TASK FORCE MEETING, DECEMBER 10, 2013, PART V: CONSEQUENCES

AGAIN, NOTE TO ANY TASK FORCE MEMBER!  IF ANYTHING IN THIS OVERVIEW OF THIS MEETING OR ANY OF THE OTHER MEETINGS I'VE SUMMARIZED ON THIS BLOG IS NOT CORRECT, PLEASE CONTACT ME AND I WILL CORRECT ANY ERRORS.  JUST EMAIL ME AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:  SLOPERCATHY@GMAIL.COM

 

Continuing on from Part IV of this discussion, Dr. Elizabeth Thayer stated that in her experience when it comes to issues related to access real consequences lead to action.  One parent got a 17 year old in car for visitation for that reason.  Another important issue is the specificity in orders.  Many end up in her office because their orders were not specific enough.  Parenting plans can be written where you put your custody of the children at risk if you deny access, can have a change of custody if the children don’t go.  You are in a business relationship, you call the other parent.  You have to have phone call time, and if they miss, it should be rescheduled.  For God sake call the other parent.

Judge Weissmuller talked about how attorneys are crafting vague orders to expand their bills.  Check boxes should be there specifying provisions in an agreement.  A fine is not like someone saying we will impose a fine on you, you are imposing a fine on you.  If they have a bank account it can be garnished.  The fine is not the threat, just a wake up call, one judge doubled the fine, transfer custody (allow access) or you will go away in handcuffs.  If there is no compliance with court orders on custody, then you'll go to jail.
 

[I will say that it does surprise me how frequently family court activists think of jail as a good solution to conflict.  But seriously, is this good for the children?  I can just imagine how people handle that.  "Hi Sally! Hi Dick! Hi Jane!  So nice to see you home from school.  Mommy put Daddy in jail today."  Wow!  Or, "Daddy showed Mommy how bad it is to prevent me from seeing you!  Mommy won't have money to buy anything to eat for the next few days!"  Seriously, is this what family court advocates want?  I say this understanding how children view jail as some Dickensian nightmare, which of course it is, in many ways.  The same goes for not having food.  And there are actually parents around who want to impose that on their children.  Shall I say, quite simply, my eyebrows are raised.  Seriously, does this belong in family court?  I'm not sure. 

Too often because of the traditionally adversarial approach of family court, interactions are all about domination, power plays, bullying, strong arming, and creating damage, not about building healthy parents and children so they can have a promising future.  This is a mistake, a situation where the judicial system continues to do they same old thing they have done for centuries, and at the same time they have co-opted what should be the modern healing profession of psychotherapy for that purpose.  This is fundamentally wrong both spiritually, morally, and scientifically, in so many ways.  There will be a time sooner or later when mental health professionals will have to reexamine seriously their role in creating and perpetuating the torturous nightmare that our current family court system represents.]

Attorney Sue Cousineau stated I’m not sure language is vague so attorneys can keep working.  It is intended to protect the client.
 

[I had an attorney who wrote up a stipulation like that.  It kept my ex and I fighting and wrangling for a year.  There is nothing worse than vague language and all vague language does is generate more conflict and provide uncooperative litigants with a means to evade and avoid responsibility.]

Judge Weissmuller responded by saying clients don’t deal with it, the Judge orders it.  The Judges decree through administrative order that this is the form you use.  Not a lot of discretion with these forms; they are statutory.

 

Attorney Sue Cousineau stated we would like to see that.   Attorney Cousineau recalled a case she was in where there was a sticking point over a residential matter.  Neither parent wanted to be designated as primary residential parent.  We knew we couldn’t resolve this.  The  atmosphere in court makes the situation worse, so if I can get by this point, cross our fingers that once out of the intense court atmosphere  the parties can get on with their lives. There is a risk, cost/benefit analysis, do we flush what we do have agreement on and put folks through a trial, or do we cross our fingers and explain to these folks what the concerns may be and ask what is more important to you, leaving things vague, or at least allowing you to follow through on your responsibility as parents and leave it as is.  Ambiguities are the lesser evil.  The other side of coin, are parents who really require clarity.  Some need firm rules, while others need to go with the flow.

[My experience has been that abusive litigants prefer vagueness, because as soon as they get out of the courtroom, they will exploit the lack of guidelines as a means to defy any provisions of the agreement, and will continue to use any lack of specificity in order to drag the other party right back into court or else to continue to abuse them outside of court.  What these attorneys think of as avoiding problems then, by using vague language, simply sets litigants up for abuse as soon as they leave the courtroom.]

Judge Weissmuller stated that when you work on settlements as a group, it is better not to be doing that close to trial.  It is better to work on collaborative agreement.  When you go to trial, the Court can take stipulations that are deemed entered, so the remainder of the trial will only deal with issues that remain.  At case management date will have an agreed parenting plan if possible.  The trial on financial can then include the custody agreement by agreement.  This can happen in situations where things are a little more amicable.

Dr. Robert Horowitz added that there are situations where a parent will come up with a reason why the child doesn’t want to see the other parent.  There is an immediate hearing before judge, but the judge can’t tell who is telling the truth; the family relations investigation takes 3 months.  With early intervention a team of psychologists and attorneys could immediately address that.  But if a parent is convinced that there has been abuse, that parent is not going to stop thinking that.  What do you do when there is an allegation that abuse is present?
 

[I recall bringing repeated evidence of abuse to the attention of the GAL, my attorney, and the judges in my case and they simply disregarded it and refused to acknowledge it.  And I am not the only one this is happening to.  So when is family court going to take allegations of abuse seriously and start looking at the evidence litigants provide?]

Mr. Di Tunno:  We have issue oriented evaluations to address that.  Resources are also an issue.  We offer recommendations, some parents agree, while others still insist upon a hearing.

Attorney Linda Allard:  If the child is afraid, how do you expedite this?

Mr. John DiTunno:  Family relations would do a negotiation and ask parents how to resolve the problem.  If a therapist could talk to child, that could be resolution.  If  parents don’t agree, they can have an issue focused evaluation which could take two months.

 

Attorney Linda Allard:  Thanks for that.  How can the Judge respond?  If there is a false allegation, the judge can’t decide.  It will be two months before evaluation, and meanwhile one parent has been denied access.

 

Attorney Sue Cousineau,  as a GAL I have been called in to make a quick check. I can make unannounced visits, sit across the street to watch the exchange to see if the allegations of kicking and screaming are correct.  Judge Munro was famous for those kinds of appointments because she would like to know right away.

Attorney Linda Allard then said the allegations are then proven untrue but still there is a big GAL bill.

Attorney Sue Cousineau said it is important to do independent investigation.

Attorney Linda Allard,  What you get is expedited evidence, then pay a GAL.  We are here because of a broken system and need to look at all the issues.

 

[Again, what I would say about this issue is that there are many, many situations where there is abuse and GALs, attorneys, and family relations cover it all up and refuse to acknowledge what is happening.  I have heard situations where GALs have pulled children out of therapy in order to prevent them from talking about the abuse they have endured or they have silenced children in other ways to prevent them from speaking out against the abusive parent.]

Judge Weissmuller, if a parent comes in because he or she says I know better, I will ask have you filed a petition, have you engaged in any action re this.  If there is no petition for domestic violence, I try to get beyond fantasy.  If the parent has got a legitimate reason to evade a custody order, if not, then there is no basis for denying the access.  No parental authority for denying  access exists.  Litigants must use the legitimate legal mechanisms to proceed when denying access based on DV or something of that kind. 

Attorney Sue Cousineau  said one of the things I find remarkable, we have three branches of government.  The judicial branch gets 3% of state’s branch.  There is all kinds of stuff cut out.  The early intervention program, a pilot program intended to spread out and did not.

Rep. Vargas then stated I am part of appropriations committee.  I would like to investigate that. I’d be happy to advocate re those issues.

Representative Sue Cousineau said if you have a professional supervisor at supervised visitation you will have an independent witness who can speak about the child’s relationship with that parent.  The supervisor will be a witness.

Dr. Horwitz stated there are all different kinds of varieties of therapeutic supervised visitation.  There is the passive forensic kind which is videotaped and the supervisor takes notes.  Supervised visitation providers may not be willing to do that.  I do it, and it is billed as part of health insurance.  If it is just to collect evidence, you want to let the supervisor know what he is expected of him.  Need supervision centers that are appropriately staffed for those purposes so you can get a report.  Even if maybe a person won’t testify, that person can talk to family relations, or talk to a person who can testify in family court. 

 

[Of course that adds up to hearsay and I think a lot of litigants would object to that, or at least those of them who have become knowledgeable enough about family court and about how things are supposed to work.  You might be able to do this with folks who are unfamiliar with court procedures, but you won't fool old hands with hearsay.  Those people will object to the denial of their right to exclude hearsay evidence from a hearing] 

Mr. John DiTunno mentioned that there is a federal grant funded, low income never married supervised visitation organization in Litchfield.

Attorney Sharon Dornfeld said both parents in supervised visitation situations should be responsible for the cost.  It is important for both parents to be involved in that process.  Should be involved so that other parent can be involved with children as soon as possible.

 

[Of course, I truly object to slapping psychiatric labels on people without justification, as happens so frequently in family court, and then forcing people into supervised visitation where supervisors who have been cued to see mental illness continue to see more because their perceptions are tainted.  Supervised Visitation should only be used as an option where there has been real abuse, violence and/or documented substance abuse, not for mild, trivial or non existent mental health labels.]

Judge Weissmuller said that if a parent comes in with a motion for contempt and leaves with a motion for supervised visitation that would be fundamentally inequitable.  If  it is an access motion, and I’ve moved for contempt, and if the kids aren’t there, then I can’t expect that the person should have to leave with a motion for supervised visitation.

Attorney Sharon Dornfeld said if there is a contempt, there will be a conversation with family services, and the kids will lose  their fear if the parent denying access is required to write a check for supervised visitation.  This is what keeps a case out of court.  Just a matter of education.  There are people who are mistaken and people who are malicious.  Have to distinquish between the two.
 

[Again, I will say, what Dornfeld is talking about are situations where families have access to family relations.  In my case, and I am sure with many others, we do not even see family relations no matter what it says about how you have to see them prior to seeing the judge!]

Attorney Sharon Dornfeld said that  at the next hearing, Dr. Stephen M. Humphrey will come to the December 12, 2013 task force meeting and speak regarding shared custody. 

OFA states that for the General Year 2013-2014 the Judicial Branch gets 3.5% of net total of the State Budget.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Part I of the task force
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-december-10-2013-part-i.html

Part II of the task force
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-december-10-2013-part-ii.html

Part III of the task force
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-december-10-2013-part-iii.html

Part IV of the task force
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-december-10-2013-part-iv.html

CT-N Recording!
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/12/task-force-meeting-december-10-2013.html