The following piece was written and submitted more than one year ago by a parent in response to an article written by Connecticut Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, appearing as an Op-Ed in
The Hartford Courant newspaper, March 7, 2014, titled "
Reducing Contentious Family Court Cases Vital." Although the reply below was sent to both
The Hartford Courant and
The Connecticut Law Tribune, neither published the piece (received by us on March 13, 2014). The father had also sent a copy directly to Chief Justice Rogers, but no response was ever received. We post the reply here exactly as received, with permission of the author:
"I
read with interest, sadness, and disbelief the recent Op-Ed penned by our
Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Honorable Chase T. Rogers. While
her article of March 7, 2014, opens by acknowledging the undeniable pain and
difficulty of court cases involving divorce and child custody, it fails to
address in any manner whatsoever the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ – the
financial incentives at all levels which have undermined the system for decades,
enriching many of those working within, at the direct expense of the very
children the court claims they are so focused on protecting.
Rogers
disagrees that the system is totally broken. I agree with her on that point.
The Connecticut Family Court appears to operate precisely the way it has
been designed, structured, and refined through rule changes to work with the
built-in financial incentives leading to somewhat obvious results. Far too many
families are being fleeced of their assets by attorneys who have honed the art
of gaming both their clients and the system. In many cases, the record reflects
that children are being used as pawns to prolong the conflict and increase the
number of hours that can be billed by a veritable army of cappos, many of whom
are members of the Connecticut Bar and hide behind doctrines of immunity or
otherwise rest easy knowing the groups tasked with review of attorney or
judicial grievance filings are staffed with insiders who have a proven track
record of protecting their own.
To be fair, the
problem does not rest with all attorneys and all judges and all
court-appointed professionals, but the body of evidence is overwhelming to
support the assertion that it is certainly more than just a few rogue
individuals. The fact that some family court problems are finally being
addressed at all is NOT because the court decided to act on its own accord, but
because individual parents, desperately seeking answers to their own problems,
managed to assemble and protest – a process that is fundamental to the founding
of our country.
While one of the
most notable problems garnering media attention in the last year is that of the
Guardians Ad Litem (GAL) and their questionable involvement in many family
cases, this is not the only legitimate issue that has been raised. Far too many
litigants have given public testimony citing a range of clear civil rights
violations, questionable use of incarceration by family court judges, denied
access to their children, blatant perjury and/or fraud ignored by the court,
favoritism toward counsel vs. self-represented litigants, and a host of
burdensome financial orders lacking factual or legal basis that have wrongfully
stripped many litigants of retirement savings, children’s college funds, and
homes – to say nothing of their dignity, credit ratings, and reputations within
their respective professions and communities.
In this writer’s
assessment, our Chief Justice would do well to remove her robe, as well as her
legal hat for a moment, and objectively consider what has driven so many parents
to speak out as they have. More importantly, she should consider the far
greater numbers who are afraid to speak out because they have seen and heard
of the retaliation that often follows. If she isn’t willing to acknowledge the
facts, and isn’t willing to consider the messages raised by parents, then
perhaps she’ll at least consider the points raised by those few members of the
Connecticut Bar who have been brave enough to risk their own careers by speaking
out against the dishonesty that they see occurring in court – actions that are
required under the Attorney’s Oath.
Several months ago,
I contacted the Judicial Branch seeking raw data to conduct a statistical
analysis into cases that go to appeal or certification. The very capable
individuals who handled my request could not have been more professional or
courteous in their response, but to my surprise, the data I was requesting had
never been requested before – by anyone – ever. Since I’m first at bat, it
appears I’ll have the privilege of funding the project (nearly $900).
One would think the
Judiciary Committee or our Chief Justice or Chief Court Administrator would want
and need to know things like:
·
What percentage of appeals stem from
family matters?
·
What is the average duration of an
appeal?
·
What trends do the data suggest over
the last decade or two?
·
Which family court judges have the
most appeals filed?
·
Which family court judges have the
most reversals?
·
Are there statistical patterns that
might serve as early detection?
·
What percent of appeals involve
self-represented litigants?
·
and so many other questions . . .
As the Judicial
Branch presses the legislature to approve funding for yet more insiders to
support their pilot program, I’d suggest the legislature respond by requiring
the Branch to be more transparent and accountable for the results of the money
already being spent.
On February 26,
2014, prior to a vote on the re-appointment of family court judge Leslie Olear,
remarks about the family court system by State Senator Kevin Witkos accurately
described the heart of the issue, “We can’t always blame the system saying,
‘Well, they’re working within the system so there’s nothing we can do about
it.’ That’s not true . . . yes, we do have a systemic problem and we’ll deal
with that, but we also have to deal with the person that has the ability to take
action that’s not taking action, and while we say there’s going to be a hearing
in the judiciary committee sometime this legislative session, these people are
going back to court every single day, and their bills are getting larger, and
larger, and larger, and there’s one person in the courtroom that can stop that
from happening, and that’s the judge, but in my opinion, they’re allowing it to
continue.” In a earlier vote on the House floor, State Representative Edwin
Vargas drew correlations between North Korea and Connecticut Family
Court, suggesting practices whereby the divorce “industry” should be under a
Federal Investigation under the RICO Act.
The mission of the
Connecticut Judicial Branch, as reported on its’ web site is, “to serve the
interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a
fair, timely, efficient and open manner.” Further, “The judiciary is the
cornerstone of our democracy and, if the public is confident that our judges,
compensation commissioners, and family support magistrates have integrity, are
impartial, are independent, and act with propriety, the public will support the
judiciary as it functions within our legal system.” (Purpose of the Judicial
Review Council, established 1976).
The significant
increase in public testimony, appeals, and attorney and judicial grievances
should serve as ample evidence that the public has lost confidence in the
mission and performance of the judiciary. To regain that confidence, the public
needs to see real evidence and action that the system is willing to police
itself and make meaningful, swift changes that are truly in the best interests
of our children."
