It happens more often than not where the non-custodial parent has his/her child(ren) withheld - yet is still obligated to pay child support. In this case then court is saying that the non-custodial parent does not have to continue making child support payments.
New York Law Journal
A father who has been prevented from seeing his son by the child's mother should not be obligated to pay child support, a Brooklyn appeals court ruled.
The Sept. 2 decision from a panel of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Matter of Coull v. Rottman, 2014-1516, reverses a 2014 ruling by Westchester County Family Court Judge Hal Greenwald denying Robert Coull's petition to suspend his obligation to make child support payments.
However, the panel left intact Greenwald's order denying Coull's motion to enforce his visitation rights and granting Pamela Rottman's cross-petition to suspend Coull's visitation rights for their son.
A forensic evaluator testified in Coull that Rottman's interference with a regular schedule of visitation between Coull and his son has resulted in a "pattern of alienation."
The evaluator also testified that she was unable to complete her report because the child did not appear for an interview and Rottman refused to allow her to speak with mental health providers or school officials.
Coull last visited his son in February 2010. For the next several months, he said he would go to the exchange location on visitation days, but often neither Rottman nor his son would be there. In one instance, both Rottman and the child appeared, but Rottman said the boy would not leave the car.
"Further, the record reflects that the mother, who represented herself before the Family Court, assumed an inappropriately hostile stance toward the father and witnesses who testified in his favor," the panel wrote.
Full Story: New York Law Journal
Showing posts with label pro se. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro se. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2015
Monday, September 1, 2014
Opinion: In Defense Of Self-Represented Litigants
A strong piece on the issues of having Pro Se litigants.
The Connecticut Law Tribune
Despite the economic barriers to justice faced by struggling Connecticut families, rising from the ashes of the highly charged public debates over how to reform the family courts is a shockingly insensitive outcry from court industry insiders demonizing the 85 percent of divorcing parents who have chosen to invest in their families instead of attorneys.
Tauck v. Tauck was perhaps the most inefficient and expensive trial in Connecticut family court history, spanning over five years, 600-plus filings, and ending in an 86-day trial in 2007 that played out before Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone on Middletown's Regional Family Trial Docket. According to the Hartford Courant, the family paid out some $13.3 million in fees to the dozens of legal industry professionals on the case, including $1.3 million paid (without challenge) to attorney Gaetano Ferro, the children's guardian ad litem.
For further reading: The Connecticut Law Tribune
The Connecticut Law Tribune
Despite the economic barriers to justice faced by struggling Connecticut families, rising from the ashes of the highly charged public debates over how to reform the family courts is a shockingly insensitive outcry from court industry insiders demonizing the 85 percent of divorcing parents who have chosen to invest in their families instead of attorneys.
Tauck v. Tauck was perhaps the most inefficient and expensive trial in Connecticut family court history, spanning over five years, 600-plus filings, and ending in an 86-day trial in 2007 that played out before Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone on Middletown's Regional Family Trial Docket. According to the Hartford Courant, the family paid out some $13.3 million in fees to the dozens of legal industry professionals on the case, including $1.3 million paid (without challenge) to attorney Gaetano Ferro, the children's guardian ad litem.
For further reading: The Connecticut Law Tribune
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Maine - Is Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz promotion good for Maine's Families and children?
It is now official that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has been named Deputy Chief of Maine's District Courts. He is taking over from Deputy Chief Judge Mullen who is moving on to a Superior Court position. How Moskowitz was selected and why he was selected among all of Maine's many district judges is a mystery to the public (and to the Legislature for that matter). Has he been promoted because of outstanding knowledge, skill and experience - or skills be damned - he is a "Buddy" of the courts?
The soon to be Deputy Chief Judge Moskowitz has been a judge since 2008 and has had an interesting career in that time with many challenges and much controversy.
Starting with the case of Dr Lori Handrahan in 2008 and ending with the Dalton v Dalton case of 2013 there have been countless parents (and their children) that have reported suffering from decisions made in his courts. The Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz is one of four judges whose names consistently are reported to us by divorcing families as victims of his actions - after often high handed courtroom management and decisions that are hard to understand.
Though we do not know him personally, The Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has been repeatedly and consistently characterized by others as being irritable, harsh and lacking in basic courtesy towards those in his court. This has been an especially common report from those who are represented 'pro se'. Intimidation by the judge, criticism of their lack of legal knowledge and courtroom sophistication is a complaint of those forced to do "pro se" by their inability to afford a lawyer (74% of cases). The judges attitude compounds the statistically huge "access to justice" problem. Being treated by a judge like a "low life" does not improve the confidence of already frightened people. We hear reports that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has displayed a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding to the rules for Guardians ad litem - This is the yardstick for measuring a Guardian ad litem's performance. Yet, as deputy chief judge he will now be responsible for handling complaints regarding Guardians ad litem. Is there no better judge to have responsible than someone who is reported to have no clear concept of the rules governing those he is responsible to manage.
The Drug Court that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz rules over is reported in the press to be a conflicted mess straying from its original blueprint, and a legal challenge has been raised by the Superior Court in Bangor about violations of the constitutionally mandated due process that many users of those courts receive. There is also the issue raised of flagrant 'ex parte' communications that the teamwork design of drug courts makes unavoidable and inevitable.
We ask: is Moskowitz the caliber of judge we want in our court? Has the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz truly had such a brilliant jurist as to warrant a highly significant, influential and pivotal promotion? Is he a respected leader in law and justice? Or is it because there is so much controversy surrounding this judge that by moving him upstairs Chief Justice Saufley et al are better able to keep an eye on his functioning?
Enough complaints of damage and abuse have been reported by divorcing families entering this court house that we feel it is time for an outside inquiry, a formal legislative audit of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz' courts as well as the District Courts in general. In addition to our call for an audit by the legislature, the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz is coming up for review of his appointment in 2015 - it is time for people to let our representatives know how we, the public access this Judge.
If you have suffered through Judicial abuse - either through the hands of a Judge or Guardian ad litem we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.
Related articles where the Hon Jeffery Moskowitz has had some influence:
PPH - Maine attorney general enters fray over divorce case
Maine - Child Custody - An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521
The soon to be Deputy Chief Judge Moskowitz has been a judge since 2008 and has had an interesting career in that time with many challenges and much controversy.
Starting with the case of Dr Lori Handrahan in 2008 and ending with the Dalton v Dalton case of 2013 there have been countless parents (and their children) that have reported suffering from decisions made in his courts. The Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz is one of four judges whose names consistently are reported to us by divorcing families as victims of his actions - after often high handed courtroom management and decisions that are hard to understand.
Though we do not know him personally, The Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has been repeatedly and consistently characterized by others as being irritable, harsh and lacking in basic courtesy towards those in his court. This has been an especially common report from those who are represented 'pro se'. Intimidation by the judge, criticism of their lack of legal knowledge and courtroom sophistication is a complaint of those forced to do "pro se" by their inability to afford a lawyer (74% of cases). The judges attitude compounds the statistically huge "access to justice" problem. Being treated by a judge like a "low life" does not improve the confidence of already frightened people. We hear reports that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has displayed a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding to the rules for Guardians ad litem - This is the yardstick for measuring a Guardian ad litem's performance. Yet, as deputy chief judge he will now be responsible for handling complaints regarding Guardians ad litem. Is there no better judge to have responsible than someone who is reported to have no clear concept of the rules governing those he is responsible to manage.
The Drug Court that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz rules over is reported in the press to be a conflicted mess straying from its original blueprint, and a legal challenge has been raised by the Superior Court in Bangor about violations of the constitutionally mandated due process that many users of those courts receive. There is also the issue raised of flagrant 'ex parte' communications that the teamwork design of drug courts makes unavoidable and inevitable.
We ask: is Moskowitz the caliber of judge we want in our court? Has the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz truly had such a brilliant jurist as to warrant a highly significant, influential and pivotal promotion? Is he a respected leader in law and justice? Or is it because there is so much controversy surrounding this judge that by moving him upstairs Chief Justice Saufley et al are better able to keep an eye on his functioning?
Enough complaints of damage and abuse have been reported by divorcing families entering this court house that we feel it is time for an outside inquiry, a formal legislative audit of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz' courts as well as the District Courts in general. In addition to our call for an audit by the legislature, the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz is coming up for review of his appointment in 2015 - it is time for people to let our representatives know how we, the public access this Judge.
If you have suffered through Judicial abuse - either through the hands of a Judge or Guardian ad litem we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.
Related articles where the Hon Jeffery Moskowitz has had some influence:
PPH - Maine attorney general enters fray over divorce case
Maine - Child Custody - An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521
Friday, April 4, 2014
Maine - Credibility determinations are left to the sound Judgment of the trier of Fact
SUPREME COURT: “ NO PRINCIPLE OF APPELLATE REVIEW IS BETTER ESTABLISHED THAN THE PRINCIPLE THAT CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ARE LEFT TO THE SOUND JUDGMENT OF THE TRIER OF FACT”.
OUR REBUTTAL: To us, this is a statement of a nice ideal, or a “wish-it-were-true”- not the reality that the public experiences. If all judges possessed super human "infallibility", it might be true. But they don't. They are subject to human error, just like all other mortals. In the case that lead to this quote, the judge was far from infallible about Guardians ad litem. He gave a vivid indisputable demonstration of his legal fallibility, when he improperly referred a complaint about the Guardian ad litem in an active case that he was judging to the Chief Judge of the District Courts. Key issues: (a) the case was being actively argued in HIS court.(b) by the “rules” as stated on the Judicial Branch web site, he himself is supposed to address and judge the merits of complaints about Guardians ad litem in active cases in his court.
Despite being told by the untrained 'pro se' plaintiff that he was mistaken in making this referral he insisted on making this very inappropriate referral in violation of the Maine Rules for Guardians ad litem. If he didn't know the actual written Rules for Guardians ad litem with respect to complaints against Guardians ad litem, one has to ask what else didn't he know about the Rules governing Guardians ad litem, and how could he judge a GAL's functional performance, absent full knowledge of the standards for the job?
The God-like quote above is a clear example of demonstrated bias that favors an inept, uninformed judge, and it disfavors the ironically more informed party who was represented 'pro se'. The decisions coming out of this flawed process both shape and distort the actual facts to maintain an image that all is well in the courts, both probate and Supreme. This is not true in this case where the language of the decision and the actions of the lower court attempt to bamboozle a 'pro se' representative with statements that are provably false.
The court's decision raises a serious question about public "access to justice" and a constitutionally guaranteed "equal protection of the laws (for everyone)"! A 'pro se' representative, even with some "home study" can never match the skills of an experienced lawyer or the highly empowered (though in this case an uninformed) judge. It is an unequal legal conflict between "a peashooter vs a cannon".
So much for “CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ARE LEFT TO THE SOUND JUDGMENT OF THE TRIER OF FACT!
Maine has a 74% ‘pro se’ problem. 74% of court cases are receiving unequal access to justice in Maine courts. It is a class discrimination “secret” that flies under the radar. It violates the US Constitution. For constitutional compliance and respect for “the rule of law” it needs correction asap!
For support please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com and you may also find us on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)