LAUGHABLY FLAWED STUDY ON CT JUDICIAL BRANCH COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADA MAKES IT ONTO THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH WEBSITE AND THE PAGES OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE!

On November 17, 2014 I was struck by an article in the CT Law Tribune stating that the CT Judicial Branch had been cited by the National Center for Access to Justice (NCAJ) as having "the highest overall ranking for any state for its programs aimed at providing equal court access to all citizens." 

 

This was a surprise to me since I have been closely involved in advocacy aimed at getting the CT Judicial Branch to comply with the ADA, which for the better part it does not do.  I then today took note of the fact that the CT Judicial Branch itself is boasting of its great work as well on the front page of its website, also citing the NCAJ. 

 

Wanting to get a better grasp of this absurd announcement, I actually clicked on the link to the National Center for Access to Justice and was not surprised to see that the touted justice index which praises Connecticut so greatly is brand new and was first started on February 25, 2014.  Well, I think then, given how new this index is that it can be forgiven a little idiocy until it catches up with the rest of us more grizzled participants in the field of disability rights! 

 

The next thing I did was take a look at the parameters which earned the Connecticut Judicial Branch such high ratings, despite the fact that it has such a widespread reputation among litigants for obstructing the ADA at every turn.  So, folks, these are the parameters that the Justice Index used as the basis of its determinations.  Mind you, they didn't speak to anybody--either judicial branch employees or litigants with disabilities.  What they did was surf judicial branch websites in states throughout the nation for answers to the following questions:  

 

1.  Are courts required or allowed to charge deaf or hard of hearing for sign language interpreters?

 

2.  Certification of sign language interpreters a. Is there a State statute, rule, or other guidance requiring courts to use only certified sign language court interpreters? b. Are courts required to give preference to sign language interpreters who have training in how to interpret in a legal setting?

 

3.  Does the state judiciary’s web site tell court users: a. How to request an accommodation because of disability or who to contact to request an accommodation? b. How to file a complaint about difficulty accessing court facilities or services because of disability? c. Who to contact to file a complaint?

 

4.  Is there a State statute, rule or other guidance requiring courts to allow service animals?

 

 - See more at: http://www.justiceindex.org/methodology/#sthash.zCSlL2ZX.dpuf

 

Questions one and two out of the four questions are in regard to the deaf.  I would suspect this is directed towards the CT Judicial Branch which signed a settlement with the Department of Justice in November 11, 2003 agreeing to provide accommodations for folks who are deaf.  Hard as it is to believe, prior to that date, they were not doing so. 

 

From the data I have, deafness is pretty much the only disability the CT Judicial Branch accommodates.  So what about all the other various disabilities that need to be accommodated--they don't receive any honorable mention? 

 

Question three appears to indicate that the Connecticut Judicial Branch provides litigants with information on who to contact in order to request an accommodation and who to contact in order to submit a grievance.  In fact, this is not true.  The CT Judicial Branch website tells you to speak to a contact person--and there are over a 100 listed on the website--at the clerk's office for a request for accommodation. 

 

This is hardly a name. 

 

For a grievance, you are asked to submit your documents to the Director of the Human Resources Management Unit. 

 

So you do not actually get the name and contact information of a specific individual, i.e. Designated Responsible Employee, who is in charge of the implementation of the ADA at the CT Judicial Branch which is what the ADA actually requires. 

 

What this comes down to is the fact that this so called justice index has been produced on the most superficial level possible and has no more credibility than, say, a law diploma ordered from the internet for a modest fee. 

 

Apparently, a considerable number of Carbozo Law students were involved in compiling the data used in the making of this justice index.  Oops!  Sorry, I meant Cardozo School of Law students.  Ok, call me a snob, but I would probably have been more impressed with these results if they had been compiled by students from Harvard Law, Cornell Law, or Columbia Law--you know, schools with some actual prestige--but, you know, they would probably not have been willing to participate in such a laughable project no matter how many brib--excuse me--much money you gave them. 

 

Ok, so students from the University of Pennsylvania Law school (ranked 7th or 8th in the country) did some research as well, but what with the Sandusky affair and the kids for cash scandal, I wouldn't credit any institution from Pennsylvania! 

 

The bottom line in any investigation of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act is whether the CT Judicial Branch actually provided accommodations to the litigants who used the court system and whether the Branch actually reached out to litigants to let them know that such accommodations were available.  Yes, item number four regarding service dogs is important, but not half as important making sure that the ADA is applied to everyone.

 

I myself was unaware of the existence of  ADA accommodations  at the CT Judicial Branch until three years after my case was filed, and I am not the only one who has had that kind of experience. 

 

That is a pretty miserable record, in my humble opinion. 

 

From what I can see, the National Center For Access to Justice is largely made up of and funded by -- you guessed it -- attorneys!  I thought it was interesting to see the Pfizer Legal Group is participating since Pfizer is such a major corporation in Connecticut. 

 

Needless to say, when lawyers and their legal institutions start praising themselves and their accomplishments, which they are never too modest to do--see the Super Lawyers website which is equally powered by scuzzy brib--excuse me--financial contributions--you've got to start feeling a little nervous. 

 

I can only assume that this recent desperate ploy of establishing a fake justice index indicates that the Connecticut Judicial Branch and its judges are feeling the heat from several Federal and State ADA Lawsuits which have been filed against it within the last two years for non-compliance with the comprehensive civil rights mandate of the ADA.  My response is only to say one day we shall overcome, we shall overcome.

HECTOR MORERA RESPONDS TO SMEAR POST FROM CT LAW TRIBUNE RE GALS!

Oct 17, 2014
 

Obviously the person(s) who wrote this story ["Misplaced Furor Over Guardians Ad Litem"] did not listen or listen carefully to the Public Hearing Testimony from January 9, 2014 and March 31, 2014 before the CT Legislature.

I was told that this story was not written by the CT Law Tribune staff but by some outside authors. If that is the case, then the newspaper should correct their byline to NOT mislead the public into believing that the contents of the article are the position of the CT Law Tribune.

I‘ve court watched over 30 cases this past year, many after the passage of PA 14-3 and despite promises of change by Chief Justice Rogers, I continue to see violations of case law, Practice Book and basic protocol with respect to GAL‘s.

I realize litigants can be unreasonable at times. I will not deny that, but GAL‘s and Attorneys are responsible for their own conduct. They can NOT use litigant misconduct as an excuse to break rules.

The State Legislature has gone to great lengths to create statutes that provide guidance in Family Matters. Some of these statutes require further revisions to clarify serious abuse of judicial discretion such as in the misuse of Supervised Visitation, improper use of Reunification, ADA violation, etc., but there are many others which are simply overlooked by the courts.

The Judicial Branch has placed many publications on their website (sadly they do not advertise this well enough to many litigants for some reason). These publications provide guidance also which many judges ignore. We live in a common law state, It is very frustrating to be told by a judge that they refuse to follow case law.

Numerous, indisputable violations of Criminal Statutes and Rules of Professional conduct by the GAL‘s have been brought to the attention of the Statewide Grievance Committee and State‘s Attorney but NO GAL has been sanctioned or disciplined, nor have criminal charges ever been pursued.

Again, as I stated many times before I gladly will welcome anyone to discuss this matter with myself as I have talked to hundreds of persons about their horror stories. 1, 2 or a handful of stories can be attributed to human mistake, NOT hundreds. And this is a nationwide problem. I routinely meet with a group out of NY/NJ and they reinforce my position that this is a systemic problem, not just a few rogue individuals.

And the "good" attorneys fear losing their livelihoods if they point out the misconduct. If the good GAL‘s are upset that they are getting caught in the cross fire, then rather than attack persons with legitimate complaints, they should join ranks with those who wish to minimize the rampant misconduct.

Thank you.

Hector Morera
Glastonbury, CT
917-821-6951

THE CT LAW TRIBUNE CALLS VICTIMS OF GAL ABUSE LIARS!

Below is the complete text of The Connecticut Law Tribune's recent article in regard to Guardian Ad Litems in which The Tribune denies the reality of the experiences of those who have been abused by GALs.  See below:

 

"A guardian ad litem is a person who represents children in contested divorces where the parties—the parents—cannot agree on custody of the children. In order to be a GAL in Connecticut one must go through a lengthy training process. Every prospective GAL, even attorneys who have extensive experience in child custody matters and training in child development, must go through the training, as well as periodic updated training.

 

It is a given that the GAL's job is not an easy one. Divorcing parents often lose perspective in the course of ending their marriage; emotions take over where better judgment used to rule. Parties to a divorce sometimes forget their responsibilities as parents and let their bitter disagreements with each other spill over into the lives of their children. These children are already distressed by their parents' divorce and the huge changes that the divorce will undoubtedly cause in their own lives, often including changes in residence, school, and family income, not to mention emotional upheaval.

 

Enter the GAL. In the midst of what can be a bitter battle, the GAL's job is to understand the situation, get to know the children, and speak for them. The GAL represents the best interests of the child when the parents are not doing that. In the course of doing that job, the GAL is lobbied by both parents, intent on getting or retaining control of the children, or perhaps intent only in defeating the other parent. Good, responsible parents do not let their divorce affect their children any more than is absolutely necessary. But other parents, too intent on their own interests, fight fierce divorce battles, not understanding, or perhaps not caring, what collateral damage is being done to their children. The children are caught in the middle of this battle, and so is the GAL.

 

In recent months, some parents have railed out against both GALs and judges in family courts, alleging abuses by both. Perhaps some of their accusations are true, but many, probably most, are not. GALs do important work, and are rarely paid at rates that reflect either their experience or their value. The furor against them has resulted in action by the state Judicial Branch to regulate pay for GALs. The new sliding scale for paying GALs will not solve the problem and it puts a burden on the system that should not be necessary. The new fee schedule appears likely to reduce the fees paid to many GALs; it will not be surprising if, as a result, many former GALs decide to abandon that role.

 

The complaints about GALs at this time appears to us to be largely unjustified. Most GALs are hard-working attorneys who do this work because they believe that it is important and that they can help children avoid some of the damage frequently caused by their parents' divorce. It should be remembered that if divorcing parents handled their divorce in a manner that protected their children, no GAL would be required."

 

This article can be found at the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202673630053/Editorial-Misplaced-Furor-Over-Guardians-Ad-Litem#ixzz3GLx2zYZB

CT LAW TRIBUNE COMMENTS ON THE NEW GAL SLIDING SCALE!

The state has taken a step into the legal fee-setting business.


In wake of heated debate during the last legislative session over the cost of guardian ad litem and related services, the Judicial Branch has created a sliding fee scale in an attempt to control how much low- and moderate-income parents pay for for GALs, attorneys for minor children and other court-appointed lawyers who take part in contested custody cases.


The fee scale, which takes effect Oct. 1, will apply in instances where the combined annual gross income of both parents is between $39,062 and $100,000. Family law practitioners say the market rate for GALs is about $300 an hour, and some parents have complained that's led to total fees in a handful of contested custody cases of $30,000 or more. Under the sliding scale, the hourly fees will be considerably less.


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


http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202670484497/New-Pay-Scale-Restricts-Fees-For-Many-GALs#ixzz3DlfLZNIm

CT LAW TRIBUNE SUGGESTS WE NEED A BETTER WAY TO SUE THE STATE!

CT Law Tribune speaks out about suing the state as follows:

"The Charla Nash case brought national attention to Connecticut's bizarre process for suing the state. Nash was the victim of a brutal attack by a friend's chimpanzee. She suffered horrific injuries and underwent a face transplant along with multiple surgeries that cost millions of dollars. Nash sought to sue the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on the theory that state officials knew that the chimpanzee was dangerous and should not have allowed Nash's friend, Sandra Herold, to keep it in her Stamford home.

It appears rather dubious that the state was, in fact, responsible for Nash's injuries. But that question was never answered by a court of law.

The process for suing the state for money damages in Connecticut is unique and that process was front and center in the Nash case. At common law, the state cannot be sued by one of its citizens without its consent. This principle of "sovereign immunity" routinely has been applied by Connecticut courts to shield the state from liability. Bill Barrante, the late long-time managing editor of the "Connecticut Bar Journal," authored a compelling article in 2005 entitled "Common-Law Sovereign Immunity: Why Connecticut Never Really Had It," in which he explained why this application of sovereign immunity might have been the result of an analytical misstep. However, "sovereign immunity" is the law of the land and continues to be applied to bar lawsuits filed against the state. For claims involving money damages, litigants must first obtain a waiver of sovereign immunity from the claims commissioner or the legislature."

For more information, please click on the link below: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202659894697/Editorial-Conn-Needs-A-Better-Process-For-Suing-The-State#ixzz353jt2Tm8

THE CT LAW TRIBUNE CONTRIBUTES ITS TWO CENTS TO THE GAL DEBATE!

In an recent editorial, the CT Law Tribune states the following:

"By now, everyone is fully aware of the ongoing debate over guardians ad litem, attorneys for minor children, and the various criticisms of judges and virtually all of the legal professionals involved in contested divorce and family matters involving children. In the legislature, bills have been passed. In the Superior Court Rules Committee, changes to the Practice Book are being drafted. Yet amidst all of this newly minted "procedure," the essential question to be answered in every contested family matter involving a child remains the same: What is in the best interest of the child?"

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

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202658985503/Editorial%3A-In-GAL-Debate%2C-Best-Interest-Of-The-Child-Must-Remain-Top-Priority#ixzz34MyHXmVO

THE APPELLATE COURT COMPLAINS ABOUT SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES!

The Connecticut Law Tribune Reports:


"Non-lawyers used to represent themselves in only the simplest cases. Even that caused challenges for the court system, as trial judges had to slow down and explain procedural matters to these novice litigators.

But things are getting even more ticklish for the Judicial Branch, which now notes that a rising tide of self-represented parties is beginning to inundate the more complex world of the state Appellate Court. As a result, court officials at a recent Pro Bono Summit hope to recruit appellate attorneys to help them.

Chief Judge Alexandra DiPentima said nearly 30 percent of Appellate Court cases involve at least one self-represented party. They aren't a factor in criminal cases, as the Office of the Public Defender provides counsel for low-income parties. But they are a growing presence in "family cases and other civil matters," DiPentima told the audience of 80 in-house lawyers, large law firm partners and regular bar members who attended the summit in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford."

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

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202656585371/More-Pro-Ses-Appearing-In-Appellate-Court#ixzz32YqcRkFe

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS THAT REP. GERALD FOX LEAVING THE LEGISLATURE, SEN. COLEMAN NOT FAR BEHIND!

This just in from the CT Law Tribune:

"The Judiciary Committee is clearly the legislative panel that has the greatest impact on Connecticut lawyers, with its duties ranging from confirming judicial nominations to holding hearings on cutting-edge legal issues ranging from criminal sentencing issues to family law reform.

It now appears that there will be a major shake-up in the leadership of the committee, as the House co-chair, Rep. Gerald Fox III announced on Thursday, May 22 that he will not run for re-election to the legislature. Instead, the Stamford attorney will campaign for Stamford probate judge, a position currently held by his father.

 

Meanwhile, the Senate co-chair, Eric Coleman, lost the Democratic nomination for his seat earlier this week. In a hotly contested party convention for the 2nd District Senate seat, Coleman, of Bloomfield, was defeated by Hartford City Council President Shawn Wooden, a partner at Day Pitney. Coleman has indicated he plans to run a primary campaign against Wooten."

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

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202656456541/Judiciary-Committee-Shakeup-Coming-As-Fox-Leaves-Legislature-#ixzz32Ymf4XLQ

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS "ASTRONOMICAL FEES ASSESSED TO LAWYER WHO TESTIFIED FOR GAL REFORM!

According to the CT Law Tribune, "A Connecticut lawyer who publicly voiced his concerns about high costs of guardians ad litem services was shocked by the timing of an Appellate Court decision in his own divorce case.

Just one business day after Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law a measure that will provide greater oversight of GALs and their fees, the court approved $252,000 in fees for two court-appointed child advocates. Some pro se parents who lobbied for GAL reform said they had been devastated financially by bills that were only a fraction as large.

The appeal was filed by Paul Greenan, a former Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom trusts and estates lawyer who now has a practice in Stamford. He claimed in court documents that the GAL and attorney for minor children appointed in his divorce case collectively spent just four-and-a-half hours with his two children, though that total was in dispute."

For more on this story, please click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202655749932/%27Astronomical%27-Fees-Assessed-To-Lawyer-Who-Testified-For-GAL-Reform%0D%0A%0D%0A#ixzz328Fu0lHQ

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS FAT CAT JUDGES PENSION PLANS UNDER FIRE!

Reporting on this situation, the CT Law Tribune states as follows, "As it stands, any lawyer who is nominated for a state judgeship and serves on the bench for even the briefest period is eligible for a pension equal to two-thirds of his or her judicial salary. A Superior Court judge currently makes $154,559 annually, meaning a pension would pay about $103,000 a year, plus benefits.

What was once a simple fiscal fact is now a bone of contention among some state lawmakers who noted that two of the 16 lawyers recently nominated by Gov. Dannel Malloy for Superior Court posts are in their late 60s and will serve only a few years before retiring and collecting a pension that could net them a million dollars or more over the rest of their lives.

A leading Republican lawmaker said he plans to have the General Assembly address this matter before the legislative session ends Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, the ranking Senate Republican on the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said it's not fair to other state employees — not to mention judges who have served for decades — that a newly appointed 69-year-old judges could theoretically serve one day on the bench and qualify for a $100,000-plus pension once they hit the mandatory retirement age of 70. Other state employees do not receive a full pension unless they've worked for 10 years."

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

 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202653365033/%24100%2C000-Plus-Pensions-For-Older-Judges-Under-Attack#ixzz30P5QFHjf

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS ON $10 MILLION DOLLAR VERDICT IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE!

The CT Law Tribune reports as follows, "In a wrongful death lawsuit filed against the Town of Plainville and two of its police officers, a Connecticut jury has awarded $10 million to the family of a woman killed by her ex-boyfriend on Valentine's Day 2009.

The family alleged that even though there was a restraining order barring the ex-boyfriend from coming near the woman, he continued to harass the woman and police did nothing to enforce the order.

Tiana Notice was 25 years old in 2009 when she was stabbed to death outside her apartment. The family's lawyers said she was stabbed 20 times by James Carter II of Bloomfield. Carter is serving a 60-year prison sentence.

On the day of the killing, Notice claimed to have received a disturbing email from the ex-boyfriend. Carter also told Notice not to report the email to police."

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

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202653204696/%2410-Million-Verdict-Returned-In-Domestic-Violence-Wrongful-Death-Suit#ixzz30JJSMr3E

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORT ON BILL #494!

The CT Law Tribune reports on the passage of Bill #494 as follows:  "After all the acrimony surrounding the debate over guardian ad litem reform, the final votes in the General Assembly were unanimous. And the results led some lawmakers and advocates to suggest that the legislation granting expanded rights to parents in divorce and custody proceedings may be only the first step in a larger overhaul of Connecticut's family courts.

 

On Friday, April 25, the Senate voted 35-0 and the House of Representatives voted 129-0 to send to Gov. Dannel Malloy a bill that gives parents a greater say as to who will represent their children in contententious custody cases. It also would give the parties to a family court case legal standing to seek the removal of guardians. Further, it would require the presiding judge to spell out in advance the scope of a guardian ad litem's work, deadlines for completion and fees."

For the complete article, please click on the link below: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202652965182/Guardian-Ad-Litem-Reform-Approved-By-Legislature#ixzz30J2qYVOS

CT LAW TRIBUNE OPINION PIECE ON GALS REQUIRING BETTER OVERSIGHT!

Attorney Michelle Cruz shares her opinions on the GAL system as follows:

"Recently, criticism of the state's guardians ad litem have hit an all-time high. GALs are reportedly withdrawing from their cases left and right, while grievances appear to be mounting. Family court, by definition, is charged with high emotions and children, unfortunately, are at the center of the storm. The GAL is supposed to be a beacon in the dark night, illuminating a path so a child can endure the tumultuous waters of a divorce or custody battle.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

This very issue came up the other day while I camped out in court, waiting for a hearing. I heard a family court judge explaining to countless divorcing couples, unable to come to an agreement over custody and visitation of their children, about the limitations of a guardian ad litem. The judge explained that the best person to decide the child's future is often their parent. The parents, in most cases, understand their children and, if they can come to an agreement, are the most qualified to make these life-altering decisions.

The judge went on to caution the couples marching through the courtroom that a GAL is an outsider — a third party — coming in to assess, investigate and make recommendations for the couple's children. Even though they attempt to do the right thing, the judge said, the GAL is still an outsider looking in."

For more on this topic, please click on the link below: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202651364859/Opinion%3A-Better-Oversight-Needed-For-Guardians-Ad-Litem#ixzz2z4o25a4k

ANNE STEVENSON'S STAUNCH DEFENSE OF SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES IN CT

Anne Stevenson calls out the CT Judicial System in regard to their comments about self-represented parties.  See below:

 

"Despite the economic barriers to justice faced by struggling Connecticut families, rising from the ashes of the highly charged public debates over how to reform the family courts is a shockingly insensitive outcry from court industry insiders demonizing the 85 percent of divorcing parents who have chosen to invest in their families instead of attorneys.

 

Tauck v. Tauck was perhaps the most inefficient and expensive trial in Connecticut family court history, spanning over five years, 600-plus filings, and ending in an 86-day trial in 2007 that played out before Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone on Middletown's Regional Family Trial Docket. According to the Hartford Courant, the family paid out some $13.3 million in fees to the dozens of legal industry professionals on the case, including $1.3 million paid (without challenge) to attorney Gaetano Ferro, the children's guardian ad litem.

 

Clearly, the legal industry professionals were the big winners in the Tauck case, and if ever there was a case for cutting out the middleman and going pro se, it is the Tauck divorce. While some may be quick to blame the Nancy and Peter Tauck for their part in spurring on this "high-conflict" litigation marathon, one might also question the competence and propriety of the judges and legal professionals who had clearly lost control of the case. Did Judge Wetstone really need help deciding the case from dozens of industry professionals who just couldn't seem to agree with each other on much except that the $13.3 million they charged the family was "necessary and reasonable"?

For more information in Anne Stevenson's remarks, please click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202648664975/Opinion%3A-In-Defense-Of-Self-Represented-Litigants#ixzz2xCRBNjal

ATTORNEY RENEE BAUER, AUTHOR OF OPINION PIECE ON GALS IN CT LAW TRIBUNE, IS A BIT OF A HOAX!

Divorce in Connecticut has recently discovered that Attorney Renee Bauer, author of an eloquent opinion piece on the trials and tribulations of GALs and the wickedness of parents, has turned out to be a bit of a hoax.  See link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202647367233/Opinion%3A-I-Am-A-Guardian-And-This-Is-Personal#ixzz2wL2c4zhX

In fact, it is not clear that she has worked that much as a GAL at all!

Not long ago, DIC received the following information:

 

"I took a look at each one of Attorney Renee Bauer's cases.  As an individual attorney, under her own juris number, Attorney Bauer has 74 cases listed.  She did not act as GAL in any of those cases.
 

Under Bauer Law Group's juris number there are 170 cases--5 of which are GAL cases.  However, there are 3 practitioners--two attorneys and one psychologist--in the Bauer Law Group and it is unclear whether Attorney Bauer took all 5 of these cases, or whether someone else in the practice took those cases, or whether it truly was handled as a group.

 

So this makes 5 GAL cases out of 204 cases associated with this attorney.

 

This is hardly an expert on GAL practice."

 

Of course, all the opinion pieces and articles coming out this week in advance of the Monday, March 24, 2014 hearing on the abuses and corruption of family court, and, in particular, that of GALs, seem a little desperate.  But dusting up Attorney Renee Bauer and shaking her in our faces when she has pretty much no experience as a GAL, that is particularly amusing, if not saddening.  Through Attorney Renee Bauer, the legal profession truly disgraces itself. 

 

On the more serious side, the general disrespect and the extremes of name calling and bullying that the CT Law Tribune has indulged in this week through its various mouthpieces are quite troubling in the light of the serious allegations that family court victims have reported on in the January 9, 2014 hearing and the further allegations of heartless exploitation and wrongdoing which we anticipate hearing more of next week.  

 

The foolish behavior of the CT Law Tribune and its supporters and spokespersons underscores more clearly for the thousands of victims of family court corruption and their supporters the reasons why we must have change. 

 

Situations where GALs are incentivizing conflict, submitting fraudulent bills, lying to the court, fabricating evidence, medically neglecting their wards, and denying fit parents access to their children must be stopped.  It is time for accountability, transparency, and effective advocacy for Connecticut's Citizens and their children.

 

NOW IT'S THE SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES THAT ARE AT FAULT, SAYS THE CT LAW TRIBUNE!

"Imagine Mr. Macy (or Mr. Bloomingdale, or Sam Walton) faced with a gang of nutty customers who show up at their stores unprepared to shop for what they need, walk up the down escalators, shop for men's clothes in garden supplies and for children's clothes in automotive, and who confuse underwear and cookware.

 

When these customers, predictably, find themselves with the wrong thing, they blame the store, sit in the middle of the aisles, shout and pout and demand better service. When Mr. Macy tries to improve things by assigning them professional shoppers to guide them through the store, at least when they are in danger of doing real harm to themselves or their kids, they refuse to pay the bills. And when Mr. Macy needs to get his store license renewed, they don T-shirts protesting against him and flood the Capitol demanding that he be closed down."

For more information, please click on the link below:

 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202647422777/Mark-Dubois%3A-Self-Represented-Parties-And-Their-Histrionic-Agendas#ixzz2wPRQaysg

ARE GALS SCUMMY, UGLY BOTTOM FEEDERS? NOT IN YOUR LIFE SAYS RENEE C. BAUER!

"When you take a job as a guardian ad litem, you never really get to leave the office.

 

Often weekends are when the conflict is the highest and the emails from parties in divorce cases will come rapidly. They are long and accusatory. Everyone is a victim of their spouse's behavior. You are asked to intercede. You are asked to set the other parent straight immediately. You are asked to perform miracles so long as those miracles are exactly what each parent wants but not what the other parent wants. When you can't satisfy both parents at all times; you are the root of this family's demise. You are the one getting wealthy off of their life savings. The judicial system is the broken piece. It's not them."

For more of this garbaaage, please click on the link below:

 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202647367233/Opinion%3A-I-Am-A-Guardian-And-This-Is-Personal#ixzz2wL2c4zhX

CT LAW TRIBUNE HEADS MEDIA BLITZ IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE'S WORST GALS!

"Increasingly angry tactics have been pervading the public inquiry into family court custody reform, triggering a fight-or-flight response from top members of the family bar.

 

Some are ready to throw in the towel, or at least take a long time out.

Dozens of lawyers who work as guardians ad litem (GALs) or attorneys for minor children are in the process of withdrawing their representation, or are no longer accepting such appointments."

For more information, please click on the link below:

 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202647045067/GALs-Are-Withdrawing-From-Cases-As-Court-Reform-Tensions-Grow-#ixzz2wGZP7GkP

DEFENDING THE UNDEFENDABLE: CT LAW TRIBUNE GOES TO BAT FOR SLEAZY GALS!

"Appointed by judges to represent the interests of children in custody disputes, guardians ad litem typically operate below the radar of public opinion. But in recent weeks, they have come under a microscope.

 

GALs were a focal point of a state task force looking into family court costs. They are primary targets of advocates who say they are upset that custody disputes have become far too expensive for the average person to wage, and that GAL fees reaching $30,000 or more are unconscionable."

For more information, please click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202647040265/Legislature-Considers-Guardian-Ad-Litem-Reform-#ixzz2wGXj54xk

MARK SARGENT RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY KIMBERLY KNOX, CBA PRESIDENT, AND HER COMMENTS REGARDING JUDGE LESLIE OLEAR!

Opinion: CBA Defense Of Family Law System Is 'Misguided'
03/13/2014

Editor's note: The author of this letter is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, a former clerk for a federal judge and a former tax lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell in New York City. Last fall, he was involved in legal proceedings in which he and his lawyer challenged the fees and conduct of a GAL involved in his divorce case.

To The Editor:

I read with great interest the recent column ("In Defense Of Family Judges, Connecticut Law Tribune, March 10) by Connecticut Bar Association president Kimberly Knox about the recent debate in the General Assembly regarding the reappointment of Judge Leslie Olear and, more broadly, the need to reform our state's very flawed family court system. While I was not in Hartford for the debate, I followed the matter closely via CT-N. I have no personal experience with Judge Olear, and I share Ms. Knox's concerns about maintaining the integrity of the reappointment process. But I also believe we should maintain the integrity of the public discussion of these issues.

While Ms. Knox wrote that Judge Olear "[b]y all accounts" "is the type of judge that Connecticut deserves and needs," the debate was to the contrary. State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez and other legislators spoke of having received a large number of complaints from parents about Judge Olear. In the debate and in related communications, legislators and parents attributed the scarcity of formal complaints about the judge to fears of retribution and frustration with a judicial complaint process that parents view as a waste of time.

Likewise, Judge Olear's positive evaluations from the Judicial Branch are not meaningful if, as I understand, such evaluations are based on lawyers who do business before her but not the pro se litigants who appear in more than 80 percent of family law matters. Sen. Jason Welch based his opposition to Judge Olear on a couple of questionable opinions she issued which were reversed on appeal. And parents protesting Judge Olear distributed flyers detailing concerns specific to the judge. In short, many parties expressed sincere concerns about Judge Olear.

Ms. Knox wrote that courts "occasionally involve guardians ad litem or other professionals to protect the children's interests." Testimony before the Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving Care and Custody of Children and statements by legislators indicate that, in fact: judges routinely assign GALs and an army of other individuals who purport to act "in the bests interest of the children;" that, in practice judges permit those individuals to exploit financially — and even bankrupt — families in difficult situations; and that such individuals and the judges who supposedly supervise them are not accountable in any fashion.

While Ms. Knox wrote that "[t]hose individuals have a thankless job," in fact those individuals have extremely lucrative jobs. Ms. Knox's defense of the current system is a misguided effort to protect those lucrative positions notwithstanding the resulting harm to families.

Ms. Knox's discussion of the task force established to review family court matters was, at best, misleading. The task force was formed to advise the legislature (and not, as Ms. Knox suggests, the Judicial Branch) about three specific issues. However, its hearings revealed the need for complete reform of our family law system.

As Rep. Edwin Vargas noted in the Olear debate, the task force was chaired by two professional GALs and consisted largely of divorce industry workers who have a vested interest in preserving the current system. Ms. Knox suggested that the legislators wait for the Judicial Branch to consider and act upon a task force report written by divorce industry workers. Instead, the legislators should reject the institutions that created the current family law system that destroys so many Connecticut families, including the organization Ms. Knox purports to represent.•

Mark Sargent.
Westport