I am Jill Jones Soderman, Executive Director of the Foundation For Child Victims of the Family Courts, to be referred to as the FCVFC. The FCVFC has been developed to advocate, litigate, and write about children and Protective Parents lodged in the assembly line machinery of the Juvenile, Dependency, and Family Courts, which have been bloated with funding and power yet lack the competence to apply either to the welfare of children and their actual protectors.
The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts has taken on this case to evaluate, to litigate and to prosecute to the full extent of the law.
Background of “Parental Alienation”
(This formal complaint explains the background of Richard Gardner and “Parental Alienation,” which is described on the FCVFC website here.)
The case before you, described in nauseating detail, can serves as a paradigm, displaying the deranged, despicable process imposed on Protective Parents and vulnerable children, which makes a mockery of the terms “Child Protection” and “Civil Rights.”
Background of the Case in Question
These three children were adopted specifically to be rescued and cared for. Their mother is a Special Education teacher who has tirelessly and lovingly provided these children with every possible medical, educational, psychological support for their benefit.
Every professional who came into contact with the Protective Parent and her children was willing to defame, slander, and provide provocative character assassinations. The fiction created by the multidisciplinary team of lawyers, psychologists, a Guardian Ad Litem, all enthusiastically endorsed by Judge Jane Grossman, presented a profile of the Protective Parent Mother that was “written” by the Father, Plaintiff in this lawsuit.
The Plaintiff Father entered this forum with a script and a plan to remove the children, whose adoption was a lifelong plan desired by their Defendant Mother.
The Plaintiff is a professional writer of fiction and an actor who believes and is deeply moved by his own scripts. He has a JD degree from NYU and sat for the bar exam.
Plaintiff’s tears come easily to his eyes as his renditions of life in this terrible marriage with his horrible children flow freely, as experiences that never took place are offered to the team of assembled professionals, a team that his wife never knew she hired.
The Defendant is the lone source of history and reporting in this case as to a source of personal and family history.
As will be shown, the fictional narrative reported by the Plaintiff and adopted universally by the legal and clinical teams who have indicted the Defendant as a highly pathological, unstable individual, have in fact never been presented with facts and history by the Defendant Mother. The Defendant’s ability to provide personal history as well as attesting to her truths does not exist on the record of any of the clinical or even legal providers. The Defendant’s position in the case has been left for her to defensively respond to the fictional, unflattering accounts provided by her fiction writer husband. As will be demonstrated through exhibits, the Defendant has not ever been provided equal time to address personal history or discuss her narrative as the sole caretaker of the children and her account of life with the Plaintiff.
As will be demonstrated, Judge Jane Grossman completely imbibed and accepted the Plaintiff’s accounts of a violent household where children and their mother ganged up on the father, attacked him physically, verbally, and emotionally, so that the accounts of his alienation from the children leap off the pages and inspire rage and desires for retribution against the Defendant Mother.
Throughout the transcript, Judge Grossman repeatedly refers to the violence and instability of the Defendant and the need to provide protection of other family members against her. The “facts” are so clearly etched in Judge Grossman’s mind, so well established that she needs no testimony from the Defendant or her witnesses.
The Defendant’s providers / witnesses were fired at the onset of the case and replaced by “therapists” of the court’s choosing, thus depriving the Defendant of Due Process, much less any accurate presentation of the truth.
A fundamental issue not addressed in the Complaint for Divorce is the fact that the Plaintiff entered the marriage on false pretenses. First, he failed to discuss with his prospective wife that his sexual preference was men, not women. Next, he failed to discuss with his prospective wife the fact that he had accepted a job in California; his writing career of two years. His partner made it clear that she would not move to California; her family, friends, 15-year special education tenured teaching career and well-established roots were in Connecticut and her lifelong dream of adoption was near. Prior to their wedding, the Plaintiff loved her devotion to her niece and nephews, demonstrated the same love of fitness and outdoor adventure, and admired her independence, confidence and self-sufficiency. She was in her mid thirties, and was happy with her world. The unexpected entry of the Plaintiff added color and depth to her tapestry; however, she would not sacrifice all that nourished and fulfilled her for any one person.
It would appear that the Plaintiff husband was not at all phased by these sentiments expressed clearly and un-ambivalently by the Defendant. The Plaintiff represented himself, made heartfelt commitments, and gained the trust and love of his partner. Then, the day after the wedding, he proceeded to fully ignore them and move ahead as he pleased. They walked along the familiar shore of Narragansett Beach, for the first time as a married couple. As they paused to appreciate the moment, the Plaintiff informed his bride he needed a ride to Boston to catch the next plane. He had been offered a writing position on a “top-ten show and could not pass it up.” If he did, it would be “career suicide.” These two words come to define her world; slowly insidiously.
Further, following the wedding ceremony the Plaintiff never again engaged in sexual relations with his wife.
The Plaintiff lived in California until he was fired from his job for Plagiarism, not that he ever admitted to plagiarizing as he had devised a script to cover that event, denying he had ever been fired. The facts surrounding the episode dealing with his job termination was an elaborate prevarication.
Defendant wanted to adopt children who needed a home. An educator, she loved children and felt having biological progeny was next. Her then husband specifically wanted to seek children from Latin America. The three Special Needs children adopted were from Latin America, two boys and one girl cared for specifically and completely by, the Defendant, as agreed upon from the onset between the parents. This arrangement did not anticipate that at a later point in time that the Plaintiff would be seeking to take over full custody of the children, fully excluding the Defendant mother after she agreed to a division of labor requested by her husband.
The Plaintiff’s long standing verbal abuse and harassment of the children, developing into far more open, overt, aggressive sexual advances toward each of the children led to divorce proceedings.
This Plaintiff exploited and used his wife and children to gain whatever front he wished to hide from the world so that he could engage in whatever depraved carnal indulgences he wished without being faced with the consequences of such acts as having sex with children, or more specifically having sex with young Latino boys.
This Plaintiff showed his sons the pornography “teaching” demonstrating the sexual positions that must be learned by homosexual partners entering into sexual relationships. But Judge Jane Grossman failed to give it the evidence review it deserved. Her response was to transfer the children into the hands of their abuser and to suppress all testimony in the area of sexual grooming and sexual activity imposed on children.
The Plaintiff totally co-opted the narrative of therapists for the children and the Defendant by moving into the treatment space with each of their therapists. Plaintiff Father became a patient of each of the children’s therapists by creating a volatile, violent event in which the children were passive actors in a scene scripted and produced by their script writer father.
The gaslighting process that involved staging a scene known only to the father and utterly confusing to the children and the Defendant was so confusing that all parties were totally at a loss to know what was going on.
The scene generated by the Plaintiff engaged the interests of therapists who then questioned the veracity of the children with whom the therapists had a relationship and heretofore excellent outcomes. When the therapists decided that the father was more interesting than the children and the income generated by taking him on as a patient generated double the fees, they proceeded without regard to the destruction done to the primary client, the child. These acts of betrayal rise to the standard of malpractice and are currently being written up in detail for referral to the relevant licensing boards and attorneys for litigation.
The Plaintiff will be shown to be criminally engaged, with knowledge and forethought for planning out the court proceedings that have involved the transfer of this case from the very capable hands of Judge Rodriquez, to the fully perverted engagement of Judge Jane Grossman.
Judge Jane Grossman
Judge Jane Goodman assisted in the gathering of court actors – lawyers, Guardian Ad Litem, psychological evaluator, the team that surrounded the Plaintiff.
The court actors that assemble to organize and implement the Parental Alienation Fiction Script for the next phase of life for the Defendant Mother and child victims already know that they are in good company. Judge Grossman has a reputation as cruel and vindictive, displaying bias against non-white populations. She also has a well validated reputation for cruelty and withholding necessary protections for litigants whose lives are in danger. A young Latino woman had pleaded with the court for the placement of a restraining order. Jane Grossman failed to provide such protection, and the young woman was subsequently stabbed to death.
Judge Jane Grossman is a well-known architect of the Family Separation / Family evisceration process that takes young, vulnerable children and transfers them into the hands of their abuser, locking them away for years, if not forever. This judge directs case outcomes as per the pre-paid for custody decisions of lawyers who have no interest in law or fair and reasonable services for their clients or the children at the center of these cases.
As per the immediate subject case, Judge Grossman has blocked presentation of Domestic Violence issues though issues related to stalking, sexual molestation of the male children, and massive amounts of homosexual pornography have been blocked from discussion.
Judge Jane Grossman went so far as to state that she did not want any third party intervention, such as Ct. DCF or FBI crime lab review of the pornography confiscated from the Plaintiff’s possession (Transcript of Fri.8/28/2020). Judge Jane Grossman stated as part of passionate advocacy of all of the lawyers for the Plaintiff that we do not need any outside intervention, we can handle this matter ourselves and these lawyers must be paid. Judge Grossman also stated that the proceeds from the sale of the marital home must go to pay the lawyers because this couple has no more money.
The transcripts of these court hearings will clearly and specifically demonstrate the charges against Judge Jane Grossman for Abuse Of Process, Bias, Negligence and Fully Depraved, Sadistic interactions with the Protective Parent in this case and total disinterest in protecting the lives and well-being of the children in this court custody process.
The virtual savaging these children in the isolation of the Plaintiff was as will be shown through the detailed complaints against each and every one of the participants in this case to be a conscious, planned act, coordinated with, and by the planning and rulings of Judge Jane Goodman.
The case transcripts will show that Judge Jane Grossman not only praised the team of lawyers on this case, but made it absolutely clear that all proceeds from the sale of marital assets must go to pay the attorneys (court Transcript of Fri Aug.28, 2020). Her enthusiastic praise for the attorneys and court process that completely removed all custody and contact with the children into isolation with the parent who never cared for them and was known to have engaged in hostile, exploitative ways was jaw dropping.
Complaints against other court actors
Detailed complaints are being drafted with regard to the numerous crimes committed not only by the court actors engaged in a sham evaluation process, but also the two lawyers retained by the Defendant as their failure to represent the Defendant and the children.
The coordinated efforts and acts of each of these predatory practitioners accomplished with conscious knowledge, forethought and planning to cover criminal acts that have tortured, abused, and threatened the three adopted children who were cared for and nurtured by their Protective Parent.
Never in the course of those years did Defendant ever anticipate that she would be fighting for her children’s lives in a court of law that is participating in the sexual exploitation and trafficking of her children.
Every actor noted in this filing and in filings to follow have violated their fiduciary responsibility, their oath to their professions, and the dignity and trust of the clients they were paid to represent. The children—whose best interests, health and welfare should have been an overwhelming concern—were viewed only in terms of exploitation of their market value.
Complaints will be lodged with every licensing board that is diminished by the presence of these individuals. Each licensing board will be able to view and follow the unholy acts of these perpetrators of heinous crimes against children in their own right and in combination of the bad acts of others. We fully intend to use every aspect of this case as it moves through litigation to prosecution as a teaching vehicles to be learned from and remembered.
Jill Jones Soderman
Executive Director FCVFC