THE WATLEY DECISION, SC 18951/18952

Imagine how you would feel if the State came into your house and punished you by taking away your children not based upon anything that you had done, but simply based upon what you might do.  Sound like science fiction, perhaps on the level of the movie "Minority Report" starring Tom Cruise?  No, this was a reality for Connecticut couple, Joseph Watley and his partner, Karin Hasemann. 

This is their story.  Prior to meeting Joseph Watley, Karin had a daughter, Kristina, who was taken from her at birth in 2002 by DCF.  Then the couple had two children, Joseph born in 2005, and Daniel born in 2006.  Each of these children was taken from the parents by DCF based upon the concept that even though the parents hadn't done anything wrong to the children, they might do something wrong with the children--in other words based upon the doctrine of "predictive neglect." 

Using the holding of the Appellate Court as a standard, the Supreme Court defined the doctrine of predictive neglect as follows:  "The petitioner [DCF] in a neglect proceeding pursuant to CGS Sec. 46b-120 need not wait until a child is actually harmed before intervening to protect that child." 

And further, "This statute clearly contemplates a situation where harm could occur but has not actually occurred.  Our statutes clearly and explicitly recognize the state's authority to act before harm occurs to protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected and not just children whose welfare has been affected." 

And finally, the Supreme Court continues, "The doctrine of predictive neglect is grounded in the state's responsibility to avoid harm to the well-being of a child, not to repair it after a tragedy has occurred.  Thus a finding of neglect is not necessarily predicated on actual harm, but can exist when there is a potential risk of neglect." 

What is notable about this case is that from 2005 up until the present while this case has gone through the legal system, at each point the trial court has ruled to take the children from the parents, while the higher courts--the Appellate Court and now the Supreme Court--have consistently decided in favor of the parents.  So the higher courts, in this case, have continually had to correct the lower courts for improper rulings.  This leaves me with the impression that the trial court wants to do what it wants to do and simply disregards the law.

It also means that for the last 7 years this case has been cycling endlessly up and down the legal system leaving both the parents and their children in limbo, and denying them their right to a meaningful parent/child relationship.  At this point, the children have spent a significant part of their lives without their parents--Kristina is ten years old, Joseph is seven, and Daniel is six. 

This leaves most of us wondering whether creating this situation is intentional on the part of DCF, the judges, and the attorneys, that perhaps they are hoping the legal proceedings will continue up until the point that the children become independent or until the parents become so discouraged that they give up.  

Indeed, this is a classic case of "Justice delayed is justice denied."  

Furthermore, since 2008 Joseph and Karin have been denied the opportunity to see their children, ostensibly because their visits have been disruptive.  Naturally, they are disruptive since I can imagine these kids are wondering why they are not allowed to live with their own parents the way their friends do.  It is very likely that, if not now, definitely later, these children will require therapy in order to come to terms with the loss of their fundamental right to grow up with their own parents. 

What is interesting here is that DCF caused the problem, and then they go and blame the parents and punish the parents for it! 

So, why, I am sure you are asking, did DCF conclude that the parents could be a danger to their children?  Apparently, when Kristina was born Karin exhibited "strange behavior", and then when Joseph was born Karin then again exhibited "bizarre behavior".  There was no reported funny behavior with Daniel, perhaps because DCF grabbed him so quickly. 

Of course, all of this sounds like a lot of psychiatric name calling.  In other words, what does that mean strange and bizarre--in what way?  Raise your hands, ladies.  What with all the pain, and the drugs, how many of you exhibited either strange or bizarre behavior either before or after your babies were born?  I'll bet a whole lot of you.

Otherwise, what strikes me is that what Karin had sounds a lot like post partum psychosis.  I don't think there is any law in this country that justifies taking a child away from its mother on the basis of either post partum depression or psychosis. 

I once had a distant friend who had post partum depression and after her baby was born she tried to slit her throat (her own throat not the baby's!) with an electric carving knife.  She was hospitalized and had several ECT Treatments (not that I am advocating ECT by any means) and eventually recovered.  The last I saw of her she was sitting on a couch surrounded by her family and holding the baby in her arms. Nobody talked about taking the child away from her! 

The ruling also says that the mother has "a significant and long-standing mental health condition" and that "the father appeared to lack insight as to the mother's mental problems."  So what does that mean "mental health condition"?  As far as I know, particularly in the light of the constantly expanding DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) pretty much everyone has a mental health condition.  Seriously, why are the courts in this case so shy?  Why can't we get the name of this so-called mental health condition that Karin purportedly has.  Other courts in other cases aren't so shy. 

To be honest, I myself spoke at length with Karin Hasemann and she seemed just fine to me.  Maybe that is why Joseph Watley couldn't see it either.  But I have no patience with using ominous mental health labeling in order to damn other people.  My questions are: Can Karin take care of herself?  Can she get dressed, do her personal toiletry?  Can she hold a job?  Does she have housing? Does she have friends (well, apparently she has one in Joe) or family available to be supportive?  Can she drive a car?  Has she ever put another child not her own at risk?  Does she have any criminal record? If there are legitimate concerns about Karin's parenting, are there state agencies which could provide Karin with support and training in her home?  The latter would seem to me in accordance with the spirit of federal ADA law which the Supreme Court makes such short shrift of in its ruling. 

I mean, I know of retarded parents who are allowed to retain custody of their children, deaf parents of hearing children who retain custody of their children, parapalegics who retain custody of their children, alcoholics and drug abusers who retain custody of their children, even all sorts of parents with "mental health conditions" retain custody of their children--why pick on Joe and Karin? 

To be honest, if there is anything that seems to bother DCF more than anything else when it comes to these two, it is primarily their lack of compliance.  My guess is that if Karin and Joe had been a little more deferential, done what they were told, and played the game, they might, and I only say might, have had a better chance. Of course, I don't believe there is anything in DCF's mandate that states the agency has the authority to deprive citizens of their right to parent if they aren't obedient! 

The Supreme Court ruling states Joseph Watley was cited for not filling out required paperwork, failing to complete parenting education classes, and not setting up a parenting plan, along with not doing what he was told and not staying away from Mother.  What can I say, my X did the same things and he still ended up with joint custody. 

I would also like to point out a sentence tucked away between the condemnatory lines of this ruling which states about Joe Watley, "The court ackowledged...that during supervised visitations with Joseph before Daniel's birth, the father had been able to properly care for the child with some assistance and had demonstrated love and affection." Oh, really, love and affection.  And DCF thought that love and affection could be thrown away so easily and disregarded.  Please excuse me, if I am a little skeptical.

The Media has portrayed this Supreme Court ruling as a victory for parents with mental illness.  I do not see it that way.  First of all, I have to see it proved that either of these parents has a mental illness.  Apparently, the parents mental health was not a concern until DCF came upon the scene. 

Second, all the Supreme Court did was state that the lower courts had been incorrect in using the wrong standard of proof when they determined that the children were neglected under the doctrine of predictive neglect.  Apparently, the trial courts should not have used "fair preponderance of the evidence" as their standard; they were supposed to use the standard of "more likely than not." 

In its ruling the Supreme Court expressed absolutely no sensitivity towards the parents, not even a shred of regret, in regard to what it meant for Joe and Karin to have their children taken away from them in a series of arbitrary and captricious proceedings.  The Supreme Court completely failed to acknowledge the pain and hurt and public humiliation Joe and Karin  endured as a consequence of that fact that they were denied their constitutional right to parent. 

So I wouldn't be too happy about this ruling.  My guess is that this case will again return to trial court, the same evidence will be presented, and the trial court will state that the old evidence meets the new standard.  That determination will probably then go to the Appellate Court and maybe on up as high as Supreme Court again.  A few more years will go by, and Joseph Watley and Karin Hasemann will still be denied their right to parent to the detriment of their children and the extended family as a whole.  Again, for shame that our family courts operate tyranically and outside the bounds of the law and human decency.     

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/09/report-on-appellate-court-hearing-on.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/11/open-letter-regarding-watley-case-from.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/joe-watley-on-dangers-of-therapeutic.html

 

BILL WINDSOR OF LAWLESS AMERICA TELLS HIS STORY: PART 2!

BILL WINDSOR OF LAWLESS AMERICA TELLS HIS STORY: PART I!

JUDGE RULES FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF CT DCF TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY!

CT DCF asks for federal oversight to be lifted.  See the link below:

http://articles.courant.com/2010-04-13/news/hc-dcf-connecticut-0413_1_ira-lustbader-federal-court-dcf-commissioner-susan-hamilton


But the people of Connecticut aren't buying it.  See link below:

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7715/dcf-readies-challenge-dcf-oversight-report-outlines-children-needs-not-being-met


And the feds aren't buying it either.  See the link below:

http://articles.courant.com/2010-12-22/news/hc-dcf-oversight-ruling-1222_1_federal-oversight-federal-court-raymond-mancuso

BROTHERS, CHERISH YOUR WOMEN!

NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE LEGISLATURE TAKES ACTION AGAINST CORRUPT JUDGES!

Citizens in New Hampshire aren't putting up with corrupt judges in child custody cases.  See the link below for the unusual actions of the New Hampshire State Legislature in response to citizen's demands:

http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2012/07/25/nh-house-committee-advances-plans-to-impeach-judges-for-their-decisions-in-domestic-relations-cases-4th-time-in-5-years-nh-judges-threatened-with-removal-from-office-over-custody-or-divorce-case-deci/

SHOW ME THE MONEY WORKSHEET!

When it came to the decision on child support and alimony during my divorce, the attorneys in the case who were all biased in support of my X kept on emphasizing my X's W-2 forms and referring to that form as the sole source of information in regard to my X's income.  In fact, there are multiple ways to locate income when the time comes to establishing what your X's income is. 

You can see this in the "Show Me the Money Worksheet" provided by The Modern Woman 's Divorce guide.  Some of these sources of income are in your X's tax returns, so be sure to examine them closely! 

According the the worksheet, the following are sources of income, some of them hidden or not immediately obvious, which you should be aware of when making financial decisions during your divorce:

1.  Accounts Receivable - It could be that your X has not yet reported income for his business because he has made an arrangement with the client to be paid after the divorce.  In such a situation, you would have to proceed with discovery of your X's business to find out if there are any outstanding fees owed;

2.  Accrued vacation or sick time payable in cash - I know this kind of income is particularly available to teachers, but you should check it out in any situation where this might be an issue, particularly if your X has been working with that particular employer for a lengthy period of time;

3.  Bonuses - Many employees receive bonuses around Christmas time and they vary from year to year.  You would want to specifically designate in your agreement what percent of that bonus would be taken into consideration for purposes of child support and alimony;

4.  Capital Gains - If the value of the stock your X owns rises then you would want to know the details of that;

5.  Commissions - Some people work on commission and that would be over and above a base salary that appears on the -W-2 form;

6.  Deferred Compensation - Sometimes there are retirement plans than only become vested after a certain number of years.  You would want full disclosure from your X's employer in order to be informed of these;

7.  Depletion allowance from oil and gas interests;

8.  Depreciation on assets - If you own a rental property for an extended number of years, you would deduct some of that depreciation from capital gains taxes when you sell the property;

9.  Disability benefits;

10.  Dividends - these would be reported on Schedule D of your X's tax returns;

11. Interest Income - This would be reported on Schedule B of your X's tax returns, which, by the way, is a great way to locate your X's bank accounts.  If he has interest free accounts, then you won't be in luck;

12.  Military benefits;

13.  Reimbursement for employment expenses -  This means transportation such as air flights, hotels, rental cars, entertainment, etc.  You would want to check with the employer through to find out what their policy is in regard to employment expenses.  This can amount to a considerable amount of money, so don't overlook it!

14.  Rental property income - For this you would look in Schedule E of your X's tax returns.  Even if mortage and maintenance exceed rental income, it still exists as income, so it should be included;

15.  Retained business earnings - If you X does consultant work of any kind, they would report that income, or should report it on 1099 forms.  Many people simply don't have their clients fill out the 1099s so they can evade the responsibility of reporting their income.  Be aware of that!

16.  Regular Salary;

17.  Social Security Benefits;

18.  Stock and stock options;

19.  Veterans benefits;

20.  Voluntary contributions to pension, retirement or savings plans;

Some ways I saw my X use to hide money was to overpay the taxes to the IRS and keep hidden from me that he was anticipating a large refund check.  Also, he overpaid credit cards so that there was a large credit balance.  The other thing my X did was to put sums of money into small independent banks over a period of time so that it would be difficult to trace them.

For more information check out the following link:

www.moddivorce.com

'

MY FILE!

I spent a good part of yesterday going through my file making sure that I had all of the motions, letters, and court orders that should be in it.  I started with printing out my case detail and then went through my pile checking off what I did and did not have.  My stack of motions, etc. has expanded considerably since I started, but still I only have around 60% of my file.  How did that happen!  

I assume that this is simply because I am a litigant in a high conflict divorce.  As we all know, once you go over two years in family court, your brain becomes fully scrambled and you can no longer keep track of anything in your life.  Still, I thought I was better than that.  I have always thought to myself, I have had training as a secretary and so I have learned about organizing systems.  This won't be a problem for me.  

Unfortunately, it did become a problem for me because I relied on someone else to do the job.  Have you noticed how whenever you do that, the job gets f**ked up?

I have a friend who volunteered to come and help me.  She comes by every once and a while and gets busy with the court file, putting documents here and there, spreading them around on counters and floors, really looking like she is getting something done.  But really, the whole time she hasn't been doing anything else but getting the file more disorganized and losing more motions, etc.  

Deep down I always knew this was going on, but since I have been preoccupied running around going to hearings or putting together other motions, I never had adequate time to address the problem.  So while occasionally I would confront my friend and say, "What the heck are you doing?  I see no organization here, she would respond indignantly and say she had everything under control, and who was I to challenge that, knowing that she was my friend and supposedly on my side.  

However, I finally have had a stretch of good time to look into the situation, and boy have I been sorely disappointed to see what has been going on.  I am trying not to have a fight, so I am just calmly saying to my friend things like, we are missing the year 2007--that kind of thing.  Nothing judgmental, just stating facts.  But inside I am like, how can you lose an entire year, you complete and utter idiot!  

Of course, I should forget yelling at this friend.  She wasn't paid and she was trying to be nice and she just got lost in the shower of paper, the same as anyone would.  I should know better than to hand over this entire job to another person.  Ultimately, this is my file and I am the one responsible.  I know more than any other person how central it is for me to have an exact copy of my file.  Without such a copy, the opposing side can invent motions, rulings, and letters that don't exist or deny that I filed certain documents when I did and this have wreak havoc with my case.

Anything that I do for trial court requires a solid basis, and that solid basis fundamentally arises from a fully complete duplicate record of my trial court file.  I know that, so I should never have left this task to any other person than myself, because I am ultimately responsible, the buck stops right at my doorstep, and whatever consequences I have to bear because my file is not complete I will solely have to bear, not anyone else, not even my good friend who has been so hapless.  

This situation has caused me so much distress and anxiety that I stayed up late looking for missing motions until 2:00am last night and then I woke up fully aware and ready to go at 6:30am.  The real bummer is that if I can't locate most of the motions, I will have to go to trial court and request copies for $1.00 per page which could get to be expensive.  

I am so delighted when I find copies which are clearly stamped with the item # placed on the front.  Unfortunately, I am one of those people who created more motions than I filed and I did not think in advance to put a special notation on those motions that I created, but did not file.  So there are additional complications there.  

I would have been in such better shape if I had simply maintained my court file on a daily basis, keeping it constantly updated with every document verified as exactly the same as the original in the courthouse.  

But I am too hard on myself.  We all know how difficult it is to do the most simple common sense things when you are being pounded by family court.  

Still, for all you readers out there, I want to remind you, take another look at your copy of the trial court file.  Is it complete?  Is it exact?  If not, make it so.  The fundamental basis for a strong and effective lawsuit is a well kept court file.  

After that, take a look at your correspondence file.  Is that in chronological order as well?  Is it accurate and complete?  Make sure it is.  There is nothing more effective than being able to say with confidence, "I wrote you a letter on such and such date and said the following, and then you stated this, and I stated that."  Without such an ability your case will become crippled.  Again, if your correspondence file isn't straightened out, straighten it out now, without delay.  There is nothing more crucial to the health and success of your case than your ability to speak clearly and accurately.  

As for my friend, I will never trust her again with this task.  As they say, fool me once--shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me. 

YALE LAW REVIEW STUDY ON JUDICIAL CORRUPTION!

See link below:


http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=824:yale-law-review-publishes-study-on-judicial-corruption-tip-of-the-iceberg&catid=43:judicial-misconduct-complaints&Itemid=90

WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY "JUSTICE"

Folks, my computer has somehow picked up a virus.  This always happens to me when I try to download a free application.  Remind me never to attempt to download any more free viruses!  Unfortunately, this means I can't respond to anyone's postings individuallly right now. 

Anyway, before I take this computer off to be de-virused, I did want to comment about some postings I have seen on this site.  I hope that readers understand that what I am endorsing in my blogsite is justice for everyone and this means due process, ADA rights, the rule of law, an impartial judge, all those rights which are based upon our constitutional rights which should result in fair and equitable decisions by any judge who decides matters in a divorce case. 

Right now there is a plague of good mothers across this country who are losing their children to abusive and criminal fathers.  Many are losing their children because the judical system has been infiltrated with millions and millions of HHS dollars that are funding these cases.  It is a national holocaust. 

The fact that I recognize this, and others commenting on this website recognize this, should not be taken as an indication that I am against good fathers who have also been screwed by the judicial system.  They are all out there as well and I am fully in support of their goals to obtain justice and due process rights within Family Court.  If there is anything we and I can do to support responsible fathers who have found themselves attacked unfairly in Family Court, we need to help these folks out. 

I hope that good fathers who review comments on this website, who see hurt and upset comments from women who have been hurt by Family court and by abusive men, don't make the assumption that these comments also apply to them.  Protective Mothers and Good Fathers have a common goal of achieving justice within the Family Court system, and while much distrust and suspicion is out there because each of us has been hurt by members of the opposite gender, it is my hope that we can stand together when it comes to the goal of supporting good parents, first of all, and second, working for the overarching goal of eliminating the abuses of Family Court. 

Let me repeat:  It is so important for worthy people not to attack one another, but instead to work together for the common good. 

Also, it is so important for good fathers to understand the bitterness of protective mothers and recognize that comments which apply to fathers who are abusive are most likely not intended to apply to good fathers, of which there are many out there.  I thank God for my father every day!  He was a truly great man. Likewise, I would hope that protective mothers who read comments by good fathers who have been mistreated in family court do not make assumptions that the hurt comments apply to them.

There are good fathers out there and I support them, and I know that protective mothers would generally agree with that that they stand behind the hurt, the abused and the vulnerable, which includes good fathers who have had their rights denied in family court. 

So let's stand together, reach out and support each other, and I hope everyone understands, you who have been abused, both economically, physically, and in other ways, you are fully supported here on the blog.  Also, when it comes to lost reputation.  The bible says that a person who bears false witness against another is essentially doing the same as committing murder.  For you who have lost reputation due to the lies and disgraceful behavior of an abusive former spouse, this blog against supports and understands your struggle. 

This goes for all Protective Mothers and Good Fathers. 

We are here to create change for our children's sake, to make the world a better place, to have America live up to its creed of liberty and justice for all.  We are not here to tear each other down when all of us know our enemies have done enough of that already. 

So I would advise readers of this blog--don't mistakenly make assumptions about what a hurt person is saying, don't assume that it means you personally.  Give one another the benefit of the doubt, and recognize, none of us here condones injustice on any level, not for Protective Mothers and not for Good Fathers. In this movement, when we talk about "justice", we aren't talking about justice for special people, we are talking about justice for ALL.  So let us stand together, united, for the cause of justice and freedom, renounce bitterness towards one another, recognizing we have all suffered deeply, and march forward shoulder to shoulder.

WICKED LAWYER JOKE (4)

A lawyer went duck hunting for the first time in Texas.  He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of the fence.  

As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his tractor and asked him what he was doing.  The litigator responded, "I shot a duck.  It fell into this field, and now I'm going to retrieve it."  

The old farmer replied, "This is my property and you are not coming over here."  

The indignant lawyer said, "I am one of the best trial attorneys in the U.S. and if you don't let me get that duck, I'll sue you and take everything you own."  

The old farmer smiled and said, "Apparently, you don't know how we do things in Texas.  We settle small disagreements like this with the Texas Three-Kick Rule."  

The lawyer asked, "What is the Texas Three-Kick Rule?"  

The Farmer replied, "Well, first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times, and so on, back and forth, until someone gives up."  

The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger.  He agreed to abide by local custom.  

The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to the city feller. His first kick planted the toe of his heavy work boot into the lawyer's groin and dropped him to his knees.  His second kick nearly wiped the man's nose off his face.  The barrister was flat on his belly when the farmer's third kick to a kidney nearly caused him to give up.

The lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet and said, "Okay, you old coot!  Now it's my turn!"  

The old farmer smiled and said, "No, I give up.  You can have the duck."

FAMILY SERVICES - COURT SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION

Section 25-61 of the Connecticut Practice Book 2012 states: "The Family Services Unit shall, at the request of the judicial authority, provide assistance with regard to issues concerning custody, visitation, finances, mediation, case management and such other matters as the judicial authority may direct."  

In the course of this work, the Family Services Unit uses the family relations counselor who, according the the glossary contained in the "The Divorce Handbook" provided by the Judicial Branch, "mediates disagreements and negotiates agreements in divorce cases." And, as the Handbook further states, echoing the mandate of Section 25-61 of the Practice Book, "At the request of the judge, a family relations counselor may evaluate a family situation by interviewing each parent and the children in the family and writing a report for the judge, making recommendations about custody and visitation.  Works at the branch's CSSD Family Services Office."  

Again, I am reading a brochure produced by the judicial branch and it further defines the role of family services stating that it "is to assist the Court and clients in the timely and fair resolution of family and interpersonal conflicts through a comprehensive program of dispute resolution services, evaluation and education."  

What I am not seeing is any mention of who pays for this and how?  If these services are available for free, and I think the vast majority are, why didn't my attorneys let me know about it?  And why did I end up paying for a private evaluator to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars when these evaluative services were apparently available for free at Family Services?  Is this another example of plain old stupid going on in family court, stupid happening because of stupid, stupid, money grubbing attorneys?  

If you are now interested in what this is all about, there is a "Family Services Frequently Asked Questions" page on the Connecticut Judicial Website which is located at the following link:  

www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/family-faq.htm

  

For those of you who are victims of domestic violence, under these FAQs you can see that services are available to you under Question #4 which has the heading "Criminal Court".  In accordance with Connecticut State law in regard to domestic violence, the only DV that family services recognizes is physical violence.  If there has been verbal or economic abuse, you will have a much more difficult time having it recognized in any way.  

If you are going to say, "I'm a victim of domestic violence." the question you are going to get back is, "When has your ex been arrested?"  If you have no answer to that question because your ex has not been arrested because you cannot be arrested for verbal and economic abuse or for controlling behavior, then you will find little recognition or acknowledgment of the fact that you have been abused.  In fact, you could end up being penalized for even mentioning it because such non physical abuse will come across as simply a "he said, she said" matter or an attempt on your part to be vindictive.  

If you are interested in getting more information in regard to this point, look up online on google and youtube, the domestic violence expert Professor Evan Stark of Rutgers University, author of "Coercive Control:  How Men Trap Women in Personal Life".  See the link: 

http://www.amazon.com/Coercive-Control-Personal-Interpersonal-Violence/dp/0195154274

When you are referred to Family Services, the first thing they will do is meet with you to conduct the Family Civil Intake Screen.  This involves responding to a series of questions "to identify the level of conflict and complexity of issues between the parties" so that the division can determine what your needs are.  Interestingly enough, as a result of using this screen a Study conducted on behalf of the CSSD and published in 2009 has shown that certain factors are generally associated with high conflict divorce.  Specifically, according to the Study "Mental health and domestic violence issues were highly related to the complexity of a case.  Disparity of facts/views resulted most often in comprehensive evaluations being ordered."  

According to the website, the screening "includes questions about current court orders, past and present parenting concerns, and level of conflict between the parents."  The intention of the screening process is triage, i.e. to identify early on what services you case would benefit from receiving and directing you straight to them, which the Study indicated was the most effective and economical approach to providing services.  

If you are interested in the content of the family services intake screen, you can locate an example by looking at Appendix A at the end of the article entitled, "Triaging Family Court Services:  The Connecticut Judicial branch's Family Civil Intake Screen" by Peter Salem, Debra Kulak and Dr. Robin M. Deutsch and published in the Pace Law Review which is available at the following link:  

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1561&context=lawrev&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dtriaging%2520family%2520court%2520services%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CE4QFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.pace.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1561%2526context%253Dlawrev%26ei%3Dt0oVUL_BLsP76gG8voDABw%26usg%3DAFQjCNHuVbsEhB_Da7W7RXesOdt4pHBHwA%26sig2%3D-txDKhCsXf9oA6OVKiVtUw#search=%22triaging%20family%20court%20services%22

The Family Services Division provides considerable services to clients:  Alternative Dispute Resolutions Services, Evaluative Services, and Education, as well as assistance in the disposition of family violence criminal cases (i.e. ones that have ended up in criminal court as opposed to ones where there were accusations which did not result in criminal charges.)  Again, there is a big, big difference as to how cases where there are criminal charges and those where there aren't criminal charges are handled and you have to remember that when you are dealing with family services, as I have said.  Charges of abuse where there is no criminal case will be viewed with skepticism.

Alternative Dispute Resolutions Services include: 

1.  Pre-trial Settlement Negotiations; 

2. Mediation; 

3. Conflict Resolution Conferences; 

4. Conciliation Counseling; 

5. Pre-trial Mediation Settlement Services.  

Then there are the Evaluation Services which include:  

1. Issue-Focused Evaluation; 

2. Comprehensive Evaluation.  

And then finally there is Education which involves the CSSD overseeing and managing the Parent Education Programs that are run throughout the State.  


In criminal cases, the Family Services Division provides  "through a comprehensive assessment and intervention plan to prevent, reduce, and stop the frequency and severity of violence against victim/complainants."  

Both Mediation and Conflict Resolution Conferences are confidential. But still I would get verbal assurance of that every time you go to a session.  It never hurts.


Just this one disclaimer:  as I write this article, I'm just reading off the brochures.  I make no comment in regard to the quality of services.

As a matter of procedure, when you come to trial court, the first thing litigants are asked to do is sign up for a meeting with family relations to see if you can negotiate a solution to your problem in advance of standing before the judge.  Thus, if you do it yourself as a pro se party, or if you watch what your attorney is doing, there is a yellow sheet of paper that you hand in to the clerk in the courtroom where you are going to have your hearing.  Among other things, this  paper asks whether you have met with family relations and whether you have come to any agreement.  You are supposed to respond "yes" or "no" to that question.  Marshalls in the courtroom regularly walk around and check with litigants to see if they have already gone to family relations.  If they haven't, they will direct you there. 

Of course, I've looked at some of these ladies who are family relations counselors and they look as though they have been hit by several trucks, so I am not sure how capable they would be of helping you out, but officially this is what they are supposed to do, so I am letting you know.  

The advantage of working with private mediators is that they are not as overwhelmed simply by the massive numbers of individuals requiring help.  The down side is that private mediators cost considerable sums of money.  And, of course, there is the whole other issue of whether mediation of any kind is called for under circumstances where one of the parties is an abuser.  That is an entirely different conversation which would be extensive and detailed and goes beyond the scope of this current blog.  

I would be interested in hearing what your experiences are.  Have you benefited from family services?  Or do you have a nightmare story to tell!

SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (CRPD)!

Senate Unilaterally Exempts U.S. from International Disability Requirements

In a meeting yesterday, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations dismantled protections intended for the disability community in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is being considered for ratification by the full Senate. The Senate’s actions operated to deprive United States citizens with disabilities of the full benefit of international standards. 

While some of us who are activists in the area of parental rights have been concerned that the treaty would somehow limit our parental rights as parents of children with disabilities, let me say right away that this simply is not the case.  In no way would this resolution limit our parent rights.  Statements to the contrary are simply incorrect and represent a completely wrong headed attempt to undercut this vital international treaty which safeguards the rights of people with disabilities both in America and throughout the world.

In yesterday's meeting – enroute to voting the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities out of committee - it took the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations less than two hours to dismantle the protections offered the disability community by this treaty. In a demonstration of what some are describing as arrogance, Senators simply declared that “current United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the Convention.” They also approved a number of additional reservations, understandings and declarations (called RUDs). The combined effect is to deprive people with disabilities in the United States of the benefits of the treaty's standards by limiting United States obligations to enforcing current law and periodic reporting.


The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an international treaty ratified by 117 nations. The treaty sets forth comprehensive and integral international standards aimed at protecting the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. A monumental undertaking of international faith and goodwill, the treaty follows decades of effort by thousands of members of the disability community from numerous countries worldwide to change attitudes and approaches impacting persons with disabilities.


The rationale for the Committee's action? To quote Committee Chair Senator John Kerry: “We’re already way ahead of where the Disabilities Convention seeks to go. It simply requires and encourages other countries to come up to where we are.”


“This is outrageous,” says Daniel Hazen, a long-time proponent of Convention and the current director of Voices of the Heart, a human rights organization in the disability sector. Hazen observes: “My rights personally have been violated on numerous occasions. Every day, we hear from people whose rights are being violated within the realms of current law."


Human rights lawyer and disability leader Tina Minkowitz played a key role in drafting the Convention and is considered an expert on its provisions. According to Minkowitz, “The Senate restrictions adopted yesterday appear to mean that the U.S. is disclaiming the obligation to work towards full implementation in the areas where state and federal law do not meet the CRPD standards. This stance is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty and should be rejected by other countries that are parties to the CRPD.”


Sarah Knutson, a disability rights advocate from New York, remarks: “It’s ironic that all this occurred on the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That was a landmark piece of legislation that genuinely changed people’s lives for the better. But, let’s not get so full of ourselves that we refuse to even look at what the international community has to offer. How can we say we lead the world in an area when we won’t even hold ourselves to the same standards that are being asked of everyone else?”

The full Senate is expected to vote on U.S. ratification of the Treaty as early as July 31st.

###

For further information contact:

Voices of the Heart, Inc.
http://www.voicesoftheheart.net/
Daniel Hazen 518-932-3137
voicesdirector@gmail.com

TELL CONGRESS WE NEED TO REVOKE IMMUNITY FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGES! SIGN THE PETITION!

CAMPAIGN ALERT!

The Campaign for Judicial Reform is an effort led by the 501c3 non-profit Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC) and its supporters to bring about crucial reforms in the family court and foster-care systems across America. Together, we can ensure that the desperately needed changes to bring about fairness and justice for all – not just the system and the elite, but 

children and families – can be achieved.

The problems are many, and the task ahead is daunting. Powerful entrenched interests will fight us every step of the way. But for the sake of the thousands of victims grinded up and spit out by the corrupt system every year – especially innocent parents, children and families – we must do what needs to be done.

The problems are many, and the task ahead is daunting. Powerful entrenched interests will fight us every step of the way. But for the sake of the thousands of victims grinded up and spit out by the corrupt system every year – especially innocent parents, children and families – we must do what needs to be done.

Thank you for checking out our campaign. We sincerely hope that you will help us in this massive undertaking, if not for yourself, then for the countless victims who are being literally destroyed by a corrupt, unaccountable system. Please go to the link to find out what you can do. If we can help you, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

http://fcvfc.org/judicialreform.html?utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email

---

View the petition  | 

READ OUR THREE PART SERIES ON YOUR ADA AND ADAAA (NONEXISTENT) RIGHTS IN CONNECTICUT FAMILY COURT

PART I:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/your-rights-under-ada-and-adaaa-denied.html


PART 2:
http://www.divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/your-rights-under-ada-and-adaaa-denied_24.html


PART 3:
http://www.divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/your-rights-under-ada-and-adaaa-denied_26.html

TAKE THIS POLL!

Does family court in Connecticut discriminate against people who have invisible disabilities?
	Yes
	No
	Maybe
pollcode.com free polls

YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AND THE ADAAA: DENIED, DENIED, DENIED, PART 3

As you may recall, I mentioned that the Judicial Branch invited around 22 agencies and advocates to meet on three separate days to discuss the barriers to justice that prevent people with disabilities from obtaining access in court services, programs and activities.  Since the focus groups were held in 2008, one of the most significant achievements of the Judicial Branch in regard to the ADA has been the development of the ADA page on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website. 

This means that when you go to the website for the Connecticut Judicial Branch online there is a readily identifiable ADA link on the homepage.  You will find this link on the upper right hand side at the top of the list under "Quick Links".  This link provides hyperlinks to: an overview of the ADA at the Judicial Branch; a complete list of branch-wide ADA contact people (I am careful to say contact people although the ADA Committee notes refer to these people as coordinators.  Such a term is a special term under ADA legislation and not to be used carelessly or, as in this case, inaccurately), a description of currently available auxiliary aids; information about wheelchair access to courthouses; a link to the homepage for the Americans with Disabilities Act Committee, and a link to the homepage for the Advisory Board on the American's With Disability Act, including internal and external subcommittees. 

The ADA link also has a hyperlink to Request for Reasonable accommodation forms as well as forms that describe the procedure for obtaining reasonable accommodation.  In addition, for both the superior court and the appellate courts, there are hyperlinks to grievance forms for both the superior court and the appellate courts, as well as a hyperlink to the write up of the procedures for both. 

The ADA Committee made a real effort to make these forms clear and easy to understand and have succeeded in this effort, so they are to be commended for that. 

Finally, there is a juror accommodation form which allows potential jurors to inform the trial court online of their disability in advance.  Of course, this form makes me nervous simply for reasons of confidentiality.  I mean, who is on the receiving line for getting these emailed forms--just anyone?  I wouldn't like to see forms like that going into outer space.  But that is just my personal preference. 

I am glad to see the work that has been done to inform the public of their rights under the ADA on the judicial website.  On the other hand, now that these items have been posted on the website, this is when litigants begin to ask the question:  Do they work?  Are requests for reasonable accommodation taken seriously?  If the branch denies a request for reasonable accommodation, does it then have a meaningful grievance process to review that denial?

The problem I have here is that, from what I have heard, unless you have a visible or sensory disability, the CT Judicial Branch is unlikely to grant any reasonable accommodations for a litigant.  In other words, unless a request for accommodation is for a condition that is clearly visible to one of the contact people, the request will go up to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, who will then automatically deny that accommodation.  So for a considerable number of people, particularly those with invisible disabilities, they are unlikely to receive the ADA Accommodations to which they are entitled by federal law. 

Elizabeth Richter, a litigant I mentioned in my initial blog, has, among other things, a physicial disability that is not visible.  Thus far, despite repeated requests, Elizabeth has not been granted her requests for reasonable accommodations for that disability.  From her subsequent experience in regard to complaints/grievances, Elizabeth indicated that she did not believe that the complaint/grievance procedure was at all meaningful.  She pointed out, and rightly so, that on all of these ADA Committees and workgroups the names repeat themselves again and again:  The Honorable Patrick L. Carroll III, Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, Mr. Patrick R. Caron, Ms. Laurie Parent, Attorney Stephen N. Ment, Attorney Mark Ciarciello, Attorney Stephen Pelletier, Attorney Richard D. Coffey, etc., etc. 

These folks have created their own little private club within the Judicial Branch running the ADA their way whether anyone likes it or not.  These are people who rub elbows against one another in committee meetings all the time.  Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that you have a meaningful grievance process when a grievance on a denial of a request for reasonable accommodation ends up in the hands of one or other of these committee members instead of in the hands of an independent grievance committee outside the Judicial Branch. 

I can just imagine how that works.  Ms. Lugo-Gines picks up a grievance complaint from her desk, wanders down the hallway and dumps it on, say, her pal Attorney Coffey's desk and says, "Got another one of these jokers for you, Richie." 

Furthermore, Elizabeth Richter complained that when they reviewed her grievance, the Judicial Branch didn't even bother to obey the procedure that they had outlined in their own grievance procedure.  When she confronted them about that, they said in so many words, "We are only required to have a grievance procedure, not to obey it."

The end result is that the Judicial Branch simply dismisses or denies a considerable number of perfectly valid requests for accommodations from litigants with disabilities.  This was not the intention of the creators of the ADA legislation and is a complete disgrace.  The end result is that litigants give up asking for any reasonable accommodations.  Also, attorneys advise their clients, no matter what, even if you ask you will not be allowed to have reasonable accommodations under the ADA, so don't even bother to try.  And then, I guess, the contact people the ADA can say, "We don't get that many requests so we don't have to put much effort into complying with the ADA because it isn't necessary."  Obviously, that would be a lie, but that is another way the judicial branch can cover up their lousy, non complying asses.

So if the Judicial Branch isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing, i.e. complying with the ADA, what is it doing? They have sort of been doing the proverbial fiddling while Rome burns.  Apparently, among other things (fiddling), they continue big time to update their ADA webpage.  They have edited their official judicial branch publications to update the telephone numbers available for people with hearing or speech difficulties.  They are keeping track--i.e. making sure of the existence--of their auxillary aids and services such as wheelchairs.  They are continuing to do research and to provide training on the ADA to staff.  They will be offering an ADA newsletter, and, wonder of wonders, it looks like we are going to have an art exhibit with artwork made by persons with disabilities! 

This latter focus seems pretty misplaced to me.  You will forgive me for saying I'd much rather have my rights as a person with a disability instead of an art exhibit, but that's just me.  Training, websites, inventories of auxillary aids!  Yes, but what about my rights?  Can we hear about those? 

When it comes to requests for reasonable accommodation, how many of them has the trial court granted? Can we get a number?  We are asking because so many of us have been denied reasonable accommodation, we are skeptical about whether anyone is being accommodated.  And that is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Judicial Branches' compliance, or rather lack of compliance, with federal law as dictated by the ADA and the ADAAA.     

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?