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.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
CARRUBBA V. MOSKOWITZ: FINDING OUT WHAT IS THE GREATER GOOD. PART II!
I will admit that I am not known for my niceness. Of course, I am self employed and no one pays me to be nice; they read my articles because they want to get the facts on what is going on in our corrupt family courts.
So I kind of have blog writer immunity because if you don't like what I write you can shake your fists and fume at me, but have fun trying to take me to court. Ok, ok, ok, some of you have done just that -- thank you Attorney Scott Sandler -- but seriously, what are you going to do about my ideas. Hmmmm, ok, ok, ok -- now that I think of it you can threaten me like Budlong and Barrett, LLC did, or report me to the police.
But as they say sticks and stones can break my bones but ideas can only make me suck it up and grow a backbone. And talking about backbone, why is it that people who work as GALs and AMCs think they shouldn't be held accountable to the people who bottom line pay their highly expensive salaries. All the rest of us get held accountable for our behavior. Only teachers have tenure, and even they are subjected to constant evaluations and required to participate in professional workshops to improve their techniques.
How easily GALs and AMCs and their supporters talk about how badly family court litigants behave. For example, the Supreme Court decision in Carrubba v. Moskowitz states, "We agree with the Appellate court, however, that, in a custody dispute, "parents lack the necessary professional and emotional judgment to further the best interests of their children. Neither parent could be relied on to communicate to the court the children's interests where those interests differ from his or her own." Further, "A parent's judgment is or may be clouded with emotion and prejudice due to the estrangement of husband and wife."
Let me venture to say that most of us have some very high standards regarding what we expect of other folks behavior. Thus, I got myself into a lot of trouble recently with the CT DOJ because I announced on this lovely blog that I considered both Attorney Deirdre Daly and Attorney John Hughes to be some of the most corrupt officials in Connecticut.
Apparently, from recent correspondence sent to a friend of mine, I am in trouble for saying that, to the point where the CT DOJ plans on denying my friend access to their services as a consequence of my bad tempered remarks. You see, as I learned, and probably everyone else knew already, if you insult people, you are unlikely to obtain either their respect or support.
Granting that fact, in the case of Carrubba v. Moskowitz what surprises me upon reading the stack of documents in the case is the complete disinterest the Court has regarding what Attorney Emily Moskowitz was accused of doing. On the contrary, as I mentioned in Part I of this series, Mr. Paul Carrubba's Attorney, George Kramer, experienced subtle threats from Judge Gruendel for even bringing them up.
My question is, here you have two warring parents and the fate of two fragile and vulnerable children at stake--Mathew Carrubba, at least, was in counseling at the Institute of Living, was falling behind academically at school and required tutoring--how did it improve the situation that Attorney Emily Moskowitz during custody negotiations repeatedly called Paul Carrubba an "asshole" and a "bastard" and told him he was "killing his children."
While everyone is so focused on the bad outcomes that result from disgruntled and angry parents in hotly contested custody battles, why isn't a single person discussing this case, including the judges involved, concerned about Attorney Moskowitz' unprofessional and outrageous language and behavior. Not only did Attorney Mowkowitz use profanity, she also directly lied about information she had received in the case stating falsely that "the Institute of Living had asked her to terminate the Defendant's parental rights." Apparently, "Mathew's therapists denied that they ever made such a request of Attorney Moskowitz." (see Item #8 of Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify).
Of course, maybe Paul Carrubba made that bit up that it wasn't true, but it is rather persuasive that he ended up with custody of Mathew no matter what she said. Tell me, who is likely to have better judgment--the person who yells repeated profanities and tells lies, or the person who is actively in Court trying to work out his son's future. I mean, for all Mr. Carrubba's flaws, the final reports on Mathew Carrubba's progress from Florida are that he was on the honor roll at his high school and progressing well.
You see, this is my question. When the court says that parents lack the "necessary professional and emotional judgment" during a custody dispute, do they have any scientific proof when it comes to that statement or is the court simply going by its gut feelings or its experiences in one or two pivotal cases. Where are the studies that can show us exactly that point in a custody case where we can no longer rely on the soundness of parents' decisions regarding their children? Other than the court relying upon its right to make pronouncements and its cross referencing other judges who have made similar comments, is there any objective evidence anywhere that the Court's derogatory statements about parents in custody battles are true? I'd say, no!
I was in a hotly contested custody case and I will say that if anyone looked at the case they will see that as a parent I was the one who showed far better judgment in regard to the children than the GAL or the judges. In fact, the GAL didn't think that my children should receive the appropriate medical treatment for their disability at all, and the Judge stated that the children didn't have one, even though I had documentation from several doctors contradicting him.
If GALs and Judges can behave in such bizarre ways, who are they to interfere in the rights of parents to determine what goes on with their children?
Why is it more damning to Paul Carrubba that he was involved in a hotly contested custody matter than it was that AMC Emily Moskowitz repeatedly used profane language and lied boldfacedly in regard to her charges?
How come it is more despicable that I called Attorney Deirdre Daly and Attorney John Hughes corrupt than is the fact that they actually are just as corrupt as I said they were?
Why is there this double standard in regard to CT citizens and parents who are involved in CT Family Court versus family court officers such as attorneys, judges, clerks, AMCs and GALs? Why do family court officers get the benefit of the doubt, but not parents?
How come as far as the Court is concerned family court officers can do no wrong, and deserve full judicial immunity for the wrongdoing they have done, when we have so many clear cut examples that they are irresponsible, greedy, and unprincipled?
Historically, the legal profession has been given considerable leeway because it has been understood that they are supposed to regulate themselves. However, the reality of their actions in consistently absolving themselves are any responsibility for their crimes in relation to the victims of Connecticut Family Court makes it clear that the legislature must intervene and remove GAL immunity in the State of Connecticut and vote in support of Bill #5505.