ANATOMY OF A CUSTODY SWITCHING CASE: THE KATHI SORRENTINO STORY! PART I!

In headlines recently--January 23, 2015--a young teenager, Storm Sorrentino, who had been missing for at least a month, resurfaced a few miles from his mother's home.  According to police, "Storm was sitting on a stonewall, cleanly dressed and possibly waiting for a ride." 

 

Not long afterwards, his mother, Kathi Sorrentino, was released from Niantic prison. Judge Gerard Adelman had placed her there because he said he believed she refused to reveal where her son was, even though Kathi vociferously stated she did not know.  Throughout the entire ordeal, Ms. Sorrentino repeatedly stated she didn't know where her son was and was concerned about his whereabouts.

 

Reports of this case stated that Ms. Sorrentino and her ex Saverio "Sam" Sorrentino are engaged in a bitter custody battle over their son, Storm, and that Mr. Sorrentino had just been awarded custody last May.  Digging deeper into this matter, it has become clear that this is much more than just a custody battle.  This is the story of a custody switching scheme made possible by a combination of quack psychology, judicial negligence and bullying. 

 

Like many of these cases in family court, the Sorrentino case is not a recent situation, but one that has been going on since 2006 and has resulted in approximately 759 motions as of this date. This more recent custody matter began on May 13, 2013 when Kathi's ex husband Sam Sorrentino submitted a request to the Court to file a Motion For Contempt in regard to custody.  He stated that Kathi Sorrentino had "violated the parties Parenting Agreement" and "alienated the parties children" from him.  In his request for relief, he asked to be given custody of their son, Storm.

 

But lets not be naïve.  The real explanation for why Mr. Sorrentino submitted his motion for contempt was primarily because Kathi Sorrentino had gone to court requesting  more child support.  In the vast majority of these custody switching schemes, it is this request for money that precipitates the decision a father makes to go for full custody. 

 

[As a point of interest, you might wonder why Mr. Sorrentino filed a "request" to file a motion instead of the motion itself. When a case is contentious, many judges will issue an order stating that no party in the case can file any motions without first requesting permission of the Court. The hope is that this will stop litigants from constantly filing more and more motions.  However, the reality is that if there are sufficient problems in the case, all this does is double the number of motions as parties both request to submit motions, then submit the motions, because judges rarely deny such requests.  True to form, if you look at the case detail for this case, it is full of “requests”!] 

 

When he saw the motion, the judge should simply have denied permission for the motion for contempt for one simple reason.  There are two children in this case—one, an older sister, who is already in college and out of the home.  So her custody is not an issue.  The other child, Storm, was around 13 years old at the time.   Storm had grown up living with his mother who had been a full time mother for more than 20 years.  As Storm made repeatedly clear in both written and verbal communications, he wished to stay with her. 

 

Unfortunately, instead of using common sense and denying the request, the Court permitted the motion and thus touched off another lengthy round of litigation which continues up to the present.  The end result of the litigation has been that custody of Storm was transferred to the father despite the fact that this is not what Storm wanted.  But who cares what the child wants, right!

What is ironic is that one of the central factors in the outbreak of this custody battle had to do with what Storm wanted. 

 
Apparently, in the Fall of 8th grade, Storm had become interested in going to a private high school called Notre Dame in Fairfield, CT for which he was hoping to get a scholarship.   In preparation, he decided to go to an open house for the school, and this was where the shit hit the fan because before telling his Mom what his plans were, Storm shared them with his father.  Mr. Sorrentino proceeded to tell Storm that he thought it was a good idea and to go ahead.  However, later on in court, Mr. Sorrentino denied that he had given his son permission.  Instead, he said that Kathi Sorrentino had made all the arrangements without his permission, and cited it as an example of parental alienation.   

 

Imagine being this young man—you can’t even hope and dream for your future without your Dad using it as an excuse to go to court and attack your Mom. 

 

I will also say I have seen this frequently, in my own case as well as others, that when mothers try to improve their children's chances of success by sending them to prep schools, either through a scholarship or the assistance of grandparents, abusive men like to use that as a means to attack the mother.  I mean, God forbid their children gain the advantage of a private school education!  



Such fathers will either use their power to refuse as a means to wrest financial concessions from their ex-wives, or else as in the Sorrentino case, use it as a way to seize custody by claiming they were not consulted, even when the evidence shows they were—another testimony to the concept that no good deed by a mother will go unpunished.

Eventually, in the Sorrentino case,  the father’s motion for contempt appeared before Judge Corinne Klatt on November 8, 2013 who then decided to appoint a Guardian Ad Litem, Dr. Eric Fraser, Miami Institute of Psychology grad, and an expert on the quack theory of parental alienation syndrome which is in standard usage for custody switching schemes perpetrated by abusers and their allies.  And from what I gather from Dr. Eric Fraser, there isn't a custody switching scheme this psychologist doesn’t like. 

 

When she did this, Judge Klatt made the statement that she was interested in hearing from Storm regarding what he wanted stating “ What I want to know is what the child is thinking, and then I’ll issue orders..”  And further she stated, “I don’t know who to believe, that’s why I’m going to listen to what a guardian ad litem’s going to say – hear from the child.” 

 

The question we are left with then is, granting the evidence of recent events, did anyone hear the child? 

 

Apparently, no. 

 

Storm did not wish to have a change in custody.  He stated that repeatedly. 

 

As it stands, he spent two months at Notre Dame High School where he was happy and successful, until his father withdrew him and transferred him to Newtown High School.  So what happened to what Judge Klatt said about wanting to know what the child was thinking?  Was that all a scam? 


At this point, it is my understanding that Storm is being told, among other things, that he can never see his mother or sister again, and this is why he runs away from home. He is also being told that his mother will be thrown in jail if he sees her.  How can this situation ever be considered in the best interests of a child.


More on this story in Part II.