N

N
o
o
n
n
c
c
u
u
s
s
t
t
o
o
d
d
i
i
a
a
l
l
P
P
a
a
r
r
e
e
n
n
t
t
s
s:
Summaries of Research,
Grants and Practices

Child Access and Visitation Employment and Training
Fatherhood Incarceration and Re-Entry Projects In Progress

Office of Child Support Enforcement

Administration for Children and Families
Department of Health and Human Services

July 2009

Child Access and Visitation

The "Grants to States for Access and Visitation" Program (42
U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996. The program goal is to enable
States to establish and administer programs to support and
facilitate NCPs access to and visitation of their children.

States may use grant funds to develop programs and provide
services such as:
Mediation
Development of parenting plans
Education
Counseling
Visitation enforcement (including monitored and
supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-
up)
Development of guidelines for visitation and
alternative custody arrangements.
There is a growing body of evidence supporting the premise
that an NCP who has increased access to his or her
child(ren) will be more likely to comply with a support order.
This finding is particularly dramatic for fathers who were
unmarried to the CP at the time of the childs birth.

Keep in mind that:
State child support caseloads have changed from a
predominantly divorced population to a majority of
unmarried (non-TANF) parents.
Unwed NCPs are less likely than divorced fathers to
have a legal custody or visitation order which allows
them formal parenting time rights to their children.
The gatekeeper CP (usually the mother) ends up
determining the level of father involvement in the life
of the child.
Given that the national out-of-wedlock birth rate is at
an all time high combined with the lack of an NCP
on-ramp to services designed to help them obtain a
legal parenting time order there is a risk that a
greater number of unwed fathers will fail to fulfill their
financial and emotional responsibilities to their
children.

This section presents a summary of two reports funded as
contracts and four demonstration projects dealing with the
Access and Visitation program.

C
h
i
l
d

A
c
c
e
s
s

a
n
d

V
i
s
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

page 26
2/27/13 9:01 AM Ethics: Advisory Opinion No. 1995-3
Page 1 of 2 http://www.ct.gov/ethics/cwp/view.asp?a=2305&q=301134
Governor Dannel P. Malloy | Search
Home Programs & Services Publications Forms Contact Us
Statutes and Regulations
Opinions, Rulings &
Actions
Lobbyist Filing &
Information
Public Official and State
Employee Information
Board Meeting Schedule
Statements of Financial
Interests
Ethics Liaisons
Ethics Training
Press Room
Board & Employment
Opportunities






Advisory Opinion No. 1995-3
Business With Which A DCF Employee Is Associated Entering
Into Contracts With Her Agency
Ms. Ann Tuller is an investigations worker for the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Her duties
include investigating referrals regarding children who have been allegedly abused or neglected and
determining what services are appropriate after assessing the risk to them. As a result of this assessment,
certain of the children may be committed to the custody of DCF. Although the order for supervised visitation
is not made by DCF, DCF treatment workers are generally responsible for arranging for supervised visitation
between these children and their non-custodial parents.
Ms. Tuller is also President of AMPS, Inc., an organization which offers third-party supervised visitation and
parenting skills training. Such training and visits are designed to meet the need for continuing contact
between a child and any non-custodial significant others in that childs life. There are at least two other
organizations in the region which offer visitation supervision between children and their non-custodial parents.
Some DCF offices would like to use AMPS, Inc. on a contract service basis to provide supervised visitation but
have concerns about whether such work would create a conflict of interests. Consequently, Assistant Attorney
General Michael McKenna has asked if there is any conflict of interests, under the Code of Ethics, between Ms.
Tullers state responsibilities and her involvement with AMPS, Inc.
As an officer of AMPS, Inc., it is a business with which Ms. Tuller is associated for purposes of the Code of
Ethics for Public Officials, Chapter 10, Part I, Connecticut General Statutes. Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-79(b). In
general, a state employee may not accept outside employment which will impair independence of judgment as
to state duties or require or induce disclosure of confidential information acquired in state service. Conn. Gen.
Stat. 1-84(b). A state employee may not use her official position or confidential state information for
personal financial benefit for herself or a business with which she is associated. Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-84(c).
Additionally, a state employee who, in the discharge of her official duties, would be required to take an official
action that would affect a financial interest of hers, other than an interest of an inconsequential nature, is
required to provide formal notification to her immediate superior, who will assign the matter to another. Conn.
Gen. Stat. 1-86. With an exception not pertinent, a state employee may not have any financial interest in, or
engage in, any business or professional activity if she has reason to believe or expect that she will derive a
direct monetary gain or suffer a direct monetary loss by reason of her official activity. Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-
84(a), 1-85.
Consequently, Ms. Tuller may not be paid privately to do what is otherwise expected of her in her state
position. Attorney McKenna has indicated that by and large her duties with DCF do not overlap with those of
her outside business. Ms. Tuller has stated that as an investigations worker, she does not supervise or
arrange supervised visits nor does she know of any such investigations workers who have been so assigned.
Attorney McKenna, however, has indicated that on rare occasions she may be required to provide supervised
visitation. Therefore, she may not refuse to do supervised visitations so that it may be referred to her private
business. She should also not be in a position in which either she or a subordinate has to recommend whether
or not such visitation or training needs to be provided by an outside group. Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-86; See e.g.,
Advisory Opinion No. 90-24, 52 Conn. L.J. No. 9, p. 5C (August 28, 1990) (DMR employees should not perform
outside consulting involving client contact or evaluation for a departmental grantee, if their state jobs involve
related client consultation); See also, Advisory Opinion No. 86-13, 48 Conn. L.J. No. 26, p. 1C (12/23/86)
(state physician who had an ownership interest in a rehabilitation center could not refer a patient to such
center unless a valid procedure was in place for a superior to make the decision).
Many of AMPS, Inc.s clients, however, may be the result of referrals from co-workers at DCF. Because of the
potential for misuse of office, Ms. Tuller should not accept such clients unless her co-workers refrain from
making referrals and, alternatively, furnish these individuals with a list of all providers in the area who are
available to provide the service. See In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Laurence L.
Hannafin, et. al. Applicants, June 8, 1984.
Furthermore, if Ms. Tuller, during the course of performing her official responsibilities, has access to
confidential information which provides the names of individuals who could benefit from the services of her
private business, she may not use such information to contact potential clients. See In the Matter of a
Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Bruce S. Beck Applicant, August 11, 1986; and Docket No. 88-10, Moran v.
2/27/13 9:01 AM Ethics: Advisory Opinion No. 1995-3
Page 2 of 2 http://www.ct.gov/ethics/cwp/view.asp?a=2305&q=301134
Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Bruce S. Beck Applicant, August 11, 1986; and Docket No. 88-10, Moran v.
Pagano (violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-84(c) for referring persons needing services which the state could not
provide to a business with which associated); See also, Advisory Opinion No. 89-30, 51 Conn. L.J. No. 25, p.
1E (12/19/89).
Finally, under Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-84(i), any contract, valued at $100 or more, between a state agency and a
state employee or a business with which she is associated, may only be awarded through an open and public
process, including prior public offer and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals. The public process is
required so that contract selection may be reviewed by both unsuccessful bidders and by the Auditors of Public
Accounts. It is designed to ensure public confidence in the selection process and prevent the use of inside
information not generally available to the public or improper use of position for the financial benefit of oneself
or ones business. Advisory Opinion No. 84-11, 46 Conn. L.J. No. 3, p. 5D (7/17/84). The public process also
notifies other persons interested in and qualified to fulfill the contract to apply and compete; not just the state
employee who learns of an opportunity due to her state position. See, Regulations of Conn. State Agencies
1-81-19(a).
Therefore, any arrangement valued at $100 or more between the state and AMPS, Inc. must be done through
an open and public process. Ms. Tuller, of course, may not be involved in the contract selection process of
AMPS, Inc. or its competitors. To satisfy this requirement, DCF may maintain a list of consultants who have
either responded to periodic advertisements or who have otherwise expressed an interest in seeking contract
work with the State. The list (as well as any information submitted to DCF) and the consultant selected must
be a matter of public record. See In the Matter of a Request for a Declaratory Ruling, Attorney Mark Oland
Applicant, May 6, 1994.
As long as the above guidelines can be followed without affecting Ms. Tullers state responsibilities and duties,
Ms. Tuller may be associated with AMPS, Inc.
By order of the Commission,
Rev. William Sangiovanni
Chairperson
Content Last Modified on 9/7/2005 8:01:11 AM
Printable Version
18-20 Trinity St. Suite 205 Hartford, CT 06106-1660 / Phone: 860-263-2400
Home | CT.gov Home | Send Feedback | Login | Register
State of Connecticut Disclaimer, Privacy Policy, and Web Site Accessibility Policy. Copyright 2002-2012 State of Connecticut.
1/18/13 5:49 PM Connecticut State Profile and Contact Information
Page 1 of 2 http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/reports/prelim_access_visitation_grants/connecticut.html
Questions?
Privacy
Site Index
Contact Us
Home| Services|Working with ACF|Policy/Planning|About ACF|ACF News Search
Giving Hope and Support to America's Children
Connecticut
State Access Program Contact:
Thomas Horan
Department of Social Services
25 Sigourney St.
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Internet: thomas.horan@po.state.ct.us
Annual Federal Grant Award: $ 100,000
Minimum 10% State Match: $ 11,000
Number of Minor Age Children in Single (Biological) Parent Households: 112,159
Priority Service Areas:
mediation;
parenting plans; and
supervised visitation.
FY 2003 State Program Stats:
Clients Served
Total No. of Parents*
Served
Fathers* Mothers*
*Grandparent/Legal
Guardian
Children
Involved
276 170 106 226
Services Provided
Mediation Counseling
Parent
Education
Supervised
Visitation
Neutral
Drop-off
Development of
Parenting Plans
252 24 43
Marital Status
Married Separated Divorced Unmarried Unknown
22 38 216
Annual Income
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 to
$19,000
$20,000 to
$29,000
$30,000 to
$39,000
$40,000 &
above
Unknown
60 130 40 15 7 24
Race/Ethnicity
Am Indian
or Alaska
Native
American
Asian or Pacific
Islanders
African-
American
White/Caucasian Hispanic Other Unknown
2 106 56 112
Source of Client Referrals
1/18/13 5:49 PM Connecticut State Profile and Contact Information
Page 2 of 2 http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/reports/prelim_access_visitation_grants/connecticut.html
Self Court Child Support Other
30 217 29
Outcomes
No. of non-custodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of
services
55
Local Service Providers:
1. Judicial Branch
CSSD-Family Services
18 Trinity Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Phone: (860) 566-3140
Services: mediation and parenting plans
2. AMPS, Inc.
7 Keynote Drive, Suite B
Vernon, Connecticut
Phone: (860) 870-8788
Services: supervised visitation
Download FREE Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files located on this site.
OCSE Home | Events Calendar | Publications | State Links
Site Map | FAQs | Contact Information
Systems: FPLS | FIDM | State and Tribal | State Profiles
Resources: Grants Information | Informacin en Espaol | International | Federal/State Topic Search (NECSRS) | Tribal | Virtual
Trainer's Library
ACF Home
|
Questions?
|
Site Index
|
Contact Us
|
Accessibility
|
Privacy Policy
|
Freedom of Information Act
|
Disclaimers
Department of Health and Human Services
|
The White House
|
USA.gov: The U.S. government's official web portal
Administration for Children and Families 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20447
Connecticut

State Access Program Contact:
Diane Fray
Department of Social Services
Bureau of Child Support Enforcement
25 Sigourney St., 10
th
Floor
Hartford, Connecticut 06105
Internet: Diane.fray@po.state.ct.us
joseph.ditunno@state.jud.ct.gov (Court Contact,
Judicial Branch)
Annual Federal Grant Award: $ 105,000
Minimum 10% State Match: $ 15,000

Number of Minor Age Children in Single
(Biological) Parent Households: 211,930

FY 2005 State Program Stats:
Clients Served
Total No. of
Parents Served
Fathers Mothers Grandparent/
Legal
Guardian
Children
Involved
348 172 174 2 330

Services Provided
Mediation

Counseling Parent
Education
Supervised
Visitation
Neutral
Drop-off
Development
of Parenting
Plans
240 0 0 108 0 120

Marital Status
Married Separated Divorced Unmarried Unknown
12 24 60 250 2

Annual Income
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 to
$19,000
$20,000 to
$29,000
$30,000 to
$39,000
$40,000 &
above
Unknown
89 81 93 52 30 3

Race/Ethnicity
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
American
Asian or
Pacific
Islanders
African-
American
White/
Caucasian
Hispanic Other Unknown
0 0 127 129 90 2 0

Connecticut
Source of Client Referrals
Self Court Child Support Other Unknown
38 298 12 0 0

Outcomes
No. of non-custodial parents whose
parenting time with children increased
as a result of services

163

Local Service Providers:

1. Judicial Branch
CSSD-Family Services
18 Trinity Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Contact: Roger Frigon
Phone: (860) 566-3140

2. AMPS, Inc.
7 Keynote Drive, Suite B
Vernon, CT 06066
Contact: annjohntul@aol.com
Phone: (860) 870-8788





















3/14/13 2:37 PM Child Access and Visitation Grants: State/Jurisdiction Profiles for FY 2006 - Connecticut
Page 1 of 2 http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2008/access_visitation_state_profiles/ct.html
Search: Go
Skip Navigation
ACF Home | Services | Working with ACF | Policy/Planning | About ACF | ACF News | HHS Home

Questions? | Privacy | Site Index | Contact Us | Download Reader | Print
The ACF archive website is where you will find content and resources of historical or research interest. The archive includes
information on budgets, programs, initiatives, policies and other historic documents. ACF archive content is NOT current
information, is not being updated, and may contain broken links. The above Search does NOT search the current, updated ACF
website. To find recent content, visit the ACF Website.
Giving Hope and Support to America's Children
Connecticut
State Access Program Contact:
Diane Fray
Department of Social Services
Bureau of Child Support Enforcement
25 Sigourney Street, 10
th
Floor
Hartford, CT 06105
Diane.fray@po.state.ct.us
joseph.ditunno@state.jud.ct.gov
Annual Federal Grant Award: $101,505
Minimum State Match: $11,278
Number of Minor Age Children in Single (Biological) Parent Households: 148,845
FY 2006 State Program Stats:
Parents Served
Total Parents Served Fathers Mothers Grandparent/Legal Guardian Children Involved
398 198 195 5 377
Services Provided
Mediation Counseling
Parent
Education
Supervised
Visitation
Neutral Drop
Off
Development of Parenting
Plans
254 0 0 122 0 22
Marital Status
Married Separated Divorced Unmarried Unknown
1 32 72 293 0
Annual Income
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 to
$19,000
$20,000 to
$29,000
$30,000 to
$39,000
$40,000 and
Above Unknown
77 92 128 65 29 7
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian or American Asian or African
3/14/13 2:37 PM Child Access and Visitation Grants: State/Jurisdiction Profiles for FY 2006 - Connecticut
Page 2 of 2 http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2008/access_visitation_state_profiles/ct.html
American Indian or
Alaska Native
American Asian or
Pacific Islanders
African
American White/Caucasian Hispanic Other Unknown
0 3 91 166 134 4 0
Source of Client Referrals
Self Court Child Support Other Unknown
61 312 22 3 0
Outcomes
No. of noncustodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of services: 189
Local Service Providers:
1. CT Judicial Branch-Hartford Court
Court Support Services Division
90 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: (860)706-5170
2. AMPS,Inc.
7 Keynote Drive, Suite B
Vernon, CT 06066
Phone: (860) 870-8788
Download FREE Adobe Acrobat Reader to view PDF files located on this site.
OCSE Home | Events Calendar | Publications | State Links
Site Map | FAQs | Contact Information
Systems: FPLS | FIDM | State and Tribal | State Profiles
Resources: Grants Information | Informacin en Espaol | International | Federal/State Topic Search (NECSRS) | Tribal | Virtual
Trainer's Library
ACF Home
|
Questions?
|
Site Index
|
Contact Us
|
Accessibility
|
Privacy Policy
|
Freedom of Information Act
|
Disclaimers
|
Plain Writing Act
Viewers & Players
|
Browser Downloads
|
Department of Health and Human Services
|
USA.gov: The U.S. government's official web portal
Administration for Children and Families 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20447
This is a Historical Document.
Connecticut

State Access Program Contact:
Diane Fray
Department of Social Services
Bureau of Child Support Enforcement
25 Sigourney Street, 10
th
Floor
Hartford, CT 06105
Internet: Diane.fray@po.state.ct.us
joseph.ditunno@state.jud.ct.gov

Annual Federal Grant Award: $ 100,000
Minimum State Match: $ 11,111

Number of Minor Age Children in Single
(Biological) Parent Households: 121,563

FY 2007 State Program Stats:
Clients Served
Total No. of
Parents Served
Fathers Mothers Grandparent/
Legal
Guardian
Children
Involved
514 254 255 5 345

Services Provided
Mediation

Counseling Parent
Education
Supervised
Visitation
Neutral
Drop-off
Development
of Parenting
Plans
178 90 0 246 0 0

Marital Status
Married Separated Divorced Unmarried Unknown
45 43 56 365 0

Annual Income
Less than
$10,000
$10,000 to
$19,000
$20,000 to
$29,000
$30,000 to
$39,000
$40,000 &
above
Unknown
162 118 115 61 58 0

Race/Ethnicity
Am
Indian or
Alaska
Native
American
Asian or
Pacific
Islanders
African-
American
White/
Caucasian
Hispanic Other Unknown
2 4 80 304 113 11 0
50

Connecticut
Source of Client Referrals
Self Court Child Support Other Unknown
34 472 8 0 0

Outcomes
No. of noncustodial parents whose
parenting time with children increased
as a result of services

183

Local Service Providers:

1. CT Judicial Branch-Hartford Court
Court Support Services Division
90 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: (860) 706-5170

2. AMPS, Inc.
7 Keynote Drive, Suite B
Vernon, CT 06066
Phone: (860) 870-8788

























51

Connecticut Judicial
Branch
Court Support Services
Division
Family Services
Hartford Magistrate
Mediation Program
The Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut
complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). If you need a reasonable accommodation in
accordance with the ADA, contact an ADA contact
person listed at www.jud.ct.gov/ADA/.
For more information, you may go to the
Judicial Branch website at:
www.jud.ct.gov
JDP-FM-212, (Rev. 7/12)
Contact Information:
2. Do not bring children with you
to the meetings unless the Family
Relations Counselor tells you to.
3. Be open to suggestions and ideas
that might be different from
your own.
4. Listen to what everyone has to say.
5. Share your opinions and concerns
in a way that shows respect for
everyone in the process.
To learn more about the Magistrate
Mediation Program, please contact CSSD-
Family Services at 860-706-5170.
Family Relations Counselors are available
in the Hartford Magistrate Court Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays from 9:00 a.m.
until 1:00 p.m. They are also available
in the Family Services OIfce at HartIord
Superior Court, 90 Washington Street, 3
rd

Floor, Hartford.
Introduction
The Family Services Magistrate Mediation
Program is a voluntary, confdential
service available only to parents who have
a case in the Hartford Family Support
Magistrate Court. Mediation encourages
parents to work together and share in the
responsibility of their childrens future
care. Taking part in this decision making
process can have positive and lasting
results for parents and children.
What to Expect
The main goal of the mediation process is
for parents to solve their parenting disputes
in a way they both agree to. The mediator
tries to help parents see beyond their
personal feelings and focus on the interests
and needs of their children.
The mediator may provide educational
information about:
the needs of children at different
stages in their development
other ways to solve the parents
concerns
the court process
The role of the mediator is to provide a
neutral, supportive environment while
keeping in mind the importance of the
childrens relationship with both parents.
The focus of mediation is always the
best interests of the children, while also
considering the needs and wants of each
parent. Parents are encouraged to discuss
their opinions about the children to try to
fnd positive, successIul solutions to their
parenting concerns.
Mediation usually takes place with parents
together in the same room. If this is not
possible, mediation may take place over
the telephone or by having the mediator go
back and forth between the two parents who
remain separated. Mediation is usually not
possible in situations where there is an active
restraining order or protective order that
prohibits contact between the parents.

If the mediation helps the parents to reach
an agreement, the mediator will write up
the agreement outlining the parenting plan
for the Family Support Magistrate. If the
Court orders it, the agreement becomes
legally binding on the parents. If there is
no agreement, casework services will be
offered to the parent who still wants to have a
visitation schedule set by the court.
Casework Services
The Family Relations Counselor will provide
casework services to parents who ask for
it, when:
the mediation process does not
solve the access issue
the custodial parent cannot be
contacted
the custodial parent refuses to take
part in mediation
These services offer parents a supportive
place where they can talk about their
concerns and ask questions about access
issues and the court process. The Family
Relations Counselor will share access and
visitation options, give information about
community resources, and offer support
and educate the parent on how to enter into
the Family Civil Court process.
Family Relations Counselors cannot
give any legal advice.
What Parents Need
to Do
Taking part and cooperating in the
mediation and casework process is very
important. We ask that you cooperate in
the following ways:
1. Keep your scheduled appointments
and arrive on time for all meetings.
Connecticut Judicial
Branch
Court Support Services
Division
Family Services
Access and Visitation
Federal Grant
Contracted Programs
of the parents. Once the therapist decides
that the child is reasonably comfortable
with the interaction, the therapist will talk
about possible strategies for maintaining
and strengthening this parent-child
relationship.
Most families will return to Court after the
frst 3 months in TIP to review the progress
being made. After the TIP program has
ended Ior the Iamily, the Family Relations
Counselor may meet with the parents to
see if they can agree to a regular visitation/
access schedule. Some families may need
to move to a more structured access plan,
and a referral to the Supervised Visitation
Program may be the next step. The Family
Relations Counselor will prepare a report
that lets the Court know that the family has
fnished TIP and will share any visitation/
access plan or next steps the parents agree
to for the future.
What Parents Need to Do
Your participation and cooperation in the
programs described in this brochure is very
important. We ask that you cooperate in the
following ways:
1. Keep scheduled appointments and
arrive on time for all meetings.
2. Sign the necessary Authorization for
Release oI InIormation Iorms.
3. Keep an open mind about how the
program can help your relationship
with your child.
4. Cooperate with program rules and
protocols.
5. Share your opinions and concerns in
a way that shows respect for everyone
in the process.
For additional information, contact the
Court Support Services Division - Family
Services Ofce in Danbury, Hartford,
Litcheld, New Britain, New London,
Putnam, Rockville, or Waterbury.
Contact information is available at The
Superior Court - Court Service Center.
For more information, you may go to the
Judicial Branch website at:
www.jud.ct.gov
JDP-FM-217
Introduction
The State of Connecticut Judicial Branch
and Department of Social Services
are working together to help support
relationships between children and their
parents who do not live with them by
offering supportive services under the
Access and Visitation Federal Grant.
Community-based service providers,
under contract with the Judicial Branchs
Court Support Services Division, offer
two programs to help parents build
relationships with their children:
Supervised Visitation
Transitions in Parenting
The goal of these services is to help
parents who do not live with their
children achieve meaningful, healthy,
and productive interactions with them.
Services are available to parents who
have access/visitation cases fled in
the following Judicial District Courts:
Danbury, HartIord, Litchfeld, New Britain,
New London, Putnam, Rockville, and
Waterbury. These services are offered at
no cost to the clients for a limited amount
of time.
A referral to either of these programs is
only possible if the parents have an active
case in Family Matters before the Superior
Court. Family Services will make the
referral to the community agency after a
court order. A Family Relations Counselor
will be the coordinator between the Court
and the contracted service provider. Family
Services will become involved iI signifcant
concerns come up while you are taking part
in the program by bringing the matter back to
court.
Supervised Visitation
Program
The purpose of the Supervised Visitation
Program is to provide a safe, substance-
free, closely-monitored and controlled
environment for children to have contact
with their parent. The Supervised Visitation
Program is not intended to be a long-term
solution to maintaining contact between a
parent and child. ReIerrals are time-limited,
with a court date scheduled for reviewing
the matter to avoid putting unnecessary
restrictions on a parents access to their child
for long periods of time.
When the period of supervised visits is over,
Family Services will review the information
provided by the visitation supervisor and help
parents put together a long term visitation/
access plan. The Family Relations Counselor
will also prepare a report that lets the Court
know that the period of supervised visitation
is fnished and will share any visitation/access
plan the parents agree to for the future.
Transitions in Parenting
The Transitions in Parenting (TIP) program
deals with the complex emotional issues
involved when a parent re-enters a childs
life after a long separation or enters the
child`s liIe Ior the frst time. The TIP
program provides professional guidance
and support for families during the
process of establishing or re-establishing
relationships between a child and an absent
parent. Once it has been determined
to be in the childs best interest, this
program helps develop the groundwork
for the parent-child relationship. This
program can help set up the basis for a
healthy, positive, and lasting parent-child
relationship.
In most cases, parents who are referred
to the TIP program meet separately
with a therapist who is employed by the
contracted service provider. The child
will meet with the therapist one or more
times separately from the parents. The
Court refers families to this program to
begin the process of bringing the child and
the absent parent together. The therapist
will decide when the child is ready to
start this relationship. When the therapist
believes the child is ready to meet with
their parent, the two are brought together
for closely monitored sessions. Afterward,
the therapist will review these sessions
separately with the child, and with each
1
STATE OF CONNECTICUT


Community Mental Health Services Block Grant
FY 2012-2013

In compliance with the requirement of P.L. 102-321

Including

The Community Mental Health Plan
For Children & Adults

September 1, 2011

Submitted By

The Department of Children & Families
The Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services

OCTOBER 1, 2011 to JUNE 30, 2013

















Behavioral Health Assessment And Plan
42
Department of Social Services (DSS) and Bureau of Rehabilitation Services (under DSS for
administrative purposes only).

2. Table 1 State Mental Health Planning Council Membership List Table 1
Name Type of Membership Agency or
Organization
Address, Phone & Fax & E-Mail,
if Applicable
Cathleen Adamczyk
Parent Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
31 Hill Street
Ansonia, CT 06401
T (H): 203-735-6098
T (W): 860-679-1585
E: Adamczyk@uchc.edu
Margaret Peggy Ayer Adult MH Advocate,
DMHAS State Board,
Adult SMHP Council and
Childrens BH Council,
CBHAC
Eastern Regional
MH Board
151 Pond Road
North Franklin, CT 06254-1224
T: 860-642-4318
E: msayer7@comcast.net

Kristie Barber Adult MH Advocate,
RMHB Exec. Dir., Adult
SMHP Council
South Central CT
Regional MH
Board, Inc.
CT Valley Hospital
PO Box 351
Middletown, CT 06457
T: 860-262-5027
F: 860-262-5028
E: rmhb2@aol.com
Sincilina Beckett MH Provider, Childrens
BH Council, CBHAC
90 Fowler Street
New Haven, CT 06515
T: 203-641-8667
sincilina@aol.com
Joan Cretella Family Member of Adult
Consumer, Adult MH
Advocate, Adult SMHP
Council
225 Beach Street, Unit 2A
West Haven, CT 06516
T: 203-933-4272
E: N/A
Robert Davidson Adult Primary Consumer,
RMHB Exec. Dir., Adult
MH Advocate, Adult
SMHP Council
Eastern Regional
MH Board
401 West Thames Street
Campbell Building, Room 105
Norwich, CT 06360
T: 860-886-0030
F: 860-886-4014
E: ERMHB@Downcity.net
Marcia DuFore
RMHB Exec. Dir., Adult
MH Advocate, Adult
SMHP Council
North Central
Regional MH Board
367 Russell Road, Bldg. 34
Newington, CT 06111
T: 860-667-6388
F: 860-667-6390
E: mdufore@ncrmhb.org
Robert Franks MH Provider, Childrens
BH Council, CBHAC
Connecticut Center
for Effective
Practice and Child
Health (CCEP) &
Development
Institute (CHDI)
270 Farmington Avenue
Suite 367
Farmington, CT 06032
860 679-1531
rfranks@uchc.edu
Hal Gibber Parent Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
FAVOR, Inc. 2138 Silas Deane Highway
Suite 100
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
T: 860-563-3232, Ext 201
F: 860-563-3961
E: Halgibber@favor-ct.org
Lorna Grivois Family Member of Adult
Consumer, Adult MH
586 Westchester Road
Colchester, CT 06415
43
Advocate, Adult SMHP
Council
T: (860) 267-6083
E: grivois620@comcast.net
Gabrielle Hall MH Provider, Childrens
BH Council, CBHAC
Clifford Beers
Clinic
370 James Street
New Haven, CT 06513
T: 203-777-8648, Ext 207
F: 203-785-0617
E: ghall@cliffordbeers.org
Mary Held Parent - Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
929 Bank Street
Waterbury, CT 06702
T: 203-441-1887
E: Heldmary30@aol.com
Irene Herden Adult MH Advocate,
DMHAS State Board,
Consumer Advocacy Group,
RMHB member, Adult
SMHP Council
South Central CT
Regional MH
Board
49 Bogue Lane
East Haddam, CT 06423-1442
T: 860-873-1999 (H)
F: 860-873-1999 (H)
E: evherd@aol.com
Mui-Mui Hin-
McCormick, MS, LMLT
MH Provider, Adult SMHP
Council
Community
Renewal Team,
Asian Family
Services
1921 Park Street
Hartford, CT 06106
T: 860-951-8770, Ext 222
F: 860-233-2796
E: hinm@crtct.org
Norma Irving Parent - Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
192 Affleck Street
Hartford, CT 06106
T: 860-803-8754
Larry192@comcast.net
Lisa Jameson
Family Member of Adult
Consumer, Adult MH
Advocate, Adult SMHP
Council
112 Bell-Aire Circle
Windsor, CT 06096
T: (860) 796-9116
Jameson-one@sbcglobal.net
Marcy Kane, Ph.D.
MH Provider, Childrens
BH Council, CBHAC
Wellpath 36 Sheffield Street
Waterbury, CT 06704
T: 203-575-0466
C: 860-217-5276
E: mkane@wellpathct.org
Karen Kangas, D. Ed. Adult Primary Consumer,
Adult MH Advocate, Adult
SMHP Council
Advocacy
Unlimited, Inc.
300 Russell Road
Wethersfield, CT 06109-1346
T: 860-667-0460, Ext 302
F: 860-666-2240
E: karen.kangas@mindlink.org
Darcy Lowell, MD MH Provider, Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
Bridgeport Hospital 267 Grant Street,
Bridgeport, CT 06610
T: 860-384-3626
F: 860-454-4472
darcylowell@aol.com
Mary M. Martinez MH Advocate, Adult SMHP
Council; Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
7 Mary Shepard Place, Apt 710
Hartford, CT 06120
T: 860-241-1040 & 860-816-0881
E: N/A
Debbie McCusker Parent -Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
35 Maywood Street
Waterbury, CT 06704
T: 203-757-7569
E: jamesmccusker@sbcglobal.net
George McDonald Parent -Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
P.O Box 2617
Hartford, CT 06146
T: 860-794-6283
John McGann MH Provider, Catholic Charities/ 203 High Street
44
Childrens BH Council,
CBHAC
Catholic Family
Services
Milford, CT 06401
T: 203-735-7481
F: 203-735-5021
E: milford@cccfs.org
Tabor Napiello, MSW MH Provider, Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
Wheeler Clinic 91 Northwest Drive
Plainville, CT 06062
T: 860-793-3551
F: 860-793-3371
E: tnapiello@wheelerclinic.org
Kim ORielly
Chair: Adult SMHP
Council; RMHB Exec. Dir.,
Adult MH Advocate, Adult
SMHP Council
Southwest
Regional Mental
Health Board
1 Park Street
Norwalk, CT 06851
T: 203-840-1187 (office)
F: 203-840-1926
E: swrmhb@optonline.net
Brian Reignier, MS
Adult Primary Consumer,
Adult MH Advocate, Adult
SMHP Council
River Valley
Services, Human
Services
Advocate
H: 19 Irving Street
Naugatuck CT 06457
HT: (203) 720-1048
WT: (860) 262-5362
WF: (860) 262-5356
E: Brian.Reignier@po.state.ct.us
Barbara Roberts Family of Adult Consumer
with SMI, RMHB member,
MH Advocate, Adult SMHP
Council
Northwest
Regional MH
Board
42 School Street
Woodbury, CT 06798
T: 203-263-3250
E:Barbara114@sbcglobal.net
John F. Sims Primary Adult Consumer,
MH & SA Consumer
Advocate, Rep of Minority
Group (African Origin),
Adult SMHP Council
118 Federal Street
West Hartford, CT 06110
T: 860-232-8514
F: N/A
E: N/A
Karen O'Connor Smith Parent - Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
Helping Hands CT 166 Green Manor Drive
East Hartford, CT 06118
T: 860-895-1292
Karen.smith3@yahoo.com
Janine Sullivan-Wiley Adult MH Advocate, RMHB
Exec. Dir., Adult SMHP
Council; Member of Family
Focus Partnership (Youth
System Collaborative)
Northwest Regional
MH Board, Inc.
969 West Main Street, Suite 1B
Waterbury, CT 06708
T: 203-757-9603 (Office)
F: 203-757-9603
E: nwrmhb@snet.net
Dominique S. Thornton,
JD
Adult MH Provider, MH
Advocate, Adult SMHP
Council
Mental Health
Association of
Connecticut, Inc.
20-30 Beaver Road
Wethersfield, CT 06109
T: 860-529-1970, Ext 11
F: 860-529-6833
E: dthornton@mhact.org
Dave Tompkins Co-Chair, Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC; Child
MH Provider
The Childrens
Home
370 Linwood Street
New Britain, CT 06052
T: 860-832-5511
F: 860-826-1739
E: davidt@klingberg.org


\Name Type of Membership Agency or
Organization
Address, Phone & Fax & E-Mail,
if Applicable
Jan VanTassel, Esquire Adult MH Advocate, Adult
SMHP Council
CT Legal Rights
Project
CT Valley Hospital, Shew-Beers Hall
P. O. Box 351, Silver Street
Middletown, CT 06457
45
T: 860-262-5042
F: 860-262-5035
E: Jvantassel@clrp.org
Doriana Vicedomini Co-Chair, Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC;
317A Thompsonville Road
Suffield, CT 06078
T: 860-668-5228
DMV35@aol.com
Cara Westcott MH Provider, Childrens BH
Council, CBHAC
United Community
and Family
Services, UCF
Health Center, The
Meadows Center
47 Town Street
Norwich, CT 06360-2315
T: 860-892-7042, Ext 409
F: 860-886-6124
E: cwestcott@ucfs.org
Curtis Willey

Primary Adult Consumer,
MH & SA Consumer
Advocate, Adult SMHP
Council
Connecticut
Behavioral Health
Partnership
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4-D
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
T: (860) 263-2168
F: (860) 263-2166
E: Curtis.Willey@valueoptions.com

3/8/13 6:13 PM Commercial Recording Division
Page 1 of 1 http://www.concord-sots.ct.gov/CONCORD/PublicInquiry?eid=9744&businessID=0621601
Business Inquiry
Business Inquiry Details
Business Name:
THE CHILDREN'S CENTER FOR
VISITATION, LLC
Business Id: 0621601
Business Address:
1275 POST RD, SUITE 200B,
FAIRFIELD, CT, 06430
Mailing Address:
1275 POST RD., SUTE 200B,
FAIRFIELD, CT, 06430
Citizenship/State Inc: Domestic/CT Last Report Year: 2002
Business Type:
Domestic Limited Liability
Company
Business Status: Dissolved
Date Inc/Register: May 20, 1999

Principals
Name/Title: Business Address: Residence Address:
LOUISE TNAX
MEMBER
1275 POST ROAD, SUITE 200B,
FAIRFIELD, CT, 06430
927 SOUTH PINE CREEK ROAD, FAIRFIELD, CT,
06430

Business Summary
Agent Name: LOUISE T. TRUAX
Agent Business
Address:
1275 POST RD, SUITE 200C, FAIRFIELD, CT, 06430
Agent Residence
Address:
927 SOUTH PINE CREEK RD, FAIRFIELD, CT, 06611
View Filing History View Name History View Shares
Back
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 1 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:64324.wais]

OVERSIGHT OF THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
__________
Serial 106-31
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-324 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman
PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 2 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Human Resources
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut, Chairman
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
RON LEWIS, Kentucky ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
MARK FOLEY, Florida WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana
DAVE CAMP, Michigan
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of September 15, 1999, announcing the hearing........... 2
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hon. Olivia A.
Golden, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Children and Families... 6
______
Bank of America, and Children's Rights Council, Terry W. Cady.... 86
Conference of State Court Administrators, and Connecticut Supreme
Court, Hon. Robert C. Leuba.................................... 77
Maryland Department of Human Resources, Teresa L. Kaiser......... 47
Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Marilyn Ray Smith........... 37
Minnesota Department of Human Services, and National Child
Support Enforcement Association, Laura Kadwell................. 23
New Jersey Division of Family Development, Alisha Griffin........ 70
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance,
Robert Doar.................................................... 94
Ohio Department of Human Services, Barbara L. Saunders........... 66
Urban Institute, Elaine J. Sorensen.............................. 50
Virginia Department of Social Services, Nick Young............... 31
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents' Rights, Burbank, CA, John
Smith, statement............................................... 108
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, David A. Roberts,
statement...................................................... 110
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc.,
Toledo, OH, Geraldine Jensen, statement and attachment......... 115
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 3 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
Baskerville, Stephen, Washington, DC, statement.................. 121
Coalition of Parent Support, Livermore, CA, Richard Bennett,
statement...................................................... 123
Fathers for Equal Rights, Dallas, TX, David Allen Shelton,
statement...................................................... 127
Men's Health Network, Tracie Snitker, statement.................. 128
Moms Against Abuse, Memphis, TN, statement....................... 130
Mothers of Lost Children, Anne Hart, letter...................... 131
OVERSIGHT OF THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in room
B-318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy L. Johnson
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-1025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 15, 1999
No. HR-10
Johnson Announces Hearing on Oversight of the Child Support Enforcement
Program
Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT), Chairman, Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced
that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on implementation of 1996
reforms of the Child Support Enforcement Program. The hearing will take
place on Thursday, September 23, 1999, in room B-318 Rayburn House
Office Building, beginning at 11:00 a.m.

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only.
Witnesses will include a representative from the Clinton
Administration, researchers, program administrators, and advocates.
However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral
appearance may submit a written Statement for consideration by the
Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.

BACKGROUND:

In 1996, Congress enacted major reforms of many of the nation's
welfare programs (P.L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act). Among the programs reformed was the
Child Support Enforcement Program. This joint Federal-State program was
enacted by Congress in 1975 to increase the amount of child support
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 52 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
We estimate that these six child support policies, in
conjunction with the increase in IV-D expenditures, explains
over half of the rise in child support receipt rates for never-
married mothers.
Particularly effective for never-married mothers has been
the voluntary in-hospital paternity establishment program. We
estimate that this program alone increased the likelihood of
never-married mothers receiving child support by 2 percentage
points, explaining about one fourth of the impact of child
support on never-married mothers. Earlier reforms that are also
found to be effective are immediate wage-withholding, the tax-
intercept program, and presumptive guidelines.
The new hire directory program has had a positive effect on
receiving child support for never-married mothers, but these
effects are not yet statistically significant in my analysis.
Given the impact of earlier reforms on child support receipt
rates, I am quite confidence that the new hire directories will
have a statistically significantly positive effect in the
future.
These data show, without a doubt, that the federal and
State governments have succeeded in increasing the likelihood
of never-married mothers receiving child support.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4324.005

<F-dash>
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. I thank the panel for your
presentations. They certainly were very, very interesting, and
it is very encouraging to see how carefully you have
implemented some of the new tools and some of the dramatic
results that you are getting.
And, Dr. Sorensen, I assume that not only will new hires
gradually show up as a much more significant tool in your
charts, but also that the financial management--the matching of
financial data will prove to be a very powerful tool, as well
as the driver's license approach. Until the testimony of the
Secretary, I really hadn't realized that the passport
withholding possibility had made such a difference, although in
Connecticut, where there isn't an awful lot of international
travel associated with international trade, that is interesting
that it has been such an important tool.
The issues that you all raise are really manyfold and I
appreciate your testimony. Let me get back to my first
question. It is always hard. You know, you have the first
question at the beginning, you have the presentations, and then
you have heard lots of other people.
I wanted to go back to the new hire reporting and the fact
that Minnesota has been so much involved in this. Did you
privatize your new hire reporting?
Ms. Kadwell. Madam Chair, yes, we did. We have privatized
it.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. And by that, exactly what
do you mean?
Ms. Kadwell. A private vendor--in our case, it is Policy
Studies, Inc.--actually takes the reporting from the employers.
They do it by a number of different means, whatever means the
employer wants to use, whether it is electronic or fax or
whatever, gets it to the new hire center, which compiles the
data, sends it to us, and we match it against the child support
data on our system.
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. And what is the advantage
of this through a private vendor as opposed to the State?
Ms. Kadwell. I think I would say that at the beginning the
advantage was in simply being able to contract the service and
have somebody do it. As you know, we have had a number of
different initiatives to initiate over the past several years,
and it was nice to be able to say, ``Here is your piece. You go
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 70 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
child alone is approximately $450. When multiplied by the
number of child support cases in which voluntary paternity was
established in 1998, New Jersey's savings was approximately
over $1.5 million.
When considering the number of child support cases in which
voluntary paternity was established since the inception of the
program, the cost savings is over $6 million. In addition, the
child support order can begin much sooner and payments are
collected earlier.
Other intangible savings to the New Jersey are of a social
nature. A well-run voluntary program benefits children born
out-of-wedlock by forging a legal father-child link that is
essential to their emotional development and economic well-
being. When a child knows who both of the parents are, self
esteem is enhanced. That child may do better in school, at home
and in life.
Final Comments
I want to make a closing point about voluntary paternity
acknowledgment programs. This may seem obvious, but they have
to be voluntary. We have to access the desire that most people
have to care for their children. We have to send clear,
positive messages about responsibility.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4324.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4324.010


<F-dash>
Chairman Johnson of Connecticut. Thank you very much.
Judge Leuba.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. LEUBA, CHIEF COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT; ON BEHALF OF THE CONFERENCE OF
STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS
Judge Leuba. Thank you. I am particularly pleased to have
an opportunity to be here, Madam Chair and Representative
Cardin, to address the Subcommittee. As you know, I'm here on
behalf of the Conference of State Court Administrators, which
is a nonprofit organization, the purpose of which is to
increase the efficiency and fairness in our State court
systems.
But it's particularly pleasing to have an opportunity to be
here as, if you will, a different participant in the process,
the courts. And to emphasize right at the outset that the
courts are an important part of the enforcement tools and the
family planning processes that go on throughout the country.
And I'm particularly pleased to have been included as a
representative of this organization to appear and express the
views of the courts. I urge the Subcommittee to continue to
seek, as legislation is developed in these areas, much of which
will be implemented in a court setting, input from judges and
court administrators.
Now I'll start by showing you something that I'd planned to
end with, which is the resolution which is the appendix to my
written material, to tell you that at the last meeting of both
the Conference of Chief Justices from all of the States and the
Conference of State Court Administrators, this resolution was
adopted as one of a few resolutions at that time urging
continued support for these important programs and the
inclusion of the judicial branch and the judges and court
administrators in the process.
Supplementing the written material which you were nice
enough to permit me to file, today I want to address
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 71 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
Connecticut's initiatives that are funded by the grants to
States for the access and visitation programs. And the focus of
these programs in Connecticut is to promote a healthy and
nurturing relationship between noncustodial parents and their
children. Now these children come to our attention through
their involvement in both child support and divorce cases
before our magistrates and our judges.
But, also, before I begin to review that aspect, I
understood that some of the Committee Members may be interested
in receiving information on Connecticut's experience with cases
in which allegations of abuse are made by one of the parties
with regard to the other. Our recordkeeping system does not
permit us to have statistics on this but I have specifically
inquired of the judges in our State about this question. And I
have anecdotal information which comes to me from judges
currently sitting on family cases and also I can tell you that
I sat on family cases myself in the past so that I have some
information of my own.
Judges who routinely preside over family relations cases
have indicated to me that they believe approximately 3 to 4
percent of the cases that actually get as far as requiring
trial include allegations of physical or sexual abuse on behalf
of one of the parties. I'm told by the judges that a larger
percentage would be found if you consider the initial outset of
the litigation. So that as much as 20 percent of cases might
include allegations of abuse at the outset.
And the explanation for the difference is that people, as
they work out their differences through the system, either in
mediation programs or pre-trial programs, moderate their
positions when they see that they need not make those
accusations to get the result that they intended to achieve.
In addition, judges have indicated that over the past
several years, this is a reduction of what they had previously
been seeing. And I inquired as to why would it be that that
figure would be going down under existing circumstances and the
only response that I could get was that it hadn't been working.
And if there are abuse case allegations, there are remedies
which the judges have, including hearings to make
determinations as to whether or not they're valid.
Turning specifically to the grants which I've outlined in
my testimony that I filed in writing, we receive approximately
$110,000 in Connecticut and that covers mediation services,
contract services which we use for counseling, and also
supervised visitation. The mediation services, which the
magistrates report, result in two-thirds success rates of
agreements in matters of differences of opinion, is a very
important part of our process.
I want to say, in conclusion, that the emphasis in my
testimony should be that the courts are interested in
participating in this process. We feel that we have a
significant role in making sure that the fathers and mothers
all participate in the family process equally and we hope that
in the future the congressional action will reflect that
important role.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert C. Leuba, Chief Court Administrator, Supreme
Court of Connecticut; on Behalf of the Conference of State Court
Administrators
Introduction
Ms. Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee, my
Statement is submitted on behalf of the Conference of State
Court Administrators (COSCA). I thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today on the important issue of access and
visitation.
My name is Judge Robert C. Leuba, Chief Court Administrator
for the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. I have been with
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 72 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
the Connecticut Judicial Branch for 13 years, both as an
administrator and as a trial judge. Prior to becoming a judge,
I served for a number of years in the public sector and as an
attorney in private practice. During my pre-bench public
service career I served as Legal Counsel and Executive
Assistant to Governor Thomas J. Meskill from 1973-1975;
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles from 1971-1973; Mayor of the
Town of Groton from 1967-1969 and member of the Groton Town
Council from 1965-1969.
Throughout my years with the Judicial Branch, I have had
the opportunity to preside over a variety of criminal, civil
and family matters, including those involving domestic
relations issues. I served as presiding judge of the family
division of the New London Judicial District as well as Chief
Administrative Judge of the Judicial Branch's Civil Division
prior to my appointment as Deputy Chief Court Administrator in
1984.
Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA)
COSCA was organized in 1953 and is dedicated to the
improvement of State court systems. Its membership consists of
the principal court administrative officer in each of the fifty
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
COSCA is a nonprofit corporation endeavoring to increase the
efficiency and fairness of the nation's State court systems.
The purposes of COSCA are:
<bullet> To encourage the formulation of fundamental
policies, principles, and standards for State court
administration;
<bullet> To facilitate cooperation, consultation, and
exchange of information by and among national, State, and local
offices and organizations directly concerned with court
administration;
<bullet> To foster the utilization of the principles and
techniques of modern management in the field of judicial
administration; and
<bullet> To improve administrative practices and procedures
and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of all courts.
Access and Visitation Programs Are Important to State Court Operations
Access and visitation issues are an integral part of
domestic relations cases involving children. Judges on a daily
basis see the problems that arise out of conflicts between
parents related to child custody, access and visitation, child
support, medical support, and property settlements. Judges and
court managers also see the need for supportive services to
assist parents in working through their conflicts. Supportive
services related to access and visitation issues include
mediation programs, parent education classes, and in cases
involving domestic violence, supervised visitation programs and
neutral drop-off/pick-up locations.
Courts around the country have had an important role in
trying to meet the needs of families. Judges recognize that
family related disputes are best resolved by the parties
themselves, not by judicial decree. As a result of this
recognition, courts have been active in developing and
implementing access and visitation programs, particularly
mediation programs and parenting skills classes. However, the
courts, nor the Executive Branch agencies, alone cannot develop
the level of services needed to address access and visitation
issues. The two branches of government, in conjunction with the
advocacy community, must work together to develop the
supportive services that divorced and never-married parents
need. It is critical that a collaborative approach be used to
develop these supportive services. Based on their experience
and responsibilities, courts bring a unique and valuable
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 73 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
perspective to the discussion and planning process, as does the
Executive Branch agencies and the advocacy community. Courts
have played a valuable role in developing resources and must
maintain and enhance that role in the future.
Access and visitation issues impact State court operations
in two ways--the need for additional supportive services and
increases in domestic relations caseloads.
Services
In a 1992 study conducted by the National Center for State
Courts (NCSC), the most serious problem faced by the courts in
managing and adjudicating divorce cases was a lack of
resources. This study looked at the handling of divorce cases
in sixteen (16) urban jurisdictions. Judges and court managers
in each court were asked to identify the three (3) most serious
problems they face in managing and adjudicating divorce cases.
A substantial proportion of the respondents identified
insufficient resources as the most serious problem. (Goerdt,
1992)
In Michigan, which has many years' experience in providing
access and visitation enforcement services,\1\ chief circuit
judges, presiding family division judges and friend of the
court staff have indicated that where the court is able to
ensure enforcement service to both parents, and where vigorous
enforcement of custody and parenting time is available, non-
custodial parents are more likely to stay involved in their
children's' lives. The effect of that continued close
involvement is improved support of children's emotional needs,
and as direct by-products:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Michigan Friend of the Court system, implemented in 1919,
has statutory responsibility for enforcement of the court's orders
relating to custody and parenting time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> An increased likelihood that the non-custodial
parent will remain current with reasonable financial support
requirements;
<bullet> An increased likelihood that financial and non-
financial issues will be resolved by agreement of the parents;
and
<bullet> Greater acceptance by parties of orders and
amendments to orders affecting custody, parenting time, and
financial support.
Caseload
In 1997, over fifteen (15) million new civil cases were
filed in State courts. As five million of those cases were
domestic relations cases, they comprise thirty (30) percent of
the total civil caseload. Domestic relations cases are the
largest and fastest-growing segment of the civil caseload.
Based on data reported by the States, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico, there has been a sixty-five (65) percent
increase in domestic relations cases between 1985 and 1997.
Additionally, custody disputes have increased one hundred-
sixteen (116) percent since 1985.
To address these significant increases in caseload, court
managers must utilize judicial resources where they are most
needed and can be most effective. Research has shown that
participants in custody and access and visitation mediations
are significantly more satisfied than persons resolving the
disputes through litigation. (Keilitz, et al, 1997) If the
parties can resolve their access and visitation disputes
through mediation, it is better for all concerned. Judicial
resources are reserved for resolving disputes that cannot be
mediated. The benefits for the children are also significant.
Experience has shown that parents with mediated agreements are
more likely to comply with the terms of the agreements, which
reduces the likelihood of future disputes.
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 74 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
Federal Access and Visitation Grants to States
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 authorized $10 million for
projects to enable States to establish and administer projects
to support and facilitate non-custodial parents' access to and
visitation of their children. Eligible activities under the
grant program include; mediation (voluntary and mandatory),
counseling, education, the development of parenting plans,
visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, and
neutral drop-off/pick-up centers), and the development of
guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
offered Access and Visitation Block grants to the States in
January 1997. The Governors in each State and the independent
jurisdictions of the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin
Islands, and Puerto Rico were asked to designate a State agency
responsible for administering the grant funds. All 54
jurisdictions eligible for the block grants responded to the
solicitation by submitting an application for funds. For the FY
98 funds, the designated State agency in six States was the
State court administrative office. The vast majority of States
designated the IV-D agency to administer the access and
visitation grants, but in a number of States, such as
Connecticut and Michigan, the IV-D agency contracts with the
courts to deliver services.
Connecticut's Access and Visitation Program
Connecticut is using funds provided under the Grants to
States for Access and Visitation Programs to establish and
implement a multifaceted program to promote, facilitate, and
support contact between non-custodial parents and their
children.
The Role of the Judicial Branch in this initiative
The Connecticut Judicial Branch is committed to promoting
healthy and nurturing relationships between children and their
parents. Some families are in need of enhanced services to
assist them in achieving this goal. The court is the primary
forum in which they present their disputes and thus is in a
unique position to identify these families. The funding
available through this grant has been used to establish a menu
of programs for use by judges and family relations counselors
to assist parents in addressing the underlying issues
contributing to the conflict.
Target Population
The State of Connecticut is divided into thirteen judicial
districts. This program is being piloted in one location--the
Hartford Judicial District. The target population for the pilot
program consists of two groups:
<bullet> Unwed parents appearing before the Family Support
Magistrate Court (the IV-D group) on child support matters and
<bullet> Divorced or divorcing parents with highly
conflicted and unresolved custody and visitation issues
appearing before the Superior Court.
These two groups were chosen because the children in these
families are most likely to benefit from enhanced
interventions. Many of the children referred from the family
support magistrate court have no or very limited access to non-
custodial parents. The children coming out of the superior
court are frequently placed in a vulnerable position by the
competing interests of their parents.
Current Funding Levels
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 75 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
The Judicial Branch receives its grant through a
Collaborative Agreement with the Department of Social Services
(the State's IV-D agency). The Judicial Branch received
$114,181 for this program for the period from July 1, 1998 to
September 30, 1999. These funds are used to pay the salary of
one Family Relations Counselor employed by the Judicial Branch
and contracts with community agencies to provide specialized
services to parents in the target groups. The State contributes
17% of in-kind services, such as the mediation services and
services provided by other family relations counselors who are
assigned to these cases.
The grant has been extended to provide funding, in the
amount of $110,000, for the period ending on September 30,
2000.
Current Program
The purpose of the program is to promote healthy and
meaningful interaction between children and their parents. To
accomplish this objective, the program provides judges with an
array of programming options to empower parents to resolve
conflicts in a non-confrontational manner and promote the
importance of meaningful interaction of both parents with their
children.
The program consists of two categories of services: The
first is a court-based mediation program conducted by the
funded family relations counselor. The second category consists
of clinical intervention services.
Court-based Services
These services include:
<bullet> Assessment and screening of parenting and
visitation disputes in the Family Support Magistrate Court; The
family relations counselor is available to assess and screen
cases, and refer appropriate cases to the grant programs,
during sessions of the Family Support Magistrate Court and
Superior Court.
<bullet> Comprehensive evaluations of those families are
conducted, if indicated by the initial screening;
<bullet> Development of case management plans utilizing
services responsive to the unique needs of each case;
<bullet> Mediation and other dispute resolution services
that encourage and support, where appropriate, a mutual
understanding of and commitment to a healthy parenting
arrangement that involves the positive contribution of both
parents; and.
<bullet> Supervision and monitoring of chronically
problematic visitation disputes.
The Judicial Branch contracts for the following services
under this grant:
<bullet> Reunification services to parents and children,
including counseling;
<bullet> Physical supervision of visitation sessions
between non-custodial parents and their children;
<bullet> Psycho-educational and group counseling services
for parents and their children involved in chronically
conflicted visitation disputes; and
<bullet> Program evaluation.
Experience Thus Far
Mediation (Family Support Magistrate Court): During the
eighteen months in which this contract has been in effect, the
following has occurred:
<bullet> Generated a total of one-hundred and ninety-seven
(197) parents expressing and interest in participating in these
programs;
<bullet> Of these, eighty-eight followed through.; and
<bullet> Of these, fifty (50) reached an enforceable
3/6/13 9:15 AM
Page 76 of 129 https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106h/64324.txt
agreement.
Contracted Services
Building Cooperative Relationships Counseling: This
clinical, rather than court-based, intervention has been
marginally successful. During the grant period, twenty (20)
families participated. Of those, four (4) have reached an
agreement, and seven (7) continue to receive counseling. The
balance has returned to court.
Transitions in Parenting: This group consists of high
conflict couples, and has experienced mixed success due to the
level of hostility and combative behavior of the participants.
Fifteen families have accessed these services.
Supervised Access Program: Twenty-two (22) families were
referred to these services and made use of the highly
structured clinical environment for visitation.
To summarize, early results (18 months) point to a positive
impact of the mediation and casework process applied by court
personnel, and to the supervised visitation services. On the
other hand, the contracted clinical services are showing less
positive results. This may in part be attributed to the
extremely high conflict and complex set of circumstances
surrounding these referrals. These programs are being reviewed
to tailor and augment these clinical interventions to better
provide the client with an opportunity to realize a favorable
response.
Currently, the Judicial Branch is restructuring the
clinical approach to merge the Building Cooperative
Relationships and Transitions in Parenting programs into one
intensive clinical intervention, which will:
<bullet> Service 25-28 families;
<bullet> Offer joint and individual adult and child
counseling;
<bullet> Offer expanded parenting classes;
<bullet> Offer expanded substance abuse treatment;
<bullet> Offer expanded clinical assessments; and
<bullet> Serve as a bridge from supervised to unsupervised
visitation.
Court-Based Access and Visitation Programs in Other States
To provide a broader understanding of the ways that State
courts have used the access and visitation grants, a brief
summary is provided for programs in five (5) other States.
Michigan
In Michigan, the family division of the circuit courts is
principally responsible for the initial entry of orders
relating to the support of children and for the enforcement of
those orders. That responsibility is carried out through the
work of the Friend of the Court. Final responsibility for
individual orders and for the operation of the Friend of the
Court office rests with the chief judge of the circuit court.
The Friend of the Court assists custodial and non-custodial
parents in the establishment and amendment of appropriate
orders for financial support of children and for orders
relating to the custody and for parenting time. It has been
Michigan's experience that providing comprehensive enforcement
services to both parents (on behalf, ultimately of children)
has benefited the well being of children and has contributed to
Michigan's recognized success in the enforcement of child
financial support. Chief circuit judges, presiding family
division judges and friend of the court staff have indicated
that where the court is able to ensure enforcement service to
both parents, and where vigorous enforcement of custody and
parenting time is available, non-custodial parents are more
likely to stay involved in their children's lives.
More recently, experiences in a few pilot jurisdictions