William L. Albott, Ph.D.

Licensed Psychologist - KS
909 SW T""'h - Topeb, ks ._
1'~Z34-4T43- lax T'~Z:U-_'

May 26, 2004

Judge David E. Bruns

Shawnee County District Court
Division Twelve
Shawnee County Court House
Topeka, KS 66603-3922

RE RJCHARDSON v. DOMBROWSKI
Case No. 96 D 217

Dear Judge Bruns:

) Let me begin with a note of apology in regard to the delay in providing the court
with this report As you know I had a respiratory illness that kept me out of the office
and basically rendered me to almost minimal physical functioning for over two weeks.
Since my return my stamina has been fairly compromised and thus trying to "catch up"
proved quite slow. With that note of explanation, I am writing you in regard to the above
encaptioned case and my role in this contentious custody conflict

To summarize my contacts with these individuals seems warranted and gennane.

I first worked with this couple upon a referral from Judge Richard Anderson I met with
them for a total of IS sessions over the time frame of August, 2002 to April, 2003 and
although I thought some progress had been made in diminishing the overt conflict the
sessions then terminated rather abruptly during one session when following a series of
accusations by Ms. Dombrowski, Mr. Richardson abruptly left the session and terminated
the process. During these initial meetings my impression was that Ms Dombrowski and
Mr. Richardson had an extremely dysfunctional history that was continued, even
( escalating, after the divorce Ms. Dombrowski had accused Mr Richardson of multiple
) actions that include domestic violence, rape, etc and in the course of the sessions these
\ accusations were frequently repeated by her to Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson's
i response to these accusations was to deny and then adopt a stance of basically "no
response" where he would just sit silently turning physically away from her. In spite of
the often accusatory quality of these sessions I thought we were able to achieve some
( "compromises" about co-parenting activities Immediate complaints, as distinguished
< from history, centered around Ms. Dombrowski belief that Mr. Richardson did things to
r prevent Ms Do~browski. !Tom having adequate parenting time with their da~ghter and
\, Mr. Richardson s complamts were about Ms. Dombrowski frequently appearing m
..
,

Judge DavId E. Bruns Page 2

RE: RICHARDSON v. DOMBROWSKI
Case No. 96 D 217
May 26. 2004

locations where the daughter wa~ scheduled for some activity and acting very
-I" -
md
-' 1tDD
V'\ t"-.I
inappropriately. (Y'Ot

In March, 2004, Ms. Dombrowski and Mr. Richardson following orders of the
court, began a process directed at facilitating co-parenting time and cooperation to this
end between the parties. I would note that also involved in the mailer was a Case
Manager, Mr. Lloyd Schwartz. In this process I met with the parties 011 two conjoint
sessions and one individual session with Ms. Dombrowski. In the~sessions ow;.fucus
~ had been on arranging visits betwl.'Cn Ms. DomlllinYskj and bcrdaughter Ms.
Dombrowski was unwilling to arrange the visit at "safe visit"-after my office had
arranged for such a visit. My approach then was to attempt to arrange a session with Dr.
Rodeheffer, individual therapist for the daughter, and then also a joint session with Dr
Rodeheffer, Ms. Dombrowski and the daughter. This conjoint visit was scheduled for

* 3/23/04 hut Ms Dombrowski did not appear for the session and later indicated that she
had made a mistake in writing down the time. A conjoint session was scheduled then for
4/13/04. On 3/21104 .Mr . .fuchardso!!~lIed my offi~.in~L",a!illgt.hat a protel.1ive order
hjld been filed in Platt Coun!y' Missouri alliflli<ii'hc wan!~..!().disfontinue visit.s, he
Indicated that the application for-a:protective order included apparently an incident which
occurred in my office's parking lot on 3/8/04. Following this callI contacted Lloyd
Schwartz and yourself seeking advice as to how to proceed. During this period I also
. spoke with Mr. Hoffman (attorney for Mr. Richardson). Dr. Rodeheffer and I thcn
)
, consulted and again it was my decision that until we knew more ahout the protective
order that such a conjoint visit not take place given the limitations inherent in our offices
to provide supervision of the daughter in the absence of one of the parents while waiting
for the other parent. On the 29th of March my office received a copy of the Protective
Order via Fax from Mr. Donald Hoffman, In reading the Protective Order it specifically
prohibits
(I) "Abuse, threaten to abuse, stalk, molest, or di.~turbthe peace of the
Petitioner wherever Petitioner may befound; and
(2) Communicate with Petitioner in any manner or through any medium"
(emphasISadded]
Further in support of her request for this protective ordcr Ms. Dombrowski indicated that
"March 8, 2004 .. in Parking lotthreatelled tofind me et kill me ... thatl
could not hide forever,. "
In that on this date, March 8, 2004 I had met with Ms Dombrowski and :'v1r.Richardson
and thus I concluded that the parking lot was my office parking, I thought this to risk the
potential for violation of number I above if I were to ask Mr. Richardson to bring his
daughter to the office for her and Ms. Dombrowski to have a joint session. I would note
that if Ms. Dombrowski is in fact making reference to some interaction which took place
in my office parking, she did not report this to me or to my office stafl' at the time and
further, it was my recall that Mr, Richardson had left the parking area in advance of Ms.
Dombrowski and have no recall of their having interacted in that area.

( Given the protective order issued out of Platt County Missouri, it was my
conclusion that any joint session would represent a violation of the second point noted
above and further should I meet with the parties individually and then attempt to share
 /

Judge David E. Bruns Page 3

RE RICHARDSON v DOMBROWSKI
Case No. 96 D 217
May 26. 2004

any communication from Mr. Richardson to Ms. Dombrowski this would also violate
both provisions. I also concluded that my office has no resources which could be used to
provide child care/supervision of the daughter should Mr. Richardson bring her to the
office and leave before arrival ofMs Dombrowski, I shared this conclusion with Dr
Rodeheffer (who shares office resources with me) and he agreed that we could not either
provide such supervision nor could we be able to insure that there would be no contact
between the parties.

I shared with you verbally that in light of the above, it was my recommendation
that any supervised visits between Ms. Dombrowski and her daughter be at Safe Visit as
they were prepared for such conditions as imposed by the protective order. I also shared
with you that I could not think of any way which I could effectively work with these
adults in addressing the parenting issues and thus I was asking that this provision of your
order be terminated pending receipt of this formal communication

Although there are no formal allegations of Ms Dombrowski having physically

abused her daughter, the presence of the Protective Order, in my professional opinion
leaves me in the position of having no alternatives to Safe Visit to recommend to the
court for supervised visits between Ms. Dombrowski and her daughter.

I am providing you sufficient copies of this letter so that you may distribute them
to the attorney's and the case manager. I am also attaching a copy of the Protective
Order. Should you have any questions or need clarification of any point, please contact
me.

Respectfully yours,

0.- QL. J
William L Albott, Ph.D
Licensed Psychologist - KS

[Dombrowski v Ricbardson Icrr]