Sole parental responsibility
The father was awarded sole authority for major decisions because the court found shared parental responsibility detrimental.
Public court record • entered July 2023
Marina D'Aleo:
what the court found.
This page does not ask you to believe gossip, social-media posts, or one former spouse's version of events. It summarizes written judicial findings entered after testimony, evidence, psychological evaluations, and a two-day final hearing in Broward County, Florida.
The strongest warning is the record itself. The language below is deliberately restrained. Where the court made a finding, this page says so. Where the Final Judgment does not establish a specific incident, this page does not present it as a judicial fact.
The result
This was not a minor disagreement.
The Final Judgment states that shared parental responsibility was detrimental to the child, awards sole parental responsibility to the father, and limits the mother's contact to a supervised/safety-focused parenting plan.
100% overnight timesharing
The father was awarded all overnight timesharing. The mother's timesharing was ordered to be supervised.
Safety-focused contact
The parenting plan imposed supervision, time limits, location restrictions, and additional conditions on the mother's visits.
Written judicial findings
What the judge actually wrote.
These are concise summaries of findings in the July 2023 Final Judgment. Page references are included so the wording can be checked against the order rather than taken on faith.
01
The court found shared parental responsibility detrimental.
The order states that joint decision-making was detrimental to the child and awarded the father sole parental responsibility and 100% overnight timesharing.
Court finding: unsupervised contact between the mother and the child was found detrimental.
Final Judgment pp. 3–4
02
The judge expressly found the father's testimony credible.
The Final Judgment states that the father's testimony was credible. It also describes the court-appointed psychologist as extremely reliable, unbiased, very fair, and persuasive.
Final Judgment p. 4
03
The court found the mother's adult daughter credible and found the mother abusive.
The order describes the adult daughter as credible, unbiased, very persuasive, and very brave. It then states that the evidence overwhelmingly proved the mother was an abusive parent.
The court went further, describing the treatment of the daughter as extraordinarily severe and protective intervention as necessary.
Final Judgment pp. 4–5
04
The order records serious psychological-evaluation concerns.
The court states that psychological testing identified personality-disorder diagnoses and that the mother's serious mental-health issues were detrimental to the child and had impeded her parenting.
This site does not use those diagnoses as insults; it reports them only because the Final Judgment expressly relies on them.
Final Judgment pp. 6 & 8
05
The court found she could not facilitate the father-child relationship.
The order cites video evidence of the mother referring to the father as “Hitler,” hanging up FaceTime calls when the father tried to say goodnight, and behaving in a combative, aggressive, and abusive manner during exchanges.
Final Judgment pp. 5–6
06
The court found the mother's moral fitness weighed against her.
The Final Judgment says the credible evidence showed constant parties at the home, travel with new paramours instead of visiting the child, and conduct that placed her daughter in harm's way.
Final Judgment pp. 7–8
07
The court addressed a paramour's inappropriate sexual advances toward her daughter.
The order states that one of the mother's paramours made inappropriate sexual advances toward the daughter, that the daughter filed a police report, and that the mother later sent the daughter to a reform boarding school in an effort the court characterized as silencing and coercive.
Final Judgment pp. 7–8
08
The judge found instability and disregard for rules and court orders.
The order discusses instability, difficulties following procedures, and a lack of regard for orders, rules, or other people's needs. It also notes that the court did not believe the mother would follow a parenting plan without strict safeguards.
Final Judgment pp. 10 & 14
09
The court's domestic-violence finding favored the father.
Under the statutory domestic-violence factor, the judge wrote that the only credible evidence before the court of domestic violence was the mother being violent toward the father.
Final Judgment p. 11
10
The court found that the mother provided false information to the court.
After discussing the evidence, including conduct involving the adult daughter's testimony and recording restrictions, the judge concluded that the mother provided false information to the court.
Final Judgment p. 11
11
The court found repeated interference with the child and the litigation process.
The order says the mother involved the child in the litigation, disparaged the father in front of him, discussed the case with him, recorded supervised visits despite instructions not to do so, and manipulated the child by withholding gifts.
Final Judgment p. 13
12
The final parenting restrictions were substantial.
The mother was limited to supervised visits every other month, generally no longer than three hours, with the father choosing the day based on the child's schedule. The plan also imposed language, location, transportation, and contact restrictions, with missed-visit consequences.
Final Judgment pp. 15–16 & Parenting Plan
13
The judgment records that Marina's adult daughter chose to be adopted by the former husband.
The Final Judgment identifies Marina as the daughter's biological mother and states that, once an adult, the daughter chose to allow the former husband to adopt her as his legal daughter. The court notes that she is now the legal child of both parties.
This is a judicially documented fact; the order does not state that the adoption occurred on her 18th birthday, so this page does not add that detail as a court finding.
Final Judgment p. 4
After the 2023 judgment
What happened next.
This section is intentionally separated from the judicial findings above. These events occurred after the Final Judgment and, unless a later court record is added, are presented as Joseph D'Aleo's firsthand account rather than findings made by Judge Viamontes.
Accuracy matters here. The 2023 parenting plan expressly ended regular phone and FaceTime contact and allowed calls only if the child chose to call his mother. For that reason, this page does not criticize Marina for failing to place phone calls that the order itself did not authorize. It states only what can fairly be said from the order and the family's later experience.
Supervised visits
No supervised visits were arranged after the trial, according to Joseph.
The Final Judgment permitted supervised visits every other month and made Marina responsible for scheduling them with F.A.C.E.S. Joseph states that, after the trial, she did not arrange any of those supervised visits.
The court order establishes the visitation framework and Marina's scheduling responsibility. Whether visits were later requested or scheduled is a post-judgment fact and is labeled here as Joseph's account unless later records are added.
Phone contact
The child did not resume phone or FaceTime contact.
The parenting plan states that there would be no further phone or FaceTime contact unless the child wanted to call his mother. Joseph states that, after the judgment, the child did not choose to initiate those calls.
Nearly two years later
The family later explored termination of parental rights so Joseph's wife could pursue adoption.
Joseph states that there was no meaningful parent-child contact for nearly two years after the trial. During a later court proceeding concerning possible termination of Marina's parental rights and a step-parent adoption, the family learned that renewed visitation could again become an issue during the litigation.
Joseph states that he and his wife discussed that possibility with their son. The child was firm that he did not want visitation or communication with Marina to resume. The family ultimately chose not to continue pursuing the case rather than risk reopening contact the child did not want.
Recent letters
Letters began arriving by mail approximately eight months ago.
Joseph states that letters addressed to the child began arriving at the family home roughly eight months ago. He states that the letters have remained unopened because the child has chosen not to read them.
This page does not speculate about why the letters were sent or state that letter-writing has any automatic legal effect on parental rights. Any such legal conclusion would require the later case record and applicable Florida law.
Adult daughter
The adoption of Marina's adult daughter is not merely a personal claim.
The Final Judgment itself states that Marina's biological daughter, once an adult, chose to allow Joseph to adopt her as his legal daughter. That fact is therefore included above as a judicially documented part of the record.
Why this site exists
Read the findings, not the feud.
Family-court cases often generate competing stories. This site is intentionally built so readers can distinguish a judicial finding, a later firsthand account, and an unsupported accusation. Those categories are not interchangeable.
What belongs here
Judicial findings, court orders, properly sourced testimony, authenticated recordings, police or agency records, clearly labeled firsthand accounts, and concise explanations of what each source actually establishes.
What does not belong here
Name-calling, diagnoses used as insults, rumors about unrelated relationships, or specific accusations that cannot yet be tied to a primary source. Those weaken the page instead of strengthening it.
Case reference
Read the redacted order behind these findings.
The summaries above are based on the July 2023 Supplemental Final Judgment in Broward County case FMCE-14-013564. To protect private family information, the publicly linked version below has been redacted before publication.
- Judicial findings are identified as court findings.
- Post-judgment events are separately identified as firsthand accounts unless supported by a later court record.
- The public PDF has been redacted to remove street addresses, direct contact information, specific supervised-visit location details, and minor-identifying details.
This independently maintained website is not affiliated with the Broward County Clerk of Courts, the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, or any government agency. It summarizes selected portions of a judicial record for informational purposes. Page references identify the portions of the record summarized here. Nothing on this page should be read as a claim beyond the cited source.