IN CUSTODY DISPUTES, PSYCHIATRY USED AS A TOOL OF THE STATE AGAINST ITS CITIZENS: LISTEN TO THE STORY OF DR. ROBERT FETTGATHER

http://innersites.com/janet/f2f-phalen-fettgather.mp3

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

MICHAEL NOWACKI HAS BEEN JAILED BECAUSE HE CONFRONTED MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW CONNECTICUT'S CORRUPT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM HAS DENIED PARENTS AND CHILDREN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS.  HE SPOKE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN CONNECTICUT AND JUDGES HAVE GOTTEN THEIR REVENGE. WE NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE

FAMILY COURT EVALUATORS HURT YOU AND HARM YOU WITH LABELS, HERE MEMBERS OF MINDFREEDOM SHOW YOU WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE LABELS!

YOU WERE A FATHER BEFORE, YOU WERE A MOM BEFORE, NOW AFTER YOUR CUSTODY EVALUATION, YOU ARE JUST A LABEL. WATCH MEMBERS OF MINDFREEDOM SPEAK BACK TO THAT LABEL. YOU CAN DO IT TOO!

TELL ME, DOES THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM PUT PEOPLE FIRST? THINK ABOUT IT.

ALL ABOUT MAGISTRATES

I was talking to a friend about a child support issue and she kept on talking about some magistrate, and she also talked about appealing the magistrate in Superior Court.  I was like, what are you talking about, what is a magistrate, and don't appeals go to Appellate Court?  This friend had me totally confused.  I'd never heard of a magistrate before. 

So what is a magistrate? 

This is the story from what I culled from the Connecticut Judicial Website:

"Family Support Magistrates are appointed by the Governor for three year terms to hear cases involving paternity and child and spousal support.  They are quasi-judicial officers. They are not judges, but perform some judicial functions.  Their jurisdiction extends to child support cases which include both welfare recipients and those who have applied for state help collecting child support.  Family Support Magistrates establish, modify and eforce child and spousal support orders and hear paternity proceedings.  Their duties are described in Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 46b-231." 

So, for all you folks who wrongly informed me that family support magistrates cannot change orders, think again.  See what it says--magistrates ESTABLISH, MODIFY, as well as enforce--that all adds up to making orders.  So be nice to magistrates--they can do a lot of stuff that could impact your life considerably. 

The Connecticut Judicial Website lists as Chief Family Support Magistrate, the Hon. Sandra Sosnoff Baird, for what its worth.  I suppose if you are not happy with how your case is going, you could write to her with your complaint. I'm still on the fence about whether actions of this kind are valuable, but give it a shot and get back to me on the outcome. 

Not only are there family support magistrates, there are also family support referees for the older guys, the same way as there are judge trial referees in Superior Court.  As you may recall, the more complex cases go to the referees, because the greater experience of referees is supposed to make them more able to handle such cases. 

As a point of comparison, regular judges are nominated by the governor, but then the legislature has to approve those nominations, and their appointments last for eight years.  Magistrates are appointed by the governor, do not require any approval from the legislature, and have appointments that only last three years. 

If a magistrate makes a decision that you disagree with, you then appeal that decision to Superior Court, and then move forward from there, rather than appealing directly to Appellate Court. 

There has been an attempt to change appointment procedures for magistrates and require that they also receive approval from the State Legislature.  House Bill No. 6426 introduced during the January 2011  session of the State Legislature,  "An Act Concerning the Appointment of Family Support Magistrates" would have done just that.  It also would have extended the term a magistrate serves from three years to four years. 

The judiciary committee voted unanimously in support of this bill, which was sponsored by Simsbury Representative Nancy Schofield; however, it seems to have died nonetheless and it was not enacted into law.  A very similar bill, Substitute House Bill No. 6700 was also proposed in 2009 and was vetoed on June 19, 2009. 

I can't say that it will make that much of a difference changing the manner in which the State of Connecticut appoints magistrates.  I already observed how judges are appointed and it didn't impress me that much. 

Yes, the judiciary committee holds hearings which allow legislators to ask the nominees questions and the public does have a chance to provide testimony regarding any particular judge or judges.  However, it didn't look to me as though these hearings were anything more than rubber stamp proceedings.  

Yes, they have the potential for more, but is that potential ever tapped?  If there is no true accountability, why go through the pretense, and why expand the pretense even further to include magistrates as well?  Doesn't it just add to everyone's workload and expand the red tape that prevents government from getting its work done?  These are the kinds of questions that I have. 

However, clearly there are enough citizens out there who have kept the issue of the appointment of magistrates before the State Legislature for a number of years.  And they have done so with considerable support.  So it seems to me, isn't it about time to stop fooling around and pass this bill?

AMUSING HOAX!

I recently alerted you to a hearing advertised on the Connecticut Judicial website which was supposed to be held before the Justices of the Supreme Court in regard to Connecticut General Statute 51-14.  This hearing was supposed to solicit feedback from the public in regard to the rules of the Connecticut Practice Book.  It was scheduled for Monday, March 5, 2012 at 10:00 am at the Supreme Court Building.

Apparently, my sources have informed me that when members of the public arrived at the hearing, they were given around five minutes before the justices cancelled the meeting and walked off.  Only a few people were allowed to speak and anyone who came the least bit late was denied the right to speak.  So much for obeying the law or showing any modicum of respect for the citizens in the State of Connecticut. 

I want to tell you, though, from my friend's brief glimpse of the interior of the Supreme Court building, exactly how splendid it appears.  Dark wooden paneling and lots of gold trim.  Rest assured that as your Supreme Court Justices subvert the law and deny you your constitutional rights, they are doing so in the most dignified and resplendant surroundings that the State of Connecticut can provide at your expense.  Why did they feel this charade was necessary?  Beats me!

NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE CONNECTICUT PRACTICE BOOK!

There was a recent posting on the jud.ct.gov website as well as in the Connecticut Law Tribune indicating that there will be a public hearing providing citizens with the opportunity to make suggestions for new rules and forms, or changes in existing rules and forms, regulating pleading, practice and procedure in the Courts of the State of Connecticut, i.e. in regard to the Connecticut Practice Book which regulates how the law is practiced in Courts within the State of Connecticut. 

This hearing will be held by the Justices of the Supreme Court, or a committee thereof, pursuant to General Statutes 51-14. 

The hearing will be held this Monday, March 5, 2012 at 10:00am in the Supreme Court in Hartford. 

If you are interested in providing your testimony, you need to sign up with the clerk when you arrive at the hearing and provide her with nine clear copies of your testimony.  I believe you will have around 5 minutes to speak. 

If you have any questions, or need any further information, don't hesitate to contact me at my email address:  slopercathy@gmail.com

NOTICE OF EVALUATION OF INCUMBENT JUDGES WHO SEEK REAPPOINTMENT

The terms of the following Judges of the State of Connecticut will expire during the year 2013 and the nominations by the Governor will come before the Judicial Selection commission for review commencing in February 2012. 

There are 18 judges with terms expiring in 2013:

Appellate Court

Hon. F. Herbert Gruendel

Superior Court

Hon. Marshall K. Berger, Jr.
Hon Jon C. Blue
Hon. Barbara M. Quinn
Hon. Fran M. D'Addabbo, Jr.
Hon. John Turner
Hon. Gary J. White
Hon. Dale W. Radcliffe
Hon. Cynthia K. Swienton
Hon. Henry S. Cohn
Hon. Marcia J. Gleeson
Hon. Constance L. Epstein
Hon. John D. Boland
Hon. Peter L. Brown
Hon. Kari A. Dooley
Hon. John F. Cronan
Hon. Robert T. Resha
Hon. Robert F. McWeeny

Comments regarding the reappointment of any of the Judges on the Reappointment List for 2013 may be submitted to the Judicial Selection Commission, 165 Capitol Avenue, Room 241, Hartford, CT 06106 on or before January 31, 2012.  Reappointment interviews of the listed judges will commence in February 2012 and  continue through June 2012.  Accordingly, comments received after January 31, 2012 will be considered if received prior to a Judge's reappointment interview.  Anonymous submissions will be considered but afforded less weight than signed submissions.

Robert S. Bello, Chairperson
TEL:  860-713-5300
FAX:  860-713-7200

Published on The Connecticut Mirror (http://www.ctmirror.org)

Home > A judicial confirmation hearing goes off script

---

A judicial confirmation hearing goes off script

Mark Pazniokas

February 22, 2012

The Malloy administration prepped Maureen M. Murphy for her judicial confirmation hearing Wednesday with questions about her sexual orientation and the pivotal role she played in the legalization of gay marriage in Connecticut.
But the legislature's Judiciary Committee endorsed her nomination to the Superior Court on a 31-9 vote without a single comment or question about her advocacy of gay rights or the landmark litigation that led to same-sex marriage.
Perhaps they were too distracted.

Maureen M. Murphy preparing to testify.

Controversy came from another quarter, unrelated to issues of sexual orientation or questions of judicial activism: Murphy was accused of bias in her court-appointed role as guardian in a bitter custody case won by the father of an 8-year-old boy.
The accusations came from Ada O. Shaw, a friend of the boy's mother, and Keith Harmon Snow, a self-described "independent war correspondent" and "genocide investigator" who says he is writing about the custody case. The testimony of a third witness, Michael Nowacki, who calls himself a "private attorney general," concluded with his arrest by Capitol police.
Murphy, 61, one of six lawyers nominated last month by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, sat with her wife, her 90-year-old mother and friends. By the end, she wore the expression of a theater patron who had wandered into the wrong show.
Her appearance before the committee began with Sen. John A. Kissel of Enfield, the ranking Republican, offering praise for an eclectic career.
"You strike me as a person with a lot of neat life experiences, a lot of dedication to those in need," Kissel said. "I think you'd be terrific on the bench -- a lot of wisdom, a lot of humility and a lot of compassion and a lot of smarts."
After college, Murphy was a programmer and research assistant at the Rand Corp. She volunteered with disabled children in New Mexico and in Connecticut, then received a master's degree in special education. She became a lawyer relatively late, at age 35.
Murphy worked for the attorney general's office, representing the state Department of Children and Families in special-education hearings and state universities in civil litigation. As a private lawyer, her practice included the representation of gay, lesbian and transgender clients in family and discrimination cases.
She was a founding member of Love Makes a Family, the gay rights group, and a member of the legal team that brought a lawsuit that yielded the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision legalizing same-sex marriage in 2008.
In the past five years, Murphy took on more cases as a court-appointed guardian ad litem, a lawyer responsible for watching the child's interests in custody and other family law cases.
Custody cases are notorious for yielding complaints against judges by the losing party, said Kissel and Rep. Gerald Fox, D-Stamford, the co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Paul R. Doyle, D-Wethersfield, told Murphy that the committee was in receipt of letters from two people questioning her actions in a custody case, Doe vs. Roe.
One was from Shaw, the other from Eli Newberger, a pediatrician hired by the mother. Both complained that Murphy was hostile to the mother, deferential to the father and ignored evidence of physical and sexual abuse.
Murphy said she was limited in what she could say about the case. She acknowledged testifying, which she said happens in only about 5 percent of custody cases.
"If it gets to that point, there is usually one parent who is extremely unhappy," Murphy said. "And the more complicated the case, the more likely that one parent feels you have been wrong."
Murphy said her testimony was one element of the record on which a Superior Court judge made her custody decision.
In the telling of Shaw and Snow, the West Haven police, DCF, Murphy and a Superior Court judge all ignored evidence that the boy was being abused.
"Maureen Murphy did absolutely nothing," Shaw said.
"The mother has been accused of all kinds of psychological disorders," Snow testified, but he found her credible. "It's easy to tell who is telling the truth."
Legislators struggled with the testimony, saying the witnesses seemed to be suggesting a conspiracy involving Murphy, the police, DCF and a judge.
Shaw said she could not explain why the police took no action in the case, other than a referral to DCF. She said the only action by the child-protection agency was to accuse the mother of "educational neglect."
The third witness was Nowacki, whose grievances had less to do with Murphy than the Judiciary Committee's policies and the court system's approach to family law. He was arrested by Capitol police after refusing to surrender the microphone after his allotted time.
Nowacki, 58, of New Canaan was charged with interference with the General Assembly.
Legislators struggled with the testimony of Shaw and Snow, saying the witnesses seemed to be suggesting a conspiracy involving Murphy, the police, DCF and a judge.
Rep. John Hetherington of New Canaan, the ranking House Republican member of the committee, asked to delay a vote on Murphy's nomination to allow more time to examine the record. Without more time, he warned that some members would vote against confirmation.
"I've never voted no on a judicial nomination. It is not my desire to vote no on this nominee," he said.
Rep. Arthur J. O'Neill, R-Southbury, said if public hearings are to mean anything, the committee must look further into the allegations against Murphy.
The committee rejected a postponement, 21-16.
The full House of Representatives could vote on Murphy's confirmation as early as Thursday.

---

Source URL: http://www.ctmirror.org/story/15528/arrest-and-unexpected-accusations-judicial-confirmation

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE!  USE COMMENT SECTION BELOW!  ALSO, TAKE THE TIME TO COMMENT ON THE ORIGINAL WEBSITE, SEE LINK ABOVE!

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEETING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012 AT 10:00AM!

There will be another meeting of the Judiciary Committee held tomorrow, Wednesday, February 22, 2010 in Room 2B of the LOB.  Apparently, Attorney Maureen McCabe Murphy will be considered for the position of a judge of the Superior Court.  Those of you who have any objections to her appointment should really be there for that.  Some concepts for review that will be under discussion which are relevant to our concerns are the following:

Habeas Reform
Interviewing of Children by the Department of Children and Families During an Investigation
Alimony & Child Support
Domestic Violence Cases and Pending Family Court Matters
Health Insurance Following a Divorce

I am attaching a link to the agenda for this meeting below.  I look forward to seeing some of you guys there!

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/JUDdata/ca/2012CA-00222-R001000JUD-CA.htm

REFLECTIONS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEETING 02/17/12 (corrected)

This morning I sat in my living room and watched a rerun of the Judiciary Committee hearing of last Friday on CTN.  From what I heard, after this hearing, the Committee pretty much voted almost unanimously for all the nominated judges.  Judge Shelden, whose nomination was controversial among advocates, only had three votes against him.

Altogether, from votes like that, it seems as though the whole process is basically rubber stamping.  To a certain extent, it was hardly worth my time or anyone else's time to bother to come and provide testimony.  I do think I benefited from watching the process and having the opportunity to meet with legislators and  fellow advocates during the breaks. However, I doubt I will go to such a hearing again.

Let me give you a little background on your opportunities as citizens during hearings held by the State Legislature.  Members of the public have the opportunity to speak at hearings like this. If you are interested in doing so, you have to sign up before the hearing. If there are going to be a considerable number of folks hoping to provide testimony at a particular hearing, then you are going to want to come really early in the morning to be sure you have the opportunity to speak.

Your testimony can only be three minutes in length. Once you go over three minutes, the bell rings and you have to stop, unless the Chair of the Committee allows you to continue.  During the Judiciary Committee hearings where so few people wished to speak, everyone had a chance to go beyond the 3 minute limit. 

Along with your verbal testimony you provide before the committee, you are also supposed to provide 45 typed copies of your testimony to the committee, which is made available to members of the Committee and made available to the public online. 

I was notified so late about these hearings that I was unable to prepare my testimony for submission.  I then spoke to an Administrative Assistant to the Judiciary Committee at the Legislative Office Building (LOB).  She told me I could email my testimony to her and she would post it on the Judicial Committee website. 

Getting back to the hearings, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez seemed to be the point person for bring up complaints about the various judges and the systems that hold them accountable.  She asked the tough questions. For example, she asked the question of why Judicial Review Council always dismisses complaints against judges. 

She is mostly correct about that.  I have investigated the point and historically out of approximately 100 grievance complaints annually, only one or two are acted upon.  Recently, I received a form letter in response to complaints that I had submitted to the Judicial Review Council which indicates to me they probably didn't even look at them. 

However, if any citizen sent in a complaint about any of the nominees coming before the Committee, then members of the Committee did ask very pointed questions of the nominee about it. Also, the Committee asked specific questions about any complaints about a nominee that citizens sent to the Judiciary Review Council whether they were dismissed or not. Also, the nominees had to fill out a questionaire in advance of the hearing and question #18 of that document asked them to acknowledge any complaints against them. So it isn't as though the Committee was ignoring complaints.  They did challenge the judges on them.  It's just that such complaints clearly had no impact on the final votes on the nominees.

Representative Gonzalez also made the point to the nominees for judge trial referee that sometimes the advanced age of the judges prevents them from absorbing all the information they are receiving in court. She said she is not prejudiced about age, but Judges do have to realize that they are having a significant impact on peoples' lives and if they are too old to do the job, they should have the insight to recognize that.  In addition, she mentioned that she had come to watch some of the nominees in their Courtrooms and she said it sometimes looked as though they were sleeping.  Still, again, despite these criticisms, the judges were voted in pretty much unanimously.

Thinking about these hearings, I was amazed at how many empty seats there were throughout the proceedings.  There are 45 members on this Committee, but during the majority of the hearings only 6 to 8 legislators were participating.  Of course, I understand that there are other hearings taking place simultaneous to this hearing, but you would think that more people than that would show up for these nominations.  On the other hand, since these hearings, as I've said, appear to consist of nothing more than a rubber stamping of Governor Malloy's nominations, why bother?   

The legislators there were Representative Ronald Coleman who co-chaired the meeting, providing a very dignified and intelligent presence, along with Representative Gerald Fox.  I am noticing that Rep. Fox has been honored for his work by the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV).  He is a member of the Speaker's Task Force on Domestic Violence and was central to sponsoring a new law protecting the victims of domestic violence which took effect on October 1, 2011. 

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez continued with her challenges throughout the hearings, even bringing up the point which all of us have thought of that the Judiciary Committee is largely made up of attorneys who will later practice before the judges whose nominations they will confirm.  No matter what, State Senator Edward Meyer, the Assistant Majority Leader, made it a point to smile a lot at each judge and say, "Thank you for your service." 

Senator Edwin A. Gomes, the Deputy Majority Leader asked several questions about foreclosure and mediation proceedings. He is also Chair of the Select committee on Housing. When members of the public came to provide testimony regarding their problems with their homes, he told them to check in with his office and he would help them later.  That appeared to be a very caring and thoughtful response.

Representative Ernest Hewett was very kind in acknowledging how difficult it is for self represented parties to defend themselves in the courtroom, entering a completely unfamiliar environment, and being expected to act according to a whole new set of rules.  He acknowledged that most people don't want to represent themselves, but are often forced to because of many different circumstances, including a lack of finances.  I thought that was very kind of him because it often seems as though lawmakers and attorneys assume that self represented parties are in some way bad, or trying to take advantage of the system, when there is no reason to believe that. 

As a final point, out of all the nominations for new judges, I was very impressed by Judge Sybil Richard, formerly Deputy Corporation Counsel for the City of Stamford, who was nominated for a permanent position as judge on the Superior Court.  I'm really excited by the strengths of character and intellect that she is bringing to her position as judge.

As an aside, related to issues regarding judges and their behavior, for anyone else who is interested there was a Judicial Performance Evaluation Program Advisory Panel Subcommittee on Bias which held its first meeting on July 7, 2011 with media present and a lot of fanfare.  It met again a second time for what turned out to be a final meeting on September 7, 2011 without any media and only one member of the public.  Apparently, it was expected to report its recommendations to the full Judicial Performance Program (JPEP) Advisory Panel at a meeting scheduled for October 2011.  You have to wonder whether its mandate was only to have those two meetings, or whether once the public fanfare was over, the subcomittee ended up being cancelled.

Ten to one the meeting of this subcommittee was a lot of hoopla that led to nothing of consequence.  And my problem is that too many people are satisfied with hoopla rather than system changes of real consequence.  As citizens, we need to hold our judges and our legislators more accountable.  If you don't like judicial bias, if you don't like legislators rubber stamping eight more years of abusive judges, then think about what you can do personally to do something about it.  

Corrected:  Use of term Judiary Review Committee was incorrect.  Should have used the term Judiciary Committee.  All instances of this type have been corrected.

    

JUDICIARY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS RESUME TODAY!

JUDICIARY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS RESUME TODAY AT 10:00AM IN THE LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 2B!

HOW A BILL BECOMES LAW: THE ESSENCE OF SOCIAL CHANGE!

Not happy with the way things are?  Then why don't you try to change or modify the law by submitting bills to the State Legislature.  No, I am not going to give you another rendition of "School House Rock"!  I just want to give you a sense of what the political process is all about.

Here is an overview of information I obtained from the Office of the House Clerk of the CT General Assembly regarding the "Enactment of Bills."  This is how it goes:

First, Members and Members-elect of the General Assembly file proposed bills either to the House or the Senate.  This means that if you want to submit a bill to the State Legislature, you are required to find a Member or a Member-elect who would be willing to file the bill for you.  You can have more than one representative sponsoring a bill if that works better for you. 

At first, proposed bills are not written in statutory language.  Instead, they usually consist of a single paragraph which states the substance of the bill.  

Second, the Member or Member-elect will present the proposed bill to the Clerk of the House or Senate--whichever he belongs to--who will assign a number to the bill.  Next, the bill is sent to the appropriate Committee depending upon the subject matter, and it is there that the bill is translated into legal language.  Keep in mind that there are all sorts of Committees--Committees on Aging, Committees on Appropriations, Banks, Children, Education, etc. etc.  The Committee where the bill ends up can also combine the contents of the bill with another bill, refer the bill to another committee, or let it fail. 

Third, the Committee where the bill is under consideration will then make arrangements for public hearings on the bill and the representative who sponsored the bill will be informed of the date and time of the public hearings on the bill.  Upon request, such notices are also provided to other interested persons.  I'm not sure whose request, to be honest.  Then the notice of the hearing is published in the Legislative Bulletin.  This is the stage at which most of us, i.e. the public, stakeholders, advocates such as myself, etc., etc. will hear about the bill. The public hearing, which is ordinarily held at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, provides an opportunity for folks to speak to legislators about their opinions regarding the bill.  

Four, after the public hearing, the Committee responsible for the bill will meet to decide what to do with it.  This meeting is open to the public.  The options the Committee has are 1) to provide a favorable report indicating that the majority of the committee approves of the bill; 2) to adjust the bill until it is acceptable and then provide a favorable report approving the bill; 3) to vote against the bill; 4) to provide an unfavorable report regarding the bill.  It is unlikely that the General Assembly will vote for a bill that the Committee decides to reject.  So, at this juncture,  the representative (s) sponsoring the bill really has to work hard at eliciting support for the bill or else it won't pass. 

Five, Once the bill has been passed by the Committee with a favorable report, then the bill is referred to the Legislative Commissioner's Office to be checked for constitutionality and consistency with other laws that are already on the books.  Next, the Office of Fiscal Analysis has to evaluate the bill and report on how much money it will cost the State once it is passed.  Finally, the Office of Legislative Research will add a plain English explanation of what the bill is all about.  Then the bill is assigned a calendar number for either the House or the Senate, depending upon where the sponsor of the bill is located.  If the bill passes in the House, then it sent on to the Senate for a vote, or vice versa depending.  If the bill is amended at any point, it must go back to the Legislative Commissioner's Office to be reviewed again.  

Six, if both the House and the Senate pass the bill, then it is sent to the Governor who can 1) sign the bill; 2) veto it; 3) take no action.  If the bill is vetoed by the Governor, it can still become law if both Houses pass the bill by a 2/3 majority. 

This is just a general overview and there are probably other steps which I have missed, but you can get the general idea.

Of course, the bottom line is, you can pass all sorts of bills, but what really counts is how are those bills going to be enforced? 

One way such bills are enforced is when the bills translate into concrete changes in the Connecticut Practice Book.  But even when bills are passed, and there are changes to the Practice Book as a result, if attorneys, judges, and court personnel choose to evade, bypass, or simply disobey the dictates of these bills, it won't matter at all that a bill has been passed. For example, the ADA is a federal law that was passed with great fanfare across the country but is frequently ignored, particularly in family court here in Connecticut. 

The only way to make sure that the courts enforce the Connecticut statutes created by these bills is for advocates to monitor what is happening throughout the state, to keep citizens informed of what is going on through blogging and ongoing communication with the media, and for individual litigants to pursue their cases in court all the way up to the supreme court if necessary in order to make sure that the court system enforces the law. 

What this adds up to is a slow pokey, creepy, crawly way of creating social change. 

The downside of that is that citizens are forced to wait until our policitical and judicial systems are able to implement vital social reform, and as we well know, "justice delayed is justice denied"! 

The upside is that all the various constituencies and interest groups throughout the State have the time and the opportunity to dialogue over the proposed changes and see that such changes are valid and useful and have broad based support before carrying them out. 

And there is a lot to be said for that.  In my view, changes that have been fully discussed, and where everyone has been thoroughly educated regarding the importance and necessity of those changes, have far more chances of succeeding.

LIST OF MEMBERS OF CT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOW JUDGES CONDUCT THEMSELVES?  WANT TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE?  START WITH THE PEOPLE WHO CONFIRMED THEIR APPOINTMENTS ON THE CT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.  FOR A LIST OF ALL THE MEMBERS SEE THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/MemberList.asp?comm_code=JUD

If you were unable to make the public hearings of the CT Judiciary Committee which were held yesterday, but you would still like your voice to be heard, send your testimony to Meredith Blake at the link below and she will post your remarks on the Committee website and make them available to committee members:

meredith.blake@cga.ct.gov

MAJOR ALERT: JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARINGS, TOMORROW AT 10:00AM

Tomorrow at 10AM in the Legislative Office building a series of public hearings will be conducted on a number of judges who have been nominated or re-nominated for confirmation hearings by the Joint Committee on the Legislature.  If the hearings are not completed on Wednesday, they will then continue on Friday.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN ASK QUESTIONS IF YOU SIGN UP IN ADVANCE OF THE START OF THE HEARING FOR ANY OF 20 JUDGES UP FOR NOMINATION.

PROTECTIVE MOTHERS, UNPROTECTED HEARTS, PART II

So how bad is it when it comes to women and their hearts?  Here are the statistics: 

-According to the American Heart Association, "heart disease is the number one killer of women in America." 

-What is even more interesting is the mortality rate of women to men, "Since 1984, more women than men have died each year from heart disease and the gap between men and women's survival continues to widen." 

-More than 42 million women in the United States are living with some form of cardiovascular disease. 

-Women are less likely than men to receive appropriate treatment after a heart attack.
 
-Also, women make up only 27% of participants in all heart-related research studies.  So treatment protocols are largely experimented with on men and then applied to women, even though it cannot and should not be assumed that what works with men will also work with women. 

So what are the physical indications of heart problems in women?

According to the American Heart Association,
"Heart disease - also called cardiovascular disease - is a simple term used to describe several problems related to plaque buildup in the walls of the arteries, or atherosclerosis.  As the plaque builds up, the arteries narrow, making it more difficult for blood to flow and creating a risk for heart attack or stroke."

So what can we do to reduce this plaque and reduce our chances of heart attack? 

The Mayo Clinic recommends five medication-free strategies to help prevent heart disease which  are as follows: 

1.  Don't smoke or use tobacco

Smoking can damage your heart and blood vessels leading to the narrowing of the arteries going to your heart (atherosclerosis).  Also, the nicotine in cigarette smoke makes your heart work harder by narrowing your blood vessels and increasing your heart rate and blood pressure.  Carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke replaces some of the oxygen in your blood.  This leads to higher blood pressure because then your heart has to work harder to supply enough oxygen.

2.  Exercise for 30 minutes each day

Physical activity can reduce your weight and reduce your chances of getting high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes--conditions which can adversely affect your heart.  And getting exercise doesn't have to be expensive.  Just park your car at a long distance from court so you have to walk to get there!  Walk up and down the staircase in the judicial building!

3.  Eat a heart-healthy diet

This means food that is low in cholesterol and salt.  Eat fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products.  Beans and fish such as salmon and mackerel are also good for you.  Avoid processed foods, or pretty much anything purchased in a box.  Have one glass of wine or grape juice a day, and also have a single baby aspirin per day.

4.  Maintain a healthy weight

If it is really hard for you to get out of bed in the morning, if you wheeze and huff when you get up out of a low chair, and if your knees hurt when you have to lift yourself up, you definitely need to lose some of those extra pounds!

5.  Get regular health screenings

Regular blood pressure screenings, blood tests for cholesterol levels, and screenings for diabetes make sense. 

Oh, and always carry a bottle of water with you so you don't get dehydrated! 

Developing a Spiritual Center:  Reducing stress is also vital to heart health, but that is tough to say to protective mothers such as ourselves who face stress every single moment of our lives.  To reduce the effect of stress on our bodies, and most particularly our hearts, we need to learn how to center ourselves spiritually so that we can withstand the wear and tear of ongoing and daily confrontations with the judicial system.  This means developing a relationship with a higher power, adhering to systems of stress reduction such as biofeedback, yoga, or meditation, or whatever helps to nurture our spiritual wellbeing.  Each of us has to find a method that makes sense to us.

There is a book out there with a title that states "Fat is a Feminist Issue".  That's true.  but also, "Heart Health is a Feminist Issue".  Moms, always remember, you are important, not only to yourselves, but also to your children.  Your children are OK as long as you are OK. 

So don't think that everyone else's health comes before your health. Your health comes first.  When you take a flight on an airplane, the stewardess always reminds you that unless you give yourself oxygen first, you may lose consciousness before you can give oxygen to your children.  Likewise, if you don't save your hearts first, you may not live to be able to save your children's.  So start with your hearts first.

ABUSED MOM LOST CUSTODY OF HER CHILD!

JUST ROUNDING UP THE USUAL SUSPECTS! THEY AREN'T HARD TO FIND!

A few years ago, I was bullied into agreeing to having a conflict manager in regard to custody.  For this purpose, the Guardian Ad Litem suggested a few names of potential conflict managers,.  It was hard for me to make a decision about them because I knew nothing about them.  As a result, the attorney I had at the time recommended a certain person from the list the GAL gave me and I agreed to that person simply because I simply had no information on him or her. 

Just for your information, if you are in a similar situation, on this blog, I have recommended going to a law library and looking names up on a search engine in order to get further information.  Unfortunately, at the time I had to make my decision I didn't have that awareness and I only had my attorney to rely on. 

Now, I am having a bit of a laugh because in the course of doing a search on google, I located the name of this Conflict Manager online as part of a panel presentation on the debunked theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome with a considerable number of other panel members I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. 

My first question was, what was my so called attorney who was supposedly acting in my best interests thinking of?  Was she out of her mind recommending this person as a conflict manager?  No, I guess not, just sucking up to the status quo and making things look good for herself. 

Anyway, for your information, let me give you the names of these folks, and just watch how I put this recommendation very carefully.  If you are interested in promoting father's rights or need to have your father's rights protected, if you want to have the mother of your children out on the street and penniless while you get sole custody of the children you have abused, the following professionals would be the best people for you:

1.  Dr. Donald Hiebel, Middletown, CT

2.  Attorney Jeffrey D. Mickelson

3.  Attorney Louis Kiefer

4.  Dr. Kenneth S. Robson

5.  Attorney Debra C. Ruel

6.  Dr. Elizabeth S. Thayer (Of the Infamous so called P.E.A.C.E. Program)

And will someone please explain why Judge Edward J. Dolan was on this panel and why the Hartford County Bar Association was sponsoring it.  Wonders will never cease!

THE FACES OF FAMILY COURT VICTIMS

A CORRUPT JUDGE, FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN PAIN (Sorry about the intro commercial, bear with me to the actual video)