PUBLIC HEARING, MORE NEWS ON JENNIFERS' LAW

 

View this email in your browser

Jennifers' Law Dear friends, We have a very BIG development to report from Jennifer's home state of Connecticut. A new law in Jennifer Magnano's name, (and that of Jennifer Dulos, who was murdered by her estranged husband in 2019) has been introduced by state senator Alex Kasser, (D-Greenwich) in the Connecticut General Assembly. Jennifers' Law aims to expand the definition of domestic violence to include coercive control, the full range of tactics that abusers use to entrap and control their victims, beyond just physical abuse. Coercive control is a patterned behavior that includes nonphysical abuse such as emotional, verbal, financial and legal abuse as well as stalking, harassment, gaslighting, humiliation, cruelty and intimidation. Elements that are always present in domestic abuse. To date, California, Hawaii, Scotland, England and Wales have passed Coercive Control Laws. Australia, Colorado, Maryland and New York have introduced legislation this 2021 session. Jennifer's Law is supported by Mom's Demand and Connecticut Protective Moms The public hearing on Jennifers' Law will take place this week, Wednesday, March 24, starting at 10am. You can watch it live on YouTube Live, or recorded on CT-N. Jennifers' Law is a monumental step towards making domestic violence law reflect the actual reality of what women and children experience at the hands of abusers, and the hope is that this new law will lead to earlier intervention - which we know saves lives. I will testify, as will our EP and world leading expert Laura Richards , attorney Michelle Cruz who did the original investigation into Jennifer's murder, and also Jennifer's children Jessica and David. Our film Jennifer, 42 delves deep into this abuser behavior, as well as the catastrophic results when the courts fail to recognize the danger the victims are in. Laura Richards estimates that about 80% of domestic violence homicides happen in the first six months after leaving. Looking at Scott Magnano's coercively controlling behavior pre-separation, and his stalking behavior post-separation, and the lengths he would go to get Jennifer back within his control, is a powerful example of the close correlation between coercive control and homicide.  Tune in on Wednesday, and if you want to support reform of domestic violence laws in the US, please sign this petition and learn more about this issue and our campaigns: https://www.change.org/p/domestic-violence-law-reform-coercive-control-usa

ABOUT THE FILM Jennifer, 42 is an animated true crime documentary about an American family's epic battle to escape domestic violence. Director Elle Kamihira, Producer Katie Hyde, Animation Director Yulia Ruditskaya and Executive Producer Laura Richards.

SUPPORT THE CHILD SAFETY FIRST ACT!

 

TODAY

EMAIL AND CALL THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

TO SUPPORT 

THE CHILD SAFETY FIRST BILL

58,000 Children a Year are Awarded Into Custody with An Abusive Parent

Are you a mom or know a mom with children in the middle of a divorce or separation in family court who is fighting for custody of their children to keep them safe and protect them from abuse?

Let our Connecticut Judiciary Committee members know (EMAILS AND PHONE NUMBERS below) you want them to support the introduction of Senator Alex Bergstein’s (Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan) Child Safety First bill this legislative session. Please use "Support the Child Safety First Bill" in your Subject Line.

Dear Representative …………….,

Why Do We Need the Child Safety First Bill in Connecticut?

DV and abuse exists across our state; DV and abuse pose an unacceptable and disproportionate threat to the health, safety and wellbeing of women and children; DV and abuse has been under-reported and under-recognized in our family court system; “high conflict” divorce cases often involve DV or abuse; the State of Connecticut has a duty to ensure the safety of all its citizens, especially children; House Congressional Resolution 72  encourages states to prioritize DV and abuse as the first factor considered in determining the “best interests of the child” in custody cases.

• It is often legitimate for the partner of an abusive parent to try to protect the children from exposure to abuse, or to try to secure his or her own safety from the abusive partner by limiting that partner's contact with the children. Court appointed lawyers and psychologists do not have adequate DV training and are not able to distinguish appropriately protective behavior.  

• The abuser blames the victim and claims parental alienation, that she was turning the children against him by alienating the children with false claims he was abusing them.  The court does not understand and/or acknowledge that the children are resisting being with their emotionally abusive parent who scares them. 

• According to the American Psychological Association, abusive fathers file for sole custody more often than fathers who have no history of DV. Since 99 percent of DV victims also face some form of financial abuse, abusers tend to have more money and thus more access to legal resources than the women fleeing their abuse. That gives them an advantage in the courts that makes them just as likely, or even more likely, to gain custody.

Call Senate Dems: (860) 240-8600, Senate Republicans (860) 240-8800, House Democrats (860) 240-8500, and House Republicans (860) 240-8700.  OR EMAIL:

Please use "Support the Child Safety First Bill" in your Subject Line.

Here are the addresses to cut and paste:

gary.winfield@cga.ct.gov, alexbergstein@gmail.com, Steven.Stafstrom@cga.ct.gov, John.A.Kissel@cga.ct.gov, Rosa.Rebimbas@housegop.ct.gov, Matt.Blumenthal@cga.ct.gov, Gennaro.Bizzarro@cga.ct.gov, dennis.bradley@cga.ct.gov, christie.carpino@housegop.ct.gov, senator@blumenthal.senate.gov, Dan.Champagne@cga.ct.gov, julio.concepcion@cga.ct.gov, Christine.Conley@cga.ct.gov, Stephanie.Cummings@housegop.ct.gov, Jeff.Currey@cga.ct.gov, Patricia.Dillon@cga.ct.gov, Michael.DiMassa@cga.ct.gov, Doug.Dubitsky@housegop.ct.gov, Craig.Fishbein@housegop.ct.gov, mae.flexer@cga.ct.gov, Dan.Fox@cga.ct.gov, Bob.Godfrey@cga.ct.gov, Stephen.Harding@housegop.ct.gov, senator_@murphy.senate.gov, will.haskell@cga.ct.gov, Leslee.Hill@housegop.ct.gov, Maria.Horn@cga.ct.gov, David.Labriola@housegop.ct.gov, Matthew.Lesser@cga.ct.gov, Geoff.Luxenberg@cga.ct.gov, douglas.mccrory@cga.ct.gov, Ben.McGorty@housegop.ct.gov, Patricia.Miller@cga.ct.gov, Tom.ODea@housegop.ct.gov, Arthur.ONeill@housegop.ct.gov, Christine.Palm@cga.ct.gov, robyn.porter@cga.ct.gov, Emmett.Riley@cga.ct.gov, rob.sampson@cga.ct.gov, richard.smith@housegop.ct.gov, Toni.Walker@cga.ct.gov, phil.young@cga.ct.gov

THE  CHILD SAFETY FIRST BILL

AUTHORED BY SENATOR ALEX BERGSTEIN

1. The statutory definition of “domestic violence and abuse” is revised to include a history or pattern of coercive, controlling behavior including, but not limited to, physical violence, sexual assault, financial abuse, litigation abuse and psychological abuse including, but not limited to, isolation, stalking, harassment, intimidation and threats regarding the safety of a person or the safety of or access to that person’s 
   children. “Domestic violence and abuse” does not include the justified use of force or flight to protect oneself or others in response to abuse or violence. 
2. In legal proceedings regarding child custody, domestic violence and abuse will be the first factor assessed by the court, before all other factors, in determining the “best interests of the child.” 
3. In hearings regarding domestic violence or abuse, a court may only consider valid scientific evidence or testimony from qualified professionals with experience working with victims of domestic violence and abuse that meet admissibility standards. 
4. A presumption against custody will be made for any parent with a history or demonstrated pattern of domestic violence or abuse or any parent who has sexually abused a child. 
5. If a parent is found to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, that parent shall pay the attorney’s fees and all other court-related expenses of the other parent. 
6. The legal standard for protective orders shall recognize forms of domestic violence and abuse that endanger the safety or restrict the agency of a person or children. (Refer to the new statutory definition in #1.) 
7. The State shall provide legal assistance for all victims of domestic violence and abuse to help them complete protective order affidavits and other legal forms. (Legal assistance increased the likelihood of obtaining a protective order by more than 50%.) 
8. Courts shall restrict frivolous or excessive motions in family court. When divorce cases approach 100 motions, additional motions shall be subject to review and approval before submission. “High conflict” cases should be diverted to a specialized court that recognizes litigation abuse and obstruction and holds parties in contempt for not disclosing financial or other critical information or following court orders. (A small number of “high conflict” cases consume a disproportionate amount of judicial resources. This specialized court would prevent litigation abuse and resolve cases faster.) 
9. Reopen the Office of Victim Advocate and fund it adequately to support all victims across the state through the legal process. 
10. Review and approve all judicial education programs to ensure that abuse is recognized and not rewarded. Allow only experts with a demonstrated history of working with Domestic violence and abuse victims to be the educators on this subject. 

HOW FATHER'S RIGHTS PEOPLE HAVE IT ALL WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO FAMILY COURT REFORM!

In a recent hearing at the CT State Legislature, father's rights activists demanded that legislators and citizens define the problem with family court as one of parental alienation.  They are wrong, and I will tell you why. 

My introduction to the CT family court reform movement was around 2011 when Keith Harmon Snow, author of "The Worst Interests of the Child", contacted me to discuss the ways in which victims of domestic violence were losing custody to their abusers. Next, on or around 2013, father's rights advocates seized control of the family court reform movement and reframed its agenda.  

Instead of demonstrating concern regarding protective mothers, they insisted that the problem of family court could only be traced back to the celebrated [or debunked, depending upon your perspective,] theory of parental alienation (PA), or parental alienation syndrome (PAS).  This recently culminated in the raised House Bill 7393 [now withdrawn] which proposed either jail or fines for those whom the Court determines have committed it. 

The Bill also included two separate "friendly parent" provisions which would have guaranteed that anyone who reported domestic violence or child sexual abuse would promptly lose custody.  After all, it is most unfriendly to assert that you or your child are the victims of abuse.  [Ok, I know, not funny.  I'm just joking.]

To begin, for those who do not know, what is parental alienation, or parental alienation syndrome?  

For a definition, I'm taking the easy route, and I will simply quote wikipedia. Parental alienation syndrome is, "a term introduced by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in 1985 to describe a distinctive suite of behaviors in children that includes showing extreme but unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent. Observed repeatedly in families involved in child custody litigation, these behaviors result from manipulation or undue influence, typically by the other parent who may be attempting to prevent an ongoing relationship between a child and other family members after family separation or divorce." 

The clincher in this discussion is the statement that comes next, "The syndrome has not been accepted by either the medical or legal communities and Gardner's theory has been criticized by legal and mental health scholars for lacking scientific validity and reliability."  

Yet despite the fact that this syndrome has no scientific validity, father's rights people insist upon embedding it in our laws here in CT and making it a central factor in all custody determinations.  

Again, in doing this, I believe that fathers' rights people have it all wrong.  

Why?  

If you have a problem, then you need to look for solutions.  However, these solutions will not work as long as the problems haven't been defined properly.  When it comes to the broken family court system here in CT, I have been increasingly disgusted with the incapacity of many advocates -- father's rights advocates in particular, the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children (2013 - 2014), members of the legislature and the CT Judicial Branch -- to define the problem in an intelligent manner.  

How can you begin to think of developing policies or crafting bills when you have no idea what is going on?  For me personally, as an advocate, I don't get that approach. 

For instance, blaming the victims. For too long now, starting with the "Report of the Governor's Commission on Divorce, Custody and Children" of December 2002, experts on family court, i.e. attorneys, judges, mental health professionals -- have placed the blame for the problems of family court on the litigants themselves. In the words of the Governor's report, which were again quoted in the report of the Task Force on the Care and Custody of Minor Children (2014), the problem arises from "a small minority of parents [which] engages in persistent conflict because of anger, characterological or mental health problems, or the force of personality."  

The theory that character flaw or mental illness repeats itself in fathers' rights advocates insistence that the problem can be understood almost solely within the context of parental alienation syndrome.  Also, that the solution should be strict punishments for PAS, i.e. jail and hefty financial fines, as well as forced shared parenting.  But is this true?

For a closer look at this phenomenon, take a look at the hearing which took place earlier this month on February 5, 2019. I spent a considerable amount of time yesterday reviewing the entire video which is a little over 9 hours long.  For at least the first three hours of this testimony, viewers were subjected to lengthy lectures on parental alienation theory.  First came Dr. William Bernat, a parental alienation expert, who broke down the theory to its 17 recognized behaviors and 8 symptoms.  After he had completed his testimony, we were forced to listen to Dr. Steve Miller, a frequent flyer at the CT Legislature, who talked about parental alienation syndrome as an epidemic plaguing our nation.  Once he was done, then we were bombarded with more lectures on parental alienation from Linda Gottlieb, who I've been informed is not a psychologist. She talked more about planting false memories and false allegations in the light of parental alienation. 

Then after that, we were required to hear the testimony of Ms. Joan Kloth-Zenard who runs the organization "PAS Intervention"--she apparently is qualified by an MFT, whatever that is, as opposed to an LMFT which is what we would ordinarily be looking for.  What is interesting about Joan's testimony is that, for an example, she described a case where the mother was stabbed in the abdomen and labia by the father, and yet the father still got custody.  To me, this looked to be a case of domestic violence.  However, this is the very interesting twist on the parental alienation movement in that father's rights people have couched this theory in the language of the domestic violence movement and so many people, including women, have come to believe that parental alienation theory is just another word for domestic violence.  That, in itself, is an entirely, different, but interesting story that I will hopefully touch upon in another blog.  

Let me get back to my point. This is the dilemma that arises when folks define the problem of family court as a mental health problem among litigants, whether you want to define it as parental alienation or some other ailment.  It simply isn't true.  

If you look at the Governor's Report of December 2002, there is one paragraph in that report on that nasty, chronic, minority of litigators who they said cause all the trouble.  After that, you get the 65 page detailed report regarding all the systems malfunctions within the family court system itself which actually cause the problems in family court.  

Likewise, once you plow through the insistent litany in regard to PA or PAS in the first 3 hours of the video of the February 5, 2019 day of testimony, which father's rights people provided as the ideological context for the later citizen testimony, you will find 6 additional hours of testimony from at least 30 victims of family court detailing the many systems breakdowns within the CT Family Court system itself.  In other words, the problem is not PA or PAS.  The problem is a broken family court system.  

One person spoke about the fact that there are no consequences for disobeying orders, a failure to obey the ADA, and judges would not listen to her testimony or look at her evidence. She lost everything, her job, her home, her income.  Here is another person who spoke of the collusion between court actors, the failure to obey the constitution, in chambers hearings where parents are not included, impacts including alcohol and drug addiction, homelessness, bankruptcy, trauma, and PTSD.  Another person spoke of the denial of due process, attorneys hiding exculpatory evidence, having to be in court so often it was like a full time job, his case discussed behind closed doors without the parties present, financial costs of up to $300,000 - $500,000 and even more.  

Again, corruption, collusion, racketeering, slander, perjury, lack of ethics, no checks and balances, absolute immunity for negligent and incompetent GALs and other vendors, failure to adhere to the rules of court or case law, financial and emotional blackmail, hired guns, perverted custody evaluations and psychological evaluations, no oversight, no accountability, false allegations, inexperienced and unqualified court personnel, unnecessary continuances, documents that disappear from the court files, transcripts that are tampered with, and on and on.  This is exactly the same testimony we heard during the daylong testimony on February 9, 2014 and the breakdown of family court here in CT.

Forced shared parenting, punishments for so-called alienation, and for not being "friendly", will not correct engrained and deliberately engineered systems failures which are kept in place for profit.  In fact, given the introduction of harsh punishments, settling disputes over whether one parent did or did not alienate the other, will invite additional corrupt vendors into the courtroom, and exacerbate already existing problems within the system.

These systems problems were originally detailed in the Governor's Commission report of 2002 and, for the better part, they have gotten worse, and not better.  

Parental Alienation theories are about the gender wars taking place in America.  Forced shared parenting is about the Men's Rights movement and the backlash against the Women's Rights movement of the 1970s. It is about ideology, and it is about indoctrination. If you talk to the people who promote PAS theory, you quickly get the idea that these are people who act as though they are in a cult reciting their treasured mantras.  

Ideology is like religion.  If you try to enshrine it in your statutes and laws, it will lead to endless confusion. Thinking we can solve the problem of family court by sprinkling holy water on it in the form of the ideology of parental alienation, I think is a recipe for disaster.  

Instead, if we are serious about resolving the problems of family court, we have to do the hard work of looking again at the system itself.  In other words, we have to investigate the machinery of the CT Family Court system which is operating on a daily basis. We have to examine what works, and what does not. It is a difficult and painstaking job, one which often does not have any easy answers, but it is at least a fairly concrete task from which we can garner measurable results. 

Every member of the former Governor's Commission of 2002 is currently notable for being at the center of the corruption and malfeasance in family court which we are looking at today.  The membership list is literally a who's who of legal and mental health professionals who later became famous for exploiting and taking advantage of family court victims.  It is paramount that we make sure nothing like that happens again.  When these kinds of criminal court actors take advantage of Moms and Dads, those parents are not mentally ill, they are victims of corrupt family court practices. 

This doesn't mean that the Commission didn't do a good job of laying the groundwork for future reform in its examination of the family court system. It's just that they immediately ignored the outcome of the report and used the network they estalished doing the work to exploit and harm family court victims.  I  simply believe we need to retrieve that work and use it to continue to make progress here and now.

DAN LYNCH TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE "COURT REPORTERS DOUBLE DIPPING!"

Dan Lynch's Testimony in Opposition to Raised S.B. No. 844

AN ACT CONCERNING LEGAL TRANSCRIPT REQUIREMENTS AND THE FEES CHARGED BY COURT REPORTERS.

This proposed Bill, as currently drafted, purports to amend Chapter 874 of the General Statutes, the Chapter titled “Court Reporters,” and which also by reference is impacted by C.G.S. § 51-12 (Chapter 870, Judicial Department).

• This proposed Bill conflicts with numerous statutes which prevent state employees from conducting private business while on state paid time, using state owned equipment and supplies and from within state facilities
  
  
• For more than a decade, Connecticut taxpayers have been defrauded by the illegal practices being condoned by and within the Connecticut Judicial Branch whereby certain of its employees are being allowed to “double dip,” collecting hourly pay (including benefits and pension) while simultaneously charging additional fees for transcription services rendered for private and public parties during that same time
  
  
• Comprehensive review of the entire Chapter 874 is needed to ensure it comports with legal and ethical requirements, as well as current capabilities of technology
  
  
• For more than a decade, some have sought to profit from loopholes in existing statutes which have not kept pace with the significant advancements in technology, as well as the changes regarding hiring of court personnel vs. per diem contractors
  
  

The Judicial Branch has known, but remained largely silent as to the highly questionable ethical and legal practices concerning state employees:

o conducting private enterprise while on state paid time

o conducting private enterprise from within state facilities (courthouses) 

o conducting private enterprise using state owned equipment and office supplies

QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION:

1. Which members of the Judiciary Committee have raised S.B. No.844?
   
2. What is the specific rationale being used to allow and codify into our statutes an abusive and illegal practice which should be terminated?
   
3. What is the justification for allowing state employees to profit incrementally from the very work product that is already created and owned by the public?
   

Committee on Court Recording Monitors and Court Reporters (November 4, 2010)
•https://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/pst/court_rep/Final_Report.pdf

Whistleblower Complaint (May 21, 2015)
• https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8b75uSVYHH-OGdyd05Dc2ExWWs

Yankee Institute for Public Policy (Marc E. Fitch, March 7, 2018)
• https://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/03/audit-finds-court-reporters-make-extra-1-million-in-side-work-boosting-salaries-and-pensions/

CT-N Coverage of Joint Legislative Committee (State Auditor’s Reports, July 9, 2018)

• http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=15436&jump=0:00:07
  
• Gary P. Krischenski (Principal Auditor), John Rasmus Deputy State Auditor
  
• Elizabeth Graham, Judicial Branch Executive Director for Administrative Services • 

PROPOSED BILL S.B. 313 COULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW DCF TO INTRUDE UPON THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS!

OLR Bill Analysis

sSB 313 

AN ACT CONCERNING MEDICAL CARE FOR CHILDREN IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. 

SUMMARY

By law, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) commissioner and any agent she appoints must exercise careful supervision of each child under her guardianship or care. This bill permits the DCF commissioner, on the advice of a physician, to authorize non-emergency medical, psychological, psychiatric, or surgical treatment, or a medical multidisciplinary evaluation, to ensure the health of a child in the department's guardianship or care. But if the child's permanency plan involves reunification with the child's parent or parents, the commissioner must provide written notice to the parent or parents at least five days before the treatment or evaluation. 

If the child or the parent or parents object, they may file a motion for emergency relief within five days after the notice is given. (It is unclear if this means within five days after the commissioner sends the notice or five days after the parents receive it.) The child generally may not have the treatment or evaluation within that five day period or while the motion is pending, unless there is an emergency necessitating it. 

Additionally, the bill permits individuals and agencies to whom DCF has granted care and custody of a child under a temporary custody order to authorize medical multidisciplinary evaluations for children in their care. The law already permits DCF and these individuals and agencies in such circumstances to make decisions regarding emergency medical, psychological, psychiatric, or surgical treatment. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2018

COMMITTEE ACTION

Committee on Children

Joint Favorable Substitute

*THIS BILL HAS NOT YET BEEN PASSED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, BUT IS WELL ON ITS WAY IN THAT DIRECTION.  

CT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY PASSES S.B. NO. 466 TO REDUCE DUAL ARRESTS IN CASES OF DV!

Raised S.B. No. 466 
Session Year 2018

AN ACT CONCERNING DUAL ARRESTS AND THE TRAINING REQUIRED OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WITH RESPECT TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

"To reduce the number of dual arrests that occur in domestic violence cases and enhance domestic violence training offered to state and local law enforcement agencies."

For more information on this bill which was passed successfully by the Judiciary Committee, please see the link below:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00466&which_year=2018

RELATED ARTICLES:

Copy of the proposed bill, see below:

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/03/proposed-bill-before-ct-judiciary.html

Karen Jarmoc's (CCADV) remarks on the problem of dual arrests in CT, see below:

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/02/ccadv-addresses-dual-arrests-in-state.html

Testimony from Sanna Dilawar about her horrible experience of dual arrest, see below:

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/02/sanna-dilawars-testimony-about-her.html

S.B. NO. 479 PROTECTING MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN A DCF CASE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!

Raised S.B. No. 479 
Session Year 2018

AN ACT CONCERNING IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR PERSONS PROVIDING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE OR INTERVENTION IN A CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT CASE.

"To extend the immunity provided to those who in good faith report suspected child abuse or neglect to medical professionals involved in the evaluation of the suspected abuse or neglect."

For more information on this bill, which recently passed through the judiciary committee successfully, please click on the link below:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00479&which_year=2018

Comment:  From my perspective this might be helpful because pedophiles are often encouraged to sue the heck out of the medical professionals who report them and this acts as a deterrant when doctors are confronted with cases of abuse and are considering whether to report.

H.B. No. 5575 APPEARS TO HAVE PASSED THROUGH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY!

Raised H.B. No. 5575 
Session Year 2018

AN ACT CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A LICENSED HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL TO PROVIDE TREATMENT OR AN EVALUATION IN CONNECTION WITH A FAMILY RELATIONS MATTER.

"To allow a party to a family relations matter to have greater input on the selection of a licensed health care professional who is to provide treatment or an evaluation in connection with such matter."

For more information on this bill which recently passed successfully through the judiciary committee, see the link below:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05575&which_year=2018