From the outside, everything looks like a coherent, seamless system — but it is a seamless system only for trafficking children to their abuse, rape, and murder. To protect their illegitimate, multi-billion-dollar revenue, Family Courts must ensure innocent children and their loving, protective parent do not have a voice.

I have written about Karen Riordan, because I know the case in detail as an expert witness and yet have been prevented from testifying on it (my experience of Family Courts is that they keep tightly to their pool of poorly qualified “experts” who have the potential to be bought). The mother, Riordan, told me she wanted to be heard. Her nearly 17-year-old daughter, after suffering three years of unspeakable abuse, along with her siblings, also told me she wished to be heard. 

I interviewed the daughter within 24 hours of her running away from her violent abuser-father to live with her mother. At 16 years and 10 months, she reached the age of consent in Connecticut — although this did not matter in Family Court. She told me everything articulately, cogently, and courageously, even sharing with me a recording of what she told the police:

She said, “I voiced my opinion so many times! I’ve talked to countless officers. I’ve talked to the schools. I’ve talked to hospitals about all the abuse he has done to me. He sexually abused me. He emotionally abused me…. I have countless recordings of all the stuff he says to me, and nobody does anything. I’ve had enough of this. He’s crossed the line! So I’m staying here, and nothing is going to change that.”

Abusers Turn Tables on Victims

If not contained, abusers become more entitled and violent — and Family Courts not only refuse to contain but support, enable, and encourage violent abusers. The abuser, in this case, Christopher Ambrose, not only discovered the location of his daughter within an hour of the mother notifying the police, but also looked up my contacts to write a threatening letter to me that I should never interview his daughter without his consent. Fortunately, based on the teen’s disclosures, I had become a mandated reporter by the time he wrote to me.

Medical professionals are required to take persons as patients in emergencies. 

I even followed up with the 16-year-old when she interviewed for my book and documented how dramatically she improved in the four months of leaving her abuser — no longer morbidly obese, enjoying outdoor activities, and experiencing the calm of a non-threatening environment for the first time in years — even though she had been forced to leave her beloved mother’s home by that point.

Since I immediately reported Ambrose’s threats to the police, he could not write to me again. Still, he has been slandering me, fabricating false stories, including that I had one of my medical licenses “revoked” and that “they’re going after” my remaining licenses. “She’s really troubled, she’s really disturbed,” he said of me, adding in a threat: “Be careful with what you say to [reporters].” 

Since I am a forensic psychiatrist who consults on cases nationwide, I keep the medical licenses I need and allow others to lapse until I need them. Seven states approved licenses for me. No state ever revoked my license. 

Significantly, I have studied how dangerous personalities operate, and his obsession with researching all the different states in which I held licenses, his veiled threats, and his aggressive weaponisation of courts to reverse the narrative are signs of psychopathy. 

Usually, Courts protect expert witnesses to preserve the truth, but Family Courts are not interested — and not only place victims, but also those who advocate for victims at risk.

Innocent Teens on the Run

When violent perpetrators are protected, innocent victims must fend for themselves. All three children, who eventually fled from their violent abuser, Ambrose, to seek shelter in their mother’s home, started running from the “law” — even before Family Court Judge Thomas O’Neill came down with his ruling. 

These intelligent children knew that Family Court would not protect them. The last time there was a ruling under Family Court Judge Jane Grossman three years ago, the judge permanently separated the children from their mother, who singlehandedly raised them all their lives, without even a chance to say goodbye. 

The 16-year-old almost drank herself to death the night before O’Neill’s ruling, which went as expected, and she had to be observed in the hospital before she could join her siblings. These three had to go from house to house until Ambrose hunted them down and either sent the police or tried to manipulate their guardian into releasing them.

The children are currently in their third state and fourth house. Ambrose visited them with police and executed a four-hour standoff, threatening the children that if they did not return to their father, they would go to a juvenile facility where authorities would separate them and where they would be “beaten, raped, and abused on a daily basis.” 

Miles away, the state police and the FBI formed a 25-member SWAT team that descended on the mother for pure intimidation — a petite, mild-mannered, and unarmed special education teacher who sought refuge in a friend’s house! 

How can Family Courts do this? If one hounded and pursued real criminals the way Family Courts do to loving mothers attempting to protect innocent children, society would have no crime. 

Even Family Courts — as much as they abuse “court seals,” “gag orders,” and unappealable, broad “discretion” — cannot act on no evidence. Therefore, they concoct “evidence” — while keeping out true evidence, such as my psychiatric evaluations — and, unfortunately, far too many unethical so-called “experts” are willing to oblige for lucrative gains.

Guest View