More Documented Abuse: See PDF Below

What follows is a firsthand account from a concerned party who, like many others, found themselves targeted by Guardian ad Litem Caryn Fennell—not for wrongdoing, but for daring to question her erratic conduct. This case reveals a disturbing pattern that echoes through multiple families' experiences: Fennell's obsession with controlling the narrative, punishing dissenters, and protecting certain parties at all costs—even those with documented histories of violence or substance abuse.

In this particular case, Fennell aggressively pursued the concerned party and his wife over what amounted to a date night—during a time when the children weren’t even in their care. She sent staff to stalk them at Johnny’s Pizza, blocked them in the parking lot, and demanded the surrender of the children based on wildly inflated claims of intoxication. A later review of video footage showed the man’s blood alcohol content was well below the legal limit (0.05), and no one had attempted to drive under the influence. Nonetheless, Fennell declared them unfit on the spot and immediately moved to strip custody—despite the fact that the children were with their father at the time.

Even more grotesque is that this manufactured incident led to a total loss of custody, while the opposing party—a man with a recent family violence battery conviction involving the children—was given custody without hesitation. This is not just a lapse in judgment. It is willful bias. Fennell ignored serious, recent criminal conduct that posed a tangible risk to the children, while fabricating allegations against the parent who simply went out for dinner.

This is not an isolated incident.

In my own case, Fennell has similarly demonstrated her warped sense of priorities. She obsessively fixates on text messages exchanged years ago—messages that the child never even saw—and uses them to manufacture a narrative of parental unfitness. Meanwhile, she turns a blind eye to present, ongoing safety threats from a parent with known drug and alcohol issues. The contrast is staggering. Texts from years past are treated as abuse. But violent conduct, substance misuse, and verifiable harm are conveniently ignored—so long as it comes from a father.

The through-line in both cases is clear: Fennell’s allegiance lies not with the truth, nor the child’s best interests, but with her own alliances and vendettas. She inserts herself inappropriately into investigations, as she did by interfering with a DFCS matter in my case—where she sought to protect the father rather than let the agency do its job. In the case outlined here, she unilaterally appointed herself judge, jury, and enforcer—stalking private citizens and stripping them of custody based on fabricated events.

Fennell’s behavior reflects not just incompetence, but a deeply rooted bias—often in favor of unfit, abusive fathers. Her decisions are not guided by child safety or statutory duties, but by personal grudges, favoritism, and what increasingly appears to be a form of professionalized misogyny. Those who challenge her, especially women and protective partners, are punished. Those who harm children, so long as they are male and compliant with her agenda, are rewarded.

This concerned party was billed nearly $8,000 by Fennell’s firm—with no explanation for the charges—and endured nearly 60 days without the children, all because of Fennell’s lies and power games. She falsely cited therapists, misrepresented facts to attorneys, and failed to fulfill her court-appointed duties under the law, particularly during COVID-19, when she admitted she could not properly execute the responsibilities of a GAL. Rather than recuse herself, as the law required, she clung to the case to continue exacting control.

The public deserves to know: This is what unchecked GAL authority looks like. Arbitrary. Retaliatory. Dangerous.