PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Judges in CT are now supposed to have Domestic Violence Training effective 10/1/14. It's the LAW!
ReplyDeleteI would like to expose whether or not the Family Courts in CT have complied. They want everyone else's compliance. Where is theirs?
See P.A. 14-234. "Sec. 10. Subsection (j) of section 46b-38c of the 2014 supplement to the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2014):
(j) The Judicial Department shall establish an ongoing training program for judges, Court Support Services Division personnel, guardians ad litem and clerks to inform them about the policies and procedures of sections 46b-1, 46b-15, 46b-38a to 46b-38f, inclusive, and 54-1g, including, but not limited to, the function of the family violence intervention units and the use of restraining and protective orders. The Judicial Branch may consult with organizations that advocate on behalf of victims of domestic violence in order to ensure that the training includes information on the unique characteristics of family violence crimes."
The amendment to the Connecticut General Statutes requiring training of judges (mandatory) can be found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/act/pa/pdf/2014PA-00234-R00HB-05593-PA.pdf
Wondering whether Judge Pinkus went through the training prior to not finding a basis for a restraining order leading to the recent death of baby Aaeden?
I am totally shocked that such training was required so recently--which explains a lot to me--and also absolutely appalled. No wonder so many Judges, many of whom are quite elderly, have absolutely zero clue.
DeleteYes, clueless and resistant to any changes to the status quo. This was a very small step in trying to pass legislation to help women and children in the State of Connecticut but it made the books and must be adhered to. The language says "shall" but nobody seems to be calling them on it. Any contacts with the media on this one would forward the cause.
DeleteDoes anyone know which political group was involved in getting the legislation passed? I would love to know.
DeleteSupported by Office of the Victim Advocate and Ct Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
ReplyDeleteSee Senator Mae Flexer's website. She's calling for victim advocates in family courts which was originally a part of HB 5593 in 2014 but got written out. Elliot Solomon actually got up and testified there was no room for approximately one victim advocate per family court yet Justice Rogers says she wants to hire more family relations counselors there. So there's either room or there's not. Someone's not being forthright. Had there been a victim advocate with baby Aaden's mom in family court we probably would have seen a different outcome.
ReplyDeleteJudges hate it when they see a Mom in family court with an advocate because they can't stand that this means an independent witness is there to see the shenanigans they get up to. I have been thrown out of courtrooms when I have come in as a witness even though there is no legal basis for denying any member of the public access to the courtroom. The CT Judicial Branch might agree to more family relations counselors who are under their control, but they would never agree to independent advocates or to advocates from another state government agency. This is good information, however, and I am glad you brought it up!
ReplyDeleteWhy would we need the Judicial Branch's agreement for victim advocates in family court? Just have to legislate that parties are entitled to it if there are allegations of domestic violence. Kind of like an assignment of a GAL. Looks like Sen. Mae Flexer may be the one to do it. Let's hope so.
ReplyDeleteI think where the problem may lie is that unless the CT Judicial Branch agrees with the principle of having victim advocates present to support victims, the end result will be what happens now with ADA advocates that the Branch will create a hostile work environment for such advocates and drive them out that way. The fundamental problem is the sexism these judges have, a sexism that was reported in the New York Times a decade ago and remains in place unchanged.
Deletehttp://wtnh.com/2015/07/15/judge-training-may-be-focus-of-domestic-violence-task-force/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wfsb.com/story/29556616/connecticut-family-violence-task-force-formed
ReplyDelete