The Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday over whether the state’s family court system can allow one parent to determine the other parent’s visitation rights following a divorce, after the state’s Appellate Court overturned a lower court’s decision in R.H. v. M.H. earlier this year.
Margaret Sullivan, the mother, has represented herself in her case and argued before the Connecticut Supreme Court that she has never been found to be an “unfit parent” or had her parental rights terminated, and the trial court had improperly delegated its responsibility to decide visitation to her ex-husband.
“There is the potential in a contemptuous divorce – think about this, these are the high conflict ones, there are the ones where the parents don’t get along – for the parent who is awarded sole custody if they have the option of determining a visitation schedule, they also have the option to weaponize that visitation,” Sullivan argued before the court. “The last time I saw my kids they were eleven and twelve, they’re now fifteen, my daughter is about to turn seventeen in March.”
Sullivan had successfully appealed the trial court’s decision to allow the father to determine visitation to the Appellate Court, resulting in a reversal of the lower court’s decision.
According to the Appellate Court, the trial court erred when it allowed the plaintiff – in this case, the father – to determine the mother’s visitation rights in consultation with their son’s therapist, saying it amounted to the court delegating its responsibility to “a nonjudicial entity.”
“In sum, our nondelegation jurisprudence compels us to conclude that, where a governing statute squarely places the obligation on the trial court to decide custody and visitation in contested disputes, delegation of this responsibility to a nonjudicial entity, whether it be a parent or some other third party, is impermissible,” the Appellate Court wrote in their June 6, 2023 decision.
One Appellate Judge disagreed with the majority decision regarding visitation, writing that he was concerned the decision “will prevent judges from exercising the broad discretion our legislature afforded them in settling disputed custody issues in the best interests of the child.”
According to the Appellate Court documents, following the divorce the parents had joint legal and physical custody of the two children and both were required to abstain from drinking to excess during their time with the children. Sullivan was required to use an alcohol monitoring program called Soberlink but tested positive on a morning that she had the children.
Following that incident, immediate motions were filed by the father and further breakdowns in the parenting agreement occurred regarding the medical and therapeutic care of the children, resulting in several contempt motions from both parties. The trial court eventually awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children to their father in 2019.
According to the terms of the new custody arrangement and arguments before the Supreme Court, visitation with her daughter was to be based on recommendations of a family therapist. The father was given the ability to change visitation for the couple’s son, in consultation with the child’s therapist, if they determined “the unsupervised visits are causing negative behavioral or emotional consequences.”
Although Sullivan was allowed a number of one-hour visits with her son, the father has intermittently ceased to allow such visitation, according to Sullivan’s testimony, along with long periods of not seeing him at all in the midst of court proceedings.
Attorney for the father Kenneth McDonnell argued before the Supreme Court that his client was determined to be the “more fit” parent through the court’s awarding of sole custody to him and that he was simply operating within the guardrails established by the family court and is not modifying any orders.
Attorney McDonnell said the family court system is “forward looking” when it comes to determining custody.
“That’s what the court did in this case, it anticipated the recurrence of bad behavior, bad judgment on the part of the mother, the non-custodial parent, and that bad behavior continues today,” McDonnell said, noting restraining orders against Sullivan and issues surrounding her sobriety. “The parent is acting within the guardrails of the visitation order set by the trial court. The parent is not modifying.”
Several Supreme Court judges, however, questioned the statutory authority for a custodial parent to modify visitation by a non-custodial parent, and whether the trial court’s order amounts to allowing the father to modify visitation. Justice Gregory T. D’Auria voiced constitutional concerns for parents.
“She does continue to have a right to visitation. It hasn’t been determined that no visitation is what would be justified in this case except that your client finds so,” D’Auria said. “While your client may have been operating under the four corners of the order – I’m not ascribing blame here – the question is whether the court had authority to delegate that to your client.”
Justice Steven D. Ecker questioned whether such court orders could be administered fairly when there is clearly animosity between the two parents. “How can we expect someone with animosity toward the other to make this kind of discretionary call?” Ecker asked.
McDonnell said that the custodial parent should be given the “benefit of the doubt,” and that it could be addressed in a subsequent hearing. “This was at least the right starting point for this family to move on at the time.”
Concerns about Sullivan filing complaints against the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) – the attorney representing the interests of the children – were brought up during the arguments, as well as her social media activism for family court reform – an issue that has been gaining more public interest online, particularly social media.
Sullivan said she has and will continue to advocate for family court reform and said she filed the complaint against the GAL for improperly sharing some of her medical and therapeutic records, but that none of those actions were related to her ability to visit her children.
Family court reform activists highlighted Sullivan’s arrest for violation of a restraining order when she suffered a heart attack and reportedly had a nurse text her ex-husband so she could speak to her children before undergoing heart surgery, according to Sullivan’s testimony. She then reportedly suffered another heart attack following her arrest.
“I do believe it is incumbent on the Judiciary to set the schedule – every other weekend — even if there are steps to get to that schedule,” Sullivan said. “What’s happened in this case, should not happen to any family.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I am an expert and consultant with over 35 years of experience in this area.
So let’s start with the fact that according to the ADA (American Disability Act), Alcoholism is a debilitating illness caused by an allergic reaction to a substance. If a person is truly an alcoholic, but is now sober, they are considered legally disabled under the ADA. So long as that person stays sober, it is discrimination against the disabled to block their ability to coparent and have equal access to her children.
Let’s get Hypothetical. If Sullivan was such a horrible alcoholic, then why has she never ever been adjudicated as unfit parent or had her parental rights revoked? Because she is a good parent. There is no such thing as a perfect parent. If there was, there would not be all these self-help resources on parenting. There would be one resource and it would be called “The Perfect Parent”.
Based on this, there is NO WAY that any judge should have given the father all the power in this divorce. In fact, I highly doubt the mother is an alcoholic who is unable to take care of their children because if she was, how then did these children survive the first decade of their lives?.
More importantly, how many intact families out there have one parent who is a substance abuser but they are still great parents to their children? The answer: MILLIONS probably. Thus, this act of giving the father total control and custody would be discrimination against the disabled if the mother was truly an alcoholic and substance abusing, and a danger to the children.
Furthermore, I have case after case of parents, who never had any substance abuse problems, but had false allegations repeatedly filed against them and during those times the courts kept ordering supervised visitation. Yet, after intensive investigation over months and sometimes endless years, all charges are unsubstantiated repeatedly. Yet, the courts refuse to vacate their orders that gave the control and custody to the psychologically abusive parent, who continues to abuse the system. This person is commonly known as an alienating parent who uses coercive controlling behaviors and the criminal act of custodial interference to block what should be equal shared parenting. It is no longer about “best interest of the child”. It has become who has the money and the connections. How is this in the “best interest of the children” to allow one parent to have control over the other parent? Isn’t the point of a divorce to separate their lives so they can move forward? Isn’t the point of the divorce because the two can no longer live as husband and wife? This does not equate to not being able to parent ones children. ENOUGH!! THESE CHILDREN ARE BEING TRAUMATIZED BY THE AGGRESSIVE ALIENATING COERCIVE CONTROLLING PARENT WHEN THAT PARENT REMOVES THEIR OTHER PARENT FROM THEIR LIVES FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN REVENGE. Children of this type of aggressive destruction of their relationship with their other parent, are self-harming, suicidal, depressed, anxious, stressed, with complex PTSD at an alarming rate.
If this was an INTACT family, this is not how things would be handled. In fact, if this was an intact family, the parent with the health problem, would not have lost custody and control of their children to the other parent. So, why is this being allowed in a highly contested custody battle, especially where there is no record of child welfare endangement. Commonsense 101, if it is not allowed in an intact family, why are the courts allowing it in a divorced family?
Unfortunately, because. I am making this comment, I will now be retaliated against by a group of vicious people who are really the problem in these cases. A group of people who are themselves the true abusers of the children.
Joan,
Thank you for the comment. You really seem to understand the situation and I appreciate that you touched on issues that are so important in my case, but in the cases of many families. Cheers, Margaret
Margaret, please contact me theodoraantar@gmail.com. Very similar situation happened to me and still fighting.
The court in some cases is ignoring active alcohol and substance abuse and forced visitation and reunification therapy through the GaL. You can go to court with arrest record, bank statements with liquor store charges. Admittance to the alcohol abuse problem. I guess it’s going to depend on the judge, the attorneys, the guardian ad lithiums and the psychologist. You can’t drive a car intoxicated, but the court allows you to parent in some cases. They will order alcohol programs if you get caught driving a car, but not in parenting. They force reunification on a child, but no counseling for the parent. If you open your mouth or the child opens there mouth it alienaton. The courts can’t seem to get it together. There is a difference between active alcohol abuse and in recovery. Interesting how the family court system applies different rules in different cases. 2019 seems to be a problematic and extremely disorganized year in the history of the Connecticut family court. If you want to reform family court system. One should look at policy and procedures. The guardian ad lithiums and what they are reporting and withholding for the courts.
An allergic reaction? Alcohol abuse doesn’t automatically qualify you for the diagnosis of America with disability act once you become sober. Alcoholism creates distorted judgement and perception. As well as reasoning. It creates unfitness when the person is abusing substances. At least that is what most experts are stating. Would you consider people debating your position on the subject abuse? Are you aware of the long term effects on children who have lived with an parent who abusing substances. These effects don’t go away after the parent is recovery. This is what the leading experts say in the field. Would it be abusive to state these things that leading mental health professionals are saying? Are people disagreeable to your position abusive?
Oh my God my case is worse than this and I don’t drink or do drugs. This is encouraging to go to appellate court.
Please do.
Joan,
Thank you for the comment. You really seem to understand the situation and I appreciate that you touched on issues that are so important in my case, but in the cases of many families. Cheers, Margaret
https://litchfieldconnection.com/connecticut-judge-under-scrutiny-for-removing-children-from-parents/
New Haven, CT – The judicial conduct of Judge Jane Kupson Grossman from the New Haven Superior Court in New Haven, Connecticut, has raised serious concerns among Connecticut residents. Reports and complaints have surfaced, suggesting that Judge Grossman has been removing children from their mothers without substantial evidence of abuse, neglect, or any form of wrongdoing.
According to court documents from a 2023 case, Judge Grossman’s decisions have led to multiple federal lawsuits. Critics, including affected parents and legal experts, argue that her rulings reflect a disturbing pattern of unjustified child removals.
A notable case reported in a 2020 article from the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Court highlighted a complaint against Judge Grossman, detailing her alleged disregard for due process. The article included statements from parents and advocates who questioned the ethical implications of her decisions.
In an in-depth piece by Artvoice in 2022, the plight of three children separated from their mother due to Judge Grossman’s ruling was brought to light. The article underscored the emotional and psychological impact of such separations on families.
The Connecticut Post, in a 2021 article, delved into the complexities of one of Judge Grossman’s cases. The report quoted a legal expert who criticized the judge for her handling of evidence and the apparent bias in her rulings.
Furthermore, a biographical overview provided by the Office of Chief Public Defender revealed Judge Grossman’s extensive legal background.
However, this professional history contrasts sharply with the concerns raised in a 2021 Stop Probate Fraud blog post, which accused her of perpetuating family court fraud.
Judge Grossman has acted as a criminal court judge, family support magistrate judge, and now a family court judge, after spending many years as a defense attorney. She also is a law professor at Quinnipiac University School of Law and teaches courses in domestic violence, while denying restraining orders and enabling abusers.
These reports include firsthand accounts from parents who felt victimized by the legal system under her jurisdiction.
Amidst this controversy, Governor Ned Lamont and the Judicial Review Committee have remained notably silent, further fueling the public’s demand for accountability and transparency in the judicial system. The FCVFC, in their detailed analysis of Judge Grossman’s conduct, stated,
The pattern of rulings by Judge Grossman raises serious questions about the fairness and objectivity expected in our judicial system.” This statement encapsulates the growing unease among those who have scrutinized her decisions closely.
In the Artvoice report, a mother affected by Judge Grossman’s ruling expressed her distress: “I never imagined the court would separate me
from my children without any concrete evidence. It’s like living in a nightmare.” This poignant testimony highlights the emotional toll of
the judge’s decisions on families. The Connecticut Post also quoted a legal analyst who raised concerns about Judge
Grossman’s handling of evidence in court: “The approach taken in these cases seems to ignore standard judicial procedures and the fundamental rights of parents and children.”
Further intensifying the scrutiny, the Frank Report published statements from affected families and legal experts.
One parent remarked, “It’s not just about my case. It’s about how the system, led by figures like Judge Grossman, fails to protect the very children it’s supposed to safeguard.”
Amidst these revelations, questions also arise about the broader implications of Judge Grossman’s conduct for the Connecticut judicial system. Despite the mounting criticism, official responses from
higher authorities, including Governor Lamont and the Judicial Review Committee, remain minimal. This silence has only intensified calls
for a thorough investigation and review of Judge Grossman’s judicial conduct.
The depth of concern surrounding Judge Grossman’s rulings is further illuminated by the specific cases and testimonials that have emerged. According to a detailed account in the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Court’s report, one parent described the ordeal as “not just a miscarriage of justice, but a systematic erosion of family rights.”
This statement underscores the perceived gravity of Judge Grossman’s actions in the eyes of those directly affected.
An in-depth analysis by Artvoice revealed the harrowing
story of a family torn apart by what was described as “a decision devoid of empathy and legal justification.” The mother in this case was quoted as saying, “The court didn’t just take my children; they shattered our entire world without a shred of substantial evidence.”
The Frank Report quoted a therapist who had observed several cases presided over by Judge Grossman. The therapist remarked, “What I’ve seen is a disturbing pattern where the best interests of the child are overlooked in favor of inexplicable judicial decisions.”
A notable piece in the Stop Probate Fraud blog highlighted the broader impact of these cases, with a legal scholar commenting,
“When a judge repeatedly makes questionable decisions, it’s not
just the families that suffer. The ripple effect on the community’s trust in the legal system is profound and damaging.”
Despite these numerous reports and firsthand accounts, the lack of a formal response from Governor Lamont and the Judicial Review Committee has been a source of frustration for many. A legal advocate, quoted in a Frank Report article, stated, “The silence from our state’s
leaders in the face of such serious allegations is deafening and deeply concerning.”
As these stories and critiques accumulate, they paint a troubling picture of Judge Grossman’s tenure in the New Haven Superior Court. The severity and consistency of the allegations suggest a pattern that goes beyond isolated incidents, raising critical questions about judicial
conduct and accountability. The Plymouth Connection, recognizing the significance and sensitivity of these issues, reiterates its commitment to providing a platform for those affected by Judge Grossman’s rulings.
We invite our readers and community members who have experienced similar situations to share their stories. By bringing these narratives to light, we aim to foster a deeper understanding and, ultimately, drive
meaningful change in our judicial system. Please contact us at connectionpressreleases@gmail.com to share your story.
We get blindsided because we don’t believe anyone would act the way the alienating parent does. Even as we probably saw tell-tale signs long before, it’s beyond the imagination that a parent would inflict the psychological abuse of alienating behaviors on a child they profess to love. Unfortunately, family courts often fail to see that the ‘love’ and apparent protective behavior is all a charade. Behind the scenes, there is coercive control and indoctrination. That is why when the alienating parent falsely blames the ‘target’ parent, and when everyone sees the child rejecting this parent, it is enormously challenging to prove this wrong. Sometimes it is only the alienated parent who seems to know the truth. Alienating parents are highly manipulative. They seek revenge for perceived wrongs and refuse to take any blame or responsibility. They’re also selfish and narcissistic. Emotional and Psychological Abuse of Children of Divorce and Separation – Whatever We Call it, The Problem Remains the Same
I totally agree with Joan. Children needs both parents. And who is suffering? Once again the children. Childten have as much constitutional rights asthe parent. On the whole, parents are the best protectors of children and have the natural right and duty for the care, custody, and control for their children. Children, in the main, are naturally incapable of exercising self-government until reaching the age of majority. Nothing can come between the natural instinct of a mother s love from her children. It is absurd that a parent that has never been found Unfit to be a parent have the right to her children taken away. The Courts constant interference in the parent child relationship is equivalent to trafficking innocent children through the Court system and that’s just a crime and they all should be held responsible The time that Courts played God over parents and destroying lives is will and shall stop.
The application of best interest standard. Alcoholism is a family dease. One person is using and the entire family suffers. There are long term effects on children who have parents with addiction problems. The courts should never leave high conflict parents to fight visitation issues The effort to have effective therapist to assist families in a time of crisis. Children deserve healthy parents. Work the 12 step program and make amends when you can. The children are the ones suffering. Parental rights in Connecticut shouldn’t overshadow the needs of the children. That should be the focus. Both parents are always the best outcome. The focus needs to be the way to achieve that for the children when it’s possible and when it is not.
Margaret Sullivan, you are a testament to the limitless power of a mother’s love…. In a system favoring those with means, to represent yourself at all is brave, to do so in the setting of recurring heart problems is remarkable, and to clock a win at the the appellate Court makes you astounding and blindingly inspirational. Be encouraged by the many to whom you have raised the bar . Much love, Trisha (a friend to Bill since 12/06/13)