Court: Thomas’ statements 'not shown to be true'

Thomas’ allegations became the subject of a trial in family court — on the same docket that had been open since 2008 when his father and mother disputed who should get custody.

The first trial took place over four days in September 2012, nearly five months after the temporary relief from abuse order blocked a previous weekend custody arrangement.

Investigators from CUSI and DCF testified, along with Thomas’ family members. Notably absent was Bob, Mona’s boyfriend and the prime subject of Thomas’ allegations.

Thomas testified during the hearing, but his statements, according to Judge Nancy Corsones, were only “marginally consistent” with the secondhand statements Thomas allegedly told others that were entered into the trial record. He denied being dressed up in costumes and did not indicate that penetration had occurred, the judge wrote in court papers.

Corsones, who was the same judge who had presided over the family’s previous proceedings, denied Frank’s request for a restraining order. He failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to show that the child had been abused, she said. Instead, she wrote, the disclosures about abuse pointed to the troubled relationships between Thomas’ parental figures.

Corsones wrote that she did not think Thomas was deliberately “lying” when he claimed he had been assaulted. She concluded he was “making extraordinarily serious and very negative statements about mom because he doesn’t have any further ability to cope with mother’s evident hatred of father, and he wants it to stop.”

She ordered a forensic psychological evaluation to focus on reunifying Thomas and his mother, who at that point had not been in contact in five months. The process would take time and therapeutic effort, the judge wrote.

Since then, custody of the child has been the subject of additional trials. Partway through a second trial, the following summer, the proceedings were interrupted when Thomas made a new spontaneous disclosure to his court-appointed attorney, Peg Flory, who also serves as a state senator.

According to court papers, Flory picked up Thomas, then 7 years old, from a therapy appointment. As they were walking from the building, Thomas talked about “grappling” in his karate class.

Flory asked what “grappling” was. Thomas replied, “That’s when you pin someone down like Bob used to do to me.”

Flory pressed for more detail. Thomas replied, “He puts his knees on my arms. That’s when they would put the mask on me and I would have to taste the hairy hotdog.”

Flory asked: “Is this for real or are you pulling my leg?”

Thomas answered: “This is for real.” The trial resumed in September, with Flory taking the stand as a witness.

In the meantime, Mona and her boyfriend, Bob, had broken off their relationship. Bob still had not traveled to Vermont to testify. Mona had introduced a motion to allow him to testify by phone, but the judge denied it.

Thomas’ new disclosures to Flory did not sway Corsones in her evaluation of the situation. Thomas did not repeat the statements in an interview with law enforcement.

Corsones rejected a motion to have the child testify again.

Mona had “the right to finality” on the matter, Corsones wrote.

“She has already defended against father’s allegations that she abused her child, and she has prevailed in that aspect of the litigation,” the judge wrote. “Neither the record nor concepts of fair play and substantial justice support giving father another chance to prove that she abused the child. The court remained firm in its assessment that Thomas’ statements hadn’t been shown to be true.”

After that trial, Corsones issued an order directing Thomas to take part in reunification therapy.

“The court will never be able to answer with certainty why this otherwise happy and intelligent child has said what he has said,” Corsones wrote, noting that the evidence did not meet the burden of proof to substantiate abuse. “The allegations were not proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence, there was no probable cause found to believe that the allegations are in fact true, and as such, the statements were not put to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In her order, Corsones wrote that all three adults contributed to the situation.

“The alienation between (Thomas) and his mother exists due in large part to the thoughts and actions of all three adults,” Corsones wrote.

Mona, Thomas’ mother, had at times expressed strong animosity toward Frank and Stacey in Thomas’ presence. Corsones referenced websites where Mona had posted personal information, including detailed financial statements, about the couple.

Meanwhile, Corsones wrote that she believed Stacey and Frank encouraged Thomas’ disclosures of abuse — which had intensified and included a strong belief that his mother wanted to kill him.

After a third trial, which took place in December 2014, Corsones was more resolute than ever in her assertion that the abuse Thomas claimed had never occurred. Moreover, she wrote that she believed that Frank and, primarily, Stacey alienated Thomas from his mother by remaining so staunch in their belief that he was abused.

“It is very clear to the court that father and stepmother are waging war against mother, and are making allegations of abuse which are not true,” Corsones wrote. She went on to say that the child’s father and stepmother “indoctrinated” Thomas to believe his mother abused him and was trying to kill him.

“It is difficult to imagine a more complete destruction of a parent-child relationship based on false allegations of abuse,” Corsones wrote. She went on to allude to the concept of parental alienation. “Whether the experts label this alienation or not, father and stepmother have clearly destroyed (Thomas’) formerly good relationship with his mother.”

On the advice of therapists who worked with Thomas — and who warned that removing him from his father’s home could put him at risk of depression or even suicide — Corsones continued his father’s sole custody for the time being.

But she ordered that by his 11th birthday, Thomas must resume a course of reunification therapy with the goal of re-establishing regular contact with Mona. Thomas will turn 11 this year.

Corsones concluded the order by directing Frank and Stacey to cover the costs of legal and therapeutic services.

“Mother will not have to pay for what has been done to her,” Corsones wrote. “It is simply unfair and unjust.”