JENNIFER VERRANEAULT: VICTIM OF THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH'S DEVIOUS STRATEGY OF DIVIDE AND CONQUER!

On November 14, 1996, police in Canton, CT received a phone call from a Jean Eichelman of South Windsor.  She was worried about her parents who had called her earlier stating that their son, Neil Cretney, and Jean's brother had been threatening them.  Neil, who was 44 years old at the time, had an extensive history of schizophrenia and had not been taking his medication.  

Eventually, Neil Cretney barricaded himself in his room with an axe and refused to come out.  Canton Police who had already managed two earlier violent incidents with Mr. Cretney, instead of doing something personally, decided to hand the situation over to the North Central Regional Emergency Services Team--a 20 member SWAT team--that stormed Cretney's room and shot him dead after he swung at one officer with the axe, cutting through his bullet proof vest.  

Subsequent to Neil Cretney's death there was a lot of soul searching.  Why did Canton police decide to call the SWAT team?  Would it have been better if the Canton police had tried to talk Neil Cretney down before storming his room?  Could anything have been done to prevent the tragic outcome?  I can recall feeling very saddened by this situation at the time and I am aware that everyone concerned--the police, Mr. Cretney's family, members of the community--felt devastated by what happened.  I believe that after that incident, the Canton police voluntarily participated in additional training to learn how to deal more effectively with people who have mental illness who are in crisis.

Why I am telling this story now is to say that when Jean Eichelman, Neil Cretney's sister, called up the police in order to safeguard her parents, it was never her intention to get her brother killed.  She was in an impossible situation where if she did nothing, her parents could end up being injured.  However, if she made a phone call to police, there was a considerable risk that her brother could end up manhandled, handcuffed, and carted off to a psychiatric hospital as had happened before.  

I'm sure it never crossed her mind that Neil Cretney would end up dead, but that is always a possibility in any encounter that a person with a disability has with police.  According to statistics, over half of the incidents of deadly violence that take place between police and civilians occurs in cases where people with disabilities, particularly individuals with mental illness, are involved.  As soon as you pick up the phone to call for assistance from police, the fire department, or ambulance services, etc., pretty much the situation is out of your hands and there is nothing you could do about it.  

Should we blame Ms. Eichelman and call her a murderer?  No, she was in an absolutely difficult position where anything she did had the potential for harm.  In the end, she chose the better of the two evils which was to safeguard the wellbeing of her elderly parents.  

Likewise, with Jennifer Verraneault, who made the difficult decision to report Ted Taupier to authorities, she was similarly in a very difficult position trying to decide between the better of two evils, and with no absolutely fool proof way of determining which was better.  

There were aspects of Ted Taupier's statements in the email for which he was arrested that were laughable, i.e. the quotations from Charlton Heston and the comments about the space station on the moon, or whatever that was.  On the other hand, Mr. Taupier's other remarks were very intense and potentially very upsetting to anyone who didn't know him that well.  

Thus, Jennifer Verraneault's concern about Ted Taupier and his wellbeing and the Judge's safety, from her perspective, made absolute sense.  

It also made sense within the heated and intense debate that has been going on in the state legislature, in the streets, and in our court houses regarding the corruption of CT Family Court.  

As Jennifer stated, "Try to put yourself in my situation and understand how scared I was for this family and for others."  

I believe Jennifer's expression of concern is absolutely genuine.  The problem is that once Jennifer reported her concern to other people and the situation snowballed, she had no control over the outcome and no control over the outrageous and excessive manner in which the State of CT chose to handle the situation, any more than Jean Eichelman did when that SWAT team went after her brother. 

Jennifer had real fears regarding Ted Taupier and his wellbeing and that of Judge Bozzuto that should be taken seriously.  As she states, "At the time I was alarmed and felt a tremendous amount of sadness for a father trapped in this unjust system.  I immediately replied to his email prior to contacting anyone.  I sent him an email to say I am worried about you.  Do you have your children this weekend?  The goal I had at the time was for Jerry and I to meet him on our way back from Mass. But he didn't reply to me at all.  I felt so sad for him, his children and his family.  For anyone to write what he wrote was extremely alarming to me.  I am not used to having anyone share that type of information with me."  

That is the thing.  Some people, depending on their background and experience, would find what Ted Taupier said alarming, but many would not have found it alarming.  I read that email and read all that stuff about Charlton Heston and I was like, don't be silly.  In my own life, I've spent a good deal of time with people who have mental health challenges or who have dealt with extremely difficult life circumstances, so my radar for violence has a much higher threshold than for most people.  

So there is this continuum in terms of how people assess situations of this kind and when it comes to understanding how Jennifer responded, we should be charitable and keep that in mind. She just saw things differently than other people did who were copied on the email. As Jennifer stated, "I was torn about what to do with the email from day one."  And she states further, "When I saw the video where Ted's kids were taken out of school.  I didn't know all the details.  I was unaware that Ted had taken the video himself and it was only a month later I found that out. I thought OMG a judge ordered the police to take the kids out of school? I didn't know it was the ex-wife who had brought in the police.  I thought how horrible!  I thought, if I was disturbed by this image, how will Ted feel?  His kids are crying and being taken out by police...I thought in the light of the email he sent five days earlier, he might possibly carry out what he put in the email...You see reaching out to let others know what was going on with Ted was not a calculated and evil thing that I did.  I was sincerely worried about everyone."  

I believe Jennifer 100 percent when she says this.  

As with Jean Eichelman, once the report had gone out, there was nothing Jennifer could do to prevent what happened with Ted.  Who could anticipate the kind of vicious, vengeful and excessive response to Ted Taupier on the part of law enforcement and on the part of Judge Gold.  At the most, I would have thought that Ted would have been ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation and to cooperate with a treatment program to address his anger issues.  But six years of jail, fines, house arrest, major legal expenses, etc., etc.  That would be far beyond my ability to imagine, and I'm sure the same is true for Jennifer.  

When it comes to the Family Court Reform movement here in Connecticut, everyone brings something different to the table.  It is remarkable the broad range of economic, cultural, religious, ethnic, gender, and disability based backgrounds we all have.  It seems as though the Family Court Abuse has been an open opportunity for pretty much everyone--it's a very democratic experience!  In my earlier blog regarding the Ted Taupier Case, I spoke about Jennifer as having mixed motives, and I'm sure people were like, "Yes, we know, she's such a terrible person!" 

This, actually, was not on my mind.  

In our movement, because of her experience on the Task Force last year regarding child custody, Jennifer has the unique perspective of understanding not only how we feel as victims of the corrupt family court system, Jennifer has also heard extensively from people who work within that system in regard to the frustrations they experience from their perspective.  I know everyone wants to say, yeah, from their criminal perspective, but that would not be fair.  There are many good people within the CT Family Court System who are working hard to ensure just and proper outcomes for the litigants who make their way through Family Court.  These are the people we need to learn to connect with and work with in a productive way.  

I am sure that with this recent situation, those who are responsible for the criminal activities within the CT Judicial Branch are feeling overjoyed.  First of all, they are probably really thrilled they finally nailed Ted Taupier who was such a pain with his honest and incisive testimony regarding the abuses he and his family endured in family court.  But most of all, they are probably as delighted as can be that Jennifer Verraneault, who has been such a dynamic part of the Family Court Reform movement, is now crippled and undercut by these attacks on her character and on her motivations for working in the Family Court Reform movement.  

Ha ha, all the corrupt attorneys, GALS, judges, and court personnel are probably saying--we've killed two birds with one stone!  

I have to say that I do not agree with Jennifer in a lot of areas, particularly in regard to her support of theories of Parental Alienation.  I think everyone knows that I'm not everyone's favorite player in the battle for Family Court Reform.  As a general rule, it is true that my focus is considerably more on supporting the welfare of women than men.

But if there is one thing I want to say emphatically, it is that we need to stop fighting among ourselves and stand together shoulder to shoulder to fight for justice within the Family Court system.  Let's focus on what really matters.

Of course, we are not going to agree on everything, but if there is one thing I constantly hear about from pretty much everyone it is that we all believe in fairness, we believe in justice, we believe in due process; we protest lying, cheating, and stealing, and we all believe that we need to get the children out of the line of fire so that they can live happy and fulfilling lives devoid of trauma and heartbreak.  

We cannot allow ourselves to succumb to the temptation that our opponents in the corrupt CT Judicial Branch dangle before us to fight among ourselves, to backstab one another, or to smear each other's reputations.  

I also want to say that I personally saw members of the that task force attack Jennifer and attempt to undercut her success.  There is no doubt that she suffered a lot and gave a lot while she was in that role.  If she stumbles and falls.  If she is not perfect all the time.  If she makes mistakes, in that, I believe, that she is no different than any one of us.  

Under the pressure of the abuse of family court, who cannot say that they haven't said or done things that they regret.  So what I'm urging everyone to consider is that we need to support one another, no matter how flawed we are, and reserve our challenges, our criticisms, and our calls to arms for the real enemies, those within the Family Court System who have exploited and harmed family court victims.  United we stand.  Divided we fall.  

NEXT MEETING OF TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATE-WIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!

Task Force to Study the State-Wide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence

Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 10:00AM-12:00PM 

Location:  Room 2A of the LOB 

THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH, DESPERATE TO DEFLECT ITS CRITICS, HIDES BEHIND LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO TO CONVICT FAMILY COURT REFORM ACTIVIST TED TAUPIER AND NULLIFY THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

On August 29, 2014, a SWAT team of 75 officers along with two armored vehicles stormed Cromwell resident Mr. Ted Taupier's house with their weapons drawn, threw him to the ground and arrested him. [I am hearing that there was no need to throw him on the ground; he was apparently quite cooperative and just stood there!  Anyone else is welcome to comment!] 

The basis for this arrest?  

Apparently, late in the night on August 22, 2015, Mr. Taupier sent an email to six other friends which appeared to threaten the life of Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto, some of it couched in the language of movies and science fiction and other parts of it appearing to be more serious.  One of the recipients of this email, Jennifer Veraneault, was frightened by the email and so after consulting with a friend, and a failed attempt to reach Mr. Taupier, she reported the email to authorities.  

The result was the absolutely dramatic arrest scene which I have described, and subsequent charges filed against Mr. Taupier for 1) threatening in the first degree; 2) threatening in the second degree; 3) two counts of disorderly conduct; and 4) breach of peace in the second degree.  He was released on bail of $75,000, was required to wear an ankle bracelet and was put on house arrest.  

Did Ted Taupier deserve this dramatic response to his late night diatribe against Judge Bozzuto?

On June 11, 2015, Attorney Norm Pattis, a highly regarded civil rights and criminal attorney blogged about the Ted Taupier case on his website stating, "Just how the state perceives [the email Ted Taupier sent] to be a threat to anyone is beyond my comprehension.  The speech is certainly ugly, even irresponsible, but if there is a specific intent to cause alarm or harm to Judge Bozzuto in the email, I can't see it."  

Commenting on his observations regarding the subsequent trial in the case, Attorney Pattis stated, "there's little doubt that the state failed to prove Taupier guilty of threatening.  His reckless bluster among folks he thought were friends and fellow travelers cannot be construed as an intent to threaten the judge.  No evidence suggests that he intended, or foresaw, that anyone would forward the email to Judge Bozzuto."  

At the very worst, Attorney Pattis anticipated that Ted Taupier would be acquitted of threatening and perhaps be convicted of disorderly conduct or breach of peace.  Instead, much to my surprise, on October 2, 2015 Judge Gold found Ted Taupier guilty of all charges in a 56 page decision that at times comes across as rambling and at other times obscure.  

While I never expected that Ted Taupier would get off scott free from these charges, it does appear excessive and vengeful that the Court convicted him on all charges and he now faces a six year prison sentence simply for speaking in an exaggerated and hyperbolic manner about a family court judge.  This is particularly true when you consider that Mr. Taupier never directly addressed Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto with any vituperative language and anything he said was written in an email sent people he believed were likeminded friends.  

Make no mistake, this Judge's decision was a purely political act, a blatant attempt to silence and intimidate current and potential critics, and has nothing to do with the law.  

I say this because in the last few years there has been escalating political unrest directed towards the CT Judicial Branch, particularly in connection to accusations that the family court system is corrupt. Along with many others, Mr. Ted Taupier, who has played a central role in advocating for reform of the legal system, has faced systematic retaliation from the CT Judicial Branch.  I myself have reported that this blog has also been the focus of vicious retaliation from the legal profession in the last year.  

What can be done when the judges of the CT Judicial Branch use their power within the judiciary to wreak revenge upon their critics?  

First of all, it should be noted that Tanya and Ted Taupier are typical of the kinds of successful couples that the CT Family Court likes to exploit and that in the course of obtaining their divorce they suffered the full gamut of the kind of corrupt behavior standard in family court.  

Tanya Taupier has a high level position at Aetna Insurance Company and Ted Taupier, prior to his arrest, had a solid position with Citicorp.  They have two children -- a son and a daughter.  Ms. Taupier filed for divorce in the fall of 2012 and had sufficient income to hire two divorce attorneys--Attorneys Geraldine Ficarra and Michael Peck--who continue to remain her attorneys.  At the same time, she also hired a criminal defense attorney Chris Morano formerly a prosecutor in the Michael Skakel case, no doubt also highly expensive.   

For his part, Ted Taupier hired in succession Brown, Paindiris and Scott, a highly regarded divorce attorney firm, then Attorney Henry B. Hurwitz, and then finally Lobo and Associates, LLC and then went pro se.  

In addition, the parties hired Attorney Margaret Bozek as the guardian ad litem for the children--Attorney Bozek has been associated with other problematic cases.  Attorney Bozek quickly racked up a bill of $30,000 and counting.  

It took three years before the divorce was final and, from what I've heard, a whole bunch of legal professionals cashed in before the case was over.  

So what happened specifically that so deeply radicalized Ted Taupier and ultimately led him to express his anger so strongly in regard to Judge Bozzuto in a private email to fellow advocates.  We just don't know because there is no information regarding Mr. Taupier's perspective in the entire October 2, 2015 decision. 

This is true despite the fact that Judge Gold stated on page 3 of his decision, "the determination of whether a defendant's allegedly threatening statements may be prosecuted and punished under the law requires that they be examined and considered in the light of their entire factual context and with reference to all surrounding events."  We got something in the Memorandum of Decision of October 2, 2015, but it certainly wasn't the "entire" story.

Instead, the Court summarized two very sanitized and edited stories in which Ted Taupier's perspective is entirely eliminated--one in regard to where the Taupier children would go to school and the other in regard to Mr. Taupier's disposal of his antique gun collection told from the perspective of the prosecutors.  

I certainly experienced this kind of repeated editing in my case and I know many others have experienced this.  What Judges do when they write Memoranda of Decision is simply pick and choose among the facts they like, and ignore or suppress the evidence they don't want to hear or acknowledge.  Along the way Judges often invent several extra stories for good measure just because it fits in with the legal picture they are attempting to develop.  

So even while making pompous and high minded sounding remarks about how all the evidence must be heard, Judges regularly edit or eliminate essential information from the record.

Not only do Judges tamper with court cases by suppressing the defendants side of the story, they also refuse to listen to witnesses at will.  Thus, in Ted Taupier's case, the Court simply dismissed as not credible the witnesses who came in support of Mr. Taupier and put their testimony in footnotes.  Meanwhile, inexplicably the Court stated that the one witness who felt threatened by Mr. Taupier's remarks was credible, even though we all know that she acted out of mixed motives that everyone is well aware of.  

This is not justice.  This is not the "entire factual context." 

What it actually adds up to is a legal exercise in judges using their superior status and the benefit of the doubt they receive from people who have watched too many episodes of "Law and Order" to smear the reputation of a vulnerable citizen who doesn't have anything like the same social and financial resources.  

We should also be troubled by Judge Gold's heavy reliance on the Supreme Court case State v. Krijger which came out on September 2, 2014.  For one thing, the State V. Krijger involves a defendant who made a direct verbal threat to the complainant (an attorney--surprise, surprise!).  In contrast, Ted Taupier never made a direct threat towards Judge Bozzuto--he was merely speaking with several friends in a private email.  And while Judge Gold from his standpoint thinks it was inevitable that one of those friends would communicate with authorities regarding the content of Ted's email remarks, that is not a given in my view.  Despite Judge Gold's insistence that all his conclusions were purely objective, reasonable people cannot help but think that subjective biases might have influenced Judge Gold's thinking process.  Therefore, what we have here are two very different circumstances, yet Judge Gold is treating them as if they are identical, which makes no sense to me.

Another point to keep in mind is that this case wasn't even the law at the time the alleged criminal act had taken place.  In many respects, the timing of when the decision in this case was issued, immediately after Taupier was arrested, bears the mark of case law especially formulated to target a particular individual such as a political activist.

What is additionally troubling when it comes to the State v. Krijger decision that acted as the basis of the Judge's determination in this case is that it essentially eliminates our first amendment right to freedom of speech in the State of Connecticut.  Take a look at the content of this decision on page 24 of Judge Gold's decision: "a state may punish those words that by their utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace....Furthermore, the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except when such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  

This language is so broad that it really encompasses and identifies as illegal, even criminal, pretty much any meaningful political action that is time honored in most democratic countries.  For instance, with a definition of this kind, what would happen to someone like Malcolm X who stated that he intended to gather together an army to defend African-Americans "by any means necessary."  

What happens to someone like Martin Luther King who advocated acts of civil disobedience, i.e. the freedom riders, lunch counter sit ins, thus "inciting or producing imminent lawless action."  What about my friends in wheelchairs who have protested violations of their ADA rights by blockading intersections with their wheelchairs in violation of the law.  Are the discussions they held planning that political demonstration a violation of the law?  If they are, all of us who hope to create social change for the better are in serious trouble.

The bottom line is that when the Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut becomes so afraid of its critics that it creates laws that eliminate CT citizens' first amendment right to free speech and then uses that law to jail possibly for six years the first innocent man it can find, we have a problem!  

More seriously, I question the focus here.  Why are we looking at a citizen's potential threat to a judge, when what we really need to do is look at the threat that is leveled upon many citizens by the actions of that judge.  

Further, we are not just concerned about a single judge; we are concerned about the entire CT Judicial Branch.  As Mr. Michael Nowacki pointed out succinctly a few years ago, the CT Judicial Branch has been creating law for several decades in violation of CT General Statutes 51-14, and in violation of the Constitution which mandates the separation of powers.  

Further, investigative journalists have discovered serious RICO violations within the CT Judicial Branch.  One commentator stated, "We know that an unregistered, sub regulatory corporation has been running through the CT Judicial Branch for 30 years, with member and directors in all positions of administration, from grant writing, program administration, and even regulation and oversight.  We know the judges and professionals they appoint onto cases they preside over are tied in profitable business relationships.  We know that numerous CT agencies, departments, and branches (DCF, DOC, judicial and others) are beholden to an agreement to collude in order to fix case outcomes to maximize funding over all other factors, including constitutional rights, due process, and human rights.  We know that judges are deliberately placing children in the most dangerous homes available to them, including violent pedophiles and murderers, in order to generate endless billing hours for their business partner lawyers, evaluators, and treaters, all of whom judges are appointing in the first place.  We know that many judges have non-profits that contract with the judicial branch, some even list a business address in their chambers.  We know that hundreds of millions of dollars are running through each of some of those non-profits per year.  We know that the Office of Inspector General audited some official judicial accounts in 2010 and found $13 million missing and unaccounted for." 

I'd forget chasing an insignificant (ok maybe not to himself!) individual like Ted Taupier around the block.  What about our State government that fails to protect its citizens? 

I am also aware that there are a considerable number of family court litigants and their children who have spoken about experiencing discrimination against them based upon their disabilities.  They have talked about how the CT Judicial Branch is completely non-compliant with federal ADA law as well as the ADAAA and denies people their reasonable modifications which are required for them to be able to obtain testimonial and participatory access to legal proceedings.  

Yet nothing has been done about any of these illegal activities--not a thing--despite the CT Department of Justice major announcements that they intended to investigate.  

Further, the CT Department of Justice specifically stated they would have a report on the compliance of the CT Judicial Branch with the ADA at the end of August 2015, and yet they still have not produced one and it appears have no plan to produce one. Further, they have broken the back of this so-called investigation by stating that they have no intention of looking at the specific complaints that people with disabilities have made against the CT Judicial Branch.  Aren't those complaints with their associated documents essential evidence in regard to whether the CT Judicial Branch has complied with the ADA or not?  Basically, the refusal to investigate complaints represents a complete indifference to the many disabled victims of the CT Judicial Branch's indifference and disregard of their fundamental civil rights.

How is it that all these State resources--police, a 75 man SWAT team, prosecutors, etc. etc. and CT Judicial Branch resources could be used to persecute a single man who made a few off color remarks in a bad moment, yet law enforcement personnel disregards and ignores the widespread human rights and civil rights violations and corruption for which the CT Judicial Branch is responsible?  

How is it that within only a few months of denying Adrianne Oyola a protective order which could have stopped Tony Moreno from tossing Baby Aaden off a bridge to his death, Judge Barry Pinkus is apparently back on the bench in Middletown adjudicating complex DV cases which he is clearly incapable of handling.

Someone please explain this to me.  What can we do as citizens to protect ourselves from the foolish and negligent actions of the Connecticut Judicial Branch when it is that very Branch we are supposed to turn to in order to obtain relief!

I am also surprised that Mr. Taupier's attorney did not argue self defense in this case.  Of course, there could be a very clear cut answer to this as I am not an attorney.  But consider the various ways in which CT Family Court destroyed Ted Taupier's life and cut him off from his relationship with his children.  Yes, it is true the Court made sure none of that evidence made it on the record.  Still, I am pretty sure that what this family went through was pretty devastating.  

Under the circumstances, couldn't Mr. Ted Taupier's remarks be construed as self-defense.  I was reading the 2008 OLR Research Report entitled "Castle Doctrine and Self Defense in Civil Cases."  This report describes the  Castle Doctrine by stating that the doctrine "establishes the circumstances under which a person can use physical force and deadly physical force to defend himself or someone else without being convicted for assault, manslaughter, or murder."  These are so called "stand your ground" laws.  Could stand your ground law apply to verbal defense as well as physical defense?

Wouldn't it be fair to say that a good many family court litigants have reported that the CT Judicial Branch is corrupt and that its employees are doing violence to their families and children, destroying their lives, bankrupting them, putting them out to live on the streets, snatching their children, allowing their children to be medically neglected or physically abused.  

Under these circumstances, couldn't we argue that the true threat here is not to Judge Bozzuto; the true threat here is to Ted Taupier and his family and to all the many family court litigants who have been exploited and taken advantage of in CT Family Court?  Yes, Ted Taupier made a statement which could be considered a threat, but wasn't he grievously provoked?  

Yet I don't believe this Castle Doctrine was ever raised, because the Court System carefully crafts the grounds upon which it will prosecute a defendant; it excludes anything it doesn't want it or the public to hear and then sets out to orchestrate these highly sophisticated show trials carried out as public relations gambits and media spectacles intended to divert attention from their own sordid crimes.  This is how a case which should be about a family court victim attempting to defend himself gets transformed into legal debates over whether a few exaggerated comments made in private to close friends is a true threat to a judge who wasn't even a part of the conversation.

One last point: if you look at the Memorandum of Decision of October 2, 2015 in the Taupier case and attempt to understand the Judge's explanation of the CT General Statutes and the case law which he used to justify convicting Ted Taupier, the more convoluted and incomprehensible it gets--after all it is 56 pages, plus an additional 12 to discuss the recent U.S. Supreme Court Elonis decision.  

If the average person makes the simple assumption that he or she has the right to freedom of speech--and most people do that---how could they possibly comprehend or even know of the Judge's extensive listing of the broad and extensive exceptions he and his pals have made to our Constitutional right to free speech.  Doesn't that make any one of us subject to entrapment within any context that we express ourselves--on social media, in letters to friends, on blogs--pretty much anywhere--because we aren't aware of the many exceptions.  Personally, I consider that thought chilling as should any reasonable Connecticut citizen.

TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATEWIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, OCTOBER 6, 2015 MEETING!

TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATEWIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MINUTES OF THE MEETING, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015!

10:00 A.M. in Room 2A of the LOB

MINUTES PROVIDED BY ASSISTANTS TO THE TASK FORCE!

The meeting was called to order at 10:05 A.M. by Co-Chair Garry Lapidus

The following committee members were present: Mary Painter, Cheryl Jacques, Gina Beebe (for Linda Harris) Karen O’Connor, Sarah Eagan, Christine Rapillo, Laura DeLeo, Karen Jarmoc (Co-chair), Garry Lapidus (Co-Chair), Cynthia Mahon, Jon Fontneau, Jessica Veilleux, Kayte Cwikla-Mass, Nina Livingston, Jennifer Celentano, Damioin Grasso, Rachel Pawloski, Elizabeth Bozzuto, Stephen Grant and Faith Voswinkel.

Members introduced themselves.

The minutes from the previous meeting were reviewed and accepted by the members.

Co-Chair, Karen Jarmoc stated that today’s meeting will be focused on law enforcement and interventions and policies that are available in Connecticut. She continued to say that Connecticut has a state wide model policy for law enforcement’s response to family violence that was created as a result of a prior task force. Karen went on to say that, potentially, there is opportunity for this task force to make an assessment and offer some recommendations and that there is a permanent governing council that oversees this model policy, so we want to make sure that this task force and the governing council are in alignment with each other.

Karen Jarmoc thanks Maggie Adair at the Office of Early Childhood for providing the task force with follow up information. Karen then introduced Dora Schriro, Commissioner, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.

Commissioner Schriro gave her presentation on behalf of her agency.

Faith Voswinkel shared that she was particularly interested in knowing if there was a way to differentiate the age of the child on the scene for example, are there children under 3 present, are there pre-school aged or school aged children present.

Commissioner Schriro replied that the form they use has a place for date of birth, that assumes that someone is there and competent to give the date of birth, and at a young age it is not likely to be the child. She continued that to the extent that they can improve and add some additional drop down fields or have additional training bring to the troopers awareness what should be included in the remarks section. She went onto say that they can write additional software so they can pull more of this information out.

Faith Voswinkel thanked Commissioner Schriro for her response.

Commissioner Schriro commented that if Faith had other specific requests that Faith can email her directly or communicate through Trooper O’Connor.

Karen Jarmoc thanked Commissioner Schriro for her presentation. She went on to say that as a task force the question would be what is relevant, and that if the task force wants to capture data that would be the question for this group to grapple with and come up with some answers. Karen asked Commissioner Schriro if that data entry point would be the place to ID children.

Commissioner Schriro replied that under the relationship code you have “F” “Other Relative Residing in Home,” so that would apply to children, but that the task force may prefer to have children specifically identified.

Karen Jarmoc commented that she thinks that might be important and also if there is a way for the task force to make some recommendations around what does “involved” mean, what does “present” mean, what does “NA” mean.

Commissioner Schriro indicated that the task force might also want to look at number 22 which is “A Child Under 18 Was Involved/Present.” She offered that an additional question might helpful to identify a younger cohort of children.

Karen Jarmoc asked Commissioner Schriro if she had any opinion the Model Policy.

Commissioner Schriro replied that the real experts are the police officers and the state troopers in the field so it might be worthwhile to get their thoughts about it.

Jon Fontneau said that he agreed with Commissioner Schriro that boots on the ground police officers will give a much better perspective. He also added that if the children attend school it would be helpful to know which school they attend would be helpful for local police.

Commissioner Schriro said that Jon made a good point to help the outreach made by law enforcement to the school the next day, otherwise the school will not know that the event occurred and the child may be off his/her game, if they are even able to be in school.

Karen Jarmoc asked if in terms of training, is it 20 hours specific to family violence for any new trooper and what ongoing training is like.

Karen O’Connor replied that recruit based training is 20 hours, which is outside of minimal facts training, in domestic violence and that troopers receive minimal facts training every year, which amounts to 4 hours yearly.

Cynthia Mahon asked if it would be helpful to add to #22 if a DCF referral was made and how can an attorney general in the child protection department or a DCF worker access these forms.

Commissioner Schriro replied that she is sure there is a way to access the forms, but she doesn’t know what the mechanism so she will report back to the co-chairs with that information.

Jennifer Celentano asked what the protocol that the State Police use when they go to the scene to deal with children, in particular when there is a dual arrest.

Karen O’Connor responded that the state police train to identify a primary aggressor and if possible take the primary aggressor into custody, serve the other party with a misdemeanor summons and a court date and a DCF referral is made. She continued that if both parties are arrested they call DCF immediately, but if there is a family member that the child can go to they make every effort to make that happen.

Garry Lapidus thanked Commissioner Schriro for her remarks and asked if she could share with the task force members one change in her agency in policy or practice that she would suggest to reduce the impact of this problem, what would that be.

Commissioner Schriro replied that her agency is going to be doing strategic planning in the fall but that she doesn’t know what the answer to Garry’s question is yet, but that she is confident that they are going to find it.

Jessica Veilleux asked Commissioner Schriro if a box could be added for “Referral to Hospital or VA Center” regarding mental health issues witnessed by the police officer.

Commissioner Schriro that she is confident that there is opportunity to add more fields.

Jessica Veilleux thanked the Commissioner for her response and said that she doesn’t see anything about verbal threats on the form and indicated that Public Act 12-114 (Summary of PA 12-114) was changed to include the abuse of threatening. She asked where that could be added.

Commissioner Schriro replied that there is threatening.

Jessica Veilleux shared that there are 2 definitions of threatening one is imminent and one is later in the day or throwing an object.

Commissioner Schriro responded that we need to add it with a drop down box with the nature of the threats or provide training that it is added under remarks.

Jessica Veilleux replied, yes, per Public Act 12-114.

Karen O’Connor added power and control wheel lists several types of abuse including economic abuse, emotional abuse and abusing children. She went on to say that the form is for collecting data and the report will contain the specific types of abuse observed, which goes hand in hand with identifying a primary aggressor.

Faith Voswinkel asked if this form is only done if there is an arrest.

Commissioner Schriro responded that the form says “Arrest Yes/No” so it is completed.

Faith Voswinkel asked for clarification that it’s completed for any time there is a call and they are going for family violence.

Jon Fontneau replied yes.

Karen Jarmoc said that Faith raised another question. She asked for clarification that the form is only submitted in terms of how data is being captured when there is an arrest made and if there is not an arrest made, the localized department retains the form.

Jon Fontneau replied that it goes into their records management.

Karen Jarmoc offered that it might be meaningful for everyone to understand what is going on if there is not an arrest.

Jon Fontneau asked for clarification that Karen was asking who would use this if there was not an arrest.

Karen Jarmoc replied, yes.

Commissioner Schriro stated that a record is created; it’s just whether it makes its way to everyone for particular reports. She continued that she thinks having the whole picture is worthwhile.

Karen Jarmoc commented that she agrees with the Commissioner. She went on to say that just because children are present at the scene doesn’t mean that there is a mandated DCF report.

Jason Lange and Lt. Sean Grant did their presentation.

Karen Jarmoc said that it would be helpful to understand, broadly, why is this unique response important and asked if we are talking about additional dollars for training and is EMPS a 45 minute response.

Amy Evison replied that their average response time is 29 minutes.

Karen Jarmoc asked if EMPS is DCF funded and asked how many are in the state.

Mary Painter replied that there are close to 200 employees.

Amy Evison said there are 6 providers and a few subcontractors.

Karen Jarmoc restated that state-wide there are 6 providers maintaining the contract for EMPS.

Mary Painter replied, yes.

Jennifer Celentano asked if the Manchester pilot program and Waterbury were the first 2 pilot programs, what was the cost for the Manchester program in additional funding. She continued that if this was implemented state wide there would be a need to exponentially increase the EMPS responders.

Amy Evison said that at this point they are not seeing a high level of referrals but if it dramatically increased staffing changes would have to be considered and that they are also third party for their services so as they continue to see kids, they can bill third party to supplement staffing.

Jennifer Celentano asked if just Manchester was using this model.

Amy Evison replied that it is just Manchester.

Jennifer Celentano asked if others picked up this model, would they need more funding.

Jason Lange replied that it would depend upon the use. He continued that prior to REACT there was 1 call in 12 months to EMPS and in most police departments it is closer to 0. Jason said the increase is only to 43 in 1 year, which is not going to require any extra resources at that scale.

Mary Painter shared that at the local community level interested police departments and EMPS teams could work on this together without additional funding. She went on to say that with regard to training of EMPS staff, it speaks to her about the need for more cross training and cross disciplines because EMPS is widely available state-wide and is an excellent source for families and kids, but we have a lot of disciplines who don’t understand or know about it. Mary asked Jason what the content is and if there is a module on domestic violence for EMPS.

Jason Lange replied that there is a trauma module that includes some on domestic violence.

Amy Evison added that they have up to 10 or 11 core trainings that EMPS does, they are always looking to make adjustments and that it could be arranged.

Mary Painter stated that the other piece to this is how do we add these different, important training topics without adding burden to the workforce.

Amy Evison said that she brought some data about how much they are experiencing with kids in their general population around violence, and it’s quite significant. She went on to say that the kids they are seeing are either victims of trauma in some way, exposed to violence through their peers and they are exposed to violence in their homes.

Garry Lapidus said that they mentioned the challenge of being on scene with a 911 family violence call and the challenge of making multiple phone calls, he asked if there was a way to stream line this to one call.

Sean Grant replied that one call to handle both issues would be helpful but that he cannot speak to the practicality of doing it, but that one place to go would be more effective for the officers and lead to more success for the program.

Karen Jarmoc indicated that she also liked the idea of one call if there could be some type of model, but that she does not like a call to DCF because victims may hesitate to call law enforcement if they know that DCF will get involved.

Karen O’Connor asked if EMPS is available regardless of whether or not you are participating in the REACT program.

Amy Evison replied yes.

Karen O’Connor asked where the six locations throughout the State of Connecticut are.

Amy Evison replied that you can receive EMPS where ever you live in Connecticut.

Karen O’Connor clarified that she meant as far as they are located state wide.

Amy Evison responded that if you dial 211 you will get the local EMPS provider where ever you live in Connecticut, so it is complete state-wide coverage.

Faith Voswinkel restated that anywhere people are they simply dial 211 if they state that this is an emergency regarding a child they jump to the head of the queue, some information is taken and then they are warm lined right to the provider. She commented that she’s not sure how much more it can be streamlined. Faith then asked what the relationship with the schools is with the REACT program.

Sean Grant responded that they have their SRO supervisor involved in the process they also participate in programs where notifications are made prior to drug raids. He continued that they have satellite DCF workers in their police department which is a benefit to them. Sean indicated that he would like to be able to check a box and be able to send an email to the supervisor of the SRO unit so SROs would be notified the next day if something did happen the night before so the SRO would be able to watch that child the next day or the next day. He continued that he would like to incorporate more of the training they have had with EMPS and DCF so all are on the same page with the same training. Sean brought up that they have had a problem with the call center with small decision making things that they haven’t been able to do.

Karen Jarmoc asked Jason to go back to the slide of agency locations and compared that to what Commissioner Schriro showed the task force in terms of volume of arrests. She noted that it’s the eastern part of the state that has the highest volume, but when you look at the map up now, it is mostly around the centralized corridor and less so in the rural areas.

Nina Livingston said she would like to understand a better how they are collaborating in the field, is it just a call to EMPS and a handoff or whether there is actual collaboration on the scene, specifically around the interview of the child are the police waiting for EMPS to arrive before the child is interviewed in some or all cases, and are you collaborating regarding the need for DCF report.

Sean Grant replied that what they ask for response in the field is that if the scene is safe then the officer may not need to stay but if EMPS is going to be there they stay. He said that the DCF call does not have to be made there if arrangements can be made for the child at that time.

Nina Livingston said that if you have to interview the child as a witness are you waiting for EMPS. She commented that Amy was shaking her head. Nina then asked if EMPS is informing that question about a DCF report or are you two independently deciding whether or not to report, and there may be one report or two.

Sean Grant responded that was part of his comments that if they train together and determine who is going to be doing what.

Jason Lange added that what they are talking about is the gold standard of what he hopes they can work toward and that it is a dramatic shift for law enforcement to think about using EMPS and understand the child’s perspective and the trauma. He said that he supports cross training and encouraging local collaboration because could be done without a lot of resources.

Jon Fontneau congratulated the City of Manchester for having such dedicated people working for their children. He went on to say that at one point Stamford had clinicians riding with police officers so they would be on the scene when the officer was on the scene, but that was discontinued because of lack of funds.

Karen Jarmoc asked Jon if there was anything formalized that he could send the task force about Stamford.

Jon Fontneau replied that he would like to bring up his child guidance center team from Stamford.

Karen Jarmoc commented that they will be worked into an upcoming meeting.

Amy Evison added that they do meet monthly where the adult crisis team and the child crisis folks come together to review where each are at with referrals and discuss what went well, what they can give feedback to the officer about the family and trouble shoot what they can do better.

Karen Jarmoc asked Jennifer Celentano if she would like to address the task force and give a brief outline of her work.

Jennifer Celentano gave brief comments.

Karen Jarmoc asked if it would be helpful if a specific recommendation could be developed and then work it out with Mary for the task force to consider.

Jennifer Celentano responded that would be OK, but she wondered if it would require a change from the Rule Committee because it is a Judicial Branch form.

Karen Jarmoc asked if Jennifer would mind doing the diligence around that. Jennifer Celentano agreed to do the diligence.

Karen Jarmoc asked Jennifer if it was specific to family violence, because that is the task force’s charge.

Jennifer Celentano responded that she doesn’t think you can differentiate between them.

Karen Jarmoc commented that if Jennifer would confer with DCF and Judicial if there is a policy recommendation that the task force can consider and discuss as part of their report. Karen then asked Christine Rapillo if she would like to address the task force.

Christine Rapillo gave her comments.

Karen Jarmoc asked Christine to clarify the GAL training.

Christine Rapillo said that her office is new to the family court/child welfare procedure. She continued that the initial program which is six classes for the family court Guardian ad Litem did include some training on domestic violence and it has been incorporated into some of the trauma work. Christine said that for the Public Defender’s office the training in October is the first specific domestic violence training that is geared toward child protection and the family court people. She went on to say that the six class training is in the process of being revised and that the GAL training hasn’t been offered in two years and that domestic violence will definitely be part of the curriculum.

Karen Jarmoc asked who does the training, what is the curriculum, where do you get the curriculum and who is delivering that training and is it mandated.

Christine Rapillo replied that the specific training is not currently mandated. The Center for Children’s Advocacy, which is affiliated with the University of Connecticut Law School does the pre-service training and there is a section on domestic violence. She went on to say that the Department of Children and Families also offers training.

Karen Jarmoc asked that Christine follow up with the Children’s Law Center to understand what curriculum they are utilizing.

Christine Rapillo commented that with the training being revised that this is the perfect time to talk about it.

Garry Lapidus asked what is being taught now in law schools in this country on this issue.

Christine Rapillo replied that she does not know, but she can find out.

Karen Jarmoc said that the next meeting will be October 6th from 10:00 – 12:00. The meeting was adjourned at 12:02 PM by Co-Chair Karen Jarmoc.

Video of the entire meeting can be accessed on CT-N on demand. 

SEE LINK:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/hs/tfs/20150730_Task%20Force%20to%20Study%20the%20Statewide%20Response%20to%20Minors%20Exposed%20to%20Domestic%20Violence/20150922/Minutes.pdf

THE HARTFORD COURANT REPORTS ON THE WATLEY/HASEMAN CASE WHERE PARENTS WERE FALSELY ACCUSED OF PREDICTIVE NEGLECT AND LOST CUSTODY OF THEIR TWO CHILDREN AT BIRTH!

Josh Kovner of The Hartford Courant reports as follows:

"A Connecticut couple whose children were taken from them at birth after the parents were deemed mentally unsound by child-protection officials have filed a federal appeal, claiming that they were denied rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

It has been a grueling struggle for Joseph Watley, 61, who is staying with his ailing mother in Thomaston, and Karin Hasemann, 47, who lives with her mother and father in Watertown.

They lost the boys — Joe Jr. was born in July 2005, and Danny came along in July 2006 — under the doctrine of "predictive neglect." The Department of Children and Families argued that it was more likely than not that Hasemann and Watley would neglect the children if they remained with their parents. So the state took them away.

"How do you defend against that?" said Watley. He's worked a number of factory and machine-shop jobs and now receives disability payments for a back injury suffered in a car accident..."

READ MORE:

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-children-taken-from-couple-under-predictive-neglect-20151005-story.html

ON OCTOBER 2, 2015, TED TAUPIER, A FAMILY COURT ACTIVIST WAS CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF "THREATENING IN THE FIRST DEGREE." IF MALCOLM X HAD LIVED IN CONNECTICUT IN OUR TIME, WOULD HE ALSO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF THREATENING? SEE THE VIDEO BELOW!

Malcolm X, video one