Michael Volpe reports as follows:
"A battered mother lost custody of her kids to an abusive spouse after she refused to participate in court-ordered therapy with her ex-husband who had been convicted on nearly a dozen charges of sexually and physically assaulting her.
Connecticut family court judge Maureen Murphy issued the shocking order on January 6, 2015, giving sole custody to violent offender Angelo Gizzi because his ex-wife Angela Gizzi (nee Hickman) refused to participate in "family reunification" therapy.
In 2007, Angelo Gizzi was charged with 13 criminal counts ranging from spousal abuse, spousal sexual assault, kidnapping, threatening, and risk of injury to a child.
When defendant Gizzi’s ex-wife -- who was severely traumatized from the domestic abuse -- was unable to testify against him because of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the state of Connecticut cut a plea deal for Gizzi to plead guilty to a series of misdemeanors, avoiding jail time..."
READ MORE:
Other states have opt out provisions in the family law statutes to avoid forced mediation with the abuser. CT of course doesn't, lagging behind in domestic violence reform while our women and children are dying. Pathetic as usual. Opt out provisions make perfect sense because the victim is trying to get away from an abusive situation, but for family courts it's big business for the AFCC vendors to force the victim in the same room as her abuser to "work it out" putting her in the same pot with the abuser disempowering her, placing her in harms way, and allowing the abuse to continue. If she doesn't comply, she's an "unfriendly parent" so the abuser is seen as the one most likely to facilitate access under the best interest factors. It's a complete contradiction and distortion used by the family courts. Other states of course, don't allow the "friendly parent doctrine" to be used against a victim of domestic violence. CT is in the dark ages just like the family court system wants it. This too must change.
ReplyDeleteThe order never asked her to mediate or have therapy with her ex.
ReplyDeleteDo you have evidence of this?
DeleteFirst, "on the record" Murphy "sealed" the Order. So this comment comes from someone who has the Order. Second, the order gave Datz 100% authority over the process. Datz absolutely ordered Mrs Hickmann attend therapy with her ex. She faced a Contempt motion for not following Datz's Order to attend therapy with the ex. Still, Mrs Hickmann is forbidden from seeing her children because she refuses to attend therapy with her ex. The evidence is in a letter written to Mrs. Hickmann from Ms. Datz, a school guidance counselor who decided to hang a shingle and call herself a therapist. The Order is clear. No ex. No kids. Also, no money, no kids. So what we have here is both illegal coercion AND extortion.
DeleteSo it looks, from this comment, as though Michael Volpe's article is completely accurate, in other words.
DeleteThis is an excellent case to go the new Task Force To Study the Statewide Response to Domestic Violence co-chair, Karen Jarmoc of the CT CADV and Dr. Gary Lapidus of a CCMC, on why the laws must change in CT to protect victims of domestic violence. Angela Hickman should consider contacting them as soon as possible with the details of this whole traumatic encounter with the family courts.
ReplyDeleteExcellent suggestion. Gizzi is still abusing his ex-wife by stalking her through the family courts and now holding the children as hostages in order to force her into a room with him. If he cared about his kids more than his ex-wife, he'd concede the demand to force her into meeting with her abuser. However, he is a narcissist totally obsessed with his ex-wife Angela.....I wonder how Gizzi's girlfriend ANGELA feels about this - (coincidence or case in point?!)
DeleteHe's probably got the girlfriend brainwashed into fighting right along side him. That's the way it typically goes. It's pathological. He finds someone who is very insecure and who doesn't feel secure unless he is fighting his ex. It's interesting to note that only the abuser is truly in need of the therapy. It isn't until you venture through the doors of the family courts and then the whole family ends up needing therapy. It's insane and big business.
ReplyDeleteTotally Agreed.
DeleteCustody goes to the highest bidder. The parent giving money hand over fist to the child traffickers is the one who is "favorable" in Court. In other words, decisions are bought.
I do think that it isn't always clear in the way you describe. For instance, it may be the mother has considerable financial resources and the father doesn't. If the colluding attorneys have the penniless father continue to litigate, and this has happened so I will report on this to you, then the mother will have to pay her own attorney considerable money to defend herself. The colluding attorneys can then split the mother's money later. Or else, the penniless father obtains money from fatherhood initiative A & V funds and so father's attorney is paid that way. Or else, the colluding attorneys can have mother sued for contempt and eventually get mother convicted and fined for whatever the offense (PAS most likely) and then you have the father's attorney entitled to a whopping fine of say $50,000 or so. It happens! So often the financial agreements and arrangements between attorneys and attorneys and the little chat ups with the judge in chambers happen in secret and make what is going on unclear. So don't think that if you are the woman and have a lot of money you'll be fine, because that may not be so. Just saying!
DeleteYes, definitely. Once a parent is labeled an alienator, say good-bye to your kids, if they aren't snatched from school before you have the chance. The money has been divided up, and the Decision has already been made (bought) before stepping one foot into Court.
DeleteThere are only two people's opinions who matter in this case - the children. They lived and know the undeniable truth. They have witnesses - each other and their step siblings. They know who cared for them, raising them to be responsible, respectful, joyful children. And they know full well who is victimizing them in so many ways.... and to the AFCC child traffickers.
The children don't know the terms yet, but the older child will be 18 in four years....we shall see if these boys stay in CT with their father or head to the midwest to be with their mother and their stepdad and step siblings. Time will tell.