A Terroristic Divorce

October 31, 2008    Discovery Deliverables.

Sonya to provide…

1. A copy of current lease where Mrs. Healy and Brennan Live.  And any other leases that existed between January of 2007 and through the date of the hearing that has yet to be scheduled
2. Copies of the police report regarding the accident that Brennan was involved in in September of 2008.
3. Copies of all medical records from the emergency room and any other physicians or health care providers seen by Brennan as a result of the accident of September 2008
4. Copies of All telephone bills for 2007 and 2008 for any phone service utilized by Ms Healy or by Brennan.  This would not include work phones but just personal phones.
5. A list of all medications that are currently prescribed or taken by Ms healy or that she has been prescribed or has taken since January of 2007
6. Copies of Brennan’s report card reports from guidance counselors or other correspondence from school that specifically deals with Brennan.
7. DISTINCTION  Specific to Brennan.  For the school years of his junior year ands his current senior year in high school

Terance to provide…
1. Any medical records for Terance Healy for the years 2007 and 2008 and specifically dealing with any commitment or medication that he was either prescribed or took during that period of time.
2. All Bank records for the years 2007 and 2008 for all accounts that were maintained at any time during those years at any financial institution
3. Copies of any checks or records of payments or records from or to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage regarding payments on the mortgage or lien affecting the marital property, marital residence
4. Copies of all pension and retirement statements issued during the years 2007 and 2008
5. List of property item by item specifically reply as to
6. A) whether such an item ever existed.
7. B) whether it is still located in the marital residence
8. C) if not in the marital residence, his belief of the disposition of that item
9. D) which, if any, of those items he wishes to maintain and keep as his share of the divided property and which, if any, of those items he wishes for her or is willing for her to take and maintain as marital property.

INSPECTION OF MARITAL RESIDENCE
At 9:30 on November 1, 2008
Attendees: Terance Healy
 Sonya Healy
 Joan Healy
Christine Healy

“She’s concerned she’s going to be in the house with her mother-in-law and Mr Healy.  If there is an incident, she has no witness on her side.”
“I know we were trying to please Mr. Healy.  But in fairness, if she can have an unbiased witness.  Just another witness.”

Trying to please Mr. Healy?  by invading his home once again?  by fabricating a false reason do do so?

Discovery Hearing – Judge DelRicci

Have Transcript Already

Max died at 3:30 AM this morning here at home on the couch laying his head on my lap he gently and quietly passed away.

[ This is the actual picture that was sent to both Colin & Brennan’s cell phones.  Of course, it was only the size visible on the cell phone.  ]

Here’s is how they have characterized the above picture:
“Father sent to Brennan a picture of the family dog, once he had deceased, and sent it to Brennan on his cell phone.” – July 23, 2009 – Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Emergency Petition For Modification of Custody
– Poor sentence structure, huh? Who had deceased? Father? Brennan? or the dog?

From the Transcript of the Hearing on October 31, 2008.
Page 36
[In the middle of a discussion regarding a text message they said indicated I was destroying items and putting in the trash for BFI to handle. BFI was NOT even my trash company.]
Mr. Angst: Your Honor, there’s a picture of a dead dog on a table. I don’t know if someone snuck into his house – –
Mr Healy: There is not a picture relevant to that message.
Mr Angst: He sent that to – –
Mr Healy: I sent them a picture.
The Court: You put a dead dog on a table and sent it to your son?
Ms. Healy: The day of my mother’s funeral.
The Court: Would you just be quiet. Did you really do that?
Mr. Healy: I did. It’s not a picture of a dead dog – –
The Court: Is it a live dog?
Mr Healy: Your Honor, i can show you the picture if you like.
The Court: No. I want to know. Is it a live or dead dog?
Mr Healy: There is a picture. I had laid the dog in a blanket next to a candle. Just a very peaceful, calm picture. the dog did no tlook maimed or hurt. The dog looks alive.
The Court: Why is the dog here? You sent a picture of a dead dog to your son?
Mr Healy: It was the family pet.
The Court: Couldn’t you have sent a letter? Why did you have to send him a picture of a dead dog?
Mr Healy: I was very upset, Your Honor.
The Court: I understand why you’re upset.
Mr Healy: I was letting the children know their family pet died.
The Court: Couldn’t you have done that by letter? Why a picture of a dead dog?
Mr Healy: I was upset after the dog had died.
the Court: I understand why you’re upset. But why is it good judgement for you to upset them?
Mr Healy: It was not to upset them.
The Court: Please. Do you understand how somebody might be upset if they saw their dead pet?
Mr Healy: Your Honor, it – –
The Court: Would you stop? Mr Healy, do you know how bad that judgement is?
Mr Healy: Your Honor, the message that was sent along with the picture did not imply that it was – – I was not sending a picture of a dead dog. I was sending a picture of the family pet before I had the pet cremated.
the Court: Can I make a suggestion to you, Mr healy?
Mr Healy: Yes, sir.
The Court: Whether it’s the family pet, it’s still a dead dog. you sent a picture of a dead dog. Now whatever your motivation was, it was ill conceived. you would never send a picture of a dead animal to somebody.
Mr Healy: Your Honor, the children hadn’t been to see the pet. I kept telling them to come over to see him while he is sick.
The Court: If he didn’t do that, and he didn’t want to see the dog while it was alive, can we assume that he didn’t want to see the dog when he was sick, because otherwise he would have come over.
Mr Healy: I don’t know that the messages got delivered to my son.
The Court: Well, he certainly got the picture of the dead dog, didn;t he?
Mr Healy: This is the first I got confirmation of that.
The Court: Wow. You two folks – –
Mr Healy: Your Honor, the picture has him wrapped in a blanket – –
The Court: I dont; care if the picture has him wrapped in swaddling clithes and lying in a manger. That is not something you do. Now I only recently came to love dogs. Actually it;s been two years, coming up on two years. All right? Up until that point in time, I had no love for dogs. But I still do not want anybody to send me a picture of a dead dog, even when I didn;t love dogs. But to send me a picture of my pet if my pet had died? I, at my age, and with a lack of love of pets for 50-some years prior, would find that totally inappropriate and disconcerting no matter what the motivation was on your part.
Mr Healy: The text message was clearly not to anger or upset. Maybe it was too much information. but I was letting them know their family pet had died.
The Court: Boy, you just show such a lack of judgement.
Mr Healy: I’m sorry
The Court: And you’re asking me to – –
Mr Healy: Perhaps – –
The Court: You’re asking me to award you full custody of your son?
Ms Healy: Can I say something?
The Court: No, you may not. You’re asking me to award you full custody of your son?
Mr Healy: Yes, sir.
The Court: When you think it’s appropriate to send a picture of a dead dog to them?
Mr Healy: Yes, I do.
The Court: Okay, i understand.
Mr Healy: With the text along with the picture, Your Honor. I sent it to all of my friends as well. they all thought it was quite beautiful.
The Court: Well, that’s great. They’re not a 17-year-old boy.
Mr Healy: They’re not a 17 year old boy.
The Court: And it wasn’t their pet.
Mr Healy: This has nothing to do with BFI.

This has no relevance at all and continues for a few more pages until Judge Del Ricci accuses ME of derailing the proceeding. This is a father getting beat up over a text message, after the mother has denied visitation, denied access, been found in contempt of court, burglarized, vandalized, abducted the child, AND according to Judge Del Ricci’s logic, because I sent a picture to Brennan, I should not have custody. SERIOUSLY FLAWED LOGIC.