In a deeply emotional Rhode Island family court case, Scott Naso is making the case for keeping his late wife’s parents, Siavash Ghoreishi and Jila Khorsand, away from their four-year-old daughter, Laila. The ongoing court proceedings have revealed a bitter family dispute centred around allegations of medical negligence and emotional turmoil.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/Scott-Naso-visitation-trial-030526-7d11a22bfc2a453289b01108c7501205.jpg)
On Wednesday, during a lengthy session, Scott Naso, a 40-year-old narcotics detective, struggled to maintain his composure as he recounted the circumstances around his wife, Shahrzad “Sherry” Naso’s, tragic death in April 2024. Sherry passed away after suffering a second diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer at the age of 37. Tearfully, Scott blames his in-laws for her passing, claiming they prescribed medication that obscured critical symptoms of her illness without consulting her oncology team.
Throughout the court proceedings, Sherry’s parents, both retired medical doctors, displayed their own emotional distress, often seen wiping away tears while their lawyer questioned Scott. The couple has firmly denied any wrongdoing, asserting their daughter should be allowed to maintain a relationship with her maternal grandparents. They argue that the couple’s desire to see their granddaughter should be respected.
Scott contends that the medications prescribed by Ghoreishi and Khorsand not only contributed to a deterioration in Sherry’s health but that they also unnecessarily medicated Laila when she was just a toddler. In a particularly troubling testimony, Scott described an incident on the day of Sherry’s death, where he alleged that his in-laws administered prednisone, a steroid used for inflammation, to Laila without his consent, believing she was suffering from croup.
As discussions of negligence and parental rights unfolded, Scott declared in court that his in-laws were responsible for taking away Laila’s mother. He has accused them of exerting control over Sherry, limiting her independence. During his testimony, he recalled discovering a list of resolutions on Sherry’s phone, which highlighted her desire to learn basic life skills she had never mastered, suggesting a lack of autonomy in her life.
Defending against Scott’s accusations, Ghoreishi and Khorsand have described their son-in-law as emotionally volatile, asserting that he exhibited erratic behaviour stemming from a dysfunctional family dynamic. Their legal representative has challenged Scott’s version of events, questioning his claims of emotional distress towards Laila and presenting video evidence intended to contradict his assertions regarding the administered medication incident.
The courtroom drama has drawn public interest as it navigates sensitive issues of grief, family dynamics, and child welfare. In January 2025, Scott filed a complaint regarding his in-laws with the Rhode Island Department of Health, alleging that their actions could be classified under Munchausen syndrome by proxy, a psychological disorder involving the fabrication or induction of illness in another person.
In the immediate aftermath of Sherry’s death, Scott severed ties with his in-laws, citing concerns for Laila’s wellbeing. Ghoreishi and Khorsand later petitioned for visitation rights, which were granted under supervision in October 2024. However, this arrangement was terminated a few months later due to a temporary scheduling conflict with the court-appointed supervisor, leading Scott to cease visits altogether, believing they were detrimental to Laila.
The judge presiding over the case, Judge Felix Gill, has the challenging task of weighing both sides as he considers the best interests of the child amidst a backdrop of grief and conflict. Following Scott’s recent statements in court, he has asserted that Laila experienced a notable improvement in behaviour after visitors were stopped, a claim that could significantly influence case outcomes.
As the trial approached its conclusion, both parties remained steadfast in their respective positions. Rhode Island law permits grandparents to seek visitation rights even against a parent’s wishes, provided the court deems it to be in the child’s best interests. Observers believe that no matter the outcome of the family court’s decision, the contentious nature of this case may end up in appeals that could reach higher courts, including the United States Supreme Court.
While the future of Laila’s relationship with her maternal grandparents remains uncertain, the ongoing case starkly illustrates the often painful intersections of familial duty, parental protection, and emotional trauma. As the trial wraps up, a clear resolution may remain elusive in a matter that has profoundly affected all involved.