98% OF CRIMINAL CASES END IN PLEA BARGAINS, SAYS NPR!

I was saddened when I heard that Paul Boyne is preparing to accept a plea bargain in his case because I'd like to see him defend his rights in open court.  But the Judicial System in this country has essentially eliminated the right of American citizens to go to trial.  Take a moment to read the NPR article on this subject and find out how it happened.  See below:

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice

Of course, if Paul Boyne decides to take a plea, this would be entirely understandable since prosecutors have a team of attorneys, paralegals, and administrative assistants to help them with their case, along with a plush state budget.  In contrast, all Paul Boyne has are two pro bono attorneys. It's an unfortunate situation which has led to many innocent people being locked up in jail.  This is also exacerbated by our for profit jail system which benefits from having innocent people locked up.  For more information on this, see below:

https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2020/09/15/privatized-prisons-lead-inmates-longer-sentences-study-finds/

https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/capitalizing-on-mass-incarceration-u-s-growth-in-private-prisons/

CT LAW REGARDING SEALED CASES

One piece of information that has come out recently about Paul Boyne is that his case has been sealed. I was looking his case up online and when I clicked on the case number for his files (there were three) I received an automatic notice that his case has been statutorily sealed. This made me feel concerned about what was going on.

As a result, I sent an inquiry about this to Paul Boyne's attorneys--Jennifer Buyske and Alice Osedach--but did not hear back from them.  I also sent an inquiry to the Hartford Courant journalist--Mr. Edmund H. Mahony--who has been covering Paul Boyne's case, but he said he didn't know anything about it. Just to be sure, I contacted the clerk at the New Haven criminal courthouse to confirm Paul Boyne's case has been sealed and she stated that it has, indeed, been sealed from both the public and journalists.  

Eventually, I read in an article Edmund H. Mahony published today that Paul Boyne has applied for a diversion program.  It turns out that when a defendant does that, his case is automatically sealed. The article is so biased, I'm not going to include the link, but it is easily accessible.  Still, I am breathing a sigh of relief that everything is above board.  Aside from court files from diversionary programs, only court records such as juvenile arrest records and the records of victims of sexual offenses are automatically restricted from public view.

Still, the sealing of court cases is a rather touchy subject in Connecticut.  I can recall that when John Rowland was first running for the office of governor in Connecticut in 1994, the rumor was that he had committed acts of domestic violence with his first wife.  However, it wasn't possible for journalists to find out because his case had been sealed.  Here are some of the links on this situation below:

https://www.courant.com/1994/09/30/domestic-incident-rtdata-withheld/

https://www.courant.com/1994/10/26/closed-divorce-files-not-unusual-among-well-known-people-2/

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2003_02_09_Rich_EliteEnjoy_Felix_Maguire_2.htm

As you can see, the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch was sealing cases for people it considered privileged has been a major source of conflict in Connecticut.  Eventually, the Hartford Courant sued the Connecticut Judicial Branch demanding that it stop this practice.  The decision in this case is in Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 which affirmed a qualified first amendment right of access to court files. As a result, since that time, it is rare for cases to be sealed or the public denied access to a trial.  See below:

https://casetext.com/case/hartford-courant-co-v-pellegrino-2

To see how that translates into reality, I went onto the Judicial Branch website. In reviewing information provided by the Connecticut Judicial Branch, I found out that Connecticut doesn't have a particular law in place when it comes to sealing records.  However, "a Court can seal a file if the Judicial Authority determines that it is necessary to protect an interest that is more important than the public's interest in viewing the materials or attending the proceedings."  

This also brings forward another question. When a file is sealed, does that mean the trial will also be closed from the public?  Because if you seal the file, the next step is to close the trial to the public.  I don't think that makes sense in every case.

It is also important to note that in order to seal a case, the attorney making this request is required to follow through on a specific protocol detailed by the honorable Michael P. Shea at the link below:

https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/sheaConfidentiality%20and%20Sealing%20Documents%20Instructions.pdf

This protocol requires that there is a hearing on the question of whether a file should be sealed.  Do such hearings always take place? It is certainly a question worth asking.  Somehow, and you may think me cynical, I think those steps are skipped and files are simply sealed during hearings without prior notice.

Of course, there is the sealing of individual documents which can take place quite routinely in a case.  For instance, financial affidavits and custody evaluations are routinely sealed in divorce and custody cases.  We saw that in the Michelle Troconis trial where the custody evaluation was sealed.  However, sealing an entire case?  I don't think that happens as often as it used to.  

There is considerable additional information that Judge Shea provides for the legal basis of the public's first amendment right of access to court files in his review of the process.  So make sure you take the time to read it.  

PAUL BOYNE CASE IS SOLELY A FREEDOM OF SPEECH CASE! SEE INTERVIEW!

 

CAN PAUL BOYNE GET A FAIR TRIAL?

I'm a little out of practice on writing blogs so if I'm not so great writing this one, please forgive me.  However, I happened to see the Edmund H. Mahony article in The Hartford Courant , "Alleged cyberstalker case to go to trial", indicating that Paul Boyne's case is going to trial soon.  I felt I had to step up to the plate and speak out given that one of our own, Paul Boyne, is under attack.  Now, of course, I can hear you all saying--one of our own, what do you mean?  We aren't racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic.  And to be clear, I condemn hate speech of any kind, as I'm sure everyone in the family court reform movement does.

What I mean to say is that Paul is a person whose life was destroyed, as our lives were, by the family court system.  This made him lose his sense of proportion so that he spoke in ways that I'll bet the pre-family court Paul probably would never have considered.  If there is one thing I know about the suffering and pain family court causes people, it is that it can literally drive people out of their minds.  Still, despite the hate speech, despite the suffering and pain, Paul is the most giving person I know.  Over the years, in his work as a family court advocate, Paul has helped a great many people with their cases, selflessly and without pay.  This is why I'm here speaking out on his behalf.  Because any one of us can relate to Paul's situation--being a good, decent, human being and parent, and then damaged to the core by the harsh and cruel treatment meted out by the family court system.

I also believe that Paul Boyne speaks in these shocking ways not because he believes it, but because he thinks it is the only way to break through public complacency in the face of egregious family court corruption.  It is his way of shaking people and saying "Wake up!  Look at this terrible injustice that is going on!" It is very frustrating for all of us who are working for family court reform to deal with the fact that there is such an extensive coverup of the problems.  For example, when it came to the Jennifer Dulos case, the media spoke often about the fact that it involved a contentious and bitter custody dispute.  But they never explained how or why it became that way.  Without such explanations, the public will never know what was really going on.  So why don't we get them?  

My first reaction when I heard that Paul was going to trial is--how can he possibly get a fair trial? He is going to be on trial for attacking the very system that will stand in judgment on him.  His attorneys are officers of the very court system that he has been villifying.  Isn't there a major conflict of interest going on here?  I certainly think so.  There has been unfairness in Paul's case from the start.  This is a free speech case.  It is a case about the exchange of ideas, and how those ideas can be expressed.  For goodness sake!  What is he doing in jail for a whole year? Paul has no money.  Where is he going to go?  How would he flee? You may think his words are hateful and disgusting, but since when do we put people in jail for expressing their thoughts?  Here in America, how is that right under any circumstances?  Well, he insulted judges.  So what? Is there a section in the constitution stating that we cannot insult judges?  We can insult every one else, but not judges?  

The state argues that, apparently, in his blog posts Paul "identified them (judges), their homes, and even the cars they drive" and "suggested that violence is a remedy available to disgruntled family court litigants."  Yet they acknowledge that in all the time that Paul Boyne has been writing these blogs there have been no incidents of violence as a consequence.  It would be a good exercise to investigate whether other blogs around the country which also demonize certain people or groups have ever resulted in outbreaks of violence.  Just because people speak about violence in ways that prosecutors admit are vague and nonspecific, this doesn't automatically mean that the outcome will be violence against a person or persons.  The other question I ask is whether this particular kind of speech has been ruled illegal by any CT State Statute.  If prosecutors or judges or anyone else considers Paul's blog postings dangerous, it is their option to work on passing legislation to make it illegal so that Paul could have a specific law to rely on when he makes decisions on how to write his articles.  Without such legislation, we are at risk of silencing free speech simply because whether someone's written work is or is not bullying or hate speech depends upon the decision of a jury.  Meanwhile, you have to sit in jail waiting for your case to be adjudicated.  

I also want to make an objection to the term "cyberbullying" in regard to Paul.  Cyberbullying is when a person goes after his target on social media and via email and texting.  Paul is a blogger with a website posting his political and social viewpoint.  If you don't like it, don't go there.  With cyberbullying you are being attacked and a person is going after you.  If you go to read Paul's work, that is your choice.  When state prosecutors and journalists contextualize this case in a manner that is not in accordance with the facts and make deceptive choices in language that do not apply, this greatly misleads the public.  This is wrong.  

Another reason I'm sympathetic to Paul is that, as a blogger here in Connecticut, I have also had attorneys threaten to take me to court.  I was once threatened with jail if I didn't not reveal my sources in an article I'd written about a case.  One attorney went to the West Hartford police department and filed a formal complaint that I was blogging about family court cases. I have been illegally ordered out of the courtroom and threatened with security for no other reason than that I was sitting quietly in support of one of the parties. At another time, I cut and pasted an attorney's bio onto my blog which happened to include the fact that this attorney lived in West Hartford. It was information that came from the law firm's own website.  Nonetheless, they contacted me and told me they were considering suing me for "incitement to violence" for posting the information.  I immediately took it down because I do respect people's privacy.  However, from the beginning of my work as a blogger I have been well aware of the fact that I was taking on this task at my own risk.  It has not been easy and I've experienced a great deal of trauma and anxiety as a result. 

I may have more to say about this topic.  I have many difficult things going on in my personal life and so I may not have the time.  But one thing I will say is that we in the family court movement have repeatedly asked for an investigation of the family court system in regard to its failure to obey the law.  Unfortunately, there appear to be no vehicles for self scrutiny in place for the family court system.  This is pretty ridiculous given that I get asked for my opinion of the services I receive all the time--please hold for our quick survey--you know what I mean.  But family court seems to feel that they are above accountability.  That's pretty sad.  Apparently, in going after Paul Boyne state prosecutors have been investigating him scrupulously for five years. Imagine how many resources were tied up in that investigation.  I can't help wondering if, instead of going after Paul Boyne, legal professionals had invested that same energy and intelligence into investigating family court, Jennifer Dulos would be alive today.

THE DISPUTE: RESPONSE TO THE DEATH OF JENNIFER DULOS

 

THE DISPUTE 

                                                I

He lay in wait

Entangled in a lengthy hostile divorce and custody battle

Entangled in a contentious divorce and custody battle

A bitter divorce and custody battle

In the midst of a heated divorce and custody battle

Embroiled in a heated divorce and custody dispute

Embroiled in a bitter custody dispute

 

He lay in wait.

Through an ongoing custody fight and divorce

A continued strategy of complete and total war

Two years of torture

A  Back and forth Hellish conflict

A divorce and custody battle

Contentious, protracted

Hotly and continuously contested

 

                                                II

 

One morning, she disappeared after dropping

her kids off at school, leaving behind

spatter, stains, smears, blood-like

on the garage floor, paper towels, trash can, steering wheel, trunk

In darkness, luminol blazed forth a nightmare

She likely sustained an injury or multiple injuries

that experts would consider unsurvivable

They put him in an empty cold room

full of spotlights

naked with a metal bed rack

and a Velcro blanket.

 

It was a bitter breakup

Lengthy and expensive, with no end in sight

GAL fees at approximately $180 thousand, and more to come

Attorneys’ fees: $90K father; $1,650,000 mother and more to come

Custody evaluation: $20 thousand approximately, and more to come

A bloody shirt and bra, fingerprints, DNA

all dumped in a conveniently “creepy” neighborhood

Then a 43 page arrest warrant

“I didn’t do it.” says his mistress,“He did it!”

He is dead.  She’s in jail.

And the desire for justice reaches beyond the grave to seize the living

How do you respond to the charges?  Not guilty.

No one, it seems, is guilty.

 

It was an intense divorce and custody battle

For he lay in wait

He lay in wait.

 

July 11, 2024

 

 

LAMONT NOMINATES 22 TO POSTS AS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES!

"The CT News Junkie" reports as follows:

Gov. Ned Lamont nominated 13 women and nine men as judges of the Superior Court Friday, a move aimed at ensuring diversity and expertise within the state judiciary. Notable nominees include former Hartford Mayor Pedro E. Segarra and Christine Jean-Louis, general counsel to the lieutenant governor.

“One of the most notable honors of my responsibilities as governor is to fill vacancies in our court system with capable jurists whose qualifications meet the high standards that the people of Connecticut deserve on the bench,” Lamont said. “This group of nominees I am forwarding to the legislature today continues this administration’s effort to ensure that the people who are serving as judges in our state reflect the diversity, experience, and understanding of the people who live here.”

For more information, please see the following link below.  The juciest tidbit on the list is the inclusion of well known family court Attorney Steve Dembo.  I'd be interested to know how people feel about that!

https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2024/03/04/gov-lamont-nominates-22-to-superior-court-bench/#:~:text=Gov.%20Ned%20Lamont%20nominated%2013,counsel%20to%20the%20lieutenant%20governor.

DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT SENDS HOLIDAY GREETINGS FOR 2023!

 

ADSENSE IS NONSENSE

 

In 2019, I received notice that the adsense account for this "Divorce in Connecticut" blog was terminated.  The reason they provided at the time was that there was insufficient original content.  Now losing adsense isn't really that much of a big deal.  I can't say I made that much money off of it.  It really is the principle of the matter.  The fact is that at least 90% of the material on this blog is original material which has been thoroughly and carefully researched.  I think that you as my readers would vouch for me in this matter.   Where I have not had original material, I had links to newspaper articles relevant to the topic of divorce, or Youtube videos centrally relevant to current events.  For instance, I might have videos of testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the CGA.  Is Adsense telling me you simply can't have any content at all that isn't original on a blog?  How can you conduct a social justice blog with that kind of restriction?  To complicate matters, the notice Adsense provides is in a "no-reply" format, and they don't give you any information on how to appeal their decision!  Recently, I sent a request to reinstate Adsense on my account, and I received the following reply: Your application status Thank you for your interest in AdSense. After reviewing your application, our specialists have found that it does not meet our program criteria. Therefore, we are unable to accept you into our program.

Our AdSense program policies are designed to ensure the effectiveness of Google ads for our publishers as well as for our advertisers. We review all publishers and we reserve the right to decline any application. If you are able to make changes to meet our program criteria, you may reapply for AdSense in the future.

Please note that we may not be able to respond to inquiries regarding the specific reasons for our decision. Thank you for your understanding.

Thanks, The Google AdSense Team Again, this is as puzzling as the previous notice I received cancelling adsense. What do they mean when they say, "Our specialists have found that it does not meet our program criteria?" To find out, I looked up the definition and found that again the issue of original content is at play: "To be eligible for Google AdSense, a website must have a significant amount of original and high-quality content. Websites that lack content, have content copied from other sources, or contain poorly written content are likely to be rejected by Google AdSense."  As I've said, and as you know, the vast majority of material on my website is original material.  If the folks who review my website are responsible and honest, they will acknowledge that.  I spent some time trying to find a way to contact the people who make these decisions. I looked for an appeal form which I could use to appeal the decision, and it was nowhere to be found. It is all very puzzling and difficult to figure out.  Talking about a nameless, faceless bureaucracy, Adsense has it.   I also wondered, and perhaps its paranoid, but could it be a disgruntled attorney wrote to complain about the content of this blog, and that's why it was cancelled?  It does make me curious as to whether political content impacts the decision adsense makes to remove or retain a blog, or to determine what is "poorly written content."

JENNIFERS' LAW HAS PASSED!

 The CT House of Representatives has passed Jennifers' Law.  See the article below:

CT lawmakers to consider Jennifers' Law in State House Friday (wtnh.com)

PUBLIC HEARING, MORE NEWS ON JENNIFERS' LAW

 

View this email in your browser

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

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

IS THIS BLOG ACTIVE?

I was recently asked whether this blog is active.  I certainly monitor the comments on the blog and pay attention if something new comes up. 

Otherwise, everything that I see going on is just repeat. 

I have written as much as I possibly can about what is going on in family court. All of the situations that I have described are continuing to happen. This is an ongoing situation. There has been little reform, and little indication that the legal profession or anyone else, the media, your average citizen, give a shit about what is happening to people. 

I could continue to cover this issue, but again, as I said, it would all be repeat. 

There are 1800 blogs in total on this website with extensive observations on what to expect in family court, how to handle your own family court situation, and overviews in detail of specific cases. 

I think I've pretty much covered it all. 

If anything new appeared, certainly I'd report on it. But at this point, it's all the corruption again and again with the same family court operators doing it. 

I'm not sure what more I can say here. Nothing much has changed. 

Prepare to have your life destroyed if you enter family court, particularly if you are a mother.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!

SPEAK UP ABOUT THESE JUDGES UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR REAPPOINTMENT!

Judiciary Committee  

PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 

Monday, February 10, 2020  

10:30 AM in Room 2E of the LOB  

I. NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW
To be a Judge of the Superior Court:
1. The Honorable John F. Blawie of Greenwich
2. The Honorable Patrick L. Carroll, III of Seymour
3. The Honorable Anna M. Ficeto of Wolcott
4. The Honorable Donna Nelson Heller of Riverside
5. The Honorable Frank A. Iannotti of North Haven
6. The Honorable Sybil V. Richards of Orange
7. The Honorable Dan Shaban of Middlebury
8. The Honorable Kenneth L. Shluger of Waterford
9. The Honorable Hillary B. Strackbein of Guilford
10. The Honorable Mark H. Taylor of West Hartford
11. The Honorable Theodore R. Tyma of Trumbull
12. The Honorable Elpedio N. Vitale of Madison

To be a Workers' Compensation Commissioner:
1. Soline Oslena of Oakdale

SUPPORT THE CHILD SAFETY FIRST ACT!

TODAY

EMAIL AND CALL THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

TO SUPPORT 

THE CHILD SAFETY FIRST BILL

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

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

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

Dear Representative …………….,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the addresses to cut and paste:

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

THE  CHILD SAFETY FIRST BILL

AUTHORED BY SENATOR ALEX BERGSTEIN

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

OUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS ARE WITH PARENTS DENIED ACCESS TO THE THEIR CHILDREN AT CHRISTMAS!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING...NOT.

SALUTING VETERANS ON VETERANS DAY! THANKS FOR EVERYTHING!

FAMILY COURT TRAGIC!

I

By Elizabeth A. Richter
I looked for committed activists in vain, for

There was brokenness as far as I could see

All I found was thick fog and the dreary rain

Bombs falling and shooters behind each tree

I figured this was my bad luck again

Plus folks want it all, but give-back is paltry

Still, I said I’d fight no matter what.  At least

I could give some a bit of what they sought

II

What can I do but list the typical wrongs

That family court has perp’d on me and you

We presented them to the Committee & Sen. Tong

All of whom talked like they had no clue

Actors all, they certainly knew all along

Of lawyers lying, evidence stolen and also

Rigged trials, bribed experts and corruption so deep

Parents are bankrupt because the cost is steep.

Next legal folks put their counter-truth on display

They cried and said parents put guns to their heads

Lawyers pulled out their violins and began to play

Judges spoke rivers about how carefully they listened

GALs fake tears over kids kept the truth at bay, while

Journalists twisted by threats repeated what they said

These fakes are so good and have such a good line

Family court victims seem out of their minds

We stand outside the Courts and hold demonstrations

Others speak to neighbors and hope they’ll understand

My friends live in fear of retaliation. So there’s no change.

When you go to Court with child abuse, you’ll be sure to find 

There’s no place to go for any protection

Because you’ll be accused of parental alienation

Meanwhile mothers end up homeless and alone

Children are bribed and their hearts turn to stone

III

This all arose out of a vision for father’s rights.

A bunch of right wingers saw Moms as welfare queens

They thought privileges for men would turn the tide

But now there are consequences they hadn’t seen

Men are now the Moms and they think they’re great

Moms have been driven away and are called unclean

I sit here and think what can I personally do

Still, change depends upon you and you and you.