Transcript DR Sullivan 08-02-2010

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION - FAMILY PART

UNION COUNTY
DOCKET NO. FM-20-0973-09
APP. DIV. NO.
MARIA ALEXIANU, : Plaintiff, :
vs
ADRIAN IONESCU, : Defendant. :
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING :
Place: Union County Courthouse

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
Date: August 2, 2010
BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DAVID S. ISSENMAN, J.S.C.
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY:
ADRIAN IONESCU,
(619 N. Chestnut St., Westfield, NJ 07090)
Audio Recorded By: K. Cokley

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
METRO TRANSCRIPTS, L.L.C.
Kelly Ford
316 Ann Street
Randolph, New Jersey 07869
(973) 659-9494
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
APPEARANCES:
LIZANNE J. CECONI, ESQ., (Ceconi & Cheifetz, L.L.C.),

Attorney for the Plaintiff.
SHERYL J. SEIDEN, ESQ., (Ceconi & Cheifetz, L.L.C.),

Attorney for the Plaintiff.
MADELINE S. REAGAN, ESQ., (Madeline S. Reagan, Esq.),

Attorney for the Defendant.
ELLEN C. MARSHALL, ESQ.,

(Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, L.L.P.),
Guardian Ad Litem
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Kelly Ford
316 Ann Street
Randolph, New Jersey 07869
(973) 659-9494
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
3
I N D E X
8/2/10
WITNESS VOIR DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

FOR THE COURT DIRE
DR. MATTHEW SULLIVAN
By the Court 15
By Ms. Ceconi 16,35,43
By Ms. Reagan 34,40,45
By Dr. Woolock 38
By Ms. Marshall 47
EXHIBIT Ident. Evid.
Court Exhibit, Sullivan Report. 14

4
THE COURT: We are recording in the matter of
Alexianu and Ionescu, Docket FM-20-973-09.
For Dr. Alexianu, may I have your appearance,
please, Ms. Ceconi.
MS. CECONI: Good afternoon, Judge, Lizanne
Ceconi with Sheryl Seiden from Ceconi & Cheifetz on
behalf of the plaintiff, Maria Alexianu.
THE COURT: Thank you.
For Dr. Ionescu.
MS. REAGAN: Madeline Reagan representing the
defendant, Adrian Ionescu, Your Honor.
And the guardian ad litem, please.
MS. MARSHALL: Good afternoon. Ellen
Marshall, Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, guardian ad
litem.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Marshall.
We are waiting for a conference call between
some of the psychologists, who are the experts hired,
and a Dr. Sullivan, who was the attending psychologist
at the Camp of Breakthrough.
While we are at it, I will note that at my
request, the realtor who has the listing agreement for
the premises is also present in court. Mr. Klausner
(phonetic), who is here, I dont know whether we should
keep him for the whole proceeding, but I dont know
where we are. But hes here at my request because I

Colloquy 5
was told there was an issue with respect to an offer on
the house.
Is that an accurate statement, Ms. Reagan,
there was an offer?
MS. REAGAN: Yes, there was, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Ceconi?
MS. CECONI: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. So I put that on the table
because if I recollect correctly, the sale of the house
is a component to the best interest of the children as
it was articulated previously. So Alex and Anna
somehow -- no. Let me say -- take it back. There was
a recommendation that the house be sold as part of the
after-camp possibility. But Im babbling. Its not
making any sense. But Mr. Klausner is here.
Ms. Marshall, you wanted to talk about a
procedure as to how were going to handle this call, so
you have the floor.
MS. MARSHALL: Thank you. Just to --
THE COURT: The record should reflect both of
the doctors are here, by the way.
MS. MARSHALL: Just to respond to the comment
that Your Honor made, if counsel doesnt object, Dr.
Sullivan and both parties experts were in agreement on
the house issue. So -- so if neither objects, I would
say what their recommendation collectively is, and
maybe if it takes much longer to get the conference
call going, Your Honor could deal with that.

Colloquy 6
In terms of procedure, we did this morning
from 10:30 to noon have Sharon Ryan Montgomery
(phonetic) and James Woolock (phonetic) on the
telephone with Dr. Matthew Sullivan (phonetic). I was
on the call and I participated to a limited extent.
Counsel were on the phone. They did not participate as
Your Honor directed, and Dr. Sullivan gave what I
thought was a very good, very thorough, very concise
summary of what occurred and where he is. He also made
sure that we received what Ms. Ceconi had already
received but Ms. Reagan and I had not, which was the
departure recommendations of Overcoming Barriers.
So I think our concept sort of was that Dr.
Sullivan will now be on the phone with the
psychologists for the attorneys to now ask questions of
and examine. The psychologists have spoken since Dr.
Sullivan. They agree on virtually everything.
And if it made sense, Your Honor, I could
read into the record, when they get on the phone, their
areas of agreement, which are plentiful, their areas of
disagreement, which are narrow, and then perhaps the
attorneys could then examine them if that makes sense.
Dr. Sullivan we lose at 5. I dont know what
Your Honors timing is, but I know we have short time.
I had never envisioned when I set this up the
type of plenary hearing you just described where the
lawyers would have unlimited access to asking questions

Colloquy 7
and cross-examination. I will give them some limited
opportunity to ask cogent questions if its necessary.
Im looking for my last order, which is dated
-- the one I have in my file, June 23, 2010, and I
believe I have more papers and orders on my desk, which
I did not bring in. And I -- I have a file of all the
orders, but I --
MS. MARSHALL: We should have a July 9th
order. Isnt there a July 9th order?
THE COURT: -- Im -- Im going to certainly
were trying -- the record should reflect I have what
is known as a Polycom telephone on my bench. We are
trying desperately and thought we had the technology
mastered to have Dr. Sullivan, Dr. Woolock, and Dr.
Montgomery together. It turns out when we thought we
had everyone, we -- all we had was static. We sent Ms.
Seiden to call Ms. Ceconis office to try again. So we
are without the three on the phone, and it is at this
moment 22 minutes after 3.
The parties are here. I would ask their very
brief perception as to how camp went, although I do not
know if this is a good idea. Im in the dark so whats
happening is if everybody who is here except for me has
a sense of a lot of things that have occurred, because
theyve already spoken with Dr. Sullivan, theyve
already obviously spoken to their clients and perhaps
Ms. Marshall has spoken to the children. And theyve
all spoken to their experts. Im the one thats in the

Colloquy 8
dark.
So Im going to ask for a minute or so from
the clients perspective if counsel does not disagree.
Ms. Ceconi, I would like to ask your client
her impression.
And, Ms. Reagan, Id like to ask your client
his impression of what happened at camp.
But I do not wish to take it into an
argumentative or contradictory -- I just want to be
informed as to their impressions.
Any objection to that, Ms. Ceconi?
MS. CECONI: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection, Ms. Reagan?
MS. REAGAN: Absolutely not.
Ms. -- Dr. Alexianu, Im going to try and
keep it to about a minute. Please remain seated and
relax if you can.
DR. ALEXIANU: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you believe camp was more
successful than not?
DR. ALEXIANU: Thank you for the opportunity,
Your Honor, of expressing myself directly. I think the
camp was very detrimental to our family relationships.
THE COURT: Very detrimental.
DR. ALEXIANU: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
DR. ALEXIANU: Unfortunately.

Colloquy 9
THE COURT: Let me ask Dr. Ionescu, do you
believe the camp was more successful than not?
DR. IONESCU: I would consider the camp look
very successful, and everybody there put their time and
effort to -- to -- to create the best. I have pretty
much have no complaints to be honest. I mean, there
are a few issues, but I dont want to address because
you said there shouldnt be any argument or anything
like that. But Im sure theyll come out during the
discussion.
THE COURT: Okay. So I wrote down what Dr.
Alexianu said that camp was very detrimental to our
family relationship.
And you wrote down it was very successful.
And I -- I guess I didnt write the rest of
the words down. Does anyone -- there was another
statement after that. Very successful. Okay.
Well, Ill tell you the truth. Im surprised
to get that dichotomy, but maybe I should not be
surprised.
Ms. Marshall, did you have an opportunity to
speak with the children since they returned from camp?
MS. MARSHALL: I have not, Your Honor. I do
-- I do have what I think might be a fairly good
summary of what Dr. Sullivan told us this morning, and
if counsel doesnt object since we are in a holding
pattern, perhaps I could recite some of that to the
Court.
Colloquy 10
THE COURT: Is it in writing and counsel have
it in writing already?
MS. MARSHALL: They were on the telephone.
These are just my notes. I took eight -- seven pages
of notes.
MS. REAGAN: Can I suggest if you have a copy
we give the judge --
MS. MARSHALL: We -- we could -- mine is
written on actually.
MS. REAGAN: So is mine. Im sorry.
MS. MARSHALL: Do you have a clean copy of
this?
THE COURT: Ill tell you what Im going to
do. Im going to ask you, Ms. Marshall to type up, not
today, not right now, your notes and supply them to
counsel and the Court at some future date. And if you
can give me a very -- pick out the most salient points
of Dr. Sullivans report, and maybe in two minutes if
thats possible.
MS. MARSHALL: Interestingly, Dr. Sullivan
said that on the exit interviews both parents rated the
camp quite favorably. They gave it a five, out of one
to five, on group interactions, a five, out of one to
five, on staff, and a four on activities. Dr. Sullivan
did say that might be because he perceived that both
parents were very aware that this was coming back to
litigation today and that he felt the effectiveness of
the camp, if you will, may have been somewhat diluted

Colloquy 11
by the fact that the parties may not have engaged as
unguardedly -- Im paraphrasing -- as they might have
were they not in litigation. He felt they both wanted
to be perceived as full participants and probably would
not tell us anything negative.
He felt that both parties did --
(Phone rings)
THE COURT: Can I interrupt you, Ms.
Marshall.
This is Judge Issenmans courtroom, and this
is Judge Issenman. Good afternoon.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
DR. WOOLOCK: Good afternoon.
DR. SULLIVAN: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Do we have -- could we identify
who is on the phone?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Sharon Montgomery here.
DR. WOOLOCK: Jim Woolock.
DR. SULLIVAN: And Matt Sullivan, who you
probably know. Im from California, so Im -- Im on
the line from there, and with am representing the
Overcoming Barriers Camp.
THE COURT: Thank you, Dr. Sullivan.
The guardian -- we are being recorded. We
are in my courtroom. The guardian for the children,
Ms. Marshall, was in the process of summarizing what

Colloquy 12
Dr. Sullivans impressions were from the camp exit.
I will tell you that while we were waiting
for this conference call to occur, I asked each of the
parties, who are under oath from previous proceedings,
to give me a succinct statement of their impression,
or, more accurately, my statement was was camp more
successful than not.
Dr. Alexianu, and I -- I will quote you
directly, quote, The camp was very detrimental to our
family relationship. And Dr. Ionescu, father, Camp
was very successful. Those were the statements made
by them not less than five minutes ago with respect to
their impression as to camp when I asked them. I have
not asked them to articulate why. I didnt believe we
should horn in on the time frame because I know Dr.
Sullivan is in a very constrained time situation or so
I perceive.
I wanted this opportunity for me to hear a
little bit from Dr. Sullivan and have the attorneys, if
they so desired, ask very quick but not extensive
questioning in the event they wanted to. And Ive
directed Ms. Marshall to -- she says she has seven
pages of notes from the conversation from this morning
with Dr. Sullivan, Dr. Woolock, Dr. Montgomery, Ms.
Ceconi, and Ms. Reagan. And we are now putting
microphones that are keyed to the phone on counsel
table.
Ms. Marshall says she has seven pages of

Colloquy 13
notes from that conversation, and I also know there is
a written report I believe from Dr. Sullivan. I -- we
havent marked it into evidence. Perhaps we should
because weve marked every other significant document
in evidence.
I dont know what number were at. Someones
keeping notes. It would be Court-5, Court-6? Well
sort that out -- well -- well sort out the marking
later, but the report is now being marked as a court
exhibit.
(Court Exhibit, Sullivan report, marked for
identification)
THE COURT: Dr. Sullivan, I thank you for
your time.
Dr. Woolock, I thank you for your time.
And, Dr. Montgomery, I thank you for your
time.
And I know this much, that tomorrow at 5
oclock youre going somewhere on what purports to be a
vacation.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I am. Gratefully.
THE COURT: Okay. Dr. Sullivan had his
vacation, so to speak, and hes back in California.
Would that be a fair statement?
DR. SULLIVAN: No, Your Honor. I wouldnt
say that my Vermont camp was a vacation. So --
THE COURT: I didnt think -- I didnt think
you would.
Sullivan - Questions/Court 14
DOCTOR M A T T H E W S U L L I V A N, NOT SWORN ON
THE RECORD.
QUESTIONS BY THE COURT:
Q All right. How did the children, Dr.
Sullivan, fair at camp overall? Your -- your
impression.
A Well, it was -- it was a mixed bag, and -- and
Im, I think that the kids are -- are higher
functioning and doing better than the rest of the kids
at camp. So I think that to some extent the camp
experience for them was not as positive because they
picked up on some of the sort of chronic rejection that
all of the kids had, and Im -- Im thinking that
thats part of Marias concern about the camp
experience. The kids sort of picked up some things
that they wouldnt have otherwise picked up.
I do think that the kids, as we expected, the
reason that we have all the family there, enacted their
dynamic in -- in the family system as its
transitioning, you know, through this divorce. And we
want that to happen, and it actually becomes more
intensified in the camp setting, and it allows us to
try and work with it and work on it.
Q Thank you.
THE COURT: Let start by asking Ms. Ceconi,
do you want to ask Dr. Sullivan any questions briefly?
MS. CECONI: I have a -- yeah, I have a
question.
Sullivan - Voir Dire/Ceconi 15
VOIR DIRE BY MS. CECONI:
Q Dr. Sullivan, Ms. Marshall, while we were
trying to patch in the phone call, raised an issue
about the exit interviews, and I just need some
clarification on that. I know that this morning when
we spoke you had mentioned that the exit interviews
were mostly favorable. Were you talking specifically
about the parties in this action when you said that
they both gave it fives on a one-to-five scale, or were
you talking in general in terms of all of the exit
interviews?
A I was talking about the -- these two parents in
particular felt, yes -- the components of the program,
the morning groups, which is the psychoeducational
programs both rated five, which is the highest rating.
They rate -- rated the afternoon activities as four
out of five. Interactions with the staff, five out of
five. They rated their -- the question, Rate your
satisfaction with the camp experience in general,
Maria rated a three, which is satisfied, and Adrian
rated it a very satisfied, one. So those are their
numerical ratings based on a one through five, from
very satisfied to very disappointed.
THE COURT: Im -- Im a little bit confused,
Dr. Sullivan. Is five the highest rating or the lowest
rating?
DR. SULLIVAN: Thats the highest rating.
One would be extremely dissatisfied, very disappointed.

THE COURT: So Dr. Alexianu gave the overall
generic question a one? Did I understand you
correctly?
DR. SULLIVAN: Overall she gave it three,
which is termed satisfied.
THE COURT: And Dr. Ionescu gave it what?
DR. SULLIVAN: Gave it a one, which is very
satisfied.
THE COURT: Well, you just said five is the
highest and you said he gave it a one.
DR. SULLIVAN: And that is because the first
set of ratings that I talked about went the other way.
THE COURT: Oh.
DR. SULLIVAN: So youre right to be
confused, and I apologize to the -- for that confusion.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Next question. Ms. Reagan, do you have a
question you want to ask Dr. Sullivan?
MS. REAGAN: Actually I dont, Your Honor.
He was very thorough this morning.
THE COURT: Okay.
Then, Ms. Marshall, do you have a question
you want to ask Dr. Sullivan?
MS. MARSHALL: No, so --
THE COURT: All right. Back to Ms. Ceconi.
Do you have any more questions you want to ask Dr.
Sullivan?
BY MS. CECONI:
Q Dr. Sullivan, was that rating done before the
-- the incident with the children leaving?
A Lets see, Im trying to think. You know, I dont
know when they did the -- the exit interview because it
was independent of my work that morning, which was to
work with each of the co-parents. So Im -- I -- it
was certainly before the actual leaving. But most of
the -- most of the very difficult issues with the
leaving happened prior to that. So, you know, I -- I
just cant answer that with certainty because I was
sort of sequestered away while the exit interviews were
being done elsewhere.
Q So if Dr. Alexianu were to say that she
completed that before the children were leaving or the
incident with the children leaving, would you have
reason to not believe that?
A I would not have reason not -- double negative.
Q All right. And was there an incident with
the children leaving?
A Well, there -- there was an -- there -- there were
-- was a lot of issue with the children leaving. So
after Dad left, there was a lot of work with Mom and
the kids and staff to work through the fact that the
staff, and I think I said this, you know, every one in
the morning where they were very angry, at first wanted
to sort of undo that and have Mom, you know, call Dad
or whatever. Then it moved into kind of a -- supported
them trying to work with Mom and the kids about their
anger about that, and that moved into them expecting
that this was going to happen and some problem solving
around what they were going to do with Mom during that
day.
And then Mom was able to leave with the kids, and
thats when she gave me some feedback later on by email
saying things settled down fairly quickly and they had
a -- a decent time. And -- and the transition back to
Dad went -- went well. So thats kind of the
chronology.
Q And you in fact were originally under the
impression that the children were supposed to be
leaving with -- with Dr. Ionescu?
A By -- well, by virtue of -- I mean, you can go
back a long ways and this was all during his custodial
time by the rights -- by the -- the two-week -- the
two-week schedule. And then my understanding is as
they arrived at camp, it was uncertain who they would
leave with.
Q Okay.
A And that --
Q But I think this morning when we were
talking, I think it was your impression during this
camp that the children would in fact be leaving with
their father because of the parenting schedule,
correct?
A No. I mean, I -- I said it as I think I
understood it. That, you know, had the camp not been
happening that he -- he would have them during that --
that period of time. But as they arrived, my
understanding was that it was uncertain and would be
resolved by the Court later in the -- later in the week
who they would leave with.
Q In fact, we clarified that during the call
this morning, right? When Ms. Marshall said the
question of who was going to leave with the kids was
specifically left open.
A Right.
Q Right. And in fact it was Dr. Ionescu who
then told the children that they had to leave with
their mother. Isnt that true?
A Yes.
Q And was that done in a therapeutic setting?
A It was -- well, the -- the setting was
therapeutic. Are you asking was there -- were there
staff there to -- to -- as witnesses to that and
supporting that?
Q Yes.
A I dont believe so. Im trying to think if the --
we heard about the decision of the Court through the
parents.
Q And then didnt you try to address with the
parents how they were going to tell the children?
A That was -- that was -- no. We -- we tried to
address with the parents how they would -- as to the
fact how they would -- the -- the leaving part of it.

But the kids already knew what was going to happen, I
believe.
Q And wasnt it that Dr. Ionescu could not tell
the children that it was an agreement between the
parties that the kids would go with Dr. Alexianu?
A Yeah, he didnt feel comfortable doing that
because it -- in his view it wasnt an agreement.
Q And he wasnt willing to say that the Court
had ordered it either, was he.
A I dont -- I wouldnt say that. I mean, the --
yeah. No, I think he -- I think he did say that the --
the Court had ordered that.
Q Would you tell the Court your impression as
to the boundaries between Dr. Ionescu and the children.
A Well, we had concerns about the kids knowing way
too much about adult-related, disputed issues, be they
financial issues or be they custody. And -- and that
-- that there were -- there was evidence that -- that
Dad was -- was the one who kind of brought them into a
lot of that stuff, not that they were not inquiring
about that because there is both -- as I said in the
morning, much uncertainty about that, which
understandably they want to know. But many times you
have one parent who kids are aligned with who is
giving, you know, helping them to understand that
stuff, going to bring them even more into alignment,
and theyre going to understandably and they certainly
acted it out be very angry at their mom.

Colloquy 21
THE COURT: May I ask Ms. Reagan do you have
questions you want to ask Dr. Sullivan based on where
we are now?
MS. REAGAN: Mostly, Your Honor, I think that
we dont have a context for all of this. Were into
the minutia, and you dont have the overall picture.
And maybe we should be asking Dr. Sullivan for that
first, and then if we want to get into the minutia.
Because I dont think that you have any context for any
of whats going on.
THE COURT: I have no context for anything.
But this was more for -- this was more to make Dr.
Sullivan accessible to Dr. Woolock, Dr. Montgomery, Ms.
Ceconi, and Ms. Reagan, and maybe Ms. Seiden who is
also with Ms. Ceconi, and also Ms. Marshall. I did not
want to see this as a plenary-type hearing with respect
to issues.
I am in the dark. Of everyone sitting here I
know the least amount of information as to what
happened at Overcoming Barriers. And quite frankly, I
dont have to hold Dr. Sullivan on the phone because
Ms. Marshall will ultimately report to me and/or the
lawyers will report to me, and I have a report from Dr.
Sullivan.
So I need to -- heres what I have on my
plate so to speak for decision making. Ive already
decided who was going to take the children home or not
home necessarily, take the children from Overcoming

Colloquy 22
Barriers. And that decision was made.
What I need to do is now come up, and I dont
know yet where Dr. Woolock and Dr. Montgomery are in
this, I need to know what recommendations there are for
a short-term parenting plan and where that will occur.
I need to fit that into the pieces of the puzzle about
the house and whether or that is going to be sold or if
its -- if it is when its going to be sold. And then
I need to get a sense of when were getting the expert
reports from Dr. Woolock and Dr. Montgomery. I still
have on my plate most recently and most definitively a
request for the children to go to the Rachel
Foundation, which I need to adjudicate sooner rather
than later. And I dont know where the parties are on
that.
So I need -- I need to come to some clarity
on a couple of issues before I can move forward. One
of them or -- or two of them are -- are very intense,
what do we do with the children or the parenting plan
now, and the now also includes the where. And then --
then I can think a little more clearly.
Ms. Marshall, do you -- do you have something
to add as guardian for the children?
MS. MARSHALL: Your Honor, if it would make
sense, Ive had a conversation with Dr. Montgomery and
Dr. Woolock since our multiparty conference this
morning. And perhaps with the three psychologists on
the telephone, I could set forth what Ive already told

Colloquy 23
both lawyers are their areas of agreement in terms of
recommendations and their areas of disagreement. And
then if either of the experts or the Court or anyone
else that Your Honor would permit might want to ask Dr.
Sullivan for any refining suggestions, and then -- and
then the Court will have before it all of the experts
work for the last eight or nine days.
THE COURT: All right. Im prepared to do
that. Do I also need to know a little more about the
house? Is there --
MS. MARSHALL: This includes that. Theyve
made recommendations about it, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. And the realtor is
here sitting in court listening, so if we need any
access to him, although if its possible to eliminate
someone from the mix earlier, he may be the most
expendable person to go about his business somewhere
else.
Start with the house, Ms. Marshall.
MS. MARSHALL: The experts, both Dr.
Montgomery and Dr. Woolock, agree that it is in the
best interest of the children for the house to be sold
as soon as possible. They seem to both agree that it
is not deleterious for the children to live in the
house under the circumstances until it is sold. Dr.
Sullivan said he thinks the nesting arrangement is not
a good one. The experts have opined about how the
house should be shared and where the parties should

Colloquy 24
live when they are not in the house with the children
for their time. But there seems complete unity among
the three of them that the expeditious sale of this
house is an important component to the best interest of
the children being able to move forward.
THE COURT: May I stop there for a moment.
Is there an offer on the table that is
acceptable to the parties?
And, Mr. Klausner, you may know that more
than anyone else. Is there an offer?
MR. KLAUSNER: There is a contract, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Theres a contract.
MR. KLAUSNER: Yes. Yes, I have it here.
THE COURT: Signed by the parties?
MR. KLAUSNER: Signed by the purchaser and
Dr. -- and actually I always call her (indiscernible).
THE COURT: Alexianu. Dr. Alexianu.
DR. ALEXIANU: Alexianu.
MR. KLAUSNER: Alexianu. Ive had no
response to the offer from Dr. Ionescu.
THE COURT: And what is the proposed purchase
price of the house?
MR. KLAUSNER: Six-hundred-and-fifty-
thousand.
THE COURT: Okay.
And is that something, Ms. Reagan, youve had
an opportunity to review with your client, or you need

Colloquy 25
some time to review that?
MS. REAGAN: No, Ive had the opportunity to
review it with my client, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Is that -- are you able to
report that your clients going to execute that
contract or hes not going to execute the contract?
MS. REAGAN: He is not going to execute the
contract, Your Honor.
THE COURT: He is not going to execute the
contract. Okay.
MS. REAGAN: Would you like to know why and
do you want to spend this time here talking about it
now?
THE COURT: No, I just want to know whether
that component of the plan of the psychologists, I can
now put that from the front burner to the back burner,
and we can deal with that after Dr. Sullivan, Dr.
Woolock, and Dr. Montgomery are no longer on the
telephone.
Ms. Marshall rises.
Thank you, Mr. Klausner.
MR. KLAUSNER: My time is your time, sir.
Dont worry about that, sir.
MS. MARSHALL: Your Honor, I think it might
be worthwhile to hear from Dr. Sullivan about Dr.
Ionescus participation vis a vis his perception of the
house and his feelings about the house because I think

Colloquy 26
there are two aspects to this. One behavioral and
psychodynamic and the other perhaps economic. But
since we have Dr. Sullivan, perhaps if the Court will
allow, Dr. Sullivan would speak to that.
THE COURT: Anyone have objection, Ms.
Ceconi?
Ms. Reagan?
MS. CECONI: No, Your Honor.
MS. REAGAN: Only to the extent, Your Honor,
that while that may be important, this is all about the
money. If the money were right, the contract would be
signed without a shadow of a doubt. Thats all there
is. Its all about the money.
THE COURT: Well --
MS. REAGAN: And if that contract was for an
amount of money that he could walk from without having
to come to the contract with money, he would be signing
it. Thats -- so while there is a psychological
component, thats not whats stopping the deal. Just
so you know.
THE COURT: Well, I would assume that that
would be what Dr. Ionescu says, that hes in favor of
it but its not enough money. But the fact of the
matter is as --
MS. REAGAN: Its not that its not enough
money, Your Honor. Its that this contract requires
him to bring a sizeable amount of money to the contract
and he doesnt have it. So he cant sign it. He

Colloquy 27
doesnt have the money to bring.
THE COURT: As I said, its about not enough
money. When you boil it all down, it becomes not
enough money. However, we can solve that problem
easily. That problem, if its -- if that is the
problem, we could have an arrangement made and work out
that -- that financial matter down the road. There
will be equitable distribution, there will be ways to
do that, but do I want to take up -- I -- so now were
going down a road, I chose this. Maybe I should back
off.
Dr. Sullivan, there is a psychological
dynamic to the sale of the house, correct?
DR. SULLIVAN: Very much so.
THE COURT: And so I am aware of -- Ill say
it this way. I am aware that all three of the experts
are unanimously in favor for the best interest of the
children of selling this house. The economics of it
will be a problem well have to work out. Can -- will
that suffice to say or do we need more from Dr.
Sullivan?
MS. MARSHALL: As long as -- well, I think
Dr. Sullivan mentioned this morning that Dr. Ionescu
seemed somewhat less ready to move forward with the
sale of the house because of the neighborhood, because
of perceiving, perhaps, that it is Dr. Alexianu who is
pushing that. We even had a little discussion about
the fact that the parties told the children or sat in

Colloquy 28
the room while I told the children their parents had
agreed on it.
But I think my impression from Dr. Sullivan
was that Dr. Ionescu was reluctant to leave that house,
perhaps for understandable reasons, but we didnt hear
about economic reasons this morning.
Am I quoting you incorrectly, Dr. Sullivan?
DR. SULLIVAN: Yeah, I mean he was
(indiscernible) of their home, their neighborhood.
THE COURT: Dr. -- Dr. Sullivan. Youre
chopping up.
DR. SULLIVAN: Oh, sorry.
THE COURT: Im not sure the cause thereof,
but could you repeat exactly what you said if possible.
DR. SULLIVAN: Dr. Ionescu is much more in
touch with the loss associated with the sale of the
house for the kids and therefore, you know, it -- it
was a much more difficult thing to -- to sort of
support that happening. Maria -- I much -- I much --
it would be much easier for me to use first names
because I never use their last names.
THE COURT: I can deal with that, thank you.
DR. SULLIVAN: Maria felt that it was a -- a
very important thing to accomplish, you know, rather
than later for a variety of reasons. Therein, they are
not in the same place. They have some, therefore, some
dispute about that whenever at this point in -- in this
situation theres a disagreement between the parents.

Colloquy 29
The kids are typically going to be involved
and that they also aligned with Dad as this being a
loss and theyre going to be angry at their mom. Its
sort of more of the same. A parents ability to deal
with that dynamic, which leaves Mom sort of the bad
actor is inadequate at this point. And therefore it
just perpetuates the dynamic. So these situations need
to be resolved and to move through their property and
support just to get -- and -- and time-share issues to
get resolution. Because how theyre not solved, Mom is
going to -- Mom is going to (indiscernible) these
disagreements.
I -- I dont anticipate that they have the
capacity together, whole creation of this to help the
kids deal with the losses in a way that they can feel
like not one parents fault and -- and not the other.
So, I mean, thats sort of a basic dynamic that --
thats operating around the house.
THE COURT: How would, if I may inquire, and
Dr. Sullivan some of your words are being lost, which
means when we make a transcript it might be suspect,
and I dont know how to solve that problem. But how --
how would the children get a sense that it is Maria
that wants the house sold more than Adrian? Where
would that come from?
DR. SULLIVAN: Well, just -- first of all,
just the fact that the house needs to be sold, the kids
are going to assume that thats -- thats Mom -- any --

Colloquy 30
any kind of loss or any kind of difficulty, the kids
are going to assume that Mom has -- has created that
situation.
THE COURT: Okay. The word difficulty
chopped up so Im repeating it for the record.
DR. SULLIVAN: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
DR. SULLIVAN: So that is certainly part of
it. And the kids are involved in these issues more
than they should be. They do -- they do seem to have a
sense around these issues about where Moms at and
where Dad is at. And in this case, very true that Mom
has expressed to us that, you know, the sooner the
house is sold the better. And Dad has said, you know,
its really a shame that this has to happen. So the
fact -- the fact that the kids resonate with those --
with those feelings of Dad, again, puts Mom in a bad
light in their -- in their eyes.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Marshall, do you have any questions you
want to ask of Dr. Sullivan?
MS. MARSHALL: I do not, Judge.
THE COURT: Ms. Reagan, do you have any
questions you want to ask Dr. Sullivan?
MS. REAGAN: Only to point out that maybe we
could go back to where we were before we took the house
detour and get back to this list of things, and that
way we can have all of this stuff in front of us.

Sullivan - Voir Dire/Reagan 31
THE COURT: The house is a -- apparently an
integral part of the parenting program, and I -- I want
to get back to that. So if you want to ask him
questions on any other topics, you may.
VOIR DIRE BY MS. REAGAN:
Q Well, I mean this morning, Dr. Sullivan, we
-- you gave us an assessment of how everybody
participated, and I want the judge to understand what
you said that A.J. -- how would you describe A.J.s
participation in the course of Overcoming Barriers?
A I think he was engaged in the program in a -- in a
meaningful way, followed the advice and directives of
the staff around supporting the connection at the camp
with Mom. He was also in the group of favored parents,
one of the -- the more moderating members of that group
trying to help the parents vilify the other parents,
you know, reconsider that for the benefit of the kids.
I think, you know, that that -- that was all positive.
And, you know, he had some limitations, some of
his -- his concerns about Mom that -- that made it
difficult to fully support their -- their connection,
but processing that with that throughout the week it --
it made me feel optimistic about if you have the right
structured place therapeutically to get through these
structural issues, money, support, house, that he can
be a contribution to moving the situation in a better
direction.
THE COURT: And the word that got chopped up,

which I thought you said was positive.
DR. SULLIVAN: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay.
Ms. Ceconi, do you have any questions?
MS. CECONI: I do.
Q Dr. Sullivan, how many sessions did you have
jointly with the parties?
A We had I want to say three, but it may have -- it
may have just been two. So two or three that --
Q And what are -- Im sorry.
A Go ahead.
Q And what are the duration of those meetings?
A Theyre an hour.
Q And was the issue raised about Dr. Ionescu
going to therapy with Dr. Alexianu to address the
family issues?
A Not specifically, no. That the -- the document
that you have provides -- are you talking about
historically in the past or moving forward?
Q During these sessions, didnt Dr. Alexianu
ask that Dr. -- or let me do Maria and Adrian to make
it easier for you. Didnt Maria ask Adrian to go to
therapy with her?
A I believe so. Yeah.
Q And didnt he refuse?
A He had -- he had serious reservations as I do,
quite frankly.
Q And how does Adrian support Maria in the
presence of the children?
A He will, for instance, he will -- he will direct
them to engage in an activity. Hell say, Were going
to sit down to dinner with your mom, and I want you to
do this. Youre going to go and were going to play
basketball -- were going to play basketball, and I
want you to do this.
Q And was that all at the staffs suggestion?
A Yes.
Q Did you notice any voluntary action on his
part to support the children with their mother?
A I dont recall any.
THE COURT: And, Dr. Sullivan, I just want to
double check.
Dr. Woolock, are you still there?
DR. WOOLOCK: I am, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Dr. Montgomery, are you still there?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Okay. I didnt know whether, you
know, with technology the way we are whether we lost
anyone.
Dr. Sullivan, were there any behaviors that
you noticed from Dr. Alexianu that may have been
deleterious to her relationship with the children?
DR. SULLIVAN: Sure. Or at least deleterious
to the current situation. You know, she had an

Sullivan - Voir Dire/Woolock 34
attitude that -- that was not realistic about where
they currently are, and it was manifested in saying,
for instance, Why dont we just get into some
counseling. All we need to do is -- is talk. There
was a sense of why is this going on? Why cant we
just, you know, sort of change this by being
reasonable? And -- and thats just not the -- the path
by which theyre going to move out of their current
dynamic. So sort of not being attuned and realistic to
the fact that -- that, (A), you know, they -- theyve
dug -- theyve dug, you know, a ditch together that
they need to arduously sort of move out of. Its not
going to be a quick fix. And, (B), that her attitudes
were that if there are any issues, its not -- its not
her that, you know, if Adrian just -- just gives her
alone time and non-intruded time with the kids that
things will be fine, which, you know, in large measure
I agree with. The boundaries need to be much better,
and I talk about how -- how that might happen.
But her skill at dealing with the kids as
they currently are, fairly rejecting, fairly critical,
I think needs some assistance. That she -- she has to
be better than just, an, you know, an average parent,
otherwise things are not going to move in a better
direction. And -- and we didnt have a sense that when
she was handling the situation of the kids rejection
that -- that she had as much skill as it would be good
for her to have in order to deal with -- with what will

Sullivan - Voir Dire/Woolock 35
be tough. It will be a -- tough reality for at least
the next few months as they, you know, move back into
their life and this respect hopefully happens.
THE COURT: Does either Dr. Woolock or Dr.
Montgomery wish to ask any questions of Dr. Sullivan?
Starting in the order of Dr. Woolock.
VOIR DIRE BY DR. WOOLOCK:
Q Dr. Sullivan, you mentioned basically that
both parents were participating in the process, and
that you were --
THE COURT: Could you keep your voice up, Dr.
Woolock, please. Thank you.
DR. WOOLOCK: Yes.
Q Dr. Sullivan, you mentioned that both parents
were actively engaged in the process and so you were
somewhat optimistic that things could be worked out
with the right structure over time in the right
therapeutic processes. And you mentioned that you
thought that the -- that time-sharing arrangement would
be somewhere between 50-50 and 30-70. Were you
thinking of any party -- one party more than the other
leaning towards the 70?
A I wasnt. And, you know, Ive made it clear that
-- that Im in no position, you know, to make specific
time-share recommendations. My -- my thoughts about
the time-share in general came out of the fact that we
did not observe, despite the intensification of the
dynamics in the camp, that -- that either parent

Colloquy 36
represented, you know, a significant danger to the
kids, that their -- their -- their skills were at such
a level they shouldnt have, you know, meaningful time
with the kids.
So it came more out of that, but -- but Im really
in no position to say beyond that. And -- and that
then means, you know, a shared arrangement, which I --
I, you know, consider to be in this, you know, 30-
percent to 50-percent arrangement. But beyond that,
who might have more of a waiting, more -- be more
primary, thats beyond the scope of -- of what I can
comment on.
Dr. Montgomery, did you want to ask Dr.
Sullivan any questions?
DR. MONTGOMERY: No, I actually dont have
any.
THE COURT: Okay.
DR. MONTGOMERY: I -- I thought he very
comprehensively went over the program and his
observations this morning.
THE COURT: Ms. Reagan, do you want any
questions of Dr. Sullivan?
MS. REAGAN: Quickly.
Q We discussed this morning the Rachel
Foundation, and you opined that you didnt recommend
it. Could you expand on that for the judge who has to
make that decision now?
A I -- I dont believe that -- that a -- a sort of
founded, sequestered time with -- with Mom to -- to
have with the kids and to rebuild a relationship and
then because that would be the promise, and then moving
back to some kind of shared arrangement would benefit
the kids. You know, I -- I think that with -- with
some kind of shared arrangement, with meaningful access
to both parents, that the efforts need to be made to --
to bound and compartmentalize that so that the
influences of Dad that are thought to undermine Moms
relationship are dealt with in -- in real life, (A).
And, (B), I think that the -- the order to -- to have
the Rachel Foundation program implemented will be
extremely traumatic for the kids from an attachment
standpoint as they will be, you know, they will not
have contact with Dad. They have a very -- a very, you
know, important (indiscernible) with him, and that
damage as it plays out will be more deleterious than --
than not. So I feel --
THE COURT: Could -- could you -- Im sorry
to interrupt you. Could you repeat the last statement
again, because a lot of it chopped up.
A Uh-huh. Well, what I -- what I was saying is that
there are attachment issues in this case. The kids
attachment to both parents, it was our belief in the
observations that we had and looking at some of the
history, are not that solid and healthy. And when you
start -- when you start -- and that was one of the
reasons that we thought that whatever the schedule is,
more frequent access to both parents would be in -- in
the service of strengthening and getting more secure
(indiscernible).
THE COURT: More secure what?
DR. SULLIVAN: Both bonds.
THE COURT: Both bonds. Okay.
A So, you know, if youre going to implement an
intervention that -- thats going to -- going to remove
one of the parents from the kids lives for a
significant period of time from their perspective,
youre going to do -- youre going to do more damage to
that -- that -- that already sort of concerning
attachment bond.
Ms. Marshall, any questions of Mr. Sullivan?
Dr. Sullivan.
MS. MARSHALL: No.
THE COURT: I hate to ask Ms. Ceconi because
I know she does. Ms. Ceconi, any questions for Dr.
Sullivan?
MS. CECONI: I do.
Q Dr. Sullivan, what do you consider to be a
significant period of time?
A Well, I think that already a -- a two-week
interval is too much time for them to be away from

either parent.
THE COURT: So following up that question,
would you say one week would be not as significant?
DR. SULLIVAN: It would be not as
significant, and then it gets hard to sort of, you
know, know at that level whether there -- theres a
downside from an attachment standpoint.
THE COURT: So theres a down -- if we were
to go from a two-week, two-week, to a one-week, one-
week, there is an upside, but theres also a downside?
DR. SULLIVAN: I dont see the downside as
long as what I talked about in the morning and have in
my -- and -- and be (indiscernible) create a
recommendation that there is much more structural
disengagement between the kids and the other parent
during those periods.
THE COURT: Okay. I -- I get what youre
saying.
Ms. Ceconi, Ill give you another minute or
two if you have any significant questions because I
know that we can always access Dr. Sullivan again.
BY MS. CECONI:
Q Dr. Sullivan, when you -- you think that the
two-week interval, and -- and I -- Im looking at the
-- the Rachel Foundation, if the children were to go
with their mother, and youre saying you think two
weeks is too significant a period of time, what do you
think the -- whats the basis for that?

A The basis is -- is -- is just what I have said.
That -- that -- that I think that that pushes the
separation from either parent. But at this point Dad
were talking about too -- too much, and -- and the bad
does damage. And, you know, it -- it may not be
manifested in his relations -- the way it may stand
manifested I should say in his relationship with the
kids is more impurity and therefore more idealization
and more clinging and more anger at Mom.
Q But do you think that the attachment to an
alienating parent is good for the child?
A No. Any more than the attachment with a rejected
parent is good for the child. What were trying to do
is to -- is to work toward an attachment with both
parents thats healthier.
THE COURT: Anything else at this time, Ms.
Ceconi?
MS. CECONI: No.
THE COURT: Ms. Marshall?
MS. MARSHALL: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Reagan.
MS. REAGAN: Just briefly.
Q Are there other objections besides the amount
of time at a place like the Rachel Foundation or the --
or is it also the fact that one parent is so excluded
in that process thats problematic.
A I dont know enough about the program itself to

comment on whether the program comes out of -- out of
evidence-based and -- and good literature about how to
work in these situations. So I just dont know at that
level, but I do have a concern that youre only
treating, you know, part of a family system. So, you
know, thats -- thats one of the critical components
of our program. (Indiscernible).
THE COURT: Okay. The last sentence is
chopping up. One of the critical components of your
program is --
DR. SULLIVAN: That we structure it so that
we have the whole family system present.
THE COURT: Thank you. I have a question,
Dr. Sullivan. Do you have the iPhone 4? Is that what
youre working on?
DR. SULLIVAN: No, its the IPhone 3. Even
though Im in Palo Alto here.
THE COURT: All right. Im just wondering if
the chop up had to do with their failure of having the
antenna problem solved.
DR. SULLIVAN: I think -- no, its the AT&T
service that we can blame it on. They -- its
terrible. And we were sort of stuck with it if we used
an IPhone. So --
THE COURT: Okay.
Unless Dr. Woolock or Dr. Montgomery, you
have any other questions of Dr. Sullivan, Im going to
thank him for his time and release him from this phone
conversation. Although Ms. Ceconi raised her hand.
She says she has one more question.
MS. CECONI: Thats all right.
So go ahead, Ms. Ceconi.
Q Dr. Sullivan, are you aware that the Rachel
Foundation involves the alienating parent?
A Im not.
Q Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay.
Ms. Marshall stands. Hold on.
VOIR DIRE BY MS. MARSHALL:
Q Dr. Sullivan, am I -- am I recollecting
correctly that your -- one of your recommendations was
that there needs to be certainty for these children
about the time sharing and that it needs to start right
away? Because I think what you said is the children
need to get to how to cope rather than how to make a
change in a reality that they dont like. Is that
accurate?
A Very accurate and very critical.
Q So it would seem more -- or would it seem
more in keeping with your recommendations, with your
clinical understanding, that a parenting arrangement be
put in place in New Jersey with therapeutic supports
that we know you recommended and can share with the
Court rather than the children going to any kind of
program that theyre going to be thinking how can we

Sullivan - Voir Dire/Marshall 43
get out of this or make a change or get through it?
A That would be a downside, if you would. That --
that we actually had to deal with in -- in our program,
and one would think they would, too, if -- if the
family went to another program and the -- these --
these issues remained certain for them.
Q Thank you.
Dr. Montgomery or Dr. Woolock, any questions
of Dr. Sullivan?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Not really.
DR. WOOLOCK: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Dr. Sullivan, I want to
take this opportunity to thank you, not only on behalf
of the parties but on behalf of the Court for your
excellent service to these two children. It is greatly
appreciated. Your program is obviously well thought
out, and I thank you for your time. And I hope that we
are able to build on some of your expertise. You can
enjoy Palo Alto, California now. Id like Dr. Woolock
and Dr. Montgomery to stay on the line to the extent we
might need them.
Thank you so much, sir.
DR. SULLIVAN: Thank you all.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Matt.
DR. WOOLOCK: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Assuming Dr. Sullivan
gets off, he wont disconnect Dr. Woolock and Dr.

Colloquy 44
Montgomery, but we dont know. We still have you on?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. I at this moment would
like to find out what we are going to do by way of
agreement with respect to the next step of the
parenting plan for these children. I am told by Ms.
Marshall, and no ones objected, that we have made some
substantial strides. Both of you have made
recommendations youre in agreement with. So I think
we were at the stop where Ms. Marshall, if you would
like to state what the parties have agreed to through
their experts. Well, Im assuming -- no?
MS. MARSHALL: The parties have reached no
agreement, Judge. The experts --
THE COURT: The parties have reached no
agreement.
MS. MARSHALL: -- the parties have not
agreed. The experts have made recommendations that I
think as guardian ad litem the Court should hear.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MARSHALL: And -- and the parties have
made no agreements, but if I may, I would like to at
least tell the Court --
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. MARSHALL: -- and while the experts are
on the phone so they can tell me if I have it wrong,
where the agreements are and where the disagreements,
and they are few, lie.

Colloquy 45
THE COURT: Well, lets -- lets go with the
agreements. The parties -- the -- Im sorry, not the
parties. The parties retained experts agree as
follows.
Go ahead.
MS. MARSHALL: They agree that the time
sharing should be equal, and I believe that they
believe it should be 50-50 equal.
They believe it should be a shorter interval
of time but not as short as Dr. Sullivan recommended.
They currently believe that a week on and a week off
would be the appropriate interval of time.
Theyve also recommended, and by the way,
they believe that going forward, not just immediately
or to close a gap, I think they believe that that is
the appropriate recommendation for this family now and
for the foreseeable future.
They believe that for August, the parties
should each have a period of time with just one child,
although they disagree whether it should be three days
or one week. They would like jointly that both of the
parties have, for example, Dr. Alexianu would have
Anna, Dr. Ionescu would have Alex for either three days
or a week, and then they would trade. And then after
that, the week-on-week-off time-sharing would begin and
continue into the future.
They agree with the recommendation of
Overcoming Barriers for a parent coordinator, and I

Colloquy 46
believe they agree that the parent coordinator would be
charged with those areas that Overcoming Barriers has
recommended. They are going to create and generate a
list of potential parent coordinators, and they are
hoping that there will be a mediated solution about
which parent coordinator is chosen.
They believe that it is in the best interest
of the children to sell the house as soon as possible.
As I think I said they accept that the children will
go back to the house, they feel, as I believe Dr.
Sullivan did, that the children need to sort of mourn
and close out their attachment to the house and -- and
move on.
They agree that -- that the parent who is not
living in the house in Westfield with the children for
his or her week should not be near that house. They
disagree about the distance. Dr. Woolock feels that no
one should live on the block, on the street, on a
contiguous street, or the street on either side. And
Dr. Montgomery feels that -- that neither party should
live within a mile. They also both feel that neither
of the parties should be visiting the neighbors or the
street or the neighborhood during the parenting time of
the other one.
They said they feel very strongly that the
Rachel Foundation is not appropriate, that they are in
accord with Dr. Sullivan in that regard. And they feel
the case should be therapeutically dealt with in New

Colloquy 47
Jersey.
So that Your Honor is aware, Dr. Sullivan
recommended that the children and the parties have his
and her own therapist. He is not opposed to the fact
that the children have started with therapists already,
but he believes the parent coordinator needs to be the
person to coordinate all of the therapies, boundarying
(sic) appropriately the childrens therapists from
disclosing so that the childrens therapy is private as
they have been told it will be.
THE COURT: We have put that into place
already, have we not?
MS. MARSHALL: We have, but Dr. Sullivan
feels there needs to be a coordinating parent
coordinator who will communicate on a regular basis
with all four therapists so that the recommendations
for the therapeutic treatment going forward are carried
out. And Dr. Sullivan said that if these children --
if the therapy isnt handled correctly by the time
these children get to be 16 or so, theyll be
effectively therapy resistant. Theyll -- it just will
no longer have the opportunity to work. So I think he
felt that there needed to be this parent coordinator
who will oversee the therapies as well as make
decisions about exchanges and so on.
The reason the experts think a week rather
than the shorter time Dr. Sullivan thought was because
of transitions, which the experts seemed to agree are

Colloquy 48
difficult for this family.
The areas of disagreement, and they relate
closely to the areas of agreement, and they arent --
they arent very vast at all, they agree that the party
who does not have the children should also not have
contact with the children when theyre with the other
parent.
THE COURT: They disagree on this point or
agree?
MS. MARSHALL: They agree -- they agree that
there should be no contact, no phone, to texts, et
cetera, except that Dr. Woolock feels there should be
two 15-minute phone calls per week with the other
parent, and that is absolutely all. And Dr. Montgomery
feels there should be absolutely none. But Dr.
Montgomery did say that if Dr. Woolock is concerned
that a week is too long to go without contact with a
parent, she would then be more inclined to Dr.
Sullivans proposal, which was Monday and Tuesday with
one parent, Tuesday and Wednesday with another, and
alternate weekends because she feels so strongly that
the no contact is appropriate.
The only other area of disagreement was Dr.
Woolock feels strongly that the children should remain
in the same school system, and Dr. Montgomery feels
that thats not necessary. In fact, it might even be
constructive if they moved out of the school system.
THE COURT: Im sorry, Dr. Montgomery

Colloquy 49
believes same school?
MS. MARSHALL: She feels its not necessary.
Dr. Woolock believes same school system. Dr.
Montgomery believes thats not necessary and it might
even be constructive if they moved out of the school
system.
And I think its fair to say that they feel
that these recommendations, and I think Dr. Sullivan
was very clear, that -- that there needs to be an
arrangement put in place now because the children
believe that they can change their -- the outcome of
this. And I -- as speaking as guardian ad litem, I
think we saw that in Your Honors chambers with the
interview. I certainly saw it from day one of the --
of the guardian ad litem process, that they believe
they can lobby; they did it with their school
principal, their guidance counselors, they believe they
can lobby and intervene and create their own existence.
And Dr. Sullivan I think focused on the fact that they
need to move through this instead of feeling that they
are responsible for this and can fix it and get it the
way they want. They need to be told this is the way
your life is in order, and -- and then they can go on
with coping and healing.
And -- and I think it was, speaking as
guardian ad litem, remarkable and -- and wonderful for
these children that Dr. Sullivan, Dr. Woolock, and Dr.
Ryan Montgomery were within very small gradients of

Colloquy 50
complete agreement with each other. And that may not
be perceived by either party as a good thing or a good
outcome, but as the guardian ad litem, I certainly
think it presages a very hopeful outcome for the
children.
Dr. Montgomery, did Ms. Marshall state the
agreements and disagreements accurately?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, she certainly did.
Well put.
THE COURT: Dr. Woolock, do you state that --
that Ms. Marshall stated the agreements and
disagreements accurately?
DR. WOOLOCK: I -- Id say that with almost
my complete understanding with two minor exceptions.
THE COURT: Would you care to state those two
minor exceptions?
DR. WOOLOCK: Yes. There was -- it was well-
stated that the -- that we recommended some sort of
separate time with each child and then a switch,
whether its in a week -- for a week or two. But we
also recommended that each party have the right to have
up to a week family vacation with both children
together during the summer.
THE COURT: I see Ms. Marshall is amending
her notes right now. I think she -- she forgot that.
MS. MARSHALL: I -- I had a hard time
understanding how the vacation was working.

Colloquy 51
DR. WOOLOCK: And then if there -- I dont
know if there will be enough time at this point, but
thats what we -- I believe that was our idea.
And then the second minor understanding that
I had was that I was recommending that the children be
-- continue in the same school, which I believe has
been excellent for them. But that -- another
possibility was to remain in a different middle school
but in the same school system. But just to clarify, I
was recommending not to stay, merely remain in the same
Westfield school system but not in the same middle
school.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Oh, I missed that, too.
THE COURT: Okay.
DR. MONTGOMERY: I dont think I heard you
say that.
DR. WOOLOCK: Oh.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
THE COURT: Good.
I think what we should do, it is now 4:30. I
dont know that we can extract anything else from Dr.
Woolock and Dr. Montgomery, although its possible we
can extract a lot more. But I want to extract one more
thing from them.
When do you now perceive you might be able to
submit your final recommendations? In other words, I
think we dont have a final report from you, and my
sense is that the matter -- I cant get away from the

Colloquy 52
thought that the parties are going to litigate this no
matter what happens. Im sorry, that seems to be a
sense Im getting. So I gather were going to need
your reports.
Tell me when we can expect them.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Well, realistically for me
Im gone almost all of August and not back here until
after Labor Day.
THE COURT: Okay.
DR. MONTGOMERY: So sometime in the fall?
THE COURT: So that -- sometime in the fall I
hear?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
THE COURT: And what do I hear from Dr.
Woolock?
DR. WOOLOCK: I can have mine whenever Dr.
Montgomery is ready with hers.
THE COURT: All right. So, Dr. Montgomery,
how about I give you both the requirement to have your
final reports by September 15th?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Its probably not going to
be enough time because that only gives me one week.
THE COURT: All right.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Because I dont get back
here until the 7th.
THE COURT: Cant you work on vacation?
Arent you like lawyers, like everybody else?
DR. MONTGOMERY: The file will sit in my car.

Colloquy 53
THE COURT: All right. September 30th?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Probably at the earliest.
That sounds okay.
THE COURT: Well, I also anticipate Dr.
Woolock is going to send his the same time. September
30th is now 60 days, give or take from now, and we
should be closing in on something because the parties
-- we need to do something. So Im going to ask you
also whether you have been paid and whether, Dr.
Woolock, you have been paid so you can complete your
reports.
And then Im going to ask Ms. Marshall a
question, but we dont need to hold Ms. -- Dr. Woolock,
Dr. Montgomery.
Do you need any more money from your client
to finish the report, Dr. Montgomery?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, indeed.
THE COURT: How much do you want?
DR. MONTGOMERY: I have no -- you know what,
its a guesstimation. I have no idea how many hours
its going to take me. Its going to be a long report
though. I would say probably 20 hours plus.
THE COURT: Okay. What do you get an hour?
DR. MONTGOMERY: Three hundred.
THE COURT: So I have a calculator here.
MS. CECONI: Six thousand, Judge.
THE COURT: Ms. Ceconis calculating in her
head.
Colloquy 54
THE COURT: Six thousand dollars. So --
DR. MONTGOMERY: Thats -- thats really
probably minimum, low side, but --
THE COURT: Okay. Well, lets -- lets -- at
least its on the table.
So Dr. Alexianu knows that she is going to
have to send you $6,000.
Dr. Woolock, what do you think if anything
you need to -- from your client to finish the report?
DR. WOOLOCK: Well, my client gave me a
retainer, and as I go along, you know, Im having to
charge for like today and so forth. But aside from
that, he has been paying as we go. So I -- I dont
really need to formalize it in that way unless I need
to.
THE COURT: Okay. Then I -- then I will
assume that -- because Ive been in this situation
before --
DR. WOOLOCK: Yes.
THE COURT: -- where some experts, rightfully
so, do not want to release their report until theyve
been paid for their work. And I do not wish that to be
an impediment to where we are. So if you are telling
me that that is something you can deal with, I dont
have to deal with it anymore. Thank you for that
courtesy.
DR. WOOLOCK: Okay.
THE COURT: Im going to release -- unless

Colloquy 55
someone has a better idea -- Dr. Woolock and Dr.
Montgomery from the phone. Going once, going twice,
gone.
Thank you, Dr. Woolock.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Bye all.
MS. MARSHALL: Thank you.
DR. WOOLOCK: Can I just say one other thing?
THE COURT: Hold it. One other thing.
Yes, Dr. Woolock.
DR. WOOLOCK: I would suggest that we both be
required to release our report to the parties or the
Court on the same day.
THE COURT: I -- I have indicated that same
day is the 30th of September.
DR. WOOLOCK: Okay.
MS. CECONI: Excuse me, Judge, we dont even
know if we choose to rely on our own experts report.
THE COURT: I didnt say the Court.
MS. CECONI: Okay. Well, I think Dr. Woolock
said the Court.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, to tell you the
truth, you -- the -- the -- the experts work for their
clients. I would expect theyre going to release their
reports to their own lawyers. I cannot conceive,
although I have to admit my mind is small, I cannot
conceive how the report could be released to a lawyer
and then not sent to an adversary because the rules of
discovery do indicate that reports are to be shared

Colloquy 56
between parties, counsel, even if they are not going to
be witnesses. I do recollect something like that in
the discovery rules.
MS. CECONI: Not your own expert if you
choose not to rely upon it.
THE COURT: Well, that will raise some very
interesting legal questions if we have to end up one
side subpoenaing the other persons expert, and theres
case law on that. But I dont know, and I choose not
to go there.
But the point is correct, the reports should
be released to counsel not to the Court. And to the
guardian ad litem, I think.
MS. CECONI: No. No, Judge. Its a
privately retained expert.
THE COURT: Well, you know, I suppose, but
then you run the risk of the inferences the Court will
draw ultimately because the Court has the right to draw
inferences as I understand. Absolutely on that one Im
right.
MS. CECONI: No.
THE COURT: I know that if there is a witness
that is expected to testify, expert or not, and who was
available who doesnt testify, I can draw an inference
eventually, State v. Clawlens (phonetic) is the
criminal case, and there is a couple in civil, and I
suspect down the road if we face that issue, I could.
But we could debate that. Were not in the Appellate

Colloquy 57
Division now.
The reports are going to the lawyers. And I
will amend, Not to the guardian ad litem. If the
guardian ad litem wants them, I suspect well have to
deal with it.
MS. MARSHALL: Can I request that if we are
only going to have one report that we know that with
some certainty?
THE COURT: Well, we wont know --
MS. MARSHALL: Until -- until the 30th?
THE COURT: I expect the parties wont know
--
MS. MARSHALL: Until --
THE COURT: -- what they want to do with
their own expert until such time as theyve read the
report.
MS. MARSHALL: Okay.
THE COURT: So I expect thats something that
you may -- you may want to figure out.
MS. MARSHALL: Itll be a surprise.
THE COURT: But, look, I hate to have to
figure that out and at the same time you want me to
make all these decisions about the parenting of the
children, selling of the house, what were going to do,
equitable distribution. And if you want to take a side
trip somewhere else down discovery land, Im -- Im
free to do that ultimately. And I think we certainly
have to account for the possibility that that could

Colloquy 58
happen. We also have to account for the possibility
that there might be depositions of the experts, too. I
cant rule out anything at this point in time. But, I
mean, this is the parties litigation. Its not mine.
But as long as the file sits in my -- my court, Ive
got an obligation to make the decisions that are placed
before me.
So the next decision I have to make is can we
release Dr. Woolock and Dr. Montgomery from the phone?
MS. CECONI: Yes.
MS. MARSHALL: Yes.
MS. REAGAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Yes?
DR. WOOLOCK: Thank you, Your Honor.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Ms. -- Dr. -- Dr. Montgomery, have a nice
vacation.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Happy summer.
THE COURT: Dr. Woolock, have a nice August.
DR. WOOLOCK: Take care, Your Honor.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Take care.
DR. MONTGOMERY: Bye bye.
THE COURT: Bye bye.
DR. WOOLOCK: Bye bye.
(Phone is hung up)
THE COURT: Okay. Were still on the record,

Colloquy 59
and Im going to try and do one more thing because I
think it will help in the ultimate component. I need
to talk about the sale of this house.
The contract price that I was told is
$650,000. What I do not know is what the current
mortgage balance is.
MS. REAGAN: Six-hundred-and-sixty.
THE COURT: Six-sixty.
MS. REAGAN: Sixty-six? Something around
there.
THE COURT: Is that -- can we stipulate on a
number? Does anyone know?
MS. CECONI: Six-sixty, Judge. We can
stipulate.
THE COURT: Six-hundred-and-sixty-thousand
dollars. Which means that there are going to have to
be $10,000 brought to the closing just to cover the
mortgage.
MS. CECONI: More than that, Judge.
THE COURT: Well, I said just to cover the
mortgage.
MS. CECONI: Yeah. Oh, just to cover. Im
sorry. Right.
THE COURT: Obviously theres going to be
more for closing costs, escrows, whatever else.
Is that right?
MS. REAGAN: Yes.
MS. CECONI: Yes.

Colloquy 60
THE COURT: So the problem is the $10,000,
yes?
MS. REAGAN: Plus, since Mr. Klausners here,
the rest of it is going to be that, so its -- yeah.
THE COURT: Well, the difference -- if -- if
Mr. Klausner produces a -- a buyer ready, willing, and
able at 650,000, and he has a commission --
Mr. Klausner, what would the commission be?
MR. KLAUSNER: Commission is five percent,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Point-oh-five times --
MR. KLAUSNER: And thats divided between
myself and another realtor. Im not the selling
realtor.
MS. CECONI: Uh-huh. Judge, that would
produce a 42,500-dollar combined loss between the
mortgage and the brokers fee.
THE COURT: Ive got a $33,000 for the
commission and ten for the -- so I get forty-three.
What did you say, forty-two-five?
MS. CECONI: Forty-two-five. I -- I just
took six-fifty times 95 percent less --
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I -- I took --
MS. CECONI: Less six-sixty.
THE COURT: -- I got 33,000 for a commission.
MS. CECONI: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Ten-thousand, so $43,000 to be
split between the parties. And if I divide forty-three

Colloquy 61
-- lets -- lets -- may I round up to forty-five for
the sake of discussion?
MS. REAGAN: Absolutely because we have legal
fees. Think of the other things.
THE COURT: So if I went to 50,000 for the --
MS. CECONI: You could go to fifty.
THE COURT: -- sake of our discussion, each
party, if this is a 50-50 split, each party is looking
at a loss of $25,000. Is that a fair starting spot?
MS. CECONI: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Reagan?
MS. REAGAN: Forty-five thousand? Yes.
THE COURT: I went to fifty.
MS. REAGAN: Oh, you went to fifty? Yeah,
fifty -- Im sorry. My client is distracting me.
THE COURT: Half of fifty is twenty-five.
MS. REAGAN: Yes, fifty is fine.
THE COURT: So let me fast forward to
equitable distribution. We have a house in Romania or
property in Romania. We have --
MS. CECONI: Two.
MS. REAGAN: We have two. We have an
apartment and a house.
MS. CECONI: Two.
THE COURT: Okay. We have a pension that Ms.
-- that Dr. Ionescu has from the State of New Jersey --
Im sorry, hes at a private --
MS. REAGAN: A private college.

Colloquy 62
THE COURT: I thought -- I keep thinking its
Kane University, but its not.
MS. REAGAN: Its Wagner.
MS. CECONI: Wagner.
THE COURT: Its Staten Island -- Wagner on
Staten Island, which is a private 401 --
Is it a defined benefit or a defined --
MS. CECONI: Its a TIAA-CREF account, which
--
THE COURT: Okay. But thats --
MS. CECONI: -- has both components.
THE COURT: -- going to be subject -- thats
going to be subject to equitable distribution.
MS. CECONI: Correct.
MS. REAGAN: But it is subject to equitable
distribution, Your Honor, but he cannot currently touch
it. They wont let him borrow against it, just so we
know.
THE COURT: Im not asking. Im making a
mental inventory of how to solve the problem.
MS. REAGAN: Okay.
THE COURT: We have an asset that he has,
which will be subject to equitable distribution. We
have two pieces of real estate in Romania, subject to
equitable distribution. I assume theres equity there,
although I shouldnt assume that.
And then we have the practice that Dr.
Alexianu has together with whatever retirement assets

Colloquy 63
she has. I would assume that theres going to be a
discussion on the valuation of the practice. And we
havent even gotten there. Weve always been focused
on the children. But at some point in time we have to
deal with that, and if the practice has 50,000 in value
for the sake of discussion, or well use the word good
will under Dugan v. (phonetic) --
Is that the name of the case? Dugan v. --
MS. CECONI: Dugan.
THE COURT: Dugan v. Dugan and the IRS
revenue ruling whatever it is. But ultimately thats a
problem in the case.
Correct, Ms. Ceconi?
MS. CECONI: Its an issue in the case,
Judge.
THE COURT: Its an issue. When I say
problem I -- I stand corrected. Its an issue.
There is an asset subject to equitable
distribution. May I assume, of course the longer this
case goes maybe the less value there is in the
practice, I dont know. Thats -- thats --
MS. CECONI: Theres a lot of debt against
the business, Judge, but theres $400,000 in retirement
assets between the parties.
THE COURT: So would it be fair to assume
that the parties in the overall distribution of the
wealth between them, if we take this house out of the
mix momentarily, and would it be fair to assume that at

Colloquy 64
this moment Dr. Alexianu has more of the asset wealth
by virtue of the fact she has a medical practice, which
may be subject to equitable distribution, even though
there is debt? Not a fair statement?
MS. CECONI: No, Judge. She has 200,000-
dollar debt against the business.
THE COURT: Well, if the business -- if the
business is worth 20 million dollars, $200,000 worth of
debt is not -- is insignificant. If the business is
worth $100,000, it is significant.
MS. CECONI: I -- I think were talking about
the significant aspect that you just gave in your
hypotheticals.
THE COURT: Right. So hypothetically if the
practice is worth two-hundred and it has debt of two-
hundred, there is no value. But if the practice is
valued at 500,000 and theres debt of 200,000, then you
have in theory 300,000 of an asset subject to equitable
distribution. If we were doing 50-50, that would be
divided in some fashion, if its 50-50.
What Im getting to is very possibly a
possibility that Dr. Alexianu may in some portion front
some of this difference and then work it out in the
back end. Thats a thought I have. Do you understand
what Im saying?
MS. CECONI: I know exactly what youre
saying, Judge. She just --
THE COURT: Is that something we should

Colloquy 65
discuss?
MS. CECONI: No. I think what we can discuss
is liquidating one of the IRAs or liquidating --
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CECONI: -- because I think thats the
only cash thats available at this point in time.
THE COURT: That -- that amounts to the same
thing. Were taking a marital asset, were dividing
it, and she --
MS. CECONI: Right.
THE COURT: -- and the parties are going to
do that. But then again, Dr. Ionescu has not signed
the agreement to sell the house. So you need a way to
have a way of adjudicating that problem. I cant make
a buyer materialize at $675,000.
Can you, Ms. Ceconi?
MS. CECONI: No, nor I dont believe Mr.
Klausner could. And if anyone could I believe it would
be him.
THE COURT: You know, if we were that
fortunate, but those -- or them are the cards we be
dealt with. Thats it. Weve got a -- a -- a live,
qualified buyer for $660,000.
MS. REAGAN: Six-hundred-and-fifty.
THE COURT: Six-fifty.
MS. CECONI: With a September 15th closing
date, Judge, pre-qualified.
THE COURT: With -- with two -- three

Colloquy 66
psychologists recommending the house be sold. So I
guess we have to figure that out. So how do you
propose we do this? You want to liquidate some assets?
Theyre not fifty-nine-and-a-half, so theres going to
be a tax penalty unless we can declare an emergency and
the IRS buys it.
MS. CECONI: Judge, the other way to do it is
that we can roll over a portion of one by way of QDRO,
and by doing that we eliminate the 10-percent penalty,
although there will still be tax attributable to it.
So there is a way to avoid the 10-percent penalty in
this situation.
THE COURT: But we still have to come up --
we still have to come up with fifty-grand.
MS. CECONI: Correct.
THE COURT: Correct. So do the parties want
to figure that out, because thats a key component of
the nine or 10 -- I wrote down 10 -- 10 agreement
points of the experts and one disagreement point, which
dealt with the schools. Everything else is basically
in agreement. But the house has to be sold. Everybody
agrees on that. Everybody agrees that the house has to
be sold. Dr. Sullivan, Dr. Woolock, Dr. Montgomery,
Dr. Alexianu, and I guess Ionescu. He signed a listing
agreement.
MS. CECONI: Judge, you previously ordered
it.
THE COURT: I know.

Colloquy 67
MS. CECONI: Okay.
THE COURT: But now we have a buyer.
MS. REAGAN: And it was a consent order, Your
Honor. We agree that --
MS. CECONI: Its a consent order.
THE COURT: Its a consent order.
MS. REAGAN: We agreed that the house would
be sold. I mean everybody --
THE COURT: We agreed it should be sold and
we had a listing broker and a listing price. And we
even agreed to hold it at a higher listing price, and
we didnt get a buyer at that price, and then we
lowered the price. Thats my recollection.
MS. REAGAN: We havent lowered the price.
We got a buyer without lowering the price.
THE COURT: Havent lowered. Okay. So the
listing price is what?
MS. REAGAN: Six-ninety-nine.
THE COURT: Six-ninety-nine, you got an offer
and actually a half-signed contract at six-fifty.
MS. CECONI: Judge, Mr. Klausner originally
recommended a 650,000-dollar list price because he
thought thats what the value of the property was.
THE COURT: I -- I have a recollection that
it was lower than six-ninety-nine, so here we are.
What do the parties want to do? This is their life.
What do you want to do? And its a quarter to 5.
MS. REAGAN: Im going to get a note, Your

Colloquy 68
Honor.
THE COURT: And Im going to -- at 5 oclock
were going to stop or earlier, and maybe well get one
piece of the puzzle together. Anyone have any ideas?
MS. CECONI: Judge, my client would like the
consent order enforced by requiring the parties to sign
the agreement, or in the alternative, to appoint my
client as the attorney in fact for Dr. Ionescu to sign
on his behalf.
THE COURT: Well, that would be nice. Youd
have to file a motion to do that. If theres no
consent, and quite frankly, my consent order doesnt
say a sales price. It says a listing price, it says a
listing broker, and weve gone that far. There is
nothing in my order that I recollect that I could force
a consent to because there is not a agreement as to
purchase price.
MS. CECONI: Well -- well, Judge, if we have
to file the order to show cause --
THE COURT: No, no. Its --
MS. CECONI: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- not an order to show cause.
Its a motion.
MS. CECONI: Well, I -- I think it becomes
order to show cause on a -- on a lot of different
issues.
THE COURT: You could.
MS. CECONI: But I can argue that with the

Colloquy 69
application.
THE COURT: You can think whatever you want,
and you can do whatever you want, but it might be a
better way to do it now. And I agree with you, youll
have to file a motion or an order to show cause. Ms.
Reagans going to have to respond. And you have to
figure it out. Thats all. The parties have enough to
agree and work things out if they want.
Ms. Reagan?
MS. REAGAN: Only, Your Honor, that the six-
ninety-nine was a compromise I agree, but Mr.
Klausners recommendation was six-fifty-nine. And
were lowering it to six-fifty.
MR. KLAUSNER: No.
THE COURT: Hes here.
MR. KLAUSNER: May I speak?
THE COURT: We can ask him, but what do --
assuming thats so, Ive got a live buyer at six-fifty.
What do you want to do? I dont know that I would
grant the order to show cause, but what do you want to
do?
Ms. Ceconi told you what shes going to do.
What do you want to do?
MS. REAGAN: Well, my client is saying to me
that the market now is the worst -- worst time of the
year to sell, August, and that he would like to keep it
on the market for a little while longer to see if they
can get anything else. Its not that hes opposed to

Colloquy 70
selling, hes just hoping for more out of this house.
Thats -- you know --
THE COURT: I dont think thats a realistic
alternative, though, given that three experts in the --
in the fit with the custody.
MS. REAGAN: I understand that, Your Honor.
Its just that this is a really bad time for the
market.
THE COURT: It was never a really good time
for the market.
MR. KLAUSNER: Id like to dispute that if I
may in a -- in a way. And Id like to perhaps draw an
analogy. And Your Honor may be aware -- well aware of
this. The other parties are not. This case reminds me
very much of the Allson home (phonetic).
THE COURT: Well, thats meaningless to the
-- to the litigants.
MR. KLAUSNER: Where we -- we -- theres a
deficiency in this house. The common deficiency is the
bedroom space, the hallway space on the second floor,
and the bedroom layout. The size of the house warrants
six-sixty, six-seventy, six-eighty. The bedroom layout
has been a prime objection from people that have come
to the house either with realtors or the realtors on
their own. That was the same problem with the Allson
house. The house was worth the money based on square
footage. The master bedroom was undesirable. And we
had a very good offer within two weeks of the house

Colloquy 71
being put up for sale, but the buyer -- the sellers did
not accept it. Three or four weeks later we got a
hundred-and-fifty less for the house. Of course the
house was two-and-a-half million dollars, but I had an
offer on the house the first two days it was on the
market. The buyer withdrew the offer because of the
bedroom space.
THE COURT: Lets talk about this house. The
Allson house is not relevant. Every piece of real
estate is different, and so you have --
MR. KLAUSNER: The point is that the bedrooms
-- the way the bedrooms are laid out with the master
bedroom on the first floor, bedrooms are on the second
floor, and the space between the bedrooms, the hallways
being narrow, and the size of the bedrooms seem to be
the most common objection to the house.
Here we have a -- a buyer who weve overcome
that. Shes hung on about a week to see if this is
going to happen. I -- Ive had two open houses there.
Theres been a lot of people through the house. This
is the second offer on the house. The first one
withdrew the offer because of the bedroom situation,
and I have their email that they sent me to confirm
that.
So its not a house that I think can sell --
I dont know. Nobody knows. But from -- based upon
the last five or six weeks, I dont know when well get
another buyer. And of course if its another realtor,

Colloquy 72
its -- if I have a chance to, maybe Ill double my
money from -- from not having the sale go through. But
thats not my interest. My interest is recommending
that this house be sold to this woman.
MS. MARSHALL: May I just be heard on one
small aspect of this, Judge?
THE COURT: Ms. Marshall, yes.
MS. MARSHALL: It strikes me that angels are
dancing on the head of a pin. The month of June the --
the fees for a guardian ad litem exceeded $14,000. I
spent 44 hours. It is when I went to the school and
interviewed the principal and the guidance counselors
and had conference calls and was in court. And -- and
there are three experts, and to the extent it makes a
difference, I would all favor this house being sold so
that these children can have what Dr. Sullivan called
the ability to cope and move forward.
And -- and I am -- I am not unmindful that
Dr. Ionescu seemed, as Dr. Sullivan said, to feel he
would like to stay in the house, that its a loss, and
that is very -- an emotional loss. I mean, thats very
understandable on a human level, but if Ms. Reagan
represents on behalf of Dr. Ionescu that it isnt
anything to do with the emotional component, the cost
just today of three psychologists, four lawyers, is --
and combined with the fees of one month and Im sure
not every month would ever be like June was, but -- but
-- and the cost of Overcoming Barriers, its probably

Colloquy 73
very close to equal the difference.
And on behalf of the children, this is their
chance to have a new start and to start a coping
strategy and a coping mode and an attachment mode
rather than an anxiety mode.
THE COURT: Thats a good point, and that
reminded me that one of the things I wanted to do is
ask you if you have been paid what you are entitled to,
Ms. Marshall.
MS. MARSHALL: In fairness, Judge, I dont
always read the timing of my bills very well. The
parties would have received my bill when they got home
on Saturday or Monday. Theyre current, except that
Dr. Alexianu our records show has not yet reimbursed
the $50, which is her half of the Overcoming Barriers
application fee. Dr. Ionescu did it by return mail
when he was asked to do it. Dr. Alexianu has not yet
done it. And this bill is outstanding. It is a
significant bill, but Im sure that they will address
it promptly.
But my point in raising it was, and I
appreciate Your Honors concern, but the difference
will be eaten up in controversy and can never be made
up in the potential opportunity for the children that
will be wasted.
THE COURT: Thank you. I get that. Im also
a little bit hamstrung. I cant, I feel, order
something to occur without the appropriate application.

Colloquy 74
It may ultimately end up being by consent, but it may
not. But the issues have been placed squarely on the
table.
I dont know if we have time limits. The
closing is set if this contract is accepted. If Dr.
Ionescu were to sign it today, we still have attorney
review, three days. We still have the possibility of
the purchasers attorney killing it, and then we have
to get ready for a closing. And the banks are not
known to be swift necessarily in this real-estate
market.
But I do not believe I have the reservoir of
authority to order something to happen over objection.
So the parties are free to enter a consent order or
file whatever papers they want.
MS. REAGAN: Again, I just bring up an issue
that its important to my client, Your Honor. And that
is the minute that the house is sold, then the
disparity in their incomes pops to the floor. If were
looking at a September closing, right now Dr. Alexianu
makes the majority of the money, maybe eighty -- 80-20,
and this would leave him -- dont forget, were walking
away dividing an asset thats not liquid now with no
liquid assets, to move into something. I mean,
certainly it will improve his credit rating insofar as
he will no longer be on a 660,000-dollar mortgage, but
it doesnt free up anything. So were going to have to
address the pendente lite issues of going forward. How

Colloquy 75
are the children going to be living with both parents
in -- in two separate households when the money is
skewed so dramatically one way or the other?
So thats part of the issue. Even if you
walked from the house and then we -- we had a September
15th closing and we used some of the joint marital
assets to divide ahead of time so that we could go to
the closing with the $50,000 thats needed that hes
not going to feel out of his pocket, it still doesnt
solve his problem because hes got nowhere to go --
THE COURT: Well --
MS. REAGAN: -- given that right now, I mean,
until the house is sold, Dr. Alexianu is paying the
expenses for the house. But as soon as the house is
sold, then all of that money is freed up. I mean, they
would have two -- two ongoing bills that they both have
to pay, Dr. -- Dr. Ionescu pays the health insurance,
which is about 1,000 a month, and Dr. Alexianu pays the
car -- car insurances, which is probably about three-
hundred-and -- 350.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. REAGAN: And aside from that, then the
shift of the money makes it so that he cant afford to
take the children anywhere.
THE COURT: So there you have it. We are
going -- at this moment we may have hit the wall. So
the parties are free to do what they want. I do not
have the power to order anything today. I dont even

Colloquy 76
know if I have the power to order a parenting plan
today. I suspect I do because the best interest of the
children may ultimately trump that.
But the parties may need to have a global
settlement on finances or they may not. I dont know.
I am bereft of ideas now. And Ill tell you what
else. Im going to be blunt. Im going to say it on
the record. I am now getting into the mode that I will
be required, because of the absence of judges here, to
start rationing my time. This has been a judicial
luxury for Dr. Alexianu and Dr. Ionescu. They have had
just about unfettered access to this Court. They had
had unfettered access with experts. They have had
unfettered access to everything they needed in an
effort to help these children.
This case is more than a year old. It has
had more judicial attention than at least 3,000 or
4,000, or 5,000 cases Ive handled over the last three
years. So it is indeed a problem for them. And if
they cannot get out of their own way, the system will
deal with them. But now were going to deal with them
like we deal with everybody else.
Ms. Ceconi, your client will file motion
papers when she wants something done.
Ms. Reagan, you will file motion papers when
you want something done.
And I will start apportioning counsel fees.
Were going to pay for Ms. Marshall. I say

Colloquy 77
this with no mean spirit. I have been told I am going
to be taking the juvenile calendar starting October.
We are planning now -- we dont know what to do with
the matrimonial calendar. But here it is. I am one
human being, I am one judge, I have 500 matrimonial
cases of which this is one, and I am about to take on a
slew of juvenile cases, and I still have to do domestic
violence, child-support bench warrants, and everything
else.
So Im going to do the best I can. The
Alexianus have had probably in the last month, I think
Ms. Marshall hit it, probably 20 hours of judicial
time. And its coming to a close now. They can go to
court any time they want, but its not going to be
instant justice the way theyve been having or instant
answers. Im sorry about that, but they have to factor
that in, and I have to factor in the needs of justice
of all the other people that dont get into my
courtroom when I have to adjudicate who is going to
tell the children about the divorce, or if I have to
interview them with Dr. Cantor (phonetic), or we have
to have order to show cause and cross motion about
Barriers -- Overcoming Barriers, or Rachel Foundation,
or selling the house, or accepting an offer, or
deciding who is going to be on the contiguous street,
or how many telephone calls there are going to be to
the children. Its tough. Its just as tough.
I know I do not like having to say or do

Colloquy 78
this, but the parties have to be fairly understanding.
At some point in time, other people need me just as
they need other judges. And theyre going to have to
start learning how to solve some of their own problems.
To me it sounds simple, and I have a sense -- and they
know where theyre going, and they should know. But I
cant force things. Ive learned that lesson too many
times from the Appellate Division. But I will do the
best that I can.
It makes sense to me for all of the reasons
articulated by Ms. Marshall to move ahead because I
think there is a sufficient quantum of wealth between
these two parties that, (A), they have dedicated to the
health of their children, and, (B), this is part of the
health of their children. But I cant in good
conscience order Dr. Ionescu on this record to sign a
contract that he does not want to sign. Im not saying
that I wont order it down the road, Im just saying
that the record I have now I dont feel I have the
right to do that. But I expect that when we get to it
I probably will, my guess. But by the time we get to
it, I dont know if well have a buyer. And by the
time we get to it, if theres going to be a counsel-fee
application, Im going to consider that very seriously.
The parties have lots of ways to figure this
out on their own. They have a sufficient amount of
wealth to do what they want, and they have outstanding
advocates doing exactly what they know theyre supposed

Colloquy 79
to do and a guardian ad litem who is as dedicated to
their children as they are.
They also have a realtor whos doing the
right thing. A lot of realtors would say lets hold
out for a higher price because deep down they know
theyd make a larger commission, but the fact is this
is probably the right thing to do at the right time for
the right reasons. But now the parties have to figure
it out.
Im not in position to enter any orders for
today. This is more along the lines of a clearing
house. And I understand were going to have to do
something about the parenting time. Fortunately there
is a parenting-time plan thats currently in place. So
Im inclined to -- to leave it until we have to do
something else.
MS. REAGAN: Judge, my client is telling me
that if we can come up with some way to come up with
the 50,000 in an asset that he will sign the contract.
THE COURT: I understand.
MS. REAGAN: No. Hes saying that he will
sign it if we can come up with a way --
THE COURT: As I said, the parties need to
negotiate because theres more than just -- because
part of what you say resonates. The house will be
sold, hes got to go somewhere. He may need a months
security. He may need to buy a house as will Dr.
Alexianu and how to sort this all out implicates all of

Colloquy 80
the other assets. But its a good time to do it.
Theres a reason to do it and there is time to get it
done. But I cant -- I cant do it at this moment.
Courts going to take a recess. Its 5
oclock. I thank counsel and the parties and Mr.
Klausner for their presence here, and I dont have
another scheduled date that Im aware of. I know that
we wont have experts reports until September 30th.
So I have no scheduled date that Im aware of.
MS. CECONI: Judge, the problem is we also
have no scheduled parenting time.
THE COURT: You do. You have a parenting
plan.
MS. CECONI: No, we dont because the last
parenting order only went through Overcoming Barriers.
THE COURT: At this moment, I would be
inclined to replicate the two on -- what the parties
did by agreement previously is about as far as Im
going to go today if they want to agree. Because the
key that I heard today also is even though the experts
have come to agreement, the parties have not. So the
parties are free to talk about whatever they want.
MS. CECONI: Judge, there was no -- it was
court ordered. The two-weeks, two-weeks was court
ordered.
THE COURT: There is -- the court ordered --
MS. CECONI: And then it was modified by the
court order of July 8th.

Colloquy 81
THE COURT: It was modified. So well go
back to the two weeks on, the two weeks off until
someone comes up with some sort of idea.
MS. REAGAN: Can I just go on the record,
Your Honor, to say that we agree with the suggestions
of the experts.
THE COURT: Well --
MS. REAGAN: This is not disagreement coming
from over here.
THE COURT: You -- you and Ms. Ceconi and Ms.
Seiden and Ms. Marshall can start to figure something
out. You want me to have you back in two weeks?
MS. CECONI: Judge, Im not going to be in
the country in two weeks.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CECONI: But what I will say is that we
would follow the recommendations pending an application
to modify. So that it would go to the one-week, one-
week, and it would be the time alone, et cetera.
THE COURT: Okay. Then if you want to put
that type of consent order together without prejudice,
feel free. Well send Ms. Seiden to the machine with
Ms. Reagan and you start to type. Thats the way
things will get done.
I have to concede that I dont have any more
energy left for Dr. Alexianu and Dr. Ionescu. That
could be because Ive done a full domestic-violence
calendar as well as other matrimonial matters and Im

Colloquy 82
-- Im tired. Im doing the best I can, but the staff
has to go. Its 5 oclock.
Lawyers can stay. My law clerk will
volunteer to stay, and Ill stay a little longer if you
need a little something, but at this moment were going
to go off the record.
Thank you.
MS. CECONI: Judge, Im just returning C-6,
which is the Overcoming Barrier --
(Proceedings adjourned)
CERTIFICATION
I, Kelly Ford, the assigned transcriber, do hereby
certify the foregoing Transcript of Proceedings in the
Union County Superior Court, Chancery Division on
August 2, 2010 and recorded on CD No. 8/2-1, Index No.
3:17 to 5:03, is prepared in full compliance with
current Transcript Format for Judicial Proceedings and

83
is a true and accurate compressed transcript of the
proceedings as recorded.
KELLY FORD, AOC 561
Date:

Transcript DR Sullivan 08-02-2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript DR Sullivan 08-02-2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANCERY DIVISION - FAMILY PART

Place: Union County Courthouse

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DAVID S. ISSENMAN, J.S.C.

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY:

Audio Recorded By: K. Cokley

LIZANNE J. CECONI, ESQ., (Ceconi & Cheifetz, L.L.C.),

SHERYL J. SEIDEN, ESQ., (Ceconi & Cheifetz, L.L.C.),

MADELINE S. REAGAN, ESQ., (Madeline S. Reagan, Esq.),

ELLEN C. MARSHALL, ESQ.,

WITNESS VOIR DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

EXHIBIT Ident. Evid.

Court Exhibit, Sullivan Report. 14

THE COURT: We are recording in the matter of

Alexianu and Ionescu, Docket FM-20-973-09.

For Dr. Alexianu, may I have your appearance,

please, Ms. Ceconi.

MS. CECONI: Good afternoon, Judge, Lizanne

Ceconi with Sheryl Seiden from Ceconi & Cheifetz on

behalf of the plaintiff, Maria Alexianu.

THE COURT: Thank you.

For Dr. Ionescu.

MS. REAGAN: Madeline Reagan representing the

defendant, Adrian Ionescu, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

And the guardian ad litem, please.

MS. MARSHALL: Good afternoon. Ellen

Marshall, Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, guardian ad

THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Marshall.

We are waiting for a conference call between

some of the psychologists, who are the experts hired,

and a Dr. Sullivan, who was the attending psychologist

at the Camp of Breakthrough.

While we are at it, I will note that at my

request, the realtor who has the listing agreement for

the premises is also present in court. Mr. Klausner

(phonetic), who is here, I dont know whether we should

keep him for the whole proceeding, but I dont know

where we are. But hes here at my request because I

Is that an accurate statement, Ms. Reagan,

there was an offer?

MS. REAGAN: Yes, there was, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Ceconi?

MS. CECONI: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay. So I put that on the table

because if I recollect correctly, the sale of the house

is a component to the best interest of the children as

it was articulated previously. So Alex and Anna

somehow -- no. Let me say -- take it back. There was

a recommendation that the house be sold as part of the

after-camp possibility. But Im babbling. Its not

making any sense. But Mr. Klausner is here.

Ms. Marshall, you wanted to talk about a

procedure as to how were going to handle this call, so

you have the floor.

MS. MARSHALL: Thank you. Just to --

THE COURT: The record should reflect both of

the doctors are here, by the way.

MS. MARSHALL: Just to respond to the comment

that Your Honor made, if counsel doesnt object, Dr.

Sullivan and both parties experts were in agreement on

the house issue. So -- so if neither objects, I would

say what their recommendation collectively is, and