Mia Speaks: “He Is No Father at All”
By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe
The Litigation Queen’s New Victims
MADISON, CONNECTICUT – On The Unknown Podcast, co-hosted by Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe, Mia Ambrose unloaded on her adoptive father. Christopher Ambrose, the disgraced TV writer turned “litigation queen,” is now suing renowned psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee, journalist Frank Parlato, and advocate Tina Swithin for defamation.

Ambrose claims their reporting about abuse he credibly committed against his three adopted children is defamatory.
The federal suit is built on the same claims Dr. Lee made after scoring him 32 out of 40 on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—two points above the threshold for psychopathy. He wants the court to believe there is a conspiracy to “paint him as a monster,” yet the evidence suggests otherwise.

Mia, 19, says his lawsuits are fiction—and her life is the proof.
“I wouldn’t call him my dad,” Mia said. “I call him Chris. He is no father at all. My mom raised me. My mom was the one who was there.”

She explained that her mother, Karen Riordan, had raised her, and that any relationship with Chris had deteriorated long before their 2020 divorce. Responding to claims that she is “brainwashed,” Mia said her opinions are her own and have remained consistent. She is willing to debate anyone who accuses her mother of coaching her because she “lived it” and knows the truth.
“I’ve voiced my opinion since I was 13 years old… It was my personal experience. Nothing was told to me.”
She described emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and isolation.
“Me and Sawyer were victims of sexual abuse from Christopher, and that has been proven. We weren’t allowed phones. We weren’t allowed to talk to family or friends. There were bars on the windows. Doors locked with special keys,” she said.
This is not the bitter spin of a custody fight. This is a young woman, now legally an adult, speaking in her own voice—about years trapped in hell.
Chris Ambrose Abused Me: Mia Ambrose Breaks Her Silence
Asked about the three federal lawsuits, Mia did not hesitate.
“It’s true—Christopher Ambrose is an abuser,” she said.
She noted there are “documents, recordings, and videos” showing what happened in their home.
She and her brother, Sawyer, were victims of sexual abuse, and all three siblings endured emotional and verbal abuse.

When they reported abuse to Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families (DCF), social workers ignored them. Mia recounted telling DCF case worker Angela Frank about locked doors, alarms, and barred windows that kept the children imprisoned; nothing was done.
Mia recounted how famed private investigator Manuel Gomez tried to help the children. He took the children’s statements and documented the abuse.
Gomez famously called Ambrose the “Leonardo Da Vinci of liars.”
Still, Connecticut police and prosecutors turned a blind eye. Paul Boyne, the former editor of TheFamilyCourtCircus.com blog, says he knows why: pedophilia.
“The State of Connecticut is one big pedophile ring. The job of the police and the courts is to protect the pedos,” Boyne said.

Credible evidence in the Ambrose case shows Boyne is dead on. Ambrose’s hard drive had hundreds of images of “Latin Boys,” and reports say he has a “Latin Boy barbershop fetish.”
Mia also revealed ongoing trauma: she continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and sees Dr. Lee for treatment. The interview revealed a young woman determined to reclaim her voice and to warn others that Ambrose’s narrative is false.
Ambrose has already been caught in multiple instances of litigation lies, seeking to dodge a $405 filing fee. Ambrose filed an affidavit pleading poverty.
He told the court his monthly rent was $2,450 and that he pays for four phone lines. Public records show he leases a $2.2 million beach house for $3,750 per month and that he cancelled his children’s phone lines in 2023.
He claimed his 18-year-old twins were full-time students living with him, yet his daughter, Mia Ambrose, had moved out months earlier, and his son, Matthew, had withdrawn from school before the affidavit was filed.
He omitted SNAP benefits he had been receiving for months, undervalued his Audi by thousands of dollars, and neglected to mention a pending $800,000 inheritance.
Such misrepresentations could lead to dismissal of his case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). They also demonstrate that Ambrose’s “fake poverty” narrative is part of a wider pattern of deceit.
Chris Ambrose Abused Me: Petition for a Restraining Order
Mia’s allegations are not limited to a podcast. In August 2023, she filed a petition in juvenile court seeking a restraining order (RO) against Chris, not her mother. Judge Thomas O’Neill ignored her request, instead granting Ambrose a year-long RO against Karen Riordan that barred all contact between mother and daughter..
Mia wrote in her petition that the court must protect her from “a pattern of isolation, threats, stalking, intimidation, and sexual assault at the hands of Chris Ambrose.”
She said he harasses her and uses false police reports to force her back into his custody. She emphasized that she needs the court’s protection “today,” not another lecture about reunification.
In the petition, Mia detailed years of mistreatment. She wrote that she has been abused and afraid of Chris since 2018. He placed hidden recording devices in the children’s bedrooms and removed door knobs so they had no privacy. He stared at her for long periods and followed her into her bedroom despite her distress.
When she escaped his home on April 22, 2023, he stripped her of her belongings and used the police to drag her back. The constant fear led her to self-harm; she later covered her scars with tattoos.
Unable to bear it, she ran away again and lived with friends until she turned 18.
Mia said she gained weight to protect herself and stopped attending school because she lived “in fear 24/7.” The petition paints a stark picture of a teenager desperate for safety who feels the court system is protecting the wrong parent.
Chris Ambrose Abused Me: Jennifer’s Law Turned Upside Down
The Inside Investigator reported that Mia, her brother Matthew, and their younger sibling Sawyer fled Connecticut in August 2023 after a family court judge gave Ambrose full legal authority over them despite their abuse complaints. The siblings hid at their maternal grandfather’s home in Rhode Island, and then went to New York to stay with another relative.
It had been three years since they had seen their mother due to court orders. Mia described the years with Chris as “a really horrible experience” and said she knew if she did not leave, then “she never would.”

Jennifer’s Law, intended to protect domestic violence victims, was twisted to silence the Ambrose children. Mia had run away before, and the police forced her back to Chris; each time she fled, she was labelled “brainwashed.”
Instead of investigating their abuse claims, the judge issued a restraining order against their mother. The children chose to live with relatives rather than return to the man they accused of abuse.
The case reveals how family-court judges can turn protective legislation on its head, granting custody to alleged abusers while punishing protective parents.
Chris Ambrose Abused Me: Kassenoff, Ambrose and the War on Free Speech
Ambrose’s litigious assault on critics mirrors another headline-grabbing case: Allan Kassenoff, a patent lawyer whose wife, Catherine Kassenoff, took her own life after a brutal divorce and custody battle. After TikTok influencer Robert “Robbie” Harvey posted videos about Kassenoff’s alleged mistreatment of his wife and daughters, Kassenoff sued him for $150 million, alleging defamation and cyberstalking.
Frank Parlato reported that Kassenoff’s lawsuit claimed that Harvey’s TikTok videos led to his dismissal from a high-paying job as a patent lawyer. Harvey folded like a cheap tent. The case underscores how powerful men use the courts to intimidate journalists and advocates.

The connection between Ambrose and Kassenoff goes deeper. Richard Luthmann‘s reporting showed that Kassenoff bragged about Ambrose supporting his new family-law firm and that both men share a litigation strategy of suing their critics into silence.
After Harvey and Luthmann exposed Ambrose’s racist rant—he called his Hispanic children “beaners” in an audio recording that Harvey later removed under threat of litigation—Ambrose threatened to sue Harvey and has since filed suits against Lee, Swithin, and Parlato.
Luthmann sued Ambrose in New York State Supreme Court, where Ambrose defaulted. Luthmann is waiting to collect his default judgment.
“I’ll be giddy as a little kid on Christmas morning when I can make that albino sh-itbrick sit for an Article 52 deposition and give him the legal equivalent of a proctology exam,” Luthmann said. “It ain’t no fun when the wabbit’s got the gun.”
During the podcast, Mia confirmed the authenticity of the racist audio and said the slur was “targeted… meant to be hurtful.” She noted that Chris uses litigation and police intimidation to quiet anyone who challenges his narrative.

The parallels are striking: both Ambrose and Kassenoff weaponized family courts to wrest custody from their wives and children, then deployed defamation suits against journalists and advocates. Both men claim to be victims of online mobs, yet they possess the financial means to mount protracted legal battles.
Their suits raise fundamental questions about free speech, investigative journalism, and the ability of abuse victims to share their stories without retaliation.
Time to Rethink Support for Chris Ambrose
After Mia’s candid interview and the mountain of evidence against Chris Ambrose, supporters must confront an uncomfortable truth: they have been backing an alleged abuser and manipulator. Mia’s story—corroborated by her brothers, by recordings, by Dr. Lee’s psychopathy evaluation, and by court documents—contradicts Ambrose’s portrayal as a loving father persecuted by his ex-wife.
Supporters who claim to champion victims should listen to Mia when she says she has been telling the same story since she was 13 and that those calling her a liar are “disrespectful to actual victims.”
Luthmann aptly notes that the coming defamation trials could finally force the evidence into the open and reveal the cruelty hidden behind the protective veil of family court.
Anyone still cheering for Christopher Ambrose should ask themselves why they are doing so.
Is it because they dislike his critics? That’s no excuse Linda Gottlieb and Anti-Alienation Project Madi. Tina Swithin never raped a child. But now, you’re materially supporting an abuser and a pedophile.
Because they believe fathers never abuse? No sex has a monopoly on protective parenting or abuse.
Or because, like the judges who silenced Mia, they refuse to acknowledge that charming, wealthy, and well-educated men can be monsters? Think again.
As Mia declared on The Unknown Podcast, “Christopher Ambrose is an abuser.”
It is past time for the courts, the media and the public to believe her.
TAKE NOTE: Wretched Hags Madi at the Anti-Alienation Project and Linda Gottlieb. You’re supporting Christopher Ambrose, a pedophile and abuser. But that’s no big surprise. You two witches are pure evil, and it would make sense you condone child rape. DISAVOW!
What happened to Mia and other children is unacceptable.
Pedophiles are using the family court to abuse children. Some lawyers are enabling this.
Valerie Houghton just can’t help herself. She is sex trafficking all of my kids. This week she posted something about teen exploitation when they use Instagram.
When you click the posted link, it takes you to a webpage that has a bullet point “sexual behavior incentivized”.
She seems to be obsessed with teenage boys.
https://archive.ph/dO2FW (Valerie Houghton’s post)
I checked with AI to see if these kinds of lawyers should be able to represent children. The answer wasn’t surprising.
https://iask.ai/q/pedophile-attorney-child-representation-ethics-g3qai4o
should pedophiles be allowed to represent children in court?
It is categorically unethical and impermissible for a convicted or known pedophile to represent children in court. The legal profession, guided by strict ethical codes and duties, prioritizes the best interests and safety of the client, especially when the client is a child. A pedophile’s involvement would create an irreconcilable conflict of interest, violate fundamental duties of loyalty and competence, and pose an extreme risk to the child’s well-being and the integrity of the justice system.
According to http://www.iAsk.Ai – Ask AI:
The ethical obligations of defense counsel, particularly when representing juveniles, emphasize that the child’s interests are paramount. In cases involving juvenile clients, the child, rather than the parents, is considered the attorney’s true client, as the juvenile will bear the consequences of any legal determination [2]. This principle underscores the attorney’s duty to act solely in the child’s best interest. A pedophile, by definition, has sexual interests in children, which would inherently conflict with the child’s safety and well-being, making objective and zealous representation impossible [1].
Furthermore, attorneys are expected to maintain objectivity and a lack of judgmentalism in their professional conduct [1]. However, the emotional impact of working with sex offenses, even for non-offending attorneys, can be profound, leading to feelings of anger, disgust, and revulsion [1]. For an individual with pedophilic tendencies, these feelings would be inverted or entirely absent, replaced by harmful inclinations that directly contradict the protective role of a legal representative. The legal profession demands that lawyers separate ethical considerations from their professional practice and zealously support their clients, devoid of emotional involvement that could compromise their duties [1]. A pedophile cannot meet this standard when representing a child.
The potential for vicarious traumatization and emotional distress is a known factor for legal professionals working with sex offenders [1]. While this research focuses on the impact on defense attorneys representing sex offenders, it highlights the sensitive nature of such cases and the psychological toll they can take [1]. The presence of a pedophile in a position of trust and power over a child in a legal setting would not only be deeply disturbing but would also constitute a severe breach of trust and safety protocols.
In summary, the ethical framework of legal representation, particularly for vulnerable populations like children, demands an attorney who is free from conflicts of interest and dedicated solely to the client’s welfare. A pedophile cannot fulfill these fundamental requirements, making their representation of children in court absolutely unacceptable.