INTRODUCTION:
The meeting began with everyone introducing themselves. Attorney Carolyn Sigorelli introduced herself as a new member of the task force. She stated that although she works at the Attorney General's Office, she is on the task force as a private citizen.
Attorney Dornfelt stated that the judiciary will provide the number of cases for the past year that had an AMC and/or a GAL.
THE PUBLIC'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH TASK FORCE:
She also stated that there is an email address for the task force LDCC@cga.ct.gov. All comments should be sent to that email address.
Rep. Vargas asked how he and other members could access the email and he asked for emails to be automatically forwarded to the task force members individually.
Judge Weissmuller asked for a motion to have the emails submitted as part of the task force's record. He asked what the legislative protocol is to have them made a part of the record. There didn't seem to be a good answer to that question.
Attorney Cousineau stated that all these comments from the public are collected and made available to the public at the end at the time of the public hearing, not in piecemeal all along. However, Rep. Vargas stated that there is nothing that limits members of the task force from receiving those comments through their emails. He said it makes no sense to wait until the last minute to receive them.
The conclusion was that in order to be on the record, any correspondence must be sent to the task force email. Attorney Cousineau stated that if members receive individual communications, they should refer those individuals to the task force email.
At this point, the Chairs opened the floor to comments in regard to the role of the GAL and Attorney Oldham's testimony.
CONSTANT DELAYS/EXTENDING THE LITIGATION:
Judge Weissmuller brought up the issue of the process being prolonged. He said there was a problem with the court playing the game of "kick the can down the road" with particular cases and thus prolonging the process. Motions in these cases do not get responded to. He stated that in many of the cases where there is a GAL these cases simply do not include extreme end cases of abuse. You are not hearing that one particular parent is neglectful, i.e. has a fridge full of beer. This is a low point in a parent's case when they have just filed for divorce when they are least able to communicate and then you have a GAL critiquing one or the other parent. The GAL favors one side, but is not hearing that one of the parents is an isolationist. Is there a need for an expert in situations like this? No, it is more like a painter painting a house. If parents are not neglectful, why is there this question over how many days parents have with their children?
Attorney Cousineau then stated children don't benefit from long hearings. Time is a factor and she has no objection to making recommendations to expedite the process. She stated that there is case management available, but that is not the case post judgment.
Judge Weissmuller pointed out that Connecticut does not use the Motion to Show Cause which is a means to ferret out whether there is any reason to justify the delay of a trial or delay the resolution of a case.
Attorney Dornfeld stated that are many intangibles that cannot be measured.
Judge Weissmuller stated that these should be win-win situations because both parents are capable and both have legal rights. He also said that the children have a liberty right which is equal to the parents. Attorney Dornfeld disagreed stating that children don't have the freedom of association right. It would be good to find a case which clarifies this point.
Dr. Elizabeth Thayer indicated that these are incredibly complicated emotional cases and that's why it takes so long. The parents have difficulty in working together and she did not think it made sense to throw these parents together and force them to work together unless they get the kind of support they need to be successful. There is a group of parents that need help, they need resources in order to stay out of the legal system.
Mr. DiTunno stated many parents go through the court system and never see a judge. There are a small number of high conflict cases, about 10% of the fully contested cases. Judge Weissmuller picked that point up and said there are around 6000 divorces filed per year. 600 of these are fully contested cases, and 10% of those are high conflict which adds up to 60 high conflict cases per year. Many of the latter include one party who is difficult who possibly has mental health problems -- perhaps Borderline Personality Disorder. Judge Weissmuller continued on stating that the shared parenting plan makes better sense and he also stated that there are major problems in family court when litigants are denied discovery.
Mr. Di Tunno interjected that there are very few cases with GALs, but when GALs become involved that's when people start filing 40 motions.
Judge Weissmuller and Attorney Allard discussed the point that Connecticut has no language for shared parenting, only for joint custody.
Attorney Dornfeld opposed Judge Weissmuller's suggestion that the Court have a fixed trial date 9 months from the day of filing for divorce. She stated that it is not good for litigants to have to wait for nine months where there is conflict between the parents over simple things like where the kids are going to go trick or treating. In regard to a Motion For Exclusive Use of the House, why have both parents stay in the house with escalating conflict? Judge Weissmuller responded that within 30 days parties are supposed to submit a parenting plan which should include a conflict resolution piece.
Both Hector Moreira and Elizabeth Richter spoke up and said "Yes!" and that point and Attorney Cousineau criticized the public for speaking.
The conversation continued with the remark that there is no need to wait nine months for a parental plan if there are no outstanding criminal matters and no domestic violence involved.
At this point, Attorney Cousineau said that the task force discussion was digressing from its proper subject matter which is the role of the GAL and AMC.
ROLE OF THE GAL/SCOPE OF DUTIES/RECOMMENDATIONS:
Jennifer Verraneault brought the question of what are the duties and scope of the work that a GAL and/or AMC does. Is it a hybrid role? At this point, the task force began to discuss copies of job descriptions for GALs and AMCs provided by the judicial branch. These are forms that have not been readily available to litigants when they have considered taking on these kinds of professionals. Ms. Verraneault commented that some of the functions are for attorneys only. One form is for a witness (GAL) while the other is for an advocate (AMC)
Attorney Cousineau stated the question is, does the person involved as a witness or an advocate. The case law does not support a GAL acting as an attorney. There is a form that a GAL can use if she has a pressing concern she wishes to bring before the Court which is a Request For a Status Conference, but that is the only form a GAL should use.
Attorney Dornfeld spoke up and said there have been continuing efforts to establish national standards for GALs. The ABA took ten years to come up with such national standards and only a few states adopted it. Her view, "This is hard for everybody, not just for us. There are many intangibles involved and individuals deserve to be looked at individually." Further, Dornfeld pointed out that the Association of Matrimonial Attorneys came up with a set of standards and those also have not been widely adopted.
Attorney Cousineau stated she was concerned about orders for GAL from the Judicial Branch requiring GALs to do things that aren't necessary and drive up costs. For instance, she said it shouldn't be necessary for GALs to attend all hearings.
Attorney Carolyn Sigorelli stated that she thinks the GAL should be there even for financial hearings, and Attorney Allard of Statewide Legal agreed with that. Attorney Allard felt that having a GAL there during financial meetings is very helpful because it can be helpful in terms of observing parental values emerge. Attorney Signorelli stated that the GAL is the arm of the court to bring in all of the evidence and to advocate for the best interest of the children. Further, she stated that the GAL should not provide any recommendations if they are just bringing in evidence. Otherwise, the GAL becomes a lightening rod for dissension.
Attorney Dornfeld: Then all you need is a private investigator! Dornfeld also did not feel a GAL should sit through the financial hearings because it would drive up GAL bills. Sometimes it is better to spend on things like braces and medical care.
Ms. Verraneault then brought up the question of whether the GAL should make his or her decision after the trial while listening to testimony or should the GAL be sequestered. She felt that if the GAL had to sit through the entire trial it would become very confusing. Attorney Allard was unsure about this. Judge Weissmuller stated that he would want to sequester the GAL. He stated that the GAL is the most valuable witness, but once in the courtroom the GAL has already done the investigation and should not be second guessing themselves at that point. Attorney Dornfeld supported that position. She also mentioned that the case Ireland v. Ireland supports the position that AMCs should hear all of the testimony in court. Many courts bifurcate the custody issue from the financial issue and that's actually good.
Rep. Vargas stated that he is not recommending hard and fast guidelines for GALs, but he believes there should be minimum guidelines.
Attorney Cousineau stated that she agrees there should be minimum requirements, but she also thinks there should be exceptions to the dictate that the GAL always meet with child clients, for example in cases where the therapist thinks that such a meeting would be too traumatic for the child. There should be the possibility of inserting exceptions.
There was further discussion indicating that the GAL is the arm of the court for outside information. The GAL is the best interests advocate for the child. The question then arises, do they also need to take on that role of making a recommendation? Attorney Sigorelli said there is a great deal of frustration with the role of GALs making recommendations. Should that role be taken out?
Regarding written reports from the GAL, case law requires no written report from the GAL. Attorney Dornfeld did say she would let both sides know what direction she is going in prior to trial in order to avoid blindsiding the parties. She prefers to talk to the attorneys in these cases and does not want secrets. But she also states that it is sometimes difficult too do that because she then loses the ability to work effectively with the parent the GAL giving the other side preferential treatment.
Mr. DiTunno stated that parents have a lot of opportunities to settle beforehand to avail themselves of Family Court Services.
Attorney Cousineau stated that it is important to have proper procedures for the retainer and fees. GALs must be required to provide detailed bills of what they do.
ACCOUNTABILITY OF GALS:
Rep. Vargas stated, "Everything we do must have accountability. We must improve the system as a whole." He also asked, "Is there a way of evaluating whether GALs have exceeded their mandate."
Attorney Dornfeld stated that it is the judge's job to evaluate the GAL's role. She also said that there is a good process in place to handle grievances. Further, she stated that mental health professionals and attorneys do have oversight, but other less qualified GALs do not. Ms. Verraneault proposed changes in terms of continuing education requirements for GALs.
Judge Weissmuller talked about the requirements for a GAL in Washington State. For example, there is a criminal background check. There is currently nothing of that kind in Connecticut. Attorney Dornfeld asked Judge Weissmuller to provide a copy of Washington State's approach. Attorney Cousineau stated that she'd done child protection work and they required a background check. Also an attorney's grievance history is online in Connecticut. However, that is only if there was a probable cause finding made in the case.
Dr. Elizabeth Thayer stated that there is accountability with the psychologist licensing board. There is also a national disciplinarhy board, but you only know the results if a decision has been made. She isn't sure about social workers or regular therapist. The point is to encourage settlement disputes and find out what will make that work.
Attorney Cousineau brought up the issue of how to establish that a GAL appointment has ended. The minimum guidelines for a GAL should make a specific mention of this point.
Attorney Sigorelli wanted to know how many kids in the state are caught up in high conflict cases. Attorney Dornfeld told her there is no information on that point available from the Judicial Branch. She also stated that there were 1,357 GAL appointments from 7/1/2012 to 6/30/13 for custody cases only, not neglect or abuse.
Dr. Thayer stated that it is important to encourage settlement work.
Attorney Cousineau stated that if there are to be recommendations for altering the system, we need a better grasp of the nature of the problem.
LOW INCOME SERVICES:
We should have a screening process in place so that only the low income use judicial services. Currently, the government rate is $500 per case and perhaps it should be higher than that.
Unfortunately the truly indigent obtain resources from the judicial branch. The very affluent can afford to pay while those of moderate income are out of luck.
Ms. Jennifer Verraneault mentioned an article which indicated that the Judicial Branch wasn't even paying its own state attorneys and owed sums of money which amounted to millions. The response was that this happens all the time at the end of the fiscal year and is of no consequence.
DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
Established January 9, 2014 as the day for public testimony. Said would start at 10:00am in the morning and continue on until done.
No comments:
Post a Comment