SADIE CARPENTER FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS SPEAKS UP ABOUT CPS TAKING CHILDREN FROM FIT PARENTS!

DIVORCE360.COM | LIVING WITH A HABITUAL LIAR?

divorce360.com | Living with a Habitual Liar?

YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AND THE ADAAA, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED! PART 2

I had earlier reported that when Mr. Bill Mulready inquired about his ADA Disability Rights, he was told, "Don't worry, Mr. Mulready, we'll get you a wheelchair if you need one!"  Apparently, whoever told him that should not have been so sanguine.  

In a meeting of the Advisory Board on the Americans With Disabilities Act held on January 17, 2012, Mr. Ronald J. Macchio reported that of the 18 wheelchairs currently available at the judicial branch, only 4 appear to be in good usable condition.  Furthermore, according to Mr. Macchio, "there does not appear to be an existing policy outlining their use."  Apparently, the Board agreed to investigate to see if there was any policy regarding their use, but did not make plans to assure that all the wheelchairs were repaired so they could be usable once the policy is available.  This reflects the foolish thinking and lack of vision of the judicial branch when it comes to the complying with the ADA.  

But it isn't for a lack of asking! 

At the meeting of the Americans with Disability Act Committee held on November 14, 2008, Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines reported that she had prepared a letter to be sent to 22 identified groups and advocates for people with different abilities, inviting them to take part in one or more of three scheduled focus groups.  According to Ms. Lugo-Gines, "The purpose of the focus groups [was] to determine specifically, what issues arise for people with varying physical, intellectual, or developmental abilities when they are attempting to access Judicial Branch facilities, processes, or documents."  

Now, already I have a problem with the manner in which the purpose for the focus groups is articulated because, as it stands, this wording does not include people with mental illness at all. Just so you know, if you were wondering, the terms intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities do not include those with mental health disabilities.  What happened?  We are going to disregard the entire group of people, officially one in five citizens, who have mental health disabilities?  Are you kidding me?  Well, from the wording you see here, seems like they are.

Of course, this reflects quite accurately the policies of the judicial branch which are to deny persons with mental health disabilities any meaningful accommodations for their disabilities.  I have received reports of this from people all over the State of Connecticut.  I am hearing that people are getting laughed at, mocked, disregarded and treated with profound skepticism when they have asked for accommodation for mental health disabilities.  This is unbelievably disgraceful for this worthy group of citizens, some of whom belong to our military who have fought for our country in Iraq.  

Be that as it may, the Focus Group meetings were scheduled for December 3, December 11, and December 16, 2008 and were open to all members of the public.  Of course, were these important meetings advertised to the public, I'd like to know.  I was in trial court in December 2008 and I didn't know of any focus group meetings being held.  This is another genuine concern.  If people don't know about these meetings, how meaningful is it that the meetings are open to them.  Probably not that meaningful!  

In looking at the notes of the focus groups, much is written in short phrases that are missing out words, so it is difficult to get a complete sense of what these discussions were like.  But I will do the best I can to convey the contents of these meetings.  

The first item I noticed was the concern in regard to ADA coaches.  Apparently, overall, focus group members expressed concern that the judicial court did not allow litigants to have the support of their ADA coaches.  How outrageous is that!  In light of the fact that so many citizens who are differently abled need assistance in filling out forms, most importantly forms requesting reasonable accommodation, this is particularly unfortunate.  

Thus, when it came to suggestions, one was to "allow a third person--a non party to the action--to attend proceedings to support the participant and make it easier to request assistance."  In the alien and sometimes frightening environment of the judicial courthouse, this is essential. And just to confirm for you the reality of this problem, I was in trial court recently and I was not allowed to bring my ADA coach with me into the proceedings.  So this is happening.

Members of the focus groups also expressed concern that there were no ADA coordinators at the courthouse.  That was in 2008. It is worth noting that there still are no ADA Coordinators in 2012 anywhere that I can see, even though the ADA and ADAAA specifically require one.  What we have instead are Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines who is a Project Manager. What the heck is a Project Manager and what authority does that give her?  Your guess is as good as mine!  

Aside from Ms. Lugo-Gines, there are numerous contact people at various courthouses.  But the impression I get, and that other people are getting, is that the judicial branch simply grabbed people out of the blue and said "Abracadabra, you are now a Contact Person for the ADA!"  But these people have no training, no understanding of ADA and ADAAA law, no experience with persons of different abilities, and no capacity to do anything other than collect your materials and then pass them back to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines who then makes all the decisions across the State.  I hardly think that this is a workable situation.

Since there is no point person for the ADA, or a completely ill trained person available to deal with ADA concerns, trial clerks often respond to questions regarding the ADA with blank faces or statements to the effect that they have no idea how to respond to the concerns of those with disabilities, or indications that they don't consider the trial court responsible for making the judicial system accessible.  As members of Focus Group 3 put it, "No one wants to take responsibility" and "Passing the buck is common."  

The most frequently mentioned theme throughout the discussions was how judicial court personnel were consistently insensitive to the needs of citizens with disabilities and how this lack of awareness often led to discrimination, particularly towards parents with disabilities in family court.  

Focus group 2 mentioned how important it is to "Soften the paramilitary approach of the marshalls".  This group also mentioned how "Metal detectors can frighten people, particularly those with mental illness."  

Overall, the focus groups complained of the prejudice, discrimination, and rudeness that their members face in judicial court.  They talked about "verbally abusive behavior by judges [who] don't consider your hidden disability."  They talked about the "denial of accommodations", the "lack of cultural competence of staff", the incapacity to understand "behaviors often associated with disabilities" and the widespread lack of sensitivity towards those with disabilities.  

The end results for these persons were: 1.  Feeling disrespected; 2. Poor communication with court personnel, including judges, attorneys, and family relations officers; 3.  Discrimination against people of different abilities with the resulting effect of frustration, depression, fatigue, stress, and anxiety; 4. Inability to participate in the proceedings; 5. Unequal treatment; 6. The denial of due process rights; 7.   Feelings of being excluded, isolated and victimized.    

Repeatedly, focus group members stated that the end result of this situation is that persons with disabilities were unable to participate in the judicial process and felt that their position had not been heard in the judicial proceedings, or that bias so affected the proceedings that the results of the judicial proceedings were not fair, equitable, or just.  


Now, I understand that these focus groups were held in 2008 and it is now 2012, but, from what I am hearing, the problems described in the minutes of these meetings still remain.  Inevitably, this raises the question of "How long, Oh Lord, how long!"

I think you would agree with me that these observations of the judicial system by people with disabilities who have experienced it personally are pretty damning.  So how does the Judicial Branch respond to these serious and widespread concerns.  It says that "The Judicial Branch is committed to maintaining its compliance with the ADA."  Excuse me, what was that?  "Maintaining"?  Are they kidding, profoundly stupid, or deliberately disingenuous?  

To be continued...

YES, AND WHAT'S MORE, OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY CORRUPT!

BILL WINDSOR OF "LAWLESS AMERICA" EXPLAINS HIS MISSION! LET'S GIVE HIM OUR FULL SUPPORT IN WHATEVER WAY WE CAN!

(Bill talks about a call in period at the end of this video. That date is from last January and is not relevant, but all his other remarks are right to the point. Thanks for listening)

FIGHT BACK AGAINST DCF! JOIN THE PROTEST!

Join Corruptct in organizing a protest against the Connecticut Department of Children and Families which was recently cited by the Supreme Court for improperly removing children from homes based upon the debunked, unconstitutional, voodoo psychiatric theory known as "predictive neglect."  In other words, DCF has the right to take your children away from you permanently based upon the idea not that you actually neglected them, but that you MIGHT neglect them.  If this outrages you, as it should, contact Corruptct at the link below:

http://www.corruptct.com/dcf-cps/its-picket-time-ct-dcf-stealing-children-contact-us/#!prettyPhoto/0/

or email them at:  info@corruptct.com

The people united, can never be defeated!

Justice Today!  Justice Tomorrow!  Justice Forever!

YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AND ADAAA DENIED, DENIED, DENIED! (PART I)

In 2006, not long after she filed for divorce, Elizabeth Richter's ex husband contacted the custody evaluator in their case, and told him that Elizabeth was crazy and that he feared for their children under her care.  His remarks disregarded the fact that for over a year she had been taking care of their three children independently while he worked out of state in Massachusetts. 

His comments made reference to an old incident that had taken place 30 years ago when she was misdiagnosed with a severe mental illness that she did not have.  When I spoke to her about this matter, she showed me a copy of a letter of apology she had received from the psychiatrist who treated her indicating that the diagnosis was a mistake.  This did not prevent her ex husband from filing three additional motions to have her declared incompetent and to have a GAL appointed to make decisions for her. 

Elizabeth Richter is a graduate of Mt. Holyoke College and Harvard University, was the co-owner and manager of An-Path Services, a Veterinary Pathology Service for over a decade, and also was an former adjunct instructor at Tunxis Community College.  She is also a published author, the author of a memoir, a book of essays, and two books of poetry along with being a devoted mother.  "I was terrified that if my X succeeded in getting such an appointment, I would lose custody of my children simply because I wasn't deemed mentally competent. 

That kind of ruling could have happened at the stroke of a pen at any moment were a judge disposed to sign such an order." What the judge should have done was immediately rule against it, and also repudiate the document as a hate document and acknowledge that it was intended to harass and terrorize Elizabeth.

Elizabeth continued, "I was terrified that I would lose my children and everything that I had because of that old misdiagnosis and because of the stigma associated with it."  Finally, sick and tired of living in fear, Elizabeth filed a request for protection under Prong #3 of Title II of the ADA which entitles her to protection in trial court from discrimination against her based upon the fact that she is perceived as having a disability that she does not have. Amazingly enough, that request was denied.  The response she got was, "We haven't discriminated against you."  That's sort of another situation where the fox is guarding the henhouse.  We declare ourselves innocent...RIGHT!

Elizabeth eventually appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied as well.  She has since filed a Title II complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, but still has not received a response. 

Furthermore, as a result of the discrimination she has endured in trial court due to her past incorrect mental health history, Elizabeth eventually developed legal abuse syndrome, a form of post traumatic stress disorder that arose as a result of her repeated exposure to the corrupt family court system here in CT.  She then submitted a request for reasonable accommodation under prong #1 of Title II of the ADA which entitles her to such accommodations at family court. 

Again, her request for reasonable accommodations was denied, and when she appealed that decision, her appeal was denied.  Again, she has submitted a complaint in this regard to the U.S. Department of Justice and is awaiting an answer.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth tells me that she is not the only one who has simply been denied their legal rights under the ADA and the ADAAA, both federal laws which are intended to create an even playing field for persons with disabilities so that they can enjoy the same constitutional rights that their undisabled peers are able to enjoy.  When Mr. Bill Mulready inquired about his ADA rights he was told, "Don't worry, Mr. Mulready, we'll get you a wheelchair if you need one." 

So what is going on? 

Essentially, Family Courts in Connecticut are playing a divide and conquer game within the Disability Community by only providing services to folks whom they consider to be "truly disabled", folks with mobility or sensory impairments.  Thus, when you look at the judicial webpage for providing accommodations for people under the ADA and the ADAAA, the judicial branch acknowledges that it is required "to accommodate individuals with disabilities by providing equal access to their services, programs and activities" under Title II of the ADA, but it really only offers the following Auxillary Aids and Services:  Interpreter Services, Certified Deaf Interpreter Relay Service, FM Kits, Infrared System, Real Time Transcription (CART), Pocket Talkers, Braille Services, Alternate Formats of Materials, Reading Machines, and Louder-R-Electronic Ear.  

These Aids and Services are really not specific for people with invisible disabilities both physical and mental.  

What I find particularly troubling is that the Judicial Branch does not mention the use of an ADA Coach or Advocate as part of the services it will either provide or accept, should they be necessary for a person with a disability.  I have heard that some litigants have brought in an ADA coach, but Judges have ruled that the coach is not allowed to speak in any way during court proceedings.  This makes it impossible for the coach to provide the support services he or she is trained to give.

Under the judicial webpage on the ADA entitled "Access", the Branch states, "In compliance with the ADA, the judicial Branch will make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities when requested to do so.  These accommodations may include providing equipment and services such as assistive listening devices, sign language interpreters or printed material in alternate formats."

Again, the emphasis, and therefore, the welcome and support, is addressed to those with mobility and sensory disabilities, instead of the entire community of those with disabilities.  ADA legislation was not intended to differentiate between the "haves" and the "have nots" within the community of those with disabilities. 

Also the emphasis of the statement on the "Access" webpage that the Judicial Branch will provide support for people with disabilities only "when requested to do so" is wrong. I don't believe the issue is simple as that.  If a person with a hearing impairment, or some other kind of disability which becomes obvious during the course of litigation, is at family court for a case, but fails to request accommodations, the judicial court is not excused from providing reasonable accommodations simply because the litigant didn't know enough to ask.  As soon as the litigant shows up in trial court and his or her disability becomes evident during the course of proceedings, it is the clear responsibility of the trial court to offer reasonable accommodation without being asked first. 

However, because Family Court in Connecticut routinely doesn't consider itself responsible for identifying disabilities as they become evident and offering accommodations,  the end result is that a considerable number of people with disabilities are being excluded from equal access to the services, programs and activities of Family Court.  

For example, I was in family court when a litigant with a serious head injury (TBI) was participating in the adjudication of a case.  Every time he was supposed to make a decision or agree or disagree in regard to a question the judge posed to him, this litigant turned around and looked towards his wife for a signal regarding what to do.  Of course, this eventually became disruptive to the proceedings and the Judge reprimanded the litigant.  However, to everyone watching, it was pretty clear that the litigant wasn't at fault, he simply wasn't able to follow what was going on.  Later, I asked him whether he was aware that there were reasonable accommodations available to him based on the ADA, and he had no idea. 

I can assure you that the problems this Gentleman had in regard to comprehending what was going on were so pronounced there was no way the average person couldn't notice.  And yet, no one in family court, not a judge, not a family support enforcement officer, family relations officer, not a clerk, or anyone else employed by the judicial system had bothered to suggest that he speak to the ADA contact person at the courthouse.  This is ridiculous.  No, it is worse than ridiculous.  It is simply unjust. 

On the "Access" page of the judicial website regarding the ADA, the judicial branch advertises that the Outcome Goal One of the Strategic Plan of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, Public Service and trust Commission is as follows:  "The Judicial Branch will provide equal access to all of its facilities, processes and information through the identification and elimination of barriers." 

Let me just give them a "heads up" right now.  Hello, the Judicial Branch is failing miserably at this goal to the detriment of everyone in the community of those with disabilities, and at the same time it is dividing this community and creating dissent with the implication that some kinds of people with disabilities are more "truly worthy" of access to the Family Court System than others.  We must do something to change this dynamic in order to create a "truly just" judicial system in family court for people of all abilities.