In part #1 of “Fraud and Injustice in CT Family Court – we focused on the Ambrose case.
FR revealed the story of the removal of three happy children from their mother’s primary custody and into the home of their abusive father, Christopher Ambrose.
If you want to blame the mother – OK, go for it- but two years have passed, and the children have been in this ugly stranger’s home, and they still call him ‘P” and Creepy Cree and still long for the halcyon days when they had a mother, an extended family, and a home.
This is CT, and this is a family court under the shadow of Richard Gardner, who invented a way for well-to-do abusers and pedophiles to prevail – “parental alienation” – and it is used as a weapon to take money from the rich and give the children in return.
Parental alienation and its drastic remedy – once it is determined by any quack or con artist GAL or custody evaluator – is to take the children from the parent they love and order no contact with her – and hand them over to the abuser with money.
For those who say some mothers alienate their children from the father, which is true, I say children can be alienated from a father because he is a cruel ass, a cunning man, that the children see through him and want no part of him.
It does not have to be the other parent who alienates children from the parent. It can be the abuser himself.
But alienated the children, Matthew, Mia, and Sawyer, because the father had the money and because he had CT family court – he could buy the children like you might buy a dozen eggs at the market.
That market is CT Family Court, and it is, arguably, as vicious and sinister a place as the world has known.
You say this is hyperbole; I say, where else can you go and buy children away from their good mother while sneering professionals smugly tell the mother that she deserved every bit of it. She alienated the children, but now they are happy when they are not.
You say the father must love the children to want them with him.
I say he hates the children and the mother – and if he were to look down into the cavernous dark place where his soul should be shining, he might also realize he hates himself most of all.
But he is wise, this rascal. He knows that whatever he pays his connected attorney Nancy Aldrich [about $600,000 in billings to date] and the guardian ad litem, Jocelyn Hurwitz [about $200,000 in billings to date], who is supposed to represent the children’s best interest, and Jessica Biren-Caverly, [about $20,000] he will save by stealing and keeping his wife’s money and not having to pay child support or alimony.
Forget the children’s happiness.
They talk about alienation by the mother. It has been two years since the children have seen their mother and had the care they deserve.
He keeps them in isolation away from their mom, away from all the extended family they knew and loved and spent so much time with growing up – no grandparents, aunts, cousins, family friends anymore.
Ambrose has no friends – and he is not close with his family.
The children are in isolation in their remote rural home, yet they still cry out for their mother. Two years now, and they haven’t forgotten her.
You say, “well, the mother, Karen Riordan, could have supervised visits.”
I say she is too wise for that trap – the game they play where the mother has to pay a therapist to sit in on short visits with her children, whom she raised every day of their life without supervision.
The therapist is there to find fault and to extend the time before she can see her children like she did every day of their lives for 13 years – without supervision.
Like Karen Riordan did while the father was thousands of miles away.
Why does the therapist on the supervised visits want to extend the time before he will approve unsupervised visits?
That should be obvious to anyone who knows CT Family Court—to keep himself employed by the hour and maybe to please the GAL who referred her — who keeps the father paying the GAL and his attorney. In contrast, the mother pays the therapist to supervise her visits.
In this case, Riordan cannot afford the therapist to supervise. Her money was stolen from her, and she is destitute.
But it would not matter. No one gets custody back once it is stolen in CT. The supervised visits are almost always a ruse, a game to make more money for the bad actors in the play.
These allied thieves have helped steal these children and gave them to the thief who stole the marital assets and his wife’s inheritance.
Until somebody outside the corruption commences a massive criminal investigation into this corruption, this kind of selling of children will not end.
But we are not done. This case is not going away.
Stay tuned for part 3.