PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label JUDICIAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JUDICIAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Show all posts

Saturday, March 3, 2018


Judiciary Committee 
Friday, March 9, 2018 
11:00 AM in Room 2E of the LOB







Monday, January 19, 2015


Judiciary Committee
Friday, January 23, 2015
10:30 AM in Room 2C of the LOB


I. To be a Judge of the Superior Court:
       1. The Honorable Bernadette Conway of North Haven

2. The Honorable Stephen F. Frazzini of West Hartford

3. The Honorable Edward C. Graziani of Ellington

4. The Honorable Earl B. Richards, III of Woodbridge
II. To be a State Referee:
       1. The Honorable Taggart D. Adams of Wilton

2. The Honorable Elizabeth A. Gallagher of Litchfield

3. The Honorable Arthur A. Hiller of Shelton

III. To be the Chairman of the Board of Pardons & Paroles:
       1. Carleton J. Giles of Middletown

IV. To be a member of the Board of Pardons & Paroles:
       1. Rufaro N. Berry of Hamden

2. Terry M. Borjeson of Newington

3. Patricia Camp of Bloomfield

4. Joy Chance of Bloomfield

5. Kenneth Ireland of New Britain

6. Jennifer Zaccagnini of Woodbury

Tuesday, January 13, 2015


Judiciary Committee
Friday, January 16, 2015
10:30 AM in Room 2C of the LOB

I. To be a Judge of the Superior Court:

1. The Honorable Kevin C. Doyle of North Haven
2. Auden C. Grogins of Bridgeport

3. The Honorable Alex V. Hernandez of Fairfield

4. The Honorable Sheila M. Prats of West Simsbury

5. The Honorable Robert B. Shapiro of Avon

6. The Honorable Omar A. Williams of West Hartford

II. To be a Senior Judge of the Superior Court:

1. The Honorable James J. Devine of Oakdale

2. The Honorable Robert A. Martin of Old Lyme

III. To be a State Referee:

1. The Honorable Bernard D. Gaffney of New Britain

2. The Honorable William L. Hadden, Jr. of Hamden

3. The Honorable John W. Moran of Milford

4. The Honorable Thomas F. Parker of Niantic

5. The Honorable Wilson J. Trombley of Wolcott

Monday, March 17, 2014



8:00AM AND ON...




Tuesday, February 18, 2014


Judiciary Committee
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
10:00 AM in Room 2D of the LOB
To be a Judge of the Appellate Court:
The Honorable Douglas S. Lavine of West Hartford
To be a Judge of the Superior Court:
The Honorable Julia L. Aurigemma of Cromwell
The Honorable Harry E. Calmar of Stonington
The Honorable Joseph W. Doherty of Naugatuck
The Honorable Maria Araujo Kahn of Cheshire
The Honorable Denise D. Markle of Branford
The Honorable Michael G. Maronich of Monroe
The Honorable Sheridan L. Moore of Naugatuck
The Honorable Kevin A. Randolph of Stamford
The Honorable Antonio C. Robaina of Essex
The Honorable Angela C. Robinson of New Haven
    To be a State Referee:
           The Honorable David M. Borden of West Hartford
           The Honorable Howard Scheinblum of West Hartford
           The Honorable Barbara J. Sheedy of Middlebury
           The Honorable Samuel H. Teller of Bolton

Wednesday, February 6, 2013


Hello, Chairs, Senator Coleman and Representative Fox, also, too, Senator Gerratana, Representative Holder-Winfield and those of you who are friendly colleagues here.

I will say it is a good day when justice is served on those in our government positions who are abiding by all the rules of the courts, the canon laws in our courts, which is the people's court, and the court -- color of law, but I wish all of you the best and pray for your good service.

To the Connecticut Judiciary Committee, I am Cheryl Martone of Westbrook, Connecticut, PO Box 165. I hope my testimony here today can make a difference for families in Connecticut and the Judiciary Committee before me will know about the corruption, the torture and unlawful ways the courts operate.

I have testified at many hearings here at the LOB and I'm working to make a better environment in our great state of Connecticut for my child and all the children of Connecticut. I have one child and he is a victim of abuse by the education system here in Connecticut, the DCF, CPS, and many of his civil and educational rights have been violated by almost all the schools he has been in.
I'm here to speak about Judge Turner, who is a Connecticut Superior Court judge in the Ansonia-Milford District. He hears cases on family matters and heard my case in Milford Family Court in Milford Connecticut July 2010, of which I was a plaintiff. Why and when I presented my case at the time was a matter of such importance and imperative to the upbringing of my child that he neglected to see or listen to the facts of why he -- it had to do with bringing about change for the betterment of my family life and the proper upbringing of my child, which the father was not cooperating with a court ordered agreement of the parties.

Judge Turner denied me to have equal custody, which would have allowed me to protect my child's rights, and he not only aided the perpetrator, the father, who is already backed by the lawbreaking DCF, CPS to fend my rights in the court that day. He was appropriate in his manner but violated the canon law -- laws. A judge should perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently. He did not exercise this. And he did not give me the legal or factual basis for his decision to me, and I am the guardian parent and mother and protecting my child's rights.
I will make a quote from the Bible of Colossians 3:25, "but he that doth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he had done" -- "hath done and there is no respect of persons." I feel that the judges do not respect the people.
Judge Turner also violated me under the rule of law. He did not receive all the facts of the case by his own doings before rendering a decision. He also did not seek to have my witnesses to come forward of which he would have known the truth about how badly the DCF, CPS treated, slash, violated me when they had previously kidnapped my beloved child.
I'm a judicial advocate by proxy, by this I represent the amendments of -- Amendments 4 and 5 of the United States Bill of Rights to protect citizens' right to be free of unwarranted and unwanted government intrusion into one's personal and private affairs, papers, possessions. Article 12 of the United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation." And everyone has the right to protection of the law against such interference or attacks. I also give exercise to other biological parents the knowledge and guidance to do so.

All I want is truthful courts, most are not. I want justice wrought on the ones who are intentionally and deliberately causing injustice in our courts, either by judges or officers of the courts, that cause further harm to our families. Because of what has happened to me in the family and juvenile courts and others is why I investigate the D -- the Department of Children and Families and CPS and the GAL system. There are -- this is -- are several petitions out on them for the simple reason that they do a hostile takeover of your beloved child for their own selfish reasons to traffic children and to profit from the large sums of money to be made by government funding and the taking of these children.

I just have another short paragraph --

REP. G. FOX: If you could just please summarize. Thank you. Go ahead.

CHERYL MARTONE: More children die in foster care than in their own loving homes. It was told to me that foster figures will sit at the dinner table with a steak and potatoes on their plate while that child watches them and they eat -- are given scraps of food and treated like the third-class prisoner. 

I've heard many times from biological parents and children, themselves, that children are drugged and molested by DCF and CPS workers. My child was severely harassed by them, which is why I say this judge or any other judge who violates a parents' right to raise their child and protect beloved child should not be allowed to act as a judge in a court and cause harm to another innocent child's or innocent parent's lives.

I just have an ending statement.

Judge Turner thinks he is making good progress when he never heard all the merits of how my child is being neglected by the father who is a nine-year deadbeat, has two criminal convictions and is a known alcoholic, with no wholesome activities in his life because of the neglectful decision of this judge as he is abruptly rushed -- has abruptly rushed my hearing out of the court. I did not spend my valuable time to send in a grievance complaint about him, as it shows here. They are all dismissed so why would I?

With the Bars Grievance Committee, this committee and other law scholars come forward and give due process to those who are committing crimes against our children and families, it will be worth my time to make a report about the inadequate ways our courts are run instead of making public awareness.

Let's join together to fix the problems as the courts are not well -- run well. My life and families' life have been wrongly and negatively, economically impacted by the wrongs in the court, especially at a CPS trial where the whole system do a -- hostile takeover of our children and do monetary scams on parents. 

Juvenile court and the GAL -- my child's GAL was Sue Cousineau -- they call her the big bad wolf -- to this day, I'm still -- has violated my life -- to this day, I'm still a victim of abuse and retaliation by the courts and officers of the court. They are not user or client friendly. The only court I have found who is -- the court -- the federal court, hopefully, we will be -- there will be justice made there. 

I hope that you, the Judiciary Committee, can make a positive change for the families of Connecticut. 

And I just wanted to state that in the last month, I have two retaliatory pieces of evidence that have come across my desk from a law office that -- I am in family court now that a law office sent to me, sending me negative responses to something that I asked a lawyer to step down because there's bias in his firm because he's representing my child in Family Court, which I'm going to give them one more chance, one more hearing. And the Office of Probate Court sends me an invoice four years later after the fact. So that's two pieces of retaliatory evidence I have because I make public awareness, because I speak up and stand up.

REP. G. FOX: Well, thank you very much for your testimony today. Thank you for waiting for your turn...

Thursday, January 17, 2013



Subject: Authority of Superior Court to enter temporary, ex parte
order of child custody

Preamble: Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 46b-56 authorizes the Superior Court to issue orders relative to the custody of children. Subsection (f) of the statute provides that “when the court is not sitting, any judge of the court may make any order in the cause which the
court might make under this section, including orders of injunction, prior to any action in the cause by the court”. Anecdotally, applications for ex parte custody orders appear to be very commonly filed. Some judges believe that there is no present authority for the issuance of such ex parte orders. Others believe that subsection (f) may provide that authority, but still lacks sufficient standards to guide a judge reviewing such an

The following is a draft amendment to that statute addressing both of these concerns.

Section 46b-56( ). Authority of Superior Court to enter order of temporary custody of a child Application. Court orders. Duration. Expedited hearing for continuance of order.

( ) An applicant for custody under this section may make an application to the Superior Court for an emergency order of custody under this section.

( ) The application shall be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath which includes a brief statement of the conditions requiring an emergency order. Upon receipt of the application the court shall order that a hearing on the application be held not later
than fourteen days from the date of the order. The court, in its discretion, may make such orders as it deems appropriate for the protection of the child as the court sees fit. Such order may include temporary child custody or visitation rights and such relief may
include but is not limited to an order enjoining the respondent from

(1) removing the child from the state of Connecticut;

(2) interfering with the applicant’s custody of the child;

(3) interfering with the child’s educational program;

or (4) such further orders as the court determines to be in the child’s best interest.

If an applicant alleges an immediate and present physical or psychological danger to the child, the court may issue
an ex parte order granting such relief as it deems appropriate and may, in its discretion, refer the contents of the affidavit to the Department of Children and Families for investigation. If a postponement of a hearing on the application is requested by either
party and granted, the order shall not be continued except upon agreement of the parties or by order of the court for good cause shown.
( ) The applicant shall cause notice of the hearing pursuant to subsection ( ) of this section and a copy of the application and the applicant's affidavit of this section to be served on the respondent not less than five days before the hearing. In the case of any
application seeking an ex parte order, the affiant shall also disclose what steps were taken to inform the respondent of the request if any, or, if none, the reasons why the court should nonetheless consider such application on an ex parte basis.


It is dinnertime and you and your children just sat down for your meal.  There is a knock on the door.  You open the door and find several police officers standing there with a court order removing the children from your care and handing them over to their abusive father. 
You went through a lengthy court battle for two, maybe three years, and are essentially broke.  Yet, with a single ex party motion held before a judge without any notification to you, and outside of your presence, without any minimal attempt to hear your side of the story, you have lost custody.  It could take months before you get your children back, and even then the burden is on you to clear up the situation. 
Does this sound impossible? 
Does it sound unjust, capricous, arbitrary? 
Does it seem like it could never possibly happen? 
Well, think again, because the Family Commission Chaired by our friend, Judge Lynda Munro, is working very hard on changing the Laws of the State of Connecticut to see that this can be done.  See my previous blog on this outrageous situation at the following link:

In a recent Family Commission Meeting, 8 members of the Commission cast deciding votes approving the legislation for ex parte hearings on custody.
This means the proposed legislation will now be sent to Judge Barbara Quinn for submission to the legislative judiciary committee.  These actions alone are a violation of the Constitution in that they represent a violation of the separation of the powers of government which is fundamental to our democratic system. 
Private Attorney General Michael Nowacki, who was present when this matter was discussed at the Family Commission Meeting, has this to say about what occurred, "This proposed legislation by the judiciary is just another power grab and the most dangerous endorsement of an increase of the powers and jurisdiction of the Courts imaginable."

I will continue to keep you informed of this situation as it unfolds, so make sure you check back for more news.  Please contact your legislators and let them know that you are profoundly appalled by the actions of Judge Lynda Munro and those Members of the Family Commission that supported this appalling ex parte legislation.

Please note that the following are the current members of the Family Commission:

Chair:Lynda B. Munro, Chief Administrative Judge, Family
Holly Abery-Wetstone, Judge
Sandra Sosnoff Baird, Chief Family Support Magistrate
Michael Blanchard, Attorney
John D. Boland, Judge
Steven Dembo, Attorney
Anne C. Dranginis, Retired Judge
Gaetano Ferro, Attorney
Constance Frontis, Attorney
Elaine Gordon, Retired Judge
Johanna Greenfield, Caseflow Management Specialist
David Iaccarino, Deputy Director
Maureen M. Murphy, Judge
Thomas Parrino, Attorney
Barry C. Pinkus, Judge
Elliott N. Solomon, Judge

Joseph Del Ciampo, Counsel
Nancy Porter, Counsel

Tuesday, January 15, 2013


Testimony Jan 14, 2013

In opposition to Judge Robert Resha's reappointment:

Sen. Meyer before I begin, I'd like to comment on some issues raised during this hearing. Given your investigatory background, here's something worth investigating. With the exception of high noon shootouts, there is no hyperbole in the statement that Family Court in Connecticut is the Wild West, replete with racketeering and extortion; not only involving judges and attorneys, but mental health providers appointed by court. See addendum to this. Sen Doyle, the GAL issue is part of this corruption.

 A GAL is a function of the family court, a judiciary function. Some examples of this corruption and collusion are:

How can an arm of the judiciary, a GAL obstruct a DCF investigation which is an executive function? Also family GALs have no oversight; the only way of grievance is to file a complaint against an attorney, yet a GAL is not regarded as attorney.

Family court GALs aside from no oversight are given immunity - this in itself is a violation of the constitution as only an office, not a person can have immunity. Further, I was billed over 100k for a GAL who was neither agreed to or even appointed! She provided no time sheets, no affidavits of fees. The court just ordered payment for a services that were not even performed.

The reason I am before you is to inform you that Judge Resha is not worthy of promotion to senior judge. He is a metaphor for the existential crisis that faces the state's court system, especially in Family Court. The graft, corruption, collusion and unlawfulness that plagues Connecticut's Family Court System, an industry of incentivized conflict to extract as much money as possible from litigants, is symbolized by Judge Robert Resha.

I am speaking for many who have been subject to his court and fear further retribution as I have incurred retributive consequences when questioning the unlawful actions that have taken place in Judge Resha's court. Since he is recused, I can speak, although I still fear further retaliation.

Judge Resha cannot conduct court in accordance with the law of the people of Connecticut, nor respect the rules of practice nor the code of evidence. I invite anyone to consult my file UWY FA 10-422992s to find extensive examples of trier misconduct and collusion with attorneys. I have been denied due process, participatorial and testimonial access -and even the right to an attorney in Judge Resha's court room. Aside from allowing a non litigant to sue a defendant and be awarded sanctions in his court, Resha has ignored blatant child abuse in testimony of four mandated reporters. On another occasion In March 2012, Judge Resha ruled that picking up a child by the hair does not constitute abuse.

Judge Resha made an order about gun safety in my former husband's home, twice in February 2011 and yet did nothing when my former husband refused to cooperate with weapons surrender in a restraining order when it was before his court on August 1, 2011; even when testimony provided the still illegal status of weapons. Judge Resha continues to harm victims of domestic and family violence with abuse by proxy.

Since no one really seems to care --beyond ineffective committees-- to address gender bias in court, domestic and family violence, I will cite what people seem to care about because it is certainly not the safety and well being of my children and me. Here is something more palatable than the rampant child abuse and pedophilia that is unaddressed in not only Resha's, but many family courts in Connecticut:

Judge Resha violated the constitutional rights of Danbury Hospital when he made a judicial finding of fact on 28 December 2011, in which he found that Danbury Hospital did engage in unethical and illegal behaviour by terminating the employment of Dr. Shawn Tittle for speech of a third party. He did this in a proceeding of family matters.

However, when he made this ruling, Danbury Hospital was not party to the proceedings. No notice or summons for a complaint of the Hospital's conduct regarding employment law was given to Danbury Hospital.

No evidence entered on the record revealed the basis for the finding in regard to the termination of Dr. Tittle. Danbury Hospital gave no testimony as no representative from the Hospital was before Judge Resha. The Code of Evidence was willfully neglected by the judge.

Judge Resha has no knowledge of why or how Danbury Hospital terminated employment of Dr. Tittle. The court record contains no evidence. Yet this judge has the ability to create facts of the court where none exist. Then this determination was used to deny me my fundamental constitutional rights as a parent.

The judge made a conclusion that was not based on facts. He made many such conclusions based on plaintiff's allegations rendering them as facts without evidence and assailing my character thus affecting my professional life. The judge violated Canon and conscience in conducting a court hearing, without concern for proper proceedings, constitutional protections nor simple decency.

The State does not need to populate the bench with persons such as Robert Resha. He is merely tyranny personified. His conduct is an affront to the taxpayers of Connecticut.

I ask you today not to promote this mistake of jurisprudence to the level of senior judge. He deserves censure and to be thrown off the bench.

If there is any standard of care in the people's selection of its judges, then Robert Resha should not be selected as a senior judge by honest act of the people of this State. Our citizens deserve better, and it is your duty to serve the citizens. Having been only recently aware of the ability of making a complaint on a judge, consider this a complaint that I will follow up in writing.

Thank you in advance for not selecting Robert Resha for a position of senior judge in our state. It is difficult to encapsulate 18 months of egregious misconduct into three minutes.

Again, Please read for further issues plaguing court: the racketeering, collusion and extortion that takes place between judges lawyers and mental health providers. This is typical of my case.

Susan Skipp



January 14, 2013
By Elizabeth A. Richter
We have been asked today, to come before you and comment on the suitability of these judges to continue in their positions as judges in the CT Judicial System.
In considering this issue, the Code of Judicial Conduct provides an excellent standard by which we can measure the performance of judges.  This Code articulates the kind of good behavior, good judgment, and good character which we require of our judges in the Judicial System in the State of Connecticut.
In this Code, there are rules that particularly stand out for me which are as follows:
Rule 1.1.  A Judge shall comply with the law.
Rule 1.2  A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Rule 2.5 (a) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently.
There are many admirable, hardworking judges who adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct to the best of their ability.
However, three of the judges under consideration today should be censored or removed from their positions because of their wrongdoing.  They are as follows:
1.        Judge Barbara M. Quinn:  I am an ADA Advocate.  In the course of my work, on October 25, 2012, I sent a letter to Judge Quinn Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested.  In this letter I asked for two items:  first, that she provide for me the name and contact information of the Designated Responsible Employee under Title II of the ADA 28 CFR Part 35 Sec. 35.107.  Under federal ADA law, there should be a Designated Responsible Employee to address ADA issues in the CT Judicial Branch, and I have the legal right to know who that individual is.   Second, even though I am eligible for reasonable modifications under Prong I, II, and III of the ADA, the CT Judicial Branch has repeatedly refused to provide them for me.  I requested an explanation for this lapse.   It is now January 14, 2013, and Judge Barbara Quinn still has not bothered to respond to my letter.   This failure to respond does not promote confidence; it does not show competence or diligence.  It represents a violation of federal ADA law.  And, quite simply, it is rude. 
2.       Judge F. Herbert Gruendel:  In 2009, I filed a Motion to Reopen my case.  At the end of this case, I was unable to attend hearings because I was unwell and required surgery.  I provided full documentation from several medical doctors in regard to my illness, and requested that the final hearing in my case be delayed until I had recovered.  The trial court denied my request and went ahead and ruled without allowing me a hearing in violation of my due process rights.  I took this particular issue to Appellate Court.  As one of a panel of three judges, Judge F. Herbert Gruendel participated in the concealment of several documents in my case related to the issue of my ill health.  I have here a copy of my Motion For Review dated January 12, 2012 where I ask to have these documents placed in the record.  Judge F. Herbert Groendel was a part of the panel that denied that motion.  Furthermore, he concurred in a ruling that made several false statements about the issue of my ill health.   While Judge Gruendel shares responsibility for these actions with two other judges, but this does not excuse him.  It is a violation of the law to conceal documents relevant to a case.  It is also a violation of the law to tell lies in an Appellate Court Memorandum of Decision.  These violations show a complete lack of the kind of integrity citizens of the State of CT minimally expect of their judges.
In a second appeal, A.C. 33888 where Judge F. Herbert Gruendel was again a member of the panel, I brought before the Appellate Court the following question.  Is it correct in a Memorandum of Decision for the trial court to quote out of context, without any advanced notice to the parties, excerpts from a private, custody evaluation that was sealed by order of the Court.  Specifically, I was referring to a custody evaluation that was not presented to the Court as a full exhibit, and which remained hearsay since the expert who wrote it never came to court to provide his testimony as required by law.  The issue I raised was that of confidentiality of medical records, more specifically, the question of whether the trial court has the right to place confidential medical records on the internet.  Yet if you look at the two short paragraphs which represent the sum total of the decision on this appeal, you will see no mention of these issues.  Judge F. Herbert Gruendel and his fellows on the Appellate Panel simply ignored them, in the same way that they simply ignored ALL of the issues I raised in both of my appeals.   This response lacks honesty, lacks diligence, and most particularly, lacks integrity.  Again, Citizens in the State of Connecticut cannot afford to have judges who do not have integrity.
3.       Judge Constance Epstein:  I have already provided this Committee with a letter dated May 1, 2012 expressing my extreme dissatisfaction with Judge Constance Epstein’s behavior in my case.  My case has been a very difficult one, lasting from 2006 up until the present, and I believe the responsibility for that lies with Judge Epstein.   I made several points in my letter.  However, what I think most important is that Judge Epstein, totally without any evidence whatsoever, accepted as true, false allegations Attorney Eliot Nerenberg made against me in order to get out of representing me because I had run out of money.   This took me completely by surprise and left me traumatized and with no ability to defend myself.  Next, Judge Epstein prevented me from making full discovery in my case by denying me legitimate supoenas.   As a result, my ex-husband was able to hide his financial status from me at the time of dissolution.  However, nothing equals the rude, contemptuous and disrespectful manner in which Judge Epstein spoke to me, entirely without cause.  Family Court is stressful enough.  Nobody should be treated in this manner.  Why?  Because Rule 2.2 states that  “A judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”  And furthermore Rule 2.6 states that “A judge . . . shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into a settlement.”
I am asking that you do not reappoint Judge Barbara M. Quinn, Judge F. Herbert Groendel, and Judge Constance Epstein.  These are judges who do not respect the law, who do not recognize the importance of fairness and equity, and disregard due process of the law and the fundamental human rights of Connecticut’s Citizens.  These are judges who do not have compassion and have failed to show wisdom or the ability to make good decisions in the cases that have come before them.  I am asking you to hold these judges accountable, so they will stop causing harm and damage to the many parents and children who come to family court or find themselves in a situation where they need to appeal from family court.  Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Elizabeth A. Richter

Sunday, January 13, 2013




Judiciary Committee
Monday, January 14, 2013
10:30 AM in Room 2E of the LOB
To be a State Referee:
Honorable A. William Mottolese of Stamford
To be a Senior Judge:
Honorable Robert T. Resha of Brookfield
Honorable Robert F. McWeeny of Farmington
To be a Judge of the Superior Court:
Honorable Marshall K. Berger, Jr. of Canton
Honorable John D. Boland of Pomfret Center
Honorable Peter L. Brown of Hamden
Honorable John F. Cronan of Branford
Honorable Kari A. Dooley of Sandy Hook
Honorable Constance L. Epstein of Glastonbury
Honorable Marcia J. Gleeson of Avon
Honorable Frank M. D'Addabbo, Jr. of Cromwell
Honorable Barbara M. Quinn of Chester
Honorable Dale W. Radcliffe of Bridgeport
Honorable John Turner of Hamden
Honorable Gary J. White of Norwalk
To be a Judge of the Appellate Court:
Honorable F. Herbert Gruendel of Branford
To be a Justice of the Supreme Court:

Andrew J. McDonald, Esq. of Stamford

Also on Monday, January 14, 2013
Cheryl Martone is hosting a MEET and GREET at
DENNY's in Wethersfield, CT.
5PM. - ??? when we finish
1298 Silas Deane Highway Wethersfield, CT 06109
(860) 529-4225 Rt.91 Exit 24 Rocky Hill
To talk about "Legal Reform" & corruption in our government and Lawless America "Meet me in D.C." Feb.4-6 (3 weeks)planning trip committee call me for Information 860-301-1274

Wednesday, November 21, 2012


Many of us have had multiple experiences of judges acting capriciously and outside the bounds of the law, putting our children at risk and causing them harm and damage. Thus, it will probably be no surprise for you to hear that, in a recent meeting of the Family Commission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, observers noted additional behavior of this kind.

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012, the Family Commission headed by Judge Lynda Munro met at the Middletown Courthouse at 2:00 p.m. 

Number 2 on the agenda was the use of ex parte motions for custody. 

The judges in that meeting were there to discuss how to expand the power of judges to make ex parte custody decisions almost unlimited by drafting legislation to this effect which it intended to submit to the State Legislature. 
This is a violation of the separation of powers of government which dictates that judges are not allowed to draft legislation or approve of legislation in order to submit it to the legislature.  While judges are required to support the constitution and uphold the law, they are by no means supposed to draft it.  In other words, as Citizen Attorney General Michael Nowacki has stated, "Judges rule on and apply existing law." they do not create it. 

So, what is an ex parte custody decision?  An ex parte decision is where the judge makes a decision with one party in the case, but absent the presence of the other party.

Now we know ex parte communications with a judge aren't legal, so how does it become legal to have ex parte hearings where the judge is allowed to make decisions about matters as important as the custody of your children?  Imagine how this kind of situation could go.  Your ex gets an ex parte hearing for custody of your child, and the next thing you know he or she is standing at the door demanding you hand over your child, judge's orders in hand.  That is really, really frightening, and very possible the way this legislation is being drafted.

Ordinarily, making an ex parte decision is not legal, but I am aware they are allowed when there is a need for a restraining order in circumstances where there has been an allegation of domestic violence.  In a case like this the court would order another hearing 14 days later in order to hear the other side of the story.   

Ex parte motions in regard to custody are granted under Connecticut General Statutes 46b-56(f). I assume under circumstances where there is an emergency or a situation where a child is in imminent danger, an ex parte motion for custody could be granted under Connecticut General Statutes 46b-56(f).  

The problem is, from what I am hearing, there are multiple cases in which judges have taken children from fit parents in Connecticut through the use of ex parte hearings, and then not followed up with an evidentiary hearing with both parents present to state their arguments, in actions that essentially amount to taking children hostage.
This is a serious denial of the due process rights of the parents involved in such cases. 

At the present time, under 46b-56(f) there is very little guidance for judges in regard to ex parte motions and yet it has been used as the basis of a number of famiy court decisions which are currently on appeal. 

The wording of this section is as follows, "When the court is not sitting, any judge of the court may make any order in the cause which the court might make under this section, including orders of injunction, prior to any action in the cause by the court." 

If this seems a little vague and unclear to you, it comes across the same way to the judges who have used it as the basis for using ex parte hearings to take custody from parents without a hearing as they acknowledged in a Family Commission Meeting held on April 11, 2012. 

For example, the phrase "When the court is not sitting..." has historically been understood to mean when the court is on vacation, yet many ex parte motions have taken place when the court is in session and not on vacation.  Try to figure that one out!  I suspect that is when judicial discretion kicks in.  We are not on vacation, but I'm going to do this anyway kind of thinking! 

Further, while the Members of the Family Commission Meeting agreed that judges have the authority to grant ex parte custody orders in the April meeting, the preamble to the draft legislation prepared for the November meeting states clearly that some judges believe that the current version does not give judges "present authority for the issuance of such ex parte orders". 

If this is so, you have to wonder why judges are issuing these orders when their authority to do so is so tenuous.

In an effort to what appears to me to be an attempt to cover their tracks retroactively, in the fact of upcoming lawsuits in Appellate Court, the Commission prepared a draft amendment in order to specify more clearly what elements would have to be present in order to grant an ex parte order for a change of custody. This draft amendment is quite alarming because it allows for an ex parte change of custody for the most flimsy circumstances. 

The wording in the draft is that an ex parte motion can be made when there is an allegation of "an immediate and present physical or psychological danger to the  child."  This is extremely non specific, broad wording which can be used to apply to almost any situation. 

Then, even more alarming, the draft continues on to allow the judge to issue additional orders in an ex parte motion such as, for example, Item #4 "such further orders as the court determines to be in the child's best interest."  That pretty much includes everything! 

The proposed draft legislation is a tremendous power grab on the part of the judges of the Family Commission.  Not only is it a power grab, it is also, as Mr. Michael Nowacki has pointed out, "a clear and unambiguous abuse of judicial administrative authority." 

As Mr. Nowacki reminds us the Connecticut General Constitution defines the limited authority of the judiciary branch of the government in the "Constitution State" in Article Sixth:  "The powers and jurisdiction of these courts shall be defined by law." 

Thus, creating laws is the exclusive province of the legislature. 

Despite this, in their meeting on November 14, 2012, the judges of the Family Commission sought to go beyond their jurisdiction and create legislation.  

The danger this represents to us is very clear.  If they continue in this track, parents will have no protection from Judges who abuse their authority and take children from their parents and hold them hostage on frivolous grounds.  

Divorce in Connecticut will continue to keep a close eye on this situation and report on new developments as they arise.