CLINICAL & FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, LTD. James H. Gilbertson, Ph.D. Assessment, Treatment and Consultation JIN teseSitatsen, ie canes Licensed Marriage/Famlly Therapist Fax (651)633-0485 Coll (612)581-6655 E-Mail drjhgilbertson@aol.com February 6, 2013 Ms. Julie Friedrich Guardian Ad Litem P.O. Box 95878 Woodbury, MN 55125 VIA U.S. MAIL & EMAIL: julie. friedrich@courts. state. mn.us Dear Ms, Friedrich: This communicae follows our telephone conversation on Friday, February 1%, in which I noted for you the impasse I am experiencing working with the Rucki children as their therapist and with the goal of them moving to a position where they can enjoy reasonable access to both parents. I need not emphasize to you that the children’s psychological wellbeing is inextricably tied to a xeduction of the Rucki family polarization. Reducing that intrafamilial conflict will énhance each child’s emotional wellbeing. I have met with the Rucki children in various combinations on six different occasions, three each, in the homes of their maternal and paternal aunts; I have met with Mr. David Rucki, Sr., and Ms. Grazzini Rucki in separate, face-to-face interviews in my office, have convened with them on a telephone conference call, have had a conference call with the maternal and paternal aunts, and have received and made various phone calls to the adult parties in question in arranging schedules and responding to questions and future goal setting. At thie time, it is my opinion that we need an assertive stance from the court to order these children attend a face-to-face session with their father. The children are of the belief, and will state quite openly, that no one can force them to see their father if that is their choice. Innsbruck Professional Genter 2677 Innsbruck Dr. Suite D New Brighton, MN 55112RE: Rucki Family Matter February 6, 2013 My every attempt to explore common ground with the children and to work through their emotionality has been met with stubbornness, anger, and accusations that my work, your work, and others who have been involved in this matter, i.e. Children’s Supervisory Center and other mediators, are simply an instrument of their father, his money and influence. There are two prevailing emotional themes that these children speak to: One is fear of being in the presence of their father given what they allege to he being an angry and violent person. A second theme is the anger they have over his alleged mistreatment and a corollary of this - a belief that their father is morally flawed, i.e. womanizer, drinks too much, is hiding money. It is my opinion that the children’s fear issue needs to be addressed directly, and that can only happen when there is exposure to the specifically feared object, situation or person, i.e. father. In thinking about this matter, I was hopeful the court may take an assertive stance in this matter, as has been the history to date, and actually have the children appear in court and then order them to have a session with their father in an adjoining room, i.e, a jury or conference room, at the courthouse. The presence of the court, a bailiff nearby, my own presence, and then the meeting with their father, in my opinion, would deal with the fears that they experience, real or imagined. I would be willing to clear my schedule to be at the court to conduct an extended session with the children and their father. X would plan for a 2 hour session to try to desensitize the face-to-face meeting and to facilitate the interactions between all parties. Prior to that time, I would work with Mr. Rucki.to have him present a certain structure and accounting of his own behavior while the family was intact that would acknowledge the volatile family history and express his empathy for the children’s painful memories. I have spoken with Mr. Rucki and put him on notice that I would require that of him if the court were so willing to order such a session. Page 2 of 3RE: Rucki Family Matter February 6, 2013 As we spoke about this matter, you informed me that there was a court hearing on February 26" at which other matters in the Rucki matter will be venued. It would be my suggestion that the children be brought in after the adult parties have addressed their concerns. I understand this may represent a somewhat unorthodox recommendation, but I do not believe that there can be an initial bridging of the gap between the children and their father, at this point in time, unless all are physically present under the authoritative and safe umbrella of the court. I am forwarding this letter to you in your role as officer of the court and as the children’s advocate. If you believe I should address the court directly in making this recommendation, please so advise. Sincerely, long seem {electronically signed) James H. Gilbertson, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist Licensed marriage and Family Therapist OHG/bk14 Page 3 of 3 iCLINICAL & FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, LTD. . James H. Gilbertson, Ph.D. Assessment, Treatment and Consultation JE, nei Sieacson, ca cance Licensed Marriage/Farnily Therapist Fax (661)633-0488 Coll (612)581-6655 E-Mail drjhgilbertson@aol.com February 21, 2013 Ms. Julie Priedrich Guardian ad Litem P.O, Box 95878 Woodbury, MN 59125 VIA U.S. MAIL @ EMATN: julie. friedrichecourts.state.mn.us Dear Ms. Friedrich: We are scheduled to meet on 02/26/13 at Dakota County Court in Hastings. I was contemplating the possible logistics of that particular meeting that would have, as its goal, a supervised visit of the children with their father, Mr. David Rucki. In my original communicae to you, I had mentioned that this could probably take place after the Rucki hearing in which adult business would be discussed. If that were the court’s pleasure, then the children may not need to arrive until approximately 10:00 o’clock or so, I would like your estimation of what would be the best time for the children’s arrival to provide a seamless transition from the adult hearing to the children being brought in. From a logistical standpoint, I thought it might be appropriate for the children to actually come into the courtroom, and if the judge were so willing, to announce that a session would be held and then, at that time, direct us to the appropriate jury room or conference room wherever that might be. I understand from materials that I have received from Ms. Elliott that the adult Rucki hearing will directly address issues of expanded parenting time and other issues that may be germane to the children. Innsbruck Professional Center 2677 Innsbruck Dr. Suite D Now Brighton, MN 85112RE: Rucki Family Matter February 6, 2013 When I heard that, I wondered whether or not it might be appropriate for the children, at least some of them, perhaps, the three eldest, to actually sit in on the hearing to view the arguments and counter arguments that may have to do with supervised parenting time As. you know, one of the issues I have been trying to address with these children is to keep them as informed as I am informed about where things are, legally. I understand that there are certain adult issues that these children do not have to hear, but they constantly want to know what is in their future, why they cannot live with their mother, and when a predictable parenting time arrangement will be available with their mother (curiously, they do not include that same demand for their father) . The children feel out of the loop and, as they view it, some disembodied group of individuals, whether it is the court, you or me, are making decisions in which they believe they need to play a part. As I have indicated to you, these are very bright and very perceptive children, and they have been so sensitized to the dynamics of their family that anything that they may hear through the grapevine about what has been happening begins to increase their anxiety, apprehension and rumination. I have been trying to impart to them as much factual knowledge as, indeed, I have. I could argue that it might be helpful for them to actually sit in on the court process where the discussion does involve them and parenting time, and the expectations the court has in them honoring access to both parents under the direction of a program that I would supervise. One other point that keeps coming up in working with the Rucki children is that they want to have some say or they want to address the court in this matter. I am asking you whether it would be presumptuous for the court to hear the children out in a very brief fashion (for instance, I would have the three elder children prepare a less than 1 minute statement that they could present to the court on their feelings about the matter). I am not recommending a separate hearing Page 2 of 3RE: Rucki Family Matter February 6, 2013 i believe this act would, at least, take away one of their arguments that they have not been heard or have not had an audience. You might accuse me of thinking out loud in this matter, and that might be quite true, However, I am trying to straddle the direction that the court wants me to pursue and, at the same time, maintain my rapport and trust with the children, The more I can deliver to them in the spirit of keeping them informed, appreciating their input, but, however, confronting their presumptions, denial and refusal, will help this entire process. Again, I am forwarding this to you for your consideration. You were kind enough to present my previous submission to the court, and, again, I simply request that if T should address the court directly or the court’s paralegal and/or legal assistant in this matter, I would do so. There are so many players in this family matter that I find myself oftentimes placing, at least, three phone calls at a time just to make sure that I keep all family members in the loop. Thank you for hearing me out in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Joma (electronically signed) DICTATED BUT NOT GRAMMATICALLY PROOFED James H. Gilbertson, Ph.D. uicensed Psychologist licensed Marriage and Family therapist JHG/bk14 Page 3 of 3