Why would social worker Geneva Trent conspire to prevent three happy children from returning to their father as they wished?

Is this just another unhappy, disgruntled bureaucrat who revels in her power? Or is this a woman with an extreme dislike of men — all men?

A lot of female social workers, lawyers and judges with power in Massachusetts have such an antipathy, according to many fathers.

Why did this one conspire so that these children would be taken from their father and never see him again?

If she dislikes men as a group, why is that so? Is she just another radical feminist or is there more to her problem?

Whatever the reason, the Luisi children have seen their happy childhood become a disaster since 1997 when the social workers entered their lives. The children are Matthew, now 14, Adam, 11 and Jacqueline, 9.

What would drive these people to destroy those children?

Geneva Trent didn’t act alone in removing the Luisi children from their happy home.

The court-appointed Guardian ad Litem for the children, Atty. Joanna E. Scannell, Dedham, is also said to have shown bias and prejudice against the children and their father. She is appointed by the judge to represent the interest of the children.

The judge who appointed Atty. Scannell and gave the children to the mother in 1997 was Elaine Moriarty. When the children’s father first went to the court, a friend who worked at the court asked which judge he had gotten. When the friend heard it was Moriarty, he said, “You’re ******.” In addition, many people say that Judge Moriarty and Scannell are the best of friends.

The mother had a free lawyer from the Hale and Dorr Legal Services Center at Harvard Law School, Atty. Ruth Diaz, who enthusiastically joined in the pummeling of this family.

The Luisi family tragedy is as clear as a case can be. The mother, Carrie Luisi, moved back to her home in Niagara Falls in 1994 and took the children with her because her husband, David Luisi, was “holding her back from her career.” She took prozac and saw a psychiatrist for depression.

After a few months, she voluntarily returned the children to their father because she said she was unable to care for them properly. He was given custody in the divorce proceedings.

The children were very happy living with their father, a U.S. postal worker, and being a part of his large, extended family around Roslindale.

But trouble started a year-and-a-half later when the mother moved back to Boston in September 1996, with a boyfriend, Mark Bennett.

A few months later, the mother went to the Boston police while she had the children on a visit and reported a “mark” on her daughter’s cheek. (It had actually resulted from an accident). She falsely told the police that she was the custodial parent and that the mark resulted “from a slap” the father had made during a “visit” with the children. She said that he had also abused her during the marriage and was now physically abusing the children.

The police photographed the daughter and sent her to the Faulkner Emergency Room, where a physician sent the compulsory report to DSS, as he was required to do under the law.

This took place on Saturday morning. The police got a judge to immediately issue a restraining order and give “temporary” custody to the mother. That Monday, a judge issued an order to DSS to conduct a 10-day investigation while keeping “temporary” custody in the mother.

The children have not been with their father since that fateful day in January 1997 when social workers came into their lives.

What kind of a mother would knowingly cause serious trauma to her children by uprooting them from their comfortable home so abruptly and thrusting them into a new environment?

What kind of a court system would approve a drastic, emergency measure which took these children from their custodial parent without even bothering to investigate or talk with the parent who had the responsibility to raise the children? Such a procedure is to be used only if extreme danger to the children is present

The social workers have obviously replaced the judges as the ones who decide whether the children should be removed from their parent. This has happened because the special courts which we made “for children” have become puppets of the social worker industry.

In this case, it was social worker Raymond White who found the father guilty of neglect and abuse of all three children, based solely on a bruise on a girl’s face and the testimony of a manipulative ex-wife. Based upon this “investigation,” Judge Moriarty gave “temporary” custody to the wife in early February 1997. The “temporary” order lasted until August 2001.

The judge rubberstamped the requests of the social workers and the Guardian ad Litem, Atty. Scannell, who did not make any investigation, according to the family.

Social worker Tim Daly came to the opposite conclusion in March/April of that year.

The father, who earns a modest salary as a postal worker, immediately appealed the ruling to the Fair Hearing Office, which is a DSS internal review system. But it was over a year before DSS finally got around to a hearing. And it took another five months for the decision – which cleared him of all charges. It then took another nine months of letter writing by the father and Senator Brian Joyce before DSS finally corrected their records and removed the charges against the father.

Meanwhile, these children were snatched from their father by the state of Massachusetts.

After the social workers ran out of tricks and the father was cleared in the spring of 1999, the conspiracy of social worker Geneva Trent took place. (She had been assigned in the spring of 1997. There undoubtedly were other conspiracies that we don’t know about.)

According to DSS records which were subpoenaed by the father, the mother told social worker Trent that she wanted to move back to Niagara Falls. But Trent said she didn’t know whether the mother could. She would check with her supervisor.

Meanwhile, the father was still thinking of Trent as an unbiased worker who was looking out for the best interests of the children. He expressed his concerns to her that the mother was not feeding them and he said he would be going back to court now that he had been cleared of all charges.

Later that day, Trent telephoned the mother and advised her to go to a battered women’s shelter and move to New York. She was told that unless she “requests services” from DSS, there was nothing more that Trent could do because David had been cleared of all charges.

But the mother didn’t want to go to a shelter, apparently because she would have had to leave her boyfriend.

So Trent called Atty. Ruth Diaz two weeks later and told her that “due to [telephone] conversations with David [the father] earlier this week,” she felt the children would be “at risk under David’s care.”

Within hours, Diaz was in court, again without notice to the father, and the children’s visitations with their father were “temporarily” stopped on June 11, 1999.

The father’s lawyer became concerned at that point that the social workers were laying a trap for the father which would have included putting him in a batterers’ program which would have, forever, labeled him as a batterer. He was advised not to appeal the decision which stopped his visitation. He did not see his children for over a year.

The mother never had to pay for a lawyer because Atty. Diaz and the others are poverty lawyers who are paid by tax money which is used only to help women. The money is disbursed through the slush fund of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts (SJC).

After her victory, the mother and Atty. Diaz decided ask the court to change the divorce decree which had given custody to the father. They had to do that in order to enable the mother to move to New York. The court did not get to the case until six months later, January 2000. And even then, it only heard the case for a day at a time. It took six months before the trial finally ended in June.

Meanwhile, the bewildered children were still with their mother. They were unable to cope with the problems this was inflicting upon them.

After the trial finally ended, the father and the children had to wait another year, until the late summer of 2001, before the judge (who has worked with social workers all his life), announced he was giving custody to the mother who would be moving back to Niagara Falls immediately.

This whole tragic saga resulted from that one incident in January 1977 when the mother wrested the children away from their father who had legal custody. She lied about a mark on Jacqueline’s face to the Boston Police, and social workers who have an intense dislike of men took charge.

Second in a series about women in power with an extreme dislike of men Was It Anger at Men That Caused Social Workers to Conspire Against Luisi Children?

Second in a series about women in power with an extreme dislike of men
Was It Anger at Men That Caused Social Workers to Conspire Against Luisi Children?