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
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.
Once again you have false statements in the Colleen Kerwick matter with regards to an Amber Alert being issued. The testimony in the case, and part of the record, states that NO Amber Alert was issued. The only thing that occurred was the Avon Police took information to prepare an Amber Alert if one was needed, Again no Amber Alert was issued! Also, you continue to infer that Colleen Kerwick was in contact with either Mr. Savino's attorneys and/or Mr. Savino himself in the exchange of text messages and e-mails on December 20, 2013 (a totalof 41). The facts of the case are that Ms. Kerwick only responded to a couple of messages. The record of the case shows that Ms. Kerwick did not respond to the State Marshal's request that she contact him immediately and she also testified that the response to Mr. Savino's messages as to the whereabouts of herself and the minor child were "I'll be there shortly - child needed something to eat" and never showed up. I also find it interesting that you continue to inject statements in your postings that are your personal feelings. As an example, the police showing up to Ms.Kerwick's residence on December 20, 2013 with "lights flashing, etc.". I can only assume that you must have been present when this took place and witnessed the police and the flashing lights. The fact is that is not what happened if you had talked to the police prior to posting your comments as I have. It was two officers and a State Marshal who arrived at Ms. Kerwick's residence with no made for television drama taking place. It is my understanding from the testimony in the case, the State Marshal had been present for nine months when Ms. Kerwick and Mr. Savino met to exchange the minor child for parenting time. It seems to me that the minor child knows the State Marshal and therefore wasmet on December 20, 2013 with a friendly face of someone the child knows. I also found it interesting inthe testimony of thecase that the State Marshal had said that Ms.Kerwick did not answer her door when the police were knocking and that it took several knocks before she responded. Ms. Kerwick stated in the record that did not happen that way, yet she presents evidence in the police report of December 20, 2014 that the officers wrote in which thy stated they knocked several times before Ms. Kerwick responded and opened the door. It appears to me as an outsider who has reviewed the facts of this case, this whole thing could have been avoided if Ms. Kerwick had just contacted the State Marshal when asked to. The documents wouuld have shown Ms.Kerwick what the orders of the court where and as she has stated in the records of the case, she abides by all court orders. It appears to me that Ms. Kerwick was fully aware of what was taken place on December 20, 2013 and was just trying to avoid the whole situation which made it worse. It seems to me that she would have been better off had she just complied with the orders of the court and she disagreed she could have filed a motion to clarify the orders or modify them and this matter would not be where it is at this time. Once again you need to provide the actual facts of the case, not what you believe happened.
ReplyDeleteAs they say, there are those who think that if they repeat lies over and over again sooner or later the lies will be thought of as truth. So, "once again" you are repeating more of your half truths and misrepresentations and figure that if you keep on with them, you will somehow convince us all. Of course, there is no problem with being able to convince the corrupt judges of the CT Family Court. We know all about that! Ok. So you are telling me that "No Amber Alert was issued, but that simply the police were taking information should an amber alert be necessary!" Are you kidding me? Seriously, do I look retarded? Mother is in town with the child driving around, in communication with the father, and you and your pals are at the police station filling out forms for a potential amber alert. Clearly, an Amber Alert is for an abduction. No child was abducted here and there was absolutely zero reason to think there was. This is clearly a custody matter that is going on in family court. How outrageous to trivialize the Amber Alert with this absolute nonsense. Do you understand that the Amber Alert is for children who are often abducted and then murdered and that the name of the Amber alert came from an original case where a child was, indeed, abducted and killed. How dare you, how dare, how dare you, attempt in any way to draw a comparison between Colleen Kerwick, a loving mother, and the kinds of cases that justify an Amber alert. How dare you even enter that police station and start filling our papers. But why do I even ask that question. We are talking about a law firm that has a history of abusing, bullying, harassing, browbeating and using vicious, abusive, if not illegal, tactics to intimidate and destroy litigants in family court. What else could I expect, after all.
DeleteI will not argue how many emails went back and forth, ok, because I will not waste my time, but clearly, an email back to Mr. Sorvino stating that that child needed something to eat is hardly a threat to abduct and murder. Apparently, there was supposed to be a transfer of the child from Colleen Kerwick to Mr. Sorvino on that day which, for some reason--I won't speculate-- was not occurring as was expected. However, under no circumstances does that justify trying to obtain an Amber Alert in this flippant manner or going to Court for an ex parte motion for sole custody-- not under any circumstances. In high conflict divorce there are often difficulties and problems and miscommunications and this is something you work with--unless of course you intend, like the clear intention Mr. Sorvino had, was to snatch custody from Ms. Kerwick totally and prevent her from seeing her child ever again. I had a situation myself where my ex, on a number of occasions, refused to return our children at the agreed upon time. I didn't try to file an Amber Alert, I didn't try to change custody. In the end, I simply drove to his town, explained to the police what the problem was, came to the house under escort and retrieved the children from him. But only after he had done that a significant number of times and my children were teenagers. Since that time we have not had that problem any further. But it would never, ever occur to me to cut off all access between a parent and his or her children for the kind of shabby reasons that Mr. Sorvino has proffered. I don't know what to make about your remarks that Ms. Kerwick didn't respond to the marshall or answer the door--how would you feel if uniformed officers threatened to take your child from your arms for no justifiable reasons whatsoever. Would you act defensively, would you be frightened, or would you avoid the whole situation, or would you simply deny her the right to act like a person of real flesh and blood. Colleen acted in defense of her child...so? Only a corrupt judge and attorneys who work in a firm whose sole goal is to suck as much money out of their clients as possible would think in any other way. What is Mr. Sorvino--a multi-millionaire who can afford numerous attorneys for considerable years to come. Get real? By lying outright, by misrepresenting the facts, by bulldozing your way over a self represented party, which Ms. Colleen Kerwick is, you have been able to get your way and deprive a little boy of his mother permanently. But do not think that in any way you have hoodwinked anyone who has had even the slightest experience of the wrongdoing, the heartless shenanigans, and the reckless profiteering which takes place in what masquerades as family court here in CT every day. Sir, we are not fooled.
ReplyDeleteNo justifiable reason? Are you kidding me? There was a court order that clearly stated when visitation with the minor child was to take place and Ms. Kerwick had signed that agreement before the court. She completely understood the court orders, may not have liked them, but she was aware of them and then she tries to present evidence in the case that she and the father had a subsequent agreement that changed the court order visitation schedule. Not only that she tries to present this evidence with both parties signatures and tells the court that it is notorized - not notorized in front of both parties. Are you kidding me. As you have stated, I guess if Ms. Kerwick repeats her bogus story enough times she starts to believe it. The fact that a person (Ms. Kerwick) is in communication with her ex husband (Mr. Savino) by text message during the day does not mean the party has not taken the child. They could have been a hundred miles away and on the run. No one saw them, not even the State Marshal (although Ms. Kerwick continues to state that the Marshal saw her around town several times that day - keep saying that and maybe you can believe it). Ms. Kerwick did not return the text message of the State Marshal, did not respond to a phone call by the Avon Police, did not take the minor child for the required x-ray immediately following the doctor appointment (she did take the child some six hours later I guess the child must take a long time to eat as this was the reason Ms. Kerwick used to explain why she did not take the child to have the x-ray done as ordered by the child's doctor - a doctor appointment that she had scheduled because she felt the child was still sick and did not want the child to travel for Christmas vacation with the father - she was so concerned about the welfare of the child that she waited 6 hours before having the x-rays taken, which cleared the child for travel). All these actions were performed by Ms. Kerwick herself - no one forced her to do this but herself. Yet not having any contact that day with Ms. Kerwick in person by the State Marshal, Avon Police and personnel at the x-ray lab in your opinon does not rise to the level of a very serious concern that the parent may have left the state with the child. You got to be kidding me? Furthermore, when the police arrived at her residence Ms. Kerwick would not open the door. As you stated Ms. Kerwick was "acting in defense of her child" but yet this a person who has repeatedly stated she obeys all court orders. I guess that means she does not have to obey the order of a police officer telling her to open the door to her residence because she is defending her child against a court order. Again, you got to be kidding me. But keep saying it as it might become the truth. Well, Ms. Sloper and Ms. Kerwick, your comments are your own, even though they are filled with untruthful statements of fact. As you say "we are not fooled" by them and neither was the court as Ms. Kerwick lost her bid to show cause. I know that your reply to this is going to place the blame on the husband and "all his money", the "corrupt judges and attorneys" but absolutely nothing on Ms. Kerwick and her actions of that day, December 20, 2013 and the week proceeding. Ms. Kerwick has a history, according to court documents, of attempting to make false statements about her actions, in point the Mr. Behzad Amini vs. Colleen Kerwick, Order of Protection matter. You out to read that court document, as I have, and see how Ms. Kerwick once again tried to avoid service in an attempt to be able to say she was not aware of it. The same thing she did in her case with Mr. Savino. Maybe, just maybe there is a pattern here for Ms. Kerwick of deniability. It is obvious that you and your fellow members are so focused on thinking everything is a lie and everyone is corrupt, that you can no longer objectively look at a case based upon its merits and distinguish between what is really a lie and what is the truth.
DeleteThe Avon police refused Kenneth Savino's repeated attempts to have Colleen Kerwick arrested. The Avon police also refused to initiate the amber alert that day because they called the pediatrician who saw the parents and child that morning and the pediatrician said that the x-ray could have been done the following day. Colleen Kerwick took the child for a burger and ice-cream before taking him for an x-ray. She texted Kenneth Savino and responded to all his messages until the battery on her cell phone died.
DeleteMr. Behzad Amini asked Colleen Kerwick out on numerous dates at Kenneth Savinos request, before attempting to be a witness against her. He filed for a protective order in Arizona (where Kenneth Savino's parents, aunt and uncle live) which was dismissed by the judge before a hearing. Colleen Kerwick now has a court order against him to stop interfering in her parenting and profession for Kenneth Savino, after it transpired that he is a witness for hire with a criminal record.
What her first husband says about Colleen Kerwick is more telling and visible at colleenkerwick.info as follows:
"My name is Sebastian Danila. I am writing to you on behalf of Colleen Kerwick, whom I had the privilege of calling my wife for close to six years.
As her former husband, I know Colleen very well and I can attest to her kind and generous heart, the nobility of her character and to the integrity and dedication she brought to every aspect of our daily life together. She is a very attentive, encouraging and caring person, a person who was for a number of years not only my wife but also my best friend and confidant - and in whom I knew I could always trust and rely on unconditionally and unfailingly. Additionally, she comes from an exceptionally warm and supportive family, who was always there for us if we ever needed anything. They always embraced me and treated me as their son, and I - in my many interactions with them - came to consider them as my own family. Even though our paths have taken divergent courses following our marriage, I will always look back at my time spent with Colleen with my fondest memories. I feel truly blessed that I met her and that, for a while, our lives have so unforgettably intersected".
Colleen was in denial that Kenneth Savino would punish her and take her child away from her if she ever left him as he vowed to do.
Does it make Budlong & Barrett feel like big men to gang up on one pro se mother and beat the living daylights out of her via abuse of process in family court?
I think it is a question of common sense. Why would anyone have such an extreme reaction to the point of running to the police and declaring that Ms. Kerwick might have run off with the child. Ms. Kerwick is a local resident who is simply living her ordinary life who clearly had every intention of obeying the parental visitation agreement as usual. If I sounded the alarm and ran off to the police every time my ex ran into a problem returning the children, I'd spend a couple of times a month over at the police department. What this involves is showing good judgment in regard to co-parenting because you don't want to psychologically harm and damage your children by denying them access to the other fit parent. This means that you give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Now my ex is often late for stupid, annoying reasons, or gets mixed up about where he is supposed to be because, as usual, he isn't paying attention, and maybe he is even trying to annoy me, but you wouldn't catch me trying to get an Amber Alert for that. I just find it very deplorable when a law firm thinks it is acceptable to use bullying and terrorizing tactics in order to wrest a child out of his mother's arms and totally eliminate the mother from the child's life. There is something extremely immoral and wicked about that kind of behavior and it is a clear violation of professional ethics.
DeleteI don't normally go near the term PAS, but in these case, absolutely father is committing PAS and needs considerable counseling to come to terms with his issues.
DeleteIt is interesting that Ken Savino had a Court Order allowing him to take the child at 10:00am in the doctor's office where he met Colleen for an appointment. But he didn't bother to take the child at that time when he had the opportunity. Marshall Kaz could have come along with Ken Savino and given Colleen the document at the pediatricians office, but he chose not to do so. Also, a handwritten agreement was a perfectly legitimate way to adjust a parenting schedule motorized or not is irrelevant. If Kenneth Savino was aware of this agreement and pretended he wasn't, that is quite deceptive. To say he knew of the handwritten agreement, had implied that it was a valid agreement, but at the last minute repudiated it because it wasn't notarized is deceptive to say the least.
DeleteThe Avon police advised Brian Spectre and Colleen Kerwick that Atty. Jon Kutkutka, Ken Savino and Marshall Bruce Kaz demanded an Amber Alert, claiming that Colleen Kerwick had not showed up at a medical appointment and they did not know where she was. The Avon Police called the child’s pediatrician, Dr. Scott Kallor of Pediatric Partners in Bloomfield, who told them that he saw both Colleen Kerwick and Ken Savino that day with Nicholas, so you are correct that the Avon Police refused to actually initiate the duly demanded Amber Alert.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Ken Savino did have motions written to the court saying that an Amber Alert was being initiated and that he did not know where Colleen Kerwick and the child were. This was in spite of Ken Savino being with Colleen Kerwick that day; Ken Savino’s groomsman from his wedding, David Delong, being in Colleen Kerwick’s home and Marshall Kaz admitting seeing Colleen Kerwick driving around that day. Colleen Kerwick’s 562 Facebook friends, who include Ken Savino’s current business partner Bob Laraia, was sent pictures of Nicholas at BurgerFi Burger and Carvel Ice-cream and Jefferson Radiology via facebook that day.
Ken Savino does appear to like the lights and fanfare of police involvement. He called the East Hartford Police on his former partners Tom Ragonese, Arthur Sullivam Peter Sturrock and Chris Monroe when they locked him out of his business; he called the Hartford police on the minor child’s old Jewish Nanny Wendy Ferstand for breach of the peace for no apparent reason. Ken Savino was even the person to ask for the Hartford police to be called before he himself was arrested for felony risk of injury to a minor in April 2012. He even called the West Hartford police to come to Colleen Kerwicks home in Avon when the Avon police didn’t want to hear his complaints which they termed “civil disputes”. All of these police reports are a matter of public record.
While Colleen Kerwick may consider the Avon police friendly faces, Marshall Bruce Kaz is not a friendly face. He was hired by Ken Savino to attend transfers of the minor child for $20 per transfer to resolve a protective order Colleen Kerwick had to file against Ken Savino. Marshall Kaz used to smoke cigarettes in front of the child and talk about how despicable and abusive his mother was or how Marshall Alex Rodrigues was trying to steal his business. Marshall Alex Rodrigues is honest so would never be a competitor of Marshall Kaz. Marshall Kaz is the known witness for hire who claimed that Hector Morero left his child unattended to try to get Atty. Gersten’s business.
As for the remedy to Budlong & Barretts work in destroying a mother-child relationship for a multi-millionaire, a motion to clarify was already filed as was a motion for reconsideration. We can only hope that the Connecticut courts do the right thing and stop allowing a man of great means to manipulate the system to punish a good mother.
I have been following the Kenneth Savino/Colleen Kerwick matter on your groups blog and I must say that I have become very disenchanted with the approach your group has taken. In particular, your approach of attacking individuals who share a different opinion. I at first thought your organization was intended to help make recommendations and changes to the Family Court system, yet the only thing I have read in these blogs is a constant attack on individuals, judges, attorneys, marshals, legislators, etc. In fact, these attacks have gotten to the level of being personal by labeling individuals as you put it "corrupt". These personal attacks have no bearing on the case in hand and have no value to the real issue of reform in the Family Courts. What I find interesting is that there is no mention of your actual recommendations to change to court system on this website. Instead what I see is a constant theme of attacking those that share a different view. I am very surprised that that those who have been attacked and personal information shared on this blog have not (or maybe they have or are about to) take legal action against your organization for libel and defamation of character. I would be more interested in hearing about your cause and what your specific goals would be then having to read about these personal attacks, which serve no purpose. There are always two sides to a case and two parties that disagree with respect to the facts of a case. Thus we have in civilized countries a system that is intended to resolve these disputes. It is called a court of law. It is here where disputes are to be settled. It is obvious from your wedsite and blogs that you feel the court system has failed you and deprived you of your rights to be with your children for what ever reason. If you want real change, then you need to focus on this on your website. Your constant attacks in a public forum where parties to the case and those sharing their opinions are attacked verbally with name calling and sharing personal information is not the means in which you initiate change.
DeleteDid you have the opportunity to read the task force report as well as the minority report? Both reports have at least 100 recommendations regarding what should be done. I would suggest that you take the opportunity to read that report. If you look at the testimony provided to the task force, you will find specific examples of wrongdoing and corruption carried out by judges and attorneys and GALs, etc. If you look through my 850 or so blogs, you will see that I rarely mention any specific person by name. However, the Colleen Kerwick case has been so particularly egregious that I have spoken out about who specifically is involved. That is correct.
DeleteI was just reviewing some of your remarks. It is interesting, actually, how infrequently I actually name any individual attorneys, legislators, judges, or mental health professionals. However, if these people have put their names on public documents such as memoranda of decision, I am likely to comment on those if they include issues that warrant my attention. Any attorney, Judge, or legislator or mental health professional who has taken a stand regarding family court that will affect our work definitely warrants being mentioned by name on this blog. I would say that granted how judges have no problem including private medical information from litigants' psychiatric records, and information from their childrens' medical records, including diagnoses, it doesn't really concern me that individuals who work on behalf of family court end up being names on this blog. When you guys stop doing it, we will too--put it that way!
DeleteLisa/Elizabeth: The father is Ken SAVINO, not 'sorvino'. So right from the start you're not credible. Second, how despicable that you, a self-proclaimed ADA expert and advocate, would say 'Do I look RETARDED?' That's disgusting. Third: Colleen kerwick may be representing herself, but SHE'S A LAWYER. Fourth: She's an unstable, unbalanced flake who most certainly would abscond with her child if she thought she could, so an Amber Alert may have been necessary, especially since she wouldn't answer the door or tell her husband where she was with his son. HE HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHERE HIS SON IS. Fifth: You and your ilk are all so angry at your ex husbands, that you don't even realize how much you're hurting your children, even years after the divorce is final. Sixth: for someone who CLAIMS to be allllll about the children, you had no problem listing atty kukalus' personal information about his family. So SHAME ON YOU, shitbag.
ReplyDeleteColleen Kerwick was always ready willing and available to transfer her child pursuant to the court order. The transfer was court ordered to be on December 22,2013 pursuant to the divorce judgment. Kenneth Savino filed an uncertified ex parte motion at 9:05am on December 20,2013 for an early transfer to facilitate his vacation to Arizona, which was granted. He did not serve Colleen Kerwick with the motion or the order when they were together at the doctors office on December 20. Instead, he waited and attempted to initiate a false amber alert to take the child from his mother by trickery and returned to court at 3:55pm for an order of sole custody claiming that Colleen Kerwick had absconded with the child. She had never left Avon village and was located that day in her home in Avon. Kenneth Savino asked her where she was that day and she said they were eating. She was not her usual friendly self as he had hit her across the face, again. Colleen Kerwick was the case study for Interval House West in 2011 and 2012 where she qualified for free weekly therapy on account of the domestic violence she had suffered during the 2 years she cohabited with Kenneth Savino. Sorry but a survivor of domestic violence does not need to "accept responsibility" for being hit. It took her about a year of therapy to learn that it was NOT her fault.As for Colleen Kerwick not being able to represent herself? Absolutely. Colleen Kerwick went to law-school in Ireland, a country where divorce was illegal until 1997. Her background is in reverse engineering and defending airplane crashes in Federal Court, which is an entirely different form of catastrophe. Moreover, she has never been admitted in State Court in Connecticut. As a mother in such a deeply personal and emotional matter as the custody of her own son, she had to stand up against three or four angry men who wanted to "win" at all costs and showed no mercy when against a single mother. The court denied Colleen Kerwick ADA accommodations when she had to question Kenneth Savino on the stand about his history of abuse (her emotive stress does not rise to the level of a mental injury or mental illness) and.Colleen Kerwick got nothing into evidence because at that moment she was not an Attorney- she was Mom who was terrified of losing her son to the man who had vowed that if she left him he would make sure she never saw her son again. Colleen Kerwick spent $120K on legal fees and ran out of funds, as most Moms do eventually before battling on pro se. The court denied her attorney fees from her multi-millionairre ex who doesn't pay a nickel of alimony or child support, Its hard for an attorney to make ends meet in Connecticut as the market is flooded. Hence why Budlong & Barrett accept this type of work - destroying mothers for hire - they need the work.
DeleteAs for Colleen Kerwick being an unstable flake? That is simply incorrect. You can see her references from people who know her, including her first husband of seven years through 2007 (who is a professor of psychology and music) at colleenkerwick.info. They are still friends. Kenneth Savino calls all of his ex-girlfriends unstable and unbalanced, Nuala Forde was called a "whack job" as soon as she dumped him and Ken Savino commenced a major lawsuit with Karin Gaertner in the 1980s when she left him. He also had major lawsuits against Tom Ragonese, Arthur Sullivan. Chris Monroe. Peter Sturrock, a Vacation Club, a moving company and the list goes on. He is in court ordered psychotherapy with Dr. Gary Zachariah. It is covered by his medical insurance.
You know, you guys constantly mix me up with other people. I get emails all the time from readers who think I am one person or another and will insist on it no matter what I say. So go ahead. With your sensitivity to those who have disabilities, I would think you would be ashamed to misuse the terms "unbalanced" and "flake" making the presumption that this describes a person with negative qualities. Clearly, you are "normal" and you are the one with the intemperate, attacking, abusive language. Ok, so if someone might steal, or might murder, or might do something illegal, that is a reason to come down on them with the full force of what is essentially well beyond the law. Forget the innocent before proven guilty thing? I am a strong supporter of both men and women who have been abused by the system that is well known. My concern is anyone who has been violated, exploited, and taken advantage of by corrupt judges and racketeering lawyers such as Budlong and Barrett. As for Attorney Kukucka I just cut and pasted what was on the Budlong and Barrett website, but then B & B edited the section out--very clever. You should know that any good computer expert can track that! Anyway, at this point, you have proceeded well beyond appropriate language. If you are so certain that you are right, then why do you attack people so they won't be able to respond in a reasoned way because they are so upset. Isn't that all about what the family court is about. Who cares what the facts are, go for the jugular? It is amazing what money will make people do, then they go home to their wives and children for a lovely home meal. Kind of like what the Kommandants at Auschwitz used to do. Same mentality.
DeleteKenneth Savino should focus on his sons best interests and stop trying to take him away from his mother to punish her, save money in child support, 'win' the competition or whatever his agenda is. What he is doing is not normal and his son will hate him for it one day if he continues on this path. Kenneth Savino has always refused to tell Colleen Kerwick where her son is and who he is with on his parenting time. If he had an ounce of decency he would back down and allow Colleen Kerwick to primarily parent their child. If she's exhibited any instabilities it is likely as a result of his setting a brigade of attorneys on her to take her child away. She loves her son. She is a good mother: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152148194392943&set=vb.654877942&type=2&theater
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason you people have lost your rights to your children. You are sick and have no capacity to do what's right for the children because you are so angry all the time. Comparing these custody disputes to Auschwitz??? That is beyond sick. You are despicable and your comment shows your true colors.
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason indeed. The system is broken. Custody vendors take abusers money to hurt mothers in the worst possible way -take their children.
ReplyDeleteI was never in contempt or violation of an access order, but the custody vendors got an ex parte access order which they did not serve me with and faked an amber alert attempt when I did not transfer my son pursuant to that order I was not served with. It was a scam. As a result of this scam, I have not seen or heard from my son in nearly three months... a man who abused me wants to punish me for asking for a divorce and can hire custody vendors to abuse by proxy and the Courts let him.
Its such a shame that there is such little humanity in certain select Family Court vendor circles in Connecticut. I'm not angry. I am saddened and disappointed that these vendors have not yet been arrested yet.
Budlong & Barrett have hurt so many innocent parents and children.
You indeed were in violation of a court order when you didn't allow access of your child to its father on December 20. 2013. an order through your divorce that you agreed and signed. Based upon the fact that you were found to be in viloaton of the divorce agreement order for parental access by the court and your continued actions you have been ordered to participate in supervised visits. This is your own doing. No one forced you into signing your divorce agreement and for sure no one forced you into not allowing your ex his parental parenting time. The fact that you didn't like that you would not see your child over Christmas time is not the fault of your ex but the fact that you agreed to it in your divorce. I will assume that based upon your parental access schedule that next Christmas you will have more time with your child. Maybe! If you continue to disobey court orders your access may change by order of the court.
DeleteAs to you not seeing you child in three months, whose fault is that? It is my understanding the court has granted you supervised visits of which you have not taken an opportunity to pursue. Again, who's at fault? I'll bet you will say its not you? Why haven't you taken the opportunity to see your child? I would think seeing your child and bounding with the child would be more important then for a cause. There is nothing wrong in standing up for what you believe in but it is totally wrong on your part to not see your child for a cause that you believe in. There is something very wrong in your thinking that you believe your cause is more important than you seeing your child. How very sad.
So, what happens is, whoever keeps on commenting in regard to this case, which is not Colleen Kerwick, lies boldly in comments such as the one above. In a dutiful way, I have passed these comments on to Colleen in order for her to respond. She corrects the inaccuracies in the stories such as the one above--we wait a few weeks and then get more inaccurate statements regarding the case, which are then corrected, and so on and so forth. Colleen Kerwick did not disobey any court orders whatsoever and that is the bottom line. Her ex proceeded with a fake Amber alert and used that fraudulent Amber alert as the basis for wresting custody from Colleen Kerwick in an ex parte motion with the Trial Court. I wish I could say that these kinds of motions are unusual and that false findings of fact never occurred in Family Court, but sadly they do frequently. I have not heard of a reasonable parenting agreement denying either parent access to their child at Christmas. That said, Colleen could have been bullied into signing one. The bottom line is that Ms. Kerwick has never caused any harm to her child and it is patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about her how much she adores her child. Her ex has demanded at least four psychiatric evaluations and each of them has determined that she does not have a mental health disability of any kind. There is absolutely no basis for the order of supervised visitation, but Colleen has sought to have that supervised visitation but has been obstructed by the visitation service from obtaining that visitation. Still, she should not be subjected to supervised visitation since that is a complete violation of her legal rights. The only wrong thinking going on here are a bunch of well heeled attorneys who will do anything for money separating a young child from his mother.
DeleteHere we go again about the Amber Alert! For the final time in plain english THERE WAS NO AMBER ALERT ISSUED!!!! Get your facts straight before you make comments like this. Secondly sh indeed violated a court order. Her final divorce agreement, which she signed becomes a court order upon her signature and that of her ex-husband. By not turning her child over for the court ordered (divorce agreement) parenting access on December 20, 2013 is a violation of a court order. Ms. Kerwick cannot obey court orders and has a total disregard to any of them. How is this in the best interest of the child? As you yourself have stated the child needs the support of both parents, yet Ms. Kerwick seems to believe she is the only parent in this situation that matters - not the well being of her child. Her actions have demonstrated that she is not capable of understanding what it is to obey an order of the court. She just continues to disobey the orders and feels that she is entitled to do so. But if her ex husband was doing the same she would be screaming all the way to the court to seek relief. Speaking of disobeying court orders, I have recently learned that Ms. Kerwick was ordered to appear in court on March 21, 2014 in Middletown, CT and did not appear and this was to give her a second chance as she was ordered to appear at the same court the week before and did not show. I can't imagine that anything in her life would be more important than to be present in court when it comes to the issues concerning her child. I guess Ms. Kerwick doesn't share the same concern or she would have been in court.
DeleteSince you are repeating yourself, I will repeat the same response you received the last time for these very same false accusations:
DeleteColleen Kerwick was always ready willing and available to transfer her child pursuant to the court order. The transfer was court ordered to be on December 22,2013 pursuant to the divorce judgment. Kenneth Savino filed an uncertified ex parte motion at 9:05am on December 20,2013 for an early transfer to facilitate his vacation to Arizona, which was granted. He did not serve Colleen Kerwick with the motion or the order when they were together at the doctors office on December 20. Instead, he waited and attempted to initiate a false amber alert to take the child from his mother by trickery and returned to court at 3:55pm for an order of sole custody claiming that Colleen Kerwick had absconded with the child. She had never left Avon village and was located that day in her home in Avon. Kenneth Savino asked her where she was that day and she said they were eating. She was not her usual friendly self as he had hit her across the face, again. Colleen Kerwick was the case study for Interval House West in 2011 and 2012 where she qualified for free weekly therapy on account of the domestic violence she had suffered during the 2 years she cohabited with Kenneth Savino. Sorry but a survivor of domestic violence does not need to "accept responsibility" for being hit. It took her about a year of therapy to learn that it was NOT her fault.As for Colleen Kerwick not being able to represent herself? Absolutely. Colleen Kerwick went to law-school in Ireland, a country where divorce was illegal until 1997. Her background is in reverse engineering and defending airplane crashes in Federal Court, which is an entirely different form of catastrophe. Moreover, she has never been admitted in State Court in Connecticut. As a mother in such a deeply personal and emotional matter as the custody of her own son, she had to stand up against three or four angry men who wanted to "win" at all costs and showed no mercy when against a single mother. The court denied Colleen Kerwick ADA accommodations when she had to question Kenneth Savino on the stand about his history of abuse (her emotive stress does not rise to the level of a mental injury or mental illness) and.Colleen Kerwick got nothing into evidence because at that moment she was not an Attorney- she was Mom who was terrified of losing her son to the man who had vowed that if she left him he would make sure she never saw her son again. Colleen Kerwick spent $120K on legal fees and ran out of funds, as most Moms do eventually before battling on pro se. The court denied her attorney fees from her multi-millionairre ex who doesn't pay a nickel of alimony or child support, Its hard for an attorney to make ends meet in Connecticut as the market is flooded. Hence why Budlong & Barrett accept this type of work - destroying mothers for hire - they need the work.
Still you don't get it. The divorce agreement which is a court order clearly stated when the parents had access to the child. The divorce agreement stated it was to take place on December 20, 2013 for the ex-husband to have visitation. The fact is that the ex husband also had acess of the child beginning December 22, 2013 for the Christmas vacation. The two access periods meant that the child would be with the father beginning December 20, 2013 until the end of December, 2013. This is what Ms. Kerwick agreed to in her divorce agreement that she signed. To cliam she did not know this because of an Ex Parte order that she had not been served with is insane. She knew full well what her divorce judgment stated. She did not like it and therefore did not comply with the divorce agreement. Because of her actions and only her actions the court then signed off on an Ex Parte order instructing her to immediately turn over the child. Ms Kerwick was also aware of this Ex Parte order yet as usual denied that she was aware of it but there was testimony that she did know of it. Also you talk about ADA access and other things in your response but no mention of why she did not show up in court on March 21, 2014 to fight for her son as ordered by the court. I wonder why that is? Maybe she had more important things to do that day? Or maybe, and I hope not, she just doesn't want to be present in court when it has to do with her child. Why wasn't this addressed in your response instead of all the other info you provided that has absolutely nothing to do with her being or lack of being in court on March 21, 2014? I'll bet there is no valid reason.
DeleteAll of your questions and concerns have been addressed in prior responses, but you simply wish to have the opportunity to repeat the same kinds of lies and misrepresentations that have characterized your remarks in this case from the beginning, which pretty much goes along with filing fake Amber Alerts and seeking to deny a fit and loving mother the relationship she has with her young child. Who suffers here? The child. In essence, you have committed a form of child abuse. Colleen Kerwick has consistently obeyed court orders as written throughout the conduct of this case despite all of your statements to the contrary and I believe that this will become evident in the long run. Could you exactly point out where I referred to the ADA, because I am not clear on your reference. As I understand it, during the court hearing on Friday, Colleen did have her attorney present to handle matters and I am assuming that is sufficient. However, if you want to start hinting and insinuating all sorts of deep, dark things based on specious grounds that is your privilege. However, the bottom line is that while you are playing this fun intellectual game, there is a little four year boy involved who hasn't seen his Mom in three months.
DeleteWow! A little over an hour has passed in your responses and you can't remember that you stated on March 24, 2014 at 12:03am that, and I quote "court denied Colleen Kerwick ADA accomodations". When the court orders a party to be present with or without an attormey it means it wants the party (Colleen Kerwick) to be present. It that so difficult to understand? By the way this is not an intellectual game this is a mother who you state is fighting to see her child. However, as an observer to this case, it doesn't appear that she is making much of an effort to accomplish this. What ever is going on in her life is secondary to making every effort to see her child if she is the "loving mother" that you state she is. I know I would be at every court date when it involved my access to my child - no excuses.
DeleteFor an "observer" you have a remarkable investment in this particular case. It is great to hear what you would do, but your comment simply reflects you own orientation that the way you do things has to be the only way of doing things. I have known many victims of legal abuse such as Colleen avoid appearing at court hearings. But clearly, her attorney was present at last Friday's hearing, so there was a representative on her behalf who was available to respond to the court. However, it is clear to Colleen and her many supporters that the opposing side has a distinct advantage with his superior billions of dollars, along with a Judge who is known for issuing rulings denying fit mothers access to their children without any legal grounds, and attorneys who have no problem fabricating evidence and wielding their influence with local police and state marshalls to harm Colleen and her child. Again, what I wonder is, I have seen my ex-husband medically neglect and abuse my children on a regular basis and no judge did anything to stop him. Many of us parents in family court have observed long histories of the most egregious wrong doing on the part of our exes and yet nothing was ever done about it. Yet in Colleen's case, fabricated evidence has been used to deny her all access to her child. My question is, since it is coming down to asking lots of questions, how come Mr. Sorvino is being afforded this special treatment? Has Mr. Sorvino been uses his financial largesse to grease the wheels of justice on his own behalf. Sure makes the rest of us wonder? I would also like to know if father has now resigned from his position running his businesses and whether he is acting as a full time father, and whether he is spending his days going to play groups, participating in sing-a-longs, preparing all of his child's meals by hand, and teaching him his pre-kindergarten skills, like his Mom would have been or whether he is doing business as usual and has the child in the care of various nannies. But I digress. Clearly, you enjoy what you are doing. You find it really amusing to carry on this debate. You think you are really smart--really caught me out there regarding the ADA remark I copied for you--and being smart is all that matters to you. You haven't said one relevant remark about the well-being of this child who has the right to an ongoing and steady relationship with his Mother and no doubt will endure lasting harm from this nonsense of playing with his emotional life for the benefit of people like you who enjoy fun legal games and winning at any cost.
Deleteyou are also crazy
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I have a policy of removing abusive commentary from my blog, however, I feel the above should remain as an example of the manner in which representatives of our corrupt family court system conduct themselves. Abusive remarks, bullying, harassment are all par for the course for these folks. I hope that when the reading public sees these kinds of remarks it is possible for them to have a clearer understanding of why we are protesting.
DeleteThe 4 year old child is in the best hands possible. The Mother is clearly not capable of being responsible much less taking care of a child. The only person lying and fabricating evidence is the Mother and it has been very obvious to every judge thus far. Maybe if you and your group focused on taking some responsibility for your actions then you would have been able to continue to have relationships with your children. It is clearly more important for you to complain about the "abusive" system than it is to take responsibility for your actions. This Mother cares more about posting her drama on Facebook than she does about seeing her child. She has had access to her child for 2 months now and has refused to see the child. That says everything you need to know about her. But, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame that on the system as well. The only problem with the system is that it is not capable of shutting down people who exhibit this unstable behavior fast enough.
ReplyDeleteAlso, your own reporting is so pathetic as to it's complete lack of truth. The only people fabricating evidence is you and your group of crazies.
I can only say that the four psychiatric evaluations of Ms. Colleen Kerwick conducted thus far indicate that she has no mental health disability, but not satisfied with this Budlong and Barrett have demanded and received the order for a fifth.
DeleteNothing that has been said, and I'm listening, gives me the impression that Colleen would be in any way a harm to her child. Currently, there is a supervision order which there has been some administrative problems with and I hope that gets resolved. But there are numerous problems with supervised visitation, not the least of which are unqualified personnel, and the high cost of supervision which is prohibitive. Plus, there are always concerns about having a child restricted to a limited number of hours per week for visitation which to a child who hasn't seen his Mom in now months which could be problematic in and of itself. Plus, there are so many opportunities for an unqualified supervisor, many of whom barely have degrees if any to misunderstand or misinterpret or deliberately falsify observations of the parent child relationship which then is used as evidence. This is why I would personally never participate in supervised visitation. But it is good if others choose to. There still is no evidence at all the Colleen requires supervised visitation and she has never done anything which would lead her to be unfit as a parent. What is going on is pure judicial abuse and corruption which is complicated because Colleen is not American and has been brought up in a different cultural context. But I understand this is not your point. You want to bash Colleen at any cost and the welfare of this child, both psychologically and physically, is not your point. You simply want to further the abuse.
DeleteNo evidence that Colleen needs supervised visitation? Are you delusional??
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that she would rather go on public rants than spend time with her son. Plain and simple-she has refused to see her son which says it all.
Well, the fact is that you are the one making the public rants on this blog, and repeatedly I might add. Ms. Kerwick has not refused to see her son, with the exception that I am sure she would not see the child under circumstances that were not in his best interests. Of course, there again, you are calling people "delusional" who do not agree with you which shows considerable bigotry on your part. What do you intend to imply by using the word "delusional" that somehow delusional people who have disabilities are less valuable that you are? Are you a superior individual who should not be challenged and anyone who does has to be delusional, what are you saying? That is exactly the kind of languaging that is highly abusive, the kind of language I abhor to see anywhere on my blog or in family court for that matter. It should not be that the party who obtains custody of a little child is the one who is capable of getting it through verbal abuse, bullying, harassment and lies. Until our family courts get that, they will face constant challenge by Citizens who don't think criminal activity is the way to obtain custody of a little child.
ReplyDeleteYour last sentence says it all about your "fairness" and "objectivity" with your blog. If you truly believe that there is criminal activity against Ms. Kerwick despite the mountains of evidence showing that she is the instigator of all the conflict in her divorce then good luck to you.
ReplyDeleteIf there is one thing I heard repeatedly at the LOB hearings of #494 today it is the massive wrongdoing of the firm of Budlong and Barrett in terms of harmful and damaging litigation, absurd and nonsensical attacks on good citizens, and profiteering on the frightened and vulnerable. This ongoing attack on a kind, intelligent, and loving mother represents more of the same.
DeleteSo loving that she refuses to see her son. Kind??? Are you serious and have you seen her in action??
ReplyDeleteOk, you keep on lying, and lying, and lying. But guess what--the word is out regarding the fact that Budlong and Barrett is a corrupt organization. We heard testimony on how Budlong and Barrett acted as GALs for two labradore retrievers. Anything for money! So, are you ready to open your offices for an immediate visit for Colleen with her child, and then allow her to resume her visitation with her child as stipulated in the divorce agreement. Is this what you are stating, or are you demanding she see them in the completely uncalled for, humiliating demeaning context of supervision by thousands and thousands of dollars an hour, under financial conditions multiple individuals have stated ultimately bankrupted them. See, you don't tell the full story at any time that you get on this blog and spill out your nonsense.
Delete