Filing # 130131405 E-Filed 07/06/2021 05:28:32 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2019-009867-FC-04

SECTION: FC01
JUDGE: Ivonne Cuesta

Shapiro, Gabriel Carl

Petitioner(s)

vs.

Alcantar Saucedo, Patsy Evelyn

Respondent(s)
____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTHER’S VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

INJUNCTION

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

warrant an emergency hearing. In addition to reviewing the documents attached to

Mother’s Motion, the Court also reviewed the YouTube link sent by Michael Volpe

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 1 of 12

 containing an interview by him speaking about the above-cited matter. The Court

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,

Father's counsel requested to appear by telephone due to a conflict in another

jurisdiction. The Court granted the request and allowed the Father's counsel to appear

by telephone for the otherwise, in-person hearing.

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

(dated 6/28/21) and Urgent Motion for Continuance (dated 6/29/21).

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.

5. At the hearing, Father's counsel did not put on a case.

6. The parties are presently involved in a contentious post-judgment matter involving two
young children ages three (3) and five (5) years of age.

7. As a result of post-judgment motions, the parties agreed to the appointment of various

mental health experts to perform evaluations, provide recommendations and/or provide

therapy (hereinafter jointly referred to as “Court Appointed Experts”), as follows:

a. Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) specifically, Anastasia Garcia, Esq. a lawyer;

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 2 of 12

 b. Dr. Edward Sczechowicz, Jr. PhD, a forensic psychologist to evaluate the parties

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.

c. Dr. John Eustace, an expert in addiction, treating the Father.

d. Ann Eustace who is the court ordered expert performing drug testing of Father.

e. Dr. Richard B. Seely, MD, to perform a neuro-psychiatric evaluation of the Father

(which evaluation has not yet been completed).

f. Zandra Cue, LMHC to provide therapy for the parties’ minor son.

Evidence

4. The Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) testified that:

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

email was introduced as Exhibit “A” in evidence.

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

a manner that was detrimental to the children.

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.

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 3 of 12

 d. Thereafter, the GAL received various emails directly from Volpe, including

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

the same time it was published to the Court.

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

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 4 of 12

 approximately 12:14 p.m., approximately one hour prior to the commencement of the emergency

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.

(3) The Father acknowledged during the YouTube interview that

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

been provided a copy of Dr. Sczechowicz report.

(4) Further, the Father stated during his interview that this Court was

colluding with opposing counsel and the GAL.

(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

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 5 of 12

 about shielding the children from publication of the events occurring in this matter as relates to them.

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.

(7) The Mother’s concerns as contained in her Verified Emergency Motion

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

are detrimental to the children because he is publicly divulging confidential information or

information which should not be subject to public dissemination.

(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

information contained in Dr. Sczechowicz’ evaluation, a confidential court-ordered evaluation.

(12) The Father contacted the Dept. of Children and Families and

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 6 of 12

 alleged that the children were being sexually abused by the Mother and her boyfriend. As a

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.

(13) The Mother, a private person, has a constitutional right of privacy in

Florida to keep her mental health evaluations and diagnoses confidential.

(15) The allegations in the Mother’s Verified Emergency Motion for

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

if a narrowly tailored temporary injunction is not granted pursuant to Florida Law.

(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.

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 7 of 12

 (18) Also, the Court directs the attorneys, who are bound by the Rules of

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

Families, 698 So. 2d 321, 323 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1997).

(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.

Therefore, this Court enters a closure order.

(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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

The Mother’s Verified Emergency Motion for Injunction is GRANTED in PART and

DENIED in part as follows:

A. The Mother’s request for entry of an Ex Parte Order is DENIED, as this

Court set the Mother’s Emergency Motion for emergency hearing (held on June 30, 2021) and

notified all parties of same.

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 8 of 12

 B. The Mother’s Motion for Injunction is GRANTED and until further order of

the Court from the acts described in this Order.

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

any third parties or personally:

1) Dr. Sczechowicz’ psychological evaluations of the Mother and

children and/or releasing any information contained or gleaned from said evaluations;

2) Dr. Stone’s evaluation of the Mother and/or releasing any information

contained or gleaned in such evaluation;

3) The DCF reports in this matter and/or any information contained or

gleaned from said DCF reports;

4) Other information about the children such as their school and/or

medical records and/or psychological records and/or information contained or gleaned from said

records;

5) The GAL’s communications; and/or

6) Dr. Seely’s report (when issued) and/or any information contained or

gleaned therein absent further Court order.

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.

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 9 of 12

 E. The Father through his counsel shall notify the Court in

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

or severally, agree nor refuse to waive the children's consent.

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

Appointed Experts and/or DCF in this matter.

I. Entry of the injunction as described herein is necessary and narrowly

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.

K. This injunction shall be binding upon the Father, GABRIEL CARL

SHAPIRO, his agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and on those persons and/or entities who

receive notice of this injunction and order.

L. The Court ordered the Father’s counsel to immediately inform the

Father of the Court’s ruling at the conclusion of the hearing, since the Father did not appear for the

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 10 of 12

 hearing.

M. This injunction is effective immediately and this order shall remain in

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.

O. The Court directs the parties to schedule a Case Management

Conference forthwith in order to determine whether it is appropriate to appoint Ms. Jacqueline

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.

2019-009867-FC-04 07-06-2021 5:16 PM

Hon. Ivonne Cuesta

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Electronically Signed

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:
Amanda Nicole Perez Tackenberg, amanda@fostermorales.com
Amanda Nicole Perez Tackenberg, legalassistant@fostermorales.com
Amanda Nicole Perez Tackenberg, service@fostermorales.com
Anastasia M Garcia, pleadings@anastasialaw.com

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 11 of 12

 Anastasia M Garcia, assistant1@anastasialaw.com
Anastasia M Garcia, mgarcia@anastasialaw.com
Andrew M Leinoff, Eservice@llpa.com
Andrew M Leinoff, valerie@llpa.com
Andrew M Leinoff, dina@llpa.com
Craig R. Dearr, service@dpmiamilaw.com
Craig R. Dearr, craig@dpmiamilaw.com
Craig R. Dearr, wendy@dpmiamilaw.com
Dori Foster-Morales, dori@fostermorales.com
Dori Foster-Morales, legalassistant@fostermorales.com
Dori Foster-Morales, service@fostermorales.com
Gabriel Carl Shapiro, gabeshapiro@yahoo.com
Gabriel Shapiro, gabeshapiro@yahoo.com
Jacqueline M Valdespino Esq, legalservice@valdespinopa.com
Jacqueline M Valdespino Esq, jacquie@valdespinopa.com
Jacqueline M Valdespino Esq, larry@valdespinopa.com
Jordan B Abramowitz, eserviceabramowitz@gmail.com
Judicial Assistant, 11thFC01@jud11.flcourts.org
Leslie Ann Ferderigos, leslie@leslieannlaw.com
Leslie Ann Ferderigos, michael@leslieannlaw.com
Nicole Alvarez, service@fostermorales.com
Nicole Alvarez, legalassistant@fostermorales.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2019-009867-FC-04 Page 12 of 12