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.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

SUPPORT THE CHILD SAFETY FIRST ACT!

TODAY

EMAIL AND CALL THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

TO SUPPORT 
THE CHILD SAFETY FIRST BILL


58,000 Children a Year are Awarded Into Custody with An Abusive Parent

Are you a mom or know a mom with children in the middle of a divorce or separation in family court who is fighting for custody of their children to keep them safe and protect them from abuse?

Let our Connecticut Judiciary Committee members know (EMAILS AND PHONE NUMBERS below) you want them to support the introduction of Senator Alex Bergstein’s (Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan) Child Safety First bill this legislative session. Please use "Support the Child Safety First Bill" in your Subject Line.


Dear Representative …………….,

Why Do We Need the Child Safety First Bill in Connecticut?
DV and abuse exists across our state; DV and abuse pose an unacceptable and disproportionate threat to the health, safety and wellbeing of women and children; DV and abuse has been under-reported and under-recognized in our family court system; “high conflict” divorce cases often involve DV or abuse; the State of Connecticut has a duty to ensure the safety of all its citizens, especially children; House Congressional Resolution 72  encourages states to prioritize DV and abuse as the first factor considered in determining the “best interests of the child” in custody cases.
  • It is often legitimate for the partner of an abusive parent to try to protect the children from exposure to abuse, or to try to secure his or her own safety from the abusive partner by limiting that partner's contact with the children. Court appointed lawyers and psychologists do not have adequate DV training and are not able to distinguish appropriately protective behavior.  
  • The abuser blames the victim and claims parental alienation, that she was turning the children against him by alienating the children with false claims he was abusing them.  The court does not understand and/or acknowledge that the children are resisting being with their emotionally abusive parent who scares them. 
  • According to the American Psychological Association, abusive fathers file for sole custody more often than fathers who have no history of DV. Since 99 percent of DV victims also face some form of financial abuse, abusers tend to have more money and thus more access to legal resources than the women fleeing their abuse. That gives them an advantage in the courts that makes them just as likely, or even more likely, to gain custody.
Call Senate Dems: (860) 240-8600, Senate Republicans (860) 240-8800, House Democrats (860) 240-8500, and House Republicans (860) 240-8700.  OR EMAIL:

Please use "Support the Child Safety First Bill" in your Subject Line.

THE  CHILD SAFETY FIRST BILL
AUTHORED BY SENATOR ALEX BERGSTEIN

  1. The statutory definition of “domestic violence and abuse” is revised to include a history or pattern of coercive, controlling behavior including, but not limited to, physical violence, sexual assault, financial abuse, litigation abuse and psychological abuse including, but not limited to, isolation, stalking, harassment, intimidation and threats regarding the safety of a person or the safety of or access to that person’s 
    children. “Domestic violence and abuse” does not include the justified use of force or flight to protect oneself or others in response to abuse or violence. 
  2. In legal proceedings regarding child custody, domestic violence and abuse will be the first factor assessed by the court, before all other factors, in determining the “best interests of the child.” 
  3. In hearings regarding domestic violence or abuse, a court may only consider valid scientific evidence or testimony from qualified professionals with experience working with victims of domestic violence and abuse that meet admissibility standards. 
  4. A presumption against custody will be made for any parent with a history or demonstrated pattern of domestic violence or abuse or any parent who has sexually abused a child. 
  5. If a parent is found to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, that parent shall pay the attorney’s fees and all other court-related expenses of the other parent. 
  6. The legal standard for protective orders shall recognize forms of domestic violence and abuse that endanger the safety or restrict the agency of a person or children. (Refer to the new statutory definition in #1.) 
  7. The State shall provide legal assistance for all victims of domestic violence and abuse to help them complete protective order affidavits and other legal forms. (Legal assistance increased the likelihood of obtaining a protective order by more than 50%.) 
  8. Courts shall restrict frivolous or excessive motions in family court. When divorce cases approach 100 motions, additional motions shall be subject to review and approval before submission. “High conflict” cases should be diverted to a specialized court that recognizes litigation abuse and obstruction and holds parties in contempt for not disclosing financial or other critical information or following court orders. (A small number of “high conflict” cases consume a disproportionate amount of judicial resources. This specialized court would prevent litigation abuse and resolve cases faster.) 
  9. Reopen the Office of Victim Advocate and fund it adequately to support all victims across the state through the legal process. 
  10. Review and approve all judicial education programs to ensure that abuse is recognized and not rewarded. Allow only experts with a demonstrated history of working with Domestic violence and abuse victims to be the educators on this subject. 

2 comments:

  1. Passing this bill will hopefully give the children the well deserved time & consideration needed to protect the mental well being of children who are the #1 victims in divorce. A parent like me who did not want my childrens paying for the poor actions of my ex spouse and his family trusted Judges can spot will the red flags & bright alarms going off in my divorce case without me having to bring up the DV fearing retaliation from my ex and family whos money secured the final outcome of my divorce.
    Seeing first hand how packed family courts are with back to back cases none of the Judges could possibly have the time to review or even pending motions prior to calling a case in which there decision could possibly destroy the lives of families that depend on the judges to know & follow the laws that have been in place for centuries and decide wether or not to follow them don’t is horrific.
    A Judge that can’t recognize a party who’s been the non working spouse over a decade and sole care giver of young children having no support or transportation for months appears pro bono before the Judge who hears argument that the ex spouse who file had not paid anything to the non working spouse & mother of 3 during the pending divorce motion as well as hearing the paid attorney whos argument clearly acknowledged he was aware of his client refusal to pay any money to feed minor children or give the bare necessities for them to servive let alone by LAW be kept as they were accustomed to all their lives & wasn’t at all appalled at neither the Ex spouse nor the Attorney who BY LAW was to advise or withdraw his services instead The Judge didn’t feel the need to look up the child support guide lines since she auto ruled the dollar amount the paid attorney whom violated multiple attorney ethics codes that day and gave the abuser a pass. The non working spouse was given $395 less what the LAW states in child support guidelines. A judge that is either oblivious Doesn’t care should have no business in the family court system. This is one of many instances in my case & I know there are far worse cases out there my point is even centuries of laws in place that are mandatory to follow aren’t.
    Never received child support according to the state law for 3 years & went from upperclassmen living to by CT standards extremely low income individual unable to maintain a roof over mine and my children’s heads. Meanwhile nobody suffered more than my kids seeing their father spending travels and vacations without them & living in poverty conditions only when visiting the spouse who was and still remains a victim of DV because Judges don’t have to see or deal with what their rulings they’ve done to someone else’s life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Anonymous,
    My heart just breaks reading your story. You are not alone, however. The CT family courts is a RICO styled business. It's organized crime and it was manufactured by the justice system that was meant to provide.....justice. Sadly, it's the party with the most money who wins. Gloria Allred's quote in the documentary Divorce Corp rings over and over in my head...."In family court you get as much justice as you can afford to pay for. Most people cannot afford any justice at all"
    It's a billion dollar industry that exists because a parent will pay or do anything to protect their child. We all would. I wish I was a criminal instead of going through family court. All of the luxuries you are afforded to you under the constitution, guilty until proven innocent, a right to remain silent, a right to attorney, a right to a free one if you can't afford one, a right to a speedy trial, a right to a trial by jury of your peers.
    We have a wonderful system set up for criminals, but nothing for family court litigants. But what do you expect, it's run by the state of CT. A state that can't even overhaul the DMV, or actually spend 3 million dollars, doing it and making it 10 times worse.
    I will pray for you

    ReplyDelete