Updated: Aug 25, 2021
"Déjà vu, it’s Woody Allen all over again! How many children will continue to be abused, their lives destroyed and the lives of their protective parents destroyed before government officials actually enforce the family court laws enacted to protect victims from the exact harm these 3 children and their protective mom suffer?
It’s simple, Enforce Laws, Protect Domestic Violence Victims and hold public officials accountable!"
Connecticut Family Attorney
An 60 page Order of Injunction * has been filed in Connecticut to ask the Judicial Branch to enforce court orders to protect Karen Ambrose and the three children. Please read here:
Will Connecticut's new coercive control law, Jennifers' Law PA 21 78, prevent the continued courtroom litigation abuse in Ambrose v Ambrose and suffering of three adopted special needs children?
The blatant abuses in Ambrose v Ambrose will have unthinkable repercussions. If Connecticut Judicial Branch or the Judiciary Committee of the CT state legislature needs a Domestic Violence Family Court case study in spotting coercive control, courtroom abuse, negligence and abuses of power, look no further than the multiple case dockets of Ambrose v. Ambrose, now going on 357 pleadings.
Christopher Ambrose, a Hollywood Screenwriter for such well known crime shows as Bones, Harry's Justice and Law and Order, is apparently the subject of an ongoing child sexual abuse investigation by Madison, CT, Police who recently had the children examined at Yale Children’s Clinic. He was the subject of an ongoing "risk of injury" investigation based on allegations rise to the level of "sexual assault" Two of the children were presented to a Forensic Evaluation. Following the evaluation, the children were put on a 96 hour hold. This was the fourth 96 hold that was put in place to protect the children from their father and then returned to him before the 96 hours had even expired. . The examination resulted in an emergency seizure by child protection services of the Department of Children and Families. This family case reads as if it is another screenplay for “One Bad Decision”, “Law and Order”, “Harry’s Law”, “NCIS” or “Close to Home.”
But wait...here it comes... the Parental Alienation Claim by an alleged abuser...It is all mom’s fault!!
Christoper claims that he is not an alleged abuser, but really it is the mother who is mentally unbalanced and has a personality disorder. Reports show that Christopher Ambrose swears under penalty of perjury that mother is ‘unhinged and irrational’, her behavior is ‘increasingly erratic’, that his children hate him because of the mother, who alienates the children from him, and physically prevents him from hugging his kids. which is leading to her brainwashing the children against him, aka Parental Alienation (PA).
Sound Familiar? It should because it reads like a transcript from the majority of "high conflict" custody cases where a DV victim is going to family court to seek protection for the children from abuse by the other parent....
"Parental Alienation is an unscientific theory, often used by other names because of its notoriety that is used to help abusers maintain power and control over their victims. PA was concocted not from any research but rather the personal beliefs and biases of a deeply flawed man who made many public statements supporting sex between adults and children and later committed suicide. It is hard to imagine a greater disparity between the scientific basis and reliability of two reports and yet in 2017, PA continues to have far greater influence over our family courts than the ACE Research."
"Arguably the most troubling aspect of justice system response to intimate partner violence is custody courts' failure to protect children when mothers allege the father is abusive. Family courts' errors in assessing adult and child abuse, and punitive responses to abuse allegations, have been widely documented. A significant contributor to these errors is the pseudo-scientific theory of parental alienation (PA). Originally termed parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the theory suggests that when mothers allege that a child is not safe with the father, they are doing so illegitimately, to alienate the child from the father. PA labeling often results in dismissal of women's and children's reports of abuse, and sometimes trumps even expert child abuse evaluations. PAS was explicitly based on negative stereotypes of mothers and has been widely discredited. The term parental alienation – while treated as distinct – is still widely used in ways that are virtually identical to PAS. Nonetheless, because PA is nominally gender neutral (and not called a scientific syndrome), it continues to have substantial credibility in court."
PA is a poison that has infected the courts and continues to promote decisions that destroy children.
PA by any name has caused courts to fail to believe true reports of abuse and therefore place children in jeopardy.
The Leadership Council found that every year 58,000 children are sent for custody or unprotected visits with dangerous abusers.
In a recent two year period, researchers found news stories about 175 children murdered by fathers involved in contested custody cases. In many cases the court gave the abusers the access they needed to kill the children.
The preliminary findings from a National Institute of Justice study led by Professor Joan Meier found that although deliberate false reports by mothers occur less than 2% of the time, fathers win 69% of the abuse cases and 81% of the sexual abuse cases. Link Here:
How will the script end?
Will the father Christoher Ambrose continue to use the family court system as a means to continue to coercively control Karen and three children? What do you think?
Let us know what you think and comment on our Twitter account @momsprotective.
*An Application for seeking Injunctive Relief against the Governor and multiple government agencies in Connecticut seeking the court to order government officials to enforce the laws of this state. An injunction is an action in equity asking the court to enter an order forcing an action or ceasing an action. Here the court is being asked to enter orders requiring the government officials named to take action.