|
Lady Justice Isn’t Always Blindfolded
By Linda Jalbert, Avon
We all know it happens, and many of us know of someone who actually benefits from having a family member or close friend working in a regional Superior Court. The benefits of having connections in the court may include moving a hearing up on the docket, relatively harmless fixes of motor vehicle violations, and the manipulations of the presiding judge who is scheduled to hear a case. Needless to say, those of us not on the list for special treatment do our best to stay out of court with those who are.
My story is relatively straightforward. There is a well known Public Act No. 94-61 titled "An Act Concerning Post Majority Child Support (High School and Certain Post Secondary Education)." I believe anyone who has gone to court on a child support issue within the last eight years knows that a law was written obligating an absent parent to pay child support until the minor child reaches the age of 19 or has graduated from high school, whichever comes first. Fewer of us know that this law doesn’t apply to divorces or settlements that were made prior to June 30, 1994. Although the court isn’t legally required to extend this privilege to custodial parents with settlements made prior to June 1994, many of us have benefited from this legislative position.
On Monday, August 12, I took my ex-husband to court for clarification on when his child support obligation should expire. This issue was not implied or explicitly stated in our settlement. My position was that current law should be applied, but since the legislature has not addressed this issue, the judgement should have been left to precedence and the standards of the presiding judge. My case was within the first twelve that were scheduled to be heard, and I patiently waited my turn. Just before the judge was to hear my case he called a recess. I waited 15 minutes for him to return, and upon his return he immediately referred my case to another judge on a different floor. I felt this was unusual, and knowing my ex-husband’s connections in the court, I was concerned. My ex-husband and I waited alone in front of a locked and unoccupied courtroom for at least a half-hour. When the courtroom finally opened, I entered along with the parties involved in three uncontested cases. The judge first heard the three other cases, which proceeded at a relatively slow pace. During this time she impressed us with her wisdom and fairness and gave each participant in the process ample time to speak.
The courtroom was completely empty when my case was finally called. The judge first gave my ex-husband’s attorney permission to speak; she then asked my ex-husband why he felt he shouldn’t continue to make payments while my son is still in high school. She then stated that she was unfamiliar with the June 1994 law and could not pass judgment at this time. The judge had just closed the proceedings! Taken completely off guard, I quickly asked if I could be allowed to at least read my argument, and I gave what I felt at that time was a well-prepared argument. She quickly repeated that she could not pass judgment because she was unfamiliar with this law, she would have to read the language in the June 1994 law, and she would make her judgment based on the law, and send it by mail. My ex-husband and his attorney quickly left their table, shaking hands and leaving me standing in front of a smiling judge. How could it be over? I wasn’t even given an opportunity to dispute his erroneous and misleading statements.
It took several hours before the pieces fell together. A judge without knowledge of a law that is fundamental to a custodial parent’s right to child support was given jurisdiction over my case. This judge didn’t know a law that is known by hundreds of thousands of parents across the state! This judge knew nothing of the common judicial practices in this matter, and I was not prepared to state precedence—or even given an opportunity to give precedence, had I been prepared—for this type of manipulation of the process. I became suspicious that my case was rerouted by my ex-husband’s connections to a judge who was unqualified to pass judgement in family court. My theory is that the presiding judge who heard my case has a specialty, but it certainly isn’t family law. When there is no written law covering a dispute, judgment is based on rules of precedence, and a family judge would have a long record of setting precedence and wouldn’t need it presented to him or her. Perhaps someone in the New Britain Superior Court knew how my first judge would rule and arranged the switch.
I have several questions I feel need to be answered. Why did the presiding judge decide to lighten his load after sitting on the bench for only 45 minutes? Why was there a half-hour gap between our referral and the three other cases heard by the second judge? Is it common practice to mail judgments of this nature? Why was a case in dispute given to a judge who was not qualified to make a family court judgment? How often are family court disputes decided in other courts? Does the court ever assign criminal cases to family court judges? Are any clerks working in the New Britain Superior Court interested in being my friend?
After reading the circumstances above, I think you will come to the same conclusion I have: my ex-husband’s connections orchestrated our hearing. I will not try to appeal my judgment because I will never win playing their game. Instead I have chosen to initiate a legislative dialogue that may help others. But first I wish to say to all absent parents in the State of Connecticut: "How many financially independent 18-year-olds do you know?" You have a moral responsibility to support your child and should do so regardless of the law. If you choose to abandon your children and leave them financially dependent on their other parent because the law says you can, shame on you.
If you are a parent in a similar situation, have experienced similar treatment in a Connecticut court, or are at all sympathetic to my story, I urge you to send a clipping of this article to your State Representative. Tell him or her you want legislation that recognizes a parent’s right to child support regardless of the settlement date, demand the establishment of minimum qualifications for presiding family court judges, and ask for controls that will eliminate abuses of power by members of the court.
|
|
