[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.
The following letter is from Karen Hanlon Shimkus.
I’m including a disclaimer up front to clarify what I see as a factually incorrect assertion in the letter below.1]
To the Editor:
Pay close attention to the Kutzko – Algonquin High School case (Northborough – Southborough) and the well–oiled machine seeking a takeover of parental rights over minor children, 14th amendment protected rights.
Is this crazy government overreach to actively plan to administer potent drugs to a minor, acting as the parent and in lieu of a parent, without the legal guardian / parent’s knowledge or consent? What government thinks it has the right to do that and act in secret?
Under Healey’s watch, the state via the Department of Children & Family Services (DCF) argues to the judicial branch to effectively lower the age of consent of your child in order to administer powerful drugs. However, that push in the matter of the Kutzko case has failed in court, so far, after DCF failed in its argument that administering the drugs is “essential” care.
DCF removed a minor child (age 15) from the family’s home and did not return the child (now 17) to this day, even after claims of abuse did not stand in court. The child managed with “anonymous” help to get a permanent restraining order against the parents. (See notes below.)
Incredibly, there is NO MASSACHUSETTS LAW, only state policy, that states that parents can be kept in the dark and kept from school records on their child.
Everyone should be aware of Healey’s DCF’s weaponization of the judiciary and the real child abuse. Minor children can and do change their minds.
Thank you
NOTES / UPDATES:
A “lifetime” (permanent) restraining order issued in MA can be legally changed or dismissed by a court. However, the difficulty and the legal standard required to do so depend entirely on whether the request is made by the protected child or by the parents.
Current Status of the Kutzko Case
While the Marlborough District Court granted the active restraining order on behalf of the child, the parents (Joseph and Arlene Kutzko) are actively involved in ongoing, multi-layered litigation. The alleged criminal charges (assault and witness intimidation) were placed on a one-year pre-trial probation in December 2025, which runs through December 2026, with a judge’s commitment for dismissal if conditions are met. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Pre-Trial Probation Conditions for the Parents
In December 2025, the misdemeanor criminal charges against the parents—an accusation of assault and battery against Joseph Kutzko for allegedly striking the teen, and witness intimidation against Arlene Kutzko for text messages sent to the child — were resolved through a one-year pre-trial probation agreement. This agreement allows for the complete dismissal of charges without an admission of guilt if they comply with all conditions through December 2026. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Karen Hanlon Shimkus
8 Lynbrook Road
- Editor’s Note: As I previously reported, an article by WBUR disputes that “claims of abuse did not stand in court”. WBUR reports, “a judge committed to dismissing the charges against Joseph Kutzko if he met certain conditions, including taking an anger management class, staying away from his child and abiding by a restraining order. Arlene Kutzko also agreed to stay away from the victim and abide by a restraining order. The conditions for both parents remain in place until this December.” I gave Ms. Shimkus a chance to retract or revise her letter. She responded by adding her notes on the case that she believes better clarify the facts.
Beth, Please note that WBUR has its own biased leanings. They are the “go to” mouthpiece for agenda pushing bias.
To clarify key points regarding the context:
1. Allegations and accusations are not established facts; the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies.
2. There does not appear to be any factual evidence or record of a court conviction on abuse in this case. The judge committed to an agreement whereby all charges are completely dismissed WITHOUT an admission of guilt.
3. The judge’s commitment to dismiss the charges is being overlooked.
4. I do not agree with the validity of a lifetime restraining order obtained under these circumstances.
Regarding the WBUR reporting, I believe it omits important explanatory context.
IMPORTANTLY, you might research the following:
The charges apparently are that the Kutzkos are accused of being abusive to NOT TRANSITION the gender of their child. That is the alleged abuse. Unbelievable.
Does WBUR know this? It is AGAINST Massachusetts law to attack the parents for not agreeing to transition their minor child. That’s the real substantive legal takeaway. The state is going full throttle with every contorted, conflated, biased nasty legal attack at its disposal. But it’s all wrong and backwards, hitting unsuspecting parents over the head with the DCF shovel and taking over their role, destroying the family unit, running out the legal clock, and administering life altering powerful drugs to a minor.
Simply put: It could be any parent dealing with this backwards, upside down, craziness. These are egregious violations of the Kutzko’s first and fourteenth amendment rights under the law.
Thank you.