ATTORNEY SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN OF GREATER HARTFORD LEGAL AID SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE PRESUMPTION OF SHARED PARENTING

TASK FORCE TO STUDY LEGAL DISPUTES INVOLVING THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN

Testimony of Attorney Shirley Pripstein, Greater Hartford Legal Aid

The Legal Service family law attorneys in Connecticut oppose legislation that would create a presumption that shared parenting is in the best interest of minor children for the following reasons:

-There is no empirical evidence that shared parenting is, in fact, in the best interest of minor children.

-A shared parenting presumption is a cookie-cutter approach that puts the emphasis on the rights of the parents rather than on the best interest of children.

-A shared parenting arrangement may be in the best interest of children whose parents are committed to living in the same school district and making shared parenting work, but it is clearly not in the best interest of the majority of children whose custody is determined by the courts. These are children whose parents may never have cohabited or developed the communication and compromise skills necessary to making a shared parenting arrangement a comforting situation for the child.

-Shared parenting is particularly inappropriate when the parents live in different towns, making choice of school districts and sports teams an issue.

-Shared parenting is particularly inappropriate when there is a history of domestic violence between the parents, which is concrete evidence that at least one of the parents lacks communication and compromise skills necessary for co-parenting.

Connecticut has a well-thought out child custody statute, enacted ... in 2005, which sets forth sixteen factors for the court to consider when making orders of child custody and apportioning time between parents.

The factors appropriately recognize and attempt to balance the need of a child for stability against the need of a child for contact with both parents, and recognize that there are other factors that the court should consider in deciding what orders to make regarding child custody when the parents are unable to agree.  

A shared parenting presumption is a thinly disguised and ill-advised attempt to elevate the parental time considerations above the other factors set forth in our statutes, and should be rejected by this task force.

STOP VICTIM BLAMING THE WHITING PATIENT AND TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY!

LETTER SUBMITTED TO JUDGE PATRICK L. CARROLL III ABOUT THE PETITION TO ADD A MANDATORY PARENTAL RESPONSIBIILTY PLAN TO THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS!

April 9, 2018

Judge Patrick L. Carroll III,

Chief Court Administrator

Supreme Court Building

231 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Petition:  Add a Mandatory Parental Responsibility Plan to the Automatic Orders

Dear Judge Carroll:

On behalf of the “Divorce in Connecticut” website, and for the benefit of the people of Connecticut, I am writing to you about the website’s change.org petition on the above referenced matter related to Parental Responsibility Plans in Family Court Matters.  The content of the petition is attached to this letter.

As was noted on the petition, while there are very specific orders in regard to financial behavior during the pendente lite period in a Family Court Matter, there are very few guidelines in regard to the care of children.  I am hoping that the CT Judicial Branch could refine the language of the automatic orders to include a provision that requires that, within 30 days of the return day, the parties submit to the Court a Parental Responsibility Plan, i.e. Form JD-FM-199.  Sometimes parents in Family Court continue on for months without any agreement which results in constant struggles for those parents and children.  These struggles inevitably require continual interventions by family relations and legal professionals which bogs down an already overburdened Court system. 

The advantage of putting a Parental Agreement in place right away is that it would establish proper boundaries between the parties in a divorce and thereby reduce confrontations, arguments, exposure to DV, unnecessary lapses in parental contact, and extra legal expenses.  In particular, each party would know what their responsibilities are in regard to their children, and they would have in place specific parenting time with their children right from the beginning.  This will reduce the unfortunate tug of war situations with children that come up during divorce proceedings due to a lack of clarity. 

It could be that parties will be unable to come to an agreement within the allotted time period, which would simply mean submitting a statement to that effect to the Court, which can then direct the case towards special services for high conflict couples.  In my opinion, you might as well know where you stand right away in a case and get started addressing the obstacles immediately rather than allowing them to fester for months before addressing them..

I have also enclosed signatures from 100 supporters who believe that this kind of provision would significantly reduce conflict between divorcing couples.  I will concede that some of them live in such far flung places as Belgium and Australia, but I believe their wisdom counts as well.  In future, I will restrict petitions to the State of Connecticut since primarily the views of our own citizens are what counts.  However, I believe that common sense and the many CT citizens who did sign this petition indicate that such a provision requiring Parental Responsibility Plans right from the start of a divorce should be put into place.

I would be interested in hearing your perspective on this issue.  It would be valuable to know if others whose opinions you respect have expressed this concern or if the CT Judicial Branch shares some of these concerns as well. Does my solution make sense to you?  I have been unsure whether i should approach the CT Judicial Branch, or my representatives, but just in case I thought I’d approach you first and get your feedback. If you have any suggestions for how I could proceed further, or insights that could assist me in crafting this idea more effectively, I would highly appreciate hearing your thoughts.  Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth A. Richter, Manager

Divorce in Connecticut Website

P.O. Box 5 * Canton, CT  06019

earichter@aol.com * 860-751-4668

Enclosures

cc:

Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez

Rep. William Tong

Sen. Paul Doyle

Sen. Ed Gomes

Sen. John A. Kissel

Rep. Prasad Srinivasan

Sen. Mae Flexor

Karen Jarmoc, CCADV

Catharine Bailey, CWEALF

NY TIMES ARTICLE IN 2006 CITES THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS IN CT FAMILY COURT THAT WE HAVE IN 2018!

By Avi Salzman, September 11, 2005

"The mother from North Haven sat in the back of Judge Patricia L. Harleston's wood-paneled courtroom at the New Haven County Courthouse and cried quietly. She was unemployed, she owed more than $2,000 in child support and she had no idea how she was going to defend herself. She said she couldn't afford a lawyer, so she was representing herself at the child support hearing. Meanwhile, the lawyer for the father of her children sat across the room.

"I don't know what my rights are," said the mother, who asked that her name not be used because of the sensitive nature of the hearing. "When someone else has an attorney, they know all the ins and outs and I don't."

Same players, same victims, except in 2005 only 50% of litigants were self represented.  In 2018, 89% of litigants are self represented.  Note the reference to how the majority of self represented litigants are women! 

REP. MICHAEL DIMASSA SAYS THE CT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

ATTORNEY PAUL GARLINGHOUSE CHALLENGES JUDGE JANE B. EMONS ON HER HANDLING OF A FATHER'S CASE!

REPS. JUAN CANDELARIA, ED VARGAS, AND ROBYN PORTER DEMAND FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM!

STATE REP. CHRISTOPHER ROSARIO SPEAKS OUT ABOUT FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE IN THE CT JUDICIAL SYSTEM!

ATTORNEY PAUL GREENAN SPEAKS OUT AGAINST JUDGE JANE B. EMONS!

TOM LEHRER IN "NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD WEEK", DEDICATED TO THE BLOG "FAMILY COURT CIRCUS"!

MS. KATE CALLAHAN, CT'S STATE TROUBADOUR, SINGS "LOVE WINS OUT" BEFORE THE CT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON MARCH 12, 2018!

CT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY PASSES S.B. NO. 466 TO REDUCE DUAL ARRESTS IN CASES OF DV!

Raised S.B. No. 466 
Session Year 2018

AN ACT CONCERNING DUAL ARRESTS AND THE TRAINING REQUIRED OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WITH RESPECT TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

"To reduce the number of dual arrests that occur in domestic violence cases and enhance domestic violence training offered to state and local law enforcement agencies."

For more information on this bill which was passed successfully by the Judiciary Committee, please see the link below:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00466&which_year=2018

RELATED ARTICLES:

Copy of the proposed bill, see below:

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/03/proposed-bill-before-ct-judiciary.html

Karen Jarmoc's (CCADV) remarks on the problem of dual arrests in CT, see below:

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/02/ccadv-addresses-dual-arrests-in-state.html

Testimony from Sanna Dilawar about her horrible experience of dual arrest, see below:

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/02/sanna-dilawars-testimony-about-her.html

S.B. NO. 479 PROTECTING MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN A DCF CASE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!

Raised S.B. No. 479 
Session Year 2018

AN ACT CONCERNING IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR PERSONS PROVIDING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE OR INTERVENTION IN A CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT CASE.

"To extend the immunity provided to those who in good faith report suspected child abuse or neglect to medical professionals involved in the evaluation of the suspected abuse or neglect."

For more information on this bill, which recently passed through the judiciary committee successfully, please click on the link below:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00479&which_year=2018

Comment:  From my perspective this might be helpful because pedophiles are often encouraged to sue the heck out of the medical professionals who report them and this acts as a deterrant when doctors are confronted with cases of abuse and are considering whether to report.

H.B. No. 5575 APPEARS TO HAVE PASSED THROUGH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY!

Raised H.B. No. 5575 
Session Year 2018

AN ACT CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A LICENSED HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL TO PROVIDE TREATMENT OR AN EVALUATION IN CONNECTION WITH A FAMILY RELATIONS MATTER.

"To allow a party to a family relations matter to have greater input on the selection of a licensed health care professional who is to provide treatment or an evaluation in connection with such matter."

For more information on this bill which recently passed successfully through the judiciary committee, see the link below:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05575&which_year=2018

12 MYTHS THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH USES TO BLAME GAL ABUSE ON FAMILY COURT VICTIMS!

1.  The work of GALs and AMCs reduces conflict and keeps the cost of cases down.

There are approximately 11,000 post judgment cases each year where litigants return to court because they are dissatisfied with the agreements in their cases.  That is approximately 1/3 of the cases settled each year.  These numbers do not represent a success rate.  Further, the GAL is supposed to consider in their "analysis" information gleaned from third party sources such as school records, medical providers, and law enforcement, GALs often do no or little "research" into the real cause of the parental conflict - this failure seems to benefit the GAL financially, as they are able to keep the case going by covering up abusive behavior and pretending both parties are the reason for ongoing conflict. 

PROPOSED BILL BEFORE THE CT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON DUAL ARRESTS - HEARING ON APRIL 2, 2018 AT 10:00AM IN ROOM 2C OF THE LOB!

General Assembly		Raised Bill No. 466
February Session, 2018		LCO No. 2265
		*02265_______JUD*
Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY
Introduced by:
(JUD)

AN ACT CONCERNING DUAL ARRESTS AND THE TRAINING REQUIRED OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WITH RESPECT TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. Section 46b-38b of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2018):

ELIZABETH A. RICHTER TESTIMONY TO THE CT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON BILL #505!

Dear Sir/Madame:

While I support the intent of Bill #505 in terms of cutting back on inappropriate judicial activism--i.e. taking on the role of the legislature in creating law--I have serious concerns about Section 3 (a) of the bill as follows:

(a) The Superior Court shall be the sole court of original jurisdiction for all causes of action, except such actions over which the courts of probate have original jurisdiction, as provided by statute. The Superior Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in cases at law and equity and in all criminal matters originating before it to determine credibility and find facts based upon the evidence submitted.

Unfortunately, on the superior court level, because there is a widespread failure to obey the Rules of Evidence or The Practice Book, incorrect facts end up in the record all the time, particularly when it comes to litigants with disabilities or with self represented parties.  Unless protocols were put into place on the superior court level to safeguard litigants' right to correct any errors of fact that enter into the record, the inability to appeal decisions made based upon factual error would lead to injustice in a great many cases, particularly in regard to the most vulnerable. Therefore, I would either rewrite this section to address the concerns I've raised or simply vote down this bill.

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter and your careful consideration of the concerns that I've raised. 

Sincerely,

Elizabeth A. Richter

MORE GREAT MUSIC BY JOYCE CATALANO ON THE ABUSES OF DCF!

GREAT ORIGINAL MUSIC BY JOYCE CATALANO ON THE ABUSES OF CT CPS!

WHAT'S UP? HOW COME THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT FOR MARIJUANA ADVOCATES THAN FAMILY COURT REFORM ADVOCATES?

Today, activists went to the State Capitol to speak before the Law Committee about the legalization of marijuana.  This issue is not really that interesting to me as much as the issue of freedom of speech.  I am wondering whether people who spoke regarding this issue were required to remove all their pro or con marijuana political statements before providing their testimony.  Does anyone have an idea?

Were they made to feel like they were bad people for having their own opinions on a subject that mattered to them?  It sure would be interesting to know.  

I saw pictures of people walking around with pro-marijuana capes, and I saw folks with very colorful clothing promoting marijuana. Were they at any point required to take that clothing off the way family court reform activists were told to remove their anti-Judge Emons T-shirts?  See the article below for pictures on the law committee audience today:

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-marijuana-voices-20180314-story.html

Please note the videos from the hearings on judicial reappointments where Judiciary Committee leaders forced citizens to remove their T-shirts.  Why do you think there was a difference in treatment?  Is it possible they love Judge Emons more than they love marijuana? That's pretty hard to believe!

See links:  

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/03/connecticut-legislators-prohibit.html

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/02/rep-william-tong-violates-public-right.html

Shouldn't these two groups be treated equally?  What's up?

WHEN ATTORNEYS SET YOU UP TO FAIL: ATTORNEYS DAVID DEROSA AND ALISHA MATHERS!

"How can they call this due process?"  This has been my question from my early experiences of Family Court setups.  

I have always had the impression that within the first few months of my case, the attorney and the judge had essentially arrived at an understanding.  It appeared to me that no matter what I did, that understanding drove the case from the beginning to the end.  So what does that mean for attorneys?  If everything is arranged beforehand, can they truly be thought of as exercising their professional expertise and advocating for their clients diligently as they are required to do?

CONNECTICUT LEGISLATORS PROHIBIT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FEBRUARY 16, 2018!

THE MARRIAGE DEBATE - GERMAINE GREER!

WE KEEP ON HIRING JUDGES WHEN WE HAVE NO MONEY! "WHY?" ASKS REP. MELISSA ZIOBRON!

A RANSOMWARE ATTACK ON THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ONE BLOGGER SPECULATES!

Below is a blog posted online elsewhere recently.  Because of their offensive nature, some words have been removed or changed, but every care has been taken to ensure the ideas and spirit of the blog remain intact.

Posted on March 10, 2018

“A ransomware attack has knocked the state court system’s computers offline.”!!!!

Really?  That is what gullible reporter Dave Owens of the Hartford Courant propaganda rag is repeating at the request of the [judicial] mafia of the state [of Connecticut].  The concocted explanation by Melissa Farley, the propagandist of the Chief Court Administrator’s Office, is so twisted that it is a self-admitting lie to the public.  Melissa is a brainless puppet on strings of her masters Judge Patrick ‘the crook’ Carroll and the [Deputy Court Administrator], Judge Elliot Solomon.  Any public statement from these two clowns is rather suspect.