Silver Alert CT- Jennifer Dulos, 50, New Canaan, 24 May 2019 #11 *ARRESTS*

[afitzy]

@gitana1 hearing today a lot of maneuvering by FDs attorney regarding his use of a sealed document - @afitzy summarizes in this list - also do you know if a non party can file a bar complaint ?

@gitana1 totally missed you today and your practical approach to understanding these proceedings. The documents (most of them) are out on social media but its hard to pull them into WS. Looks like the next hearing on July 15th might resolve many of the questions people are raising here about status of Pattis and GAL. Pattis/FD are pushing for custody and even though GF went to Probate Court to gain temporary custody I'm concerned that Family Court could overturn the custody situation as it presently stands. Grandparents rights are tenous and I think many are concerned about the ability of a grandparent to gain permanent custody in this case. FD is barred from the children and family of JD presently so far as I know but how long can the court hold out against a father asking for custody?

 

[sds71]

We ought to create an independent commission to evaluate and approve guardians ad litem. Subject them to reappointment and potential removal. Vet them as we do judges. The decisions they make, after all, have consequences that last a lifetime.-NP
Time for GAL Reform in Connecticut

 

[CarefullyTaught]

Ethan Fry @ethanfry

Maybe I missed this in the photos, but perhaps summer law clerk got some good legal advice and has located an alternative internship?

 

[BellaVita]

Once again, as a family law attorney I do not see one thing the judge has done here that's wrong. Most family law judges do not come from a family law litigation background. Almost none.

The custody report or GAL report would've been given to his attorney and would not have been allowed to be copied. He would be able to review it though.

However, once he no longer has an attorney (and I think he no longer had his general family law attorney), the whole file including the report would've been given to him more have likely.

So, is the release of the evaluation a federal violation?

 

[afitzy]

Once again, as a family law attorney I do not see one thing the judge has done here that's wrong. Most family law judges do not come from a family law litigation background. Almost none.

The custody report or GAL report would've been given to his attorney and would not have been allowed to be copied. He would be able to review it though.

However, once he no longer has an attorney (and I think he no longer had his general family law attorney), the whole file including the report would've been given to him more have likely.

Ok, so FD now has the report and he gives it to Atty Pattis who then uses its contents to get a reporter who is threatening to write a kill article about his client to back down. Where to start. Guess I will start with Pattis asking himself the simple question of "Should I have access to this report" and then perhaps "Should I discuss this report and its contents with a reporter"? Pattis has taken a sealed document from Family Court and used it to defend his client in a criminal case and then disclosed the contents to a reporter. Sure Pattis stopped talking about the report when he was contacted by GF atty but by then the damage had been done IMO.

The other issue that is puzzling is that the report didn't seem to be complete and it was unclear why the person (presumed to be a DR.) would be unable to present the report findings to the court or couldn't be recognized by the court (odd wording that I didn't fully understand). So I wonder why was what looks to be a draft report kicking around between the person that prepared the report or was working on it, the GAL and FD atty? Did JD atty have equal access to what looks to be unfinished work product? I can't say that I fully understand what state the draft was in but why was it seeming to be passed around in unfinished form? To me this makes it even more irresponsbile of Pattis for disclosing it to the public. Confused.

 

[Jen3135]

Just read the Daily Mail article - he's out hoverboarding with his niece??? What the.......(there are photos, it's surreal). How old is he, 10? Does a 51 YO really hoverboard while out on bond for what we all know he did to the mother of his 5 grieving children? This guy is a nut job to the 1000th degree. Notice to the court: He's unstable, unpredictable, going to act out like cornered wild animal very very soon. He poses imminent danger to the public. How many conditions of the court does he have to break before they do something? Do they not learn from prior cases (Powell). If they allow him anywhere near thise kids I'm going to flip. And Meehan - you should be hanging your head in shame you loser. This judge and all others involved in overseeing this case better hold FD and NP accountable for all of their BS and punish them accordingly. The public is not going to sit back and allow this mockery of the judicial system. We want JUSTICE for Jennifer and will accept nothing less. My faith is completely with LE who I think will deliver big time and have the utmost respect for their professionalism and integrity during this investigation. FD take note: you are done.

 

[ab01]

Once again, as a family law attorney I do not see one thing the judge has done here that's wrong. Most family law judges do not come from a family law litigation background. Almost none.

The custody report or GAL report would've been given to his attorney and would not have been allowed to be copied. He would be able to review it though.

However, once he no longer has an attorney (and I think he no longer had his general family law attorney), the whole file including the report would've been given to him more have likely.

Yep it burns me up to see people bashing this judge, This judge is not presiding over a murder trial!

 

[afitzy]

Yep it burns me up to see people bashing this judge, This judge is not presiding over a murder trial!

Yes of course she is NOT presiding over a murder trial but the document in question was part of her court docket and sealed by her court and Judge Heller simply asked for copies to be returned and imposed minorly inconvenient administrative process for the atty's to continue to access the report. If this were your psych report in your divorce wouldn't you be remotely concerned that its contents could be copied multiple times without your knowledge and then discussed publicly and THEN potentially used in a criminal case that was not part of your purview? Not sure about you but I would be quite steamed to read about my psych report in a major paper! But perhaps we have to agree to disagree and that's ok. I'm sticking with POV that I was at best disappointed in response of Judge to safeguarding sealed confidential information that is part of her court docket.

The document which is part of the sealed Family Court record was plucked away and used by Atty Pattis in his criminal case and then made public. Mmmmm. Yes, Judge Heller isn't presiding over a murder trial but doesn't she have the duty to protect the documents that are part of the cases that she does have responsiblity for? This document was sealed for a reason and while I respect your POV I don't see Judge Heller doing much other than getting the paper back and today we saw no attempt to publicly censure any of the involved parties or punish anyone for doing something that was clearly wrong. It was simply lets gather up the missing pieces of paper and head home. MOO

 

[HopeForTheBest]

Right. He cut his hair before the crime so as not to leave evidence at the crime scene. Plus, if he was doing drugs then they can tell by examining your hair... and it also changes his looks to reduce people from recognizing him from day of crime!

I remember Jake Patterson saying he cut his hair for that reason IIRC. I kept thinking others might hear that and emulate it since it seemed to work for a bit.

 

[Annicade]

MT basically saying, get away from me and stay away from me. This is very bad for FD. I would think her defense would say that he was a controlling SOB and he made her do it. That he is a villain. Very bad for FD indeed.

A little part of me wonders if this charade between FD lawyers reaching out to MT's and MT's requesting no contact/communication.....is it a ploy? I dont think NP circus would want this info out....seems a bit hinky to me.

 

[afitzy]

Interesting local article interviewing Atty. Pattis:

'Vicious Piece of Scum': Connecticut Lawyer Getting Hate Mail for Defending Fotis Dulos | Connecticut Law Tribune

 

[ab01]

Yes of course she is NOT presiding over a murder trial but the document in question was part of her court docket and sealed by her court and Judge Heller simply asked for copies to be returned and imposed minorly inconvenient administrative process for the atty's to continue to access the report. If this were your psych report in your divorce wouldn't you be remotely concerned that its contents could be copied multiple times without your knowledge and then discussed publicly and THEN potentially used in a criminal case that was not part of your purview? Not sure about you but I would be quite steamed to read about my psych report in a major paper! But perhaps we have to agree to disagree and that's ok. I'm sticking with POV that I was at best disappointed in response of Judge to safeguarding sealed confidential information that is part of her court docket.

The document which is part of the sealed Family Court record was plucked away and used by Atty Pattis in his criminal case and then made public. Mmmmm. Yes, Judge Heller isn't presiding over a murder trial but doesn't she have the duty to protect the documents that are part of the cases that she does have responsiblity for? This document was sealed for a reason and while I respect your POV I don't see Judge Heller doing much other than getting the paper back and today we saw no attempt to publicly censure any of the involved parties or punish anyone for doing something that was clearly wrong. It was simply lets gather up the missing pieces of paper and head home. MOO

I understand the outrage, but in my experience and knowing family court judges , their rulings are generally based on what they can control.

They are not looking to set stipulations on what is and is not admissible in a criminal court of law.

But rather to the power that they have in a family court proceeding

The judge said basically listen this is a sealed document and you are not going to use it to further your criminal case

The document in question will be held by this court and you will adhere to the rules that I set fourth

Some are trying to compare a family court to a criminal court and I think that is unfair to the judge in question

I honestly don't see what the judge could have been expected to do differently

Were people expecting the judge to break from what she is lawfully expected to do and treat it as a criminal hearing

That's simply not her job IMO

 

[MemPat]

I remember Jake Patterson saying he cut his hair for that reason IIRC. I kept thinking others might hear that and emulate it since it seemed to work for a bit.

Cool. Maybe FD can take more pointers from Genius Jake as he faces life without parole.

 

[afitzy]

We ought to create an independent commission to evaluate and approve guardians ad litem. Subject them to reappointment and potential removal. Vet them as we do judges. The decisions they make, after all, have consequences that last a lifetime.-NP
Time for GAL Reform in Connecticut

Another article talking abut the GAL issue in CT. Commission gives "Family Re-Engineering" Committee a pass on transparency | Yankee Institute for Public Policy

 

[clearskies1]

Read as many of the court documents I could find today and all I can think about is that the person about whom FD and No Case Norm are talking about is still missing and not here to defend herself in court and that years from now her children will read about this on the internet.

A psych exam is a highly personal and oftentimes difficult and invasive process and the document that contained the information was sealed for a very specific reason by the court. But FD and Pattis didn't care about that and Pattis as an officer of the court didn't even check to see if the document was sealed. All he cared about was that a reporter was going to issue a 'kill story' on his client and he needed to respond swiftly and strongly. IMO totally inexcusable and completely pathetic for any member of the bar to behave in such a manner.

It remains to be seen what the court will do to Pattis to punish him but frankly the damage has been done to the missing victim and I'm not sure other than removing Pattis from the case entirely that there is much else that can be done other than severe financial penalties and/or disbarment. I feel that similar consequences should exist for the GAL in this case and that he should be removed and financially punished as well and lose the ability to be a GAL in the State of CT as he has proven to be incapable of doing his job and following basic court procedure. Strong words yes, but what this group did was invasive and certainly a type of assault IMO.

Having a report like this released to the public to me at least represents a form of attack not much different from a physical attack but actually its worse as it cuts to the core of what makes a person a person and potentially shows parts of the person that perhaps that person doesn't even acknowledge themselves. In short, the document is deeply personal and has zero business being made public for any number of reasons including specific professional language used that many laypeople (including atty's) are not equipped to evaluate IMO.

This wasn't FD directly releasing the report to the public but rather it was so much worse as this attack against a missing mother who isn't here to defend herself was made by an officer of the court and this person not only demonstrated zero care or caring for JD but more importantly didn't uphold the laws they are charged to follow (ditto for the GAL that allegedly provided the report to FD atty).

I realize we live in a culture where 'winning' is important but what Pattis did in my opinion was take the concept of winning at all costs to a whole different level and a level which I believe to be 'beyond the law' and this is something I find deeply disturbing. I don't believe anyone is 'beyond the law' and in this case I hope Pattis is severely punished for thinking that the law and the rules of court don't apply to him or his firm. Cannot believe that quashing a potential 'kill article' is more important than following the law or understanding basic human decency. Shameful. MOO

100% agree. Thank you for your insight and eloquence.

 

[gitana1]

@gitana1 hearing today a lot of maneuvering by FDs attorney regarding his use of a sealed document - @afitzy summarizes in this list - also do you know if a non party can file a bar complaint ?

It has to be either a party, a witness or another attorney. Someone connected to the case.

 

[afitzy]

I understand the outrage, but in my experience and knowing family court judges , their rulings are generally based on what they can control.

They are not looking to set stipulations on what is and is not admissible in a criminal court of law.

But rather to the power that they have in a family court proceeding

The judge said basically listen this is a sealed document and you are not going to use it to further your criminal case

The document in question will be held by this court and you will adhere to the rules that I set fourth

Some are trying to compare a family court to a criminal court and I think that is unfair to the judge in question

I honestly don't see what the judge could have been expected to do differently

Were people expecting the judge to break from what she is lawfully expected to do and treat it as a criminal hearing

That's simply not her job IMO

I understand your procedural POV on this situation but am struggling to understand why a stronger statement wasn't made by the Judge to express displeasure that a sensitive and confidential document (which didn't appear to even be in final form) was not only mishandled but misused (kindest words I can think of at the moment) by various officers of the court. I believe this misuse of a report deserved a response from the court that was way beyond a procedural alteration and then we go back to business as usual approach that we saw in court today.

Its almost that Judge Heller couldn't be bothered to expend a bit of emotional energy to express just a tad bit of outrage about the situation similar to that outrage which was expressed by JD atty in court today. It was as if she were saying, "oh well, these things happen, lets just get all the reports back in the right spot, make sure the files are in order, by the way you can only take notes but not the report and BTW keep the GAL in the loop so he can bill some hours too and then finally lets keep things moving along here". Wonder if she would feel that way if it were her psych report or her husbands or her children that was treated in this manner?

I realize @gitana1 explained that Family Court judges come from all walks of the law and this is the way things work but I can't help but thinking that this commerical litigator is not yet in the league to handle this particular case based simply on experience with Family Law matters and that perhaps more experienced hands are required due to the complexity of the case and what is no doubt coming down the pike with regards to custody battle involving a grandparent vs a father. Judge Heller seems at times uncertain and tentative and possibly not in control of her courtroom and its participants and it appears things started going off the rails with the various motions filed. We shall see how this all shakes out on the 15th with the next hearing. I also believe that this case is showing up the many shortcomings and limitations of Family Court in CT and that if you haven't experienced it first hand its hard to believe that some of what we have seen happen is actually just a typical day for these judges that get 8 year appointments with very limited renewal reviews so far as I can tell. MOO

 

[gitana1]

@gitana1 totally missed you today and your practical approach to understanding these proceedings. The documents (most of them) are out on social media but its hard to pull them into WS. Looks like the next hearing on July 15th might resolve many of the questions people are raising here about status of Pattis and GAL. Pattis/FD are pushing for custody and even though GF went to Probate Court to gain temporary custody I'm concerned that Family Court could overturn the custody situation as it presently stands. Grandparents rights are tenous and I think many are concerned about the ability of a grandparent to gain permanent custody in this case. FD is barred from the children and family of JD presently so far as I know but how long can the court hold out against a father asking for custody?

Good questions.

First of all, has Pattis even substituted in on the family law case? He would have to, in order to appear. What a creep. He's just using the family law case o grandstand and create a defense, at the expense of the poor kids in this case.

Someone else said grandma sought custody in probate court. Can someone provide a link? Since there's a family law case active that should be the proper jurisdiction for custody, via a motion to intervene, which is clearly before the family law judge. Not the probate court.

In CA guardianships of kids take place through probate court. I'm not sure about CT. But typically that's only when either parent is unavailable or incapable of caring for the kids. She could have possibly done so when he was incarcerated. Does anyone have some evidence of a probate court case?

I'm not sure about the strength of grandparent rights in CT.

It seems the kids have a team of people - the GAL, mom's counsel, grandma, and the judge, who have concerns about FD and he has already been determined to be a risk to the welfare of the kids. So that could help.

What I've found for CT law shows grandparent rights may not be as liberal as in CA. For example, here they have standing to open a custody case (guardianship). In CT it looks like they don't. But they can intervene if one is already open. (Like here, with the divorce action).

They can, however, open a case for mere visitation rights.

In CT, a grandparent may be able to seek custody if they can pass a theee pronged test via a case called Fish:

1. That they have a parent-like relationship with the child. That could be hard to prove here.
2. That it would be detrimental to remain in the parents' custody.
3. That it would be in the child's best interest to be in the care of the grandparent.

I think grandma succeeds with 2 and 3.

More at link:

https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Notebooks/Pathfinders/RightsofGrandparents/Grandparent.pdf

 

[gitana1]

So, is the release of the evaluation a federal violation?

No. It's simply state contempt of court.

But it's troubling that mom's counsel says the GAL wasn't supposed to release the report to either attorney. Sometimes that's the case and they're just read in court at a sealed hearing. But typically in my state the attorneys receive a hard copy unless it's en emergency investigation.

 

[Bulldogs2]

So, is the release of the evaluation a federal violation?

If his lawyer found the report in his home while searching for his passport, I think this may have been prior to the fami.y law Atty resigning from the case.