LIFE WITH OR WITHOUT FATHER, THAT'S THE QUESTION ON FATHER'S DAY

I was sitting in Starbucks a few days ago and it all of a sudden hit me. I turned to a fellow at a neighboring table and asked, "Is father's day this upcoming weekend?" 

He told me "yes".
 

I'm not sure why I chose that time to ask. Father's day had been breathing around the corner for quite some time by then. Just around the middle of May I began to feel that tense feeling in my stomach, the feeling that I have to do something and I'd better not forget. 

Trying to be good ex wife, I immediately sent a quick email to my ex asking him if there was anything special he would like to do for father's day and could I help with the arrangements to get him and the kids together for a celebration. You see, this weekend is not his weekend, so technically based on our parenting plan (clearly this is not everybody's parenting plan), I don't really have to let them get together.

We put together an arrangement which involves me doing a lot of driving I'd rather not have to do. Then I got a snippy email from him telling me to make sure the kids pick out a nice card for him as if that is apparently my job. And by the day before, which is now, I'm wondering whether this is what I really wanted to do

It is kind of a difficult dance here. On the one hand, my ex is the kids' father, but then, on the other hand, look at what he did. If I help get the kids together with their Dad, am I endorsing all those things that he did to hurt me and the children? Am I somehow saying that it is acceptable what he did? 

What kinds of messages am I sending and what lessons do I want my children to walk away with after this weekend of celebrating father's day with their Dad. Early today I said to my daughter, "I'd like you to pick out a very nice card for your Dad when we go to the store." "But he doesn't deserve it." says my daughter. 

So what do you say to that. Now, from that comment, please don't get the idea that I spend all my waking hours bad mouthing their Dad. In fact, I would like them to get along with their Dad and have a relationship with him. On the other hand, certain truths are pretty clear to the children.

They have figured out that when the electricity has been cut off in the past it isn't because some drilling in the street broke a cable; it's because I didn't have the money to pay the bill because Dad didn't pay child support. They have figured out that when I walk away from the house to talk to Dad on the phone outside of their hearing, it isn't just that I need privacy, it is because I am crying when I'm talking, or I'm upset about some new outrage that I have no control over because I don't have any attorney or a family court system to protect me. And I don't want them to know so that they get caught up into the situation. And these are the milder things that have happened.

They are old enough to see the situation very clearly and it is harder to pretend. So when they make remarks acknowledging the problems with Dad, and when they refuse to get something nice for Dad on father's day, should I validate their feelings and let them do what they want to do, or insist that they act like good citizens regardless of what is going on or how they feel.

Sometimes I feel as if no matter what I do, they are going to be harmed nonetheless.

One approach I often take is to say, yes, Dad has disappointed you in the past in regard to this or that particular area, but do you remember what a great sense of humor he has, or wasn't that fun to go on the field trip to the museum together. 

Of course, this would be much easier for me to do if what my ex had done wasn't so severely damaging. So I'm not lying, but I am ackowledging whatever strengths he has, no matter that privately I think those strengths in no way make up for all the harm he has done, and he has done considerable harm. For example, they already know that we have no money to pay for their college education because it took every dime I have to make sure that I would have residential custody. 

I have heard that it is important for children to have a father in order to grow up properly, but seriously, does it make sense for them to maintain a relationship with a father who is a schmuck? What do studies say about children who maintain relationships with schmucky fathers after divorce? I'd really like to know the answer to the question. 

Of course, I can't be sure whether my kids are telling me everything they feel about their father. To what extent could they be trying to play up the negative in a mistaken attempt to please me. Aren't there areas of relationship between these children and their father that is unique to that relationship and that I may never fully grasp? Even though I find it hard to believe that this special space still exists between my children and their Dad, aren't I obligated to make these meetings happen just in case it does, just in case it matters? Or am I just kidding myself? 

There are many occasions that happen like this, the confirmations I remind my ex of, or the graduations and award ceremonies, where I send an email saying, "Don't forget..." and provide times, locations, and directions, acting like I used to when we were married. "Don't forget your golf shirt, and do you have your cell phone, and pick up a box of donuts when you go." Maybe it is time for me to stop arranging, to stop taking responsibility. 

For this year, we will still all pack into the car and I will drop the kids off at our meeting place. For this year, I have been able to convince myself I am doing the right thing. It is a statement I am making that there is still hope for our kids and their Dad. And no matter how bad it gets, it means something to me to be able to preserve that hope. Without it, I would feel as though there was a death in the family.  So, next year, I may feel differently, but for now, I'm not going to think that far ahead.

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

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

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

That's just what I said! 

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

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

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

Well, duh! 

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

Thank you, Judge Munro. 

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

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

This is just as I said! 

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

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

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

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

Ok. Duh, again. 

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

TESTIMONY ABOUT JUDICIAL CORRUPTION!

CENTER FOR FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY! THE STORY BEHIND THE SCORE!

Connecticut: The Story Behind the Score

FROM THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY THAT PUBLISHED THE NEWS THAT CONNECTICUT IS THE SECOND LEAST CORRUPT STATE IN THE UNION.  HERE IS THE EXPLANATION REGARDING WHY THEY DREW THEIR CONCLUSION.  DOES THIS EXPLANATION MAKE SENSE TO YOU?
By Paul E. Stern
Connecticut has benefited from some spectacular corruption.
In the past decade, no branch of government has been spared from abuse, exploitation and disgrace.
There was Gov. John G. Rowland, who, in league with a prominent state contractor, turned his administration into a criminal enterprise.
There were legislators who, in the pursuit of power, were willing to be owned by lobbyists.
There was State Treasurer Paul Silvester, who used his office and the state’s treasury to extort millions in kickbacks for himself and his friends.
There were the judges who suppressed public knowledge even of the existence of court cases involving influential and prominent litigants. And there was state Supreme Court Chief Justice William J. Sullivan, who delayed the release of a controversial ruling in order to win appointment for his Republican protégé.
Little wonder that Connecticut has undergone significant reform in recent years, and that, as a result, state government has never been more open to public view and inspection. In the new
State Integrity Investigation — a joint project of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International — Connecticut now ranks second in it transparency and accountability, earning a solid B grade and numeric score of 86.
Once known for its smoke-filled back rooms and powerful political power-brokers, Connecticut is today a place where public spending is viewable online, campaign money is easier to track, elections are publicly financed, information is readily available and the average citizen can more easily believe that elected officials are voting in his or her, rather than special, interests.
Mostly.
The ongoing vigilance of a handful of so-called “watchdog” agencies has slowly transformed a closed network of deal-makers and special-interest operatives into a more ethical and less rapacious democracy. The so-called “revolving door” between the government and those it regulates appears to have been closed.
A ground-breaking system of publicly financed elections, though flawed and still the subject of litigation and debate, is giving a new and diverse crop of candidates a better chance to have their voices heard; and a Treasury Reform Act, built on the wreckage of public scandal, has brought a decade of professional and ethical oversight of the state’s investments.
A rich history
First settled by Puritans from the Massachusetts colonies, Connecticut was a major participant in the Revolutionary War. In 1784, the state became the first in the nation to vote for the gradual emancipation of its slaves.
Sandwiched between New York City and Boston, Connecticut was one of the country’s earliest centers of manufacturing and finance, where captains of industry created a culture known for fiercely provincial local governments, a stable and comfortable lifestyle, and a sophisticated population interested in the arts, education and socially progressive ideas.
It is now a state of 3.6 million residents where unaffiliated voters outnumber both Democrats and Republicans, same-sex marriage is legal, gasoline is heavily taxed and Catholicism is the dominant religion. Per-capita income is the nation’s highest, yet some of the nation’s poorest neighborhoods are only blocks from lavish estates owned by Wall Street commuters. Casinos run by two Indian tribes contribute a significant portion of the state’s annual revenue.
Calling Connecticut’s government transparent, however, still might be too strong a word, despite new Gov. Dannel Malloy’s stated intention of making it so. (Even he has his limits. In a recent budget proposal, the governor fudged his own transparency pledge and used some "soft" numbers to sell his proposal to the state's labor unions. His overall approach, on the other hand, has been a constant mantra to his commissioners to be “as open and accessible as possible,” said Roy Occhiogrosso, Malloy’s senior advisor.
Certainly last year’s unveiling of an online searchable state-spending database is a helpful step in the direction of full disclosure. The site – dubbed transparency.CT.gov -- “was designed to be the most comprehensive, single point of reference where citizens can review how Connecticut tax dollars are being spent to support state government programs,” the website says.
The name also makes it plain that in “Corrupticut,” where public regard for officialdom had fallen to new lows, the quest for open government is not only admirable, but has become good politics. The searchable site, authorized during the previous administration, is the latest addition to the state's massive website that reaches, to varying degrees, into every department and legislative office. The Department of Administrative Services is even using the Internet in an experimental "reverse auction" online procurement system intended to improve transparency while driving down costs.
Probably the biggest contributor to the impetus for cleaner and more open government was John Rowland, the youngest governor ever elected and arguably the most corrupt. The three-term Republican’s 2004 conviction and imprisonment on a federal corruption charge ushered in a new era of ethical reform, including a revised state code of ethics that, among many other things, prohibited public officials from taking anything of value from companies or individuals doing business with the state.
Tough contribution limits and reporting requirements on lobbyists changed the culture of the legislature away from seeing lobbyists simply as the bearers of campaign cash. Lobbying of the executive branch, which had been nearly invisible, was brought into the light.
Reform came to the elected Treasurer's office in the wake of former Treasurer Paul Silvester's involvement in a kickback scheme that rewarded him and his cronies for investing state money in particular companies. The imposition of new laws and a strict investment policy helped reinforce the new treasurer's push for an open office and a better relationship with the state's Investment Advisory Council. The payment of finder's fees, which put millions into the pockets of prominent politicians, was outlawed. Silvester's use of ill-gotten campaign funds also helped motivate passage of a publicly financed election system.
It took scandal in the judiciary to bring reform there, too, though jurists weren’t so much dishonest as they were secretive and protective of their own.
Historically, the Connecticut judiciary has made little attempt to hide its disdain for the Freedom of Information Act, which subjects only its administrative documents to public scrutiny. Over the years, judges have liberally interpreted “administrative” to mean most everything, said Mitchell Pearlman, former executive director of the state’s Freedom of Information Commission.
This antipathy for public visibility was probably best exemplified by the invention and use of so-called “super-sealed” cases. These were files so secret that “court clerks were not even allowed to acknowledge their existence,” the Associated Press reported in 2007. They typically involved high-profile litigants such as former University of Connecticut President Philip Austin.
The judicial branch’s secrecy became a public spectacle in 2003 when The Hartford Courant and Connecticut Law Tribune revealed the existence of the super-sealed files; and, in the lawsuit that followed, the State Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, that the docket files were not administrative in nature and therefore did not have to be disclosed.
That would have been bad enough, but it became an even bigger outrage when Chief Justice Sullivan, who was about to retire, delayed announcing the decision so his protégé and likely successor did not have to face legislative questioning about the ruling.
Ultimately Sullivan was censured by the Judicial Review Council, an independent unit of government that has disciplined only ten judges since 1989. Sullivan’s protégé was not appointed chief justice, and the court’s interim chief, Justice David Borden, led the push for sweeping court reform.
Judges are now required to hold hearings before sealing files, dockets are available online and cameras are allowed in some courtrooms as part of a “pilot program.”
The road ahead
As much as the new laws have shined bigger and better lights on the workings under the capitol dome in Hartford, there are still shadows, however.
Much of the state bureaucracy’s impulse to avoid outside scrutiny involves the control of information; and here the state’s Freedom of Information Act sometimes falls short.
Experienced bureaucrats know that delaying the release of information is often as effective as denying its release, especially when the Freedom of Information Commission is slow to process complaints and reluctant to impose fines.
According to ex-director Pearlman, the agency’s “over-arching policy” is to be “educational and remedial” rather than punitive. The policy is partly one of necessity, since it has been “inundated” with complaints since its creation, he said.
Though an informal mediation process quickly resolves many cases, formal complaints can take months – by which time the importance or impact of the information may have diminished.
The legislature’s more recent efforts to tweak the FOI law have also been in the direction of less, rather than more, disclosure.
Public resources are always an issue, of course, and the ongoing enforcement of anti-corruption or ethics legislation, like other programs, is dependent on the amount of money available to pay for it. And even in a state with the nation’s highest per capita income, times have been hard. A near 9-percent unemployment rate at times, corporate flight, collapse of the housing market and financial losses by the state’s most wealthy have cut deeply into the government’s revenues.
In Connecticut’s case, the government’s response to a multi-billion-dollar budget deficit threatened to de-fang the state’s watchdog agencies, even though they are theoretically immune from economic strangulation by those they watch, critics said.
Economic Cutbacks
The agencies designed to keep the government honest were among the first casualties of the state’s recent economic cutbacks. A last-minute union deal spared them from deeper cuts, but nine independent units of government – including the Office of State Ethics, Freedom of Information Commission and State Elections Enforcement Commission – were consolidated under one Office of Governmental Accountability. The move was to save money and improve efficiency at a difficult time, advisor Occhiogrosso said. But various newspaper editorials and citizen groups agreed with one FOI official who called it “the greatest setback for good and open government in recent years.”
It remains to be seen whether any of the consolidated watchdog units lose their respective directors and decision-making powers in addition to their administrative control, but already they have suffered staff reductions that limit their abilities to function.
For example, the Office of State Ethics will only audit ten lobbyists this year, its director, Carol Carson, said. Last year the agency looked at 40.
Equally as distressing to many are the threats to the state’s ground-breaking system for publicly financing election campaigns. Known as the Citizens’ Election Program, it has been hailed as a potential model for the nation.
The program has been through two election cycles, and, until early February, had been without a director for a year. Meanwhile, its funding has been “repeatedly targeted,” says Cheri Quickmire, executive director of Connecticut Common Cause. The state’s response to its financial difficulties has raised “grave concerns about the ongoing viability of the Citizens Election Program,” she said.
The program has also been challenged in court, by minor party candidates, lobbyists and the American Civil Liberties Union, and parts have been ruled unconstitutional.
If the Malloy administration has anything to say about it, Occhiogrosso said, the state’s overall trajectory will be toward more accessibility – at least in the executive branch. “Government operates best when it operates in the open,” the advisor said, repeating Malloy’s standard phrase.
Though conceding that some bureaucrats still reflexively resist public scrutiny, Occhiogrosso said Malloy “takes great pride in leading the state’s most open government in modern times.”
Want to get this information in the hands of those who need it most? Use the report card's "E-mail this score to your state official" button to automatically send Connecticut's grades to your governor and state legislators. If you're from another state, use our map to find your state and send your state's report card to the people who represent you.

Photo credits: Connecticut State Capitol (jglazer75), Senate Chambers (League of Women Voters of Connecticut).

HOW CORRUPT ARE WE IN CT? NOT THAT MUCH ACCORDING TO A RECENT STUDY!

How corrupt are we in CT?  Not that corrupt according to a Center For Public Integry Study.  What do you think, folks?  Are you, like me, wondering what the Center has been smoking recently? 

Can you believe that?????

There is more information at the link below:

http://www.stateintegrity.org/connecticut

And here is the news story below:

 

JUDGES ANNUAL MEETING, BE THERE! LET THEM SEE YOU CARE!

JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

ANNUAL MEETING

Middlesex Judicial District Courthouse

Jury Assembly Room

1 Court Street

Middletown

Friday, June 15, 2012 - 10:00 a.m.

H.B. 5535 BILL PROVIDES HEALTH INSURANCE FOR WOMEN AFTER DIVORCE! IT'S TIME TO PASS THIS BILL, FOLKS!

I am particularly lucky that my ex-husband lives in a state that has passed legislation requiring that the earning spouse who has health insurance continue to provide that health insurance to the other spouse after divorce at no cost or minimal cost.  Were it not for this legislation, my health insurance payments would be crushing and I simply could not afford health insurance.  This could affect my ability to parent, since if I were in ill health I couldn't function fully in my role as a mother.  Also, it could affect my life span as well as the quality of life that I have remaining. 

We in the State of Connecticut have yet to put this kind of common sense legislation in place even though it has been proposed frequently in the past decade, more recently in H.B. 5535 in March 2012 by Representative Geoff Luxenberg of the 12th district, God bless him!  It is legislation whose time has come.  

The fact that it so essential to the wellbeing of women and children is so self-evident, that I have to call into question the intelligence and integrity of those who oppose it. 

There is a good description of H.B. 5535 on the website of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) here in Connecticut which fully supports such legislation.  It goes as follows: 

"H.B. 5535 would allow the Court to order a party who is insured under a group health insurance policy or plan in the state to maintain health benefits for the benefit of the other party.  This bill is significant for women because they are likely to be covered under their husband's health insurance policy." 

The discussion continues on to explain why such health insurance coverage is important,

"According to a study by the University of Michigan, this is due in part to women's higher likelihood relative to men to work part-time, or in low-wage occupations, non-union settings, or smaller companies.  The study also found that if health insurance coverage is terminated post-divorce it has a long-term impact on a woman's economic and physical health.  Rates of insurance remain depressed for divorced women for two years after their divorce has been finalized.  This means that many women likely delay getting the health care they need due to costs or face significant challenges in paying their medical bills (potentially leading to an increase in medical debt).  PCSW supports efforts to ensure that all women have access to comprehensive health insurance coverage." 

Clearly, providing health insurance is a fairly inexpensive way for an earning spouse to provide thousands of dollars in benefits for a former spouse and ensure the health of that spouse for years to come, which ultimately is beneficial to the interests of the children.  This is why the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) supports this effort. 

So, why hasn't this happened yet?  Why hasn't this legislation been passed when other more enlightened states have already gotten this task done?  Do we have to continue living in the dark ages here?  What the heck is going on that this legislation wasn't passed years ago? 

For one thing, I know that the legal profession here in Connecticut has not gotten behind this bill and, in fact, has previously testified against it.  Well, that's not a surprise, is it? 

Another group that opposes the bill is The Connecticut Association of Health Plans.  Some of the concerns this group presents are understandable.  The costs for premiums could be quite difficult to pay for small employers, those who have 50 or less employees.  But I am sure that could be addressed in some manner such as providing tax breaks for small employers that participate or even excusing them from participation altogether. 

Other concerns that the Association expresses, such as the difficulties of implementing such plans, are really pure fiction.  As I have said, I have coverage from health insurance provided by my spouse and it works out just great.  The fact that the employer paying for this "has little ability to promote or encourage wellness activities" is just amusing.  I'm sure such an employer can promote and encourage wellness activities with me the same way he does with my ex, which is not at all.  But if he does want to, flyers, letters, phone calls, all of that works for me the same as it does for my ex.  I mean, seriously. 

I was shocked to find that Ms. Victoria Veltri of the State Healthcare Advocate's Office spoke against this bill.  Talk about being stabbed in the back!  Hello, Ms. Veltri you are supposed to be advocating FOR us, not AGAINST us. 

In her testimony, Ms. Veltri stated that it could be a former spouse might not wish the subscriber spouse to know where they live.  Well, that's OK.  I am sure there are many ways to deal with that other than not providing essential health care. 

Ms. Veltri also says that the Explanation of Benefits would be sent to the subscriber and not the member receiving the care.  This is simply NOT TRUE.  I receive all the Explanations of Benefits.  

Ms. Veltri also expressed concern that there isn't enough clarity regarding when such coverage would end.  However, Item #1 of the bill states that it would limit the coverage to "The period of time specified in the decree" which gives litigants the opportunity to state exactly how long they want the coverage to last.  If litigants fail to put these specifications in their agreements, I am sure they could return to Superior Court for clarification or come to an agreement outside of Court.  Ultimately, this seems to me to be a very sensible approach because it puts the power to make such a decision in the hands of the Parties themselves.  

There is also the problem of what to do when there are multiple ex spouses.  Would all of them receive coverage? From what I see in the bill, it looks as though they could be, but the Trial Court could could apportion the costs of maintaining such coverage between the parties to the decree. 

Nonetheless, these are minimal concerns and could be addressed quickly by legislators who are disposed to resolve such problems.  What bothers me is that instead of urging these legislators to correct the problems quickly and pass this legislation as soon as possible without delay because the need is so great, Ms. Vetri spoke without real conviction and with little concern for the importance of getting health insurance in place for vulnerable women right now, right away, without any further delay. 

It seems to me that there is no perfect wording to a bill and that the wording in place now pretty much addresses all possible scenarios.  At a certain point, you have to just go with what you have got and trust the common sense, and discretion of the people involved. 

The bottom line, to my way of thinking, is that legislators and state agencies who are basically against this bill because they dislike women but don't have the guts to say so are preventing the passage of this bill by fussbudgeting over nonsense and failing to clean up minor problems in this bill which could be resolve with a bit of straight talk. 

SHAME ON THEM!

Do we seriously have time to wait another year?  Haven't we waited long enough?  Take the time to review this bill at the link below and contact your State Legislator.  Tell him or her that we have waited long enough and the time to pass this bill is NOW.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/H/2012HB-05535-R00-HB.htm

JUNE IS POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER AWARENESS MONTH!

Statement by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recognizing Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Awareness Month 06/06/2012 01:01 AM EDT

"Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) affects 1 in 29 Americans, from our country’s service men and women to abused children and survivors of rape, domestic violence and natural disasters. During PTSD Awareness Month in June, and throughout the year, we recognize the millions of Americans who experience this challenging and debilitating condition."

MICHAEL NOWACKI OUT OF JAIL AND WITH HIS FAMILY!

Just to let everyone know that Michael Nowacki is out of jail and with his family as of yesterday.  He is happy and in good health and spirits and glad to be in circulation again.  I will continue to update you regarding his situation as the information becomes available.  I know Mr. Nowacki appreciates the outpouring of support he has received and will continue on with his fight for justice in Connecticut's Family Court.



Justice Today!  Justice Tomorrow!  Justice Forever!

MISSION STATEMENT: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Five years ago, I spent a few days at the Rieger Memorial Conference Against Violence talking with Mr. Lundy Bancroft, author of numerous books including "Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men".  Together we discussed the subject of domestic violence and the inadequate response of the judicial system to that violence.  After reflecting upon his comments, I have come up with a suggested Mission Statement in regard to how the Protective Mother's Movement should move forward here in Connecticut. 

CONNECTING!

Previously, I stated that we need to find one another.  This still remains a priority.  So many of us end up in trial court and under fire and believe that we are somehow unique.  In fact, there has been a war on women, and, most particularly a war against mothers and their children, here in Connecticut for a considerable period of time.  This has to stop.  We need to find ways to locate one another so that we can meet, share experiences and support each other through these difficult times.  I know many of us are frightened and terrified of retaliation.  We don't want anyone to find out that we have taken steps to find each other.  We are afraid of connecting and revealing our identities just in case there are spies or moles out there.  It is time to get over that, stand up and be counted.  Those who are more bold can be more public, and those who cannot be bold because they are still in fear, can help in many ways behind the scenes.  Still, we all need to move forward shoulder to shoulder in order to create change for the better.

MAKING THE WAVE!

We need to pursue our agenda and communicate and implement our goals community by community and court by court, judge by judge, attorney by attorney, GAL by GAL, and evaluator by evaluator.  We need to meet people one on one and in groups and educate them regarding the harm that the current system is doing to mothers and children throughout the state, and also, by implication the harm done to men who abuse by allowing them to continue on with criminal behavior which ultimately destroys their humanity. 

In the past, I stated that we need to create a grass roots movement here in Connecticut and form a visible organization which can represent our interests to the judicial system, to the State legislature, and to the media and command their attention, demand they respond to our concerns, and implement the necessary changes we request. We had considerable success in doing this in 2014 with the establishment of the CT Coalition For Family Court Reform.  Unfortunately, since that time it has been overtaken by a minority of father's rights extremists, and it is unclear at this time whether this is a situation that can be corrected.  This is something we will continue to work for on an ongoing basis.  Meanwhile, we will continued to fight for the rights of protective mothers, at least on this blog.

PROPOSED MEMBERSHIP!
Persons eligible for membership in this organization would be women who have been or who are currently involved in a high conflict divorce, children of parents who have been or who are currently in a high conflict divorce 18 or older, as well as family and friends of those who have been or who are currently in a high conflict divorce.   

IMPLEMENTING CHANGE:

In order to defend protective mothers and their children, we need to do the following:

1.  Improve the Quality of Custody Evaluations:  I understand that in some states litigants are not allowed to look at the custody evaluations that are written for their cases.  For once, I have to say that our judicial system here in Connecticut does not act as badly as that.  I do believe that it is unethical to use a custody evaluation in a custody dispute without examining the evaluator prior to trial in a thorough and detailed deposition providing both sides the opportunity to ask questions.  Also, I do think that there should be more clearcut guidelines regarding the contents of such reports.  Rather than be an opportunity for the accumulation of a broad range of hearsay mixed in with the subjective judgments of the evaluator, reports should be written according to very specific guidelines that ultimately revolve around who does the concrete job of parenting.  Who takes the children to the doctor?  Who meets with the teachers at parent/teacher conferences?  Who takes the children off the bus at the end of the school day?  Who drives the children to their activities?  It is interesting that during my very lengthy custody evaluation, the evaluator asked my X to name the principal of the school, the childrens' guidance counselors, and the teachers.  He was barely able to remember the names of these people because he had nothing to do with them because he simply wasn't the primary caretaker. 

2.  Establish Reliable Standards for Determining the Presence of Domestic Violence:   It is vital that we have uniform, objective methods for how a domestic violence allegation should be investigated.  The manner in which such an investigation takes place should be very clearly delineated and should use generally accepted assessment tools with a high level of accuracy such as HITS (Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream), WAST (Women Abuse Screening Tool), PVS (Partner Violence Screen) or the AAS which is frequently used with young, low income women.  There are many other screening instruments which are very reliable.  But the methods should be solid and trustworthy.  Also, we need to work for the passage of the Protective Mothers Act which would prevent trial courts from routinely denying custody and visitation to mothers who make sexual abuse allegations in good faith, but those allegations prove to be untrue.

3.  Pursue Judicial Accountability:  The vast majority of litigants believe that they have to accept the decisions of the trial judge.  As a consequence, few continue on after trial to go to the Appellate Court and subsequently Supreme Court.  However, a recent Department of Justice study indicates that if women continue on to Appellate Court, they will very likely be able to overturn an unjust verdict on appeal.  As a result, it is important to caution women in high conflict divorce to conserve their financial resources so that they will be able to continue on to appeal.  In fact, at every point in trial, they should be thinking ahead, making certain to preserve errors for appeal, and making sure to take those necessary steps to preserve the right to appeal once the verdict comes in.  Among other things, this means meeting all the required deadlines.  Although moving forward to Appellate Court seems daunting to the beginner, it is, in fact, not such a big deal.  It is manageable and well worth doing, even, if you have to do so as a self represented party.  Until women who are legally abused give notice that they will not accept judicial misconduct and indicate that they will go on to appeal if necessary, judges will continue to mock and violate litigants' rights.  Therefore, we need to support and encourage women to pursue their appeals in the face of injustice.

4.  Enforce Connecticut Practice Book Rules:  Rules were made for a reason, and, in particular, the rules of the Connecticut Practice Book were made for a reason--because history shows that they work.  In my divorce, it was particularly devastating that both my attorneys and the opposing attorney simply flouted those rules, and, as a result, my case quickly descended into chaos and ended up taking years and years to resolve.  I hear this again and again when it comes to high conflict divorces.  We need to be sure that attorneys and litigants obey the rules and procedures of the courtroom, and we need to eliminate the situations where the favored litigant is able to evade them. For example, during my divorce my X simply refused to disclose the financial documents I requested through subpoena and the trial court never demanded that he comply with my requests that he turn them over.  He was also never required to obey stipulations or court orders.  In contrast, I was severely punished if I so much as failed to obey a tiny fraction of these rules.  This left me feeling exposed, vulnerable, traumatized, and frightened.

5.  Enforce the Approximation Standard:  What this means is that whatever the arrangement was before the divorce was filed should remain in place to the greatest extent possible.  This means that, in the case of a dispute, whichever parent was the primarily caretaker before the divorce should continue on as the primary caretaker.  This would probably settle matters in 99.9% of cases and eliminate the need for ongoing expensive litigation that consumes all marital assets including the childrens' college funds.  It would be like floride in the proverbial legal waters.  In so many cases, abusive men sue for the custody of the children, win custody, and then immediately hand over the care and upbringing of the children to various nannies, while they continue on with lengthy hours at work and extensive business trips.  What in the world is the point of that?

6.  Build Bridges With Other Groups Who Have Related Interests:  There are many other groups who deal with family court who have very similar interests.  For example, there are protective fathers who face very similar injustice and discrimination in family court and are not heard when they describe the abuse they have suffered.  In addition, many responsible fathers have not had their day in court and have been subject to similar arbitrary court rulings and kangaroo court proceedings.  These are really powerful agents for change for the better and we would do well to work with them on creating positive change.  In addition, there is the larger disability community that is also terribly mishandled within the courtroom setting.  These are folks with both visible and invisible disabilities who find that the simple fact that they have some kind of disability gets used as a basis for denying them access to their children, or places them in a situation where they are subjected to crushing financial losses in family court simply by virtue of having a disability.  If we work together with folks like this, I think we can really make a considerable impact on creating changes for the better in family court.

7.  Enforcement of the ADA and the ADAAA:  The vast majority of women in high conflict divorce face multiple challenges in family court where so many of the procedures and processes have broken down.  As a result, many are experiencing legal abuse syndrome or some other form of post traumatic stress disorder.  Others may have developed both physical and psychiatric difficulties as a consequence of living with an abuser.  For that reason, we need to ensure that women such as this receive reasonable accommodations and protection against discrimination based upon their disability.  Preferably, we need to develop a strong group of ADA Advocates trained by Dr. Karin Huffer of Equal Access Associates to accompany litigants into family court to ensure that litigant's ADA and ADAAA rights are enforced.  We need to work with family court to educate court personnel in regard to the rights of litigants under the ADA and the ADAAA and we need to continue to insist that litigants with disabilities receive the rights to which they are entitled.

FINAL REMARKS:

What I have written here in this mission statement is simply a template arising from Mr. Bancrofts ideas.  I've mixed in my own thoughts based upon my experiences in my own custody battle.  I am happy to change and adjust this statement as people continue to propose their ideas and recommendations.  However, without a clear statement of purpose, I think it will be difficult for our movement to be organized and effective.  So at the start of our campaign, I thought I would simply throw out this mission statement so you would all have an opportunity to reflect upon it, and hopefully it will provide us with a solid foundation to build upon.   

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI UPDATE!

I have been waiting to get some more definitive information regarding Michael Nowacki's situation.  Currently, he is in jail because he violated a restraining order in regard to his wife by accidentally emailing her in a mass emailing and, apparently, he tapped on the window of her car to get her attention, and is now looking at 17 months in jail.  Perhaps there is more detail about this, and I will continue to investigate this question.  

Of course, at this point, litigants such as myself who were struggling with abusive ex-husbands who put nails in the tires of our cars, stole personal property, smeared shit on the walls, put our children at risk, and constantly violated court orders can't figure out why we were never able to get the family court to hold them to account!  

In comparison, this prison sentence Mr. Michael Nowacki has received seems revengeful and petty.  

My understanding is that when the final ruling on Michael Nowacki came out on May 8, 2012 the Judge stated that if the prison authorities felt he required mental health treatment they could impose this treatment on him involuntarily.  I believe that this order is still in place, although it has not thus far been followed through on.  

However, when Mr. Nowacki was taken to court again today hoping to be released on bond pending his appeal, he was told that he would not be released from prison until he signed a stipulation voluntarily agreeing to a psychiatric evaluation and then further agreeing to adhere to the treatment plan that emerged from this psychiatric evaluation.  

This is a pretty intense form of coercion--demanding that you barter your physical freedom for mental imprisonment by the psychiatric system.  

Mr. Nowacki refused to agree to this stipulation.  Even so, apparently, the Judge ordered that Mr. Michael Nowacki undergo a psychiatric evaluation in prison on an involuntary basis.  The bottom line is that Mr. Nowacki has been vocal in his criticism of the family court system which has to be just about one of the most corrupt in our nation. In retaliation, the court is trying to silence Mr. Nowacki with the use of psychiatric "treatment".  And also the court is trying to destroy his influence and his reputation by labeling him as crazy.  Isn't this a common trait of evil doers--when caught declare your accusers insane?

Mr. Michael Nowacki had the guts to challenge the judicial system about why, in violation of State law, it has gone ahead and expanded the power of judges in a power grab that violates the Constitution and the rights of all citizens in this State.  And so, like any good Communist system, the judicial system is using psychiatry as a means to silence him.  

Seeing Mr. Michael Nowacki's fate, we have to ask ourselves, in reality, are we living in a totalitarian system where any attempt at criticism and reform will be met with kangaroo mental health courts that jail people, subject them to unwanted psychiatric care and treatment, which we all know runs the gamut from ECT to dangerous, mind numbing drugs.  

Playing the devil's advocate, let's ask the question, seriously, is Mr. Nowacki crazy?  I would agree he is an angry man, perhaps even an impatient, outspoken, and intemperate man.  But does that make him crazy?

To be honest, I'd like those of you who wonder whether a man like Mr. Nowacki is crazy to spend some time reading my website, to learn about the flagrant injustice to which litigants in this state are subjected to, to read some of the comments where litigants share their own devastating experiences of being abused by the judicial system.  

Just going through these experiences would drive anyone crazy.  But I wouldn't leave it at that.  I would say that the judicial court deliberately manipulates people, verbally and physically abuses them, and punches them around through legal machinations such that they eventually crack.  Being "crazy", "obsessed", "depressed", and full of rage is the natural condition of anyone who ends up being a victim of the injustice that fuels the legal system here in Connecticut, vastly enriching an elite core of attorneys, judges, GALs, and psychiatrists who have an inside track to seizing the peoples' money through nefarious means. 

I don't believe that Michael Nowacki is crazy.  

Grief stricken, perhaps, to see the country he believes in, here in the State of Connecticut, crassly and brazenly violate the fundamental values of democracy, and truth and justice that he thought were the very foundation of the society he lived in.  

Enraged to find his constitutional rights flagrantly disregarded and trampled upon.  

Driven almost to the point of distraction by the fact that so many people who have pledged themselves to a code of ethics that requires them to subordinate all their actions to the very highest values of truth and justice and decency, instead using family court as a means of personal enrichment and the exploitation of the most weak and vulnerable among us.  

Yes, all those things.  But crazy?  I don't think so.  

I just spent a day in trial court supporting a friend who was viciously abused, mocked, and defrauded by a trial court that has the job of doing what is right for families.  It is heartbreaking.  Heartbreaking to endure yourself.  Heartbreaking to watch.  

I have nothing more to say this evening in the face of this tragedy except we will endure.  Michael will endure.  He will one day be free.  We will be free.  The people will be heard.  I will continue to report on the front lines regarding Michael Nowacki and his struggle, and let you know how you can personally become involved and fight for reform.  

Justice Today!  Justice Tomorrow!  Justice Forever!

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 071559 SINGING KUMBAYA, AND THE BOUNDS OF ADVOCACY (5)

Continued from part 4

Remember how we used to act during the old demonstrations of the 60s and 70s?  We'd wave the posters, chant "The people, united, will never be defeated", raise our fists, applaud all the speaches and have a high old time?  Then everyone joined hands, sang kumbaya and then we'd be good for another day. 

Something kind of similar happens in a Connecticut Divorce.  The attorney's rip each of you apart, and bludgeon your kids; they give you the devil's handshake, and then we are all supposed to stand in a circle and sing Kumbaya!  No seriously.  You're laughing.  I know you are laughing.  Stop it.  Ok. 

Of course, there is a little bit of a problem with that, particularly in this case, $400,000 later.  You are right.

Judge Bishop acknowledged that at the end of his Memorandum of Decision.  He states, "Attorney Santy [the GAL] is commended for his commitment to Gregory..."  Damn I would be committed too for the amount of money he got!  "At an early stage in the litigation, defendant's counsel (Attorney Eliot Nerenberg) instructed Attorney Santy not to communicate ex parte with Mrs. Bauer.  Based on my observations during trial, I believe that this prevention of direct, unhampered communication between Attorney Santy and Mrs. Bauer had a chilling and polarizing effect." 

Oh, Eliot how could you!  I am so disappointed.  It would never occur to me that you had such an appetite for filthy lucre that you would allow a chilling and polarizing atmosphere to develop thus costing the parties considerably more legal fees, particularly fees owed to you.   

Apparently, Judge Bishop concedes that, according to the Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2 in the CT Practice Book, Eliot was well within his rights to act as he did.  However, what Judge Bishop acknowledges, and quite crucially so, is that "Rules adopted for the handling of traditional civil and criminal litigation may not have an equal applicability to family litigation where counsel have a special responsibility to 'spike the forensic guns' and to foster an environment in which the parties are enabled to come to voluntary resolution of their intra-family dispute." Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Conn. App. 179. 

Golly gee.  Why didn't anyone tell me about this.  Spike the forensic guns!  So they have a special responsibility, do they!  I hope they take that very seriously.  Yeah, right.  So, that is not all.  There is more. 

Judge Bishop continues on to say, "The Rules of Professional Conduct may not adequately cover the role of counsel in family dispute resolution.  In 1991, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers published standards of conduct for attorneys involved in family matters" called the "Bounds of Advocacy".  They provided a revision of this standard in 1995.  Judge Bishop says, "While neither of these standards is binding, both are instructive and relevant. 

According to Judge Bishop, The Preliminary Statement in the Bounds of Advocacy states, in part:  "Existing codes often do not provide adequate guidance to the matrimonial lawyer.  First, their emphasis on zealous representation of individual clients in criminal and some civil cases is not always appropriate in family law matters."  

Bishop continues on with his quotation, "In many ways, matrimonial practice is unique.  Family disputes occur in a volatile and emotional atmosphere.  It is difficult for matrimonial lawyers to represent the interests of their clients without addressing the interests of other family members.  Unlike most other concluded disputes in which the parties may harbour substantial animosity without practical effect, the parties to matrimonial disputes may be required to interact for years to come.  In addition, many matrimonial lawyers believe themselves obligated to consider the best interests of children, regardless of which family member they represent." 

So, if the professional standards for Attorneys published by the American Academy of Matrimonial lawyers is so important, and attorney's should abide by them, how come they are not in the Connecticut Practice Book or mentioned somewhere, somehow.  I mean, I have been in my divorce for years and years and I never even heard of these standards. 

That hurts.  I mean.  Didn't anyone want to include me so I'd know what I could reasonably expect from my attorney?  I'm crying now.  My hanky is wet!  One moment.  Let me blow.............Ok, now.  Feeling better.  So, let me see.

Rule 2.15 of the "Bounds of Advocacy", "An attorney should encourage the settlement of marital disputes through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration."  Oh, and here is another lovely one: 

Rule 2.6, "When representing an unimpaired child, counsel should take appropriate measures to protect the child from harm that may be incurred as a result of the litigation by striving to expedite the proceedings and encouraging settlement in order to reduce trauma that can be caused by the litigation." 

And I assume that "encouraging settlement" means more than just expecting me to give away all my rights while the other side gets all the rights.  Underlying the concept of "settlement" is the concept of mutual concessions, I would think. 

How come there is all this good stuff in cases reported by the court, like here, but I've never seen these ideas promoted anywhere else, like in my own case or that of any of my friends, who have been victimized by horrible, multiyear, NPD driven divorces.  Do attorneys ever really read those professional ethics, or are they too busy scooping up the dough and running to the bank? 

I am seriously thinking of grievance.  No, maybe a lovely Motion to Sanction.  Yes, that's right...

For more information regarding the professional ethics of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers as stated in their publication "Bounds of Advocacy", see the link below:

http://www.willicklawgroup.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bounds-of-Advocacy,-1991-ed..pdf

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

For those of you who have been waiting for news about Michael Nowacki who was falsely imprisoned by the Connecticut Judicial System for speaking out against its abuses, I do have some news. 

It appears that Michael is in good health and spirits.  Of course, I will never be satisfied myself until I personally see him and hear that information from his own mouth, but that is what I am hearing at this point.  I will continue on with updates as information comes to me. 

I know this is outrageous and many of you are extremely upset and angry about this situation, but let us maintain our calm and dignity in the face of this injustice.  Our struggle is a nonviolent struggle and we must speak the truth to power calmly and with the authority that our Constitution and our State Laws have provided us with. 

I am sure that Michael appreciates all your many phone calls and expressions of concern.  Justice today! Justice tomorrow! Justice forever!

In Solidarity,

THEY DON'T WANT US TRESPASSING IN THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL SYSTEM, BUT WE WILL!

IN CUSTODY DISPUTES, PSYCHIATRY USED AS A TOOL OF THE STATE AGAINST ITS CITIZENS: LISTEN TO THE STORY OF DR. ROBERT FETTGATHER

http://innersites.com/janet/f2f-phalen-fettgather.mp3

SUGGESTED CHANGES TO CT PRACTICE BOOK RULES AS OF MAY 8, 2012

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/pblj_050812.pdf

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