A: I don’t know and during the ten years of subsequent litigation seeking clarification of their conflicting decisions, all levels of the judiciary refused to address this question.
There are a plethora of conflicting appellate decisions such as these that exist in this matter.
A: All levels of the judiciary were continuing to deny me access to my children because of the December 30, 1988 Order of Default entered by FLC DuBuque. Litigation was necessary as a judicial resolution was the only lawful resolution available to resolve the conflicting appellate decisions and gain access to my children.
In response to a motion filed by me to gain access to my children, and to support Don’s continued efforts to keep me from having any and all contact with my children, on February 26, 1991, Dr. David Smith, (the POS psychologist who diagnosed Don with “dysthymia” in the civil matter) submitted an affidavit to the court stating: “I plan to see Donielle Dougherty regularly over the coming months.” The affidavit was prepared by Hepburn.
A: In response to another motion, and again to support Don’s continued efforts to keep me from having any and all contact with my children, Smith submitted another signed affidavit—prepared by Hepburn—advising the court that Doni was a patient of his and that: “I have now seen Donnie on two separate occasions.”
A: In reliance of Smith’s February 26th and March 20, 1991 affidavits I sent a certified letter to Smith requesting Doni’s medical records. In response to my request for a copy of Doni’s medical records, Smith sent me a certified letter in which he stated: “Please be advised that Donielle Dougherty is not nor has she ever been a client in my practice.”
A: In my pursuit of the truth, Smith’s wife, also a practicing psychologist, submitted an affidavit to the court asserting that I should not be allowed access to my daughter’s medical records as she believed that Doni had been sexually abused while in my custody.
This assertion by Mrs. Dr. Smith opened a door for me to gain access to my children that had never been opened. And I seized upon it!
I knew my daughter had not been sexually or otherwise abused at any time in my custody. And, as I’d had no contact whatsoever with my daughter since my arrest—three years prior—and as Washington State law requires the immediate reporting of any suspected sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities, any abuse that Mrs. Dr. Smith was now claiming relative to Doni would have had to have occurred while my daughter was in Don’s custody.
I noted another motion demanding that the FLC comply with the law and order an investigation into Mrs. Dr. Smith’s sexual abuse claims for the sake of Doni’s physical and emotional well-being.
