A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE: HOW FAMILY COURT BULLIED PROTECTIVE MOTHER, PAIGE STVAN, AND CUT HER OFF FROM THE DAUGHTER SHE LOVES, PART III!

The custody proceeding that cut Ms. Paige Stvan off from all access to her daughter is most notable for its complete lack of due process and judicial integrity.  The resulting miscarriage of justice consisted of the following elements:

THE LACK OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING: 

Ms. Paige Stvan lost all access to her daughter in an ex parte custody proceeding.  So let's look at the Form JD-FM-222, the document that must be filled out in order to obtain the kind of ex parte change of custody that Thomas Stvan requested and received. On the last page of this document there is a notation that 14 days after the ex parte motion is granted there must be a proper evidentiary hearing with both parties present where the respondent has a chance to defend herself from the charges leveled against her.  Thus, the following statement at the end of the form:

"The court orders that a hearing be held at the time and place shown below, which, if relief on the application is ordered ex parte, shall not be later than 14 days from the date of such order for hearing."  

As it turned out, the ex parte motion was granted on September 25, 2015 and there was a hearing scheduled for October 8, 2015.  However, on that day, there was no hearing on the legitimacy of the ex parte order for a transfer of full custody from Mother to the Father, Mr. Thomas Stvan.  At no time during the October 8, 2015 hearing did Judge Gerald Adelman  address the issue, or allow Ms. Paige Stvan to present evidence or testimony in order to challenge the change of custody that occurred with the ex parte motion.  In effect, the Court simply ignored the legal requirement of an evidentiary hearing on the matter and, indeed, there never was such a hearing.

THE LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADA:

In addition, if you look at the upper right hand side of the Form JD-FM-222 re an exparte motion there is a notification regarding the ADA which is as follows:  "The Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you need a reasonable accommodation in accordance with the ADA, contact a court clerk or an ADA contact person listed at www.jud.ct.gov/ADA."  

The important point to note here is that once the Superior Court had identified Paige Stvan as a person with a disability, which it had by granting Mr. Thomas Stvan's ex parte motion, it had the obligation to make sure that Ms. Stvan had access to the ADA Designated Responsible Employee, and also that she had the opportunity to make arrangements for her reasonable modifications in order to have access to the legal proceedings.  This was not done.  To all intents and purposes, this means, in other words, that Ms. Stvan was essentially excluded from the legal proceedings.  

Even worse, from the report Ms. Stvan has given to me, even though she repeatedly requested ADA modifications, ADA contact people at the Courthouse repeatedly evaded her inquiries and denied her requests.  

This is simply illegal.  

If the Judicial Branch is going to state on every document it produces that it will comply with Title II federal ADA law, it really needs to do so.  

Returning to Judge Gerald Adelman's January 8, 2016 memorandum, one of the grounds that Judge Adelman cited as a reason that he decided to cut Ms. Paige Stvan off from all access to her daughter is that Ms. Stvan did not comport herself properly in Court.  As he put it, "the defendant had repeatedly demonstrated an inability to control herself requiring the court to stop the proceedings many times to remind her of proper courtroom decorum."  I did not see that when I read the transcripts, but be that as it may.  You have to ask yourself, was that before or after Judge Adelman told Ms. Stvan that she would never be able to see her child again.  I am aware that, at one point, the proceedings had to be stopped because Ms. Stvan burst into tears and had to leave temporarily.  I suppose Judge Gerald Adelman found that behavior outrageous.  

However, I don't recall seeing any CT legal statute that states showing "proper courtroom decorum" is a requirement for being a parent.  In fact, I've seen all sorts of parents walking into family court, some with their pants falling down, others with their midriffs showing, some chewing gum, many who directly argue with the Judges at length and challenge their decisions. These people don't lose custody because of that behavior. So why is Judge Adelman making demands on Ms. Stvan regarding decorum that are not made of other litigants, and that are independent of the law!  

More important, it is a standard complaint of Court personnel who are dealing with folks who have disabilities that people with disabilities lack decorum during legal proceedings. It is standard for Judges to find fault with the person and demeanor of individuals with disabilities because they do not understand what is going on with a person who has a disability, particularly when it is an invisible disability.  This is why Courts are required to offer these reasonable modifications under Title II of Federal ADA law as promptly as possible as soon as either side raises the issue of disability.  This Judge Adelman did not do.

Eventually, on December 4, 2015, Ms. Paige Stvan was finally able to figure out how to access her reasonable modifications, and the first request she had was the opportunity to have a person sit next to her and take notes during court proceedings.  However, the ADA advocate she hired soon quit because the Court treated her so badly she left.  This is the point where Ms. Elizabeth Richter signed up to work as Ms. Stvan's advocate, but she chose to withdraw as well for the same reason stating, "The atmosphere of family court is so hostile towards Certified ADA Advocates that I simply cannot provide the kinds of necessary services that my client needs."  

What this means, basically, is that, according to the law, the entire time that Ms. Paige Stvan has been going to family court regarding this matter, all the legal proceedings have been null and void.  

So the problem here isn't Ms. Stvan's demeanor, the problem is Judge Gerald Adelman's ongoing failure to comply with ADA law.  This has excluded Ms. Paige Stvan from even the barest modicum of due process in regard to these legal proceedings.  

THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL

UNCALLED FOR CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

Not only were there very basic violations of ADA law and fundamental due process in Stvan v. Stvan, Ms. Paige Stvan was also denied her right to legal counsel which fundamentally undercuts the legitimacy of the legal proceedings in her case. Also, her own attorney slandered her reputation without any justifiable grounds and wrongly compromised her legal position.  The story of how this happened is as follows:

Five days after the ex parte change of custody to the father, on September 30, 2015, Ms. Stvan's attorney, Christopher Brennan, filed a motion to withdraw.   He then scheduled this motion to withdraw for October 8, 2015, the day which  was supposed to be for the hearing on the ex parte motion.  In order to avoid an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw, and to evade any accountability from his client, Attorney Christopher Brennan requested a Matza Hearing in order to withdraw from the case.  What is interesting is that, Attorney Brennan didn't say anything about needing a Matza Hearing in his motion to withdraw, so it came as a complete surprise.  This meant that Ms. Stvan had no opportunity to prepare for such a hearing.  The first time the Matza hearing got mentioned was in Attorney Brennan's opening statements on the the day of the hearing.

You've never heard of a Matza Hearing?  Well, neither had I before I read the transcript of the October 8, 2015 hearing and I'm sure neither had Ms. Paige Stvan!  She and I were completely clueless, as I am sure Attorney Brennan knew we would be.

I had to dig really deep and spend a several hours on research before I figured out what a Matza hearing is. This is the story--and by the way, this has nothing to do with passover (a Jewish attorney friend of mine had to make that joke!)  

The Matza Hearing arises from the case of Richard A. Matza v Jane W. Matza 226 Conn. 166 (1993).  In this case, the Defendant, Jane Matza attempted to implicate her attorney in hiding approximately $196,000 from the Court by falsifying her financial affidavit.  Her attorney then wrote up a sealed affidavit to this effect and discussed the matter with the judge in chambers, who then allowed the attorney to withdraw from the case. This ultimately led to a situation where the defendant, Jane Matza, was forced to represent herself.   

Once the case was concluded and the results were not to Jane Matza's liking, she appealed stating that she had been denied an evidentiary hearing in regard to the withdrawal of her attorney and she objected to the in chambers hearing which occurred instead and did not allow her to present her side.  

The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court which, in its decision, quoted rule  1.16 (b) which states that "a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client..."  However, one of the exceptions to that rule kicks in if "The client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent..."  

The question the Court was faced with is, if an attorney has a reasonable basis for believing that his or her client might be engaging in something criminal or fraudulent, is Superior Court required to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to confirm the factual underpinnings of the attorney's claim.  In Matza v. Matza, the Supreme Court stated that there is no need for such an evidentiary hearing, because the claim doesn't have to be proven in full;an attorney merely needs to establish that he has a reasonable belief that it is credible.  The Supreme Court pointed out that Jane Matza knew what she was accused of and never attempted to dispute the truth of it.

What Attorney Christopher Brennan did, therefore, by requesting a Matza hearing, is essentially indicate to the Court that he had a reasonable belief that Ms. Paige Stvan was intending to do or had done something criminal or fraudulent.  Of course, Ms. Stvan had no idea that this is what he meant and she was completely unaware that she was being accused.  Since she had no idea she was being accused, she had no idea that she needed to defend herself, and certainly she had no idea what it was that she was supposed to have done!  Talk about a complete denial of due process!  Then, merely by requesting the Matza Hearing, he proceeded to  convey to everyone involved in the case that Ms. Stvan was a person of poor character capable of doing something either criminal or fraudulent.  How more damaging to his own client can this behavior get, and how more unethical could he be?  How is Paige Stvan supposed to find another attorney to represent her with this kind of unresolved accusation hanging over her head?

At this point, the Matza case and the Stvan case diverge. In the Matza case, the Defendant Jane W. Matza was well informed regarding the issue that led her attorney to withdraw.  In the Stvan case, Ms. Paige Stvan had no idea what was involved because her attorney never  told her and she was excluded from the in chambers hearing.  The Judge, Attorney Christopher Brennan and her ex-husband's attorney,  Nancy Aldrich were at the hearing, but Ms. Stvan was told to remain outside the room in the hallway.  This meant that while even Ms. Stvan's ex-husband and his attorney knew what Paige Stvan was accused of, no one saw fit to inform Ms. Stvan herself.  

Second, when the Judge in Jane W. Matza's case allowed her attorney to withdraw, he then granted a continuance in the case in order to allow Ms. Matza an opportunity to obtain alternative counsel.  In Ms. Paige Stvan's case, she was not given a continuance and she was not given additional time to hire another attorney to represent her despite the fact that some major decisions were made during that October 8, 2015 hearing.  

Further, how is Paige Stvan supposed to obtain alternative counsel when her attorney, Christopher Brennan, left her burdened with the implication that she either had or  intended to commit some criminal or fraudulent action in her case, the nature of which is completely unknown since the hearing on the accusation against her was all done behind closed doors.

The bottom line is that Mr. Thomas Stvan, his Attorney Nancy Aldrich, and the GAL, Attorney Rosa Rebimbas have made many claims in this case. However, their claims have never faced the challenge of an evidentiary hearing, which is legally required before such claims are acted upon.  Aside from their unfounded, unverified statements to the Court, which are hearsay, for the better part, there is nothing to justify or prove their claims.  

Meanwhile, Ms. Paige Stvan has been cut off from her daughter for over a year now independent of any legal grounds.  The injury this separation has done to Mom, Ms. Paige Stvan, and the emotional damage inflicted on her daughter as a consequence, are incalculable and will continue to unfold.  This case is and remains a disgrace and a moral blight on the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.

A MOTHER'S TEARS MATTER: HOW FAMILY COURT BULLIED PROTECTIVE MOTHER, PAIGE STVAN, AND CUT HER OFF FROM THE DAUGHTER SHE LOVES, PART II!

What we have here is a tragic situation where a mother has been separated from the child she raised for 12 years based upon unsubstantiated and untrue representations of mental illness.  Meanwhile, questions regarding her ex-husband's bipolar disorder remain unaddressed.  

Subsequently, Judge Adelman acknowledged that the representations regarding Ms. Paige Stvan's mental health weren't sufficient to justify keeping Paige away from her daughter.  At that juncture, he then claimed that there were other serious allegations that her child had raised which now justified separating Paige Stvan from her daughter. What were those serious allegations?  To be honest, I couldn't see anything in the many documents I reviewed that would explain it.

The allegation the child made that the judge cited in his memorandum as a basis to stop all visits was that Mom was making visits with her uncomfortable.  As Ms. Paige Stvan explained it, she was allowed visits with her daughter once a week for an hour standing in the corridor of a local mall.  To start with, that's a pretty difficult way to conduct a visit.  Next, Ms. Stvan stated that during these visits the father would remain in the sidelines monitoring the entire visit and at the least sign of trouble advise his daughter to simply leave.  As a result, under the pressure of essentially being put between two parents, the child would terminate the visit within ten minutes.  To Paige Stvan, this was simply a situation where the father was using the visits to drive a wedge between herself and her daughter.

Attorney Rosa Rebimbas, the GAL in the case, reported the situation somewhat differently.  She alleged that Paige Stvan insisted upon talking to her daughter about the case during the visit.  But what does that mean "talking about the case?"  Does that mean Paige tried to explain to her daughter what was going on and why she couldn't come home to her Mom?  Was it something else? Attorney Rebimbas didn't specify; she just used trigger words with the judge which she knew would elicit a negative reaction.  Keep in mind, we are getting this testimony from the ex-husband and a biased GAL who appear to be willing to do anything they can to justify a complete no contact order. I also think it makes no sense to have visitation with a child standing up in a crowded corridor in a mall.  What's that all about?

Repeatedly, the opposing attorney in this case, Attorney Nancy Aldrich insisted that Paige Stvan's daughter didn't want to see her Mom, so therefore she shouldn't have to. Attorney Rosa Rebimbas emphasized that the daughter didn't want to see her mother and indicated her belief that the daughter had the right to refuse to see her mother.  Judge Gerald Adelman reported in his Memorandum of January 8, 2016 that "the child was extremely resistant to any contact with her mother" and implied that this justified denying Ms.  Stvan access to her daughter.  However, this is not how state law works. According to Connecticut law, at any age, a child's preference is never the only criterion for making a custody decision in a custody proceeding.  What counts is what is in the best interests of the child.

Further, I am wondering how a 12 year old child who had never before reported being unhappy with her mother, all of a sudden, within two months of being totally cut off from all access to her mother, becomes extremely resistant to seeing her mother.  Keep in mind, these words never came out of the child's mouth directly, and were simply what biased individuals with ulterior motives chose to report. I am also wondering why a 12 year old child has the authority, not only to choose the time and place of the visits, but whether they take place at all.  I don't know of any other case where a pre-teen was given such extraordinary power.  

Perhaps the answer to this lies in observations that Dr. Linda Gunsberg reported on at the time these events were taking place.  In a letter to the court dated January 26, 2016,  Dr. Linda Gunsberg described hearing a conversation that Page Stvan had with her daughter over the phone.  She described this conversation, which took place on November 2, 2015, in the following terms: 

"The most incredible phone conversation occurred when Ms. [Stvan] called [her child] during the court ordered parent telephone access to speak with her.  I asked Ms. [Stvan] to put [the child] on speaker phone so that I could listen.  [The child] was very warm towards her mother, was eager to share with her mother information about projects she was working on for school, and actually wanted to remain on the telephone longer than Ms. [Stvan] could...It was a normal parent-child conversation."

However, Dr. Gunsberg reported that "By December 31, 2015, [the child] was telling her mother either in a telephone message or text that she never wanted to speak to her mother again."  Dr. Gunsberg attributed this dramatic change in the child's attitude towards her mother to father's campaign of parental alienation.  Keep in mind that by December 31, 2015, the child had been separated from her mother and her hometown and friends for three months.  

Again, it is remarkable that Judge Gerald Adelman supported this 12 year old child in making the decision not to see her mother again. A 12 year old child doesn't have sufficient cognitive ability to make such important life decisions.  In fact, you would hardly believe that this Judge Adelman is the very same Judge who, in the Sorentino case, put a mother in jail to force a 15 year old boy to live with the father he adamantly didn't want to live with.  Yet, in the Stvan case, when a 12 year old girl refused to see her mother, that very same Judge Adelman appointed two attorneys to defend her right to exclude her mother from her life?  

How is that OK?  

How come  Judge Gerald Adelman found a 12 year old's decision more credible than that of a 15 year old? 

Do any of you recall how, when Kathi Sorrentino cried at the thought of having to go to jail, Judge Gerald Adelman derided her and made fun of her, calling her tears "crocodile tears"? Why do judges in the State of Connecticut, such as Judge Adelman, only use PAS to deny mothers their parenting rights while excusing fathers who are equally culpable?  Protective mothers in the State of Connecticut would really like to know!  We need a new campaign in this State with the slogan:  A mother's tears matter!

WITH A NOD AND A WINK: HOW CT FAMILY COURT BULLIED PROTECTIVE MOTHER, PAIGE STVAN, AND CUT HER OFF FROM THE DAUGHTER SHE LOVES, PART I!

On September 25, 2015, Paige Stvan was hospitalized for a few days to address negative side effects she had to a new medication she had been taking. Meanwhile, since she was dealing with these medical problems, in a very responsible way, Ms. Stvan asked her ex husband, Thomas Stvan, to care for their 12 year old daughter temporarily. He agreed to do so. However, instead of just taking care of the child as agreed, Thomas Stvan used the incident as a excuse to file an emergency ex parte motion in court granting him full custody.  That motion was granted.  As a result, since that time, except for a few brief encounters at a local mall, Paige Stvan has not been allowed to see her daughter.  

Why?  

Paige Stvan had been taking care of her child for 12 years, and the child was happy and healthy, well fed and with a roof over her head, as well as successful in school. Nonetheless, family court, in a series of dirty tricks and maneuvers, effectively assisted her ex husband in excising the child from her mother's life with the collusion of a CT State representative, Rep. Rosa Rebimbas.  

Now remember, this is the same judicial system which gave career criminal Joshua Komisarjevsky full custody of his 5 year old daughter just weeks before Mr. Komisarjevky participated in the triple slaying of the Petit family.  In Paige Stvan's case, this was a woman who had done nothing other than be an excellent mother to her daughter for twelve years. Still, the Court saw fit to cut her off entirely from the child she had been bringing up so successfully.  

We all want the reason for that, don't we?  Just so you know, you would have no basis for knowing the reason had Ms. Paige Stvan not requested one because, unlike in every other custody case I've ever seen, originally the Court didn't bother to provide a memorandum of decision stating the legal basis for its decision.  

But here we go, I have before me a January 8, 2016 Memorandum provided by Judge Gerald Adelman explaining his decision.  This is what he says.  

The ex parte was granted (see p. 3 of the memorandum) because "it was represented to the court that the defendant had a history of mental health issues which had previously required the plaintiff to temporarily assume primary or sole custody of the minor child, due to the  defendant's inability to care for said child."  Yes, but these, to my knowledge are and were simply representations without evidence.  To this day, I not seen any documents that can back up these claims.  

Not only that, in these documents there was no mention of the fact that the Plaintiff, Tom Stvan, was represented to have a bipolar disorder.  Why?  Because the ex parte hearing only heard one side of the story at that time. That is why the law requires another hearing 14 days later--so that before anything is finalized, you have a fair hearing where both sides have the opportunity to present their arguments.  Mysteriously, in Paige Stvan's case, although such a hearing is required by law, it never occurred.  This is just the first of the kinds of procedural flaws that have plagued this case from the beginning.  

It is also important to note regarding the term "it was represented" that anyone can "represent" anything to anyone in this world. Eventually, in a court of law, you have to come up with proof.  At no time that I have observed during the many hearings that were held in this case was there any kind of legitimate evidentiary hearing in which allegations of this nature regarding Paige Stvan could be either confirmed or denied.  Futhermore, from all the information I have in front of me, there is no evidence at all that Ms. Stvan had any such history.

How can any judge possibly justify removing a child completely from a mother's life based upon "representations."?  

Meanwhile, I have in front of me a letter that Dr. Linda Gunsberg, Paige Stvan's psychotherapist, wrote to the court.  In this letter, Dr. Gunsberg stated that Ms. Stvan has "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of domestic violence within the marriage, after the marriage, and as a result of constant, continuous litigation brought against her by Mr. Thomas Stvan, her ex-husband."  

Dr. Gunsberg also stressed that Paige Stvan is a competent primary caretaker and mother to her child and that the child flourished under her care.  She also stated that the father's behavior of cutting Ms. Stvan off from all access to her daughter constituted parental alienation.  Of course, everyone knows I'm not a fan of PAS theory, but I just point it out for what it's worth. Again, as I've said before, when a mother points out PAS or PA whatever you want it call it, judges couldn't care less.  PAS only matters if a man complains about it.

I also have a letter from a social worker who also provided treatment for Paige Stvan in which she stated, "I can confidently state that...it is apparent that Ms. [Stvan] does not present with psychological deficits that would compromise her ability to care for her child. Furthermore, Ms. [Stvan] has been highly motivated to take advantage of the services that have helped her to gain an understanding of her current circumstances, while seeking a path towards betterment as an individual, as well as a mother."  In addition, on Paige Stvan's behalf, LMFT Linda J. Gottlieb took the time to provide an extensive explanation to the Court regarding the phenomenon of parental alienation and how to identify it.  I think it says a lot for Paige Stvan that three well qualified mental health professionals took the time to speak up on her behalf.

I would also like to point out that Paige Stvan has always been honest and straightforward to her ex husband about any medical issues she has and has always taken responsible steps to address them.  The result has been successful, and it appears as though she is being punished for that very success.

I understand that two sides in a legal case can end up interpreting data differently which is why you end up in Court anyway.  That is the reason why a case like this would end up in family relations for a custody evaluation to determine whether testimony one way or another is credible.  What is striking about this case is that despite the dire consequence where a Mother has been entirely cut off from any communication with the daughter she raised for 12 years, there was no family relations report, no custody evaluation whatsoever, indeed, no investigation whatsoever.

How is that possible?  I have no idea.  

Next, if you have serious allegations regarding a parent's mental health status--i.e. as in this case, that father has bipolar and mother has depression--the most logical and just outcome would be a psychological evaluation conducted by a court approved psychologist qualified to do the job.  Remarkably, there was absolutely no psychological evaluation, no psychological assessment by a legitimate professional in any way whatsoever.  

I just do not understand that.  

When issues were raised in my case regarding my mental health, I ended up having two psychiatric evaluations and one psychological evaluation.  What happened to me was pretty excessive and is testimony to the extremely damaging impact accusations regarding mental health status can have.  Still, the idea that you could cut a mother off from her child based upon allegations regarding her mental health status that have yet to be proved, and, as you have seen from the testimony I provided, have actually been soundly refuted, appears absolutely outrageous and represents a tragic miscarriage of justice for this mother and her child.  

You cannot simply point at people, call them crazy, and use such unfounded and unproven claims as the basis for denying them their parental rights.  

As the General Statutes Section 46b-46(c), which is the basis for all custody decisions, state, the mental and physical health of the parents involved is a factor in custody decisions, however, the "disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custody."  Furthermore, under Title II of federal ADA law, disability based discrimination is against the law in this country.  Certainly, the issue of disability should not be determinative without a fair and just evidentiary hearing where there is an equal playing field.  

However, what it looks like is that the judge and the attorneys in this case think that they can deny Paige Stvan her legal rights by nodding and winking and sweeping everything under the rug, simply by virtue of the fact that they think she has a mental health disability.  Likewise, they think they can smooth over and ignore father's possible bipolar disorder.  Trust me--that's not happening.

More on this case in Part II.

OP-ED IN THE HARTFORD COURANT CHALLENGES THE NEWSPAPERS SHALLOW COVERAGE OF REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ INCIDENT!

The Op-Ed in The Hartford Courant states as follows:

"An April 15 Courant editorial shamelessly accused state Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, of disgracing the House based upon comments in a private email ["Disgraceful Display"]. 

The Courant's vitriol missed the target and absolved the culprits. It was Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, R-Naugatuck, whose petulant hissy fit and overreaction to the email halted the legislative process..."

For more on this story, click on the link below:

http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-letter-lopez-wrong-to-scapegoat-gonzalez-20150420-story.html

MORE HARTFORD COURANT COMMENTARY ON ATTACK ON REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ!

According to Christopher Keating of The Hartford Courant,

"State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez says it's over.

Gonzalez, a Hartford Democrat, vaulted into the headllines this week after writing a highly critical email to Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, a Naugatuck Republican who serves as the committee’s ranking House member. The email dust-up led to a Republican filibuster in the judiciary committee and the failure of 45 bills that had been on the agenda - as the committee failed to take any action by its deadline.

But Gonzales said she is ready to move forward - with no hard feelings and no spillover effects as the legislature heads into the final six weeks of the session.

"For me, this is over,'' Gonzalez told The Courant in an interview. "It's over in my mind.''

The email related to a public clash between Gonzalez and Rebimbas during the previous week over the re-nomination of State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase Rogers. The Rogers hearing spilled over into a series of issues, incuding the role of guardians ad litem who are appointed in highly contentious divorce cases."

For more information on this article, please click on the link below:

http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-minnie-gonzalez-its-over-20150417-story.html

THE HARTFORD COURANT DISGRACES ITSELF BY ATTACKING REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ!

In surprisingly harsh terms, an anonymous editorial posted today on The Hartford Courant website attacks Representative Minnie Gonzalez for a strongly worded email she sent to a constituent criticizing Rep. Rosa Rebimbas.  The Hartford Courant editorial further speaks of the Gonzalez email as "insulting" and "disgraceful" and proposes that Rep. Gonzalez should be sanctioned publicly by the House.  

I still have not had the opportunity to watch the CT-N video of the Friday, April 10, 2015 hearing and so I personally cannot comment upon Rep. Rosa Rebimbas' behavior on that day which resulted in this email.  However, I will say that granted how frustrated victims of family court feel about the sufferings that they have endured and the need for reform, I would hardly call the email itself anything but a fairly minor blip on the screen.  

Further, I think we have all experienced enough of life at this point to know when particularly rotten individuals, such as the Republicans in this particular matter, attempt to derail the focus which should be on a serious and important matter of family court injustice by hooting and hollering about a relatively minor matter, i.e. this email, and making out that it is second in terms of atrocities to the holocaust itself.  

The disgrace here is not in regard to a relatively minor and uninteresting piece of hyperbole on the part of Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, the disgrace is that the Republicans did not have sufficient good judgment and character to overlook this minor disruption in the scheme of things in order to proceed with business and do the jobs that they were hired to do, particularly when we had such significantly important bills on the docket such as the one in regard to videotaping the police and in connection to protecting the victims of domestic violence.  

It is laughable that The Hartford Courant would describe Rep. Minnie Gonzalez use of the Central American equivalent of "every dog has its day" or "every pig has his Saturday" as some kind of vicious "threat" against Rep. Rebimbas.  

I mean, please--get real.  You want to know what a real threat is?  A real threat is when you get a summons from a marshall asking you to respond to a debt collection complaint from your former family court attorney including a lien on your house which will result in a foreclosure, a direct consequence of judicial abuse in your recent divorce.  

That is a threat--not some silly remark about pigs.  

You know, every day I get up and act as parent to my children.  Every once in a while during the course of my role as a parent in these past few years, my ex husband has made threats to take me back to court and sue me for custody of my children, implying what a bad mother I am.  This does not excuse me from being a parent.  

Likewise, just because a few people have a hot under the collar interchange during the course of their work on the Judiciary Committee, this does not justify shutting the entire Committee down.  

What is this--Kindergarten?  

I was particularly disappointed to see The Hartford Courant's name on this piece of nonsense editorial, but I was not in the least surprised.  Contrary to their journalistic ethics, The Hartford Courant has been maintaining a cozy relationship with the CT Judicial Branch by participating in the CT Judicial Branch's Judicial-Media Committee.  This has meant that several top CEOs and journalists from The Hartford Courant, other print media around CT, and also television in the State of Connecticut have been conducting regular meetings with Judges, attorneys and other CT Judicial Branch employees ostensibly to improve the relationship between the CT Judicial Branch and the media and to increase media access to legal proceedings.  

In reality, what these meetings have done is make the media a captive audience while the CT Judicial Branch has force fed it with their official lines regarding their policies, actions, and excuses for the Branch's widespread corruption.  Imagine if any political party or special interest group in the State of Connecticut had anything like this kind of immediate access to members of the media--how remarkable would that be?  

What The Hartford Courant is not telling you here is that such a special relationship between itself and the CT Judicial Branch is a complete violation of its journalistic ethics and represents a deeper and more widespread well of corruption than anything Rep. Minnie Gonzalez could concoct.  

Many family court litigants during recent years have been talking about how important it is to get their stories out to the media and yet they have not been taken seriously when they've approached journalists with their stories.  

In essence, for the last decade or more, there has been a complete media blackout on the struggles of individual litigants in the CT Family Courts although their stories of injustice and exploitation are compelling.  

Why do we hear of the injustices in so many other arenas but not in the area of the corrupt CT Family Court System?  I'll tell you why--because media outlets such as The Hartford Courant long ago sold out to the CT Judicial Branch for the ego enhancing privilege of rubbing shoulders with the CT Judicial leadership whom they appear to worship blindly.  

They should be ashamed.  

The Hartford Courant should look to itself and its own glaring flaws before daring to criticize a leader such as Rep Minnie Gonzalez who is, though clearly very human, doing  the best she can to assist the most vulnerable.

CTNOW REPORTS H.B. 5505 AND 44 OTHER BILLS ARE IN LIMBO AS REP. GONZALEZ EMAIL ALLEGED TO BE SOURCE OF FILIBUSTER!

Christopher Keating of CTNOW reports as follows:

HARTFORD —

A clash over a legislator's email caused the failure of 45 bills Monday at the judiciary committee as Republicans and Democrats squared off as the committee faced an important deadline at 5 p.m.

The clash led to the failure of all bills on the agenda as Republicans staged a filibuster that lasted until the deadline.

The two sides disagreed on some substantive issues, but the dispute was a spillover from Friday between state Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, a Hartford Democrat, and Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, a Naugatuck Republican who serves as the ranking House member, officials said. Gonzalez and Rebimbas clashed publicly during a long hearing Friday regarding the confirmation of Connecticut State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase Rogers.

But both Republicans and Democrats said the dispute continued following an email that Gonzalez sent Saturday that was copied to numerous legislators, including Rebimbas herself. At least 25 people - both Republicans and Democrats - had seen the email by Monday, based on the email trail.

The original email was written to a non-legislator who has concerns about the longrunning controversy over guardians ad litem, which are mentioned by Gonzalez as GAL. The guardians are often appointed in contentious divorce cases involving the care and custody of minor children.

The email by Gonzalez, obtained by Capitol Watch, is as follows:

"Do not waist your valuable time with people like Rep Ribimbas.She is an atty and also a GAL,she is fighting for her pocket not for the people like you and others the are suffering .She is cold with no heart.All she did on Friday was kissing the judges back and attacking another Rep and calling you a liar.not professional .people that were watching knows what a brown nose she is.she didn't look good but she think  she was awesome,Dianne always remember that every pig has 

his Saturday .ps Ribimbas I hope y enjoy 

VIDEO TESTIMONY ABOUT  5505 king another Rep and insulting you. She think that she did good

Sent from my iPhone Minnie González''

The mention of 5505 by Gonzalez refers to House Bill 5505, which advocates are pushing in an attempt to make changes to the family court system on issues such as supervised visitation in contentious child custody cases.

House Republican leader Themis Klarides, who was clearly frustrated by the developments, declined to comment on the email.

"I don't want to talk about it,'' Klarides told Capitol Watch outside the meeting room.

Gonzalez sent a second email on Monday that said, "Dear Representative Rebimbas,

"On Saturday, my emotions got the better of me on an issue that I, and my constituents, care deeply about. It was inappropriate for me to include other people in an email that should have remained between us, and for that I apologize.''

But Sen. John Kissel, the longtime ranking senator on the committee, said the second email "really wasn't an apology.''

Kissel said that Republicans had sought "a simple apology'' that never materialized over the course of the day and led to the filibuster. 

The link to this article is below:

http://www.ctnow.com/news/hc-judiciary-votes-delayed-due-to-clashes-20150413,0,7127423.story

MICHAEL NOWACKI ADDRESSES ERRORS IN JUDGE BUZZUTO'S TESTIMONY RE H.B. 5505!

From: Michael Nowacki <mnowacki@aol.com>
To: Eric.Coleman <Eric.Coleman@cga.ct.gov>; William.Tong <William.Tong@cga.ct.gov>; Doyle <Doyle@senatedems.ct.gov>; dan.fox <dan.fox@cga.ct.gov>; John.A.Kissel <John.A.Kissel@cga.ct.gov>; rosa.rebimbas <rosa.rebimbas@housegop.ct.gov>; Al.Adinolfi <Al.Adinolfi@housegop.ct.gov>; William.Aman <William.Aman@cga.ct.gov>; Angel.Arce <Angel.Arce@cga.ct.gov>; David.Baram <David.Baram@cga.ct.gov>; Jeffrey.Berger <Jeffrey.Berger@cga.ct.gov>; Toni.Boucher <Toni.Boucher@cga.ct.gov>; cecilia.buck-taylor <cecilia.buck-taylor@housegop.ct.gov>; Beth.Bye <Beth.Bye@cga.ct.gov>; Vincent.Candelora <Vincent.Candelora@cga.ct.gov>; christie.carpino <christie.carpino@housegop.ct.gov>; Jeff.Currey <Jeff.Currey@cga.ct.gov>; Patricia.Dillon <Patricia.Dillon@cga.ct.gov>; Doug.Dubitsky <Doug.Dubitsky@cga.ct.gov>; mae.flexer <mae.flexer@cga.ct.gov>; Mary.Fritz <Mary.Fritz@cga.ct.gov>; Gerratana <Gerratana@senatedems.ct.gov>; Bob.Godfrey <Bob.Godfrey@cga.ct.gov>; Minnie.Gonzalez <Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov>; Ernest.Hewett <Ernest.Hewett@cga.ct.gov>; David.Labriola <David.Labriola@housegop.ct.gov>; Roland.Lemar <Roland.Lemar@cga.ct.gov>; Art.Linares <Art.Linares@cga.ct.gov>; Ben.McGorty <Ben.McGorty@cga.ct.gov>; Michael.McLachlan <Michael.McLachlan@cga.ct.gov>; Bruce.Morris <Bruce.Morris@cga.ct.gov>; tom.odea <tom.odea@housegop.ct.gov>; Arthur.ONeill <Arthur.ONeill@housegop.ct.gov>; Robyn.Porter <Robyn.Porter@cga.ct.gov>; emmett.riley <emmett.riley@cga.ct.gov>; Robert.Sampson <Robert.Sampson@cga.ct.gov>; Joseph.Serra <Joseph.Serra@cga.ct.gov>; john.shaban <john.shaban@housegop.ct.gov>; Caroline.Simmons <Caroline.Simmons@cga.ct.gov>; richard.smith <richard.smith@housegop.ct.gov>; Joe.Verrengia <Joe.Verrengia@cga.ct.gov>; Toni.Walker <Toni.Walker@cga.ct.gov>; Gary.Holder-Winfield <Gary.Holder-Winfield@cga.ct>
Cc: melissa.farley <melissa.farley@jud.ct.gov>
Sent: Thu, Mar 19, 2015 6:51 am
Subject: Misremembrances of Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto in non-sworn testiomny on March 11, 2015 in opposition to HB 5505

To all Judiciary Committee members:

 

On March 11, 2015, members of the judiciary committee in attendance heard prepared testimony of Chief Administrative Judge of Family Matters who delivered prepared remarks and then answered questions posed by the judiciary committee members.

 

I want each of you to take less than ten minutes to review on CT-N archives (published transcript is not yet available), the judiciary committee meeting on the date of March 11.  Please use the cursor on the videoplayer and watch a series of questions posed by Representative Buck-Taylor concerning the subject of Part 1 of the bill, involving the use of supervised visitation.

 

I have watched the video carefully four times since March 11, and spoke to external affairs director, Melissa Farley about the statements of Judge Buzzuto which is in the process of being refuted with hard data about the "common practice" in family courts to order supervised visitation of long durations, entered as court orders regardless of whether the supervised visitation is affordable. 

 

Despite Judge Buzzuto's testimony was at times framed by the words, "To be honest with you, my experience", Judge Buzzuto's personal record as jurist and as the Chief Administrative Judge was not "sworn testimony" subject to perjury allegations.

 

However, the Code of Judicial Conduct does contain language which indicates a judge cannot use the powers of the office in a manner to use the prestige of their capacity as a public official, to make statements on public policy issues such as legislation which are designed to knowingly mislead another public official such as a member of this judiciary committee.

 

Last Monday, March 16, 2015, I approached external affairs director, Attorney Melissa Farley, indicating that at that time I had reviewed the testimony of Judge Buzzuto three times since March 11, 2015 and Judge Buzzuto had a responsibility to issue a letter of correction--similar to the letter issued by Judge Frazzini, who only issued such a letter of "correction" after I contacted him at his home email address stevefraz@Comcast.net.  This email address of Judge Frazzini can be found on documents published on the judiciary website on the date of January 16, 2015, when just Frazzini testified under oath and delivered "material false and misleading" testimony about his CT Chapter AFCC membership.

 

Yesterday, I sent an email to Attorney Farley seeking a copy of any communication to the judiciary committee members including  letters, faxes, texts, phone calls records to or from any judiciary committee member, email, text or documents defined in the FOI Act which emanated from any personal email or State of Connecticut email address of ANY members of the judiciary, including Judge Buzzuto, which corrected testimony provided to your committee.

 

Attorney Farley has not acknowledged that FOI request as of this date and she is copied on this communication.

 

Those, such as myself, who have been ordered to permanent supervised visitation as part of a Memorandum of Decision by a judge are not going to tolerate Judge Buzzuto's attempts to undermine the support of HB 5505, especially in light of the data we are now assembling to provide data to this committee to show the incidence of supervised visitation is not rare, is not short term, and subjects our children and the parents to unjustified humiliation in an environment which Judge Buzzuto described herself on March 11 as "an artificial setting".

 

Within three weeks time, an excel chart will be sent to this group of legislators to consider as hard evidence to refute Judge Buzzuto's statements, while not sworn were designed to mislead the members of this committee.

 

We hope to assemble in this document those who have spent as much as $125,000 in supervised visitation which ended only when there were no more financial resources available to a parent.

 

To suggest, that this committee would provide weighting to certain portions of Judge Buzzuto's testimony because she is a judge and assumed to be "credible and trustworthy" in statements made on March 11, 2015 should be a judgment to be deferred until which point in time we can assemble the data to refute the answers to Representative Buck Taylors questions on supervised visitation.

 

There are also "speculative " comments issued by Judge Bozzuto which were made on the other three sections of the bill, which parents will refute with hard data which contradicts the published comments made by Judge Bozzuto concerning section 3, 4 and 5 of HB 5505.

 

Those comments will be reserved for a later point in time in a separate email to the judiciary committee members.

 

HB 5505 is a bill which will provide much needed restraints on "judicial authority" acquired through decisional law cases and through self empowerment which occurred by the unmonitored adoption of PB Rules without the legislative "hearings" required by C.G.S. 51-14 (a) and (c).

 

We would ask for your indulgence to allow the citizens of this State to prepare documents to refute certain portions of Judge Buzzuto's testimony.

 

However, if a letter of correction is issued of any kind concerning the March 11, 2015 judiciary committee hearing on HB 5505, and sent to the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee signed by any member of the judiciary "misremembrances" of Judge Bozzuto, we would ask any such letter be routed immediately to all judiciary committee members AND published on the judiciary committee's published testimony of March 11, concerning HB 5505.

 

Judge Frazzi's letter to the judiciary committee dated Jan. 28, 2015 was never published on the judiciary committee website which corrected sworn testimony.  I only acquired a copy of the letter of Judge Frazzini by filing an FOI request of Attorney Farley, who did promptly provided a scanned copy of the letter of correction on the Monday after Judge Frazzini's nomination was approved by the members of the General Assembly on the date of January 30, 2015.

 

Please accept my apologies for the length of this communication, but the judiciary committee will be considering the merits of HB 5505 and deserves to be fully informed before considering the language and amendments of this proposed legislation.

 

Feel free to contact me at any time concerning any data which has already been collected, but is currently only a "work in progress".

 

It is the hopes of the parents aggrieved by the financial impact of these process will be able to overcome the "anecdotal" testimony of Judge Buzzuto who provided no "hard data" to support her "experiences" as a member of the bench for fifteen years.  We look forward to Judge Bozzuto's next re-appointment hearing to challenge the authenticity of the statements made on March 11, 2015 that were posited into the public record as non-sworn testimony.  We look forward to Judge Buzzuto's explanations of her "misremembrances" on March 11, 2015---but the next occasion Judge Buzzuto's testimony will under oath in the next legislative session.

 

I also enclose an attachment of a letter received from Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle sent to me concerning sworn affidavits have been filed alleging perjury by Judge Thomas Parker, Judge Taggart Adams and Judge Stephen Frazzini.  The sworn affidavits involving Judges Adams and Frazzini were posted as public testimony on the date of January 23 of the judiciary's website.

 

Many in the aggrieved parents group are fearful of retaliation or retribution if they have currently active cases in the family court.  We are seeking permissions from those litigants who harbor legitimate concerns for
"future adverse rulings" to publish docket numbers and litigants.  We are respecting those who wish to publish information anonymously rather than for attribution in the excel document which will be sent to you in three years time.

 

Hopefully, you can accept these requests for anonymous posting of data on supervised visitation as "properly adjudged concerns."

Cordially,

 

Michael Nowacki

(203) 273-4296