Cracks in the Sidewalk(47)

“The defense believes that it is extremely important to reiterate the critical issues involved in this plea for visitation,” she answered. “Without opening statements, the full and explicit intentions of both parties may be misunderstood or misinterpreted.”

Under other circumstances Judge Brill may have overruled a lawyer’s request to proceed with opening statements that simply wasted the court’s time, but the memory of Jack Wallner’s wild-eyed plea for his children remained at the forefront of the judge’s mind. Jeffrey Caruthers had that same look of angry desperation. Rather than risk another stretch of endless months wondering whether he’d made all the right decisions, Judge Brill answered, “Very well.” He gave Dudley Grimm a nod and said, “Please proceed, Counselor.”

Dudley stood, buttoned his jacket, and began to speak.

“My client’s request is quite simply the plea of a dying mother to spend time with her children and be allowed the opportunity to bequeath to them certain possessions that she has treasured. She is the birth mother of these children and, up until the time she was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor, was their full-time caregiver. Elizabeth Caruthers was a stay-at-home parent who spent most of her waking hours attending to the needs of her children, whereas Jeffrey Caruthers, their father, spent very little time with them. He was the proprietor of a business that required his undivided attention six days a week, plus an untold number of late evenings.

“Your Honor, Elizabeth Caruthers has proven herself to be a caring and dutiful mother and as such has both the natural and legal right to see her children—a right that the defendant has denied her. He has taken the law into his own hands by denying his wife access to most of her personal possessions. Without regard for their sentimental value, Jeffrey Caruthers decided that a dying woman doesn’t need jewelry or any material assets.

“Worse yet, he has refused her access to her children, either by telephone or in person. He alone decided Elizabeth should not be allowed to see or speak with her children because bonding with her would make death more painful for them to endure. In short, Your Honor, Jeffrey Caruthers has set himself up as both psychological expert and dispenser of justice.”

Dudley stopped for a moment to let that thought hang heavy in the air. Then he continued.

“Elizabeth Caruthers has done nothing that can in any way be misconstrued as harmful to her children, yet her husband insists that spending time with her would not be in their best interest. Without benefit of professional guidance, Jeffrey Caruthers decided the children would suffer undue trauma if allowed to bond with their mother.”

He turned to face Jeffrey as he spoke.

“Only a father who has been emotionally absent for much of their life could make such a foolhardy decision. Doesn’t he understand that his children have already bonded with their mother? She’s nursed them when they were sick, fed them when they were hungry, taught them to walk, talk, share, and love. It’s physically impossible for a child not to have bonded with such a parent.”

Dudley turned back to Judge Brill.

“Mister Caruthers has also refused to allow the three minor children to see Claire and Charles McDermott, their maternal grandparents. Again, this was done without any justifiable reason other than their biological relationship to his dying wife. The only thing achieved by Jeffrey Caruthers’ unwarranted actions is that he has separated the children from the people they are closest to, people they already know and love—their mother, their grandmother, and their grandfather.

“If he is allowed to continue along this path, the youngest child, Christian, will never have a chance to experience the same affectionate family relationships in which David and Kimberly thrived.”

Dudley spoke briefly about Elizabeth’s medical diagnosis and her emotional state of mind, assuring the judge that neither of these presented a threat of harm to the children.

“On the other hand,” he said in closing, “if Elizabeth dies without ever letting David, Kimberly, and Christian know how much she loves them or saying her final farewell, the children might suffer from emotional scars for the rest of their lives.”

He promised the opinion of Alexander Rupert, a well-known expert in the area of child psychology, “a far more credible opinion than that of Jeffrey Caruthers,” he added. Dudley Grimm returned to the plaintiff’s table and sat alongside Charles McDermott.

~

Noreen Sarnoff, who had busily scribbled rebuttal notes on each point addressed by Dudley, stood before her opponent was fully settled in his seat.

“Your Honor,” she began, strutting to the center of the courtroom. “Mister Grimm would have this court believe my client has acted inappropriately and, I quote, ‘taken the law into his own hands,’ but in actuality Jeffrey Caruthers has done what any caring father might do to protect his three small children from the anguish of their mother’s death.

“Mister Grimm has also suggested that the Caruthers children are being isolated from loving family relationships, whereas the truth is that they are being shielded from the anger and hatred that Elizabeth and her parents now feel toward my client. When Jeffrey Caruthers found his business in trouble he turned to the McDermotts for help, but they refused. In addition to that refusal they continue to hold him responsible for the business failure and his resulting inability to provide nursing care for their terminally-ill daughter.”