0001
01 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
01 STATE OF GEORGIA
02
02
03 JUDY DOE,
03
04 Plaintiff,
04
05 vs. CASE NO. 97-2867-3
05
06 JOHN DOE,
06
07 Defendant.
07
08
08
09 - - -
09
10 Deposition of MARTIN HUDDLESTON,
10
11 Taken by the Plaintiff,
11
12 Before
12 Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public,
13
13
14 At the Law Offices of
14 Huddleston & Medori
15 Decatur, Georgia,
15
16 On May 7, 1999, at 9:00 a.m.
16
17 - - -
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
0002
01 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
01
02 For the Plaintiff:
02
03 SHIEL G. EDLIN
04 225 West Wieuca Road
04 Atlanta, GA 30342
05 404.256.0010
05 FAX 404.851.0081
06
06
07 For the Defendant:
07
08 Huddleston & Medori
09 125 Clairmont Avenue, Suite 420
09 Decatur, GA 30030
10 404.377.3441
10 FAX 404.377.3533
11
11 ______________________________________________
12
12
13 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS
13
14 Examination by Mr. Edlin 4
14 Examination by Mr. King 155
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0003
01 May 7, 1999
02 9:00 a.m.
03 MR. EDLIN: This is going to be
04 the deposition of Martin Huddleston, taken
05 pursuant to notice. The deposition is taken
06 for all lawful purposes provided under the
07 Georgia Civil Practice Act and under Georgia
08 law.
09 Gentlemen, what would you like to
10 do about objections?
11 MR. KING: Standard objections.
12 MR. EDLIN: All objections except
13 as to the form of the question and the
14 responsiveness of the answer shall be reserved.
15 MR. KING: Until the first use of
16 the deposition.
17 MR. EDLIN: That's fine. What
18 would you like to do about signature,
19 Mr. Huddleston?
20 MR. HUDDLESTON: I'll waive it.
21 MARTIN HUDDLESTON,
22 being first duly sworn, was examined and
23 testified as follows:
24 EXAMINATION
25 BY MR. EDLIN:
0004
01 Q Mr. Huddleston, may I call you
02 Martin, since I always do?
03 A You may.
04 Q This is my opportunity, as you
05 know, to understand your report, and I want to
06 just focus on that today. The purpose of this
07 is to analyze critically how you came upon your
08 recommendations. So with that focus in mind,
09 let me just get some background, most of which
10 I already know, but I want to be clear. You
11 have served as a guardian for how long in your
12 career?
13 A You mean when did I first get
14 appointed?
15 Q Yes. Not in the case, but when did
16 you first begin your services to the court as a
17 guardian?
18 A I think I was appointed back in the
19 late '80s by ^Judge Huntstein.
20 Q At that time did you have any
21 training?
22 A No.
23 Q When did you first get training as
24 a guardian, if ever?
25 A Well, I've never gotten it. I've
0005
01 given it.
02 Q So you never went to any formal
03 training in your career?
04 A Well, I have attended as a
05 presenter and as a chair guardian ad litem
06 training put on by the DeKalb Volunteer Lawyer
07 Foundation.
08 Q But nobody trained you. You just
09 learned by the seat of your pants through
10 experience?
11 MR. KING: Object to the form.
12 Q Well, you just learned from
13 experience?
14 A Yes, and I've listened to other
15 speakers tell me, yeah, but fairly said.
16 Q Do you consider yourself to be an
17 expert as a guardian ad litem?
18 A Well, if you define "guardian ad
19 litem," then I guess I'm an expert as a
20 guardian ad litem. I may not be expert in some
21 of the disciplines guardians ad litem might be
22 called upon to exercise.
23 Q Have you done any reading as to the
24 issues of the guardian ad litem? Other than
25 attending seminars, have you done any reading
0006
01 about the role of the guardian ad litem?
02 A A little.
03 Q Can you tell the court what you
04 have read?
05 A I read a little bit of the
06 Academy's brochure or booklet on it. I don't
07 really recall a heck of a lot about it, but I
08 read that. In fact, I was on a panel -- well,
09 you said read. Not much.
10 Q Do you have any specific training
11 in the field of mental health?
12 A No.
13 Q Have you done any reading in the
14 area of battered spouse syndrome?
15 A Some, but more heard or from
16 seminar materials than read.
17 Q You don't consider yourself to be
18 an expert in the field of battered spouse
19 syndrome?
20 A No, I do not.
21 Q In your work in this particular
22 case did you have any discussions with anyone
23 regarding the issue of battered spouse
24 syndrome?
25 A Not about battered spouse syndrome.
0007
01 Q What in the area of battered spouse
02 did you discuss?
03 A I talked to Nancy McGarrah off and
04 on. In fact, she called me yesterday. I don't
05 know whether she was calling me about this
06 case. You're talking about on this case?
07 Q Yes, in this case.
08 A Dr. McGarrah and I have discussed
09 Judy Doe' character from a lay point of
10 view, what makes her tick. I don't recall the
11 term "battered spouse syndrome" or "battered
12 spouse" or that sort of thing.
13 I know what you're talking about
14 because I've had it in other cases and how that
15 affects testing and that sort of thing, so I
16 guess that's a long no.
17 Q Again, by way of background, you
18 initiated in this case a custody evaluation,
19 correct?
20 A Correct.
21 Q And you picked the evaluator,
22 correct?
23 A That is correct.
24 Q And that's Dr. McGarrah?
25 A Yes.
0008
01 Q On how many occasions have you done
02 just that?
03 A Selected her, as when I was
04 guardian ad litem selected her?
05 Q Yes.
06 A I don't know, Shiel. On the
07 Parson's case I consulted with her, but I
08 didn't select her.
09 Q Let's exclude consulting. How many
10 times did you do exactly the same procedure as
11 you've chosen in this case?
12 A I don't recall that I ever have,
13 but I have asked her to do a custody eval when
14 I've been the lawyer.
15 Q Well, I'm excluding that.
16 A I'm just saying I may have missed
17 one in there, but in the role of guardian I
18 don't think I have ever approached her for that
19 purpose before.
20 Q Just so we're clear about it, you
21 chose her in this case, as far as you recall,
22 to be the neutral evaluator.
23 MR. KING: Let me object to the
24 form of the question. According to my
25 understanding, it was by consent that
0009
01 Dr. McGarrah was selected.
02 MR. EDLIN: Just for your
03 information, Martin selected her and then
04 prepared a consent order, which the Parties
05 through their lawyers executed.
06 Isn't that correct, Martin?
07 A Nancy has an excellent reputation
08 in child abuse, child sexual abuse, and I have
09 a pretty good working relationship with her.
[Nancy
McGarrah, relies on discredited Parental Alienation Syndrome in child
custody evaluations. This is what she
had to say on WSB-TV “Parents who are in a
custody battle and suddenly they’re claiming sexual abuse, especially of their
child by the other parent. You need to
be very careful that there is not a motivation there. We do now there are more false accusations in custody battles
than in any other situation.” No there aren’t Nancy. You are just regurgitating fathers rights propaganda.]
http://www.gcca.org/symposium/2001SymposiumBrochure.pdf
10 Q On how many occasions as the
11 guardian have you used her in any capacity?
12 A Well, in one other case I consulted
13 with her regarding age-appropriate visitation.
14 Q That's it?
15 A When I was guardian? I can't think
16 of any specific time. The problem I'm having
17 is that I have cases with her where she's been
18 appointed by the court or another lawyer and I
19 have selected her, so I have -- or where she's
20 a therapist for the child, but I don't recall.
21 Q That's fine. You have my
22 permission to have trouble with your recall.
23 A As long as we can stipulate to
24 that, then I don't remember any.
25 Q That's fine. Prior to your asking
0010
01 her help in this case how many times has she
02 served in a case you've been involved in as the
03 neutral evaluator? Just give me your best
04 estimate.
05 A Four or five.
06 Q On how many occasions have you been
07 involved with her as the hired expert in one of
08 your cases, as in you hired her?
09 A I can only think of one.
10 Q So you hired her one time that you
11 recall?
12 A At least, at least one time.
13 Q No more than a couple. Is that
14 what you're thinking?
15 A Yeah.
16 Q How many times has she been hired
17 by the side in one of your cases, if ever?
18 A I don't recall any. And I think it
19 was definitely one, and I think Nancy won't to
20 do that if there is a physical or sexual abuse
21 issue that she goes in and seeks to diagnose.
22 In other words, she prefers to do the full
23 custody eval, and that was my circumstance.
24 I'm going to tell you something
25 else. I have referred clients to her for
0011
01 therapy, and I have given her name to parents
02 in cases where I have been guardian as a
03 recommended therapist on various occasions.
04 Q Have you ever taken her deposition?
05 A God, I must have, but I can't
06 remember the case.
07 Q Have you ever attended her
08 deposition?
09 A Same answer.
10 Q Do you have a social relationship
11 with her or just professional?
12 A Purely professional.
13 Q Do you know anything about her
14 family history?
15 A No.
16 Q Do you know whether she's ever been
17 married?
18 A Yes.
19 Q What do you know about that?
20 A Mostly what I pick up just in
21 chitchat. I have a friendly professional
22 relationship with her. We're both on -- and
I
23 think probably I'm on
it at her behest -- the
24 advisory board for the Georgia Counsel
of Child
25
Abuse, the Survivorship Committee, and
she'll
0012
01 mention her husband and
I'll mention my wife.
02 I met her
daughter one day when we
03 were over taking, I
think, Barry's deposition,
04 and I know that her
daughter is, I think, going
05 to Yale or Duke
Divinity School. I don't know.
06 She's got another
child, and I think she has a
07 long marraige. That's 100 percent right there
08 of what I know.
09 Q Do you know whether the children
10 you mentioned are hers or whether they're
11 step-children?
12 A I assume they're hers, but I don't
13 know.
14 Q What is the reason that first you
15 decided you needed a custody evaluation in this
16 case?
17 A Allegations of physical abuse.
18 Q That's the only reason?
19 A That was the reason.
20 Q Why did you need an evaluator for
21 that issue?
22 A Because the primary source of
23 income was the child.
24 Q You said income. Information?
25 A Thank you. The primary source of
0013
01 information. And I do not have training, nor
02 do I consider that I have any particular skill
03 in interviewing a child. Something like that I
04 would be afraid I would do harm to the child.
05 So when we get that level of allegation, I'll
06 almost always want to bring in a psychologist.
07 Q Did you explain at the initiation
08 of your using Dr. McGarrah that that was the
09 reason for her coming into the case?
10 A Well, I talked to you and I talked
11 to ^Shiptenko, and I believe I told you that I
12 want this done.
13 Q That wasn't a response to my
14 question. My question was: Did you tell
15 Dr. McGarrah the reason for your hiring her was
16 because of the allegation of physical abuse?
17 A Specifically?
18 Q That's what you specifically said
19 was the reason.
20 A You asked me what my reason was.
21 Q Yes. Did you explain that to
22 Dr. McGarrah when you hired her?
23 A When I called her, my recollection
24 is that I told her what was going on and that I
25 wanted her -- well, I asked her first, of
0014
01 course, if she was available to do it and
02 willing to do it and what her time frame was
03 and that sort of thing.
04 If you're saying did I call up and
05 say, Nancy, I got a physical abuse case, will
06 you take it, the answer would be no. I would
07 give her more information than that.
08 Q Did you ask her to limit her
09 evaluation in any way, shape or form?
10 A No.
11 Q Why not?
12 A Because I'm not going to tell a
13 professional what to do, how to do what they
14 are trained to do.
15 Q Well, let me step back for a
16 minute. What was your understanding of the
17 reason for the court's appointment of you as a
18 guardian? Was it limited to what was in the
19 court order, or did you have other input from
20 the court or court personnel when you got
21 hired?
22 A I don't think I had any information
23 at all other than that which you and John
24 Shiptenko gave to me, and that's usually just,
25 Martin, I want you to be guardian in the case.
0015
01 Q Well, in this case you were hired
02 at an unusual time in terms of the history of
03 the case. You're aware of that, right?
04 A Yeah, after like the third
05 post-divorce hearing.
06 Q What I'm trying to get clear in my
07 mind is: What was your expectation of your
08 services to the court in this case given that
09 the case was in the posture that you found it?
10 A Okay.
11 MR. KING: Let me object to the
12 form just on principle.
13 A Let me refocus here. When I got in
14 the case, the issue was Doug's sexual acting
15 out. The physical abuse allegation came within
16 a week thereafter from Judy, the specific --
17 the cigar thing.
18 It was then that I decided I wanted
19 a psychological evaluation. I certainly would
20 have -- and I can't tell you what was in my
21 head at a certain point in time, but the sexual
22 acting out and the implication that Doug's
23 behavior in that regard was a result of sexual
24 abuse or sexual exposure of a child would
25 absolutely convince me that I needed someone
0016
01 like Nancy McGarrah in the case because child
02 sexual abuse is one of her areas of expertise
03 and an area where her reputation is.
04 But I can't go back, Shiel, and
05 tell you where my thinking was on that line.
06 When I get a case like this, I always say,
07 well, do we need an evaluation? As you know, I
08 don't do them knee-reflex. I do them if I
09 think there's a reason, and here was a case
10 where the child is disclosing, so I would have
11 thought about getting a psychologist in there
12 as soon as I became aware of that.
13 The impetus, I think, for the
14 timing of the appointment was the allegations
15 of the physical incident, the cigar burning.
16 I'm pretty sure that was the sequence. If it's
17 really critical, I can go back in my notes and
18 maybe reconstruct you --
19 Q Everything I ask you today is
20 critical. If you need to look at your notes,
21 then I want you to.
22 So, Martin, let me help you, okay?
23 You and I have done this before. I want to be
24 clear. I want to understand your analysis step
25 by step, so when you ask, do you want me to go
0017
01 back and reconstruct my analysis, yes, I do.
02 A Well, I make no guarantees that I
03 can tell you what my thinking was at a point in
04 time a year ago, okay?
05 Q I know that. But the purpose of
06 this --
07 A I will give you my best
08 recollection today of where it was a year ago.
09 Q That's what I want to do. Let me
10 just help you before you start looking for
11 something. There's not a question pending
12 right now. I want you to tell me what was your
13 understanding of your role when you were first
14 appointed. What were your duties and
15 responsibilities?
16 A I suspect it was as in every case
17 when I'm appointed guardian ad litem, which is
18 to investigate the situation, whatever the
19 situation may be, talk to those individuals
20 necessary to gather information that would be
21 helpful to the court in making its decision,
22 where appropriate ask that a psychological
23 evaluation be conducted, and make a report and
24 recommendation to the court.
25 Sometimes -- you asked me what, and
0018
01 you didn't show me the order, but sometimes the
02 order generally empowers me either specifically
03 or by implication to do what I just told you.
04 Sometimes they will also designate the guardian
05 ad litem to make decisions and recommendation
06 concerning custody and visitation. That may be
07
