Iowa is considering changes to their state’s child abuse registry in response to complaints that individuals are placed on the list prior to having an opportunity to contest the allegations. This in turn causes damage to one’s reputation without any finding of wrongdoing by an impartial hearing officer or judge.
In Connecticut, alleged perpetrators may be recommended for placement on the DCF Child Abuse Registry if DCF determines that the individual poses a risk to the health, safety or well-being of children. The individual is then notified by certified mail of their rights to appeal the decision. Normally, the individual is not placed on the Registry until all appeals are exhausted or waived. However, there are certain exceptions to this general rule. Some of the exceptions include the risk of serious injury to a child, the arrest of the individual based on the allegations or sexual abuse of a child.
I believe that even in these instances Due Process should allow the alleged perpetrator to contest their inclusion on the DCF Child Abuse Registry at an expedited and truncated hearing similar to a probable cause hearing in criminal court. If “probable cause” is found at the hearing the individual retains all rights to appeal the Registry recommendation through a full hearing at a later time. In the interim, his or her name would appear on the Registry. This strikes a balance between the privacy rights of the individual while protecting the public.
Please contact me to discuss removing your name from the DCF Child Abuse Registry.
With the recent snow storm that hit the Northeast, pummeling Connecticut with the most snow it’s seen for a century, there has been an unsurprising rise in snow and ice-related injuries. Doctors at Hartford Hospital noted that they see a number of injuries each winter due to muscle and back strain from shoveling, broken bones from slick walkways and the occasional injury from falling off the roof while clearing snow. But this year, emergency room doctors said they’ve never seen such huge numbers of people as they did immediately after the massive snowstorm a few weeks ago.
Over two dozen people have been treated for falling off roofs and ladders while trying to clear snow. Others have broken arms, ankles and legs from slipping on ice, been hurt by a snowblower or suffered heart attacks while shoveling. While injuries vary, many wonder how their medical bills will be covered. For some, their own health or homeowners insurance will cover their injuries, but others, when injured in a public place, wonder who is responsible for keeping the walkway clear.
Connecticut courts have found that “in the absence of unusual circumstances” a property owner has the duty to remove dangerous snow and ice, but can wait until after the storm ends.
Some examples of “unusual circumstances” include:
- Availability of other entrances or exits
- A change in the weather
- Cause of slippery conditions was a pre-existing accumulation of snow and ice
All property owners, including homeowners who regularly have postal or newspaper delivery, commercial and residential landlords, and shopkeepers, should take care to properly clear ice and snow build-up following a snowstorm.
Resources: For Easterners, this winter hurts more than usual; Don’t Fall for Snow and Ice
Pursuant to the Juan F consent decree, DCF has been subject to federal supervision for over 20 years. Katz seeks to end this oversight in perhaps as little as a year. Overly optimistic? Maybe – or maybe not. Her stellar reputation, experience and intelligence seem unmatched by her predecessors.
Read the article from the Hartford Courant here: http://articles.courant.com/2011-02-21/news/hc-dcf-progress-0222-20110221_1_federal-oversight-private-treatment-providers-ira-lustbader
There are a number of legal elements required to prove a slander case. The most difficult of these elements is usually the requirement that the Plaintiff prove specific damages to his or her reputation as a result of the statement. However, there are certain defamatory statements that are so egregious that the law presumes the statements to be defamatory. These statements are “slander per se.”
Here’s a recent example from a Connecticut Court. Patient #1 goes to an emergency room. Patient #2 informs an emergency room nurse to help patient #1 who is moaning and in pain. Nurse tells patient #2 “he (patient #1) is only here for drugs.”
Since obtaining or attempting to obtain a controlled substance (drugs) is a crime in which the offender can be fined or sent to prison the court found that nurse’s statements to be slander per se.
Had the nurse made the statement directly to patient #1 without anyone else hearing the statement there would be no slander since slander requires that the statement be heard by at least one other person.
Parents modifying child support in Connecticut must show:
- A substantial change in circumstances since the previous support order; or
- A substantial deviation from the Connecticut child support guidelines
A change in either the parents’ or the child’s circumstances may necessitate a corresponding change in the order. For example, if the child has developed a medical condition that has resulted in significant medical bills, the recipient parent may seek an increase in the award to help cover the increased costs.
Other examples of substantial change in circumstances include:
- Employment changes – new job, raise, job loss
- Other financial changes
- Change in custody or visitation
- The child’s educational expenses
- Changes in the health of the child
Under Connecticut law, any change of at least 15 percent is presumed to be a “substantial increase.” The 15 percent change does not refer to an increase or decrease in one of the parent’s incomes.
Instead, new guidelines will be prepared using updated financial information. If, after recalculating the child support order with the both parent’s most recent financial information, the amount of support is at least 15 percent different then this constitutes a substantial change in circumstances.
Please contact me to discuss modifying child support in Connecticut.
After a divorce decree has been entered, the circumstances of the former spouses creating a need to modify the original support award. The most common reasons for requesting a modification are financial – especially in the current economy, where many people have had their work hours reduced, been laid off or lost their jobs.
Under Connecticut law, either spouse can petition the court for a post-judgment modification of alimony unless the divorce decree precludes modification. The modification may be a request to increase or decrease the award, or temporarily or permanently stop the payments.
The party requesting the modification has the burden of proving to the court that there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the original support award was entered, or since the last time the order was modified. There is no set list of what constitutes a “substantial change in circumstances” – instead, the court considers the parties’ individual circumstances when making this determination.
The court will specifically consider whether there has been a substantial change in the financial circumstances of one or both of the parties. This could include either party getting a new job or a raise or other increase in their compensation. It also may include either party experiencing a decrease in compensation or changes in the assets of either party.
Other factors that may indicate a substantial change in financial circumstances include:
- Deteriorating health of either party
- Loss of child support or change in child custody
- Remarriage or cohabitation
If the court finds that there has been a substantial change in either party’s financial circumstances, then the court will consider the same set of factors it looked at when the alimony award was first entered. These factors include:
- The length of the marriage
- The cause of the divorce
- The age, health, station, occupation and sources of income of the parties
- The vocational skills and employability of the parties
- The estate and needs of each party
- If one parent has custody of minor children, the desirability of that parent securing employment
The court will balance the financial needs of the party receiving the alimony with the financial ability of the paying spouse to make the payments before granting the modification.