Did Judge Adelman Perpetrate Crimes While Wearing Two Hats as Director of CT AFCC?

By Julia Donovan

Victims of the CT Family Court might be interested in calling the New Haven FBI office to ask them what they know about the Committee on Judicial Ethics discussion on April 19, 2013.

Try asking them if Judge Gerard Adelman’s position as “Director” of Connecticut Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Inc. [AFCC], was discussed that day.

Justice Schaller, Judge Karazin, Jr., Judge Dennis, Judge Keller, Professor Meyer, and Attorney Martin R. Libbin participated in a discussion called an “Informal JE 2013-15 concerning whether a Judicial Official may serve on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization that provides services to court-involved clients and receives the majority of its funding from contracts with the Judicial Branch.”

Some more possible questions to ask:

1. Why was that discussion informal?

2. Did anyone discuss whether to refer to the Justice Department to investigate possible interstate racketeering? (The AFCC was originally set up in several states. It seems Attorney Martin Libbin might know the details.)

3. Did the Judicial Ethics Committee discuss Mr. Adelman’s activities as judge (since 2009) as it related to his position as “Director” of Connecticut AFCC, Inc.? Did they discuss his association with Dr. Bruce Freedman as a court evaluator and “Treasurer” of Connecticut AFCC, Inc.?

4. Were any judges and/or attorneys participating in that discussion aware of a remote possibility of crimes Mr. Adelman and Mr. Freedman might have committed with reference to federal racketeering laws? If so, what information, if any was turned over to the Justice Department?

According to the Minutes recorded that day, the Connecticut Committee on Judicial Ethics discussed the following:

“The nonprofit organization has multiple contracts with the Judicial Branch to provide various assessments and services to, inter alia, litigants in family, juvenile and criminal court matters (hereinafter “clients”). Clients may be referred directly by the court, as well as by probation and family services personnel. Various contracts require the nonprofit organization to provide reports to the court and to have personnel appear in court to testify regarding a client’s success or failure to complete the services and programs provided by the nonprofit organization.”

Judge Adelman Was Director of AFCC

Dr. Bruce Freedman, a court evaluator and proponent of parental alienation, was “Treasurer.”

While Judge/Director of AFCC took many children away from their loving parents, while helping his fellow AFCC members earn money, he took care of his own children.

Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge “should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the … impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.”

Rule 1.3 of the Code states that a “judge shall not use or attempt to use the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others or allow others to do so.”

Rule 3.1 of the Code states that a Judicial Official may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law; however, a judge may not participate in extrajudicial activities that will (1) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, (2) lead to frequent disqualification, (3) appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity or impartiality, or (4) appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.

Rule 3.7(a) provides that a judge “may participate in activities sponsored by organizations or governmental entities concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice… including,…(6) serving as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of such an organization or entity, unless it is likely that the organization or entity: (A) will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge; or (B) will frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.”

The rule’s commentary states that “[e]ven for law related organizations, a judge should consider whether the membership and purposes of the organization, or the nature of the judge’s participation in or association with the organization, would conflict with the judge’s obligation to refrain from activities that reflect adversely on a judge’s independence, integrity, and impartiality.” Rule 3.7, cmt. (2).

In discussing Rule 3.7(a)(6)(B), the Committee (with one member recused) determined that the prohibition on serving as an officer, director, trustee or nonlegal advisor of an organization concerned with the law, the legal system or the administration of justice if the organization “will frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member” applies, not only when the organization is a party to adversary proceedings, but also when the organization supplies witnesses and reports for use in adversary proceedings. Based upon the foregoing, an appearance of impropriety would arise if a Judicial Official serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization or member of the Judicial Official’s staff were to refer clients to the nonprofit organization. Further, the nonprofit organization may use or attempt to use the prestige of the Judicial Official’s office when seeking additional contracts with the Judicial Branch or others. Accordingly, the Committee, with one member recused, unanimously determined that service on the nonprofit organization’s board of directors would violate Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.7(a)(6)(B).”

Rules and laws have been violated in Connecticut family courts for the past several decades.

Either no one at the Department of Justice has been alert enough to know that laws have been violated — or no one at the Department of Justice has the conscience to care enough to investigate and prosecute the crimes, so parents and children will be protected in family courts from the horrible crimes committed there.

About the author

Guest View

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!

Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
8 months ago

April 5, 2023:

Judge Gerald Adelman could be responsible for a death if this Mom dies from her heart condition:

A Mom named Margaret Sullivan had a restraining Order needlessly put against her by Judge Adelman. She’s had her children taken away and her appeal is pending. A month ago, she suffered a heart attack and, from the hospital, texted her ex-husband, told him of her condition, and asked to see her children.

He refused.

She was released to her hom, and today, five police officers showed up and arrested her for violating the restraining order from when she had texted her ex-husband.

They refused to let her take her heart medication prior to arresting her (it was an arrest based on a Judge’s warrant) and she had severe chest pain and was rushed to Hartford Hospital.

She is in hospital chained to the bed and is being charged with a felony and will be held on $20,000 bond.

The situation is pure terror.

She was a School Teacher and Mom until Family Court. She now cannot teach due to false allegations and her ex and the Courts are out to destroy, if not, kill her.

Please spread the word. This is pure evil and poor Margaret is alone. No chance of making bond. They won’t even show her the Judge’s warrant.

She is at Hartford Hospital.

This is the kind of story, like so many other stories that come out of insidious Family Courtrooms, that should be Front Page News with National and International uproar.

8 months ago

The following went around the State House and Judicial Branch in April 2015, after an extremely contentious hearing at the Judiciary Committee where all the usual suspects did all the usual things.

May you finally rest in peace, Dianne Hart.

It appears that the anonymous person who penned the April 14th op-ed piece run by the Hartford Courant googled the term “inflammatory language”, copied all the results, and called it an article. Its dearth of formed opinion notwithstanding, was there a reason why this author could not stand behind his or her words?


Governor Malloy then publicly admonished both Representatives Rebimbas and González on April 17th, as if Ms Rebimbas’ misdirecting attention away from criminal activity and Ms González’ calling out the covering of crimes were the same thing: a spat.


It is necessary to provide a foundation of facts to give context to the drama, because there has been so much done to shield the underlying information that brought rise to the altercation.

We have a theme going: Attack all critics of the courts. Blame victims. The threadbare “disgruntled litigant” epithet is a warped record loop stuck playing over the propaganda speakers.

Representative Rebimbas attacks all critics of the courts. That fact makes perfect sense, given her investment as a GAL in the continued unrestricted looting of assets in all family cases. In Friday’s hearing, instead of recusing herself on a matter where she stands to profit, she concerned herself entirely with misrepresenting other people’s thoughts and feelings and protecting the delicate egos of judges who have done unspeakable harm to the people of Connecticut. Again on Monday’s hearing, instead of recusing herself, she participated in a plan to grind the legislative process to a halt over an apology that was already given. Not once did she speak or act for the interests of the people of Naugatuck who elected her to represent them.

Representative González, by contrast, has no financial stake in the administration and operation of the Judicial Branch. She is an impartial member of the Judiciary Committee.

In a dirty maneuver while Ms González was out of the hearing room, Ms Rebimbas made some large claims that there was no supporting evidence of the failures of law that Ms Gonzáles raised. In what appears to be a public call for retaliation, Ms Rebimbas went so far as to name a specific litigant who dared to bring to the legislature the transcript of her judge attacking her, fabricating imaginary lawsuits, accusing the litigant in his paranoid delusions of chasing away all professional therapists, and even letting slip that there is a secret tier system of qualified vendors.

Here Judge Adelman in D’Amato v D’Amato (July 11, 2014), monologuing from the bench, attacks all critics of the courts, ironically hoisting himself with his own petard:

ADELMAN: Have you ever heard the expression being hoisted [sic] by [sic] your own petard?


ADELMAN: It’s from Hamlet, I believe. The attack on the therapeutic community by litigants who have not been successful in court has, obviously, made many of these therapists adverse [sic] to getting involved in these cases. They’re getting sued, and there’s plenty of therapy work for people who are not involved in litigation. It’s hard to believe that so many PhDs, therapists would refuse the work, but I can understand it when they find out that this is a case that’s in litigation and an appeal and why ask for trouble, I guess?

That’s tragic because you and these girls need some therapeutic assistance in an effort to repair the parental relationship, and now, quite frankly, I’m going to have to go to second tier individual.

LITIGANT: What does that mean, Your Honor?

ADELMAN: What that means is I’m going to have to use somebody who’s not a PhD therapist. I’m going to have to go down the stream to other therapeutic individuals because you and others like you have created a hostile environment to ther —

LITIGANT: I would like that stricken, Your Honor, because I did not create this problem, and there’s no proof that he contacted anybody. There’s no proof.

ADELMAN: I have his sworn testimony. What proof do you have? You want to call those ten people into court? You’re calling the man a liar?

LITIGANT: I’m questioning his credibility, yes I am.

ADELMAN: All right. The court finds him incredibly credible. [sic] There’s no reason to think he’s done anything other than what he said he has done. The environment in Family Court and in family therapy is hostile and becoming difficult — it’s getting very difficult to find people, quite frankly, to even volunteer to be Special Masters to help people resolve their cases before they have to go to litigation, and I hope that the people who are creating the hostility think about that.

On Friday, Ms Rebimbas, however, went on to deny the existence of the transcript, accuse the litigant of making up the judge’s tyrannical behavior, and wrongly claim that the only proper channel for remedy is through the judicial branch, which has been established through now hundreds of individuals’ testimony, is not the slightest bit capable of policing itself.

The transcript exposes some very serious questions:

Why would licensed providers be afraid of being sued if everything they are doing is perfectly ethical? Are they engaging in the same unethical practices that victims’ evidence to the legislature and federal task force reflects?
Are judges ordering therapy for children without there being a diagnosis? Is a “custody evaluation” any more credible than peering into a crystal ball? Could this be why these court-appointed providers accept only cash for their services?
Why do judges have a tier system among state licensed treaters? Are the providers who are members or directors of AFCC along with the judges and GALs given preference, such as the transcript references CT Chapter president Linda Smith? Where are these multiple lawsuits against Connecticut therapists to which the judge alludes, and for which the judge blames the litigant standing before him? Was the judge threatening the litigant by referencing an explosive device harming her in his non-sequitur comment? Why would Ms Rebimbas try so hard to deny, or at least deflect from, the existence of this transcript?

Representative González has spent the past seven years hearing heart-wrenching testimony from hundreds of Connecticut citizens being cannibalized by the scam operating out of the Judicial Branch. She has done exactly what she was elected to do, which is to represent the interests and needs of her constituents and the people of Connecticut — not to protect the asset-raiding operation of the judges and GALs. She has never backed down from her duties, even in the harshest of fights against lawlessness. She got emotional and angry over the past few days, which proves a well-calibrated moral compass in the face of, at best, unprofessional behavior from a member of the Judiciary Committee. At worst, she defended against a lobbyist installed to ensure that the moneyball game keeps the cash flowing to court-appointees. Anyone with a heart should be very angry.

It seem that the Federal Task Force agrees. I’ll leave you with their own words about their current operation in Connecticut. Remember to call the hotline and press #6 to report public corruption in Connecticut.

“U.S. Attorney Daly explained that the Task Force is focused on rooting out not only corrupt elected officials, but also federal, state and municipal employees who use their position for personal gain at the expense of the public good.”

“The Task Force will also focus on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are distributed annually by federal and state agencies to ensure that taxpayer funds reach their intended recipients without corrupt interference.”

“Public servants are entrusted by all of us to act in the best interests of the public they serve. It is important for the United States to bring to justice those who betray that trust,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Patricia M. Ferrick. “Public corruption at all levels of local, state, and federal government must not be tolerated, and this task force will leverage the best assets of the task force partner agencies to address the threat posed by corrupt public officials.”

The task force includes staff from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division, the Inspector General’s Offices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

8 months ago

Remember that time Adelman admitted that there are “tiers” of licensed providers that the court uses, and that Diane Hart was forcing him to appoint 3rd tier licensed professionals because she had testified to the legislature? Good times, good times.

Then Rosa Remimbas put out a hit on her right in public during a Judiciary Committee hearing…


[…] of divorce against disgraced Hollywood writer Christopher Ambrose. The basis of her motion – Connecticut Family Court Judge Gerard I. Adelman “poisoned” the original proceedings with judicial fraud, bias, prejudice, dishonesty, […]


[…] “Did Judge Adelman Perpetrate Crimes While Wearing Two Hats as Director of CT AFCC?” isn’t a yes or no question. […]

1 year ago

Adelman is the most well spoken about. There are many inner workings of the system. This is not just a rich person issue. There is funding in the system effecting all economic social classes. The entire system is geared towards financial gain. The children are of very little consideration. Family services. Just as bad as GALs. Frank take a good look into the head of Family services. Involved in many aspects of the inner court workings. On committee for domestic violence matters. Yet , doesn’t appear to be able to recognize domestic abuse in surtin cases.

Can One Parent in Massachusetts Help all Children and Families in Family Courts?
Can One Parent in Massachusetts Help all Children and Families in Family Courts?
1 year ago
Reply to  Anonymous

“The entire system is geared towards financial gain.”

Definitely. In fact, the entire system is geared towards financial gain in purposely adversarial courts specifically designed for lawyers and vendors to make the most profit in the worst cases involving the most vulnerable children and families. Many of those cases involve significant harm and extreme danger. Significant harm and extreme danger doesn’t belong anywhere near any kind of purposely adversarial system. That’s not rocket science.

1. What kind of rocket scientists designed such a horrible system to force vulnerable children and families through mandatory, for-profit purposely adversarial family courts?

2. What can good people in Connecticut and Massachusetts do now to reform family courts before things get worse?

Imre Kifor is a father of four children in Massachusetts. Does anyone know him? He seems like a good guy. It looks like his children’s family court case doesn’t involve danger. If he were dangerous, would he draw attention to the case? Or, is he a sociopath, suffering from extreme litigiousness as many sociopaths do?

Whatever the case may be, it seems Imre is onto something with the potential to do a lot of good. If what he wrote online is true, he’s a witness to what look like crimes involving the same Ms. Deutsch who helped design Connecticut family courts.

(See the 2007 Pace Law Review article “Triaging Family Court Services” Ms. Deutsch authored with her colleagues Peter Salem, Executive Director of AFCC and Debra Kulak, Deputy Director of Family Services in the Connecticut Court Support Services Division [ https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=plr ]

Forced through the Massachusetts family court system, Imre started to wonder:

Do all family court employees and vendors vendors have “absolute judicial immunity” when they write “maliciously fabricated” vendor reports and court opinions?

What recourse to parents (and guardians) have when family court judges, lawyers, vendors and/or state employees purposely use slander, libel and defamation to achieve unethical goals in family court cases?

[ https://medium.com/@imrekifor/adversarial-family-court-a-self-conflicted-institution-238c47fea8d5 ]

As Imre wondered how to protect his children, himself (and the two mothers of his children, apparently) in the lawless Massachusetts family courts, he invented software to help families who were forced to endure what his family was forced to endure.

One of Imre’s many goals is “… to devise AI software to actively protect our American-born children from greedy professional torturing and forceful, institutionalized separation and isolation. Family Court-mandated, and even directly ordered, parental alienation, while paying astronomical profits to the “trusted” elite, is nothing but ruthless and cruel child abuse. “ [ https://qnarre.com/story/ ]

Could such software actually help?

State legislators often wait for hard data to write and support legislation.
Attorneys like Nicola Cunha might be able to present hard data to judges to prove discrimination and corruption.
Well-meaning whistleblowers often need to wait for such data to blow whistles on unethical behaviors and crimes.
Parents and guardians need all the good that can come from the collection of that data to prepare to endure corrupt family courts until family courts can be fully reformed.

Imre might not need help with funding, research, development or distribution of the software. If he ever does, are any Good Samaritans available to help?

The most influential people in government offices who took control and designed adversarial family courts that harm children and families for profit obviously aren’t interested in helping.

1 year ago

Adelman came “fresh off the bench” for the Ambrose trial. He complimented long-time pal, Robert Horwitz but Horwitz was never called to testify.

Instead, he’s used as a hired gun to support the gal in shutting down investigations and findings of abuse by hospitals.

Pals like Gruen (also fronts as gal), Horwitz, and Lisa Kerin, work in lockstep to conceal info from the record and silence children. All while threatening the hell out of the mother and the children.

The message is the kids don’t matter. They’re all criminals. They’re all protected- same names- LaLiberte, Lisa Knoff, Jocelyn Horwitz, Biren Caverly, Linda Smith, William Brown, Sidney a Horwitz, Bruce Freedman – money makers. Child abusers.

1 year ago

Judge Adelman threatened me on transcript in Middletown court in 2013.

Just wondering
Just wondering
1 year ago
Reply to  Kai

How many times did Gerard Adelman conspire with Sidney Horowitz to give young children to the men who molested those young children?

1 year ago
Reply to  Kai

Send it to Frank Report. Adelman is a criminal. His threats to Susan Skipp and others are well known. Time to stop protecting this child abuser.

He hates women. He abuses them, violates all rights, and delivers children to their abuser.

His memorandums are all lies. Everyone knows what being sent to Adelman means. Child abduction and theft of all money.

1 year ago

“Did Judge Adelman Perpetrate Crimes While Wearing Two Hats as Director of CT AFCC?”

I’m going to take a wild guess:


1 year ago
Reply to  WTF

WTF: Are you a troll?

What purpose do your comments serve?

1 year ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Here is a tip to aspiring headline writers: Don’t ask a yes or no question in the headline.

1 year ago
Reply to  WTF

“Did Judge Adelman Perpetrate Crimes While Wearing Two Hats as Director of CT AFCC?” isn’t a yes or no question. A few yes or no questions and about a hundred more questions are in that one headline. For example: Was Gerard Adelman the subject of the Informal JE 2013-15 discussion? If not, who was?

Why didn’t the Connecticut judicial branch and The Hartford Courant tell citizens of the state what happened?

If federal crimes were committed, were the federal crimes discussed privately? Was an informal hearing conducted instead of a federal investigation so citizens of the state of Connecticut wouldn’t know who did what, when, why, where and how?

Local corruption and interstate racketeering for profit in Connecticut’s family courts is a big story. It’s bigger news than discrimination against Catholics in Greenwich public schools.

Maybe the news about discrimination against conservatives in Greenwich will eventually lead to a broader, deeper more helpful investigation of discrimination against conservatives throughout the state.

Maybe such an investigation will include an investigation of discrimination in family courts. Attorney Nicola Cunha asked Judge Moukawsher that same kind of investigation of discrimination in family courts right before she was disbarred for raising those concerns.

Some historians would tell you this is all old news. Many would say the western part of Connecticut has always sided with the liberal/pagan British Freemasons while most in the eastern part of the state lived and fought for political and religious freedom — as most conservatives do today.

No matter the politics and religions of anyone involved and not involved, every Connecticut citizen has a right to know what happened in that JE 2013-15 discussion.

Crimes committed and casualties sustained in Connecticut family courts are the same crimes and casualties year after year.

Those who commit those crimes in family courts aren’t allowed to hold such titles as “CT AFCC Inc. Director” anymore, but the same crimes of discrimination, favoritism, fraud, malpractice (and racketeering when illegal activities cross state lines) remain ignored and unaddressed.

All indications of actionable offenses presented at the Informal JE 2013-15 should have been immediately sent to the Department of Justice for investigation.

Anne Stevenson’s 2013 Washington Times article, “Connecticut court employees face tough questions over conflicts of interest” [ http://www.thelizlibrary.org/mothers/130520-wash-times.pdf ] noted the following:

“According to William Silk, a staff attorney for the Connecticut Secretary of State’s office explained that in most cases, the Connecticut Nonstock Corporations Act requires all nonprofit businesses to file registration documents with his office, the IRS, and the Attorney General’s Office before conducting business in the state.

Documents obtained from Silk’s office show that Jessica Pearson, Ann Milne, and Frank Orlando (a Florida judge) first registered the AFCC with the Connecticut Secretary of State in 1982 while Pearson was under contract to set up the court’s mediation services.

However, the AFCC has not been registered to do business in Connecticut because in 1985, its application was withdrawn by then AFCC president and Judicial Branch manager Anthony Salius. The IRS’s website does not list the Connecticut AFCC as an approved charity.”

Someone broke into a reporter’s house after that article was published. Was that a coincidence?

It seems someone stole independent journalist John Flynn’s car the other day in broad daylight. Was that a coincidence, too? John Flynn lives in Connecticut. He’s investigated and reported corruption in Connecticut’s judicial branch and corruption throughout the state. He’s currently running for the Connecticut US Senate seat Mr. Blumenthal has occupied since 2011.

John Flynn sounds crazy when he talks about all the corruption that state offices and authorities have ignored over the years.

Jennifer Dulos sounded crazy too when no one would protect her from a smooth-talking sociopath. Norm Pattis said Jennifer Dulos was crazy. Now Norm Pattis represents the Attorney Cunha, the lawyer Judge Moukawsher disbarred for blowing the whistle on the corruption in family courts.

How funny some must think all of this is.

Mr. Blumenthal was the state’s attorney general from 1991 – 2011. In all that time, did he ever do anything about corruption or discrimination in Connecticut’s judicial branch or the state’s public schools?

Did no corruption or discrimination ever exist in Connecticut’s judicial branch or public schools before independent journalists and whistleblowing attorneys told us about it?

Mr. Blumenthal wasn’t the only state employee who ignored the corruption and discrimination all these years. How many other Connecticut lawyers, judges, legislators and employees at the Department of Justice in 2013 were aware of those “tough questions” mentioned in the 2013 Washington Times article and ignored those tough questions, hoping everyone else would, too?

If the loyalty oaths of Freemasonry, purposely ignoring crimes and simple distractions don’t enable such a massive official cover-ups of actionable offenses in Connecticut’s judicial branch, what does?

Whoever allowed such horrible corruption to remain unaddressed and unpunished for so long committed actionable offenses, just like the judicial officer who was the subject of the Informal JE 2013-15 discussion.

At this point, it’s CHAOS in Connecticut — like the name of Tom O’Neill’s book. In fact, there’s a good chance the chaos in Connecticut directly or indirectly involves one or two characters mentioned in Tom O’Neill’s book. It’s the same chaos in the “ordo ab chao“ Archbishop Vigano mentions when he talks about Freemasons who destroyed the Catholic Church and so much of the world.

Meanwhile, since “tough questions” from 2013 are still unanswered in Connecticut, louder calls for an investigation of the cover-up of federal crimes in Connecticut’s Judicial Branch will need the support and protection from as many good people as possible.

When Judge Moukawsher can disbar Attorney Nickola Cunha for asking questions about corruption in family courts, a vice principle in public schools can so openly discriminate against Catholics and attorneys contribute to the chaos from which they make a profit, that’s a dangerous climate.

That dangerous climate is a direct result of citizens not demanding honest answers from those in control. How long will so many not demand answers from government offices when those mostly punished are those who asked the questions?

Most witnessing disasters that cause thousands of casualties in dangerous climates don’t need to be reminded of how to respond appropriately in those tragic situations. Unfortunately, there are always a few who need reminders.

If you see something, say something.
If you saw something, say something.

If you saw something, said something and were ignored or punished: Tell someone else. This battle has gone on for at least two thousand years.

Margaret Sullivan
Margaret Sullivan
1 year ago

Here are a few links illustrating the hands on involvement of the AFCC in CT, as they developed and piloted the Screening tools used by Family Services. Also, the AFCC incorporated in 2013 and was dissolved in 2015. The organization was “employed” by CT and other grants.

CT Business Search link (search for: CONNECTICUT CHAPTER OF AFCC, INC ) https://service.ct.gov/business/s/onlinebusinesssearch?language=en_US

PACE Law Review (2007) Connecticut Screening Tool developed.

2002 CT Contracts with AFCC to develop a Screening tool which is still used today to screen families for, among other things, domestic violence.

8 months ago

Margaret, I just heard about what happened today…I hope you get well soon and Judge Adelman apologizes to you for what he has done now…

Criminal conduct already proven.
Criminal conduct already proven.
1 year ago

Adelman is a criminal. Time for FBI to step up. Racketeering has already been proven with the “CT task force”.

They were running a business for profit through the judiciary and it was registered in Illinois. It was the AFCC Connecticut chapter. They did report profit and then owed taxes.

And what was done? Nothing. Zero accountability.

And Adelman continues to work with his cronies – Robert Horwitz, Bruce Freedman, Sue Coussineau, Nancy Aldrich, Linda smith- who trained Jessica Biren Caverly – psychologists acting as custody evaluators.

The AFCC promotes Gardner’s parental alienation. They set it up from the start. The Ambrose case never followed any of the requirements- including a family case study at family relations. Ambrose maintained coercive control and didn’t have to file a financial affidavit.

These are flags of the AFCC cabal.
It is a self promoting criminal enterprise.

Dianne Hart was a great mother, torn from the lives of her children. Her entire extended family was cut off from the children. Can you imagine the cruelty and trauma inflicted on her children. She’s now dead. She never saw her children again. Thanks to Adelman.

Paige Styvan had the Adelman- Nancy Aldrich combo. Ambrose’s case is very similar- same playbook by Aldrich. Same violations of all due process. No finding of unfitness.

The 12 year old daughter was stolen while the mother as called to court.
She never saw her again.

The public needs to understand these are not “high conflict divorces”. The court emboldens the monied parent who abuses the power and creates a false narrative throughout court documents.

All laws are blatantly violated. The same players and playbook.

Please help expose and hold the criminals accountable. They are powerful and cover for each other while destroying innocent parents and children

You don’t go to family court with the expectation that one parent will be erased from the lives of the children.

The children learn parents are divorcing and then are told there is to be no contact with their beloved parent. The fright- the abuse- the violations of children’s rights are atrocities, committed by CT family court.

1 year ago

For the love of God- give this up

Just wondering
Just wondering
1 year ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Which god do you worship?

The Big Lie
The Big Lie
1 year ago

AFCC works with judges to ensure quality friends and associates get referrals in family court.

The mistake Cunha made was to draw the Jewish connection. It was the AFCC connection.

1 year ago
Reply to  The Big Lie

Exactly. She even had the paperwork showing the membership and emails sent from the CT judicial court! But her brain went haywire.

She still deserves to be heard. Summary disbarment is unconstitutional. Mouk wanted to shut down the case – Cunha was days away from calling the gal to the stand, Robert Horwitz to the stand- the truth would finally come out so they had to silence the mother, all of her experts, and decades of family and friends who know the kids extremely well.

Sadly, Cunha made it easy for them.

Criminal Conduct in CT judiciary
Criminal Conduct in CT judiciary
1 year ago

The AFCC operated as a business out of the Judicial Branch. It was registered in Ilinois and did not pay taxes to the State of CT. The AFCC CT chapter was disbanded as a result of illegal activity, but it was once again buried by corrupt powers in CT.

The AFCC members consist of ‘court appointed experts’– the custody evaluators, parental ‘supervisors’ based on the bogus custody evaluations, GALs, and attorneys.
Documents show Judge Adelman was on the Board of Directors, along with Judge Holly Wetsone and Judge Linda Munrow. Both Wetstone and Munrow were ultimately ousted from the bench, but how and why did Adelman remain? WHy is he permitted to collude with the same AFCC members in their racketeering operation?

Other members of the Board of Directors included: Linda Smith (custody evaluator was president), Robert Horwitz, psychologist (sadistic ‘reunification therapist’, supervisor or GAL– he wears many hats, all to deliver custody to monied parents), Sue Coussineau (abusive GAL who drains family savings), Thomas Esposito – Corrupt attorney, Bruce Freedman, psychologist who advocates for immunity for all custody evaluators! He explains to CT court that no insurance can be used to cover their billings! It’s because their work is FRAUD and would never hold up to the medical community.

These criminals use their network to promote parental alienation as a weapon to protect abusers, prolong litigation, and destroy mother-child bonds. They are not held accounable by any public entity– The CT state licensing board protects them, the Office of Civil Rights protects them. How high up does this trafficking network go in CT?

How many children and parents will be destroyed and sacrificed so the CT judges, attorneys, and psychologists can get rich off of unsuspecting, innocent parents who enter family court thinking their rights would be honored and their children protected?

“No treatment nor assessment for treatment” in Connecticut’s “dangerously litigious climates”?

2015 was the year the New Haven DOJ office was supposed to investigate public corruption in Connecticut.

That year, a few decent Judiciary Committee members had proposed with HB-5505. They wrote: “In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a child undergo treatment or an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e … If after the two-week period, the parents have not reached an agreement on the selection of a licensed health care provider, the court shall select such provider after giving due consideration to the health insurance coverage and financial resources available to such parents. …”

Mr. Freedman objected to that part of the bill. In addition to not wanting health insurance provider oversight, he stated his need for “limited immunity provided by the court in order to be able to address the court in an open, honest and useful manner“.

So, no oversight plus immunity makes people most open, honest and useful?
How does that work, exactly?

Did any DOJ agents read Mr. Freedman’s letter?
If so, did anyone notice the incongruity of what Mr. Freedman did vs what he wrote?

There are many different kinds of medical fraud in the world. Whenever one eye doctor treats patients very differently then all other eye doctors in the same field of care, that’s a huge red flag.

When psychologists contracted with Connecticut family courts conduct evaluations very differently (with no oversight or accountability) compared to psychologists who conduct different evaluations (with oversight and accountability) outside of family courts, that’s a huge red flag.

Mr. Freedman wrote:


“Dear sirs

I am writing in hopes of correcting some misunderstandings about court-ordered psychological evaluations. I am a psychologist who has conducted many evaluations for courts throughout Connecticut. These studies serve the court in assisting judges to understand important family matters and point the court in the direction of what is best for children.

In order to do this:

– evaluators with the highest level of training and experience are used. These are Ph.D level psychologists with years of education, specific training and understanding of families and court matters. There are no shortcuts or substitutes for this expertise

– evaluators understand and do their best to avoid bias The court relies on their neutrality and sensitivity to gender, culture and special problems.

– health insurance does not cover any of this work. It is not treatment nor assessment for treatment, and therefore health insurers are not responsible for reimbursement for such services

– evaluators are not therapists in this role. They advocate for children’s interests while considering the wishes strengths and concerns of parents and other parties. While evaluators may serve as treating psychologists in different cases, a therapist is not in a position to provide a comprehensive, neutral report to the court.

– Evaluators do difficult work in a dangerously litigious climate. They need limited immunity provided by the court in order to be able to address the court in an open, honest and useful manner

Bruce Freedman Ph.D”

Did the Connecticut Judicial Committee not see what a horribly dangerous quack Mr. Freedman appeared to be at that time?

He wrote: “[T]here are no shortcuts or substitutes for [his] expertise”. Okay, sure.

But, did he tell the Judicial Committee:
No “treatments or assessments for treatments” are required for “dangerously litigious climates”?

Or, did he tell the Judicial Committee:
Whenever he detects “dangerously litigious climates”, he always refers those dangerous cases out to colleagues who assess cases in “dangerously litigious climates”?

Professional oversight could tell us exactly how much harm has Mr. Freedman done to exactly how many. Oversight could tell us exactly how many fatalities resulted from Mr. Freedman’s involvement in dangerously mismanaged cases. Oversight could tell us if Mr. Herman (the court-ordered evaluator in Fotis Dulos’ case) notified health insurers before or after Dulos’ homicidal and suicidal behaviors became obvious.

What a horribly dangerous state Connecticut has been and still is for so many families. Health insurance providers, professional boards … someone … anyone might be the best source of oversight for Connecticut family court quacks.

Why didn’t legislators set oversight firmly in place for family courts years ago?

What kind of people in what kind of system allow such dangerous quackery to do so much harm to so many — with no oversight and no accountability?

1 year ago

Thanks you

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” Parlato was also credited in the Starz docuseries "Seduced" for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Additionally, Parlato’s coverage of the group OneTaste, starting in 2018, helped spark an FBI investigation, which led to indictments of two of its leaders in 2023.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premiered on May 22, 2022. Most recently, he consulted and appeared on Tubi's "Branded and Brainwashed: Inside NXIVM," which aired January, 2023.

IMDb — Frank Parlato

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083
Email: frankreport76@gmail.com


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x