Evil Mom Abandoned The Kids & Still Demands Child Support

Your honor, Michael Wasaki and Jennifer Sadajay here for the father Mark Tharp. >> Okay. >> And your honor, my name is Carolyn Hill and I am the amicus attorney for the children. >> Thank you. Thank you all for being here. All those intent to testify, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give will be the truth and the whole truth? >> Yes, I do. >> I do. >> Thank you. You may lower your hands. And I believe the petitioner is you, Mr. Wasaki. >> I believe that's correct, John. >> Okay. >> Well, mom's petitioner, your honor. But we have no objection to Mr. Wasaki going first. >> Oh, my apologies. I am. >> Okay. So, >> all right. Um, are you all giving an opening statement or you waving opening? >> Uh, just briefly, your honor. >> Okay. All right. You may proceed, >> your honor. With regard to the matter before the court, there was an associate judge's wreck from May of 2022 uh that was u denovoed uh by both parties. With regard to father's denovo, father's denovo is a singular uh issue. We're asking the court to overrule overrule the associate judges rulings requiring Mr. uh Tharp submit to uh PE testing uh and eliminate those requirements. Uh with regard to that uh request, the evidence today will show the court a number of things. Uh first and foremost, uh when the evidence is presented, I suspect the court will um be somewhat surprised. Uh the court will see that uh as far back as uh 2021, there was an agreed order entered uh where uh Mr. Tharp. Uh um I would the court would see that he extended a massive olive branch. Uh he was in a situation where uh Miss Collins had been held in contempt. She had violated court orders. Uh she was not seeing uh the children. She was uh uh making countless poor choices. uh and he uh set aside all of uh those differences and entered an agreed order with her, keeping her from going to jail uh uh continuing her relationship with these children, supporting her relationship with these children uh and allowing that to move forward. The court will see that uh there was a reunification therapist uh ordered uh but that the evidence will show that the reunification again because mom not because of dad not because of the court by mom's election mom had elected to stop seeing her own children. Uh but the court will see that she didn't comply with the reunification. The court will see uh testimony from the May 20th uh hearing before the court uh where mom although offered uh made everyone clear I'm not I'm not going to even call my kids anymore. I'm not going to call them on the Sundays anymore. Uh I don't need them. When Mark Tharp the court will see the exhibits where where the father offered her more time and she said no thanks. Uh I don't I don't want to. Uh the court will see communications from her uh with regard to uh parenting facilitation uh not responding to the parenting facilitator, cancelling appointments, cancelling sessions, saying that she doesn't think that it's uh necessary. Um the court will see that uh the the AJ wreck um entered by the court um entered uh continued supervised possession for mom and kept her uh uh husband uh who's sitting with her uh enjoined from being around the kids. Uh why? The evidence will show that the testimony of the neutral experts in this case was that the children in particular the uh the oldest child reported that mom had assaulted her, had hit her in the head, had hit her in the head with a cell phone, had held her down while stepdad assaulted her. Uh all of this the court will see from the testimony of the experts. They the experts said that the child's statements were credible and consistent. Uh the court will see that although uh all of this evidence was overwhelming uh that Mr. Tharp continued to do his very best to facilitate the relationship between the children and mom asking when are we getting back to reunification why can't we schedule appointments with the parenting facilitator etc etc. The court will also see communications from mom where mom says, "Mark, you've proved alcohol consumption is not an issue. I'm no longer concerned about your alcohol use." Period. End of story. Uh, Mark, you passed the PET test. I'm not concerned about your alcohol use. And additional communications. But once mom gets herself into a pickle, what is the first thing mom does? Oh, court, dad's an alcoholic. The evidence will show that the amicus has testified in this case that the children have a significant rapport with her and they've never reported an issue with dad. They've never reported an issue with dad and alcohol. They've never reported a concern with dad and alcohol. The evidence will show that uh issues with mom, however, continue and that this alcohol thing is her only stick, the only one. It's every time I try to settle this case, it's the one thing that that they try to hang out there. Oh, well, XYZ. your honor, we need it removed to be able to get this case resolved and and remove their last uh uh like I said, their their last impediment uh to getting this thing across the finish line. Uh but the problem uh that the court will also see is that issues continue with regard to mom. Uh as of recent uh the one of the children uh obtained several knives from mom's house. Uh, mom was aware that the child obtained these knives and box cutters uh and didn't tell anyone. Didn't tell dad, didn't tell stepmom, didn't tell the amicus, uh, and that the child began cutting herself. The court will see testimony of Jennifer Leester, that the child reported, uh, yes, uh, the blood on the box cutter, uh, was because I started cutting myself deeper and deeper. Um and so uh these these are these are some issues uh judge um we uh we believe that based on the evidence before the court that the uh the pep testing requirement of Mr. Mr. Tharp should be removed um to allow us to focus on the the actual issues with regard to the child uh cutting. Mom does not have access to that child at this time by court order of Judge Lee. Um uh there is a reunification therapist in place. Uh and y we need to focus on the important issues. Mom's relationship with these kids, these kids mental health. Uh what we don't need to be doing is throwing rocks at the one one stable rock that these kids have, their dad. Uh we need to let him continue to be the good dad that he is, continue to be the supportive co-parent that he has shown to be. Uh the gracious co-parent who could have literally buried the other parent if he wanted to. We still have an order, judge, where we could revoke uh revoke her suspended commitment and we haven't filed to do it. We haven't set hearings to revoke it, to put her in jail, because he doesn't want to. He wants her to focus on her relationship with her kids and focus on being a good parent instead of focusing on him. That's what the evidence will show. Thank you, your honor. >> Thank you, Attorney Bowman. >> Um, yes, your honor. Briefly, thank you. Um, your honor, I do um this is a very difficult case. I will say that um the two primary issues are the fact that mom needs a healthy well actually the children need a healthy relationship with their mother. Um the children need to have a good environment for their mental health and as part and parcel of both of those two necessities protecting the safety and welfare of the children protecting the children's best interest Mr. Tharp has to undergo alcohol testing at minimum alcohol testing. Um, as I mentioned earlier, your honor, we are the petitioner in this case. This case was originally filed because all of the experts, the evidence will show literally all of the experts, including mom, had a concern about dad's alcohol consumption. I'm not talking about at night. I'm not talking about when he doesn't have the children. I am talking about showing up to children's therapy sessions drunk. I'm talking about showing up to parent facilitation sessions under the influence of alcohol. And I'm talking about even going so far as to recently um prior to current council's involvement, showing up at my law firm drunk, eating, literally eating, chewing tobacco in the middle of a deposition. That is what the evidence will show. Um, so mom filed this lawsuit because of dad's alcohol problems. Um, dad told mom and the parent facilitator, I will take the test. In fact, I I'm going to take the test. And then the evidence will show he submitted in writing, I took the test. Did he take the test? Absolutely not. Why? Because he wasn't sober and he knew the test would be positive. He waited until he received a positive test result. Now, the email that Mr. Wesaki referenced, you will hear my client talk about that email. After that email, Judge Bechum ordered through a temporary restraining order that Mr. Tharp undergo testing. Did he do that? No, he has not followed to this day the testing requirements. What he will do instead is he will go off and he will take a urine analysis test which goes back three days. Mr. Dr. Wasaki, can you please mute yourself? Thank you. Um um he will go off and he will take a urinalysis test which goes back three days rather than the PET test that was ordered which goes back two weeks and he will kind of do it at intervals where he knows those test results are going to be negative and then he'll submit that result as like look here here I am. I'm a sober dad. I'm fine. That's not the case. If he were a sober dad he would follow the testing schedules that have already been ordered. he is in violation of the order. The orders that were referenced about my client not following and a previous contempt hearing, those were all concerning our family wizard responses, timely responses to our family wizard. Those were not concerning substantive safety and welfare, best interest of the children issues. That's what the evidence will show. Even though those really aren't even relevant for today, the relevant issues for today are the fact that 100% yes, Mr. Tharp should undergo alcohol testing. two, I absolutely agree that these children in order to have a um an emotionally, developmental, mental health, um healthy mental health perspective need a relationship with their mom and they have not been able to have that because of actions of Mr. Tharp. I've made this analogy in this case before um to the fact that it's I I Mr. Tharp's parenting style and his wife's parenting style, the evidence will show, is a lot like the way that my grandmother talks negatively about someone. She doesn't say mean things about someone from church, her church group or whatever, but as soon as she says the words, "Bless her heart," I know that she's actually throwing a little shade at that person's direction. And in this case, and in this family, Mr. Tharp has a way of making his children view their mother in a negative light. And he doesn't do it obviously. He does it subtly, but in a way that those children 100% understand that he doesn't like their mother, that his wife doesn't like their mother, and that he does not support those children having a healthy relationship with her, which is why it is so important that the reunification therapists continue. No one disputes that. We all agree with that. Um, but at the end of the day, this mother needs time with her children and this mother get help for his substance abuse issues. And until he does that, and until he admits that he has a problem, he is going to continue creating an environment that has resulted in the oldest child actually cutting herself. She's not suicidal, but she's on the verge. And it's not my client's fault because my client hasn't had any access to her. It's the environment that she is in at her dad's house. >> The phone incident that was raised in opening statement, you will see evidence that that has been totally dismissed. The only person that made a police report about that incident was Mr. Tharp himself, which was investigated and was ruled out and completely dismissed. No charges were filed. The only police report that has ever been filed regarding this family concerning these children was made via a 911 call from Lauren, the child who's currently potentially suicidal, calling from her closet 911 because her father and her stepmother are screaming about her mother so violently that it is terrifying. That's the only person, only independent person other than this father that's ever filed a police report. And so don't let him fool you. You're I know you won't and that this court will hear the evidence. But the the cloud of chaos that's being created by dad is all as a result of his anger towards his towards his ex-wife, my client, and his which is in significant need of treatment. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, Mr. Wasaki, you may call your first witness. >> I call Mark Tharp, your honor. >> Okay. >> Mr. Tharp, will you please state your name? >> Mark Earl Tharp II. >> And Mark, uh, you're familiar with the term called evidence, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. Um, we've we've been at this a little while, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. You you uh you heard that the the quote unquote the issue was Mark Tharp. Did you hear that a minute ago? >> Yes, sir. >> Is Mark Tharp enjoined from access to any of his children? >> No, sir. >> Is is there transcripts riddled with Mark Tharp abandoning his children? >> Not to my knowledge. >> Uh is uh are there therapists and otherwise in session to restore your relationship with your daughters? >> No, sir. >> Okay. Yeah. You you you've heard the term uh a reality check? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Do you think that this case needs a good reality check? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Do you think other judges have tried to give this case a good reality check? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um, do you think that if the the these attempts to attack you, black cloud you are removed from this case, that that might help give the other side a good reality check? >> I could elaborate on that, but the answer is yes, sir. >> Okay. With regard to this case, I'm going to uh show you what's been marked as father's exhibit zero. Uh, are you asking this court to overrule the associate judge's ruling requiring you to pet test? >> Yes, sir. >> Your honor, I offer father zero. >> Any objection? >> No objection. >> Father's exhibit. >> No objection. >> Father's exhibit zero is admitted. Uh with regard to this uh matter uh contrary to what was represented, were there prior orders in this case uh that that you agreed to back in um January of 2021? >> Yes, sir. That was our most recent um outofc court settlement modification. >> Okay. Uh your honor, I'd offer fathers one as a uh prior the agreed order and suit to modify parent child relationship. >> Any objection? >> No objection. >> No objection. >> Father's exhibit one is admitted >> with regard to uh fathers one in that agreed order. Um, were there uh were there issues at that time with regard to Miss Collins and uh the children? >> Uh, yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh, had Miss Collins been held in contempt? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And um did you did you push her all the way to trial and try and get all of her visitation denied? >> No sir, I did not. >> In in fact, instead even with all the issues, uh had there been visitation issues? >> Meaning with regard to her uh not seeing the kids? So we're talking about the prior to entering in the agreed order. >> Yes. >> There had been Yes. lapses. >> Okay. How significant elapses? >> Just like kind of lack of u engagement with the girls even just over the phone sometimes. >> Significant significant periods of time of not seeing them. >> Yes. And yes. significant periods of time and not talking to them >> for a period of time. Yes. >> Okay. With regard to uh uh that was there also a reunification order entered uh requiring reunification therapy u in entered at the same time January 5th, 2021. >> Yes, your honor. Right. Offer fathers two is the reunification order. >> Any objection? >> No objection. >> I didn't hear the >> No. Um, attorney heel, I don't I didn't hear your answer. Clear. >> No objection, your honor. >> Okay. Father's exhibit 2 is admitted. And even well did either do either of those orders are you restricted in those orders? Is your possession restricted? >> No sir. >> Is there something in those orders saying that you have an alcohol problem? >> No sir. >> Okay. Um even though these orders were in place uh did issues with uh mom's relationship with the children continue? Yes. >> Did we have a hearing on May 20th of 2022? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. As part of that hearing, uh, were there allegations like we heard today that you had somehow interfered with mom's possession? >> Yeah, I recalled that. Yes. >> Okay. Um, I'm going to show you what's been marked as father's 3A. Your honor, I'd offer fathers 3A as uh certified uh portions of the May 20th, 2022 hearing transcript. >> Any objection? >> Um for optional completeness purposes, your honor, we would submit the entire transcript. >> Okay. >> If they do that, your honor, we'd have no objection to them doing that. >> Okay. And I would offer 3A. >> Miss Hill. >> No objection, your honor. >> Thank you. Father's exhibit 3A is admitted. >> And Mr. Tharp, if the court looks at exhibit 3A, u part of exhibit 3A, uh is uh the testimony of Jennifer Leester uh Lyster and uh Miss Lyer is the uh your daughter's therapist. >> Well, yes, for both of them, but she sees Lauren on a weekly basis, busy as needed. Elizabeth. >> Okay. And even if we start at the front, does Miss Lyster testify about mom's history of selfalienating? >> Uh yes sir. >> And does she testify about the physical assault uh on the child by mom? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Also, if we look, I attached relevant uh exhibits for the court uh from that hearing. For instance, the the our family wizard communications where mom says she's no longer going to call the kids. Do you remember that one? >> I recall that. I recall that. Yes. >> Okay. And your exhibit uh our family wizard where you're offering mom more time but she never responded. >> That's happened in the past. Yes. >> Okay. And uh but Mark, I I thought that they said that you were an impediment to mom. you you didn't you didn't support mom's relationship, but I I see you here offering more phone calls, asking when she's going to start calling, offering more visitation, >> right? >> Yeah. And our in my settlement to um that I provided in October of 2022 actually gave more time than than what we agreed to um in that last whatever exhibit. >> Okay. And then we also showed mom's exhibits uh where she communicated to you and father's 30, father's 31 where she's saying that that you've you've beyond proven alcohol is not an issue. Right. >> Yes, sir. >> In in 31, she acknowledges your p your past tests. Do you see that? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. But I thought I thought opposing counsel said you you weren't taking PET. What? But this says her her own client is saying that you've passed PET test, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Well, that's that's not what I heard. Okay. Well, let's look at exhibit 3B. Let's look at exhibit 3B because remember what we said a minute ago when I first called you as a witness. I said we were going to talk about evidence, right? >> Objection leading. >> Sustain. Don't lead Mr. Wasaki. And Mr. Wasaki, you have 3 minutes left. >> Uh, Mr. Tharp, let's look at exhibit 3B. Uh, your honor, I'd offer 3B as a certified uh transcript from the May 20th hearing. >> Any objection? >> Uh, no objection. >> No objection, your honor. Father's petition 3B is admitted. >> With regard to uh the issues before the court uh in these transcripts, um will the court also see the multiple uh past uh alcohol test admitted in evidence to the court for you? >> Yes, sir. Uh again, contrary to the representation, will the court also see the testimony of Miss Hill, the uh amicus, saying that none of the children have reported issues related to you? >> Yes, sir. >> Uh Mr. Tharp, with regard to you, do you have somewhat of a country effect >> uh >> in your speech? >> I Yes, the times, I guess. >> Okay. And uh do you dip? >> Bad habit. >> Oh, I I saw that. What is that? Levi Garrett. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh have you ever heard of a Copenhagen buzz? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Does a Does a Copenhagen buzz mean you're drunk? >> No, sir. >> Okay. >> I could have it, but it doesn't mean I'm drinking. >> Okay. Uh with regard to uh the uh issues before the court, I um I'm going to offer exhibit 10A, which is the transcript of the January 9th, 2023 hearing, your honor. >> Any objection? >> No. No objection. >> Okay. Father's exhibit 10A is admitted. You have 56 seconds. And with regard to this transcript, Mr. Thorp, will the court see in this transcript uh additionally that for instance that the the children uh report uh that they uh they're happy with you? >> Yes, sir. >> That they have and I see here no issues with you. >> Well, they're adolescent females, so it's not without friction. But yes, we have a wonderful um home life. >> Will the court also continue to see communications where you're promoting reunification therapists? Reunification therapy? >> Yes, sir. I have not moved off that >> and communications where you're saying, uh, let's get this reunification process going. Why haven't Why haven't you been following the order? >> Yes, sir. I think it's especially Lauren's best interest that we she she's a totally different kid than Elizabeth and she's a different path. >> All of the all of the communications regarding the the knife incident and the mom withholding all of that information from you. >> Yes, sir. God bless. >> Okay, Mr. You're out of time. >> I just had one last question, your honor. >> Just one. >> Based on the evidence presented to the court, Mr. Sir, uh, is it your testimony that it's in the best interest of the children that this, uh, this testing requirement be removed? >> Yes, sir. >> I passed the witness. >> Thank you. The court is going to go out the record briefly. We have someone that just stepped into the courtroom, and I'll be right back. Attorney Bowman, we were getting ready to start with your crossexamination. >> Um, yes, honor. Thank you. Mr. Thorp, do you um understand the current testing requirements for alcohol? >> The ones that Judge Beach put in place? >> Yes, >> I do. >> When is the last time that you took a PET test? >> Last Wednesday. >> Have you obtained the results of that test? >> I have. >> When is the LA um when you received the notifications from mom per the court order? Why didn't you go and take the test at that time? >> Objection, your honor. Form of the question assumes facts not evidence. >> Attorney Bowman, would you like to rephrase? >> Um, I can rephrase, your honor. Thank you. Um, Mr. Tharp, you understand that mom has requested that you undergo testing per the terms of Judge Bechum's order on several occasions. Do you understand that? >> Objection calls for a legal conclusion per the terms of his order. Um, it's asking him to draw a legal conclusion as to whether or not she actually complied with the order. >> Sustain. >> Mr. Tharp, when you received a request from Miss Collins to go and test, you have not done that over the last 12 months. Have you? >> I have not. I immediately filed the denovo >> nonresponsive after I have not. >> I have not. >> Um, and Mr. Tharp, you have told Miss Collins, the mother of your children, that you have, and I understand that we have a um new district judge over this court, but previously you have told her that Kim Cooks was your judge. >> Objection. I'm going to object, your honor. Objection. Objection. Relevance. Objection. >> Irrelevant. Well, if I might, your honor, I I accept the court's ruling, of course, but the reason that I'm going down this line of questioning is because one of the requests that we have on file for the denovo is the attorney's fees issue, and this is going towards his um threats and ability to pay for attorney's fees. >> Okay, you may ask your next question. >> Thank you, honor. Um Mr. Have you told >> my client that you can pay for whatever you need to pay for to obtain the results that you want in this court? >> I don't recall having said that. >> Hold on one second. One second. >> Of a objection. Lack of a relevant time frame. Your honor, >> sustain. Since entry of the final order, haven't you told my client that it's not about what you can prove, but it's about what you can allege in this lawsuit? >> I don't believe I use those words. No. Do have you started the alcohol evaluation that was ordered with Kevin Gilland? I uh had my intake scheduled and then um after was about three months out and then he called and said that he couldn't he just got too busy and that there were things going on in his personal life where he couldn't do the evaluation >> objection unresponsive >> sustain briefly let me pause your time attorney Bowman M and Miss Collins um when A question is asked and it's closedended, it's yes or no. It'll make it go a lot smoother if you just answer the question that's being asked. >> Sure. >> Thank you. You may proceed. >> Yes, your honor. Mr. Tharp, you have not undergone the substance abuse evaluation that was previously ordered with Kevin Gilland, have you? >> No. >> Pass the witness. >> Okay. And you're out of time. Governor, just for clarification for the court's purposes, can I ask him one question about Dr. Gillan? >> One question. >> Mi Mr. Mr. Thart, did you do everything within your power to comply with the order related to Dr. Giller? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, that's it from this witness. >> All right. Attorney Bowman. >> Um, yes, your honor. I would offer um mom's exhibit um we'll just call this exhibit one which will be the um business affidavit on file um concerning the um uh drug testing of Mr. or alcohol testing of Mr. Tharp. >> Any objection? >> We just we just don't have any exhibits. We didn't we've not received any exhibits from them in the last week, your honor. So, >> these this has been pre on file since May of 2022, your honor. And was also a previous exhibit. >> Attorney Wasaki, have you had an opportunity to review these exhibits? Um, I I think these may be some some old ones from a prior hearing. And if that's the case, your honor, it it and if it's under business records, I I won't object. >> Okay. >> I don't know if I have it under. >> All right. Any objection, Attorney Hill? >> No objection, your honor. >> Okay. And this is respondents exhibit one. I mean petitioner. >> Thank you. Petitioners exhibit one is admitted. >> Thank you honor. Um and we'll call Miss Candace Collins. >> Okay. >> Miss Collins, do you believe or are you what are you asking the court to do with regard to the alcohol testing? >> I'm asking for testing to to happen. It's been requested by the court multiple times. He hasn't complied um to Judge Beechum's orders and that to me shows it's necessary. >> Um you um since well, let's just look at this exhibit one. Um what was the actual value of Mr. of the ethanol in Mr. Th system as of the time of this test in April of 2022 >> 665. >> And what is the screen cut off over here? Um under the screen cut off section >> 20. >> Um when Mr. Tharp took this test, was this after you filed an emergency motion for alcohol testing? >> Yes. Uh, have you had ongoing concerns about Mr. Tharp's alcohol consumption? >> Yes. >> Um, have you received um do you have the ability to pay for your attorney's fees in this case? >> No. >> Do you have ongoing safety and welfare concerns about your children? >> Yes. >> Can you tell the court a little bit about what those safety and welfare concerns are? I'm concerned that that alcohol is is what started started this the claims that came from the girls. And um we've had ongoing hearings that he's trying to distract from the alcohol. He's not doing the testing when requested uh by Shannon Lynch, our parenting facilitator, for a random test. I went that day and did a 10 panel nail drug test and the PET test as requested. He did not. Um, and he was in primary care of our children after filing a a TTRO saying that I was asking them to lie about his alcohol use. >> What threats, if any, has Mr. Thart made to you about his ability to outspend you in this litigation? >> There have been multiple. Um, the first one that comes to mind is I can make reunification last as long as I want. Um, a recording that we have on file is it just takes money. Any judge can be bought. Um, those are the few top of mind. There are so many on on recording. Are you asking that this court order Mr. start to pay your reasonable and necessary attorney's fees in this modification proceeding? >> Yes. >> Um are there is there additional legal work needed to be done to get this case to final trial? >> Yes. Um I believe a toxologist is necessary the 665 after Judge Beum ordered that that that was taken 6 days after it was ordered. So I don't I'm not a toxicologist. I don't know what it would have been if he would have gone that day. It could have been in the thousands. So I I think there are necessary experts. >> And when you say if he could have gone that day, tell the court what happened. Did Mr. Thart attempt to avoid taking that test that he was ordered to take? >> Yes. >> How did he try to avoid it? >> Um by having his own test testing a ur analysis done at his home. Well, what and that was one time, but the the time that we're talking about right now, was there something that he did um to try to avoid taking the test ordered per the TTRO? >> I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. I'm I'm I'm trying to think of this day. >> Did Mr. Thart fake having CO in order to Yes. I I'm sorry. There have been so many times we've asked him to take a test and I can't I can't recall. Yes, he faked having CO. He had a doctor write on a prescription slip. um a a doctor that was a friend of his that he had COVID, but there was no actual test results and that delayed his testing. >> Have you attempted to get um to obtain a job where you're receiving more pay so that you can afford all of your bills in this litigation? >> Yes. >> Is that is your new job is that income sufficient to cover all of your litigation expenses? >> Unfortunately, no. >> Um are you um asking this court? What are you asking this court to do with regard to your husband and his ability to be present when your children are in your possession? >> The the claims that have been made are are keeping my husband from having a relationship with our children and um we need him to be present. Um it also, you know, causes times where we aren't able to see each other. he has to be away during those possession times. >> Um, and when the court ordered that Byron was not to be present during the possession periods, was that prior to um the charges being dismissed against your husband? >> Yes. >> And the charges that we're talking about, was that the police report filed by Mr. Thar? >> Yes. And that was filed a month after the incident even happened. >> Okay. Um, so there are no ongoing charges against your husband? No. >> And there were actually never been any charges filed. >> No. Your honor, >> your honor, as an officer of the court, I'm gonna have to interject. I don't think it was intentional. Um I I think I understand what opposing council was trying to say there. >> Well, no, that's one at a time. My court, as an officer of the court, I have to bring it to your attention when a false representation is made. The injunction in place objection. >> Attorney Bowman. Attorney Bowman, let him finish. I'll give you the opportunity. >> The the injunction in place by Judge Lee, which was not denovoed, was put in place after these alleged charges were dismissed. So that representation that was just made, I understand they were referring to Beum, but with regard to Judge Lee's injunction, that would be a false representation, which I have to correct with the court as an officer of the court. So, >> thank you for that, Attorney Wasaki. Attorney Bowman. >> Yes, your honor. Move to strike sidebar and speaking objection. >> Sustain. >> Thank you, honor. Um, offer the full hearing transcript from the May 20th, 2022 hearing as mothers exhibit two. >> Any objection? >> No objection. >> No objection. >> And your honor, I'll pass the witness and I will call um from that um hearing transcript. I will um would like to read Liser's testimony at um page 45 lines 1 through three. >> Okay. One one second before you begin. The court um admits mother's exhibit two. >> Oh, thank you, honor. >> Um >> you have a minute and 38 seconds left. >> Oh gosh. Okay. Um well then I will not read from that transcript, your honor. Um and I will call myself as the next witness, your honor. My name is Lacy Bowman and I am the lead attorney for Candace Collins and I have been consistently during this modification proceeding. Um, I would ask the court to take judicial notice of the file including the multiple emergency motions for alcohol testing that were filed, all of which were granted concerning Mr. Tharp's alcohol um, consumption. You will see in others two that all three professionals testified that they had significant concerns about Mr. Tharp's alcohol consumption including slurring his words and being in the presence of the children. Um you will see um in mothers too that Dr. Albrittain also testified that he was concerned and this is specifically if you look at page 179 lines 16 through 180 lines 19 as well as one page 180 lines 20 through um page 181. You will see where he talks about how Mr. Tharp's statements in front of these children are creating an a a situation where they have a an estranged relationship with their mother. Dr. Albertton said he has no concerns with mom's possession time. He was the reunification therapist. Mr. Tharp move uh motioned the court to remove him after Dr. Albertton brought up the alcohol concerns. Mr. Tharp did the same thing with Shannon Lynch, the parenting facilitator, when she brought up issues with Mr. Tharp's alcohol consumption. Um, and so you see you will see a pattern in the court's file of Mr. Tharp creating legal chaos anytime anyone points to his problem. Um, he's asking the court to remove the alcohol requirement, testing requirement, even though he hasn't even complied with the current orders that are in place concerning testing as well as the alcohol evaluation he is to undergo. And so we're asking the court to leave that in place. Um I am asking the court um I have continued work that needs to be done um including discovery preparing for trial um motion practices um we have a report back hearing with Judge Lee at some point concerning the reunification therapy and so there is reasonable and necessary legal work that needs to be accomplished and my client does have an outstanding bill with our firm um somewhere around $40,000 your honor um and that is part of her request relief today is asking Mr. Tharp to pay her reasonable and necessary interim attorney's fees um which he has the ability to pay per the statements that he's made and per my client's testimony. Thank you. >> Thank you. You you ran out of time. You I gave you a little bit more a few more seconds because I did allow Mr. Wasaki to answer well ask additional questions. So, I do have a couple of follow-up questions. Attorney Bowman, could you give me the dates that mom actually requested for dad to receive PET testing and he did not do it? >> Yes, your honor. I certainly can. It might take me a quick moment only because I am I will pull up those emails. Hold on, your honor. >> Okay. Attorney Hill, did you want >> Yes, ma'am. >> call your first witness. >> Your honor, um, I don't really need a witness, per se. I would like to make a recommendation or at least allow the court to see it from where I'm coming from. >> Yes, please. >> Um, here's the bottom line. This case has been going on forever. um the girls are very um open with me and actively talk with me. So with that being said, I see it appears that every time we're in court, it's more about the fighting between mom and dad and dad and mom versus really focusing on what the bottom line issue is. And these are two young girls that have two parents that cannot get along. Um there have been, you know, alcohol issues brought up and possible drug issues brought up on mom's side and back and forth. And I think these parties and I and when I say this, spend so much time recording quote calls that it's actually going to end up at some point backfiring especially on mom because the kids are now recording their conversations. And I've heard stuff that have been a little bit as far as concerning to me. um in the last year, the oldest child, yes, she's a teenager, she's going boy crazy, but she's emotionally in a very vulnerable position position. Um I do worry that if we continue moving on with this, um she is going to do something to herself. And I've been working with her therapist to make sure that she's doing well. She has actively said, "I cannot have contact with my mom right now. I am not in a good position. She she doesn't understand me. She doesn't get me. Until we can start this reunification therapy, I don't see things changing. I mean, just alone, it took us, I think, two and a half months just to get the order sign from both sides just to get the children started on this reunification therapist. Um, it just seems like we're pointing so many pictures at this test wasn't taken or this test wasn't taken that nothing has been done regarding the girls right now and how to fix that relationship. They do need their mom, but at the rate we're fighting right now, both sides seem to be missing the picture. One, you know, testing, testing, drugs here and there. It's not about that. It's about the kids right now. As far as the alcohol with Mr. Tharp, the girls honestly have never voiced any concerns. And so, I would like the court to be aware of that. Um, they have voiced concerns regarding some THC and some vaping that has occurred on mom's end. Um, I recently found out that um, and we were here at a hearing last month where a vape pen was found in mom's purse. Lauren, Izzy actually pulled it out, gave it to Lauren, Lauren took it home. Um, and the she was going to show it to her stepmom and then ended up getting in trouble with the school for leaving it there. But the bottom line is I have concerns all the way around. The relationship between the children and dad are fine. They love their stepmother. Um, I have no concerns with Mr. Collins um being around the girls except right now Lauren does not want to have any contact with mom. Izzy the little one is happy golucky. Um no issues but I honestly don't have concerns with either one of the party spouses. It's more of how they can figure out how to get along so we can help these girls. Um it's going to get worse before it gets better. We don't nip it in the butt. >> Thank you, Attorney Hill, for your recommendation. And your honor, I did find those emails. Um there was an email, the most recent one was January 9th of 2023. Um and I can um share that I had asked that Mr. Tharp undergo the PET test with National Drug Screening tomorrow and um confirmed with National Drug Screening that he did not appear for the PET test. Um, and that the Judge Beum's order required him to go within 24 hours. Um, so there was that one. There was also another >> the 9th. >> Oh, I'm sorry. January the 9th. Yes, your honor. >> Okay. Is that the test that I'm looking at? It it says he went on the 9th. >> Um, that was January 9th of 2023. Um, I think the test you're looking at was from 2022. >> Oh, no. It's This one is January 9th of 2023. It's on file with the court. It's been on file since January 23rd of 2023. >> Okay. I have not seen that test result. Was that a PET test? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That Judge Lee ordered. >> Oh, that was a different one. Y. Yes. So that Oh, that was the one that Judge Lee ordered. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. So, there was that test result. So maybe he did go, but just not not per the um timing. Okay. And then there was one October 4 of 2022 um requested and I have that email if your honor would like for me to pull it up. >> Oh, no, thank you. The >> And then I also have one um October 4, 2022. Those were the three that I Oh, and June 20th of 2022. I don't know if I said that one. >> Okay. I have June 20th, 2022, October 4th, 2022, January 9th of 2023. Correct. >> Yes, your honor. And there may be more. I have my office looking, but those are the three that I could find doing a quick search of my email. >> Okay. Thank you. And attorney Wasaki, have the children begun reunification therapy? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We u we as Miss Hill pointed out, we had a lot of I don't know why uh because it benefited their client. a lot of uh roadblocks to get the order entered which ultimately the order that I had tried to get entered three months earlier got entered three months later by >> we wereing the language and that was not I don't I disagree with the plan >> the court can see it in the record my order got entered >> there's no dispute on I just wanted to know have they started it >> yes okay how many submissions have they had since starting? >> Uh, that's a good question. Oh, Mark says one >> just just um um Lauren. >> Okay. Okay. >> And my intake was was without the girls. >> Okay. And um Mr. Wasaki, if you don't mind me speaking directly to your client asking this. >> Okay. Um when is her next session? We haven't said it yet. Um there's a parallel process where um the professionals have decided that Lauren needs to go um through a DBT process. Um we've already had several conversations with the DBT therapist, uh Dr. Cooper, DBT Associates of Dallas, and they're trying to put her on a schedule. Jennifer Lasher is the one. and and so there's some sort of a Ellen Hutton who's the PF sorry who is the reunification new reification therapist and kind of has a different view of how does DBT need to happen first and just sort of the order of operation or can they be in parallel um I'm in no way trying to prevent reunification from occurring I fully supportive >> okay okay all right I believe you all answered all of my questions. See, >> and Y, the only there's only a couple things I would point out to the court. Um, if as the court looks through the evidence, the court will see a number of of alcohol tests that Mr. Tharp has passed um throughout the evidence of both transcripts that I admitted. Uh, the court will also note that in the file there was no injunction against Mr. Tharp consuming alcohol. uh period. That didn't that didn't happen until Judge Beichchum in uh late last year uh injunction against consuming alcohol when he had the kids in his possession. But before that, there were no injunctions. And so then what the court will see is that on Mr. Wasaki, I I do appreciate you giving me some background because obviously this is new to me. What I'm going to do is take a look at both of the EV well both of you all with the evidence that you've submitted and the court is going to give a ruling and definitely taking into consideration what attorney Hill has provided here today. So my goal is to get you a ruling if not by the end of the day by tomorrow no later than tomorrow because I don't want to further delay this case and I just would like to say to attorney I mean to Mr. Tharp and Mrs. Collins, both of your attorneys did an amazing job. I just want both of you to know that and I wanted to make sure that I said it to you both directly. So, that concludes our hearing. Thank you all for being here and thank you again for your patience. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for the court's time. We appreciate you, your honor.