10:00 AM in Room 2A of the LOB
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM by Karen Jarmoc,
The following task force members were present:
Karen Jarmoc (Co-Chair); Garry Lapidus (Co-Chair); Donald
Frechette; Cindy Mahan; Linda Harris; Damion Grasso; Stephanie
Janes; Chris Rapillo; Steve Grant; Dr. Nina Livingston; Faith Vos
Wenkel; Cheryl James; Mary Painter and Jennifer Celentano
Karen Jarmoc brought the meeting to order at 10:00 AM. She noted that the task force
had a very full agenda and that the task force appreciated people coming in from
various areas of practice to present.
Judge Paul Knierim gave his presentation on the role of the probate court in domestic
violence cases. He noted that probate courts do not have jurisdiction over the criminal
aspect of these proceedings, and take on cases assigned by the legislature to help
Connecticut’s most vulnerable citizens. The probate court also handles areas of
incapacity, or situations where individuals are unable to care for themselves, and the
probate court’s role is to determine the degree to which an incapacitated individual
needs assistance. Probate courts also deal with various miscellaneous issues that can
be related to domestic violence, such as name changes and restoration of federal
firearms rights. Probate courts also deal with removal of parental rights and appoint
guardians of minors when a parent is unable to care for their child. Judge Knierim also
noted that DCF is often involved in various aspects of the probate court—in the
voluntary services programs, issues concerning child protection, Regional Children’s
Probate Courts and other areas of Probate Court jurisdiction dealing with children and
families. Probate Courts and Juvenile Courts of the Superior Court share jurisdiction in
a number of matters and work together to determine which court is the best venue to
hear the case.
Judge Beverly Streit-Kefalas thanked the Co-Chairs for inviting her to speak to the task
force. She noted that often times, families come into the probate court with proposed
solutions to problems they are facing. She noted that the probate courts often deal with
substance abuse issues and restraining orders obtained from the superior court. Often
times, an aunt or other relative will petition for protective orders and for custody of a
minor child through the superior court if a parent has been arrested. In these cases, the
child is immediately appointed their own attorney, and the probate court and superior
court determine where the case would be best heard. She added that encountering
domestic violence perpetrators in these cases is of significant concern, as the probate
courts are housed in municipal or commercial buildings and don’t have marshals
staffing the court systems. In these cases, the courts work diligently to ensure the safety
of parties involved in the proceedings of the case. In these cases, an attorney is
appointed by the court to represent the desires of the child and the courts order
therapeutic services for minor children.
These court-appointed attorneys advocate the position of children involved in the case, even if this is not always in the best interest of the child. The courts will also appoint Guardians ad Litem to represent the best interests of the child. These individuals have psychiatric, psychological and other child development expertise and training. Under the Guardian ad Litem program, courts are able to determine the best outcome for the child, sometimes leading to the appointment of a long-term guardian.
Stephanie Janes discussed her role at the New Haven Regional Children’s Probate
Court. There, she addresses domestic violence as well as intergenerational patterns. In
her role, she looks at histories of violence or trauma and works to ensure the safety of
parents and children. The probate court connects the family to various therapies in
different scenarios to help them process traumatic events and respond responsibly
when confronted with dangerous situations. The court also develops a case plan and
collaborates with different departments.
Judge Keyes, the Administrative Judge of the New Haven Regional Children's Probate
Court discussed the significant impact of domestic violence on the relationship between
parents and children. He highlighted the importance of case workers having the proper
training in dealing with children involved in domestic violence cases. He stated that
there is a need for clearer protocols on how to handle these cases, and advocated that
children need representation from attorneys at every level of these cases. Judge Keyes
also pointed out that oftentimes, perpetrators can increase their sense of empathy
through counseling, and that courtroom dynamics are altered significantly when victims
and perpetrators are in the same room. He also expressed that children should be able
to petition for restraining orders so they can protect themselves even when a mother
and father have restored their relationship.
Judge Knierim noted that Judges Streit-Kefalas and Keyes had postulated that in
probate court proceedings, a minor child is provided with an attorney and sometimes a
Guardian ad Litem, which are both paid for through the probate court funds. He noted
that this poses significant costs to the probate court system and that there is a greater
need for funding for these attorneys. He also noted that it is not always directly apparent
that domestic violence is an issue in every case, and that it’s important that the interests
of a child are adequately represented in court. He noted that there have been several
efforts made to ensure that children have access to attorneys, and that the judges often
collaborate on children’s issues so that specialists are working together and developing
best practices in these situations. The Regional Children’s Probate Courts have
specialized social workers called Probate Court Officers that have backgrounds in social
work and marriage and family therapy, and probate courts will appoint an officer to
conduct case conferences with the family. The probate court system also funds kinship
and respite grants and in cases where necessary, directs children into DCF care.
Karen Jarmoc noted that she had many questions, but would defer to other members of
the task force first.
Cynthia Mahon asked whether the probate courts have access to the protective order
registry in their locations.
Judge Knierim responded that he administers the central office for probate courts, and they have access to the registry.
Cynthia Mahon also asked about the role of marshals and other protective officers in
these courts. She expressed concern over how these courts handle individuals with a
history of violence, noting that there aren’t always metal detectors in these buildings.
Judge Streit-Kefalas stated that in the New Haven Regional Children’s Probate court,
there is a security officer who separates parties from perpetrators and also escorts
people to their vehicles for protection purposes. She noted that local courts handle this
on a case-by-case basis. She also noted that much of the demands of the court on the
security officers go beyond the qualifications of the security officer, and that the
vulnerability of local courts was something that needed to be addressed.
Cynthia Mahon asked Judge Knierim how probate courts handle cases where there is
an overlap of a case with the juvenile court.
Judge Knierim responded that the probate courts work with the superior courts to
determine what aspect of the cases should proceed first, as the courts don’t want to
have inconsistent results. Typically, probate courts will dismiss cases that have already
been filed in juvenile court. In instances where a case is subsequently filed in juvenile
court, the courts will work together to determine which venue is most appropriate.
Cynthia Mahon asked whether there was a mechanism that dictated whether there are
two concurrent cases for the same individual.
Judge Knierim responded that the probate courts will rely on parties for this information.
He added that legally, there could be an electronic database where this could be set up,
but the funds for a project like this haven’t become available.
Mary Painter asked about workforce development and the training of staff on domestic
violence issues. She asked if there was a standard training that the presenters would
recommend. She also asked about the protocols that the courts use to recognize
domestic violence.
Judge Knierim responded that the probate court system dedicates enormous resources
to continuing education, and that they have resources for judges and staff. The courts
frequently bring in experts from other disciplines to discuss domestic violence with court
staff. He added that the probate courts were looking for input from community providers
on what kinds of training would be most effective for those case workers in the probate
courts.
Mary Painter also asked about specific recommendations for protocol.
Judge Knierim pointed out that Judge Streit-Kefalas was speaking with regards to
restraining orders, and noted that currently there are guidelines for judges to address
these issues. He also noted that he had information to share regarding the safety of the
courts, and that the courts tend to rely on local police departments for additional support
in these cases.
Donald Frechette asked about the divergent interests between court-appointed
attorneys for children and Guardians ad Litem. He asked what standards were in place
to address this issue.
Judge Knieirm responded that the probate court had specific procedures for these
issues, and that all children are appointed an attorney but not always a separate
Guardian ad Litem. In some cases, a child may be so young that they don’t have strong
wishes, and it is the job of the attorney to determine the wishes of the child and present
these in the context of the child’s best interest. If there appears to be a conflict between
the stated wishes of the child and the best interests of the child, the court will appoint a
Guardian ad Litem.
Garry Lapidus asked Judge Keyes about the dynamic of having a domestic violence
perpetrator and a victim in the same room, and asked whether courts could structure
this interaction differently.
Judge Keyes responded that the courts had attempted to use different structures, but
noted that the rules for adjusting these dynamics need to be agreed upon by both
parties.
Garry Lapidus asked if other states had tried different measures for this.
Judge Keyes responded that the superior court has tried to do electronic hearings in the
case where confrontation is an issue, but that the probate courts hadn’t yet started
doing this.
Karen Jarmoc asked whether both parties needed to agree to the format of the court
proceedings.
Judge Keyes responded that yes, both parties needed to agree.
Faith Vos Wenkel asked about the role of substance use in these cases, and noted that
often domestic violence crops up as a co-occurring factor with substance use. She
asked if there were statistics kept on this.
Judge Keyes responded that there were not statistics kept on this specific issue.
Faith Vos Wenkel asked about the presentation and the number of cases where
domestic violence leads to homicide or murder where children are left with one
deceased parent and another that is incarcerated. They asked if these cases come to
the probate courts as well.
Judge Keyes responded that there were many cases where the mother is killed by the
father and that this leads to a very complicated family situation.
Judge Streit-Kefalas noted that she had a case a few years ago where a father
murdered the mother while she was driving. The father was incarcerated and the
daughters went into the care of grandparents and have received substantial therapy and
counseling, but have still opted to live with the father after his incarceration. She noted
that the courts can’t stop things like this from happening, and that in this case there had
been a long family history of substance abuse and violence.
Laura Daleo asked about a previous situation mentioned where a parent petitions for
guardianship of a child. They asked about what the statistics were when parents come
to probate courts pro se versus being represented by an attorney. They asked about
possible barriers when a pro se family member comes forward on behalf of a minor
child.
Judge Knierim responded that he didn’t have immediate data on this, but noted that the
vast majority of these cases are self-represented, and noted that probate courts
frequently assist parties who are self-represented. The chief justice and judicial branch
have made significant efforts in developing pro-bono attorneys for exceptional cases.
He noted that probate courts have entry fees to initiate matters, but in the vast majority
of cases, these fees are waived because the petitioner doesn’t have the available
financial resources.
Dr. Nina Livingston asked about the role of probate court officers. She asked what type
of domestic violence training probate court officers receive and the kinds of caseloads
they have. She asked whether there was adequate time for probate court officers to
handle the multiple aspects of their cases and whether probate courts have family
violence victim advocates with the specific role of addressing family violence within the
courts.
Stephanie Janes responded that with regards to domestic violence, all probate court
officers bring in a wealth of experience and background in various areas of family
therapy and social work, so they have experience in addressing domestic violence. She
also noted that the probate courts have trainings on domestic violence where they train
with a consultant from DCF, and noted that because of the experience that probate
court officers have, they need more advanced training in handling domestic violence.
She stated that case loads can vary, but probate court officers can have as many as 30
active cases at one time, and that they do have jurisdiction over these cases until the
child reaches the age of maturity or until the parents have been reinstated as guardians.
Cases can have a range of intensities, and probate court officers will vary their
involvement depending on the severity of the case. Probate court officers will also
collaborate with social service providers and other professionals involved in the case
and ensure that judges are aware of the sensitivity of domestic violence in these cases.
Probate court officers will stress preserving the parent-child relationship in the safest
way possible.
Linda Harris asked about fees associated with having an attorney represent a minor,
and which entity pays this fee.
Judge Knierim responded that the attorneys are compensated at $50 per hour, but that there are also daily caps on this amount. Additionally, professionals are only compensated in the case that courts have statutory authorization to do so. He added that the courts don’t have statutory authorization to have attorneys do anything outside of the probate court system.
Jennifer Celentano asked whether attorneys file restraining orders on behalf of minors
and do we need legislation authorizing the attorney to file this restraining order because
they are not the guardian.
Judge Knierim responded that sometimes the parent or guardian can’t file a restraining
order because of the complicated dynamics of the case. Attorneys can also petition on
behalf of a minor child parallel to the framework of the superior court. Probate Courts
lack jurisdiction to impose a restraining order. The petitioner would have to file for a
restraining order in Superior Court even if their case is being heard in a Probate Court.
Cheryl Jacques asked about the mental health trauma in these cases and noted that
this work is being done with a base in developmental trauma. They noted that Judge
Keyes highlighted that a child should have an attorney at every level of the process, and
asked how he visualized this.
Judge Keyes responded that in the court’s process, when someone applies for a
restraining order, an attorney is generally required to be appointed to execute this
restraining order.
Karen Jarmoc asked the judges to provide the group with any data that would be helpful
in this process. She asked what kinds of volumes they were experiencing, and noted
that the cases were very complex. She asked if there was any way to understand the
volume of cases the judges were basing their decision around.
Judge Knierim responded that the probate courts can try to collect this data, and noted
that presently the probate courts don’t systematically collect data. He stated that they
could work with probate court officers to get some better information. He also noted that
they would have to collect this data from courts that have probate court officers, and
offered to take this beyond the anecdotal data presented in the meeting and have the
probate court officers work together to provide information that is more quantitative.
Karen Jarmoc added that she only wanted this data if it would be authentic and helpful,
and noted that she wanted to know how prevalent domestic violence cases were in the
current probate system.
Stephanie Janes stated that she believed there is a high incidence of domestic violence
in probate court cases.
Karen Jarmoc asked about the costs of domestic violence on the probate court system,
and noted that it would be meaningful if the group could capture the cost of domestic
violence as a state so that we could identify opportunities to make wiser investments.
Judge Streit-Kefalas noted that they often see domestic violence arise out of
conservatorships; in the context of name changes; and in DCF voluntary services where
a child is being treated for psychiatric issues and the family has a history of violence
that is causing the trauma. She stated that having statistics in children’s cases is
helpful, but domestic violence is expressed in many cases that deal with family matters.
Karen Jarmoc stated that she was glad that the judges touched on training. She noted
that on October 27th, the task force would be hosting the national judicial institute on
domestic violence to present a training initiative that they conducted. They’re a
federally-funded institute that trains on family violence. She wasn’t sure if this was open
to probate courts and that if it is, it would be helpful for the judges to attend the training.
She noted that there was an opportunity to have stronger lines of communication
between the probate court and other aspects of the system. She asked what tools the
probate courts were utilizing around family violence matters.
Stephanie Janes responded that when their probate court officers conduct family
violence assessments, there are at least two family conferences, which are used to
work with a family to develop a plan for placement of a child and assessing the family
history. Probate court officers are not using an actual assessment tool, but do come
with clinical skills in various arenas and so are able to work with families.
Karen Jarmoc asked about cases where it may be better to not have the child around
either parent, or if the probate court stressed the preservation of the parent-child
relationship.
Judge Streit-Kefalas responded that the probate court system stresses the reunification
of a child or children with their parent or parents in a safe, healthy relationship and that
the court works to preserve this relationship.
Karen Jarmoc thanked the judges for their time and presentation and added that the
task force would continue to reach out as they drafted their recommendations. She then
welcomed the next presentation by Suzanne and Lillian Ankrah from the Greenwich
YWCA.
Kelly Annelli presented on the programs offered by the Greenwich YWCA. Specifically,
she highlighted the work that child advocates do in her program and in the shelter that
she helps manage. She elaborated on the specific qualifications of child advocates as
well as the various duties these advocates take on as part of their work. These
advocates are certified domestic violence counselors and advocate for families in court.
Child advocates have a set of standards for best practices and work to develop age-
appropriate information for children and youth. There are several programs that the
Greenwich YWCA offers to help combat the cycles of violence these families are
exposed to. These programs are heavily reliant on fundraising for support, as the state
only supplies a portion of the salaries for family advocates. She added that family and
child advocates attend many trainings to ensure that they’re using the most up-to-date
methods for various therapies.
Karen Jarmoc thanked Kelly for her presentation and added that the on-the-ground view
that she presented was very valuable to the task force.
Kelly Annelli stated that she had been working in domestic violence for 15 years, and
that child advocates work with every aspect of the system. She stated that Lillian was
one of her hardest-working employees who works with everyone involved in the various
cases from supporting children in shelter to accessing community resources for families.
She stated that CCADV did a wonderful job of training child advocates to work on long-
term counseling and other services.
Karen Jarmoc asked about the scope of what Lillian was witnessing in the field.
Lillian Ankrah responded that there were many examples, but that she had been
working with one particular family where the mother had chosen not to go to the police
after a violent incident with the father, and the mother had a hard time supporting her
family. Lillian helped the family find host homes and was eventually able to get the
family into public housing in Greenwich and help the mother find stable housing. She noted that the children are now doing very well and have been able to handle their
feelings and the situation in a very mature manner.
Karen Jarmoc asked about the relationship between the Greenwich YWCA and other
agencies and how the task force might make these connections stronger and better.
Suzanne Adam responded that all of the systems work very well together. She noted
that employees at the shelter all worked together to help different families. She also
noted that one of the issues they had faced was that collaborative efforts aren’t always
easy because not everyone working on certain cases have an understanding of
domestic violence. She noted that it was very important for counselors to have an
understanding and sensitivity to domestic violence and that this was what the
collaborative effort could take away.
Karen Jarmoc asked how support is offered to children and families that come into
shelter given the constraints of being in a shelter.
Jennifer Celentano also asked about how the shelter handles situations where the
mother isn’t addressing the needs of the children and what is done when there is a
problem with a parent in the shelter.
Lillian Ankrah responded that the shelter is a mandated reporter to DCF.
Suzanne Adam noted that there is a lot of counseling and that shelter can be a stressful
situation for a family because there can be many parents in a shelter, and each family is
reacting to a traumatic experience. She added that there are a lot of intersecting
dynamics and that the shelter works to reconnect the parenting relationship and gives
the parent their authority. She noted that the shelter works very closely with DCF and
other service providers.
Garry Lapidus asked how children are assessed for behavioral and mental health needs
in shelter.
Suzanne Adam responded that the job of the shelter is not to diagnose these problems
but work holistically with the family and keep them safe. She added that they do a
danger assessment for adults.
Lillian Ankrah stated that she is a certified art therapist and she works with a certified
play therapist, and children frequently reveal things through their art and their play in
terms of their fears and worries.
Suzanne Adam stated that children experience their life through play, and it’s beneficial
for her to work through metaphor. She added that the shelter does a few assessments
that focus on resilience and protective factors, and that negative factors will decrease
over time.
Mary Painter asked what kinds of data the shelter collected and about the standards
used for children, youth and families.
Karen Jarmoc noted that data is very important, and stated that they collected this
through Efforts to Outcomes. She asked what kind of data Ms. Painter was looking for.
Mary Painter asked how the shelter demonstrates unmet need and noted that there was probably a considerable amount of work the shelter couldn’t do because of limited resources.
Karen Jarmoc added that the task force can try to break down some of the data
Suzanne Adam stated that the shelter kept statistics and standards. She noted that
there needed to be more training on domestic violence, as the shelter couldn’t carry the
child through the whole process, and case workers down the line needed to be better
trained in domestic violence. She noted that pediatricians and other community
providers don’t always experience things through the lens of domestic violence.
Karen Jarmoc asked about the role of teachers as first responders, and asked who
provides this training for teachers and whether this training is adequate.
Lillian Ankrah responded that the shelter doesn’t play a role in this, but that there is
someone in her agency that provides training to the board of education. She noted that
teachers are first responders because they work with children during the day.
Cheryl Jacques asked if this is part of the teacher training in the educational system and
in the educational process itself.
Karen Jarmoc noted that this topic had been on the agenda for years, and stated that
family violence is among the topics that school systems can train educators on, but that
it is not funded, as there is a list of things that can be selected from to do trainings on,
but family violence is not a required training, as this would make it a mandate.
Suzanne Adam noted that there is a strong program across the state, and lots of
teachers are inviting programs into their schools, but we don’t have a statewide
systemic response.
Cheryl Jacques noted that she represented DMHAS and that the organization had done
collaborative training with DCF on trauma, as family violence is very specific, and not
always in the same context as general trauma.
Suzanne Adam noted that the perception of trauma may be different, and that there
tend to be a lot of myths and stigma around domestic violence.
Cheryl Jacques asked if there was a recommended curriculum.
Suzanne Adam said that there are many curricula that are based on research and that
she would get back with regards to curriculum outcomes.
Cheryl Jacques said that this would be helpful, and added that there is often an over-
saturation of training, which can be overwhelming.
Suzanne Adam stated that there are screening tools that can be used by age, and
agreed that there can be an over-saturation of training on this issue. She offered to help
the task force navigate through the different trainings.
Karen Jarmoc noted that unless educators have the background, it can be difficult to
understand what to do when there may be a positive screen, or what tools may be
helpful.
Cheryl Jacques asked about nurses providing treatment in the school system and
where they refer children in the case of positive screening results.
Karen Jarmoc stated that from training, they would have the capacity to build on this.
She stated that she had developed a 3-phase approach with domestic violence
providers.
Damion Grasso asked about the shelter’s approach to treatment of domestic violence
victims in terms of trauma and other psychological issues, such as PTSD and anxiety.
Suzanne stated that her shelter uses several assessment
tools that focus on domestic
violence as it relates to other psychological issues.
Damion Grasso asked how often the shelter works with other agencies and how they
could reach out to these agencies to better prepare them for working with domestic
violence victims.
Lillian Ankrah responded that they often work with outside
agencies that provide private
psychiatric therapies.
Damion Grasso asked if Lillian did work ahead of time regarding referrals and CBT.
Lillian Ankrah responded that they did a lot of psychoeducation around relationships
and stressed that the family build a strong relationship with their care takers at the
shelter, and use this as a template for building future healthy relationships.
Suzanne Adam noted that they do have staff trained in CBT and DBY and that typically
their clients are looking for housing and schools. She stated that the shelter makes
significant efforts to connect these families with long-term care and community-based
resources. She stated that the shelter works to provide resources from both ends of the
spectrum.
Karen Jarmoc thanked the shelter presenters for bringing up the assessment piece, but
noted that the shelter is not a clinical situation. She asked if it would be better to
address shelter situations from a clinical perspective, and noted that there were meager
resources for child advocates, so this type of setting would not be feasible. She also
noted the difference between screening and assessment and that this required extra
work on the part of providers.
Kelly Annelli followed up with Mary Painter’s question about standards. At the shelter,
every aspect of the child’s well-being is woven into their standards and best practices.
Karen Jarmoc noted that on October 27th, the task force would be meeting with the
National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges. On November 6th, the task force
would be hearing from DCF regarding their response to family violence.
Sara LeMaster
Task Force Administrator
No comments:
Post a Comment