TESTIMONY
RE BILL #494
By
Elizabeth A. Richter
Thank you for allowing me to provide you with feedback in
regard to Bill #494.
I want to thank the assembled Judiciary Committee for
responding to the concerns people expressed on January 9, 2014 in regard to GAL/AMC abuse by proposing this
bill. I think it goes a long way towards
improving the GAL/AMC system in terms of:
1. Providing
guidelines for the specific work GALs/AMCs will do and what will be the
conditions of their employment.
2. Protecting
some of children’s assets from plunder by GALs/AMCs
3. Allowing
for a sliding scale when it comes to payment of GALs and AMCs
4. Giving
parties standing for challenging a bad GAL/AMC
5. Producing
an explanatory booklet in regard to the GAL/AMC system
What we still require are the following:
1. In
regard to Bill #494, Sec. 1, we need parameters for judges for making a
determination as to when a GAL or AMC is needed. We don’t need GALs or AMCs simply because
there is a custody dispute as long as both parents are fit parents. GALs and AMCs should only be appointed given
a DCF determination of abuse or neglect.
2. In
regard to Section 1 (c) of Bill #494, there should be caps on GAL/AMC fees
based upon income, and a determination of priorities in order of importance
when it comes to tasks the GAL/AMC should be asked to do. Not everyone has the ability to pay for full
services, or wants to or needs to—parents should have a voice in regard to
options when it comes to levels of engagement, or prioritizing of tasks in
order to limit charges. Some tasks may
have to be left at the wayside because there is no money for them, and this is
a reality many parents face. While we
may want to provide unique and specialized care to each family, the economic
reality is that this is a luxury many parents cannot afford, nor should they
always have it.
3. In
regard to Section #4 of Bill #494, we require specific guidelines regarding
what GAL/AMC behaviors would justify a determination of fact that a
professional has acted in such a manner as to warrant removal from his or her
position. Such guidelines might be, for
example, any one of the following misbehaviors: 1) failing to meet sufficiently
with the child client; 2) lying about facts in the case; 3) hiding evidence in
the case; 5) failing to investigate charges of PAS or DV; 6. Bias in favor of
one or the other party; 7. Providing legal advice to one or the other party. 8.
Acting outside the scope of representation as defined by the Judge, etc. Also, we need a definition of what level of
severity of the wrongdoing of the complained about behavior—annoying all the
way down the range to egregious--is necessary, and we need to know whether
evidence must rise to that of clear and convincing evidence or simply the
preponderance of the evidence. The
current lack of clarity in this bill could harm parties with legitimate
grievances.
4. There
should be a tracking system included in this Bill requesting that the CT
Judicial Branch make a notation of when a GAL or AMC is assigned in a case and
for what reason, and also tracking how frequently these GALs or AMCs are
removed from a case and for what reason.
5. There
should be an evaluation system put into place to track good GALs and bad GALs
in the form of evaluation forms provided to the parties so that they can give
feedback to the CT Judicial Branch and the Judges at the end of a case in
regard to which GALS and AMCs are succeeding and which are not.
6. In
regard to Sec. 6 requiring a publication describing the GAL/AMC system in the
CT Judicial Branch, I request that one member of the public, and one non lawyer
be assigned to the Committee writing that publication.
7. GALs
and AMCs should be required to comply with ADA Law under Title II and title III
and should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of disability and they
should be required to provide Notice of their intention to comply with the non-discrimination requirements of the ADA at
the beginning of a case.
Thank you very much for your time. Please approve Bill #494 with the appropriate
changes that I have suggested.
Submitted
By,
P.O.
Box 5
Canton,
CT 06019
860-751-4668
earichter@aol.com
See also HB 5593 for anyone who would like to see Family Court Reform where domestic violence is used against women and children.
ReplyDelete