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.
Showing posts with label CASES IN THE NEWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CASES IN THE NEWS. Show all posts

Thursday, September 12, 2013

REPORT ON APPELLATE COURT HEARING ON JOE WATLEY AND KARIN HASEMANN "PREDICTIVE NEGLECT" CASE!

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, I went to the courthouse at 75 Elm Street to hear the Appellate Court argument in Joe Watley and Karin Hasemann's custody case against DCF.
 
As you may know, Joe and Karin lost custody of their children in 2008 based upon the doctrine of "predictive neglect" meaning that while they had not actually neglected their children there was a possibility that they might neglect them. 
 
When I arrived, the proceedings had not yet begun.  However, Mr. Watley was speaking to Attorney Thomas Smith, the ADA Contact person for the Appellate Court.  Mr. Watley had requested that the Designated Responsible Employee responsible for ensuring compliance with Title II of the ADA in the Judicial Branch be present in order to insure that the Appellate Court was compliant with the ADA.  In response to that request, the Appellate Court wrongly sent Attorney Thomas Smith who is only an ADA Contact person. 
 
The person who has final authority and the one who should have been present that day according to the ADA is the Designated Responsible Employee and that person, to my knowledge, is ordinarily Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines.  However, the Court, instead of sending Sandra, sent Attorney Smith instead, which created considerable confusion as Joe and his supporters attempted to decipher what was going on. 
 
I would consider it typical that after Joe specifically requested the Designated Responsible Employee to be present, instead of complying with the request, the Court sent Attorney Smith who is totally the wrong person. 
 
After that, another advocate stepped forward and requested that Attorney Smith provide to Joe a written notice of procedural safeguards.  Apparently, any state agency that receives federal funding, which our Judicial Branch does, must comply with Section 504 requirements which includes that people receiving services under the ADA should be provided with such a notice.  Attorney Smith had no such notice. 
 
So Attorney Smith was clearly ill prepared--he had no idea why he was there and he didn't have the notifications he is required to have available once he arrived.  Attorney Smith did have in his hands a brochure prepared by the branch entitled "A Guide to Understanding the Americans With Disabilities Act" which is a new information sheet about the ADA.  See the following link:
 
 
However, I didn't see him actually give it to Joe.  That is unfortunate because the brochure is a new document that the Branch produced recently and it is very helpful in providing an overview of the ADA as it is implemented in the CT Judicial Branch. 
 
To be fair, I think that the Connecticut Judicial Branch continues to make baby steps in the right direction towards implementing the ADA.  It has done a lot in terms of upgrading the ADA webpage on the Connecticut Judicial Website and should get credit for that.  As I said, we still have a long way to go but these are some good first steps, just not in time to meet Joe's needs. 
 
Not long after that, the court was brought into session.  There were three judges considering the case--Judge Alvord, Judge Lavine, and Judge Peters. 
 
As you know, in the Supreme Court hearing in this matter last year, the Court determined that the wrong standard had been used for the purpose of establishing "predictive neglect".  Instead of using the standard of "fair preponderance of the evidence", the Supreme Court said the Superior Court should have used the standard of "more likely than not."  Only you hairsplitters know the difference between those standards. 
 
Be that as it may, as I predicted, all that happened as a result of this Supreme Court decision was that the case was returned to Superior Court where Judge Keller wrote a 180 page decision,  an extraordinarily number of pages for a document of this kind, stating that the old facts of the case also met the newly instituted standard of review for predictive neglect.  Thus, our presence that day in Appellate Court.
 
Nonsensically, this case has been bouncing from Superior Court to Appellate Court to Supreme Court and back down again for years. 
 
Each party in the case was considered separately.  To start with Joe's attorney stood up and presented his case.  He stated that it was wrong that Joe was never given the opportunity to be considered as a parent separately, particularly since there was no evidence that he himself had ever neglected the children.  
 
While there was a finding that Joe and Karin were together and were unlikely to separate, Joe's Attorney stated that there was insufficient evidence to support that conclusion.  At that point, one Judge asked whether it was Joe's responsibility to present that argument.  The attorney responded that the burden is on the department to make a proper inquiry.  And he did point out that in June 2006, Joe had spoken to Miss Skinner of DCF and expressed a willingness to parent alone. 
 
Judge Alvort repeatedly kept asking whether all defective terminations should be undone based on Joe's case.  The attorney responded quite rightly that he was only there to discuss Joe's case at the moment, but this response did not satisfy the Judge and she kept on repeating the question. That Judge came across a lot like that of a kindergarten teacher asking a child, "what if everyone in the class did that naughty thing you just did?" and I found it somewhat offensive.  This is not kindergarten.  This is about the fundamental right of a father to be a parent. 
 
In addition, it seems to me that if the government made a mistake it should be more concerned with correcting that mistake rather than thinking about how to avoid the consequences of having made one.  The judge's question, therefore, came across as begrudging and insensitive.
 
Finally, Joe's Attorney mentioned that a 2006 evaluation written by Dr. Humphrey indicated that the father had a bond with his children, sufficient parenting skills, and also a willingness to parent. 
 
Seriously, what more could DCF want! 
 
The Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Vitelli then spoke up.  He faulted Joe Watley for being on disability due to a back injury, and also suggested the back injury was fake.  I found that pretty offensive second guessing a medical doctor's determination without any credible evidence.  But isn't that what it is all about in Court, smearing a person's reputation without a single shred of evidence.  
 
Mr. Vitelli then spoke in gloomy tones about "the knife incident" where, as I later learned, Joe Watley had taken a knife away from his nephew who was waving it around inappropriately.  Then he returned it to the rack. 
 
The attorney also cited Mr. Watley for leaving the state with Karin when the couple were going to have a second child. I am not sure what Joe was supposed to do when his partner was just about to give birth and insisting on leaving the state.  He did what he thought would protect her as well as the child.  We can all criticize in hindsight.  Plus, as far as I know, there is no law against travelling!
 
Primarily, the big problem seemed to be that Joe did not do what DCF wanted him to do.  He didn't knuckle under.  He didn't behave in a way that was compliant. 
 
I'd pretty much say that all of these issues came across as quite petty.  There was nothing in this recital of wrongs that came across as endangering anyone.  No crimes, no substance abuse, no driving accidents, no abused pets--nothing. 
 
Next, Karin's attorney stood up to make his case.  His point was that Karin had been discriminated against based upon Title II of the ADA.  He asked why no one made a request for an ADA Coordinator to assist Karin at DCF.  He also cited that fact that an ADA Coordinator was not used during the termination proceedings with DCF. 
 
When the judge asked why Karin didn't get one for herself, the attorney responded quite rightly that it is up to the Court to offer services on its own initiative. 
 
Again, as with Joe Watley, the attorney emphasized Karin's good character.  The condition she has was the result of a benign brain tumor that was removed.  As he put it, "Her situation wasn't of her own making." 
 
Karin's attorney also stated that Karin had a condition which is a highly specialized area of medicine which required a more sophisticated response than DCF was able or informed enough to provide.   He indicated that DCF did not provide any meaningful treatment for Karin and did not provide treatment that addressed her cognitive issues.  He said this was not fair to Karin. 
 
In essence, Karin's attorney stated, "Had there been an ADA Coordinator in place, this mistake would have been prevented.  The Coordinator could have assisted in finding the right services.  If this had been done, she might have been stabilized."  Of course, this is all based upon DCF paid professionals who were paid to find a need for stabilization.  It would have been interesting to find a professional independent of DCF.
 
Unfortunately, when the judge asked if ADA Coordinators are doing this in any other state, the attorney responded with some vague comment about Hawaii.  Of course, just because no state is implementing the ADA properly, this does not excuse them!  Of course, I don't think it is so much about what an ADA Coordinator could have done, so much as it is about finding the kind of treatment which is specifically addressed to the medical condition that the client has.  That was not done.  It appeared that DCF wanted Karin to agree to talk therapy that is more appropriate for those with substance abuse problems which Karin does not have.
 
The Assistant Attorney General (AAG) then spoke and said that Karin was unwilling and unable to engage in DCF reunification despite the fact that a myriad of services were provided.  From the beginning to the end, the AAG stated, Karin refused to acknowledge that she had a deficiency. 
 
In regard to an ADA coordinator, the AAG asked, "What would that ADA coordinator do?" as if it was one great big puzzle.  From what I gather, an ADA Coordinator would insure compliance with the ADA, but don't ask me--I'm not in charge. 
 
Apparently, Karin and Joe submitted complaints stating that DCF and the CHRO had discriminated against them, but these agencies were cleared.  Of course, they always are, no matter how discriminatory and noncompliant they are!
 
Joe and Karin were also faulted for not stating what their disability was.  But as far as I know, they are not required to, certainly not in open court.  All they should have to do is request a modification and that modification should be provided. 
 
Once outside the courtroom, we had an interesting conversation.  Joe Watley said to me, what is this stuff about we have to receive treatment for our disability and recover from it in order to get permission to be a parent.  When you have a blind person, you don't say you can't be a parent until you stop being blind. 
 
You don't say to someone in a wheelchair, you can be a parent once you are able to get around without a wheelchair, you don't tell someone who is deaf that once you regain your hearing you can be a parent. 
 
Why is there this emphasis in mental illness that you must remove the condition rather than accommodate it or simply provide the supports that are required in order to function?  I must say, I totally agree with that perspective.  
 
What will be the outcome to this Appellate argument?  I can't say.  If it passes, then I'd guess the case will go back to Superior Court.  If it does not pass, then it will go up to the Supreme Court in the ongoing game of judicial musical chairs we have seen take place in this case before.  
 
Game.  That's the right term. 
 
This is group of people who have been trained in caring for children--DCF--and another group trained to mete out justice--judges, attorneys--and yet all they are really doing is playing childish games with this family, with Joe, with Karin, and with their children who have a natural, fundamental human right to live with the parents they are biologically and emotionally linked to, and always will be no matter what the barriers--I mean, just look at the lengths adoptive children go to in order to find their birth parents--yet they are being denied that right.  
 
One day the Watley children are going to grow up, they are going to discover the truth, and like that famous victim of the Salem Witch trials, Sarah Good, turn to these judges and say, "God will give you blood to drink!"  And I am sure one day He will.

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/11/open-letter-regarding-watley-case-from.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-watley-decision-sc-1895118952.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/joe-watley-on-dangers-of-therapeutic.html

 

Saturday, August 10, 2013

NEW FROM CORRUPTCT: JAMAAL JACOB BREAKS SILENCE ON THE LAURIE ROTH SHOW!

NEW UPDATE ON THE JAMAAL JACOB CASE AT CORRUPT CT.  CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK FOR DIRECT INFORMATION FROM CORRUPTCT OR CONTINUE READING BELOW:

 
 
http://www.corruptct.com/corrupt/jamaal-jacob-breaks-silence-onthe-laurie-roth-show/

 

Jamaal Jacob has finally spoken out after months of silence, he captured the hearts of many when he appeared on corruptct. While many wondered and worried about what happened, why the sudden silence and where was the child.

 
 

As he has shared the child is still not home, Jamaal continues to speak out not only for what has been done to his family but for others as well, encouraging parents to break the silence. 

 
 

Jamaal spoke about the Torrington Connecticut Department of Children and families and what they have done, removing his child without a court order. Please support Jamaal in his fight for getting his child home where she belongs, leave a comment and please click the link below and share it.

 
 
http://www.jamaaljacobfamily.com/

 
 
 
Thank you Dr. Laurie Roth, for all her stories, visit her website at: 
 
 
www.therothshow.com
 
 
For the Interview with Jamaal Jacob on The Roth Show click on the following link:

 
 
http://therothshow.com/2013/08/kids-are-being-yanked-from-homes-money-is-made-and-families-are-lost/

 
 
Stealing children is a nation wide concern, how do WE stop it? What happened to the rights of parents, why is this agency immune to our civil and constitutional rights?

 
 
WE the people need to speak out, stop allowing this agency DCF,CPS,DCYS,DCFS, any department name that is after our children.

 
 
The child protection agencies are not out to “protect” children they are stealing them, silence has given them the power to continue to steal them. Praying for all the children that have been stolen from their families and fighting for each and every one to bring them home.

 
 
If you would like to tell your story please contact corruptct at info@corruptct.com or 1-855-die-free
 

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

MOTHER GAINS CUSTODY OF CHILDREN WHOSE FATHER MOLESTED THEM!

In a case where it appeared the Court intended to hand over full custody of children to a father, an alleged child molester, the attention of Fox News led to a complete reversal in the case.  Mother appears in court and obtains full custody of her children.  See more at the link below:
 

Saturday, February 16, 2013

PART V: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE LYNDA MUNRO MAKES UP THE LAW AS SHE GOES ALONG!

I just have to tell you before I go into my blog here.  I was looking up the Skipp-Tittle case and  found out that Shawn Tittle has not paid outstanding tuition bills for the Montessori School the children were in last year.  The school is going to civil court to get the money.  You see, all the while that the trial court is talking about what a great guy Shawn Tittle is, and how he should have sole custody because he loves the children so much, he is really busy not meeting his obligations to them! 

Furthermore, this is a man with a lengthy history of alcohol and substance abuse, an equally lengthy history of mistreating women.  And he is a man who was known to have  carried on affairs during  marriage, and to have been indifferent to the needs of his children.   
 
Given that situation, how does Judge Lynda Munro justify a decision like this denying a mother any access to her children? 
 
If you will look at page 3 of the Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 under "Legal Standard", Judge Munro explains it as follows:  "the court looks to the judgment orders to determine whether they remain in the chidlren's best interest, or, were not in the best interest of the children at the time they were entered."
 
Wait a minute.  "Were not in the best interest of the children at the time they were entered."  Where did that come from?  I have never heard of that standard before--that is a big enough loophole to drive a mack truck through it.  That kind of standard pretty much adds up to saying that custody can  be changed if the trial judge feels like it.  But what happened to the rule I was always told about, that judges are not allowed to reverse another judges' ruling. 

Next there is the standard that I am more familiar with, the concept that custody can be changed if it is proven that there has been a substantial change in circumstances.  As Judge Munro puts it, "it is pertinent for the trial court to inquire as to what, if any, new circumstances warrant a modification of the existing order."

Why? 

Because "the trial court's discretion includes only the power to adapt the order to some distinct and definite change in the circumstances or conditions of the parties."  It is not, Judge Munro cautions, an opportunity to "retry issues already decided...or to allow the parties to use a motion to modify as an appeal." 
 
In other words, "Its inquiry is necessarily confined to a comparison between the current conditions and the last court order."  Once the court has determined that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, then the Judge must make his or her custody decision based upon the best interests of the child standard.  It is after this point that my credulity gets strained.  If there is one thing Susan Skipp's attorney stated repeatedly, it is that from the date of dissolution on March 28, 2011 up until the trial in August 2012, there really was no change in circumstances. 
 
For instance, the Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 includes sufficient narrative to indicate very clearly that both Shawn Tittle and Susan Skipp do not get along very well.  Both parties weren't getting along with one another at the time of dissolution, which is why there was so much detail regarding how the parties were not supposed to talk about one another in front of others, and that situation continued on up to the time of trial. 

The situation might have improved had Dr. Sidney Horowitz, Dr. Howard Krieger, and the GAL, Mary Brigham actually done the jobs they were hired to do.  Instead, the first two were so busy sucking money out of the health insurance company with their schemes, and the latter was so focused on charging up more money, they couldn't be bothered.  In addition, they were having too much fun collecting as much evidence they could find in order to deny Susan Skipp custody of her children that they didn't do anything to reduce the conflict and focus on improving the lives of the children. 
 
Susan Skipp is a strong willed person who has no problem stating what she thinks and challenging what she believes is wrong.  This was true at the time of dissolution, and it was still true at the time of trial.  So was there any substantial change in circumstances?  No.  So there was no legal basis for a change in custody. 
 
The reason why Judge Lynda Munro proceeded to make a change in the custody nonetheless is -- you've guessed it!  She determined that, in her view, Susan Skipp had committed Parental Alienation.  As Judge Munro states on page 9, "defendant has been coaching the children and alienating them from plaintiff [father]."  And here again on page 11, Judge Munro accuses Susan of "actively grooming [the children] for alienation from their father.", and on page 14, "Ms. Skipp not only does not seek to advance the chidlren's relationship with their father, she has steadfastly sought to undermine it."  and it goes on and on. 

Of course, the problem is that when women legitimately bring up how they  and their children have been abused during a marriage, the trial court generally attempts to invalidate those disclosures by describing them as alienation.  What the trial court is really saying here to women is that they want Susan and women like her to be silent about the abuse.  But this is the modern world, not the dark ages.  We have the "one billion rising compaign", and as women, we will no longer be silent about abuse.  
 
Did Judge Munro have the opportunity to learn about the abuse?  It is pretty clear that no matter how much evidence Susan Skipp presented in regard to Shawn Tittle's abuse, not only of herself but also of the children, Judge Munro insisted on stating it didn't exist.  In fact, while I read the Memorandum of Decision I sometimes wondered if I had been at the same trial. 
 
It is also important to note that, currently in Connecticut parental alienation is not a legal basis for changing custody from one parent to the other.  This is why my colleagues are working on drafting PAS legislation which they intend to present eventually to the judiciary committee--because it doesn't yet exist.  How is it that Judge Munro is using parental alienation as the basis for her decision when legally speaking she isn't allowed to do so.  And why is it that, you will quickly see if you read my other discussions of similar cases, there are so many other Judges who have also used parental alienation as the basis for a change of custody when there is still, in Connecticut, no legal grounds whatsoever for doing such a thing. 
 
What I find particularly troubling about Susan Skipp's case, and those similar to it, is the fact that the trial court, the attorneys, and the judges so clearly deny such women custody because they are strong, intelligent women.  If a woman litigant in a family court case ever begins to hear how intelligent she is, that is a major reason to be alarmed.  Use of that  term in family court in describing a mother is an indication that they dislike you intensely and will do all that they can to destroy you.  The spin on the definition of the word "intelligent" as they use it is to imply a kind of wicked, evil intelligence.  Thus, Judge Munro calls Susan "shrewd" as if the intelligence is solely for the purposes of deceitfulness. 
 
Simply put, family court finds any woman's intelligence a threat.  I would suspect that if you did a study that among the women who have been denied custody you will find a considerable number of professional women--teachers, filmmakers, scholars, executives, and small businesswomen.  In 1991, The Connecticut Task Force on Gener, Justice and the Courts determined that there was widespread bias against women in the Connecticut Judicial System.  Part of the recommended solution was to hire more women judges. 
 
Unfortunately, in doing so, what Connecticut did was locate the most radically anti-female attorneys they could find and appointed them to the bench.  In many regards, these newly appointed women judges--gender traitors, as I call them--have been more vicious and more vengeful towards women than any male judge would consider being.  This has been a very successful strategy the Connecticut Judicial Branch has utilized in order to maintain the oppression of women. 
 
My word to those women judges is--shame on you.  You owe your jobs to us, to the women who fought so hard to get those jobs for you.  You have a responsibility to give back to the citizens who put you where you are and gave you the privileges you are currently enjoying.  It is time to give back to the women who gave you your jobs in the first place.  
 
Susan Skipp lost custody of her children and Judge Lynda Munro placed her on supervised visitation. Of course, I have advised her, as has everyone else who knows anything about the Connecticut Judicial System not to participate in this supervised visitation.  Why? 

Supervised visitation is for violent criminals or parents who have physicially abused their children.  Susan is a good mother, a teacher, and a citizen who is well respected in the community.  She should not be subjected to this kind of unjust humiliation in front of her own children.

Also, essentially because such programs are simply used as a means to collect more falsified documentation which will then be used to prevent Susan from ever seeing her children.  But even if Susan cooperated and attempted to use a visitation service, the likelihood is that the cost is so prohibitive that Susan would not be able to use it for very long. 
 
The result is that Susan has not seen her children since this judgment came out.  I can only imagine how awful it is for two young children--9 and 12--to be in a situation where they are unable to see their mother who has always been their primary caretaker.  But I know that with her strength and determination, Susan will be able to see her children very soon. 
 
I'll tell you what this is, Judge Munro, this is just plain old child abuse.  Judge Munro, by no means can any reasonable, rational, or sane person consider depriving young children of their mother and then say it is in the best interests of the children.  Your actions show you to be a mean, hateful, lying hypocrite.  

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-ii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iv-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

PART IV: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE MUNRO GIVES SHAWN TITTLE A FREE RIDE!

It is interesting that Judge Lynda Munro's Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 doesn't mention anything about what led to the breakdown of the marriage.  This is quite striking because most memoranda of this kind usually include some commentary on the issue. 
 
I suspect Judge Munro didn't include any of that information because she wanted to present Susan Skipp's behavior out of context so that it would appear to be irrational. 
 
So let me rectify that omission and let you know what happened.  Apparently, Shawn Tittle was unfaithful to his ex wife with a considerable number of other women.  That, by the way, is deeply hurtful.  In my reading of various divorce cases, I find that nothing wounds more deeply than the discovery that your wife or husband has betrayed you. 
 
In addition, Susan Tittle states, "during our 11 years of marriage, my children and I were victims of physical, emotional, and mental abuse at the hands of my now ex-husband." 
 
Is this true? 
 
Dr. Sidney Horowitz, the childrens' psychologist was unwilling to take a position regarding this point.  Instead, in a letter to the GAL, he stated, "the children have been and continue to be at risk by the psychological noise in this family.  I do not know who is the proximate cause of this upset." 
 
In response to the accusations of domestic violence that Susan Skipp made against her ex husband, Dr. Horowitz stated that he could neither confirm or deny their accuracy.  In fact, in court testimony he provided on August 15, 2012, he stated "It may well be accurate."  Further, he stated, "I was not in a position to be able to support or refute any of the statements" that Susan Skipp made in regard to Shawn Tittle abusing her and the children.
 
However, it is worth noting that when the parties' Co-parent Manager, Dr. Howard Krieger billed to the insurance company for his services, the code he used was that for domestic violence. 
 
On a more personal level, I have been observing this case for pretty much two years now.  Every once in a while Susan Skipp has shown me copies of Shawn Tittle's emails.  Quite simply they are verbally abusive, i.e. rude, provocative, and insulting and deliberately so.  If there is one forum in which Shawn Tittle's complete immaturity and lack of character come to the forefront, it is in his emails. 
 
Of course, for anyone who is interested in knowing, this is a common tactic.  If you want sole custody what you do is speak so rudely to your ex that there is a complete breakdown of communication and then that alone is a justification for denying the other party any imput into the childrens' upbringing even though it is the abuser who created the breakdown of communication in the first place.  Susan may have written a whole lot of emails, but at least she was reasonably polite about it!  Of course, again, there is this imbalance of scrutiny. 
 
And this is a good point to pause and have a little strategy session.  If your ex sends you rude and abusive emails on a regular basis, do not respond in kind--ever.  What you do is consistently maintain an even tone in your emails, preface and end your emails with "please" and "thank you", and while you do not have to admit to mistakes you never committed in response to the steady stream of accusations you receive, you can always say, "I'm sorry there was a miscommunication."  "What can we do moving forward?"  and "I am sorry you feel that way." is a really, really good one because it sounds conciliatory, but is like a cat's claw across the cheek when it comes to passive aggressive value. 
 
I'll tell you something, I would have liked to see Shawn's emails presented to the the trial court as evidence of his abuse. 
 
And since we are discussing character, let me say that it did not impress me when I determined that at trial in August 2012, Shawn Tittle submitted a financial affidavit indicating that his income added up to $200.00 per week from his new medical practice and that he was largely having his new wife pay all of his bills. 
 
I am sorry, but I fail to believe that. 
 
There are only two explanations for these kinds of numbers.  One, he deliberately reduced his income artificially by not working very hard on his business, or two he chose not to apply for the many other employment opportunities that are available to him which would provide him with a considerable six digit income. 
 
Since litigants pull these kinds of tricks frequently when it comes to divorce proceedings, it seems to me any judge could see through the one Shawn Tittle pulled on his financial affidavit.  However, Judge Munro chose to overlook it, the same way that she overlooked all the other improprieties Shawn Tittle committed. 
 
He is excused from providing alimony and child support. 
 
He is excused from providing an accurate financial affidavit--what else? 
 
Actually, there is more. 
 
As with many women, since Susan Skipp continued to report on the continuing domestic violence she was experiencing, and would not shut up, Dr. Howard Krieger, the co-parent counselor, insisted upon giving Susan a mental health examination--this despite a doctor's letter indicating that Susan was still recovering from a car accident so the results might not be accurate. 
 
Sean Tittle, on the other hand, was excused from undergoing any mental health examination whatsoever.  Of course, in my view, an examination from Susan Skipp taken outside of the context of an equivalent examination of Shawn Tittle could not possibly provide the attorneys in this case fair and equitable access to information.   
 
Basically, Shawn Tittle was coddled and pampered throughout the process, and when it was done Judge Munro gave him a free ride to sole custody. 
 

Monday, February 11, 2013

PART III: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE V. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE LYNDA MUNRO--DUMB AND DUMBER

I think everyone understands how important the custody issue is in a divorce.  And that any changes in custody should be made only after careful consideration of the circumstances. 
 
This is no less true in the Skipp-Tittle case. 
 
For the better part, it is well understood that Shawn Tittle had a very time consuming job, and that Susan Skipp, a teacher, was the primary caretaker of their children for the majority of the parties' marriage.  I don't think there was ever a dispute regarding this point, and Judge Munro touches upon it lightly on page 15 of her Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 where she states that "the father had been career driven."  As a result, the dissolution agreement of March 28, 2011 established Susan Skipp as the residential parent.
 
Yet, according to Judge Lynda Munro's summary of the case, on September 13, 2011, Judge Resha transferred sole legal custody, and apparently residential custody, of the minor children to the father.  This occurred approximately five and a half months after the dissolution of the marriage.  To me this would seem hardly sufficiently time for a substantial change in circumstances warranting such a change in custody. 
 
Initially, I assumed that some dramatic incident must have taken place in order to justify such a considerable change--perhaps some extraordinary incident where mother neglected the children, or where mother was involved in some drug or alcohol abuse or some kind of criminal behavior.  In fact, nothing of the kind took place. 
 
Here is how the change in custody went down. 
 
The dissolution agreement included several statements regarding how the parties in the case were not to make negative remarks about the other parent to anyone.   Of course, that, in my opinion, is a bit of a setup.  When the opposing side insists upon such extraordinary detail about all the people you cannot make negative remarks to, naturally you are going to make a mistake. 
 
Just as a point in contrast, in my own dissolution agreement, I only have one such statement when it came to that particular point, because no one was trying to set me up--at least when it came to that.   
 
In May of 2011, Shawn Tittle was involved in the DUI incident where he tried to escape the scene of an accident without properly reporting to the police.  Subsequent to that incident, Susan Skipp apparently called her father-in-law to discuss what happened.  Boom--they got her!  As Judge Munro reports in her summary, "Reflecting on the specificity in the custody provisions, the trial court noted that the mother violated them by contacting the father's father and the court found that she 'made negative, derogatory, mean-spirited and vindictive comments to him.'  This violated the court orders of the judgment." 
 
You see, without all that lovely specificity which Shawn Tittle insisted upon including in the dissolution agreement, Susan wouldn't have been in so much trouble!  And, of course, we all know that, when it came to what Susan said, the report of a former father-in-law is going to be completely reliable and trustworthy--NOT! 
 
This decision to give Shawn Tittle sole custody was made even though at the time the incident occurred, this was prior to any real work getting under way with the parent manager, Dr. Howard Kriger.  It was also prior to the completion of the Family Relations Report which was only submitted the following year on March 2012. 
 
I don't know, just common sense wise, at the time of dissolution, the parties' emotions are still riding very high and it takes sometimes over a year, or even more, for them to calm down, particularly if there has been considerable high conflict.  Would it have been possible to give Susan Skipp a bit of a break, a bit of time to allow some counseling to kick in before snatching the children from her grasp at the first sign of a minor infraction?  Or was the whole thing a setup in the first place?  
 
Judge Munro reports that Susan Skipp's conversation with her father-in-law "violated the court orders of the judgment", i.e. not to speak badly about the other party.  
 
Of course, I am pretty much certain that Susan was in a similar position to many protective mothers--fathers are allowed to violate the court orders of the judgment repeatedly, fathers are never held accountable for anything that they do, fathers are excused from any kind of abuse and wrongdoing, but mothers? 
 
Mothers are held in contempt for blinking an eyelid--seriously.  I would like a run down in the Tittle/Skipp case as to how many times Shawn Tittle violated the court orders of the judgment.  I'll bet it was plenty of times and he was never held to account the way Susan was.  
 
I can only begin to imagine what a terrible blow it was to Susan to lose residential custody of her children--and not only residential custody, decision making as well. I can just imagine how desperate she felt.  And I'll just bet she sent more single sentence emails than ever before after it happened!
 
Then, a few months later, on December 19, 2011, the Court suspended all of Susan Skipp's child support and alimony until further order of the court.  My understanding is that the reason this happened was Susan was accused of putting nasty comments about Shawn Tittle's professional capabilities on the internet. The GAL, Mary Brigham presented testimony to the effect that, as a result of these comments, Shawn Tittle had lost his job and was now unemployed and could not afford the payments.  The trial court made its decision based on that testimony. 

Susan Skipp has acknowledged that she put a remark on the internet in August 2010 prior to dissolution which she took down, but that was well before the December 2011 court date.  In any case, people say things during marital disputes, particularly during a divorce; I am not sure why that would influence Danbury Hospital a year later.  But if it did, I would have wanted to hear from them directly, and not through the GAL.  In addition, I am not sure it was the GAL's business to investigate this matter or get on the stand to testify about it.  Isn't she supposed to be focusing on the children? 
 
The  bottom line is, however, that the GAL's testimony was based upon hearsay, which is very shaky evidence.  How can the GAL, Mary Brigham, possibly know what was on the minds of the Administrators at Danbury Hospital when they fired Shawn Tittle, if they fired him.  Did she have a letter from those administrators?  No.  Did she have a sworn affidavit from these administrators?  No.  Anything at all?  Well, no.  From my understanding, all she had was Shawn Tittles' sayso, which does not seem very objective to me. 
 
If you are going to suspend a persons' income, it seems to me that in a court of law you should have something more than just hearsay. 
 
Of course, this court ruling led to a considerable loss of income for Susan Tittle and placed her in a financial crisis, and the first result of that would obviously be that she was unable to pay her legal counsel.  I'll just bet she fired off a few more single sentence emails expressing her anger after that trial court hearing! 
 
And don't forget that from December 2011 up until the present, Susan Skipp's child support and alimony are still suspended, long after the judgment of October 16, 2012.  I mean, do they ever intend to handle this issue? 
 
I guess if you are a well paid judge with a steady income, you might become insensitive to people who actually depend upon their child support and alimony to pay their bills. 
 
On top of that, at the September 2011 hearing before Judge Resha, Susan Skipp was ordered to pay GAL fees to the tune of $1,000 per month. By the time the December hearing came up, Susan had failed to do so (And actually, thank God she didn't since the court eventually took away her child support and alimony).  As a result, she was held in contempt and ordered to pay around $3,000 in attorneys' fees. 
 
And, again, this shows a lack of equality in terms of how Susan Skipp was treated in contrast to her ex husband.  First of all, the GAL filed this motion for contempt against Susan Skipp regarding her attorney's fees when, as a GAL, she is not supposed to be filing motions as far as I know. 
 
Second, Shawn Tittle was just as much in contempt in regard to paying the GAL, but no motions of contempt were filed against him. 
 
In fact, at the time of the August 2012 trial, both Shawn Tittle and Susan Skipp owed the exact same amount to the GAL.  If you look at page 20 of the October 16, 2012 Memorandum of Decision written by Judge Lynda Munro it states, "The guardian ad litem is owed substantial amounts of money by both parties."  And she further states that there is "a balance due from Ms. Skipp of $38,230.30 and from Dr. Tittle a balance of $38,580.81".  In fact, it looks as though Shawn Tittle actually owed more.  
 
So why was Susan Skipp targeted for punishment and fined, but Shawn Tittle was not? 
 
In her Memorandum of Decision, Judge Lynda Munro expresses herself as puzzled in regard to Susan Skipp's behavior.  What motivated Susan Skipp to act the way she did?  Why did Susan say the things she said?  
 
Since Judge Lynda Munro appears to struggle so greatly and is so incapable of thinking the answer through.  Let me suggest a few.  Perhaps the fact that Susan Skipp was treated in such a grossly unjust manner, could be one possibility?  The system was rigged?  How about the completely lawless behavior of a trial court sworn to up hold the law.  Or, how about another, perhaps because Family Court reached out and stole Susan Skipp's children as well as considerable assets from her under false pretenses? 
 

Thursday, February 7, 2013

PART II: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE MUNRO TELLS MORE LIES...

In the Memorandum of Decision in this case dated October 16, 2012, on page 13 going to the top of page 14, Judge Lynda Munro discusses information related to the childrens' psychologist, Dr. Sidney Horowitz.  However, as with everything Judge Munro states, there is crucial information not included in her narrative. 
 
So first let's get to what Judge Munro does say. 
 
She states that Dr. Sidney Horowitz recused himself from his role as the childrens' psychologist because Ms. Skipp sent him so many emails--he said around 22 per day for 18 months.  Apparently, Dr. Horowitz found these emails so "relentless" and their "contents so charged" that he could no longer treat the children because he was biased against their mother. 
 
Further, Judge Munro deplores the fact that the children have lost the safe haven such therapy with Dr. Horowitz would have provided. 
 
Of course, I dispute the definition of an email that this discussion presumes.  For example, when I write an email, it is a thing of beauty ordinarily including at least several paragraphs.  I can recall putting together several such emails during the course of my divorce case. 
 
However, when it comes to Susan Skipp, an email really consists of maybe one or two sentences.  So if Susan wrote 22 emails in a single day of sending out one or two sentence emails, that very same amount would be 1 very lengthy email with 22 or more sentences on it were it me.  Since Susan wrote all these emails on her cell phone, my guess is what she did was more like texting than emailing.
 
So initially although it sounds quite alarming that Susan sent out 22 emails in a single day, if she sent that many--I doubt it--once you get they were most likely single sentence emails, it doesn't seem to be quite as exciting.  I also believe that the reason why Susan Skipp sent out so many emails was because frequently no one answered her emails and she was insisting on getting an answer!  
 
Now let's move to the more important issues that Judge Lynda Munro does not mention in connection to Dr. Sidney Horowitz.  
 
For 18 months Dr. Sidney Horowitz had received these emails from Susan Skipp and did not choose to resign from the case.  
 
The actual impetus for Dr. Horowitz's resignation was that on March 24, 2012 Ms. Skipp sent to Dr. Horowitz an email stating "In addition to my children's records with your notes, please provide the diagnosis for which insurance agrees to provide long term therapy and an itemized billing since your involvement with our family." 
 
The very next day, suddenly and without warning, on March 25, 2012, Dr. Sidney Horowitz sent an email to the Guardian Ad Litem resigning from the case. 
 
Dr. Horowitz also stated, and Judge Lynda Munro included this point in her Memorandum of Decision, that it was "the first time in his professional career that I have recused myself from" a case. However, Dr. Sidney Horowitz was lying when he said that and thus he perjured himself.  In fact, he recused himself from at least another case:  Granjales v. Bell, 2009 WL 3086476, 16 (Conn. Super. 2009), and I'll bet I'd find more if I scratched the surface a bit. 
 
What Susan Skipp had discovered was that from August 23, 2010 until December 19, 2011, Dr. Horowitz was billing the children's insurance company (Aetna) with the diagnosis code of 296.22 which is "major depressive disorder."  As Dr. Horowitz testified on the Stand on August 15, 2012, the children do not have this diagnosis--their diagnosis is Adjustment Disorder. 
 
To me it appears quite obvious that Dr. Horowitz billed for the more serious diagnosis so that he could receive a higher financial reimbursement from the insurance company for that diagnosis. 
 
What he did was fraud and malpractice pure and simple. 
 
During the trial, Dr. Sidney Horowitz stated that the mistake in the diagnostic code was simply a "clerical error" and no more.  However, the description Susan Skipp provides regarding how the diagnostic code was included on the billing precludes the possibility that it could have been a clerical error.  
 
She states, "I witnessed the manner in which Dr. Horowitz submitted his billing.  At the end of each session with the children, Dr. Horowitz would fill out a billing statement, and hand write a diagnosis code onto each statement.  He would then have me carry the statement to the office receptionist.  At that point, I would pay the co-pay for the visit." 
 
In other words, Dr. Horowitz wrote out the incorrect diagnostic code onto statements he filled out for 18 months until Susan Skipp confronted him. 
 
Thus, Dr. Horowitz's explanation is simply not credible. 
 
In his testimony on August 15, 2012, Dr. Sidney Horowitz also stated that another reason for his decision to recuse himself from the case was because Susan Skipp filed a Motion In Limine in regard to his testimony.  However, this Motion in Limine was filed on April 24, 2012, well after Horowitz had recused himself.  So, in essence, Dr. Horowitz perjured himself again with that explanation. 

I would only ask the question of why Judge Lynda Munro allowed Dr. Horowitz to commit such obvious acts of perjury without holding him accountable. 
 
Once Susan Skipp began to suspect there were problems with Dr. Horowitz's billing practices, she then requested itemized billing statements from both Dr. Horowitz himself and his office staff.  In addition, Ms. Skipp requested copies of her childrens' medical records.  Dr. Horowitz refused to respond to either request, which is a violation of her rights, and, in my opinion, a tacit acknowledgement of his wrongdoing.  After all, if he didn't do anything wrong, why would he feel the need to withhold the requested documents?  
 
Then, in the course of making these requests, in talking to Dr. Horowitz's receptionist, Susan Skipp discovered that Dr. Horowitz only utilized one chart for both of her children.  In essence, Dr. Horowitz was billing the insurance company for both children solely under the name of the oldest child.  This again is a questionable practice. It is a standard procedure in medical offices for each client to have an individual file.  Otherwise, how can you possibly differentiate between them?
 
I can only imagine the shock, confusion and betrayal that Susan Skipp must have felt when she finally understood the nature of the original incorrect diagnosis that Dr. Sidney Horowitz had given her children.  Yes, Dr. Horowitz did call up the insurance company and reported what he had done wrong.  However, he never gave Susan Skipp a call to explain what had been going on.  For the entire 18 months the children were in his care, he had refused to provide any diagnosis to Susan, despite her frequent requests that he do so.  It is only reasonable that a mother should be kept informed regarding her childrens' diagnoses.  It is her  right to know. 

Eventually, Susan Skipp found out on her own that her children had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and became extremely alarmed.  She called up the GAL who told her the diagnosis was no big deal.  Then not long after that her daughter expressed some suicidal thoughts and Susan Skipp naturally became extremely distraught.  I will discuss this more in a later blog.

Meanwhile, the bottom line is that what Dr. Sidney Horowitz did is a serious violation of his professional ethics and he should have been held accountable for his actions. Instead, Judge Lynda Munro gave him a free pass and lied about what happened not only through the omission of facts, but also by lying outright.   
 
Once you know that Dr. Horowitz committed insurance fraud, how can you possibly trust anything Dr. Horowitz has to say. 
 
What is clear to anyone who reads Dr. Horowitz's testimony is that he found Susan Skipp's insistence on the truth annoying, while he found Shawn Tittle's obsequious fawning much more preferable.  As Dr. Horowitz reported, he really liked the father because, in his words, Mr. Tittle asked me for the names of books and articles to read and "echoed back to me that he understood" my recommendations.  What an ego boost it must have been for Dr. Horowitz having Mr. Tittle echo back his ideas. 

How could the Skipp children ever find a "safe haven" with a narcissistic, lying fraud like Dr. Sidney Horowitz?  That's my question.   
 
So, again, Judge Lynda Munro repeatedly omits and skews major parts of the story in her Memorandum of Decision regarding this case.  That is a fundamentally dishonest thing to do and disgraceful on the part of a Judge who is sworn to uphold the law. 

More on this later

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iv-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-v-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html