TASK FORCE HEARING, DECEMBER 19, 2013, PART II: GAL'S UNLIMITED ASSIGNMENTS, UNLIMITED BILLS!

(Continued from Part I)

Dr. Elizabeth Thayer stepped up to the plate and defended the Department of Public Health stating its does take time to review the issues with mental health professionals.  [All I can say is that I had a serious and credible complaint I filed with the DPH.  After a year, they sent me a two sentence letter dismissing my complaint without explanation.  So it isn't a matter of time.]

 

Attorney Linda Allard stated that in order to be qualified as indigent and receive a State paid GAL, you should have an income of around $200 per week.  This is way below the poverty level and should qualify a person for free legal help.  Apparently, there was a recent case where an indigent woman who sought help from Statewide was turned away.  Allard was very defensive about this case which is an example Rep. Minnie Gonzalez brought up. 

 

Attorney Sue Cousineau stated that if a litigant is not eligible to receive representation from the Office of the Public Defender, the Court can still assign an attorney at the State Rate.

 

Mr. John DiTunno asked is it $500 per child, or $500 per case.  Attorney Rapillo responded, per child.

 

Attorney Sharon Dornfeld asked, "Can GALs bill hourly?  Is there a cap?"  Attorney Rapillo responded, yes they can bill hourly.  There is no cap, but the GAL has to provide an itemized bill.

 

Custody cases are always modifiable until the child is 18.  So the case may be resurrected post judgment.  Is there an end point for a GAL assignment?  Attorney Rapillo responded, "This issue has not come up yet. 

 

Ms. Jennifer Verraneault asked, when it comes to anyone contracted by the state or the Connecticut Judicial Branch, why do we have a contract?  Attorney Christine Rapello responded, because the auditor requires oversight.  Ms. Verreaneault responded, "Good answer!  The point is oversight!" 

 

Ms. Jennifer Verraneault stated that there have been 1357 appointments of GAL/AMC that are not identified solely as private pay.  This is not a firm number.  We need more facts regarding how many GALs are appointed.  We have a lot of what ifs.

 

What are the 1450 cases?  Rapillo responded that those are State contract cases.  The OPD would also still be paying for older cases that are continuing. 

 

 

Mr. John DiTunno asked, do most of the lawyers do both private and state cases for OPD?  The answer was yes.  None of the attorneys are OPD employees; they are all private attorneys.  So what they do in private practice is not monitored by OPD, only the work they do for the OPD. 

 

Ms. Verraneault stated that she would like to see one person/agency assigned to monitor all GAL/AMC appointments in the same manner that the OPD audits State Cases.  Attorney Rapillo responded that the Judicial database in different than OPD and would have different requirements. 

 

Attorney Sharon Dornfeld stated, we don't actually have 1450 separate cases.  Only 400 attorneys are actually working right now. 

 

Dornfeld asked, out of the 400 GALs that are active, how many do you oversee for Family Court?  The response was, around 100 of the 400 contractors are solely for family court.  Does the OPD provide mental health professionals to Family Court?  The answer is "no."

 

How many applicants for indigent status does the OPD reject?  There was no information in response to that question.

 

Judge Thomas Weissmuller stated that parents have a constitutional right to contract with professionals they choose, yet children appear not to have such rights.  He also stated that parties to a family court proceeding are often not indigent at the beginning of the case, but are so at the end.  Can the OPD pay a GAL under those circumstances?  Attorney Rapillo responded "Not if they are not in a contract with the OPD.  There is no legal mechanism to allow that." In other words, "There is no method for a shift from paying status to indigent status in CT Family Court."

 

Judge Tomas Weissmuller stated that CT should consider using Washington State's procedure for changing status.  There should be a way to figure out a way to shift when a client goes into indigent status.  Working with the judicial branch and the State legislature, there should be an answer to this concern.

 

Attorney Sharon Dornfeld stated that it is not a black and white question.  Often Mom has no money, but the Dad has lots of money, but based upon Mom's status they get the indigent rate.  That isn't correct. 

 

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez asked, "Do you have a chance to see the invoices from GALs?"

 

Attorney Rapillo responded "Yes."

 

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez asked, "Can you provide a list of GALs?"

 

Attorney Rapillo responded, "Yes, but only of those under contract.  The OPD does not select the GAL; it is solely up to the judge.  the client can make a recommendation, but again it is up to the Judge to make the decision.

 

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez asked, "If a GAL is going from Bridgeport to Hartford, that GAL could conceivably have 5 cases in a day and get $200 per case that day and then get $1,000 for billing 5 times.  Is that correct?"

 

Attorney Rapillo responded, "The OPD system is capable of tracking a lawyer to make sure there is no double billing (i.e. billing for two cases while waiting at court).

 

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez asked, "Is it in the best interests of the child to take a college fund or put a lien on a parents' house to pay GALs and lawyers?

 

Attorney Rapillo responded, "It is really up to the task force to come up with where the lines should be drawn.

 

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez asked, "Where do we draw the line?"

 

Attorney Sue Cousineau stated, "No lawyer should bill more than one person for a specific time.  It is unethical."  [However, I can recall my attorneys doing this, and I'm sure all of you can recall similar situations as well!]

 

Attorney Sue Cousineau asked, "Are there any times when a judge wants a GAL when you say no because this person is not on the list?

 

Attorney Rapillo responded, "Yes."

(Continued in Part III)