View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
1/32
1
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND
LILLIAN SONG,
Plaintiff,v Case No. 2012-803495-DMWILLIAM MOORE,
Defendant./
EMERGENCY MOTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LISA LANGTON
Pontiac, Michigan - Friday, February 20, 2015
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff: VINCENT D. GIOVANNI (P26442)26111 West 14 Mile Road, Suite 201Franklin, Michigan 48025-1171(248) 851-2280vgio@aol.com
For the Defendant: EMILY E. LONG (P69607)Long Law, PLLC
3910 Telegraph Road, Suite 200Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302-1461(248) 409-0520emily@longlawpllc.com
Guardian Ad Litem: KERI MIDDLEDITCH WIGOD (P63088)Alexander Eisenberg Middleditch &Spilman, PLLC600 South Adams Road, Suite 100Birmingham, Michigan 48009-6862(248) 358-8880
middleditch@aemslaw.com
Transcript Provided by: Accurate Transcription Services, LLCFirm # 8493(734)944-5818
Transcribed by: Krista S. Michels, CER #8490
mailto:vgio@aol.commailto:emily@longlawpllc.commailto:middleditch@aemslaw.commailto:middleditch@aemslaw.commailto:emily@longlawpllc.commailto:vgio@aol.com7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
2/32
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAG
WITNESSES
None
EXHIBITS RECEIVED
None offered.
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
3/32
3
Pontiac, Michigan1
Friday, February 20, 2015 - 2:33 p.m.2
* * * * * *3
THE CLERK: All rise. Oakland County Circuit4
Court is now in session, the Honorable Judge Lisa Langton5
presiding. Calling Moore v Moore, case number 2012-6
803495-DM.7
MS. LONG: Good afternoon, your Honor, Emily8
Long on behalf of Mr. Moore, who is present to my left.9
MR. GIOVANNI: Good afternoon, your Honor,10
Vincent Giovanni on behalf of Lillian Song, formerly11
Lillian Song-Moore, who is seated to my right.12
THE COURT: Okay.13
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Good afternoon, your Honor,14
Keri Middleditch, Guardian Ad Litem for the minor child.15
THE COURT: Okay. Were here on an emergency16
motion to suspend plaintiff mothers parenting time. Ms.17
Long?18
MS. LONG: Yes, your Honor; may I proceed?19
THE COURT: Yes.20
MS. LONG: Judge, I did file an emergency21
motion. It was drafted today. I apologize to the Court22
somewhat for my casual appearance. I tried to give23
defense coun--or plaintiffs counsel as well as the GAL as24
much notice as possible. I spoke with both of them via25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
4/32
4
telephone this morning.1
The basis of our motion is principally, the2
exhibits that were admitted at the beginning of plaintiff3
mothers proofs in the hearing that the Court has4
continuing before it in the custody matter. I just5
received an actual copy of those, Judge. I had not6
received a copy of those prior to them being admitted. I-7
-we had some limited voir dire.8
I have not had the opportunity to cross-examine9
on them. Mr. Giovanni laid the foundation and its based10
upon my notes and recollection of Ms. Songs testimony11
that I made the factual allegations that I did.12
Specifically--13
MR. GIOVANNI: May I interrupt for one second,14
Judge? Have you read the pleadings?15
THE COURT: Ive read both the pleadings, yes.16
MR. GIOVANNI: Okay. So, I just want to pro--17
proceed from that understanding.18
THE COURT: Yes.19
MR. GIOVANNI: Thats all.20
THE COURT: Yes, I did.21
MS. LONG: Specifically Judge, my recollection22
of Ms. Songs testimony, because I--and I remember23
specifically asking this because I was so concerned about24
the actual content of the photographs, was how long have25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
5/32
5
these photographs been going on? And I believe the date1
of the first photograph that Mr. Giovanni had entered had2
a 2013 in front of it. And Ms. Songs testimony was that3
she was photographing the rectal/anal region of the minor4
child in question, Joshua Moore, when he was received from5
fathers care and then, when he was again, delivered to6
fathers care.7
The thrust of that, your Honor, was that there8
was some sort of injury or otherwise that Ms. Song was9
attempting to document that was worsening in my clients10
care as opposed to in her care. The concern I have,11
beyond simply the graphicness of the photograph, is that12
based on that, and some of these photographs, as Im13
looking through, you literally see a hand. You see14
fingers that are--that are spreading apart the young15
childs bottom.16
Taking that testimony as true that this child17
was being photographed on that frequent of a basis, from18
2013 until today, even if you assume for the sake of19
argument that it didnt happen every single time, we are20
talking about an extraordinary number of photographs of21
this childs rectum. And I spoke--I had the opportunity,22
I can say as an officer of the Court, I forwarded a copy23
of the email to Mr. Giovanni, as well as Ms. Middleditch.24
The pediatrician who testified, Dr. Forman, I25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
6/32
6
spoke with him via telephone today and asked him whether1
or not he had the opportunity to ever review such2
photographs.3
MR. GIOVANNI: Object to any conclusions or4
statements he might have made to counsel.5
MS. LONG: Well, I can--I can--or Judge, then6
Id ask the Court to query of the doctor. I certainly7
didnt have time to get an affidavit from him today. I8
can state as an officer of the Court what he told me, or9
Id ask the Court to telephone him. He did provide his10
contact information and asked that he--his staff be11
instructed to pull him out of a room if the Court would12
prefer to hear it from him.13
But irrespective, I think the content of these14
photographs speaks for itself in conjunction with Ms.15
Songs testimony. This is something that was not reported16
to the GAL. It was not reported to CPS despite multiple17
investigations. It was not handled by a doctor and it18
does not appear to have been--have been handled by any19
professional whatsoever and this is a situation where we20
have multiple photographs of a young boys bottom.21
And hes not just an infant, Judge. This isnt22
a circumstance where hes an--an infant whos subject to23
the type of disastrous diapers that we can all relate to.24
This is a little boy who is going to be five years old25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
7/32
7
soon and is on multiple times per week being photographed1
rectally by his mother. I think its completely2
inappropriate. I think its abusive and I think that it3
needs to stop. I recognize that Mr. Giovanni offered in4
his response of pleading that there was an offer that--5
that Ms. Song would refuse or would discontinue doing this6
until the Court reached a decision on the pending motion.7
I dont believe thats satisfactory.8
Ms. Song has demonstrated historically not--some9
noncompliance with Court orders. The Court certainly has10
enough testimony before it now at this point to recognize11
that some of the delays that have been attributed to other12
facets of the motion thats pending before the Court is as13
a result of Ms. Song not utilizing the safety net that the14
consent judgment of divorce put in place to protect this15
child, specifically Ms. Middleditch.16
The fact that Ms. Middleditch was not aware of17
any of this is again, of utmost concern. Even if she18
wasnt going to tell the doctor, even if she wasnt going19
to tell CPS, the childs representative should have been20
aware of these concerns. If she was concerned enough to21
be taking these photographs, these concerns should have22
been voiced to professionals. And in the absence of23
voicing this to professionals, in the absence of the24
people who this should be reported to being--having it25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
8/32
8
been reported to, I think that that belies any assertion1
that this was done for a legitimate purpose and because of2
that, I believe the safety of the child is at issue.3
I believe it is harmful to be photographed4
repeatedly in this sense and the Exhibit A that we5
attached to our pleading demonstrates that literally after6
Court, after we were here on Wednesday, Ms. Song exercised7
her evening parenting time that was designed in the8
consent judgment for them to be able to have dinner9
together and that a rectal exam of some sort was10
performed. Whether it was photographed, I dont know, but11
she did communicate that in writing to my client that--12
evidencing that it was again, examined on Wednesday just13
hours after Court.14
And for those reasons, Id ask the Court to15
grant my motion pending ultimate disposition. Were in16
Court next Friday on this issue.17
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Mr. Giovanni?18
MR. GIOVANNI: Your Honor, I think that counsel19
has mischaracterized, not only what was done, but the20
nature of what was done. There is nothing wrong with21
photographing this child to document a medical condition.22
If she had published these to someone else or shown them23
to someone else, thats a different story. The mere24
existence of the photographs is only for the purpose of25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
9/32
9
showing that the child was not being properly treated and1
being neglected.2
Now what Ms. Moore--or Ms. Song should have done3
in terms of notifying others, you might want to recall4
that she had notified others about injuries the child had5
suffered because she was concerned about possible6
infliction of injuries by her husband. She didnt accuse7
him of that, but she made the authorities aware of that.8
That was a--those are potentially abuse allegations and in9
fact, they were investigated.10
Now, this problem that were dealing with here11
that exemplified by these pictures is a less serious issue12
because its a matter of neglect. And the fact that she13
couldnt get responses from the authorities because it14
didnt seem to, apparently to them, exhibit abuse, would15
suggest that, I would think that the responsiveness of--of16
the authorities would be significantly less in a neglect17
situation.18
Now, you have to remember, I think, and take19
this--an argument throughout this case, that this case has20
to be seen in the context and in my--my answer to my21
motion, my client has been communicating with Mr. Moore.22
And there have been communications which, I havent23
reviewed everything possible because a limited amount of24
time, but I have discussions in Our Family Wizard where25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
10/32
10
she was bringing to his attention the fact that the child1
was constantly sore and red after he had--red after he has2
been with you in this location.3
I have emails between the two parties on August4
10thof last year, on Aug--August 9thof last year, August5
8thof last year, September 22nd, September 21, September 26
of last year, September 20, September 19, February 19 of7
this year. And the responses she got, basically from Mr.8
Moore, was the problem is potty training and Im going to9
take care of this problem with the application of10
ointments and salves, like A&D, as he--as he said, but11
he--but he--he didnt address the problem when she pointed12
it out to him appropriately.13
The problem kept on happening and in fact, when14
he said he was giving him the A&D ointment, the problem15
still continued to appear. My client has been threatened16
numerous times during the course of the marriage that--17
during the course of the pendency of the divorce that he18
would make her pay for having divorced him. She was un--19
in a situation where she anticipated there would be future20
litigation over events relating to this child and she21
predicted that pretty well.22
These photographs are not published to anyone23
else. They are photographs of--of neglectful treatment.24
They are relevant to this litigation. I think--I--in25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
11/32
11
fact, I viewed their protestations as deflecting the fact1
that they clearly illustrate neglect on the part of Mr.2
Moore. I--if I, you know, if I had known about these in3
advance, I probably would have said, You should call4
Middleditch or--or deal with it with Dr. Glickman (ph),5
but I think you--my client indicated that she ad--6
addressed this issue with Dr. Glickman; is that correct?7
MS. SONG: Two peds.8
THE COURT: (Indiscernible).9
MR. GIOVANNI: Okay. So, there--there is10
nothing neglectful, abusive, repulsive, disgusting about11
these photographs except that they illustrate neglect.12
And your Honor, theyre appropriate to the circumstances13
of this case. They are in response to Mr. Moore not14
treating the complaints of my client correctly. And I15
would ask you to review these emails before you make a16
ruling so you can see that there was discussion between17
the parties about this problem and in spite of those18
discussions, it kept on reoccurring.19
My client has noticed in several instances in20
the past related to this child that Mr. Moore lacks21
empathy, which he will testify to on Friday next, and it22
hasnt been put on the record yet. She has always been23
concerned about his ability to deal with the child in--in24
light of his phobias and delusions, also about his lack of25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
12/32
12
empathy for the child. These instances were a concern for1
her from the very beginning. Hes been unresponsive. The2
problem keeps reoccurring.3
Its extremely critical to this litigation. The4
fact that we have photographs is not inappropriate and my5
client would also testify, if we take any testimony today,6
that these pictures were only taken in conjunction with7
the necessity of treating this child. They were not taken8
in the sense that, Okay, its time to pull your pants9
down, were going to take your pictures. She took these10
pictures and--and also, in--they took these pictures in11
conjunction with applying palliative treatments to the12
injury this child had suffered from the rash.13
This child came back from parenting time14
complaining of soreness and rawness in his bottom. She15
also would testify that she made efforts to avoid--16
MS. LONG: Judge, Im going to make the same17
objection. Counsel didnt want an offer of proof from me18
and I--I mean, this is beyond an offer of proof, so--19
MR. GIOVANNI: Well, excuse me. The doctor is20
not here, my client is. All right? Im sorry, your21
Honor. She made efforts to make sure the child didnt22
even know these pictures were being taken by deafening--23
theres a way you can turn off--24
THE COURT: How do we ever know that, so--25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
13/32
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
14/32
14
MR. GIOVANNI: Okay, your Honor.1
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Any--2
MS. LONG: I have some response. I dont know3
if the Court wants to hear from the GAL first?4
THE COURT: Ill--Ill hear your response and5
then, Ill hear the GALs.6
MS. LONG: Judge, I--I think that one of the7
concluding things that Mr. Giovanni said is the most8
important and the most--well, its the most important9
because he said its--it was only associated with the10
necessity of treating the child. It absolutely was not.11
This had nothing to do with treating the child. We heard12
from the pediatrician.13
There was no testimony elicited by Mr. Giovanni,14
who certainly had the opportunity to do so, to discuss15
when we were talking sub--for a substantial period of time16
with Dr. Forman about potty training and it being an17
issue, there was no question, there was absolutely no18
question posed by Mr. Giovanni to Dr. Forman regarding Ms.19
Songs continued complaints regarding diaper rash. There20
was absolutely no question posed by counsel to CPS.21
These people, and I be--its--its--its my22
belief, based upon that, Judge, that this has never been23
brought to anyone elses attention. And I believe that24
because to my knowledge, having been rep--having25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
15/32
15
represented for my client--my client as long as I have,1
that I believe, based on my experience, that a 3200 would2
have had to have been filed. And to my knowledge, that3
has not been done. I believe that Dr. Forman would4
represent that to the Court and--and I think it is--its5
simply a function of the obligation of a mandatory report,6
if faced with these type of photographs.7
I do not know how a child of this age, were not8
talking about an infant. I dont know how a little boy of9
four years old cant tell that a photograph is being taken10
of his bottom when his mothers hand, 2-12-15, I assume11
thats his mothers hand that is completely over his12
bottom spreading his--his rear end apart. I dontknow13
how its possible that you can honestly say that that14
would be taken without the childs knowledge.15
THE COURT: Ms. Middleditch?16
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: I would like the record to17
reflect that I have not been provided these photographs,18
nor have I seen these photographs. These photographs were19
brought to my attention via Mr. Moore and his counsel20
after the testimony came out of Ms. Song in my absence21
after the testimony that I provided to the Court.22
I would indicate at no time did mother raise any23
concerns about a habitual rash or rectal irritation during24
my tenure on the case. At no time did she bring some25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
16/32
16
concerns to me that she felt that something was happening1
to Joshua while in his fathers carewith respect to his2
bottom or rear end. I frankly think that if the pictures,3
as are described by both attorneys, have been taken as4
often as they seem to suggest, certainly even after a5
dinner, which is absurd to me, find--I find that that6
actual action is very abusive.7
When I previously testified before the Court,8
none of this had been brought to my attention. Frankly,9
CPS has been involved twice since my tenure on the case.10
This was never brought to Child Protective Services11
attention. If there was any real concern, I cant imagine12
that mother didnt come to me and voice these concerns to13
me. I--I think this is actually reprehensible and I--Im14
concerned that mother doesnt recognize the magnitude of15
her actions on this child.16
Had I known this, I would not have made the17
recommendation I did previously with regard to maintaining18
the equal parenting time arrangement. I--I am concerned19
enough given the email that I received from Mr. Moore20
articulating the email he received from Lillian after the21
Wednesday parenting time that I want to forward that email22
on to Dr. Margerum, Lillian Songs therapist. Im23
concerned that she doesnt recognize the gravity of her24
actions in my view, or the impact on her child and at this25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
17/32
17
time, Im recommending supervisedparenting time.1
THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone have any2
questions of the GAL?3
MS. LONG: I do not, your Honor.4
THE COURT: Mr. Giovanni, any questions?5
MR. GIOVANNI: Ms. Middleditch, I have a6
question or two.7
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Sure.8
MR. GIOVANNI: I do think at--I do understand9
the pos--is it your position that its a problem for you10
that you werent acquainted with this problem before11
today; thats correct, right?12
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Yeah, I--I--I, not only me,13
but not--Child Protective Services, the pediatrician, any-14
-anyone that would have been able to assist this child15
outside of either party.16
MR. GIOVANNI: All right. So, my client has--17
has produced photographs, which are detailed photographs18
of the childs bottom.19
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Okay.20
MR. GIOVANNI: Theres a series of photographs,21
I believe there are 20? Less than 20, where Ms. Song took22
photographs of severe--in my view, severe rashes on the23
childs bottom, which she testified occurred at the time24
that the child arrived from his fathers parenting time,25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
18/32
18
all right?1
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Okay.2
THE COURT: I think she testified that they3
arrived from when she picked the child up from school and-4
-5
MR. GIOVANNI: Yeah, when the pa--at--at the6
conclu--7
THE COURT: --no, not directly from father.8
MR. GIOVANNI: Right. At the conclusion of9
parenting time, the child showed up--at the conclusion of10
the fathers parenting time, her testimony is the child11
showed up with these bad rashes. And all the--all the12
initial pictures, for purposes of your consideration, show13
rashes; does everybody agree with that? Would the Court14
agree that they show rashes?15
THE COURT: Some of it.16
MS. LONG: I--I just--I dont--I havent had a17
chance to read this. This is the first time Ive gotten a18
copy.19
THE COURT: Well, just ask your questions.20
MR. GIOVANNI: All right. So, they all sh--21
well, all the--the initial pictures show rashes and22
subsequent pictures at the conclusion of her parenting23
time show amelioration of--or disappearance of the rashes.24
So my question to you is, how would you suppose that a25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
19/32
19
person such as Lillian, who was concerned about neglect by1
the father, how would she document such neglect other than2
by taking pictures?3
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Well frankly, had she talked4
to me, I would have advised her to take the child to the5
pediatrician to have someone independently review that. I6
dont think you photograph a child multiple times, how7
many times is not clear to me, but its obvious at least8
20. By everybodys account theres at least--or9
approximately 20 photographs, but if theres some sort of10
severe rash and it keep reoccurring, which is not so11
typical on a four-year-old child, and this is not a child12
in diapers, theres already been some information from13
both myself and Im sure the parents have heard this from14
the school directly or his daycare thats hes having some15
potty training problems.16
I am no expert, but it seems to me that this17
regression in potty training where he would not, to quote18
what the school told me, he would not make a poop on the19
potty at school. And then, I hear that mother has been20
inspecting his anal area, sounds like on a weekly basis21
for quite some time and--and photographing it, I think22
could have contributed to that. Again, Im no expert, but23
my proposal would have been if she were seeing this and it24
were a chronic problem, I would have thought she would25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
20/32
20
have sought out advice of a pediatrician and brought it to1
the GALs attention. And if she thought there was some2
inappropriate or abusive behavior going on by father, she3
was cal--had contacted CPS previously, she would do that4
again or law enforcement.5
MR. GIOVANNI: Does it matter to you that my6
clientsposition today and in her answer to the motion7
and testimony she was offering any; is that--the pictures8
only occurred in conjunction with necessary treatment of a9
child complaining of a severe pain in the bottom because10
of the rash?11
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Im not sure I understand your12
question.13
MR. GIOVANNI: In other words, the pictures14
werent taken by themselves. Herposition is the pictures15
were only taken in conjunction with the treatment of the16
rash?17
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: And so, my position, I guess18
as the Guardian Ad Litem, is if there was something19
medically necessary; why didnt she get the assistance of20
a pediatrician to take a look at this kid and document21
this chronic problem and not take a picture and check it22
every three weeks, but to go to a pediatrician? Or every,23
you know, three times a week, excuse me, and go to a24
pediatrician and have that independent evaluation done?25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
21/32
21
MR. GIOVANNI: Well, you understand a1
pediatrician, the--the parties both had a belief as to why2
this was occurring and in fact, the belief is a reasonable3
belief based upon the idea that the child is defecating in4
his pants and the condition was likely a result of that.5
So, its not like theres any, shall we say mystery, about6
how this is occurring?7
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Okay. Then, if she thinks8
that the child is being neglected in Mr. Moores care,9
then she needs to document that by doing the pediatrician.10
Otherwise, they need to be using their A&D or Desitin or11
whatever ointment or cream, whats prescribed and move on.12
I dont think we look at the childs anus after every13
parenting time exchange or the day that theyre exchanged14
and take photographs. Thats not the remedy. And in15
fact, I--I think could have actually been very harmful to16
Joshua. It certainly didnt help.17
MR. GIOVANNI: What about if Joshua is not aware18
of it?19
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Theres--I--I dont know that20
Joshua is aware of it or not. I--I didnt know, so I21
didnt talk to him about this, but I would be hard pressed22
to believe that a child whos getting ready to go to23
kindergarten and doing well by all accounts at the daycare24
would be unaware of it. Certainly, hes aware that25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
22/32
22
someones inspecting his anal area multiple times a week,1
which is not normal.2
MR. GIOVANNI: But we have a--we have a--an3
acknowledged problem between both parties and that is a4
recurring rash caused by lack of potty training, okay? We5
have the parties discussing it with each other and both of6
them agreeing that A&D ointment is the appropriate7
treatment, correct?8
And lastly, we have my client testifying that9
its a recurring problem after the fathers parenting10
time, which she has documented with photographs. Now, she11
has--she is indicating that she has made efforts to make12
sure the child doesnt know these photographs are being13
taken, including silencing the--the cameras clicking14
noise. And in light of all that, with an acknowledged15
recurrent problem, Im not understanding why you would16
recommend that she have supervised parenting time,17
assuming that she would agree to take no further pictures?18
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Because I think that she19
should have recognized that that was problematic behavior20
to begin with and--and short of him blindfolding him and21
putting earphones in so they couldnt see or hear what was22
going on, I just dont think its plausible to believe he23
didnt know this was happening.24
And its not just the photographs. The fact25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
23/32
23
that she was literally checking him, even after a three-1
hour visit with Mr. Moore is very disturbing because my2
understanding is, based on what everyone is saying, is3
this has been going on for over a year.4
MR. GIOVANNI: Well, you sa--well, I understand5
youre still--I completely understand your position about6
her not reporting it to others, but why is it disturbing7
for her to be--be checking the child if the child is8
repeatedly coming back from the fathers visitation with a9
sore behind and--10
THE COURT: I--I think shes answered that a11
couple times.12
MR. GIOVANNI: --and repeatedly complaining13
about it?14
THE COURT: Were just asking the same question15
over and over again.16
MR. GIOVANNI: Wait a second. Ms. Middleditch17
and the Court can--can preclude this if the Court chooses,18
but let me phrase the point.19
THE COURT: Okay.20
MR. GIOVANNI: The point, Ms. Middleditch, is21
that youve just testified that it was unusual that she22
would check the childs bottom and I posited to you that23
the child was complaining, the child was raw, it24
repeatedly kept happening. Why wouldnt she check his25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
24/32
24
bottom? You said it was concerning that she did.1
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Why--why--why wouldnt she2
take him to the pediatrician?3
MR. GIOVANNI: Because--well, my--my--youre
4
acting like--5
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Why--why didnt she make6
another report to CPS? I mean, because clearly it seems7
to me the--the insinuation is she thought that either8
William was neglecting him or abusing him, one or the9
other.10
MR. GIOVANNI: Yes. You asked me why not report11
it and Im--my--my answer is, from my clients point of12
view, its a recurrent problem acknowledged by both13
parties with a causal relationship with not being potty14
trained and the parties agreed as to how it should be15
treated. The problem was it appeared that Mr. Moore was16
not treating it properly.17
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Well, or perhaps the problem18
was that mother was checking it so often and taking19
photographs that it caused additional anxiety to the child20
and it just exacerbated the potty training problem.21
MR. GIOVANNI: Well, thats speculation; is it22
not?23
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: No question, its speculation.24
MR. GIOVANNI: Yes.25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
25/32
25
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: No question.1
MR. GIOVANNI: So if the--why isnt it--why is2
it not satisfactory in your mind of Ms. Moore is told by3
the Court this is inappropriate and shall not do it again4
and she agrees?5
MS. LONG: Objection, Judge. Thats been asked6
and answered.7
THE COURT: Right. Lets--do you have any more-8
-do you have any other questions?9
MR. GIOVANNI: Did I ask that question before?10
I--I dont believe I did.11
THE COURT: All right. Lets--all right.12
MR. GIOVANNI: Ms. Middleditch, just a last13
question. Youre recommending supervised parenting time14
and Im asking you why, if Lillian is told by the Court15
this is not appropriate in the Courts point of view and16
should not reoccur and she agrees, why is that not a17
satisfactory solution?18
MS. MIDDLEDITCH: Because I dont think she19
recognizes the--the--I think it was a poor judgment call20
and Im concerned that she wont continue to make poor21
judgment calls until we can address this with Dr. Margerum22
in her therapy.23
MR. GIOVANNI: All right, thank you.24
THE COURT: Anything further?25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
26/32
26
MS. LONG: I dont have any questions based on1
that, Judge. Thank you.2
THE COURT: All right. Anything further?3
MR. GIOVANNI: No, your Honor. Well, unless you4
want to hear from my client under oath?5
THE COURT: I dont think so.6
MR. GIOVANNI: Accepting what we--we have said7
and as fact.8
THE COURT: I will accept what youve--youve9
indicated that she--her beliefs were as represented by10
her, okay?11
MR. GIOVANNI: And that what she did is a true12
fact, in terms of treating it, in terms of--of trying to13
avoid the child seeing it--14
THE COURT: Thats--if thats what--I--she15
doesnt need to get on the stand from--to say that because16
I believe she would just say that, so I do believe that.17
MR. GIOVANNI: Okay. Theres one more thing,18
Judge, I thought of that--Dr. Glickman, according to her,19
has advised her that if shes unable to bring the child in20
and theres an injury, a rash or something, that she21
should just photograph it and would document it and she22
could send it to him. So, she had some professional23
advice that photographing was appropriate and I want the24
Court to know that; is that correct, Ms. Moore--Ms. Song?25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
27/32
27
MS. SONG: Yes.1
MR. GIOVANNI: All right. No--nothing further.2
MS. LONG: Judge, not to belabor the point, but3
I did, as an officer of the Court, represent what my4
communication was with Dr. Forman. Checked the medical5
records, who is the partner of Dr. Glickfield and he told6
me this would be reportable.7
THE COURT: Okay, I understand.8
MR. GIOVANNI: Judge, I--I--thats been thrown9
on the table, but I want to say that--10
THE COURT: Im going to--11
MR. GIOVANNI: --what Dr. Forman might say if he12
were here, might have to do with the severity of the rash13
being reported rather than the pictures themselves.14
THE COURT: Okay. Well, the--the first thing15
Im going to say is that I do find these pictures16
disturbing, so I didnt want to, when you handed them over17
to me yesterday, I wasnt going to look at them. I was18
very surprised that mom was taking these pictures. Youve19
indicated that she--that she took--only took them in--in20
conjunction with care and treatment.21
Well, theres several pictures of here where22
theres no rash and why would she take a picture then?23
All right, so I--I--Im not finding that a--24
MR. GIOVANNI: I can--I can answer that25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
28/32
28
question, your Honor.1
THE COURT: No. Im--Im not--Im done with2
hearing from the parties. I dont believe they were taken3
in--just in view of--of treatment, I dont believe,
4
considering the age of the child, that he was completely5
unaware of this. As a parent and using my common sense,6
it--it is, and I think the GAL reflected this in her7
concerns, that knowing that the child has regressed now8
from potty training, it is not out of the realm of9
possibility that it could be because he is inspected every10
time he comes to his moms house and every time he leaves11
moms house in a way that, to me, just cannot be12
unavoidable that this child thinks is normal.13
Or if he does think its normal, it certainly14
could be a big reason why--exacerbate his stress over15
this. I think it is--I think it is an immediate threat to16
his emotional--that can cause him immediate emotional harm17
to this child. I--I also found it interesting in your18
pleadings that you indicated that plaintiff anticipated19
that she would be taken back to Court at some point by20
defendant in retaliation to the divorce; thus, plaintiff21
believed it was necessary to document the minor childs22
condition so that she could respond to anticipated23
accusation.24
This is completely for her protection, not in25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
29/32
29
the best interests of the child. So, shes anticipating1
she might be accused of something so shes going to put2
this child through taking these pictures, which I didnt3
look at until right now. I am more than concerned that4
they were taken. I am more than concerned that they have5
been taken for some time. I am more than concerned that6
theyre sitting on her phone somewhere. Im concerned7
about that.8
If she felt that this child, you know, theres9
lots of protections in this case for Ms. Moore. She has a10
GAL. She--if she is concerned about that, and for11
whatever reason, she didnt want to go to CPS, she could12
have contacted the GAL. GAL would have been able to give13
her advice and counsel on how to proceed from that. The14
GAL is very versed in this and she was put into place so15
that Ms. Moore, Im sorry, Ms. Song would have a voice to16
speak to that wasnt her husband. And she has failed to17
do that.18
She did not raise--you know, we did have the19
pediatrician here. We did have the CPS workers here. We20
had our GAL here. Theyre all telling us, this is a21
surprise to them that mom is taking these pictures. I22
think there is an impact on this child. I am very23
concerned. I think it is more than--at best, it is very24
poor judgment in my opinion. It is, at best, very poor25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
30/32
30
judgment.1
I am going to suspend parenting time until the2
completion of this trial. If she wants to set up3
supervised parenting time, she can work with the GAL to do4
that and whatever is satisfactory with respect to5
supervised parenting time--whatever is satisfactory to the6
GAL with respect to supervised parenting time, I will7
approve.8
I do not want the child to be told that he is9
not seeing his mom in the same--in the same manner. I10
dont want anything negative said about mom about why11
theres a change in this right now. Its--I mean, youll12
have to consult with the GAL as to best approach that, but13
I dont want any negative com--any negative comments to be14
heard by this child as to why were changing this.15
And I would counsel your client about where16
these pictures are and how theyre protected. I am not17
going to allow these pictures to be made part of the18
record. I dont want any additionalcopies made of these19
pictures. I would prefer that the pictures be only in the20
possession of counsel at this point and we will keep ours21
in possession of ours. And well continue with hearing22
next Friday. Does anyone have any--23
MS. LONG: Ill prepare an order, Judge.24
MR. GIOVANNI: May I approach with counsel?25
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
31/32
7/25/2019 Trancscript Song v Moore 2-20-15 (1)
32/32
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
COUNTY OF OAKLAND )ss.
I certify that this transcript is a true and accuratetranscription to the best of my ability of the proceeding in
this case before the Honorable Lisa Langton, as recorded by the
clerk.
Proceedings were recorded and provided to this
transcriptionist by the Circuit Court and this certified
reporter accepts no responsibility for any events that occurred
during the above proceedings, for any inaudible and/or
indiscernible responses by any person or party involved in the
proceeding or for the content of the recording provided.
Dated: August 9, 2015
___/S/ Krista S. Michels____________
Krista S. Michels, CER #8490
Recommended