In an recent editorial, the CT Law Tribune states the following:
"By now, everyone is fully aware of the ongoing debate over guardians ad litem, attorneys for minor children, and the various criticisms of judges and virtually all of the legal professionals involved in contested divorce and family matters involving children. In the legislature, bills have been passed. In the Superior Court Rules Committee, changes to the Practice Book are being drafted. Yet amidst all of this newly minted "procedure," the essential question to be answered in every contested family matter involving a child remains the same: What is in the best interest of the child?"
For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:
For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:
http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202658985503/Editorial%3A-In-GAL-Debate%2C-Best-Interest-Of-The-Child-Must-Remain-Top-Priority#ixzz34MyHXmVO
This CT Law Tribune editorial is yet more knowingly misdirected pulp. Parents aren't arguing that the constitution somehow favors one parent over the other in a prejudgment divorce. Instead, they are arguing that the constitution prevents THE STATE from taking their parenting rights and vesting them in some state appointee, whether described as a GAL, AMC or whatever. That's the objection. And it's a valid constitutional objection. Parents and children have a fundamental liberty interest in familial association. In addition, families have a due process rights which are routinely violated by the Connecticut family law system. These include the right to notice, to be heard, to have matters determined based on testimony and other legal evidence (rather than the off-the-cuff statements by GALs that routinely substitute for real evidence). The constitution also prevents the state from taking money or property from citizens (including parents) without due process. When a court orders a parent to pay a GAL, AMC or other member of the divorce industry, what has really happened is that the state has taken money or property from a parent, typically without due process, and given it to a private citizen who is favored by the judge. And the public is entitle to scrutinize WHY the judge is favoring such private individuals this way. Finally, in situations where one parent has obtained sole legal custody in proceeding following due process (if any such proceedings exist in this state), the constitution does protect that parent's parenting rights vis-a-vis the other parent.
ReplyDeleteThank you CT Law Tribune for thoughtfully saying what I have been saying for some time on this blog. This is all about the losers. It is not a constitutional issue. It is not a rights issue. It is about some affluent people that did not get their way then using social media to get their pound of flesh. Unfortunately for all of us the net result will ultimately not be pretty. The many good and honest attorneys, mental health and legal professionals will eventually refuse to take part in the process. It's already happening. And then we will all be losers.
ReplyDelete