HONEY, I NEVER LIED!: BUGGY V. BUGGY, FA054005647S (5)

Under Item # 6E in the Defendant's June 9, 2010 amendment to his Motion For Modification he states, "As a result of the judgment (paragraph 2.5 which limits the childrens' access to some members of the Buggy family and some members of the MacVicar family) and the Wife's interference, the husband has lost basically all contact with his family of origin." 

 

Now, I am sorry, but I simply don't believe that.  Father sees the children every other weekend, and one evening a week.  He has had plenty, and I mean plenty of time to see his family of origin since the judgment.  I'd say he has eleven days to do so out of every two week period.  Seriously.  If that isn't sufficient opportunity to maintain his ties with his family, he'll never have enough time!

 

There are other reports that I find questionable in the Memorandum of Decision for this case.  For example, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff Mother had attacked him on two occasions in 2004 and 2005.  What bothers me, and what bothers me about most of the statements attributed to the Defendant, is that there appears to be no corroborating evidence provided. 

 

If the Plaintiff attacked the Defendant, where is the proof?  Are there photographs of the supposed injuries?  Are there any doctor's reports or emergency room reports?  Well, apparently, there is report in an Emergency Room of the second attack, but in that report he gives a different story of what happened, which doesn't include anything about a spousal attack.  Plus, apparently, on the stand Defendant provided a few more different stories of the incident. 

 

This is my problem with much of the discussion in this Memorandum of Decision--the Defendant said this, the Plaintiff said that--so where is the proof?  Where is the documentary evidence?  Where is the testimony by witnesses?  And if there are multiple, inconsistent accounts of an incident, why randomly take one and publish that one as THE truth.

 

I mean, apparently, there were eleven days of hearings in this case, and yet the vast majority of information provided in the Memorandum of Decision is unsubstantiated he said, she said type testimony primarily reported by one man--Dr. Kenneth Robson. 

 

For example, Dr. Robson stated that he "was impressed that many people with whom he spoke appeared to feel frightened of Ms. MacVicar." 

 

Really?  "Many People?"  Who exactly? 

 

And did they provide testimony on the stand under oath to that effect?  I assume it wasn't J.'s therapist Pamela Tinoco about whom the Defendant made the complaint that she would not communicate with him.  Maybe the Defendant was too scary to Ms. Tinoco.  Who knows! 

 

One thing we do know is that the GAL, Jocelyn Hurwitz reported that Ms. MacVicar "had some witnesses vouching for her as a parent and as an individual."  In fact, the Court acknowledged that "All of these witnesses were impressive."  Oh, impressive.  I guess Ms. MacVicar wasn't scaring them. 

 

I mean, just between you and me and the bedpost, I can frighten people also.  Usually, the people I frighten are the liars who are afraid of being caught.  Everyone else thinks I'm a fuzzy, wuzzy teddy bear.  My question is, what's the matter with frightening liars.  They should be frightened because they are lying and ruining peoples' lives.  Duh!

 

There are some other points that just don't add up as well.  For instance, Dr. Robson stated his view that Father had not abused the two children J. and K.  However, such a conclusion is entirely contradicted by Father's own admission that "he had 'blown up' and had sworn at the girls.  I'm sorry--he swore at them?  I've been a parent for a considerable period of time and I have never yet had to swear at my children.  In what world is using bad language towards your children acceptable?  Certainly not in mine!

 

The girls complained that their father pulled their hair.  In response, Father said that the older child J. had once pulled her younger sister, K.'s, hair.  That is NOT the same as saying, "No, I did not pull your hair."  In essence, he sidestepped the question.  Why? 

 

Dr. Kenneth Robson is also not very credible when he stated that Sandra MacVicar sent a threat to him and Attorney Hurwitz, the GAL in a letter.  Of course, I thought the threat would be that Ms. MacVicar said she was going to burn Dr. Robson's house down, or that she was going to get a gun and shoot the GAL.  Instead, the so-called threat was that Ms. MacVicar said "when the girls got hurt by Mr. Buggy, it would be on their heads." 

 

Seriously, that's a threat? 

 

Didn't Dr. Robson just say that Mr. Buggy wasn't any kind of danger to the children and that he was the children's only hope for living a healthy life style.  If this is Dr. Robson's idea of a threat, maybe he should listen to his own subconscious mind telling him what a liar he is. 

 

The bottom line is that the entire Memorandum of Decision in this case is riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and blanket statements with no basis in any documentary or testimonial evidence.  

 

"Oh, babe, why can't you see, what you are doing to me" croons Elvis in his song, "Suspicious Minds."  I'll tell you why in this case, because all the attorneys (plus the judge, Dr. Kenneth Robson) involved are so gosh darned dumb.

 

To be continued...

HERE WE GO AGAIN!: BUGGY V. BUGGY, FA054005647S (4)

Recently, I had my yearly mammogram.  Ok, sorry, that makes it sound like I religiously follow my proper health regimen and go every year like I should.  The fact is, this was my first one. 

 

I have these lovely boobs that have simply had a lot of wear and tear over the years, so they have various irregularities, fibrous cysts, goodness knows what.  So of course, after my first mammogram I was called in for a second followup mammogram with a more sensitive kind of diagnostic equipment, and that mammogram was accompanied by an ultrasound. 

 

In the end, the clinician in my case had three sets of objective measures in regard to my lovely, lovely boobs!

 

I am sure that given my age and medical history the technicians involved in the case, as well as the doctor, pretty much had a good idea of what they had in terms of my boobs well before the doctor reported it to me directly at the end of the final test.  However, they waited until they had all the information available before reporting it to me. 

 

This is why I am still somewhat perturbed by the fact that Dr. Kenneth Robson would speculate in regard to Sandra MacVicar's mental health without having done the requisite tests necessary to ensure the best and most accurate diagnosis.  To me, this is simply irresponsible and unprofessional behavior. 

 

Plus, I want to add, the doctor who worked with my boobs cautioned me to keep in mind that his results were limited because there were no prior mammograms to compare my recent mammogram to. 

 

I would expect, also, that Dr. Robson would report the extent to which his diagnosis of Sandra MacVicar was limited in its accuracy as the result of the fact that there were multiple tests that he was simply unable to run. 

 

Now, I understand that Dr. Kenneth Robson is of the older generation when mental health diagnosis was pretty much an off the cuff type of operation.  In fact, I think that when he was being trained they didn't even have a Diagnostic Manual with which to categorize mental health illnesses.  This meant that in his day, psychiatric patients were often labeled with multiple, often conflicting, diagnoses.

 

However, the field of psychiatry has made significant strides since that time in terms of accuracy of diagnosis and treatment, so there is no longer any kind of excuse for the kind of carelessness and misinformation that was characteristic of an older generation. 

 

Clients in treatment, who are being evaluated for a diagnosis, seriously can and should expect the very best, most accurate results, particularly if they are involved in a legal proceedings where solid and reliable results are of the utmost importance.  Thus, it is troubling to see diagnoses bandied about here in connection to the Plaintiff, Sandra MacVicar, diagnoses that could have very serious consequences in her life let alone the lives of her children, which ultimately have very little, if any scientific basis.  Personally, I would expect a whole lot more, particularly of a trained medical doctor with considerable experience.

 

Putting that aside for now, we have the theory that Sandra MacVicar is paranoid.  And, indeed, Ms. MacVicar refused to participate in the psychological testing which, I presume, was an order of the court.  She also initially gave Dr. Robson releases so that he could speak to individuals associated with the case and then rescinded those releases in connection to three people. 

 

And, according to Dr. Robson, Sandra MacVicar wrote a letter to him stating that she felt "he had made his mind up before he had actually made up his mind." 

 

So what is that?  Is it proof that Sandra MacVicar is paranoid?

 

Well, maybe not because you have another statement to the effect that "Attorney Stevens who had previously represented Ms. MacVicar chastised Dr. Robson for canceling appointments with the children and for being devious with Ms. MacVicar and with the children."  Since Attorney Stevens statement does not seem to have influenced the judges' decision in this case, I have to presume that it was not taken seriously.  But why?  Why wasn't it taken seriously? 

 

Perhaps it was not Dr. Robson's intention to act deviously, but clearly a person independent of Sandra MacVicar did believe he was acting deviously.  Attorney Stevens was sufficiently convinced of Dr. Robson's improper behavior that he or she made it very public to the extent that the court considered it an important matter of discussion.  This makes Ms. MacVicar's accusations considerably more credible.  I would also like to add that any credible custody evaluator should convey the impression as well as the reality of neutrality and professionalism in a case of this kind.  Clearly, that was not done.

 

Thus, we have a custody evaluator, Dr. Kenneth Robson, submitting a very questionable and unreliable diagnosis of Sandra MacVicar to the trial court and acting in a deliberately deceptive manner towards Ms. MacVicar and her children.  When you consider the fact that the happiness of these young children and their entire future is in the hands of a psychiatrist who is lying and deceitful, it makes me cringe. 

 

As in all my descriptions of these custody decisions gone wrong, what strikes me the most is how these children are harmed and damaged as a result.  Then we have the decision in Buggy v. Buggy, and all I can say is:  Here we go again...

 

To be continued.

SUSPICIOUS MINDS: BUGGY V. BUGGY, FA054005647S (3)

As you may recall, I had originally discussed this case in the light of the issue of converting separation agreements into dissolution agreements. 

 

At this point, I am going to address the custody matters in this case. 

 

Just to let you know right up front, the outcome of this case was that the Plaintiff, Sandra McVicar, lost custody of her children, and her ex was given not just primary custody, but sole custody.  "Why?", you ask?  Well, I'll tell you.  

 

For a quick overview, when this decision came out in October 25, 2010, the parties consisted of Glenn M. Buggy, the Defendant who, at the time, was 46 years old.  Although he received a law degree, he currently works as an Executive Recruiter.  The Plaintiff, Sandra McVicar, was also 46 years old, has a graduate degree in special education and has worked as a teacher for most of her life.  They both have an older daughter, J. who is around 15 and a younger daughter, K. who is around 12. 

 

The parties had a separation agreement dated August 11, 2006 which placed the primary residence of the children with the Plaintiff Mother.  Then on April 16, 2016, the Defendant filed a Motion for Modification of Visitation and Financial Orders Postjudgment.  On March 26, 2009 the Defendant filed a revised motion with the same title and then an amendment to that motion dated June 9, 2010.

 

The bottom line of both these motions in regard to custody was that the Defendant Father requested that he be given primary custody of the children based upon the accusation that "the Defendant's relationship with his children has been adversely affected by the actions of the Plaintiff such that a transfer of custody from the Plaintiff to the Defendant is in the best interests of the minor children."

 

Ok, surprise surprise, another case of "Parental Alienation" used to justify a custody change from the Mother to the Father.  What do you bet that the vast majority of cases like this where the court has been asked to make such a transfer have been based upon an accusation of PAS? 

 

Furthermore, another common thread I am finding is that many of these situations consist of an accused mother such as Sandra McVicar who is also a teacher.  So the trial court often finds that while these women are perfectly qualified to care for classrooms full of students, often 125 or more per year, they are not qualified to care for their own children.  You have to love that logic! 

 

Anyway, I am sure most of you reading this blog are aware that ordinarily, custody agreements are final.  So what would be the basis of changing one?  Apparently, if you look at the findings of the trial court in this particular case you will see the standard basis for changing custody.  The trial court describes it as follows: 

 

"After the final decree this court has limited the broad discretion given the trial court to modify custody orders under General Statutes Sec. 46b-56 by requiring that modification of a custody award be based upon either a material change of circumstances which alters the court's finding of the best interests of the child or a finding that the custody order sought to be modified was not based upon the best interests of the child." 

 

Apparently, parental alienation fits the definition of a change of circumstances or a situation which is not in the best interests of the child. 

 

But that is not the only reason, I am sure.  I am so easily seduced into making light of these matters--my apologies.  In addition to the dreadful PAS, in this case there is also the significant matter of Mother's psychiatric condition.  According to Dr. Kenneth Robson, Sandra McVicar had considerable mental health deficits such as "paranoid perceptions.", a "Borderline Personality Disorder", and a "paranoid personality disorder." 

 

Oh, but wait a minute--it looks as though Ms. McVicar didn't undergo any of the formal psychological testing which ordinarily takes several hours to complete and which would be required in order to obtain any kind of trustworthy results. 

 

So, how could Dr. Robson validate his conclusions without actually obtaining any data from the kinds of objective tests which would verify his results and safeguard him from proposing diagnoses based upon his own personal prejudice? 

 

Not very well, I guess, but I suppose that didn't bother him!

 

So, what about Glenn Buggy?  Did Dr. Robson have anything to say about Mr. Buggy's test results?  Well, no, actually, he had nothing to say even though Mr. Buggy apparently did take those tests. 

 

What a very puzzling omission! 

 

Doesn't it seem a little one sided to provide every damning detail of Sandra's diagnosis even though it isn't based upon any scientific evidence, yet remain silent about Glenn's mental health status when there actually is scientific evidence of it? 

 

What can I say?  In the words of Elvis, Oh, Dr. Robson,  "Why can't you see, what you're doing to me, when I don't believe a word you say.  We can't get on together, with suspicious minds.  And we can't build our dreams on suspicious minds." la, la, la...

 

To be continued.

FIT MOTHERS LOSING CUSTODY THROUGH JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, BILL WINDSOR PRESENTS THE TRUTH, PART II

FIT MOTHERS LOSING CUSTODY THROUGH JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, BILL WINDSOR EXPOSES THE TRUTH!

NEW HAMPSHIRE'S EQUIVALENT TO CT GENERAL STATUTES 51-14

Stop judicial abuse in the State of New Hampshire!  Help pass NH CACR26!

Remember the violations of CT General Statutes 51-14 that activist Michael Nowacki alerted us to?  The fact that judges in the CT judicial system were making changes to the CT Practice Book rules without bringing them before the state legislature and CT's citizens before instituting them.  Well, New Hampshire has a very similar problem!  In the upcoming elections, New Hampshire citizens are fighting for repeal of a law that allows the judicial system to do just that.  Let us show them our support.

 

Just in case folks are interested, New Hampshire is having similar problems with the Judicial System taking over the Legislative System and attempting to plunder the rights of its citizens.  See Carolyn McKinney's Op Ed article from the website "Granite Grok" at the link below:

 

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/05/op-ed-by-carolyn-mckinney-chair-rlcnh-the-legislature-must-reestablish-its-place-above-the-courts

Spread the news to voters you know in New Hampshire, leave your supportive comments, post the information on websites, in facebook, twitter, and elsewhere.  Let your brothers and sisters in New Hampshire know that you care and that you stand behind them 100%!

Get the vote out on NH election day for this important bill:  November 6, 2012!

WE MUST PROTEST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THOSE WITH DISABILITIES IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM THAT WE FIND IT IN OUR FAMILY COURTS HERE IN CONNECTICUT!

ONE IN FIVE CITIZENS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAS A SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH DISABILITY.  WILL FAMILY COURT IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ALL OF THEM?  WILL THEY DENY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL OF THEM?  WE MUST PROTEST THIS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT!  JUSTICE TODAY!  JUSTICE TOMORROW!  JUSTICE FOREVER! 

YES WE CAN! OVERCOME ALL THE BARRIERS! YES WE CAN! WE WITH INVISIBLE DISABILITIES WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE FAMILY COURTS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT!

SO OUR DISABILITIES ARE INVISIBLE! DO NOT THINK THAT, THEREFORE, WE WILL SIT AT THE BACK OF THE BUS!

WE WILL HAVE OUR RIGHTS THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE!

JUSTICE TODAY!

JUSTICE TOMORROW!

JUSTICE FOREVER!

THE PARTIES WILL DIVIDE GAL FEES FIFTY/FIFTY! RIGHT! VERY SENSIBLE!

One of the situations that vastly amused me (OK, not really!) when I was going through my divorce and subsequently was how the trial court would determine the manner in which GAL fees were paid. 

 

Ok, I agree, initially, the GAL fees were paid out of a credit account that was in both our names, and that was marginally OK.  Subsequently, however, we ended up with Stipulations, and then ultimately, a Parenting Agreement which stated that all GAL fees were to be paid fifty/fifty. 

 

This is where I swear everyone in the trial court lost their reason, my attorney, their attorney, the GAL, the judge.

 

The reason I say this is because when this agreement was put into place everyone was aware that my X continued to make a six digit salary at his very lucrative job, while I, as a result of the ongoing litigation and the subsequent need that developed for the children to have at least one full time parent, was making exactly zero, and expected to make exactly zero for a considerable time to come. 

 

So granting this, how did such a ridiculous financial arrangement end up in the Parenting Agreement when anyone and everybody involved in putting that Parenting Agreement together knew exactly how unrealistic such an expectation was?  Don't you all think there should be a law in the Practice Book somewhere precluding completely ridiculous and impossible to enforce provisions in Parenting Agreements?  I sure do. 

 

Anyway, so what happens under these circumstances where you've pretty much been forced to agree to a provision in your Parenting Agreement to pay GAL fees fifty/fifty when you can't afford to do so but you have been told in so many words you must agree to that provision otherwise you will lose custody of your children?  And, of course, those situations primarily apply to women and not to men, because usually in these high conflict divorces the men are very well off while it is the women have been impoverished as the result of the divorce. 

 

I'll tell you what this does strategically. 

 

If you are now in the middle of a high conflict divorce, please note that ordinarily the attorneys in the case will insist upon separating the litigation of the custody from the litigation of the financial matters.  This gives the men in these cases considerable strategic advantages over the women. 

 

First of all, most women in high conflict divorces exhaust all their financial resources on the custody because such women are so desperate to have  custody of their children they will spend all they have, and then end up with no resources with which to fight in regard to financial issues. 

 

Second, the fifty/fifty GAL fee agreement gets put into the Parenting Agreement and the trial court next schedules the adjudication of the financial issues for around four to six months after the custody issues were dealt with. 

 

Of course, by the time the custody issue has been settled, both parties will owe around $20K to $30K (or more) each to the GAL.  Immediately, eager beaver Father will set up a payment plan or even pay off the GAL and he is beaming and looking good and the GAL's best pal. 

 

In contrast, Mother, who no longer has a single penny anywhere and now has custody of the children and has to feed, clothe, and maintain them and probably only receives very intermittant if any child support and alimony since financial has not yet been settled and many Fathers won't obey court orders anyway in regard to support prior to dissolution, has absolutely no means to pay the GAL. 

 

So what does the GAL do? 

 

Don't even think that a GAL would have the patience to wait until the financial is settled to get his or her money, no, no, no!  What the GAL will do is file several Motions for Contempt, and the Opposing Attorney will file Motions for Contempt, complaining that Mother is violating the trial court order to pay the GAL at fifty/fifty. 

Meanwhile, such GALs are busily continuing to interfere in the case, adding on more charges, continuing to investigate, further attempting to locate more evidence against Mother and possibly generating an additional $20K to $30K (or more) in fees.  All of that gets added to the original bill so that the bill is now even more monstrous.

 

Of course, putting aside that most Mothers in a high conflict divorce have every reason to hate the GAL for his or her nasty, back stabbing, and lying, vicious, cruel and child hating ways, even if Mother wanted to pay, she simply can't!  The end result is, Mother begins the financial part of the litigation with several Motions For Contempt outstanding against her which the GAL and the Opposing Attorney immediately bring up right at the start of the hearings. 

 

So right away Mother looks as though she is non compliant and unwilling to work with the trial court and thus loses considerable ability to negotiate any kind of financial agreement which is in the least bit fair and equitable.  

 

I know you think that I must be mistaken, that the trial court would never fall for such obvious manipulation of the circumstances in a high conflict divorce, but trust me, the trial court does fall for it.  Or, to be more realistic, they pretend that they are falling for it and play it up to the hilt, acting with each case as though they never, ever, saw that situation before--NOT! 

 

Just last week I observed a Mother sitting on the stand getting grilled by a judge over not paying GAL fees when it was so darned obvious the lady didn't have a dime to pay.  "So," says the judge, "you deliberately disobeyed court orders and did not pay the GAL."  Well, naturally.  It is amazing how a person with an empty bank account will do that! 

 

So there is all this self righteous hot air putting the blame on the victimized Mother for a situation she had no control over, while Father, who is sitting on a small nest egg, no longer having to support his abused ex Wife and children, so he is happy to pay the GAL who put him in that lovely situation in the first place.  In fact, he is falling all over the place with praise for the GAL and telling the judge that he will do ANYthing to pay the GAL--well, not really, lots of these guys stiff the GAL as well in the end.  But not as publically, because they wait until after the dissolution of the marriage and the financial settlement to do it. 

 

This game can be played even better if the original custody agreement included family therapy to be paid--you guessed it--fifty/fifty by each of the parties.  If Mother, by any chance, skimped on the family therapy because she couldn't afford it during the time after custody was decided and the financial was to be heard, well, file a Motion For Contempt for that as well, and also use it as an opportunity to call into question Mother's fitness to parent. 

 

That, of course, compromises Mother even more in any attempt to negotiate a reasonable financial settlement. 

 

So you can see how, in a high conflict divorce, the fifty/fifty approach is a sure slam dunk to screw the X-wife for any abusive Father in a high conflict divorce. 

 

It is extremely rare for the trial court to use its brains and say Father makes a six digit salary, Mother makes nothing, so why don't we have an 80/20 split or something like that?  Apparently, thinking like this is much too challenging for the trial court.  It would involve actually treating Mothers equitably, and I think it is going to be decades before family court becomes enlightened enough to handle it that way. 

 

Meanwhile, for those of you in high conflict divorces, don't be hoodwinked when they come to you and tell you that they are handling the custody and the financial at separate times, or when they say you must agree to fifty/fifty payment of GAL and/or family therapy fees.  Make no mistake about it, when they do that, they are deliberately setting you up, and the outcome will unfold exactly as I have described it to you.  Forewarned is forearmed! 

LINK TO ADA REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FORM

Below is the link for the Request For Reasonable Accommodations Form which you need to fill out in order to receive accommodation for a visible or invisible disability under the ADA in the family courts in the State of Connecticut. 

 

Now, I will say up front that if you are dealing with Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines in Hartford, and I would guess her cronies in all the other judicial branches, you will be turned down for reasonable accommodations, particularly if you have an invisible disability.  Ms. Lugo-Gines and her colleagues, as well as all the judges with whom she is in communication in regard to ADA accommodations, to my knowledge are in all violation of Federal ADA law.  The irony is that while they tell US in righteous tones that we peon citizens of the State of Connecticut who pay taxes must obey court orders, they themselves are completely unable to obey federal ADA laws and, in doing so, prey upon the most vulnerable--citizens with disabilities.

 

However, it is still important to make that request and subsequently to file a grievance once you have been turned down, and possibly to continue on with other legal action if you continue to be denied.  Meanwhile, let's begin with the first step.  Again, the link for the initial form you have to fill out is below:

 

http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/es264.pdf

 

THEY FOUGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS!

JUSTICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABLITIES DOES NOT STOP AT THE COURTHOUSE DOOR!

LET US LISTEN AGAIN TO THE WORDS OF JUSTIN DART, THE FOUNDER OF THE ADA!

Let us listen again to the stirring words of Justin Dart, the founder of the ADA.  After learning the disappointment of the news that the DOJ has betrayed us, we can be inspired and renewed by the spirit of Justin Dart.  The spirit of justice never dies!  Our quest for justice never dies!  We will stand together and fight injustice! Listen to his words at the close of his life:

"Dearly Beloved: Listen to the heart of this old soldier. As with all of us the time comes when body and mind are battered and weary. But I do not go quietly into the night. I do not give up struggling to be a responsible contributor to the sacred continuum of human life. I do not give up struggling to overcome my weakness, to conform my life - and that part of my life called death - to the great values of the human dream. Death is not a tragedy. It is not an evil from which we must escape. Death is as natural as birth. Like childbirth, death is often a time of fear and pain, but also of profound beauty, of celebration of the mystery and majesty which is life pushing its horizons toward oneness with the truth of mother universe. The days of dying carry a special responsibility. There is a great potential to communicate values in a uniquely powerful way - the person who dies demonstrating for civil rights. Let my final actions thunder of love, solidarity, protest - of empowerment. I adamantly protest the richest culture in the history of the world, a culture which has the obvious potential to create a golden age of science and democracy dedicated to maximizing the quality of life of every person, but which still squanders the majority of its human and physical capital on modern versions of primitive symbols of power and prestige. I adamantly protest the richest culture in the history of the world which still incarcerates millions of humans with and without disabilities in barbaric institutions, backrooms and worse, windowless cells of oppressive perceptions, for the lack of the most elementary empowerment supports. I call for solidarity among all who love justice, all who love life, to create a revolution that will empower every single human being to govern his or her life, to govern the society and to be fully productive of life quality for self and for all. I do so love all the patriots of this and every nation who have fought and sacrificed to bring us to the threshold of this beautiful human dream. I do so love America the beautiful and our wild, creative, beautiful people. I do so love you, my beautiful colleagues in the disability and civil rights movement. My relationship with Yoshiko Dart includes, but also transcends, love as the word is normally defined. She is my wife, my partner, my mentor, my leader and my inspiration to believe that the human dream can live. She is the greatest human being I ever known. Yoshiko, beloved colleagues, I am the luckiest man in the world to have been associated with you. Thanks to you, I die free. Thanks to you, I die in the joy of struggle. Thanks to you, I die in the beautiful belief that the revolution of empowerment will go on. I love you so much. I'm with you always. Lead on! Lead on! Justin Dart

THE DOJ'S PROJECT CIVIL ACCESS, WHAT'S UP WITH THEM? ARE THEY GOING TO COME AND HELP US OR WHAT?

Project Civil Access is the enforcement branch of the Department of Justice's efforts to implement the ADA.  It can be found at the following link:

http://www.ada.gov/civicac.htm

I have been interested in understanding how the Department of Justice focuses it efforts and finding out to what extent the department has been successful in enforcing the ADA.  In order to obtain that information, I went to the settlements page of Project Civil Access and reviewed the page under "ADA Settlements and Consent Agreements.  The timeframe these agreements covered was from 1995 until the present. 

I wanted to find out how many of these settlements and consent agreements are for visible disabilities and how many are for invisible disabilities, and also I was interested in knowing the locations of these agreements.  Here are the results of my investigation. 

I have identified the locations where these agreements have taken place, and added up the number of agreements established in each of these locations.  The numbers break down as follows:

Government Agencies                    57

Hotels                                           56

Medical Facilities/doctors              56

Transportation                               43

Cultural and Athletic                      41

Businesses                                      28

Schools/daycare                             22

Police /Correctional Facilities         22

Colleges                                         19

Restaurants                                    19

Legal Firms                                     13

Court                                               5

Other                                               2

TOTAL                                       383

As you can see, the government is right up there on the top of the list of offenders.  That is amazing, considering they should feel the greatest responsibility for adhering to the ADA, given that their primary job is to serve the public!

Medical facilities are right up there as well at 56, but we always knew they were insensitive. 

Businesses are not as bad as I thought they would be at 22.   I have to commend them for their good sense, and probably they know that adhering to the ADA just makes for good public relations policy. 

Colleges way down low at 19.  Well, if they weren't that good, I'd give them back my diploma! 

At the very bottom of the list of noncompliant groups we have legal firms at 13 and the court at 5.  What do you think?  Does that mean that they are simply very compliant or that the Department of Justice simply chooses not to enforce the ADA in the court or in regard to legal firms. 

My impression is that the latter would be the case and that the DOJ simply will not enforce the ADA in courtrooms and with law firms. 

In my experience, I have yet to find the court compliant with the ADA in the trial courts of Connecticut.  Instead, from what I see, People I know who clearly have disabilities end up having their requests for reasonable accommodations and protection from discrimination either denied or ignored. 

The bottom line is that the Department of Justice will not hold its own group accountable, not by any means. 

After breaking down the locations of the settlements, I then turned my attention to what kind of disability were we talking about.  The vast majority of disabilities that the Department of Justice pursued were visible disabilities, most often involving mobility issues or wheelchair access.

After that a solid group of the disabilities involved in these cases were hearing impaired people who required, but were denied, access to an interpreter.  There was also a considerable group of individuals who were visually impaired and required reading material in different formats. 

There were approximately ten complaints that addressed invisible disabilities.  The vast majority of these related to autism, dyslexia, ADD, mental health conditions that are largely understood to have an extremely strong biological basis, and to affect children, and thus they are largely less stigmatizing than most mental health disorders. 

There was one incidence of major depression. 

In two situations a State had enacted legislation requiring EMTs to pass psychological tests showing them to be mentally capable of their jobs, and the Department of Justice indicated that such legislation was a violation of the ADA. 

There was one consent decree in the State of Delaware in which that state agreed to reduce the incidents of unnecessary institutionalization of people with mental illnesses and to improve access to community-based services. 

So, out of 382 cases in the last 17 years taking place all over the United States, only 10 of those cases had anything to do with mental illness, and none of the cases of mental illness took place in the courtroom. 

To me this smacks of discrimination on the part of that very institution that is supposed to be defending us from discrimination. 

Again, there were absolutely no cases that involved complaints of violations of the ADA in connection to a mental health condition that took place in a courtroom.  The five cases that occurred in a courtroom were in connection to wheelchair and/or mobility issues. 

This means that for the last 17 years, the Department of Justice has done almost nothing for litigants with disabilities who experience discrimination in the courtroom.  No wonder Sandra Lugo-Gines feels immune to any kind of consequences for the repeated decisions she has made denying ADA reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals.  She knows that the Department of Justice will never touch her.  It certainly hasn't so far, at least for the last 17 years! 

I understand the DOJ doesn't want to get involved in trial court cases and to interfere in the operation of our local courthouses.  However, the blatent discrimination and violation of federal law as legislated by the ADA is absolutely rampant in our court system.  People are being bullied, harassed, stigmatized, forced into the position where their symptoms reemerge.  They are unable to hear legal proceedings or see the court documents in front of them, and that is granting they can even make it into the courthouse, considering that we don't even have functional wheelchairs in most of our courthouses. 

This is really disappointing news.  Now I know why Sandra Lugo-Gines and her cohorts practicallly smirked when they referred me to the Department of Justice.  She knows they will never hold her accountable. It is terribly disappointing to find out that the very institutions that are established to protect your constitutional rights simply will not intervene and fight on your behalf. 

I also want to point out that I continued on to look up other information sheets provided by the DOJ.  For example, the Project Civil Access handout called "Cites and Counties:  Fierst Steps Toward Solving Common ADA Problems".  The problems listed were exclusively wheelchair access problems, plus some deaf communication issues and issues related to visually impaired folk receiving materials in a different format so they could see them.  Another sheet called "ADA Mediation Program" dealt exclusively with wheelchair access issues, deaf and visually impaired issues.  There was one case that related to a child in a daycare with behavior issues, but what the behavior was isn't indicated so its unclear what the impairment is.  The "Project Civic Access Fact Sheet" dealing with local governments was exclusively mobility issues, deaf and visually impaired issues. 

The booklet "Best Practice Tool Kit For State and Local Governments" addressed the issue of invisible disabilities to what it clearly believed was a skeptical audience.  See excerpt below:

"Does a person with depression have a disability under the ADA?

You might think the answer would be “no” because depression does not seem to substantially limit any specific major life activity. However, someone who has had major depression for more than a few months may be intensely sad and socially withdrawn, have developed serious insomnia, and have severe problems concentrating. This person has an impairment (major depression) that significantly restricts his ability to interact with others, sleep, and concentrate. The effects of this impairment are severe and have lasted long enough to be substantially limiting."

Who would have thought it! Depression is covered!  Maybe other mental health conditions might be covered as well!  Duh!

My conclusion is, we can't expect help from the Department of Justice and we have to seek redress elsewhere.

SIGN BILL WINDSOR'S PETITION!

http://www.change.org/petitions/to-our-major-networks-abc-cbs-cnn-fox-news-msnbc-and-nbc-an-act-of-moral-duty-in-exposing-government-corruption

OVERHEARD ATTORNEY JOKE!

A good attorney knows the law; a great attorney knows the judge!

DEMOCRATS SOFT ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN?

To find out more, check Ann Stevenson's article at the link below:

http://www.wrko.com/sites/wrko.com/files/PDFs/DemocratsInconsistentOnViolentCrime.pdf

MEETING ALERT!

Connecticut Concerned Parents just alerted me to the fact that there is going to be a meeting of the Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board (CEAB) of the Office of State Ethics on Thursday, August 16, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. in the 5th Floor Conference Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, CT  06106. 

They are going to discuss recommendations for candidates to serve as Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for the CEAB for a one-year term beginning on October 1, 2012.  For those who are able, this would be a good meeting to attend. 

See the link below for a copy of the agenda and note that no. 11 on the agenda has a place for public comment:

                  

http://www.ct.gov/ethics/lib/ethics/ceab_agendas/2012/august_2012_agenda.pdf

 

RANT AGAINST CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, ALEX JONES TELLS IT LIKE IT IS!

UNLOCKING JUSTICE! WATCH THE VIDEO ON DR. KARIN HUFFER'S NEW BOOK, INCLUDES AN INTERACTIVE TRANSCRIPT!

Important news for those with disabilities who face an upcoming legal action, and particularly for those with invisible disabilities!

Take a moment to watch Dr. Karin Huffer's video where she discusses her new book "Unlocking Justice", and keep on checking back! We will continue to have updates!:

COURTWATCHER ALERT!: SUSAN SKIPP'S TRIAL BEGINS MONDAY!

Those of you who are interested in supporting a protective mother who is seeking to retain custody of her children, Susan Skipp's trial is starting Monday at 10:00am at the Middletown Courthouse at 1 Court Street.  It will continue for the remainder of the week until it has been completed.  For those who are unable to make it, your prayers are appreciated and if you would like to leave supportive comments for Susan underneath this blog, you are welcome!

ELIZABETH A. RICHTER'S LETTER TO LESLIE CARON OF THE ADACC: MS. CARON SIMPLY IGNORED IT AND DID NOT RESPOND!

May 21, 2012

Ms. Lisa Caron, Project Director

Americans With Disabilities

Act Coalition of Connecticut

60B Weston Street

Hartford, CT  06120

Dear Ms. Caron:

I participated in the recent training workshop held on May 8, 2012 regarding the Implementation of the ADA in Municipalities and State Government presented by Attorney Kathy Gibs, Director of Training at the New England ADA Center.

At the time, I had many questions about how the ADA is supposed to be implemented at the Family Court located at 90 Washington Street.  I noted that while the Judicial System has a poster on its website which speaks of its compliance with the ADA, it fails to mention the ADAAA as well, and I am surprised that isn’t included.  In addition, my experience is that Family Court at 90 Washington Street has consistently denied me the protection from discrimination and the reasonable accommodations that I have requested.

I wanted to follow up on the comments I made that Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, the ADA Coordinator at 90 Washington Street routinely denies Requests For Reasonable Accommodation under the ADA.  Not only have I been denied ADA protections, so have several other people who have spoken to me about this problem.  This routine denial of ADA requests makes a mockery of the Honorable Judge Patrick Carroll’s remarks of July 26, 2010 where he stated, “there can be little doubt that the Branch is meeting its obligation to maintaining compliance with the ADA by assuring access…”  Such a statement is simply not true.

In 2006, when I first filed for divorce, it was clear I had a “perceived as” mental health issue under Prong #3 of the ADA, since my ex-husband raised a 30 year old misdiagnosis as an issue.  Based on his concerns, the opposing attorney in my case submitted three motions to the trial court to have me declared incompetent.  The trial court never denied or repudiated these motions, leaving them to hang over my head throughout the pendente lite period and beyond.  This is discrimination pure and simple.  In addition, I was denied my fundamental due process rights on a consistent basis in trial court based upon the perception of disability and the legal representation I received from counsel was pronouncedly substandard.

When I was finally able to represent myself in 2009, I submitted a Request for Reasonable Accommodations to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines based upon the diagnosis of Acute Stress Disorder provided by my psychologist.  Despite this, Ms. Lugo-Gines has continued to deny me eligibility for the ADA and Reasonable Accommodation up to the present time.  While she has acknowledged that my two daughters who have albinism are eligible for reasonable accommodations, she has refused to provide those accommodations.

I did file a grievance, but the grievance process at Family Court which I dealt with was not a meaningful one.  First of all, the people on the grievance panel in my case had no greater authority than did Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines.  Second, when the grievance panel reviewed my complaint they did not follow the grievance procedure outlined in the handout that I was given.  When I challenged the panel in regard to this, Attorney Robert Coffey pretty much stated that the while the federal government requires that the judicial branch have a grievance procedure, it does not require that they follow it.

Family Court in Connecticut discriminates against people who have mental health disabilities all the time. The practice of using a psychiatric label to vilify, discredit, and demonize parents who are fit parents yet have mental health disabilities is rampant.  This is unacceptable.

I was speaking to the mother of five children who has been denied residential custody of her children.  In a recent court hearing, it was clear Father maintained an unstable lifestyle and was incapable of retaining the nannies he hired to care for the children.  As a result, the attorney for this mother suggested that she take care of the children granting Father’s deficits in caring for the children.  “She can’t do that,” stated the Judge, “She’s bipolar!”  In fact, this mother was accused of being bipolar by opposing attorney, but the psychiatrists who examined her did not conclude that she was bipolar.  Even so, there are many persons with bipolar disorder who are excellent parents and the simple fact that mother might have a mental health disorder is not a reason to deny her the right to her children, particularly since up until the filing for divorce she was the primary caretaker of the children and no one had a problem with it. 

This is why it is so important that people with mental health challenges have the protections and reasonable accommodations that they are entitled to in order to obtain access to the services and activities that Family Court provides.

Since I did not receive the protection from discrimination and the reasonable accommodations I should have had, my case has now languished in the family court system and the appellate court system for six years, has incurred costs of well over $200,000 and the case still isn’t over. 

I have spent a considerable amount of my time seeking ADA protections and have been repeatedly denied, which has completely compromised my case.  Recently, I was forced to file a Title II Complaint to the Department of Justice and am currently awaiting a response.  I know there are many other people who have had the same experiences as I have had with family court and feel frustrated enough to do the same.

I am interested in finding out from you what strategies you and your organization intend to employ in order to meet the needs of people with mental health disabilities in Family Court.  I would also like to know what you suggest people like me do who are repeatedly denied the ADA protections we are entitled to by Family Court.  Who can we turn to?  What recourse do we have?

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth A. Richter

P.O. Box 5
Canton, CT  06019
860-693-9028
860-751-4668

earichter@aol.com

cc:       Attorney Kathy Gibs