The Schneiders are a large Catholic family of six. Christine was the oldest and was the children's guardian from 1993 until her death in 2001. Karen was the second-oldest. Karen tells me that temporary custody of the children was originally asked for in hopes that Amy and/or the father (Mark Sliney) might resume custody when they were capable of doing so (it is on record that Amy wasn't in the best of mental or financial shape at the time), but that never happened because "Amy wasn't involved in the kids' lives at all after 1995. She told me personally in July 2001 that 'If Christine dies, I don't want the kids back.' about as nonchalantly as a person ordering a burger at McDonalds." Christine, apparently, was relieved. Karen says that she never thought Amy would fight for her children based on her history.
The impact on the children has to be astounding. They've gone from living with their grandmother in Illinois, to living with an aunt in Washington state, and now are living with another aunt in Texas. Kaela is the "leader" of the two according to Karen and is a poignant writer, which was clearly evident in her comments in the discussion section of this piece. Karen says that Josh is more introverted and introspective than Kaela, which gels with the impression I got from the Wayne Patterson deposition.
A number of revelations were made by Karen. The first deals with child support and contact with the biological father, Mark Sliney. In 1995, the children became eligible for child support in the state of Washington. Mark has apparently been paying back child support, but the state of Washington had given up on locating Amy because she had, according to Karen, "vanished and hid from her family until 2001." Amy did pay all of her back child support in 2003 as a gesture of good faith for the court. I had previously questioned Amy about the child support issue and her response can be found in this post. Karen says that Amy hasn't paid child support since.
The second revelation is that the father has had fairly regular contact with the children. He sends birthday and Christmas gifts and calls them on the phone. Now I know that Amy (and Wayne) have called and bought gifts as well, but this was the first time I had heard anything about the level of involvement of Mark. I'm left wondering what Mark thinks about all of this and if he weren't capable of raising his children.
Let's turn to the trust fund which I covered in these two pieces. Karen:
A lot has been made of the children's trust fund. Where did it come from? My sister, Christine DiTerlizzi's estate. Where can you get a copy of her will from the public record? In King County, WA probate court in Seattle. When did she die? August 17, 2001. Who is the executor/personal representative of her estate? I am. Who did Christine name to be successor guardian of the children if for some reason Benito (Christine's husband) was unwilling or unable to carry out the job until they both turned 18? Me. Who is the trustee of the children's trust? I am. Why are we spending money to protect the children from their mentally unstable mother? Because it is exactly what Christine would have wanted me to do. Do I have the authority to use the children's trust to pay legal fees for the attorneys involved in this case? Yes. Do the children know about it? Yes, from the very beginning.I think we have to question the "money" motive of both sides of this case. Karen is right, she has the authority and right to use the money for the legal fees. I'm not qualified to judge whether or not it is the moral thing to do though.
In a number of the press releases that Amy has published, she states that she has had motions denied and witnesses that haven't been allowed to testify. Karen sheds some light on this situation: there hasn't been an evidentiary hearing on the case since January 2003. That hasn't deterred Amy from trying though, but it does explain why her motions and witnesses have been denied. I have to question the court's decision to not grant Amy the ability to present new evidence, especially in the appeals process. Perhaps a lawyer or judge can help explain that as I am not a jurist and I don't play one on the Internet.
Passions on both side of this story run high as the parties to the case are determined to resolve the case.
NOTE: The other installments of this story can be found over in the sidebar (to the right or at the bottom of the posts).
