Corrupt CT Family Court – 6 GALS and Attorney Nusbaum – Avoid These Worst of Predators

By Julia Donovan

It’s not just CT Family Court that is a problem.

The same problem definitely “screams out” in so many states and nations. Maybe when more people see Frank Report is investigating and reporting about family courts, more people will comment and contribute articles.

Family courts are mostly corrupt throughout America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Argentina, and everywhere evil quacks like  Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager spread their poison a few decades ago.

Dr. Richard Gardner, the father of using family court to protect pedophiles.

How did that happen?

One judge in Argentina noticed the “Parental Alienation Syndrome” scam in clusters of cases there. She saw the same pattern we see in America:

1. The children disclosed parental sexual abuse.

2. Lawyers and for-profit vendors advocated for the perpetrators.

3. Judges punished the protective parents and placed the sexually abused children with the perpetrators.

The judge in Argentina described the corruption there as “sinister”.

Frank Report focused on Connecticut because some of the worst cases happened in Connecticut, and the state seems to be a hub of some kind.

Pedophilia runs rampant in old Connecticut.

Also, judges and legislators who noticed the toxic family court system in Connecticut are gaslit, slandered and destroyed. Lawyers who speak up are shunned. One lawyer who spoke about the corruption was disbarred at the beginning of the year.

Connecticut is also one of the first states where a few lawyers and vendors started passing cases to and from each other using state offices and state/federal resources. They were making thousands and tens of thousands of dollars in the cases they passed to and from each other within their small network.

Edward Nusbaum – they say he works for the wealthy parent no matter who he represents. Beware of this smiling face! Behind it lies an explosive temper. Look for our upcoming series on Nusbaum – his threats, exorbitant billing and ruthless behavior. If you want to lose both your children and your life savings, and wind up with him insulting you in the end – try this guy for your family court needs 

Evil GAL Jocelyn Hurwitz

Judicial immunity and authority let them do whatever they wanted to do. Since the same has happened elsewhere to varying degrees, comments and articles showing the same patterns in other states and nations will definitely help expose the bigger picture.

AFCC corporation documents might be one roadmap to use. They show where much of the trouble started and where it went from there.

California, Minnesota, Connecticut and Colorado were some of the hubs for the initial networking. Then, that networking was racketeering whenever it was illegal and crossed state lines.

Writers, parents, former court employees and officials who witnessed the hell, anyone who wants to investigate and write about what’s happening in family courts can help with comments and articles. Current whistleblowers from inside family court systems can probably help the most. For the rest of us, the list of topics is endless:

  1. the history of for-profit motives in family courts
  2. how politics affect family courts
  3. great family courts (to set examples)
  4. horrible family courts (to shine a bright light on all that needs to be exposed)
  5. juries and judges in family courts
  6. religious family courts and cases
  7. non-religious family courts and cases
  8. oversight and accountability in family courts
  9. cameras in family courts and eyewitness accounts
  10. for-profit vendors in family courts
  11. non-profit vendors in family courts
  12. data on the most adversarial, most destructive and most profitable family courts in the world

Every parent in family courts should be handed a list of rights — and a list of GALs as soon as GALs are discussed. AND every GAL on those lists should be highly-qualified, decent and honest volunteers — not working for profit.

Sue Cousineau, the ‘Beast of Middletown.’ They say she’ll rip children out of their happy homes and place them with pedos quicker than you can say dollar bills.

A special place in hell is reserved for this beast – Jill Plancher, a GAL in CT. She will run up an astonishing bill once foolish parents consent to appoint her.

GAL, Attorney Janis Laliberte – lives off the fat of the land – and children’s happiness.

GAL, attorney Mary Piscatelli Brigham. ‘I’ll take your kids and give them to a pedo if it profits me and my friends.’

The Wolf of Cohen and Wolf, GAL Jocelyn Hurwitz can take your children’s college fund and convert to her children at the blink of the eye. Beware this wolf in attorney’s clothing.

A cut above. They say GAL Candace Fay will steal not only from children’s futures but will raid the elderly in cahoots with swindlers. She’s lucky not to be in prison and if she practiced anywhere other than CT, she would be behind bars.  

Children and families aren’t rocket science. There’s no need to pay $400 an hour for anything.

Family court judges should direct court clerks to provide whatever lists are to be provided. Judges should be fined every time they don’t provide those lists.

When family court employees and vendors don’t follow rules or laws, how many parents going through such a difficult time have the strength/finances etc. to catch every violation? Not many can — and most don’t.

Court watchers sometimes help when judges don’t mind court watchers in their courtrooms. Every courthouse should have a roaming court watcher Monday through Friday randomly attending family court proceedings and taking notes.

Ombudsmen can help with specific violations — in good and decent Ombudsman’s offices.
Filing grievances doesn’t help when grievance committee members cover for friends.

Media attention from good news outlets sometimes helps, but it depends on how guilty/defensive/offensive the offenders are. Many are literally sociopaths, and according to the DSM, many sociopaths enjoy filing lawsuits.

Good local representatives sometimes help.

Support from family and friends is the only way to survive in the worst cases — and they’re usually harmed in the process, too. What’s happening in so many family courts is an absolute nightmare, and prayer always helps those who pray.

About the author

Guest View


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional. To leave a name, click on the email icon)


  • Family courts in all of the countries listed in the article above, are corrupt because of David Mandel and Ruth Stearns selling the countries their “safe and together model”, that has proven to be a damaging creation for children. Just research the names, especially on Twitter and you’ll find truth. Mandel created and introduced the Dads get out of jail with no accountability programs. They are making billions.

    • Billions is probably an exaggeration, right?

      They say they help violent men be less violent / help women be less abused, but Ruth’s philosophy is to break cultural norms. That breaking of traditional cultural norms was Richard Gardner’s philosophy and schpeal. The men should do whatever they want and the women should respond with hyper-sexuality. Seems more like leftism than best practices.

  • 😉 wink: To close and open the eyelid of one eye deliberately, as to convey a message, signal, or suggestion. says:


    MetooMoms is an independent journalism, watchdog and whistleblower group that conducts investigative and undercover reporting work on the Family Court and associated private and public institutions. MetooMoms investigates and exposes corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, fraud, and other misconduct that results in the violation of the legal rights of women and children. An independent media is an imperative to achieve a more ethical and transparent Family Court.

    MetooMoms undercover and independent journalist work undercover on their own or by, with and through idealistic insiders and whistleblowers to bring to the American people the corrupt private truths hidden behind the walls of Family Court and it’s associated institutions and individual bad actors.

    Our stories are intended to bring about about successful impacts at the local, state and national levels: ending federal funding of Family Courts who engage in misconduct and corruption and exposing bad actors who seem to have forgotten their oath of office and role as taxpayer funded public servants.

    When MetooMoms takes on an investigation, the goal is clear:
    – MetooMoms launches an investigation with the placement of our undercover journalists. The rollout of our findings creates a growing and uncontainable firestorm of social media.
    – Corruption is exposed, leaders resign, and organizations are shut down.
    – MetooMoms gets immediate, measurable and impactful results–and our return on investment is unparalleled.

    There are many ways to be a part of MetooMoms from becoming an insider, undercover journalist, a video editor or contributor.

    MetooMoms is independently supported by independent citizen journalists and volunteers.

    MetooMoms does not advocate specific resolutions to the issues that are raised through its investigations, nor do we encourage others to do so. Our goal is to inform the public of wrongdoing and allow the public to make judgments on the issues. …”

  • Look at the contracts of these gals and nusbaum. All endorsed by CT corrupt family court for decades.

    And the Bar is a joke- total waste of time, as is the judiciary committee and judicial review. Look up how many times sanctions have been given v number of complaints. They hold no one accountable.

    Stay out of Connecticut. Pedo protecting state.

    • Better watch what you say about Nusbaum- He’s protected by Tubby Trembicki and he’ll take all action to protect his reputation. 😂

  • Here is how the screw the bitch custody parental alienation/custodial interference goes. Some one files for divorce. Mom raises some concerns any doesn’t have to be sexual. They decide a gal absolutely needs on the case. They know the perfect one. She is going to get to the bottom of things. She states that there is a perfect psychologist for the job. Soon as you sign the paperwork game on. More conflict breaks out and you have to defend yourself. You bring evidence to your attorney. The GAL states she doesn’t care. Dad can do whatever he wants. Your the problem. You are a second class citizen, the father’s rights trump yours. The child most do as told. You are to punish them. Mom’s relationship and the child’s trust of Mom must be harmed at all costs. Mom have no rights just the father’s. The child , well you signed them over to the GaL. She thinks relationship with Dad far more important than the one with Mom. . GaLs have immunity and do what ever the hell they want. It’s only a problem if Dad complaints and wants her off the case She already knows the psychologist feels the same that’s why she forced you to agree to their services. They have done the same thing in the other cases. Confirmed by other moms. You don’t get any written report. Your in the dark about what the hell is happening. Dad’s attorney is engaged in an all out assault . Lies about things with out evidence. Your attorney doesn’t do much but tell you to go along and pay for more stuff. You must be nuts your a woman. Dad’s attorney goes into court. Mom’s been interfering. She didn’t answer dads call. Cause he let it ring once and hung up. He was offered to social distance in the driveway or deck. It’s covid and he’s an anti vaxer. Doesn’t social distancing. He doesn’t reply. He’s attorney sends emails demanding a place to visit. Legal bills for emails. You let your attorney know you already offered. Dad Never asks again. Child visit dad for Christmas Eve. They let the child know that they have plans for later. Apparently has not dedicated the night to the child. The child begins to cry and gets upset. She is told she is getting upset for no reason.” Your just like your mother”. Cause all mom’s are crazy and get emotional. To be like your mom is bad. She comes home with presents in a bag. No dinner cause she is just like mom. That’s no good. The reunification is going no where and the issues aren’t getting better. It’s all mom’s fault she is crazy and doesn’t do anything right. Dad wants stuff from the house. Doesn’t make a list and backs a truck up to clean out the house. The cops are called and Dad is arguing with his mother in law. In front of his other child. Brought him along for the drama . Yelling at her because he owns everything in the house. States his lawyer doesn’t want to be bothered making arrangements for him to get his stuff. Apparently neither did mom’s . Racking up more billable hours with emails. Tying up two police officers and Mom had to leave work. Got forwarded an email neither attorney knows the tax laws for child tax credit. It’s legal rocket science. Child resides with Mom more than 6 months of the year . Go in 2 hours late to court for divorce hearing cause dad’s having a fit in the basement of the court house. Yelling and swearing. ” I’m not giving that bitch anything”. Guess nobody in the court house including the gal thought this was a red flag . Dad’s attorney tells the judge Mom hasn’t given dad any photos of the child. . Intentional to make Mom out to be bad to the judge. Dad took the laptop that had the files of the photos. Given duplicate of what was printed. Dad continue to fight with teenager. She stops calling because she is sick of arguing. Dad sends nasty email to mom. She is a horrible person. She is sick and he can’t believe his child has to live with her. Dad’s attorney runs to court to file contempt 2 days later. Judge signs off. Mom’s attorney says he knows nothing about it but needs money to keep representing her The lawyers, can make a few more bucks off this case. The minor is almost 18. Cause a few more sessions with the same psychologist is gonna fix everything. . Cause the child is not allowed to have feelings or express why they are this is a fraction of the things I could say . In Connecticut family court it’s in the best interest of the children to have Mom labeled. You can get out of your financial obligations. Who cares about the long term damage being done. I’m sure there are hundreds of cases just like this in Connecticut .. Shame on Frank for letting the cat out of the bag..

    • I was a party in a very high conflict divorce. GAL appointed to our case. Could not have had a more opposite experience that this description above.

      • That’s great. Unfortunately I know several others with same experience. But I am glad to hear you didn’t.

      • Good to know.

        If you wouldn’t mind, can you share a few details about your experience so those interested in improving the family court system can take notes?

        What was it about your case that made the process easier/better/less traumatic/less expensive etc?

        Do you think the judge, lawyers, mediators, evaluators etc. made the difference?

      • Who were the attorneys? The gal? The judges? Glad you were spared but all families and children need protection and just the opposite is happening with total disregard for due process and state law that both parents need consistent and meaningful roles in their childrens lives.

        Kids are being traumatized and abused. No laws are followed in these cases. Look at Jennifer Dulos case— it’s yet to go to trial. They’ll be no justice. They’re stalling and burying the case because they were running the scam to get all of Jennifer’s money. The psychological evaluation was character assassination on a good mother.

        It’s racketeering. All money driven. Kids silenced and sacrificed.

    • sounds like my case but reverse the gender roles… the focus is always on the money not the child(ren) or whats right or wrong….money and how do we steal it!!!! yahooooo!!!!

  • Sue Coussineau was caught billing nine parents for the same hour of work! It was brought before the judicial committee and task force investigating gals- guess what?

    Nothing happened. They all share the profits. The most money goes through CT family court.

    Sue coussineau has been a gal on a case for over 6 years.

    Why are gals becoming permanent members of families going through divorce?

    How helpful are any court appointed professionals when they take years to do their job and no one ever “gets better”. And why are the courts ruling and insisting that families must keep these “professionals” in their lives indefinitely?

    Racketeering. 🙂

    • They are not held accountable for their conduct. The state continues not to address the GAL problem. There is absolutely no supervision. There is no court ombudsman. Despite years of people complaining. In went into the clerks office and asked who’s in charge and running the courts. Absolutely no one could answer me. They were scrambling around. Nice people in the clerks office, but there is no one dealing with the system. I sent a letter to judge Diana. He sent it back. He could just recuse himself from the case. We need an office in Connecticut out side family court to conduct investigation.

      • the inmates run the asylum in family court …and the prize is milk the families or should I say the parent with the most to lose….

    • “Sue Coussineau was caught billing nine parents for the same hour of work!“

      How did the parents find out?
      Were dates and times on the bills?

    • Sue Coussineau told me “as long as the parent staying in CT has basic minimal parenting skills there’s no reason for kids to ever move out of state”. She follows her own standard not the legal standard. Bridget Barry-Corliss said “CT doesn’t like to let kids move out of state”. Again, that’s not the legal standard they are legally bound to go by. Chasity Outlaw FRC said she didn’t believe I was abused, after meeting me for mediation for 5 minutes on a short calendar day. She also said my 13 year old son would feel completely comfortable telling his therapist over video in the kitchen if his father and grandmother were abusing him. Completely corrupt system and people!!!

  • Ah Frank strikes again with the one sided reporting. I am involved directly with one of these GALs and I can tell you that the information you are getting couldn’t not be more inflated or just plain false.
    I hope you get sued again, Frank.

    • Great! Do tell… what gal do you have? Spread the good cheer. More importantly, identify which gal listed that has NOT engaged in perjury, misconduct, hiding evidence, isolating children from their parent, and depleting family savings.

      You say which gal that is and I’ll give you a case where they engaged in activity that violates ct law

      All you have to do is look at their contracts to see they engage in malfeasance.

    • Who did Frank get sued by?

      The Bronfmans tried and failed. Paranoid and delusional Ambrose tried and failed. Who else?

    • The first Ombudsman ever hired at NPR was hired to squash a documentary called, “Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories”.

      NPR hired Michael Getler to do the job. Why Michael Getler?

      Big shots running NPR should have said, “Hey, it looks like children are suffering in family courts. Let’s find out more about what’s happening and help those kids!”

      Instead, it was all PR for NPR — and sweeping the family court mess under the rug.

      “The Ombudsman Column

      A Little About Me, A Lot About “Breaking the Silence”
      By Michael Getler
      DECEMBER 2, 2005

      Greetings, and welcome to my maiden voyage as the first ombudsman in the 36-year history of the Public Broadcasting Service. To find out more about me and my mission you can click on two links: biography, and mission & approach. But basically I’m here to serve viewers, online visitors, and PBS by listening to comments, complaints and compliments from viewers, sorting out those that go to the journalistic mission of PBS, getting reactions and explanations from PBS producers and officials, and providing independent assessments, when necessary, about whether PBS programs measured up to their own editorial guidelines and standards.

      I joined PBS on Nov. 15. Before I got here, the plan was that my first column, and the Ombudsman’s full Web site, would be launched on Dec. 20. But some controversy got here before I did and the main subject of this column is a PBS program, “Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories,” that aired on Oct. 20. Rather than wait until two months after the program was presented, I’m posting this column early while the events are still reasonably fresh.

      Allow me also, at the outset, to explain that I am not one of the two ombudsmen hired last April by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I work only for PBS, have a contract that assures total independence and non-interference in carrying out my duties, and have no connection to the CPB.

      I mention this because it has been confusing for people who know that I have been hired by PBS, but who have read a great deal in the newspapers or watched on TV in recent weeks about the CPB and its former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who resigned in November. That coverage focused mostly on a CPB Inspector General’s report that was highly critical of Tomlinson and the board’s own corporate governance. The report, which Tomlinson has challenged, found evidence that he had “violated statutory provisions and the Director’s Code of ethics” in one case, that “political tests” were used in recruiting a new Chief Executive Officer,” and that “established procurement and contracting procedures were bypassed” in other actions. News coverage of the report also often included references to the two CPB ombudsmen who were selected by Tomlinson.

      The CPB was created by Congress in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation with a nine-member board, each appointed by the President to six-year terms subject to Senate confirmation. No more than five may be members of the same political party. One of its roles is to distribute federally-appropriated funds to public broadcasting nationwide. PBS gets about 24% of its funding via the CPB and Federal grants.

      The IG report also pointed out, however, that the CPB plays a “sometimes contradictory role” in that it is mandated to act as a “heat shield” protecting public broadcasting from political interference, yet also has authority to address “objectivity and balance issues.” Tomlinson invoked that provision when deciding to hire ombudsmen for the CPB.

      The IG report, which you can read on the CPB Web site, said: “We could not determine whether any ‘political test’ was used to select the ombudsmen. While the former Chairman (Tomlinson) initially considered having the ombudsman represent different political perspectives, he stated that he came to realize that it was more important to have two respected journalists just expressing their views and opinions.” That latter role sounds a lot better to me than the first idea.

      The two CPB ombudsmen are: Ken Bode, who worked for NBC and CNN, was the moderator of the PBS “Washington Week in Review” show from 1994 to 1999, and is now a journalism professor at DePauw University in Indiana; and William Schulz, a former Executive Editor at Reader’s Digest, where he worked for 35 years. Tomlinson also worked at that magazine. You can also read their work on the CPB Web site, including a recent review of “Breaking the Silence” by Bode.

      “Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories”

      Waiting for me on my first day at PBS was a stack of e-mails, the great majority of them critical, and commentaries about a PBS documentary titled, “Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories.” That program first aired on Oct. 20. It was co-produced by veteran documentary-makers Catherine Tatge and Dominique Lasseur, and Connecticut Public Television (CPTV). Funding was provided by the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.

      According to PBS statistics, the program has been aired by 235 stations, about 69% of all PBS stations, some 387 times between its Oct. 20 debut and Nov. 20. That group of stations is available to 77% of all U.S. TV households, but the number of people having viewed that actual program would be only a tiny fraction of those households, perhaps less than 1%, according to fragmentary data.

      The film was described this way by CPTV in the press release before the premier: “This powerful new PBS documentary chronicles the impact of domestic violence on children and the recurring failings of family courts across the country to protect them from their abusers. In stark and often poignant interviews, children and battered mothers tell their stories of abuse at home and continued trauma within the courts. The one-hour special also features interviews with domestic violence experts, attorneys and judges who reveal the disturbing frequency in which abusers are winning custody of their children and why these miscarriages of justice continue to occur.”

      The abusers are not seen or heard from in this film, but they are all fathers. The abused are all children and/or their mothers, who have also lost custody of the children in court. There are also two high-profile men who appear on the program who, as children, were victims of abusive fathers — New York Yankees’ manager Joe Torre, and Walter Anderson, the chairman and CEO of Parade Magazine.

      This is, indeed, a powerfully-presented documentary and does reveal what is undeniably a tragic and frustrating domestic and legal nightmare for many mothers and children. The stories told by the children, in particular, leave no doubt about the length and depth of sadness and loss accompanying these cases.

      Reviewing the program in the Albany, NY, Times Union newspaper, Bob Port writes that producer Lasseur “deserves a Nobel Prize for honesty. This exquisite documentary, like no other production I have seen, makes comprehensible the subtlety of a scandal that recurs in custody proceedings in New York and other states. It is an almost impossible story to tell, one from which journalists flee, and it boils down to this: A judge, often misled by self-interested lawyers and court-appointed professionals, ignores a protective mother, ignores the wishes of children and awards custody to a man who is an abuser, emotionally or physically, of his wife or their children.”

      Other reviews I saw, including Bode’s, tended to be generally critical.

      Boston Globe reviewer Cathy Young, for example, wrote on Nov. 21 that: “There is no question that our legal system fails children all too often. But the PBS documentary presents a skewed and sensationalist picture.” She also questions the accuracy of statistics cited in the film and used as back-up on the producer’s Web site.

      Writing in the Fresno Bee in California on Oct. 20, Rick Bentley interviewed the director of a local facility for victims of domestic violence who said she thought the program lacked balance, that it focused on extreme cases, that those cases seem to date back several years, and that they “portrayed the court systems and attorneys as being very biased toward men and unconcerned for the safety of children. This may be the case in some areas of the country, but not ours,” she said.

      The mail arriving at PBS has been overwhelmingly critical. This is not surprising since much of it — aside from perhaps several dozen e-mails and letters — seemed to have been generated by various fathers’ rights groups, including Fathers & Families, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Father Rights activist Glenn Sacks, and from a group called RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Violence Reporting). PBS reports receiving almost 4,000 e-mails, with more than 3,500 of them negative. More than 90 of 105 phone calls were also negative as were virtually all of the few dozen letters.

      The critics challenged the program on many counts, including a lack of balance and objectivity that they claimed violates PBS editorial standards, a lack of evidence to back up assertions on the program, the complete absence of fathers and their perspective in the documentary, failure to cite statistics that critics say contradict the thrust of the program, the promotion of negative stereotypes that work against fathers in custody disputes, and some very specific challenges about one case, in particular, that was discussed in the film.

      There were also strong objections to the portrayal of what is called “Parental Alienation Syndrome” as “junk science” on the program. The original press release about the program said that: “Despite being discredited by the American Psychological Association and similar organizations, PAS continues to be used in family courts as a defense for why a child is rejecting the father.” This prompted the Association to issue a statement that it “does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome-pro or con. The Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect.”

      One viewer, John Dennis, summed up his criticism this way. The documentary, he said, was “filled with misinformation and emotional baiting, the characteristics of propaganda not journalism . . . designed only to persuade the viewer of the producers distorted view. Where was the opposing viewpoint? Where were your fact checkers? Where was the balance? Where was the father’s perspective? I am not dismissing that elements of the program were valid or that genuine issues of abuse are present and need addressing. However, I am complaining the program took only one side of a complex issue and gave it the veneer of truth because it emanated from a respected journalistic source when in fact there were gross inaccuracies presented. Shame on you for perpetuating popular myths to a wide audience instead of crafting a program that courageously tackles the pressing social issue of custody in a factual and informed manner.”

      PBS, to its credit, is taking these challenges seriously and is reviewing the research that went in to the program and the conclusions drawn, and has promised a response to these challenges early in December.

      Producer Lasseur, who has also prepared an extensive point-by-point rebuttal to the critics, says that “having reviewed the PBS editorial guidelines, we stand by ‘Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories’ and how we went about producing it.

      “As the guidelines recognize,” he says, “‘the producer of informational content neither deals in absolute truth nor in absolute objectivity.’ Domestic violence is notoriously difficult to report on because of the emotional nature of the issues involved. The stories we focused on are true and verified stories and were reported on with honesty, integrity and sound judgment. The ‘common sense’ and ‘open mindednesses’ cited in the PBS guidelines are what directed us in our reporting.

      “It is common sense to be outraged by the fact that courts are using phony science to take children from protective mothers and giving them to men who have abused them physically, psychologically and/or sexually.

      “Our open mindedness did not include the opportunity for fathers who had a destructive political agenda to be represented in the piece. We spoke with members of fathers’ rights organizations and did extensive research on their views. We made the decision not to interview them on camera because they would not have provided any balance and fairness to the piece.

      “Our story is about children becoming bargaining chips for abusive fathers in custody battles. The program was clearly set in the context of contested custody cases in which there was a history of domestic violence and/or abuse. We regret if some individuals and groups believed we were stating facts about the universe of custody issues in general. As many will acknowledge, we’ve provided a ‘courageous and responsible treatment’ of the issue and agree with PBS that ‘the surest road to intellectual stagnation and social isolation is to stifle the expression of uncommon ideas.’ ”

      Here’s What I Think

      My assessment, as a viewer and as a journalist, is that this was a flawed presentation by PBS. I have no doubt that this subject merited serious exposure and that these problems exist and are hard to get at journalistically. But it seemed to me that PBS and CPTV were their own worst enemy and diminished the impact and usefulness of the examination of a real issue by what did, indeed, come across as a one-sided, advocacy program.

      I’m not saying that there is necessarily another side to tragic cases where a child is abused and handed over to the abuser. But this is a broad issue, often complex, hotly debated and contested, with dueling statistics pouring out of both sides. Yet, there was no recognition of opposing views on this program. There was a complete absence of some of the fundamental journalistic conventions that, in fact, make a story more powerful and convincing because they, at a minimum, acknowledge that there is another side.

      This presentation made no concession to the viewer and to the legitimate questions one would have or expect. Not only were no fathers heard from to state their side of the individual stories presented, there was no explanation (with one exception) as to whether the producers even tried to get their views, or if the fathers were asked but declined, or, as we now know from Lasseur’s statement, that there was a decision not to give air time to critics or groups holding opposing views.

      The one exception was a disclaimer printed on the screen, but with no voice attached, after the filmed portion of the program ended, that a father of one young woman, who continues to seek custody of his daughter in the court, declined to be interviewed.

      The studies that one presumes back up the statistics stated on the program are not cited. Research that Lasseur uses to back up the program in his response to critics is not cited in the film; nor are the statistics cited by critics.

      It is not clear when several of the interviews with mothers and children took place, nor how old the cases are. In a few interviews, references are made to the mid-1990s. Some of the talking heads that make lengthy and numerous appearances as explainers on the program are scantily identified with a sub-title. Lundy Bancroft, who plays a major and informative role as explainer, is only identified as an “Abuse Intervention Specialist.” Richard Ducote, also a major explainer, is identified only once in a sub-title as an “attorney,” and if you blink you’ll miss it.

      It seemed to me that what was badly missing in this presentation was a reporter, or skilled presenter, who could provide at least some of the context and controversy surrounding this issue, explain the cast of characters, and deal with the basic questions of fairness and balance that come quickly to mind. Even in Port’s very positive review, he writes: “Some facts are in order here. We’re talking about a big but very narrow problem. Custody is not disputed in court in the overwhelming majority of divorces, as many as nine in 10 cases settle amicably, according to studies. In uncontested custody, mothers win out over fathers, taking custody about 2-1, although this is partly because some fathers see trying to win custody as futile.”

      The question of “balance” is not one that I rate at the top of the list of yardsticks for measuring good journalism. Some stories don’t have a real balance to them and it becomes distorting to give equal time and space to every viewpoint. It can create a false sense of equivalence among readers or viewers in cases where that is not justified. But I thought this particular program had almost no balance, and went too far, turning it, at least in my mind, into more of an advocacy, or point-of-view, presentation.

      PBS editorial standards and guidelines are quite thorough and cover lots of situations. In fact, you can find rationales for most approaches to programs in one section or another. They state, for example, in discussing editorial standards, that “a criterion considered mandatory for straight news reporting may not be appropriate for a documentary or dramatic program.”

      On the other hand, it could be argued that the program certainly bumped up against, and maybe breached, editorial standards set out in the section on “Fairness,” which says that “individuals or organizations that are the subject of attack or criticism (should be given) an opportunity to respond.” But defenders might say that no organizations were attacked and no fathers were mentioned by name. The “Objectivity” section presents a clearer case, saying that producers involved with controversial subjects should explain to the audience “why choices were made so the public can understand,” and “why certain questions could not be answered.” The defense here may be that they were never asked.

      So, I am not claiming here that PBS editorial guidelines were clearly breached, although many critics argue precisely that point, some citing references to the Public Broadcasting Act and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which calls for “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” Rather, my assessment is that the totality of the presentation came across as quite tilted to me, as a viewer who understands that the vast majority of fathers do not behave badly and that women are also capable of being abusers, and who is quite open to the idea that there are miscarriages of justice in this field that need to be exposed and corrected. The way this topic was presented actually distracted from the message it was sending because it was so noticeably devoid of any balance. It would have been easy to fix, in my opinion.

      Here are some other reasons why I feel this way.

      The program opens with an unidentified male voice declaring that, “All over America, battered mothers are losing custody of their children when they file for divorce.” That’s probably true but the viewer has no idea if it is really true or of the scale.

      Then the unseen and unidentified narrator says, “Even with a proven record, abusers are winning joint and sole custody.” That’s also probably true at least in some cases, but, again, how common is it and is it as true today as it was some years ago?

      Then an unidentified woman comes on camera and says, “To win custody of the kids over and against the mother’s will is the ultimate victory short of killing the kids.” Wow! That’s pretty powerful stuff.

      Then the unseen narrator comes on again to say, “A third of the women in the U.S. will be victims of domestic violence. It will have a devastating effect on their children. The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation is proud to underwrite this program.” I guess that first statement is true but are all those women who are victims of domestic violence mothers? And I guess the Foundation supports the thrust of what we’ve heard so far, a beginning that sets the tone for the whole program and makes a fairly sweeping indictment of what is going on with no alternative views presented.

      Yankees’ manager Torre and CEO Anderson then make very early appearances with very compelling stories of their youth. But I got the feeling they were there to try and quickly introduce some credibility for the program for male viewers. Maybe I’m wrong about that aspect, but that’s how, in hindsight, their featured presence right at the beginning struck me.

      The unseen narrator doesn’t appear again until the credits at the end when the underwriters, the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, are recognized and when the narrator repeats the opening claims about battered mothers losing custody of their children and says the Foundation is “proud to underwrite this program.”

      The rest of the program consists only of talking heads — many of them very convincing, revealing, dramatic and articulate — but uninterrupted by anyone providing some context or answers to questions that a fair-minded viewer might be expected to raise.“

      • “All over America, battered mothers are losing custody of their children when they file for divorce.”

        ☝️ See that?! That was the offending statement, right there.

  • Look up Jeff Herzog. Total pedo, sexual dysfunction, posing as hot young girl on the internet. But court found he should get full custody’s and the stay at home mother whom three children live should be cut off, and over many years “earn” time back with her own children- while paying the pervert child support.

    • Geoff Herzogg has a 15-year-old daughter and he posed online as a 16 year old girl looking for sex with older men. He got custody. But he had the money. This is fact, since it came out in court hearings and he admitted it.

  • Any one with an active case is punished for speaking out. Yet upon Google search court transcript are available. Names of parents are available. Only information the courts want out to the public. God forbid you defend yourself publicly. God forbid you attempt to complain. The silent suffering of the public. Where are the elected officials? Where are the investigations? Out side the court system. People have been given no choice but to go to the court of public opinion. If there is nothing to hide why are the judges and lawyers upset? No body would be providing such private information if they were not desperate for help or to help others. Most importantly the kids. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.

    • The lawyers have no fear. They cover for each other. There’s no recourse.

      Judges in CT need to be elected by the people- not appointed!

      The judicial committee has proven to be a joke. Adelman lied directly under oath and he was reappointed.

      One hand washes the other. Children to monied, disturbed parent.

      Only a sick parent would isolate their own children from their mother. Look at Tiberi. He put a restraining order on the mother that raised the little boy/- He won’t let the mother even see Leo.

      Fathers who pretend mothers are crazy and dead are psychopaths and pedos. Look at Herzog.

      • I had adelman, I have on transcript, adelman threatening me to lose my child to a documented abuser, criminal. I have whistle-blower recordings pertaining to Connecticut, government, AG etc. Frank you should really call me back.

  • The sinister desire of monsters preying on childhood, in derogation of fundamental liberties of the parent-child bond reveals that greed of bottom tier lawyers defeats humanity. Rape of childhood to make car payments on Audis, BMWs is not human. These attorneys are predators, pedophiles, conspiring in state sponsored terrorism protected by colleagues of the Bar on the Judiciary Committee. Welcome to the gulag, no one can hear the children scream.

    • 100 percent accurate. What they are doing in family court is indeed terrorism.

      No one is mentally I’ll or unstable- it’s full on character assassination where one parent is left with nothing-
      Stripped of custody, money and belongings, leaving innocent parents in destitute situations.

      Then they make orders for forced medication protocols, supervised visitation—- the money making list goes on. Until the kids are 18 and no more money to be made. By then childhoods are in utter shambles.

  • Connecticut media outlets refuse to touch family court. Until a child is thrown off a bridge as a result of family court, nothing is reported.

    And gals don’t report the abuse and suffering of the children they’ve isolated from loving parent.

    Instead the get them on doses of anti depressants, court appointed therapists to tell them this is their new life without their mother- that she’s sick and crazy and they need to move on without her— this is what the gals do for $400/hr.

    It is sadism.

    Connecticut is a cesspool. The worst state for family court corruption and abuse.

    Just ask AG Willie Tong – he sat in on judicial hearings where Adelman lied to the committee and they proved it! But they voted him in and he continues to destroy children and women.

    • “Dr.” Sidney Horowitz took money from parents in a case to get involved.

      The child told many adults about the father’s sexual abuse and those adults believed the child.

      Horowitz told the court he didn’t know whether or not the father molested the child. Horowitz also told the court to:

      — take the child from the protecting mother and,
      — hospitalize and drug the child if the child refused to live with the father.

      Horowitz literally recommended pharmaceutical drugs and hospitalization to force a sexually abused child to live with the identified perpetrator.

      Extremely sick and evil people control Connecticut family courts and the public has no idea what’s been happening.

  • In the Worst Interest of the Children: Trafficking Children Through Family Courts
    Jocelyn Hurwitz is the star of this investigation. Her conduct includes burying evidence of abuse, requiring parents to contact her prior to contacting the police or DCF– if they call the police or DCF, there will be consequences in terms of parenting time, and releasing information to the school system before anything was determined.

    She is without a conscience. She’s a hired gun from the start and carries it through to the end. She buries all evidence, abuses children, and then fabricates scenarios to make the targeted parent look bad. There is no end to her ruthlessness.

  • Nusbaum signs court “agreements” against his clients best interests and without his clients informed consent. This is common practice for Nusbaum– this is how he plays for the other side… for his Fairfield county family law pals– they collect the money and share accordingly:
    The plaintiff, David DeLeo, brought this action against the defendants, Edward Nusbaum, an attorney, and the law firm of Nusbaum and Parrino, P.C., in which Nusbaum is a principal.   The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had failed to represent him adequately in a dissolution action brought by his wife.   The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants by service of process on June 27, 1996.   In his complaint, he alleged that twelve acts or omissions by the defendants constituted negligence.   Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants negligently had entered into a stipulated agreement on behalf of the plaintiff in which the plaintiff was permitted only supervised visitation with his children.

    • Nusbaum plays the same game to date. He’s done the exact same thing to mothers as well. He is pure slime. The lowest of the low and he is hostile and lashes out when he’s met with resistance.

      Nusbaums sue for an early retirement.

  • These are evil child snatchers. They are child abusers. They are sociopaths who sleep well as they torture children and parents (usually stay at home mothers). They have each made millions off of unsuspecting families. They use a formulaic playbook and traffic kids through family court, fuel conflict, endorse parental alienation, hire quacks like Caverly and Linda Smith to give bs “sealed custody reports” and then traumatize children at ex-parte hearings where the children must be removed from the parent with whom they are bonded and who raised them. It is sadistic and criminal.

    Each one of these monsters should have been disbarred and jailed long ago.

    This is CONNECTICUT. AG Tong is well aware of the racketeering that goes on.

    Lamont does nothing to stop it.

    Minnie Gonzales was dry-mouthed as she stood up for children and families. Because the judicial branch and those who protect the money that flows through family court (more than any other court) are too powerful. CT is a land of pedos. No doubt about it. STAY AWAY!!!

  • Tiny men like Nusbaum often have the hot tempers. He tantrums and threatens to compensate for… well, everything.

  • Nusbaum considers himself a supreme athlete– he is a wrestler and proud of it! No wonder he jumped at the opportunity to be involved in the WWF myriad of lawsuits. But once again, Ed fails his client and bails:

    ‘One of them, Murray Hodgson, who was briefly employed by the WWF in a minor TV announcing slot, claimed in a civil lawsuit that Pat Patterson had crudely propositioned him. But at the conclusion of Hodgson’s videotaped deposition, his attorney, Ed Nusbaum, withdrew from the case.’

    “The WWF spent what I would estimate at around $100,000 in its private investigation of Hodgson,” Nusbaum says. I was absolutely convinced by the evidence that emerged establishing that Hodgson was a lifelong con man.”

    So good of Nusbaum to come to this conclusion and promptly withdraw. Ed, can you show the public how many billable hours you charged before you withdrew your representation? Was it your standard rate of $750/hr?

  • Ask Sue Coussineau how she works with Rick Rocklamd and Bruce Freedman to destroy children. They lie to the judge- suck people. Mentally disturbed and physically they’re a mess. No mental or physical health.

  • Jocelyn Hurwitz buries all evidence of abuse and lies to the judges. She’s an evil psychopath who takes pleasure in controlling and abusing children.

    She works solely for the monied parent. She runs the show and eliminates anyone who advocates for the children.

  • Connecticut legislators made a hearsay rule for gals!

    Meaning they can lie without repercussion. They can report to the court with no evidence- pure opinion and interpretation – This is where the legislators of ct shoe they’re complicit in the racketeering.

    The legislators also do not require gals to be mandated reports of potential child abuse. This is insane.

    We pay 400/hr to an attorney to act in our childrens best interest and give them a free pass to lie and not report concerns of abuse to dcf.

    How fucked up is Connecticut?
    Our kids don’t stand a chance and clearly the courts don’t value them at all. Not with these laws.

  • Attorneys force your sale of marital home to be part of a court order. This is done to secure their payment from proceeds of house sale. It’s too sickening. And judges go along with it.

    • $750 an hour?

      When distraught young mothers, desperate to protect their children from abusive fathers sign Nusbaum’s contracts, Nusbaum probably looks at those young mothers with the same expression Keith Raniere had on his face the first time he imagined slaves doing penance with paddles in cages.

      “… [women] have to struggle. It’s going to be a big struggle. And it’s a type of struggle because they have to struggle about – – against the type of oppression. A type of box that they’ve been placed in by men, if you will. …”

  • Those who accuse of alienation, give sole custody and alienate the other parent with illegal orders of no contact, and character assassination.

    Innocent parents with zero history of complaints, enter family court, and are quickly labeled crazy, defamed and all rights violated. They tear her children away and leave her with no money. Attorneys like nusbaum are working for the gal and opposing counsel- not their own client.

    Fairfield county family law attorneys are all in it together. Stay away. They’ll drain every penny and abuse and destroy your kids.

    They embolden the abuser and make him ten times worse in doing so. They’re all pathological liars.

    • ASAP 👉 The state needs a public service announcement for all new parents in family courts: Stay away! says:

      Parents entering family courts go in wide-eyed with no idea what evil traps those attorneys and “guardians” set.

      • The courts want to make it a crime to speak out. Labeling them discruntaled litigants. Using the one blog as the reason. There is really no place to have legitimate investigation of what is happening in the family court. The bar association is not the right place. The general public aren’t lawyers. Lawyers even with knowledge don’t want anything to do with Connecticut. The inspector General office needs to be expanded. The residents of Connecticut need a state agency to investigate. There are billions of dollars of funding. Let’s expand and increase funding to the inspector General office.

        • A few years ago, the governor’s office suggested contacting The State Comptroller to investigate misuse of funds.

          To provide accounting and financial services, to administer employee and retiree benefits, to develop accounting policy and exercise accounting oversight, and to prepare financial reports for state, federal and municipal governments and the public.“

          The Comptroller could “exercise accounting oversight”

          Office of the State Comptroller
          State of Connecticut
          165 Capitol Avenue
          Hartford, Connecticut 06106
          Telephone: (860) 702-3300

          Re: The Inspector General’s Office

          “The State of Connecticut established the Office of Inspector General in 2021. The office is charged with conducting investigations of peace officers in accordance with C.G.S. §51-277a, as amended by the Act, prosecuting any cases in which the Inspector General determines a peace officer used force found to not be justifiable pursuant to C.G.S. §53a-22 or where a police officer or correctional officer fails to intervene in any such incident or to report any such incident, as required under subsection (a) of C.G.S. §7-282e or C.G.S. §18-81nn, as applicable. The Deputy Chief State’s Attorney, Inspector General, is responsible for leading the Office of Inspector General.”

          So, the IG’s office is only “conducting investigations of peace officers“?

          • Peace officers of the court. The state of Connecticut license these Attorneys. These gals work for the courts. They work for the state in it’s best interest. They are being forced on cases. Appearing to be hand picked. The bar association is the only place to go with these complaints. Why not expand the office to investigate peace officers of the court. To insure the best interest of the minor in the state. These are children folks. There needs to be some office to oversee what is going on. Out side of an office designed to protect the Attorneys not the general public.

          • Hi Anonymous,

            There should be “some office to oversee what is going on … outside of an office designed to protect the Attorneys not the general public.”

            “Peace officers” in Connecticut are police officers, right?

            The Office of Public Defender Services oversees the GAL “training” (it’s online and only about 20 hours).

            Their mission statement looks good, though. Maybe they can help.

            The AG(Attorney General) and the FBI are supposed to fight crime but have either of those offices ever investigated/prosecuted crimes/corruption in Connecticut family courts? 🤔

            The Connecticut Division of Public Defender Services Mission Statement is:
            “Striving to ensure justice and a fair and unbiased system, the Connecticut Division of Public Defender Services zealously promotes and protects the rights, liberty and dignity of all clients entrusted to us.”

            Maybe the Connecticut Division of Public Defender Services can help because we trust them to train and screen the guardians ad litem?

        • Inspector general in Connecticut only handles law enforcement claims of abuse. It’s set up that way to prevent the investigation into Connecticut corruption.

          • The state of Connecticut has gone without an inspector General office for years. Why is it not completely functional? Given all the responsibility of any other inspector General office? The state of Connecticut should have an inspector General office with out limited capacity . Allowed to investigate matters in the full scope of an inspector General’s office.

          • If a grand jury is an option, maybe parents victimized in the family courts could find out more about that?

  • Jocelyn Hurwitz took two girls abused by their father and advocated for sole custody to the father.

    The mother was good and loving. A special Ed teacher but Jocelyn was getting paid by the father- an attorney.

    She’s been doing it for decades.


  • Candace Fay stripped an elderly ear vet of his home, his life savings and all his possessions!!

    She was a gal in probate court and was caught – a foundation rescued the war vet who was left with only bills from the institution he was placed in against his will by Candace.

    And Candace Fay did not lose her license and has been acting as GAL in family court!!!

    It’s all about money. Probate gals are no different. Candace Fay should be disbarred. All of these monsters are guilty of child abuse.

    Stay away!!!!

    • She lost an election in 2014 by only 1,000 votes or so.

      How many legislators who won by only about 1,000 votes also practice in probate/ family courts?

      Have we paid attention to how legislator-lawyers handle or mishandle cases in probate and family courts?

      Everywhere mainstream news ignores blatant corruption, we need to:

      ignore the two parties
      ignore campaign key words; and,
      ignore the candidates who repeat mindless word salad campaign slogans.

      Then …
      vote for all candidates who answer all questions openly and honestly
      vote for all candidates open to respectful debate
      vote for candidates who don’t steal from veterans, seniors, parents and children; and,
      vote for all candidates who don’t use NXIVM-style Neurolinguistic Programming to deceive the public.

      ALL of us have been brainwashed enough.

  • Nusbaum fancies himself a wrestler. He actually had trophies in his office. Very sad.

    He was also involved in a WWF court case where he withdrew and abandoned his client. He got in too deep and bailed. Coward. Hides behind ladies skirts too.

    A weasel of a little man who drives fancy cars to make up for his lack of manliness.

  • These are the worst GALs but there are several more. These are the ones in high demand because they’ve been stealing children from healthy mothers for decades- and have connections in dcf, family court and local police.

    They silence and deliver the kids no matter how loud they shout. No matter how old they are. They hate children. There’s no way any rational person could inflict such trauma and pain purely for a paycheck.

    Sue Coussineau is protected no matter what. She was on the judicial task force investigating gals! The fox guards the henhouse.

    Robert Horwitz and Bruce Freedman should be on this list as well. Pure evil. Robert Horwitz was also on the task force. They put the abusers in positions of power to protect their racketeering operation.

    They were members and held positions on the board of the CT AFCC! No consequence and the money flow continues.

    Let our children have both parents. This is sinister and criminal.

    • Robert Horwitz was the main contact for the AFCC for-profit “non-profit” corporation before they dissolved it.

      Is it possible some cases he was in during those years (2010 – 2013?) can be overturned because of fraud on the court?

      • Not likely to happen anytime soon. The absolute mess it’ will make. To go back and get the cases delt with. Just watch the documentary on how to cover up a drug scandal. True story in Massachusetts. They had to go back and deal with thousands of cases in criminal court.

          • Does AG Tong know about the healthcare fraud in Connecticut family courts?

            “Connecticut taxpayers are fed up with government fraud. The recent school construction scandal is just the latest example of taxpayer money being stolen, and citizens losing valuable government services because of false claims and fraudulent activity committed by public contractors.

            And yet few know a critical reason Connecticut public dollars are so easily stolen by contractors: an odd loophole in the Connecticut False Claims Act (CFCA), the main whistleblower and enforcement law designed to fight false claims and records submitted to the state. The loophole? The CFCA only covers fraud in health care contracts and programs. By contrast, the federal False Claims Act and similar laws in other states apply to all contractors.

            Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and others are fighting to close that gaping loophole with long overdue legislation. The Connecticut legislature needs to join the fight.

            More than 150 years ago, President Abraham Lincoln created the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) to expose, fight, and clamp-down on crooked federal contractors. He was concerned about military contractors ripping off the Union army. However, Lincoln foresaw government being called upon to enact great infrastructure works as well. Lincoln’s FCA thus empowered the government to sue any federal contractor —military or otherwise —that submitted “false claims” to the government, and to sock them with multiple damages and civil penalties.

            Critically, the FCA also expanded the government’s fraud-fighting by empowering citizen‑whistleblowers to sue crooked contractors on behalf of the government in exchange for a percentage of the recovery.

            In 1986, a bi-partisan coalition re-invigorated the FCA’s whistleblower provisions while ensuring that government officials supervise whistleblower-initiated cases. Since then, the FCA has recovered $60 billion in stolen funds from corrupt contractors, 85% of which is attributable to whistleblowers. (Other states later passed FCAs to fight false claims submitted to state governments.)

            But saving taxpayer dollars is only part of the story. Frauds exposed by FCAs have saved lives and made government funded projects safe, such as by exposing faulty health care devices, illegal pharmaceutical practices, inadequate military and police gear, shoddy construction, environmental violations, and cyber-security flaws.

            At no time since 1863 has anyone in Congress suggested limiting the FCA to just health care contractors. Yet Connecticut’s FCA does just that. So Connecticut is really behind the times. …

            … Gregory M. Krakower is an Adjunct Professor of Law at Cardozo University School of Law and a former Counselor to the New York Attorney General.“


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