"MIKE DOE'S" TESTIMONY AT THE MARCH 25, 2013 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!

Thank you very much.  

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you. 

               Mike Doe No. 1.

               (Pause in the proceedings.)

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning.

               MR. MIKE DOE NO. 1:  Good morning, Justices --

               JUSTICE EVELEIGH:  Good morning.

               MR. MIKE DOE NO. 1:  -- and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.  The first thing I’d like to address is a proposed rule to be added to the Practice Book which limits the information about children which can be contained in divorce opinions. 

                In divorce proceedings, minor children do not have the same rights as those children involved in juvenile proceedings or parental right termination cases.  The children’s private information, including their names, birth dates, and other information is routinely published in divorce opinions.  These decisions appear on the internet.  They can be read by hundreds of millions of people.  Those people include sex offenders and identity thieves.

               Children of divorce have their personal information exposed and they are routinely stigmatized and psychologically damaged by the sometime salacious and other private information about their parents which is contained in the decision.

               In one recent case, a family law judge published a 28-page decision which contained the minor children’s names, their birth dates, their home addresses, as one as -- as well as one child’s psychiatric history.  It was lifted directly from a custody evaluation which the parents believed was for the eyes of the attorneys and the court only. 

               Since the publication of that decision, Your Justices, one child, he’s my child, has suffered uncontrolled anxiety and can no longer attend school on a regular basis.  Every time either one of my children Googles their name, that decision is the first thing that they read.

               My requested rule change is that matters involving child custody has to be automatically sealed.  They do it in the states of New Jersey; they do it in the states of New York.  All child custody evaluations must be automatically sealed.  The public cannot trust that these decisions are not going to contain information that damages our children so much.

               My second proposal is an amendment with respect to GAL, AMC, fees and the appointment of GALs and AMCs.  In the Stamford Judicial District, family law judges repeatedly appoint the same small group of attorneys as GALs and AMCs.  The majority of these attorneys are billing families at $500 per hour.  Many do not have GAL and AMC certification and, meanwhile, there are hundreds of GAL- and AMC-certified professionals now in our state who are willing to work for state rates but they are never appointed.

               In one Stamford case, the GAL billed $500 an hour.  His fees exceeded $160,000.  He spent a total of 4½ hours with the same two children whose public information now appears on the internet.  In addition, when he was criticized for not performing his duties, he succeeded himself and an attorney -- as an attorney, having an attorney appointed for him at the cost of another $500 an hour.  That attorney was then also appointed as AMC representing both the GAL, himself an attorney, and representing the children. 

               After an 11-day trial, it was determined that that AMC had never even met with or spoken to either of the children.  Her bill, $100,000.  The family, a family of modest means, now a family that is insolvent, paid GAL fees of $260,000.

               The rule should be amended, Rule 25-62.  We have the rules but they’re not followed.  It says that GALs shall be appointed pursuant to a branch fee schedule.  They should be.  I don’t know why they’re not.  We have the rule; it has to be enforced.

               Thank you for your time.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you very much.

 
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.no-wackileaks.com/