PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015


On December 20, 2013, Colleen Kerwick started the day with joint custody of her child and ended the day stripped of all her parental rights.  How could this happen?  Through a campaign of legal abuse and harassment which, for advocates such as myself is only too predictable.  

As I've mentioned, Colleen Kerwick had signed the Marital Agreement from hell on March 25, 2013 which gave both parents a shared access plan, minimal financial support for Colleen Kerwick and her child, plus decision making in the hands of her ex-husband, Kenneth Savino.  

Still not satisfied with obtaining his freedom at such a minimal cost, after the divorce, Mr. Savino repeatedly attempted to have Colleen Kerwick arrested.  Thus, even though both parties do not live in West Hartford, the West Hartford police were frequently sent to the mother's house in Avon to ask questions regarding the child's care while in the mother's custody. To Kenneth Savino's chagrin, nothing came of these visits. 

Then, in August 2013, after spending the summer months harassing Colleen Kerwick with police, Kenneth Savino filed a motion for sole custody, a reduction in parenting time for the mother, and also requested that Colleen undergo another psychological evaluation.  

This was when the ink was barely even dry on the Marital Agreement!  

It is also this writer's understanding that Kenneth Savino spoke to neighbors, medical care providers and school personnel telling them that Colleen Kerwick had lost many of her custodial rights because of mental illness.  This kind of slander is extremely degrading and humiliating.  

Again, Colleen Kerwick has been evaluated several times and she has not been diagnosed with any mental illness, although I would surmise that the kind of intensive legal abuse she has endured must be very traumatic.  

It was within the context of this kind of ongoing harassment and bullying that the Christmas Holidays arose for the year 2013.  There had been much discussion on what would happen during this upcoming Christmas Holiday.  Colleen Kerwick had wanted to spend December 20-21 with the child, but Kenneth Savino insisted that he had plans to take the child to Arizona on that Friday, December 20, 2015.  The Gal, Kerry Tarpey, shared her view that the child should go with the Father on Friday, and recommended that Colleen Kerwick celebrate Christmas later on after the holiday.

Thus, on December 20, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Colleen Kerwick went to the drop off location--Starbucks in Avon--to transfer her child into the care of her ex-husband, Kenneth Savino.  

However, he never showed up.  


Because at that very time, Mr. Savino supported by his attorney, Attorney Campbell Barrett of Budlong and Barrett, was down at Hartford Superior Court filing a motion entitled "Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion Regarding the Minor Child's Scheduled Vacation to Arizona With the Plaintiff Father."  In it, the father, Kenneth Savino, told the Court that Colleen Kerwick was "refusing to comply with the parenting plan" which granted him access to the child as of December 20, 2013.  

Of course, you'd think if he really wanted the child, he would have showed up at Starbucks that day to take him!  But, as I say, he didn't.

This early morning ex parte motion was presented to Judge Olear who promptly granted the motion and ordered Colleen to "transfer the minor child to the plaintiff father at 10:00 a.m. at the child's pediatrician's office."  

Marshal Kaz was then given a copy of this order to deliver to Colleen that day; however, he appears to have wandered around Avon all that day without actually delivering it, even though he reported seeing her periodically.  The end result was that Colleen never actually received a copy of it.  

Meanwhile, the father, Kenneth Savino, met Colleen Savino at the doctor's office that day at 10:00a.m. but never bothered to take custody of the child and never informed her of the order.  

Again, the question is: if he was so eager to have custody of the child that day, why didn't he just take the child when he had the opportunity?  And he did have the opportunity more than once.  

I also have a question for Colleen. Knowing that her ex was eager to have the child and that Budlong & Barrett was gunning for her, why didn't Colleen Kerwick simply insist that Kenneth Savino take the child at the doctor's office that morning, which would have been in accordance with their parenting agreement of March 25, 2013?  

Apparently, Colleen Kerwick believed that she had an understanding with Kenneth that changed the terms of the agreement.  Prior to the Thanksgiving Holiday, Kenneth Savino had agreed in writing that he would allow Colleen to celebrate December 20 and 21 with their child since she was not going to be able to be with the child on Christmas Day that year.  Thus, when he didn't take the child at the doctor's office, she just thought he'd changed his mind and was going to go with the agreement. 

Unfortunately, when she brought this argument up later on, it turned out the agreement was not notarized and so the Court did not think it was credible.  On the other hand, if you have an ex who is not hell bent to get you, verbal agreements, casual email agreements, and agreements scribbled on paper work quite fine.  It all depends upon what you want to achieve.  

I will grant you, however, that in the days leading up to the 20th, Kenneth made it clear that he wanted to have the child and he wasn't going to abide by that written agreement.  

But then it turned out that the child contracted pneumonia during that same time period and there was concern about his ability to travel.  In his later motion for sole custody, the father stated he had obtained a letter stating that the child was capable of traveling, however, what he didn't mention in his motion (and, of course, it's what doesn't get mentioned that is so important!) is that the pediatrician recommended that the child travel only as long as father brought an oxygen mask along and gave the child antibiotics.  

Colleen Kerwick could have appeared to be an overanxious mother except when you take into account the history of Kenneth Savino medically neglecting their child.  

In the first place, if a four year old child is sick with a fever and cough, and is recovering from pneumonia, why are you making him travel anywhere at all.  He is sick, for goodness sake!  The airline will take that into account and reschedule your flight without charging you an additional fine.  And you would think that if you are putting your child's well-being first, that is what you would do.  

Clearly, Kenneth Savino felt that his vacation was more important than his child's health.  

This aligns with prior information regarding Kenneth Savino's disinterest in the medical needs of his child.  For example, on April 4, 2012, the police arrested Kenneth Savino because he interfered with health care workers who were trying to give his child medical care for a seizure disorder.  

The arrest report stated, "The officer ascertained, after initiating dialogue with accused [Kenneth Savino], that the child had suffered a series of seizures prior to the notification of EMS.  Upon further attempting to converse with the accused, the officer was met with what he would describe as verbiage laced with an attitude of nonchalance a "holier than thou" demeanor, and arrogance.  The accused told the officer that his presence, and that of the other emergency service providers, was "overkill" and that his child was ok."  

Later, on December 5, 2012, neuropsychologist Dr. Rimma Danov issued a Record Review Report which indicated that during the year 2011-2012 the child "had experienced seizures only during his stays with his father, Mr. Savino."  

Further, despite professional recommendations to place the child in the highly respected birth to three program based upon developmental delays, Kenneth Savino did everything he could to prevent the child from entering the program.  Knowing as I do what a great program the birth to three program is, I can only say that Kenneth Savino's attitude here is nuts!

Granting these circumstances, it was only understandable that mother Colleen Savino was extremely worried about passing the child over to the father and did not insist the father take the child at the doctor's office when he appeared to be disinterested.  

Instead, she went around town doing a few errands,  took the child out to lunch, and ended up at Jefferson Radiology where the child had a lung x-ray per the pediatrician's orders as a prerequisite for going on the airplane--hardly necessary if she didn't intend him to go.  

At the same time that Colleen was carrying out these mundane tasks with the child, Budlong & Barrett dispatched Kenneth Savino, along with one of their attorneys, to the West Hartford Avon police station where they filled out an application for an Amber Alert stating they had no idea where Colleen was and said they suspected she was attempting to flee the country with the child.  

They said this even though there was voluminous back and forth email communication going on between the law firm and Colleen during the entire time--granted that some of that was interrupted when Colleen's phone temporarily lost energy and had to be recharged.   Budding & Barrett alone sent 41 emails to the point where Colleen clearly lost track of them all.  It does get to the point where volume of that kind comes across as simple harassment hardly due a response.

Then, at around 4:00p.m. that day, Attorney Campbell Barrett of Budlong and Barrett filed "Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Suspend Defendant Mother's Access to Minor Child and to Award Temporary Sole custody to Plaintiff Father."  

In it Kenneth Savino claimed that "plaintiff mother disappeared with the minor child."  Right--to the local Burgerfi!  And further, "The minor child's whereabouts are unknown," even though it was understood she was heading for Jefferson Radiology later in the day.  And further, "the plaintiff father is in the process of speaking to the police about obtaining an Amber Alert."  

Yes, he was in the process, but no police officer in his right mind would have issued one!  

After all, according to the parties' Marital Agreement of April 25, 2015 father had custody of the child's passport, so there was practically no likelihood they could leave the country together without one.  

Still, it was in the face of this extraordinarily absurd claim that an Amber Alert was about to be issued that Judge Olear granted the motion giving sole custody to the father and barring mother from any access to the child.  

In defending their abusive actions, Budlong & Barrett were quick to state (more than once because they think people are deaf) that no Amber Alert was ever issued as if that somehow absolved them.  But the bottom line is they tried to get one issued, and further they implied to the Court that, in fact, one would be issued momentarily when they knew that wasn't true.  

Later that evening police came to Colleen Kerwick's door and took her child from her arms.  It was ten months before she was able to see her child again regularly and the court reinstated the shared parenting plan.

To be continued...


  1. You call yourself a journalist but yet you continue to publish false information. There was no Amber Alert! It wasn't the West Hartford Police who were involved on December 20, 2013. The court record of State Marshal Kaz states he did not see Colleen on December 20, 2013 around town several times. Colleen was to bring her child to Jefferson Labs immediately following the morning office visit with the doctor not later in the late afternoon. As I stated these are but a few facts that you continue to report that you have a difficult time getting straight. Just because you state it as fact your readers should know that you are wrong!

    1. "There was no Amber Alert", Item 12 of Dec. 20, 2013 "Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Suspend Defendant Mother's Access to Minor Child and to Award Temporary Sole Custody to Plaintiff Father" "The plaintiff father is in the process of speaking to the police about obtaining an Amber Alert."

    2. Seems pretty clear to me that something Amber Alertlike was going on straight from the motion signed by Attorney Campbell Barrett and Attorney Jon T. Kuckucka of Budlong & Barrett.and if you need further help located on page 4.

  2. You are just continuing your fairy tale. There is virtually nothing in your story that is true. You should be sued for libel and defamation putting out this garbage.

    1. Yes, because it's not illegal to tell the truth in a blog, which is exactly what Cathy Sloper has done!

  3. As the self represented attorney at law on this case, I can say with certainty that State Marshall Bruce Kaz (who also testified in the cases of Golli, Baker, Thurber & Morero et al to have children taken away from the parents who were adverse to the attorneys who hired him to serve papers) swore before the court and in an affidavit submitted to the court that he saw a woman with long blonde hair driving a white BMW station-wagon around Avon that day and State Marshall Bruce Kaz also swore that he saw a white BMW station-wagon which he identified as my car parked outside my home in Avon BEFORE he went to the Avon police at the instruction of Atty. Jon Kukucka to meet the party who were trying to get an Amber Alert called on me. The police refused to issue an Amber Alert, but Jon Kukucka proceeded to lie to the court that an Amber Alert was being processed to remove my son from me. I only wish it was a fairy tale, but this was an outrageous scam. I was alerted to this blog by Kenneth Savino and, upon reading it, believe that the author has gotten the majority of the facts correct even if I don't like all of them.

  4. Talking to the police about and Amber Alert and obtaining an actual Amber Alert are two different things. Again there was no Amber Alert issued. I dont know why you insist there was an Amber Alert when nothing of the sort took place. You have been told this in multiple ways and multiple times, but you seem not to understand it and accept this fact. Why? I think you like to stir the pot. Or maybe you just can't make yourself comprehend the facts. In either case your reporting on this case is fictional and not reality. As a journalist you should stick to the facts not what you would like to say. Your reporting on this case has from the start is totally inaccurate. If you were writing for a newspaper you would have been fired by now.

    1. I am clear on the difference between talking to the police about an Amber alert and obtaining one in the above blog. What I criticize Budlong & Barrett for is attempting to obtain an Amber Alert for which there was absolutely zero justification, and then implying to the judge in an ex parte motion that they anticipated obtaining an Amber Alert as a means to wrest custody from Colleen Kerwick. It is clear that to apply for an Amber Alert in this case or even to discuss the issue with police, Kenneth Savino had to lie about the facts.

    2. It looks to me that Cathy Sloper is saying that Budlong & Barrett implied to the Court that an Amber Alert on the child was imminent when they knew that wasn't true. So, in other words, what happened is that Budlong & Barrett lied to the Court which is a violation of their attorney ethics. Attorney ethics require that attorneys show candor to the tribunal or something like that.

  5. The author conveniently avoids the real issue that the Mother kidnapped the child and did not return the child according to court ordered documents. Given the long history of the Mother doing this the proper actions were taken. And, by the way, you can be sued for libel and defamation for slandering someone in a blog-it is called Cyberbullying and it is disgusting. If your so called "facts" were anywhere near correct then the outcome would be very different.

    1. If the mother had kidnapped the child, then the Avon police would have issued the Amber Alert which they clearly chose not to do. Your threats simply demonstrate the kind of behavior that was the standard in the Savino v. Savino case about which we are complaining.

    2. Could you clarify what you mean by "court ordered documents" because we'd all like to know what you mean by that, or did you just throw the term out for fun. Also, talking about the "long history of mother doing this" could you clarify that as well because no court documents I have seen indicate anything of the kind. The "Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Suspend Defendant Mother's Access to Minor Child and to Award Temporary Sole Custody to Plaintiff Father" dated December 20, 2013 makes no mention of a prior long history.

    3. Ok, I see that under Item #16 of the December 20, 2013 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion Regarding the Minor Child's Scheduled Vacation to Arizona With the Plaintiff's Father" under Item #16, it states "Prior to the entry of judgment, the plaintiff father was forced to obtain an ex parte order preventing the defendant mother from traveling outside the United States with the minor child based on Dr. Horowitz's opinion that the defendant mother presented a flight risk and could seek to abscond with the child if she was permitted to leave the country." Of course, and now I am going to speak slowly so you get it: that. is. why. the. father. was. given. the. child's. passport. as. part. of. the. dissolution. agreement. Thus. post judgment. Colleen. Berwick. did. not. have. a. passport. for. the. child. which. was. why. she. could. not. leave. the. country. with. the. child. Plus, it is well known based upon the science that psychologists are not able to predict behavior with any kind of accuracy and so allowing Dr. Horowitz testimony into evidence was probably a violation of the rules of evidence if it was allowed. Anyway, returning to the document, the motion re the vacation to Arizona, there is no mention in this document either of any "long history of mother doing this." If there was such a "long history" you'd think Campbell Barrett would have mentioned it because were it true, but I suspect it is not, that might of been a persuasive point. If this "long history" you reference is as feeble and unsubstantiated as Dr. Horowitz's nonsensical predictions I'm not sure its worth mentioning.

    4. I get it, not that Colleen did abscond, but that a doctor said she "might" abscond. So punish the woman for predicted actions, not ones she actually committed. What happened to innocent until proven guilty because the person actually committed the crime. Now I understand why Rep. Vargas said Family Court was like living in North Korea!

  6. Hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story! The woman should be in jail for all her actions based on facts not your ridiculous storytelling.

  7. This guy is a total "Dirt Bag"! Narcissist ass who hates women, who's son will only grow to resent his abusive behavior toward his mother. Karma is a bitch, your sons mother; an intelligent, beautiful and loving women became a victim of your vindictive behavior. Shame on you for abusing her, your son and the system.

  8. your comments show who the true ass is