ELIZABETH A. RICHTER'S LETTER TO LESLIE CARON OF THE ADACC: MS. CARON SIMPLY IGNORED IT AND DID NOT RESPOND!

May 21, 2012

Ms. Lisa Caron, Project Director

Americans With Disabilities

Act Coalition of Connecticut

60B Weston Street

Hartford, CT  06120

Dear Ms. Caron:

I participated in the recent training workshop held on May 8, 2012 regarding the Implementation of the ADA in Municipalities and State Government presented by Attorney Kathy Gibs, Director of Training at the New England ADA Center.

At the time, I had many questions about how the ADA is supposed to be implemented at the Family Court located at 90 Washington Street.  I noted that while the Judicial System has a poster on its website which speaks of its compliance with the ADA, it fails to mention the ADAAA as well, and I am surprised that isn’t included.  In addition, my experience is that Family Court at 90 Washington Street has consistently denied me the protection from discrimination and the reasonable accommodations that I have requested.

I wanted to follow up on the comments I made that Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, the ADA Coordinator at 90 Washington Street routinely denies Requests For Reasonable Accommodation under the ADA.  Not only have I been denied ADA protections, so have several other people who have spoken to me about this problem.  This routine denial of ADA requests makes a mockery of the Honorable Judge Patrick Carroll’s remarks of July 26, 2010 where he stated, “there can be little doubt that the Branch is meeting its obligation to maintaining compliance with the ADA by assuring access…”  Such a statement is simply not true.

In 2006, when I first filed for divorce, it was clear I had a “perceived as” mental health issue under Prong #3 of the ADA, since my ex-husband raised a 30 year old misdiagnosis as an issue.  Based on his concerns, the opposing attorney in my case submitted three motions to the trial court to have me declared incompetent.  The trial court never denied or repudiated these motions, leaving them to hang over my head throughout the pendente lite period and beyond.  This is discrimination pure and simple.  In addition, I was denied my fundamental due process rights on a consistent basis in trial court based upon the perception of disability and the legal representation I received from counsel was pronouncedly substandard.

When I was finally able to represent myself in 2009, I submitted a Request for Reasonable Accommodations to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines based upon the diagnosis of Acute Stress Disorder provided by my psychologist.  Despite this, Ms. Lugo-Gines has continued to deny me eligibility for the ADA and Reasonable Accommodation up to the present time.  While she has acknowledged that my two daughters who have albinism are eligible for reasonable accommodations, she has refused to provide those accommodations.

I did file a grievance, but the grievance process at Family Court which I dealt with was not a meaningful one.  First of all, the people on the grievance panel in my case had no greater authority than did Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines.  Second, when the grievance panel reviewed my complaint they did not follow the grievance procedure outlined in the handout that I was given.  When I challenged the panel in regard to this, Attorney Robert Coffey pretty much stated that the while the federal government requires that the judicial branch have a grievance procedure, it does not require that they follow it.

Family Court in Connecticut discriminates against people who have mental health disabilities all the time. The practice of using a psychiatric label to vilify, discredit, and demonize parents who are fit parents yet have mental health disabilities is rampant.  This is unacceptable.

I was speaking to the mother of five children who has been denied residential custody of her children.  In a recent court hearing, it was clear Father maintained an unstable lifestyle and was incapable of retaining the nannies he hired to care for the children.  As a result, the attorney for this mother suggested that she take care of the children granting Father’s deficits in caring for the children.  “She can’t do that,” stated the Judge, “She’s bipolar!”  In fact, this mother was accused of being bipolar by opposing attorney, but the psychiatrists who examined her did not conclude that she was bipolar.  Even so, there are many persons with bipolar disorder who are excellent parents and the simple fact that mother might have a mental health disorder is not a reason to deny her the right to her children, particularly since up until the filing for divorce she was the primary caretaker of the children and no one had a problem with it. 

This is why it is so important that people with mental health challenges have the protections and reasonable accommodations that they are entitled to in order to obtain access to the services and activities that Family Court provides.

Since I did not receive the protection from discrimination and the reasonable accommodations I should have had, my case has now languished in the family court system and the appellate court system for six years, has incurred costs of well over $200,000 and the case still isn’t over. 

I have spent a considerable amount of my time seeking ADA protections and have been repeatedly denied, which has completely compromised my case.  Recently, I was forced to file a Title II Complaint to the Department of Justice and am currently awaiting a response.  I know there are many other people who have had the same experiences as I have had with family court and feel frustrated enough to do the same.

I am interested in finding out from you what strategies you and your organization intend to employ in order to meet the needs of people with mental health disabilities in Family Court.  I would also like to know what you suggest people like me do who are repeatedly denied the ADA protections we are entitled to by Family Court.  Who can we turn to?  What recourse do we have?

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth A. Richter

P.O. Box 5
Canton, CT  06019
860-693-9028
860-751-4668

earichter@aol.com

cc:       Attorney Kathy Gibs