Proof is in the pudding. The custody law of the jewish state of Connecticut is a page right out of the Talmud. Rabbinical rule over the goyim is codified in state statute to permit the jewdicial authorities to steal children at will.
Examine the legal word salad of Connecticut General Statute 46b-56(c) in making ‘custody’ orders. The legislature, under direction of King Jew Judge Elliot N. Solomon has enacted confusion into law. This section lists sixteen items that MAY be considered in trafficking children in a divorce matter. But, in true jewish form, it allows for all items, or none, or anything else the jewidicial authority cares for to make a trafficking decision. In other words, the jew judges get to do anything they want for any reason so codified by the jewish legislature who enacts laws of the goy, for the goy and by the goy, with no meaning or purpose for the goy.
Now shut up and get in the box car. There is no family law. Enjoy your shower. Kundry’s revenge.
Here is the so called law of Connecticut. Meaningless word salad that says your kids are trafficked by jewdicial discretion. No doubt Solomon, Munro, Wetstone and the jewdicial branch liaison cunt Melissa Farley were behind P.A. 05-258 which created the meaningless statute. See the legislative history where state scum Andrew McDonald, John Kissel and Mike Lawlor are partners (queers) in crime. Always fun to read the family court mafia business plan submitted by jew cunt Judge Annie Dranginis.
Hardly a statute, hardly a law, just a jewish guide for trafficking goy kids; the wording actually states: ..may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following factors. Translated, it says here is a meaningless list, do whatever the jew judge wants, the people will be fooled into believing this is law.
Sec. 46b-56. Orders re custody of children….or whatever the fuck the jew judge cares to do.
(c) In making or modifying any order as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the court shall consider the best interests of the child, and in doing so may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following factors: (1) The temperament and developmental needs of the child; (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; (3) any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the child; (4) the wishes of the child’s parents as to custody; (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child’s siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the best interests of the child; (6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent as is appropriate, including compliance with any court orders; (7) any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents’ dispute; (8) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child; (9) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school and community environments; (10) the length of time that the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity in such environment, provided the court may consider favorably a parent who voluntarily leaves the child’s family home pendente lite in order to alleviate stress in the household; (11) the stability of the child’s existing or proposed residences, or both; (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interests of the child; (13) the child’s cultural background; (14) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or the child; (15) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected, as defined respectively in section 46b-120; and (16) whether the party satisfactorily completed participation in a parenting education program established pursuant to section 46b-69b. The court is not required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it considers, but shall articulate the basis for its decision.
Jewish family court miscreants of Connecticut.