Samuel V. Schoonmaker, IV of the The Schoonmaker Legal Group, LLC provides an informative update of family law cases in the State of Connecticut through his "Appellate Preview." Here is a recent submission by Attorney Schoonmaker:

The following decisions will be officially released on September 30, 2008:

State v. Dellacamera, __ Conn.App.__. Dismissing writ of error.
(1) The criminal court entered a no contact order preventing a father from seeing his minor daughter. Two months later a different judge held an evidentiary hearing in the dissolution case, learned of the no contact order in the criminal case, and proceeded to order visitation. A third judge determined that the criminal order took precedence to the extent there were inconsistencies between the criminal and dissolution orders. The father appealed this third order.

(2) The father's writ of error was dismissed (brought to the Supreme Court and transferred to the Appellate Court). The Appellate Court previously had reviewed and denied the father's petition for review under C.G.S. §54-63g. That was his opportunity for appellate review.

In re Sarah S., __ Conn.App. __. Affirming termination of parental rights.

Somers v. Chan, __ Conn.App. __. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
(1) The trial court incorrectly determined that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred this civil action. In a seemingly endless series of lawsuits brought by disbarred attorney David Somers to collect fees, this civil suit against John Chan sought to collect $75,000 of counsel fees from alimony that Mr. Chan owed to Lynn Chan. Ms. Chan had assigned alimony payments to the plaintiff by a promissory note and had authorized the plaintiff to proceed against Mr. Chan to collect. The trial court in the earlier dissolution action had described the plaintiff's $250,000 legal fee bill as unreasonable, unconscionable and unenforceable. However, the issue of what constituted a reasonable fee to be paid to the plaintiff by Ms. Chan had not been fully litigated or decided. Res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply.

(2) The Appellate Court invoked its supervisory powers over the administration of justice to render judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff had engaged in a variety of conduct that was "offensive" and "undermined . . . the integrity of the judicial system."

(3) The Appellate Court reversed a judgment that had been rendered for the defendant on his counterclaim for vexatious litigation.

Legal jargon can be difficult to understand. The Connecticut Judicial Branch has put together a useful glossary of Connecticut family law terms. Click HERE for the glossary.

In conjunction with my blog post yesterday, here is another article about people representing themselves without lawyers. One gentleman, Chris Thompson, said "The problem is there's a lot of procedural-type stuff that I don't understand." He went on to say, “It turns out that if I had one, I probably would have done a little better.” "I don't really recommend it," he said. As discussed yesterday, many people want to handle their own Connecticut divorce and family law matters. It is important that people receive proper advice from a qualified attorney. This article is by Josh Verges and titled, “In court without a lawyer.”

Today many people want to handle their own Connecticut divorce and family law matters. Divorces and family law matters can become very complicated very quickly, and it is important that people receive proper advice from a qualified attorney. Here is an interesting article about such matters at the intersection of both family law and estate planning.  Ask the Experts: It's risky to form own trust

Samuel V. Schoonmaker, IV of the The Schoonmaker Legal Group, LLC provides an informative update of family law cases in the State of Connecticut through his "Appellate Preview." Here is a recent submission by Attorney Schoonmaker:

The following decisions will be officially released on September 9, 2008:

Gosselin v. Gosselin, __ Conn.App __. Affirmed.
(1) The trial court properly found a substantial change of circumstances based on an increase in value of the alimony recipient's assets, even though the post judgment motion to modify only alleged a substantial change in income. The recipient had ample notice that assets would be considered, as both parties addressed assets at depositions and introduced evidence regarding assets at the modification hearing. The recipient waived any irregularity in the pleading by not objecting to introduction of asset evidence at the hearing.

(2) The Appellate Court would not review a calculation error that had not been raised with the trial court. The trial court had compared the value of the alimony recipient's assets immediately before the dissolution with her assets at the time of the modification. It should have compared assets awarded at dissolution with assets at the time of modification. However, the Court would not apply plain error review.

Dissent: The trial court based its decision on the wrong asset values and therefore did not apply C.G.S. §46b-86 correctly. Judge Bishop reasoned that the parties had an opportunity to address the issue in their supplemental briefs, and that the Appellate Court should not have avoided the issue.

Note: Alimony modification hearings rarely are bifurcated between (1) whether there is a substantial change of circumstances under §46b-86 and (2) application of §46b-82 criteria, which require consideration of assets. It is unclear what objection the alimony recipient should have asserted short of seeking bifurcation.

Tip: Modification of alimony has become less income based in recent years.

Signore v. Signore, __ Conn. App. __. Affirmed.
(1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a post judgment motion for modification of alimony because there was no substantial change of circumstances. Even assuming that numerous business loans actually required repayment and were not income, as argued by the obligor, his gross annual income was $71,569. The parties' separation agreement permitted downward modification if his income fell below $70,000.

(2) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by applying the law of the case doctrine to findings made at a prior modification hearing. A different judge had included in its calculation of gross income the health insurance premiums, automobile insurance premiums and automobile expenses that were paid by the obligor's business. Including those expenses elevated the obligor's gross income above $70,000.

By Daniel D'Ambrosio - New Haven Advocate

I got divorced in 1988 for less than $500. Even 20 years ago, that was cheap. My soon-to-be-ex-wife, a student at the University of Montana School of Law, enlisted a friend in Legal Services to draft the divorce petition, which I signed without reading, and without stepping into a courtroom.

We had a three-year-old daughter, who we agreed would stay with me in the house she had grown up in to minimize the trauma. But even so, she endured endless bus trips to Helena from Missoula for weekend visits, years of repetitious drives to a wind-blown wide spot in the road for the hand-off, and some disorienting late-night pick-ups on snowy winter nights.

And that's about as good as divorce gets. If my ex-wife and I had decided to fight it out, as too many couples still do in Connecticut, we would have drained what little financial resources we had, and then some, and made our daughter's life a hell along with our own.

In Connecticut, easy divorces like mine are far from the norm. Instead, many are protracted, bitter and incredibly expensive, with children often caught in the crossfire. But a new trend toward mediated outcomes may calm the marital waters.

John Clapp, a professor in the business school at the University of Connecticut and a divorced father of two boys, analyzed more than 17,000 divorce cases in the state during 2003-2004. He found that nearly half dragged on for more than a year, and that 20 percent were in the system for more than five years.

"The data show that Connecticut divorces are typically drawn out," says Clapp, who also found that when a divorce is granted here, about 40 percent take a year to get a final decree. Nearly a quarter of the unsealed cases involve couples who had been granted a divorce, but were back in court fighting over something related to it.

And you know what they say: Time is money. Divorcing couples in Connecticut regularly rack up bank-busting legal bills that can put the lesser earning party—and there often is an economic imbalance between warring couples—into bankruptcy. Good Connecticut divorce attorneys command $350 to $400 an hour, says Carolyn Kaas, an associate professor at the Quinnipiac University School of Law and co-director of the Center on Dispute Resolution. Some divorce attorneys charge as much as $650 an hour.

"It sounds greedy, but they're typically handling multimillion-dollar cases," says Kaas of the highest-paid lawyers. "I'm for doing everything in our power to change the way people get divorced."

The most notorious Connecticut divorce case in recent memory is last year's settlement involving the extremely wealthy Peter Tauck of Westport (who made his money in the travel industry), his ex-wife Janet and their four children.

The trial went on for 86 days and cost the Taucks an estimated $13 million, smashing the previous Connecticut record of 37 days and probably setting a national record.

"After the trial phase ended on June 25, over 40 motions were filed, and the judge told lawyers for both sides: 'I can't write a decision until you all stop filing motions,'" recounted Clapp in an unpublished op-ed piece.

But you don't have to be a Westport millionaire to serve as a poster child for divorce reform in Connecticut. Brian Patterson, an IT security manager for the company that handles United Technology Corporation's computer work, had his own War of the Roses. He lives in a neat and tidy condominium in South Windsor that belies the fact he is financially strapped. His divorce has cost him about $500,000 since 2000.

Patterson looks utterly depleted: The bags are like fleshy pillows under his eyes, and his long, slender fingers are wrapped with prominent sinewy veins. His hands shake with a slight, steady tremor and he clears his throat repeatedly as he talks about his long ordeal.

Despite earning a good salary, Patterson did not have a half million dollars to spend on his divorce. So he mortgaged his condominium, took loans against his retirement funds, used up all his cash, and borrowed $200,000 from his father, who has since died.

"I still owe a tremendous amount of money," says Patterson, "I still owe on this place. I owe my father's estate. I'm living hand-to-mouth on my paycheck."

Patterson married Marianne Stefanov in September 1999, when he was 48. She gave birth to their daughter at the end of January 2000. Within weeks, says Patterson, Stefanov told him she was leaving and taking their daughter. Patterson claims Stefanov saw him merely as a highly educated "sperm donor," and never intended to stay with him. Stefanov declined to discuss the divorce, but Patterson's charge was vigorously denied by his ex's attorney, Barbara Aaron. "I will tell you that's an out-and-out falsehood," she says.

After Stefanov left him, Patterson immediately filed for divorce on the advice of his attorney, hoping to have the best shot of remaining in his daughter's life.

At first, things seemed to go well. There were supervised visits with his daughter in Stefanov's new home in South Windsor, and that progressed to time with the girl at his own house, beginning when she was about seven months old. By 2002, Patterson was set to have his daughter on overnight visits.

But there would be no happy ending. Patterson says in March 2002 he noticed welts on his daughter's chest and neck and a blood spot in her eye. When he asked her what happened, he says she cried. That led to three separate investigations of Stefanov by the state Department of Children and Families, all of them coming up "unsubstantiated," meaning no finding of abuse.

Patterson found himself back in divorce court, accused of harassing his ex-wife. The visitation schedule was immediately suspended, he says, and a new custody evaluation was ordered. Patterson claims he "knew where that was going," because the evaluator was hand-picked by his ex-wife's attorney. Aaron denies that charge, saying Patterson's own attorney agreed to the evaluator.

Stefanov was given full custody, based on the high level of conflict with her ex-spouse. Patterson says, with some emotion, that "the entire process in Connecticut is really extremely inbred and corrupt. You get cut out of the picture."

One of the last times Patterson saw his daughter was by accident at a local café where his ex-wife's parents brought her for lunch during a break in a court appearance. "They took a booth diagonally from me and I thought, 'Wait a minute, that's my daughter,'" says Patterson. He says he knew he was not supposed to talk to her or risk the wrath of the judge.

"It was terrible," Patterson says. "She clearly knew who I was, even though she hadn't seen me for a year." As he left the café, he gave her a penny as a poignant remembrance.

Tapped out financially, Patterson has not been in court since February 2006. But he says the fight isn't over. "When I have the funds I'll be going back for my daughter," he says. "I promised her all along that I would never abandon her."

But according to Aaron, Patterson brought the tragedy with his daughter upon himself, because he couldn't stop launching attacks against his ex-wife and instigating DCF investigations. Aaron says a series of the best judges in family court pleaded with Patterson to stop his campaign against Stefanov, which they saw as devastating to his daughter, or they would be left with no choice but to cut off contact.

"Neither I nor [Stefanov] ever had any interest in Mr. Patterson not having contact with this child," says Aaron. "All we wanted was an end to the strife, ugliness and litigation."

Patterson, who has remarried, has not seen his daughter in nearly five years. He is not allowed to contact her in any way. He can only have access to her school records and medical records. She'll be 9 years old in January.

Family court might not be such a battleground if an emerging trend of mediation and collaborative law takes hold. "It's a wonderful development invented by litigators who couldn't stomach it any more, how destructive divorce trials are," says Professor Kaas.

Kaas says that under the rules of collaborative law, each party has a lawyer, but their charge is "solely to settle the case." And if no agreement is reached, the parties have to hire new attorneys to go to court, taking away any incentive for the collaborative lawyers not to settle.

"It's an express agreement for clients who understand it's not good for the children or families to fight this out," says Kaas.

Collaborative law started in California and Minnesota about 10 years ago, but it certainly isn't the norm in Connecticut, where the prevailing strategy remains conflict. That's why the most expensive and sought-after divorce attorneys are commonly referred to as "junkyard dogs."

Aaron, who herself has a combative reputation in 22 years of practice, says in the past five years she has seen a shift in her practice from mostly conflict and litigation to some 70 percent of her cases being settled through collaborative law and mediation.

"When it comes to family law it's a toxic system," says Aaron. "Litigation puts a magnifying glass on everything that's wrong with each person and the marriage. With mediation and collaborative law there's an opportunity to at least start a healing process."

Aaron admits that she still finds herself seduced by the tales of cheating, lying and abuse told by new clients. "It's very difficult when a client comes to you and tells you their story, to not align with them," says Aaron. "Just as in war when we dehumanize the enemy, that's exactly what happens in family law. Both lawyers hear a version of reality, a story from one perspective."

By Dennis Beaver

"Barbara and I divorced when our son, Ryan, was four. Barbara was given physical custody. I remained in our small San Joaquin Valley farming town, have always provided support and have a close relationship with Ryan.

"He is 13 now and is doing things which are more serious than normally difficult teenage behavior. The owner of our neighborhood market caught him stealing. He's smoking, and hanging out with some pretty tough characters. His grades have fallen. He is angry much of the time, and admits to having no guidance from his mother.

"When I discuss this with Barbara, she tells me to stop being judgmental, all kids steal, and it is no big deal. Smoking? Since she smokes, it's normal for Ryan to want to smoke and not a problem if he does! She says that kids need to grow up and find their own path, pick their own friends, and if he doesn't like school, it's the fault of the teachers for being so boring. She believes it is no longer necessary to discuss right and wrong, or other issues concerning his choices."

"Based upon these things, do you believe I could get a change of physical custody? Thanks, Terry."

Rejection of sound advice
-- the immaturity of youth

In speaking with Terry, he admitted to "dating Barbara less than a year before getting married, when we were both only 20, and became parents at 21.

My parents and close friends warned me that she seemed to be very immature, and did not show good judgment, but my own immaturity led me to think that she was an exciting, free spirit."

That "free spirit" was about to force him back into court to protect his son.

Custody is never permanent

While the money issues of a divorce can be permanently resolved, custody and visitation are always subject to modification if conditions "significantly change." We refer to this as Continuing Jurisdiction of the Court. In plain English, this simply means, "It is never over."

Anyone involved in a custody or visitation fight who even so much as thinks they've won has it all wrong. There are no winners in these battles, but a lot of losers, usually the children. In the early years of my law practice, I virtually lived in Divorce Court, where it was common to see Round One, Round Two, Three, Four, in repeated efforts to win back custody or change visitation based on claims of a Change in the Circumstances of the Child's Welfare.

I have a great deal of sympathy and respect for the judges and their support staff who work in our Family Law Courts. They are witness to more sadness -- more tragedy -- than most people could experience given several lifetimes. Family Law judges make life-altering decisions every day in what can be one of the most bitter and potentially dangerous places on earth: Their courtrooms.

In one sits Judge "Sandra." That's not her real name, as I always protect the identify of the many judges who read this column and e-mail or phone in comments. Sandra practiced Family Law before becoming a Superior Court judge in a mid-sized Northern California town. She views the issue this way:

"A mistake some parents make is in believing that once a custody order is made, that's it, the other parent is powerless to do a thing. This is absolutely wrong. In many ways, the job of being a good parent is even more difficult after you've gone through a custody fight. It could be the other parent, grandparents, family members -- someone will be continually taking a close look at your parenting skills. If your view of appropriate parenting clashes with accepted standards, expect trouble."

What must be shown to change custody

Custody and visitation "is not something courts will change unless there is a real need to do so," Judge Sandra stressed. "This is another area where the public has some real confusion. There needs to be a significant change in circumstances to warrant a change," she added.

"It could be something simple, such an asthmatic child exposed to cigarette smoke from other household residents, but in general, courts look at anything which threaten stability of the home life or negatively impacts the child's upbringing."

What, specifically, has been found to warrant changing custody? The answers aren't hard to find and include: Unhealthy changes in the lifestyle of a parent, a destabilized or dangerous household, ignoring the child's basic physical needs, abandonment, neglect -- physical and emotional -- a parent's drug or alcohol abuse, and on it goes. Interestingly, in some cases, the age at which the parents were married plays a role.

"Your reader was married and became a parent at a young age, and let's just assume that his description about Ryan's mother is accurate.

To a lot of 20-year-olds, married with a baby at a time when most of their friends are just discovering themselves and the freedom of living on their own, a child may not be seen as a blessing.

Those years you could be spending getting an education, travel -- growing up -- are instead, to some, a prison," she observes.

"Escape often leads to young children being left alone while the parent with custody goes to bars or out with friends. It is an excellent way to lose your kids," Sandra told me. "The numbers of parents who should never have had kids in the first place is more than amazing. But just try to tell some high school students that all it takes is one mistake and the party's over; you're a mom or dad and all those cool plans you had for life after school are now permanently changed."

"While there are always two sides, your reader needs to immediately retain a good family law attorney who should objectively evaluate the situation. From what is described in his e-mail and your discussions, this 13-year-old is at risk," the Family Court judge concluded.

My View

Parents have a duty to their kids. Theft is wrong, legally and morally. Smoking is a known health danger. Hanging out with the wrong people leads to trouble.

Good parents try to keep their kids away from the wrong influences, and if that is "being judgmental," then, good, because that's what defines a parent who understands the job.

Parents are supposed to be judgmental, and those who aren't are just plain cowards, in my book.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and welcomes comments and questions from readers, which may be faxed to him at (661)323-7993, or you may e-mail him at lagombeaver@hotmail.com