For Protective Parents. Your source for news and information on the broken Family Court System in Connecticut. I am NOT an attorney. This blog does not constitute legal advice.
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.
What are they really going to accomplish when the courts do not follow the laws we already have on DV? See below.
Wendy V. v. Santiago, __ Conn. __ (2015). Dismissed as moot. (1) The plaintiff filed two ex parte applications for relief from abuse under General Statutes § 46b-15. The trial court denied both applications without a hearing, and denied a motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court transferred the appeal to itself, ordered the trial court to prepare a memorandum of decision explaining its denials, and encouraged the trial court to hold a hearing on the applications by a specific date. The trial court rendered a written explanation, conducted a hearing on the applications, and then again denied both applications. The plaintiff continued to press the appeal. The defendant did not file a brief or conduct oral argument. (2) The appeal was moot because the trial court already had held a hearing and denied both applications. The appeal did not satisfy the capable of repetition but evading review exception. The Supreme Court reasoned that the issue could be reviewed the next time it arises, when it presents an ongoing and live controversy. (3) In footnote 8, the Supreme Court justices indicate that they are "perplexed as to why the trial court did not allow a hearing and do not consider the reasons provided by the court persuasive." The statute says the court "shall" hold a hearing. If the legislature wants to give judges discretion to deny hearings then it can change the statute.
He's definately signaling someone and seems very nervous/uncomfortable with the Domestic Violence agenda. Probably not the best choice for moving this agenda forward...likely an intentional choice to attempt to keep the status quo.
There will be public hearings. Hopefully there will be a good showing from advocates to change the laws in family courts so abusers cannot get full or joint custody so we can put an end to babies being thrown off bridges and end the discretion of judges who allow abuse to continue on so many levels.
Other states have laws to protect women and children as they separate from their abuser through the family courts including non discretionary orders of protection, laws that prevent joint or sole custody from going to an abuser, opt out provisions for mandatory therapy with an abuser, and standards for psych evaluators. Why not in CT? You have to ask yourself what force is stopping such laws from being implemented in CT. See links below:
What are they really going to accomplish when the courts do not follow the laws we already have on DV? See below.
ReplyDeleteWendy V. v. Santiago, __ Conn. __ (2015). Dismissed as moot.
(1) The plaintiff filed two ex parte applications for relief from abuse under General Statutes § 46b-15. The trial court denied both applications without a hearing, and denied a motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court transferred the appeal to itself, ordered the trial court to prepare a memorandum of decision explaining its denials, and encouraged the trial court to hold a hearing on the applications by a specific date. The trial court rendered a written explanation, conducted a hearing on the applications, and then again denied both applications. The plaintiff continued to press the appeal. The defendant did not file a brief or conduct oral argument.
(2) The appeal was moot because the trial court already had held a hearing and denied both applications. The appeal did not satisfy the capable of repetition but evading review exception. The Supreme Court reasoned that the issue could be reviewed the next time it arises, when it presents an ongoing and live controversy.
(3) In footnote 8, the Supreme Court justices indicate that they are "perplexed as to why the trial court did not allow a hearing and do not consider the reasons provided by the court persuasive." The statute says the court "shall" hold a hearing. If the legislature wants to give judges discretion to deny hearings then it can change the statute.
Look at 9/9 meeting from 101-102 see what signals grants is giving.
DeleteHe's definately signaling someone and seems very nervous/uncomfortable with the Domestic Violence agenda. Probably not the best choice for moving this agenda forward...likely an intentional choice to attempt to keep the status quo.
ReplyDeleteThere will be public hearings. Hopefully there will be a good showing from advocates to change the laws in family courts so abusers cannot get full or joint custody so we can put an end to babies being thrown off bridges and end the discretion of judges who allow abuse to continue on so many levels.
Other states have laws to protect women and children as they separate from their abuser through the family courts including non discretionary orders of protection, laws that prevent joint or sole custody from going to an abuser, opt out provisions for mandatory therapy with an abuser, and standards for psych evaluators. Why not in CT? You have to ask yourself what force is stopping such laws from being implemented in CT. See links below:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/pdfs/Standards_of_Proof_by_State.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/domestic_violence1/Resources/statutorysummarycharts/2014%20CPO%20Availability%20Chart.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/domestic_violence1/Charts/2014%20Mediation%20Statutory%20Chart.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/domestic_violence1/Charts/2014%20Custody%20DV%20Chart.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/docs/Custody.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/domestic_violence1/Resources/statutorysummarycharts/State%20by%20State%20Survey%20by%20%20Fordham%202012-%20Appendix%20A%20(2).authcheckdam.pdf
And why is the judicial branch so resistive to training on DV when there is a public law on the books requiring it?
See: Public Act 14-234 (2014) amended 46b-38(c).