PART V: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE LYNDA MUNRO MAKES UP THE LAW AS SHE GOES ALONG!

I just have to tell you before I go into my blog here.  I was looking up the Skipp-Tittle case and  found out that Shawn Tittle has not paid outstanding tuition bills for the Montessori School the children were in last year.  The school is going to civil court to get the money.  You see, all the while that the trial court is talking about what a great guy Shawn Tittle is, and how he should have sole custody because he loves the children so much, he is really busy not meeting his obligations to them! 

Furthermore, this is a man with a lengthy history of alcohol and substance abuse, an equally lengthy history of mistreating women.  And he is a man who was known to have  carried on affairs during  marriage, and to have been indifferent to the needs of his children.   

 

Given that situation, how does Judge Lynda Munro justify a decision like this denying a mother any access to her children? 

 

If you will look at page 3 of the Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 under "Legal Standard", Judge Munro explains it as follows:  "the court looks to the judgment orders to determine whether they remain in the chidlren's best interest, or, were not in the best interest of the children at the time they were entered."

 

Wait a minute.  "Were not in the best interest of the children at the time they were entered."  Where did that come from?  I have never heard of that standard before--that is a big enough loophole to drive a mack truck through it.  That kind of standard pretty much adds up to saying that custody can  be changed if the trial judge feels like it.  But what happened to the rule I was always told about, that judges are not allowed to reverse another judges' ruling. 

Next there is the standard that I am more familiar with, the concept that custody can be changed if it is proven that there has been a substantial change in circumstances.  As Judge Munro puts it, "it is pertinent for the trial court to inquire as to what, if any, new circumstances warrant a modification of the existing order."

Why? 

Because "the trial court's discretion includes only the power to adapt the order to some distinct and definite change in the circumstances or conditions of the parties."  It is not, Judge Munro cautions, an opportunity to "retry issues already decided...or to allow the parties to use a motion to modify as an appeal." 

 

In other words, "Its inquiry is necessarily confined to a comparison between the current conditions and the last court order."  Once the court has determined that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, then the Judge must make his or her custody decision based upon the best interests of the child standard.  It is after this point that my credulity gets strained.  If there is one thing Susan Skipp's attorney stated repeatedly, it is that from the date of dissolution on March 28, 2011 up until the trial in August 2012, there really was no change in circumstances. 

 

For instance, the Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 includes sufficient narrative to indicate very clearly that both Shawn Tittle and Susan Skipp do not get along very well.  Both parties weren't getting along with one another at the time of dissolution, which is why there was so much detail regarding how the parties were not supposed to talk about one another in front of others, and that situation continued on up to the time of trial. 

The situation might have improved had Dr. Sidney Horowitz, Dr. Howard Krieger, and the GAL, Mary Brigham actually done the jobs they were hired to do.  Instead, the first two were so busy sucking money out of the health insurance company with their schemes, and the latter was so focused on charging up more money, they couldn't be bothered.  In addition, they were having too much fun collecting as much evidence they could find in order to deny Susan Skipp custody of her children that they didn't do anything to reduce the conflict and focus on improving the lives of the children. 

 

Susan Skipp is a strong willed person who has no problem stating what she thinks and challenging what she believes is wrong.  This was true at the time of dissolution, and it was still true at the time of trial.  So was there any substantial change in circumstances?  No.  So there was no legal basis for a change in custody. 

 

The reason why Judge Lynda Munro proceeded to make a change in the custody nonetheless is -- you've guessed it!  She determined that, in her view, Susan Skipp had committed Parental Alienation.  As Judge Munro states on page 9, "defendant has been coaching the children and alienating them from plaintiff [father]."  And here again on page 11, Judge Munro accuses Susan of "actively grooming [the children] for alienation from their father.", and on page 14, "Ms. Skipp not only does not seek to advance the chidlren's relationship with their father, she has steadfastly sought to undermine it."  and it goes on and on. 

Of course, the problem is that when women legitimately bring up how they  and their children have been abused during a marriage, the trial court generally attempts to invalidate those disclosures by describing them as alienation.  What the trial court is really saying here to women is that they want Susan and women like her to be silent about the abuse.  But this is the modern world, not the dark ages.  We have the "one billion rising compaign", and as women, we will no longer be silent about abuse.  

 

Did Judge Munro have the opportunity to learn about the abuse?  It is pretty clear that no matter how much evidence Susan Skipp presented in regard to Shawn Tittle's abuse, not only of herself but also of the children, Judge Munro insisted on stating it didn't exist.  In fact, while I read the Memorandum of Decision I sometimes wondered if I had been at the same trial. 

 

It is also important to note that, currently in Connecticut parental alienation is not a legal basis for changing custody from one parent to the other.  This is why my colleagues are working on drafting PAS legislation which they intend to present eventually to the judiciary committee--because it doesn't yet exist.  How is it that Judge Munro is using parental alienation as the basis for her decision when legally speaking she isn't allowed to do so.  And why is it that, you will quickly see if you read my other discussions of similar cases, there are so many other Judges who have also used parental alienation as the basis for a change of custody when there is still, in Connecticut, no legal grounds whatsoever for doing such a thing. 

 

What I find particularly troubling about Susan Skipp's case, and those similar to it, is the fact that the trial court, the attorneys, and the judges so clearly deny such women custody because they are strong, intelligent women.  If a woman litigant in a family court case ever begins to hear how intelligent she is, that is a major reason to be alarmed.  Use of that  term in family court in describing a mother is an indication that they dislike you intensely and will do all that they can to destroy you.  The spin on the definition of the word "intelligent" as they use it is to imply a kind of wicked, evil intelligence.  Thus, Judge Munro calls Susan "shrewd" as if the intelligence is solely for the purposes of deceitfulness. 

 

Simply put, family court finds any woman's intelligence a threat.  I would suspect that if you did a study that among the women who have been denied custody you will find a considerable number of professional women--teachers, filmmakers, scholars, executives, and small businesswomen.  In 1991, The Connecticut Task Force on Gener, Justice and the Courts determined that there was widespread bias against women in the Connecticut Judicial System.  Part of the recommended solution was to hire more women judges. 

 

Unfortunately, in doing so, what Connecticut did was locate the most radically anti-female attorneys they could find and appointed them to the bench.  In many regards, these newly appointed women judges--gender traitors, as I call them--have been more vicious and more vengeful towards women than any male judge would consider being.  This has been a very successful strategy the Connecticut Judicial Branch has utilized in order to maintain the oppression of women. 

 

My word to those women judges is--shame on you.  You owe your jobs to us, to the women who fought so hard to get those jobs for you.  You have a responsibility to give back to the citizens who put you where you are and gave you the privileges you are currently enjoying.  It is time to give back to the women who gave you your jobs in the first place.  

 

Susan Skipp lost custody of her children and Judge Lynda Munro placed her on supervised visitation. Of course, I have advised her, as has everyone else who knows anything about the Connecticut Judicial System not to participate in this supervised visitation.  Why? 

Supervised visitation is for violent criminals or parents who have physicially abused their children.  Susan is a good mother, a teacher, and a citizen who is well respected in the community.  She should not be subjected to this kind of unjust humiliation in front of her own children.

Also, essentially because such programs are simply used as a means to collect more falsified documentation which will then be used to prevent Susan from ever seeing her children.  But even if Susan cooperated and attempted to use a visitation service, the likelihood is that the cost is so prohibitive that Susan would not be able to use it for very long. 

 

The result is that Susan has not seen her children since this judgment came out.  I can only imagine how awful it is for two young children--9 and 12--to be in a situation where they are unable to see their mother who has always been their primary caretaker.  But I know that with her strength and determination, Susan will be able to see her children very soon. 

 

I'll tell you what this is, Judge Munro, this is just plain old child abuse.  Judge Munro, by no means can any reasonable, rational, or sane person consider depriving young children of their mother and then say it is in the best interests of the children.  Your actions show you to be a mean, hateful, lying hypocrite.  

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-ii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iv-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html