“Our court system works best when it reflects the diversity, experience, and understanding of the people it serves,” Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont said in a press release announcing Thomas J. O’Neill’s appointment to the judiciary in March.
Judge O’Neill was a “diversity” hire by Governor Lamont.
At one of his first significant rulings, Judge O’Neill found Karen Riordan abused her three children under Jennifer’s Law by forcing them [coercive control] to make “false claims” against their father, Christopher Ambrose.
Christopher Ambrose bought his children three years ago in family court. They ran away from their owner this year. Ambrose wants his teenage children kept from their mother and forced to live with him. They do not wish to live with him, despite the fact that he purchased them. He has gone to family court to enforce his purchase and possession of his three teenage children….
The last judge who had the case, Judge Gladys Idelis Nieves, refused to find Riordan harmed her children. The judge before that, Judge Eddie Rodriguez, also refused to find Riordan abused her children.
Both are Hispanic, the children are Hispanic, both judges have decades of experience in family law.
But the third judge was a charm for the husband Ambrose, who brought the petition on behalf of his daughter, Mia, 16, who ran away from him and wants to live with her mother.
Former Commercial Litigation Attorney Turned Judge Sets Precedent
Judge O’Neill’s decision was based on a law meant to protect women and children. Jennifer’s Law is named after Jennifer Dulos and Jennifer Mangano, both victims of murder by their husbands during long, contentious, high-conflict divorce and custody cases – Connecticut style. Both husbands committed suicide.
Basing his ruling to restrain the mother from seeing the daughter who wants to live with her on Jennifer’s Law, Judge O’Neill sent the message that 110-pound Riordan is dangerous to her husband Ambrose and her children.
Are the Voices of the Children Being Silenced in Court?
Judge O’Neill’s removal of the mother from the teens’ life via restraining order is a precedent. The teens wanted their father restrained, but O’Neill restrained the mother without permitting the teenagers to tell their side – making them homeless.
The Troubling Exclusion of Testimony
Judge O’Neill also chose to ignore the mother’s testimony, excluding evidence she tried to present to the court of her husband’s purported abuse,. O’Neill was adamant about not letting psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee, an expert in child abuse and psychopathy, testify or provide a written opinion.
Dr. Lee refers to Ambrose as the children’s abuser and claims there is evidence that he appears to present as a psychopath.
Dr. Bandy X. Lee… She wrote of Ambrose: “This potential for Mr. Ambrose’s dangerousness, especially where children are involved, should not be overlooked.”…
Why wasn’t this evidence allowed on the record?
Judge Nieves or Judge Rodriguez likely would have allowed it, respecting the due process right for each party to have an opportunity to be heard.
Who is Protected?
The office of the Chief Court Administrator Elizabeth A. Bozzuto apparently decided to remove this critical and legally complex “first impression” case on Jennifer’s Law from a seasoned family court jurist – Neives, with decades of family law experience, and hand it to a “greenhorn” on the bench – O’Neill – a man who is inexperienced in family law.
I previously posited that Judge O’Neill’s outrageous decision was explainable in two ways.
Newly-appointed Judge Thomas O’Neill had a long history as a private attorney, suing for clients on commercial matters. He was therefore the perfect choice to decide who bought the teenagers, Chris Ambrose, or the mother, with whom the teens want to live. Judge O’Neill ruled Ambrose owns the kids. They have no right to be heard, their happiness irrelevant…..
One possibility for his indifference to the happiness or welfare of the teenagers, and disregard of their wishes, is that O’Neill truly is a “rookie” and does not recognize the fundamental difference between cases about money and true justice. In his high-stakes corporate litigation background, the concern is never the “best interests” of any litigant, only the bottom line.
I also posited that “green” might have been the motivating factor.
It was the price for moving O’Neill down the hall to hearing “big dollar” commercial cases where his former law partners at Day Pitney LLP and other “insiders” could wet their beaks in immense feeding troughs of legal fees.
After reviewing some evidence in this case, another possibility occurred to me.
I think Judge O’Neill was “hand-selected” by Connecticut Court Administrator O’Neill, understanding that he would not make a complete record.
Incomplete Record Benefits the Enterprise
If the full factual record in the Ambrose v. Riordan case were to come to light, the “cash cow” and “dark underbelly” of the Connecticut Family Court system’s cash-for-kids enterprise would have become fully exposed. We would find in Connecticut what smacks of the racketeering conspiracy described by Frank Parlato.
I posit that the Connecticut Family Court “machine” had previously “sold” the Ambrose children to Christopher Ambrose.
Judge Nieves was pushed aside, Judge Rodriguez refused, and Judge O’Neill was appointed to the case because Connecticut administrators of justice could not afford the mother, Karen Riordan, to prevail.
More specifically, they could not allow the truth to come out, that the case has been a “contract” and “cover-up” since the beginning.
“Cash For Kids” Theories in CT Family Court Are Nothing New
Frank Parlato has been writing about the sale of the Ambrose children for some time.
Parlato published the following about the Ambrose v. Riordan case almost a year and a half ago:
This is CT, and this is a family court under the shadow of Richard Gardner, who invented a way for well-to-do abusers and pedophiles to prevail – “parental alienation” – and it is used as a weapon to take money from the rich and give the children in return.
Parental alienation and its drastic remedy – once it is determined by any quack or con artist GAL or custody evaluator – is to take the children from the parent they love and order no contact with her – and hand them over to the abuser with money.
For those who say some mothers alienate their children from the father, which is true, I say children can be alienated from a father because he is a cruel ass, a cunning man, that the children see through him and want no part of him.
It does not have to be the other parent who alienates children from the parent. It can be the abuser himself.
But alienated the children, Mia, Matthew, and Sawayer, because the father had the money and because he had CT family court – he could buy the children like you might buy a dozen eggs at the market.
That market is CT Family Court, and it is, arguably, as vicious and sinister a place as the world has known.
Damning evidence has been repeatedly presented to public officials, judges, attorneys, the police, and the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF).
Why do they ignore credible allegations of sexual abuse?
Because selling children to the highest bidder is good for business, it is a “cash cow.”
Family law attorneys like Edward Nusbaum and Alexander Cuda can charge clients $750 per hour and upwards.
Court-appointed GALs can rack up fees. The GAL in the Ambrose case, Jocelyn Hurwitz, billed $200,000 to make the children miserable, recommending they be removed from their mother and handed to their abuser-father.
GAL Jocelyn Hurwitz displays a warm smile with every recommendation of parental alienation she makes….
It is no coincidence that the father, Ambrose, had the money to pay GAL Hurwitz, and Riordan did not.
There are experts, investigators, doctors, and professionals paid. Their legal fees secure the ultimate result for the party with the resources.
Family Court “lifers” like Judges Jane Kupson Grossman and Gerard I. Adelman know the game. They don’t get in the way. They guard this corrupt machine.
Uphold the Bargain
By excluding evidence and making outlandish rulings, they keep the dark underbelly from becoming exposed.
All the paid participants remain fat and happy while the system churns. Broken families and damaged children are “acceptable losses” like “breakage” in a retail establishment factored into the cost of doing business.
The most important role is the judge, who is the guardian of the “cash for kids” deal. If a “client” pays and doesn’t get their product – kids – it threatens the entire marketplace.
And that explains Judge O’Neill’s decision. There is one dirty secret that, if made public, would threaten the “cash for kids” scheme. It would decimate entire cottage industries and the bottom line of family law attorneys.
Kids Are Commodities
The secret is kids can be sold to anyone, even pedophiles if the buyer has the money.
Kids of any color or creed, buyers of any shape or size, or sexual predilection – are auctioned and sold.
Governor Lamont was sure right about diversity. After two Hispanic judges refused to sell the three Hispanic teenage children of Riordan and Ambrose, they brought in their diversity hire — a white man – a long-time commercial litigation attorney turned family court judge.
Thomas O’Neill had experience in bargain and sale, in contract litigation, brought in to uphold the deal – the sale of three kids to Christopher Ambrose.
Yeah, diversity is an excellent thing in Connecticut — for business.
