For more information on what is involved, please see the link below:
http://jud.ct.gov/external/super/E-Services/efile/supapp.htm
Showing posts with label CALL OUTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CALL OUTS. Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Monday, April 11, 2016
TO RESPOND TO THE ABC 20/20 PROGRAM "FOOTPRINTS IN THE SNOW", SEE THE INFO BELOW!
CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS!
https://www.facebook.com/ABC2020/posts/10153808776399934
https://www.facebook.com/ABC2020/posts/10153808776399934
Thursday, January 28, 2016
PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT REGARDING A CT JUDGE ON THE DIVORCE ON CONNECTICUT WEBSITE!
For those of you who took the time to send in letters to the Judicial Selection Commission regarding specific judges who are currently under consideration for reappointment, I am happy to post your letters on the Divorce in Connecticut website. Just send a copy of your letter as an attachment to the following email: Slopercathy@gmail.com.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
UPCOMING MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!
Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response
to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence
Tuesday, November 19, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM
Location: Room 2A of the LOB
Monday, November 2, 2015
NEXT MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!
Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence
Tuesday, November 10, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM
Location: Room 2A of the LOB
Monday, October 12, 2015
NEXT MEETING OF TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!
Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence
Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM
Location: Room 2A of the LOB
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
UPCOMING MEETING OF TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!
Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence
Tuesday, October 6, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM
Location: Room 2A of the LOB
Friday, September 11, 2015
NEXT MEETING OF TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!
Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence
Tuesday, September 22, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM
Location: Room 2A of the LOB
Friday, September 4, 2015
NEXT MEETING OF TASK FORCE RE MINORS AND DV!
Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response to Minors
Exposed to Domestic Violence
Wednesday, September 9, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM
Location: Room 2A of the LOB
Monday, June 8, 2015
Saturday, May 16, 2015
ATTENTION: VICTIMS OF JUDGE MAUREEN MURPHY
**URGENT NOTICE**
For those of you who have suffered from having Judge Maureen Murphy violate your due process or human rights in Family Court, we are asking that you file grievances against this judge.
Other parents suffering from Judge Murphy's orders will be filing grievances this week.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
WATCH OUT!: POLICY MAKERS ENCOURAGE CT CITIZENS TO GIVE UP THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS!
In a campaign entitled "B4Stage4", The Mental Health Association of CT and Mental Health America are encouraging CT citizens to step up and get treatment for mental health conditions (see link below).
Keep in mind that if you are stupid enough to get treatment for a mental health disability and end up in court with a custody issue, you will put yourself seriously at risk of losing your children based upon that diagnosis.
Do not be stupid enough to listen to public policy calls to have you receive treatment for your mental illness when the government and state agencies will then use it against you to deny you your fundamental civil rights.
Not only will you experience discrimination in the workplace, you will also experience discrimination in every courtroom in the State of Connecticut--this means the Probate Courts, Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, and Family and Juvenile Courts.
The Connecticut Judicial Branch remains non-compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and also with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Until this changes, you are putting yourself severely at risk if you sign up for mental health treatment or in any way allow yourself or your children to have on record that they have any kind of mental health diagnosis.
See the call for you to give up your precious freedoms in the notice below:
http://directory.ctnewsjunkie.com/event/b4stage4-a-mental-health-policy-forum-with-former-state-rep-paul-gionfriddo/?utm_content=buffer9d7cb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Friday, May 1, 2015
LOOKING FOR WOMEN WHO ARE VICTIMS OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF PAS: SUPPORT GROUP FORMING!
If you have been a victim of false accusations of PAS, PA, or any unnamed syndrome that arises from your reporting of your ex-husband's abuse during your custody battle, please contact Divorce in Connecticut. We are currently forming a support group to assist women who find themselves in this situation.
If your ex-husband has a criminal background that the court is choosing to ignore, if your ex husband is actively engaged in criminal activities that family court simply tolerates, if your ex-husband has physically abused your child and committed domestic violence against you, but you are now required to overlook all that in order to retain access to your child, this group is appropriate for you.
We intend to use this group in order to assist one another with our experience, strength, and hope, and also seek to support fellow victims as we battle our way through the abusive judicial system that continues to aid perpetrators and punish the victims. Group support will be online and in person.
Contact Email: Slopercathy@aol.com
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
THE HONORABLE CHASE T. ROGERS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR REAPPOINTMENT BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!!
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW
I. To be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
1. The Honorable Chase T. Rogers of Old Lyme
II. To be a Judge of the Superior Court
1. The Honorable James W. Abrams of Meriden
2. The Honorable Robin Pavia of Easton
3. The Honorable Robert F. Vacchelli of Glastonbury
III. To be a Judge Trial Referee
1. The Honorable William B. Rush of Fairfield
1. The Honorable Chase T. Rogers of Old Lyme
II. To be a Judge of the Superior Court
1. The Honorable James W. Abrams of Meriden
2. The Honorable Robin Pavia of Easton
3. The Honorable Robert F. Vacchelli of Glastonbury
III. To be a Judge Trial Referee
1. The Honorable William B. Rush of Fairfield
Friday, March 27, 2015
PLEASE SIGN THE CHANGE.ORG PETITION IN SUPPORT OF BILL #5505!
Please let the CT Legislature know that the citizens can not tolerate willful violations of our rights or our laws by the employees and contractors of the Judicial Branch. Public corruption is so rife that the US Department of Justice has opened a widespread investigation:
New Haven Register reported, "The Task Force will also focus on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are distributed annually by federal and state agencies to ensure that taxpayer funds reach their intended recipients without corrupt interference."
Tell the legislature to pass Raised Bill 5505 to start protecting children and parents from illegal and unethical practices!
Raised Bill 5505 includes some excellent provisions:
*Solidifies in statute that guardians ad litem do not have immunity.
*Removes the possibility of judges ordering supervised visitation without substantiation of abuse or neglect.
*Allows litigants to choose any licensed, qualified mental health provider, including those covered by their insurance.
*Disallows unskilled guardians ad litem from testifying on behalf of mental health professionals.
Connecticut residents who need access to courts for divorce or custody matters are not told that the Judicial Branch is running an illegal corporation through their offices and courthouses, Association of Family and Concillation Courts (AFCC). We are not told that their business model is to profit by fixing cases to maximize funding mandates over justice. But they are signatories to this agreement to do exactly that:
Safe, happy children do not generate billing for unethical professionals, as they do not need services. Children placed in dangerous homes, however, generate endless billing for many professionals, all AFCC affiliates, and all appointed onto cases by AFCC judges.
Judges almost always appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL), on the premise of representing the best interests of the children of divorcing parents, even though there has never been authority in statute for these appointments in family court; only for orphaned or abandoned children in their dependency cases. Informed consent is never disclosed or solicited in this constitutional violation of rights to parent our children where GAL appointment entirely usurps parental rights.
AFCC judges appoint AFCC members who have gone through thirty-six (36) hours of AFCC-formulated and sponsored training to become GALs. As a comparison, 36 hours of training at a major fast food chain qualifies a person to take orders at the front counter or work at the front counter. Hospital volunteers who only deliver reading material to patients and cheer them up spend months in training. At a major coffeehouse franchise, 36 hours of training doesn't qualify an employee to do anything at all.
Unskilled GALs are automatically considered expert witnesses by the courts who appoint them. Judge Solomon testified last year that judges cannot function in family cases without the help of GALs, because without them they have two sides who present different views. A judge's only job is to find facts in an adversarial process. If they cannot perform their own role without these entirely unskilled witnesses, why would they be considered qualified to be a judge? The service that GALs do provide the Judges, is to outsource their fact-finding responsibility and thereby circumvent due process rules. This removes it off the record, without any transparency, and without any chance of a parent defending against the perjury of the unskilled GAL.
If you think a judge would never knowingly place a child in a dangerous home, read about the tragic Joshua Komisarjevsky custody case here:
Courts routinely solicit and hear testimony from GALs in lieu of treaters and evaluators, regarding their findings. GALs are in no way whatsoever qualified by 36 hours of training to interpret or represent medical or psychological findings of professionals in those fields. In case after case, GALs have perjured themselves even about simple facts of a child's life. They also routinely lied to courts about violent parents, safety hazards, sexual abuse disclosures, injuries to children. Children in safe homes do not pad bills. Children in danger are a cash-cow. Children are removed from fit, loving, safe parents under the guise of their "best interests". Case outcomes consistently show that judges' and GALs' interpretation of "best interests" is whatever brings most profit to AFCC members.
In almost all cases labeled with the misnomer "high-conflict", where the AFCC is able to maximize their cash-flow, judges appoint supervised visitation for one or both parents. Judges in family court, a court of equity, regularly make quasi-criminal findings that isolate children from good parents - usually the primary attachment figure - without due process, and without any findings of unfitness. They do this on the recommendation of the unskilled GALs. These supervised visitation providers are likewise unskilled, untrained, unqualified, and unregulated. Some are centers run by the same evaluators appointed by the court who recommend the supervision they will profit from. Others are random unqualified individuals, several of whom have been known by the state to have committed crimes.
The supreme court has ruled the supervised visitation providers have a fiduciary responsibility. But judges who appoint supervised visitation repeatedly fail to state the reasons for the order, the duties of the supervisor, or specify the terms of the contract for service. Hourly rates can be over $100, with cases costing parents more than $150,000 per year. These orders last for years, effectively severing parent-child relationship, as the perfectly fit parent runs out of money to afford to see their child. Entire families are bankrupted by this racket, without any findings of unfitness at all.
With GAL bills often totaling $50,000 to $100,000 and even more, for each case, GALs have consistently failed to produce tax identification to comply with federal reporting laws. Some GALs have been found to be billing more than ten cases for the same hours. In fact the judges, Office of Chief Public Defender, and Comptroller have also stated they do not issue 1099 forms for privately paid GALs. They refuse to disclose publicly funded GAL bills, even to the parents:
Supervision providers also routinely fail to disclose their tax reporting information, and do not comply with federal tax reporting laws. There is no office that keeps records of supervised visitation transactions, contracts, or tracks orders for them. Supervision providers are entirely unregulated.
GALs are entirely unregulated. All of the many complaints filed about their unethical actions are dismissed by fellow AFCC members who sit on grievance panels. They refer complaints back to the same judges who order these unskilled, unqualified, unethical GALs in the first place, in many cases the judges who conducted their specious training. Currently, GALs believe that they are immune from any legal consequences of their unethical and illegal actions. However, Gross v Rell states that GALs are not immune for actions outside statutory authority, which family GALs have none, and never for malfeasance. GALs operate without oversight. Why would any profession demand complete immunity from all liability for their actions, even illegal, unethical, or illicit? Even doctors, who are literally responsible for people's lives, no not have, expect, or demand immunity from harm they might cause.
*With all the current debate about raising taxes and cutting spending, tell the legislature that we demand state-appointed workers to be held to the same reporting laws as everyone else. Tell them to include a provision in 5505 that all GAL payments must include tax reporting information and the issuance of a 1099.
*Tell your representatives to add a provision that all GALs must charge no more than state rates, which has already been determined to be the best interest of the child. $55 per hour for 36 hours of training is a large salary for unskilled work. Charging $300 or $400 per hour for unskilled work is obscene.
*GALs are not immune from destroying children's entire lives. They are not immune from federal tax reporting laws. They are not immune from perjury laws. They are not immune from racketeering laws. Tell your legislature to codify this truth clearly in statute.
*Tell your representatives to add a provision that eliminates the automatic expert status of entirely unqualified people who have only 36 hours of AFCC profit training.
*Ask your lawmakers to add a provision to disqualify GALs from testifying about any professional findings or giving an opinion. They are fact witnesses only.
*Tell you legislators to specify penalties for perjury by GALs, visitation supervisors, and all other state-appointed witnesses.
*Tell you representative to include in this bill a requirement for judges to state on the record the reason for ordering supervision of a fit parent. They must specify the scope of services, duties and liabilities of the supervisor and the company they are ordering, and provide a terms of contract and background check on the record.
*For the safety of all CT children, tell your representatives to include a requirement for background checks of all visitation supervisors and an insurance requirement for all supervised visitation providers, exactly like licensed day care providers. This includes liability, disappearance, injury to a child, anti-molestation insurance, and death of a child in their care.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION (LINK BELOW) ON CHANGE.ORG
https://www.change.org/p/eric-coleman-william-tong-members-of-the-judiciary-committee-please-support-the-children-of-ct-by-supporting-hb-5505?recruiter=37854873&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive
Monday, March 9, 2015
IMPORTANT BILL ON SUPERVISED VISITATION, GALS , AND COURT ORDERED MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UP FOR CONSIDERATION THIS WEEK BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!
There will be a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 10:30 a.m., at the LOB in room 2E, in regard to Committee Bill No. 5505: An Act Concerning Family Court Proceedings. Please make time to present your testimony in support of this bill. The language of this bill includes important safeguards against:
1. GAL Abuse
2. The frivolous imposition of unnecessary supervised visitation
3. Forced mental health treatment for yourself and your child
The wording of the bill is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 815, 815a, 815e, 815j, 815p, 815t or 815y of the general statutes, a court shall not order that a parent have supervised visitation with his or her child, unless such court finds, based upon the evidence presented to the court, that such parent: (1) Has engaged in an act of neglect or abuse that has been substantiated by the Department of Children and Families; (2) has no established relationship with the child with whom visitation is sought; (3) has engaged in criminal conduct that presents a potential risk to the health, safety or well-being of a child; or (4) suffers from a severe mental disability that presents a potential risk to the health, safety or well-being of a child.
Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) A person aggrieved by the action of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child or children, appointed under section 46b-54 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, may bring a civil action seeking appropriate relief, including equitable relief, damages, or both, in the superior court for the judicial district in which such counsel or guardian ad litem for a minor child was appointed. If such civil action results in a judgment for the plaintiff, the court shall award the plaintiff all costs of the action, including such attorney's fees as the court may allow to the plaintiff. The court shall not enter any order under this section that would require a plaintiff to pay the costs, expenses or attorney's fees of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child named as a defendant in such civil action. It shall not be a defense to such civil action that the defendant is entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial immunity.
Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) (a) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a parent undergo treatment or an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the court shall allow the parent to select the licensed health care provider who is to provide such treatment or evaluation.
(b) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a child undergo treatment or an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the court shall permit the parent or legal guardian of such child to select the licensed health care provider who is to provide such treatment or evaluation. If two parents do not agree on the selection of a licensed health care provider to provide such treatment or evaluation to a child, the court shall continue the matter for two weeks to allow the parents an opportunity to jointly select the licensed health care provider. If after the two-week period, the parents have not reached an agreement on the selection of a licensed health care provider, the court shall select such provider after giving due consideration to the health insurance coverage and financial resources available to such parents. In the case of two parents who cannot agree on the selection of a licensed health care provider to provide such treatment or evaluation to the child, if a parent incurs expenses as a result of permitting the child to be treated or evaluated by such provider, without the express written consent of the other parent, the parent who permitted such treatment or evaluation to occur shall be solely responsible for the costs incurred for such treatment or evaluation.
(c) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a parent or child undergo an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the results of such evaluation shall be submitted to the court by such provider not later than thirty days after the date of completion of the evaluation.
Sec. 4. Subsection (e) of section 46b-54 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):
(e) [Counsel] Except as provided in this subsection, counsel or a guardian ad litem for the minor child or children shall be heard on all matters pertaining to the interests of any child, including the custody, care, support, education and visitation of the child, so long as the court deems such representation to be in the best interests of the child. To the extent practicable, when hearing from such counsel or guardian ad litem, the court shall permit such counsel or guardian ad litem to participate at the beginning of the matter, at the conclusion of the matter or at such other time the court deems appropriate so as to minimize legal fees incurred by the parties due to the participation of such counsel or guardian ad litem in the matter. Such counsel or guardian ad litem [may] shall not be heard on a matter pertaining to a medical diagnosis or conclusion concerning a minor child made by a health care professional treating such child. [when (1) such counsel or guardian ad litem is in possession of a medical record or report of the treating health care professional that indicates or supports such medical diagnosis or conclusion; or (2) one or more parties have refused to cooperate in paying for or obtaining a medical record or report that contains the treating health care professional's medical diagnosis or conclusion. If] Instead, if the court deems it to be in the best interests of the minor child, such health care professional shall be heard on matters pertaining to the interests of any such child, including the custody, care, support, education and visitation of such child.
CALL YOUR LEGISLATORS AND REQUEST A POSTPONEMENT ON COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ' REAPPOINTMENT!
In the light of recent conflicts of interests that have come to light in regard to DCF Commissioner Joette Katz' position as Chair of the Editorial Board of the CT Law Tribune and the troubling high incidents of deaths of infants on her watch, we are asking you to call your CT legislator's today to request postponement of Commissioner Katz reappointment until we can obtain more clarification regarding Katz' recent actions and involvements. If you are not sure of the name of your representative, please click on the link below to obtain that information:
Together we can find solutions to CT Family Court corruption and DCF violations of parental rights.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
OVERVIEW OF RULES COMMITTEE MEETING, FEBRUARY 10, 2015
The Rules Committee of the Connecticut Judicial Branch met on Tuesday, February 10, 2015.
During the meeting the Committee considered three proposals by Coalition members.
The first proposal submitted by Ms. Susan Skipp was that the "Connecticut Practice Book" rules 25-60a are inadequate to ensure the confidentiality and privacy of medical records and psychiatric evaluations. The Committee tabled that proposal until it can hear further from the Family Commission.
The second proposal submitted by Anonymous suggested that the Committee adjust the "Connecticut Practice Book" to institute a policy of requiring that transcripts and memorandum of decision redact information on children's medical conditions and treatment. Again this proposal was tabled until the Committee could hear from the Family Commission.
The third proposal submitted by Ms. Marissa Ringel was to adjust "Connecticut Practice Book" 25-70 to include a new rule of practice requiring an evidentiary hearing prior to an order of supervised visitation and also requiring that supervised visitation be limited to a three month period. The Committee decided not to act on this last proposal any further.
There were several other proposals worth reviewing and to look at those, please click on the link below:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/rules/rules_min_021015.PDFThere were several other proposals worth reviewing and to look at those, please click on the link below:
The next meeting of this Committee will be held on Monday, March 16, 2015, at 2:00p.m. in the Supreme Court courtroom, Supreme Court Building, 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
CORRUPTCT SPONSORS RALLY SATURDAY AT CAPITOL: DCF FAMILY COURT VICTIMS UNITE!
CORRUPTCT sponsors rally at state capitol for DCF Victims, Family Court Victims and Victims of State perpetrated medical abuse!
Be There! Saturday, February 28, 2015, 1:00 - 5:00
For more details, please click on the link below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)