I was talking to a friend about a child support issue and she kept on talking about some magistrate, and she also talked about appealing the magistrate in Superior Court. I was like, what are you talking about, what is a magistrate, and don't appeals go to Appellate Court? This friend had me totally confused. I'd never heard of a magistrate before.
So what is a magistrate?
This is the story from what I culled from the Connecticut Judicial Website:
"Family Support Magistrates are appointed by the Governor for three year terms to hear cases involving paternity and child and spousal support. They are quasi-judicial officers. They are not judges, but perform some judicial functions. Their jurisdiction extends to child support cases which include both welfare recipients and those who have applied for state help collecting child support. Family Support Magistrates establish, modify and eforce child and spousal support orders and hear paternity proceedings. Their duties are described in Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 46b-231."
So, for all you folks who wrongly informed me that family support magistrates cannot change orders, think again. See what it says--magistrates ESTABLISH, MODIFY, as well as enforce--that all adds up to making orders. So be nice to magistrates--they can do a lot of stuff that could impact your life considerably.
The Connecticut Judicial Website lists as Chief Family Support Magistrate, the Hon. Sandra Sosnoff Baird, for what its worth. I suppose if you are not happy with how your case is going, you could write to her with your complaint. I'm still on the fence about whether actions of this kind are valuable, but give it a shot and get back to me on the outcome.
Not only are there family support magistrates, there are also family support referees for the older guys, the same way as there are judge trial referees in Superior Court. As you may recall, the more complex cases go to the referees, because the greater experience of referees is supposed to make them more able to handle such cases.
As a point of comparison, regular judges are nominated by the governor, but then the legislature has to approve those nominations, and their appointments last for eight years. Magistrates are appointed by the governor, do not require any approval from the legislature, and have appointments that only last three years.
If a magistrate makes a decision that you disagree with, you then appeal that decision to Superior Court, and then move forward from there, rather than appealing directly to Appellate Court.
There has been an attempt to change appointment procedures for magistrates and require that they also receive approval from the State Legislature. House Bill No. 6426 introduced during the January 2011 session of the State Legislature, "An Act Concerning the Appointment of Family Support Magistrates" would have done just that. It also would have extended the term a magistrate serves from three years to four years.
The judiciary committee voted unanimously in support of this bill, which was sponsored by Simsbury Representative Nancy Schofield; however, it seems to have died nonetheless and it was not enacted into law. A very similar bill, Substitute House Bill No. 6700 was also proposed in 2009 and was vetoed on June 19, 2009.
I can't say that it will make that much of a difference changing the manner in which the State of Connecticut appoints magistrates. I already observed how judges are appointed and it didn't impress me that much.
Yes, the judiciary committee holds hearings which allow legislators to ask the nominees questions and the public does have a chance to provide testimony regarding any particular judge or judges. However, it didn't look to me as though these hearings were anything more than rubber stamp proceedings.
Yes, they have the potential for more, but is that potential ever tapped? If there is no true accountability, why go through the pretense, and why expand the pretense even further to include magistrates as well? Doesn't it just add to everyone's workload and expand the red tape that prevents government from getting its work done? These are the kinds of questions that I have.
However, clearly there are enough citizens out there who have kept the issue of the appointment of magistrates before the State Legislature for a number of years. And they have done so with considerable support. So it seems to me, isn't it about time to stop fooling around and pass this bill?
Magistrates (some) are cruel and make up the law as it applies to them. They do not take judicial notice when you ask that they do again (some) and yet there is a magistrate that our Governor has made it very clear he did not want him on the bench. But yet he still sits there, and has some goal of putting everyone he can in jail or "debtors prison" What gives? Why is this going on? It is no secret what this Magistrate is up to, or where he is. Harris Lifhitz, this is the magistrate I question. He once sat in Hartford Ct, now he is in Rockville family court hearing cases on Tuesdays. See for yourself the actions of this man. It is abusive, inhumane and needs to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have seen, and what has been a shock to me, has been judges who disregard the law, consider themselves above the law, and who flagrantly violate the law and yet they cannot be held accountable, not by citizens, not by governors, not by anyone.
ReplyDelete