to get in a car and drive 12 hours
22 away.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. I think it was
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
103
1 difficult for her.
2 THE COURT: Okay, so that’s your answer.
3 What’s your next question?
4 See, you’re making this more difficult than it
5 has to be. You really are. There’s no trick questions.
6 THE WITNESS: I understand that, Your Honor.
8 Q Did you attempt through third parties, before
9 picking up the child, to arrange for a negotiated pick up
10 of the child?
11 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, Your Honor. That’s
12 the same question as before.
13 THE COURT: How’s that question different?
14 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, third parties, it doesn’t
15 have to be --
16 THE COURT: Well, she’s already said that she
17 just went and picked the child up. I mean, I don’t know
18 what else do you want her to say? Didn’t she say, she
19 didn’t say she called anybody to negotiate, she said she
20 just went and picked her up.
22 Q Why didn’t you attempt?
23 A I spoke to my counsel.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
104
1 Q No, see now, I’m asking you --
2 THE COURT: That’s not the question.
4 Q Why didn’t you attempt to try to work things
5 out to have the transfer done without incident so it
6 would be better on your child?
7 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: That’s a good question.
10 THE COURT: That’s the best of all the
11 questions he asked.
12 THE WITNESS: I spoke with my counsel and I
13 followed the advice of my counsel.
14 THE COURT: That’s not what the question is,
15 about you following the advice of your counsel. The
16 question is, why wouldn’t you arrange something that
17 would be less traumatic for the child.
18 THE WITNESS: I spoke with my counsel and I
19 thought my counsel would do whatever is needed to do what
20 I was supposed to do to show that I had met the
21 requirements and that I was going to pick up my child. I
22 don’t know how much I’m allowed to say --
23 MR. O’CONNELL: I have no further questions. I
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
105
1 do proffer that Michelle Wood will indicate that she
2 didn’t receive any notice of Ms. King being back in town
3 until much later.
4 THE COURT: Okay.
6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
8 Q I’m going to show you something and ask if you
9 can identify it.
10 MR. CALLAHAN: May I approach, Your Honor?
11 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, Your Honor. This is
12 outside of the scope.
13 THE COURT: I don’t know what --
14 MR. O’CONNELL: And it also is irrelevant
15 because it occurred at 13:53, which I think is 1:53 on
16 February 12th, after she had already absconded with the
17 child.
18 MR. CALLAHAN: Objection to the
19 characterization, Your Honor.
20 MR. O’CONNELL: Kidnaped then.
21 MR. CALLAHAN: Objected to the attempt at --
22 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
23 Q Would you identify that? Let me know who’s it
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
106
1 from and who’s it to?
2 A It’s an email dated Tuesday the 12th of
3 February, 2008, at 13:53 to Ms. Deborah Olin, to Ms.
4 Michelle Wood, cc my counsel at the time, Mr. Mike
5 Miller.
6 Q It’s from you?
7 A Yes, it’s from me.
8 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevance, Your
9 Honor. Either it’s a self-serving statement about what
10 she said to other people afterwards, or as is more to the
11 point, it’s an email which not only not having been
12 provided in discovery, but also is after the fact and
13 therefore irrelevant. What she did she did before then.
14 I wasn’t allowed to get into all sorts of things that
15 happened before I filed the rule. This is something that
16 happened after she violated the order.
17 THE COURT: That’s a good point.
18 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I haven’t offered it yet,
19 Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
22 Q Did you actually send this email?
23 A Yes, I sent it, along with a copy of my lease
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
107
1 for my Maryland home, so they could see where I was
2 living.
3 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, relevance.
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I offer it to be
5 admitted.
6 THE COURT: If it was an email she sent after
7 the fact, after she had already taken the child, then the
8 Court is going to sustain the objection.
9 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, he just proffered
10 that Michelle Wood was not notified until long after. He
11 didn’t testify, but --
12 THE COURT: He said after.
13 MR. CALLAHAN: No, he said much later, meaning,
14 I’m assuming that means not that day.
15 THE COURT: It was after the fact is the issue.
16 MR. CALLAHAN: Okay. Your Honor, could you
17 rule?
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 MR. CALLAHAN: And?
20 THE COURT: It doesn’t really help your client.
21 I’ll take it, I’ll admit it.
22 (The document described above was marked
23 Respondent’s Exhibit No. 1 for
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
108
1 identification and was received into
2 evidence.)
4 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
5 Q Now, your, okay, your question regarding, I
6 think the wisdom of driving your mother back here, okay?
7 A Yes.
9 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, asked and answered.
10 THE WITNESS: I’m an only child and she needed
11 me to care for her on a long term basis.
12 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
13 Q Why couldn’t she just go home?
14 A She couldn’t sit up. She still has memory
15 problems. She still has problems with her heart and her
16 blood pressure. I was advised by those people that were
17 caring for her that she needed long-term care.
18 Q Why couldn’t she fly?
19 A Because she had a neurological reason, and she
20 was still pretty unstable, stable enough to leave the
21 hospital but not stable enough to fly.
22 Q Okay.
23 Now, when you, what problems, did you
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
109
1 anticipate an incident on February 12th when you went to
2 your husband’s house?
3 A I did --
4 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, excuse me,
5 objection. We’re -- I mean, he had his bite at it. I
6 then had my cross examination. He’s going over the same
7 material again.
9 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I did not get into,
10 counsel suggested that she created an incident, bad
11 parenting, she shouldn’t have done it, she should have
12 had her counsel negotiate with him. I think whether or
13 not she thought there would be this confrontation
14 certainly was relevant and I wanted to ask her about
15 that.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, then I guess I get to
18 cross exam her about what she says about it. I’ll be
19 quiet, Your Honor.
20 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
21 Q What, if anything, did you anticipate would
22 happen when you when to pick her up or to see her?
23 A Well, I actually went to find her. I was going
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
110
1 to go find her. Nobody knew where she was.
2 MR. O’CONNELL: Objection, hearsay.
3 BY MR. CALLAHAN:
4 Q Did you anticipate problems?
5 A No.
6 MR. CALLAHAN: Nothing further on that.
7 Nothing further, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: You can have a seat, Ma’am.
9 MR. CALLAHAN: We have no further witnesses,
10 Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Do you have any?
12 MR. O’CONNELL: Not after the document admitted
13 says when she was notified. No, I have no further
14 witnesses, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Argument?
16 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I think it’s not my turn.
17 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, my client, the
18 evidence shows she went to Atlanta. Her mother became
19 very ill. She went to Atlanta to be at her side. She
20 took the child. I think the evidence today and prior
21 hearings show that there was an impression that, not just
22 that she had violated the terms of the visitation, but
23 that there was some animus, that she did it on purpose,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
111
1 that her mother wasn’t really sick.
2 And then through what came out of the last
3 hearing, I think the evidence will show there was a
4 family emergency.
5 THE COURT: But I keep saying, counsel, that
6 was not the issue.
7 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m getting to the issue.
8 THE COURT: I mean, that it was a family
9 emergency.
11 THE COURT: I don’t doubt it was a family
12 emergency.
14 She returned on February 8 from Atlanta. She
15 returned to attend the hearing. The Court ordered her to
16 do several things. The Court ordered her to go back to
17 Atlanta and get the child and bring her back here. She’s
18 going to stay in the area with dad while you’re in
19 Atlanta.
20 The Court then said, meet three conditions and
21 custody will be returned. Mr. O’Connell asked you to
22 rule, there should be a motion before it’s returned and
23 you said, no, meet those three conditions.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
112
1 I’d like to just think about what she did to
2 comply with the Court’s order and think about her
3 failure. She was here that day. She flew back, she flew
4 back, she flew down, I’ll say down and up. She flew down
5 to Atlanta, she flew back here, all a great disruption,
6 all at great expense while she’s worried about her
7 mother.
8 She delivers Ariana to dad. She goes back down
9 there to deal with her situation with her mother. She
10 drives back up here, okay. Now, she’s done all that;
11 she’s followed all your orders. Now what does she have
12 to do? She’s got to verify her address, start counseling
13 and show that she’s back in the area. Okay. And then
14 custody will be restored.
15 So arguably, she didn’t do it all completely.
16 She didn’t file the praecipe, she didn’t wait. But, Your
17 Honor, can you find that’s willful? I mean, that was the
18 easy part. That was the easy part. She did the hard
19 part.
20 THE COURT: But, counsel, let me just be frank
21 with you. The problems I have with all of this. It
22 seemed kind of sneaky to me the way it was done, that she
23 comes back into town, she doesn’t tell the father she’s
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
113
1 back in town and she’s just going to show up at school
2 without telling him.
3 And what was she going to do at school, take
4 the child? I suspect she was going to school to take the
5 child because it makes no sense of this going to the
6 house, calling the police and having the police come out,
7 showing them the order that the Court had entered without
8 telling them, this is what makes it look bad --
10 THE COURT: And there’s nothing you can do
11 about that, I mean, it makes her look bad that she
12 handled the situation like that as opposed to nothing.
13 She could have just waited. If there was going to be a
14 problem with the exchange of the child, I think I’ve been
15 extremely reasonable with this whole affair to both
16 parties here. And she knows I’m going to be fair.
17 It seems to me that she would just come to
18 Court the next day. If there was going to be a problem,
19 to call the police, to get the police involved and
20 traumatizing the child, that to me is not in the child’s
21 best interest.
23 THE COURT: And, you know, the whole Atlanta
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
114
1 thing that her mother had just got out of the hospital, I
2 don’t understand why she would drag her mother, who just
3 had a stroke from Atlanta to Arlington, or to Virginia as
4 opposed to taking her back to her home in Georgia and
5 being with her mother in Georgia and help her get better
6 there. Her daughter was perfectly taken care of here
7 with the father. And that was, with her with the father
8 gave her the opportunity to care for her mother. To me,
9 it’s a win/win situation for the mother.
10 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, Your Honor --
11 THE COURT: She had someone there to take care
12 of her.
13 MR. CALLAHAN: I mean, I suppose there were
14 other options, but she testified that she had a --
15 THE COURT: It seems to me that --
16 MR. CALLAHAN: She has a life; she has to work.
17 She had to come back and she had to bring her mother.
18 THE COURT: If her mother hadn’t been released
19 from the hospital, where was she going to be, still in
20 Atlanta?
21 MR. CALLAHAN: She would bring her up.
22 THE COURT: Was she going to stay in Atlanta if
23 her mother was not released from the hospital that day?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
115
1 To me, I mean, it’s no question she violated the order.
2 There’s no question. She violated that order in that she
3 didn’t comply with the Court order. She didn’t provide
4 the information; she just went and was just going to take
5 the child.
6 And it was not the intent of the Court for her
7 to just show up and take the child. And I would never,
8 you know, would want that to happen without everybody
9 being on the same page, knowing that, hey, I’m back in
10 town, I provided you with this information and I’m coming
11 to get the child. I want to pick up the child on this
12 date. That’s how mature parents treat the situation.
13 The Court never got notice that she had
14 complied with it. And she had to also let the Court know
15 that she did, that she was going to do this. She didn’t
16 do it. And to say that, you know, to give the
17 information after the fact doesn’t cure the contempt.
18 She’s already violated the order at that particular point
19 in time.
20 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, Your Honor, I think she
21 testified, she gave the information to counsel and she
22 didn’t know what would happen.
23 THE COURT: Well, you know, ultimately she’s
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
116
1 responsible. And, you know, I mean, there’s no question
2 she’s in contempt. She didn’t do it. She violated the
3 Court order.
4 As far as the visitation, I don’t think that’s
5 been proven because the father left and there’s been no
6 testimony from him that he tried to exercise the
7 Wednesday visitation. And the testimony from her was
8 that on the Wednesdays that the visitation did occur,
9 except for a few Wednesdays in which the child was sick,
10 and the father agreed not to take the child out. So the
11 Court is not going to find her in contempt for not, you
12 know, allowing the Wednesday visitation.
13 As far as Dr. Lane, it’s a closer call here,
14 but by her own testimony, that even after coming to
15 Court, she didn’t make any attempt to try to contact Dr.
16 Lane to, you know, arrange a visit, and also by her own
17 testimony that she moved and did not even inform Dr. Lane
18 she had a new address. So it’s kind of hard for him to
19 write her a letter to let her know that he wants to see
20 her. But I think, through his custody evaluation, you
21 would know that the psychologist is going to want to talk
22 to you and come to the home and visit you with the child.
23 So I think she didn’t cooperate with Dr. Lane. So the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
117
1 Court will find her in contempt for those two things.
2 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, Your Honor, I think that
3 there was testimony they communicated by email.
4 THE COURT: Yes, but --
5 MR. CALLAHAN: And also that --
6 THE COURT: But she testified herself that she
7 moved and did not contact Dr. Lane and that, that she
8 didn’t contact, her testimony is pretty clear, I never
9 contacted him. He contacted me and he never contacted
10 me, so I didn’t contact him. So the burden was on her to
11 make the moves, to make the appointment. She was the one
12 ordered to cooperate, to complete the psychological. And
13 she did nothing to make it happen.
15 THE COURT: She said that, that’s what she
16 testified to; she didn’t do anything. She said she
17 didn’t call; she didn’t write. She thought Dr. Lane was
18 going to call her so she didn’t do anything. Even after
19 coming to Court, she didn’t make any contact. It seems
20 to me that once she came to Court, she should have
21 definitely --
22 MR. O’CONNELL: If I may chime in just briefly,
23 Your Honor. Your Honor instructed her, because remember
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
118
1 on November 8th the evaluation was supposed to be
2 completed. There was some issue as to why it hadn’t been
3 completed.
4 THE COURT: I remember.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor directed her to
6 cooperate. It was an affirmative direction and she
7 ignored that direction at her own peril.
8 THE COURT: And I agree with that because we
9 had a discussion about it and she got to Court and she
10 defied the Court order and didn’t do it.
11 MR. O’CONNELL: And, Your Honor, also this
12 serial replacement of attorneys and then using the
13 attorneys who are conveniently not here because they
14 can’t be accused of procreating a fraud in front of the
15 Court, so she says, well, I was just following advice of
16 counsel blankly. And I don’t think that’s adequate when
17 you’re disobeying a Court order to simply say you were
18 following advice of counsel.
19 MR. CALLAHAN: The gist of her testimony --
20 THE COURT: Well, I have already found her in
21 contempt of Court.
22 MR. CALLAHAN: Could I just say respectfully
23 just one thing?
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
119
1 THE COURT: Yes, Sir, absolutely.
2 MR. CALLAHAN: Her testimony was we had, this
3 was the way we had done it. He made the appointments; I
4 showed up. He made the appointments and I showed up.
5 And --
6 THE COURT: But I remember her testimony. I
7 also remember what I told her.
9 THE COURT: And there’s no way when she came in
10 here and I ordered her to cooperate and to participate in
11 that psychological, she could have taken that to mean
12 that she was going to wait for Dr. Lane to contact her.
13 I don’t accept that.
15 THE COURT: I don’t accept that. I think I was
16 pretty strong in what I told her, to cooperate, and it
17 did not mean for her to not do anything. It was an
18 affirmative duty for her to do something. Just like,
19 even with that, I still let her, you know, when I make my
20 ruling about the child going with the father, I was still
21 giving her the benefit of the doubt. I’ve always given
22 her the benefit of the doubt. But she’s in contempt of
23 Court, you know.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
120
1 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor --
2 THE COURT: Because I think that, you know,
3 because I have always given her the benefit of the doubt,
4 she doesn’t feel like she has to follow the Court orders
5 or what, I mean --
6 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I just want to say,
7 I haven’t made of this because you hadn’t found her in
8 contempt yet, and now you have.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, my client gets the
11 message. She knows she’s here; she knows you’re going to
12 decide custody. The Court has denied the motion to
13 dismiss. She wants to cooperate in the process, provide
14 the Court with all the information you need to make a
15 custody decision and observe the Court order.
16 THE COURT: Well, like I said, she’s making it,
17 she’s making this much more difficult than it has to be
18 and she’s making her case much more difficult by behaving
19 in this way as opposed to cooperating and, you know, and
20 the whole spirit of, you know, parenting, you know.
21 You know what she was saying about the father
22 and her, you know, compromising, and sometimes having to
23 modify the visitation to accommodate the child or their
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
121
1 schedule. I mean, that’s what you want to hear parents
2 say, you know. Not one parent dictating to the other
3 parent when you’re going to see her and when you’re not.
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Uh huh.
5 THE COURT: That’s not what you’re expecting.
6 You expect parents to work together to come up with these
7 solutions to problems because the problems are going to
8 pop up. And this child is young. They are probably
9 going to pop up a lot.
10 It’s just that, you know, I’m really, you know,
11 I mean, she violated the Court order. And I kind of feel
12 like it’s my fault because maybe I was just too nice
13 initially. So what are you asking the Court to do, Mr.
14 O’Connell?
15 MR. O’CONNELL: Oh, jeez, do I have to be a
16 judge now, Your Honor?
17 THE COURT: No, I’m just wondering, what do you
18 want the Court to do?
19 MR. O’CONNELL: I think Your Honor has
20 accurately identified the problem in that she doesn’t
21 take the Court seriously and its orders. But I think
22 that there’s something else. I think the other thing is
23 it’s demonstrative of a reckless disregard for the
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
122
1 father’s relationship with the child, in fact, with
2 people around her that don’t fit her plan.
3 I think taking her mom back the way she did
4 showed callous disregard for her mom. I think collecting
5 the child showed callous disregard for the child. I
6 think it was very clear it could have worked out without
7 any of those things happening.
8 And so my feeling is that there should be some
9 punishment for this. I’m going to leave it up to the
10 Court as to what that punishment should be, because quite
11 frankly you’ve got a lot better, a lot more experience
12 than I do in what punishment should be meted out in order
13 to how to modulate that to get somebody’s attention.
14 But this woman’s attention needs to be gotten
15 somehow, and I think that unless you do something with
16 her that she’s not going to get the message. I’m not
17 asking for long term incarceration, but I think she needs
18 to get the message.
19 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I don’t think that,
20 well, first, I just can’t understand how anybody can
21 accuse her of reckless disregard of her mother. I mean,
22 after --
23 THE COURT: Well, I think --
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
123
1 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I just don’t follow that.
2 THE COURT: Well, maybe reckless was a little
3 too strong, but I --
4 MR. O’CONNELL: I meant to say callous, Your
5 Honor.
6 THE COURT: I do think that it was a little,
7 not a good thing to drive her mother this far away in a
8 car just getting out of the hospital. I don’t think that
9 was a good thing to do especially, it would be one thing
10 if her daughter was not being taken care of, but this
11 particular case her daughter was being taken care of.
13 THE COURT: And, I mean, I really don’t
14 understand it because, you know, it really wouldn’t have
15 had, I think I made it clear that the fact that the child
16 was with the father as far as physical custody, the
17 mother’s family emergency, there was no an indication
18 that the Court was going to grant the father primary
19 physical custody of the child. It’s just that in this
20 emergency state it made more sense for the child to be
21 with her father while her mother dealt with her
22 grandmother. It just made more sense all the way around.
23 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor --
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
124
1 THE COURT: So I don’t really understand her
2 reaction to it and to take it to the level that she took
3 it.
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Her reaction, her mother is not
5 here because of any Court order. Her mother has to be
6 here. That’s what she testified to. She’s got 24-hour
7 care for her here, for her mother here. She lives, three
8 people, 24-hour care. My client lives here. She had to
9 be here. There’s just no --
10 THE COURT: But my point is --
11 MR. CALLAHAN: But there’s no other option.
12 THE COURT: But when she came, when the request
13 for the continuance came up, it was for a long-term
14 continuance, a continuance so far out so that she could
15 be in Georgia to take care of her mother. So she wasn’t
16 going to be working in Georgia at that particular time.
17 She wasn’t going to be working at that point in time.
18 So it’s kind of hard pressed to come and say
19 that she had to bring her back that day because she had
20 to work because that wasn’t the plan when the motion for
21 a continuance was filed, that was not the indication that
22 it was going to be for a week so that she could drive her
23 mother back. Quite the contrary, she was planning on
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
125
1 being in Georgia for a while.
2 MR. CALLAHAN: All right. Your Honor --
3 THE COURT: To take care of her mother. And
4 there is nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong
5 with that. Actually there is nothing wrong with her
6 going to Georgia to take care of mother; there’s nothing
7 wrong with that. That’s a very good thing to do.
9 THE COURT: I mean, I don’t see anything wrong
10 with that.
12 THE COURT: But my point is, why bring the
13 child with you is the point. Let the child stay here in
14 her environment while she goes and deals with her sick
15 mother. If her mother is that bad off, and really her
16 daughter is not going to have the attention that she
17 needs, leave her with her father and let her father take
18 care of her for a little while. There’s nothing wrong
19 with that.
20 MR. CALLAHAN: That’s true, Your Honor. She
21 respectfully disagreed. She took her daughter with her.
22 This Court ordered her to bring her daughter back and she
23 brought her back.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
126
1 THE COURT: Yes.
2 MR. CALLAHAN: She did all the tough stuff.
3 She did the stuff that costs time, money and stress.
4 THE COURT: She did it because if she would
5 have left the child here in the first place, that
6 wouldn’t have been an issue.
7 MR. CALLAHAN: I’m just getting to the point,
8 Judge.
9 THE COURT: Now, she made this more complicated
10 than it has to be.
11 MR. CALLAHAN: Things are complicated, Your
12 Honor. I will grant you that.
13 THE COURT: Yes, I mean it’s really not,
14 especially in light of the fact that I really don’t know
15 what she thought that would mean to leave the child.
16 That’s what parents do; they cooperate. You go, I’m
17 having an emergency. Can you watch the child while I
18 deal with my family emergency? That’s what parents do.
19 And you don’t hold it against the other parent because
20 they have an emergency.
21 The Court wouldn’t hold it against her because
22 she had a family emergency. That’s not what the Court is
23 going to base this decision on.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
127
1 So the Court will find her in contempt of
2 Court.
3 Ms. King, will you please stand. What would
4 you like to say as far as what you think the Court should
5 do as far as disposition?
6 DR. KING: Your Honor, I want to say that I do
7 understand that I must follow the laws of this Court. I
8 do recognize by what you’ve said that I’ve been held in
9 contempt. I want Your Honor and this Court to know that
10 that was not my reckless intention. I also want Your
11 Honor to know that my family means everything to me,
12 including my mother, and I would never put her in harms
13 way.
14 THE COURT: I don’t think you did it
15 intentionally; I just don’t think you thought it out
16 completely. What was important to you was getting back
17 here to get your daughter back. And I understand that
18 too.
19 DR. KING: I understand that you’ll have to
20 rule; most of us find ourselves between a rock and a hard
21 place many times in our lives and I’m just saying that --
22 THE COURT: Well, let me just say this, you
23 weren’t in between a rock and hard place, you know why,
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
128
1 because you were there to take care of your mother. Your
2 husband was there to take care of your daughter. And
3 that’s a good situation. And it was only set up for a
4 temporary period of time so -- but, you know, it’s just,
5 Dr. King, Ms. King, I just don’t know what to make of it.
6 This is like the third time finding you in contempt of
7 Court, you know, and Ms. Olin says that now you’re
8 cooperating with her.
9 But, you know, why does it have to get to
10 that point, finding you in contempt to get you to do what
11 the Court, even though, there are orders of the Court and
12 you have to follow the Court’s orders.
13 What the Court is going to do is continue the
14 disposition because I want to think about it, you know,
15 as to what the disposition should be. I’m going to think
16 about it and I want to also see the psychological before
17 I decide what the sentence should be.
18 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, what left on the
19 18th?
20 THE COURT: Nothing.
21 MR. CALLAHAN: Nothing?
22 THE COURT: I moved everything from the 18th to,
23 what’s the date, June 6th. Obviously, I’m going to take a
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
129
1 look at the psychological before then for the Court to
2 decide on what the disposition should be.
4 Your Honor, it’s not something for today, but
5 it’s something the parties have not been able to resolve
6 and I thought maybe we could resolve it and I thought
7 maybe we can resolve it if we go out and talk. Could you
8 pass us for five minutes? The problem is visitation. I
9 think due to a misstatement there is from 8:00 a.m to
10 6:00 p.m.
11 MR. O’CONNELL: We’re not hearing that today,
12 Your Honor.
13 MR. CALLAHAN: I know that.
14 THE COURT: Well, let’s see what the problem
15 is.
16 MR. CALLAHAN: 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m, there’s no
17 overnights. So the weekend she doesn’t have her, the
18 child goes like 12 days seeing her mother only on
19 weekdays only after she gets out of class and activities.
20 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor.
21 MR. CALLAHAN: And there has been no extra
22 visitation.
23 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, Your Honor, she does have
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
130
1 weekend visitation. She has the child during the week.
2 She’s been given a little bit of extra time so that she
3 could have dinner with her. She’s actually taken too
4 much of that time because she feeds her too late. But in
5 any case, this is not the time to bring that up. Your
6 Honor already ruled that you’re not going to reconsider
7 the visitation issue and that order, and my client isn’t
8 even here. I let him go for good reasons because --
9 THE COURT: Okay, I’m just trying to
10 understand. You said the weekend --
11 MR. CALLAHAN: No, she --
12 THE COURT: Does not have overnight visits?
13 She sees the child during the week, though?
14 MR. CALLAHAN: Well, yes, for a brief afternoon
15 visit. The child is in school from 12:30 --
16 THE COURT: Mr. O’Connell?
17 MR. CALLAHAN: She gets out at 12:30, but on
18 Wednesday and Thursday she has activities.
19 DR. KING: I know, Your Honor, the Court said
20 she should carry on with what she has and she has
21 gymnastics and ballet. So usually I get to see her for
22 about two to two and a half hours before I have to bring
23 her back to her other home, her father’s home.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
131
1 MR. CALLAHAN: And she’s been at the YMCA the
2 last two weeks until --
3 DR. KING: She had vacation and she’s at the Y
4 from 8:00 a.m to 6:30 and I offered my husband if I could
5 take care of her but he wouldn’t allow me to. I was only
6 allowed to have her during my visitation days.
7 MR. O’CONNELL: My understanding is that that
8 is completely inaccurate. She was at the YMCA for
9 several days, but on Mondays and Tuesdays and Fridays,
10 actually the first week and then Mondays and Fridays the
11 second week. So that means she actually spent Tuesdays
12 and part of Wednesday at the YMCA.
13 In any case, my client isn’t here for
14 testimony, Your Honor, and --
15 THE COURT: Well, what is your objection to her
16 having overnights during the week that she doesn’t have
17 an overnight on the weekend?
18 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, number one, my client is
19 not here, and it is true that Your Honor, just to be very
20 clear, it’s inappropriate to be talking about this
21 without my client here. I know that --
22 THE COURT: Well, you’re here.
23 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I’m not my client, Your
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
132
1 Honor.
2 THE COURT: You represent him.
3 MR. O’CONNELL: Okay. My objection to her
4 having overnights generally at this point other than the
5 weekends --
6 THE COURT: But she has overnights --
7 MR. O’CONNELL: Other than the weekends, I
8 mean, if she wanted to have one overnight during the week
9 that she didn’t have the child previously --
11 MR. O’CONNELL: But actually there have been
12 several things said here that just aren’t true. For
13 instance, he gave her, the first weekend, she said there
14 was no additional visitation. He gave her the first
15 weekend --
16 THE COURT: That’s not the point.
18 THE COURT: My question is, what is the problem
19 with her having an overnight visit on the weeks that she
20 doesn’t get a weekend overnight?
21 MR. O’CONNELL: I don’t have a problem with a
22 Wednesday night visit, Your Honor. I don’t have
23 authority to say that, but I’m sure my client would be
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
133
1 okay with it.
2 But that’s not my point. My point is that what
3 just happened is that a bunch of representations were
4 made about what was happening with the child, including
5 that he didn’t get any extra visitation -- that he didn’t
6 give any extra visitation when, in fact he gave a whole
7 weekend of extra visitation.
8 And several other negotiated additional
9 visitations, which I negotiated with Mr. Drury and Mr.
10 Gross. So it’s just not factual. So you’re getting this
11 idea that somehow we’re not being the giving people that
12 we, in fact, have been.
13 THE COURT: I do not have that idea.
14 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, okay. Well, in any case,
15 I wouldn’t have a problem with Wednesday. Well, I mean,
16 I had to clear it up.
17 THE COURT: I don’t have that impression. I
18 actually have not formed an opinion about that one way or
19 the other.
20 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, I could have my client
21 here, but I can’t right now.
22 THE COURT: Well, I think at the custody
23 hearing obviously the Court can consider whether one
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
134
1 parent has unreasonably withheld visitation.
2 MR. O’CONNELL: I’m very aware of that.
3 THE COURT: All of those are facts the Court
4 can consider.
5 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s right. But in terms of
6 Wednesday night, Your Honor, that seems to me to be not a
7 problem.
8 THE COURT: I agree. The Court’s going to
9 allow the weekends that the mother does not have an
10 overnight visit on the weekend, which is two weekends,
11 there will be two weeks out of the month until we come
12 back, the mother can have visitation on Wednesday night
13 until Thursday. What time does she finish her Thursday
14 activity, around 7:00 I guess?
15 DR. KING: Yes.
16 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, Your Honor, I would have
17 something to say about that because I am familiar --
18 THE COURT: Wait a minute, both of you can’t
19 talk at the same time.
20 MR. O’CONNELL: I am familiar with the problems
21 that we’ve had. Mr. Drury first contacted me, asked for
22 a little extra time. I gave him a little extra time. I
23 gave him until 6:30, it ended up being 7:45. We need to
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
135
1 have it closer to 6:30, not because of what I think or
2 because we’re trying to be stingy, but because when the
3 child gets home beyond 6:30 she starts to get --
4 THE COURT: Cranky?
5 MR. O’CONNELL: A little tired and cranky. So
6 that’s not a good time to hand over the child.
7 Also I would bring to the Court’s attention
8 that on several occasions, the au pair has recorded,
9 using video tape, the transfers and it’s caused the child
10 additional agitation and I would like the parties
11 instructed that that should not occur.
12 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let me just make
13 this clear. Okay. You should make this easy for your
14 child and not difficult. And the transition should be as
15 smooth as possible, without a lot of drama associated
16 with it for the child’s sake.
17 And there’s no need to add a lot of emotion to
18 it, crying and carrying on, I miss you, I can’t wait to
19 see you, you know. Just make it easier for the child to
20 move to the next parent.
21 And I think that you have to stick with the
22 Court’s order at the specific times. The child is young.
23 She shouldn’t be out late at night, even though summer is
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
136
1 coming, but we’ll be back here June 6th before the summer
2 officially starts. I think a child her age, 6:30 is
3 pretty good to get her back.
4 MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, my client is telling
5 me that she’s been giving her dinner.
6 DR. KING: I’ve been asked by my husband to
7 feed her and to bathe her so that when she’s ready to
8 come back --
9 THE COURT: Okay, in that case, 7:00.
10 MR. O’CONNELL: But, Your Honor, that’s, she
11 picks her up, I mean, 7:00 is too late for this child.
12 We think 6:30 is better for the child. And I’ve been --
13 THE COURT: 7:00 if she’s already been fed and
14 bathed; that’s pretty good.
15 DR. KING: I also put her in pajamas --
16 MR. O’CONNELL: Your Honor, we don’t want her
17 put in pajamas because that creates a problem. He has
18 pajamas for her and she shouldn’t be transported in
19 pajamas and it also has to do with what clothes, there’s
20 a cycle of clothes. We’d like her returned in her
21 regular clothes. If they want to bathe her, that’s fine.
22 And, well, Your Honor, doesn’t need to micro manage the
23 pajama issue. I withdraw that comment.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
137
1 THE COURT: You see the way I’m looking at you.
2 MR. O’CONNELL: Actually, I wasn’t seeing that.
3 I was thinking about my own kid and whether he has
4 pajamas on or not.
5 THE COURT: All right, Wednesday. What time is
6 the visitation currently set for Wednesday?
7 MR. CALLAHAN: 8:00 to 6:00, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: So she can pick the child up at
9 8:00 on Wednesday and return the child on Thursday, if
10 he’s requiring her to feed his child --
11 MR. O’CONNELL: He’s not; that’s simply a lie,
12 Your Honor. I mean, we don’t have my client here to
13 respond to it.
14 THE COURT: All right, then she returns the
15 child at 6:30, you have to bring the child, you have to
16 have her back home at 6:30.
17 MR. CALLAHAN: He’s been dropping off in the
18 morning.
20 MR. CALLAHAN: The father’s been dropping off.
21 THE COURT: Okay, as long as she’s home by 6:30
22 on Thursday.
23 MR. CALLAHAN: So that’s Wednesday he drops off
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
138
1 at 8:00; Thursday she brings the child back at 6:30?
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 MR. O’CONNELL: That’s not a problem.
4 DR. KING: We’ll just eat earlier.
6 DR. KING: We’ll just eat earlier, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: I just want her home at 6:30.
9 DR. KING: Yes, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Not 6:45, 6:50, 6:30.
11 MR. O’CONNELL: But that’s only every other
12 week, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: It’s the weeks that she doesn’t
14 have visitation.
15 MR. O’CONNELL: But I want her to know that
16 because sometimes she has some trouble being clear.
17 THE COURT: Well, I don’t know how clearer I
18 can make it that it’s the weeks that she does not have
19 the overnight visits. It’s one weekend unless there’s a
20 fifth weekend, like I think last month was.
21 DR. KING: Right.
22 THE COURT: But short of that.
23 MR. CALLAHAN: The week, if she doesn’t have
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
139
1 them --
2 THE COURT: The weekend visitation.
3 MR. CALLAHAN: This coming Saturday.
4 THE COURT: Right.
5 MR. CALLAHAN: She doesn’t have --
6 MR. O’CONNELL: I believe last month was and he
7 gave up that extra weekend in accommodation.
8 THE COURT: Yeah, because last month was a
9 fifth week.
10 MR. O’CONNELL: Well, there was an
11 accommodation there; so I want the Court to realize it.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MR. O’CONNELL: Are we done then?
14 THE COURT: There’s something else. I saw, an
15 arraignment for something? I don’t know, let me take a
16 look, an advisory on, it’s a motion of custody, is that
17 your emergency motion?
18 MR. CALLAHAN: A motion for a rehearing on the
19 change of custody.
20 THE COURT: Okay, I think I denied that, didn’t
21 I?
22 MR. CALLAHAN: You did, Your Honor. You
23 already said you wouldn’t hear it today.
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
140
1 THE COURT: Yeah, I won’t hear it today.
2 (Whereupon, the hearing in the above-captioned
3 matter was concluded.)
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
141
CAROLYN J. TIMKO
Court Reporter
TIMKO & ASSOCIATES

(703) 425-8147
DEPARTMENT OF POLir'F
I'siah Lcggett J. Thomas Manger
Counn Executive Chiefof Police
FORENSIC INTERVIEW
Adana-Leilani King-Pfeiffar
DOB: O5//07/2003
Interview Date: 02/28/08
Interview Time: 1428 - 1547 hours
Interviewer: Daryl B, Leach, LCSW-C
Allegation: Sexual ahuse
CONTENT:
Ariana talks about Mr. Piggy at her father's house. She identifies Mr. Piggy as a "toy" that
"wears a purple hat, shirt, and a tie". Mr. Piggy eats and has a voice. He says "oink, oink, oink".
She characterizes Mr. Piggy's voice as having a very high pitch. She tells the interviewer that
Mr. Piggy "has seen my underpants" with an action explanation showing that she covered herself
as Mr. Piggy looked over his shoulder at her. Mr. Piggy i s in the "big bed" at Papa's house. Mr.
Piggy says, "I'm so tired". There is no further information on Mr. Piggy in the big bed.
Ariana identifies herself as a girl. She gives the interviewer her names of body parts for both
male and fcariiale figures during the body inventory inquiry.
Ariana identifies kisses that are okay come from mommy, grandma, sister, and daddy. Hugs that
are okay with Ariana come from mommy and daddy, Ariana denies that her body has been
touched when it was not okay with her.
Ariana identifies the back, pop0 (derriere) gina (vagina) and feet as places on females that are
not to be touched. Ariana denies that anyone has touched these areas on her body. Ariana does
talk about the pop0 in terms that did not make sense and Ariana did not explain further. Ariana
says, "Popo just hurt and harderand hmdcr----it just gets harder".
R"h,en Ariana goes to Papa's house, she reports "he smiles...he kissed me on my head, eyes nose,
my mouth". This is okay with Ariana, She also talks about their activities together, "we
play.. .we eat...we sleep...we brush our teeth.. .we read stories". When Ariana cannot fall
asleep, Papa holds her like a baby and smiles at her.
Ariana reports she sleeps "in a big bed". Mr. Piggy is in the bed with no further information.
"Papa in the bed ant that's all.. .we read a story.. .Papa sleeps and then he went to his bed.. .that's
all I have."
Fttmily Crimes Division
7300 Callioun Place, Suite 300 .
Rockville, Maryland 20855 240-773-5400 TTY 240-773-5465
Wiggins-COJ-329A w\vw,nion~go~~~i:ryco~ui~~~~d.gov
Mother taught M a n a the name penis for the male genital. She further explained that she uses
only the girl's bathroom, not the boy's bathroom.
Ariana reports that she has seen her father's penis. She peeked into the bathroom when Papa had
closed the door and saw him urinating
Ariana says, "I don't touch penis.. .no touch gina.. .you don't touch them (pope). ..never touched
a popo.. .no, Mr. Piggy doesn't touch (my) body.. .anybody doesn't touch.. .1don't touch
anybody's things".
CONSISTENCY:
Ariaha is consistent in her denial that she has been touched and that she has not touched
anyone's body. Areas of the female body that arc not to be tuuuhcd were identified by Ariana as
the vagina, derriere, feet and back.
Ariana was consistent about Mr. Piggy being a toy that she gives human characteristics.
According to Ariana, Mr. Piggy has not touched her body.
CONTEXT:
Ariana describes her visits to her father's house with smiles and laughter. The activities Ariana
talks about at her father's house appear to be ordinary; eating, sleeping, reading stories at
bedtime.
ABILITY:
Ariana appeared to be developmentally appropriate in the interview. She is able to make the
representational shift from the female body inventory drawing to her own body when discussing
touch. She ably identified herself as female and was able to say that her body was like the
female picture.
Ariana was not able to tell about events in her life in an organized manner, with a beginning,
middle and end. This is another example of being developmentally appropriate. Ariana knew
and verbalized many details. Being able to organize facts will naturally come later in her
cogitative development. The result is that Adriana can appear to be confused or lack knowledge
about her life activities, which she is not.
AFFECT: -
Ariana engaged with the interviewer immediately. She was cooperative as she was working hard
to convey be; hiowl~dgcabuul the various subjects that were discussed. Adriana corrected the
interviewer on several occasions as well as giving details that were not asked about. An example
was in the beginning of the interview, when Adriana took the marker to properly draw her
Wiggins-COJ-329B
father's large face and her details about his appearance. h e n Adriana was certain about her
information, her voice would become stronger and stem.
-
On an emotional level, Adriana did not show fear or feeling scared with the significant adults in
her life. She displayedjust the opposite, feelings of love and happiness when talking about
either of her parents.
Many statements made by Adriana were spontaneous. She had little trouble understanding the
focused open-ended questions. If there was a problem, it was the interviewer not asking clear
and concise questions. It appeared to the interviewer that Adriana had more thoughts in her head
than she had language to use in explanations.
Adriana appeared to have difficulty staying focused on any subject matter for more than a few
minutes. She was physically active during the entire interview, not sitting for longer than a few
minutes. Staying active parallels focusing time frames for Adriana, It appeared to the
interviewer that Adriana thinks and speaks more clearly when physically active.
Wiggins-COJ-329C
CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
50 Maryland Avo, Rockville, MD 20350
Located at
Telephone No. 240-777-9402 case N o . r Y o m o ~ ~ 1
TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER
PETITIONERIPLAINTIFF
ARIEL KING ...
First Middle Last Data of Birth
and any minoris) or minor child(ren) on whose behalf the OTHERS TO BE PROTECTED:
petition was filed. (List names and date(s) nf birth.)
ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER 05/07/2003
Name DOE Name DOEX
Name DOB Name DO0
Name DOB vs. Name DO0
Relationshipto Petitioner
Spouse Former Spouse Vulnerable Adult
Cohabitant Children In Common n Parent
Other relationship
4836 RESERVOIR RD..3
Address DRIVER'S LICENSE if
I
-
I
WASHINGTON, DC 20007 202-427-4009
Cily, Slailw, Zip ~elephone -- - -
CAUTION: 0 Weapon Involved VEHICLE DESCRIPTION TAG NO.
Type- DODGE GREEN 2007

-
'Access To Firearm O R 300 RESERVOIR RD
THE COURT FINDS that under the laws of Maryland the issuing Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the
subject matter.
THE COURT ORDERS:
that the above named Respondent SHALL NOT abuse, threaten to abuse, and/or harass the PetitionerIPlaintiff.
13 that the above named Respondent SHALL NOT contact Petitioner/Plaintiff by any means.
The terms of this Order shall be effective until 106/090{08/
Only the Court can change this Order. Monlh/Day/Year
Violation of this Order may result in criminal prosecution, imprisonment and/or fine, and contempt of court. Law
enforcement shall arrest a person whom the officer has probable cause to believe is in violation of this Order, as
required by Maryland Code. Family Law Article, 5 4-5n8. This'Protective Order shall be recognized and enforced
by the courts of any state, the District of Columbia, any U.S.Territory, tribal lands (18 U.S.C. $2265) or
Department of Defense installations. (10 U.S.C. 5 1561a) Crossing state, territorial or tribal boundaries to violate
this Order may result in federal imprisonment. (18 U.S.C. g 2262)
Federal law provides penalties of up to $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison for possessing, transporting, shipping or
receiving any firearm or ammunition while subject to a protective order or after being convicted of a misdamaanor crime
of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. 5 922(g)(8)) or knowingly transferring a firearm after a conviction of a misdemeanor
,-,. .'
Crime of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. 6 922faY91).
Questions regarding this notice should be directed to your allomey, law
State Police Firearms Enforcement Section at 410-290-0050.
--
Wiggins - COJ - 000330 Page Iof a
JUN 02 2008
Clerk of
nh,.*---- -
the,Circuit Court
Case No. 70620FL Date: 06/02/2008 5:34 p m
After the appearance of the PETITIONER, and in consideration of the Petition and evidence, the Court makes
the following findings:
A. That ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER , who is a Person(s) Eligible for Relief, is:
The current spouse of the Respondent.
An individual who has a chlld(ren) in common with the Respondent: ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER .
B. That the Petitioner is:

The Person Eligible for Relief
C. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that Respondent committed the following abuse@):
Statutory abuse of a child (Physical, Sexual) (Forward to DSS for investigation)
Based on the foregoing findings, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. That the Respondent SHALL NOT abuse, threaten to abuse, and/or harass ARIEL KING, ARIANA LEILANI
KING-PFEIFFER .
2. That the Respondent SHALL NOT contact (in person, by telephone, in writing, or by any other means) or
attempt to contact ARIEL KING. ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER
3. That the Respondent SHALL NOT enter the residence of ARIEL KING at 11725 GREENLANE OR,
POTOMAC, MD, 20854.
(Residence includes yard, grounds, outbuildings, and common areas surrounding the dwelling.)
The following school(s):

GERMAN SCHOOL, 8515 CHATEAU DR., POTOMAG, MD
The following place($) of employment:

ARIEL INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING, 1875 I STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, DC
5. That custody of ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER is awarded to ARIEL KING until the hearing provided for
in Paragraph 6 below.
6. THAT A FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER HEARING SHALL BE HELD ON June 9,2008 AT 09:30AM A1
CIRCUIT COURT AT 50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850.
7. This Order supersedes and overrides any previously entered Interim Protective Order issued by a
Commissioner.
Date: 06/02/2008
JUN 02 2008

Page 2 of 5
Case No. 70620FL Date: 06/02/2008 5:34 p.m.
New Hearing Date Date

, . , .... ..- .. -
ENTERED
JUN 02 2008
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Montgomery County, ~ r f

Page 3 of 5
Case NO.70620FL Date: 06/02/2008 534 p.m.
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT
A Petition for Protection alleges that you have committed abuse. On the basis of the Petition this Temporary
Protective Order has been issued. Violation of this Order may be a state and/or federal crime or contempt of
court, or both, and result in imprisonment or fine or both. This Order may be enforced by another state or
jurisdiction, which may Impose additional or different penalties for the violation.
In order to respond to the allegation that abuse occurred, you must appear in court at the Final Protective
Order hearing provided for In thie Order. If at the heerlng the court finda by clear and convincing evidence that
abuse occurred, the court will issue a Final Protective Order against you, whether you appear or fail to appear,
and may order all or part of the relief requested by the Petitioner or granted in this Order. This relief may include
temporary use and possession of your home, use and possessionof jointly owned vehicles, Emergency Family
Maintenance, child visitation, surrender of firearm($) to a law enforcement agency, and counseling or
participation in a domestic violence program. A Final Protective Order may be effective for as long as twelve
(12) months, and the court for good cause may extend the term of the Final Protective Order for an additional six
(6) months after a further hearing.
If you fail to appear in court and a Final Protective Order is issued against you, you will be served by first-
class mall at your last known address with the Final Protective Order and all other notices concerning the
Protective Order. The Final Protective Order will be valid and enforceable upon mailing. It is your responsibility
to notify the court in writing of any change of address.
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES

Each party may be represented by an attorney. At the Final Protective Order hearing, the petitioner will be
required to prove the alleged facts by "clear and convincing evidence." This is difficult to do ifyou do not have
law training. Each party should ace a lawyer. If you arc the petitioner and cannot get a private lawyer, them
are support agencies that may be able to help you.
Although each party is not required to have a lawyer at the hearing, all of the Rules of Evidence will apply
to the case. If you choose not to have a lawyer with you on the hearing date the Petitioner will still have to
prove me case by "clear and convincing evidence" and eacn party will have to comply with me Rules of
Evidence. Due to the emergency nature of the hearing, the hearing may be held even If a party requests more
time to obtain an attorney.
At the Final Protective Order hearing the court may order the Respondent to pay Emergency family
Maintenanceand may pass an immediate and continuing withholding order for that purpose. If this Emergency
Family Maintenance is requested, both parties should complete a Financial Statement (CC-DClDV4) before the
Protective Order hearing and bring it to court. You should also bring documents (such as pay stubs, copy of
your lease, bills, etc.) to support the figures you supply.
ENTERED
JUN 02 2009
Montg'orneryCounty, Md,
Wiggins - COJ - 000333 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 70620FL Date: 05/02/2008534 p.m.
TRUE COPY CERTIFICATION OF TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER
Attestation of Clerk
I, Loretta E. Knight, Clerk of this Court in MONTGOMERY COUNTY, State of Maryland, do hereby certify that I
have compared this Order with the original Order which is on file in my office, and that this Order is a true and
correct copy of the original, and the whole thereof.
In testimony whereof, I nave hereunto

set my hand and affixed the seal of
said Court at 50 Maryland Ave.
Rockville, MD 20850 this Second day
of June. 2008.
- .#
Loretta E. Knight, Clerk of Court
Attestation of Judge
I, David A. Boynton, Judge of this Court in MONTGOMFRY COUNTY, State of Maryland, do hereby certify that
Loretta E. Knight whose name is subscribed to the foregoing certificate of attestation, now is, andlor was at the
time of signing and sealing the same, a Clerk of this Court in MONTGOMERY COUNTY and that histher
attestation is in due form of law.
Date: 06/02/2008
Court: Circuit Court for MOntgOm0ry County, Maryland
Address: 50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 240-777-9402
To request a foreign language interpreter or a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Immediately.
ENTERED
JUN 0 2 2008
Montgomery County, Md.
Page 5 of 5
CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
50 Maryland Ave, Rockville, MD 20850 Case No. 70620FL
ARIEL KING olio Date: 06/02/20005-34 p.m.
ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFHFFER us MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER DR
4838 RESERVOIR RD 3
WASHINGTON, DC, 20007
RETURN OF SERVICE
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
I CERTIFY that:
I served a copy of the 0 Petition and Interim Protective Order Petition and Temporary Protective Order
Final Protective Order Petition for Contempt and Show Cause Order, filed in the above entitled case, on:
at
Name Address
on- at
Date Time
0 I could not serve a copy of the 0 Petition and Interim Protective Orderfl Petition and Temporary Protective Order
Final Protective Order 0 Petition for Contempt and Show Cause Order, filed in the above entitled case. on:
Date and Time of Attempt Place Remarks
-. -
Date Officer's Signature
Law EnforcementAgency Officer'sPrinted Name & I.D. Number
RETURN OF SERVICE MUST BE RETURNED TO THE COURT IMMEDIATELY AFTER SERVICE
PCIDVQ (Rev.
Wiggins - COJ1212004)
- 000335
-t-.
H - m M t C ~ c I RCOURT
~ ~ r r aisrRiCT COURT 0lf MAKYLANI* VUK ^c>~?f&c>/<-f 1/
JUMCIABV ClQ/C~~fY
Located at .
so hflk'yfÃ§w
-..
thi.tdickii';//&
cowitAddG 8..-.
~ , s , ~ o . '20
7 ~T
bk
(NOTE:Fill in thefollowing, checking the appropriate boxes. Petitioners need not give an address ifdoing so risks
further abuse or reveals the confidential address of ashelter. If this is the case, check h e r e n Ifwu need additional
pa ,ask the clerk.)
f i c , f l x i s / w d i 9 $ 0 ' . / 1 W ~ - ~~ ~ i ' fle~e i~i ,&
f e~ ~ lm/If AÃ§
n'&
<4S 3 6 /(@&At/@ /$ ^d. 3
w
J>&
Cutidiicr
// ?Â£64eefl3ht~e
hb ?<w wak
Steel ddr Apt No. Horn 202 -'\ 30. r/(/
&A&
"City, State, Zip Code TEI-r
.. ,,"" ^""
"City, State, Zip Code Telephone Nunikr(8)
PETITION FOR PROTECTION FROM

- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/^ CHILD ABUSE
m .;":I,< ,A
-z?- c>
n,r31\: '
.-,,.
..,!., i-
I-'- ;?:;'Â¥Â¥""'.
FJ ..ip$
, I .'m
I want relief f o r 0 7 myselfJS"
IÃ
minnr child vulnerable
1 ;.'i'^LsBe Respondent committed (he following acts of abuse against
-iÃ‘a
'2'"' ,.l-,~;,"
:-TJ .-.,+on
&~;r
or about, (chock all that apply.) kicking punching Q choking
a
'"-Â¥ Date
13=3
,.'r*i , @ slapping shooting rape 01 other sexual offense (or attempt) hitting with object stabbing
"0.
IÃ‘'
04
shoving tbreaw of violence mental injury of a child detaining against will ]S stalking
other
<.' u
At this time the victim can be found at
l am Stntcb Attorney I""] DSS &relative an adult living in the home.
3. The pa'flon(s) I want protected are (include yourselfifyou are a victim):
A/u/X
mcs(s)
A)6
I
Bi
^WbL. Relationshi to Respondent
mÃ‡
Â¥S/ 9 f0.3 1>~u6hf-&4

CC-DCIDV 1 (Rev. 1012005) Page 1 of 3
Petition" Rc~pondcnt
4 The pcrson(s) I want protected now
(he past year:
There ore
r
a are not additional persons living in the home.
I . 1h o w nf thn followine; ftorirt casw involving ma, or thei person 7 want protmted, nnd the Rmpondftiit./7?r/nnqdm
include:paternity, childsupport, divorce, custody, domestic violence,juvenile cases, criminal cases)
-
?-W^
2 ~ 1+0
- @aftUa~d
6. Describe all past in]
he.
es the Respondent has c
dused
sf-ofped nc. 4ovtv.6
\\5Â£ li^Ccfced h& AA ^he b?loa< fifsdot^ctO
the victim, and give date, ifJinown
C& \($ &pl@

- A-9 & G bled=&&
7. The Respondent owns or has access to the following firearms: (L(a*q
8. I want the court to order the Respondent: (NOTE: Petitioner need not give an addressif doing so risks further abuse.)
to t e n to b e /tgAd h 'la 6 +LU d 4u i* ~ M - V~~ VU.
""Nainafs)
NOT to contact, attempt to contact, harass ft/?/ddA)6

ftnd ftfttfib4 Knod-ff&/ffev,
Nmc(Ã§
NOT to go to the child care provider@)
- &00
N i c of child care provider and addmi
@ NOT to go t the workplace($) at if9J sf. h*

@i4s&,mha& G moot& M - Nblku: x WOQ-E
To lcavc the home at
Address
and give possession of the home to
The name(s) on the deed or lcasc arc:
8 To turn over firearm@)to a iaw mforcment ageny.
/BP TOgo to counscluig 0' domestic violence dniffalcohoi 13
To pay money as Emergency Family Maintenance (may be
CC-DCIDV 1 (Rev. 1012005) Page 2 of 3
Case;No.
Â¥/! el mi ~ $ 0titn'm.
: &tittom P ~ e i ~ f,eFCW
n t~ Respondent
- ftfir/ftfe^
9. I also want the Court to order:
d custody of ~ ~ R ~ Ã ˆ A^tm6
,4iitl&i
?
^MG Cbildrerffl"me,
be granted to w.m.
0 Use and possession of the followingjointly-owned vehicle be granted to

Nnmm
Dflitcrlptlon dvdiiclc
10. (Fill in only ifyou are seekingEmergency Family Maintenance.) The Respondent has the following financial
resources:
Income from employment in the amount of $ every week 2 w e c k s 0 month
Otto -
Source of employment income
e tddrtss of sow" mdafflounwiilmc&Rc3"
~ a m said
Income from other source and amounl(s) received
~~oinS'atlBrcaB'ofaourcc
The Respondent also owns (he following property of value: Automobilc(s) $
aitiinatoil value
Home $ Bank Accountfs) SP
" " E s f l n i a t c d value
Other:
Estimated Value
I solemnly afflrm under the penalties of perjury that the contents of the foregoing Petition are true to the best of my
knowledge, iirfbnnation and belief.
Fentirn"
/
q I have filled in the Addendum (Description of Respondent), CC-DCmV 1A
NOTE
If you believe that you have been a victim of abuse and that there is a danger of serious and immediate injury to
you, you may request the assistance of a police officer or local law enforcement agency.
The law enforcement offiicar must protect you from hami when responding to your request for assistance and
may, if you ask, accompany you to the family borne so that you may remove clothing and medicine, medical devices, and
other personal effects required for you and your children, regardless of who paid for them.
You are entitled to request that address and telephone number of a victim, a complainant, or a witness be considered for
shielding at the filing of this application.
NOTICE:Remote access td the name, address, telephone number, date of birth, e-mail address, and place of employment
of a victim or non-party witness is blocked, (Md Rule 16-1008(3)(3)(B))

CC-DCmV 1 (Rev. 1012005) Page 3 of 3
(Alleged Abuser)
cars Tattoos wh
Driver's License it:
1 Other locations or infomntion about Respondent:

I
PETITIONER
(Person Requesting Assistance)
INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER PERSONS PETITIONER WANTS PROTECTED
..
Petitioner's Signature Date

VIRGINIA:
IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS

COURT FOR ARLINGTON COURT
MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER
Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. J-31848-01
ARIEL R. KING
Respondent.
IN RE: ARIANA LEILANI M. A. KING-PFEIFFER

DOB: 05/07/2003
SECOND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY AND CONTINUANCE

PENDING EMERGENCY TPO HEARING AND INVESTIGATION BY MD DSS
Respondent Ariel King, PhD, filing pro se, hereby respectfully requests this
Court grant, sua sponte, this second request for stay of the above captioned proceedings
and related proceedings, and continue the upcoming hearing scheduled for June 6, 2008,
for the following additional reasons to those presented in its Emergency Motion for Stay,
etc, dated June 2, 2008:
1) after an extended preliminary hearing the Circuit Court of Montgomery
County Maryland has found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Dr. Pfeiffer
committed the following abuses: Statutory Abuse of a child (Physical and Sexual); See,
Temporary Protective Order, dated June 2, 2008, attached hereto.
2) per the Temporary Protective Order, Dr. Pfeiffer is prohibited from being in
contact with: 1) Dr. King, 2) Ariana-Leilani, and specifically named places they frequent.
3) as protection for the child, the Circuit Court’s Temporary Protective Order,
awarded temporary custody to Dr. King until the hearing to make the TPO permanent,

4) a final PROTECTIVE ORDER HEARING shall be held on June 9, 2008 at
9:30 am. 1 and,
5) today (June 3, 2008), it was confirmed by a Hemotologist that Ariana-

Leilani is suffering from, what appears to be, severe Neutropenia (low blood count),
which the doctors believe may be symtomatic of a serious underlying life-threatening
condition. Over the last several weeks that blood count has dropped significantly –
while Dr. Pfeiffer has refused to acknowledge any problems with the child’s health.
Dr. Pfeiffer has (once again),, in violation of professional medical ethics,
misrepresented Ariana-Leilani’s health, and insisted on sending the child to school
despite knowing that the child is severely ill.2 Ariana-Leilani’s attending
Hemotologist has instructed Dr. King to keep Ariana-Leilani out of school until the
underlying problem is fully diagnosed, and treated. Exposure to other children is now
considered a severe risk to Ariana-Leilani. Given the urgent nature of the medical
situation, the Hemotologist required that Ariana-Leilani return for an urgent

appointment on Friday, June 6, 2008 for further tests.
Ariana-Leilani has regularly attended school in Montgomery County Maryland,
lives with her mother in Montgomery County Maryland for part of the week, and lives
with her father in Washington DC for the remainder of the week. Ariana-Leilani King
Pfeiffer has been experiencing symptoms of abuse for some time, which symptoms have
become acute since this Court has changed the custody schedule to requre Ariana-Leilnai
1
As previously argued before this Court and not waived by this or any other filing or appearance, this
Court does not have subject matter or continuing exclusive jurisdiction to conduct this proceeding. See,
Petition, Dr. Ariel R. King, Case No. 080963, Supreme Court of Commonwealth of Virginia. It is also
noted that no party to this proceeding has lived in Virginia since October 2007, and before that for only a
temporary period of approximately three months. This Virginia case was brought by Dr. Pfeiffer (a
Washington DC resident who has never lived in Virginia) after Dr. King had tempoarily lived in Virginia
less than 29 days. It is a waste of judicial resources of Virginia – by a non-resident of Virginia against a
Maryland child -- that are better spent on other matters.
2 It is my understanding that on Monday June 2, 2008, Dr. Pfeifer brought Ariana-Leilani back to school
with a “physician’s letter” – presented it to the teacher --- claiming that Ariana-Leilani is well, when he
knew that she, in fact, was very ill.

to spend most weeknights at Dr. Pfeiffer’s small one bedroom apartment. The
Montgomery County agencies have been following Ariana-Leilani’s continuingly
deteriorating situation. As a result they now have severely elevated concerns, which
prompted the emergency hearing on June 2, 2008 and the TPO.
The Montgomery County Circuit Court is aware of the status of the Virginia and
Maryland child custody proceedings. Maryland remains the “home state” of the child
and has the most significant connections to Ariana-Leilani, as well as convenient access
to her medical, school, and other records. It remains undisputed that no party lives in
Virginia.
In light of the TPO and the proceedings in Maryland, as well as the need to
attend to Ariana-Leilani’s medical needs first, Respondent will be unable to attend the
June 6, 2008 proceedings.
No party would be harmed by the grant of the temporary continuance and stay.
The June 6, 2008 hearing has been scheduled for some time (since February 21, 2008),
and any additional temporary postponement will not harm any party. Conversely, a
failure to grant a stay and continuance would be detrimental to the course of these
proceedings and harmful to Ariana-Leilani King Pfeiffer, subjecting her to even more
abuse by the Father, and further setback in her health. Holding a hearing on June 6,
2008 will also be unfair to Respondent and Ariana-Leilani, as Respondent will be unable
to attend that hearing. It would be ill advised, irresponsible and improper for this Court
to engage in any further proceedings until completion of a thorough investigation of the

child abuse by Marylands’ DSS and a final determination by the Circuit Court of
Montgomery County on how it feels it is appropriate to proceed.3
* * *
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the JDR court cooperate
with the Montgomery County Circuit Court and stay the above captioned proceeding, and
- at a minimum -- continue any upcoming hearings until the child abuse is thoroughly
investigated and the Montgomery County Circuit Court determines how to proceed in
light of those findings.
Ariel King (Pro Se)

11725 Greenlane Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
202 730 5111
3
In the best interests of the child, the Court may wish to confer with the Montgomery
County circuit Court, per the UCCJEA.

MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER
Petitioner,
V. CASE NO. J-31848-01

ARIEL R. KING
Respondent.
IN RE: ARIANA LEILANI M. A. KING-PFEIFFER

DOB: 05/07/2003
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY, AND
CONTINUANCE OF JUNE 6, 2008 HEARING,
PENDING EMERGENCY TPO HEARING AND INVESTIGATION BY MD DSS
Upon review of Respondent’s Emergency Motion For Stay And Continuance Of
June 6, 2008 Hearing Pending Emergency TPO Hearing And Investigation By MD DSS,
the Court finds that a temporary stay of these proceedings, and continuance of the
upcoming June 6, 2008 hearing is hereby granted, sua sponte.
________________________________
Honorable Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles
_____________
Date

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3rd day of June, 2008, a copy of the forgoing Motion
was sent by priority mail to the counsel, listed below:
Sean O'Connell
4113 Lee Highway
Arlington, VA 22207
Deborah S. Olin, Esquire

3977 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 1
Fairfax City, Virginia 22030
_________________________

1
1 VIRGINIA:
2 IN THE JUVENILE & DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT
3 OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
5 MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER, )
6 Petitioner, )
7 vs. ) Case No. J031848-01
8 ARIEL R. KING, )
9 Respondent. )
10
11 * * * * *
12
13 The above-entitled matter came on for
14 hearing on Friday, June 6, 2008, commencing at
15 10:35 a.m., at 1425 North Courthouse Road,
16 Arlington, Virginia, before Sean P. Goza, Notary
17 Public.
18
19 BEFORE:
20 THE HONORABLE ESTHER WIGGINS LYLES
21
22 * * * * *

2
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
3 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4 SEAN W. O'CONNELL, ESQUIRE
5 4113 Lee Highway
6 Arlington, Virginia 22207
7 (703) 558-0000
9 GUARDIAN AD LITEM:
10 DEBORAH S. OLIN, ESQUIRE
11 Law Office of Deborah S. Olin
12 8001 Braddock Road
13 Suite 100
14 Springfield, Virginia 22151
15 (703) 293-2901
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

18
1 Dr. King would be there. Then, at 1:30, after the
2 hearing -- and by then maybe it was two o'clock --
3 and Ms. --
4 MS. OLIN: Excuse me, Your Honor.
5 Permission to interrupt the proceedings. This
6 woman who's just entered has said she is here as a
7 friend of Dr. King.
8 MR. O'CONNELL: Can we put her on the
9 stand and you ask her some questions?
10 MS. OLIN: Absolutely. Ma'am, please
11 take -- with the Court's permission.
12 THE COURT: Is this a witness?
13 MS. OLIN: Yes.
14 MS. HEY: Okay. Well, I wasn't scheduled
15 to be on the stand. I was just here as a friend of
16 the mother.
17 MS. OLIN: You're here, and we're
18 requesting you to take the stand.
19 MS. HEY: Well, I don't have a lawyer
20 here.
21 MS. OLIN: You don't need a lawyer to be
22 a witness.

19
1 THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, will you
2 raise your right hand.
3 Whereupon --
4 NANCY HEY,
5 a witness, called for examination, having been
6 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
7 follows:
9 BY MS. OLIN:
10 Q. Ma'am, my name is Deborah Olin. I'm
11 guardian ad litem for the child, Ariana
12 King-Pfeiffer.
13 Please state your full name for the
14 Court.
15 A. My name is Nancy Alison Hey.
16 Q. How do you spell your last name?
17 A. H-e-y.
18 Q. What is your address?
19 A. 4632 Second Street North, Arlington,
20 Virginia.
21 Q. And how long have you resided at said
22 address?

20
1 A. For five years.
2 Q. Ma'am, what is your phone number?
3 A. It's (571) 721-0021.
4 Q. What's your place of employment?
5 A. Federal Communications Commission.
6 Q. Ma'am, do you know Roy Morris?
7 A. Roy Morris? I don't believe I do.
8 Q. Have you ever heard that name?
9 A. No.
10 Q. How do you know Ms. King?
11 A. I met her -- oh, let me refresh my
12 memory. I met her at a potluck dinner she had. I
13 and a few mother other mothers were communicating
14 with each other over the Internet, and she invited
15 me to a potluck dinner at her house during a
16 weekend that she had custody of her daughter.
17 Q. When was that?
18 A. It was approximately a month ago.
19 Q. What address did you go to?
20 A. I forgot the exact address. It was in
21 Silver Spring, I believe, in Maryland.
22 Q. Could it have been Potomac, Maryland?

21
1 A. Oh, yes, I believe it was Potomac,
2 Maryland.
3 Q. Can you describe the home for us,
4 roughly.
5 A. Yes. A split-level house.
6 Q. Where is Ms. King right now?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. How did you know to be here?
9 A. Ms. King requested that friends of hers
10 be present to testify to her good parenting
11 behavior.
12 Q. Are you saying that Ms. King specifically
13 asked you to be here to testify for her good
14 behavior?
15 A. No. She asked me to be here as a friend
16 for moral support. She did not ask me to testify.
17 Q. When did she ask you to be here? What
18 day did she tell you she wanted you to be here?
19 A. I believe when she first found out that a
20 hearing was scheduled for today, she asked myself
21 and Ms. Naomi Parrish, who is also a friend of
22 hers, to be present.

22
1 Q. Ms. Hey, when was that, though? Was that
2 a few days ago, a few weeks ago?
3 A. A few weeks ago.
4 THE COURT: Was Ms. Parrish present at
5 the meeting in Potomac?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, she was.
7 BY MS. OLIN:
8 Q. Was that when she asked you all to be
9 present, during that meeting, during that potluck?
10 A. I believe it did come up during the
11 potluck that she had a custody hearing coming up.
12 I'm not sure if she knew of the exact date of it at
13 that time.
14 Q. When was the last time you heard from
15 Ms. King in any form?
16 A. She has sent me e-mails over the last few
17 weeks. I communicate with her frequently by
18 e-mail.
19 Q. When was the last time?
20 A. About -- I believe about -- I believe
21 yesterday I got an e-mail from her.
22 Q. What time, ma'am?

23
1 A. It was in the afternoon.
2 Q. What did the e-mail say?
3 A. She expressed concern about her
4 daughter's health.
5 Q. Specifically, what did the e-mail say?
6 A. She said that I believe her daughter was
7 diagnosed as having a low white blood cell count.
8 And she was concerned that her daughter's father
9 wasn't, I guess, taking the necessary medical
10 action in regard to that problem.
11 Q. What else did she say in that e-mail?
12 A. She said that she was concerned that if
13 the father was awarded sole custody of the
14 daughter, that the daughter's life would be in
15 danger.
16 Q. What else did she say?
17 A. That's all that I recall.
18 Q. Do you have any idea where she is right
19 now? Any idea.
20 A. I was expecting her to be here for the
21 hearing.
22 Q. Do you have any idea where she is right

24
1 now?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Have you communicated with her by
4 telephone ever?
5 A. Yes, I have.
6 Q. What telephone number do you have for
7 her?
8 A. I don't have it on me. I didn't bring it
9 with me today, because I wasn't expecting to be
10 asked for it. But I have it written down in an
11 address book at home. It's her number in Potomac,
12 so it has a Maryland area code.
13 Q. Sounds like that would be her land line.
14 Do you have the number in your cell
15 phone?
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. Where is your cell phone?
18 A. I left it at home, because I knew that if
19 I brought it here I would have to pay to put it in
20 the locker of the jailhouse.
21 MS. OLIN: Please answer any questions
22 that Mr. O'Connell or the judge may have for you.

25
1 CROSS-EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. O'CONNELL:
3 Q. Hi.
4 A. Hello.
5 Q. When was the last time you spoke with
6 Ms. King?
7 A. Well, I guess the last time I spoke with
8 her was at the potluck.
9 Q. A month ago.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I don't mean to appear hostile, but I
12 find it a little hard to believe that you haven't
13 spoken with someone for a month, and you only met
14 them for the first time at the potluck, and you're
15 here today. So are you sure it was the last time
16 you spoke with her?
17 A. We -- I live in Arlington, Virginia, and
18 she lives in Potomac, Maryland, so we don't have a
19 chance to get together face to face that often.
20 But we do communicate by e-mail.
21 Q. So it's your testimony under oath -- and
22 we all know that perjury is a crime, a felony.

26
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you've got a good job at the FCC.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. It's your testimony that you haven't ever
5 spoken with her on the telephone since the potluck
6 dinner.
7 A. That's true. We didn't speak on the
8 telephone, because we found using e-mail to be more
9 convenient.
10 Q. Okay. Let me explain something, okay.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. A child is missing. It's not a minor
13 matter, okay. I want you to remember whether or
14 not -- not why, but whether or not you spoke with
15 her since you were at that potluck dinner.
16 A. Well, spoke, no, because --
17 Q. On the telephone.
18 A. No.
19 Q. You're sure.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What is her e-mail address?
22 A. It's -- I think it's drarielking at --

27
1 well, I don't remember if it's at yahoo.com or
2 something. I don't memorize these e-mail
3 addresses, because I have them --
4 Q. What is your e-mail address?
5 A. -- in my address book.
6 My e-mail address is
7 cattynancy@hotmail.com.
8 Q. Do you have any other e-mail addresses?
9 A. I have an e-mail address at the FCC, but
10 I am not allowed to use that for personal
11 communications.
12 Q. Fine. But what is -- well, let me
13 rephrase that. Did she ever send you an e-mail --
14 again, under oath, did she ever send you an e-mail
15 at your FCC address that you know of?
16 A. No, she did not.
17 Q. What is your FCC e-mail address?
18 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that
19 objection. You don't need to know that.
20 MR. O'CONNELL: Very well.
21 BY MR. O'CONNELL:
22 Q. So you've only met her one time.

28
1 A. Yes. Face to face, yes.
2 Q. Did you talk to her on the phone more
3 than -- excuse me. Have you ever talked to her on
4 the phone?
5 A. Yes. I spoke to her on the phone when I
6 was requesting directions to her house.
7 Q. And that was the first time you ever
8 heard her voice?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you haven't heard her voice since you
11 left the house that day.
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Did she ever discuss with you, boy, I
14 would really -- you know, if I don't win this, I'm
15 so concerned I'll take the child to, you know,
16 Georgia or someplace?
17 A. She didn't say that to me. She just --
18 she obviously was hoping that she would win the
19 case. But she didn't tell me anything about
20 moving, no.
21 Q. Did she tell you she had already tried to
22 move to Georgia?

29
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did she tell you that she had to move out
3 of Virginia for any reason?
4 A. She actually -- she never told me that
5 she had lived in Virginia. She said she wondered
6 why a court here in Virginia was hearing her
7 custody case when she has residence in Maryland.
8 Q. Tell me, was this sort of a custody
9 support group, or what kind of support group was
10 it?
11 THE COURT: It was a bashing Judge
12 Wiggins group is what it was.
13 MS. OLIN: Oh, really?
14 THE COURT: Yes. It's a fan club to me.
15 Isn't that what it was?
17 Q. Were you --
18 THE COURT: Isn't it a bashing Judge
19 Wiggins fan club? Isn't that what it is?
20 THE WITNESS: It was a . . .
22 Q. What do you guys have in common?

30
1 A. We have in common that --
2 THE COURT: Judge Wiggins.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, many of us there had
4 cases before Judge Wiggins. I believe there were
5 other mothers who had cases before other judges.
6 But we did have in common that we all had custody
7 cases that were in progress.
8 BY MR. O'CONNELL:
9 Q. Did anybody else in that group indicate
10 that they were interested in fleeing the
11 jurisdiction?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Okay. I would like the names of
14 everybody there, please.
15 A. Okay. One woman's name was Gail Lakritz.
16 Q. How do you spell the last name?
17 A. L-a-k-r-i-t-z.
18 Q. Okay. That was one person. Who else?
19 A. And Dr. King's daughter, Ariana Leilani,
20 was there.
21 Q. What other adults were there?
22 A. And I believe Dr. King had a male friend

31
1 there. Possibly a boyfriend, possibly just a
2 friend, I'm not sure.
3 Q. A little bit shorter than me, dark hair?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Weren't you introduced to him?
6 A. Yes, I was.
7 Q. Wasn't his name Roy Morris?
8 A. It could be. I don't remember names well
9 sometimes.
10 Q. What other adults?
11 A. And my husband was there.
12 THE COURT: Didn't you say also Naomi
13 Parrish was there?
14 MS. OLIN: That's right.
15 THE COURT: Didn't you say Naomi Parrish?
16 MS. OLIN: She did say --
17 THE WITNESS: No.
18 THE COURT: Yes, you did.
19 MS. OLIN: Yes, she did.
20 THE COURT: You said Naomi Parrish was
21 there.
22 MS. OLIN: She said Naomi Parrish was

32
1 present at a meeting in Potomac a few weeks ago.
2 BY MR. O'CONNELL:
3 Q. Well, was this -- well, maybe there was
4 another meeting that she was present in. Was she
5 present at the other meeting?
6 A. I have only communicated with Naomi
7 Parrish by e-mail. I don't believe she was present
8 at the potluck, no.
9 Q. So you've never met Naomi Parrish.
10 A. Not face to face, no.
11 Q. What other kinds of meetings are there?
12 A. Well, I've communicated with Ms. Parrish
13 through e-mail. I have watched her videos on
14 YouTube.
15 Q. What are those videos?
16 THE COURT: Judge Wiggins bashing --
17 THE WITNESS: They're videos --
18 THE COURT: -- basically.
20 Q. Go ahead.
21 A. They're videos about how she lost custody
22 of her daughter and basically she felt that she

33
1 should not have lost custody of her daughter.
2 Q. So you've never actually been face to
3 face with Naomi Wiggins [sic], and you would know
4 that because you've seen her video, right?
5 A. Right. However, we have talked about
6 meeting face to face. We're interested in doing
7 that.
8 Q. Right. So who else was at that meeting?
9 THE COURT: Because I heard you say that
10 Naomi Parrish was there.
11 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I have that in my
12 notes, and I'm sure --
13 MR. O'CONNELL: Well, we have a court
14 reporter, so --
15 THE COURT: Well, I'm absolutely sure she
16 said Naomi Parrish was there. Did you misspeak?
17 THE WITNESS: I believe I did, because
18 I -- no, I did not see Naomi Parrish at the
19 potluck.
21 Q. But you have talked to Naomi Parrish
22 about this horrible case with Dr. King, correct?

34
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. When? In the last 24 hours?
3 THE COURT: She said she talked to her --
4 she got an e-mail from her yesterday.
5 MR. O'CONNELL: I think she's going to
6 say in the last 24 hours.
7 BY MR. O'CONNELL:
8 Q. You spoke to her recently, didn't you?
9 That's why her name was on your mind, isn't it?
10 Again, you're under oath.
11 A. Again, I communicated with her by e-mail.
12 I did not have a telephone conversation with her.
13 Q. When? When was the most recent time you
14 spoke with her or communicated with her in any way
15 about this case?
16 A. It was when Ms. King first found that the
17 date for this case had been set, and she sent an
18 e-mail to myself and to Ms. Parrish.
19 Q. But you talked to Ms. Parrish in the last
20 couple days, didn't you? Or e-mailed.
21 A. I e-mailed her.
22 Q. Okay. Did she e-mail you?

35
1 A. She -- no. I believe she had e-mail
2 exchanges with Dr. King.
3 Q. Why? Were those e-mails forwarded to
4 you?
5 A. Yes, I received a cc of them.
6 Q. And that was within the last 24 hours?
7 A. Or within the last 48 hours.
8 Q. If I ask the Court to direct you to print
9 out all the e-mails that you had with anybody
10 concerning Dr. King, including any e-mails with
11 Dr. King, would you do so within the next hour?
12 A. I would have to consult with a lawyer
13 before doing that. But I don't --
14 Q. What do you have to hide in those
15 e-mails?
16 A. I don't believe I have anything to hide.
17 Q. Um-hum.
18 Yet you would want to consult with a
19 lawyer before you turned over your e-mails about an
20 absconded child. I mean, a child that --
21 THE COURT: Well, she didn't know the
22 child was absconded.

36
1 BY MR. O'CONNELL:
2 Q. Well, did you know that the child was
3 going to be -- I mean, oh, mom was so stressed she
4 might do anything, like take the child away rather
5 than have --
6 A. No.
7 Q. No? And there's nothing in those e-mails
8 that mentions of that, under oath.
9 A. No. She just mentioned that she had
10 concerns about the child's health if the father was
11 granted custody of her.
12 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, I'm going
13 to -- I know that Your Honor may have questions. I
14 would ask the Court at this time -- I did not know
15 this witness existed. I would have prepared a
16 request for a subpoena.
17 But I would ask the Court, given the
18 exigencies of the circumstances, that we have this
19 witness be ordered to produce all of her e-mails
20 with Dr. King or anybody else at that potluck. I
21 have one or two more questions, but if we could
22 have that.

37
1 THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to do
2 that.
3 But back to Ms. Parrish's e-mails, you
4 said you got an e-mail from Ms. Parrish in two
5 days -- about two days. What was the content of
6 her e-mail? We're obviously very concerned about
7 the child.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, Ms. Parrish was
9 concerned about the fact that her ex-husband had
10 been granted custody of her daughter and that --
11 THE COURT: That was her e-mail to you?
12 Two days ago she was still talking about that she
13 lost custody of her daughter to her husband?
15 THE COURT: Did she have any suggestions
16 as to how to solve the problem?
17 THE WITNESS: Her feeling, from that and
18 from past e-mails I've received from her, was that
19 her husband should not have custody of her
20 daughter, because she said that her husband took
21 her daughter to France and then left her daughter
22 with the husband's mother in France.

38
1 THE COURT: Well, that happened way after
2 he got custody of her.
3 THE WITNESS: That's true. Her child is
4 quite old now, I believe.
5 THE COURT: But the question was, did she
6 talk about Ms. King's daughter, how to help
7 Ms. King maintain custody of her daughter. Her
8 child has been with her father for a long time.
9 THE WITNESS: No, she did not. But she
10 just felt -- Ms. Parrish felt that Dr. King's
11 daughter should not be sent to live with that
12 father.
13 THE COURT: Does she know the father?
14 Does she know Dr. Pfeiffer?
15 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Where is Ms. Parrish?
17 Did she tell you where she's at?
18 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
19 THE COURT: She didn't give you any
20 indiction in her e-mails where she is currently
21 living?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, she's currently

39
1 taking -- doing some studies at George Mason
2 University in Arlington.
3 MR. O'CONNELL: Is George Mason
4 University in Arlington other than the law school?
5 What's she studying?
6 THE WITNESS: I believe she's doing some
7 study of law or issues regarding child custody.
8 THE COURT: Do you have any idea where
9 Dr. King could have taken the child?
10 THE WITNESS: No. I know that Dr. King's
11 mother was living with Dr. King, and I also know
12 that Dr. King's mother had some health problems and
13 that Dr. King often has to take her mother to the
14 hospital for --
15 THE COURT: But do you have any idea
16 where she could have taken the child?
17 THE WITNESS: No.
18 THE COURT: Okay.
19 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, I know that I
20 had asked for an order, and I understand Your
21 Honor's ruling. However, I will --
22 THE COURT: Well, I believe what she's

40
1 saying that the contents of the e-mails being what
2 they are. I believe that to be true.
3 MR. O'CONNELL: You're so much more
4 trusting than I am, Your Honor. I just want to let
5 the witness know that if there's another hearing in
6 this case, that I will be subpoenaing her records,
7 for which I do not need an order, and I will be
8 subpoenaing those cell phone records and I will be
9 seeking enforcement of those. Excuse me, your cell
10 phone records and your e-mail records.
12 Q. What is your home phone?
13 A. My home phone is (571) 721-0021.
14 Q. And do you have a land line?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is your land line number?
17 A. Oh, that is the land line number.
18 Q. What is your cell phone number?
19 A. I . . .
20 Q. You don't know your own cell phone
21 number?
22 A. I just recently -- no. I'm still new to

41
1 using the cell phone.
2 Q. Do you have a cell phone?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Okay. What is your cell phone provider?
5 A. Verizon.
6 Q. When did you first get Verizon?
7 A. Actually, just about a month ago.
8 Q. And what name is the contract under?
9 A. It's under my husband's.
10 Q. What is his name?
11 A. Christopher Slitor.
12 Q. And how many -- can we have the spelling
13 of that, please.
14 A. C-h-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r S-l-i-t-o-r.
15 Q. And does he have a separate line as well?
16 A. No.
17 Q. So it's just one cell phone between the
18 two of you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And who keeps that cell phone?
21 A. Well, the account is under my husband's
22 name.

42
1 Q. But you keep the cell phone in your
2 possession.
3 A. Oh, usually -- well, usually I have my
4 cell phone in my possession.
5 Q. What do you do for the FCC?
6 A. I do data entry for applicants applying
7 for experimental licenses.
8 Q. Who is your phone provider for your home
9 phone, the 571 number you've already told us?
10 A. Okay. That's Sprint.
11 Q. How long have you had that home phone
12 provider?
13 A. Ever since we have --
14 Q. More than a year?
15 A. Yes, much more than a year.
16 Q. Okay.
17 THE COURT: All right. Mr. O'Connell, is
18 that enough?
20 Q. Are there any other phones?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And you told us Hotmail was your e-mail.

43
1 Is there anybody else that you use for e-mail?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Is there any -- are you hooked up by a
4 cable system to the computer?
5 A. We're on the FIOS.
6 Q. How long have you been on it?
7 THE COURT: Mr. O'Connell.
8 MR. O'CONNELL: I just want to know how
9 long she's been on it so that I -- okay. Very
10 well. We're done.
11 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, I just have two
12 follow-up questions, because I think --
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 MS. OLIN: -- they were -- I was hoping
15 maybe if they were phrased a little differently.
16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MS. OLIN:
18 Q. One is, why are you involved with this
19 potluck group? What's your interest?
20 A. Because we are all mothers who have gone
21 through some degree of stress because the custody
22 of our children has been in dispute.

44
1 Q. Have you been in this court before?
2 A. Yes, I have.
3 Q. Okay. And then the other question is --
4 I know it's been asked in different ways, but
5 because we're so concerned, I just want to make
6 this very, very clear. Do you have any idea
7 whatsoever, any idea, where Dr. King or her
8 daughter might be?
9 A. No.
10 Q. I'm not asking you for certain knowledge,
11 just any idea.
12 A. No, I don't.
13 MS. OLIN: Thank you.
14 THE COURT: All right, ma'am. You can
15 have a seat. Dr. Barrett may want to speak to you,
16 I don't know.
17 All right. Other than that, you're free
18 to go. You can stay or go.
19 MR. O'CONNELL: Actually, she may be a
20 witness, and I'm not interested in her sharing
21 information with people that would also be
22 witnesses. I would ask for a rule on witnesses.

45
1 THE COURT: All right. You cannot
2 discuss your testimony with anyone.
3 MS. HEY: Okay.
4 MR. O'CONNELL: So Mr. Morris -- may I
5 proceed? So Mr. Morris was --
6 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, can we just have
7 one moment off the record, a recess? I just need
8 to regain my composure.
9 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
10 (A recess was taken.)
11 MR. O'CONNELL: Okay. So Mr. Morris
12 having represented that he had spoken with her and
13 communicated with her and that she was on her way
14 to the court, Judge Craven said, okay, we'll break
15 till 1:30. And I said, well, that's good, because
16 Ms. Hoffman is on her way.
17 After the hearing and she hadn't shown up
18 and -- I handed Your Honor the opposition that was
19 handed forward that Roy Morris had handed to me.
20 And the judge said, well --
21 THE COURT: Excuse me. Dr. Barrett, I
22 would like to speak to you before I leave today.

46
1 MR. O'CONNELL: Mr. Morris then
2 represented to the judge that he didn't know where
3 she was or what she was going to do and that he
4 hadn't told her anything.
5 And the judge said, wait a second, you
6 just told me earlier that she was -- and he was
7 annoyed and there was an exchange where basically
8 the judge said, you're lying, don't lie to me. Not
9 in those words.
10 And Mr. Morris then had to admit that
11 yes, he actually did know, that she had told him
12 that -- I mean, that he had told her and that she
13 had told him something. Exactly, I'm not sure
14 what.
15 And it's important that I tell Your Honor
16 that Mr. Morris remained seated during this
17 confrontation, with his legs up like -- you know,
18 I've never seen a lawyer behave that way in front
19 of a judge. So what, but I mean --
20 MS. OLIN: What's the relevance?
21 THE COURT: What's the relevance of that,
22 Mr. O'Connell? Can we get to --

47
1 MR. O'CONNELL: The whole time, during
2 the several hours while we're waiting around, he's
3 clearly texting back and forth with her. The
4 relevance is his behavior was one of communicating
5 exactly what was going on inside the courtroom.
6 During the hearing he disappeared and was texting
7 her from a back room. The relevance is I think he
8 is an abettor to this abduction. That's the
9 relevance.
10 And it's not just one thing. He had this
11 hostility and this sort of active -- I think he's
12 the answer. If we want to know where she is, we
13 need to find him and squeeze him, and we will be
14 able to find out where she is. That was the
15 relevance. I should have gone with the text
16 messaging first in the middle of the case.
17 The bottom line is the judge found on the
18 record, but not in -- I've handed Your Honor the
19 orders. Found on the record that the mother was
20 lying when she made the allegations -- I mean, and
21 that is as near a quote as I can come to -- and
22 that therefore the case would be dismissed and that

48
1 the motion would be quashed. That's what occurred.
2 Now, I have other things to say about
3 other things about the --
4 THE COURT: What are you asking the Court
5 to do today?
6 MR. O'CONNELL: I would like a capias on
7 the mother. I would like an exclusive order for
8 custody for the father. I would like no visitation
9 for the mother until she gets a full psychological
10 evaluation by a psychologist or a psychiatrist
11 appointed by the Court. Exclusive custody to the
12 father. A capias.
13 I would like her sentenced for a
14 substantial period of time for each of the rules.
15 I think that not only has she shown that she
16 doesn't -- I mean, she hasn't cooperated with -- by
17 the way, when I say each of the rules, I mean each
18 of the rules that she's already been found on.
19 I've filed other rules, and procedurally
20 I don't want to muck things up. I would like the
21 Court to issue those rules and have that on another
22 date to return so that we get it procedurally

49
1 correct, because I did file other rules.
2 She clearly has not -- in April my client
3 contacted Dr. McFarland as ordered, and
4 Dr. McFarland said, I can't begin this until mom
5 contacts me, mom hasn't contacted me except mom's
6 lawyer contacted me a couple months ago before any
7 of this occurred, but that was before Your Honor
8 ordered that he participate. I think Dr. McFarland
9 said something like, oh, he was sniffing around,
10 but mom hasn't contacted me. Mom has clearly not
11 done anything, clearly doesn't intend to do
12 anything about that.
13 But be that as it may, I would like those
14 rules issued. But I would like a sentence on the
15 outstanding rules. And I think since she's clearly
16 indicated that soft treatment doesn't work, I think
17 a period of incarceration for each of the rules for
18 at least 60 days is appropriate.
19 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, may I also make a
20 recommendation?
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MS. OLIN: Do you mind?

50
1 MR. O'CONNELL: By the way, Your Honor,
2 the reason I'm asking for immediate sole custody
3 without visitation is we need that, according to
4 the D.C. police, so that I can get her on the NCIC
5 so I can stop her from leaving the country. We
6 think she may be going to Lesotho.
7 THE COURT: Going where?
8 MR. O'CONNELL: Going to Lesotho. She
9 has a relationship with the embassy, and she's been
10 there before. That would be one place.
11 MS. OLIN: I would concur with sole
12 physical legal custody to the father as being in
13 the best interests of the child, considering the
14 factors under 20-124.3, with what we have in front
15 of us today.
16 No contact with mother, primarily because
17 of a concern for the safety of the child. The
18 mother has indeed shown total disrespect for the
19 orders of this Court, and she's absconded with the
20 child. We don't know where the child is. But also
21 indeed because that will enable the police to be
22 able to do their job in terms entering into the

51
1 NCIC as Mr. O'Connell has stated.
2 I know -- well, I believe there are two
3 rules to show cause set for disposition today. I
4 think there are two. One is for failure to comply
5 with the guardian ad litem, and one is for
6 failure -- Your Honor, I'm not sure if one is for
7 failure to comply with Dr. Lane or if one is
8 failure to comply with custody and visitation.
9 But on mine, I would ask for ten days in
10 jail, and on the other for ten days in jail. And I
11 think the other four or five that have been filed
12 are just set for arraignment.
13 I would also suggest that Dr. King be
14 assessed full guardian ad litem's fees.
15 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, just very
16 briefly, there is the failure to report. If you
17 recall, she had failed to report back to the Court
18 when she absconded with the child last time, and
19 Your Honor does have a rule upon that that she was
20 found guilty of, as well as the failure to comply
21 with the GAL and failure to cooperate with
22 Dr. Pfeiffer. So there are three there.

52
1 And also, in terms of grounds -- not that
2 Your Honor needs them, but -- I mean, needs
3 additional ones -- but the CPS workers yesterday --
4 and the reason this is relevant, Your Honor, is
5 because this occurred yesterday. This isn't sort
6 of a punishment.
7 This is a concern for the child found by
8 two witnesses in front of the court yesterday, and
9 she was -- that were with the child yesterday, that
10 said that she was so delusional that she was a
11 danger to herself and the child and that,
12 quote/unquote, I'm worried that she might feel that
13 this child is better off dead than with the father.
14 Michelle Wood was here to hear that, was
15 in Montgomery County, because I had subpoenaed her
16 as a witness. I did not have time to subpoena
17 those individuals through the interstate methods
18 for this hearing.
19 But I am proffering -- and I'm sure
20 Michelle Wood would confirm -- what I just told
21 you -- in fact, everything that I just told you
22 about that hearing -- because she was there during

53
1 the entire hearing, including the texting.
2 MS. OLIN: Your Honor, could we ask
3 Ms. Woods, since she's present, to say that under
4 oath? That would be a statement against interest,
5 but I think it's important to get out, rather than
6 just a proffer from counsel.
7 THE COURT: Raise your right hand.
8 Whereupon --
9 MICHELLE WOOD,
10 a witness, called for examination, having been
11 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
12 follows:
14 BY MS. OLIN:
15 Q. Ms. Wood, did mother make -- were there
16 any statements in court yesterday that suggested
17 that mother made threats against the safety of the
18 child?
19 Were there any comments in court made
20 yesterday that would suggest that mother was a
21 danger to the child?
22 A. Yes.

54
1 Q. What were the comments?
2 A. Specifically, I know that the supervising
3 social worker was very concerned. She had said, I
4 believe, in her 19 years of experience --
5 THE COURT: You're going to have to speak
6 up.
7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
8 THE COURT: I don't think the court
9 reporter can hear you, because I can't barely hear
10 you.
11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
12 She basically had said that in her I
13 believe it was 19 years' experience of doing CPS
14 investigations, that this was one of the most
15 alarming cases that she's come across. She was
16 greatly concerned for the child's safety.
17 And she did have a feeling and did state
18 on the record that she had concern that the mother
19 could resort to killing the child as a result of --
20 as opposed to having to give custody back to the
21 father.
22 BY MS. OLIN:

55
1 Q. Ms. Wood, did she say that mother said
2 she would harm her?
3 A. No.
4 Q. She said that was her analysis.
5 A. Her analysis from the erratic behavior,
6 what she was witnessing, the things that she was
7 doing. She had great concern that because of the
8 way that she was presenting, that it could make a
9 case for that.
10 Q. And do you remember the name of this
11 woman?
12 A. Lisa Hoffman.
13 Q. And what was her position?
14 A. She is the supervising social worker at
15 Montgomery County CPS.
16 Q. In Maryland?
17 A. Yes.
18 MS. OLIN: Thank you.
19 THE COURT: All right. The Court will
20 grant sole legal and physical custody of Ariana
21 Leilani King-Pfeiffer to her father.
22 The mother is not to have any contact

56
1 with the child until she avails herself to the
2 court and submits to a full psychological
3 evaluation.
4 The mother's motion for custody -- I
5 don't know what that is all about. She filed all
6 these motions for mediation, modification of child
7 custody. All those are denied. She's not here to
8 proceed with them. The Court will deny those
9 motions.
10 I guess it's the father's motion to
11 terminate the child support?
12 MR. O'CONNELL: Yes, Your Honor, there is
13 that motion.
14 THE COURT: The Court is going to grant
15 that motion.
16 MR. O'CONNELL: I hadn't even remembered
17 that motion at this point, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Dr. Lane's fees, the Court is
19 going to assess all of Dr. Lane's fees to the
20 mother. Well, I guess if we're going to do all of
21 it, but the Court is going to assess --
22 MR. O'CONNELL: The reason we think

57
1 that's appropriate --
2 THE COURT: Because of how the whole
3 situation was terminated, and I believe the
4 complaint -- what happened to the complaint with
5 Dr. Lane?
6 MS. OLIN: Dismissed out of hand.
7 THE COURT: So the Court is going to
8 assess the whole fee, Dr. Lane's fee, to the
9 mother.
10 MR. O'CONNELL: That would be in a
11 reimbursement form, since it has been paid except
12 for $2,000, correct?
13 THE COURT: Yes. Whatever it is.
14 On the failure to complies that were on
15 for disposition, I'm not going to sentence jail
16 time in her absence. What the Court will do is
17 issue a capias for failure to appear.
18 There's three rules that were set for
19 disposition. The Court will issue a capias on
20 those for failure to appear.
21 MR. O'CONNELL: Your Honor, may I also
22 ask to orally renew the motion which we filed

58
1 earlier for surrender of the passport? The child
2 has a United States passport. We've already
3 surrendered the German passport, but she hasn't
4 surrendered the U.S. passport of the child.
5 THE COURT: The Court is also going to
6 issue a capias on the other two motions that were
7 for today, failure to comply with the custody order
8 and failure to cooperate with the guardian ad
9 litem, a capias for failure to comply.
10 I would issue a warrant for her arrest
11 for kidnapping, but it didn't occur in Virginia.
12 MS. OLIN: Right. We only have civil
13 jurisdiction.
15 I did a court order so that it can become
16 a final order today. Review it and see if it's
17 what the Court ordered.
18 MS. OLIN: Did you want to assess GAL
19 fees, Your Honor?
20 THE COURT: Um-hum. What is the -- well,
21 we don't have to have it today. We can just assess
22 the guardian ad litem fees.

59
1 MS. OLIN: I'll have it today. I'll
2 round it up to the nearest hour.
3 THE COURT: To the mother.
4 The Court does find, considering all the
5 factors listed in 16.1, that it's in the child's
6 best interests for the Court to grant sole legal
7 custody to the father, especially in light of the
8 testimony of Ms. Wood.
9 MS. OLIN: And Your Honor, and also in
10 20-124.3.
11 THE COURT: I'm sorry, 20 dash -- I said
12 16.1, but I meant 20 dash --
13 MS. OLIN: I know what you meant, Your
14 Honor. 124.3.
15 THE COURT: 124.3 is what I meant. I
16 said 16.1. I meant 20-124.3. And also everything
17 that's gone on before.
18 All right. I think that's it.
19 (Whereupon, the proceedings at 11:43 a.m.
20 were concluded.)
21
22

60
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
3 I, Sean P. Goza, do hereby certify that
4 the foregoing proceedings were taken by me in
5 stenotype and thereafter reduced to typewriting
6 under my supervision; that I am neither counsel
7 for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties
8 to the action in which these proceedings were
9 taken; and further, that I am not a relative or
10 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the
11 parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise
12 interested in the outcome of the action.
13
14
Sean P. Goza
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

JJ031848-01-00
ORDER FOR CUSTODY/VISITATION Case No. ...........................................................................................................
GRANTED TO INDIVIDUAL(S)
Commonwealth ofVirginia VA. CODE $8 16.1-278.15,20-124.2 ............................................................................................................................
06/06/2008
HATEOF HEARING
uvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
present: S Father MC.~AELHER.BE.RT.PFEIF.FE.R

.................. Father's attorney ,.SEAN.W....Q'CQNNELL.......................
Guardian ad litem
The above-named child has been brought before this Court upon the filing of a written petition or motion concerning custody or
visitation or for which transfer of custody is a dispositional alternative. Legal notice has been given to all proper and necessary
parties. All provisions of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Law have been duly complied with in assuming
jurisdiction over the child, and all determinations have been made in accordance with the standards set forth in Virginia Code 8 16.1-
278.4, 8 16.1-278.5, 5 16.1-278.6 or 5 16.1-278.8 or 5 16.1-278.15 and $8 20-124.1 through20-124.6.
HAVING CONSIDERED ALL RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND THE BEST INTEREST O F
THE CHILD, T H E COURT FINDS THAT T H E CHILD IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION O F THIS COURT AND
FURTHER FINDS AND ORDERS THAT:
1. 0 The parties are in agreement on the arrangement for the child's custody and visitation:
0 as set forth in the attached document, which is incorporated
0 as set forth below.
2. CustodyNisitation
SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY O F ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER IS GRANTED T O HER FATHER,
MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER. THE MOTHER, ARIEL R. KING, SHALL NOT HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH THE CHILD
UNTIL SHE AVAILS HERSELF TO THE COURT AND COMPLETES A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.
The basis for the decision determining custody or visitation has been communicated to the parties orally or in writing.
3. 0 A supplemental sheet with additional findings andlor orders is attached and incorporated.
4. Relocation. Each party intending a change of address shall give 30 days advance written notice of such change of address to the
court and other party, pursuant to Virginia Code $ 20-124.5. Unless otherwise provided in this order, this notice shall contain the
child's full name, the case number of this case, the party's new telephone number and new sheet address and, if different, the
party's new mailing address. Unless otherwise provided in this order, the notice shall be mailed by first-class or delivered to this
court and to the otherparty.
5. Access to Records. In accordance with Virginia Code 5 20-124.6, neither parent, regardless of whether such parent has custody,
shall be denied access to the academic or health records of that parent's minor child, unless otherwise provided in this order or, in
the case of health records, if the minor's treating physician or clinical psychologist has made a part of the child's health record a
written statement that furnishing to or review by the parent of such health records would be reasonably likely to cause substantial
harm to the minor or another. person;
. , ,
6 This Order is 6B FINAL TEMPORARY and a final hearing on this matter will be held on
FORM DC-573(MASTER) REVISED 7/05

ORDER
AR_~~TON J&Q!3~OU.RT________________________________ Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
COMMO~WEALTH OF VA _________________ V.! In re: ARIAN_A LEILANI KING-P~EIFFER

THE FOLLOWING PARTIES WERE PRESENT:
o Juvenile 0 Attorney:
00 Guardian ad Litem .QEBORAH O~ ______________ _
o Father 0 Mother 0 Guardian:
00 Petitioner/Complainant 00 Attorney: SEAN 9~_~~!i~ ____________

o RespondentlDefendant 0 Attorney: ______________________________________________________
o Commonwealth's Attorney: ____________________ 0
Type of Case: CUSTODY
o Felony D Misdemeanor 0 CHINS 00 Custody 0 Visitation 0 Support 0 Foster Care 0 Other
Type of Hearing:
[J Determination!Appointment of Counsel 0 Detention Hearing 0 Transfer Hearing

00 Adjudicatory Hearing 0 Disposition Hearing 0 Continuance 0 Review 0 Preliminary Hearing
[] Show Cause [] Trial 0 Motion _____________ D
PLEA:.____________
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
MOTHER HAS ABDUCTED CHILD AND MOTHER EXHIBITED BEHAVIOR TO MONTGOMERY CPS WHICH MADE
THE AGENCY CONCERN FOR THE CHILD'S SAFETY_
SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IS GRANTED TO THE FATHER MICHAEL PFEIFFER
AND NO CONTACT OF CHILD BY THE MOTHER UNTIL THE MOTHER AVAILS HERSELF OF THIS COURT AND
UNDERGOES A COMPLETE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION_
Arlington Juv.nll. , Domutlc
Relatlolll District Court
i, the undenllgned clerk or deputycierI(
0'pursuant
the above named court, authenticate
to Code
Va. on
§8.01.J9tfC)
!hIs date that the document \0 which this,
!1it;-H:mlca~I01! Is affix.ed is a true copy of
~- .() ,--ecool1O !he abow named eourt, mad,
~:'~;;rn-E1 of my offlcJaJ dyt!:~
am. ~JCI.~ ~0mt/~'
Wiggins - COJ - 398

On March 19, 2008, Petition was served with a discovery request “Respondents Second
Request For Production Of Documents to Petitioner” in which documents production was
demanded regarding, among other things, correspondence and communications between
Petitioner, other counsel, and Dr. Lane. No timely response was forthcoming.
On May 8, 2008, through letter, Respondent reminded Petitioner of the outstanding
discovery request and that it was long overdue. Again, no response was forthcoming.
Finally, on the evening of June 2, 2008, a package was left at Respondents’ home
containing several hundred pages of emails and correspondence.
In this short period of time, only a preliminary review has been completed. However, the
following facts emerge that clearly indicate fraud on the Court and other improper conduct, and
bias on the part of the GAL causing her to act in the best interests of the Petitioner and not the
child.
MISCONDUCT REGARDING MICHELE WOOD’S REPORT
As the correspondence will clearly demonstrate:
1) Ms. Olin directed Dr. Pfeiffer, through counsel, to make unauthorized copies of
the child custody evaluation of Michelle Wood in late October to November
2007,
2) Ms. Olin directed Dr. Pfeiffer to have that unauthorized copy forwarded to Dr.
Lane, in an apparent attempt to influence Dr. Lane’s report to the Court.
3) As a direct result of Ms. Olin’s actions, Dr. Lane delayed the production of his
November 8, 2007 report to the Court – falsely blaming Respondent -- and then
Ms. Olin used that that claim to argue for a continuance, apparently in an attempt
to get Ms. Wood to change her recommendations to conform with the
recommendations that Ms. Olin sought out of Dr. Lane,
4) To reassure Petitioner that her “independent” recommendations were in
conformance with the expectations of Petitioner, Ms. Olin provided to Petitioner -
-- and only Petitioner – copies of her draft recommendations days before making
those recommendations known to the Court, Respondent or her counsel.
The correspondence speaks for itself regarding this matter:

1) On October 31, 2007, the GAL reminded Dr. Pfeiffer that he needs to provide
answers to her questions. The GAL informed Dr. Pfeiffer that:
Important – a copy of Michelle Wood’s custody evaluation is waiting for your

attorney to pick up. It is on the 5th floor in the juvenile probation office, at the
front desk. They will only give it to your counsel in person, unless he can sweet
talk them into faxing it. It’s important that he see it, and Dr. Lane as well, as
soon as possible. I picked it upon the way out of court yesterday afternoon, and
will not have access to a fax until I return, so these guys need to get copies ASAP.
Please let them know.
See, Exhibit I.
2) On November 3, 2007, the GAL again emailed Dr. Pfeiffer asking:
Michael: Did you tell your lawyer about the report from Wood?
See, Exhibit II at 2.
3) On November 4, 2007, Dr. Pfeiffer wrote back to Ms. Olin:
Dear Ms. Olin: Yes, he was able to get the report, but we have not discussed the
report yet.
4) On November 4, 2007, Ms. Olin wrote back to Dr. Pfeiffer:
What about Dr. Lane? I can't get it to him from here - no fax machine. It is
important that he see it before writing his report.
My position is, without detail as yet, as follows:
Mother and Father accuse one another of many of the same things - mental health
issues, parenting issues, financial issues. Both parents focus on the weaknesses of
the other, without being able to find a common ground where they can raise their
child. Each sees the weaknesses of the other without being able to see their own
weaknesses. Both are traumatized by the difficulties of separation and divorce,
and this colors their abilities to parent effectively. The child appears to be torn
between the parents, and she is not being protected from the negativity of the
failure of the marriage.
We also have two parents with advanced degrees and training, and neither is
making a living commensurate with their skills. Each conveys blame for the other

for not making more money, which has little significance relative to the best
interest of the child in terms of custody.
I will wait to see Dr. Lane's report, and especially the results of his mental health
evaluations before finalizing my own and making a recommendation as to
custody.
Finally, we have a very young child, and her needs will likely change over the
next couple of years which may well impact custody and visitation later on.
See, Exhibit II at 1. (emphasis added)
5) On November 5, 2007, Dr. Pfeiffer wrote back and confirmed:
Dear Ms Olin:
Dr Lane also has the report.
Michael
6) Immediately after receiving Ms. Wood’s Report, on November 7, 2008, Dr. Lane
wrote correspondence to both counsel (presenting that he had no previous correspondence with
either of them) seeking a delay in the deadline for his report. He alleged that because the child
was asleep at the commencement of his home visit (which he had rescheduled a number of times
to result in that late date), he claimed he could not complete his report (when, in fact, the child
had gotten up during his visit and he could have easily completed his home visit – a fact he failed
to point out in his letter). See, Exhibit III.
Ms Olin did not make an independent investigation of the circumstances. Ms. Olin did
not tell the Court that she knew – and encouraged – the copying of Ms. Wood’s report and that it
be forwarded to Dr. Lane in order to influence what Dr. Lane’s actions. The child custody
evaluation standards require no counsel may attempt to substantively influence the custody
evaluator. See, Excerpts of Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation,
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Exhibit X. However, Ms. Olin did this openly,

acting as an activist for Dr. Pfeiffer, urging Dr. Pfeiffer to -- either act directly or through his
counsel -- violate the rules, procedures, and standards for the treatment of Ms. Wood’s report,
and use that report to influence Dr. Lane’s child custody study. Dr. Lane then created this
“issue” of Dr. King now being cooperative, to delay the November 8, 2008 hearing, and, in turn,
to buy time and hopefully get Ms. Wood to change her position to conform to what Ms. Olin
wanted the two custody evaluation reports to say.
This clearly shows misconduct by the GAL Ms. Olin, and bias on her part. Thus, for this
reason alone the GAL should be sanctioned, and removed from this case.
Similarly, Mr. O’Connell’s (with Petitioner’s participation) providing of Ms. Wood’s
report to Dr. Lane – hopefully with help by “sweet talking” the clerks – is a violation of the
treatment of the report and misconduct on this Court. For this reason, Mr. O’Connell should be
sanctioned for his misconduct regarding this matter.
Finally, all filings, testimony, and evidence by Petitioner and the GAL referring to Dr.
Lane, his report, or any alleged misconduct by Respondent with regard to Dr. Lane should be
stricken from the record for fraud on the court. The contrivance created by Petitioner, in
collusion with Ms. Olin, Mr. O’Connell, and Dr. Lane, was simply a setup to falsely pin on
Respondent the blame for a delay that was intentionally created by these bad actors to give time
to pressure Ms. Wood to change her recommendations (which were originally favorable to
Respondent) to the Court.
MISCONDUCT REGARDING XXXXXX

KING’S STROKE
It will now be shown how Petitioner, using his medical credentials in violation of the
HIPAA privacy regulations, colluded with the GAL and Mr. O’Connell to commit fraud on the
court.

The events unfolded as follows, as documented in mostly newly available
correspondence.
On January 20, 2008. Dr. XXX King, the xxxx of Respondent was stricken with a
stroke, that left her in a coma and an intensive care unit in an Atlanta hospital. See, January 31,
2008 Letter of DeKalb Memorial.
In an attempt to intimidate and mislead Respondent’s counsel and the court, on January
30, 3007, Ms. Olin, copying the court and other counsel represented that:
Ray:
I know you would never knowingly mislead the court about facts, so I want to
share with you the latest information (todays’) from Dekalb Hospital. Dr. XXXXX
King is doing well, is out of intensive care, and in the general wards. According
to the hospital, there is minimal damage, and she may be prescribed some
minimal rehab, but on the whole is on the mend. The stroke was a small one with
minimal blood loss. I know that we are all relieved that she is doing better. You
may want to consult with the physicians yourself to be sure.
Mother should be able to fly back with the child for the hearing. If not, then she
should return the child ASAP, as I have suggested before, so that I may complete
more of my investigation.
Deborah Olin
See, Exhibit IV.
On January 31, 2007, Ms. Olin wrote to Dr. King, reassuring her that what she wrote was
accurate in what she was told by her source, Petitioner Dr. Pfeiffer:
provided by your xxxxxx’s neurosurgeon, or other treating physician, at your

request, to your husband.
See, Exhibit VII
On January 31, 2007, a letter from DeKalb Medical indicated otherwise. See, January
31, 2008 Letter of Dekalb Medical. See, Exhibit VIII. That letter was forwarded to Ms. Olin.

On February 2, 2007, Ms. Olin claimed – choosing to believe Dr. Pfeiffer over Dr. Ariel
King as corroborated by the hospital, itself:
As for the doctor issue, let's be straight. XXXXXXX's doctor gave one story (I
was on the phone with father's counsel while father spoke with doctor on a
different phone in the same room as counsel. I heard the questions, heard the
repeated answers, and asked a few questions myself). Now, I suppose this could be
staged, but what would clear it up would be my conversation with the same doctor.
You can make it a conference call and be on the other line, I don't care. Why
wouldn't one of ya'll think of that yourselves?
See, Exhibit X.
This arrangement was a clear scheme to disclose private medical information in violation
of the HIPAA privacy regulations.
In his “Motion in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Continue [the February 8, 2007
hearing]” Counsel for Dr. Pfeifer trivalized for the court that Dr. XXXXX’s condition:
While it is regrettable that the Respondents xxxx recently fell, the Respondent
has done the following acts which should alone cause the Court to deny the
request and change custody of the child.
a. Respondent has misrepresented to the Court the xxxx's condition. On the

date that the motion to continue was filed the xxxx had been released from the
ICU having recovered from a small cerebellar hemorrhage and undergone a
procedure which drained the small amount of internal cerebral spinal fluid.
b. There never was a large bleed in the brain but the fluid drain avoided the
possible complication of increased intracranial pressure. We know this because
Dr. Pfeiffer, upon the written request of Dr. King, called the neurosurgeon in
the case and was briefed. We also know that the Respondents (sic) has no loss
of speech and no major weakness.
See, Exhibit XI
When GAL Olin and Petitioner’s counsel Mr. O’Connell wrote these statements, they
knew they were false. This is evidenced by Dr. Pfeiffer’s email to Ms. Olin and Dr. Lane
(another third party disclosure in violation of HIPAA Privacy requirements), dated January 31,
2008 where Dr. Pfeiffer stated that:

I was informed that Ariel's xxxxxxXXXXX
King, has had a small
cerebellar hemorrhage in the midline with some blood entering the forth
ventricle.
To avoid the possible complication of a hydrocephalus and increased

intracranial pressure, a ventriculostomy tube was placed, I think on Monday
01/21/2008. The patient was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.
Patient's clinical status improved over the next week. Repeat head CTs did not
reveal hydrocephalus and the ventriculostomy tube was removed after one
week, I think on Monday 01/28/2008. Because there was no hydrocephalus,
there was no need for the placement of an External Ventricular Drain (EVD).
Patient was transferred out of the ICU to a regular floor on Tuesday

01/29/2008. When I called the Neurosurgeon, Dr. Kaveh Khajavi, on
Wednesday, 01/30/2008, 1 was told that Ariel's xxxxxxx, Dr. XXXXXX, was
on a regular floor, doing
ok and able to talk.
He stated that she was somewhat more lethargic than before and he felt that
XXXXXXXXX could have a meningitis, a not uncommon complication after
ventriculostomy. Infectious disease consultation was called and the antibiotics
she receives were adjusted.
See, Exhibit XII.
Note first that there was no support for Mr. O’Connell’s claims that XXXXXXXX
simply “fell.” Second, note that no mention is made in any of the communications by GAL Olin
or Mr. O’Connell that “XXXXXXXX could have a meningitis” and that an “infection disease
consultation was called and the antibiotics she receives were adjusted.” Third, note that, in
contrast to Pfeiffer telling them that XXXXXXXX was “somewhat more lethargic,” Mr.
O’Connell and Ms Olin told the opposite claiming that “We also know that the Respondents
King is doing well, is out

(sic) has no loss of speech and no major weakness” and “XXXXX
of intensive care, and in the general wards. According to the hospital, there is minimal damage,
and she may be prescribed some minimal rehab, but on the whole is on the mend.”
The truth was that when these representations were made by Ms. Olin and Mr.
O’Connell, XXXXXXXXX was back in the ICU, could hardly sit up, her speech (in the rare
times she was awake) as slurred, and her survival was still in doubt due to the infectious disease,

cardiological, and other complications. So, rather than giving a complete story, or even one that
gave a reasonably accurate general impression of XXXXXXX's condition, GAL Olin and
Mr. O’Connell made fraudulent statements to the Court – providing no candor whatsoever. As a
result, Respondent was forced to leave her xxxx in Atlanta, get on a plane early on the morning
of February 8, 2008, in order to attend a hearing that should have been continued if either Ms.
Olin and Mr. O’Connell were truthful to the Court. Worse yet, and probably by plan, the
February 8, 2008 hearing set in motion a sequence of “setups” that resulted in Respondent losing
temporary primary physical custody of her five year old daughter – based on superficial
“violations” of ambiguous court rulings. See, February 21, 2008 Order at Exhibit XII.
The real tragedy is that GAL Olin has not been acting in the best interests of the child,
but instead, has acted in a singular purpose of getting custody transferred to the Petitioner. The
GAL has discounted all concerns by Respondent, including those raised about problems with
Petitioner’s care and custody of the child, as set forth in an Emergency Motion filed in October
2007, choosing instead to assume that everything was “OK’ with Petitioner, as she would be
required to do in order to achieve her goal of shifting custody from the mother to the Father.
Using fraudulent and misleading representations to the Court, the GAL, Petitioner,and his
counsel, Mr. O’Connell, have sought to steer this court towards their common goal of shifting
custody from the Mother to the Father, even if it is not in the best interests of the child.
1) The Court should sanction the GAL Olin and remove her from the case.
2) The Court should further sanction Mr. O’Connell for his fraudulent representations to
the Court.

3) Finally, the Court should strike all pleadings, testimony and evidence of Petitioner and
the GAL relating to the emergency visit of Respondent to care for her xxxxxx in Georgia, and the
events which followed from that visit.
4) With the striking of all pleadings, testimony, and evidence of Petitioner and the GAL
relating to Dr. Lane and the emergency visit of Respondent to care for her xxxxx in Georgia, the
Court needs to reopen all the “Rules to Show Cause” that relied on said evidence (i.e., the Rules
to Show Cause regarding Dr. Lane, the GAL, and the alleged Violation of the February 8, 2008
Order involving the return of custody after returning from Atlanta), and the vacating of any
findings based on that evidence.
The misconduct in this case -- clearly shown by the correspondence recently belatedly
produced by Dr. Pfeiffer -- has been destructive and counterproductive, and undermined the
credibility of the process and this Court. It is particularly disconcerting that the very persons --
the GAL, Petitioner and his counsel -- using fraud and misconduct in this case are the very
parties who sought jail for Respondent based on alleged violations of rulings of this court via that
fraud and misconduct.
Ariel King (Pro Se)

11725 Greenlane Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
202 730 5111

VI RGINIA:

COURT FOR ARLINGTON COUNTY
DR. MICHAEL H. PFELFFER

Petitioner,
v.
DR. ARIEL R. KING CASE NO. 1-31848-01

Respondent,
IN RE: ARlANA-LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER

DOB: 05/07/2003
PRAECIPE
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Please note the following:
Pursuant to the February 8, 2008 Order where the Court ordered both the Father and the
Mother to have a psychological examination, Dr. IGng, the Mother, completed said psychological
examination with Susan Van Ost, Ph.D., Director,Assessments and Solutions a part of 1ewish
Social Services Agency (1SSA), Bethesda, Maryland,
Dr. Ariel King
FILED
Arlingto~ Juvenile & Domestic

Relauons Districr Coun
Arlington. Virgmi"
By _ _ _ ",- . , Dep!.l[.\. Clerk
VI RGI NI A:

COURT FOR ARLINGTON COUNTY
MICHAEL H.PFELFFER
Petitioner,
ARIEL R. KING CASE NO. J-31848-01

Respondent.
IN RE: ARIANA LEILANI KING-PFEIFFER
DOB: 05/07/2003
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:

Please note the following:
Attached please find a copy of a psychological analysis of suspected child abuse by
Dr. Michael H. Pfeiffer,done by Dr. Schneyer, PhD.
Arlington Juvenile <& Domestic

Relations District Court
Arlington. Virginia
gy____---- Clerk
- 1; kp~ii'y

Lee Schneyer, Ed.D., M.BA.
Licensed Psychologist #I585
10401 Old Georgetown Road
Suite 208
Bcthcsda, Maryland 20814
301-493-9801
August 14,2008
Re: Ariana Leilani King-Pfeiffer
To Whom It May Concern,
Dr.Ariel King contacted me as she was concerned that her daughter, A r i a Leilani
King-PfeiiTer, age 5, was being abused. I initially met with Dr.King and her attorney, Mr. Ray
Moms,on July 22,2008, Subsequently I reviewed documents that Dr.King provided to me,
including a record of symptoms that Dr. King compiled during the period June 2-9,2008, notes
from pediatric visits from June 12,2007 until January 8,2008 ,a transcript of Ariana Leilaoi's
discussion with her mother on June 4,2008, and brief videos of Anana Leilani. I had Dr. King
complete a detailed developmental history of her daughter. Dr. King also completed the Child
Dissociative Checklist, Version 3.1 then had a telephone interview with Dr,King on August 13,
2008 focusing on specific changes in Ariana's behavior. Based upon my review of these
materials and my interview with Dr. King, it is my professional opinion that there is strong
clinical evidence to suspect that Ariana Leilani King-Pfeiffer is being sexually molested.
The developmental history suggests that Ariana's development was proceeding normally
until age four. She was a healthy newborn (APGAR scores 9/10) who was successfully breast-fed
for three years. There were no early feeding difficulties and she enjoyed being held and cuddled
by her mother. Developmental milestones for walking and talking were met within normal
i-
limits. Toilet training was accomplished by age three years and she was sleepingthrough the
night by age two years (although this i s somewhat on the late side, chil n who are breast-fed
often do not sleep through the night until this age as they need to feed o a regular basis due to
the tower calorie content of breast milk). Socially she was extroverted and gregarious, making
friends easily. The "terrible two's"were relatively easy for Ariana as she only manifested a few
temper tantrums a week during this period; these were appropriately managed by allowing
Ariana to vent her frustration and then discussing the issue with her after she calmed down.
At age four, Arianaysbehavior began to change dramatically. She went from being an
outgoing child to a shy and withdrawn child. The occasional "accident"became full blown
eneuresis, culminating in her urinating in her clothing several times per day and even having
multiple encopretic episodes. The well mannered child began to exhibit outbursts of rage, during
which she would scream, strike her mother, bite herself, and destroy her own toys and treasured
belongings. When her mother would ask her what was wrong, Ariana would reply that she could
not tell her mother why she is angry as it is a secret. hi February, 2008 Ariana spoke of seeing
"Mr,Piggy's shangl e." Dr. King's German au pair informed her that "shangle" is a German

A. King-Pfeiffer
Page 2
slang word for penis. Later &at month Ariana was assessed at the Tree House Center, where she
was taught the difference between "good touch" and "bad touch". In June, 2008, k a n a told her
mother that her father was doing bad touching with her, whereas she and her mother enjoy good
touching between them.
As mentioned earlier, Dr. King completed the Child Dissociative Checklist, Version 3.
This is a twenty (20) item checklist designed by Frank Putnam, MAD,, an expert in the field of
dissociative identity disorder (DID), to assess for the possibility of dissociation The median
score for normal population is 2.0, for anxiety disorder it is 4..0, and for DID it is 25; Anma's
scored 27, strongly suggesting the possibility that she is experiencing symptoms of dissociation.
Discussion of tile items with Dr.King indicated that Ariana has experienced periods where she
"zones ouf'and does not respond to hear mother or react for a period up to one minute- She has
also exhibited striking changes in personality. On one occasion Ariana was crying as she did not
want to go on a visit with her father. She then suddenly stopped crying and said in a different
voice "ok, I'm going to get my pocketbook", picked up her belongings and left, exhibitingtotally
different mannerisms from her normal behaviors. She has also had rapidly changing physical
complaints, one moment complaining of a stomach ache or headache and then the next moment
it was completely gone. Dr.King has also noted cuts and bruises on Ariana that her daughter
could not recall sustaining. Finally, in recent months Ariana began to kiss her mother with an
open rnoutb, a behavior that was totally foreign to their prior interactions-
The deterioration in Arim's behavior, combined with her dissociative symptoms and
her verbalization ofexperiencing bad touch, strongly suggest that Ariana has been subject to
sexual abuse for a sustained period and clearly warrant that she immediately receive a thorough
sexual abuse evaluation by a trained expert in this field, such as Katie Killen, PhD., of Towson,
MD. To not require such an assessment to rule out this possibility would be to potentially subject
this young child to a sustained period of abuse which could well result in her becoming a
dissociative identity disorder (DID),which would have profoundly negative implications for her
future.
Sincerely yours,
Lee Schneyer, Ed-D., M.B.A

VIRGINIA :

MICHAEL H. PFEIFFER
Petitioner,
v. CASE NO. J-31848-01
ARIEL R. KING
Respondent.
IN RE: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
DOB: 05/07/2003
IN RE: ARIEL KING CASE NOS.

JA020404-01-01
JA020404-02-01
JA020404-04-01
JA020404-05-01
JA020404-06-01
MOTION TO RECUSE
Respondent, Dr. Ariel King, on behalf of herself and her daughter, XXXXXXXXXXXX
King-Pfeiffer, respectfully asks that the Honorable Esther Wiggins Lyles (hereinafter referred to
as “the trial judge” or “this Court”) recuse herself from any further proceedings in the above
captioned matters, including those brought by Petitioner, who is an illegal German immigrant
alien,1 on the following grounds:
1. Under 28 USCS Sec. 455, and Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100
S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980), "[t]he neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life,
liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the
facts or the law." The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI and the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483
1
See, Motion to Set Aside Orders, filed by Respondent on August 21, 2008.

n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976). ["State courts, like federal courts, have a
constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law."]
2. Furthermore, procedural fairness is of critical import in a child custody case and the
Fourteenth Amendment protections must be applied with the ultimate vigilance. As Justice
Ginsberg wrote in M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):
"Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among
associational rights this Court has ranked as 'of basic importance in our society,' rights
sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation,
disregard, or disrespect. M.L.B's case, involving the State's authority to sever
permanently a parent-child bond demands the close consideration the Court has long
required when a family association so undeniably important is at stake.
...
"Although both Lassiter and Santosky yielded divided opinions, the Court was
unanimously of the view that 'the interest of parents in their relationship with their
children is sufficiently fundamental to come within the finite class of liberty interests
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.' It was also the Court's unanimous view that
'few consequences of judicial action are so grave as the severance of natural family ties.'"
[Alteration original.] [Citations omitted.] [Footnote omitted.]
3. Canon 3(E)(1)(b) of the Canons of Judicial Conduct of Virginia require the trial judge
to recuse herself in proceedings in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned:
Canon 3(E)(1) states in pertinent part:
Disqualification.
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding

in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
(a) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) The judge served as a lawyer in the matter in
controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously
practiced law served during such association as a lawyer
concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material

witness concerning it; . . . . 2
While “[a] purported violation of the Canons alone is not enough to mandate recusal,” 3 in the
presence of proof of actual bias, recusal is not discretionary.4
3. The requirements of this Canon are clear; a judge must not only diligently avoid
actual impropriety, but a reasonable appearance of impropriety as well. Thus, Canon 3(C)(a) of
the Canons of Judicial Conduct also provides that "[a] judge shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned. "!S! ee, Commonwealth v.
Jackson, 267 Va. 226, 229, 590 S.E. 2d 518, 520 (2004) (holding that "in the absence of proof of
actual bias, recusal is properly within the discretion of the trial judge"); Davis v. Commonwealth, 21
Va. App. 587, 590-91, 466 S.E. 2d 741, 742-43 (1996) (trial judge's discretion to determine
whether "impartiality might reasonably be questioned") (citing Canon 3(C) of the Canons of
Judicial Conduct).
Recusal Is Required to Avoid Actual and Perceived Bias
4. No matter how well intended, the record in this case demonstrates that this honorable
court acted in a biased or prejudicial manner toward Respondent, Dr. Ariel King. Such bias was
evident from the beginning of the proceeding, through the most recent hearing on June 6, 2008;
numerous examples permeate the record:
2
Commentary: Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. A judge should disclose information
that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if
the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification. By decisional law, the rule of necessity may override the
rule of disqualification. For example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary
statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on
probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In the latter case, the judge must disclose the basis for possible
disqualification and use reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.
3
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 267 Va. 226, 229, 590 S.E. 2d 518, 520 (2004) (citing Davis v. Commonwealth, 21
Va. App. 587, 591, 466 S.E.2d 741, 743 (1996)); see Welsh v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 300, 317, 416 S.E.2d
451, 461 (1992), aff’d, 246 Va. 337, 437 S.E.2d 914 (1993).
4
Jackson, 267 Va. at 229, 590 S.E.2d at 520 (citing Justus v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 667, 673, 674, 283 S.E.2d
905, 908 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 983 (1982))

a) On September 5, 2007, the trial judge entered an initial order one day before the
hearing for such order was scheduled to occur, i.e., the next day, September 6, 2007, denying
due process to Respondent, (See, Original Summons, attached hereto as Exhibit I). Due to
defective service of the Custody Petition by Petitioner, Respondent did not learn of the
originally set September 6, 2008 hearing date for Petitioner’s custody petition until August
31, 2007. On September 4, 2007 (the next business day after receiving service), Respondent
filed a “Motion to Continue” the hearing date the originally set September 6, 2007 hearing
date for a week or two. A hearing was then set on September 5, 2007 solely for the Court to
hear and rule on the Motion for Continuance of the September 6, 2007 hearing date.
However, instead of limiting her ruling to the Motion for Continuance, the Court entered an
“Initial Order,” a day ahead of the earliest scheduled hearing date possible for such an order
(September 6, 2007). This denied Respondent the opportunity to prepare a response in
advance of the hearing on the merits of Petitioner’s custody petition. In addition, the
Respondent was given no opportunity to respond to the Petitioner’s Petition or given
opportunity to testify or give evidence before the initial order was entered on September 5,
2007. This was a clear violation of Respondent’s due process rights by this Honorable
Court. See, e.g., Burdick v. Brooks, III, 160 Md. App. 519; 864 A.2d 300 (2004).
b) On October 3, 2007, Respondent filed an Emergency Motion seeking amendment to

of overnight visit schedule established in the September 5, 2007 Initial Order, and full custody
of the child. This Honorable Court never scheduled a hearing on that Motion, even though it
set forth that there were concerns about XXXXXXXXX showing great psychological stress
from the overnight visits with nightmares, wetting her pants, biting herself and seeing
“bumble bees. ” That Emergency Petition also raised the issue of the father sleeping in the
child’s bed, among other issues. Again, that Emergency Motion was never scheduled for
hearing by this Court, nor was that Emergency Motion ever denied. (See Emergency
Petition, attached hereto as Exhibit II).

c) On November 8, 2007, the Initial Custody Hearing was scheduled, and the
Respondent’s witnesses were all in attendance. Before allowing the hearing to go forward,
the trial judge allowed the Guardian Ad Litem to “testify” for Dr. Christopher Lane (a
private custody evaluator engaged by Petitioner, but a choice never approved by this Court),
claiming that he was unable to complete his custody evaluation in time. No opportunity was
given to place Dr. Lane on the stand to be examined him regarding the truthfulness of what
the GAL said of Dr. Lane – even though Dr. Lane was in the courtroom, and the sole reason
for delaying the hearing was Dr. Lane’s alleged inability to complete his study – allegedly
because of Respondent’s “failure to cooperate” with Dr. Lane. In fact, had Dr. Lane been
required to testify, the GAL statement of the claims would have been shown to be unfounded.
The truth was that Dr. Lane was unable to complete his work because of procrastination and
cancellations by Dr. Lane, himself – which is evidenced by Dr. Lane’s time entries on his
billing showing much work being done after November 5, 2007 which had nothing to do with
Respondent’s action (Dr. Lane had not disclosed to Respondent that billing prior to the
hearing but was disclosed to Petitioner by Dr. Lane in the hallway on the day of the hearing).
(See, Time Records of Dr. Lane, Exhibit III, herein) No opportunity was given for the
Respondent to testify that she was not the cause of Dr. Lane’s alleged failure to complete his
work. What sworn statements were allowed to be made by the Respondent clearly conflicted
with the unsworn hearsay of Dr. Lane contained in statements of Ms. Olin. As it turns out
and evidenced by discovery produced by Petitioner on June 2, 2008 (months after it was
requested), Dr. Lane’s “excuse ” was simply part of an orchestration by Ms. Olin to assure
that Ms. Wood’s favorable recommendations were not considered by this Court on
November 8, 2007. Ms. Olin’s behind the scenes gamesmanship is documented in
Respondent’s Motion for Sanctions, etc., filed June 9, 2008, which remains pending. Ms.
Olin’s attempts – along with Petitioner’s counsel -- to manipulate this Court were successful,
and the November 8, 2007 hearing was postponed over Respondent’s objections.

d) On November 20, 2007, Respondent filed a “Suggestion for Lack of Jurisdiction,”
and on November 30, 2007, a “Motion to Dismiss” based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction was also filed. Despite numerous attempts to get these threshold matters heard,
this Honorable Court failed to schedule a hearing on these matters until a month and a half
later (January 17, 2008). The Court ignored the case law, and accepted Petitioner’s
counsel’s novel interpretation of the UCCJEA – which was not based on any precedent and
was inapposite with the universal views other courts on the statutory language interpretation.
See, Petition for Mandamus, etc, In Re Ariel King, Case 080963, Supreme Court of Virginia,
filed May 16, 2008.
d) On February 8, 2008, after failing to rule on a pending Motion for Continuance
filed by Respondent due to the need to attend to her mother who was stricken with a severe
stroke, this Honorable Court transferred primary custody from the Respondent to the
Petitioner without any taking any evidence or making any evidence-based findings of why
such a change in custody was in the best interests of the child. Also, without taking evidence,
the trial judge found Respondent in contempt for “not cooperating with the Guardian Ad
Litem,” and relied solely upon the unsworn (and unspecific) statements of the GAL. The
GAL has never documented which alleged nonspecific requirements this Court imposed and
what specific actions Respondent took (or failed to take) that would support any such finding.
This Honorable Court refused to allow the Respondent to testify on her own behalf to defend
herself against the misstatements of the GAL. See, Transcript, February 8, 2008 Hearing,
Exhibit IV)
e) On February 21, 2008, the trial judge again – without allowing witnesses or taking
any evidence -- transferred “Temporary Full Custody” to the Petitioner. The trial judge
refused to allow Respondent to take the witness stand and testify on her own behalf, and did

not require Petitioner to take the stand to testify as to why it would be in the best interests of
the child that he have custody of the child. As of that date, this Honorable Court had not
heard the Petitioner testify on the stand, nor had it received any psychological examination
report on Petitioner, that would suggest that Petitioner was in any way fit to have custody of
the child. Moreover, the Emergency Motion, which raised questions about the Petitioner,
which were reinforced by Ms. Wood’s November 8, 2007 report about Petitioner sleeping
in the child’s bed, had not been taken up by the Court (and remains to this day unheard by
this Court). See, Transcript, February 21, 2008 Hearing, Exhibit V)
f) On April 8, 2008, the Court aided and guided Petitioner’s counsel on how to
question the Respondent on the witness stand. The trial judge refused to allow Respondent
to present a 911 tape of the incident at issue – prejudging its contents without hearing it –
and refusing to allow Respondent’s mother to testify about her illness and recovery – which
were the focus of the rules to show cause that were at issue. See, Transcript, April 8, 2008
Hearing, e.g. at 84-93, and 97-105, Exhibit VI).
g) After the April 8, 2008 hearing, this Honorable Court thwarted Respondents
attempts to notice appeals of the April 8 rulings by directing the clerk of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court to refuse to allow notices of appeal by Respondent of her April 8,
2008 “rules to show cause” orders.
h) On June 6, 2008 (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing, Exhibit VII), this
Honorable Court held:
i) an ex parte hearing despite two motions for continuance being filed by
Respondent, and no orders being entered denying said motions for continuance,

ii) this Honorable Court volunteered her unequivocal prejudicial belief that she
believed that Respondent was a member of a “bashing Judge Wiggins group. ”5
The trial judge’s interjection of this fact was not supported by any evidence
presented in this case, nor did she suggest she came to that conclusion based on
any evidence in the record in the case. (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing at
28-33.)
iii) this Honorable Court transferred custody to the Petitioner and barred all
communications with the mother be prohibited. The trial judge admitted coming
to this draconian outcome based solely on hearsay evidence from the only witness
(Michele Wood) whose testimony was limited to her hearsay statements about
what another witness said at another hearing the prior day which was held in
another state, (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing at 52-59.)
iv) this Honorable Court entered custody order, (which was noted as being
“final ”) despite the fact that no notice was given that a “final ” custody order
was to be entered on June 6, 2008. In fact, the only notices received by
Respondent (who is pro se) were that two motions filed by Respondent (a
motion for mediation, and a motion for reconsideration of the February 18, 2008
temporary custody order) were to be heard on June 6, 2008. The notices did not
indicate that any “final ” custody order was to be entered on that date.
8 MS . O LIN: Tell m e, was th is sort of a custody

9 support group, or what k ind of support group was
10 it?
11 THE COU RT: It was a bash ing Judge
12 Wigg ins group is what it was.
13 MS. OLIN: Oh , really?
14 THE COU RT: Y es . I t's a fan club to me.
15 Isn 't th at what it was ?

v) despite never having heard Petitioner on the witness stand for the entire
proceedings and the Petitioner having never completed a full psychological exam,
the Court awarded in that “final order,” the custody of a five year old child to
said Petitioner.
5) Even though Respondent has filed a Motion for Sanctions and to Vacate (all orders in the
case) with the clerk on June 9, 2008, the trial court has not scheduled a hearing for that Motion as
of this date. (See, Motion For Sanctions And To Strike Pleadings By Petitioner, Motion For
Sanctions Against The Guardian Ad Litem, Motion To Dismiss The Guardian Ad Litem, And
Motion To Reopen Motion To Show Causes Regarding Dr. Christopher Lane, The Guardian Ad
Litem And February 8 2008 Order, filed with the clerk of the JDR Court on June 9, 2008.)
6) In addition, a conflict has arisen out of the necessity of Respondent to reluctantly file a
Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition against this Honorable Court in the Supreme Court of
Virginia – for this Court’s failure to dismiss this proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
in a hearing on January 17, 2008 (In Re Ariel King, Case 080963, Supreme Court of Virginia, filed
May 16, 2008). Most of the evidence of bias has occurred since that date. It would appear
unlikely, if not impossible, at this point for this Court to view any further proceedings before it in a
neutral and fair manner.
There is ample evidence in the record supporting a conclusion that this Honorable Court,
consciously or subconsciously, has harbored bias and prejudice against Respondent. To avoid
any further appearance of bias or impropriety, Respondent respectfully requests that the trial judge
recuse herself from any further proceedings in this case.

ROY L. MORRIS, ESQ.
 PO Box 100212
 Arlington, VA 22210
 202 657 5793
 509 356 2789 (Fax)
 Roy_Morris@alum.mit.edu
 Member of the Bars of the:
District of Columbia and
United States Supreme Court
September 29, 2010
President Barack H. Obama

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
United States of America
Re: Please Save 7-year old “Little Ambassador” Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer From
The Ravages of The “Silent War” of Child (Mis)Use, Abuse, and Neglect
Dear President Obama:
Right here and right now in the United States there is a silent war. In this "silent war," the vic-
tims of abuse and neglect include children who suffer, because no one will listen or believe their cries for
help. The perpetrators of this domestic silent war on children are child abusers, who are most often
trusted adults, including parents. They victimize their own children through sexual and physical abuse,
child pornography and even trafficking of their own children. Disturbingly, the enablers of this silent
war on children, including little Ariana-Leilani, are often the very institutions who are mandated to pro-
tect and help them, that includes the local family courts which often act in secrecy, and the "Child Protec-
tion Services" who treat everything they do as "confidential" void of any transparency thus making them
unaccountable and prone to corruption. In addition, in Ariana-Leilani’s case, even the US State Depart-
ment's Office of Children’s Services claims to be powerless to take effective action, even though Ariana-
Leilani is a citizen of Germany who is living in the United States. October is Domestic Violence Aware-
ness Month. This is not the time for excuses, but a time for action.
Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer is a very ill child who is being denied life-saving medicine, G-CSF
to boost her immunity to normal levels. It is well documented by medical records that Ariana-Leilani has
suffered from Severe Chronic Neutropenia of undiagnosed cause since Fall 2008. Severe Chronic Neu-
tropenia is severely low immunity, similar to that suffered by those with HIV/AIDS, which renders them
very vulnerable to fatal infection. This very rare condition began when Ariana-Leilani was placed in the
custody of her father, Dr. Michael H. Pfeiffer, a German national living in Washington DC, who, as a
neurologist, would have easy access to psychotropic drugs (e..g, benzodiazepine "date rape" type drugs)
that can cause neutropenia. She is now only one of 1300 people worldwide on the Severe Chronic Neu-
tropenia International Registry (SCNIR). The Co-Directors of the SCNIR, Prof. Dr. Dale (US) and Prof.
Dr. Karl Welte (Germany) have written letters supporting the need for immediate intervention to save
Ariana-Leilani’s life with G-CSF. Without it, she is at high risk to suffer “toxic shock, loss of limbs or
loss of life” (Dr. Dale, July 2010). They have also stated that taking all the test results into account, the
Severe Chronic Neutropenia is likely “induced by toxins”/drugs (Dr. Welte, August 2009).
Since Fall 2007 various child protection institutions have documented that Ariana-Leilani has
been complaining about her father sleeping in her queen sized bed in a one bedroom student apartment,
and doing "bad touch," and “naughty touch.” Ariana-Leilani complained to a court officer, but, although
the officer noted it, she did nothing about it. Ariana-Leilani complained to a Montgomery County (Mary-
land) forensic investigator, but, although she noted it, she also did nothing. Ariana-Leilani has also com-
plained that her father gives her "green medicine" that "makes me sick." Ariana-Leilani has been diag-
nosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) since 2008
with no treatment to date. No one in all of these "protection" systems has effectively protected her since
2007. It seems that the more people who don't act on her cries for help, the longer the list gets of those
"group thinkers" who completely ignore her obvious health problems and the abuse that has caused it.
Letter to President Barack O'Bama
September 29, 2010, Page 2
When her mother tried to get Ariana-Leilani protection with a domestic violence temporary protection
order and sought to get her a full medical and sexual abuse evaluation at New York's Montefiore Chil-
dren’s Hospital, the abusive father had her arrested and had the evaluation stopped. Since then the US
family courts have allowed him to fully isolate Ariana-Leilani from all of her family in the USA and
Germany, her friends, her religion and her school in order to gain full control. Ariana-Leilani has been
cut off from all contact with mother -- who was the only person who she could trust to help her.
The international community is horrified and outraged. The United Nations Human Rights
Commission, Convention on the Rights of the Child Special Rapporteur for Sale of Children, Child Pros-
titution and Child Pornography has sent an urgent formal letter to the United States Government in Janu-
ary 2010 requesting the US Government take action. Also, Innocence in Danger International (France),
the German Government through the German Embassy, and the Co Directors of the Severe Chronic Neu-
tropenia International Registry, have all expressed serious concern that this child is not getting the medi-
cine and/or full independent medical and psychological evaluation and protection she desperately needs.
The US's apathy to the child's medical and abuse condition is unexplainable. Why are these institutions
more interested in protecting the abusive father rather than addressing the child's obvious life-threatening
medical and debilitating psychological needs. Could it be that because Ariana-Leilani’s father does hu-
man medical research in Neurology for the United States Government at the Veterans Administration
Hospital in the District of Columbia, he is being protected at the expense of his severely ill daughter? As
you have said many times, “No one is above the law.” Such US misbehavior would not be anywhere in
the vicinity of the "moral high ground."
As a human being, Ariana-Leilani was born with “human rights.” As a German child, Ariana-
Leilani is entitled to protection under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including her rights
to life, health and health services, and freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. As
an American child she is entitled to protection under the CRC Optional Protocol on Sale of Children,
Child Prostitution and Child Pornography as requested by the Special Rapporteur to the US Government.
To date these basic human rights have been denied by the US institutions.
We appeal to you, as the President, our moral leader, and as a father, to lead your administration
to get this child the necessary medicine and the full medical (as well as criminal) investigation into the
root cause of her very rare illness and the associated psychological issues. Alternatively, we request that
your administration allow the German Government to take the lead in protecting this German child. Her
possible death, as a result of this “domestic silent war” in Washington DC, the backyard of our White
House, would be an international tragedy that would bring into question the United States’ commitment
to the human rights of all children within its borders. We are confident that immediate action, including
a thorough investigation of Ariana-Leilani's situation, will pull back the curtain to expose and help cure a
growing silent cancer of our society, child (mis)use, abuse and neglect in America. Please listen to the
drumbeat of international voices that continue to plead to get her the help to save her life.
Attached are the letters from the Germany Embassy to the State Department and from The Severe
Chronic Neutropenia Registry Professor Dale and Professor Welte, and my letter to the Department of
State, Office of Children’s Services explaining the failures of the US local institutions to protect this
child. I would be happy to provide additional information at your request and meet with members of
your administration to get this problem investigated and addressed before it is too late.
Sincerely,
Roy Morris, Esq.

Public Interest Attorney and
Pro Bono Counsel for Dr. Ariel King (who lives in Germany)
cc: Honorable Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State,

US Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20520
Eric Holder, Attorney General , US Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001

Exhibits to September 29, 2010
Letter to President Barack Obama
1 iggins - COJ - 000429

W
&

I Embassy
.. of the Federal Republic of Germany
I,* Washington
Mr. Michael B. Regan

ADDRESS
Director 4645 Reselvoil RO<ld . N.W.
Office ofChildren' s Issues Washington, D,C, 20007
U.S. Department of State
220] C Street N.W., SA-29, 4th Floor iNTERNET www.germany.info
Washington, D.C. 20520 TEL + 202 298 8140 (Switchboard)
rAX' 202 411 5558
Klaus Botzel
Consul Genera! and Legal Adviser
TH,OIRECT 2022984361
Tk,;@wash,dipiode
Ariana-Leilani Margarita Alexandra KING-PI<EIFFEH
Ref. No, {please .::itt: in respons.:): RK 520, SE King-Pfeiffer
Washington, D.C., August 17,20 I0
Dear Mr. Regan ,
Please allow me to bring to your attention and seek your assistance in the case of
seven year old KING-PFEIFFER, a child with dual German and American
citizenship. She is living with her father, the German national Dr. Michael Pfeiffer, ill \Vash-
ington , D,C. Her mother, Dr. Ariel King, a U.S. citizen, lives in Germany.
Earlier this year, the NOO Innocence in Danger International has brought serious concerns
about possible medical mistreatment and possible sexual abuse of the child by the father to
the attention of the Embassy. The concern s related to based. on the
child's extensive medical and school records, and were supported by physicians of the Severe
Chronic Neutropenia International Registry and the German NGO Avalon.
The German Embassy so far has had no direct access to the child nor to information fi'o m an
independent source. As of today, the F,mbassy has received documentation on the child's
case consisting of medi ca l test records from George Washington University Hospital
(GWU H), opinions and school health records. UnfOitunately, without the consent of the fa-
ther who has sole custody, the Em bassy has no way of veri tying the status of the chi Id, orthe
information it has been given,
In any event the allegat ions are of such a serious nature. that we feel that a fully independent
medical examination of rhe child should be ordered by the competent U.S. authorities. A
divorce and custody case is currently pending in Bayreuth, Germany. The mother claims that
the father refuses to agree to allow her, or anyone actin g on her behalf; to have direct contact
with her child, the child's sole treati ng physician at G\VlJH, and GWUH itself. The mother is
represen ted by Mr. Roy L. Morris, Esq., Arlington, VA. The father is represented by Mr.
Sean W. O' Connell, Arlington, VA.
3
' ..?.:;.,
GWUH health recOrds, which were forwarded to the Embassy, state that the child suffers
from Severe Chronic Neutropenia, a medical condition which consists of severely low immu-
nity levels over an extended period of time that leave the child vulnerable to potentially fatal
infections. The Embassy was also provided with opinions from international experts in the
field of pediatric hematology who expressed serious concerns for the child's safety. In the
opinion of these experts there is a lack of a thorough evaluation of the cause of the medical
condition of the child and a lack of an appropriate treatment with a rnedical drug called
GCSF which boosts immunity to more normal levels. However, these medica! experts have
not yet had the possibility to examine the child in person.
The mother believes that the medical condition of the child could have been induced by the
administration of a particular psychotropic drug. According to her, the sole treating physi-
cian's reports are biased because he is an associate of Dr. Pfeiffer at GWUH , and his reports
show inconsistencies with regard to the medical tests and school reports.
The Embassy was informed that Dr. Pfeiffer has been working at GWUH as a physician until
2008. Reportedly he is currently working for the Veteran's Admini stration Hospital in
Washington, D.C.
The report from a guardian ad litem in 11 past child clIstody case notes that the child purport-
edly lives ina one-bedroom apartment with her nlther. The representative of the mother, rvlr.
J\1orris, forwarded documents which include a statement of a clinical psychologist from
Maryland who, based on medical records, interviews of the mother, and other documentation,
utters her professional opinion in writing that the child Ariana-Leilani " ... continues to be at
risk in her current environment of both physical and medical neglect, and likely sexual
abuse. "
The German Embassy has a legal obligation under Art. 5 of the German Consular Act to sup-
port German citizens in need of assistance. A written proposal fI'om the Embassy dated
March 30, 2010, to let the child undergo a full independent medical examination on a volun-
tary basis -- and which costs the mother's health insurance in Germany would cover - has
been declined by the father's lawyer, Mr. O'Connell. So far, the father has refused to com-
municate I.",ilh the Embassy directly.
The possibilities of the Embassy are limited to voluntary cooperation and have been ex-
hausted. The German Embassy would therefore be grateful if the Department of State could
lake up this matter in order to obtain an independent medical examination of Ariana-Leilani
King-Pfe iffer. Once her true health status is clarified, optimal medical care for her seemingly
serious medical condition can be ensured .
If you have questions in this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. [am including a list
of points of contact and a copy of a letter from the University of Washington , Department of
Medicine, in this matter for your information.
With many thanks for your support.
./CL
Botzet
4
TRANSLATION
Medical School
Hanover, Germany
Lower Saxony Professorship – 65 plus Research
Prof. Karl H. Welte, Dr. med.,

Director, Department of Molecular Hemopoiesis
Dr. Kerstin Niethammer-Jürgens Center for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
Am Neuen Garten 4 OE 6790
Phone +49-(0)511-532-6710
Fax +49-(0)511-532-6998
14469 Potsdam welte.karl.h@mh-hannover.de
Germany
Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1
30625 Hanover, Germany
www.mh-hannover.de
31 August 2009
Medical Opinion
ALM ALM born 7 May ALM
Dear Dr Niethammer-Jürgens,
This report deals with the abovementioned patient whose mother accompanied by Ms Hebart-
Herrmann with medical records consulted us on 31 August 2009. Unfortunately the child is at
present in the USA so that we were unable to examine her in person.
On the basis of the medical documents produced we have arrived at the following evaluation:
Diagnoses:
• Severe chronic neutropenia of unknown origin,
no exclusion of a mutation in the genes ELA2/HAX1/SBDS
• To date no indication of an antibody-induced immune neutropenia
• To date no therapy with hematapoietic growth factors
Case history (Anamnesis):

For the detailed anamnesis you are referred to the numerous records. According to information
provided by the mother, the child developed normally relative to its age until May 2008. There was
no unusual increase of infections. In a hemogram during a routine check-up, the primary care
physician discovered the neutropenia which was subsequently confirmed. At the time the child was
without infection, and there was no indication of an underlying primary disease. The absolute
neutrophil count in the majority of findings was under 500/µl.
Further diagnostic investigations to clarify the cause of the severe neutropenia with continuous
absolute neutrophil counts under 500/µl were only undertaken in July 2009 at the Georgetown
Pediatric Hematological-Oncological Outpatient Dept. Day Unit Roof Terrace Ward 64a Ward 62
Tel. +49-511-532-3214 88 Tel. +49-511-532-3288 Tel. +49-511-9411
5 iggins - COJ - 000432
W
University Hospital, Washington, by Dr Myers. There was no sign of maturation arrest of
granulopoesis as an indication of a congenital neutropenia. At the same time there was no
evidence of a malignant systemic disease. Taking the bone marrow findings and the persisting
severe neutropenia together, the most likely assumption is a bone marrow disease caused by an
infection or induced by toxic agents.
Recommendations:
ALM is suffering from a severe chronic neutropenia of hitherto unknown origin.
In view of the fact that a chronic neutropenia with absolute neutrophil counts of under 500/µl
involves the risk of a life-threatening infection, treatment with the hematapoietic growth factor G-
CSF, e.g. Filgrastim, should be initiated urgently.
In view of the unknown origin of the neutropenia we recommend that the diagnostic investigation
be continued in order to exclude an autoimmune disease, an infectious disease and a malignant
systemic disease.
Independent of this we recommend that a bone marrow screening with histology and cytogenetics
be repeated in approx. one year.
A conclusive assessment is only possible after personal consultation with the child.
Yours etc.
[signature]
Prof. Karl Welte, Dr. med.

Co-Director SCNIR (Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry)
Pediatric Hematological-Oncological Outpatient Dept. Day Unit Roof Terrace Ward 64a Ward 62
Tel. +49-511-532-3214 88 Tel. +49-511-532-3288 Tel. +49-511-9411
6 iggins - COJ - 000433
W
David C. Daile, MD
Professor of Medicine
Anna Bolyard, RN, BS
Research Nurse
July 9, 2010
The Honorable Klaus Botzet

Consul General and Legal Advisor
Embassy ofthe Federal Republic of Germany
4645 Reservoir Road NW
Washington, DC 20007 -1998
RE: Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer

German Passport No: 875289379 (per mom, Dr. Ariel King)
Dear Mr. Botzet:

i
I an1 wTiting on behalf of Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer who has been recently enrolled as a
participant of the Severe Chronic Neutropenia International Registry (SCNIf) in Germany. The
SCNIR was established in 1994 to study the rare condition of Chronic Neutfopenia and is funded by
the NIH. I
Neutropenia is the condition of having lower than normal neutrophils. A nqrmal absolute neutrophil
count (ANC) is maintained at approximately 2000-5000 lemm, allowing a person to fight off
infections. Mildly neutropenic patients have an ANC between 1000 to 150q Icmm, moderately
neutropenic patients have an ANC between 500-1000 Icmm, and severe chrrnic neutropenia is the
rare condition where the bone marrow doesn't produce sufficient neutrophils to keep the levels in the
blood above the 500/cmm level, resulting in not enough neutrophils to fightlinfection. Ariana-
Leilani has severe chronic neutropenia; her neutrophils were consistently be~ow 500 without G .. CSF
treatment. .
Neutrophils are very important because they fight infection. When bacteria!invade the body a
chemical signal is sent out and the neutrophils, like fire fighters responding 0 a blaze, rush to the site
of infection. The bone marrow also responds by speeding up its production bf neutrophils to replace
those involved in fighting the infection. If, however, production of new neWrophils is suppressed or
slowed down, a shortage may develop, and any infection can overwhelm th~ few neutrophils
available. Therefore, a person with only a few neutrophils is at particular risk for developing a
serious bacterial infection. j
Department of Medicine • University of Washington .. Box 356422
1959 NE Pacific St .. Seattle, WA 98195-6422 .
Dr. Dale: Phone 206-543-7215 • Fax 206-685-4458 • Email: ds:dalc(ZiJu. tvashington.edu
7 iggins - COJ
W - Audrey
000434 Anna Bolyard: Phone 206-543-9749 .. Fax: 206-543-3668. E-mail: bol\1ardra;tl.washington.edu
Many SCN patients are treated with G-CSF, a hormone that increases the neutrophil level. This
medication will help fight infection by raising the neutrophil count. Even With the administration of
G-CSF, the neutrophils may still drop to critical levels. G-CSF allows the patient to fight infection
better than the untreated patient, but infection is still a constant concern. T~e treated patient "rill
continue to experience infections, hopefully not life-threatening infections' i The neutropenic
person's life may be greatly affected by her/his inability to fight infectionS,\
The SCNIR follows over 1300 SCN patients. We have tracked each ofthe$e patients, gathering
medical information over the last 16 years for the Registry and 7 years beDl'rc that in clinical blaiS.
Our mission is to follow closely the health of neutropenic patients and to e .ntinue to research::he
mechanisms causing this condition. The SCNIR is actively distributing infprmation regarding SCN
to doctors and patients. The goal is to help the local physician become mo~e knowledgeable about
this rare and difficult condition, and to prevent the severe consequences odmtreated SCN: Toxic
shock, loss oflimbs, and loss oflife.
If you have any questions, the SCNIR web site is very helpful: 1=1t"",t~="'-'t=s.,+.,!ashington.edulrcgistm
Please feel free to contact me directly at 1-800-726-4463.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David C. Dale, MD
Professor of Medicine
AUdrc~d' RN, BS
Clinical Manager SCNIR
DCD/las
i
Department of Medicine. University of Washington. Box 356422 ..
1959 NE Pacific St. Seattle, WA 98195-6422
Dr. Dale: Phone 206-543-7215. Fax 206-685-4458 • Email: lli:da!e:(vu.\ ·ashington.edu
8 iggins - COJ
W - Audrey
000435 Anna Bolyard: Phone 206-543-9749 • Fax: 206-543-3668 • E-mail: =L'.4"~~~"';~'-"'=~~~
!"#$%&$!'()*)+,-(.)*($/(*0+1&-(2-'$
!" #!!" $!!!" $#!!" %!!!" %#!!" &!!!" &#!!" '!!!"
()*+"
(56 5" 7) (56"
1; 1234"(56" )EM+99+ (56" 1L DJ 1234" D<E*+ AB >3- 9*+5 785
34" <=+ (56" 34"
12
,-%!-!#"
N" DJ+5:" <:L"+5:" 7;;" F<5+" C8<" ?@" :" *"
#-%.-!."
(56"
,-%-!."
12 ;<
,-&-!/"
,-$$-!."
0-$&-!."
0-/-!."
.-$&-!."
KC (;4"
1234; 123" BI (56"
34" 34;
(56" GHI
12 12
$!-$!-!."
$!-%%-!."
$-/-!/"
&-%0-!/"
'-0-!/"
,-%/-!/"
0-%$-!/"
1234"(56"DJ+5:" HO" DJ+5:"
$!-$,-!/" HB:=+M*+N"3+5=+:"(8:M<P+5+N")EN";B9*B5+"Q)R+E"
$$-$!-!/"
$$-$$-!/"
$%-$.-!/"
&-$%-$!"
9 iggins - COJ - 000436

,-$$-$!"
,-$0-$!"
,-%'-$!"
ANC Below 500 (Severe Chronic
Neutropenia) Requires
Hospitalization
W
Low and High Values
!
BLOOD NORMAL 8/13/2008 10/10/2008 10/22/2008 1/9/2009 3/27/2009 6/26/2009 7/21/2009 10/16/2009 11/10/2009 11/11/2009 12/18/2009 12/21/2009 3/12/2010
Before GCSF After GCSF

WBC 4.8-10.8 L 3.5 L 4.1 4.1 3.3 3.2 L 3.1 L 2.9 L 4.1 L 3.5 L 7.0 N 2.6 L 3.2 L 3.7 L
RBC 4.2-5.4 3.93 L 4.13 L N 4.13 L 4.01 L 4.07 L 4.13 L
HGB 12.0-16.0 10.8 L 11.4 L 11.3 L 11.5 L 11.2 L 11.6 L 11.8 L
HCT 37.0-47.0 32.3 L 34 L 33.8 L 33.8 L 32.4 L 33.7 L 34.1 L
MCV 81-99 80.4 L 80.3 L 80.7 L
RED CELL Distrubition width 11.5-14.5 14.6 H
MCH 27-31 26.9 L 26.8 L
MCHC 31.8-34.6 35.1H
RDW 12.2-14.4 12.0 L
MPV 7.4-10.4 6.7 L 6.8 L 7.0 L 7.0 L 7.3 L 6.7 L 7.1 L 7.2 L 6.8 L 7.9 L
GRAN % NEUT 53-79 28.0 L 25.0 l 16.5 L 14.9 L 32.8 L
LYMP 13-46 62.4 H 58.5 H 63.1 H 48.6 H 63.8 H
MONO % 3 TO 9 12.3 H 15.1 H 15.2 H 17.2 H 12.1 H 14.1 H 12.2 H 13.8 H 16.7H 13.4 H
EOS 0 TO 4 13.5 H 15.2 H 6.8 H 6.6 H 8.8 H 12.4 H 12.4 H
NEUT ABSOL # 1.8-7.8 1.20 L 1.00 L 0.50 L 0.50 L 0.5 L 0.9 L 0.4 L 0.4 L 0.5 L
NEUTRO% 29.8-71.4 9.4 L 12.7L 49.8 N 16.4 L 12.6 L
Differential Manual
NEUT 53-79 25 L 20 L 20 L 10 L 12 L 15 L 33L
NEUT ABSOL # 1.3 - 8.1 .88 L 0.82 L 0.33LL 0.38 LL 0.47 LL 0.96L 0.4 L 0.5 L 3.5 N 0.5 L
LYMP 13-46 55 H 48 H 48 H 72H 68 H 69 H 49H
LYMP MAN % 16.7-57.8 63 H 59.7 H 30.6 N 62 H
MONO 3 TO 9 14 H 12.3 H 12 H 14 H 12.2 H 5L
SEG MAN 30-71
MONO MAN 4 to10 14 H 12 H 12 H 18 H
EOS % 0-4 13.5 H 15.2 H 6H 7H 18 H 8.5 H
Eosinophil Abs 0.0 - 0.5 0.7 H 0.6 H
EOS MAN 0 TO 4 8H 10 H 17 H 14 H 8H 6H
BASO 0-2
BASOPHIL % 0.0-0.6 1.1 H 0.9 H 1.9 H
BASOPHIL MAN 0-1 3H 2H 14 H
ATYP LYHP 0 -0 2H 2H 2H 3H
Ldh 91-180 213 H 209 H
Alko Phosphatatse 39-117 169 H 135 H 216 H
Phosphorous 2.4-4.5 4L 4.6 H
Sodium Lvl 137-145 136 L
Sodium 137-145 136 L
Chloride 101-111 100 l
Sed Rate 0-20 36 H
Sodium 135-145 134 L
10
father's large face and her details about his appearance. h e n Adriana was certain about her
information, her voice would become stronger and stem.
-
On an emotional level, Adriana did not show fear or feeling scared with the significant adults in
her life. She displayedjust the opposite, feelings of love and happiness when talking about
either of her parents.
Many statements made by Adriana were spontaneous. She had little trouble understanding the
focused open-ended questions. If there was a problem, it was the interviewer not asking clear
and concise questions. It appeared to the interviewer that Adriana had more thoughts in her head
than she had language to use in explanations.
Adriana appeared to have difficulty staying focused on any subject matter for more than a few
minutes. She was physically active during the entire interview, not sitting for longer than a few
minutes. Staying active parallels focusing time frames for Adriana, It appeared to the
interviewer that Adriana thinks and speaks more clearly when physically active.

DR Michael H Pfeiffer & Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles Child Corruption in Arlington, Vriginia - 2011 Letter and Exhibits Against Her Reappointment

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

DR Michael H Pfeiffer & Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles Child Corruption in Arlington, Vriginia - 2011 Letter and Exhibits Against Her Reappointment

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ROY L. MORRIS, ESQ.

Members of Senate Committee for Courts of Justice

Senator, Henry L. Marsh III Delegate David Albo:

Dear Chair Senator Henry Marsh, Chair Delegate Dave Albo,

The Case of Michael Pfeiffer (Husband) v. Ariel R. King (Wife):

- Transcript, February 8, 2008 at 46-48 [Wiggins-COJ-108].

- Michele Woods, Probation Counselor, Custody Investigation Arlington Juvenile And

the Court without evidence showing that?

Transcript, February 8, 2008 at 24-36 (See, Wiggins-COJ-86 through -98)

return physical custody to the mother.”]

THE COURT: But why is it admissible?

- Transcript of April 8, 2008 at 87-88 (Wiggins-COJ-276 through – 277)

On June 6, 2008 (See, Transcript, June 6, 2008 Hearing, Exhibit VII):

-- Transcript June 6, 2008 at 18, Wiggins-COJ-354

2007-11-08 Custody Evaluation of Court Official Woods Recommending Custody to King 1

NAME: ARIANA-LEILANI MARGARITA ADDRESS: 4001 9" ST. NORTH #824

D.O.B.: 5/7/03 (4 YEARS OLD) P.O.B.: Houston, Texas

RACEISEX: AFRICAN AMERCANI

FATHER: DR. MICHAEL HERBERT PFEIFFER ADDRESS: 4836 RESERVOIR ROAD #3

DATES OF CUSTODY HEARING: 11/8/07 DOCKET NO.: J-31848-01-WL

JUDGE: Honorable Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles

GUARDIAN AD LITEM: Deborah Olin, Esq.

ATTORNEY: Mother's Attorney, Dan Dannenbaum, Esq.

Wiggins - COJ - 000001

Both parents and child to participate in a custody evaluation;

THE PETTIONER: Dr. Michael Herbert Pfeiffer

Relationship to Child: Father

Place of Birth: Nuremberg, Germany

Health: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he is in good health.

Substance/Alcohol Abuse: None reported

Wiggins - COJ - 000002

EMPLOYMENT: Dr. Pfeiffer is completing a fellowship at Georgetown University

Lenath of Employment: Dr. Pfeiffer has been employed at

Wiggins - COJ - 000003

HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD:

Physical Description of Home and Neiahborhood: Dr. Pfeiffer resides

Wiggins - COJ - 000004

Income: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he earns approximately $52,000

RentIMortgaae: $1,500 monthly rent

Household Bills: Dr. Pfeiffer pays approximately $100 a month in

Outstandina Debts: Dr. Pfeiffer reported that he owes $20,000 on his

THE RESPONDENT: Dr. Ariel Rosita King

relations hi^ to Child: Mother

Place of Birth: Queens, New York

Wiggins - COJ - 000005

of Public Health in 1994. She also obtained a Master's of Business

Substance/Alcohol Abuse: None reported.

Lenqth of Employment: As previously reported, Dr. King has not

Wiggins - COJ - 000006

Wiggins - COJ - 000007

Wiggins - COJ - 000008

Wiggins - COJ - 000009

HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD:

Physical Description of Home and Neighborhood: Dr. King resides in

Dr. King's home is clean, well kept and adequately furnished,

Length of Residence: Dr. King and Ariana-Leilani moved to their

Wiggins - COJ - 000010

and refused to provide her with financial support in order to obtain

RentIMortaaae: Dr. King's rent is $2,160 per month.

Outstandina Debts: Dr. King reported that she is in substantial debt

Health Insurance: Currently, Dr. Pfeiffer carries the health insurance

SUBJECT: Ariana-Leilani King-Pfeiffer is an attractive four year old with an