THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE IN CONNECTICUT FAMILY COURTS!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

I was watching a family court proceeding the other day.  There had been a hearing early in the morning and the parties were negotiating in the hallway.  Then, that afternoon the mother's attorney handed his client a copy of his proposed dissolution agreement and said "I want you to sign this agreement right now as is."  

When the mother expressed concern that there were parts of the agreement she didn't think were in her best interests, her attorney said, "As your attorney, it is my legal advice that you sign this agreement."  Waving to his associate and a friend who was sitting nearby, the attorney said, "I have two witnesses here who can testify that I told you that it is my legal opinion that you should sign this agreement.  If you refuse to sign it, you would be going against attorney's advice"  

Underlying this attorney's words, which in my view were very carefully chosen, was an outright threat to withdraw from the case and leave his client on the lurch.  

So what about this situation?  Can an attorney simply withdraw from a case and leave his client on the lurch, even when they are in the middle of a trial as was the case here?  

My experience is that yes, yes the attorney can do whatever he wants to do.  

Granted this situation where your own attorney can bully and blackmail you into an agreement you don't want, can you ever really say that family court litigants have free choice.  

I say no.

I wasn't always aware of this situation.  No less an attorney than Attorney Debra C. Ruel told me that no judge would allow an attorney to simply withdraw, particularly just before or during a trial.  She said that an attorney wishing to withdraw would have to simply grin and bear it because withdrawing is almost an impossibility.  Within two weeks of her remarks, my attorney had withdrawn with the complete blessing of the family court judge.  

In my experience with family court which is getting to be quite extensive, I have never yet seen an attorney denied a motion to withdraw for any reason.  No matter how ridiculous and obviously trumped up the reason, attorneys always seem to get away with a withdrawal from a case whenever they want to.  

So why the lies?  

I don't know; it seems to be part of the double talk that is fundamental to the profession of the law.  

Officially, the client is supposed to be making the decisions in his or her case.  See Rule of Professional Conduct for Attorneys No. 1.2 "Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer" which states "a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued."  

And further, "a lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter."  

The commentary on this section makes the interesting point that this rule "confers upon the client the ultimate authority to determine the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by the law and the lawyer's professional obligations."  Of course, this latter exception seems pretty broad! 

Then the commentary continues on to state that while a client may determine the goals of representation, it is the attorney who ordinarily establishes the means by which those goals will be achieved.  In short, "Clients normally defer to the special knowledge and skill of their lawyer with respect to the means to be used to accomplish their objectives, particularly with respect to technical, legal and tactical matters."  

Further down the line, the commentary also includes the remark that "legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular disapproval."  

These guidelines appear pretty clearcut to me.  So how is it possible that with such firm guidelines placing the client in control of the direction of the representation, that the scenario I described earlier could occur, that an attorney could threaten a client to approve a dissolution agreement as is or else and force her to sign it despite her better judgment?  

What about my situation? I had a similar experience where Attorney James T. Flaherty presented me the parenting agreement in my case and told me to agree to it as is or else.  Later, Attorney Flaherty sat silently during the pre-trial on the custody, and when I asked him finally why he wasn't helping me, he stood up, stated he was going to withdraw from my case, and walked out.  And he got away with doing so without any expression of disapproval from the Judge--Judge Solomon--when this happened.

I'll tell you how this happens; it happens because there are so many loopholes built into other areas of attorney's legal ethics that it is laughably easy for any attorney to nullify completely the mandate conferring decision making authority on the client.  

I had three attorneys withdraw in my case, so let me take a look at the reasons they provided for their actions.  Here is the first one, "The movant seeks to withdraw from this case as client fails to cooperate with counsel, thereby rendering counsel's assistance ineffective."  

Fails to cooperate?  What the heck is that?  I see, fails to cooperate by signing this agreement "as is".  That's a pretty big failure in cooperation.  Failure to do what you are told would be rather uncooperative, don't you think?  

Here is another one, "Movant seeks to withdraw from this case as counsel because there has been a breakdown in the attorney/client relationship".  Yeah, because the client refuses to sign the agreement "as is" and do what he or she is told to do.  

These are grounds for withdrawal that one advocate friend of mine once said, "that are big enough to drive a mack truck through."  

For a better sense of how big the loopholes are allowing an attorney to basically withdraw at will from a case, take a look at the Rule of Professional Conduct for Attorneys No. 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation.  

Naturally, an attorney may withdraw from a case if a client wishes to use him to perpetrate fraud or a crime.  But more specific to this discussion is item (4) allowing an attorney to withdraw if "the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement."  

So what if the lawyer finds it repugnant, as clearly the attorney in my initial example did, that his client won't sign an agreement "as is."  What then?  

This provision is closely allied to one in item (6) which states that a lawyer can withdraw if "the representation...has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client." Right, by not doing as the client has been told and signing the agreement, or else try Item (7) "other good cause for withdrawal exists", which I assume means anything else that an attorney can come up with.  

This latter item, by the way, is another example of why an attorney can stand in public in the open corridor and loudly threaten his client because, as we just read, there is absolutely nothing in the attorney's code of ethics to stop him.  

It is even more absurd to think that family court litigants have even a modicum of choice when you consider that they aren't even entitled to "informed consent" which is a fundamental component of decision making.  Again, when it comes to the concept of informed consent, the attorney's code of ethics gives it to their clients in one location, while taking it away in another.

Thus, according to the Rule of Professional Conduct No. 1.4 "A lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent...is required..."  Further, "This means the attorney should provide sufficient information to the client regarding the tactics the attorney intends to use and whatever information is necessary to understand what is going on."  

Item (b) of this rule specifically states again, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation."  Also, under "Explaining Matters" the rules state, "The client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued..."  

And then here comes the loophole! 

The end of the sentence says, "...to the extent the client is willing and able to do so."  

Thus, if a client says anything vaguely like "I am not willing or able to listen or understand what you have to say at the moment." how often, or how long, is an attorney required to continue explaining?  Who is the one who is going to assess objectively the extent of a client's willingness and ability?

Isn't this additional phrase another great big opportunity for excuse making when an attorney bypasses the client by misrepresenting or not mentioning the facts essential to making an informed choice and then resolves a case contrary to the wishes of his client?  

And that is not the only area in the Rules of Professional Ethics for attorneys where clients are denied their right to informed consent.  Try a later commentary on this section entitled "withholding information" where it states, "In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication".  

So if your client might "imprudently" refuse to sign an agreement "as is" if he or she were aware of some vital fact, as an attorney, you would be allowed to delay telling your client about it until the agreement was signed.  Isn't this the meaning of that particular clarification?  Again, we have a loophole that is so big, it encompasses the entire Atlantic Ocean as far as I am concerned.  

What is interesting in regard to this part of the commentary on informed consent is that the text singles out people with mental health disabilities as an example, and describes them as not entitled to informed consent.  This written policy is a direct violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act as well as an outright denial of civil rights to people with mental health disabilities.

When you have rules of conduct which are effectively cancelled out later on in the text by extraordinarily large loopholes and/or extensively detailed exceptions, these rules are effectively, to all intents and purposes, eliminated.  

What this means is that the implementation of coercive tactics is a reality in Connecticut family court, particularly the coercive tactic of an attorney threatening to withdraw the day before, or even the day of trial unless the client writes up a substantial check on the spot.  

The coercive tactic of demanding a client sign an agreement based upon the threat that the attorney will withdraw, this is a daily occurrence in family court.  

Then, in the most hypocritical fashion ever, clients who have been bullied and coerced in public in the open hallway in front of friends, court employees, and any stranger that walked by at the time, have to undergo a procedure called the "canvas" where they swear under oath on the stand in open court that they were NOT coerced.  

Not only that, in such agreements there is normally an additional provision detailing the fact that the client was not coerced when, in fact, everyone, often including the judge, knows that the client was bullied all the way down the line.  

What this means, of course, is that the illusion of choice for family court litigants is just that--an illusion.  The bottom line is that the attorneys make the agreements; they do the negotiations.  Then they lie, bully, blackmail, or manipulate--whatever it takes--in order to get their clients to rubber stamp them.  Regrettably, based upon the wording of the current rules of professional conduct for attorneys in the State of Connecticut, family court litigants have absolutely no recourse when that happens.

THE MARITAL AGREEMENT FROM HELL: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART VI

I will grant the fundamental belief that Colleen Kerwick goes by, that in order for a child to be safe and healthy, he or she requires the positive involvement of both parents.  In situations where parents get along reasonably well and live closely to each other, it is possible to put together a very effective shared parenting plan.  This would be in the the best interests of the child in most circumstances.  

However, if an abusive parent simply uses the  close proximity to the other parent and the extensive access to the other parent that comes along with shared parenting, as a means to continue the abuse, the end result can be disastrous.  Unfortunately, this is what took place in the Savino v. Savino case.  

The shared parenting plan was in place from the beginning and then was memorialized in the Marital Settlement Agreement of March 25, 2013.  

I bring this agreement up because it is the mean spirited nature of this agreement that set up Colleen Kerwick to continue being embroiled in legal disputes well beyond its signing.  

In this agreement, the access schedule was established as follows:  the mother would have the child from after preschool Wednesday until Friday preschool in the morning.  Father was to have the child from every Monday at pickup from preschool until Wednesday morning at preschool.  Then each parent was scheduled to have the child every other weekend.  

I find this a pretty demanding schedule for a three year old child who has some physical challenges, and I would more have been interested in reducing the overnights until he was older.  

Both parents had joint physical custody, and when it came to legal custody, father was given final decision making authority. This makes absolutely no sense in the light of the fact that, according to Dr. Sidney Horowitz, Colleen was the more involved parent and father's judgment was in question given that he was in denial of his child's development delays and medical challenges.  

But just in general, even without those issues, in my opinion, giving one parent decision making authority to the exclusion of the other is the kiss of death.  It pretty much means that any time Colleen wanted to do anything important with her son, she was required to ask for her ex-husband's permission.  Aside from being a humiliating position to be in, sole decision making gives an abusive ex endless opportunities to cause trouble with that kind of power.

I asked Colleen why she agreed to it and she said that she simply didn't want to continue battling with her ex.  I understand that.  It is unfortunate when good people who would really prefer not to fight end up getting taken advantage of.        

Of course, this was not simply the consequence of trying not to fight; there was also a financial factor at play here.  Kenneth Savino had millions and millions of dollars at his disposal to continue the legal battle, while Colleen Kerwick only had the $220,000 she'd agreed to as a settlement in her prenuptial agreement.  This small sum of money which Colleen might have used to rebuild her life after the divorce pretty much ended up being consumed entirely by attorneys fees.  

The bottom line is that Colleen Kerwick wasn't street smart.  She'd had a very amicable divorce from her first husband of six years, and she assumed that she could count on fairness from her second husband--Kenneth Savino.  She had gone into the marriage believing that Mr. Savino was the person he presented himself to her as--a person of good character.  Thus, when she signed the prenuptial agreement, Colleen had not anticipated what would happen in an extended high conflict divorce, and had not ensured in that agreement or subsequent agreements that her ex would pay for her attorney's fees and related divorce costs.  I mean, why would she.  She wasn't out to take advantage of him.

Of course, this point exposes the fact that Kenneth Savino is high deceptive in his dealings.  In speaking to Dr. Sidney Horowitz during the evaluation, Mr. Savino stated, I will "pay her somewhere between $75,000 and $400,000" and this is "okay."  Well, no, that isn't true at all.  By the time Kenneth Savino was done Colleen had nothing and all Mr. Savino did was pay her attorneys.  He knew that at the time he made the remark because he was already scheming to drown her in legal maneuvers at the time he said it.

When it comes to child support, based on the agreement Colleen was allotted $465 per week which is considerably low given Kenneth Savino's resources and lifestyle. Then $65.00 of the child support was taken out to cover the cost of health insurance, which Mr. Savino was amazingly enough willing and able to obtain from the Connecticut HUSKY program, which is intended for people with low income, despite being so wealthy.  You can be sure Mr. Savino has a far better health plan than his son has.

I'm not sure why a businessman with such extensive resources would be interested in using among the most limited health plans in the state.  I mean, to me, that decision alone speaks volumes.  I am also somewhat puzzled because in these situations, it was my understanding that, according to the law, the child is supposed to live in reasonably equivalent circumstances when he goes from one household to the other.  How is he supposed to do that if Colleen Kerwick ends up with nothing, and Kenneth Savino gets everything?  

Further, it is quite striking that the Marital Agreement divides all expenses 50/50 down the line, disregarding Colleen's current low income, which was the result of having to stay in CT due to her extensive legal problems when her job is in New York.  In addition, all other expenses such as medical co-pays and extra-curriculars were also to be divided 50/50 between the parties.  Yes, Colleen is highly educated and there was no doubt she could build up her legal practice for the future.  However, it would have been only reasonable to provide a respite period to allow her to get on her feet before dumping so much of the financial responsibility upon her.  

So what we appear to have is an extremely stingy, punitive agreement put together by a legal team determined to pound Colleen to the ground on every level.  

Of particular interest in regard to this agreement, in terms of details, is the notation under provision 13.2 "International Travel" that "The Father shall hold the child's passport." and also another notation at k.ii indicating the "The Christmas vacation shall begin on December 22."  

The agreement requires that mother go to counseling and well as the father, but in provision n.vi I do note that mother will specifically lose access time if she shows evidence of any "alienating behaviors".  You knew that particular nugget would be directed at the mother and not the father!  There is no indication that any bad behavior on the part of father will result in a loss of access.  So the only person who bears any consequences here is the mother.  Talk about gross unfairness--here you have a fundamental example, one that is very typical in the father friendly State of Connecticut.  

I also have to say, I consider it a very unfortunate approach to punish the child for the sins of the mother.

Finally, there is also section 21 which indicates "A modification or waiver of any provisions of this Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and executed with the same formality as this agreement."  A provision of this kind literally guarantees that the parties will return to court repeatedly.  When you are parenting young children, there are constant small emergencies where you have to change plans and head in a different direction.  

The car breaks down, forget your agreed upon meeting time.

The child vomits all over the back seat, forget your agreed upon meeting time.

The child wants to say a special good bye to the new friend he met in preschool and gets into a big conversation about dinosaurs while he is doing it, forget your agreed upon meeting time.

You are half way to the drop off point when you realize you left the child's medication on the kitchen table, forget your agreed upon meeting time.

I mean, what, are you going to go to court for each and every one of these instances?  Well, yes, if you are going to go strictly by a provision of this kind.  But if you have any kind of common sense, you will let it go.  Of course, if the provision is there so you can continue to persecute your ex-wife on an ongoing basis, then forget what I said.  In that case you have crafted just the Marital Agreement from Hell that you always wanted, and you can keep on wacking your ex with that legal stick as long as you want.  

To be continued...

MICHAEL VOLPE OF "CRIME MAGAZINE" WEBSITE REPORTS BATTERED MOTHER LOSES CUSTODY TO ABUSIVE SPOUSE!

Independent Journalist 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.

Gizzi was initially given only supervised visitation with the couple’s two children, however several court professionals were assigned to the divorce including attorney William Brown as Guardian ad Litem to the Gizzi’s children, and Deborah Datz and Linda Smith as co-reunification therapists."

http://www.crimemagazine.com/battered-mother-lost-custody-abusive-spouse-special-report

DUMBFOUNDED: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART V!

According to Dr. Sidney Horowitz, Mr. Kenneth Savino appeared "dumbfounded why this legal process is taking so long."  

I can actually share a little insight into that for Mr. Savino's benefit: when you hire attorneys who are widely known to be as aggressive and bullying as Attorney Eliot Neremberg, Attorney Steve Dembo,  Attorney Campbell Barrett and his cohort Attorney Jon Kukucka, this is what you end up with.  

Case solved.  

It is also helpful if you cease repeatedly stating that your ex "needs help" and is "erratic, unpredictable, irrational, and bizarre," and if you stop continually requesting additional psych evals of your ex even though three perfectly well qualified psychologists, including one you agreed to--Dr. Sidney Horowitz, Dr. Stephen Humphrey, and Dr. Rimma Danov--have stated otherwise.  

Not only is calling your ex-wife crazy in order to incite discrimination and bigotry illegal and a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, it is also jerk behavior and simply ungentlemanly. 

Ok, I keep on saying just don't be a jerk, and as a man you'll save yourself considerable time and money in family court. But the bottom line is that this is such obvious wisdom that I can only conclude that if Kenneth says he can't figure out why the process is taking so long, there is no doubt in my mind that he is being profoundly deceptive--towards himself and towards everyone else involved in this case.  I mean, who does he think he is trying to kid?  Dr. Sidney Horowitz called into question Colleen Kerwick's candor in this case, but the real big deceiver, in my humble opinion, is our pal, Kenneth, who is so, so "dumbfounded."

I do not wish to continue much further with this analysis of the custody evaluation because there is only so much you can get from it.  But if there is one vital lesson you should walk away with as a consequence of reading this document it is this--that in this particular case the role of both parents in the life of the child remains vitally important.  

You can call one abusive or the other one crazy, but the bottom line is this child needs them both.  

As Dr. Horowitz states, "neither parent appears to be too psychologically disturbed to be able to adequately parent" the child.  Yet, "for children to thrive, they need to receive the best from their father and the best from their mother."  And, as Dr. Sidney Horowitz states again, this child, "appears to have a psychological bond with his mother and with his father.  Efforts need to be maintained to allow for that bond to deepen and to grow.  

For that to occur with [this child] frequent contact with each parent is absolutely necessary."  

Seriously--what more needs to be said here.  In how many languages do you need to make the above statement before anyone with common sense hears it?

Now I understand that lots of things happened in this case after this report was written, additional followups, more testing, etc. etc, but the most powerful and persuasive result of this evaluation is the determination that contacts must be maintained with both parents.  

Therefore, when I observe what I have seen in the last few years, essentially the father's vicious and determined attempts to eliminate Colleen Kerwick from the life of her child, I can only refer to it as child abuse.  

If you want to talk "crazy", you want to talk foolish and ill advised, then in no uncertain terms I'd be talking about the father's ill conceived and damaging attempts to prevent this child from seeing his mother based upon completely trumped up grounds.  

This is particularly abhorrent due to the fact that the child is medically fragile.  

As I have explained in the past, one of the greatest problems with family court is their complete disinterest in safeguarding the interests of children who are medically fragile.  Please see the following link to my prior blog, 

"The Kids are Not All Right!":  http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2010/09/no-children-are-not-all-right.html

What this blog documents is the fact that the CT Judicial Branch doesn't care whether children are medically at risk and they will do nothing to make sure that children receive the medical care that they need and will allow the abusive parent to medically neglect children at will.  

It is a truth about the way the CT Judicial Branch treats children that is sad but true.  

As one attorney explained to me, the bottom line is that the majority of mothers are at a considerable advantage when it comes to the nurture and care of their children.  In particular, when it comes to the Savinos, the pediatrician makes it clear, "Colleen took primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of [the child]," which inevitably means medically as well.

If the CT Judicial Branch were to take into account which parent showed better adherence to the medical requirements of their children in making custody decisions, women would win hands down because they are so on top of what their children need.  Therefore, to even up the playing field, family court has simply taken the issue of medical neglect right off the table so fathers don't suffer in comparison to the mothers in custody battles.  

The end result, of course, is the serious and at times life threatening medical neglect of children.  

This is combined with a policy of diagnosing mothers who express worry about their children's health as being overanxious, overzealous, if not subject to the accusation that they have a full blown case of Munchhausens by Proxy.  

Thus, even though the Savino's child was clearly delayed developmentally and was subject to occasional epileptic seizures, the response to these issues on the part of the court and Dr. Sidney Horowitz was to minimize these concerns.  

Thus, Dr. Horowitz describes Colleen Savino as "opining" that the child is developmentally delayed as if there is some doubt about it when, in fact, there was no doubt about it whatsoever.  

Dr. Horowitz for the better part describes Kenneth Savino as being in denial regarding his child's medical issues, "Mr. Savino did not acknowledge any such delays or intervention."  

I went through this experience myself with my ex-husband.  

When an abusive father refuses to address a child's medical needs, there is no better way to torture and abuse your ex-wife by proxy.  This is exactly what Kenneth Savino got up to in his vengeful custody battle against his ex-wife, Colleen.

To be continued...

FURTHER TEST RESULTS: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART IV

I've pretty much covered all the significant points that were in the Savino custody evaluation.  But there were a few additional areas of investigation that are worth reviewing before we continue on.  

For example, just so all of the curious know, at the end of 2011 when Dr. Sidney Horowitz was conducting the custody evaluation with Colleen Kerwick it looks as though she was ambulating well.  Ken was ambulating well too.   You wouldn't want any bad ambulators around.

Further, both were "oriented in all spheres."  I mean if either had one of the spheres excluded and didn't bring it up to speed, we'd definitely have a problem, I am sure.  

Doesn't look as if either had any dysmorphic features--I mean God forbid.  

Both appeared to have euthymic affect.  Hmmmm.  

No thoughts of killing themselves or others.  Glad to hear that, or it would be rather alarming.  

In short, both Colleen Kerwick and Kenneth Savino appear to have the exact same mental status.  Like I said, in the "both are wrong" world, everything kind of goes bing, bong, ding, dong.  

Ambulating forward, I do take note that apparently Colleen has "a relative weakness in visual motor integration."  Oh. my. God!!!  Do you think this will affect her parenting skills?  

But, wait a minute, look at that Kenneth!  Dr. Horowitz has offered that "a relative weakness in his nonverbal abilities is noted!"  

I mean without nonverbal abilities, I'm feeling very ambivalent.  I mean a Dad without proper nonverbal abilities--can you really trust him around a very young child?  This is, indeed, something we must carefully consider.  

And, under the circumstances, one must balance out the relative importance of visual motor integration problems versus nonverbal communication skills.  In the scheme of things, perhaps it would be better to have a parent who is better at nonverbal communication skills even though that parent isn't so great at visual motor integration problems.  

But then again, we mustn't take these features out of context as Dr. Sidney Horowitz states in his "caveat--redux" in the section on Kenneth Savino where he again repeats that "the psychological test interpretations presented herein are hypotheses, etc. etc." 

Again, ambulating along, based upon the Hooper Test, looks like both parents have a very low likelihood of neurological impairment in regard to vision--so looking good, looks like when they are diapering the baby they will both be able to identify where to plant the diaper.  

Score for Colleen Kerwick!  It looks as though she does not have any learning disabilities.  

However, the CTMT for Kenneth brings us some more problematic results.  

Specifically, "the results suggest that Mr. Savino is functioning in the average range on the easier trails, but shows a huge disparity ranging from the 6th percentile to the 62nd percentile on more difficult trails."  

What this means is that "The aforementioned "relative weakness" in the perceptual domain coupled with what will later be described as an underlying anxiety, may account for his performance on the test."  

But that doesn't mean he has any anxiety at all as Dr. Sidney Horowitz reassures us, "That said, there is no indication of a formal underlying neuropsychological deficit per se."  

Whew!  I am glad to hear that or I would have been worried.  

I think everyone reading this blog will also be glad to hear that the results of the Slosson Oral Reading Test - Third Edition - indicate that both Colleen Kerwick and Kenneth Savino both know how to read at the high school level.  

I mean, what would we do if Colleen, an aviation attorney who has passed the bar couldn't read at a high school level.  What would we be required to do?  Revoke her law degree?  And as for Kenneth, no more wealth management for you, bad boy.  Not reading on the high school level, you should be ashamed.  

Ok, that was just an imaginative scenario.  But seriously, if it turned out that, say, Kenneth, didn't know how to read, would they truly deny him custody?  Is there some rule out there stating that literate parents are superior and more effective as parents than non-literate parents--is there some body of research we have out there which proves the value of reading in parents over non-readers?  

Finally, there were some very interesting parent/child observations, one with Colleen Kerwick and also with Kenneth Savino.  

In the parent/child visit with Colleen Kerwick, the child went on a search for toy trucks and began to whine when he couldn't find the trucks.  Ms. Kerwick attempted to redirect the child's attention away from the trucks, asking him to read books instead.  

[Of course, I, zee grrreat doktor had hidden away all zee trrrucks, but that is my secret!  Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!]

Still, no matter what Mother did the child continued to express the fact that he wanted to play with trucks.  Trucks being effectively a symbol of the masculine, clearly the child had a specific need to identify with that masculine activity as opposed to the feminine activity of reading a book.  

Mother's refusal to play with trucks probably reflects her inability to come to terms with the masculine in her life and in the life of the child.  

Dr. Horowitz plans on paying close attention to the child's truck playing for the future.  I mean, if mother cannot accept trucks as a legitimate toy playing activity, it may not be appropriate for her to be the primary parent.  

This is a serious consideration.  

As for the father, during his parent/child activity, he was able to find some cars in the toy box which the child was very happy to play with.  Both father and son practiced using the word "poopy" in a he man type way which was reminiscent of burping games young men play in local bars, so clearly a very healthy father/son type activity.  

I'm sorry folks, when it comes to game playing and letting boys be boys, father as primary parent is looking a little bit better than mother.  Repeat after me, "Mommy is a sissy."  Mommy is a sissy..."

[Vat are you crrrying for, young man, big boyz don't do zee crrrying!]

To be continued...

FINDING OUT THE TRUTH: THE COLLEEN SAVINO STORY, PART III

In looking at a custody case like the one Savino v. Savino, it can be really difficult to be sure who is telling the truth.  So many cases are just a "he said, she said situation" and there is a lot of white noise which makes it hard to tell.  

However, what I think is particularly persuasive for a writer like me is the ultimate outcome.  During the time that I have known Colleen Kerwick she has always stated how important it is for the father to share in the life of her child.  She has repeatedly stated she would never want to eliminate him from her child's life, and in the custody report she specifically stated, "I don't want him out of my son's life, but I need to be involved too."  

Furthermore, much to my annoyance she has come out firmly in support of shared parenting which would give 50/50 parenting time to both parents.  

In contrast, I can see that Kenneth Savino has repeatedly attempted to have Colleen arrested, seized total control of their child based upon a fake amber alert, and has done whatever he could to push her out of their child's life.  I don't know what the context was for Dr. Sidney Horowitz in 2012, but in 2015, I can confirm that when it comes to Colleen's statements that she was abused, her statements that Kenneth was trying to remove her from the life of their child, time has proven them to be true.  

It is sort of a situation where murder will out!  

As a trained therapist, I am not sure why Dr. Horowitz didn't pick up on this except for the common money making goal so many mental health professionals have that persuades them to go by the model "both are wrong" no matter what contrary evidence exists.  There is no doubt that Dr. Sidney Horowitz was at considerable pains to tweak the results the way he wanted them to go.

One point I am clear on is that Dr. Horowitz didn't care to acknowledge that Colleen Kerwick was a victim of domestic violence and sorry to say, in writing up his evaluation, he pretty much painted her as a liar because she reported the abuse she'd experienced.  I can relate to what Colleen went through here, because when I reported the abuse I was enduring, the evaluator in my case did pretty much the same thing. 

I think this denial occurs simply because mental health professionals can't bear to acknowledge that abuse occurs in a great many middle class homes.  But also age plays a role here--both Colleen and I married considerably older men.  Doctors such as Horowitz, and the psychiatrist in my case, like to characterize women like us as manipulative bitches who are financially and emotionally exploiting our much older and more well established ex-husbands because it taps into a primordial fear that the majority of successful men like themselves have buried deep down in their psyche.  

Specifically, Colleen was 17 years younger than her ex-husband and I am 15 years younger than mine.  Inevitably that age difference makes a poor impression on these male doctors who just assume that if a woman marries an older man, it must be for some nefarious purpose.  

Thus, it is striking that Dr. Horowitz' report never mentions that Colleen Kerwick was employed as an aviation attorney and is a fluent Irish speaker, but does mention that Ken Savino "is employed in the wealth management business."  By withholding information on Colleen's professional background, Dr. Horowitz appears to imply that Colleen is the kind of woman who intended to sit at home eating bon bons and counting Kenneth's money while Ken Savino was at work!  

Isn't that what those cute younger babes do--marry up!  

And how do women like Colleen manage to exploit their husbands like that?  They do that with their superior cleverness; thus, even though both Colleen and Kenneth had almost identical scores on the IQ tests they both took, Dr. Sidney Horowitz describes Colleen as having above average intelligence and then describes Kenneth as having only average intelligence.  

Dr. Horowitz also skewed and misrepresented test results in order to make it look as though Colleen Kerwick was a deceptive individual but Kenneth was not.  For instance, Dr. Horowitz used the Paulhus Deception Scale to measure the degree of faking in the psychological testing.  In regard to Colleen, he reported that Colleen scored in the 99.98% for impression management and scored 70.75% in self-deception, the latter actually being a somewhat average score. In his assessment of these scores, he indicated they should lead anyone to view her remarks with "a great deal of" caution.  

On the other hand, Kenneth Savino scored in the 84th% for impression management, and Dr. Horowitz conveniently withholds the score he received for self-deception, but says it was average--so why doesn't he just share the results with us?  (More about that later)  Keep in mind, also, that Ken Savino's score on impression management is only 16 percent lower than Colleen's score, and it is still in the very high range. Nonetheless, Dr. Horowitz would have us believe that, in contrast to Colleen, based on these results, we can approach what Kenneth says "with some degree of caution".  

Dr. Horowitz makes Kenneth look as though he is so very honest in contrast to Colleen.  But is this what the tests really indicate?

I have an explanation for Colleen's high score in terms of impression management.  It is the consequence of her European background which places an extensive emphasis on impression management.  I feel I can say this because my parents were European as well.  

Unlike Americans who believe they can let everything hang out and express their authenticity, European culture emphasizes making a good impression on others, exercising good manners and adhering to proper social expectations as among their highest values when it comes to behavior.  You never, never air your private and personal matters in public.  Naturally, then, as a native of Ireland, Colleen would score highly on impression management.  I'll bet I would too.  It is very important to note that as a result of these cultural differences many Europeans dislike Americans.  

If Dr. Sidney Horowitz failed to be sensitive to cultural differences when he conducted the forensic evaluation, even though he is required to do so, this is certainly a problem.  But still, as I said, keep in mind that in regard to impression management even though Colleen's score is extremely high, Kenneth's score really isn't that far behind!

So what about Kenneth Savino's mysterious self-deception score?  Later in the report, we are told that in the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) Mr. Savino had a very high level of self-defensiveness which measured in the 89.74% which Dr. Horowitz stated could make him  "minimize, deny, or even be unaware of his shortcomings"--this sounds suspiciously similar to the self-deception score that Dr. Horowitz didn't want to share with us earlier on.  

So if you looked at the test scores properly Colleen is very high in impression management, but fairly low in self-deception.  In contrast, Kenneth is somewhat lower in impression management than Colleen, but considerably higher in self-deception than Colleen--approximately 20% higher.  

So when Dr. Horowitz speaks of Colleen and says you should be considerably more cautious about believing her than you would be in believing Kenneth, he is full of garbage because his own test results prove otherwise.  If you are going to look at the numbers, the two actually balance each other out, although Kenneth clearly has a considerably lower capacity for insight.  

The only way you can actually figure out what is going on is to look at the context, and for that all we have to do is look at the reality of the abuse that Colleen Kerwick experienced. 

Dr. Sidney Horowitz cast a shadow of doubt on Colleen Kerwick's statements in regard to abuse because she came in with a bound notebook full of emails as evidence of his abuse, which I understand Dr. Horowitz chose to ignore. I mean, God forbid she bring in actual concrete evidence.  

Also, she came in with her domestic violence counselor, Ms. Shanthi Roe and other support persons.  In a mocking and skeptical manner, Dr. Horowitz states, "Ms Kerwick Savino would have this evaluator believe that Mr. Savino is a manipulative, mosogynistic, controlling and hostile individual."  [Surprisingly enough, or not, however you see it, Dr. Sidney Horowitz never expresses a similar skepticism regarding the lurid accusations Kenneth Savino made about Colleen!]

Still, the reality is that Dr. Sidney Horowitz own test results regarding Kenneth Savino absolutely support Colleen Savino's remarks.  To quote Dr. Horowitz' report regarding Kenneth Savino, "The respondent's [Kenneth Savino's] interpersonal style seems best characterized as being domineering and over controlling.  He has strong needs to control others and... likely has little tolerance for those who disagree with his plans and desires.  Others view him as being rather overbearing and dictatorial.  Although able to express some degree of warmth, his need to be in control in relationships probably taxes the endurance of those who are close to him."  

In commentary a little further on, Dr. Horowitz states, "He appears to compensate for [anxiety and self doubt] by acting in a controlling (if not bullying) fashion in an attempt to bolster his hindered self-esteem."  

This means that despite Dr. Sidney Horowitz mockery of Colleen Savino's observations regarding her ex husband, in fact the test results indicate that her statements were perfectly accurate despite the need to view her observations with -- what does the report say? -- a great deal of caution.  What is more, Kenneth Savino's own behavior since he took these tests, which I described earlier in this blog, also back up what Colleen has stated.

Finally, Colleen reported that Kenneth Savino had an extensive history of mental health difficulties prior to and during their marriage, but surprise surprise, Dr. Horowitz suppressed that evidence by playing phone tag with Mr. Savino's psychiatrist and never actually speaking to him.  That's a great way to skew a custody evaluation in favor of the father.  Just prevent data from his mental health background from ever making it onto the record!  

In this clever way, by simply manipulating the psychological test results to cast an unwarranted shadow of doubt on Colleen Kerwick's truthfulness and downplaying or hiding the data on Kenneth Savino's abusive behavior and mental health difficulties, Dr. Sidney Horowitz was able to present the classic results typical of custody evaluations that underlie the majority of high conflict divorces, results that indicate "both are wrong".  

Unfortunately, both were not wrong, and this is what led to so much tragedy and suffering in this case for both Colleen and her child.

To be continued...

BOTH ARE WRONG: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART II

In the early months of my own divorce, I was really struck by the way that my attorney would counter any negative statement I made about my ex husband with an equally negative observation about me.  He was always at pains to point out that not only did my ex husband do things wrong, so did I.  

It all added up to a policy of advocating that in any divorce both parties are wrong.  

Many family court victims have speculated that family court attorneys are in collusion.  If there is one particular area that I believe attorneys are indeed in collusion, it is in promoting the concept that both are wrong.  In the "both are wrong" world, there is endless opportunity to churn divorce cases and keep the money rolling.  

Of course, I would never want to say that in some cases both are wrong doesn't make sense, but in legal abuse cases, what you have is an abuser who is making his or her victim miserable, and if you don't identify the problem right away, that suffering will continue on for years.  

The Savino v. Savino case is a particularly striking example of this mindset, most particularly in regard to the parties' custody evaluation, which was conducted in the Fall 2011 after the filing for divorce.  

I have heard all sorts of bad things about the author of this report, Dr. Sidney Horowitz, but in the scheme of things, I have to say the Savino Custody evaluation is not a bad report.  What I believe Dr. Horowitz did in this report, and to his credit, is put the emphasis on objective standards of measurement rather than relying on subjective psychological theories or his own emotional responses.  

In other words, you won't find Dr. Sidney Horowitz using hyperbole like calling one of his clients "a French whore" or something of that nature.  

I actually found that very impressive.  

On the other hand, Dr. Sidney Horowitz did fall into the fairly lazy intellectual framework of trying to prove "both are wrong" when there is every indication that in this case the mother was unmercifully attacked and denigrated. 

In some ways what he did in the report was the medieval equivalent of stretching his short client's so their bodies can fit the rack, while chopping off the hands and legs of those who are too tall for it.  

I believe this is the safe approach for a custody evaluator and is, therefore, understandable.  It leaves the attorneys to take what they get from the report and battle it out in the courtroom while the evaluator can throw up his hands and say I have nothing to do with that.  

On the other hand, that's not doing the job of identifying the problem so that you end up with concrete solutions that benefit the parents, and that are, what is most important, in the best interests of the children.  

With this in mind, let us begin to look at this evaluation and see what we can get from it.  The first aspect of this report that struck me was that Dr. Sidney Horowitz recommended that "this document not be released to the parties" for fear it could harm their son who was all of 2 years old and hardly capable of reading it.  

You know, once you have a high conflict divorce in place and you have a written custody report in hand, the idea that you can put a lid on it and prevent it from seeing the light of day is rather a ridiculous expectation.  

Family court litigants have the right to informed consent in regard to the decisions they make during a divorce.  The idea that you are going to take a major piece of evidence which has approximately 90% influence on the outcome of the custody matter and prevent either of the parents from seeing that report, I consider outrageous.  

But this is the problem not only with attorneys associated with family court, but also with mental health professionals who contribute expert opinions in family court cases.  They seem to think that they have the right to treat parents like children who are not entitled to self determination in regard to their own lives.  

The idea that the information in an evaluation might be upsetting to a party in the case so they shouldn't see it is nonsense.  If you have a diagnosis of cancer, there is no point trying to tell a patient, we are giving you a full round of chemo but we are not authorized to tell you what your diagnosis is because you might get upset.  

I mean, get real!  

As for upsetting the children in the case, they are unlikely to see the evaluation until they are old enough and in their twenties, and by then they've probably heard in all, given the nature of high conflict divorces.  

Another aspect of the report that struck me was the caveat placed at the beginning of the report that stated as follows: 

"The psychological test interpretations presented herein are hypotheses and should not be considered in isolation from other information in this matter.  From test results alone, it is impossible to tell if these patterns and/or deficits are directly or indirectly related to parental competencies.  Therefore the reader should examine the test interpretations for general trends and put limited weight on any one specific statement.  Where test results were unclear or in conflict, I used clinical judgment to select the most likely hypotheses for consideration."  

Excuse me, you are using hypotheses to make crucial decisions in the lives of parents and vulnerable, defenseless children?  

You are stating that it is "impossible" to know how the information you have gathered which will make or break a parent's custody case correlates to the ability to be a parent? 

Would somebody please get me a match so that I can burn this report?  

And shall we burn all these reports as little more than garbage if we cannot obtain exact scientific data from them?  

But then again, I pause, and do want to say, it is quite admirable of Dr. Sidney Horowitz to acknowledge that truth and I give him credit for doing so.  I wish there were more mental health professionals out there who were more like him.

To be continued...