CASE NO: 2019-009867-FC-04 Section: Fc01 JUDGE: Ivonne Cuesta
CASE NO: 2019-009867-FC-04 Section: Fc01 JUDGE: Ivonne Cuesta
CASE NO: 2019-009867-FC-04 Section: Fc01 JUDGE: Ivonne Cuesta
vs.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for an evidentiary hearing on June 30, 2021 on Mother’s
Verified Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Injunction, and the Court having heard the testimony of
the Guardian Ad Litem, Anastasia Garcia, Esq. and the Former Wife, Patsy Evelyn Alcantar
Saucedo, and having heard argument from Father’s Counsel, Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. and Mother’s
Counsel, Dori Foster-Morales, Esq. and being fully familiar with the Court file, the Court finds as
follows:
Background
1. On or about Monday, June 28, 2021, the Court initially reviewed the Mother’s Verified
Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Injunction (hereinafter “Mother’s Motion”), which was
filed on June 18, 2021 in conformity with Rule 12.610 of the Fla. Fam. L.R.P/Rule
1.610 of the Fla. R. Civ. P., including but not limited to the verified pleadings and the
evidence attached to said motion, the Court found that an emergency existed to
Mother’s Motion, the Court also reviewed the YouTube link sent by Michael Volpe
notes that the YouTube link was incorporated as Exhibit B of the Mother's Verified
Motion for Ex Parte relief. Although, the Ex Parte Motion was legally sufficient, the
Court resolved to notify the Father and schedule the matter for an in-person hearing,
therefore, allowing both sides the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
2. The Court scheduled the Mother's Emergency Motion two days later on June 30,
2021 due to the urgency of the matter. One day prior to the scheduled hearing,
jurisdiction. The Court granted the request and allowed the Father's counsel to appear
3. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Father's counsel moved for a continuance.
After hearing argument, the Court denied the Father’s Motions for Continuance as
fully described in the Order on Father’s Motion to Continue Hearing Set for 06/30/21
(dated 6/28/21); Motion for Continuance and Notice of Conflict for June 30, 2021
4. The Father, an active member of the Florida Bar, did not appear for the June 30th,
2021 emergency hearing, and his counsel stated that she did not know his
whereabouts. The Father was not excused from the in-person hearing. He failed
to request permission to appear telephonically for himself and/or any of his potential
witnesses.
and minor children and who has issued a lengthy evaluation of the parties and minor children, which by
Court Order was specifically prohibited from being filed with the Court.
d. Ann Eustace who is the court ordered expert performing drug testing of Father.
f. Zandra Cue, LMHC to provide therapy for the parties’ minor son.
Evidence
a. On or about June 14, 2021 (at 9:32 p.m.), she received an email from
the Father’s counsel (1) requesting release of all DCF Reports (which the GAL received from
Mother’s counsel who received them by public records request) and (2) informing her that Father
“gave permission” for Michael Volpe (hereinafter “Volpe”), an “investigative journalist who is now
covering the case” be included in all communications between Father’s counsel and the GAL. This
b. The GAL informed Father’s counsel that she was not in agreement with
including Volpe on all communications and stated she was immediately concerned that the Father
was sharing confidential information about the minor children and/or Wife and that he was acting in
c. The GAL did not release the DCF Reports to Father’s counsel
because Father’s counsel refused to enter into a Stipulation to keep said information confidential and
the GAL feared that the confidential reports would be turned over to the press or others by the Father.
on June 26th, 2021 (Exhibit “B”) June 30th, 2021 at 6:51 a.m. (Exhibit “C”) June 30th, 2021
at 12:14 pm (Exhibit “D”), wherein Volpe sent links to interviews he had posted on
YouTube discussing details of the instant matter. The GAL did not review the YouTube interview
referenced on the June 30, 2021 email from Volpe (Exhibit “D”) until the hearing occurred, and at
e. The Court viewed Exhibit "D", which consists of a YouTube interview conducted
and aired approximately one hour before the hearing on the instant motion. During the
interview Volpe and the Father openly discuss confidential information about the Mother and the
children contained in court-ordered psychological evaluations. For example, the Father and Volpe
discussed the Mother's mental health diagnosis and other sensitive information regarding his
young children.
f. The Father and Volpe derisively acknowledge during the interview that the
sensitive and confidential information they are disseminating is the subject of the instant motion.
g. The GAL also testified that , Zandra Cue, the minor son’s therapist had been
contacted by Volpe. The GAL emphasized that although, Ms. Cue did not respond to Volpe,
she fears that the Court-appointed therapist may terminate the child's therapy and withdraw from the
case due to the Father's harassment and attempted communications by Volpe. Terminating the
therapy or substituting a new therapist would be detrimental to the minor children and the proper
administration of this case. Those emails were introduced as Composite Exhibit “E”.
h. Additionally, the GAL testified that the Father also directly contacted
other Court Appointed Experts, including Dr. Sczechowicz and Dr. Seely. The Father sent long
emails to these experts using aggressive language and detailing information about the children. He
copied Volpe in these emails (but not the Mother or her counsel). See, Composite Exhibit “E”.
i. The last email sent to the GAL by Volpe was on June 30, 2021 at
hearing, which was introduced as Exhibit “D”. The email contained a link to a YouTube interview
by Volpe and the Father, which occurred live sometime on June 30th, 2021, just an hour or so prior to
the commencement of the hearing. The June 30th interview of the Father and Volpe was published to
the Court during the evidentiary hearing, which interview contained the following relevant
information:
(1) During the interview, the Father aired detailed information about the
children, the child’s therapy with Zandra Cue, the contents of Dr. Sczechowicz’ evaluation including
diagnosis of the Mother and other allegations about the Mother’s promiscuity.
(2) The Father acknowledged that the instant hearing was going to occur
to address a “gag order” and published the motion during the interview.
providing Dr. Sczechowicz evaluation of the parties and minor children to Volpe prior to the
instant hearing, could not be a violation of any “gag order” entered by the Court AFTER the
evidentiary hearing, seemingly agreeing and acknowledging with the interviewers that any “gag
order” would not be effective as to documents and information released prior to the hearing and the
same would be like “putting the toothpaste back into the tube”. Volpe indicated that he already
(4) Further, the Father stated during his interview that this Court was
(5) Volpe indicated how much “fun” he was having with this case.
(6) The Mother testified about her concerns and fears regarding
the dissemination of the confidential information. The Mother stated that the family lived in a small
tight knit Jewish community with the children attending a small Jewish day school and her concerns
The Mother was not surprised that the Father held an interview with the press just prior to the
hearing, releasing substantial private information, which is why she initially asked for ex parte relief.
predated the June 30, 2021 YouTube interview by the Father, but said YouTube interview validated
the veracity of the Mother’s concerns, as the Father has made clear that he provided his interview and
confidential information prior to the Court’s emergency hearing fully understanding that the interview
would not be a violation of any court order that may be entered after the emergency hearing.
(8) The Court was extremely concerned about what it read and reviewed in
the Mother’s Ex Parte Emergency Motion and the evidence presented during the June 30th, 2021
hearing, including but not limited to the Father’s June 30th, 2021 YouTube interview. However, the
Court noticed all parties and did not rule on an ex-parte basis because it wished to hear from both
sides.
(9) After reviewing all the evidence, the Court finds that the Father's actions
(10) The Court finds that Florida law prohibits the disclosure of certain
information pertaining to the children, including DCF reports (See Fla. Stat. §39.202); Mental Health
Records (See Fla. Stat. §394.464. and §90.503); School Records (Fla. Stat. §1002.22) and Court
records which are deemed confidential in accord with Rule 2.420 of the Fla. R. Jud. Admin.
(11) The Father has already disclosed to the press and/or third parties
(12) The Father contacted the Dept. of Children and Families and
result, DCF conducted an investigation. The children were questioned, they underwent forensic
interviews by Child Protective Team, they were examined by a Court-appointed psychologist and are
currently receiving treatment by a licensed mental-health therapist. The Father is airing all this
information to third parties and putting the children’s most private affairs into the public domain for
the world to see. The Court notes that the Department of Children and Families closed its
investigation and no charges were brought against the Mother or her boyfriend.
Injunction and the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing on June 30, 2021 are sufficient to
establish good cause, that the Mother and minor children will suffer irreparable injury, loss or damage
(16) On August 18, 2020, this Court entered an Agreed Order Appointing
Psychologists to Perform Evaluations of the parties and the children. The Court reserved jurisdiction
to enforce and/or modify the terms and conditions of the order. Accordingly, this Court orders that all
psychological evaluations and the information contain therein are to remain confidential and not be
released and/or disseminated by either party and/or their legal representative to anyone.
(17) This Court finds that the Mother has met her burden of proof and has
determined that this injunction is necessary and that certain limitations must be made on the Father’s
rights to disseminate information in this matter. The Court is narrowly tailoring this injunction only
as to extra-judicial statements which are substantially likely to materially prejudice a final hearing in
this matter and/or impede on the Mother's and minor children's right of privacy. Accordingly, this
Court enjoins the Father from disseminating information that he learned from confidential court
documents.
Professional Conduct, to refrain from discussing this case with the media so that the case can be
professionally tried in the courtroom and not in the press. See Stanfield v. Dept. of Children and
(19) Further, the Court finds that as a direct result of the Father's conduct of
airing on YouTube the mental health diagnosis of the Mother and treatment-related information of his
minor children, it is in the best interest of the two minor children to limit the public's access to the
confidential information contained in court documents and discussed during these proceedings.
(20) Lastly, this Court is persuaded by Attorney Ad Litem for D.K., v. The
Parents of D.K., 780 So. 2d 301, (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The children in this case have a privilege in
the confidentiality of their communications with their psychotherapists. The parents are involved in
litigation themselves over the best interests of the children and they may not either assert or waive the
privilege on their children's behalf. The Father has already divulged confidential information about
the minor children and in order to protect their legal rights, this Court appoints legal counsel for the
children pursuant to Florida Statutes 61.401. The Father shall be 100% responsible for the cost of the
representation.
Accordingly, it is
The Mother’s Verified Emergency Motion for Injunction is GRANTED in PART and
Court set the Mother’s Emergency Motion for emergency hearing (held on June 30, 2021) and
C. The Father, GABRIEL CARL SHAPIRO and/or his legal counsel (Leslie
Ferderigos, Esq), and/or agents are hereby enjoined from directly or indirectly discussing or
publishing the contents of and/or providing any of the following documents and/or information to
medical records and/or psychological records and/or information contained or gleaned from said
records;
D. The Father and/or his agents, including but not limited to his counsel,
Leslie Ferderigos, Esq. are enjoined from copying the press or any other non-parties to this litigation
on any communications with the GAL or the court appointed evaluators and/or therapists appointed
in this matter.
writing, within 2 days of this order, of any documents or information described in Paragraph C (1)-
(6) (above) that he has already provided to any non-parties, including but not limited to members of
the press and/or Volpe. The Father's counsel shall provide notice to the other side of the same.
G. The Father shall immediately seek the return of any of the information
or documents described in Paragraph C (1)-(6) (above) if said information or documents have already
been released or disclosed to any members of the press and/or third parties. Neither party may jointly
H. The Father and his agents are enjoined from allowing the minor
children to be interviewed by anyone absent permission of the Court, other than by the Court
tailored in scope to preclude extra-judicial statements made by the Father and/or his counsel either
directly or indirectly as addressed in paragraphs B and C above to the press in accord with Florida
law in order to best preserve the Mother’s right to a fair trial while carefully weighed and balanced
against the Father’s right to free speech and/or to protect the Mother’s and minor children’s right to
privacy.
J. The Court finds that a $1,000.00 bond is adequate security for this
injunction. The Mother shall post a bond within ten (10) business days of the entry of this order.
SHAPIRO, his agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and on those persons and/or entities who
Father of the Court’s ruling at the conclusion of the hearing, since the Father did not appear for the
full force and effect until a further order of the court vacates or modifies this injunction. Failure to
comply with the terms of this Order may result in sanctions, including but not limited to civil and/or
criminal contempt.
N. This court reserves jurisdiction over the parties to enter such further
orders as are just and appropriate including awarding attorneys' fees and costs.
Valdespino as the Attorney Ad Litem or whether the Court should appoint another attorney.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 6th day of July,
2021.
Electronically Served:
Amanda Nicole Perez Tackenberg, [email protected]
Amanda Nicole Perez Tackenberg, [email protected]
Amanda Nicole Perez Tackenberg, [email protected]
Anastasia M Garcia, [email protected]
Physically Served: