Shared parenting, whether a good idea or not, would cost family law attorneys and their assignees – GALs, therapists, custody evaluators, visitation supervisors and their ilk – a lot of money.
On the other hand, if a real estate lawyer was elected to the part time position of representative to CT house, what better way to help his people – attorneys and real estate brokers – than to make it a darn sight easier to force people to sell their homes when they run out of ready cash to pay family law attorneys? Bizarre, you say?
He Don’t Serve You. He Don’t Serve Me. He Serves the Man Behind the Tree.
Here is an email thread from two insiders. It provides a whiff of the political odor, which occasionally wafts from behind closed doors in the merged CT judiciary and legislative branches.
The email thread
For shared parenting to come to CT, a big political obstacle would have to be overcome.
Last time I looked, CT Superior Court Judge Bozzuto does not want it, so the Republicans who protect her won’t go for it unless there is a huge incentive for them.
As for the Democrats, they appear to be the main protectors of the crooks who control the family courts (why would a Republican lawyer complain about the Family Court lawyer clique if the Democrats didn’t control it), so they won’t be looking for shared parenting either.
The 25 legislators who signed the Shared Parenting letter are not lawyers or Family Court insiders, so they can sign the letter without fear of reprisals. Unless something has changed, which I doubt, I don’t believe there is sufficient political incentive in the CT General Assembly for shared parenting regardless of the online chatter, so it’s just background noise and not pertinent to the argument here in CT.
If you want to spend your time productively, pay attention to the sleazy self interests in the judiciary committee.
Jason Douchette, a Democrat, who represents Manchester and Glastonbury in the Connecticut House of Representatives [District 13], is also a real estate lawyer. Doucette appears to have shown his true colors this past legislative session. He put forth an ugly bill with illegal language that will make it easier to take homes from people in family court proceedings.
Fortunately, Martin R. Libbin. Deputy Director, Legal Services, for CT Judicial Branch, brought to the attention of the judiciary committee some questionable legality issues with Douchette’s proposed bill, and the Judiciary Committee cleaned it up.
However, the bill still makes it very easy to take homes from people in family court. I fear that in a few years, more people will lose their homes in family court than before, because it will be easier to do so.
As a real estate lawyer, I can only imagine how much money Doucettte will make off this bill when it becomes law.
M’s comments are dead on and the unfortunate reality in this state.
I remain amazed that no one cared about former judge Jane Emons sailing out of the Judicial Committee by a 30-3 vote. Or what happened during the judicial nomination of Andrew McDonald – which exposed how the Democrats and Republican Judicial Committee members were playing the game of “we’ll support your horribly unqualified and connected candidate if you support ours.”
Your comments about Doucette are interesting, and I would love to bring this to the attention of the weekly newspaper, The Glastonbury Citizen.
I met with Douchette and CT Assemblymember Jill Barry, who represents Glastonberry shortly after he was elected. Douchette looked like a deer in the headlights when I explained how lights were being shined onto all the dysfunction and corruption.
Like former State Senator Steve Cassano, Douchette hid from me when he saw me at the legislative office building.
In a recent situation, a judge suggested bankruptcy as a way to allow a father to ‘keep’ the house.
Apparently federal law changed, and the Homestead provision of new bankruptcy laws makes it much more difficult to take a home if you file for bankruptcy.
If Doucette’s bill makes it easier for family law attorneys to take their clients’ homes in ‘family’ court, it may have the domino effect of increasing bankruptcies to protect them. Which will impact banks doing business in our state.
I remain convinced that the only way we will see change in this state is a federal lawsuit citing violations of fundamental rights and federal law filed by five men and five women.
And bringing to the attention of non-attorney members of the legislature what all this crap is costing our state and it’s taxpayers. One such rep agreed that JUD was a waste of time (apart for people like State Senator Gary Winfield), and the way to get the Judiciary’s attention is through appropriations and cutting their funding.
The last time they did this, the Judiciary cut marshals and administrative staff instead of judges – pissing off the unions. It was to the point that some marshals who got laid off threatened to tell all if they could testify anonymously.
We also now have Frank Report and a notable investigative news organization filing FOIA requests against the judiciary looking for data.
piece of shit trash… all of them. “There are two kinds of evil people in this world. Those who do evil things and those who see evil things and don’t try to stop or do anything about it.”
Why do we continue to elect the same people into office? Because the press in Connecticut is not allowed to publish the truth. Stop financial insensitive to direct the information put out to the general public. Stop the political officials making it a crime to speak out. Freedom of speech. There are already stalking and harassment laws. Elected officials are seeking to run agendas under the cover of darkness. The family courts are trying to jump on the band wagon.
Why is the press in Connecticut not allowed to publish the truth?
There’s actually a committee that represents the ct judicial system that dictates to the media editorial staff what they can cover
There are many that know about this, but few are willing to speak up about it
Follow the money trail
The members of the Judiciary committee need to be under heavy oversight. They are very aware of the situation in Connecticut. They are acting in the best interest of the state financially. Using platforms for funding. Not considering the residents of the state. They are ignoring the harm the judicial system has caused. Are constantly labeling people discruntaled, crazy when ever you mention possible curruption. Ducking for cover. It’s about the funding not the people. Their own personal agenda. This is a prime example of the state government greed and harmful conduct to it’s own residents.
The Connecticut judiciary committee feeds the family court with statutory authority to rape childhood, plunder family savings, based on chosen ideology of societal destruction. Half the 42 members are lecherous lawyers, preying on innocents to fund their BMW’s and beach houses while kicking back to the miscreants in black robes.
What’s wrong with Jason trying to make it more legal for honest layers to get paid.
They went a divorce and they want to fight for custody. So what’s wrong with attorneys getting paid instead of stiffed.
If you can’t get them to pay then they have to sell the house. They ain’t gonna need it no more anyway.
Meagan you need a suppository.
The current average cost of a clinical psychologist in Connecticut is $250 an hour. Insurance requires documentation to support services. For rebursment. Why are these court appointed therapist allowed to charge more than double that at times? Forced by the court. Why are they not required to provide documentation to the litigants. Why are people not being allowed a second opinion? Racking up significant billing. If the insurance company will not pay for reunification therapy. Why should litigants be forced to? Why are people having not being allowed to use services covered by insurance?
‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’
Thank for exposing the currupt political agenda in Connecticut. These representative are one of the main driving forces keeping our currupt system going!!!!! Greedy CT
You want to cut off the head of the snake? Stop promoting shared custody bills and focus instead on promoting “birds nest custody” legislation. Common sense dictates that It cannot be argued against in terms of the child’s best interests standards. Additionally, it protects the fundamental rights of the parents. Preserves the marital asset, and is fully funded by the parents who otherwise would be sending the monies to crooked lawyers, therapists and now apparently real estate brokers. An added benefit born from this logical solution is that maybe adults will actually have to give some due consideration to their children and whether the divorce of convenience is even appropriate. No more “high conflict” divorces, no Alienation of the children and no political monetization of children and families.
Ignore the slimy overlords. “Pro Choice” means you are free.
Chose well and choose wisely. Here are two choices for those blessed to have enough money to sustain two homes.
1. Buy/rent a second house/apartment for “birds nest custody” and preserve your assets for your family.
2. Give the money that would have gone to your family to five slimy family court vendors.
Two choices for those without enough money to buy two homes:
1. Make proper arrangements so your children can be healthy and happy.
2. Make proper arrangements so your children can be healthy and happy.
A “bird’s nest” co-parenting arrangement is one that is uniquely child-centered. Rather than the children having to adapt to the parents’ needs and living in two separate dwellings, they remain in the family home and the parents take turns moving in and out, like birds alighting and departing the “nest.” During the time parents are not at home with the kids, they live in a separate dwelling, which can either be on their own or rotated with the other parent.
It is a novel yet sensible arrangement, as children experience significantly less disruption in their lives and routines than they would having to shuttle and adapt to completely new living arrangements. It can be either a semi-permanent or temporary arrangement, to allow children a smoother transition to life as a divorced family.
Clearly, bird nesting will work for some but not all parents. A bird’s nest arrangement will only work if parents live in close proximity, or are able to be in the family home when it is their turn for parenting the kids. It works best when parents are co-parenting, as opposed to one parent being a full-time caregiver with the other a “visiting” parent.
The expense involved is another factor, depending on whether parents arrange for one or two residences away from the family home. If the former, bird-nesting need not be any more expensive than parents living in two separate households. It may even be less expensive than maintaining two homes for the children, as the external residence may be much more modest if the children are not residing there; a one-bedroom apartment or studio is likely to provide more than enough space. In addition, parents do not have to purchase two sets of toys and clothing for the children as they may decide to do if children are rotating between two households.
If parents opt to maintain two different residences apart from the family home, they have to factor in the additional expense; the cost of maintaining three residences will be prohibitive for many. Finally, bird nesting while sharing one residence in addition to the family home is extremely challenging when new partners appear on the scene. In particular, privacy may become a serious issue of concern for one or both parents, since the other parent’s ongoing presence is obvious and unavoidable.
Bird nesting works best when parents are able to separate their co-parenting responsibilities from their previous marital conflicts and remain amicable and cooperative as they confer about continuing household arrangements and the children’s needs. Both need to be prepared to maintain a certain level of consistency of purpose, discipline, and child-raising techniques to make it work well; this means being able to communicate clearly and peacefully rather than taking each discussion as an opportunity to argue.
Household and house maintenance arrangements, and ground rules, must be absolutely clear, and each parent must closely stick to the agreed-upon arrangements; over time, as they settle into the new lifestyle, more flexible arrangements are possible. A clearly drafted co-parenting plan or negotiated schedule at the outset is essential. Ongoing mutual respect is vital; and although it is reasonable to assume that there will be arguments or disagreements about various aspects of the arrangement, it is critical that children are shielded from ongoing conflict.
Often, this form of co-parenting will end when the youngest child reaches the age of majority, at which time one parent may either buy the other out of their interest in the family home, or it is sold and the proceeds divided pursuant to the matrimonial property regime or separation agreement.
A bird’s nest arrangement is about ensuring that children’s lives are minimally disrupted, while the adults, who are theoretically more able to cope with the disruption, bear the brunt of the changes. Children are reassured to know that even though their parents are divorcing, they will be able keep the routine, continuity, and permanency to which they are accustomed. They remain in the family home, their school and neighborhood friendships can continue uninterrupted, and, of course, they are able to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, which is crucial to their ongoing well-being.
article continues after advertisement
Parents who opt for this type of living arrangement are to be commended, as they are clearly placing their children’s needs and their responsibilities to those needs above their own interests. And the level of discomfort they are likely to experience may be significant, especially in light of their desire to have complete independence from their former spouse. Yet as more parents recognize that bird nesting is the best arrangement for their children, the number of bird nesters is steadily rising.
As with all co-parenting arrangements, it is vital that social institutions—such as the courts and legal system, school systems, and social welfare institutions—actively support co-parents in bird nesting arrangements. This is of paramount importance if parents are going to achieve success to the benefit of their children.
Please work on California next. I think the decades of corruption and abuse of the court have a pretty good amount of guilt when it comes to creating the dystopian landscape our cities have become. We pay outrageous taxes and fees that make no sense, and then get ripped off in family court and probate court by attorneys who act as judges for “free”. The law is only there to provide sanctions or be perverted and misrepresented to “justify” their criminal behavior. It is every day in Sacramento. James Mize is a real problem for California families.
California … Connecticut … Minnesota… and all the states and nations that followed the plan.
Absolutely. The problem being is in Connecticut. Should be ended there first. Setting an example. Cut off the head of the snake.
“… AFCC is an Illinois corporation founded in 1975 …”
“We also now have Frank Report and a notable investigative news organization filing FOIA requests against the judiciary looking for data.”
May God bless and protect you, Frank. Thank you for your good and great work. 💐