HHS FATHERHOOD FUNDS USED IN CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEMES THAT TRANSFER CUSTODY FROM PROTECTIVE MOTHERS TO VIOLENT AND ABUSIVE FATHERS!

I was speaking to some friends recently who told me that in the Magistrates Court in Hartford, representatives of Fatherhood Initiatives recruit clients right outside the courthouse doors. 

 

What is the purpose of these Fatherhood Initiatives?  Ostensibly, the purpose is to assist fathers in developing their job skills, to encourage them as parents and to provide them with peer support and improve their ability to meet their child support obligations. 

 

However, advocates have discovered a more suspect motivation for these contacts.

 

In a recent article entitled, "A Life Sentence" independent journalist Keith Harmon Snow spoke about how Family Court systems across America are taking children away from fit mothers and handing them over to abusive fathers in record numbers. 

 

The impetus behind this social trend arises from millions of dollars in funds handed over to the States by the Department of Health and Human Services.  I have seen different figures in terms of how much money is involved here, but I would guess that the best estimate is approximately $150 million per year in HHS money that is specifically designated to support fatherhood initiatives, plus around $4 billion designated for the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE).  Particularly advantageous to those interested in taking advantage of this financial windfall, fathers in these programs are not required to adhere to TANF deadlines or work requirements that are normally a standard for accessing these funds.

 

Furthermore, there is very little oversight of this money, which means that such programs have gotten away with using fatherhood funds to assist abusive and violent fathers in custody battles against protective mothers.  These fathers are told that they have two choices -- risk jail for failure to pay child support, or embark on a custody battle to take the children from the Protective Mother and thus eliminate child support altogether. 

 

What would you choose? 

 

Thus, fathers who have had little contact with their children for years, who have physically and/or sexually abused the children and their mothers, often fathers just being released from jail, end up fighting and succeeding in getting custody with the collusion of family court services and mental health professionals. 

 

According to Anne Stevenson, a freelance journalist, since eligibility for these programs is not needs based these fatherhood funds can be distributed not only to low income fathers, but also to middle and upper middle class fathers, even billionaires.

 

The moment a protective mother goes to trial court in order to obtain back child support, or bring financial matters of any kind before family court, these funds get dispersed to the fathers. 

 

High Conflict Divorces are a particularly excellent source of funds for family courts that have been corrupted by fatherhood funds.  High conflict divorces release funds to a broad range of family court services, GALs, custody evaluators and mental health professionals who then get involved in the case. 

 

As columnist Anne Stevenson describes it, the HHS policy of subsidizing the homes and legal battles of unfit, unwilling, and violent fathers has "created a new breed of dangerous Welfare Kings".  In these custody cases, at the beginning "only the offender is sick, but when one violent offender gets custody, the whole family needs treatment.  Consequently, it is also not uncommon for dozens of family court mental health and legal professionals to come onto such a case to sustain an abusive father's deadly custody rights through HHS programs."

The result is that everyone, sometimes even the judges, ends up getting a payoff. 

 

I have avoided discussing this matter simply because of the enormity of this situation.  How do you grapple with such a monolithic violation of the human rights of protective mothers, not only in Family Courts throughout the nation, but also here in Connecticut, in our own communities, right on our front doorsteps! 

 

To grasp the extent of it, try typing variants of the words  "Fatherhood Initiative in Connecticut" into google--you end up with hit after hit. 

 

One of the top results I obtained when I started my investigation on google was the "John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut" which operates apparently under the auspices of the Connecticut Department of Social Services. 

 

Under this initiative, according to information sheets the Initiative provides, funds are directed towards assisting fathers in connection to custody.  For example, the sheet "Financing Fatherhood Programs" states that "Welfare funds can be used to assist never-married parents to develop joint parenting plans, develop marriage and relationship building skills, or for mediation services." 

 

Under "Building Services to Help Fathers" the information sheet says, "TANF dollars can be used to support a variety of services for fathers--employment assistance, counseling, parenting plans,  mediation, parenting education, substance abuse and domestic violence." 

 

According to Anne Stevenson, what this amounts to is that, for the purpose of switching custody from protective mothers to abusive fathers, those fathers who agree to engage in custody  battles are provided with free attorneys, free housing, free groceries, free car maintenance, gas, and other transportation costs, free healthcare and dental care, plus cash, while having all their child support obligations suspended. 

 

This information sheet further advises "policymakers", which I assume includes legislators, to "use the budget process to direct funding for the development of fatherhood programs and services." In addition, it advises them to "Use TANF funds to make competitive grants to local programs that operate fatherhood programs." and "Direct agencies to use TANF funds to assist fathers." 

 

With all these millions and millions of dollars directed towards supporting fathers, what chance do protective mothers have?

 

And these information sheets caution, "States are not spending millions of dollars in TANF resources" that are still waiting and available.  Plus, not only are there millions and millions of dollars in TANF resources out there that still need to be used, States can tap into more fatherhood funding if they approach other resources like WtW and Title XX block grants. 

 

Can you see that this is so mind boggling that I have delayed reporting on it?  I just couldn't even begin to comprehend such a monstrous situation. 

 

What this does, of course, is make me look back on my own family court case and on the many cases I have discussed on this blog and ask:  Were fatherhood funds behind each of these custody battles?  I have only just begun my investigation of this subject matter, and will continue to write more about it.  But if anyone has a comment and/or any personal experience with this issue, I would be interested in hearing from you.

LORD, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS: THE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY PLAN

If there is one thing I've learned through this process, it is that where chaos reigns abuse flourishes.  In fact, if there seems to be chaos in a case, there is very likely to be abuse somewhere--sort of like where there is smoke, there is fire. 

 

So how do you prevent chaos from breaking out in your case? 

 

I would say the first line of defense against chaos is to make sure you and your ex obey the automatic orders, a copy of which is included in your initial divorce papers.  Talking about establishing good fences, those automatic orders make some damn good fences, and with good fences you have less chaos and less opportunities for abuse. 

 

Again, to repeat, good fences, good boundaries are fundamental to a good outcome in a family court case. 

 

In fact, if I were an attorney, right at the beginning of the divorce, I would sit the parties down, each with their attorneys and go over the automatic orders and explain what each item in the orders means providing good examples and case law showing the bad outcomes when the automatic orders end up being violated. 

 

I say this because when I filed for divorce, I received a copy of the automatic orders but I was so upset that I barely saw them and it was only four or five months after I filed for divorce that my attorney pointed them out.  As a result, I had no idea that I had the kinds of protections that were in those orders and so I didn't know that I had grounds to complain when they were violated as they so often were!

 

The most important part of the automatic orders, the particular order that makes for a damn good fence is Item #11 which states, "If the parents of minor children live apart during this dissolution proceeding, they shall assist their children in having contact with both parties, which is consistent with the habits of the family, personally, by telephone, and in writing unless there is a prior court order." 

 

Since abuse occurs primarily through the manipulation of the custody issue, making sure that both parties obey Item #11 is essential. 

 

How do you go about doing this?  You write down an agreement for how you are going to handle the contacts between parent and child and stick to it.  Otherwise, if it isn't written down, you will have endless trouble. 

 

When I was going through my divorce, I benefited from Item #11, but given the fact that I continued to have ongoing problems in that area with my ex playing games and switching his plans around, clearly the language of Item #11 wasn't strong enough. 

 

Here my attorney was seriously negligent, and I would suspect for a reason, because he was happy to have my ex and I fighting so that he could make more money. 

 

What my attorney didn't tell me was that there is a Connecticut Statute, C.G.S. 46b-56 d,e,f which has provisions for a Parental Responsibility Plan during the pendente lite period (the period from when you filed for divorce until the marriage is dissolved).  This Parental Responsibility Plan should be put into place pretty much right away within the first month or two after the filing for a divorce. 

 

What the trial court asks you to do is have your Parental Responsibility Plan ready before the case management conference which takes place at the beginning of your case (see the small print under instructions at the top of the Court Form JD-FM-199 which is used for this purpose).

 

I want to tell you want a big difference such a Parental Responsibility Plan would have made had my ex and I had such a document at the beginning of our divorce.  With agreements come, if not understanding, then a reasonable measure of peace between most parties. 

 

I mean, some abusive exes are going to abuse no matter what there is out there, but for those who are only able to abuse by exploiting gray areas in relationships, that means the end of creating conflict, or a quick way to shut it down.  The police come and you just pull out the plan and say this is what we agreed to.  End of story.

 

I have to say after I switched attorneys, half a year into my divorce, when I walked into my next attorney's office he just laughed when he heard there was no Parental Responsibility Plan.  It was that ridiculous to him that I did not have one.

 

Take it from me, a person who had the divorce from hell, if your attorney doesn't put a Parental Responsibility Plan on the table right away at the start of your divorce, you know he is negligent. 

 

The contents of a parental responsibility plan are mandated by C.G.S. 46b-56d and include: 

 

1) the schedule of the physical residence of the child  or children during the year;

 

2)  provisions allocating decision-making authority to one or both parents regarding the child's health, education and religious upbringing;

 

3) provisions for the resolution of future disputes between the parents, including, where appropriate, the involvement of a mental health professional or other parties to assist the parents in reaching a developmentally appropriate resolution to such disputes;

 

4) provisions for dealing with the parents' failure to honor their responsibilities under the plan;

 

5) provisions for dealing with the child's changing needs as the child grows and matures; and

 

6) provisions for minimizing the child's exposure to harmful parental conflict, encouraging the parents in appropriate circumstances to meet their responsibilities through agreements, and protecting the best interests of the child.

 

All of these elements are included on the "Proposed Parental Responsibility Plan" Form JD-FM-199 I mentioned earlier which is located at the following link:

 

http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/fm199.pdf

 

 

There is one very crucial exception, however, when it comes to the way in which Form JD-FM-199 translates Item #6 of the Connecticut Statute.  

 

Each of the Items in the Connecticut Statute requires that the parties specifically state what they intend to do to meet each provision of the law, and the court form asks the parties to do just that in Items #1 through #5. 

 

However, when it comes to Item #6, probably the most important in the whole list when it comes to protecting the wellbeing of the children, the court form does not require the parties to state specifically what they intend to do to meet those goals. 

 

Instead, the court form puts the word "other" down, and then translates the Connecticut General Statute in the following manner: 

 

The statement from the Statute as follows: "Provisions for minimizing the child's exposure to harmful parental conflict" in the court form becomes "The child(ren)'s exposure to harmful parental conflict will be minimized."  

 

Well, how will that be done? 

 

What specific provisions will be put into place to achieve those goals?  

 

The Connecticut Statute as written asks for what specific steps the parents are going to take to get the job done.  But, interestingly enough, the Court Form itself does not ask for specific steps. Why not?

 

Let's try the rest of this section of the law.  Item #6 in the Connecticut Statute states, "Provisions for...encouraging the parents in appropriate circumstances to meet their responsibilities through agreements." is translated in the court Form  into "the parents will, in appropriate circumstances, meet their responsibilities through agreements"

 

Yes, so what the law actually wants to know is not that the parents will do that, but HOW will they do that? 

 

And finally, the Connecticut Statute states, "Provisions for...protecting the best interests of the child." which the court forms translate into "both parents will protect the best interests of the child." 

 

Again, saying parents will do something, is not the same as stating HOW they intend to do something, and getting parents to answer the question of HOW is the the actual intention of the law underlying this form. 

 

I'll bet there is an very interesting story behind the way in which the Connecticut Statute was translated onto the form JD-FM-199 in such a way as to get the Statute off track in such a significant manner.  The way this has been done undercuts the core values behind the Statute which is to protect and safeguard the best interests of the children and to reduce harm to the children wherever possible. 

 

Why wouldn't those who are creating these court forms for that specific purpose use languaging and formating that adheres to that of the original statute and would maximize the possibility of obtaining those results?  Because clearly this is not what they have done.  Instead, they have created a great big loophole for abusers to slip through in order to avoid accountability. 

 

Of course, this is something I would only say of the unknowing.  You who have read this article, who have come to familiarize yourselves with the Connecticut Statute in this blog, can now approach your attorney and insist that everyone respond to the spirit of this legislation and put specific provisions under Item #6 "Other" on the Court Form. 

 

Make sure that YOU insist upon stating specifically what each party will do concretely in order to achieve the goals in that section. 

 

Don't be satisfied by some canned, aspirational statement which is easy for your ex to ignore.  Once you do that, once you have a fully developed Parental Responsibility Plan, you are half the way there to making sure your divorce remains civilized.  And I can assure you that is well worth the effort, not only for your own sanity, but for the good of your children.

SUPERVISED VISITATION PROVIDERS!

Below is a link to suggested supervised visitation providers around the country. 

 

I do not endorse any one of them, because I haven't received feedback yet in regard to them.  But what I do say is that this link was sent to me by a person I trust. 

 

So for those of you looking for supervised visitation providers, do consider choosing from this list and let me know what your experiences are.  See below for the link:

 

http://svnworldwide.org/providers_results.asp


***This feedback just in, Visitation Solutions in Brookfield, CT is affiliated with several father's rights attorneys and father's rights mental health practitioners.  You might want to avoid that group.

***This feedback just in, The Exchange in Stamford is associated with a corrupt mental health professional, Dr. Adamakas, who has been associated with a number of improper rulings in family court.  This place is not on the list above, but I wanted you all to be aware of other places as well.

IF ANYONE ELSE HAS FEEDBACK, CONTINUE TO LET ME KNOW AND I WILL UPDATE MY INFORMATION!  THANKS!

HUFF POST ARTICLE ON "NO WAY OUT BUT ONE" THE HOLLY COLLINS DOCUMENTARY OF A MOTHER WHO ESCAPED TO THE NETHERLANDS WHEN FAMILY COURT GAVE CUSTODY OF HER CHILDREN TO THEIR ABUSIVE FATHER!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-doyle-palmer-/documentary-filmmaking-interview_b_2017375.html

THANK YOU SUSAN SKIPP FOR THE INFORMATION!

CAN'T GET EX TO PAY FOR KID'S ACTIVITIES? HERE'S AN IDEA FROM HUFF POST BLOGGER, DIANA MERCER!

See the link below on what to do when you can't get your ex to pay for your child's after school activities:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-mercer/divorce-lawyers-favorite-_b_1983175.html?ref=topbar

SEXUAL PREDATOR GERRY SANDUSKY SPENDS 16 YEARS ABUSING CHILDREN WITH A LOT OF HELP FROM HIS FRIENDS

Gerry Sandusky was sentenced yesterday to at least 30 years in prison based on 45 counts of child sexual abuse.  This means he will probably spend the rest of his life in prison.  The 68 year old man was formerly a Penn State assistant football coach closely associated with the late Joe Paterno.  Paterno was the widely admired former head football coach at  Penn State University and one of the most successful football coaches of all time.

 

THE PREDATOR REFUSES TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY:

 

Like many sexual abusers, on the eve of his sentencing, Sandusky continued to insist he was innocent and blamed his victims stating, "They can take away my life, they can make me out as a monster, they can treat me as a monster, but they can't take away my heart.  In my heart, I know I did not do these alleged disgusting acts.  My wife has been my only sex partner and that was after marriage." 

 

Further he said, "A young man who is dramatic and a veteran accuser and always sought attention started everything.  He was joined by a well-orchestrated effort of the media, investigators, the criminal justice system, Penn State, psychologists, civil attorneys and other accusers."

 

Here the man is caught in the act, accused by a stream of witnesses, and finally found guilty by the Court, and he still denies his responsibility for his behavior. 

Abusers in high conflict divorce are exactly the same way.  Thus, even though the record shows that my ex stole considerable sums of money from me during our marriage, and now earns substantal income from sources he denied existed at trial, he still insists to me, our children, and to his entire family that he is poor and has no money. 

He insists that despite the considerable medical documentation which states otherwise, he never harmed our children, and that my complaints are all a figment of my imagination. (Please note that in my case, I am not raising the issue of sexual abuse, but of other kinds of abuse.)

 

SOCIETY REFUSES TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY:

 

What does this behavior tell you about sexual predators and the way in which society responds to them? 

 

First of all, no one ever wants to hold sexual predators accountable.  Consider how long it took to catch this guy--pretty much 16 years in total.  The first accusation was raised in 1995 and Sandusky was only arrested in 2011 after years of reported incidents. 

 

How did Sandusky get away with it?  Simply by doing what he is doing now--deny, deny, deny, and blame the victim.  He does this because this is probably what he did all along.  It was a very successful strategy for deflecting attempts people made to hold him accountable. 

 

Sandusky relied on the fact that even when people see the evidence right in front of their faces, even when they witness incidents directly, very few want to get involved in reporting a predator to the police or speaking out about what they have seen.  

 

From the moment an incident occurs, people start trying to find a way to avoid having to do something about it.  I recall asking the pediatrician to write a letter documenting the abuse of my children.  He refused to do it stating he had no basis for such a letter.  I then said to him, all you have to do is say what you saw and summarize what you wrote in the medical records right in front of you.  Still, the doctor continued to obstruct my access to documentation that was essential to protecting the children. 

Later, when the custody evaluator called as part of his investigation, the pediatrician described me as rude and pushy.  Why?  All I asked him to do was do his job.  But that was too much to ask apparently.  When I asked him why, he was quite open in telling me he simply did not want to get involved in a custody matter.  And that is the point.  No one wants to get involved.  No one wants to stand up for a child.  No one wants to do what they know is the right thing to do.  

SANDUSKY'S CRIMES: 

 

Look at what Sandusky was accused of doing. He was accused of using his access to Penn State's football program to befriend and then sexually abuse young boys, all of them children from disadvantaged homes whom he met through his charity the Second Mile, which was organized to work with troubled youths. 

 

According to Joe Drape of The New York times, "Sandusky had used the charity as his private hunting ground, scouting for potential victims.  He gave them gifts and money, invited them to his home, took them to Penn State Football games, showered with them at the university's football building and slept with them in hotel rooms on the road."

 

Further Mr. Drape stated that "Eight men testified during the trial, offering graphic accounts of repeated assaults by Sandusky -- on the Penn State campus, in hotel rooms and in the basement of Sandusky's home.  it was painful testimony, the men telling their horrifying stories in public for the first time."  One witness, a janitor, wept when he described Sandusky raping his victim.  The Janitor, a Korean War Veteran, stated that the rape was the most horrific thing he had ever seen.

All this went on and it took 16 years before anyone saw fit to stop him?  I'll tell you why it took so long--because no one wanted to be involved.  No one wanted to be thought of as rude and pushy, like me.  Folks just wanted to get along.  So when I spoke to witnesses and asked for their testimony, all of a sudden they couldn't remember exactly, they weren't quite sure.  Only a tiny minority of courageous individuals stood up and spoke out.

 

PREDATORS EXPLOIT THE TRAPPINGS OF SUCCESS:

 

This leads me to another point.  So many of these evil people are widely admired, fine upstanding members of the community.  That's another reason why it takes so long to catch them.  For example, in my case, the custody evaluator stated that my ex couldn't possibly have neglected my children because he is a professional.

 

As a matter of policy, predators make sure to surround themselves with all the paraphernalia of success--with high powered jobs, with influential community leaders, and with charitable endeavors.  This means that anyone who might hold such a person accountable, a mother, a teacher or counselor at school, and in Sandusky's case, a janitor on a temp job, first questions his or her own eyes before questioning the predator. 

 

Gerry Sandusky "was regarded as a local pillar", he played and worked with the highly regarded coach Joe Paterno.  He was "a man [people] knew as a committed and selfless coach, a prominent fund-raiser for charity and a gregarious father figure to scores of aspiring football players."  How could anyone accuse him?

THE WIDESPREAD COMPLICITY 

 

One way predators like this protect themselves is by making their friends and associates complicit in covering up what is going on.  Once such people begin to cover up for a perpetrator, some friends and coworkers become even more aggressive than the predator when it comes to denying and hiding the abuse. 

 

Thus, what is most striking about this case is the long list of individuals who actively engaged in covering up Gerry Sandusky's crimes. 

 

Here is the list: 

 

1. Joe Paterno, Penn States Head Coach,

2.  Graham B. Spanier, Penn State's President since 1995;

3. Tim Curley, Penn State's Athletic Director;

4. Gary Schultz, Penn State's Senior vice President for Fiunance and Business;

5.  Mike McQueary, Penn State's Assistant Football Coach; 6.  Jim Calhoun, Janitor;

7.  Ronald Petrosky, Head Janitor;

8. Jay Witherite, Supervising Janitor;

9.  Ray Gricar, Centre County District Attorney;

10. Ronald Schreffler, Campus Detective;

11. Jerry Lauro, Investigator with DCF;

12. Thomas Harmon, Director of Campus Police;

13. Ralph Ralston, Campus Police Officer;

14. Dr. Jack Raykovitz, Executive Director of The Second Mile;

15. Wendell Courtney, University Counsel. 

 

That adds up to 15 well placed individuals who knew significant details about the sexual abuse attributable to Gerry Sandusky and did nothing about it. And these are simply the major players; how about all the other folks that knew of rumors but were not sufficiently notable for us to hear about them?

I had the same situation where the GAL in my case actively campaigned for my ex husband, provided him with legal advice, and sidelined any witnesses who spoke out against him. 

 

THE TECHNIQUE OF DENIABILITY:

 

How is that lack of action justified in the minds of these people? 

 

What they do is add deniability to the situation by relanguaging the descriptions of what occurred.  Thus, Journalist Sara Ganim of  "The Patriot News" points out how the report regarding what Sandusky had done was watered down as it went up the ladder of communication, such that Sandusky's criminal act was retranslated into something inoffensive. 

 

Thus, McQueary reported an "anal rape".  Paterno translated that into "something of a sexual nature".  Schultz stated it was "inappropriately grabbing of the young boy;s genitals", while Curley described it as "inappropriate conduct or horsing around".  Spanier stated it was "conduct that made someone uncomfortable", and Raykovitz simply heard that there was a ban on Sandusky bringing kids to the locker room at Penn State.  

 

Once the element of deniability has been introduced through the process of redefining or relanguaging what happened, this alleviated the participants in the coverup from responsibility.  Now they can all say to themselves and to others, we had no idea how bad it was.  No idea?  Really?

 

None of these people stopped to say to themselves, seriously, what we have is a dangerous person on our hands who could irreversibly harm and destroy the lives of young children.  We have to do something to stop it now.

The same process takes place in family court where mothers seeking to protect their children from abuse often find themselves accused of being hypervigillant, or vengeful towards their former spouse.  Others find themselves labeled, marginalized and silenced with psychiatric diagnoses such as Parental Alienation Syndrome, Munchausens by Proxy, or Shared Delusional Disorder (Folie a Deux).

 

DISREGARD FOR FEDERAL SAFEGUARDS:

 

What is notable is that The Clery Act, a federal law that requires the university to alert the campus body when a sex crime occurs on campus was never enacted at Penn State.  Further, there was no action plan in place in the event that it was ever needed.  That has been corrected.

 

In Family Court, we have the ADA, a federal law in place to protect the rights of citizens with disabilities, which is intended to safeguard children and parents who may have been abused.  Yet Family Court in CT has simply flouted ADA law and refused to enact it.  As a consequence, thousands and thousands of Connecticut Citizens who are desperately in need of the protection of the ADA are left vulnerable.

CONCLUSION:

As a person who speaks out against abuses in family court, I have personally experienced and observed how predators get away with their crimes using the very same techniques Gerry Sandusky used.  It is horrifying to consider what happens to the children in these situations.  They are denied contact with their mothers, put into the custody of the men who sexually abuse them, and harmed for life.  

Medical Professionals such as Dr. Kenneth Robson  and Dr. James C. Black deny the abuse and go along with even the most absurd fabrications that perpetrators offer to cover up their misdeeds.  Then Mothers who try to protect their children often end up falsely accused, publically mocked and ridiculed, and labeled with specious psychiatric diagnoses. 

Have we learned anything from Gerry Sandusky?  Have we learned that it isn't right to make children wait for sixteen years before they can be safe?  Have we learned to ignore the trappings of power and prestige and see the criminal who lies underneath it all?  Gerry Sandusky's story is chilling, not so much because of what he did, but because we know he is not the only one. 

Likewise, every day in family court there are abusers and predators who are using the court system to perpetuate their abuse.  When will they be stopped?  When will the court system cease to be complicit?  It took 16 years to expose Gerry Sandusky.  How much longer will it take our Family Court system here in Connecticut?

THE JUDGE SAID, "IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE BEING MOLESTED!"

RESERVE THE DATE! TOMORROW AT 7:00P.M. TO WATCH THIS PROGRAM!

FIT MOTHERS LOSING CUSTODY THROUGH JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, BILL WINDSOR PRESENTS THE TRUTH, PART II

FIT MOTHERS LOSING CUSTODY THROUGH JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, BILL WINDSOR EXPOSES THE TRUTH!

FIGHT BACK AGAINST DCF! JOIN THE PROTEST!

Join Corruptct in organizing a protest against the Connecticut Department of Children and Families which was recently cited by the Supreme Court for improperly removing children from homes based upon the debunked, unconstitutional, voodoo psychiatric theory known as "predictive neglect."  In other words, DCF has the right to take your children away from you permanently based upon the idea not that you actually neglected them, but that you MIGHT neglect them.  If this outrages you, as it should, contact Corruptct at the link below:

http://www.corruptct.com/dcf-cps/its-picket-time-ct-dcf-stealing-children-contact-us/#!prettyPhoto/0/

or email them at:  info@corruptct.com

The people united, can never be defeated!

Justice Today!  Justice Tomorrow!  Justice Forever!

National GAL alert: What Have We Learned about GALs?

National GAL alert: What Have We Learned about GALs?: As we near the end of the Judicial Branch's time for public postings (July 1st), we have been reflecting on two questions: What have we lea...

COMMENTS ON THE GAL SYSTEM BY THE CITIZENS OF MAINE!

See the link below to read comments from the citizens of Maine in regard to the GAL system:

http://www.courts.state.me.us/maine_courts/supreme/gal_comments.shtml

PROPOSED CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS FROM S.P.A.R.C.

The Children's Bill Of Rights

HERE IS A PROPOSED BILL OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS FROM THE S.P.A.R.C. WEBSITE AT WWW.DELTABRAVO.NET.  WHAT DO YOU THINK?  WOULD YOU RATIFY IT?   All children shall enjoy the following inalienable rights: The right to be treated as important human beings, with unique feelings, ideas and desires and not as a source of argument between parents. The right to a sense of security and belonging derived from a loving and nurturing environment which shelters them from harm. The right to a continuing relationship with both parents and the freedom to receive love from and express love for both. The right to "listening" parents. The right to express love and affection for each parent without having to stifle that love because of fear of disapproval by the other parent. The right to grow and flourish in an atmosphere free of exploitation, abuse and neglect. The right to know that their parents' decision to divorce is not their responsibility and that they will still be able to live with each parent. The right to continuing care and guidance from both parents where they can be educated in mind, nourished in spirit, and developed in body, in an environment of unconditional love. The right to honest answers to questions about changing family relationships. The right to know and appreciate what is good in each parent without one parent degrading the other. The right to have a relaxed, secure relationship with both parents without being placed in a position to manipulate one parent against the other. The right to have one parent not undermine time with the other parent by suggesting tempting alternatives or by threatening to withhold activities with the other parents as a punishment for the children's wrongdoing. The right to be able to experience regular and consistent parental contact and the right to know the reason for not having regular contact. The right to be a kid and to be insulated from the conflict and problems of parents. The right to be taught, according to their developmental levels, to understand values, to assume responsibility for their actions, and to cope with the just consequences of their choices. The right to be able to participate in their own destiny.

<><>

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559, THE CHILD (3)

The most difficult part of my divorce was the custody issue.  This is where I did everything I possibly could to protect the children from the battle that was going on in trial court. 

When my X and I exchanged the children for visitation, I did whatever I could to remain polite and to establish a reasonably friendly and civilized atmosphere.  I can remember grinding my teeth to keep my mouth shut so I wouldn't say anything that would later be a problem. 

Today I had a conversation with my older daughter.  She said to me, I am now beginning to understand what an unusual childhood I have had.  My heart leapt to my mouth as I wondered what she meant, thinking she was about to share some divorce trauma with me.  Instead, she said "You always took us to the library so that I have read many more books than most people my age." 

I felt so relieved.  If that is all that she remembers as being unusual about her childhood, I will have achieved my goal of protecting her from the dangerous fallout from my divorce.  I then laughed and said, "Well, that was actually you, because when I took you to the library, it never occurred to you to say 'I don't want to go.'" 

Unfortunately, for Patricia Bauer, in her case, she didn't have the same luck. 

When she told her son, Gregory, we are now moving to Minneapolis, he said "No, I don't want to go.  I want to stay in Simsbury with my Dad!" 

My position had always been in regard to my children that they will do as they are told because I am the mother.  However, when family court involves itself in your lives, that kind of firm control goes overboard as the court allows the kids to use the GAL against you, the attorneys in the case fabricate false information about you, and then undermine your authority. 

Can any of you relate to that?  I think you can. 

This is very problematic for a mother and I have heard stories about this from many of them.  I think it is very hard to shift from having full authority to having most of the authority shift from Mother to all these other people from family court who really have no idea what is going on the way a Mother does. 

This is tough enough when the children are young and need the kind of firm hand a Mother can provide, but what do you do, what will the family court do when these children begin to verge upon the age of decision making?  What do you do when the children reach 13, 14, 15 years old?  How much do you listen to the views of children that age? 

Now Charles and Patricia Bauer spent around $400,000, as you know, fighting over the custody of their son.  The young man involved in this case, Gregory, at the time around 15 years old, met with a psychologist, Dr. Wilbur Nelson, who stated that Gregory had "the requisite intelligence to have an informed preference concerning his living circumstances." 

My best bet is that at age 15, the trial court is going to conclude this about any child.  So, if you have a 15 year old child who is stating a preference for any particular living arrangement, do not spend $400,000 fighting that because, trust me, the conclusion is foregone. 

You know you are out of luck if the trial court assigns an Attorney of the Minor Child to the child rather than a GAL as they did in the Bauer case.  That is one great big hint to you that whatever the child wants, he or she will get. 

It may be still rather iffy at 13 or 14, but at 15, you have lost before you even begin if you try to go against the wishes of the  child.  When I tell this to parents, they always argue with me.  They can't seem to believe it is true.  It is amazing how many so called adults find it hard to understand that little Johnny, little Johnette, is all grown up and responsible for his or her actions, including taking action with AMCs and GALs and the trial court which are harming such parents profoundly. 

Regretably speaking, for such litigants, I can only say, the sooner they figure this concept out, the better.  Because until they do, they will simply be banging their heads against a brick wall.  And I've seen people bang their heads against this particular wall for a considerably long period of time and all that does is cost time, money, and heart ache for no damn good reason, as the Bauer case goes to show.  Kids are kids and they can be heartless, not unloving, but heartless.

So, aren't you glad you read this blog, because now you know, now you know not to go wasting your money with a great big custody battle when the results are preordained as everyone involved in this $400,000 court case already knew even as they engaged in it.  Isn't it true that the parties are the last to know about these things? 

Actually, in this particular case, it wasn't so much the child's age that made the difference. I think where both parents lost their authority to make any determination in regard to Gregory was when the trial court found out that Gregory had "attended seven schools in nine years." as he was growing up. That's nuts, totally nuts! 

Sometimes before you go embarking on some big family court case, it makes sense to have some therapy to explore your motivations so you don't use family court as an extremely expensive means to work out your own mental health issues.  Just reading over this case, listening to the reports that all Gregory wanted was for his parents to stop fighting over him, I can only say this was a really, really sad situation--"What Maisy Knew" reprised.

THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Early in my high conflict divorce, my attorney agreed to appoint a guardian ad litem in my case. What a mistake!

Before I go into more detail, let me tell you what a guardian ad litem is.  A guardian ad litem is an attorney or mental health professional put into place to represent the best interests of your children.  In a high conflict divorce where custody is under dispute, they will do an investigation and make a recommendation regarding which parent should be the residential parent or sole custodian of the child.  Most of the time, these folks are attorneys, but sometimes they are mental health professionals.  

The guardian ad litem was my worst nightmare.  In fact, when I look back, this person caused the most harm and damage during my divorce not only to me, but also to my children.  I had my ex urinating on my furniture and putting nails in my tires, but when I brought up the issue of abuse with the guardian ad litem, s/he dismissed it with a wave of the hand, "They always claim they are being abused." s/he said.  Not only did that hurt emotionally because s/he invalidated the injuries I was experiencing on a daily basis, but also s/he pretty much gave my ex permission to escalate his abuse, which he promptly did.

I would say, not only was there the emotional and physical harm and damage that the guardian ad litem caused, but also s/he is literally responsible for costing me thousands and thousands of wasted dollars.  

For example, s/he was a mental health professional rather than an attorney.  S/he was always talking--talk, talk, talk and asking probing questions so there would be more talk, talk, talk, and then s/he charged me untold sums of money per hour  for all the talk, talk, talk.  You know, I am not a fan of attorneys.  But what is worse than an attorney is a mental health professional desperately trying, but miserably failing, to do what attorneys are actually trained to do.  

So, what is it that guardians ad litem are statutorily required to do?  According to the Connecticut Practice Book Sec. 25-62 "The judicial authority may appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor involved in any family matter.  Unless the judicial authority orders that another person be appointed as guardian, a family relations counselor shall be designated as a guardian ad litem.  The guardian ad litem is not required to be an attorney."  

Guardians ad Litem are currently required to take a training course on how to be a guardian ad litem.  This training course involves a 30 hour, six session course which teaches guardians ad litem how to develop the skills they need for the job (i.e. how to torture their clients with even more grace and sophistication than they ever did before!).  

Thus the Connecticut Practice book Sec. 25-62 continues on to say "With the exception of family relations counselors, no person may be appointed as guardian ad litem until he or she has completed the comprehensive training program for all family division guardians ad litem sponsored by the Judicial branch."  

The training program was developed in the past few years and only recently became mandatory.  It was developed under the leadership of the Chief Administrative Judge For Family Matters--Judge Lynda Munroe.  The intention behind this program is to make a lot of money--oops, I mean to establish a uniform and consistent level of training for all Guardians Ad Litem.  At this point, the class is free and the instructors who teach the class work for free.  

This section of the Practice Book finishes by stating, "The judicial authority may order compensation for services rendered by a court appointed guardian ad litem."  And this is the most crucial point.  

Apparently, when a family is indigent, the best information I have indicates that the guardian ad litem will receive a $350 flat fee for the services he or she provides to the family, plus a nominal fee per hour beyond 30 hours.  

However, guess what, if you are anything beyond indigent, you'll be paying top dollars--anything from $250/hour or more for your guardian ad litem.  In fact, Sec. 25-62 pretty much authorizes the judge, ah hemm, judicial authority to wipe out all your bank accounts for the purpose of paying the guardian ad litem.  

Not only that, the judge, ah hemm, judicial authority can wipe out your children's bank accounts paying for the guardian d Litem.  I mean every last dime, all the college funds, all the UTMA accounts, eeevveerrryythhinngg.  Yes.  See CT Statute Sec. 46b-129(a).  And this is supposed to be in the best interests of the children--go figure!

Currently, there are around 700 trained guardians ad litem in the State of Connecticut and rising.  And, as you know, the more GALs there are available, the more litigants will be pressured to utilize their services!  Mark my words!

A guardian ad litem is supposed to represent the best interests of the child as opposed to an attorney for the minor child who is supposed to represent the child's wishes (see Connecticut Practice Book Sec. 25-62a).  AMCs usually represent older children who are more able to know what they want.

I can tell you now, out of all the people involved in your high conflict divorce, the person who will likely make the most exorbitant amount of money is the guardian ad litem, hands down.  

What always bothered me about the concept of the guardian ad litem is the idea that they have the right to interfere in the parenting of my child.  As one expert put it, "a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed in situations in which the parent is presumed incapable of preserving the child's best interests.  It is not the child's disability under the law which has resulted in the need for a guardian ad litem, but rather the disability of the child's parent.  The guardian ad litem is therefore acting on behalf of the parent in pursuing the best interests of the child, it is argued, and becomes a parent surrogate with limited duties."

"Parent surrogate"!  Excuse me?  As parent, I am supposed to be disabled?  Give me a break!  My right to parent is a sacred constitutional right.  And you are going to interfere with that simply because I filed for divorce and my ex is a jerk and making it difficult for me?  

Did any of you have the problem where your kids would defy discipline and threaten to report you to the guardian ad litem when you tried to correct their behavior?  Raise your hands, ladies; I know you are out there!  

I've had relatives ask me why I'm not more strict with my children, how come I don't demand they do their chores as faithfully as they think I ought to.  And I tell them why--not with this divorce hanging around my neck, because all the kids have to do is report me.  All the time as I am doing the job of parenting, I'm tiptoeing around that big elephant in the room, that the guardian ad litem is hanging around in the wings waiting or in actuality acting in such a way as to undermine my authority.  

The other big issue that came up with my kids and the guardian ad litem, specifically when the GAL was doing her investigation, had to do with coaching the children to make false statements to the custody evaluator.  Twice I caught the guardian ad litem coaching my children to make false statements.  Luckily, the custody evaluator asked questions from more than one angle and was able to tease out the inconsistencies that arise when children are being coached, but if it weren't for that, I would have been seriously compromised.  

So when the guardian ad litem takes your kids off for questioning, make sure you follow up with the kids to find out what was said and also follow up with requests for a summary of the contents of the meeting, something to protect yourself. 

Once the guardian ad litem's investigation is over, always ask him for a full report.  A report you can counter in a deposition or with testimony from other sources.  But conclusions drawn behind your back, conversations behind closed doors--you can't do anything with that.  Trust me!  Guardian ad litems will do anything to avoid providing such a report, but you must insist on one.  Otherwise, there is absolutely no accountability and you can end up being a victim--aGAIN! 

The official line regarding guardians ad litem is that they are only one source of information in regard to custody in a divorce and the judge is supposed to consider a number of different factors.  However, the bottom line that everyone knows, and I mean everyone, is that if the Guardian Ad Litem makes a decision regarding custody, that is the decision the Trial Court will go with 99.999999% of the time. 

So don't be fooled.  If you are smart, I'd avoid having a guardian ad litem in the first place, but if you are stuck with one, you'd better hope you are that guardian ad litem's best friend, or else you and your children are in big, big, and I mean BIG trouble.