PART IV: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE MUNRO GIVES SHAWN TITTLE A FREE RIDE!

It is interesting that Judge Lynda Munro's Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 doesn't mention anything about what led to the breakdown of the marriage.  This is quite striking because most memoranda of this kind usually include some commentary on the issue. 

 

I suspect Judge Munro didn't include any of that information because she wanted to present Susan Skipp's behavior out of context so that it would appear to be irrational. 

 

So let me rectify that omission and let you know what happened.  Apparently, Shawn Tittle was unfaithful to his ex wife with a considerable number of other women.  That, by the way, is deeply hurtful.  In my reading of various divorce cases, I find that nothing wounds more deeply than the discovery that your wife or husband has betrayed you. 

 

In addition, Susan Tittle states, "during our 11 years of marriage, my children and I were victims of physical, emotional, and mental abuse at the hands of my now ex-husband." 

 

Is this true? 

 

Dr. Sidney Horowitz, the childrens' psychologist was unwilling to take a position regarding this point.  Instead, in a letter to the GAL, he stated, "the children have been and continue to be at risk by the psychological noise in this family.  I do not know who is the proximate cause of this upset." 

 

In response to the accusations of domestic violence that Susan Skipp made against her ex husband, Dr. Horowitz stated that he could neither confirm or deny their accuracy.  In fact, in court testimony he provided on August 15, 2012, he stated "It may well be accurate."  Further, he stated, "I was not in a position to be able to support or refute any of the statements" that Susan Skipp made in regard to Shawn Tittle abusing her and the children.

 

However, it is worth noting that when the parties' Co-parent Manager, Dr. Howard Krieger billed to the insurance company for his services, the code he used was that for domestic violence. 

 

On a more personal level, I have been observing this case for pretty much two years now.  Every once in a while Susan Skipp has shown me copies of Shawn Tittle's emails.  Quite simply they are verbally abusive, i.e. rude, provocative, and insulting and deliberately so.  If there is one forum in which Shawn Tittle's complete immaturity and lack of character come to the forefront, it is in his emails. 

 

Of course, for anyone who is interested in knowing, this is a common tactic.  If you want sole custody what you do is speak so rudely to your ex that there is a complete breakdown of communication and then that alone is a justification for denying the other party any imput into the childrens' upbringing even though it is the abuser who created the breakdown of communication in the first place.  Susan may have written a whole lot of emails, but at least she was reasonably polite about it!  Of course, again, there is this imbalance of scrutiny. 

 

And this is a good point to pause and have a little strategy session.  If your ex sends you rude and abusive emails on a regular basis, do not respond in kind--ever.  What you do is consistently maintain an even tone in your emails, preface and end your emails with "please" and "thank you", and while you do not have to admit to mistakes you never committed in response to the steady stream of accusations you receive, you can always say, "I'm sorry there was a miscommunication."  "What can we do moving forward?"  and "I am sorry you feel that way." is a really, really good one because it sounds conciliatory, but is like a cat's claw across the cheek when it comes to passive aggressive value. 

 

I'll tell you something, I would have liked to see Shawn's emails presented to the the trial court as evidence of his abuse. 

 

And since we are discussing character, let me say that it did not impress me when I determined that at trial in August 2012, Shawn Tittle submitted a financial affidavit indicating that his income added up to $200.00 per week from his new medical practice and that he was largely having his new wife pay all of his bills. 

 

I am sorry, but I fail to believe that. 

 

There are only two explanations for these kinds of numbers.  One, he deliberately reduced his income artificially by not working very hard on his business, or two he chose not to apply for the many other employment opportunities that are available to him which would provide him with a considerable six digit income. 

 

Since litigants pull these kinds of tricks frequently when it comes to divorce proceedings, it seems to me any judge could see through the one Shawn Tittle pulled on his financial affidavit.  However, Judge Munro chose to overlook it, the same way that she overlooked all the other improprieties Shawn Tittle committed. 

 

He is excused from providing alimony and child support. 

 

He is excused from providing an accurate financial affidavit--what else? 

 

Actually, there is more. 

 

As with many women, since Susan Skipp continued to report on the continuing domestic violence she was experiencing, and would not shut up, Dr. Howard Krieger, the co-parent counselor, insisted upon giving Susan a mental health examination--this despite a doctor's letter indicating that Susan was still recovering from a car accident so the results might not be accurate. 

 

Sean Tittle, on the other hand, was excused from undergoing any mental health examination whatsoever.  Of course, in my view, an examination from Susan Skipp taken outside of the context of an equivalent examination of Shawn Tittle could not possibly provide the attorneys in this case fair and equitable access to information.   

 

Basically, Shawn Tittle was coddled and pampered throughout the process, and when it was done Judge Munro gave him a free ride to sole custody. 

 

What a joke!

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

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-v-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

PART III: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE V. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE LYNDA MUNRO--DUMB AND DUMBER

I think everyone understands how important the custody issue is in a divorce.  And that any changes in custody should be made only after careful consideration of the circumstances. 

 

This is no less true in the Skipp-Tittle case. 

 

For the better part, it is well understood that Shawn Tittle had a very time consuming job, and that Susan Skipp, a teacher, was the primary caretaker of their children for the majority of the parties' marriage.  I don't think there was ever a dispute regarding this point, and Judge Munro touches upon it lightly on page 15 of her Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 where she states that "the father had been career driven."  As a result, the dissolution agreement of March 28, 2011 established Susan Skipp as the residential parent.

 

Yet, according to Judge Lynda Munro's summary of the case, on September 13, 2011, Judge Resha transferred sole legal custody, and apparently residential custody, of the minor children to the father.  This occurred approximately five and a half months after the dissolution of the marriage.  To me this would seem hardly sufficiently time for a substantial change in circumstances warranting such a change in custody. 

 

Initially, I assumed that some dramatic incident must have taken place in order to justify such a considerable change--perhaps some extraordinary incident where mother neglected the children, or where mother was involved in some drug or alcohol abuse or some kind of criminal behavior.  In fact, nothing of the kind took place. 

 

Here is how the change in custody went down. 

 

The dissolution agreement included several statements regarding how the parties in the case were not to make negative remarks about the other parent to anyone.   Of course, that, in my opinion, is a bit of a setup.  When the opposing side insists upon such extraordinary detail about all the people you cannot make negative remarks to, naturally you are going to make a mistake. 

 

Just as a point in contrast, in my own dissolution agreement, I only have one such statement when it came to that particular point, because no one was trying to set me up--at least when it came to that.   

 

In May of 2011, Shawn Tittle was involved in the DUI incident where he tried to escape the scene of an accident without properly reporting to the police.  Subsequent to that incident, Susan Skipp apparently called her father-in-law to discuss what happened.  Boom--they got her!  As Judge Munro reports in her summary, "Reflecting on the specificity in the custody provisions, the trial court noted that the mother violated them by contacting the father's father and the court found that she 'made negative, derogatory, mean-spirited and vindictive comments to him.'  This violated the court orders of the judgment." 

 

You see, without all that lovely specificity which Shawn Tittle insisted upon including in the dissolution agreement, Susan wouldn't have been in so much trouble!  And, of course, we all know that, when it came to what Susan said, the report of a former father-in-law is going to be completely reliable and trustworthy--NOT! 

 

This decision to give Shawn Tittle sole custody was made even though at the time the incident occurred, this was prior to any real work getting under way with the parent manager, Dr. Howard Kriger.  It was also prior to the completion of the Family Relations Report which was only submitted the following year on March 2012. 

 

I don't know, just common sense wise, at the time of dissolution, the parties' emotions are still riding very high and it takes sometimes over a year, or even more, for them to calm down, particularly if there has been considerable high conflict.  Would it have been possible to give Susan Skipp a bit of a break, a bit of time to allow some counseling to kick in before snatching the children from her grasp at the first sign of a minor infraction?  Or was the whole thing a setup in the first place?  

 

Judge Munro reports that Susan Skipp's conversation with her father-in-law "violated the court orders of the judgment", i.e. not to speak badly about the other party.  

 

Of course, I am pretty much certain that Susan was in a similar position to many protective mothers--fathers are allowed to violate the court orders of the judgment repeatedly, fathers are never held accountable for anything that they do, fathers are excused from any kind of abuse and wrongdoing, but mothers? 

 

Mothers are held in contempt for blinking an eyelid--seriously.  I would like a run down in the Tittle/Skipp case as to how many times Shawn Tittle violated the court orders of the judgment.  I'll bet it was plenty of times and he was never held to account the way Susan was.  

 

I can only begin to imagine what a terrible blow it was to Susan to lose residential custody of her children--and not only residential custody, decision making as well. I can just imagine how desperate she felt.  And I'll just bet she sent more single sentence emails than ever before after it happened!

 

Then, a few months later, on December 19, 2011, the Court suspended all of Susan Skipp's child support and alimony until further order of the court.  My understanding is that the reason this happened was Susan was accused of putting nasty comments about Shawn Tittle's professional capabilities on the internet. The GAL, Mary Brigham presented testimony to the effect that, as a result of these comments, Shawn Tittle had lost his job and was now unemployed and could not afford the payments.  The trial court made its decision based on that testimony. 

Susan Skipp has acknowledged that she put a remark on the internet in August 2010 prior to dissolution which she took down, but that was well before the December 2011 court date.  In any case, people say things during marital disputes, particularly during a divorce; I am not sure why that would influence Danbury Hospital a year later.  But if it did, I would have wanted to hear from them directly, and not through the GAL.  In addition, I am not sure it was the GAL's business to investigate this matter or get on the stand to testify about it.  Isn't she supposed to be focusing on the children? 

 

The  bottom line is, however, that the GAL's testimony was based upon hearsay, which is very shaky evidence.  How can the GAL, Mary Brigham, possibly know what was on the minds of the Administrators at Danbury Hospital when they fired Shawn Tittle, if they fired him.  Did she have a letter from those administrators?  No.  Did she have a sworn affidavit from these administrators?  No.  Anything at all?  Well, no.  From my understanding, all she had was Shawn Tittles' sayso, which does not seem very objective to me. 

 

If you are going to suspend a persons' income, it seems to me that in a court of law you should have something more than just hearsay. 

 

Of course, this court ruling led to a considerable loss of income for Susan Tittle and placed her in a financial crisis, and the first result of that would obviously be that she was unable to pay her legal counsel.  I'll just bet she fired off a few more single sentence emails expressing her anger after that trial court hearing! 

 

And don't forget that from December 2011 up until the present, Susan Skipp's child support and alimony are still suspended, long after the judgment of October 16, 2012.  I mean, do they ever intend to handle this issue? 

 

I guess if you are a well paid judge with a steady income, you might become insensitive to people who actually depend upon their child support and alimony to pay their bills. 

 

On top of that, at the September 2011 hearing before Judge Resha, Susan Skipp was ordered to pay GAL fees to the tune of $1,000 per month. By the time the December hearing came up, Susan had failed to do so (And actually, thank God she didn't since the court eventually took away her child support and alimony).  As a result, she was held in contempt and ordered to pay around $3,000 in attorneys' fees. 

 

And, again, this shows a lack of equality in terms of how Susan Skipp was treated in contrast to her ex husband.  First of all, the GAL filed this motion for contempt against Susan Skipp regarding her attorney's fees when, as a GAL, she is not supposed to be filing motions as far as I know. 

 

Second, Shawn Tittle was just as much in contempt in regard to paying the GAL, but no motions of contempt were filed against him. 

 

In fact, at the time of the August 2012 trial, both Shawn Tittle and Susan Skipp owed the exact same amount to the GAL.  If you look at page 20 of the October 16, 2012 Memorandum of Decision written by Judge Lynda Munro it states, "The guardian ad litem is owed substantial amounts of money by both parties."  And she further states that there is "a balance due from Ms. Skipp of $38,230.30 and from Dr. Tittle a balance of $38,580.81".  In fact, it looks as though Shawn Tittle actually owed more.  

 

So why was Susan Skipp targeted for punishment and fined, but Shawn Tittle was not? 

 

In her Memorandum of Decision, Judge Lynda Munro expresses herself as puzzled in regard to Susan Skipp's behavior.  What motivated Susan Skipp to act the way she did?  Why did Susan say the things she said?  

 

Since Judge Lynda Munro appears to struggle so greatly and is so incapable of thinking the answer through.  Let me suggest a few.  Perhaps the fact that Susan Skipp was treated in such a grossly unjust manner, could be one possibility?  The system was rigged?  How about the completely lawless behavior of a trial court sworn to up hold the law.  Or, how about another, perhaps because Family Court reached out and stole Susan Skipp's children as well as considerable assets from her under false pretenses? 

 

Choose any one of these, and you are probably right.  More on this later...

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

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

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



 

 

  

PART V: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE LYNDA MUNRO MAKES UP THE LAW AS SHE GOES ALONG!

I just have to tell you before I go into my blog here.  I was looking up the Skipp-Tittle case and  found out that Shawn Tittle has not paid outstanding tuition bills for the Montessori School the children were in last year.  The school is going to civil court to get the money.  You see, all the while that the trial court is talking about what a great guy Shawn Tittle is, and how he should have sole custody because he loves the children so much, he is really busy not meeting his obligations to them! 

Furthermore, this is a man with a lengthy history of alcohol and substance abuse, an equally lengthy history of mistreating women.  And he is a man who was known to have  carried on affairs during  marriage, and to have been indifferent to the needs of his children.   

 

Given that situation, how does Judge Lynda Munro justify a decision like this denying a mother any access to her children? 

 

If you will look at page 3 of the Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 under "Legal Standard", Judge Munro explains it as follows:  "the court looks to the judgment orders to determine whether they remain in the chidlren's best interest, or, were not in the best interest of the children at the time they were entered."

 

Wait a minute.  "Were not in the best interest of the children at the time they were entered."  Where did that come from?  I have never heard of that standard before--that is a big enough loophole to drive a mack truck through it.  That kind of standard pretty much adds up to saying that custody can  be changed if the trial judge feels like it.  But what happened to the rule I was always told about, that judges are not allowed to reverse another judges' ruling. 

Next there is the standard that I am more familiar with, the concept that custody can be changed if it is proven that there has been a substantial change in circumstances.  As Judge Munro puts it, "it is pertinent for the trial court to inquire as to what, if any, new circumstances warrant a modification of the existing order."

Why? 

Because "the trial court's discretion includes only the power to adapt the order to some distinct and definite change in the circumstances or conditions of the parties."  It is not, Judge Munro cautions, an opportunity to "retry issues already decided...or to allow the parties to use a motion to modify as an appeal." 

 

In other words, "Its inquiry is necessarily confined to a comparison between the current conditions and the last court order."  Once the court has determined that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, then the Judge must make his or her custody decision based upon the best interests of the child standard.  It is after this point that my credulity gets strained.  If there is one thing Susan Skipp's attorney stated repeatedly, it is that from the date of dissolution on March 28, 2011 up until the trial in August 2012, there really was no change in circumstances. 

 

For instance, the Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 includes sufficient narrative to indicate very clearly that both Shawn Tittle and Susan Skipp do not get along very well.  Both parties weren't getting along with one another at the time of dissolution, which is why there was so much detail regarding how the parties were not supposed to talk about one another in front of others, and that situation continued on up to the time of trial. 

The situation might have improved had Dr. Sidney Horowitz, Dr. Howard Krieger, and the GAL, Mary Brigham actually done the jobs they were hired to do.  Instead, the first two were so busy sucking money out of the health insurance company with their schemes, and the latter was so focused on charging up more money, they couldn't be bothered.  In addition, they were having too much fun collecting as much evidence they could find in order to deny Susan Skipp custody of her children that they didn't do anything to reduce the conflict and focus on improving the lives of the children. 

 

Susan Skipp is a strong willed person who has no problem stating what she thinks and challenging what she believes is wrong.  This was true at the time of dissolution, and it was still true at the time of trial.  So was there any substantial change in circumstances?  No.  So there was no legal basis for a change in custody. 

 

The reason why Judge Lynda Munro proceeded to make a change in the custody nonetheless is -- you've guessed it!  She determined that, in her view, Susan Skipp had committed Parental Alienation.  As Judge Munro states on page 9, "defendant has been coaching the children and alienating them from plaintiff [father]."  And here again on page 11, Judge Munro accuses Susan of "actively grooming [the children] for alienation from their father.", and on page 14, "Ms. Skipp not only does not seek to advance the chidlren's relationship with their father, she has steadfastly sought to undermine it."  and it goes on and on. 

Of course, the problem is that when women legitimately bring up how they  and their children have been abused during a marriage, the trial court generally attempts to invalidate those disclosures by describing them as alienation.  What the trial court is really saying here to women is that they want Susan and women like her to be silent about the abuse.  But this is the modern world, not the dark ages.  We have the "one billion rising compaign", and as women, we will no longer be silent about abuse.  

 

Did Judge Munro have the opportunity to learn about the abuse?  It is pretty clear that no matter how much evidence Susan Skipp presented in regard to Shawn Tittle's abuse, not only of herself but also of the children, Judge Munro insisted on stating it didn't exist.  In fact, while I read the Memorandum of Decision I sometimes wondered if I had been at the same trial. 

 

It is also important to note that, currently in Connecticut parental alienation is not a legal basis for changing custody from one parent to the other.  This is why my colleagues are working on drafting PAS legislation which they intend to present eventually to the judiciary committee--because it doesn't yet exist.  How is it that Judge Munro is using parental alienation as the basis for her decision when legally speaking she isn't allowed to do so.  And why is it that, you will quickly see if you read my other discussions of similar cases, there are so many other Judges who have also used parental alienation as the basis for a change of custody when there is still, in Connecticut, no legal grounds whatsoever for doing such a thing. 

 

What I find particularly troubling about Susan Skipp's case, and those similar to it, is the fact that the trial court, the attorneys, and the judges so clearly deny such women custody because they are strong, intelligent women.  If a woman litigant in a family court case ever begins to hear how intelligent she is, that is a major reason to be alarmed.  Use of that  term in family court in describing a mother is an indication that they dislike you intensely and will do all that they can to destroy you.  The spin on the definition of the word "intelligent" as they use it is to imply a kind of wicked, evil intelligence.  Thus, Judge Munro calls Susan "shrewd" as if the intelligence is solely for the purposes of deceitfulness. 

 

Simply put, family court finds any woman's intelligence a threat.  I would suspect that if you did a study that among the women who have been denied custody you will find a considerable number of professional women--teachers, filmmakers, scholars, executives, and small businesswomen.  In 1991, The Connecticut Task Force on Gener, Justice and the Courts determined that there was widespread bias against women in the Connecticut Judicial System.  Part of the recommended solution was to hire more women judges. 

 

Unfortunately, in doing so, what Connecticut did was locate the most radically anti-female attorneys they could find and appointed them to the bench.  In many regards, these newly appointed women judges--gender traitors, as I call them--have been more vicious and more vengeful towards women than any male judge would consider being.  This has been a very successful strategy the Connecticut Judicial Branch has utilized in order to maintain the oppression of women. 

 

My word to those women judges is--shame on you.  You owe your jobs to us, to the women who fought so hard to get those jobs for you.  You have a responsibility to give back to the citizens who put you where you are and gave you the privileges you are currently enjoying.  It is time to give back to the women who gave you your jobs in the first place.  

 

Susan Skipp lost custody of her children and Judge Lynda Munro placed her on supervised visitation. Of course, I have advised her, as has everyone else who knows anything about the Connecticut Judicial System not to participate in this supervised visitation.  Why? 

Supervised visitation is for violent criminals or parents who have physicially abused their children.  Susan is a good mother, a teacher, and a citizen who is well respected in the community.  She should not be subjected to this kind of unjust humiliation in front of her own children.

Also, essentially because such programs are simply used as a means to collect more falsified documentation which will then be used to prevent Susan from ever seeing her children.  But even if Susan cooperated and attempted to use a visitation service, the likelihood is that the cost is so prohibitive that Susan would not be able to use it for very long. 

 

The result is that Susan has not seen her children since this judgment came out.  I can only imagine how awful it is for two young children--9 and 12--to be in a situation where they are unable to see their mother who has always been their primary caretaker.  But I know that with her strength and determination, Susan will be able to see her children very soon. 

 

I'll tell you what this is, Judge Munro, this is just plain old child abuse.  Judge Munro, by no means can any reasonable, rational, or sane person consider depriving young children of their mother and then say it is in the best interests of the children.  Your actions show you to be a mean, hateful, lying hypocrite.  

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

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

PART II: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE MUNRO TELLS MORE LIES...

In the Memorandum of Decision in this case dated October 16, 2012, on page 13 going to the top of page 14, Judge Lynda Munro discusses information related to the childrens' psychologist, Dr. Sidney Horowitz.  However, as with everything Judge Munro states, there is crucial information not included in her narrative. 

 

So first let's get to what Judge Munro does say. 

 

She states that Dr. Sidney Horowitz recused himself from his role as the childrens' psychologist because Ms. Skipp sent him so many emails--he said around 22 per day for 18 months.  Apparently, Dr. Horowitz found these emails so "relentless" and their "contents so charged" that he could no longer treat the children because he was biased against their mother. 

 

Further, Judge Munro deplores the fact that the children have lost the safe haven such therapy with Dr. Horowitz would have provided. 

 

Of course, I dispute the definition of an email that this discussion presumes.  For example, when I write an email, it is a thing of beauty ordinarily including at least several paragraphs.  I can recall putting together several such emails during the course of my divorce case. 

 

However, when it comes to Susan Skipp, an email really consists of maybe one or two sentences.  So if Susan wrote 22 emails in a single day of sending out one or two sentence emails, that very same amount would be 1 very lengthy email with 22 or more sentences on it were it me.  Since Susan wrote all these emails on her cell phone, my guess is what she did was more like texting than emailing.

 

So initially although it sounds quite alarming that Susan sent out 22 emails in a single day, if she sent that many--I doubt it--once you get they were most likely single sentence emails, it doesn't seem to be quite as exciting.  I also believe that the reason why Susan Skipp sent out so many emails was because frequently no one answered her emails and she was insisting on getting an answer!  

 

Now let's move to the more important issues that Judge Lynda Munro does not mention in connection to Dr. Sidney Horowitz.  

 

For 18 months Dr. Sidney Horowitz had received these emails from Susan Skipp and did not choose to resign from the case.  

 

The actual impetus for Dr. Horowitz's resignation was that on March 24, 2012 Ms. Skipp sent to Dr. Horowitz an email stating "In addition to my children's records with your notes, please provide the diagnosis for which insurance agrees to provide long term therapy and an itemized billing since your involvement with our family." 

 

The very next day, suddenly and without warning, on March 25, 2012, Dr. Sidney Horowitz sent an email to the Guardian Ad Litem resigning from the case. 

 

Dr. Horowitz also stated, and Judge Lynda Munro included this point in her Memorandum of Decision, that it was "the first time in his professional career that I have recused myself from" a case. However, Dr. Sidney Horowitz was lying when he said that and thus he perjured himself.  In fact, he recused himself from at least another case:  Granjales v. Bell, 2009 WL 3086476, 16 (Conn. Super. 2009), and I'll bet I'd find more if I scratched the surface a bit. 

 

What Susan Skipp had discovered was that from August 23, 2010 until December 19, 2011, Dr. Horowitz was billing the children's insurance company (Aetna) with the diagnosis code of 296.22 which is "major depressive disorder."  As Dr. Horowitz testified on the Stand on August 15, 2012, the children do not have this diagnosis--their diagnosis is Adjustment Disorder. 

 

To me it appears quite obvious that Dr. Horowitz billed for the more serious diagnosis so that he could receive a higher financial reimbursement from the insurance company for that diagnosis. 

 

What he did was fraud and malpractice pure and simple. 

 

During the trial, Dr. Sidney Horowitz stated that the mistake in the diagnostic code was simply a "clerical error" and no more.  However, the description Susan Skipp provides regarding how the diagnostic code was included on the billing precludes the possibility that it could have been a clerical error.  

 

She states, "I witnessed the manner in which Dr. Horowitz submitted his billing.  At the end of each session with the children, Dr. Horowitz would fill out a billing statement, and hand write a diagnosis code onto each statement.  He would then have me carry the statement to the office receptionist.  At that point, I would pay the co-pay for the visit." 

 

In other words, Dr. Horowitz wrote out the incorrect diagnostic code onto statements he filled out for 18 months until Susan Skipp confronted him. 

 

Thus, Dr. Horowitz's explanation is simply not credible. 

 

In his testimony on August 15, 2012, Dr. Sidney Horowitz also stated that another reason for his decision to recuse himself from the case was because Susan Skipp filed a Motion In Limine in regard to his testimony.  However, this Motion in Limine was filed on April 24, 2012, well after Horowitz had recused himself.  So, in essence, Dr. Horowitz perjured himself again with that explanation. 

I would only ask the question of why Judge Lynda Munro allowed Dr. Horowitz to commit such obvious acts of perjury without holding him accountable. 

 

Once Susan Skipp began to suspect there were problems with Dr. Horowitz's billing practices, she then requested itemized billing statements from both Dr. Horowitz himself and his office staff.  In addition, Ms. Skipp requested copies of her childrens' medical records.  Dr. Horowitz refused to respond to either request, which is a violation of her rights, and, in my opinion, a tacit acknowledgement of his wrongdoing.  After all, if he didn't do anything wrong, why would he feel the need to withhold the requested documents?  

 

Then, in the course of making these requests, in talking to Dr. Horowitz's receptionist, Susan Skipp discovered that Dr. Horowitz only utilized one chart for both of her children.  In essence, Dr. Horowitz was billing the insurance company for both children solely under the name of the oldest child.  This again is a questionable practice. It is a standard procedure in medical offices for each client to have an individual file.  Otherwise, how can you possibly differentiate between them?

 

I can only imagine the shock, confusion and betrayal that Susan Skipp must have felt when she finally understood the nature of the original incorrect diagnosis that Dr. Sidney Horowitz had given her children.  Yes, Dr. Horowitz did call up the insurance company and reported what he had done wrong.  However, he never gave Susan Skipp a call to explain what had been going on.  For the entire 18 months the children were in his care, he had refused to provide any diagnosis to Susan, despite her frequent requests that he do so.  It is only reasonable that a mother should be kept informed regarding her childrens' diagnoses.  It is her  right to know. 

Eventually, Susan Skipp found out on her own that her children had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and became extremely alarmed.  She called up the GAL who told her the diagnosis was no big deal.  Then not long after that her daughter expressed some suicidal thoughts and Susan Skipp naturally became extremely distraught.  I will discuss this more in a later blog.

Meanwhile, the bottom line is that what Dr. Sidney Horowitz did is a serious violation of his professional ethics and he should have been held accountable for his actions. Instead, Judge Lynda Munro gave him a free pass and lied about what happened not only through the omission of facts, but also by lying outright.   

 

Once you know that Dr. Horowitz committed insurance fraud, how can you possibly trust anything Dr. Horowitz has to say. 

 

What is clear to anyone who reads Dr. Horowitz's testimony is that he found Susan Skipp's insistence on the truth annoying, while he found Shawn Tittle's obsequious fawning much more preferable.  As Dr. Horowitz reported, he really liked the father because, in his words, Mr. Tittle asked me for the names of books and articles to read and "echoed back to me that he understood" my recommendations.  What an ego boost it must have been for Dr. Horowitz having Mr. Tittle echo back his ideas. 

How could the Skipp children ever find a "safe haven" with a narcissistic, lying fraud like Dr. Sidney Horowitz?  That's my question.   

 

So, again, Judge Lynda Munro repeatedly omits and skews major parts of the story in her Memorandum of Decision regarding this case.  That is a fundamentally dishonest thing to do and disgraceful on the part of a Judge who is sworn to uphold the law. 

More on this later

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.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