GREAT ADVICE ON HOW TO HANDLE DCF FROM BLOG "MASS OUTRAGE"!

FOR THOSE  OF YOU WHO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE DCF, PLEASE REFER TO THE BELOW ARTICLE FROM "MASS OUTRAGE":

http://www.massoutrage.com/ma/cps-resources/dcf-dirty-tricks/

LIFENEWS REPORTS JUSTINA RECEIVING HUNDREDS OF EASTER CARDS!

This just in from "Life News: "Her parents may have been denied a chance to visit Justina Pelletier on Easter Sunday, but that hasn’t stopped hundreds of supporters from sending the teenager “Get Well” cards.

Justina is the sick teenager who state officials wrongfully took custody of away from her parents. The family will not be allowed to visit their daughter on Easter Sunday. The news comes after attorneys working with her family released a letter Justina reportedly wrote saying she is not being treated well.
Today, her sister Jennifer will join her parents for their scheduled weekly visit with Justina. Jennifer will attempt to hand deliver a mountain of “Get Well” cards to Justina from supporters.

For more information, please click on the link below:

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/18/hundreds-of-get-well-cards-headed-to-justina-pelletier-after-parents-denied-easter-visit/

MICHAEL NOWACKI TESTIFIES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING RULES AND FORMS, APRIL 14, 2014!

Annual Public Hearing

 Testimony

 Michael Nowacki

   April 14, 2014

             Connecticut General Statute 51-14 (b) (Exhibit 1) states specific protocols be followed by the judiciary when recommending proposed modifications to the Connecticut Practice Book Rules:

 “The Chief Justice shall report any such rules to the General Assembly for study at the beginning of each regular session.  Such rules shall be referred by the speaker of the House or the president of the Senate to the judiciary committee for its consideration and such committee shall schedule hearings thereon.”

            Evidence provided in the appendix to my remarks today provide factual proof, that Supreme Court Chief Justices, since 1969 (Exhibit 2), have failed to provide to the legislature the proposed “Practice Book Rules” at the beginning of the legislative sessions as the law requires.

Furthermore, factual proof exists, that the Connecticut legislature’s judiciary committee has failed in its duties to conduct hearings on the Practice Book Rules since 1968 (Exhibit 3), thus denying the “electorate” the opportunity to “provide input” into the process (as required by law) to ensure that the following constraints were enforced in the “study” of Practice Book Rules, as defined in C.G.S. 51-14 (a) (Exhibit 1):

“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right or the jurisdiction of any of the courts.”

            The Connecticut Practice Book has been used unlawfully since 1969 by the judiciary’s Rules Committee to engage in self-empowerment unintended by the legislative restraints articulated in 1957 in C.G.S. 51-14 (b).

At this public hearing, we will focus on current Practice Book Rules which are unlawful abridgments of fundamental constitutional rights, rules which are discriminatory in their construction to self-represented parties and those who claim disabilities under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Factual proof is also provided in the appendix to these remarks that on June 29, 2007, Justice Peter Zarella, as captured on page 32-33 of the annual judges meeting minutes (Exhibit 4), proposed a “six pronged resolution” which sanctioned “non-public meetings” with ranking members of the legislative judiciary committee to discuss the proposed Practice Book Rules in a direct abridgment of the protocols set forth in C.G.S. 51-14 (b). 

The following year, Practice Book Rule 9a (Exhibit 5) was created, in a brazen circumvention of the public’s rights to “hearings” to be conducted in the legislature, as required by C.G.S. 51-14 (b) (Exhibit 6).

Upon appointment as a judicial officer, each judge in the State of Connecticut, pursuant Article VI of the United States Constitution, and defined in C.G.S. Chapter 4 Oaths,  §1-25 takes the following oath or affirmation:

“You do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the state of Connecticut, so long as you continue a citizen thereof, and that you will faithfully discharge, according to the law, the duties of the office of…to the best of your abilities, so help you God.”

            Note that unlike other oaths of office in the State of Connecticut, a judicial officer who takes this oath (Exhibit 7) is not required to do so under the penalty of perjury.

The Connecticut Constitution states in Article XX (Exhibit 8):

“Section 1 of article fifth of the constitution is amended to read as follows:  The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a supreme court, an appellate court, a superior court, and such lower courts as the general assembly shall, from time to time, ordain and establish.  The powers and jurisdiction of these courts are defined by law.”

            Inasmuch as the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, including the present Chief Justice Chase Rogers, Justices Peter Zarella, and Dennis Eveleigh and Senator Andrew McDonald as chair of the judiciary committee prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court have failed to uphold the tenets of C.G.S. 51-14 (b), I am seeking the repeal of Practice Book Rule 9 (a) because it is directly contradictory to the clear and unambiguous protocols for introducing modifications to the Connecticut Practice Book Rules set forth in C.G.S. 51-14 (b). 

            Based upon factual presentation today of the “wanton, reckless and malicious” misuse of the Connecticut Practice Book to “self-empower” the judiciary in violation of C.G.S. §4-165, we seek the resignations of four members of the Supreme Court and the co-chairs of the judiciary committee, Representative Gerald Fox Jr. and Senator Eric Coleman for their roles in a “seditious” abridgment of the powers of separation of government defined in the U.S. Constitution and  in the failure to conduct “hearings” on proposed Practice Book Rules in the legislature again in 2014.                                                  

JANE DOE TESTIFIES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING RULES AND FORMS, APRIL 14, 2014!

Written Testimony

From Jane Doe

April 14, 2014

 

            I am choosing to speak today anonymously as my litigation issues are still active in the State of Connecticut.

            There isn’t a person who chooses self-representation as a first option and the continuing involvement of GALs and AMCs in post judgment matters continue to be a financial drain on the families in the State of Connecticut who have no ability to be able to remove a GAL once a dissolution of a marriage is entered as an order of the court.

            This practice of open ended assignments for court appointees as GALs and AMCs must be eliminated because it does not serve the best interests of our children.

            The party with more financial resources post judgment should not be able to force payments to court appointees and then have a Court apportion fee payments once a dissolution decree is finalized. 

            It is quite often apparent that when “extended family” financial resources are available to “torture” an ex-spouse in litigation, the courts do not account for such “financial support” from third parties from being considered in a post judgment financial affidavit in JD FM 6-Long Form which is to be used effective January 1, 2014 for all parties who have income or assets in excess of $75,000.

            As already suggested today, it is long overdue that attorneys co-sign financial affidavits in Connecticut under the same threat of sanctions and incarcerations, which is required of all self-represented litigants (who are reportedly encompassing 85% of all family court dockets) when signing financial affidavit JD FM 6 Long or Short Form.  It is time for the gavel of justice to be applied to attorneys and to remind all so registered with a juris number of their obligations defined in the Attorney’s Oath as subject to the criminal penalties of perjury.

            Furthermore, the filing of JD FM 6 must be more closely connected to compliance with the mandatory discovery and compliance with Connecticut Practice Book §25-32.  Providing validation for the claims made in a financial affidavit can be easily accomplished by adding a section to JD FM 6 which indicates:

“ Within thirty days of the filing of this financial affidavit mandatory discovery and compliance with provisions of Connecticut Practice Book §25-32 upon dating and signing of JD FM 6.”

            In post judgment cases, if a party is receiving subsidies from a third party to pay for legal fees, whether paid to legal counsel or an AMC or GAL, the amounts of such third party contributions must be added to the JD FM 6.

This form must also be amended to indicate whether the business interests of a litigant involve the full and complete disclosure of “cash” payments to a business partnership.

            In addition, JD FM 6 must be amended to add questions in regards to assets or income which may be located in foreign banks or in any foreign country or U.S. territory with specific directions as to whether “foreign dividend income” is declared on Form 1116 of the federal tax returns or income declared in Federal IRS FBAR TD F 09-22.1.

This requirement for disclosure of foreign assets is also a required disclosure in the PATRIOT Act.

In any post judgment action, the subject of inheritance assets received must be disclosed but not necessarily considered as income if such assets were acquired after the dissolution of a marriage.

            In 2009, the United States reached a treaty agreement with the government of Switzerland, concerning the disclosure of assets being held in foreign countries.  In Wall Street Journal articles it was detailed that the top reasons for use of Swiss banks was to hide assets from disclosure during divorce action and from U.S. based inheritance taxes.

            Certainly, the courts of Connecticut should have a zero tolerance stance on tax avoidance schemes such as these in family court matters.  There are long overdue reforms needed in our family courts.  We look forward to the implementation of these modifications to JD FM 6 Long and Short forms that are proposed today in the true best interests of our children.

            A GAL in a case in Fairfield County has billed over $200,000.00 at $575 an hour.  She has never once seen the child with the father.  In playing the system and fanning the flames of this divorce, this attorney is the equivalent of a car mechanic causing a problem in your car which can then be fixed to make more money.  For the next ten years at her whim she can make a phone call and proceed to charge the parties $575 an hour.  There are no checks and balances and nothing to stop her from billing thousands upon thousands of dollars in the years ahead for absolutely no reason.  This also is a case whereby the open ended assignment of a GAL warrants elimination when there is even a renowned psychologist serving as parenting coordinator in this very same case.

            These walls surrounding us were built to embrace and ensure that justice is carried out by those within serving in such capacities.  That is not what is happening in family court room’s across this state.

            We urge that an end be put to the rape and pillage of our financial resources by ceasing the practice of open ended appointments of GALs and AMCs.  Thank you.

MARATHON CONNECTICUT OLMSTEAD CASE SLOWLY LUMBERS TO A CLOSE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

On February 14, 2006, Attorney Michael Allen of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law in Washington, D.C. delivered a speech challenging then Lieutenant Governor Sullivan with a clarion call—release the nearly 3,000 people with primary psychiatric diagnoses trapped in nursing homes here in Connecticut and allow them to live with supports in their homes and communities.

Over eight years later, with the submission to Federal District Court of an historic agreement dated April 11, 2014, it looks as though the State of Connecticut is going to do just that. 

But it didn't happen overnight! In 2006, the Office of Protection and Advocacy supported by the Bazelon Center and the pro bono assistance of the New York law firm Stroock, Stroock & Lavan launched its federal lawsuit against The Connecticut Department of Social Services, the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the Connecticut Department of Public health as well as the nursing homes West Rock, Bidwell, and Chelsea Place. Since that time, West Rock has closed its doors. 

This lawsuit has been going on for an extraordinarily long time. I am aware that the Office of Protection and Advocacy was gearing up to launch this lawsuit as early as 2005, and now we are almost halfway through 2014. The case includes at least 200 plaintiffs in its class action suit, but the outcome will ultimately affect thousands of Connecticut citizens with serious mental illness who are now or who at one time or another may end up in a nursing home. 

From the time that it was filed, the State attempted to have the case dismissed, but failed in the attempt when the Federal Court ruled against it in 2010. From that time onward the case remained in litigation limbo as the parties obtained stay after stay while they conducted arms length, often hostile negotiations to resolve the matter.

What has been most striking about this lawsuit is the fact that essentially, for eight years, what has been involved here is one part of the State of Connecticut (the Office of Protection and Advocacy) fighting another part of the State of Connecticut (DSS, DMHAS) costing thousands of dollars in legal fees, apparently without any visible results, until very recently. 

Yet financially speaking, getting people out of nursing homes only makes sense. While the cost of housing someone in a nursing home is approximately $60,000 per year, it costs only $22,500 per year to maintain an individual in an apartment in the community. 

Among nursing home residents, you have many elderly, disabled, as well as persons with serious mental health disabilities. The State of Connecticut is well aware that with the baby boomers expanding the population of elderly in our State, maintaining our elderly primarily in nursing homes is simply not feasible in the long run.

Thus, during the time that this case has been going on the State of Connecticut has developed a Strategic “Rebalancing” Plan to save millions of dollars by shifting residents from nursing homes back into their homes and communities where they can live with supports. Such residents who have been transitioned out of nursing homes thus far have included elderly persons and the physically disabled. 

As the Court recognized in this recent agreement, it should also include those with serious mental health issues. 

The State of Connecticut has been implementing this program since 2007 with the support of millions of dollars from federal programs such as “Money Follows the Person” enacted in 2005 as part of the Deficit Reduction Act. 

Housing people with mental health disabilities in their communities is the law. In the 1999 case Olmstead v. L.C., the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the States are required to provide services for those with mental illness in the most integrated setting possible. 

This decision was based upon the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a 1990 statute which Attorney Michael Allen has equated with the “Emancipation Proclamation” for people with mental health disabilities. 

In addition, in 2010 the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of the Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy. And finally, that same year, in a similar lawsuit, the State of Illinois lost its bid to maintain mental health clients in nursing homes in violation of the Olmstead Act.

So has there been any progress up to this point? Recently, I called the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction services and asked them straightforwardly: has there been a reduction in the number of persons with mental health diagnoses in nursing homes since 2006 when the OPA lawsuit was filed. They told me that they no longer collect that kind of information. 

However, according to the online journal “Heath Affairs”, in a recent study, Connecticut was estimated to have the highest rate of people with mental illness in nursing homes in the nation. 

Yet there are signs of hope. In 2010, when Illinois lost its lawsuit, nursing homes implemented a scare tactic campaign to discourage people with mental health disabilities from returning to their communities. As a result, only 45 people actually decided to return to the community. 

In contrast, spokesperson Laurel Reagan of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services has stated clearly that the Department is prepared to support people in their transition into the community from nursing homes, no matter how severe the difficulty. 

In addition, the proposed settlement includes specific safeguards to prevent the use of any kinds of scare tactics which might hinder nursing home residents with mental illness from taking advantage of the new opportunity they have to live in the community. While residents with serious mental health issues will have the right to choose whether or not to take advantage of their new opportunity to live in the community, nursing homes will be required to educate nursing home residents regarding what is involved in living in the community, and also regarding what supports will be available to them once they are placed in the their new homes. In addition, even if residents reject the option of living in the community, nursing homes will still be required to remind residents that the option is available and that they are encouraged to take advantage of it. 

In addition, a remedial expert, Mr. Kevin Martone, M.S.W., will be hired to monitor the progress of transitioning nursing home residents with mental illness back into the community. Mr. Martone, a native of New Jersey and a graduate of Rutgers University has extensive experience in this area. He is currently Executive Director of the Technical Assistance Collaborative in Boston, MA. Mr. Martone will submit reports regarding the progress of the state agencies when it comes to returning residents to their communities. Further, he will identify barriers to getting the job done and provide recommendations for overcoming those barriers. 

Of course, there is a caution in this situation. It makes sense that folks who recall some of the more disastrous results of the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients during the 60s and 70s may be justifiably alarmed by the thought of another round. 

We know that many people with mental health issues are currently in jail simply because they did not have the kinds of community supports to which they are entitled under Olmstead. Thus, if we are going to get people out of the nursing homes, we must ensure that they receive legitimate community supports. From the plans that I saw detailed in the Settlement agreement, this kind of support will be in place. 

Attorney Michael Allen is no longer in the case. He left the Bazelon Center a few years ago and is now working in private practice. When I spoke to him, he repeated his original point that the State of Connecticut must abide by Olmstead and allow people with mental health diagnoses to live in their communities. 

Right now, as negotiations continue, the lead attorney Nancy Alisberg has repeated this sentiment. A considerable amount of financial resources, all manner of preparations have been put into place to do just that. So it is very exciting that on the verge of the upcoming Easter season, the season of hope, and anticipation of new life, that during the Passover when we recall the Israelites release from Egypt and the beginning of their journey back to The Promised Land, it looks as though nursing homes will follow through and return residents to homes in their communities to begin their new lives. This is only fitting. 

One down note is that, under this agreement, Members of the class will not receive financial remuneration for their pain and suffering which they endured while being held illegally in nursing homes. The Defendants will only pay $1,300,000 in attorney's fees. which I don't imagine will begin to cover the costs of conducting the lawsuit. But the benefits that will emerge for residents and to their families are incalculable.

CT LAW TRIBUNE OPINION PIECE ON GALS REQUIRING BETTER OVERSIGHT!

Attorney Michelle Cruz shares her opinions on the GAL system as follows:

"Recently, criticism of the state's guardians ad litem have hit an all-time high. GALs are reportedly withdrawing from their cases left and right, while grievances appear to be mounting. Family court, by definition, is charged with high emotions and children, unfortunately, are at the center of the storm. The GAL is supposed to be a beacon in the dark night, illuminating a path so a child can endure the tumultuous waters of a divorce or custody battle.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

This very issue came up the other day while I camped out in court, waiting for a hearing. I heard a family court judge explaining to countless divorcing couples, unable to come to an agreement over custody and visitation of their children, about the limitations of a guardian ad litem. The judge explained that the best person to decide the child's future is often their parent. The parents, in most cases, understand their children and, if they can come to an agreement, are the most qualified to make these life-altering decisions.

The judge went on to caution the couples marching through the courtroom that a GAL is an outsider — a third party — coming in to assess, investigate and make recommendations for the couple's children. Even though they attempt to do the right thing, the judge said, the GAL is still an outsider looking in."

For more on this topic, please click on the link below: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202651364859/Opinion%3A-Better-Oversight-Needed-For-Guardians-Ad-Litem#ixzz2z4o25a4k

MARISA RINGEL'S TESTIMONY REGARDING RULES AND FORMS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, APRIL 14, 2014!

Supreme Court in Hartford
Public Hearing on Rules and Forms
Written Testimony of Marisa Ringel

April 14, 2014

 

Justices of the Supreme Court and/or Committee of Justices members:

            I am hear today to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            The 14^th Amendment clearly states:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            In Stanley V. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651; 92 S.Ct. 1208, (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court stressed:

“The parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. ..A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.”

            It is my suggestion that the Connecticut Practice Book incorporate these two quotes to open Section 25.

            Every parent, absent abuse or neglect, in the Constitution State should have a fundamental equal right to parent their children without the interference of government.

            While there is legislative authority granted to provide for various awards of custody in the State of Connecticut, there does not appear to be any specific legislative authority for a judge in the State of Connecticut to force a parent into “supervised visitation” absent abuse or neglect.

            Yet, in the family courts of the State of Connecticut, “supervised visitation” is often ordered without any justification that a “child’s welfare” is in danger.

            Therefore, I am proposing a new Practice Book Rule 25-70:

“No judicial authority shall have the right to issue an order of supervised visitation without conducting an evidentiary hearing to establish whether there are grounds for an order to show cause that “clear and present danger to the physical/psychological well-being of a child” exists that requires an limited time order of supervised visitation.

No order of supervised visitation shall remain in place for more than three months, without conducting another evidentiary hearing at which any party can call witnesses, including those supervising the visitation, to report to the court on their observations of the parent-child interactions.”

            There are reports in Fairfield County of supervised visitation which have been in place for more than two years, in which fees in excess of $20,000 have been paid by a parent to conduct a once a week four hour visitation.

            Supervised visitation cannot be seen as a “first option” response from a judicial authority to make parenting time “unaffordable” or a “punitive measure”.

            The 1886 Supreme Court decision in Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 stated:

“Law and court proceedings that are ‘fair on their faces’ but administered ‘with an evil eye or heavy hand’ was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

            Family courts must provide divorced parent the same rights and obligations of their children as if still married.  Otherwise, the court is administrating a criteria in a manner which discriminates against a class of citizens based on “un-married status”.

            Such discrimination by the family court judges against any class of citizens who are no longer married would constitute a violation of Title 42, Section 1983.

            Each of us who is speaking today, is a victim of orders of “supervised visitation” at the current time or in some past order issued in the family court system in Connecticut. 

            Each of us has been and has always aspired to be a “fit parent” and have been “humiliated” and “degraded” by a family court judge who has abused their powers in administering family court justice through ordering “supervised visitation” without an order to show cause.

            This authority to order supervised visitation has no statutory authority and is therefore an abuse of discretion and must be curtailed.