"In this vein, San Diego has a couple of Madames, the most egregious, in our experience, being Breffni Barrett.
Barrett, whose past experience lulled other practitioners to relax their their guard when considering his current activities, is now the subject an overdue investigation. A financially skillful fellow, with ongoing seminars and recovery slated workshops, particularly in the area of "Domestic Violence Recovery," Barrett remains very busy.
And, never one to give up a buck, when one young female patient clearly and repeatedly stated she wanted to see a therapist other than him, refused to leave the car, Barrett rushed to the parking lot, to 'counsel' her there.
Apart from the obvious, what professional code of conduct allows a therapist to continue to 'treat' a child against the child's repeated cries for someone else, as being in the best interests of that child?
A good therapist, especially during an emotionally trying time, is priceless. To find one, especially during a time when one's internal radar is compromised, is harder still.
With that in mind, practicality counts.
We recommend checking the number of income producing programs the, 'professional' is affiliated. Individuals offering too many seminars and work-shop solutions, smell just like money to us.
San Diego Attorneys we recommend avoiding.
Richard Candor - Convicted of sexual molestation
Plead no contest to sexually abusing all five of his daughters.
Practices family law in San Diego.
Jeff Fritz - "Cockroach in a suit"
1997 San Diego Union Tribune article, featuring Jeff Fritz laughingly explaining how to manipulate the system, for his financial gain. Judges continue to find his antics amusing, as they allow his legal fees to run unchecked.
Kandy Koliwer
With no legal skills to rely on, Kolliwer redefines manipulative behavior. This translates to her being a favorite of Clements. We recommend appealing any order appointing her as Guardian Ad Litem.
Summary of disciplined attorneys, by month
"They Don't Make Them Like They Used To"
With that in mind, remember the goal of the court is promoting business, best demonstrated by May 2000, article in The San Diego Tribune, reporting Judge Ashworth's recommendation an "expert" be consulted in a dog custody case.
Perhaps Judge Ashworth was tired of adjudicating the usual kind of cases, but as the article below demonstrates, the conga line for attorneys and therapsits, dancing the money tree shake, continues:
SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
May 29, 2000
It's a dog-eat-dog battle in court for pet custody
Divorcing couple go to great lengths to see who gets hound
"With their two Porsches, Ferrari and house with an ocean view, Dr. Stanley and Linda Perkins weren't bashful about spending money -- and the divorcing couple spent a bundle on a vicious custody fight.The fight was particularly vicious considering it wasn't even about a child. It was about Gigi, the couple's dog.
The battle lasted two years, costing the childless couple thousands on expenses ranging from legal fees to a "canine bonding" study designed to help decide who was the better master for their beloved pointer-greyhound mix.
In March, the case culminated in a trial in San Diego Superior Court, complete with a dramatic day-in-the-life-of-Gigi video that one of the lawyers believes helped clinch the case for her client.
The Perkins divorce case -- a story of puppy love in its most literal, extravagant sense -- spotlights an issue that might affect any couple sharing a pet. That issue is pet litigation.
Who bothers to consider which partner might get to keep Fluffy the cat or Sparky the dog in the event of a romantic split?
Think the question through, divorce lawyers recommend -- because many estranged spouses are surprisingly willing to take each other to court over issues ranging from vet bills to visitation rights.
It is an area of the law that isn't fully developed. Under the state's civil code, pets are treated like a sofa or dining table -- pieces of property to be awarded to one party or the other.
And when trying to resolve the issue, feuding ex-lovers have been known to engage in battles almost as venomous as any child-custody dispute.
San Diego lawyer Richard Prantil handled a case in which the two parties signed a contract calling for one to get the dog during the week, the other on the weekend.
"They didn't have kids, and this was their kid," he said.
Then there was the case in which a divorcing couple was fighting over custody of the family shih tzu. The list of trial exhibits included a giant oil painting of the dog that San Diego lawyer Jean Skripek's client wheeled into the courtroom on a dolly.
"Those people had a lot of money," Skripek said.
`We want the cat'
When it comes to their beloved animals, warring spouses have been known to commit astonishing acts of emotional cruelty. Vista attorney Cheryl Tomac recalled one particularly bitter battle between her client and her client's ex-husband over the family cat.
One night the man called his ex-wife and told her that the cat had meowed in a way that sounded like the ex-wife's name. As a result, he informed her, he'd taken the cat into the garage and hanged it.
"We want the cat," Tomac screamed at the opposing lawyer over the telephone, "and it better be alive when we get it."
The cat, it turned out, was unharmed.
San Francisco Bay Area attorney Leonard Weiler, a board member of the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, said most pet litigation is resolved before a judge gets involved. A trial over a pet, he said, is almost unheard of.
Indeed, few lawyers can recall a case as long or bitter as the fight over the Perkins' dog. The case is now the stuff of folklore on the local family court circuit -- and most of the stories "have not been kind," said Stanley Perkins' lawyer, Maura Byrne.
The battle for Gigi
Stanley Perkins, 44, is a Pacific Beach anesthesiologist. His ex- wife, Linda, 38, who now goes by her maiden name of Kaplan, runs a business distributing technical manuals.
The story traces back to the beginning of their marriage in 1994, when, ominously enough, one of Stanley Perkins' two dogs killed one of his fiancee's cats a few days before the wedding.
The couple immediately gave the dog away and Stanley's second dog died a year later. The husband decided he wanted another dog.
"I told Linda that Stan was a `dog person' and had always been so," Stanley Perkins' sister said in a court declaration. "I remember telling her that `a boy and his dog' applied to no one more than it did to Stan."
The couple acquired Gigi at an animal shelter in 1996. Two years later the couple filed for divorce -- and custody of Gigi soon became a major issue.
Stanley Perkins said he should keep Gigi because the dog had been a gift from his wife to replace his other dogs. Not so, countered his wife, who insisted the dog had been a joint acquisition. "I was Gigi's `Mommy,' " she argued in a court declaration. As proof she submitted a birthday card addressed to "a special `Mom,' " and signed "Love, Gigi."
(The card -- which offered thanks because "you brush my coat and pet my head and let me in and out . . . " -- actually was written by Stanley Perkins.)
`Natural enemies'
In May 1998, Superior Court Judge Thomas Ashworth granted temporary custody of Gigi to Perkins, with Kaplan getting weekend visitations. He also told them to feel free to consult any experts who might help him make a final ruling. They eventually took him up on the offer.
Meanwhile, the legal file began to pile up in court. Kaplan insisted Gigi belonged with her because she worked out of her apartment and could give the dog more attention.
But Perkins predicted dire consequences if his estranged wife got custody of Gigi. The problem: Kaplan's 11-year-old cat, Muffin. As dog and cat, he asserted, the two animals were "natural enemies."
"Gigi and Muffin do not play together and they never have," he stated. "Further, Muffin does not like Gigi nosing her."
By September 1998 no permanent custody arrangement had been resolved, and the Perkinses continued to argue about which of them would provide the better home. It was time, they decided, to consult a professional.
Enter Dr. A. Lynn Wilson, animal behavior expert.
Bringing in the experts
Wilson, who offers advice on raising pets, said the case was the first and only time she'd been hired to perform a "bonding study" in a custody dispute over an animal.
Nonetheless, Wilson gamely visited both parties in an effort to decide which one had a closer relationship with the dog and would make a better master.
According to Wilson's report, during the interview with the wife, Gigi slept and played with a chew toy. Wilson's report noted the frequency of Gigi's walks (2-3 times a day), Gigi's eating habits (Pro-Plan dry food) and sleeping arrangements (dog bed in wife's room).
During Wilson's interview with the husband, he demonstrated a game where Gigi "playfully and gently pulls on his hand with her mouth."
Wilson concluded that both were loving masters. She further pronounced Gigi "a well-adjusted dog." Wilson recommended that Kaplan get primary custody of Gigi because she worked at home and her neighborhood was safer for pets.
A minor controversy later erupted when it surfaced that Perkins had hired another animal behaviorist, Dr. Dennis Fetko, to prepare for his interview with Wilson. Fetko, who goes by the moniker "Dr. Dog," didn't return a phone call seeking comment.
Based on Wilson's report, the judge granted the wife temporary custody of Gigi, with the husband getting weekend visitations.
Adding the costs
Meanwhile, the divorce litigation dragged on, with the couple battling over a variety of non-Gigi issues, most of them related to finances.
By March 2000, Kaplan had spent$146,000 in legal fees on her divorce, according to court records. Through the years, her lawyer's firm had done more than 20 research projects and spoken to her on the phone nearly 400 times. It's unclear what percentage was related to Gigi.
As time went by, the couple decided that joint custody wasn't in Gigi's best interest. The whole arrangement seemed to be taking a psychological toll on the dog.
"Gigi was starting to get a little skittish about things," Perkins said. "She wasn't her normal happy self."
They decided that one of them should get permanent, exclusive custody. It would take a trial in front of Judge Ashworth to decide which one that should be.
The divorce trial lasted three days in March, and roughly half the time was spent on the issue of Gigi, according to Kaplan's lawyer, Sandra Morris.
A day in the life
Morris is an experienced family-law attorney. And she decided to use a bit of legal theater that had worked in several child-custody cases: A day-in-the-life video.
Kaplan shot the piece with a hand-held video camera, showing Gigi sleeping under her desk, walking in the park, playing on the beach. The video lasted about five minutes.
The judge, who wouldn't comment on the case, awarded Kaplan permanent custody.
Since the judge's ruling, Gigi's spirits seem markedly improved, Kaplan said.
"She doesn't have to be shuttling back and forth and I think that's all the better for her," she said. "But I'm not a behaviorist. I can't get into Gigi's mind."
Perkins says he's gone through a grieving process knowing he'll no longer get to see Gigi. But he's trying to look on the bright side.
"I didn't lose her to death or disease," he said, "and it's comforting to know she's alive and in a good home."
A few weeks ago Perkins went to the pound and got another dog. Like Gigi, the new dog is a pointer mix.
He named her Amy."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Navigation:
