(This article is written by an author who chooses to write anonymously in order to protect him/herself from retaliation.)
PART II:
The Pilot Program advises Magistrates and others to spend considerable time and money pampering their proteges in this fatherhood funded custody scheme. Note the following description from the report:
"For example, general supportive comments from the Magistrate and other team members are designed to motivate and demonstrate support for the changed behavior. In addition, tangible rewards, or "tokens", such as journals and writing emplements are used to assist participant performance."
Does anyone else think it might be a problem that the Magistrates are required to verbalize bias towards fathers and shower them with gifts in order to get funding under this program? In any other universse, this would be a flagrant violation of the Codes of Judicial Conduct which require judges and magistrates to remain neutral, refrain from making statements or actions that might lead the parties or public to believe that the judge is partial.
But what if you don't want to participate in the pilot or accept those gifts? Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Thus, there is the following caution:
"Failure to comply with the court orders will result in the imposition of sanctions. Ultimately, noncompliance with problem solving orders will result in the obligated noncustodial parent being removed from the Pilot and being referred for an immediate contempt hearing before a second Magistrate. At the contempt hearing, the obligated noncustodial parent faces potential incarceration until a purge, or a set monetary amount, is paid."
So, what does the CUSTODIAL PARENT have to say about this? Does she get invited to the party? I mean, don't you think if you are trying to increase the father's earning capacity and esteem within the family that you might not want to incarcerate him for not playing ball with a program based entirely upon ex parte communications with a judge. the Report continues on to say,
"The sanction for noncompliance is clearly and frequently articulated to the obligated noncustodial parent to increase the parent's understanding of the process and serve as an incentive for successful participation and compliance with the orders."
But here's the problem. If you enroll the NONCUSTODIAL PARENT, by default, you are also involuntarily enrolling the CUSTODIAL PARENT without their knowledge. And that custodial parent is the one raising the children, and nothing is being done to ensure that the court is "frequently articulating" to the CUSTODIAL PARENT why they are being sanctioned and their homes and being further destabilized because of someone else's noncompliance with a program they don't understand themselves to be enrolled in.
This program provides further opportunities to disrupt the lives of the Custodial Parent and the children. For example, the use of increased court hearings to shape the behavior of the Non Custodial parent which is described as follows:
"In addition to the increased frequently of hearings, the Pilot itself is unique in that each hearing is individually scheduled for a specific time and is allotted a half hour. This element of the Pilot uses scheduling as an additional reward or sanction for the participant's compliance with the court's orders...The frequency of the hearings or the period of time over which they are conducted is measured by behavior and progress towards the participant's goals."
This aspect of the pilot program fails to recognize that using court appearances as a reward or sanction means that regardless, you are sanctioning the child and custodial parent by taking time and resources away from the child's home. A child who may need food or childcare, and a parent with a stable job. A child and mother who may have preferred to use their time and resources strengthening their relationship with each other, maybe even directly with dad, rather than requiring both parents to take time off from work and obtain childcare to attend adversarial proceedings that further deteriorate their relationship.
All the while, Mom has no idea that the outcome of the proceedings will be determined not by her conduct or the weight of the evidence, but by whether or not her case profile meets the funding mandates outlined in the "Problem Solving Court" grant. This means that the Case Manager and Magistrate are required to arbitrarily reduce the amount of time the child spends with his or her mother, deplete the mother's legal rights, while at the same time providing the father (who is 90% likely to be a violent offender with drug/mental health problems) with legal and financial assistance that will increase his access to the child (who might be a crime victim.)
What this really represents is a money making scheme for attorney. Read the sentence below and substitution the words GAL or Attorney in place of the word children. Then it will make much more sense to you:
"This type of judicial monitoring will continue until the obligated noncustodial parent is in a position to manage the personal challenges that have historically interfered with their ability to provide regular and reliable financial support for their children."
Right! Like their willingness to ensure Dad sues and wins custody. How beneficial for the child. I have yet to see any direct services that are provided to the children.
Do these team members address the issue of what kind of impact this program will have on the Custodial Parent? No, they are not required to address such concerns as the Report states:
"The case manager is also available [BUT NOT OBLIGATED] to speak with the custodial parent to ensure that the goals of the process meet the needs of the entire family."
This excerpt presents the basic flaw of this program. Essentially, it assumes that the father is the only parent whose needs matter. At no time does this pilot program consider giving custodial mother and their children any sort of benefits, or even ask what their needs are. It's all about FATHERS.
So how are we measuring the "success" of this pilot?
MORE ABOUT THIS CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME IN THE UPCOMING PART III
For a link to this "problem solving" pilot program please click on the link below:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/pst/problemsolving/NH_pilot/Problem_Solving_Initiative_Report_063010.pdf
The Pilot Program advises Magistrates and others to spend considerable time and money pampering their proteges in this fatherhood funded custody scheme. Note the following description from the report:
"For example, general supportive comments from the Magistrate and other team members are designed to motivate and demonstrate support for the changed behavior. In addition, tangible rewards, or "tokens", such as journals and writing emplements are used to assist participant performance."
Does anyone else think it might be a problem that the Magistrates are required to verbalize bias towards fathers and shower them with gifts in order to get funding under this program? In any other universse, this would be a flagrant violation of the Codes of Judicial Conduct which require judges and magistrates to remain neutral, refrain from making statements or actions that might lead the parties or public to believe that the judge is partial.
But what if you don't want to participate in the pilot or accept those gifts? Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Thus, there is the following caution:
"Failure to comply with the court orders will result in the imposition of sanctions. Ultimately, noncompliance with problem solving orders will result in the obligated noncustodial parent being removed from the Pilot and being referred for an immediate contempt hearing before a second Magistrate. At the contempt hearing, the obligated noncustodial parent faces potential incarceration until a purge, or a set monetary amount, is paid."
So, what does the CUSTODIAL PARENT have to say about this? Does she get invited to the party? I mean, don't you think if you are trying to increase the father's earning capacity and esteem within the family that you might not want to incarcerate him for not playing ball with a program based entirely upon ex parte communications with a judge. the Report continues on to say,
"The sanction for noncompliance is clearly and frequently articulated to the obligated noncustodial parent to increase the parent's understanding of the process and serve as an incentive for successful participation and compliance with the orders."
But here's the problem. If you enroll the NONCUSTODIAL PARENT, by default, you are also involuntarily enrolling the CUSTODIAL PARENT without their knowledge. And that custodial parent is the one raising the children, and nothing is being done to ensure that the court is "frequently articulating" to the CUSTODIAL PARENT why they are being sanctioned and their homes and being further destabilized because of someone else's noncompliance with a program they don't understand themselves to be enrolled in.
This program provides further opportunities to disrupt the lives of the Custodial Parent and the children. For example, the use of increased court hearings to shape the behavior of the Non Custodial parent which is described as follows:
"In addition to the increased frequently of hearings, the Pilot itself is unique in that each hearing is individually scheduled for a specific time and is allotted a half hour. This element of the Pilot uses scheduling as an additional reward or sanction for the participant's compliance with the court's orders...The frequency of the hearings or the period of time over which they are conducted is measured by behavior and progress towards the participant's goals."
This aspect of the pilot program fails to recognize that using court appearances as a reward or sanction means that regardless, you are sanctioning the child and custodial parent by taking time and resources away from the child's home. A child who may need food or childcare, and a parent with a stable job. A child and mother who may have preferred to use their time and resources strengthening their relationship with each other, maybe even directly with dad, rather than requiring both parents to take time off from work and obtain childcare to attend adversarial proceedings that further deteriorate their relationship.
All the while, Mom has no idea that the outcome of the proceedings will be determined not by her conduct or the weight of the evidence, but by whether or not her case profile meets the funding mandates outlined in the "Problem Solving Court" grant. This means that the Case Manager and Magistrate are required to arbitrarily reduce the amount of time the child spends with his or her mother, deplete the mother's legal rights, while at the same time providing the father (who is 90% likely to be a violent offender with drug/mental health problems) with legal and financial assistance that will increase his access to the child (who might be a crime victim.)
"This type of judicial monitoring will continue until the obligated noncustodial parent is in a position to manage the personal challenges that have historically interfered with their ability to provide regular and reliable financial support for their children."
Right! Like their willingness to ensure Dad sues and wins custody. How beneficial for the child. I have yet to see any direct services that are provided to the children.
Do these team members address the issue of what kind of impact this program will have on the Custodial Parent? No, they are not required to address such concerns as the Report states:
"The case manager is also available [BUT NOT OBLIGATED] to speak with the custodial parent to ensure that the goals of the process meet the needs of the entire family."
This excerpt presents the basic flaw of this program. Essentially, it assumes that the father is the only parent whose needs matter. At no time does this pilot program consider giving custodial mother and their children any sort of benefits, or even ask what their needs are. It's all about FATHERS.
So how are we measuring the "success" of this pilot?
MORE ABOUT THIS CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME IN THE UPCOMING PART III
For a link to this "problem solving" pilot program please click on the link below:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/pst/problemsolving/NH_pilot/Problem_Solving_Initiative_Report_063010.pdf
Connecticuttruth stated the following minus some introductory remarks which I was forced to remove:
ReplyDeleteGet a grip on reality. This program, which was a pilot (if you don't know what that means, it means, in this instance, a test), was open to non-conforming obligors regardless of gender. You hate men and in particular fathers so much that you appear to be completely unhinged. You're doing people who read this nonsense a real disservice. But you don't care about that; you want to feel like the prettiest/smartest girl in the room. You're not. You are a vindictive shrew. You have absolutely NO interest in promoting healthy parental relationships between children and fathers, regardless of whether the father has custody. (Ask your good buddy SST's ex). You hate men, you don't care about children, and you should be ashamed. That, I fear, is an emotion that you will NEVER feel, as you are so caught up in being a whining, self-righteous narcissist. SHAME ON YOU.
Ouch! I don't agree with these remarks, and I also believe that time will tell regarding what I believe and what I think. I will say that I have every respect for responsible fathers.
Deletegreat article can you provide a link to details about the program? Source of those quotes?
ReplyDeleteJust off the top of my head I believe it comes from the CT Judicial Branch Strategic Plan of 2010. I'll see if I can google the link and I will include it in the article. Hold on!
DeleteFirst of all, I would like to say that there are fathers who are NOT violent, drug abusing persons who lose custody. There are crooked GAL's who have crooked judges in their pocket who will give custody to an emotionally disturbed mother because they are scared of the mother killing herself and ruining their reputation regardless of the impact on the emotional well being of the children. So please keep that in mind when you make broad statements against men. It has been my experience that there are parties on both sides of the divorce equation who have been wronged. Pitting one gender against another ONLY makes matters worse.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with that said, I do not understand the pilot program fully (I Read part 1 and 2 carefully twice) but I agree that this looks like another way that the crooked lawyers are looking to make money. It has been my experience that the lawyers, GAL's and the psychologists in their pockets will EXARCERBATE the conflict between two very adversarial parents for their benefit and their benefit alone. I reached out many times to my spouse during our divorce to let my spouse know that the lawyers are acting in this manner. But my spouse didn't care because my spouse knew I did't have the money to win this war of attrition. Believe it or not, in this day and age there actually are women with more money than their spouse.
Remember that this blog is focused on a small minority of divorce cases which are designated as "high conflict." So I am not talking about all men or all divorces--I am talking about the minority of situations where the father is a psychopath who manipulates the system to take custody of the children and eliminate the mother entirely. My remarks are made within the context of that kind of divorce only. There are also men caught up in high conflict divorce where the woman is psychopathic as well, but my blog isn't about those situations and my intended audience isn't for those situations. However, you can plug in what applies to you. I tried to reach out to my ex spouse frequently, many times, explaining that we were both actually victims of manipulation, but as with you it didn't work. So I can really relate to what you are saying.
ReplyDelete