NJ & CT News

The child's grandmother had sued DYFS, asserting that the caseworker assigned to help the family was aware of the danger the father posed to the child, yet did not sufficiently investigate those suspicions or report the case to law enforcement. The jury found that he and two other DYFS agents were 100% responsible. Judge Rothschild explained that he was compelled to hold the father at least 25% at fault because the father “had the last clear chance to keep [the child] safe.” The judge apparently was not completely comfortable with his choices in this case, acknowledging that his authority to change apportionment of fault was unclear: “To try to compare or apportion results in the risk of arbitrariness,” he said. “The only non-arbitrary apportionment the court can conceive … of in this case is per capita, making each of the four responsible parties 25% liable.”

NFL Player's Move to New Team Takes Case Out of State's Purview

Calling it a matter of first impression, Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed has declined to hear a child support case that was commenced in 2011 but which never progressed to final order. The reason: The father, mother and child now all reside outside of New Jersey. When the matter first came before New Jersey family court, the child in question and his mother lived in Virginia, but the father, New York Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw, was residing in New Jersey. Temporary child support of $1,200 per month was ordered, but no other proceedings took place for several years. When the mother sought modification of the pendente lite order, Bradshaw moved for dismissal, saying that because he was no longer a New Jersey domiciliary, New Jersey no longer retained jurisdiction over any of the parties. The mother contended that New Jersey had continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UFISA) because the 2011 order was temporary and made in anticipation of the making of a final order. The question, according to Judge Mohammed, was therefore “whether under UIFSA a court loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction when a temporary order has been entered, but the parties have left the state before a final order or discovery schedule has been issued.” He decided that it did not.

'

CONNECTICUT

Committee Hears Comments On Regulation of Guardians Ad Litem

Members of a Connecticut state legislative committee on March 31 heard from dozens of people who say family court reform is critically needed to regulate how guardians ad litem (GALs) are used in contentious child custody cases. The Judiciary Committee held the public hearing on Senate Bill 494, which would add oversight of court-appointed guardians ad litem, cap the fees they can charge at $150 per hour up to $10,000 per case, and provide parents with a process to have GALs removed from custody cases at their request. “We're trying to get our arms around this,” Rep. John Kissell, a member of the committee said, adding that he and his fellow members are taking the concerns seriously.

The use of GALs, who are appointed to represent the interests of the children in custody matters, has been brought to the forefront of public discourse in recent weeks, pushed by calls for reform from advocates who are upset that custody disputes have become too expensive for average-income families to wage. Even Chief Justice Chase Rogers has weighed into the discussion, publicly calling for advisory guidelines for when judges should appoint guardians ad litem, as well as calling for a written code of conduct for GALs.

A legislative measure now before lawmakers could do just that, although advocates have questioned whether the pending bill will go far enough. Some have called for the outright ban on the use of guardians ad litem, questioning why the Department of Children and Families can't take over the responsibility of making appearances on behalf of children in child custody cases.

The Judiciary Committee heard testimony mostly from parents who have been impacted by the family court system. Many of those parents shared horror stories of high legal bills and loss of custody, which they blamed directly on GALs. Among those who testified was Michael Nowacki of New Canaan, who said guardians' fees were too high, and his child custody case ate deep into savings accounts, to the tune of $250,000. “It is wrong to make us pay for an unregulated service, it's criminal conduct,” Nowacki said. “Respect our rights to love our children without interference of government.”

Still in the draft stages, the bill would allow judges to order fees for the guardians ad litem and court-appointed children's attorneys to be calculated on a sliding scale basis, after taking into account the income and assets of the parents. The bill would also prohibit forcing parents to pay for guardians ad litem out of their children's college savings accounts.

Superior Court Judge Elliot Solomon, who serves as the co-chair of the Judicial Branch's Access to Justice Commission and as a member of the Commission on Civil Court Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Family Commission, said the Judicial Branch has not expressed opposition to the proposals. Addressing the committee, Solomon said the vast majority of cases involving GALs are handled without complaints to the court. He suggested that under the current system, if the parties have a concern about how a guardian ad litem is handling a case, those concerns can be addressed in court. “We are mindful of what the parties are feeling,” Solomon said. “If I find out about GAL concerns [in court] I'm going to address it.”

State Senator Gary Holder-Winfield asked the judge if the law requires them to consider concerns about GALs to be addressed, including a removal of the GAL at the request of the parties. Solomon answered, “No statute says that.”

Members of the committee asked questions during the hearing, one of the most outspoken being Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, who has been advocating for reform. When one parent testified about problems with a guardian ad litem's recommendations that he said led to his loss of custody of his children, Gonzalez told him, “We're going to see what we can do to change that.” ' Jay Stapleton, The Connecticut Law Tribune

NEW JERSEY

Record Jury Award Reduced, But NJ's DYFS Still Owes Plenty

Last year, the largest personal injury verdict in New Jersey's history was awarded to an infant who became permanently disabled after a severe beating from his father. That award, for $166 million dollars, has now been reduced to $102 million, primarily because Essex County Superior Court Judge James Rothschild Jr has reapportioned 25% of the fault to the father, rather than leaving the jury's 100% apportionment to New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) intact. He has also reduced the award for the now four-year-old child's future medical care from $105 million to $75.9 million after finding that expert testimony established that the boy would have to live to the age of 130 to need that much medical care. The judge left in place awards of $57.7 million for pain and suffering, $1.9 million for a relative's caretaking services, and $1.4 million for future lost wages.

The child's grandmother had sued DYFS, asserting that the caseworker assigned to help the family was aware of the danger the father posed to the child, yet did not sufficiently investigate those suspicions or report the case to law enforcement. The jury found that he and two other DYFS agents were 100% responsible. Judge Rothschild explained that he was compelled to hold the father at least 25% at fault because the father “had the last clear chance to keep [the child] safe.” The judge apparently was not completely comfortable with his choices in this case, acknowledging that his authority to change apportionment of fault was unclear: “To try to compare or apportion results in the risk of arbitrariness,” he said. “The only non-arbitrary apportionment the court can conceive … of in this case is per capita, making each of the four responsible parties 25% liable.”

NFL Player's Move to New Team Takes Case Out of State's Purview

Calling it a matter of first impression, Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed has declined to hear a child support case that was commenced in 2011 but which never progressed to final order. The reason: The father, mother and child now all reside outside of New Jersey. When the matter first came before New Jersey family court, the child in question and his mother lived in Virginia, but the father, New York Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw, was residing in New Jersey. Temporary child support of $1,200 per month was ordered, but no other proceedings took place for several years. When the mother sought modification of the pendente lite order, Bradshaw moved for dismissal, saying that because he was no longer a New Jersey domiciliary, New Jersey no longer retained jurisdiction over any of the parties. The mother contended that New Jersey had continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UFISA) because the 2011 order was temporary and made in anticipation of the making of a final order. The question, according to Judge Mohammed, was therefore “whether under UIFSA a court loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction when a temporary order has been entered, but the parties have left the state before a final order or discovery schedule has been issued.” He decided that it did not.

'

CONNECTICUT

Committee Hears Comments On Regulation of Guardians Ad Litem

Members of a Connecticut state legislative committee on March 31 heard from dozens of people who say family court reform is critically needed to regulate how guardians ad litem (GALs) are used in contentious child custody cases. The Judiciary Committee held the public hearing on Senate Bill 494, which would add oversight of court-appointed guardians ad litem, cap the fees they can charge at $150 per hour up to $10,000 per case, and provide parents with a process to have GALs removed from custody cases at their request. “We're trying to get our arms around this,” Rep. John Kissell, a member of the committee said, adding that he and his fellow members are taking the concerns seriously.

The use of GALs, who are appointed to represent the interests of the children in custody matters, has been brought to the forefront of public discourse in recent weeks, pushed by calls for reform from advocates who are upset that custody disputes have become too expensive for average-income families to wage. Even Chief Justice Chase Rogers has weighed into the discussion, publicly calling for advisory guidelines for when judges should appoint guardians ad litem, as well as calling for a written code of conduct for GALs.

A legislative measure now before lawmakers could do just that, although advocates have questioned whether the pending bill will go far enough. Some have called for the outright ban on the use of guardians ad litem, questioning why the Department of Children and Families can't take over the responsibility of making appearances on behalf of children in child custody cases.

The Judiciary Committee heard testimony mostly from parents who have been impacted by the family court system. Many of those parents shared horror stories of high legal bills and loss of custody, which they blamed directly on GALs. Among those who testified was Michael Nowacki of New Canaan, who said guardians' fees were too high, and his child custody case ate deep into savings accounts, to the tune of $250,000. “It is wrong to make us pay for an unregulated service, it's criminal conduct,” Nowacki said. “Respect our rights to love our children without interference of government.”

Still in the draft stages, the bill would allow judges to order fees for the guardians ad litem and court-appointed children's attorneys to be calculated on a sliding scale basis, after taking into account the income and assets of the parents. The bill would also prohibit forcing parents to pay for guardians ad litem out of their children's college savings accounts.

Superior Court Judge Elliot Solomon, who serves as the co-chair of the Judicial Branch's Access to Justice Commission and as a member of the Commission on Civil Court Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Family Commission, said the Judicial Branch has not expressed opposition to the proposals. Addressing the committee, Solomon said the vast majority of cases involving GALs are handled without complaints to the court. He suggested that under the current system, if the parties have a concern about how a guardian ad litem is handling a case, those concerns can be addressed in court. “We are mindful of what the parties are feeling,” Solomon said. “If I find out about GAL concerns [in court] I'm going to address it.”

State Senator Gary Holder-Winfield asked the judge if the law requires them to consider concerns about GALs to be addressed, including a removal of the GAL at the request of the parties. Solomon answered, “No statute says that.”

Members of the committee asked questions during the hearing, one of the most outspoken being Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, who has been advocating for reform. When one parent testified about problems with a guardian ad litem's recommendations that he said led to his loss of custody of his children, Gonzalez told him, “We're going to see what we can do to change that.” ' Jay Stapleton, The Connecticut Law Tribune