DR. Louis Thibodeaux, 
Plaintiff
TERESA T. , 
Defendant
Case No. DR-97(redacted); File No. E(redacted)
****************************************
DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2000, AMENDED SHARED PARENTING “AGREEMENT” PENDING TRIAL
NOW COMES Defendant Teresa (redacted), through the undersigned counsel, respectfully moving that the Court temporarily modify on an emergency basis the Amended Shared Parenting “Agreement” entered herein on September 25, 2000, pursuant to O.R.C. § 3109.04 and § 3109.05.1, pending the trial on the merits of the pending motions, for the following reasons:
1) Plaintiff and his new wife, Kelly (redacted), during the course of discovery in this case and during the trial before Judge Panioto which ended in a mistrial, have admitted to a bizarre course of conduct toward the minor children, which includes the purchase of an adult psychology treatise through the internet, 
Understanding the Borderline Mother: Helping Her Children Transcend the Intense, Unpredictable, and Volatile Relationship, by Christine Anne Lawson, 
reading the book to “P” (the boy), the parties’ 11 year old son “P” 1, and “explaining” to the parties’ children that Defendant, their mother, has “borderline personality disorder” and is “crazy.” This adult psychology treatise refers to mothers as “waif mothers,” “hermit mothers,” and “witch mothers.” This conduct is clearly a campaign to cover-up Plaintiff’s abuse of the children by attempting to discredit Defendant and to blame her for the children’s reports of their father’s abuse. Although he admits that his children need therapy, Dr. (Redacted) has refused to obtain treatment for them [See Exhibit A, Kelly (redacted)’s deposition excerpts; Exhibit B, Kelly (redacted)’s trial testimony excerpts; Exhibit C, Dr. (redacted)’s trial testimony excerpts].
1 - The idea asserted by Plaintiff and his wife that “P” (the boy), at the age of ten, began asking them about psychiatric diagnoses such as borderline personality disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder, and that “P” (the boy) somehow had diagnosed his own mother, is patently absurd. The mendacity of the Plaintiff's statements concerning “P” (the boy)'s alleged psychiatric precociousness is revealed by their testimony that they never asked “P” (the boy) where he had heard such terms.
2) On January 15, 2004, the deposition of Kira Kerstine, “P” (the boy)’s school psychologist, was taken. Ms. Kerstine, now finishing her Ph.D., was seeing “P” (the boy) in a group helping children of divorced parents. For the first time, Defendant learned in the deposition that in November, 2001, “P” (the boy) reported to Ms. Kirstine that his father “ does bad things” to him and his sister. “P” (the boy) continued to tell her that his father hits him and yells at him. “P” (the boy) went on to report that, “My dad touches my sister’s private parts.” “P” (the boy) complained that, “No one believes me, but its true.” “P” (the boy) also stated that Dr. (Redacted) “used to touch” him and make “P” (the boy) “touch” his father.” “P” (the boy) further explained to Ms. Kirstine that his father was now just trying “to be good until he gets custody.” “P” (the boy) did not want it to start up again. “P” (the boy) further described his father 
“killing a dog” because his sister “B” (the girl) disclosed their father’s abuse, and told them that 
“Jesus is bad” in an effort to coerce their silence. When “P” (the boy) had previously reported the abuse to a psychologist, Dr. (Redacted) “yelled at [him] for a week.” He concluded by telling the psychologist that both he and his sister are scared of their father [Exhibit D, Kira Kerstin’s deposition excerpts].
3) “P” (the boy)’s reports of abuse were reported to the child protection authorities, but no one from those agencies ever contacted Ms. Kirstine to discuss her conversation with “P” (the boy).
4) When “P” (the boy)’s father told him in January, 2004,that Ms. Kirstine was going to be deposed, “P” (the boy) was very worried that his conversations with Ms. Kirstine would be revealed.
5) Ms. Kirstine also testified that “P” (the boy) now believes that he suffers from “borderline personality disorder” like “his mother and aunt.” This unquestionably demonstrates the grave extent of the psychological and emotional damage done by Plaintiff and his wife by their bizarre campaign to discredit the children’s mother and the children themselves. When “P” (the boy) was asked to describe himself in a school biography project in October, 2003 [Exhibit E], he described himself as “intriguing, shy, nice, and borderline personality disorder.” He also described his feelings as “scared, worried, and afraid” and that he “ would like to see bad people dead.” Plaintiff’s conduct has deprived the children of any semblance of a normal childhood. Defendant has no such personality disorder.
6) In December, 2001, after “P” (the boy) disclosed the abuse to Ms. Kirstine, Plaintiff and his counsel prepared, served, but never filed, a motion to terminate Ms. (the mother's)’s contact with the children, falsely claiming that Ms. Kirstine told Dr. (Redacted) that “P” (the boy) told her that his mother had put him up to reporting fictitious abuse [Exhibit F].
7) A clear and immediate danger exists to the children’s physical and emotional health by Dr. (Redacted)’s continued custody of the children and by unsupervised parenting time. Furthermore, contact between the children and Kelly (redacted) is completely contrary to their best interests.
8) It is in the best interest of the children that the children be placed immediately in the custody of Defendant pending the trial of this case, and that Dr. (Redacted)’s contact be limited to supervised visitation, at his expense, so the children can be properly evaluated, treated, and protected from this outrageous conduct.
WHEREFORE, DEFENDANT MOVES FOR AN IMMEDIATE ORDER :
1) Granting her the temporary sole custody of “B” (the girl) and “P” (the boy) pending the trial.
2) Restricting Plaintiff Dr. (redacted) to professionally supervised visitation/parenting time with the children at his full expense.
3) Prohibiting contact between Kelly (redacted) and the children.
4) Casting Plaintiff with costs and attorney’s fees for this action
5) Modifying the child support to reflect the new custody/parenting arrangement.
6) Ordering Plaintiff to pay all costs of the children’s evaluations and therapy.
7) Other appropriate relief.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard L. Ducote (La. Bar No.5111)
Counsel pro hac vice for Teresa (redacted)
________________________________
C. Richard Martin (Ohio Bar #0066703)
Counsel for Teresa (redacted)
Gardner's pro-pedophillic "Parental Alienation Syndrome", 
deprogramming children like little Communists, 
court employees lying in deposition, 
not supplementing the official record to reviewing courts with their own PAS reports, 
Caplinger was especially arrogant in her rejection of the 100 page Emergency Motion. She does not believe that the psychological abuse of children rises to the level of an emergency. Her arbitrary rejection of the hefty motion is devoid of any reasoning process, much less a sound one. 
ASK CANDACE