Testimony of Michael Nowacki
In Opposition to S.B. 494
Senate Bill 494 should be categorically rejected by the judiciary committee membership. Its adoption would create “An Act to Perpetuate Stranger Danger in the Family Courts of Connecticut.”
On January 9, 2014, scores of parents testified to a Task Force about egregious court ordered fee income for GALs, AMCS, court appointed psychologists, psychiatrists, conflict managers and “monitored supervision” of parenting time in the State of Connecticut.
Today, we again stand up with righteous indignation in defense of our rights to love our children without the interference of government.
S.B. 494 does nothing to protect the constitutional rights of parents and children, to fundamental “liberty interests” of “fit parents” to the “care, custody and companionship” of our children and rights to familial associations upheld by the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Troxel v. Granville.
S.B. 494 doesn’t pass the smell test, because it was written by lawyers elected as legislators and perpetuates the employment of “insider traders” who operate in a corrupt family court system which fails to serve “the best interests of our children”.
S.B. 494 merely endorses a continuation of income based discrimination criteria based on financial affidavits employed by family court judges who award existing racketeering style fees AMCs and GALs and their “framilies” for non-regulated services, and the trafficking of parental custody rights for private contractor profiteering.
Where in this legislation, Senator Kissel, is a Code of Ethics with disbarment sanctions for GALs and AMCs who violate our children’s rights to informed consent?
According to Michael Bowler, despite hundreds of grievance complaints filed against GALs and AMCs since 2007, including my 52 page complaint against AMC Reich attached to my written testimony, there has never been a sanction issued against an AMC by the Statewide Bar Counsel for violating a child’s right to informed consent.
In fact, S.B. 494 would codify a family court authority to appoint GALs, which heretofore was only legally sanctioned in probate court and juvenile court proceedings. Instead of conducting “hearings” required by C.G.S.§ 51-14 (b), ranking members of the legislative judiciary committee have been meeting clandestinely with judges to pass rules such as C.P.B. Rule 25-62 which created a judicial discretion to make GAL appointments.
I had joint legal and physical custody for five years, until AMC Veronica Reich, without the knowledge or consent of my 13 and 15 year old children, filed an “Emergency” Ex Parte Order for Custody Modification, in which there were no claims of abuse or neglect.
In my post judgment case alone, court ordered fees totaled $250,000 without factoring in over $125,000 of federal income taxes and state income taxes accrued from the liquidation of IRA funds, forced after seven days of incarceration for contempt for non-payment and under a threat to pay a $10,000 per week fine ordered by Judge Robert Malone.
Simply stated, absent custody cases involving abuse or neglect verified by DCF, there is no need for GALs or AMCs in the State of Connecticut to be appointed in family courts.
We honor Patrick Henry’s patriotic oratory today, our voices of unification today rising in a crescendo to this legislature: “Restore our liberty rights to parent without the interference of government, or give us death.”