TASK FORCE TO STUDY LEGAL DISPUTES INVOLVING THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN, MEETING NOTES, OCTOBER 2, 2013, 9:30AM

Present:  Attorney Sue Cousineau, Attorney Sharon Wicks Dornfeld, Attorney Linda Allard, Dr. Elizabeth Thayer, Rep. Ed Vargas, Mr. John DiTunno, Judge Thomas Weissmuller (late)

 

Absent:  Rep. DebraLee Hovey, Ms. Jennifer Verraneault, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez

 

 

Note:  If anyone else who was at this meeting has a correction to make regarding these notes, please contact me at Slopercathy@gmail.com and I am happy to make corrections.  I recorded the session but there was a lot of difficulty hearing the discussion because of background conversations and a lot of loud slamming sounds. 

(*I want to thank my good friend who took the majority of these notes and without whom I could not have done this task.  I am very grateful for your support and assistance.  You know who you are!!!)

_________________________________________________

 

The meeting began with the question of definition:  What are the objectives and scope of this task force?  To a certain extent, the purpose of the Committee is to investigate laws regarding joint and shared custody, both in CT and other states, as well as federal law.  Also, to investigate GAL and AMC roles, responsibilities and fees.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld pointed out that the task force report is due February 1, 2014.  She felt the we must have at least a couple of meetings a week, 2 meetings per topic, so even if a committee member missed one session, he or she would still be able to provide and receive imput in regard to that topic. 

 

 

She felt that we need to gather information from the Connecticut Judicial Branch about 1) the number of cases they have, 2) how many of those cases are contested, 3)  any information on how many AMCs and GALs are appointed, and 4) were they settled in or out of court.

 

 

Members of the Committee went around in a circle and stated their names and who appointed them.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld mentioned that she had downloaded statutes related to the work that the GAL and the AMC is supposed to do and sent it to everyone.  She also said if anyone knows of any more important information on this issue, please inform the Committee.

 

 

Judge Weissmuller recommended collecting examples of GAL orders of appointment to get a sense of what other states have.  Also, he stated we need more information on GAL training so we can understand how GALs perceive their role.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld said that in CT we do not have a standard order indicating the role of a GAL or AMC.  She said much of our understanding on that comes from case law which she can provide to the Committee.

 

 

Judge Weissmuller said that in other states where there are strict guidelines regarding what GALs do they cannot go outside the guidelines, and if they charge fees for acting outside those guidelines, those fees can then be challenged by the parent.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld pointed out that CT children are not parties.  They can be parties in juvenile matters, but not in family court.  She then agreed with Judge Weissmuller's ideas. 

 

 

Judge Weissmuller also stated that the National Center For State Courts could be a valuable resource.

 

 

Rep. Ed Vargas then asked what kind of legislative support do we have on the Committee?  The answer is the Judiciary Committee, and also Ms. Debbie Blanchard. 

 

 

It was noted that it is important to be clear on definitions and take note that definitions are different in different states.  We want to be sure of what we are looking at.  Also when comparing between states, we should ensure that it's "apples to apples" because not every State goes by the same definitions.

 

 

We should ask the following questions:

 

 

What is joint/shared custody in other states?

How do other states determine joint/shared custody?

How does CT define it?

How does CT determine joint/shared custody?

Read and discuss literature re shared/joint parenting.

 

 

Ultimately, it is important to create a working definition of joint/shared parenting for the task force, before we do anything.

 

 

The Members of the Committee disagreed whether or not to have public hearings.  They felt it was important to continue to discuss the issue of if and how they obtain information from the public.  Unfortunately, because the Committee's time is so tight, they don't have a lot of opportunities to hear from the public.  Four months is not a lot of time.  It might be best to request written information from the public.

 

 

Rep. Vargas stated that at least one public meeting would make sense.  People feel very strongly about these issues.  It would be frustrating if you were a member of the public and didn't have the opportunity to speak about your views to the Committee.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld disagreed and said she expected the more appropriate time for the public to speak would be through the state legislature.  Members of the committee are just too busy and the public should just be solicited to provide written commentary, in her view.

 

 

Rep. Vargas suggested the possibility of one meeting where the public would be able to comment, and there could be time limits for comments.  This could happen once the Committee has had the opportunity to do sufficient information gathering just around at the end of the Committee's work.

 

 

Judge Weissmuller says we have a public trust and that we should allow the public to speak.

 

 

Judge Weissmuller then continued on to talk about the issue of access to justice.  He stated that the CT Judicial System is a skills based system, not a rules based system.  He felt this creates a barrier between the public and the courts.  There is an assumption that litigants know what is going on with the judicial system, but in fact they don't and there are extremely high numbers of self represented parties who do not have full access to the system.  Judge Weissmuller stated that we have to speak to the public and look into their ideas to understand the frustration they are feeling.  He also stated that how the task force goes about requesting information, the kinds of questions it asks is important because you don't just want to hear stories about how people are disgruntled. 

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld didn't fully agree with Judge Weissmuller's remarks because she feels that pro se's get a lot of leeway.  They have court service centers staffed with personnel who are able to help with filing forms and going through the process, so CT is doing some things right.  Judge Weissmuller agreed with this point, and simply stated that he wanted to learn more about what the public's understandings are.

 

 

Mr. DiTunno stated that we have to be very specific about what we are investigating and not pursue an agenda where we end up investigating the whole system.

 

 

We need to ensure that the task force addresses the topics set forth in the law and the guidelines.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld pointed out that the way the system goes now, one person always thinks one person came out better than the other.  There is no way around it.  Currently, it's an adversarial system--there will always be and has been a disgruntled party.  Attorney Dornfeld feels that she has a better perspective perhaps regarding this point because as a GAL she deals with both parents.  Parents will accuse the court of bias, but actually the same complaints come forward from different perspectives.

 

 

Dr. Thayer agrees with this assessment, stating, divorce is an incredibly difficult time.  She said it would be helpful to have someone to come in to talk about custody evaluations, their value and limitations.  A psychologist might be a good person to get to speak on this issue.  Such a professional can provide more detail regarding the criteria in terms of children's development that goes into determining what is best for the child, as well as other factors.

 

 

Judge Weissmuller stated that the legislature has asked the task force to investigate what has gone wrong in these kinds of custody proceedings and says he thinks we can do that.  Further, he stated there are people who have been deeply hurt in situations where they felt the system did not work for them, and we need to understand why. 

 

 

He further stated that it is possible to distinguish between those who are merely disgruntled and perceive themselves as victims, versus those for whom the system was flawed and they have grounds for thinking of themselves that way.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld stated that this is why we need more data from the CT Judicial Branch to know how many people are affected by this problem.

 

 

Judge Weissmuller stated that in regard to that point, the GAL fees are a significant issue.  We should look to see whether the fees were justified, or if you have a fairly basic divorce, yet the fees are up to $250,000 and we have to see whether due process occurred.

 

 

Attorney Cousineau said we do have rules and we do have a process regarding GAL fees.  The laws state that the fees have to be reasonable and necessary.  One of the things we note is the practice doesn't always follow what the rules are in some individual courts.  Attorney Cousineau stated that she submits affidavits for the fees and obtains a court order to have them paid.  She continued on to state that there are rules, but they aren't necessarily applied the same way from court to court.  She felt that we need a standardization of those fees.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld added the point that we need to standardize the AMC/GAL fee process.  It seemed to her that expert fees and attorneys fees, parent's fees in general are incredible high.  Parents are willing to spend their retirement money; they are willing to spend the children's college money, the braces money, the vacation money to keep fighting with one another--until they realize they are winning battles but ultimately losing the war.

 

 

There does not seem to be a good way for this to come to the attention of the judges who are hearing the case.  So while it does make sense to look at GAL fees and AMC fees, it makes sense to look at these issues in the light of the overall attorney's fees which the parents are ringing up in their cases.  There are all sorts of constitutional issues that come up within this context.

 

 

Judge Weissmuller pointed out that issues like this came up before the Washington State Bar.  He pointed out that they had a good policy of:

 

1) providing 15 day advanced notice in regard to hearings on attorney's fees;

 

2) clarification regarding fees and billing down to 1/10th of an hour;

 

He also pointed out that the billing statements help judges determine problems and identify high conflict cases.

 

Attorney Dornfeld further added that GAL and AMC fees should be seen within the context of all attorney's fees.

 

 

Attorney Cousinea stated we need to identify cases where the parents are receiving state GAL rates inappropriately.  For example, we need to identify cases where the parents pay high rates of up to $300 per hour for their own legal representation but get state rates for GALs at $40, with both parents claiming they are indigent, or having a grandparent pay the fees.  State GAL rates are capped at $500.  This kind of situation really abuses the state system and results in taxpayer's being taken advantage of.

 

 

Dr. Elizabeth Thayer pointed out that we do need less expensive mechanisms in place to reduce conflict between parents.

 

 

Attorney Cousinea emphasized how important it is to address fees and orders up front with parents and also inform parties of bills and fees prior to court actions.

 

 

Rep. Ed Vargas says that since he is a non attorney, he is interested in having experts come in, perhaps three at a time for 20 minutes each in order to provide information regarding the policies and procedures of the court in regard to GAL/AMC roles and billing practices.  He is interested in the regulations and how they have been shaped by present and past practice and statutes.  Ultimately,  he would like to have a baseline of the current circumstances.

 

 

Attorney Cousinea agreed that it would be a good idea to bring experts in to do short introductory lectures on these topics.  She stated we need lectures on 1) the role of AMCs/GALs; 2) the requirement that the custodial parent facilitate the relationship with the other parent; 3) the presumption of joint/shared custody; 4) what is going on in different states, versus what is going on in CT.  She felt Dr. Elizabeth Thayer could give a good talk in regard to the presumption of joint/shared custody.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld stated she felt it is important to have these informative lectures prior to having any breakout meetings regarding these subjects.

 

 

The attention of the task force then turned to scheduling future meetings.  Attorney Dornfeld stated that it would be a good idea to use the online program "Doodle" to schedule future meetings.  The general concensus is that Thursday mornings are a good time for meetings.

 

 

There were a few final remarks.  Judge Weissmuller felt that the court should offer surgical responses to small problems rather than allow litigation to drag out.  He pointed out the problem when a litigant who finds one problem in the parenting plan can use that circumstance as a justification for reconsidering the entire parenting plan.  He deplored the fact that personal conflicts which really should not be addressed by litigation get dragged into court and he was interested in discussing the need for parent coordinators.

 

 

Attorney Dornfeld reminded Judge Weissmuller that they are only supposed to address those issues that lie within the purview of the task force.  There was some debate over this point.