Complaints against Judge Clark Richardson and attorney Heather Saslovsky

I, Jill Jones Soderman, am filing good faith complaints against New York County family court judge Clark Richardson and attorney Heather Saslovsky, an employee of the nonprofit Legal Aid Society of Manhattan.

Judge Clark Richardson

The complaints are filed against Ms. Saslovsky for her abuse of power, as well as concerns that her behavior may be further prompted by illicit inducement to fraudulently and maliciously remove children from protective parents. 

We are aware of other families, in addition to the case before us, in which Ms. Saslovsky has been accused of removing children from protective parents into the hands of their abusers. We are in discussion with them with regard to taking appropriate action against Ms. Saslovsky as to the destruction lodged against their families as per the actions of Ms. Saslovsky.

We intend to bring these cases to the attention of all relevant authorities in the course of filing and reporting on the Reeves case and the unlawful removal of Baby A. from her protective parent and all who love her.

The problem of “parental alienation” theory

On the basis of the most rudimentary and fundamental common sense, family relationships are to be governed by humanity and decency. We who were all once children have experienced the agony of being separated from a loved parent. 

But in many family court rulings there is no consideration for primary caretaker parent-child bonding, and indeed, there is no empathy and no mercy.

Children make allegations of abuse that need to be carefully evaluated and investigated, but instead of taking those statements on face value as having been authentically made by the child, they are dismissed as having been “coached” by the protective parent to make “false allegations.” 

(Just a note that maneuvering children to repeat statements and complaints that are not their own is a near impossibility. With their self-preoccupation, young children simply do not have the mental bandwidth to incorporate the complex thought scripts of another party.)

Then, in the name of “parental alienation,” well-documented complaints of heinous abuse are being dismissed and ignored, and innumerable children are being transferred into the hands of physical, sexual, and emotional abusers. In fact, the “parental alienation” theory has spawned an industry of so-called experts who lie, cheat, and steal to cover the acts of child abusers, who are often purveyors of pornography and child trafficking. 

But “parental alienation” as a tool for returning children to their abusers, has been thoroughly researched by the scientific community, with published outcomes that completely discredit it, such as those by Joyanna Silberg, PhD; Stephanie Dallam, PhD; and Joan Meir, JD. 

Crimes are being committed in family courts in Manhattan, in the name of “equal parental rights.” We are witnessing the “rights” being upheld of abusive parents to abuse children, in a manner long outlawed regarding the treatment of animals. 

The case at hand

The ASPCA requires more background checks and certifications of the adoptive dog parent’s suitability than the Richardson court has expected in making the declaration for Baby A. to be passed from the sole care and custody of her protective mother to the father, who has been charged with beating and brutalizing the child’s mother in front of the child. 

The child has also disclosed that the father has beaten her as well.

Based on my training and experience as a child and family analyst as well as my extensive, intimate knowledge of this case (through document and evidence review, presence at court hearings, contact with law enforcement and attorneys, and first-hand knowledge of the adult actors in the case) I am deeply concerned that Judge Richardson, Ms. Saslovsky, and other officers of this court are engaged in illicit activity geared toward abuse of power, as they are poised to benefit from financial incentive offered by the wealthy petitioner father. 

The complaint outlines how the father in this case went from 

  • An accused violent physical abuser of his wife
  • A substance abuser of alcohol and hard drugs
  • An individual who sequestered guns (AR15) in his New York apartment 
  • Forensically evaluated as per ACS recommendation for having engaged in grooming his toddler baby for sexual activity

to a model father who was falsely maligned by ACS caseworkers and that alienating bitch of a wife.

Following the child’s utterances stating that her father hit her with a spoon stick (leaving bruises on her buttock) and describing how Daddy does not wear diapers when he bathes and showers with her and how he massages her vagina, the ACS team that investigated and very mildly made recommendations was suddenly removed from existence with no hearing or formal complaint.

As of December 3, 2019, the father, without any form of proper psychiatric evaluation or drug screening supervision, and over the caution and concerns of ACS caseworkers and supervisors, found himself in full and total possession of his three-year-old daughter, via a sua sponte order of Judge Richardson.

On that day, Baby A. at just three (3) years old found herself suddenly not being returned to her mother. Since that time she has seen her mother on two supervised occasions, and has both times begged to be allowed to come home. 

Adding insult to injury, court documents indicate that Ms. Saslovsky is blaming the mother for abandoning the child. We strongly suspect that Ms. Saslovsky, in union with Baby A’s father is communicating to the child that her mother has abandoned her. If such communications are in fact being imparted, taking place, the agony and incomprehensible suffering 

This is a mother against whom absolutely no founded complaint, on any level, had been made, in spite of the groundless allegations and malicious, maligning characterizations of attorney Saslovsky.

The ACS caseworker team that so reasonably investigated Baby A’s allegations were dismissed, reputedly as per allegations by Ms. Saslovsky who stated in court that the ACS team was entirely too supportive of Ms. Reeves. 

Within one day of Ms. Saslovsky’s complaint to Judge Richardson, the entire ACS team appears to have disappeared from their offices at 125th Street in Manhattan.

Affidavits are being requested from all parties knowing of the actions leading to the dismantling of this ACS team. Write-ups on the ACS staff members as per course of business dealings with them are being referred to the related authorities. 

These complaints and the responses of authorities will be followed with profound concern and interest.