YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AND ADAAA DENIED, DENIED, DENIED! (PART I)

In 2006, not long after she filed for divorce, Elizabeth Richter's ex husband contacted the custody evaluator in their case, and told him that Elizabeth was crazy and that he feared for their children under her care.  His remarks disregarded the fact that for over a year she had been taking care of their three children independently while he worked out of state in Massachusetts. 

His comments made reference to an old incident that had taken place 30 years ago when she was misdiagnosed with a severe mental illness that she did not have.  When I spoke to her about this matter, she showed me a copy of a letter of apology she had received from the psychiatrist who treated her indicating that the diagnosis was a mistake.  This did not prevent her ex husband from filing three additional motions to have her declared incompetent and to have a GAL appointed to make decisions for her. 

Elizabeth Richter is a graduate of Mt. Holyoke College and Harvard University, was the co-owner and manager of An-Path Services, a Veterinary Pathology Service for over a decade, and also was an former adjunct instructor at Tunxis Community College.  She is also a published author, the author of a memoir, a book of essays, and two books of poetry along with being a devoted mother.  "I was terrified that if my X succeeded in getting such an appointment, I would lose custody of my children simply because I wasn't deemed mentally competent. 

That kind of ruling could have happened at the stroke of a pen at any moment were a judge disposed to sign such an order." What the judge should have done was immediately rule against it, and also repudiate the document as a hate document and acknowledge that it was intended to harass and terrorize Elizabeth.

Elizabeth continued, "I was terrified that I would lose my children and everything that I had because of that old misdiagnosis and because of the stigma associated with it."  Finally, sick and tired of living in fear, Elizabeth filed a request for protection under Prong #3 of Title II of the ADA which entitles her to protection in trial court from discrimination against her based upon the fact that she is perceived as having a disability that she does not have. Amazingly enough, that request was denied.  The response she got was, "We haven't discriminated against you."  That's sort of another situation where the fox is guarding the henhouse.  We declare ourselves innocent...RIGHT!

Elizabeth eventually appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied as well.  She has since filed a Title II complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, but still has not received a response. 

Furthermore, as a result of the discrimination she has endured in trial court due to her past incorrect mental health history, Elizabeth eventually developed legal abuse syndrome, a form of post traumatic stress disorder that arose as a result of her repeated exposure to the corrupt family court system here in CT.  She then submitted a request for reasonable accommodation under prong #1 of Title II of the ADA which entitles her to such accommodations at family court. 

Again, her request for reasonable accommodations was denied, and when she appealed that decision, her appeal was denied.  Again, she has submitted a complaint in this regard to the U.S. Department of Justice and is awaiting an answer.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth tells me that she is not the only one who has simply been denied their legal rights under the ADA and the ADAAA, both federal laws which are intended to create an even playing field for persons with disabilities so that they can enjoy the same constitutional rights that their undisabled peers are able to enjoy.  When Mr. Bill Mulready inquired about his ADA rights he was told, "Don't worry, Mr. Mulready, we'll get you a wheelchair if you need one." 

So what is going on? 

Essentially, Family Courts in Connecticut are playing a divide and conquer game within the Disability Community by only providing services to folks whom they consider to be "truly disabled", folks with mobility or sensory impairments.  Thus, when you look at the judicial webpage for providing accommodations for people under the ADA and the ADAAA, the judicial branch acknowledges that it is required "to accommodate individuals with disabilities by providing equal access to their services, programs and activities" under Title II of the ADA, but it really only offers the following Auxillary Aids and Services:  Interpreter Services, Certified Deaf Interpreter Relay Service, FM Kits, Infrared System, Real Time Transcription (CART), Pocket Talkers, Braille Services, Alternate Formats of Materials, Reading Machines, and Louder-R-Electronic Ear.  

These Aids and Services are really not specific for people with invisible disabilities both physical and mental.  

What I find particularly troubling is that the Judicial Branch does not mention the use of an ADA Coach or Advocate as part of the services it will either provide or accept, should they be necessary for a person with a disability.  I have heard that some litigants have brought in an ADA coach, but Judges have ruled that the coach is not allowed to speak in any way during court proceedings.  This makes it impossible for the coach to provide the support services he or she is trained to give.

Under the judicial webpage on the ADA entitled "Access", the Branch states, "In compliance with the ADA, the judicial Branch will make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities when requested to do so.  These accommodations may include providing equipment and services such as assistive listening devices, sign language interpreters or printed material in alternate formats."

Again, the emphasis, and therefore, the welcome and support, is addressed to those with mobility and sensory disabilities, instead of the entire community of those with disabilities.  ADA legislation was not intended to differentiate between the "haves" and the "have nots" within the community of those with disabilities. 

Also the emphasis of the statement on the "Access" webpage that the Judicial Branch will provide support for people with disabilities only "when requested to do so" is wrong. I don't believe the issue is simple as that.  If a person with a hearing impairment, or some other kind of disability which becomes obvious during the course of litigation, is at family court for a case, but fails to request accommodations, the judicial court is not excused from providing reasonable accommodations simply because the litigant didn't know enough to ask.  As soon as the litigant shows up in trial court and his or her disability becomes evident during the course of proceedings, it is the clear responsibility of the trial court to offer reasonable accommodation without being asked first. 

However, because Family Court in Connecticut routinely doesn't consider itself responsible for identifying disabilities as they become evident and offering accommodations,  the end result is that a considerable number of people with disabilities are being excluded from equal access to the services, programs and activities of Family Court.  

For example, I was in family court when a litigant with a serious head injury (TBI) was participating in the adjudication of a case.  Every time he was supposed to make a decision or agree or disagree in regard to a question the judge posed to him, this litigant turned around and looked towards his wife for a signal regarding what to do.  Of course, this eventually became disruptive to the proceedings and the Judge reprimanded the litigant.  However, to everyone watching, it was pretty clear that the litigant wasn't at fault, he simply wasn't able to follow what was going on.  Later, I asked him whether he was aware that there were reasonable accommodations available to him based on the ADA, and he had no idea. 

I can assure you that the problems this Gentleman had in regard to comprehending what was going on were so pronounced there was no way the average person couldn't notice.  And yet, no one in family court, not a judge, not a family support enforcement officer, family relations officer, not a clerk, or anyone else employed by the judicial system had bothered to suggest that he speak to the ADA contact person at the courthouse.  This is ridiculous.  No, it is worse than ridiculous.  It is simply unjust. 

On the "Access" page of the judicial website regarding the ADA, the judicial branch advertises that the Outcome Goal One of the Strategic Plan of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, Public Service and trust Commission is as follows:  "The Judicial Branch will provide equal access to all of its facilities, processes and information through the identification and elimination of barriers." 

Let me just give them a "heads up" right now.  Hello, the Judicial Branch is failing miserably at this goal to the detriment of everyone in the community of those with disabilities, and at the same time it is dividing this community and creating dissent with the implication that some kinds of people with disabilities are more "truly worthy" of access to the Family Court System than others.  We must do something to change this dynamic in order to create a "truly just" judicial system in family court for people of all abilities.