Psychologist's Report
As soon as my wife and I figured out what was going on, I started asking questions of my professors at Chapman University. Eventually the name Dr. Amy Miller came up.
In June 2011, we received a green light to see Dr. Amy Miller.

Excerpts from 2011 Psychologist Report

"It appears April is permitted to maintain and advance communication with others via a Facebook page at her mother's home. Joe is not in agreement with the parents' 12 year old daughter having open access to unknown persons via this web site, nor is he approving of April's language and topics of comments she has authored on this web site. This mental health provider supports Joe's concerns after reading a host of April's posting on this web site. Additionally, Christy supports April 'locking " Joe out of access to April's site, citing April's right for privacy. It is desperately needed for the parents to establish consistent guidelines as to internet access and the use of such social networking sites for their daughter, noting her age and displayed level of maturity towards both of them while using such sites. It appears April is empowered to express comments inappropriate for her age and disrespectful of her person, via this third party "voice!' When confronted with the reality of her comments April appears to dwarf her assertions, yet such foul and disregarding comments towards others and her father cannot be erased as quickly as she changes her presentation."

In similar manner, the parents are not in agreement relative to their "rights and roles" in monitoring their daughter's cell phone/texting towards others, again providing a young adolescent open access to commination venues which promote ungoverned access ...at the expense of a young adolescents' safety precautions.
"4. Identification of each non -biological family member's role in the parenting of April. At this time it strongly appears April's older half sister acts in a negatively influential manner with April, clearly advancing a divisive agenda between April and her two parents. This is unacceptable and does not serve either of her homes in a positive manner."

Dr. Amy Miller: Complete Psychologist Report

Health Group Psychological Services 
8580 Utica Ave. Suite 200, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91730-5454
PHONE; (909) 944-1717, FAX: (909) 948-5199

Amy Miller, Psy.D - 



October 15, 2011

Commissioner Deborah Daniel Superior Court of California

San Bernardino Main Courthouse Dept S-11

RE; Marriage of Barrow Case No: SBFSS 55999

Dear Commissioner:

On June 06, 2011 the court ordered Mr. Joe Barrow, Ms. Christy Garrison and their 12-year-old daughter April to participate in 3190 NON-CONFIDENTIAL Co- Parenting Counseling. The parents have both remarried and prior to late 2010 had managed to make a host of co-parenting decisions for their daughter without court or legal intervention for many years. It is also noted, for four plus years the parents managed to address co-parenting issues while residing 120 miles one way from one another.

In 2010 Mr. Barrow notes his quality of contact and then access to April severely changed, replacing what he viewed as a close and loving relationship with his eldest daughter, with that of a young pre-teen who appeared to ooze with 'attitude" and "defiance." Joe reports April appeared to feel empowered telling him if and when she would comply with the parents' long standing pattern of sharing weekends, summers, and frequent points of mid-week holiday periods with her father and stepmother and their combined children. Joe held in late 2010 and continues to hold today, that Christy, her twenty year old daughter by a prior relationship, and April's step-father engage in a variety of alienating actions, as evidenced by their supportive empowerment for April to NOT respond to Joe as a parental and decision making figure to April. As such, Joe holds that April's brazenness of expressed defiance escalated as her Victorville based family supported a variety of April's offered "mistruths", exaggerations, and outward displays of disobedience towards Joe and his Palm Desert family unit.

By late fall of 2010 and early spring of 2011 Joe sought legal/court intervention to assist him in having his timeshare periods with April restored and followed.

By the order of the court, Joe and April were to participate in joint therapy to address April's presentation that Joe is a poor listener and to improve the quality of parent/child communication between them. Additionally, the biological parents were ordered to meet with me to address co-parenting issues. Finally, the court heard the timeshare recommendations offered by the court mediator, in which Joe was recommended alternating weekend periods with April, as well as extended weekends when the Monday following the weekend is a holiday, extended periods in the summer, and shared holiday periods for all key holiday periods.

This evaluator has spoken with Ms. Shirley Stutson, the Marriage, Family Therapist who met a hand full of occasions with Joe and April in mid 2011. It is noted, that Christy reports financial strain in continuing such meetings as well as April offering in her email/Facebook communications that due to her election to respond better with her father, these therapy meetings are no longer needed. It is noted that Ms. Stutson addressed Joe's need to "listen more and speak less" if he seeks to understand his daughter's mindset and feelings better. In like manner, April is challenged to respect the role of her parents and learn her delivery of her communication messages strongly impacts an adult's willingness to respond favorably to her request.... not her demands,



By and large Joe significantly displays more investment, interest, and effort in participating in "co-parenting counseling" than Christy. While Christy is pleasant, she blindly is believing that she and Joe can "get along as evidenced by a thin veneer of social etiquettes displayed amongst the adults in the most recent months (while the court monitoring process is in place), while clearly not addressing the complete absence of core co-parenting fundaments between the two parents' different homes. As such, each parent speaks privately to this mental health professional of the other parent's role and cause to April's distress, appearing ignorant of their JOINT role of empowering a preteen to function as a free standing decision maker person relative to her whereabouts, what functions she may participate in with her father, and when, how, and under what conditions she may elect to see to her father.

Naturally, this is completely unacceptable as to what a parenting unit should function as—and places an extremely large burden on a young adolescent who is not equip to possess such power.

My involvement has largely been with Joe, noting Christy has attended two co- parenting sessions, missing one due to a fire on the 15 Freeway and steadily reporting she is not financially able to pay her half of the co-parenting fee. While respecting the financial dilemma or any family unit, the past factual confirmation of significant conflict allegedly experienced by April, and reported by Joe, relative to parent/child conflicts must not be dismissed when weighing the importance of the PARENTS correcting their contributions to their daughter's misguided actions.

3190 Non-Confidential Up-Date Report Co-Parenting Issues

Barrow vs. G

Page 2 of 6

Both parents report a desire to "settle their differences outside of court" via establishing shared co-parenting principles?' To this task, Christy is very agreeable and invested. Unfortunately, Joe's perception of focusing on "co-parenting principles and strategies" is more aligned with using this 3190 NON-CONDIDENTIAL format as a platform to alter the timeshare arrangement between the parents, as already recommended by the mediator and ordered by the court. As such, co-parenting principles, such as establishing guidelines for the following issues are buried under his stance to expand his time/share time arrangement with April. It is noted, recommendations regarding percentages of custodial time between the parents are not my perceived role as a 3190 Co-parenting specialist.

Co-parenting issues, which are in need of address for April, areas follows:

1. Defining and then respecting the differences in the role of biological parents' as decision makers vs. in appropriate decision making calls by a 12 year old child.

2. Establishing a clearly identified working calendar of April's APPROVED activities (by both parents) and the parental interventions to best facilitate pick-up and return of April between her parents' homes.

3. The establishment of a weekly update email between the parents, outlining recently learned material pertaining to April's academic expectations, social events (desired vs. approved by BOTH parents), extra curricular events (schedule, cost of such, identification of the lead parent in certain activities, including calendar adjustments if needed.) medical concerns, upcoming medical appointments, behavioral concerns, points of discussion relative to advancing social interest, future events for dialogue, continuity of discipline interventions, academic accomplishments and areas of improvement. EACH parent is advised to supply an email to the other parent addressing each of these categories, removing April from the uncomfortable and rich role of possibly distorting facts pertaining to each of these categories.

4. Identification of each non -biological family member's role in the parenting of April. At this time it strongly appears April's older half sister acts in a negatively influential manner with April, clearly advancing a divisive agenda between April and her two parents. This is unacceptable and does not serve either of her homes in a positive manner.

S. As April ages and her social activities may compete with the challenges of commuting 250 miles alternating weekends round-trip between her parents' homes, it is possible the parents may need to alter their current timeshare arrangement, noting expectations for full participation in extra curricular activities while commute 250 miles alternating weekends are not likely a solid match. Nevertheless, these discussions must occur outside of April's participation initially, permitting the parents to dialogue regarding ideas and

expressed points of observations prior to including April in this topic of discussion.

6. Each family unit appears to present as an all-inclusive "new family system" to April. In this regards it is wonderful that each parent secured a new partner who is embracing of the concept of "blended family! HOWEVER, each "new family unit" appears to paint this new configuration as all embracing of April ...almost to the damage of the other children in the expanded family unit. As such, April appears to flaunt the competing attentions and special favors showered on her by both family groupings. This is not positive for April or ultimately, the larger family units of each blended family unit,

It is strongly encouraged for April to be accepted as one member of each of her parents' expanded family systems, noting her inclusion but not positioned in such a way that the best needs and interest of the larger family system is placed in jeopardy to support April's special place with either of her parents.

It appears April is permitted to maintain and advance communication with others via a Facebook page at her mother's home. Joe is not in agreement with the parents' 12 year old daughter having open access to unknown persons via this web site, nor is he approving of April's language and topics of comments she has authored on this web site. This mental health provider supports Joe's concerns after reading a host of April's posting on this web site. Additionally, Christy supports April 'locking " Joe out of access to April's site, citing April's right for privacy. IT is desperately needed for the parents to establish consistent guidelines as to internet access and the use of such social networking sites for their daughter, noting her age and displayed level of maturity towards both of them while using such sites. It appears April is empowered to express comments inappropriate for her age and disrespectful of her person, via this third party "voice!' When confronted with the reality of her comments April appears to dwarf her assertions, yet such foul and disregarding comments towards others and her father cannot be erased as quickly as she changes her presentation.

In similar manner, the parents are not in agreement relative to their "rights and roles" in monitoring their daughter's cell phone/texting towards others, again providing a young adolescent open access to commination venues which promote ungoverned access ...at the expense of a young adolescents' safety precautions.

8. The parents hold assumed differences relative to April's participation in social events such as "dating," engaging in sleep over's at friend's home.. .and the level of expected supervision expected by the host family member, use of cell phone and appropriate options made available to April on her phone, as

well as expected management of her time to facilitate steady phone access to a parenting figure. In the absence of joint agreement, BOTH parents engage in assumption-based finger pointing which is not effective for April or either set of parents.

9. Finally, for co-parenting to work, BOTH parents must stop advancing their character assessment of the other parent and relegate their role from that of a evaluator)l to "co-parent." Joe remains fixated on advancing his dissection of Christy's wronged actions in months prior labeling she, her husband, and eldest daughter as violators of their rightful role of family member to that of divisive, alienating parent. While actions displayed by the parents have warranted spells of frustration by both extended family units, BOTH parents must drop the accusing finger and redirect their efforts towards monitoring their own actions as representative of effective co-parents.

The reality is the parents reside over 120 miles apart; no one parent is at fault, it is the reality of their election to reside where they do. As such, it is possible each parent's personal relationship and how they spend their time with their daughter and other family members may be impacted by this point of reality. Neither parent is correct in making "you should" statements towards the other parent, directing how each home "should" make decisions or alter their          role and relationship with April. On the other hand, April's communication and level of frustration may differ with each parent based upon this one point of reality. EACH parent is strongly urged to assist April in successfully managing this huge piece of reality in her parents' homes.

10. This family system needs guided intervention as delivered in a consistent co- parenting teaching format. For this to occur, BOTH sets of parents must be compelled to participate as directed by the therapist The financial cost of co- parenting is great, as evidenced by the time required driving between the parents' homes, engaging in updates to keep both parents apprised of all information pertaining to April, as well as the financial cost of participating in co-parenting training. On the other hand, the emotional cost to both sets of families is even higher when "penny wise and pound foolish" decisions are made, denying pa rticipati on in this learning process while at the same time the two blended family units remain entwined in court based conflicts,

I seek to have both biological parents attend twice monthly co-parenting meetings for a minimum of six months, noting the agenda of these meetings is NOT to alter the timeshare schedule but to teach, support, and guide invested decision making policies and engaged communication patterns between the biological parents and their daughter ... when appropriate.

3190 Non-Confidential Up-Date Report Co-Parenting Issues

Barrow vs. G

Page 5 of 6

I seek the court's direction as to the specifics of compliance for the parents' continued participation in co-parenting sessions, clearly outlining the differences in co-parenting matters verses a continued petition for expanded or drastically changed timeshare arrangements.

I welcome the court's comments, if clarification is desired on any point addressed in this update report

Sincerely,

Amy Miller, PsyD.

Licensed Psychologist P5Y10372

3190 Non-Confidential Up-Date Report Co-Parenting Issues

Barrow vs. G

Page 6 of 6