our-blog-icon-top

May 7, 2014
By Judge Thomas W. Weissmuller, Esq. (Retired), Chair, Executive Committee, National Parents Organization of Connecticut
John M. Clapp, PhD, Chair, Shared Parenting Council of Connecticut, Inc. and Member, Executive Committee, National Parents Organization of Connecticut

On Friday, April 25, 2014, both houses of Connecticut’s legislature unanimously approved a bill that restricts judges in family court matters. Parent who have been unfairly denied access to their children, given restricted access and bankrupted by the court turned out in large numbers to testify in favor of the legislation. The legislation points towards fundamental changes in Connecticut’s family court system.

The bill passed on April 25 deals with technical issues associated with the court appointed Guardians Ad Litem (GALs):

  1. Poor training. GALs require only 30 hours of training. No law degree, no study of child behavior, no other experience with children.
  2. No accountability. As a practical matter, parents paying the bills could not fire the GAL! And, GALs have immunity from law suits.
  3. Some GAL’s had few meetings with children and refused to meet with those intimately involved with the children’s lives.
  4. Excessive pay. Hourly rates were reported in the $200-$850 range and some total billings were in excess of $20,000 per year. Parents can be jailed for failure to pay GALs.

The legislation that will take effect in October, SB 494, addresses most of the complaints listed above. Specifically, it allows parents to agree on a GAL or an attorney for the minor child from a list of fifteen candidates proposed by the judge. If they can’t agree, and the judge appoints a GAL, then this decision is appealable. Most importantly, the judge is required, within 21 days, to issue an order clarifying the work to be done by the GAL or attorney for the minor child to set forth the fee schedule and to set deadlines on the completion of that work.

This increase in transparency strongly discourages a cozy money-making relationship between GAL’s and others in the court system. A judge needs to refer to one or more of 16 factors defining the “best interests of the child” when appointing a GAL/AMC and the GAL/AMC will be accountable for using these 16 factors when they represent a child.

Is this real reform or is it an effort to appease advocates for reform? We believe that it represents an important first step towards reform, and that it signals a new direction in the relationship between the legislature and family court officials. For one thing, the judiciary tried to head off the legislation by promising internal court reforms. For another, judges and court insiders lobbied hard to prevent any legislative interference with their activities. Thirdly, “John McKinney, the Republican leader of the state Senate said the bill is a modest first step towards fixing a system ‘that has fallen apart’ (Hartford Courant, Saturday, April 29, 2014, page B4).” Finally, the unanimous vote in a legislature where many members are lawyers provides a compelling indication that family court system must change.

For the first time, the legislature has substantially restricted the actions of family court judges, imposing specific limits on how they act. Prior to this, judges had broad latitude to determine vaguely defined “best interests of the child,” and this often resulted in marginalizing one parent, as well as fostering greater legal dispute. A small change embedded in the new legislation may have broad consequences: in any case, even one not involving a GAL or attorney for the minor child judges are now required to articulate which of the 16 factors (or possibly some other consideration) they use when determining the best interests of the child.

A new direction was set by the Connecticut legislature on April 25, but much work still needs to be done to ensure that children are not arbitrarily deprived of access to a capable parent, or disadvantaged financially by the excessive cost of a custody dispute. Two advocacy groups, Shared Parenting Council and the National Parents Organization have expressed a willingness to meet with family court officials to hammer out further improvements in the family court system.

View the full text of SB 494.

Weissmuller served on the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children.  Clapp is a longtime advocate and witness in support of shared parenting reform.

#Connecticut, #GALs, #John Clapp, #Tom Weissmuller, #Shared Parenting Council, #Family court

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn