While I have been 2000% Justice for Jennifer from the day I joined WS, I cannot and will not ignore all that I've learned along the way about the CT Family Court.
As we know, legislators in CT are still fighting hard for family court reform. Here's the latest I've received about striking the name Jennifer from the law....
Domestic Violence Survivors, Experts, and Children of Homicide Victim Oppose Attempts to Strike Bill Name
“This move to strike the name Jennifer from the law adds salt to the gaping wound felt by so many victims and shows the petty nature of any legislator who would go out of their way to make such a change. Having a name, such as Jennifer’s Law, associated with this legislation humanizes the needs of so many voiceless victims in a way that no random sequence of letters and numbers ever could,” added David Magnano, Jennifer Magnano’s son. “It shows the state’s ability to acknowledge its shortcomings, and its willingness to face and address its flaws. It symbolizes hope to do better in combating domestic violence so that we can try to avoid any more tragic losses like those of the one hundred women who the state has already failed in the past decade, four of them named Jennifer.”
[...]
“Coercive control correlates with femicide and familicide. The bill is pioneering and enshrines the definition of coercive control in law, making the abuse visible for the first time in Connecticut. But attempts to erase the names of the women the bill was conceived from are truly shocking,” said Laura Richards. “This bill is not just a number – it represents women and children’s voices and all victims of domestic abuse and coercive control who have been brutally murdered and silenced. The Jennifers’ legacy must be honored.”
I have been asking the question elsewhere for a few months now and still digging for answers today...how can the CT Family Court hold those responsible for 'coercive control', specifically? Can it come in the form of the parties atty's colluding with 'experts'?
Fotis Dulos' last hired divorce atty, Rich Rochlin, was served a civil suit in March 2021 regarding his representation and his hired 'experts'. If the hired guns can ultimately exert the 'coercive control' on behalf of their client, then how does a victim like Jennifer stand a chance? Does "Corrupt Mental Health Professional" ring any bells with this crew? Sure does with me! MOO
Ricketts v. Rochlin et al (3:21-cv-00419), Connecticut District Court
or here:
Ricketts v. Mallett et al
In part, the complaint reads:
"13. The defendant John Doe 1, is a corrupt mental health professional in defendant Rochlin's employ that is willing to say anything if paid handsomely.
[...]
34.On or about January 1, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin conspired with defendant John Doe to concoct a fictional account of events and fabricate a story about parental alienation in attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s parental rights in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.
35.On or about January 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant *advertiser censored* to make material misrepresentations to the State Court appointed guardian ad litem in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics
36.On or about March 5, 2021, defendants [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin again furthered said conspiracy by allowing and enabling defendant [*advertiser censored*] to knowingly file false and untrue discovery affidavits with the State Court in violation of Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Ethics.
37.Defendant’s [*advertiser censored*, *advertiser censored*], and Rochlin have absolutely no evidence of the plaintiff doing anything to alienate defendant [*advertiser censored*] because no such evidence exists and all evidence points to the contrary. All such allegations are complete immoral fabrications to cover defendant [*advertiser censored*] malfeasance.
[...]
51.The conduct of the defendant, ROCHLIN, [*advertiser censored*], DOE, as outlined above, was extreme and outrageous conduct, which they should have realized involved an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff, MINOR PLAINTIFF INITIALED [XX] minor child, severe emotional distress that might result in illness or bodily harm."
ENOUGH ALREADY! Victims will continue being abused and murdered until the CT Family Court system is completely overhauled. MOO
.
H14H-CR19-0281509-T
