STATE OF MAINE

CUMBERLAND, SS

DISTRICT COURT
LOCATION: PORTLAND
DOCKET NO. FM 08-510

IGOR MALENKO,
PLAINTIFF
V.
LORI HANDRAHAN,
DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENFORCE

COURT ORDER REQUIRING VISITATION
FOR CONTEMPT, TO AMEND THE ORDER DATED
FEBRUARY 1. 2011 AND TO REDUCE CHILD
SUPPORT [OMNIBUS MOTION REQUIRED BY COURT]

Defendant moves to enforce the Court Order Requiring Visitation, moves for an order of
contempt, moves to reduce child support and to amend the Order dated February 1, 2011, for the
following reasons:
1. Plaintiff resides in South Portland. Defendant resides in the D.C. area.
2. The Plaintiff has refused to obey the Order of this Court dated February 1, 2011.
3. The Order granted the Defendant certain contact rights with the parties' child Mila.
4. Plaintiff has interpreted the Order as giving him sole and absolute decision-making
authority about whether or not any contact between the Defendant and Mila would actually
occur.
5. As a result the Defendant last had visitation with Mila on May 10, 2011, over nine
months ago. Before May tenth, the Plaintiff had withheld the child from Defendant for a period
of twenty-eight days.
6. In its judgment, the Court said: "The court expects the Plaintiff to do what the
Defendant has not done since the Divorce Judgment was issued." Then the Court carefully laid
out its expectations in great detail. Plaintiff has totally ignored the judgment and the Court's
admonitions and he continues to do so.
7. The Court also said that the visits between Defendant Mila are extremely important.

8.

On May tenth, for some reason that is as yet unexplained, Plaintiff ceased permitting

any unsupervised contact between Defendant and Mila. He eventually has refused even
supervised contact. He has now withheld Mila from her mother for over nine months. Prior to
that time, there appeared to be no problem with Mila's visiting with Defendant in Washington,
D.C., except for the one time when Defendant kept Mila there with her longer than was
scheduled to make up for the twenty-eight days that Plaintiff had previously withheld the child
from her in violation of the court order. During all the time the Defendant was together with
Mila in Washington, D.C., the Defendant kept the Plaintiff apprised of the fact that the child was
in D.C. with her and of what they were doing together on nearly a daily basis. During this time
the Defendant and Mila got along well together and had fun doing things as a mother and a
young daughter would normally have.
9. The child, now has been and continues to be seriously damaged and destabilized by
not being permitted any contact with her mother for over nine months.
10. Plaintiff in his Motion recently filed repeats and exaggerates the Defendant's
alleged wrongdoings Defendant's alleged wrongdoings and their impact on Mila will be disputed
at trial. However, it is the Plaintiff who has caused severe psychological damage to Mila as a
result of the Plaintiff's horrendous withholding of the child from her mother for over nine
months.
11. Defendant since Mila's birth and prior to the last court order, had always been the
primary caregiver of Mila. As has been said, she has now been separated from Mila for over
nine months. Children who are separated from their primary attachment figure are more likely to
suffer depression, a low self-esteem and to commit suicide when they are older. See: Goldstein,

Extreme Custody Decisions that Risk Lives, Family and Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly,
Vol. 4, No. 2 Fall 20ll.
12. The child has been further destabilized by Plaintiff's remarrying a Serbian woman
who is apparently five months pregnant. One person who obviously knows Plaintiff and his
family wrote to Lori saying "All the while Mila is growing closer and closer to her stepmother
and further away from you." This cannot continue. When talking about Mila's memories of her
mother, Plaintiff's attorney has written:
I wish we had that little light from Men in Black and could expunge all
the bad memories from time spent with Lori.
For a mother, it doesn't get much worse than this-- All memory of her being systematically
erased from her daughter.
13. Trying to keep her memory alive, Defendant, when permitted, has sent cards and
positive notes to Mila. She has also sent Mila little presents and stuffed animals. She has never
had any indication that Mila has received any of these things. Insofar as telephone contact is
concerned, no phone calls were initiated by the Plaintiff or his new wife since last April. In the
few messages that were left by them last April, Plaintiff can be heard in the background coaching
Mila.
14. Defendant has been sent horrific predictions by Plaintiff's counsel as to what will
happen to her in the Maine courts. Defendant does not believe that she would be treated fairly in
Maine. She believes that Plaintiff's counsel's predictions will turn out to be true, as they have in
the past. She is terrified of Plaintiff's attorney "calling for [her] institutionalization or
imprisonment". As the Plaintiff's attorney has stated on the web:
I think the judge could order her involuntarily committed based on
the web site and his knowledge of her previous conduct. I think she
comes to Maine at her own peril, for DHHS will immediately begin the

investigation which the Ombudsman's Office suggested it undertake,

and the judge might order her committed.
Is it any wonder that the Defendant has been fearful of seeking a hearing in this matter. She has
suffered terribly at the hands of Plaintiff's attorney while he maintains that Plaintiff is above it
all always behaving as a good dad.
15. Even when Judge Moskowitz advised that Plaintiff had no right to withhold the child
from Defendant, his advice was ignored. According to an e-mail from Plaintiff's counsel to
Stephanie Anderson, William Schneider, Michael Kearney, Mary Mahew, Monica Williams,
Rebecca Austin, Mark Dalton, Daniel Despard, Dean Crocker, Alicia Cummings, Cynthia
Sargent, the Portland Press Herald, the Governor, and Daniel Billings sent on January 28, 2012,
Sergeant Steindl informed Igor that he would have to permit Handrahan to take
Mila for her visitation this weekend. I [Waxman] got on the phone with Sgt. Steindl.
He informed me that Stephanie Anderson had told him, on the phone, that she had spoken
with Judge Moskowitz and that the Judge had said that Igor has no right to violate the
terms of the last Order issued by him. I asked Sgt. Steindl if he had spoken with the
Judge himself. "No" "Well then, sergeant, it seems to me we have an attorney, Stephanie
Anderson telling you to give the child to Handrahan, and another attorney, me telling you
to give
the child to Igor.
16. Plaintiff's counsel is not letting up on his threats whether it is to Defendant,
Defendant's counsel, District Attorney Anderson or the Judge himself. On Saturday, January
twenty-eighth he wrote the Defendant's counsel:
Judy: It just occurred to me that you and/or your client engaged in improper ex parte
conduct with Judge Moskowitz yesterday. I am going to obtain all communications
between you and your client and D.A. Anderson through a Freedom of Access Act
request. But I do not need that information to be sure that you and/or your client have
had such contact since your client's email from yesterday constitutes an admission about
this very fact.
"District Attorney Stephanie Anderson checked with Judge Moskowitz on this subject
today and he agreed that there is no court order preventing me from having visitation
rights this weekend."

I need to be as clear with you as possible--under no circumstances is it appropriate for

you to have ex parte contact, direct or indirect, with the judge presiding over this case. I
am astonished that Judge Moskowitz and District Attorney Anderson engaged in this
foolish and dangerous little game, and I assure you that we shall pursue this with the
appropriate authorities and agencies. This is simply and utterly outrageous.
Certainly, officers of the Court can handle the threats with impunity, generally disregarding
them. However, that is not so easy for a mother who has not seen her child for nine months.
She has been severely traumatized by the threats.
17. Plaintiff's counsel's behavior at the last court hearing has absolutely terrified the
Defendant. Even after the judge left the courtroom, Plaintiff's counsel continued screaming at
the Defendant as she sobbed in Ardith Keef's arms. To say that the Defendant has been terribly
adversely psychologically impacted by the conduct of Plaintiff's counsel in this case is an
understatement. She is terrified that someone who appears as threatening as the Plaintiff's
counsel appears has any control or relationship with the parties' child.
18. Whatever has gone on between these parties there is no question that the child is
being severely damaged by being withheld from her mother all these many months. It has got to
stop now.
19. Mila's care and custody should be immediately transferred to the Defendant. The
maternal bond is hanging by a thread. Taking a young child from her mother is the most painful
thing one can do to a child, and that is what happened to Mila.
20. The only way to remedy this situation is to transfer custody back to Mila
21. Then Mila will enter into counseling with a appropriate therapist to remedy the
damage this separation has caused.
22. American University offers excellent crisis therapy and Defendant would undertake
such therapy in order to remedy the damage done to her.

23. The admonitions by the Court insofar as the obligations of the custodian of Mila to
the non-custodial parent would be transferred to Defendant. This would include weekly updates
by e-mail, scheduled private telephone calls, and all of the other obligations ordered by the
Court.
24. Defendant as the primary custodian would share parental rights and responsibilities,
but she would make the final decision in the event the parties cannot come to an agreement.
25. Mila needs a big chunk of time with her mother for a significant period of time to
restore the maternal bonds without interference from the Plaintiff and his new wife. Based on
the Court order, Defendant has lost about one hundred and twelve days with her daughter or
about four months. She should have this significant amount of time with Mila. Plaintiff could
have one weekend a month contact for the next four months. After that time, contact between
Mila and the Plaintiff will depend on how Mila is doing in therapy.
26. At the time the last child support order was entered, the Court found that the Plaintiff
earned the sum of $27,000.00 a year and the Defendant earned the sum of $105,000.00 a year.
27. Defendant then has lost the job which paid her $105,000 a year due to the entity she
was working for going out of business.
28. Defendant looked for and found another job as an assistant professor at American
University in Washington, D.C. This is a year by year appointment.
29. Defendant will be earning the sum of $48,000 per year at this job, substantially less
than the sum she was earning when the child support was set based on her earnings of $105,000
a year.
30. It was not easy for Defendant to find new employment. This is the best job she could
find in the D.C. area.

31. Pursuant to the February first court order, the Defendant was required to pay the sum
of $368.80 a week in child support to the Plaintiff.
32. Assuming that the Plaintiff is earning the same sum that he earned at the time of the
Order dated February 1, 2011, and given the Plaintiff's anticipated income, she should be paying
to the Defendant the sum of $112.04 a week in child support.
33. Therefore the child support should be reduced from the sum of $368.80 a week to the
sum of $112.04 a week, or by the sum of $256.76 a week, retroactive to the date in July of 2011
upon which the Defendant filed her motion to reduce the support.
34. Further, there should have been be deviation granted to the Defendant from this
lowered sum on account of the travel expenses she is incurring traveling back and forth from the
District of Columbia to visit with and be visited by the parties' daughter. Therefore, the sum
should be reduced to substantially less than $112.04 a week.
35. There is an issue of arrears on both parties' parts which needs to be resolved. Both
parties claim that the other one owes arrearage in child support.
Wherefore, Defendant prays that the February 2011 Order be enforced and amended so
that
1. Mila shall primarily reside with the Defendant.
2. Mila will enter into counseling with a appropriate therapist to remedy the damage this
separation has caused.
3. Defendant will enter crisis therapy at the American University program.
4. The admonitions by the Court insofar as the obligations of the custodian of Mila to the
non-custodial parent would be required of the Defendant. This would include weekly updates by
e-mail, scheduled private telephone calls, and all of the other obligations ordered by the Court.

5. Defendant as the primary custodian would share parental rights and responsibilities,
but she would make the final decision in the event the parties cannot come to an agreement.
6. For the next four months Plaintiff could have one weekend a month contact with
Mila. After that time, contact between Mila and the Plaintiff will depend on how Mila is doing
in therapy.
7. Defendant will waive her child support from the Plaintiff inasmuch as Plaintiff would
be traveling to and from the D.C. area at his own expense.
8. Defendant's child support shall be retroactively reduced , reflecting a deviation on
account of the necessity of the Defendant's having had to travel back and forth to and from
Washington, D.C. to have contact with Mila.
9. Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the retroactive child support that is due and owing to
the Defendant.
10. Defendant shall be awarded such other relief as this Court deems necessary and
proper.
Date:
__________________________
Judy Potter, Esquire
Attorney for the Defendant
356 Spurwink Avenue
Cape Elizabeth, Maine 04107
207-799-5453
NOTICE
Please take notice that opposition to this Motion must be filed not later than 21 days after the
filing of the motion unless another time is provided by these Rules or set by the court. Failure to
file a timely opposition will be deemed a waiver of all objections to the motion, which may be
granted without further notice or hearing.

IMPORTANT WARNING TO THE OTHER PARTY

You are hereby notified that, if you oppose this Motion, you may file with the Court a
memorandum and any supporting affidavits or other documents not later than 20 days after the
filing of this Motion, unless another time period is provided by the Maine Rules of Civil
Procedure or set by the Court.
You have the right to appear and be heard at all court events (trial, hearing, conference,
mediation). If you fail to appear at any or all court events without good cause, action may be
taken on your case even though you are not there. This means that the Court may, in your
absence, enter an interim/temporary order, OR hold a final hearing and enter a final order or
judgment regarding any or all of the issues in your case, including, but not limited to, paternity or
parentage, parental rights and responsibilities for Children (Custody, residence, contact,
visitation, etc.) child support, spousal support/alimony, attorney fees, and distribution or marital
and non-marital property (debt, real estate, vehicles, personal property, pension, and retirement
accounts, etc.) . The Court also has the option to dismiss any pleading that you have filed if you
do not show up. It is your own responsibility to be sure that the Court has your correct address.
Any change of address must be in writing and delivered to the Clerk's office by hand or regular
mail.

ORDER
This matter having come before this Honorable Court on the Motion of the Defendant, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is granted.
Date:

________________________
District Court Judge