MISSION STATEMENT: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Five years ago, I spent a few days at the Rieger Memorial Conference Against Violence talking with Mr. Lundy Bancroft, author of numerous books including "Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men".  Together we discussed the subject of domestic violence and the inadequate response of the judicial system to that violence.  After reflecting upon his comments, I have come up with a suggested Mission Statement in regard to how the Protective Mother's Movement should move forward here in Connecticut. 

CONNECTING!

Previously, I stated that we need to find one another.  This still remains a priority.  So many of us end up in trial court and under fire and believe that we are somehow unique.  In fact, there has been a war on women, and, most particularly a war against mothers and their children, here in Connecticut for a considerable period of time.  This has to stop.  We need to find ways to locate one another so that we can meet, share experiences and support each other through these difficult times.  I know many of us are frightened and terrified of retaliation.  We don't want anyone to find out that we have taken steps to find each other.  We are afraid of connecting and revealing our identities just in case there are spies or moles out there.  It is time to get over that, stand up and be counted.  Those who are more bold can be more public, and those who cannot be bold because they are still in fear, can help in many ways behind the scenes.  Still, we all need to move forward shoulder to shoulder in order to create change for the better.

MAKING THE WAVE!

We need to pursue our agenda and communicate and implement our goals community by community and court by court, judge by judge, attorney by attorney, GAL by GAL, and evaluator by evaluator.  We need to meet people one on one and in groups and educate them regarding the harm that the current system is doing to mothers and children throughout the state, and also, by implication the harm done to men who abuse by allowing them to continue on with criminal behavior which ultimately destroys their humanity. 

In the past, I stated that we need to create a grass roots movement here in Connecticut and form a visible organization which can represent our interests to the judicial system, to the State legislature, and to the media and command their attention, demand they respond to our concerns, and implement the necessary changes we request. We had considerable success in doing this in 2014 with the establishment of the CT Coalition For Family Court Reform.  Unfortunately, since that time it has been overtaken by a minority of father's rights extremists, and it is unclear at this time whether this is a situation that can be corrected.  This is something we will continue to work for on an ongoing basis.  Meanwhile, we will continued to fight for the rights of protective mothers, at least on this blog.

PROPOSED MEMBERSHIP!
Persons eligible for membership in this organization would be women who have been or who are currently involved in a high conflict divorce, children of parents who have been or who are currently in a high conflict divorce 18 or older, as well as family and friends of those who have been or who are currently in a high conflict divorce.   

IMPLEMENTING CHANGE:

In order to defend protective mothers and their children, we need to do the following:

1.  Improve the Quality of Custody Evaluations:  I understand that in some states litigants are not allowed to look at the custody evaluations that are written for their cases.  For once, I have to say that our judicial system here in Connecticut does not act as badly as that.  I do believe that it is unethical to use a custody evaluation in a custody dispute without examining the evaluator prior to trial in a thorough and detailed deposition providing both sides the opportunity to ask questions.  Also, I do think that there should be more clearcut guidelines regarding the contents of such reports.  Rather than be an opportunity for the accumulation of a broad range of hearsay mixed in with the subjective judgments of the evaluator, reports should be written according to very specific guidelines that ultimately revolve around who does the concrete job of parenting.  Who takes the children to the doctor?  Who meets with the teachers at parent/teacher conferences?  Who takes the children off the bus at the end of the school day?  Who drives the children to their activities?  It is interesting that during my very lengthy custody evaluation, the evaluator asked my X to name the principal of the school, the childrens' guidance counselors, and the teachers.  He was barely able to remember the names of these people because he had nothing to do with them because he simply wasn't the primary caretaker. 

2.  Establish Reliable Standards for Determining the Presence of Domestic Violence:   It is vital that we have uniform, objective methods for how a domestic violence allegation should be investigated.  The manner in which such an investigation takes place should be very clearly delineated and should use generally accepted assessment tools with a high level of accuracy such as HITS (Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream), WAST (Women Abuse Screening Tool), PVS (Partner Violence Screen) or the AAS which is frequently used with young, low income women.  There are many other screening instruments which are very reliable.  But the methods should be solid and trustworthy.  Also, we need to work for the passage of the Protective Mothers Act which would prevent trial courts from routinely denying custody and visitation to mothers who make sexual abuse allegations in good faith, but those allegations prove to be untrue.

3.  Pursue Judicial Accountability:  The vast majority of litigants believe that they have to accept the decisions of the trial judge.  As a consequence, few continue on after trial to go to the Appellate Court and subsequently Supreme Court.  However, a recent Department of Justice study indicates that if women continue on to Appellate Court, they will very likely be able to overturn an unjust verdict on appeal.  As a result, it is important to caution women in high conflict divorce to conserve their financial resources so that they will be able to continue on to appeal.  In fact, at every point in trial, they should be thinking ahead, making certain to preserve errors for appeal, and making sure to take those necessary steps to preserve the right to appeal once the verdict comes in.  Among other things, this means meeting all the required deadlines.  Although moving forward to Appellate Court seems daunting to the beginner, it is, in fact, not such a big deal.  It is manageable and well worth doing, even, if you have to do so as a self represented party.  Until women who are legally abused give notice that they will not accept judicial misconduct and indicate that they will go on to appeal if necessary, judges will continue to mock and violate litigants' rights.  Therefore, we need to support and encourage women to pursue their appeals in the face of injustice.

4.  Enforce Connecticut Practice Book Rules:  Rules were made for a reason, and, in particular, the rules of the Connecticut Practice Book were made for a reason--because history shows that they work.  In my divorce, it was particularly devastating that both my attorneys and the opposing attorney simply flouted those rules, and, as a result, my case quickly descended into chaos and ended up taking years and years to resolve.  I hear this again and again when it comes to high conflict divorces.  We need to be sure that attorneys and litigants obey the rules and procedures of the courtroom, and we need to eliminate the situations where the favored litigant is able to evade them. For example, during my divorce my X simply refused to disclose the financial documents I requested through subpoena and the trial court never demanded that he comply with my requests that he turn them over.  He was also never required to obey stipulations or court orders.  In contrast, I was severely punished if I so much as failed to obey a tiny fraction of these rules.  This left me feeling exposed, vulnerable, traumatized, and frightened.

5.  Enforce the Approximation Standard:  What this means is that whatever the arrangement was before the divorce was filed should remain in place to the greatest extent possible.  This means that, in the case of a dispute, whichever parent was the primarily caretaker before the divorce should continue on as the primary caretaker.  This would probably settle matters in 99.9% of cases and eliminate the need for ongoing expensive litigation that consumes all marital assets including the childrens' college funds.  It would be like floride in the proverbial legal waters.  In so many cases, abusive men sue for the custody of the children, win custody, and then immediately hand over the care and upbringing of the children to various nannies, while they continue on with lengthy hours at work and extensive business trips.  What in the world is the point of that?

6.  Build Bridges With Other Groups Who Have Related Interests:  There are many other groups who deal with family court who have very similar interests.  For example, there are protective fathers who face very similar injustice and discrimination in family court and are not heard when they describe the abuse they have suffered.  In addition, many responsible fathers have not had their day in court and have been subject to similar arbitrary court rulings and kangaroo court proceedings.  These are really powerful agents for change for the better and we would do well to work with them on creating positive change.  In addition, there is the larger disability community that is also terribly mishandled within the courtroom setting.  These are folks with both visible and invisible disabilities who find that the simple fact that they have some kind of disability gets used as a basis for denying them access to their children, or places them in a situation where they are subjected to crushing financial losses in family court simply by virtue of having a disability.  If we work together with folks like this, I think we can really make a considerable impact on creating changes for the better in family court.

7.  Enforcement of the ADA and the ADAAA:  The vast majority of women in high conflict divorce face multiple challenges in family court where so many of the procedures and processes have broken down.  As a result, many are experiencing legal abuse syndrome or some other form of post traumatic stress disorder.  Others may have developed both physical and psychiatric difficulties as a consequence of living with an abuser.  For that reason, we need to ensure that women such as this receive reasonable accommodations and protection against discrimination based upon their disability.  Preferably, we need to develop a strong group of ADA Advocates trained by Dr. Karin Huffer of Equal Access Associates to accompany litigants into family court to ensure that litigant's ADA and ADAAA rights are enforced.  We need to work with family court to educate court personnel in regard to the rights of litigants under the ADA and the ADAAA and we need to continue to insist that litigants with disabilities receive the rights to which they are entitled.

FINAL REMARKS:

What I have written here in this mission statement is simply a template arising from Mr. Bancrofts ideas.  I've mixed in my own thoughts based upon my experiences in my own custody battle.  I am happy to change and adjust this statement as people continue to propose their ideas and recommendations.  However, without a clear statement of purpose, I think it will be difficult for our movement to be organized and effective.  So at the start of our campaign, I thought I would simply throw out this mission statement so you would all have an opportunity to reflect upon it, and hopefully it will provide us with a solid foundation to build upon.   

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI UPDATE!

I have been waiting to get some more definitive information regarding Michael Nowacki's situation.  Currently, he is in jail because he violated a restraining order in regard to his wife by accidentally emailing her in a mass emailing and, apparently, he tapped on the window of her car to get her attention, and is now looking at 17 months in jail.  Perhaps there is more detail about this, and I will continue to investigate this question.  

Of course, at this point, litigants such as myself who were struggling with abusive ex-husbands who put nails in the tires of our cars, stole personal property, smeared shit on the walls, put our children at risk, and constantly violated court orders can't figure out why we were never able to get the family court to hold them to account!  

In comparison, this prison sentence Mr. Michael Nowacki has received seems revengeful and petty.  

My understanding is that when the final ruling on Michael Nowacki came out on May 8, 2012 the Judge stated that if the prison authorities felt he required mental health treatment they could impose this treatment on him involuntarily.  I believe that this order is still in place, although it has not thus far been followed through on.  

However, when Mr. Nowacki was taken to court again today hoping to be released on bond pending his appeal, he was told that he would not be released from prison until he signed a stipulation voluntarily agreeing to a psychiatric evaluation and then further agreeing to adhere to the treatment plan that emerged from this psychiatric evaluation.  

This is a pretty intense form of coercion--demanding that you barter your physical freedom for mental imprisonment by the psychiatric system.  

Mr. Nowacki refused to agree to this stipulation.  Even so, apparently, the Judge ordered that Mr. Michael Nowacki undergo a psychiatric evaluation in prison on an involuntary basis.  The bottom line is that Mr. Nowacki has been vocal in his criticism of the family court system which has to be just about one of the most corrupt in our nation. In retaliation, the court is trying to silence Mr. Nowacki with the use of psychiatric "treatment".  And also the court is trying to destroy his influence and his reputation by labeling him as crazy.  Isn't this a common trait of evil doers--when caught declare your accusers insane?

Mr. Michael Nowacki had the guts to challenge the judicial system about why, in violation of State law, it has gone ahead and expanded the power of judges in a power grab that violates the Constitution and the rights of all citizens in this State.  And so, like any good Communist system, the judicial system is using psychiatry as a means to silence him.  

Seeing Mr. Michael Nowacki's fate, we have to ask ourselves, in reality, are we living in a totalitarian system where any attempt at criticism and reform will be met with kangaroo mental health courts that jail people, subject them to unwanted psychiatric care and treatment, which we all know runs the gamut from ECT to dangerous, mind numbing drugs.  

Playing the devil's advocate, let's ask the question, seriously, is Mr. Nowacki crazy?  I would agree he is an angry man, perhaps even an impatient, outspoken, and intemperate man.  But does that make him crazy?

To be honest, I'd like those of you who wonder whether a man like Mr. Nowacki is crazy to spend some time reading my website, to learn about the flagrant injustice to which litigants in this state are subjected to, to read some of the comments where litigants share their own devastating experiences of being abused by the judicial system.  

Just going through these experiences would drive anyone crazy.  But I wouldn't leave it at that.  I would say that the judicial court deliberately manipulates people, verbally and physically abuses them, and punches them around through legal machinations such that they eventually crack.  Being "crazy", "obsessed", "depressed", and full of rage is the natural condition of anyone who ends up being a victim of the injustice that fuels the legal system here in Connecticut, vastly enriching an elite core of attorneys, judges, GALs, and psychiatrists who have an inside track to seizing the peoples' money through nefarious means. 

I don't believe that Michael Nowacki is crazy.  

Grief stricken, perhaps, to see the country he believes in, here in the State of Connecticut, crassly and brazenly violate the fundamental values of democracy, and truth and justice that he thought were the very foundation of the society he lived in.  

Enraged to find his constitutional rights flagrantly disregarded and trampled upon.  

Driven almost to the point of distraction by the fact that so many people who have pledged themselves to a code of ethics that requires them to subordinate all their actions to the very highest values of truth and justice and decency, instead using family court as a means of personal enrichment and the exploitation of the most weak and vulnerable among us.  

Yes, all those things.  But crazy?  I don't think so.  

I just spent a day in trial court supporting a friend who was viciously abused, mocked, and defrauded by a trial court that has the job of doing what is right for families.  It is heartbreaking.  Heartbreaking to endure yourself.  Heartbreaking to watch.  

I have nothing more to say this evening in the face of this tragedy except we will endure.  Michael will endure.  He will one day be free.  We will be free.  The people will be heard.  I will continue to report on the front lines regarding Michael Nowacki and his struggle, and let you know how you can personally become involved and fight for reform.  

Justice Today!  Justice Tomorrow!  Justice Forever!

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 071559 SINGING KUMBAYA, AND THE BOUNDS OF ADVOCACY (5)

Continued from part 4

Remember how we used to act during the old demonstrations of the 60s and 70s?  We'd wave the posters, chant "The people, united, will never be defeated", raise our fists, applaud all the speaches and have a high old time?  Then everyone joined hands, sang kumbaya and then we'd be good for another day. 

Something kind of similar happens in a Connecticut Divorce.  The attorney's rip each of you apart, and bludgeon your kids; they give you the devil's handshake, and then we are all supposed to stand in a circle and sing Kumbaya!  No seriously.  You're laughing.  I know you are laughing.  Stop it.  Ok. 

Of course, there is a little bit of a problem with that, particularly in this case, $400,000 later.  You are right.

Judge Bishop acknowledged that at the end of his Memorandum of Decision.  He states, "Attorney Santy [the GAL] is commended for his commitment to Gregory..."  Damn I would be committed too for the amount of money he got!  "At an early stage in the litigation, defendant's counsel (Attorney Eliot Nerenberg) instructed Attorney Santy not to communicate ex parte with Mrs. Bauer.  Based on my observations during trial, I believe that this prevention of direct, unhampered communication between Attorney Santy and Mrs. Bauer had a chilling and polarizing effect." 

Oh, Eliot how could you!  I am so disappointed.  It would never occur to me that you had such an appetite for filthy lucre that you would allow a chilling and polarizing atmosphere to develop thus costing the parties considerably more legal fees, particularly fees owed to you.   

Apparently, Judge Bishop concedes that, according to the Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2 in the CT Practice Book, Eliot was well within his rights to act as he did.  However, what Judge Bishop acknowledges, and quite crucially so, is that "Rules adopted for the handling of traditional civil and criminal litigation may not have an equal applicability to family litigation where counsel have a special responsibility to 'spike the forensic guns' and to foster an environment in which the parties are enabled to come to voluntary resolution of their intra-family dispute." Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Conn. App. 179. 

Golly gee.  Why didn't anyone tell me about this.  Spike the forensic guns!  So they have a special responsibility, do they!  I hope they take that very seriously.  Yeah, right.  So, that is not all.  There is more. 

Judge Bishop continues on to say, "The Rules of Professional Conduct may not adequately cover the role of counsel in family dispute resolution.  In 1991, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers published standards of conduct for attorneys involved in family matters" called the "Bounds of Advocacy".  They provided a revision of this standard in 1995.  Judge Bishop says, "While neither of these standards is binding, both are instructive and relevant. 

According to Judge Bishop, The Preliminary Statement in the Bounds of Advocacy states, in part:  "Existing codes often do not provide adequate guidance to the matrimonial lawyer.  First, their emphasis on zealous representation of individual clients in criminal and some civil cases is not always appropriate in family law matters."  

Bishop continues on with his quotation, "In many ways, matrimonial practice is unique.  Family disputes occur in a volatile and emotional atmosphere.  It is difficult for matrimonial lawyers to represent the interests of their clients without addressing the interests of other family members.  Unlike most other concluded disputes in which the parties may harbour substantial animosity without practical effect, the parties to matrimonial disputes may be required to interact for years to come.  In addition, many matrimonial lawyers believe themselves obligated to consider the best interests of children, regardless of which family member they represent." 

So, if the professional standards for Attorneys published by the American Academy of Matrimonial lawyers is so important, and attorney's should abide by them, how come they are not in the Connecticut Practice Book or mentioned somewhere, somehow.  I mean, I have been in my divorce for years and years and I never even heard of these standards. 

That hurts.  I mean.  Didn't anyone want to include me so I'd know what I could reasonably expect from my attorney?  I'm crying now.  My hanky is wet!  One moment.  Let me blow.............Ok, now.  Feeling better.  So, let me see.

Rule 2.15 of the "Bounds of Advocacy", "An attorney should encourage the settlement of marital disputes through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration."  Oh, and here is another lovely one: 

Rule 2.6, "When representing an unimpaired child, counsel should take appropriate measures to protect the child from harm that may be incurred as a result of the litigation by striving to expedite the proceedings and encouraging settlement in order to reduce trauma that can be caused by the litigation." 

And I assume that "encouraging settlement" means more than just expecting me to give away all my rights while the other side gets all the rights.  Underlying the concept of "settlement" is the concept of mutual concessions, I would think. 

How come there is all this good stuff in cases reported by the court, like here, but I've never seen these ideas promoted anywhere else, like in my own case or that of any of my friends, who have been victimized by horrible, multiyear, NPD driven divorces.  Do attorneys ever really read those professional ethics, or are they too busy scooping up the dough and running to the bank? 

I am seriously thinking of grievance.  No, maybe a lovely Motion to Sanction.  Yes, that's right...

For more information regarding the professional ethics of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers as stated in their publication "Bounds of Advocacy", see the link below:

http://www.willicklawgroup.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bounds-of-Advocacy,-1991-ed..pdf

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

For those of you who have been waiting for news about Michael Nowacki who was falsely imprisoned by the Connecticut Judicial System for speaking out against its abuses, I do have some news. 

It appears that Michael is in good health and spirits.  Of course, I will never be satisfied myself until I personally see him and hear that information from his own mouth, but that is what I am hearing at this point.  I will continue on with updates as information comes to me. 

I know this is outrageous and many of you are extremely upset and angry about this situation, but let us maintain our calm and dignity in the face of this injustice.  Our struggle is a nonviolent struggle and we must speak the truth to power calmly and with the authority that our Constitution and our State Laws have provided us with. 

I am sure that Michael appreciates all your many phone calls and expressions of concern.  Justice today! Justice tomorrow! Justice forever!

In Solidarity,

THEY DON'T WANT US TRESPASSING IN THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL SYSTEM, BUT WE WILL!

IN CUSTODY DISPUTES, PSYCHIATRY USED AS A TOOL OF THE STATE AGAINST ITS CITIZENS: LISTEN TO THE STORY OF DR. ROBERT FETTGATHER

http://innersites.com/janet/f2f-phalen-fettgather.mp3

SUGGESTED CHANGES TO CT PRACTICE BOOK RULES AS OF MAY 8, 2012

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/pblj_050812.pdf

CONNECTICUT THE LEAST LIKELY

It looks like Connecticut is one of the 4 best states to live in if you are a perpetrator of domestic violence.  A recent study indicates that on a scale of 1 to 10, one being the lowest number of arrests for domestic violence and ten being the highest number of arrests, Connecticut rates a 2. 

There are two explanations for this.  One is that Connecticut is a state full of peaceful folks, or two, Connecticut's legal system has an extremely high tolerance for spousal abuse.  Which explanation do you pick?

OUR CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

I finally found it! The Connecticut Right to Due Process!  This has to do with the concept that legal proceedings will not be arbitrary, that they will be conducted fairly according to agreed upon procedures.

For example, handing you a motion just before you walk into the trial court is a denial of your due process rights because doing so prevents you from having reasonable advanced notice of the charges against you.

If you were wondering, our Connecticut Right to Due Process as incorporated into the Connecticut Constitution is located in Article I, Section 10 of that document and states as follows: 

"All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay."

I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with that statement.  It seems a little wishy washy, but it is the only one we have. 

I like the statement by the United States Supreme Court in 1934.  It said due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principles of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

On the Federal Level the due process clause is included in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as follows:

[N]or shall any person. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. . .

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: 

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .

Somehow the Federal version seems stronger to me than the State version.  Ultimately,  both guarantee our due process rights.

Equal Protection of the Law

By the way, I enjoyed Article I, Section 20 of the Connecticut Constitution which states as follows: 

"No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability."

This includes our right to ADA protection.

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

MICHAEL NOWACKI HAS BEEN JAILED BECAUSE HE CONFRONTED MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW CONNECTICUT'S CORRUPT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM HAS DENIED PARENTS AND CHILDREN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS.  HE SPOKE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN CONNECTICUT AND JUDGES HAVE GOTTEN THEIR REVENGE. WE NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559, HE'S BAD. THAT'S RIGHT! HE'S BAD. (4)

(Continued from Part 3)

It must have been really fun for Gregory to spend his time with Dad sitting around playing video games, going to movies and things like that, once Dad retired and was much more available.  

As I have said before, previously, for the first eleven years of Gregory's life, his Dad was away in New York for the week and only returned home on weekends.  And I assume that some of that time on weekends was spent simply traveling back and forth and, I am assuming, Dad's mind must have been quite preoccupied with work for some of the time.  It is hard to leave work behind.  

Then in 1997, Dad retires and he is totally available.  That must have been quite a change and led to lots of changes in both Gregory and Mr. Bauer's life, including the fact that both would have had the time to get to know each other better and develop a closer relationship.  

So, what kind of man was Mr. Charles I. Bauer.  Who was this man that Gregory was poised to develop a closer relationship to?

Luckily for you and me, since the trial court is transparent, and on the basis of the principle of transparency will spread all your private information out on the internet for everyone to see, we have all sorts of detail about Mr. Bauer.  

Not so of Mrs. Bauer. You realize that there was a psychological evaluation of Mrs. Bauer as well as Mr. Bauer so this practice of broadcasting all this information about the character of the parties should have affected both of them.  However, surprise surprise, there is no commentary of any real interest regarding Mrs. Bauer.  I would guess that everyone figured it wouldn't make sense to kill the golden goose who is laying the big fat golden eggs.  We want to keep her profile neat and tidy so she can keep up with her employment and pay all the bills.  

So Mrs. Bauer is looking really, really good, but Mr. Bauer?  

I have to shake my head.  Reading all this information on Mr. Bauer, he looks like a total scumbag.  

But first off, let's see how many doctors had a shot at examining this guy.  First, Dr. James C. Black in the custody evaluation, then there is Dr. Allan M. Jacobs, a psychiatrist specializing in substance abuse, Dr. Frank Stoll, to do the psychological evaluation, and then the neurological evaluation with Dr. Edward Fredericks.  Alrighty then, do we have enough cooks?!?  

So what do they say about our guy?  

He is anti-social, "Mr. Bauer leads a sendentary life in his retirement.  He has no apparent involvement in the community life of Simsbury."  

He is an alcoholic but denies it, "Until his use of alcohol became an issue in this dispute, he was a daily drinker, consuming beer occasionally at lunch, martinis in the evening, and wine periodically with dinner."  

Then he has a history of seizures, so he shouldn't be drinking, but he does anyway, "Though the number of seizures is disputed by the parties, it appears to the court that Mr. Bauer has had at least three convulsive episodes in his life time, each one associated with alcoholic intake."  Mr. Bauer knows his drinking upsets his son, Gregory, but does he stop?  No.  

Then, on top of the alcohol, Mr. Bauer "also smokes approximately a pack of cigarettes daily against medical advice." and, as a result, is in the early stages of emphysema.  When asked if he smokes in front of his son, he denied it.  According to the trial court, "While Mr. Bauer testified that he smokes in the bathroom upstairs and the fumes don't leave the bathroom, the court takes this claim as no more than a schoolboy's fantasy that evidence of smoking can be kept from the unwary."  

Then to top everything off, Dr. Stoll's evaluation of Mr. Bauer found that "this man lacks much insight into himself and others", that he is "disinclined to admit any social shortcomings", and that his personality structure has "a strong narcissistic component."  

As a final remark, Dr. Stoll says, "following Mrs. Bauer's relocation to Minnesota Mr. Bauer has assumed the primary responsibility for Gregory's care.  It has not gone well." Or as the trial court put it, describing that period, "Indeed, it is evident that Gregory was failing amidst Mr. Bauer's inattention and ignorance."

So what does Dr. James C. Black, the custody evaluator think of all this?  He asserts that despite Mr. Bauer's self-destructive behavior "that Mr. Bauer has been a positive role model for Gregory." which leads me to wonder:  Was Dr. Black smoking something very special himself?  I mean, did he pay attention to any of this information about Mr. Bauer's drinking, smoking, seizure inducing, child neglecting, narcissistic behavior, or was he snoozing through all of that?  

In regard to Dr. Black's testimony that Mr. Bauer is A-OK, for once, thank God, "The court disagrees."  It is not every day that the trial court disagrees with stupid, but this time it did.  And God bless the trial court for doing so.  

Of course, this testimony about Mr. Bauer could all be invented.  As we know, people do invent in family court.  And if any of us were scrutinized at length by four separate mental health professionals, I don't know how well any one of us would do.  

The bottom line is that the trial court's decision was the Mother would have custody if she would return to Connecticut and live in Simsbury and allow Gregory to finish high school there.  More than anything else, this decision is testimony to the power of a fifteen year old on a trial court's determinations.  Keep this in mind when you consider what is going on with you in family court.

This would give Mother around two months to find a new job in Connecticut, which isn't very much time for an upper level corporate executive.

Ultimately, also, the trial court gave no alimony to Mr. Bauer even though Mrs. Bauer made double the salary that he did.  So, if Mr Bauer's motivation for fighting for custody for Gregory was money, he was not going to get it.  And if Mrs. Bauer wanted custody of the child she said she loved, she would have to give up a considerable amount of her money, her salary, in order to have it.

Truly, a Solomonic conclusion to a very costly trial court proceeding.  

Tell me, what do you think, if the roles had been reversed and Mr. Bauer was the  one with the fancy job, and Mrs. Bauer was the drinker and smoker, would Mr. Bauer have been challenged to give up his job?  I wonder?

And there is more...

NEW DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDY ON CUSTODY EVALUATORS BELIEFS ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE!

HOT OFF THE PRESS!


http://ssw.umich.edu/about/profiles/saunddan/Custody-Evaluators-Beliefs-About-Domestic-Abuse-Allegations-Final-Tech-Report-to-NIJ-10-31-11.pdf

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559, THE CHILD (3)

The most difficult part of my divorce was the custody issue.  This is where I did everything I possibly could to protect the children from the battle that was going on in trial court. 

When my X and I exchanged the children for visitation, I did whatever I could to remain polite and to establish a reasonably friendly and civilized atmosphere.  I can remember grinding my teeth to keep my mouth shut so I wouldn't say anything that would later be a problem. 

Today I had a conversation with my older daughter.  She said to me, I am now beginning to understand what an unusual childhood I have had.  My heart leapt to my mouth as I wondered what she meant, thinking she was about to share some divorce trauma with me.  Instead, she said "You always took us to the library so that I have read many more books than most people my age." 

I felt so relieved.  If that is all that she remembers as being unusual about her childhood, I will have achieved my goal of protecting her from the dangerous fallout from my divorce.  I then laughed and said, "Well, that was actually you, because when I took you to the library, it never occurred to you to say 'I don't want to go.'" 

Unfortunately, for Patricia Bauer, in her case, she didn't have the same luck. 

When she told her son, Gregory, we are now moving to Minneapolis, he said "No, I don't want to go.  I want to stay in Simsbury with my Dad!" 

My position had always been in regard to my children that they will do as they are told because I am the mother.  However, when family court involves itself in your lives, that kind of firm control goes overboard as the court allows the kids to use the GAL against you, the attorneys in the case fabricate false information about you, and then undermine your authority. 

Can any of you relate to that?  I think you can. 

This is very problematic for a mother and I have heard stories about this from many of them.  I think it is very hard to shift from having full authority to having most of the authority shift from Mother to all these other people from family court who really have no idea what is going on the way a Mother does. 

This is tough enough when the children are young and need the kind of firm hand a Mother can provide, but what do you do, what will the family court do when these children begin to verge upon the age of decision making?  What do you do when the children reach 13, 14, 15 years old?  How much do you listen to the views of children that age? 

Now Charles and Patricia Bauer spent around $400,000, as you know, fighting over the custody of their son.  The young man involved in this case, Gregory, at the time around 15 years old, met with a psychologist, Dr. Wilbur Nelson, who stated that Gregory had "the requisite intelligence to have an informed preference concerning his living circumstances." 

My best bet is that at age 15, the trial court is going to conclude this about any child.  So, if you have a 15 year old child who is stating a preference for any particular living arrangement, do not spend $400,000 fighting that because, trust me, the conclusion is foregone. 

You know you are out of luck if the trial court assigns an Attorney of the Minor Child to the child rather than a GAL as they did in the Bauer case.  That is one great big hint to you that whatever the child wants, he or she will get. 

It may be still rather iffy at 13 or 14, but at 15, you have lost before you even begin if you try to go against the wishes of the  child.  When I tell this to parents, they always argue with me.  They can't seem to believe it is true.  It is amazing how many so called adults find it hard to understand that little Johnny, little Johnette, is all grown up and responsible for his or her actions, including taking action with AMCs and GALs and the trial court which are harming such parents profoundly. 

Regretably speaking, for such litigants, I can only say, the sooner they figure this concept out, the better.  Because until they do, they will simply be banging their heads against a brick wall.  And I've seen people bang their heads against this particular wall for a considerably long period of time and all that does is cost time, money, and heart ache for no damn good reason, as the Bauer case goes to show.  Kids are kids and they can be heartless, not unloving, but heartless.

So, aren't you glad you read this blog, because now you know, now you know not to go wasting your money with a great big custody battle when the results are preordained as everyone involved in this $400,000 court case already knew even as they engaged in it.  Isn't it true that the parties are the last to know about these things? 

Actually, in this particular case, it wasn't so much the child's age that made the difference. I think where both parents lost their authority to make any determination in regard to Gregory was when the trial court found out that Gregory had "attended seven schools in nine years." as he was growing up. That's nuts, totally nuts! 

Sometimes before you go embarking on some big family court case, it makes sense to have some therapy to explore your motivations so you don't use family court as an extremely expensive means to work out your own mental health issues.  Just reading over this case, listening to the reports that all Gregory wanted was for his parents to stop fighting over him, I can only say this was a really, really sad situation--"What Maisy Knew" reprised.

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559: AN UNUSUAL MARRIAGE (2)

One of my bad habits in life is that I keep on falling in love with men who are considerably older than me.  I am not sure why that has happened.  Daddy problems, maybe, or maybe I am an older person trapped in a young person's body! 

And, I was going to say, of course, but maybe I shouldn't make out it is a matter of course, in the end these relationships sucked because men like this were already married or life experience had jaded them too much to appreciate me.  So it is with some sense of the unfortunate that I figured out that between Mr. Bauer and Mrs. Bauer there is a solid twelve years, he being the older. 

On the other hand, there were twenty five years between Humphrey Bogart and Laren Bacall, and that relationship seems to have worked out.  Although, when I think of it, in the final years of their marriage, Lauren was winking over Bogie's shoulder at Frank Sinatra, that old devil.  Honestly, you think old blue eyes could stay out of it and leave our illusions intact! 

Not only were there twelve years between the Bauers, the marriage was a third for Mr. Bauer and a second one for Mrs. Bauer.  Ouch!  Theirs was a dance of closeness and distance, mostly distance, and one that is fairly complicated to the point where I had to draw myself a diagram in order to be sure I had the facts correctly.  I will now convey them to you and if you get lost, well, you are only in the same position that the rest of us are at.  Here goes. 

The couple met in Michigan in 1970s, dated and lived together for four years.  Then in 1974 Mrs. Bauer moved to Washington, D.C. and stayed there for six years until she got back together with Mr. Bauer in 1980, moving to Avon, CT and living with Mr. Bauer in a home on 177 High Road.

Then in 1981 Mr. Bauer got a job in New York City and purchased a condominium in New Jersey where he stayed during the week while returning to Avon to be with Mrs. Bauer on weekends. 

Got it!  This is where I started to get lost! 

Anyway, in 1982, the couple got married, and in 1983, their only son, Gregory, was born.  From 1981 until 1994, approximately 13 years, Mr. Bauer maintained this situation of living in New Jersey and visiting with Mrs. Bauer and his son in Avon, CT for weekends, meaning the arrangement was in place for the first eleven years of Gregory's life.  In other words, Mr. Bauer was daddy for the weekend for a considerable period of Gregory's life.

Then from 1994 to 1997, Mr. Bauer moved to stay in Avon, CT full time, working for his New York City company from an office in the home.  Then in 1997, he retired, having arrived at the age of 65--keep in mind that leaves Mrs. Bauer at 53 with twelve more years of productive working life. 

Can you imagine having a guy visiting in your home on weekends, then all of a sudden he is in your house 24 hours a day 7 days a week?  And what does Mr. Bauer do with all that free time?  Sits around on his butt playing video games with his son! That would drive me nuts! 

So, surprise, surprise, in 1997 Mrs. Bauer is discharged from her job based upon conflicts with her boss and gets a job in the far distant wilds of Minnesota, one of those vaguely interchangeable boxlike states located in the great midwestern wasteland of America, where she proceeds to make a considerable amount of money, and I am talking serious money. 

The couple have an understanding that Mr. Bauer and Gregory will follow once Mrs. Bauer finds a house in Minnesota and the old house is sold.  As it turns out, once Mrs. Bauer put her money down on a house in Minnesota and the old house was sold, Mr. Bauer suddenly decides enough is enough and files for divorce and for residential custody of Gregoy.  Men.  This is the time he decides to be a bum.

So the war begins... 

MORE NEWS ABOUT THE WAR ON WOMEN!

For those of you interested in getting more news from the frontlines regarding the war on women, see Anne Stevenson's cogent article recently published on the Huff Post.   Our government supporting abusers in getting custody, funding criminals in their efforts to get custody, and more! 

See the link below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-stevenson/top-5-hhs-programs-endang_b_1511613.html