| Printed Page 5260, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5280, Apr. 28 |

While I don't claim that Eau Claire is the most prestigious neighborhood in the world, there are a lot of nice people living there aside from those people in the seminary community. There are people who raise children, who grow up with decent values in that neighborhood. I don't believe Mr. Williams specifically said they don't, but there was a real sense of kind of closing in on ourselves as opposed to this, his description of Durham. It sounds like everybody is open and they -- and they're free of problems and that is not true.

I have lived in that neighborhood in Durham and they have problems just like anybody else, so just the way it was worded, I think comparatively, to me, I felt like there was a little bit of a negative judgment on my neighborhood where I live with the children now and I am doing the best I can to provide them with a safe and secure home and feel I have done that to a great extent.
Q. Would you go into maybe another example?
A. Sure.
Q. And then go on.
A. Okay. In questioning me about going into ministry and what my work schedule would be like on that, there were some questions that he directed to me when I was on the stand in the hearing. Most of this -- most of the questions that he directed to me were in a meeting that I had with him in his office. He indicated to me, and I cannot quote this directly because I didn't take notes of it, but my impression of that was that he indicated to me that he had talked to a friend of his who is serving as a pastor in a parish, he was concerned that I would have to work 70 to 80 hour weeks. Again, I think that's a presupposition.

His concentration on that both in my individual time with him and then questioning me about that in court, again I feel indicated some kind of presupposition that I would not be able to handle being a parent and being able to do ministry and have some sort of full-time employment and still function as a parent to the children. You know, again, part of what was hard for me is a lot of this was not said in so many words, but there is -- the questions lead you in that direction.
Q. What was the third point, Ms. Burnette?
A. There was a statement and his comments to the judge in the hearing about stability and he told the judge that for him the question is the stability from continuing to be with the parent, the mother, who they've been with for a while or the stability of going back to their place where they grew up, where they won't have to travel because Mom is going to have to travel with her job, it looks like or may have to in the coming years while she's establishing herself.

And so there was a -- that term stability was thrown in and I believe that that term itself related to whether the children would have to move or not in order for me to finish my academic requirements. And I have said that, yes, they would have to move. Now, the presupposition, again, I think is that the children would be in a stable environment if they did not have to move, if they lived in Durham with their father. Number one, in the court testimony, it was brought out that he had recently turned down an offer of a job in New Jersey, so there is kind of a presupposition that he's stable because he lives in Durham in a house and that I am unstable or I am providing an unstable kind of a life for the kids because we would be required to move.

There is also testimony in the -- in the court from the children's therapist in which she talked about stability of children is not necessarily geographical at that age, that there is something that she called an emotional home and that because the children had spent the bulk of their time with me, that they derive their stability from that. And I believe that Mr. Williams' comments tried to boil it down to they won't be in a stable home because they won't be in the same place all the time. And I just -- I felt that that comment was not quite fair.
Q. What was the outcome of this case?

But because of my inability to communicate that the court was very concerned and da-de-da-de-da and it went on and it -- and there's -- the way that it -- the sequencing of it makes it sound like that is some kind of rational for me having to be responsible for the full guardian ad litem fee even though I am clearly not in a financial position to be able to do that.

So I believe -- and part of that business of my inability to communicate, again, there were, I believe, implications in the way Mr. Williams questioned me that led the court to believe that I was indeed quote the problem. And I'm not sure that enough checking into that was done. If that was of concern to him in his role as guardian ad litem, why did he

Why did he not address the issue with the marital counselor that my former husband and I had seen? If the issues of the marital problems were of concern to him in relation to the children, then I feel like there should have been some effort made to obtain some outside and objective information about what those problems were and I don't know that those were ever done, that that was ever done.

So again I feel like there was kind of a presupposition that my former husband said she doesn't communicate, that Mr. Williams said you're right, she doesn't communicate. I don't know where that came from and I think that that may have had some implication for the ruling which we are appealing that, so --
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Burnette. Any questions from the Committee Members?
A. Can I ask ya'll a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: You can ask it.
A. I've heard you talking about mediation. Is there -- is that being considered in South Carolina as a possible way to have to avoid going into what I could call the jaws of hell which, no offense to any attorneys here, but I think the legal system in custody issues is -- I mean, it's terrible. I've never been through anything like this. And if there had been a way to mediate out of this, boy, would I have jumped on it.
THE CHAIRMAN: There are pilot programs which I think are in place now or they're going to be in place.
MS. MCNAMEE: There are some in Charleston.
THE CHAIRMAN: In Charleston, yes. It's been an item that's been discussed four or five years in the legislature and that -- they're moving to more mediation not only in the domestic area, but in other areas of litigation?
A. Is there anybody specifically that I could write to, to give my comments about how valuable I think that would be for --
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the -- you probably would like -- would want to write the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just to reiterate your support for that concept and the president of the South Carolina Bar. I think they're involved to some degree.
Q. Ms. Burnette, could we obtain from you a copy of the transcript and we'll make a copy of it and -- the transcript. I have the order, but I do not have the transcript.
A. You want the whole transcript or just the pages --
Q. And I'll make a copy of it and get it back to you.

I would indicate that the questions related to you are all questions that relate to children's -- to the children and issues that relate to them, which I think were appropriate as a guardian ad litem. I would like to respond to some of the comments that she made in particular based upon the letter that she submitted last week.

I've provided to you a copy of the judge's order that was filed October 5th of last year. In this case, I served as guardian ad litem for Mike Fesler and Brenda Fesler. Mike was age -- is age nine now and Brenda is age six. I would ask the Committee to review page 11 of the order wherein the judge found that I was most helpful to the Court and authorities in bringing about a final resolution to this case. He stated that I participated vigorously during the trial and cross-examined court witnesses presented by both parties.

The court noted the amount of time spent and my fee and hourly rate charge. The court also noted my fee was reasonable and somewhat less than amounts customarily charged by lawyers in this area.

I would like to submit, and I've made copies, and I'll ask you -- if I can just hand these up to Ms. McNamee or whoever. I have made copies for the panel as well of several items. The first one that I am submitting to you is a letter from Ms. Burnette to me which is dated October the 7th of 1993. Additionally, I've submitted affidavits from three individuals who were involved in this case. In her letter which is on the top of the information I provided to you, she states, and I quote,

The next document I've provided for you is an affidavit from Tom Elliott, Jr., who was the attorney for Ms. Burnette. I ask you to note in his affidavit, he indicates that my services were representative of those performed by guardian ad litems in custody proceedings before the Court. He points out that it is not unusual for litigants to sometimes disagree with those who are involved in highly contested custody cases. He states the only issue on appeal regarding my services as guardian ad litem is that Ms. Burnette was ordered to pay my fee as guardian ad litem, not withstanding the fact that she obtained custody.

Additionally, I've submitted to you an affidavit of B.J. Cobb who was the attorney for Mr. Fesler. In reviewing Ms. Cobb's affidavit, I'd ask you to note that she indicates that I dedicated more time as a guardian ad litem in this case then many other guardian ad litems that she had observed in her experience as a Family lawyer. She notes that because of my experience, I was able to participate in the trial, cross-examine witnesses effectively and I could cut to the core of the testimony of the witnesses. She indicates that I could not have done more to represent the children's issues. Excuse me, the children's interest.

She further points out that her client was satisfied even though I did not recommend him for custody and he indicated to her I did my job in a professional manner.

The last affidavit I've submitted to you is the affidavit of Mr. Robert B. Fesler. Mr. Fesler is the father of the children in this case who indicates I did a professional job. He notes I took the time with my personal trip to Durham, North Carolina to visit their old residence and neighborhood, saving time and money for both parties. And he sees this as an indication of my dedication to do a good job. He found me to be conscientious in my services and noticed I was insightful in my questioning and recommendations to the court regarding both parties. The remaining portion of his affidavit is in regard to the views of Ms. Burnette.

In responding to the affidavit filed by Ms. Burnette, I would relate to the panel my recommendation was based upon two days of trial testimony as well as a thorough investigation. I would agree that I spent between two and three hours with the children. Brenda and Mike were wonderful children who had some unique needs.

Both children are adopted and they've had difficulty in school. My initial investigation found that both were having trouble in dealing with the

I focused my investigation on others who could give me information about the parents through their observation and experience with the parties and the children. The time that I did spend with the children confirmed much of my investigation. This investigation included discussions with Amy Montanez, a licensed therapist and professional counselor. These discussions included a meeting in our church, we both attend the same church, a meeting outside our respective offices which are located next door to each other and as well as telephone conferences which resulted in two pages of notes about this domestic situation.

I spoke with the principal of St. Mary's -- excuse me, St. Peter's Catholic school, Sister Margaret, who shared information about Brenda and Mike as well as interaction with both parents.

I also spoke with Ms. Haglia (phonetic), Brenda's teacher, who was most informative. I had opportunity to review reports from the school regarding both children. I had the opportunity to speak with neighbors while I was in Durham. I was able to observe both parties with the children and to observe the interaction during this time.

I also talked with Doctor Vince Morgan, the treating psychologist for Ms. Burnette. I participated in two days of testimony of all witnesses presented by both the father and the mother. My observations and conclusions were drawn upon these experiences.

I submit my investigation was much more thorough than represented by Ms. Burnette's affidavit. This was a difficult custody case involving parents which have both negative and positive attributes regarding their ability to be custodial parent. I believe this is indicated by the finding in Judge Campbell's order.

I feel that I did a good job representing Brenda and Mike and my conduct indicates it was done in their best interest and in appropriate manner. That's my prepared response. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS - RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. Mr. Williams, I just wanted to know why did you make the decision not to make a decision?
A. The role of a guardian many times is -- the role of a guardian in some cases is just to make a recommendation. Other times, not. In this case, I didn't feel it was my job to make a recommendation and I didn't feel like I could at that point in time. I chose to point out observations of

This was a very close case. The ultimate decision is that -- is left to the trial judge. In this case because of all that I mentioned to as far as my investigation, two days of testimony as I think is indicated in the order, it was a very close decision. And because of that, I did not make the ultimate recommendation for one parent or the other.

The other aspect of that is where I mentioned earlier, I didn't want anyone saying that I did it because it was so close to appear that it was done based upon some representation by Brenda or Michael in this case. I didn't think that was fair to the children. My job was to represent the children. I didn't represent Ms. Fesler. I didn't represent Mr. Fesler. I was there to look out for their interests and that's what I think I did by making the observations that I did based upon my investigation. I think I did that by not making a formal recommendation to either parent.
THE CHAIRMAN: Questions from the Committee Members?
EXAMINATION BY REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER:
Q. Yes, are you satisfied with the outcome?
A. I'm satisfied with the outcome because I thought that both parents had positive things, Mr. Alexander, that it showed why they would be a good parent. It was pointed out during the trial, that there was testimony by Ms. Montanez that the mother was an emotional home. There were other things that were favorable to the father, so I think that in either case the judge could make a decision that I could be satisfied with as guardian.

As far as the consequences which is not before you today, I still think there is some difficulty between these parties as you indicated -- as I've indicated to you. You note the letter that I received was some months after the trial of this case. The attorneys for the parties had requested that I try to stay involved with them in an effort to solve some of the difficulties they were having relating to communicating about the children and I did that for a number of months, so I'm satisfied with the judge's order, but I'm still not certain that all the problems that these parties had have been resolved.
Q. That's all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be normal for a guardian to go to Durham or to go to a -- if one of the parents lived in another community, if they lived in New York, would that have been the norm for you to travel to the community of that parent to observe the conditions under which the children would live?
A. There is nothing unusual about that at all. I think in cases where you have parents in different states, I have seen on numerous instances, where

In this case, because I was going to the area to watch a University of North Carolina football game, I volunteered to get up early on Saturday morning and go out to the neighborhood and talk to neighbors and to observe things firsthand which would save me a subsequent trip and many hours of cost to these parties. So to answer your question, there is nothing unusual about that. I've had guardians travel to other states because when the home environment may be a question, whether it's good or bad, I think that that is an issue the guardian needs to resolve and they indicated to me that they would like for me to do that and, in fact, I did that early in the case.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would it -- and my question probably should have been a little more precise, would it be unusual for a guardian not to have gone and made a home visit? Is that something that some guardians don't do in those instances where you have a litigant that lives four- or five-hour drive away?
A. It depends on the circumstances of the case. I wish I could be clearer. It depends on whether or not the question of the home and the environment is an issue that could be brought up in the case.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
A. In this case, it had been indicated to me that it may be an issue, I was going to the area and went ahead and visited the home.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. MCNAMEE:
Q. One question, did you also talk to some of the neighbors and friends of Mrs. Fesler?
A. When I visited --
Q. Ms. Burnette.
A. Ms. Burnette. When I visited with the children, I had the opportunity to speak and meet some of the neighbors. At the time I did that, the children, we went and had some ice cream one afternoon. Additionally, the neighbors, I spoke to on behalf of -- or in Durham were also Ms. Burnette's neighbors who had known her for a number of years, not just in the setting of the seminary here in Columbia. So to answer your question, yes, I did here as well as the neighbors I spoke with in Durham were also -- were both parties' neighbors for a number of years and had a chance to see them with both of these children.
THE CHAIRMAN: Other questions from the Committee Members? If not, thank you, Mr. Williams.
A. Thank you.

| Printed Page 5260, Apr. 28 | Printed Page 5280, Apr. 28 |