LETTER SUBMITTED TO JUDGE PATRICK L. CARROLL III ABOUT THE PETITION TO ADD A MANDATORY PARENTAL RESPONSIBIILTY PLAN TO THE AUTOMATIC ORDERS!

April 9, 2018

Judge Patrick L. Carroll III,

Chief Court Administrator

Supreme Court Building

231 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Petition:  Add a Mandatory Parental Responsibility Plan to the Automatic Orders

Dear Judge Carroll:

On behalf of the “Divorce in Connecticut” website, and for the benefit of the people of Connecticut, I am writing to you about the website’s change.org petition on the above referenced matter related to Parental Responsibility Plans in Family Court Matters.  The content of the petition is attached to this letter.

As was noted on the petition, while there are very specific orders in regard to financial behavior during the pendente lite period in a Family Court Matter, there are very few guidelines in regard to the care of children.  I am hoping that the CT Judicial Branch could refine the language of the automatic orders to include a provision that requires that, within 30 days of the return day, the parties submit to the Court a Parental Responsibility Plan, i.e. Form JD-FM-199.  Sometimes parents in Family Court continue on for months without any agreement which results in constant struggles for those parents and children.  These struggles inevitably require continual interventions by family relations and legal professionals which bogs down an already overburdened Court system. 

The advantage of putting a Parental Agreement in place right away is that it would establish proper boundaries between the parties in a divorce and thereby reduce confrontations, arguments, exposure to DV, unnecessary lapses in parental contact, and extra legal expenses.  In particular, each party would know what their responsibilities are in regard to their children, and they would have in place specific parenting time with their children right from the beginning.  This will reduce the unfortunate tug of war situations with children that come up during divorce proceedings due to a lack of clarity. 

It could be that parties will be unable to come to an agreement within the allotted time period, which would simply mean submitting a statement to that effect to the Court, which can then direct the case towards special services for high conflict couples.  In my opinion, you might as well know where you stand right away in a case and get started addressing the obstacles immediately rather than allowing them to fester for months before addressing them..

I have also enclosed signatures from 100 supporters who believe that this kind of provision would significantly reduce conflict between divorcing couples.  I will concede that some of them live in such far flung places as Belgium and Australia, but I believe their wisdom counts as well.  In future, I will restrict petitions to the State of Connecticut since primarily the views of our own citizens are what counts.  However, I believe that common sense and the many CT citizens who did sign this petition indicate that such a provision requiring Parental Responsibility Plans right from the start of a divorce should be put into place.

I would be interested in hearing your perspective on this issue.  It would be valuable to know if others whose opinions you respect have expressed this concern or if the CT Judicial Branch shares some of these concerns as well. Does my solution make sense to you?  I have been unsure whether i should approach the CT Judicial Branch, or my representatives, but just in case I thought I’d approach you first and get your feedback. If you have any suggestions for how I could proceed further, or insights that could assist me in crafting this idea more effectively, I would highly appreciate hearing your thoughts.  Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth A. Richter, Manager

Divorce in Connecticut Website

P.O. Box 5 * Canton, CT  06019

earichter@aol.com * 860-751-4668

Enclosures

cc:

Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez

Rep. William Tong

Sen. Paul Doyle

Sen. Ed Gomes

Sen. John A. Kissel

Rep. Prasad Srinivasan

Sen. Mae Flexor

Karen Jarmoc, CCADV

Catharine Bailey, CWEALF

A RANSOMWARE ATTACK ON THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ONE BLOGGER SPECULATES!

Below is a blog posted online elsewhere recently.  Because of their offensive nature, some words have been removed or changed, but every care has been taken to ensure the ideas and spirit of the blog remain intact.

Posted on March 10, 2018

“A ransomware attack has knocked the state court system’s computers offline.”!!!!

Really?  That is what gullible reporter Dave Owens of the Hartford Courant propaganda rag is repeating at the request of the [judicial] mafia of the state [of Connecticut].  The concocted explanation by Melissa Farley, the propagandist of the Chief Court Administrator’s Office, is so twisted that it is a self-admitting lie to the public.  Melissa is a brainless puppet on strings of her masters Judge Patrick ‘the crook’ Carroll and the [Deputy Court Administrator], Judge Elliot Solomon.  Any public statement from these two clowns is rather suspect.

LETS GET HONEST! THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH COULD EASILY CUT $70 MILLION FROM ITS BUDGET IN NON JUDICIAL SERVICES!

In a recent report of the "CT Law Tribune" dated February 19, 2016, Michelle Tuccitto Sullo reported that Governor Malloy is recommending that the CT Judicial Branch cut its budget by $70 million.

In response, Chief Court Administrator Judge Patrick Carroll III made dire apocalyptic predictions regarding what would happen if this cut goes through, "If a budget reduction of this magnitude goes into effect, the court system as we know it will not exist after July 1, 2016."

Of course, those of us who have been harshly treated by this very system, those of us who have lost children and have been driven into bankruptcy as a result of family court corruption, are not going to feel too upset about that. In fact, we are looking forward to it. In fact, if the CT Judicial Branch would like, I can easily compile a list of those judges, family relations personnel and judicial marshals we think the CT Judicial Branch can easily do without. If they are itching to close up some courts because of the expense, and need a few suggestions, I think we could do away with some of the nonsense going on in Middletown.

In discussing budget cuts it is interesting that for the better part the CT Judicial Branch talked about cutting financial resources to the most vulnerable, not to the fat cat money producing departments like family relations. The Branch proposed cuts to juvenile detention centers, alternative to incarceration programs, the Office of Victim Services, and translators. Nothing was said about cuts to services to persons with disabilities because, as we know, the CT Judicial Branch can't be bothered to serve those with disabilities, preferring to deny such people access to Judicial Services instead.

Anyway, before legislators and citizens in the State of Connecticut start running scared in the face of the terrifying scenarios that Judge Patrick Carroll describes, I think it is important to consider exactly what we are talking about. Specifically, for those of you who may not have known, it is worth taking note that while most people think the budget for the CT Judicial Branch pays for courthouses, judges, prosecutors, etc., it may come as a surprise to discover that The CT Judicial Branch also pays for what they call "a full range of alternatives to incarceration and evidence-based services for adult and juvenile populations." The latter definition is so general, it could pretty much cover anything, and does.

What this means is that, in other words, the CT Judicial Branch has economic tentacles in a broad range of areas--churches, hospitals, community organizations, and other government agencies--which goes well beyond their mandate "to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner." A selected list of such places is as follows:

21st Century Media Newspaper, LLC  $11,116

Access Rehab Centers, LLC  $75.00

Advanced Trauma Solutions, INC.  $373,272

Apostolic Community Church of Jesus & Ministries  $9,988

All Souls Unitarian Universalist Congregation  $14,664

African Caribbean American Parents of Children With Disabilities,  $100,000

APT Foundation: Treatment, Research, &
 Recovery  $370,000 

Aspire Family Medicine & Wellness Center $25.00

Association of Religious Communities, INC  $144,985

Attorney General $20,000 - why?

Bridges - A Community Support System, Inc.  $2,174

Catholic Charities & Family Services  $70,703

Catholic Charities INC Archdioceses of Hartford  $1,035,507

Center For Children's Advocacy  $10,500

Central Connecticut State University  $722,933

Central Washington Comprehensive Mental Health  $2,500

Child & Family Agency Southeastern CT INC  $1,599

Child Advocates of Connecticut  $50,000

Child Guidance Center of Southern Connecticut  $220,727 

Child Health and Development Institute INC  $262,500

Children in Placement Conn INC  $199,999

Children's Law Center of CT  $109,836

Clifford W. Beers Guidance Clinic  $251,664

Communicare INC  $98,028

Community Health Resources INC  $687,558

Community Partners in Action INC  $12,976,031

Community Renewal Team INC  $567,650

Community Resources For Justice  $116,305

Compass Group/Chartwells  $931,857

Compass Youth Collaborative, INC  $56,833

Connecticut Children's Medical Center  $10,926

CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence  $3,159,621

CT Community Providers Association  $45,785

CT Counseling Centers INC  $771,347

Concentra Medical Center  $26563

CT Junior Republic Association  $11,800,351

CT Renaissance INC  $4,049,142

CT Sexual Assault Crisis Services  $1,743,950

CT Youth Services Association  $275,000

David Mandel & Associates, LLC  $18,408
Department of Administrative Services  $2,294,497

Department of Rehabilitation Services  $144,750

Department of Children and Families  $3,264,180

Department of Corrections  $1,762,508

Department of Labor  $80,000

Department of Mental Health and 
  Addiction Services  $9,426,716

Department of Public Safety  $5,170

Department of Social Services  $72,412

Department of Transportation  $408,562

Domestic Violence Crisis Center  $140,934

Families in Crisis, INC  $765,113

Families and Children's Aid, INC  $106,673

Family Centered Services of CT INC  $269,192

Family Centers INC  $2,375

Family Reentry INC  $876,608

Hearst CT Post  $9,881

Intercommunity INC  $205,659

Klingberg Comprehensive Program Services INC  $255,211

Life Strategies Network LLC  $303,701

Lifebridge Community Services INC $163,050

Midwestern CT Council of Alcoholism INC  $1,306,552

NAFI Connecticut, INC  $6,137,086

New Directions INC of N. Central CT  $183,772

Newtown Youth & Family Services INC  $1,091,249

Post Traumatic Stress Center, LLC  $23,010

Removed For Privacy  $171,752

St. Anthony of Padua Church  $59,000

St. Francis Hospital & Medical Center  $1,212,736

Republican American  $3,230

Rushford Center INC  $492,075

Southwest Community Health Center INC  $251,172

St. Mary's Hospital Corp.  $25,400

St. Vincent Medical Center Foundation  $119,260

The Child and Family Guidance Center  $20,430

The Connection INC  $4,008,576

The Consultation Center INC  $226,750

The CT Law Tribune  $31,082

The Governor's Prevention Partnership  $559,389

The Hartford Courant  $2,082

UConn Health Center  $1,138,457

Wheeler Clinic  $7,250,401

William W. Backus Hospital  $16,214

Yale New Haven Hospital  $342,849

YMCA of Metropolitan Hartford INC  $375,000

TOTAL:  $86,543,553

Again, as I have said, none of the items on this considerable list has anything to do with judges, attorneys, clerks, courthouse upkeep, marshals, etc. etc.  These expenditures are all for social services.  Pretty much, if we eliminated them, it looks as though the CT Judicial Branch could save well over $70 million.  Keep in mind that this is just a selected list, so there are more social services that could be cut, if these are insufficient and the State of Connecticut would like to go further.

I did find it interesting to see the CT Judicial Branch contributing financial support to so many other agencies in Connecticut government such as the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Labor, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the Attorney General, etc. etc. Here we have the CT Judicial Branch giving the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services over $9 million dollars, then giving  over $2 million to the Department of Administrative Services and over $3 million to DCF.  I can imagine this tossing money back and forth between departments can be a good way of hiding who is getting what money.  You don't just have the State directly give DCF money, you funnel it through the CT Judicial Branch, or through some other government agency.  I can imagine there is a lot of playing around that goes on with this kind of activity.  Further, there is no doubt that this ability of the Judicial Branch to contribute financially to other agencies provides it with a powerful way to extend its influence throughout other State Agencies and potentially dictate their policies. 

The section on "Removed For Privacy" in CT Judicial Branch budget is the most extensive one that I've seen. It goes on for pages and adds up to $171,752.  That's a lot of under the table money.  I checked with other Agencies to see if they had a similar situation and they did not. Apparently, as soon as it was clear that the information on the budget would be free for public review, the other Agencies simply stopped using that label. This wasn't true of the CT Judicial Branch. I'll bet if the CT Judicial Branch eliminated all the expenses in the removed for privacy category, that would be a considerable sum of money.

If there is one conclusion you can draw from simply looking at this review of how the CT Judicial Branch spends its money it is that a considerable chunk of the CT Judicial Branch budget is not applied to running its courthouses, paying its clerks, or its judges. Instead, Judicial Branch money is going to what it said which is alternatives to incarceration, evidence-based services for adult and juvenile populations, and goodness knows what else, since they have a broad lattitude to spend public's money. 

The question we have as taxpayers, however, is since when did the CT Judicial Branch become a social services agency? Is that even constitutionally sound? We are supposed to have three branches of government, and judicial is one, and it should remain judicial, in my view. If it is going to be a social services agency distributing money for mental health services far and yonder, then it is no longer what our founding fathers imagined when it spoke of a judiciary. 

I also thought the Judicial Branch's contribution of approximately $3,159,621 to the CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence was considerable. Perhaps this explains the Coalition's weak and inadequate response to the legal abuse of victims of domestic violence in the family courts throughout the State of CT. Most of the women I've spoken to about the services they have received from this Agency express themselves in terms that can only be summed up by the word "wimpy."

Fatherhood Initiative funding extends throughout the vast majority of social services agencies, literally being tacked onto anything vaguely mental health related. So anything on this list with the words "family" or "children" probably has some fatherhood initiative funding associated with it either directly or indirectly. Most particularly I would focus my attention on the considerable sums of money given to the Catholic Church and also other Christian Churches. A considerable amount of fatherhood funding has been faith based funding.

I would also like to point out the many expenditures on print media. In particular, the CT Judicial Branch does contribute approximately $31,000 to "The CT Law Tribune" which acts as the mouthpiece of the CT Judicial Branch and the CT Legal profession as a whole. Money means control in my book. And while I am sure that the CT Judicial Branch is legally required to advertise positions available for employment, and money gets spent on PSAs such as advertising against human trafficking and similar topics, which would be, on the surface, legitimate, I wonder if the CT Judicial Branch is also spending on print media as a means to impact editorial decision making in favor of Branch policies. 

In this regard, I would like to point out that while "The Hartford Courant" only earned approximately $2,082 in the last fiscal year from the CT Judicial Branch, as a rule it has generally received from approximately $18,000 to $27,000, and from State government as a whole, it has received considerably more.

The bottom line is that when The CT Judicial Branch weeps and wrings its hands about the prospect of cutting its budget and talks in dire tones about having to shut down courthouses and fire personnel, I wouldn't be that concerned. It can survive perfectly well by sticking to its mandate of providing legal services and leave social services, and influence peddling to others.

The truth of the matter is that what we have here is the CT Judicial Branch expanding its power by extending its economic power throughout the State of Connecticut by adding social services to its mandate.  Then, at the same time, the CT Judicial Branch has been expanding its legal power and authority by manipulating The Connecticut Practice Book in its favor, and ignoring CGS 51-14 which requires that it ask permission of the State Legislature and the people first prior to doing so.