OPEN COURT POLICIES IN CT ONLY AS GOOD AS THE JUDGES THAT ENFORCE THEM!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

There was a phase in my life where I was observing trials in Hartford Family Court so I could learn to represent myself pro se.  I was watching one such case when the mother stated that she was uncomfortable with my presence because she knew me from Church. 

As soon as she said it, I realized that she was right and stood up to leave.  Somehow, I hadn't thought of that point because I was so focused on just watching the proceedings.  I can get very single minded. 

As I turned to leave the courtroom, however, the judge stopped me and went into a lengthy explanation of why courtrooms in the State of Connecticut are open and that this litigant, the mother, had no business daring to ask me to leave.  At the end of this lengthy diatribe, the judge concluded by addressing me saying, "You may leave, if you now choose to do so."  I promptly did so.

I was thoroughly embarrassed by that situation--embarrassed for this mother who had been unfortunately reprimanded, indirectly because of my actions, and also I faulted myself for not realizing how inappropriate it was for me to be there. 

The point of mentioning this is to let you know that Connecticut has an open courtroom policy in regard to judicial proceedings--meaning courtroom trials and hearings are generally open to the public.  One exception to that would be juvenile proceedings or proceedings where the content is sealed. 

This policy reflects a national policy which is based upon our first amendment rights which have been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  I found a very interesting discussion on this topic at the link below: 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/courtroom-access

I had a very different experience in Hartford a little over a month ago when I was in court watching a hearing in the case of Lauren Couloute v. Matthew Couloute.  Within ten minutes of entering the courtroom to listen to the proceedings, the presiding judge, Judge Jorge Simon told me to leave even though I stated to the judge that I wanted to stay and that I had a right to be there. 

So what happened to my first amendment right to open court room proceedings in the State of Connecticut which the first judge had been so eloquent in espousing? 

Essentially, both attorneys in the Couloute case orchestrated a scene, or rather coordinated together, to provide testimony to the judge which was used as the basis for removing me from the court even though it was patently false and misleading.  In essence, they accused me of violating a sequestration order which I was unaware of.

When it happened, I had no advanced notice of the arguments which would be used against me and I wasn't given any opportunity to defend myself.  Judge Jorge Simon simply ejected me summarily from the courtroom.  Underlying Judge Jorge Simon's actions was a presumption that if asked, I would have no defense and that the attorneys present could be counted on to be honest. 

Both presumptions were wrong. 

So, how did this all happen? 

It began on Thursday, April 23, 2015.  I'd actually come to court quite reluctantly.  I knew that both Attorney Michael Budlong and Attorney Ceil Gersten felt uncomfortable with me, but I was responding to Lauren's repeated statements that she wanted me there despite the fact these attorneys were unfriendly towards me.  Because of my reluctance, I ended up being quite late for the start of the morning proceedings. 

On my way into the Courtroom, I ran into Ms. Stacey Blitsch, a witness in the case who was asked to stay in the hallway until she was called.  We briefly exchanged a hello, but I wanted to get into the courtroom quickly because I knew that Lauren was waiting for me and needed my support.  So there was no discussion of any sequestration order.

For the next hour and a half, I sat and listened to Lauren provide general information under the prompting of her attorney, Michael Budlong, simply detailing how she met her ex husband and what led to the breakdown of the marriage. 

Then, Attorney Ceil Gersten received a phone call which she said was from the hospital about her son who was in the middle of a medical crisis.  The Court then made the decision that the hearing would break for lunch and we would reconvene around 2:00p.m. 

I left the courtroom, returned to my car and added more money to the meter, and then went to McDonald's for lunch.  Meanwhile, Lauren and Stacey went off together for a full two hour lunch.  Of course, these are the two only witnesses in the trial.  Yet, they are having lunch together, and still no one seems to have a problem with that, given that they could share testimony.    

When everyone returned from lunch, it became increasingly clear that both Attorney Gersten and Attorney Michael Budlong had no intention of proceeding with trial.  Attorney Budlong thrust a completed Dissolution Agreement into Lauren's hands and insisted that she sign it. 

After watching Attorney Budlong trying to push Lauren into signing the agreement for a lengthy period of time, I finally went up to Lauren and told her that she would have to keep in mind that if she agreed to sign, she would be required to state on the stand, under oath, that she was not coerced.  I asked her straight out, "Are you prepared to make that kind of statement under oath." 

Attorney Budlong was sitting next to her at the time and tried to shoo me away, but I said, "I am a friend of Lauren's and I have a right to speak to her."  At that, Attorney Budlong confronted Lauren and pretty much said she had betrayed him by being a friend of mine, and that if he'd known that he never would have agreed to represent her. 

Needless to say, there was tremendous tension, a sense that Budlong might abandon his client--Lauren--at a moment's notice if she crossed him, along with an agreement that the attorneys wanted Lauren to sign so as to avoid any necessity for trial, and me, the friend/journalist whom they felt stood in the way of that. 

Fast forward to the hearing before the judge. 

I'll tell you right now that if you are standing before the judge and an attorney calls the opposing attorney "my sister attorney" and vice versa, you can be sure someone is in trouble.  This is how the hearing started out in this case. 

Essentially, Attorney Michael Budlong accused me of violating a sequestration order which, unknown to me, had been put into place in regard to the witness Stacey Blitsch.  A sequestration order, for anyone who does not know, is an order where a witness in a case is not allowed in the courtroom in advance of his or her testimony so that court testimony cannot be influenced by that of other witnesses.  The accusation Budlong made was that while I was in the hallway, I communicated to Stacey the content of Lauren Couloute's testimony from earlier that morning.

In fact, I wasn't aware of this sequestration order because, as I said, I arrived considerably late to the hearing.  

But Attorney Budlong essentially misrepresented the situation to the judge and implied that I was aware, stating "I believe she was present when Judge Ficeto entered the order.  I checked with Attorney Gersten and she confirms that in fact she was."  Now I can't actually say that Attorney Budlong lied because he uses "attorney speak" and manages to do what I call lying without lying.  Because if you look at Attorney Budlong's statement, he prefaces his comment with "I believe..."  So he is not stating as a fact that I was present, only that he believes it to be a fact that I was present.  Then he proceeds with hearsay for which he cannot be held responsible and states Attorney Gersten "confirms" I was present. 

Continuing in this line, Attorney Budlong also stated as follows:  "During one of the recesses I found that the witness, Stacey, was talking to this lady...Elizabeth Richter...and I felt that there was enough of a substance of the discussion that could only, by implication or directly, interfere with the sequestration order." 

What nonsense!  There was no way that Attorney Michael Budlong heard anything that I said to Stacey because we mostly spoke by text, and when we did speak out loud, Attorney Budlong wasn't anywhere near us to hear anything we said; he was busy with his client. 

Furthermore, at no time after "one of these recesses" did Attorney Budlong or Attorney Gersten return to the courtroom and request that Judge Ficeto reiterate her sequestration order to make sure everyone knew about it and that  it was obeyed.  You'd think they would have, if they were so concerned!

And Furthermore, the main witnesses, Lauren Coulette and Stacey Blitsch had spent a two hour lunch together where who knows what they talked about.  I might have joined them also, were it not that I had other things to do, and certainly no one cautioned me before I left not to or told me to be careful what  I spoke about. 

Still,  I wasn't even a witness and I didn't even have testimony; I was merely an observer.  It is still unclear to me how a sequestration order pertains to a non-witness who is simply there to observe.  I certainly didn't hear either judge discuss it. 

One thing I do know is that for the last six years, I have been present at several trials of friends as an observer and sometimes as an advocate.  I have hung out during breaks with witnesses and with litigants.  I have never had any attorney ever bring up any issue regarding sequestration.  So, all of a sudden it is a concern in this case where neither attorney even intends to bother to go to trial or ask the witness to provide testimony and they already have a finalized agreement ready to go! 

I don't want to perseverate regarding  the remaining false accusations that were made to trump up a case against me, for instance, that I accused Attorney Budlong of coercing his client--no but I did say, as previously reported, that she would have to swear that he didn't coerce her--or that I walked up and down the hallway (as if they didn't do the same) glaring at the attorneys--as if they didn't glare at me. 

The bottom line is that the Judge ordered me to leave based upon fabricated and trumped up grounds and failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the truth of the matter. 

If any attorneys in a case can simply engineer the ejection of observers from a courtroom at whim by concocting a believable but false scenario, how much validity does a state law guaranteeing open courtrooms truly have? 

As a side note, I had come to observe these proceedings simply as Lauren's friend, but as a principal writer on behalf of the "Divorce in Connecticut" website, I have media credentials as well.  However, Judge Jorge Simon did not allow me the opportunity to inform him about those credentials prior to ejecting me from Court.

When I dropped by the Hartford Courthouse a few days later and directly provided Judge Simon with a copy of those credentials while he was sitting with Jeanne Hayes in the Caseflow office, he was very short and dismissive towards me. 

Judges and attorneys of the CT Judicial Branch may not wish to be held accountable by the members of the media, but this is the only way that we can protect our freedoms.  Both Judges and attorneys would be the first to protest if those freedoms, which journalists protect by their very presence, weren't available to them. 

Now I understand that I am only a citizen journalist and not a member of the traditional media, but legal professionals should keep in mind that we are the backup to the backup, and you'd be surprised how valuable we can be. 

The bottom line, though, is that it was quite educational to see how my rights as an American citizen disappeared with the snap of a finger when it came to Judge Simon.  This is just a microcosm of the kind of violations of our constitutional rights and the right to due process which occurs daily in the courts in all kinds of cases.  At bottom, our rights are only as good as the judges who enforce them. 

PEOPLE MAGAZINE REPORTS ON WHAT'S NEXT FOR RUTHERFORD CHILDREN!

Michele Corriston of People Magazine reports as follows:

"Three years after they moved abroad with their father, Kelly Rutherford's kids have been ordered to return to the U.S. for another round in her bitter custody battle with ex Daniel Giersch – but the fight is far from over. 

Rutherford, 46, was granted sole legal and physical custody of son Hermes, 8, and daughter Helena, almost 6, on Friday so she can fly them back from Monaco for a California court hearing on June 15. 

It's a win for the former Gossip Girl star: In 2012,a judge decided that Hermes and Helena would live in Monaco and France with Giersch even though the couple shared joint custody because his visa had been revoked. (Giersch's team has not commented on the court order.)"

For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:

http://www.people.com/article/kelly-rutherford-custody-battle-what-court-order-means 

COLLECTED BLOGS, THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PARTS I - IX!

Part I
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/04/part-i-bloody-but-unbowed-colleen.html

Part II
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/04/both-are-wrong-colleen-kerwick-story.html

Part III
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/05/finding-out-truth-colleen-savino-story.html

Part IV
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/05/further-test-results-colleen-kerwick.html

Part V
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/05/dumbfounded-colleen-kerwick-story-part-v.html

Part VI
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-marital-agreement-from-hell-colleen.html

Part VII
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/05/not-so-indifferent-after-all-colleen.html

Part VIII
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/05/not-so-indifferent-after-all-colleen.html

Part IX
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/05/gal-kerry-tarpey-removed-from-case.html

GAL KERRY TARPEY REMOVED FROM THE CASE: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART IX!

I remember when I first had to deal with a GAL in my case.  She came on board around August 2006.  I swear this lady was 300 pounds or so.  I recall our first meeting in my home--she conducted all our meetings in our home--and I remember that after she left, I collapsed on my couch in despair because I was well aware that she was totally against me.  How did I know?  I have no idea--I just knew.  That's how sensitive I am as a person.  

It would have been hard to prove at the time, however, because many of the nasty things she did were not done out in public.  For instance, in November 2006, this GAL wrote a detailed report that completely trashed me to the custody evaluator, but she didn't give me a copy of it.  In fact, no one officially received a copy of it except the evaluator, but I'll bet it got passed around to people anyway.  I only had a chance to take a look at it several years later through a motion for discovery in another case.  By then, of course, the entire custody matter had been settled and there was nothing I could do about it.  

The bottom line, however, is that the measure of a GAL, if not a custody evaluator, is how effectively they have been able to resolve the conflicts in a case.  If there is extensive pre-trial conflict, and then post judgment conflict in which the parties continue to fight over custody despite the involvement of the GAL and/or custody evaluator, this means that these professionals have failed to do their jobs and should be removed from their positions.  

Thus, it seems fitting that on March 21, 2014, approximately three months after the fake Amber Alert debacle, Judge Adelman ordered GAL Attorney Kerry Tarpey off the case.  

I am assuming this was not only in response to the fake Amber Alert nonsense, but also to a motion Colleen Kerwick filed on November 25, 2013 "Motion For Removal of Guardian Ad Litem".  

In this motion, Ms. Kerwick accused GAL Kerry Tarpey of demonstrating bias against her.  For instance, she states that on multiple occasions Attorney Kerry Tarpey spent considerable time consulting with the father in Court conference rooms.  In contrast, allegedly Attorney Tarpey refused to meet with the mother for any formal sit down meetings.  

Further, Kerwick's motion alleged that Attorney Kerry Tarpey neglected her duty to the minor child, failing to take into consideration that mother was the primary parent up until the time of the filing for divorce.  Most damaging among these allegations is the statement that Attorney Tarpey wrote letters on behalf of the father instructing doctors and other professionals that the mother no longer had any decision making authority and then did not inform the mother she had done so.  

Attorney Kerry Tarpey also is alleged to have steadily disregarded the manner in which the father neglected their child's medical needs.  

I am by no means in a position to verify the truth of these allegations in detail, but I do have a copy of all the bills that Attorney Kerry Tarpey generated from July 31, 2012 when she came into the case until December 27, 2013.  I obtained them from a motion Attorney Tarpey filed a week after the fake Amber Alert incident in which she requested a hearing in order to make sure her bill would be paid.  

I was rather struck by the timing there.  Did she want to ensure that she would rewarded for her collusion in that matter?  

From what I can see, these bills indicate that Attorney Kerry Tarpey spoke to the various attorneys representing Kenneth Savino--Attorney Steven Dembo, Attorney Campbell Barrett, and Attorney Jon Kuckuka--up to 34 times.  In contrast, Attorney Tarpey only spoke to Colleen Kerwick's attorney 7 times, and that only during a single month period immediately before dissolution.  

Also, Attorney Tarpey didn't once speak to Attorney Anne Dranginis, who was Colleen's primary attorney during the months prior to judgment.  

I find it quite striking that Attorney Kerry Tarpey would be consistently in touch with father's attorney, and barely, if ever, speak to the mother's attorney.  That tells a story of bias in and off itself.  

In addition, Kerry Tarpey only did a single home visit to Ms. Colleen Kerwick's house for an hour and fifteen minutes, and I don't see that she made any visits to Kenneth Savino's house.  

Furthermore, and what is even more telling, in total, during her entire involvement in the case, Kerry Tarpey only met once with her child client for 30 minutes on January 8, 2013.  In other words, overall Kerry Tarpey charged "more than $40,000 to represent the best interests and wishes of" the child and yet only $150.00 of that was actually spent on meeting with the child.  

How can you possibly provide opinions on the best interests of a child when you barely even met with him or her?  

As I stated earlier, in an order dated March 21, 2014, Judge Adelman allowed GAL Tarpey to withdraw from the case, which I believe was a good decision based upon these facts. There is absolutely no justification for medical neglect of a child, and denying a good and fit mother who has largely been the primary parent joint decision making makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.    

Finally, there were several other orders issued on March 21, 2014.  One that I consider peculiar to say the least is Item #2 which commands Dr. Barbara Berkowitz to prepare a psychological evaluation "based on the limited information she currently has given the defendant's refusal to participate."  

Simply put, if any psychologist actually obeyed such an order he or she would be in complete violation of their professional ethics--you can't properly evaluate a person with incomplete data.  

I also find it absurd that any judge would interject himself into a separate area of professional expertise in which he does not have training and attempt to direct what this other professional will or will not do.  

Further, when will the Court, not only in Colleen Kerwick's case, but with so many other litigants, stop attempting to smear and slander good and fit parents by calling into question their mental health in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and as Amended in 2008.  

But if we must hear from a mental health professionals regarding Colleen Kerwick because the judge insists, let us hear from Dr. Stephen M. Humphrey, a well respected professional who has done extensive work for DCF in Connecticut and who did a thorough evaluation of Colleen Kerwick. In a letter dated April 11, 2014 written to Colleen Kerwick, he states as follows:  

"With regard to your question about parenting capacity, I have not observed you engaged in any acts--or exhibit any pattern of thought or behavior--that would suggest to me that you could not function entirely capably as a parent to your son.  Further, I have viewed numerous photographs and videos of the two of you together that suggest you have had a rich, loving, and positive relationship with each other.  I am concerned that a prolonged separation from your son may have adverse psychological consequences for him especially because at his age he is likely to be confused as to why such a separation has occurred or is continuing."  

Report of Neuropsychologist Dr. Rimma Danov dated November 6, 2012 regarding Ms. Colleen Kerwick:

"Her responses to an objective psychological measure revealed that she is [a] warm, compassionate, outgoing, ambitious, active, self-confident, and  sensitive individual.

Her responses suggest that she is a person who accepts personal responsibility and is ready to make changes if necessary to better herself and her relationships with others."

And finally, "She does not present with any symptoms of personality disorders or psychiatric disorders."

Kenneth Savino, from what I understand, has spent over $600,000 in order to eliminate Colleen Kerwick out of the life of their child.  I think folks don't need to look any further than this number to know that this case is all about  father's superior access to money, power, and influence, and nothing else.

Over a thousand people agreed who signed the petition to return the child to the mother.  See below:

https://www.change.org/p/stop-family-courts-taking-fundamental-rights-and-stop-the-laws-designed-to-protect-women-being-used-against-women

As a followup on the case, Ms. Colleen Kerwick posted the following later in 2014:

"After trying my own custody case in Family Court from October 20-29, 2014 against my exes teams of attorneys, shared parenting and joint physical custody was again ordered on November 5, 2014."

Still, no good mother like Colleen Kerwick should be put through this kind of family court injustice. 

NOT SO NEUTRAL AFTER ALL: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART VIII

I am not particularly a big fan of judicial marshals because they have a habit of coming to my door and giving me bad news.  My worst experience of that was when a marshal gave my eight year old daughter 3 single dollar bills as a bribe.  He gave money to her so she would fetch me from the kitchen where I was washing the dishes so he could serve me legal papers.  When you start taking actions that affect my children, that's when I draw the line.

The statutes which cover the actions of process servers such as marshals are as follows:

Sec. 52-50. Persons to whom process shall be directed. (a) All process shall be directed to a state marshal, a constable or other proper officer authorized by statute, or, subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, to an indifferent person. A direction on the process "to any proper officer" shall be sufficient to direct the process to a state marshal, constable or other proper officer.

As you can see, the point is that a process server is supposed to be a neutral person--he is supposed to be dropping off papers, not advocating from one person or another. "indifferent person"*.  Just for clarification, this is what a process server does.  A process server delivers legal documents to the target person who is supposed to receive them and then leaves.  That is all he or she  does--nothing more and nothing less.  A judicial state marshal is not supposed to be snooping around or investigating or acting like an ad hoc detective.

He or she is not supposed to be showing up in Court with three page, single spaced, ten point font, long winded affidavits that have not been presented as evidence in court and have not be subjected to cross examination.  They are not supposed to write up affidavits which can then be used against litigants as a means of taking custody away from them.  Further, you are not supposed to accompany the opposing attorney in the case to the police station and attempt to get the target person into more trouble, which is what Attorney Marshal Kaz admits he did in an affidavit he wrote for Budlong & Barrett in the Savino v. Savino case.  When you start doing that, you are no longer an "indifferent person,"  and you are bottom line in violation of the law [see link at the bottom of the blog for additional clarification of the state marshal's role*]

At the very least, if you do so, you are overstepping your role.  It would sort of be similar to having your child's teacher dropping by unannounced at your house for dinner, just to talk to you more about your child's needs over a nice roast!  Then going back to the principal and telling him what the conversation was like, what the condition of your home was, etc.

So what happened in the Savino v. Savino case with Marshal Bruce Kaz?  Let's look at what his affidavit says!

On December 20, 2015, Marshal Bruce Kaz, a state marshall of Hartford County received motions from Kenneth Savino, the plaintiff in Savino v. Savino, which I have been discussing in this series in regard to the defendant, Colleen Savino.  He received the first motion at 10:15a.m. which was entitled "Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion Regarding the Minor Child's Scheduled Vacation to Arizona With the Plaintiff Father".

I find this an interesting title because it is a "speaking title".  In other words, it is a title that attempts to provide testimony in addition to asking the Court to take action.  Speaking titles and motions ordinarily come from Pro Se parties who don't know any better.  In this situation, it comes from one of the most experienced attorneys in the business, Budlong & Barrett.

Ordinarily, I'd expect such a motion to be called "Motion For Order" or something of that nature.  Who knows why Budlong and Barrett chose to do it this way--perhaps they wished to convey a sense of a poor Dad who is so upset the words just pour out of him.  One thing you can be sure of, if you or I had written up a motion with a title like this, we would have been reprimanded or simply ignored.  But attorneys who do this, well, you know they get away with everything.

Marshal Kaz took the motion "Plaintiff's Ex Parte...Arizona, blah, blah, blah" and met Kenneth Savino at a Radiologist's office in Bloomfield at around 11:00a.m. where Mr. Savino stated he imminently expected Colleen to appear, even though there was, apparently, no specific appointment.  Further, there was no indication that Colleen knew anything about this expectation that she was supposed to be there.  While Marshal Bruce Kaz stated that the pediatrician had ordered the parents to go to this particular radiologist's office at a particular time, I have seen no evidence to prove that this is true.  Again, that is the problem with an affidavit where the opposing attorney does not have the opportunity to scrutinize it or pose questions regarding its content to see how accurate it is.

Further, the affidavit stated that on that day Kenneth Savino had a 1:00p.m. plane to catch going to Arizona.  Was Colleen Kerwick informed of this?  The affidavit doesn't say.  Because clearly, if you go by the concept that you should arrive two hours before your flight, 11:00am is getting rather late.  You'd think that if Kenneth Savino really anticipated flying to Arizona that day and had a ticket in hand, he would have scheduled these appointments for earlier in the day.  The fact that he did not calls into question his credibility.

According to Marshal Bruce Kaz, at around noon, Kenneth Savino received a text message from Colleen Savino indicating that she was getting lunch for the child at a fast food joint.  I would suspect this is a rather mundane activity to be involved in if you are planning to flee the country.  Also at noon, Marshal Bruce Kaz asked Kenneth Savino to send a text to Colleen explaining that the marshal wished to see her right away.  Marshal Kaz does not explain why he didn't send a text using his own phone.  He also states that he cannot be sure if Kenneth Savino sent the text or not, only that he asked him to.  Talking about deliberately setting yourself up for failure.  But again, we are only getting one side of the story because this is an unchallenged affidavit written by a Marshal who appears to have spent almost the entire day supporting one party in the litigation, which considerably calls into question his right to be thought of as "an indifferent party."

There is another factor that calls into question Marshal Kaz' position as an indifferent party.  Specifically, in his afafidavit Marshal Bruce Kaz states that he has "been involved in the exchange of the minor child for parenting time for quite a while."  I am surprised to see a judicial marshal playing such a pivotal role in the custody and access matters related to a particular divorce case.  As I have said, a judicial marshal's job is to deliver court papers as an indifferent party, not to become some sort of co-parent manager supervising the exchange of the child from one parent to the other.  This kind of situation inevitably leads to conflicts of interest and confusion related to boundaries that could be very destructive for the parties involved.

Still, whatever else we can agree or disagree on, it is clear there was no reason to think Colleen Kerwick was going to flee.  For example, according to his affidavit, at around 1:00pm while driving in Avon Marshal Kaz caught a glimpse of Colleen Savino, but wasn't able to catch up to her, "I saw a white BMW wagon that matched the defendant's vehicle with the a young female with blond hair pass me in the opposite direction."  So, at least around 1:00p.m. Colleen Savino had not fled the country!

Further, even if Marshal Kaz wasn't able to catch up with Colleen Kerwick at 1:00p.m., in his affidavit, he did make the observation that at 3:40p.m. that day that she was at home stating, "I stopped at the defendant's residence at approximately 3:40p.m. and noticed the defendant's vehicle was parked in the parking lot."  So why didn't Marshal Bruce Kaz drop off the "Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion" regarding Arizona ordering Colleen to give the child to her ex husband right then and there? Is it because Marshal Kaz was colluding with Kenneth Savino in order to set up Colleen Kerwick for a custody switching scheme?

If he had delivered the first court order, since Colleen has always stated she was ready and prepared to hand over the child when required by law, perhaps the whole fake Amber Alert crisis could have been averted.  Instead, Marshal Kaz disregarded his duty and didn't bother to deliver the order to Colleen Kerwick at that time even though he was fully aware that she was at home and able to receive it!  How ridiculous is that?  Honestly, how can you blame Colleen Kerwick for not obeying a court order if she never even got it?

Instead, Marshal Kaz met with Avon police, Kenneth Savino and the attorney from Budlong & Barrett at the Avon Police Department.  By then, Budlong and Barrett had submitted a motion requesting that the Court deny Colleen Kerwick any further access to the child and asking that the Court grant temporary sole custody to the father.  This motion was entitled "Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Suspend Defendant Mother's Access to Minor Child and to Award Temporary Sole Custody to Plaintiff father".  Again, this was a speaking title which I believe was intended to bully and intimidate.  Interestingly enough, in his affidavit, Marshal Bruce Kaz deliberately capitalizes the titles of these motions, which in the modern day of the internet is understood to be a form of written shouting.  

Upon review of the Motion for Temporary Sole Custody, yadda, yadda, yadda side by side with Marshal Kaz' affidavit I find a major discrepancy between these documents.  The Motion, which was date/time stamped as December 20, 2013 at 3:55p.m., fifteen minutes after Marshal Kaz noted that Colleen's car was in her driveway, states under Item #12 that "The plaintiff father is in the process of speaking to the police about obtaining an Amber Alert."  But Marshal Kaz' affidavit states that it was only after the Avon police received the second court order granting Kenneth Savino temporary sole custody that the Avon police officer "began to gather information in case an Amber Alert was needed."  From Marshal Kaz' testimony, it appears that Kenneth Savino's sworn statement in his motion to the Court re custody that he was filing an Amber alert actually wasn't correct.

Eventually, in his Affidavit, Marshal Kaz states that he, two police officers, and Kenneth Savino went over to Colleen Kerwick's residence in order to pick up the child.  He implies that they were forced to make "several attempts" before Colleen would open the door.  But when you look at his timeframe this description hardly seems credible.  The  team arrived at 5:45p.m. and Colleen Kerwick opened the door to her apartment at 5:50p.m.; that is a modest five minutes--not much time to argue about opening a door.  That's enough time to run upstairs and put a sweater on before you open a door, or just enough time to finish peeing, clean yourself up and open a door.  But I wouldn't exactly call this a stand off!

Subsequently, the child was handed over to his father essentially without incident.  Then, on the way out the door at 6:05p.m., Marshal Bruce Kaz finally put the two motions, including court orders and associated documents into Colleen Kerwick's hands.

After reviewing Marshal Kaz' affidavit, it would appear that Marshal Kaz pretty much spent all day with Kenneth Savino working on this case.  When you consider that a marshal can make up to 40-70 dollars per delivery of papers, clearly for a single day's work he made a meager salary on December 20, 2013, unless, of course, he could anticipate receiving other kinds of compensation for being so supportive and available to the firm of Budlong and Barrett on that day.  Oh, yes, I see!  It looks as though Marshal Kaz earned a whopping $457.23 that day, much of it for his time which he charged at $50.00 per hour.  Does anyone know if Kaz was statutorily allowed to do that?  

Apparently, tattling on the people he serves is not unusual for Marshal Kaz.  He has also provided witness testimony in other cases against litigants to whom he delivered papers under very similar circumstances, also where a custody issue was on the balance.  For example, Marina Golli and Hector Morera come to mind.

This leaves me with two questions:  1. How can a judicial marshal who is required to act as an indifferent person proceed to act in a manner that clearly favors one party over another; 2.  How is it that the Court allows the attorney firm of Budlong and Barrett to simply disregard standard legal protocol?  Why is this firm so extra special?

During the testimony at the legislature in 2014, many parents talked about how the opposing party in their case got away with obstructing their access and visitation with their children.  Even after repeated motions and hearings in court judges were reluctant to enforce court orders regarding parents' access to their children, and there were no consequences for a failure to obey court ordered parenting schedules.  

In particular, Gerry Mastrangelo spoke eloquently about how his ex wife obstructed his access to his three children.  

How is it that so many parents could go months and months without access to their court ordered parenting time with their children.  However, in this case, all Budlong & Barrett had to do was trump up a single ex parte false charge of denial of access on one day, and without even a court hearing Colleen Kerwick was immediately denied access to her child?  

I think we would all love to know how that is done!  Is it possible that some kinds of wealthy litigants and their special attorney firms are more equal than the rest?

*http://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/fc/2014HB-05554-R000755-FC.htm

OLD 2012 CASE PROVES INJUSTICE AGAINST VICTIMS OF DV IN FAMILY COURT ONGOING!

NOW online reported:

"On Nov. 20, 2012 the National Organization for Women (NOW) Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 10 women’s rights and anti-violence organizations in the case of Khawam v. Wolfe, in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The brief supports reversal of an unprecedented award of $350,000 in attorneys’ fees against a woman who accused her ex-husband of domestic violence. The brief argues that such an extraordinary award may chill protective mothers from raising allegations of domestic violence in custody disputes for fear of retaliation should their claims ultimately be found unproven..."

For more information on this case, please click on the link below:

http://now.org/media-center/press-release/now-foundation-files-amicus-brief-in-domestic-violence-case/

BARRY GOLDSTEIN SPEAKS ABOUT THE QUINCY SOLUTION AT THE BATTERED MOTHERS CUSTODY CONFERENCE 2015!

BUDLONG & BARRETT USE FAKE AMBER ALERT TO DENY MOTHER ACCESS TO HER CHILD: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART VII

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.  

Why?  

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...