KARYN GIL v. JOHN A. GIL, A.C. 28760 AND A.C. 25912, PART II: PAS THEORY GONE WILD!

So we have this case where the father, John A. Gil, is repeatedly taking his ex-wife Karyn back to court for trumped up charges of PAS (parental alienation syndrome), stating that she is interfering with his visitation. 

 

In fact, there was no evidence of any kind of interference. but as we all know, there is no need for the Court to have facts in order to draw  absurd conclusions. 

 

Furthermore, it was clear from the beginning that Mr. Gil had mental health issues and he was ordered to go to therapy to deal with them.  However, he refused to cooperate and follow those orders.  What is troubling is that instead of holding him in contempt for violating those orders, the Court saw fit to let the father continue to flout them.  In addition, at the time, the Gil's daughter whom I have called Jane, was also court ordered to have therapy, but John Gil refused to allow her to have any therapy at all--another violation of a court order.

 

Then, as I have stated, father kept this case going for a full fourteen years dragging his ex-wife and their daughter through the Courts trying to make them miserable.  

 

I'd also like to update you as to the situation in the present.  In a recent meeting with Karyn Gil and her daughter, they showed me a legal document that Mr. Gil sent to his daughter last week through an attorney making extensive demands of his daughter.  I'm like, this guy never stops.  And he did this just before Christmas to make his actions even more devastating than they have to be. 

 

This is the story of a man who has an unlimited capacity to abuse and the story of a family court system that appears to have an infinite willingness to allow him to do so.  We can see this in the many hundreds of cases where protective mothers endure legal abuse in the hands of Family Court here in Connecticut. 

For a major example of this capability, consider that during the trial in this case, the Judge had the bright idea to ask Mr. Gil why he continually brought his ex wife to Court.  His answer?  Mr. Gil stated that the reason he kept returning to Court was that he wanted to bankrupt his ex-wife, Karyn Gil. 

 

He also stated that he was doing it so that when his daughter turned 18, he intended to show her the transcripts of the Court proceedings so that she could see what a piece of trash her mother was. 

 

What is ironic here is that this was billed as a case of mother committing PAS.  In fact, the words coming out of this father's mouth are a straightforward indication of his clear cut intention to alienate the mother from the child by destroying the mother's reputation with the child.  In fact, father was the parent alienating the child, not the other way around.

 

You'd think that the Judge hearing this testimony would have immediately shut this case down and ruled in favor of the mother who was being legally abused in this case.  But no, there wouldn't be any such luck.  In Jane's own words, "The fact that in the State of Connecticut someone can get away with an answer like that is beyond comprehension."

Clearly, this was a case in which there was a dire need for an advocate for the child to act in her best interests and protect her from the harm and damage caused by father's legal abuse.  Despite the many failures of the Court in this case, it did take make an effort by appointing Attorney Campbell Barrett of Budlong and Barrett as Guardian Ad Litem in the case. 

 

Unfortunately, Budlong and Barrett is a notorious law firm that has  long been mixed up with numerous cases that have ended up as high conflict cases and is known for its vicious and bullying behavior.  As a case in point, this law firm sent me a threatening letter when I was working the Colleen Kerwick case stating it would sue me for my press coverage of the case.  Following up on that threat, Attorney Kukucka, a member of this law firm, took it upon himself to go the West Hartford police and filed a report in an attempt to get me arrested simply for writing blogs about family court on my website.  These are the extremes this attorney firm is willing to go to in order to silence anyone who exposes its wrongdoing to the public.

At first, Attorney Campbell Barrett appeared to be ready to do his job.  According to Jane, he met with her and told her that if there was ever a time she wanted to call him, she could do so, even if she just wanted to talk about Harry Potter.  According to Jane, he never asked her anything about her situation or her relationship with her mother and father.  Jane does remember telling him she was afraid of her father and didn't want to have any visits with him.

Despite this auspicious beginning, Attorney Campbell Barrett ended up simply ignoring Jane's needs.  In fact, at the most, he only ever met with her two times.  Also, when Jane eventually did come to a point where she wanted to speak to Attorney Barrett  she called and left messages asking him to return her phone calls, but he never did. 

 

Finally, Jane wrote Attorney Barrett a letter asking him to call as well, but he still failed to contact her in return. 

 

When the case returned to Court, Attorney Barrett accused the mother of making Jane write the letter and he also stated that while Jane had attempted to contact him numerous times "he had no intention of calling [Jane] back."  During cross examination, it became clear that Attorney Campbell Barrett pretty much knew nothing about his child client, not even simple kinds of information such as her age. 

 

Meanwhile, outside of court, the father, John Gil, was continuing to hit Jane and she was forced to comply with substantially increased visitation with him.   

 

Faced with this impossible situation, Jane spoke to her therapist who encouraged her to speak to the GAL and made sure she was able to connect with him.  When she did, Attorney Barrett told Jane that she had to continue visiting her father "or else her mother would get in trouble."  That is when Jane became suicidal. 

 

The therapist was then in a difficult position.  Even though she was a mandated reporter, the therapist was Court ordered to defer the decision as to whether to contact DCF to the GAL.  Since Attorney Campbell Barrett refused to contact DCF himself or allow the therapist to contact DCF, the therapist couldn't do anything to protect her child client. 

As a consequence, after considering her options, the therapist decided to write a letter to the judge explaining that there was an urgent concern and that these visits to the father needed to be stopped.  Thankfully, the judge finally listened to Jane and the visits were terminated.  This same judge later asked the therapist, "Do you believe there was parental alienation in this case?"  And the therapist answered, "Absolutely not."

 

Essentially, Attorney Campbell Barrett refused to advocate for his child client, obstructed any attempt to protect his child client from further abuse, and did whatever he could to promote the father's interests at the expense of the child.  Again, here is another case where quack theories of PAS have caused a mother and child major harm and damage.  When will this scourge end?


RELATED ARTICLES:


Gil v. Gil, Part IV:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/karyn-gil-v-john-gil-ac-28760-and-ac_28.html


Gil v. Gil, Part III:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/karyn-gil-v-john-gil-ac-28760-and-ac_26.html


Gil v. Gil, Part I:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/karyn-gil-v-john-gil-ac-ac-28760-and-ac.html

  

SINCE THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR AN AMBER ALERT IN THE COLLEEN KERWICK CASE WILL THEY RETURN HER LITTLE BOY TO HIS MOTHER'S LOVING ARMS? WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR JUSTICE IN THIS CASE!

WHAT BUDLONG AND BARRETT, LLC DON'T UNDERSTAND: THE REAL AMBERT ALERT!

INFORMATION ON JON KUKUCKA, ESQ. WHO IS CURRENTLY PERSECUTING PROTECTIVE MOTHER, COLLEEN KERWICK!

This is general information in regard to Attorney Jon Kukucka who is leading the legal charge against Protective Mother, Colleen Kerwick.  It is as a result of his actions that Colleen has not seen her child in over a month.  I wonder how he would feel if he was unable to see his child.  I wonder how his wife would feel if she knew what he was up to.

 

For further information, regarding this attorney's background, see below.  I obtained this information from the Budlong and Barrett website.

 

B.A. University of Connecticut
J.D. Roger Williams University , School of Law

Attorney Jon T. Kukucka graduated, magna cum laude, from the University of Connecticut with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and Sociology. He received his Juris Doctorate, magna cum laude, from Roger Williams University School of Law, where he was an editor of the Law Review and a member of the Honors Program. During law school, he received CALI Awards for Excellence in Legal Writing, Civil Procedure, Trial Advocacy, Judicial Process & Ethics and Labor Law.

Following graduation, Attorney Kukucka served as a legal research clerk to the judges of the Connecticut Superior Court. Prior to joining Budlong and Barrett, Attorney Kukucka served as a law clerk to the Honorable Francis M. McDonald and the Honorable Robert I. Berdon at the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Attorney Kukucka is admitted to practice before Connecticut's federal and state courts and is a member of the Connecticut and Hartford County Bar Associations. He focuses his practice on family law. Attorney Kukucka has represented clients in cases involving dissolution of marriage, prenuptial agreements, postnuptial agreements, property division, alimony, parental relocation, child custody, visitation and child support. Attorney Kukucka has also been counsel on many appeals to the Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Courts and recently co-authored Developments in Connecticut Family Law 2008 and 2009, an article that appeared in the Connecticut Bar Journal in 2010. In 2011, Attorney Kukucka was selected as a Rising Star in the area of matrimonial law by the Family Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association.

Attorney Kukucka enjoys fishing and is a lifelong baseball fan.

OUTRAGE IN CONNECTICUT FAMILY COURT: THE COLLEEN KERWICK CASE!

On Friday, January 17, 2014 several protesters converged upon Family Court at 90 Washington Street to support Ms. Colleen Kerwick who was facing a grueling Court Hearing for that day.  For those who want more detail, I provided a blog on the circumstances of her case which is at the following link:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/01/connecticut-at-it-again-in-kids-for.html

In essence, Mr. Kenneth Sorvino and his attorneys played a scam on the Connecticut Family Court system stating they could not locate Ms. Kerwick and her child and in an ex parte hearing (one without the presence of the other side) demanded an immediate change of sole custody to the father.  They also persuaded authorities to issue an Amber Alert even though Mr. Sorvino had been in touch with Ms. Kerwick throughout the day.  The hearing on Friday was for the purpose of examining these issues.

 

When we arrived at the courthouse at 90 Washington Street, court marshalls immediately came out of the courthouse and converged in a huddle, clearly worried about what the protesters would do.  After several minutes of conversation, they came over to us with instructions not to get in the way of pedestrians or to accost people unnecessarily.  They seemed very concerned about what we might do and stayed there for several minutes while people arrived, dropped off their posters and leaflets, and began to prepare to inform people of the travesty of justice going on within the courthouse.

 

It was very heartening to be there because even though we only had a few days notice, we had a considerable number of protesters there.  Several protesters began to hand out leaflets regarding the many injustices that Family Court in Connecticut has been perpetrating on Connecticut citizens including denying fit parents access to their children, draining children's college accounts for bogus GAL bills, running up massive attorney bills, particularly by charging for nonsense such as "memo to file" or "reviewing the file", or iN one persons' case for parking tickets incurred during court hearings.  Most particularly, citizen protesters were indignant that the Court is denying litigants their due process rights, inventing law on the spot to suit the whims of judges, and simply lying about the law in order to shut people up, and then threatening people with jail if they protest.

 

Several protesters stood holding posters protesting these kinds of travesties, facing the traffic so that cars passing by could read what the problems are in Family Court.  Others passed out the leaflets and explained the reasons for being out there that day.  Several passersby stopped to ask for additional leaflets, or to ask further questions.  Many wanted to share their experiences of what family court has done to them and asked specifically for contact information so they can join further protests.  All in all it was a heartwarming and positive experience for protesters to be out there and receive the kind of grassroots support and encouragement that they received.

 

Once the hearing began, several protesters decided to go into the courthouse and sit in the audience where they filled all the Court benches.  The notorious law firm of Budlong and Barrett headed the team which had schemed to deprive Ms. Colleen Kerwick of her child with fraudulent and outright perjured court documents.  In particular, Attorney Campbell Barrett, whose actions have been particularly depraved and heinous in this situation, played a lead role.  Of course, this is what citizens are complaining about, that experienced attorneys of many years standing do not think twice about presenting perjured testimony to court.  They do so in the certainty that they will be able to get away with it and there will be negligible consequences to themselves or their careers.

 

As a result, protesters then spent four hours or so watching the bulldog team of Budlong and Barrett which had ongoing coaching from other attorney members of the firm during the day who came in and out on the scene attacking a mother who represented herself and who was desperately fighting for her child.  If Connecticut is not ashamed of this kind of scenario, then it has entirely lost any moral base that it might once have had.  We call ourselves the Constitution State, yet we allow this kind of travesty of justice to occur?  Where are our legislators?  Where is the CT Bar Association which is responsible for enforcing the Attorney's Oath to speak the truth?

 

As the hearing proceeded, it came to the attention of protesters that Attorney Sue Cousineau, a well known GAL who is co-chairing the Task Force Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children had seen fit to be present at this hearing, even though she had no connection with the case.  It also came to our attention that at the same time, the other co-chair of the task force, Attorney Sharon Dornfeld, was observing a hearing for another family court litigant, Ms. Susan Skipp, right at the same time, again, even though she had no connection to the case.  Not only that, it became evident that someone had passed over to the attorney firm of Budlong and Barrett private emails which came from the advocacy group that had been working on the task force.  Attorney Campbell Barrett then proceeded to use these emails as evidence against Ms. Colleen Kerwick even though pretty much the only connection Colleen had to these emails was that her name was on the copy list.  Of what relevance was Colleen's activism to the illegal activities Budlong and Barrett was engaged in? 

 

I am indignant that Attorney Sharon Dornfeld and Attorney Sue Cousineau turned up at these hearings with the deliberate intention of terrorizing and harassing Susan Skipp and Colleen Kurwick.  Activists for change in the CT Family Court have been assured that there would be no retaliation against people for their testimony at the recent task force hearings on January 9, 2014.  To me, this looks like direct retaliation.  Also, a few people mentioned that Attorney Sue Cousineau was signaling to Attorney Kerry Tarpey while she was on the stand and that is entirely inappropriate.

 

But this is not all.  There is more to come!  At 1:00pm the proceedings ended without a decision because this was the extent to which the Judge was able to be present that day.  Once out in the corridor, Mr. Kenneth Sorvino, the father who is responsible for the legal abuse of his ex - wife, Ms. Colleen Kerwick and who is trying to deprive this good mother of her right to her child without any legal grounds for doing so, acted in a very provocative manner and the two exchanged words.  Immediately, Ms. Kerwick was placed in a small meeting room and three marshalls guarded the door to prevent her from leaving while Mr. Sorvino was allowed to go free.  Where is the equity in that.

 

For a number of hours subsequently, Ms. Colleen Kerwick was held and interrogated constantly in a small room without food or water after she had spent the entire morning on her feet defending herself.  None of the protesters was allowed to sit with Colleen, not even an ADA Advocate who offered her services.  Marshalls immediately confiscated cell phones when people tried to take pictures of what was going on, deleted the pictures and returned them.  One protester who refused to surrender her phone was escorted from the building. 

 

Meanwhile, three additional state troopers arrived.  And remember, there was no violence here, just words that were exchanged between two hostile parties.  The marshalls, the state troopers, the opposing attorneys in the case, Ms Jean Hayes, the caseflow coordinator, and even, from what I heard, Judge Ficeto cloistered themselves in the caseflow coordinator's office for a conference.  When the ADA Advocate asked to participate in the meeting, she was asked to leave.  It seems to me that to have a one sided meeting where no one is present to act in support of the affected party, and where the Judge, the case flow coordinator and the marshalls only hear one side of the story is extremely prejudiced and biased behavior and greatly calls into question the judgment of every person involved in this meeting.

 

Meanwhile, protesters who were standing in the hallways were finally able to persuade one of the marshalls to give Colleen a snack from her purse.  There was considerable concern that Ms. Kerwick would end up being arrested and so other protesters called Representative Minnie Gonzalez and Representative Ed Vargas.  Rep. Minnie Gonzalez arrived and spoke to the court personnel and also to protesters who were waiting nearby witnessing the abuse.  Finally, the members of the firm of Budlong and Barrett, headed by Attorney Campbell Barrett emerged from the case flow coordinator's office and had marshalls escort them out in a very dramatic fashion.  The day these burly guys truly have to be afraid of a 100 pound whisp of a woman whose curly blond hair probably represents half of her weight, is the day I collapse into even more giggles than I had when I watched the scene!

 

Eventually, after more back and forth and intervention from Rep. Minnie Gonzalez,  Ms. Colleen Kerwick was released late in the afternoon and went home with family members--exhausted, but safe. 

 

The bottom line is that Ms. Colleen Kerwick was browbeaten and verbally abused for several hours that morning, treated with rudeness and disrespect as she attempted to protect herself.  These people, the attorney firm of Budlong and Barrett and court officials were dying for a confrontation and they got one. 

 

Many people in family court, Moms and Dads, get angry and yell at each other, and they are usually taken to the side and calmed down--no one calls state troopers.  This entire incident is a deliberate overreaction by court officials, it is a desperate attorney firm's attempt to discredit Ms. Kerwick and draw attention away from the real story here -- the fact that attorneys perjured themselves and lied in order to get custody of Ms. Kerwick's child illegally.

 

Fraud, perjury, legal abuse, lack of due process, retaliation, intimidation!

 

What more can we expect from family court?