Family Court Strangeness

In a matter of equity of a typical dysfunctional American family in a state court where the marriage blanket is torn in half, the estate divided, the lawyers paid, the kids fought over for foolish, non-Christian causes, why does the state care who takes the kids to the doctors?

Put another way, what compelling interest does the State of Connecticut have to limit a mother’s ability to take the kid to the dentist?  To the pediatrician? To the eye doctor?  To the dermatologist? Or any other state licensed medical provider regulated by the executive branch of government by the Department of Public Health?  What is driving Connecticut Family Court judges to include orders which prevent a custodial mother from taking the kid to any doctor she chooses whenever she chooses?

There is nothing in the statutes under Title 46b Family Law that even suggests the court need consider limiting a mother’s right to care for her children.  From where does this restriction come?  Is it a secret game of the judges, hidden in the very un-public Family Court Bench Book?  That mystery novel which is so mysterious, the public cannot view it?  If it is in the bench book, how did it get there?  No case law on the subject.

Why are fathers’ attorneys slipping this strange clause into separation agreements around the state?  Dad scared that medical professionals will find something about kids that they want kept secret?  That medical professionals are mandatory reporters under state law, who have duty to report evidence of sexually abused children?  If mom takes the kid to an out of pedo ring pediatrician, then the executive branch gets control over Family Court?  Jurisdiction competition over the pedophile play toys?

Looks like the Family Bar Association has some explaining to do, as their members are pushing it and the judges are accepting it.  Another conspiracy run by Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto and her pedophile handlers.  Keeping the trafficked kids away from medical professionals is a pedo tactic to minimize discovery risk.  Making it a condition of a divorce decree or separation agreement betrays the underlying purpose. Another example of corruption sitting in court files for all to see.

Curious that such clauses have been found in files where Attorney Mary Brigham has been assigned as the guardian ad litem.  Strange for an attorney to make a claim that a mother should not be allowed to take the kid to the doctor.  Did Attorney Brigham really think that no one would ever notice.  Did Judge Lloyd Cutsumpas, Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto,  Judge Gerard Adelman, Judge Lynda Munro, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone, Judge Elaine Gordon and Judge Maureen Murphy think the public would not notice their signatures on such strange court orders?

The who’s who of Connecticut pedophile protectors is hiding in the light in the case files of Family Court.

Pedo Judge Maureen Murphy

 

 

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: