Everyone knows at least one person who has experienced divorce. Many people who have been through the ordeal of a traditional litigated divorce will say that it was one of the worst and most stressful experiences of their lives. They recall – usually with a shudder – the hours and hours spent in the court house, waiting for their case to be called so that their attorneys could argue yet another motion. They speak of the hurtful things their soon-to-be-ex spouse said about them on the witness stand. And they remember bitterly the emotional and financial cost of a litigated divorce. That old movie, “The War of the Roses” comes to mind.

When engaged in a litigated divorce, I have honestly had to remind my opposing counsel that “this is not our divorce.” One attorney was so engrossed in his adversarial role that he would actually walk away from me in mid-sentence when I didn’t agree with him. If we were ‘negotiating’ on the phone (and I use the term loosely because he was one of those guys who liked to demand rather than suggest anything), he’d hang up in my ear when he didn’t get his way. I often grow tired of the ‘my client is right and your client is wrong’ mentality. Oh, please. It takes 2 to tango. Or rumba, for that matter. Okay, to be fair – and honest — not all lawyers engage in such behavior. But sometimes it feels as if we’re all at war. I’m thinking “The War of the Roses” again. Maybe I should rent it.

I have spent time in court trying to present the facts to a judge while opposing counsel jumps up and objects to everything I say. “Attorney Olszewski appearing for” – “OBJECTION!” “My client would like to” – “OBJECTION!” It is annoying, at best. Even the judge thinks so. Sometimes they tell the other lawyer to be quiet and sit down. I love when that happens. I feel a silly urge to stick my tongue out at the other lawyer and say “nah nah nah nah nah nah” – but I don’t. I’m a big girl now.

By sharp contrast, when I am engaged in the collaborative divorce process, I don’t ever have to remind the attorney representing the other party that “this is not our divorce.” Nobody objects after every word I say. In fact, nobody objects at all. I don’t get the urge to stick my tongue out at the other lawyer. I’m pretty sure nobody gets the urge to stick their tongue out at me, although there’s always a first time for everything. Best of all, my blood pressure remains stable.

In the collaborative divorce process, the parties and their lawyers meet in one of the lawyers’ offices or conference rooms. The Summons and Complaint are not served upon one party by a marshal; they are handed to the person who will assume the role of defendant. The couple agrees to discuss all of the issues in a calm and reasonable fashion. They agree to exchange relevant information and documentation openly and freely, without having to draft a ton of motions and argue in court. (Think of how many trees are saved in the process!) The parties calmly and rationally present their concerns and goals. Sure, there are some emotional moments, but they are handled appropriately. At the end of each meeting, most clients leave feeling as if something has been accomplished. And they don’t feel as if they’ve been beaten up.

When children are involved, a neutral child specialist may be called in to assist the parties in developing a workable parenting plan. The focus is on minimizing the trauma and damage that divorce can cause to a child. The parents are given the opportunity to “test” the proposed plans and solutions before memorializing them in the formal separation agreement. Honest discussion and brainstorming is the hallmark of the collaborative process and it works extremely well when children are involved.

If marital assets must be divided, the parties may work with a neutral financial professional who will analyze the assets and assist the parties in understanding the most fundamental reality of divorce: that there is only one marital “pot” of assets and it must be divided fairly so that each party (and the children) will be left in the best position to move forward. Rather than arguing and fighting over each asset, the financial neutral helps the couple to value those assets and provides real world solutions to otherwise difficult decisions.

Sadly, not every couple is suited for the collaborative process. Highly argumentative, abusive or controlling people would likely have a difficult time maintaining the level of civility, respect and dignity that is required of all the participants. For those unfortunate people, adversarial litigation is usually the only way to obtain a divorce. If you’re one of those highly argumentative, abusive or controlling people, do me a favor and call another attorney. Thanks. I’m trying to keep my blood pressure down. I’d be happy to recommend that lawyer who likes to hang up on me. I’m sure he’d take your case.

Divorce isn’t pleasant but it doesn’t have to be a nightmare. For those who are willing to at least TRY to separate their emotional pain, anger and disappointment over being stuck in a divorce from the REALITY that there WILL be a divorce no matter what, the collaborative process is a good choice. Such couples work with the collaborative team (their lawyers and the other professionals) to work out fair and equitable solutions that make sense in the long-term, not just the short-term. They are often surprised at how well they are able to communicate with their spouse in an environment that feels safe. They come away feeling that they have been treated fairly and with respect. They focus on themselves and their families, remembering the entire time that when the divorce ends, they can remain civil to each other rather than becoming bitter enemies. Think about that when you’re envisioning yourself and your ex-spouse at your daughter’s wedding 15 years from now.

If I had my way, I’d re-write the statutes to require that all divorcing couples must attempt the collaborative process before engaging in litigation. If couples have to divorce, they should at least try to do so with dignity and respect. Divorce doesn’t have to be a nightmare.

I think I’ll watch “The War of the Roses” now.

I often hear stories of elderly people who sign over their home to a family member in order to “protect” it. I’m not saying that every incidence of such a transfer is done by slight of hand on the part of the so-called trusted family member — but it does happen. Sometimes, the elderly person is coerced into doing it. Or they are lied to.

If an elderly person in your life has given up control of their financial and/or personal decisions to a family member or friend and you suspect that something isn’t quite right, I urge you to speak up sooner rather than later. If that elderly person has expressed concern to you over the way their affairs are being handled — or if they are confused over what the person handling their finances is doing with their money, that should raise an alarm.

I am not suggesting hysteria here, so please don’t get me wrong. But if you see something that just isn’t right, protect that elderly person and make a call. You might call the Protective Services for the Elderly unit of the Department of Social Services. They will begin an investigation. Or if you believe some serious financial abuse has occurred, such as an elderly person signing over their interest in their home to another person and you believe they don’t understand the nature of having signed a quit claim deed, you might contact an attorney. Whatever the circumstance, if you have a bad feeling about something that has to do with your elderly loved one, friend or neighbor, don’t wait until it’s too late. Seek professional assistance before the situation worsens.

After reading a Hartford Courant article about Dr. William Petit’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee on the death penalty, I got to wondering about the history of capital punishment. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes as early as the Eighteenth Century B.C. At that time, crucifixions, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement were favored methods of implementing the death penalty.

In 1608, Captain George Kendall was executed in the Jamestown colony of Virginia for being a spy for Spain. That was the first recorded execution in the new colonies. Four years later, in 1612, the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws were enacted by Virginia Governor Sir Thomas Dale. Under those laws, a person could be sentenced to the death penalty for such minor offenses as stealing grapes.

On December 26, 1862, during the Dakota War of 1862, the simultaneous hanging of 38 Dakota people convicted of murder and rape was the largest single execution in United States history.

The death penalty was suspended in the United States from 1972 through 1976 primarily as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia. The court found the imposition of the death penalty in a consolidated group of cases to be unconstitutional, on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution.

The moratorium on capital punishment ended when on January 17, 1977, Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad in Utah. His famous last words were, “Let’s do it.” Later that year, Oklahoma became the first state to adopt lethal injection as a means of execution. On December 7, 1982, Charles Brooks became the first person executed by lethal injection in Texas.

The fate of capital punishment in Connecticut is now before the Judiciary Committee. There are strong and passionate arguments on both sides of this controversial issue. It’s anybody’s guess how this will turn out.

At the end of his post, Will Connecticut Residents Finally Be Able To Buy Alcohol On Sunday? he lists some arcane (and quite amusing) Connecticut laws. Inspired by his research, I decided to do some of my own.

With the sale of alcohol on Sundays on everyone’s mind in Connecticut these days … well maybe it’s not on everyone’s mind but it’s on enough people’s minds to be the subject of debate … And with the whole restructuring of the Probate Courts taking place as you read this, I offer the following statute:

Chapter 545 Sec. 30-97. Town and probate records not to be kept where liquor is sold.

Town or probate records shall not be kept in any room in which alcoholic liquor is sold, nor in any room from which
there is direct access to a room in which such liquor is sold. Any town clerk or judge of probate violating the
provisions of this section shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 30-113.

(1949 Rev., S. 4298.)

FYI, that law was repealed effective October 1, 2002! I guess someone finally took the time to read that chapter!

My question is, who thinks up these laws? More importantly, why?

The issue of physicians aiding terminally ill patients in dying has been under debate for many years in other states across the country. Oregon, Washington and Montana currently have “Death with Dignity” laws allowing physicians to prescribe medication for terminally ill patients who wish to die peacefully. Connecticut has thus far resisted passing such a law.

On one side of the argument is the belief that aiding anyone in dying, whether they are terminally ill and in excruciating pain or not, amounts to assisted suicide. Some opponents of “Death with Dignity” laws have claimed that allowing physicians to prescribe medications to aid people in dying will open the floodgates for scores of elderly, disenfranchised, lonely or depressed people to obtain such prescriptions to commit suicide with the assistance of their doctors.

Those on the other side of the debate argue that if a person is terminally ill — and is going to die with or without the help of a physician — then aiding that person in dying without having to endure excruciating pain is not assisted suicide. The physician’s role in such cases is to aid a patient in dying with dignity and without having to endure unbearable pain.

And there is a difference. According Denver-based Compassion and Choices, an end-of-life advocacy group:

“Those facing a terminal illness do not want to die but—by definition—are dying. They are facing an imminent death and want the option to avoid unbearable suffering. Terminally ill patients who legally access the Death with Dignity Act find the word ’suicide’ offensive and inaccurate. Many have publicly expressed that the term is hurtful and derogatory to them and their loved ones.”

A Connecticut Court will have an opportunity to weigh in on the debate. It will be interesting to see which turn this case takes.

For your information, I have posted links to the “Death with Dignity” laws in other states:

The Washington Death with Dignity Act

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act

Baxter v. Montana (the court decision that allowed “Death with Dignity” in Montana)

On the day in question, I was serving as a court-appointed GAL (Guardian Ad Litem) for the minor child in a paternity case. The alleged father had recently been released from prison and the State was brining a paternity action as a precursor to a child support action.

In such cases, the Assistant Attorney General (AAG, for short) generally asks the mother a series of personal – but necessary – questions that may help to establish paternity. Rather than put the mother on the witness stand, the magistrate allowed the AAG to question her while she (the mother) remained standing at the counsel table. I stood to the mother’s left, facing the magistrate. I was literally standing right in front of him. Well, I was about 5 feet away from the bench, but I was standing directly in his line of vision. The AAG stood to the mother’s right and consulted her notes. The court clerk, a court reporter, and two marshals were facing us from the front left side of the courtroom. The courtroom was packed, quiet and extremely bored.

As you read the following exchange, keep in mind that 1) I was intent on maintaining professional decorum at all costs; 2) I was in full view of a magistrate the entire time and therefore could NOT laugh for any reason; and 3) The clerk, court reporter and both marshals were laughing hysterically almost the entire time. Sound like fun? Read on.

AAG to the mother: Okay, Miss Y, I have to ask you some very personal questions now. Do you understand?

Mother: Yes.

AAG: Okay. Miss Y, did you have intercourse with Mr. X around the time you became pregnant?

Mother: Yes.

AAG: Were you having intercourse with any other man around the time you became pregnant?

Mother: What? No, just him.

AAG: Did you give birth to the child on or about April 1, 2006?

Mother: Yeah, that’s my kid’s birthday.

AAG: So, is it safe to say that you became pregnant sometime around July 1st of 2005?

Mother: No.

AAG: No? Well, did you find out you were pregnant sometime in July or maybe August?

Mother: No, I had the baby on April 1st.

AAG: I understand that. I’m trying to determine when you became pregnant.

Mother: Ok.

AAG: So if you had the baby on April 1, 2006, is it reasonable to say that you would have become pregnant sometime in July of 2005, right?

Mother: No.

AAG: No? Okay, so if you had the baby on … here, look at this calendar …

Mother: Ok, I will.

AAG: Counting backwards … see … April, March, February, January, December, November, October, September, August, July. That’s 9 months, right?

Mother: I guess so.

AAG: You guess so?

Mother: Well, you counted. I was just watching.

AAG: Okay, well, let’s look at the calendar again.

[At this point, the AAG points to each month starting with April and counts out loud backward to July while the mother nods.]

AAG: So you must have gotten pregnant sometime in July then?

Mother: No.

AAG: Okay, well, did you deliver the baby prematurely then?

Mother: No, Ma’am, he was full term. 10 pounds.

AAG: Full term, I see. So then wouldn’t you have become pregnant in July of 2005? 9 months before the baby’s birth?

Mother: No.

AAG: No?

[The AAG is ready to tear her hair out at this point. The rest of the courtroom is listening intently, waiting to see what she’ll ask next. Me included. She removes her reading glasses and looks the mother right in the eye.]

AAG: [Long exasperated sigh]

AAG: Okay, Miss Y. Can you please tell me when you become pregnant?

Mother: Before I had the baby.

Author’s Note: You just can’t make this stuff up!

According to an article posted on WFSB’s website, Rep. Bye believes that all victims of childhood sexual abuse should be allowed to file a civil lawsuit no matter how old they are. There will be public hearings on the issue in the near future as the issue is slated to go before the Judiciary Committee.

“In child sexual abuse, because children repress memories, that’s exactly why we need to open up the statute of limitations because we don’t know when there might be a triggering event,” Bye said. “We’re trying to protect people who were abused as children.”

I agree wholeheartedly and applaud the efforts of Rep. Beth Bye.

Read: Some Look To Eliminate Child Sex Abuse Law

[Doris] Thompson, whose criminal record stretches back to 1955, pleaded guilty Wednesday to taking about $1,400 from the Children’s Medical Group in suburban Torrance.

[Thompson] called Deputy District Attorney Paulette Paccione “sweetie” and told the judge “God bless you” as he sentenced her to three years behind bars.

“She just likes to steal,” Paccione said Thursday. “It’s just been her occupation, I guess, for years and years and years.”

Read: 80-Year-Old Burglar To Judge: ‘God Bless You’

[Source: WFSB.com]

I came upon the following post on the topic that is well-written and informative:

Why You May Need a Prenuptial or Postnuptial Agreement

There are many reasons that a person may want to execute a prenuptial (or postnuptial) agreement. If you have the slightest doubt as to whether or not such an agreement should be part of your marital planning, you should consult a licensed attorney.

Read: Connecticut Bill Would Reduce Penalty For ‘Sexting’ Between Consenting Minors