Members
Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and
Custody of Minor Children
Connecticut Legislature
c/o Legislative Judiciary Committee Office
Legislative Office Building/Office 2500
Hartford, CT 06106
November 6, 2013
Like
many other parents whose custody rights have been severed through the efforts by
those who have been appointed by the courts as AMC’s, GAL’s and court appointed
court evaluators, we hold hopes that the “invited” testimonial you have permitted
to be provided to date by Attorney Sarah Stark Oldham will not be given
inordinate weight in the early deliberations of recommendations to be made by
this task force.
The
focus on the November 7 hearing is to be centered on the role of AMC’s in the
custody evaluation process.
I submit
this letter as a matter of public record to be posted as testimony.
We witnessed last week
testimony from Attorney Sarah Stark Oldham on the manner in which these GAL appointments
have been ordered. Attorney Oldham provided
one person’s assessment that generally most GAL assignments do not result in
“economically” devastating fees.
In addressing the issue of
these court appointed “experts”, Attorney Oldham made no mention that a judge
first looks at the financial affidavits of the parents to determine the
“affordability” of these appointments and that the attorneys are allowed access
to that financial information.
Attorney Oldham made no
mention of retainers and per hour fee schedules which the court orders the
parties to pay, and sign contracts to pay, as an accumulated amount. Attorney Oldham made no references to the
statutory authority of the court to order the liquidation of “retirement
funds”, “college education funding” or
the tax consequences of these ordered liquidations to the parents.
Attorney Oldham made no
reference to the difference between a post judgment orders or pre-judgment
orders for these appointments and the impact on the potential liquidation of
the primary home of the children in order to pay these ordered fees.
At no point in time did the
task force ask a question about whether GAL’s advocates for joint legal and
physical custody—one of the three assessment prongs of this task force’s
legislative mission.
Many of
us have been watching the coverage of the hearings of this task force on CT-N
either live on our local cable channel or on the internet replay.
We would
encourage the task force hearings to continue to be cablecast as a matter of
public interest.
This
letter provides a specific recounting of my case in Stamford, FST FA 04
0201276S and the abuse of the limited statutory authority of an appointed AMC,
Attorney Veronica Reich of firm of Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss and Mulcahey.
C.G.S. §46 (b)-129a(2)
defines the role of the attorney for the minor child (AMC):
“The primary role of any counsel for the child including
the counsel who also serves as guardian ad litem, shall be to advocate for the
child in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. When a conflict arises between the child’s
wishes or position and that which the counsel for the child believes is in the
best interest of the child, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the
child. The guardian ad litem shall speak
on behalf of the best interest of the child and is not required to be an
attorney-at-law but shall be knowledgeable about the needs and protection of
children. In the event that a separate
guardian ad litem is appointed, the person previously serving as both counsel
and guardian ad litem for the child shall continue to serve as counsel for the
child and a different person shall be appointed as guardian ad litem, unless
the court for good cause also appoints a different person as counsel for the
child. No person who has serve as both
counsel and guardian ad litem for a child shall thereafter serve solely as the
child’s guardian ad litem.
In re: Tayquon H.
76 App. 693, 821 A. 796 (2003), the Appellate Court stated:
“It also is clear…that the obligation of the person
appointed as counsel is shaped by the Rules of Professional Conduct, which in
pertinent part, obligate counsel to abide by a client’s decisions concerning
the objectives of representations…It is when counsel perceives that this
obligation is in conflict with the child’s best interest that counsel must
bring that to the courts’ attention, and the court, in turn, must appoint a
separate guardian ad litem to protect and to promote the child’s best interests
in the process.”
C.G.S.
46b-56a(b), modified in 2007 states:
“There shall be a presumption, affecting the burden of
proof, that joint custody is in the best interests of the minor child where the
parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a
hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or
children of the marriage. If the court
declines to enter an order awarding joint custody pursuant to this subsection,
the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of
joint custody.”
From
June 29, 2005 until December 2, 2009, by agreement of the parents in a shared
joint legal and physical custody plan in place signed on January 18, 2005, my
children had in place the equal access to the love and devotion to both of
their parents.
On
December 2, 2009, Attorney Veronica Reich, without authority or consultation
from either of her clients, filed an Ex Parte Motion for Order to Modify
Custody without a hearing—despite a statutory obligation of Attorney Reich to
abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct that involves providing children
with the same rights of an adult—for advised consent.
The task
force needs to consider this one fact (gleaned from a Freedom of Information
request made of Michael Bowler of the Statewide Grievance Committee, which is
required to investigate upon sworn applications, violations of the Code of
Professional Conduct):
“Despite hundreds of complaints made against court
appointed attorneys who serve as AMC’s over the years, there has never been a
finding of lawyer misconduct by the Statewide Grievance Committee for violating
the “advised consent” rules on the representation of children in custodial
matters.”
In my
case, FST FA 02 0401276S, after she was appointed by the family court at a fee
of $425.00 per hour, Attorney Veronica Reich of Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss and
Mulcahey, abused the limits of her statutory authority defined in C.G.S.
§46b-129a(2) with malice.
Attorney Reich, over the
course of her nearly two year appointment as an AMC, without regard for the respecting
the objectives of the stated representations of her clients, engaged in the “malicious
neglect” of the rights of her clients to “advised consent” at ages 13 and 15.
Attorney Reich filed motions
in family courts in both Stamford and Middletown, Connecticut, which violated
the Rules of Professional Conduct because she pursued a course of legal action
to interfere with the established joint legal and physical custody rights of
one parent, without any consultation or permission from her clients.
Despite the conflicted
agenda of Attorney Reich with her clients objectives of representation, it wasn’t until February 2010, that Attorney
Reich applied to the court for the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem. That motion for a GAL appointment was never
marked “ready” for a hearing--- which violated the provisions in the General
Statutes that required her to seek such an appointment.
The billing records of Attorney
Reich demonstrate she had no consultations with her clients regarding the
filing of Ex Parte Motions in December 2009 and February 2011.
Attorney Reich operated with
shameless disregard for the economic and emotional impact on her clients during
the course of her representations and made every effort to destroy the loving
and devoted relationship of this father with his two children—with no
accountability for her actions.
During her two years of
misrepresentations of the well-articulated objectives of representations
outlined by her clients in September 2009 (which were to leave the custody
arrangement in place) Attorney Reich deemed her “lawyer-client confidentiality”
relationship with her clients as superordinate to the “confidant” relationship this
father had with his children.
Despite the filing in
September 2010 of a highly detailed 57 page attorney complaint citing a litany
of violations by Attorney Reich of the Rules of Professional Conduct with the Statewide
Bar Counsel, the grievance against Attorney Reich was dismissed without a panel
assignment.
There has been no
enforcement of the Rules of Professional Conduct by the Statewide Bar
Counsel—thus promoting the abuse by AMC’s such as Attorney Reich of the
mandates of C.G.S. §46b-129a(2).
Attorney Reich in May 2012
sought the incarceration of me for the refusal to pay the $154,066 (80%) of
outstanding fees (which included a compound interest of 10% per annum) for the
misrepresentation of the informed consent of my children for profit of her firm. Because this extorted payment was made from
IRA holdings (not liquid assets as Attorney Reich suggested in her pleadings),
the taxes owed on the distribution of these funds totaled another $50,000 in
federal and state income taxes.
I was in jail for seven days
in May 2012 until the extortion of payments was completed under the threat that
the court would fine me $10,000 per week if the payments were not made.
Add in the $14,500 (one half
of the fees) paid previously to Attorney Reich in 2009, the nearly $12,500 (one
half) of fees assessed by Dr. Robson (at $350.00 per hour) and Dr. Frank Stoll (for
psychological testing) and another $7,000 (half) to the GAL, Dr. Harry
Adamakos, ($275.00 per hour) appointed in March 2011, and you can begin to
understand that the system of family court injustice resembles “racketeering”.
After investigating Dr.
Kenneth Robson’s credentials submitted to the court in his “curriculum vitae,”
it turned out that his “hospital appointments” with the Hartford Healthcare
Corporation had been severed in 2004.
In addition to the above, I
hired my own forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Douglas Anderson, who largely contested
Dr. Robson’s assessment, for $10,000.
Attorney Oldham suggested
last week at your hearings that parents were the source of the conflicts
resulting in fee escalations.
No, Attorney Oldham, perhaps
you should review the Connecticut Law Tribune article posted by your partner
Arnold Rutkin which suggested that the very spirit of the legal profession
involves “conflict”.
There would be little
question, my home and entire lifetime retirement savings would have been liquidated
to pay legal fees had I not chosen self-representation in these post judgment
modification hearings.
During the course of her
representation, Attorney Reich amassed combined fees from this one assignment
of nearly $250,000 in combined fees for both parents for herself, the court
appointed psychiatrist/psychologist and the GAL.
Now the question is for this
task force to consider: How did any of
this advance the best interests of the children?
There has been no contact
between Attorney Reich with my two children since she was “removed” at the end
of the custody proceedings.
Couldn’t these funds, which
were extorted from these court appointees for their unmonitored and egregious
fees, have been better served in educating my two children?
Couldn’t these funds which
are now in their pockets, have been better utilized in my children’s ability to
fund their their children’s educations rather than court appointees who have no
legal authority or involvement in children’s lives after the age of 18?
It is the failure of our
legislators in the judiciary committee to have held public hearings since 1969,
concerning the Connecticut Practice Book Rules, which were required by C.G.S.
§51-14, which assisted in the promotion of the growth of family court system
filled with corrupt practitioners.
The unlawful seizure of
family assets by these court practitioners, who have no accountability for the
economic and emotional harm inflicted on parents and children in the State of
Connecticut is unprecedented.
The suggestion by Attorney
Oldham that parents are at the root cause of these escalating legal fees is refuted
by reviewing the thousands of pages of transcripts, court motions, Ex Parte
Motions for Order, denial of due process and equal protection rights of just my
case file FST FA 04 0201276S.
This task force needs to
look no further than the third prong of your legal review to Study Legal
Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Childre .
This task force needs to
focus its attention on the adoption of legal mandates in the State of
Connecticut for any court appointed official to forge joint legal and physical custody
parenting plan in the State of Connecticut--for all parents who represent no
risk of harm of from physical or emotional abuse to their children.
By adopting such a legal
reform, by filing motions for an appointment of a GAL or AMC (or any sua
suponte order of the court), the courts and parents will be committing
themselves to joint parenting plans as the outcome favorable for our children
and bring an end to GAL’s and AMC’s profiting from the creation of custodial conflict
for profit.
I look forward to watching
the task force hearings and look forward to my three minutes to testify at a
public hearing in January 2014.
Cordially,
Michael J. Nowacki
319 Lost District DriveNew Canaan, CT 06840
(203) 273-4296
mnowacki@aol.com
Well written letter. I have audiotapes of conversations between myself and the GAL in my case and between myself and my second attorney, both dealing with their attempt to intimidate me from exposing a serious issue with my spouse. Sounds awful lot like conspiracy and fraud. I have hesitated filing a grievance as I do see the committee ever prosecuting these lawyers. I too have lost everything. I commend you for the fight you put on.
ReplyDelete