ANATOMY OF A CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME: THE KATHI SORRENTINO STORY, PART II

As you can deduce, the Sorrentino case was very difficult and time consuming for Connecticut Family Court to handle.  In fact, every year, a certain number (10-50% depending on who you are talking to) of CT Family Court divorces end up involving high conflict.  In such cases, the Court usually orders an investigation through a Family Study or the appointment of a GAL, or both.  

With the first approach the parties agree to work with a private custody evaluator who can do a study in order to figure out what is going on and what the problems are.  Litigants who contract for this kind of service are generally people who have money and can afford to pay the exorbitant prices of up to $5,000 - $15,000 or more. 

Often, the custody evaluator can then consult with a psychologist who is a member of the only mental health profession truly qualified to do psychological evaluations.  That usually costs an additional $5,000 per couple.  The results of the psychological evaluation can then be incorporated into the custody evaluation to provide a comprehensive picture of what is going on with a family.  It would be irresponsible to bandy about mental health diagnoses without a complete psychological evaluation (which is exactly what happened in the Sorrentino  case, by the way).

The second option if the parties are indigent or low income is to have the Family Relations Department of the Connecticut Judicial Branch do a custody evaluation at no charge.  Family Relations can also farm out litigants for psychological evaluations at no cost or low cost to be conducted by psychologists who have contracts with the CT Judicial Branch to do such work.  The information from those psychological evaluations can also be included in the final report. 

Of course, I know of many who are extremely well off who have one or the other party earning six figures who end up having custody evaluations through Family Relations at no charge, so I am not exactly sure how that happens.  All I can say is that I have frequently seen it done. 

At the same time, if the Court believes it necessary, the judge can appoint a Guardian Ad Litem who can conduct an investigation as well.  You can pay for one privately at considerable cost or, through the Children's Law Center obtain a GAL and pay using a sliding scale.  Again, a broad range of individuals use the Children's Law Center including a good many middle class, low income, and indigent clients.   

Often the work of a custody evaluator and a Guardian Ad Litem overlap, so in many cases you don't have both, you just have one or the other. 

In the Sorrentino case, on November 8, 2013, Judge Corinne Klatt ordered that the Sorrentino's hire Dr. Eric Frazer as a private GAL at the charge of $250 per hour, with a $4,000 retainer to be paid by both parties 50/50 within 30 days of the hearing date.  That makes perfect sense until you consider the fact that Kathi Sorrentino has no money.   

As Ms. Sorrentino stated during the hearing in response to Judge Klatt's orders,  "I am indigent...I don't have the money."  Further, she stated, "I can bring in my bank statements...I am a full time student...I have not worked in 20 years.  I've been an at home Mom."  Again, "Your Honor, what can I do if I don't have the money."  At another point, Ms. Sorrentino stated that she was received food stamps and fuel assistance and only $204 per week in combined child support and alimony and was ready to submit a financial affidavit to that effect.  Even without one, there is a presumption that a person is in poverty if they are on state aid. The court record shows that Kathi has been on state aid since the divorce. 

But Judge Klatt was not interested in hearing it and refused to allow Kathi to submit the financial affidavit verifying her statements.  Instead, Judge Klatt stated, "I'm ordering you to pay it, ma'am.  I am ordering you to pay it, all right." 

Again, at a later hearing on December 13, 2013, Judge Klatt made it clear to Kathi Sorrentino that if she did not sign the retainer letter and pay her share of $2,000 by December 16, 2013 at 2:00p.m., Judge Klatt would seriously consider the option of putting Ms. Sorrentino in jail.  So what about the rights of litigants to choose their own professionals and establish their own financial arrangements  with those professionals--non-existent, I guess.

What happened in the end is that Kathi Sorrentino went to her church which gave her the $2,000 because church leaders felt it was important to keep the mother of a minor child out of jail.  In Kathi's Church usually, members pray for people to be moved to come forward with contributions in times of trouble. Compassionate, not wealthy, people pitch in expecting that such a request is not going to be ongoing because the church is not equipped to take care of all the people going through divorce. 

But can you imagine a judge bullying the church out of money by threatening one of their members? 

And, of course,  here is the Court using jail and other sanctions as threats directed towards litigants so they are forced to go begging among friends and parents for money.   Make no mistake, these judges know what the consequences are when they confront family court litigants with such ultimatums.  As I recall so clearly Judge Constance Epstein saying to me when I ran out of money to pay my attorney's fees, "Go get the money where you got it the last time" which was, as she knew, from my parents.  I am not sure what she thought gave her the authority to order my parents to pay my expenses, but that is exactly what she did.  The bottom line in Court always is the money one way or another.

What these judges count on is that there are going to be enough people out there who have compassion and who are appalled by the Court's actions that they will contribute.  

You may ask, was there some imperative that Dr. Eric Frazer act as the GAL in this case?  No, of course, there wasn't, except insofar as Dr. Frazer is the "go to" guy in the State of Connecticut for custody switching schemes. 

Was there a much cheaper alternative?  Indeed, there was; there was Family Relations, as I mentioned, which is ready and available to provide services to indigent and low income clients such as Kathi Sorrentino (as well as the many wealthy who are able to slip themselves in there).  Plus, there was the Children's Law Center which Kathi Sorrentino requested in a motion dated December 16, 2013 which provides GALs at no cost or low cost to family court litigants.  Judge Corinne Klatt refused both options. 

In the vast majority of situations where the ex husband has the money, but the ex wife does not, Connecticut statute allows for the Court to order the father to pay for the entirety or at least the majority of these GAL fees, rather than go 50/50.  This is a standard procedure in Connecticut Family Court when there is inequity in terms of income between the parties.  However, the judge, by refusing to allow Kathi Sorrentino's financial affidavit into evidence, side stepped that statute.  Among her many actions and statements, this was among the first that indicated the biased predisposition of Judge Corinne Klatt against Kathi Sorrentino which should have disqualified this judge from hearing the case further.

The following year, during a hearing before the Judiciary Committee  of the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Regarding the Care of Custody of Minor Children, the GALs on the Task Force--Sharon Dornfeld and Sue Cousineau--insisted that Family Court judges do not force people to agree to any particular GAL or fee schedule.  Clearly, that was a false statement, and not the first one.  More to come in Part III.