Rebranding “Parental Alienation” into Coercive Control
In a three-year family court battle, this week is a critical one for a Connecticut mother by the name of Karen Riordan and her three adopted children: Mia, 16, Matthew, 16, and Sawyer, 13.
On April 24th, 2020, the three teens were separated from Riordan and forced to live with their father and Riordan’s ex-husband, Chris Ambrose, a now-disgraced film writer and producer.
Three years later, Mia, Matthew, and Sawyer remain under his primary legal custody, despite substantive claims and evidence of abuse against Ambrose and the teens’ collective desire to live with their mother.
When we spoke to Riordan last week, she confirmed that the teens ran away from Ambrose earlier this year and have sought safe haven in Rhode Island with Riordan’s father.
A Devoted Mother Faces the Possibility of Incarceration
On Thursday, September 7th, Riordan will appear in court to respond to a motion filed by Ambrose, who secured an expedited hearing on motions for contempt against her. Ambrose seeks the court-mandated return of all three teens to his home in Connecticut, as well as Riordan’s incarceration for “willful contempt” of the restraining order (RO) against her.
Throughout their legal battle, Ambrose has made countless false claims about Riordan’s fitness as a mother while perpetrating abuse – verbal, emotional, and sexual – against their three children.
Ultimately, the teens fled from Ambrose’s home to their grandfather in Rhode Island, but they live in fear of Ambrose and the possibility of being forced to return to his home.
Manipulating Jennifer’s Law to Perpetuate Abuse
In a more recent and sinister turn, Ambrose used Jennifer’s Law, Public Act (PA) 21-78, to depict Riordan as an abuser. This legislation, passed by the Connecticut House of Representatives in 2021, expands the definition of domestic violence to include coercive control as an additional form of abuse.
Coercive control refers to behaviors that seek to dominate and control nearly every aspect of a victim’s life. According to Jennifer’s Law, these behaviors may include isolation, degradation, micromanagement, manipulation, stalking, sexual coercion, threats, and punishment, and often predict more violent forms of abuse.
These are the very behaviors the teenagers claim their father has subjected them to during three years in his sole care, and they have evidence to support their claims.
Although Jennifer’s Law is designed to protect survivors of domestic abuse, Ambrose has manipulated the law to depict Riordan as a controlling and abusive parent, claiming that she coerced the children to file petitions against Ambrose in juvenile court. When the teens exercised their legal rights to redress grievances in court – which provided them with their own counsel – their actions were used as evidence that Riordan brainwashed and coached them into taking legal action.
Matthew and Sawyer filed before they sought safe haven with their mom, but that mattered little. The coercive control was determined without notifying the children’s counsel, thereby denying them the right to object to Ambrose’s petition against their mother. These alleged victims were denied the right to testify under PA 21-78.
When the RO was ordered against the teens’ will and consent, they fled. On September 7th, Ambrose will request the Connecticut Superior Court to consider incarceration as a sanction for Riordan’s continued pattern of coercive control – but without any factual basis for this claim.
Most recently, Ambrose claimed that Riordan coerced the teens to flee to Rhode Island to “avoid the authority of the Court and frustrate implementation of its orders,” in the words of Ambrose’s attorney, Alexander Cuda. However, there is no order that the mother was responsible for the “return of the teens” – as if they were property.
The RO also precluded Riordan from any contact with the children. Any attempt to access or ‘deliver’ her children would violate the RO and result in criminal sanctions. The state and court have eliminated any influence or control Riordan might have; yet she now faces possible incarceration when the orders themselves would be violated if she “delivered” the children to Ambrose. While we are not attorneys, this sounds like entrapment.
Supported by Cuda, Ambrose misapplied Jennifer’s Law to secure the RO against Riordan, which prohibits her from coming within 100 yards of her children and contacting them via phone or email.
As a result of the RO, the teens have been isolated from Riordan; but for the first time after years of isolation, the children have reconnected with their extended family and friends, who Ambrose eliminated from their lives three years ago: a clear and painful example of coercive control. The youngest, Sawyer, recently appeared at his grandfather’s home unannounced. He had not seen his grandfather since he was 9 years old.
Perpetrators of the “Parental Alienation” Accusations in Connecticut
A legal strategy that has come under fire in recent media reports was utilized in this family court case. Ambrose managed to secure primary custody of the Riordan teens in 2020, based on claims of the denounced, discredited theory of parental alienation (PA).
Judge Jane K. Grossman accused Riordan of PA and awarded Ambrose primary custody of Mia, Matthew, and Sawyer in April 2020, based on a custody evaluation report which was paid for by Ambrose. Judge Thomas J. O’Neill, currently presides over the case and held hearings without allowing the teens to testify, then issued an RO against Riordan. Dr. Jessica Biren-Caverly, a New Milford-based psychologist testified in Riordan’s divorce and custody case as an “expert witness.” Caverly’s testimony deviated from DSM-5 diagnostic standards by advocating for reunification therapy, which is not a documented treatment for any DSM-5-recognized condition. Despite this deviation, Judge Grossman gave full custody to Ambrose after hearing Dr. Biren-Caverly’s testimony. Guardian ad litem (GAL) Jocelyn Hurwitz, was appointed to the family’s case without Riordan’s consent, billing her time at $400 an hour. Hurwitz supported Caverly’s recommendation of total isolation from and no contact with mother, despite only seeing the teens twice in September 2019. In a letter dated March 10th, 2023, provided by Riordan via email, Matthew wrote of Hurwitz: “[She] did not listen to any information we provided her… She placed us in a household that she very well knew was not good for our mental health.”
Dr. Robert Horwitz, a New Haven-based family therapist was recommended by the GAL and was also appointed against Riordan’s consent. The children were court-ordered to have individual counselors selected by the parents, based on who would advocate for the children and their needs. This order was to be implemented by September 5th, 2019, but was never honored. Instead, the children lived with Ambrose, in what they describe as constant fear and anxiety.
Ambrose pays all bills to Caverly and Horwitz and has unilaterally controlled all money since 2018. The individuals above are no longer involved in the case, but it appears they laid the narrative that Riordan “alienated” and abused the children. New professionals (also paid by Ambrose) continue to build a narrative that Riordan is mentally ill, has a personality disorder, and most recently is guilty of domestic violence against her children. Under Jennifer’s Law, Ambrose specifically asserts that Riordan coercively controls the children and that they do not think for themselves.
The Attempt to Rebrand “Parental Alienation” into Coercive Control
Riordan expressed fear about the use of coercive control as a legally acceptable synonym for PA, particularly after the United Nation’s report on custody and violence against women and children. The 2023 report denounces PA as a highly gendered “pseudo-concept,” frequently used against mothers like Riordan to perpetrate violence and award custody to the abuser. Broadly, these misuses of language could set dangerous legal precedents. In this specific case, the legal manipulation of words has upturned three teens’ worlds, as well as their mother’s.
Dr. Emma Katz, a leading coercive control expert explains, “Work on children and coercive control places a strong emphasis on children’s rights and respecting children. Work on ‘parental alienation’ emphasizes adults dominating and owning kids. If you see a person who's been promoting the term 'parental alienation' for years but has now started saying 'coercive control', don't be fooled. These concepts are hugely different from each other. 'PA' emphasizes that it's fine to override children's wishes.”
An Abusive Legal System Upturns Three Teens’ Lives
In response to the traumatic separation from their mother and with allegations of ongoing abuse by their father, the teens have struggled extensively with their physical and mental health.
Inevitably, all three teens have reached a breaking point. They made carefully considered plans to escape Ambrose for good. They felt they needed to save themselves. Despite being found safe and happy in Riordan’s care by their own attorneys, police, and case workers, Ambrose’s litigation abuse escalated. His unrelenting harassment and threats to have the children removed from their mother’s care was anxiety-producing for all three of them. Mia, Matthew, and Sawyer just want to live happily with their mom and be left alone.
When the three teens managed to flee and seek refuge in Riordan’s home. Matthew expressed to Judge O’Neill the drastic, positive change observed by his ICAPs counselors:
From “hood always on,” and “I could barely hear you talk,” to “a whole different person” should speak volumes about how miserable I was, compared to how well I am thriving right now since I’m back with my mom where we always should have been… We need to stay with our mother and have chosen not to see [Chris] because of the abuse and trauma he’s put all of us through.
All three teens claim that Ambrose abuses them – but again, in complete violation of Jennifer’s Law, Ambrose attributes these claims to Riordan’s “coercive control,” arguing that she manipulates whatever the teens say and do. This appears to be a classic case of DARVO, or Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender: a three-step abusive method of twisting accountability.
The Connecticut Family Courts: A Saga of Unanswerable Questions and Repeated Failures
Fundamentally, Ambrose’s claims warrant the question: how is Riordan able to assert any kind of control, coercive or otherwise, when an RO legally bars her from contacting her children (unless they seek her out, as they have already)?
And how is it possible that a devoted mother – a former special education teacher with 25 years of teaching experience in public schools – now faces the possibility of incarceration, despite ample evidence of her commitment as a mother, educator, and advocate?
Such questions reveal the insidiousness of this case and the precarity of the teens’ freedom – as well as Riordan’s, depending on the outcome of today’s hearing.
The solitary claim of neglect or abuse against Riordan comes from Ambrose, who has been identified as her abuser – and the very reason why the State of Connecticut provided her a “Safe at Home” address. Recent stalking by Ambrose, documented in Riordan’s medical records, was disclosed in a prior hearing. In this hearing, the judge denied all of Ambrose’s motions, concluding there was no need for the children to be protected from their mother – but this too was ignored by O’Neill.
Prior to Judge O’Neill, both judges who presided over the case denied Ambrose’s requests to secure ROs against Riordan. The judges – Eddie Rodriguez and Gladys Nieves – recognized the baselessness of Ambrose’s claims: namely, there was no evidence to support Karen’s use of coercive control. Judge Nieves additionally denied Ambrose’s request for Riordan’s incarceration.
But when the court appointed Judge O’Neill, all of this changed. O’Neill was sworn into the Connecticut Superior Court on May 4th, 2023. Since assuming this position, he has already overturned the judgments of Rodriguez and Nieves and issued an RO that defies the rights and lived experiences of Mia, Matthew, Sawyer, and Riordan.
Moving Forward: What Readers and DV Advocates Need to Know About This Case
As the contempt hearing approaches this week, Riordan emphasized the following takeaways for our readers to understand:
The misapplication of Jennifer’s Law sets a dangerous precedent for current and future family court cases. When abusers like Ambrose manipulate “coercive control” in family court, they twist the law to endorse the “total victimization of victims it’s intended to protect,” Riordan said.
As a result of this legal misapplication, other Connecticut children may be compelled to flee the state to escape an abusive parent, risking their safety, education, and potentially their lives.
This case is gaining attention from concerned professionals and advocates for domestic violence survivors, including Dr. Bandy X. Lee: a Yale- and Harvard-trained psychiatrist and world-renowned expert on violence. In a letter to Lieutenant Perron of the Madison Police Department in CT, Dr. Lee cited “extensive and reliable evidence as to why any child should not be sent back to Mr. Christopher Ambrose, a man who has not only abused Ms. Riordan’s children but has engaged in aggressive litigation abuse and seizure of these children.”
On Tuesday, September 5th, Riordan filed a motion requesting a public jury trial. She also sought a remote hearing with accommodations, but her request was denied. She has yet to be appointed any legal counsel.
Riordan received word from the Office of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that new procedures require her to notify opposing counsel of the accommodations she seeks “as it somehow impacts their rights,” she told OMB via text message.
Riordan was then required to disclose medical information to opposing counsel if she wanted requests for accommodations under ADA to be considered by the court. This is one of many significant violations of federal ADA laws.
Under duress, Riordan complied and provided confidential medical information to Cuda, noting she would file complaints about the violation of her rights. Cuda then filed a motion to deny Riordan’s ADA accommodations, which he has no legal standing to do.
After jumping through many fabricated hoops in violation of ADA and HIPAA, Judge O’Neil denied Riordan’s accommodation requests for continuance and remote access. “I was shocked by this and believe it violates federal law,” Riordan said.
Concerned readers who want to support Riordan and her teens can circulate this article and contribute funds for the teens’ basic needs, including back-to-school shopping and legal expenses.
OMB remains in contact with Riordan and one of the teens. As they enter a new school year, one of the primary goals is to ensure the teens’ access to education, mental health resources, and – above all – their safety.
They have publicly made their positions known, with the hope that public support and exposure will keep them safe. They simply want the love and life that was taken from them.
