THE STOP ABUSE CAMPAIGN POSTS TESTIMONY FOR THE TASK FORCE ON DV AND CHILDREN FROM BARRY GOLDSTEIN AND MELANIE BLOW!

FOR THE LINK TO BARRY GOLDSTEIN AND MELANIE BLOW'S TESTIMONY RE DV AND CHILDREN POSTED ON THE STOP ABUSE CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, PLEASE SEE BELOW:

http://stopabusecampaign.com/connecticuts-task-force-for-studying-minors-exposed-to-domestic-violence/

FINAL MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!

Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence

Thursday, January 7, 2016, 10:00AM-12:00PM 

Location:  Room 2A of the LOB 

ELIZABETH A. RICHTER PUBLIC TESTIMONY TO THE TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATEWIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!

To the Honorable Members of This Committee:

To start, I would like to share that as a child I was present during many incidents of domestic violence in my home, which explains my current intense interest in the subject matter of this task force.  One of the most vivid memories I have at age 12 is of being in the emergency room when a doctor approached me and asked me to explain what had happened to my mother because he didn't believe that the injuries she had sustained came from falling against a door knob. Since I'd had my parents drill me on how I'd be punished if I ever spoke of what went on in my home, I refused to answer at the time, which left me feeling very guilty and traumatized.  So I personally know what it is like to be in the shoes of these children about whom we are speaking and I believe that the interests of children are central to any discussion in regard to domestic violence.

  

I want to thank each and every one of you individually for your service on this task force and also thank the various presenters who took the time to share their insights with the task force.  The current focus of this task force is very timely and welcome to members of the community who have long endured the damage that results from domestic violence, particularly those who are struggling with custody issues in family court.  As one expert stated, "Domestic Violence puts millions of women and children at risk each year and it is one of the single greatest social ills impacting the nation."  The impact on children can be profound.  As the task force report states, in 11% of DV incidents in 2012 children were present and involved in the these incidents, while in 20% of the incidents children were not involved or present.   However, I assume we can expect that on one level or another, children experience the shock waves of these DV incidents even when they are not present.  It is worth noting that other studies report that an even greater cohort of children are exposed to DV than the task force has indicated. Further, as the task force report indicated the impact on children as the result of this exposure to DV is extremely damaging, i.e., "children exposed to domestic violence may show increased aggression, persistent sleep problems, increased anxiety, difficulty with peer relationships and diminished capacity to concentrate in school" as well as a core loss of a sense of security in the world around them.

My interest regarding this Task Force is in connection to the inadequate response of the CT Judicial Branch to regard to the issue of domestic violence.  These areas are as follows:

Description of Victims of DV Acts as a Barrier:  On a personal level, my primary exposure to the issue of DV occurred during my time in family court when I filed for divorce, an experience which lasted from 2006 up until 2012.  During the time that I was in family court, attorneys, judges and court personnel refused to acknowledge my experience of DV.  In particular, when I reported the abuse to the GAL in my case, she responded, "All women claim abuse."  This was a former head of the Family Relations Division in New Britain.  Since that time, I have seen many cases where legal professionals and judges have responded to DV cases with indifference and disregard.  It is my view that some of this puzzling response is related to how these legal professionals define a victim of DV.  The definition they have received from DV professionals is that a DV victim is the passive recipient of batterer violence who would not fight back.  They also presume that a victim would deny the abuse and would be reluctant to speak of it, and that such a victim would necessarily wish to return to her abuser, not divorce him or her.  While some victims of domestic violence meet this definition, not all of them do.  Unfortunately, if you do not meet this widely disseminated description of a DV victim, if you actually assertively engage in defending yourself from DV and seek to divorce your abuser, legal professionals are unlikely to believe your reports of abuse.  This means that if you speak up and state that you are a victim of DV in family court, you are unlikely to be believed simply by virtue of your ability to speak of it. 

I believe this characterization of the DV victim as passive victims has undercut the ability of the legal profession and the CT Judicial Branch to identify DV victims properly.  The problem arises from the fact that while time has marched on and our understanding of who the victims of DV are has become more complex and enriched, task forces such as this one continue to depend on DV literature that is at least ten or more years old, particularly when it comes to how they characteristize DV victims. Since DV became such a significant issue in the 70s and 80s, a new generation has grown up which, through extensive education and the widespread availability of PSAs and movies regarding DV, has become considerably educated on what DV is.  This means that the victims of domestic violence are not as afraid of the stigma of DV as a previous generation has been.  This is a culture where in literature and within the film industries taboo subjects that few people used to speak of out loud are now the subject of living room conversation--pretty much there are no holds barred.  This means that while the more traditional intimidated and silenced DV victim continues to exist, there are many more victims who are willing to speak up and who feel it is their duty to speak up.  Many victims fight back in the face of batterer violence, but doing so does not make them any less victims.  These individuals' experiences should not be denied and ignored as they have been in connection to family court matters, and victims should not be revictimized and retraumatized by ignorant denials, simply because they break the mold of a past, more traditional, conservative generation.  Why is this important to children?  This is important to children because when they observe their parents being subjected to ongoing, unhindered abuse through the actions of a batterer, and an indifferent family court system, such children endure the trauma which has been reported in this task force as being so harmful to their young minds and bodies.

Psychological, as well as Physical Abuse:  Not only is there a problem with defining who is a victim, there is an additional problem when it comes to defining what DV is.  Currently, our CT statutes solely define DV in terms of physical injury or a threat of physical injury between members of a household or family.  Yet, the June 2015 report on DV presented by the CT Academy of Science and Engineering specifically states that the issue of DV goes beyond physical violence.  On page 4, that report states, "Although the literature primarily focuses on physical and/or sexual abuse, research suggests that psychological abuse appears to have as great a negative impact, if not more, on mental health and physical health."  The report continues on to state that "an additional 14-17% of women have experienced psychological abuse alone."  While work on DV in this task force thus far has solely focused on physical violence, the evidence is clear that psychological abuse is equally, if not more, damaging.  These results concur with the discussion found in Dr. Evan Stark's book "Coercive Control" published on March 1, 2009.  Furthermore, the Academy's report points out that "psychological abuse often precedes physical abuse" which indicates that taking decisive steps to intervene in the presence of psychological abuse could prevent harm that could occur from later physical violence.  Ignoring psychological abuse, which is the current approach taken now, particularly in family court in connection to custody issues, is simply irresponsible and inhumane.  We need to have specific legislation attached to CT DV statutes that directly addresses psychological abuse as well as physical abuse in order to protect both DV victims and their children.  

Even without statutory changes, in family court, Judges and attorneys can go a long way towards eliminating much of this psychological abuse simply by insisting that perpetrators obey court orders. Unfortunately, Judges repeatedly see abusers violating court orders and yet fail to hold them in contempt, despite knowing very well what is going on. Examples of such wrongdoing would be refusing to pay child support as court ordered, refusing to pay for heat and hot water--particularly in the middle of winter--as court ordered, refusing to pay for electricity as court ordered, refusing to pay for telephone services as court ordered, refusing to pay rent or mortgage as court ordered, or refusing to obey access plans regarding the children as court ordered.  Perpetrators have indulged in this kind of nonsense for years with judges allowing them to avoid the consequences.  It is time to put a stop to such behavior because it ultimately leaves children insecure and at risk in their own homes where they live on a daily basis and puts the parent who is being victimized under stress such that attention that by rights belongs to taking care of the children ends up being diverted to issues of survival.

An Unacceptably High Dual Arrest Rate:  Closely allied to the issue of identifying the victims of DV is the problem of CT's unusually high dual arrest rate. Again, the CT Judicial Branch comes across as the wrongdoer in this situation since it has blocked attempts to resolve this matter.  I personally consider the Judicial Branch's actions in this matter extremely outrageous and typical of a Judicial System which has shown great insensitivity to the issue of DV on an ongoing basis.  The facts are as follows.  According to a 2011 study, CT "has the unwelcome distinction of having the highest domestic violence dual arrest rate in the nation."  The article reports CT's dual arrest rate as ranging "between 20% to 40% from 1988 to the present."  As a point of comparison, the article indicated that the nearby state of  Rhode Island has a rate between 2-5% and the national rate is around 3.8%.  Apparently, the reason why CT has such a high dual arrest rate, according to this report, is because CT is pretty much the last State in the nation that has a "mandatory arrest law without a companion primary aggressor provision."  However, in 2004 when the Judiciary Committee attempted to insert a primary aggressor provision in the CT Statutes on DV, according to journalist Chase Wright of  "The Hour" the CT Judicial Branch intervened and had the provision removed.  Just to inform you of how this problem has continued to fester as the result of the Judicial Branch's irresponsible actions, according to the Family Violence Arrests Annual Report of 2013, published by Commissioner Dora B. Schriro of the CT Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, the dual arrest rate in CT for the year 2013 was 39% indicating that the rate has shown no signs of slowing down.  In the last few years, large numbers of family court victims, many including DV victims, have stepped forward to state that the CT Judicial Branch has treated them harshly and unfairly. This extremely high dual arrest rate, and the CT Judicial Branch's gratuitous intervention in 2004 which has kept it high, indicate that the Branch has an unacceptable attitude of indifference towards family violence and the children who suffer from the consequences of this violence. This must change.   

Final Issues:  I have also spoken many times in other contexts in regard to the multiple cases in the State of CT where victims of DV who reported abuse were subsequently accused of PAS for speaking of the abuse and denied all access to their children.  I would again like to draw your attention to this issue. Furthermore, many family court victims have spoken about the fact that the CT Judicial Branch does not comply with Federal ADA law.  It is essential that victims of DV and their affected children who have thereby become disabled, or who have been disabled ongoing, have the necessary modifications they need in order to access the legal proceedings in their cases.  Thus far, the CT Judicial Branch has failed to do this.  Not only is the CT Judicial Branch's refusal to comply with ADA law a violation of federal ADA law and a violation of the constitutional and human rights of our most vulnerable, it is also foolish, short sighted, and bottom line negligent.  I would urge this task force to address this issue as well.  

I do apologize here that, to a certain extent, I am focusing more the CT Judicial Branch's weaknesses rather than its strengths.  The Judicial Branch's call for more information sharing within its own departments and with other agencies are well taken.  It is my belief that there is a pressing need for additional advocates in family court to assist victims in filling out forms to obtain restraining orders and in articulating their experiences of DV to the judge.  I also agree with the CT Judicial Branch that it would be helpful to have the Family Relations Division screen applicants for restraining orders for DV in advance of court proceedings.  I appreciate the CT Judicial Branch for taking the positive step of self scrutiny in this area.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth A. Richter

---

Elizabeth A. Richter, M.L.A.
Certified ADA Advocate
P.O. Box 5
Canton, CT 06019
earichter@aol.com
860-751-4668

TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATEWIDE EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DECEMBER 17, 2015 MEETING!

NEXT MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!

Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response

to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence

Thursday, December 3, 2015

10:00AM - 12:00PM 

Location: Room 2A of the LOB

TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATEWIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, OCTOBER 6, 2015 MEETING!

THE CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS SUPREME COURT GIVES CT CHILDREN THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM!

Christopher Nolan of the "CT Law Tribune" reports as follows:

"Plaintiffs' lawyers have a new weapon in their arsenal. The state Supreme Court, in a split decision, has ruled that Connecticut children have the right to sue for loss of consortium in personal injury cases. Previously, only spouses were eligible to collect such damages.

The court, in overturning a 27-year-old precedent, reasoned that there was a "unique emotional attachment" between parents and children, and that the grown-ups provide "critically important services" to their offspring.

The Sept. 28 ruling comes in the case of a West Haven family. The father of three children, Jose Campos, was struck and killed while riding a bicycle in September 2008. The family won more than $2 million in a wrongful death lawsuit. However, the children also sought loss of consortium damages but the trial judge dismissed the claim, citing a 1998 state Supreme Court decision that declined to recognize such claims.

"[W]e agree that the unique emotional attachment between parents and children, the importance of ensuring the continuity of the critically important services that parents provide to their children, society's interest in the continued development of children as contributing members of society, and the public policies in favor of compensating innocent parties and deterring wrongdoing provide compelling reasons to recognize such a cause of action," Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority's ruling..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202738402328/Breaking-With-Precedent-Conn-Court-Allows-Children-to-Make-Loss-of-Consortium-Claims#ixzz3n5iotNaw

THE HARTFORD COURANT REPORTS CT USES EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF SECLUSION AND RESTRAINTS WITH SCHOOL CHILDREN!

The Hartford Courant reports as follows:

 

"A 4-year-old boy identified with a developmental delay was physically restrained by school staff after he "threw (puzzle) pieces on the floor and across the room" while playing with a puzzle on a classroom rug.

 

An elementary school student was put into seclusion after "swinging her coat at staff."

 

These are among hundreds of incidents — deemed "emergencies" by school personnel — that warranted restraining and isolating preschool and elementary school students in Connecticut last year. A new report by the state Office of the Child Advocate raises "significant concern" regarding the frequency with which young children with autism and other disabilities are restrained or secluded; lapses in documentation or actual compliance with state laws; and the prevalence of "unidentified and unmet educational needs for children subject to forceful or isolative measures."

 

For more information regarding this article, please click on the link below:

 

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-school-seclusion-restraints-20150204-story.html#page=1

INTRODUCED BY SEN. JOHN KISSEL, PROPOSED BILL NO. 659, IMPROVE THE PROCESS OF ENTERING COURT ORDERS REGARDING THE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN!

General Assembly		Proposed Bill No. 659
January Session, 2015		LCO No. 2322
		*02322*
Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY
Introduced by:
SEN. KISSEL, 7th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING COURT ORDERS REGARDING THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That section 46b-56 of the general statutes be amended to provide that the court: (1) Shall not, on its own initiative, enter or modify an order regarding the care, custody, education, visitation or support of a child; and (2) shall clearly articulate specific findings as to each best interest factor considered when rendering a decision regarding the care, custody, education, visitation or support of a child

Statement of Purpose:
To improve the process relating to the entry of court orders regarding the care and custody of children.

LET'S GO BACK TO THE PRIMARY CARETAKER PRESUMPTION!

Many Family Court activists have tried to figure out how we can reduce the high conflict litigation in Connecticut's Family Courts.  The most recent proposal for doing this is to require that the State of Connecticut adopt a presumption of Shared Custody which would replace what we have now which is the presumption of Joint Custody. 

So what is the difference between Shared Custody and Joint Custody?  I have to tell you that I have repeatedly asked this question and haven't really received a satisfactory answer.  But I will do my best to give you a definition here today.  If folks reading this blog think I have misunderstood the definitions, please let me know so I can correct any mistakes. 

From what I gather, Shared Custody presumes that both parents would end up with fifty/fifty access time with the children.  In contrast, Joint Custody would stick to the idea that you have a custodial parent and a non-custodial parent and the non-custodial parent would see the children every other weekend--Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday until around 7:00p.m., and would then also have the opportunity for dinner with the child either one or two days per week. 

Both approaches to custody include a decision making policy where the parents share decision making in regard to the medical, educational, and religious lives of the children while leaving every day decision making to the individual parents who are present at the time. 

I have spoken about what I see as the problems with Shared Custody, which is that the children would have to jump from home to home and never exactly settle in either one, plus there are some very serious logistical problems if parents live over 45 minutes away from each other.  This means the children would be spending an awful lot of time in the car. 

The problem I see with Joint Custody is that the non-custodial parents are really limited to around 4 full days per month with their children, plus 4 to 8 two hour periods per week, which seems like hardly anything to me. 

On the one hand, if the parents are not getting along, perhaps that is a good idea.  However, if they are fairly easy going with each other, why not just reasonably expand the timeframe a little bit.  After all, in good times before the divorce most non-custodial parents saw their children every day. 

Still, the big question is, would either the presumption of Shared Custody or Joint Custody significantly reduce the level of conflict between divorcing couples when it comes to custody matters? 

I simply don't think so. 

Whether Shared or Joint, those couples who fight now are going to continue to fight with either approach.  Shared Custody will invite conflict just the same as Joint Custody does now because you are always going to have the exceptions built into any statute.

Those who fought for greater parental access under Joint Custody statutes are going to continue to use exceptions to get it.  Further, such litigants are going to use the greater access to the other parent that Shared Custody gives them to interfere in the day to day decision making of the other parent and use that as a means to abuse or coerce the other parent to relinquish his or her parental rights.  Bottom line--it's a nightmare. 

What else would I suggest? 

I would suggest implementing the Primary Caretaker Presumption.  The Primary Caretaker Presumption states that whichever parent, either father or mother, played the role of primary caretaker up to the filing for divorce should continue in that role.  Such a presumption would immediately eliminate the vast majority of the underlying causes of long and drawn out litigation. 

Identifying the primary caretaker up to that point would act as an extremely accurate litmus test for determining who should be the custodial parent. 

So why hasn't this been done already?  I'll tell you why.

Underlying the concept of Joint Custody as well as Shared Custody is the idea that it does not matter who was the primary custodian up to that point--that this doesn't affect the children that much emotionally. 

Further, the idea is that if the wage earner, up to the point of filing for divorce, suddenly finds inside him or her his latent talent for caregiving children, then that parent should be allowed to exercise it, even though he or she never exercised it before.  In theory, I have heard it said, it could be that the better caregiver is the wage earner, but because of economic necessity, he or she has been unable to exercise those abilities and now has the right to. 

This is an admirable sentiment.  But is it worth the waste of thousands and thousands of dollars and the destruction of so many of the lives of parents, children, and grandparents in order to achieve it?  I don't think so. 

The bottom line is that consistency in regard to primary caretaker is very important to children, particularly at the time of divorce.  To deny this is to completely trivialize the role of such caretakers, and is bottom line insulting and demeaning towards those caretakers who have often sacrificed a great deal physically and economically, let alone in regard to social independence and personal autonomy, in order to be there for their children. 

Originally, the Primary Caretaker Presumption was the law.  However, in the 1970s and 1980s with the rise of feminism, this presumption was replaced by Joint Custody.  The thought behind this among feminists was that such a policy would free women up to pursue challenging and interesting careers and release them from the domestic ghetto they found themselves in. 

At the same time, feminists anticipated that Joint Custody would allow more men to exercise their nurturing side and provide them with greater opportunities to leave the office and spend more time with their children. 

Unfortunately, this shift to Joint Custody backfired and led to serious harm and damage for women.  Since Joint Custody led to greater custody rights for fathers, unscrupulous men then used their greater access to children as a means to put pressure on mothers so that often mothers were forced to bargain away their economic rights for their custody rights. 

Frequently, Courts were too willing to be impressed with a father's sudden eagerness to assume an active role in parenting and failed to scrutinize his actual motivation which was simply to hammer down the level of child support and alimony he would have to pay. 

The end result was a phenomenon which one author described as "The Feminization of Poverty" where post divorce the income of fathers increased considerably while that of women took a sizeable decline.  Even if the happy result did occur where a father took the opportunity to spend more time with the children while mother returned to the job market, the fact remains that the vast majority of women did not achieve wage equity and remained stuck in medium to low paying jobs. 

As a feminist, I believe that a woman who has been primary caretaker up to the point of filing for divorce should certainly have the option to choose to leave that position and return to the working world and, should she wish to and her ex is willing, shift the burden of responsibility over to her ex-husband.  However, I certainly abhor the idea that she would be forced to do so through family court machinations and corruption. 

Unfortunately, what I am hearing about from a good many women is that Joint Custody has simply given abusive men greater access to abuse their ex wives and children either through custody switching schemes or financial beat downs.  Shared Custody, then, would simply do exactly the same thing, but worse.  

Also, unfortunately, many women who have lost custody of their children have been duped into joining father's rights groups and supporting Shared  Custody because they think at least if we have Shared Custody I will be able to see my children forgetting that it was Joint Custody (And, of course, its malevolent cousin Shared Custody which is simply a more intrusive form of Joint Custody) that got them where they are in the first place!  

The bottom line is, the only way to protect the rights of primary caretakers of children, both men and women, is to stick with the Primary Caretaker Presumption.  The fact is that, if we had such a presumption, the whole industry of GALs, AMCs, Custody Evaluators, and other vendors would collapse because we would have an open and shut way of making custody decisions in 99.9% of cases.  Whoever was the primary caretaker before will continue to be so.  Done and done.

As a nod, however, to the major social and intellectual changes that have taken place in recent decades, I would certainly recommend that the Primary Caretaker Presumption be combined with liberal visitation rights for non-custodial parents which go well beyond the minimal timeframe that Joint Custody currently provides.  Further, decision making should remain joint in regard to medical care, education, and religion.

OLD MATERIAL ON CUSTODY 4 CASH - MAY HAVE ONGOING RELEVANCE!

AT THE LINKS BELOW ARE ONGOING REPORTS OF KIDS FOR CASH TYPE SCAMS GOING ON IN PENNSYLVANIA.  THIS IS AN ONGOING STORY THAT WE SHOULD ALL KEEP TRACK OF!

http://custody4cash.org/


http://wilkesbarrescrantonig.com/2014/03/01/testimonials-flood-in-on-custody4cash-scandal/

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH!

After years of begging the Department of Justice to take action, Anne Stevenson reports that the Department recently announced its intention to take steps to investigate the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  For more information, please click on the link below:

http://www.commdiginews.com/life/dying-for-custody-part-1-doj-announces-investigation-into-connecticut-court-programs-4659/

 

CONNECTICUT AT IT AGAIN IN A KIDS FOR CASH SCAM!

By Susan Skipp, Co-Chair

We The People Family Preservation,

Connecticut Chapter

 

January 15, 2014

 

Colleen Kerwick, a New York resident was forced to remain in Connecticut, and forced out of her job because of the vexatious litigation conducted in Family Court by her former spouse’s counsel--Steve Dembo and Michael Budlong and Campbell Barrett.  These attorneys are members of the AFCC, a profit sharing venture that franchises judicial systems around the world.

 

Attorney Colleen Kerwick is a federal civil rights and aviation attorney, with two law degrees and enough accolades in her legal career to take several minutes of your time just filling you in about it. 


I will share a vignette of what I witnessed in the Hartford Court in front of the bench of the Honorable Judge Felcito on Wednesday, January 8, 2014.  I have observed Judge Felcito in other cases and until that hearing thought her to be a fair judge.

 

Within days before Christmas this past year, Colleen lost custody of her son via an ex-parte motion so that the father could take the child on vacation.  As sick and disturbing as this sounds, this is what happens everyday when people buy and sell kids in Connecticut’s Court.

 

On December 20, 2013, the father, Mr. Kenneth Savino, who had been arrested before for risk of injury to a minor for medically neglecting his son, requested and received from the Court an ex-parte (emergency) order that Colleen Kerwick turn the child over at 10:00 am at the child’s doctor’s office, claiming imminent risk of injury to a child. Colleen was at this doctor's office, however, she was not served the order and did not know about the order.   Even though Savino was at the doctor's office at that time, he did not take the child or tell Colleen about the order.  Earlier in the day, Colleen had waited at their usual switching spot at 9:00am, but he did not show up.  Then, at 9:05 am, Savino’s team of lawyers filed the ex-parte motion.

 

At 3:40p.m. the State Marshall, Bruce Kaz admitted to seeing Colleen several times throughout the day as she drove around her Connecticut hometown participating in various activities with her child.  Also, as an aside, Marshall Bruce Kaz has a history of providing fabricated testimony in court against litigants to whom he's been paid to deliver court papers.
 

 

Still, at 3:45p.m., Savino’s legal team, even though it was in constant conversation throughout the day with Colleen Kerwick, along with Kerry Tarpy, the GAL whose bills only reflect time with the father and speaking with his attorneys, while making no attempt to meet with Colleen and the child, decided that they had grounds to issue an Amber Alert.
 

A police lieutenant and supervisor of the Avon, Connecticut police department and State Marshall Bruce Kaz showed up at Colleens’ home at 5:30pm on December 20, 2013 with no advanced notice and took the four-year-old child from his mother's arms.  Father was awarded temporary sole custody and Colleen was barred from all access to her child.
 

 

In Connecticut, the burden must be met that the child is in imminent danger to change custody via an ex-parte order. The order for the ex parte motion read that Colleen must return to court on January 2, 2014 to show cause as to why the order for Mr. Kenneth Savino having temporary sole custody should continue.
 

At that time, Colleen, representing herself, cited the law stating that the ex-parte order was not made in good faith since the grounds for the removal of a child from the custody of a parent should only occur when it is believed that the child is in danger of imminent harm. In fact, the child was simply eating lunch and taking a nap with his mother.  What occurred was that there was simply a problem in terms of the custody transfer when Mr. Savino did not show up because he was busy scamming the Court into issuing an ex-parte order of sole custody for his benefit.
 

 

Up to this point, Colleen has not even been able to address this point, since the focus of the Court during the hearings on this issue have been shifted from what actually took place onto the issue of Colleen's mental health.  By simply changing the subject matter of the hearing over to the question of Colleen's mental health, Mr. Savino's legal team, with the collusion of the GAL, has avoided the question of whether the child was in any kind of danger altogether. 
 

 

This is discrimination and a violation of Prong #3 of Federal ADA law which prohibits discrimination based upon the false perception that a person has a mental health disability that he or she does not have. 

 

Attorney Colleen Kerwick has already shown credible evidence that she has no mental health disability.  She has submitted to two psychological evaluations--one by the notorious Sidney Horowitz PhD, AFCC Board Member whose professional acumen has garnered him open investigations at the Department of Health for mal-practice, neglect, insurance fraud who has perjured himself many times in court.  Both evaluations cleared her of any kind of mental health disability.
 

 

At this point, Colleen has been ordered to participate in a second Custody Evaluation and in the cash only Peace Program run by Dr. Elizabeth Thayer, another AFCC member.  This is a grand slam for the AFCC. It gets even better for the AFCC when after two days of a hearing Colleen still has no access to her child.
 

 

What exactly can another AFCC court appointed custody evaluator say any differently than before? Colleen has spent $110,000 in legal fees and the GAL has collected  tens of thousands.  It is unknown how much her millionaire former husband, Mr. Kenneth Savino, who has a history of litigation abuse, has paid his brigade of lawyers.   There is no doubt that this legal firm, which is known to have made lots of money by incentivizing conflict in numerous other cases, intends to destroy this woman’s career, destabilize her financially and decimate her emotionally by ordering her to jump through additional hoops just to see her own child.
 

 

Meanwhile, the father continues to have sole custody because he blatantly committed fraud on the Court by committing outright perjury.  This is the man who has previously been medically neglectful to his child, to a point where EMT’s had him arrested for refusing to take his child to the hospital when he had a seizure.

 

 

SHARED PARENTING: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

When it comes to custody, I have largely addressed my concerns towards the issue of corrupt GALs and AMCs who are defrauding unsuspecting parents of thousands and thousands of dollars.  I haven't spent as much time with the question of shared custody. 

 

However, many of the folks who established the current task force addressing issues such as GALs and AMCs and the importance of shared custody (and that is actually not me, by the way!)  are much more focused on the importance of implementing shared custody in Connecticut's Courts. 

 

My problem with this idea has been that I am totally confused by what shared custody means!

 

In essence, my response has been that the State of Connecticut already has the presumption of joint custody in place, so what more do you want.  What joint custody means is that both parties in divorce have equal decision making authority in regard to religious, medical, and educational matters. 

 

However, joint custody does not address the question of who is the parent who obtains primary custody of the children, or in other words, who has residential custody of the children.

 

Now in my case, I ended up having the residential custody of the children and my ex lives out of State.  So it was pretty clear that once I obtained the residential custody of the children, my ex would have time with the kids every other weekend, and as it turned out in our case, he was given two evenings a week for dinner from 5:30p.m. to 8:30p.m., which he never followed through on.  Of course, given how far away he is, that is actually understandable so I'm not complaining,I'm just informing!  Plus, my ex was allowed a little over a full month over the summer. 

 

Even though I can explain the limited time my ex obtained by citing the fact that he is Out of State, there are many non residential parents who have this very same schedule even though they may just live a single town away from their kids.  My impression is that family court is kind of stuck on the schedule of every other weekend and one night during the week for dinner for the non residential parent, although I am hearing that many also get Sunday night and have the opportunity to take their kids to school on Monday morning.

 

This adds up to maybe 4 to 6 overnights in a 30 to 31 day month for the non residential parent. 

 

When you put it that way, to me, that doesn't seem like a whole lot of time!

 

If the divorce has been particularly ugly, to the offended party that amount of time must seem to be ten times more than the person deserves.  However, in the ordinary situation where you don't have high degrees of tension, I must say 4 to 6 overnights doesn't seem like much time for a child to develop a significant relationship with a parent.  In fact, I'd say it is pretty crummy. 

 

That's where, I am suspecting, the whole concept of Shared Parenting comes into play. Non-residential parents are sick and tired of essentially being excluded from a significant role in their children's lives and Shared Parenting seems like a good solution to the problem. 

 

 

To be honest, when folks first approached me with the concept of Shared Parenting I had no idea what it was, and I still don't feel as though I have a good grasp of it.  However, in order to write this blog I quickly looked up a definition and came up with one on the blog "A Dad's Divorce"  and found the following link:

 

http://www.dadsdivorce.com/articles/what-is-the-definition-of-shared-custody.html

 

From what I gather after reading this article, Shared Parenting basically consists of a situation where the parties have a 50/50 share of the overnights.  What advocates in support of Shared Parenting would like to see is the presumption of joint custody, which is currently in place, replaced by the presumption of a 50/50 share of the overnights between the two parents.  

 

If I have not understood this concept properly, someone who is an expert in Shared Parenting, please interject a clarification so I can understand the term more accurately!

 

My immediate reaction to this kind of arrangement is that it would make much more sense in terms of allowing both parents liberal access to the children, and also allowing the parties who were previously known as the non-custodial parents to continue on with their close relationship with their children subsequent to the divorce. 

 

If there is one aspect of divorce that I believe is particularly painful, it is the loss of the intimacy, or day to day contact, with your children that the non-custodial parent endures.  Then they are told to fork over the money and it can appear to them that the custodial parent, as well as society as a whole, only considers them valuable for the money they provide and not for the non monetary items such as mentoring, emotional connection, and shared experiences, etc..  

 

If the parties live reasonably close by, why not proceed with a Shared Custody arrangement? 

 

One concern I'd have would be that kids with Shared Parenting situations would end up feeling like tennis balls bouncing from one house to the other and back again and not settling in anywhere. 

 

Second, for children with mental health issues such as anxiety, and children with autism, etc. such frequent changes of homes could be disruptive and end up undercutting their ability to function. 

 

It's not just the homes, either, it is also the community that the children spend time in--with Shared Custody they'd have two separate sets of families, churches, rec. centers, etc. 

 

I could see that being a problem, but I could also see that as being an opportunity, but only for a particular kind of child, and that would require a custody study to see what kind of children do you have. 

 

Oh no! 

 

Now we are back to the custody study that we were trying to avoid by establishing the presumption of Shared Parenting!  Because I am almost certain that the State Legislature will never approach any change in CT Statutes which doesn't include some kind of loopholes for that minority of parents whose circumstances don't match the norm. 

 

I also think that in cases of proven abuse of either of the parties, or in cases where there is ongoing high conflict, Shared Parenting would be difficult because it would increase contact between the parties and almost certainly result in more frequent opportunities for one of the parties to browbeat and harass the other. 

 

Of course, much of the solution for that problem is the establishment of safer, more scrutinized transfer locations so that one party does not use the transfer of the children as an opportunity to continue the abuse. 

 

Furthermore, family court would have to address much more effectively this business of one party taking advantage of the other by showing up late.  There is only so long that you can keep the kids in the car watching DVDs waiting for the other person to show. 

 

I also think that the inevitable result of Shared Parenting is increased shared decision making which also requires that the parties have the ability to communicate with each other effectively.  For many parents whose relationship remains hostile, this will be a particular challenge. 

 

However, if you are talking the average divorce which is reasonably civilized, the expansion into the territory of Shared Parenting really offers an opportunity, one that should not  be denied simply because our current Family Court lacks vision.  Parents should regularly be informed in Family Court that Shared Parenting is an option that they can pursue.

 

Personally, I think that Family Court needs to take into consideration the potential for extending the opportunity non residential parents have to spend time with their children.  I think the every other weekend schtick with one dinner a week is much too rigid and old fashioned in our day and age.

 

However, before the task force makes any recommendations and the legislature takes action, I would like to have the opportunity to read studies on the outcome of Shared Parenting situations.  I would like to hear the children of such arrangements have the opportunity to speak about what it is like.  Right now we are sort of operating in the dark. 

 

But we do need to be open to the future, to acknowledge that we no longer have the traditional family where one parent works full time while the other stays at home.  As a Mom going to lots of play groups and kid activities, I met quite a few full time at home Dads, which is completely new for our generation. 

 

Family Court needs to understand that the times are a changing and the Court needs to catch up to that. 

 

This is why there is so much dissatisfaction throughout the State right now in regard to custody matters.  For me, personally, I was offended that Family Court judges and attorneys seemed to expect me to be a clone of Betty Crocker, while lots of guys must feel pretty offended that the only thing judges and attorneys appear to see when they look at them are stacks of money bags. 

 

We live in the modern age where computers are outmoded six months or sooner after you buy them.  Fashionable clothing is practically outré the moment you put it on.  Family Court has got to adjust to that dynamic, as well as the dynamic that we have probably the most educated group of Family Court consumers than there has ever been before. 

 

So what do you guys think about this?  Does any of this make sense?  I'd love to hear your views in the comment section below!  Where do we go from here?

WHEN MEN ASK FOR CUSTODY: WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE KIDDING?

Thank God I ended up with the residential custody of the children.  However, sometimes in my wildest dreams I imagine what might have happened if my ex had ended up with custody of the children. 

 

His scenario, from what I've gathered from the custody evaluation, was that he would continue to work and that he would have a nanny taking care of the children while I saw them once a month for a short visit. 

 

This would have been quite interesting to see, had it actually happened, because after knowing my ex for 25 years, I am aware that he is a workaholic and that even once he came home at night, he was very likely to have continued on working with the children running around the house unsupervised.  

 

Still, my attorney told me that I was within a hair's breadth of losing custody of my children and that I should be very grateful for his hard work. 

 

Of course, from my perspective I am looking at a custody evaluator and a GAL who actually entertained the idea that having three children in the care of a total workaholic would be a good idea.  Of course, I am not sure they even asked him how many hours he worked.  I think they spent their time looking at all the pictures he snapped during his parenting time. 

 

(I am not going to call it visitation, because there is something inherently wrong about referring the time fathers and mothers have with their children as time that they are visiting!) 

 

My bottom line question is, why do we have these custody disputes costing multiple thousands of dollars?  Shouldn't it be obvious that custody ought to go with the mothers who are the primary caregiver? 

 

Now before you start yelling at me all at once, don't start thinking that I am gender biased.  My own father was a very non-traditional man who never allowed himself to be limited by expectations of what men should or should not do. 

 

He was, in fact, a marvelous mother. 

 

He loved babies--he loved to rock them and hold them.  My mother used to tell me that he always thought they were "cheaper by the dozen." And as a young faculty member, he used to take my older sister to his class where students fussed over the baby while he delivered his lecture. 

 

My earliest memory of my father is of sitting next to him while he darned socks, in the days when people actually darned them.  And this was no easy feat.  My father was well over six feet and extremely large.  His hands were enormous, yet he would take this tiny little needle and repair a whole bundle of socks.  

 

He was also good, by the way, at making buttonholes, hemming seams, and doing all kinds of major clothing repairs on the Singer sewing machine we had stored in the closet.  I could go on about his excellent cooking, about how he collected buckets full of crabapples and turned them into delicious jelly in the summer, but I can only make this blog so long! 

 

My parents had a modern marriage in the 60s and 70s way before it actually existed.  My Mom had a full time job and worked when no other mothers I knew worked.  She would march to work every morning with her hair cut severely short wearing a polyester pants suit.  When her granddaughter asked her on a visit, "Why don't you bake brownies the way my other Grandma does?" my Mom responded, "I am not your brownie baking Grandma!"  My Mom took college classes, attended plays and operas, wrote poetry and published short stories throughout her old age.

 

With parents like this, how could I possibly advocate for the assignment of custody based on traditional gender roles?

 

The first reason is that these children came out of my body.  I risked my life and my wellbeing in order to have these children. 

 

In particular, after my first child I had damage to my reproductive organs that was extensive, consisting of both severe internal and external tearing and bleeding.  Sorry to gross you out, if that's what I've done.  I'm also squeamish talking about these things, but still facts are facts.  I had to wait three hours for the surgeon on call to make it to the hospital to care for me.  Afterwards, it took a considerable amount of time to recover. 

 

Subsequently, when I had the two additional children, things did not get better for me.  This means that I have physical damage to my body that is irreparable.  I did have surgery three years ago, but this could only repair so much, and the expectation is that it will require follow up work later on and that I will never fully heal. 

 

So every day that I get up I have physical problems that have resulted from my pregnancies which a man will never have to face in order to have children. 

 

Now, I am not saying I regret these children in any way.  In fact, every day I wake up I thank God for the wonderful children that I have.  I am only saying, that before any custody evaluator or GAL thinks about taking them from me, they should consider the price I've paid for them. 

 

And, of course, it doesn't just end there. 

 

What about the years of breastfeeding that I devoted myself to so that the children would be physically and emotionally healthy.  That adds up to at least four years of breastfeeding.  That's like a decade in my life during which time I was either pregnant or breastfeeding. 

 

Over and above that, can any of you ladies reading this blog recall when your body became your own again, when the kids stopped spontaneously jumping on your lap when they needed reassurance, when they stopped banging on the door nonstop when you tried to take a shower, when they stopped reaching out for you and hugging you at will, when they stopped jumping up and down asking you to pick them up--about years, I would say, and we have the ratty clothing and miserable hair cuts to show for it. 

 

This is a feat of giving in order to create a family that a man never has to consider providing. 

 

What shocks me, then, under these circumstances is that any court, any GAL, any custody evaluator could ever have only observed a hair's breadth difference between my ex and me when it came to the decision on custody. 

 

So why did it end up this way? 

 

Because I don't think anyone involved in the custody recommendation thought that this kind of information was important.  Our world is still very much a man's world, and so who even thinks to ask questions like that.  Yet these are very basic and fundamental questions that should be considered. 

 

For example, during the entire time that the kids were young, I never once saw my ex change a diaper. 

 

In the fourteen years that we were going to the pediatrician, my ex maybe saw the doctor two or three times. 

 

So since when did it turn out that he should be the one to get custody?  Because he takes good pictures?  

 

I have days when I think that men should have no involvement in custody issues whatsoever because they are simply clueless.  They have no idea what is going on with their own children, I can assure you, and then they go out making judgments on mothers in custody battles when they have no idea what being a mother is all about. 

 

My Dad was a lot different in so many ways, as I have said.  But he had a demanding job and he often had very late hours.  It was still my Mom who took the job that made her more available and that continues to happen nowadays for most people. 

 

So my Dad was not there to hear about my day when I came home from school; he did not instruct me on how to tie my shoe laces; he did not come to my room and check my temperature when I was sick and had to stay home from school; he did not walk me up the street to join the Scouting group at our neighborhood school, or sell girl scout cookies; he did not put my hair up in individual curlers when I was upset and then tell me how beautiful I looked once my hair was all done. 

 

Kids need their Moms, and anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts!