Thanks for that.
As you’ve seen me state before, he ended up with one of the most restrictive custody orders available without denying all contact. And indeed (you know this case so well!) the judge issued those orders once she had evidence of what a liar FD is and that he violated court orders.
Prior to that, it was just he said she said. As I’ve stated before (as you also know!), false DV or child abuse allegations are too common. It’s constant. So this judge doesn’t need to be schooled as to DV.
Too often people seem to think that an allegation should be enough to terminate parental rights and if the judge doesn’t do so they’re idiots.
It’s obviously not the way things work.
And even in cases where domestic violence has been established the policy of every state is to enable contact between parent and child as much as possible while maintaining safety. So even abusers get things like supervised visits.
Finally, as I’ve stated before (and I’m agreeing with your comments not addressing you,
@afitzy because I know you know all this by now), a DV restraining order wouldn’t have prevented FD (who doesn’t follow court orders) from murdering Jennifer. Too many women with restraining orders are actually killed after they get one.
The judge didn’t cause this through action or inaction. This is all on that sicko FD.
@gitana1, totally agree that this sicko Fd created a scenario in Family Court that was misery for all involved.
But where I struggle with the Family Court situation is seeing that there were points along the way where non compliance wasn't punished using the tools available to the Court. So far as I know from the file there was no jail time for non compliance, no fines for non compliance and no requirement on Fd to financially support his 5 children due to the unresolved financial disclosure issue I believe, amongst other issues possibly. I'm sure the Court has other tools available but I didn't see any of these used in the file either unfortunately.
We also so far as I know didn't see any atty related sanctions for their facilitating Fd financial disclosure issues in the case although I do think its possible that Atty Pyetranker might have been excused from the case in a similar way to Atty. P. being excused from the case via closed door and off the record meetings which seem to be the norm in CT (file is unclear on exactly how this situation was handled IMO but Pyetranker left the case abruptly). IDK but it was hard to read some of the court testimony from Fd which IMO made it clear that Fd atty's were actually preparing some of his financial disclosure documents and knew that such disclosure documents didn't 'match up' to similar documents submitted to banks by Fd/FORE for the purposes of obtaining a loan.
I think what surprised me a bit here (vs some other DV cases I'm familiar with) is that Judge Heller seemed to understand Fd perfectly and was very strong in her statements about his behaviour and in particular where he lied under oath and also engaged his children in lying on his behalf. But even though Judge Heller called Fd a liar on multiple occasions, she never punished his repeated lying. Sure removing access to the children was a type of punishment but it wasn't really because at any time I think Fd could have chosen to comply with the Judge Heller order and his visitation would have been reinstated. Fd chose not to comply and so didn't see his children for nearly 10 months.
Judge Heller understood Fd quite well I think and this was well done of her I believe. Perhaps the options available to a Judge to punish someone like a Fd are limited but other than removing access to the children after the lying incident there really were no consequences to Fd for lying under oath or submitting false financial statements to the court or any of the other actions we saw in the case to delay the case or prevent resolution of financial support for the children. The Family Court case had contempt orders issued and as
@gitana1 so clearly states, Fd had only very restrictive access to his children and this was a source of great frustration and anger for his and he also complained constantly about the associated cost of the GAL and court appointed observer.
I know you/
@gitana1 and I go back and forth on this issue of how Judge's manage cases. Something about this Dulos v Dulos case IMO became explosive and IDK if it was the custody aspect or the financial aspect, or perhaps both?
But what is puzzling to me is that even with very experienced atty's involved and a final Judge (of the 3/4 total Judge's involved in the case over the 2 years) who I believe understood the issues of the parties involved, that compliance with financial disclosure from Fd was allowed to go on for such a prolonged period of time that for lack of better expression I think the case simply 'blew up'. Fd fought to the legal mat over and over to not disclose and by virtue of his doing this the Court wasn't able to make financial determination of his ability to contribute to the welfare of his children.
His delay in providing financial information IMO also meant that JFd (and her mother) were put in the position of supporting the children as Fd contributed nothing from the time JFd left 4Jx in 2017 to the maintenance of the children.
What would have happened if JFd and her mother hadn't been able to financially support the children? Would Judge Heller have allowed no support for the children? How many women in the US have the financial wherewithal that JFd and her mother had? IMO very few women have the money to do what JFd was forced to do and IMO she was forced to do it because the Court couldn't figure out how to get money from Fd for nearly 2 years. IDK why the Court allowed the situation to go on for so long as I believe that it escalated anger on both sides. Sure, this case had 2 people that most likely couldn't agree on anything. But to not impose a financial support obligation on Fd is something that I simply don't understand even if it was $2,000/month. Fd paid $0 over the 2 year period for the maintenance of his children. The week after JFd went missing was yet another hearing on the financial disclosure issue. I do believe this was a major contributor to motive in this murder.
Even after 2 years, IMO the Dulos case was nowhere near being able to go to trial as the motions just kept on being filed with no end. I find it hard to believe that had consequences that were significant been imposed at some stage of the process (on both parties) that perhaps the situation might have been resolved or at least heading to trial with decent documentation? IDK, maybe its a pipe dream?
I do hope someone studies the Dulos family case that has Family Law expertise in Hartford and perhaps offers up ideas on how to avoid this happening in the future. Sadly, I don't think there are many easy answers for hard cases where both parties simply cannot agree. But, I do think compliance with court orders is a basic place to start (pretty low bar too IMO) as I'm not convinced Fd ever was consistently held to this basic standard of compliance unfortunately and neither were his attorneys.
Some of the local DV advocates in CT have offered up some commentary on this case along with some suggestions for reform. Perhaps those in Hartford might take note. DV is not a new issue in CT and sadly the situation and stats aren't improving.
Here is a quick article from today with an interview from local DV person:
Fotis Dulos’ murder charge puts new light on domestic violence allegations
MOO
