On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, I went to the courthouse at 75 Elm Street to hear the Appellate Court argument in Joe Watley and Karin Hasemann's custody case against DCF.
As you may know, Joe and Karin lost custody of their children in 2008 based upon the doctrine of "predictive neglect" meaning that while they had not actually neglected their children there was a possibility that they might neglect them.
When I arrived, the proceedings had not yet begun. However, Mr. Watley was speaking to Attorney Thomas Smith, the ADA Contact person for the Appellate Court. Mr. Watley had requested that the Designated Responsible Employee responsible for ensuring compliance with Title II of the ADA in the Judicial Branch be present in order to insure that the Appellate Court was compliant with the ADA. In response to that request, the Appellate Court wrongly sent Attorney Thomas Smith who is only an ADA Contact person.
The person who has final authority and the one who should have been present that day according to the ADA is the Designated Responsible Employee and that person, to my knowledge, is ordinarily Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines. However, the Court, instead of sending Sandra, sent Attorney Smith instead, which created considerable confusion as Joe and his supporters attempted to decipher what was going on.
I would consider it typical that after Joe specifically requested the Designated Responsible Employee to be present, instead of complying with the request, the Court sent Attorney Smith who is totally the wrong person.
After that, another advocate stepped forward and requested that Attorney Smith provide to Joe a written notice of procedural safeguards. Apparently, any state agency that receives federal funding, which our Judicial Branch does, must comply with Section 504 requirements which includes that people receiving services under the ADA should be provided with such a notice. Attorney Smith had no such notice.
So Attorney Smith was clearly ill prepared--he had no idea why he was there and he didn't have the notifications he is required to have available once he arrived. Attorney Smith did have in his hands a brochure prepared by the branch entitled "A Guide to Understanding the Americans With Disabilities Act" which is a new information sheet about the ADA. See the following link:
However, I didn't see him actually give it to Joe. That is unfortunate because the brochure is a new document that the Branch produced recently and it is very helpful in providing an overview of the ADA as it is implemented in the CT Judicial Branch.
To be fair, I think that the Connecticut Judicial Branch continues to make baby steps in the right direction towards implementing the ADA. It has done a lot in terms of upgrading the ADA webpage on the Connecticut Judicial Website and should get credit for that. As I said, we still have a long way to go but these are some good first steps, just not in time to meet Joe's needs.
Not long after that, the court was brought into session. There were three judges considering the case--Judge Alvord, Judge Lavine, and Judge Peters.
As you know, in the Supreme Court hearing in this matter last year, the Court determined that the wrong standard had been used for the purpose of establishing "predictive neglect". Instead of using the standard of "fair preponderance of the evidence", the Supreme Court said the Superior Court should have used the standard of "more likely than not." Only you hairsplitters know the difference between those standards.
Be that as it may, as I predicted, all that happened as a result of this Supreme Court decision was that the case was returned to Superior Court where Judge Keller wrote a 180 page decision, an extraordinarily number of pages for a document of this kind, stating that the old facts of the case also met the newly instituted standard of review for predictive neglect. Thus, our presence that day in Appellate Court.
Nonsensically, this case has been bouncing from Superior Court to Appellate Court to Supreme Court and back down again for years.
Each party in the case was considered separately. To start with Joe's attorney stood up and presented his case. He stated that it was wrong that Joe was never given the opportunity to be considered as a parent separately, particularly since there was no evidence that he himself had ever neglected the children.
While there was a finding that Joe and Karin were together and were unlikely to separate, Joe's Attorney stated that there was insufficient evidence to support that conclusion. At that point, one Judge asked whether it was Joe's responsibility to present that argument. The attorney responded that the burden is on the department to make a proper inquiry. And he did point out that in June 2006, Joe had spoken to Miss Skinner of DCF and expressed a willingness to parent alone.
Judge Alvort repeatedly kept asking whether all defective terminations should be undone based on Joe's case. The attorney responded quite rightly that he was only there to discuss Joe's case at the moment, but this response did not satisfy the Judge and she kept on repeating the question. That Judge came across a lot like that of a kindergarten teacher asking a child, "what if everyone in the class did that naughty thing you just did?" and I found it somewhat offensive. This is not kindergarten. This is about the fundamental right of a father to be a parent.
In addition, it seems to me that if the government made a mistake it should be more concerned with correcting that mistake rather than thinking about how to avoid the consequences of having made one. The judge's question, therefore, came across as begrudging and insensitive.
Finally, Joe's Attorney mentioned that a 2006 evaluation written by Dr. Humphrey indicated that the father had a bond with his children, sufficient parenting skills, and also a willingness to parent.
Seriously, what more could DCF want!
The Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Vitelli then spoke up. He faulted Joe Watley for being on disability due to a back injury, and also suggested the back injury was fake. I found that pretty offensive second guessing a medical doctor's determination without any credible evidence. But isn't that what it is all about in Court, smearing a person's reputation without a single shred of evidence.
Mr. Vitelli then spoke in gloomy tones about "the knife incident" where, as I later learned, Joe Watley had taken a knife away from his nephew who was waving it around inappropriately. Then he returned it to the rack.
The attorney also cited Mr. Watley for leaving the state with Karin when the couple were going to have a second child. I am not sure what Joe was supposed to do when his partner was just about to give birth and insisting on leaving the state. He did what he thought would protect her as well as the child. We can all criticize in hindsight. Plus, as far as I know, there is no law against travelling!
Primarily, the big problem seemed to be that Joe did not do what DCF wanted him to do. He didn't knuckle under. He didn't behave in a way that was compliant.
I'd pretty much say that all of these issues came across as quite petty. There was nothing in this recital of wrongs that came across as endangering anyone. No crimes, no substance abuse, no driving accidents, no abused pets--nothing.
Next, Karin's attorney stood up to make his case. His point was that Karin had been discriminated against based upon Title II of the ADA. He asked why no one made a request for an ADA Coordinator to assist Karin at DCF. He also cited that fact that an ADA Coordinator was not used during the termination proceedings with DCF.
When the judge asked why Karin didn't get one for herself, the attorney responded quite rightly that it is up to the Court to offer services on its own initiative.
Again, as with Joe Watley, the attorney emphasized Karin's good character. The condition she has was the result of a benign brain tumor that was removed. As he put it, "Her situation wasn't of her own making."
Karin's attorney also stated that Karin had a condition which is a highly specialized area of medicine which required a more sophisticated response than DCF was able or informed enough to provide. He indicated that DCF did not provide any meaningful treatment for Karin and did not provide treatment that addressed her cognitive issues. He said this was not fair to Karin.
In essence, Karin's attorney stated, "Had there been an ADA Coordinator in place, this mistake would have been prevented. The Coordinator could have assisted in finding the right services. If this had been done, she might have been stabilized." Of course, this is all based upon DCF paid professionals who were paid to find a need for stabilization. It would have been interesting to find a professional independent of DCF.
Unfortunately, when the judge asked if ADA Coordinators are doing this in any other state, the attorney responded with some vague comment about Hawaii. Of course, just because no state is implementing the ADA properly, this does not excuse them! Of course, I don't think it is so much about what an ADA Coordinator could have done, so much as it is about finding the kind of treatment which is specifically addressed to the medical condition that the client has. That was not done. It appeared that DCF wanted Karin to agree to talk therapy that is more appropriate for those with substance abuse problems which Karin does not have.
The Assistant Attorney General (AAG) then spoke and said that Karin was unwilling and unable to engage in DCF reunification despite the fact that a myriad of services were provided. From the beginning to the end, the AAG stated, Karin refused to acknowledge that she had a deficiency.
In regard to an ADA coordinator, the AAG asked, "What would that ADA coordinator do?" as if it was one great big puzzle. From what I gather, an ADA Coordinator would insure compliance with the ADA, but don't ask me--I'm not in charge.
Apparently, Karin and Joe submitted complaints stating that DCF and the CHRO had discriminated against them, but these agencies were cleared. Of course, they always are, no matter how discriminatory and noncompliant they are!
Joe and Karin were also faulted for not stating what their disability was. But as far as I know, they are not required to, certainly not in open court. All they should have to do is request a modification and that modification should be provided.
Once outside the courtroom, we had an interesting conversation. Joe Watley said to me, what is this stuff about we have to receive treatment for our disability and recover from it in order to get permission to be a parent. When you have a blind person, you don't say you can't be a parent until you stop being blind.
You don't say to someone in a wheelchair, you can be a parent once you are able to get around without a wheelchair, you don't tell someone who is deaf that once you regain your hearing you can be a parent.
Why is there this emphasis in mental illness that you must remove the condition rather than accommodate it or simply provide the supports that are required in order to function? I must say, I totally agree with that perspective.
What will be the outcome to this Appellate argument? I can't say. If it passes, then I'd guess the case will go back to Superior Court. If it does not pass, then it will go up to the Supreme Court in the ongoing game of judicial musical chairs we have seen take place in this case before.
Game. That's the right term.
This is group of people who have been trained in caring for children--DCF--and another group trained to mete out justice--judges, attorneys--and yet all they are really doing is playing childish games with this family, with Joe, with Karin, and with their children who have a natural, fundamental human right to live with the parents they are biologically and emotionally linked to, and always will be no matter what the barriers--I mean, just look at the lengths adoptive children go to in order to find their birth parents--yet they are being denied that right.
One day the Watley children are going to grow up, they are going to discover the truth, and like that famous victim of the Salem Witch trials, Sarah Good, turn to these judges and say, "God will give you blood to drink!" And I am sure one day He will.
RELATED ARTICLES:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/11/open-letter-regarding-watley-case-from.html
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-watley-decision-sc-1895118952.html
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/joe-watley-on-dangers-of-therapeutic.html
RELATED ARTICLES:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/11/open-letter-regarding-watley-case-from.html
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-watley-decision-sc-1895118952.html
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/joe-watley-on-dangers-of-therapeutic.html
I am joes friend Evan Toder. I have been aware of this case all along. I know of a girl named Natalie Beatham of Torrington ct who has has kept her kids for years despite doing drugs and having a large number of cigarette smoking strangers over at all times of the night. The state continued for years to pay her rent and give her assistance only very recently finally removing her kids when her daughters were 7 and 3. It is amazing Joe can't get his kids and she got to keep hers. The legal system is full of shit and corruption and probably more of the former than the later but ample amounts of both! Very well written article and I could not agree more.
ReplyDeleteAlso - self plug - spy on cell phones with cell tracker at http://www.cell-tracker.info
ReplyDeleteThis is probably the most appalling story of judicial corruption I have had to deal with here in Connecticut. It is a Statewide disgrace.
ReplyDeleteI agree.
ReplyDeleteBut my concern is with all of the attention going to DCF paying too much attention and removing kids to avoid danger it gives one the impression that DCF is hyper vigilant. Although mental illness isn't a choice, it can affect parenting much differently than other disabilities can by limiting one's ability to make sound decisions. (I myself have suffered from mental illness in the past so I know first hand). This case is an outrage, of course, but what about all of the times DCF and the courts ignore and do nothing over and over again until the child involved is a shell of a human. Many times it is almost impossible to get beyond a reasonable doubt evidence in abuse cases. I would rather always err on the side of caution than turn a blind eye. I think the thing that is most clear is that these choices DCF makes, whether to act or ignore, never really seem to be about the child, rather they are politically driven making each decision for each child based on who the players are and how it will affect the court's and DCF's reputation in their judicial and political community and among the people that run in their circle. I fought hard for seven years in family court, with DCF, and in criminal court to stop the severe, torturous molestation and rape that my little girl has endured but was never able to stop it. We are now back in family court again because he is trying to maintain visitation. He and his political father were successful at getting DCF to hold a hearing to reverse their substantiations. There was no one there to fight for the victim. We actually weren't allowed to be there. The entire hearing was based on hearsay. I have filed against the St. and DCF for all victims to have the right to be present and present evidence at these hearings. We will see what comes of it. Either way, no words could describe what this is doing to my daughter's life. If only DCF and the courts would have listened in the beginning. And yes, it is a parent's right to raise their children but what about the children's rights? There is so much denial and disregard in the system when it comes to sexual abuse. One in four girls will be molested by the time they are 12 but we rarely hear about those cases. The courts have hung their hats on the concept of "parental alienation" when it comes to sexual abuse cases and no one is speaking out about it. Non offending parents are the criminals in the courts eyes and they get away with ignoring sexual abuse because of this fairly new concept of parental alienation always being used as the reason a parent has alleged abuse. I know I am going on about this subject that is off topic. Whether the system is unnecessarily removing kids or leaving them in bad situations, either way the problem seems insurmountable to me. I have devoted everything in my life to trying to protect my child and it didn't make a dam bit of difference! His parental rights were always more important than her right to safety and a life free of torture. Many times there is no recovering from the trauma of neglect and physical and sexual abuse. I don't think our system is capable of the amount of change that is needed to ensure our children's safety and quality of life.
ReplyDeleteI can hear your ambivalence in your comments. This is why getting an undeserved label of mental illness is like a social death. Because afterwards, people treat you with that ongoing seed of suspiciousness which is almost impossible to overcome. If someone is unscrupulous and wants to deny you your legal rights, all they have to do is invoke the mysterious mental illness as a justification and there is almost a one hundred percent guarantee that he or she will succeed in doing so. This means that if you have ever been labeled, you really have no defense against criminals who seek to deny you your right to parent your children, or those who seek to deny you your inheritance, or those who seek to take your home and your job away from you. Remember, when it comes to Joe and Karin, whatever mental illness we are talking about is not something more difficult to deal with such as a psychotic illness. And in reality, there is no more likelihood that a child will be harmed in a home with a person who has mental illness than there is a likelihood, as I have said that a child would be harmed in a home with a blind, deaf, or intellectually disabled parent. Yet people with those kinds of disabilities are allowed to parent all the time. It is unfortunate that people in authority who use accusations of mental illness in order to establish and maintain themselves in positions of power have been able to link mental illness with poor character and criminality. In reality, those parents who abuse their children are for the better part criminals, not persons with mental illness. Unfortunately, criminals often use mental illness as an excuse for their behavior as a means to avoid the consequences of their actions. Also, I think it would be interesting to consider what would actually happen if everyone was subjected to the kind of diagnostic scrutiny that Joe and Karin were subjected to. I'll just bet that the mental health professionals doing the test have worse mental health conditions that the clients they are testing! Nobody ever thinks about that. As people see it, it is always some other person who has mental illness--never themselves. The fundamental intention of antidiscrimination laws such as the ADA which protects people like Joe and Karin from bigotry is that if they need supports to meet DCF standards and to participate in the legal process, those support should be provided. Thus far, DCF and the CT Judicial Branch have not bothered to provide those supports. Keep in mind that antidiscrimination laws in regard to disability have been in place since the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and yet here and now in 2013, the State of Connecticut has yet to implement them and is busy disenfranchising folks like Joe and Karin and denying their constitutional and human right to a relationship with their children. This is a travesty.
ReplyDeleteJoe is not a reliable or mature enough person to raise kids. He still lives with his parents and he is 60!!
ReplyDeleteYes, well, you abuse an individual legally, denying fundamental due process to that person. You take from him two of his most precious things in his life--his two children. Then, the State bullies him to give up his relationship with his partner, Karin, over an extended period of time, and then someone like you is surprised that he may not be the kind of functioning individual you expect. This is sort of like taking out a gun and shooting a guy in the leg, then blaming the guy for limping and bleeding. That's ridiculous. Put that aside, many parents with intellectual disabilities may not be "mature" in the sense that you seem to require, yet they have the right under the ADA to raise their children with proper supports. That sometimes means they live with grandparents. So what? In many cases, particularly with abusive fathers who simply want custody to punish mother, they will seize the children through the court system, and then, once they get them, hand them over to the grandparents. Many grandparents play a role in raising their grandchildren...so? However, bottom line is that the psychologist who evaluated Joe recommended that Joe have custody of his sons. Joe does not have a mental illness and should get his parental rights back. The State has no right to play God and take a person's children from him, and even further, the State has no right to legally abuse an individual by putting him through years of fake legal proceedings where the results are predetermined. Aside from Joe, however, there is Karin, who is also quite capable of being a mother to her children. That is another story entirely. Bottom line, the Watleys were terribly abused by the CT Court system and DCF and both agencies should be heartily ashamed of themselves for their behavior in brutally abusing and emotionally torturing both Joe and Karin. I am assuming that was done for profit all around. I wonder how much the State and foster parents made by trafficking the Watley children. Lots, I can imagine.
ReplyDelete