A MOTHER'S TEARS MATTER: HOW FAMILY COURT BULLIED PROTECTIVE MOTHER, PAIGE STVAN, AND CUT HER OFF FROM THE DAUGHTER SHE LOVES, PART II!

What we have here is a tragic situation where a mother has been separated from the child she raised for 12 years based upon unsubstantiated and untrue representations of mental illness.  Meanwhile, questions regarding her ex-husband's bipolar disorder remain unaddressed.  

Subsequently, Judge Adelman acknowledged that the representations regarding Ms. Paige Stvan's mental health weren't sufficient to justify keeping Paige away from her daughter.  At that juncture, he then claimed that there were other serious allegations that her child had raised which now justified separating Paige Stvan from her daughter. What were those serious allegations?  To be honest, I couldn't see anything in the many documents I reviewed that would explain it.

The allegation the child made that the judge cited in his memorandum as a basis to stop all visits was that Mom was making visits with her uncomfortable.  As Ms. Paige Stvan explained it, she was allowed visits with her daughter once a week for an hour standing in the corridor of a local mall.  To start with, that's a pretty difficult way to conduct a visit.  Next, Ms. Stvan stated that during these visits the father would remain in the sidelines monitoring the entire visit and at the least sign of trouble advise his daughter to simply leave.  As a result, under the pressure of essentially being put between two parents, the child would terminate the visit within ten minutes.  To Paige Stvan, this was simply a situation where the father was using the visits to drive a wedge between herself and her daughter.

Attorney Rosa Rebimbas, the GAL in the case, reported the situation somewhat differently.  She alleged that Paige Stvan insisted upon talking to her daughter about the case during the visit.  But what does that mean "talking about the case?"  Does that mean Paige tried to explain to her daughter what was going on and why she couldn't come home to her Mom?  Was it something else? Attorney Rebimbas didn't specify; she just used trigger words with the judge which she knew would elicit a negative reaction.  Keep in mind, we are getting this testimony from the ex-husband and a biased GAL who appear to be willing to do anything they can to justify a complete no contact order. I also think it makes no sense to have visitation with a child standing up in a crowded corridor in a mall.  What's that all about?

Repeatedly, the opposing attorney in this case, Attorney Nancy Aldrich insisted that Paige Stvan's daughter didn't want to see her Mom, so therefore she shouldn't have to. Attorney Rosa Rebimbas emphasized that the daughter didn't want to see her mother and indicated her belief that the daughter had the right to refuse to see her mother.  Judge Gerald Adelman reported in his Memorandum of January 8, 2016 that "the child was extremely resistant to any contact with her mother" and implied that this justified denying Ms.  Stvan access to her daughter.  However, this is not how state law works. According to Connecticut law, at any age, a child's preference is never the only criterion for making a custody decision in a custody proceeding.  What counts is what is in the best interests of the child.

Further, I am wondering how a 12 year old child who had never before reported being unhappy with her mother, all of a sudden, within two months of being totally cut off from all access to her mother, becomes extremely resistant to seeing her mother.  Keep in mind, these words never came out of the child's mouth directly, and were simply what biased individuals with ulterior motives chose to report. I am also wondering why a 12 year old child has the authority, not only to choose the time and place of the visits, but whether they take place at all.  I don't know of any other case where a pre-teen was given such extraordinary power.  

Perhaps the answer to this lies in observations that Dr. Linda Gunsberg reported on at the time these events were taking place.  In a letter to the court dated January 26, 2016,  Dr. Linda Gunsberg described hearing a conversation that Page Stvan had with her daughter over the phone.  She described this conversation, which took place on November 2, 2015, in the following terms: 

"The most incredible phone conversation occurred when Ms. [Stvan] called [her child] during the court ordered parent telephone access to speak with her.  I asked Ms. [Stvan] to put [the child] on speaker phone so that I could listen.  [The child] was very warm towards her mother, was eager to share with her mother information about projects she was working on for school, and actually wanted to remain on the telephone longer than Ms. [Stvan] could...It was a normal parent-child conversation."

However, Dr. Gunsberg reported that "By December 31, 2015, [the child] was telling her mother either in a telephone message or text that she never wanted to speak to her mother again."  Dr. Gunsberg attributed this dramatic change in the child's attitude towards her mother to father's campaign of parental alienation.  Keep in mind that by December 31, 2015, the child had been separated from her mother and her hometown and friends for three months.  

Again, it is remarkable that Judge Gerald Adelman supported this 12 year old child in making the decision not to see her mother again. A 12 year old child doesn't have sufficient cognitive ability to make such important life decisions.  In fact, you would hardly believe that this Judge Adelman is the very same Judge who, in the Sorentino case, put a mother in jail to force a 15 year old boy to live with the father he adamantly didn't want to live with.  Yet, in the Stvan case, when a 12 year old girl refused to see her mother, that very same Judge Adelman appointed two attorneys to defend her right to exclude her mother from her life?  

How is that OK?  

How come  Judge Gerald Adelman found a 12 year old's decision more credible than that of a 15 year old? 

Do any of you recall how, when Kathi Sorrentino cried at the thought of having to go to jail, Judge Gerald Adelman derided her and made fun of her, calling her tears "crocodile tears"? Why do judges in the State of Connecticut, such as Judge Adelman, only use PAS to deny mothers their parenting rights while excusing fathers who are equally culpable?  Protective mothers in the State of Connecticut would really like to know!  We need a new campaign in this State with the slogan:  A mother's tears matter!

WITH A NOD AND A WINK: HOW CT FAMILY COURT BULLIED PROTECTIVE MOTHER, PAIGE STVAN, AND CUT HER OFF FROM THE DAUGHTER SHE LOVES, PART I!

On September 25, 2015, Paige Stvan was hospitalized for a few days to address negative side effects she had to a new medication she had been taking. Meanwhile, since she was dealing with these medical problems, in a very responsible way, Ms. Stvan asked her ex husband, Thomas Stvan, to care for their 12 year old daughter temporarily. He agreed to do so. However, instead of just taking care of the child as agreed, Thomas Stvan used the incident as a excuse to file an emergency ex parte motion in court granting him full custody.  That motion was granted.  As a result, since that time, except for a few brief encounters at a local mall, Paige Stvan has not been allowed to see her daughter.  

Why?  

Paige Stvan had been taking care of her child for 12 years, and the child was happy and healthy, well fed and with a roof over her head, as well as successful in school. Nonetheless, family court, in a series of dirty tricks and maneuvers, effectively assisted her ex husband in excising the child from her mother's life with the collusion of a CT State representative, Rep. Rosa Rebimbas.  

Now remember, this is the same judicial system which gave career criminal Joshua Komisarjevsky full custody of his 5 year old daughter just weeks before Mr. Komisarjevky participated in the triple slaying of the Petit family.  In Paige Stvan's case, this was a woman who had done nothing other than be an excellent mother to her daughter for twelve years. Still, the Court saw fit to cut her off entirely from the child she had been bringing up so successfully.  

We all want the reason for that, don't we?  Just so you know, you would have no basis for knowing the reason had Ms. Paige Stvan not requested one because, unlike in every other custody case I've ever seen, originally the Court didn't bother to provide a memorandum of decision stating the legal basis for its decision.  

But here we go, I have before me a January 8, 2016 Memorandum provided by Judge Gerald Adelman explaining his decision.  This is what he says.  

The ex parte was granted (see p. 3 of the memorandum) because "it was represented to the court that the defendant had a history of mental health issues which had previously required the plaintiff to temporarily assume primary or sole custody of the minor child, due to the  defendant's inability to care for said child."  Yes, but these, to my knowledge are and were simply representations without evidence.  To this day, I not seen any documents that can back up these claims.  

Not only that, in these documents there was no mention of the fact that the Plaintiff, Tom Stvan, was represented to have a bipolar disorder.  Why?  Because the ex parte hearing only heard one side of the story at that time. That is why the law requires another hearing 14 days later--so that before anything is finalized, you have a fair hearing where both sides have the opportunity to present their arguments.  Mysteriously, in Paige Stvan's case, although such a hearing is required by law, it never occurred.  This is just the first of the kinds of procedural flaws that have plagued this case from the beginning.  

It is also important to note regarding the term "it was represented" that anyone can "represent" anything to anyone in this world. Eventually, in a court of law, you have to come up with proof.  At no time that I have observed during the many hearings that were held in this case was there any kind of legitimate evidentiary hearing in which allegations of this nature regarding Paige Stvan could be either confirmed or denied.  Futhermore, from all the information I have in front of me, there is no evidence at all that Ms. Stvan had any such history.

How can any judge possibly justify removing a child completely from a mother's life based upon "representations."?  

Meanwhile, I have in front of me a letter that Dr. Linda Gunsberg, Paige Stvan's psychotherapist, wrote to the court.  In this letter, Dr. Gunsberg stated that Ms. Stvan has "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of domestic violence within the marriage, after the marriage, and as a result of constant, continuous litigation brought against her by Mr. Thomas Stvan, her ex-husband."  

Dr. Gunsberg also stressed that Paige Stvan is a competent primary caretaker and mother to her child and that the child flourished under her care.  She also stated that the father's behavior of cutting Ms. Stvan off from all access to her daughter constituted parental alienation.  Of course, everyone knows I'm not a fan of PAS theory, but I just point it out for what it's worth. Again, as I've said before, when a mother points out PAS or PA whatever you want it call it, judges couldn't care less.  PAS only matters if a man complains about it.

I also have a letter from a social worker who also provided treatment for Paige Stvan in which she stated, "I can confidently state that...it is apparent that Ms. [Stvan] does not present with psychological deficits that would compromise her ability to care for her child. Furthermore, Ms. [Stvan] has been highly motivated to take advantage of the services that have helped her to gain an understanding of her current circumstances, while seeking a path towards betterment as an individual, as well as a mother."  In addition, on Paige Stvan's behalf, LMFT Linda J. Gottlieb took the time to provide an extensive explanation to the Court regarding the phenomenon of parental alienation and how to identify it.  I think it says a lot for Paige Stvan that three well qualified mental health professionals took the time to speak up on her behalf.

I would also like to point out that Paige Stvan has always been honest and straightforward to her ex husband about any medical issues she has and has always taken responsible steps to address them.  The result has been successful, and it appears as though she is being punished for that very success.

I understand that two sides in a legal case can end up interpreting data differently which is why you end up in Court anyway.  That is the reason why a case like this would end up in family relations for a custody evaluation to determine whether testimony one way or another is credible.  What is striking about this case is that despite the dire consequence where a Mother has been entirely cut off from any communication with the daughter she raised for 12 years, there was no family relations report, no custody evaluation whatsoever, indeed, no investigation whatsoever.

How is that possible?  I have no idea.  

Next, if you have serious allegations regarding a parent's mental health status--i.e. as in this case, that father has bipolar and mother has depression--the most logical and just outcome would be a psychological evaluation conducted by a court approved psychologist qualified to do the job.  Remarkably, there was absolutely no psychological evaluation, no psychological assessment by a legitimate professional in any way whatsoever.  

I just do not understand that.  

When issues were raised in my case regarding my mental health, I ended up having two psychiatric evaluations and one psychological evaluation.  What happened to me was pretty excessive and is testimony to the extremely damaging impact accusations regarding mental health status can have.  Still, the idea that you could cut a mother off from her child based upon allegations regarding her mental health status that have yet to be proved, and, as you have seen from the testimony I provided, have actually been soundly refuted, appears absolutely outrageous and represents a tragic miscarriage of justice for this mother and her child.  

You cannot simply point at people, call them crazy, and use such unfounded and unproven claims as the basis for denying them their parental rights.  

As the General Statutes Section 46b-46(c), which is the basis for all custody decisions, state, the mental and physical health of the parents involved is a factor in custody decisions, however, the "disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custody."  Furthermore, under Title II of federal ADA law, disability based discrimination is against the law in this country.  Certainly, the issue of disability should not be determinative without a fair and just evidentiary hearing where there is an equal playing field.  

However, what it looks like is that the judge and the attorneys in this case think that they can deny Paige Stvan her legal rights by nodding and winking and sweeping everything under the rug, simply by virtue of the fact that they think she has a mental health disability.  Likewise, they think they can smooth over and ignore father's possible bipolar disorder.  Trust me--that's not happening.

More on this case in Part II.

PLEASE BE ALERT TO THIS KIND OF CHILD SUPPORT SCAM!

Posted by a member of the public:  "Attorney X* manipulates the court to protect his clients wealth. My ex-wife of 12 years was able to collect past child support that I did not pay over 10 years ago. This is how the scam works. My ex makes 4x my annual salary we have equal shared custody and all is split 50/50. Attorney X was able to convince the first judge that I should pay her a large weekly amount. Here comes the scam, the ex-wife says to me 10 years ago “don’t worry just spend that money on our son” and I also have it in an email. So fast forward 10 years of baseball soccer and other child hood events never an issue. As soon as my son was out of the house and in school out of the blue she sues me for past child support. I was advised to work with her attorney Mr. X to arrange a payment plan. In speaking with Mr. X I asked the simple question why this is an issue now. Why was this not an issue 2,3,7,or eight years ago. Mr. X's response was that he was protecting his client’s wealth he had advised her to wait the 10 years. The reason for waiting 10 years was 1. “Had we gone back to court his client would have likely had no child support awarded”, 2. Child support is case law that can never be backdated, and she can charge me interest in addition. So effectively Mr. X got me to pay twice for my sons child support. And oh by the way he charged her over 10,000 in fees for a hearing that he requested 8 hours for when in fact the judge finished in 12 min."

*I have changed the name of the attorney here to ensure anonymity.  But I'm sure this scam is widespread and people should be alert to it!

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS ON NEW VIRTUAL LAW ADVICE CLINIC!

Amaris Elliott-Engel of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

"The power of the internet is being harnessed to make it easier for low-income Connecticut residents to access legal advice, and to make it easier for pro bono attorneys to volunteer to help people who can't afford to pay for attorneys.

Statewide Legal Services of Connecticut is one of the legal aid law firms in eight states which are partnering with the American Bar Association on a virtual law advice clinic that allows low-income clients to ask questions about civil law and for attorneys to answer their questions online whenever convenient for them.

Instead of dropping into a legal aid clinic to talk to a lawyer in person, clients can type their questions and submit them on a computer..."

Read More:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202770388565/New-Virtual-Law-Advice-Clinic-Aims-to-Help-LowIncome-Residents?mcode=0&curindex=0

The Angry Dad: CPS gets too much money

The Angry Dad: CPS gets too much money: Robert Franklin of the National Parents Organization does a lot of good work, but I cannot agree with this : The latest scandal out of the ...

Jim Gottstein On Schizophrenia Drugs Reducing Recovery Rates from 80% to 5%

ACCLAIMED BOOK "THE VERY BEST OF DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT" BY CATHARINE SLOPER: NOW AVAILABLE WITH A BRAND NEW INDEX!

For information, please click on the link below:

https://www.amazon.com/Very-Best-Divorce-Connecticut-www-divorceinconnecticut-blogspot-com/dp/149958931X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1476728726&sr=8-3&keywords=elizabeth+a+richter

EVAN STARK EXPLAINS HOW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GOES WELL BEYOND THE PHYSICAL!

CT DCF FINDS 1 YEAR OLD BABY ABUSED AND STARVING, DOES NOTHING!

Josh Kovner of "The Hartford Courant" reports as follows:

"A scathing review by the child advocate of the near-starvation of a baby placed with relatives in Groton reveals "staggering failures and omissions" on the part of the Department of Children and Families, and raises doubts about DCF's decisions on child placements beyond this case.

A DCF social worker visited the boy, identified as Dallas C., on at least five occasions over 102 days between late July and late October 2015, but managed never to see Dallas awake, never roused him and never assessed what others who had contact with the family were calling the child's rapidly deteriorating health, according to the advocate's report, released Tuesday morning.

At one point, the social worker reported that he was "able to confirm that [the child] was indeed breathing," according to state Child Advocate Sarah Eagan's report..."

READ MORE:

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-foster-care-dcf-child-abuse-1005-20161004-story.html

BEST ADVICE FOR VICTIMS OF DV AND PROTECTIVE MOTHERS!

"If anyone suspects a child being molested in family court... the courts usually & often assume it is a lie and give abusers full custody. 

If you suspect your husband or wife is molesting your kids the best thing you can do is stay married and never ever let him or her alone with the kids. If you don't tell anyone you can protect your children in the home. 

If you tell authority's then the person reporting abuse will be removed from the children and the abuser will get full custody. Or if they find that the abuse is real your children can go into foster care and get molested and abused more and possibly killed in foster care as often children in foster care get abused and killed because they are only a paycheck. 

The reason the safe parent has child removed if it turned out true is failure to protect your children. 

If they think the abuser is not abusive you can be accused of coaching your children and the children get full time with abuser. 

You can be removed for reporting abuse. 

Reporting abuse will only make abuse worse in every scenerio. This goes for men or woman. 

This can happen with any type of child abuse that is reported. Not just sexual abuse."

By an Anonymous Contributor, A victim of family court abuse

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS STATE SUPREME COURT THREW OUT $12 MILLION AWARD AGAINST BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA IN SEXUAL ABUSE CASE!

Greg Land of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

"A splintered Connecticut Supreme Court has thrown out a $12 million award against the Boy Scouts of America following a 2014 trial in which a former scout claimed he was sexually abused by his troop leader in the 1970s.

Four of the court's justices agreed with Chief Justice Chase Rogers that the trial judge had improperly rejected the defense's requested jury charge that, in order to be found liable for the John Doe plaintiff's abuse, the BSA would have had to know or have reason to know that scout leader Siegfried Hepp posed a threat to the boy.

But three of those justices disagreed with Rogers' analysis on statute of limitations. Writing in concurrence and dissent, Justice Peter Zarella, joined by Justices Carmen Espinosa and Richard Robinson, said the statute of limitations for Doe's claims of negligence and recklessness had expired, while Rogers found the claims were not time-barred.

Writing in support of the trial court's verdict was Justice Dennis Eveleigh, joined by Justice Andrew McDonald, who said that even if the trial judge had erred in refusing to give the requested jury charge, it was harmless error..."

READ MORE:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202769128457/State-Justices-Toss-12M-Boy-Scout-Sex-Abuse-Verdict?mcode=0&curindex=0

CT NEWS JUNKIE REPORTS 222 PEOPLE KILLED IN THE LAST 16 YEARS AS A RESULT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!

Cara Rosner of CT News Junkie reports as follows:

Statewide, 222 people have been killed and 3,600 have suffered serious injuries as the result of domestic violence since 2000, according to a report released today.

Of the deaths caused by violence from an intimate partner, most - 190 of them - were women, according to the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. An average of 14 intimate partner homicides occur each year in the state, according to the advocacy organization.

The group reviews intimate partner fatalities and near-fatalities to assess Connecticut’s response to domestic violence and this morning released its 2015-2016 findings.

The good news is that domestic partner homicides dropped to 8 in 2015, but so far in 2016 that number has climbed back up to nine.

At press conference to talk about the results, the group’s CEO Karen Jarmoc said “I don’t think we can say yet whether there’s going to be a decrease. We are grateful for that decrease last year..."

READ MORE:

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/advocacy_group_says_222_have_been_killed_as_a_result_of_domestic_violence/

FORBES REPORTS THAT FINANCIAL FRAUD THRIVES IN CHRISTIAN CHURCHES!

Walter Pavlo of "Forbes Magazine" reports follows:

The Washington Post’s investigation on fraud in nonprofit organizations revealed that incidents are either not reported at all or reported but not directed to authorities … bad news, like “theft,” does not sit well with contributors. When I looked at the list of nonprofit organizations in the Post’s story, I did not see any churches on it so I called my good friend Alton Sizemore of Forensic Strategic Solutions, Inc. in Birmingham, AL to see why he thought that was the case. Sizemore told me, “The reason you did not see any churches on the list is because churches are not required to do an annual report.”  What?!”

READ MORE:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2013/11/18/fraud-thriving-in-u-s-churches-but-you-wouldnt-know-it/#7896dc416fea

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS: THE JUDICIAL BRANCH CUTS BACK ON LIBRARY HOURS!

Michelle Tuccitto Sullo of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

"Staffing shortages and the state's budget situation have prompted officials to reduce the hours of more of the state's law libraries.

Deirdre McPadden, director of judge support services, said the financial crisis, combined with the retirement of two law librarians, resulted in this decision.

The latest budget season hit the court system hard, with the state Judicial Branch having to deal with a $77 million reduction in the budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year..."

READ MORE:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/home/id=1202768277756/More-State-Law-Libraries-Going-on-Reduced-Schedule?mcode=1202617073650&curindex=0

ANOTHER ATTORNEY BITES THE DUST: ATTORNEY PETER G. KRUZYNSKI CHARGED WITH PORN!

Nicholas Rondinone of "The Hartford Courant" reports as follows: 

"Shelton lawyer charged last month with sexually assaulting a minor now faces federal child porn offense, the U.S. Attorney's office said Friday.

Peter G. Kruzynski, 50, was charged with production and possession of child pornography, the U.S. Attorney's office said.

Federal authorities said that Kruzynski engaged in sexual acts with a male victim from 2009 until last month. During that time, authorities said, he used an iPhone to take photos of the victim, while he was a minor.

Kruzynski was presented in front of a judge Friday. The U.S. Attorney's office said he was released on $250,000 bond and must submit to electronic monitoring..."

READ MORE:

http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-shelton-child-porn-0917-20160916-story.html