A widower from Rhode Island is presently embroiled in a protracted legal dispute with his late wife’s parents over visitation rights regarding his four-year-old daughter, Laila. Scott Naso, who has been fighting the case for nearly two years, is contesting a judge’s recent decision which imposed a fine and held him in contempt of court. Naso has accrued legal expenses exceeding £500,000 since the trial commenced, and he has appealed the ruling by Judge Felix Gill that denied him reimbursement for attorney fees and mandated visitation between Laila and her grandparents, Siavash Ghoreishi and Jila Khorsand.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/Scott-Naso-022526-2-779704895c2540feb118b576a6d58f8d.jpg)
Naso is appealing the decision despite having won a previous trial on the grandparents’ request for visitation. His attorney, Veronica Assalone, argues that it is unreasonable for the court not to order the grandparents to cover Naso’s legal costs, asserting that he was acting in the best interests of his daughter. “He was protecting his daughter from them,” she stated in comments to PEOPLE.
In a recent court session, Judge Gill dismissed the grandparents’ petition for visitations, emphasising that a “fit and proper custodial parent” has the right to deny such requests. However, he also stated that he found parts of Naso’s testimony lacking credibility, suggesting that Naso had prioritised his own interests over those of his child. This finding led to Naso being held in contempt for denying his daughter contact with her grandparents, which had been permitted under a previous ruling for supervised visitation.
The rift between Naso and his in-laws emerged following the tragic death of his wife, Shahrzad “Sherry” Naso, from cancer in 2024. The complex case has involved accusations of reckless behaviour concerning Sherry’s medical treatment and has spotlighted the contentious issue of grandparents’ rights in Rhode Island. Under current law, the court can provide grandparents visitation rights even if the child’s parent objects, provided it is deemed to be in the child’s best interest.
Naso has raised serious concerns regarding the wellbeing of his daughter, claiming that visits with her grandparents put her at risk. His mother-in-law, Khorsand, has countered these allegations, describing her affectionate relationship with Laila and expressing bewilderment at Naso’s refusal to facilitate visits. During past court proceedings, she argued that Laila would enthusiastically greet her and refer to her as a best friend.
Subsequently, a complaint filed by Naso with the Rhode Island Department of Health accused Ghoreishi and Khorsand of engaging in behaviour consistent with Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Naso claims that excessive medical interventions—such as numerous prescriptions issued for Laila—raise red flags about their care for both his wife and daughter. Assalone, Naso’s legal representative, highlighted that Laila has remained healthy since moving away from her grandparents’ influence.
Naso holds a deep-seated resentment towards his late wife’s parents, attributing responsibility for her health decline to their influence over her medical decisions. Sherry was initially diagnosed with breast cancer in 2017. Despite her condition worsening, Naso claims that her parents discouraged her from seeking timely treatment.
As Naso continues his legal battle, he remains steadfast in his commitment to challenge what he perceives as injustices within the judicial system. He spoke to PEOPLE about the difficulties he has faced throughout the process, describing it as a journey fraught with intimidation and financial strain. “The system works on secrecy, seclusion and subversion and it beats people down,” he asserted.
Assalone plans to take further legal action challenging the constitutionality of Rhode Island’s grandparents’ rights law, dating back to 1980. She expressed optimism that the state Supreme Court may consider this petition and potentially influence future cases, enabling others to avoid the distress Naso has endured.
At this juncture, it remains uncertain whether the grandparents will appeal Judge Gill’s dismissal of their visitation request. Their attorney has not disclosed any intentions for future legal action, and communications with the media have been limited. Meanwhile, the legal wrangling continues, drawing attention to an increasingly complex issue concerning parental rights and the intricacies of family law.