LAURIE POTTER: Yes. I can be here tomorrow. I don't have to be here this afternoon.

     CASKEY: I'd just as soon go ahead and do it.

     DOUGHERTY: Please go ahead.

     POTTER: My name is Laurie Potter, and I'm the mother of two sons, and from what we've heard from all the experts today, it is best for children to have access to both parents, regardless of all the other situations that happen, whether the parents get along, or whether they don't. Children deserve both parents. I was an at-home mom three years ago, and my husband, at the time, manipulated the law to take my children while I was at a women's meeting, and he took the boys and wouldn't tell me there whereabouts, but he did file for separation, legal separation, which gave him temporary custody. We did not have a temporary sharing, and there's not an explanation other than the attorney's schedules didn't allow for one. So, my case went on for 14-months, and during that time I was sometimes allowed to see the boys and sometimes I wasn't, and the boys would leave crying, as they did yesterday, when they had to leave their mom, and the law, as it reads today, allowed the man to take the boys and to draw out the lawsuit, which is pretty easy to do, for 14 months and so the judge went with status quo and said the boys are living their dad. They have been for 14 months, and so that's who I'm going to award custody to, and so he has every power, and I have none. He denies visitation when he's angry with me, which used to be more often than not. We're going on two years past the divorce, and it has died down, as is pretty normal, I guess. But, if he wants to deny visitation manipulate schedule, he does that, and much like the man just said, I go to an attorney and I say, this is what he's doing. I'm supposed to have this visitation. It's court ordered, what can I do. And, they say, you can go to court for thousands of dollars, and they will say to him, you shouldn't do that, and I'm a kindergarten teacher. I have an early childhood degree. I was a loving, caring mother from the time my kids were conceived. I always had my kids first, and yet, the law, as it reads, allowed the man to take them away from me, and there's not a whole lot I can do right now, because I've been - I paid child support, like he said. My finances are limited. There aren't a whole lot of arguments, because he's very good at, he'll give an extra hour to make up for a weekend that he took away and consider that made up time, or he will, he just manipulates every single inch of the law so that the boys are denied the time with their mom, but there's not enough to where I can actually go to court and do a whole lot about it. I've had attorneys say, well, you would have to really prove that your boys are psychologically messed up, you know, if they're having real problems in school. Well, that may or may not happen in the time that they're teenagers. It will probably be too late then to deal with. So, I do think there needs to be a quick and easy access into the courts so that these orders, my rights with my children can be enforced inexpensively, because my children and I, I go to the utmost length to stay in touch, and I'm in their schools - I drop by frequently and visit, and I do everything I can to stay in touch with my kids. I don't feel like I'm losing touch, but I do feel like my boys want more time with me. They tell their dad that. They tell their psychologist that, and yet, he doesn't have to do anything, because the court doesn't say so, and there's no consequence for when he doesn't obey the court order, and we've been through that a number of times in two years, and he knows that, and he knows that there's no consequence, and so, he has all the power. I have none, and that's the way that the law actually works right now for anyone. He was a traveling dad. I was at home full-time, and yet, because we didn't have a temporary hearing, that's how it came out.

     CASKEY: Representative Ridgeway.

     RIDGEWAY: Thank you, Senator. Just a couple questions. Did you say where you were from?

     POTTER: I'm from Columbia.

     RIDGEWAY: Okay. Was your divorce, or your dissolution granted in Boone County?

     POTTER: Uh huh.

     RIDGEWAY: And, how long ago was that, again?

     POTTER: February 9th, 1996.

     RIDGEWAY: It must have been a bad day.

     POTTER: It was my birthday.

     RIDGEWAY: Well, that was sweet. You say you're paying child support. Are you on a wage assignment, or are you keeping track yourself?

     POTTER: No, wage assignment.

     RIDGEWAY: Do your boys live in Boone County?

     POTTER: Yes. They're less than 30 minutes away, on the other side of Columbia, from where I live.

     RIDGEWAY: Your custody order, do you have any kind of joint legal custody?

     POTTER: I have joint legal custody.

     RIDGEWAY: Do you hear from him at all?

     POTTER: No. But, I am in contact with the school, and I met with the Principal, and the counselor, just Friday, because they had been misinformed, and they had been told that I don't have any rights to the boys and I wasn't listed on the school records, so I went and I'm in education, myself, and understand that part of it, and so I went and we had a nice talk, and they understand now, and they said they will make every effort to continue to keep me informed, and the teacher has been wonderful. So, we're off to a really good start there.

     RIDGEWAY: Okay, so your joint legal custody order has given you access to the extent that you can enforce it yourself?

     POTTER: Yes, as far as finding the school personnel to be cooperative, and the day care people that we have now are cooperative, and I get to drop by and visit, and just give the boys a hug, when I'm not going to see them for about a week, and I can and talk to them there. I don't get to talk to them at their house, at their dad's, and when he's out of town, he doesn't allow me to care for them. He has someone else come in and care for the boys, even though I've made it very clear that I want to.

     RIDGEWAY: On your custody order, are you given like a temporary visitation schedule? What is your defined time of visitation?

     POTTER: Our defined time is Wednesday night, for three hours, and every other weekend, from Friday night to Sunday, at 8:00, and six weeks in the summer, every other holiday, also.

     RIDGEWAY: What percentage of that time do you actually get to exercise?

     POTTER: Earlier, in the last six months, it's been more consistent. In the first 18 months, of the decree, it was, I would say, 75 percent of the time, I got the time that I was supposed to have.

     RIDGEWAY: But, even though you were represented by counsel, you virtually didn't get to see your boys at all during the 14-month period that your dissolution was pending?

     POTTER: No, that's not true. I did get to see them, but it was sporadic. It changed every time he wanted to change it, and for the first three weeks, the boys had - this is the saddest part of the whole thing. My children were cared for by me day in and day out. I was the person. They're the only person I knew. They weren't in day care. We had......

     RIDGEWAY: Stay at home mom?

     POTTER: I was a stay at home mom. He took them from our home, wouldn't tell me where they were, and it wasn't until three weeks later that they were able to come home and spend an overnight with me. In between that time, it was supervised visits by him, in public places, as if I was a criminal, and I had gone to a women's meeting, and he took the boys, and he just took all these actions because his  case was going to try to prove me to be an incompetent mom, which he didn't succeed, because I'm not, but that's why he took all those crazy steps, and it put the boys through so much turmoil. He was allowed to do that, because of the way the law read, because they had a guardian ad litem appointed and I asked him, I said, what keeps me from just taking my babies home? He said, the statute. If you do that, you're going against the law, and so I couldn't. I mean, I could have, but it would have been foolish. And so, that's the problem. Joint custody is the way to go, because people are angry. People don't do mediation, and they don't do it successfully before a divorce. If they did, they probably wouldn't get a divorce. I don't think that's reality. I think reality is people are angry and they're going to use whatever they can to hurt each other, and some people use their children.

     RIDGEWAY: Well, I understand that, but I'm just trying to figure out how the joint custody would have helped you.

     POTTER: I would have had a presumed joint. It wouldn't have been we have to wait for temporary hearing that never happened. It wouldn't have been anything other than......

     RIDGEWAY: And you would have taken your boys back to live in the house with you?

     POTTER: They would have, at least, had equal time, as I understand it, and I could be wrong.

     DOUGHERTY: I think you misunderstand a little bit about how that would have worked, because you're talking about after the divorce and trying to imply that before the divorce, somebody still could have taken the children, and you still could have ended up with the same situation.

     POTTER: Then, I do misunderstand, because I think that it needs to be at the point, the first person that files.

     DOUGHERTY: Well, one of the discussions earlier, was to give the point that you're bringing up, is what happens at the moment somebody walks in and files papers, no matter who grabs the kids, and the point - I think you bring out the point, very clearly, how problematic that point is, that we need to address.

     POTTER: Yes, that's where it went wrong.

     DOUGHERTY: I'm just trying to say that last sentence that you used wouldn't necessarily have impacted your situation, but if we change the whole statute, and include things like the judge was talking about in terms of, I want to use presume, that's not the right word, visitation schedule, as soon as that person walks through the door, then you wouldn't have wound up, in theory, in the situation between time it was dissolved.

     RIDGEWAY: Those are all the questions I have. Thank you.

     CASKEY: Thank you.

     DOUGHERTY: Thank you, very much. Appreciate it.

     POTTER: Thank you.

     DOUGHERTY: Are you going to be back tomorrow? Can you give us an idea how long?

     (Unidentified. Speaking from audience, cannot be heard)

     CASKEY: How long do you estimate your testimony would take? If you estimate that you're going to take more than fifteen minutes, we'll wait until tomorrow.

     (Unidentified. Speaking from audience, cannot be heard)

     DOUGHERTY: Can we get you tomorrow, then?

     HOLLINGSWORTH: I wanted to go on record as...

     RIDGEWAY: How many witnesses do we have testifying tomorrow?

     DOUGHERTY: Well, we have quite a number listed, and I think everyone was instructed by phone, it's going to be first-come, first-serve, as I recall. Is that correct?

     In your packet, which I need to go dig through mine, is a list of those who communicated an interest, and let's see, here it is.  About 28, so far.

     CASKEY: 28?

     DOUGHERTY: 28. Three minutes apiece.

     CASKEY: And, we're quitting at noon? You'd better take 10 minutes or fifteen minutes today.

     DOUGHERTY: Why don't you grab your fifteen minutes right now.