thanks. another thought i forgot to mention in my last post is , do the children have any say in the matter of if FD or any of his crowd should be able to visit them?
That's another interesting question.
I wish
@gitana1 were here to chime in but I will do my best to remember what was discussed on this topic in an earlier thread as this issue has been hashed out.
Fd had previously petitioned the Family Court a few months ago to get separate atty's for his 2 oldest children (believe them to be 14 this year) allegedly to give them a 'voice' in the process of custody.
Most people here heard this latest Fd plan and said, "Mmmmm"......
We had a long discussion as to why the oldest sons were roped into the Fd request to the Court and the consensus I believe was that they were then 13 which is an age that in CT minors may be 'heard by the court' as to their views. The Court doesn't have to comply with the minors views but the Court does have to hear them as part of the process.
There was also a number of folks here that thought Fd felt comfortable that he could manipulate easily one of the older sons (same son that was severely psychologically traumatised by Fd antics with demanding that the son lie on his behalf regarding MT presence at 4Jx).
I believe the general consensus as to the reason for the Fd request was to simply further extort GF as part of his ongoing revenge and torture plan across multiple court platforms. Fd by all accounts was never a very active or present father and we heard numerous accounts in Family Court to support this view from a variety of sources. Because of this general view of Fd as a largely 'absent' parent in terms of child care duties etc., his request to 'give a legal voice to his sons' was greeted here with a lot of 'side eye' and 'cynicism' as for him to all the sudden believe in the value of giving his 2 sons a voice when previously 'he' was the voice of his sons, it all just seemed improbable and absolutely unbelievable to most here.
Per usual, Fd and Pattisville made zero provision as to how these new atty's (most likely would bill in range of $300-500/hr) would be paid and Atty Dranginis on behalf of GF I believe filed a motion in protest as to the need for yet more atty's in the Family Court matter as GF was doing an excellent job representing the interests of the children and GF was already paying the GAL Meehan to look after the interests of the 5 children (Fd owes a substantial sum to GAL Meehan I believe on the order of $60,000 and he was supposed to cover 50% of the $300,000 annual GAL fee but it is believed he has not been keeping up his share and so the brunt of this expense has been paid by GF).
We have a number of pending motions in Family Court but Judge Heller seems to have shut down action on anything in Family Court so these pending motions remain unresolved (also waiting on mutual psych exams and dismissal of GAL Meehan and also dismissal of divorce action I believe).
So, my understanding is that while its legally possible for the children via the GAL to ask to see or speak with their father or even possibly the "Greek Family", there is a no contact order in place both in Family Court and Criminal Court so that no matter what the children want right now, the Court believes (and GF is supportive) it is in the best interests of the children to NOT HAVE CONTACT WITH Fd and by extension the "Greek Family".
Fd and Pattisville per usual DO NOT AGREE with all this which is why Fd makes a public statement each time he hits the courtroom steps and/or sees a microphone or a member of the Press and makes a statement about his children.
I have long believed that such public statements by Fd do in fact violate the no contact orders in place and I am baffled by Judge Heller and Judge Blawie have not taken steps to stop such speech. But, we have sadly not seen much in the way of activism in support of their own orders from either Judge Heller OR Judge Blawie and no doubt Fd and Pattisville know that nothing will be done and so this is why these Fd statements to his children are allowed to continue. I'm sure other atty's might disagree with the view of Fd courtroom step speeches to his children violates the 'no contact orders in place' and Atty. P. in particular no doubt believes in Fd 1st amendment right to such statements etc.
But, there is nothing in the history of Fd role and performance as a father to suggest that he has any 'street cred' as a 'wronged father' or 'father rights activist' even though Pattisville seems to be trying to 'rebrand or repackage' Fd in this manner. After the farce of the lone 'fathers rights' activist we saw a couple of months ago in Stamford and the accompanying Fd 'smirk' captured by the Press at the time, any Fd activity in Family Court on the topic of custody and his children has to be met with a good deal of cynicism IMO as he was the one to give up supervised access for such a long time because he 'disagreed' as to the treatment of MT by Family Court and did not in any way then prioritise seeing his children.
MOO
