Terry Szucsko let my son get molested

Blast Zone No. 34430 - 13 Comments
Set Up On:
By: Terry K.
Category: Other - Lawyers
Current Office Address:
50 Osgood Place Suite 500

Terry Szucsko represented my ex-spouse during my divorce. He was belligerent from the get-go, filing for a restraining order when there was no domestic violence. The police report confirmed that, but that never mattered to Mr. Szucsko. He was out to take away my kids.

During the divorce I disclosed that my ex was allowing an older man molest our 13 year old son. At the following hearing my ex agreed to disclose that she had hidden $130,000 worth of gold coins. It came as a complete shock to me. I never thought that I would see those coins again. My ex is GREEDY. She wanted every penny.

We each got $25,000. The remaining $80,000 went to the attorneys to be held in trust.

Mr. Szucsko then got me to agree to a restraining order that prevented me contacting my children for three years. I never got to sign any stipulation. Mr. Szucsko told the judge that he had left the paperwork on his desk. He then read something from a phone. I didn't understand what it was at the time. The order only permitted contact if "mother agreed."

Mr. Szucsko knew that my son was being molested, but that didn't matter to him. He only cared about the money. The divorce would have been over quickly if the real issues were addressed.

Said restraining order was subsequently renewed. My son recently turned 18, so I was able to see him. He confirmed that he had indeed been molested. He says that the experience left him traumatized and suicidal. There are strong indications that my other three children that I have with that mother have also been sexually abused, but I have yet to confirm that because I have not seen them in over six years.

Maybe Mr. Szucsko did right by his client. It would have been nice if he could have also protected the children.

Terry K. Says:

Even hardened criminal sitting in prison think that it wrong to facilitate the rape of a child.

The only thing that matters to Terry Szuscko is MONEY.

Terry K. Says:

Mr. Szucsko knew exactly what he was doing when he took away my kids. I appealed the restraining order as soon as I realized what it was. There should have been notice given to me prior to the hearing and it should have not been read from a phone.

I subpoenaed the police report that the restraining order was predicated on. It showed that there was no domestic violence.

Mr. Szucsko went on to mail the police an objection to my request that the police report be part of the court record. He knew that he had no basis to have me cut out of my children's lives.

Terry K. Says:

Maybe I was too naive. I never thought in a million years that an officer of the court would let a child be molested just to get a few extra bucks. Mr. Szucsko had a duty to his client, but the concealment and subsequent restraining order without cause constituted sex trafficking per California Penal Code section 236.1.

Money is used to buy food, shelter, alcohol, and clothing. Even if Mr. Szucsko had never sex trafficked a child before, he is likely to act in a similar manner again given the opportunity.

Terry K. Says:

I believe that Mr. Szucsko could have protected my son if he wanted. He didn't need the law to convince him.

My son is now suicidal and strung out on drugs.

The only thing that mattered to Terry Szucsko was pocketing the money.

Terry K. Says:

My divorce should have been open and shut, even without my son getting molested. Mr. Szucsko conspired with my attorneys to prolong the divorce and create more billable hours.

Terry K. Says:

In addition to violating the penal code, I believe that Terry Szucsko also violated Rule 3.1 of the State Bar of California

Meritorious Claims and Contentions

(Rule Approved by the Supreme Court, Effective November 1, 2018)

(a) A lawyer shall not:

(1) bring or continue an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of

harassing or maliciously injuring any person;

Terry K. Says:

It was if Mr. Szucsko was a party of interest. He really didn't care about any of the issues. He was just chasing the money.

Terry K. Says:

Mr. Szucsko knew that he would never get a permanent restraining order if there was a trial. I was a good father to my kids. He had to cheat.

I even asked the judge to tell my why I could not contact my kids. He spent several minutes on the computer, but could not give me a reason of any kind.

Terry K. Says:

Even the supervisor for visitation was in on it. Marie O'Leary wouldn't let me talk to my son about the molestation. She said that I was being "neurotic."

Terry K. Says:

Mr. Szuscko was only in it for himself.

I had retained Valerie Houghton as my attorney. Ms. Houghton was previously employed at the Judge's law firm. She also listed the judge as a personal reference.

I fired Ms. Houghton after the disclosure of the gold coins. It turned out that she also represented my ex wife without disclosure to me.

At the next hearing following the firing, the judge vacated all of my hearings. Then he kept the temporary restraining order that prevented contacting the kids in effect. This should have never happened because there was no trial on calendar, but Mr. Szucsko asked for it anyways.

Terry K. Says:


(a) A person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, is guilty of human trafficking and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison..

(1) Coercion includes a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process; debt bondage; or providing and facilitating the possession of a controlled substance to a person with the intent to impair the persons judgment.

(2) Commercial sex act means sexual conduct on account of which anything of value is given or received by a person.

Terry K. Says:

Mr. Szuscko should have considered all of he sexual abuse and neglect before getting his client sole custody. Penal code section 236.1 prohibits the use of legal proceedings to sex traffic a child. Technically Mr. Suscko broke the law when he let my son get molested.

Terry K. Says:

Mr. Szucsko was aggressive the entire time. At one hearing the Judge ordered us to meet and confer in the hallway. Mr. Szuscko quickly got in my face, standing maybe a an inch or two. Than he started calling me "shit" and a "little man."

Login to Comment using a Cop Blaster Account.


Register if you don't have a Cop Blaster account.