Legal Maneuvers and Custodial Chaos
Legal Maneuvers and Custodial Chaos
"Rookie" Connecticut Judge Thomas O'Neill's "Jennifer's Law" Ruling Bars Mother from Children For One Year; Appearance of Impropriety Abounds
By Richard Luthmann
NOTE: This is a summary of an article first published in the Frank Report’s continuing coverage of Family Court corruption and abuse.
A clash of lives and law has unfolded in Connecticut. Judge Thomas J. O'Neill, Governor Ned Lamont’s recent addition to the Superior Court, has handed down restraining orders barring Karen Riordan from her own children for the next year, against their will.
Christopher Ambrose, the petitioner, enlisted the court's support, though his three teenagers had already fled his home. Notable CT Divorce Lawyer Attorney Alexander J. Cuda represented Ambrose, while Riordan stood for herself.
Read Frank Report’s Coverage
Judge O'Neill's role raises questions about his background as he transitioned from being a commercial litigation partner at Day Pitney LLP, a national law firm, to the Connecticut bench. In the Ambrose v. Riordan case, he replaced a more experienced Family Court judge, Gladys Idelis Nieves, who previously presided over the case. Judge Nieves’ departure is riddled with controversy.
O'Neill's inexperience with family law is a point of concern. The legal intricacies of Jennifer's Law, a relatively recent legislation, required an understanding of coercive control. Riordan's teenagers accused Ambrose of such behavior, while O'Neill's restraining orders favored Ambrose's claims.
Judge O’Neill found Ambrose established Riordan exerted coercive control over the children.
The factual basis for many of these claims against Riordan came from findings and orders made by Judge Gerard Adelman in early 2022.
Since then, many legally significant changes to the factual record have occurred. Mia and Matthew filed petitions with the Superior Court, Juvenile Division, alleging verbal, physical, and sexual abuse by Ambrose.
The filed petitions allege that underage drinking, drugs, and sex regularly occur, with children as young as 14 having sex with men as old as 23.
According to records obtained from the Connecticut DCF, an allegation of sexual penetration was lodged against Ambrose.
Also, respected psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee, M.D., identified Ambrose as likely psychopathic.
At the hearing before Judge O’Neill, Riordan attempted to show that Ambrose committed domestic violence through threats, abuse, harassment, verbal humiliation, and general psychopathy.
Judge O’Neill ignored it.
Riordan attempted to call Dr. Lee to testify. Judge O’Neill would not allow it.
Riordan requested an adjournment to call Mia, Matthew, and Sawyer – the supposed victims – as witnesses. Judge O’Neill denied the request.
Judge O’Neill allowed non-public attorney grievance information supplied by Ambrose’s attorney, Alex Cuda, after having been improperly disclosed by attorney Edward Nusbaum.
Judge O’Neill’s inexperience with family law was evident in his failure to address:
How the TRO is supposed to take effect, and where the children are supposed to live because they were residing with their mother?
Did Judge O’Neill intend to send the children to foster care?
Did he expect they would be forced back to the father?
Or didn’t he think that far?
How can Jennifer’s Law be the basis for the TRO petition?
Jennifer Dulos and Jennifer Mangano, the women after whom Jennifer’s law was named, were both victims of murder by their ex-spouses (who both thereafter committed suicide). Jennifer’s law was intended to be a “safety valve,” allowing Court intervention before a situation develops fatally violent where there are existing tell-tale signs and concerns.
Does Judge O’Neill (or anyone else) think 110-pound Karen Riordan will personally and physically harm Christopher Ambrose?
Riordan may have a chance to have the order rescinded on appeal. In the meantime, what happens to the children?
Granted, Judge O’Neill may just be “green” and not recognize the fundamental difference between cases about money and true justice.
On the other hand, “green” might have been the motivating factor in Judge O’Neill’s outrageous decision in the Ambrose v. Riordan case.
Read Frank Report’s Coverage
Richard Luthmann is a writer, commentator, satirist, and investigative journalist with degrees from Columbia University and the University of Miami. Once a fixture in New York City and State politics, Luthmann is a recovering attorney who lives in Southwest Florida and a proud member of the National Writers Union.
“I am a journalist who writes about justice, the courts, government officials, prisons, and reform. You find some questionable players in all these places and often outright crooks. Exposing these bottom feeders from the outside is sometimes the only way to make them pay the price for their injustice and misdeeds.”
“I use satire and opinion to make my point. I have already been told to ‘stop writing about the Government’ by the U.S. Government, so I must be doing something right.”
“If you’re a victim of the system, maybe the press is the right forum for you. If you have experienced injustice and are tired of dropping tens of thousands of dollars without results, maybe it’s time to try the digital pen.”
Contact Richard Luthmann at 239-631-5957 or richard.luthmann@protonmail.com.
"Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.” (Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, more obscure than public opinion, and more deceptive than the whole political system.)
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
The news media is a critical check on the powerful, serving as a watchdog to hold elected officials and other public figures accountable for their actions. The media was first called the Fourth Estate in 1821 by Edmund Burke, who wanted to point out the power of the press. The press plays a crucial role in providing citizens with access to information about what is happening in government and by shining a light on corruption, abuse of power, and other forms of wrongdoing.