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.
Showing posts with label JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

UP FOR CONSIDERATION FOR JUDICIAL REAPPOINTMENT, THIS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016!

Wednesday, February 10, 2016
10:00 AM in Room 2E of the LOB


NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW

I. To be a Judge of the Superior Court:

1. The Honorable William H. Bright, Jr. of Columbia
2. The Honorable Cara F. Eschuk of Naugatuck
3. The Honorable Linda K. Lager of New Haven
4. The Honorable Eddie Rodriguez, Jr. of Easton
5. The Honorable Robert E. Young of South Glastonbury

II. To be a State Referee:

1. The Honorable Charles Gill of Litchfield
2. The Honorable Joseph Licari of North Haven
3. The Honorable Socrates Mihalokos of Southbury
4. The Honorable Joseph Pellegrino of Hamden
5. The Honorable Michael E. Shay of Wilton

III. To be a Workers' Compensation Commissioner:

1. Scott A. Barton of Seymour
2. John A. Mastropietro of Watertown

IV. To be a Boards of Pardons & Paroles Member:

1. Patricia Camp of Bloomfield
2. Jeff L. Hoffman of Madison
3. Christopher B. Lyddy of New Haven
4. Carmen D. Sierra of New Britain

Thursday, February 4, 2016

UP FOR CONSIDERATION FOR JUDICIAL REAPPOINTMENT, THIS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016!

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016
10:00AM IN ROOM 2E OF THE LOB

NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW:

I.  To be a Justice of the Supreme Court
1.  The Honorable Christine S. Vertefeuille of East Haven

II.  To be a Judge of the Appellate court
1.  The Honorable Robert E. Beach, Jr. of Storrs

III.  To be a Judge of the Superior Court:
1.  The Honorable Joan K. Alexander of Cromwell
2.  The Honorable Alice A. Bruno of New Britain
3.  The Honorable William T. Cremins of Middlebury
4.  The Honorable Michael R. Dannehy of Manchester
5.  The Honorable Edward S. Domnarsky of Essex
6.  The Honorable John B. Farley of West Hartford
7.  The Honorable Mathew E. Frechette of Branford
8.  The Honorable David P. Gold of Middlefield
9.  The Honorable Gerald L. Harmon of Southington
10.  The Honorable Barbara Bailey Jongbloewd of Madison
11.  The Honorable Edward T. Krumeich of Greenwich
12.  The Honorable Paul M. Matasavage of Oakville
13.  The Honorable John J. Nazzaro of Pawcatuck
14.  The Honorable John W. Pickard of Harwinton
15.  The Honorable Linda Pearce Prestley of West Hartford

IV.  To be a State Referee:
1.  The Honorable Robert J. Malone of Milford
2.  The Honorable Francis M. McDonald, Jr. of Middleburg
3.  The Honorable Barry Schaller of Guilford

Sunday, April 26, 2015

CT LATINO NEWS SPEAKS OUT IN SUPPORT OF REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ!

Gerry Garcia speaks out in support of Rep. Minnie Gonzalez as follows:
"I read with sadness and disappointment the Courant’s editorial, Rep Gonzalez Insulting Email Disgraceful. In your zeal to pin blame on Connecticut’s senior Latina legislator, what’s most disgraceful is that the Courant’s editors completely miss the much bigger issue.
We happen to be in the midst of a national conversation on police use of excessive force, of dead black men, of brutality that would never have come to light but for ordinary citizen bystanders with camera phones.  Too many black and brown Americans – from South Carolina to New York to Los Angeles to our own East Haven – fear for our lives when we’re engaged by police.  Rather than blaming the Latina for an inappropriate e-mail, where is the Editors’ righteous indignation that Republican legislators put politics and personal animus ahead of this important national conversation and related legislation?"

For more information on this important issue, please click on the link below:

http://ctlatinonews.com/2015/04/18/op-ed-why-is-rep-minnie-gonzalez-criticized-and-not-republicans/

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

IN LETTER TO CT GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ACTIVIST SCOTT BUDEN DECRIES ATTACKS ON REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE CT FAMILY COURT REFORM MOVEMENT!

It appears that the anonymous person who penned the April 14th op-ed piece run by the Hartford Courant googled the term "inflammatory language", copied all the results, and called it an article.  Its dearth of formed opinion notwithstanding, was there a reason why this author could not stand behind his or her words?


Governor Malloy then publicly admonished both Representatives Rebimbas and González on April 17th, as if Ms Rebimbas' misdirecting attention away from criminal activity and Ms González' calling out the covering of crimes were the same thing:  a spat.


It is necessary to provide a foundation of facts to give context to the drama, because there has been so much done to shield the underlying information that brought rise to the altercation.

We have a theme going:  Attack all critics of the courts.  Blame victims.  The threadbare "disgruntled litigant" epithet is a warped record loop stuck playing over the propaganda speakers, and Göbbels hasn't realized that the playbook has already been put into evidence at Nuremberg.

Representative Rebimbas attacks all critics of the courts.  That fact makes perfect sense, given her investment as a GAL in the continued unrestricted looting of assets in all family cases.  In Friday'shearing, instead of recusing herself on a matter where she stands to profit, she concerned herself entirely with misrepresenting other people's thoughts and feelings and protecting the delicate egos of judges who have done unspeakable harm to the people of Connecticut.  Again on Monday's hearing, instead of recusing herself, she participated in a plan to grind the legislative process to a halt over an apology that was already given.  Not once did she speak or act for the interests of the people of Naugatuck who elected her to represent them.

Representative González, by contrast, has no financial stake in the administration and operation of the Judicial Branch.  She is an impartial member of the Judiciary Committee.

In a dirty maneuver while Ms González was out of the hearing room, Ms Rebimbas made some large claims that there was no supporting evidence of the failures of law that Ms Gonzáles raised.  In what appears to be a public call for retaliation, Ms Rebimbas went so far as to name a specific litigant who dared to bring to the legislature the transcript of her judge attacking her, fabricating imaginary lawsuits, accusing the litigant in his paranoid delusions of chasing away all professional therapists, and even letting slip that there is a secret tier system of qualified vendors.

Here Judge Adelman in D'Amato v D'Amato (July 11, 2014), monologuing from the bench, attacks all critics of the courts, ironically hoisting himself with his own petard:

ADELMAN:  Have you ever heard the expression being hoisted [sic] by [sic] your own petard?

LITIGANT:  No.

ADELMAN:  It's from Hamlet, I believe.  The attack on the therapeutic community by litigants who have not been successful in court has, obviously, made many of these therapists adverse [sic] to getting involved in these cases.  They're getting sued, and there's plenty of therapy work for people who are not involved in litigation.  It's hard to believe that so many PhDs, therapists would refuse the work, but I can understand it when they find out that this is a case that's in litigation and an appeal and why ask for trouble, I guess?

That's tragic because you and these girls need some therapeutic assistance in an effort to repair the parental relationship, and now, quite frankly, I'm going to have to go to second tier individual.

LITIGANT:  What does that mean, Your Honor?

ADELMAN:  What that means is I'm going to have to use somebody who's not a PhD therapist.  I'm going to have to go down the stream to other therapeutic individuals because you and others like you have created a hostile environment to ther --

LITIGANT:  I would like that stricken, Your Honor, because I did not create this problem, and there's no proof that he contacted anybody.  There's no proof.

ADELMAN:  I have his sworn testimony.  What proof do you have?  You want to call those ten people into court?  You're calling the man a liar?

LITIGANT:  I'm questioning his credibility, yes I am.

ADELMAN:  All right.  The court finds him incredibly credible.  [sic]  There's no reason to think he's done anything other than what he said he has done.  The environment in Family Court and in family therapy is hostile and becoming difficult -- it's getting very difficult to find people, quite frankly, to even volunteer to be Special Masters to help people resolve their cases before they have to go to litigation, and I hope that the people who are creating the hostility think about that.


On Friday, Ms Rebimbas, however, went on to deny the existence of the transcript, to accuse the litigant of making up the judge's tyrannical behavior, and wrongly claim that the only proper channel for remedy is through the judicial branch, which has been established through now hundreds of individuals' testimony, as not the slightest bit capable of policing itself.

The transcript exposes some very serious questions:

  • Why would licensed providers be afraid of being sued if everything they are doing is perfectly ethical?  Are they engaging in the same unethical practices that victims' evidence to the legislature and federal task force reflects?
  • Are judges ordering therapy for children without there being a diagnosis?  Is a "custody evaluation" any more credible than peering into a crystal ball?  Could this be why these court-appointed providers accept only cash for their services?
  • Why do judges have a tier system among state licensed treaters?  Are the providers who are members or directors of AFCC along with the judges and GALs given preference, such as the transcript references to CT Chapter president Linda Smith?
  • Where are these multiple lawsuits against Connecticut therapists to which the judge alludes, and for which the judge blames the litigant standing before him?
  • Was the judge threatening the litigant by referencing an explosive device harming her in his non-sequitur comment?
  • Why would Ms Rebimbas try so hard to deny, or at least deflect from, the existence of this transcript?

Representative González has spent the past seven years hearing heart-wrenching testimony from hundreds of Connecticut citizens being cannibalized by the scam operating out of the Judicial Branch.  She has done exactly what she was elected to do, which is to represent the interests and needs of her constituents and the people of Connecticut -- not to protect the asset-raiding operation of the judges and GALs.  She has never backed down from her duties, even in the harshest of fights against lawlessness.  She got emotional and angry over the past few days, which proves a well-calibrated moral compass in the face of, at best, unprofessional behavior from a member of the Judiciary Committee.  At worst, she defended against a lobbyist installed to ensure that the moneyball game keeps the cash flowing to court-appointees.  Anyone with a heart should be very angry.

It seem that the Federal Task Force agrees.  I'll leave you with their own words about their current operation in Connecticut.  Remember to call the hotline and press #6 to report public corruption in Connecticut.

"U.S. Attorney Daly explained that the Task Force is focused on rooting out not only corrupt elected officials, but also federal, state and municipal employees who use their position for personal gain at the expense of the public good."

"The Task Force will also focus on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are distributed annually by federal and state agencies to ensure that taxpayer funds reach their intended recipients without corrupt interference."

“Public servants are entrusted by all of us to act in the best interests of the public they serve. It is important for the United States to bring to justice those who betray that trust,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Patricia M. Ferrick. “Public corruption at all levels of local, state, and federal government must not be tolerated, and this task force will leverage the best assets of the task force partner agencies to address the threat posed by corrupt public officials.”

The task force includes staff from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division, the Inspector General’s Offices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

LEGISLATURE TRYING TO BACKUP ON FOOLISH BEHAVIOR WITH REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ!

Hartford Courant Sharelines reports as follows:

"HARTFORD — Top legislators are working to resurrect many of the 45 bills that died in the judiciary committee this week, the casualty of an email squabble between two legislators that brought the committee's work to an abrupt halt.

Democrats, who control both chambers of the legislature, said that the bill with the highest priority for revival is one that would allow citizens to file lawsuits against police officers who interfere with them as they videotape them while performing their official duties.

That bill and 44 others died without a vote when the email clash led to a filibuster by Republicans leading up to a legislative deadline..."

For more information on this matter, please click on the link below:



MORE HARTFORD COURANT COMMENTARY ON ATTACK ON REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ!

According to Christopher Keating of The Hartford Courant,

"State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez says it's over.


Gonzalez, a Hartford Democrat, vaulted into the headllines this week after writing a highly critical email to Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, a Naugatuck Republican who serves as the committee’s ranking House member. The email dust-up led to a Republican filibuster in the judiciary committee and the failure of 45 bills that had been on the agenda - as the committee failed to take any action by its deadline.

But Gonzales said she is ready to move forward - with no hard feelings and no spillover effects as the legislature heads into the final six weeks of the session.

"For me, this is over,'' Gonzalez told The Courant in an interview. "It's over in my mind.''

The email related to a public clash between Gonzalez and Rebimbas during the previous week over the re-nomination of State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase Rogers. The Rogers hearing spilled over into a series of issues, incuding the role of guardians ad litem who are appointed in highly contentious divorce cases."


For more information on this article, please click on the link below:

Monday, April 13, 2015

CTNOW REPORTS H.B. 5505 AND 44 OTHER BILLS ARE IN LIMBO AS REP. GONZALEZ EMAIL ALLEGED TO BE SOURCE OF FILIBUSTER!

Christopher Keating of CTNOW reports as follows:



A clash over a legislator's email caused the failure of 45 bills Monday at the judiciary committee as Republicans and Democrats squared off as the committee faced an important deadline at 5 p.m.
The clash led to the failure of all bills on the agenda as Republicans staged a filibuster that lasted until the deadline.
The two sides disagreed on some substantive issues, but the dispute was a spillover from Friday between state Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, a Hartford Democrat, and Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, a Naugatuck Republican who serves as the ranking House member, officials said. Gonzalez and Rebimbas clashed publicly during a long hearing Friday regarding the confirmation of Connecticut State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase Rogers.
But both Republicans and Democrats said the dispute continued following an email that Gonzalez sent Saturday that was copied to numerous legislators, including Rebimbas herself. At least 25 people - both Republicans and Democrats - had seen the email by Monday, based on the email trail.
The original email was written to a non-legislator who has concerns about the longrunning controversy over guardians ad litem, which are mentioned by Gonzalez as GAL. The guardians are often appointed in contentious divorce cases involving the care and custody of minor children.
The email by Gonzalez, obtained by Capitol Watch, is as follows:
"Do not waist your valuable time with people like Rep Ribimbas.She is an atty and also a GAL,she is fighting for her pocket not for the people like you and others the are suffering .She is cold with no heart.All she did on Friday was kissing the judges back and attacking another Rep and calling you a liar.not professional .people that were watching knows what a brown nose she is.she didn't look good but she think  she was awesome,Dianne always remember that every pig has 
his Saturday .ps Ribimbas I hope y enjoy 
VIDEO TESTIMONY ABOUT  5505 king another Rep and insulting you. She think that she did good

Sent from my iPhone Minnie González''
The mention of 5505 by Gonzalez refers to House Bill 5505, which advocates are pushing in an attempt to make changes to the family court system on issues such as supervised visitation in contentious child custody cases.
House Republican leader Themis Klarides, who was clearly frustrated by the developments, declined to comment on the email.
"I don't want to talk about it,'' Klarides told Capitol Watch outside the meeting room.
Gonzalez sent a second email on Monday that said, "Dear Representative Rebimbas,
"On Saturday, my emotions got the better of me on an issue that I, and my constituents, care deeply about. It was inappropriate for me to include other people in an email that should have remained between us, and for that I apologize.''
But Sen. John Kissel, the longtime ranking senator on the committee, said the second email "really wasn't an apology.''
Kissel said that Republicans had sought "a simple apology'' that never materialized over the course of the day and led to the filibuster. 

THE CONNECTICUT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS ON THE REAPPOINTMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS!

John Marinelli of The Connecticut Law Tribune reports as follows:

"It was eight years ago that Chase Rogers was nominated to be Connecticut's chief justice. Since then, she has worked to increase the transparency of Judicial Branch operations, coped with the skyrocketing number of self-represented litigants and dealt with an increasingly unhappy group of critics of the state's family court system.

All those topics were discussed April 10, when Rogers appeared before the legislature's Judiciary Committee and discussed past events, current initiatives and future goals. She was nominated for a second eight-year term by Gov. Dannel Malloy, and was confirmed unanimously by the committee early Saturday morning. Her nomination now moves to the full General Assembly.

During a lengthy confirmation hearing, Republican Sen. John Kissel said it's a "blessing" to have Rogers oversee the Judicial Branch.

But Democratic Rep. Minnie Gonzalez questioned Rogers for about two hours, saying she wants everyone who uses the court system to be treated respectfully. Rogers agreed, pointing out how she's taken steps to improve "access to justice" and make the courts more transparent..."


Read more: 


http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202723344045/Chief-Justice-Reappointment-Clears-Committee#ixzz3XFBbu4Qp

Sunday, April 12, 2015

WTNH CHANNEL 8 REPORTS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS!

For a link to the WTNH Channel 8 new report, please click on the link below:

http://wtnh.com/2015/04/10/states-highest-ranking-judge-under-fire/

MIDDLETOWN PRESS REPORTS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVED CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS FOR REAPPOINTMENT!

Elizabeth Regan of CT New Junkie reports & republished in The Middletown Press as follows:
Members of the Judiciary Committee gave Chief Justice 
Chase T. Rogers a thumbs up Saturday morning after

roughly six hours of public testimony both for and

against the state’s top judge. 

The committee overwhelmingly approved Gov. 

Dannel P. Malloy’s renomination of Rogers

for a second eight-year term. She was

appointed to the position by former 

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

Rogers said at her confirmation hearing Friday that

she has been successful in promoting transparency,

access to justice and diversity in the Connecticut

court system. She cited the accessibility of court

documents online, increased availability 

of pro bono services, enhanced resources for

those who choose to represent themselves,

and a move toward an individual calendaring

system so that one judge can hear an 

entire civil case from start to finish.

She said she plans to extend individual

calendaring to certain family court cases

through a pilot program beginning in 

September.


Thursday, April 9, 2015

ELIZABETH A. RICHTER'S TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO THE REAPPOINTMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS!

PLEASE BE CHARITABLE! THIS IS THE FIRST VIDEO I HAVE EVER DONE! IN PART 3 RE SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES I MEAN GREEN LIGHT, NOT RED LIGHT--I KNOW YOU GOT THAT!!! ANOTHER CORRECTION, KARYN GIL DID NOT LOSE CUSTODY OF HER DAUGHTER, BUT SHE WAS HARASSED IN COURT FOR MANY YEARS WITH PAS USED AS THE EXCUSE EVEN THOUGH A PSYCHOLOGIST WAS CLEAR THIS WASN' A SITUATION WITH PAS.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

THE HONORABLE CHASE T. ROGERS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REAPPOINTMENT BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!!


Judiciary Committee
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
Friday, April 10, 2015
10:30 AM in Room 2C of the LOB


NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW


I. To be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
1. The Honorable Chase T. Rogers of Old Lyme


II. To be a Judge of the Superior Court
1. The Honorable James W. Abrams of Meriden
2. The Honorable Robin Pavia of Easton
3. The Honorable Robert F. Vacchelli of Glastonbury


III. To be a Judge Trial Referee
1. The Honorable William B. Rush of Fairfield

Saturday, March 28, 2015

AN ACT CONSOLIDATING CRIMINAL JUSTICE, JUVENILE AND FAMILY SERVICE PROGRAMS.

AN ACT CONSOLIDATING CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

JUVENILE AND FAMILY SERVICE PROGRAMS.

*This act will be considered on Wednesday, April 1, 

 2015 by the Judiciary Committee


To implement the Governor's budget 

recommendations.
Introduced by: 

SEN. MARTIN M. LOONEY, 11TH DISTRICT

SEN. BOB DUFF, 25TH DISTRICT

REP. J. BRENDAN SHARKEY, 88TH DISTRICT

REP. JOE ARESIMONOWICZ, 30TH DISTRICT  



To find out about the content of this bill, please 

click on the link below:






http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/TOB/S/2015SB-00951-R00-SB.htm

RAISED BILL NO. 7051: AN ACT CONCERNING THE INVESTIGATION OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION!

UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON APRIL 1, 2015


General Assembly



Raised Bill No. 7051 
January Session, 2015
LCO No. 5829
*05829_______JUD*
Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY 
Introduced by:
(JUD)
AN ACT CONCERNING THE INVESTIGATION OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) For the purposes of sections 1 to 5, inclusive, of this act:
(1) "Crime" means a violation of any provision of the general statutes involving: (A) Corruption in the executive, legislative or judicial branch of state government or in the government of any political subdivision of the state, (B) fraud by a vendor of goods or services in the medical assistance program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965, as amended, (C) larceny in the first degree, (D) the election laws of this state, and (E) bribery or bribe receiving;
(2) "Property" includes, but is not limited to, documents, books, papers, records, films, recordings and other tangible things; 
(3) "Prosecuting official" means the Chief State's Attorney, a deputy Chief State's Attorney or a state's attorney; and 
(4) "Entity" means any natural person, firm, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, trust, syndicate, estate, association, corporation, custodian, nominee, municipality, agency or political or administrative subdivision of the state or other legal entity of any kind. 
Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) (a) In the investigation of conduct that would constitute the commission of a crime, a prosecuting official, in the performance of such official's duties during such investigation, shall have the authority to compel by subpoena the production of property related to the matter under investigation. 
(b) Any subpoena issued pursuant to this section shall (1) compel only the production of property relevant to the investigation being conducted, (2) specify with reasonable particularity the property to be produced, (3) allow a reasonable period of time for compliance, and (4) require only the production of documents or records covering a reasonable period of time. 
(c) Any subpoena issued pursuant to this section shall compel an entity to produce the property related to the matter under investigation at the office of the prosecuting official. 
Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) (a) In any investigation conducted pursuant to sections 2 to 5, inclusive, of this act, a prosecuting official may apply to a judge of the Superior Court for an order granting immunity from prosecution to any natural person to whom the state issues a subpoena. Such immunity may provide that the person will not be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture (1) for or on account of any property produced by such person, or for or on account of any evidence discovered as a result of or otherwise derived from property produced by such person, or (2) for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which such person produces property. 
(b) No person who has been properly served with a subpoena pursuant to section 2 of this act and receives immunity under subsection (a) of this section, shall be excused from producing any property before the prosecuting official concerning an investigation on the ground or for the reason that the property required may tend to incriminate such person or subject such person to a penalty or forfeiture. 
Sec. 4. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) If any subpoena is issued pursuant to section 2 of this act for the production of the medical records, including psychiatric and substance abuse treatment records, of a natural person, the prosecuting official shall give written notice of the issuance of such subpoena to such person. Such person shall have standing to file a motion to quash the subpoena in accordance with section 5 of this act. 
Sec. 5. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) (a) Whenever a subpoena has been issued to compel the production of property pursuant to section 2 of this act, the entity summoned may file a motion to quash the subpoena. No fees or costs shall be assessed. 
(b) The party filing the motion to quash shall be designated as the plaintiff, and shall be described as "John Doe", "Jane Doe" or some other alias, and the prosecuting official shall be designated as the defendant. 
(c) The motion, upon its filing, shall be sealed as to the public. The motion shall be referred to the presiding criminal judge of the court for hearing or for assignment to another judge for hearing. Unless otherwise ordered by the judge conducting the hearing, the hearing shall be conducted in camera and the file on the motion shall be sealed as to the public, subject to further order of the court. 
(d) The motion shall be expeditiously assigned and heard. The date and time of the hearing shall be established by the clerk after consultation with the judge assigned to conduct the hearing. The clerk shall give notice to the parties of the hearing so scheduled. 
(e) A judge may quash or modify any subpoena issued pursuant to section 2 of this act for just cause or in recognition of any privilege established under law.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1October 1, 2015New section
Sec. 2October 1, 2015New section
Sec. 3October 1, 2015New section
Sec. 4October 1, 2015New section
Sec. 5October 1, 2015New section
Statement of Purpose: 
To give state prosecutors the tools necessary to protect Connecticut residents from financial crime and to investigate fraud against government programs and funds. 
[Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by underline, except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined.]

Monday, March 9, 2015

IMPORTANT BILL ON SUPERVISED VISITATION, GALS , AND COURT ORDERED MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UP FOR CONSIDERATION THIS WEEK BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!

There will be a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 10:30 a.m., at the LOB in room 2E, in regard to Committee Bill No. 5505:  An Act Concerning Family Court Proceedings.  Please make time to present your testimony in support of this bill.  The language of this bill includes important safeguards against:

1.  GAL Abuse
2.  The frivolous imposition of unnecessary supervised visitation
3.  Forced mental health treatment for yourself and your child
 
The wording of the bill is as follows:

 
AN ACT CONCERNING FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 815, 815a, 815e, 815j, 815p, 815t or 815y of the general statutes, a court shall not order that a parent have supervised visitation with his or her child, unless such court finds, based upon the evidence presented to the court, that such parent: (1) Has engaged in an act of neglect or abuse that has been substantiated by the Department of Children and Families; (2) has no established relationship with the child with whom visitation is sought; (3) has engaged in criminal conduct that presents a potential risk to the health, safety or well-being of a child; or (4) suffers from a severe mental disability that presents a potential risk to the health, safety or well-being of a child.

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) A person aggrieved by the action of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child or children, appointed under section 46b-54 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, may bring a civil action seeking appropriate relief, including equitable relief, damages, or both, in the superior court for the judicial district in which such counsel or guardian ad litem for a minor child was appointed. If such civil action results in a judgment for the plaintiff, the court shall award the plaintiff all costs of the action, including such attorney's fees as the court may allow to the plaintiff. The court shall not enter any order under this section that would require a plaintiff to pay the costs, expenses or attorney's fees of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child named as a defendant in such civil action. It shall not be a defense to such civil action that the defendant is entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial immunity.

Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) (a) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a parent undergo treatment or an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the court shall allow the parent to select the licensed health care provider who is to provide such treatment or evaluation.
(b) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a child undergo treatment or an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the court shall permit the parent or legal guardian of such child to select the licensed health care provider who is to provide such treatment or evaluation. If two parents do not agree on the selection of a licensed health care provider to provide such treatment or evaluation to a child, the court shall continue the matter for two weeks to allow the parents an opportunity to jointly select the licensed health care provider. If after the two-week period, the parents have not reached an agreement on the selection of a licensed health care provider, the court shall select such provider after giving due consideration to the health insurance coverage and financial resources available to such parents. In the case of two parents who cannot agree on the selection of a licensed health care provider to provide such treatment or evaluation to the child, if a parent incurs expenses as a result of permitting the child to be treated or evaluated by such provider, without the express written consent of the other parent, the parent who permitted such treatment or evaluation to occur shall be solely responsible for the costs incurred for such treatment or evaluation.
(c) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a parent or child undergo an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the results of such evaluation shall be submitted to the court by such provider not later than thirty days after the date of completion of the evaluation.

Sec. 4. Subsection (e) of section 46b-54 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):
(e) [Counsel] Except as provided in this subsection, counsel or a guardian ad litem for the minor child or children shall be heard on all matters pertaining to the interests of any child, including the custody, care, support, education and visitation of the child, so long as the court deems such representation to be in the best interests of the child. To the extent practicable, when hearing from such counsel or guardian ad litem, the court shall permit such counsel or guardian ad litem to participate at the beginning of the matter, at the conclusion of the matter or at such other time the court deems appropriate so as to minimize legal fees incurred by the parties due to the participation of such counsel or guardian ad litem in the matter. Such counsel or guardian ad litem [may] shall not be heard on a matter pertaining to a medical diagnosis or conclusion concerning a minor child made by a health care professional treating such child. [when (1) such counsel or guardian ad litem is in possession of a medical record or report of the treating health care professional that indicates or supports such medical diagnosis or conclusion; or (2) one or more parties have refused to cooperate in paying for or obtaining a medical record or report that contains the treating health care professional's medical diagnosis or conclusion. If] Instead, if the court deems it to be in the best interests of the minor child, such health care professional shall be heard on matters pertaining to the interests of any such child, including the custody, care, support, education and visitation of such child. 

Thursday, December 18, 2014

CT SENATE REPUBLICANS ANNOUNCE THAT SENATOR TONI BOUCHER HAS BEEN NAMED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!

Hartford, CT – State Senator Toni Boucher of Wilton has been named to the powerful Judiciary Committee of the General Assembly. Sen. Minority Leader Len Fasano (R-North Haven) announced last week the new committee assignments in the Senate Republican Caucus.

“I am honored to be chosen for this very important assignment,” remarked Boucher. “The Judiciary Committee is extremely busy laying the ground work for the states’ future in many areas of law. Especially critical is overseeing nominations relating to future judges and members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.”

For more information on this matter, please click on the link below: