Stop Caryn Fennell

please contact us for specific case numbers and party details where information has been redacted

GAL GONE rougue: exposing Caryn Fennell's abuse of power in georgia family courts

"The greatest threat to justice in family court isn’t always a parent—it’s a professional who hides behind immunity while violating the very principles they’re sworn to uphold."

Introduction: Why We Must Speak Out

Caryn S. Fennell has not only failed in her duty as a Guardian ad Litem (GAL)—she has actively weaponized the role. Appointed to represent the best interests of children, Fennell instead operates with arrogance, manipulation, and a total disregard for ethical standards. Her conduct endangers families, misleads courts, and protects her own authority at the expense of justice.

She routinely diverts attention away from real, immediate dangers—such as a father's documented alcohol abuse that placed a child in harm’s way—and instead fixates obsessively on years-old, irrelevant text messages. In one case, she dismissed glaring concerns about the father’s substance abuse and instead built her argument around three-year-old text exchanges that the child never saw and that had no effect on her well-being.

This page has a central case wherein Caryn Fennell of Fennell, Briasco and Associates but also covers other cases-- one in particular where the child was placed with a sexual abuser based on Fennell's over the top antics, interference and bullying. The children are now safely with their Mother.

Fennell has interfered in DFCS investigations by arriving at the scene of agency inquiries, undermining the neutrality and integrity of independent child welfare professionals. In doing so, she sabotages the very processes designed to protect children from harm.

Perhaps most disturbing is her repeated pattern of lying to the court about what licensed therapists have said—falsely attributing negative statements to mental health professionals that were never made. These are not mistakes. They are bold-faced lies designed to discredit mothers and tilt outcomes unfairly in favor of the parent she prefers.

This is not an isolated incident. Multiple cases have revealed similar fabrications, slanted investigations, and acts of retaliation against those who speak out. Her pattern is unmistakable: bury the truth, punish dissent, and manipulate the record.

It is time to expose this misconduct for what it is: not child advocacy, but a gross abuse of power that erodes public trust and puts families at risk.

This page exists to expose a dangerous and deeply concerning pattern of misconduct by Caryn S. Fennell, a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in Georgia family courts. GALs are appointed to protect the best interests of children. But when that power is misused—when a GAL acts out of self-interest, retaliates against critics, and manipulates the legal system to avoid oversight—the result is not protection. It is harm.

Fennell has repeatedly abused her quasi-judicial role, violating ethical rules, court protocols, and constitutional protections. Her behavior includes retaliating against witnesses, filing exaggerated and misleading pleadings, and misusing court procedures to silence dissent. This site aims to hold her accountable and to demand structural change.

The Justin Cawthon Example: Retaliation in Action

One of the clearest examples of Fennell’s abuse of power is in a child custody case wherein she tries to silence witness Justin Cawthon, a non-party witness who expressed concerns about Caryn's lies to the Court and other misbehavior. When Justin confronted Fennell on lies and misstatements she told in Court that endanger the child and suggested Bar Complaints, Fennell's reaction went so far over the top it defies all logic.

Timeline of Events

Solicitation of Contact: Fennell personally requested a private meeting with Mr. Cawthon to discuss the case.
Protected Criticism: During that meeting, Mr. Cawthon raised concerns about her bias and unprofessional conduct.
Weaponized Withdrawal: Fennell promptly filed for a protective order against Cawthon in a procedurally improper and hysterical manner, and then filed a motion to withdraw, citing "threats" and "intimidation" – claims that were entirely unsubstantiated even by Fennell's own admission and evidence.
Character Assassination: She referenced unrelated legal issues in Mr. Cawthon’s background to paint him as untrustworthy, despite their irrelevance.

This was retaliation, plain and simple. Mr. Cawthon engaged in constitutionally protected speech. His First Amendment rights and Georgia constitutional protections under Art. I, Sec. I, Para. V were violated by a GAL entrusted with neutrality.

Fennell’s tactics reflect a broader, systemic danger:

Misuse of protective orders to suppress criticims and bar complaints

Ignoring evidence, inserting herself in the litigation in unconscionable ways

Misuse of protective orders to suppress criticims and bar complaints

When threatened with a legally sound and viable bar complaint, Fennell files a Motion for a Protective Order in against a non-party in a custody case that has absolutely no basis in law or fact. See more on this here

Making false and defamatory statements that hurt the child

Ignoring evidence, inserting herself in the litigation in unconscionable ways

Misuse of protective orders to suppress criticims and bar complaints

Fennell's M.O. seems to be lying about what therapists say as she has done it in two major cases. See here for further details on the therapist lies. She also tells material lies on the alcohol consumption of individuals, making a huge deal over it some cases and then totally ignoring it in others.

Ignoring evidence, inserting herself in the litigation in unconscionable ways

In one case, Fennell focuses on text messages sent over three years ago between the parties who were over four states away at the time, saying that they are "offensive", while in another case Fennell places the children with a father who has a history of not just sending text messages-- but actual physical and sexual assault against the

Show Less

fennell's Modus operandi

initiate communication with parties and witnesses

retaliate when criticized and try to silence criticism

stalk and threaten parties

retaliate when criticized and try to silence criticism

interfere with investigations

ignore the evidence and have inconsistent priorities inconsistent with the child's best interest

interfere with investigations

lie to the judge and other professionals

ignore the evidence and have inconsistent priorities inconsistent with the child's best interest

fennell's ethical violations

Fennell's misconduct is easy to spot

Caryn Fennell’s conduct as a court-appointed Guardian ad Litem raises serious ethical and legal concerns. Below is a summary of the professional rules and duties she may have violated based on her documented actions across multiple cases:

1. False Statements to the Court and Other Professionals

By misrepresenting or fabricating statements allegedly made by therapists—both my own and Julie Anthony's—Fennell may have violated:

Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) – Candor Toward the Tribunal: Prohibits knowingly making false statements of fact to a court.
Rule 4.1(a) – Truthfulness in Statements to Others: Forbids knowingly making false statements of material fact to third parties, including other professionals.
Rule 8.4(a) & (c) – Misconduct: Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

2. Failure to Advocate for the Child’s Best Interests

As a GAL, Fennell is legally and ethically bound to prioritize the child's well-being. Her apparent ignorance of this core duty, as well as her actions that reflect a lack of advocacy, violate:

Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9(6): Requires the GAL to "advocate for the best interests of the child."
Rule 1.1 & Rule 1.3 – Competence and Diligence: A lawyer or GAL must act with knowledge and thoroughness reasonably necessary for the task.
Rule 1.14 (when applicable): Imposes special obligations when representing minors or clients with diminished capacity.

3. Willful Refusal to Consider Relevant Evidence

Fennell’s refusal to review key evidence—such as messages, therapy notes, or video recordings—constitutes a failure to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, violating:

USCR 24.9(6)(a): GALs must "conduct an independent investigation" and "consider all relevant information."
Rule 1.3 – Diligence: Avoiding even reviewing certain evidence reflects a failure to act with reasonable diligence.

4. Interference with a DFCS Investigation

When Fennell attempted to involve herself in or obstruct a DFCS investigation—particularly if acting on behalf of one parent—she overstepped her role and potentially violated:

Rule 8.4(d) – Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice.
Georgia Child Protective Services Protocol: GALs should not interfere with or improperly influence the findings of an official DFCS inquiry.
USCR 24.9(6)(b): The GAL must maintain neutrality and not advocate for or against DFCS findings outside proper legal channels.

5. Stalking and Misrepresentation at a Public Restaurant (Johnny’s Pizza Incident)

In a separate custody case, Fennell reportedly followed parties to a restaurant, misrepresented how much they had to drink, and made misleading claims in court. Such actions could implicate:

Rule 8.4(c) & (d) – Dishonest conduct and conduct that undermines the justice system.
Rule 4.4(a) – Respect for Rights of Third Persons: Her conduct may reflect a reckless disregard for personal boundaries and legal ethics.
Canon of Judicial Ethics Applied to GALs by Analogy: Even though GALs are not judges, their impartiality and neutrality must be preserved to ensure the integrity of proceedings.