Fotis Dulos Duped Victims and Family Court Professionals

Pictured: Michelle Troconis, ex-girlfriend of Fotis Dulos, accused of murdering his wife Jennifer Dulos with the help of Troconis. Photo Credit: Erik Trautmann/Hearst Connecticut Media via AP pool

Jennifer Dulos, a 50-year-old Connecticut mom, disappeared on May 24, 2019, after dropping off her five young children, ages 8 to 13, at school. She was in the midst of a two-year contentious divorce and custody battle with her estranged husband, Fotis Dulos. Authorities believe Fotis snuck into her home that morning and waited there until she returned, killing her and then spent the afternoon disposing of her body with the assistance of his girlfriend Michelle Troconis.

On Jan. 7, 2020, police arrested Fotis for the kidnapping and murder of his estranged wife. He was released the next day on a $6 million bond. On Jan. 28, he died by suicide in his home. Jennifer’s body has not yet been found.  

Troconis was initially charged with conspiracy to commit murder, tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution. She maintained her innocence, stating that she didn’t know what was in the trash bags she helped Fotis dispose of the day Jennifer went missing. 

This past May, Troconis was sentenced to 14-and-a-half years behind bars in connection with Jennifer’s murder. In July she reached out to reporter Shannon Miller of NBC Connecticut in a four-page letter to attempt to defend her innocence. In the letter Michelle shared her own experience witnessing Fotis’ deception in his family court case: He deceived not only her (as his intimate partner), she says, but the long list of family court professionals who were assigned to the Dulos' ongoing two-year contentious divorce and custody case.

While Connecticut Protective Moms (CPM) does not believe Troconis’ pleas of innocence, we do agree and understand her argument that Fotis was an abuser who manipulated and deceived others, including family court professionals. And we believe Troconis was right about one thing—Fotis was an abuser with narcissistic tendencies who not only gaslit his victims, but everyone else involved in his family court case—lawyers, therapists, forensic custody evaluators and yes, even the judge.

A turning point in the acrimonious Dulos divorce and custody battle, with more than 400 filings, came when Jennifer told the judge in Stamford Superior Court that Fotis threatened to take their children and “disappear,” according to court transcripts. Jennifer said she feared her husband would harm her for attempting to obtain full custody of their five children.

Jennifer requested a restraining order, though it was denied because the judge, apparently not trained in domestic abuse coercive control tactics, said she was unable to prove that she was the victim of physical abuse according to Connecticut statutes.  Before Jennifers' Law was passed in 2021, the state’s legal definition of domestic violence did not include the kind of intense, sustained psychological abuse that often precedes physical harm. Coercive control is characterized by an abusive partner dominating over nearly every area of a victim’s life, usually combining isolation, degradation, micromanagement, manipulation, stalking, sexual coercion, threats and punishment, and is often a precursor to more violent types of physical abuse. 

DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender

Fotis, like many abusers, used the defense tactic DARVO, or Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender, to flip the narrative back onto Jennifer, blaming her and painting himself as the victim. Fotis depicted Jennifer as a mentally unfit parent to maintain his control over her, the children and their court case. Domestic abuse advocates are familiar with this tactic as a way to deflect abuse and win custody of the children. 

According to Michelle, Fotis allegedly convinced “highly qualified mental health professionals,” conducting forensic evaluations that Jennifer was fragile and unstable emotionally and he, “.... was a gregarious and confident person who had no psychopathic tendencies." 

According to Fotis' attorney's motion, "Fotis Dulos met with Dr. Stephen Herman, a court-appointed psychiatrist with an office in New York City, 14 times in the past two years. He said Herman’s evaluations determined Fotis Dulos showed no elevations of several mental health concerns, including mania and paranoia.” Dr. Herman has been previously called out in the media for his abusive tactics in family court.

These types of scenarios play out every day in family courtrooms across the U.S. It is seemingly too easy for controlling abusers to hoodwink all involved and pay “experts” to paint them as doting partners, especially when court professionals lack the necessary experience and training in family violence and misread the signs.

The reason why? The reality is most of the “highly qualified mental health professionals” are actually not highly qualified to address abuse in family relationships, as they are untrained in trauma and domestic abuse. Personal bias frequently comes into play in cases where abuse is alleged, especially gender bias, as has been shown in numerous studies.

Cases that Bottleneck the Family Court System: Red Flags for Domestic Abuse Disputes

Each year in Connecticut, more than 20,000 divorcing couples are engaged in a separation or divorce in the family court system. Almost all divorces involve a roller coaster of emotions and result in animosity and a miserable experience for those going through it, but the average divorce does not involve abuse.  However, there is a subset of divorces involving domestic abuse and complex custody issues that need to be addressed and handled in a completely different way to ensure the safety of the children. 

Just like the Dulos case, there are tens of thousands of cases across the U.S. annually that exhibit what family court professionals label "high conflict." The term “high conflict” is wrong when abuse is involved; it is misleading and implies mutual responsibility and conflict generated by both parties.

In the case of Jennifer Dulos, domestic abuse advocates were reported saying that court officials failed to recognize Fotis’ alleged abusive behavior and designated the case as “high conflict” instead of domestic violence.

Guardian ad litems (GALs), lawyers or mental health professionals appointed by the court to investigate and report on the best interests of the child, along with custody evaluators and judges often mistakenly identify custody disputes involving a domestic abuser as “high conflict” divorces. These are the difficult cases that challenge court dockets, piling up by the thousands year after year without resolution and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, for litigants and taxpayers. 

These “high conflict” cases are red flags for post-separation abuse and many look similar from the 10,000-foot view, marked by frequent court appearances, extensive litigation, and a high level of involvement by court-appointed professionals. Most tragically in these drawn-out cases which involve abuse, children continue to suffer and often be abused by an unhealthy parent when ordered into contact by an untrained judge. 

CPM has over 600 members, domestic abuse victims in family court, seeking an abuse-free life for themselves and their children. Based on our experience at CPM, members who are involved in Connecticut family court litigation, anecdotal evidence from advocates and thousands of protective moms' traumatic experiences shared from coast to coast, we know these cases that involve unrelenting turmoil and conflict in a never-ending litigation battle should not be called "high conflict." They should be labeled what they really are: domestic abuse disputes. 

In reality, abuse involves one parent creating the conflict and one parent trying to get away from it. It is not "he said, she said." It is not two people who are abusive toward one another (although a few rare cases are documented where there is reactive abuse). There is almost always one high-conflict person who is the primary, constant source of control and abuse in the relationship. 

An abuser who is coercively controlling is now continuing to use his tactics, including gaslighting and pathological lying, in a new venue which is the family court rather than the family home. And he is often empowered by the court to do so. The problem is not the couple—the problem is an abuser controlling a victim in a family court and should be handled accordingly.

The Family Court Professionals Have It Wrong

Family court professionals are often not adequately trained in trauma and domestic abuse, nor behaviors of those with personality disorders such as Narcissism and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). At CPM, we have overheard professionals and seen court orders and transcripts referring to this abuse as court “drama” or “disagreements just between the two of them.” Placing shared blame on the couple takes the responsibility off the abuser and places it on the couple as a shared unit—almost like the victim asked for this or was contributing to it somehow. 

Even when there is confirmed abuse against a parent, the standard assumption is that it's still important and good for children to have relationships with both parents. This is illogical and can be dangerous if abuse is occurring.  Courts also tend to over-rely on what an appointed custody evaluator recommends to the exclusion of almost all other evidence, including allegations and evidence of abuse by the victim or the victim’s therapist.

However, custody evaluators are often not trauma-informed nor trained in abuse and misapply psychological tests to evaluate parents, misinterpret data and make conclusions about their parenting. Judges and lawyers don't always understand the process of this custody evaluation can be swayed by the evaluator’s bias rather than the facts of the case. 

According to Danielle Pollack, Policy Manager at the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, “If the average person understood what happens to abuse victims inside our family courts, they would not stand for it. It’s shocking.” 

One of the few empirical national studies on US  family court outcomes found that family courts disbelieve child abuse claims made by mothers, especially sexual abuse, at high rates. The study also found when mothers report any abuse by a father and a father crossclaims alienation, mothers’ custody loss rates nearly double.

According to a leading expert in coercive control, Dr. Christine Cocchiola, DSW, LCSW, "Coercive control is at the core of all domestic abuse and it is a nuanced and insidious behavior that can become incredibly dangerous. For family court professionals involved in private custody cases, there are few issues that will challenge them in the way coercive control can—because it requires them to be trained in how to address domestic abuse coercive controlling tactics and not become a target of the tactics themselves—gaslighting, manipulation, pathological lying, projecting.

“Also understanding the tactics of post-separation abuse, where these coercive and controlling tactics will escalate against a domestic abuse victim when she finally gets the courage to escape and tries to keep her children safe as the nurturing protective parent,” said Dr. Cocchiola.

Legislative Solutions to Reforming Family Court

After the disappearance of Jennifer Dulos, former state Sen. Alex Kasser worked together with CPM to introduce and pass “Jennifers’ Law,” legislation re-defining the definition of domestic violence to include acts of coercive control.

Jennifers’ Law initially also included a provision for Judges and other court professionals to require them to have domestic abuse training. The training was one of the first line items deleted in the first round of negotiations and edits.

Dovetailing these efforts, the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV) introduced legislation to draft a judicial benchbook on domestic abuse in family court cases. This was to be a guide for judges, court officials and attorneys to identify the nuances, including controlling and harassing behaviors that differentiate “high conflict” and domestic violence divorces and ways to handle them based on best practices. 

According to an interview with CCADV, the Connecticut judicial branch officials "...opposed the benchbook and implied they would buck any attempt to utilize it. Judicial has informed us that they would be completely opposed.” 

A Divorce is to Break a Business Contract: Finances and Children

A divorce involves the separation of two issues, finances (assets, property, income) and custody of the children (legal and physical). When two parents are unable to come to an agreement about these issues and are unable to produce a settlement, the case will be scheduled for a trial before a judge; there are no juries in divorce cases. 

Ask yourself this: why would two people who once were life partners and who share children want a stranger to make life-changing decisions about their finances or their children? The majority of couples getting a divorce who do not go to a trial before a judge may be unhappy in their marriage and want to divorce, but they have sound mental health status. They would not willingly torture the other parent in litigation abuse, nor the children, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

The Solution: Kayden’s Law

In March 2022, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act was reauthorized. Within the updated legislation there was a provision known as “Kayden’s Law” – named after Kayden Mancuso, a 7-year-old girl from Bucks County, Penn., who was murdered by her father during his court-ordered unsupervised parenting time. Kayden’s mother, Kathy Sherlock, submitted evidence to the court of the father’s abusive, violent history, including criminal records and a protection order for having threatened to kill family members. 

A professional recommended that he be required to have mental health treatment before receiving unsupervised access, but he was nevertheless granted unsupervised contact with little Kayden. The father beat Kayden to death, tied a bag over her head, left a note of retribution on her body and then killed himself.

“As Congress has now recognized, Kayden's story is not unique: many U.S. children—estimates are in the tens of thousands—have been put at risk and some preventably killed by a dangerous parent as a result of court orders which fail to adequately consider the child’s safety. This too frequently happens after a family court rejects safety concerns voiced by a protective parent,” added Pollack.

Kayden's Law provides federal funds to states which improve their child custody laws to better protect at-risk children. It’s made up of four criteria:

1. To restrict expert testimony to only those who are appropriately qualified to provide it. 

Evidence from court-appointed or outside professionals regarding alleged abuse may be admitted only when the professional possesses demonstrated expertise and experience in working with victims of domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse.

2.  Limiting the use of reunification camps and therapies that cannot be proven to be safe and effective.

No “reunification treatment” may be ordered by the court without scientifically valid and generally accepted proof of the safety, effectiveness and therapeutic value of the particular treatment.

3. Providing evidence-based ongoing training to judges and court personnel on family violence subject matter, including:

• ​child sexual abuse
• physical abuse
• emotional abuse
• coercive control
• implicit and explicit bias
• trauma
• long and short-term impacts of domestic violence and child abuse on children
• victim and perpetrator behaviors.

4. Courts must consider evidence of past sexual or physical abuse, including protection orders, arrests, and convictions for domestic violence, sexual violence, or child abuse of the accused parent.

Congratulations to Arizona, California, Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Utah for passing the criteria for Kayden’s Law in your states.

Betsy Keller is the founder of Connecticut Protective Moms, a grassroots organization dedicated to improving the Connecticut Family Court process. 
Editor’s Note: This article is part of #YourVoice, an ongoing column published on this website by individual contributors in their own personal capacity and that involves the opinions, recollections and/or information provided by such contributors, and which does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of this website.