1:07 p.m. Some of the attorneys seem optimistic that the hearing will wrap up today. Court is back in session. Ms. Holmes calls Larry Parrish to the stand. He represents the Bakers in this hearing. Holmes asks Parrish to identify the no contact order. Parrish says at the hearing on February 7th of 2001 that Mr. Sossaman (the Hes attorney) said he had a conflict of interest and Judge D.J. Alissandratos ordered him to only represent Mr. He. Parrish says right after the hearing, Sossaman was no longer their attorney so neither one of the Hes' had legal representation. At that time Parrish says there were concerns about the passport, and they were afraid the Hes' might try to take the child out of the country. Parrish says right after the hearing Chancellor Alissandratos told him to draft him an order for no contact and bring it to him tomorrow. Parrish says he drafted an order and didn't have to get an attorneys signature for the Hes because they didn't have an attorney. Parrish says he went back to court the next morning and Judge Alissandratos said the Guardian Ad Litem also wanted this done and the Judge added a line to the order that this was done at the request of the GAL. Parrish says that was how the no contact order came to be.

1:22 p.m. Siegel objects to Mr. Parrish testifying and the Judge takes a recess to look over the arguments.

1:37 p.m. Siegel withdraws his objection to Parrish's testimony. Parrish testifies the no contact order was signed February 8, 2002. Parrish says Mr. Sossaman was the attorney for Mrs. He during the February 7th hearing, but after that hearing Sossaman withdrew. Siegel asks how Sossaman could have signed a document related to the case dated February 14th. So Siegel says the no contact order dated February 8th wasn't submitted to Mr. Sossaman. Parrish says he doesn't recall whether or not he let Sossaman know about the no contact order. Siegel asks Parrish if that means this no contact order was issued ex parte (meaning without representation). Parrish says that's his recollection.

1:45 p.m. Parrish says he doesn't recall whether Sossaman heard Judge Alissandratos ask him to draft the no contact order. Parrish said he was only acting on the Judge's instructions to draft the no contact order. Siegel asks Mr. Parrish if there was any testimony in the February 7th hearing that would have led to the no contact order. Parrish looks through the transcript from February 7th and says there is not. Parrish says the Chancellor wrote in the no contact order that the Guardian Ad Litem recommended the order. However, Siegel says the Guardian Ad Litem did not recommend no contact in her report and he asks Parrish to look over her report and tell him exactly what she recommended. Parrish looks over the Guardians report and reads the part that says the Hes are interested in visiting with the child and she recommends if the visits are allowed that they take place at a neutral location and last no longer than an hour or an hour and a half at a time.

1:55 p.m. Siegel asks Parrish how the Bakers became the guardian of the child. Parrish says the Bakers became guardians because of an adoption statute. Parrish says because the Bakers were filing for adoption and because they had physical custody of the child, they were granted guardianship. Siegel reads where the statute says there is an exception when an intervening petition has been filed.

2:07 p.m. Holmes asks that the transcript from the February 7th hearing be marked as an exhibit and Parrish is dismissed as a witness in this hearing so he can continue in his capacity as counsel for the Bakers.

3:04 p.m. Mullins testifies there was no court order for visitation. Mullins says she didn't sign a no contact order, and testifies she doesn't know how that no contact order was issued. Siegel asks why Mullins doesn't know and why that wasn't important to her. Mullins testifies she really doesn't know the answer to that. But she said earlier that the Hes' had not visited their child for six months before she was appointed guardian, so she didn't want the child to have any further loss.