In all seriousness, this work of satiric fiction shows how faulty, how short sighted, how stupid Judge Thomas O’Neill’s decision to issue a restraining order on the three teenage children of Chris Ambrose and Karen Riordan is. Judge O’Neill successfully kicked the teens out of their happy home with their mother, but this fictional work shows how great the difficulties of forcing teenagers to live with a father with whom they refuse to live will be.
By Dr. Winston Sharp, FCP
Family Court Professional
The following is my advice for Chris Ambrose and Judge Thomas O’Neill to complete the transaction that Mr. Ambrose purchased – the custody of his three children from CT Family Court.
As an FCP, I offer my advice to Mr. Ambrose and Judge Thomas O’Neill to ensure that the teenagers do not return to their mother.
During the time when Mr. Ambrose had sole custody of the children, he made arrangements for them to take psychotropic medications to address their depression over losing their mother. However, the use of these medications ceased once they left their father’s custody and lived with their mother because they said they were not depressed anymore.
To minimize the risk of them running away again, it is crucial to reintroduce these medications at significantly higher dosages.
I recommend the following medication regimen:
Diazepam: 360 mg orally, 4 times a day, preferably mixed in juice or soda.
Haloperidol: 220 mg orally, 3 times per day.
Phenobarbital: 440 mg orally, 4 times per day, for the initial month, with a subsequent doubling of the dosage in the second month.
Zolpidem: 85 mg daily, administered as sublingual tablets.
Hydroxyzine: 800 mg orally, 4 times a day.
Propranolol: Extended-release oral capsules, 900 mg, taken 6 times a day.
Lubiprostone, docusate sodium, prucalopride, linaclotide, and methylnaltrexone as needed, based on the specific requirements.
Side Effects Might Be Helpful
While the prescribed drugs at the dosages I recommend will cause side effects, these can also diminish the children’s ability to distance themselves from their father.
My recommended dosage of diazepam will induce shakiness and an unsteady gait, an outcome typically undesirable. However, in this scenario, these side effects could impede the children’s attempts to flee.
Similarly, the slurred speech side effects attributed to high dosages of Haloperidol can undermine the children’s ability to falsely accuse their father of maltreatment.
Still Attached to Their Mother
In light of the children’s ongoing attachment to their mother, medication may not be sufficient. Neuromodulation techniques like trans-cranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) must be considered if the children remain resistant to the desired outcome of family court.
While prefrontal lobotomy is not preferred, if all other methods prove ineffective, it may warrant consideration.
It’s important for the children to feel guilty when they learn about the financial resources their father allocated to enlist the expertise of court-appointed professionals who conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the custody situation and decided he was the parent they must live with.
The children’s attachment to their mother resulted in additional financial commitments, forcing their father to take their mother’s inheritance and her share of the marital assets to cover the expenses incurred in engaging these experts.
The children grapple with a rather uncommon manifestation of Delusional Identity Disorder. This disorder triggers intricate cognitive distortions that compel these little ones to believe they derive happiness and love from their mother, and experience unhappiness with their father.
This notion is in contradiction to the evidence presented by the father, his attorneys, and the experts he retained during the custody case.
The Father’s Needs
It’s paramount to recognize that the central victim in this complex narrative is Mr. Ambrose himself. It is imperative to take proactive measures to safeguard the emotional well-being of Mr. Ambrose, who, by his own admission in court filings, is at a heightened risk of suicide.
Prescription for Mr. Ambrose
I recommend for Mr. Ambrose the inclusion of antidepressant medications, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), to alleviate his psychological distress.
In conjunction, additional medications, including anticonvulsant medications, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, and benzodiazepines, should be considered.
But above all, Mr. Ambrose needs a compassionate and supportive environment to facilitate his recovery from the emotional distress stemming from the actions of his children.
It is advisable to exclude all interaction between the children and the mother, her family and friends for the rest of their lives.
It has come to my attention that Mr. Ambrose previously established boundaries by prohibiting all interactions with the mother, her family and friends for three years, until the children distanced themselves from their father by running away and joining their mother, who raised them the first 13 years of their lives.
The optimal course of action involves creating an environment where the children remain in isolation with Mr. Ambrose, resembling the concept of a reunification camp.
Suspend School for Now
Academic endeavors may be temporarily paused for one to two years – as they were for much of the three years Mr. Ambrose provided the sole caretaking. This hiatus can facilitate the children’s and Mr. Ambrose’s recovery from the effects of parental alienation.
Some Fun and Relaxed Rules
My usual stance is to discourage the use of marijuana, alcohol, MDMA, cocaine, opioids, and mushrooms due to potential risks. However, in Mr. Ambrose’s unique circumstances, there could be rationale to explore an unconventional amalgamation of these substances.
This novel approach may help Mr. Ambrose pursue emotional equilibrium and well-being.
Furthermore, the idea of partaking in euphoria-inducing drugs with his children might foster a father-child bond. I’m aware that during his three-year custodial time, one of Mr. Ambrose’s sons used marijuana regularly, while his daughter consumed alcohol – both practices he encouraged. However, both children discontinued recreational drugs after leaving his care and going to their mother.
Reintroducing these substances in a controlled context and introducing other drugs to enhance the party experience could offer a bridge to reconnecting with the lifestyle they shared with their father.
The children – now 16, 16 and 13, have proven they will run. They must not be allowed to run away and they will if these measures are not taken:
- Arrange for the children to have 24/7 monitoring with ankle monitors to track their location in real-time.
- Install surveillance cameras and alarms to detect unauthorized movements. In the past, I am told Mr. Ambrose took the doorknobs off the doors so he could enter at will. It would be wise to resume this precaution.
- Designate a secure room for evening confinement.
- Assign trained security personnel, such as visitation supervisors, to monitor the residence.
- Restrict the children’s contact to only their father, security personnel, and themselves.
- Monitor and document all phone and email communication.
- Develop a detailed emergency response plan in case of escape attempts.
- Coordinate with local law enforcement for swift and effective actions.
- Maintain close coordination with court-appointed experts to ensure transparency and compliance.
- When contemplating the use of restraining devices, ensure they are used with caution.
- Force should only be used as a last resort, and its application must be precisely calculated to prevent harm to the children or their father or his reputation.
Turning our attention to the mother, it is my belief that a period of confinement for the mother at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution is in the father’s best interest and something he will pay for.
I am confident that Judge Thomas O’Neill, Mr. Ambrose, who is a lawyer, and his attorney, Mr. Cuda, can privately collaborate to determine the appropriate charges and legal actions against her.
The most likely starting point is contempt of court charges, which do not require a trial to incarcerate the individual, which should be for a period of time of not more than 20 years and not less then 10 years.
If my advice is followed, I am confident Mr. Ambrose will have achieved his desired outcome, for which he paid handsomely, and CT Family Court will once again have achieved everything it exists to do.