A mother told FR how Connecticut Family Court handled the custody battle between her and her abusive ex, which led to her losing custody of her son, much against his wishes.
Despite a restraining order and her ex’s violent history, the court’s decisions consistently favored him, citing “parental alienation.”
Multiple judges presided over the case, each seeming to ignore expert recommendations and the wishes of the teenage son.
The court’s willingness to switch judges appeared to be a strategic move to favor the father and his legal team. The situation worsened with every court order, leaving the mother powerless and the son in a vulnerable and traumatizing position.
After sharing her story, the mother asked, “Do you think this is a court-sponsored crime?”
Frank Report Response:
CT Family Court tends to favor individuals who possess financial and legal power, resulting in a network that benefits from this arrangement. This pattern appears far from coincidental.
Judge Thomas J. O’Neill
Parental Alienation for Gain: The court’s swift inclination to dub genuine bonds “parental alienation” without concrete evidence weaponizes a dubious psychological concept for unjust outcomes.
It indicates an organized effort to skew judgments favoring the financially dominant party, which benefits those within the system.
Violation of Children’s Rights for Profit: By consistently suppressing children’s voices, despite state laws allowing them to voice preferences, the system ensures that outcomes align with what benefits those within the system.
Judge Thomas Moukawsher
Questionable Custody Decisions: Judges’ abrupt flipping of custody, usually from mother to father, based on “parental alienation,” without a genuine assessment, seems to comport with outcomes that benefit the enterprise.
Judge James Kenefick
Financial Manipulation & Coercion: The father orchestrated intricate financial maneuvers, manipulated records, misreported payments, and strategically presented last-minute evidence. This imposed undue financial strain on the less affluent mother, with the court consistently upholding his actions. This pattern suggests a coordinated, organized effort involving legal professionals in the enterprise.
Judge Jane Grossman
Systematic Denial of Due Process: The Court’s pervasive practice of dismissing the concerns of mothers and children, silencing their voices, and giving preferential treatment to fathers with greater financial and legal influence reveals not only a deep-seated bias within the system, but also a covert financial incentive. This motivation may go beyond favoring the wealthier parent and encompass manipulating outcomes to procure grants or incentives through federally-funded initiatives on fatherhood. Such actions, undoubtedly, amount to corruption.
Judge Jane Emons
Court-Endorsed Coercion: Undue threats to strip away visitation rights without justified cause might be a tactic to wear down, or intimidate the opposition, ensuring the system’s desired outcomes are met.
Former CT Bar Association’s Family Law Section president, Alexander Cuda.
Obstruction of Justice as a Norm: The systematic dismissal of legitimate concerns, such as the decision to ignore expert testimonies, documented evidence, and a clear history of domestic violence and suppression of evidence, indicates this court system is operating as a racketeering enterprise.
Judge Shopping: A repeated, systematic practice where the chief administrative judge, in concert with insiders, assigns cases to specific judges with the intent to achieve predetermined outcomes favorable to parties with financial clout or legal manipulations, demonstrates gross abuse of power.
Judge Richard Robinson
Lack of Continuity and Familiarity: Frequent changes in judges on a case prevent judges from familiarizing themselves with the intricacies and nuances of a case, potentially resulting in plausible deniability and procedural delays, prolonging the case and resulting in additional billings for court professionals involved.
Judge Donna Nelson Heller
Accountability and Responsibility: If multiple judges oversee a case at different stages, it becomes challenging to pinpoint accountability. This diffusion of responsibility can mean that if there are oversights or misjudgments, it’s unclear who is to blame.
Jessica Biren Caverly custody evaluator
Appeal Concerns: If a case is appealed that was overseen by multiple judges who all reached similar conclusions, it can create an illusion of consensus. This makes it harder for higher courts to challenge or reconsider the findings, even if there were oversights or bias.
Jocelyn Hurwitz GAL
Parental Alienation Bias: If a lawyer knows a judge leans towards findings of parental alienation, such as Judge Gerard Adelman, Judge Jane Grossman, or Judge Thomas J. O’Neill, they might maneuver to have that judge oversee the case. This tactic can be particularly effective if one party wants to marginalize the other party’s involvement with their children.
Judge Gerard Adelman
The members of the CT Family Court enterprise work together to achieve common objectives and pursue the enterprise’s mission.
Manipulating family court decisions for financial gain
Suppressing the voices and rights of children and parents, especially those of financial or legal disadvantage.
Advancing their financial and personal interests by corrupt and illegal means
Using the label “parental alienation” as a weapon against less influential parents contrary to evidence and expert opinions.
Facilitating and endorsing the financial manipulations of more affluent parents.
Systematically dismissing evidence, neglecting abuse histories, and rejecting expert advice that did not align with their desired outcomes.
Coercing parents under threats of stripping visitation rights without a genuine cause.
The RICO Act, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, is a federal law enacted to combat organized crime.
The Department of Justice is authorized to confront what could be the most perilous RICO enterprise of all—the profit-driven, child trafficking CT Family Court.
