Just when you thought it was safe to lie on the witness stand

When giving testimony under oath in a court of law witnesses are required to affirm that such testimony will be truthful subject to the penalties and pains of perjury – so says the law. It's okay to stand at a party table and give testimony if the court permits. It's okay to sit at the witness stand or even lay yourself there, although I don't recommend it. Someone needs to let Del Anderson know that it's not okay to lie on the witness stand although he may have good reason to feel that he can testify falsely with impunity. When is the last time that you saw or heard of anyone being charged with perjury in a child custody proceeding?

Del Anderson is a GAL who works for Indianapolis based Child Advocates, Inc. and was assigned to the case of Moore v Moore 49D12-0810-DR-44790 to provide a report to the court regarding the parents and children as part of mother's petition to modify custody and parenting time in her favour. After about a year Mr Anderson submitted his report to the court. A hearing pursuant to this was held on Tuesday 05 February 2013.

Under examination about the content of his report Mr Anderson made numerous claims as to the content of a three hour interview that he conducted with the father, Brian Moore. Mr Anderson testified that his report was based, in part, on notations he had written during that interview. I won't recite the particular claims here but the essence was that Mr Moore had engaged in bizarre behaviours including a threat to the children's school that resulted in a “lock-down”, and thus was not fit to be a parent.

This creates a difficulty for the parent who has been, to our thinking, unjustly maligned and falsely accused. How do we redeem this client? Attempts on cross may be fruitless with a well organized liar which leaves the judicial officer to weigh the credibility of witnesses – the liar and your client. There does exist an important alternative though which is accomplished through the interview preparation process.

After the outlandish accusations were made Mr Moore then offered into evidence a copy of an audio recording of the three hour interview for the purpose of impeaching Mr Anderson. This immediately drew an objection from Attorney for Petitioner, Jonathan R. Deenik of Cross, Pennamped, Woolsey & Glazier, P.C., who claimed that the recording had not be previously disclosed as required by the rules of evidence. Mr Moore correctly noted that the recording was being introduced not for it's substantive value but for the purpose of impeaching the witness, which is an exception to the prior disclosure rule. Judge Welch over-ruled the objection.

Due to the late hour in the day the hearing was concluded for the day and copies of the recording were made and distributed. Mr Moore then moved the court to issue special findings in regards to the truthfulness of Mr Anderson's testimony. This matter was continued to 05 April 2013 in Marion County Superior Court 5. There the principal of the children's school, the superintendent and the Chief of Police all testified that there had been no 'lock-down'. Mr Anderson explained some of the quotes in the report as being a compilation of words Mr Moore said during the interview. This is where Del Anderson falls afoul of “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

If your client says sentences in an interview like “I want to come to a reasonable parenting time schedule.”; “It's going to kill me to go on seeing my children disappointed like this.”; and “I just don't understand my ex-husband.” that are melded into the quote “I want to kill my ex-husband” that appears in a custody evaluation report then you better be able to redeem your client. One way to do that is to record all contacts between the parent and evaluator.

This is what Mr Moore did when he was interviewed by Del Anderson. Upon the conclusion and receipt of the special findings the testimony of Mr Anderson will be transcribed. The transcript, special findings and audio recording will then be presented to the Marion County Prosecutor to pursue criminal charges against Mr Anderson.

There existed the idea that it was safe to lie on the witness stand. With vigilance and proper preparation that concept will fade from the minds of Del Anderson and other evaluators or “witnesses” like him who concoct their own version of events to suit their demonstrated bias.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

Tweet

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

©2008, 2013 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.

StuartShowalter.com