CT NEWS JUNKIE REPORTS THAT SENATOR LEN FASANO IS CALLING ON DCF COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ TO RESIGN!

Christine Stuart of "CT News Junkie" states as follows:

"Citing recent reports highlighting problems at DCF’s two locked facilities, Senate Republican Leader Len Fasano is calling on Department of Children and Families Commissioner Joette Katz to resign. 

“Commissioner Katz’s autocratic leadership and misplaced priorities have undermined the effectiveness of her agency, put children at risk, and eroded public trust,” Fasano said. “Recent reports, including the Child Advocate’s report released yesterday, highlight the disturbing reality of persistent issues within DCF including the abuse of children at DCF’s locked facilities, the agency’s failure to investigate many of these cases, and a continuous struggle to embrace transparency.”

Katz was one of Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s first appointments. Malloy plucked Katz from the Supreme Court bench and said her work experience — first as a public defender and then as a judge — leaves her well-prepared to lead a bureaucracy that has “too often failed our children.”

DCF’s chronic problems have bedeviled governors for decades..."

Read More:

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/fasano_calls_for_katzs_resignation/#cmt

Associated Documents:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/272407170/Advocates-Ltr-Katz-July-23

https://www.scribd.com/doc/272407180/AG-Investigate-DCF-July23

https://www.scribd.com/doc/272407197/Bartolomeo-Urban-Katz-July-23

CCADV'S TESTIMONY OPPOSING SHARED CUSTODY AT THE JAN. 9, 2014 HEARING BEFORE "THE TASK FORCE TO STUDY LEGAL DISPUTES INVOLVING THE CARE & CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN"!

Written testimony

Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care & Custody of Minor Children

January 9, 2014

Good morning Attorney Cousineau, Attorney Dornfeld and members of the task force. CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV) is the state’s leading voice for victims of domestic violence and those agencies that serve them. Our members provide essential services to over 56,000 victims of domestic violence, such as 24- hour crisis response, emergency shelter, safety planning, counseling, support groups and court advocacy.

CCADV OPPOSES the presumption of shared custody as being in the best interest of the child.

While there are variances on what constitutes “shared custody,” previous definitions that have been considered by the CT General Assembly (House Bill 6685, 2013 Session) have included shared decision making as it relates to the “child’s welfare, including, but not limited to, matters relating to education, medical care, and emotional, moral, social and religious development.” Any such requirement for a parent that is the victim of an abusive relationship would be very concerning.

From the perspective of the parent who has been abused, a shared custody arrangement presents another opportunity for the abuser to attempt to exert control over him/her and to do so in one of the most alarming manners possible - through the children. In a continuing effort to gain control, the abusive partner may object to any proposed decisions for the children or to put up stumbling blocks for the implementation of any decisions once made.

As Louisiana has found, “the legislature finds that problems of family violence do not necessarily cease when the victimized family is legally separated or divorced. In fact, the violence often escalates, and child custody and visitation becomes the new forum for the continuation of the abuse. Because current laws relative to child custody and visitation are based on an assumption that even divorcing parents are in relatively equal positions, and that such parents act in the children’s best interest, these laws often work against protection of the children and abused spouse in families with a history of family violence.” (LA Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 9:361)

In fact, Colorado recently passed critical child custody reforms that address this very issue. In 2013, Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) § 14-10-123.4 was revised to reflect that children have certain rights in the determination of matters relating to parental responsibilities, including:

1. a)  The right to have such determination based upon the best interests of the child;
2. b)  The right to be emotionally, mentally, and physically safe when in the care of either parent; and,
3. c)  The right to reside in and visit in homes that are free of domestic violence and child abuse or neglect.

Colorado law also recognizes that co-parenting is not appropriate in all circumstances, and clarifies that “when appropriate” parents should share the rights and responsibilities of child-rearing and encourage the love, affection, and contact between the children and the other parent. Additionally, when a claim of domestic violence has been made, the court must first consider whether one of the parties has committed an act of domestic violence, engaged in a pattern of domestic violence or has a history of domestic violence prior to determining parenting time and decision- making responsibility and prior to considering any of the other “best interest” factors (C.R.S. § 14-10-124).

The paramount concern reflected in the new Colorado laws governing child custody is the child’s safety, including the physical, mental and emotional conditions and needs of the child. Recognizing that the presence of domestic violence and the control and manipulation of one parent over another, especially via the child, can and will have devastating, long-term effects on the child is imperative to any discussion about the presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of every child.

Shared decision-making that forces victims of domestic violence into a vulnerable position of having to negotiate with an abuser who has already traumatized them is unlikely to be successful and will certainly lead to continued conflict not only for the victim, but for the involved child. Children who witness intimate partner violence within their family face a greater risk of developing severe and potentially lifelong problems with physical health, mental health, and school and peer relationships, as well as disruptive behavior.

It is wishful thinking that all parents are good parents and should have equal time with and decision making authority related to their child. Presumed shared custody with shared decision making is not in the best interest of any child whose parent has been the victim of domestic violence at the hands of the other parent. Connecticut should not place into statute language that will easily allow abusers to maintain control over their victim and their children.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Liza Andrews

Communications & Public Policy Specialist (860) 282-7899

landrews@ctcadv.org 

SPECIAL ACT NO. 15-10: AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO FAMILY VIOLENCE.

Substitute Senate Bill No. 303

Special Act No. 15-10

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO FAMILY VIOLENCE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (Effective from passage) (a) There is established a task force to study the state-wide response to minors exposed to family violence. Such study shall include, but not be limited to, (1) an examination of existing policies and procedures used by the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, health care professionals, law enforcement, guardians ad litem, attorneys for minor children and the Judicial Branch for minors who are exposed to family violence, and (2) the development of a state-wide model policy for use by (A) the Department of Children and Families, including organizations with which it contracts services; (B) the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, including organizations with which it contracts services; (C) health care professionals; (D) guardians ad litem; (E) attorneys for minor children; (F) law enforcement; and (G) the Judicial Branch, when responding to minors who are exposed to family violence.
(b) The task force shall consist of the following members:
(1) The Commissioner of Children and Families, or the commissioner's designee;
(2) The Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services, or the commissioner's designee;
(3) The Commissioner of Early Childhood, or the commissioner's designee;
(4) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, or the commissioner's designee;
(5) The Child Advocate, or the Child Advocate's designee;
(6) The Chief Public Defender, or the Chief Public Defender's designee;
(7) The Chief State's Attorney, or the Chief State's Attorney's designee;
(8) A chairperson of the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to children;
(9) A chairperson of the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to human services;
(10) Two appointed by the president pro tempore of the Senate, one of whom shall represent the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence and one of whom shall be an attorney licensed to practice law in Connecticut;
(11) Two appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives, one of whom shall represent the Connecticut Children's Medical Center and one of whom shall represent a multidisciplinary team established pursuant to section 17a-106a of the general statutes;
(12) Two appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, one of whom shall represent the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association and one of whom shall be an adult victim of domestic violence;
(13) Two appointed by the majority leader of the House of Representatives, one of whom shall represent a designated child advocacy center and one of whom shall be a medical doctor specializing in the care of children exposed to family violence;
(14) Two appointed by the minority leader of the Senate, one of whom shall be a currently appointed guardian ad litem and one of whom shall be a psychiatrist or psychologist specializing in the mental health care of children exposed to family violence;
(15) Two appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives, one of whom shall be a youth victim exposed to family violence and one of whom shall be a currently appointed attorney for the minor child; and
(16) Two appointed by the Chief Court Administrator, one of whom shall be a judge of the Superior Court assigned to hear family matters and one of whom shall represent the Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division.
(c) Any member of the task force appointed under subdivisions (10) to (15), inclusive, of subsection (b) of this section may be a member of the General Assembly.
(d) All appointments to the task force shall be made not later than thirty days after the effective date of this section. Any vacancy shall be filled by the appointing authority.
(e) The speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate shall select two chairpersons of the task force from among the members of the task force. Such chairpersons shall schedule the first meeting of the task force, which shall be held not later than sixty days after the effective date of this section.
(f) The administrative staff of the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to human services shall serve as the administrative staff of the task force.
(g) Not later than January 15, 2016, the task force shall submit a report on its findings and recommendations to the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to human services and children, in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a of the general statutes. The task force shall terminate on the date that it submits such report or January 15, 2016, whichever is later.
Approved June 30, 2015

For the link to this information, see below:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/act/sa/2015SA-00010-R00SB-00303-SA.htm

FOX CT INTERVIEWS KAREN JARMOC AND RICH ROCHLIN ABOUT HOW CT FAMILY COURT HANDLES DV CASES!

"HARTFORD – After the tragic death of 7-month-old Aaden Moreno, does the way Connecticut handles cases involving domestic violence need fixing? Al and Jenn discuss this with guests Karen Jarmoc, Co-Chair of the State Task Force on Domestic Violence and Rich Rochlin, an attorney specializing in family law."

FOR MORE ON THIS, SEE THE LINK BELOW:

http://foxct.com/2015/07/19/the-real-story-does-the-state-need-to-handle-domestic-violence-cases-differently/

CASSANDRA C.'S HOMECOMING REPORTED BY HARTFORD COURANT LAST APRIL! SORRY I MISSED THAT!

On April 27, 2015, Josh Kovner of "The Hartford Courant" reported as follows:

"WINDSOR LOCKS — She went into the hospital five months ago identified in court papers as Cassandra C., the Windsor Locks teenager taken into state custody and forced by court order to receive chemotherapy for her Hodgkin's lymphoma after rejecting the treatment and running away.

She came out of the hospital Monday afternoon as Cassandra Callender, 17, cancer free, with a glowing smile, her face flushed by the first gulps of outdoor air since December, her brown her growing back in over dark eyes.

She was ready to hug her cat, wolf down her mom Jackie Fortin's shepherd's pie and mac and cheese, sleep in her own bed, and see where she stands at Windsor Locks High School, where she would have walked with her graduating class in June had she not become an international news story and a poster girl for those who advocate alternatives to chemotherapy..."

READ MORE:

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-cassandra-goes-home-0428-20150427-story.html

MORE COMMENTS ON THE DECISION OF THE FAMILY COMMISSION TO RETREAT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!

Denying the parents access to the Custody Study is a common and old scam. Here's a paragraph from the minutes of the January 21, 2015 Family Commission meeting which deals with the issue:

"Item 01-06J concerns Practice Book Section 25-60A. The request is that any private evaluation not be given to the parties or any attorneys in a case without a court order regarding the report’s dissemination. The members of the Commission discussed whether or not the ADA preempts Practice Book Rule 25- 60A. The members of the Commission agreed that once an evaluation is marked as an exhibit at trial that the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause of the Constitution would require that the evaluation be made available. Concerns were raised about how a case can be resolved without knowing the contents of an evaluation. Another consideration discussed by the members of the Commission involved trying to protect children from the contents of the evaluation. Evaluation contents have been known to turn up on the internet and on social media where children and even the public can see it. The Commission will ask the Legal Services Unit to research the issue of whether the ADA preempts Practice Book Section 25-60A. Judge Dranginis, Steven Dembo, and Thomas Parrino will work on draft language for the members of the Commission to consider at the next meeting."

The general idea is to make the parents pay for a Custody Study and then allow the judge to base orders on the Custody Study without revealing the contents to the parents. 

The Family Commission minutes suggest that once the study is marked as an exhibit at trial, the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause require it to be made available. 

This discussion shows how little constitutional law family law judges and lawyers know. The Confrontation Clause is part of the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution. It provides that in all CRIMINAL matters, the accused has the right to be confronted with witnesses against him. 

I'm sure that parents may feel like criminal defendants in family court, but the provision does not apply. 

The 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause does apply, and it applies much more broadly than the Family Commission minutes suggest. In fact, parents have a constitutional due process right to see the report before the judge uses it to justify any action. Moreover, since they paid for the report, the parents may very well own it. It is their report. By denying them access to it, the court violates their liberty interest in their own property. 

Of course this latter issue is present every time the a family court judge orders parents to pay the divorce industry. 

In short, Connecticut family courts just blatantly violate parents' constitutional rights as a matter of practice. 

The January 21, 2015 Family Commission minutes are interesting in that, for the first time ever, the judges and divorce lawyers actually purport to address a constitutional issue. And of course their analysis is horribly wrong.

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS: ATTORNEY LOREDANA NESCI, "LEGAL DIVA", KILLED IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCIDENT!

According to The CT Law Tribune:

"A Meriden native who worked at two Connecticut law firms before moving to California and starring in a reality television show has died. Police say Loredana Nesci, who billed herself as the "Legal Diva," was found dead Wednesday in the Redondo Beach, California, home she shared with her longtime boyfriend and father of her child.

The man, Robert Reagan, 51, was questioned by officers and then charged with the homicide, according to published reports. "This just highlights how serious domestic violence is. You never expect to get this call," Sal Nesci, the attorney's brother and a Meriden police lieutenant, told the Meriden Record-Journal newspaper..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202732888305/Former-Conn-Lawyer-Who-Starred-in-Reality-TV-Show-Killed-in-California#ixzz3gkhIUu8h