Witness:  Mr. Mike Sly, Father, Springfield, Missouri

     I realize that your committee has been formulated to try to change some of the laws and stuff to make things a little more fair for the parents on both sides, custodial, non-custodial, whatever, and to watch out for the best interest of the children. By the same token, I've heard a lot of stuff going on from people here who have trouble in their cases, and somewhere along the line, somebody said something about the judicial system needed to let people unburden themselves, so to speak, to at least get some of the chip off of their shoulder. I think that's to a degree true, but then they also need to watch out for the legal rights of all parties involved, custodial parent, the non-custodial parent, and the children, most importantly, the children.

     I would like to think that my case is one that is extremely out of the ordinary. You guys have a big job in front of yourselves, because you're never going to be able to make laws and stuff where you can fit all of us round pegs into square holes.

     With regard to the comment that was made earlier to the police being able to enforce, step out in the field, I think that's a mistake. I wanted to comment on that. Any time you start adding that many people into it, you're going to have people that have bad hair days, have misjudgment. They don't like the color of somebody's eyes, and they're going to wind up enforcing stuff that's going to become more damaging than it is to the parties involved. What I would recommend in a case like that, is to maybe have the parties, not necessarily cited, but to have them written up or summonsed to whereby they have to go to committee that's qualified to listen to what's going on, and to make a judgment on it. The individual police is not the place to have it go.

     To stray off that a little bit, I kind of wanted to bring you a little bit up to date into the scenario for myself. I'm a father of a soon to turn nine year old boy. I never really cared much for the fact of having to have a judicial legislature set down for me who's custodial parent, who's not. Like another gentleman back here, I was paying more child support prior to having something court awarded than what I was after it was court awarded. Child support has never been an issue to me. I think that in a perfect world, if we all stood up to our responsibilities, we wouldn't have to have the courts laying down laws for us. We would stand up to what we need to do as mature parents and adults.

     Along that line, my boy was born and I got visitation with for an extremely short period of time, at which time the mother cut me off completely, said if I didn't like it, I could take her to court. In my initial court decree, it was defined as reasonable visitation. That was the only part of the trial that I really had trouble with. I went in without an attorney. I couldn't afford one, so I went in because I'm a fairly easy to get along with type of guy, and I figured we wouldn't have any trouble. It wasn't a long marriage. There wasn't a lot of possessions to divide or anything like that. Custody was granted to her, primary physical custody. I asked if we could get visitation defined, because it was stated as reasonable visitation. When I asked that before the judge, he told me that if I wanted to get visitation specified, that I needed to go out and get an attorney. Now, there's a case where, too, these people deal with this. I mean, we turn to you guys as our law body, and we turn to the judges and the attorneys and things like that, and they should be in some kind of position to make recommendations to us, based on the experience that they have in the wide variety of cases that they go through. In addition to that fact, parties that are involved in cases like that, aren't thinking straight already anyway. They're just too close to the fire, and they can use some good input and some guidance, so when we turn to a party for guidance such, as the judges, the attorneys and such, we expect to be helped by them, not raped by them.

     In my particular case, my case has been ongoing for eight years. The court started out in my eyes as doing justice, originally. They granted me temporary visitation schedule to where I could build up a rapport with my boy, because he was such a young age they felt that I need to slowly step into visitation, not just spring it on him all at once. I thought that was extremely admirable. They were watching out for the best interest of my son and I commend them for that. They problem that there was with it is that his mother did not want me to have anything to do with my boy at all. So, she went through the step-by-step process of making all kinds of allegations that proceeded to, accusations of physicalness, accusations of eventually sexual molestation during visitations. I, personally, believe that my boy was abused in some sense, be it sexually or mentally, he was abused and I've got doctors and psychologists who have done joint studies, as well as individual studies, on my son, on us, jointly, on the mother, and they feel that there was reason to suspect some type of sexual abuse. At that, there was nothing ever done to address that issue. They did not pull the boy out of the home and do home studies of both parties. They concentrated their efforts on me. I went ahead and went through all the hoops that the judicial parties told me to go through. Eventually, it turned out to the point where there was a trial program that was through what's called the Burrell Center, in Springfield, Missouri. I went through this trial program. It was my understanding that they were getting ready to lose some of their funding, so it was important to them that our case worked out. We went through this program, and, ultimately, the program was turning out to be a complete failure, until the point where one of the counselors, I brought it up to her, that my wife would do anything to keep my boy away from me. She would leave the country. She's from Iran. She would leave the country. Ultimately, in my mind's eye, I truly believe that she would kill my son prior to letting me have him. I expressed my feelings to her, and in one of our last sessions of trying to do this marriage counseling type thing of solving out the problems we had, it was brought up to her, well what do you think if we just pulled the boy away from both of you, and put him in foster care until you can get things squared out? She became very violent about that and finally started coming around to where she cooperated. By that, I thought that there was a ray of hope. I went into court, and we came up with a visitation proposal that was acceptable to both parties. The fact that my sone was abused, I truly believe that he was abused. I don't think that he was in any imminent danger at that point and time. I mean, I think that she was willing to cooperate, and if she would have stayed cooperating, we wouldn't have had a problem. The trouble did arise where after we got the visitation schedule set down, she decided she didn't want to be in Springfield anymore. The visitation was going fine. My son was developing a good father-son relationship with me. Everything was going fantastic. She just did not want to be here in Springfield, where I was at. So, what she needed to do was get the boy away from me. She petitions the court to try to get him away from me. I had 30 days to respond. Day number 20, there was some kind of recording error down at the court to whereby they said that it got filed prior to it actually getting filed. So, her attorney saw that loophole, took the ball and ran with it. They went into court, found me as a no-show. At day 20, I had finally found counsel that would represent me, and we went in and got it overturned. She still left the state against court order, and knew this. She left against court order and I, basically, have been fighting for the last couple years trying to get my son back, but September, last year, it went to a two-day trial before a judge - all the judges in Greene County disqualified themselves. We had to have a special judge that was pulled in to hear our case. Why they disqualified, I don't know, and that's the whole thing, is that through all of this, there's been time, time, and more time, more time. The court system can grant to us the rights to be parents and to enforce those rights so that we can be a part of our children's lives, but the court systems can't give me back, and they can't give my son back the eight years that have been taken away from us, bonding years. I happen to think that my son's mom is a fantastic mom. She's a wonderful mom, except for one thing. She cannot stand me being in my son's life, and she has got the power, the way our court systems are set up right now to manipulate and to steer me in any way that she wants to. It's not just the non-custodial fathers that are burdened by this, any non-custodial parent can be burdened by this. The fact that the majority of us are fathers, something that is a tragedy, I mean that needs to be changed. It needs to be addressed.

     The way it currently stands, when we had our two-day trial, the guardian ad litem, there was a guardian ad litem appointed, testimony was heard. The mother was able to keep doctor testimony out of the court system, based on the fact there was a patient-doctor privilege that you can't breech that if she doesn't give consent, then it can't be heard, except in cases where alleged child abuse has come up. The judge overlooked that and just decided to go anyway he wanted to go in his courtroom. He is the law. And, he completely botched the case. The two-day trial, he completely .......

     CASKEY: Who was your judge?

     SLY: Baldridge. He came from Joplin, Missouri. But, anyway, it was a two-day trial that was complete mockery. She was granted permission to leave the state. She had been out of the state for about a year and a half, so she had established residency out of the state. I'm in Springfield, Missouri, southwest part of Missouri. She's in Lafayette, Louisiana, a distance that I can't afford to travel. It's like a 12 or 14-hour drive one way.

     DOUGHERTY: Mr. Sly, I'm going to ask you to stop there for a minute and do some questions here. There are a lot of scenarios you've given. If we eliminated human beings from the scenario, I have a feeling things would be a little better, but I want to get at the questions.

     What specific recommendations, dealing with the fact that we do have human beings who do interpret the law, and, obviously, listening to how it was interpreted in your case, what suggestions do you have for us?

     SLY: I would recommend that specific governing bodies are appointed to deal with cases such as this. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

     DOUGHERTY: Like a judge and a couple of lawyers?

     SLY: Possibly a judge, couple lawyers, maybe some social workers, together, cumulatively, as a panel to where you have more impact from a wider variety of people.

     DOUGHERTY: So, a court of appeals is not what you're thinking of?

     SLY: I don't think the court of appeals is going to do anything necessarily for me.

     DOUGHERTY: Okay, I'm just asking.

     SLY: Did you have another question?

     DOUGHERTY: Well, yes, I'm going to ask to see if the committee has one.

     SLY: Okay, can I go ahead and finish up on this real quick, and, I'll be brief?

     DOUGHERTY: Go ahead.

     SLY: So, anyway as it stands, currently my ex-wife has got my son in Lafayette, Louisiana. I am not even granted phone contact. I call him a minimum of four times a week. I can't get through on the phone. She caller ID's and screens my calls. I send self-addressed stamped envelopes, and I still have no contact. So, the bottom line is, my support is current. I've always been firm in that. Support is not an issue for me. I think every parent should stand up to their responsibility, but the fact that the laws are unfair and biased towards one party, I can't get enforcement of my visitation. All I've ever wanted to do is be a part of my son's life. I think that's all that any of us ever want to do is be a part of their children's lives.
 
    DOUGHERTY: I suggest that when you get done, I'd like you to talk to Dr. Kaiser. Yes, questions?

     HOLLINGSWORTH: How long has your son been in Lafayette, Louisiana?

     SLY: About two years now.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: When did you start court proceedings and try to get him back from Lafayette?

     SLY: Immediately. They were underway prior to his leaving.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: What's the problem that nothing's happening? They can't get her served, what's the problem?

     SLY: At this point, I am about $17,000 in debt to my attorney for the filings and doing the appeal. They asked me to go ahead and put my house up as collateral, which, then you know, I'll be without a house and a son.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: You owe $17,000 for filing a motion to try and retrieve your child?

     SLY: I am ......

     DOUGHERTY: : It's been tried.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: It's been tried. Okay, let me back up and ask another question, then. What was your decree originally granted for your son?

     SLY: Originally, the decree came out in, I think it was ‘90.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: 1990?

     SLY: Yes, Ma'am.

     HOLLINGSWORTH:  And, that's when you asked for some specified visitation, but were denied.

     SLY: But, I was denied, rather, the judge didn't really deny me. He said if that's what you want, go get an attorney and come back in here. We'll see you later.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: What was the name of the program you mentioned. It was like a Pearl Program or something like that.

     SLY: I went through two versions of Childrens First, which was a program that I think was extremely inefficient. I mean, it was real nice, well intended, but, basically, you go in there, you watch some video tapes of various scenarios of parents fighting with each other, and they tell you to watch out, you know, your kids are seeing this. They're affected by this, and, basically, you go through two sessions of that. They tell you not to fight like this. Shame on you. Shouldn't be like this. That was Childrens First, and then I also went through an intensive 10-week program, I think it was at the Burrell Center........

     HOLLINGSWORTH: The Pearl Center?

     BENTLEY: The Burrell Center is a mental health center at Springfield, Missouri.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: How do you spell it?

     BENTLEY: B U R R E L L.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Thank you.

     BENTLEY: You're welcome.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: That's all I have.

     CASKEY: Any other questions? Thank you, very much for appearing today.

     Dennis Ogle.