Jennifer Dulos case: Norm Pattis withdraws as divorce attorney, grandmother seeks sole custody

Dulos Dulos Photo: Contributed Photo / Photo: Contributed Photo / Image 1 of / 212 Caption Close Jennifer Dulos case: Norm Pattis withdraws as divorce attorney, grandmother seeks sole custody 1 / 212 Back to Gallery

STAMFORD — It appears Fotis Dulos’ divorce strategy is changing, while his mother-in-law is seeking to solidify herself as the primary caregiver for his five children.

Norm Pattis filed a motion Tuesday to withdraw as Fotis Dulos’ divorce attorney, but will continue to represent him in the criminal proceedings where he is charged with tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution in his estranged wife’s disappearance.

Pattis said in his court filing that Fotis Dulos and co-counsel Richard Rochlin do not object to him withdrawing from the divorce case.

Pattis’ request comes one day after he and Rochlin withdrew their motion to suspend the divorce case. They had argued last month that the proceedings should be halted because Jennifer Dulos is not able to participate.

Meanwhile, attorneys for Jennifer Dulos’ mother, Gloria Farber, filed a motion of their own Tuesday morning, requesting the 85-year-old woman be granted sole custody of the couple’s five children.

Pattis could not be reached Tuesday for comment, and Rochlin declined to comment.

Rochlin and Pattis filed a motion to halt proceedings in the case last month, saying the fact that Jennifer Dulos is missing “deprives the defendant of his due process rights of cross-examination and his ability to conduct discovery from the plaintiff.”

But in a filing Monday afternoon, they withdrew the motion without explanation.

Last week, Rochlin said Fotis Dulos is considering appealing a judge’s ruling to allow Jennifer Dulos’ mother to intervene in the case, calling it “a travesty of justice.”

The children, between the ages of 8 and 13, have been living with Farber in Manhattan since Jennifer Dulos’ May 24 disappearance.

Legal custody of the children is shared between Jennifer and Fotis Dulos. Jennifer Dulos has final decision-making and sole physical custody.

Farber’s motion notes Judge Donna Nelson Heller granted her request to intervene in the divorce case last week, and that in prior rulings, the judge found that Fotis Dulos had disobeyed court orders and wasn’t credible.

“His facility in testifying falsely to the court suggests that he is equally comfortable in encouraging the children to lie to achieve his desired outcome,” the judge wrote last March in a ruling suspending Fotis Dulos’ access to the children.

Fotis Dulos was granted restricted, supervised access to the children in March, with conditions including that he not have any private conversations with the children and that he not disparage anyone involved in the case in the children’s presence.

But that access was revoked after his arrest on charges of hindering prosecution and evidence tampering connected to Jennifer Dulos’ disappearance, Farber’s motion notes.

“It is in the minor children’s best interests that Mrs. Farber be awarded sole custody of the five minor children,” Farber’s lawyers, Anne Dranginis and Kelley Scott, wrote.

In a civil lawsuit filed by Farber, accusing her son-in-law of failing to repay millions in loans he used for his business, a judge has denied her lawyer’s request for an emergency hearing on Wednesday.

Farber’s lawyers issued a subpoena for Fotis Dulos’ girlfriend, Michelle Troconis, to be deposed Wednesday at their West Hartford office.

But a lawyer representing Troconis, who has also been charged with hindering prosecution and evidence tampering, objected to the subpoena, which he said should be quashed by his client asserting her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

In a filing Monday, Farber’s lawyer in the case said they wouldn’t ask Troconis about Jennifer Dulos’ disappearance during the deposition.

They asked for a judge to schedule an emergency hearing, but Judge David Sheridan denied the request.

“The motion does not provide any factual basis, express or implied, for an ‘emergency’ hearing,” the judge wrote. “Absent same, the court concludes that the witness will be readily available for deposition at some future date, and therefore the motion can be briefed, heard and decided in an orderly fashion on the regular short calendar.”