DAN LYNCH TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE "COURT REPORTERS DOUBLE DIPPING!"

Dan Lynch's Testimony in Opposition to Raised S.B. No. 844

AN ACT CONCERNING LEGAL TRANSCRIPT REQUIREMENTS AND THE FEES CHARGED BY COURT REPORTERS.

This proposed Bill, as currently drafted, purports to amend Chapter 874 of the General Statutes, the Chapter titled “Court Reporters,” and which also by reference is impacted by C.G.S. § 51-12 (Chapter 870, Judicial Department).

• This proposed Bill conflicts with numerous statutes which prevent state employees from conducting private business while on state paid time, using state owned equipment and supplies and from within state facilities
  
  
• For more than a decade, Connecticut taxpayers have been defrauded by the illegal practices being condoned by and within the Connecticut Judicial Branch whereby certain of its employees are being allowed to “double dip,” collecting hourly pay (including benefits and pension) while simultaneously charging additional fees for transcription services rendered for private and public parties during that same time
  
  
• Comprehensive review of the entire Chapter 874 is needed to ensure it comports with legal and ethical requirements, as well as current capabilities of technology
  
  
• For more than a decade, some have sought to profit from loopholes in existing statutes which have not kept pace with the significant advancements in technology, as well as the changes regarding hiring of court personnel vs. per diem contractors
  
  

The Judicial Branch has known, but remained largely silent as to the highly questionable ethical and legal practices concerning state employees:

o conducting private enterprise while on state paid time

o conducting private enterprise from within state facilities (courthouses) 

o conducting private enterprise using state owned equipment and office supplies

QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION:

1. Which members of the Judiciary Committee have raised S.B. No.844?
   
2. What is the specific rationale being used to allow and codify into our statutes an abusive and illegal practice which should be terminated?
   
3. What is the justification for allowing state employees to profit incrementally from the very work product that is already created and owned by the public?
   

Committee on Court Recording Monitors and Court Reporters (November 4, 2010)
•https://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/pst/court_rep/Final_Report.pdf

Whistleblower Complaint (May 21, 2015)
• https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8b75uSVYHH-OGdyd05Dc2ExWWs

Yankee Institute for Public Policy (Marc E. Fitch, March 7, 2018)
• https://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/03/audit-finds-court-reporters-make-extra-1-million-in-side-work-boosting-salaries-and-pensions/

CT-N Coverage of Joint Legislative Committee (State Auditor’s Reports, July 9, 2018)

• http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=15436&jump=0:00:07
  
• Gary P. Krischenski (Principal Auditor), John Rasmus Deputy State Auditor
  
• Elizabeth Graham, Judicial Branch Executive Director for Administrative Services • 

I'M RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!

THE LOW DOWN ON SUBPOENAS FOR A SELF REPRESENTED PARTY IN CT!

If you represent yourself in family court, you will have a difficult challenge ahead of you as I've explained in previous posts.  

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/search?q=self+represented+

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-trials-tribulations-and-heroism-of.html

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/03/for-judges-bullying-self-represented.html

What is your status?

The official position of the CT Judicial Branch in family court is articulated in a handout that they give you when you submit your appearance as a self represented party.  It states as follows:

"A self-represented person must abide by the same rules of procedure and the rules of evidence as lawyers. It is the responsibility of self represented parties to determine what needs to be done and to take the necessary action."

While this seems reasonable on face value, if you dig down deeper, keeping things equal between self represented parties and attorneys is literally impossible.

One reason for this is that the Rules of Procedure in "The CT Practice Book", and the Rules of Evidence are encylopedic and there is no way an average person would be able to wade through them and figure them out on time for a hearing or anything of that kind.

Second, self represented parties do not have the same power and authority that attorneys do when it comes to obtaining documents and ensuring that their witnesses are available for Court hearings and/or trials.  While attorneys have the power to issue subpoenas at will, self represented parties cannot do so.  

In other words, self represented parties do not have subpoena power. Unlike attorneys, if they wish to issue a subpoena, self represented parties must ask a judge for permission, and God help them if the judge doesn't want to give them permission.

What is a subpoena?

According to Findlaw, a subpoena is "a request for the production of documents, or a request to appear in court or other legal proceeding." There are two kinds of subpoenas. One is a subpoena duces tecum (pronounced "doo-seez tee-kum"), which requires you to produce documents, materials, or other tangible evidence. The second is a subpoena ad testificandum (pronounced "ad test- te-fi-kan-dum"), requires you to testify before a court, or other legal authority.

Why is this important?  Because proceedings in family court are testimony driven and evidence driven (through documents, tape recordings, video, etc.).  If you want to prove the correctness of your legal position in family court, you will need both.  Without them, you will lose your case. Period.

This is why the power of subpoena is so vital and why not having that power in a family court proceeding is so damaging to self represented parties and why it puts such parties in a position of considerable weakness in contrast to attorneys.

So how does the Family Court system handle subpoenas with self represented parties?

What it does is require self represented parties to request that a judge sign off on all subpoenas.  So if you want to subpoena either evidence or witnesses, you must file an application with a judge, who will then be required to approve it. I will post the link to the application form you would use below. At the same time as you file an application, you must also fill out the subpoena itself and file it along with your application form.  See below:

Application for Subpoena:

https://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/CL136.pdf

Subpoena:

https://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/CL043.pdf

This seems logical, doesn't it!  Ok, but this is the problem.  Most judges will simply refuse to approve your request for a subpoena.  They just won't.  You'd think you would have the procedural due process right to command the presence of your witnesses and obtain necessary documents to prove your position in Court, but you don't--at least not according to CT Family Court judges.  Lawyers do, not self-represented parties.

In my experience, when it came to obtaining documents from banks and corporations, my Judge declined to sign subpoenas on my behalf but instead ordered my ex to sign authorizations to obtain access to the documents.  So how did my ex sign those authorizations?  Slowly.  Further, as all judges and attorneys know, authorizations do not have the force of law. This means the banks and corporations essentially refused to cooperate, or later cooperated with great reluctance so getting the documents ended up being like pulling teeth, and I still didn't get the entire set.  Plus, I had to pay for the entire expense, not only for the copies of documents for me, but an additional set of copies for my ex.  Go figure.

So this is the paradox.  They tell you that you must act in Court exactly like an attorney, but then they don't give you the same power and authority of an attorney to pursue your case.  Not fair? Well, too bad for you.

Is there any recourse if a judge refuses to grant your application for a subpoena?

My recommendation is that whenever you submit a request for a subpoena that you attach to that request an affidavit indicating why the subpoena is necessary.  In addition to a very clear and concise statement as to the need for that particular witness or documentary evidence, the content of this affidavit would be as follows:

If the subpoena is for an expert witness, then you would include  the following information:  1)  The date when you submitted the required "Notice of Expert Witness" to the Court; 2) Confirmation that you sent the expert witness' report to the opposing party as required by Court Rules and that you have included the witness' name in your trial compliance in advance of trial.  

If you have a fact witness, then you would simply indicate that you have included the witness' name in your trial compliance in advance of trial.  

In regard to documents that you wish to subpoena, include in your affidavit exactly why those documents are important and indicate that you have listed the documents you anticipate receiving via the subpoena in your trial compliance.  So even though you don't have them yet, you list them and put the word (anticipated) in brackets to indicate you expect them to be produced per your due process right.  If you don't know quite what they are exactly, you come up with a reasonably fitting description.  This way your request is on the record in another location.

If it turns out that, despite the fact that you carefully filled out the forms appropriately and you submitted a well written affidavit, the judge still denies your request for a subpoena, as often occurs, you still have the option of requesting a hearing to have your application reconsidered.  See below the form you would need to fill out for such a hearing.

Request For Hearing/Denied Application for Issuance of a Subpoena

https://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/CL137.pdf

Of course, this is ridiculous.  Can you imagine how much time it takes to fill out the forms, be denied, submit an affidavit, resubmit request, be denied, request a hearing, wait for hearing, be denied, etc. etc. etc.  This can continue for weeks, meanwhile the day of trial is looming on the horizon and you have no idea whether you can actually present your case in a competent manner because you are being denied access to witnesses and documentation necessary to do so!

But that's all in a day's work when it comes to how the CT Family Court screws self-represented parties.  I am aware that, since my day, the website for the CT Judicial Branch has been crammed with all sorts of information and advice for self represented parties.  If you didn't know how the system works and you just looked at the website, you'd think life was delightful for self represented parties.  Bottom line, however, is that no matter how they have prettied up the website in a PR campaign, the practice of the law in family court has remained unchanged and self represented parties are just as disadvantaged as ever before.  I hope everyone gets that from this discussion.

Where do you stand if you are able to jump all these hoops?

For one thing, you are completely stressed out because in the weeks prior to trial you just didn't know if you'd have the witnesses or documents you needed to present your case.  You've probably done double or triple the work preparing to argue a case despite not having what you needed.  Then you ended up getting discovery after all.  At the last minute, you might have found new documents with completely new evidence.  You realize that the expert you thought wouldn't come is now going to be there.   So now you have to rewrite your argument again.  That's one scenario.

Another scenario is that the opposing party will simply ignore the subpoena or dispute the subpoena. What the judge is supposed to do is enforce the subpoena, but often he or she just won't do that. The same goes for subpoenas sent to banks or other corporations--they'll ignore them or dispute them, and you won't be able to do anything to force them to comply because the judge will refuse to take action on your behalf.

This is not all the aggravation you are likely to deal with.  For instance, when you get all your witnesses to Court, most likely at considerable expense--most require several thousands of dollars to appear--the Judge will refuse to allow them to provide testimony.  No, the Judge may not be so blatant as to say you can't put your witnesses on the stand!  What the Judge might do is continue the trial to a later date so you would have to go through another round of requesting subpoenas to get them to come back.  Plus, you would have to pay the witnesses additional witness fees. As for any documentary evidence you may wish to submit, unless you have memorized every detail of the Rules of Evidence, good luck getting them accepted by the Court as evidence!  In my case, I had 90% of my exhibits denied admission as evidence.

I hope you see how self-represented parties are completely screwed here.  This is why I consider them so heroic because the odds against them are extraordinary.  This is one observation I have in regard to the subpoena situation for self represented parties.  The other observation I have is how hypocritical the CT Family Court system is to conduct business in this manner.

Divorce in Connecticut: CHURCHES AND ALL THAT LOVE ONE ANOTHER STUFF

Divorce in Connecticut: CHURCHES AND ALL THAT LOVE ONE ANOTHER STUFF: Some of you, like me, have spent quite a bit of time in Church and so you think, well, isn't that where I should be able to get some ...

Divorce in Connecticut: NO, THE CHILDREN ARE NOT ALL RIGHT!

Divorce in Connecticut: NO, THE CHILDREN ARE NOT ALL RIGHT!: My daughter, Marianne, is wonderful, lovely, funny girl and she also has a learning disability known as ADHD for which she takes medica...

GOVERNOR LAMONT'S OPENING DAY ADDRESS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY!

VANNESSA DORANTES HANDPICKED BY FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS TO BE NEW COMMISSIONER OF CT DCF!

THIS SONG IS FOR MOTHERS WITHOUT THEIR CHILDREN THIS XMAS 2018! WE STAND BY YOU THIS YEAR AND EVERY YEAR!

NEW STUDY INDICATES THAT THE USE OF PARENTAL ALIENATION THEORY RENDERS ABUSE INVISIBLE IN FAMILY COURT!

"This Article provides a brief literature survey, focusing on the theory of “parental alienation” which operates as a primary vehicle for making abuse invisible in custody litigation. This Article reports on the co-authors’ pilot study, which begins empirically mapping family courts’ uses of this theory. These pilot results provide preliminary empirical support for the critiques from the field." 

For more information on this issue, continue reading the article at the link below:

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1576&context=lawineq

THE HATE FATHERS GIVE!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

I have spent a considerable time now in the family court reform movement here in the State of CT and around the country.  What I find notable in the movement is the considerable divide between how father's behave and how mother's behave.  

Overall, mothers are generally challenging but open to discussion.  They are even kind and sympathetic to fathers, many of whom will engage with mothers and tell them their stories about how they've been oppressed.  

In contrast, fathers will be all sympathetic and sweet to mothers who agree to their father supremacist agenda.  However, should Moms not agree with them, fathers are very aggressive towards mothers and try to denigrate their stories of oppression, and deny the existence of abuse.  

Father's rights people require that you agree to their agenda, or else they become extremely hate filled and abusive.  

As an example of this, I thought I would share on this blog the kind of hate filled comments that father's rights people have directed towards me on Facebook.  

Now, I should acknowledge that I am a pretty straightforward individual.  There are many times when I've posted outright statements on my Facebook page that other people do not agree with. Most people enjoy challenging me on my opinions and exchanging views with me, and I usually enjoy that experience and learn a lot from doing so.  This is not true of father's rights people.  As you will see from the screen shots of the hate filled messages I've received, the level of malignant hatred among fathers rights towards Moms like me who don't immediately agree with them is extraordinary.  

See below:

Here are some comments father's rights people made suggesting that I kill myself.

Aside from the many texts sent to me suggesting I kill myself, there were a deluge of comments using the word "cunt" and "bitch" both public and private, and using quite violent imagery.  I would say I received well over a hundred of these remarks and I really couldn't keep up with the private messages I received so I just ignored them.  This kind of hate filled rhetoric is standard online towards advocates like me who are trying to speak up for Moms. 

Keep in mind as you read these comments that these are the fathers who are given preference in family court simply by virtue of being fathers.  These are the kinds of men who have been able to seize custody from good Moms using hate filled, psychopathic methods of legal assault with the collusion of an only too willing family court system. Now, I would not say that all Dads are like this--absolutely not. Many fathers are good fathers who work to benefit their children post divorce.Unfortunately, the father's rights movement has bred a level of malignant hatred towards mothers in their advocates which has garnered them the designation of being a hate movement.  

See additional comments below:

Again, as I said, these comments go on and on.  I received dozens of these remarks simply because I tried to open a dialogue to discuss some of the more challenging aspects of child custody. I am posting these examples because it is important not to delude yourself when it comes to advocacy for family court reform when it comes to men. The hate that fathers feel, their fury that women are asking for their rights, their indignation that women will no longer accept being punching bags either verbally or physically appears to be boundless.  Be warned.  

While father's rights folks talk equality, the reality is that the last thing on earth they want is equality. The legislation they push, their agendas, the outcomes of their strategies show very concrete evidence of this fact.

THE LATE DR. KARIN HUFFER SPEAKS ABOUT HER THEORY OF LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME!

DR. KARIN HUFFER, TRUSTED ADVOCATE FOR FAMILY COURT VICTIMS, HAS DIED!

Dr. Karin Huffer passed away peacefully at her home in Colorado surrounded by family and loved ones on October 24, 2018. Born October 18, 1941 in Pocatello, Idaho to the late Adolph and Jane Pearson and raised in Shoshone County between the towns of Wallace and Mullan. 

She received her bachelors in Psychology from the University of Idaho, her masters in Psychology from the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and her Doctorate of Counseling and Forensic Psychology from Kings University. Dr. Huffer was most proud of her advocacy work which drew upon her forty years of experience as a counselor in Clark County, Nevada behavioral schools along with her private practice which focused on the recognition of post trauma stress and the use of ADAAA accommodations as a means of intervention. 

Karin was the beloved wife of the late James ("JD") Huffer. She was preceded in death by her grandmother, Karin Ingeborg Johnson; grandfather, Peter Adolph Pearson; and dearly beloved dog, Hudson. Karin is survived by her sons, Jason Huffer and Jordan Huffer; and dear friends, Billi Gremain, Jorge Medina, and Meryl Lanson. 

Those who wish may donate in Karin's name to Equal Access Advocates Scholarship Fund. The memorial service will be held at the South Florida National Cemetery at a time to be announced followed by a celebration of life for all who wish to join.

LIST OF JUDGES UNDER REVIEW FOR REAPPOINTMENT! SOME MAJOR NAMES HERE!

NOTICE OF EVALUATION OF 

INCUMBENT JUDGES WHO SEEK REAPPOINTMENT

The terms of the following Judges of the State of Connecticut will expire during the year 2020 and the nominations by the Governor will come before the Judicial Selection Commission for review commencing in February 2019.

There are 14 judges with terms expiring in 2020:

 

         SUPERIOR COURT

                                                 

                                      Hon. John F. Blawie

Hon. Patrick L. Carroll, III

Hon. Anna M. Ficeto

Hon. Donna Nelson Heller

Hon. Frank A. Iannotti

Hon. Maureen M. Murphy

Hon. Sybil V. Richards

Hon. Dan Shaban

Hon. Kenneth L. Shluger

Hon. Hillary B. Strackbein

Hon. Mark H. Taylor

Hon. Theodore R. Tyma

Hon. Elpedio N. Vitale

SENIOR JUDGE

Hon. Jorge A. Simón

Comments regarding the reappointment of any of the Judges on the Reappointment List for 2020 may be submitted to the Judicial Selection Commission, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, CT 06106 on or before January 31, 2019.  Reappointment interviews of the listed Judges will commence in February 2019 and continue through June 2019.  Accordingly, comments received after January 31, 2019 will be considered if received prior to a Judge's reappointment interview.  Anonymous submissions will be considered but afforded less weight than signed submissions.  

                                        Robert S. Bello,

                                        Chairperson

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

FULL VERSION OF OP-ED BY MARY LEE A. KIEMAN PRESIDENT AND CEO OF YWCA GREENWICH FROM STAMFORD ADVOCATE!

Mary Lee A. Kieman, YMCA

"Domestic violence is a crime that affects people of all races, genders, religions and income levels. It is also a crime that often doesn’t end when the victim leaves the abuser. Taking the step to leave an abuser is monumental for a victim, and leaving is when violence is likely to escalate. The reasons for staying are complicated, which is why it often takes many tries before a victim can leave.

A cruel turn of events often happens after the victim leaves the has had the courage to leaves the abuser: Abusers often continue to assert power over victims by using civil and criminal court systems to their advantage through threats, intimidation, and using legal maneuvers to maintain control. Legal abuse happens whenever an abuser misuses the legal system to re-victimize his or her partner.

Victims quickly discover the complexities and challenges of the legal system. While the system is set up to be impartial, receiving the best representation is often based on the ability to pay for a lawyer. Since abusers often control the family finances, they are often able to obtain experienced legal representation, while the victim is self-represented or less well-represented by legal counsel.

In addition, the abuser continues to assert power and control over the victim by manipulating the court system in their favor using tactics like:

Refusing to agree to reasonable custody agreements or dragging out court battles. Abusers can suddenly show interest in parenting when they had not been involved with the children in the past.

Abusing the right to file motions to keep the victim tied up in court and exhaust the victim’s financial resources with legal fees.

Applying for restraining orders without the threat of violence from the victim.

Refusing to comply with court orders, forcing victims to spend time and money enforcing the orders.

Portraying the victim as an unfit parent and/or making false reports to Department of Children and Families (DCF).

Claiming the victim abuses drugs or alcohol and using this claim against the victim.

“Shopping around” for attorneys, thereby creating a conflict of interest for attorneys and preventing these attorneys from representing the victim.

Requesting continuances to prolong proceedings and/or not showing up to court for scheduled appearances, when the victim has had to arrange child care, call out of work, or pay her attorney.

Not only are these tactics costly, but they also cause additional emotional stress for the victim. In fact, according to Dr. Karin P. Huffer, a marriage and family therapist, the consequence of being abused through the legal system can cause a condition known as Legal Abuse Syndrome, a form of post traumatic stress disorder caused by the continued abuse of power, betrayal, or fraud within the legal system.

What can we do to address legal abuse?

First, we need to continue to raise awareness that abuse of the legal system is a powerful form of domestic abuse that enables an abuser to retain power and control over the victim.

Second, better education and training about how abusers use the legal system to continue to victimize their partners must be provided to judges, lawyers, court advocates, police officers and other professionals who treat victims of domestic violence.

Third, victims of domestic abuse also need advice and counsel on how to determine the best representation for themselves, including interviewing multiple lawyers, finding a lawyer who has experience in litigating domestic violence cases, and finding a lawyer who will take the time to deeply understand the full history of the victim’s abuse, so they can best represent the victim’s interests.

Earlier this year, YWCA Greenwich announced the opening of the YWCA Greenwich Civil Legal Clinic. The clinic, run by two YWCA volunteers who are attorneys, is providing consultations for YWCA Greenwich domestic abuse clients who need help filling out legal paperwork; help with court documents; assistance creating financial affidavits; advice on motions that they need to file; and educational consultation advice on what to look for in a lawyer.

Abuse of the legal system is another “hoop” that victims of domestic abuse often go through to be free of the abuser. Join YWCA Greenwich in raising awareness about this powerful form of abuse and supporting victims of domestic abuse in our community. To provide financial support for the Civil Legal Clinic and the work of YWCA Greenwich Domestic Abuse Services, donate to the Purple Purse Challenge at www.ywcagreenwich.org/purplepurse. All of all funds raised this month will go to support the work of YWCA Greenwich Domestic Abuse Services.

If you, or someone you know, is in an abusive situation, contact YWCA Greenwich Domestic Abuse Services at 203-622-0003. All services are free and confidential. You don’t have to fight abuse alone."

Mary Lee A. Kiernan is president and CEO of YWCA Greenwich.

WHY I AGREED TO CO-PARENT WITH MY PSYCHOPATHIC EX!

I have to say that as a mother I didn’t trust my ex to care for my children properly. (Ok, Ok, OUR children!)  I had that instinct right from the beginning.  I think it came from the fact that my ex was a bit of a mixed bag; in many things my ex was quite competent, but in others he was grossly foolish, if not dangerous to the kids at times.  This might be all right in the conduct of a business, but in the care and upbringing of children, I felt his behavior totally unacceptable.  Given this situation, it must seem amazing to anyone that I agreed to co-parent with my ex once we divorced.

ANDY THIBAULT RECENTLY APPOINTED A POSITION ON THE JUDICIAL-MEDIA COMMITTEE!

Andy Thibault

Andy Thibault, a highly regarded freelance writer, teacher, investigator, and author, has recently been appointed as a member of the CT Judicial Branch's Judicial-Media Committee. As such, Mr. Thibault joins the esteemed company, not only of judges and attorneys, but also of colleagues such as Lauren Sellew of the Meriden Record-Journal, Alaine Griffin of The Hartford Courant, Lucy Nalpathanchil of WNPR, Eric Parker of WFSB, Channel 3, Chris Powell of the Journal Inquirer, and Thomas Scheffey of the CT Law Tribune Editorial Board.  

If you are interested in more of the details of this membership, please see the link below:  

https://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/media/

Andy Thibault attended Boston University and has been in the field of journalism for approximately 30 years.  He has done a considerable amount of work in the area of the court system.  In fact, he probably could teach the members of the Committee a thing or two himself, even the judges and attorneys.  For instance, Mr. Thibault worked as a columnist for the "CT Law Tribune" for six years between June 2000 and May 2006.  

He is also the founder of the website "Cool Justice" where, for many years, he has challenged audiences regarding matters related to the law and how justice is or is not served.  See the link: 

www.cooljustice.blogspot.com

In that regard, he is the author of two books:  "Law and Justice in Everyday Life: Featuring the Cool Justice Columns of Law Tribune Newspapers" (2002). This book included an introduction by Howard Zinn and a foreword by F. Lee Bailey; "More Cool Justice" (2014).   

Andy Thibault has always fought for the underdog in his work and has been a major voice for justice in the State of Connecticut.  His Goodreads biography mentions that the novelist Chandra Prasad called him "Connecticut's premiere journalistic warrior." Wally Lamb, according to this bio, states that "Thibault is a junkyard dog for justice who bares his teeth at pomposity and institutional unfairness and only bites the truly deserving."  

Some of Andy Thibault's most outstanding work in this regard was his effective championship of Bonnie Jean Foreshaw, a victim of domestic violence who was wrongly convicted of premeditated murder. Subsequently, she was sentenced to a lengthy sentence of 45 years which was unprecedented in the history of CT jurisprudence. In 1994, the story of Bonnie Foreshaw was featured by Yale University student, Ondi Timoner, in a film entitled "Nature of the Beast." Mr. Thibault also partnered with CT author Wally Lamb in working hard for Ms. Foreshaw's release. Wally Lamb worked with Ms. Foreshaw and eventually included stories of her life in his two books of stories by prison inmates. Bonnie Foreshaw was eventually released in 2013, after serving 27 years of her sentence.  

Another of Andy Thibault's achievements was the central role he played in reporting on the Woody Allen case here in CT.   In this case, the celebrity filmmaker Woody Allen was accused of molesting his daughter Dylan Farrow.  Andy Thibault wrote a pivotal article on that case which appeared in the April 1997 issue of "Connecticut Magazine".  This article has played a central role in clarifying the pressures that were placed on then prosecutor Frank Maco to put aside Dylan Farrow's accusations. In the years since the article came out, Mr. Thibault's work has played a central role in assuring that the truth gets told about that case despite subsequent pressure to misrepresent and distort the events that took place.  

In 2014, family court victims were extremely grateful when Andy Thibault played a central role in publishing an article in "The Register Citizen" which clearly and accurately informed the public of the many concerns they had about corrupt legal practices in family court. He was fearless in naming the legislators who sought to rig the family court task force as a means of silencing victims. He was also very clear about the unethical practices of the Association of family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) which had spread its tentacles through the CT Family Court System.  

Of course, upon hearing about Andy Thibault's appointment to the Judicial-Media Committee, several family court advocates have expressed concern that he could be made a tool of the Judicial System.  However, upon inquiry, Andy Thibault has expressed the view that he will be able to assess issues fairly and impartially, despite the fact that he is on the Committee. He does not anticipate that his membership will in any way undermine his ethical integrity.  

As a point of interest, Andy Thibault has recently been hired as the City Editor of the "Republican-American" in Waterbury, CT, a position that should start for him on October 24, 2018.  We certainly wish him luck in this new enterprise.  

For more information on the concerns family court victims have expressed about the Judicial-Media Committee, see the link below:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/08/ct-media-betrayal-of-public-through.html

WE BELIEVE HER!

THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT'S WAR AGAINST WOMEN IN FAMILY COURT!

In recent decades, claiming that fathers are endangered, and claiming to defend family values as embodied in The Natural Family, the religious right have attacked and sought to reverse the civil rights gains of the feminist movement of the 1970s. These groups blame feminism for the rising divorce rate, the plethora of single family households, and many social ills such as crime, poverty, mental illness and homelessness.  In doing so, they deny the existence of racism and the role of economic injustice.  

The Conservative right have waged a crafty, well financed, and highly organized war against women throughout America using Family Court as a backdrop.  This war has been documented partially in the book "Backlash" by Susan Fahludi published in 1991.  

The primary method Conservative politicians and the Evangelical right have used to attack women is by creating a false narrative of father absence, claiming that it has led to many social ills which require remedial action on behalf of men.  This is a complete lie.

For an example of their ideology, just look at the May 11, 2010 Multi-Agency Memorandum of Agreement for the State of Connecticut.  In the preamble, this document lists a broad range of areas in which the authors claim that fatherlessness has caused the breakdown of American society.  Has any of this been proven? No. These claims are based upon a body flawed, misleading, if not outright fake research which was created by right wing think tanks.  This is the right wing's tried and true approach to manipulating the public dialogue with fake research.  For an example of how this was done in an attempt to deny homosexual couples the right to parent, see The Regulus Study, funded by and conducted by the religious right wing. 

While there may be a correllation between fatherlessness and social problems, this is far from showing evidence of cause and effect. What we do know is that the primary factor in outcomes for young people is financial stability, not fatherlessness.  Nonetheless, the State of Connecticut has used these detailed and unproven conclusions regarding father absence to justify treating fathers preferentially when providing services, despite Connecticut statutes that clearly prohibit gender discrimination. 

This is how easily such ideas have penetrated into the mainstream.  

Added to this, Conservatives have decried the demise of the patriarchal ideal of The Natural Family. In a 2016 article entitled, "The Family Courts Are Killing Our Children", right wing politician, Dr. Mario Jimenez, stated that the loss of The Natural Family is also responsible for the high rate of both homicide and suicide in American society.  What they really want to do is restrict divorce and trap women in abusive marriages.

So what is this "Natural Family" that he is referring to?  According to Allan Carlson and Paul Mero, authors of the book "The Natural Family" (2005), the term properly refers to "the natural arrangement of husband and wife, plus their offspring, as the most identifiable and important family unit for protection, nurture, and social stability." By natural arrangement, what they mean is the father is the head of the family and has sole authority. Within The Natural Family "the conjugal bond built on fidelity, mutual duty, and respect allow [their members] to fulfill their potential as human beings."  In short, "The Natural Family is the first and fundamental unit of human society."  Most of all, it is biblical and, according to right wing evangelicals, God has endorsed it, and therefore government should insist upon it for the welfare of all.

According to Christian theorist, Michael Brendan Dougherty, The Natural Family stands opposed to The Contractual Family, which Conservatives state has improperly replaced The Natural Family in modern society. Dougherty states that The Contractual Family occurs when marital and parental relationships are determined as a matter of choice, and not biology.  For instance, it can include same sex parents, grandparents with their grandchildren, extended family, as well as unrelated persons who consider themselves family.  Conservatives and the Evangelical right condemn The Contractual Family and consider The Natural Family essential to liberty, freedom, as well as mental, physical, and economic health of American citizens.  This is what they mean when they talk about family values.  

In an attempt to restore The Natural Family, to restore fathers to their positions as heads of households, and to restore the patriarchy to its status of privilege, Conservatives have pushed an agenda to support fathers within Family Court so that they have greater access to their children, frequently replacing and eliminating Mothers.  Sure, go ahead and assert your civil rights if you wish, Conservatives appear to be saying.  Fight back against domestic violence, and leave marriages with abusers, but if you do so, you will risk the possibility that you will lose all access to your children and end up penniless and homeless.  This phenomenon was carefully documented and exposed in Phylis Chesler's book, "Mothers on Trial:  The Battle For Children and Custody" (1986) and the situation has only continued on to get worse.

It would be foolish to underestimate the extent of the misogyny behind the Christian right's movement to restore The Natural Family. Essentially, the religious right wants an end to birth control, and an increase in large families with accompanying homeschooling. They look back fondly on pre-industrial society and look forward to restoring a kind of agrarian idyll centered around large families.  In the words of one writer, The Natural Family flourishes best in "the small home economy which should act as the vital center of daily economy." The very idea of The Natural Family is closely allied with the quiverful movement to which the Duggar Family belong, which is famous for being in TLC's reality show "Nineteen and Counting." If these religious conservatives had their way, women would end up being walking baby factories just like Michelle Duggar.  

Central to the success of this vision of family life is the idea that women should stop earning a living outside the home and go back to being housewives, leaving their men to support the family.  The movement opposes equal pay for equal work, and they oppose the market wage, i.e. a wage determined by the market, and support giving men a living wage, i.e. sufficient salary which a man can use to support a wife, and one presumes his very large brood of children.  One such article entitled, "The Death of Our Family Wage Culture" by Dusty Gates quotes both Pope Pius and Pope John Paul II as stating that pushing mothers to leave their household duties in order to engage in work outside the home is a form of abuse.  

Who are the enemies of this brave new, or rather old, view of the world, or this reenvisioning of the patriarchy for the modern world?  The Gay Rights Movement, The Pro-Choice Movement, Advocates for Contraception, Advocates for Sex Education, Children's Rights Advocates, Industrialism, No-fault divorce,  Sexual Liberation, Secularists, Intellectuals and Scholars, i.e. anyone with brains, Liberals, and most particularly relevant in connection to this blog, Feminists. 

If you think the Conservatives and the Religious Right who are pursuing this movement are a small, powerless minority, who couldn't possibly seize the reins of power and impose this sexist vision on American Society, don't kid yourselves.  Who is it that is behind the millions and millions of dollars that goes into The Fatherhood Iniatiative which is present in every state of the Union right now? Who is it that is behind all the millions and millions of dollars that goes into the Marriage and Responsible Parenthood programs? What about the billions that goes into these faith based initiatives?

In fact, in her four part series on homophobia in Russia, Amanda Blue Keating of "Right Wing Watch" reports that in 2013, through the World Congress of Families, these Christian Evangelical right groups developed a major political network throughout Russia and were directly involved, along with France, in passing anti LGBT legislation that, among other things, criminalized advocacy for LGBT equality. Apparently, the Christian right views Russia as the last bastion of defense in preserving the rights of the family

All of this is the brain child of the religious right, and all of the money and effort involved is poured into programs whose fundamental intention is to destroy Women's Liberation which they consider inimical to Christianity and Western Civilization.  How are they going to destroy Women's Liberation? By seizing control of children and making it clear that if women don't learn their place, they will never see them again.  

Still, the plot goes deeper.  According to Amanda Blue, when the Russian, Konstantin Malofeev spoke at the 2012 World Congress of Families, he held out Russia as the model for the world saying, "Now Christian Russia can help liberate the West from the new liberal anti-Christian, totalitarianism of political correctness, gender ideology, mass-media censorship and neo-Marxist dogma."  Is it surprising, then, that they showed up in the 2016 elections to put Donald Trump in power to promote just that agenda! 

While I was pursing this project, I wrote down the names of the organizations that make up this Conservative, Religious movement, and I will list them below. The majority of them are members of the World Congress of Families. It is by no means a complete list, but it gives you a sense of how extensive it is.

Alliance Defense Fund

Americans United For Life

Alliance Defending Freedom

American Family Association

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

American United For Life

Bradley Foundation

Catholic family and Human Rights Institute

Concerned Women For America

Focus on the Family

Family Research Council

International Organization For the Family

National Organization For Marriage

The Heritage Foundation

The Howard Center For Family Religion, and Society

The Rockland Institute

The Ruth Institute

The Sutherland Institute

The Witherspoon Institute

United Families International

World Congress of Families