CT DCF Under Fire: Ambrose Boys Plead for Justice, Seek Help from State Representative Minnie Gonzalez
Facing a Flawed DCF Investigation and a Non-Responsive Attorney, Ambrose Teens Turn to Rep. Gonzalez For a Ray of Hope
By Richard Luthmann
Matthew and Sawyer Ambrose, the adopted Hispanic sons of Christopher Ambrose—whose reputation is clouded by disturbing allegations of plagiarism, psychopathy, and child molestation—are fighting to be heard in a juvenile court case in Connecticut.
Help From Their Representative
Earlier this month, the Ambrose sons sent a strongly worded letter to their court-appointed attorney, Matthew Gilbride, of Clinton, Connecticut, expressing grave concerns about his representation. They have also copied Connecticut State Representative Minnie Gonzalez, hoping for her intervention.
“You are not reachable at your office. You do not respond to us. You have not had conversations with us. You are our advocate, but you are not acting like it,” Matthew and Sawyer told their lawyer.
Representative Gonzalez, the Deputy Speaker of the Connecticut House, has been an active voice in a parallel case involving the siblings’ sister, Mia Ambrose, highlighting potential issues with the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) investigation. Her Attorney, Michael Curley, has communicated and responded to Mia’s concerns and wishes.
They wrote: "At Mia’s request, Attorney Curley has provided a release so that...Minnie Gonzalez could help with her case. We would like you to do the same for us... She became interested in our case after hearing some of the disturbing facts, including the audio of our father, Chris Ambrose, calling us 'beaners'."
Representative Gonzalez is the leader of the Legislature’s Puerto Rican and Latino Caucus and has a long history of no-nonsense legislative oversight of the Family Courts. In May 2022, she opposed the re-appointment of Judge Gerard Adelman (the judge who awarded custody of the children to Ambrose) for many reasons, including his treatment of women and her catching him in lies under oath before the Judiciary Committee.
The teens hope that Representative Gonzalez can work with Attorney Gilbride’s office the same way she has been working with Mia’s lawyer, Attorney Curley, and get some answers as to why their allegations have not been heard.
Flawed DCF Investigation?
Ken Saranchak, a DCF Investigator, seems to have overlooked or possibly misrepresented vital details about the teenagers’ accusations against Christopher Ambrose.
“Representative Gonzalez has already been helpful in fighting the misinformation that is being communicated by DCF. Investigator Ken Saranchak came to Chris’s house in Madison []. He did not ask us any questions about what was happening and Chris’ abuse and coercive control. Instead, Mr. Saranchak listened to Chris and his lies about us being happy with him. We are not happy with him. We were happy with our mother, but Chris twisted everything in court,” the letter said.
Saranchak, in an earlier interaction in August, threatened Mia with placement in a lock-down facility in Middletown if she didn't comply and return to Chris Ambrose’s home. The siblings suspect DCF's investigation may be intentionally incomplete, perhaps to protect others within the department from potential misconduct allegations.
The teens narrated their ordeal since Judge Thomas P. O’Neill issued a restraining order on August 8, 2023, declaring their 110-pound mother, special education teacher Karen Riordan, a “violent abuser.” The teenagers expressed their wish not to live with their father due to alleged coercive control and abuse. The children ran for safe haven, recounting staying briefly with various friends and family members, continuously pursued and threatened by the police, with Ambrose's coercive tactics looming in the background.
The Ambrose teens want an opportunity to lead a normal life. But while the siblings were at their cousin's home in Rockland County, New York, Chris Ambrose allegedly continued his pattern of manipulation. "He would constantly lie... He said he has never called us 'beaners,' although there is a video of him calling us beaners...Our mother would have been in our lives if Chris weren’t so corrupt."
They were intimidated by the police and CPS on multiple occasions. On one such incident, the Mount Pleasant Police allegedly threatened to send them to a "sanctuary" where they would face “daily beatings and rape,” only to retract that claim later.
The house they returned to was heavily secured. “Chris was pleased to tell us his home is now fully armed with alarm locks on all the windows and doors, preventing us from seeking safe haven again.”
When Investigator Saranchak came to the Ambrose home for a site visit last week, there was no mention of their allegations of abuse or their tortured time fleeing their father for the better part of the past three months.
“Mr. Saranchak did not ask us about any of this. This is why Minnie Gonzalez can help. She has the power to make sure that DCF conducts an actual investigation with non-biased people. She can stop Chris from covering up his abuse.”
We contacted Investigator Saranchak at DCF and received a reply from Chief Administrator of External Affairs Ken Mysogland. He stated, “Due to the statutory requirements of confidentiality under Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-28, the Department is unable to comment on this matter.”
Mysogland also confirmed that he fielded last week’s call from Representative Gonzalez’s Office.
Crucial Facts Ignored?
The Ambrose boys directed Attorney Gilbride to update Judge Bernadette Conway on their case's developments. They were concerned Gilbride had previously communicated false information to the Judge.
“On the Zoom call, no one told the Judge that we TRIED to enroll in school in Pleasantville, NY, and Chris refused to sign the paperwork. Chris criticized us for not being in school, told us we had no future, and threatened that we’d be in trouble for truancy, but he was the one preventing us from registering for school.”
The teens mentioned Dr. Bandy X. Lee, MD, who expressed concerns for their safety, and a private investigator, Manuel Gomez. They urged Attorney Gilbride to connect with these individuals and utilize the crucial information they could provide. But to date, Matthew and Sawyer have no confidence that their lawyer knows the case's facts.
“[W]e are concerned that you do not know our case. Chris has paid lawyers. How can you possibly respond or defend us when you've never spoken to us, know nothing about our experience, when you've seen NONE of our evidence, and haven’t called the people like Dr. Lee or PI Gomez that can tell you what’s going on?”
In early September, Dr. Lee sent an alarming letter to Attorney Gilbride. In that letter, Dr. Lee said: “There is sufficient evidence to conclude that he has a dangerous personality disorder that poses a risk, especially to growing children, in addition to extensive documentation of his actual abuse of children, including through aggressive litigation abuse and isolation of his children from their mother and primary caregiver for more than three years. Unfortunately, the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) has still not completed a thorough investigation.”
Dr. Lee made her professional opinion crystal clear: “Mr. Ambrose is a dangerous individual who should not have access to the children he has severely injured and abused.”
It is not clear whether Attorney Gilbride has responded to or has even read Dr. Lee’s letter.
Criticizing Attorney Gilbride's perceived inaction, Matthew and Sawyer wrote, “You misrepresent facts to the Judge... You are the AMC. You are supposed to represent our legal interests."
They ended their letter to Gilbride with a sharp question reflecting their desperation: "When the police and CPS try to force you back to an abuser, who do you call?"
Attorney Gilbride’s office was contacted for comment. No response was received. However, TIFR obtained a copy of the email Attorney Gilbride sent to the Ambrose boys in response to their missive:
Notably, Attorney Gilbride did not address Representative Gonzalez’s participation and/or intervention in the case.
On Tuesday afternoon, there was a hearing before Judge Conway. Sources close to the matter state that Judge Conway made several controversial rulings:
Judge Conway ruled that Sawyer Ambrose could not testify in support of his own juvenile petition of abuse against Christopher Ambrose. This ruling comes in spite of the video testimony previously given to Private Investigator Manuel Gomez about Christopher Ambrose improperly touching his penis.
NOTE: None of the Ambrose children were allowed to testify at the August hearing where Judge O’Neill ruled that Riordan had engaged in “violent abuse” through “coercive control.”
Judge Conway ruled that she would not consider evidence that pre-dates Judge Adelman’s 2022 ruling. She was reluctant to even entertain such evidence if there was a clear pattern of the activity after the 2022 order. This means Judge Conway is giving Christopher Ambrose a “free pass” on previous sexual abuse or molestation and will not consider such evidence to show his pattern of abuse.
Judge Conway ruled that even the “sight” of Karen Riordan, the 110-pound special education teacher whom the three teens all stated they wanted to live with was potentially “emotionally detrimental” to the children. Because of Judge O’Neill’s previously issued ruling that Riordan violated Jennifer’s Law and exerted “coercive control” over the teens, Judge Conway entertained excluding Riordan from even Zoom attendance of the hearings.
NOTE: Karen Riordan filed a Motion to Articulate in August, asking Judge O’Neill to explain the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in his Restraining Order. To date, no articulation has been issued. However, Judge O’Neill still managed to find Riordan in contempt of the “unarticulated” Order.
Why No Decision on the Motion to Articulate?
Karen Riordan filed a Pro Se Motion to Articulate in August. How come it hasn’t been heard and decided?
A motion to articulate is appropriately used to ensure that the record from the trial court is adequate for appellate review. Braunstein & Todisco v. Bossom, CV91 028 02 32 S, 1994 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1416, at *1 (Super. Ct. June 7, 1994). A motion for articulation is the proper procedure to seek elucidation from the trial court of its considered evaluation of statutory criteria. Koper v. Koper, 17 Conn. App. 480, 481, 553 A.2d 1162, 1163 (1989).
Conn. Gen. Prac. Book § 4054 provides in pertinent part: “Any party aggrieved by the action of the trial judge as regards rectification of the appeal or articulation under § 4051 may… make a written motion for review to the court, to be filed with the appellate clerk, and the court may, upon such a motion, direct any action it deems proper.” Plati v. United Parcel Serv., 33 Conn. App. 490, 490, 636 A.2d 395, 396 (1994).
Why hasn’t Judge O’Neill more fully articulated the law and the facts of the August 8, 2023, ruling and the issuance of the Restraining Orders against Karen Riordan?
This is a mess of legal questions. For example:
Did the Court allow ‘the teenagers’ to file for a TRO under Jennifer’s Law in the ‘family’ court, and under what authority did the Court do so?
Did the Court consider the claims of res judicia, the law of the case, and the prior findings of the Superior Court, including Judges Rodriguez and Nieves?
Why did the Court deny the appointment of counsel to represent Karen Riordan? Does the Court not see any articulable procedural due process issues?
Why did the Court not allow the teenagers to testify under Public Act No. 21-78 (Jennifers’ Law)?
What is the factual basis for finding 110-pound special education teacher Karen Riordan a risk for domestic violence?
Why did the Court deviate from the “law of the case” doctrine?
What is the factual basis for finding Christopher Ambrose credible?
What is the factual basis for finding Karen Riordan not credible?
The Connecticut courts set the recent precedent when Judge Thomas Moukawsher summarily disbarred former Hamden attorney Nickola Cunha in early 2022 for making “empty and malicious claims.” See Conn. Practice Book § 2-44. During the course of the proceeding, Riordan’s former Attorney Edward Nusbaum supplied information detrimental to Riordan to Ambrose’s attorney, Alexander Cuda, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, confidentiality, and attorney loyalty obligations. Why wasn’t Attorney Nusbaum summarily disciplined or disbarred by the Court when it came out in open court that he supplied the information? Why wasn’t Attorney Cuda summarily punished for knowingly using information obtained from an attorney engaged in an ethical violation?
Can Representative Minnie Gonzalez Help?
The Ambrose teens filed their juvenile court petitions in May. It is nearly November. They want peace, and they want the truth.
Hopefully, with Representative Gonzalez’s watchful eyes now fixed on this case, everyone, and most importantly, the Ambrose teenagers, will begin to get some answers.
https://www.silive.com/crime-safety/2021/08/trial-by-combat-lawyer-richard-luthmann-released-from-federal-custody.html