Testimony Opposing
SB 1049, AAC Registration Fees for Counsel and Guardians ad Litem for Minor
Children and Other Requirements for Certain Family Relations Matters
Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee
April 17, 2017
Text Originally Located at the following link:
The proposed bill seeks to make several changes to the family court process related to the
custody of minor children that may have serious implications for victims of domestic
violence and their children involved in such cases.
First, the bill seeks to create a presumption of “shared custody” and “shared parenting,”
removing the concept of joint legal custody, which has significant case law built upon it.
Currently, joint legal custody pertains to the decision-making by parents regarding the
child’s health, education, and religious upbringing. Under this proposal, the court would be
required to ensure that each parent exercises physical care of the child for substantial
periods of time. As the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund points out, this is
a parent-centered approach, not a child-centered approach. The court already has the
ability to grant joint physical custody when it is in the best interest of the child. Having a
presumption of shared custody may detract from consideration of the child’s welfare,
particularly in situations where the family has experienced domestic violence.
Domestic violence does not always end when an intimate relationship ends. In fact, this is
when it may get worse. Domestic violence is about control and coercion, and the end of
the relationship often signals a complete lack of control for the abuser. All too often
children are used by an abusive individual to continue to exert control over the other
parent. While there are variances on what constitutes “shared parenting,” almost all
versions create endless opportunities for the victim to be continuously subjected to every
demand of her or his abuser. In efforts to regain control over the victim, the abusive parent
may object to any proposed decisions for the children or create stumbling blocks for the
implementation of any decisions once made.
To be clear, an individual who abuses his or her child’s other parent is not and
cannot be a good parent until he or she chooses to cease abusive behaviors and
treat the other parent with respect. It is simply untrue that every parent has the best
interest of his or her child at heart. Any parent that chooses to abuse the other parent is
subjecting the child to emotional and psychological trauma that will have lasting
consequences.
Shared parenting only works when both parents are on equal ground. This is simply not
possible in abusive relationships where one person controls the other. Shared decision-
making that forces victims of domestic violence into a vulnerable position of having to
negotiate with an abuser who has already traumatized them is unlikely to be successful
and will certainly lead to continued conflict not only for the victim, but for the involved
child(res).
Another cause of concern in the proposed bill is acceptance by the court of a written agreement by the parents
pertaining to custody. Again, in situations involving domestic violence where both parents are not on equal
ground, it is unlikely that any written “agreement” has actually been agreed upon. Will the court be required to
ensure that that any accepted agreement was in fact made willingly and freely by each party? There is no
language currently in the bill addressing the possibility that any such agreement may have been coerced.
Also alarming is the newly created crime of knowingly making a false statement to the court in cases involving
child custody. This is an unnecessary and duplicative crime as these actions are likely already covered by
current perjury statutes. Such a crime only serves to further intimidate pro se parties with limited resources from
advocating for themselves and their children for fear of having the other party accuse them of lying. This is
particularly true for couples experiencing domestic violence where the abuser may “gaslight” the victim, telling
her or him that everything is in her/his head or a figment of her/his imagination so any possible accusation
against the abuser must be a lie.
Regarding guardians ad litem (GAL) or attorneys for a minor child (AMC), this bill proposes that any
person aggrieved by the action of a GAL or AMC be able to bring a civil action seeking appropriate relief.
In all likelihood very few individuals will seek to serve as a GAL or AMC if language such as this passed
because it is rare that at least one party does not feel aggrieved following a child custody case. Instead,
we strongly urge the committee to consider mandating increased trauma-informed training for GALs and
AMCs related to the dynamics of domestic violence. It is typically contentious custody cases where GALs
and AMCs are assigned, and often there is a history of domestic violence preceding the custody dispute.
Increased training will strengthen the ability of GALs and AMCs to clearly identify and respond to the
needs of children who are experiencing domestic violence in their home.
Finally, the bill limits GAL and AMC testimony related to the child’s medical condition. This is particularly
concerning for cases involving domestic violence in which children are receiving ongoing therapy. We are
concerned that in cases of self-represented victims of domestic violence, there will not be an easy way to enter
this information into evidence, perhaps resulting in the victim having to subpoena and pay for the healthcare
professional to testify as to the child’s medical condition. Meanwhile, the GAL and AMC may have the reports
from the healthcare provider and otherwise would be able to simply submit them as part of their testimony. This
creates an increased financial burden on a victim of domestic violence who is often the custodial parent and
may potentially result in critical information about the child’s medical condition being excluded from the case.
In conclusion, many of the proposals included in this bill would be devastating for victims of domestic violence
and their children. It is wishful thinking that all parents are good parents and should have equal time with and
decision-making authority related to their child. Presumed shared custody with shared decision-making is not in
the best interest of any child whose parent has been the victim of domestic violence at the hands of the other
parent. The majority of the contested custody cases that this bill seeks to address likely involve domestic
violence and the children involved would therefore be done a disservice by the proposed changes. We urge
your rejection.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions.
Liza Andrews
Director of Public Policy & Communications
landrews@ctcadv.org
It is an awesome bill. Takes away immunity from GALs. Allows GALs to be sued for their pedo practices. Takes control of GALs away from Judge Bozzuto and her pedo pals. Limits what GALs can bill for. No more $300 hour for driving to the courthouse or sitting in the hallway waiting for a case to be called. The bill changes nothing on custody...learn to read. This bill will create a new legal industry....sue your GAL....most awesome. Dembo, Bozek, Gersten, Bringham, Rebimbas, Morra will all be too busy defending themselves in civil court to every enter family court again....this is awesome, bring on the lawsuits. This will even put the Children Law Center out of business. Money laundering stops. Only thing the bill is missing is a requirement to issue IRS 1099's to report GAL fees to the taxman....ends the kickbacks to the judges. YES!!! Awesome bill.....jew judge Elliot Solomon will not let it pass....goyim get nothing but screwed in family court.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone argues with how important is is to remove judicial immunity from GALs which, from its inception, was a law created illegally by the court system itself. However, the bottom line is that this bill ALSO replaces joint custody with shared custody, an approach which is burdensome not only in situations of abuse but also in average divorce cases--imagine children being bounced back and forth from one town to another like homeless yo-yos! In addition, this bill would expand the definition of shared parenting to include interference in what the other parents eats for breakfast or chooses to wear. It would be an absolute nightmare for anyone on whom it were imposed. In addition, this legislation raises the burden of proof for abuse to that of clear and convincing evidence which is a criminal court standard, and would open the door to major corruption if such a standard were imposed within the family court system. As it stands, this bill is a wildly idiotic bill and I can only assume a bunch of lug heads created it.
DeleteThe bill should mandate GALs be paid by the state at $25/hr not to exceed 20 hours, which was the standing order prior to 2006 when Judge Lynda Munro and her pedo money thieves took over the plunder game. Judges helping lawyers empty family savings accounts that is Family Court, a den of thieves lead by the deviant Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto.
ReplyDeleteSomeone should clue Liza in that domestic violence is a separate issue from divorce. If dad beats the mom, that is assault. Dad is not beating the kids. That is just the fallacy of the transitive argument. Constant drumbeat of feminist 'murika.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, as the current court system stands domestic violence is handled in divorce court. There is no mechanism included in this bill or any intention on the part of the CT Judicial Branch to change the status quo at any time soon. Currently, what happens is that if an assault of Mom occurs while there is a custody case in play, criminal court will simply refuse to take the case seriously. The majority of DV actions then end up being funneled into the family court system. And as you know, restraining orders are, for the better part, handled in family court. I prefer not to talk in terms of mens rights and women's rights in regard to this issue. I do think that we should change the way things are done and handle DV cases in criminal court as you propose, but the problem is that the system is absolutely not set up to do this yet and we certainly have not won the hearts and minds of prosecutors to make this change even if it were legislated. As a consequence, and this is the real problem, if the standard of proof for DV or for "fitness" as a parent was raised to that of criminal court i.e. to clear and convincing evidence, yet the actual court hearings in the matter were handled in family court where there are constant due process violations and violations of litigant's constitutional rights, the opportunity for abuses on both sides would be extraordinary. I think most of the time father's rights people think that a bit of legislation will only hit women, but in fact, please consider what it would be like if you are a father and your assault case against the abusive mother, or your fitness case against the negligent mother is clear and convincing evidence and you are denied your legal right to present your case. The results of these scenarios are damaging to both fathers and mothers. Also, please consider that since family courts are courts of equity and not courts of law and judges have absolute judicial discretion, consider what corrupt judges will do with that. Then since the family court now has these higher standards of proof, criminal courts will be only too happy to refer assault cases to family court rather than criminal court which are courts of law, and now with a higher standard of proof, they will be only too happy to pass them along. Whether you are or are not determined to be assaultive or unfit will then become one great big crap shoot. I don't know about you, but on behalf of the innocent men and women out there, I think they deserve a whole lot better.
DeleteMy infinite wish is for intelligent, experienced and realistic contributors to this site like Ms. Sloper et al and select Yale Law students aspiring to family law careers work together over two semesters to research, summarize and report to key media outlets the actions and results of the myriad unfair and scandalous CT family court cases, and identify the sinners' names and acts over a 3-5 year period. Thankfully this fine blog/site provides the foundation for the project.. This group would review the extent of cronyism and misdeeds of judges, committee members and their lackeys and expose the extent of their ongoing utter disinterest in doing what's right. Also report on the deficient use of common sense and fairness as primary tools. Regretfully the existing CT family court structure can't be eradicated and rebuilt from the ground up. Sadly, until more CT residents rise up and rebel and news media and other parties get involved, this madness will perpetuate, until when? 2025?.. It's too bad the progress to date on this issue is minimal and several bright and sincere contributors have dedicated massive amounts of time and effort to this cause. Maybe if one or more key CT politicians (or extended family member) become personally directly or indirectly involved with a CT family court horror show perhaps empathy and accelerated action will follow. Finally, for perspective, the atrocities covered in this blog involve just ONE STATE. Let's reflect on the quality of other states' family court procedures and history. Maybe the Yale Law students can explore and report on that too!
DeleteCatherine, with all due respect, by aligning yourself with the opposition to the bill you are on the same side as Cousineau, Bunk, Friedman, Judge Bozzuto and Humphrey. These are people who have benefited from the dysfunctional way things are. However, those who support the bill include Rep Gonzalez, Hector Morera, and Peter Szymonik. These are decent people who are trying to effect reform in a dysfunctional family court. Respectfully, don't you think you might be on the wrong side here?
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't consider Peter Syzmonik decent. That fellow has directly slandered me and lied about me, and also there are serious questions regarding his behavior with his ex wife. Rep. Gonzalez and Hector are simply mixed up. Anyone with common sense and a modicum of brains can tell that this is a poorly worded bill. I can only feel sorry that here was an opportunity to do something important for everyone, and instead it has turned into a fiasco. I like the way the sponsors of the bill are listed as Finance Committee. All of them? Every member? If so, each and every one of them should be ashamed of such garbage, and they should also be informed that establishing family court policies has nothing to do with finance.
DeleteThe DV argument obscures the lifting of immunity for the GALs. The judicial flying monkeys will be exposed to lawsuits for their expertise. The $300/hr plunder game will end. GALs will be sued left and right until they are run out of the system. The beauty of SB1049 is that the GAL game comes to a complete stop.
ReplyDeleteYes but. Sorry. Yes but while the GAL game may come to a complete stop, what about all the other games! You are mistaken. The lifting of immunity for the GALs obscures the DV argument.
DeleteWow. You have kept up a comment from an anti-semite. That scumbag calls Judge Solomon "the jew judge solomon" and "goyim get screwed in family court." You are officially a white-nationalist website and I will let everyone know. Congrats. Scumbags.
ReplyDeleteWhat? But Solomon is white.
DeleteOf course, the fellow who speaks in an anti-semitic manner is correct that there are a lot of Jewish people involved in this game. Shouldn't they be ashamed? Is it anti-semitic to point that out?
DeleteFamily Court is anti-semitic. Jews don't get divorced there.
DeleteThe bill is not going to pass, don't kid yourself.
ReplyDeleteCan you believe a bunch of father's rights advocates submitting a bill that could actually be of some value and then burdening it down with a lot of misogynist crap? I find it appalling, personally. It gives the folks who put the bill out there a seriously bad name.
Delete