AGAIN, NOTE TO ANY TASK FORCE MEMBER! IF ANYTHING IN THIS OVERVIEW OF THIS MEETING OR ANY OF THE OTHER MEETINGS I'VE SUMMARIZED ON THIS BLOG IS NOT CORRECT, PLEASE CONTACT ME AND I WILL CORRECT ANY ERRORS. JUST EMAIL ME AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: SLOPERCATHY@GMAIL.COM
Continuing on from Part III, Ms. Jennifer Veraneault stated I apologize for being heated. The last task force issue hit home regarding fees, a lot
of what we do here, everything what you say sounds right but is not consistent
across the board, not consistent, and I want to put it out there.
Sue Cousineau stated, we recognize it is not consistent and
our goal is to make some recommendations.
It would be easy if we had a book, but every family is different. But we can provide
recommendations that can be more consistent and have a consistent list of what
GALs do up front. That is a good idea.
[Of course, the fact that every family is different is not an excuse for incompetence, graft, corruption, and racketeering, which is currently going on in the Connecticut Judicial Branch among judges, attorneys, and GALs. If the fact that every family, every individual is different were an excuse for wrong doing, ever system we have would grind to a halt!]
Dr. Bob Horwitz stated that the main issue is noncompliance
having to do with subsection 6c having to do with cases where it appears as if
one parent is blocking access to the other parent. This happens in custody disputes and we all
know of cases that drag on for months.
Dr. Horwitz further stated, I recall a volunteer task force looking into cases where there is
PAS. There should be some sort of time
limit or a change in the Practice Book or regulations.
There should be an automatic emergency hearing if a parent has not had
access to the child in 30 days. If a parent
brings in a motion re lack of access and the motion is not heard within five months. This should be fixed.
[I think lack of access is definitely a problem, but another problem that exist are corrupt judges, attorneys, GALs and custody evaluators who extend the conflict and drum up additional attorney fees. I believe that this problem is more fundamental to the family court than any other problem. Further, there is a serious problem where family court is unwilling and reluctant to acknowledge when women and children have been abused and they sweep evidence of such abuse under the rug or simply ignore that evidence. As long as a mother such as myself, in response to my complaints of abuse, hears from the GAL repeatedly stating "They [mothers] all complain of abuse." we are not getting the kind of protection that we need from the Court system. Also, when mothers' legitimate attempts to protect their children end up being stigmatized as a mental illness described as PAS, there is the serious abuse of women and children which the CT Judicial Branch must address through additional statutes and changes to the Connecticut Practice Book. I believe that unless this task force hears from a Domestic Violence advocate in regard to these cases, the work of this task force remains incomplete.]
Attorney Sue Cousineau stated "We could recommend that these kinds of
motions can’t be continued unless you have a show cause why. Now people ask for continuances and they are
granted without even requiring a reason.
Any motion should come up in two weeks, any opportunity to be heard
within two weeks. There can be stalling when a party denying access says they have to get
an attorney. So we need to have expedited hearings, but
also have restrictions on continuances.
Attorney Sharon Dornfeld stated, "You have motion for access, and the Mom comes in
asking for continuance claiming abuses of children and that the children are afraid to
return, the parent may still need to get an attorney, DCF may be just starting
to investigate. There may be no way of
determining what is going on. A 17 year
old cannot be forced. It's not black and
white. There is always a “because”. There may be a risk if you jump on it.
Attorney Linda Allard said what about supervised visitation. What about when a parent files a restraining order
that restricts access to the child. If
that happens, supervised visitation to the child should be allowed.
Mr. DiTunno said, parents would have met with family relations under those circumstances
and would have arrived at recommendations.
So there are are services providers in court who are working on this issue,
triage.
[I don't believe that this is true because many of the folks in high conflict situations who are often priced out of family relations or directed out of family relations by their attorneys do not end up receiving these services. This is what I am complaining about. If such families did receive support from mediators, from family relations, perhaps these issues could be resolved more effectively so that one parent or the other does not end up being denied access.]
Attorney Sharon Dornfield spoke further, to
continue with the devil’s advocate approach, supervised visitation is not subsidized.
What if a Parent refuses it? But the children
need to see their parents. Is there a
Grandma? Is there a day care
provider? But are those other folks
involved in the abuse? How do we know?
Judge Weissmuller added the point that in
Washington, there is a required form for this. At superior court in Washington, if there is a
motion to show cause for access it is noted immediately. The first motion is
request for cause, with a 14 day maximum time to show up. A warrant can be issued for
their arrest if they don’t show up, and jail could be used as an option in
contempt—parties told that, there is an immediate fine for non access. There will be
area where a parent can say there is is abuse, so there is a place on the form for that
explanation.
Every action that has been
taken in the case is on the computer. You can put in a
call to the clerk and get that information, can amend and hold it over, 9 times
out of 10 there is no motion regarding abuse, so the person is notified that they must comply and will
be fined per day for non compliance. This has also been used in child support mechanisms, same rationale. Parents denying access face the potential for being held in jail or facing the transfer of
custody temporarily. The Judge amends the order, and there is a writ
to take the child to other parent.
It is actually taught at the judicial college so I didn’t make it
up. It is place on the standard calendar.
Attorney Linda Allard stated that the role of court in enforcing
compliance is important. Plus, the Court setting up a compliance
date so you are combing back, sometimes every week, with the same judge, to be
consistent and to ensure compliance.
Attorney Sue Cousinea stated, if you see problems coming down the
road, you can put in parenting plans, and an access schedule that is both a right and
responsibility of each parent, and both parents have the responsibility to make
sure it works, so your failure to follow the plan results in a fine. We can make orders for the initial
appointment of a GAL clear, and can make orders for the parenting plan clear. It is your responsibility as parent to make
sure children go to other parent.
[I will confirm that there is nothing better than an excellent parenting plan to make sure there is peace between parents and good access for both parents. I was very lucky that the opposing attorney in my case put together a well written parenting plan that I could agree with and that was very clear on what each parent had a responsibility for doing. This is central and I would hope every parent involved in a custody case would really do their homework to be sure that they have a parenting plan with good boundaries. On many occasions where there were problems with my ex, I simply pointed to the particular provision in the parenting problem and that shut down whatever difficulties we were having. So I am all for a good, solid, well written parenting plan.
On the other hand, I think it is important for the judge and the attorney to understand how a party to a case can create disruption deliberately during the transfer of one parent to another and this can undercut an access plan. For example, I have to drive one and a half hours to the drop of point, and my ex was famous for calling one hour into my drive to tell me he expected to be two hours late for pickup. That meant we had to hang around the parking lot for a lengthy period of time waiting for him to show. This kind of problem is hard to return to Court for because it is petty and small, but then again it is not. And if, for instance, your ex did not pay child support that week and you are low on the money you need to pay gas that can add to the pressure. Then you as the residential parent get cited for denying access to the other parent when you simply could not afford to get there. There are all sorts of games people play and if the court is unwilling to hear about it, which I found to be the case as a protective mother, you can end up in a very tough situation as the residential parent even when you are doing your best to be supportive of the other parent's access to the children. This also needs to be taken into consideration.]
Judge Weissmuller said we should consider fines to other parent? In Alaska there is a $200 per day fee for lack of
access, a liquidated damages clause,
attorneys fees, etc.
Attorney Dornfeld asked, would that require a finding of the denial of access?
Judge Weissmuller, "I would have to check into that."
Attorney Dornfeld then asked, what about missed phone calls?
Dornfeld continued, I like this idea of phone access, where a
parent has a window of time to call the child. The problem that arises is that the child is always going somewhere at that
time. You have to be sure, because sometimes child
is not available. Not for a nefarious reasons.
Sometimes the kids forget to call, because they are kids.
We should be able to make this work without clogging up everything.
[Seriously, this is easy stuff. The parents should be able to call at an agreed upon time. Kids should not be the ones left to take full responsibility for calling, and I would expect the residential parent to make sure the phone call occurred. If the kids have activities, you readjust the schedule so the kids call at a rescheduled time. I recall handing the cell phone to the kids on the drive home, if time was tight. This is not rocket science and any decent parent should be able to maintain that phone contact between the parents and the children or to arrange for skyping. Get your kids to arrange the skyping because they are much better at the electronics!]
Judge Weissmuller, we should craft legislation which should require a
finding of fact and a conclusion of law and then order you shall do the following. So all should be crafted so it will come
together.
Attorney Sue Cousineau stated that this has to do with parental
responsibility. With an intact family it works,
but with a non intact family, it doesn’t work as well. It is the parent’s responsibility. When you craft orders
it becomes very helpful, and can make that recommendation. It is part of GAL training,
the crafting of custody orders. I was at
joint conference of AFCC in Texas and got training on this, maybe adding to the
training the writing of orders. We need
clear orders showing both parents have orders.
Attorney Linda Allard pointed out that rich parents have the money and don’t care what they have to pay whereas
with those who don’t have money, fines would have a different consequence.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Part I of task force hearing
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-december-10-2013-part-i.html
Part II of task force hearing
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-december-10-2013-part-ii.html
Part III of task force hearing
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-december-10-2013-part-iii.html
Part V of task force hearing
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-meeting-december-10-2013_16.html
CT-N recording!
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-meeting-december-10-2013.html
No comments:
Post a Comment