Christopher Ambrose one-upped his kids by going to Family Court before his kith Judge Thomas O’Neill.
The mother had no money. She was a stay-at-home mother, and Ambrose, when he started the divorce proceedings in 2019, snatched every dime out of their accounts. He even took her inheritance for good measure – leaving her penniless and unable to play the game in CT Family Court, which is justice is what justice can buy.
Ambrose outspent the mother 10-1. In CT Family Court, money buys custody and bullshit talks.
Ask the wake of judges – Grossman, Adelman, Moukaswher, or newly-minted O’Neill, called up from hell to roll in the detritus caused by a selfish father’s insane demand to force three teenagers to live with him.
Judge Thomas O’Neill has something special in his eye, a tongue of flame, and someone in his ear…
O’Neill was the perfect choice. In court, instead of words, Judge O’Neill emitted shrill, unsettling screeches that sounded like the wailing of tormented children’s souls, sending chills down the spines of all who threaten the parental alienation racket by refusing to force teenagers to live with the man who purchased them.
The racket O’Neill protects is called parental alienation – which is to conspire to hand kids to abusers, then watch how the motions add up, and hearings pile high, billable by the hour.
Though profitable for the cast of family court professionals, it causes havoc in the lives of mothers and children, which drives up the cost to the father.
Ambrose paid a fortune to buy his kids.
Now that his three teenage possessions ran away, he retained the children-snatching family law attorney Alexander Cuda, the leader of the conspiracy of attorneys and judges in the family law section of CT.
Alexander Cuda
A hunched, menacing silhouette, Cuda, with his bald, scabrous head and air of malevolent intent, was a sight in O’Neill’s courtroom. His eyes, like sharp daggers, fixated on the mother whose kids, for Ambrose money, he steals with unemotional detachment.
His voice is not melodious but a harsh, grating sound that serves as a grim herald for any mother or child unfortunate enough to cross his path in Family Court.
The mother, Karen Riordan, represented herself. Every muscle in her body tuned to the safety and well-being of her children. She stood flabbergasted when Judge O’Neill refused to hear from the teenagers about their fate.
Karen and Sawyer when they were briefly reunited this year
Nor would he hear from the psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee, who believes Ambrose is a dangerous psychopath, or Private Investigator Manual Gomez, who has evidence he says of Ambrose’s abuse.
It is hard to fathom why any man, other than a psychopath, would wish to force three teens, young adults, to live in his house against their wishes. So much against their wishes, they are runaways.
But Riordan is there like a sitting duck with a boil of hawks – O’Neill, Ambrose, and Cuda – keen-eyed, sharp of talon, and strong beaked, hooked to tear flesh, united in their guttural hiss, “Let Us PREY.”
They are agents of destruction, opportunistic feeders that scan the ground for any sign of vulnerability, which means profit.
Their presence is a stark contrast to the beauty and serenity that the mother and her children bring to the earth and meadow. But the court is no meadow and is less of earth than the sulphury smoke pits of hell.
At the center of the case, with his hunched shoulders and ugly visage, Ambrose seems the incarnation of greed. His beady eyes scan the court, uncaring and unfeeling, interested only in destroying the mother of his children and running their lives.
He has an air of cold calculation, his psychopathy so virulent he seems ready, if need be, to use the law of Family Court profit, like Scott Mangano and Fotis Dulos, to snatch life away.
The courtroom the other day was one of tension. The mother raises her head, her senses alert. For a moment, the world seems to hold its breath as if waiting for some divine intervention to tip the scales and bring the kids back to her.
The beautiful, noble mother versus the ugly menace of a murder of crows – Cuda, Ambrose, and O’Neill – could not be more profound.
The scene tells a tale as old as time, a stark representation of life’s struggle between beauty and harshness, vulnerability and predation, love and indifference.
In CT Family Court, harshness, predation, indifference, and greed always win.
It is overwhelmingly bleak and terrifying to be a poor mother protecting your children when money tips every scale.
CT Family Court evokes fear, disgust, a sense of endless suffering, and the distant sound of the agonized cries of children, echoing the imbalance of power and money called justice that fails the families it sneeringly pretends to protect.
