The Doe Case- Clear Bias and Animus

  

“To be perfectly honest, he is not someone that I have cared for during this case, no.”
— Transcript Vol. 4, p. 646, lines 21–22
(Open admission of personal dislike toward John Doe, violating the GAL’s duty of neutrality)
 

“Maybe all of the parties who have interacted with Mr. Doe have walked away at the low end frustrated and irritated, and at the high end infuriated, including myself... In my clinical opinion that also included the guardian ad litem.”
— Transcript Vol. 2, pp. 280–281, lines 11–25; 1–9
(Dr. Hafele testifying that GAL Daswani, like others, developed personal frustration that impacted neutrality)
 

“Did you find that Ms. Daswani, the information she provided, was biased or unbiased?”
“I found it was biased.”
— Transcript Vol. 2, pp. 282–283, lines 21–25; 1–5
 

“So it’s only supervised visitation is what you’re recommending; correct?”
“Correct... It does not [include provisions for unsupervised visitation].”
— Transcript Vol. 4, pp. 658–659, lines 22–25; 1–6
 

“Would you agree that absolutely nothing would be lost by adding a provision... that [Dad] would be entitled to unsupervised visitation...?”
“I do not agree.”
— Transcript Vol. 4, p. 659, lines 10–17
 

“You don’t believe it’s possible to do so in the order that comes out of this court today?”
“In a lot of cases, that answer would be yes; but in this one, that answer is no.”
— Transcript Vol. 4, p. 660, lines 1–6
 

(Daswani flatly rejected even the possibility of future unsupervised visitation, despite no allegations of abuse or safety risk — indicating a punitive, subjective approach rather than a child-centered one.)