Surprise Recordings Lend Further Drama to Surrogacy Custody Case : Hearing: Tapes of alleged phone exchanges contradict father’s version, Elvira Jordan’s attorney says. But using records not in evidence is called ‘grandstanding.’

Secret tape recordings, new information about a drug-related arrest of a family member and an emotional appeal from a surrogate mother were part of the court drama Wednesday in the custody battle over a baby girl conceived through artificial insemination.

In a surprise move during a hearing before Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock, attorney Richard C. Gilbert waved an audiocassette of secretly recorded telephone conversations between Elvira Jordan, the surrogate mother, and Robert Moschetta, the father of the child.

He then offered Moschetta a chance to change his earlier testimony about his telephone conversations with Jordan.

Moschetta’s attorney, Edie Wittick Warren, immediately called the move a courtroom “grandstand,” noted that the tapes had not been entered as evidence in the case and said that the recordings do not change her client’s testimony.

She quickly added that the surreptitious recordings may be illegal.

“I don’t know of any valid use for this other than grandstanding,” she said. “If it was so good, why didn’t he offer to put it into evidence?”

Warren also raised questions about Jordan’s 22-year-old son, who was arrested in 1989 on suspicion of transportation and sales of cocaine, and what effect this might have if the child were allowed to be in Jordan’s home.

Jordan, 42, and Moschetta, 35, are fighting for primary custody of the child that Jordan was paid $10,000 to conceive.

In April, Jordan and Moschetta were granted parental rights of the child, now 15 months old, during the first custody phase.

Judge Stock ruled that Cynthia Moschetta, 51, Moschetta’s estranged wife who helped raise the child for six months before the marriage broke up, has no parental rights because she has no biological link with the baby. She and Jordan were granted visitation rights.

The child is living with Robert Moschetta at his Lakewood home.

In the hallway outside the courtroom, Gilbert played one of the recordings for reporters. He said he produced the recordings in court to counteract testimony by Robert Moschetta about a series of phone conversations he had earlier this year with Jordan about the girl’s future.

Moschetta’s version of the telephone calls is that Jordan demanded that the child be returned to her or she would have him “dragged” into court.

In the recording, however, Jordan appears to try to work out ways to increase the frequency of her visits with the child.

“It shows that Mr. Moschetta’s recollection of the conversation is quite faulty,” Gilbert said. “She did not give him an ultimatum. She tried to resolve . . . and reach an agreement with him.

“At one point, among the many things they discussed, he could have the baby . . . and she would take care of it while he was at work.”

In later testimony, Jordan, who lives in Cudahy, said her eldest son would not be returning to her home and would not be an influence if she were allowed to keep the baby.

In tearful and emotional testimony, Jordan told the court how she speaks to the child in Spanish and how the little girl reacts.

But she said the surrogate arrangement is not “doing justice for my baby.”

“I regret ever thinking that this would do something for my baby,” she told the court.

Her attorney said later that Jordan no longer believes that surrogate contracts can work.

“She responds to me when I call her,” Jordan said, explaining how she sings songs to the child in Spanish and how they play together with toys. She said she needs to spend more time with the child.

Ideally, Jordan testified, she would like primary custody of the child, and Moschetta could visit at any time during the week and have the child on weekends.

“I told him I want what is best for our baby, our baby,” she said, adding that Moschetta was having a hard time getting used to her saying, “Our baby.”