cloud account.
Valencia’s report began to collapse next.
She had described herself as an independent child specialist, but she had never conducted a proper clinical evaluation of me.
She had not interviewed my doctor, Zariah’s teacher, our pediatrician, or anyone who had regularly observed me as a parent.
Her supposed encounters with me at the mall and school were not neutral observations.
She had been following me at Tmaine’s request.
One section of the report claimed I had displayed severe mood instability during a week when Valencia was documented at a professional conference in another state.
Another section repeated phrases from messages Tmaine had sent her.
Mr.
Abernathy located the overlap line by line.
At the next hearing, Valencia entered through a side door with her own attorney.
She no longer wore the smooth confidence that had filled the room during her first testimony.
Her answers became careful.
She admitted having a personal relationship with Tmaine but insisted it began only after her report was completed.
Mr.
Abernathy placed a hotel receipt on the evidence screen.
It was dated two months before she had signed the report.
Valencia said the reservation did not prove she had stayed with him.
He displayed parking garage footage showing them entering the hotel together.
She claimed they had been discussing Zariah’s case.
“In a hotel room?” he asked.
Her attorney objected.
The judge allowed the question.
Valencia looked toward Tmaine before answering.
It was a small movement, almost nothing, but everyone saw it.
“We had developed personal feelings,” she said.
“Before or after you called his wife unstable?”
Valencia’s composure cracked.
“Her behavior was unstable.
You saw her outburst in this courtroom.”
Mr.
Abernathy nodded.
“An outburst that occurred after your report was filed, after her money disappeared, after she learned she might lose her child, and after opposing counsel displayed a photograph created by the man with whom you were secretly involved.
Is that your professional basis?”
Valencia did not answer.
The judge ordered her report stricken from the custody record.
He also directed that the transcript and forensic evidence be sent to the state licensing board for review.
Tmaine still refused to retreat.
His new strategy was to claim I had manipulated Zariah into recording him.
His attorney argued that even authentic videos could be produced through coaching.
The court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent Zariah’s interests.
She interviewed our daughter privately, spoke with her teacher and pediatrician, visited both homes, and reviewed every file on the tablet.
Zariah was not forced to testify in open court.
The judge spoke with her in chambers with the guardian present.
I was not told every detail of that conversation, nor did I ask.
She had already carried too much of the adults’ burden.
But the guardian’s report stated that Zariah understood the difference between truth and a lie.
She had made the recordings independently because she feared that her father’s version of events would cause the court to remove her mother.
The report also described a pattern of coaching by Tmaine.
That pattern appeared in the fifth video.
The camera was pointed toward a hotel carpet.
Zariah’s breathing could be heard close to the microphone.
Tmaine told her that a judge might ask whether Mommy scared her.
“You say yes,” he instructed.
