Wednesday, May 27, 2015

COLLECTED BLOGS, THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PARTS I - IX!

Monday, May 25, 2015

CELEBRATE MEMORIAL DAY!

JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ANNUAL MEETING!

JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ANNUAL MEETING

Middlesex Judicial District Courthouse Jury Assembly Room

1 Court Street, Middletown

Friday,

June 12, 2015-10 a.m.

AGENDA

I. Approval of minutes ofthe meeting held June 13,2014

II. Remarks by Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers

III. Remarks by Judge Patrick L. Carroll, Chief Court Administrator

IV. ReportNote of the Rules Committee by Justice Dennis G. Eveleigh

V. Election of four judges to the Rules Committee of the Superior Court for a one year term

VI. Selection of six judges to the Judicial Review Council

(a) Selection of two judges of the Superior Court who are not also judges of the Supreme Court, from whom one shall be appointed by the Governor with the approval of the General Assembly, for a term of four years to replace Judge Joan K. Alexander as a regular member of the Judicial Review Council commencing December 1, 2015

(b) Selection of two judges of the Superior Court who are not also judges of the Supreme Court, from whom one shall be appointed by the Governor with the approval of the General Assembly, to replace Judge Kevin G. Dubay as an alternate member of the Judicial Review Council for a three year term commencing December 1, 2015.

(c) Selection of two judges of the Superior Court who are not also judges of the Supreme Court, from whom one shall be appointed by the Governor with the approval ofthe General Assembly, to replace Judge John J. Nazzaro as an alternate member ofthe Judicial Review Council for a three year term commencing December 1, 2015.

Since members cannot serve consecutive terms, Judge Joan K. Alexander, Judge Kevin G. Dubay, and Judge John J Nazzaro are not eligible for reappointment. The other regular members ofthe Council are Judges Barbara N Bellis and Frank A. Iannotti.

VII. Report of the Executive Committee, including appointments to terms of office, by Judge Patrick L. Carroll

VIII. Motion to Adjourn

MEN'S RIGHTS GROUPS NOT HATE GROUPS!

Sunday, May 24, 2015

KELLY RUTHERFORD FINALLY GETS CUSTODY OF HER KIDS BACK!

TMZ reports as follows:

"Kelly Rutherford has finally won a battle in her 3 year war to get her kids back from her ex-husband, and on U.S. soil -- at least in a California court, but it reams to be seen if Monaco will honor the deal.

On Friday a California judge granted her custody of 8-year-old son Hermes and 6-year-old daughter Helena. The children have been living in France and Monaco with their father Daniel Giersch since 2012.

The Califronia ruling only says Kelly has the right to bring the children back to the U.S. while the custody battle continues. The problem is, it's unclear weather Monaco courts will honor the California ruling.

Earlier this month, Kelly came on TMZ Live and told us Giersch had "habitual residents" status for the children ... meaning they could not be removed from Monoco."

"Kelly Rutherford Granted Sole Custody of Her 2 Children"

See Link:

http://www.people.com/article/kelly-rutherford-granted-sole-custody-children

CBS NEWS REPORTS FLORIDA MOM INCARCERATED UNTIL SHE WOULD AGREE TO FATHER'S REQUEST THAT THEIR SON BE CIRCUMCISED!

CBS NEWS reports as follows:

"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A Florida woman jailed in a long-running dispute over her son's circumcision has been released after nine nights behind bars.

Heather Hironimus, 31, posted bond and was released at 10:18 p.m. Saturday, jail records show.

She's been portrayed as a martyr by anti-circumcision advocates around the country who have followed her case with rapt interest.

Hironimus and her 4-year-old-son's father, Dennis Nebus, have been warring for years over whether to have the boy's foreskin removed. She initially agreed in a parenting agreement filed in court, then changed her mind, giving way to a long legal fight. Circuit and appellate judges have sided with the father..."

For more on this topic, please click on the link below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-mom-heather-hironimus-released-jail-son-circumcision/

Saturday, May 23, 2015

GAL KERRY TARPEY REMOVED FROM THE CASE: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART IX!

I remember when I first had to deal with a GAL in my case. She came on board around August 2006. I swear this lady was 300 pounds or so. I recall our first meeting in my home--she conducted all our meetings in our home--and I remember that after she left, I collapsed on my couch in despair because I was well aware that she was totally against me. How did I know? I have no idea--I just knew. That's how sensitive I am as a person.

It would have been hard to prove at the time, however, because many of the nasty things she did were not done out in public. For instance, in November 2006, this GAL wrote a detailed report that completely trashed me to the custody evaluator, but she didn't give me a copy of it. In fact, no one officially received a copy of it except the evaluator, but I'll bet it got passed around to people anyway. I only had a chance to take a look at it several years later through a motion for discovery in another case. By then, of course, the entire custody matter had been settled and there was nothing I could do about it.

The bottom line, however, is that the measure of a GAL, if not a custody evaluator, is how effectively they have been able to resolve the conflicts in a case. If there is extensive pre-trial conflict, and then post judgment conflict in which the parties continue to fight over custody despite the involvement of the GAL and/or custody evaluator, this means that these professionals have failed to do their jobs and should be removed from their positions.

Thus, it seems fitting that on March 21, 2014, approximately three months after the fake Amber Alert debacle, Judge Adelman ordered GAL Attorney Kerry Tarpey off the case.

I am assuming this was not only in response to the fake Amber Alert nonsense, but also to a motion Colleen Kerwick filed on November 25, 2013 "Motion For Removal of Guardian Ad Litem".

In this motion, Ms. Kerwick accused GAL Kerry Tarpey of demonstrating bias against her. For instance, she states that on multiple occasions Attorney Kerry Tarpey spent considerable time consulting with the father in Court conference rooms. In contrast, allegedly Attorney Tarpey refused to meet with the mother for any formal sit down meetings.

Further, Kerwick's motion alleged that Attorney Kerry Tarpey neglected her duty to the minor child, failing to take into consideration that mother was the primary parent up until the time of the filing for divorce. Most damaging among these allegations is the statement that Attorney Tarpey wrote letters on behalf of the father instructing doctors and other professionals that the mother no longer had any decision making authority and then did not inform the mother she had done so.

Attorney Kerry Tarpey also is alleged to have steadily disregarded the manner in which the father neglected their child's medical needs.

I am by no means in a position to verify the truth of these allegations in detail, but I do have a copy of all the bills that Attorney Kerry Tarpey generated from July 31, 2012 when she came into the case until December 27, 2013. I obtained them from a motion Attorney Tarpey filed a week after the fake Amber Alert incident in which she requested a hearing in order to make sure her bill would be paid.

I was rather struck by the timing there. Did she want to ensure that she would rewarded for her collusion in that matter?

From what I can see, these bills indicate that Attorney Kerry Tarpey spoke to the various attorneys representing Kenneth Savino--Attorney Steven Dembo, Attorney Campbell Barrett, and Attorney Jon Kuckuka--up to 34 times. In contrast, Attorney Tarpey only spoke to Colleen Kerwick's attorney 7 times, and that only during a single month period immediately before dissolution.

Also, Attorney Tarpey didn't once speak to Attorney Anne Dranginis, who was Colleen's primary attorney during the months prior to judgment.

I find it quite striking that Attorney Kerry Tarpey would be consistently in touch with father's attorney, and barely, if ever, speak to the mother's attorney. That tells a story of bias in and off itself.

In addition, Kerry Tarpey only did a single home visit to Ms. Colleen Kerwick's house for an hour and fifteen minutes, and I don't see that she made any visits to Kenneth Savino's house.

Furthermore, and what is even more telling, in total, during her entire involvement in the case, Kerry Tarpey only met once with her child client for 30 minutes on January 8, 2013. In other words, overall Kerry Tarpey charged "more than $40,000 to represent the best interests and wishes of" the child and yet only $150.00 of that was actually spent on meeting with the child.

How can you possibly provide opinions on the best interests of a child when you barely even met with him or her?

As I stated earlier, in an order dated March 21, 2014, Judge Adelman allowed GAL Tarpey to withdraw from the case, which I believe was a good decision based upon these facts. There is absolutely no justification for medical neglect of a child, and denying a good and fit mother who has largely been the primary parent joint decision making makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Finally, there were several other orders issued on March 21, 2014. One that I consider peculiar to say the least is Item #2 which commands Dr. Barbara Berkowitz to prepare a psychological evaluation "based on the limited information she currently has given the defendant's refusal to participate."

Simply put, if any psychologist actually obeyed such an order he or she would be in complete violation of their professional ethics--you can't properly evaluate a person with incomplete data.

I also find it absurd that any judge would interject himself into a separate area of professional expertise in which he does not have training and attempt to direct what this other professional will or will not do.

Further, when will the Court, not only in Colleen Kerwick's case, but with so many other litigants, stop attempting to smear and slander good and fit parents by calling into question their mental health in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and as Amended in 2008.

But if we must hear from a mental health professionals regarding Colleen Kerwick because the judge insists, let us hear from Dr. Stephen M. Humphrey, a well respected professional who has done extensive work for DCF in Connecticut and who did a thorough evaluation of Colleen Kerwick. In a letter dated April 11, 2014 written to Colleen Kerwick, he states as follows:

"With regard to your question about parenting capacity, I have not observed you engaged in any acts--or exhibit any pattern of thought or behavior--that would suggest to me that you could not function entirely capably as a parent to your son. Further, I have viewed numerous photographs and videos of the two of you together that suggest you have had a rich, loving, and positive relationship with each other. I am concerned that a prolonged separation from your son may have adverse psychological consequences for him especially because at his age he is likely to be confused as to why such a separation has occurred or is continuing."

Report of Neuropsychologist Dr. Rimma Danov dated November 6, 2012 regarding Ms. Colleen Kerwick:

"Her responses to an objective psychological measure revealed that she is [a] warm, compassionate, outgoing, ambitious, active, self-confident, and sensitive individual.

Her responses suggest that she is a person who accepts personal responsibility and is ready to make changes if necessary to better herself and her relationships with others."

And finally, "She does not present with any symptoms of personality disorders or psychiatric disorders."

Kenneth Savino, from what I understand, has spent over $600,000 in order to eliminate Colleen Kerwick out of the life of their child. I think folks don't need to look any further than this number to know that this case is all about father's superior access to money, power, and influence, and nothing else.

Over a thousand people agreed who signed the petition to return the child to the mother. See below:

https://www.change.org/p/stop-family-courts-taking-fundamental-rights-and-stop-the-laws-designed-to-protect-women-being-used-against-women

As a followup on the case, Ms. Colleen Kerwick posted the following later in 2014:

"After trying my own custody case in Family Court from October 20-29, 2014 against my exes teams of attorneys, shared parenting and joint physical custody was again ordered on November 5, 2014."

Still, no good mother like Colleen Kerwick should be put through this kind of family court injustice.

Divorce in Connecticut

PAGES