IN 2012 ARTICLE THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN EXPOSES PHONY MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER--PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME!

An article written for NOW states as follows:

"For decades now, many women involved in child custody battles have been victimized in court by the use of a phony syndrome labeled "parental alienation syndrome (PAS)" or "parental alienation disorder (PAD)." Proponents of PAS, predominantly right-wing "fathers' rights" groups, have been trying for years to force legitimacy upon this unfounded theory by pushing for its inclusion in a reference volume used widely in the mental health field. As the deadline approaches for comments on revisions to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), it now appears that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) may bow to political pressure and include PAS/PAD, but under another name.

 

PAS is a tactical ploy used by attorneys whose clients (primarily fathers) are seeking custody of their children. Often these fathers face allegations of domestic violence and/or sexual abuse of their children, and their use of PAS is an extension of years of controlling behavior. It works like this: A protective parent who accuses her/his ex-spouse of harming their child(ren) is deemed mentally ill -- solely by virtue of the accusation. If the child fears the accused parent, the child is said to also suffer the same mental illness of PAS. Ludicrously, the PAS theory holds that the protective parent and child can only be "cured" of their "disease" by being totally separated, with the child placed in the exclusive custody of the feared parent. Only in centuries past could this be thought to improve the mental health of protective parents or their children.
 

It is true that high-conflict divorce and child custody cases can engender intense emotional responses. Many divorcing couples go through a phase of feeling deeply wronged and completely innocent, and they want everyone they know -- including their child(ren) -- to choose their side. For their part, children may go through a phase of "splitting" their parents, lavishing love on one and anger toward the other. Responsible research has shown these phases to be temporary. Describing such behavior as a mental disorder is unjustified.
 

NOW chapters across the country have heard from hundreds of women who have been harmed by PAS accusations in custody cases. Many mothers have lost custody of their children to abusive ex-spouses due to PAS. The APA should not legitimize this theory, which is not used to improve mental health outcomes but merely to discount a child's fear of a hostile or abusive parent, discredit and legally punish the protective parent, cover up abuse and other bad behavior, escape child support payments, and "win" possession of the child.
 

Even though APA reviewers have indicated that they will not be adopting the terms PAS or PAD, women's rights advocates believe they may give credibility to this supposed disorder in another way. Dr. Darrel A. Regier of the DSM-5 Task Force informed NOW Foundation recently that the current recommendation is to have a "Parent-Child Problem designation." Regier did not clarify whether this meant that PAS/PAD could be included under a different name within the "Parent-Child Problem" category. Until this is spelled out, the possibility remains that this discredited syndrome will be legitimized through its inclusion in the DSM-5. Regier declined to share further information or draft language for the "Parent-Child Problem" section. The controversial and highly politicized nature of PAS seems to have resulted in a lack of transparency in the process. It is also worth noting that the DSM has been criticized previously for including mental disorders for which there is insufficient or biased evidence.
 

Inclusion in the DSM-5 of any designation similar to PAS will invite judges and other court personnel -- who may not understand that no valid, empirical evidence exists for such a mental disorder -- to dismiss women's claims of abuse at the hands of their spouses. Children of a violent or sexually abusive parent could be placed at further risk.
 

NOW Foundation opposes the inclusion of the so-called PAS/PAD in the DSM-5 under any name or category. The American Psychiatric Association is soliciting final comments on the revisions to the DSM-5 by June 15. We encourage you to send messages to the APA via their interactive website. Tell the APA that you oppose the inclusion of the so-called parental alienation syndrome in DSM-5 in ANY FORM. Please make sure to emphasize the fact that the American Bar Association has determined PAS to be inadmissible in court because it does not meet evidentiary standards. Accusations of PAS protect real abusers at the expense of women and children who have already been victimized."

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION TO INVESTIGATE SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL ILLNESS AMONG ATTORNEYS!

Karen Sloan of "The American Law Journal" reports as follows:

"Research suggests that lawyers suffer addiction at double the rate of the general population, but some experts fear the situation is even more dire. To find out, the American Bar Association and the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation plan to survey lawyers about addiction, anxiety and depression.

“It appears the problem may be growing even worse,” said Patrick Krill, who leads the Hazelden legal professional program. “It’s time to update the research and, in doing so, highlight the apparent need to devote more attention and allocate greater resources to this important issue.”

A 2012 report by Hazelden cited findings that, as of 1990, 18 percent of attorneys had drinking problems, compared to 10 percent for the general population. One-quarter of the attorneys who’d practiced for 20 years or more had an alcohol problem, and lawyers suffering substance-abuse problems were also more likely to face malpractice suits."

Read more:

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202667322541/ABA-Undertakes-Study-of-Substance-Abuse-Mental-Illness#ixzz3AxqSNMPL

* Ms. Sloper notes:  "This is in regard to a profession that regularly in family court uses the fact that a parent could be in recovery from mental illness or alcohol addiction as the basis for denying the parent access to his or her children, despite clear cut evidence that the parent is responsible and a fit parent."

RELATED ARTICLES: 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-price-attorneys-pay-for-being.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-price-attorneys-pay-for-being_12.html






 

2014 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH'S ADVISORY BOARD ON THE ADA REVEALS MAJOR FLAWS!

After another year of observing the Connecticut Judicial Branch repeatedly deny Litigants with Disabilities their reasonable modifications in Family Court, it is with some skepticism that I picked up a copy of the 2014 Annual Report of the Judicial Branch's Advisory Board on the ADA.  This report was submitted to Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers by Judge Patrick L. Carroll III who is the Chair of this Advisory Board. 

My problem with Judge Carroll is that he seems to have taken responsibility for the Connecticut Judicial Branch's initiatives in regard to the ADA.   Yet I have never heard of him speaking to an actual Person with a Disability directly in order to find out what is really going on with folks coming to hearings in Family Court who require reasonable modifications but are not getting them. 

That is the bottom line here--the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch has published a complete annual report touting their "ongoing compliance with the ADA." while I continue to receive desperate phone calls and emails asking me if I have any idea how particular Litigants can obtain their reasonable modifications because the Judicial Branch is refusing to provide them.  The inconsistency here is glaring--at least to me! 

I mean take a look at this year's Report.  The ADA Advisory Committee's Annual Report from last year contained 12 recommendations while the Annual Report from this year contains 16.  Tell me something, not a single one of the recommendations possibly includes giving Litigants the reasonable modifications that they request?  28 recommendations in total and not one includes, stop denying Litigants with Disabilities equal access to Judicial services? 

Because I certainly think I should see that one somewhere from the reports I am getting!  

I mean, we have 28 recommendations and a 14 page report--but nothing about ensuring Family Court Litigants with Disabilities the opportunity to have testimonial and participatory access to the Court? 

That's just so amazing!  

How much paper and how many words can you generate over a period of years and still not accomplish anything at all to meet your obligation to provide reasonable modifications to Litigants who request them!  Remember, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was around 40 years ago, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 was 24 years ago, and the ADA Amendment's Act of 2008 was 6 years ago.  How long is it going to take the Connecticut Judicial Branch to meet its obligation to Citizens with Disabilities in the State of Connecticut? 

Recognizing that the Connecticut Judicial Branch is far from compliant with the ADA, what did this Advisory Committee possibly have to report to anyone about its activities?  Well, it has built a lovely website online which is accessible to persons of all abilities (their words) and which includes the forms you need to submit in order to obtain reasonable accommodations, i.e. the ones they regularly refuse to provide. 



And what is with the word "accommodations"?   Aren't accommodations supposed to be offered under Title I for Employers?


What about the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch is a Title II entity which should provide reasonable modifications--not just accommodations--under Title II ADA law! Shouldn't The Branch be providing the more expanded and broad ranging supports required under Title II reasonable modifications? 

Even with something as simple as terminology the Connecticut Judicial Branch shows itself completely ignorant of the Title II Federal ADA law it is supposed to be following!


And there's the rub, the general, pervasive, and stubborn unwillingness of the Connecticut Judicial Branch to be compliant with Title II Federal ADA law or acknowledge what it requires. 


For instance, according to Title II Technical Manual Sec. II-8.5000, the Connecticut Judicial Branch is by law supposed to have a Designated Responsible Employee whose job it is to coordinate the efforts of the Branch to comply with and fulfill its responsibilities under the ADA and also deal with complaints.   In particular, the 2008 focus groups consisting of individuals who work directly with folks who have disabilities, focus groups which the Connecticut Judicial Branch itself organized, specifically mentioned the need for such a person who could take final responsibility for the implementation of the ADA within the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  


Yet I can't find the name or contact information of a Designated Responsible Employee mentioned anywhere in this Annual Report for 2014, and I can't find the name of a Designated Responsible Employee mentioned anywhere on the Connecticut Judicial Branch Website that they are so proud of.  Several people I know have formally requested this information and have received nothing but evasive and deceptive answers in response.


So how does the Connecticut Judicial Branch think that it is acceptable to flout this requirement? 


What they told me when I inquired about this is that the Branch has five ADA Coordinators, and over a hundred ADA contact people whom they have assigned to fill the role of a Designated Responsible Employee.  However, the problem with that response is that this is not what Congress intended when it framed ADA law.  They were looking for a specific individual who would take the final responsibility for this job. 


If you ask any employees of the Judicial Branch who is that person, they won't be able to tell you because there isn't one. 


We have the 24 years of ADA law and the Connecticut Judicial Branch under the leadership of Judge Patrick L. Carroll III just blows it off. 


I could attribute this to simple indifference or carelessness, but that is not what this is.  What this has to do with in a very fundamental way is that Judge Carroll and the Connecticut Judicial Branch as a whole simply couldn't care less about People with Disabilities. 


Of course, this isn't surprising.  Judicial Systems around this country have fought ADA disability rights from its inception in 1990, interpreting the term disability with such extreme narrowness that practically nobody fit its definition.  As a consequence, Congress had to go back to the drawing board and redraft the law in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in order to correct the problem. 


The bottom line is our Judicial Systems around the country can't stand being forced to accord equal constitutional and human rights to People with Disabilities; they think we should wait our turn and accept our role as fourth class citizens. 


Meanwhile, the Members of the Advisory Committee, according to this 2014 Annual Report, think that we will forget all about our legal rights as long as we have a lovely Art Exhibit featuring the work of Persons with Disabilities.  It is like, pat the dumb disabled folk on the head, let them post their art, and then they will forget all about their rights.  You see, that's not how it goes, surprisingly enough--although, I know that this is a big surprise to the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  


The 2014 Annual Report continues on with other areas where the Connecticut Judical Branch believes it has made progress in regard to the ADA.  Signage, for instance.  The Branch has better signs in its various court houses indicating that it is compliant with the ADA. 


Oh, but we already explained that the Connecticut Judicial Branch is NOT compliant.  Not that the truth was ever a bar to the Connecticut Judicial Branch saying whatever it wants. 


The Connecticut Judicial Branch has also placed a Comments and Suggestions box on its website.  Of course, if the Connecticut Judicial Branch is unwilling to provide reasonable modifications to litigants when they apply for them in person, I am not sure why exactly the Branch would be willing to respond more effectively to written requests for the same thing! 


Looking at the Annual Report of 2014 in more detail, again it is notable that the preference among these Advisory Committee members is for those with visible disabilities.  Their work reflects tremendous interest in individuals who are hearing impaired, visually impaired, or in wheelchairs.  When it comes to people who have say diabetes, high blood pressure, traumatic brain injuries, or mental health issues, etc. this report refers to them in derogatory terms stating they have "so-called" invisible disabilities subtly implying that they are fabricated, imaginary, or not worth considering. 


As of this writing, for instance, if you look up the list of Auxiliary Aids of Services on the Connecticut Judicial Website, you will see that the list only addresses the needs of people with visible disabilities.  See below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/cl085_ADA.pdf






This is how the Connecticut Judicial Branch tries to play one group of Persons with Disabilities against another, seeking to undercut any organized protest against their actions.  The Branch even seeks to do that within the mental health communities by promoting extensive training in regard to schizophrenia, but neglecting to provide that level of specialized training for any of the other mental health disabilities which are equally challenging. 


Personally, I find it a demonstration of very poor character that the Connecticut Judicial Branch seeks to pit one group of vulnerable and fragile individuals against another. 


I could continue in this manner.  The Connecticut Judicial Branch has conferences and training sessions on the ADA, it communicates from one part of the Branch to the other about the ADA, it has meetings on the ADA and provides reports on it, and even makes speeches about it--thanks Judge Carroll--but the bottom line is that it does not obey it.  What is more, it sure isn't holding itself accountable  to organizations such as the National Council on Disability, that represent Persons with Disabilities to obtain feedback in regard to its compliance with the ADA.  The Connecticut Judicial Branch's ADA activity represents a bunch of insiders celebrating among themselves and congratulating themselves for their own good work in regard to a subculture that they do not belong to. 


This is hardly credible. 


When it comes to people with mental illness, in particular, I want to make a quick point.  The State has recently taken several initiatives to provide more treatment to People with Mental Illness and in a recent ADA agreement between the Office of Protection and Advocacy and the State of Connecticut, we will see more People with Mental Health Disabilities living in their communities.  All of this is very important. 


However, if Folks with Disabilities continue to see their constitutional and civil rights disregarded within the Legal System, if they continue to have experiences within the Connecticut Judicial Branch where they are discriminated against based upon disability, this will create widespread discontent. 


This is not like the old days where Persons with Disabilities were grateful for anything they could get.  African-Americans have spoken out and demanded their rights, and likewise Hispanic-Americans are demanding their rights.  Women are no longer willing to be confined within gender stereotypes, and homosexual and transgender folks are demanding their civil rights as well. 


We proud Americans With Disabilities are the next in line.  We are no longer willing to accept charity.  We want our rights as equal American Citizens.  It is not enough to provide treatment.  Americans with Disabilities want hope, and that hope can only achieve fulfillment through the provision of equal constitutional, civil, and human rights along with all other Americans. 


It is not enough for the Connecticut Judicial Branch to declare that it operates according to the spirit and the letter of the ADA without actually doing so.  


The Branch should be ashamed of itself attempting to fake compliance it does not have.   


We Citizens with Disabilities want the reality of equality within the Connecticut Judicial Branch, and we will continue to fight for it and we will not be stopped by the Branch's lying PR, bureaucratic games, or fabricated annual reports.    

NEW ONLINE WEBINAR BY DR. KARIN HUFFER OF EQUAL ACCESS ASSOCIATES!

Now taking registration for LIVE ONLINE WEBINAR

Become a Certified ADA Advocate:

Taught by Dr. Karin Huffer

September

11AM – 2PM MST/ 1PM – 4PM EST

Starts Sept 30 and every Thursday in Oct.

Please visit for registration at http://www.equalaccessadvocates.com

For details and questions e-mail Legalabuse@gmail.com

• Expected 16.5 CEU’s and 18 CLE’s, 6 Ethics Credits, approved

by Nevada Bar Association and Nevada Board of Social Workers

• Sponsored by King’s University accredited in U.S. and Europe

Tuition $495

EARLY-EARLY BIRD SIGN UP BY AUG 15 DEDUCT $100

EARLY BIRD SIGN UP BY SEPT 15 DEDUCT $50

Includes:

THE BOOK:  "UNLOCKING JUSTICE" BY DR. KARIN HUFFER

Graduates receive ongoing support and updates as to

pertinent laws and empirical research

*Members receive automatic renews of their

recertification

Handouts

Certificate/

Identification

Badge

You will learn:

• ADAAA Federal Laws mandating equal access

• Huffer’s 8 Steps for Coaching the client toward self-protection and coping with litigation stress

• How to recognize and ease symptoms of PTSD/LAS

• How to design and pre arrange ADA Accommodations for clients

• How to assist the client during court proceedings

• How to be comfortable in the courtroom in the role of an advocate

• How to assist the court to maintain momentum and protect client functionality while preventing

discrimination and exploitation

• How to assist in grievances if accommodations are not provided

• How to protect client confidentiality under ADAAA and HIPAA

• When to refer for medical intervention

• To adhere to unwavering ethical obligations regarding disabilities in court

• You will learn the new process of Therapeutic Mitigation if litigation and mediation are failing

DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT ENDORSES JOHN MCKINNEY AND DAVE WALKER!

As voters go to the polls tomorrow to make their choice regarding Connecticut's future Governor, I want to urge all Divorce in Connecticut readers to vote for John McKinney for Governor and Dave Walker as Lt. Governor.  This is a ticket that has a strong commitment to ethical court reforms in our State's Judicial Branch.  He is ready to go beyond rhetoric and take the actual steps that are necessary to create change and bring justice to family court here in Connecticut.

Senator McKinney is a strong, hard working candidate who is not afraid to take on the difficult challenges that are necessary to build an ethically sound, fiscally strong government for the State of Connecticut.  McKinney's plan to reduce the State budget, to reduce the size of State government, and reduce the income tax for some of our harder working State families makes perfect sense.  His approach will encourage business and industry leaders who need to know that the State of Connecticut has an investment in their well being and prosperity and the success of all of Connecticut's citizens not just a privileged well connected few.

So, again, I encourage every one of you to get out and vote tomorrow.  Make sure you vote for John McKinney and Dave Walker who have a record of standing by Connecticut's citizens, and who are committed to you and to your family and to making sure that we have a strong, ethical, and economically sound government.


________________
Fox News Link on the elections today:


http://foxct.com/2014/08/11/primary-elections-tomorrow-in-connecticut/

CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL MARSHAL GRADUATING CLASS #214, AUGUST 1, 2014!

The Judicial Marshal Academy’s Class 214 graduated Friday, August 1st at the Connecticut Supreme Court.


For pictures of this event, please click on the link below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/marshals_grad/080114.htm

DOCTOR ASSOCIATED WITH THE JUSTINA PELLETIER CASE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DAMAGE IN ANOTHER CASE!

"The Boston Herald" reports as follows:

"Gerry Leone’s last act as Middlesex district attorney was to charge Aisling Brady McCarthy, better known as “The Irish Nanny,” with the murder of Rehma Sabir, the 1-year-old girl in her care.

Leone’s high-profile finale was based entirely on the word of Dr. Alice Newton, who, back in January of 2013, ran Children’s Hospital Child Protection Program.

Dr. Newton wasted no time in determining Rehma’s death was the result of shaken baby syndrome — which could only have been caused by her caregiver, McCarthy.

In the last 20 months two things have happened: McCarthy has languished in jail. And Newton has emerged as the controversial — some would say despised — focus of the Justina Pelletier case."

For more information on this situation, please click on the link below:

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/peter_gelzinis/2014/08/gelzinis_doctor_s_link_to_justina_pelletier_casts