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 TASK FORCE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TASK FORCE. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

UPCOMING MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!

Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response
to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence

Tuesday, November 19, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM 

Location:  Room 2A of the LOB 

Saturday, November 7, 2015

THE POLITICS OF MENTAL ILLNESS WITHIN THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH!

It was six months into my divorce when I finally realized that my attorney was acting in a way that was seriously incompetent.  As a result, I recognized that I had to find a new attorney and so I started the process of interviewing attorneys to see who would be a good replacement.  

It was then that I ran into Attorney James T. Flaherty who immediately asked me for a copy of my parenting plan. "Parenting Plan, I responded, "I don't have a parenting plan!"  Apparently, the fact that I had no parenting plan was extraordinary and Attorney Flaherty seemed truly surprised that I didn't have one. Why was Flaherty surprised?  Well, that was a bit of play acting, but more on that just a bit later.   

Apparently, in December 2002, the Report of the Governor's Commission on Divorce, Custody and Children came out.  This report was the basis for major statutory changes in the way divorces are supposed to be handled in the State of Connecticut.  Included in these changes was the requirement that divorcing couples submit a parenting plan to the Court within the early weeks of the divorce and obey a list of automatic orders which assures that the parties don't dissipate the marital assets, among other things.  

Nonetheless, as you can see, I soon learned that it was standard for attorneys to blow off parenting plans and allow their clients to violate the automatic orders at will. Attorneys did this intentionally to gain advantage in the case, to generally disrupt the process, and get as much money as possible from their clients.

In spite of that, if you then asked such attorneys, why do we have so many problems with family court, they'd never mention the ignored Connecticut Statutes I just talked about. Instead they'd blame the mentally ill--as per usual.  So goes the politics of mental illness within the Judicial Branch, i.e. if under fire, or facing criticism, put the responsibility on the shoulders of the "crazy people." This approach is, as we will see, a fundamentally feminist issue.

If you look at the discussion which preceded the results of the Commission Report--i.e. the Report of the Governor's Commission on Divorce, Custody and Children of December 2002--the Commission placed responsibility for the problems of Family Court squarely on the shoulders of "a small minority of parents [who] engage in persistent conflict because of anger, characterological or mental health problems."  

Twelve years later, another group gathered together to investigate problems with Family Court in Connecticut, i.e. the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children of 2014.  This Task Force published an additional report.  

Hearing about this Task Force, dozens of citizens came forward to provide their testimony in person during Task Force hearings while many others wrote letters and sent emails contributing information regarding their personal experiences of Family Court.  

However, instead of addressing the concerns these citizens spoke about, the Task Force Report  simply borrowed a lengthy quotation from the 2002 Commission Report in place of a discussion. The authors of the Report apparently did not even think to add one single bit of additional insight they might have acquired from lessons learned in the twelve years since the prior report.  Even worse, in a terribly short sighted manner, the particular section the report quoted was the one that put the blame on people with mental illness.

The fact that those responsible for writing the 2014 Task Force Report were so lazy they had not a single original idea to put into a discussion says boatloads about the lack of commitment of those individuals to the process of investigation that they were involved in.  

In that regard, I would like folks to recall that when the two co-chairs were appointed--Attorney Sue Cousineau and Attorney Sharon Dornfeld--there was widespread discontent with these appointments, but the legislators responsible didn't want to hear about it.  Thus, the careless,  derivative, negligent, and divisive report that the Task Force of 2014 ultimately produced is the outcome of these legislators' poor choices.  

Mental illness, the spotlight of both reports, is a feminist issue given that Family Court uses accusations of mental illness as a means to deny mothers custody.  Thus, another aspect of the original Commission Report of 2002 and the Task Force of 2014 which I find quite striking is how both are weighted to benefit the father's rights agenda.  

The Members of the Governor's Commission is practically a who's who of father's rights people.  Both Thomas C. Foley and Mr. Pat D'Angelo are long time father's rights people.  I believe Pat D'Angelo was among the original founders of the Divorced Men's Association of Connecticut. Other people such as Dr. Kenneth Robson, Judge Lynda B. Munro, Dr. Sidney Horowitz, and Judge Herbert Gruendel are notorious for their stands in opposition to mothers.  

Likewise, in the Task Force of 2014, members Jennifer Verraneault and retired Judge Thomas Weissmuller are both father's rights advocates.  I don't believe there is an abusive father that Dr. Elizabeth Thayer won't embrace. You have Stephen Grant in the Commission of 2002 and Joseph DiTunno in the Task Force of 2014 both responsible for the distribution of federal government fatherhood initiative money within the CT Judicial Branch.  We can assume they both support fathers in that role.  

The end result, of course, were reports on Family Court that largely support policies and programs that benefit the interests of men.  

For instance, in the Task Force of 2014 there is an extended section on how the CT State Legislature could establish a policy of shared parenting in this state. Shared parenting would be an absolute disaster for the women of the State of Connecticut, particularly those who are victims of domestic violence.  

It is typical of father's rights people that even though so many of the citizens who demanded a hearing on the abuses of family court and who came to testify were women, this Task Force, weighted with father's rights activists, simply took advantage of the political influence these women provided them and pushed forward a father's rights agenda in their final report, thus stabbing those women in the back.  

But this is not my primary point.  I want to address the issue that has now come up in two reports -- this business of blaming people with mental illness for the problem of Family Court abuse.  Can you imagine for a minute if these reports had said something like, the problems of family court arise because of the various character flaws of African-Americans (or whichever minority group is currently unpopular--the Jews, the Hispanics, the Muslims).  

If any group tried to publish a report blaming a particular group based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, class etc.  they would be stopped immediately.  So, why is it acceptable for these reports to make unfounded accusations at folks labeled with mental illness? Somehow this is acceptable?  Isn't this just like the whole gun discussion.  We know that people with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence than perpetrators, and yet all these conversations in the media about stopping gun violence are all about taking civil rights from people diagnosed with mental illness, even though it has been proven that mental illness is not a decisive factor.  

I'd like to dig in a little deeper here:  who do we mean when we talk about parties who have mental illness? Aren't we really talking about women?  As you know, in our society where gender discrimination and oppression remain rampant, women have many more mental health difficulties than men, particularly depression as the result of the ongoing deprivation of rights and the disrespectful manner in which they are treated.  Not only that, women are far more willing to get the help that they need from mental health professionals because they feel more comfortable with caretaking and helping types of professionals.  

As a result, when women walk into Family Court, they are considerably more likely to have documented mental health histories than men are.  These histories are immediately used against women in family court when custody is under dispute.  

So what these two reports are saying--the Commission Report of 2002 and the Task Force Report of 2014--is that the problem isn't just folks with mental illness; it's those crazy women.  

Such attitudes accord well with what we know about the influence that the massive influx of fatherhood initiative money into Connecticut was having starting in 1996.  This money would have been flowing into Connecticut in a very healthy manner by 2002, just in time for the Commission report.  

But again, this is still not my entire point.  Ok, so the problem is this difficulty with all these women who have mental illness.  Here is what bothers me.   What this really means is that the CT Judicial Branch has no intention of adjusting its methods to address the needs of this very special population--cultural sensitivity be damned.  Instead, it prefers to exploit prejudice and social stigma and declare itself helpless to deal with this group, even though there is every evidence that with the proper accommodations and protections against discrimination, the outcome of legal proceedings can be quite successful with folks who have mental health challenges.

Instead, the way members of the Commission and the Task Force reported it, the Judicial Branch is helpless against this enormous, impenetrable monolith of mental illness that resists any and all attempts the Family Court system implements to address it.  

Based upon this bigoted attitude towards mental illness--in other words, that it is unchangeable and always a negative, family court has used mental health diagnosis as a litmus test for who should get custody, i.e. the fathers.  

But why?  Why this presumption of hopelessness?

Even the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services has adopted the recovery model in the work it does here in Connecticut with people who are dealing with mental health and substance abuse problems.  This means that they operate with the underlying assumption that people can change and that they can improve.  

Unfortunately, the Connecticut Judicial Branch is far from having that approach. The Branch prefers to maintain this hopeless view of people with mental illness so they can use it to advantage in custody switching schemes perpetrated against women. The only reason that Family Court in the State of Connecticut orders psychological evaluations of parties in family court is so that they can find some kind of damning diagnosis (usually for a mother) so that diagnosis can be used to deny custody. For example, a fabricated diagnosis of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) usually does the trick!

The Connecticut Judicial Branch maintains a policy of discriminating against people with mental health disabilities because it works to their advantage in their war against women.  For years the record shows that the Branch has been rigorous in refusing to comply with the Americans With Disability Act, and particularly disregards its prohibitions against discriminating against people who have disabilities.  This means that people with mental health disabilities who face legal proceedings in custody matters routinely do not receive the accommodations they require under the ADA in order to access those proceedings.  The majority of these people are mothers who are essentially excluded from the process.  

You would think, under the circumstances, that mental health professionals could bring some equity to the situation, but this is not the case.  This is because a good many of these diagnoses are fabricated and pinned on mothers as part of custody switching schemes to transfer custody to abusive fathers.   But there are other reasons as well.

The Commission Report includes some of the history of custody and divorce in Connecticut and mentions how starting in the late 1950s, the Judicial Branch began to bring mental health professionals into the Branch to assist the Courts in custody matters.  This is also when the family services unit of the court was established.  

If mental illness were the problem, you would think that the influx of all these  mental health professionals into the process would eliminate that supposed group with mental illness that is causing the big problem.  However, this is not the case.  

Often, psychologists or psychiatrists hired to do this work produce lengthy and detailed investigative reports full of unsupported gossip and innuendo that simply adds another layer of lies and inaccuracies to the entire proceedings.  Since many of these mental health professionals are adherents of the father's rights movement or receiving father's rights money to write these reports, they are again, frequently weighted against the mothers and used to deny mothers custody.  

What is interesting is that no one tracks what these mental health professionals are doing and holds them accountable.  How can it be that even judges are subjected to performance evaluations, but not mental health professionals?  Is there any evidence at all, anything beyond an intuitive assumption, to indicate that the involvement of mental health professionals in divorce improves outcomes?  Where is the data?  

One guess I would like to venture, however, prior to any such investigation, is that the outcome will show that for the better part, particularly since the influx of fatherhood initiative funding into the family courts, Judges have used older, white male psychologists or psychiatrists such as Dr. Kenneth Robson, men in their 60s and 70s to trash women and transfer custody to the fathers.  

These women who lose custody are the "mentally ill" of the two reports, because, as we all know, mothers will fight for their children to the bitter end and thus "inconvenience" the Court.  Of course, those mothers have to be crazy.  

What this means is that when the two reports talk about people with mental illness causing the problems in family court, they are really talking about mothers.  But what these reports do is describe them in code language that professional insiders within Family Court immediately recognize.  Essentially, this means that women haven't benefited from either of these two investigations into family court abuse.  As per usual, our voices and our life experiences remain absent from the public discussion, as we are labeled as mentally ill and not considered worthy of consideration.  The time has come to change that dynamic.

Monday, November 2, 2015

NEXT MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!

Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence

Tuesday, November 10, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM 

Location:  Room 2A of the LOB 

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO FAMILY VIOLENCE, MEETING MINUTES, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2015!

10:00 AM in Room 2A of the LOB

The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM by Karen Jarmoc, The following task force members were present:
Karen Jarmoc (Co-Chair); Garry Lapidus (Co-Chair); Donald Frechette; Cindy Mahan; Linda Harris; Damion Grasso; Stephanie Janes; Chris Rapillo; Steve Grant; Dr. Nina Livingston; Faith Vos Wenkel; Cheryl James; Mary Painter and Jennifer Celentano

Karen Jarmoc brought the meeting to order at 10:00 AM. She noted that the task force had a very full agenda and that the task force appreciated people coming in from various areas of practice to present.

Judge Paul Knierim gave his presentation on the role of the probate court in domestic violence cases. He noted that probate courts do not have jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of these proceedings, and take on cases assigned by the legislature to help Connecticut’s most vulnerable citizens. The probate court also handles areas of incapacity, or situations where individuals are unable to care for themselves, and the probate court’s role is to determine the degree to which an incapacitated individual needs assistance. Probate courts also deal with various miscellaneous issues that can be related to domestic violence, such as name changes and restoration of federal firearms rights. Probate courts also deal with removal of parental rights and appoint guardians of minors when a parent is unable to care for their child. Judge Knierim also noted that DCF is often involved in various aspects of the probate court—in the voluntary services programs, issues concerning child protection, Regional Children’s Probate Courts and other areas of Probate Court jurisdiction dealing with children and families. Probate Courts and Juvenile Courts of the Superior Court share jurisdiction in a number of matters and work together to determine which court is the best venue to hear the case.

Judge Beverly Streit-Kefalas thanked the Co-Chairs for inviting her to speak to the task force. She noted that often times, families come into the probate court with proposed solutions to problems they are facing. She noted that the probate courts often deal with substance abuse issues and restraining orders obtained from the superior court. Often times, an aunt or other relative will petition for protective orders and for custody of a minor child through the superior court if a parent has been arrested. In these cases, the child is immediately appointed their own attorney, and the probate court and superior court determine where the case would be best heard. She added that encountering domestic violence perpetrators in these cases is of significant concern, as the probate courts are housed in municipal or commercial buildings and don’t have marshals staffing the court systems. In these cases, the courts work diligently to ensure the safety

of parties involved in the proceedings of the case. In these cases, an attorney is appointed by the court to represent the desires of the child and the courts order therapeutic services for minor children.


These court-appointed attorneys advocate the position of children involved in the case, even if this is not always in the best interest of the child. The courts will also appoint Guardians ad Litem to represent the best interests of the child. These individuals have psychiatric, psychological and other child development expertise and training. Under the Guardian ad Litem program, courts are able to determine the best outcome for the child, sometimes leading to the appointment of a long-term guardian.


Stephanie Janes discussed her role at the New Haven Regional Children’s Probate Court. There, she addresses domestic violence as well as intergenerational patterns. In her role, she looks at histories of violence or trauma and works to ensure the safety of parents and children. The probate court connects the family to various therapies in different scenarios to help them process traumatic events and respond responsibly when confronted with dangerous situations. The court also develops a case plan and collaborates with different departments.

Judge Keyes, the Administrative Judge of the New Haven Regional Children's Probate Court discussed the significant impact of domestic violence on the relationship between parents and children. He highlighted the importance of case workers having the proper training in dealing with children involved in domestic violence cases. He stated that there is a need for clearer protocols on how to handle these cases, and advocated that children need representation from attorneys at every level of these cases. Judge Keyes also pointed out that oftentimes, perpetrators can increase their sense of empathy through counseling, and that courtroom dynamics are altered significantly when victims and perpetrators are in the same room. He also expressed that children should be able to petition for restraining orders so they can protect themselves even when a mother and father have restored their relationship.

Judge Knierim noted that Judges Streit-Kefalas and Keyes had postulated that in probate court proceedings, a minor child is provided with an attorney and sometimes a Guardian ad Litem, which are both paid for through the probate court funds. He noted that this poses significant costs to the probate court system and that there is a greater need for funding for these attorneys. He also noted that it is not always directly apparent that domestic violence is an issue in every case, and that it’s important that the interests of a child are adequately represented in court. He noted that there have been several efforts made to ensure that children have access to attorneys, and that the judges often collaborate on children’s issues so that specialists are working together and developing best practices in these situations. The Regional Children’s Probate Courts have specialized social workers called Probate Court Officers that have backgrounds in social work and marriage and family therapy, and probate courts will appoint an officer to conduct case conferences with the family. The probate court system also funds kinship and respite grants and in cases where necessary, directs children into DCF care.

Karen Jarmoc noted that she had many questions, but would defer to other members of the task force first.

Cynthia Mahon asked whether the probate courts have access to the protective order registry in their locations.

Judge Knierim responded that he administers the central office for probate courts, and they have access to the registry.

Cynthia Mahon also asked about the role of marshals and other protective officers in these courts. She expressed concern over how these courts handle individuals with a history of violence, noting that there aren’t always metal detectors in these buildings.

Judge Streit-Kefalas stated that in the New Haven Regional Children’s Probate court, there is a security officer who separates parties from perpetrators and also escorts people to their vehicles for protection purposes. She noted that local courts handle this on a case-by-case basis. She also noted that much of the demands of the court on the security officers go beyond the qualifications of the security officer, and that the vulnerability of local courts was something that needed to be addressed.

Cynthia Mahon asked Judge Knierim how probate courts handle cases where there is an overlap of a case with the juvenile court.

Judge Knierim responded that the probate courts work with the superior courts to determine what aspect of the cases should proceed first, as the courts don’t want to have inconsistent results. Typically, probate courts will dismiss cases that have already been filed in juvenile court. In instances where a case is subsequently filed in juvenile court, the courts will work together to determine which venue is most appropriate.

Cynthia Mahon asked whether there was a mechanism that dictated whether there are two concurrent cases for the same individual.

Judge Knierim responded that the probate courts will rely on parties for this information. He added that legally, there could be an electronic database where this could be set up, but the funds for a project like this haven’t become available.

Mary Painter asked about workforce development and the training of staff on domestic violence issues. She asked if there was a standard training that the presenters would recommend. She also asked about the protocols that the courts use to recognize domestic violence.

Judge Knierim responded that the probate court system dedicates enormous resources to continuing education, and that they have resources for judges and staff. The courts frequently bring in experts from other disciplines to discuss domestic violence with court staff. He added that the probate courts were looking for input from community providers on what kinds of training would be most effective for those case workers in the probate courts.

Mary Painter also asked about specific recommendations for protocol.

Judge Knierim pointed out that Judge Streit-Kefalas was speaking with regards to restraining orders, and noted that currently there are guidelines for judges to address these issues. He also noted that he had information to share regarding the safety of the courts, and that the courts tend to rely on local police departments for additional support in these cases.

Donald Frechette asked about the divergent interests between court-appointed attorneys for children and Guardians ad Litem. He asked what standards were in place to address this issue.

Judge Knieirm responded that the probate court had specific procedures for these issues, and that all children are appointed an attorney but not always a separate Guardian ad Litem. In some cases, a child may be so young that they don’t have strong wishes, and it is the job of the attorney to determine the wishes of the child and present these in the context of the child’s best interest. If there appears to be a conflict between the stated wishes of the child and the best interests of the child, the court will appoint a Guardian ad Litem.

Garry Lapidus asked Judge Keyes about the dynamic of having a domestic violence perpetrator and a victim in the same room, and asked whether courts could structure this interaction differently.

Judge Keyes responded that the courts had attempted to use different structures, but noted that the rules for adjusting these dynamics need to be agreed upon by both parties.
Garry Lapidus asked if other states had tried different measures for this.

Judge Keyes responded that the superior court has tried to do electronic hearings in the case where confrontation is an issue, but that the probate courts hadn’t yet started doing this.

Karen Jarmoc asked whether both parties needed to agree to the format of the court proceedings.
Judge Keyes responded that yes, both parties needed to agree.

Faith Vos Wenkel asked about the role of substance use in these cases, and noted that often domestic violence crops up as a co-occurring factor with substance use. She asked if there were statistics kept on this.

Judge Keyes responded that there were not statistics kept on this specific issue.

Faith Vos Wenkel asked about the presentation and the number of cases where domestic violence leads to homicide or murder where children are left with one deceased parent and another that is incarcerated. They asked if these cases come to the probate courts as well.

Judge Keyes responded that there were many cases where the mother is killed by the father and that this leads to a very complicated family situation.

Judge Streit-Kefalas noted that she had a case a few years ago where a father murdered the mother while she was driving. The father was incarcerated and the daughters went into the care of grandparents and have received substantial therapy and counseling, but have still opted to live with the father after his incarceration. She noted that the courts can’t stop things like this from happening, and that in this case there had been a long family history of substance abuse and violence.

Laura Daleo asked about a previous situation mentioned where a parent petitions for guardianship of a child. They asked about what the statistics were when parents come to probate courts pro se versus being represented by an attorney. They asked about possible barriers when a pro se family member comes forward on behalf of a minor child.

Judge Knierim responded that he didn’t have immediate data on this, but noted that the vast majority of these cases are self-represented, and noted that probate courts frequently assist parties who are self-represented. The chief justice and judicial branch have made significant efforts in developing pro-bono attorneys for exceptional cases. He noted that probate courts have entry fees to initiate matters, but in the vast majority of cases, these fees are waived because the petitioner doesn’t have the available financial resources.

Dr. Nina Livingston asked about the role of probate court officers. She asked what type of domestic violence training probate court officers receive and the kinds of caseloads they have. She asked whether there was adequate time for probate court officers to handle the multiple aspects of their cases and whether probate courts have family violence victim advocates with the specific role of addressing family violence within the courts.

Stephanie Janes responded that with regards to domestic violence, all probate court officers bring in a wealth of experience and background in various areas of family therapy and social work, so they have experience in addressing domestic violence. She also noted that the probate courts have trainings on domestic violence where they train with a consultant from DCF, and noted that because of the experience that probate court officers have, they need more advanced training in handling domestic violence. She stated that case loads can vary, but probate court officers can have as many as 30 active cases at one time, and that they do have jurisdiction over these cases until the child reaches the age of maturity or until the parents have been reinstated as guardians. Cases can have a range of intensities, and probate court officers will vary their involvement depending on the severity of the case. Probate court officers will also collaborate with social service providers and other professionals involved in the case and ensure that judges are aware of the sensitivity of domestic violence in these cases. Probate court officers will stress preserving the parent-child relationship in the safest way possible.

Linda Harris asked about fees associated with having an attorney represent a minor, and which entity pays this fee.

Judge Knierim responded that the attorneys are compensated at $50 per hour, but that there are also daily caps on this amount. Additionally, professionals are only compensated in the case that courts have statutory authorization to do so. He added that the courts don’t have statutory authorization to have attorneys do anything outside of the probate court system.

Jennifer Celentano asked whether attorneys file restraining orders on behalf of minors and do we need legislation authorizing the attorney to file this restraining order because they are not the guardian.

Judge Knierim responded that sometimes the parent or guardian can’t file a restraining order because of the complicated dynamics of the case. Attorneys can also petition on behalf of a minor child parallel to the framework of the superior court. Probate Courts lack jurisdiction to impose a restraining order. The petitioner would have to file for a restraining order in Superior Court even if their case is being heard in a Probate Court.

Cheryl Jacques asked about the mental health trauma in these cases and noted that this work is being done with a base in developmental trauma. They noted that Judge Keyes highlighted that a child should have an attorney at every level of the process, and asked how he visualized this.

Judge Keyes responded that in the court’s process, when someone applies for a restraining order, an attorney is generally required to be appointed to execute this restraining order.

Karen Jarmoc asked the judges to provide the group with any data that would be helpful in this process. She asked what kinds of volumes they were experiencing, and noted that the cases were very complex. She asked if there was any way to understand the volume of cases the judges were basing their decision around.

Judge Knierim responded that the probate courts can try to collect this data, and noted that presently the probate courts don’t systematically collect data. He stated that they could work with probate court officers to get some better information. He also noted that they would have to collect this data from courts that have probate court officers, and offered to take this beyond the anecdotal data presented in the meeting and have the probate court officers work together to provide information that is more quantitative.

Karen Jarmoc added that she only wanted this data if it would be authentic and helpful, and noted that she wanted to know how prevalent domestic violence cases were in the current probate system.

Stephanie Janes stated that she believed there is a high incidence of domestic violence in probate court cases.

Karen Jarmoc asked about the costs of domestic violence on the probate court system, and noted that it would be meaningful if the group could capture the cost of domestic violence as a state so that we could identify opportunities to make wiser investments.

Judge Streit-Kefalas noted that they often see domestic violence arise out of conservatorships; in the context of name changes; and in DCF voluntary services where a child is being treated for psychiatric issues and the family has a history of violence that is causing the trauma. She stated that having statistics in children’s cases is helpful, but domestic violence is expressed in many cases that deal with family matters.

Karen Jarmoc stated that she was glad that the judges touched on training. She noted that on October 27th, the task force would be hosting the national judicial institute on domestic violence to present a training initiative that they conducted. They’re a federally-funded institute that trains on family violence. She wasn’t sure if this was open to probate courts and that if it is, it would be helpful for the judges to attend the training. She noted that there was an opportunity to have stronger lines of communication between the probate court and other aspects of the system. She asked what tools the probate courts were utilizing around family violence matters.

Stephanie Janes responded that when their probate court officers conduct family violence assessments, there are at least two family conferences, which are used to work with a family to develop a plan for placement of a child and assessing the family history. Probate court officers are not using an actual assessment tool, but do come with clinical skills in various arenas and so are able to work with families.
Karen Jarmoc asked about cases where it may be better to not have the child around either parent, or if the probate court stressed the preservation of the parent-child relationship.

Judge Streit-Kefalas responded that the probate court system stresses the reunification of a child or children with their parent or parents in a safe, healthy relationship and that the court works to preserve this relationship.

Karen Jarmoc thanked the judges for their time and presentation and added that the task force would continue to reach out as they drafted their recommendations. She then welcomed the next presentation by Suzanne and Lillian Ankrah from the Greenwich YWCA.

Kelly Annelli presented on the programs offered by the Greenwich YWCA. Specifically, she highlighted the work that child advocates do in her program and in the shelter that she helps manage. She elaborated on the specific qualifications of child advocates as well as the various duties these advocates take on as part of their work. These advocates are certified domestic violence counselors and advocate for families in court. Child advocates have a set of standards for best practices and work to develop age- appropriate information for children and youth. There are several programs that the Greenwich YWCA offers to help combat the cycles of violence these families are exposed to. These programs are heavily reliant on fundraising for support, as the state only supplies a portion of the salaries for family advocates. She added that family and child advocates attend many trainings to ensure that they’re using the most up-to-date methods for various therapies.

Karen Jarmoc thanked Kelly for her presentation and added that the on-the-ground view that she presented was very valuable to the task force.

Kelly Annelli stated that she had been working in domestic violence for 15 years, and that child advocates work with every aspect of the system. She stated that Lillian was one of her hardest-working employees who works with everyone involved in the various cases from supporting children in shelter to accessing community resources for families. She stated that CCADV did a wonderful job of training child advocates to work on long- term counseling and other services.

Karen Jarmoc asked about the scope of what Lillian was witnessing in the field.

Lillian Ankrah responded that there were many examples, but that she had been working with one particular family where the mother had chosen not to go to the police after a violent incident with the father, and the mother had a hard time supporting her family. Lillian helped the family find host homes and was eventually able to get the family into public housing in Greenwich and help the mother find stable housing. She noted that the children are now doing very well and have been able to handle their feelings and the situation in a very mature manner.

Karen Jarmoc asked about the relationship between the Greenwich YWCA and other agencies and how the task force might make these connections stronger and better.

Suzanne Adam responded that all of the systems work very well together. She noted that employees at the shelter all worked together to help different families. She also noted that one of the issues they had faced was that collaborative efforts aren’t always easy because not everyone working on certain cases have an understanding of domestic violence. She noted that it was very important for counselors to have an understanding and sensitivity to domestic violence and that this was what the collaborative effort could take away.
Karen Jarmoc asked how support is offered to children and families that come into shelter given the constraints of being in a shelter.

Jennifer Celentano also asked about how the shelter handles situations where the mother isn’t addressing the needs of the children and what is done when there is a problem with a parent in the shelter.

Lillian Ankrah responded that the shelter is a mandated reporter to DCF.

Suzanne Adam noted that there is a lot of counseling and that shelter can be a stressful situation for a family because there can be many parents in a shelter, and each family is reacting to a traumatic experience. She added that there are a lot of intersecting dynamics and that the shelter works to reconnect the parenting relationship and gives the parent their authority. She noted that the shelter works very closely with DCF and other service providers.

Garry Lapidus asked how children are assessed for behavioral and mental health needs in shelter.

Suzanne Adam responded that the job of the shelter is not to diagnose these problems but work holistically with the family and keep them safe. She added that they do a danger assessment for adults.

Lillian Ankrah stated that she is a certified art therapist and she works with a certified play therapist, and children frequently reveal things through their art and their play in terms of their fears and worries.

Suzanne Adam stated that children experience their life through play, and it’s beneficial for her to work through metaphor. She added that the shelter does a few assessments that focus on resilience and protective factors, and that negative factors will decrease over time.

Mary Painter asked what kinds of data the shelter collected and about the standards used for children, youth and families.

Karen Jarmoc noted that data is very important, and stated that they collected this through Efforts to Outcomes. She asked what kind of data Ms. Painter was looking for.

Mary Painter asked how the shelter demonstrates unmet need and noted that there was probably a considerable amount of work the shelter couldn’t do because of limited resources.

Karen Jarmoc added that the task force can try to break down some of the data

Suzanne Adam stated that the shelter kept statistics and standards. She noted that there needed to be more training on domestic violence, as the shelter couldn’t carry the child through the whole process, and case workers down the line needed to be better trained in domestic violence. She noted that pediatricians and other community providers don’t always experience things through the lens of domestic violence.

Karen Jarmoc asked about the role of teachers as first responders, and asked who provides this training for teachers and whether this training is adequate.
Lillian Ankrah responded that the shelter doesn’t play a role in this, but that there is someone in her agency that provides training to the board of education. She noted that teachers are first responders because they work with children during the day.

Cheryl Jacques asked if this is part of the teacher training in the educational system and in the educational process itself.
Karen Jarmoc noted that this topic had been on the agenda for years, and stated that family violence is among the topics that school systems can train educators on, but that it is not funded, as there is a list of things that can be selected from to do trainings on, but family violence is not a required training, as this would make it a mandate.

Suzanne Adam noted that there is a strong program across the state, and lots of teachers are inviting programs into their schools, but we don’t have a statewide systemic response.
Cheryl Jacques noted that she represented DMHAS and that the organization had done collaborative training with DCF on trauma, as family violence is very specific, and not always in the same context as general trauma.

Suzanne Adam noted that the perception of trauma may be different, and that there tend to be a lot of myths and stigma around domestic violence.

Cheryl Jacques asked if there was a recommended curriculum.

Suzanne Adam said that there are many curricula that are based on research and that she would get back with regards to curriculum outcomes.

Cheryl Jacques said that this would be helpful, and added that there is often an over- saturation of training, which can be overwhelming.

Suzanne Adam stated that there are screening tools that can be used by age, and agreed that there can be an over-saturation of training on this issue. She offered to help the task force navigate through the different trainings.

Karen Jarmoc noted that unless educators have the background, it can be difficult to understand what to do when there may be a positive screen, or what tools may be helpful.
Cheryl Jacques asked about nurses providing treatment in the school system and where they refer children in the case of positive screening results.

Karen Jarmoc stated that from training, they would have the capacity to build on this. She stated that she had developed a 3-phase approach with domestic violence providers.

Damion Grasso asked about the shelter’s approach to treatment of domestic violence victims in terms of trauma and other psychological issues, such as PTSD and anxiety.

Suzanne stated that her shelter uses several assessment 
tools that focus on domestic violence as it relates to other psychological issues.


Damion Grasso asked how often the shelter works with other agencies and how they could reach out to these agencies to better prepare them for working with domestic violence victims.

Lillian Ankrah responded that they often work with outside 
agencies that provide private psychiatric therapies.

Damion Grasso asked if Lillian did work ahead of time regarding referrals and CBT.

Lillian Ankrah responded that they did a lot of psychoeducation around relationships and stressed that the family build a strong relationship with their care takers at the shelter, and use this as a template for building future healthy relationships.

Suzanne Adam noted that they do have staff trained in CBT and DBY and that typically their clients are looking for housing and schools. She stated that the shelter makes significant efforts to connect these families with long-term care and community-based resources. She stated that the shelter works to provide resources from both ends of the spectrum.

Karen Jarmoc thanked the shelter presenters for bringing up the assessment piece, but noted that the shelter is not a clinical situation. She asked if it would be better to address shelter situations from a clinical perspective, and noted that there were meager resources for child advocates, so this type of setting would not be feasible. She also noted the difference between screening and assessment and that this required extra work on the part of providers.

Kelly Annelli followed up with Mary Painter’s question about standards. At the shelter, every aspect of the child’s well-being is woven into their standards and best practices.

Karen Jarmoc noted that on October 27th, the task force would be meeting with the National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges. On November 6th, the task force would be hearing from DCF regarding their response to family violence.

A motion was duly made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:02 PM.

Sara LeMaster Task Force Administrator 

Monday, October 12, 2015

NEXT MEETING OF TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!


Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence

Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM 

Location:  Room 2A of the LOB 

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATEWIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MINUTES OF THE MEETING, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015!

10:00 A.M. in Room 2A of the LOB

MINUTES PROVIDED BY ASSISTANTS TO THE TASK FORCE!

The meeting was called to order at 10:05 A.M. by Co-Chair Garry Lapidus

The following committee members were present: Mary Painter, Cheryl Jacques, Gina Beebe (for Linda Harris) Karen O’Connor, Sarah Eagan, Christine Rapillo, Laura DeLeo, Karen Jarmoc (Co-chair), Garry Lapidus (Co-Chair), Cynthia Mahon, Jon Fontneau, Jessica Veilleux, Kayte Cwikla-Mass, Nina Livingston, Jennifer Celentano, Damioin Grasso, Rachel Pawloski, Elizabeth Bozzuto, Stephen Grant and Faith Voswinkel.


Members introduced themselves.

The minutes from the previous meeting were reviewed and accepted by the members.

Co-Chair, Karen Jarmoc stated that today’s meeting will be focused on law enforcement and interventions and policies that are available in Connecticut. She continued to say that Connecticut has a state wide model policy for law enforcement’s response to family violence that was created as a result of a prior task force. Karen went on to say that, potentially, there is opportunity for this task force to make an assessment and offer some recommendations and that there is a permanent governing council that oversees this model policy, so we want to make sure that this task force and the governing council are in alignment with each other.

Karen Jarmoc thanks Maggie Adair at the Office of Early Childhood for providing the task force with follow up information. Karen then introduced Dora Schriro, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.

Commissioner Schriro gave her presentation on behalf of her agency.

Faith Voswinkel shared that she was particularly interested in knowing if there was a way to differentiate the age of the child on the scene for example, are there children under 3 present, are there pre-school aged or school aged children present.

Commissioner Schriro replied that the form they use has a place for date of birth, that assumes that someone is there and competent to give the date of birth, and at a young age it is not likely to be the child. She continued that to the extent that they can improve and add some additional drop down fields or have additional training bring to the troopers awareness what should be included in the remarks section. She went onto say that they can write additional software so they can pull more of this information out.

Faith Voswinkel thanked Commissioner Schriro for her response.

Commissioner Schriro commented that if Faith had other specific requests that Faith can email her directly or communicate through Trooper O’Connor.

Karen Jarmoc thanked Commissioner Schriro for her presentation. She went on to say that as a task force the question would be what is relevant, and that if the task force wants to capture data that would be the question for this group to grapple with and come up with some answers. Karen asked Commissioner Schriro if that data entry point would be the place to ID children.

Commissioner Schriro replied that under the relationship code you have “F” “Other Relative Residing in Home,” so that would apply to children, but that the task force may prefer to have children specifically identified.

Karen Jarmoc commented that she thinks that might be important and also if there is a way for the task force to make some recommendations around what does “involved” mean, what does “present” mean, what does “NA” mean.

Commissioner Schriro indicated that the task force might also want to look at number 22 which is “A Child Under 18 Was Involved/Present.” She offered that an additional question might helpful to identify a younger cohort of children.

Karen Jarmoc asked Commissioner Schriro if she had any opinion the Model Policy.
Commissioner Schriro replied that the real experts are the police officers and the state troopers in the field so it might be worthwhile to get their thoughts about it.

Jon Fontneau said that he agreed with Commissioner Schriro that boots on the ground police officers will give a much better perspective. He also added that if the children attend school it would be helpful to know which school they attend would be helpful for local police.

Commissioner Schriro said that Jon made a good point to help the outreach made by law enforcement to the school the next day, otherwise the school will not know that the event occurred and the child may be off his/her game, if they are even able to be in school.

Karen Jarmoc asked if in terms of training, is it 20 hours specific to family violence for any new trooper and what ongoing training is like.

Karen O’Connor replied that recruit based training is 20 hours, which is outside of minimal facts training, in domestic violence and that troopers receive minimal facts training every year, which amounts to 4 hours yearly.

Cynthia Mahon asked if it would be helpful to add to #22 if a DCF referral was made and how can an attorney general in the child protection department or a DCF worker access these forms.

Commissioner Schriro replied that she is sure there is a way to access the forms, but she doesn’t know what the mechanism so she will report back to the co-chairs with that information.

Jennifer Celentano asked what the protocol that the State Police use when they go to the scene to deal with children, in particular when there is a dual arrest.

Karen O’Connor responded that the state police train to identify a primary aggressor and if possible take the primary aggressor into custody, serve the other party with a misdemeanor summons and a court date and a DCF referral is made. She continued that if both parties are arrested they call DCF immediately, but if there is a family member that the child can go to they make every effort to make that happen.

Garry Lapidus thanked Commissioner Schriro for her remarks and asked if she could share with the task force members one change in her agency in policy or practice that she would suggest to reduce the impact of this problem, what would that be.

Commissioner Schriro replied that her agency is going to be doing strategic planning in the fall but that she doesn’t know what the answer to Garry’s question is yet, but that she is confident that they are going to find it.

Jessica Veilleux asked Commissioner Schriro if a box could be added for “Referral to Hospital or VA Center” regarding mental health issues witnessed by the police officer.

Commissioner Schriro that she is confident that there is opportunity to add more fields.

Jessica Veilleux thanked the Commissioner for her response and said that she doesn’t see anything about verbal threats on the form and indicated that Public Act 12-114 (Summary of PA 12-114) was changed to include the abuse of threatening. She asked where that could be added.

Commissioner Schriro replied that there is threatening.

Jessica Veilleux shared that there are 2 definitions of threatening one is imminent and one is later in the day or throwing an object.

Commissioner Schriro responded that we need to add it with a drop down box with the nature of the threats or provide training that it is added under remarks.

Jessica Veilleux replied, yes, per Public Act 12-114.page3image24784 page3image24944

page4image1112
Karen O’Connor added power and control wheel lists several types of abuse including economic abuse, emotional abuse and abusing children. She went on to say that the form is for collecting data and the report will contain the specific types of abuse observed, which goes hand in hand with identifying a primary aggressor.

Faith Voswinkel asked if this form is only done if there is an arrest.

Commissioner Schriro responded that the form says “Arrest Yes/No” so it is completed.

Faith Voswinkel asked for clarification that it’s completed for any time there is a call and they are going for family violence.

Jon Fontneau replied yes.

Karen Jarmoc said that Faith raised another question. She asked for clarification that the form is only submitted in terms of how data is being captured when there is an arrest made and if there is not an arrest made, the localized department retains the form.

Jon Fontneau replied that it goes into their records management.

Karen Jarmoc offered that it might be meaningful for everyone to understand what is going on if there is not an arrest.

Jon Fontneau asked for clarification that Karen was asking who would use this if there was not an arrest.

Karen Jarmoc replied, yes.

Commissioner Schriro stated that a record is created; it’s just whether it makes its way to everyone for particular reports. She continued that she thinks having the whole picture is worthwhile.

Karen Jarmoc commented that she agrees with the Commissioner. She went on to say that just because children are present at the scene doesn’t mean that there is a mandated DCF report.

Jason Lange and Lt. Sean Grant did their presentation.

Karen Jarmoc said that it would be helpful to understand, broadly, why is this unique response important and asked if we are talking about additional dollars for training and is EMPS a 45 minute response.

Amy Evison replied that their average response time is 29 minutes.

Karen Jarmoc asked if EMPS is DCF funded and asked how many are in the state.


Mary Painter replied that there are close to 200 employees.


Amy Evison said there are 6 providers and a few subcontractors.

Karen Jarmoc restated that state-wide there are 6 providers maintaining the contract for EMPS.

Mary Painter replied, yes.

Jennifer Celentano asked if the Manchester pilot program and Waterbury were the first 2 pilot programs, what was the cost for the Manchester program in additional funding. She continued that if this was implemented state wide there would be a need to exponentially increase the EMPS responders.

Amy Evison said that at this point they are not seeing a high level of referrals but if it dramatically increased staffing changes would have to be considered and that they are also third party for their services so as they continue to see kids, they can bill third party to supplement staffing.

Jennifer Celentano asked if just Manchester was using this model.

Amy Evison replied that it is just Manchester.

Jennifer Celentano asked if others picked up this model, would they need more funding.

Jason Lange replied that it would depend upon the use. He continued that prior to REACT there was 1 call in 12 months to EMPS and in most police departments it is closer to 0. Jason said the increase is only to 43 in 1 year, which is not going to require any extra resources at that scale.

Mary Painter shared that at the local community level interested police departments and EMPS teams could work on this together without additional funding. She went on to say that with regard to training of EMPS staff, it speaks to her about the need for more cross training and cross disciplines because EMPS is widely available state-wide and is an excellent source for families and kids, but we have a lot of disciplines who don’t understand or know about it. Mary asked Jason what the content is and if there is a module on domestic violence for EMPS.

Jason Lange replied that there is a trauma module that includes some on domestic violence.

Amy Evison added that they have up to 10 or 11 core trainings that EMPS does, they are always looking to make adjustments and that it could be arranged.

Mary Painter stated that the other piece to this is how do we add these different, important training topics without adding burden to the workforce.

Amy Evison said that she brought some data about how much they are experiencing with kids in their general population around violence, and it’s quite significant. She went on to say that the kids they are seeing are either victims of trauma in some way, exposed to violence through their peers and they are exposed to violence in their homes.

Garry Lapidus said that they mentioned the challenge of being on scene with a 911 family violence call and the challenge of making multiple phone calls, he asked if there was a way to stream line this to one call.

Sean Grant replied that one call to handle both issues would be helpful but that he cannot speak to the practicality of doing it, but that one place to go would be more effective for the officers and lead to more success for the program.

Karen Jarmoc indicated that she also liked the idea of one call if there could be some type of model, but that she does not like a call to DCF because victims may hesitate to call law enforcement if they know that DCF will get involved.

Karen O’Connor asked if EMPS is available regardless of whether or not you are participating in the REACT program.

Amy Evison replied yes.

Karen O’Connor asked where the six locations throughout the State of Connecticut are.

Amy Evison replied that you can receive EMPS where ever you live in Connecticut.

Karen O’Connor clarified that she meant as far as they are located state wide.

Amy Evison responded that if you dial 211 you will get the local EMPS provider where ever you live in Connecticut, so it is complete state-wide coverage.

Faith Voswinkel restated that anywhere people are they simply dial 211 if they state that this is an emergency regarding a child they jump to the head of the queue, some information is taken and then they are warm lined right to the provider. She commented that she’s not sure how much more it can be streamlined. Faith then asked what the relationship with the schools is with the REACT program.

Sean Grant responded that they have their SRO supervisor involved in the process they also participate in programs where notifications are made prior to drug raids. He continued that they have satellite DCF workers in their police department which is a benefit to them. Sean indicated that he would like to be able to check a box and be able to send an email to the supervisor of the SRO unit so SROs would be notified the next day if something did happen the night before so the SRO would be able to watch that child the next day or the next day. He continued that he would like to incorporate more of the training they have had with EMPS and DCF so all are on the same page with the same training. Sean brought up that they have had a problem with the call center with small decision making things that they haven’t been able to do.

Karen Jarmoc asked Jason to go back to the slide of agency locations and compared that to what Commissioner Schriro showed the task force in terms of volume of arrests. She noted that it’s the eastern part of the state that has the highest volume, but when you look at the map up now, it is mostly around the centralized corridor and less so in the rural areas.

Nina Livingston said she would like to understand a better how they are collaborating in the field, is it just a call to EMPS and a handoff or whether there is actual collaboration on the scene, specifically around the interview of the child are the police waiting for EMPS to arrive before the child is interviewed in some or all cases, and are you collaborating regarding the need for DCF report.

Sean Grant replied that what they ask for response in the field is that if the scene is safe then the officer may not need to stay but if EMPS is going to be there they stay. He said that the DCF call does not have to be made there if arrangements can be made for the child at that time.

Nina Livingston said that if you have to interview the child as a witness are you waiting for EMPS. She commented that Amy was shaking her head. Nina then asked if EMPS is informing that question about a DCF report or are you two independently deciding whether or not to report, and there may be one report or two.

Sean Grant responded that was part of his comments that if they train together and determine who is going to be doing what.

Jason Lange added that what they are talking about is the gold standard of what he hopes they can work toward and that it is a dramatic shift for law enforcement to think about using EMPS and understand the child’s perspective and the trauma. He said that he supports cross training and encouraging local collaboration because could be done without a lot of resources.

Jon Fontneau congratulated the City of Manchester for having such dedicated people working for their children. He went on to say that at one point Stamford had clinicians riding with police officers so they would be on the scene when the officer was on the scene, but that was discontinued because of lack of funds.

Karen Jarmoc asked Jon if there was anything formalized that he could send the task force about Stamford.
Jon Fontneau replied that he would like to bring up his child guidance center team from Stamford.

Karen Jarmoc commented that they will be worked into an upcoming meeting.

Amy Evison added that they do meet monthly where the adult crisis team and the child crisis folks come together to review where each are at with referrals and discuss what went well, what they can give feedback to the officer about the family and trouble shoot what they can do better.

Karen Jarmoc asked Jennifer Celentano if she would like to address the task force and give a brief outline of her work.

Jennifer Celentano gave brief comments.

Karen Jarmoc asked if it would be helpful if a specific recommendation could be developed and then work it out with Mary for the task force to consider.

Jennifer Celentano responded that would be OK, but she wondered if it would require a change from the Rule Committee because it is a Judicial Branch form.

Karen Jarmoc asked if Jennifer would mind doing the diligence around that. Jennifer Celentano agreed to do the diligence.

Karen Jarmoc asked Jennifer if it was specific to family violence, because that is the task force’s charge.

Jennifer Celentano responded that she doesn’t think you can differentiate between them.

Karen Jarmoc commented that if Jennifer would confer with DCF and Judicial if there is a policy recommendation that the task force can consider and discuss as part of their report. Karen then asked Christine Rapillo if she would like to address the task force.


Christine Rapillo gave her comments.


Karen Jarmoc asked Christine to clarify the GAL training.

Christine Rapillo said that her office is new to the family court/child welfare procedure. She continued that the initial program which is six classes for the family court Guardian ad Litem did include some training on domestic violence and it has been incorporated into some of the trauma work. Christine said that for the Public Defender’s office the training in October is the first specific domestic violence training that is geared toward child protection and the family court people. She went on to say that the six class training is in the process of being revised and that the GAL training hasn’t been offered in two years and that domestic violence will definitely be part of the curriculum.

Karen Jarmoc asked who does the training, what is the curriculum, where do you get the curriculum and who is delivering that training and is it mandated.

Christine Rapillo replied that the specific training is not currently mandated. The Center for Children’s Advocacy, which is affiliated with the University of Connecticut Law School does the pre-service training and there is a section on domestic violence. She went on to say that the Department of Children and Families also offers training.

Karen Jarmoc asked that Christine follow up with the Children’s Law Center to understand what curriculum they are utilizing.


Christine Rapillo commented that with the training being revised that this is the perfect time to talk about it.

Garry Lapidus asked what is being taught now in law schools in this country on this issue.

Christine Rapillo replied that she does not know, but she can find out.

Karen Jarmoc said that the next meeting will be October 6th from 10:00 12:00. The meeting was adjourned at 12:02 PM by Co-Chair Karen Jarmoc.