Judy Potter, an attorney, writes to Governor LePage with concerns about the Maine DHHS's handling of the case of Mila Malenko. Potter questions why the conclusions of a psychological evaluation from Spurwink were dismissed by DHHS. Potter also raises issues with inconsistent statements from DHHS officials about the reasons for rejecting the Spurwink report and allegations of coaching. Potter believes DHHS notified parties of its conclusions at different times inappropriately and questions the basis for closing the case without a full investigation.

1. Judy Potter
Attorney at Law
356 Spurwink Avenue
Cape Elizabeth, Maine 04107
E-mail: judy356@msn.com
Telephone No. 207-799-5453
Cell Phone No. 207-232-1650
July 8, 2011
The Honorable Paul LePage
Governor of the State of Maine
Office of the Governor
State House Station One
Augusta, Maine 43333-001
Re: DHHS and the case of Mila Malenko
Dear Governor LePage:
I have been advised that your office has requested a letter from me relating to DHHS and its
handling of the case of Mila Malenko. I normally do not write letters about the actions taken by
State officials. However, I understand that you have taken a personal interest in the DHHS's
handling of this matter. I also understand that a number of meetings have occurred among
various persons and affidavits and reports from experts have been given to DHHS. Obviously, I
have not been present at any of those meetings so I am just catching up. I have reviewed the
written material that I have access to. Based on what I have read and what my client and other
professionals have told me, there are some things relating to the DHHS's handling of this matter
that are of concern.
I am not clear about exact reasons that the Spurwink conclusions were dismissed by DHHS. I
have worked with Spurwink on many occasions. It has been my experience that they are very
conservative in their conclusions relating to child sexual abuse, frequently finding that none has
occurred. Given their reputation in this regard, especially the excellent reputation of the
particular evaluator of Mila Malenko with whom I have worked before, it would be useful to
learn exactly why her conclusions were dismissed by DHHS.
Jim Beougher and others at DHHS apparently have said that the Spurwink report was rejected by
DHHS because they had secret information. Apparently, Mr. Beougher later retracted his
statement. It would be interesting to know where the truth lies in this regard. For some reason,
DHHS appears to have concluded that my client had "coached" Mila, a conclusion apparently not
reached by Spurwink. It also appears that DHHS thought that Polly Campbell had done this. I
understand that Ms. Campbell is a very qualified professional in her field which is forensic
sexual assault, so I question this conclusion relating to Ms. Campbell's actions. It appears that no

2. one from DHHS spoke to my client about any alleged coaching before determining that the child
had been coached, assuming that this is the reason for the actions by DHHS.
My client tells me that on June 28th she was told by Mark Dalton and Gina Googins that
nothing was closed with regards to the case of Mila Malenko and that they were still considering
the meth, blunt force trauma allegations, and Spurwink findings. However, the attorney for
Mila's father received a letter dated June 27th, which he shared with me on July fifth, saying that
the neglect and sexual abuse charges alleged by my client were not substantiated. My client did
not receive a letter to this effect until June 30th. It seems to me inappropriate for DHHS to
notify the concerned parties of its conclusions at different times especially given the sensitive
nature of this case.
Apparently, Mr. Malenko's attorney wrote the following to DHHS prior to his being sent the
letter dated June twenty-seventh saying that the charges by my client were not substantiated:
Igor and I are waiting for the letter of unsubstantiation, which as I understand it
should be forthcoming no later than 35 days after the patently false claims were
made. Mark, you informed me on at least two occasions that there was absolutely
no evidence to support the recent claims (just like the other ones already un-
substantiated). If DHHS produces a letter with a different result, you may
rest assured that you will find yourself subpoenaed in one or more lawsuits, since
it is my job to make sure the truth surfaces.
Mr. Malenko's attorney apparently also told DHHS that he and his client
do not trust DHHS to act in the best interests of this little girl. We
shall not cooperate in any manner from here forward. Please let me
know if you are going to file a Title 22 action, for I shall immediately file
pleadings to bring the case before Judge Moskowitz for a full determination.
In the June thirtieth letter to my client, the DHHS did not state its reasons for not substantiating
the neglect and sexual abuse allegations. Surely, knowing the reasoning behind the decision of
DHHS, would have been helpful to everyone concerned with this situation. We are now forced
to guess about the basis of DHHS's conclusions.
One possibility is that Caseworker Rebecca Austin's interpretation of information received from
Dr. Carl Baum was involved. However, according to a recent e-mail received from Dr. Carl
Baum, caseworker Rebecca Austin:
…completely misinterpreted [his] clarification of minor details
in [his] sworn affidavit. Apparently she has failed to understand
the simple and central tenets of this affidavit, that NO amount of
methamphetamine should appear in the urine of a child, and
that no one has explained this finding. [He has] absolutely
not retracted [his] affidavit, and would be happy to testify to
this effect.

3. He added in this e-mail:
As a mandated reporter of child abuse and neglect in [his] State of
Connecticut, I am shocked that DHHS has closed Mila's case without
a full investigation and urge the Commissioner to re-open the
investigation immediately.
A copy of his e-mail stating this is enclosed for your information. DHHS might have been
concerned with the chain of custody of the sample sent to the lab for testing. According to my
understanding, having handled a lot of criminal cases in which the chain of custody of such
specimens is at issue, the chain of custody of the sample sent to the lab can be readily established
in this case. The point is that no one concerned with this case should be forced to engage in such
speculation about the reasons a State agency makes its determination in such a delicate matter.
Others have expressed their concerns about the DHHS's handling this case to me. Anne
Jennings, who is from Maine and who has worked for many years at DHHS is concerned. Dr.
Joyanna Silberg is so concerned that she has offered to do free training in Maine on the handling
of issues of child and domestic abuse pursuant to a grant she has for this purpose. I would
welcome her coming to Maine for this purpose.
Finally, I have practiced law in the family law, criminal law and discrimination areas in Maine
for nearly thirty-nine years. I was a professor at the University of Maine School of Law for
thirty-two of those years teaching and handling cases at the Cumberland Legal Clinic at the Law
School, of which I was the Director for many years. During these years, I have been involved in
a number of cases in which DHHS was also involved. As I have said, I have not been involved
in this case until very recently, so I have no first-hand information about it. However, based on
the information I have received, this appears to be one of the more concerning investigations
done by DHHS. Had I been involved in this case prior to this time, I would have been asking
these questions throughout the process. However, I did not have that opportunity.
This matter has come to a sad ending. Mila's father is preventing my client from seeing Mila
without her contact being supervised. As one of his reasons for doing this, he is citing the
DHHS's decision in this matter. My client has not seen Mila since May tenth. Unfortunately,
there will have to be more court hearings to resolve this problem.
Very truly yours,
Judy Potter Esquire
Attorney for Ms. Lori Handrahan