Cracks in the Sidewalk

by Bette Lee Crosby

  “Given Doctor Belleau’s evaluation of your client’s emotional state, would you agree that a long, drawn-out trial is not in his best interest?”

  “Yes, but—”

  “I suggest approaching him about allowing the mother a reasonable visitation schedule.”

  “The problem is—”

  “I’m not interested in what his problem is. In my opinion the plaintiff’s request is well within reason. And since the court calendar is already overcrowded, I fail to see any purpose in allowing this to drag on.”

  “But, Your Honor, my client refuses to—”

  “That’s why I am speaking to you, Counselor. I’m asking that you take another shot at finding acceptable grounds for compromise.”

  “Okay, Your Honor,” Noreen said. “But I doubt I’ll have much success. Mister Caruthers refuses to allow the mother or grandparents access to the children.”

  “You might want to remind him that he’s got a very weak case. Both Doctor Belleau and her attending physician have issued statements claiming Elizabeth Caruthers is quite capable of visiting with the children. In fact, they’ve suggested it would be beneficial.”

  “We have our own medical expert who suggests—”

  “Miss Sarnoff,” he said abruptly. “I believe that I’ve made my request perfectly clear. I’ve asked that you find grounds for a compromise, not provide me with a litany of excuses for why you cannot!”

  “Yes, Your Honor,” Noreen replied.

  ~ ~ ~

  Minutes later, Noreen picked up the telephone and called Jeffrey Caruthers. “I just heard from Judge Brill.”

  “What now?” JT replied curtly.

  “You’re not gonna like it,” Noreen warned, “but he’s pushing us to talk compromise. He indicated that your wife’s request is—”

  “I don’t give a crap what he thinks, or what you think, or what anybody else thinks! I’m not letting Liz or her goody-two-shoes parents near my kids! I’m the one responsible for them. I’m the one who’s gonna have to deal with their nightmares and hysteria when Liz dies, and there’s no way I’m putting them through that torture! Do I make myself clear?”

  “I understand your position, but—”

  “I’m not discussing this anymore!” With that he slammed down the receiver.

  It had been a long and aggravating day for Noreen Sarnoff, and it wasn’t over. She began to draft a Motion for Continuance. She didn’t expect it to help, but if she could delay things long enough, maybe they’d get lucky and Elizabeth Caruthers would die before the case went to trial.

  ~ ~ ~

  When Judge Brill arrived at the courthouse the following morning, the motion lay on his desk.

  “Figures,” he said, sadly shaking his head. The judge had hoped to settle this case without a trial, in a way that didn’t rip out someone’s heart and leave them with only a desire for death. Obviously, that wouldn’t happen.

  Judge Brill allowed his coffee to grow cold while he reread the case file and then reread it again. Finally when he could find no other way to resolve the dilemma, he told his clerk to contact both attorneys and advise them he would hear oral arguments in his office the following morning at ten o’clock.

  That afternoon Judge Brill received a second motion. It was a Motion to Dismiss, filed by Dudley Grimm on behalf of the plaintiff. In his brief Dudley stated that in view of the plaintiff’s imminent demise, Jeffrey Caruthers’ Motion for Sole Legal and Physical Custody was legally meaningless intended only to harass Elizabeth Caruthers and cause undue delay in the proceedings.

  ~ ~ ~

  The following morning as Judge Brill drove across the Pulaski Skyway a truck carrying an oversized load of gravel slid out of control and slammed into the guard rail, causing the nine drivers following to rear-end each other. The judge was number eight, so his car was hammered in front and back. Traffic in both directions inched forward. Northbound travelers found it impossible to squeeze by the pile-up of cars, and southbound travelers, craning their necks to see what happened, slowed movement to a crawl. By the time Judge Brill finally reached the courthouse, he was in the foulest possible mood.

  Noreen Sarnoff and Dudley Grimm sat in his office when Judge Brill arrived. With few pleasantries, he settled himself behind the desk and opened the case file.

  “Okay, Counselor,” he said, giving a nod toward Noreen. “Let’s hear why you need another continuance.”

  “We need additional time for discovery. My client believes the mother’s ability to physically and emotionally handle being with the children is in question, and to establish proof of this we need to depose a number of nurses who were on duty during Elizabeth Caruthers’ stay at Saint Barnabas Hospital. We also need time to obtain a full medical history and a more in-depth psychiatric examination.”

  “Your Honor,” Dudley interrupted, “they are already in possession of Doctor Sorenson’s report on Elizabeth’s condition.”

  “But we have not had an opportunity to depose the doctor, nor have we had access to any of the nurses who attended Missus Caruthers.”

  “Your Honor,” Dudley said, “this is beating a dead horse. They have the doctor’s signed statement, so why would further discovery be necessary? We’ve stipulated agreement as to Elizabeth’s medical limitations and the terminal prognosis.”

  “There is also the issue of a full psychiatric examination,” Noreen argued.

  “And why,” Judge Brill asked, “is that considered relevant?”

  “Your Honor,” Noreen said, “we have no way of knowing whether the tumor pressing against Elizabeth Caruthers’ brain has in any way altered her mental capacity. So before the court considers any type of visitation, we would like to see documentation attesting to her stability.”

  “Do you have reason to believe she might in some way harm the children?”

  “Not at this moment, but in a situation such as this—”

  “Miss Sarnoff is creating a hypothetical that has no relevance here!” Dudley argued. “First off, we have stipulated that Elizabeth Caruthers does have blackout periods, but they are infrequent and limited in duration. Secondly, she lives with the grandparents of the three minor children. These people are her parents, one of whom is always in attendance and readily available should she require assistance. The truth of this matter is that Miss Sarnoff realizes time is of the essence, and she is determined to delay these proceedings until the outcome is decided by my client’s demise.”

  Judge Brill turned to Noreen. “I’m inclined to agree with Counselor Grimm. You’re in possession of Doctor Belleau’s psychological evaluation of the plaintiff, and you have Doctor Sorenson’s statement. Therefore, I am going to deny your request for further depositions but will allow a two-week continuance.”

  “But—”

  “There are no buts,” Judge Brill said emphatically. “I expect this trial to be on the court’s calendar before the October recess.” He initialed his denial and handed it to the clerk in attendance.

  “Next issue,” the judge, said turning to Dudley. “Your request to dismiss Mister Caruthers’ plea for sole custody.”

  “Again, we feel that the custody motion is another of the plaintiff’s attempts at creating undue delay,” Dudley said. “This is a meaningless motion, since Jeffrey Caruthers already has physical custody of the children. Once his wife dies he will automatically inherit sole legal and physical custody. In the interim, there is no evidence of parental misconduct that would preempt Elizabeth Caruthers from retaining her custodial right for visitation.”

  Judge Brill gave Noreen a nod. “Miss Sarnoff?”

  “We of course oppose the request for dismissal, Your Honor,” she answered. “My client’s plea for sole legal custody was made to avoid any potential interference or entanglement created by the children’s maternal grandparents. It is well documented that there is considerable friction between Mister Caruthers and the grandparents. Giving Mister Caruthers sole legal custody would avoid any potential issues t
hat might arise after their daughter’s death.”

  “Unless there is evidence of parental abuse,” the judge said, “the grandparents have no legal standing in the custody issue.”

  “Perhaps not, but they can engage my client in a time-consuming and costly lawsuit.”

  The judge raised a doubtful eyebrow. “Given the existing circumstances, I tend to agree that this is a frivolous petition. So, although I am denying Mister Grimm’s motion for dismissal, I am going to hold this petition in abeyance until the court has reached a decision on the issue of visitation.”

  “Thank you, Your Honor,” Noreen and Dudley echoed simultaneously.

  Room 110

  Union County Courthouse

  The courtroom split straight down the middle so that warring parties need not sit shoulder-to-shoulder. When Judge Brill entered the room, the clerk called out, “All rise. Court is now in session, the Honorable Judge Theodore Brill presiding.” The judge sat, and everyone else followed.

  In the past two months, Elizabeth Caruthers’ headaches had increased in both number and intensity. Some days she found it difficult or nearly impossible to pull herself from bed. Elizabeth had heeded Doctor Sorenson’s words—“Undue stress will only serve to worsen your condition”—and stayed home. In her place Claire and Charles McDermott sat at the plaintiff’s table with Dudley Grimm.

  On the opposite side of the room, Noreen Sarnoff and a solemn-faced Jeffrey Caruthers sat at the defense table. Dressed in a black suit with a skirt that ended well above her knee, Noreen had her mouth painted in a perfect pout, the kind men found hard to resist. She had considerable concern about the strength of this case, so she’d put together her most alluring look and planned to use it to full advantage.

  For two days she’d practiced her opening statement. She’d added precisely the right amount of pursing her lips, raising her brows, and leaning into her words, and now she was ready. She would start with the sad-eyed comparison of a mother who would use the children to satisfy her own need as opposed to a father whose unselfish motive was simply to save the poor darlings from the separation anxiety that would surely accompany her death. After that she would—

  “Since I am well aware of the claims and counter-claims of this case,” Judge Brill said, “I suggest we forego opening statements in the interest of expediency.”

  “Fine with me, Your Honor,” Dudley said.

  The judge looked at Noreen. “Counselor?”

  No way would Noreen let go of the opening statement she’d perfected.

  “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.”

  Noreen took a deep breath and brushed back the wisp of hair tickling the side of
her face.

  “I intend to show that the loving grandmother the plaintiff’s attorney has described is actually a violent ill-tempered woman who attacked the home of my client with a sledgehammer. How can we possibly fault Jeffrey Caruthers for wanting to spare his children the agony of such exhibitions?”

  Claire’s heart rose into her throat. She wanted to crawl beneath the table or, better yet, disappear entirely. Were it possible to go back in time, she gladly would have. She’d go back and grovel at the doorway begging for Jeffrey to answer. If he chose not to answer she’d back away meekly, certainly not take a sledgehammer to the door.

  “The plaintiff’s attorney,” Noreen said, “has also faulted my client for the long hours he spent working to build a business that could provide the income necessary for his wife’s extravagant lifestyle. A three-bedroom bungalow was not good enough for Elizabeth Caruthers. She wanted a big house and expensive jewelry, jewelry that my client ultimately had to sell in order to provide for his children.”

  Elizabeth never wanted those things, Claire wrote on a slip of paper and passed it to Dudley. He gave her a quick nod.

  Noreen walked back to the defendant’s table, picked up a document, and flamboyantly waved it in the air.

  “We have in our possession a notarized statement from Doctor Hans Wolfburger, a highly respected child psychologist who specializes in separation trauma. In this document, Doctor Wolfburger states that children who have been removed from exposure to a parent then returned and removed for a second time will suffer severe and long-lasting trauma frequently resulting in neurosis and a rejection complex.

  “Since the Caruthers children have not seen or had interaction with their mother for almost ten months, she no longer plays a role in their day-to-day existence. To restore that relationship would ultimately force them to undergo the loss of their mother for a second time, precisely the scenario that Doctor Wolfburger refers to.”

  Noreen paused and then launched into a detailed account of Elizabeth’s paralysis and blackout periods, stressing Elizabeth’s physical weakness and questioning whether it would put the children in physical danger.