Imprisoned Son Trial — FL v. Timothy Ferriter — Sentencing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: All rise. Court is back in session. The Arnold Judge Howard Coates presiding. [00:00:22] Speaker 2: All right. Good afternoon, everyone. You may be seated. [00:00:28] Speaker 1: All right. We are here this afternoon in a sentence of hearing on Stake v. Faraday. Before we get started, let me just make an announcement to those folks that are on Zoom. [00:00:38] Speaker 2: The court policies in this courtroom is that anybody that appears via Zoom must identify themselves by their first and last name. If you have changed your name after coming from the waiting room into the larger Zoom audience and you're not indicating your first and last name, you will be booted from this hearing immediately. The court will not tolerate anyone in this courtroom or anyone on Zoom violating my rules. So I'm going to give you 30 seconds to change your names or my judicial assistant will boot you from the hearing and put you back in the waiting room. So I trust that everyone understands that. And if you're going to take the court up on the privilege and benefit of appearing via Zoom that you abide by the court's rules. All right. So with that being said, let me have appearances please. Court will permit that. Um, what's the corrections position on that? I usually allow at least the right hand to be uncuffed so they can write and communicate with the attorney in writing. All right, so let's go ahead and do it. Thank you. And Kenti, you're instructed during the course of this hearing. If you see anybody in the Zoom change their first or last name, immediately put them in a waiting room where they will remain during the remaining part of this hearing for violation of the court's, um, division rules and instructions. Yes, sir. And, Kentia, you're instructed during the course of this hearing, if you see anybody in the Zoom change their first or last name, immediately put them in a waiting room where they will remain during the remaining part of this hearing for violation of the court's division rules and instructions. [00:02:26] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:04:38] Speaker 2: Mr. Farron has returned to the courtroom. We can proceed. Before we begin, it hasn't really been a problem during the course of this proceedings, but I'll just make a note before we get started, because we do have a full courtroom this afternoon. Similar to my rules and regulations with respect to Zoom appearances, I do not permit any kind of outburst or input from any members of the gallery during any stage or phase of these proceedings, so I'm going to ask everyone to remain silent and know outwardly ostentatious display of any emotion during the course of this proceeding, and I trust that everyone will be able to comply with that. All right, so before we get started with the sentencing, I'll tell all sides that I have read the state's recommendation for sentencing, the defense motion for downward departure and sentence memorandum, and also the defense's supplemental filing. In addition to that, I've reviewed the package of materials provided to the court by you, Ms. Murad, including all of the reference letters, the photos, and the deposition transcript that was provided to me. So with that, all sides ready to proceed with the sentencing hearing this afternoon. [00:05:47] Speaker ?: Yes, Your Honor. [00:05:47] Speaker 2: All right. So Ms. Coakley, the state will go first, and I would suggest that you address, in the course of your sentencing request to the court, you also address your opposition to the motion for downward departure, because I will decide it all at one time. [00:06:04] Speaker 3: Yes, Your Honor. [00:06:34] Speaker 2: And they go last on that motion, but ultimately, the state has the burden of persuading me on the sentencing, so you get the last word on the sentencing itself. Ms. Purad, do you want to weigh in as to how you would like to proceed? [00:06:46] Speaker 3: And I would just tell you, I do have, like, the victim would like to address the court as it relates to sentencing, and I have letters. Okay. Two letters that, one letter that I'm going to file, Your Honor, to provide to the court, and two that I'd like to read out loud, and then I have the victim and another witness who would like to testify. That's more as to sentencing, as opposed to downward departure. So I just don't know procedurally if you want me to do all that now. [00:07:07] Speaker 2: Well, if there's any risk of it confusing where the burden lies in regard to the matters and decisions that have got to be decided by the court, we'll fly the straight and narrow path of doing it the technically correct way. So on that, Ms. Purad, do you have any objection of you starting first to argue your motion for downward departure and putting on whatever evidence? No, but I would also like to put on whatever evidence for the purposes of sentencing. Which is why I suggested, Fred, just doing it all at one time, because I'm not going to decide the downward departure motion until I've heard everything on the sentencing. So however you folks want to do it, I don't have any real strong preference one way or the other. Since the defense has the burden, you probably have the ultimate decision in this if you would rather go first and let me hear from you on the motion for downward departure. Are you fine with the court's suggestion that the state start, then the defense present its case, and then we go back for rebuttal for the state? You tell me, Ms. Purad. [00:08:06] Speaker ?: I'm happy to go as long as I get a rebuttal, Your Honor. [00:08:08] Speaker 2: You'll get a rebuttal on the motion for downward departure. You won't get a rebuttal on the sentencing. So let's do this. We're going to hear from Ms. Purad first. And the way we'll deal with the motion is the defense will have the burden of putting on their case, arguing the motion. The state will get an opportunity for your opposition to the motion, and then the defense will get a rebuttal. Immediately upon conclusion of the rebuttal, I then will start with a full argument from the state on the sentencing. Right, that's the way we'll proceed. And I think technically that's the correct way to go about it if both sides are not in favor of combining the two. [00:08:44] Speaker ?: And, Your Honor, when I present evidence, it will be combined as the motion for downward departure and the same for efficiency. [00:08:51] Speaker 2: And I'm fine with that because I can consider that without disrupting where the burden lies with respect to the motion for downward departure. Understood, Your Honor. Okay. [00:09:00] Speaker 4: First, Your Honor, I would like to, this is sort of a technical thing, but admit into evidence, any exhibits that I attach to the motion for downward departure and sit-sentencing memorandum, particularly the transcript of the child. I'm not going to read out portions of it, but it is essential for my first round for a downward departure. [00:09:21] Speaker ?: And as a court notice, it's indecisible. [00:09:23] Speaker 2: Okay. Any objection? [00:09:26] Speaker ?: No. [00:09:27] Speaker 2: All right. So we do need, for clarity's sake, though, to have each individual exhibit provided to the clerk so they can mark it. Do you have your individual exhibits? [00:09:36] Speaker 4: I don't, Your Honor, because the storm caused me to lose Wi-Fi this morning. However, I can provide that after the fact if the court would just allow me that. [00:09:45] Speaker 2: Okay. So here's what I'm going to do then. We're going to do this in parts. We can make just the, did the state receive entirely everything you presented to the court? So we can either do it one of two ways. We can make that a composite defense exhibit one for the motion, or we can break it down into the letters of recommendation, the character letters, the photos, and then the deposition transcript. [00:10:15] Speaker ?: I don't know that it matters. [00:10:16] Speaker 2: All right. Let's, let's. I'm not going to do one composite. All right. [00:10:19] Speaker ?: All right. [00:10:20] Speaker 2: That's, that's the way we're going to proceed. In light of no objection from the state, the court will receive and accept as composite exhibit one for the defense. The attachments that were included with the defense motion for downward departure and sentencing memorandum. [00:10:36] Speaker 3: I just would like to make a caveat, though, that I would request that it would be under seal, because no gestures, some of it can contain private confidential information. [00:10:45] Speaker 2: Okay. So under seal in its entirety creates some issues for the court, because there's stuff here that would not normally be sealable. The deposition transcript, I will seal that. That I would seal, but the character letters and the photos, I don't think there's a legitimate basis to seal that from public disclosure. I would be in agreement. I agree as well. All right. So, so for purposes of the record, the deposition transcript of RF that was attached as part of the motion will be sealed, as will the expert reports that were attached as part of the motion. And Ms. Murat, I'll leave it for you to explain to the court what parts of them, or I can go through it at this point and tell you, but it's the two reports from the psychiatrists that were included with the report. I believe it's in the same view. All right. It will be not sealed, because I don't think there's an appropriate basis for that. But that being said, I think that takes care of that. Anything else you need to address? [00:11:55] Speaker 4: I just want to confirm that Your Honor also received the book of pictures that we provided as a family. [00:12:02] Speaker 1: I did, but this is part of the composite exhibit. Yes. I just wanted to make sure that we've had an opportunity. Yeah, I've looked at all of that as well. And that's also, these are not sealed, though. I don't think there's a basis for proceeding with that. Can you move the window down and start? Just a little bit. Okay. All right. So the way I like to proceed on an evidentiary-based motion is I hear a brief argument, like an opening, and then you go into your evidence. And prior to you going into your evidence, I hear a brief opening from the state. And then we're treated just like a mini-trial. All right. So, Ms. Mallard, you may proceed. [00:12:39] Speaker 4: Thank you, Your Honor. On behalf of Tim Ferriter, I'm requesting that the court grant a downward departure in this meeting. As the court knows, Tim Ferriter scores about 75 months in prison pursuant to the score sheet. I have detailed in my motion, I won't belabor it, several grounds that I believe this court can utilize for a downward departure in this case, both under the enumerated subsections and under what I am calling perhaps to freely a catch-all. And there is, in fact, case law that I have provided to the court showing that should the court find evidence to support a downward departure that is not specifically enumerated in the statute, the court has the ability to do that. As far as the presentation that I'm going to make today, I think that something that is incredibly important, and I'll name these people at the end, is the amount of support that Tim Ferriter has here today. It is the vast majority of what we see on Zoom, and it is the vast majority of the audience today. His wife is here. His mother, Maureen, is here, and she will speak to the court. He has friends here, and people that have supported him throughout his life and continue to support him today. The court was also presented with, I think, a total of 34-character reference, people that have known him his whole life. I think that what happens during the course of a trial is that we're so—and this is for the right reasons—we're so focused on the facts and how they apply to the law that we don't always see the whole person, and that is my hope today. Another thing that I hope to present to the court through my first witness, Ms. Carrie Williams, is a real depiction of what it's like to have a child with reactive attachment disorder. Ms. Williams is a parent of a child with reactive attachment disorder and an advocate herself for a number of parents, and with that I'd like to call her as my first witness. [00:14:38] Speaker 1: Okay, before doing that, does the state wish to make any brief opening as to what you intend to demonstrate [00:14:44] Speaker 2: with respect to the motion alone at this point? [00:14:47] Speaker ?: To the motion alone. [00:14:48] Speaker 2: Right, to the motion alone. [00:14:50] Speaker 3: Your—I—the state's position is that there's not a legal basis for downward departure here. The defense advances one statutory basis, and then basically the catch-all is saying that there should be a non-statutory basis. But the way that that works is that the court has to find that there is a valid legal ground, and the fact that the defense—the arguments that the defendant has advanced are not valid legal grounds for downward departure under the law. It's clear that restitution is not an issue here. None of the other grounds that they raise are sufficient. And, you know, the defense said, well, we should look at character. We should look at the totality. We should rely on the testimony of people like the first witness who have no first-hand knowledge about anything in this case, or people that are anonymous. And so the—a person doesn't get sentenced in the court of law based on what people watched on YouTube about a criminal case. And so for the defense, or for the court, to rely upon that as a legal basis of ground—of departure would depart from the essential requirements of the law. And even if there was a valid ground for legal—for downward departure, the court then should look, based on the totality of the circumstances, whether or not it would be appropriate, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors in case here. And I think based on the hours of the defendant's conduct that the court had the opportunity to observe first-hand, it's perfectly clear that this is an attentional, malicious, cruel, and callous act against a vulnerable child. And as such, it's not appropriate for a downward departure. [00:16:31] Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Thank you. You may call your first witness, Ms. Moron. [00:16:34] Speaker 4: Thank you, Your Honor. Now, at this time, the defense calls Carrie Williams. [00:16:51] Speaker 5: Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? [00:16:56] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:17:02] Speaker 2: I don't know. We'll put them in the box. [00:17:16] Speaker 1: All right, Ms. Moron, we're beginning to commence. [00:17:18] Speaker 4: Thank you. Hi, Ms. Williams. Could you introduce yourself to the court? [00:17:22] Speaker 6: I'm Carrie Williams, and I'm a parent of a child with Reactive Attachment Disorder and also an advocate for other parents of children with Reactive Attachment Disorder. [00:17:32] Speaker 4: Have you testified before in court? I have not. Okay. So I'm just going to ask you a few questions, and then the state's going to have the opportunity to do so as well, okay? Mm-hmm. I first want to start with what your advocacy work is. Can you explain that to us? [00:17:46] Speaker 6: I do speak at some conferences and do some writing in various platforms, but what I mostly do is I provide community and resources for parents of kids with their active attachment disorder, because that is the gap in our system that parents don't have. So I try to help parents feel seen and heard, point them in the right direction for resources, and also just allow some empathy for parents, because that might not fix the problem, but it definitely can help them cope. [00:18:15] Speaker 4: Have you published about being a parent of a child with Reactive Attachment Disorder? [00:18:21] Speaker 6: I've published a number of articles in different publications, as well as two books. I wrote a book that was called The Essential Guide for RAD for Parents, and the reason I wrote that book was because I found that this information was not in a consolidated place for parents. There was no, at the time, no single resource where they could go, and they could find out what am I dealing with, how can I get help, what would help me at this point? And so that is why I published that book, to give parents that kind of one-stop place to get the information that they needed, based on basically what I wish I had known. When I had my child with Reactive Attachment Disorder, and did not have. And then after that, I published a memoir, and I wrote it to read like fiction, because I realized that part of the reason people don't understand Reactive Attachment Disorder is that they literally don't understand what's happening in our homes. They have no sense for that, unless they live it themselves. And so what I wanted to do was write something that reads like a novel, so that people could kind of walk in my shoes, and begin to understand it, and understand how the dysfunctions of the mental health system, and the child welfare system are affecting families, and affecting children, and preventing us from getting the help that we do need. [00:19:32] Speaker 4: Where, you said that you've published a number of articles. Where have you published? [00:19:37] Speaker ?: Like, what sources? [00:19:37] Speaker 6: On BuzzFeed, I've been on NPR, adoptive families, fostering the family, several different platforms. I've also had op-eds about this in the Sun Sentinel and the Charlotte Observer. [00:19:55] Speaker 4: And I know you talked about your memoir, and this is about your child with Reactive Attachment Disorder, and you did in fact write this with your child's permission, correct? Yes, I did. So, how many people throughout your advocacy work or families that you work with have you helped, if you have a number on that? [00:20:16] Speaker 6: I've personally interacted with hundreds, but there are tens of thousands that have read my books. I've given away 5,000 in my books. So, there's a huge, this is a huge issue in the adoptive community. It's a hidden issue that people don't talk about much. But, in addition to that, I've had, I have a website where I've had a quarter of a million hits on it, reading my articles about this. So, it's hard for me to judge how many people, because a lot of people I don't personally interact with. Especially with hundreds of people at conferences, and online, things like that. [00:20:50] Speaker 4: And the people you're interacting with, are they usually parents of children with Reactive Attachment Disorder? They are. [00:20:56] Speaker 6: They may be adoptive parents, they may be foster parents, step-parents, so there's some different scenarios where it can happen, but yes, it's parents who have children with Reactive Attachment Disorder. [00:21:07] Speaker 4: You said that you wrote these books and started your advocacy work, because this is a really hidden issue. First, what do you mean by that? What do you mean by the fact that it's hidden? [00:21:16] Speaker 3: I'm going to object and say improper opinion and relevance. I'm overworked. [00:21:20] Speaker 2: I'll give her some attitude in this area. [00:21:25] Speaker 6: Thank you. It's hidden because when parents adopt and they go through classes, or they take whatever training, this is really underplayed as a possibility, because of course they want you to adopt children. So instead of giving you the proper training and the proper information, you go into adoption without knowing. And then as a parent, you are parenting the child, and if you've been told that love can heal this child and help with whatever trauma they've been through, and you very quickly find out that that's not true. And there's a lot of shame and embarrassment in that, because as a parent, you know you're failing. You're not able to parent this child. Well, no matter what you do, nothing is working. And so that can be really devastating for parents, and so parents are not always reporting it. And when they do, they're often not believed or blamed and shamed. [00:22:12] Speaker 4: And is that something that you experienced yourself? [00:22:15] Speaker 6: Yes. Sustained. [00:22:17] Speaker 4: Is that something that the parents that you've worked with have experienced? [00:22:22] Speaker 3: Objection as to relevance is not applicable to this case, Your Honor. Sustained. [00:22:26] Speaker 2: Your Honor. She could talk about her experience with her own child. That was the first question. She's not an expert that's been qualified in the court's view to talk about RAD as a psychiatrist or a psychologist or a medical professional. But she's a mother who's raised a child with RAD, so I'm going to allow her to testify as to her personal experiences and what her opinions as a mother are. But you don't have to go much further to qualify her as an expert to talk about what would be tantamount to psychiatric, psychological, and medical opinions. [00:23:02] Speaker 4: Judge, I'm not asking her. Just ask your question. [00:23:04] Speaker 2: Re-ask it. I've read on it. [00:23:06] Speaker 4: You want me to re-ask it? [00:23:08] Speaker 1: I want you to re-phrase your question in a way that's consistent with my ruling and proceed. [00:23:13] Speaker 4: Based on your personal experience as a mother of a child with reactive attachment disorder and as a person who has worked with hundreds of people. Nope. [00:23:22] Speaker ?: Nope. [00:23:23] Speaker 2: The fact that she's worked with hundreds of people is not relevant to this case in this court's view. I'm going to allow you to talk about her experience as a mother raising a RAD child because that's what's relevant, that the court finds marginally relevant for purposes of sentencing. So I will allow you to rephrase the question again consistent with my ruling. [00:23:44] Speaker 4: Based on your personal experience, did you find that kind of shame with raising a child or sharing what it was like to raise a child with reactive attachment disorder? Yes, absolutely. [00:23:54] Speaker 6: And that's one of the reasons that I do talk about it and write about it to try to bring awareness. [00:23:58] Speaker 4: Why did you start your advocacy work? [00:24:01] Speaker 6: Right after the Parkland shooting, I was watching the media and I was hearing a lot about how the mother saying why didn't the mother get help. And also that the biggest argument in the media was that people need more access to mental health care. And that was very disturbing to me because my son has been in 18 facilities over eight years. And so I know that mental health is not there. And so the issue is we can give people access all we want, but if the mental health treatment for RAD is not in place, that's not going to help us. So I wanted to make that argument and I also wanted to make the argument that sometimes parents do try to get help because I tried to get help for years. It took me years to get help. And so I wrote an op-ed for the Sun Sentinel on that topic and that is how I got started. [00:24:51] Speaker 4: I want to talk a little bit about your experiences as a parent with a child with reactive attachment disorder. Now you have a number of children both adopted and biological, is that correct? Yes. One of them was diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder. That's correct. When was that child diagnosed? [00:25:08] Speaker 6: I'm not sure of the year, but he was 11. [00:25:11] Speaker 4: So talk to me about, you said that when you adopt a child, when you personally adopted a child, you were not sort of prepared for what that might mean as far as any behavioral issues. Can you explain that to me? [00:25:25] Speaker 3: I'm going to object. It's irrelevant. I think this person's personal experience has to do with relevant to the sentencing of this defendant. [00:25:34] Speaker 4: Response. Your Honor just stated that she was permitted to speak only as to her personal experience. [00:25:40] Speaker 2: Another objection made is to relevancy. So just make it record for how you believe this is relevant. [00:25:46] Speaker 4: Judge, I think it's relevant because first off, in a sentencing there is leeway and the evidentiary rules are relaxed. I think that one thing that this court was not able to hear during the course of the trial based on whatever the rules of evidence are in a jury trial and what a jury may hear is what this experience is actually like. So actions, and particularly as it relates to the defense's first ground for downward departure. I apologize. I don't have the subsection in front of me, but it's essentially the language on provocation is the court has to understand what it's actually like to walk in the shoes of a person who has a child with reactive attachment disorder. Additionally, I think it's imperative that the court understand that this is not some sort of fringe. And if this witness is permitted to testify, you know, the actions that the ferriters took, though inappropriate, were not fringe. [00:26:40] Speaker 2: She's not going to be able to testify on the propriety of the actions that the ferriters took. [00:26:45] Speaker 4: I think she can testify as to what's available on the Internet for parents with reactive attachment disorder and hearsay is admissible in a sentencing hearing. [00:26:52] Speaker 2: She's not an expert, though. She's a mother who raised a rad child. [00:26:56] Speaker 4: Right. [00:26:57] Speaker 1: Well, if you're asking her to give a psychiatric -- Counsel, please don't interrupt me. [00:27:05] Speaker 2: If you're asking her to give a psychiatric, medical, or psychological opinion about what is an appropriate treatment for dealing with a rad child, that's an expert opinion. I don't care whether it's in the main trial or it's in a sentencing hearing. You're asking this witness to provide an opinion that requires expertise that's recognized under the law that enables her to do that. I've indicated that I will allow you to have her talk about her personal experience and what she went through. But I'm not going to allow her to opine as to what the ferriters or enlisted ferriters should or should not have done. And that requires an expert opinion that I don't believe this witness is competent to provide. And I'm certainly not going to allow her to provide medical, psychological, or psychiatric opinions. You can make your argument and respond for the record to preserve your rights on appeal. But we're going to proceed, of course, with my ruling that I've just stated on the record. [00:28:09] Speaker 4: I understand, Your Honor. I would like to make one point. I am not trying to have this witness, who is a layperson, testify about a psychiatric opinion. I do think that a person can say, when you look on the internet, no one's saying that what they did was appropriate. That wasn't even the defense at trial. This witness will simply say that there is a lot of bad information out there and a lot of lack of good information for parents. This witness has testified that her own child went to 18 different facilities. So what? [00:28:38] Speaker 2: So what? How does it connect to this particular case unless you're going to put on evidence that the ferriters tried time and time again to scour the internet to seek consistence? But counsel, please don't interrupt me when I'm making my point, okay? [00:28:55] Speaker 1: Unless you're going to put on evidence that they sought out specific help on the internet and they got bad advice, the fact that she says there was bad advice or bad information on the internet, what's it relevant to you? You've got to tie it to my responsibility is to appropriately sentence Mr. Farron for the charges that he's been found guilty of by a jury. [00:29:14] Speaker 2: So this has to be focused on what his conduct was and what the explanation is that justification for. [00:29:23] Speaker 1: I mean this lady may have gone through hell and high water to raise her child with WAD, but there's no guarantee that her experience is even remotely close to the same as what Mr. Farron experienced, because I've heard no evidence that all WAD children react in the same way. [00:29:40] Speaker 2: You're going down a path that I don't think I can allow you to go down too far because this becomes a mini trial on another person's experience with a WAD child [00:29:52] Speaker 1: that at the end of the day doesn't give me any relevant information that's really going to assist me in determining whether an appropriate sentence is. So that's my concern. [00:30:00] Speaker 2: I'm going to give you some attitude, but it's got to be reasonably tailored to how does it relate back to the conduct that Mr. Farron engaged in. [00:30:09] Speaker 1: So whatever point you want to make for the record, make it and then ask your next question. [00:30:14] Speaker 4: I will ask my next question, Your Honor. I believe I've already laid my record. As a parent, did you find that your child was misdiagnosed? [00:30:24] Speaker 6: He was misdiagnosed with ADHD early on, yes. [00:30:29] Speaker 4: And can you describe for the court the difficulties in obtaining treatment? Well, let me start with this. After you went to different counselors or therapists, were you getting accurate, like good treatment for your child? [00:30:45] Speaker 6: I think one of the problems is that parents don't have a way to judge that because we're not experts, right? So I think one of the issues is that when parents have a child who has these types of problems, you know something is wrong. And you know that it's not normal for like a neurotypical child, especially like if you're like me and have other children who you can kind of gauge that with. And so when you do go to get help from a pediatrician or you try to go to a therapist, especially if you don't get one who's adoption competent. A lot of times, in my experience, I did get some bad information early on. And I think it's one of the issues is it's very hard to know how to even find the right kind of help. Like I didn't know what to Google to find the right kind of help. I didn't know what the word reactive attachment disorder was. [00:31:32] Speaker 4: Is that common to not even know what reactive, I mean when you adopted your child, was someone like you should look out for reactive attachment disorder? This is something that may come down the pipe at some point. [00:31:46] Speaker 6: No, they do talk about early childhood trauma, which is what causes reactive attachment disorder. But they really tend to minimize that, at least in the trainings that I've been in. They minimize it and say you may find this happens with your child. And there are some behaviors that are very common with adoptive children that they will tell you are going to may happen to you. Like, you know, food hoarding, potty issues, attachment issues. And so you kind of go in thinking that's pretty normal for these kids. And that if you just love them and take care of them, they will heal from it. [00:32:20] Speaker 4: And when you find that doesn't work, how are you reacting to the parent? [00:32:26] Speaker 6: I think for me, I was trying different things, different methods. I was looking for different solutions. So I was trying, you know, traditional parenting, therapeutic parenting. I took it-- [00:32:41] Speaker 4: Can you tell me what those words mean, traditional parenting and therapeutic parenting? [00:32:45] Speaker 6: Traditional parenting is more rewards and consequence based where therapeutic parenting is more where you are focused on the connection with the child instead of the issue that you're dealing with. So I tried those things. I did go to a doctor. I got an ADHD diagnosis. I took my son to a therapist and I mentioned the hoarding of food and they acted like they had no idea what I was talking about because they didn't have a background in that. And so I didn't go back because I knew they wouldn't be able to help me. And so I did go to a number of different places. But again, because I didn't know what reactive attachment disorder was, I just kind of was flailing, not understanding what was going on. [00:33:28] Speaker 4: And how does that affect how you react to your child? [00:33:31] Speaker 6: Well, I'm not sure I could-- I'm not sure I can answer that, how it affects how you react to your child that you don't know what's going on. I think that that can really depend and it certainly was a roller coaster for me. But I do think that over time, because the behaviors are persistent and everything you're trying to do doesn't work, I think it can become extremely frustrating and demoralizing. And I do think-- I know I was diagnosed with PTSD afterwards and depression, and I think that it's the persistence of it over a number of years that this is happening that makes it very difficult to manage. [00:34:12] Speaker 4: I know we had talked about a sort of analogy that you had made. Are there behavior-- in your experience, were there behaviors that your child was doing that were seemingly really small that people just didn't understand as being dangerous or violent or frustrating as a parent? [00:34:31] Speaker 6: Yeah, my son did have certain behaviors that he would do because he would find that-- he would find that he knew that those things bothered me. So it's kind of like-- I liken it to kind of like when you have a dripping faucet, it's something that's small, but it can over time, especially over several years, drive you crazy. So it can become very intense for parents because a lot of parents, like me, don't have a break. So we're 24/7 pretty much on with this child and we're having this problem. So it can become very difficult to handle even small things. [00:35:05] Speaker 4: How is that different from your children who are not diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder? Those sort of persistent behaviors? I'm just trying to illustrate or trying to have you illustrate what the difference is in those behaviors. [00:35:17] Speaker 6: So I have three children within years, age difference. I had my adopted son who has rad and also his sister and then my biological child. So I have kids within a very close range to compare to. And so what I would find is I would find that, you know, if they were misbehaving and I gave them time out, maybe I'd have to do it a couple times. But my daughter and my biological son, they would eventually learn because most kids can learn from just behavioral management like that. But my other son, he would just persist. It didn't matter how consistent I was. And of course, you know, they teach you be consistent. These kids need consistency. So you keep trying to stick with the same thing. And that doesn't work over time. [00:35:56] Speaker 4: And so what is the solution? What was the solution for you? [00:36:01] Speaker 6: Well, the situation got much worse over time because I couldn't find a solution. And it got to the point where there was a violent episode that happened in my home. And that was kind of a trigger for me to have a wake up call and realize that I could not manage this safely in my home. And so I started going to the mental health ER and eventually my son was able to go to residential treatment. That did not solve the rat. It didn't cure it. In fact, his condition got worse. But it did create safety for my other children and for my child who has rat. [00:36:34] Speaker 4: What were the conditions that you experienced either with your child at those treatment facilities? [00:36:42] Speaker 6: He was in a number of facilities from group homes to RTF to hospitalizations. RTF? Residential treatment facility. So he was in a variety of these different facilities. I was never able to get him into a facility that specialized in rat. I'm not sure if there is one in my state. I never was able to find one. So these were kind of general facilities. And they really were just managing his behavior. They did do medication management and they gave him lots of -- medication didn't work. And he did -- my son was quite violent. And so when he would have violent outbursts, they would restrain him physically or put him in like a padded seclusion rooms where they would monitor him. And they would also give him PRNs, which are injections of things to sedate them. And I was very surprised by this. I didn't realize that this is kind of what was standard protocol in facilities. But obviously since my child has been in 18 of them, it is standard protocol. And it is how they handle, you know, kids who are having a violent episode. [00:37:47] Speaker 4: Did any of those facilities work? [00:37:50] Speaker 6: There were two facilities that my child was in where I felt that the clinician definitely understood and was trying to help. And they certainly helped me become a better parent and helped me understand. My child was resistant to treatment, so it did not help from that perspective. [00:38:14] Speaker 4: As someone who has sort of personally experienced having a child with reactive attachment disorder, what has your thoughts about, I guess, what do you want to share with the court as it relates to sentencing in this case? [00:38:41] Speaker 6: So I feel that parents are very hesitant to try to get help. Again, as I said, there's a lot of shame and embarrassment around this. They're also normally when they go to people and explain it because it is so out of the realm of their knowledge, they're not believed by people. So it's very hard to try to get help. And so I do feel that this case in general and the sentence will deter parents from trying to get help because they'll be afraid of being vilified. And also because they'll feel that there's no analysis being done of the mental health system, the child welfare system, adoption, kind of the root causes. So a lot of these people, a lot of people are kind of doing the best they can. And we need to give them better solutions, especially if we wanted to turn them away from the wrong solutions. [00:39:35] Speaker 4: Is there anything else you'd like to state to the court that I haven't mentioned, Ms. Williams? [00:39:42] Speaker 6: I don't think so. [00:39:44] Speaker 4: I don't have any additional questions. Thank you Ms. Williams. [00:39:46] Speaker 6: Cross for the sake. [00:39:47] Speaker 3: You don't have first-hand knowledge of the circumstances of this case, correct? No, I do not. You don't have first-hand knowledge of the type of behaviors, if any, that occurred in this case by the child, correct? That's correct. And you don't have first-hand knowledge of the efforts that the defendant made, if any, to get professional help before he took it into his own hands, correct? That's correct. And in your case, you sought out psychiatric help for your son, correct? Yes, I did. And that when it wasn't sufficient, you elevated it, correct? Like you went to a psychiatric hospital and then you went to inpatient treatment and all different types of alternatives, correct? After a number of years, yes. Now, you said that you have published on this topic, but you're not a mental health counselor, correct? That's correct. You don't have a PhD in psychology or a doctor of psychiatry, correct? That's correct. You're not a licensed clinical social worker? No. Correct. You haven't had the opportunity to watch the hours and hours of video of the offense in this case, have you? I have watched some of it on TV, but that's all I've watched. Okay, so your experience of this is someone who watched it on court TV? [00:41:03] Speaker 6: Yes, but I'm here really to share my experience, not an opinion on that. [00:41:07] Speaker 3: And when we talk about your experience and the publishing of it, you publish it in places like BuzzFeed, correct? [00:41:13] Speaker 7: Mm-hmm. [00:41:14] Speaker 3: And you just have to say yes or no? Yes. And did things like do op-eds, correct? Yes, that's part of what I did. Correct. An op-ed is where you write your opinion, correct? Yes. It's not something that's peer-reviewed or necessarily even fact-checked by... It is fact-checked, but... It's not peer-reviewed. It's not peer-reviewed, yes. It's your opinion. Yes, it is. Mm-hmm. I don't have any other questions. Yes. [00:41:38] Speaker 4: I want to respond first to the state sort of talking about your experience. You said that you've spoken at a number of conferences, correct? Yes. So tell me about sort of your role in this field as an advocate. I mean, are people asking you to speak at conferences as a person who's personally experienced this? [00:41:59] Speaker 6: Yes. My role as an advocate is based on my personal experience and the fact that I'm willing to tell my story, which again, I said a lot of people are not willing to do because of the embarrassment and shame around this type of a topic. But I think it's very important because we need solutions. This is a hidden crisis in the adoptive community. But I am speaking as a parent, yes. [00:42:19] Speaker 4: And the state mentioned some of the publishings that you had done. I mean, we're talking major newspapers and PR you've spoken on. Is that correct? [00:42:28] Speaker 6: Yes. [00:42:29] Speaker 4: And you've also spoken on the news about being sort of your personal experience with reactive attachment disorder, right? Yes. You said you didn't have any firsthand knowledge of this case. How many families have you helped personally? [00:42:42] Speaker 6: I've had a correspondence with hundreds. [00:42:46] Speaker 4: And those are all people with adoptive children or children with reactive attachment disorder, correct? [00:42:52] Speaker 6: There may be some people who think their child might have it and are not yet diagnosed. [00:42:56] Speaker 4: And certainly when you speak with those people, you are not personally offering psychiatric or psychological opinions. So sort of what are you giving to those families? What is your role as an advocate? [00:43:08] Speaker 6: I see my role as affirming them in the challenges that they have and then pointing them in the right direction. So I try to make sure that people are getting good advice, that they're being sent to reputable organizations for help. So I kind of see my role as helping people understand what's going on so that they can move forward faster than I moved forward. Because a lot of people just don't have that information. They want, you know, I wanted to do better earlier, but I didn't have the information. And that's what I'm trying, that's the gap I'm trying to fill. [00:43:42] Speaker 4: You said that you're trying to help people get good advice. Is there bad advice? [00:43:46] Speaker 6: There is some bad advice and some good advice, but there's a lot of advice, yes, because parents are giving parents advice in the absence of having treatment for this. Okay. [00:43:57] Speaker 4: You also said that you don't have first-hand knowledge of, of course, you were not living in the home with Tim and Tracy Ferreter, correct? [00:44:08] Speaker 6: Correct. [00:44:09] Speaker 4: Did you watch this trial? [00:44:11] Speaker 6: I watched most of it. Okay. [00:44:14] Speaker 4: And did that include looking at or reviewing some of the behaviors that were discussed of the child? [00:44:23] Speaker 8: Mm-hmm, yes. [00:44:24] Speaker 4: And is that consistent with what you personally experienced? I'm going to object and say improper. [00:44:29] Speaker 2: I don't allow that question. She's asking really about her personal experience, not her opinion, her expert opinion, so I'm going to allow it. [00:44:37] Speaker 6: Yes, I've experienced some of those behaviors with my child. [00:44:40] Speaker 4: Okay. I don't have anything to do with it. [00:44:42] Speaker 1: All right, thank you, Ms. Merab. Is this witness excused? Yes. All right, you may step down. Thank you. Ms. Merab, call your next witness. [00:44:49] Speaker 9: Your Honor, my next witness, I have to see if he's on the zoo, his father Presta, and unfortunately my eyesight is failing me. [00:44:56] Speaker 1: Is anybody in the waiting room? Can't think? [00:45:03] Speaker 5: Um, what's the last name? Presta. Yeah, it's in the waiting room. All right, you can bring it. Thank you. [00:45:40] Speaker 2: What's his name? [00:45:46] Speaker 9: He just has an initial with the last name. He's a priest, that's why I think that's... [00:45:53] Speaker 2: Where do you see him? [00:45:54] Speaker 9: Right there. [00:45:56] Speaker 2: Okay, all right. Okay, Father Presta, can you hear me? [00:46:19] Speaker 1: Where's that feedback coming? All right, so you need to mute your background or something. [00:46:29] Speaker 10: Father Presta, can you hear me? [00:46:31] Speaker 1: Father Presta, can you hear us? He's not muted. [00:46:53] Speaker 4: I can text him, can I have just one moment? [00:46:55] Speaker 1: Text him, you know, doesn't look like he hears us. [00:47:16] Speaker 4: That's a text message he just received, I think. [00:47:23] Speaker 10: Father Presta, are you able to hear us? [00:47:35] Speaker 4: Okay, he cannot hear us. So what I will do while we sort that out, Your Honor, is I will have Tim's mother make a statement, and then I will, if we can mute Father Presta, because I don't know that he entirely... [00:47:48] Speaker 11: I can. [00:47:49] Speaker 4: Oh, can you hear us now? [00:47:51] Speaker 11: I can hear you now, yes. [00:47:52] Speaker 4: Oh, wonderful. [00:47:57] Speaker 1: All right, Father, raise your hand hand, please. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. [00:48:04] Speaker ?: I do. [00:48:04] Speaker 1: All right, you may begin the inquiry, as we want. [00:48:07] Speaker 4: Thank you. Father Presta, could you just introduce your full name, please, so that we can have it for the record? [00:48:15] Speaker 11: My name is James Presta. [00:48:17] Speaker 10: Where do you work, Father Presta? [00:48:19] Speaker 11: I'm a priest in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and I'm a pastor of St. Emily Parish in Mount Prospect, Illinois. [00:48:26] Speaker 4: And I believe you've prepared a statement to read to the court on behalf of Tim Ferriter, is that correct? [00:48:31] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:48:32] Speaker 4: Okay, could you go ahead and read that statement, please? [00:48:35] Speaker 11: Yes. My name is Father James Presta. I'm a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago. When I was ordained in 1986, I was assigned to St. Christopher Parish in Milwaukee, Illinois. During my first few weeks in the parish, I met Tim's mother and stepfather, Maureen and John, who drove the two children down to the church. They had five children from Maureen's first marriage, and Maureen and John would then have three other children of their own during my years at St. Chris. A total of eight children in this blended affair, they're a gruff family. Tim was the third of eight children. He was in fifth grade when I arrived in the parish. He and his older brother, Patrick, were altar servers at St. Christopher's. Because I was one who trained at the servers, I knew Tim. I also became friends with his family and was often invited for dinner at their home. I knew Tim also because I taught classes at St. Christopher's Catholic School, where all the fairer of children were enrolled. And in particular, Tim was in the eighth grade when I taught a course in Spanish. He was a very good student. In 1993, when I was assigned to another parish, King of Arters in Aberdeen Park, Tim's family had moved to New Lenox, but I continued to remain friends with the entire family. Of the eight children, I celebrated five of their weddings, and I presided over the wedding of Tim. And Tracy Ferrer, I also baptized some of the children. Tim is a very faithful Catholic layman who is instrumental in working with Tracy to become Roman Catholic. I've known Tim as a very kind and caring, compassionate man, a good son, husband, and father, a wonderful provider for his family. Tim came from a very loving Catholic family. I've always found Tim to be hardworking, sincere, respectful, very friendly, and outgoing, and a real people person, a man who is responsible, and a man of his word. If I asked Tim to do something for me, I knew he would do it and do it well. I have nothing but good things to say about Tim. Candidly, I was not aware of the issues Tim was having with Roman or how he was handling it. He never confided in me about any aspect of his family life in the family home. From what I learned, Tim was making some very bad and poor choices in dealing with some behavior. I was certainly distraught to hear what happened in their home regarding some of these behavior problems. This doesn't seem to be the Tim Ferrer I've known over the years. Yet I know that Tim has a good heart. I know he's always trying to do the right thing in life. I'm the person I've known him over the years. I know he has no criminal record. [00:51:06] Speaker ?: I would hope that the court would at least look at his past clean record and good character. [00:51:12] Speaker 11: As a Catholic priest and believer in God's unconditional mercy and love for his people, I believe Tim is worthy of the court's mercy. In Luke's Gospel, Chapter 15, of the parable of the prodigal son, the father forgives the son for all he's done, including disowning his own father. I would hope that some mercy and compassion would be shown to Tim for the good he's trying to do for his family despite making very poor and awful parenting decisions with his son. And indeed, Tim has been a great friend and a wonderful support to me as a priest over these past 37 years. [00:51:44] Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Father Presta. I don't have anything additional for this witness. [00:51:48] Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms. Mark. Ms. Cokelin, any questions? No, he's just getting a statement. Okay, all right, thank you. All right, thank you, sir. You can remain in the Zoom room. We'll put you back in the general population. Yeah, we're in the room. Thank you. Okay, all right. Call the next witness, Ms. Warren. [00:52:06] Speaker 9: Just a brief statement from his mother, Maureen McGraw. [00:52:13] Speaker 1: If it's just simply statements, I can do that from the podium. They don't need to be on the witness stand for that. Thank you. [00:52:18] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:52:33] Speaker 5: Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I'll do that. I'll do that. [00:52:54] Speaker 9: Whenever you're ready, Maureen. [00:52:55] Speaker 7: Okay. Good afternoon. As you know, I'm Maureen, mom of Tim Ferriter. While I say I don't condone Tim's behavior, that behavior was atypical. Tim has always been a loving and gracious son. He was never a problem and never really got into much trouble, despite the closeness of his brother. Well, he and Pat used to get into little wows, but they never got into outside trouble outside the house. He was always active in sports and school activities. He was active in our church, serving as an altar server every Sunday, as Father Presta just said. Many people have said nice things about Tim, and everything said is true. I remember so vividly that when Caitlin, who is my number seven, was born, he was so excited. Tim was so excited with her presence in our home that he used to take her for a walk almost every day in her stroller. Tim has always exhibited a great love for family. As he grew older, his love for his own family was apparent. He and Tracy, on their own dime, went down to work with poor kids in Honduras. They were down there for about a year, and they were teaching down there. Tim and Tracy spent that year out of the goodness of their hearts. Years later, that love for children was shown again when they departed to pick up Fiona and then again on a trip to Get Ronan. To me, these actions were actions of love. I'm imploring you, Judge Coates, to show some mercy on Tim. I'm going to be 74 next month, and I would like to spend some time with Tim before I go. I love Tim very much, and I respect him as a person, as a son. Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am. [00:55:02] Speaker 9: Thank you, Maureen. [00:55:03] Speaker 4: And, Your Honor, before Mr. Farreter-Allocutes, the State and Defense did agree to two stipulations. I was unable to print them out this morning, but may I read them into the record? [00:55:18] Speaker 1: You may. Do you have an objection? Okay. [00:55:20] Speaker 12: Let me just go ahead. [00:55:32] Speaker 4: Both the State and Defense agree that the following facts are true for the purposes of this hearing, Your Honor. Mr. Farreter no longer has parental rights to RF and PF. Mr. Farreter has parental rights to NF and FF, however, they are in permanent outside placements. Secondly, there is a no-contact order issued in 22 DP-62 between Mr. Farreter and RF, NF and FF. The no-contact order permits contact only at the discretion of the children. All right. Thank you, Ms. Marone. Thank you. And with that, if Mr. Farreter could speak, Your Honor, I can hold the mic. [00:56:22] Speaker 1: Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. You may remain seated, Mr. Farreter. Thank you. From the day I was born on the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia, until this very day, I had many challenges, but many more blessings. I want to give thanks to God for everything. Domino and my music tape. I want to start out by recognizing that all my kids have been devastated by this entire situation, and I'm very sorry to them that they've had to go through this. Mama and I have lost all your kids, and all of you who have kids lost and have lost your parents. [00:57:19] Speaker 2: Sorry. Thank you, Tom. [00:57:21] Speaker 1: In my Catholic faith, we define love in the following way. Love is willing the good of the other for other. Let me say that again. Willing the good of the other for other. What do I mean by this? I'll give two examples. If at 2 a.m. my wife or I got out of bed to attend to take care of a crying baby, Fiona, Ronan, Noah, or Pierce, that act of getting out of bed to take care of the crying child is not necessarily for the benefit of Tracy or myself. It's the benefit of a family of six, we as a family of six, Tracy, I, Fiona, Nolan, and Pierce, would routinely visit nursing homes. We would ask to visit the elderly people who never got visitors. Bringing the kids would always burst with smiles on the faces of everyone. This act was primarily for the benefit of the elderly people in the nursing home, not for the six of us. Everything that I did was out of love. I pray that as a father, you empathize with this. My life is not about me. Rather, my life is about giving up, giving it up in life, especially for my family, while living the good of the other for other. Next, I want to speak directly to my family. Ronan, I love you. Your mama loves you. We're all very sorry for everything. Everything you have gone through and everything you continue to go through. I am empathetic to where you are placed now. I did all that I could to help you avoid that. As your father, I wish I could be by your side now and stand strong with you. I thank you, Ronan, for your honesty and courage when you spoke of mercy a few weeks back. Ronan, really my first boy. I miss all boys' time together, Ronan. Are our items together? You're such a smart boy. Ronan, I miss all of our creative ideas you used to share with the whole family. We could always depend on you to come up with something creative and to build something that needed to be built. Ronan, keep up the curiosity and the desire for learning. I love you. I love you always. And please know that you'll always be my boy. Ronan, I know that my beautiful girls. And I'm deeply sorry for all that you have had to endure for almost the last two years. My job of your father is to protect you from what has happened to you since February 1, 2022. And I have failed at that. Please know that I love you both now and forever. And nothing will ever change that. For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor present things nor future things nor powers nor height nor depth, or any other creature would be able to separate us from the love, from this love, from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord. You are both resilient young women, Fiona and Owen. And in the end, everything will be okay because God has a poem. Fiona, when you are ready, again, when you are ready, feel free to reach out to your extended family, including the grandparents. Everyone loves you, Fiona. And are waiting with open arms to embrace you, to love you. In the end, Fiona, all you have is your faith and your family. I miss, Fiona, I miss your sweet personality, your beautiful smile, and our intellectual discussions on literature, cool events, religion, and other inspiring topics you came up with. I miss watching Hamilton with you. I miss hearing you sing the songs. I miss listening to the Beatles with you. I miss going on cold play with you. I miss going on daddy-daughter dates with you. I love you always. I will love you always. You are my girl. Nora, your energy and personality always fills the room, and I love that about you. You are talented in so many ways. From your baking birthday cakes for every one of you, to your athletics. In my heart, I will always be in the stands cheering you on. Please remember this. That I'll be in the stands all the way from now, until you pray for Notre Dame or Arizona. Keep the joy in your heart alive, Noah. Don't lose that caring nature. I miss playing catch with you. You always threw the ball so hard it would hurt my hand. I miss shooting baskets with you. Playing horse one-on-one. Watching you dribble between your legs and around your back. I miss coaching your various teams. I miss coaching you and Fiona on basketball together. You brought many blessings to my life, and I'm grateful for that. Noah, your extended family, like I said to Fiona, including grandparents above you, and are waiting for you with open arms when you are ready. They are your only family, Noah, and we miss you dearly. I quote St. John McGraw when I say to my kids, Have a great day. Ronan, Fiona, Noah, Pierce wouldn't remember it, but have a great day. Know that I will always love you, Noah. You are my girl. Pierce, my baby boy. I know you're very young and don't understand what is going on, but please know that I love you, and everything I did was for you. I quote you, Pierce, when I say, I miss you always. I love you always. Please know, Pierce, that I do miss you always. And I do love you always. I hope to be able to play hide-and-seek with you again, to be able to coach your T-ball team again, and to be able to go on bug adventures with you again. By the way, Noah, Pierce is also hitting from the left hand. from the left side of the plate, as I know you are. And he has a couple of home runs already, so watch out. Tracy, my beautiful, selfless, loving wife, you always do everything for our kids and our family first, and take care of yourself second. You are the most selfless person I know. We love all of our kids the same, and initially adopted one from Vietnam, so Fiona did not have to go up without an adopted sibling, and so she had another Asian kid with her, as she would be a minority where we lived. I miss all of them, and I love all of them, as I know you do. We would do anything for our kids. Once all the kids were taken, the house was silent, and all the beds were empty. We began the sad, sad journey together. Please keep your faith strong, and know that as none of this makes sense, we must believe that God has a plan. We know that there must be a bigger reason for all the suffering. We know we like this, so I'll say this to you. When the storm comes, do you like Simon Peter, and keep your eyes on Jesus. I will always love you, my beloved wife. Finally, I want to note that on the first days at the gun club jail, I have been jumped multiple times. I have had my head punched and beat until bleeding. I have been approached and threatened by multiple people that if I don't pay them on a weekly basis, I will face consequences. Also, everyone recognizes me in jail, which makes me a target every day for every new person that crosses my path. I understand the court has to make a tough decision at this point in any case, and I empathize with you and that grave responsibility that you have. I also plead with you, Judge Coates, to use your discretion to lean into mercy for my family and myself to make your decision. I ask that you allow me to serve my sentence outside the jail or prison under house arrest or monitor under probation so I ask to be able to support the ones I love and the ones that depend on me. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Rob, any other witnesses? [01:07:13] Speaker 4: I don't have any additional evidence, Your Honor. For argument, I will reference additional letters and reports that were admitted into evidence [01:07:22] Speaker ?: and provided. [01:07:23] Speaker 1: Relative to the down the departure or relative to the overall sentence? Are you able to even separate them? [01:07:30] Speaker 4: I can do that together. [01:07:31] Speaker 1: Okay. All right. [01:07:32] Speaker 4: If that's all right. [01:07:33] Speaker 1: That's fine. Okay. [01:07:35] Speaker 4: So other than that, I don't have any additional evidence to admit at this time and I'll save the rest for all. [01:07:39] Speaker 1: Okay. All right. So Ms. Coates, state money. [01:07:43] Speaker 3: I have one brief witness and then I have some witness impact statement. [01:07:47] Speaker 1: Okay. [01:07:48] Speaker 3: Okay. The first witness and I'm going to say anything wrong is Dylan McCoy. The feud, I know I was going to say it wrong. He's just on a limited issue related to the downward departure, [01:08:00] Speaker 4: Your Honor. And Your Honor, I would object. I don't believe this is a listed witness and under 3.220 they have to list for hearings as well. [01:08:07] Speaker 3: They didn't list any of their witnesses. I did. [01:08:09] Speaker 1: There wasn't. [01:08:10] Speaker 3: I never, it was not served on the state. [01:08:12] Speaker 1: There was a, there was a, Ms. Moran, the court controls everything from up here. The court did receive a witness list from the defense. So. [01:08:24] Speaker 3: This is a very, like, limited issue, Your Honor, and I can, I can tell you what it is. It's the restitution. It's just, he's just going to testify that the child has insurance. That's the only question I'm asking. [01:08:37] Speaker 1: Response? [01:08:39] Speaker 3: I maintain my objection. [01:08:40] Speaker 1: All right. So what's the prejudice that the defense, well, first of all, do you agree with Ms. Moran's argument that under the rule of criminal proceedings she cited for a sentencing hearing the state is obligated to provide a witness list to them? [01:08:55] Speaker 3: I don't know that we are for this purpose, Your Honor. I certainly didn't. It's just as to their downward departure which they provided to us on Monday. It's just to, [01:09:02] Speaker 1: I'll tell you, I almost never received witness lists for sentencing hearings. [01:09:05] Speaker 3: And like, there can be victim impact statements that are completely unrelated to a witness list. All of her witnesses that gave impact statements, she's incorporating them into the record for evidentiary purposes for the purpose of her downward departure. I haven't seen the list but I don't know that she listed every person that's on because those letters, some of the letters are anonymous that she provided to the court. I don't think there's any prejudice, Your Honor, at all. [01:09:30] Speaker 1: Final response, Ms. Moran. You want to make a vote? Rest on my argument. All right. I think it will require this. All right. So point out in the rule that it requires it in a sentencing hearing as opposed to trial. [01:09:39] Speaker 4: It says trial and hearing under 3.220 sub, I have to find the subsection. But I actually checked it prior to this because... [01:09:47] Speaker 2: Okay. Just read for me the provision of the rule that requires it in a sentencing hearing. Because like I say, I hardly ever get witness lists in sentencing hearings. [01:09:57] Speaker 3: No, it's not a big deal. I don't need to call him. Don't worry. You're going to draw it? Yeah. [01:10:11] Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Let's move on then. [01:10:13] Speaker 3: All right. Can I just have one second? [01:10:20] Speaker ?: Your Honor, I'd like to have [01:10:22] Speaker 3: Ron and Gerder give a victim impact statement. [01:10:24] Speaker 2: Okay. [01:10:26] Speaker 1: Let's administer the oath to raise your right hand. Madam Clerk, if you could administer the oath. [01:11:02] Speaker 5: Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? [01:11:07] Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. All right. You may proceed. [01:11:26] Speaker 12: I came here to see your face again. [01:11:32] Speaker ?: I came here today to see your face again. [01:11:33] Speaker 12: It might be the last. So let us make this right. Would it not be proper to say our last goodbyes? It looks like we hit a fork in the road and it seems that I can only fit on the path on the right. But you were left with the left one. Some might wonder why I came to see you again. A lot of people do not like what you did to me before I come back. Well, it's because behind this monster of madness, guilt, anger, and wrongdoing, I see a soft spot. I see what you truly are. I know that hiding in the darkness of fear and blame is true, fatherly love. In the exact same spot there is nurturing, I believe that it can still be activated. We just need to excavate the corrupted parts of your heart. Most people think that I am sensitive when it comes to talking about you. That is true and false. I do want to talk about you. That's because I still love you. And I will always love you. Until the end of my days. I just want to say that I wish you never did the things you did to me. And I think that it was just a long dream. I wish I wanted to say that you never left. When every day passes since we last made contact. I feel like everything is slowly taken away from me. I want to say I miss those brown eyes. I miss knowing what you're doing. I also miss knowing how your day has been. I keep on thinking about you. Whether I'm in a good mood or not. When I said I was family. That was something I really meant. I just wish you the best. I want to say that you were everything I needed all along. But Baba. I want you happy whether or not it's with me. I wanted to be with you. But that is something I wish I really meant. When now you're facing heavy consequences. But I have something that I cannot change. My father was a good person. We just made a really serious mistake. He was not a bad parent. He worked in the medical field when I was a young age. We all went on to out-of-country vacations. Such as Canada and France. He had a lot of friends. He had a positive impact on those around him. But we got to remember that a mistake was made. And trauma lasts. It could burn through people's brains, souls, hearts, and destroying everything in its past. It creates pain. It creates pain. It creates suffering. It creates hate. And the last thing I want to do is hate. A lot of people dislike you because of your actions. And some have feelings of hatred. However, I still love you. And I will continue to love you for the rest of my days. But how do I feel about you? I feel sad. I feel sympathy. I feel hope. But most importantly, I feel forgiveness. Other people may not think that. But I do. In that, I hope you can gather yourself and try to follow up on the consequences of your actions. Just remember that I'm still your son. No matter what. And always remember that I'm still a farreter. And Judge Coates, I wish you could sentence my beloved father, Tim. Six months jail time. Five years probation. And I have, and true mercy is not just from the heart. It's the will of the victim to accept mercy that he has received for his wrongdoings. [01:16:26] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:16:27] Speaker 3: Governor, next I have a victim impact statement from Dr. Waller. And she's on Zoom. Okay. [01:16:36] Speaker ?: Governor, I never received this in advance as well. I'm going to be deducting. This is not a list of witnesses. [01:16:41] Speaker 3: She's providing a victim impact statement, Your Honor. That's permissible. It's not. [01:16:45] Speaker 1: Objection's overruled. Where is she on Zoom here? Yeah, right here, Your Honor. Come on, let me know. All right. Dr. Waller, I'll do right here, please. Do you swear to tell the truth? No truth, nothing but the truth. So I've been done. [01:17:06] Speaker ?: I do. [01:17:07] Speaker 1: All right. We may proceed with the statement. [01:17:09] Speaker 5: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is Dr. Nikki Waller. I'm a licensed social worker. I've been providing trauma therapy and support to Fiona, Rowan, and Nola, Faradar, since shortly before, I'm sorry, since shortly after they moved from their parent care and ended up in the foster care system in February of 2022. This statement was approved by all three children, by all three of the Faradar children, Rowan and Nola. But I'm specifically here to talk about the parent care system, but I'm specifically here to talk about the impact that the persecutor's behavior had on the third daughter. Troublem is a process that occurs between a victim and a perpetrator. The victim becomes reliant on the perpetrator to meet their basic physiological needs. Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I have a pass. [01:18:00] Speaker 9: Oh, on a sec, Doctor. I am going to object to relevance, Your Honor, as it relates to the victim impact of the daughters, as they are not listed victims in this case, and it's irrelevant. I believe that the only victim impact that would be relevant is RF. [01:18:13] Speaker 1: Response? [01:18:14] Speaker 3: The parents didn't consider a broader impact for the purposes of sentencing. They provided numerous letters about all his good character, and so the impact of his actions, they want you to consider his good acts and an impact that he has had positively on the community, but they don't want you to consider the impact that he had negatively. It's completely permissible consideration in a sentencing hearing. [01:18:35] Speaker 2: The objection is over, and I will continue to allow you to proceed with your statement, Dr. Waller. [01:18:40] Speaker 5: Thank you, Your Honor. The victim becomes reliant on the perpetrator to meet their basic physiological needs. As time passes, the victim becomes grateful to the perpetrator for allowing them to have the basic fundamental things that humans need to grow to survive. Abused children are uniquely found of honor to their parent perpetrators. Children generally rely on their parents for their physiological needs. They also rely on their parents to provide for their safety, security, and love and belonging. As parents provide these essential tools, children learn to become social, safe, and independent. Most children who are abused and deprived of their fundamental needs by their parents start to develop neurobiological differences. Over the years, these children become conditioned to believe that the things that their parent perpetrator provides to them are normal. The victim believes they are loved, supportive, and cared for despite the treatment that they're receiving, even when the situation is very different. The victim in return develops a deep love for their parent perpetrator, many times believing that they are to blame for any mistreatment or mistakes that have taken place on the parent perpetrator's part. The victim will defend their perpetrator to others and even take on a blame role, but any behaviors that they believe are their fault. I've had the unique opportunity to process with Nola and Fiona Ferrer, their beliefs, fears, tears, rationalizations, and realities about what's happened in their family. The hardest thing for the Ferrer daughters is the ongoing betrayal that they feel. Each of them is depressed, anxious, and afraid. But mostly, they have a deep sense of betrayal from their parents and extended family. They love their brother. They love their parents. Fiona and Nola both understand that Ronan is trauma-bonded to their parents. They wonder how long it will take for Ronan to heal and for their trauma-bondes to break. They both wonder if Ronan's trauma-bondes will ever break or if their brother will even survive the abuse that he's endured. The betrayal that the girls have comes from the deep and relentless misrepresentation of their brother and his behaviors to the general community by their parents, the media, and their extended family. Over the past eight years, the girls have watched their brother lose a sense of himself, his happiness, and his freedom. They remember the lock outside the door when he was under eight. They remember when their parents first removed Ronan from the family home when he was about 10. This happened just after a new baby took his place and his bedroom. The girls remember Ronan put into the room in the garage, locked from the outside. Fiona talks about remembering the locking, lights off, crying, lack of food, and no access to the bathroom night after night. She remembers her brother screaming as she listened to her father beat him, and then she'd hear knocking. She slept in silence, terrified, wondering if her brother was still alive on the other side of that wall. Over the past 18 months, the girls have shared very different versions of how Ronan had behaved in the family home, specifically about the incident circulating within the general media. The fairer girls tell stories of three happy siblings under the age of five or six playing together. The fairer girls remember the injuries that Ronan allegedly inflicted on others, occurring during playtime together, not because of the calculated vengefulness that one sibling had for the other, but because there were children playing too rough. The girls remember Ronan taking the door off the hinges of the locked bedroom when he was around 10 years old. This incident was right before his parents moved him into the garage. They remember that Ronan was so tiny when he was 10. They wondered how he was able to get the door off the hinges. The girls remember the door falling on their mother, who was on the other side of the door. They remember Ronan trying to get out of his room to use about them. These are the distorted stories that their friends read online and then look at them and wonder about their school. The girls didn't understand what was happening to Ronan at first, but they developed their autonomy. As they developed their autonomy, they began to question why their parents treated their brother so differently. They began to wonder why they were all treated so differently. They began to wonder why they could live worldwide, live in a beautiful house on 10 acres with a pool and a golf pad, and go to private schools, but their brother didn't have a regular doctor or therapist to help them. They began to understand that their brother was running away in an attempt to get out of a horrible situation that he was in. They began to become afraid of their father, saying his unpredictable behavior and of their mother for not stopping it. Nolan and Fiona will tell you that Ronan is kind, gentle, and caring. Ronan was on the ring tape, speaking to his father. Everyone heard it. While Ronan's father was angry, challenging his behaviors, threatening to lock an ankle monitor on him, and threatening to take him out of school to homeschool him further within his locked room, Ronan answered his father respectfully, demurely, and never once talked back. That's the brother the fairer daughters will tell you was present most of the time that they were together. For the girls, hearing that their father was parenting Ronan poorly, and that it was Ronan's fault that he was locked in a ring for hours upon hours was the most upsetting part for the figure of girls. The girls will tell you that their dad has a college degree and has traveled worldwide, helping others succeed. He has three children that he treats very differently. Nora was recently able to spend time with an uncle that she hasn't seen in years. This uncle physically resembled her father. The resemblance was so uncanny that it threw her back a little. She wasn't expecting anyone to look so much like her dad physically. She spent a few days with his uncle and his family. She learned that his uncle was very different than her father. He was kind, he was loving, he was attentive, he was personable, and he was gentle. When it was time for her to leave, she broke down into tears when she got into the car to return home. She was sobbing. Her question, how did my dad do it so long? Thank you, Your Honor. [01:24:27] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:24:29] Speaker 3: And then I've got two victim impact statements. The first is from Fiona Barrier. [01:24:33] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:24:34] Speaker 3: Your Honor, may I talk to Laura one question, please? [01:24:36] Speaker 1: I will promote it. [01:24:38] Speaker 9: Thank you. [01:24:41] Speaker 4: Dr. Waller, can you hear me? [01:24:42] Speaker ?: Yes. [01:24:43] Speaker 4: This is Priya Murad. How are you? [01:24:45] Speaker ?: Good. [01:24:45] Speaker 4: Dr. Waller, your statement was specifically as to the two girls, correct? [01:24:52] Speaker 5: From there, yes. [01:24:53] Speaker 4: Okay. And is that something that you wrote and that they approved? [01:24:57] Speaker 5: That's something that I wrote and all three children approved. [01:24:59] Speaker 4: Okay. And then you haven't, I believe in several months, if not a year, personally treated RF. Is that correct? [01:25:08] Speaker 5: That is incorrect. I saw it on Tuesday. [01:25:09] Speaker 4: Okay. And are you his traitor, like are you treating him right now or did you just see him? [01:25:14] Speaker 5: No, I'm treating him. [01:25:15] Speaker 4: Okay. Was there a gap in that at some point? [01:25:18] Speaker 3: Yeah. And that's just irrelevance and it goes, there's privilege issues. [01:25:22] Speaker 2: I'll allow the question to be answered, but then I'm going to cut it off. You can answer the question as presented. [01:25:27] Speaker 5: Yeah. [01:25:27] Speaker 4: Okay. And when was that gap? I'm just asking for timeframe, no specifics. [01:25:32] Speaker 5: The gap in me personally treating him? Correct. From June of 2022 until, I'm going to have to say, your honor, I don't have an exact time frame, but probably the last two to three months he was reengaged on general treatment. [01:25:54] Speaker 7: Okay. [01:25:55] Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Dr. Weyer. Thank you, Ms. Meron. Do you have any follow-up questions? All right. Thank you, Dr. Weyer. All right. [01:26:02] Speaker 3: The first is from Fiona Ferreter, your honor. [01:26:06] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:26:07] Speaker 3: Where to begin, there is a lot I could say about this situation. My name is Fiona Ferreter. I am Ronan Ferreter's older sister and the eldest daughter of Timothy and Tracy Ferreter. I wanted to share the impact of my brother's abuse on him, my sister, Nola, and my other brother, Pierce. Consider what it is like to have lived in a house where you can hear the screams of your younger brother when he is not in his room. Screams of frustration, hurt, anger, fear, helplessness, and despair. Where you can hear your father yell profanities at him. Where I could hear my father beat him to the point where my brother was no longer screaming, but crying out in pain and barely able to answer questions. I thought it was over after I heard my dad slam the door shut and storm up the stairs. But no, it was just the continuation of a cycle I knew would start again. That happened too many times to count. It was the same thing. It became a routine. And I couldn't do a thing to stop it. All I could do was hope the storm blew over and that no one else would be targeted. Nola, Ronan, and I all played the game of hot potato with a bomb that could have exploded at any moment. Who was going to face Tim's angry tone next? Was he going to rage? Would he slam the door? Would he shout? Or was he going to stuff his anger down his throat and plaster a smile on his face and let us off with a warning? No one dared push him past his limit. We didn't want to be the next person locked in our room or restricted from leaving the house. I learned to clam up when those eyebrows drew together and those eyes darkened. We learned to ask for things at the right time when he was content. I tried yelling back once. It got me nowhere. He disregarded my attempts to get him to listen. All he could see was disrespect. All he could hear was a rude daughter. The moment I discovered that he couldn't hear me, I snapped my jaw shut and matched his glare. I looked for any sign of an understanding father. He couldn't see or hear the daughter that just wanted her baba to understand her, to listen to her for once. That's all she wanted that dark night when she looked up at her father's unyielding face. Instead, she went to bed with angry tears and left behind a stone statue of a parent. When we went out, we all put on the best family faces. We were the perfect ferriter family, and we were the ferriter kids. Perfect, polite children, each with our own strict roles. But if you looked closer, you would see the cracks that opened every time the door shut and we were in our own home. You'd see that the oldest child who watches her family silently, trying to keep it from fragmenting. You'd see a middle brother slowly start to stop smiling in pictures. Then there was the younger sister, who despite seeming like the golden child, barely opened up to her parents. And finally, there is the baby, who fortunately is not quite old enough to fully understand the thin layer of glass his family walks on. We were all actors, pawns in the game of life my parents wanted us to play. My brother ran away several times. These are the two major instances that I can remember. The first night he returned, seemingly shocked and slightly dazed. He never told me what happened. To be honest, I probably saw less of him after that. The second instance, he didn't come back. I remember my mother sending me down into the dark of Arizona to our driveway to call for him. She thought that he might be more likely to answer me than her. I wanted to ask her if she knew why. It's not right that a child should not come home when their mother, who should care for them, calls them. But of course my brother didn't. So I walked down that driveway and called for him. Even though I called for him, I whispered to myself, don't come back. It will be so much worse if you come back. By then I was past the sensor that our driveway had and was looking out into the inky blackness of the night. For a moment I considered how easy it would be to run after my brother. After all, my mother was on the porch and the sensor wouldn't be able to tell. I had the chance. But where would I go? And more importantly, who would take care of my other siblings? So I turned back and walked back inside the house. That night was scary. My younger sister came into my room and we had the most serious discussion, maybe longest discussion we had ever had in a while. I could tell that we both did not feel safe in the house. So I offered to have her sleep in my room with me, something we hadn't done since elementary school. I placed a little bell on the door and told her if something were to happen, we would hear the bell and be ready. We talked about our parents. We wondered if they would ever divorce because we could hear them shouting at each other. Eventually our brother came back. Things got worse. They started to keep him in the laundry room with no pants. One time they blocked up the door with boxes so he couldn't get out. He was kept on even more surveillance. At this point he may as well have been a prisoner. My father found him with a cord for charging a phone. When he asked my brother why he had that, my brother told him that he was going to try and hang himself. My father mocked him, asked him, did you really think that could hold your weight? My father may as well have laughed in my brother's face. It reminded me of a different time my brother had mentioned suicide. We were at some hotel and my brother was sitting on the floor. We were arguing about something and he shouted at me that he wanted to kill himself. At the time it was my mother who brushed it off. The effect was the same for both times. The only difference is that the broken defeat in my brother's voice instead of the angry shout as he admits his desire to die. There were other instances, other signs I should have noticed but I didn't and I could do nothing. I couldn't do a single thing to stop any of it. I couldn't stop my father from grabbing my brother by the back of his neck. I couldn't stop my father from lifting my brother up the wall with only one hand on his neck. I tell the same story every time and it's still on my mind. What if my father had killed my brother? What if he had died that day in front of me? What if he had suffocated or his neck had stabbed? What if it happened and I didn't see? What if I woke up one day and my brother was no longer with me? They could say it was an accident but that's not the point. My brother would have died because of my father's anger. All I wanted was my father's approval. That's all we wanted. We wanted to hear him congratulate us on a job well done. When we were younger we heard the praise but my brother slowly stopped hearing it. In exchange he heard crass language coming from a man who was supposed to be his caretaker, his protector. I know my brother was hyper. He needed something to do. He needed more attention. He did not need to be told that he was going to end up in jail if he kept acting the way he did. He needed guidance of what's right and what's wrong. He did not need to be slapped like a bad dog. He deserved answers and more help. None of that was given to him. We moved to Florida the night after my winter formal. One night I was with one of my friends. The next morning I was in a car ride out to Florida. I still had my friend's rose and chocolate he had given me as a gift with me in the seat. I remember sitting in my room even after it had been put together. It felt like I was living in a stranger's house. Like all this was all temporarily. A poorly planned joke. It felt like we were on vacation and we're going to go back any time. And secretly I wish we did. We did end up moving. At least my siblings and I did. But not in the way we imagined. My brother ran away again. He did not come back and everyone got tense. My father got even more angry. One night my sister and I were tasked with cleaning the kitchen. We cleaned and went to our rooms. Then suddenly we hear our father grumbling in a loud tone. He slammed open our doors and asked us why the counters were still dirty and bellowed at us some more. Asking if he had to do everything himself. My sister started crying and we silently rewiped the tables. I retreated to our Florida room with my phone. My sister told me she was going on a bike ride. I numbly nodded and went to call my friend. I didn't know what to do. My father came out of his room once and I watched him grab a drink and then hide away back in his room. It didn't quite register with me that my sister had just gone for a bike ride in the middle of the pitch black night. I don't think I would have been surprised if she didn't come back. Running away was no longer an improbability. She did come back and we wondered what the next thing would be. At some point my parents left the house to go to a softball tournament and my father left the country. I was home alone. I rode my bike from school and band sessions. I was told not to let my brother in the house. I was alone in a new house with just the dogs for company. As of right now I cannot remember the in-between. The next few things I remember include leaving my room one night and seeing policemen talking to my mom. I remember being afraid of the way they peered around the corner at me. I didn't know what they were talking about. Then I remember someone coming in and taking pictures. We were pulled out of school. As a student who was not known for being a troublemaker, the day I was called to the front office was odd. Someone escorted me to the office. I heard the police announce over their walkie-talkies that I was on my way to the office. I was told over and over again that I wasn't in trouble. I was driven in a car to a meeting point. My sister was in another group of people. We were told to turn off our phones so they couldn't be tracked. We were driven to a place in a state of semi-confusion. Soon we were seating in a building waiting to be asked questions. I knew exactly why I was there. I knew exactly what they were going to ask about. I cried. I felt so guilty. I felt like I was betraying my parents. But a part of me knew all of this was a long time coming. [01:35:43] Speaker 13: Then we were shuffled to... [01:35:56] Speaker 3: They didn't have a placement ready for me at first, but the foster parents, my sister, and little brother, were going to be sent to luckily allowed me to come. [01:36:04] Speaker 13: My older... My other... [01:36:06] Speaker 3: I cried to God, "Why? Why me? Why us? This isn't fair." Ronan was a child. I have seen what my parents have been saying, and all of it is a bunch of empty excuses, a bunch of flimsy covers for atrocities they committed. Yes, Nola got sent to the [01:36:46] Speaker 8: hospital every now and then. It's how we learn to toughen up. My brother would never hurt [01:37:03] Speaker 3: us intentionally. What would be a dangerous level. To make matters worse, after Pierce was born, he was moved from his room in the house to a place in the garage. That room stank. He was rarely left alone, and it was often dark. He was sent there for a variety of reasons. These raged from major behavioral issues to the most minor issues, such as talking back, which was usually just trying to explain himself. Most of the time, it was these little issues. I sent my father into a rage, and my mother followed in his footsteps. If he said anything, it would be talking back. And if he said nothing, it would be rude, because he wasn't answering his questions. Again, I ask, what is a kid supposed to do in that situation? It's not fair. I couldn't do anything about it, and I should not have been worried about doing anything. I should not have had to worry and continue to worry for my brother's life. Nola had to be so angry about her parents. Ronan should not have to feel so guilty about the abuse inflicted on him. Pierce should not have to grow up without his siblings. My siblings and I should not have to see our last names in the news. We should not have to see our parents' mugshots. We deserve as regular of a life as we can get. I know I want that for them, at least. Thank you for taking the time to hear me. [01:38:29] Speaker 1: Fiona Farreter. Thank you. You have another story, Ms. Cook? [01:38:32] Speaker 3: Yes, Your Honor. This one is from Nola Farreter. All the past almost two years have been a whole life turning experience. It has had huge ups and downs. Some of the time I felt like I just wanted it all to be over with and all gone. I did not usually express my emotions, but when I do, it all comes out. Every time that has happened, it has had something to do with my parents. They can say all they want that they love me and my siblings and care for us, but do they really? They say it, but they don't show it. If they really did, all this would have been in the past, over, and they would do what's best for my siblings and my mental health, especially my brother Ronan. They have put him through so much, and I will never forgive them for treating him the way they did. After everything they did to him, all the abuse and neglect, they keep on saying it's all his fault. None of this has ever been at all his faults. Parents should be parents, which means parents should be loving and caring, and they were none of that. When I lived in that house, I used to think saying I love you was weird. We never said it to each other. My dad would always either be working or watching TV. We hardly had times where we would come out and hang with the family. I was also never allowed to hang out with my brother Ronan and my sister, and I never got the bond that sisters are supposed to have because our parents wouldn't let us be kids. When I was there in that house, I had to be perfect, no matter what. I had once been playing around with a friend in class, and the teacher had sent something to my parents about it. Later, when I got home, I got yelled at and yelled at. There were no mistakes allowed. At first, I thought the way our household was run was normal. I had thought that my brother living separate from us was normal because they always said it was because of his actions. Now being older, Ronan did not do anything wrong. He was being a kid. He was not allowed to do anything, so he went back at them as a kid would usually do. If the parents say no, the kids want to do it more. Right before we moved to Florida is when I started realizing that the way that my mom and dad acting was not right. I had started to get afraid of him and would hide in my sister's room with her, so I did not need to see him. I had always seen the way he treated Ronan. It was horrific. No child should be ever treated in such a way. I have seen my brother being held back by the back of his neck to walk to the bathroom, being screamed at the top of my dad's lugs. Ronan screams from my dad. I have heard the whip of the jump rope hit Ronan and the slaps of banging on the wall. Being in that house was scary. My brain has tried to let me forget a lot of what happened and has locked it away. They can say all they want that Ronan had put me in the hospital and been a danger to us, but all he was doing was playing around and being a kid, and I also played around with him too. The way Tim talks about my brother is crazy. Saying all of this is his fault is insane. How does a person not care at all about a child he himself raised from a baby? Nothing Tim did is justified. Tim and Tracy have put me and my siblings through so much bad mental health. At one point I was scared to go out of my house because I thought my parents were stalking me. I saw them once after school while I [01:41:40] Speaker 9: were talking to get picked up. I'm sorry, I'm going to object again on Brown's both of the Fiona and [01:41:46] Speaker 4: Nola's statement about actions from the parent towards them that are not related to the child RF. Additionally, if the court would look at Florida statute 921.143, it looks like that victim impact statements are only for the victim next of kin, law enforcement, correctional or correctional probation officer to make a statement at a sentencing or submission of a written statement. So I believe under that statute, the statements of Fiona and Nola should not be considered by the courts. [01:42:18] Speaker 3: Response? They're Mexican. They're his sisters. [01:42:21] Speaker 1: Objections overload. Who may continue? [01:42:25] Speaker 3: In the morning with my brother and then I never wanted to see them again. They have kept me away from my younger brother. I have not seen him in over a year and they will not, they will not let my, my speak, oh wait, sorry. In the morning with, I was walking to get picked up and I froze. I could feel, I couldn't feel a thing and my instinct was to walk away and not say anything. This is the first time that I have seen them since they got arrested the first time. The first time they got arrested, I had seen them that day in the morning with my brother Pierce. After then I never wanted to see them again. They have kept me away from my younger brother. I have not seen him in over a year and they will not let me speak to him on the phone. All this has hurt me so bad when I feel like nothing can hurt anymore. Me, Fiona and Ronan are all good kids and did not deserve any of this. Cicerely, Nola Ferreter. And then finally I have a letter from James Roberts who, he doesn't want it read out loud, but I have provided it to the vents and provide it to the court. He understands it will be part of the public record. [01:43:19] Speaker 1: Okay. Do you have a copy, Miss Malone? I do, Your Honor. Give me just a minute. [01:43:25] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [01:44:25] Speaker 1: Thank you. This has been made a part of the record. [01:44:55] Speaker 3: Yeah, that's fine, right? [01:44:56] Speaker ?: All right. [01:44:57] Speaker 1: Anything else as far as evidence? No, sir. Okay. Brief argument on the motion for downward departure, and then I'll switch over to further argument on the sentencing. Understood, Your Honor. Can I offer one? [01:45:05] Speaker ?: I can call a witness for it unless the state would agree backed in rebuttal. [01:45:05] Speaker 1: I was not provided the victim impact statements in advance. And NF's victim impact statement implied that Tim and Tracy are not allowing her to see her [01:45:12] Speaker 4: younger brother. I don't know if the state would object to this. [01:45:14] Speaker ?: But during the course of the trial, it was actually attempted that they would see him. [01:45:14] Speaker 4: But since it was during the course of the trial, both the state and defense agreed that that would not happen. That wasn't Tim or Tracy at all. [01:45:22] Speaker ?: And so I do think that there are some things that are being misconstrued by the children. [01:45:22] Speaker 4: But that one particular fact that that child is being withheld from his siblings by these two people. I don't believe that they're being misconstrued by the children. That one particular fact that that child is being withheld from his siblings by these two people. I don't believe that they're being misconstrued by the children. That one particular fact that that child is being withheld from his siblings by these two people. I don't believe that they're being misconstrued by the children. But that one particular fact that that child is being withheld from his siblings by these two people, I don't believe that they're being misconstrued by the children. And so I do think that there are some things that are being misconstrued by the children. But that one particular fact that that child is being withheld from his siblings by these two people, I don't believe is true. So I don't know if the state would agree to that after the trial. [01:45:55] Speaker 3: And I think that's factually inaccurate. [01:45:57] Speaker 1: Factually inaccurate what was in the statement or what Ms. Morata is saying? [01:46:00] Speaker 3: What Ms. Morata is saying is how that went down. Ultimately, the state agreed and it was they would not agree to do it and did not allow it. And they only offered it one day, which was the morning of jury selection. Ultimately, we agreed they could do it. [01:46:14] Speaker 1: So they don't have a stipulation. So what is your request to the court then, Ms. Morata? [01:46:18] Speaker 4: If I could briefly call Kathy -- I'm sorry, I forgot your last name, Kathy, just to discuss this briefly. Yes. Who is the -- she has privately adopted that child at this point. Any objection? [01:46:29] Speaker 1: It will be very short. [01:46:30] Speaker 4: I mean, she's not listed. [01:46:31] Speaker 3: All right. [01:46:32] Speaker 1: I'm going to allow -- you can call. Thank you. As we'll go to the victim impact statements. [01:46:35] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:46:35] Speaker 1: Thank you. As we're voting to the victim impact statements. To the victim impact statements. [01:46:38] Speaker ?: Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Do you say yes? Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? [01:46:38] Speaker 1: Do you say yes? Do you say yes? [01:46:40] Speaker ?: Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Do you say yes? It's going to be in front of the testimony. It's going to be in front of the testimony. It's going to be really short. She can stand right there. If you'll allow it. That's fine. You can stay at the podium then. Just pull the mic off. It's going to be in front of the testimony. It's going to be in front of the testimony. It's going to be really short. She can stand right there. If you'll allow it. That's fine. You can stay at the podium then. Just pull the mic off. [01:46:56] Speaker 1: I'm going to be in front of the testimony. [01:46:57] Speaker ?: I'm going to be in front of the testimony. I'm going to be in front of the testimony. [01:46:59] Speaker 5: I'm going to be in front of the testimony. I'm going to be in front of the testimony. I'm going to be in front of the testimony. I'm going to be in front of the testimony. I'm going to be in front of the testimony. I'm going to be in front of the testimony. [01:47:05] Speaker ?: It's going to be in front of the testimony. [01:47:06] Speaker 2: It's going to be in front of the testimony. It's going to be really short. [01:47:08] Speaker 4: She can stand right there. If you'll allow it. [01:47:10] Speaker 2: That's fine. You can stay at the podium then. Just pull the mic down so I make sure we pick your voice up. [01:47:18] Speaker 4: I'm sorry. I know you as Grandma Cathy. What's your last name? Norenberg. Norenberg. Ms. Norenberg, are you Tracy's mom? Yes. And have you now privately adopted PF? Yes. [01:47:31] Speaker 14: Okay. [01:47:32] Speaker 4: Have there been efforts since your adoption of PF to do visitation with the siblings, NF, FF and more limited with RF given the placement? [01:47:45] Speaker 14: Yes. Many, many. On numerous occasions we've tried to get the kids to talk and we've even offered the girls to pay the flights to come to our home and they have bedrooms at our house. I mean they wouldn't even respond. Okay. [01:48:02] Speaker 4: It's my recollection that the foster placement, we cannot state their names, actually sent you a, well I believe there was one time where a meeting was scheduled and they didn't show up. Is that correct? There was some sort of, whether that was them forgetting we don't know. Is that right? [01:48:21] Speaker ?: Yes. [01:48:22] Speaker 4: Were you also sent a text message by the foster father that was rude towards you, that was [01:48:29] Speaker 14: not meant for you? He, yeah, mistakenly sent a text message to me that was meant for somebody else but it was very, yeah, it was not very nice about me and I got it. Okay. [01:48:40] Speaker 4: Yeah. And of course if the girls wish to see their baby brother, is that something that you would facilitate? Absolutely. [01:48:48] Speaker ?: They're sisters and brother. [01:48:48] Speaker 4: Okay. [01:48:49] Speaker 14: I don't have any additional questions for this one. [01:48:50] Speaker 3: So at the trial you offered to allow the girls to see her on the, to see the peers on the very first day of jury selection, correct? I don't know when it was. [01:49:10] Speaker 14: I wasn't here for the jury selection. Okay. You weren't here. [01:49:13] Speaker 3: Where were you going to see them? Where was the meeting going to happen? You were in Florida, right? No. [01:49:19] Speaker 14: You were in Florida. I was not in Florida for jury selection. [01:49:23] Speaker 3: You were in Florida during the trial, correct? [01:49:26] Speaker 10: I was, but not for jury. [01:49:27] Speaker 14: With Pierce, correct? [01:49:28] Speaker 10: Yes, I was. [01:49:29] Speaker 3: And whose house were you staying at? [01:49:32] Speaker 14: A friend's house. [01:49:33] Speaker 10: What's the friend's name? Joanne Zimmering. Okay. [01:49:37] Speaker 3: And the defendants were staying with you at the friend's house, correct? That's where Tim and Tracy were staying, correct? No. Tim and Tracy were not staying with Colin and is it Joanne Zimmering during the course of the trial? [01:49:51] Speaker 14: When I was there. [01:49:52] Speaker 3: Okay. That's your testimony under oath. They weren't staying with you there? No. Okay. And the, Noah and the foster parents actually texted you and said we would like to meet at a park with DCF supervising, correct? [01:50:05] Speaker 14: That's after. We have, that's after. I was here. I had somebody babysitting Pierce and I was here. I couldn't, I don't need a facilitator for the girls to see my adopted son. But that's what, that's what the girls felt would feel comfortable with, correct? Objection. I never, I never, I never said that I would allow that at all. I think that I should be able to meet with my grandchildren without having to have a facilitator present. Okay. So it's true that the girls came up within minutes. [01:50:38] Speaker 2: You're not at liberty just to, to not follow the question and answer the question. So please listen to the question and answer it. [01:50:45] Speaker 3: So the girls wanted to meet with their brother in order to be comfortable. [01:50:48] Speaker 10: they wanted to meet at a park with a facilitator and you said no, correct? I said I couldn't because the state said that we couldn't. And even after the state said we could do it at a park with a facilitator, you still said [01:50:59] Speaker 3: no, correct? I went home after that. You went home, what day, how, when after the trial did you go home? [01:51:05] Speaker 14: I don't think, I don't even. [01:51:07] Speaker 3: It was after the verdict, you were there for the entire time? Yes. And are you aware that the state said that they could meet at the park? [01:51:13] Speaker 14: That wasn't, that wasn't something I could. [01:51:16] Speaker 3: Ma'am, just let me finish the question. That the foster parents offered to allow the children to meet at a park and you said no, correct? [01:51:24] Speaker 14: I said no. And you were there on the trial. I never answered, excuse me, I never answered that question. Okay. They sent me a message saying that the state said you can, and I didn't have the time. I was here, I did not have the time to go and meet with them, you know, at a park because I was in trial. Okay. And so we were in trial for two weeks, correct? Correct. [01:51:44] Speaker 3: And one of those, over a weekend, correct? Two weekends actually, right? Mm-hmm. You have to say yes or no out loud. Yes. And also there was a Monday off because it was on President's Day, correct? [01:51:55] Speaker 14: Correct. [01:51:56] Speaker 3: So during all that time you weren't able to because you were in trial, correct? [01:51:59] Speaker 14: I wasn't here. I don't think I was here for the President's Day weekend. [01:52:02] Speaker 3: Well, you told us you were here all the way until the end, correct? [01:52:04] Speaker 14: Well, I was here, but not for President's Day. [01:52:07] Speaker 3: Okay. And you said that Tim and Tracy weren't actually staying with you at Colin Zimarek and Joanne or Jeanne? Which one is it? So I say it right. [01:52:15] Speaker 14: Jolie. Jolie. They weren't staying with you at that house. No. And you know what? I had an R-B-N-B. I'm all caught off guard here. We rented an Air-B-N-B. Okay. [01:52:25] Speaker 10: So you were at an Air-B-N-B, you weren't actually staying at that house. And Pete—no. See, you're testing. Sorry. I'm caught off guard here. And was Pierce staying with you or was he staying with his parents? [01:52:36] Speaker 14: No. Pierce was staying with me. [01:52:38] Speaker 3: Okay. And are there times where you have allowed Pierce to be in the custody of his parents without you? No. No? Tracy Ferreter didn't have him in Arizona and trying to enroll him in daycare? [01:52:47] Speaker 10: No. [01:52:48] Speaker 14: That didn't happen? [01:52:49] Speaker 10: No. [01:52:50] Speaker 3: No. So there was never a time where Tracy, after you adopted your grandson, tried to enroll Pierce in Arizona? No. In daycare? No. It doesn't make sense because you don't live in Arizona either, right? [01:53:02] Speaker 14: No, I don't. [01:53:03] Speaker 3: And then last week, Tracy was staying with you, correct? I'm going to object to outside the scope at this point. [01:53:10] Speaker 9: I was asking very specifically, Nola Ferreter's victim witness statement, which I was not provided in advance, stated that Tim and Tracy are preventing the siblings from seeing their baby brother. The state has specifically requested in their sentencing memorandum, no contact with all of the children. So I am simply calling the adoptive mother to say that Tim and Tracy are not trying to withhold [01:53:37] Speaker 4: this child from their siblings. [01:53:40] Speaker 2: The objections over the door has been opened. This witness was called as a rebuttal witness to the victim impact statement. So as long as the questions follow with respect to the scope of the impact statements, I'm going to allow it. [01:53:53] Speaker 3: And so Pierce was with you and Tracy staying at your home in Illinois, is that correct? Yes. Last week? [01:54:00] Speaker 14: Yes, he was. [01:54:01] Speaker 3: And Tracy was staying there too, correct? [01:54:02] Speaker 14: She was not. She was not at your home? [01:54:04] Speaker 10: No. She was not. Okay. Where was she staying? [01:54:08] Speaker 14: I don't know. Ask her. [01:54:10] Speaker 3: You don't know? I don't know. Okay. So there are multiple times last week that you were together with Pierce, Tracy and yourself, correct? In Illinois? No. [01:54:21] Speaker 14: You weren't together? [01:54:22] Speaker 3: No. Are there times where Tracy was by herself then with Pierce? [01:54:25] Speaker 14: No. I've been with Pierce. My husband's been with Pierce. Okay. His other grandmother's been with Pierce. [01:54:31] Speaker 3: So it's your testimony under oath that in the last month or so Pierce has not been alone with Tracy? That's correct. Okay. And if Tracy is able to put Pierce on the phone to talk to the defendant on jail calls, how would that occur? [01:54:46] Speaker 10: I don't know. [01:54:47] Speaker 3: Ask her. Okay. Are there, so you wouldn't know how that occurred. My objection to it being that I haven't spoken. [01:54:54] Speaker 4: There's no bar between PF talking. There is no no contact order, so I'm not really sure. All right. [01:55:01] Speaker 2: I'm going to overrule the objection because now the questions are going to the credibility of the witness at this point, and that's permissible, so the objection's overruled. [01:55:11] Speaker 3: So you're saying that Pierce is always with you or the other grandparents? That's correct. And there's never a time where he's alone with Tracy? No. And so Tracy wouldn't be able to put Pierce on the phone with the defendant, correct? Correct. Isn't it true that Tracy calls you on some occasions when she's not with you in Illinois, and you three-way in order to allow Tim to talk to Pierce? Correct? [01:55:35] Speaker 14: Okay. Yes. [01:55:37] Speaker 3: That happens almost every day. [01:55:38] Speaker 10: Correct? No. No? It happens several times a week. Correct? [01:55:43] Speaker ?: Yes. [01:55:44] Speaker 3: What is this all about? [01:55:45] Speaker 2: Overall, your attorney is the one who makes the objections. Just listen to the question. [01:55:49] Speaker 9: This witness has consistently said that this is what they're saying, that she's with Pierce. [01:55:55] Speaker 1: Yes. [01:55:56] Speaker ?: I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:55:56] Speaker 1: I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:56:25] Speaker ?: I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:15] Speaker 2: I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:33] Speaker 1: I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:35] Speaker 9: I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:38] Speaker 1: I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:43] Speaker ?: I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:44] Speaker 1: I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:45] Speaker 9: I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:47] Speaker ?: I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:50] Speaker 1: I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness for years. [01:57:54] Speaker 9: I don't want you educating the witness for years. I don't want you educating the witness. I don't want you educating the witness. I don't want you educating the witness. [01:57:58] Speaker 4: I don't want you educating the witness. I don't want you educating the witness. I'm happy to share with the court who they are from. [01:58:05] Speaker 1: Are there other letters that I've read as part of the package? Yes. [01:58:09] Speaker 4: I've already read them. Okay. So my concern is that the state will be arguing that one of them in particular doesn't have any credibility because it is anonymous. The issue in that case, if I may just argue it quickly, is that -- [01:58:22] Speaker 2: But it's already in evidence. I'm going to consider it. I mean, they can make the argument as to the rate that you'll be giving to it. That should be part of your argument. [01:58:31] Speaker 4: I was simply going to say that I am happy to say who that person is, their phone number, their contact information. They do not wish for their child's identity to be revealed because that child is much older now and is -- [01:58:43] Speaker 1: I don't -- I mean, I don't think it's necessary. Okay. I've read it. It's in evidence. I'll consider it. Understood. [01:58:50] Speaker 2: And the fact that it's anonymous, I mean, if you want to -- as part of your argument, let me know who the person is. Have at it. But -- [01:58:55] Speaker 4: I can only do so at the bench if the court would allow. Other than that, I -- [01:58:59] Speaker 1: All right. So let's whip this one in the butt approach. [01:59:03] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [02:00:03] Speaker 1: Okay, so let's proceed with argument on the motion for downward departure at this point. [02:00:15] Speaker 2: We'll start with you, Ms. Moran, then Ms. Coakley, and then briefly better from you, Ms. Moran. [02:00:20] Speaker 4: Only ask to the downward departure, Your Honor. That's correct. Okay, so Your Honor, I have stated in my motion several grounds for downward departure. I'll start with the first. That is under subsection, that's 921.0026, subsection 2, subsection F. I cited case law, and if the court will be asking this, I do have an answer. I have not found any case law specific to a child abuse case as to a downward departure under this subsection that the victim was a provoker or participant in the incident. And what I wish to say first is that this is not meant to offend or state that Ronan deserved, you know, any of the treatment that happened. However, as I stated, there is substantial case law, particularly in self-defense cases, that even if a jury does not accept self-defense as a verdict, that the court may still downward depart based on facts that show that the defendant was responding. And I believe we have that in this case. I state quite a few specific examples. [02:01:29] Speaker 1: Well, I think that's a novel argument, and you've already told me you don't have a case here in Florida. Did you do any nationwide search of any of the cases out there that allow for mitigation at the sentencing stage where, in a child abuse case, the conduct of a child was used as a basis for mitigation? Because that's really what you're arguing here. [02:01:50] Speaker 2: It seems to me to be a stretch because of just the nature of child abuse itself and then determining, especially when you're in a perennial relationship between the parent and the child, where the parent has an obligation to protect the safety and security of the child, that you could somehow resort to what the child did as a basis for mitigation of the sentence of the parent. Any luck finding anything in a nationwide search? [02:02:19] Speaker 4: I didn't do a nationwide search, Your Honor, and I don't know that I would find it in the sense that the Florida sentencing statutes and downward departures are sort of specific to Florida. But what I will say is this. Both in the aggravated child abuse and obviously lesser included child abuse, there was the parental affirmative defense. And that is a defense that is in response to conduct by the child in the same way that self-defense is in response to conduct by the alleged victim in a case. In fact, when we were talking about the Williams rule evidence that the state admitted, or I think it's actually when we were doing motions in lemony in this case and the defense was attempting to admit several pre-removal acts by the child, RF, the court denied some of that due to age range. It was actually the state who said that this wouldn't require, for example, a reverse Williams rule type of notice, that it's not 404B evidence, that it's more akin to a self-defense because it is someone responding to behavior. So even though there is not case law on point, I do believe that it applies in this case because of the similarities between the parental affirmative defense and the defense that was posited during trial and the case law on self-defense in this case. [02:03:43] Speaker 1: So let's deal with the statute itself, because you cited in your papers, 92.00262F, and you state the court may grant downward departure where the victim was an initiator, willing participant, aggressor, or provoker of the incident. So based on that, what are you arguing specifically that RF was either the initiator, willing, certainly not willing participant, aggressor, I saw nothing on the evidence to suggest that. So I guess it would be initiator or provoker of the incident would be the two prongs of that particular section that you would be riding on, correct? [02:04:29] Speaker 4: That's right, Your Honor, and I think there is a difference between something that sounds or doesn't feel palatable in reference to it being a child and whether or not it is legally applicable, because I understand that it doesn't feel great to say that a child provoked an incident. However, I think that the bigger issue is that there is self-defense case law that is analogous here, where, and I'm relying in part on what the court heard in trial, and also in part on the evidence in the deposition of RF, which the court has in evidence, and has actually read, I believe, for the Williams Rule hearing as well, for acts that were not admitted at trial, and that I think that the court can consider, and that this was admittedly an overreaction or an inappropriate response. But again, just like in self-defense, a jury doesn't have to buy that it is actually self-defense for the court to consider whether or not it was provoked. [02:05:24] Speaker 2: But in the self-defense cases, those are cases that involve, I would assume, spontaneous type of action-reaction type of circumstances. So for the self-defense argument to apply here, it seems to me they would have to apply in a situation where maybe RF attacked Mr. Farreter. And in the middle of the physical attack, let's say Mr. Farreter hypothetically punched him and knocked him back. [02:05:54] Speaker 1: I would say maybe there might be some basis for arguing this prong, but I'm having difficulty seeing where self-defense analogy even works at all, [02:06:05] Speaker 2: given that there's nothing in the record or the evidence that I've seen to suggest that RF ever attacked his father or did anything aggressive toward his father. In fact, the evidence that I saw during trial was quite the contrary. He was completely respectful, snapped a rigid attention, and was very submissive to the demands of his father. So help me out how it applies, because it seems to me to be apples and oranges here when we start talking about self-defense being a basis for reduction. [02:06:38] Speaker 4: Sure. So I have three things as a response. First, I don't think self-defense has to be spontaneous. I think that that is sort of what we think about in a self-defense case. But I think that there are certainly fact patterns. I can think of several of my colleagues who have won self-defense cases based on sort of ongoing conduct or an ongoing knowledge of someone's conduct or their beliefs. So I don't think that's necessarily the case. The second thing is-- [02:07:06] Speaker 1: And I'll grant you that. I mean, if someone calls you up and says I'm coming over to the house to kill you and the self-defense circumstance occurs in that scenario, it's not spontaneous. They thought about it. But it still might fall within the penumbra of what would be considered self-defense. [02:07:20] Speaker 4: I just wanted to start with that, but I don't think that that sort of spontaneous factual scenario is necessary in order for this downward departure to apply, even in a self-defense case. Two, I think the court-- I think we're conflating what is valid self-defense that a jury finds to be self-defense and what the court can depart on. And the case law is pretty clear that it doesn't-- a jury can reject a self-defense claim. Like we don't have to believe-- the jury doesn't have to believe that the person actually acted, right, in self-defense. They can find the person guilty, which is why we're here at the state of a downward departure. And yet the court can still consider facts which show the cause and effect. And I think it's less about the words of-- you know, I think when we think about self-defense, acts that obviously don't track completely with a child abuse case. However, I think that the substance of it is cause and effect, cause and effect, and how everything is a response. And again, it doesn't have to be a response that the jury accepts. Third, in a self-defense case, there's also the concept of defense of others. And I do think that there is evidence in the record, both at trial and in the transcript, that the court has to review that there were actions that were harmful to other people. Now, whether or not the court and the state consider them sort of regular child's play, I think that's where Dr. Rappa, Dr. Ziegler, and the testimony of Carrie Williams comes in. I think that there is a grave misunderstanding about what exactly reactive attachment disorder is. I think, as Ms. Williams described by her own experiences, it's really difficult to explain, because it's something that seems to affect people that they don't talk about. And it's not just regular child behavior. And I think another thing that Ms. Williams did a good job of describing is sort of the persistence of it. Right? That it's not just... [02:09:11] Speaker 2: But Ms. Williams never testified that she put her kid in a prison-like structure as a method of responding to reactive attachment disorder. So, again, aren't you asking me to compare apples and oranges in terms of what her testimony really means to Mr. Ferreter's situation? Because at the end of the day, I still have to look at whether anything that the child did justified the ultimate response of the parent in this case. So, push back. Have all you want to push back if you think I need to be looking at some other angle. [02:09:46] Speaker 4: I think two things. One, the fact that Ms. Williams didn't respond in the same way doesn't diminish what she said about how it feels as a parent. In fact, it took 18 facilities, and she would still say that only two of them... Right? Like, there is no dispute that the way in which this was handled was wrong. Just like in a self-defense case, if you choose to shoot somebody, that's wrong. Right? Like, we're not disputing that conduct. We didn't dispute it at trial. That this was poorly handled. I think that the issue, though, is when the court asks, "Do the actions of the child justify the response?" That's almost like a bench trial on self-defense. That's not really what's being asked. It's being asked if whether or not the court can consider facts to downward depart that show that there was a cause and effect. Cause and effect. That Ronan... That Tim Ferriter's actions were informed by what the child was doing. And I do think that there's evidence of that in the videos. I think there's evidence of that by the child's own testimony on cross-examination and by several of the statements that the child made in the deposition. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with the response or that it was the right response. Just that the court is able to downward depart based on those facts. [02:11:00] Speaker 2: So where does the problem lie then, Ms. Morad? Does it lie with a child who, for all intents and purposes, is doing things that normal children do? Fights with their siblings, stealing candy? Those things are not, to me, egregious or abnormal. Or is the problem with an extraordinarily abnormal response of a parent dealing with that behavior? And so you're asking me to focus just on what the child has done to precipitate the parent's response, but to kind of ignore the elephant in the room. Was the parent's response to conduct that to a lot of parents would not seem to be extraordinarily bad or depraved or anything like that, but the response of the parent was the problem? [02:11:46] Speaker 4: I'm not asking the court to ignore the response of the parent. We are at a sentencing and we are not asking. At the end of the day, the defense also asked for a prison sentence. So we are at the phase of guilt, right? So the court, of course, I'm asking for a downward departure from six years. I'm not asking the court to dismiss the charges or on a stand your ground motion, right? [02:12:08] Speaker 2: No, and I understand. You're doing your job and I'm going to give you all the latitude that I can give you to make your points. [02:12:14] Speaker 4: But I think that that is an important distinction, that this is not condoning behavior. It's simply seeing that there are factors that allow a court to depart. That's not saying dismiss the charges, make them misdemeanor, have a legal basis to do that, but we are still asking for, in our case, a prison sentence. Another thing that I will say, Judge, is I understand, I believe that there were other, I think there has been a real mischaracterization of some of the behavior and the defense was limited in its ability to present some of the early behaviors and we were not permitted to present any of the post-removal conduct or access those records. So I understand the court's position, but there is no dispute based on both the testimony of the state's expert and the defense expert that there is a true issue here of reactive attachment disorder. [02:13:14] Speaker 2: So you've raised that argument with me a couple times now, and the first thought I always have when I hear that, especially in what governed my ruling and not allowing it, because if I allowed it, then I'm opening the door up to conduct of the victim that may be attributable to the injury and harm that he suffered as a result of the defendant's conduct. And so the defendant would benefit by harming his son because of the psychological impact of being put in the room and then use that very harm as evidence as to why I'm not to be found guilty or to have my sentence reduced. That's the problem I've always had with any post-separation evidence. Let me help you out here because I don't think you're going to get there on either point one or point two. I think your better argument on a downward departure is really what's referred to as the catch-all provision. And that's under 921.026 that states it. I can consider the enumerated list in the downward departure grounds, but I'm not limited to them. I don't think you're going to convince me that anything that I can look to with respect to Ronan Farter's RF conduct is going to put me in a position where I'm going to find that's a sufficient basis to mitigate or downward depart on the sentence. And I don't think you're going to get there on restitution either under the facts and circumstances of this case. But I get it that at least from Mr. Farter's standpoint that he he was dealing with what he thought. I'm not even concluding that he was actually dealing with a real problem child or not. What I am concluding is that he at least thought he was dealing with a problem child and what was his reaction to that. And so that's where I think you should focus with the argument for me so I can put some clarity as to whether because I don't think you're going to get there under the enumerated grounds. So let's look at the catch-all. Is there some unique aspect of this case under the catch-all that would give me a legal basis to one find that there's a legal basis for downward departure and then get to the question of whether if there is a legal basis I should exercise my discretion to downward depart. So trying to focus you on what's really going to get me to where I need to be if I were to downward depart. So focus on that aspect that the catch-all provision because I think that's your best shot of convincing me. So I think judge what's what's difficult about [02:15:45] Speaker 4: giving the court a legal basis under the catch-all provision is that by definition it is the catch-all provision. I'll start with this. I think and this goes sort of into sentencing in general but there is some case law that the court can consider the totality of the circumstances. None of these children live with Mr. Ferriter anymore. He has some contact with the youngest who is two to three years old. As the court knows there's no allegations of abuse as it relates to the other children just to RF. He is now in a position where he has no ability to contact his elder three children unless it is up to them. He does not live with them. He has gone from someone who had a job, lived in a home with his wife, had four kids to all of that being taken away. Perhaps rightly so in the court side. He has already I think in many ways at least as a parent been punished by the dependency courts in the way in which the children not the way in which they were removed but in that particular he no longer has his kids and I think that that is some punishment in and of itself and I think it also serves a purpose in the sense that if the court's concern is the safety of those children that should not be a concern for the court because it's really up to the discretion of the kids as to whether or not they wish to speak with their father. Dr. Rapa stated in her letter to the court that she did evaluate Tim Ferriter that he's shown remorse. I think that the court saw that in his statement that a really grave. Well did I see [02:17:24] Speaker 2: remorse in his statement? You're talking about the statement he gave this today right? So so did I see remorse? I heard him apologize and say he was sorry to his children for putting them in this position but I don't think I heard one single time him saying he was sorry for how he treated RF. I think he did [02:17:42] Speaker 4: because it was in front of me and I was able to. I mean if he did he must have glossed over because [02:17:48] Speaker 2: I didn't receive it as such that that he was acknowledging that his conduct and treatment of RF was wrong. He was certainly you know sorry for having caused his children the harm and trauma that they're feeling and I get that there this this this is this is a tragedy a family tragedy which is an understatement because what appeared to be a well-functioning family has imploded and been blown up probably never to be put back together again. Uh I get that but I I didn't I didn't hear the remorse that I think if that's what you're telling me I was supposed to hear I don't know that I actually heard that from the statement and if I missed something in the statement please let me know what I missed so I can [02:18:32] Speaker 4: give Mr. Fair the benefit of all reasonable inferences here. So I recall looking over to the left I can find it on the piece of paper where he did in fact say sorry to his son for how he handled this this situation. I understand that he said a lot of other things and in part that's because he you know wanted to be able to speak to his kids who he hasn't been able to speak with. Dr. Rapa also conducted an evaluation of Mr. Farreter uh the court had that as exhibit b I believe perhaps exhibit a um that's been in evidence and she also noted that he has a great deal of remorse about how he handled this situation. Um I don't think that that's insincere. I think that looking back going through the trial. Does he acknowledge in the statement that [02:19:22] Speaker 2: what he did was actually wrong? I mean he says he said what he did was out of love. I recall specifically hearing that but I did not hear him say that what he did was wrong and he acknowledges that and I know that he's not required to do that in a sentencing hearing but if you're going to argue to me that he is uh expressing his remorse that I need to look at it in very much detail. Did he actually express remorse and again that's why I'm not convinced that he did but I'll leave it to you to argue uh maybe that [02:19:54] Speaker 4: I need to look at something else in that statement. Judge I believe that he did express remorse and I can tell you as his attorney that he has a great deal of remorse and has had it for the past two years. I've represented him since the beginning of this case. Now what the court perceives or feels I certainly can't change. I mean you heard the statement yourself just like I did but I do you know it this is probably one of the saddest cases I've handled in that you know in hearing both Ronan's statement and Mr. Farreter's statement it's just it is truly devastating what has happened in this family and I do believe that Tim Farreter takes responsibility for his role in that and I can say that as his counsel as someone who has spoken to him over the course of two years I believe he expressed that to both Dr. Rapa and she expressed that to the court in her letter and he expressed it during the course of his statement. I think that that remorse is part of what the court can consider. I think the court can also consider Mr. Farreter said in his statement the fact that he is charged with child abuse and that it is such a media case does put him at a risk that other defendants are not in in custody. He has in fact been beaten up numerous times while he was at the main detention center. He had a head injury and every time there is a news story about his case there is sort of a new threat that he has and I think that is a punishment above and beyond what a lot of people in custody with other types of charges are subjected to. Finally my argument on I'm also going to call this a slightly novel argument as to the fact that he's being punished for the same conduct. We talked about in jury selection I know that the defense made a request for interrogatories as to separate subsections of the charge as to aggravated child abuse so at that point the state was proceeding on malicious punishment willful torture and unlawful caging. I think that the issue with how vague the jury instructions are as to sort of all three of those puts us in a position where he is effectively being punished for the same conduct three times or within their relative point systems and I think that that is unique from other cases. So for example if you have a shooting case and you're charged with a felon in possession and a shooting those are two separate acts the possession and the shooting. In this case that's not clear there's a singular course of conduct over time in this case over six weeks and all three charges encompass that but it's really unclear what's the neglect what is necessarily the abuse other than it being the entire course of conduct. And so based on that I think that the score is sort of artificially inflated for lack of a better term [02:22:47] Speaker 2: because of the additional points. So based on that argument what do you think the score should have been? [02:22:52] Speaker 4: Well I think that the score then if the court considers the highest defense of aggravated child abuse the score would be about four years. I think that the issue with the aggravated child abuse is that the reason we asked for the interrogatories was in order to determine if the jury was in fact unanimous as to malicious punishment willful torture or unlawful caging and we don't know that. So my position is then that it should only be as to one of the level six offenses which is either neglect of a child or the false imprisonment. Okay. All right anything else Ms. Murad? Not as to the argument on downward departure but yes as to sentencing in general but I believe you'll get an opportunity to provide further [02:23:42] Speaker 2: response. All right Ms. Coakley dealing just with the state's position on downward departure at this point and you don't need to spend any time on number one or number two but I do want you to spend some time on the catch-all provision under 921.0026 and tell me why you believe that if the court were to conclude hypothetically that okay I accept that Mr. Farrier was dealing with what he believed was a problem child and that he had an abnormal irrational and improper response but he's in the thick of things as a parent making snap decisions and you know he screwed up didn't make the right decision screwed up in a big way but because of the pressures of parenting and the things that go in with that area of responsibility why isn't that something I might be able to consider under the catch-all? So under the catch-all there [02:24:36] Speaker 3: has to be still a valid legal ground even though it doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in statute I don't think that parenting is difficult is a valid legal ground that is something that applies to every individual there is going to be circumstances that a parent encounters through the course of their experience whether their child is adopted or biological that doesn't give a legal basis to downward apart from what the legislature has said as an appropriate sentence and then second to that is even if it was a valid legal ground there has to be competent substantial evidence that that was in fact the case and we don't have competent substantial evidence about what he was thinking or why he did or why he made those decisions the defendant did not testify at trial which he was fully permitted to do there isn't a statement that he gave to law enforcement and there isn't statements that were entered into evidence that indicate that this is why I'm sorry I didn't hear that [02:25:36] Speaker 2: I can't consider the lack of statement uh at trial but we're at the sentencing phase now and I can I think I can consider his lack of the statement in the sentencing proceeding as to that issue um right and the states so the objections overruled uh sustained in part and overruled in part it's sustained as to any um inference adverse inference from uh a lack of statement at trial overruled as to any lack of lack of evidence being submitted at the sentencing hearing correct and that's what I'm [02:26:06] Speaker 3: saying I'm not I I want to be clear that I'm not all suggesting that he should be punished for failing for exercising his fifth amendment right not to testify however the law is that you have to have evidence in which to base um that assertion and I don't think that there is competent substantial evidence about why he did any of those things and when we look at the evidence that was adduced at trial we don't see a reaction to a behavior right I think your honor pointed it out that we have someone that is calm we have a child that is going to attention we have the statements the defendant makes during some of those punishments that he's in the dark in the room for hours because he has a bad attitude and so that's not a hairy parent making a response that's provoked but isn't there evidence to [02:26:52] Speaker 2: support at least the argument that the parental response was in response to conduct of of the child I mean RF testified at trial and in the deposition that is part of the sentencing package that you know his his father's actions were response to what he was doing and he he freely embraced what [02:27:13] Speaker 3: he was doing and if that's the case your honor then it would fall under that statutory um reason for departure like it wouldn't be a non-statutory reason your honor I guess it's kind of already indicated that you concluded that the statutory reason isn't met um I I think that part of it has to be that none of the stuff [02:27:31] Speaker 2: is close in time no I'm drawing a a subtle distinction I don't think that the statutory basis of putting the onus on the kid as the reason uh to depart I I'm looking at the actions of the parent without reference to the kid and and simply looking at the parent introspectively whether there was something going on that that would justify not justify but explain an irrational or improper or ill-advised response from the parent's standpoint regardless of what the kid did but what's going on in the in the parent's head uh so that's why I again I don't think it's part of the statutory uh basis but it maybe falls under the general catch-all [02:28:18] Speaker 3: I think in that case there is an evidence of what was going on in his head and why he made the decisions that he did that that evidence wasn't adduced here and it wasn't adduced during trial and so there has to be competent substantial evidence and it has to be a valid legal ground and it would still be the state's position that the you know parenting decisions um especially in this capacity is not a valid legal ground okay um and then I would say that even if your honor was even if it was you have to consider obviously whether or not based on the totalitarian circumstances it would be appropriate right right okay anything else is there any other of the grounds that you want no no no I it's the catch-all that [02:28:58] Speaker 2: that gives me the most um interest at this point I I will say I have two cases that kind of address [02:29:04] Speaker 3: the catch-all they're not specific to your question I know that your honor has extensively dealt with the catch-all they are um kunkmohler versus state which is 3 33rd 7 3rd 335 um that uh that they're relative that this one this corp but this case was in there's co-defendants and they found that it was invalid to depart based on relative culpability also the defendant's character contrition and remedial actions was in support insufficient to be a non-statutory ground say that again would the defendant's character contrition and remedial actions was insufficient to support non-statutory grounds for downward departure which dca was that out of first in 2022 evidence that the defendant has has become an asset to the community was insufficient to constitute a ground for downward departure and past restitution um the court could not consider I would also put on the record stevenson versus state versus stevenson which is 973rd southern second 1259 which is a 50 ca case from 2008 there they say that defendant did not qualify for downward departure sentence based on expression of remorse or the fact that he had a lack of a criminal record for 14 months between the plea and his release they point out for remorse in particular that there is a statutory ground having to do with remorse but that requires it to be unsophisticated an isolated incident and also the defendant has shown remorse which obviously is not [02:30:30] Speaker 2: the case here and is not proposed by the okay so before you sit down then I won't you I assume you've looked at the state versus Montana's decision that's out of the fourth and I'll quote the parenthetical that defense counsel provided to me in her brief trial trial trial courts downward departure sentence for driving under the influence DUI conviction based on defendant quote experiencing great difficulty in his personal life due to his divorce which made him more susceptible to substance abuse was correct application of law and thus could be upheld on appeal if supported by evidence and then the court goes on to say while no case had ever permitted a downward departure sentence based on that reason such a reason was not otherwise prohibited by law so the question I have is would you then argue that the case you just cited would be authority that if I'm going down this path of saying well he was dealing with a difficult child in his mind and he wasn't responding rationally or properly that that's a consideration if there's evidence to support that assume for purposes of my question I would conclude there is is that a point legally prohibited by law such that it could not fall under the catch-all I don't think that the fourth DCA would find it [02:31:48] Speaker 3: analogous um to the Montana case and part because um one they were have to be competent substantial evidence but two because in this in the unique situation of a DUI the court found that because of that he was uniquely susceptible to substance abuse so that's kind of like an additional uh mental health or medical condition um that makes him like uniquely susceptible to committing this crime right and the same is not true for the circumstances that we have here or for child abuse okay you know and so it is kind of like a quasi there is a downward departure for someone who has a um who has a has a medical condition that they need treatment or they have a mental health issue or separate from substance abuse so I think it's a little bit separate and unique here here this would just be like I made bad parenting decisions so final question on the departure [02:32:41] Speaker 2: motion from the state's perspective does the departure deal only with um the custodial part of the sentence and and what I'm getting at is if I were downward if I were to downward depart on the custodial part what would the state's position be in terms of whether I in terms of the total sentence custody plus probation whether I would be precluded if I downward depart from going above the 75 months or if I downward depart on custody can I go with a probation term that exceeds the um the guidelines anything below the [02:33:17] Speaker 3: guidelines is in prison is a downward departure regardless if your honor puts probation on it like probation is considered a departure from the sentencing guidelines the sentencing guidelines are for incarceration there's nothing that you need to do to go above it but in order to go below the guidelines on [02:33:36] Speaker 2: custody I would have to downward depart even if my probation term would exceed the the normal guideline period because it's not all custody that's that's the answer I wanted to hear the state's response and I have those two cases your honor okay okay all right uh brief rebuttal Ms. Moran [02:33:55] Speaker 4: I'm happy to answer any questions that the court has um I just I do believe that there is confident [02:34:04] Speaker 2: evidence based on the child's own testimony so let me help you out because you saw the questions I asked Ms. Coakley um I mean obviously you can tell that my greatest interest is in the catch-all because I don't believe that a sufficient basis exists to the enumerated uh provision so um on the hypothetical that I presented to Ms. Coakley if if I were to conclude that and again I want to emphasize this is without a finding by the court that RF was in fact a problem child but a conclusion by the court that at least from the father's perspective he viewed conduct that made him in his mind think he was dealing with a problem child and reacting in a way that uh for all intents and purposes you know would be irrational improper and in this case illegal as found by the jury um but because of the difficulties that parents face often in raising children and certainly children they believe to be uh problem children and based on the testimony of the mother that you had uh today is there enough of competent substantial evidence to support of finding that that would constitute enough under the catch-all provision to downward depart [02:35:23] Speaker 4: I believe the answer is yes that is based on the testimony of Ms. Williams who testified today that is based on also the statements there was the anonymous letter I approached and told the court who that was of a child with reactive attachment disorder and Ann Marie who also provided one that is also based on um I believe the statements in the deposition of RF and I also believe it's in the videos that the court viewed as far as even though Mr. Farreter did not testify or make a statement the court did actually hear Mr. Farreter saying that he was responding now whether or not that was valid or you know again regardless of what the child is doing I do think it gave the court a sense of Mr. Farreter's state of mind because there were specific statements in reference to running away in reference to um and again I I understand the court's position that it's not about the behavior of the child but the state of mind of Mr. Farreter but I think those statements in the videos do give the court evidence of the state of mind of Mr. Farreter at the time of those acts that the jury has found to be illegal okay all right anything else uh not asked to this issue okay all right so [02:36:33] Speaker 2: the court will reserve on ruling uh until I issue my uh omnibus ruling on sentencing of the conclusion of this hearing so we now will move into the sentencing part of the hearing and with that Ms. Coakley you have the floor [02:36:50] Speaker 3: you're making your consideration and weighing the evidence that you have reviewed in this case statements that the court can consider should consider that there are people that have two versions of themselves a public version and a version when they think that no one is watching what the defense has offered is that public version of Tim Farreter what the evidence has borne out through the course of the trial through the ring video and through the statements of his own children who were forced to bear witness to the defendant's actions it's clear that the true version of Tim Farreter is the version that occurred when he thought no one was watching uh the respectable attentive family man the piety was not the version that was experienced by his son the victim in this case or his other children it is not who he was when he thought no one was watching crimes against children are insidious they prey on a child's vulnerability their trust their love and their understanding of how or what is appropriate way in which a parent to treat a child and it's worse when that child is vulnerable themselves either by early childhood trauma and abandonment and to take a vulnerable child and intentionally systematically and willfully deprive them to isolate them and subject them to more trauma is a grave offense defendant alleges that there is remorse but the repeated and persistent use of a child's vulnerability as a justification for his actions show a complete lack of remorse and the statement that you heard today was shockingly devoid of a real substantial apology to the trauma that he has inflicted upon his son no parent biological or not knows the challenges that a child will face through the course of their life and the fact that a child has challenges is never a justification for the type of treatment here every single expert that testified before your honor absolutely and unequivocally agreed that this was the worst possible way in which this child in particular could have been treated and a defendant caused actual harm in weighing an appropriate sentence the court should consider that in situations like this there is an incredible pressure and blame placed on the victim child the imposition of punishment in a criminal case can be perceived by that child who has suffered systematic abuse whose parents have normalized that abusive treatment and it can be perceived by that child as being their fault or their responsibility especially when the people who are supposed to be his family who are supposed to love support and protect him instead support the abuser in this case we are in a unique position as to the facts the evidence the court and the jury don't have to rely merely on testimony or weigh credibility questions we got to see it for ourselves the way in which the defendant acted towards his son when he thought no one was watching the court got to see endless hours of the defendant's criminal actions and also endless hours of the victim's behavior in that home that evidence shows that the defendant treated his son with violence hostility derision and systematic deprivation meanwhile the victim is calm polite attentive to his siblings and completes hours of labor without complaint for them to point to anything else they have to go back to times before he was 10 years old five six years old as the children themselves who were present said they were just ordinary interactions between siblings the only person in that home who was violent was tim barriter that's what the evidence showed the defendant's actions and allegations uh that he has made about his son through the trial will reverberate through all of his children's lives for years to come in light of the harmfulness of the defendant's actions in light of the deliberateness in light of the callousness and cruelness the state recommends 15 years in the department of correction and what is the maximum that the court can [02:41:17] Speaker 2: go to 40 40 so states requesting 15 maximum that can be considered as 40 and the guideline scores 75 months [02:41:25] Speaker 3: correct and we would also ask for no contact with any children and that's 15 straight years no probation afterwards um no your honor but if um you do we would ask for um no contact okay [02:41:41] Speaker 4: i'll start with a quote that i placed in my sentencing memorandum but i think bears repeating this is from brian stevenson proximity has taught me some basic and humbling truths including this vital lesson each of us is more than the worst thing we've ever done the power of just mercy is that it belongs to the undeserving it's when mercy is least expected that it's most potent strong enough to break the cycle of victimization and victimhood retribution and suffering it has the power to heal the psychic harm and injuries that lead to aggression and violence abuse of power mass incarceration i understand the frustrations of the state and the children as it relates to the legal defense that the defense put on at trial as the court knows and as i don't know that has been accurately reported in the media to the public that the children are watching there are certain um limitations that the defense has in its ability to present arguments based on the facts in the law based on plea offers that are made there are a lot of factors here none of it was done with the intention of making anybody believe that rf deserved the treatment that he got by tim perritor or the conditions that he lived in and i understand how throughout the course of this case that may not feel that way because of sort of the legal arguments that were made in the evidentiary arguments but as the court knows the defense does have a difficult job particularly in cases like these which involve as the court stated really the implosion of an entire family unit mr ferritor the state said that he has a public and a private life the court has a number of people here both on zoom in person character letters that explain who tim ferritor was sort of from the beginning right there's siblings that talk about him as a child up to now and dr rapa said in her report to the court that what happened in this case was incredibly specific situational and never to happen again it was a inappropriate response to what mr ferritor believed was going on i understand that you know the state and defense and perhaps even the court disagree on what that conduct really amounted to but i would ask the court to consider the letters by people with children who have reactive attachment disorder by the testimony of carrie williams really explaining that what a parent goes through in their own home is very different than what the public may perceive and i think that goes for any parent whether their child is neuroatypical or neurotypical in this case the court did see extensive videos that the state presented the court also saw videos that the defense presented showing that the life of this child was not only inside of this room and that doesn't diminish what the child experienced it's only to provide the court with some level of context that and the court saw pictures i think 80 photos that we provided sort of over the course of time and rather than that being something about public and private life i think it's more about how things changed and escalated over time albeit inappropriately mr ferritor is deeply sorry for what he has done to this family i think that it's very clear from the testimony of father presta and several of the character letters that the court heard that it's someone who valued family he values his faith and this is probably the gravest mistake he has ever or will ever make in his life i think that it was in response to a situation that a lot of parents don't have to face and of course this court is in the unique position to sort of uh sentence him and my request is that the court does look at the circumstances here the state of mind that mr ferritor had that i do believe that there's evidence to support and give him the opportunity after what the defense is even asking for an incarcerative type of sentence with probation and give him an opportunity to change get work live with his live with his wife and perhaps even have a relationship with his children i will add that i do not believe a no contact order with all of the children is appropriate i think that the court can only impose a no contact order as to the alleged victim in this case should the court wish to do so but i think that the dependency order should remain in effect which essentially says absolutely no contact unless the children want it i don't know that it is the place of the state as to as to all children yes that is as to rfnf and it does not include the the youngest child [02:47:13] Speaker 2: what's the um the no contact um provisions in the dependency case with respect to the youngest one there is none there is none so there's nothing prohibiting contact with the youngest one correct [02:47:24] Speaker 4: okay and asked that's because he's adopted so the dependency matter is closed there was one prior prior to the adoption okay all right okay and while there was one prior there was supervised visitation i think three times a week during that time and after he was private with tim and tracy ferriter and so i am asking that the court look at all of the factors of what i believe is a far more complicated case than the state wishes to make it seem i understand that great harm has been done to this child and to this family and to the other children and that is not something i wish to minimize but i do believe that this court can impose a sentence that balances punishment with rehabilitation with perhaps having a relationship with these children as people get older if that is something that they wish to do and that allows tim ferriter to also after serving a sentence move on with his life in a positive way i don't think this court should have any concern that anybody else will be harmed by tim ferriter and i can tell you as his lawyer that he is deeply sorry for the position that we are all in today [02:48:39] Speaker 2: thank you all right anything else miss moron no your honor all right um brief rebuttal miss coakley [02:48:45] Speaker 3: your honor the only thing that i would clarify is your honor does have the ability to use his contact order um as a person came to any minor i think that there is a significant concern about um his [02:48:54] Speaker 2: involvement with minors so so speak to me about a couple issues that i need to get your the state's position with respect to probation um anger management would not be an improper requirement uh parenting course would not be an improper um i will say that if you are going considering doing [02:49:13] Speaker 3: any of those things it's helpful to probation if you delineate like um they usually not they don't want you to just say anger management or parenting class they want you to say eight hours of an in-person parenting class or eight hours of in-person they want a better specification otherwise someone can just like go online and do a little thing get a certificate okay i would also say if your honor was considering any term of probation that you should there should be a mental health evaluation in any recommended treatment [02:49:43] Speaker 2: well i am considering probation as part of my omnibus sentence here but so mental health evaluation um and so with respect to the terms of the no contact um the state would be seeking no contact with any of [02:49:58] Speaker 3: the children inclusive of the youngest correct i think it would be um appropriate to do no contact with any minor children and then your honor could do something similar to um what they do um that's in the statutory for sex offender with that if there's a mental health practitioner that after a risk assessment is recommending treatment and recommending supervised context that would be permissible but i think that there's a substantial concern especially as to the young as to all of the children [02:50:28] Speaker 2: okay all right anything else as far as what um the state would in terms of conditions that the state would want having been having informed you that i am considering probation as an aspect of the sentence any other conditions the state would seek okay all right does that conclude the argument on both sides with respect to the sentencing [02:50:54] Speaker 9: i simply wish to add your honor that as no contact i don't believe that there's been any evidence [02:50:59] Speaker 2: that was prepared or is in fact a danger well let me ask you because the the two statements of the daughters were they were profound and uh i would say not very helpful at all to your client they also give the court some concern about their perception of uh potential danger if they were to have contact or exposure again to their father so address that i only raise that because you raised the point so address it and from the context where i'm coming from with respect to a little bit of [02:51:33] Speaker 4: pushback on your argument so the dependency court that's 22 dp62 has had this case since the removal of the children in february of 2022 and the order that is in place there which we agreed to by stipulation is of course based on all the factors that the dependency court knows which i obviously cannot state but i can let the court know i mean that's dcfs involved guardian ad litems are involved and so i believe that that is the most accurate order of what the wishes of the children actually are and mr ferritor has not violated that order so he cannot contact them right now it only has to be it has to be at the initiation of the children they all have lawyers so that's why i believe that if the court just maintains what's in 22 dp62 it's the same way as criminal court he doesn't just get to come in and say now i wish to have contact if the kids don't wish to have it right so it's not like it's uh loose or vague or anything like that and i think that court is in the best position to make that determination because there have been hearing i mean almost every month since february of 2022 so i would just ask that that [02:52:43] Speaker 3: order be maintained okay nf nf is a teenager and so it will only exist for a couple more years and so that's the state's concern [02:53:01] Speaker 2: so with respect to ff if no contact is part of my order on probation does it is that something i'm legally permitted to do after uh the child reaches the age of majority any restriction i issue no contact [02:53:16] Speaker 3: orders all the time with respect to adults yeah okay right as it relates to the criminal cases right right right right okay i i think your honor as it relates to pf like that child was pre-verbal when you know when like he was minimally verbal when they were removed from the home and so there is a risk that he cannot he's not in a place to advocate in light of the impact on the other children we think it would be appropriate i'm i think the court can consider that there can be further mental health treatment and evaluation and after a risk assessment maybe that's reevaluated but absent that the state would be requesting and no contact with any minors i may add something i'm [02:53:55] Speaker 4: sorry so here's the issue right the state is saying that the defense's position is that there's only one alleged victim in this case and therefore any no contact order should only be as to rf the state's position is then no the court can issue as to minor children when they don't become minor children [02:54:12] Speaker 2: i don't believe that that should apply then but you know ms marad because you're a criminal defense attorney i issue no contact orders all the time with respect to adults domestic violence is a perfect example um i have the jurisdiction to prevent a defendant from having any contact with an adult person yeah that would be an alleged victim but the the victim impact statements set those two young [02:54:38] Speaker 4: ladies up as potential victims do they not but they are not victims in this case so it's the same as like uh like a restitution argument right restitution is considered punishment under florida law okay there must be a nexus between the act the criminal act and what the court orders so if this court orders no contact so i guess first off the question is if it's just minor children they will no longer be minor children if this court was to issue an order that there's two people in the home there's one alleged victim i don't believe in a domestic violence case the court would issue a no contact with the other random person in the home that's an adult person i think that would be overruled on on on appeal so i think that there is a real issue as to that but again he's not violating any no contact orders he is permitted to have contact with the youngest child that was by agreement of all the [02:55:34] Speaker 2: parties and i get that that's unless i order no contact as part of my ruling today correct yeah okay all right i've heard enough i'm going to go ahead and make a ruling um let me just state i'd like to thank both sides um in advance for the presentation of your respective positions um i understand that this is a difficult uh and challenging um case for both sides uh and certainly the facts are not easy for the court to address um let me state up front that um the court has reviewed everything i've closely considered the um the testimony that was presented today and all of the evidentiary submissions that were provided to the court in advance to review uh in preparation for this hearing and i've taken all of that into consideration uh as to what will ultimately be my ruling here um i will say up front that um the court's job is not to please either side in terms of its ruling on sentencing and i don't ever consider that i always approach it from the standpoint of um based on the totality of circumstances in any given case what is the appropriate sentence to meet out an appropriate um justice in the case that i'm dealing with at that specific point in time so i suspect that whatever i do today will probably make everyone unhappy because it's not going to it's going to be a decision that nobody gets what they want and um sometimes that's probably the best approach by the court uh let me talk a little bit about the facts that i am basing my decision on and um uh what i've observed during the course of this um sentencing hearing and in the um context of the evidence that i'm privy to by virtue of having sat on the trial um i i found that at least based on the evidence um that the defendant clearly and he was found by the jury to have been guilty of the three charges of which um they rendered the verdict on and so that puts me in a position of you know finding that the defendant engaged in conduct that the jury found to be criminal for an extended period uh and the conduct he engaged in was considered it was calculating it was methodical uh and it was planned i mean you you look at the construction of the um the room and what that took to uh put into place and just the the structure not only of the building of the um room itself but of the method of discipline uh during the time that um rf spent um in state of florida the one thing that the reason i mentioned that is because there were plenty of opportunities this this wasn't a one-day deal or a two-day deal this was a situation that occurred over a six-week period in the state of florida and so what that tells me is that there were plenty of opportunities that the defendant had to reflect on whether what he was doing was wrong and over the six-week period in the state of florida it appears that he never took the time to reflect and he never concluded that what he was doing was wrong and there is evidence to suggest that he did know what he was doing was wrong because there was evidence that he instructed rf uh to uh dump the urine bucket in the bushes and not let the neighbors see him um there was um evidence of mrs ferritor removing the bucket from the room uh prior to law enforcement going into the room so there was there was evidence that the court can at least look to that that convinces me that the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong and never reflected once to take a remedial or corrective course and i think ultimately that's what uh influenced the jury's decision um in this matter so there were opportunities along the way for the defendant to do what i would call a sanity check uh on what he whether what he was doing was the correct approach and um maybe a need to reverse course that never happened um i mentioned this because i spent a lot of just not this isn't the first thought or consideration that i'm giving to this i've spent a lot of time uh dealing with this case and trying to determine whether uh the defendant has any redeemable qualities that should influence the court's decision and on this point admit i cannot say that the defendant is devoid of any redeemable qualities i've obviously reviewed a lot of statements i've reviewed photos um and it it certainly appears that at times um his family had very good times and experiences and that at times he was attempting to be the the basically uh textbook father but um that's what was on the surface um because what's clear is that although things appeared to be very very uh perfect on the surface that what was going on below the surface was not so perfect and that a very deep dark family secret was being maintained in that household and that is the defendant clearly was abusing his oldest son which the jury has found that he did um and i will tell you that it's it's not lost on the court that the defendant was struggling himself as to how to deal with the discipline of the child i don't think that the evidence that was submitted uh it it all reflected uh rf as a problem child to the extent that he was really beyond anything that normal kids do and sitting up here on criminal court i see it every day and things like stealing candy um uh wrestling with your sister and injuring or something like that those those are not serious instances that would um uh ever justify the level of um discipline that was imposed here um and the other thing i would say is even and and and let me just digress for a moment i i mean i've looked at the redemptive qualities that the defendant has and he he doesn't have a prior history he has no criminal background um and um he has experienced a loss himself in terms of the utter collapse of his family and having all of his children taken away um but i also note that um he stated that he was born and raised on quantico at quantico base so i suspect that that tells me knowing that it's a marine corps base that he probably grew up in a very disciplined environment and um uh i don't know if anybody's ever seen the movie the great santini but uh there was a movie where marine the great santini he was a a tough disciplinarian father as well and um if you ask pat conroy today he probably you know would find a way to say he loves his father in some ways but i'm sure at some point in time he hated his father uh and the reason i point that out is again i'm looking for any redemptive aspect of the defendant's nature and character that would give me some ability to factor that in as a positive point in this case uh for sentencing um at the end of the day the jury found the defendant guilty of um the three charges uh that were in the verdict and uh so i'm bound by that so the first question that i will have to look at is whether to um whether there's a legal basis for downward reduction before i say get into that in more detail i will say that whatever the sentence is that i impose in this matter it will be for a defined period and it will come to an end and at some point the defendant will have the opportunity to try to put his life back together and i get it that his life has been turned upside down um and from his vantage point probably destroyed at this point but the pain and the suffering that he's experiencing will end at some point and he'll have an opportunity to move forward the concern i have is that for the victim the treatment to which he was subjected to by his father will be with him for a lifetime and i i know that um and i always listen to the victim's statements very carefully and i know that he's professed that he loves his father and he's asked for the court to take a specific route in terms of sentencing but the bottom line is that he was subjected to an abuse that should never be uh experienced by any kid by any uh from any parent and um um i can't just look at the victim's uh wishes alone in determining what is an appropriate sentence because no parent can ever be justified in doing what mr ferrer did to uh his son uh rf in this particular uh instance um and i i remain concerned that as i've said that um that most if not all of the problems were caused by the defendant himself and his discipline of the child um and and the long-term harm and emotional impact that the victim probably doesn't even know he is going to suffer um for the future as a result of the conduct he was exposed to so as you can tell i've considered a lot of things so this brings me to the ultimate question of what is an appropriate sentence for the defendant on the charges for which he has been found guilty so let me address the matter of um the defense motion for downward departure all right so as i've said the first two points that were raised by the defendant for downward departure i don't believe that um they met their burden of establishing a sufficient factual basis based on competent substantial evidence for um the utilization of um section 921.00262f which grants the court the ability to downward depart where the victim was an initiator willing participant aggressor or provoker of the incident i don't believe that under the circumstances of this case that uh there is any basis for the court to use this as a legal prong justifying a downward departure and uh i think if there was then it would uh potentially throw child abuse cases uh flip them on their head in terms of uh what parents can do and ultimately what the court can do in terms of sentencing uh likewise i don't find any merit in the uh the ground that that was asserted in 921.00262f dealing with um the question of the need for restitution outweighing the need for a prison sentence uh under the circumstances involving rf in this instance i don't believe restitution is a factor at all it won't be a factor in my um uh sentencing decision so again i don't think uh the defense has met its burden here so that brings me to the last prong that i did give very serious consideration to and quite frankly troubles the court the most in terms of uh where my legal ruling comes out on this and that is um um the portion of section 921.0026 that states that the court may consider the enumerated downward departure grounds but i'm not limited to them so that means that if there's competent substantial evidence of something else that i can consider it and as i understand the montana's case and i get that the montana's case cited by the defense is not um on all fours a perfect match but the court does make a um statement there that does give this court some um feeling that i could look to this particular um section as a reason to downward depart if i wanted to and that is while no case has ever permitted a downward departure sentence based on that reason and that was the reason they were talking about in montana's such a reason was not otherwise prohibited by law so that brings me to the question that i ask uh is the issue of without in any way shape or form looking to the conduct of the victim as uh justification or excuse here can i look to the mental um status or situation that the defendant was experiencing and was experiencing and use that as a possible basis under the catch-all provision that would give me the ability to downward depart and i'm not aware of any case that says i can't and so not being aware of any case that says i can't uh i'm going to make a finding that under 921.0026 under the catch-all provision that if i think the competent substantial evidence does support um the argument that i can look to the conduct of the defendant and what he was experiencing and what he believed to be the case and whether that belief was irrational or not influenced what turned out to be horrible decisions can i consider that because i think that is analogous to what the court did do in the montana's case and so i'm going to find that under that section i can um and i do find there's been um enough evidence for me to at least consider the catch-all provision and um um let me talk about a few things that i recall hearing today and also that i recall uh hearing during the trial um there's no question that the defendant uh was acting aggressively and irrationally at times during the videos that we saw uh and there um uh is no question that um there was a methodical calculated um effort to discipline his son in a way that i think he thought was appropriate uh and believed was appropriate although again that's weakened by the fact that he did try to conceal that conduct from the neighbors and so that cuts against that conclusion somewhat but i do think that the defendant probably came from a disciplined environment um having grown up in quantico and maybe that's all he knew i don't know that that's the case or not but um having been a marine i know how marines operate and i know how disciplined the environment can be um and i will say that as horrible as the the the conduct was the defendant's response in in in dealing with his son in in terms of the room if you look at the photos um there clearly were times that this family was a better functioning family they had good times it wasn't all horrible it wasn't all um the most deplorable of circumstances and i get it um now that the two daughters um that they seem to be extremely harmed by this um but but there were times when they appeared to be enjoying things and i've seen those photos so i don't cast the broad net of putting the defendant in the category of always having been a terrible bother there were times when he tried to do the right thing and i think um did do the right thing in terms of exposing his kids to things that were um positive in their lives but that's not the end of the story because he obviously exposed them to things that were deplorable um criminal and that no children neither the victim nor their siblings should have ever been exposed to and um um any any type of physical abuse where a child um is being held by the throat by a parent is just not acceptable in any civilized society and certainly putting a child in a locked room um restricting the access to uh any air conditioning um is not appropriate certainly not in florida so at the end of the day i'm going to find a basis to downward depart um under the catch-all so the question then uh is whether i should exercise my discretion in doing it um because i i do find that that this is um a somewhat um unique and complex situation because of the um uh situation that maybe maybe the um um the the victim has rad it's not totally clear that he does it's not totally clear that what he has wasn't called specifically by how he was treated by his parents but um i do recognize that there is enough that that um it creates an issue where this is not your normal uh situation of child abuse uh where um their children are put in a cage or a box and there's no um nothing that explains what was going on here um ultimately the state is requesting 15 years and i think the defense is requesting one year based on the the motion followed by probation and i do note that i can go all the way up to 40 years so at the end of the day as i said before i am totally convinced that what i do will not please anyone here but ultimately the buck stops for me and the responsibility um ends with me and falls on my shoulders to issue a sentence that i think is what is appropriate to the circumstances and i will say that um it is not lost on the court of that not only is the defendant here going to be the one to suffer the the weight of the sentence that i impose but the entire family has already suffered the trauma and the ramifications and consequences of the defendant's conduct um and on that issue i do think that the defendant exercised and expressed his um remorse at that um i just wish he'd have been a little more um uh forceful in getting the point to me that he actually acknowledges that what he did was wrong and i didn't get that i still didn't get that because i have some sneaking feeling that if uh all things being equal uh the defendant might say that he would do the same thing over again because he thought it was the right thing to do out of love at the time he did it and that creates problems for me i hope that i'm wrong on that but at least that that that doubt that doubt has been allowed to remain in my head so all right so enough said on this i am going to um exercise my discretion to downward depart here i'm going to but uh i i will tell you that um the downward departure is not even remotely close to what the victim has requested nor the defense counsel requested um and at the end of the day the sentence that i'm going to impose is going to be longer than what the guidelines provide i'm going to downward depart from 75 months to 60 months and followed by five years of probation two years of uh the first two years of probation of which will be uh ncc2 during the term of probation the defendant is not to have any um contact initiated with any of the three older children those children will be free once they reach age of majority to have contact with the defendant if they so choose in any event even if the children so choose to have contact with the defendant they will not be able to do so until the defendant has first completed the following conditions of probation i'm going to require that the defendant undergo a 40-hour anger management class which can be taken while he is in custody that he undergo a 40-hour parenting course and that he also undergo a mental health evaluation um with respect to the youngest child given the nature of the the appointment uh or the adoption there uh i'm going to um require any contact or visitation be supervised but ultimately subject to any restrictions that um the dependency court imposes because uh obviously the dependency court um if they're still involved then maybe they're not involved anymore they don't have any jurisdiction anymore so i'm going to leave it that the there there be no contact unless it's supervised with respect to the younger um um child and and the reason the court is allowing that is uh the circumstances that presently exist the um the youngest child has been adopted by the um the wife's mother and it's just not realistic in the court's view that where the adoption was permitted of the wife's mother that that any rational people looking at this situation would conclude that the parents are not going to have any contact with that that child or they should not have allowed the adoption to be by the uh wife's [03:17:02] Speaker 3: mother's mother to begin with so [03:17:13] Speaker 4: i am ready to them because i was present i don't believe that's true but i think that if the court could [03:17:18] Speaker 2: say that whatever is in i just don't know if the easiest well what does does the do the why don't you approach on that one point because i don't want to uh inadvertently disclose something that's privileged so [03:18:00] Speaker ?: so so [03:18:59] Speaker 2: all right so with respect to contact with the minor the youngest child i'm going to allow supervised contact uh as permitted by the adoptive mother but it must be supervised so there shall be no unsupervised contact between the youngest child and the defendant where there isn't another adult present uh and i'm also going to um it's just as a condition of that um require that the defendant not be in any way shape or form engaged in the discipline of the youngest child that is something now that rest solely with the adoptive mother and the defendant has no say in that i want to make sure that that's clear um let me um comment just very briefly and then i'll be concluding this hearing um ultimately when i started this process i was looking at a a sentence that was in excess of what i've ultimately rendered today so the court was moved to some extent by the tremendous showing of support that the defendant had and the number of character references um who i'm sure all saw the side of the defendant that is the um um the side that um we've heard the two sides of the defense two sides of the same coin um but there was enough support for mr ferriter to at least for me to have some comforting concluding that at his core although he did a very very very bad thing here was not an innately evil person and so that's why i've ultimately elected to have the sentence be what i've indicated and as harsh as that may seem to um some of um the members of the family and friends of mr ferriter i will tell you uh take some solace in that it's a lot less than what i originally started out uh when i looked at this um for purposes of consideration of a sentence um the other thing i will tell you is although um in every case is unique in in in dependent on the facts and circumstances um it's not unusual for a victim to come into the court and express their love for a parent who's abused them or to ask for lighter sentence we see that all the time and some would say that that is a a reflection of a psychological harm or phenomenon uh of how abused uh kids react to things but that doesn't mean i ignore it and and um i i i certainly it was too heavy a lift to go uh with what the victim was requesting here because there has to be there has to be some punitive aspect that uh doesn't from a societal standpoint uh encourage parents to do what was done here and think that um they're going to be dealt with lightly i don't think that the court has dealt with mr ferriter at all lightly i think i've dealt with the court or dealt with mr ferriter appropriately um and so i just want to be clear for those who think it's uh um too much it's less than what i started with and for those that thinks it's um not enough um that's why i wear the robe and i make the decision so ultimately that's my responsibility so that's the court sentence in this matter um madam clerk what is the um court cost if you need to clarify something we can do that yeah i just yeah go ahead while she's looking up [03:22:33] Speaker 3: the court for the record the state object to the downward departure um to think that there is not uh there's not confidential evidence of the basis for downward departure and also that it's not a provisible under 92.126 um to depart on the basis of the mental status of the defendant or that the defendant held an irrational belief during the course of the act um and so based on that we think that [03:22:56] Speaker 2: it there is not a legal basis for the departure all right fully expected uh um the court always knows when i'm getting into an area where uh you never know how an appellate court is going to react so i fully expected the state to object to the downward departure anything else you need to state miss [03:23:11] Speaker 4: maraud for the record not for the record i do have um a request that the court recommends that when mr ferritor is eligible that he be at sissago palm just uh that's that's pretty standard just prepare [03:23:24] Speaker 2: the order that provides for that and i certainly usually the state doesn't take a position on that [03:23:29] Speaker 4: right all right so the court will grant that thank you and then my other request is um we will be filing a motion for appellate bond it'll be filed tomorrow could the court order that he remain in county custody until the hearing of that bond motion which i'm hoping will be near thanksgiving um it's not [03:23:46] Speaker 2: going to be thanksgiving because i need to hear that and i won't be around next week so um i i will order that the defendant remain in custody here in palm beach county and not be transported um until after i hear um the motion and i'll set that as quickly as i can are we able to set a date today or is that no i'm going to need to see the motion and see how much time is going to be involved with it understood your [03:24:06] Speaker 4: honor i'll prepare in order to the effect of both all right madam clerk court calls please all right [03:24:11] Speaker 2: so um you tell me miss maraud reduced to a judgment or do you want to have a payment plan or what can we do um can we do um can we do 10 years to pay so that you can do it during work that that'll be fine a condition of probation 10 years is a condition of probation all right i have two things all right [03:24:32] Speaker 15: is the probation as to count one only no first degree [03:24:48] Speaker 2: miss coakley does it make a difference to the state in terms of the probation um being as to count one okay so the doc sentence will be as to applicable to all three um counts and run concurrent that's another thing i note i i could have had it run consecutive that five years would have been 15 but i'm again exercising my judgment to make them run concurrent so it's five years but they'll that'll be the doc portion of the sentence with respect to each of the charges and the probationary aspect of my sentence will be applicable to count one alone all right anything else that i need to address just the credit yeah let's talk about credit [03:25:39] Speaker ?: i need to check it your honor i believe he did spend one day and then [03:25:52] Speaker 2: all right so before we recess give me the credit so that that's the last thing i need to address this [03:26:10] Speaker ?: afternoon [03:26:11] Speaker 2: that's all right we've been here all afternoon so another few minutes isn't going to make much difference um well that's something he can do um he can do the uh the parenting through a third party just so long as he completes it and it's acceptable to probation so um that'll be the probationary term as far as the anger management probation may only have 12 hours but i want 40 hours so to the extent that he has to go to a third party to get the remaining uh 28 hours he would need to do that and that that would again be through a third party provider that is subject to the approval of probation does that answer your question uh yeah but do you want to know uh well he's not being released today uh yeah yeah yeah because he's going to be on cc2 and let me do explain what cc2 means mr ferriter um once your custodial part of the sentence is completed um you'll be on what's called cc2 and the most apt description of that is that's akin to house arrest and uh so the first two years of your probation and that's the maximum that i can do for a cc2 you'll be on house arrest um you typically can't leave unless you have approval of probation but there are times where if uh for employment purposes that uh you may be able to leave the house for employment and that kind of stuff um someone in your circumstances i would think would much prefer a cc2 type of sentence than having two additional years uh in prison so that's why i elected to do do it the way i did with cc2 to give you some ability to to transition and uh deal with your circumstances but but in any event you'll be subject to what's really just house arrest and again that doesn't mean that you can't work but it will require approval of probation and probably the entry of another court order once you find specific employment as to where you can go and what the circumstances are okay all right um did we get the um 37 days all right so with respect to the five years uh of the doc sentence that's been imposed by the court that's with credit for time served of 37 days that concludes the court's business this more uh this afternoon anything else i need to address miss coakley uh miss morad okay all right court is in recess and i'll wait up here on the bench for the orders [03:29:13] Speaker 15: Judge, is Ms. Mirad going to give us the evidence at a later time? [03:29:21] Speaker 2: What are the -- [03:29:23] Speaker 15: The defense composite one? [03:29:25] Speaker 2: Ms. Mirad, you will need to give the clerk the Exhibit 1 -- your composite Exhibit 1. I need to print a copy of it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ms. Mirad, rather than me just sit up here, when you get it done, just give it to the clerk and they'll bring it back to me to sign. All right, thank you. [03:30:13] Speaker ?: Thank you very much. Thank you. [03:30:33] Speaker 2: Thank you. [03:30:47] Speaker ?: I'll let you know too. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.