PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Friday, June 29, 2018



"ANNAPOLIS, Md.  — Robert Hiaasen walked into the newsroom of the Capital Gazette newspaper convinced that his community had the right to know the news. He had a unique way of telling stories and enjoyed mentoring young reporters.
“He was a coach, and he was a mentor. He wanted to teach young journalists to be better,” Tina Reed, a former Capital reporter, told The Baltimore Sun.
His brother, best-selling author and Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen, confirmed Robert’s death in a Facebook post and later told CNN that his sibling was a generous, gentle man and “such a gifted writer and editor” who believed deeply in keeping the public informed.
The longtime editor and columnist was among five people killed Thursday when a gunman opened fire through the glass door of the newsroom at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland, said William Krampf, acting chief of the Anne Arundel County police. Together, the victims had more than 75 years of experience at the paper..."

Wednesday, June 27, 2018


Hundreds Of U.S. Children Taken From Home
Paul Chill
"It has been heartening to see such widespread revulsion and opposition, seemingly across the political spectrum, to the Trump administration’s policy of separating families at the border. But this is also a potential teaching moment, when it may be possible for people to see through some of the myths and false assumptions that still surround much child welfare practice in the United States.
Contrast the condemnation and outrage over the Trump administration’s policy of removing children from parents who enter the country illegally with the silence over the 700 to 800 forced child removals that occur daily in American cities and towns, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Government agencies take these children from their parents, often in sudden and chaotic circumstances, and the children suffer at least as much damage as those separated from their parents at the border..."

Sunday, May 13, 2018


To this day, I still remember the struggles I endured surrounding the first Mother's Day after I filed for divorce.  It is striking that I filed in July, and as we approached Mother's Day the following year, we had no Parental Responsibility Plan in place and so it was unclear how that holiday was going to be handled.  You might think that it would be automatic that the kids would spend Mother's Day with me, but not so.  

From the moment I filed for divorce the previous July, pretty much the attorneys in my case, including my own attorney, and the GAL and custody evaluator had made sure that I didn't get any of the holidays--not Thanksgiving, not Christmas, not Martin Luther King's day--if it was a holiday, I didn't get it.  I suppose the purpose was to crush my spirit, and they had been doing a pretty good job of that so far.  FYI, since this time, I've learned this is a common tactic used against mothers.

Another issue that I wrote about really early when I established this blog is that I was not given exclusive use of the house even though my ex lived out of State.  This meant that my ex would drop by the house any time he pleased, follow me around, scream and yell at me, and pretty much cause all sorts of problems. On the more weird side, at every visit my ex would remove property from our home and then haul it off to his property out of State. This meant furniture, mattresses, computers, bicycles (including mine), and the children's sports equipment.  By the time he was done, our house was pretty much empty of everything except the items I put away in storage or placed under lock and key.  

On the even weirder side, my ex would remove screws from the doors of the house so they hung at odd angles, he disabled our furnace by pulling out the wires, put nails in the tires of my car, and pretty much caused as much harm and mischief as he could. He had the freedom to do whatever he wanted and the attorneys in the case, plus the GAL, and the custody evaluator, pretty much allowed him to do whatever he wanted unchecked. When I explained what was happenening they acted like I was nuts. Thus, I was presented with an extraordinary example of male privilege; as a man, my ex could do no wrong.  It was an incredibly frustrating situation, but there was nothing I could do about it.  

This meant that as Mother's Day approached, I was particularly anxious that I might not be able to spend Mother's Day with my kids, and even if I did, I could imagine my ex barging into the house on the day and wrecking the whole occasion. He had shown himself quite capable of doing something like that numerous other times. My life since filing for divorce had been one incident of harassment after the other to the point where my head was spinning, the police had been called on several occasions. I was constantly filled with dread regarding what would happen next.  

It was in this spirit that on the Monday of the week that would end in Mother's Day, I initiated a discussion with my attorney asking him to make sure that I was able to spend Mother's Day with my kids without harassment.  Now, I can't remember the exact series of events, but I do recall that by Wednesday my attorney and the opposing attorney agreed that I should have Mother's Day without interference from my ex.  This made me happy, but what I asked my attorney to do via email was to get a written agreement that I would have Mother's Day signed by my attorney and my ex's attorney. With fax machines readily available, this should not have been hard.  

Just in case, should anything happen, I wanted to have a signed agreement on hand should my ex show up and create a problem.  That way, if the police were called or I had to negotiate with my ex to have him leave, I'd have some paperwork on hand to protect my position.  

Thursday rolled around and I didn't hear anything. Then on Friday, I finally picked up the phone and tried to reach my attorney.  He wasn't available. I tried again a few hours later, and still the receptionist said he wasn't available. I expressed my concern to the receptionist and explained my problem, and she said she would be on the alert for my attorney and be sure to give him the message. Time continued to tick by and I still hadn't heard from him, and it was approaching 4:00pm.  I called the attorney's office, and the receptionist told me he again was not available.  I said, is anyone available who can address my concerns. After a bit of back and forth, the receptionist connected me with one of my attorney's associates.  

She did not know where my attorney was, but she gave me some advice as to how to handle my ex should he show up unwanted on Mother's Day and create a ruckus.  I thanked her. Then I hung up, called the receptionist again and asked her to be sure to have my attorney call me if he came in during the next few hours.  He never did.  From the billing statement I received later on, no effort was made during the week, not even on Friday, to obtain a signed agreement as I had asked.  

They simply blew me off.  

This is the thing--if you are the victim of Domestic Violence, or being subjected to Coercive Control either by your ex and/or your attorney, if you have no Parental Responsibility Plan designating how holidays are handled, how decisions are made, and granting some protections from your ex random drop ins--you are totally screwed.  Individuals with marginal difficulties knowing the difference between right and wrong, folks who think going off the ethical chart is acceptable, people who are unable to recognize when their behavior goes across the line into criminal conduct must have strict guidelines to their conduct, along with guaranteed consequences. Otherwise, they will be completely out of control and potentially put other people, particularly their own children, at risk. When the Family Court system doesn't make sure these Parental Responsibility Plans are in place up front, essentially the entire legal proceedings in a divorce case is at risk of a damaging outcome for the victims.  

As it turned out, my ex had apparently run out of fun trouble making things to do for that weekend, so I ended up having a reasonably nice Mother's Day, despite being extremely anxious.  I actually saw my kids, which is far more than many family court victims are able to do on this day devoted to mothers. I know of many mothers who today, on Mother's Day, will not have the opportunity to see their kids for dumb and trumped up, stupid, clearly flimsy reasons.  It is incredibly sad.

Be that as it may, the repercussions of that Mother's Day were not over for me. Later that year, my attorney decided to withdraw from my case, essentially because I refused to act like a doormat.  For those who are unaware, the majority of women in the CT Family Court system are expected to act like doormats and are treated like doormats.  So if you do not shut up and agree to be a doormat, and if you ask for basic legal services to defend your parental rights like any average citizen would anticipate as their right, you will end up being clobbered. 

I had that experience when my attorney got on the stand during the hearing on his motion to withdraw and claimed that I had harassed, bullied and intimidated his staff prior to Mother's Day foolishly demanding an entirely unnecessary signed agreement.  Of course, this was a complete lie--I hadn't bullied anyone. His testimony was hearsay and inadmissible, since he was not in the office that day and not on the phone, so he had no direct knowledge of my conversation with the staff. Yet the judge acted appalled as if it was God's Truth simply because the false accusations emerged from the mouth of an attorney.  

No matter if there is absolutely zero evidence or probability that what an attorney has said could be true, Judges will act as if they believe every precious golden word.  So this ridiculous attorney was allowed to withdraw from my case just before trial simply by virtue of being a practiced liar.  It was a harsh lesson in the reality of what goes on in Family Court to mothers who are unable to defend themselves.  

My purpose here is not to rehash old wounds.  My purpose here today in retelling this story is to inform citizens about the harm and damage Family Court does to mothers, particularly around Mother's Day. This is the day when attorneys, GALs, custody evaluators and judges go out of their way to tell good, loving, fit mothers--you are not good enough to see your kids today.  They do it because they delight in harming and humiliating these good, loving, fit mothers and they want to take the opportunity provided by the celebration of mothers on Mother's Day to tell victims, "You are no good, so you can't see your kids, and if we have it our way, you'll never see them again."  

The sadistic behavior of these family court professionals on this day of all days towards mothers is horrific and appalling.  What I am doing in telling this story is informing members of the community so they can look around. Is there a mother you know walking around with a broken heart today, struggling to control her tears and hold in the sobs?  Give her a hug today. For those mothers in this situation, my heart goes out to you, and let me say again as I have said since I started writing this blog, "You are a great Mom!  You are worthwhile!  You do not deserve what Family Court has done to you--a loving mother--and your innocent kids.  God bless you on this day, and one day you will get your kids back one way or another!"

Friday, May 11, 2018


In May 9, 2018's Op-Ed "Legislature Fails Judge Subjected To Abuse" by Kevin Rennie, a long time "Hartford Courant" opinion leader, we could get the idea that the Family Court Reform movement here in CT is full of anti-semites and wackos. However, this simply makes no sense considering that a good many of the victims of Family Court injustice are either Jewish themselves or of Jewish origin. My own grandfather was incarcerated in the Marienkirche  Concentration Camp in Berlin, Germany. Further, Judge Jane B. Emons was not subjected to abuse. Judge Emons competence was called into question when numerous litigants reported that she had violated the judicial code of ethics.

The reality is that the Family Court Reform movement is made up of considerable numbers of parents who have been harmed and damaged from the misdeeds of Family Court.  They are not anti-semitic.  However, what Mr. Kevin Rennie did was single out one individual--a father who experienced an horrific Family Court case who admittedly has spouted a lot of anti-semitic garbage--and then painted the entire movement with this single individual.  That would be like characterizing the entire Civil Rights Movement by Patricia Hearst!

Likewise, there are many Family Court litigants who believe that if their case is not going well, they should write to their judge, or give him or her a phone call.  What they do not realize is that to do so would be a violation of Court Rules. The majority of individuals have attorneys who quickly caution them not to and the majority listen.  However, apparently, in one situation, one Family Court reform person, who is late to the movement, didn't get the newsflash and called her judge late at night.  Based upon that single individual, Mr. Kevin Rennie of "The Hartford Courant" paints the entire loosely affiliated groups of people fighting Family Court corruption as a bunch of wackos!

Why is there such completely unfair coverage?  Why is it that during the spectacular rise of the Family Court reform movement, "The Hartford Courant" has maintained a media blackout and/or failed to treat the members of this movement in a fair and equitable manner and present their side of the story?  

I took the time to review recently, and I am beginning to think that the answer is that "The Hartford Courant", let alone other Media Outlets in the State of Connecticut, receive lucrative media contracts or contributions from state government agencies and can't afford to go against them!  

Take a look below at the tens of thousands of dollars which "The Hartford Courant" itself has received from State Agencies from 2010 - 2017.  You will note that the newspaper tends to get a bump up of cash during election years.  In 2016 and 2017 much of the money "The Hartford Courant" received was through its charitable organization "Camp Courant".  Is funneling money through "Camp Courant" an attempt to hide how much they are receiving?  It certainly makes us ask.  The bottom line is that, given the massive sums of money here, given these intimate and cozy financial ties with State government, it is not surprising that "The Hartford Courant" tries to silence and sideline CT Family Court Reformers with labels such as "disgruntled" and "anti-semitic" and "stalkerish", etc. etc.

2017     $386,147
2016     $586,800
2015     $333,798
2014     $411,892
2013     $433,746
2012     $903,526
2011     $362,178
2010     $700,375

2017     $323,643
2016     $526,355
2015       $99,440 

The "CT Law Tribune" is interesting because it is generally considered the mouthpiece of the Judicial Department, but it also receives money from the University of Connecticut--I would presume the Law School--and also the State Department of Education.  But it has also received money from other unlikely sources such as the State Department of Environmental Protection, Legislative Management, and the State Office of Governmental Accountability.  Note how in 2014, the year that the Family Court Reform Movement really kicked into gear, the money the "CT Law Tribune" received from State government shifted from $66,217 to $245,060.  I guess the "Tribune" receives whatever money is necessary to articulate a Pro-Judicial Branch editorial slant to the public.

2017     $256,271
2016     $256,271
2015     $355,858
2014     $245,060
2013       $66,217
2012       $66,217
2011       $66,217
2010       $66,217

Clearly, "The Hartford Courant" and "The CT Law Tribune" are not the only media well paid by our State Government.  If you will look below, you will see over $10 million State Government spends each year to a network of newspapers and print magazines which cover the distribution of information all over the State of CT, and which, for the better part, have not covered the pressing issue of the corruption of our Family Court System.  Payments to 21st Century Media come substantially from the Judicial Department, the Probate Court, the Division of Criminal Justice, among others. Millions of dollars in State Government contracts, a considerable number coming from the segments of the Legal System, make the Legal System in the State of Connecticut too financially rewarding to offend.  Take a look below at the numbers:

2017     $10,435,097
2016       $8,170,236
2015     $10,435,097
2014     $10,435,097
2013     $10,435,097
2012     $10,435,097
2011     $10,435,097
2010     $10,435,097

21st Century News includes the following news outlets:

The Middletown Press
New Haven Register
The Register Citizen
The Housatonic Times
Litchfield County times
Fairfield Minuteman
The Westport Minuteman
The Dolphin
Shoreline Times
Thomaston Express
Good News About Torrington
Granby News
Canton News
Avon News
Simsbury News
Litchfield News
Foothills Trader
The Milford-Orange bulletin of Orange
The Post-Chronicle of North Haven
West Hartford News of West Hartford
The Connecticut Bride
Connecticut Magazine
Passport Magazine  

Newspapers such as "The Hartford Courant" are making fun of Trump and his charges that they are coming up with fake news.  Yet the reality is that when they exclude information from important social movements such as the CT Coalition for Family Court Reform, and when they misreport on such movements and marginalize them with slurs and misrepresentations, that is what everyone means by "fake news".  

I must say that since President Donald Trump was elected, I have woken up full of fear and anxiety regarding what he is up to now.  Yet nothing he has done is quite as frightening as what I am reporting here, i.e. news reported according to the specifications of State Government.  The actions of "The Hartford Courant", "The Connecticut Law Tribune" and 21st Century News strike at the very heart of Democracy by making it clear to citizens that the news is for sale to the highest bidder.  

This should concern everyone, not just members of the CT Family Court Reform movement.  

Ok, so at this point some of you think what I'm saying is one big ridiculous "conspiracy theory." Maybe so--perhaps as ridiculous as thinking that since one member of the CT Family Court Reform movement is anti-semitic, they all have to be.

For the rest of you who find my numbers persuasive, I urge  you all to question these State Goverment financial ties with our local CT Media, and to demand accountability, not only within our corrupt legal system but in other areas as well.  I'm thinking of the Mathew Tirado case in relation to DCF and in regard to The Whiting Patient in connection to DHMAS.

My father used to tell me the story of how he went to Church and from a balcony he would look down and see S.S. officers taking notes on the Anti-Nazi Pastor Martin Niemuller's sermons.  It seems appropriate to end with his words:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. 

Tuesday, May 8, 2018


As Michael Skakel exits the CT Judicial System after years of persecution, it is interesting to see family court victims succeed in their efforts after similarly fighting years of persecution.  When it comes to Michael Skakel, the press is beginning to understand that there might have been a miscarriage of justice.  Unfortunately, when it comes to family court victims the media still lacks any insight.  

Saturday, May 5, 2018


by Mark Pazniokas
The House of Representatives stripped Superior Court Judge Jane B. Emons of her job Friday. There was no debate, no vote, no fingerprints. Her eight-year term expired at midnight, when Emons became the first judge in recent history — perhaps ever — forced from the bench in Connecticut by legislative inaction.
Emons lost her job without the legislature’s reaching a formal conclusion about her fitness. Critics who testified against Emons, whose judicial career was spent presiding over divorces and child custody cases in family courts, initially were unpersuasive: The legislature’s Judiciary Committee endorsed her confirmation in February on a vote of 30 to 3."

Ms. Mary Puzone speaks out agains Judge Jane B. Emons!

Thursday, May 3, 2018


A Concerned Citizen speaks up against Judge Jane B. Emons 
Dear Legislators, 
In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the following summaries and attached cases.
Friends and families are concerned about Judge Emons who has displayed unprofessional conduct, especially to minorities who represent themselves in front of her. We are hopeful that you will protect the public interest and VOTE NO on Judge Emons.
In an effort to assist you in making an informed decision, I have summarized 3 of the cases for your convenience and also attached the cases themselves. Even the appellate court has hinted at some underlying problems that exist with Judge Emons, including comments from the appellate court in the Jordan M. v Darric M (2016) case  attached:

-“The record in this case is confusing at best and certain portions of the file appear to have been entered under incorrect docket numbers. “[Appellate Court] -   [Appellate Court] -  Jordan M. v Darric M case

- “The court's reasoning for granting the application for the restraining order is not clear, . . . There was no evidence that there was violent or physically threatening conduct on the night of August 21, 2015, and there was no evidence that the defendant presented a threat of physical pain or injury to Jordan. “The plain language of § 46b–15 clearly requires a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury before a court can grant a domestic violence restraining order.” [Appellate Court]  -  Jordan M. v Darric M case

- The Appellate Court noted they were unable to review a claim due to Emons’ failure to provide adequate “findings of facts.”  This seems to be a recurrent theme with other cases in which Emons was overturned where she fails to make adequate findings of facts as she is required to do -  perhaps to further insulate her decisions from being overturned on appeal.  The Appellate Court stated:

“Due to a lack of an adequate record, we are unable to review this claim.” [Appellate Court]

In another  line of appellate cases, there is a disturbing trend by Judge Emons to violate the well known "American Rule" where all litigants pay for their own representation. However, Judge Emons has decided to make it onerous for litigants to bring their cases up for appeal by ordering them to pay the opposing side's attorney fees as was done in the Rinfret (appellate court reversing Emons' order to pay $90,000 in attorney fees) and the Lederle case (reversing  Emons' order to pay $30,000 in attorney fees) which are attached.  By doing so, Judge Emons is less likely to see these cases go to appeal and have her decisions overturned.  

In Clark v. Clark, Judge Emons ordered - without motion of either parent - that the parents have their children evaluated at their expense and then, after she reviewed the resulting report, ordered that the report NOT be released to the parents and then made further orders in connection with the children based on the report which she had ordered not be provided to the parents. She did this when in a post-judgment proceeding when one parent had already been awarded custody of the children. How can Emons's acts be constitutional?
In another matter (Sargent v Sargent), when a parent sought to remove the GAL, Judge Emons appointed a lawyer, AT THE PARENT'S EXPENSE and with no legal precedent or authority to do so, to defend the GAL (who has complete immunity) against the allegations of misconduct. This attorney for the GAL then charged $850/hr to defend the GAL. Judge Emons has threatened to remove legal custody of children from a parent as a "judicial sanction" when the parent challenged the conduct of the GAL .

I have also included transcript excerpts that demonstrate the following:
-          Judge Emons' disregard for Rules of Evidence
-          Judge Emons' disrespect for how hearsay evidence is to be considered
-          Judge Emons' steering testimony – perhaps wrongly to achieve the outcome she desires
-          Judge Emons' disrespect for other lawyers and litigants

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this very important matter whereas she impacts the lives of  many families and friends and her reappointment should not be taken lightly.  Another 8 years of Judge Emons is almost another decade of her continued abuse. The public is owed a duty of respect and well considered decisions in accord with the rule of law.


 Written by a Concerned Citizen
Dear Legislators, 

In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the attached case, Jeffrey Emons, Jane Emons, and Lesley Emons v. RBS Citizens Bank (NNH-12-6030462-S). 

In that case, Judge Emons and her immediate family members brought a lawsuit in a Connecticut court against the bank, RBS, because RBS apparently required Judge Emons and her husband to pay an extra 1.75 points over what RBS initially offered in order for them to secure a mortgage for their daughter. In addition, in that lawsuit Judge Emons and her family also brought a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, because, apparently, Judge Emons and the other Plaintiffs had “to spend dozens of hours on the telephone.” 

In my opinion, the above case drives home many of the concerns already brought to the legislature by a growing number of litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, including the following: 

1. Judge Emons lacks the demeanor, temperament, and resiliency required of a family court judge. 

To prevail in a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, a Plaintiff must show that they suffered emotional distress severe enough that it might result in illness or bodily harm. See the case of Olson v. Bristol-Burlington Health Dist., 87 Conn. App. 1, 5, 863 A.2d 748, 752 (2005). 

Here, we must take Judge Emons at her own word, in that having to pay extra points at a real estate closing and spending hours on the phone caused her severe emotional distress, to the point that illness or bodily harm could result to her. If that is the case, Judge Emons cannot seriously contend to have the temperament or demeanor required of a family court judge, who must often make difficult decisions concerning the wellbeing and custody of minor children, all the while operating in the heated environment of divorce proceedings. 

Yet clearly, the many members of the public who have spoken at length reveal that Judge Emons regularly displays those same type of hypersensitive reactions in her own courtroom, whether it be by snapping at and demeaning litigants, issuing orders that are spiteful and/or vindictive, ignoring the law, or simply continuing matters perpetually so that families and children of this State are denied meaningful access to the courts. The claims Judge Emons makes in her lawsuit simply affirm what so many have also stated to this legislature in phone calls, in writing, and by personal testimony: she is not the right person for this job. 

2. Judge Emons lacks the empathy and understanding required of a family court judge. 

In conjunction with temperament issues, we must also consider what this lawsuit says about Judge Emon’s worldview, and her ability to understand or value the position of family court litigants. 

While Judge Emons lives in a world where it is acceptable to be outraged and aggrieved because you are required to pay an extra 1.75 points on a mortgage, family court litigants live in world where everything, from their homes, their financial security, to their very children, could be lost at the hands of an out of touch judge. Sadly, this again echoes what has already been stated by many citizens who have come forward to express their opinions against Judge Emon’s re-nomination. 

Ironically and tragically in this State, family court litigants are expected to tolerate gross procedural violations, abusive treatment, and complete disregard for families and children, all with little to no complaint, lest they be labeled as “disgruntled parents.” 

Yet, in her own (very) different world, Judge Emons expects white glove treatment for her and her children, and is willing to bring a lawsuit when those expectations are not met. That may certainly be her right, but it is also the right of litigants and children in this State to expect much more, and a family court judge who is this tone deaf is simply out of touch with the needs of those in her courtroom. 
At this point, the record is clear:

  •  multiple Federal lawsuits, all articulating egregious violations of constitutional rights, in particular due process, naming Judge Emons:

1:  2011 -3:11-cv-01841-SRU, Roque v. Iannotti et al.

2:  2013 - 3:13-cv-00016-JBA, Nowacki v. Emons et al.

3:  2013 - 3:13-cv-00863-JBA, Sargent v. Emons et al.

4: 2014 - 3:14-cv-01869-JAM,Hansen-Hodgkinson v. Emons et al.

5:  2015 - 3:15-cv-00959-SRU, Whitnum v. Emons et al.

6:  2017 - 3:17-cv-00127-VLB, Manchanda v. Emons et al.;
  • approximately 30 grievance complaints;  
  • a groundswell of Connecticut residents, litigants, non-litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, from all walks of life who have spoken out, sometimes at great personal risk, to prevent this re-nomination. 

Connecticut can, and must, do better. Please vote NO on the re-nomination of Judge Jane Emons.

Wednesday, April 25, 2018


OLR Bill Analysis
sSB 313 


By law, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) commissioner and any agent she appoints must exercise careful supervision of each child under her guardianship or care. This bill permits the DCF commissioner, on the advice of a physician, to authorize non-emergency medical, psychological, psychiatric, or surgical treatment, or a medical multidisciplinary evaluation, to ensure the health of a child in the department's guardianship or care. But if the child's permanency plan involves reunification with the child's parent or parents, the commissioner must provide written notice to the parent or parents at least five days before the treatment or evaluation. 

If the child or the parent or parents object, they may file a motion for emergency relief within five days after the notice is given. (It is unclear if this means within five days after the commissioner sends the notice or five days after the parents receive it.) The child generally may not have the treatment or evaluation within that five day period or while the motion is pending, unless there is an emergency necessitating it. 

Additionally, the bill permits individuals and agencies to whom DCF has granted care and custody of a child under a temporary custody order to authorize medical multidisciplinary evaluations for children in their care. The law already permits DCF and these individuals and agencies in such circumstances to make decisions regarding emergency medical, psychological, psychiatric, or surgical treatment. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2018
Committee on Children
Joint Favorable Substitute



Let us today remember the victims of the fake diagnosis PAS or PA or "alienation" or however father's rights people choose to designate it. 

This is often designated "the mental illness that HAS NO NAME" because judges who know that it is illegal to seize children from fit mothers based upon this quack diagnosis simply state on the record that the mother has a mental illness but they don't know what it is.  We know, however, exactly what they mean.  We know that such judges are committing fraud against mothers, many of whom are victims of abuse, or their children are victims of abuse. 

These mothers who were falsely accused have often lost all access to their children, were bankrupted, or had their reputations publically slandered and attacked.  In many cases the children were placed in the hands of their abusers.

See below for names of the CT victims of this travesty:

Susan Skipp, Falsely accused
Angela Hickman, Falsely accused
Kathi Sorrentino, Falsely accused
Maureen Strathearn, Falsely accused
Sandra MacVicar, Falsely accused
Sunny Kelley, Falsely accused
Mia Farrow, Falsely accused
Karyn Gil, Falsely accused
Leslie Cox, Falsely accused
Carol Krukiel, Falsely accused
Marlene Dybek, Falsely accused
Jane Doe 1, Falsely accused
Jane Doe 2, Falsely accused
Jane Doe 3, Falsely accused
and many more!