COALITION BILLBOARD APPROACHING HARTFORD, ADDITIONAL VIEW!

COALITION BILLBOARD AT HIGHWAY ENTERING HARTFORD!

HAPPY EASTER - THE GENIUS OF WAGNER!

CARRUBBA V. MOSKOWITZ: HOW THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINED AMC'S WERE ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY, PART IV!

In the family court system the immunity from liability extended to court professionals who arises from the concept of judicial immunity.  In other words, the immunity that judges are entitled to is also granted to other professionals within the legal system who are considered integral to the legal process.  Judges cannot be sued for any of the judicial acts they take in their capacity as judges, although they can be sued in regard to their administrative acts.  This immunity given to judges obtain is supposed to free them up to make the kinds of principled and fearless decisions necessary in order to serve the interests of justice in the court system.


There are two kinds of immunity that can be extended to professionals who work within the legal system. There is qualified quasi-judicial immunity which still leaves you liable if you act maliciously or wantonly outside the law, and then there is absolute quasi-judicial immunity which means that you can't be held liable no matter how badly you behave.  

State Officials have qualified quasi-judicial immunity for actions performed during the course of their duties in their work.   Public defenders are also at the same level--they have qualified quasi-judicial immunity.  But there are other court employees who are considered entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity because their work is thought to be integral to the judicial process. These include judges' law clerks, prosecutors, witnesses, and court-appointed professionals such as psychologists and psychiatrists--the list begins to get quite long.  

For example, the Supreme Court decision in the Corrubba case goes further to mention other functionaries such as bankruptcy trustees, probation officers, court appointed receivers and court appointed medical examiners that are also entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.


When the Supreme Court in Corrubba v. Moskowitz affirmed the right of AMCs to absolute quasi-judicial immunity, it did so by adopting a three pronged test for establishing immunity developed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  These three prongs are as follows:

1) Does the official in question perform functions sufficiently comparable to those officials who have traditionally been afforded absolute immunity at common law;

2.  Is the likelihood of harassment or intimidation by personal liability sufficiently great to interfere with the official's performance of his or her duties;

3.  Do procedural safeguards exist in the system that would adequately protect against improper conduct by the official. 

In regard to prong #1--functionality--to understand how the issue of functionality could be interpreted in regard to a Guardian Ad Litem, an Attorney for the Minor Child, and a regular attorney, you would have to understand their respective positions. 

A Guardian Ad Litem's job is to pursue an investigation and return with recommendations which serve the children's best interests.  An AMC is required not only to advocate on behalf of the children's legal rights, he or she is also expected to work on behalf of the children's best interests, so she has a double  role.  A regular attorney simply advocates diligently for the legal rights of his client and develops strategies to obtain those rights. 

Attorney George Kramer for the Plaintiff, Paul Carrubba, argued that an Attorney For the Minor child's job isn't in the least bit different than that of a regular attorney who is diligently advocating for his client's legal position. 

In contrast, the Amicus Brief in support of the Defendant Emily Moskowitz, argued that an Attorney For the Minor Child has the unenviable task of determining when to advocate for the children's legal position, and when the children's insight and capacity for decision making is deficient to the point where the Attorney For the Minor Child is obligated to push for the children's best interests instead. 

Further, Attorney Robert Kor pointed out that an Attorney For the Minor child doesn't have the same freedom when advocating for their child clients.  Specifically, an AMC is not authorized to have a psychiatrist or psychologist evaluate a child or his or her parents for a custody evaluation without the authorization of the Court.  Furthermore, an Attorney For the Minor Child is not able to proceed with a deposition or an appeal without the permission of the Court. 

Of course, I am not sure that balancing out the warring imperatives of legal rights versus best interests of the child standard inherent in an AMC's job is any different than balancing out the warring imperatives a family court attorney has between winning at all costs versus taking into consideration the needs of the children in a dissolution of marriage action. 

And while an AMC may not be able to proceed with various evaluations or depositions, the likelihood is that the parents' attorneys will conduct both of those activities for the better part and thus provide sufficient information for an AMC to advocate his or her position.  So these are very minor differences.

Prong 2--harassment--the U.S. Supreme Court test raised the question of whether AMC's would be the subject of harassment from parents and thus be unable to do their jobs without judicial immunity.  Attorney Kor proposed that if AMCs didn't obtain immunity, such attorneys would be so afraid of reprisals they wouldn't be able to do their jobs.  He proposed that "to deny the protection of immunity would exert a chilling effect on all court-appointed attorneys for minor children." 

Of course, reading that statement, I dwell on the word "would", indicating the future.  Is Attorney Kor implying that the chilling effect would only happen in the future because it hasn't happened in the past?  I would have loved to have seen the actual statistics in the decade leading up to the Carrubba v. Moskowitz decision--was there a paucity of Attorneys For the Minor Child at that time because of ongoing chilling effects that resulted from disgruntled and angry parents?  Was the Children's Law Center dangling on the brink of extinction because of this chilling effect?  

Somehow I doubt that. 

It is so easy, particularly within the context of a lawsuit to make unfounded statements because they sound good.  I often wish that judges could have as great an understanding as family court victims do in regard to how cheap talk is, particularly without evidence. 

Finally, Prong 3 asks the question of whether there is any recourse when an AMC goes rogue and acts negligently or maliciously.  According to the Defendant there were options.  For example, Paul Carrubba could have gone to the judge and ask to have the AMC removed.  Of course, Mr. Carrubba did that, but was summarily turned down. 

Anyone who has gone through a difficult divorce knows that a Trial Judge will never disqualify a Guardian Ad Litem or An Attorney for the Minor Child no matter how disruptive, negligent and unethical their behavior is.  Somehow judges are able to redefine the horrendous actions of negligent GALs and AMCs and redefine them as insignificant. 

thus, if you look how the Supreme Court decision, you will see how it redefines Paul Carrubba's complaint against Attorney Emily Moskowitz for spouting profanity and lying as merely "express[ing] dissatisfaction with the manner in which the defendant carried out her court-appointed role." 

Wow, if that's all that is, well, ok. 

The same goes for Statewide Grievance.  A family court litigant will never get satisfaction by submitting a complaint to Statewide Grievance even when there are criminal actions involved. 

So what these Supreme Court Judges did in going through the three prong test, particularly when it comes to the final prong is provide a fully developed piece of verbal nonsense in order to open the door to even more exploitation and family court corruption by granting absolute judicial immunity to Attorneys For the Minor Child. 

That panel of judges--Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille--who wrote the decision, in my opinion, knew exactly what they were doing, the havoc they would wreak by granting absolute quasi-judicial immunity to AMCs, and they did it anyway.  This is why we so desperately need to make sure that Bill #5505 is passed in the legislature this year, to begin to repair the harm and damage that has been done to so many families as the result of these irresponsible and improper decisions.

Before I close this discussion, I do want to mention that Paul Carrubba also filed a negligence complaint on behalf of his son, Mathew Carrubba, acting as a "next friend".  I didn't go into this subject as extensively as the issue of AMC judicial immunity.  However, I do think it is worth mentioning that all the way down the line, from superior court, to appellate court, and finally on the supreme court level, Paul Carrubba was essentially denied the right to pursue an action on behalf of his child. 

Specifically, the Supreme Court determined that during a dissolution action, the child's interests are assumed to diverge automatically from that of the parents and so, therefore, Paul Carrubba lacked standing.  The Amicus Brief quoted Linda D. Elrod's article "Raising the Bar for Lawyers Who Represent Children" stating that "Only the child should have any right of any action against a 'Child's Attorney' or a "Best Interest Attorney'". 

So, how exactly is a child supposed to do this?  Is this just another one of those weird half-baked things that attorneys say in order to sideline common sense?

I cannot be sure. But one thing I do know, it is time to restore sanity to our Connecticut Family Court System.  It is time GALs and AMCs were held accountable, and it is time that the CT Judicial Branch stopped trashing parents who know far more than any paid professional who just met them what is in the best interests of their children.

CARRUBBA V. MOSKOWITZ: THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH USURPS THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE: PART III!!

There are several reasons why the Supreme Court in Carrubba v. Moskowitz should not have ruled that Attorneys For the Minor Children have absolute quasi-judicial immunity in family court proceedings.  Most important are the views of Appellate Court Judge Francis Hennessey when he said that in doing so the Appellate Court was usurping the authority of the Connecticut State Legislature.


In his dissenting opinion in opposition to granting Attorneys For the Minor Child judicial immunity in family court cases Judge Francis Hennessy spoke as follows:  I respectfully dissent from the conclusion of the majority that those appointed pursuant to General Statutes Sec. 46b-54 as attorneys for minor children are entitled under the common law to qualified quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken during their representation in such matters.  I believe that it is the legislature and not the judiciary that should, if it chooses, exercise its authority to extend immunity to court-appointed attorneys for minors."


He further stated, "It is clear that neither the statutes of this state, nor the decisions of this court or our Supreme Court, extend the protections of immunity to court-appointed attorneys for minor children under Sec. 46b-54.  Consequently, I perceive the conclusion of the majority to be synonymous with legislating and "[m]ore importantly...[as] exceeding our constitutional limitations by infringing on the prerogative of the legislature to set public policy through its statutory enactments." State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 79, 824 A.2d 611 (2003).


Again, he states at the conclusion of his statement, "The immunity proposed by the majority for attorneys appointed to represent minors pursuant to Sec. 45b-54 should be addressed to a lawmaking body."  And he concludes by quoting Colchester Savings Bank v. Brown, 75 Conn. 69, 71, 52 A.316 (1902), "It is not our office to legislate." 


These are the words of a Judge who was a long time advocate for improving the access of women and minorities to the services of the CT Judicial branch.  This was a Judge who acted as co-chair of the Connecticut Task Force on Gender Justice and the Courts, and Connecticut's Task Force on Minority Fairness, clearly a man of some principle.

Given Judge Hennessey's caution to his fellow justices, who would have though, then, that the Supreme Court would go well beyond what the Defendant asked for and grant her not just qualified judicial immunity, but absolute immunity. 
  


I admire Judge Hennessey.  He asked the kinds of questions we would all ask.



For instance, what is going on with our State legislature that it is allowing the CT Judicial Branch to bully its way into a position where it can exploit and bankrupt the citizens of CT at will, using lurid stories of disgruntled parents mistreating their vulnerable children as an excuse. 

When GALs and AMCs are using their wards college money to fund their lifestyles and foreclosing on the homes their wards live in to pay their legal fees, who is mistreating who?


In disregarding CT General Statute 51-14 which requires public hearings for all changes to The Connecticut Practice Book, in using the legal system to establish case law that is independent of the will of the State Legislature, the CT Judicial Branch is violating our State Constitution.

In regard to Carrubba v. Moskowitz it is worth noting that, according to Paul Carrubba's Attorney, George Kramer, in 2005 when this decision was made, the Connecticut Supreme Court was the only top state court in the country to extend absolute immunity to court-appointed attorneys.   This was how great departure the decision in Carrubba v. Moskowitz was when it came to standard practice.  If there was such a dire need for protection for Attorneys for the Minor Children because they were being chased around by disgruntled angry parents, how come no other state in the union felt the necessity to do anything about it? 

Could it be that this decision was put into place by AFCC members to preempt the outrage they knew their policies would generate?  As a point of note, the names on the Amicus Brief that argued on behalf of immunity for AMCs, i.e. The Children's Law Center, Campbell Barrett of Budlong and Barrett, and Steve Dembo of Berman, Bourns, Aaron & Dembo have been at the center of a vast number of the complaints submitted by victims of family court corruption.


I do find interesting the kind of cavalier attitude people take in regard to how the Connecticut Judicial System usurps the authority of the State Legislature.  For example, a research paper written by Kevin E. McCarthy about Guardians Ad Litem for the Connecticut State Legislature on February 6, 2013 states as follows,  "Conn. Gen. Statute Section 4-141 grants individuals appointed as GALs in neglect, abuse, termination of parental rights, delinquency, or family with service needs proceedings qualified immunity for their  actions.  Although there is no controlling case, it appears likely that courts would find GALs in family court cases have absolute immunity for actions undertaken at a judge's direction."


So what McCarthy is essentially saying is that despite the Legislature's mandate that GALs only have qualified immunity, the Court system will do whatever it pleases and grant such a GAL absolute immunity.  Since when does the Court system make its own rules without regard for the CT State legislature?

It is astounding how commonplace it has become for both the State Legislature and the CT Judiciary when it comes to the judiciary system intervening to itself write or else overstep the Connecticut Statutes that underpin our legal system.

CARRUBBA V. MOSKOWITZ: FINDING OUT WHAT IS THE GREATER GOOD. PART II!

I will admit that I am not known for my niceness.  Of course, I am self employed and no one pays me to be nice; they read my articles because they want to get the facts on what is going on in our corrupt family courts. 

So I kind of have blog writer immunity because if you don't like what I write you can shake your fists and fume at me, but have fun trying to take me to court.  Ok, ok, ok, some of you have done just that -- thank you Attorney Scott Sandler -- but seriously, what are you going to do about my ideas.  Hmmmm, ok, ok, ok -- now that I think of it you can threaten me like Budlong and Barrett, LLC did, or report me to the police. 

But as they say sticks and stones can break my bones but ideas can only make me suck it up and grow a backbone.  And talking about backbone, why is it that people who work as GALs and AMCs think they shouldn't be held accountable to the people who bottom line pay their highly expensive salaries.  All the rest of us get held accountable for our behavior.  Only teachers have tenure, and even they are subjected to constant evaluations and required to participate in professional workshops to improve their techniques.

How easily GALs and AMCs and their supporters talk about how badly family court litigants behave.  For example, the Supreme Court decision in Carrubba v. Moskowitz states, "We agree with the Appellate court, however, that, in a custody dispute, "parents lack the necessary professional and emotional judgment to further the best interests of their children.  Neither parent could be relied on to communicate to the court the children's interests where those interests differ from his or her own."  Further, "A parent's judgment is or may be clouded with emotion and prejudice due to the estrangement of husband and wife."

Let me venture to say that most of us have some very high standards regarding what we expect of other folks behavior.  Thus, I got myself into a lot of trouble recently with the CT DOJ because I announced on this lovely blog that I considered both Attorney Deirdre Daly and Attorney John Hughes to be some of the most corrupt officials in Connecticut. 

Apparently, from recent correspondence sent to a friend of mine, I am in trouble for saying that, to the point where the CT DOJ plans on denying my friend access to their services as a consequence of my bad tempered remarks.  You see, as I learned, and probably everyone else knew already, if you insult people, you are unlikely to obtain either their respect or support. 

Granting that fact, in the case of Carrubba v. Moskowitz what surprises me upon reading the stack of documents in the case is the complete disinterest the Court has regarding what Attorney Emily Moskowitz was accused of doing.  On the contrary, as I mentioned in Part I of this series, Mr. Paul Carrubba's Attorney, George Kramer, experienced subtle threats from Judge Gruendel for even bringing them up. 

My question is, here you have two warring parents and the fate of two fragile and vulnerable children at stake--Mathew Carrubba, at least, was in counseling at the Institute of Living, was falling behind academically at school and required tutoring--how did it improve the situation that Attorney Emily Moskowitz during custody negotiations repeatedly called Paul Carrubba an "asshole" and a "bastard" and told him he was "killing his children."  

While everyone is so focused on the bad outcomes that result from disgruntled and angry parents in hotly contested custody battles, why isn't a single person discussing this case, including the judges involved, concerned about Attorney Moskowitz' unprofessional and outrageous language and behavior.  Not only did Attorney Mowkowitz use profanity, she also directly lied about information she had received in the case stating falsely that "the Institute of Living had asked her to terminate the Defendant's parental rights."  Apparently, "Mathew's therapists denied that they ever made such a request of Attorney Moskowitz." (see Item #8 of Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify). 

Of course, maybe Paul Carrubba made that bit up that it wasn't true, but it is rather persuasive that he ended up with custody of Mathew no matter what she said.   Tell me, who is likely to have better judgment--the person who yells repeated profanities and tells lies, or the person who is actively in Court trying to work out his son's future.  I mean, for all   Mr. Carrubba's flaws, the final reports on Mathew Carrubba's progress from Florida are that he was on the honor roll at his high school and progressing well. 

You see, this is my question.  When the court says that parents lack the "necessary professional and emotional judgment" during a custody dispute, do they have any scientific proof when it comes to that statement or is the court simply going by its gut feelings or its experiences in one or two pivotal cases.  Where are the studies that can show us exactly that point in a custody case where we can no longer rely on the soundness of parents' decisions regarding their children?  Other than the court relying upon its right to make pronouncements and its cross referencing other judges who have made similar comments, is there any objective evidence anywhere that the Court's derogatory statements about parents in custody battles are true?  I'd say, no!

I was in a hotly contested custody case and I will say that if anyone looked at the case they will see that as a parent I was the one who showed far better judgment in regard to the children than the GAL or the judges.  In fact, the GAL didn't think that my children should receive the appropriate medical treatment for their disability at all, and the Judge stated that the children didn't have one, even though I had documentation from several doctors contradicting him. 

If GALs and Judges can behave in such bizarre ways, who are they to interfere in the rights of parents to determine what goes on with their children?

Why is it more damning to Paul Carrubba that he was involved in a hotly contested custody matter than it was that AMC Emily Moskowitz repeatedly used profane language and lied boldfacedly in regard to her charges?

How come it is more despicable that I called Attorney Deirdre Daly and Attorney John Hughes corrupt than is the fact that they actually are just as corrupt as I said they were? 

Why is there this double standard in regard to CT citizens and parents who are involved in CT Family Court versus family court officers such as attorneys, judges, clerks, AMCs and GALs?  Why do family court officers get the benefit of the doubt, but not parents? 

How come as far as the Court is concerned family court officers can do no wrong, and deserve full judicial immunity for the wrongdoing they have done, when we have so many clear cut examples that they are irresponsible, greedy, and unprincipled? 

Historically, the legal profession has been given considerable leeway because it has been understood that they are supposed to regulate themselves.  However, the reality of their actions in consistently absolving themselves are any responsibility for their crimes in relation to the victims of Connecticut Family Court makes it clear that the legislature must intervene and remove GAL immunity in the State of Connecticut and vote in support of Bill #5505.

AMC'S AND GAL'S JUST WANT TO BREAK FREE!