(This article is written by an author who chooses to write anonymously in order to protect him/herself from retaliation.)
PART I:
One would think that the measure of a "Responsible Father" is his ability to refrain from engaging in abusive litigation, violence, and drugs. However, the Court Support Services Division (CSSD) in Connecticut rewards fathers for doing just the opposte and further rewards crooked lawyers by incentivizing the placement of children in violent homes. Judge Lynda Munro's professional commitment to making sure that the MINORITY of unfit fathers retain ownership of the crime victims they assault and torture as demonstrated here will make you think twice about who is and is not a fit parent, as well as where your money is going.
Arising from the mandate of the Public Act 09-175, An Act Concerning Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Families, here is CSSD's Fatherhood Program, an initiative innocuously entitled "Problem Solving Initiative". You can find it at the following link:
According to CSSD, the purpose of this Fatherhood Program is as follows:
"Since the passage of AAC Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Families, the Judicial Branch with the assistance and support of community partners, has been actively working to design and implement a viable problem solving court model for Title IV-D child support matters heard in the Family Support Magistrate Division of Superior Court...The Judicial Branch Problem Solving Initiative collaborated with community services providers and state agency partners, to develop and design a judicial process using multidisciplinary, court-based problem solving techniques to address the underlying issues of the parents appearing in family support court. The goals of the Initiative include, but are not limited to: 1) increasing a parent's employment skills; 2) increasing a parent's ability to pay child support; 3) determining appropriate child support orders; 4) assisting parents in accessing the services that will help better their lives; and 5) assisting parents in strengthening their relationship with their children..."
I wonder if the mothers who appear before Judge Lynda Munro understand that her professional reputation and the failure or success of this Fatherhood pilot program rides on the Court's ability to arbitrarily switch custody to UNFIT violent fathers, many of whom are unemployed, have drug problems, are homeless, and have treatment resistent mental health problems?
Apparently, not only Judge Lynda Munro, but the Judicial Branch itself is deeply implicated in these custody switching schemes. Thus, the report on the Problem Solving Pilot Program states the following:
"In January 2009, the judicial Branch convened the Problem Solving in family Matters Committee. Chaired by Judge Lynda Munro, Chief Administrative Judge, Family Divison, the committee was charged with exploring the feasibility of creating a problem solving justice model to assist parents with cases in the FSMD by linking them to community services that would help them achieve the ersonal and economic stability needed to meet their support obligations. In June 2009, the committee produced a report that contained a variety of recommendations, including implementation of a pilot problem solving court session in either the Judicial District of New Haven or Waterbury. the report also recommended that the pilot program partner with ccommunity agencies to provide key services in areas such as housing, employment, education, fathering/parenting, and mental health and addiction services."
What is your definition of an unfit parent? Do custodial parents know that judges are meeting with unfit fathers to help them with their custody cases? Is it really a good idea to ORDER unfit and unwilling fathers with drug problems, recalcitrant mental health issues, etc. to show up for parenting time? Shouldn't we be offering this assistance to fit parents rearing children? Shouldn't we be asking CUSTODIAL PARENTS about whether this is safe, and keeping them abreast of these secret hearings and meetings? I don't see anywhere that mentions this happening.
So what is happening? Essentially, judges are being encouraged to summon deadbeat non-custodial parents to Court under the threat of contempt in order to determine whether they have backgrounds that are sufficiently negative to justify their participation in the Problem Solving Program. The guidelines provided for this purpose are as follows:
"In situations where an obligated noncustodial parent has failed to make child support payments, an obligated parent [not the CUSTODIAL PARTY] may be summoned to court to show cause as to why he or she should not be found in contempt [which could result in jail time.] During a pre-hearing discussion with the obligated noncustodial parent, the Support Enforcement Officer asks a series of questions to determine if any of the following criteria are present:
- The parent reports having a criminal record;
- The parent reports an inconsistent reocrd of employment or earnings.
- The parent reports a lack of secondary school education and/or skills necessary to meet basic employer requirements.
- The parent reports the existence of one or more personal factors (e.g. limited English proficiency, lack of housing, mental health needs, drug and/or alcohol abuse) that may be impeding his/her ability to fulfill the duty to support.
The existence of two or more of the above factors, plus the parent's willingness to participate, makes a case potentially eligible for referral to the Pilot. The existence of the criteria is reported to the Family Support Magistrate presiding over the contempt docket. The Family Support Magistrate canvasses the obligated noncustodial parent and reviews the reported criteria. In addition, the Magistrate will determine if the custodial parent objects to transferring the case to the Pilot. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the claimed barriers exist, the case is referred to the Pilot and an order is entered for the parent to meet with the SES problem solving case manager for a full assessment."
So, if the Magistrate determines that the custodial parent objects to transferring the case to the pilot, will he then cease the intervention? As you can see, the guidelines do not say that. This means, I presume, that the custodial parents' objections will be noted for the record and then simply ignored.
Given the signficant impact that a full assessment of a non custodial parent will have on the lives of the children involved, should he be reintroduced into their lives, it is worth asking what are the qualifications of the SES problem solving case manager? They don't tell you. I would suspect that this is a Family Services manager getting paid under the AV/TIP grant, but again, there is no information in this regard. So the SES Case Manager with unknown qualifications assesses the offender and gives the report to the Magistrate--but not the mother?
This is what the program description states:
"The assessment offers the Family Support Magistrate presiding in the problem solving court a detailed portrait of the obligated noncustodial parent's personal history and current needs."
Really? And these services are supposed to be for the purpose of getting the parent to pay child support to benefit the child whose home the Magistrate is not communicating with? What about the custodial parent's due process rights? If she cannot get a copy of this report, why not?
MORE ABOUT THIS CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME IN THE UPCOMING PART II
No comments:
Post a Comment