Guest View
It’s where lying pays – family court.
Peter Szymonik, a constitutional and civil rights activist from Glastonbury, Connecticut, says his own experience more than a decade ago illustrates the problem. In this op-ed, Szymonik recalls how his ex-wife secured an emergency order while he was away with his sons on a court-approved vacation, and how a judge later described the claims as “at best, exaggerated.”
Curiously, the judge would not call it a lie.
By Peter Szymonik
Constitutional and Civil Rights Activist
I don’t often talk about my case, but John Conrad’s recent experience was nearly identical to the events I, my then fiancé, and my sons experienced.
Where my ex-wife endlessly harassed us while we took my sons on a Disney vacation – in part to give them a break away from all the court activity and stress my ex was constantly exposing them and us to.
Mind you, I was a custodial parent, and this was my sons’ court-ordered vacation time with us.
I told my ex-wife exactly where we were going, what hotel we would be staying at, when we were leaving and coming back, and how to contact our sons.
This culminated in my ex wife sending a barrage of texts and phone calls to the hotel we were staying at, warning us that she had contacted the FBI and they would be waiting to arrest me at the airport when we returned.
My attorney’s response was to tell me to turn my cell phone off. I contacted DCF, as they were involved in my case. They told me there was nothing to worry about and to try to enjoy my vacation with my sons.
While we were still on vacation, my ex-wife filed an emergency ex parte order, based on falsehoods and obvious lies, which her attorney refused to file for her. It was, of course, granted by Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone.
When we returned, the FBI wasn’t at the airport – but my attorney informed me that the judge had granted her ex parte, and I needed to immediately bring my sons to my ex, cutting their vacation short. It would be another two weeks or so before we had a hearing on the ex parte, and my sons were able to see me again.
Judge John Carbonneau wrote about the incident:
April 17, 2012 Ex Parte Restraining Order
Plaintiff filed an emergency ex parte application (#282) with the court on April 17, 2012, seeking immediate custody of the parties’ two sons with access restrictions placed on their father. Her allegations included: two days earlier, on Sunday, April 15, 2012, defendant texted her that he was leaving with the boys for Florida, from JFK Airport; she had no means to locate or communicate with her sons; she asserted that defendant had “a history” of failing to timely return the boys to her care; she implied that the Glastonbury Police and DCF were involved in a fruitless search for the boys and that there was a possibility that defendant had fled the country with the children.
As a result of Plaintiff’s sworn allegations, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone granted the ex parte application. Her order directed plaintiff to use Connecticut and out-of-state authorities to regain custody of the children. She gave plaintiff sole custody and allowed defendant only professionally-supervised access at his sole expense.
A hearing on the ex parte application was scheduled for May 2, 2012, but the parties reached a written agreement (#286) that Judge Abery-Wetstone approved.
Plaintiff withdrew her application with prejudice. She agreed to provide defendant four days of “make-up” time with the children in the next thirty days starting with the following afternoon. The parties were to engage in co-parenting counseling and set up therapy for the boys.
The court finds this to be a shocking reversal. Plaintiff – under oath – implied in her ex parte application that defendant was a kidnapper who routinely ignored court orders. She gained the court’s approval and a huge custodial advantage over defendant. Mere days later, she agreed that he deserved make-up time with the children! The court reasonably infers from this dramatic turnabout that her allegations in the ex parte application were – at best – exaggerated.
What was the penalty for her committing perjury and false claims before the court?
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Business as usual in the Hartford “family” court.
Instead, my sons and I were ordered to “get therapy”, costing thousands of dollars.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
Encapsulated Delusional Disorder and Alienation of children in divorce and separationWritten by:
karenwoodall
APA Definition of Delusional Disorderdelusional disorder in DSM–IV–TR, any one of a group of psychotic disorders with the essential feature of one or more nonbizarre delusions that persist for at least 1 month but are not due to schizophrenia. The delusions are nonbizarre in that they feature situations that could conceivably occur in real life (e.g., being followed, poisoned, infected, deceived by one’s government). Diagnosis also requires that the effects of substances (e.g., cocaine) or a medical condition be ruled out as causes of the delusions. Seven types of delusional disorder are specified, according to the theme of the delusion: erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, persecutory, somatic, mixed, and unspecified. Criteria changes for delusional disorder in DSM–5 include the following: The delusions may be either nonbizarre or bizarre (i.e., implausible), and their potential presence as a result of an ingested substance, a medical condition, or another mental disorder sometimes associated with firmly held delusional beliefs (e.g., obsessive-compulsive disorder, body dysmorphic disorder) must be ruled out. Formerly called paranoid disorder.
An encapsulated delusion is a belief in one area of life which is fixed and unshakeable even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Encapsulated delusional disorder, is seen in cases of alienation of children, when a child is showing the signs of psychological splitting and is aligned with a parent who has an unshakeable belief that the other is harmful to the child’s wellbeing. Encapsulated delusions are extremely powerful and in their strongest display, will cause the holder to bend all evidence to shape their beliefs. Children in the care of a parent who is suffering from encapsulated delusions, become fearful, anxious and bound into the belief of the parent that the parent who is being rejected, is harmful. When a child suffers a fixed and unshakeable belief that a parent is harmful, where there is clear evidence that the parent is not, the child is considered to be suffering from significant emotional and psychological harm. In such circumstances, removal from the care of the parent who is suffering the delusion is often necessary.
Encapsulated delusions occur in people who in many other areas of life appear to be normal. The fixation of the delusion, which is not accompanied by hallucination, is the key symptom. The person suffering from such delusions, is unusually obsessed by the focus of the delusion, believing that they have discovered something or know something that others do not know. This belief is often accompanied by a grandiosity which is narcissistic in nature and which causes the sufferer to believe that they are better than others, because they know a truth that others don’t. Efforts to dissaude the sufferer are futile and in fact can escalate the fixed nature of the belief. Unfortunately, for children in the care of someone who suffers encapsulated delusion, there is no choice but to enter into the shared persecutory belief that the other parent is harmful.
Children who grow up believing that a healthy parent is dangerous to them when they are not, suffer significant harm. In some cases of encapsulated delusion, the beliefs are so fixed and so harmful, that a parent will demand that a child is medically examined, for example, for signs of sexual abuse. In the absence of evidence that the child has suffered sexual abuse, to make such a demand is, by any measure of responsible and healthy parenting, itself, abuse. Sadly, in too many cases of encapsulated delusional disorder, this is one of the outcomes and this is often the point at which the threshold for significant harm is considered to be crossed and the state in the form of local authority child protection services step in.
Encapsulated or shared persecutory delusions, are uncommon in alienation cases, but they are one of the range of reasons why, children are removed from the care of a parent. Such a persecutory belief arises from behaviours which are defensive in nature and which are usually fear and anxiety based. The belief that the other parent is seeking to do harm, simply by wanting to have a relationship with the child, appears to stem in many cases, from unresolved childhood abuse in the parent suffering the delusion. The projection of the unresolved issues onto the child, especially during the period post divorce or separation, when anxiety is already high, is often the beginning of an episodic reaction in the parent who is suffering the delusion. Over time, the child becomes bound into a process by which, the rejected parent’s love begins to be experienced as persecutory and something to be afraid of. This causes serious emotional and psychological harm.
In my experience of working with families where encapsulated delusional disorder has been present, the suffering parent will bend all incoming evidence which contradicts the delusion they are suffering, to ensure their belief is upheld. So, for example, anyone who presents evidence that the rejected parent is not persecutory, but is healthy and well, becomes aligned in the mind of the sufferer to the rejected parent and becomes persecutory simply by their existence. In such circumstances, where the Court itself is also often experienced as persecutory, the parent binds the child tighter into the sharing of this encapsulated delusion, making it impossible to protect the child without removal from the parent. It must be recognised, that even where a child is removed in such circumstances, every effort is made by the Court to maintain a relationship between the child and the parent they have been removed from, in a way that is safe.
A good example of a shared persecutory delusion is where a parent believes that a child has been abused, during a period of time when the person being accused of abuse, could not have been responsible. A belief that abuse is taking place when a parent is not in the country, for example, which leads to the construction of an explanation of how the supposed abuser returned to the country without others knowing, to abuse the child and then left, again without anyone being aware of it, other than the parent suffering the delusion. When a child echoes the beliefs of the parent, in a situation where there is clear evidence to the contrary, especially when this leads to the parent wanting to have the child medically examined, action has to be taken to protect the child.,
The current climate in the UK, in which there is an almost mantra like repetition, that all allegations of parental alienation are used by abusive men to control protective mothers, is ignorant of the reality of the serious underlying psychological and mental health conditions which cause alienation reactions in children. The idea that a parent can go into Court and claim that a child is being alienated and that this automatically overrides existing evidence of domestic abuse, is simply not upheld by the reality of how cases of alienation in children are managed.
Cases of alienation of children are serious and taken very seriously. A finding of fact of domestic abuse would preclude a case being considered as alienation at the Clinic, as this is considered to be a contributory factor to the child’s rejection. In the absence of any such finding, psychological and psychiatric assessments are sought, in order to determine the presence or absence of mental health problems, ruling in or out serious conditions such as shared encapsulated persecutory delusions, is part of the differentiation process. Only when there has been a long process of observation, clinical assessment and differentiation, where a parent is demonstrating an incapacity to recognise harmful behaviours, does removal of the child on the basis of safeguarding occur and when it does, it is always the Court which makes that decision. The current popular narrative about alienation, which is promulgated by ideological researchers and a group of parents supporters, who are themselves, likely to be on the spectrum of fixed and unshakeable thinking, is a huge distortion of what really happens in Court.
Which is why it is so important to pull apart what we mean by alienation of children in divorce and separation and to recognise and acknowledge that, however unpalatable it may seem, removal of children to protect them from harm, is sometimes necessary. As in all child protection work, careful differentiation takes place before intervention. Believing that someone can simply say a child is being alienated and that overrides everything else, including proven domestic abuse, is, so far from the truth as to represent a shared delusion in itself.
Alienated children are in need of protection because they are being abused. Protecting them is our primary responsibility because of the seriousness of the harm that they are suffering. The Court is the place in which those matters are recognised and addressed. Of course, some will claim alienation when it is nothing of the sort, however, the stringent court processes, ensure that those cases are identified. Alienation is not something which is taken lightly and what lies beneath genuine cases, should be of serious concern to anyone who cares about the wellbeing of children.
Did FBI agents EVER investigate the AFCC Inc. public-private racketeering in “family courts” and “reunification camps”?
Good question. 👆
ABC NEWS and George Stephanopoulos could ask the vice president whether or not FBI agents staged stings to document the racketeering in America’s “family courts” since the 1980s.
ABC NEWS and Mr. Stephanopoulos could also ask the vice president about the Overcoming Barriers board of directors’ secrets.
Political targeting & cultural agendas are politics, NOT law enforcement.
Since the 1970s-80s, has ANY FBI office EVER investigated ANY family court racketeering? 👈 That’s a good question.
CT family court- Home of the swines and skanks.
“[P]redatory litigation tactics designed to exploit maximum vulnerability and violate[s] fundamental fairness principles” in American “family courts” destroy families, traditions and communities in America and around the world.
What kind of government employees allow predatory litigation tactics? What kind of government employees allow the destruction of families and traditions in America via the “entertainment industry”?
Who allowed public school administrators to indoctrinate children?
The same kind of people who designed “family courts” to force parents and children to endure “family court battles”.
The few who take a little time to study history can easily see: It wasn’t “the Jews”, “the Democrats”, “the Christians”, “the Republicans” or “the Muslims” who did it.
Here are a few hints from Mr. Norman Dodd:
Thanks to Frank Parlato, Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe for casting such bright lights on the purposeful destruction of children and families in American “family courts”.
Any suggestions about what to do with all that information?
https://michaelvolpe.substack.com/cp/176005638
Good news for Connecticut family court investigations and reform:
https://www.ctlandairwater.com/
(emojis and emphasis added for elucidation)
https://www.ctcoalition.com/services-7
https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/NAACP-condemns-lawyer-Norm-Pattis-over-racist-13518133.php
Since Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Tong the New Haven FBI office et al. ignored/covered for the CT AFCC Inc. racketeering, which state and/or federal court would consider harm done, racketeering and fraud upon the court in Connecticut family court cases?
Marc Fitch explains:
Has any state or federal office ever investigated that small group of CT AFCC Inc. gangsters? Did lawyers for that small group of gangsters claim “judicial immunity” and “judicial discretion” as a defense for the crimes they committed?
Did they argue family court judges’ personal preferences allow them to invent any kind of court order they choose?
https://insideinvestigator.org/want-to-sue-the-state-get-in-line/
I love how clearly you explained everything. Thanks for this.
Frank you keep avoiding comments. Controlling information again?
He gave up on Sandusky and has lost control of it. Play nice now
Not at all true. Sandusky appeal is coming within 30 days – and it is explosive.
Perjury is “part and parcel” of family court.
Family courts do not follow the law:
1. The rules of evidence does not exist.
2. Discovery? Lmao!
3. Depositions lies,embarrassing questions, etc.
4. Spouses always fight about nothing and spend a fortune doing so.
It’s all par for the course in every State in the USA.
Best of luck to the author. Keep on dreaming!
The whole purpose of family court is to transfer wealth from the children of the litigating parties to the children of the lawyers/GALs and other so called “professionals” involved.
It’s always about Fathers when it comes to Peter. Many domestic violence victims with proof of crimes in their cases, have attempted to work with him. He will forever insist women are never telling the truth. Domestic violence is just an argument. According to public court information, the former fiance reported domestic abuse. I suppose this is just another women with a long nose. Only 4 percent of domestic violence cases are prosecuted. 96 percent are “disposed of” in the state of Ct according to local criminal defense attorney’s website. A significant amount are not reported. What happened in Mr. Conrad’s case? All we have heard is he did not want to pay for court ordered financial obligations. As well as his child’s mother placed on the Warrior wall as a Alienator with her full name and city and state.
According to documented paid invoices, the opposing party currently owes Mr. Conrad for childcare expenses that he covered in full. Despite multiple requests, she has refused to reimburse him.
This behavior does not appear to be isolated. A review of public court records indicates the opposing party has exhibited a pattern of avoiding financial responsibilities in other legal matters, including disputes with a former employer. Additionally, a public statement on Facebook from an individual identifying as the children’s godfather alleges similar conduct regarding unpaid obligations.
While these external examples may not be directly related to the current case, they reflect a concerning pattern that warrants consideration in evaluating the credibility and financial claims made by the opposing party.
It seems like you have two brain cells and both of them are fighting for third place. What an idiot response.
I love Keith Ranierre. He is God.
I now have access to the intermet from the SHU. I will be getting my revenge on Frank Report. Frank is a fucking piece of shit. Clare Bronfman has private investigators digging up dirt on Frank. This time we WILL take down Parlato. Once Frank is imprisoned, I will have him raped like Toni Fly.
Did Mr. Ranierre actually post that threat?
“In January 2021, Raniere was transferred to United States Penitentiary Tucson (USP Tucson) from the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, the New York Post reported. USP Tucson is a maximum security federal prison with a sex offender management program, according to the Post, and has also housed former USA Gymnastics team doctor and serial sexual abuser Larry Nassar, as well as Elizabeth Smart‘s abductor Brian David Mitchell.”
Do those kinds of criminals actually have internet access?
https://people.com/where-is-keith-raniere-now-11756915
I was an East coast Judo champion.
Frank will be raped at my direction once Clarehas him imprisoned.
“Erik hasn’t had any infractions since 2011, apart from a cell phone possession,”
Erik Menendez was denied parole yesterday for having a cell phone and … Keith Rainere has “access to the internet”?
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/erik-menendez-parole-denied-wife-tammi-calls-it-a-complete-setup/
Maybe Menendez, Menendez and Raniere are still in jail because they know too much.
https://people.com/crime/former-menudo-boy-band-member-claims-drugged-raped-father-menendez-brothers/
The endless litigation between parties and forced agreement. Upon reviewing of the case. Mr. Syzmonick had kept his children with short notice to his former spouse. Who text the co- parent without emergency contact information? Runs off on vacation. Mr. Syzmonick also texted keeping his children to visit a sick and ” dying” grandparent in the hospital. Upon reviewing obituary the grandparent passed away several years later. Often people in child custody cases are afraid of the other parent taking off . Who doesn’t plan vacation in advance? Text at the last minute in high conflict raising alarm bells. No flight information and who drives to New York instead of going out of Bradley airport? Questioning international flights. Often agreement are forced upon people like the original Mrs. Syzmonick from their own attorneys. So it is not a smoking gun silver bullet. . It would not shock me that the original Mrs Syzmonick was often met with poor communication leading to this type of situation.
Speculation framed as fact doesn’t help anyone — especially not the children at the center of high-conflict custody cases.
It’s common for co-parenting disputes to include miscommunication, last-minute changes, or differing perspectives. But referencing old obituaries or vacation logistics to imply intent to deceive — without context or proof — is irresponsible and misleading. Many families make last-minute travel decisions for valid reasons, and not everyone flies out of Bradley Airport. Suggesting otherwise stretches credibility.
Accusations about “forced agreements” are also serious. If someone felt coerced by their attorney or misunderstood the terms, there are legal remedies — but rewriting history in a comment thread isn’t one of them.
Every family court case is complex. Weaponizing assumptions under the guise of legal insight or concern only contributes to the toxicity that many families are trying to heal from.
With a nose like that, you think lesbians don’t get enough. please tell me a lie deeper just lie harder makes it squirt
As usual the comments are primarily a bunch of perverts. Who are obsessed with the same thing they are always obsessed with. It’s about the best interest right? The best interest of the same pigs that run to family court and cry victim.
So glad you find it perverted. Makes heads turn
There is a case currently in CT that involves a female defendant who works in a glamour industry who conned her plaintiff husband into marriage claiming she was working in America legally when she was not. Then once she was on the verge of obtaining US citizenship she disappeared with the minor children and shot the silver bullet at her husband after he filed for divorce, custody, alimony and legal fees claiming all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations. She then hid kids medical records, lied about their conditions, and with her lawyers played numerous other dirty tricks,
Civil TROs should be abolished and there should be jury trials in family court.
Which of the thousands of horrific Connecticut cases is that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Andros
According to history, Connecticut was either saved or lost.
https://jeanzimmerman.com/2023/01/30/in-the-hidden-history-of-connecticuts-charter-oak/
“… and under every thick oak, wherever they offered sweet incense to all their idols. …”
A fake case or real. When you putting information out into the universe. I hope you can give a paper trail. These high conflict divorce situations make for good soap opera. Dirty tricks are played in the most financially driven cases. Who outside the East Haven FBI is taking information? Who is managing these cases? Last time I checked the alienation community was using Disney trips as a smoking gun for alienation. Peter Syzmonick case was two parents disagreement gone wild. Which judge let family court cases go wild?
This is a very real case out of Stamford
There is life in Connecticut beyond Stamford. It’s not just the rich. Someone should let Mr. Conrad know that just because David Weigel lives in New York, that it’s still most likely not legal to Dox a Connecticut resident on behalf of another resident of Connecticut. With the intent to engage others to cyberbully or possibly in person. Further demonstrating poor judgement. Especially considering that there are children involved living with her. Some of us have realized that, for some it’s to expose family court or children, it’s about bullying #David Weigel #Richard Luthmann # Peter Syzmonick #Alienation Warriors.
No one is above the law — that includes doxxing and making public accusations without evidence. But to claim that someone is inciting cyberbullying simply for exposing information tied to a public issue — especially one involving potential misuse of the family court system or the legal system as a whole — is a reach.
There’s a difference between bullying and holding people accountable. The truth isn’t harassment just because it’s uncomfortable.
Most judges let cases go wild….that’s how the “business” makes it’s money. They allow perjury and when brought to their attention it is still allowed. The system is not set up to protect children. It is set up to profit.
In any situation where statements are made publicly or submitted to institutions, documentation and verifiable evidence are what matter. Even when evidence is not always accepted by courts or other authorities, or when it involves another person, highlighting inaccuracies or inconsistencies should focus on maintaining accountability and transparency, not targeting individuals. Focusing on facts helps ensure discussions remain constructive and principled, especially when courts and other agencies are not consistently following the law.
Peter be dum dum. End of.
Peter is far from stupid. For years he’s gathered parents. Several who have lost custody for good reason. He’s wormed his way into the offices of state legislators to enact a system that benefits himself and others like him. He’s a fathers rights activist and has master manipulated the family court system. There are many filings in his divorce case and has used this platform to his advantage. Peter has explained away real abuse and gender bias in the state of Connecticut for the benefit of the group he actually represents. Has used victimhood to his advantage. He’s assisted in hiding funding and has help create a system where abusive parents have been successful. Using constitutional rights over best interest standards. He’s befriended women and placed the them into spaces that are supposed to be safe for survivors. He’s pit women against women and used dirty tactics to achieve a dominate stance. Especially in 2014 using parental alienation. He may have experienced some court abuse , however it’s not stopped him from allowing others especially fathers to abuse women in the state. Peter has gone after in a bullying like fashion women who don’t support his rhetoric. Always supports even the most egregious behavior as long as the person supports 50/50 legislation. He’s blamed Jennifer Farber Dulos for her own death. Settle or die has become to motto of 50/50movement . If anyone especially a mother goes to court in an attempt to protect their children they are an alienator. Has become known as Settle or die Syzmonick to most domestic violence victims in the state. Will attack any family court judge that doesn’t rule in the manor he feels they should . The system is only corrupt when Peter says it is .