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 UPDATES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UPDATES. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 11, 2015


A Manhattan Supreme Court judge today ordered actress Kelly Rutherford to return her two children to their father in Monaco.
The ruling came after Rutherford failed to send son Hermes, 8, and daughter Helena, 6, back to their father Daniel Giersch after they spent the summer in New York with the former "Gossip Girl" star.
"From the beginning I have said I will fight for my children," she told ABC News on Monday.


Monday, August 3, 2015



Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 10:00a.m.-12:00p.m.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 (CANCELLED)

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Thursday, January 7, 2016

The task force is required to submit a report to the legislature no later than January 15, 2016

Please feel free to contact task force staff with any questions:

Kristen Traini


Saturday, March 21, 2015


Advisory Board on the Americans with Disabilities Act

Wednesday, March 25

10 a.m.

Community Court, 80 Washington Street Hartford, CT 

For a copy of the agenda to this meeting, see below:

Monday, November 17, 2014


I am lucky that my divorce situation is mostly in the past, but sometimes one of my kids will start talking about the old days.  For example, recently, my son said, "Oh, so when we were playing that game of using candles to light the house, it wasn't actually a game!"  I was like, "Now that you mention it, you are right."  This comes up because I still continue to advocate for people in divorce and the kids see me researching topics. 

Last week, I ended up researching the issue of the electric company, Connecticut Light and Power, when a young lady going through the pendente period called me to say her ex had not paid the electric bill which he was court ordered to do based upon their financial agreement.  She stated that the electric company had cut off power to the house and refused to turn it back on even though she was living in the house with an infant.  The next week her ex cut off fuel deliveries to the house and so it went. 

I had the exact same situation happen to me during the pendente period in my case.  Ex-husbands regularly fail to obey the financial agreements they signed and which became an order to the Court as a means to coerce and harass their ex wives. 

Unfortunately, as in my case, the Court often fails to enforce these agreements and when protective mothers go to Court to obtain some kind of relief, Judges will often imply that such concerns are trivial.  Of course, I'd like to see how some of those Judges would feel if they couldn't have a bath before getting in their cars to go to Court, or how they'd feel if they couldn't review their documents the night before because they couldn't switch on the light!

In fact, they are absolutely not trivial, particularly when you have children who are suffering along with you, as with my friend. 

So what can you do in a situation like this?

One, you can file a motion for contempt in family court.  The problem with this approach is that it often takes weeks before the motion actually comes before the court.  And, as I have said, Judges are likely to blow them off.  Meanwhile, you are sitting around your house without any electricity. 

The second thing you can do is negotiate with your electric company and try to get them to turn the electricity back on.  

Before I tell you more about that, let me answer the question that must be foremost in your mind.  Is it legal to shut off the electricity when there is an infant or a child under five living in the house? 

Yes, it is legal for the electric company to shut off the electricity under those circumstances.  

So, what can you do when it comes to negotiating with the electric company to get your electricity back on?  As far as the electric company is concerned, there are two primary issues that are in play when you have an outstanding bill with the electric company and cannot pay it:

1.  What is your income? Are you struggling with economic hardship? And

2.  Do you have a life-threatening medical condition that could put the life of an occupant of a house at risk should the electricity be shut off? 

Now, I personally think that placing an infant in a situation where he or she has no electricity is life-threatening, but that is just me! 

Here are some considerations to keep in mind when you are negotiating with the electric company.  For instance, if you are renting your home, the electricity service cannot be shut off because the landlord does not pay the bill.  If it is shut off, you should contact the police and the utility company.  The landlord must find a way to restore service to your home.

If the bill is in your ex-husband's name and he does not pay that bill, it is true that service can be shut off from your home.  However, there is a caveat to that, which is that if the family court judge provides you with an order stating that the electric company cannot shut off service to your home if the bill is not paid, then the electric company cannot not shut off service. 

The service representative I spoke to at C, L, & P stated he had never seen such an order in all the time he had worked with the company, but that does not mean you  could not ask for such an order or get one!  There is always a first time!

Another recourse that you have is that if you transfer the electric bill from your ex's name to your name, you then have 90 days from the date you ask for service in your name before the electric company can shut off service.  In addition, if you have a court order stating that your ex is supposed to pay the bill, you can then add an additional 90 days before the electric company can shut off your electricity. 

So that gives you a total of 180 continuous days where you can be safe from a shut off and resolve the problems, and that should not be sneezed at.  By then, you might even be divorced and the issue will be moot! 

Ok, maybe not in one of those high conflict divorces that last for years, but I am trying to stay positive! 

The primary point that the C, L & P representative made to me is that decisions regarding shut offs directly relate to income.  You could be eligible for energy assistance and protection from shut offs, particularly during the winter months of November 1 to May 1, if you qualify based upon low-income or slightly higher income. 

To find out if you qualify, call 211 and they will assist you in filling out the paperwork and once it is completed they will automatically send your application to the electric company.  You can also go to town social services where you live and do the same thing.  If you are determined to be eligible for one of these programs, the electric company cannot switch off the electricity to your home during the winter months, but they can switch off electricity during the summer if you are unable to straighten out your bill.

There are other special programs.  For example, you can also sign up for a payment program and agree to make regular payments to catch up with your prior balance.  The only problem there is that if it turns out you can't make those payments and fail to make them, the electric company will drop you from that program.  They will then demand the immediate payment of the entire balance and if you don't pay right away, shut off the electricity to your home immediately.  Often, they don't care how high or impossible that balance is; they still want their money right away or else.  Take it from me, because I have already gone through this.

This leads me to my other point about payment plans, don't agree to make payments you are unable to make.  Don't give in to pressure or agree to something you know you can't actually do when it comes down to it.  Instead, try to get the service representative to agree to payments that you are able to afford. 

Aside from payment plans, C, L, & P also has a matching payment program where you pay a portion of the bill, energy assistance pays a portion of the bill, and the electric company pays the rest.  The company also has forgiveness programs where they discharge some of the debt.  Again, this is based upon your income, and you would have to negotiate with the company to obtain the best possible program available for you.  

You can also obtain protection from shut off if you or someone else in your household, for instance, your children, would be in danger of a medical emergency without electric service.  To obtain this protection, you have to ask your doctor fill out an online form certifying the nature of the condition and confirm that electric service is essential for that condition.  This certification from a doctor must be submitted every year. 

The doctor has two options he can check off, i.e. 1. that you only need electric coverage for the winter months of November 1 to May 1, or 2. that you need electric coverage year round. 

The advantage for you of being on this coverage is that if the electric company anticipates any interruption in your electric coverage, they will notify you by phone call in advance so that you can make alternate arrangements to make sure your medical equipment is operating.  This is a big advantage for parents and children with disabilities who require ongoing electric service. 

Keep in mind, however, that just because the electric company cannot shut off your electricity because of an outstanding balance, this does not mean that you are not responsible for paying the balance, because you do still remain responsible.  This issue will have to be worked out in Court eventually if your ex refuses to follow through on making the payments he agreed to make. 

One question I posed to C, L, & P is the following scenario which has relevance to all protective mothers.  What if you have a couple that has filed for divorce.  The ex-husband earns $70,000 per year and Mom is an at-home mother with children who is court ordered to receive child support, but father is not paying it.  The father is no longer in the home and is court ordered to pay the electricity, but refuses to pay it.  In a situation like that, would the mother be entitled to participate in the energy assistance program based upon a lack of income, or would she be considered at the same income level of her ex, even though she has no access to it. 

The service representative at C, L, & P was unable to answer that question and transferred my call to a Community Action Agency for more information.  Unfortunately, all I got was an answering machine with a promise to call me back if I left a message.  I still have not yet received my return call. 

The next place I turned to was the 211 number.  When I dialed that number, a recording told me they were truly happy to receive my call.  However, they told me that there were nine people already in line waiting to receive assistance.  That number was reduced slowly until it was just me and then I was connected to an answering machine that asked me to leave my name and telephone number and someone would call me back.  I did that, but no one has yet to call me back. 

After that, I scoured my head for someone else to call and finally came up with the idea of calling town social services.  I then dialed them up and again obtained an answering machine that assured me that if I left my name and telephone number someone would get back to me shortly.  Again, no one has yet to call me back. 

So bottom line is, I do not have an answer to my hypothetical.  Once I do, I will report the answer to my question on the website.  I do think it is a problem that any woman who calls to obtain information or support will most likely end up with answering machines, unanswered phone calls, and a general lack of vital information.  This situation cannot help but be tremendously discouraging to people is distress.

Clearly, when an ex husband refuses to pay for electricity, fuel, cable, and telephone which he agreed to do and which he was required to do by an order of the Court, this is pure harassment.  There is no doubt that it happens all the time, that attorneys, judges, and mental health professionals under contract with the Court are quite familiar with this behavior, and that they are aware that the men who indulge in this behavior are jerks.  All that it would take to stop this behavior is a decision on the part of the attorney and judges, let alone the mental health professionals, to refuse to tolerate it.  Thus far, they have not made such a decision because they prefer to perpetuate the abuse.  Then they say no abuse exists. 

Among those of us seeking to find positive solutions to the complex problems of family court, eliminating the way unethical men abuse women by shutting off court ordered utilities is on the top of the list of essential reforms.

Update: I received a phone call late in the day from town services in response to the message I left on the answering machine.  Again, I posed my hypothetical which is what if there is an at home mother with a husband who makes $70,000 where father agreed to court ordered child support, and agreed to a court order to pay for utilities, but subsequently refuses to pay.  Now you are a mother with no source of income, young children, and your electricity has been cut off--what do you do?  Does the fact that father makes a high income prevent you from obtaining fuel assistance and other kinds of relief? 

The town social services representative told me that this mother should, indeed, go to town services and apply for relief.  Town social services will investigate the situation and connect the mother to whatever is necessary to make sure that she and her children are safe in their home, particularly during the winter months.  As long as the mother can verify her circumstances town social services will do whatever they can to help out.  This is includes referrals to the broad range of supports that they have available.  Often, town social services can speak directly to utility companies and work out a sensible solution.

The town representative told me that the theoretical peron I described should definitely be working with Interval House or the Susan B. Anthony House or some other domestic violence shelter to obtain guidance in regard to how to manage her circumstances.  She also suggested that mothers in this situation check in with The Connecticut Woman's Educational and Legal Fund.  The link to this organization is below:

The town services representative stated that for some women it is very hard to acknowledge that they are in trouble and need help.  Many such women have always taken care of themselves and paid their own bills.  For them it is tough to recognize that they have to reach out and let others support them.  What is important is that such Mothers accept the situation and recognize there is no shame in needing help.  This could happen to any person any time and anywhere.  So definitely take that first step to give town social services a phone call and set up a time to meet.  Don't wait until you have put yourself of your children at risk, particularly in regard to young children.

Still, despite these safeguards, there will be some women who fall through the cracks and end up being victimized by their ex-husband's refusal to live up to the responsibilities he took on to pay utilities and fuel.  That is, ultimately, what happened to me and it will continue to happen to other women. This is one of the most common forms of economic abuse that men get up to during divorce with the collusion of the family court system.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014


The Connecticut Judicial Branch has updated its "Frequently Asked Questions" section on the judicial website.  To access the new section, please click on the link below:

Saturday, December 7, 2013


Dear Parents and Supporters,

I would like to announce that CT-N is going to continue to cover our Task Force to Study the Care and Custody of Children In Legal Disputes. Our public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, January 9th and I hope to see as many supporters of shared parenting (absent abuse and neglect), GAL reform and the need to prevent parental alienation which is a form of child abuse in our Connecticut. You may tune into your local CT-N cable station or CT-N website to watch this Tuesday's 10a-12n  meeting live. 

Our task force needs your help with these significant family issues. Please use your contacts to share this information. If you're unable to attend the public hearing at the legislative building please submit your feedback to

If you would like your feedback posted for the public via Internet, you will need to provide your authorization within your email. 

I am very pleased to represent parents of Connecticut and I welcome any questions you would like me to ask during the remainder of our meetings; please email me directly with your questions.

I am happy to serve Connecticut children and parents affected by our broken system.


Monday, November 25, 2013


Today I received the excellent news that, in an historic move, the GAL Dr. Joan Oppenheim has been removed in the Sargent case. 

A few days ago, Mr. Mark Sargent commented earlier in regard to the issues.
"Today (November 21, 2013) we finished the hearing on my motion to remove Dr. Joan Oppenheim as guardian ad litem for the children in my post-judgment divorce action.  Judge Munro had budgeted 1.5 hours for this second part of the hearing.  We started at 9:30 and ended at 5 pm.  The arguments were extremely intense.  
My lawyer (Norm Pattis) demonstrated that Ms. Oppenheim had billed my family about $130,000, had repeatedly declined to communicate with me, had failed to respond to numerous letters and emails raising serious concerns about her ethics, professionalism, competence and judgment, and the risks to, and the harms that befell, my children during her supposed guardianship, and then managed to get Judge Emons to appoint a lawyer for HER (not the kids), at the family's expense, in response to my allegations against her, and then had her lawyer procure an order prohibiting me from contacting or being present with her w/o her lawyer's involvement (even though I have the kids nearly 24/7).
And most of the Stamford's court's orders were procured without notice, a hearing or evidence, and instead were given off-the-cuff at "status conferences."

By the end of it, Munro discussed out loud her concerns that Ms. Oppenheim couldn't possibly do her job when she wasn't communicating with a parent with sole legal custody who had the kids nearly all the time."

Given the seriousness of these abuses and the financial exploitation, it was crucial that Mr. Sargent succeed in this motion to remove the GAL.  I am so relieved that I can now report a positive outcome to this difficult and trying situation.
All of us have to feel extremely grateful that Mr. Mark Sargent chose to take this courageous stand and fight back in the face of judicial abuse despite the costs to himself personally and the odds against success when facing the corrupt legal system which we currently have.  This is just a first step, but I am greatly looking forward to further progress. 

Also, congratulations go to Attorney Norm Pattis who clearly had his fingers on the pulse of this situation and proceeded to fight injustice as strongly and as powerfully as he is capable of doing.

To my knowledge this is the first time that a GAL has been removed from a case after  litigants submitted complaints of wrongdoing to the Court.  I would expect this to establish  a precedent for future cases in which GALs abuse and defraud their clients. 

Thursday, June 6, 2013


Hello Friends!

Please join Anne Stevenson tomorrow, June 7th at 5:30pm on WRKO where she will be a featured guest on the Howie Carr Show talking about corruption in the Connecticut courts. You can listen online or on the radio.  Feel free to show your support by sending messages and calling in during the broadcast. Ideally, other news outlets will hear the broadcast and pick up the story, and WRKO will bring me back to talk about the crisis in Connecticut. 

That said, Anne would like to make it clear that this is not about tearing down the system, but providing solutions that she hopes will improve the courts for both litigants and the majority of honest judicial branch employees who are not involved with corruption and who deserve better.

Howie Carr's show is broadcast all over New England, including Connecticut, and is the #1 radio talk show. Here is the link to the show:

Message from Anne:
"Please help me spread the word by sharing this email with anyone you think would be interested in tuning in. Thank you for your support!"

"CT Court Employees Face Tough Questions Over Conflicts of Interest," By Anne Stevenson
The Washington Times

Sunday, May 20, 2012


It looks like Connecticut is one of the 4 best states to live in if you are a perpetrator of domestic violence.  A recent study indicates that on a scale of 1 to 10, one being the lowest number of arrests for domestic violence and ten being the highest number of arrests, Connecticut rates a 2. 

There are two explanations for this.  One is that Connecticut is a state full of peaceful folks, or two, Connecticut's legal system has an extremely high tolerance for spousal abuse.  Which explanation do you pick?

Thursday, February 23, 2012


Just an FYI for you guys, Attorney Maureen Murphy was confirmed even though folks came to provide testimony against her.  I know this is a disappointment for those who spoke out courageously against this appointment.  This is evidence that we need to worker harder to get our voices heard.  Justice today!  Justice tomorrow!  Justice forever!