Divorce in Connecticut

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 071559 SINGING KUMBAYA, AND THE BOUNDS OF ADVOCACY (5)

2012-05-26T16:41:00.001-07:00

Continued from part 4

Remember how we used to act during the old demonstrations of the 60s and 70s? We'd wave the posters, chant "The people, united, will never be defeated", raise our fists, applaud all the speaches and have a high old time? Then everyone joined hands, sang kumbaya and then we'd be good for another day.

Something kind of similar happens in a Connecticut Divorce. The attorney's rip each of you apart, and bludgeon your kids; they give you the devil's handshake, and then we are all supposed to stand in a circle and sing Kumbaya! No seriously. You're laughing. I know you are laughing. Stop it. Ok.

Of course, there is a little bit of a problem with that, particularly in this case, $400,000 later. You are right.

Judge Bishop acknowledged that at the end of his Memorandum of Decision. He states, "Attorney Santy [the GAL] is commended for his commitment to Gregory..." Damn I would be committed too for the amount of money he got! "At an early stage in the litigation, defendant's counsel (Attorney Eliot Nerenberg) instructed Attorney Santy not to communicate ex parte with Mrs. Bauer. Based on my observations during trial, I believe that this prevention of direct, unhampered communication between Attorney Santy and Mrs. Bauer had a chilling and polarizing effect."

Oh, Eliot how could you! I am so disappointed. It would never occur to me that you had such an appetite for filthy lucre that you would allow a chilling and polarizing atmosphere to develop thus costing the parties considerably more legal fees, particularly fees owed to you.

Apparently, Judge Bishop concedes that, according to the Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2 in the CT Practice Book, Eliot was well within his rights to act as he did. However, what Judge Bishop acknowledges, and quite crucially so, is that "Rules adopted for the handling of traditional civil and criminal litigation may not have an equal applicability to family litigation where counsel have a special responsibility to 'spike the forensic guns' and to foster an environment in which the parties are enabled to come to voluntary resolution of their intra-family dispute." Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Conn. App. 179.

Golly gee. Why didn't anyone tell me about this. Spike the forensic guns! So they have a special responsibility, do they! I hope they take that very seriously. Yeah, right. So, that is not all. There is more.

Judge Bishop continues on to say, "The Rules of Professional Conduct may not adequately cover the role of counsel in family dispute resolution. In 1991, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers published standards of conduct for attorneys involved in family matters" called the "Bounds of Advocacy". They provided a revision of this standard in 1995. Judge Bishop says, "While neither of these standards is binding, both are instructive and relevant.

According to Judge Bishop, The Preliminary Statement in the Bounds of Advocacy states, in part: "Existing codes often do not provide adequate guidance to the matrimonial lawyer. First, their emphasis on zealous representation of individual clients in criminal and some civil cases is not always appropriate in family law matters."

Bishop continues on with his quotation, "In many ways, matrimonial practice is unique. Family disputes occur in a volatile and emotional atmosphere. It is difficult for matrimonial lawyers to represent the interests of their clients without addressing the interests of other family members. Unlike most other concluded disputes in which the parties may harbour substantial animosity without practical effect, the parties to matrimonial disputes may be required to interact for years to come. In addition, many matrimonial lawyers believe themselves obligated to consider the best interests of children, regardless of which family member they represent."

So, if the professional standards for Attorneys published by the American Academy of Matrimonial lawyers is so important, and attorney's should abide by them, how come they are not in the Connecticut Practice Book or mentioned somewhere, somehow. I mean, I have been in my divorce for years and years and I never even heard of these standards.

That hurts. I mean. Didn't anyone want to include me so I'd know what I could reasonably expect from my attorney? I'm crying now. My hanky is wet! One moment. Let me blow.............Ok, now. Feeling better. So, let me see.

Rule 2.15 of the "Bounds of Advocacy", "An attorney should encourage the settlement of marital disputes through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration." Oh, and here is another lovely one:

Rule 2.6, "When representing an unimpaired child, counsel should take appropriate measures to protect the child from harm that may be incurred as a result of the litigation by striving to expedite the proceedings and encouraging settlement in order to reduce trauma that can be caused by the litigation."

And I assume that "encouraging settlement" means more than just expecting me to give away all my rights while the other side gets all the rights. Underlying the concept of "settlement" is the concept of mutual concessions, I would think.

How come there is all this good stuff in cases reported by the court, like here, but I've never seen these ideas promoted anywhere else, like in my own case or that of any of my friends, who have been victimized by horrible, multiyear, NPD driven divorces. Do attorneys ever really read those professional ethics, or are they too busy scooping up the dough and running to the bank?

I am seriously thinking of grievance. No, maybe a lovely Motion to Sanction. Yes, that's right...

For more information regarding the professional ethics of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers as stated in their publication "Bounds of Advocacy", see the link below:

http://www.willicklawgroup.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bounds-of-Advocacy,-1991-ed..pdf

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

2012-05-22T13:11:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have been waiting for news about Michael Nowacki who was falsely imprisoned by the Connecticut Judicial System for speaking out against its abuses, I do have some news.

It appears that Michael is in good health and spirits. Of course, I will never be satisfied myself until I personally see him and hear that information from his own mouth, but that is what I am hearing at this point. I will continue on with updates as information comes to me.

I know this is outrageous and many of you are extremely upset and angry about this situation, but let us maintain our calm and dignity in the face of this injustice. Our struggle is a nonviolent struggle and we must speak the truth to power calmly and with the authority that our Constitution and our State Laws have provided us with.

I am sure that Michael appreciates all your many phone calls and expressions of concern. Justice today! Justice tomorrow! Justice forever!

In Solidarity,

THEY DON'T WANT US TRESPASSING IN THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL SYSTEM, BUT WE WILL!

2012-05-22T13:04:00.000-07:00

IN CUSTODY DISPUTES, PSYCHIATRY USED AS A TOOL OF THE STATE AGAINST ITS CITIZENS: LISTEN TO THE STORY OF DR. ROBERT FETTGATHER

2012-05-20T15:17:00.000-07:00

http://innersites.com/janet/f2f-phalen-fettgather.mp3

SUGGESTED CHANGES TO CT PRACTICE BOOK RULES AS OF MAY 8, 2012

2012-05-20T15:14:00.000-07:00

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/pblj_050812.pdf

CONNECTICUT THE LEAST LIKELY

2012-05-20T09:49:00.000-07:00

It looks like Connecticut is one of the 4 best states to live in if you are a perpetrator of domestic violence. A recent study indicates that on a scale of 1 to 10, one being the lowest number of arrests for domestic violence and ten being the highest number of arrests, Connecticut rates a 2.

There are two explanations for this. One is that Connecticut is a state full of peaceful folks, or two, Connecticut's legal system has an extremely high tolerance for spousal abuse. Which explanation do you pick?

OUR CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

2012-05-19T18:09:00.000-07:00

I finally found it! The Connecticut Right to Due Process! This has to do with the concept that legal proceedings will not be arbitrary, that they will be conducted fairly according to agreed upon procedures.

For example, handing you a motion just before you walk into the trial court is a denial of your due process rights because doing so prevents you from having reasonable advanced notice of the charges against you.

If you were wondering, our Connecticut Right to Due Process as incorporated into the Connecticut Constitution is located in Article I, Section 10 of that document and states as follows:

"All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay."

I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with that statement. It seems a little wishy washy, but it is the only one we have.

I like the statement by the United States Supreme Court in 1934. It said due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principles of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

On the Federal Level the due process clause is included in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as follows:

[N]or shall any person. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. . .

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . .

Somehow the Federal version seems stronger to me than the State version. Ultimately, both guarantee our due process rights.

Equal Protection of the Law

By the way, I enjoyed Article I, Section 20 of the Connecticut Constitution which states as follows:

"No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability."

This includes our right to ADA protection.

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

2012-05-19T13:51:00.000-07:00

MICHAEL NOWACKI HAS BEEN JAILED BECAUSE HE CONFRONTED MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW CONNECTICUT'S CORRUPT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM HAS DENIED PARENTS AND CHILDREN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS. HE SPOKE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN CONNECTICUT AND JUDGES HAVE GOTTEN THEIR REVENGE. WE NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559, HE'S BAD. THAT'S RIGHT! HE'S BAD. (4)

2012-05-18T12:32:00.000-07:00

(Continued from Part 3)

It must have been really fun for Gregory to spend his time with Dad sitting around playing video games, going to movies and things like that, once Dad retired and was much more available.

As I have said before, previously, for the first eleven years of Gregory's life, his Dad was away in New York for the week and only returned home on weekends. And I assume that some of that time on weekends was spent simply traveling back and forth and, I am assuming, Dad's mind must have been quite preoccupied with work for some of the time. It is hard to leave work behind.

Then in 1997, Dad retires and he is totally available. That must have been quite a change and led to lots of changes in both Gregory and Mr. Bauer's life, including the fact that both would have had the time to get to know each other better and develop a closer relationship.

So, what kind of man was Mr. Charles I. Bauer. Who was this man that Gregory was poised to develop a closer relationship to?

Luckily for you and me, since the trial court is transparent, and on the basis of the principle of transparency will spread all your private information out on the internet for everyone to see, we have all sorts of detail about Mr. Bauer.

Not so of Mrs. Bauer. You realize that there was a psychological evaluation of Mrs. Bauer as well as Mr. Bauer so this practice of broadcasting all this information about the character of the parties should have affected both of them. However, surprise surprise, there is no commentary of any real interest regarding Mrs. Bauer. I would guess that everyone figured it wouldn't make sense to kill the golden goose who is laying the big fat golden eggs. We want to keep her profile neat and tidy so she can keep up with her employment and pay all the bills.

So Mrs. Bauer is looking really, really good, but Mr. Bauer?

I have to shake my head. Reading all this information on Mr. Bauer, he looks like a total scumbag.

But first off, let's see how many doctors had a shot at examining this guy. First, Dr. James C. Black in the custody evaluation, then there is Dr. Allan M. Jacobs, a psychiatrist specializing in substance abuse, Dr. Frank Stoll, to do the psychological evaluation, and then the neurological evaluation with Dr. Edward Fredericks. Alrighty then, do we have enough cooks?!?

So what do they say about our guy?

He is anti-social, "Mr. Bauer leads a sendentary life in his retirement. He has no apparent involvement in the community life of Simsbury."

He is an alcoholic but denies it, "Until his use of alcohol became an issue in this dispute, he was a daily drinker, consuming beer occasionally at lunch, martinis in the evening, and wine periodically with dinner."

Then he has a history of seizures, so he shouldn't be drinking, but he does anyway, "Though the number of seizures is disputed by the parties, it appears to the court that Mr. Bauer has had at least three convulsive episodes in his life time, each one associated with alcoholic intake." Mr. Bauer knows his drinking upsets his son, Gregory, but does he stop? No.

Then, on top of the alcohol, Mr. Bauer "also smokes approximately a pack of cigarettes daily against medical advice." and, as a result, is in the early stages of emphysema. When asked if he smokes in front of his son, he denied it. According to the trial court, "While Mr. Bauer testified that he smokes in the bathroom upstairs and the fumes don't leave the bathroom, the court takes this claim as no more than a schoolboy's fantasy that evidence of smoking can be kept from the unwary."

Then to top everything off, Dr. Stoll's evaluation of Mr. Bauer found that "this man lacks much insight into himself and others", that he is "disinclined to admit any social shortcomings", and that his personality structure has "a strong narcissistic component."

As a final remark, Dr. Stoll says, "following Mrs. Bauer's relocation to Minnesota Mr. Bauer has assumed the primary responsibility for Gregory's care. It has not gone well." Or as the trial court put it, describing that period, "Indeed, it is evident that Gregory was failing amidst Mr. Bauer's inattention and ignorance."

So what does Dr. James C. Black, the custody evaluator think of all this? He asserts that despite Mr. Bauer's self-destructive behavior "that Mr. Bauer has been a positive role model for Gregory." which leads me to wonder: Was Dr. Black smoking something very special himself? I mean, did he pay attention to any of this information about Mr. Bauer's drinking, smoking, seizure inducing, child neglecting, narcissistic behavior, or was he snoozing through all of that?

In regard to Dr. Black's testimony that Mr. Bauer is A-OK, for once, thank God, "The court disagrees." It is not every day that the trial court disagrees with stupid, but this time it did. And God bless the trial court for doing so.

Of course, this testimony about Mr. Bauer could all be invented. As we know, people do invent in family court. And if any of us were scrutinized at length by four separate mental health professionals, I don't know how well any one of us would do.

The bottom line is that the trial court's decision was the Mother would have custody if she would return to Connecticut and live in Simsbury and allow Gregory to finish high school there. More than anything else, this decision is testimony to the power of a fifteen year old on a trial court's determinations. Keep this in mind when you consider what is going on with you in family court.

This would give Mother around two months to find a new job in Connecticut, which isn't very much time for an upper level corporate executive.

Ultimately, also, the trial court gave no alimony to Mr. Bauer even though Mrs. Bauer made double the salary that he did. So, if Mr Bauer's motivation for fighting for custody for Gregory was money, he was not going to get it. And if Mrs. Bauer wanted custody of the child she said she loved, she would have to give up a considerable amount of her money, her salary, in order to have it.

Truly, a Solomonic conclusion to a very costly trial court proceeding.

Tell me, what do you think, if the roles had been reversed and Mr. Bauer was the one with the fancy job, and Mrs. Bauer was the drinker and smoker, would Mr. Bauer have been challenged to give up his job? I wonder?

And there is more...

NEW DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDY ON CUSTODY EVALUATORS BELIEFS ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE!

2012-05-18T07:59:00.000-07:00

HOT OFF THE PRESS!

http://ssw.umich.edu/about/profiles/saunddan/Custody-Evaluators-Beliefs-About-Domestic-Abuse-Allegations-Final-Tech-Report-to-NIJ-10-31-11.pdf

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559, THE CHILD (3)

2012-05-16T11:25:00.006-07:00

The most difficult part of my divorce was the custody issue. This is where I did everything I possibly could to protect the children from the battle that was going on in trial court.

When my X and I exchanged the children for visitation, I did whatever I could to remain polite and to establish a reasonably friendly and civilized atmosphere. I can remember grinding my teeth to keep my mouth shut so I wouldn't say anything that would later be a problem.

Today I had a conversation with my older daughter. She said to me, I am now beginning to understand what an unusual childhood I have had. My heart leapt to my mouth as I wondered what she meant, thinking she was about to share some divorce trauma with me. Instead, she said "You always took us to the library so that I have read many more books than most people my age."

I felt so relieved. If that is all that she remembers as being unusual about her childhood, I will have achieved my goal of protecting her from the dangerous fallout from my divorce. I then laughed and said, "Well, that was actually you, because when I took you to the library, it never occurred to you to say 'I don't want to go.'"

Unfortunately, for Patricia Bauer, in her case, she didn't have the same luck.

When she told her son, Gregory, we are now moving to Minneapolis, he said "No, I don't want to go. I want to stay in Simsbury with my Dad!"

My position had always been in regard to my children that they will do as they are told because I am the mother. However, when family court involves itself in your lives, that kind of firm control goes overboard as the court allows the kids to use the GAL against you, the attorneys in the case fabricate false information about you, and then undermine your authority.

Can any of you relate to that? I think you can.

This is very problematic for a mother and I have heard stories about this from many of them. I think it is very hard to shift from having full authority to having most of the authority shift from Mother to all these other people from family court who really have no idea what is going on the way a Mother does.

This is tough enough when the children are young and need the kind of firm hand a Mother can provide, but what do you do, what will the family court do when these children begin to verge upon the age of decision making? What do you do when the children reach 13, 14, 15 years old? How much do you listen to the views of children that age?

Now Charles and Patricia Bauer spent around $400,000, as you know, fighting over the custody of their son. The young man involved in this case, Gregory, at the time around 15 years old, met with a psychologist, Dr. Wilbur Nelson, who stated that Gregory had "the requisite intelligence to have an informed preference concerning his living circumstances."

My best bet is that at age 15, the trial court is going to conclude this about any child. So, if you have a 15 year old child who is stating a preference for any particular living arrangement, do not spend $400,000 fighting that because, trust me, the conclusion is foregone.

You know you are out of luck if the trial court assigns an Attorney of the Minor Child to the child rather than a GAL as they did in the Bauer case. That is one great big hint to you that whatever the child wants, he or she will get.

It may be still rather iffy at 13 or 14, but at 15, you have lost before you even begin if you try to go against the wishes of the child. When I tell this to parents, they always argue with me. They can't seem to believe it is true. It is amazing how many so called adults find it hard to understand that little Johnny, little Johnette, is all grown up and responsible for his or her actions, including taking action with AMCs and GALs and the trial court which are harming such parents profoundly.

Regretably speaking, for such litigants, I can only say, the sooner they figure this concept out, the better. Because until they do, they will simply be banging their heads against a brick wall. And I've seen people bang their heads against this particular wall for a considerably long period of time and all that does is cost time, money, and heart ache for no damn good reason, as the Bauer case goes to show. Kids are kids and they can be heartless, not unloving, but heartless.

So, aren't you glad you read this blog, because now you know, now you know not to go wasting your money with a great big custody battle when the results are preordained as everyone involved in this $400,000 court case already knew even as they engaged in it. Isn't it true that the parties are the last to know about these things?

Actually, in this particular case, it wasn't so much the child's age that made the difference. I think where both parents lost their authority to make any determination in regard to Gregory was when the trial court found out that Gregory had "attended seven schools in nine years." as he was growing up. That's nuts, totally nuts!

Sometimes before you go embarking on some big family court case, it makes sense to have some therapy to explore your motivations so you don't use family court as an extremely expensive means to work out your own mental health issues. Just reading over this case, listening to the reports that all Gregory wanted was for his parents to stop fighting over him, I can only say this was a really, really sad situation--"What Maisy Knew" reprised.

BAUER V. BAUER, FA 97 0715559: AN UNUSUAL MARRIAGE (2)

2012-05-15T07:13:00.003-07:00

One of my bad habits in life is that I keep on falling in love with men who are considerably older than me. I am not sure why that has happened. Daddy problems, maybe, or maybe I am an older person trapped in a young person's body!

And, I was going to say, of course, but maybe I shouldn't make out it is a matter of course, in the end these relationships sucked because men like this were already married or life experience had jaded them too much to appreciate me. So it is with some sense of the unfortunate that I figured out that between Mr. Bauer and Mrs. Bauer there is a solid twelve years, he being the older.

On the other hand, there were twenty five years between Humphrey Bogart and Laren Bacall, and that relationship seems to have worked out. Although, when I think of it, in the final years of their marriage, Lauren was winking over Bogie's shoulder at Frank Sinatra, that old devil. Honestly, you think old blue eyes could stay out of it and leave our illusions intact!

Not only were there twelve years between the Bauers, the marriage was a third for Mr. Bauer and a second one for Mrs. Bauer. Ouch! Theirs was a dance of closeness and distance, mostly distance, and one that is fairly complicated to the point where I had to draw myself a diagram in order to be sure I had the facts correctly. I will now convey them to you and if you get lost, well, you are only in the same position that the rest of us are at. Here goes.

The couple met in Michigan in 1970s, dated and lived together for four years. Then in 1974 Mrs. Bauer moved to Washington, D.C. and stayed there for six years until she got back together with Mr. Bauer in 1980, moving to Avon, CT and living with Mr. Bauer in a home on 177 High Road.

Then in 1981 Mr. Bauer got a job in New York City and purchased a condominium in New Jersey where he stayed during the week while returning to Avon to be with Mrs. Bauer on weekends.

Got it! This is where I started to get lost!

Anyway, in 1982, the couple got married, and in 1983, their only son, Gregory, was born. From 1981 until 1994, approximately 13 years, Mr. Bauer maintained this situation of living in New Jersey and visiting with Mrs. Bauer and his son in Avon, CT for weekends, meaning the arrangement was in place for the first eleven years of Gregory's life. In other words, Mr. Bauer was daddy for the weekend for a considerable period of Gregory's life.

Then from 1994 to 1997, Mr. Bauer moved to stay in Avon, CT full time, working for his New York City company from an office in the home. Then in 1997, he retired, having arrived at the age of 65--keep in mind that leaves Mrs. Bauer at 53 with twelve more years of productive working life.

Can you imagine having a guy visiting in your home on weekends, then all of a sudden he is in your house 24 hours a day 7 days a week? And what does Mr. Bauer do with all that free time? Sits around on his butt playing video games with his son! That would drive me nuts!

So, surprise, surprise, in 1997 Mrs. Bauer is discharged from her job based upon conflicts with her boss and gets a job in the far distant wilds of Minnesota, one of those vaguely interchangeable boxlike states located in the great midwestern wasteland of America, where she proceeds to make a considerable amount of money, and I am talking serious money.

The couple have an understanding that Mr. Bauer and Gregory will follow once Mrs. Bauer finds a house in Minnesota and the old house is sold. As it turns out, once Mrs. Bauer put her money down on a house in Minnesota and the old house was sold, Mr. Bauer suddenly decides enough is enough and files for divorce and for residential custody of Gregoy. Men. This is the time he decides to be a bum.

So the war begins...

MORE NEWS ABOUT THE WAR ON WOMEN!

2012-05-14T20:50:00.000-07:00

For those of you interested in getting more news from the frontlines regarding the war on women, see Anne Stevenson's cogent article recently published on the Huff Post. Our government supporting abusers in getting custody, funding criminals in their efforts to get custody, and more!

See the link below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-stevenson/top-5-hhs-programs-endang_b_1511613.html

MARY DID YOU KNOW?

2012-05-13T11:03:00.004-07:00

MARY SHARES AND UNDERSTANDS OUR PAIN AS PROTECTIVE MOTHERS.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!

2012-05-13T10:24:00.005-07:00

God bless all of you protective mothers on Mother's Day, and also our friends and supporters in our struggle for justice for our children.

I wanted to remind you that Mary, the Mother of Jesus understands our struggles, understands our love for our children and the tremendous obstaces we face speaking the truth to corrupt judges, corrupt attorneys, and even more corrupt mental health professionals.

I was talking to a group of friends the other day and I said Christians forget that Jesus celebrates the weakest amongst us. Those who are the very least, He elevates to the very highest position, those who are reviled He praises, and upon those who are denied, he pours our His Holy Spirit.

And so we Protective Mothers continue to battle on, secure in our Victory through Jesus Christ, knowing that we will prevail.

Today on this special day, one that is so vital to Mary, the Mother of Our Lord, and also to us as Mothers, I want to remind you again of Mary's words as she celebrates Christ's entrance into the world:

My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.

For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

He hath shewed strength with his arm, he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.

He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he hath sent empty away.

He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy.

As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

This is the essence of the Christian message. The love of the very least among us. The love of those most vulnerable. The love of those most tragically harmed.

Mary says,

He will scatter the proud! He will put down the mighty!

He will send the rich away empty!

He will have mercy on them that fear him! He will exalt the lowly! He will feed the hungry!

So, we can rest easy today, knowing that God supports us in our struggles, he upholds us in our weakness, he loves each one of us beyond measure. Many of you do not have your children with you today, your hearts are aching, and you are overwhelmed with pain and worry. Know that you are not alone, that God loves you and your children and you will prevail and find healing.

CHARLES I. BAUER V. PATRICIA S. BAUER, FA 97-0715559 (1), WAR OF WILLS

2012-05-11T16:15:00.002-07:00

To start with, in this case I am not going to get right into the players or the story; I'm just going to go straight to the money issue. Because money has to be one of the primary themes of the case.

As it turns out, this is the story of a fairly non traditional couple who kind of break the mold in many ways. However, in the way they divorced they didn't break the mold; instead, they walked down the path of high conflict divorce which we are all so familiar with.

They walked it to the point where Judge Bishop stated, "This case is a war of wills cloaked in a custody dispute. The battle consumed eleven trial days, and the parties have incurred approximately three hundred and seventeen ($317,000) thousand dollars of legal fees and attendant litigation costs."

Ok, I am jumping right to the end of this case where there is a more detailed discussion of the fees. It looks as though plaintiff (father) was represented by two attorney's serving as co-counsel at trial which added up to $193,302, the Defendant's (mother) attorney cost $92,516, and then the counsel for the minor child submitted a bill for around $32,000 which does add up to the $317,000 the judge was talking about regarding legal fees.

Ok, I love this kind of addition and subtraction. I guess Judge Bishop was willing to be open about the legal fees but he was not willing to itemize the so called attendant litigations costs, over and above the base $317,000.

This consisted of the costs for the custody evaluation by Dr. James C. Black, which was probably around an additional ten thousand or more, then the cost for the psychological evaluations, another five thousand or more, then the cost for the substance abuse evaluator and the neurologist, several thousand more, and then over and above that, according to Judge Bishop, "Each of these medical and mental health professionals provided a report to the court. Several of them testified as well."

Ok, then, the cost of the expert testimony alone was extremely expensive, no doubt. That's four expert witnesses, and who knows how many days of testimony they had to come in for. Plus, there must have been some fun depositions, don't you think! Depositions of the expert witnesses, and also depositions of the parties! Just one great big fun time!

So, what do you say, guys, with legal fees, attendant court costs, costs of transcripts, costs of travel for Mrs. Bauer, what do we have--around maybe $400,000 as a reasonable estimate for the entire divorce. Wow! Lots of people made a killing here!

Judge Bishop seems to be pretty amazed by all this money going around, but I'm sure you the reader and I am not that surprised. Seriously, I must have spent the same amount on my divorce and others I've spoken to have easily gone to a million or more.

I can recall my first attorney when he saw an investment account statement of some stock which I was using to pay his fees; he sat there with the statement in his hands this gloating look on his face like, yes, this will all be mine, and it was within a few short months. The greed I saw play itself out in my divorce was extraordinary.

Thousands and thousands of dollars, a small fortune, gone, all gone. My future, my children's future, all in the hands of attorneys. And the judge in this case actually takes the time to question that? I am amazed. Where has he been as a judge in Connecticut? In la la land?

I've been reading a book called "Aftertime" by Sophie Littlefield about a post apocalyptic world where Zombies roam the streets looking for living people to eat. This is how the author describes the bloodlust of these zombies,

"The maniacal frenzy of their hunger could not be tempered by any obstacle. They'd run across glass, across hot coals, across this terrible scorched earth that was the end of the world if it meant fresh, uninfected flesh. They were body eaters, after all, and that was all they lived for."

If you replace the word "flesh" with money, the word "body eaters" with money suckers, you'd have most lawyers, that's for sure. Maniacal, insane, crazy for profit, no matter how much damage they do, no matter how many lives they destroy, men, women, children, it's all the same to them, to lawyers.

More in Part II....

H.B. 5509 DENIED, BUT THE BATTLE STILL RAGES!

2012-05-11T03:16:00.003-07:00

Just so you know, the Judiciary Committee decided not to bring Raised Bill No. 5509 forward for a vote and so it wasn't brought to the full House Or Senate for consideration.

Still, this is no reason to be at ease. The Connecticut Alimony Reform group and its allies that sponsored the bill won't be resting. They are continuing to press forward in order to get this bill passed. In their own words,

"We are hard at work developing the next stages of our strategy."

We also need to be hard at work developing the next stages of OUR strategy!

H.B. 5509: AN OUTRIGHT ATTACK ON WOMEN, SEE LETTER FROM THE PERMANENT COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

2012-05-11T02:42:00.003-07:00

Testimony of

The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women

Before the

Judiciary Committee

March 19, 2012

Re: H.B. 5509, AAC The Payment of Alimony and Child Support

Senators Coleman and Kissel, Representative Fox and Hetherington, and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) regarding the above referenced bill.

H.B. 5509 would restrict the duration of alimony, and severely limit the grounds for which the Court could deviate from the law. PCSW opposes passage of this bill because it does not take into consideration each family’s finances, circumstances, and the trade-offs that were made when the marriage was successful, i.e. one spouse remaining out of the workforce to care for the children. It also provides the obligor with additional mechanisms to control the ex-spouse’s household after divorce.

Divorced women earn about 13% less than divorced men - $38,046 for divorced women and $43,621 for divorced men.

In addition to pay inequity, women have less income because they are the primary caretakers in the family. Women are more likely to have taken time off or work or worked part-time to care for the family’s children. Men continue to increase their income because their spouses are caring for their children while they work.

In divorce this income disparity continues because women still have to take time out of the workforce to care for the children, but now they have less income. Child support only pays a fraction of the expenses needed to provide a household for a child, and it doesn’t calculate extra expenses such as extracurricular and school activities.

Passage of this bill will result in custodial parents, which are mostly women, continuing to bear the brunt of the financial responsibility for the parties’ children. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and look forward to working with you on this issue.

DR. RUDOLF BEE'S NIGHTMARE DIVORCE!

2012-05-08T20:54:00.000-07:00

As I continue to investigate the issue of corruption in CT Family Court, I occasionally come across stories that are totally tragic.

These are stories of divorces that continue over a period of years, sometimes up to a decade or more while eating up litigants' entire resources, all of their savings, their real estate, their investments--literally everything they have, leaving people destroyed both financially and emotionally. Much of this is the result of attorney misconduct and judicial abuse.

Below is a link to a divorce case that caused untold damage to one individual--Dr. Rudolf Bee. Clearly, this case started to go wrong in so many ways right from the beginning. It leaves us pondering such questions as:

1) What recourse does the family court system and/or the State of Connecticut have in place for divorces that are clearly out of control and destroying the lives of the people involved in it?

2) Also, what role do attorneys and judges play in creating these situations and don't legal professionals have a responsibility to take preventative measures to make sure this kind of harm and damage does not take place?

3) Isn't the legal profession in family court a form of organized crime the way attorneys fix cases, and drain litigants of multiple thousands of dollars?

Keep in mind that in Connecticut, a quarter million is nothing in terms of what litigants such as Dr. Rudolf Bee lost--think of the millions squandered in the Tauk divorce!

Isn't it time to put a stop to this corruption?

Click on the link below, review the case and tell me what you think!

http://www.kangarootrial.com/

WHAT THE ABUSIVE FATHER'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT WANTS! SCREW THE BITCH!

2012-05-03T07:59:00.004-07:00

MAJOR EXPOSE ON JUDICIAL ABUSE IN CONNECTICUT!BY INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER KEITH HARMON SNOW

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN, EXTORTION, MENTAL TORTURE! NETWORKS OF LEGAL PROFESSIONALS. PSYCHIATRISTS, ATTORNEYS, JUDGES, AND CLERKS IN COMPLICITY, EARNING MILLIONS AND EXPANDING THEIR POWER IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

READ IT FOR YOURSELF!
THEN TAKE ACTION!

http://yourworldnews.org/blog/?p=3522

OH SO FRIENDLY, FRIENDLY FRIENDLY! CONSIGLIO V. STRATHEARN (5)

2012-05-02T18:53:00.005-07:00

Sorry folks, there was a pause in my work while I focused on some other matters. So let's get back to this story.

Mrs. Consiglio failed to make sure that Mr. Michael Strathearn was invited to her daughter, Katherine's induction into the Honor Society.

Honor Society! You are kidding me!

You mean wicked bad mother Mrs. Consiglio had actually brought her daughter up so well she was being inducted into an Honor Society! Amazing how a nasty old, bad old, wicked mean old, axe murdering type mother could actually raise a child who could be inducted into an Honor Society.

I mean slam that bad mother--that Honor Society thing must have been a complete deviation from the norm when it came to Mrs. Consiglio.

Funny, there isn't anything else in the Memorandum of Decision of the case indicating that any one of the other children ended up in the gutter somewhere, drug addicted, demon infested, jail bait type or something like that. You think that Judge Prestley just mistakenly omitted all these details when she wrote the Memorandum of Decision. I mean, after all, Mrs. bad, bad Consiglio lost custody competely while her X was given Sole Custody. There must be a good reason, or maybe not. Ok, ok, I know I love to joke.

And Mr. Consiglio was really quite bad taking a genuine interest in the children and assisting them with their homework. Really creepy. Right! I mean 45 or 50 is not too late to suddenly turn into a pedophile when you've never had a record of being one before. (You'd have to check the sleezy Memo of Decision to get why I am saying this!) I mean there are worse things than being an involved, caring Stepdad. I'm not sure what, though!

But seriously, is there any legal basis for taking complete custody from this mother? What Judge Prestley appears to say is that mother has Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). In other words, "the direct and subtle interference by Mrs. Consiglio and her husband in the relationship between Mr. Strathearn and his daughters has been insidious, destructive and is likely to continue."

So what is PAS and is it legal in the State of Connecticut to take children away from their Mothers based upon it?

According to the website S.P.A.R.C. (www.deltabravo.net) "The theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome was developed by Dr. Richard Gardner. It described a syndrome in which "children are not merely systematically and consciously brainwashed but are also subconsciously and unconsciously programmed by one parent against the other."

The problem with this theory, according to Attorney Brian Kaschell, is that it has not been generally accepted by the majority of people in the field of mental health and the science behind it is very sketchy. Plus, many argue that it is always possible that there are other factors that could be involved in alienating the child other than a parent; for instance, other family members, or simply the disruption of known and valued routines, and it could be very difficult to identify those factors.

Nonetheless, the theory has tremendous appeal to the point where many people are trying to have it established as a formal mental health disorder in the DSM, the bible of diagnoses used by professionals in the field of mental health. Some of these people have contacted me on this blog and asked me to join them in the fight.

Unfortunately, abusive men have used this theory frequently as a very successful and lethal weapon in family court in order to wrest custody from fit mothers and fit protective mothers, which has considerably discredited the theory, and made it a source of outrage to such mothers and their supporters.

Yet the theory has continued to prevail, not only because father's rights groups wield the theory so effectively, but also because average people on the street intuitively feel that it is valid. Even fit mothers and fit protective mothers denied custody who read about the theory cry, "Yes, that is what HE is doing to me!" Thus, my previous blogs about "Domestic Violence By Proxy."

There is no doubt that the parent/child relationship undergoes severe trauma in the aftermath of a divorce, particularly in a difficult, high comflict divorce. Parents who once had access to their children seven days a week twenty four hours a day are unable to see their children for days, weeks, or even months in situations where parents relocate. The loss is primal and evokes pictures of Guernica in the lives of many parents.

On, the other hand, do these situations, which are quite standard after divorce, and often call upon the skills of trained counselors, rise to the level of Parental Alienation? For angry parents, for abusive and vindictive parents, it certainly is a good excuse to go on the attack.

Is supposed Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) justification for taking children away from a fit mother or a fit protective mother?

According to Attorney Brian Kaschel, "In Connecticut, our best interest statute (the grounds for determining custody) does not mention parental alienation. However, amongst the factors a judge may consider in making parenting plan decisions include the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a continuing parent-relationship between the child and the other parent. A judge may also consider any manipulation or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parent's dispute. While not called PAS both of these factors have the smell of PAS."

In other words, the friendly parent concept. Which parent is more friendly to the other and which parent, because he or she is so very, very friendly, will support and encourage the child[ren]'s relationship with the other parent. In other words, what we have is the Trojan horse of the friendly parent concept hiding within itself the army of PAS ready to burst out and overtake the field. And in Consiglio v. Strathearn, it sure took over the field.

So, in Connecitcut, ill informed, unaware fit mothers and fit protective mothers, hear from their attorneys that Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) isn't a factor in the family courts. If such mothers felt safe as a result, they would be foolishly kidding themselves. What is happening here is that family court hides its actual agenda from litigants by translating terminology that would immediately alert people to the problem into safe and benign language as a means to disarm them.

But don't be fooled. PAS is a factor and probably will be a factor in custody decisions for years to come, so remember to be very friendly--friendly, friendly friendly--or have a damn good reason for not being so.

THE DRAGON LADY? CONSIGLIO v. STRATHEARN, FA-96-0714125-S (4)

2012-04-24T20:25:00.002-07:00

I was expecting to get through this material more quickly, but I didn't. I hope you will still bear with me!

So I'm sure you were wondering who the dragon lady is. Actually, I think Judge Prestley fits the bill quite well, but the person I was thinking of when I wrote the title was, in fact, the Guardian Ad Litem in the case--Attorney Emily Moskowitz.

If anyone acts like a dragon, looks like a dragon and practices law like a dragon, it is she. So, I can't tell you how even more sorry I feel for Maureen Consiglio under these circumstances. Having Attorney Moskowitz as the Guardian Ad Litem in this case must have hit Maureen with the speed and devastation of a Mack Truck at 150 MPH. From what I can see in reading the case, Attorney Moskowitz played a primary role in taking the girls away from the custody of their mother. In fact, you might say Emily did it singlehandedly. As Judge Prestley stated in her decision, "The Guardian Ad Litem recommended that awarding sole custody of Megan and Christina to Mr. Strathearn was in the children's best interests." And, from what I gather, a Guardian Ad Litem's determination is pretty much final.

This situation doesn't surprise me because I have heard of Attorney Emily Moskowitz before. In 1994, she was involved in a custody dispute where she acted as an attorney for the minor child. Subsequently, she was sued by the father in that dispute (who actually won custody, so this wasn't anyone who was disgruntled no matter what anyone might care to say), Mr. Paul Carrubba, for using profanity in several mediation sessions that were held in the case in which he participated. Honestly, knowing Attorney Moskowitz, I can just imagine how that happened.

Anyway, the resolution of the case was in 2005 and Moskowitz was granted full immunity from prosecution in the case heralding a new era of full protection for AMC in custody disputes. And that gives you a sense of the kind of person she is--a person who knows that she can hold herself above the law and get away with it.

The Attorney who represented Emily Moskowitz in this case was her husband, Attorney Robert Kor, and Attorney Kor has, on occasion, represented Dr. James C. Black so maybe that explains Dr. Black's curious passivity in regard to this case. However, as you all know, you could drive yourselves nuts with all the relationships between the attorneys, psychiatrists, GALs, AMCs, that are going on in family court in the State of Connecticut.

In the end, Maureen lost custody because the trial court felt that she wasn't treating her ex husband, Michael Strathearn properly. In this regard, the trial court states, "It is clear to the court that Mrs. Consiglio and her husband have acted to undermine Mr. Strathearn in his relationship with the children."

The following are some examples of what the trial court disliked:

1. She instructed the children to call Michael "the bio Dad" and to call Richard Consiglio "Dad"--That is a tough one! What should your children call your X actually?;

2. She took the children out of the Catholic schools they had always attended--oh, was Mr. Strathearn paying the tuition?--, and she failed to include Mr. Strathearn in decisions regarding the children;

3. She had all discussions regarding the children go through Richard Consiglio--Yeah, my fiance suggested he do that too because my X was so abusive. I can't say I know what was going on here with Maureen, however;

4. Mr. Strathearn was not invited to the 17 year old daughter, Katharine's, induction in the Honor Society--I'm sorry, what difference does it make if he is invited or not invited? Can't he just go? Isn't it a public event open to all?;

5. His views were ignored in regard to Katharine remaining in Catholic School and in regard to where she should go to college--he couldn't just take her out to Friendly's and have the conversation over a bowl of ice cream? That was too difficult?;

6. The Consiglio's apparently blamed Michael for preventing the children from seeing their dying Grandfather. Oh, so Michael couldn't just correct that misapprehension.

7. The Consiglio's criticized Michael Strathearn for not paying college expenses when there was a tacit agreement between the parents that Mrs. Consiglio was going to pay college expenses for the younger three children. Really? With what money?

Ok, I'm not so much trying to minimize this, so much as I am saying anything blown up out of proportion and described out of context could look absolutely awful. Am I correct that we have all experienced that with attorneys and mental health professionals in family court. So I'm just looking at this going, well, what is the true story? Can we see things in a different light?

Nonetheless, however we see it, the trial court concluded, "the direct and subtle interference by Mrs. Consiglio and her husband in the relationship between Mr. Strathearn and his daughters has been insidious, destructive and is likely to continue."

Of course, the ink had barely dried on the divorce papers before Mr. Michael Strathearn was back in trial court complaining.

And wouldn't it be standard that during and after the divorce before things settled down there would be awkwardness, misunderstandings, miscommunications, and occasionally outright failures?

And the solution to this right from the start is to embark on a major custody battle as opposed to attempting at least a little family therapy? Well, far be it from me that I suggest that grown up people use any common sense!

Or could it be that taking custody from Maureen Consiglio was always the plan right from the beginning and the whole song and dance was simply a scheme to get the job done? Who can tell?

There is a passing reference in the Memorandum to Mr. Michael Strathearn committing some errors in judgment in regard to the children. Really! Tell me more about that? Why are all the juicy parts taken out of these Memoranda of Decision!

The bottom line is, that nothing in the list posted above goes beyond the normal wear and tear that takes place in the vast majority of divorce cases, nothing so radical or criminal that it would justify giving sole custody of the children to Mr. Strathearn. And by sole custody, I am assuming this means residential custody and full decisionmaking going to the father alone.

Could the court have considered 50/50 residential custody and joint decisionmaking? What about--Oh my God, the thought--joint custody (meaning joint decisionmaking) with Mr. Strathearn having residential custody? Was Maureen Consiglio an axe murderer or something?

No, I don't think so. I don't think she had done anything so bad as that. The answer to my question goes back to the trial court's statement that the Consiglios had interfered in the relationship between Mr. Michael Strathearn and the children and its determination that this was "insidious, destructive, and likely to continue." In other words, Maureen Consiglio was accused of Parental Alienation Syndrome, and as Dr. Richard Gardiner, the inventor and promoter of the concept strongly recommended, for this she was punished to the fullest extent of the law. More on this case later...

KISS OF THE DRAGON LADY: THE DECISION IN CONSIGLIO V. STRATHEARN, FA-96-0714125-S (3)

2012-04-23T06:36:00.000-07:00

Backing up a bit, let's take a look at the basis for the trial court's decision to change custody from the mother to the father. I mean, the bottom line is that, in my book, there was no reason to make this change.

The children were clearly doing very well, both at school and at home. There was no hint at all that the children were not perfectly well taken care of. Judge Prestley's overview of the case doesn't mention a single act of neglect or poor parenting either by Maureen or Richard Consiglio.

The discussion of Dr. James C. Black's custody evaluation does not say anything about concern regarding the welfare of the children at all. In fact, Judge Prestley acknowledges that Dr. Black's report "recommended that the children's current residence not be changed unless there was a substantial reason for doing so." And Dr. Black is not a stupid guy. If there was a problem, anything at all, i.e. "a substantial reason", he would have said something. So the children are prospering and doing well and there is no substantial reason for a change.

What law, then, would ever justify taking them away from their mother? This is what the judge says about that law, "Before this court may modify a custody order, it must find that there has been a material change in circumstances since the prior order of the court, but the ultimate test is the best interests of the child." Brubeck v. Burns-Brubeck, 43 Conn. App. 583, 585, 680 A.2d 327 (1996). And this is the ONLY law that the trial court cites. This alone is an indication that the trial court is on wobbly ground.

I'll grant you that I am not a lawyer, but take a look at this yourself. The "ultimate test is the best interests of the child"? I don't think so. In a motion to modify, if you don't have a material change in circumstances, you aren't, or shouldn't be, going anywhere.

In the trial court's citation of the law, her emphasis is not on what constitutes the basis for a decision to modify, i.e. a material change in the circumstances. The emphasis is on what do you do when you can't really state that there has been a material change of circumstances and your grounds are really weak.

In this situation, as I see it, the trial court is saying I am going to make this decision based upon what I think is in the best interests of the children, and I don't care what the law states. I'm feeling a real bullshit factor here. If I were an attorney, which I am not, I would be saying to myself, "What the heck!"

I mean, get real. The decision on a motion to modify is based fundamentally upon a determination that there has been a material change in circumstances. If you can't find one, you can't just skip it and move on to something else. As another judge stated in an earlier decision, "The court has the authority to issue a modification only if it conforms the order to the distinct and definite change in the circumstances of the parties." Crowley v. Crowley, 46 Conn. App. 87, 92, 699 A.2d 1029 (1997). Hello! Wake up and smell the coffee!

So is there any distinct and definite change in the circumstances that would warrant a modification post judgment of the parties' custody order? Well, according to the trial court there was the story of Mr. Consiglio's attempted drug deal with the older daughter's husband which the trial court found credible, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt--and we are all supposed to be considered innocent before proven guilty.

Ok, maybe not in family court. Who knows.

But again, this is a situation where there was no arrest, no change in Mr. Consiglio's legal status, not even, over a period of time, any further accusations or evidence that this happened again or that there was any further drug use.

The trial court also criticized Maureen Consiglio's refusal to believe that Richard Consiglio had engaged in this drug deal. Well, ok, again, I'm a little belief challenged as well. So, she is not the only one. It is possible for a reasonable person to have some doubts and still be a good parent. (You can actually disagree with the court and still be a good parent, hard as it is for any judge to believe!)

So grounds for modification are pretty weak here, particularly in the light of the evidence that the children are doing very well exactly where they are.

This is why, it seems to me, the trial court turned its attention from the shaky evidence on the drug deal to Mr. and Mrs. Consiglio's treatment of Mr. Michael Strathearn. What the Court determined is that "What was contemplated by the original custody and visitation order, to allow Mr. Strathearn to continue to parent his children and to be a positive influence in their lives, has not been permitted to happen." (Of course, what was contemplated is entirely different from what circumstances actually existed, and had those circumstances materially changed. But far be it from me to remind people of what is the law!)

In other words, the trial court determined--not outright, but pretty much by implication--that the mother has Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and states that this is not in the childrens' best interests. And that is the bottom line basis for the determination to change custody from mother to father. So what is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), did Maureen commit PAS and is it legal in Connecticut to use PAS as the basis for a custody determination? More on that later...

EXCUSE ME! CONSIGLIO V. STRATHEARN, FA-06-0714125-S (2)

2012-04-22T05:31:00.001-07:00

I will just cut to the chase here and say the bottom line is that Maureen Consiglio lost custody of her children to Michael Strathearn.

And this is the feedback that I am getting just so you know. Since there is no legal justification for denying custody to a mother who has been primary caretaker of the children for years, what happens is that the judge and the attorneys involved in a case will agree to give residential custody of the kids to the mother at dissolution. Then, a year or so later, after setting the mother up to fail--either financially, through follow up mental health care intended to undermine the mother, or other such tactics--the father will return to trial court with additional ammunition and take the children from the mother.

This is a very effective approach to stealing custody from the mother because most mothers mistakenly presume they have an advantage as women, and most believe that the final judgment in a divorce is indeed that--final--when it is not, particularly when it comes to men and what men want to accomplish. So circling around and grabbing custody of the children post judgment is a great kamikaze type surprise tactic that men are finding quite effective.

So here was the custody determination in this case as written by Judge Prestley:

"The court orders sole custody and primary residence of the minor children, Megan and Christina, with the father"

Then the Court gives the father some transition time to "hire a babysitter/nanny for after school and/or weekends when he is unavailable to care for them." And then it continues on to say, "This order in no way precludes the father from utilizing willing, appropriate family members to supervise the children when he is unavailable."

EXCUSE ME! Ok, stop right here.

Can we just get real here. What has actually happened in this change of custody order? Now instead of having mother take care of the children, the trial court is simply transferring the care of the children to babysitters, nannies, and other willing and appropriate family members. I mean, how stupid is that?

It seems to me that if you want someone elses' job, and clearly this has always been a family where primary parenting of the children was mother's job, then you should give up the job you already have so that you can actually do the one you have been demanding to take over.

And, parenting, ladies and gentleman, being a mother to children IS a job. Yes, I know you think that bringing up children is simply a matter of letting the little flowers bask in the sun and develop of their own accord with out effort and direction, but this isn't what happens in the real world. Parenting, being the primary caretaker of young children, training and disciplining and instructing them so that they grow up to be productive, ethical, valuable members of society, this takes hard, hard, backbreaking work.

So, after harassing this poor mother in trial court, and humiliating her by taking her job away from her, Michael Strathearn cheerfully, or is instructed to cheerfully, pass that lifelong job over to a bunch of babysitters, nannies, and other willing and appropriate family members.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Well, that just goes to show how little actual respect the Court has for the importance of the job of taking care of children all the while protesting otherwise.

Then, to add insult to injury, Judge Prestley orders that Maureen pay to father $85.00 per week in child support. So now, Maureen has to pay Michael Strathearn money so he can afford to replace her with babysitters and nannies.

And guess how much sense it makes--like zero! Because since when did Maureen ever earn any money at all in her entire life? She's been an at home mother, for goodness sake! That's all she's ever trained to do! Oh, but the trial court in its wisdom says that she has the earning capacity to make $18.50 per hour working a 40 hour week.

Like who would hire her for a job like that? Without any job experience, she'll be lucky if she makes minimum wage!

I mean, if you were going to do something as stupid as this, you would at least think that the trial court would do an Employment Evaluation to be sure they were being even a tiny bit practical. Or maybe they could give her a time of transition so that she could obtain job training. But no, instead they conveniently go along with some pie in the sky speculation about her earning capacity. Not income, mind you, not a salary she has actually been making in the real world, but earning capacity, a number based upon pure imagination, particularly with Mrs. Consigio, who, to the best of my knowledge from reading this case, has never done anything worth mentioning outside of the home.

Maureen Consiglio, if you are out there in internet space somewhere, I just want to say to you, I am so, so sorry that you were subjected to this kind of complete and utter nonsense by a trial court judge, a custody evaluator, a GAL, and attorneys who should have known better.

And Judge Prestley, you happen to be a woman. I know that you are supposed to act fairly and impartially while on the bench. But you were also put there in this position so that you could bring your unique knowledge of what it is to be a woman along with you when you make your decisions. That is your responsibility. You are not called upon to make every effort to be worse than the men who are in your position.

I hope you keep in mind that we women put you in your position today. It used to be that, because of gender discrimination, women weren't assigned to the position of judge, but women like me, women like Maureen, stood up and demanded that qualified women have the opportunity to become judges. It was our advocacy that put you where you are today. You need to give back to the women who gave you your job and start acting with fairness and respect towards them. Right now, hearing about what happened to Maureen Consiglio on your watch, as a woman, I am ashamed of you.

HOT LOVE, BABY! CONSIGLIO V. STRATHEARN, FA-96-0714125-S (1)

2012-04-21T12:09:00.001-07:00

This is a post judgment custody battle in which the parties had six children, three of whom had already left the home, the oldest of which, Jennifer, was married. The younger children were still at the home at the time of judgment--Katharine (17), Megan (13), and Christina (9).

This was a traditional marriage where the husband, Michael Strathearn was the primary wage earner apparently, and had done a very good job of it for many years. Mom, Maureen, had been a stay at home, very hands on, good Mom for the entirety of the marriage. Everything was chugging along beautifully, when what comes to mess everything up? Love! In the form of the dashing Mr. Richard Consiglio.

It appears that Maureen Strathearn grew up with Mr. Richard Consiglio and they had an understanding from when they were very young that they would get married when they were 19. However, when Mr. Consiglio became 19, he didn't want to follow through saying he wasn't ready and so, Maureen, struck to the very core with pain and anguish (my editorializing), did not speak to him again for another twenty years.

Time went on, Maureen did her lovely thing getting married and having her children, while Mr. Consiglio continued on also getting married to someone else and having two children. Then between 1991 and 1994, he became addicted to cocaine. In 1993, Mr. Consiglio and his wife lost custody of their two children on the basis of neglect since he was using cocaine. Subsequently, according to the judgment, "Neither he nor his wife ever regained custody of his children." You know, I'd never touch a man like this with several ten foot poles, but, you know, that's just me!

Anyway, I have a few side questions on this one. For example, how is the wife responsible for his drug use? Was she refusing to leave him and so DCF felt obligated to take the children from her as well? I'm really beginning to sense something--is there a domestic violence situation here? Maybe some of the answer to this question is in what he did next. Apparently, in 1994, Richard Consiglio became really high on cocaine. Then he was arrested "after he threatened his wife and held the police at bay with a shotgun for several days; he also shot off his own finger." So this was a really, really smart drug addict. Ok, just kidding!

This part of the story makes me feel really bad. I wonder what happened to those two children who seem to just drop off the map. Didn't Mr. Consiglio or his wife want to fight to get their children back? That's the problem with the stories told in these Memoranda of Decision. There are missing pieces here, i.e. trails of evidence and of information which, were we informed might totally transform our understanding of what went on in a case.

And, as we know, judges lie and spin evidence, as do attorneys and GALs, so in a way we never get the true story in reading one of these documents. What we do get a sense of, however, is how people who work in the legal profession think, what they consider to be important, how they go about persuading themselves that what they are about to do is right, no matter how much common sense would dictate otherwise.

So, I hope you, as readers, understand that the tale you receive here is not the truth; it is a shadow of a possible truth, it is one of multiple voices, and you will never know what truly happened until you speak to these people yourself, and even then, who knows! It shouldn't be that way, because the focus of the judicial system is to determine what is the truth. But as we know, the system has long ago abandoned any pretension of pursuing the truth.

Ok, so getting back to the story. Our friend, Mr. Richard Consiglio ends up in jail and eventually receives a suspended sentence with three years of probation as a result of his behavior. And that is when Maureen Strathearn finds out that he is in jail and decides that she is going to "save" him. And by that, I mean literally save him. Because at this point, she begins to visit him in jail with her bible and rosary in hand. And this is how clueless she is--she has her husband, Michael, drive her to jail for the visits. I mean, can't she drive herself? Maybe not. Maybe not.

Soon Mr. Consiglio is out of jail. Next thing you know, Richard and Maureen are having this intense affair. Maureen is sneaking around having clandestine trysts with this man and lying about it. Finally, it gets to the point where Maureen lets her husband know what is going on and tries to break off the relationship.

At this, Mr. Consiglio works himself up into a state, shows up on the front lawn of the Strathearn's house and throws sex toys, contraceptive devices and other stuff on the Strathearn's driveway, all the time yelling obscenities directed towards Maureen. He kicks up a general ruckus and then ends up in jail, but is eventually released.

I'm thinking Stanley in "A Streetcar Named Desire" going "Stella! Stella!". Oh, these miserable brutes, and so thrilling. How could you possibly say "no" to that? Maureen, who had spent her life on dishes, and laundry, and baby poop, and vaccuming the house and dusting, and car pools and PTO meetings, probably never had anything quite so thrilling as that happen to her in all her life! And, as Jesus said, "Wide is the path and broad is the gate that leadeth unto destruction."

So, she ends up getting a divorce from Michael Strathearn in 1996 and then marries Richard Consiglio in 1998. Marital bliss ensues. Then on Thanksgiving 1999--disaster. Maureen's oldest daughter, Jennifer, accused Mr. Consiglio of trying to buy $500.00 worth of cocaine from her husband. Apparently, the trial court found this accusation credible.

However, there is nothing in this decision to explain why the trial court found it credible. I'm not finding it credible. I'm finding it mighty convenient for Mr. Michael Strathearn. I am also asking myself, why would Richard Consiglio go looking for cocaine with Maureen's oldest daughter's husband? Was the husband a known drug dealer? That is striking pretty close to home when Richard must know all sorts of dealers unrelated to the family.

Also, I am assuming that Mr. Consiglio was subjected to regular drug testing, or if he wasn't, he should have been. Did he fail any? There is no report of that in the decision. There are so many unanswered questions to this incident that it shouts out the word "set up"!

This crucial incident is the basis for the trial court's determination in this matter so it seems to me there should be more solid evidence other than that the Court finds it credible. I have read many decisions of this kind, including my own, where the trial court describes a very crucial matter, and then says it considers the matter credible without any evidence to back up such a conclusion. This kind of behavior on the part of the trial court is quite troubling.

More on this case later...