Parents take 30 year old son to court to evict him from their house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

This was my take on it as well. Therapeutic supervised visitation is a different animal from regular supervised visitation, they are done in a controlled setting under the supervision of a mental health professional who typically take an active role in guiding and correcting the parent in their interactions with their child. It's typically are reserved for cases where there the parent has a severe mental illness, or has prior incidents of domestic violence or alleged sexual abuse. His parents were probably denied visitation with their grandchild as long as he was living under their roof because of the risk that visitation would result in him having access to his child outside of the therapeutic context that might endanger his child.

I hope everyone here stays safe.

As a further clue on the underlying issues, did anyone else notice that one of the photos he gave to the Daily Mail of his son shows the young kid holding an assault rifle at a gun show?

[Anonymous]

Wow, they failed at parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

This was my take on it as well. Therapeutic supervised visitation is a different animal from regular supervised visitation, they are done in a controlled setting under the supervision of a mental health professional who typically take an active role in guiding and correcting the parent in their interactions with their child. It's typically are reserved for cases where there the parent has a severe mental illness, or has prior incidents of domestic violence or alleged sexual abuse. His parents were probably denied visitation with their grandchild as long as he was living under their roof because of the risk that visitation would result in him having access to his child outside of the therapeutic context that might endanger his child.

I hope everyone here stays safe.

As a further clue on the underlying issues, did anyone else notice that one of the photos he gave to the Daily Mail of his son shows the young kid holding an assault rifle at a gun show?

Yes, very disturbing. If I was the mother, I'd be HELLA P*SSED that he gave photos of my son to the press at all, let alone holding a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, they failed at parenting.

You don't know that. For some types of mental illness, there is very little you can do as a parent to change a child's course.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if this is the same Michael J. Rotundo. This incident happened in 2009 when he was 22 - around the same time he had a child. That put him at the correct age, and if it is the same guy, the girl he was stalking and threatening is likely the mother of his child:

http://romesentinel.com/news?newsid=20091212-141155

NEW HARTFORD — A Syracuse man accused of stalking a woman at her home over the past week was arrested outside her window Thursday night.

Police said Michael J. Rotondo, 22, of 641 Park Ave., sent the woman several threatening text messages earlier this week, before finally showing up outside her home on Wednesday. The victim called 9-1-1, but Rotondo fled before police arrived. He returned Thursday night, however, and police caught him walking around the woman’s residence at about 7:15 p.m. Charged with two counts each of third-degree stalking, trespassing, and one count of second-degree menacing, police said Rotondo was arraigned and sent to county jail on $4,500 cash bail or bond.

An order of protection was filed on behalf of the victim, and police said Rotondo was ordered to surrender his firearms. He is scheduled to reappear in Town Court on Dec. 17.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is the same Michael J. Rotundo. This incident happened in 2009 when he was 22 - around the same time he had a child. That put him at the correct age, and if it is the same guy, the girl he was stalking and threatening is likely the mother of his child:

http://romesentinel.com/news?newsid=20091212-141155

NEW HARTFORD — A Syracuse man accused of stalking a woman at her home over the past week was arrested outside her window Thursday night.

Police said Michael J. Rotondo, 22, of 641 Park Ave., sent the woman several threatening text messages earlier this week, before finally showing up outside her home on Wednesday. The victim called 9-1-1, but Rotondo fled before police arrived. He returned Thursday night, however, and police caught him walking around the woman’s residence at about 7:15 p.m. Charged with two counts each of third-degree stalking, trespassing, and one count of second-degree menacing, police said Rotondo was arraigned and sent to county jail on $4,500 cash bail or bond.

An order of protection was filed on behalf of the victim, and police said Rotondo was ordered to surrender his firearms. He is scheduled to reappear in Town Court on Dec. 17.

That mug shot sure looks like him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is the same Michael J. Rotundo. This incident happened in 2009 when he was 22 - around the same time he had a child. That put him at the correct age, and if it is the same guy, the girl he was stalking and threatening is likely the mother of his child:

http://romesentinel.com/news?newsid=20091212-141155

NEW HARTFORD — A Syracuse man accused of stalking a woman at her home over the past week was arrested outside her window Thursday night.

Police said Michael J. Rotondo, 22, of 641 Park Ave., sent the woman several threatening text messages earlier this week, before finally showing up outside her home on Wednesday. The victim called 9-1-1, but Rotondo fled before police arrived. He returned Thursday night, however, and police caught him walking around the woman’s residence at about 7:15 p.m. Charged with two counts each of third-degree stalking, trespassing, and one count of second-degree menacing, police said Rotondo was arraigned and sent to county jail on $4,500 cash bail or bond.

An order of protection was filed on behalf of the victim, and police said Rotondo was ordered to surrender his firearms. He is scheduled to reappear in Town Court on Dec. 17.

That mug shot sure looks like him.

This would also be right around the time he lost his job and moved back with his parents. Could be a total coincidence though, and not him. It's hard to tell with all that hair he has on his face now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dude is seriously delusional. His lawsuit against Best Buy is comical.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/05/michael-rotondo/

He also filed a lawsuit against the state of New York for breaching his civil rights. It was dismissed.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to guess he's some kind of libertarian incel manchild. Although I realize that's kind of redundant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, they failed at parenting.

You don't know that. For some types of mental illness, there is very little you can do as a parent to change a child's course.

He’s not mentally ill, he’s just a special snowflake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

This was my take on it as well. Therapeutic supervised visitation is a different animal from regular supervised visitation, they are done in a controlled setting under the supervision of a mental health professional who typically take an active role in guiding and correcting the parent in their interactions with their child. It's typically are reserved for cases where there the parent has a severe mental illness, or has prior incidents of domestic violence or alleged sexual abuse. His parents were probably denied visitation with their grandchild as long as he was living under their roof because of the risk that visitation would result in him having access to his child outside of the therapeutic context that might endanger his child.

I hope everyone here stays safe.

As a further clue on the underlying issues, did anyone else notice that one of the photos he gave to the Daily Mail of his son shows the young kid holding an assault rifle at a gun show?

Yes, very disturbing. If I was the mother, I'd be HELLA P*SSED that he gave photos of my son to the press at all, let alone holding a gun.

+1

Double this. Imagine that is part of why he lost custody. Can you imagine someone so out of touch, entitled, delusional, with guns?

[Anonymous]

He will eventually snap and authorities will shrug and scratch their heads. “What could we have done?”

[Anonymous]

I wonder if this guy has any friends to speak of

[Anonymous]

I think the poor parents were finally forced to make a decision:

1. keep putting up with their loser son, who realistically will never be a good person, and give up on having a relationship with their grandson, or

2. give up on loser son in order to have a relationship with their grandson, who has the potential to be a decent human being

I feel so sorry for everyone involved, except the loser son.

[Anonymous]

Rotondo has never lived with his child but said he saw his child regularly.

He told Business Insider he was pursuing a career only passively because "I saw my child frequently enough where I became a significant component of my child's life."

Rotondo said, however, that he recently lost his visitation rights and that as a result, his parents "have been trying to coerce me away" and had stopped feeding him. He said a notice to vacate was "a retaliatory action" for losing his visitation rights.

"I was an excellent father," Rotondo told Business Insider, adding that he would take his child fishing and had foregone buying clothes for himself so he could take his child skiing. "I was a great father, and [the child] needed me in their life.

"That's why I'm not the CEO of a big company," Rotondo said about his responsibility as a parent. "That's why I'm living with my parents still."

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-30-year-old-millennial-ordered-to-vacate-parents-house-has-no-career-2018-5