PART I: UWY-FA10-4022991-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE LYNDA MUNRO LIES, LIES, AND LIES AGAIN

I am one of these people who came from a very dysfunctional family from very early in my life, and one of the first thing I learned from that was how to keep my mouth shut.  If there was one thing my parents were very firm about, it was that what happens in the family, stays in the family.  Blood is blood.  It was a kind of family honor type thing. 

 

So when I ended up in therapy at the age of ten as the Identified Patient, I spent two years going to sessions on a weekly basis, staring silently at the psychologist.  Then, what I learned as the years went by is: it's a man's world, keep your mouth shut. 

 

So, you can imagine how I felt when I met Susan Skipp.  Because this is a person who will not keep silent, who will not compromise, and who expects to be treated as a human being.   This is a woman speaking up and speaking out about the corruption of family court! 

 

So what happened in this case? Again, I'll tell you right up front so you don't have to live with the suspense.  Basically, Susan Skipp lost custody of her two children and is no longer able to see them. 

 

How did this happen? 

 

I'd say through a lot of bullying and lying, and through the spread of misrepresentations, and half truths. 

 

Who did the most of it? 

 

Well, there are a lot of competitors for this position, but I'd say Judge Lynda Munro truly wins the title in this particular case as the person who lied the most. 

 

For example, In the opening paragraph of her Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012, Judge Lynda Munro implies that both parties were on an equal footing during the court proceedings, i.e.  "Both counsel tried this case with experience and skill." 

 

Oh, give me a break. 

 

The bottom line is that for much of the time in this case Susan Skipp  was forced to represent herself.  She was lucky enough to obtain representation for the trial at the last minute.  However, let's be clear.  Susan's attorney had around one year of experience and maybe five weeks to prepare, while Shawn's attorney had over thirty years of experience and a couple years to prepare. 

 

The end result is that Shawn's attorney got away with a few things; for example, bringing in numerous exhibits that were not disclosed prior to trial.  And just, no matter how hard Susan's attorney worked, and no matter how smart she was, and she was smart, one year of experience is going to be struggling in the face of thirty.

 

Next, Judge Munro states, "Both were respectful to the parties and witnesses."  No, that simply isn't true.  I watched the entire trial.  During the proceedings, Shawn's attorney was bullying and disrespectful towards Susan Skipp and Judge Munro did nothing to stop it.  I don't think anyone should be subjected to that kind of treatment.  

 

Later in the Memorandum of Decision, Judge Munro misreports an incident which occurred with the father and places it within a false context.  Apparently, prior to judgment Shawn Tittle drove his car into the side of a fast food restaurant in the take out lane. 

 

Judge Munro explained away the incident, stating that it happened because Mr. Tittle was exhausted from work and that the situation may have been made worse by the ADHD medication he was taking. 

 

What Judge Munro doesn't say is that Shawn Tittle was charged with DUI and that he plea bargained his way out of the charges. 

 

Hello!  Innocent people go to trial and are cleared of the charges.  

 

She also doesn't mention the fact that Mr. Tittle attempted to evade responsibility by driving away from the scene of an accident and had to be pursued by police cars. In addition, it came out in court that Shawn switched places with his passenger in order to escape charges.

 

That,  ladies and gentlemen, is illegal.  It is not the behavior of a reliable or responsible person. 

 

Susan Skipp was perfectly within her rights to raise concerns about the father after this incident, and the idea that she should have shut up about it is ridiculous.

 

Another incident Judge Munro talks about is when Susan Skipp filed a complaint with the police because she believed that her ex, Shawn Tittle, tried to hit her with his car.  Judge Munro attempts to invalidate Susan's decision to file a complaint because 1) Shawn denied it, and 2) according to Judge Munro's reporting of the story, a witness told the police "he did not think the driver was trying to hit" Susan. 

 

In fact, what the witness said was that he could not state with certainty what the driver was trying to do.  And, of course, that would be rather hard to know exactly what the driver was trying to do.   

 

What Judge Munro fails to include in her discussion is the fact that during her testimony Susan stated very credibly that she believed that Shawn was trying to hit her.  Without that added point, you do not get the full flavor of the testimony in regard to that incident, i.e. that Susan was sincerely afraid for her life. 

 

In regard to DCF, Judge Munro repeatedly stated that when Susan called DCF, the department did not substantiate any abuse.  However, what I heard during court testimony is that Susan called DCF at one point because she was concerned that the children were not being  fed. 

 

When DCF visited Shawn Tittle's home they found the refridgerator in the kitchen was empty and the children stated that they were hungry. 

 

To me, these kinds of results indicate that calling DCF wasn't frivolous as Judge Munro would like to imply.  

 

Judge Munro also belittled the fact that Susan called DCF expressing concerns about the many guns Shawn owns.  Apparently, he owns 9 firearms, 6 of them handguns.  Of course, whether Shawn stored those guns safely or not as a rule, that is hard to determine.  The bottom line is that Susan had reported that Shawn had threatened her with them, and that  explains why she focused on them and expressed her concerns regarding the way in which Shawn handled the guns.

 

One thing I would say, particularly after Newtowne, is why would any man with young children hold onto a bunch of guns?  Haven't there been enough accidents with children and guns, let alone bloodbaths committed by minors at their schools with guns, for any sensible man to get rid of them?  Plus, how many guns are enough?  Do you really need nine?

 

Doesn't this alone call into question Shawn Tittle's capacity for good judgment?  

 

How many men have used guns to kill family members, particularly during a highly contentious divorce? 

 

Granting that, it seems to me that Susan's expressions of anxiety and distress regarding the guns was fully justified.  I feel a terrible sense of dread and foreboding just seeing a gun.  I could just imagine the distress Susan felt knowing her ex had a whole bunch of them. 

 

And talking about good judgment, how about the "isolated prejudgment incident regarding some hair pulling" that Judge Munro mentioned in her whitewashing comments in connection to Shawn Tittle's behavior.  Apparently, Shawn Tittle pulled his son's hair as a means of discipline.  I'm sorry, I would never pull a child's hair as a method of discipline.  That is entirely inappropriate. 

 

And don't tell me that it was a single incident.  A person who does this once, will do it again and again, or do something else very similar. 

 

What bothers me here is the pattern I see emerging in these kinds of Memoranda of Decision, in case after case where fit mothers lose custody of their children. 

 

Whatever the father does wrong is no big deal--mother is exaggerating and overreacting as a way to alienate the father from the children. 

 

However, whatever the mother does wrong is an overwhelming disgrace for which mother should be condemned and lose access to her children completely. 

 

For example, Judge Munro is highly indignant that Susan took the children out of school for two days in order to share some vacation time with them.  Of course, I'd get the indignation if the children were failing academically, but that isn't the case. 

 

I had a friend once who took her child out of school for a week on a trip to Mexico simply because that was when the timeshare was available.  No one thought that was a big deal.  The school simply gave the child a packet of assignments to complete while she was away.  So why does two days all of a sudden become a capital crime? 

 

Perhaps because Judge Munro was desperately seeking a justification for trashing Susan in order to deny her custody. 

 

The other thing Judge Munro does is condemn Susan because on occasion--maybe twice--she was very late picking her children up from school.  I don't know, I remember years ago, I was so exhausted that I fell asleep on a couch and ended up being late picking my son up from day camp.  So shoot me, why don't you. 

 

In the 29 pages of this Memorandum of Decision, Judge Munro only acknowledges in a single sentence that several witnesses spoke about what a great mother Susan Skipp is, "The defendant's better qualities as an active and attentive parent were detailed in their testimony." 

 

You know, you'd think that in a Memorandum of Decision written to determine which parent should have custody of the children that the judge would have a lot more to say on this topic.  

 

Further, in her testimony on the stand Susan was able to provide detailed information in regard to her role as a mother.  You could see her entire face light up with joy when she spoke of them. 

 

One of Susan's older daughters took the time to take the stand and speak in support of her mother.  This daughter had graduated from college and was leaving in a few days for England where she is going to study for a Master's Degree. 

 

I had the opportunity to speak to this young lady and she was a bright, personable, capable and independent woman.

Clearly, Susan's parenting counted for something.  Unless you are a judge like Judge Munro and your agenda is to take custody from a good mother like Susan Skipp in another one of Connecticut's famous custody switching schemes.  

 

More on this later... 

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-ii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iv-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-v-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html



 

 

  

OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE WATLEY CASE FROM ELIZABETH A. RICHTER, TO WATLEY ATTORNEY SAM CHRISTODLOUS

Dear Attorney Christodlous:

I am writing to you in regard to Mr. Joe Watley whose children were stolen from him through unjust proceedings carried out against him by DCF.  I understand you are representing him in his custody case.
 

I am a person who has advocated for people with mental health disabilities for many years. I am a member of both MindFreedom and also Psychrights located in Alaska.
 

I have to say that I am completely puzzled by the discrimination which Joe Watley has faced in regard to his three children, all three of whom are currently in the care of DCF.  Nothing that I have read about this case indicates to me that he would be a harm to his children. 


During the course of my advocacy, I have met many people who have mental health disabilities and I am familiar with the symptoms. My own situation was that 36 years ago I was misdiagnosed with a serious mental illness and was hospitalized with people who had severe mental health problems. So I am good a detecting when a person has a serious issue such as bipolar, schizophrenia, or something of that kind. I do not see problems like this when it comes to Mr. Joe Watley.

Furthermore, I have been in family court in regard to my own high conflict divorce for a considerable period of time.  Yes, there is major discrimination against people with mental illness in family court all the time.  Still, people with addiction problems, substance abuse problems, serious mental illness such as bipolar have the right to  parent their children. In fact, as you know discriminating against people with disabilities, denying them their parental rights, is a violation of federal and state law.
 

 

I was particularly bothered by the idea that the Supreme Court voiced in their recent ruling in this case, which is that if Mr. Watley wished to exercise his ADA rights, he would need to have a GAL assigned to him. As you know, people with various forms of mental illness can assert their ADA rights in regard to their mental illnesses without requiring that they be under the supervision of a conservator or a GAL. What is even more absurd, however, is that the State in making this statement has implied that somehow Mr. Watley is disabled by mental illness to the point where he might need one. What nonsense! 
 

I think what concerns people like me is the outright, blatent, unashamed affirmation our judicial branch makes that they have the right to discriminate at will against people with mental health disabilities despite both State and Federal laws that prohibit them from doing so. This kind of viewpoint the judicial branch espouses, simply that they will violate the law whenever they please, as they please, is completely anarchistic.
 

My general impression is that the court system is simply playing games with Mr. Watley, making rulings it knows to be improper, then bouncing the case up to the appellate system, then getting it remanded to the trial court again, where there again, rulings are made that are improper and then on and on. The whole intent, it seems, is simply to avoid ruling according to the dictates of the law by bouncing Mr. Watley from court to court and hearing to hearing year after year without end. It is simply, as Langston Hughes so aptly put it, a situation where "Justice delayed is Justice denied. This is a game and everyone knows that it is a game. I suspect even you know it is a game.
 

I think it is wrong to keep Mr. Watley and his children dangling in regard to this case. I think it is wrong to make a pretense of defending him. He should get a genuine defense. Mr. William Mulready, a researcher and expert on the ADA, has suggested that you use the ADA as the basis for defending Mr. Watley's case. I get the impression that you feel such an approach is useless.
 

Why is it useless? The ADA is federal law. And our State of Connecticut is thumbing its nose at federal law? By what right?
 

This is a civil rights issue that folks such as myself who are part of the one in five citizens with a history of a mental health disorder would like to see addressed efficiently and effectively. If this is something you do not think that you are capable of doing you should step down and allow another attorney to do the job, one who believes in this case as much as Mr. Joe Watley's supporters do. 


I do want to point out, also, that Mr. Watley does have a considerable number of supporters. If he were truly mentally ill in the manner the the judicial court tries to make out, then how would it be possible for Mr. Watley to gather together so many supporters? The fact is that he does have a considerable number of backers, and this alone is an indication that the State is simply manipulating the judicial system and using the stigma surrounding the label of mental illness as a weapon to deny Mr. Watley his parental rights.
 

Thank you very much for reading this email. I urge you to take effective action on Mr. Joe Watley's behalf.

Sincerely,

 

Elizabeth A. Richter,

Advocate

For more information on this case, see the link below:

http://www.foothillsmediagroup.com/articles/2011/07/08/thomaston/news/doc4e1708e987817301863969.txt

OTHER RELATED ARTICLES:
 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/joe-watley-on-dangers-of-therapeutic.html

 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/09/report-on-appellate-court-hearing-on.html

 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-watley-decision-sc-1895118952.html

KEVIN CASE V. JENNIFER JONES, FA074032302, A MOTHER INTERUPTED!

Have you ever heard the saying that "Too many cooks will spoil the soup?"  Well, let me tell you how many cooks were in this case. 

 

We have here Judge Constance Epstein, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone, Judge John Brennan, Judge John Caruso, Judge Jorge Simon, Judge Herbert Barall, Judge Stephen Frazzini, Judge Richard Dyer, Judge Edward Dolan, Judge Linda Prestley, and Judge Gerard Adelman. 

 

Then post judgment we have Judge Harris Lifshitz, Judge Jane Grossman, Judge Leslie Olear, Judge Carbonneau, and Judge David Dee. 

 

That makes just about 16 judges and from the look of this case which has lasted from 2007 up until the present the results haven't been that successful. 

 

It is amazing when you consider it.  Can you imagine the sum total of the education that all these outstanding jurists have had, the years of experience between all of them, and yet they cannot seem to establish results in a case like this which will lead to a working relationship between these two litigants. 

 

I'll bet you I could get some good results pretty quickly.  For one thing, give the child back to the Mother where she belongs. That would be a really good start.  The only reason the Father in this case wants this child is for power, money, control, and ego. 

 

How do I know this?  I'll tell you how I know this because the ruling in the Memorandum of Decision dated March 28, 2011 states, "The plaintiff Father did not appear to have played a very significant role initially in his daughter' care once the parties separated." 

 

Really? 

 

But if you look at the very first thing this Father did upon filing for a divorce, it was to file a custody application for the child.  Then he proceeded to file two ex parte applications for custody and also filed for child support.  Great start!  Dump the child on the Mother, then file for custody and child support. 

 

So then you read through the Memorandum of Decision, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, residential custody to father, sole decision making to Father, and then you get to the factual findings in the case and guess what, lo and behold, it looks like the child is living with Father in the paternal Grandparent's house. 

 

So guess what?  Who do you think is really taking care of this child? 

 

In essence, the trial court has taken the child out of the care of her Mother and passed her over to the care of the Grandparents who are probably behind the whole thing. 

 

I'm loving all the praise Father is getting on his way to residential custody and sole decision making--to loosely quote, "Father has assumed full responsibility for the child's care since early August 2008 and, by all accounts, has done well ever since."  Sure he has done well.  So have Grandma and Grandpa. 

 

Mr. Case (Father) has described "the parties' participation in the Families In Transition Program (FIT) run by The Children's Law Center as a "horrible experience."  Why?  Because the therapist didn't agree with him all the time? Because he was actually asked to consider how his ex might feel? Bummer.  I know that really sucks. 

 

So I know you readers must be really interested in knowing exactly how Ms. Jones (Mother) lost custody to the Father.  You must be imagining that she didn't feed the child, or maybe she left the child at home while she went shopping, or maybe her house was crawling with bugs or something awful. 

 

You would be wrong if that is what you thought. 

 

What happened is that in August 2008, Ms. Jones had attempted for weeks in advance to get Father to care for the child for an extended weekend so she could go on vacation.  Apparently, it was his weekend anyway and all that was necessary was for him to agree to take care of the child for one additional day. 

 

Instead of saying yes or no, that he could either take the child or not during that planned vacation, Mr. Case hemmed and hawed, and then at the last minute said no.  In response, Ms. Jones took the child to day care with extra clothing and a car seat and went off on the planned vacation.  In response, Mr. Case filed one of his lovely ex parte motions for custody.

 

This was sufficient for the Family Court to shift custody from Mother to Father and to give Father residential custody and decision making at that time. 

 

Now my reaction to that is, you are kidding me.  You are kidding me.  But no, it was not a joke. 

 

Then, our pal Dr. James C. Black gets involved and carries out a custody evaluation for an entire year and a half.  Again, I am appalled. We are talking a year and a half of torturing a Mother in regard to whether she is going to get her child back or not. 

 

Readers, do you understand that even in the most high conflict types of cases, some of them considerably more embroiled and complicated than this one, a custody evaluation should take no longer than three to five months, when done by ethical clinicians.

 

Apparently, the wicked Mother was responsible for this state of affairs because she did not "cooperate with the evaluation in a timely fashion."  I wouldn't have cooperated with this evaluation either since it seems as though it was stacked against her. 

 

It doesn't matter if Mother cooperated or not.  The evaluation should have been completed sooner for the sake of the parties and for the sake of the child. 

 

What was Dr. James C. Black thinking of?  Oh, Dr. Black doesn't think.  You're right.  I forgot about that. 

 

The Memorandum of Decision talks about Father removing the Mother's name from school records and telling school officials that he has sole custody.  It talks about Father playing games so the Mother was unable to see their child.  It all rings so true to me, and the Trial Court seemed to agree.  Still, in this case, the custody went to the Father.

 

And in doing so, the Trial Court admonished the parties to work together on getting along for the benefit of the child.  However, the problem with this kind of thinking is that when a person has been cheated and defrauded as this Mother was, when she has been manipulated by the system into losing her child, this is the kind of injustice that such a Mother will never be able to come to terms with. 

 

And that is why there are just as many motions and hearings post judgment as there were prior to judgment. 

 

This was only to be expected.  This is the human response to great wrong.  You would think that Family Court would try to avoid results like this.  But probably not. 

 

I'm sure many of you have heard of the millions and millions of dollars that the Department of Health and Human Services has been giving to attorneys and custody evaluators who assist men in obtaining custody of their children, taking them away from fit mothers.  This case, in particular, gives me the feeling that money changed hands, people profited, and this Mother was denied her rights as a parent. 

CAUGHT IN A TRAP!: BUGGY V. BUGGY, FA054005647S (6)

According to Dr. Kenneth Robson, Sandra MacVicar had a "fixed perception of Mr. Buggy [Defendant] as the devil incarnate." 

 

I know how that goes! 

 

You start off the process telling the custody evaluator simply that your X is a bad guy, and then as the months go by, under the weight of constant skepticism and denial, your descriptions become shorter, clearer, and more graphic as you try to convey to the psychiatrist that your story is true and that this person has truly caused considerable harm, not only to yourself, but also to your children. 

 

Ultimately, the most clear and believable voices in this case come from Sandra MacVicar's daughters, J. and K.  In a meeting with Father and the children, Dr. Kenneth Robson describes the following scene:  [The children] asked Dr. Robson how he could do something so cruel as to conduct the meeting with their father who they said had beat them and abused them." 

 

Wow, that is pretty clear cut testimony. 

 

Dr. Robson continues on to say:  "Dr. Robson responded that these complaints were many months old and no one had called the Department of Children and Families regarding the alleged abuse." 

 

Ok, is this Dr. Robson's idea of a legitimate excuse for not investigating child abuse--that there are time limitations to doing so?  I doubt that is correct.  Men who have been abused by priests as far back as 30 years ago, to my understanding, are fully within their rights to bring their complaints in and have them investigated despite the lapse of decades.  And I'm sure many of their complaints weren't investigated by DCF either. 

 

So? 

 

Was Dr. Robson trying to act smart with the kids and shut them up? 

 

According to Robson's report, J. responded by asking "why he hadn't called DCF."  Dr. Robson responded that "he didn't feel the children were at risk.  Thereupon the younger child wanted to leave his office." 

 

If there is one thing that is clear, it is that these children are strong and courageous enough to speak out to their father, to Dr. Robson, and to other adults.  So how does Dr. Kenneth Robson explain away this phenomenon?  

 

He states that both the mother and the children are psychotic. 

 

Remember, of course, that this conclusion is drawn independent of any kind of objective testing whatsoever.  This is all his opinion.  Not only has mother not taken any kind of standard objective testing, the children haven't taken any testing either.  (In fact, the only person who did take psychological testing, as I reported earlier in this series, was Glenn Buggy.  But, at no time in the Memorandum of Decision in this case do we have any hint as to what the results of that testing was.) 

 

Furthermore, I think were Mother actually psychotic, someone would have noticed before Dr. Robson came up with the idea.  Usually, people with psychotic illnesses ordinarily come to the attention of mental health professionals because they are unable to function and thus end up committed to psychiatric facilities.  So far, to my knowledge, this hasn't happened either to Sandra MacVicar or her children. 

 

It is now two years after this judgment came out with this interesting psychiatric theory and, to my knowledge, Ms. Macvicar still hasn't ended up in a psychiatric facility.  So what is this psychosis that Dr. Robson is talking about? 

 

In essence, Dr. Kenneth Robson diagnosed Sandra MacVicar and her children as having a Folie a Deux, or, in this case, Folie a Trois, since there are three people involved here.  This is a diagnosis known as "Shared Psychotic Disorder" DSM-IV code 297.3.  This is where "A delusion develops in an individual in the context of a close relationship with another person or persons, who have an already established delusion." 

 

The subcategory of this condition, known as Folie a Deux occurs when the people involved "have an unusually close relationship" such as a parent and child relationship and "temporal or contextual evidence exists that indicates the delusion was induced in the passive member by contact with the active partner." 

 

You can have all sorts of folies apparently with this condition--folies between two people.  An example would be Leon and Leopold who conspired together in the 1920s to commit the perfect murder.  More recently, in 1999 the Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would be another.  And you can also have folies with a large group of people, such as the group of people in Jonestown who all committed suicide with koolaid laced with poison. 

 

Of course, this is an extremely rare condition, and Dr. Robson reports it only started with Sandra MacVicar and the children in 2008 when Father filed for modification of custody.  In the decade prior to that there were no signs of it and it was not a consideration when custody was determined in the separation agreement of August 11, 2006. 

 

Right. 

 

It is amazing how in legal proceedings severe psychiatric disorders can drop from the sky right on time. 

 

And, naturally, Dr. Robson is the only one who noticed the disorder.  Of course, a condition of this kind would ordinarily develop when the people involved maintain a restricted relationship, if any, with the outside world so that the primary person with the delusion can maintain his or her control without interference.  For example, Jim Jones took all of his followers to the wilds of Guyana and rounded them all up with armed followers. 

 

To my knowledge, both J. and K. at the time of Robson's investigation were interacting within the community on a normal basis, going to school as usual, visiting their medical doctors for their regular appointments, etc.  I mean, if Sandra MacVicar was delusional and manipulating her children to believe in her delusion, how did she do it?  If this was truly folie a deux (or trois), there should have been some form of intimidation going on for which the trial court found some evidence.  You know, like guns, physical violence, threats of imminent death, being locked in closets, poison koolaid--that sort of thing. 

 

Instead, the Memorandum of Decision describes the girls as outspoken, thoughtful and articulate--anything but delusional or programmed or in any way threatened by their mother!  And, I am assuming, the "impressive" group of witnesses pretty much said the same thing. 

 

But granting the possibility that this diagnosis might be correct, since this condition is so rare and extraordinary, wouldn't it make sense to bring in an expert in this condition to investigate whether it was being applied properly?  

 

Be that as it may, in the end, Glenn Buggy received sole custody of the children.  So what did he do with it?  After six months of taking care of the children, Mr. Buggy dropped the kids off with Mother and stated that he couldn't handle them, and, to my knowledge has had very little interaction with them since.  This is under circumstances where Father was told that his children had a condition that "promises to damage their relationships, their self-perceptions, and their abilities to live productively."  He actually attempted to work with his children to correct those problems for all of one day, or was it two, and then he gives up. 

 

I don't know.  I am aware of parents with children who have severe disorders such as autism or schizophrenia, or who have drug addictions or who have committed crimes. What about children with cancer?  How long do parents of children with cancer have to remain committed to treatment?  These parents often have to work for years, if not decades, in order to correct the problems with their children, often following through on considerable time and money commitments in order to do so.  Yet in this situation, Mr. Buggy is incapable of lasting longer than one or two days, and he was given "sole custody"?  How much sense do you think that makes?  

 

Currently, Sandra MacVicar has the children in her care seven days a week, 24 hours a day, but Glenn Buggy still has sole custody.  The only change that has taken place here is that subsequent to the decision regarding Modification dated October 25, 2010, Mr. Buggy no longer sees his children, but has total control over them, no longer has to pay child support (since he got custody) and his other financial obligations to his children and ex-wife are considerably reduced, particularly in regard to college tuition. 

 

Meanwhile, Sandra MacVicar was forced to spend approximately $200,000 in legal fees on this custody battle, meaning less financial resources for herself and the children, plus there are additional and ongoing legal fees for which attorneys are suing her. 

 

So Sandra MacVicar is this powerful, domineering, raging, female who stomps all over Glenn Buggy.  Really?  So how come Glenn Buggy has sole custody of children he doesn't care for, an intact reputation in contrast to Sandra's, and considerably more financial resources at the time of dissolution than Sandra has.  Who really has folie a deux?  Could it be Dr. Kenneth Robson himself?  As Elvis sang with such feeling, "We're caught in a trap.  I can't walk out!"

Just as an FYI, for those who are interested, the judge in this case was Judge Richard E. Burke.

 

HONEY, I NEVER LIED!: BUGGY V. BUGGY, FA054005647S (5)

Under Item # 6E in the Defendant's June 9, 2010 amendment to his Motion For Modification he states, "As a result of the judgment (paragraph 2.5 which limits the childrens' access to some members of the Buggy family and some members of the MacVicar family) and the Wife's interference, the husband has lost basically all contact with his family of origin." 

 

Now, I am sorry, but I simply don't believe that.  Father sees the children every other weekend, and one evening a week.  He has had plenty, and I mean plenty of time to see his family of origin since the judgment.  I'd say he has eleven days to do so out of every two week period.  Seriously.  If that isn't sufficient opportunity to maintain his ties with his family, he'll never have enough time!

 

There are other reports that I find questionable in the Memorandum of Decision for this case.  For example, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff Mother had attacked him on two occasions in 2004 and 2005.  What bothers me, and what bothers me about most of the statements attributed to the Defendant, is that there appears to be no corroborating evidence provided. 

 

If the Plaintiff attacked the Defendant, where is the proof?  Are there photographs of the supposed injuries?  Are there any doctor's reports or emergency room reports?  Well, apparently, there is report in an Emergency Room of the second attack, but in that report he gives a different story of what happened, which doesn't include anything about a spousal attack.  Plus, apparently, on the stand Defendant provided a few more different stories of the incident. 

 

This is my problem with much of the discussion in this Memorandum of Decision--the Defendant said this, the Plaintiff said that--so where is the proof?  Where is the documentary evidence?  Where is the testimony by witnesses?  And if there are multiple, inconsistent accounts of an incident, why randomly take one and publish that one as THE truth.

 

I mean, apparently, there were eleven days of hearings in this case, and yet the vast majority of information provided in the Memorandum of Decision is unsubstantiated he said, she said type testimony primarily reported by one man--Dr. Kenneth Robson. 

 

For example, Dr. Robson stated that he "was impressed that many people with whom he spoke appeared to feel frightened of Ms. MacVicar." 

 

Really?  "Many People?"  Who exactly? 

 

And did they provide testimony on the stand under oath to that effect?  I assume it wasn't J.'s therapist Pamela Tinoco about whom the Defendant made the complaint that she would not communicate with him.  Maybe the Defendant was too scary to Ms. Tinoco.  Who knows! 

 

One thing we do know is that the GAL, Jocelyn Hurwitz reported that Ms. MacVicar "had some witnesses vouching for her as a parent and as an individual."  In fact, the Court acknowledged that "All of these witnesses were impressive."  Oh, impressive.  I guess Ms. MacVicar wasn't scaring them. 

 

I mean, just between you and me and the bedpost, I can frighten people also.  Usually, the people I frighten are the liars who are afraid of being caught.  Everyone else thinks I'm a fuzzy, wuzzy teddy bear.  My question is, what's the matter with frightening liars.  They should be frightened because they are lying and ruining peoples' lives.  Duh!

 

There are some other points that just don't add up as well.  For instance, Dr. Robson stated his view that Father had not abused the two children J. and K.  However, such a conclusion is entirely contradicted by Father's own admission that "he had 'blown up' and had sworn at the girls.  I'm sorry--he swore at them?  I've been a parent for a considerable period of time and I have never yet had to swear at my children.  In what world is using bad language towards your children acceptable?  Certainly not in mine!

 

The girls complained that their father pulled their hair.  In response, Father said that the older child J. had once pulled her younger sister, K.'s, hair.  That is NOT the same as saying, "No, I did not pull your hair."  In essence, he sidestepped the question.  Why? 

 

Dr. Kenneth Robson is also not very credible when he stated that Sandra MacVicar sent a threat to him and Attorney Hurwitz, the GAL in a letter.  Of course, I thought the threat would be that Ms. MacVicar said she was going to burn Dr. Robson's house down, or that she was going to get a gun and shoot the GAL.  Instead, the so-called threat was that Ms. MacVicar said "when the girls got hurt by Mr. Buggy, it would be on their heads." 

 

Seriously, that's a threat? 

 

Didn't Dr. Robson just say that Mr. Buggy wasn't any kind of danger to the children and that he was the children's only hope for living a healthy life style.  If this is Dr. Robson's idea of a threat, maybe he should listen to his own subconscious mind telling him what a liar he is. 

 

The bottom line is that the entire Memorandum of Decision in this case is riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and blanket statements with no basis in any documentary or testimonial evidence.  

 

"Oh, babe, why can't you see, what you are doing to me" croons Elvis in his song, "Suspicious Minds."  I'll tell you why in this case, because all the attorneys (plus the judge, Dr. Kenneth Robson) involved are so gosh darned dumb.

 

To be continued...

HERE WE GO AGAIN!: BUGGY V. BUGGY, FA054005647S (4)

Recently, I had my yearly mammogram.  Ok, sorry, that makes it sound like I religiously follow my proper health regimen and go every year like I should.  The fact is, this was my first one. 

 

I have these lovely boobs that have simply had a lot of wear and tear over the years, so they have various irregularities, fibrous cysts, goodness knows what.  So of course, after my first mammogram I was called in for a second followup mammogram with a more sensitive kind of diagnostic equipment, and that mammogram was accompanied by an ultrasound. 

 

In the end, the clinician in my case had three sets of objective measures in regard to my lovely, lovely boobs!

 

I am sure that given my age and medical history the technicians involved in the case, as well as the doctor, pretty much had a good idea of what they had in terms of my boobs well before the doctor reported it to me directly at the end of the final test.  However, they waited until they had all the information available before reporting it to me. 

 

This is why I am still somewhat perturbed by the fact that Dr. Kenneth Robson would speculate in regard to Sandra MacVicar's mental health without having done the requisite tests necessary to ensure the best and most accurate diagnosis.  To me, this is simply irresponsible and unprofessional behavior. 

 

Plus, I want to add, the doctor who worked with my boobs cautioned me to keep in mind that his results were limited because there were no prior mammograms to compare my recent mammogram to. 

 

I would expect, also, that Dr. Robson would report the extent to which his diagnosis of Sandra MacVicar was limited in its accuracy as the result of the fact that there were multiple tests that he was simply unable to run. 

 

Now, I understand that Dr. Kenneth Robson is of the older generation when mental health diagnosis was pretty much an off the cuff type of operation.  In fact, I think that when he was being trained they didn't even have a Diagnostic Manual with which to categorize mental health illnesses.  This meant that in his day, psychiatric patients were often labeled with multiple, often conflicting, diagnoses.

 

However, the field of psychiatry has made significant strides since that time in terms of accuracy of diagnosis and treatment, so there is no longer any kind of excuse for the kind of carelessness and misinformation that was characteristic of an older generation. 

 

Clients in treatment, who are being evaluated for a diagnosis, seriously can and should expect the very best, most accurate results, particularly if they are involved in a legal proceedings where solid and reliable results are of the utmost importance.  Thus, it is troubling to see diagnoses bandied about here in connection to the Plaintiff, Sandra MacVicar, diagnoses that could have very serious consequences in her life let alone the lives of her children, which ultimately have very little, if any scientific basis.  Personally, I would expect a whole lot more, particularly of a trained medical doctor with considerable experience.

 

Putting that aside for now, we have the theory that Sandra MacVicar is paranoid.  And, indeed, Ms. MacVicar refused to participate in the psychological testing which, I presume, was an order of the court.  She also initially gave Dr. Robson releases so that he could speak to individuals associated with the case and then rescinded those releases in connection to three people. 

 

And, according to Dr. Robson, Sandra MacVicar wrote a letter to him stating that she felt "he had made his mind up before he had actually made up his mind." 

 

So what is that?  Is it proof that Sandra MacVicar is paranoid?

 

Well, maybe not because you have another statement to the effect that "Attorney Stevens who had previously represented Ms. MacVicar chastised Dr. Robson for canceling appointments with the children and for being devious with Ms. MacVicar and with the children."  Since Attorney Stevens statement does not seem to have influenced the judges' decision in this case, I have to presume that it was not taken seriously.  But why?  Why wasn't it taken seriously? 

 

Perhaps it was not Dr. Robson's intention to act deviously, but clearly a person independent of Sandra MacVicar did believe he was acting deviously.  Attorney Stevens was sufficiently convinced of Dr. Robson's improper behavior that he or she made it very public to the extent that the court considered it an important matter of discussion.  This makes Ms. MacVicar's accusations considerably more credible.  I would also like to add that any credible custody evaluator should convey the impression as well as the reality of neutrality and professionalism in a case of this kind.  Clearly, that was not done.

 

Thus, we have a custody evaluator, Dr. Kenneth Robson, submitting a very questionable and unreliable diagnosis of Sandra MacVicar to the trial court and acting in a deliberately deceptive manner towards Ms. MacVicar and her children.  When you consider the fact that the happiness of these young children and their entire future is in the hands of a psychiatrist who is lying and deceitful, it makes me cringe. 

 

As in all my descriptions of these custody decisions gone wrong, what strikes me the most is how these children are harmed and damaged as a result.  Then we have the decision in Buggy v. Buggy, and all I can say is:  Here we go again...

 

To be continued.

SUSPICIOUS MINDS: BUGGY V. BUGGY, FA054005647S (3)

As you may recall, I had originally discussed this case in the light of the issue of converting separation agreements into dissolution agreements. 

 

At this point, I am going to address the custody matters in this case. 

 

Just to let you know right up front, the outcome of this case was that the Plaintiff, Sandra McVicar, lost custody of her children, and her ex was given not just primary custody, but sole custody.  "Why?", you ask?  Well, I'll tell you.  

 

For a quick overview, when this decision came out in October 25, 2010, the parties consisted of Glenn M. Buggy, the Defendant who, at the time, was 46 years old.  Although he received a law degree, he currently works as an Executive Recruiter.  The Plaintiff, Sandra McVicar, was also 46 years old, has a graduate degree in special education and has worked as a teacher for most of her life.  They both have an older daughter, J. who is around 15 and a younger daughter, K. who is around 12. 

 

The parties had a separation agreement dated August 11, 2006 which placed the primary residence of the children with the Plaintiff Mother.  Then on April 16, 2016, the Defendant filed a Motion for Modification of Visitation and Financial Orders Postjudgment.  On March 26, 2009 the Defendant filed a revised motion with the same title and then an amendment to that motion dated June 9, 2010.

 

The bottom line of both these motions in regard to custody was that the Defendant Father requested that he be given primary custody of the children based upon the accusation that "the Defendant's relationship with his children has been adversely affected by the actions of the Plaintiff such that a transfer of custody from the Plaintiff to the Defendant is in the best interests of the minor children."

 

Ok, surprise surprise, another case of "Parental Alienation" used to justify a custody change from the Mother to the Father.  What do you bet that the vast majority of cases like this where the court has been asked to make such a transfer have been based upon an accusation of PAS? 

 

Furthermore, another common thread I am finding is that many of these situations consist of an accused mother such as Sandra McVicar who is also a teacher.  So the trial court often finds that while these women are perfectly qualified to care for classrooms full of students, often 125 or more per year, they are not qualified to care for their own children.  You have to love that logic! 

 

Anyway, I am sure most of you reading this blog are aware that ordinarily, custody agreements are final.  So what would be the basis of changing one?  Apparently, if you look at the findings of the trial court in this particular case you will see the standard basis for changing custody.  The trial court describes it as follows: 

 

"After the final decree this court has limited the broad discretion given the trial court to modify custody orders under General Statutes Sec. 46b-56 by requiring that modification of a custody award be based upon either a material change of circumstances which alters the court's finding of the best interests of the child or a finding that the custody order sought to be modified was not based upon the best interests of the child." 

 

Apparently, parental alienation fits the definition of a change of circumstances or a situation which is not in the best interests of the child. 

 

But that is not the only reason, I am sure.  I am so easily seduced into making light of these matters--my apologies.  In addition to the dreadful PAS, in this case there is also the significant matter of Mother's psychiatric condition.  According to Dr. Kenneth Robson, Sandra McVicar had considerable mental health deficits such as "paranoid perceptions.", a "Borderline Personality Disorder", and a "paranoid personality disorder." 

 

Oh, but wait a minute--it looks as though Ms. McVicar didn't undergo any of the formal psychological testing which ordinarily takes several hours to complete and which would be required in order to obtain any kind of trustworthy results. 

 

So, how could Dr. Robson validate his conclusions without actually obtaining any data from the kinds of objective tests which would verify his results and safeguard him from proposing diagnoses based upon his own personal prejudice? 

 

Not very well, I guess, but I suppose that didn't bother him!

 

So, what about Glenn Buggy?  Did Dr. Robson have anything to say about Mr. Buggy's test results?  Well, no, actually, he had nothing to say even though Mr. Buggy apparently did take those tests. 

 

What a very puzzling omission! 

 

Doesn't it seem a little one sided to provide every damning detail of Sandra's diagnosis even though it isn't based upon any scientific evidence, yet remain silent about Glenn's mental health status when there actually is scientific evidence of it? 

 

What can I say?  In the words of Elvis, Oh, Dr. Robson,  "Why can't you see, what you're doing to me, when I don't believe a word you say.  We can't get on together, with suspicious minds.  And we can't build our dreams on suspicious minds." la, la, la...

 

To be continued.