http://www.cga.ct.gov/jud/ldcc/Testimony/January%209/Paul%20Greenan%20v.%20Suzanne%20Greenan.pdf
The Appellate Court decision recently came out in this case ruling against Paul Greenan. One commentator stated in response the following:
"This case is the AC's first decision post signing of the new bill on Friday. And so the first "standard of conduct" for an AMC set by the judiciary is this: That a court-appointed AMC does not have to meet the children. And that it is "reasonable" for an AMC and GAL who collectively spent 4.5 hours with the children to bill a family $252k. And the worst of all: it is okay for a trial court to publish a memorandum of decision which contains a child's name, addresses and psychiatric history."
This is just awful!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThere has been a lot of news lately about reform in the Family Courts and a recent bill passed by the legislature. It seems, though, that the judges on the Appellate Court have not gotten the message. If there were true justice, the court appointed attorneys would have been disciplined including the judge who approved their exorbitant fees. The attorney for the children never met them! What was the purpose of her appointment???
ReplyDeleteThe appellate court upheld a lower court order requiring payment of $252k based solely on affidavits (and not itemized bills). There was no evidence whatsoever that the services for which the fees were incurred provided any benefit whatsoever to the family. Yet the cost of those services is plain. And it was completely ignored by the appellate court. And that, in a nutshell, shows what is going on in this state.
ReplyDeleteAs bad as this situation is, the most shocking thing is that the supposed GAL reform bill (SB 494) would not prevent this from happening again in any way, shape or form. The only thing that keeps a typical family from facing $252,000 of GAL bills is that the typical family doesn't have $252,000.
ReplyDeleteMost sickening is that this poor minor child has to have his personal, private issues smeared all over Google. Kids in high school know how to use Google, and no child should start out in life fearing what is written about him on the internet!!!
ReplyDeleteThe system has FAILED this young child, who is 100% innocent in all this. They FAILED to uphold his right to medical privacy. Pure negligence. It's despicable what they have gotten away with. This is a human being's DIGNITY that they FAILED to protect. The blatant EXPLOITATION is something all these Appellate Judges will burn in hell for. I hope they never sleep at night.
Malissa Needle is a disgusting human being, may she rot in hell. A compulsive over biller who needs to be discharged as an attorney in the state of Connecticut
DeleteOkay, so let me get this straight ---
ReplyDelete1. Its acceptable for a court-appointed attorney for the child -- to never meet the child?
2. A child's psychiatric information, address and name can be broadcast to the world -- just because the child's parent's chose to divorce?
3. Court appointed attorneys and guardians in Connecticut make $56,000 for every HOUR they spend with a child?
Yes, and this is why SB 494 is not enough. We need to go further, this young child is one of many whom are at stake. We owe it to THEM.
DeleteAgree with you Monica !!!
DeleteWhat this indicates to me is that the Appellate Court has so little respect for the legal process that the judges there simply flout the law and don't care in the least about the disrespect it shows for their profession as a whole. Citizens have invested considerable time informing the State Legislature regarding the corruption and wrongdoing that has been going on in CT Family Court. Chief Justice Chase Rogers is on record in The Hartford Courant acknowledging that changes must be made. Yet the Appellate Court sticks its complete disrespect and disregard for the citizens and lawmakers of the State of Connecticut right in everyone's face, the very day after the Governor signed Bill #494 into law. These Appellate Court judges truly feel that they are invulnerable and not accountable to anyone and that they can ride rough shod over the human rights of the litigants that come before them and stomp all over the emotional and physical needs of vulnerable young children. This is nothing but a disgrace.
ReplyDeleteReading the Appeals Court decision at http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP150/150AP310.pdf
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly obvious that the Appeals Court judges deliberately omitted the two main issues of the appeal: The Attorney for the Minor Children (Melissa Needle) never met the children and the Stamford family court deliberately forced the publication of the children's names and medical information. Those two facts are not contained in the Appeals Court decision. Why not?
But the effect of the decision remains the same: An Attorney for the Minor Children does not have to meet the children and a child's name and medical condition published in a final order will be made known to the entire world via the internet.
This is dispicable and embarrasing that our courts would allow such a thing to happen. Exploiting our children's information on the internet and possibly scaring them for life is not protecting children. The childrens Attorney (Melissa Needle) should not be in that position. How can she not meet the children and then even know how these children feel or what they are like. Charging any family $252,000 for GAL bills is outrageous and ignorant. How could a normal family have this kind of money. My faith in the court system has really been lowered. This is cruelty to children and anyone to have anything to do with this should be ashamed.
ReplyDeleteIs there any way that our legislators can intervene here? After all, they told us with straight faces that cases like this were of great concern to them and that they feel our pain.
ReplyDeleteGREAT QUESTION? is there any recourse or is this appellate court decision final
DeleteWhat bothers me is the fact that publishing private information about a person's private psychiatric history is a violation of HIPPA (sp?) laws and it should be illegal to publish that on the internet. You would think a judge would know that.
ReplyDeleteIt's illegal everywhere, actually. Except within an industry that upholds the law.
DeleteThe system that allows something like this to occur is downright corrupt and criminal. They are playing with the lives of children- innocent children who have been through enough as it is. To have confidential information made public about minors is horrific, let alone doing it with such astronomical fees and without even meeting the child first! This is a disgraceful situation that must
ReplyDeletebe put to a stop immediately! Children should be our first priority as a society and this negligence of privacy and the process of doing so is absolutely irresponsible and appalling on the part of the system. Those doing it should promptly be removed from their positions and face serious consequences!
Sadly, it appears to be another example of a CT judicial entity that believes it can do anything it wants and is above the law. How sad. They criticize parents by saying they put their selfish needs first before those of the child but this is nothing but hypocritical talk. It is the courts who put their own needs before those of the children they are supposed to protect. How sad for all the children who are suffering because of the CT judiciary's hubris .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p0Osk3IB1k&index=23&list=UU8LGLUBrIwnrmYL8Na0jsZw
ReplyDeleteHorrible decision. Typical of our corrupt judicial system!
ReplyDeleteThis whole story is a nightmare....what has happened to the Greenan child at the hands of this GAL and the court...why was no common sense exercised by anyone here? They just want to bleed the parents that bad that a child's psych info becomes public record? WTF...and then to hear other GALs have raided childrens 529s for thier fees, and there is absolutely no means by which these appointed people are monitored or regulated. How did this get to be? $252k for listening to human misery and never meeting your client? What a racket. This broken set of rules still needs additional fixing.
ReplyDeleteFamily court seems to have some sort of a pass for lawyers. Similar to my lawyer filing a case in civil court for fees where she double billed for the same day in court. Court ignored her erroneous bill, ruled in her favor and nearly foreclosed on my home (my credit union refinanced). My children's names are also listed on my case on the family court website. What purpose does that serve? I have been shackled and held in the cell in the basement of the family court house for inability to pay the GAL in my case $1500. Debtor's jail? The system is SO broken!
ReplyDeleteThis is more benchateering.
ReplyDeleteI really like the phrase "benchateering." Never heard it before. But it's very accurate.
DeleteSick and out of control per usual serving the best interest of the
ReplyDeleteGAL and corrupt court system
SB 494 is not good enough. This is a disgrace! Another example our corrupt system! Prayers for Paul in his time of need.
ReplyDelete-Dianne
This decision is beyond horrible, particularly when read in light of the briefs. The appellate court cites not public policy favoring the publication of the child's personal information. It cites no benefit to the family from the "services" supposedly provided to the GAL and AMC. It mentions in passing, only in a footnote, the allegations of bribery. And the footnote incorrectly suggests that the allegations had been considered by the court when, in fact, there is no evidence that is true. The opinion criticizes the father for not properly objecting to specific line items in the bills. Yet there is no evidence that any itemized bills were ever submitted. And how can a father be held responsible for following some procedure for objecting to bills that simply does not exist? This has nothing to do with American law. This is just more judicially sanctioned fraud, plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteThis terrifies me. We no longer have justice. We are living in an Soviet-style system were the innocent are punished.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is a travesty and speaks to the high level of corruption within this system. Obviously the new bill signed Friday is completely ineffective. The minor child's rights have been violated, and the corruption within ANC and GAL system is not to be believed!!
ReplyDeleteHopefully, this can be yet another example to all the lawmakers how broken this system is and the passed bill is not enough to avoid these injustices. Representative Vargas asked for oversight and an independent oversight to these situations. We need more independence from the government on how we address our family court needs & choose to raise our families and how we spend our monies doing so.
ReplyDeleteWe should work to develop an independent system with lawyers for families and children--and social works that families can elect to use rather than the state's own system. This can protect our families. We should elect to stop using this system.
By upholding the lower court's order, the Appellate Court has given its seal of approval to the continued victimization of the residents of the State of CT , by Melissa Needle, an Officer of the Court, who is a willing and active agent of extortion within the judicial system of CT .
ReplyDeleteWoe to Tyrants, Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights, So that widows may be their spoil and they may plunder the orphans... Isaiah 10:1
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 10:1
The Appellate Court in rendering its decision has also , in name and in deed, abdicated its moral and legal responsibility to protect the citizens of CT from those who would seek to subvert the law to serve his /her own self advancement, financially or politically.
Imanual Kant argued that, to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty.
ReplyDeleteKant also argued that it was not the consequence of the actions that makes them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action. It is plain to see that both Melissa Needle's actions and motives were purely based on the financial gain derived from her astronomical "fees" and that she abandoned her duty as an Officer of the Court by allowing a minor child's information and identity to be published on the internet, leaving the parents and child to deal with future repercussions of data being released to the public via the internet.
Astonishingly, Melissa Needle never even met with the children, yet she commands great power and influence as a legal agent of GAL over the children? It seems quite evident that Miss Needle has abused her power mandated by the court acting as GAL. The Appellate Court has gone to great length in sanctifying and approving Melissa Needle's and cohorts outrageous fees and abandonment of their minor clients, refusing to even appear on their behalf to advocate for their privacy. The Appellate Court, ignores the basic foundations of legal protection of the innocent, found in the earliest proceedings of law in western civilization. How and why does the Appellate court sanction Miss Needle's indefensible actions?
ReplyDeleteThis was not a Solomonic decision made by the Appellate court; but rather it is message by the appellate court that IT , in fact, sanctions the continuation of a repeating pattern of abuse by Officers of the court, GALs and AMCs , namely Melissa Needle, in spite of all efforts of the Legislature's newly signed laws enacted to stop the manifest abuse and pillaging of CT families and their finances.
ReplyDeleteThis situation resembles Perry v. Perry, which was argued before the CT S.Ct. on Dec. 5, 2013. In both cases, family court judges approved the payment of enormous sums of money to family law insiders without any evidence that such payments benefited the families in any way and despite the obvious cost of the fees. In both cases the court seemed to be punishing a parent (by ordering the parent to pay enormous fees to insiders). And in both cases, the legal basis for ordering the payment seems nonexistent or very questionable.
ReplyDeleteIn Perry v. Perry, the court appointed an AMC (Whelan) who bills a big amount of money. The dad objects to payment of $34k of the AMC's bill. (It is not clear what portion this represented of the total AMC bill, but was likely a small portion.) The AMC gets family law insider Arnie Rutkin to represent her. (FYI: Rutkin was apparently partners with Melissa Needle, the primary beneficiary of the order for payment in the Greenan matter.) The parties disagree over whether the court appointed or ratified Rutkin's involvement. Rutkin runs up a bill of $56k "defending" the AMC's bill of $34k. (Can't make this stuff up!) Judge Shays finds Rutkin's bill "reasonable"! Only in a CT family courtroom can it be reasonable for someone to incur $56k of fees to collect $34k of fees.
But then the crazy thing is that (like Greenan) the dad appeals. He spends huge money on his own lawyers apparently just for the principle of the matter. He's never going to get that back. And, of course, he risks having to eat the costs of the AMC and Rutkin for their appeal. (But he may have rationally concluded that the Divorce Machine was going to take it all anyway and he wanted to go down fighting.)
Rutkin & the AMC argue that the Practice Book and statute obligate parties to pay AMC fees and the dad should eat them all b/c of his "heinous litigation misconduct" in challenging the AMC. The dad and his lawyers argue that there was no litigation misconduct, the American rule applies, the AMC's actions were not in the kids' interest, and that Shays had no standing to order the dad to pay any of Rutkin's fees since the only statutory language relates to payment of the AMC's fees (and they further believe Whelan simply hired Rutkin and Rutkin was not appointed by Shays). But CT family courts clearly don't think they need any statutory authority to order parents to pay fees to the divorce industry.
The S.Ct. hasn't ruled on the Perry matter. But given how the appellate court tomahawked Greenan, I suppose they're gonna hammer the family and reward the divorce industry in the Perry matter too.
There is no justice, logic or even common sense in any of these decisions.
The dad's appellate brief quotes the trial court transcript indicating that Melissa Needle didn't know what her job was. She thought she was BOTH the AMC and the counsel for the GAL. I'm wondering if that's the next business model? Lawyers will get themselves appointed to both positions and then simply double bill all of their hours since they're doing two jobs at once! And then the family court judges will declare that reasonable -- and even preferable, since it avoids the possibility of confusion b/w the AMC and the lawyer for the GAL. And the family will be bankrupted that much faster. Then of course the GAL and the AMC/lawyer for the GAL will show up to collect their fees after the bankruptcy. They will argue that their fees are "child support" and therefore not dischargeable in bankruptcy because of the exception for "domestic support obligations." Thus, as always, the divorce industry will get paid (even for absolutely failing the kids they are supposedly representing), the family will be insolvent, and the judges will have "resolved" another case.
ReplyDeleteSo: BOTH parents want the kids' personal info sealed. The GAL and the AMC (who supposedly represent the kids) do nothing. All of the personal info comes out. That has awful consequences. And the GAL and AMC both get to bill for their time spent on the resulting litigation?
ReplyDeleteThis is just another example of how family law malfeasance is profitable. In fact, the more corrupt, incompetent and/or malfeasant the AMC or GAL, the more profitable the appointment. And, of course, everyone has immunity from suit, if a parent raises an issue can get the court to appoint him or her a lawyer at the parents' expense, and gets to bill for the time the parent litigates the corruption.
Unbelievable. But it happens every day in family court.
This is beyond disturbing
ReplyDeleteEric Broder and Melissa Needle are wussies. They could have gotten away with a lot more. I think Broder was "only" charging $500/hr to be GAL. And I'm guessing Needle was only charging the same. And they collectively "only" charged $252K. But nothing in the trial or appellate decisions would have prevented them from charging $1,000/hr or even $2,000/hr. And nothing in those opinions would have prevented them from collecting $500K. Plus, they could then argue it was "in the nature of child support," and thus non-dischargeable in the event of the family's inevitable bankruptcy. So, in reality, these decisions just show that Broder and Needle left a lot of money on the table.
ReplyDeleteThis is LOL funny. And spot on. I mean Arnie Rutkin charged $700/hr to represent the GAL in Perry. And Gary Cohen supposedly produced an affidavit stating he was gonna charge his normal rate of $850/hr to defend GAL Oppenheim in the Sargent matter. This is why Cohen and Rutkin are "Super Lawyers" and Needle and Orland are only wannabes. Rutkin & Cohen know that fraud shouldn't be cheap. When the judge appoints you to rip off a family to retaliate against a litigant, why hold back?!
DeleteMaybe this is why Rutkin and Oldham fired Needle. I suppose the conversation went like this:
DeleteNEEDLE: Sally! Broder and I took the Greenan family for $252,000 at $500/hr. I never met with the kids once!
OLDHAM: Only $500/hr? Are you stupid? And only $252,000? You could have gotten a lot more.
RUTKIN: Shut up Sally. It's my turn to insult the staff. Go call the Law Tribune to tell them GALs are underpaid again. Needle: you're fired. We charge at least $700/hr. And you should have charged more for not meeting your clients. Obviously, it's more difficult to represent folks you've never met. That kind of work deserves a premium rate.
THIS FISH STINKS. Per dad's brief: the AMC and GAL bill $252,000. The AMC never meets the children. The GAL (Broder) meets them for 4.5 hours, which included (per the dad's brief) an "ice cream visit" at Friendly's for which Broder billed $625. The AMC filed multiple motions -- but only for her fees? Neither Broder nor Needle tried to have the children's information removed from the opinion? And per dad's brief, they did not show up for the motion to seal filed, presumably, by the father? And per father's brief, the custody evaluator and both parents warned the children would suffer psychological damage unless the memorandum was sealed. AND, dad indicates in his brief he was asked to pay a bribe in exchange for joint custody, and attaches an email from Needle in support of his claim. WHY IS THIS INFORMATON MISSING FROM THE APPELLATE COURT DECISION? Ostensibly, the court "sealed" these facts, but not the children's personal information? NOTE TO DAD: Take a look at Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Seems like if these children are minors, the fact this information is promulgated online by the judiciary is a violation of a federal statute.
ReplyDeleteYour take on this is correct. The courts reveal the personal info about the kids, regardless of the harm (and the desire by both parents to protect it). But then hides the embarrassing info about the lawyers. That says it all.
DeleteCould someone post the father's appeal brief in Perry V. Perry that is now before the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteSame situation: An attorney for the AMC who stands mute at each status conference and hearings on motions, no set fee, no duties outlined by the court, no cite by any authority to make the appointment, no nothing, except demands for more and more fees.
Anywhere I can find info. on Broder/coercion and fees?
ReplyDelete