THE ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY CUSTODY ISSUES IN THE CONNECTICUT COURTS WAS SENT TO THE GOVERNOR FOR SIGNATURE YESTERDAY!

Substitute House Bill No. 6685

Special Act No. 13-24

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY LEGAL DISPUTES INVOLVING THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (Effective from passage) (a) There is established a task force to study (1) the role of a guardian ad litem and the attorney for a minor child in any action involving parenting responsibilities and the custody and care of a child, (2) the extent of noncompliance with the provisions of subdivision (6) of subsection (c) of section 46b-56 of the general statutes and the role of the court in enforcing compliance with said subdivision, and (3) whether the state should adopt a presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of a minor child in any action involving the custody, care and upbringing of a child. Such study shall include, but not be limited to, an examination of state statutes applicable to an action involving the custody, care and upbringing of a child, and the costs associated with contested divorce actions, including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and attorneys' fees including the fees of guardians ad litem and attorneys for the minor children. Such study may include recommendations for legislation on matters studied by the task force.
(b) The task force shall consist of the following members:
(1) One appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall be a practicing attorney with significant experience in the handling of child custody matters in state courts;
(2) One appointed by the president pro tempore of the Senate, who shall be a practicing attorney with not less than ten years' experience serving as a guardian ad litem or an attorney for the minor child in child custody matters in state courts;
(3) One appointed by the majority leader of the House of Representatives, who shall be a licensed mental health professional with expertise in child custody forensic evaluations;
(4) One appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, who shall be an employee of the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Department;
(5) One appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives, who shall be a mental health professional with expertise in working with family systems;
(6) One appointed by the minority leader of the Senate, who shall have personal or professional experience in matters involving allegations of one parent engaging in a persistent pattern of denigrating the other parent in the presence of a minor child in order to negatively influence the child's perception of the parent and alienate the child's affections for the parent, made in the context of a proceeding involving the custody, care and upbringing of a minor child;
(7) Two jointly appointed by the chairpersons of the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the judiciary, one of whom shall be a member of said joint standing committee, and one of whom shall be a practicing attorney with significant experience in the ethical obligations involving child custody cases; and
(8) Two jointly appointed by the chairpersons of the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to children, one of whom shall be a member of said joint standing committee.
(c) Any member of the task force appointed under subdivisions (1) to (8), inclusive, of subsection (b) of this section may be a member of the General Assembly.
(d) All appointments to the task force shall be made not later than thirty days after the effective date of this section. Any vacancy shall be filled by the appointing authority.
(e) The speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate shall select the chairpersons of the task force from among the members of the task force. Such chairpersons shall schedule the first meeting of the task force, which shall be held not later than forty-five days after the effective date of this section.
(f) The administrative staff of the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the judiciary shall serve as administrative staff of the task force.
(g) Not later than February 1, 2014, the task force shall submit a report on its findings and recommendations to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the judiciary, in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a of the general statutes. The task force shall terminate on the date that it submits such report or February 1, 2014, whichever is later.

For more information, see the link below:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=6685&which_year=2013&SUBMIT1.x=-643&SUBMIT1.y=0&SUBMIT1=Normal

Special thanks to Cheryl Martone for providing this information!

A GUIDE TO YOUR LEGISLATIVE TESTIMONY! COURTESY OF ADVOCACY UNLIMITED!

For guidelines on how to prepare your legislative testimony as well as a few examples, please go to the following link:

http://www.mindlink.org/online_courses/legis_testimony_1.html

My thanks go to Advocacy Unlimited for making this information available.

One point I think it is important to note is that your testimony should only be around 3 to 5 minutes long.

Also, you need to provide an official copy of your testimony to the clerk for the official record of the hearing plus around 50 or 60 copies.

H.B. 5509 RE CHILD SUPPORT AND ALIMONY IS UNPOPULAR ALL AROUND!

Recently, I posted a blog opposing H.B. 5509, "An Act Concerning the Payment of Alimony and Child Support."  At the time, I found some readers opposing my viewpoint.  However, I now feel justified that I took my particular stand since even woman hating judge of the year, Judge Lynda B. Munro, agrees with me. 

In her testimony opposing the bill which she read before members of the Judiciary Committee on March 19, 2012 she stated, "It would substitute arbitrary guidelines for judges' discretion to fashion alimony orders tailored to the individual cases before them." 

That's just what I said! 

In regard to time limits for alimony Judge Munro states, "The concept that alimony cannot be awarded for more than half the length of the marriage is [arbitrary].  There is no rational connection between the need for alimony and this formula."  It would also, from her analysis, favor those with "capital assets" which I assume means rich people. 

That gives you a feeling for the kind of people who proposed this legislation in the first place! 

In regard to the provision in the bill that allows people to return to trial court for a modification of alimony were the bill passed, even if there is no substantial change in circumstances Judge Munro states, "This will result in a workload increase that cannot be handled under existing resources.  It will create a huge burden on the family court system, including the judges, staff and family services personnel." 

Well, duh! 

As a point in favor of H.B. 5509, I was told how great it is that the State of Massachusetts has passed the equivalent of H.B. 5509.  In response, Judge Munro states, "It appears that this bill is modeled on a law that recently passed in Massachusetts. I would respectfully note that the situation that prompted the legislative change in Massachusetts was very different than what exists in Connecticut.  The Connecticut statute, with its detailed factors to guide judges' discretion, was adopted in 1973 and has worked well.  There simply is no need for such a radical change."

Thank you, Judge Munro. 

Next the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) weighs in with their opinion which is, "Raised Bill 5509 is fraught with hazards for family law in Connecticut too innumerable to exhaustively set forth herein.  Its passage would severely undermine existing laws and decrease the quality of justice that parties could expect in our family courts." 

In regard to changes in the cohabitation statute, the Academy acknowledges what I already stated, which is H.B. 5509 is an unwanted intrusion into the private lives of the recipients of alimony, stating, "The proposed statute would turn cohabitation into an overreaching exploration into the personal lives and new romantic relationships of an alimony recipient (which divorced spouses already need all too little encouragement to do) while the true consideration is a financial one.  That is the focus under the existing statute and it should remain so." 

This is just as I said! 

Another aspect of H.B. 5509, the creation of trust accounts for children is just another grab at control, as the AAML acknowledges, "To require the recipient of child support to essentially have to ask for permission for use of these funds from the payor would undermine the purpose of child support itself." 

So.  Who is left supporting this bill or what idiot would do so?  Our friend, Attorney Mengele Louis Kiefer, that's who!  Why are we not surprised by that? 

What does he say?  He says,  "One of the problems I see repeatedly is alimony payers left with less money, less disposable income, than alimony recipients." 

Really?  That wouldn't be because the alimony payer is only supporting himself while the alimony recipient is paying not only for herself, but also for the five children so that means it costs more to maintain all of them! 

Ok. Duh, again. 

All I can say is, I rest my case.  H.B. 5509 was bad legislation, period.  It didn't pass this year and it never will as long as common sense prevails. 

H.B. 5535 BILL PROVIDES HEALTH INSURANCE FOR WOMEN AFTER DIVORCE! IT'S TIME TO PASS THIS BILL, FOLKS!

I am particularly lucky that my ex-husband lives in a state that has passed legislation requiring that the earning spouse who has health insurance continue to provide that health insurance to the other spouse after divorce at no cost or minimal cost.  Were it not for this legislation, my health insurance payments would be crushing and I simply could not afford health insurance.  This could affect my ability to parent, since if I were in ill health I couldn't function fully in my role as a mother.  Also, it could affect my life span as well as the quality of life that I have remaining. 

We in the State of Connecticut have yet to put this kind of common sense legislation in place even though it has been proposed frequently in the past decade, more recently in H.B. 5535 in March 2012 by Representative Geoff Luxenberg of the 12th district, God bless him!  It is legislation whose time has come.  

The fact that it so essential to the wellbeing of women and children is so self-evident, that I have to call into question the intelligence and integrity of those who oppose it. 

There is a good description of H.B. 5535 on the website of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) here in Connecticut which fully supports such legislation.  It goes as follows: 

"H.B. 5535 would allow the Court to order a party who is insured under a group health insurance policy or plan in the state to maintain health benefits for the benefit of the other party.  This bill is significant for women because they are likely to be covered under their husband's health insurance policy." 

The discussion continues on to explain why such health insurance coverage is important,

"According to a study by the University of Michigan, this is due in part to women's higher likelihood relative to men to work part-time, or in low-wage occupations, non-union settings, or smaller companies.  The study also found that if health insurance coverage is terminated post-divorce it has a long-term impact on a woman's economic and physical health.  Rates of insurance remain depressed for divorced women for two years after their divorce has been finalized.  This means that many women likely delay getting the health care they need due to costs or face significant challenges in paying their medical bills (potentially leading to an increase in medical debt).  PCSW supports efforts to ensure that all women have access to comprehensive health insurance coverage." 

Clearly, providing health insurance is a fairly inexpensive way for an earning spouse to provide thousands of dollars in benefits for a former spouse and ensure the health of that spouse for years to come, which ultimately is beneficial to the interests of the children.  This is why the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) supports this effort. 

So, why hasn't this happened yet?  Why hasn't this legislation been passed when other more enlightened states have already gotten this task done?  Do we have to continue living in the dark ages here?  What the heck is going on that this legislation wasn't passed years ago? 

For one thing, I know that the legal profession here in Connecticut has not gotten behind this bill and, in fact, has previously testified against it.  Well, that's not a surprise, is it? 

Another group that opposes the bill is The Connecticut Association of Health Plans.  Some of the concerns this group presents are understandable.  The costs for premiums could be quite difficult to pay for small employers, those who have 50 or less employees.  But I am sure that could be addressed in some manner such as providing tax breaks for small employers that participate or even excusing them from participation altogether. 

Other concerns that the Association expresses, such as the difficulties of implementing such plans, are really pure fiction.  As I have said, I have coverage from health insurance provided by my spouse and it works out just great.  The fact that the employer paying for this "has little ability to promote or encourage wellness activities" is just amusing.  I'm sure such an employer can promote and encourage wellness activities with me the same way he does with my ex, which is not at all.  But if he does want to, flyers, letters, phone calls, all of that works for me the same as it does for my ex.  I mean, seriously. 

I was shocked to find that Ms. Victoria Veltri of the State Healthcare Advocate's Office spoke against this bill.  Talk about being stabbed in the back!  Hello, Ms. Veltri you are supposed to be advocating FOR us, not AGAINST us. 

In her testimony, Ms. Veltri stated that it could be a former spouse might not wish the subscriber spouse to know where they live.  Well, that's OK.  I am sure there are many ways to deal with that other than not providing essential health care. 

Ms. Veltri also says that the Explanation of Benefits would be sent to the subscriber and not the member receiving the care.  This is simply NOT TRUE.  I receive all the Explanations of Benefits.  

Ms. Veltri also expressed concern that there isn't enough clarity regarding when such coverage would end.  However, Item #1 of the bill states that it would limit the coverage to "The period of time specified in the decree" which gives litigants the opportunity to state exactly how long they want the coverage to last.  If litigants fail to put these specifications in their agreements, I am sure they could return to Superior Court for clarification or come to an agreement outside of Court.  Ultimately, this seems to me to be a very sensible approach because it puts the power to make such a decision in the hands of the Parties themselves.  

There is also the problem of what to do when there are multiple ex spouses.  Would all of them receive coverage? From what I see in the bill, it looks as though they could be, but the Trial Court could could apportion the costs of maintaining such coverage between the parties to the decree. 

Nonetheless, these are minimal concerns and could be addressed quickly by legislators who are disposed to resolve such problems.  What bothers me is that instead of urging these legislators to correct the problems quickly and pass this legislation as soon as possible without delay because the need is so great, Ms. Vetri spoke without real conviction and with little concern for the importance of getting health insurance in place for vulnerable women right now, right away, without any further delay. 

It seems to me that there is no perfect wording to a bill and that the wording in place now pretty much addresses all possible scenarios.  At a certain point, you have to just go with what you have got and trust the common sense, and discretion of the people involved. 

The bottom line, to my way of thinking, is that legislators and state agencies who are basically against this bill because they dislike women but don't have the guts to say so are preventing the passage of this bill by fussbudgeting over nonsense and failing to clean up minor problems in this bill which could be resolve with a bit of straight talk. 

SHAME ON THEM!

Do we seriously have time to wait another year?  Haven't we waited long enough?  Take the time to review this bill at the link below and contact your State Legislator.  Tell him or her that we have waited long enough and the time to pass this bill is NOW.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/H/2012HB-05535-R00-HB.htm

H.B. 5509 DENIED, BUT THE BATTLE STILL RAGES!

Just so you know, the Judiciary Committee decided not to bring Raised Bill No. 5509 forward for a vote and so it wasn't brought to the full House Or Senate for consideration.

Still, this is no reason to be at ease.  The Connecticut Alimony Reform group and its allies that sponsored the bill won't be resting.  They are continuing to press forward in order to get this bill passed.  In their own words,

"We are hard at work developing the next stages of our strategy."

We also need to be hard at work developing the next stages of OUR strategy! 

H.B. 5509: AN OUTRIGHT ATTACK ON WOMEN, SEE LETTER FROM THE PERMANENT COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

Testimony of

The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women

Before the

Judiciary Committee

March 19, 2012

Re: H.B. 5509, AAC The Payment of Alimony and Child Support

Senators Coleman and Kissel, Representative Fox and Hetherington, and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) regarding the above referenced bill.

H.B. 5509 would restrict the duration of alimony, and severely limit the grounds for which the Court could deviate from the law. PCSW opposes passage of this bill because it does not take into consideration each family’s finances, circumstances, and the trade-offs that were made when the marriage was successful, i.e. one spouse remaining out of the workforce to care for the children. It also provides the obligor with additional mechanisms to control the ex-spouse’s household after divorce.

Divorced women earn about 13% less than divorced men - $38,046 for divorced women and $43,621 for divorced men.

In addition to pay inequity, women have less income because they are the primary caretakers in the family. Women are more likely to have taken time off or work or worked part-time to care for the family’s children. Men continue to increase their income because their spouses are caring for their children while they work.

In divorce this income disparity continues because women still have to take time out of the workforce to care for the children, but now they have less income. Child support only pays a fraction of the expenses needed to provide a household for a child, and it doesn’t calculate extra expenses such as extracurricular and school activities.

Passage of this bill will result in custodial parents, which are mostly women, continuing to bear the brunt of the financial responsibility for the parties’ children. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and look forward to working with you on this issue.

RAISED HOUSE BILL NO. 5509, AN OUTRIGHT ATTACK ON YOUR RIGHT TO ALIMONY!

On Monday, March 19, 2012, at 1:00pm at the LOB there is a hearing on a new bill entitled "An Act Concerning the Payment of Alimony and Child Support."  Just looking at this act, I can understand why the section under "Introduced by:" is blank because I'm sure no legislator would wish to take responsibility for this outright attack on your legal right to alimony which this bill represents.  For a copy of this bill look under the following link:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5509&which_year=2012&SUBMIT1.x=11&SUBMIT1.y=9&SUBMIT1=Normal

(For those of you who don't know, in a proposed bill the black print is for what is already in the Connecticut General Statute, the blue print is for wording that is proposed to be added to the Statute, and red print is for wording that is proposed to be removed.  In this bill there is no red print.)
 
The changes in the Connecticut Statute that this bill proposes would affect the amount of alimony that you can receive in a serious way as of October 1, 2012. 

First, it specifically establishes caps on the amount of alimony that a person can receive.  For example, it limits alimony to a period of only one half the duration of your marriage.  For those with a financial agreement signed before October 1, 2012 in which alimony exceeds that limit, this bill would then grant litigants the right to return to court and request a modification.  The bill also limits alimony to thirty to thirty-five percent of the difference between the gross income of the parties established at the time the alimony order was issued. 

Second, this bill would allow the court to revoke alimony based upon the fact that the recipient of the alimony has been living with another person for little more than three months.  This is an open invitation for an abusive and controlling ex spouse to invade the privacy of a spouse who is the recipient of alimony. 

Third, this bill would allow alimony to be terminated once the party responsible for the payment of periodic alimony attains retirement age, even if the party is capable of working beyond retirement age.  This is ridiculous.  If a party has a financial obligation as important as that of alimony, this obligation shouldn't simply end because a person is retiring.  Are you allowed to stop paying your mortgage simply because you have retired?  I don't think so.  If you go to an doctor's office will you be excused from paying the fees simply because you have retired? I don't think so.  Likewise, if you have a financial obligation such as alimony which provides an essential economic base for an ex spouse, even if you have retired, you should still be held accountable and required to pay it. 

This bill is promoted on a website entitled "Connecticut Alimony Reform" which can be found at:

www.ctalimonyreform.com 

which is maintained by a group of individuals who wish to remain anonyous because, I suppose, like the state legislators who don't wish to be named as sponsoring this bill, they like to do their dirty work in secret. 

This group is promoting H.B. 5509 by stating it will make divorces easier to settle.  Yeah, by railroading vulnerable litigants into agreements they would not accept otherwise.  They also say it will reduce the stress and strife of divorce, get this, in the lives of our children.  Right, because with laws like this you don't have to play as many games with the children, such as making false claims for custody, in order to eliminate alimony.  I get it! 

Oh, and there is more.  The justifications for this abominable bill don't end here.  These guys say the bill is pro-family and pro-marriage.  Get real.  What this bill actually does is provide an abusive ex spouse with an excuse to nose around and interfere in the life of a former spouse, and prevent him or her from rebuilding and moving forward.  I mean God Forbid an abused ex spouse actually move on an establish a relationship with some other person!  If I can't have him or her, this bill's underlying agenda states, nobody can. 

Take the time to download this bill, review it and absorb what it is saying.   Then contact your State Representative and tell him or her to vote this bill down in no uncertain terms. 

Also, if you can take that one step further, come to the Legislative Office Building this Monday at 1:00pm and provide your personal testimony against this proposed bill.  To do so, have one original and sixteen copies which you can give to the clerk.  Ordinarily, you have around five minutes to speak and your testimony should be geared accordingly.

BACK TO HB 6085, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE

This is just a followup for all of you interested in the activities of the Shared Parenting Counsel and HB 6085.  I was able to investigate further regarding this bill.  As of January 25, 2011 this bill has been referred to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary Committee.  I will continue to keep my eye out regarding the progress of this bill, as should you.  Meanwhile, I urge you all to contact the sponsor of this bill and let him know about your opposition to this bill in no uncertain terms.  As you know, HB 6085 is a bill which attempts to validate the hocus pocus concept of parental alienation and institute legal consequences should it be determined in court that a parent committed parental alienation.  


The person you need to hold accountable for sponsoring this ridiculous bill in the State of Connecticut is:


Rep. Emil Altobello, (D-CT 82 District)


He can be reached at the following:
4015 Legislative Office Building
Hartford, CT  06106-1591
Phone:  860-240-8585
Fax: 860-240-0206


Email Address:  www.housedems.ct.gov/Altobello/index.asp