Cracks in the Sidewalk(52)

“How did you respond to that?”

“I said he ought to think about getting a job.”

“And?”

“He behaved like a raging bull, called me a self-centered jackass, and stormed out, slamming my office door so violently I thought the glass would break.”

“Since the time of that incident have you or your wife seen or spoken to any of the Caruthers children?”

“No,” Charles answered sadly.

“Has Elizabeth seen or spoken to the children since that time?”

“Last October Jeffrey brought the children to the hospital. He came to ask Elizabeth if she could get me to change my mind about giving him the money. Since then, she hasn’t seen or spoken to the children.”

Dudley thanked Charles then said he had no further questions and returned to the plaintiff’s table.

~

Noreen’s cross examination of Charles only touched on whether Jeffrey Caruthers had actually threatened to withhold access to the children because he was denied the loan he’d requested.

“No,” Charles answered. Noreen indicated she had nothing more.

~

Dudley’s third and final witness was a well-known child psychologist who had authored a paper on childhood separation anxieties.

As soon as the silver-haired doctor was settled, Dudley said, “For the court record, please state your name and credentials.”

“Alexander Rupert. I hold a doctorate of philosophy from New York University and a master’s of counseling from Johns Hopkins. I am a licensed marriage and family therapist with a specialization in child development and education. Working under a Vanderbilt University grant, for the past five years I’ve been conducting a clinical research program to assess and develop treatment for childhood behavioral conditions resulting from depression, anger, and resentment.”

“How old are these children?”

“Our studies consist of both male and female subjects, ranging from two years to fifteen years of age.”

“In these studies,” Dudley asked, “were you able to identify the root source responsible for the development of those specific conditions?”

“Yes. Over sixty-seven percent of the cases studied were a result of the child being separated from a parent, either by divorce, death, or abandonment.”

“Would you please explain your findings in those cases where death was the causative factor?”

“Children who had a parent taken from their life suddenly and without explanation suffered the deepest and longest-term trauma. This includes feelings of abandonment and loss of life from sudden heart attacks, automobile accidents, and suicide.”

“Why is that, Doctor Rupert?”

“Unfortunately, the child often believes the loss of their parent is a result of something they have done. They mistakenly blame themselves and try to change some element of their behavior or appearance, thinking it will cause the missing parent to return.”

“Even if that parent is deceased?”

“Yes. This is especially true of children under the age of ten. It is quite possible for a child to understand death when they are adequately prepared, but a child who is simply told that their mother or father has passed away tends not to believe the story. They convince themselves the parent is in fact alive and simply does not want to return to them.”

“What is the end result of such a situation?”

“The child is generally anxious and insecure, always fearful that the remaining parent will also disappear from their life. A good percentage of the children who grow up with that type of anxiety will, as young adults, end up in therapy.”

“When a parent is diagnosed with a terminal illness, is it more advantageous to allow a child to witness the reality of that illness or shelter them from the truth and possible ugliness of it?”

“It is unquestionably better to expose the child to the events leading to the loss of a parent. Fortunately, the young mind does not fully grasp the concept of long-term suffering. They understand sick, sicker, sickest, dying, and finally dead. So in the long run they come to expect and ultimately accept it. However they do not, as we adults do, agonize over the day-to-day suffering that brings a loved one to that final destination.”

“One last question, Doctor Rupert. Would it be harmful to the Caruthers children to spend time visiting their mother who has been diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor?”

“Absolutely not. It would be far more disastrous for them to have her removed from their life without explanation. To take that final goodbye from a child replaces the normal course of grieving with anger and guilt.”

“I have nothing more,” Dudley said.

~

Noreen had a number of questions for Doctor Rupert, most of them repetitive.

“Are you trying to tell this court that children do not understand pain? That if they skin their knee or cut their finger they don’t bleed? They don’t hurt?”

Doctor Rupert, unruffled by her badgering, answered, “I did not say they do not understand pain, I said they do not comprehend the anguish of long-term suffering. Pain is a purely physical and somewhat temporary condition where children are concerned. They hurt only as long as the injury in question is painful. The long-term anguish of suffering is something only adults can understand.”

“If a child were to see their dog crippled by a car, do you not believe they would understand suffering?”