For Protective Parents. Your source for news and information on the broken Family Court System in Connecticut. I am NOT an attorney. This blog does not constitute legal advice.
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.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
THE ROLE OF SOME JEWISH PEOPLE IN FAMILY COURT ABUSE. HOW CULPABLE ARE THEY?
In a recent inquiry, one reader asked the following question, "Elizabeth, why do you promote an anti-semite like Paul Boyne? Your father was a Holocaust survivor. Shame doesn't begin to describe what you should feel." That is a good question for Elizabeth, although Cathy will be the person on behalf of the "Divorce in Connecticut" blog to respond, particularly since she formulated the "bigotry free" policy that is fundamental to this blog.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
FAMILY COURT ATTORNEYS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAVE WORSE REPUTATIONS THAN PEDOPHILES!
It was tough to read the May 12, 2017 "CT Law Tribune" article in connection to the Dianne Hart-D'Amato case, particularly as a person who has walked in Dianne's shoes and experienced what she has experienced. It was angering to read Dianne, and by inference all self represented parties in family court, spoken of as "a disgruntled litigant."
I wonder how attorneys and judges would feel if I spoke of them automatically as crooked attorneys or crooked judges simply by virtue of the fact that I do not agree with them. It is not often a bully pulpit such as "The CT Law Tribune" exists as a means to tongue lash the people a particular profession does not like.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
THE GUTLESS CONNECTICUT LAW TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD 2017! ANONYMOUS NO LONGER!
Robert Mitchell, Vice Chair
Members:
Proloy K. Das
Felice Duffy
Robert Farr
Eugene Fidell
Mary Galvin
Elizabeth Gilson
Rachel Goldberg
Wesley W. Horton
Jocelyn Kennedy
David King
Daniel J. Klau
James B. Lyon
Eugene Marconi
Sean McElligott
Dwight H. Merriam
Dennis C. Murphy
Alan Neigher
Louis R. Pepe
Michelle Querijero
Eugene Riccio
Thomas B. Scheffey
Mark Soboslai
James F. Sullivan
Cecil Thomas
Thomas J. Ullman
Diane Whitney
Steven Wizner
Sunday, June 11, 2017
CT LAW TRIBUNE RUN BY A GUTLESS EDITORIAL BOARD? SEE ATTY NORM PATTIS COMMENTARY!
A Gutless Editorial Board
A welcome and not altogether unexpected piece of news arrived in the mail. It was from the Grievance Committee. The panel found no further need to investigate a complaint lodged against me. I filed the complaint myself.
I learned a long time ago never to run from a fight. Meet the accusation head on. If you don’t do so, the accuser is empowered. Far better to turn the accuser’s finger back into his own eye, as I do here to the editorial board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
PUBLIC HEARING ON NOMINATIONS FOR JUDGES!
Judiciary Committee
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW
I. To be an Appellate Court Judge:
1. The Honorable Nina F. Elgo of West Hartford
2. The Honorable Maria Araujo Kahn of Cheshire
2. The Honorable Maria Araujo Kahn of Cheshire
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
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.
*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?
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!
- 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!
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
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.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
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?"
Friday, April 28, 2017
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?
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
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:
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
Thursday, April 13, 2017
UPPER CLASS WHITE MEN A BUNCH OF SCUMBAGS? YOU DECIDE!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)