Before you take psychotherapists into your confidence, make sure you consider what the legal consequences might be of doing so. There are legal limits to confidentiality and you might find that your therapist will end up on the stand with his testimony used against you. Attorney Jim Gottstein of Psychrights comments on these issues in the article below. See link:
http://psychrights.org/articles/GottsteinOnConfidentialityInISPSNewsletterMarch2007.pdf
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
FAMILY COURT USES PSYCHIATRIC LABELS TO TERRORIZE LITIGANTS!
I think it is a female thing, this business of going to a therapist. Yes, I know real men have therapy too, but with women, I swear it's definitive to the gender. We like therapy! We like to chat! We like to think that what we go through is so important that it requires counseling of some kind.
Break a nail, go to counseling! Have a sneeze, go the counseling! Husband look at you cross eyed, go the counseling! Kids bothering you, go to counseling! In fact, I dare you to show me the woman who hasn't gone to counseling at one time or another, because I doubt you could find one.
Now, I am all for doing what you can to deal with your problems, and if you are a protective mother, you have ten times more reason than most to be in counseling. But the problem is, if you are in counseling, and you end up with a diagnostic label, what will that mean when it comes to your divorce and custody battle. It will mean serious problems for you.
These problems can be so serious that I have even advised people to just see a counselor and not tell anyone and not apply to insurance for reimbursement. That way the whole enterprise is hidden and no one will find out about it. Then you have this private consultant no one knows about whom you can use as a support for your struggle. What does a psychiatric label do to you? What damage does it cause?
LOWERED EXPECTATIONS: When I first met with my divorce attorney, he was very eager to move forward with the divorce. He told me about the aggressive strategy he expected to follow through on and the tough motions he intended to file at trial court. Then the opposing attorney called him and gave him all sorts of information regarding the psychiatric label I'd been given years ago.
Then, all of a sudden, my attorney told me he didn't think he could accomplish as much as he said he could previously. His output in my case slowed down to almost nothing as he failed for follow up on motions he'd already submitted and he pretty much dragged his feet about the other tasks that needed to be done such as establishing a solid parental reponsibility plan or filing subpoenas in order to obtain financial information.
My attorney wouldn't come to the phone when I called and wouldn't call me back even when I left a message asking him to do so. All of a sudden I heard that I couldn't expect to achieve this goal or that goal. In other words, I was supposed to accept much lowered expectations than I would have had to had I not had a psychiatric label.
INADEQUATE PROTECTION: Throughout the pendente lite period, my ex husband refused to provide the child support that he had agreed to, refused to maintain the family car that the children drove around in, and allowed our home to fall into disrepair. He pretty much emptied the house out of all of the property that we had and transferred it out of state to a home that he was staying in.
He continued on to neglect the children, refusing to care for them properly when they were in his care, leaving them out in public places unsupervised, i.e. leaving them in the car in the parking lot of a shopping center with the keys in the ignition. When I brought these concerns up to the GAL and to my attorney, I was pretty much ignored, even though I put these concerns in writing and faxed them.
Later, when the custody evaluation came out, the psychiatrist described my attempts to get something done about the injustice I experienced as an expression of oversensitivity, vindictiveness towards my ex husband, hypervigilance, and narcissism. In other words, because of that original psychiatric label, they thought I was just making it all up.
PROLIFERATION OF ADDITIONAL PSYCHIATRIC LABELS: When I initially filed for divorce, I had one or two diagnostic labels that my therapist had included in bills submitted to my health insurance company. By the time the divorce was finished, I'd had a broad range of labels thrown at me--controlling, domineering, histrionic--you name it, I was supposed to have it.
I almost ended up with the diagnosis which is known as the kiss of death--Borderline Personality Disorder--but ultimately even though it was bandied about the label never stuck.
After a while, all that your attorney, or the GAL or the trial court sees of you are the broad range of labels that have been stuck all over you. They no longer see the person and they become totally deaf to the story that you are telling them, about the abuse you've experienced, the financial fraud; all of that is completely eclipsed by the labels. Because once you have labels, it becomes impossible for people to see anything else about you.
PERMANENT SUPERVISION FROM MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE THERE TO REPORT TO THE COURT: The end result is that, once the custody evaluation in your case has been completed and you have taken a psychological test confirming additional psychiatric labels, the trial court will take steps to place you under permanent supervision by mental health professionals who are put into place to report back to the trial court regarding your behavior.
This supervision can arise in the form of family therapy which is ordered just for you and the children, rarely for the abusive spouse, and also through the appointment of a parent coordinator or conflict manager.
These people are not accountable to you; they are only accountable to the GAL and the trial court, both of whom are generally run by the abuser in your life. In other words, mental health professionals simply become the means whereby the abuser continues to dictate to you exactly how you are going to live your life and parent the children, and if you don't comply, the mental health professionals working with you will simply label you as "crazy" and threaten or actually simply take the children from you.
Every new mental health professional you and the children see provides an additional level of documentation that will misrepresent what is going on in your case. Before you know it, if you don't do as you are told, you will only be seeing your children for an hour, once a month, under supervision, if you are lucky, and if your ex husband allows it.
THE RIPPLE EFFECT: And it doesn't stop there. Once there is a document describing you in the light of psychiatric labels, those labels will drift out into the conversation of everyone associated with the case. Your ex husband will mention it to all your friends and relatives and make reference to them in school conferences. Not only will you get a diagnosis, but all your children will have a diagnosis as well.
It becomes one great big party for all, more reason to diagnose, more reason to label, more reason to put you and your children on psychiatric medication, more reasons for more therapy, more reasons to spend thousands and thousands of more dollars on mental health treatment that, trust me, will never end.
The rumors and misrepresentations regarding your mental state will continue to spread all the way down the line until you are surrounded by each and every one. It is worse if your case goes to appeal and the judgements in your case end up published on the internet and then those diagnoses and misrepresentations end up being read by people throughout the United States and the world. It never ends. It is the gift that keeps on giving.
SO WHAT CAN BE DONE? Stay away from mental health professionals throughout the entirety of your divorce unless you are willing to pay them in cash and not mention them ever. Avoid custody evaluations. You don't actually have to have one. I know of people in high conflict divorces who simply refuse to participate in a custody evaluation.
Simply refuse to participate whenever you are called to do so. Say it is against your religion. Say anything. But don't let those slimy mental health professionals, widely known throughout family court by people who truly know as "whores of the court", destroy your life.
There has been a strong consumer/psychiatric movement throughout the United States and the World, leading to the establishment of organizations that are ready and willing to challenge the assumptions and prejudices generated by the mental health system. Those of you who are struggling with corrupt mental health professionals during your divorce may find such organizations helpful. A few of the most well known are as follows:
www.mindfreedom.org
www.psychrights.org
www.power2u.org
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
FAMILY COURT EVALUATORS HURT YOU AND HARM YOU WITH LABELS, HERE MEMBERS OF MINDFREEDOM SHOW YOU WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE LABELS!
YOU WERE A FATHER BEFORE, YOU WERE A MOM BEFORE, NOW AFTER YOUR CUSTODY EVALUATION, YOU ARE JUST A LABEL. WATCH MEMBERS OF MINDFREEDOM SPEAK BACK TO THAT LABEL. YOU CAN DO IT TOO!
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
COERCIVE CONTROL: HOW MEN ENTRAP WOMEN IN PERSONAL LIFE! REVIEW OF A BOOK BY EVAN STARK!
I am going to provide for you verbatim a description of this book from the Barnes and Noble website. These are not my words, but the words of the person at Barnes and Noble who wrote the review. I think everyone concerned about the issues raised by a high conflict divorce, those who have been moved to say "that is my story" when reading Lundy Bancroft's books, should also pay attention to this new book Coercive Control by Evan Stark of Rutgers University. Please read below:
Despite its great achievements, the domestic violence revolution is stalled, Evan Stark argues, a provocative conclusion he documents by showing that interventions have failed to improve women's long-term safety in relationships or to hold perpetrators accountable. Stark traces this failure to a startling paradox, that the singular focus on violence against women masks an even more devastating reality. In millions of abusive relationships, men use a largely unidentified form of subjugation that more closely resembles kidnapping or indentured servitude than assault. He calls this pattern coercive control. Drawing on sources that range from FBI statistics and film to dozens of actual cases from his thirty years of experience as an award-winning researcher, advocate, and forensic expert, Stark shows in terrifying detail how men can use coercive control to extend their dominance over time and through social space in ways that subvert women's autonomy, isolate them, and infiltrate the most intimate corners of their lives. Against this backdrop, Stark analyzes the cases of three women tried for crimes committed in the context of abuse, showing that their reactions are only intelligible when they are reframed as victims of coercive control rather than as battered wives.
The story of physical and sexual violence against women has been told often. But this is the first book to show that most abused women who seek help do so because their rights and liberties have been jeopardized, not because they have been injured. The coercive control model Stark develops resolves three of the most perplexing challenges posed by abuse: why these relationships endure, why abused women develop a profile of problems seen among no other group of assault victims, and why the legal system has failed to win them justice.
Elevating coercive control from a second-class misdemeanor to a human rights violation, Stark explains why law, policy, and advocacy must shift its focus to emphasize how coercive control jeopardizes women's freedom in everyday life.
Fiercely argued and eminently readable, Stark's work is certain to breathe new life into the domestic violence revolution.
See the Amazon.Com link that follows to order your copy of the book:
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE DOES IT AGAIN: MORE PROTECTION FOR BAD ATTORNEYS!
I was just browsing through the internet when I stumbled across a Notice in the April 5, 2011 Connecticut Law Journal placed by Attorney Michael P. Bowler, the Statewide Bar Counsel. Apparently there is a new Rule 11A Motion to Dismiss By Disciplinary Counsel which is on the verge of being implemented.
This is how this new rule goes:
"A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 7(C)(1) of these rules, Discipinary Counsel may file a motion to dismiss a grievance complaint after a finding of probable cause under the following circumstances:
1. Disciplinary Counsel believes that he or she does not have evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof required to prove the alleged rule violations; or
2. The Respondent is exposed to discipline for the same conduct under Practice Book Sec. 2-39, 2-40, or 2-41. Any motion granated under this subsection will be without prejudice to the Disciplinary Counsel filing a new grievance complaint or presentment pursuant to practice Book Sec. 2-39, 2-40 or 2-41."
Ok, I get number two, you wouldn't want duplication of punishment...oh, but then again, maybe I actually do! But number one--excuse me!
Continuing on, this is how it goes next:
"B. the motion to dismiss under this rule may only be filed by the Disciplinary Counsel. An original and three copies of the motion (an original and three copies--wow, I'll make a note of that!) shall be filed with the committee prior to or during the proceeding before a reviewing committee and a copy shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Counsel to the complainant, the respondent and their counsel. The motion shall clearly explain the reasons for the requested dismissal.
C. The reviewing committee shall hear the motion on the record. At such hearing, the reviewing committee shall allow argument from the Disciplinary Counsel, the Respondent or Respondent's counsel concerning the motion. The Complainant or Complainant's counsel may make a staement in support of, or in opposition to the motion." (Seriously, just a statement? Not an argument? How come the Respondant has all the fun of an argument, but not the Complainant...not fair!)
"D. Following the hearing, the reviewing committee shall issue a written decision either granting or denying the motion.
1. If the Motion is granted, notice shall be sent to the Disciplinary Counsel, the participants and their counsel and the matter shall be dismissed.
2. If the motion is denied, Disciplinary Counsel, the participants and their counsel shall be notified and the matter shall be scheduled for a hearing before a different reviewing committee.
What this change in the procedure does is essentially water down a procedure that was already watered down so much that it is even more impossible to hold any lawyer accountable for his or her actions than it was before, and it is even now more impossible to hold a lawyer accountable at Statewide than it would be if you brought your complaint before the civil court. That is ridiculous!
This new rule adds an additional step to bringing a complaint before the review committee so that it can be dismissed quickly before anyone has the opportunity to take note of it. It adds more opportunities for the Statewide Grievance Committee and its panels to kick up dust, wear out complainants, and deflect scutiny from their proceedings.
I am further interested in how this change in the rules took place. How come I never heard of this proposed change in the rules before, and now I find out about it long after it has been voted in place and there is nothing I can do about it? I mean, seriously, what about Connecticut General Statute 51-14 which requires that there be a public hearing in regard to all rule changes in the Connecticut Practice Book. Did anyone know about any hearing in regard to this rule at any time whatsoever?
Well, ready or not, this rule is now in place and will be effective on April 12, 2012. Gotta love that Connecticut Style Democracy. Why bother to check with your citizens who are going to be affected by this new rule. Guess the rules committee figured that the hearing requirement was too petty and annoying to obey.
This is how this new rule goes:
"A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 7(C)(1) of these rules, Discipinary Counsel may file a motion to dismiss a grievance complaint after a finding of probable cause under the following circumstances:
1. Disciplinary Counsel believes that he or she does not have evidence to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof required to prove the alleged rule violations; or
2. The Respondent is exposed to discipline for the same conduct under Practice Book Sec. 2-39, 2-40, or 2-41. Any motion granated under this subsection will be without prejudice to the Disciplinary Counsel filing a new grievance complaint or presentment pursuant to practice Book Sec. 2-39, 2-40 or 2-41."
Ok, I get number two, you wouldn't want duplication of punishment...oh, but then again, maybe I actually do! But number one--excuse me!
Continuing on, this is how it goes next:
"B. the motion to dismiss under this rule may only be filed by the Disciplinary Counsel. An original and three copies of the motion (an original and three copies--wow, I'll make a note of that!) shall be filed with the committee prior to or during the proceeding before a reviewing committee and a copy shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Counsel to the complainant, the respondent and their counsel. The motion shall clearly explain the reasons for the requested dismissal.
C. The reviewing committee shall hear the motion on the record. At such hearing, the reviewing committee shall allow argument from the Disciplinary Counsel, the Respondent or Respondent's counsel concerning the motion. The Complainant or Complainant's counsel may make a staement in support of, or in opposition to the motion." (Seriously, just a statement? Not an argument? How come the Respondant has all the fun of an argument, but not the Complainant...not fair!)
"D. Following the hearing, the reviewing committee shall issue a written decision either granting or denying the motion.
1. If the Motion is granted, notice shall be sent to the Disciplinary Counsel, the participants and their counsel and the matter shall be dismissed.
2. If the motion is denied, Disciplinary Counsel, the participants and their counsel shall be notified and the matter shall be scheduled for a hearing before a different reviewing committee.
What this change in the procedure does is essentially water down a procedure that was already watered down so much that it is even more impossible to hold any lawyer accountable for his or her actions than it was before, and it is even now more impossible to hold a lawyer accountable at Statewide than it would be if you brought your complaint before the civil court. That is ridiculous!
This new rule adds an additional step to bringing a complaint before the review committee so that it can be dismissed quickly before anyone has the opportunity to take note of it. It adds more opportunities for the Statewide Grievance Committee and its panels to kick up dust, wear out complainants, and deflect scutiny from their proceedings.
I am further interested in how this change in the rules took place. How come I never heard of this proposed change in the rules before, and now I find out about it long after it has been voted in place and there is nothing I can do about it? I mean, seriously, what about Connecticut General Statute 51-14 which requires that there be a public hearing in regard to all rule changes in the Connecticut Practice Book. Did anyone know about any hearing in regard to this rule at any time whatsoever?
Well, ready or not, this rule is now in place and will be effective on April 12, 2012. Gotta love that Connecticut Style Democracy. Why bother to check with your citizens who are going to be affected by this new rule. Guess the rules committee figured that the hearing requirement was too petty and annoying to obey.
Monday, March 19, 2012
LIBERTI V. LIBERTI, A.C. 33006
There are some cases which you read about online where you can't help thinking that something really stupid has gone on. This is the situation with the decision on the case Liberti v. Liberti which just came out on January 10, 2010. Let me just give you an overview of what happened based upon the Appellate Court's report on the case.
Here there was a plaintiff, Sunny G. Liberti, and her ex husband Robert D. Liberi, the defendant. They both had a child, a boy, born on December 9, 2003 which would currently make him about 6 at the time the divorce was filed, and then about 9 at the time of this decision.
Apparently, during the pendente lite period, the parties agreed to a joint custody arrangement where mother, Sunny Liberti, had residential custody of the child, and the defendant, Robert Liberti, had visitation. However, there was a provision in the agreement that defendant's mother would be present in the home for any overnight visitation.
Ok, so you already suspect from reading that particular provision that there is something funny going on. The Plaintiff must have some concerns that perhaps there could be some inappropriate behavior going on during the night, otherwise, why bother with such a provision.
At the same time, the parties in the case agreed to appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.
Later the following year, on August 3, 2010, the defendant filed an ex parte motion for immediate sole custody of the minor child which was scheduled for a hearing on August 6, 2010. Prior to the hearing, the case went before a special master which resulted in a new parenting plan which included shared physical custody of the child and increased visitation time for the defendant. The agreement made no mention of the prior requirement that the defendant's mother be present for overnight visitation.
Oh, come on. Please, please, please! Is the Appellate Court really going to skip what happened from the time when the first agreement was signed to the point when the second agreement was signed which would somehow explain the dramatic increase in the defendant's access to the child. I mean, I really want to know. I assume some of what happened must have been the GAL's investigation. So, what did he or she conclude? Don't keep it a big secret!
The narrative then jumps to November 3, 2010 when a deposition was held during which Sunny Liberti, the plaintiff, made allegations of abuse against the defendant with respect to the child and disclosed documentation that allegedly demonstrated the abuse. Well, in the State of Connecticut, that's (i.e. abuse allegations) the kiss of death--don't we all know it!
The appellate court continues on to state that the opposing attorney and the GAL had never seen the documentation of the abuse prior to the deposition. I believe that this statement is made to cast the shadow of doubt on Sunny Liberti's allegations of abuse, but I'm not sure why. I mean, so the plaintiff hadn't actually shared the documents previously, had she made the allegations previously? I'll bet she had! Had she had the opportunity to share the documents previously? Possibly not! Who knows why? It could have been through no fault of her own for all we know.
I'm just getting this feeling that I am not getting the whole story here. I mean, why else would the Defendant have agreed to supervised overnight visitation with the child at the beginning of the case had the Plaintiff not expressed her concern about abuse previously. Oh, the GREAT unspoken. How it is speaking to me now, it is whispering loudly, very loudly in my ear.
So, to move on, we have a crucial juncture in the case where Plaintiff is speaking out about the abuse, she is presenting the evidence, and what happens with her attorney? The Cowardly B--d makes a Motion to Withdraw his Appearance. I mean, excuse me, hello, you were hired to ADVOCATE for your client, whether you believe your client or not, you are supposed to do all you can to further your client's position. And what have you done? You have decided to withdraw from the case, pretty much casting your vote with the defense, discrediting and destroying your client's case.
What Sunny's attorney should have done, ethically speaking, if he didn't want to be in the case, was to defend her to the best of his ability for another month or so and then transfer the case to another attorney. But no, he isn't going to do that! He is going to cause his client as much harm and damage as he can, then withdraw. Is there a special place in hell for attorneys like that, because I would really, really like to know.
Seeing an opportunity, the defendant's attorney then filed an Emergency Motion for Immediate Sole Custody and Supervised Visitation. The court then informed the parties that the defendant's motion would be heard on the same day as the plaintiff attorney's Motion to Withdraw.
Oh, the trial court. You've gotta love it. Give the trial court the opportunity to do something absolutely evil, and it will certainly take it. Here you have a crucial custody motion and an attorney in place on behalf of the plaintiff who has shown himself to be a back stabbing, no good, disloyal skunk and the trial court pretty much puts the plaintiff in a position where the only person there to defend her is the complete skunk. Thank you trial court. I made a bet that you would act equally skunk like, and you did, so I think I win five bucks. OK. Moving on.
At this point in the case the Appellate Court states that "No objection to the immediacy of the hearing was made by either party or the guardian ad litem. In addition, the plaintiff did not express any concern about having her attorney represent her despite his pending motion to withdraw." No, I can imagine she didn't; she was probably in total shock that the Trial Court could act in such an unjust and unfair manner.
There was a hearing and the Court then granted defendant's Emergency Motion for Immediate Sole Custody and Supervised Visitation. Of course, I'm thinking there has been a recent accusation that defendant is abusing this child, and the plaintiff just provided documentation regarding those abuse accusations. Shouldn't they be fully investigated in order to ensure the safety of the child before taking such a drastic step regarding custody? And if there is a great deal of conflict going on at this time of the divorce, is it the best and most reasonable solution to cut the child off from his mother? Is that an emotionally sound decision? I'm not sure about that. I mean, this is a worried mother, not some serial killer.
Apparently, subsequent to this decision the mother submitted a Motion For Reconsideration which was summarily denied. And the Appellate Court continues on the say, "Although the court sumarily denied the motion, the plaintiff did not file a Motion for Articulation of the factual or legal bases for the court's ruling." I will tell you why she didn't. It's because she was a self-represented party, thanks to the fact that her idiot attorney withdrew, and she had no idea that she was supposed to file one.
But seriously, who is the Appellate Court kidding, trial courts in this state routinely ignore or deny Motions for Articulation filed by self-represented parties. This is what gets me, the fakery that underlies this entire discussion, the pretense that some measure of due process is being observed. It is not being observed, ladies and gentlemen! The discussion of the case which the Appellate Court wrote up is just a travesty, a mockery of the judicial system and a disgrace to the judges who wrote it.
The plaintiff, Sunny Liberti, submitted her appeal to the Appellate Court based upon the fact that 1) She was denied her right to procedural due process when the custody issue was heard on the same day as her attorney's Motion to Withdraw and 2) That the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her Motion For Reconsideration.
In regard to her claim that she was denied her constitutional right to procedural due process, the Appellate Court stated that the plaintiff had failed to raise her constitutional claims before the trial court during the time of trial.
Ok, for those of you who don't know what that means, what the Appellate Court is talking about is some of what you see on TV programs. In "Law and Order" if the attorney disagreed with a ruling during a trial, he'd jump up and say, "I object." If you don't, well, you then haven't preserved your issue for appeal and therefore, supposedly, you can't bring the issue up on appeal. A Motion For Articulation, is another way of stating an objection and preserving an issue, thus making it possible to bring that issue up to the Appellate Court for review.
This concept is based upon Connecticut Practice Book Section 60-5 which states the following, "The court may reverse or modify the decision of the trial court if it determines that the factual findings are clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record or that the decision is otherwise erroneous in law. The court shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at the trial or arose subsequent to the trial."
As with everything there are exceptions to that rule which the Appellate Court mentions, "Although the plaintiff failed to raise her constitutional claims before the trial court, we acknowledge that a party may prevail on unpreserved constitutional claims pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). It is well established, however, that parties must affirmatively seek Golding review, and the moving party bears the burden of establishing an entitlement to appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims. State v. Commins, 276 Conn. 503, 515, 886 A.2d 824 (2005). In the present case, however, the plaintiff does not seek review under Golding." No, she just asks for review under common sense because as a self-represented party she didn't know anything about Golding but she had mentioned that her constitutional rights were violated and she wanted the situation corrected. So it is not as if the Appellate Court didn't know what she was asking for. I mean, honestly, give me a break.
Then the Appellate Court denied the Plaintiff's complaint that the denial of her Motion For Reconsideration was an abuse of the trial courts discretion basically stating that the lack of a Motion For Articulation made it impossible to know what the basis of the denial was, so they were unable to rule against it.
In other words, to make a long story short, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, or in more understandable language, plaintiff lost.
I have to say, it is discouraging to read court decisions like this. You would think that the legal system would treat citizens in a kinder and more humane fashion, that it would stand true to its ideals of acting in a just manner. But a case like this simply makes me shake my head and sigh. Yes, this is not the end. There are remedies for a plaintiff like this, but it is going to be an uphill battle.
Here there was a plaintiff, Sunny G. Liberti, and her ex husband Robert D. Liberi, the defendant. They both had a child, a boy, born on December 9, 2003 which would currently make him about 6 at the time the divorce was filed, and then about 9 at the time of this decision.
Apparently, during the pendente lite period, the parties agreed to a joint custody arrangement where mother, Sunny Liberti, had residential custody of the child, and the defendant, Robert Liberti, had visitation. However, there was a provision in the agreement that defendant's mother would be present in the home for any overnight visitation.
Ok, so you already suspect from reading that particular provision that there is something funny going on. The Plaintiff must have some concerns that perhaps there could be some inappropriate behavior going on during the night, otherwise, why bother with such a provision.
At the same time, the parties in the case agreed to appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.
Later the following year, on August 3, 2010, the defendant filed an ex parte motion for immediate sole custody of the minor child which was scheduled for a hearing on August 6, 2010. Prior to the hearing, the case went before a special master which resulted in a new parenting plan which included shared physical custody of the child and increased visitation time for the defendant. The agreement made no mention of the prior requirement that the defendant's mother be present for overnight visitation.
Oh, come on. Please, please, please! Is the Appellate Court really going to skip what happened from the time when the first agreement was signed to the point when the second agreement was signed which would somehow explain the dramatic increase in the defendant's access to the child. I mean, I really want to know. I assume some of what happened must have been the GAL's investigation. So, what did he or she conclude? Don't keep it a big secret!
The narrative then jumps to November 3, 2010 when a deposition was held during which Sunny Liberti, the plaintiff, made allegations of abuse against the defendant with respect to the child and disclosed documentation that allegedly demonstrated the abuse. Well, in the State of Connecticut, that's (i.e. abuse allegations) the kiss of death--don't we all know it!
The appellate court continues on to state that the opposing attorney and the GAL had never seen the documentation of the abuse prior to the deposition. I believe that this statement is made to cast the shadow of doubt on Sunny Liberti's allegations of abuse, but I'm not sure why. I mean, so the plaintiff hadn't actually shared the documents previously, had she made the allegations previously? I'll bet she had! Had she had the opportunity to share the documents previously? Possibly not! Who knows why? It could have been through no fault of her own for all we know.
I'm just getting this feeling that I am not getting the whole story here. I mean, why else would the Defendant have agreed to supervised overnight visitation with the child at the beginning of the case had the Plaintiff not expressed her concern about abuse previously. Oh, the GREAT unspoken. How it is speaking to me now, it is whispering loudly, very loudly in my ear.
So, to move on, we have a crucial juncture in the case where Plaintiff is speaking out about the abuse, she is presenting the evidence, and what happens with her attorney? The Cowardly B--d makes a Motion to Withdraw his Appearance. I mean, excuse me, hello, you were hired to ADVOCATE for your client, whether you believe your client or not, you are supposed to do all you can to further your client's position. And what have you done? You have decided to withdraw from the case, pretty much casting your vote with the defense, discrediting and destroying your client's case.
What Sunny's attorney should have done, ethically speaking, if he didn't want to be in the case, was to defend her to the best of his ability for another month or so and then transfer the case to another attorney. But no, he isn't going to do that! He is going to cause his client as much harm and damage as he can, then withdraw. Is there a special place in hell for attorneys like that, because I would really, really like to know.
Seeing an opportunity, the defendant's attorney then filed an Emergency Motion for Immediate Sole Custody and Supervised Visitation. The court then informed the parties that the defendant's motion would be heard on the same day as the plaintiff attorney's Motion to Withdraw.
Oh, the trial court. You've gotta love it. Give the trial court the opportunity to do something absolutely evil, and it will certainly take it. Here you have a crucial custody motion and an attorney in place on behalf of the plaintiff who has shown himself to be a back stabbing, no good, disloyal skunk and the trial court pretty much puts the plaintiff in a position where the only person there to defend her is the complete skunk. Thank you trial court. I made a bet that you would act equally skunk like, and you did, so I think I win five bucks. OK. Moving on.
At this point in the case the Appellate Court states that "No objection to the immediacy of the hearing was made by either party or the guardian ad litem. In addition, the plaintiff did not express any concern about having her attorney represent her despite his pending motion to withdraw." No, I can imagine she didn't; she was probably in total shock that the Trial Court could act in such an unjust and unfair manner.
There was a hearing and the Court then granted defendant's Emergency Motion for Immediate Sole Custody and Supervised Visitation. Of course, I'm thinking there has been a recent accusation that defendant is abusing this child, and the plaintiff just provided documentation regarding those abuse accusations. Shouldn't they be fully investigated in order to ensure the safety of the child before taking such a drastic step regarding custody? And if there is a great deal of conflict going on at this time of the divorce, is it the best and most reasonable solution to cut the child off from his mother? Is that an emotionally sound decision? I'm not sure about that. I mean, this is a worried mother, not some serial killer.
Apparently, subsequent to this decision the mother submitted a Motion For Reconsideration which was summarily denied. And the Appellate Court continues on the say, "Although the court sumarily denied the motion, the plaintiff did not file a Motion for Articulation of the factual or legal bases for the court's ruling." I will tell you why she didn't. It's because she was a self-represented party, thanks to the fact that her idiot attorney withdrew, and she had no idea that she was supposed to file one.
But seriously, who is the Appellate Court kidding, trial courts in this state routinely ignore or deny Motions for Articulation filed by self-represented parties. This is what gets me, the fakery that underlies this entire discussion, the pretense that some measure of due process is being observed. It is not being observed, ladies and gentlemen! The discussion of the case which the Appellate Court wrote up is just a travesty, a mockery of the judicial system and a disgrace to the judges who wrote it.
The plaintiff, Sunny Liberti, submitted her appeal to the Appellate Court based upon the fact that 1) She was denied her right to procedural due process when the custody issue was heard on the same day as her attorney's Motion to Withdraw and 2) That the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her Motion For Reconsideration.
In regard to her claim that she was denied her constitutional right to procedural due process, the Appellate Court stated that the plaintiff had failed to raise her constitutional claims before the trial court during the time of trial.
Ok, for those of you who don't know what that means, what the Appellate Court is talking about is some of what you see on TV programs. In "Law and Order" if the attorney disagreed with a ruling during a trial, he'd jump up and say, "I object." If you don't, well, you then haven't preserved your issue for appeal and therefore, supposedly, you can't bring the issue up on appeal. A Motion For Articulation, is another way of stating an objection and preserving an issue, thus making it possible to bring that issue up to the Appellate Court for review.
This concept is based upon Connecticut Practice Book Section 60-5 which states the following, "The court may reverse or modify the decision of the trial court if it determines that the factual findings are clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record or that the decision is otherwise erroneous in law. The court shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at the trial or arose subsequent to the trial."
As with everything there are exceptions to that rule which the Appellate Court mentions, "Although the plaintiff failed to raise her constitutional claims before the trial court, we acknowledge that a party may prevail on unpreserved constitutional claims pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). It is well established, however, that parties must affirmatively seek Golding review, and the moving party bears the burden of establishing an entitlement to appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims. State v. Commins, 276 Conn. 503, 515, 886 A.2d 824 (2005). In the present case, however, the plaintiff does not seek review under Golding." No, she just asks for review under common sense because as a self-represented party she didn't know anything about Golding but she had mentioned that her constitutional rights were violated and she wanted the situation corrected. So it is not as if the Appellate Court didn't know what she was asking for. I mean, honestly, give me a break.
Then the Appellate Court denied the Plaintiff's complaint that the denial of her Motion For Reconsideration was an abuse of the trial courts discretion basically stating that the lack of a Motion For Articulation made it impossible to know what the basis of the denial was, so they were unable to rule against it.
In other words, to make a long story short, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, or in more understandable language, plaintiff lost.
I have to say, it is discouraging to read court decisions like this. You would think that the legal system would treat citizens in a kinder and more humane fashion, that it would stand true to its ideals of acting in a just manner. But a case like this simply makes me shake my head and sigh. Yes, this is not the end. There are remedies for a plaintiff like this, but it is going to be an uphill battle.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
LAWYER JOKE FROM THE INTERNET!
Two lawyers had been stranded on a deserted island for several months. The only other thing on the island was the tall coconut tree which provided them with food.
Each day, one of the lawyers climbed to the top of the tree to see if he could see a rescue boat coming. One day, the lawyer yelled down from the tree, "Wow! I can't believe my eyes! I don't believe that this is true! There's a beautiful, naked blonde woman floating our way!"
The lawyer on the ground was skeptical. "You're hallucinating." he said, "You better get down from there right now."
So, the lawyer reluctantly climbed down the tree and began describing the beautiful naked blonde floating face up and headed toward their island. The other lawyer started to laugh, thinking his friend had surely lost his mind.
But, sure enough, within a few minutes up to the beach floated a naked blonde woman, face up, totally unconscious. The two lawyers dragged the young lady out of the surf, still unconscious, and stood over her admiring her beauty.
"You know, we've been on this island for months now without a woman," the first lawyer said. "It's been a long time...do you think we should, you know, screw her?"
The other lawyer glanced down at the totally naked woman and asked, "Out of what?"
Each day, one of the lawyers climbed to the top of the tree to see if he could see a rescue boat coming. One day, the lawyer yelled down from the tree, "Wow! I can't believe my eyes! I don't believe that this is true! There's a beautiful, naked blonde woman floating our way!"
The lawyer on the ground was skeptical. "You're hallucinating." he said, "You better get down from there right now."
So, the lawyer reluctantly climbed down the tree and began describing the beautiful naked blonde floating face up and headed toward their island. The other lawyer started to laugh, thinking his friend had surely lost his mind.
But, sure enough, within a few minutes up to the beach floated a naked blonde woman, face up, totally unconscious. The two lawyers dragged the young lady out of the surf, still unconscious, and stood over her admiring her beauty.
"You know, we've been on this island for months now without a woman," the first lawyer said. "It's been a long time...do you think we should, you know, screw her?"
The other lawyer glanced down at the totally naked woman and asked, "Out of what?"
Friday, March 16, 2012
RAISED HOUSE BILL NO. 5509, AN OUTRIGHT ATTACK ON YOUR RIGHT TO ALIMONY!
On Monday, March 19, 2012, at 1:00pm at the LOB there is a hearing on a new bill entitled "An Act Concerning the Payment of Alimony and Child Support." Just looking at this act, I can understand why the section under "Introduced by:" is blank because I'm sure no legislator would wish to take responsibility for this outright attack on your legal right to alimony which this bill represents. For a copy of this bill look under the following link:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5509&which_year=2012&SUBMIT1.x=11&SUBMIT1.y=9&SUBMIT1=Normal
(For those of you who don't know, in a proposed bill the black print is for what is already in the Connecticut General Statute, the blue print is for wording that is proposed to be added to the Statute, and red print is for wording that is proposed to be removed. In this bill there is no red print.)
The changes in the Connecticut Statute that this bill proposes would affect the amount of alimony that you can receive in a serious way as of October 1, 2012.
First, it specifically establishes caps on the amount of alimony that a person can receive. For example, it limits alimony to a period of only one half the duration of your marriage. For those with a financial agreement signed before October 1, 2012 in which alimony exceeds that limit, this bill would then grant litigants the right to return to court and request a modification. The bill also limits alimony to thirty to thirty-five percent of the difference between the gross income of the parties established at the time the alimony order was issued.
Second, this bill would allow the court to revoke alimony based upon the fact that the recipient of the alimony has been living with another person for little more than three months. This is an open invitation for an abusive and controlling ex spouse to invade the privacy of a spouse who is the recipient of alimony.
Third, this bill would allow alimony to be terminated once the party responsible for the payment of periodic alimony attains retirement age, even if the party is capable of working beyond retirement age. This is ridiculous. If a party has a financial obligation as important as that of alimony, this obligation shouldn't simply end because a person is retiring. Are you allowed to stop paying your mortgage simply because you have retired? I don't think so. If you go to an doctor's office will you be excused from paying the fees simply because you have retired? I don't think so. Likewise, if you have a financial obligation such as alimony which provides an essential economic base for an ex spouse, even if you have retired, you should still be held accountable and required to pay it.
This bill is promoted on a website entitled "Connecticut Alimony Reform" which can be found at:
www.ctalimonyreform.com
which is maintained by a group of individuals who wish to remain anonyous because, I suppose, like the state legislators who don't wish to be named as sponsoring this bill, they like to do their dirty work in secret.
This group is promoting H.B. 5509 by stating it will make divorces easier to settle. Yeah, by railroading vulnerable litigants into agreements they would not accept otherwise. They also say it will reduce the stress and strife of divorce, get this, in the lives of our children. Right, because with laws like this you don't have to play as many games with the children, such as making false claims for custody, in order to eliminate alimony. I get it!
Oh, and there is more. The justifications for this abominable bill don't end here. These guys say the bill is pro-family and pro-marriage. Get real. What this bill actually does is provide an abusive ex spouse with an excuse to nose around and interfere in the life of a former spouse, and prevent him or her from rebuilding and moving forward. I mean God Forbid an abused ex spouse actually move on an establish a relationship with some other person! If I can't have him or her, this bill's underlying agenda states, nobody can.
Take the time to download this bill, review it and absorb what it is saying. Then contact your State Representative and tell him or her to vote this bill down in no uncertain terms.
Also, if you can take that one step further, come to the Legislative Office Building this Monday at 1:00pm and provide your personal testimony against this proposed bill. To do so, have one original and sixteen copies which you can give to the clerk. Ordinarily, you have around five minutes to speak and your testimony should be geared accordingly.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5509&which_year=2012&SUBMIT1.x=11&SUBMIT1.y=9&SUBMIT1=Normal
(For those of you who don't know, in a proposed bill the black print is for what is already in the Connecticut General Statute, the blue print is for wording that is proposed to be added to the Statute, and red print is for wording that is proposed to be removed. In this bill there is no red print.)
The changes in the Connecticut Statute that this bill proposes would affect the amount of alimony that you can receive in a serious way as of October 1, 2012.
First, it specifically establishes caps on the amount of alimony that a person can receive. For example, it limits alimony to a period of only one half the duration of your marriage. For those with a financial agreement signed before October 1, 2012 in which alimony exceeds that limit, this bill would then grant litigants the right to return to court and request a modification. The bill also limits alimony to thirty to thirty-five percent of the difference between the gross income of the parties established at the time the alimony order was issued.
Second, this bill would allow the court to revoke alimony based upon the fact that the recipient of the alimony has been living with another person for little more than three months. This is an open invitation for an abusive and controlling ex spouse to invade the privacy of a spouse who is the recipient of alimony.
Third, this bill would allow alimony to be terminated once the party responsible for the payment of periodic alimony attains retirement age, even if the party is capable of working beyond retirement age. This is ridiculous. If a party has a financial obligation as important as that of alimony, this obligation shouldn't simply end because a person is retiring. Are you allowed to stop paying your mortgage simply because you have retired? I don't think so. If you go to an doctor's office will you be excused from paying the fees simply because you have retired? I don't think so. Likewise, if you have a financial obligation such as alimony which provides an essential economic base for an ex spouse, even if you have retired, you should still be held accountable and required to pay it.
This bill is promoted on a website entitled "Connecticut Alimony Reform" which can be found at:
www.ctalimonyreform.com
which is maintained by a group of individuals who wish to remain anonyous because, I suppose, like the state legislators who don't wish to be named as sponsoring this bill, they like to do their dirty work in secret.
This group is promoting H.B. 5509 by stating it will make divorces easier to settle. Yeah, by railroading vulnerable litigants into agreements they would not accept otherwise. They also say it will reduce the stress and strife of divorce, get this, in the lives of our children. Right, because with laws like this you don't have to play as many games with the children, such as making false claims for custody, in order to eliminate alimony. I get it!
Oh, and there is more. The justifications for this abominable bill don't end here. These guys say the bill is pro-family and pro-marriage. Get real. What this bill actually does is provide an abusive ex spouse with an excuse to nose around and interfere in the life of a former spouse, and prevent him or her from rebuilding and moving forward. I mean God Forbid an abused ex spouse actually move on an establish a relationship with some other person! If I can't have him or her, this bill's underlying agenda states, nobody can.
Take the time to download this bill, review it and absorb what it is saying. Then contact your State Representative and tell him or her to vote this bill down in no uncertain terms.
Also, if you can take that one step further, come to the Legislative Office Building this Monday at 1:00pm and provide your personal testimony against this proposed bill. To do so, have one original and sixteen copies which you can give to the clerk. Ordinarily, you have around five minutes to speak and your testimony should be geared accordingly.
PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST: DO JUDGES HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS? DO THEY CARE?
I have sometimes talked about my children. My oldest daughter, Marianne, is a really wonderful child who is very bright. She loves animals and she loves to run around and play soccer with her friends. In addition, she also has ADHD.
I am very careful about how I speak about my child. I wasn't always that way. I used to think that the ADHD defined her and when I was with other mothers practically the first thing I would say is, "My child is hyperactive." It took my a long time, after some gentle comments from other parents, before I realized that the ADHD was just another part of they many great qualities that my daughter has that makes her the wonderful, caring person she is today.
Imagine then how difficult it was for me, last year, to read a Memorandum of Decision that a judge wrote describing my daughter by stating "She is handicapped." "She's hyperactive." Yes, I had done that myself, but I had learned better. Instead of speaking of my child as handicapped, I had learned to say, "My daughter needs support with focusing in the classroom." Instead of saying she is hyperactive, I had learned to say, "Sometimes it is hard for her to sit still when she needs to." In other words, I didn't define my daughter solely according to her diagnosis. I had learned to speak of my daughter's many fine qualities, not just the one that could end up being challenging for her in her daily life. By doing so, I was using what is known as "people first language."
Recognizing that not everyone is aware of how important it is to use people first language, I drew up a Motion for Rectification and submitted it to the judge requesting that he change the language he used to describe my daughter and use people first language instead. He refused to do so.
Why is it important to use "People First Language"? People first language is a respectful way of talking about people who have disabilities. It is language which describes disability in a human way, using words that everyone can understand. It is language that makes the person more important than the disability, and discourages the use of terms to describe a disability that are disrespectful and demeaning.
Here are some examples below:
Hurtful Language: He is deaf.
Better: He is a person with deafness.
Hurtful Language: She is blind.
Better: She is a person with blindness.
Hurtful Language: He is a dwarf.
Better: He is a person of short stature.
Hurtful Language: He is an epileptic.
Better: He is a person with a seizure disorder.
Hurtful Language: She is crazy or a lunatic or a maniac. Better: She is a person with a mental health disability.
Hurtful Language: He suffers from or is afflicted with or is a victim of...
Better: He is a person with...
The problem with the kind of language we are criticizing here is that such language implies that the individual is primarily the disability he or she has and that it centrally defines them. In fact people are not their disabilities. I know that may be hard to believe, but truly they are not. You don't say, "I am cancer." So why do you say something like "I am blind." Both comments don't make sense.
People are not their diseases, and they are not their disabilities. People are a broad range of qualities both good and bad, and then one of those multiple qualities just happens to be a disability.
It's the person first.
The use of people first language is particularly important when the hurtful language is truly insulting or stigmatizing. You would think that, above all, a judge would not wish to be discourteous or disrespectful towards people who have disabilities, or to their relatives. Unfortunately, this is not true of the judge in my case who simply refused to use people first language even though he was informed and he was offered the opportunity to do so.
And it is not as though people in Connecticut are not aware of the importance of using appropriate language such as that which I have described when referring to people with disabilities. For example, in 2007 the State of Connecticut passed a respectful language bill (SB63) which required the use of respectful language when referring to persons with disabilities in Connecticut General Statutes. If you talk to any person who works in the area of disabiility, you will find that they are all well informed about the importance of using people first language. This is not a new concept.
So how is it that a judge of the Superior Court can simply refuse to use it? This is my question. I was shocked when the judge in my case first of all, didn't use it automatically as a matter of course, and second when he simply flouted my request that he use people first language when speaking of my daughter.
As a result, I sent a complaint to the Judicial Review Council last year asking them to insist that this judge use people first language. Ten months later, after submitting several letters requesting a determination in regard to my complaint, I finally received a response. My request was denied. Finding it hard to believe that my simple request to have a judge speak respectfully about my daughter could possibly be denied, I wrote again to the Judicial Review Council to reconsider. Again, I received a letter denying my request.
What bothered me was not just the denial, but also that the letter I received was a prewritten form that was probably sent to everyone whose complaints were denied. There was no indication that they had even read or considered my complaint seriously. For all I know they took five minutes to dump my complaint in file 13 and then sent me the form letter from a big stack of identical form letters of denial they sent out to everyone.
So much for judicial accountability!
What bothers me is that when judges have the right to call you names when you appear before them in Court, and you can't name yourself, this robs you of your identity and whittles away at your humanity. Furthermore, if judges in the State of Connecticut have the right to call citizens any insulting names they feel like using, we are all vulnerable and powerless.
And this leads to the next question: If judges have learned to have the decency to stop using the N word in regard to African-Americans, if judges have learned not to refer to people who are Jewish using the K word, and if they have stopped using the W word in regard to Italian-Americans, or the F word in regard to homosexuals why can't they have the maturity to eliminate similar terminology when talking about disability?
I would welcome readers thoughts on this issue. See below the very special video on using people first language, and also check out People First of Connecticut at: www.peoplefirstct.com
I am very careful about how I speak about my child. I wasn't always that way. I used to think that the ADHD defined her and when I was with other mothers practically the first thing I would say is, "My child is hyperactive." It took my a long time, after some gentle comments from other parents, before I realized that the ADHD was just another part of they many great qualities that my daughter has that makes her the wonderful, caring person she is today.
Imagine then how difficult it was for me, last year, to read a Memorandum of Decision that a judge wrote describing my daughter by stating "She is handicapped." "She's hyperactive." Yes, I had done that myself, but I had learned better. Instead of speaking of my child as handicapped, I had learned to say, "My daughter needs support with focusing in the classroom." Instead of saying she is hyperactive, I had learned to say, "Sometimes it is hard for her to sit still when she needs to." In other words, I didn't define my daughter solely according to her diagnosis. I had learned to speak of my daughter's many fine qualities, not just the one that could end up being challenging for her in her daily life. By doing so, I was using what is known as "people first language."
Recognizing that not everyone is aware of how important it is to use people first language, I drew up a Motion for Rectification and submitted it to the judge requesting that he change the language he used to describe my daughter and use people first language instead. He refused to do so.
Why is it important to use "People First Language"? People first language is a respectful way of talking about people who have disabilities. It is language which describes disability in a human way, using words that everyone can understand. It is language that makes the person more important than the disability, and discourages the use of terms to describe a disability that are disrespectful and demeaning.
Here are some examples below:
Hurtful Language: He is deaf.
Better: He is a person with deafness.
Hurtful Language: She is blind.
Better: She is a person with blindness.
Hurtful Language: He is a dwarf.
Better: He is a person of short stature.
Hurtful Language: He is an epileptic.
Better: He is a person with a seizure disorder.
Hurtful Language: She is crazy or a lunatic or a maniac. Better: She is a person with a mental health disability.
Hurtful Language: He suffers from or is afflicted with or is a victim of...
Better: He is a person with...
The problem with the kind of language we are criticizing here is that such language implies that the individual is primarily the disability he or she has and that it centrally defines them. In fact people are not their disabilities. I know that may be hard to believe, but truly they are not. You don't say, "I am cancer." So why do you say something like "I am blind." Both comments don't make sense.
People are not their diseases, and they are not their disabilities. People are a broad range of qualities both good and bad, and then one of those multiple qualities just happens to be a disability.
It's the person first.
The use of people first language is particularly important when the hurtful language is truly insulting or stigmatizing. You would think that, above all, a judge would not wish to be discourteous or disrespectful towards people who have disabilities, or to their relatives. Unfortunately, this is not true of the judge in my case who simply refused to use people first language even though he was informed and he was offered the opportunity to do so.
And it is not as though people in Connecticut are not aware of the importance of using appropriate language such as that which I have described when referring to people with disabilities. For example, in 2007 the State of Connecticut passed a respectful language bill (SB63) which required the use of respectful language when referring to persons with disabilities in Connecticut General Statutes. If you talk to any person who works in the area of disabiility, you will find that they are all well informed about the importance of using people first language. This is not a new concept.
So how is it that a judge of the Superior Court can simply refuse to use it? This is my question. I was shocked when the judge in my case first of all, didn't use it automatically as a matter of course, and second when he simply flouted my request that he use people first language when speaking of my daughter.
As a result, I sent a complaint to the Judicial Review Council last year asking them to insist that this judge use people first language. Ten months later, after submitting several letters requesting a determination in regard to my complaint, I finally received a response. My request was denied. Finding it hard to believe that my simple request to have a judge speak respectfully about my daughter could possibly be denied, I wrote again to the Judicial Review Council to reconsider. Again, I received a letter denying my request.
What bothered me was not just the denial, but also that the letter I received was a prewritten form that was probably sent to everyone whose complaints were denied. There was no indication that they had even read or considered my complaint seriously. For all I know they took five minutes to dump my complaint in file 13 and then sent me the form letter from a big stack of identical form letters of denial they sent out to everyone.
So much for judicial accountability!
What bothers me is that when judges have the right to call you names when you appear before them in Court, and you can't name yourself, this robs you of your identity and whittles away at your humanity. Furthermore, if judges in the State of Connecticut have the right to call citizens any insulting names they feel like using, we are all vulnerable and powerless.
And this leads to the next question: If judges have learned to have the decency to stop using the N word in regard to African-Americans, if judges have learned not to refer to people who are Jewish using the K word, and if they have stopped using the W word in regard to Italian-Americans, or the F word in regard to homosexuals why can't they have the maturity to eliminate similar terminology when talking about disability?
I would welcome readers thoughts on this issue. See below the very special video on using people first language, and also check out People First of Connecticut at: www.peoplefirstct.com
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
NEW ADA WEBINAR SCHEDULED FOR APRIL WITH DR. KARIN HUFFER! BE SURE YOU SIGN UP! BE INFORMED REGARDING THE ADA, PROTECT YOUR DISABILITY RIGHTS!
· Sign up by March 20 and save $50—Course cost is $495.
· Webinar conducted by Dr. Karin Huffer—702.528.9588
· Starting April12, 2012 at 11:30 AM to 2PM Mountain Standard Time
· The webinar will be recorded and you will be provided a key for self-study or review if you miss part of the class or choose to follow the classes on your own time.
· You will be provided the textbook and a downloadable manual to accompany the class.
· When the class is completed, you receive a certificate as a Certified ADA Advocate or ADA Forensic Specialist and badge with a serial number.
LINKS - A SMALL BUT IMPORTANT PART OF THIS WEBSITE!
Often, I have people who write to me and ask me for resources to assist them in their divorce and custody battles. In response to the question, I want to draw your attention to my links page. If you scroll down the front page of my website with your eyes to the left, you will see in capital letters the word "LINKS". It is directly below labels under "pages". Do not overlook this particular page.
This page contains the very best resources that I have been able to find on the internet during the time I have struggled with my own divorce. I would have this page more highlighted and noticeable, because it is really the most important posting that I have on this website. However, google blogger is not a very flexible program, so I am unable to bring it to reader attention as effectively as I would like. That's why I am reminding you now.
Make sure that you go to this links page, go to all the websites that I have listed on a regular basis, not only for the information they have posted at present, but for the regular updates that they provide. You can also contact the experts who have posted these websites and learn more from them directly.
I have listed on the links page only those websites where I said to myself, upon discovering them, wow, I am so grateful that I found this page. It is helping me so much and I feel as though I am in a much stronger position as a result of reviewing it. I cannot urge you enough to check out my links page, because I have considerable resources on that page and I am convinced that you would all substantially benefit from reviewing them.
Get back to me and let me know of your experience checking out the links. If you benefited, if you didn't. I would love to hear your feedback.
In addition, I am always interested in other websites where there is valuable information for folks going through high conflict divorce, so if you know of other websites that you would like to recommend, don't hesitate to contact me at: Slopercathy@gmail.com. Thanks so much!
This page contains the very best resources that I have been able to find on the internet during the time I have struggled with my own divorce. I would have this page more highlighted and noticeable, because it is really the most important posting that I have on this website. However, google blogger is not a very flexible program, so I am unable to bring it to reader attention as effectively as I would like. That's why I am reminding you now.
Make sure that you go to this links page, go to all the websites that I have listed on a regular basis, not only for the information they have posted at present, but for the regular updates that they provide. You can also contact the experts who have posted these websites and learn more from them directly.
I have listed on the links page only those websites where I said to myself, upon discovering them, wow, I am so grateful that I found this page. It is helping me so much and I feel as though I am in a much stronger position as a result of reviewing it. I cannot urge you enough to check out my links page, because I have considerable resources on that page and I am convinced that you would all substantially benefit from reviewing them.
Get back to me and let me know of your experience checking out the links. If you benefited, if you didn't. I would love to hear your feedback.
In addition, I am always interested in other websites where there is valuable information for folks going through high conflict divorce, so if you know of other websites that you would like to recommend, don't hesitate to contact me at: Slopercathy@gmail.com. Thanks so much!
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)