OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE WATLEY CASE FROM ELIZABETH A. RICHTER, TO WATLEY ATTORNEY SAM CHRISTODLOUS

Dear Attorney Christodlous:

I am writing to you in regard to Mr. Joe Watley whose children were stolen from him through unjust proceedings carried out against him by DCF.  I understand you are representing him in his custody case.
 

I am a person who has advocated for people with mental health disabilities for many years. I am a member of both MindFreedom and also Psychrights located in Alaska.
 

I have to say that I am completely puzzled by the discrimination which Joe Watley has faced in regard to his three children, all three of whom are currently in the care of DCF.  Nothing that I have read about this case indicates to me that he would be a harm to his children. 


During the course of my advocacy, I have met many people who have mental health disabilities and I am familiar with the symptoms. My own situation was that 36 years ago I was misdiagnosed with a serious mental illness and was hospitalized with people who had severe mental health problems. So I am good a detecting when a person has a serious issue such as bipolar, schizophrenia, or something of that kind. I do not see problems like this when it comes to Mr. Joe Watley.

Furthermore, I have been in family court in regard to my own high conflict divorce for a considerable period of time.  Yes, there is major discrimination against people with mental illness in family court all the time.  Still, people with addiction problems, substance abuse problems, serious mental illness such as bipolar have the right to  parent their children. In fact, as you know discriminating against people with disabilities, denying them their parental rights, is a violation of federal and state law.
 

 

I was particularly bothered by the idea that the Supreme Court voiced in their recent ruling in this case, which is that if Mr. Watley wished to exercise his ADA rights, he would need to have a GAL assigned to him. As you know, people with various forms of mental illness can assert their ADA rights in regard to their mental illnesses without requiring that they be under the supervision of a conservator or a GAL. What is even more absurd, however, is that the State in making this statement has implied that somehow Mr. Watley is disabled by mental illness to the point where he might need one. What nonsense! 
 

I think what concerns people like me is the outright, blatent, unashamed affirmation our judicial branch makes that they have the right to discriminate at will against people with mental health disabilities despite both State and Federal laws that prohibit them from doing so. This kind of viewpoint the judicial branch espouses, simply that they will violate the law whenever they please, as they please, is completely anarchistic.
 

My general impression is that the court system is simply playing games with Mr. Watley, making rulings it knows to be improper, then bouncing the case up to the appellate system, then getting it remanded to the trial court again, where there again, rulings are made that are improper and then on and on. The whole intent, it seems, is simply to avoid ruling according to the dictates of the law by bouncing Mr. Watley from court to court and hearing to hearing year after year without end. It is simply, as Langston Hughes so aptly put it, a situation where "Justice delayed is Justice denied. This is a game and everyone knows that it is a game. I suspect even you know it is a game.
 

I think it is wrong to keep Mr. Watley and his children dangling in regard to this case. I think it is wrong to make a pretense of defending him. He should get a genuine defense. Mr. William Mulready, a researcher and expert on the ADA, has suggested that you use the ADA as the basis for defending Mr. Watley's case. I get the impression that you feel such an approach is useless.
 

Why is it useless? The ADA is federal law. And our State of Connecticut is thumbing its nose at federal law? By what right?
 

This is a civil rights issue that folks such as myself who are part of the one in five citizens with a history of a mental health disorder would like to see addressed efficiently and effectively. If this is something you do not think that you are capable of doing you should step down and allow another attorney to do the job, one who believes in this case as much as Mr. Joe Watley's supporters do. 


I do want to point out, also, that Mr. Watley does have a considerable number of supporters. If he were truly mentally ill in the manner the the judicial court tries to make out, then how would it be possible for Mr. Watley to gather together so many supporters? The fact is that he does have a considerable number of backers, and this alone is an indication that the State is simply manipulating the judicial system and using the stigma surrounding the label of mental illness as a weapon to deny Mr. Watley his parental rights.
 

Thank you very much for reading this email. I urge you to take effective action on Mr. Joe Watley's behalf.

Sincerely,

 

Elizabeth A. Richter,

Advocate

For more information on this case, see the link below:

http://www.foothillsmediagroup.com/articles/2011/07/08/thomaston/news/doc4e1708e987817301863969.txt

OTHER RELATED ARTICLES:
 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/joe-watley-on-dangers-of-therapeutic.html

 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/09/report-on-appellate-court-hearing-on.html

 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-watley-decision-sc-1895118952.html