Berrill’s report was released in January 2004. A consensus was soon reached. From the judge to the law guardian, lawyers for both parties included, everybody agreed: this was a piece of trash. Why then waste three precious court dates – which, in Manhattan Family Court time, translate into a year- hearing the author? Pro-ce-du-re has to be respected, no matter what. Moreover, the distinguished psychologist wanted another $750 for each time he goes to Court. I objected to hearing Berrill’s testimony. Sicko ex-wife did not, of course; what matters for a female plaintiff in Family Court, especially if you do not have a case, is to extend the trial. While it lasts, the restraining order holds and so do supervised visits.
However bad Berrill’s report is, there were a few lines to rescue from it. For instance, the recommendation to allow me to have email exchanges with my daughters. Six months before the release of Berrill’s report, I had opened two email addresses for my daughters. I sent them many emails that were left unanswered. Surprise, surprise? Sicko ex-wife confessed in her testimony that she would not encourage email communication with me. Why didn’t the law guardian and the judge enforce Berrill’s recommendation? They surely fell asleep before the end of the report.
But justice never stops: adding to the aggravation, judge Sturm wanted a complement of forensic evaluation. For me, this confines to judicial harassment. I refused categorically. This will add one more year to the trial, until judge Sturm renounced further forensic muddle.