A Primer: All About Waste and the Wizard of Oz

by Julia Fletcher

Did you read what that quote says? Who would include such a vulgar quote as the introduction to a “custody primer”? 

In a mandatory video for Guardian ad Litem and Attorney for Minor Child training and certification in Connecticut, the woman playing the Guardian ignores the mother’s concerns about “child porn” on the father’s computer. The Guardian  expresses concern for a thirteen-year-old girl’s “sexting”, but doesn’t do anything to help protect any of the children who are involved. 

Other required materials for the training and certification include the document below. The state of Connecticut’s Office of Child Protection that handles the training and certification doesn’t offer any explanation of what the document is. No reason is offered for its inclusion in the required materials. 

It’s an essay called, What Matters in Custody? A Primer. Here’s an excerpt:

So, if one were to watch the required video and read that bit of required reading, upon receiving one’s certification as a Guardian ad Litem in Connecticut, one should NOT contact the FBI as soon as possible to report crimes against children such as “sexting” and/or “child porn” on a computer. Interesting. 

Apparently, someone in Connecticut’s Office of Child Protection decided that parents, under the threat of “sanctions”, will wait to report child endangerment and abuse to the authorities. At what point was that decided in Connecticut and who decided it? Who decided to make the training video noted above, instructing Connecticut’s Guardians ad Litem to totally ignore disclosures of crimes against children?  

Clearly, Connecticut legislators must not be aware of these new rules. Perhaps no one has had the time or the courage to tell the legislators about the criminal quackery that has infiltrated Connecticut’s family courts. 

Maybe it would help if someone would write a post called “Whistle Blower Week”. It could include information about people like Retired Judge DeAnn SalcidoEmily Gallup and John Peragine.   Maybe then a few good people in Connecticut will step forward and say something. When a few courageous people speak up, many more usually follow.

I’m still looking forward to the results of the FBI investigation there. Maybe the FBI needs the information found in this post. I should probably tag it with words that will grab their attention: “bombs”,  “terrorists”, “Martha Stewart” (As referenced on page 9) 

There. That should do it.

  

3 thoughts on “A Primer: All About Waste and the Wizard of Oz

  1. I would bet they pay more attention to hiding money and abiding by their own rules of fraudulent receipt of federal funds than any attention paid to the wellbeing of children. From every angle of research there is money being paid to the states on the childrens head. Similar to a bounty.

    I read each child who enters the system (CPS) and then the Foster Care system, the state is paid somewhere around $1500 per head. Placing a well behaved, loved and healthy child, in the system is the most profitable. They then pay the foster parent about $400-500 (per month) which gives the state $1,000 extra per child (per month) as profit. Also, the better the child, the less repeat interaction the system will have with that child. Thus making that child more profitable. Where does that “better” child come from? LOVING HOMES~

    Every angle I have researched has brought the same sickening result. CPS, Family Court, Religious Organizations, Child Advocate (non-profits), it just goes on and on. Money NO HONOR NO INTEGRITY.

    I believe most Americans WOULD NEVER want their tax dollars spent where the government is spending it. Exposure and disclosure, transparency and account ability hopefully will be the demise of these abuses of federal funds. Look at what happened with Acorn. We are getting this done slowly but surely. (Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, Sandusky, Etc) The public needs to be very suspicion of any organization presenting themselves as helping children or human beings at all. Look at their REAL actions, not their words. Watch for a difference they have made.

  2. From what I can tell — and I’m definite on this — the family courts are where batterers and abusers go to hide. The development of Child Welfare as a specialty (sponsored by the various NACC, First Star (WDC area), CAI (Child Advocacy Institute, San Diego, if I got that name right) and NACC getting $600K grant from HHS to develop this area . . . . PLUS, I spent some time looking at the confirmation of an abuse-covering GAL that became a judge in CT….plus the experiences in Lackawanna County, PA . . . . plus my own experience with a GAL some years ago . . . . .

    I don’t know, Julia, really what to say. The role of GAL is related to the role of trafficking — not protecting — children. Most things are backwards in this system (that’s the rule, not the exception). We’re thinking it’s an ethical system with just a few bad eggs, or ideas — but it’s not. It’s extortionist and based on the states catering to the federal grants (welfare, etc.) to which they are addicted.

    The changes to rules are a common way to change practice, and then an attempt is made to change the laws, lobbying for the individual professions. The judges, attorneys, etc. are not free agents, really — I could look this one up, but I see the first thing mentioned is “Access.” Remember Access/Visitation grants?

    We have to acknowledge, at some point, just how much B^llsh*t, pardon me, the WHOLE thing is, not just individual parts.

    I’ve looked at my own case up one side, back down the other a kazillion times and you know I’ve studied this system in state after state. I don’t think honest and ethical parents stand a chance, particularly if they’re female. We are dealing, literally, with what I can only call “evil.” I don’t know that I will ever get over what happened — overnight removal of children followed by return to poverty, and after a very violent marriage; my kids are grown, both my own parents are gone now (one had to go out witnessing years of this warfare), and while I know it makes more sense to take the organizational/money trail analysis — that still doesn’t solve the problem.

    I think if we believe the family courts have, or deserve, even a shred of credibility at this point, that’s a losing proposition. They don’t. FBI isn’t going to rescue either.

    I still blog (two places now). I think sometimes more people ought to drop the child abuse reporting, find the money and GO for it, meaning go for exposing where it’s been used in each case, and send a clear message that this court is not dealing with a submissive gullible.

    And, try to keep the case out of court, dismiss invalid actions, make the other side work harder; learn from what tricks the opponents are using and pick the ones that work, that aren’t illegal, as can.

    Like Liz Richards’ blog says, Change the Reaction mode. It’s an uphill battle to change the system; change individual responses to it.

    FYI, I have quite a bit of commentary on the Carver County (Lea Banken, etc.) blog, and am still posting about both the courts, and the money, two places.

  3. That doesn’t even make legal sense: DCF is executive function, family court gal is judicial – no jurisdiction.
    If you read the articulation Munro granted, you’ll see she doesn’t know that or doesn’t care. I am filing an articulation of her articulation because the statute she cited in her articulation has nothing to do with decision. Munro, Family Commission etc. Is anyone anywhere paying attention to all of this?

To add a comment, use your name or a pen name. All email addresses are kept private.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s