Tag
194 articles
People ask, incredulously, why CT Family Court judges go along with the recommendations of guardians ad litem to terminate parental rights and, in effect, rob children of one of their parents.
A commenter named Mary had some thoughts on high conflict cases in Connecticut. I make a few replies.
Excerpt from the novel…
Former CT Family Court Judge Jane B. Emons was the only judge in recent years to be retired when the CT House of Representatives declined to vote on her retainment in 2018.
Without my prompting, just because they had temporary access to the internet and had seen my stories, the children made desperate attempts to reach me to save them – to find out about their mother. Is she well? Is she safe?
In part #1 of “Fraud and Injustice in CT Family Court – we focused on the Ambrose case.
The divorce and custody case of Christopher Ambrose v Karen Riordan is one for the books, a template of how corruption can seep into an institution that was devised to provide justice.
This is a breaking development in the CT Family Court divorce and custody case of Christopher Ambrose versus Karen Riordan.
In Family Court, the judge alone decides the fate of children. No jury is convened to bring the common-sense standards of the community to bear on the outcome.
Michael Volpe interviewed me on Monday about CT Family Court; about the case of Karen Riordan, the homeless mother whose husband stole her inheritance and used it to buy custody of their children at the CT Family Court marketplace; the story of Kelly Grohs, whose children were sold by lawyers at the
