BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559, HE'S BAD. THAT'S RIGHT! HE'S BAD. (4)

(Continued from Part 3)

It must have been really fun for Gregory to spend his time with Dad sitting around playing video games, going to movies and things like that, once Dad retired and was much more available.  

As I have said before, previously, for the first eleven years of Gregory's life, his Dad was away in New York for the week and only returned home on weekends.  And I assume that some of that time on weekends was spent simply traveling back and forth and, I am assuming, Dad's mind must have been quite preoccupied with work for some of the time.  It is hard to leave work behind.  

Then in 1997, Dad retires and he is totally available.  That must have been quite a change and led to lots of changes in both Gregory and Mr. Bauer's life, including the fact that both would have had the time to get to know each other better and develop a closer relationship.  

So, what kind of man was Mr. Charles I. Bauer.  Who was this man that Gregory was poised to develop a closer relationship to?

Luckily for you and me, since the trial court is transparent, and on the basis of the principle of transparency will spread all your private information out on the internet for everyone to see, we have all sorts of detail about Mr. Bauer.  

Not so of Mrs. Bauer. You realize that there was a psychological evaluation of Mrs. Bauer as well as Mr. Bauer so this practice of broadcasting all this information about the character of the parties should have affected both of them.  However, surprise surprise, there is no commentary of any real interest regarding Mrs. Bauer.  I would guess that everyone figured it wouldn't make sense to kill the golden goose who is laying the big fat golden eggs.  We want to keep her profile neat and tidy so she can keep up with her employment and pay all the bills.  

So Mrs. Bauer is looking really, really good, but Mr. Bauer?  

I have to shake my head.  Reading all this information on Mr. Bauer, he looks like a total scumbag.  

But first off, let's see how many doctors had a shot at examining this guy.  First, Dr. James C. Black in the custody evaluation, then there is Dr. Allan M. Jacobs, a psychiatrist specializing in substance abuse, Dr. Frank Stoll, to do the psychological evaluation, and then the neurological evaluation with Dr. Edward Fredericks.  Alrighty then, do we have enough cooks?!?  

So what do they say about our guy?  

He is anti-social, "Mr. Bauer leads a sendentary life in his retirement.  He has no apparent involvement in the community life of Simsbury."  

He is an alcoholic but denies it, "Until his use of alcohol became an issue in this dispute, he was a daily drinker, consuming beer occasionally at lunch, martinis in the evening, and wine periodically with dinner."  

Then he has a history of seizures, so he shouldn't be drinking, but he does anyway, "Though the number of seizures is disputed by the parties, it appears to the court that Mr. Bauer has had at least three convulsive episodes in his life time, each one associated with alcoholic intake."  Mr. Bauer knows his drinking upsets his son, Gregory, but does he stop?  No.  

Then, on top of the alcohol, Mr. Bauer "also smokes approximately a pack of cigarettes daily against medical advice." and, as a result, is in the early stages of emphysema.  When asked if he smokes in front of his son, he denied it.  According to the trial court, "While Mr. Bauer testified that he smokes in the bathroom upstairs and the fumes don't leave the bathroom, the court takes this claim as no more than a schoolboy's fantasy that evidence of smoking can be kept from the unwary."  

Then to top everything off, Dr. Stoll's evaluation of Mr. Bauer found that "this man lacks much insight into himself and others", that he is "disinclined to admit any social shortcomings", and that his personality structure has "a strong narcissistic component."  

As a final remark, Dr. Stoll says, "following Mrs. Bauer's relocation to Minnesota Mr. Bauer has assumed the primary responsibility for Gregory's care.  It has not gone well." Or as the trial court put it, describing that period, "Indeed, it is evident that Gregory was failing amidst Mr. Bauer's inattention and ignorance."

So what does Dr. James C. Black, the custody evaluator think of all this?  He asserts that despite Mr. Bauer's self-destructive behavior "that Mr. Bauer has been a positive role model for Gregory." which leads me to wonder:  Was Dr. Black smoking something very special himself?  I mean, did he pay attention to any of this information about Mr. Bauer's drinking, smoking, seizure inducing, child neglecting, narcissistic behavior, or was he snoozing through all of that?  

In regard to Dr. Black's testimony that Mr. Bauer is A-OK, for once, thank God, "The court disagrees."  It is not every day that the trial court disagrees with stupid, but this time it did.  And God bless the trial court for doing so.  

Of course, this testimony about Mr. Bauer could all be invented.  As we know, people do invent in family court.  And if any of us were scrutinized at length by four separate mental health professionals, I don't know how well any one of us would do.  

The bottom line is that the trial court's decision was the Mother would have custody if she would return to Connecticut and live in Simsbury and allow Gregory to finish high school there.  More than anything else, this decision is testimony to the power of a fifteen year old on a trial court's determinations.  Keep this in mind when you consider what is going on with you in family court.

This would give Mother around two months to find a new job in Connecticut, which isn't very much time for an upper level corporate executive.

Ultimately, also, the trial court gave no alimony to Mr. Bauer even though Mrs. Bauer made double the salary that he did.  So, if Mr Bauer's motivation for fighting for custody for Gregory was money, he was not going to get it.  And if Mrs. Bauer wanted custody of the child she said she loved, she would have to give up a considerable amount of her money, her salary, in order to have it.

Truly, a Solomonic conclusion to a very costly trial court proceeding.  

Tell me, what do you think, if the roles had been reversed and Mr. Bauer was the  one with the fancy job, and Mrs. Bauer was the drinker and smoker, would Mr. Bauer have been challenged to give up his job?  I wonder?

And there is more...

NEW DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDY ON CUSTODY EVALUATORS BELIEFS ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE!

HOT OFF THE PRESS!


http://ssw.umich.edu/about/profiles/saunddan/Custody-Evaluators-Beliefs-About-Domestic-Abuse-Allegations-Final-Tech-Report-to-NIJ-10-31-11.pdf

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559, THE CHILD (3)

The most difficult part of my divorce was the custody issue.  This is where I did everything I possibly could to protect the children from the battle that was going on in trial court. 

When my X and I exchanged the children for visitation, I did whatever I could to remain polite and to establish a reasonably friendly and civilized atmosphere.  I can remember grinding my teeth to keep my mouth shut so I wouldn't say anything that would later be a problem. 

Today I had a conversation with my older daughter.  She said to me, I am now beginning to understand what an unusual childhood I have had.  My heart leapt to my mouth as I wondered what she meant, thinking she was about to share some divorce trauma with me.  Instead, she said "You always took us to the library so that I have read many more books than most people my age." 

I felt so relieved.  If that is all that she remembers as being unusual about her childhood, I will have achieved my goal of protecting her from the dangerous fallout from my divorce.  I then laughed and said, "Well, that was actually you, because when I took you to the library, it never occurred to you to say 'I don't want to go.'" 

Unfortunately, for Patricia Bauer, in her case, she didn't have the same luck. 

When she told her son, Gregory, we are now moving to Minneapolis, he said "No, I don't want to go.  I want to stay in Simsbury with my Dad!" 

My position had always been in regard to my children that they will do as they are told because I am the mother.  However, when family court involves itself in your lives, that kind of firm control goes overboard as the court allows the kids to use the GAL against you, the attorneys in the case fabricate false information about you, and then undermine your authority. 

Can any of you relate to that?  I think you can. 

This is very problematic for a mother and I have heard stories about this from many of them.  I think it is very hard to shift from having full authority to having most of the authority shift from Mother to all these other people from family court who really have no idea what is going on the way a Mother does. 

This is tough enough when the children are young and need the kind of firm hand a Mother can provide, but what do you do, what will the family court do when these children begin to verge upon the age of decision making?  What do you do when the children reach 13, 14, 15 years old?  How much do you listen to the views of children that age? 

Now Charles and Patricia Bauer spent around $400,000, as you know, fighting over the custody of their son.  The young man involved in this case, Gregory, at the time around 15 years old, met with a psychologist, Dr. Wilbur Nelson, who stated that Gregory had "the requisite intelligence to have an informed preference concerning his living circumstances." 

My best bet is that at age 15, the trial court is going to conclude this about any child.  So, if you have a 15 year old child who is stating a preference for any particular living arrangement, do not spend $400,000 fighting that because, trust me, the conclusion is foregone. 

You know you are out of luck if the trial court assigns an Attorney of the Minor Child to the child rather than a GAL as they did in the Bauer case.  That is one great big hint to you that whatever the child wants, he or she will get. 

It may be still rather iffy at 13 or 14, but at 15, you have lost before you even begin if you try to go against the wishes of the  child.  When I tell this to parents, they always argue with me.  They can't seem to believe it is true.  It is amazing how many so called adults find it hard to understand that little Johnny, little Johnette, is all grown up and responsible for his or her actions, including taking action with AMCs and GALs and the trial court which are harming such parents profoundly. 

Regretably speaking, for such litigants, I can only say, the sooner they figure this concept out, the better.  Because until they do, they will simply be banging their heads against a brick wall.  And I've seen people bang their heads against this particular wall for a considerably long period of time and all that does is cost time, money, and heart ache for no damn good reason, as the Bauer case goes to show.  Kids are kids and they can be heartless, not unloving, but heartless.

So, aren't you glad you read this blog, because now you know, now you know not to go wasting your money with a great big custody battle when the results are preordained as everyone involved in this $400,000 court case already knew even as they engaged in it.  Isn't it true that the parties are the last to know about these things? 

Actually, in this particular case, it wasn't so much the child's age that made the difference. I think where both parents lost their authority to make any determination in regard to Gregory was when the trial court found out that Gregory had "attended seven schools in nine years." as he was growing up. That's nuts, totally nuts! 

Sometimes before you go embarking on some big family court case, it makes sense to have some therapy to explore your motivations so you don't use family court as an extremely expensive means to work out your own mental health issues.  Just reading over this case, listening to the reports that all Gregory wanted was for his parents to stop fighting over him, I can only say this was a really, really sad situation--"What Maisy Knew" reprised.

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559: AN UNUSUAL MARRIAGE (2)

One of my bad habits in life is that I keep on falling in love with men who are considerably older than me.  I am not sure why that has happened.  Daddy problems, maybe, or maybe I am an older person trapped in a young person's body! 

And, I was going to say, of course, but maybe I shouldn't make out it is a matter of course, in the end these relationships sucked because men like this were already married or life experience had jaded them too much to appreciate me.  So it is with some sense of the unfortunate that I figured out that between Mr. Bauer and Mrs. Bauer there is a solid twelve years, he being the older. 

On the other hand, there were twenty five years between Humphrey Bogart and Laren Bacall, and that relationship seems to have worked out.  Although, when I think of it, in the final years of their marriage, Lauren was winking over Bogie's shoulder at Frank Sinatra, that old devil.  Honestly, you think old blue eyes could stay out of it and leave our illusions intact! 

Not only were there twelve years between the Bauers, the marriage was a third for Mr. Bauer and a second one for Mrs. Bauer.  Ouch!  Theirs was a dance of closeness and distance, mostly distance, and one that is fairly complicated to the point where I had to draw myself a diagram in order to be sure I had the facts correctly.  I will now convey them to you and if you get lost, well, you are only in the same position that the rest of us are at.  Here goes. 

The couple met in Michigan in 1970s, dated and lived together for four years.  Then in 1974 Mrs. Bauer moved to Washington, D.C. and stayed there for six years until she got back together with Mr. Bauer in 1980, moving to Avon, CT and living with Mr. Bauer in a home on 177 High Road.

Then in 1981 Mr. Bauer got a job in New York City and purchased a condominium in New Jersey where he stayed during the week while returning to Avon to be with Mrs. Bauer on weekends. 

Got it!  This is where I started to get lost! 

Anyway, in 1982, the couple got married, and in 1983, their only son, Gregory, was born.  From 1981 until 1994, approximately 13 years, Mr. Bauer maintained this situation of living in New Jersey and visiting with Mrs. Bauer and his son in Avon, CT for weekends, meaning the arrangement was in place for the first eleven years of Gregory's life.  In other words, Mr. Bauer was daddy for the weekend for a considerable period of Gregory's life.

Then from 1994 to 1997, Mr. Bauer moved to stay in Avon, CT full time, working for his New York City company from an office in the home.  Then in 1997, he retired, having arrived at the age of 65--keep in mind that leaves Mrs. Bauer at 53 with twelve more years of productive working life. 

Can you imagine having a guy visiting in your home on weekends, then all of a sudden he is in your house 24 hours a day 7 days a week?  And what does Mr. Bauer do with all that free time?  Sits around on his butt playing video games with his son! That would drive me nuts! 

So, surprise, surprise, in 1997 Mrs. Bauer is discharged from her job based upon conflicts with her boss and gets a job in the far distant wilds of Minnesota, one of those vaguely interchangeable boxlike states located in the great midwestern wasteland of America, where she proceeds to make a considerable amount of money, and I am talking serious money. 

The couple have an understanding that Mr. Bauer and Gregory will follow once Mrs. Bauer finds a house in Minnesota and the old house is sold.  As it turns out, once Mrs. Bauer put her money down on a house in Minnesota and the old house was sold, Mr. Bauer suddenly decides enough is enough and files for divorce and for residential custody of Gregoy.  Men.  This is the time he decides to be a bum.

So the war begins... 

MORE NEWS ABOUT THE WAR ON WOMEN!

For those of you interested in getting more news from the frontlines regarding the war on women, see Anne Stevenson's cogent article recently published on the Huff Post.   Our government supporting abusers in getting custody, funding criminals in their efforts to get custody, and more! 

See the link below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-stevenson/top-5-hhs-programs-endang_b_1511613.html

MARY DID YOU KNOW?

MARY SHARES AND UNDERSTANDS OUR PAIN AS PROTECTIVE MOTHERS.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!

God bless all of you protective mothers on Mother's Day, and also our friends and supporters in our struggle for justice for our children. 

I wanted to remind you that Mary, the Mother of Jesus understands our struggles, understands our love for our children and the tremendous obstaces we face speaking the truth to corrupt judges, corrupt attorneys, and even more corrupt mental health professionals.  

I was talking to a group of friends the other day and I said Christians forget that Jesus celebrates the weakest amongst us.  Those who are the very least, He elevates to the very highest position, those who are reviled He praises, and upon those who are denied, he pours our His Holy Spirit. 

And so we Protective Mothers continue to battle on, secure in our Victory through Jesus Christ, knowing that we will prevail. 

Today on this special day, one that is so vital to Mary, the Mother of Our Lord, and also to us as Mothers, I want to remind you again of Mary's words as she celebrates Christ's entrance into the world:

     My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. 

     For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden:  for, behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 

     For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 

     And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 

     He hath shewed strength with his arm, he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 

     He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 

     He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he hath sent empty away. 

     He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy. 

     As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

This is the essence of the Christian message.  The love of the very least among us.  The love of those most vulnerable.  The love of those most tragically harmed.

Mary says,

He will scatter the proud!  He will put down the mighty! 

He will send the rich away empty!

He will have mercy on them that fear him!  He will exalt the lowly!  He will feed the hungry!

So, we can rest easy today, knowing that God supports us in our struggles, he upholds us in our weakness, he loves each one of us beyond measure.  Many of you do not have your children with you today, your hearts are aching, and you are overwhelmed with pain and worry.  Know that you are not alone, that God loves you and your children and you will prevail and find healing.

CHARLES I. BAUER V. PATRICIA S. BAUER, FA 97-0715559 (1), WAR OF WILLS

To start with, in this case I am not going to get right into the players or the story; I'm just going to go straight to the money issue.  Because money has to be one of the primary themes of the case.  


As it turns out, this is the story of a fairly non traditional couple who kind of break the mold in many ways.  However, in the way they divorced they didn't break the mold; instead, they walked down the path of high conflict divorce which we are all so familiar with.  


They walked it to the point where Judge Bishop stated, "This case is a war of wills cloaked in a custody dispute.  The battle consumed eleven trial days, and the parties have incurred approximately three hundred and seventeen ($317,000) thousand dollars of legal fees and attendant litigation costs."  


Ok, I am jumping right to the end of this case where there is a more detailed discussion of the fees.  It looks as though plaintiff  (father) was represented by two attorney's serving as co-counsel at trial which added up to $193,302, the Defendant's (mother) attorney cost $92,516, and then the counsel for the minor child submitted a bill for around $32,000 which does add up to the $317,000 the judge was talking about regarding legal fees.  


Ok, I love this kind of addition and subtraction.  I guess Judge Bishop was willing to be open about the legal fees but he was not willing to itemize the so called attendant litigations costs, over and above the base $317,000.  


This consisted of the costs for the custody evaluation by Dr. James C. Black, which was probably around an additional ten thousand or more, then the cost for the psychological evaluations, another five thousand or more, then the cost for the substance abuse evaluator and the neurologist, several thousand more, and then over and above that, according to Judge Bishop, "Each of these medical and mental health professionals provided a report to the court.  Several of them testified as well."  


Ok, then, the cost of the expert testimony alone was extremely expensive, no doubt.  That's four expert witnesses, and who knows how many days of testimony they had to come in for.  Plus, there must have been some fun depositions, don't you think!  Depositions of the expert witnesses, and also depositions of the parties!  Just one great big fun time!


So, what do you say, guys, with legal fees, attendant court costs, costs of transcripts, costs of travel for Mrs. Bauer, what do we have--around maybe $400,000 as a reasonable estimate for the entire divorce.  Wow!  Lots of people made a killing here!  


Judge Bishop seems to be pretty amazed by all this money going around, but I'm sure you the reader and I am not that surprised.  Seriously, I must have spent the same amount on my divorce and others I've spoken to have easily gone to a million or more.  


I can recall my first attorney when he saw an investment account statement of some stock which I was using to pay his fees; he sat there with the statement in his hands this gloating look on his face like, yes, this will all be mine, and it was within a few short months.  The greed I saw play itself out in my divorce was extraordinary.  


Thousands and thousands of dollars, a small fortune, gone, all gone.  My future, my children's future, all in the hands of attorneys.  And the judge in this case actually takes the time to question that?  I am amazed.  Where has he been as a judge in Connecticut? In la la land? 


I've been reading a book called "Aftertime" by Sophie Littlefield about a post apocalyptic world where Zombies roam the streets looking for living people to eat.  This is how the author describes the bloodlust of these zombies, 


"The maniacal frenzy of their hunger could not be tempered by any obstacle. They'd run across glass, across hot coals, across this terrible scorched earth that was the end of the world if it meant fresh, uninfected flesh.  They were body eaters, after all, and that was all they lived for."  


If you replace the word "flesh" with money, the word "body eaters" with money suckers, you'd have most lawyers, that's for sure.  Maniacal, insane, crazy for profit, no matter how much damage they do, no matter how many lives they destroy, men, women, children, it's all the same to them, to lawyers.  


More in Part II....

H.B. 5509 DENIED, BUT THE BATTLE STILL RAGES!

Just so you know, the Judiciary Committee decided not to bring Raised Bill No. 5509 forward for a vote and so it wasn't brought to the full House Or Senate for consideration.

Still, this is no reason to be at ease.  The Connecticut Alimony Reform group and its allies that sponsored the bill won't be resting.  They are continuing to press forward in order to get this bill passed.  In their own words,

"We are hard at work developing the next stages of our strategy."

We also need to be hard at work developing the next stages of OUR strategy! 

H.B. 5509: AN OUTRIGHT ATTACK ON WOMEN, SEE LETTER FROM THE PERMANENT COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

Testimony of

The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women

Before the

Judiciary Committee

March 19, 2012

Re: H.B. 5509, AAC The Payment of Alimony and Child Support

Senators Coleman and Kissel, Representative Fox and Hetherington, and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) regarding the above referenced bill.

H.B. 5509 would restrict the duration of alimony, and severely limit the grounds for which the Court could deviate from the law. PCSW opposes passage of this bill because it does not take into consideration each family’s finances, circumstances, and the trade-offs that were made when the marriage was successful, i.e. one spouse remaining out of the workforce to care for the children. It also provides the obligor with additional mechanisms to control the ex-spouse’s household after divorce.

Divorced women earn about 13% less than divorced men - $38,046 for divorced women and $43,621 for divorced men.

In addition to pay inequity, women have less income because they are the primary caretakers in the family. Women are more likely to have taken time off or work or worked part-time to care for the family’s children. Men continue to increase their income because their spouses are caring for their children while they work.

In divorce this income disparity continues because women still have to take time out of the workforce to care for the children, but now they have less income. Child support only pays a fraction of the expenses needed to provide a household for a child, and it doesn’t calculate extra expenses such as extracurricular and school activities.

Passage of this bill will result in custodial parents, which are mostly women, continuing to bear the brunt of the financial responsibility for the parties’ children. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and look forward to working with you on this issue.

DR. RUDOLF BEE'S NIGHTMARE DIVORCE!

As I continue to investigate the issue of corruption in CT Family Court, I occasionally come across stories that are totally tragic. 

These are stories of divorces that continue over a period of years, sometimes up to a decade or more while eating up litigants' entire resources, all of their savings, their real estate, their investments--literally everything they have, leaving people destroyed both financially and emotionally. Much of this is the result of attorney misconduct and judicial abuse.

Below is a link to a divorce case that caused untold damage to one individual--Dr. Rudolf Bee.  Clearly, this case started to go wrong in so many ways right from the beginning.  It leaves us pondering such questions as: 

1)  What recourse does the family court system and/or the State of Connecticut have in place for divorces that are clearly out of control and destroying the lives of the people involved in it? 

2)  Also, what role do attorneys and judges play in creating these situations and don't legal professionals have a responsibility to take preventative measures to make sure this kind of harm and damage does not take place? 

3)  Isn't the legal profession in family court a form of organized crime the way attorneys fix cases, and drain litigants of multiple thousands of dollars?

Keep in mind that in Connecticut, a quarter million is nothing in terms of what litigants such as Dr. Rudolf Bee lost--think of the millions squandered in the Tauk divorce!

Isn't it time to put a stop to this corruption?  

Click on the link below, review the case and tell me what you think!

http://www.kangarootrial.com/

WHAT THE ABUSIVE FATHER'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT WANTS! SCREW THE BITCH!

MAJOR EXPOSE ON JUDICIAL ABUSE IN CONNECTICUT!BY INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER KEITH HARMON SNOW

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN, EXTORTION, MENTAL TORTURE! NETWORKS OF LEGAL PROFESSIONALS. PSYCHIATRISTS, ATTORNEYS, JUDGES, AND CLERKS IN COMPLICITY, EARNING MILLIONS AND EXPANDING THEIR POWER IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

READ IT FOR YOURSELF!
THEN TAKE ACTION!




http://yourworldnews.org/blog/?p=3522

DIFFERENT NAME, SAME OLD CRIMINALS!

For anyone who has taken an interest in my prior report regarding the firm O'Connell, Flaherty, and Attmore, LLC and their sloppy and negligent treatment of their clients, I just wanted to report that the firm has recently changed its name.

 

What has happened is that Julia Morris, the attorney who manages the practice and pursues all the former clients the firm is cheating through collections, has now taken a more prominent role.  I guess this is one situation where crime pays.  Anyway, the company is now being called O'Connell, Attmore, and Morris, LLC.  Trust me when I say that even with a new name, this company is still a menace to anyone who goes to family court. 

So, what happened to our pal, James T. Flaherty, of O'Connell, Attmore, and Flaherty fame?  Well, he has been sent away with his tail between his legs, OK, OK, ok, maybe it wasn't like that.  Maybe he just walked away.  What do I know!  He has now established a new law firm in West Hartford called the Flaherty Legal Group, LLC. 

And let me share with you the same sentiments.  It may be there is a new name to this company, but what you really have is the same old Flaherty.  So, if you really want to mess up your divorce case, make sure to contact him.

PSYCHOPATHS-WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO RECOGNIZE THEM!

PARTICIPATE IN A NEW STUDY ON RELATIONSHIP ABUSE AND FAMILY COURT! USE YOUR EXPERIENCES TO HELP OTHERS!

Have you been psychologically, physically or financially abused by the co-parent of your child or children? Have you been in Family Court?

We are studying relationship abuse, family characteristics and Family Court outcomes and are seeking adults over age 25, who have been separated at least 3 months, who experienced relationship abuse, and who have children from that relationship who are under 16. Volunteers will provide informed consent, complete questionnaires and agree to one 90 minute interview. Participants will be provided with a $20 Target Gift Card as a thank you for participation.

Call Liane Leedom, M.D. 203 615-1633 for more information.

HOW MUCH CAN JUDGES DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE ADA?

I first requested ADA accommodations at the CT superior court a few years ago.  Since that time, the ADA Coordinator has steadily refused to grant my requests for accommodation and has denied that I am even eligible for accommodations.  

This is particularly frustrating since my case goes marching on month after month and still I am not receiving any accommodations at all even though I have repeatedly asked for them.  It is amazing how long it takes to go through this process because of the delays and evasions and avoidance of the ADA Coordinator.  

For example, I sent in my first request for accommodations and only got a response to that request four months later!  It was a denial of my request.  Then I sent in a request for an explanation, and that took another couple of months to answer.  So, time keeps on going by, and before you know it, two years have passed, or even more.  At least, that is what happened to me, and I am sure the same happens to other people. 

Of course, I eventually filed a grievance because the ADA Coordinator denied me accommodations, and again, I ended up being denied, even though I have a well documented disability.  The attorney who responded to my grievance basically told me that the judge had turned down my request for accommodations and he said that the judge has complete authority to make such a determination. 

In his words, he stated, "If a request for an accommodation was approved by an ADA coordinator, the accommodation would be implemented.  If it is a request for a simple routine matter, such as providing a sign language interpreter, the decision would be made by the ADA Coordinator.  If, however, the request is not routine, or if the accommodation given would impact the proceedings before the judge, that decision would always involve input from the judge.  Ultimately, a judge has the legal authority to control the proceedings before the court." 

The kind of accommodations I was asking for consisted of requesting breaks if I became overwhelmed, and having an advocate with me to repeat statements made by the judge or the opposing attorney if I didn't hear them well.  I also requested freedom from discrimination based upon my disability.  All of that, according to the ADA Coordinator, was entirely at the disgression of the judge to grant or deny. 

But is this really true?  Can a judge simply flout federal law--and the ADA is federal law, just because he wants to? 

My best assessment is that a judge does not have this broad, sweeping authority to do as he or she pleases when it comes to granting accommodations according to the ADA.  This is what a few of the ADA Guides I found online stated regarding this particular point: 

Denial of accommodation:  An application (for reasonable accommodation) may be denied if the court finds that:  A) the requested accommodation(s) would create an undue financial or administrative burden on the court; or B) the requested accommodation(s) would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. 

So it is not true that a judges can do whatever they want and that they have unlimited authority to do as they please in regard to the ADA.  To repeat, to deny reasonable accommodations, Judges would have to show the undue burden of the accommodations or that they entailed a fundamental alteration of the trial court proceedings as a consequence of them. 

So, now I know! 

But in 2011 when I received the incorrect information from the Attorney on the grievance committee, I wasn't aware of that and I didn't know enough to follow up with a protest.  So another year went by and I still didn't receive the accommodations I was entitled to. 

And this is the struggle here in Connecticut as litigants such as myself work towards the goal of obtaining some measure of justice.  People will lie to us--ADA Coordinators will lie to us, judges will lie to us, court clerks will lie to us, attorneys will lie to us.  Still, we have to sort out the information we receive, figure out what is the truth, and remain undeterred in the face of such obstacles. 

It doesn't seem in the least bit right, but that is the reality of the judicial system here in CT and the sooner we face that fact the sooner and the better we will achieve our goals.  If we ever do, of course.  It's all a crap shoot.  But that's what we are trying for.

EXTRA NOTE:
I thought I would add this extra comment from a reader which points out judicial liability for decisions like this in regard to the ADA.  Her comments are as follows:  "I think that explanation puts the judge at serious risk: determining access is an executive function, not a discretionary one. A judge cannot perform an executive function when charged with discretionary issues. He or she looses personal immunity. This is the one place where a judge is not immune."  So I think it is worth taking note of the possibility that a judge can be sued if he denies a litigant ADA accommodations that the litigant is entitled to.  This is a point that is worth pursuing.

VERY WICKED LAWYER JOKE!

A very successful lawyer parked his brand-new Lexus in front of the office, ready to show it off to his colleagues.  As he got out, a truck came along, too close to the curb, and completely tore off the driver's door of the Lexus. 

The counselor immediately grabbed his cell phone, dialed 911, and it wasn't more than 5 minutes before a policeman pulled up.  Before the cop had a chance to ask any questions, the lawyer started screaming hysterically. 

His lexus, which he had just picked up the day before, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter how the body shop tried to make it new again. 

After the lawyer finally wound down from his rant, the cop shook his head in disgust and disbelief.  "I can't believe how materialistic you lawyers are," he said, "you are so focused on your possessions that you don't notice anything else."

"How can you say such a thing?" asked the lawyer. 

The cop replied, "Didn't you know that your left arm is missing from the elbow down?  It must have been torn off when the truck hit you." 

"My God!" screamed the lawyer, "Where is my Rolex?"

CHECK OUT BARRY GOLDSTEIN'S RECENT UPDATE ON WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS DOING FOR PROTECTIVE MOTHERS!

See the link below in order to get updated information from Barry Goldstein regarding the Department of Justice and what they are doing for protective mothers:

http://timesupblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/u-s-department-of-justice-v-custody.html

ANOTHER LAWYER JOKE!

In a trial, a Southern small town prosecuting attorney called his first witness to the stand, a grandmotherly elderly woman. 

He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?" 

She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams.  I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me.  You lie, you cheat on your wife, you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs.  You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher.  Yes, I know you." 

The lawyer was stunned. 

Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?" 

She again relied, "Why yes, I do.  I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too.  He's lazy, bigoted and he has a drinking problem.  He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state.  Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women, one of them was your wife.  Yes, I know him." 

The defense attorney almost died! 

At that point, the judge asked both counselors to approach the bench, and in a very quiet voice, said,

"If either of you bastards asks her if she knows me, I'll throw your sorry asses in jail for contempt."

THAT NASTY DIVORCE TANGO, BY ANONYMOUS

With a lift and a twirl and arms akimbo,

You sign your name and thus begin

Dancing that nasty divorce tango.

There’s so much that you just don’t know

As lawyers drum their heels and take you in

To dance that nasty divorce tango.

Their hearts are empty and their promises hollow

As they wink and nod with knowing grins

While dancing that nasty divorce tango.

Those lawyers say, “Let the money flow!”

For we’ll need thousands of dollars to win

With a lift and a twirl and arms akimbo.

“Lash out with lies, unleash the innuendo!

Rip open the wounds; let the pain fester                 

Keep on dancing that nasty divorce tango.

And they snap their fingers and entice you to follow

Until you waste away with disappointment

With a lift and a twirl and arms akimbo

Dancing that nasty divorce tango.

WHY CLIENTS SHOULD NOT TAKE PSYCHOTHERAPISTS INTO THEIR CONFIDENCE: AN ESSAY BY ATTORNEY JIM GOTTSTEIN

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

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

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!

"WE HAVE TO CONTINUE FIGHTING!"

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:

http://www.amazon.com/Coercive-Control-Personal-Interpersonal-Violence/dp/0195384040