afitzy
Former Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 126,557
Sorry, but the FD FB picture still being front and centre on his cover page simply sent me over the edge a bit as I was thinking about why we haven't seen any movement to remove GAL Meehan from Family Court yet as I see FD continued non compliance with regard to his children to be closely tied to GAL Meehan.I’m glad you got that off your chest! This situation is mind boggling!!!
Without getting too personal several years ago I went through the process in CT to gain custody of a grandchild.
The other “parties” NEVER once told the TRUTH to their friends and family members about what went on in court. As we run into some of these mutual acquaintances I am amazed at the different stories that were told to them. There isn’t a semblance of truth in any version.
I by no means am trying to infer that MT is a saint however I do not believe FD ever went “home” to MT and told her the truth. MOO
I just kept asking myself whether if the FD defiance was ongoing regarding the children and the psychological health of the children was deteriorating then why did GAL Meehan not undertake a more activist role?
Was GAL Meehan instead assisting even if via his own passivity/inaction, the ongoing FD/MT defiance of Family Court orders? IDK. But all these issues hit me yet again this morning as the FB picture was discussed. Who had the responsibility of safeguarding the 5 Dulos children on behalf of the court and protecting them from poor decision making by FD and MT? Only 1 person here to look at IMO and it is GAL Meehan and ultimately Judge Heller.
I don't disagree with you on the issue of people only sharing selected messages with outsiders. BUT on the issue of MT I have to simply add that no matter what he told her SHE knew that SHE was unable to be at 4Jx with the 5 Dulos children when they were present. Now, if someone told you that you wouldn't be permitted to be in the same place at the same time as the 5 children and you had an 10-11 yo. child of your own, wouldn't you view the child as an extension of yourself or want to not expose your children to any unnecessary drama or interference in a situation that didn't involve them and simply remove your child along with you for the day or weekend etc.?
But, this is not apparently what MT decided to do as a parent. No. MT left her child with FD and the 5 Dulos children. IMO this is simply FD and MT thumbing their nose at JD and her atty for not adding the extra provision to include MT daughter in the motion made to court.
I can't even go there on MT moral/ethical choices as that is a conversation that has been beaten to death many times, but I just keep asking myself the old 'reasonable person' test here. What reasonable person barred from a situation and who has legal responsibility for a minor child wouldn't chose to remove the minor child from the situation when they themselves are legally barred from being present?
MOO
Last edited: