By now we are all familiar with the story. Last July 2015, Tony Moreno tossed his 7 month old little boy, Aaden Moreno off the Arrigoni Bridge, and then jumped himself. Although Moreno survived the jump, his little boy, Aaden did not.
Later, we learned that the baby's mother, Adrianne Oyola, had applied for a restraining order against Tony Moreno on June 17, 2015 because she feared for her life and that of her baby. However, despite her pleas and her powerful descriptions of the ways in which Tony Moreno had held her hostage with violence and threats of violence, Judge Barry Pinkus refused to grant the restraining order.
We also learned that this was not Judge Barry Pinkus' first example of using poor judgment. It turns out that Judge Pinkus was the very same judge who ordered that killer Joshua Komisarjevsky, the man who raped and murdered the Petit family women, be granted full custody of his then five year old daughter.
After Baby Aaden's tragic death, "The Hartford Courant" reported State Sen. Dante Bartolomeo of Meriden as stating, "It looks to me as though we need to better understand what the judicial system knew and why there wasn't a permanent restraining ordered issued," And further, "(Oyola) appears to have provided enough information for the judge to grant a permanent protective order. The fact that didn't happen appears to me to be a horrendous failure of the system."
In a letter to the editor published at the time on the website "My Record Journal.Com", Kathy Castello of Meriden wrote of Judge Barry Pinkus, "The father has mental issues and the judge knew this, yet he denied the right to the mother to be free from his threats and as a result the judge caused this baby's death. Even though he wasn't on that bridge, he is still responsible because he could have prevented this horrible tragedy from happening. He needs to resign his position as judge."
Three months have gone by since then and we have heard very little news regarding this case since the tragedy occurred. However, "Divorce in Connecticut" would now like to report that, far from resigning from his position, it looks as though Judge Barry Pinkus is right back on the bench happily adjudicating high conflict and complex domestic violence cases as usual. In fact, it looks as though he has hardly missed a beat!
I heard this through a friend who contacted me to ask whether a Judge Barry Pinkus would be a good judge to handle her complex domestic violence case in Middletown. Apparently, family relations officers in the region she was located had recommended to her that she agree to have her case transferred to Middletown with Judge Barry Pinkus appointed to the case as judge. They said Judge Pinkus is really good at handling domestic violence cases.
I responded with incredulity--what in the world is Judge Pinkus doing, let alone our court system. Here is a man whose insensitivity to the needs of at risk women and children is now more notorious throughout the state than any other judge. Now he is apparently back on the bench with a chorus line of family court personnel recommending him to unknowing litigants as an expert on domestic violence?
Since I am a thorough individual, I had one of my assistants contact the Connecticut Judicial Branch for verification of Judge Pinkus' return. Thus, this blog sent out an email to Ms. Melissa Farley of External Affairs for the CT Judicial Branch, Attorney Martin Libbin, the attorney representing the interests of the CT Judicial Branch, and Judge Chase T. Rogers, the Chief Justice of the CT Judicial Branch asking them to clarify Judge Pinkus' status. None of these individuals chose to respond to this email, which leads me to conclude that the information regarding the fact that Judge Barry Pinkus has resumed his duties is indeed correct.
But imagine that the CT Judicial Branch feels that it is impervious to the requests for information that citizens extend to them. They believe they are simply above such mundane matters as being required to be responsive to any inquiries. This is not the first time that citizens have asked questions of the CT Judicial Branch and the Branch simply ignores them. As you can see, this is a group of court personnel whose arrogance rises to extraordinary levels.
I would also like to add that while I was formulating this particular blog, a woman contacted me with a copy of a Memorandum of Decision that Judge Pinkus wrote this year structured closely around false accusations of Parental Alienation Syndrome and setting this particular woman up for the loss of custody of her children within the near future. Clearly, Judge Barry Pinkus is incalcitrant--he is a misogynist who has clearly demonstrated his dislike of women for a lengthy period of time and continues to do so in one Memorandum of Decision after another.
Nonetheless, the CT Judicial Branch has seen fit to return him to the bench really quietly so that there wouldn't be any outcry.
The news is: we've noticed!
I also think it is worth noting the Media silence on this topic.
I am sure readers would like to know if Judge Barry Pinkus received any supplemental training in domestic violence with an emphasis on the coercive and controlling behaviors perpetrators demonstrate in these abusive relationships.
I am sure readers would like to know what progress the Task Force is making that was recently established to address the impact of domestic violence on children.
I am sure readers would like to know how Adrianne Oyola is managing after this terrible tragedy darkened her life.
I am sure readers would like to know what steps are being taken to hold Mr. Tony Moreno accountable for his crimes.
I am sure readers would like to know what steps the CT Judicial Branch is taking to eliminate bad judges whose ignorance regarding domestic violence, and whose fatherhood rights stance is wreaking havoc on protective mothers and their children throughout the State.
If we don't have this information, and there is a news blackout on this information, what more can we say other than "Judicial - Media Committee" to reflect the complete lack of ethics the CT Media have demonstrated in their dealings with the corruption of the CT Judicial Branch whose interests they cannot seem to separate from their own.
