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, October 2, 2015

DAVID IVERSEN OF WTNH CHANNEL 8 CONTINUES TO REPORT ON FAMILY COURT GAL CORRUPTION!

David Iversen of WTNH Channel 8 reports as follows:
"(WTNH) — In October 2014, new rules that regulate Guardian Ad Litems went into effect in Connecticut. 
A Guardian Ad Litem is a court appointed investigator who, in effect, reports to the court what is in the best interest of a child in the midst of a divorce. 
The News8 Investigators asked Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano and Representative Dan Carter about what they see as the legislatures role in the future of oversight within family court."
SEE MORE:


5 comments:

  1. Dan Carter definitely gets it. But I am underwhelmed by Fassano's response. Dude, there is no point in waiting for the Judicial Branch to solve the problem. It has been going on for years. They aren't afraid of you. They aren't going to stop this. There is too much money involved. The judges love this. It's because of legislators like Fassano that there is so much corruption -- particularly judicial corruption -- in this state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to disagree in part. Fassano hasn't taken the strong stand that Reps. Carter, Gonzalez and Vargas have taken. However, Fassano actually called for Joette Katz to resign as head of DCF in response to the reports of failings of the DCF system. That was a strong stance. Unfortunately, legislators seldom speak out so strongly.

      Delete
  2. Legislators are an accessory to all this. They don't make the necessary changes that are required to restrain the judiciary from all this harm that's been befalling the people as required under the separation of powers doctrine. We have a baby being thrown off a bridge because they still allow DV cases to be labeled as "high conflict" by family courts. If nothing is done about this during the next session, they all need to be fired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand that Judge Barry Pinkus is right back in Middletown continuing to adjudicate cases including DV cases. Clearly there have been no consequences to him for blowing off a victim of DV and her child, then child ends up dead. Where is the accountability?

      Delete
    2. Maybe David Iverson would pick up on this and bring this issue to the forefront in the court of public opinion. It's a cause at the center of a task force right now with people sitting on it afraid to ask why there are not laws to protect victims of DV in family court. They're missing the boat without raising these issues. All their efforts will be ignored.

      Delete