Complaint Review: Haley Veller Gaurdian Ad Litem Judge Elizabeth A. Buzzuto State of Connecticut - Shelton Connecticut

2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1682,*

David Annelli v. Janet Hill

CVFA94121619

SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, AT WATERBURY

2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1682

May 31, 2006, Decided

May 31, 2006, Filed

In the following transcripts you will find that Judge Bozzuto, GAL HaleyVeller, Thomaston Counseling, And possibly others appear to be Perpetrating continued abuse against a child in the State of Connecticut by purposely being prejudiced against a father.

I know that As a father, along with my children, I will be posting this on RIPPOFF REPORT.

I will see that the truth goes Nationwide. They are directly responsible for my minor girls being abused while they covered it all up Legally. I suspect they have ruined many families and are responsible for allowing huge amounts of child abuse to continue at the hands of insane mothers.

Attorney Haley Veller and Judge Elizabeth Bozzutto are inflicting continued abuse on children. The case below describes how they kept a girl with an abusive mother who has mental problems they knew about from the time she was two years old until the age of 15.

Shame on you! My children and I are going through the same thing at the hands of these man hating terrorists as I type this. I will expose them, maybe the media will help. Please read the case history below and see if what they did was right.

NOTICE:

[*1] THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW. COUNSEL IS CAUTIONED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS CASE.

JUDGES: Elizabeth A. Bozzuto, J.

OPINION BY: Elizabeth A. Bozzuto

OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE # 159.50, # 169, # 176 and # 187

Primarily before the court is the plaintiff's (father) postjudgment motion to modify custody, dated September 22, 2004, coded # 159.50, wherein the plaintiff prays for sole legal custody of the minor child, Christine Annelli, date of birth, April 11, 1991.

Over the course of two days, the court heard testimony from both the plaintiff and defendant, Attorney Haley Veller, the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) for the minor child, Dr. Barbara Berkowitz, a court-appointed psychologist who performed a psychological evaluation of the plaintiff and defendant, and Cindy Hill, the defendant's sister. Additionally, the court received into evidence various exhibits, including the results of Dr. Berkowitz's evaluations of the plaintiff and defendant.

The plaintiff and defendant have been engaged in litigation since 1993 relative to the care and custody of their minor child. Both the plaintiff and defendant marked [*2] the first day of this trial as their 73rd appearance in court, an odd statistic to carry in ones repertoires of trivia. At the start of the plaintiff and defendant's career as litigants, Christine was only two years old. She is now 15 years old. It is self evident that the plaintiff and defendant cannot communicate at all and there is no hope that they would ever be able to co-parent their daughter.

Up until the time she was approximately 13 years old, Christine had always resided with the defendant. On September 28, 2004, the court (Everleigh, J.) granted Attorney Mary Chromik's, court-appointed attorney for the minor child (AMC), ex parte motion for an immediate transfer of custody, praying that custody be immediately transferred from the defendant to the plaintiff. Since that date, the minor child has continued to reside with the plaintiff and has had limited, supervised contact with the defendant.

The actual existing order, subject of this postjudgment motion to modify was entered by the court on December 12, 2003, by way of a stipulated agreement. By that agreement, the defendant was granted primary physical custody of the minor child and the plaintiff was provided with an access [*3] schedule, which included every other weekend and a week night visit. Further, the minor child was to engage in counseling with Dr. Sidney Horowitz.

Christine is currently 15 years old and a freshman at Woodlake Regional High School. She resides exclusively with the plaintiff and except for situational encounters, has not seen her mother since August of 2005. She is in good health and from all presented, appears to be mentally and emotionally stable as well. Her school day begins at 7:35 a.m. and ends at 2:05 p.m. After school, she participates in cheerleading and also is provided with educational assistance for some college preparatory courses she is taking and struggling with. Otherwise, she is an honors student.

The GAL, AMC and the plaintiff all indicate that Christine wishes to continue to reside with the plaintiff.

The impetus behind this most recent postjudgment activity comes directly from disclosures made by Christine to her father, which Christine thereafter relayed directly to her GAL and AMC.

The plaintiff testified that his daughter told him she was afraid to go home after school; she didn't feel safe at her mother's home; was constantly subjected to her mother's yelling [*4] and screaming, as well as incessant degradation of the plaintiff by the defendant. The child would often remain in her room after school until the next morning to avoid confrontation, both verbal and physical, with the defendant. The child would sit in the back seat of the car to avoid being hit by her mother in the front seat. The defendant would call the minor child derogatory and insulting names. Her phone and computer use was limited by her mother and she was rarely, if at all, allowed to have friends over the house. Given the child's disclosures, the plaintiff brought the child to Attorney Chromik's office to meet with her, as well as the GAL. The meeting took place on September 22, 2004. n1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1

It was after this meeting that Attorney Chromik filed the ex parte application for immediate transfer, which was granted and gave rise to the court's temporary orders of September 28, 2004. Almost simultaneous therewith, the plaintiff filed this pending motion to modify custody.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The GAL's testimony was consistent [*5] with that of the plaintiffs and the court finds it to be credible and reliable. Attorney Veller has been Christine's GAL since May of 2003. At the time of the December 2003 order, Attorney Veller was "suspect" regarding Christine's continued residence with her mother, but testified that Christine, at the time, was guarded as far as any kind of meaningful disclosures or discussions relative to her mother's care. Attorney Veller described Christine as "stoic," with a "flat affect," responding to all questions with simply a "yes" or "no" answer. She further testified that Christine was very much "aligned" with her mother.

After the December 2003 order, Christine engaged in individual and group therapy with Dr. Sidney Horowitz. Attorney Veller periodically met with Christine and monitored her therapeutic progress closely. It is also noteworthy that Christine started to visit with the plaintiff on a more regular and extended basis, spending a good part of the summer of 2004 with him. Attorney Veller noticed a progressive change in Christine's ability and willingness to communicate with her. Christine was becoming more vocal as to her mother's behavior toward her as well as her residential [*6] situation. Ultimately, as Attorney Veller testified, Christine reached a point where she "couldn't take it any more," resulting in the September 22, 2004 meeting. Attorney Veller testified that Christine had "completely come out of her shell." Christine reported to Attorney Veller that her mother was continuously yelling and screaming at her, more so after visits with the plaintiff. The defendant called Christine a "w***e" and the plaintiff a "w***e master," as well as criticized other people associated with the plaintiff. The defendant told Christine that if she went with the plaintiff she would be raped or killed. Attorney Veller found Christine's representations to be genuine and sincere. Further, Attorney Veller testified that she never got the impression that Christine was being at all influenced by her father.

As part of the court's temporary order of September 28, 2004, the defendant was to have two hours of weekly visitation with the minor child in a therapeutic setting. Thomaston Counseling Associates supervised eight of those visits, from October 12, 2004 through November 9, 2004. Their full report was admitted as an exhibit. (P. Exh. 2) The supervisor, Lori Kuntz, MS, MFT, [*7] noted that Christine appeared "reluctant and distant" during visitation. Further, "based upon my clinical observations, Ms. Hill did not respond appropriately to Christine's emotional needs. However, she demonstrated that she cares deeply about Christine's well being as evidenced by her attempts to provide for her physical needs despite financial hardships." In conclusion, Ms. Kuntz recommended that Christine continue with her therapy and suggested that Ms. Hill become involved too in order to work on her relationship with her daughter. Although therapeutic supervised visitation was not indicated, Ms. Kuntz did suggest that having a supervisor for the visitation would be appropriate.

It was not made clear to the court why the Thomaston Counseling sessions stopped, nor why several months elapsed until the next visitation, which didn't occur until August of 2005. This lapse would at the very least appear inconsistent with the court's temporary order of September 28, 2004, and, at worst, contemptuous.

In any event, the child and defendant participated in two sessions of supervised visitation with Dr. Howard Krieger on August 18 and 27, 2005. Dr. Krieger noted that although polite, Christine [*8] maintained an "angry posture" throughout both sessions. Dr. Krieger summarized: "I do not think that this visitation should be stopped. I also do not see the need for it to be supervised. If it is stopped it simply gratifies Christine's anger and adolescent sadism and gives her power to punish her mother for things and in ways that she should not. The court should support the visitation and attempt to problem-solve it practically. Similarly, supervising the visitation also gives the wrong message. There is nothing inherently dangerous about Janet Hill. She is an angry, rigid, bitter woman who does not discipline herself in terms of the things she says. Her daughter knows this however, and is able to manage to not engage her mother all the time. To her credit, Christine is able not to respond, a characteristic that not all teenage children share."

Thereafter, the plaintiff cancelled all further visitations with Dr. Krieger because Christine had no interest in visiting with her mother. Not only was this decision in violation of a court order, but was clearly inappropriate to do without airing the issue in open court.

The minor child and the defendant have not visited since then, n2 [*9] although they do occasionally converse on the phone.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2

The defendant testified that she met with the child on two other occasions at her therapists office, Dr. Millie Perrault, but there was no further coberation, detail or evidence of these two visits.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The plaintiff is 43 years old and in good health. He is a high school graduate. He lives in a 2-bedroom mobile home with his daughter in Prospect. He works at Imports Unlimited as a manager. His work is in close proximity to both his home as well as Christine's school. Although his hours fluctuate, he generally works from 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. His net take home pay is approximately $ 700 per week. He also receives approximately $ 106 per week in social security benefits payable on Christine's behalf as a result of the defendant's self-concealed disability. n3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -3

During the course of this postjudgment action, the defendant failed to disclose on her financial affidavit or by way of any other disclosure for that matter, that she was receiving social security benefits on Christine's behalf. After much investigation and the passage of 11 months, the plaintiff began receiving this benefit on Christine's behalf.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[*10] The plaintiff reports that he has an excellent relationship with Christine. The plaintiff testified that he and his daughter are "best friends," a remark that causes this court some concern. This parenting style manifests itself in the plaintiff and minor child deciding jointly what high school would be more appropriate for Christine to attend. Although Christine's input should be valued, at the very least, decisions regarding health, education and welfare are more appropriately left within the sole province of parents. More than anything right now, Christine needs a parent, and preferably a strong one at that.

Dr. Berkowitz's psychological evaluation (evaluation) indicated that the plaintiff was of average intelligence with no sign of "psychotic symptomatology, disorientation, or severe impairment in reality testing." Overall, his evaluation presents no concerns.

The defendant is 50 years old. She generally resides alone in a three-level condominium in Waterbury, but apparently has nieces and nephews "sleeping over every night." She testified that she has two college degrees; one in child care management and the other in executive medical assistance, both degrees obtained from [*11] Briarwood College. Despite this though, the defendant has not worked in over a decade. She claims to be disabled and does receive disability benefits but has left the nature, cause and extent of that disability a secret.

She testified to a loving relationship with her daughter and denied all the allegations of verbal, emotional and physical abuse. She also testified that she never isolated her daughter, nor limited her computer or phone use.

The court not only found the defendant belligerent and unable to conform her conduct to the proceedings, but much of her testimony was confusing and odd. The court's repeated admonishments went unheeded. Her testimony was riddled with blame and excuses, and often non responsive. On more than one occasion, in response to her lawyer's question, the defendant would answer, "Where did that come from?" In response to questions posed by plaintiff's lawyer relative to any medication she may be taking she responded, "What business is that of yours?" At one point in time the defendant just got up and left the courtroom.

The defendant testified that she is still suffering from the complications associated with the birth of Christine, some 15 years ago. [*12] No specifics were offered. She further claimed to be suffering from "all the abuse" from the defendant, without providing this court with any incidents or further coberation. She sought out counseling with Dr. Millie Perrault, not to address her parenting issues with her daughter, but was "trying to get help from the abuse that David gave me." Whenever she had a chance to, she would make reference to the plaintiff abusing her, whether it was responsive to a question or not. In response to questions relative to the defendant application for relief from abuse, C.G.S. 46b-15, in September of 2004, she testified that she was influenced to withdraw it because all of the lawyers cornered her in the hallway and told her to "drop it." n4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -4

The court has reviewed the subject 46b-15 restraining order file, FA04 400 11 48. The record indicates that an order of protection was entered on September 23, 2004 and the next day was vacated by the court, at the defendant's request. Contrary to defendant's testimony, the file indicates she was represented by an attorney at the time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[*13] The court attaches very little credibility to the defendant's testimony and finds her an unreliable witness. Despite this though, the court has no doubt that the defendant loves her daughter and the removal of her daughter has been a tremendous emotional strain on the defendant. The court further has no doubt that although the defendant has done a tremendous amount of emotional harm to her daughter, she would never physically harm her. In short, the defendant is a sympathetic woman in immediate need of not only psychiatric counseling, but probably medication as well. She is clearly mentally unstable and mentally and emotionally unable to comprehend the effects that her behavior has had on her relationship with her daughter, or other people in general, for that matter. The remedy for this mother-daughter relationship lies in the cure of the defendant's mental health condition. There is really nothing this court can do to make it better until the defendant herself is well.

The findings in Dr. Berkowitz's psychological evaluation would appear to be consistent with the defendant's behavior and testimony provided in court. Even before the actual evaluation, the defendant displayed "puzzling [*14] and surprising" behavior in conversations over the phone with Dr. Berkowitz. A personal history questionnaire, which was sent to both plaintiff and defendant for completion prior to the evaluation, came back from the defendant with three of six pages missing and differing excuses as to why that may be. The three pages that were filled out were "copiously filled out with much negative information about Mr. Annelli."

During the evaluation the doctor noted that, "Her behavior was highly unusual, as was her anxiety level, which did not dissipate throughout her long appointment. In addition, Ms. Hill's behavior was rather odd, with flattened affect and interpersonal edginess alternating with being ingratiating. At times she acknowledged having high anxiety--"oh, my stomach is tied in knots"--and at other times, she minimized her discomfort. She found it very difficult to listen to the evaluator's explanation of the assessment situation, interrupting frequently. Some confrontation was necessary to be able to get her to listen, so we could proceed. She was extraordinarily defensive in responding to any questions or concerns." The behavior noted by the doctor is strangely familiar to the [*15] behavior witnessed by the court during the course of this trial. Further, it would appear to be the same type of behavior the GAL and AMC encountered when dealing with the defendant throughout the course of this litigation.

Dr. Berkowitz concluded, "Diagnostically, Ms. Hill manifested probable clinical anxiety and dysthymia, on Axis I. Her generalized apprehension of the larger social environment could be part of a Generalized Anxiety Disorder. On Axis II, significant personality pathology appeared to be present. Her significantly elevated scores are NOT manifested on any of the scaled scores researchers have consistently found to be present in women involved in custody assessment situations [Histrionic, Narcissistic, and Compulsive]. Hence, her elevations are more clinically note worthy by virtue of being unusual. She was strongly characterized by Avoidant, Self Defeating, Dependant, and Paranoid Personality Disorder issues. Clinical impressions from the interview, and information from collateral sources, all pointed towards significant concerns about her psychological stability and the possibility of a latent paranoid or delusional disorder." The doctor recommended treatment, [*16] including a psychiatric evaluation with consideration for the administration of psychotropic medications.

This is what Christine has been dealing with for 13 years with no support or assistance. Although the court certainly recognizes that it was the defendant who provided for Christine for the first thirteen years and credit is due, the court is more inclined to believe that Christine has done well, despite her mother's mental illness, because she must be a kid of incredible strength and resilience.

This court has no doubt that with the defendant's compliance with a proper psychiatric evaluation, including the consideration of medication, the doors will open for Christine and her mom to have an appropriate relationship. Absent that, though, regrettably this court thinks the relationship will forever be compromised.

If in fact the defendant loves her daughter as much as she professed in court, one would think she would readily submit to whatever course of treatment or therapy is deemed necessary to address her obvious mental health issues. This court has no doubt that with mental health intact, Christine would embrace a relationship with her mom. The future of this relationship [*17] lies in mom's hands.

There has been a substantial change in circumstances since the December 2003 order, by virtue of the now revealed status of the defendant's mental health and it is in the minor child's best interest to grant the plaintiff's motion for sole custody, dated September 22, 2004. For the time being, the mother shall enjoy rights of visitation as mutually agreed upon between the child and defendant. Upon submission to a reliable and qualified psychiatric evaluation and compliance with any and all treatment recommendations, the defendant shall enjoy reasonable rights of visitation as agreed to by the plaintiff and defendant or further order of the court.

As to motion # 169, the court finds that with the social security benefit adjustment permitted by the guidelines that the defendant's obligation to pay support to the plaintiff is zero.

The defendant's motion for contempt # 176 is denied.

The plaintiff's motion for contempt # 187 is denied.

Dr. Berkowitz's fee for her court testimony shall be paid for by the State.

SO ORDERED

Bozzuto, J.