For those of you who are involved in conservatorship matters in Connecticut, there's a whole new atmosphere in our probate courts due to a new set of laws that kicked in on October 1st. This was prompted mostly by a great deal of negative press that the Connecticut probate system has been receiving over the last several years.
There are a lot of new administrative issues addressed by the new laws, and if you would like to review the laws in their entirety, click here for PA-07-116 and here for PA-07-117.
In regards to the "big picture" evaluation of the new laws, there are two issues to bring to your attention: (1) more formal hearings, and (2) an enhanced emphasis on the conserved person's wishes.
As of October 1st, all probate court hearings, regardless of whether or not the matter is contested, must follow the formal rules of evidence. This includes the use of tape-recorders during hearings, swearing in anyone who provides testimony, etc. This is a dramatic departure from the previous procedure which allowed for a more informal approach to hearings and employed more relaxed evidence rules in order to facilitate a less restrictive discussion of conservatorship matters.
The new laws also mandate a stronger consideration of the conserved person's wishes when the conservator acts and when the Court renders a decision. Essentially, if the conserved person can communicate his wishes and it's possible to accomodate such wishes without jeopardizing his safety and well-being (and the necessary financial support can be provided) then the conservator needs to to do what she can to fulfill those wishes. The law talks about the "reasonable and informed preferences" of the conserved person, which is certainly open to different interpretations. In any case, the strong emphasis on ascertaining and trying to fulfill the conserved person's wishes is new to conservatorship law in Connecticut.
hubbard_jr@yahoo.com
I was at the hearing at the Judiciary committee of the legislature for PA 07-116 but I have been unable to get a hearing in probate court to enforce the new law for a friend.
We have grieved an attorney appointed by the probate court to represent him. He was not guilty because Judge Marino did not hire him for that motion. Judge Marino did however write a letter of recommendation to the grievance committee praising the work the attorney did at the previous hearing(not the subject of the grievance).
We have now grieved Judge Marino for failing to schedule a hearing on PA 07-116 and other matters. We are waiting for the response from the committee.
Below is a list of problems with the Legal Representation of the mentally ill in probate in Connecticut.
I am concerned for the administration of justice in Connecticut for the mentally ill and especially for those hundreds of patients in Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) in Middletown, CT. This is a list of the issues that comprise that concern for the administration of justice:
1.The attorneys that are the most familiar with the patients at CVH, those from Connecticut Legal Rights Project(CLRP), are prohibited by consent decree in Doe v Hogan 1989 US District Court on page 10 section D from representing patients in most matters in probate court or on any matter where statute provides legal representation.
2.There is no mandatory training for attorneys that represent the mentally ill in probate court, a complex area of the law, although CLRP is providing some voluntary training.
3.All of the attorneys for the mentally ill at CVH are appointed by the same judge- which decreases the independence of the attorneys.
4.All of the hearings for the mentally ill are held in a room at a CVH residential facility and is therefore not a neutral site.
5.None of the indigent patients have any outside psychiatric witnesses at any hearing to determine their release and therefore the judge has any little legally justifiable basis to release the patient except at the request of the hospital.
6.The same judge hears all the cases and is elected by the community and therefore susceptible to making rulings that will be unlikely to cause him problems at re-election.
7.The appointment of attorneys' to represent a patient is not seen by the attorneys as authorization to represent the patient in an appeal to the Superior Court if the ruling is adverse to the interest of the patient (Example: see exhibit 4).
8.The local bar members seem unwilling to represent patients in Superior Court even if their customary fee is paid (see exhibit 1 part V).
9.The local attorneys seem to be unwilling to even take the civil case of a mentally ill person even when assigned by the Superior Court (See exhibit 1 Part V) .
pg 2
10.The Attorney Statewide Grievance Committee is unwilling to appoint counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. (See Exhibit 201 page 3)
11.A person cannot get a Superior Court Judge to appoint an attorney to prosecute a complaint against a probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee because that would be ex-parte communication with the Superior Court Judge (See exhibit 105 of a letter drafted to Judge Pickard that was blocked by the court clerk, because it was deemed ex-parte communication with a judge).
12.The Connecticut Legal Rights Project is unwilling to provide counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. ( See exhibit 201 page 1)
13.Office of Protection and Advocacy has refused to represent patients to grieve their probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has indicated in a letter that they provide legal assistance, but when you call them, they say “not really”, we just provide legal referrals.
14.Office of Protection and Advocacy has a strict policy that creates a catch 22 for the mentally ill. The Office of Protection and Advocacy makes sure that if a “next friend” tries to assist in soliciting their assistance to protect a patient, their primary response is solely to determine if the patient is in absolute agreement with the request. (See exhibit 107) If not then they seem mandated to never do anything for the patient, deeming the entire request to be the concern of the advocate and not the patient, and then can therefore do nothing for the patient with immunity. And the advocate can never get a straight answer about the issue because they are claiming they are protecting the confidentiality of the patient.
15.The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO) is unable to handle any complaints other than employment and housing and public accommodations. It is therefore completely useless in protecting the mentally ill for any but these issues. (Request for assistance, see exhibit 106)
16.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 that gives all Connecticut residents the right to not have a conservator under certain circumstances. Unfortunately Judge Marino has decided that he will not appoint an attorney to any patients at CVH to adjudicate the effect of the new law on their rights (See exhibit 1 Part VI) .
17.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 does deal with affirmative jurisdiction of the probate court over persons. The issue is unclear if that means that a person has the right to the probate court in his Connecticut hometown or just deals with the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with out of state residents. Judge Marino was requested to have a hearing on this matter ( See exhibit 1 part VI), but after more than a year, no hearing has been scheduled.
18.There is currently a shortage of supportive housing and group homes that would be the ideal place to put a person being discharged from CVH, and as a result the Middletown Probate Court is abusing its power to prevent people from being discharged from the hospital without going to the ideal suportive housing or group home (See Exhibit 1).
19.None of the law school clinics, when consulted, were able to help patients at CVH in their legal difficulties.
pg. 3
20.Connecticut Legal Aid, when asked to help indicated that they would be unable to help with any conservator issues for persons under the age of 60, although they said to another agency that am not correct about the age restriction. But that is what I was last told personally.
21.This list does not attempt to deal with the issues that the mentally ill may face in the Superior Court, because after 4 years we have never gotten there.
John Hubbard
Volunteer Patient Advocate
Posted by: John Hubbard | December 07, 2008 at 09:43 PM
hubbard_jr@yahoo.com
I was at the hearing at the Judiciary committee of the legislature for PA 07-116 but I have been unable to get a hearing in probate court to enforce the new law for a friend.
We have grieved an attorney appointed by the probate court to represent him. He was not guilty because Judge Marino did not hire him for that motion. Judge Marino did however write a letter of recommendation to the grievance committee praising the work the attorney did at the previous hearing(not the subject of the grievance).
We have now grieved Judge Marino for failing to schedule a hearing on PA 07-116 and other matters. We are waiting for the response from the committee.
Below is a list of problems with the Legal Representation of the mentally ill in probate in Connecticut.
I am concerned for the administration of justice in Connecticut for the mentally ill and especially for those hundreds of patients in Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) in Middletown, CT. This is a list of the issues that comprise that concern for the administration of justice:
1.The attorneys that are the most familiar with the patients at CVH, those from Connecticut Legal Rights Project(CLRP), are prohibited by consent decree in Doe v Hogan 1989 US District Court on page 10 section D from representing patients in most matters in probate court or on any matter where statute provides legal representation.
2.There is no mandatory training for attorneys that represent the mentally ill in probate court, a complex area of the law, although CLRP is providing some voluntary training.
3.All of the attorneys for the mentally ill at CVH are appointed by the same judge- which decreases the independence of the attorneys.
4.All of the hearings for the mentally ill are held in a room at a CVH residential facility and is therefore not a neutral site.
5.None of the indigent patients have any outside psychiatric witnesses at any hearing to determine their release and therefore the judge has any little legally justifiable basis to release the patient except at the request of the hospital.
6.The same judge hears all the cases and is elected by the community and therefore susceptible to making rulings that will be unlikely to cause him problems at re-election.
7.The appointment of attorneys' to represent a patient is not seen by the attorneys as authorization to represent the patient in an appeal to the Superior Court if the ruling is adverse to the interest of the patient (Example: see exhibit 4).
8.The local bar members seem unwilling to represent patients in Superior Court even if their customary fee is paid (see exhibit 1 part V).
9.The local attorneys seem to be unwilling to even take the civil case of a mentally ill person even when assigned by the Superior Court (See exhibit 1 Part V) .
pg 2
10.The Attorney Statewide Grievance Committee is unwilling to appoint counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. (See Exhibit 201 page 3)
11.A person cannot get a Superior Court Judge to appoint an attorney to prosecute a complaint against a probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee because that would be ex-parte communication with the Superior Court Judge (See exhibit 105 of a letter drafted to Judge Pickard that was blocked by the court clerk, because it was deemed ex-parte communication with a judge).
12.The Connecticut Legal Rights Project is unwilling to provide counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. ( See exhibit 201 page 1)
13.Office of Protection and Advocacy has refused to represent patients to grieve their probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has indicated in a letter that they provide legal assistance, but when you call them, they say “not really”, we just provide legal referrals.
14.Office of Protection and Advocacy has a strict policy that creates a catch 22 for the mentally ill. The Office of Protection and Advocacy makes sure that if a “next friend” tries to assist in soliciting their assistance to protect a patient, their primary response is solely to determine if the patient is in absolute agreement with the request. (See exhibit 107) If not then they seem mandated to never do anything for the patient, deeming the entire request to be the concern of the advocate and not the patient, and then can therefore do nothing for the patient with immunity. And the advocate can never get a straight answer about the issue because they are claiming they are protecting the confidentiality of the patient.
15.The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO) is unable to handle any complaints other than employment and housing and public accommodations. It is therefore completely useless in protecting the mentally ill for any but these issues. (Request for assistance, see exhibit 106)
16.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 that gives all Connecticut residents the right to not have a conservator under certain circumstances. Unfortunately Judge Marino has decided that he will not appoint an attorney to any patients at CVH to adjudicate the effect of the new law on their rights (See exhibit 1 Part VI) .
17.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 does deal with affirmative jurisdiction of the probate court over persons. The issue is unclear if that means that a person has the right to the probate court in his Connecticut hometown or just deals with the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with out of state residents. Judge Marino was requested to have a hearing on this matter ( See exhibit 1 part VI), but after more than a year, no hearing has been scheduled.
18.There is currently a shortage of supportive housing and group homes that would be the ideal place to put a person being discharged from CVH, and as a result the Middletown Probate Court is abusing its power to prevent people from being discharged from the hospital without going to the ideal suportive housing or group home (See Exhibit 1).
19.None of the law school clinics, when consulted, were able to help patients at CVH in their legal difficulties.
pg. 3
20.Connecticut Legal Aid, when asked to help indicated that they would be unable to help with any conservator issues for persons under the age of 60, although they said to another agency that am not correct about the age restriction. But that is what I was last told personally.
21.This list does not attempt to deal with the issues that the mentally ill may face in the Superior Court, because after 4 years we have never gotten there.
John Hubbard
Volunteer Patient Advocate
Posted by: John Hubbard | December 07, 2008 at 09:43 PM
hubbard_jr@yahoo.com
I was at the hearing at the Judiciary committee of the legislature for PA 07-116 but I have been unable to get a hearing in probate court to enforce the new law for a friend.
We have grieved an attorney appointed by the probate court to represent him. He was not guilty because Judge Marino did not hire him for that motion. Judge Marino did however write a letter of recommendation to the grievance committee praising the work the attorney did at the previous hearing(not the subject of the grievance).
We have now grieved Judge Marino for failing to schedule a hearing on PA 07-116 and other matters. We are waiting for the response from the committee.
Below is a list of problems with the Legal Representation of the mentally ill in probate in Connecticut.
I am concerned for the administration of justice in Connecticut for the mentally ill and especially for those hundreds of patients in Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) in Middletown, CT. This is a list of the issues that comprise that concern for the administration of justice:
1.The attorneys that are the most familiar with the patients at CVH, those from Connecticut Legal Rights Project(CLRP), are prohibited by consent decree in Doe v Hogan 1989 US District Court on page 10 section D from representing patients in most matters in probate court or on any matter where statute provides legal representation.
2.There is no mandatory training for attorneys that represent the mentally ill in probate court, a complex area of the law, although CLRP is providing some voluntary training.
3.All of the attorneys for the mentally ill at CVH are appointed by the same judge- which decreases the independence of the attorneys.
4.All of the hearings for the mentally ill are held in a room at a CVH residential facility and is therefore not a neutral site.
5.None of the indigent patients have any outside psychiatric witnesses at any hearing to determine their release and therefore the judge has any little legally justifiable basis to release the patient except at the request of the hospital.
6.The same judge hears all the cases and is elected by the community and therefore susceptible to making rulings that will be unlikely to cause him problems at re-election.
7.The appointment of attorneys' to represent a patient is not seen by the attorneys as authorization to represent the patient in an appeal to the Superior Court if the ruling is adverse to the interest of the patient (Example: see exhibit 4).
8.The local bar members seem unwilling to represent patients in Superior Court even if their customary fee is paid (see exhibit 1 part V).
9.The local attorneys seem to be unwilling to even take the civil case of a mentally ill person even when assigned by the Superior Court (See exhibit 1 Part V) .
pg 2
10.The Attorney Statewide Grievance Committee is unwilling to appoint counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. (See Exhibit 201 page 3)
11.A person cannot get a Superior Court Judge to appoint an attorney to prosecute a complaint against a probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee because that would be ex-parte communication with the Superior Court Judge (See exhibit 105 of a letter drafted to Judge Pickard that was blocked by the court clerk, because it was deemed ex-parte communication with a judge).
12.The Connecticut Legal Rights Project is unwilling to provide counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. ( See exhibit 201 page 1)
13.Office of Protection and Advocacy has refused to represent patients to grieve their probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has indicated in a letter that they provide legal assistance, but when you call them, they say “not really”, we just provide legal referrals.
14.Office of Protection and Advocacy has a strict policy that creates a catch 22 for the mentally ill. The Office of Protection and Advocacy makes sure that if a “next friend” tries to assist in soliciting their assistance to protect a patient, their primary response is solely to determine if the patient is in absolute agreement with the request. (See exhibit 107) If not then they seem mandated to never do anything for the patient, deeming the entire request to be the concern of the advocate and not the patient, and then can therefore do nothing for the patient with immunity. And the advocate can never get a straight answer about the issue because they are claiming they are protecting the confidentiality of the patient.
15.The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO) is unable to handle any complaints other than employment and housing and public accommodations. It is therefore completely useless in protecting the mentally ill for any but these issues. (Request for assistance, see exhibit 106)
16.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 that gives all Connecticut residents the right to not have a conservator under certain circumstances. Unfortunately Judge Marino has decided that he will not appoint an attorney to any patients at CVH to adjudicate the effect of the new law on their rights (See exhibit 1 Part VI) .
17.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 does deal with affirmative jurisdiction of the probate court over persons. The issue is unclear if that means that a person has the right to the probate court in his Connecticut hometown or just deals with the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with out of state residents. Judge Marino was requested to have a hearing on this matter ( See exhibit 1 part VI), but after more than a year, no hearing has been scheduled.
18.There is currently a shortage of supportive housing and group homes that would be the ideal place to put a person being discharged from CVH, and as a result the Middletown Probate Court is abusing its power to prevent people from being discharged from the hospital without going to the ideal suportive housing or group home (See Exhibit 1).
19.None of the law school clinics, when consulted, were able to help patients at CVH in their legal difficulties.
pg. 3
20.Connecticut Legal Aid, when asked to help indicated that they would be unable to help with any conservator issues for persons under the age of 60, although they said to another agency that am not correct about the age restriction. But that is what I was last told personally.
21.This list does not attempt to deal with the issues that the mentally ill may face in the Superior Court, because after 4 years we have never gotten there.
John Hubbard
Volunteer Patient Advocate
Posted by: John Hubbard | December 07, 2008 at 09:43 PM
hubbard_jr@yahoo.com
I was at the hearing at the Judiciary committee of the legislature for PA 07-116 but I have been unable to get a hearing in probate court to enforce the new law for a friend.
We have grieved an attorney appointed by the probate court to represent him. He was not guilty because Judge Marino did not hire him for that motion. Judge Marino did however write a letter of recommendation to the grievance committee praising the work the attorney did at the previous hearing(not the subject of the grievance).
We have now grieved Judge Marino for failing to schedule a hearing on PA 07-116 and other matters. We are waiting for the response from the committee.
Below is a list of problems with the Legal Representation of the mentally ill in probate in Connecticut.
I am concerned for the administration of justice in Connecticut for the mentally ill and especially for those hundreds of patients in Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) in Middletown, CT. This is a list of the issues that comprise that concern for the administration of justice:
1.The attorneys that are the most familiar with the patients at CVH, those from Connecticut Legal Rights Project(CLRP), are prohibited by consent decree in Doe v Hogan 1989 US District Court on page 10 section D from representing patients in most matters in probate court or on any matter where statute provides legal representation.
2.There is no mandatory training for attorneys that represent the mentally ill in probate court, a complex area of the law, although CLRP is providing some voluntary training.
3.All of the attorneys for the mentally ill at CVH are appointed by the same judge- which decreases the independence of the attorneys.
4.All of the hearings for the mentally ill are held in a room at a CVH residential facility and is therefore not a neutral site.
5.None of the indigent patients have any outside psychiatric witnesses at any hearing to determine their release and therefore the judge has any little legally justifiable basis to release the patient except at the request of the hospital.
6.The same judge hears all the cases and is elected by the community and therefore susceptible to making rulings that will be unlikely to cause him problems at re-election.
7.The appointment of attorneys' to represent a patient is not seen by the attorneys as authorization to represent the patient in an appeal to the Superior Court if the ruling is adverse to the interest of the patient (Example: see exhibit 4).
8.The local bar members seem unwilling to represent patients in Superior Court even if their customary fee is paid (see exhibit 1 part V).
9.The local attorneys seem to be unwilling to even take the civil case of a mentally ill person even when assigned by the Superior Court (See exhibit 1 Part V) .
pg 2
10.The Attorney Statewide Grievance Committee is unwilling to appoint counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. (See Exhibit 201 page 3)
11.A person cannot get a Superior Court Judge to appoint an attorney to prosecute a complaint against a probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee because that would be ex-parte communication with the Superior Court Judge (See exhibit 105 of a letter drafted to Judge Pickard that was blocked by the court clerk, because it was deemed ex-parte communication with a judge).
12.The Connecticut Legal Rights Project is unwilling to provide counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. ( See exhibit 201 page 1)
13.Office of Protection and Advocacy has refused to represent patients to grieve their probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has indicated in a letter that they provide legal assistance, but when you call them, they say “not really”, we just provide legal referrals.
14.Office of Protection and Advocacy has a strict policy that creates a catch 22 for the mentally ill. The Office of Protection and Advocacy makes sure that if a “next friend” tries to assist in soliciting their assistance to protect a patient, their primary response is solely to determine if the patient is in absolute agreement with the request. (See exhibit 107) If not then they seem mandated to never do anything for the patient, deeming the entire request to be the concern of the advocate and not the patient, and then can therefore do nothing for the patient with immunity. And the advocate can never get a straight answer about the issue because they are claiming they are protecting the confidentiality of the patient.
15.The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO) is unable to handle any complaints other than employment and housing and public accommodations. It is therefore completely useless in protecting the mentally ill for any but these issues. (Request for assistance, see exhibit 106)
16.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 that gives all Connecticut residents the right to not have a conservator under certain circumstances. Unfortunately Judge Marino has decided that he will not appoint an attorney to any patients at CVH to adjudicate the effect of the new law on their rights (See exhibit 1 Part VI) .
17.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 does deal with affirmative jurisdiction of the probate court over persons. The issue is unclear if that means that a person has the right to the probate court in his Connecticut hometown or just deals with the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with out of state residents. Judge Marino was requested to have a hearing on this matter ( See exhibit 1 part VI), but after more than a year, no hearing has been scheduled.
18.There is currently a shortage of supportive housing and group homes that would be the ideal place to put a person being discharged from CVH, and as a result the Middletown Probate Court is abusing its power to prevent people from being discharged from the hospital without going to the ideal suportive housing or group home (See Exhibit 1).
19.None of the law school clinics, when consulted, were able to help patients at CVH in their legal difficulties.
pg. 3
20.Connecticut Legal Aid, when asked to help indicated that they would be unable to help with any conservator issues for persons under the age of 60, although they said to another agency that am not correct about the age restriction. But that is what I was last told personally.
21.This list does not attempt to deal with the issues that the mentally ill may face in the Superior Court, because after 4 years we have never gotten there.
John Hubbard
Volunteer Patient Advocate
Posted by: John Hubbard | December 07, 2008 at 09:43 PM
hubbard_jr@yahoo.com
I was at the hearing at the Judiciary committee of the legislature for PA 07-116 but I have been unable to get a hearing in probate court to enforce the new law for a friend.
We have grieved an attorney appointed by the probate court to represent him. He was not guilty because Judge Marino did not hire him for that motion. Judge Marino did however write a letter of recommendation to the grievance committee praising the work the attorney did at the previous hearing(not the subject of the grievance).
We have now grieved Judge Marino for failing to schedule a hearing on PA 07-116 and other matters. We are waiting for the response from the committee.
Below is a list of problems with the Legal Representation of the mentally ill in probate in Connecticut.
I am concerned for the administration of justice in Connecticut for the mentally ill and especially for those hundreds of patients in Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) in Middletown, CT. This is a list of the issues that comprise that concern for the administration of justice:
1.The attorneys that are the most familiar with the patients at CVH, those from Connecticut Legal Rights Project(CLRP), are prohibited by consent decree in Doe v Hogan 1989 US District Court on page 10 section D from representing patients in most matters in probate court or on any matter where statute provides legal representation.
2.There is no mandatory training for attorneys that represent the mentally ill in probate court, a complex area of the law, although CLRP is providing some voluntary training.
3.All of the attorneys for the mentally ill at CVH are appointed by the same judge- which decreases the independence of the attorneys.
4.All of the hearings for the mentally ill are held in a room at a CVH residential facility and is therefore not a neutral site.
5.None of the indigent patients have any outside psychiatric witnesses at any hearing to determine their release and therefore the judge has any little legally justifiable basis to release the patient except at the request of the hospital.
6.The same judge hears all the cases and is elected by the community and therefore susceptible to making rulings that will be unlikely to cause him problems at re-election.
7.The appointment of attorneys' to represent a patient is not seen by the attorneys as authorization to represent the patient in an appeal to the Superior Court if the ruling is adverse to the interest of the patient (Example: see exhibit 4).
8.The local bar members seem unwilling to represent patients in Superior Court even if their customary fee is paid (see exhibit 1 part V).
9.The local attorneys seem to be unwilling to even take the civil case of a mentally ill person even when assigned by the Superior Court (See exhibit 1 Part V) .
pg 2
10.The Attorney Statewide Grievance Committee is unwilling to appoint counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. (See Exhibit 201 page 3)
11.A person cannot get a Superior Court Judge to appoint an attorney to prosecute a complaint against a probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee because that would be ex-parte communication with the Superior Court Judge (See exhibit 105 of a letter drafted to Judge Pickard that was blocked by the court clerk, because it was deemed ex-parte communication with a judge).
12.The Connecticut Legal Rights Project is unwilling to provide counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. ( See exhibit 201 page 1)
13.Office of Protection and Advocacy has refused to represent patients to grieve their probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has indicated in a letter that they provide legal assistance, but when you call them, they say “not really”, we just provide legal referrals.
14.Office of Protection and Advocacy has a strict policy that creates a catch 22 for the mentally ill. The Office of Protection and Advocacy makes sure that if a “next friend” tries to assist in soliciting their assistance to protect a patient, their primary response is solely to determine if the patient is in absolute agreement with the request. (See exhibit 107) If not then they seem mandated to never do anything for the patient, deeming the entire request to be the concern of the advocate and not the patient, and then can therefore do nothing for the patient with immunity. And the advocate can never get a straight answer about the issue because they are claiming they are protecting the confidentiality of the patient.
15.The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO) is unable to handle any complaints other than employment and housing and public accommodations. It is therefore completely useless in protecting the mentally ill for any but these issues. (Request for assistance, see exhibit 106)
16.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 that gives all Connecticut residents the right to not have a conservator under certain circumstances. Unfortunately Judge Marino has decided that he will not appoint an attorney to any patients at CVH to adjudicate the effect of the new law on their rights (See exhibit 1 Part VI) .
17.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 does deal with affirmative jurisdiction of the probate court over persons. The issue is unclear if that means that a person has the right to the probate court in his Connecticut hometown or just deals with the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with out of state residents. Judge Marino was requested to have a hearing on this matter ( See exhibit 1 part VI), but after more than a year, no hearing has been scheduled.
18.There is currently a shortage of supportive housing and group homes that would be the ideal place to put a person being discharged from CVH, and as a result the Middletown Probate Court is abusing its power to prevent people from being discharged from the hospital without going to the ideal suportive housing or group home (See Exhibit 1).
19.None of the law school clinics, when consulted, were able to help patients at CVH in their legal difficulties.
pg. 3
20.Connecticut Legal Aid, when asked to help indicated that they would be unable to help with any conservator issues for persons under the age of 60, although they said to another agency that am not correct about the age restriction. But that is what I was last told personally.
21.This list does not attempt to deal with the issues that the mentally ill may face in the Superior Court, because after 4 years we have never gotten there.
John Hubbard
Volunteer Patient Advocate
Posted by: John Hubbard | December 07, 2008 at 09:43 PM
hubbard_jr@yahoo.com
I was at the hearing at the Judiciary committee of the legislature for PA 07-116 but I have been unable to get a hearing in probate court to enforce the new law for a friend.
We have grieved an attorney appointed by the probate court to represent him. He was not guilty because Judge Marino did not hire him for that motion. Judge Marino did however write a letter of recommendation to the grievance committee praising the work the attorney did at the previous hearing(not the subject of the grievance).
We have now grieved Judge Marino for failing to schedule a hearing on PA 07-116 and other matters. We are waiting for the response from the committee.
Below is a list of problems with the Legal Representation of the mentally ill in probate in Connecticut.
I am concerned for the administration of justice in Connecticut for the mentally ill and especially for those hundreds of patients in Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) in Middletown, CT. This is a list of the issues that comprise that concern for the administration of justice:
1.The attorneys that are the most familiar with the patients at CVH, those from Connecticut Legal Rights Project(CLRP), are prohibited by consent decree in Doe v Hogan 1989 US District Court on page 10 section D from representing patients in most matters in probate court or on any matter where statute provides legal representation.
2.There is no mandatory training for attorneys that represent the mentally ill in probate court, a complex area of the law, although CLRP is providing some voluntary training.
3.All of the attorneys for the mentally ill at CVH are appointed by the same judge- which decreases the independence of the attorneys.
4.All of the hearings for the mentally ill are held in a room at a CVH residential facility and is therefore not a neutral site.
5.None of the indigent patients have any outside psychiatric witnesses at any hearing to determine their release and therefore the judge has any little legally justifiable basis to release the patient except at the request of the hospital.
6.The same judge hears all the cases and is elected by the community and therefore susceptible to making rulings that will be unlikely to cause him problems at re-election.
7.The appointment of attorneys' to represent a patient is not seen by the attorneys as authorization to represent the patient in an appeal to the Superior Court if the ruling is adverse to the interest of the patient (Example: see exhibit 4).
8.The local bar members seem unwilling to represent patients in Superior Court even if their customary fee is paid (see exhibit 1 part V).
9.The local attorneys seem to be unwilling to even take the civil case of a mentally ill person even when assigned by the Superior Court (See exhibit 1 Part V) .
pg 2
10.The Attorney Statewide Grievance Committee is unwilling to appoint counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. (See Exhibit 201 page 3)
11.A person cannot get a Superior Court Judge to appoint an attorney to prosecute a complaint against a probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee because that would be ex-parte communication with the Superior Court Judge (See exhibit 105 of a letter drafted to Judge Pickard that was blocked by the court clerk, because it was deemed ex-parte communication with a judge).
12.The Connecticut Legal Rights Project is unwilling to provide counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. ( See exhibit 201 page 1)
13.Office of Protection and Advocacy has refused to represent patients to grieve their probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has indicated in a letter that they provide legal assistance, but when you call them, they say “not really”, we just provide legal referrals.
14.Office of Protection and Advocacy has a strict policy that creates a catch 22 for the mentally ill. The Office of Protection and Advocacy makes sure that if a “next friend” tries to assist in soliciting their assistance to protect a patient, their primary response is solely to determine if the patient is in absolute agreement with the request. (See exhibit 107) If not then they seem mandated to never do anything for the patient, deeming the entire request to be the concern of the advocate and not the patient, and then can therefore do nothing for the patient with immunity. And the advocate can never get a straight answer about the issue because they are claiming they are protecting the confidentiality of the patient.
15.The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO) is unable to handle any complaints other than employment and housing and public accommodations. It is therefore completely useless in protecting the mentally ill for any but these issues. (Request for assistance, see exhibit 106)
16.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 that gives all Connecticut residents the right to not have a conservator under certain circumstances. Unfortunately Judge Marino has decided that he will not appoint an attorney to any patients at CVH to adjudicate the effect of the new law on their rights (See exhibit 1 Part VI) .
17.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 does deal with affirmative jurisdiction of the probate court over persons. The issue is unclear if that means that a person has the right to the probate court in his Connecticut hometown or just deals with the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with out of state residents. Judge Marino was requested to have a hearing on this matter ( See exhibit 1 part VI), but after more than a year, no hearing has been scheduled.
18.There is currently a shortage of supportive housing and group homes that would be the ideal place to put a person being discharged from CVH, and as a result the Middletown Probate Court is abusing its power to prevent people from being discharged from the hospital without going to the ideal suportive housing or group home (See Exhibit 1).
19.None of the law school clinics, when consulted, were able to help patients at CVH in their legal difficulties.
pg. 3
20.Connecticut Legal Aid, when asked to help indicated that they would be unable to help with any conservator issues for persons under the age of 60, although they said to another agency that am not correct about the age restriction. But that is what I was last told personally.
21.This list does not attempt to deal with the issues that the mentally ill may face in the Superior Court, because after 4 years we have never gotten there.
John Hubbard
Volunteer Patient Advocate
Posted by: John Hubbard | December 07, 2008 at 09:44 PM
hubbard_jr@yahoo.com
I was at the hearing at the Judiciary committee of the legislature for PA 07-116 but I have been unable to get a hearing in probate court to enforce the new law for a friend.
We have grieved an attorney appointed by the probate court to represent him. He was not guilty because Judge Marino did not hire him for that motion. Judge Marino did however write a letter of recommendation to the grievance committee praising the work the attorney did at the previous hearing(not the subject of the grievance).
We have now grieved Judge Marino for failing to schedule a hearing on PA 07-116 and other matters. We are waiting for the response from the committee.
Below is a list of problems with the Legal Representation of the mentally ill in probate in Connecticut.
I am concerned for the administration of justice in Connecticut for the mentally ill and especially for those hundreds of patients in Connecticut Valley Hospital (CVH) in Middletown, CT. This is a list of the issues that comprise that concern for the administration of justice:
1.The attorneys that are the most familiar with the patients at CVH, those from Connecticut Legal Rights Project(CLRP), are prohibited by consent decree in Doe v Hogan 1989 US District Court on page 10 section D from representing patients in most matters in probate court or on any matter where statute provides legal representation.
2.There is no mandatory training for attorneys that represent the mentally ill in probate court, a complex area of the law, although CLRP is providing some voluntary training.
3.All of the attorneys for the mentally ill at CVH are appointed by the same judge- which decreases the independence of the attorneys.
4.All of the hearings for the mentally ill are held in a room at a CVH residential facility and is therefore not a neutral site.
5.None of the indigent patients have any outside psychiatric witnesses at any hearing to determine their release and therefore the judge has any little legally justifiable basis to release the patient except at the request of the hospital.
6.The same judge hears all the cases and is elected by the community and therefore susceptible to making rulings that will be unlikely to cause him problems at re-election.
7.The appointment of attorneys' to represent a patient is not seen by the attorneys as authorization to represent the patient in an appeal to the Superior Court if the ruling is adverse to the interest of the patient (Example: see exhibit 4).
8.The local bar members seem unwilling to represent patients in Superior Court even if their customary fee is paid (see exhibit 1 part V).
9.The local attorneys seem to be unwilling to even take the civil case of a mentally ill person even when assigned by the Superior Court (See exhibit 1 Part V) .
pg 2
10.The Attorney Statewide Grievance Committee is unwilling to appoint counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. (See Exhibit 201 page 3)
11.A person cannot get a Superior Court Judge to appoint an attorney to prosecute a complaint against a probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee because that would be ex-parte communication with the Superior Court Judge (See exhibit 105 of a letter drafted to Judge Pickard that was blocked by the court clerk, because it was deemed ex-parte communication with a judge).
12.The Connecticut Legal Rights Project is unwilling to provide counsel for an indigent person to prosecute a grievance against a probate court appointed attorney. ( See exhibit 201 page 1)
13.Office of Protection and Advocacy has refused to represent patients to grieve their probate court appointed attorney in the Statewide Grievance Committee. The Office of Protection and Advocacy has indicated in a letter that they provide legal assistance, but when you call them, they say “not really”, we just provide legal referrals.
14.Office of Protection and Advocacy has a strict policy that creates a catch 22 for the mentally ill. The Office of Protection and Advocacy makes sure that if a “next friend” tries to assist in soliciting their assistance to protect a patient, their primary response is solely to determine if the patient is in absolute agreement with the request. (See exhibit 107) If not then they seem mandated to never do anything for the patient, deeming the entire request to be the concern of the advocate and not the patient, and then can therefore do nothing for the patient with immunity. And the advocate can never get a straight answer about the issue because they are claiming they are protecting the confidentiality of the patient.
15.The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities(CHRO) is unable to handle any complaints other than employment and housing and public accommodations. It is therefore completely useless in protecting the mentally ill for any but these issues. (Request for assistance, see exhibit 106)
16.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 that gives all Connecticut residents the right to not have a conservator under certain circumstances. Unfortunately Judge Marino has decided that he will not appoint an attorney to any patients at CVH to adjudicate the effect of the new law on their rights (See exhibit 1 Part VI) .
17.The Legislature passed PA 07-116 does deal with affirmative jurisdiction of the probate court over persons. The issue is unclear if that means that a person has the right to the probate court in his Connecticut hometown or just deals with the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with out of state residents. Judge Marino was requested to have a hearing on this matter ( See exhibit 1 part VI), but after more than a year, no hearing has been scheduled.
18.There is currently a shortage of supportive housing and group homes that would be the ideal place to put a person being discharged from CVH, and as a result the Middletown Probate Court is abusing its power to prevent people from being discharged from the hospital without going to the ideal suportive housing or group home (See Exhibit 1).
19.None of the law school clinics, when consulted, were able to help patients at CVH in their legal difficulties.
pg. 3
20.Connecticut Legal Aid, when asked to help indicated that they would be unable to help with any conservator issues for persons under the age of 60, although they said to another agency that am not correct about the age restriction. But that is what I was last told personally.
21.This list does not attempt to deal with the issues that the mentally ill may face in the Superior Court, because after 4 years we have never gotten there.
John Hubbard
Volunteer Patient Advocate
Posted by: John Hubbard | December 07, 2008 at 09:44 PM