In this guest view, Bangkok stands tall on the topic of CT Family Court.
Frank, if your story is true, and there is an actual conspiracy among courtroom personnel — including judges — to steal children and sell them to the highest bidding parent – the FBI would have jurisdiction over this CT state matter.
It would violate all kinds of civil rights.
Similar to when a local police force has been corrupted — the FBI has jurisdiction because it violates many people’s civil rights.
Therefore, why don’t you contact the FBI to see if they agree with your theories about a CT family court conspiracy?
I think you know what they’ll say.
The FBI will ask you what ‘percentage’ of cases — from each of these alleged corrupt judges — is directly related to these alleged ‘sales of children’?
And, if your theory is correct, that ‘percentage’ would have to be way above 50% for each of these judges (otherwise, it’s just a coin flip as to who gets custody, which would invalidate your theory, since every case has winners and losers).
Do the statistics back you up, Frank?
We both know that you probably don’t have any statistics.
You just use anecdotal evidence given to you by losing parties to make generalizations about the whole CT court system.
I sympathize with you, Frank.
I know you are close friends with somebody in this case (not sure who, but somebody is a close friend of yours).
You’ve recently said every friend you have is 9 feet tall, in your eyes (incapable of doing anything wrong).
A friend of Frank’s.
You’ve already admitted that you don’t see any faults in your friends.
You’ve already said you allow your friends extra leeway to lie simply because they’re your friends. I’m not sure that’s a good basis for being an investigative journalist.
‘FACTS’ are supposed to govern your stories (not ‘loyalty’ towards friends who are 9 feet tall, in your mind).
I advise you to send this info to the FBI —– and then wait to see if they agree with you.
If the FBI disagrees —— I have no doubt that you and your 9-foot-tall friends will accuse the FBI of being part of this conspiracy, since that’s your pattern.
In your mind, anybody who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy, because you are never wrong.
And your friends are 9 feet tall, which means they’re never wrong either.
Have a pleasant day.
End of Bangkok commentary.
Begin Frank response.
By Frank Parlato
There is one type of case in CT where a parent can buy his children. That is the high-conflict divorce and custody case.
To qualify for high-conflict, you need money. In CT, you can’t buy children on credit.
If the couple has little money, DCF works it out. Or the judge makes a quick ruling. Usually, that ruling is shared custody.
The second condition for purchasing children is that one parent wants to lock the other out of parenting. This takes a unique individual, such as Chris Ambrose.
These cases are in the minority. But they are what family court lawyers and therapists feast upon.
Sometimes a couple is not warring, but the attorneys on both sides provoke a fight between the couple. They pretend to be mad at each other to get the couple angry and willing to spend.
Attorney Ed Nausbaum can get a client worked up, then lose the case after draining her assets.
So Bangkok, it is a minority of cases. Most custody cases are settled with both parents getting shared custody.
So, proof for the FBI is limited to cases where one parent is removed from her or his children’s lives.
I do not yet have those statistics.
Here are statistics we seek:
- In high conflict cases, where one parent is removed, how much money did the lawyers make?
- How much did the GAL, who supposedly represents the children, make?
- Who was the custody evaluator?
- How many therapists were recommended by the GAL?
- How much did they make?
- How many new therapists were needed after the children lost one of their parents?
- How many new medications did psychiatrists prescribe to the children for their trauma?
- Was parental alienation used to eliminate one parent?
- Did the eliminated parent have more or less money than the parent who got sole custody?
- Most divorce and custody cases cost around $15,000 in legal fees to complete. They usually end in shared custody. But high conflict cases cost $150,000 to more than $1 million in legal fees. What percentage of cases where $150,000 or more was spent on legal fees resulted in children losing one parent?
- How often was it the stay-at-home mother?
- How much did the GAL make?
- What recommendations did she make that directly bore on her billings?
- How often are the children’s wishes expressed in court before losing a parent?
- How often are abuse allegations made by children against the parent who gets custody?
- After the court appoints a GAL, how quickly do the children lose a parent?
- Of these, what percentage is because of parental alienation and where children go to the home they do not want to live in?
- What percentage of the time does a GAL get a custody evaluator to make a custody report?
- What percentage of these reports say the mother is at fault for alienation?
From what I observed, the moment the court appoints a GAL, say goodbye to your assets. If you are a stay-at-home mother, say goodbye to your children. They will be removed by surprise. You will not be able to speak at the hearing.
Be comforted by the fact that the GAL has children of her own. The GAL’s children will reap the benefits of your life savings set aside for your children. They will go to the GAL’s children to improve their lives.
Of the high conflict cases I studied, 17 mothers and three fathers lost their children.
In all 20 cases, the parent with more money won custody. In each case, there was no allegation of abuse or neglect against the parent who lost her or his children.
In 15 cases, the children alleged abuse against the parent who got custody.
In 18 cases, the children expressed unhappiness at being denied contact with the missing parent.
In 12 cases, one or more of the children committed self-harm.
In 16 cases, 24 children saw new therapists and were prescribed psychiatric drugs.
If nothing else, it shows that the children are the losers in my sampling of high conflict cases in CT. But as Bangkok said, in every custody and divorce case, someone may end up a loser and someone else a winner.
Most Happy Lawyer: Nancy Aldrich made more than $500,000 in legal fees in the Ambrolse case. She removed one mother from the lives of three children.And the attorneys are the winners.
Without a GAL, who is also a lawyer, none of this can happen.
A GAL represents the children’s best interests.
In all 20 cases I studied, the GAL used parental alienation in part or whole to justify the
removal of the children from one parent.
Does this represent a significant percentage of cases? No. It is a sampling. Like pollsters forecast elections with a small percentage of voters, this hints at what I expect will result from high conflict custody cases.
When I first began to study CT cases, I thought the injustice was just the Ambrose case.
Chris Ambrose outmaneuvered his wife by stealing the marital assets. Then he set out to abuse and terrify his children. All the while, he planned to claim parental alienation.
As other mothers and fathers came to me, I saw a pattern.
Stay-at-home mothers, women who raised their children without a complaint ever made against them – by the father, DCF or the children- suddenly lost their children – because the
GAL said the father was unloved or feared because of parental alienation caused by the mother.
Even, for the sake of argument, if the mother alienated the children from the father, why do the children have to pay the tragic price of losing their mother?
Children were yanked out of their house, told they would live with their father – without notice. Take their clothes and go.
This is traumatic to children.
I also observed that some children were alienated from their fathers because he abused them.
I observed that the harder the GAL worked to cover up abuse allegations, the more money she made. I watched GALs make six figures from a single case.
I also observed that the same set of attorneys swapped roles.
In one case, an attorney would represent the winning father. In the following case, she would represent the losing mother. Next, she would be the GAL, who would ensure the mother lost custody of the children.
I saw firsthand evidence of two attorneys, Rich Callahan and Edward Nusbaum, who seem to be ringers. They represented the mother but were working on setting up parental alienation to support the father – in league with the GAL and the father’s attorney.
In one case I studied, Nusbaum billed $70,000 to make a few phone calls and write emails.
Many of the calls he initiated had no purpose other than to find out how many assets the mother and her father had.
Incredibly, his retainer agreement stated that if the client disputed billing, she had no legal right to discovery. I suppose he thought this could shield him from deceptive and potentially fraudulent practices.
When Nusbaum got all he could and found the money was gone, so was he.
I plan to publish his invoices.
Now Bangkok, you referenced my friends’ heights.
And you said anybody who disagrees with me is part of a conspiracy, because I do not believe I am wrong on this matter.
My tall friends are not wrong either. That’s why we are friends.
So now please watch to see if my tall friends and I can present the above to some tall friends at the FBI.