National GAL alert: What Have We Learned about GALs?

National GAL alert: What Have We Learned about GALs?: As we near the end of the Judicial Branch's time for public postings (July 1st), we have been reflecting on two questions: What have we lea...

COMMENTS ON THE GAL SYSTEM BY THE CITIZENS OF MAINE!

See the link below to read comments from the citizens of Maine in regard to the GAL system:

http://www.courts.state.me.us/maine_courts/supreme/gal_comments.shtml

MONICA FORE ON THE RIGHT TO AN INTERVIEW IN A COMPLAINT TO THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL AND THE STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE!

July 18, 2012

Joint Committee on Judiciary

Room 2500, Legislative Office Building

Hartford, CT 06106

RE; DUE PROCESS: COMPLAINANTS RIGHT TO INTERVIEW AFTER COMPLAINT

Dear Judiciary Committee:

According to the testimony of the judges during the 2012 Legislative Session, pro se litigants and complainants to the Judicial Review Council and the Statewide Grievance Committee do not know how to file proper complaints with those offices.  Judges have stated that this is a serious problem in their courts but that they understand why pro se litigants are representing themselves for financial reasons.

In response to those hearings, I am coming before the judiciary committee with a solution to the problem as it pertains to filing complaints to the Judicial Review Council and the Statewide Grievance Committee.  In order to provide fundamental fairness there needs to be a required "IN PERSON INTERVIEW" with the complainant and their witnesses (if needed) to a member of the board or employee so that any questions that need to be clarified can be addressed and all necessary evidence can be submitted for review.   This process also allows the complainant the ability to know that they at least have filed a proper complaint with those agencies whether it is in writing or orally. 

This is a huge problem.  There are judges who are abusing their positions as well as some attorneys who are stealing from and abusing their clients.  The constitution affords citizens with a right to due process and equal protection of the law.  As the law stands now, our state is putting complainants in harms way.  Currently, the only right a complainant has is the right to file a complaint.  The judges have testified, under oath, that they know the people do not make a proper complaint.  And yet, the rules of both committees require a proper complaint.  That is how the ball is being dropped and corrupt government officials and attorneys are getting away with their crimes.  It is time for that to stop. 

The people need a fair process. A right to be heard.  By establishing an "in person interview" with the complainant, things that they aren't able to say in writing can be said orally.  That way the individual will know that they made a proper complaint and the committees can move forward in their decision making on the matter.   The interview process (recorded) will also create a verbal recording so the committee reviewing the complaint can have a complete understanding of the issue.  As it stands now, people are only 'thinking" they know the issue because all the facts aren't on the table. 

It is time now for the people, taxpayers, to receive due process as the constitution guarantees. 

Sincerely,

Monica Fore

583 Prospect Avenue, Unit 24

West Hartford, CT 06105

860-206-1440

monicafore@aol.com

ADVOCACY ALERT!

To show your support for Monica Fore's proposal write a letter of support to the Joint Committee to the address listed above or contact your representative.  Your voice counts!

GOING TO COURT AGAIN!

I recently found myself back at trial court, and what a bummer!  The anticipation began two weeks in advance when I looked at my calendar and was like, Oh My God! My mood immediately plummeted and I was so, so depressed. 

Even if I was the one who submitted the motions and got the ball rolling, I still hate to go to trial court. 

My process before going to trial court is quite intensive.  I usually take each of the motions that is going to be heard and I review them carefully, checking to see what evidence I will need in order to prove the facts that I have stated.  Then I get a large three ring binder with dividers and begin to collect that evidence and place it in the binder. 

Not only do I collect evidence, if there is any court document that I need to provide any kind of context, I will include that document.  Then I organize the documents by placing them in exactly the same order that I will be referring to them in my argument. 

Usually, I will place any of the important documents in my case that are referred to regularly right at the beginning of the notebook, even if there is only a distant chance that they will be needed.  Such documents would include the parenting agreement, the financial agreement, the prenuptial agreement, the custody evaluation, the psychological evaluations, etc. 

After that I ordinarily undertake a search at one of the law libraries for all relevant statutes, practice book references, and case law that will address the issues I have raised in my motions or by the motions on the other side. 

It is usually from this last exercise that I end up reporting results in my lovely blogs.  

After that, I usually have a bunch of miscellaneous questions that have to be answered by an investigation into my voluminous court file. 

To be honest, if I am lucky, the law will be clear on what I need to do or say, but sometimes it takes me months before I understand the meaning of what I've read.  There are legal points in my case that have taken me years to understand!

Once I have prepared everything in terms of the evidence and the legal basis for my motions, I then write up an argument by hand in my own handwriting, replete with underlining and daubed with various colored markers.  The argument is usually my final step. 

One of the real problems with this approach (even though it is essential to my process and thus unavoidable) is that it takes a lot of time and involves considerable shuffling and organizing papers, writing and revision of my presentation to the trial court.  It never fails to happen that I miscalculate how much time I need and I end up staying up all night the day before trial, so I come to court tired and crabby and then have to deal with the nonsense of the court personnel and end up wanting to bite off people's heads. 

And don't forget the buildup before trial court.  I would be interested to know if any of you get the buildup?  This includes my X staging confrontations that are unnecessary, putting the children deliberately at risk to upset me, failing to show up on time to pick up or drop off the children for visitation, so called "forgetting" to pay one of his financial obligations, or just sending me a bunch of nasty, accusatory emails. 

Another particularly annoying tactic is the opposing attorney will call the trial court and ask to have the hearing on the motions delayed or rescheduled for trumped up reasons, or even make it so impossible you end up not being able to have the motions heard at all.  My file is full of motions that never made it before a judge. 

Of course, the end result of the buildup is you are shrieking with irritation  by the time the court date arrives.  On top of that, you get the general rude and disagreeable behavior of trial court personnel.  You go to the clerk to find out which courtroom you are in and he insists that you step aside so he can help ten other people while the clock ticks closer to the time you are supposed to have the hearing.

Somehow you end up in family relations and these people are particularly hard faced and ugly minded.  Even though your X and his attorney are the source of the trouble by violating the law and lying bold faced, family relations will support your X and speak to you as though you are not only intellectually challenged but at fault for everything.  By the time you are done with them, usually you have a state marshall hovering around the entrance to the room. 

What gets me is the presumption they seem to operate with the YOU are bad when, in fact, it is the X and the attorney who are blatantly disregarding the law or any semblance of decency.  The disrespect and disregard does get to you.  So, of course, your blood pressure boils some more and you start having to work hard so you can maintain control of your emotions.  Because while doing everything possible to be incendiary, the Court will immediately refuse to work with you if you don't present yourself as cool, calm, reasoned and prepared. 

How do you get through it?  Well, a little benedryl doesn't hurt, but lots of deep breathing is helpful as well.  I have also learned to take my time during arguments before the court. I speak slowly and deliberately and if I have to find a document, I will say, "Just a moment, please" and take my time to locate what I need. 

As a rule of thumb, I would say that despite all law and all reason, I mostly lose, even when I should not.  Recently, I went to a hearing and, in a Motion to Sanction, proved irrefutably that the opposing attorney told outright lies in a pleading she submitted to the trial court.  The trial court denied my Motion to Sanction, nonetheless, stating that nothing the opposing attorney had said rose to the level of the Motion to Sanction. 

How much does a lie have to be a lie before you have violated your attorney's oath not to lie under any circumstances?  When is enough enough?  I'd love to hear it!

But that is the thing--you bring in what you think is enough evidence, and the trial court will say, we don't have enough.  Of course, you have more evidence at home.  I have multiple examples of the opposing attorney lying, but the opportunity for that motion is gone and I would have to file another motion in order to provide that additional evidence.  Whatever it is, judges always have an excuse not to do what the law says you ought to do. 

So, inevitably, a day in trial court is traumatic because you end up having done all that preparatory work and have nothing to show for it and you have been beaten over the head by the X, the opposing attorney, court personnel, etc., etc. and have nothing to show for it. 

Of course, every once in a while you may get an encouraging ruling, but that seems engineered as well, either for the purposes of continuing the litigation so everyone makes money, or to raise hopes, just to dash them again a few months later with a decisive denial.  The Trial Court, as well as other branches of the court, have multiple ways to deflect, defer, and delay the proper resolution of the cases that are put before them. 

If there is one phrase that I repeat to myself the most often it is, "Justice delayed is justice denied."  For example, with the Joe Watley case, there have been so many rulings, maneuverings, reconsiderations, appeals, and reappeals that almost a decade has gone by while the parents have been denied their parental rights.  I have no doubt that in many cases where this happens, it is done intentionally.

Trial court is no longer the scary place it once was.  I know when I go there that whatever happens I will survive and I will maintain my self respect.  It is interesting to see how many of the attorneys working with clients both inside the courtrooms and in the corridors are my former attorneys, or else they are attorneys I have consulted for second opinions along the way.  So there are so many familiar faces. 

The ones that have been the most evil unfailingly come up to me and wish to shake my hand and/or engulf me in a warm embrace.  Since I am unable to just say "fuck you" which is my most natural gut response, having been brought up to be considerably polite, I usually oblige while making suitably cutting remarks with a smile on my face.  In the days when mental health professionals were chasing me around trying to deny me custody of my children, they would call that kind of  behavior on my part "denied aggression."  I am not sure how they would define what the attorneys are doing.

On the way home, my advocate and I have a debriefing session where we go over my presentation and review what was said.  Even though it probably isn't the greatest time, I talk about the mistakes I made, any incongruities in the trial courts ruling, and then just to relieve the pressure I make fun of everyone I dealt with and laugh like hell.

When I get home, I usually take all the court documents I took with me and throw them in the corner and ignore them for several days until I'm emotionally capable of managing what happened.  I normally order transcripts of the hearing, and then all of it gets put into place as a resource to consult with for my next court appearance.  It's exhausting and stressful and probably not worth the trouble, but still I am not defeated because, as T.S. Eliot once said, "I keep on trying."

JOE WATLEY ON THE DANGERS OF THERAPEUTIC JUSTICE

KILLER DAD AARON SCHAFFHAUSEN MURDERS HIS THREE DAUGHTERS

Tragedy strikes Wisconsin divorced mother when ex husband kills their three little girls.  Copy and paste the link below into your browser:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/aaron-schaffhausen-murder-daughters-amara-sophie-cecilia_n_1669792.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D178915

LEGAL SEPARATION CONVERSION TO DISSOLUTION AGREEMENT, BUGGY V. BUGGY (2)

The procedure to convert a legal separation agreement into a dissolution agreement is governed by C.G.S. Sections 46b-65 and 46b-66 and Practice book Sections 25-36 and 25-37.

According to these statutes, a motion for a decree of dissolution after a legal separation may be filed at any time after the entry of a decree of legal separation and must state in the motion that the parties have not resumed marital relations.  Mignosa v. Mignosa, 25 Conn. App. 210, 214, 594 A.2d 15 (1991). 

Then, in order to grant such a decree dissolving and terminating the marriage, the court need only find that the parties have not resumed marital relations since the entry of the decree of legal separation. Schaefer v. Schaefer, 26 Conn. Sup. 224, 224-225, 217 A.2d 70 (1965).  So not only does the litigant have to state there are no marital relations, the trial court then has to confirm that the statement is, indeed, a fact.  First step one, then step two. 

So what does that mean "marital relations"?  I just looked it up in the English Dictionary online, and apparently it is a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse.  So the term marital relations is to be distinguished from marital relationship, the former just having to do with the sexual part of a marriage, while the latter having to do with the whole being in a relationship, having dinner together, sitting in the same house, chit chatting, etc. etc. 

I don't know about putting Memoranda of Decision online--I mean does everyone have to know this?  THEY AREN'T HAVING SEX ANYMORE, GUYS!  I can just imagine how this plays out in trial court.  First the plaintiff's motion on not having sex, then there is the defendant's response on not having sex.  Then you have testimony in trial court regarding not having sex, then the trial court's verbal determination that you are not having sex, and then you get the written one that you are not having sex. 

I mean, damn, if this happened to me, I wouldn't want to talk about sex for the rest of my life! 

But then, the whole decision gets onto the internet, and then your neighbors know you aren't having sex, folks on the pew next to you at Church know that you aren't having sex, pretty much the whole world knows you aren't having sex.  I mean, at least with your ex. 

What I want to know is if there have been situations--and I'm sure there have been--where the one party disputes the lack of marital relations and says, yes, we did too have funky, hot diggity dog marital relations under the dining room table two weeks ago and these are the details!  I can, seriously, imagine a full day of testimony trying to prove or disprove that. 

No, it was a makeout session--that doesn't really count. I let him kiss me once.  Ok, Ok, Ok.  Maybe twice, but just on the lips and there was no tongue involved.  

I did not have sex with that woman! 

It would be a pretty interesting day of testimony, as you can imagine!  More on that later. 

Anyway, in regard to converting a separation agreement into a dissolution agreement there is some disagreement as to how that is to be done .  On the one side, C.G.S. 46b-66 and considerable case law dictates that the court inquire into the financial resources and actual needs of the spouses before doing so.  In other words, "The fact that the agreement was presumably found fair and equitable at the time of the legal separation, does not excuse the failure of the court to make such determination (i.e. a determination regarding whether a legal separation agreement should be turned into a dissolution agreement without any kinds of changes) in the light of the situation of the parties at the time of the dissolution and to afford an opportunity for a hearing on the issues involved." Mignosa v. Mignosa, supra, 25 Conn. App. 215-216.

However, an earlier case Mitchell v. Mitchell, 194 Conn. 312, 481 A.2d 31 (1984)  disagrees, stating that the intention of the statutes in regard to legal separation is to reduce the role of the trial court when the parties on their way to dissolution have acknowledged that they have not resumed marital relations.  Under those circumstances, "the statute requires the court to give effect to the parties' status and convert a de facto dissolution into a de jure disolution."  In other words, change what is a matter of fact into a legal reality without making changes in the legal separation agreement and just incorporating it as is into the dissolution agreement. 


The reason why Mitchell v. Mitchell should have a greater impact in making a decision is because an earlier decision provides a better precedent. If you recall my earlier blog regarding the development of Common Law, you will remember how I said that Courts of Law are bound by precedent, meaning that cases are decided based upon what has been decided previously.  So Mitchell, as an earlier decision, is more significant than the later decisions that, for some reason or another deviated from it.

If the parties agree that there has been no resumption of marital relations, then the trial court would move forward with a summary process to dissolve the marriage.  However, if there was dispute over whether the parties had or had not resumed marital relations, then the parties could not proceed under the summary method and would have to move forward with ordinary dissolution proceedings. 

At question is not the issue of fairness and equity, but simply the question of did the parties or did they not have marital relations. 

If they did resume marital relations, then they would be required to continue forward with regular dissolution proceedings to determine whether the legal separation agreement is fair and equitable at the time of dissolution.  Thus, Gilbert v. Gilbert FA 04 0485657 (May 13, 2008) states, "The actual holding of Mitchell is that once the marital relations have resumed, the parties have vacated the decree of legal separation, and, therefore, in order to obtain a decree of dissolution, the parties must proceed under Sec. 46b-40." 

In other words, if marital relations were resumed, then the legal separation agreement can be changed.  And that is where, as I said previously, you could end up having very entertaining court hearings on whether marital relations did or did not resume.  Because if one or the other party doesn't like the legal separation agreement, making the case that you did resume marital relations could be quite beneficial. 

The central point to understand is in the following remarks from the holding in Gilbert v. Gilbert, "conversely, when there has been no resumption of marital relations and no intervening change in their relationship, the statute requires the court to convert the decree [of legal separation into one of dissolution].  To require a fresh look at the agreement when there has been no resumption of marital relations makes the decree of legal separation a nullity.  There would be no purpose in obtaining a legal separation.  Doing so fails to give any effect to General Statutes Sec. 46b-67(b) which provides:  'A decree of legal separation shall have the effect of a  decree dissolving the marriage except that neither party shall be free to marry.'

In other words, "If the parties' relationship is unchanged, the court plays a minor role and merely converts the de facto dissolution to a de jure dissolution."  Elaborating further, Bemonte v. Bemonte, 44 Conn. Sup. 431, 435-36, 693 A.2d 739 [16 Conn. L. Rptr. 336] (1995) states that in a situation where there has been no resumption of marital relations, "the judgment of legal separation, once the appeal period has expired, is final.   The division of assets and liability is also final.  An assignment of property is nonmodifiable." 

What this means to me is that, under circumstances where there is a legal separation agreement, and that agreement is a good one for you and you like it, and then the trial court tries to change it, you have considerable grounds to challenge such an attempt. 

In the Buggy case, after all this discussion, the trial court continued on to make changes in the financial agreement that was in the parties' legal separation agreement.  If the parties in the case had not agreed to allow these changes, granting the discussion I've just read, I seriously suspect that it would have been very tough on the trial court to have ordered those changes.  Has anyone had any experience here on this issue?  I would love to hear your comments.