FATHERHOOD FUNDED PILOT PROGRAM INVOLVED IN CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEMES CONTINUES TO ATTRACT OUTRAGE!

(This article is written by an author who chooses to write anonymously in order to protect him/herself from retaliation.)

 

PART I:

 

One would think that the measure of a "Responsible Father" is his ability to refrain from engaging in abusive litigation, violence, and drugs.  However, the Court Support Services Division (CSSD) in Connecticut rewards fathers for doing just the opposte and further rewards crooked lawyers by incentivizing the placement of children in violent homes.  Judge Lynda Munro's professional commitment to making sure that the MINORITY of unfit fathers retain ownership of the crime victims they assault and torture as demonstrated here will make you think twice about who is and is not a fit parent, as well as where your money is going.

Arising from the mandate of the Public Act 09-175, An Act Concerning Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Families, here is CSSD's Fatherhood Program, an initiative innocuously entitled "Problem Solving Initiative".  You can find it at the following link:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/pst/problemsolving/NH_pilot/Problem_Solving_Initiative_Report_063010.pdf

According to CSSD, the purpose of this Fatherhood Program is as follows:

"Since the passage of AAC Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Families, the Judicial Branch with the assistance and support of community partners, has been actively working to design and implement a viable problem solving court model for Title IV-D child support matters heard in the Family Support Magistrate Division of Superior Court...The Judicial Branch Problem Solving Initiative collaborated with community services providers and state agency partners, to develop and design a judicial process using multidisciplinary, court-based problem solving techniques to address the underlying issues of the parents appearing in family support court.  The goals of the Initiative include, but are not limited to:  1) increasing a parent's employment skills; 2) increasing a parent's ability to pay child support; 3) determining appropriate child support orders; 4) assisting parents in accessing the services that will help better their lives; and 5) assisting parents in strengthening their relationship with their children..."

I wonder if the mothers who appear before Judge Lynda Munro understand that her professional reputation and the failure or success of this Fatherhood pilot program rides on the Court's ability to arbitrarily switch custody to UNFIT violent fathers, many of whom are unemployed, have drug problems, are homeless, and have treatment resistent mental health problems?

 

Apparently, not only Judge Lynda Munro, but the Judicial Branch itself is deeply implicated in these custody switching schemes.  Thus, the report on the Problem Solving Pilot Program states the following:

 

"In January 2009, the judicial Branch convened the Problem Solving in family Matters Committee.  Chaired by Judge Lynda Munro, Chief Administrative Judge, Family Divison, the committee was charged with exploring the feasibility of creating a problem solving justice model to assist parents with cases in the FSMD by linking them to community services that would help them achieve the ersonal and economic stability needed to meet their support obligations.  In June 2009, the committee produced a report that contained a variety of recommendations, including implementation of a pilot problem solving court session in either the Judicial District of New Haven or Waterbury.  the report also recommended that the pilot program partner with ccommunity agencies to provide key services in areas such as housing, employment, education, fathering/parenting, and mental health and addiction services."

 

What is your definition of an unfit parent?  Do custodial parents know that judges are meeting with unfit fathers to help them with their custody cases?  Is it really a good idea to ORDER unfit and unwilling fathers with drug problems, recalcitrant mental health issues, etc. to show up for parenting time?  Shouldn't we be offering this assistance to fit parents rearing children?  Shouldn't we be asking CUSTODIAL PARENTS about whether this is safe, and keeping them abreast of these secret hearings and meetings?  I don't see anywhere that mentions this happening. 

 

So what is happening?  Essentially, judges are being encouraged to summon deadbeat non-custodial parents to Court under the threat of contempt in order to determine whether they have backgrounds that are sufficiently negative to justify their participation in the Problem Solving Program.  The guidelines provided for this purpose are as follows:

 

"In situations where an obligated noncustodial parent has failed to make child support payments, an obligated parent [not the CUSTODIAL PARTY] may be summoned to court to show cause as to why he or she should not be found in contempt [which could result in jail time.]  During a pre-hearing discussion with the obligated noncustodial parent, the Support Enforcement Officer asks a series of questions to determine if any of the following criteria are present:

 

- The parent reports having a criminal record;

 

- The parent reports an inconsistent reocrd of employment or earnings.

 

- The parent reports a lack of secondary school education and/or skills necessary to meet basic employer requirements.

 

- The parent reports the existence of one or more personal factors (e.g. limited English proficiency, lack of housing, mental health needs, drug and/or alcohol abuse) that may be impeding his/her ability to fulfill the duty to support.

 

The existence of two or more of the above factors, plus the parent's willingness to participate, makes a case potentially eligible for referral to the Pilot.  The existence of the criteria is reported to the Family Support Magistrate presiding over the contempt docket.  The Family Support Magistrate canvasses the obligated noncustodial parent and reviews the reported criteria.  In addition, the Magistrate will determine if the custodial parent objects to transferring the case to the Pilot.  If the Magistrate is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the claimed barriers exist, the case is referred to the Pilot and an order is entered for the parent to meet with the SES problem solving case manager for a full assessment."

 

So, if the Magistrate determines that the custodial parent objects to transferring the case to the pilot, will he then cease the intervention?  As you can see, the guidelines do not say that.  This means, I presume, that the custodial parents' objections will be noted for the record and then simply ignored. 

 

Given the signficant impact that a full assessment of a non custodial parent will have on the lives of the children involved, should he be reintroduced into their lives, it is worth asking what are the qualifications of the SES problem solving case manager?  They don't tell you.  I would suspect that this is a Family Services manager getting paid under the AV/TIP grant, but again, there is no information in this regard.  So the SES Case Manager with unknown qualifications assesses the offender and gives the report to the Magistrate--but not the mother?

 

This is what the program description states:

 

"The assessment offers the Family Support Magistrate presiding in the problem solving court a detailed portrait of the obligated noncustodial parent's personal history and current needs."

 

Really?  And these services are supposed to be for the purpose of getting the parent to pay child support to benefit the child whose home the Magistrate is not communicating with?  What about the custodial parent's due process rights?  If she cannot get a copy of this report, why not?

 

MORE ABOUT THIS CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME IN THE UPCOMING PART II

 

 

 

PART III: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE V. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE LYNDA MUNRO--DUMB AND DUMBER

I think everyone understands how important the custody issue is in a divorce.  And that any changes in custody should be made only after careful consideration of the circumstances. 

 

This is no less true in the Skipp-Tittle case. 

 

For the better part, it is well understood that Shawn Tittle had a very time consuming job, and that Susan Skipp, a teacher, was the primary caretaker of their children for the majority of the parties' marriage.  I don't think there was ever a dispute regarding this point, and Judge Munro touches upon it lightly on page 15 of her Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 where she states that "the father had been career driven."  As a result, the dissolution agreement of March 28, 2011 established Susan Skipp as the residential parent.

 

Yet, according to Judge Lynda Munro's summary of the case, on September 13, 2011, Judge Resha transferred sole legal custody, and apparently residential custody, of the minor children to the father.  This occurred approximately five and a half months after the dissolution of the marriage.  To me this would seem hardly sufficiently time for a substantial change in circumstances warranting such a change in custody. 

 

Initially, I assumed that some dramatic incident must have taken place in order to justify such a considerable change--perhaps some extraordinary incident where mother neglected the children, or where mother was involved in some drug or alcohol abuse or some kind of criminal behavior.  In fact, nothing of the kind took place. 

 

Here is how the change in custody went down. 

 

The dissolution agreement included several statements regarding how the parties in the case were not to make negative remarks about the other parent to anyone.   Of course, that, in my opinion, is a bit of a setup.  When the opposing side insists upon such extraordinary detail about all the people you cannot make negative remarks to, naturally you are going to make a mistake. 

 

Just as a point in contrast, in my own dissolution agreement, I only have one such statement when it came to that particular point, because no one was trying to set me up--at least when it came to that.   

 

In May of 2011, Shawn Tittle was involved in the DUI incident where he tried to escape the scene of an accident without properly reporting to the police.  Subsequent to that incident, Susan Skipp apparently called her father-in-law to discuss what happened.  Boom--they got her!  As Judge Munro reports in her summary, "Reflecting on the specificity in the custody provisions, the trial court noted that the mother violated them by contacting the father's father and the court found that she 'made negative, derogatory, mean-spirited and vindictive comments to him.'  This violated the court orders of the judgment." 

 

You see, without all that lovely specificity which Shawn Tittle insisted upon including in the dissolution agreement, Susan wouldn't have been in so much trouble!  And, of course, we all know that, when it came to what Susan said, the report of a former father-in-law is going to be completely reliable and trustworthy--NOT! 

 

This decision to give Shawn Tittle sole custody was made even though at the time the incident occurred, this was prior to any real work getting under way with the parent manager, Dr. Howard Kriger.  It was also prior to the completion of the Family Relations Report which was only submitted the following year on March 2012. 

 

I don't know, just common sense wise, at the time of dissolution, the parties' emotions are still riding very high and it takes sometimes over a year, or even more, for them to calm down, particularly if there has been considerable high conflict.  Would it have been possible to give Susan Skipp a bit of a break, a bit of time to allow some counseling to kick in before snatching the children from her grasp at the first sign of a minor infraction?  Or was the whole thing a setup in the first place?  

 

Judge Munro reports that Susan Skipp's conversation with her father-in-law "violated the court orders of the judgment", i.e. not to speak badly about the other party.  

 

Of course, I am pretty much certain that Susan was in a similar position to many protective mothers--fathers are allowed to violate the court orders of the judgment repeatedly, fathers are never held accountable for anything that they do, fathers are excused from any kind of abuse and wrongdoing, but mothers? 

 

Mothers are held in contempt for blinking an eyelid--seriously.  I would like a run down in the Tittle/Skipp case as to how many times Shawn Tittle violated the court orders of the judgment.  I'll bet it was plenty of times and he was never held to account the way Susan was.  

 

I can only begin to imagine what a terrible blow it was to Susan to lose residential custody of her children--and not only residential custody, decision making as well. I can just imagine how desperate she felt.  And I'll just bet she sent more single sentence emails than ever before after it happened!

 

Then, a few months later, on December 19, 2011, the Court suspended all of Susan Skipp's child support and alimony until further order of the court.  My understanding is that the reason this happened was Susan was accused of putting nasty comments about Shawn Tittle's professional capabilities on the internet. The GAL, Mary Brigham presented testimony to the effect that, as a result of these comments, Shawn Tittle had lost his job and was now unemployed and could not afford the payments.  The trial court made its decision based on that testimony. 

Susan Skipp has acknowledged that she put a remark on the internet in August 2010 prior to dissolution which she took down, but that was well before the December 2011 court date.  In any case, people say things during marital disputes, particularly during a divorce; I am not sure why that would influence Danbury Hospital a year later.  But if it did, I would have wanted to hear from them directly, and not through the GAL.  In addition, I am not sure it was the GAL's business to investigate this matter or get on the stand to testify about it.  Isn't she supposed to be focusing on the children? 

 

The  bottom line is, however, that the GAL's testimony was based upon hearsay, which is very shaky evidence.  How can the GAL, Mary Brigham, possibly know what was on the minds of the Administrators at Danbury Hospital when they fired Shawn Tittle, if they fired him.  Did she have a letter from those administrators?  No.  Did she have a sworn affidavit from these administrators?  No.  Anything at all?  Well, no.  From my understanding, all she had was Shawn Tittles' sayso, which does not seem very objective to me. 

 

If you are going to suspend a persons' income, it seems to me that in a court of law you should have something more than just hearsay. 

 

Of course, this court ruling led to a considerable loss of income for Susan Tittle and placed her in a financial crisis, and the first result of that would obviously be that she was unable to pay her legal counsel.  I'll just bet she fired off a few more single sentence emails expressing her anger after that trial court hearing! 

 

And don't forget that from December 2011 up until the present, Susan Skipp's child support and alimony are still suspended, long after the judgment of October 16, 2012.  I mean, do they ever intend to handle this issue? 

 

I guess if you are a well paid judge with a steady income, you might become insensitive to people who actually depend upon their child support and alimony to pay their bills. 

 

On top of that, at the September 2011 hearing before Judge Resha, Susan Skipp was ordered to pay GAL fees to the tune of $1,000 per month. By the time the December hearing came up, Susan had failed to do so (And actually, thank God she didn't since the court eventually took away her child support and alimony).  As a result, she was held in contempt and ordered to pay around $3,000 in attorneys' fees. 

 

And, again, this shows a lack of equality in terms of how Susan Skipp was treated in contrast to her ex husband.  First of all, the GAL filed this motion for contempt against Susan Skipp regarding her attorney's fees when, as a GAL, she is not supposed to be filing motions as far as I know. 

 

Second, Shawn Tittle was just as much in contempt in regard to paying the GAL, but no motions of contempt were filed against him. 

 

In fact, at the time of the August 2012 trial, both Shawn Tittle and Susan Skipp owed the exact same amount to the GAL.  If you look at page 20 of the October 16, 2012 Memorandum of Decision written by Judge Lynda Munro it states, "The guardian ad litem is owed substantial amounts of money by both parties."  And she further states that there is "a balance due from Ms. Skipp of $38,230.30 and from Dr. Tittle a balance of $38,580.81".  In fact, it looks as though Shawn Tittle actually owed more.  

 

So why was Susan Skipp targeted for punishment and fined, but Shawn Tittle was not? 

 

In her Memorandum of Decision, Judge Lynda Munro expresses herself as puzzled in regard to Susan Skipp's behavior.  What motivated Susan Skipp to act the way she did?  Why did Susan say the things she said?  

 

Since Judge Lynda Munro appears to struggle so greatly and is so incapable of thinking the answer through.  Let me suggest a few.  Perhaps the fact that Susan Skipp was treated in such a grossly unjust manner, could be one possibility?  The system was rigged?  How about the completely lawless behavior of a trial court sworn to up hold the law.  Or, how about another, perhaps because Family Court reached out and stole Susan Skipp's children as well as considerable assets from her under false pretenses? 

 

Choose any one of these, and you are probably right.  More on this later...

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-ii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iv-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-v-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

AND THEY CALL THEM INSANE!

In the early 70s, a group of eight people--three women and five men--checked into the emergency rooms of 12 separate psychiatric hospitals and said that they heard voices telling them "empty", "hollow", or "thud".  All eight of them were admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of schizophrenia, except one who was diagnosed with bipolar.

 

Once in the hospital, all of these patients behaved completely normally and reported that they had no more symptoms.  Still it took from 7 to 52 days for them to be released.  As a condition of their release, they were all required to admit that they had a mental illness and that they would take anti-psychotic medication in order to control that illness. 

 

As it turned out, none of these folks had a mental illness.  They were all volunteers in an experiment conducted by Dr. David Rosenhan in order to test the validity of psychiatric diagnoses.  One was a graduate student in his twenties, three were psychologists, and there was a pediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter and a housewife. 

 

Once the results of this experiment came out, the doctors at these hospitals cried foul and said that the test was unfair, so Dr. Rosenhan agreed to do it again with one specific hospital.  This time he warned the hospital to expect that fake patients would again attempt admittance to its facility.  In the weeks that followed, the staff at the hospital confidently identified 41 out the 193 patients that it had evaluated as fake patients. 

 

As it turned out, Dr. Rosenhan hadn't sent anyone to the facility at all. 

 

The results of this study made it clear how difficult it is to distinguish between the sane and the insane, particularly within the context of a hospital emergency room where staff members are approaching patients with specific expectations. 

 

Ironically, even though none of the staff members in the first experiment identified the fake patients, several of the patients at these hospitals expressed their doubts suggesting that the fake patients were researchers or journalists investigating the hospitals. 

 

The results of this study were published by Dr. David Rosenhan in 1973 in an article entitled "Being Sane in Insane Places." 

 

While the study remains controversial within the mental health profession, no one has been able to successfully refute its conclusions.  Put twenty five different psychiatrists in a room with a patient, and you are likely to obtain as many diagnoses of that patient as you have psychiatrists. 

 

This is why it is particularly troubling that the Connecticut Judicial Branch allows Judges and attorneys to use fabricated mental health assessments to trash the reputations of litigants and use them as the basis for denying them access to their children.   Many of these litigants have never had a diagnosis before they stepped into a courtroom. 

 

I observed this happening in Susan Skipp's case recently.  The trial court had heard expert testimony from Ms. Skipp's psychiatrist that she had PTSD from the legal abuse which she was experiencing as a result of her divorce. 

 

Ordinarily, any conclusion the Court draws about litigants in court arises from the evidence provided at trial through expert testimony or documents which provide corroborating information.  In Susan Skipp's situation, Judge Lynda Munro without any evidentiary basis whatsoever arbitrarily disregarded the testimony about Ms. Skipp's PTSD and wrote a Memorandum of Decision which broadly hinted that Ms. Skipp had some other, unnamed mental health condition that still needed to be diagnosed. 

 

This is something that Judge Munro invented from her own mind.  Yet, Munro is not a psychiatrist and has no professional qualifications to diagnose anyone with a mental health condition.  If she had concerns that Susan Skipp had some unidentified mental health condition, she had the opportunity to ask that question of the expert witnesses which the attorney made available during the four days of trial, but she did not. 

 

Instead, Judge Lynda Munro took the opportunity to smear Ms. Skipps reputation counting upon her judicial immunity as a means to get away with doing so. 

 

Subsequently, the Judge continued on the use this unnamed mental health illness, about which there was no evidence presented at trial, as the basis for denying Ms. Skipp access to her children. 

 

In a similar case which I observed recently, another friend who will remain anonymous--let's call him "Joe" was also subjected to this Judge initiated pseudo-psychiatry. 

 

Joe had provided an expert witness from out of state to testify to the effect that Joe did not have a mental illness.  Instead of accepting this testimony, the Judge in the case refused to consider it  valid because it came from a mental health professional from out of state.  Tell me, what did the Judge think happens?  Mental Health Professionals from, say, New Jersey, lose their professional expertise and intelligence as soon as they cross the border into Connecticut?  That doesn't say much about any of the professions in the field of mental health if their body of knowledge cannot be translated from one State to another!  

 

Be that as it may, having decided that an out of state mental health professional is incapable of providing an accurate assessment of my friend, Joe, the Judge went on to declare that Joe had a mental health disability; he isn't sure what it is, and what it consists of, but surely an in-state professional could figure it out.  Further, the Judge's decision was that Joe would be restricted to supervised visitation until the diagnosis could be figured out.  

 

Another way that you could interpret the discussion in Joe's case is that the Court was only willing to have a mental health professional provide testimony if he was in-state and affiliated with the Judge and the Opposing Attorney so the latter could influence the result of the psychological evaluation.  If true, this calls into question the integrity of any mental health professional who would allow factors outside the evaluation itself, (i.e. friendship with the judge or other attorneys) to affect his or her determination of a particular person's diagnosis.   

 

As with Susan and "Joe", I can name case after case where judges and attorneys have hinted at unnamed mental health conditions to gain advantage in a case, or to have their own way, independent of the facts of the case. 

 

This is not the first time in history where people in positions of power have sought to maintain and expand their authority by accusing their opponents of insanity.  Nazi Germany comes to mind, Russia and its Eastern European Allies; the People's Republic of China during the era of Mao Zedong.  Women, particularly intelligent women, have been victimized by false accusations of insanity for doing such things as fighting for the right to vote or demanding an education.  And don't forget the notorious diagnosis of drapetomania, invented in 1851 by Samuel A. Cartwright to describe a mental illness which caused slaves to run away from their bondage. 

 

Even if there were any validity to a diagnosis of mental illness, why is a mental health disability or any disability for that matter used as a means to deny a person access to their children or due process of law?  Wasn't the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 implemented with the intention of eliminating discrimination on the basis of disability? 

If a person has a disability as determined by Family Court, either a physical or mental disability, shouldn't the question be what reasonable modifications does that person require in order to fulfill his or her role as a parent--not how can we immediately strip that person of all his or her civil rights and constitutional rights without any further investigation.  Why is there such a powerful knee jerk reaction of condemnation and rejection simply as the result of a label.  If a person who has blindness or a person who has deafness can still be a parent, why not a person with mental illness.  What's the difference?

 

More than any other, an attorney's accusation that a particular litigant has some form of mental illness is the most harmful and damaging one out there.  Why is that so?  Because it appeals to society's most basic prejudices towards people with mental illness, to such concepts that people with mental illness are subhuman monsters capable of any kind of violence and degradation, that they are incapable of taking care of themselves and that they are intellectually damaged beyond repair and incapable of rudimentary thought and insight.  Many people believe that any kind of deception and misrepresentation is acceptable to practice against a person who has a mental illness because they believe that someone with a mental health label should have no rights. 

 

With such widespread and prevalent attitudes of hatred towards those with mental illness, particularly after the Sandy Hook incident, trashing a person by calling them crazy has to be the easiest way to achieve the goal of destroying the opposing party in a custody trial. 

 

At the same time such practices are morally and spiritually repugnant in that they stigmatize, marginalize, silence, and deny justice to one fifth of the population in our State, and it is done with the support of the moral equivalent of the KKK when it comes to mental health disabilities, i.e. the Connecticut Judicial Branch, the Connecticut Bar Association, judges, attorneys, family services personnel, clerks, and other employees who work for our family courts all of whom buy into the false, bigoted premise that people with mental health disabilities should not be allowed any of the kinds of legal rights which are routinely accorded to citizens of Connecticut who do not have a label.  From what I have personally observed, bigoted attitudes like this are common among those who work in the legal field and accepted uncritically.  This is wrong and it has to stop--now.

As a final thought, it is worth considering: 

If Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he would probably be denied custody of his children.  He had frequent bouts of clinical depression.

Ludwig Van Beethoven was involved in a custody dispute regarding his nephew Karl and won.  Were he in Family Court in Connecticut today, he might not gain custody because he is thought to have had bipolar disorder.

Many average citizens have mental health disorders; they ride to work on the same buses that you do, pay taxes, get college degrees, and go to Church.  They do not have horns.  Isn't it time for Court personnel and family court attorneys to acknowledge that this is true and stop demonizing innocent people.



 

MORE NEWS ON THE JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY TO STEAL YOUR CHILDREN!

It is dinnertime and you and your children just sat down for your meal.  There is a knock on the door.  You open the door and find several police officers standing there with a court order removing the children from your care and handing them over to their abusive father. 

 

You went through a lengthy court battle for two, maybe three years, and are essentially broke.  Yet, with a single ex party motion held before a judge without any notification to you, and outside of your presence, without any minimal attempt to hear your side of the story, you have lost custody.  It could take months before you get your children back, and even then the burden is on you to clear up the situation. 

 

Does this sound impossible? 

 

Does it sound unjust, capricous, arbitrary? 

 

Does it seem like it could never possibly happen? 

 

Well, think again, because the Family Commission Chaired by our friend, Judge Lynda Munro, is working very hard on changing the Laws of the State of Connecticut to see that this can be done.  See my previous blog on this outrageous situation at the following link:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/11/judges-conspire-to-steal-your-children.html

In a recent Family Commission Meeting, 8 members of the Commission cast deciding votes approving the legislation for ex parte hearings on custody.

 

This means the proposed legislation will now be sent to Judge Barbara Quinn for submission to the legislative judiciary committee.  These actions alone are a violation of the Constitution in that they represent a violation of the separation of the powers of government which is fundamental to our democratic system. 

 

Private Attorney General Michael Nowacki, who was present when this matter was discussed at the Family Commission Meeting, has this to say about what occurred, "This proposed legislation by the judiciary is just another power grab and the most dangerous endorsement of an increase of the powers and jurisdiction of the Courts imaginable."

I will continue to keep you informed of this situation as it unfolds, so make sure you check back for more news.  Please contact your legislators and let them know that you are profoundly appalled by the actions of Judge Lynda Munro and those Members of the Family Commission that supported this appalling ex parte legislation.

Please note that the following are the current members of the Family Commission:

Chair:Lynda B. Munro, Chief Administrative Judge, Family

 

Members:

Holly Abery-Wetstone, Judge

Sandra Sosnoff Baird, Chief Family Support Magistrate

Michael Blanchard, Attorney

John D. Boland, Judge

Steven Dembo, Attorney

Anne C. Dranginis, Retired Judge
Gaetano Ferro, Attorney
Constance Frontis, Attorney
Elaine Gordon, Retired Judge

Johanna Greenfield, Caseflow Management Specialist
David Iaccarino, Deputy Director
Maureen M. Murphy, Judge
Thomas Parrino, Attorney
Barry C. Pinkus, Judge
Elliott N. Solomon, Judge

Staff:
Joseph Del Ciampo, Counsel
Nancy Porter, Counsel

THE AFCC UNDERCUTS THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS LEAVING DEFRAUDED LITIGANTS WITHOUT ANY REMEDY OR OPPORTUNITY FOR RELIEF!

When I look back at my case, I realize I spent a considerable amount of time on submitting grievances in regard to the ADA.  I was denied ADA reasonable modifications for three years even though I had solid documentation indicating that I was eligible. 

 

From the beginning, since I was aware of how the Judicial Branch can obstruct a litigant from obtaining their rights, I knew that obtaining modifications would be difficult. In particular, I was concerned about the 3rd prong of the ADA which is the "regarded as" category because it is slightly less straightforward than the other prongs. 

 

Thus, In order to collect as much information as I could to support my claims, I contacted the New England ADA Technical Center with my questions.  Since my questions were somewhat complicated, I ended up being referred to Attorney Kathy Gips for more details.  She was reasonably friendly, but did not answer my questions and tended to be vague and non supportive. 

 

Just talking to her was enough to discourage me completely from following through on trying to obtain the protections from discrimination that I required. 

 

Fast forward three years and I was talking to Sandra Lugo-Gines the ADA "Project Manager" and I happened to mention my work with Attorney Gips and Sandra made a comment that interested me, that the Connecticut Judicial Branch itself works with Attorney Gips on compliance issues. 

 

After I investigated the issue further, I found out that Attorney Gips had been paid for conducting several ADA training sessions over the years.  I don't know how much money she earned from the Connecticut Judicial Branch and other agencies in the State of Connecticut doing these training sessions, but I can imagine it was considerable. 

 

And if she didn't earn a lot of money, I suspect she established positive relationships with Connecticut Judicial Branch employees and established friendships with them which would have encouraged her to be far more loyal to those employees rather than to the rag tag conglomeration of consumers like me who called to find out how we could protect ourselves from the way the Connecticut Judicial Branch was violating the ADA on a daily, hourly, minute by minute basis.  

So the bottom line is that Attorney Kathy Gips gave me no support or information at all because she had already sold out to the CT Judicial Branch. 

 

The New England ADA Technical Center is based out of Boston, far away from the Connecticut Judicial Branch in Hartford, and yet Attorney Gips had that alliance.  Who would ever figure that out?  If you didn't know you might think Attorney Gips had an independent opinion, but she did not.  

 

When it comes to litigant complaints, the same situation is going on when it comes to the Connecticut Judicial Branch and the AFCC both of whom are trying to protect their interests at the expense of Connecticut Citizens. 

 

According to the report by independent journalist Anne Stevenson, since the AFCC is run by Judicial Branch employees who are Judicial Branch managers and judges, they are in a position to control the outcome of all consumer complaints and lawsuits filed with the Courts regarding AFCC programs and members.  Some examples of this are as follows:

Until quite recently, or until she was caught, Judge Lynda Munro, an AFCC member, was Chief Administrative Judge of the Family Court.  This means that all complaints about judges, attorneys, and the court's administrative programs had to be filtered through her.

 

Furthermore, Judge Munro oversaw the GAL training and certification program.  Currently, GAL's receive qualified immunity, but there is no oversight authority and no decertification process.  The protocol for filing a complaint about a GAL is that you are supposed to take it up with the presiding family court judge assigned to your case, who is ultimately beholden to, you guessed it, AFCC member Judge Munro.

 

Complaints about attorneys are directed to the Statewide Grievance Committee, which includes AFCC member Attorney Sue Cousineau.

 

Complaints about violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act are directed to AFCC member Phyllis Cummings Texiera.

 

Also, until recently, complaints about the Court's administrative services, federal funded grant projects were directed to AFCC supporter Judge Barbara Quinn.  At this point I believe Judge Quinn has left her position, as Judge Munro did.  However, there is no reason to believe that another person similarly connected or similarly obligated to AFCC will not be appointed in her place.

 

Complaints about judges are directed to the Judicial Review Council whose members include AFCC member Attorney Barbara Aaron.

 

The AFCC has essentially reached its tentacles into all aspects of the grievance process to the extent that litigants have no recourse in circumstances where they face injustice and wrongdoing.  This is why litigants can report that there has been outright wrongdoing in their cases and yet the systems in place to address their complaints simply disregard those complaints and make light of the most outrageous behavior on the part of judges, attorneys, and GALs.

 

For instance, you have an attorney firm such as O'Connell, Flaherty, and Attmore, LLC, now renamed O'Connell, Attmore, and Morris, LLC, which has defrauded its own clients on a massive scale, has sued up to 69 of its clients in wrongful collections cases, has settled prior malpractice suits, and is currently even now being sued in malpractice cases in Civil Court simply evading and avoiding all accountability to the Statewide Grievance Committee despite overwhelming evidence of improper dealings. One of their attorneys was even caught by the FBI and is currently in jail, and yet Statewide refuses to take complaints about this firm seriously.  How else can you account for this outrageous, irresponsible hands off type attitude if not by attributing it the whole influence peddling schemes of the AFCC which are right out there in front of peoples noses.

 

And now we have the ultimate outrage where two legislators--Rep. Brandan Sharkey and Sen. Donald Williams--have appointed two AFCC members to co-chair the task force established to investigate the AFCC's wrongdoing and its criminal infiltration of the Connecticut Judicial Branch: Attorney Sharon Wicks Dornfeld and Attorney Sue Cousineau.  So we have two foxes looking into how well the foxes have been illegally raiding the hen house.  You can imagine how this will end!

So far, from what I see of their actions, it looks like Attorney Dornfeld and Attorney Cousineau are there to undercut the goals of the task force by deflecting and suppressing any information which might expose the AFCC to scrutiny.  The attorneys, judges and GALs who are part of this scheme, and the legislators who support them have no shame.  They believe that they are invulnerable and they will never be held accountable.  So they stick Dornfeld and Cousineau right in our faces and don't care what the consequences are in terms of the loss of credibility and the loss of citizens' faith in the legitimacy of this task force.

 

This is why citizens in the State of Connecticut, people who have experienced abuse from AFCC members within the CT Judicial Branch and its circle of influence must continue to keep the pressure on and hold the Judicial Branch and our Legislators accountable for rooting out the AFCC corruption in our legal system.  We cannot continue to allow the CT Judicial Branch to abuse emotionally and financially extort vulnerable parents and their innocent children.

PART IV: UWY-FA10-4022992-S, SHAWN TITTLE v. SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE, JUDGE MUNRO GIVES SHAWN TITTLE A FREE RIDE!

It is interesting that Judge Lynda Munro's Memorandum of Decision dated October 16, 2012 doesn't mention anything about what led to the breakdown of the marriage.  This is quite striking because most memoranda of this kind usually include some commentary on the issue. 

 

I suspect Judge Munro didn't include any of that information because she wanted to present Susan Skipp's behavior out of context so that it would appear to be irrational. 

 

So let me rectify that omission and let you know what happened.  Apparently, Shawn Tittle was unfaithful to his ex wife with a considerable number of other women.  That, by the way, is deeply hurtful.  In my reading of various divorce cases, I find that nothing wounds more deeply than the discovery that your wife or husband has betrayed you. 

 

In addition, Susan Tittle states, "during our 11 years of marriage, my children and I were victims of physical, emotional, and mental abuse at the hands of my now ex-husband." 

 

Is this true? 

 

Dr. Sidney Horowitz, the childrens' psychologist was unwilling to take a position regarding this point.  Instead, in a letter to the GAL, he stated, "the children have been and continue to be at risk by the psychological noise in this family.  I do not know who is the proximate cause of this upset." 

 

In response to the accusations of domestic violence that Susan Skipp made against her ex husband, Dr. Horowitz stated that he could neither confirm or deny their accuracy.  In fact, in court testimony he provided on August 15, 2012, he stated "It may well be accurate."  Further, he stated, "I was not in a position to be able to support or refute any of the statements" that Susan Skipp made in regard to Shawn Tittle abusing her and the children.

 

However, it is worth noting that when the parties' Co-parent Manager, Dr. Howard Krieger billed to the insurance company for his services, the code he used was that for domestic violence. 

 

On a more personal level, I have been observing this case for pretty much two years now.  Every once in a while Susan Skipp has shown me copies of Shawn Tittle's emails.  Quite simply they are verbally abusive, i.e. rude, provocative, and insulting and deliberately so.  If there is one forum in which Shawn Tittle's complete immaturity and lack of character come to the forefront, it is in his emails. 

 

Of course, for anyone who is interested in knowing, this is a common tactic.  If you want sole custody what you do is speak so rudely to your ex that there is a complete breakdown of communication and then that alone is a justification for denying the other party any imput into the childrens' upbringing even though it is the abuser who created the breakdown of communication in the first place.  Susan may have written a whole lot of emails, but at least she was reasonably polite about it!  Of course, again, there is this imbalance of scrutiny. 

 

And this is a good point to pause and have a little strategy session.  If your ex sends you rude and abusive emails on a regular basis, do not respond in kind--ever.  What you do is consistently maintain an even tone in your emails, preface and end your emails with "please" and "thank you", and while you do not have to admit to mistakes you never committed in response to the steady stream of accusations you receive, you can always say, "I'm sorry there was a miscommunication."  "What can we do moving forward?"  and "I am sorry you feel that way." is a really, really good one because it sounds conciliatory, but is like a cat's claw across the cheek when it comes to passive aggressive value. 

 

I'll tell you something, I would have liked to see Shawn's emails presented to the the trial court as evidence of his abuse. 

 

And since we are discussing character, let me say that it did not impress me when I determined that at trial in August 2012, Shawn Tittle submitted a financial affidavit indicating that his income added up to $200.00 per week from his new medical practice and that he was largely having his new wife pay all of his bills. 

 

I am sorry, but I fail to believe that. 

 

There are only two explanations for these kinds of numbers.  One, he deliberately reduced his income artificially by not working very hard on his business, or two he chose not to apply for the many other employment opportunities that are available to him which would provide him with a considerable six digit income. 

 

Since litigants pull these kinds of tricks frequently when it comes to divorce proceedings, it seems to me any judge could see through the one Shawn Tittle pulled on his financial affidavit.  However, Judge Munro chose to overlook it, the same way that she overlooked all the other improprieties Shawn Tittle committed. 

 

He is excused from providing alimony and child support. 

 

He is excused from providing an accurate financial affidavit--what else? 

 

Actually, there is more. 

 

As with many women, since Susan Skipp continued to report on the continuing domestic violence she was experiencing, and would not shut up, Dr. Howard Krieger, the co-parent counselor, insisted upon giving Susan a mental health examination--this despite a doctor's letter indicating that Susan was still recovering from a car accident so the results might not be accurate. 

 

Sean Tittle, on the other hand, was excused from undergoing any mental health examination whatsoever.  Of course, in my view, an examination from Susan Skipp taken outside of the context of an equivalent examination of Shawn Tittle could not possibly provide the attorneys in this case fair and equitable access to information.   

 

Basically, Shawn Tittle was coddled and pampered throughout the process, and when it was done Judge Munro gave him a free ride to sole custody. 

 

What a joke!

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/uwy-fa10-4022991-s-shawn-tittle-v-susan.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-ii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-iii-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/02/part-v-uwy-fa10-4022992-s-shawn-tittle.html

H.B. 5509 RE CHILD SUPPORT AND ALIMONY IS UNPOPULAR ALL AROUND!

Recently, I posted a blog opposing H.B. 5509, "An Act Concerning the Payment of Alimony and Child Support."  At the time, I found some readers opposing my viewpoint.  However, I now feel justified that I took my particular stand since even woman hating judge of the year, Judge Lynda B. Munro, agrees with me. 

In her testimony opposing the bill which she read before members of the Judiciary Committee on March 19, 2012 she stated, "It would substitute arbitrary guidelines for judges' discretion to fashion alimony orders tailored to the individual cases before them." 

That's just what I said! 

In regard to time limits for alimony Judge Munro states, "The concept that alimony cannot be awarded for more than half the length of the marriage is [arbitrary].  There is no rational connection between the need for alimony and this formula."  It would also, from her analysis, favor those with "capital assets" which I assume means rich people. 

That gives you a feeling for the kind of people who proposed this legislation in the first place! 

In regard to the provision in the bill that allows people to return to trial court for a modification of alimony were the bill passed, even if there is no substantial change in circumstances Judge Munro states, "This will result in a workload increase that cannot be handled under existing resources.  It will create a huge burden on the family court system, including the judges, staff and family services personnel." 

Well, duh! 

As a point in favor of H.B. 5509, I was told how great it is that the State of Massachusetts has passed the equivalent of H.B. 5509.  In response, Judge Munro states, "It appears that this bill is modeled on a law that recently passed in Massachusetts. I would respectfully note that the situation that prompted the legislative change in Massachusetts was very different than what exists in Connecticut.  The Connecticut statute, with its detailed factors to guide judges' discretion, was adopted in 1973 and has worked well.  There simply is no need for such a radical change."

Thank you, Judge Munro. 

Next the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) weighs in with their opinion which is, "Raised Bill 5509 is fraught with hazards for family law in Connecticut too innumerable to exhaustively set forth herein.  Its passage would severely undermine existing laws and decrease the quality of justice that parties could expect in our family courts." 

In regard to changes in the cohabitation statute, the Academy acknowledges what I already stated, which is H.B. 5509 is an unwanted intrusion into the private lives of the recipients of alimony, stating, "The proposed statute would turn cohabitation into an overreaching exploration into the personal lives and new romantic relationships of an alimony recipient (which divorced spouses already need all too little encouragement to do) while the true consideration is a financial one.  That is the focus under the existing statute and it should remain so." 

This is just as I said! 

Another aspect of H.B. 5509, the creation of trust accounts for children is just another grab at control, as the AAML acknowledges, "To require the recipient of child support to essentially have to ask for permission for use of these funds from the payor would undermine the purpose of child support itself." 

So.  Who is left supporting this bill or what idiot would do so?  Our friend, Attorney Mengele Louis Kiefer, that's who!  Why are we not surprised by that? 

What does he say?  He says,  "One of the problems I see repeatedly is alimony payers left with less money, less disposable income, than alimony recipients." 

Really?  That wouldn't be because the alimony payer is only supporting himself while the alimony recipient is paying not only for herself, but also for the five children so that means it costs more to maintain all of them! 

Ok. Duh, again. 

All I can say is, I rest my case.  H.B. 5509 was bad legislation, period.  It didn't pass this year and it never will as long as common sense prevails. 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SITS ON COMPLAINTS AGAINST ABUSIVE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS!

This report in from Ms. Susan Skipp:

 

My complaints against Horowitz and Krieger with the Department of Public Health "DPH" have been open for well over A YEAR, and are well stocked with criminal activity. This was after I found out the DPH was giving me false information (on paper) that they needed both parents' release to investigate. Lengthy discussions with the Secretary of State's office as well as Corporate Counsel for DPH revealed this is untrue as the DPH has full subpoena power.

 

When I inquired recently about the progress of this case, I was told by Maribeth Mendes and Katherine Boulware that the investigation is still open because no one has volunteered to decide it: I believe that is largely due to my insistence that no AFCC affiliated person be involved in the investigation. They usually cover for each other. For example, Dr. Elizabeth Thayer, who was on the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children which has now resulted in bill #494 and was co chaired by to AFCC GALs.  See the article below:

 

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/speaking-family/2013/dec/26/ct-task-force-spars-parents-over-billing-fraud-fam/

All but three members of the task force were AFCC members. Thayer, who also derives a sizable income via court appointments, finds no wrong doing as does Zazlow in DPH complaints against AFCC members. They are the two of the most often called upon volunteers. 

These kinds of conflicts of interest in connection to the AFCC's association with the CT Judicial Branch has led to numerous ethical violations.  For example, in my case, Judge Lynda Munro did not disclose her shared business interest with two witnesses against me.  Dr. Sidney Horowitz was a fact witness who perjured himself five times during trial. Although, at the time, Munro was purported to be a board member for the Connecticut AFCC, along with Sidney Horowitz, in the national AFCC newsletters; Still, the AFCC was not a registered entity with the state.  This is entirely improper.  Furthermore,  the AFCC ran unlicensed and unregistered for three years in my case, and illegally for almost 30 years prior.  For more information on AFCC ethical violations, see the article below:

 

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/speaking-family/2013/may/20/ct-judicial-branch-vendors-operated-court-employee

 

AFCC policies and procedures in regard to court programming were and are unregulated because the principals of the now registered entity show two court support services division employees as principals. The third is an often court appointed and of the ilk of Horowitz, Elizabeth Smith. The CSSD workers, one in charge of family relations, implement and evaluate programming in family relations.  What is more, the AFCC does the GAL training which is required of all GALs employed in the State of Connecticut.  So this illegal operation was and continues to operate within the CT Judicial Branch in violation of all ethical principles.

The judiciary has been aware of these conflicts of interest, as has been the state's attorney and Secretary of State for over a year. Still, nothing has been done to stop this outrage, and, as a result, nothing has happened to the mental health providers who bypass state bidding procedures and find ways to avoid signing contracts with standard anti-discriminatory language.  Not only that, nothing has been done to punish the profiteering AFCC trained GALs who take college funds, retirement funds, 401k's, insurance policies", all in the name of the children involved who are left penniless with parents who are facing foreclosure and the loss of their jobs because of constant interference from the CT Judicial Branch.  The power behind this ripoff are the CT Family Court judges who act as collection agencies with the excuse that this forced contract shakedown for assets is justified because the have ruled without any statutory basis that GAL fees are also child support.

 

The courts receive federal funding that facilitates children being placed with violent, abusive and/or sexually abusive fathers. It's difficult to ascertain exact numbers as the judicial branch does not have a statistician to obtain accurate numbers, but it seems that since 2006, when AFCC programming was put into the Family Court System, and HHS fatherhood.gov money started pouring into the Family Courts, which spread through the State into Martinez grants, women started losing their children at alarming rates and "high conflict"/ high revenue cases emerged for family law attorneys and the myriad of other professionals. This has led to large number of custody conflicts, where protective mothers are losing children at more than triple the rate than before.

 

For a good example of how the process works, see the link below:

 

http://www.commdiginews.com/life/connecticut-court-failure-the-deadly-rebranding-of-joshua-komisarjevsky-10607/

 

Many are forced to another unregulated institution of supervised visitation centers, many AFCC run, extending the ability of AFCC related businesses to continue their profiteering activities. These too have no oversight and are not recognized by the Consumer Trade Commission. 

Family court is a broken system that is harming many. The liability for the ADA violations for these AFCC practices can bankrupt the State of Connecticut in sanctions alone should the CT DOJ choose to pursue the many thousands of cases throughout the State. The CT Judicial Branch entered an agreement in 2003 for it's non-compliance with ADA. If the judicial branch wants to live up to the lie on their website "we are Ada compliant" first thing that needs to go is the AFCC which is not compliant with the ADA, and next the discriminatory federal funding that allows these policies to be implemented must go. 

When abusers and victims are placed in the adversarial position of a divorce court, the abuser will usually win.  This came to light by the DOJ commissioned Saunders report and Connecticut's skimpy data also shows that trend.  Attorney Stephen Dembo, a notorious wrongdoer in connection to incentivizing high conflict divorces on behalf of abusers, is ironically on the Family Commission.  FYI, Attorney Steve Dembo and Dr. Sidney Horowitz and been partners together in an extraordinary 68 high conflict cases conducted in Family Court.  Munro and Krieger started RFTD. These are just tiny cogs in a the dirty wheel of justice that spins in favor of the new carpetbagger class that has inundated the CT Judicial Branch in the last few decades.

 

 

The state's judicial practices have not just destroyed me and my children, but tens of thousands of others, ensuring future generations of dysfunction with which to reap ongoing revenue. This is a phenomena I imagine many people reading this article are experiencing. 

The fact that these crimes are well known--Attorney General George Jepson and Attorney John Hughes of the DOJ have been fully informed, and yet do nothing is indicative of the graft, corruption and greed driven practices by many which are subtly and not so subtly tolerated or even furthered by some of the most powerful politicians and government functionaries in this State. I have mentioned twelve crimes in this email and it's being sent to the entities responsible for investigating these crimes.  It is time that fit mothers, protective mothers, finally saw some action and that those individuals who are responsible for holding criminals accountable do something about the crimes that I have described in so much detail here in this email.

 

Family law in Connecticut, and that in so many states, has become an embarrassment to honest and moral citizens. It doesn't seem that many within the system are reaching into their personal wells of honesty and morality to fix the situation and that too many generally ignore the unlawful and criminal injustices occurring in family court as well as the many civil rights violations that have been documented.

 

This is a holocaust of our families and children in the State of Connecticut.  Something needs to be done now.  Citizens of the State of Connecticut cannot afford to remain silent.

 

In the words of the great Holocaust protestor, Pastor Martin Niemoller,

 

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

 

Sincerely,

Ms. Susan Skipp,

Family Court Activist,

Mother of Lost Children