Divorce

I have been married and divorced once. I was married on my 30th birthday, July 25, 1991. I married:

http://www.permanente.net/homepage/kaiser/doctor/suzannefrank/

Suzanne is a medical doctor. Her California medical license number is 53349 .

http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=53349&P_LTE_ID=790

Both the DCA entry and her employer's web page indicate where she works.

When I met Suzanne, she was working for Valley Medical Center as a County employee at the Children's Shelter and Juvenile Hall

• Department of Family and Children's Services DFCS
• SART
• http://www.vmcfoundation.info/
• Jerry CA practitioner
• Jerry in the County

We have one daughter, born September 27, 1993 by scheduled C-section because she was breech.

Our address at the time was 36 Sierra Vista #3 , Mountain View CA 94043 .

Suzanne's announced to me shortly before the birth that her parents would be coming to help. Our daughter was born at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital which is attached to [www.stanfordhospital.com/ Stanford Hospital]. We arrived on Monday and went into surgery within hours as scheduled. Tuesday was nominal as Suzanne was in some pain. My mother-in-law arrived on Wednesday evening and we came home on Thursday morning. My father-in-law arrived about a week later.

When our daughter was three weeks old, my mother-in-law use the phone in our house to call 911 to complain about my behavior. Suzanne and her parents took our child out California the next day and went to their home in Tucson, AZ. Suzanne returned in early January 1994 and her parents soon returned to the house. She filed for divorce.

http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-94-FL-036874

Paul, Chris:

It seems that since you are now free to access Suzanne and Anna as you see fit, I have taken the time to type in the declarations Suzanne, myself, my lawyer and Anna's first real pediatrician made in Suzanne's (or should I say Margaret's; it hardly matters I guess) divorce suit again me. The legal paperwork is bulk, but I can fax you selected sections if you think I have not conveyed them accurately enough.

There is plenty more where this came from, but these are the most revealing of the minds involved. In particular, I have had this information in my mind for 12 twelve years now, and it continues to operate on my mind and modify it. If anything, I have become more aware of Law and of Order and of Civilization and of Chaos. My advice: let it operate on your minds for a while and think Big Thoughts.

Let me know if you have any questions. I can even get you in contact with these people, but I can hardly see any point to that at the moment. The physician all even have web pages and email!

As usual, please send copies to Mom. Also as you see sit, copies to our sisters. There are valuable lessons in this information, despite the fact that there a few minor errors in it.

Andrew

(start of Police Report)

-Page 1-

City of Mountain View Police Department
Case Number: 93-13369
Beat #3

Crime/Incident: Disturbance Family
Date: 10-17-93 Day: Sunday Time: 02:47

Resident _and_ Business Address included

Involved Parties:
Andrew William Morrow, Race:W Sex:M Age:32 Occupation: Computer Programmer
Suzanne Margaret Frank, Race:W Sex:F Age:39 Occupation: Medical Doctor
Anna Marie Morrow Race:W Sex:F Age:3 weeks Occupation: N/A

Reporting Officer: SCPGA1 CJIC#: 57758
Indexed By: XXX, Copies Made

Synopsis: S. MORROW Called MVPD to report That her husband A. MORROW would not let her leave with their daughter.

Incident Investigation:

Time: 75 min
Report Writing Time: 30 min
Time Report Completed: 10-17-93 / 0814 Hrs

Additional officers: Moscibroski, Barcelona, Sgt. Weir
Supervisor: Sgt. Weir

Supplement/Continuation Report

S. MORROW called MVPD to report her husband,
as being upset with her leaving with their daughter, A. M. MORROW.

I made contact at the scene with S. MORROW S. MORROW stated that her husband had become irrational about their child and A. MORROW does not want to have anything to do with their daughter, A. M. MORROW. S. MORROW said that she did not want him in their bedroom, which is converted into the nursery, because A. MORROW interferes with her care of their daughter. S. MORROW unable to cope with A. MORROW, wanted to leave her home, with their daughter, and spend the night somewhere else.

A. MORROW stated he has slept on the couch for about 2 weeks, since S. MORROW and their daughter arrived home from the hospital. His wife had converted their bedroom into a nursery and asked him not to sleep there anymore. A. MORROW agreed to this until today, when he decided that he wanted to sleep in his own bed. A. MORROW said this is what the argument was over.

A. MORROW did not want his wife to take their daughter away from him tonight. Later, A. MORROW agreed to let his wife leave with their child, when S. MORROW said that she would not take the child out of state and would call him later to let him know where she was.

S. MORROW stated A. MORROW has never made any verbal threats of harm or has physically harmed her or their daughter.

Casey CLARK at Juvenile Probation was notified of the situation and referred me to Barbara SCHMIDT at Social Services. I contacted SCHMIDT and advised her of the temporary solution the MORROW's had agreed upon.

Investigation Suspended.

Attention Records: Copy to ISD/Juvenile Unit for information.

SUGAI S-7758

(end of Police Report)

(start of Dozier & Dozier)

-Page 1- (FAX cover sheet)

Dozier & Dozier
Attorneys at Law
XXX Second Street
Los Altos, CA 94XXX

RE: Frank v. Morrow

Message: Ex Parte Application for Court Order

-Page 2-

You are orders to appear…

Prior to hearing, each party shall contact FSC at [phone] for an Orientation Class appointment. Failure to comply with this order or keep appointments may result in imposition of sanctions.

-Page 3-

1. CHILD CUSTODY:
Anna Marie Morrow, 16 weeks old,
Sole legal and physical custody to Suzanne M. Frank

2. CHILD VISITATION: 2 hrs. per week

3. CHILD SUPPORT: Per guideline

4. SPOUSAL SUPPORT: Per guideline

5. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS: Reasonable fees and actual costs

6. RESIDENCE EXCLUSION AND RELATED ORDERS

7. STAY-AWAY ORDERS: Respondent must stay at least 100 yards away from applicant and the applicant's residence.

8. RESTRAIN ON PERSONAL CONDUCT:

All restraints:
a. Any person under other party
b. shall not contact or telephone the other party

-Page 4-

9. PROPERTY RESTRAINT: No insurance changes. No new debts.

10. PROPERTY CONTROL: Petitioner gets exclusive "temporary" use of home

11. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES: MVPD

12. Not used.

13. OTHER RELIEF (attached)

14. FACTS IN SUPPORT (attached)

Signed 2/3/94 Suzanne M. Frank

-Page 5-

Frank v. Morrow
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Clara

Application for Order and Support Declaration
Attachment 13: Other Relief

The Parties have approximately $00,000 in Fidelity Account #X00-000000 requiring joint signatures for withdrawal. $00,000 was recently withdrawn and distributed to Petitioner to pay living expenses. Respondent will not agree to make any further withdrawals. Petitioner requests that the court order the $00,000 balance withdrawn, outstanding community obligation paid and the balance divided evenly between the parties. Petitioner further requests that Respondent's distribution be place in an interest bearing blocked account and maintained as security for timely payment of his child and spousal support obligations.

-Page 6-

Attachment 14: Declaration

I, SUZANNE FRANK, am the Petitioner in the above-entitled action.

The Respondent and I were married July 25, 1991. We separated on January 4, 1994. The period between marriage and separation is 2 years and 5 months. We have a daughter of this marriage, ANNA MARIE MORROW, DOB 9/27/93, age 18 weeks.

Due to the fragile medical condition of our daughter, ANNA MARIE, I am asking for sole legal and physical custody with reasonable and supervised visitation to Respondent of at least two hours per week.

ANNA MARIE is recovering from a serious illness. She has breast milk enteropathy and has been hospitalized twice since birth. This has resulted in her having multiple allergies. At this time she is in the process of being examined and tested to define these allergies. She requires constant care and attention well beyond that which is necessary for a healthy child of her age. She must sleep in her bed at a special angle to avoid reflux and must be held upright after feeding to avoid aspiration. She must be watched constantly for choking. If ANNA MARIE were to be inadvertently fed the wrong formula or food it may be fatal to her.

The Respondent has shown no interest or willingness to take care of our daughter. While caring for her he has been known to become distracted and walk off and leave her unattended.

There were two incidents during ANNA MARIE's first week of life in the hospital when emergency situations arose. The Respondent actually tried to minimize the situation or otherwise prevent the nursing staff from rendering care to ANNA MARIE.

I am a board certified pediatrician. I completed my internship at Children's Hospital in Los Angeles. Therefore, I am more qualified than the Respondent to give ANNA MARIE the special care her condition requires.

The Respondent is unstable. He doesn't always exercise good judgement. The Respondent is presently under psychiatric care. He takes anti-depressant medication. In November, 1993 the Respondent was hospitalized at El Camino Hospital in Mountain View because he was unable to care for his own safety.

-Page 7-

The custody orders I am requesting would not change the status quo. Since January 14, 1994, the date of separation, I have lived with ANNA MARIE at our condominium. The Respondent has stayed in a hotel or with a friend. When he comes to visit he wants to see me not ANNA MARIE. Any visits with our daughter were short, infrequent and supervised either by me or my parents.

I need No Contact and Stay Away Orders. The Respondent is abusive and unpredictable. He has called my family, friends and my employers just to say derogatory things about me and to try to turn everybody against me. Without my knowledge he told my employer false and misleading information which resulted in my forced resignation from Valley Medical Center. He calls me a bad doctor and an unfit mother. When we have disagreements he says "you better do what I say or I'll have to start calling people." Then he just stares at me. He did this as recently as last Sunday evening, January 30, 1994. In May, 1993, while I was pregnant, be became angry and told me, "I am doing everything in my power not to hit you." He gets himself all puffed up and appears very physically threatening. I have to avoid anything that might be perceived by him as a conflict to prevent him from escalating his aggression towards me. He agrees to come to the house for a visit, then refuses to leave forcing me to call the police for help.

I need immediate child and spousal support . I am devoting all my time to taking care of our daughter. I cannot go back to work due to ANNA MARIE'S fragile condition. ANNA MARIE requires special formula and water that costs approximately $300.00/month. I request that Respondent share this uninsured health care expense. To make matters worse, the Respondent, with my consent or knowledge, withdrew all our money out of our joint checking account. Checks I had written for the Condo mortgage, the VISA card and other bills were dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds.

Finally, I request that i be given temporary exclusive possession and control of our condominium so that ANNA MARIE and I have a place to live until the condo is sold or the entire divorce is settled.

-Page 8-

DissomMaster(tm)
(lots of money details)

-Page 9-

TRO (Temporary Restraining Order)

-Page 10-

TRO cont.

(end of Suzanne's first lawyer)

Santa Clara County Judges - Superior Court

Judge: James C. Emerson

Endorsed: Feb. 8 4:01 PM '94

Court Date set: 3-2-94, 8:45 AM, Dept. 18

Case # FL036874

Clerk: Grace K. Yamakawa
Valerie Sanchez

Superior Court - Santa Clara Co. CALIF
FIAT JUSTICIA

Dozier then includes other pages:

(start form)

Declaration RE: Notice Upon Ex Parte Application for Orders:
Opposing party is currently represented by self.
Respondent's address is unknown. His office phone number is 415-813-82XX

Blah blah blah

5. I have received the following response: "I wish it didn't have to be this way."

4 Feb 1994, 12:15 PM

(end form)

(start form)

Income and Expense Declaration

Petitioner DOB: 2/10/54

Occupation: Pediatrician/homemaker

Years of education: 22 years

Date of last work: 6/30/93

SSN number 364-XX-XXXX

Current disposable income: $0 (real data, not template)

2/3/94 Signed: Suzanne M. Frank

(lots of financial details)

Uninsured health care costs:

Approximately $300.00 for Pregestimil infant formula and Beechnet floridated water. Petitioner currently pays all of this expense.

(end form)

(start form)

TRO: Person: Andrew W. Morrow, Race: Caucasian DOB: 7-25-61 Sex: male

No contact, not even telephone

must stay at least 100 yards away from residence

Note: Minor children:
Neither party shale remove the minor child or children of the parties
a. from the State of California,

b. Other: With the exception that Petitioner may leave the state with the child or a temporary basis for business or health reason or for vacation.

(end form)

(end Dozier & Dozier)

(start Elizabeth Goodley)

Custody: Joint legal and sole physical custody to the Respondent.

Bottom line: I asked for Anna and the house.

Declaration of Andrew Morrow (9 pages):

I, Andrew W. Morrow, declare as follows:

1. I am the Respondent in the above entitled action.

2. The Petitioner stated in her declaration that because of the "fragile medical condition" of our daughter, petitioner should have sole legal and physical custody, and that I should only have supervised visitation of two hours per week. This is simply without merit.

3. My daughter has no special medical conditions requiring special supervision or care. I have spoken with several different pediatricians whom my daughter has seen, and all of them indicate that there appears to be nothing wrong with her requiring specialized care. My wife, on the other hand, exaggerates all of our daughter's conditions. She does have a reflux condition, but it is in no way endangers her health. I attach a Declaration of Dr. Judith Murphy regarding my daughter's health. (see also)

4. In addition, I would indicate that Dr. Stephen Erdman, my daughter's doctor in Tucson, has indicated that at least as late as mid-January, when given routine care and formula, our daughter is a baby who thrives.

5. Contrary to my wife's contentions that my daughter requires constant care and attention, as I stated above, even the current doctor says that Anna Marie requires only normal pediatric care and is a child who is thriving. It is my contention that my wife has exaggerated Anna Marie's medical conditions to make excuses for the fact that only Petitioner can care for Anna Marie.

6. My wife has indicated that if Anna Marie is fed the wrong formula it could be fatal. I am perfectly capable of feeding Anna Marie her formula, and buying the formula which her doctor's recommend.

7. Petitioner has contended that I have shown no interest or willingness in caring for our daughter. She has alleged that while caring for her I became distracted and left her unattended. This is a blatant exaggeration. I have attempted numerous times to care for our daughter, but my wife or her mother usually interferes in the care. Her references to my becoming distracted and walking off and leaving Anna Marie unattended is simply without merit. When Anna Marie was under one week old I was beginning to change her diaper. My wife indicated that I should wash my hands before changing her diaper. The sink was approximately four feet from the changing table (which table was recessed and had guard rails). I quickly washed my hands and then went back to her. This lasted approximately fifteen seconds. From that incident Petitioner contents that I have left Anna Marie uncared for. Almost all of my efforts to care for my daughter have been thwarted by either my wife or her mother, who both say that they know more about caring for a baby than I do (my wife because she is a pediatrician, and my mother-in-law because she has previously had children).

8. The Petitioner has alleged that during Anna Marie's first week of life I minimized emergency situations. On the contrary, my wife has attempted to make emergencies when none existed. I would again refer to the Declaration of Dr. Judith Murphy. I never tried to prevent nursing staff from caring fro Anna Marie, rather I told them to provide her the are that was needed, as the nurses felt necessary. On the other hand my wife has attempted to attempted to assert her privileges as a doctor, claiming that Anna Marie should be cared for before any other child in the nursery. Since Anna Marie did not seem to need any critical urgent care, and there were other babies who were already receiving care, I thought the nurses should tend to the babies in the order they saw fit.o

9. In regards to the Petitioner's claim that she is more qualified to provide care for Anna Marie because she is a pediatrician, I provide the following response: Petitioner has become overly involved in Anna Marie's medical conditions, and turns every situation in a crisis. Perhaps because of Petitioner's knowledge of medicine, she assume that every incident which happens to our daughter is a critical condition. She has taken Anna to the hospital more times that just the two in which she was hospitalized. As an example of Petitioner's failure to properly assess Anna Marie's health, although there is no indication of a problem of apnea, Petitioner has rented an Apnea monitor which she has rarely used. An additional example is when Anna Marie was in Tucson, the doctors were so concerned about Petitioner's conduct, they even called the California Board of Medical Examiners to see if Petitioner really was a physician. Therefore, just because Petitioner is a pediatrician she is not any more capable of caring for our daughter than I am.

10. Petitioner has attempted to allude to the fact that I don't exercise good judgement as I am under psychiatric care. At the time my wife left with our newborn daughter, I was very upset. As I had never been in such a situation, and because I was very upset at the loss of my wife and daughter, I did consult a psychiatrist. I was told that I did not suffer from depression, but that my mood was situationally related. I did not enter the hospital because I was unable to care for my own safety, but because I felt that I could use some assistance in dealing with this terribly burdensome situation of losing my wife and newborn daughter simultaneously. (It is ironic that Petitioner is alleging that I am unstable, as I recall that she stated that she had previously taken Prozac for her mental health.)

11. The Petitioner has attempt to inflict custody orders on me which are unduly restrictive arguing that it will not vary from the current timeshare. However, I have attempted to see my daughter on numerous instances, but am almost always thwarted by Petitioner. Petitioner has indicated that I am more interested in seeing Petitioner that in visiting our daughter. I am interested in speaking with my wife regarding our marital situation, but I am also very interested in being with my daughter. It is difficult, however, when my wife will not allow me contact with our daughter or hovers over me. I have even been barricaded out of our room.

12. Although the need for stay away order are not necessary, I will agree to mutal stay away orders.

13. In regards to the allegations that I am abusive, it is simply without merit. Petitioner has among other things alleged that I gave false information to her employer forcing her resignation from Valley Medical Center. She has stated that I have caller her a bad doctor and an unfit mother. She has stated that I have alleged that she has to so what I say or I would start calling people. There are simply false. I did speak with an employee of hers at Valley Medical Center, but it was in the nature of a five minute conversation asking any advice he might have regarding communication with Petitioner to help our marriage. My conversation had nothing to do with her resigning from her employment. I have never referred to Petitioner as a bad doctor or an unfit mother (Petitioner has used these terms to refer to others.)

14. The allegations of my abusiveness are simply unmerited. I am not a physically threatening person, and have not done anything to allege physical harm. If anything, it is the Petitioner who has attempted to strike me. I have been the party to avoid conflict, as she flies off the handle at any comment she does not like.

15. In regards to the allegation that there is a need for immediate child and spousal support, I would point out that Petitioner is perfectly capable of working, and there is nothing preventing her from working in terms of Anna Marie's medical condition. Petitioner is a board certified pediatrician, and does not need spousal support.

16. In regards to the allegation that I withdrew all of the money out of our joint checking account, this is simply untrue. I withdrew $500.00 from a checking account, leaving a low balance after Petitioner had, with my approval, already taken $10,000.00 of community funds, out of a joint savings account, which I thought were to be deposited in our joint checking account, (when, in fact, she put the funds in a separate account). Since I thought the funds were to be deposited into the community checking account, I thought it was safe to withdraw $500.00. I was never my intent to leave the account with funds. This incident was simply the result of poor communication between Petitioner and myself.

17. In regards to the $10,000.00 withdrawn by Petitioner, she should reimburse the community the $10,000.00 of funds she withdrew. These are community funds and I am entitled to the use of those funds as well. I am requesting that the total amount left in the joint savings, be divided equally between ourselves. There is no reason to have an account set up to insure support payments. There is absolutely no justification for this, as I am not a self employed party and there have been no indication or threat that I will not pay support, as is required by the Code.

18.
It would be in Anna Marie's best interest that I be awarded temporary custody, os that the Petitioner can no longer use Anna Marie as a source of her own heroic medical conduct in her apparent attempt to make herself look better to her peers. It is my belief that the Petitioner's conduct is actually harmful to Anna Marie, and I am concerned that the Petitioner will continue to create medical crisis for Anna Marie, which are unnecessary and, which subject Anna Marie to unnecessary medical care. Some examples of Petitioner being unable to properly asses Anna Marie's situation are as follows:

a. On the day that Anna Marie was taken home from the hospital, Petitioner insisted on holding Anna Marie in her arms, rather than putting her in the car seat, indicating that if a police officer were to stop her, she would assert her doctor's privilege and declare it was medically required that Anna Marie be held.

b. When Anna Marie was seven days old Petitioner insisted that Anna Marie be taken to the Emergency Room despite the fact that even she said no emergency existed, and demanded immediate medical attention. The attending physician, Dr. Jim MacMahon, confided to me that he had "a problem with her medical logic" Petitioner was displaying and was attempting to apply to Anna Marie's case.

c. On October 19, 1993 the Petitioner's father, who was scheduled the next day for surgery for a detached retina, thought he saw something about Anna Marie, and he was not certain that he could see her breathing. Petitioner, then proceeded to use CPR, handled Anna roughly, and struck her back. She then called for an ambulance. However, when the ambulance arrived, rather than allow the medical personnel to treat Anna Marie, she refused their treatment citing her rank as a doctor. Nonetheless Anna Marie still was taken to the hospital. (Petitioner did telephone me regarding this incident.) Mother was ever determined to be wrong with Anna Marie.

d. At the time that Anna Marie was in the hospital in Tucson, the medical personnel became so concerned about Petitioner's conduct, that they asked her to speak with a psychotherapist. Petitioner did everything in her power to avoid such communication, and to minimize it. In addition, the personnel were so concerned about Petitioner's conduct, that they were on the verge of calling Child Protective Services, but did not do so because she was a new mother, was post-partum, and the breakup in the family, and were attempting to provide her some courtesy as a fellow physician.

19. The level of Petitioner's irrational conduct is extensive, and could fill pages of a Declaration. I am more than happy provide further information to this court, or personnel at Family Court Services, as is needed. However, I do have grave concerns regarding the Petitioner's ability to properly care for Anna Marie, and detach herself in the role of physician to that of mother, and therefore feel it would be in Anna Marie's best interest to reside with me.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on February 26, 1994 at Mountain View, California.

Signed: Andrew W. Morrow

AWM note: Jack Frank's observation was November 19, not October 19.

Declaration of Elizabeth Goodley (two pages)

I, Elizabeth Goodley, declare:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California. I am the attorney for Respondent in the above referenced matter.

2. I spoke with Dr. Stephen Erdman on February 23, 1994. He indicated in our conversation, among other things, that Anna Marie, as late as mid-January when she left Tucson, was a baby who if given routine pediatric care and formula, was a baby who was thriving.

3. Dr. Erdman did not think that Anna Marie's health was such that she required specialized care.

4. On February 25, 1994 I spoke with Dr. Jerry Klein at Valley Medical Center. He stated to me that nothing Respondent said to him in the conversation had anything to do with Petitioner's resignation.

5. Both doctors have indicated that if necessary they will sign a declaration regarding what has transpired, and Dr. Erdman stated that if necessary he will submit to a deposition. Both doctors are available to Family Court Services if necessary.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on February 26, 1994 at Mountain View, California.

Signed: Elizabeth Goodley

end Elizabeth Goodley's declaration

Declaration of Dr. Judith Murphy

I, Dr. Judith Murphy, declare:

1. I was the pediatrician for Anna Marie Morrow from her birth on September 27, 1993 until her mother took her to Arizona to stay with her parents at age three weeks.

2. Anna Marie Morrow was a 38 week, six pound ten ounce baby born by induced caeserian section for footling breach. Her Apgars were normal: 8 at 1 minute and 9 at 5 minutes. The child's physical examination was entirely normal. Dextrostix (screening tests done in the nursery for blood sugar levels) were moderately low but the confirmatory and more accurate glucose oxidase tests performed by the laboratory were never below normal.

3. Despite the normal values a baby that continued to be vigorous, the mother persisted in her perception of the child as sick. Her medical training did not seem to inform her perceptions of decision-making ability. The father seemed to have a realistic understanding of the situation. I was able to get him to understand that normal glucose oxidase tests indicate a normal level of blood sugar. He seemed much more concerned about the mother's anxiety than the baby's condition, hovering and jumping to carry out the mother's multiple requests, in a manner that seemed excessive even for a solicitous new father.

4. To my knowledge there were no emergency situations that arose during the initial hospitalization. The baby did have a gaggy episode during which she became briefly pale, which is not terribly unusual if minor and not repeated. The nurses would surely have complained to me if the father had been interfering with appropriate care; they did not.

5. Because this couple had multiple miscarriages, I assumed that this was merely an exaggerated case of "Vulnerable child" perception, and would improve. However at one week the family rushed the baby to the emergency room because the mother, despite her training as a pediatrician, thought that newborn twitching might be seizures.

6. The mother had significant problems with breast feeding. When I saw the baby at age two weeks, she had not regained her birth weight. This seemed most likely due to the mother's very restricted diet and high levels of stress. There was no mention of abnormal stools or unusual spitting at this time. At this visit for the first time the mother complained that the father was threatening to her and that she was afraid of him. She denied any physical violence or threats of physical violence, but said he was verbally abusive and withdrawn and was not taking good enough care of her. She also stated that she did not trust him to take good care of the baby. When pressed for specific detail, she said he wouldn't bring her tea when she asked for it, and that was why her milk was inadequate, and why the baby was not doing well and might become very ill. I recommended bottle supplementation with a nonallergenic formula, psychological counseling for the parental couple, and asked to see the baby back in three days for a weight check.

7. Several phone conversations over the next few days focused on the deteriorating couple relationship. The child was no brought in for the three day weight check. The mother made an appointment for one week after the first visit, but the day before that visit left to Arizona and her parents' house to separate herself from her husband.

8. She called me the day after she arrived there to report that as soon as the plane landed in Arizona she got a good milk supply and the feeding was going much better. I urged her to stay there until she self things were reliably good with the baby, but to return as soon as possible to California and get marital counseling because the baby needs two involved parents to thrive.

9. A few days after I began to get phone calls reporting spitting up, and when simple measures did not suffice, I urged her to see a pediatrician in that area for an exam and weight check.

10. Anna Marie was admitted to the hospital in Arizona on October 25, 1993 after an episode of bloody stool and a diagnosis of break milk intolerance was made. During that hospitalization I spoke with the house staff once, the attending gastroenterologist twice and the psychiatrist once. The child was thriving on nonallergenic formula, and discharge was delayed because the staff worried about whether or not the mother was capable of adequately caring for the baby - concerns raised because her evaluations of the baby's condition seemed so negative and excessive and unrelated to the actual condition of the baby as seen by the nurses and doctors. They asked me if I had considered involving Child Protective Services here. They discharged her with the understanding that she would be cared for by the maternal grandparents as well as the mother and that the mother would receive psychiatric care.

11. During that hospitalization I spoke several times with the father, who expressed great concern both about the baby's condition and what he could do to reconcile with the mother. I urged him to independently seek psychotherapeutic help, and I understand that he has done that.

12. I made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the mother during the child's hospitalization. I received a bizarre message (see attached Exhibit A) and at that point did not attempt to call her again.

13. The last time I spoke to Anna Marie's mother she called to tell me that "If I knew what was good for me" I would write off the bill I had sent her, because it was "my fault" the baby had become so ill and she could "make life very difficult for me". (There had been no charges for the multiple phone calls.)

14. I have no knowledge of the baby's current condition other than what is in the mother's declaration. A child wiht reflux and allergies does need to be carefully fed; any competent adult can do this. It is not accurate to see a child with reflux and allergies as a "fragile" child if weight gain is not impaired, no matter how many times the child has been to the doctor's office.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on February 24, 1994 at Palo Alto, California.

Signed: Dr. Judith Murphy

Exhibit A:

Mesg: 2386 IN:KFM 11/03 7:06
To: Dr. Murphy Frm: Suzanne Frank
Tel: [phone]
Usual Dr: (blank) PT Name & Age: Anna Morrow 5 Weeks
Msg:
HOSP IN ARIZONA DX BREAST MILK INTEROPATHY. PLEASE CALL (MOTHER SAYS SHE HAS BEEN TRYING TO REACH DR. MURPHY FOR A WEEK AND SHE HAS NOT RESPONDED. THINKS DR IS "NOT INTERESTED IN PTS SHE HAS MISS DIAGNOSIS THAT ALMOST DIE"
Notation: Could not get through either parent home or hospital.
Account: 2506 Complete

(end Dr. Murphy declaration)

AWM note: Suzanne's miscarriages were the two times she aborted the fetus after become impregnates by an earlier boyfriend. AKAIK, she did not notify that boyfriend of her decisions.

After 7 months of this, one morning I struck Suzanne. She called the police and had me arrested. She filed for divorce again.

http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-94-FL-039721