BRUCE LEVINE: THE ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN MOVEMENT TO REHUMANIZE MENTAL HEALTH!

THE POLITICS OF MENTAL ILLNESS WITHIN THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH!

It was six months into my divorce when I finally realized that my attorney was acting in a way that was seriously incompetent.  As a result, I recognized that I had to find a new attorney and so I started the process of interviewing attorneys to see who would be a good replacement.  

It was then that I ran into Attorney James T. Flaherty who immediately asked me for a copy of my parenting plan. "Parenting Plan, I responded, "I don't have a parenting plan!"  Apparently, the fact that I had no parenting plan was extraordinary and Attorney Flaherty seemed truly surprised that I didn't have one. Why was Flaherty surprised?  Well, that was a bit of play acting, but more on that just a bit later.   

Apparently, in December 2002, the Report of the Governor's Commission on Divorce, Custody and Children came out.  This report was the basis for major statutory changes in the way divorces are supposed to be handled in the State of Connecticut.  Included in these changes was the requirement that divorcing couples submit a parenting plan to the Court within the early weeks of the divorce and obey a list of automatic orders which assures that the parties don't dissipate the marital assets, among other things.  

Nonetheless, as you can see, I soon learned that it was standard for attorneys to blow off parenting plans and allow their clients to violate the automatic orders at will. Attorneys did this intentionally to gain advantage in the case, to generally disrupt the process, and get as much money as possible from their clients.

In spite of that, if you then asked such attorneys, why do we have so many problems with family court, they'd never mention the ignored Connecticut Statutes I just talked about. Instead they'd blame the mentally ill--as per usual.  So goes the politics of mental illness within the Judicial Branch, i.e. if under fire, or facing criticism, put the responsibility on the shoulders of the "crazy people." This approach is, as we will see, a fundamentally feminist issue.

If you look at the discussion which preceded the results of the Commission Report--i.e. the Report of the Governor's Commission on Divorce, Custody and Children of December 2002--the Commission placed responsibility for the problems of Family Court squarely on the shoulders of "a small minority of parents [who] engage in persistent conflict because of anger, characterological or mental health problems."  

Twelve years later, another group gathered together to investigate problems with Family Court in Connecticut, i.e. the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children of 2014.  This Task Force published an additional report.  

Hearing about this Task Force, dozens of citizens came forward to provide their testimony in person during Task Force hearings while many others wrote letters and sent emails contributing information regarding their personal experiences of Family Court.  

However, instead of addressing the concerns these citizens spoke about, the Task Force Report  simply borrowed a lengthy quotation from the 2002 Commission Report in place of a discussion. The authors of the Report apparently did not even think to add one single bit of additional insight they might have acquired from lessons learned in the twelve years since the prior report.  Even worse, in a terribly short sighted manner, the particular section the report quoted was the one that put the blame on people with mental illness.

The fact that those responsible for writing the 2014 Task Force Report were so lazy they had not a single original idea to put into a discussion says boatloads about the lack of commitment of those individuals to the process of investigation that they were involved in.  

In that regard, I would like folks to recall that when the two co-chairs were appointed--Attorney Sue Cousineau and Attorney Sharon Dornfeld--there was widespread discontent with these appointments, but the legislators responsible didn't want to hear about it.  Thus, the careless,  derivative, negligent, and divisive report that the Task Force of 2014 ultimately produced is the outcome of these legislators' poor choices.  

Mental illness, the spotlight of both reports, is a feminist issue given that Family Court uses accusations of mental illness as a means to deny mothers custody.  Thus, another aspect of the original Commission Report of 2002 and the Task Force of 2014 which I find quite striking is how both are weighted to benefit the father's rights agenda.  

The Members of the Governor's Commission is practically a who's who of father's rights people.  Both Thomas C. Foley and Mr. Pat D'Angelo are long time father's rights people.  I believe Pat D'Angelo was among the original founders of the Divorced Men's Association of Connecticut. Other people such as Dr. Kenneth Robson, Judge Lynda B. Munro, Dr. Sidney Horowitz, and Judge Herbert Gruendel are notorious for their stands in opposition to mothers.  

Likewise, in the Task Force of 2014, members Jennifer Verraneault and retired Judge Thomas Weissmuller are both father's rights advocates.  I don't believe there is an abusive father that Dr. Elizabeth Thayer won't embrace. You have Stephen Grant in the Commission of 2002 and Joseph DiTunno in the Task Force of 2014 both responsible for the distribution of federal government fatherhood initiative money within the CT Judicial Branch.  We can assume they both support fathers in that role.  

The end result, of course, were reports on Family Court that largely support policies and programs that benefit the interests of men.  

For instance, in the Task Force of 2014 there is an extended section on how the CT State Legislature could establish a policy of shared parenting in this state. Shared parenting would be an absolute disaster for the women of the State of Connecticut, particularly those who are victims of domestic violence.  

It is typical of father's rights people that even though so many of the citizens who demanded a hearing on the abuses of family court and who came to testify were women, this Task Force, weighted with father's rights activists, simply took advantage of the political influence these women provided them and pushed forward a father's rights agenda in their final report, thus stabbing those women in the back.  

But this is not my primary point.  I want to address the issue that has now come up in two reports -- this business of blaming people with mental illness for the problem of Family Court abuse.  Can you imagine for a minute if these reports had said something like, the problems of family court arise because of the various character flaws of African-Americans (or whichever minority group is currently unpopular--the Jews, the Hispanics, the Muslims).  

If any group tried to publish a report blaming a particular group based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, class etc.  they would be stopped immediately.  So, why is it acceptable for these reports to make unfounded accusations at folks labeled with mental illness? Somehow this is acceptable?  Isn't this just like the whole gun discussion.  We know that people with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence than perpetrators, and yet all these conversations in the media about stopping gun violence are all about taking civil rights from people diagnosed with mental illness, even though it has been proven that mental illness is not a decisive factor.  

I'd like to dig in a little deeper here:  who do we mean when we talk about parties who have mental illness? Aren't we really talking about women?  As you know, in our society where gender discrimination and oppression remain rampant, women have many more mental health difficulties than men, particularly depression as the result of the ongoing deprivation of rights and the disrespectful manner in which they are treated.  Not only that, women are far more willing to get the help that they need from mental health professionals because they feel more comfortable with caretaking and helping types of professionals.  

As a result, when women walk into Family Court, they are considerably more likely to have documented mental health histories than men are.  These histories are immediately used against women in family court when custody is under dispute.  

So what these two reports are saying--the Commission Report of 2002 and the Task Force Report of 2014--is that the problem isn't just folks with mental illness; it's those crazy women.  

Such attitudes accord well with what we know about the influence that the massive influx of fatherhood initiative money into Connecticut was having starting in 1996.  This money would have been flowing into Connecticut in a very healthy manner by 2002, just in time for the Commission report.  

But again, this is still not my entire point.  Ok, so the problem is this difficulty with all these women who have mental illness.  Here is what bothers me.   What this really means is that the CT Judicial Branch has no intention of adjusting its methods to address the needs of this very special population--cultural sensitivity be damned.  Instead, it prefers to exploit prejudice and social stigma and declare itself helpless to deal with this group, even though there is every evidence that with the proper accommodations and protections against discrimination, the outcome of legal proceedings can be quite successful with folks who have mental health challenges.

Instead, the way members of the Commission and the Task Force reported it, the Judicial Branch is helpless against this enormous, impenetrable monolith of mental illness that resists any and all attempts the Family Court system implements to address it.  

Based upon this bigoted attitude towards mental illness--in other words, that it is unchangeable and always a negative, family court has used mental health diagnosis as a litmus test for who should get custody, i.e. the fathers.  

But why?  Why this presumption of hopelessness?

Even the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services has adopted the recovery model in the work it does here in Connecticut with people who are dealing with mental health and substance abuse problems.  This means that they operate with the underlying assumption that people can change and that they can improve.  

Unfortunately, the Connecticut Judicial Branch is far from having that approach. The Branch prefers to maintain this hopeless view of people with mental illness so they can use it to advantage in custody switching schemes perpetrated against women. The only reason that Family Court in the State of Connecticut orders psychological evaluations of parties in family court is so that they can find some kind of damning diagnosis (usually for a mother) so that diagnosis can be used to deny custody. For example, a fabricated diagnosis of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) usually does the trick!

The Connecticut Judicial Branch maintains a policy of discriminating against people with mental health disabilities because it works to their advantage in their war against women.  For years the record shows that the Branch has been rigorous in refusing to comply with the Americans With Disability Act, and particularly disregards its prohibitions against discriminating against people who have disabilities.  This means that people with mental health disabilities who face legal proceedings in custody matters routinely do not receive the accommodations they require under the ADA in order to access those proceedings.  The majority of these people are mothers who are essentially excluded from the process.  

You would think, under the circumstances, that mental health professionals could bring some equity to the situation, but this is not the case.  This is because a good many of these diagnoses are fabricated and pinned on mothers as part of custody switching schemes to transfer custody to abusive fathers.   But there are other reasons as well.

The Commission Report includes some of the history of custody and divorce in Connecticut and mentions how starting in the late 1950s, the Judicial Branch began to bring mental health professionals into the Branch to assist the Courts in custody matters.  This is also when the family services unit of the court was established.  

If mental illness were the problem, you would think that the influx of all these  mental health professionals into the process would eliminate that supposed group with mental illness that is causing the big problem.  However, this is not the case.  

Often, psychologists or psychiatrists hired to do this work produce lengthy and detailed investigative reports full of unsupported gossip and innuendo that simply adds another layer of lies and inaccuracies to the entire proceedings.  Since many of these mental health professionals are adherents of the father's rights movement or receiving father's rights money to write these reports, they are again, frequently weighted against the mothers and used to deny mothers custody.  

What is interesting is that no one tracks what these mental health professionals are doing and holds them accountable.  How can it be that even judges are subjected to performance evaluations, but not mental health professionals?  Is there any evidence at all, anything beyond an intuitive assumption, to indicate that the involvement of mental health professionals in divorce improves outcomes?  Where is the data?  

One guess I would like to venture, however, prior to any such investigation, is that the outcome will show that for the better part, particularly since the influx of fatherhood initiative funding into the family courts, Judges have used older, white male psychologists or psychiatrists such as Dr. Kenneth Robson, men in their 60s and 70s to trash women and transfer custody to the fathers.  

These women who lose custody are the "mentally ill" of the two reports, because, as we all know, mothers will fight for their children to the bitter end and thus "inconvenience" the Court.  Of course, those mothers have to be crazy.  

What this means is that when the two reports talk about people with mental illness causing the problems in family court, they are really talking about mothers.  But what these reports do is describe them in code language that professional insiders within Family Court immediately recognize.  Essentially, this means that women haven't benefited from either of these two investigations into family court abuse.  As per usual, our voices and our life experiences remain absent from the public discussion, as we are labeled as mentally ill and not considered worthy of consideration.  The time has come to change that dynamic.

IF WE CONVICT TED TAUPIER FOR TRASH TALKING, WHY DON'T WE CONVICT ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES FOR THE SAME CONDUCT?

Last year, I spent a considerable amount of time observing meetings of the "Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care & Custody of Minor Children" which resulted in several reforms of the Guardian Ad Litem system.  

At one point during these proceedings, I observed one member of the task force, Attorney Sue Cousineau, harshly and loudly say to her daughter, who was also observing the proceedings along with me,"Don't talk to a crazy person like that"  or words to that effect, clearly indicating that she was referring to a fellow task force member, Ms. Jennifer Verraneault who was standing nearby.  

As a result, Ms. Verraneault was so upset that she left the hearing room with Rep. Minnie Gonzalez and the proceedings were delayed for a considerable amount of time.  I am not sure what they did--whether they reported the incident, or whether Ms. Verraneault merely spoke to Rep. Gonzalez out in the hallway to regain her composure.  The bottom line is that Attorney Sue Cousineau's verbal attack was directly harmful and abusive to Jennifer Verraneault and resulted in the disruption of official business of the task force that had been authorized by the Connecticut General Assembly.  

At the very least, I felt it was a demonstration of very poor character on the part of Attorney Sue Cousineau, which was particularly reprehensible since she acted in such a manner in front of her own daughter and showed a very poor example to the younger generation.  

More to the point, in the light of the recent arrest and conviction of Ted Taupier for 1st and 2nd degree threat, disorderly conduct and breach of peace for an email that was never sent to his supposed victim, how come Attorney Sue Cousineau wasn't immediately arrested for face to face, directly using "fighting words" to her victim, a form of ""disorderly conduct" which ultimately resulted in a "breach of the peace" since it meant interference in Jennifer Verraneault's ability to continue to conduct business which she had been entrusted to carry out by the CT State Legislature.  

How come there is one form of justice for legal professionals such as judges and attorneys and another, inferior, form of justice for Connecticut citizens like Ted Taupier or Jennifer Verraneault?  

I would also hasten to add that I would characterize Attorney Sue Cousineau's statement as a form of hate speech because the word "crazy" in the sense that she used it, and I heard it, was intended to convey the same meaning that the N word would have if it were directed towards an African-American.  

So why do I characterize Attorney Sue Cousineau's words as fighting words?  Fighting words doctrine was first established in the United States as a limitation on freedom of speech in the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.  Here the Supreme Court held that the State has the authority to limit "insulting or 'fighting words" which are those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace."  Calling a person "crazy" and implying that such a person should be silenced because they have been defined as such represents a direct infliction of injury.

Clearly, Attorney Sue Cousineau both created an injury and incited an immediate breach of peace when she made a statement indicating her contempt for people with mental health disabilities, one that she knew would upset Jennifer Verraneault and that indeed made it impossible for Ms. Verraneault to continue to participate in official proceedings she was a part of for a considerable period of time.  

Further, under 8.4 "Introduction to Breach of Peace and Disorderly Conduct" published by the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, the charge of breach of peace includes conduct that includes "abusive or obscene language"  I'd say calling someone "crazy" is absolutely abusive.  

In regard to disorderly conduct, the statute says that it is "conduct that is grossly offensive, under contemporary community standards, to a person who actually overhears or sees it (for example me), [or] it impedes the lawful activity of that person." State v. Indrisano, supra, 228 Conn. 818.  To repeat, Attorney Sue Cousineau's words interfered directly with Ms. Jennifer Verraneault's participation in the task force.  Thus, Attorney Cousineau's actions met the standard for disorderly conduct.

Returning to the issue of how Attorney Sue Cousineau's remarks constituted a hate crime, here is how the law sees it.  Connecticut hate crime statutes, according to Attorney Christopher Reinhart, are intended to "address certain actions that intimidate or harass another person because of his actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression."  Under the hate crime statutes, any conduct that results in the deprivation of a citizen's legally guaranteed rights based upon disability is a crime.  

I'd say that Ms. Jennifer Verraneault had the legally guaranteed right to carry out her official responsibilities on that task force without enduring the constant threat that she would be subjected to hate speech from Attorney Sue Cousineau in the course of her duties.  

Again, keep in mind that the verbal abuse Attorney Sue Cousineau subjected Ms. Jennifer Verraneault to was face to face, not by email, and also verbalized directly to her, as opposed to arriving indirectly in the kind of whisper down the lane manner that took place in Ted Taupier's situation.  

So again, my question is, if Mr. Ted Taupier is facing fines and many years in prison for braggadocio that he did not even intend Judge Elizabeth Bozzutto to know about, how come Attorney Sue Cousineau isn't held to account for what comes across to me as a direct verbal attack on a fellow official in a task force, carried out with the express intention of disrupting Ms. Verraneault's ability to contribute to that task force in a meaningful way.  

What's with that double standard?  

Going beyond this single incident which is so representative of the kind of discrimination against people with disabilities here in the State of Connecticut, what about the many litigants in family court who have had attorneys or judges falsely accuse them of mental illness with the express intention of denying them their fundamental constitutional and human rights?  

How about those legal professionals who bring up litigants' disabilities and then ignore the fact that such litigants have rights under Title II and Title III of the American's With Disabilities Act?  Those rights include protection from discrimination, protection from the deprivation of their rights, as well as reasonable modifications which they require in order to obtain access to those rights.

Jesus said in Mathew 7:2-4, For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?" 

These are words that Judge Gold should seriously consider.

And Jennifer, if you are reading this, ten to one you still have the right to sue, so keep that in mind.

THE HARTFORD COURANT REPORTS ON THE WATLEY/HASEMAN CASE WHERE PARENTS WERE FALSELY ACCUSED OF PREDICTIVE NEGLECT AND LOST CUSTODY OF THEIR TWO CHILDREN AT BIRTH!

Josh Kovner of The Hartford Courant reports as follows:

"A Connecticut couple whose children were taken from them at birth after the parents were deemed mentally unsound by child-protection officials have filed a federal appeal, claiming that they were denied rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

It has been a grueling struggle for Joseph Watley, 61, who is staying with his ailing mother in Thomaston, and Karin Hasemann, 47, who lives with her mother and father in Watertown.

They lost the boys — Joe Jr. was born in July 2005, and Danny came along in July 2006 — under the doctrine of "predictive neglect." The Department of Children and Families argued that it was more likely than not that Hasemann and Watley would neglect the children if they remained with their parents. So the state took them away.

"How do you defend against that?" said Watley. He's worked a number of factory and machine-shop jobs and now receives disability payments for a back injury suffered in a car accident..."

READ MORE:

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-children-taken-from-couple-under-predictive-neglect-20151005-story.html

WE DEMAND THAT THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH OBEY FEDERAL ADA LAW IN FAMILY COURT!

WE DEMAND JUSTICE!

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS THE CT DOJ IS MAKING SURE CT HOTELS ARE ADA COMPLIANT!

Michelle Tuccitto Sullo of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

 

"In the 25 years since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, many public buildings like schools and courthouses have been upgraded to be accessible to those with disabilities. But the law also extends to "places of public accommodation" such as hotels, and federal officials have been pushing in recent months to make hotels around the state accessible too.

The U.S. Attorney's Office recently announced that Comfort Inn & Suites on East Main Street in Meriden had entered into a voluntary agreement in which the hotel's owners agree to make several improvements to bring the facility into compliance with the ADA.

Thomas Carson, a spokesman for the office, said its investigation of the hotel stemmed from a citizen complaint.

Investigators did a compliance review at the hotel in March. Because the August agreement was reached with the company, Ekta Meshva Hospitality of Connecticut, doing business as Comfort Inn & Suites, the government decided against pursuing civil litigation.

U.S. Attorney Deirdre Daly said the hotel is in the process of making changes, including improvements to rooms, public areas and the parking lot. The improvements will continue over the next 18 months.

The changes to the hotel rooms include seats and additional grab bars in the showers and adjusted showerheads, for example. The parking lot will be restriped. The breakfast area will be staffed with an attendant during the breakfast hours to assist any disabled persons, and a sign will be displayed to let guests know such assistance is available, according to the agreement..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202736199289/Conn-Hotels-Are-Focus-of-ADA-Enforcement-by-US-Attorneys-Office#ixzz3kbOh0Lxn

THE DOJ'S TOOTHLESS RESPONSE TO CONNECTICUT CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS THAT THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH VIOLATES THEIR FEDERAL ADA RIGHTS!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

Buzzzz!  Times up!  Today is the last day that the Connecticut Department of Justice had to submit on time the report it has been promising regarding the compliance of the CT Judicial Branch with Federal ADA mandates.  They said they'd have the report out to us at the end of August 2015; tomorrow is September 1, 2015, and it looks like they will have missed the deadline!  How did that happen?  It happened because the Washington DOJ and the Connecticut DOJ have one thing in common: a profound unwillingness to enforce the ADA at the Connecticut Judicial Branch despite the fact that so many CT citizens have contacted them to report repeatedly violations of their Federal ADA rights during family court and DCF legal proceedings.  

THE WASHINGTON, D.C. DOJ

Now, I can't speak for what everyone else has gone through, but I can share what went into my ADA complaints which have been so colossally ignored by those whose job it is to respond to them.  My journey began way back in April 2012 when I contacted Equal Access Associates headed by Dr. Karin Huffer and had them draft a Federal ADA complaint on my behalf and that of my two children, both of whom have ocularcutaneous albinism and are visually impaired.  This was then sent out to the Washington, D.C. Department of Justice offices.  I didn't hear anything in the months afterward, so in the Fall 2012 I again sent a copy of this complaint to the Washington Department of Justice by Fax.  Again, I didn't hear anything in the months afterward.  Then, in March 2013, I again sent a copy of my complaint by certified mail, return receipt requested since I had not received a response.  Still, I did not get an answer from the Washington, D.C. Department of Justice, no information regarding whether they had received the complaint or anything about what they intended to do about it.  

Finally, I heard about the fact that there was an option to send my complaint to the Washington, D.C. DOJ offices online by email (I understand this option has since been suspended!).  Thus, on December 18, 2014, I again sent my Complaint to the Washington DOJ, the Disability Rights Section.  This time I was lucky enough to get an automatic response indicating they had finally received my complaint, "The Disability Rights Section has received your email."  it said.  Further, the automatic response continued on as follows:

"We will review the information you have submitted and will notify you of any action this office will take with respect to the issues you have raised.  Please be advised that this office receives a large volume of correspondence from the public.  If you do not hear from us within 3 months, you may contact us to determine the status of our review."  

Ok, so it took four tries to get an answer.  What about folks that are far more fragile?  How do they ever begin with a system like this?

January, February, and March 2015 went by, and still I had no response.  Finally, in June 2015 I contacted the DOJ directly and asked them what the Washington, DOJ intended to do with my complaint.  The people there referred me to a very nice lady named Carmen Romero who said that she would forward my question on to decision makers via email.  Looking for an answer to that email, I followed up with phone calls to Carmen on June 23, 2015, June 29, 2015, July 9, 2015, July 21, 2015, July 22, 2015, and August 3, 2015.  In the end, I never received a response to my inquiry.  

Now I am not asking for anything extraordinary.  Yes, I would like the Washington DOJ to pursue my case seriously and demand a correction of CT Judicial Branch's outrageous behavior.  But at the very least, it would be nice to receive a timely acknowledgment [i.e. not over two years!] that I have sent a complaint, as well as a statement regarding what they are going to do about it, or if nothing is to be done, why not.  In fact, my understanding is that the latter response is mandatory.  Specifically, under Item #6 of the "Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act" published by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division it states as follows:  Since we receive a high volume of ADA complaints and have limited resources, we cannot investigate or litigate every complaint.  If we cannot investigate your complaint due to lack of resources or for some other reason, we will send you a letter explaining why your complaint will not be investigated."  I am still waiting for the letter, as I am sure many thousands of others are as well.  Keep in mind that Item #7 of this Information Sheet delineates the period of three months as their optimal time frame, not all of eternity.

Here is a department that is especially set up to deal with the needs of persons with disabilities, yet it has the nerve to ignore and play games with the needs of people with disabilities who send them legitimate complaints.  I find that an incredibly traumatizing way to deal with people who deserve so much better because they have already been traumatized enough.  As ADA documents have said, persons with disabilities have historically been disenfranchised and excluded from access to the services, programs, and activities of government.  There is no better example of disenfranchisement and exclusion than the silent treatment, which is what the Washington DOJ greeted me with, as well as all of my fellow advocates who also sent in complaints which were also ignored.

THE CONNECTICUT DOJ

Given that I wasn't receiving any satisfaction from the Washington DOJ, several friends advised me to approach the Connecticut DOJ.  Thus, On December 24, 2012, I sent a letter to Attorney John B. Hughes certified mail, return receipt requested.  In that letter I stated that the "CT Judicial Branch is not complying with the ADA and ADAAA" and I asked him to intervene.  

I also noted that the CT Judicial Branch is acting only according to employment law, Title I, and not according to that of a public agency under Title II as it should.  I mentioned that the CT Judicial Branch has no Designated Responsible Employee under Title II of the ADA, 28 C.R.F. Sec. 35.107(a).  I pointed out that the CT Judicial Branch doesn't have a meaningful grievance procedure as required under Title II of the ADA, 28 C.R.F. Sec. 35.107(b).  I further stated that the CT Judicial Branch has not conducted a self-evaluation as required under Title II of the ADA 28 C.F.R. Part 35 Sec 35.105.  And I also pointed out that while the CT Judicial Branch was accommodating those with visible disabilities it was limiting the access of those with invisible disabilities.  Finally, I documented in detail how I was denied access to my ADA reasonable modifications from March 2009 until December 2012 in violation of Federal ADA law.  I received no response to this letter.  

Then, On June 10, 2013, I hand delivered an additional letter addressed to Attorney Deidre [sic] M. Daly, acting United States Attorney at the Connecticut DOJ.  In that letter, I mentioned that I had filed a federal complaint on November 16, 2012 against the CT Judicial Branch, et. al. based upon the fact that it discriminated against me and failed to provide me with reasonable accommodations.  I included a copy of the earlier December 24, 2012 letter to Attorney John Hughes so that she could become oriented to my complaint.  I asked Attorney Daly to authorize the Connecticut DOJ to file an Amicus Brief on my behalf.  

In response, on July 9, 2013, Attorney Deirdre M. Daly and her assistant Ndidi N. Moses send me a letter which stated, "I have reviewed your complaint dated June 24, 2013 [incorrect date!  I had sent in two letters--one dated December 24, 2012 and the other dated June 10, 2013] alleging that the state of Connecticut Judicial Branch has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.  You complaint is under review by this office, and we will contact you if we have any questions."

Months went by and she never responded to my complaint  indicating whether she thought it was legitimate or not, and she never responded to my request for an Amicus Brief either with a yes or no.  I still have not heard what the outcome of the so-called "review" of my case was.

Meanwhile, during the same time period that I was complaining to the Connecticut DOJ about the CT Judicial Branch's refusal to comply with Federal ADA and ADAAA law, so was Ms. Susan Skipp of Litchfield and potentially others.  Thus, on January 8, 2014, I received a letter signed by both Attorney Deirdre M. Daly and Attorney John B. Hughes stating as follows:

"...the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division have elected to conduct ADA compliance review of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.  This review will examine ADA complaints that the Judicial Branch has received, the responses, and the accommodation process.  It will also examine the training that the judges and support staff receive regarding the ADA.  Included in the review will be inquiries into the family court and divorce court processes.  I must inform you, however, that, consistent with our jurisdiction, the review will focus on the ADA, and not other matters.  This review, which is already underway, is expected to take some time."

In the weeks that followed this January 8, 2014 letter I dropped off documents in relation to my ADA complaint and that of my daughters.  I also hand delivered a copy of the ADA complaint from the Joseph Watley and Karin Haseman case.  I am also aware that many other people dropped off or sent emailed information to Attorney Deirdre Daly and Attorney John Hughes regarding the ADA violations in their cases.  The response?  Silence, silence, and more silence.  During the remainder of the year in 2014, I occasionally sent out an email with additional information in regard to further violations by the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  In addition, I made further inquiries regarding when this investigation would be completed.  Again, I received no answer.  Finally, in November 2014, I hired an attorney so that I could get an answer: Attorney Donna Drumm.

On February 25, 2015, Attorney Drumm sent an email inquiry to Attorney Hughes just reviewing the history and asking for a copy of the report that the Connecticut DOJ had promised in its letter of January 8, 2014.  Now, this is a full year later that Attorney Drumm asked this question.  On March 18, 2015, Attorney John Hughes responded by stating, "The report is still in a draft form and it is not expected to  be finalized for several more months.  When it is competed, you and Ms. Richter will receive a copy."  This is what is outrageous--that for over a year Attorney Hughes refused to respond to my emails asking the very same question, but after I hired an attorney at considerable expense, then he was willing to respond to the attorney.  It is as if, as far as Attorney John Hughes is concerned, I am not even a human being entitled to reasonable courtesy!  This is the person that the government chooses to put in charge of Civil Rights investigations!

In regard to my complaint, and the complaints of so many others, Attorney John Hughes went a step further and said that the Connecticut DOJ did not intend to take any action on them stating, "We are not investigating individual claims of ADA violations or attempting to set aside court orders relating to divorce, alimony, custody, appointment of guardians ad litem and related financial orders."  For those who had been waiting now for over a year for the Connecticut DOJ's investigation to be completed, this was devastating news.  You would have thought that if the DOJ did not intend to address peoples' complaints that the issue was of such significance, they would have clarified that from the beginning.  Instead, the Connecticut DOJ kept everyone dangling for months on end, and then said we don't intend to help you.  

Again, on June 12, 2015, Attorney Donna Drumm wrote to Attorney Hughes and asked, "Can you please give us a projected date of completion?" [for the report on the ADA compliance of the CT Judicial Branch].  She also asked again in regard to what would be done about my specific complaint.

A month later, on July 13, 2015, Attorney John Hughes responded with the following: 

"In response to your email from June 12 in which you enclosed a letter from yourself about previous correspondence related to ADA complaints made by your client, Elizabeth Richter, I wanted to let you know that the current projected completion of a Report is the end of August [emphasis added]. While I understand that Ms. Richter and several others have made individual ADA complaints about the State Judicial Branch, the focus of our review is the overall compliance process by the State and not those individual claims. This office and the Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice are empowered to investigate a pattern or practice of ADA violations. That is what the subject of the Report will be."

That is why I started this blog with a buzz, because clearly, the end of August has now passed and we still do not have a finalized report.  Do you think the Connecticut DOJ has ever heard of the Langston Hughes quotation, "Justice delayed is justice denied!"  I do also want to note that Attorney John Hughes states that they are "empowered to investigate a pattern or practice of ADA violations."  Well, yes, an upper level government official may have limited the investigation, however, the mandate of both the Washington DOJ and the Connecticut DOJ is to investigate specific complaints and a look at the case law in the State of Connecticut indicates that is exactly what they have done.  Why these departments chose to deviate from what they do normally in the face of litigants' complaints regarding the CT Judicial Branch is a very good question we should all ask.  It seems as though the DOJ is good at telling everyone else to obey federal ADA law, but when it comes to demanding that their own fellow attorneys and institutions obey the law, it seems they don't want to.  How hypocritical is that?

I will say that on August 15, 2015 the Washington DOJ and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a joint statement entitled "Protecting the Rights of Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities" which resoundingly supports the rights of parents with disabilities in accordance with Title II of the ADA and the ADAAA in legal proceedings related to child welfare cases and the court system.  Of course, if this is a statement without any teeth because of the DOJ's refusal to enforce the expressed policies, it is a piece of nonsense.  Still, it is admirable that these policies have been articulated.  The link to this statement is below:

http://www.ada.gov/doj_hhs_ta/child_welfare_ta.html

It could be that this statement is the result of the work of activists throughout Connecticut who have been fighting for the rights of parents with disabilities in family court and in regard to DCF.  I certainly know that this issue has concerned people here in Connecticut as well as activists all over the country.  We may never know.  One thing I do know is that we were promised a report from the Connecticut DOJ in regard to the compliance of the CT Judicial Branch with the ADA and we still haven't gotten it.  

We are waiting.

________________________

As a followup, on September 1, 2015, the CT Law Tribune reported that the CT DOJ is planning on investigating CT hotels for non-compliance with the ADA.  See the link below:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/09/ct-law-tribune-reports-ct-doj-is-making.html

In the last decade, several Connecticut residents, many representing their children's interests as well, have contacted the CT Department of Justice and requested assistance in obtaining their federal ADA rights.  Well over a year and a half ago, the CT DOJ stated it would proceed with a compliance review of the CT Judicial Branch.  When I made an inquiry about when that review would be completed, as I stated, I was reprimanded because Attorney John Hughes stated that his offices were overwhelmed with work and could we possibly ask them to do more.  Yet now we get a news report indicating that after delaying any kind of response to the complaints of family court victims and refusing to address their individual concerns the CT DOJ is now volunteering to take on a new area of concern, i.e. hotels.  This is a slap in the face of all family court victims with disabilities who have been waiting for years for redress. 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REAFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS WITH DISABILITIES!

AUGUST 2015 JOINT POLICY STATEMENT FROM THE US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:

"Protecting the Rights of Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities: Technical Assistance for State and Local Child Welfare Agencies and Courts under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) are issuing this technical assistance to assist state and local child welfare agencies and courts to ensure that the welfare of children and families is protected in a manner that also protects the civil rights of parents and prospective parents1 with disabilities. This guidance provides an overview of the issues and application of civil rights laws, answers to specific questions and implementation examples for child welfare agencies and courts, and resources to consult for additional information..."

READ MORE:

http://www.ada.gov/doj_hhs_ta/child_welfare_ta.pdf

DOES CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS AS A MEMBER OF THE STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE OBSTRUCT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADA!

It has come to my attention recently that Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers is a member of the State Justice Institute, see the definition below.  Many advocates have speculated that Chief Justice Rogers has used her position there to obstruct litigants from obtaining relief under the ADA and Section 504 on the federal level.  See her involvement below:

State Justice Institute

The State Justice Institute (SJI) was established by federal law in 1984 to award grants to improve the quality of justice in state courts, facilitate better coordination between state and federal courts, and foster innovative, efficient solutions to common issues faced by all courts.

CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE ROGERS' BIOGRAPHY

Chief Justice Chase Rogers has been the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court since 2007. Prior to that, she served as a judge in the Connecticut Appellate Court from 2006 to 2007, and as a judge in the Connecticut Superior Court from 1998 to 2006. Prior to becoming a judge, she was a partner at Cummings & Lockwood in Stamford, Connecticut, where she focused on employment law and commercial litigation. She served on the Board of Directors of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) from 2008 to 2011. She has been a member of the Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction of the Judicial Conference of the United States from 2012 to 2015; member of the National Center for State Courts Expanding Court Access to Justice Project Advisory Committee from 2012 to present; member of the Conference of Chief Justices Civil Justice Initiative Committee from 2014 to present; member of the Connecticut Bar Foundation Nominating Committee from 2007 to present; Ex Officio Member, American Law Institute; and Ex Officio Director, Connecticut Bar Foundation. Chief Justice Rogers was appointed to the SJI Board of Directors in 2010. She has been an Adjunct Professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law from 2012 to present. She has received an Honorary degree from Quinnipiac University School of Law in 2010 and an Honorary degree from the University of Hartford in 2011. She received her J.D. from Boston University School of Law, and B.A. from Stanford University.

Chief Justice Rogers currently serves on the State Justice Institute’s Board of Directors. She was appointed to this position in December of 2010 by President Barack Obama, with the advice and consent of the Senate. In October of 2012, Chief Justice Rogers was appointed a member of the Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction of the Judicial Conference of the United States. She was appointed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. of the United States Supreme Court, and will serve a three year term. She is currently a member of the National Center for State Courts Expanding Court Access to Justice Project Advisory Committee, the Conference of Chief Justices Civil Justice Initiative Committee and the Connecticut Bar Foundation Fellows Nominating Committee, an ex officio member of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, an ex officio member of the American Law Institute and an ex-officio Director of the Connecticut Bar Foundation. Chief Justice Rogers previously served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Conference of Chief Justices, the Detention Crowding Oversight Committee, and as a Faculty Member of the Connecticut Judge’s Institute. 

NEW HHS AND DOJ RULING RE THE ADA AND SECTION 504 REQUIRES CHILD WELFARE SYSTEMS TO OBEY THE LAW!

News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 10, 2015

Contact: HHS Office of Civil Rights
202-619-0403

HHS and DOJ issue technical assistance for child welfare systems under the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) today issued joint technical assistance to state and local child welfare agencies and courts on the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The technical assistance released today is part of a new partnership between HHS and DOJ to help child welfare agencies protect the welfare of children and ensure compliance with nondiscrimination laws.

The technical assistance addresses disability discrimination complaints that HHS and DOJ have been receiving from parents who have had their children taken away from them as well as individuals who have not been given equal opportunities to become foster or adoptive parents.  Noting that the goals of child welfare and disability non-discrimination are complementary, the technical assistance provides an overview of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 and examples about how to apply them in the child welfare system, including child welfare investigations, assessments, guardianship, removal of children from their homes, case planning, adoption, foster care, and family court hearings, including termination of parental rights proceedings.  It also underscores that Title II and Section 504 prohibit child welfare agencies from acting based on unfounded assumptions, generalizations, or stereotypes regarding persons with disabilities.

“Ensuring nondiscrimination in the child welfare system is an Office for Civil Rights (OCR) priority and we’re very pleased to join with the HHS Administration on Children and Families and the Department of Justice in this important initiative,” said Jocelyn Samuels, director, HHS Office for Civil Rights. “It’s particularly fitting that we are beginning this initiative with guidance on the rights of parents and prospective parents with disabilities given our recent investigation with the Department of Justice in this area and as we commemorate the 25^th Anniversary of the ADA.  This guidance will help ensure that parents and prospective parents are not discriminatorily deprived of custody of their children, or denied the opportunity to adopt or serve as foster parents, because of stereotypes and unfounded assumptions about persons with disabilities, which we have seen in our complaints.”

“This technical assistance reflects an important milestone in the ongoing effort to realize equality for individuals with disabilities in all aspects of our society,” said Vanita Gupta, principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights.  “The ADA and Section 504 ensure that all government providers of programs, activities, and services treat people with disabilities in a fair and equal manner.  State and local agencies and courts are our partners in defending the rights of people with disabilities, and this guidance gives them an improved understanding of how to uphold those rights more effectively.”

“Providing this technical assistance to state and local agencies and courts will help ensure that families who have a member with a disability get equal access to vital child welfare services,” said Mark Greenberg, HHS’ administration for children and families’ acting assistant secretary.

The Children’s Bureau in the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) administers funding for child welfare agencies and courts.  ACF also provides guidance and technical assistance to child welfare agencies regarding child welfare law.  The HHS Office for Civil Rights and the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ are responsible for protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities by enforcing Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, and require providers of government programs, services, and activities to make reasonable modifications to their policies and practices when necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or the services.

Additional information about the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau is available at www.acf.hhs.gov/cb. Additional information about the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office for Civil Rights is available at www.hhs.gov/ocr/. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is available at www.justice.gov/crt. 

###

FOR THE LINK TO THIS STATEMENT, PLEASE SEE BELOW:

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2015pres/08/20150810a.html

NANCY S. ERICKSON, J.D., DR. KARIN HUFFER, AND JANE DOE SPEAK ABOUT INVISIBLE DISABILITIES IN THE COURTROOM AND THE ADA AT THE BMCC 2015!

Nancy Erickson stated as follows:  In my work in litigation, I see that the fathers would abuse the mother who would then develop PTSD or some other form of mental illness.  The mother would then come across very badly in psychological tests and lose custody.  

These tests are not meant to figure out whether you are a good parent and they cannot really arrive at such conclusions, but they are misused for that purpose.  

PTSD is extremely common among battered women.  If you look at these percentages, there are studies indicating that among women in DV shelters 40-89% have PTSD.  PTSD is not what you would really call an illness.  It is an injury.  The best way to think about it and explain it to the court is that we are starting to learn about it.  Soldiers returning from combat have PTSD.  All of the research money is out there to treat PTSD, not for DV, but that which results from combat.  

There are similarities and also differences.  PTSD from DV is worse, because you have been traumatized by someone you thought was going to love, protect, and take care of you--not an enemy, but a person you trusted.  Thus, your trust in the whole world has gone.  So it is an injury.  

PTSD is defined in the DSM-5 as follows:

1.  You had to have had a trauma; 

2. you have to have the requisite numbers and kinds of symptoms, i.e. one or more--sort of like a restaurant menu in a Chinese restaurant:

A. intrusive thoughts--nightmares of the abuse, flashbacks or dissociative reactions, not a memory, an oh my God, I am back there again, distress at exposure to external or internal cues regarding what happen, physiological reactions to external or internal cues; 

B. avoidance, avoidance of thoughts and feelings of this event, avoidance of external reminders: people, places, activities, objects; 

C.  negative changes in cognition/mood, can't remember something that happened, change from before to afterwards, loss of trust, distorted thought like blaming yourself, anger, feelings of detachment or estrangement from others, memory problems, and persistent inability to experience positive emotions; 

D.  changes in arousal or reactivity such as exaggerated startle response, hypervigilance, problems with concentration, sleep disturbances, suicidal behavior or ideation.  

I sometimes like to give the Court the following analogy if they are considering taking a mother's children away from her based upon PTSD.  What if the abuser had taken a sledgehammer and crippled the mother for life because he destroyed her knees and now she can't walk.  Then he comes to court and says, your honor, she can't even walk how can she be a parent?  Yet he caused this problem!  

This is not something is biochemical; this is an injury caused by the perpetrator and will stop once the constant abuse is over.  Are these symptoms always at play?  No.  You have PTSD, but it isn't triggered all the time, only when in Court or facing the abuser, or having to see him in court.  In other words, PTSD is often episodic, which is covered under the ADA.  

Jane Doe mentioned requesting breaks, obtaining reduced price transcripts, pencil and paper to take notes on the stand, breaks, etc. as her accommodations under the ADA.  The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 has expanded and extended the civil rights of people with disabilities.  

Dr. Karin Huffer began her presentation taking note of Jane Doe's situation.  She has broken heart syndrome where the pressure of family court has caused her heart attacks.  

If you are in a situation like Jane Doe, says Dr. Karin Huffer, the first thing to note is:  1.  You are not crazy; 2.  You are not alone; 3. You have rights under the ADA.  

The ADA empowers us with a powerful federal tool so that victims of DV can stand up for themselves.  Family courts are a maze where you can end up being abused more because your abuser controls family court the same way he controlled the family.  

In this situation, the ADA can help you.  For instance, you can obtain accommodations under the ADA to undergo a deposition in writing in your own time rather than being put on the spot in an oral deposition.  

It is critical to have a person in your life to address the disability issues when you are in a court proceeding.  

When you request an ADA accommodation, you only have to provide a single diagnosis.    So don't feel you have to provide more than one.  A request for accommodation is administrative; it is confidential and does not belong under discussion in court.  

Federal Court also has to comply with the ADA as well even though they will deny that.  And this is why.  PTSD interferes with expressive speech and so without the ADA a litigant is unable to communicate effectively with the court.  

In addition,  Federal law supersedes state and local law.  

You don't file a motion with the judge.  You go to the clerk ex parte.  

People with invisible disabilities often need extra time; they need a stay, they need a break, etc.  People must have executive functionality--anything that takes it away is not lawful.  

It is my view that Family Courts have become a public health crisis and must be treated as such.  

Consider whether it makes sense to have a psychological evaluation which is intended to take your child from you if they find a disability vs. a disability asssessment in order to address the accommodations you need in order to function.    

One trick of the abuser is to litigate you to the point of bankruptcy.  We need to address this issue.  

Finally, we need to train ADA advocates to be in those courts.  If these advocates can get all over these courts like an anthill, they will not be able to do this any further.