And, they say, Connecticut\u2019s family court system is not only ignoring those abuse allegations \u2013 some substantiated by police and social workers, others not \u2013 but enabling it. They claim their exes use the court system to exert control over them and their children through its web of judges, attorneys, and guardians ad litem (GAL) who dismiss their safety concerns in a concerted push to side with fathers, even in cases when there is abuse against both the children and mother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhat I\u2019ve been experiencing with the family court system since around 2009 and on is favoritism,\u201d said \u201cKC\u201d who says she was twice strangled by her ex-boyfriend with who she had a daughter. \u201cI\u2019ve noticed a huge shift starting around 2010, 2011 in our case where I was being completely ignored on the abuse my child and I have suffered from, told not to discuss it in court, judge hushing me, not allowing me to speak. Literally just focusing more on father\u2019s needs, father\u2019s rights and access, things of that nature.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
KC was forced to get a total of four restraining orders and a protection order over the years. She was awarded sole custody of their daughter in 2008, and in 2011 she changed her identity and relocated out of state with the help of a domestic violence agency after the father had repeatedly tracked them down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThey walked me through everything and then they paid to have me relocated,\u201d KC said. \u201cIt was supposed to be out of the country, but I was too afraid after the years of abuse I\u2019d gone through, and I still believed in my country, I still believed they would protect me as long as I was telling the truth and that is not what happened.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What happened instead was that five years after being awarded sole custody, the GAL \u2013 an attorney charged with representing the child in a custody battle \u2013 who had been assigned to her case contacted the State Police alleging KC had skipped out on court dates \u2013 which she disputes \u2013 never mentioning that KC had sole custody and essentially making the claim she had kidnapped her child, although no arrest warrants were filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A state trooper was able to track down her location, called her ex-boyfriend who was living in Hawaii, and gave him the information. Her ex then tracked down KC and her daughter. \u201cHe has constantly located us since that happened and that was 2013,\u201d KC said. \u201cHe\u2019s constantly stalking us and threatening us ever since, causing my daughter and I to move practically every year since. We moved a total of 18 times.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another woman, Lisa, is still in the midst of her divorce for going on nine years now. She\u2019s racked up over $400,000 in attorney\u2019s fees alone and has cycled through numerous attorneys who she says have all stuck by her even when she wasn\u2019t able to pay. She also has a protective order against her ex-husband after he threatened to \u201cbash my head in.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lisa says she\u2019s owed roughly $200,000 in child support and alimony payments and despite orders from a judge, her ex continues to file motions, and file for payment modifications sending them both back to the drawing board again and again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt\u2019s just been a nonstop situation of psychological abuse and harassment and from one attorney to the next,\u201d Lisa said. \u201cIt\u2019s hard to put into words because it\u2019s gone on for so long and your motto is you tell the truth, you present the facts and what else is there because this is a court of law? I just wanted to be as amicable as possible in a divorce situation. I have three kids and I didn\u2019t understand that someone was capable of pursuing all of this through the judicial system.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sue, whose case has seen roughly 500 motions filed, was threatened with jail if she didn\u2019t get her 15-year-old son to visit his father, who has abused them both in the past. Her son, larger than she, refused and Sue told the court that she couldn\u2019t force her son to go. Finally, the judge threatened her with jail time if her son did not visit his father.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe judge put a gun to my head. Either I kick my son out and I get DCF called on me, or I go to jail. Either way, I don\u2019t have a choice but to hand him over,\u201d Sue said. \u201cMy son did it because he didn\u2019t want me to go to jail, but my son is not going to able to last much longer.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sue says at least one visit with the father resulted in the police being called when her son told employees of a gym he attended that he wasn\u2019t comfortable with the man. \u201cHe cannot stand his father,\u201d she said. \u201cHe\u2019s trying to keep his cool because he doesn\u2019t want to start a fight.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhat it comes down to is there\u2019s no neutral people regulating the behavior of judges attorneys, GALs, it\u2019s basically the wild west in our courtroom and the judge knows that he can say and do whatever he wants and there\u2019s zero accountability and no ramifications for whatever they do,\u201d said Jessica, a woman from Texas who now says she has been trapped in Connecticut for 8 years after she fled here with her son to escape her abusive ex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cI had a thriving career, my family lives in Texas. Every time I try to move there, he files a motion to restrain, and the court keeps granting, forcing me to remain here against my will,\u201d Jessica said. \u201cI could tell you a million abusive things my ex has done to me, but the issue is the people who are enabling it. He\u2019s still gonna be an abuser at the end of the day. If not me then somebody else, but it\u2019s the people, the key players, that are enabling these abusers and enabling this to keep going on.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those women and their stories are just a few, but there are hundreds if not thousands more like them who say the family court system is rigged against women, particularly those who have suffered abuse by their exes and are now in long-standing court battles. Those court battles, they say, are used by their exes to maintain control over their lives and their children\u2019s, threatening them not only financially, but also physically, emotionally and mentally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Betsy Keller, a public relations professional who underwent her own extensive divorce battle in family court and helped push through Jennifer\u2019s Law in 2021 \u2013 a redefinition of what constitutes domestic abuse spearheaded by former state senator Alex Kasser, D-Greenwich \u2013 says these kinds of \u201chigh conflict\u201d divorce cases are different from a typical divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhat happens in a normal divorce is it\u2019s acrimonious, it\u2019s adversarial, it doesn\u2019t feel good. Rarely is it a mutual, good feelings for one another but you get through it,\u201d Keller said. \u201cThey say that 95 percent of people, even though it\u2019s adversarial, they figure it out. They end up signing the divorce decree, they mediate, they collaborate, and they get the hell out of there without spending, in Fairfield County, it could be a million dollars.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe 5 percent of cases that end up in a courtroom, in a trial, whether its finances or whether it\u2019s the children, there\u2019s a problem,\u201d Keller said. She estimates, based on judicial statistics, that there are roughly 30,000 divorces in Connecticut each year, leaving roughly 1,500 cases that are high conflict, ending up in trial court. \u201cIt\u2019s a red flag for an abuser, it\u2019s a red flag for somebody who has a personality disorder. You can\u2019t possibly be empathetic and not see that if you harm the mother, you harm the child.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Following the Dulos case, Keller created CT Protective Moms<\/a> and says she now has 400 mothers who are going through or been through acrimonious divorce cases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFive years ago, I founded Connecticut Protective Moms as I realized there was a need to reach out and support moms in family court and explain to them the chaos in their cases was not justice, but a industry built on the 5 percent of \u2018high conflict\u2019 cases which never end and are so lucrative to the appointed \u2018professionals,’\u201d Keller said. \u201cWhat I found was none of the other mothers were talking to each other to lend support to lend information, not legal advice, but advice about how to deal with allegations of abuse. In my opinion from the thousand foot view, yes, the court is completely ignoring allegations of abuse and abuse in the past. It\u2019s not physical harm in the present, but its coercive control and all the things that encompass that is being ignored.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The mothers interviewed for this article also say abuse is being \u201cswept under the rug,\u201d in the court system and are often advised by attorneys to not even bring it up, even when there are arrests and substantiated cases of abuse because they\u2019re afraid that they might actually lose their children if they \u201cstep out of line,\u201d which keeps them silent as court proceedings continue for years on end. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Family court is a difficult topic to cover. Individual cases are rife with allegations on both sides, hundreds of court filings, and, generally, both parties feel they have been wronged \u2013 not just women, but men \u2013 and the truth is difficult to ascertain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the belief that Connecticut\u2019s family court system is broken is shared widely among those who have been through it. When word got out through various groups in late 2022 that Connecticut Inside Investigator was looking into the systemic issues of family court, our editor was so inundated with emails, texts, and late-night phone calls that he had to change his voicemail and shut off notifications. Calls, texts, and emails have been received at our newsroom almost every day since. Further tips on this or any other topic relevant to the people of Connecticut can be submitted to tips@insideinvestgator.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The women from those groups interviewed, however, say they rarely talk to the media for fear of retaliation, fear of losing their custody battles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMany of these women in Connecticut, especially in the larger group, have already lost their children and they\u2019re fighting desperately to get their children back. They\u2019re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars but they\u2019re not going to come forward and jeopardize that one bit of hope,\u201d one of the women said. \u201cThey\u2019re not going to waste that and talk to any journalists. That\u2019s why you\u2019re not hearing from women, and you won\u2019t until they\u2019re out of the system. It\u2019s the women that are out of the system that are helping the women in the system now.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, they do write letters to the governor, the attorney general, really, anyone who they think might listen and be able to enact some kind of change in the law. But they say they know the court system won\u2019t change itself \u2013 there\u2019s too much money at stake and too many personal associations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou can take all the time to file complaints against family service people, judges, attorneys \u2013 it all goes to the bar association and these people are heavily intertwined into the court system, some of them are even GALs,\u201d Jessica said. \u201cSo, you\u2019re going to complain about a judge to a GAL that\u2019s supposed to hold these judges accountable when these judges are putting tens of thousands of dollars in their pockets? It\u2019s never going to happen.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But that doctrine has gradually fallen out of favor, with \u201cbest interest of the child,\u201d now the main philosophy of the court system. Included in that transition away from the Tender Years doctrine, is the push by men\u2019s rights groups with fathers who want to retain full or partial custody of their children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the most part, that is considered a positive development. Children tend to do better with both parents in their lives and actively engaged in their upbringing. However, that shift has had unintended consequences, according to these women, who say that push to keep fathers in the lives of their children at all costs is enabling their abusers to continue abusing them, albeit in different ways, and putting both them and their children at risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Connecticut established the Fatherhood Initiative in 1999<\/a> to \u201cpromote the positive involvement and interaction of fathers with their children,\u201d according to the legislation. It was particularly focused on low-income families to encourage fathers, married or not, to remain active and engaged in the lives of their children \u2013 a noble idea, to be sure. The legislation was also tied to changes in how child support is determined and meted out in family court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By 2003, it became the John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative, named after late state representative John Martinez, deputy speaker of the house, who passed away in 2002 and was an active member of the Fatherhood Advisory Council, according to the state\u2019s website. That initiative became tied to federal funding in 2006 with a five-year, $5 million grant from the Department of Health and Human Services to promote responsible fatherhood in Connecticut. By 2009, legislation was enacted whereby the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services was to seek out federal and private funds to help support the state\u2019s fatherhood initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That shift toward promoting fathers in the lives of their children \u2013 again, not a bad thing in the majority of cases \u2013 was not limited to Connecticut, it was part of a broad federal push as well, particularly under President Barack Obama\u2019s administration through the establishment of Fatherhood.gov, a website created by the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, funded by the Office of Family Assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is a \u201cnational resource for fathers, practitioners, programs\/Federal grantees, states, and the public at-large who are serving or interested in supporting strong fathers and families,\u201d according to their website.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2010, numerous Connecticut state agencies, including the Judicial Branch, signed onto a memorandum of understanding<\/a> (MOU) to \u201ccontinue to actively participate in efforts that further the objectives of the John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut, both within our respective agencies and as interagency partners,\u201d according to the MOU. The MOU also involved actively seeking funding to promote the initiative. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The MOU encompasses a wide swath of Connecticut\u2019s social agencies and their activities, including workforce training through the Department of Labor, assistance to incarcerated fathers through the Department of Corrections, education curricula through the State Department of Education, and to \u201cprovide Magistrate Court services for non-custodial parents, especially fathers, as it relates to access via the long established Federal Grant collaboration with the Department of Social Services,\u201d among many other things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, there is clearly federal funding for Connecticut agencies tied to the fatherhood initiative, and the mothers who were in the family court system at the time of the MOU say they saw a dramatic shift in the years following: \u201cIt\u2019s now become a bias and sexual discrimination problem,\u201d one of the mothers said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Danielle Pollack, policy manager for the National Family Violence Law Center<\/a> at George Washington University, says that over the last 25 years, there has been a special emphasis on shared parenting and what\u2019s called the \u201cpro-contact culture,\u201d but that doing so at all costs is not safe, particularly for children at the center of a custody case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCertainly, it\u2019s a laudable goal to have healthy safe parents involved in kids\u2019 lives whether the parents are divorced or separated or something in between,\u201d Pollack said. \u201cThe problem is when you have domestic violence or family violence situations, and overwhelmingly the people who are perpetrating intentional and severe harms in family violence situations are predominantly male caregivers. That\u2019s just a fact, there\u2019s nothing ideological about it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen parents can\u2019t agree and they\u2019re in court fighting about it, the majority of those cases have family violence allegations, whether it\u2019s against adults or the child or a combination thereof,\u201d Pollack said. \u201cSo, if you approach the idea that children should be equally shared amongst both parents and that should be the primary mission and the primary goal, rather than child safety and child well-being, you\u2019re going to have some bad outcomes in those cases where children are in danger, if your primary goal is to ensure contact at all costs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part of the philosophical shift in the family court system, both in Connecticut and nationally, has to do with parental alienation and reunification therapy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Parental alienation is a term that originated from the late Dr. Richard Gardner and, according to the National Center for State Courts<\/a> (NCSC), is defined as \u201ca collection of one parent\u2019s behaviors aimed at causing the child to become alienated from the other parent.\u201d Effectively saying that one parent is brainwashing the child against the other. However, proponents of parental alienation concept say the term does not include instances when the child is alienated from the other parent due to behavior such as abuse, addiction or abandonment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gardner\u2019s work was largely self-published, lacking peer review and scientific rigor, but Pollack says it has taken hold in family courts throughout the country, particularly when there are allegations of abuse, and, as a legal strategy, it has been quite effective \u2013 part of the reason mothers now shy away from mentioning abuse in family court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn essence, it\u2019s a concept that says that when moms allege abuse, they\u2019re making it up or they\u2019re hysterical or they\u2019re mentally unstable or they\u2019re vindictive and there\u2019s not any abuse actually happening,\u201d Pollack said. \u201cThat concept is still being used a lot in family courts everywhere when a parent, usually a father although there are exceptions, is accused of abusing the child and or the former partner. In response to that, the alleged abuser will claim the mother is alienating the child and that\u2019s the reason the child is actually resisting contact, not that the child is actually at risk or has reasonable fears. It\u2019s a very effective legal strategy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A study published by GW University<\/a> and co-authored by Joan S. Meier who heads the National Family Violence Law Center, looked at 2,000 court opinions and found that courts are extremely skeptical of abuse allegations. When fathers make claims of parental alienation the courts frequently reject the abuse claims, and the mother often loses custody of the child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAnalysis of over 2,000 court opinions confirms that courts are skeptical of mothers\u2019 claims of abuse by fathers; this skepticism is greatest when mothers claim child abuse. The findings also confirm that fathers\u2019 cross-claims of parental alienation increase (virtually doubling) courts\u2019 rejection of these claims, and mothers\u2019 losses of custody to the father accused of abuse,\u201d the authors wrote, adding that the same did not hold true when the mother accused the father of parental alienation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFinally, the findings indicate that where Guardians Ad Litem or custody evaluators are appointed, outcomes show an intensification of courts\u2019 skepticism toward mothers\u2019 (but not fathers\u2019) claims, and custody removals from mothers (but not fathers),\u201d the study said. A similar finding was made in a report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, published in April 2023 and to be presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council<\/a> in July of 2023, which labeled parental alienation a \u201cpseudo-concept,\u201d by author Reem Alsalem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn the United States of America, data show that rates of custody losses between mothers and fathers differ significantly, depending on which parent alleges alienation,\u201d Alsalem wrote. \u201cWhen a father has alleged alienation by the mother, her custody rights have been removed 44 per cent of the time. When the situation was reversed, mothers gained custody from fathers only 28 per cent of the time. Thus, when alienation is accused, mothers were twice as likely to lose custody compared to fathers.\u201d \u201cThe consequences of biased custody decisions can be catastrophic, resulting in specific incidents when contact has been awarded to fathers with a violent history, in the death of children and women and children being placed at gunpoint,\u201d the report said. \u201cIn some cases, women have been imprisoned for violating custodial rights and protective restraining orders have been overturned.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A 2011 study<\/a> financed by the U.S. Justice Department found judges, attorneys, custody evaluators and other judicial employees believed that 26 percent of abuse allegations made by women were false, and 31 percent of abuse allegations made by fathers were false. Critics, however, say the actual percentage of false abuse allegations by women is significantly lower.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAmong custody evaluators, the belief that allegations of domestic violence (DV) by mothers are false was strongly related to four other beliefs: (1) DV survivors alienate children from the other parent; (2) DV is not an important factor in making custody decisions; (3) children are hurt when survivors are reluctant to co-parent, and (4) DV survivors falsely allege child abuse. Similar results were found among judges,\u201d the study said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The redress for parental alienation in the court system, even when there are confirmed instances of abuse against either the parent or the child is \u201creunification therapy,\u201d a concept that Pollack says migrated from the family welfare system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Essentially, when a child was removed from a parent and placed in state or foster custody, the state would attempt to reunify the child and parent to get the child out of foster care or a congregate living situation \u2013 a way to save money for the state and allow the child to rejoin their family and community for the best outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Pollack says such a system doesn\u2019t translate well to private custody cases, where there isn\u2019t the choice between state or foster care and an abusive parent, but rather a choice between an abusive parent and a protective parent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In these situations, the child is required to attend this reunification therapy, even against their wishes, in order to bond with the supposedly alienated parent, something that can be damaging, coercive and troubling even in cases where there isn\u2019t confirmed abuse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThat\u2019s a big business and it is also not supported by science and the purveyors of it are unregulated and they duck licensing requirements by saying that they\u2019re \u2018psychoeducational\u2019 rather than real psychology or therapy,\u201d Pollack said. \u201cIt\u2019s something that has really become a cottage industry and they charge upwards of thirty or forty thousand for five days of treatment. It\u2019s not treatment that\u2019s valid or can be proven to be effective or beneficial for kids.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n ProPublica has documented several cases<\/a> arising out of a reunification camp in Texas that children forced into those sessions said are abusive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the push of parental alienation and reunification therapy is deeply embedded in the court system, despite scientific misgivings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For instance, retired Judge Lynda B. Munro previously served as the Chief Administrative Judge for Family Matters for five years in Connecticut. She developed the training process for GALs and was the Presiding Judge for the Family Division of the New Haven Superior Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She was also a founding board member<\/a> of the Connecticut chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts<\/a> (AFCC), a national trade association that provides services-for-hire to family courts through its members, which include judges, lawyers, mediators and custody evaluators. They also provide training for judicial employees, including in Connecticut. <\/p>\n\n\n\n AFCC has been instrumental in the push<\/a> toward courts recognizing parental alienation and pushing for reunification therapy. The Connecticut chapter subsequently went defunct after it was revealed they had never registered as a business or nonprofit in the state and hadn\u2019t made any tax filings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Munro, after serving as the top judge in Connecticut\u2019s family court system, continues to list her professional affiliation<\/a> with AFCC and served on the Connecticut Bar Association\u2019s Family Law Executive Committee. She then worked for Pullman & Comley, one of the largest law firms in Connecticut with deep ties to the capitol, in their Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), family and appellate law groups. She currently serves as a GAL in addition to her own legal practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Notably, Munro is listed as a team member<\/a> for Overcoming Barriers (OCB), an organization out of Massachusetts that, up until the COVID-19 pandemic, ran reunification camps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to OCB\u2019s website<\/a>: \u201cBoth parents, including the favored parent and the resisted parent must attend Family Camp and other OCB programs, because each member of the family has a role to play in any solution to move the family forward. In our experience the problem is a shared and very complex issue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The organization now focuses on education for \u201cclinicians, lawyers and judges who work with families in high-conflict divorces,\u201d according to their website.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s quite a business. A lot of times the courts will abdicate their decision-making power and give it to the reunification therapist,\u201d Pollack said. \u201cSo, if the child and or the protective parent don\u2019t meet their demands, it\u2019s stipulated the child can never come back. In many cases, the child goes into this reunification treatment and it\u2019s premised on a custody switch, so the child just remains in perpetuity with the alleged abusive parent.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Casey says she managed to get out by throwing a glass bowl onto the floor \u201cto create a distraction,\u201d and was then able to get away. When she broke the glass bowl, her husband actually called the police. The responding officers let her stay at the house with the children and made her husband leave. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Pictures provided to CII show severe bruising on Casey\u2019s legs following her restraint. Additionally, text messages show her husband apologizing for making the death threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although no one was arrested at the time of the incident, Casey says she filed a complaint against one of the officers, at the encouragement of a Department of Children and Families (DCF) worker. The officer had made disparaging remarks about women in domestic abuse situations. Following the complaint, that officer filed an arrest warrant for both Casey and her husband. The charges against Casey were immediately dropped, but her husband was required to attend a domestic violence program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Casey filed for a restraining order. DCF was involved because her two young children witnessed both the initial death threat and the incident in the bathroom. Casey\u2019s husband then initiated the divorce proceeding by filing first. It was determined there should be a GAL for the children. Her husband\u2019s attorney submitted a list of GALs to choose from, even though the court should have provided such a list. Her husband\u2019s attorney pushed heavily for Adam Teller, an attorney with a law firm out of East Hartford.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn no way did I want anybody they were recommending,\u201d Casey said. \u201cI had an attorney at the time who told me that I had no justifiable reason to say no to this person, and I was very new in my situation and abuse so, I was scared. I was scared having a male say to me you have no say, you can\u2019t say no to this, there\u2019s no reason to, so I was like okay, I have no choice.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Casey says that although the GAL was assigned in July of 2020, he didn\u2019t speak with her until March of 2022 outside an initial family demographic meeting. He never spoke to her oldest child and, to her knowledge, only once spoke to her youngest child. \u201cTo this day he has never spoken to any of the people I requested him to. There are records I have from therapists and providers that state they feel he is biased against me, and he is not there for the best interest of the children,\u201d Casey said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Teller immediately pushed for visitation, arranging between attorneys for all parties to arrive for a supervised visit. \u201cOf course I\u2019d like to speak to some of the third parties involved (therapist(s), DCF) and see the arrest warrant applications if that is possible before ramping up more access,\u201d Teller wrote in an email. \u201cThat said, I consider an agreement for some kind of regular ongoing access with father (under whatever conditions) to be a VERY high priority and that should not wait for any specific item of information.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The children were enrolled in therapy. Both were diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the oldest did not want to attend supervised visits with his father. The child was scared and had difficulty sleeping, according to DCF reports in Casey\u2019s possession. According to those same reports, DCF had investigated and substantiated a child abuse allegation against the father. Although, the oldest child was refusing, the GAL continued to push for visitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The reports in Casey\u2019s possession indicate the GAL did not communicate with Casey, did not acknowledge the abuse by her ex-husband and did not agree with DCF\u2019s child abuse substantiation. Furthermore, it indicates the GAL never discussed trauma with the child, nor what the child wanted regarding visitation and continued to believe that visitation with the father was in the child\u2019s best interest, despite the child\u2019s fear and refusal to visit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Teller went on to recommend to the court that his father get \u201cfull and unsupervised access starting immediately \u2013 Wednesdays, full weekends overnight, everything.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Casey was also forced to put her children into reunification therapy, now moving on to their fourth attempt. \u201cThe first one was extremely unsuccessful,\u201d Casey said. \u201cThe second one the judge tried to claim was successful, yet a few weeks later my ex hurt my oldest child and that landed a DCF substantiation of child abuse, so I fail to see how that\u2019s successful.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third attempt was put on hold when the therapist said the child would need more time to be ready and willing for reunification, but the judge and the GAL forced the issue, saying the child now had to work with Bruce Freedman, a psychologist who also happened to be a former board member of the Connecticut chapter of AFCC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Freedman, together with Lynda Munro and another attorney and psychologist, gave a presentation<\/a> about parental alienation and child custody to the Connecticut Bar Association in June of 2019. According to Freedman\u2019s notes, he references Gardner\u2019s work directly and points out that parental alienation is an \u201cactive campaign, whether deliberate or unconscious, to damage a child\u2019s relationship with the other parent.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Freedman goes on to write: \u201cSevere alienators may be unaware of their behavior and its effects on a child,\u201d essentially making the argument that if you are unaware you are alienating your child from the other parent, then you may be the worst offender of all, something that leaves the parent unable to defend themselves against accusations of alienation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Casey says Freedman\u2019s involvement with the children was minimal and he has refused to communicate with their prior therapists. She also alleges that he was not following the judge\u2019s orders. Representing herself, Casey filed motions to have both Freedman and Teller removed from her case. Neither were heard by the judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Casey then filed a complaint against Teller with the Standing Committee on Guardians ad Litem in December of 2022, which has the power to review complaints and remove GALs from their approved list. The grounds for removal is a fairly high bar. According to the 2019 Notice of Procedures<\/a>, a GAL must show \u201can imminent risk of significant harm to the health, safety, or welfare of the public.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Casey\u2019s extensive complaint alleges numerous instances which she claims showed Teller\u2019s bias toward the father, his refusal to listen to the children\u2019s therapists, attempting to discredit DCF reports, and his continual push for extended unsupervised paternal visitation and reunification therapy. \u201cHe has put not just my life but my kids\u2019 lives in a great deal of danger, by empowering and enabling our abuser,\u201d Casey wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Teller\u2019s appointment as GAL was initially vacated by the judge but was then changed to \u201cterminated\u201d in her final decision, according to emails. Teller forwarded her a bill for $26,935 of which she is responsible to pay 30 percent \u2013 a little more than $8,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although Casey filed her complaint and claims to have ample evidence, including audio recordings of the GAL speaking with her son and herself in her home which is outfitted with numerous nanny cameras, she did not hold out hope that much would be done by the GAL Committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since December 2019, when the committee had finally created its process for removing a GAL based on a complaint, the committee has received 29 complaints and dismissed all of them following an executive session, according to a review of the committee\u2019s meeting minutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reached for comment via email, Teller says that he cannot comment on the matter of his representation of the children, but said he remains in good standing as a GAL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI can only tell you that there is no pending complaint against me with the Committee, and the Committee has never found probable cause to proceed on any complaint against me. I remain in good standing on the Committee\u2019s list of GALs and have never been otherwise. [Casey\u2019s] unsubstantiated claims are not news,\u201d Teller wrote. \u201cNeither the judge who tried her case on multiple court days over a period of 2 years, nor the Committee, nor any other objective observer, has found any reason to criticize my work as GAL.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complaint against Teller was dismissed during a March 2023 meeting of the committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is so hard to file for a GAL removal. I had to file my complaint myself because the attorney wouldn\u2019t take the chance.\u201d Casey said. \u201cI think that attorney\u2019s don\u2019t want to muddy the waters with GALs they may face in future cases. They don\u2019t want to get on their bad sides. Which makes sense in this current system.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although Casey still has to return to court, the final decision by the judge requires the children to continue attending reunification therapy with Dr. Freedman, and while there is joint legal custody shared between the two parents, the children remain living with Casey with no visitation orders until the completion of reunification therapy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In her final decision the judge in Casey\u2019s case, the judge writes that Casey \u201chas had difficulty, if not an inability, to see beyond her history with the plaintiff. This is especially true regarding what she views as a relationship marked with intimate partner violence.\u201d The judge goes on to write that Casey is not able to be objective and that \u201cwhether intentional or unintentional,\u201d her feelings have spread to the children, souring their ability to visit with their father.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge acknowledges the fear and reluctance of the two children to visit with their father, including the father\u2019s claim that Casey was attempting to alienate him, and goes on to praise Teller\u2019s work as a GAL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe GAL has, in the court\u2019s opinion, made Herculean efforts to meet with the parties and the children, to gather relevant information by third party providers, relatives, and DCF, and to review reports and documents to formulate an opinion as to the children\u2019s best interests related to the custody dispute,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cMost importantly, the GAL has provided guidance to the parties to assist in reunifying the children and the plaintiff.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFrom the stories I\u2019ve heard, my case is not an outlier. When domestic abuse is involved, it seems a pretty common theme,\u201d Casey said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Coercive control doesn\u2019t necessarily include physical violence but rather a pattern of control through intimidation, isolation, financial control, and threats. It would allow for coercive control allegations to be used in restraining orders, investigations and family court matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part of the reason it was dubbed Jennifer\u2019s Law is that Jennifer Dulos was denied a restraining order<\/a> because she could not show physical abuse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJudge Heller, when she said no to Jennifer Dulos\u2019s restraining order, she was following Connecticut state statute. It said imminent harm and physical danger, and the way her divorce was playing out there was emotional abuse, verbal abuse, litigation abuse,\u201d Keller said. \u201cTheir case had 500 pleadings in only two years but none of those things counted when Judge Heller said no to a family court restraining order because coercive control was not defined in our law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, coercive control is part of Connecticut law, joining only a handful of other states, like Hawaii and Washington, in recognizing coercive control as a form of abuse that doesn\u2019t result in physical injury and police interventions. Part of that definition of coercive control also includes \u201cfrivolous litigation.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the bill analysis<\/a>, \u201cIn any family relations matter, including restraining order actions involving domestic violence, if the court finds that a pattern of frivolous and intentionally fabricated pleadings or motions are filed by one party, then it must sanction the party in an appropriate manner that allows the matter to proceed without undue delay or obstruction.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, determining when filed motions are frivolous and intentionally fabricated in cases fraught with \u201che said\/she said,\u201d might prove difficult \u2013 and it also goes both ways. Mothers who may have had their children, rightly or wrongly, removed from their custody and are fighting to win them back could also find themselves sanctioned under the law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The law also places new guidelines on GALs requiring them to consider \u201cthe effect of an abuser\u2019s actions on the child, whether any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or the child, whether the child or his or her sibling has been abused or neglected, and the stability of the child\u2019s existing or proposed residence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the law was seen as a massive win for women facing issues of coercive control and those critical of the family court system, Keller says the practical effects of Jennifer\u2019s Law have not yet been seen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA lot of stuff ended up on the editing room floor,\u201d Keller said, adding she believes there is resistance to the law by Connecticut judges and the Bar Association on financial grounds; \u201cThe more conflict you have, the more people get a bill.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Liza Andrews, director of public policy and communications for the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV), says they agree that \u201cthe response of many systems, including family court, can pose challenges to survivors.\u201d Andrews also serves on the GAL Committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCCADV has in recent years worked on both legislation policy and administrative policy to strengthen that system,\u201d Andrews said. \u201cSome proposals have included increased judicial training, a comprehensive family court bench book focused on domestic violence, safe space in court houses for victims, and increased oversight of frivolous motions, among others. Some of these proposals have moved forward and others have not.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n CCADV offers free legal consultation and assistance in filing restraining orders for victims of domestic violence. \u201cThis is some of the work we have been focused on to help support survivors in family court,\u201d Andrews said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Keller, and the other moms interviewed, say more needs to be done. That the family court system, not only in Connecticut but nationally, is still ignoring and enabling abuse, still under the sway of concepts like parental alienation, reunification, AFCC, and the ability to charge large sums of money for legal services and court-mandated interventions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDomestic violence has become a cash cow for a lot of people, for organizations, for the states, for people and attorneys,\u201d one of the moms said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keller says, to that end, she and the other members of CT Protective Moms have been educating each other, going to court with each other for support and even representing themselves in their cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe decided the best approach was to work with our moms as foot soldiers. So, I educate my moms, hundreds of them. We spend time speaking with them, going to court with them, we court watch with them, we send them materials,\u201d Keller said. \u201cWhen our team works with the mom, and we prepare them for court, they walk in and they\u2019re having success. We have five cases where the mothers went pro se because they ran out of money and, in a way, good for them. They ran out of money and took charge of their own case instead of letting it continue and continue and create billable hours for the machine that family court is.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n While Keller referred to the family court system as a \u201cmachine,\u201d the group of women interviewed had other words to describe it: Abusive<\/em>; Corrupt<\/em>; Enabling<\/em>; The gateway to Hell when you walk in the door<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt has nothing to do with kids and nothing to do with law and order,\u201d one of them said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, such sentiments are not limited only to women and many women interviewed acknowledge that fathers are wronged by the system as well. But, they say, they want more accountability and oversight of a system they liken to the \u201cwild west\u201d \u2013 something that may benefit everyone involved, including men who aren\u2019t abusive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is seen as a systemic logjam with few clear outlets. There is little reprieve when judges, attorneys, or GALs have made poor decisions, factual errors, failed to do their due diligence, been outwardly hostile toward one party, or even lied. And that is enabling abusers to continue inflicting emotional, psychological and financial damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It should be reiterated that this is not the vast majority of divorce cases, but rather the relatively few high conflict cases. Naturally, no one gets married to get divorced and it is always painful. But in these cases, there exists an elevated danger for the parties, particularly those who may find themselves in a judicial system swayed by questionable concepts and philosophies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe ways that state custody laws are constructed are based on ideology rather than research or science,\u201d Pollack said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere\u2019s something going on here and it\u2019s not okay,\u201d Sue said. \u201cEvery day, I walk around with mace in my hand, I\u2019m still in court and the idea is to get you to the point that you give up and I\u2019m sure I can speak for everyone here that you say is it worth it? I\u2019ve sold everything that I have, my children and I have moved three times in the last four years. Everything we have is from tag sales. I know others have it a lot worse than me, but it doesn\u2019t matter.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere needs to be a triage and a separate unit,\u201d Sue said. \u201cIt\u2019s not a \u2018high conflict case,\u2019 it\u2019s something more and something needs to be done about it.\u201d Every week a group of a dozen or so women gathers online to share information, support each other and help strategize for upcoming court hearings. They\u2019re all divorcees. Some are in the midst of an ongoing court battle with … Continue reading ![\"A](\"https:\/\/insideinvestigator.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/HighConflict-Inline-1-1.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the family court system was skewed in the opposite direction \u2013 toward mothers. Known as the Tender Years Doctrine, the policy was a product of the 19th-century women\u2019s rights push in Great Britain and was used by U.S. family court throughout most of the 20th<\/sup> century. It is probably the idea that most are familiar with when it comes to divorce: the mother gets the kids, especially if they are young, and the father has to pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[Editor’s note: In an egregious attempt to conflate the anecdotal with the apocryphal, the author resorts to a statistical ‘phallacy’: e.g. Most convicted mass murderers are males, therefore if a woman is convicted, it’s likely she is innocent. The author does not say how many cases are relied on for his statistic–one could presume many or few. It may be true that twice as many women LOSE as men when trying the parental alienation strategy, BUT there’s only a 15% difference in how many women WIN when trying this court strategy compared to men by the author’s own numbers. There are likely other contributing factors at work as well. e.g. It’s widely accepted women are more often the victims of rape than men. It’s also the case more women falsely claim to have been raped than men. Some crimes and strategies are more common to one gender than the other. It may well be the case more mothers than fathers resort to parental alienation when embroiled in custody battles. The author’s statistics and anecdotal references do little to shed light on this assertion. Falsum in uno, falsum omnibus. If the author is going to resort to such statistical sophistry\/fallacy, then none of his statistical arguments can be trusted.]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Case](\"https:\/\/insideinvestigator.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/HighConflict-Inline-2-1.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Casey is still embroiled in a divorce proceeding, even though it technically is over. After four years of a marriage that included escalating verbal altercations, he threatened to kill her. Shortly thereafter, he broke through a locked bathroom door and trapped her in the bathroom, physically not allowing her to leave as she screamed for help and taking away her phone so she couldn\u2019t call the police. Casey says she thought he would kill her right then. <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Jennifer\u2019s](\"https:\/\/insideinvestigator.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/HighConflict-Inline-3-1024x357.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
In 2021, the State of Connecticut passed Senate Bill 1091, also dubbed \u201cJennifer\u2019s Law,\u201d which expanded the definition of domestic abuse to include \u201ccoercive control.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BY: Marc E. Fitch
Marc worked as an investigative reporter for Yankee Institute and was a 2014 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow. He previously worked in the field of mental health is the author of several books and novels, along with numerous freelance reporting jobs and publications. Marc has a Master of Fine Arts degree from Western Connecticut State University.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/amicuscuria.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/image-6.png\")