HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!

CHANGES TO CT PRACTICE BOOK SEC. 25-60 RE FAMILY SERVICES EVALUATIONS PUT LITIGANTS AT RISK!

PAGE 42-43 SUGGESTED PRACTICE BOOK REVISION-THIS WOULD BE ADDED TO SECTION 25-60 ON FAMILY COURT PRACTICE AND POTENTIALLY RESTRICT LITIGANTS' ACCESS TO VITAL INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ARGUE THEIR CASES!  SEE BELOW THE SUGGESTED ADDITION:

"(d) The file compiled by the Family Services Unit in the course of preparing any mediation report or conflict resolution conference report shall not be available for inspection or copying unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority. The file compiled by the Family Services Unit in the course of preparing an evaluation or study conducted pursuant to Section 25-61 that has been completed and filed with the clerk in accordance with subsection (b) shall be available for inspection only to counsel of record, guardians ad litem, and the parties to the action to the extent permitted by any applicable authorization for release of information; and further provided that copies of documents, notes, information or other material in the file shall only be provided to such individuals if they make the request in writing and certify that it is requested for legitimate purposes of trial preparation and/or trial proceedings in the case in which the evaluation or study was filed. For purposes of this section, the word ‘‘file’’ shall include any documents, notes, information or other material retained by the Family Services Unit in any format.

(e) Any information or copies of the file disclosed pursuant to this section shall not be further disclosed unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority or as otherwise authorized in this section." 

THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH'S COMMENTARY ON THIS SECTION'S INCLUSION:

COMMENTARY: The changes to this section clarify what information from Family Services files compiled in connection with the reports, evaluations and studies under this section are subject to inspection and copying and by whom, to whom those copies can be provided, and for what purpose can they be requested. The changes also provide that any information or copies disclosed may not be further disclosed except as otherwise ordered or authorized.* 

*In other words you can be subjected to endless, unnecessary obstruction to your access to vital evidence in your case.  While issues of confidentiality regarding certain documents is important, I think the wording of this revision is so careless it could end up restricting family court litigants from accessing important information they need for their own cases.  If the purpose of this revision is to safeguard confidentiality, it must be rewritten to ensure that it does not inadvertently end up cutting off the parties themselves from being able to review important documents in their cases.  As it looks now, the way this revision is worded, the latter could very easily happen.

UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARING ON PRACTICE BOOK REVISIONS! MAY 15, 2017!

NOTICE

Public Hearing on Practice Book Revisions Being Considered by the

Rules Committee of the Superior Court

On May 15, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., the Rules Committee of the Superior Court will conduct a public hearing in the Supreme Court in Hartford for the purpose of receiving comments concerning Practice Book revisions that are being considered by the Committee. The revisions proposed by the Rules Committee are posted on the Judicial Branch website at http://www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm.

Pursuant to subsection (c) of section 51-14 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Supreme Court has designated the Rules Committee to conduct this public hearing also for the purpose of receiving comments on any proposed new rule or any change in an existing rule that any member of the public deems desirable.

Comments may be forwarded to the Rules Committee by email at Joseph.DelCiampo@jud.ct.gov or may be forwarded to the Rules Committee at the following address and should be received by May 11, 2017:

Rules Committee of the Superior Court 
Attn: Joseph J. Del Ciampo, Counsel 
P.O. Box 150474
Hartford, CT 06115-0474

Each speaker at the public hearing will be limited to five minutes. Anyone who believes that they cannot cover their remarks within that time period may submit written comments to the Rules Committee. If written comments are submitted, ten copies should be provided. 

DIRECT LINK:
http://jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/pblj_7843.pdf

FAMILY COURT INITIATIVES - ADDENDUM 2017! WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE CHANGES!

The CT Judicial Branch reports the following changes in their report on Family Court Initiatives.  Is this enough?  Should we have more?

• Reducing the reliance on the Guardians Ad Litem
• Waiving service of process for a marshal to deliver a complaint to a party in a divorce
• Intensive Case Management
• General Case Management - reducing delays
• Individual Calendaring - Single Judge in a Case
• GAL accountability - Creation of standing committee
• Family Volunteer Attorney Program
• Divorce Navigator - Website Assistance

For more details on these programs, please click on the link below:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/family/Family%20Initiatives%20-%20Addendum%20to%20report%20-%20April%202017.pdf

IS THIS ENOUGH OR DO WE NEED MORE?  SHARE YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENT SECTION BELOW!

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU EMPOWER A BULLY: THE TRAGEDY OF MATHEW COULOUTE!

There are few cases that present the spectacle of the foolishness of family court here in CT quite as effectively as the Mathew Couloute versus Lauren Haiden versus Stacey Blitsch cases.  

Mathew Couloute, for those who are interested, is a native son, born and raised here in CT and said to be an associate of Gov. Dan Malloy.  An attorney and formerly a state prosecutor, Mr. Couloute is a talented, intelligent, capable if not brilliant professional with some unfortunately fatal character flaws, one being an inability to maintain a steady and law abiding career path, and the other, a complete inability to maintain a decent and courteous relationship with the mothers of his two children currently aged 11 and 5.  

CREATING A CT FAMILY COURT REFORM MOVEMENT THAT EVERYONE CAN GET BEHIND!

Recently, we all watched the fiasco of SB #1049 go down where rogue leaders of the CT Coalition for Family Court Reform tried to slip a bill through the Finance Committee rather than the Judiciary Committee.  They did this after members of the Judiciary Committee quite sensibly refused to hear proposed bills from The Coalition that were destructive and damaging to women.  

The only thing I can say about the Finance Committee at this point is: "What were they thinking?"  

POOR RICHARD DABATE: THERE WERE EASIER WAYS TO GO!

Today, I was at Barnes and Noble ordering my usual cup of tea when I noticed that the two female baristas serving me both wore fit bits. When I commented on the fit bits and made a link from the high tech gadgets to the Connie Dabate case, each one flashed their fit bit at me and announced, "best investment I ever made."  

In a sense now, wearing a fit bit is becoming somewhat of a radical statement, i.e. One: I'm going to be the fittest woman out there, just watch me with my fitbit, and Two: If you try and kill me and lie afterwards, you're going to be in a whole heck of a lot of trouble.  

This is, I guess, what Richard Dabate should have thought of before he killed his wife.  

Seriously, guys, what was he thinking of?

TESTIMONY OPPOSING SB #1049 FROM THE CT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Testimony Opposing

SB 1049, AAC Registration Fees for Counsel and Guardians ad Litem for Minor Children and Other Requirements for Certain Family Relations Matters

Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee April 17, 2017

Text Originally Located at the following link:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/FINdata/Tmy/2017SB-01049-R000417-Andrews,%20Liza,%20Director%20of%20Policy%20&%20Communications-CCADV-TMY.PDF  

Good afternoon Senator Fonfara, Senator Frantz, Representative Rojas and members of the committee. CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV) is the state’s leading voice for victims of domestic violence and those who serve them. Our members provide essential services to nearly 40,000 victims of domestic violence each year. Services provided include 24-hour crisis response, emergency shelter, safety planning, counseling, agency/staff training, support groups and court advocacy.

We oppose SB 1049

UPPER CLASS WHITE MEN A BUNCH OF SCUMBAGS? YOU DECIDE!

Do some white men just not get it?

I think it is particularly typical of some self-centered, upper class, white men that they often think of their wives as spoiled and pampered because they have absolutely zero clue regarding what is involved in growing successful, well rounded, ethical human beings.

Doing so is an incredibly demanding task both spiritually, intellectually, and physically, and it is an occupation that does not merely cease once these young people hit 18. As any hands on Mom knows, we are continuing to support, bolster, craft, mold, engage, facilitate and enhance these young people as human beings and as contributing members of society well into their 20s if not 30s and on.

THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH DROPS A TON OF BRICKS ON JANE DOE'S HEAD. FAIR? UNFAIR? YOU TELL ME!

On March 16, 2017, Ms. Jane Doe, the mother of five children, was sentenced to 1 year in jail, execution suspended after 30 days, plus 3 years probation in addition to $1,500.00 in fines.  Her crime? Custodial Interference.  Yesterday, she was again on trial for another charge of custodial interference. I am not sure what the outcome of that trial has been.

COURT WATCH ALERT: POWELL V. ALEXANDER CASE, CHILD ABUSE ALLEGED!

CONNECTICUT COURT WATCH ALERT

Foundation for the Child Victims of Family Court

http://fcvfc.org

WHAT: Federal Civil Rights Case of Scott Powell 

Suing the New Canaan Police and Maternal Grandparents for Protecting their Grandchildren from Abuse and Harm 

WHEN:    March 28, 2017 at  3:00 p.m. 

WHERE:  Bridgeport District Court

WHO:    Powell v Alexander Case #:3:16-cv-01654, Judge Underhill

WHY WATCH:

This Fairfield County federal case being heard tomorrow in Bridgeport District Court involves two young girls who have been traumatized and have suffered years of Adverse Childhood  Experiences ACEs:

See Link:  https://www.domesticshelters.org/domestic-violence-articles-information/the-safe-child-act#.WNm0S2WJrox

GOOD READING MATERIAL FOR PROTECTIVE MOMS!

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2nlJEVc

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2n2OXql

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2nlNzkZ

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2ng7z6R

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2nlO66t

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2mABE44

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2nlTruu

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2mAG0YR

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2nlTwP2

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2mACttO

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2nlUbQi

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2nxgrr6

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2nm3y2p

SEE LINK: http://amzn.to/2nRfwTo

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2mEX1RO

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2ng8zbl

SEE LINK:  http://amzn.to/2nRnsEe

LEGAL OBSCURITIES AND LOOPHOLES USED TO OBSTRUCT A COUPLE'S FIGHT FOR JUSTICE IN "PREDICTIVE NEGLECT" CASE!

Their story is familiar now.  In 2007, Joey Watley and Karin Hasemann's two  children were taken away from them by DCF at birth. The grounds for this?  A controversial doctrine known as "Predictive Neglect". In other words,the concept that parents might neglect their children in the future even if they have not in the past.  CT DCF "experts" labeled the parents as mentally ill--Joey Watley received the diagnosis of Personality Disorder Unspecified, while Karin Hasemann was diagnosed with a broad range of conflicting diagnoses.  Since that time, both parents have taken care of other young children without incident.  

For a decade, Mr. Watley and Ms. Hasemann fought the removal of their children, ultimately losing three trials in State Superior Court in Middletown.  However, they did win appeals of those decisions due to legal error and malfeasance on the part of the trial court. Eventually, however, Connecticut State Court terminated their parental rights permanently. Consequently, in 2015 they took their case to Federal District Court. Initially, that Court denied their  complaint in response to a motion to dismiss filed by the CT Attorney General's office. However, the couple then appealed that decision to a higher Court--the Second Circuit Court in New York--which sustained their right to pursue their case.  Since then they have returned to the lower Connecticut Federal District Court.  

CT FATHER'S POWER ADVOCATES SKETCH OUT A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO CRUSH MOTHERS IN CT FAMILY COURT!

The Commander, "The Handmaiden's Tale"
The way Fathers in CT want things to be!

In Margaret Atwood's dystopic novel "The Handmaiden's Tale", a series which airs soon on Hulu, women have been reduced to baby making machines in a society where men have seized full political control  of the entire United States.  Impossible?  Unlikely?  Don't be so sure.

"Handmaidens" whose sole purpose is to give birth
in Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaiden's Tale"

Recently, I was at the Legislative Office Building with some friends when a person showed me current 2017 legislative proposals, which, appallingly enough, sketch out a strategic plan that will essentially crush mothers in Family Court and lead to a situation where men seize control of family court processes and essentially remove mothers from the lives of their children in droves. 

SHARED PARENTING PUTS MEN IN CONTROL AND LEAVES WOMEN AND CHILDREN POWERLESS!

By Doreen Ludwig,

Author of "Motherless America: Confronting Welfare's Fatherhood Custody Program", see link:

https://www.amazon.com/Motherless-America-Confronting-Welfares-Fatherhood/dp/1515256219/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488658198&sr=1-1&keywords=motherless+america

Legislating Shared Parenting Awards Male Control

Fathers have succeeded in expanding public acceptance of shared parenting; creating the impression that shared parenting is the best situation for children whose parents no longer live together. Shared parenting has become so culturally normalized that in the Fall of 2016, Time Magazine endorsed it in “The Growing Case for Shared Parenting After Divorce” by Belinda Luscombe, going so far as to quote the nefarious father’s rights activist Jeffrey Leving.