Written
Testimony
From Jane Doe
April 14, 2014
I am choosing to speak today anonymously as my litigation
issues are still active in the State of Connecticut.
There isn’t a person who chooses self-representation as a
first option and the continuing involvement of GALs and AMCs in post judgment
matters continue to be a financial drain on the families in the State of
Connecticut who have no ability to be able to remove a GAL once a dissolution
of a marriage is entered as an order of the court.
This practice of open ended assignments for court
appointees as GALs and AMCs must be eliminated because it does not serve the
best interests of our children.
The party with more financial resources post judgment
should not be able to force payments to court appointees and then have a Court
apportion fee payments once a dissolution decree is finalized.
It is quite often apparent that when “extended family”
financial resources are available to “torture” an ex-spouse in litigation, the
courts do not account for such “financial support” from third parties from
being considered in a post judgment financial affidavit in JD FM 6-Long Form
which is to be used effective January 1, 2014 for all parties who have income
or assets in excess of $75,000.
As already suggested today, it is long overdue that
attorneys co-sign financial affidavits in Connecticut under the same threat of
sanctions and incarcerations, which is required of all self-represented
litigants (who are reportedly encompassing 85% of all family court dockets) when
signing financial affidavit JD FM 6 Long or Short Form. It is time for the gavel of justice to be
applied to attorneys and to remind all so registered with a juris number of
their obligations defined in the Attorney’s Oath as subject to the criminal
penalties of perjury.
Furthermore, the filing of JD FM 6 must be more closely
connected to compliance with the mandatory discovery and compliance with
Connecticut Practice Book §25-32. Providing
validation for the claims made in a financial affidavit can be easily accomplished
by adding a section to JD FM 6 which indicates:
“ Within thirty days of the filing of
this financial affidavit mandatory discovery and compliance with provisions of
Connecticut Practice Book §25-32 upon dating and signing of JD FM 6.”
In post judgment cases, if a party is receiving subsidies
from a third party to pay for legal fees, whether paid to legal counsel or an
AMC or GAL, the amounts of such third party contributions must be added to the
JD FM 6.
This
form must also be amended to indicate whether the business interests of a
litigant involve the full and complete disclosure of “cash” payments to a
business partnership.
In addition, JD FM 6 must be amended to add questions in
regards to assets or income which may be located in foreign banks or in any
foreign country or U.S. territory with specific directions as to whether
“foreign dividend income” is declared on Form 1116 of the federal tax returns
or income declared in Federal IRS FBAR TD F 09-22.1.
This
requirement for disclosure of foreign assets is also a required disclosure in
the PATRIOT Act.
In
any post judgment action, the subject of inheritance assets received must be
disclosed but not necessarily considered as income if such assets were acquired
after the dissolution of a marriage.
In 2009, the United States reached a treaty agreement
with the government of Switzerland, concerning the disclosure of assets being
held in foreign countries. In Wall
Street Journal articles it was detailed that the top reasons for use of Swiss
banks was to hide assets from disclosure during divorce action and from U.S. based
inheritance taxes.
Certainly, the courts of Connecticut should have a zero
tolerance stance on tax avoidance schemes such as these in family court
matters. There are long overdue reforms
needed in our family courts. We look
forward to the implementation of these modifications to JD FM 6 Long and Short
forms that are proposed today in the true best interests of our children.
A GAL in a case in Fairfield County has billed over $200,000.00
at $575 an hour. She has never once seen
the child with the father. In playing
the system and fanning the flames of this divorce, this attorney is the
equivalent of a car mechanic causing a problem in your car which can then be
fixed to make more money. For the next
ten years at her whim she can make a phone call and proceed to charge the
parties $575 an hour. There are no
checks and balances and nothing to stop her from billing thousands upon
thousands of dollars in the years ahead for absolutely no reason. This also is a case whereby the open ended
assignment of a GAL warrants elimination when there is even a renowned
psychologist serving as parenting coordinator in this very same case.
These walls surrounding us were built to embrace and
ensure that justice is carried out by those within serving in such capacities. That is not what is happening in family court
room’s across this state.
We urge that an end be put to the rape and pillage of our
financial resources by ceasing the practice of open ended appointments of GALs
and AMCs. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment