Cracks in the Sidewalk (21 page)

“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.

~ ~ ~

N
oreen’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.

~ ~ ~

D
udley’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.

~ ~ ~

N
oreen 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?”

“They would likely experience short-term anguish. Then, best-case scenario, the dog’s leg would be amputated and the child would be quite happy with their three-legged dog. Worst-case scenario, the dog would die and be buried in the back yard. The child would still suffer only short-term anguish because he saw the dog die and be buried, so while he is saddened by the loss he does not have a sense of abandonment.”

It went on that way for a full twenty minutes. Finally with a rather impatient huff, Noreen announced she had no more questions.

~ ~ ~

A
fter Noreen sat, Dudley took the floor again. He introduced three exhibits—the first, a certified copy of the medical report from Doctor Sorenson, the second, a copy of psychologist Peter Belleau’s opinion of Elizabeth’s mental stability based on his telephone conversation with her.

“As you will note, Your Honor,” Dudley said, “Doctor Belleau agrees with Doctor Sorenson that visitation time with her three children would be most beneficial for Elizabeth Caruthers.”

The third exhibit was simply a list of the jewelry and other items that Elizabeth had requested. At the top of the list was Liz’s two-karat diamond engagement ring. No one actually anticipated that it would be returned, but Dudley had put it on the list as something for negotiation.

The Defense

N
oreen had three people listed as witnesses. The first was Doctor Hans Wolfburger, a man with a good part of his face hidden behind a bristly red beard. Doctor Wolfburger spoke with a thick accent, replacing W sounds with Vs and Ss with Zs. When asked what the potential effect of reuniting the Caruthers children with their dying mother might be, Doctor Wolfburger answered, “You vill zee da younzeers have much zrezz und turmoil.”

“Excuse me,” the court stenographer said. “Could the witness please repeat that?”  

Doctor Wolfburger repeated his answer.

“Come again?” the stenographer said.

After she asked a third time, Judge Brill leaned forward and whispered, “I believe he said that we will see the youngsters have much stress and turmoil.”

“Oh,” the stenographer answered, turning back to her machine.

It continued that way throughout much of Doctor Wolfburger’s testimony, but Noreen established that in a qualitative study, children separated from one or both of their parents then reunited and removed for a second time frequently suffered a rejection complex. The testimony took several go-rounds with Judge Brill often serving as interpreter.

Doctor Wolfburger, apparently as frustrated as the court stenographer, finally asked, “Vhat zeems to be zee problem?”

Taking into account the stenographer’s problem deciphering Doctor Wolfburger’s words, Dudley Grimm structured most of his cross examination with questions that could be answered yes or no.

“A qualitative study,” Dudley asked. “Isn’t that one which draws in-depth information from a relatively small number of participants?”

“Ya.” Doctor Wolfburger nodded.

“The number of participants in your study, was it less than one hundred?”

“Ya.” Doctor Wolfburger nodded again.

“Under fifty?”

Another nod.

“Between thirty and fifty?”

“Nein.”

“Between twenty and thirty?”

“Ya.” The doctor gave another nod.

“And was this study conducted within the past ten years?” Dudley asked.

“Nein.” The doctor shook his head and waved a hand indicating further back.

“So the study was conducted over ten years ago, right?”

The doctor nodded.

“And in that study,” Dudley asked, “can you recall what number of those children separated from a parent or parents for the second time lost the parent to death as opposed to divorce?”

Doctor Wolfburger scratched at his beard for several moments, then he held up two fingers.

“Only two of the twenty or thirty children in the study lost their parent to death?”

“Ya.”

“So, your assumption that the Caruthers children will be psychologically harmed by restoring their relationship with their dying mother is actually based on a decade-old analysis of two children, correct?”

Doctor Wolfburger sat there staring straight ahead.

“Please answer,” Dudley said.

“Dat conclusion leaze much confusion.”

“Not to me,” Dudley answered. Before Noreen could jump up and object, he said, “I have no more questions.”

~ ~ ~

Noreen’s second witness, oncologist Doctor Frank Bowden, testified that patients with a malignant brain tumor often suffer severe headaches, memory lapses, or complete blackouts.

“By complete blackout,” Noreen asked smugly, “do you mean that the patient passes out and loses consciousness?”

“Yes,” Doctor Bowden answered. “Although these blackouts sometimes last only a few minutes, they can also extend into the comatose or quasi-comatose state, which frequently precedes the patient’s death.”

When Noreen returned to the defense table, Dudley said any cross would be unnecessary because they had already stipulated that there was a possibility such a thing could happen.

Judge Brill smiled, dismissed the doctor, and moved on to Noreen’s third and last witness: Jeffrey T. Caruthers. He wore a dark blue suit, a crisp white shirt, and a gray tie with narrow bands of red on it. A look of sadness clouded his eyes and the corners of his mouth tugged down just far enough.

Once he was sworn in, JT looked at Noreen.

“While your wife Elizabeth was in the hospital,” Noreen asked, “did you bring the children to see their mother?”

“Of course,” JT answered. “We all visited Elizabeth in the hospital. I brought the kids to see Christian in the nursery a few days after he was born.”

“When was the last time you took the children to see your wife?”

Jeffrey gave a deep sigh. “Almost ten months ago. I took David and Kimberly to visit their mom in October of nineteen-eighty-four. I’m pretty certain it was October, because in November Elizabeth suffered a pulmonary embolism and she was in the Intensive Care Unit for quite some time.”

“Did you bring the children to see her while she was in Intensive Care?”

“No. Children aren’t allowed in Intensive Care.”

“During that time did you visit Elizabeth?”

“I wanted to.” JT conjured up another sigh, this one deeper than the first. “But unfortunately, with caring for the children, I didn’t have much free time.”

“We’ve heard testimony that your mother-in-law volunteered to watch the children for you. Why didn’t you take her up on that offer?”

“Because I felt it wasn’t in the best interest of my children.”

“Why is that?”

“Claire McDermott has a violent temper. She’s the kind of person who without provocation takes a sledgehammer to your door. And she bad-mouths me to my kids. Neither she nor my father-in-law have one nice thing to say about me. They say I’ve turned my back on Elizabeth because I’ve accepted that she’s dying. But what else can I do? I’ve got a responsibility to my kids. We have to move on with our life. We’ve got to keep living, because if we don’t we’ll be buried alongside Liz.”

“Jeffrey, you mentioned that the McDermotts have a negative opinion of you. Is that a guess, or have they actually told you?”

“It’s a fact. When I asked for a loan,” JT said, his voice crackling with fragments of anger, “Charlie McDermott not only refused to help, he said flat out that I was a failure. He told me I shouldn’t even be in retailing.”

“At the time you asked for that loan weren’t you in danger of losing Caruthers Couture, the store which was your family’s sole source of income?”

JT cast a vengeful eye across the room to the plaintiff’s table. “Yes.”

“And did you ultimately lose Caruthers Couture?” Noreen asked.

“Yes,” JT repeated with increasing bitterness. “It went belly-up, because I couldn’t meet the financial obligations.”

“So what income have you and your children lived on since the store closed?”

“None. We’ve survived on what little money I had left in the bank and some personal possessions I’ve been able to sell.”

“Those personal possessions,” Noreen prodded, “did they include the jewelry that your wife, Elizabeth, has asked to have returned?”

“Yes. Her engagement ring was a two-karat diamond. I figured it was more important for me to provide for our children than for Liz to be buried with that ring on her finger.” Wistfully he added, “I had hoped she would understand.”

“Did you ever discuss your financial situation with Elizabeth and ask for her assistance?”

“Yes. When her father refused to help out, I suggested that we get a second mortgage to tide us over until I could get situated in some new business. She wouldn’t sign the papers.”

“She
knew
that you and the children had no money to live on and
still
refused to sign the papers?”

“Yeah,” JT said with an air of disgust. “She knew, her whole family knew.”

“Did it make you angry when Elizabeth and her parents not only refused to help but refused to acknowledge your predicament?”