CONNECTICUT THE LEAST LIKELY

It looks like Connecticut is one of the 4 best states to live in if you are a perpetrator of domestic violence.  A recent study indicates that on a scale of 1 to 10, one being the lowest number of arrests for domestic violence and ten being the highest number of arrests, Connecticut rates a 2. 

There are two explanations for this.  One is that Connecticut is a state full of peaceful folks, or two, Connecticut's legal system has an extremely high tolerance for spousal abuse.  Which explanation do you pick?

OUR CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

I finally found it! The Connecticut Right to Due Process!  This has to do with the concept that legal proceedings will not be arbitrary, that they will be conducted fairly according to agreed upon procedures.

For example, handing you a motion just before you walk into the trial court is a denial of your due process rights because doing so prevents you from having reasonable advanced notice of the charges against you.

If you were wondering, our Connecticut Right to Due Process as incorporated into the Connecticut Constitution is located in Article I, Section 10 of that document and states as follows: 

"All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay."

I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with that statement.  It seems a little wishy washy, but it is the only one we have. 

I like the statement by the United States Supreme Court in 1934.  It said due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principles of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

On the Federal Level the due process clause is included in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as follows:

[N]or shall any person. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. . .

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: 

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .

Somehow the Federal version seems stronger to me than the State version.  Ultimately,  both guarantee our due process rights.

Equal Protection of the Law

By the way, I enjoyed Article I, Section 20 of the Connecticut Constitution which states as follows: 

"No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability."

This includes our right to ADA protection.

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

MICHAEL NOWACKI HAS BEEN JAILED BECAUSE HE CONFRONTED MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW CONNECTICUT'S CORRUPT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM HAS DENIED PARENTS AND CHILDREN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS.  HE SPOKE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN CONNECTICUT AND JUDGES HAVE GOTTEN THEIR REVENGE. WE NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE

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...