Saga of Newell Family Becomes More Troubling

Saga of Newell Family
Becomes More Troubling

Judges Appear Determined to Destroy these Children

We’ve reported for almost a year about the terrible things that are being done to the son and daughter of Ken Newell by the judges of Massachusetts, who appear to have only one goal -- tearing these children from their father.

But the latest occurrence is even more bizarre.

At a hearing in the Dedham Probate & Family Court, Judge Robert Langlois is currently deciding whether to enter a permanent restraining order against the father -- which would have a serious impact on the children’s ability to see their parent.

The father has finally cleared himself, despite great expense, effort and stress, of 24 of the 26 false charges that were filed against him as a result of the mother’s accusations, and the remaining two are hyper-technical violations. (See sidebar) The former wife is mentally ill and on drugs. Newell has defended himself in three courts, Quincy, Brockton and Dedham, but this judge says that even though the wife made all of those false charges, it will have little effect upon his decision whether to extend the restraining order.

It would be difficult for anyone to be a more perfect citizen and father than Ken Newell -- who has done nothing wrong. Yet, the courts seem determined to destroy this family.

Even worse, Judge Langlois appears to be totally unaware of a crucial decision by the Supreme Judicial Court on restraining orders which was made last May. (See sidebar)

By Ed Oliver and Attorney J. Edward Pawlick
January 9, 2001

At a trial in Dedham Probate Court on December 29, Attorney Chester Darling finally had an opportunity to question Ken Newell’s accuser, his former wife, Cathy Belmosto.

He reviewed, one by one, the numerous false complaints that she had made to police about Newell’s restraining order violations. He questioned her about each incident and asked if she knew if the case was dismissed or if Newell was found not guilty. The former wife claimed ignorance about the outcome of her many complaints and could not recall details regarding the alleged incidents.

After her free lawyer from Boston Legal Services, Pauline Quirion, objected, Judge Robert Langlois asked Darling what was the relevance of his line of questioning.

Earlier the judge had asked a similar question and Darling answered that it went to the former wife’s credibility.

This time Darling added that she “made multiple complaints, putting my client in jail multiple times, and she doesn’t even know what happened as a result of it.”

The judge said he was there to decide if her request for a permanent restraining order was warranted or not. “Whether or not she made false charges in the past may have only some bearing on her credibility,” he said.

The judge said the outcome of the cases against Newell have nothing to do with whether Newell actually committed the violations or not.

However, it’s obvious that if anyone is determining the truth in this matter, he must determine whether or not the wife had previously lied when bringing the charges before he issues a new, draconian, permanent restraining order. If the judges are too busy to hear the evidence in these cases, then we must find another system of law to decide them.

Attorney Darling said, “I sincerely think the real issue in this case is the ability of this witness to preclude and prevent my client from having appropriate visitation with his children.” He continued that the basic fundamental problem is that if another 209A restraining order is issued, “She has a license to go out and start this all over again.”

Later, when Ken Newell was on the stand, the judge clashed again with Darling over the same issue.

Darling said the relevance is that the numerous complaints by the former wife against Newell were dismissed or found not guilty in a court of law.

The judge asked what that has to do with whether or not he issues another restraining order.

Darling answered, “I think an inference can be made about the witness’ credibility your honor.”

He added that it also goes to abuse of the 209A law and abuse of the judicial process.

The judge said the standard for issuing 209A’s does not depend on whether someone is found not guilty in criminal court. He said it really doesn’t matter a great deal to him if she made complaints or didn’t make complaints.

“I respectfully disagree your honor,” said Darling.

The judge continued by saying that the standard for issuing a restraining order is the preponderance of the evidence. Darling agreed, “But, the standard I’m trying to apply to these frivolous complaints is that dismissals were made and ‘not guilties’ were found because of the abuse of the system.”

The judge replied, “This isn’t the forum to address that.”

Darling retorted, “It has to be, Judge, because she’s asking for another license to do it all over again.”

The judge repeated that this isn’t the forum, that there are civil and criminal penalties for filing false complaints. He said he was not there to address that and unfortunately the system is imperfect. He said that things the former wife testified to that she didn’t complain about are as relevant as the ones she did complain about. He said if she is filing false reports, Newell could take out a complaint. He could file a civil action in the Superior Court. (See sidebar)

Darling vigorously argued to the judge that it is this court which has jurisdiction of this domestic relations matter.

The judge agreed but said he was there to rule on whether he extends or modifies or denies the restraining order.

“I’m not here to address whether or not she should be found civilly responsible. I’m not here to address whether or not she should be found criminally responsible for filing a false report.”

Darling said, “I’m asking that only another 209A not be issued to permit her to…”

The judge interrupted and said he wants to make it very clear. He said if in the last three years she filed one hundred complaints about violating the restraining order, and he finds that 98 of them are not valid, he would still be required by law to issue the order if two were valid. He said even if she were going to file another 98 false complaints, he would give that zero consideration.

Attorney Darling said he wants to establish that she has done that.

The judge said you could infer that some of those complaints were unwarranted, but he has no evidence of that.

Even if she is guilty of lying 98 times to the courts, that would have “only” some bearing on her credibility.

The next hearing will be on February 14.

Why Did Judge Langlois Talk About 'Two Charges'?

Damning Admissions by Former Wife