"(d) The file compiled by the Family Services Unit in the course of preparing any mediation report or conflict resolution conference report shall not be available for inspection or copying unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority. The file compiled by the Family Services Unit in the course of preparing an evaluation or study conducted pursuant to Section 25-61 that has been completed and filed with the clerk in accordance with subsection (b) shall be available for inspection only to counsel of record, guardians ad litem, and the parties to the action to the extent permitted by any applicable authorization for release of information; and further provided that copies of documents, notes, information or other material in the file shall only be provided to such individuals if they make the request in writing and certify that it is requested for legitimate purposes of trial preparation and/or trial proceedings in the case in which the evaluation or study was filed. For purposes of this section, the word ‘‘file’’ shall include any documents, notes, information or other material retained by the Family Services Unit in any format.
(e) Any information or copies of the file disclosed pursuant to this section shall not be further disclosed unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority or as otherwise authorized in this section."
THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH'S COMMENTARY ON THIS SECTION'S INCLUSION:
COMMENTARY: The changes to this section clarify what information
from Family Services files compiled in connection with the reports,
evaluations and studies under this section are subject to inspection
and copying and by whom, to whom those copies can be provided,
and for what purpose can they be requested. The changes also provide
that any information or copies disclosed may not be further disclosed
except as otherwise ordered or authorized.*
*In other words you can be subjected to endless, unnecessary obstruction to your access to vital evidence in your case. While issues of confidentiality regarding certain documents is important, I think the wording of this revision is so careless it could end up restricting family court litigants from accessing important information they need for their own cases. If the purpose of this revision is to safeguard confidentiality, it must be rewritten to ensure that it does not inadvertently end up cutting off the parties themselves from being able to review important documents in their cases. As it looks now, the way this revision is worded, the latter could very easily happen.
*In other words you can be subjected to endless, unnecessary obstruction to your access to vital evidence in your case. While issues of confidentiality regarding certain documents is important, I think the wording of this revision is so careless it could end up restricting family court litigants from accessing important information they need for their own cases. If the purpose of this revision is to safeguard confidentiality, it must be rewritten to ensure that it does not inadvertently end up cutting off the parties themselves from being able to review important documents in their cases. As it looks now, the way this revision is worded, the latter could very easily happen.
Corrupt Connecticut rides again. Over one hundred years ago, Justice Holmes ruled:
ReplyDelete"The theory of our system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print."
Patterson v Colorado Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 462 (1907)
Practice Book Rules for Family Court are by design and for the privilege of the monster judges and their evil lizard lawyers as a means of extracting as much $$$$ from college savings accounts as possible. Cesspool of human filth, den of thieves......Elizabeth Bozzuto and her miscreant, deviant pals.
it is essentially creating a law to break the law for the benefit of the criminals in family court. You've got it. Since when did the CT Judicial Branch take it upon themselves to create the law to break the law!
DeleteThey already do this in New York and some honest lawyers and legislators are opposing it because hiding evidence is a due process violation. This is to stop not only litigants but the general public and reporters from knowing the fraud that is being submitted as evidence against them. Also - notice the first sentence claims the services are "mediation" and "conflict or dispute resolution." This is AFCC and father's rights lingo created by the industry to pretend that they are solving problems when the "problem" is contested custody - two opposing motions that require Rules of Evidence and due process to solve - not mediation and fraud by profit-making third parties. The court Rules or Practice Book is used to go around the law - standard operating procedure for collusion and fraud.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you keep up with the shenanigans used to continue AFCC's agenda. The practice book change is just an "under-the-radar" way of denying due process - by not showing the evidence one cannot argue it before it is submitted and acted upon. This is typical strategy. Already used in NY and used selectively in other places - part of the no oversight or accountability agenda.
ReplyDeleteSince CTers will be denied the right to see the resulting evidence they should be advised to refuse to go to these services. Then a case cannot be rigged against them in the first place - the plan is to obfuscate and manufacture evidence then deny real evidence.
See my comment to post below on the farce of public hearings on PB revisions.
ReplyDeletehttps://familycourtcircusblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/klan-ad-litem/
ReplyDelete