sign in sign up
<<
Home , Evan Rachel Wood, Legal abuse, Ruined (play)

1 March 24, 2021 ib/rr COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CHAIRPERSONS: Senator Gary Winfield, Representative Steve Stafstrom

SENATORS: Anwar, Champagne, Flexer, Haskell, Kasser, Lesser, Sampson

REPRESENTATIVES: Blumenthal, Callahan, Conley, Currey, Dillon, Doucette, Dubitsky, Fiorello, Fishbein, Fox, Godfrey, Harding, Howard, Labriola, Luxenberg, O'Dea, Palm, Pavalock-D'Amato, Porter, Quinn, Rebimbas, Riley, Veach, Walker, Young

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Alright, let's get going then. Good morning everyone. I’d like to call to order the March 24th, 2021, Public Hearing of the Judiciary Committee. We have six bills on our agenda for today. We, again, have a relatively lengthy list of speakers, and we certainly want to respect the public's time to get to folks as expeditiously as we can. So, we will ask folks to stick to three minutes in their testimony. If you’ve submitted a written testimony, you can feel free to just summarize it.

If you're on the Zoom link, you will see a hand go up that says timer when you've reached your three minutes, and I will try to get your attention to ask you to wrap up after three minutes, so that we can get to everybody. And again, I’ll ask Members to try to be as judicious as you can with questions, as well. Alright, with that, our first speaker will be Sharmese Walcott.

SHARMESE WALCOTT: Good morning.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good morning, madam, go ahead.

2 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SHARMESE WALCOTT: Thank you. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Sharmese Walcott, and I’m the State's Attorney for the Hartford District -- State’s Attorney for the District of Hartford. On behalf of the Division of Criminal Justice, I thank you for allowing me this afternoon to testify.

The Division has submitted written testimony in support of SBSB 6, AN ACT CONCERNING AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS, but I would like to use my time to testify on HBHB 6657, AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING. The Division is extremely supportive of anti-trafficking efforts. We have participated in programming, served on panels and are committed to increased training to expand our Prosecutors’ awareness and knowledge of trafficking.

I personally have served as a Division's Representative on the Trafficking in Persons Council, and I’ve taken part in extensive discussions regarding the expansion of our Vacatur Statute for victims of trafficking. Those discussions included debates on the use of 'may' and 'shall', whether a standard of should be included in the Statute and what offenses should be eligible for vacaturs.

In the end, after months of these discussions, the TIP Council unanimously approved draft Legislation that subsequently became HB 6657, with one great exception. In the version drafted and voted on by the TIP Council, Section 7 stated that victims of trafficking could seek to have convictions for any vacated, except the most serious in our penal code, which is A and B felonies.

In the Bill before the Committee now, any and all convictions are eligible for vacaturs, including Class A and B felonies. The inclusion of A and B felonies sends the wrong message to traffickers, 3 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

their victims, and the victims of crimes committed by the trafficked person.

We’ve heard from trafficking victims that is very common for the traffickers to force them to commit crimes or take responsibility for crimes committed by the trafficker. A common example is having the victim hold the trafficker's drugs when they saw approaching. If traffickers know that their victims can have all their convictions vacated, they will use that to their advantage and force or convince the victims to commit even more serious crimes.

The language as presented discourages the use of duress, discourages trafficked persons from disclosing their status to their , the Court, or the prosecutor. It will encourage trials. This will be inconsistent with justice for the victims of violent A and B felony crimes and the family that often accompany a case through the criminal justice system.

The Division applauds the work of the TIP Council and the drafting of this Legislation. We urge the Committee to amend Section 7 of HB 6657 to reflect the language that was unanimously voted on by the Council. With the language proposed by the TIP Council, which broadens the Vacatur Statute by eliminating the requirement that the victims have a prostitution conviction, is a giant step forward and will allow for many victims of trafficking to be eligible. With that, I’m happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Sharmese Walcott. Representative Gilchrest.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. So good to see you, Miss Walcott, and thank you for all of your tremendous work on the Trafficking in Persons Council. Thank you for recognizing, you know, that this Bill does have different language 4 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

than the language that was recommended by the Trafficking in Persons Council. In our discussions at the Council table, we discussed how sometimes there are victims of trafficking who are then made to traffic other individuals, and so part of our hope is to capture that group of people.

With being opposed to including A and B felonies, I guess, in your reading of this section, the Judge would still have , correct?

SHARMESE WALCOTT: The Judge would still have discretion following a hearing. The Division would not be opposed to excluding A and B felonies except for the of trafficking. It's a bit wordy, but I think that accomplishes what the -- what you're summarizing the discussion to be, right?

By excluding all A and B felonies, we exclude the crime of trafficking from being eligible for vacatur. Instead, I say, let's exclude A and B felonies, but include the crime of trafficking to be eligible for vacatur.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you for that clarification and thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, appreciate you being with us and submitting your testimony.

SHARMESE WALCOTT: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Kailani Carlson.

KAILANI CARLSON: Hello.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): How you doing, madam?

KAILANI CARLSON: Hi, how are you today? 5 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good. We can hear you, but we can't see you.

KAILANI CARLSON: Am I being called to speak right now?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah.

KAILANI CARLSON: We were told that we are number two on the list.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Right, that we just went through -- We just went through the first one and--

KAILANI CARLSON: Oh, you did. Okay, hold on one second, trying to open up my video, I’m sorry.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can give you a minute and come back to you, if you want.

KAILANI CARLSON: That would be -- that would be great if I could get called next. If that would be okay.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sure, we're going to jump to Christine Cocch-- Cocchiola. Sorry about that. Madam, you’re on mute, still.

CHRISTINE COCCHIOLA: Good morning, Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Christine Cocchiola. I’m a mom, college professor, licensed clinical social worker, and an IPD advocate volunteer of Greater Waterbury since the age of 19. I’m also a victim of coercive control, yet I did not recognize this victimization throughout much of my 26-year marriage.

Most importantly, I did not recognize the victimization of my own children. In a home where , manipulation, diminishing of autonomy, are consistent and repetitive, then it makes sense the child's experiences are that of been gaslighted, 6 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

manipulated and having diminished autonomy. When a child is told that their mother is crazy, or that there is no money, or in the case of my children, the car keys are on the counter when all along the car keys were hidden, so that my children cannot visit me, this is coercive control.

This use of power and control to harm another human being and, in this case, a child, a vulnerable and human dependent upon adult caretakers, creates a need for these child victims to learn early on to regulate their behavior in order to prevent the ramifications of the abusive parent. This may often mean turning against a healthy parent and an attempt, in an effort, to ensure that the offending parent does not turn on the child themselves.

Children know this pattern well as they have seen this played out between the abuser and the adult victim. This coercive control, the use of the children as pawns, is a significant and victimization of a child, creating complex post-traumatic stress disorder, not easily understood or identified. Again, this is most often not physical, so it's not identified by the adult victim, by outsiders, and certainly not by child victims. The significant impact to a child's development and sense of self is evident. My experiences, among many, included constantly wondering what I was doing wrong, how I can make things better, walking on eggshells, and yet knowing he seemed to always know my every move.

I later found out that my car was tracked, my computer hacked and my phone monitored for years. I was always attempting to avoid seeing Dr Jekyll's Mr. Hyde. It seems easy to presume that my children had similar experiences. They disclosed to me during the divorce proceedings two years ago, that at the ages of nine and 10, their dad began to tell them that I was unstable, depressed and cannot be trusted. These messages continued throughout their childhood and adolescence, unbeknownst to me. 7 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

When I finally left my ex-husband, the abuse intensified, suffering post-separation abuse with his sending me over 3,000 threatening, harassing emails stating, "You will be sorry", "Your children will never love you", "You will lose everything". He had cameras up in the home and left bullets on a desk in a place he knew I would walk by.

I was forced to move out with a truckload of my personal items, my children being consistently told of my instability, were confused and upset, and this coercive control of them was very sad to witness. In my case, I’m so grateful that my children realized the realities of their experiences since his not wanting them to have contact with me intensified his abuse of them.

I’m ever so grateful for the family-- for the familial support that I had, my parents, my brothers, and my sister, and for my dear friends. But what of people who are not as fortunate as me? What of the system that does not support victims in this case? I had all the information to know what was going on, all the tools to leave, yet I didn't see it and didn't know how to leave.

As a researcher, I will continue to focus on how to ensure that we continue to look at coercive control through the lens of a child. I hope that you too are able to support this Bill, support SB 1060, Jennifer’s Law, for all of the Jennifers that have experienced coercive control and unfortunately the Jennifer’s who have passed away due to homicide of coercive control. Thank you very much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, madam. Questions or comments from the Committee? If not, I want to -- oh, Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Christine, for your testimony. It's striking that-- so you are a licensed clinical 8 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

social worker and you, yourself, did not realize that you were a victim of coercive control for all those years.

Can you explain how -- How did you become aware and how important is it for there to be actual screening tools when a victim summons the courage to leave? How does she go through the process-- she or he, go through the process of becoming aware of what has been done to her and what her legal rights are?

CHRISTINE COCCHIOLA: Yes, thank you. So, for years, I teach on domestic violence as a social worker in a college here in Connecticut. And one time, there was an "Aha!" moment when I was doing the power and control wheel. I think the issue is that we talk very often about physical violence, but we are not talking often enough about the non- physical power and control that happens in these relationships. And we need to have screening tools that actually ask people, have these types of behaviors happened to you? Have you often wondered what was going on in your home, but you couldn't put your finger on it? Because that's the kind of behavior that these predators unfortunately inculcate on their victims.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): And thank you. And you said that he did things like left bullets on your desk and things to intimidate you. Do you think that if you had to prove in Court that his intention-- if you had to prove his state of mind and you had to prove that his intention was to control you or intimidate you, that would have been a pretty high legal burden?

CHRISTINE COCCHIOLA: I do -- I do, I had 3,000 harassing threatening emails. I brought them to the police and I actually, unfortunately, was not treated well by the police and they did not take me seriously. They -- he apparently was friends with the police, and he used to tell me that all the time, "I’m friends with the police." 9 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And so, I was not taken seriously. And it wasn't until about three months later that he was finally arrested, even though they had all of the on a flash drive, every single email that he had sent me, 300 a month over the coercive 13 months.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, and finally, I wanted to ask you about -- you spoke about the impact on your children and that they were victims too, of the ongoing abuse and coercive control in your home. When you finally did leave and tried to gain custody of your children and protect them from further abuse, was there any sort of intervention -- legal intervention by the Court? Was there an assessment or determination that abuse happened? How did that unfold legally?

CHRISTINE COCCHIOLA: I’m fortunate that my children were above the age, so I did not have to deal with that. What I did contend with is the use of my children against me. If they wanted to visit me or be with me, then he would make it very hard for them to do that, or he would tell them horrible things about me. And it wasn't until they wanted to see me that he continued to do it to them, that they actually realized that the experiences and, as I said, about two years ago, my daughter disclosed to me that this was occurring since she was nine years old.

So, the use of my children as pawns to harm me at a time when I actually caught him having an affair, he was so angry about that, that he tried to use that against me and continually tell them horrible things about their mother, which is so unhealthy for a child to hear.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So, the children were used as pawns or weaponized--

CHRISTINE COCCHIOLA: -- Since the age of nine and 10. Since the age of nine and 10, unbeknownst to 10 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

me. It was not until I left that they disclosed this to me.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So, do you think if your children had been minors at the time, and you had to sue for custody, in the custody determination, do you think it would have been important for the Judge to know what was the dynamic at home, what was really happening?

CHRISTINE COCCHIOLA: It would have been extremely important for the Judge to know; I was abused by the legal system by him. He constantly kept to try to keep me in Court and manipulate the system, so I imagine that he would have done the same exact thing with custody. And, yes, a Judge would have to understand the dynamics at play.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. Thank you so much for your courage coming forward.

CHRISTINE COCCHIOLA: Thank you.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions or comments from the Committee? If not, thanks for being with us this morning, madam, and for sharing your story with us.

CHRISTINE COCCHIOLA: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be -- let's go back and see if Kailani Carlson is ready.

KAILANI CARLSON: Is it my turn? Sorry, it's hard to understand.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yep, go ahead, madam.

KAILANI CARLSON: Are you ready for me?

11 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, we are, yeah, you know, your audio is a little soft, so if you could just speak up for us, that'd be great.

KAILANI CARLSON: It is? Okay, is that better?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Much better.

KAILANI CARLSON: Okay, great. Good day, Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Kailani Carlson, I am from Westbrook and a proud -- and a Member of Connecticut Protective Moms. I am a protective mom trying to keep myself and my child safe from continued abuse. I’m testifying in favor of Jennifer-- Jennifer’s Law SB 1060.

There is now substantial scientific research from the CDC and National Institute of Justice that proved many standard -- Court practices are harmful to children in DV cases. The Courts have failed to integrate this highly credible scientific research, while being poisoned by unscientific alienation theories discredited by the APA and ABA and all other legitimate professional organizations.

As a result, the research shows Courts are getting a high percentage of abuse cases wrong, and I had one of those cases. M has been a threat to me for 18 years and his abuse follows a pattern of coercive control tactics that continue to control and intimidate me and my child.

Coercive control is being used as a weapon in the Courtroom where strategic legal tactics by my ex- partner are being used to invalidate my allegations of abuse and invalidate what my child and I have experienced.

M has stalked us now for over eight years, with the assistance of a Connecticut State Trooper, a GAL and the Connecticut State-- Connecticut Family Court has enabled his coercive control. He has been arrested 12 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

for trying to murder me, has kidnapped my child and held us both captive on two different occasions, and has never been held accountable.

And perjured himself on every core affidavit and has never been held accountable for ever paying his child support in 14 years and said the Family Court has allowed him to make false allegations, accusing me as an abuser, defaming my character, and has allowed him to become seen as a victim. If we had Jennifer’s Law, it would have directed the Court to view all of the evidence, and I had provided -- that I have provided on every motion or reply to make sure that they glanced it.

It would have been allowed -- I would have been allowed to speak in Court openly of our fears and it -- and be taken seriously, instead of being re- victimized by the coercive control allowed in Family Court. No one should be allowed to make statements on affidavits without documented proof that is and abusers, and they -- that perjurer themselves should be held accountable.

M is still a threat to us yet, no one is helping to protect us. Therefore, we have been completely isolated from family and friends and all sources of support. The outcome is a constant, daily feeling of fear and anger. Jennifer’s Law SB 1060 would have helped to protect me and my child from the irrefutable harm caused by our abuser and we would be-- we wouldn’t be so damaged if the GAL and Family Court players were correctly trained and capable of recognizing this coercive behavior.

I would love to share the years of documentation of me calling and emailing every Connecticut organization trying to find someone to help me know my rights and help me protect my daughter. Instead of years I was blatantly disregarded, hung up on, and misinformed. I can imagine the helplessness and hopelessness that Jennifer Dulos felt every time she 13 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

spoke about her abuse to anyone in Family Court and was never being taken seriously. I understand that.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, madam. We're at the three-minute mark, so I just need you to just summarize the remainder of your testimony, if you could.

KAILANI CARLSON: Okay. So basically, I just want to end with, you give us victims minimal rights and protections in the Criminal Justice system, you give us even less rights in the Family Court system, abuser's criminal -- My abuser’s criminal case was on the first floor and our family case was on the second floor, yet, there was no communication between the two.

The only reason why we have made it this long and not been murdered is because I did not rely on the Family Court system. I relied on my own critical thinking and survival techniques to keep us out of danger. We've relocated multiple times and we really need help. We need this law to be passed, we're still in danger.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator Kasser has a question for you. Go ahead, Senator.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, what you're describing sounds like you were re- traumatized or continually traumatized in your attempt to get protection and seek your freedom in Family Court, is that -- would that be accurate?

KAILANI CARLSON: Yes, I tried very much, many times to speak in Family Court and I was instructed not to. I’ve tried to explain that he was arrested for trying to murder me years prior. And nobody would ever let me speak about it, and the Family Court. They kept telling -- my told me not to speak about it, that it would be used against me and even when I did try to speak up, the Judges would hush me. 14 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So, and -- And this was in a custody proceeding that you were speaking--

KAILANI CARLSON: Yes, in the custody proceeding and also when he kept dragging me through the Court system with his, you know, motions based on nothing.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So, if a coercive control law is passed in Connecticut, how important do you think it is that it applies to all Family Court proceedings, including child custody where these cases drag out for years?

KAILANI CARLSON: I think that it would be extremely important, because, number one, we would be heard. They would have to focus on the abuse and make different choices in our cases that would help to protect us and our children, instead of just ignoring the facts and going based on, from what I experienced, father's rights. It just felt like his rights were more important than my child's best interests and our safety.

So, I think that it would definitely help give us a voice and it would help bring knowledge and training to the -- to the GALs and to the Court system they needed to be able to see this, and to be able to pick it up so that we could be safe.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Palm.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Miss Carlson, when you said that your abuser was aided by Ad Litem and the State police, can you briefly summarize what you mean by that, how did they help him?

15 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KAILANI CARLSON: Yes, so my daughter and I were relocated from our second shelter. I had an identity change and we were supposed to go out of the country, but I was too afraid to be an immigrant in a different country, so we stayed in the country, they relocated us to another state, we were doing very well.

In 2013, I received the phone call for my safety plan from my neighbor, and it wasn't until years later, that I learned that this crime was actually committed against us by the State Police. And what had happened was false allegations made against me of me stealing my own child. I’ve had sole custody since 2008. And so, a police officer ran my name, neglected to see that under my name, you can see I’m a criminal-- I mean, I’m sorry, that I’m a victim of a crime, and proceeded to, over a phone call, give him my new identity and my new safe, relocated address. And the GAL as well-made false allegations on the police documents, as well.

REP. PALM (36TH): So, in 2008, the Court gave you sole custody?

KAILANI CARLSON: Yes.

REP. PALM (36TH): Did they also take away parental rights from the father?

KAILANI CARLSON: He had visitation rights, but he has never exercised them, ever.

REP. PALM (36TH): Wow. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee, I want to thank you for being with us, madam, and for sharing your story with us.

KAILANI CARLSON: Thank you.

16 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up, I have Evan Rachel Wood.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Hello.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good morning, madam. We can hear you, but we can't see you.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Yeah, my Internet is pretty bad, so I have my audio on.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, go ahead.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Ready?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, go ahead, please.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Okay. To the Members of the Judiciary Committee, I’m here to give my testimony in support of SB 1060. When I was a teenager, I was groomed into an abusive relationship with a man almost 20 years my senior. In the beginning, he was nice and charming, and I never thought he would hurt me. He entertained my friends and family, he seemed encouraging like he wanted me to see myself in a different way.

He moved very fast in our relationship, telling me I was his soulmate and that we should move in together just shortly after we started dating. And the longer we were together, the more he slowly chipped away at my freedoms. He had trapped me before he ever became physically abusive. He changed from the person I thought I knew, and he started sabotaging my relationships with friends and family, by becoming irate and inconsolable when I had contact with them.

He often monitored when I ate and when I slept, sometimes resulting in no sleep or food for days on end, which weakened and disoriented me. He became critical of how I looked, which led to certain things I wasn't allowed to wear. He would not allow 17 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

me to pay for anything which, at first, seemed romantic, but after we moved in together, I realized it was about control. I had no rights to anything; he wouldn't allow me to pay my share of the . He could throw me out at any time and he did. He used to take photos and videos of my naked body, and at times threatened to release them publicly without my consent, which I later came to understand is illegal and called "revenge porn". He hacked into my phone and social media accounts so I could not reach out for help. He was monitoring me in a number of ways.

There are various types of coercion used in coercive control, whether they're monitoring conversations, financial control, sexual violence, blackmail, or outright threats against victims and the victims’ families. On their own, these things are already dangerous and scary, but multiple forms of isolation and control against one person can be deadly.

These things didn't happen to me all at once, but once they were in place, I had been successfully trapped and the sexual and became severe. And if I had been educated about coercive control, I may have been able to spot the signs. I would have been more aware of my civil liberties slowly being stripped away. And people who exert this kind of control over someone are masterful at it. Isolation and control help people who harm clear the pathway from violence, because they know it makes it increasingly more difficult for a victim to escape. And it's also important to allow the actions of the perpetrators to speak for themselves.

Perpetrators of coercive control are by definition manipulative, so the burden of proving the intention should not be solely on the victim, and instead the pattern of controlling and isolating behavior should be looked at in its totality. And in my opinion, it's hard to understand domestic violence, without also understanding coercive control. Too often, I’ve heard people's stories describing coercive 18 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

control as a precursor to physical violence or homicide. But nothing could be done until irreparable harm had occurred or the victim was dead. And I believe strengthening our knowledge of coercive control can save lives. So, thank you for listening today.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, madam. Questions or comments from the Committee? Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Evan, so much for your courage in coming forward telling your story and -- and inspiring others to do the same. I wanted to ask you about some of the components of coercive control that you described. Because, just like some of the other survivors we're hearing from, you said you didn't realize it was happening, and you didn't realize maybe until it was really almost too late. And you felt you didn't have the power to leave or to do anything about it.

Was -- in your testimony, I believe, you said that sexual violence was a component that was used -- was a tool or weapon that was used against you. Can -- was that -- Can you go into more detail about that?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Well, I am still in -- there's a pending criminal investigation going on, so I can't go into it too much, but -- so I’m just wondering what I can say safely.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): That's fine, I just -- I’m trying to establish that -- or trying to ask you if- -

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Yes.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): The sexual violence you were subjected to, did it leave -- necessarily leave scars and bruises and physical, you know, signs of physical injury or was it -- the injury was psychological and made you feel, you know, 19 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

dominated, controlled, helpless submissive, was -- what was the sign?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: At the time, it did leave physical injury. At times, I was drugged. So, I would wake up in the middle of it and, at times, I was threatened into doing things that would be videotaped and photographed that I did not want to do, that I was afraid to say 'no' to, because I was terrified of him and what he could do, and of any further violence.

And then, he had leverage on me so, if I wanted to leave, you know, he would threaten to release things or show people, and I didn't think that anybody would ever believe me, so I was afraid of my reputation being destroyed.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So yeah, the revenge porn you described is a very, very powerful weapon of silencing victims and the acts of forced sex or sexual violence, a very powerful weapon to -- to break a person's spirit and their will and their -- their freedom. So, do you think that definition of coercive control, if it's passed into law, should include sexual assault?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: So, I think if it's a part of the -- of the pattern and a part of the -- the fear and isolation, I think all of these things should be looked at in its -- in its totality. And in my case, there are numerous victims, and we all have the same story and the same pattern to compare and so, it's quite obvious that this is something that is calculated. And the intention is to isolate and control and abuse, and so, I think if you zoom out and look at each story and each pattern, the sexual violence was -- was always a part of it, so I think -- I think it does matter.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, and you just raised the issue of intent, the -- the abusers intent. If you had to -- if you were trying to seek 20 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

protection in the form of a restraining order, and you told the Court everything that you just told us, all of the actions and the patterns and the ongoing abuse, do you think it would be fair to also require you to prove what his intention was, to prove his state of mind as an additional legal requirement? Or should the actions and the patterns of actions speak for themselves?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: I think it would be much more effective if the actions and patterns spoke for themselves, I actually did try to get a restraining order, and I was denied, or told I wouldn't be able to obtain one, because I didn't have any recent direct threats. Even though this person would often send me videos of knives in a-- you know, being stuck into the wall, or, you know, hacking into accounts and ordering the with, you know, hacking into an Amazon account and ordering films with threatening titles and things like that.

While that is not a direct threat, I know what that means, I know it's directed at me, I know he's trying to scare me. But, you know, these are things that on their own probably wouldn't be grounds to get a restraining order, but if I could show it in a pattern of behavior, I think it would be much more effective. So no, I couldn't get a restraining order when I wanted one.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much. Thank you, Evan, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll defer to others who have questions.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Palm.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Miss Wood, thank you very much for being with us today. I admire your courage and your candor. I think sometimes prominent people have a harder time coming forward because of reputation, which you referred to. Did you at the time that 21 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

this was happening discuss this with your colleagues? And if so, what was their response? I mean, I think a common refrain is that women are not believed when we come forward, was that your experience?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: I’m sorry, can you repeat that question?

REP. PALM (36TH): Yes. I’m asking that as a person of some prominence, did you feel as though you were -- you were not believed the way other people, who will testify today and have done so already, were not believed? Did it make any difference in your world when you came forward with the -- with the allegations?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Absolutely, anytime there's a high-profile person involved, the burden of proof becomes higher, and you are questioned much more about what your intentions are, whether you're after money, whether you're after fame, it raises the bar quite a bit. And I was turned away many times.

It wasn't until, you know, there were a plethora of victims that I felt like it was really being taken seriously, and it shouldn't take that many people, - - I don't believe.

REP. PALM (36TH): Well -- and certainly, throughout , as we know, dating back to the 30s, there are documented cases of sexual , sexual assault, , coercive control, even of people who are prominent. So, I think your voice is a very important one, because it is easy for people to marginalize victims as having somehow brought upon themselves the calamity.

And so, I appreciate very much your being here and speaking on behalf of women who certainly do not have the platform that you have, and I think it took a lot of guts, so thank you very much.

22 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Thank you for having me.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator Anwar.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Miss Wood, for your testimony and thank you for your courage to -- to speak and then help us understand this. I wanted to -- just for better understanding if you're able to, are you aware of situations and examples where sometimes family members are used to coerce individuals and also how social media was used? If you would be able to share some examples, should -- would -- if you were able to.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: My social media accounts were hacked. So, all of my messages were being monitored, who I followed, who I was speaking to privately. It made it very difficult to reach out for help. He would also send people messages posing as me to sabotage relationships or to get me into trouble, to get people to, you know -- well, I don't want to -- I can only speak about my own testimony right now, so I won't go into the other victims. But I had -- I didn't have my family used against me in a -- for coercion. I was just completely isolated from them and, again, because I was being monitored, I could not reach out for help to-- I couldn't speak to them.

You know, in the beginning, he was nice to them, but slowly, you know, the analogy I like to use for coercive control is, you know, the lobster slowly boiling in the pot. You don't realize that you're being boiled until it's too late, it happens gradually and slowly, and then suddenly you realize, oh, I can't pick up the phone and call my parents without this person threatening me or cornering me in our bedroom or breaking things. And, you know, when somebody breaks something, you know, near you or in front of you, you know what they're saying is, this could be you, I’m exerting my power, and you 23 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

know, and while they may not say a direct threat, you're afraid of them because they're being violent.

And my abuser threatened me constantly, but he was very smart about not providing any written threats. You know, a lot of the threats happened behind closed doors and it's just your word against theirs, and it -- it can be hard to prove. And that's one of the reasons why isolation is so important to them, and why coercive control is used to isolate you, because it makes it increasingly more difficult to prove. So, I don't know if I can speak about the family aspect of it, because it was not a part of my experience, but I know that isolating me from my family was a huge -- a huge part.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you, thank you so much again for sharing this and also, if I may, my -- my understanding is that the long-term impact on your being, on - on your life from the coercive control and the negative impacts that it has had, would be far more lasting than the physical damage made.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: That is absolutely true. I am still dealing with it. It happened over, you know, 15 years ago, and I’m also still being terrorized by my abuser. He is still not in jail. And my family as well, so it's an ongoing thing and the patterns are still the same.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you, Miss Wood, and -- and thank you for your courage. And I’m so sorry, you had to experience all this. I’m so sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Senator. Further questions or comments? Senator Kasser, for the second time.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to follow up., because Miss 24 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Wood, you described that in the beginning, you know, he was very charming and attentive and nice and -- and a lot of this coercion happened behind closed doors and then, when you actually did come forward, you were not believed, and you were not believed, and you were not believed.

And I wanted to ask you if you -- if there was an intervention at some point. If there was a screening tool, if someone had sat you down, the social worker or somebody, and asked you questions based on the power and control wheel and -- which is a standard, you know, screening tool for domestic violence, if you had been believed and you had been questioned in a way that elicited the experiences you have had, do you think that would have helped you? You know, would people have then believed you if you had -- if there was an actual standardized procedure and standardized questions that all victims answered and then that could be used not only to identify as a victim and be believed as a victim, but also to, you know, in Court to substantiate the claims?

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: I think it absolutely would have helped and it would have helped educate me about what was happening. I think a lot of what happened to me, I was just completely unaware that crimes are being committed when they were being committed. I was unaware of my rights. I was incredibly young. And therefore, you know, easier to manipulate and control, even though I was of legal age, I was still very much a child. And I think the right questions would have, you know, somebody spoke about before giving me that "Aha" moment, which happened years later once I entered therapy. And did start educating myself and was familiar with the power and control wheel and what these things look like. I think it would help.

And, you know, there were certain cases -- certain instances for me where I was not believed, but also instances where I was believed but was just told 25 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

there -- it was just not enough. And I had so much evidence and there were so many victims and something is not working in my mind, when you can have all that and there still is no accountability and people are still being hurt.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much. I think that seems to be a common experience that even victims don't spot the signs, even victims may not realize what's happening to them and described a lobster, you know, being boiled and not even realizing it until it's too late. But -- and then, subsequently, going forward, still not being believed or being believed and being told there's nothing that can be done. So, there are many -- many steps in this process that probably need to be fixed, starting with educating people about how to recognize the signs, then also educating people when they come forward about what their rights are, their legal rights are.

And then, also having a standardized screening tool, so that domestic violence coercive control can be identified in the legal context and -- and there can be accountability in the system. So, thank you so much for coming forward today. Thank you.

EVAN RACHEL WOOD: Thank you, beautifully said, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Thank you, Miss Wood, for being with us today. Next up, we will hear from Steve Eppler-Epstein, and I’m gonna pass the gavel to Senator Winfield. Go ahead, Sir.

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: Thank you, Sir, thank you Representative Stafstrom, Senator Winfield, Senator Kissel, Representative Fishbein and other Members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Steve Eppler- Epstein. I’m the interim CEO and President of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And I have submitted written testimony regarding 26 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Senate Bill 6 and Senate Bill 1060, both Bills primarily focusing on Statutes impacting domestic violence matters. Before speaking to the Bills, I want to just take a second, zoom out a little to give a broader context and offer a moment of recognition.

First, about how real the situations are that have been described. How difficult it is to get the remedies in place for everybody who is suffering abuse in Connecticut across the country. And just to take it a step further in our current context, it is never a good time to be a survivor of family violence, but it has been particularly tough during the pandemic.

In addition to trying to figure out options to be safe, survivors are shouldering the same fears of illness or impacted illness that the rest of us are. They're trying to support their children's education, as the rest of us are, and it's also harder to be safe, it is harder to find a quiet place to make a phone call. It's harder to find refuge at a friend's house, or a relative's house, and it is harder to be in one of our shelter programs.

This work has never been more vital. And so, my second recognition is about the amazing people who staff and volunteer at the Coalition Against Domestic Violence and our 18-member programs, who've been working through the pandemic to keep answering the phones 24/7 and to keep counseling people who are experiencing family violence.

Miss Carlson just mentioned how important this work was in her life, how important it is for survivors. The staff and volunteers have kept the domestic violence shelters open during the pandemic to serve your constituents. They have counseled and supported survivors’ need to be sheltered in hotels, because we're over-capacity. All of our staff and 27 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

volunteers across the State are stressed themselves, they're taking care of kids, too.

But they've been there in this work for the last year and I just wanted to acknowledge them as true heroes. You got my written testimony. I’ll just say a few words about the Bills before you and then I’m happy to answer any questions. A few key points regarding Senate Bill 6, which is CCADV’s priority this session. We've been working with Senate democratic leadership on this language and we see it as essential Legislation.

The Legislation would add brief and simple language to the existing restraining order Statute to ensure that victims of family violence, who are subject to coercive control, can get a restraining order. 17 other States already make it possible to get a restraining order for abusive family situations without waiting for the situation to devolve into physical violence.

We believe this is an appropriate next step for Connecticut. Legislation would also allocate funds to increase representation of victims of family violence who seek restraining orders. Early in my career, I was a legal aid lawyer who represented many victims of family violence and sought this protection, and I really -- I can't begin to tell you the difference it makes when you see someone seeking help--

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Eppler-Epstein, I know it seems fast, but your time is elapsed.

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I see that, Senator. Thank you. I’m happy to stop, I can answer any questions that -- that the Committee has.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Absolutely. Are there comments or questions for Mr. Eppler-Epstein? Comment or questions? Senator Kasser.

28 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Eppler-Epstein, it's nice to see you again, and -- and I appreciate the conversations and communications that we've had about this very important topic of coercive control. I wanted to ask you, in this definition put forth in SB 6, the CCADV Bill, were there experts outside of Connecticut consulted or any Legislation from any of the other countries or States that have passed coercive control legislation or any of those Legislators or those Bills used to inform this?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: To our research, yes, Senator. And first, let me just acknowledge and thank you for the work that you've done to raise the importance and the visibility of coercive control. It is a reality in the lives of many survivors of family violence and it has been hard to find ways to get it addressed and, you know, you'll hear me say, I think, as I answer questions, that one of the things we really need to do is some of the work you're doing to raise awareness and to raise education.

Because we do want to try to address people's situations before they devolve into physical violence. In terms of our research and work on this, it went far before my time as the interim CEO at CCADV, but it did involve review of Statutes in all 50 States of the United States. Review of Statutes in other countries. They're very -- there's a number of States, as I mentioned 17, that have some form of language in restraining orders that goes beyond just physical violence and threats, and so we were looking at that.

There's very little legislation and most of it is quite new internationally and in the United States, regarding use of coercive control in custody situation. So, there's not a huge track record there, but there's a couple places that have looked at it.

29 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We’ve reviewed all that and we also, you know, consult quite a bit with attorneys in Connecticut because we do have-- you know, every State has its own system and its own judges and its own laws, so we worked a lot with folks inside the State of Connecticut who are lawyers, representing survivors of violence and we rely on your expertise a great deal as, well.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. But there are national and international experts on coercive control. For instance, Evan Stark who’s testifying later for SB 1060, because he wrote the book on coercive control. So, I think it's important to actually get the direct input of -- not necessarily of attorneys who are representing clients, although they may have a lot of experience doing that, but of the, you know, the researchers and the academics who actually constructed this, you know, the name and the definition of coercive control.

But I want to ask you specifically about lines 12 and 13 in SB 6, which say pattern of coercive control behavior including, but not limited to, , intentionally causing isolation or exerting financial control with the intent to create dependency. Are you aware of any other coercive control laws that have been passed that require the victim to prove the intent of the perpetrator?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: We can go back and chart if you want how this compares to other statutes in terms of the intent, but I do want to speak to the importance of looking at intent in using this language. The challenge of coercive control language for us, and the reason I think reliance on lawyers in addition to reliance on people's real lives and reliance on experts who study it, I think they're all important. But the importance of lawyers is that we have the experience of going into Court and seeing statutes that have been passed be used as tools by folks we didn't intend to be using them. They'll look at that language. And, you 30 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

know, I think everyone who has spoken today talks about the creativity of the abuser in finding ways to use leverage against them.

So, the reason to be cautious and somewhat narrow in crafting language is because of the fear that language that isn't as narrowly constructed creates an ability for the abuser to use that language in making claims against the victim in Court. And so, you know, this -- If we were to simply say, intimidation, I guarantee you, there will be abusers who come in and talk about how she intimidated him.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Of course, which is why -- right. Which is why it's so important to say a pattern -- pattern of action, which is definition--

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Excuse, excuse me for both of you, please try not to talk over each other. Let the individual speaking finish and then you may comment or question, just so that what you're saying doesn't get lost. Thank you. Proceed, Senator.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I’m sorry if I interrupted you, Mr. Eppler-Epstein, I did not intend to.

I’m really just trying to -- because I think we are, you know, we are all intending to pass Legislation that recognizes the real crime of coercive control, and no one intends to pass legislation that further enables abusers to -- to weaponize the law against victims.

But I’m not aware of any Legislation, certainly not in California or Hawaii, where similar Bills were passed last fall. Or in Scotland or England where this has been on the books for a few years. I’m not aware of any legislation that requires the victim to prove the abuser's intent. Because, as we heard from survivors already, and I imagine we'll hear from others, that -- that is an almost impossible legal standard and the actions themselves, the 31 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

patterns of actions speak for themselves. And we also have heard and I’m sure -- I don't know, maybe -- would you agree that if users are so able to charm and appear to be non-abusers, then if they were asked about their intent, wouldn't they maybe say things like, "Well, I didn't intend to hurt or control, I just intended to protect?"

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: That is -- they'll certainly say that. I mean, at some point, what -- the issues in cases that we're talking about, rely on really good judging. And I think, you know, one of the conversations that we all have had is how to support and encourage the Judicial Branch to promote excellent education without putting the Committee in the position of overstepping the separation of powers.

And, you know, so I think -- but I think that, you know, the more we can do to raise the public awareness in all forms of how coercive control plays out. I think the more we will see judges reflecting that in their decisions and how they evaluate the testimony that's before them.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): And I agree, it does take informed, educated judges to be able to apply this and also any other law in a way that where the outcomes are just. But to that point, don't you think it's important to include some actual, concrete examples of coercive controlling in definitions, so judges can start to recognize it when it's presented?

And not an exhaustive list, I don't think either one of these definitions say this is the only way coercive control presents, but don't you think it's important to include concrete examples?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: So, it's fraught. I mean, again, I go back to thinking of Statutes as tools and tools that will be used by both sides. And so, I think that the examples, when used in the cases 32 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that we've been hearing about, would be really beneficial and I think that the examples when used by abusers in other situations will harm survivors of violence.

So, we have been -- you know, just to say, this is obviously not a new conversation this year. This conversation started long before last year, when there first was Legislation and, you know, the coalition has been meeting and working on this, you know, as have you. The specific language in 1060, we didn't have the opportunity to start reviewing it until it became public last week.

But, you know, it's very -- we have found in ourselves and trying to come up with specific examples and how to define those in ways that won't have unintended consequences, that it is really hard to do so. And so, our conclusion was that, for Connecticut, the best way to move forward in the restraining order Statute was to have the general description and then, you know, there will be the opportunity when presenting the Bill, both through this Committee’s Hearing and on the Florida Senate and House, to give some legislative intent to the language. And we think that that's a better way to proceed, then getting examples locked into the Statute that we're concerned could have unintended consequences. SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. Do you think that sexual abuse can be a form of domestic violence, and of coercive control?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: Yes.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So, in the definition in SB 6, how would a victim who has experienced sexual abuse and coercion, how would they use that definition which doesn't mention any form of sexual behavior, how would they use that to get a restraining order?

33 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: Well, it depends on the nature of the sexual abuse, I mean, a great deal of sexual abuse involves physical action, physical violence. And so, you know, I guess-- and I have to say in preparing for this testimony, I wasn't thinking about that question as a potential amendment. So, I’m happy to continue conversations with the Committee and with yourself, Senator, whether there is additional language that would improve the Statute.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Yeah, I think we've heard actually from survivors already that sexual abuse was a part of their abuser’s controlling tactics and there were not always-- there's not always physical harm that came from sexual abuse, you know. And I’m sure you're aware that forced sex -- a woman who is forced to have sex, is seven times more likely to be killed by their abuser. And forced sex does not necessarily leave any physical trace or physical harm. It's psychological harm. It is breaking the person's spirit, it is breaking their will, it is showing dominance, it is making them submissive, and showing them, you don't have any power, that's what -- that is what sexual coercive behavior does. And certainly, we just heard from Ms. Wood about the power of revenge porn, the power of using sexual images to threaten somebody, threaten their reputation and threaten to destroy them. I mean, that's just an image, it's not even a physical touching.

So, there's a lot -- there are a lot of ways to weaponize sex, sexual conduct, sexual touching, sexual images, that are used very commonly by abusers to keep their victims submissive and controlled. And I hope you would agree that it's important to have those addressed in any definition of coercive control.

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: You know, I look for-- you did reach out to us last week and I really look forward to continuing the conversation. 34 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Yeah, well, just for the record, I reached out for two years, ever since I introduced the first coercive control Legislation last year, I’ve been reaching out to CCADV and trying to engage in constructive dialogue, because I think we all share the same goal. And we should, you know, we should -- we should build consensus and collaborate.

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I do just want to continue to emphasize, Senator, the difference between recognizing the harm people have and the tactics that are used versus coming up with statutory language that will have consistent intended results. It's -- it's just -- I really -- I don't mean to put it too bluntly, but I really don't trust these guys and they tend to have lawyers pretty often.

And you know, one of the things that's really important in both 1060 and Senate Bill 6 is the provision for appointment of counsel in restraining order cases for applicants for restraining orders. Because it-- you know, there's a real differential of power in cases when the victim goes in without a lawyer, and I appreciate that that's part of what you've been promoting. We think it's also incredibly important.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Kasser. Comment or question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I don't see any, Mr. Eppler-Epstein, thank you for joining us this morning.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Mr. Chair?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yes.

35 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): I apologize for not finding the 'Raise my hand' feature. May I ask a question?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Sure, absolutely.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Eppler-Epstein. I do have a few questions for you this morning and thank you for your testimony and for your work on the Legislation that is before us, and your leadership of CCADV during this important time.

And I really want to thank you for your appreciation of your staff at the beginning of your comments and that took up the bulk of your three minutes, but I think that says a lot about the leadership of your organization and your respect for the people who do the frontline work and all the member agencies.

Can you talk a little bit about why in Senate Bill 6 the language around coercive control is limited to the restraining order Statute, why are we focusing on the restraining order Statute?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: And I -- I take it, Senator, your question is as opposed to the custody Statute?

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Sure. Yes.

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: Okay. So, you know, in the custody Statutes currently the primary factor is the best interest of the child. But in consideration of best interest, domestic violence is one of the factors that's already there. And there's nothing to prohibit a judge currently from considering coercive control as a matter of education getting Judges to understand it. But there's nothing currently in those statutes to prohibit consideration of coercive control.

So, we can make progress there without Legislation, without introducing uncertainty or overturning the current system. Additionally, one of the concerns 36 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

about custody cases is that very few litigants, particularly survivors of violence, are represented by lawyers. They're very extended, expensive cases to get a lawyer. And so, we're concerned about introducing new rules in those Statutes without a lot of people being represented as abusers may, as I mentioned to Senator Kasser, try to use new rules against the interest of survivors.

In restraining orders, in contrast, coercive control is currently not an adequate ground to get a restraining order. So, it can't actually be considered right now with the current Statute. So that's why we focus there and want to get that fixed. And, you know, the Judge has discretion, you know, that -- this is a standard for getting a restraining order, but all of the orders that may be made by the Judge are discretionary based on the best judgment of the judge in that case. So, we think it's a controllable situation.

Additionally, we are hopeful that the Legislation will approve the addition of representation by lawyers in a large number of those cases, that has been proposed in both Senate Bill 1060 and Senate Bill 6. And we think that that will support the appropriate interpretation of the new language. So, we actually would link those two proposals, to the extent that's possible, it’s important to do both, both that have the language in the restraining order Bill and lawyers to make sure that that language is implemented as intended.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): So, can you talk a little bit more about those lawyers?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: So, I guess, I’ll - I have a very personal reaction to the question of lawyers. I did this work for a long time myself. But, as some -- A few years ago, I was the Executive Director of Connecticut Legal Services and I worked in Middletown. And so, I was in Middletown some years ago, when the events developed when a 37 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

restraining order -- a woman went on her own before a Judge. He asked for a restraining order, and it was denied, and some days later her child was murdered by the abuser and you -- I’m sure everyone here knows about that case.

The thing I could not get out of my head when I heard that story was, if she had had one of our lawyers, she would have gotten a restraining order. That was a situation that revolved around how you present the facts, how you write an application, you know, how you -- it was -- it should have happened much differently. And so, for me, that is -- you know, if there ever were to be one example of how lawyers can make a difference for people coming in. And how hard it is for -- you know, she was young, you know, she had never been in Court before, how much of a difference a lawyer could make those cases.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): I think that's an interesting takeaway from that situation. I appreciate you sharing your perspective on that, because I think about that case a lot. And I remember reading that the restraining order application and it was very clear how fearful she was, that she was afraid for her physical safety and that of her son.

And the fact that what was written on a piece of paper wasn't taken as seriously as what happened in the Courtroom with all the circumstances that you described, you can't -- it's just -- it's hard to even talk about it because it's just so heartbreaking that the system failed. The system failed that family and that loss of life of that beautiful baby.

So, what we're proposing here I think is a big step forward and I -- and I think your perspective with regard to how important it is to have someone to help navigate the systems is really critical. Could you talk a little bit about the other sections of 38 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the Bill with regard to the -- sorry, it's hard to transition back after thinking about that.

Can you transition back to the other sections of the Bill with regard to -- you talked at the beginning of your remarks about the circumstances of the pandemic and how much harder it is, in many respects, for victims to navigate an abusive situation right now? The sections with regard to, you know, opening up access to some benefits and other things that will make it easier for people who are trying to leave an abusive relationship?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: So, one of the proposals in Senate Bill 6 is that we continue the successful practice that was instituted during the pandemic to allow for people to file an application under penalty of law, rather than having to go before a Commissioner of the Superior Court or have to go find a notary in order to file their application.

It's been a very successful program, there's been no problems that anybody has seen with it, it's frankly the same kind of legal obligation we have when we file our taxes, you know. You sign that statement and you're not signing it in front of anybody but if you on your tax return, you're in trouble. And so, it's been a very successful proposal, it's worked well and smoothly, and we are asking that if we made permanent, it's our understanding that the branch supports that.

We're also asking that the -- since the orders can now be done electronically, we're also asking that the Marshals routinely accept them electronically without having somebody -- needing somebody to go out physically and bring papers to the Marshal.

Again, it's another removal of a barrier of, you know, allowing folks to get the order more easily. Many, many Marshals already have been, you know, very helpful and cooperative in doing this, we just would like to make that a universal practice. Not 39 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

necessary, people can still print them out and bring them, but just creating another option, removing another potential barrier for survivors who are trying to get Court protection.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): And that's -- that system was just put in place over the course the last year and now we have the full support of Judicial to keep that moving forward and have that be a permanent system that's available for victims, when they want to apply?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: That's my understanding.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): That's great. And then, was there anything else you wanted to say at the beginning of your testimony that you didn't get chance to? I think we covered most of the Bill.

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I think we did. You know, I did submit written testimony which covers the entire -- entire Bill. So no, I think I wouldn't take more of your time unless there are questions.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Okay, well, thank you for the conversation today, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator. Comment or question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Seeing none -- oh, Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Sorry, I just -- I do have a few more questions. Mr. Eppler-Epstein, does CCADV provide legal services for victims?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: CCADV does not provide legal services to victims, some of the -- member -- our member programs have lawyers, and we have very close working relationships, both with all of the legal services programs throughout Connecticut, as well as a number of the domestic violence programs, have 40 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

good relationships with pro bono lawyers who take additional cases. The scope -- I’m sorry.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Go ahead.

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I just want to note that, you know, with -- so there's a lot of help happening, but with current resources, you know, just a small fraction of folks are actually getting represented, most people still have to go in on their own. So, there are some -- there are some resources. There is some help coming from volunteers and from the institutional programs. But the investment of additional funds would just transform how restraining orders are handled by having representation for everyone who needs them. And you know, most people have never been in a Courtroom before. So, it's really an intimidating process.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Right. And thank you for alluding before to section six of SB 1060, which would require legal support for victims who can't afford their own attorney certainly when applying for a restraining order and the harrowing case that you mentioned earlier, of the woman who was representing herself and was denied a restraining order and her child was killed subsequently.

Do you think that -- that if the definition of coercive control in SB 6 was the law, but she had to prove his intent to cause harm, do you think she would have received a restraining order?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: Senator, I have to say, I never understood why she didn't receive a restraining order. I wasn't in the Courtroom, it's hard to judge. I really -- I think there are cases that push the edges and make us ask these questions. I just don't think that's the case, that's -- you know, that case is just one of those where you say this -- as Senator Flexer said, the system failed us.

41 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

But I do think I -- I have never seen a case with facts like that, where someone was represented by Council, where they couldn't get a restraining order, and so I think, you know, for all the sensitivity the judges have developed over the years to being able to listen to effectively to people who go in without representation, I think the reality is lawyers have trained to do a particular job and that's to communicate with a judge and for people to do that on their own it's just really hard.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Yeah, the system did fail and -- and unfortunately the system, I think, you know, there are many examples of when the system failed, failed to protect. We can list a lot of women who were not protected because they're no longer with us and children who are no longer with us.

So, you mentioned earlier that applying this -- applying coercive control just to restraining orders, I think you said is -- it would still allow a Judge to consider coercive control in other Family Court proceedings, like in divorce or custody proceeds, would allow them, but wouldn't require them. So, they could -- because domestic violence is one of the factors. But in custody cases -- but it doesn't it say the effect on the child of domestic violence and if coercive control is not required to be considered by the Judge when he or she is deciding custody, doesn't that create a conflict between our restraining order Statute that requires a Judge to consider it, and custody Statutes about domestic violence that do not require a Judge to consider it?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: Well, I mean, it's different, I don't know that it's a conflict, Senator. I mean, I think, you know, we have, for appropriate reasons, different standards for criminal Statutes, family lost-- custody Statutes and restraining order Statutes there. They are different circumstances and different levels of decision-making. 42 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I do think that there is room for review and it would be appropriate to continue to review the standards for how coercive control and family violence generally are considered in custody cases. As you said, the Statute does focus on the impact of the child. I think that, even aside from this discussion and the experience people are having when we get into the family custody statutes, there's a whole other large and vociferous constituency that this Committee has heard from.

So, they're very complicated and complicated Statutes, complicated situations. I guess, I would agree that there ought to be consideration of some changes to improve those Statutes. I’m just not yet competent and, I think on behalf of CCADV, we're not yet competent that we know what that language is that wouldn't run the risk of backfiring.

So, you know, it's really important conversation, you know, along with education and changing attitudes, which are, I think, at least as important. But I think we don't feel we have the answer yet that doesn't create a significant set of problems, even as it's solving others.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Would you agree that in custody cases where parents are battling each other for custody of the child and for all sorts of rights, but also there are financial elements, there are all kinds of elements in custody divorce cases that may be at play, and that children may be used as pawns in those cases?

Do you think that it is -- especially if there is abuse going on, and most high-conflict cases, so the 3% of all custody cases that are considered high- conflict, are generally cases of abuse where there is domestic violence, family violence involved, do you think it's important to actually prioritize, not the individual parent’s agenda or interest, but actually the child's best interest? 43 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Do you think it's important to ensure that, above all else, the safety of the child is the number one priority?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I think that in a custody case, the best interest of the child, I mean, which includes the safety of the child is the number one priority in the current Statute. One of the challenges with -- that may be unintentional in the current drafting of Senate Bill 1060 is that it elevates other factors before the best interest of the child, that suggests requirement of the hearing and potentially removal of children based on coercive control before you get to the best interest of the child. And I think that that's a place where you might have unintended consequences. Maybe that's a drafting issue, I don’t know.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Yeah, that's -- that's not my reading of 1060, my reading of 1060 is that it changes what -- what -- the current law is, is there are 16 different factors that a Judge can consider and weigh subjectively. And -- and I agree, judges should have discretion, and judges are very adept at -- at weighing these best interest factors. But the safety of the child, the safety of the child, I think -- most people I speak to agree that the safety of the child is the most important of all those factors. At least, you know, initially until safety can be -- to all the components of safety and best interest can be determined. But certainly not that if the child is being used as a pawn in an abusive dynamic, and we know those custody cases can go on for years, that of all those 16 factors, the one that should rise to the top is, is there really abuse and violence going on?

Because if so, this child is not safe, that -- that should be the first issue that is addressed and -- And that's why, you know, I think it's important to include coercive control, any -- any form of domestic violence should be admissible and 44 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

considered by the Court and considered in the beginning of the case.

You mentioned something else, you said you were worried about introducing rules that increase legal costs for victims. But if the -- if the underlying dynamic -- if the abusive dynamic and a family isn't identified early on in a legal case, that is when these cases drag on for years and years, and the costs become unbearable to victims.

Because that's actually a tactic, another tactic of abusers is litigation abuse. Dragging these cases on until they drain the victim’s resources, they break her will, and she has nothing left to fight with. So, if we recognize that litigation abuse is another form of domestic abuse, wouldn't it be better to identify abuse in the very beginning of a case, rather than allow it to drag on for years unidentified?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I think that, Senator, there's -- any hearing that is -- that happens in a family case regarding custody of the children, I think there's the opportunity to introduce evidence and present evidence on what has happened. I agree that there are some judges who are -- understand better the impact that harm to a parent has on the child, and there are some judges who don't see that as clearly and would separate that.

But I think that introducing a new mandatory hearing that takes precedence over other factors would at the very beginning cause a barrier for a lot of folks which we're both trying to serve. So, I mean, I -- and I also think, you know, when you say you read things differently than I do, you know, and so, that's the reality I’m trying to speak to is that lawyers read things differently and then lawyers bring arguments in cases to represent their clients.

And so, if the language has room for ambiguity, we're going to end up with protracted litigation and 45 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

problems for survivors of violence, so that's our -- that's our concern, is that this doesn't go where we intend it to go and that's why we're trying to proceed cautiously.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): I agree with proceeding cautiously and crafting the best language possible, but the situation described is what we're hearing now exists. That these cases are -- go on and on forever because the abusive dynamic is not identified and there is no penalty for, you know, for frivolous harassing motions in Family Court over and over again for years.

There -- that is -- that's permissible now, and so, that's been already been weaponized by abusers to do exactly what you're describing. I guess, I don't have any other questions at this point, but I do truly -- truly look forward to continuing dialogue, as I’ve said, I’ve been reaching out to CCADV and having some dialogue, and I hope that we will continue that.

Because I do believe we have -- hopefully, we have the same goals which is to protect victims, whether their children or whether they're adults, but to protect victims of domestic violence. And I -- and I think we agree that children in a home where domestic violence is occurring, children are victims too, so I appreciate your willingness to continue a dialogue. But I think the -- you know, we already have ample evidence that the current system isn't adequately -- adequately protecting victims, including children.

I guess I do have one last question, which is in terms of screening and actually identifying domestic violence, does CCADV do any form of screening when victims come forward to you?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I’m not -- I mean, I’m going to give you an answer, and you can tell me if this answers your question, Madam. Our -- the advocates 46 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

throughout the state talk to survivors of violence all the time, who were describing the kinds of things we're discussing that are exertion of control that goes beyond physical violence and threats.

The example that was given earlier of a contextual threat, you know, the cell phones, you know. The example we've seen often is somebody cutting out and when they used to be paper -- newspapers, right, people cutting out a newspaper article and leaving it on the table. It seems like an innocent act and, in fact, it’s a threat, right?

So, the advocates throughout the State that are working with survivors of violence, many of whom themselves are survivor's family violence, every day are talking to and working with survivors of violence around these kinds of control behaviors and threats, and you know, trying to help people understand that that's what they're experiencing, as you talked about and some of the earlier witnesses talked about, and help craft safety plans that will address them.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): And I am so grateful for all of the work that -- that the people you referenced, the counselors, and volunteers, and the professionals around the State do for victims every day. I mean, that's just -- that's a lifeline that they -- that they offer.

I’m asking sort of a different question which is, in terms of identifying and screening domestic violence or coercive control, do you believe that they're -- like, for instance, are you familiar with the Starr screening form from the Battered Women's Justice Project? It's just a series of questions based on the power and control wheel that DV advocates, you know, agree is the kind of the general outline of domestic violence, it's just a series of questions that are asked, so that even when someone doesn't know that they're the victim of domestic violence, 47 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

or there -- that the answers to these questions will then produce results.

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I don't -- This is one of the limits of coming in as an interim CEO, is that I don't know -- I know that the training and support that CCADV provides to the programs does include screening tools and I know that the Safe Connect Hotline that we run has a set of screening tools. I don't know whether that's the specific one you referred to or others, but we're happy to get you that information.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): And just as a last question, would you agree that some form of a screening tool, whether it's one used by CCADV or the Starr screening, but some version of a screening tool should be standardized and should be part of the Judicial process?

STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I think I would probably start with education and conversation before I would start with a screening tool. My experience is that in improving systems it's really helpful to get the engagement of the folks you're working with. So, I think at the end of the day, it is important to end up with a screening tool, but I would probably start with conversations and education.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Okay. Thank you so much, thank you for answering all these questions. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator. Representative Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and hello, Attorney Eppler-Epstein, good to see you. I just wanted to kind of piggyback off of the conversation I came in on and I came midway so I didn't catch all of what was being said. But as a domestic violence survivor who actually experienced a lot of coercive behaviors, injury to an unborn child by being shoved 48 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

through a glass patio door by my ex-husband who was the aggressor in the family violence, I just want to make sure that as we proceed forward that there really is open dialogue around what Senator Kasser is bringing to the table.

Because I can certainly validate and do believe, as someone with lived experience, that it's necessary, I don't know how we go about getting there, so I would love to be a part of these conversations going forward as she and you and CCADV sit down to discuss this, because this is where not only the children or the victims, right, fall through the cracks, and the Court does fall extremely short in addressing these issues.

And it is a life and death situation. I thank God every day that I’m a survivor, but my heart bleeds for the ones that didn't make it out of their situation, including children. So, I just wanted to put that on the record and let you know that I’d be very interested in being involved going forward in this process, because it's needed, very much needed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Porter. Comments or questions question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? This is the third time I’ve said this, but I think this is the actual time, Mr. Eppler-Epstein, thank you for joining us today. And I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

I will just at this point, remind those who are signed up to testify that you will be afforded three minutes. We are currently on track, if you extract Mr. Eppler-Epstein for a 20-hour hearing, given that we have 100 people signed up and we include him in a 30-plus-hour hearing, I will be very understanding of the fact that you are telling very real and emotional stories. But try to keep us on track so that people have the opportunity to testify. And I would also remind Members of the Committee that, 49 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

while it is important to ask questions, we have 100- plus people signed up today.

Next, we have Danielle Pollack, followed by Emily Goodman. Is Miss Pollack in?

DANIELLE POLLACK: I’m here, good morning.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Good morning, you have your three minutes.

DANIELLE POLLACK: Great. Thank you. Good morning Chairman and Committee Members and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Senate Bill 1060, Jennifer’s Law. And thank you Representative Porter for just sharing that very important experience, I really appreciate it when survivors speak out.

My name is Danielle Pollack. I am the ambassador for Child USA, which is national think tank conducting research on child protection matters. I am also the policy manager for the National Family Violence Law Center at GW Law, and I’m an advocate for children and their protectors in the Family Court context, so that's who I am.

We support SB 1060, as has been discussed this morning, it adds coercive control definition, and it adds a clear procedure for Family Courts to better prioritize child safety when abuse is alleged in contested custody cases. And we think this piece of it is essential. Why is this important, most people, including some people who work in family law, really view contested custody principally as two angry parents fighting for control and working out their differences, and not a matter of child safety and risk of abuse. But the fact is that in 70% of contested custody cases, so those that come before a judge and are contested, there is an abuse component. It’s either an adult-on-adult abuse, or adult-on-child. So, it's not just two, you know, parents who can't get along. It's a -- there's 50 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

abuse involved in the majority of these cases. We know this from multiple studies and we were just talking about a case where a system failed to protect and a child was murdered.

So, children cannot be viewed as sort of secondary or accessory to family violence matters. But our laws and systems have been developed in a way which attempts to sort of address domestic violence and largely as two separate and sort of siloed problems, and this is creating a verifiable gap in child safety. And we see it where custody is litigated and how it’s decided now. So, most child abuse is perpetrated by a parent, we know this statistically. The two types of child abuse most often substantiated by child welfare are sexual abuse and physical abuse of a child, and they are overwhelmingly perpetrated by one family member.

According to DHS, child fatality data, of all the child murders nationally, 78% were perpetrated by a parent, so that who’s the risk to children. Obviously, not all parents, but that is the principal figure who's hurting children. This is a national statistic, the 78%, and Connecticut is right up in line with that figure for child fatalities and who's perpetrating those.

The number one reason a DV victim leaves is because she wants to protect her children. She doesn't want them to be hurt by the abuser and sometimes victims will endure years of abuse and the children are--

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): --Miss Pollack, your time has elapsed, if you could summarize, please.

DANIELLE POLLACK: Okay, so the two places where our systems kind of determine how to give a parent access to a child at risk, is in our Juvenile Courts and our Custody Courts. And our custody Courts currently are -- are missing the mark, and I can -- I’m happy to talk about that more in questions or in follow up. Thank you for the opportunity. 51 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you elaborate on that how our -- how our Family Court's missing the mark in custody cases, Miss Pollack?

DANIELLE POLLACK: So, they're missing the mark because we know that children are frequently and routinely Court-ordered to an -- to a parent who is -- is abusive, despite safety concerns raised by a protective parent in child custody litigation, and that Courts are really minimizing and not recognizing the reality of abuse in family violence situations.

We have -- you'll hear later from a colleague of mine who tracks the child murders nationally and she has found nearly 800 children have been murdered by a litigating, divorcing, or separating parent in the last 10 years in the country. And she'll, I’m sure, give you data for Connecticut. So, we're getting it wrong, that's just the fatalities, that's not even to look at sort of the ongoing abuse that doesn't reach fatalities, and particularly the child sexual abuse, we know from many studies that the custody Courts are missing it.

And part of the reason they're missing it is because we are using this best interest model in states everywhere, it's not just Connecticut, that's -- you know, there are several factors, 15, 16, 17 factors depending on the State. 16 for you guys. And the Courts are looking at all of these factors at once, they're looking at them simultaneously. They're looking at abuse allegations, they're looking at how closely the families live to one another, they're looking at siblings, they're looking at all of it in one thing.

52 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And what happens when they look at these things simultaneously is that the abuse allegation gets lost, it gets watered down, it gets sort of equalized. And what Courts are doing is they're sort of looking at them as kind of he-said-she-said cases. And they're kind of divvying up the children, you know, "Well, she could be lying, he could be lying, we're not sure, the evidence, you know, is contrasting." And so, you know, and "We're looking at all the factors at once, rather than just looking at the abuse and safety part."

And as a result, kids are oftentimes Court-ordered to both parents, one abusing and one safe. Very often, that's not always the case, but that's very often was happening in contested custody. And we don't have to follow this procedure, we know it's not working effectively for kids and the kids are getting hurt. And instead, the proposal that’s put forward in SB 106,0 we fully support. There should be an evidentiary hearing that’s restricted solely to the abuse allegation, if the abuse allegation is made in a verified pleading. So, you know, if you're making it up, you will have consequences, you know, you're intentionally fabricating, trying to clog up the Court.

There are consequences in the Connecticut Statute already, if you're fabricating in a verified pleading. If you make an abuse allegation in contested custody, "My child is at risk, they're getting hurt. I’m getting hurt, here's all my protection orders." The Courts need to listen to that first, because if they don't and they consider all the best interest factors simultaneously, kids will be ordered into harm. We know this nationally, we know this from research, we know this anecdotally, you can count -- you can speak to countless protective parents who are living this right now.

There's a -- there was an assessment done, it's an estimation, but it was done by Leadership Council 53 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

some years ago, and they estimated, you know, looking at the data of these cases that about 58,000 children a year are Court-ordered to an abusive parent. So again, that's an estimation, but just to give you sort of broadly an idea of annually, we're getting-- we're doing about more than 58,000 kids a year. So, our current Statutes are not modeled to really prioritize child safety.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Miss Pollack, you referenced some research. Can you elaborate on what research that is? I mean, I’ve heard of research that shows that in custody cases where mothers and children report sexual abuse of the child, so the child themselves is reporting sexual abuse, that the Court sides with the abuser/father 81% of the time.

DANIELLE POLLACK: Yes, that figure is from the preliminary findings in the GW Law study headed by Joan Meyer and her team, and that was from the preliminary findings. And then, in the full study, the final findings show that of 51 cases, contested custody cases, where child sexual abuse was raised, the Court only credited one -- one of 51 cases.

And we know from prevalence that this is highly likely that they're missing a lot of them. So, they're really very rarely crediting child sex abuse. That's actually the type of abuse that they’re least likely to credit. Child sex abuse or child sex abuse and child physical abuse combined, when that's alleged the Courts are crediting it the least frequently.

And the thing which decreases their willingness to believe or give weight to abuse claims is a cross- claim of alienation, and alienation is very commonly used as a legal strategy for those accused of abuse in Family Court. It's a very effective legal strategy, because that GW Law study shows that when there's an abuse claim raised by one parent and a cross-claim of alienation, alienation basically says, "Oh, that parent is just trying to break my 54 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

close relationship with my children and they’re making up these ." I mean, it's more than that, but in essence, that's -- that's what the cross- claim is.

When there's this cross-claim, Courts are likely -- they're half as likely to believe the abuse claim, okay. And alienation has a lot of problems. There is no consensus on even the definition of it, it is not -- it does not reach evidentiary standards. The question is out about whether it is, you know, verifiable, it's a -- soft sciences talk about it, some people have written on it, proponents are very vocal for it. You may hear from some later, but it is not a verified health condition or syndrome. Certainly it's, you know, certainly it's not good for children to hear the other parent badmouthing the other, you know, parent. That's -- nobody agrees that that's good for children. Everyone agrees that that commonly does occur in divorce and when parents are separating, but it does not cause such significant harm as child sexual abuse, child physical abuse, long-term coercive control and isolation.

It just does not. But, instead, what happened -- the problem is that once you get into custody Court and you’re litigating, Courts are kind of viewing abuse allegations as equally weighted to this alienation claim, which is how-- you know, has some questionable basis and doesn't reach evidentiary standards. And so, if you were looking just at the abuse and evidentiary hearing up-front, you can get away from all of these other best interest factors, one being the friendly parent factor.

So, all states have this friendly parent factor, parents have to collaborate, they have to cooperate, they have to get along, they have to work together. So that's an unrealistic factor if there is real abuse happening. You're essentially coercing -- the Court then is coercing the protective parent to 55 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

cooperate with their abuser. That's effect-- a child's best interest factor.

So, you're imposing -- you're imposing on the victim, they must continue to cooperate with the abuser and get them to get along because they -- because that's the best interest of the child, to get along with them, that that will benefit the child. And many states have an exception for DV, but it's very rarely applied, you know. It's written in a Statute but very rarely applied.

So, there's just -- there's a lot of reforms that’s put forward in SB 1060 that we would like to see put in place.

And I mean, certainly, there's, you know, CCADV should come to the table, and, you know, we can fine tune that language, etc. I mean, this should be a broad conversation where we can get consensus, hopefully. I know that, you know, there are many great experts working on this issue.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, thank you, Ms. Pollack. I think, you know, for people who are not familiar with the dynamic you described, where allegations and evidence of child abuse, even child sexual abuse, are then neutralized and overruled by allegations of alienation.

A really good way to see it in real life is to watch the Allen v. Farrow documentary. I think that is the -- that's the best depiction I’ve seen of that legal strategy being used by the parent charged with abusing a child, turns the evidence of abuse around and makes it an allegation of parental alienation. But I think what this really comes down to is, whose rights in the custody case -- whose rights is the system really looking out for, who are we really looking out for? Because in custody, if we're really looking out for this best interest of the child, meaning the safety of the child, then actual verified allegations of abuse have to be truly 56 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

recognized and adjudicated by the Court upfront. So, thank you so much for your testimony, I really appreciate your expertise. Thank you.

DANIELLE POLLACK: Absolutely, happy to be here and thank you all being here and letting me testify.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Kasser. Comment or question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Seeing none. Ms. Pollack, thank you very much for joining us and offering a testimony this morning. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Next, we have Emily Goodman, followed by Lisa Johnson. Is Emily Goodman here?

EMILY GOODMAN: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have your three minutes.

EMILY GOODMAN: Thank you. I’m Emily Goodman. I’m a mom of two in Riverside. Before I get into my prepared testimony, [Audio Difficulties 1:50:20] on behalf of the CCADV, that’s actually deeply, deeply troubling. I am shocked to hear how cautious he's been on -- in the hope of avoiding the risk of backfiring, when it's so clear that the existing system has so terribly backfired at this point, given the evidence and real-life experiences we have, the research we have. You know, it -- it's close to willful ignorance of what we need to do in Connecticut. I hope that Mr. Eppler-Epstein will work with Senator Kasser.

One specific point, I think, requiring proven intent is incredibly dangerous. It will almost certainly cut the legs out of this very important law. So, I encourage the Committee to decline to include intent as a requirement.

57 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I’m here to testify on behalf of SB 1060, Jennifer’s Law. Simply put, Connecticut women and children are in dire need of this law. I strongly urge you to support it. Many women cannot speak safely on their own about their own story today, or many women have even been silenced by very onerous NDAs forced upon them by abusers. This is a topic that has not been spoken about yet today, but know that many women in the State of Connecticut cannot stand up and speak today because they have been forced to sign NDAs by their abusive ex.

The Connecticut laws for DV are dangerously inadequate to address the safety needs of the victim, as well as for children when they divorce an abusive partner. Abused women are powerless to protect their children from continued exposure to the abusive parent. Even with clear evidence of domestic violence, the push towards 50-50 custody, combined with Connecticut’s inadequate domestic violence laws in Court training, means that children's best interests are frustratingly underserved.

The Connecticut -- Connecticut’s Courts do not [Audio Difficulties 1:52:15] domestic violence cases. Abused women's safety isn't prioritized or protected by the Connecticut Courts. We desperately need Jennifer’s Law to remedy this dangerous failure of our Court system. Abused women are unprotected by our Court system and Family Court. Sadly, many ultimately decide not to go to trial with an abusive ex-partner out of fear of the Connecticut Family Court. The resultant settlements within abusive ex- partners are clearly not in the best interest of the children. But these women cannot risk an even worse arrangement being imposed upon the Connecticut Family Courts.

Our Connecticut laws fails to -- fail to recognize the latest and highly reliable research that’s showing that domestic violence victims, who are moms 58 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

alleging abuse in Family Court, are more likely to lose custody of children to the abuser.

Many abused women avoid going to Court because the outcomes that can -- which can be so unpredictable and terrible for the children, and they’re instead pressured to settle--

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): --Miss Goodman--

EMILY GOODMAN: --Alright, I will summarize. I -- there's a direct causal link between inadequate Connecticut laws and these dangerous outcomes for kids. Imposing normative standards of co-parenting in the DV situation is not only unrealistic but also dangerous. Thank you for your time. Happy to address any questions or directly with any Committee Members in the future.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much, Ms. Goodman. Comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Emily, for your testimony and also for your work. I understand that you -- you work as a volunteer or raise money for CCADV and -- which again provides such important resources for victims.

But you described so eloquently how the current system doesn't adequately protect victims and even that it silences victims. Because you said that women victims of abuse are forced to sign NDAs and don't even engage in Family Court because outcomes are so unpredictable and often detrimental.

Can you describe, like, in more detail how that works, how are victims forced to sign NDAs or penalized in Court?

EMILY GOODMAN: Thank you for the question, and just one clarification. I’ve done some fundraising for the YWCA, their domestic violence abuse services, 59 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

which have been a lifeline for so many women. They have groups and all sorts of services, so it was the YWCA DAS services.

So, I think the way this typically plays out is, and we've seen this not only in domestic violence cases but we see it more prominently in, you know, in Hollywood sexual abuse cases. Weinstein is the poster child for how NDAs can be abused.

So, women -- the cycle and the -- the healing from coming out of an abusive relationship takes a very long time. When you first leave a relationship and you're negotiating these, you know, potential settlement or trying to figure out whether to go to Court, you're very much still subject to the control and abuse of the -- of your ex-partner. And it's in that time that many will impose NDA-like provisions into in a divorce agreement or a settlement agreement. These are far more prevalent than anyone realizes so -- and -- you know, when someone signs it, they're at a point where they don't have the strength. They've had -- they've finally mustered the strength to leave, but they may not have the strength to resist that, and they just want to get it over with.

So they are, per se, you know, against public policy. There is no reason that any -- an NDA should ever exist in a domestic violence case, there are enough other laws on -- you know, that exist today that would prevent someone from making up stories or torturously interfering with someone's life. And unfortunately, you know, I think as much research and data as we have and we've talked about today and, hopefully, everyone will continue to learn about, it's not complete research because of these NDAs. It's not complete data.

So, I would encourage, you know, in a future -- future state, you know, that that NDAs in these cases, you know, be -- can be looked at and, you know, perhaps, you know, acknowledged as, per se, 60 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

you know, undesirable. And, you know, just some -- similar to what other States have done in the context of -- of cases that we in Connecticut, you know, pass a law that that makes them unenforceable.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. And when you describe that mental state when somebody finally musters the courage to leave, but they're still very much under the control of somebody else and very scared about the consequences of actually breaking free and they're more likely to maybe give in where they shouldn't give in. Or agree to NDAs where they shouldn't agree to NDAs.

Do you find that, in your experience either working with victims or your personal experience, you find that family lawyers, or whoever the legal counsel was, was actively encouraging victims to -- first of all, informing them of their rights and encouraging them to pursue?

EMILY GOODMAN: Yeah. I can tell you exactly how this plays out in so many cases and it -- and it dovetails, you know, exactly into, you know, what this law would cure.

There are many wonderful, informed lawyers in Connecticut that would advise a client in that case, this -- this is a horrible provision, you -- I don't want you to sign it, it silences you. But if you -- if you don't sign it and you end up in Court, things could end up way worse, you could lose your children because you're going to be subject to these cross- claims of parental alienation. Because they're going to use the litigation system, and, you know, attempt to bankrupt you, because you'll be mired in litigation for years.

So unfortunately, you know, despite, you know, terrific counseling and informed counseling, lawyers, you know, similar to the Courts right now, there's just not the tools. They have to advise on 61 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the practical realities of going into the Court system.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So, in your opinion, in your experience, if there was a way to identify domestic violence abuse upfront in a case, would it actually shorten the time of -- that these cases drag out if this identified, screened and judges could see it upfront?

EMILY GOODMAN: Absolutely, it would. I mean, the number of resources, that downstream impact of the resources and time that it would save is, I mean, almost immeasurable, because it's -- it's time and money for the victim. It is like, you know, for the lawyers as well, it is -- would be so beneficial. And the swirl that results from not having these tools is endless and fierce, and it is happening all the time.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. Thank you so much, Ms. Goodman for your testimony and for your support of other victims. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Senator Kasser, comment or question from other Members of the Committee. Comment or question? I don't see any. Thanks, Ms. Goodman. Thank you very much for joining us. We will now hear from Lisa Johnson, followed by Evan Stark. Is Lisa Johnson in?

LISA JOHNSON: Yep. I'm here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have your three minutes.

LISA JOHNSON: Okay. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Lisa Johnson and I'm from Greenwich, Connecticut testifying in favor of Jennifer, SB 1060.

62 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

In 2015, I filed for divorce and have been in Stanford superior court, and most recently, Connecticut Appellate Court ever since. To date, I have hundreds of docket pleadings and over 70 court appearances in just the past three years with no end in sight. The divorce alone, I spent approximately $100,000 dollars, which will take me decades to payback. As I could not afford an attorney, I have been pro se for post-judgment matters in Connecticut. And I've been told by multiple experts that I've saved well over half a million dollars in legal fees.

The abuse from my ex-husband has been ongoing and follows a pattern of coercive control tactics to maintain power over myself and my children financially and legally in particular. Stopping me through the courts is the only weapon for him to maintain control over me now. And fortunately, Connecticut has provided a state for it.

The failure of Connecticut courts to enforce their own orders has emboldened him. He has racked up three counts of contempt so far with more being filed as he continues to defy court orders with impunity and zero consequences from the very system which was supposed to provide the relief, I was promised on paper in 2018.

Jennifer's Law would have helped me specifically in terms of getting a restraining order for my teenage daughter against her father. Even with a history of documented police reports, years of written records with our local domestic violence agency and a letter from my daughter's therapist, pleading for the courts to keep her safe, Judge Heller told me that this was not enough to meet the standard to obtain protection for her at the time. You should know that with the help of Pace Women's Justice Center in New York, I was able to obtain an order of protection the very next day in White Plains Family Court. And I am convinced that this was the most significant thing in her ability to heal. What does 63 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that say about Connecticut's investment in our children's safety?

I can adjust to legal and financial abuse as a central part of my life. I've since formed an organization called Been There - Got Out, which provides community guidance and support to people struggling in toxic relationships. I also became a state-certified domestic violence advocate and interact every day with others all over the world who faced similar struggles. It may be too late for current legislation to help with my own legal nightmare, but I beg you to favorably report Jennifer's Law, SB 1060 out of Committee so that the general assembly can vote to strengthen our approach to actually protect domestic violence victims and keep our children safe.

Thank you for your consideration.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Comments or questions from Members of the Committee. Comments or questions? I do not see any. Ms. Johnson, thank you very much for joining us and sharing your story. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

LISA JOHNSON: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Evan. Is Evan Stark with us? Followed by Eli Holmes. Evan Stark?

EVAN STARK: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have three minutes.

EVAN STARK: Thank you. In 1975, one of the first women we hid in our house in New Haven, told us violence wasn't the worst part when I asked her to talk about the violence. 1986, I appeared before this Judiciary Committee and you and yourselves, to bring the news about our injury research at Yale New Haven Hospital, which showed that domestic violence was a leading cause of injury for which women sought 64 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

medical attention. More common than auto accidents, muggings and combined. And the Judiciary Committee at that time, because the climate in America was changing, the Judiciary Committee at that time passed one of the nation's first and strongest domestic violence laws.

We thought domestic violence was a problem and made it a crime before almost anybody else. It's 40 years later, almost 40 years later, and the climate is still domestic violence as we heard from Attorney Eppler-Epstein, but the weather has changed. The weather is coercive control, and that's what 1060-B is about and that's what I'm here to talk to you about.

When my book Coercive Control came out in 2007, the then home secretary, Margaret Thatcher -- I'm sorry. Then home secretary for England, took the definition from my book and she replaced all of the 14 definitions of domestic violence in England and made it the universal understanding of how coercive abuse -- the universal understanding of how coercive abuse would be understood. England subsequently adapted a coercive control defense. So did China did - 14 of the countries have adopted coercive control into violence law.

If Connecticut adopts the definition coercive control then1060 B would be the third US state after Hawaii and California, to make coercive control the definition of the climate in which women are abused. And why has the climate changed? Because among other things, there's a woman in the White House. Because we're no longer talking about the injuries of physical harm only. We're talking about the harms to dignity, the harms to honor, the harms to liberty. Coercive control is not just a physical crime, it is a liberty crime because it's a crime against equality. And so, when Connecticut goes on record by adapting the definition, it's--

65 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Stark. Mr. Stark, your three minutes have relapsed. If you could summarize.

EVAN STARK: The only -- the only, the final point I wanted to make is I support SB 1060 because of its emphasis on the perpetrator's changes behavior, instead of the perpetrator's intent. Both the SB 6 and SB 1060 avoid the pitfalls which rely on the victim's testimony. But what SB 1060 does is abolish Scottish Law by highlighting the specific behavior rather than the effects and as earlier defenses SB 1060 anticipates that our courts will apply a reasonable person's standard to establish intent, given a record of egregious behavior.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, sir. Comment or question from Members of the Committee. Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just make this very quick. I just want to thank Mr. Stark for supporting the definition of coercive control and SB 1060 and point out for those who may not know that Mr. Stark is literally the founder of the term "coercive control". He wrote the book Coercive Control, and he has advised other legislatures and other countries on how to craft legislation, which is not easy. It is not easy. But I just want to thank Mr. Stark so much for his decades of research and decades of work and decades of advocacy bringing this topic, this issue "coercive control" into the public's recognition and, you know, and putting it on the radar for us, the lawmakers who are charged with protecting victims and recognizing all forms of abuse, whether they're physical or not.

So, I just really want to thank Mr. Stark for his incredible service to victims everywhere.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kasser. Comment or question from Member -- 66 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

other Members of the Committee. Comment or question? Mr. Stark, I do not see any thank you for joining us today and sharing your expert opinion on the matter before us. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Next, we have Eli Holmes followed by Michelle Cruz. Is Eli Holmes in? Eli Holmes, I see you on the list. Is Michelle Cruz in? Okay. Elle Kamihirain? I'm sorry about the name.

ELLE KAMIHIRA: I'm Kamihira.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Kamihira, you have three minutes.

ELLE KAMIHIRA: Okay, great. Dear Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, I'm pleased to give testimony in support of Jennifer's Bill SB 1060 today. My name is Elle Kamihira, and I'm here in the capacity of Documentary Filmmaker and the director of Jennifer, 42, a about the life and death of Jennifer Magnano, after whom this law is named.

She was a Connecticut mother of three, who was killed by her ex-husband, Scott, in front of her children. Her murder, however, was 13 years in the making. Jennifer's co-victims, her three surviving children are here to testify today. Scott Magnano spent years breaking Jennifer and the children down, weaving a tightening web of rules and regulations that dictated every moment of their lives. Jennifer was confined to the kitchen and couldn't make a move without his permission. At nighttime, she slept in her children's bed unless she was ordered to his room for sex. There were rules for washing and showering, how to enter and move about in the house, how to dress, how to take food out of the fridge, how to flip a light switch. There was no detail too trivial for Scott to oversee.

And if rules went unheeded, Scott humiliated, berated, and punished physically. Scott's violent 67 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

tyranny escalated as he repeated. And finally, Jennifer understood that if she didn't escape, he would make good on his frequent threat to drag her out in the woods behind the house, tie her to a tree and her till she begged for death.

To Scott's mind, when his wife did escape, she committed the ultimate offense. And the moment he lost control of Jennifer was the moment he began his hunt to kill her. Jennifer and her children understood the danger that they were in, but they were unable to convince anyone of that. No one touched her case. No one that touched her case from police, family and criminal court or social services recognized the threat that they were under. Trained to look for bruises, they were blind and ignorant to signs of coercive control. Scott took advantage of this blindness to force Jennifer out of hiding and into court and to gain a window in which he would kill her, which he did.

If you had asked Scott Magnano, if he used coercive control to dominate his family, he wouldn't have known what you were talking about. Nonetheless experts will recognize that the trajectory of Scott's abuse and homicide is straight out of an abuser's playbook. As seen in case after case the world over.

Intention is irrelevant here, whether the abuser acts out of , entitlement, rage, a calculated plan, or all of the above, the results are the same. The destruction of women's lives, and that's what needed to be remedied here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Kamihira, if could--

ELLE KAMIHIRA: Sure. While we spend trillions on vast domestic violence response system, we haven't reduced domestic violence murders, because we focused all of our attention on the behavior of the victim, what she should and shouldn't do. We have to turn our attention to the abusers and figure out 68 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

how to intervene in what is a highly-predictable and therefore preventable course of behavior. We must build a response system that's fit for purpose instead of an imaginary idea of what domestic abuse is.

Passing Jennifer's Law would go a long way in bringing into alignment the torture women and children actually experience and holding abusers accountable for what would be grave human rights violation in any other context.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much for your testimony this morning -- well, afternoon now. Comments or questions from Members of the Committee. Comments or questions. Ms. Kamihira, I do not see any. Thank you very much for joining us today and offering your testimony on the subject before us. I hope you enjoy the rest of the afternoon.

I'm told Eli Holmes is capable of testifying at this time.

ELI HOLMES: Hi. I am. I'm so sorry. I'm on a flight. So, I'm going to make this very quick and thank you all for being here today. Firstly, Senator Kasser, I want to thank you for SB 1060 and I stand in solidarity with you. As you have continued to advocate and push for victims like myself. I, too, have reached out to numerous organizations with my for help, freedom, and solutions, and all have fallen on deaf ears. I wanted to highlight what victims are supporting here today, SB 1060.

For me, it is hope that I stand and more importantly, my child stands a chance at freedom and safety with SB 1060 passed, this would be the first time I have held that kind of hope in five years. I have tried 15 times for a restraining order after being threatened with firearms, being told numerous ways that he can kill me as a result of his Marine training. 69 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

After being folded, his brothers in blue [inaudible] had blood to find me if I ran. Only ever after gaining a restraining order, after being arrested for screaming, "Get your hands off me." Today, I'm alive because of Laura Bebe's story and my own personal connection to Laura, as I pondered the validity of seeking a restraining order. She was murdered very disturbingly, and it became clear I only had one conclusion.

I'm a retired EMT medic with debilitating chronic PTSD as a result of chronic abuse forced into early retirement just after finishing medical school. As an EMT medic, I was screened for domestic violence and didn't see it in my own relationship. When 911 dispatches EMTs, we provide support and aid. When a domestic violence victim calls for help, no one comes to stand with them. He littered the house with weapons and was forced out by DCF. Five years later, he now has full custody and I've had zero access with my child for almost two years, who is now five years old. He has an imaginary friend named Mommy and is still not in therapy despite being advocated for him since he was two years old.

The forms of violence, both physical and non, as well as debilitating auto-immune disorders and mental health disorders that have developed as a result of exposure to chronic abuse have resulted in many, many consequences. I have never received support from family court, CCADB and all the other organizations. Thank you again, Senator Kasser, you are the first person that has listened and followed through on your promises to make a difference for victims like me, and I think that is clear in everyone's testimony today.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. Comments or questions? Comments or questions? I don't see any. I know you're on a flight. I want to thank you very much for taking the opportunity to testify. It's clear 70 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that your testimony really meant a lot to you and thank you for making the effort to come before us today. And I hope you have a good day.

I'm told that Michelle Cruz is in. Is Michelle Cruz able to testify?

MICHELLE CRUZ: Yes. I'm able to testify.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. You have three minutes.

MICHELLE CRUZ: Good morning. First of all, I want to thank the Judiciary Chair for hearing me today and the other women and supporters of 1060.

I want to start with limiting coercive control only to restraining orders will leave women and victims, of course, of coercive control to lose our children, to suffer abuse and in some cases be murdered. If Jennifer Dulos had the benefit of coercive control in her family court case, I'm sure the outcome for her would have been different. When she filed her divorce. She said, plainly that filing this divorce would enrage her husband and cause her potential abuse. That unfortunately was not listened to.

When we talked earlier of Adriana [indiscernible 4:19:10] who was going to seek a restraining order in the courts, she told the judge that the abuse was more psychological than physical, based on a lack of understanding about coercive control, her son was kidnapped after her restraining order was denied and he was thrown off a bridge and died.

It is very important today that we not only apply coercive control to restraining orders, but also in the family courts. I work in the family courts as some of you know, I'm a lawyer and I was also your state victim advocate for five years. I authored the Scott Magnano -Jennifer Magnano Report. And I outlined the problems with the system at the time. Many of these problems continue. And I can tell you 71 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that coercive control, this legislation outlined in 1060, will save lives. I've been in the family courts and I have seen and heard from many victims of coercive control being told that if they are to raise this very issue that they are experiencing and living in a coercive relationship, they will lose their children and I've seen it happen. And it has been outlined earlier today that the way they lose their children is through allegations of alienation. The minute that that comment comes up, that the relationship is abusive, the backlash is immediate and swift.

There is this fine balance between understanding coercive control and how it applies to our courts. It is important today that 1060 is applied to the families that have lived under this oppressive coercive control. And the reason why it needs to be the first thing that courts look at is because when a woman comes into Court and she's experiencing abuse, especially abuse that doesn't leave marks, the colloquia, I'll call it, about coercive control is what sets the stage for the rest of the litigation in that family case. It is the first factor that we should consider, not the only factor, but it is the first factor. And if there is an affidavit relating to facts involving coercive control, that victim can be ushered to safety.

I can also tell you that women do not need lawyers to -- if we enact this Legislation. If the judiciary is -- and the Judicial Branch is advised and trained by individuals like Evan Stark, about coercive control, we will all have the language and the understanding to be able to identify coercive control and protect lives. It is--

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ms. Cruz, you need to summarize.

MICHELLE CRUZ: Alright. So, I'll just summarize. So, it is important that we not just take a small snippet of this law that's outlined in, I believe 72 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

it's 106, but that we look at 1060 as a way to address the myriad of issues that were outlined in Jennifer Gauthier Magnano's report. And also, in Jennifer Dulos report.

And I just want to end with, there was conversation about victims being able to testify via video for restraining orders. That was enacted under Jennifer Magneto's Law in 2008, but it hasn't been implemented until last year. And I would suggest that implementation of 1060 is -- after it is passed, is what's going to be crucial to saving lives. I thank you. I'll take any questions or comments.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ms. Cruz, so much for your testimony. Could you give us a little bit about your background and what work you've done in this area?

MICHELLE CRUZ: Yeah, so I have over 20 years of experience working with victims of domestic violence. I started -- it's actually more than 20 years. I started working at a battered women's shelter in California and worked there while I was in community college. I then came to Massachusetts where I currently live and I worked as a prosecutor and ended up specializing in crimes of domestic violence, sex assault, and child abuse.

I then had the honor of serving as Connecticut state victim advocate for five years. And we did a number of [lethality 02:23:07] investigations on domestic violence and we were able to identify gaps in services and make some significant changes.

And then since then, I've opened my own practice and I continue to work with women seeking protection in the family courts, restraining orders and in the criminal courts. And I just feel that this is my 73 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

life's work. I've been honored to work with and learn from Evan Stark. I've been able to go to coercive control trainings and education and enjoy learning more about it. And I think -- let me just say one thing: When I first learned of coercive control, it was really hard. I knew what we were talking about with domestic violence, but it was hard for me to really understand and appreciate what it meant. It took some warming up to the idea and really understanding how Legislation can fix this issue. We are now, let's see, 12, 11 years from the Jennifer Gauthier Magnano report and it is time that coercive control becomes legislation in Connecticut.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much. And you referenced that report and Jennifer Magnano's tragic murder that led to Legislation being passed in 2008, allowing victims of abuse to testify remotely, but it was never enforced. It was never enforced apparently until COVID hit and then we had an executive order allowing that to take place. Do you have any -- like, is there -- what's the explanation for victims not being advised that they had a right to testify remotely for, you know, 11 years?

MICHELLE CRUZ: So, the part of the issue is, and I -- and I did read some of the testimony from the judicial rep saying that they did not -- they were not looking for training. And part of the issue is training. A lot of people knew about the law, but it wasn't implemented. And so, a lot of times we implement laws and I think a lot of people know this, but then we don't have any implement -- implementation. And I know that I had spoken to victims over the years who were looking to benefit from Jennifer's Law, and it just simply wasn't available.

I think that -- I think COVID has allowed us to do one really important thing. And that is, I think if we were looking at February 2020 and the Judicial Branch was told that they would have to do courts via Zoom, everybody would throw their hands up and 74 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

think it was crazy. So now we have this very robust, very proactive, protective legislation. And I know it seems undaunting, but if we can do courts via Zoom, we can do coercive control in the family courts.

And I think, you know, Jennifer's Law -- Jennifer Magnano's Law is long overdue. It allows victims to testify safely from their homes and not to have to worry about how to get into court, how to know if they're being followed. I mean, it's an amazing law and it was unfortunate that it wasn't implemented for so many years.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. And thank you for your work on passing that law so many years ago. Even if it did sort of sit on a shelf gathering dust, at least we know the work was done, it is on the books and hopefully now it will be enforced, and now the mechanisms and technology is in place. And I believe Judicial is also, you know, supportive of making remote access to courts for victims' standard practice. So, thank you for all the foundational work you did.

And I just want to end by just emphasizing something you said. You were the Connecticut State Victim Advocate, and it is your belief, I think you said, that domestic violence and coercive control must be the number one thing that courts look at in custody cases. That it's important to elevate that to be the number one factor that is looked at in order for cases, for judges to be informed and in order for cases to deliver the right outcome and in order for children to be safe and for victims to be safe, and in order to save lives like Jennifer Magnano's and Jennifer Dulos's?

MICHELLE CRUZ: Yes, absolutely. And I think it's important because there's a long history of victims of abuse being told in the family courts through attorneys -- and I'm not trying to be disparaging -- I'm just telling you the lay of the land -- to not 75 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

talk about abuse and family court, because then you'll be faced with alienation and you will lose your children. And that's a very grim reality. We need to elevate coercive control to the screening factor in family courts, in order for victims to be protected. We need to undo that pattern in the family courts, where victims are afraid. They're afraid to get restraining orders.

And part of the problem of only doing coercive control for restraining orders is these victims often then have to go over to Family Court. And there -- there'd be a disconnect. There'd be coercive control for restraining orders, but not in the Family Courts. So, the very -- the very idea that they were able to get a restraining order is not going to be realized in the struggles and Family Courts. And as you know, a lot of times litigation is used to abuse the victim. And if we can really put the issue of coercive control in the beginning of the custody issue, then we can fair it out when litigation is being abused. It's not the victim trying to undo what's been happening. It's not Jennifer Dulos's years of litigation making statements constantly saying she's in fear and that she is afraid for her life and her children and that falling on deaf ears.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Right. Either falling on deaf ears or being heard by judges who are -- who are doing their job, but they're applying the law as it's currently written, which doesn't recognize non- physical forms of abuse. So, you know, we do have good judges and they are -- they do want to protect victims, but sometimes the laws that we have don't allow them to. So that's what we're trying to do today, is to expand the law, to protect victims when and where they need it. And also, to make sure that coercive control is really recognized throughout the family court system, not just in one isolated case of a restraining order. So, thank you so much Ms. Cruz for all your work and your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 76 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Kasser. Comment or question from other Members of the Committee. Comment or question? I do not see any, therefore, Ms. Cruz, it's good to see you again and hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

MICHELLE CRUZ: You, too.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next we have Teri Cahoon, followed by David Magnano and then Rebecca Torns- Barker. Is Teri Cahoon in? I see that Teri is, are you able to testify yet? Okay, we'll go to David Magnano and then I'll come back to Teri Cahoon. David Magnano, can you -- are you able to testify?

DAVID MAGNANO: I am.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. You have your three minutes.

DAVID MAGNANO: Thank you. Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify today. My name is David Magnano currently at Western Massachusetts, but formerly of Terryville Connecticut. I'm here today in support of SB 1060 or Jennifer's Law.

It was difficult to put the words, my support for this Bill amid mixed emotions. While I wholeheartedly support the passage of this Bill, I resent the need for this discussion and the painful memories that it brings flashing back. This is not the first time I've testified on behalf of legislation protecting victims of domestic violence. I'm sure it won't be the last. In fact, this is not the first time I've testified for a Bill called Jennifer's Law.

I stood before a similar hearing nearly 13 years ago, a 16-year-old in an oversized suit, mere months after losing my mother to domestic violence. For any of you who've been in Connecticut state politics 77 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

since 2008, you may remember the signing of Public Act 0867, as Michelle mentioned, Jennifer's Law. Though given the statistics shared by Connecticut protective moms. It seems like before, COVID my siblings and I may be some of the only people who actually remember the law and the protections it provided.

At the time, I remember Governor Rell saying, "I hope the family of Jennifer Magnano can take some comfort in knowing many others will be spared the grief and pain they've had to endure." Since then, more than 100 women in Connecticut alone have lost their lives to domestic violence, including my mother, four of them have been named Jennifer. I find it ironic that Jennifer's Laws, plural, for me, feel less like a sense of hope for victims in Connecticut than they do a testament to the reality that it is dangerous to be a woman in Connecticut, especially if your name is Jennifer.

Well, I could fill the rest of the day with stories of the trauma we experienced or how the system failed us or actively abused us for personal profit. I would like to share with you a memory that I would argue desperately shows a need for us to get SB 1060, specifically promoting the training of state officials.

That terrible night I was only a few yards away when I heard the gun sound off. I will spare you the graphic details of that night as the trauma of witnessing the life violently ripped from a loved- one in this way, and the aftermath that greeted me as I checked for signs of life. That's something I wouldn't wish upon anyone. So, imagine my shock having seen what I had seen, when several hours later as the local police led me and my nine-year- old sister, from the house to the police car, waiting to take us away. That they would march us past her uncovered remains.

78 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Luckily, a friend had been present that night and I'd grabbed my little sister as she tried to follow me when I ran outside. Luckily, I knew where my mother had fallen and managed to look over seconds before my sister did to see that she was still there out in the open. I will never forget having to quickly cover my sister's eyes as she screamed that she wanted to see mom while I whispered to her that I wouldn't let her live the rest of her life with the images I now had to live with. The lack of sensitivity shown by police when dealing with minors to this day leaves me dumbfounded.

In closing, I'll say this: Connecticut has failed victims of domestic violence for far too long. And far too many lives have been cut short as a direct result of this failure. Please excuse any bitterness in my testimony is years of experience that left me skeptical that even the best-intended legislators can actually enact meaningful, impactful change in this area. This Bill, while only a compilation of words at the moment, it faithfully and earnestly acted upon may finally start to bring the changes needed to save over 100 women in Connecticut in the coming decade. And in doing so may finally provide a modicum of comfort to the victims who testified today that their suffering is not in vain.

13 years ago, I testified that my mother did not want to be just another statistic with common sense laws like SB 1060 are not passed, then this legislative body will declare that all of these victims are just statistics, my mother included.

Thank you for your time and attention. I will answer any questions you may have to the best of my ability.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Magnano. Representative Palm.

79 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Magnano. I'm so very sorry for what you experienced. And I appreciate very much your being here and going through the ordeal of having to relive it over and over. Do you have any -- and by the way, I don't blame you for sounding a bit jaded. You don't need to apologize. Public policies can be agonizingly slow.

Do you have any sense of why there has been so little movement, other than a lack of political will perhaps, would you have any sense of the procedural breakdowns that the State continues to experience?

DAVID MAGNANO: For lack of a better word, laziness. I know that our experience when we first left -- laziness and lack of training. When we first fled our home, we met with the local Police Department within days of fleeing and told our story. We were advised that it was in our best interest to flee the State and that we had every legal right to do so. We later came to find out that we did not. And that was one of the tools that my father used against us. He claimed that my mother had kidnapped us and used a forged paper saying that he -- she had been served to win custody when she didn't show up to contest it.

And then the laziness aspect, when we were forced back to Connecticut from hiding in California, we immediately went to the police again and submitted countless hours and pages of testimony and what evidence we could provide. And the report was passed from officer's desk to officer's desk. Every time we called in somebody was on vacation or you know, "Oh, well, we haven't looked at it yet. We'll get to it at the end of the week." And that continued for months. And I vaguely remember being told that it was -- the file was finally opened, maybe the night before her murder.

REP. PALM (36TH): Recently in the news, there was a story about a young British girl named Nina Bryce or 80 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Bryce who put forth five or six complaints to the police about her abuser. And she was actually sued by the Police Department for harassing them. And then she was of course murdered the next week by the person against whom she was bringing these complaints. I hope this isn't -- I don't mean this to sound in any way flip or insincere, but since we don't hear from a great deal of men on issues of domestic violence. First of all, thank you for being here.

Secondly, I'm just -- I'm just curious about your opinion. Do you think if domestic violence were a crime primarily committed against men by women, that there would be this universal deafness on the part of these partners?

DAVID MAGNANO: No, I imagine it would be a more major concern. Yeah, it -- it's definitely the culture that we live in the women are not treated as equals and they’re not as readily believed. You know, part of our experience, I wish that I had been maybe a year older. The Judge in our case refused to let me testify because I was 15 and considered a minor. And I still wonder had I been 16 -- because I had that male voice, would I have been believed? Would they have listened?

REP. PALM (36TH): Did you tell the Judge that you wanted to?

DAVID MAGNANO: Multiple times.

REP. PALM (36TH): Recently there was a series that came out about the versus Mia Farrow case. One of the things that the then prosecutor we talked about was sparing a child the trauma of having to testify. In her case, she wasn't sure whether or not she wanted to, but I think -- you know, my hat's off to you for trying -- for wanting to. You sound like a very good big brother and I'm terribly sorry you had to go through that.

81 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DAVID MAGNANO: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank so much, Mr. Magnano, for your courage in the face of unspeakable -- unspeakable pain and suffering. I want to thank you so much for uncovering those painful memories and coming forward today because you still do have hope that the system can change and that -- and that more victims can be protected. And I just want to ask you a question since the tragic killing of your mother. The murder of your mother occurred, I believe, at the end of a custody case when your father had lost custody. And I think came right from the courthouse to your home and shot your mother in front of the children.

I just want to ask you, do you think it's important that coercive control and domestic violence be elevated in custody cases so that the courts shine a light on it right in the beginning of a case so that they can -- that can be identified, at the beginning of a case? Do you think that children would be safer, outcomes would be different, lives would be spared if it was really identified and adjudicated in the beginning of custody cases?

DAVID MAGNANO: Absolutely. You know, we did our best to bring that up because in our minds, that was the most important aspect of all of this. You know, none of the other proceedings would have occurred, but for the domestic violence on the coercive control and nobody seemed to care. You know, even the Judge didn't seem to take the threats seriously. You know, I believe Michelle mentioned that he threatened to take my mom out into the woods and tie her to a tree and torture her until she begged for death. And I remember that explicitly.

82 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I remember him threatening to beat our heads in with baseball bats and bury us in the woods behind the house, and the police would never find us. And we shared all of that and just nobody cared. It wasn't considered an important aspect of the case. What was more important to the Judge at the time was that the children have normal lives. And the school year was starting back up, so he or she, I can't remember the name of the Judge, but -- required that my father move out and we move into the house. And that was really the undoing of our case because our house was a two-family house. My grandmother, his mother, lived in an in-law apartment downstairs. And when we showed up to the house the first night, we had the police with us. They searched the house, but they weren't allowed in her space because it's private property without a warrant. And we had friends over, there was, you know, enough of a buzz. I think that that kept them from coming up that first night. And we were -- we were smart enough not to spend the night there. We left the lights on and the blinds open. And when we came back the next day, the lights were all off and the blinds were shut.

My grandmother living downstairs claimed to be too frail to climb the stairs. So, we were immediately suspicious that the status of the house had changed. So, we called the police again, and the same thing, they search our portion of the house, but weren't allowed in her space because it was private property.

Looking back, I wish we had never gone back because maybe we would still be in hiding, in all honesty today, but at least she would be alive. It was that second day that we were back after the police left, that he came upstairs with the gun and dragged her down the front steps.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): I have no words. Thank you.

83 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Kasser. Comment or question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question. If none, Mr. Magnano. Thank you for joining us today. And I would align myself with Representative Palm in telling you not to apologize for the tone of your testimony. I think it was completely understandable and appropriate given the unfortunate circumstances. Thank you. I hope you can enjoy the rest of your day.

We have Teri Cahoon, Rebecca Torns-Barker and Marlena Anderson-Harris. Is Teri Cahoon now able to testify? [inaudible]

TERI CAHOON: Thank you. I had an issue with my microphone earlier. My name is Teri Cahoon also known as Yaki. I'm a legal resident of South Windsor. As a protective mother trying to keep myself and my three children safe from continued abuse, I'm testifying in favor of SB 1060. I am #erasedmom on social media where I offer spiritual support to parents abused by the broken family court system.

Since 2016, when I was abandoned and refused access to my own children, I've accumulated more than $60,000 worth of debt related to someone else's choice to divorce, and my repeatedly having to go to Court.

I support Jennifer's Law because I see coercive control as a major problem for LGBTQ families. The time and the money that it takes to grow a family without heteronormative advantages produces far more conversation planning and verbal contract that is often ignored by the Court system, still functioning on antiquated family structure ideals.

In my case, every detail was agreed upon who would work for an income, who would be the primary caregiver and for how long? How the children would be educated? That the children would always have us 84 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

as two parents in the home. These details were solidified multiple times throughout the course of five years, including the very moment I inseminated my own body. The coercive control, I and my children suffered included financial abuse during the years that I was refused any education, a financial dependent for many years, until forced out of my home.

My financial disadvantage and child loss traumas were repeatedly used to manipulate me. I suffered through the years of sexual and personality degradation, criticism of my culture, intelligence and religion. I was mocked on any attempt I might take to protect my children in Court at least four years before I was thrown out. She said she would win everything if I even tried to use a Court. When I sought an attorney to get help physical abuse against my daughter began, which escalated to sexual abuse confirmed in 2019 by the Connecticut Department of Family Services. I believe Jennifer's Law would have helped me had the Judge complied with laws fighting back against coercive control.

This proposed Legislation is needed for LGBTQ families who are thrown into a heteronormative system that isn't working and does not recognize the intense methods and agreements made to begin and continue a family like mine. Our families are not made by accident, not made the same way, and they should be protected, not ignored and abused. Other States and countries that have recognized this type of Legislation were early to recognize LGBTQ marriage and are also the ones supporting this type of defensive legislation.

So, Connecticut should already be on that list to keep domestic violence victims and their children safe. I ask that you favorably report Jennifer's Law, SB 1060 out of Committee, so that general assembly can vote to protect our families.

85 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Thank you for your consideration.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you for your testimony. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Comments or questions? If not, I want to thank you very much for -- Uh, Senator Anwar, does have a comment or a question.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you so much for your testimony. And I think I cannot thank you enough for your strength and your courage for speaking. And I'm also a South Windsor resident, and I cannot thank you enough for speaking out and doing full effort. I look forward to supporting this Bill that Senator Kasser and the others have proposed. And then this is something that your testimony has shown a light to us that I think most of us don't even realize.

I'm so sorry you had to experience what you had, but I want to thank you for your testimony.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Anwar. Comments or questions from other Members of the Committee. Comment or question. If not, thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. I hope you can enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

Next, we have Rebecca Torns-Barker followed by Marlena Anderson-Harris, Rebecca Torns-Barker, can you be able to testify?

REBECCA TORNS-BARKER: I am. Hello.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And okay. You get three minutes and with that, I will turn this back over to Chairman Stafstrom. You may begin.

REBECCA TORNS-BARKER: Alright. Good afternoon, Chairman Winfield, Chairman Stafstrom, and Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Rebecca Torns-Barker, and I represent the over 2,200 Members of the American Massage Therapy 86 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Association, Connecticut Chapter, and the HB 6657, the Human Trafficking Bill. We support -- we support this Bill. I'm going to back up, actually. I'm a state licensed massage therapist of 16 years and board certified since 2017. I have also been an active volunteer in the massage therapy association for 15 years.

As a licensed massage therapist and a former president of the AMTA Connecticut Chapter, I've been very active working with the council in the past. The TIP council is an asset to the State and acts fairly on behalf of the State, as well as the victims of human trafficking. Adding a massage therapist to that Committee further enhances their ability to act in those interests.

Why? Massage therapy is an industry that is frequently co-opted by human traffickers. The Polaris Project, which runs the national human trafficking hotline, states that elicit massage presents a facade of legitimate services concealing that their primary business is the sex and labor trafficking of women trapped in these businesses. In fact, the derogatory phrase 'massage parlor' now almost exclusively refers to elicit massage businesses that offer sexual services and are often locations of human trafficking. Nothing ruffles our feathers more. This is part of the reason why massage therapy works so hard to be perceived as healthcare. We meet rigorous education and licensing standards, hold liability insurance, must complete continuing education as to our healthcare counterparts. In these situations, language hurts. Referring to a legitimate massage practice as a massage parlor damages our credibility, damages our industry, damages us. Language matters.

This front used by human traffickers has also led to some state and local governments trying to create ordinances directed at massage therapy. The result has been unjustified burdens, unlicensed educated massage therapists who operate within the law to 87 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

support their client's health. Happily, that has not been the case in Connecticut. Representative Gilchrest has recognized all of this and has worked to support and include the massage industry so that policies that help to end human trafficking are not punitive to the practice of massage therapy. Including a massage therapist on the TIP Council ensures that our valuable and innovative perspective will be included.

As an industry, massage therapists want to end the co-opting of massage for sexual and human trafficking purposes. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the solutions the council brings forward.

On behalf of the AMT Connecticut Chapters, 2,200 Members, I support including a massage therapist on the TIP Council and encourage you to support HB 6657, the Human Trafficking Bill.

Thank you for your consideration and for your time today.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, madam. Representative Gilchrest.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Torns-Barker, for being here today and for your partnership. I am fully committed to working with you further to ensure that we can rid our state of the illicit massage business industry and support those of you who are doing the important work you do.

REBECCA TORNS-BARKER: Thank you so much.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you so much, Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Dubitsky.

88 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for coming in. I very much appreciate it. I was wondering if you might be able to comment on the relationship between human trafficking and sexual exploitation and the -- and illegal immigration.

REBECCA TORNS-BARKER: The Polaris Project is really the -- more of an expert on this case than I am being a representative in the massage industry. What we do know is that massage is co-opted by human traffickers and the data from Polaris Project does seem to indicate that illegal immigration is a factor in that business. The latest data showed that flushing New York is still an entry point on the East Coast, bringing in many Asian-Americans. We have tightened up some of the loopholes we had in our state licensing, so that we're not seeing large masses of numbers of people from New York applying for massage licenses here in Connecticut, as we saw four or five years ago.

So, you know, we're doing a better job of ensuring that any human traffickers attempting to co-opt massage here in the State are less successful and able to obtain a legitimate license that would enable them to offer that in a legitimate way.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Further questions or comments from the Committee. Seeing none. Appreciate you being with us today.

REBECCA TORNS-BARKER: Thank you very much. Have a great day.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Marlena Anderson-Harris, Rosilene Ribeiro, Joseph Kish. Joseph Kish with us? If not, Emily Thibeault.

EMILY THIBEAULT: Yes. 89 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead, madam. You have your three minutes.

EMILY THIBEAULT: Hello. My name is Emily Thibeault and I currently reside in Leicester, Massachusetts. I'm in full support of Jennifer's Law SB 1060. Jennifer Magnano was my mother. That being said, I've been exposed to abuse for the majority of my life. For me, it started by seeing my father, Scott, control every aspect of life from my mother and my siblings and myself. This included where we could be inside the house, what we wore, who we saw, and the list could go on for days.

Scott had my mother under his control and helpless because he isolated her from her family, friends, cut off her access to finances, even forcing her to steal groceries, which she would never normally do, and humiliated her at any opportunity.

This coercive control meant leaving him incredibly difficult and proving his abuse aside from physical wounds, nearly impossible. Seeing the physical abuse, honestly had a greater impact on me than the physical abuse and even the murder. It has created in me a deep fear of making decisions because the small girl in me still fears the repercussions of doing something without being told it is okay to do so. It has made me a prisoner in my own mind and body. Like so many others, I found myself restarting the cycle of abuse when I was 20 and entered an abusive relationship. Like clockwork, I found myself being isolated from my family, being humiliated, having my every move observed and having my abuser make every decision for me. I would walk on eggshells, not knowing what would set him off and lead to hours of lectures from him.

Coercive control is a wound that does not heal. I can hear Scott and my abuser's voice in my head every day, telling me that I'm stupid and incapable of making decisions. Although this is something I'm 90 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

actively working through, it is ingrained so deeply in my brain from early childhood, and will most likely to be a part of my life forever.

Coercive control is abuse and it cuts so deeply and causes the cycle to continue because for the abused, healthy love seems dull and uncomfortable when love is kind of chaos and control. I don't want to see other young people get into abusive relationships because it feels like home to them. I want the cycle to stop, and coercive control to be easily identifiable and illegal. People know physical abuse is wrong and will stay in an abusive relationship because they don't think they are being abused. After leaving my abuser. He said to me, and I quote, "I don't hit you. I don't cheat on you." to justify his non-physical abuse and to try to get me back. He also went on to say, "Don't let anyone else influence you in regard to my family." He had been actively isolating me from for over a year. If I didn't get away from him, I could have ended up like my mom because I justified his actions as acceptable because he wasn't hitting me. And I didn't know all the other manipulation was abuse until after I was out of the relationship. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. And thanks for sharing your story with us and being so strong through that. Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much, Emily, for having the courage to come forward and share this -- the pain and suffering, which you said does not heal. I just wanted to ask you how old were you when your mother was murdered?

EMILY THIBEAULT: I was nine.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): And now you are?

EMILY THIBEAULT: 23. 91 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): 23. So I think you explained very clearly and eloquently how, as a child in a home where coercive control was happening every day, you were victimized. You have suffered. you continue to suffer and real pain and emotional damage. So, do you think that children are victims when coercive control is happening in their home?

EMILY THIBEAULT: 100%, there's no doubt in my mind. I think when you see coercive control in your household, it creates thought patterns in your brain that you don't know are there and then that we do to recreate the whole cycle of abuse and seek out abusive partners, because that's how you learned love. And I think it would be extremely helpful for people in high school, and even middle school, to have some sort of training about relationships so they understand what some flags are, so that they can avoid these situations. I, myself, went through the whole experience of living in it and seeing it take my mother's life and still ended up in the same situation because I was blinded to it.

You know, you think, you know what to look for until it's happening to you. And it's, you know, it's manipulative and it doesn't take women, you know, seven times on average to leave because it's easy.

And I honestly would not have escaped that situation if it weren't for my family and friends and even strangers. I had seven people come at the drop of a hat to move me out of the house I was living in at the time. Drove over an hour and a half, I didn't even know them, to help me get all my stuff out. And I didn't even realize I was being abused until I read a letter that Scott had written to my mom three months before he killed her. And I swear it was line-for-line the same thing that my abuser was saying to me, that my father said to my mother before he killed her. I just felt like if I could be in that situation and people that have no idea 92 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

about it could be, and I just hate to see it keep repeating.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. I mean, that's - - what you're describing is patterns. Patterns that repeat over and over again. Different names, different circumstances, but patterns of behavior that are readily identifiable. And I think you said it so clearly that if the pattern had been identified early, if it had been recognized early, and by the court system, then there may have been -- there probably would have been a different outcome and certainly lives would be spared and children would be spared, because they are totally traumatized and victimized by the dynamic in their home.

So, I just want to thank you so much for your incredible courage and speaking out today and your courage in continuing to battle and overcome the harm that was inflicted on you. No one should have to suffer that. Thank you so much, Emily. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Gilchrest.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Thibeault. I just wanted to thank you for using what's happened to you to advocate for others, so it doesn't have to happen again. And I appreciate you being here and using your voice. So, thank you.

EMILY THIBEAULT: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. And thank you, Emily, for being with us today.

Next up will be Kristen Seymour.

KRISTEN SEYMOUR: I'm here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead, madam. 93 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KRISTEN SEYMOUR: Thank you to all the panelists who have spoken so far and thank you to Members of the Judiciary and all the Representatives on the call. I'm going to skip through quickly because I think it's fair for other people to have a turn to speak. And I know that the -- that the list is long. Following my exit decision to divorce, I spent 16 years in the Stanford Court system. Litigation abuse, obfuscation, chronic and unreasonable delay tactics, and I burned through precious time and resources on exorbitant attorneys, GALs, parenting coordinator, psycho [inaudible], friends, like accountants, expert witnesses, family relations. We collectively spent over a million dollars. Not one superfluous motion through the coercive control of my ex-partner was met with punitive action by the Connecticut family courts. This is indeed part of the public record, which is discoverable in which I do not quote here for fear -- for the retribution and revenge.

I officially forfeited my child support prematurely in 2018 after intense parental alienation and abuse, coercive abuse from my ex-husband who had been divorced 2006. 16 years of unchecked, coercive weaponized and litigation really drained me. And its egregious behavior continues to this day with another soon to be ex-wife of this man and another child who is now going to be a victim. I'm no longer a victim, I'm a survivor. But my goal today is to share my traumatic experience with the panel and with the legislature and with the Judiciary to put an end to these coercive abuse tactics.

As we speak, the costs are not only financial, but the Connecticut family courts also failed me and my children while they stood by, and he stole my finances, my health and my dignity, and he's still doing it to this day. And that's over 20 years’ worth of this behavior through the Connecticut courts. It's damaging with complete impunity. 94 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

There's no disincentive for this behavior in Jennifer's Law would provide some teeth to the enforcement of this collective 20 years unbased, unfounded, vicious coercive abuse.

Passing SB 1060 would ensure legal assistance, which I was not afforded during my journey. I am indeed grateful to be a survivor, but the quagmire of the Connecticut family courts, as I'm speaking and by the other panelists who had a chance to speak, is not common in any of the other states. Connecticut family courts need to reform and it's time. And I needed your help and so did my children and the system failed me.

I urge this panel to stand up as a national example to quell the ever-rising tide of domestic abuse, not just in Connecticut, but nationally. You owe it to your constituents to save more innocent children from being orphaned by unchecked preventable, coercive abuse. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, madam. Questions or comments from the Committee? If not, I want to preach -- I want to thank you for taking time for -- to join us today and share your story.

Next up will be Representative Kavros DeGraw.

REP. KAVROS DEGRAW (17TH): Thank you very much. And thank you very much for the time today. The testimony has certainly been compelling. Chairman Winfield and Stafstrom, Vice-Chairs Kasser and Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and Members of the Committee. I come before you today to testify in support of raised Senate Bill 1060 and Raised Senate Bill 6. Both Bills, as you know, pertain to domestic violence law in our state and my testimony will focus on the coercive control aspect of these proposed bills.

Today, March 24th, marks 20 months since my friend Jennifer Farber-Dulos disappeared. Not a day goes 95 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

by that I don't think about her, about my last message exchange with her, about her five beautiful children. Because I know that like many other women, many of whom have testified today, what happened to her didn't have to happen. She should be mothering her children as only she could, but instead because of the often-invisible nature of domestic abuse and specifically coercive control, she is not.

I'm grateful to see that in both pieces of legislation, coercive control is defined clearly. It is critical that we have a clear definition in our laws because without it, the consistent and pervasive behaviors that can appear invisible to family and friends, and sometimes the Court must be made visible to our courts.

Coercive control is strategic, and it has to be. In order to exert control, the threats must be meaningful and manipulative. It might start with isolation, like it did for my own mother. When my father moved her across the country, away from her friends and family, and as it continued with a minimum monetary allowance, a system of asking for permission and regular and pervasive emotional abuse through a series of consistent . But because there weren't bruises, it was hard to see clearly. Years later, I still don't think she recognizes the extent to which she suffered.

Coercive control might continue with tracking your every move like it did with the mother of one of my children's friends, who let me know that her name was not on the title of her car as she thought, but in her husband's name. And he used it to track where she went and when, and the car company refused to turn off the tracking because the car isn't in her name.

Coercive control might look like gaslighting, repeatedly telling you that what you know, to be true, isn't. Like asking you to serve spaghetti for 96 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

dinner, and then when you do, screaming that he told you he wanted tacos, dumping the spaghetti on the floor, or worse, on you.

It might look like taking away your access to money and transportation, even food, which basically removes your ability to have agency and the freedom to move around. All of that comes with an underlying threat, often but not always violent. It could be a threat to your children or your pet, and it doesn't have to be physical. It can be emotional or psychological because that's the most invisible control of all and often the most effective.

I illustrate these examples because they aren't the exact situations that our family court must be trained to see, to recognize for the abuse that it is for the patterns that exist and to help the families going through these situations, come through them because women are dying. And as my friend and fellow advocate, Ruth Stearns of the Safe and Together Institutes said to me, "We are dying yesterday, we are dying today, and we are dying tomorrow. The time to make the change to save the lives of women and their children is now."

When my friend, Diego, whose mother was murdered at the hands of her father, my sophomore year in high school. For my friend, John Michael, whose mother was murdered at the hands of his father, when I was a sophomore in college. For Jennifer Farber-Dulos, for all the Jennifers. We must pass meaningful legislation that protects survivors of domestic abuse, because if we don't, we will have more victims and not survivors.

Thank you for your time today.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative certainly appreciate you being with us and for your advocacy and sharing those stories with us. Questions or comments? If not, I know I appreciate you stepping out. I know you're Chairing another 97 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Committee today. Another public hearing today, so we'll let you get back to that, but appreciate you taking the time to be with us.

REP. KAVROS DEGRAW (17TH): Thanks so much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Shanay Fulton, Jeanna Cocchiola, Amy Brien. Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Amy O'Brien is here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Madam, go ahead.

AMY O'BRIEN: Good afternoon and I want to thank all of you for your time. I am here to advocate for SB --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Let me -- let me interrupt [inaudible] connection there quite a bit. We're getting a lot of feedback. I don't know if it's the microphone you're using.

AMY O'BRIEN: Let me see. Can you hear me okay now?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, it's just coming through very muffled, but why don't you go ahead and try it?

AMY O'BRIEN: Okay. I'm here to advocate for SB 1060. I am a friend of Jennifer Farber-Dulos, and I know her children and unfortunately her estranged husband. I also am a survivor of domestic violence. I have two children and mine was not only physical and sexual, but was also mainly coercive, down to not having access to money, always needing to know where I am, limited cell phone minutes to 30 minutes a month, which was only to be used to contact my ex- husband, where I was and when I was going to be home. Locked in the basement with my toddler while pregnant, because dinner wasn't ready when he came home from work.

98 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

These are all signs of coercive abuse and things that you can't see. Not always physical abuse is abuse. And I just -- I have a restraining order. I have had since 2011 and fortunately but unfortunately, due to my ex-husband's actions in Court and his outbursts and his aggression was granted restraining orders down to, my attorney and I had to be walked to our vehicles on several occasions. And I have a restraining order for myself and my two children till 2023. And I don't know if it's possible, but I will go back in 2023 and ask if it is possible for a lifetime restraining order, because I know once it is up, I will end up just like all the Jennifers. He comes by my house, but the restraining order stops him from coming to my door.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Madam. We appreciate you being with us and sharing your story and testimony today.

AMY O'BRIEN: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Jessica Rosenbeck.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: You hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yes, we can. Go ahead, Madam.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Okay. Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the Members of the Judiciary Committee for this opportunity. My name is Jessica Rosenbeck [inaudible]

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I'm going to interrupt. You know, we were having trouble hearing the audio. I don't know if you can turn up or speak a little closer to the microphone.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Sure. Is that better?

99 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yep. Much better.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: [inaudible]

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): No, madam. I'm sorry. We're losing you again.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Okay. I'm not sure.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Unfortunately, I think you look down at the paper. [inaudible] Yep, go ahead.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: [inaudible] Better?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, Madam, you know -- I'm sorry to do this again, [inaudible] but I want to make sure we're able to -- we're able to hear what you want to tell us. Maybe just, if it's possible, maybe just look into the camera and summarize the testimony if you're able to do so.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: [inaudible] I'm nervous. I'm not gonna remember.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: I am here today in support of SB 1060 Jennifer's Law. Had a law like this [inaudible 03:14:36] been in place, maybe my mom would still be here. [inaudible] to me is one of the best [inaudible] reports people have seen document___ while I appreciate that we can now use our experience to initiate change, it really needs to be [inaudible] systems. So, we could have done an example [inaudible] rather than hiding like the failures [inaudible]. Coercive control is something [inaudible] that leaves an invisible mark. Invisible for everyone with the [inaudible] and the actual control is [inaudible] information through friends and family are so powerful. [inaudible improved.

100 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Coercive control is not currently clearly defined or recognized in family courts. Abusers like my stepfather [inaudible] by the ideation. No one will believe us. We always wanted to believe otherwise. Maybe if we just write things, all the rules [inaudible] the wall would be on our side. We wouldn't be here today if that had been the case. I can't impress upon you enough, how helpless and disheartened we felt about these [inaudible]. We filed the reports. [inaudible]. It's just sounds like, she's trying to get [inaudible] a divorce for this is too long for that, but that was such a [inaudible] nightmare experience, trying to save ourselves. At this time, I'd like to read ______of my mother's reports.

"Scott controlled everything. He paid all the bills and had control over all of my credit cards, as well as Jessica's. I was only given two of the credit accounts to carry. I'd have one visa that I could use, and one American Express to use only in an emergency. I had to account for every time I had spent and had to have permission to use them at all. I don't even know how many accounts were opened in my name. This may not -- This may seem trivial to some people, but I would probably treating you like people understood us better and seen it as the one that it was hoping [inaudible] would be better training education for all professionals involved in helping victims. I've never mentioned we've been here before and every time we were asking for your help. We are asking for change. As my brother. often used to say my mom, they said that she didn't want to be just another statistic and we're determined to make sure that that doesn't happen.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, madam. I will confess, I think we only caught kind of parts that, you were fading in and out on us a little, but we did catch the gist and sort of you're sharing with us. I would certainly encourage you though to submit written testimony if you're interested, as well. 101 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Okay.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Just, we haven't had a chance to remind folks yet, but you know, the Committee does receive, and look at the written testimony. It is loaded online for the public and the Members to view. So, if you can get that in. Alright. Thank you. Thank you for being with us, madam.

Okay. I think we have Joseph Kish with us.

JOSEPH KISH: Yes. I apologize. I was having technical delays before, but I'm ready to testify.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead. So, you have three minutes.

JOSEPH KISH: Thank you. To all Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Joseph Kish, Jr., and I am from Norwalk. I am a volunteer with Connecticut Protective Moms. I am testifying in favor of Jennifer's Law, Senate Bill 1060 to implement reforms in the Connecticut family court system. The reform would include coercive control under the legal definition of domestic violence. Senate Bill 1060 is in honor of Jennifer Dulos, Jennifer Magnano and all Connecticut moms and children who have been victims of coercive control.

Coercive control is the pattern of threatening, humiliating, intimidating or exploiting actions used to harm, punish or frighten a person. Examples of coercive control include making the victim do illegal things, playing mind games and displaying weapons.

Coercive control also includes emotional, economic and legal abuse. Other forms of course of coercive control include isolating, minimizing, denying and blaming, using children as a means of a weapon or control, and using male privilege. In order to 102 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

protect victims, the legal definition of domestic violence should be modified to include coercive control. The modified definition should legally recognize acts of non-physical domestic violence.

By recognizing acts and other forms of non-physical physical abuse, Connecticut can more effectively identify, address and prevent both domestic abuse and child abuse. I asked that you favorably report Jennifer's Law, Senate Bill 1060 out of Committee, so that the General Assembly can vote to strengthen our approach, to keep domestic violence victims and their children safe. While in family court proceedings. We need to protect mothers and children from the same tragic and preventable fate of all those who have been impacted such as Jennifer Dulos, Jennifer Magnano and Aiden Mirano.

Thank you for your consideration.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, sir. Appreciate your being with us and your testimony here with us today. Seeing no questions, we will move on to Jeanna Cocchiola.

BETSY KELLER: Hi, this is Betsy Keller. I'm taking Jeanna Coachiolla's place today.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Oh, madam. We don't allow folks to swap spots. I'm sorry. We've been doing that for every hearing all session long. We can't have people [inaudible]

BETSY KELLER: The only reason I'm going to ask for an exception --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You can talk to the -- you can talk to the Administrator, but we've had a rule about this whole session. I'm sorry.

BETSY KELLER: Okay.

103 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. We are going to go on to Erica Schwedel.

ERICA SCHWEDEL: Hi.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Hey. How you are doing, Madam.

ERICA SCHWEDEL: Can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can. Yep. Go ahead.

ERICA SCHWEDEL: Thank you, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Erica Schwedel, and I am a resident of New Canaan, and I'm asking for your support of SB 1060 Jennifer's Law, Senator Alex Kasser's 2021 Bill.

It has been 22 months since my next-door neighbor, Jennifer Farber Dulos disappeared from my street. I'm speaking to you today to honor and remember Jennifer's life and to help prevent the next Jennifer. I knew Jennifer as a gracious neighbor, as a kind person, and most of all, as a loving mother to her five young children.

Tragically Connecticut's laws were not strong enough to protect her from harm when she took courageous action to move to New Canaan and start anew. Her life was taken too soon and under terrible circumstances and that cannot be changed. Many of us will carry the scars from losing her. I hope that you will support Senator Kasser's Bill so that other women like Jennifer can get the help and support they need from our courts. Please make this positive change in our state a part of Jennifer's legacy.

I'd also like to say that I moved to Connecticut in 2010 and I didn't know Jennifer Magnano's story until today, and my heart really goes out to the 104 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

families and children and the others like them who have lived through such unimaginable trauma. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, madam. We appreciate you being with us and sharing your testimony with us. Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Erica, for coming forward and sharing your story. I'm just curious since you did actually know Jennifer Farber-Dulos, was it blindingly apparent that she was a victim of domestic violence or was it not really apparent?

ERICA SCHWEDEL: It wasn't, honestly. I mean, she was such a kind and thoughtful person and so focused on her children and, you know, just taking care of them. And, you know, we -- I saw her almost every day, honestly. You know, on our street, passing in our cars, exchanging mail, all those types of things. And I did not know until she was gone, what was lying underneath.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. I think that's a really important point to make because it is not obvious. It's not obvious to others. It's not obvious to the Court. It's just -- it's not obvious unless it is actually identified. So that is something that, you know, if domestic violence coercive control had been identified early in Jennifer's case, in thousands of other cases, maybe we would have a different outcome. But until it's really -- until a light is shined on it, and it is truly deliberated in a proper, you know, legal format in an evidentiary hearing, it is very hard to detect even for those who have the best intentions and those who surround the person. And who see them every day, as you just said. It is very hard to detect unless it is actually identified in a structured formal standardized way. So, thank you very much for making that point so clearly.

105 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ERICA SCHWEDEL: Thank you.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Is there anything else you wanted to share with us about anything that you saw or witnessed, or you wish had gone differently?

ERICA SCHWEDEL: You know, the only thing I will say is that, you know, she was such a strong person to make the move out and to recognize that, you know, the situation she was in was unhealthy for herself and unhealthy for her children. And that it -- I just feel the loss of the tragedy that even somebody who was so strong, who made all the right moves and did all the right things still wasn't able to protect herself and ultimately isn't able to be there for her children going forward. And that's just deeply sad.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. That's -- that is a very important point because whatever stereotypes or misconceptions some people may have about victims, victims do not always present as, you know, broken or battered or with any visible signs of distress. One can be a very strong put-together functional person as she was, highly functional, and still be the victim. It doesn't -- it doesn't mean it's not actually happening. So, I think it's important that we not emphasize the effect on a victim because victims can continue to function or at least appear to function fully. That doesn't negate what is actually happening to them, the actual action. So, thank you again, Erica, truly, for coming forward.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Next up, we have a question from Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Erica. Thank you for coming to -- for us to hear your story here today. Erica, have you -- I just want to talk about the language as before us in 1060. Have you read the Bill?

106 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ERICA SCHWEDEL: I have not read the Bill.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, I --

ERICA SCHWEDEL: I mean, I know -- I've read summaries of the Bill. I know a bit about it, but I have not read it deeply. I'm not -- I mean, I don't want to present myself who's deeply steeped in these issues. I come to this from the personal experience of having been next door to somebody who experienced it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, I understand. You know, we're here in the legislature being asked to pass a law and you've advocated for passing the law. And I'm just -- I wanted to ask you about certain aspects, but I understand you haven't read it before so it would be unfair. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Next up will be Nicola Cunha.

NICKOLA CUNHA: Sorry about that.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): That's okay. Go ahead, madam.

NICKOLA CUNHA: Good afternoon. I'd like to thank everyone for allowing me the time to be heard today. I'd like to speak to the Committee from the perspective, on the practical end of actually representing litigants that have found themselves in the situations that you've heard from today. And I will tell the Committee that, I know this for sure, because I've been practicing now for quite a while, that I am one of the very few and far between attorneys that will stand before a Judge and let the Judge know exactly what is going on and challenge the representations by opposing counsel, guardian ad litem and uninformed custody evaluations that are 107 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

purposefully submitted to the Court to mislead the Court, which has resulted in the horrors that you've heard today. Children being given sole custody to the perpetrators, the ultimate loss of life, children being separated from their mother and fathers for many years.

I heard the testimony earlier today from the gentleman that indicated that he was the Executive Director of Connecticut Legal Services at the time when the young man, the baby, lost his life because his father threw him over a bridge after Judge Pincus denied a restraining order. Based on what my understanding is, the inability of a pro se litigant to establish the necessary elements that were being required to establish the present and physical danger necessary for a judge to enter a restraining order.

I also heard earlier today that had that young lady had an attorney present, that that case would have gone very differently or possibly gone very differently. Well, I'm going to let the Committee know that I have had many restraining orders denied. I've had restraining orders -- didn't -- granted ex- parte and then manipulated by other attorneys. And unfortunately, Members of the Judicial Branch to have them undone and vacated before an evidentiary hearing has occurred. And what I found really interesting, because I'm sure my time is running up, is that the gentleman that spoke earlier today that was from the Connecticut Coalition for Domestic Violence, indicated that he felt one of the good aspects would be for legal representation. Well, what he really means is let's deepen the pockets of these administrative agencies that work out arrangements to get funding for legal representation, but then the representation never really goes to those that need it. The representation goes to --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Madam, we're past the three-minute mark. I just need you to summarize. 108 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

NICKOLA CUNHA: I will summarize, thank you. The representation goes to those that have plenty of money to pay for their own representation, and the intent of these fundings that are met for the problem are never used for them. So, this is a serious situation. I support this Bill. I believe this Bill becomes a proactive response to domestic violence in this state, rather than a reactive. We need to be proactive, stop being reactive.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Senator Anwar.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney Cunha, is that how you pronounce your name?

NICKOLA CUNHA: Yes. Thank you.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Attorney, so if I heard you correctly, you're saying that the current laws are not working for many of the domestic abuse cases?

NICKOLA CUNHA: Exactly. And this is why. When you look at Connecticut General Statutes 46B-56, there are a number of elements that the court can look at. Those elements are discretionary elements that the Court can consider. The Court doesn't have to consider them all. The Court may consider one. And when you take the language from this Bill and you make it a mandate that when evidence is presented to the Court, and there was a finding based on what the elements are to establish this domestic violence, also known as inter partner -- intimate partner violence, that it changes the whole trajectory of the case.

These private lawyers are not going to be in the same financial scenario to want to litigate, litigate and litigate. What's really interesting is Jennifer Dulos also had a very well-experienced high-paid attorney who also could not get her restraining order. And I know that there are a lot of other attorneys that don't like when I maintain 109 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

this position, but there is no reason that I could imagine under any circumstances that 500 pleadings are necessary in anyone's case. None whatsoever.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you so much. And do you think this current proposed Bill is going to address some of those challenges? Would that improve our ability to protect some of the individuals?

NICKOLA CUNHA: I absolutely do believe it will, because what it does is it has the Court react to the situation based on the present circumstances that are being presented. It does not allow individuals to say to these litigants, "Do not let the court know what is going on, do not call the cops, do not call DCF, because if you do, you will lose your children." Because when that threat is made, now, if this Bill is passed, you can say, "Listen, this is serious, and this is what is going on. And this is a pattern of what has been going on for a very long time. And I need the court's help."

Because just like the young lady that testified today, I believe there was one who lost her mother, Jennifer, and she acknowledged to the Committee how she, too, ended up in a very abusive relationship, that is exactly right. You end up either being a perpetrator or a victim. And there are very few people that come out of these situations that are productive citizens in our society. And that's what this is all about. We want to raise these children who, by the way, it's our public interest -- is a primary public interest in this country to protect the children. Not to protect the father, not to protect the mother up front, it's to protect the children. And when a mother or father is being abused, because there are situations when men are abused also, it is the children that are learning and that are suffering and watching what their parents are going through. And they are either going to take that pattern of behavior and engage in it later, or they're going to be put into the same 110 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

situation that the victim and their family has been in for many years. It is a vicious circle.

This Bill helps to respond to it, takes the discretion away from the court, allows litigants and attorneys and the Appellate Court to ensure that our Bills are -- our laws are actually being enforced. It gives better oversight, and it allows for accountability. And that's what we need in this state, is accountability.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you. And my final question. Thank you, madam, is that since you deal with many of these cases, that's why I'm asking you -- statistically, the chances are, it's a male who is actually doing this to a female, but the opposite is also possible from the coercive control perspective. Is that accurate?

NICKOLA CUNHA: It absolutely is accurate. It is less likely based on statistics. That is absolutely true. However, it is absolutely possible. And it's also possible from a physical end. I mean, what man do you know, wants to stand before a judge and say, "My wife has been physically assaulting me?" Even when that has happened, it is highly unlikely that is ever going to be brought before the Court. It's sad, but it's very true.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you so much for your testimony. This was very helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Further questions or comments from the Committee? If not thank you for being with us today, madam. Appreciate your time.

NICKOLA CUNHA: Thank you for taking the time and everyone, have a great day. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Shanay Fulton. 111 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SHANAY FULTON: Hello?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): How you doing, madam?

SHANAY FULTON: Hi, it's actually Shanay Fulton, but it's okay.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sorry about that.

SHANAY FULTON: That's okay. Good afternoon Committee. My name is Shanay Fulton of Middletown and I am a mother and survivor of domestic violence. I strongly urge you to support SB 1060 for the following reasons. As a survivor of abuse, I've enjoyed physical, emotional, mental, financial, and legal abuse with my children having been at the forefront of it all. The abuse caused me years of physical pain, financial instability, homelessness, and significant trauma. What isn't factored into DV language is that long after the physical aspects are gone, the abuse continues through the legal system.

Abusers financially incapacitate their victims, often obtaining attorneys who assist in a cyclic abuse. This further creates tension and traumatized the victim who has already dealt with abuse in other aspects. So, we go to the law seeking some sort of respite. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. We are forced to relive traumatic experiences, often having our abuse downplayed by attorneys for the opposing party. Our lives are on display and critiqued, forced it to mental health evaluations and our children witnessing the emotional toll of the legal battle.

What further exacerbates the traumas is navigating a complex judicial system as a pro se litigant or self-represented party because we don't have the financial means to obtain an attorney. We miss work for proceedings deal with third parties involved in the case, judges not being well-versed in domestic violence matters. So, they don't consider the under 112 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

duress of the proceedings and the rulings. We are maintaining parenthood, court orders, employment school, and our emotional wellbeing because we've left an abusive situation and now feel revictimized. So, to this day I regret not having pressed charges on my ex many times with the last being when he hospitalized me. At the time, I didn't know my rights and I was in fear of retaliation. I didn't know that I could press charges for him turning off the heat and hot water in our home. During the winter months after he had -- he was removed while I looked at my oldest child, I feared having him arrested for showing up in my job and public places I frequented, pulling weapons that he would get taken away and arrested, and lying and waiting in my hotel rooms, contacting friends in search of me going through 201 to obtain housing, place me in a shelter with my older child, because my ex took our youngest out the country in an attempt to further isolate me, pegging it as for financial reasons.

I have been in legal battle from 2012 until now, paying child support GAL fees and attorney fees when he claimed unemployment, as well as being stalked and harassed. The Court in which my case has held has documentation of the abuse play TROs on my ex aware of his frivolous filings and repeated unsubstantiated DCF allegations, as well as third- party DCF allegations but was still ruled against me. This forced me to want to modify my case and have my voice heard.

I intend to move my case to a Court within my jurisdiction to obtain services and was denied. It took me finally a TRO against him in 2019 to get some assistance from my local organization. However, the Judge felt constant admittance of and inappropriate contact wasn't direct harassment, just a nuisance and my ex won and denied my TRO.

Abuses continue these patterns when they are granted fabled rulings that do not take into account 113 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

documented history. We aren't giving public defenders, core advocates nor pro bono or low bono legal assistance, because the case is deemed complex, meaning extensive and require multiple court dates. We in turn conduct our own proceeding drafting motions and feeling exhausted and failed. Not many victims can say they have been able to do what I've done, whether they successfully or not. Most victims don't have the emotional capacity to fight day in and out just to have a voice and protect ourselves. If legislators and officers of the court actually studied domestic violence, tactics, training judges, attorneys, and GALs, and what the best interest of a child truly is. You will see that two parents battling in court, emotionally drained, dragging the children through proceedings with selfish, manipulative tactics, isn't the best interest. Connecticut should be addressing--

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We're past the three-minute mark. I just need you to summarize.

SHANAY FULTON: One more line. Connecticut should be addressing parental alienation, best interest and coercive control when handling domestic violence. I truly believe that this Bill will help do just that.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Senator Anwar.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): I thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Fulton, thank you for your testimony. Do you mind if I ask you, I know you've been very active for racial justice and community justice and I could not help but notice that the people -- the stories that we have heard have not necessarily been of our minority communities? But if you look at the statistics, the minority communities are as vulnerable on this challenge of domestic violence and coercive control as anybody else's. Could you speak to that a little bit too, please?

114 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SHANAY FULTON: I personally feel like a lot of times, it was a racial barrier for me. I'm a single black woman and I'm in Court battling alone. And I had my ex who would have -- you know, a non-minority attorney who was battling with me and I, a lot of times felt like that played a significant role and I wasn't being treated fairly. That's just my personal opinion. But I definitely feel like because I'm looked at as I don't have the legal background, maybe that's why.

But for me, I definitely feel like a lot of times people in my community, we do not want to go forward. We do not want to go to officers. We don't want to go through legal proceedings, and it ends really, really poorly because we don't have the finances to be able to afford attorneys a lot of times.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): So, the issue remains very active and significant with the community, except it does not necessarily get the attention for the reasons that you have illustrated.

SHANAY FULTON: Yes.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): You touched on something. And I think somebody else who had spoken about that as well, and I needed to ask you. You said showing guns or weapons, what you mean by that.

SHANAY FULTON: My ex would pull guns on me. He's put them at my head. He slept with them under the pillow when we would be sleeping. He's come to pick-up and drop-offs with weapons in tow. And I've had to have officers here in my town come to my pickup and drop offs. I've had to do it in his town, and he's been asked to even step away from me because they would see it on his head, but he's had them removed for domestic bonds because we were going through proceedings and then he would get them back after completing some sort of rehabilitation services. And then the case would be nulled. 115 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Fulton for your -- for your courage and thank you for sharing your testimony. And I'm so sorry you had to experience what you did.

SHANAY FULTON: Thank you. And you're welcome.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, madam. I just, you know, you talked a lot about the family court system and all of that, but I just want to talk about the Bill that's before us. Because I think you said that your ex-husband had been arrested many times, but you are -- there've been incidents and you declined to press charges.

SHANAY FULTON: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): How many times did that happen?

SHANAY FULTON: The main time I declined to press charges was the last time when I ended up being hospitalized. And I will be honest that the officers repeatedly asked me, "Are you sure, madam? Are you sure, madam?" And I think for me, I did it out of fear because I had just had my child shipped out the country. I had another child with me, and I just feared that there'll be some sort of retaliation. So, you know, I was fearful of pressing the charges. I didn't know my rights at the time. I was just, you know, you're fearful when you're going through those things. And I thought that we can probably get past it, even though I have a broken arm, I have a concussion, I have some bruising that was just something that to this day, I definitely regret. And I think that played a huge factor in why my case was potentially treated the way it was, because it was looked at as well. You 116 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

didn't see that it was so severe at the time. So why should we even take that into consideration now?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, you know, I understand, you know, a very severe, very traumatic situation. You said that was the last time, how many times prior to that, had there been police involvement in your relationship?

SHANAY FULTON: I'm going to say, I can't even count it, but if I really remember the times, we've been in Court since 2012, so from 2012 up until 2013, when I was hospitalized. And then the times after that was -- there were no -- there was no more of the physical aspect. It was just other things, stalking to harassment and then the legal abuse. So, we've had officer involvement quite often. Quite often, even, even last year being the last.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, you being in Court though, wasn't, as a result of -- it was -- that was a family dispute?

SHANAY FULTON: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You were fighting over your children. So, I just, but the times before that, that you had to call the police because he, you know, did something, you know, flashed a firearm, you know, hit you or something like that, how many times would you estimate that you had to do that?

SHANAY FULTON: I would never be the one that would call, he would hurt me, and I would be unconscious. And then he's calling the cops and saying we've had a fight. Or he's fleeing and then running to the officers before I even get an opportunity to, because there were times when he's had my phone and so I didn't have access to be able to do anything. And then the cops would come, and they would see me bruised or they're understanding what's going on. So, I've never really had the opportunity to call in the past. It wasn't until afterwards, when now it's 117 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the stalking harassment part of it where I'd call. And it's been honestly, ongoing because I had had to do it at all of our pick-up and drop-offs because I didn't feel comfortable attending a pick-up and drop-off whether alone or even with someone with me, because he would come with weapons in tow.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, understood. And when he would call the police and the police come to your home or wherever, and they, you know, they would see that unfortunately, that, you know, you've got evidence of some sort of trauma, you know. They're trained, they would ask you, you know, what happened? Did he do that to you? That those kinds of questions, right?

SHANAY FULTON: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And I'm just trying to figure out with all of those situations, because stalking is already in the existing statute. Why do you think that 1060, the additional things that would be available to you, would have changed your situation? I guess that's the general question.

SHANAY FULTON: Yes. Because they don't look at coercive control, they don't see that domestic violence is not just physical. You know, the fact that you are contacting me at different hours of the evening, you're saying things that to me are inappropriate. And you're alienating our child from me, things like that. That is a form of abuse because you know that you can no longer physically harm me because we are not in direct contact with each other, you're going to find other ways to be able to get through to me. So how do I do that? I'm going to now drag you through Court. I'm going to get you to be so emotionally drained and now you look as though your mental health is at stake. And that was something that was done to imply that I had mental health issues. Even so much as saying, "We're going to go through a legal battle. I'm going to file repeatedly to make you have to now 118 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

take off of work." So now you're missing wages. So now you look as though you can't afford to take care of the child.

So, I would just say that all of those things -- that's just another way to control things. Not wanting us to have any therapist involved -- involvement, any other third party, unless you have DCF and making up all these types of false things and unsubstantiated to the point that, you know, DCF is saying, "Yeah, this seems a little bit off." But because there's nothing in the Legislation now that speaks to anything outside of the physical, to be honest, is why I feel like this Bill would be awesome. This Bill would work towards that because you could see all the different areas of which domestic violence is huge. It's not just the physical. It's every other aspect, is little bits and pieces and things that you wouldn't even think about to begin with that I see now is relevant. It's very relevant. The coercive control, the parental alienation, what would be the best interest of the child? And things like that, that matters.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Are you aware that stalking is in the existing statute? That's already in law.

SHANAY FULTON: Yes. Yes. I do know that the stalking part of it is, I guess, because it wasn't so expansive is why it wasn't looked at. I was -- I was more so focusing on the harassing part and I know I've had a judge tell me, it wasn't direct. It was more indirect, so it was more of a nuisance. And for me, I was really upset about that because I felt like, well, this is still harassment, because I've asked you not to do it, and I'm not engaging if it's continuous. And I know that's not fully part of it, but I know that harassment does play a part. But as far as the physical aspect, the physical aspect was not necessarily there. It was more so we're constantly in Court. Every week we're in court, we have another motion being filed. You're 119 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

contacting DCF for random things, and they're looking at it like, "Okay, now this is getting out of hand because he's constantly contacting DCF." So, I look at things like that. It's just, it's so much more.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I see. So, and I didn't see that part of the Bill that that's your -- that your position that this law, if it was to pass, would find that filing what you believe to be too many things with the Court would be coercive control. I just -- I'm just trying to get your perspective.

SHANAY FULTON: Yes. It would be a way to manipulate the Court in my opinion, I've actually addressed that in some of our hearings. It's just another way to manipulate the Court to bring me down, because now of course, now I'm showing up to court and I'm feeling really emotionally tolled. And that's just another way to just drain me. And again, like I said to appear as though I would be unfit and he's more the fit one.

And then for some reason, you know, he's the one that has the attorney, and I don't have the attorney. So, I don't know how to navigate the system as well as an attorney, because I'm not one. And I just feel like that also played a role in it as well, but I definitely feel, yes, the coercive control, controlling how my child would view me. You know, even speaking to my child and seeing certain things like that were more or less inappropriate to my child. And then, you know, trying to change the trajectory of how the case would go, speaking to therapist and making sure that maybe my child doesn't go to a therapist. And when he goes, he is able to kind of get to my child beforehand. We're going through all the proceedings. And when you have to have a family relation come and meet with you, making sure that you manipulate things in a certain way.

120 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I appreciate that. I'm just concerned about the, the claim of, you know, a lot of filings because I -- you know, I've had that where I've represented a woman in a divorce and, you know, the husband keeps on filing and I've actually tried to prevent that. And, you know, our constitution says that everybody shall have open and free access to our courts, you know.

So, you know, if this Bill you know, is intended to go that far, you know, there would have to be, I think, a constitutional -- change to the constitution, but you know, I don't see it in this Bill, but I, you know, I thank you for the discussion and thank you for testifying here today.

SHANAY FULTON: Thank you. You're welcome.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Howard.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, Ms. Fulton. Thank you for being here and thank you for sharing your story. If you, if it's not too traumatic for you, can you elaborate for my colleagues why someone in your position may hesitate to seek prosecution against an abuser?

SHANAY FULTON: I guess you can say one because I don't want to necessarily pull the race card, but sometimes I felt that way, but I think it's also because I did not understand the judicial system at all. I did not know what to do. Now, I understand it a little bit more, but a lot of people often don't understand how to navigate that. And again, like I said before, it's the emotional toll. When you're in like a traumatic experience, all you're thinking of is in your emotions, you're not thinking, "Okay, well, how do I navigate this?" And you don't have the financial means to be able to afford the attorney.

So, you're trying to do everything on your own and that's really hard. For me it was, it was really 121 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

difficult. I was trying to keep focused on keeping my children happy and having a normal life and some sort of normalcy, but then also trying to make sure I'm adhering to a court order. And I'm adhering to proceedings. I'm doing all of that. And I'm trying to be an attorney. I'm trying to be a . I'm trying to be a mom and an employee, all at once. And that was difficult. And not everyone can do that. Not everyone has that emotional capacity to do something like that.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Thank you. Thank you for that. And the other thing is you spoke about being injured in a domestic violence situation and the police allowed you to not pursue charges.

SHANAY FULTON: No, they did. They questioned whether I wanted to, and they kept saying, "Are you sure?" And I was saying, "No." And they asked me why? And I said, "Because I don't want for my son to be upset with me." And I thought that my child would be upset because I put his daddy in jail. And I was really fearful of that. And I mean, he was really young at the time, but that was just where my mindset was. And I didn't know what would happen after that because I felt like he was all I had. So, I didn't -- I didn't press the charges. I just went through the process of going through -- they had the alternative incarceration programs. So, we went through that process and completing that. He would even try to get us to stop doing that process, but they made us go through with it and then it would be knowledge and we've done it more than once.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Okay. So just so I'm understanding this, right. So, he actually was arrested, but then he got like a pretrial diversion. If I understand you.

SHANAY FULTON: Yes.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Okay. Cause I -- that I missed, I -- the way I interpreted it was that he 122 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

was never arrested and that was going to be very concerning to me, but I'm glad to know that's not what happened. Okay.

SHANAY FULTON: Yes. Yes.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): So, we -- we've crossed that bridge. The other -- the other question I want to talk about is more not so much the divorce proceedings or similar things, but more the Section 2 of the Bill. And I'll get to what that is, where it speaks to the ex parte orders, which basically are in place because when somebody is a domestic violence victim, but they're not necessarily committing enough of a crime to get arrested, the ex parte process, as you probably know now is there for that purpose. And I just want to make sure that you and I understand this correctly, that coercive control, we're not trying to create coercive control to be a law. So, if I exercise coercive control over my wife, I've now committed a crime. We're not proposing that in this legislation is that you’re understanding that what we're doing is we're adding coercive control to the list of things for which someone can seek that ex parte order relief from abuse when they haven't been a victim of a crime necessarily. Is that your understanding?

SHANAY FULTON: I was looking at it more so of just manipulating situations throughout the course of the proceedings. That's how I envisioned the coercive control. But I see where your point is with that, but that was how I was looking at it as just manipulating the case and the trajectory of how the case would be.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Certainly. Yeah. And I understand that. I just was a bit, you know, my purview that the things that I know are more in Section 2, and I think it's just important, you know, while you're here and able to speak, you know, and I appreciate the fact that you're willing to do this -- that, you know, colleagues in this Committee 123 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

understand that the ex parte order that victims can get for relief from abuse, really it -- I mean, it's coercive control is exactly why that statute or that process exists. It maybe it wasn't properly outlined in the statute with those words, but if you read it, it seems to me like that that was what was trying to be accomplished there. And certainly, in my extensive experience with it, that's sort of the practical application. So, I just wanted to use this opportunity with you to clarify that. And I thank you so much for being here in the work that you do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SHANAY FULTON: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. There are no further questions or comments. I thank you for being with us today, madam and sharing your testimony.

SHANAY FULTON: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next, I have Kelly Anne Linnan.

KERRYANNE LINNAN: Yes. Hi, it's Kerry Anne Linnan.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I'm sorry. Sorry about that.

KERRYANNE LINNAN: Okay. That's okay. Can I be in?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, you're -- I don't know if you want your video on, but it's off.

KERRYANNE LINNAN: No, I'm actually sort of stuck right in the office. And I wanted just to sort of get this part. Is that all right?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead.

KERRYANNE LINNAN: I appreciate it. Thank you. Senator Winfield, represent -- Representative 124 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Stafstrom, Ranking Member Kissel and Fishbein, Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is KerryAnne Linnan and I'm from Fairfield, Connecticut. I'm a member of the Protective Moms. I'm a protective mother that has been trying to keep myself and my daughter safe from continued abuse while in Connecticut Family Court proceedings. I'm testifying in favor of Jennifer's Law, SB 1016.

In December of 2009, my ex-husband and I filed for divorce and I've been in the Bridgeport Superior Court for just about 12 years. To date, we have 236 pleadings in our case docket. We've had five lawyers on our case, four family relations officers and were ordered to participate in what the high conflict programs called for months. We've used several mediators and two GALs. I cannot afford an attorney and I'm forced to represent myself in Court and have been for several years. We must collectively have spent over 200 -- sorry, more than that -- almost half a million dollars in legal fees. And the abuse from my ex has been ongoing since 2009 and follows the pattern of coercive control, the tactics that keep control over my actions and try to intimidate me.

Research shows that about 10% of the domestic violence cases present very little physical harm. And now that coercive control is being used as a weapon in the courtroom, where strategic controlling and legal tactics and legal abuse by my ex-husband are being used to invalidate my allegations of abuse, and invalidate what my child and I have experienced over the last decade.

The tactics that my ex-husband has been using to threaten me and my child, cause emotional abuse and they're using the process to humiliate and traumatize me. There's been financial abuse to continue . My ex-husband has used public servants to harass me in each and every town that I've lived in for the last 11 years. There's been stalking. I've been followed by a 125 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

private investigator and filmed with my ex's iPhone despite requesting this stop, even to attorneys and judges. This occurred even just last week. My family's been filmed on their own private property. My babysitter's been sexually harassed and there's been other criminal activity that's occurred over the last year that remains unheard in Court.

The abuse started when I first left my ex-husband in 2009 and he emptied our joint household bank account, with $0.81 cents in it. I could not get gas or food for our then 6-month-old daughter and moved back with my parents for support.

Currently, my ex-husband lives a lavish Fairfield County lifestyle with his new wife and does not contribute to our daughter's tuition, consistently lowers his child-support payment, and has even taken her health insurance away in the past.

Jennifer's Law would've helped me stop the financial, emotional, and litigation abuse years ago if it existed. Jennifer's Law can help me stop this further abuse as my daughter is just now only 12 and there are many more anticipated years of this ahead of me without Jennifer's Law.

Most recently, in an attempt to stop my ex to further stalking me and stop public servant abuse, I became a member of the Address Confidentiality Program in Connecticut. My ex-husband filed a motion for contempt and asked the court to order that I disclose that information, using the court to further harass and threaten me in an attempt to make me scared.

Thankfully, after days of preparation and hours and hours countless practice and coaches, the content motion was not granted and I was able to keep my address private.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Madam, we're past the 3- minute mark. So, I just need you to summarize. 126 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KERRYANNE LINNAN: The toll that these 12 years of abuse has taken on me and my daughter, my family, my friends, my partner, and my relationships is unimaginable. It continues to affect my ability to get a career and our lives are never going to be the same. We're constantly waiting for the next shoe to drop. We deserve a free life.

So, I ask that you favorably support Jennifer's law, SB 1060 out of Committee, so that the Assembly can vote and strengthen our approach to keep domestic violence out of the Family Court System in Connecticut. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming in, very much appreciate it. Is it your understanding that this Bill would apply the coercive control standard to filings in court?

KERRYANNE LINNAN: I do believe that. I think that, especially in these high-conflict cases, which are not necessarily conflict, there's usually one abuser and one healthy parent and this law does encompass all of those notions of what coercive control is, using litigation abuse and frivolous motions that not only waste time in Court and the Court resources, especially during COVID, that I do believe that this law would actually in fact prevent this.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Have there been findings that the -- that the filings were vexatious or frivolous?

KERRYANNE LINNAN: Yes, as a matter of fact, upon our last judgment, we --the judge actively said, this is a high-conflict case and this was the contempt motion for keeping my address private and said that these things need to stop.

127 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. But the Court's already have the power and authority to handle that type of filing and if the Court, as of today, without this Bill, sees that one litigant is abusing the process or using the court system as an offensive weapon, the Court already has all the tools it needs to address that. I was not under the impression that this Bill would apply that standard in litigation, only that it would apply the standard when determining whether or not there was abuse -- differently?

KERRYANNE LINNAN: I do, in particular, I think it's also based on different courthouses. They're different areas in Connecticut that are more affluent than others. My case happens to be in Bridgeport, Fairfield County. In my case, I have if I want to go look at my case file, which is a paper file, I need to ask three days in advance because it's so large. And everybody knows this case because it is so big and has gone on for so long.

So, I think we need to take this on as a state and understand what coercive control really includes, which is litigation abuse, which is civil-servant abuse, and those things are clearly drawn out in Jennifer's Law as I read it.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well, thank you very much for your time. Appreciated it.

KERRYANNE LINNAN: Thank you.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions or comments? Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Mr. Chairman, just briefly. Madam, just wanted to ask you about what you were just talking about with the Rep. Dubitsky.

128 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I had a case a few years ago, where I represented a gentleman and the wife during the course of the three-year divorce proceedings. She hired 32 different lawyers. I was in from the very beginning. It's 32 different lawyers.

Under your reading of this Bill, would that be coercive control?

KERRYANNE LINNAN: Three years?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Three years of time, 32 different lawyers that she hired and, of course, every time a lawyer comes into the case, they're filing new stuff. Would you preclude?

KERRYANNE LINNAN: Can you specify as to what new stuff is?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure, motion to modify the child support, motion to modify the custody plan that was already part of the court process.

KERRYANNE LINNAN: You know, I think what's the general standard? Over 100 motions is considered high conflict. I think even a three-year case, it does happen to men too, of course, and I do believe that would be litigation abuse. It plays both ways.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): This law, at least the way you read it, says that that woman would not be able to hire those 32 different lawyers?

KERRYANNE LINNAN: I think, at one point, it should -- should there be a benchmark or a standard saying, if these many --it's about how many emotions, it is or how many attorneys or as you said, if you're coming in with 32 different attorneys in three years and changing the parenting plan or modifying child support 30 times, absolutely, that would be considered. The Jennifer's Law would absolutely address that as well.

129 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm not saying that those modifications actually occurred, but understand that when something gets filed, you still have to sit down with your client, you have to discuss with them the ramifications of that and all of that. Even though the Court never addresses it, so, can you just--

KERRYANNE LINNAN: I have been there many, many, many, many times in that instance.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure. Can you just point me, I just want to be clear where this is in this language, can you point me to that language you rely upon to say that there would be some sort of a benchmark with regard to how many lawyers somebody hires to defend themselves in a case?

KERRYANNE LINNAN: That was not my understanding with your question. My understanding of Jennifer's Law is, it isn't the number of attorneys that you hire. I understand that each time you hire an attorney, it's a matter of motions, but I think I am not extrapolating thing it's a matter of number of attorneys. It's a matter of motions which, in my opinion, those are both one in the same.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, we're contemplating changing the law here. If we take it to what your conception of that is, what portion do you rely upon of this language to say that there's too many motions, otherwise it tips, the scale in this course of control?

KERRYANNE LINNAN: Like I said, I'm in my office, I have my testimony right here and my list. Unfortunately, I'm not prepared to answer that question.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, that's fair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Senator Kasser. 130 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): I apologize. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and thank you for your testimony.

Litigation abuse is something that is very real. It's been described by many survivors who've spoken today, but it is also very hard to legislate. So, I just wanted to really to ask Representative Fishbein if we could have a discussion offline, because the section in this Bill that addresses it, is very short. It's only five sentences and it is somewhat vague, because of the questions that you raised.

Which is you don't want to cut off anyone's due process and it's very hard to know exactly what litigation abuse looks like without infringing on someone's due process. I would welcome a discussion offline about that, about Section-7, or any other section of the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you and Representative Fishbein, before you jump in, obviously, we're in a public hearing not a Committee meeting, so I don't necessarily want to debate the merits of this Bill between Members at this point in time. Certainly, as with as with every Bill that comes before this Committee, there are always competing concerns that this Committee has to has to grapple with and oftentimes, to keep competing constitutional concerns in addition to just concerns about process and policy and the like. So, we will have plenty of time to do that. We are now 4+ hours into this public hearing and less than a third of the way through our list of folks who would like to testify.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I'm going to recognize you in a minute, Representative Fishbein, but I would just like to remind all the Members of this Committee and also the folks testifying before us that some folks have logged on at 10 o'clock this 131 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

morning, waiting to testify. I'd like to get to them at a reasonable hour so that folks can be with be with family and the like and hopefully go to bed at a reasonable hour. So, I will ask us to try to refrain from the excess debate on the merits of the Bill at this point if we can do so. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm going to be a lot quicker than that. Now that there's an allegation of five lines, can I just know where those five lines are? So, I can look at that in anticipation of a future conversation, that's it.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): 584 to 590.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, that's it, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Alright and both of you, I hope, will be at screening tomorrow and we can talk about this further then. Moving on. Thank you, Ma'am. Thank you, Ms. Linnan for being with us to discuss this Bill.

KERRYANNE LINNAN: Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to testify.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Lorelei Ohagan.

LORELEI OHAGAN: Hi, I'm Lorelei Ohagan.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I am so sorry.

LORELEI OHAGAN: No problem.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): My apologies. Go ahead.

LORELEI OHAGAN: You're seeing so many names. Thank you very much, everyone. It's really a pleasure to 132 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

be here testifying on behalf of this Bill in supportive 1060.

I wanted to introduce myself as a resident of Greenwich and I'm coming to testify in support of Jennifer's Law, SB 1060. I'm not an expert or a survivor of coercive control, but I am an advocate for women, a concerned citizen, and a believer in the power of government to serve and protect. That's my platform from which I come.

I'm also a very strong supporter of Senator Alex Kasser, who I have been watching and I've seen has dedicated her voice in her platform to raising awareness and solving problems that plague us.

Also, many of the co-signers on this Bill, who are validating the need for it and the spirit of collaboration to resolve issues that are long standing.

So, as women have begun to take positions of power in our legislature, this is a point I want to raise. They have quickly and boldly sought to address so many long-standing issues that have been forever ignored. Better representation benefits all of us in profound ways, this is one of them.

There are new bills like this that come that elevate the needs of women and children, like Jennifer's Law. I wanted to make a few points here. Domestic advocates say that this kind of law gives legal recourse to sufferers of , but it also makes it easier to hold perpetrators of physical violence accountable by fundamentally changing the way that authorities approached domestic abuse.

There have been many people who have come either with specific experience, lived experience, or also legal experience, that's not what I'm really trying to do here. What I really want to do is support the fact that when we have legislators who come to 133 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

really address issues that are long-standing, I want to elevate and want all of us to be giving that the same urgency that it deserves.

I have been hearing a lot of questions, concerns that suggest that the system as it is, is doing what it needs to do. And that's simply cannot be true and is not true. In other words, to suggest that, well, that's already in the Bill or that's already possible, that really does not match with the experience of women, survivors, and children, and others, survivors of domestic violence.

So, I want to really highlight the fact that this kind of Bill, of which there are now a number of them, beginning with the Scotland Bill early in the 2000s, which is considered the gold standard, it is making certain that coercive control is included and showing that it's a pattern of behavior. Critically important.

I also wanted to mention something really very important.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Madam, we're past the three-minute mark.

LORELEI OHAGAN: Got it, it goes so fast. This, I think, is really important that during the Trump Administration, which is of course not now, coercive control was actually removed from the official violence against women website and I think it's really critically important that we're seeing that this can be a trend in the way that people are undermining women.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Madam.

LORELEI OHAGAN: So, please, I'm asking for support for Jennifer's Law.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Questions or comments from the Committee? If not, Madam, I want 134 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to thank you for being with us and for your testimony and advocacy here today.

Next, we will hear from Eaphel Vega. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Vega? Sir, we can't hear you. Mr. Vega, are you with us?

Okay, let's skip to Jacqueline Nichols-Holden. Is Jacqueline Nichols-Holden with us?

JACQUELINE NICHOLS-HOLDEN: Yes, I'm here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. Go ahead, Madam.

JACQUELINE NICHOLS-HOLDEN: Good afternoon. I'm testifying in support of raised Bill 6657. My name is Jacqueline Nichols-Holden. I'm a licensed massage therapist and business owner in Pawcatuck, Connecticut. I'm also a community care provider for the VA and treat patients in both Connecticut and Rhode Island.

I would like to suggest an additional section to the Bill that requires massage parlors to be regulated by the State. As a business, we have received numerous phones calls over the years from individuals looking for happy-ending services.

My own daughter, who became a licensed massage therapist, and 19-years-old, was repeatedly put into some very uncomfortable and dangerous situations due to the stigma related to our profession. Human trafficking is being hidden under the illusion of massage therapy and leads to therapists all over the State receiving inappropriate phone calls and can leave us facing unsafe and even dangerous work conditions.

I want to address how massage therapy is being used as massage parlors for human trafficking and it is a public safety issue. I would like to introduce the idea of massage parlors being regulated by the State, in the best interest of keeping our community 135 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

safe. I know that some are open under the illusion of being operated by a licensed massage therapist, but the question is, is that licensed individual present on the premises while the business is being operated?

Last year, my business was closed from March 17th to June 17th due to COVID and the fact that I am a licensed provider. I submitted repeated waivers to the State requesting that I should be allowed to be open as a medical provider, but was repeatedly denied. Yet, massage parlors were allowed to remain open and operating because they're not regulated by the State.

Further, massage therapy cannot be inspected in Southeast Connecticut by our local health departments. This means that during a pandemic, when we should have been aware of what was operating and we should have had strict protocols in place to slow the spread, instead we had a serious threat to public safety and the possible spread of COVID because parlors fell through the cracks for being closed.

My business received numerous phone calls, while being closed, requesting illegal services. If we put steps in place to protect public health and safety, we can also work towards stopping parlors from human trafficking as well. Imagine, if the systems were in place this time last year, it would have been very easy for the State to go into these establishments and protect these trafficked victims for everybody's safety.

Thank you for giving me your time and do you have any questions regarding my testimony?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, there is a question from Representative Howard.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Hi, Jackie, good afternoon. Thanks for testifying on something that's really 136 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

important. So, are we do understand that, as massage therapist, you are regulated, I would assume, by the Department of Health?

JACQUELINE NICHOLS-HOLDEN: Yes, sir.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): And the massage parlors, they are not regulated by the State, is that your testimony?

JACQUELINE NICHOLS-HOLDEN: I'm saying that they're not being regulated, they're still open. And we also have to have in our establishments a poster for the trafficking number, but I haven't seen that poster in any nail salon I have been in in my area.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Okay. So, during COVID, you said that you had to shut down because the State has regulatory oversight over your business and could enforce that on you, but a lot of the massage parlors, since there was no governing body to force them to comply, stayed open?

JACQUELINE NICHOLS-HOLDEN: Yes, as a matter of fact, one of my clients called me before we were allowed to open and told me that she had gone to the mall and that they were doing massage in the mall and why wasn't I open? I had to call the 211 hotline and inform them that, yes, indeed, you did have somewhere that was not normal massage that was open and forming massage when we weren't allowed to open yet.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Alright. That's very interesting, because I think you're right when you talk about human trafficking and human sex trafficking specifically, massage parlors are definitely a component of that illicit trade. So, I thank you for coming today and I thank you for bringing that to our attention. I think that's definitely something for this Committee or perhaps, different Committee cognizance, but to consider under 6657 with human trafficking. So, I just want 137 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to say, thank you so much for taking the time to bring that to our attention. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

JACQUELINE NICHOLS-HOLDEN: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, both. Thank you, Madam, for your testimony and good luck with business as things hopefully start to get back to some level of normalcy at some point.

JACQUELINE NICHOLS-HOLDEN: Yeah, thank you so much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Appreciate you being with us. Alright, it looks like Mr. Vega is still trying to connect. So, let's try Karen Carlson.

KAINALU KAN HAI: Hi, that's me. I had a name mix- up. My name is Kainalu Kan Hai.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay.

KAINALU KAN HAI: Do I start?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah. Go ahead, Madam.

KAINALU KAN HAI: Good day, my name is Kainalu Kan Hai. I am the daughter of Kalani Carlson. I'm 17 years old and I am from Westbrook.

The last memory I have of my abusive father was at 5 years old, seeing him drag my mother out of a car, choke her and hit her in the face. I felt terrified, because I thought she was going to die. We were confined by my abusive father in a shack with no electricity or water for 4 months. The next day, the police were called and we were taken from our first domestic violence shelter.

In 2013, at age 9, we had relocated to New Hampshire, which was compromised when Connecticut Guardian ad litem a false allegation and a Connecticut State Trooper provided our protected 138 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

identity and relocated address directly to our abuser.

When my mother searched for our rights through the Office of Victims Advocate, she was told that the State Trooper did not commit a crime and denied her request for an invitation into the many other crimes mother found, which includes the Child Support Enforcement Agency in Middletown. These illegal actions forced me to go unwillingly into reunification therapy for 3 months.

I was forced to speak about seeing my abuser. Multiple times I stated to the GAL that I did not want to see him and I felt like no one was listening to me. This made me feel defeated and I have no childhood memories up to age nine.

Just talking about our abuser caused me to feel alone, because I was never able to tell my peers of the abuse and we would move every time he locates us, which prevented me from making lifelong friends. I have not seen my family since I was nine. I have not created a bond with my immediate family, because the broken Family Court System did not listen to the words of fear my mother expressed during court, nor did they look through the documentation that proved her statements were true.

To this day, no legal safety protection. If we had a different law, would have directed [inaudible] to view all of the evidence that my mother had provided on every motion. It would have allowed us to speak of our fears openly in court and be taken seriously instead of putting us in more danger.

All these years, watching my mother fight day and night to keep us safe, witnessing the constant failure of the broken Family Court, and the DV Organization's failure to really protect me and my mother made me feel anxious, depressed, fearful, and angry.

139 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I imagine the helplessness and hopelessness that Jennifer Dulos and her children felt anytime she spoke about her abuse in Family Court and was ignored. My mother and I understand this all too well. What if my mother, like most others, relied on the broken Family Court System? How would my experience be similar to Jennifer's abused children and other children that were taken from their protective parent and forced to live with the abusive parent? I can't imagine the fear that is inflicted on them daily and the long-term damage that they will have throughout childhood. I will tell you one thing; I would not be the child I am today if it was not for my protective mother keeping me from the coercive control of my father demonstrated over me to control her.

I'm open to answering any of your questions.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Madam. I appreciate being with us and sharing that story. Senator Anwar.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Kainalu, for your testimony. I wanted to ask you, you mentioned something about a trooper giving your identity when you were under protection. Can you clarify that a little bit and then, it was not illegal to do so? Maybe we have [inaudible]

KAINALU KAN HAI: My mother changed her identity, so that we could escape our abuser and then my father was given her information by a State Trooper and we called to get information about that and we were told that it was not a crime. That giving away our personal information after being relocated under follow-up that it was not illegal.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Okay. And thank you for that. I think that may be something that we have to probably look at collectively in future, because you're trying to protect yourselves and while they 140 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

may be accurate, it's not illegal, but that's probably something we will have to work on.

The other part, I think, that's very valuable is I'd asked this question from one of the survivors earlier about the children and the impact and how they were used and with you speaking out just now, it really helped to address that issue. If I heard you correctly, you were used or your safety was used as a way of coercing your mother, is that how you look at this?

KAINALU KAN HAI: My father used me to scare my mother. He stole me and he kidnapped me at a very young age and when my mother came to get me, he held us captive for four months and he would use me against her and scared her saying that I would lose custody if she didn't come get me, that she would never see me again. So, he just used me to control her pretty much.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Okay, Kainalu, I want to thank you for your testimony and it puts a face to what I was reading in the Bill and gives us a reason to make sure that you are protected, people like you are protected, children are protected, so I want to thank you for your courage to come forward and I cannot thank you enough. Thank you.

KAINALU KAN HAI: Thank you.

SENATOR ANWAR (3RD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say you have a beautiful -- Is it Kainalu, how do I say it?

KAINALU KAN HAI: Yes, Kainalu, thank you.

141 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you. You had mentioned the VOWA, that's the Violence Against Women's Act, right?

KAINALU KAN HAI: Yes, that is correct.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And where did you learn about that?

KAINALU KAN HAI: I did my own research.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and that's a Federal Law, right?

KAINALU KAN HAI: Yes, it is.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so it's your understanding that under the Federal Law that disclosure of the address is not a crime? I just wanted to get that.

KAINALU KAN HAI: Yes, we were told that, but I believe that it was.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Well, another portion. I don't know if you're aware under the Violence Against Women's Act, you know, when I get a call from a woman who's been a victim of domestic violence and she says, "I had a restraining order" or "I have a restraining order", do you know that I can't look that up, I can't even if she wants my help, and that's as a result of the Violence Against Women's Act, also. I would hope that, as an advocate, you know you were able to contact a federal delegation and maybe we can get some of that stuff changed.

Because I find that very frustrating that here's somebody who wants my help, but I can't find out whether or not they still have a restraining order or anything about it. Because of this Federal Law that was ostensibly there to protect women.

142 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, I thank you for coming here today and thank you for your presentation of your testimony.

KAINALU KAN HAI: Thank you so much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you and let me echo thanks for being with us today to testify. Next up will be Erin Williamson.

ERIN WILLIAMSON: Hi, my name is Erin Williamson and I'm the Vice-President of Global Programs and Strategies at Love 146. We're an international anti-trafficking organization based in New Haven, Connecticut and we run a Connecticut-based survivor care program across the State.

I'm testifying today in support of HB 6657. My testimony is based on our experience, working with over 600 children who have been identified as suspected and confirmed victims of child sex trafficking here in our State of Connecticut.

We work in every jurisdiction. We've worked in every county. Trafficking is happening throughout our state. While our written testimony addresses all of the sections, I'm going to reserve my oral testimony to Section 3, which we've been working extensively on and it is critically important.

The primary purpose of Section 3 is to really clarify what is happening on the ground and align our definition of human trafficking with the reality. So currently, our definition says that trafficking must occur in exchange for a fee, which has been largely interpreted by and prosecutors to mean money.

In the reality, the kids that we are working with are often exchange for other items, many times it's drugs, it's shelter, it's other items of value and unfortunately, under our current law, those children are not being recognized as victims and we're not able to go after those offenders. The reality is 143 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the exploitation those children experience, the violence they experienced, the they experience, is exactly the same whether the exchange takes place with money or whether it's drugs or other items.

So, it's critically important that we align our definition with the reality of what we're seeing on the ground. This also aligns our definition with the Federal Government's Law, which is also critically important. In addition, Section 3 allows for an affirmative defense for children.

As you heard Representative Gilchrest say earlier in this hearing, oftentimes traffickers use their victims to recruit and exploit and victimize other individuals, and the same is true for children. We're seeing traffickers send children back into schools to recruit their friends. We're seeing them sending online, having engaging children when they're in congregate care, pulling their friends to run with them, and then those other children are exploited.

What this allows for those children to say, I did that, but that was part of my victimization and so they're not going to be tried as trafficking offenders, which unfortunately we are not seeing happening here, but we are seeing in other states. Just the mere fact that those children under our current law can be tried as trafficking offenders is making some lawyers who represent those children concerned about having those children receive services from individuals and organizations like Love146, who are mandate reporters. Because the reality is if a child discloses to us, yes, I was part of the recruitment, grooming, or exploitation of another child, we have to report that to the Connecticut Children and Family Care.

So, it's really critical that we make sure that we are protecting children, especially when they are victims and part of their grooming and recruiting 144 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and exploiting other children, it's really part of their victimization.

So, I ask that the Committee vote out this Bill. It's critically important, as you know, it's come before this Committee a number of years and we have worked collaboratively with all of our partners on this language. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Madam. I do have a question for you from Representative Gilchrest.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Williamson, for your testimony and for bringing such a wealth of knowledge to the State of Connecticut with regards to this issue.

My question has to do when you mentioned in Section 3 that the current law is in some ways preventing youth who have potentially been victims from getting services, why would it be important for these youth to get services? Why can't it wait until the proceedings are through?

ERIN WILLIAMSON: Oftentimes, these children have experienced extensive victimization. They have significant trauma and it's really important that they be supported through the process. And oftentimes, if their traffickers are being tried or if they have their own charges against them, they're only sharing a very small amount of what has happened to them and if they don't receive appropriate services, they may never disclose the full reality of what is happening to them.

So, it's not only important for their own ability to live future lives free from victimization and their own recovery, which is critically important, it's actually also critically important for law enforcement and prosecutors who want to go after traffickers. Because they need to have all of this information and it oftentimes is through the 145 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

receiving services that they're able to finally share what has truly happened to them and the extent.

Oftentimes, they're sharing, it's kind of the iceberg, a very small amount and the reality is there's so much under that water and that iceberg that we're not seeing until they're able to receive appropriate services.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Great, thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you very much for coming in. I don't know enough and I think most of us don't know enough about human trafficking and I appreciate your coming in to educate us at least a little bit.

Everybody has the -- or at least, I have in my mind, the image of human trafficking of people taking young girls and even boys for sexual exploitation and things like that. That's sort of the classic image of human trafficking. My guess is that there's considerably more to it.

Could you educate me a little bit about where else it happens and how this Bill could help affect that?

ERIN WILLIAMSON: Sure, absolutely. And like I said, we have worked with youth and children throughout the State and in every county. We've worked with children, we've worked with boys, we've worked with girls. A number of the youth we worked with are disproportionately children of color. Unfortunately, we are seeing this. How traffickers go about identifying their victims can happen both in person and online and usually what they're doing is they are looking for vulnerabilities. Those vulnerabilities could be emotional. They could be 146 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

due to poverty. They could be due to a number of factors and they form relationships and oftentimes, they form relationships in an effort to say, I will meet that vulnerability and I will meet that need, be it an emotional need, be it a basic need housing, shelter, or food. It's part of their recruitment and grooming and then when they have that youth relying on them, that is oftentimes when the exploitation starts to occur.

Oftentimes, it happens very slowly, but what we hear is once traffickers are able to exploit a child, then the victimization rapidly increases. So, they may initially be gang-raped as part of kind of that initiation, but then they're being sold fairly quickly after that and the number of times that they are exploited exponentially increases at the longer they're with that trafficker.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Where do these kids typically come from?

ERIN WILLIAMSON: They do come from all different kinds of families. I will say a lot of our children are involved in the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system. There's not good research to differentiate whether they're vulnerable for trafficking because of what made them vulnerable to being involved in those systems in the first place or whether there are aspects of their involvement in those systems that also increased their vulnerability to trafficking, but many of the children we work with are system-involved.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Do you only deal with children? We had a woman earlier that was talking about massage parlors and I asked about illegal immigration and bringing people in for that purpose. Is that a population that your organization deals with or do you deal mostly with children?

ERIN WILLIAMSON: At Love146, we primarily work with children as long as an individual was under the age 147 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of 18 at time of referral, we will continue to work with them after they've reached the age of 18. But our mission is around helping children.

I will say there're some wonderful organizations in the State of Connecticut, the Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants, CIRI, is really well versed in working with our immigrant population around trafficking and helping get them visas. So, that would be an organization that I would point to that's really knowledgeable on this issue in working with foreign-born victims.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Now to the last part of my original question, how do you think this Bill would help stem the flow of human trafficking in the population that you deal with?

ERIN WILLIAMSON: So, I think two ways. First of all, as long as traffickers know that they're not going to be arrested and tried for trafficking as long as the exchange is something other than money, they're going to engage in this criminal activity and not use money. It's very clear in the legislation that it says the exchange for money.

We've had really intricate cases where multiple kids are being trafficked by a very well-organized network and the exchange was for drugs. And, unfortunately, that can really hinder the ability for law enforcement and prosecutors to go after those criminals, which just reinforces this idea, well, as long as we're not using money, we can get away with this crime. Again, the victimization for our children remains the same, whether the exchanges for money or for drugs. So, we have to be able to go after these offenders and look at the reality of how this crime is taking place on the streets.

The other aspect is what's really important, it's critically important that these kids get services. A lot of our kids are going to grow up, they're going to have families have their own, they're going 148 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to have children of their own. They need to be able to address their trauma when it occurs, so that we don't see generational trafficking. Because I will say, the research does show that if you have family members or friends who have been trafficked, you are at higher risk for being trafficked yourself.

So, in order to decrease the risk for generational victimization, we have to make sure these kids are getting services.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): I thank you very much. You've been very helpful educating me and, hopefully, others have benefited also from your testimony. Thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Howard.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Williamson, I'll be quick. Representative Dubitsky said in his closing essentially what I was going to say. We get words on a paper and people come to these public hearings and they tell stories and they really hit home and it's important, but one of my favorite things is when someone like you comes and says, "Well, this is the practical application, this is what's actually going on the streets, in these buildings, every single day and this is why this legislation needs to be changed to fit what's happening, so we can address it."

So, the fact you are willing to stop the difficult work that you do just to come here and make sure that we understand it from a boots-on-the-ground perspective, I have utmost respect for it and just a greatest appreciation, so I just wanted to pause a minute and say thank you for that.

ERIN WILLIAMSON: Thank you. And myself and my organization are available anytime any of you would like to learn more about trafficking. We would be 149 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

happy to meet with you and talk to you more about it.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Madam. We appreciate the offer and certainly, coming in and sharing your expertise with us here today.

ERIN WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I am going to pass the gavel back to Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Next, we have David Mandel, followed by Meagan Reimer and Lori Beth Bowman. Is David Mandel in? David Mandel? Meagan Riemer? Lori Beth Bowman.

LORI BETH BOWMAN: I'm here. Uh, sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You're fine. You have your three minutes.

LORI BETH BOWMAN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee.

My name is Lori Beth Bowman. I am from Milford and I am speaking today to encourage your support for SB 1060, Jennifer's Law. I will begin by stating that in the many meetings and court proceedings to end my marriage, settle my divorce, and establish custody, as well as when my ex took me back to court post - judgment. The abuse I lived with for decades and that affected my children was never mentioned.

While I wished to present it as critical evidence, I was told it would be dismissed. I have been in an abusive relationship for 33 years. You'll notice that I use the present tense when I say this, because in spite of the fact that I've been divorced from my ex-husband for the last 6 years, he 150 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

continues to exert control over me and my children whenever possible.

Like most abusive relationships are started in a typical manner, we dated and eventually married. In those early weeks, months, and years, things which should have served as warnings, I didn't understand or he justified. And it was emotionally safer for me and for my children if I didn't contradict him.

While he was physically intimidating at times, I was never beaten, choked, or thrown downstairs. My abuse instead is essentially coercive control.

To maintain power and dominance, my ex-ridicules me, dismisses and demeans me, manipulates me, gaslights me, lies and distorts reality, threatens me, bullies me, compromises my finances, has destroyed my stability, security, and safety and for a long time, kept me silent.

What all he's done to me; he has also done too many children directly or indirectly and his deceptions have resulted in a loss of trust and connection between myself and my children. Living with him was a consistent state of confusion and control that became more and more frightening for me.

The experience has left emotional scars for myself and my children. I have been diagnosed with PTSD and have daily challenges that present in many ways, including functioning and relational issues, security and anxiety issues, and numerous physical issues, including an autoimmune disorder and inability to properly swallow when eating and drinking. This, of course, leads to additional physical symptoms that needs to be treated. According to the State of Connecticut, my ex bears no accountability for his actions or their destructive effects. In the current language, domestic violence and abuse is defined as physical. That is simply not sufficient.

151 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Statistics show that coercive control is more prevalent than physical harm and is just as damaging. It is real and I'm a testament to the detrimental effects it has on victims.

I share my experience to advocate for myself and others with similar experiences. I share my experience to show all forms of domestic violence and what that actually looks like and I share my experience because change is needed. My children and I have not been supported by the law. Please, provide the means for all victims of domestic violence to achieve safety.

Thank you for your time for listening and for considering how meaningful this could be.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Representative Fishbein has a comment or a question.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Madam. Nice to see you. Just one of the statements that you made piqued my interest, you said that domestic violence, under the current law, is only, is giving rise to relief. Did I hear you correctly?

LORI BETH BOWMAN: I'm sorry, I missed a part of what you said, if you could repeat.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure, you had said something about, under our law presently, that domestic violence is only physical and therefore somebody who is subjected to unphysical things can't do anything in Court, is that your perspective here?

LORI BETH BOWMAN: That was my understanding each time that I was in Court. I was told by my lawyers that I should not talk about it. In fact, my lawyer himself said, "I don't even know what you're explaining to me, when I said that my husband was -- "the most recent lawyer, I had two.

152 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The last one said to me when my ex took me back post-judgment and I said, "I would like to present the fact that he was abusive throughout the whole marriage, 27 years, and that led to the divorce and led to where we are here now." And my lawyer said, "I don't understand what you're telling me." He said, "Did he hit you? Did he -- whatever", and I said "No." He said, "Then I don't understand what you're telling me."

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so that was in the context of a divorce and post-judgment proceedings. You've already been divorced, the Court's issued orders. You perhaps had an agreement and now, we're dealing with something in the divorce.

What we're dealing with here today in 1060 may have something to do with divorce proceedings, but you had talked about the coercive control aspect of this, which is at least the way I'm reading it, not a divorce proceeding aspect. So, is it your understanding that you would like us to agree with that one who is not subjected to physical harm has no relief under the present statutes, therefore giving rise to 1060?

LORI BETH BOWMAN: That is somewhat of my understanding, correct. Because I didn't feel, even when I was getting divorced, I would have liked to say or to -- and then, when my children, the custody of my children was coming up for discussion, that I would have wanted to be able to use that as a reason for why the environment was unsafe for me and for my children.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure, in the context of a divorce, you're talking about a cause of the breakdown of the marriage, right? When you entered into that arrangement, you thought it would be different and now things are not and therefore, we have to get a divorce, right?

LORI BETH BOWMAN: I guess. 153 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): That would be the reason why you would bring it up in a divorce?

LORI BETH BOWMAN: Right. But also, for the safety of my children.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure.

LORI BETH BOWMAN: Which really was more important at that point.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Absolutely, but you didn't apply for a restraining order and somebody said to you, you can only do that if it's physical?

LORI BETH BOWMAN: I actually did several times over the years, I did look online to read the statute, I might not be using the right word, but because there were times, where he wouldn't leave my house and I had to threaten to call the police to get him to leave and I thought, "Wow, maybe I can take out a restraining order", but when I read online, it said that I could not unless my physical safety was at risk.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Well, that's what I'm balancing here, because our current statute says that if there's stalking, which is not physical, one can get relief. Our current statute says that threatening, which one's physical presence could be threatening, one can get relief. Those are two examples of non-physical contacts.

I'm just trying to get -- you're asking us to change the law and I'm trying to see how your particular situation fits in here. Because, certainly, even in the context of a divorce, 46B81, 82, proper division statute and our alimony statute, one of the factors in there is the cause of the breakdown of the marriage, so certainly domestic violence during the course of a marriage is relevant, can come into play in a divorce. And if your lawyer chose not to 154 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

present that that's a different issue here. So, I'm just trying to get your perspective, but I thank you for the discussion and your testimony here today.

LORI BETH BOWMAN: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. I want to thank you, Ms. Bowman for joining us and providing us with your testimony. Enjoy the rest of the afternoon.

LORI BETH BOWMAN: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we have a Ronnamarie Giuliano, followed by Angela Schlingheyde, and Annmarie Boulay. Is Ronnamarie Giuliano in?

RONNAMARIE GUILIANO: Hi, Senator Winfield, I'm here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay, you have your three minutes.

RONNAMARIE GUILIANO: Okay, I start now?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yes.

RONNAMARIE GUILIANO: Okay. Thank you, Senator Winfield. I was prepared today to testify about the five years of evidence collected to share with you. The abuse and coercive control continuing five years later through my ex-husband using the Family Court as a conduit to continue abuse.

Unfortunately, the testimony is shifting a little bit because last night I was up all night, thinking about the threats made to me that would ultimately harm my child. That, if I shed any light on what is happening and who is responsible for allowing it, then my child will be made to suffer for it. He 155 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

won't remain safe after five years of slowly being in my physical care.

To the Senator's point, I believe our own case has been over hundreds of thousands of dollars spent due to abuse and coercive control. There is not an opportunity to have a speedy trial. That's not true, that was said today. The court tactics used by those you would expect to protect the child actually prolonged the litigation, which serves to benefit only the ones that are being paid. Instead, I was coerced into cooperating with the abuser.

As long as there is an ongoing problem, the GAL and their chosen reunification doctor makes $300 an hour. For me, it was cash or check. They take check if you give your license number. But if they allow the mother to expose the truth on record, the court may put an end to the coercive control and abuse and that means putting an end to the GALs and doctor's income of $300 an hour, cash or check.

What is the mindset and motive of the GAL and their chosen doctor to force the mother to allow abuse to continue?

I battled cancer, with a 50/50 chance of survival at the time of diagnosis. Today, I am cured, but I fear cancer has returned from the ongoing coercive control and abuse allowed to happen.

As my GAL and the doctors warned, the judges listen to them, not the parent, especially not the mother.

If I speak out, they will punish the child by making it so the child doesn't remain in my custody, this is because it will ultimately punish me, too.

This act of silencing victims impacts the ability for testimony, which limits legislator's ability to put the right laws in place to put an end to the coercive control being allowed to occur in exchange for income streams. 156 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

She and the GAL made me sign a doctor's waiver of liability for risk of trauma, so I had to sign, saying, it's okay to put the child through the trauma of the forced interaction and reunification with the abuser.

I am frightened because I know I need to speak out today in order to do my part to help get laws on the books that help the children, but I'm frightened because I am finally in my legal custody, May 17th, and have been threatened that my speaking out about truth will be used to punish me and harm my child.

So, although you want testimony, so we can help the children, mine is altered today. Because the reality is, mothers are punished for speaking out in order to get help and expose the real reason why it's allowed to continue. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Giuliano, thank you very much. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I don't see any, but I want to thank you for coming in. I don't see any of the Members' hands raised, so Ms. Guiliano, I want to thank you for joining us and I know your concern is about your ability to do your part. I want to show you that we hear you and you have helped by doing your part today. Enjoy the rest of your day, please.

RONNAMARIE GUILIANO: Okay, thank you, Sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Angela, I think it's Schlingheyde, Ann Bouley, and Gabrielle Anastasio. Is Angela Schlingheyde in?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Yes, I am. Thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have three minutes.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Senator 157 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Kissel, Representative Fishbein, and other Members of the Committee.

My name is Angela Schlingheyde and I am the director of legal services at the Center for Family Justice in Bridgeport. We provide services to victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and child abuse. We are also a member agency of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence. We provide services in Bridgeport, Stratford, Fairfield, Trumbull, Monroe, and Easton.

I am here today and support of SB 6. As you can imagine, many of the clients that we work with are terrified of their abusers and they wish to apply for a restraining order. Under the current language of the statute, a person who is experiencing coercive control cannot obtain a restraining order in the State of Connecticut.

Intimate partner violence has many faces and does not always present inn obvious ways. SB 6 provides protections for victims of domestic violence designed to address the real experience of survivors with all forms of domestic violence, not just physical abuse. By expanding the definition of family violence in Connecticut's restraining order statute to address coercive control, we will be able to ensure court-ordered protections for many non- physical tactics abusers us to gain and maintain control over their victims.

It is not necessarily the threat of physical violence that makes victims afraid to leave. It's the threats about losing their children, being broke and homeless, having their reputations damaged, and an abuser that might exert coercive control by isolating the victim from their family, friends, hiding assets, or restricting access to the funds.

I worked with a client, who I will call Alexa, who understands coercive control very well. She and her 158 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ex-husband dated happily, before getting married and starting a family. On the outside, their lives seemed perfect. On the inside, the reality was extremely disturbing. Shortly after the birth of their first child, Alexa's husband changed. He became increasingly psychologically, emotionally, and verbally abusive and extremely controlling. She was not permitted to leave the home without permission.

He even installed an alarm on their front gate to alert him if she attempted to leave the property. She became a prisoner in her own home and withdrew from social relationships. There was no being [inaudible] at school, she told me. I lived in fear of upsetting the apple cart. If things were not perfect, there would be an explosion.

Fearful of retaliation and that no one would believe her, Alexa did not confide in her family. After he left, she even wondered what she did wrong. Even when he canceled the water and utility services, she blamed herself. When he was $40,000 dollars in arrears and child support and there was no accountability, she just accepted it. When she did finally attempt to file for a restraining order, she was told that her circumstances did not meet the statute requirements. After all, he wasn't physically abusing her.

Connecticut can do better. Seventeen other states, as well as DC and Puerto Rico, have already incorporated some type of coercive control in their statutes. It's time for Connecticut to do the same.

Thank you for allowing me to testify today and I'm happy to answer any questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Ms. Schlingheyde. Comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? REP. Fishbein.

159 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, thank you for your testimony. When we look at abuse in your concept of asking us to adopt this law, you believe it's physical in the context of what we're talking about here?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Well, I believe, from the way the statute is written and the way it's practically applied in Court, it is typically the physical violence or the threat of physical violence, where we see courts ordering restraining orders.

The stalking and threatening, the circumstances have to be pretty extreme for the courts to actually grant the restraining order. I'm just speaking to you about the practical application of what we see from the clients that we work with.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, when you say the clients we work with, have you personally applied for a restraining order?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: No, I am not a survivor. I am someone who works with victims and survivors.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Have you been in Court for these proceedings?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: I have in the past been in Court for some proceedings. Not always. I'm not represented clients myself.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, when you say how they're practically applied in Court, how many restraining order proceedings have you sat in on?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: When I'm talking about practically applied, I'm talking about when my clients call me whether I'm able to attend court or not and tell me the outcome of the proceeding what I know what's in the affidavit and I know that they haven't received the restraining order based on the facts in their affidavits and so I'm talking about 160 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the practical application of whether or not they received the restraining order or not.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Have you reviewed any of the case law or appellate courts having to do with where that bar is presently under the Statute?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: I've reviewed case law. I'm just explaining what we see victims' experiences are in court. Understanding that many victims are forced to go to Court per se and don't have the ability to argue case law, because they are unaware of it and they don't have anyone standing next to them to make those arguments on their behalf.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Are you aware that some of the courthouses do have lawyers that are assigned who represent those individuals on a pro bono basis to make those claims for them?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: The clients we work with are in the Bridgeport Court System, we do not have that program at this time. I know there is a program in Waterbury. A pilot program in Waterbury, I believe, that had been going on for some time. Our clients did not benefit from that program in Bridgeport. That's one of the parts of SB 6 is to make that program go further into the different cities throughout Connecticut, to ensure that victims of domestic violence, who are trying to obtain restraining orders, do have access to legal representation pro bono during those hearings.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Just to be clear, your representation to us as to those individuals who are unsuccessful because of how the courts look at the current statue and how they apply it, is through third parties for the most part?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Through the clients that we serve and their experiences in court, as well as the advocates who go to court, as well as myself and other advocates that we work with in the State. We 161 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

meet all the time, there's information shared, so we have a collective understanding of what's going on throughout the State and not just in our individual jurisdictions.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I understand, but I do these cases frequently and I know and I've argued before the Appellate Court on where that bar is. So, I'm certainly aware that bar right now is quite low and not what we're hearing today.

I mean, one particular case of a woman wouldn't leave the gentleman's home and they're supposed to get on an airplane with the children the next morning and he ended up pushing her out the front door. Single incident, no pattern of abuse. Restraining order and a criminal protective order.

Based upon if we were to believe everything that has been presented here today, it would be impossible for that woman to get the restraining order. Because the Statute as it presently exists, says a pattern and a single incident, even if you were to say that one single incident rises to that level, it's certainly not a pattern. But the Appellate Court sustained and found the restraining order to be appropriate. So, it's a very, very low bar here. I just wanted to understand the experience you're coming to us with, so thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Ms. Schlingheyde, for all the work you do representing victims. But does every victim of coercive control seek a restraining order?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: No. I mean, not every victim, depending on what type of abuse they might be 162 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

experiencing seek a restraining order. Many victims are afraid to seek a restraining order at all because of potential retaliation, other things that might be going on. I think it's pretty well documented that victims of domestic violence are often too afraid to come forward to get help at all.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Right, which leads to my next question which is, for those who are too afraid to seek a restraining order but are trying to get free and trying to get free and protect their children, too, don't they have to go straight to Family Court to seek a dissolution of marriage and fight for custody?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: I mean there are plenty of people who go to Family Court without ever trying to obtain a restraining order and fight their battle in that particular forum, yes.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So, wouldn't it be critical to have an understanding, a statutory understanding, of coercive control in other Family Court proceedings, not just restraining orders?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: I agree that it is imperative that the judges who sit on the Family Court understand what coercive control is, how it plays a role in domestic violence relationships, the effects that it can have on not only the victim and the children.

I think everyone is on the same page in that sense. It's just I think we maybe differ on how the best way to do that to make sure that there are unintended consequences from the language that's being used in that Statute as it is currently written. And I do think there's an opportunity for all the stakeholders to come together to talk about this more to flush it out more.

I also wanted to bring up a point, so the judges who sit on the Family Court bench are the same judges 163 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

who are hearing the restraining orders, right. If SB 6 is passed and the definition of the standard includes now coercive control, these are the same judges and I do feel that from speaking to a lot of family lawyers, not paid family lawyers, but family lawyers who work in the social services area and don't get paid by the hour, so they have no financial stake in making these processes go longer than is necessary, they all felt that there was a better way to do this meeting with the other people involved, changing the way these cases are handled, education, changing a culture before legislating the definition within the context of the divorce and custody. They had concerns about how it was going to play out and how restrictive some of these things were.

There were also concerns about access to justice for pro se litigants, who are coming from day one with no representation. How are they going to navigate these hearings and how are they going to pay for the GALs, pay for the experts, and all of these different things were concerns that were brought to us.

But I think, again, we're all on the same page and I think we all have the same end-goal. It's just figuring out the way to get there together.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): I'm glad to hear you say we all have the same end-goal. I appreciated coming to see you in Bridgeport and meet with you in January, I think it was of 2019, to begin discussions about this and here we are more than two years later.

But I just want to clarify, so at this point, are you in favor of any changes in any Family Court procedures other than the restraining order? Are you in favor of practically applying our understanding of coercive control to any other Family Court proceedings at this point or is that a 'no'?

164 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: I just want to clarify the question, Senator. I'm sorry. Are you asking me if I'm in favor of legislating the definition of coercive control into the statutes or are you asking me if I'm open to coercive control being considered in the Family Court process?

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): You can answer them as two separate questions. If you are not open to legislating but you are open to having it considered, what format would that take?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: It's hard for me to -- I don't have all the answers and I don't pretend to have all the answers, of like how we're going to get to the end goal that we want to.

I feel like there is room for us to try and change the culture and the way the laws that we already have that are applied, including the understanding of what coercive control is within the context of domestic violence.

We have seen historically very well-intentioned legislation that has been put into place to protect domestic violence that has come back with unintended consequences. And I just think that we want to make sure whatever we put into place is going to ultimately protect the people we're trying to protect without causing other problems down the line and I think that's just really the only concern, is making sure whatever we're doing is we're taking the time to really look at the full scope of it and make sure that it's really putting those protections in place.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): I agree, everything should be fully considered and deliberated, but it's been two years since I put this out there first in the legislature and I've welcomed engagement every step of the way. So, two years is a long time to not have a discussion really about it.

165 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

But I finally just want to ask you one last question and as you said, you're the head of legal services, how are those legal services paid for? What's the source of funding for those legal services?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: So, at our organization, we have a relatively new program that we have for pro bono legal services. We have two staff attorneys that help with family law. In the Greater Bridgeport area, we have Connecticut Legal Services, obviously. They only have one family law attorney that represents the entire Greater Bridgeport region, which obviously makes it difficult for them to meet the needs. We try to attempt for our clients, we don't provide services across the board with just two people who serve in our agency. We're trying to sort of help fill that gap for them. So, the money that we raise to start the program came from grants and private funding, private foundations, and donors.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): But doesn't the Judicial Branch also provide funding for this?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: For our program, no. For this pro bono legal service program, we don't get any public funding whatsoever.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Okay. Well, thank you so much.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Thank you.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): I'm always here, open to conversation. So, thanks.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Thank you, we appreciate all of the work in bringing forward this issue for conversation.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): I just have to ask one last question. As the leading advocacy group for domestic violence victims in the State, why hasn't 166 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

this been brought forward by your organization before? Either the coercive control for restraining orders or applying it to other proceedings in Family Court, which as you pointed out in your own example, when you talked about Alexa whose husband was $40,000 dollars in arrears and child support. So, that was a custody case, clearly, and her coercive control wasn't believed. I mean that was your own example that you gave about how important it is to believe coercive control.

Now we're talking about whether or not it should be applied to custody cases, even that was your example. Why has it taken so long for an advocacy group that purports to protect victims to come forward and even engage in the discussion about this?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Well, so to be clear, I don't work for CCADV, but the agency that I work for is a member of CCADV, but I don't work for them. But I will say, working with them for the last six years that these issues are always issues that are in the forefront of conversations that we're having and decisions about what policy that they make and the timing to make them are made based on a lot of different things and I'm not privy to that.

But these conversations have been going on in our field for a long time and we've been working a long time within the Judicial Branch, talking about these things. So, it's not a new conversation and I agree 100% that it's time to make changes.

Again, like everyone's right here, it's just a question of coming together to find the best way to do it for the victims that we serve.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Been here, so okay. Thank you for coming together now in the Public Hearing and discussing it, and I do appreciate the work that you do on behalf of victims. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 167 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to go back to one of the questions that you were asked. If somebody applies for restraining order, they have to bring a custody action separate, is that what your testimony was?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: I think that the question was, does everyone who is experiencing coercive control come forward to file a restraining order?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, you were specifically asked what about if they're seeking custody?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Maybe I misinterpreted the question, but if someone's seeking custody, they can still seek a restraining order. If someone seeking a restraining order, they don't necessarily have to be involved in a custody matter. It depends on the individual needs of the person and what they feel is in their best interest for at that time.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, so you were asked about the individual who files for a restraining order, if they're interested in doing something regarding the children having to do with custody, you said something about they could bring that action.

But right in the restraining order, you don't have to file a custody action to get custody of kids. You can do that right in the restraining order.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Right. I mean, someone when they're filing a restraining order, can ask for temporary custody orders to be put into place. They'll be temporary and they'll still have to at some point address it down the line, but they can do that or depending on the situation, they can also file an ex parte custody application for that matter, too. So, it just depends on the specifics 168 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of their particular situation. But no, you're correct, they can obviously ask for custody during the course of a restraining order hearing and the Judge will granted if the facts warrant it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, they can ask right at the very beginning, when they're asking for ex parte relief.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Right.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And based upon the circumstances can [inaudible] relief can order custody of those children to that applicant. The respondent is entitled to a hearing within 14 days. At that hearing, the Court can sustain that order of custody and in fact, the Court can sustain that order of custody for years under just that restraining order application. You wouldn't have to file anything separately in order to maintain legal custody of those children.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Yes. That's not always the way it works out, but yes. Usually, our clients end up having to go back. It's not as permanent. It's usually. In the cases for a lot of our clients, -it tends to be more temporary and then they end up going to Family Court to address the custody separately outside of the restraining order more long term.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure, but that's optional. You're just looking at the current situation and are the tools there for victims of domestic violence to be able to employ? And that's, you know, that's what gives rise to that Bill.

The other thing is the concept of coercive control, there's elements that are here in this Bill. I see cases all the time that the court takes all of these things into consideration in a divorce case. In a restraining order case, a history or threat of 169 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

physical assault. That goes directly to the heart of 46B15, the current statute.

I'm just trying to see in Section-3, Line 41, it says stalking or cyber stalking. Well, cyber stalking is stalking and that's already in 46B15, the existing law, so there's a significant amount of overlap here. I'm trying to get to why, but okay, thank you, Madam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Angela, for your testimony this afternoon and for your leadership of your agency and all the great work that you do to support victims of domestic violence.

I just want to follow-up on a little bit of the dialogue that's been had with you this afternoon. Right now, when you're working with a victim who is pursuing a restraining order, in your experience, is there currently a way to talk about coercive control in the restraining order process outside of the current definition in 46B-15?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: No, the elements of coercive control that are being addressed by SB 6 are not things currently considered by the court. And rightly so, because it's not in the definition. It's not anything against the judges, they don't currently have the opportunity based on the current language in the statue to address the issues around a pattern of financial abuse that might lead to the domestic, you know, be a part of the domestic violence, or the threats and intimidation around keeping the children away.

Those things are not something that the Court is currently considering if it doesn't really fall within any of the current definitions that 46B-15 has. 170 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Thank you, I appreciate that answer. Then if a victim is dealing with -- with this restraining order question aside, if they're dealing with a divorce and custody issue, is there an ability to bring in a fact pattern around coercive control in those proceedings?

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Yes, within a divorce and custody matter, you can address these issues. The current statutes allow for the Court to address these issues and deal with them as a part of the determination of what's in the best interest of the children when determining custody.

The problem isn't that they don't have the ability to do it, the problem is that there isn't, I don't think, the amount of education around the issue and implementation that needs to be there in order for those things to be handled in a proper way during these types of cases.

I think that is some of the concerns that we share is just that, sometimes you can over legislate something that's already there and then have it backfire on you. So, we want to make sure that when we're entering into this type of legislation, that we're taking all of that into consideration for moving forward and having some potential unintended consequences.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Thank you. Thank you for that answer. Again, thank you for your work. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Flexer. Comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. Ms. Schlingheyde, thank you very much for joining us.

171 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ANGELA SCHLINGHEYDE: Thank you for having me. I appreciate your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we have Annmarie Boulay followed by Gabrielle Anastasio. Then, I am told, Mr. Vega has his audio fixed. We will have Eaphel Vega. Annmarie Boulay.

ANNMARIE BOULAY: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Good afternoon.

ANNMARIE BOULAY: Good afternoon, Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. I am Annmarie Boulay CEO and Founder of the Underground Railroad of Freedom. I'm here today to express our support of passage HB 6657, AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

The Underground is a grassroots faith-based initiative and we're dedicated to ending sex trafficking in Connecticut. We represent over 200 churches in Connecticut and ministries and we have several thousand members. Our work consists of awareness, prevention, and providing direct support to survivors of human trafficking.

We collaborate with state agencies and the providers of the state to fill in gaps and resources and to serve this population. While we proudly support HB 6657, I want to specifically highlight Sections 3 and 7 for you today.

Section3, the grim reality of trafficking is that its victims are often compelled to exchange non- monetary items for sex. Basic needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter are leveraged against the victim for sexual contact. Even beyond basic necessities, traffickers may offer their victims items such as cell phones, gift cards, and even drugs.

172 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Traffickers should not be able to avoid culpability simply because they were able to victimize someone without using money. We strongly support changing means to anything of value in Section 3, as this reflects the reality of child trafficking and represents an important way that the law can catch up to the criminal tactics that are currently being utilized and thereby, allow survivors to seek justice.

Section 3 continues to place responsibility squarely upon the trafficker by making them available and affirmative defense to minors if their own victimization involved having to groom or recruit other victims to be trafficked. Minors may not have the ability to understand their own victimization, let alone that they're traffickers are using them to victimize others. Children should not have to face criminal penalties in addition to doing the hard work of healing from their own trauma.

In Section 7, it's similar to the availability of an affirmative defense allowing adult survivors of trafficking a pathway to reclaim their past stories of abuse and transform them into stories of hope and restoration.

For adult survivors, prior convictions arising from having been trafficked, causing an undue hurdle to rebuilding their lives. They often cannot get housing, certainly affordable housing, and they often cannot get work. Having to explain to employers or landlords their circumstances, under which the prior crimes were committed automatically put survivors at a disadvantage and can expose them to shame and re-traumatization.

Let me say this, we work with many survivors and Teresa Leonard-[inaudible] has sat on several panels recently and she described in full what it is like to go through the pardon process versus having vacatur available. _ Vacatur would be life-changing for adult victims of trafficking. 173 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And so, we are highly in support of this and are asking you to please pass this new this new expansion of this Bill. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Representative Gilchrest.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Boulay for being here today. I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've done in our state to bring awareness to so many people about the issue of human trafficking and all of the voluntary services that you provide to victims across our state. Thank you.

ANNMARIE BOULAY: You're welcome.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Is there a comment or a question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. I want to thank you very much for joining us and offering your testimony. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

ANNMARIE BOULAY: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we have Gabrielle Anastasio, followed by Eaphel Vega and Brook Manewal. Is Gabrielle Anastasio ready to testify?

GABRIELLE ANASTASIO: I am, thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You may begin.

GABRIELLE ANASTASIO: Thank you. Esteemed Members of the Judiciary Committee, good afternoon. I am here today to express my support for raised Bill 6657, AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING. I'm a lifelong resident of New Haven. I am a first-year student in Quinnipiac University School of Law, where I am a trainer for the Human Trafficking Prevention Program. 174 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

At our trainings, we engage audiences in discussions about how traffickers use online grooming to recruit their victims in part as a way to show that trafficking can happen to anyone. We stress how trafficking could reach into our homes and communities, almost unseen, through our computers and phones.

I'm also only 22-years-old. Meaning, I am among the first generations to grow up with social media. As young as age nine, my peers and I had digital footprints on Facebook, , and Snapchat. These are among the sites that the Polaris Project identified in a recent survey as the top social media traffickers use to recruit their next subject. This same survey indicated that up to 35% of survivors entered trafficking as minors. Social media is an ever-growing presence and a playground for traffickers.

This is how human trafficking works in the age of the Internet. Perhaps just as frightening as the fact that a 2017 study, conducted by HART, concluded that 63% of survivors recruited as children in Connecticut were living in a home with a parent or guardian at the time of their exploitation.

When we consider how vulnerable individuals in our state fall prey to human traffickers, we must acknowledge the extent to which online trafficking occurs with the recognition that many survivors were groomed as children. The current law unfairly excludes a large swathe of human trafficking survivors.

Only survivors with prostitution convictions can pursue vacatur. The national survivor network estimates that 60% of survivors have convictions recharges unrelated to prostitution or drug charges. These are people who were forced to engage in criminal activity under the duress of a trafficker. 175 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

For many victims, disobedience to their trafficker means death.

As citizens of Connecticut, we need to ask ourselves why do we continue to punish victims who are by definition arrested and convicted because they were subjected to force, or coercion at the hands of their traffickers.

If they can prove their criminal behavior resulted from their victimization, don't these victims deserve the opportunity to rebuild their lives unhindered by the convictions caused by their very victimization.

My hope today is that these are questions that will resonate with you and lead you to conclude that the current vacatur law, though well-intentioned, should be expanded. Thank you for your time, I appreciate it.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or a question? Ms. Anastasio, I do not see any. I want to thank you very much for joining us this afternoon and offering your testimony. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Next, we have Eaphel Vega, followed by Brook Manewal and Kate Roschmann. Is Eaphel Vega on and ready to testify?

EAPHEL VEGA: Hi, yes, can you hear me?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I hear you, you have three minutes.

EAPHEL VEGA: Thank you. Good day, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Eaphel Vega. I'm a longtime resident in the State of Connecticut. I am testifying in favor of Jennifer's Law, SB 1060. 176 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I have witnessed first-hand how the Family Court system has failed my dearest friend, Kailane Carlson, a victim of attempted homicide and domestic violence and her child. I witnessed how a court- appointed Guardian ad litem, whose job was and should be to evaluate and prioritize the safety of a child, after requesting hours of time for an assessment, the Guardian ad litem simply showed up for 40 minutes, a few days prior to the court date, got up, and left without even meeting with child. This happened after weeks of waiting and multiple phone calls from the mother to the Guardian ad litem to establish said meeting.

I witnessed the Family Court System not look into or investigate the pleadings of a mother, victim of domestic violence, that the abuser is still threatening and harassing her and her child even though a case of domestic violence and attempted homicide was processed in the same courthouse.

I witnessed as a victim of domestic violence was victimized even further, because the system allowed the abuser the ability to submit motions filled with accusations and falsehoods in order to delay and obstruct the Family Court so to further victimize the victim, a mother who was rewarded full custody, by dragging them back into the Courthouse.

Had Jennifer's Law and its amendments been in place, perhaps my dearest friend Kailane Carlson wouldn't have had to go under the umbrella and have an identity changed and be forced to run and hide in order to feel any safety for herself and her child.

Had Jennifer's Law existed, she could have raised her child amongst family, friends, and had beautiful memories to last a lifetime. Instead, eight years later, she's still running and hiding. She is still being victimized by her abuser, because he manipulated the Family Court System, the Guardian ad litem, and even the State Police to give her 177 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

information without warrant and without subpoena to the abuser, to continue to coercively control and harassing her.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Vega.

EAPHEL VEGA: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Your three minutes have elapsed, if you could summarize.

EAPHEL VEGA: Yes, Sir. Just going to close with this. Eaphel Vega, testifying in favor of Jennifer's law, SB 1060, so that the future cases that come forth can be properly managed and evaluated, because the current system is flawed.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Sir. Sir, you're talking about, is this a case that you were involved in?

EAPHEL VEGA: This is a close personal friend of mine and I witnessed her struggles, as she was trying to go through the Family Court System, you know, seeking help for her and her daughter.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay.

EAPHEL VEGA: And this is why I know what's going on.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and I guess from your perspective, if you had the magic wand here --

EAPHEL VEGA: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): -- The individual on the other side of this case would be precluded from filing anything? We're just trying to figure out.

178 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

EAPHEL VEGA: It's not that. You're allowed to file, but if you continuously file motion after motion, basically just kind of like flooding and dragging people back into Court just to further put a control over someone or know where they're at or what they're doing at all times, it's not right. It's wrong.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And are you aware of certain protections that are already in place to prevent that?

EAPHEL VEGA: No. I'm not.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, there's a provision, there's a book, we call it 'the practice book'. It's all the rules of court and there's a practice-book provision that says that the Court can order that before you file a motion to modify that you need permission from the Court. That's already in place. A lot of people don't know about it. They don't use it, but that would probably be of help to your situation you tell us about.

EAPHEL VEGA: Right.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm trying to figure out from this law that's before us, how do you see this law changing that situation?

EAPHEL VEGA: I see it highlighting the fact that people are taking the system, which is in place for everyone, and if you can't just see that someone's abusing that system by just, you know, twisting words and putting in lies and forcing someone who's trying to protect their child, come to court again, just so that they could gain access to their whereabouts and what's going on, it's wrong. It's wrong to use the system this way.

If Jennifer's Law can put just a halt or a system of the filter, to see what's really going on, I think 179 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

if it can do anything in terms of stopping this kind of --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): That's what I'm trying to figure out, Sir, how you believe that this language would stop? Because I point out that somebody has to make a determination that filings are frivolous and intentionally fabricated and who makes that determination, Sir?

EAPHEL VEGA: Well, you would hope that the Court itself would make that determination. Because in front of them, they have the files right now. From my understanding, this individual perjured himself in each of these motions.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. I've been involved in those. I actually had a lawyer go to jail. He was on the stand and he perjured himself on the stand.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative Fishbein and Mr. Vega, I'm going to remind you that you should let each of yourselves finish the statement before jumping in. So, that we have clarity. Continue, Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I apologize, Sir. Sir, I think I stepped on your toes.

EAPHEL VEGA: Please continue.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, I mean, perjury is a significant thing and I think portions of these laws are actually looking to lower the bar on when we get to perjury. But I'm trying to figure out if a judge is going to be the one who makes a determination that certain motions are frivolous or certain motions have fabrications in them, then doesn't the judge have to hear those motions and take the time to hear them? So, it's sort of circuitous. We do - - I'm not being condescending, Sir. Are you a lawyer?

180 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

EAPHEL VEGA: No.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, I got to ask, because there is a legal concept also known as vexatious litigation, where I've sued people. That's using the court process to vex and harass another individual.

EAPHEL VEGA: That's what's happened.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, and that's possible. One can even presently, Sir, without this language that can happen. Now, whether or not one does that is a different situation. I'm trying to figure out, Sir, how this language and I would hope that you've read it, would help that situation?

EAPHEL VEGA: Bringing to light the fact that, it's just a constant abuse and people gathering personal information in order to victimize someone, is just wrong. And if this law can bring any kind of light to that, anything to show that these people are being victimized in the State of Connecticut, something should happen. It should be noted.

Obviously, we're all here testifying because things are not working. The system is not working.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I respect that, I'm trying to figure out, Sir, what portion of the system is not working? Because we've now shifted to this collection of information.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative Fishbein, I'm going to intercede here for a second. With all due respect, I think the answer that you've got, you've yielded is the same answer repeatedly. I think that may be owed to the fact that the person who's testifying before us doesn't have the legal background to answer the question in the way you may be seeking. So, I'm going to ask you if you could proceed with your next question or follow up or whatever the case may be. 181 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You know and that's why I was going to a different, because I would like to know this individual's conception of collection of information that he just referenced and what portion of the law is not presently -- Well I understand, we're talking about his perception of a need for this Bill. So, that's the inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Sir, what the collection of information to use against someone else, what is your understanding is presently happening that would be addressed by this Bill?

EAPHEL VEGA: It's coercive control. You're using the system to victimize, to keep an eye and follow someone that doesn't want anything no longer to do with you. You've proven that you really don't care enough to pay your child support, follow up on your parenting.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): What collection of information are those, Sir? Are you talking about the address, you talking about social security number?

EAPHEL VEGA: Just that he was able to manipulate the Guardian ad litem, manipulate a State Officer with no warrant, no subpoena and gathered private information on an individual.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): What kind of private information? That's the residential address?

EAPHEL VEGA: An identity change. You're under the umbrella in the State of Connecticut as a single mother and a child and you're seeking protection, you don't get it. You get an identity change. You go through the court system, you get a new address, a new location, you're starting your life over and someone comes in, manipulates an officer and that officer just gives away the information over the phone. 182 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and it's your belief that situation, if it --

EAPHEL VEGA: Shouldn't that have been a red light right off the rip?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Vega, I'm going to remind you as well --

EAPHEL VEGA: I'm sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yes, thank you.

EAPHEL VEGA: Okay.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Is it your belief, Sir, that that is corrected by this Bill?

EAPHEL VEGA: I think it could help. It could help.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I thank you for bringing your perspective here and for testifying.

EAPHEL VEGA: I appreciate the time that you allowed me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Comments or questions? I don't see any, Mr. Vega, thank you for joining us today. Thank you for sticking in there when you had your audio troubles. I hope you enjoy the rest of the day.

EAPHEL VEGA: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we have Brook Manewal, followed by Kate Roschmann and then Marc Moorash. Is Brook Manewal in and ready to testify?

BROOK MANEWAL: I am. I'm here, thank you.

183 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have your three minutes.

BROOK MANEWAL: Thank you for pronouncing my name right, it's not an easy one. Nobody ever gets it on the first try.

Good afternoon, Judiciary Committee Co-Chairs and Members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of Senate Bill 1060, Jennifer's Law. My name is Brook Manewal. I'm a mother of four, a lawyer, and the founder of the Stanford Women's Talking Circle.

To be clear, I'm not speaking as a legal expert. I'm speaking as a supporter of women and children and an ally to victims of domestic abuse.

Unfortunately, those who are most in need of this legislation are the most unlikely to speak out. The children who are going through it are too young yet to speak on their own trauma and their parents are in the middle of it. I'm going to do my best to speak from my own experience and on their behalf.

For me, the strength of Senate Bill 1060 is that it works within the Family Law System, a system that is currently not working to protect children or victims of coercive control. For me, an integral part of the Bill is Section-7, addressing the litigation abuse. Senator Kasser has recognized that the Bill as it is submitted is just a start and that the language will have to be worked out in Committee, but I want to stress the importance of keeping that element in.

I believe that taken with other sections of the bell, Jennifer's Law can address the goal of protecting victims without infringing on any constitutional rights.

I lived through a long-drawn-out custody battle as a child, lengthened by my father who didn't want 184 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

custody, but also didn't want to pay child support. Every time he got too far behind in support payments, he would say he wanted custody. However, he made no room in his life to be a parent and showed no desire to create a home for me. Yet, the custody war droned on. I watched my mother's spirit drain out of her and fatigue set in. I watched her lose jobs after missing work for court hearing and crying about not being able to support her family. I watched my father fight for visitation and then not pick me up and then other days, show up at my school with a police officer, saying I had to come with him. I remember crying in my principal's office, scared confused and emotionally drained.

A long-drawn-out custody battle benefits no one, but an abuser and divorce lawyers. It deteriorates the resolve of the abused parent, which is the ultimate goal, but it traumatizes the children in real ways. In the worst case, children are used as pawns. At a minimum, they're learning patterns of behavior, internalizing blame, and watching their abused parent disappear before their own eyes. Trauma will manifest itself in the forms of anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, and more.

While my story is from many years ago, there are members of my group currently going through this. One member has been involved in divorce litigation in Connecticut for years. Her husband has filed multiple frivolous motions, cancels mediations at the last minute, refuses to hand over her children without making a scene and interrogating her on how she is spending her time without the children.

Meanwhile, he sends her multiple messages a day, calls and harasses her friends, trolls her on social media, and uses his relationship with members of the police force to intimidate her. Without this Bill, she feels like she has no recourse. Her request for [inaudible] have been denied in Family Court and she's forced to share custody with her children, knowing that getting them back each time will result 185 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

in further trauma to them. The best-case scenario is the cases like hers resolve eventually, but there will be emotional scars that may never be overcome. The worst case, but not necessarily unlikely truth, is that this behavior is a red flag that can end in serious physical harm.

This Bill gives the State the opportunity to be proactive to prevent the past from repeating itself. It's time for the State of Connecticut not only to believe victims, but to listen to them and take concrete steps to protect them and their children. I'm sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, don't be. Take a second. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hey, Brook. How are you?

BROOK MANEWAL: Good, how are you?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I guess you could be better. How old were you when your parents got divorced? I'm sorry, I didn't put my camera on. That's disrespectful. Here, I am, okay. How old were you when parents got divorced?

BROOK MANEWAL: It started when I was two and it ended when my father died at nine.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sorry to hear that. I'm also a child of divorce and my parents got divorced. It started when I was 10 and it ended when I was 14. And I'll tell you that it really ruined about 10 years of my life. I had a D-average in high school. I dropped out of college my first year. So, I know and that's why -- when I practice family law, one of the first questions I ask when a woman comes into my office is how are the kids doing? Because I know how it affects.

186 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

In this situation, looking at Section-7, how do you think that in your particular situation that things would be different if that was in place at that time?

BROOK MANEWAL: I believe, my father, and again I was very young living through this, but from what I was in the courtroom almost all the time and I believe that Section 7 would help, because currently, if there are rules in place, they are not working. Because we see this continue. My story is not an isolation, it continues to happen over and over again. Whatever rules are in place, are not working.

I have confidence in Senator Kasser that she is such a strong advocate that I'm sure she will work to make sure that the language put in to elaborate on Section 7, which she has acknowledged it needs further elaboration, will take steps to protect the children in those situations, but I do believe that the Bill, if each section does not work in isolation, there are other sections that allow a presumption of custody if a person who alleges coercive control, so I think in the situation such as mine, instead of being forced to go into my father's custody, while he played these games with my mother, the Court could have taken that presumption and shown a pattern of conduct, seeing a pattern of conduct and said, "Right now, we're going to leave her with her mother and then we'll work out everything else.", and I think that I've read the Bill that that that does allow for that.

I believe that litigation abuse, which is in Section 7, doesn't happen in isolation. There are often other behaviors I think it could be -- there are forms of financial control that are addressed in other sections of the Bill. So, I think reading the Bill as a whole and if the judges are properly trained to identify, which is also included in the Bill, the judges and GALs are properly trained, I think that if they're given the tools and the 187 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

training, that perhaps there's more hope for children involved in these disputes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I thank you for that. Are you aware of the curriculum for GAL training presently, what's covered?

BROOK MANEWAL: Not the details of it, no.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Because I've gone through that myself. It was many days of parental alienation, exercises and all of that stuff.

BROOK MANEWAL: And I'm sure some are good and some are bad, you're going to get --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, but every case is different, too. Every family is different, every child is different. You sort of have to get exposed to a lot of things because at some point during your career, you end up, "Oh, I remember that one", and you're able to apply it. You're gaining tools as you go through that process, but one of my o concerns is how far Section 7 goes, but you said that you have some sort of a working group with Women?

BROOK MANEWAL: Stanford Women's Talking Circle.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, and they're going through this process and I would expect that some of them are doing dealing with the post-judgment process, after they've already been divorced, and this is still going on?

BROOK MANEWAL: Modifications and yes, it doesn't end, right.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): One of my concerns, I did put in a bill this year, it's actually 5056 I think it was. Because right now, on a contempt proceeding award of attorney's fees is discretionary. And I see that a lot, where it's usually a guy, doesn't 188 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

abide by a court order, the woman can't afford an attorney. He knows she's more than likely not going to do it because she can't afford an attorney.

Then, even when they do, if you're successful, the court says, "Okay, he's found in contempt", but you've just paid money to make that finding and you're in the negative.

I'm all about trying to do something with regard to that. Because I don't think it should be as discretionary. I think once you get to that level of attorney's fees or contempt that somebody should be compensated for having to bring that action, I think that would be a good place to start with this.

So, I thank you for coming today and sharing your perspective and look forward to the future discussions. Thank you.

BROOK MANEWAL: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Blumenthal.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Brook.

BROOK MANEWAL: Hi, how are you?

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): I'm good, thanks. It's good to see you here. I don't really have any questions, I just wanted to thank you for being here with us today and for sharing your personal story. We know you in Stanford is someone who is a very fierce advocate on lots of issues, who's normally kind of working as an organizer, using your legal skills and you do that here today as well, but your story is very impactful and obviously, it takes courage to share it in this venue and I just wanted you to know that I appreciate it.

189 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

BROOK MANEWAL: Thank you, you usually see me much more pulled together. Thank you.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you, Brook.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Senator Kasser?

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and I also want to thank you, Brook. You are an amazing spokesperson for so many people who are voiceless and I really appreciate your comments here and talking about how people who are voiceless, who are victims, it's really challenging if not impossible for them to come forward, not only in this forum, but in the system that we have in place to supposedly protect victims.

They are so routinely not believed, but your particular story about how your father used you, and you were aware of it as a child, used you really as a weapon to make the custody an issue. Even though he didn't want custody, but to use you as leverage, like sort of a human leverage, is incredibly powerful. And I think that that's the lived experience of a lot of people and a lot of children who don't necessarily recognize what's happening at the time. But it is incredibly damaging to them.

You also articulated the social, emotional, physical impact of that harm for years and years to come in terms of anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-doubt, and we've heard from others about how it also manifests in unhealthy relationships going forward. Because you don't grow up with an example of what a loving, respectful relationship is and I just want to thank you so much.

And just close with one question. Do you think it's important that if the legislature adopts any language about coercive control, that is it 190 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

important for that to also be included in child custody proceedings?

BROOK MANEWAL: One hundred percent. I think that is the primary place where it should be considered.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, thanks so much. Thanks.

BROOK MANEWAL: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Kassar. Comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I'm seeing none, Ms. Mavewal. Thank you very much for joining us and offering your testimony. I appreciate it and I hope you enjoy the rest of the day.

Next, we will hear from Kate Roschmann, followed by Marc Moorash, and Lucy Nolan. Is Kate Roschmann in?

KATE ROSCHMANN: Yes. I'm here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have your three minutes.

KATE ROSCHMANN: Thank you. My name is Kate Roschmann. I'm testifying in support of SB 1060 and SB 6. I'm a resident of North Stonington and the chapter lead for the Connecticut Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Guns Sense in America.

Moms Demand Action is an organization that advocates for public safety measures that can protect people from gun violence. We support these bills because gun violence and intimate partner violence are inextricably linked with devastating impacts on families, children, and communities.

We must address the power and control dynamic used by abusers to inflict emotional abuse and exert coercive control over their victims. When my sister- in-law introduced us to her new boyfriend five years 191 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ago, I was really happy for her and that happiness quickly turned to concern when he texted her from another room. She had been out of his site for less than 10 minutes, but he was really angry about it. His controlling behavior escalated, predictably. He demanded that she end friendships, isolating her. He tracked her movements, demanding that she text him photos proving she was at work. He demanded to have access to her phone, to track her contacts and to limit them. He became angry if she refused to have sex with him. She was afraid of him, but she was afraid to leave him, too.

This emotional abuse, this pattern of coercion and control continued for months. He only physically hurt her once, choking her and pushing her face into the carpet until she feared for her life.

My sister-in-law escaped and she's safe today. She had parents who were able to be supportive emotionally and financially. She had a brother, my husband, who was able to take time off to stay with her and change her locks. In a sad way, she was really lucky.

We later found out, my sister-in-law wasn't the first woman he abused and she wasn't the last. He is currently serving 12 years in Michigan State Prison for trying to kill the next woman he dated.

The pattern is predictable. Coercion and control lead to physical violence. Physical violence, where a firearm is present can escalate quickly with lethal results. If the pattern is predictable, it's preventable.

It's time for Connecticut to recognize the scope of coercive and controlling behaviors that constitute domestic abuse, to ensure that victims are believed and protected before they are harmed or shot. These Bills will save lives, so please support SB 1016 and SB 6. Thank you for your time.

192 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Senator Kasser?

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you so much, Kate and Moms Demand for supporting that concept of coercive control and for telling your personal story about your sister. I certainly hope she's safe now.

I just want to ask you, since we do have two different Bills, with two different definitions and approaches towards coercive control, how important is it do you think to include sexual coercion in a Bill? You said that he got angry if she refused to have sex. So, was that a form of coercive control?

KATE ROSCHMANN: Yes, it definitely was. Although I’m not really prepared to answer questions on the discrepancies between the two Bills.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Okay. I’m not asking you to compare those. I’m just asking about concepts that might be important in whatever definition ends up being the definition. This is the second question I want to ask and this is really the last question, is about intent.

Do you think that a victim, even a victim of gun violence, or a victim of domestic violence, or coercive control, a victim should have to improve the mental state of the perpetrator in order to validate their harm and their experience? Do you think that victims should have the burden of proving the state of mind and the intent of the perpetrator? If the victim can demonstrate that they were shot, or that they were sexually coerced, or physically harmed, or threatened, intimidated in a pattern, should they in addition, have to prove the mental state and the intention of the perpetrator?

KATE ROSCHMANN: Again, I’m not a legal expert, I’m not a lawyer, so I can't speak to that because I 193 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have no experience about what happens in the courtroom on that on that matter.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Okay. Well, thank you for your testimony.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Kasser. Comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. I want to thank you very much for joining us this afternoon, offering your testimony. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Marc Moorash, Lucy Nolan, Anne Harrigan. Is Lucy Nolan in?

LUCY NOLAN: Yes, I’m here. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right. How are you? You have three minutes.

LUCY NOLAN: Okay, thanks. Senator Winfield, Representatives Stafstrom, Members of the Committee. My name is Lucy Nolan. I am the Director of Policy and Public Relations at the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence. We are a state-wide coalition of nine community-based sexual assault crisis centers and our mission is to create communities free of sexual violence and provide culturally affirming trauma-informed advocacy and prevention centered on the voices of survivors.

I have a testimony on four Bills: H.B. 6648, AN ACT CONCERNING SEXUAL ASSAULT AND ABSENCE OF CONSENT; H.B. 6657, AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; SB 6, AN ACT CONCERNING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE; and SB 1069, AN ACT CONCERNING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.

Quickly, we support the vacatur in the victims of human trafficking who have been charged and convicted of crimes as a result of the victimization of their trafficking.

194 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We support SB 6, which is a priority Bill of our sister organization, CCADD and we support 1069, an act concerning FGM or female genital mutilation as it focuses on ways to end this horrendous practice that are proven to work better than straight-out criminalization of the practice.

I would like to spend some time, focus a little bit on an act concerning sexual assault and absence of consent. This Bill codifies the definition of consent for sexual assault that was provided by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Connecticut has statutes that do not define consent, but use consent in their in their language, and so it has gone to the Court a couple times.

The description the Court came up with is a person is capable, deliberate and voluntary agreement to or concurrent to engage in a specific act of sexual intercourse and sexual contact. Sexual intercourse or contact without consent should be against the law and what we do, we’d spend a lot of time teaching our children, teaching each other about consent, what it is, how to use it, how to recognize it and it's time that our laws in Connecticut are also modernized to include consent as an element of sexual assault or lack of consent.

So, consent really is a meeting of the minds, words and actions that a reasonable person could rely on to move forward. It's a two-way street. It does not affect the burden of proof. The state has to prove beyond a for each element of the crime, including the lack of consent and the defendant’s culpable awareness that the victim did not consent. So, we are due to pass these four pieces of legislation. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Very good timing. Representative Gilchrest?

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Nolan. So good to see. When 195 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

speaking about the House Bill 6648, Absence of Consent, by adding to sexual assault in the second degree, such other person does not consent, what crimes do you think aren't covered that this would cover?

LUCY NOLAN: There are a couple crimes actually. There is one where somebody believes that resistance is token. Right? If somebody says, “No, no, no!” and the actor thinks, “Oh, they're just trying to make it more exciting,” and then continue on with the assault. That is the consent has not been given even though the actor thinks it's been given. But right now, because of that, the actor could say, “Well, I thought she was just fooling around,” or, he was just fooling around.

The other one, I think this one that we hear a lot about actually there was a lot, a couple years, somebody put in a lot to change this in Connecticut, too, was somebody may have sex with someone else because they thought it was a different person. So, let's say in a college, let's say, a girl will sleep with thinking, going to her boyfriend's bed and then her boyfriend's roommate comes into the room and gets in bed with her, and they have sex because she thinks it's the boyfriend. But so, she's consented to the sex, even though it was a different person.

So, that misrepresentation and then there can be times when if somebody pretends to be somebody else as well and like a doctor, they can misrepresent in a way that the person thinks that they're having sex with somebody else in there, but they consent to that sex. So, right now in Connecticut, those things would not be sexual assault.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Is there a comment, a question from other Members of the Committee? Representative Stafstrom? 196 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks, Lucy, for being with us. I just want to ask -- I think you're the first person who has talked about the absence of consent, yet today. You testified that you don't believe the Bill as drafted changes the burden of proof. We've gotten conflicting written -- we've got a lot of conflicting testimony on that. I know I’ve had a number of Criminal Defense experts reach out in the last couple days, saying that they think this language is currently drafted, goes further than the Supreme Court decision and it's not clear that it doesn't change the burden of proof.

I guess I’m wondering, A, where you're basing your belief that this doesn't change the burden of proof comes from? Because, obviously, we can't constitutionally change the burden of proof, obviously. So where are you getting that from? And I guess, more to the point whether you'd be willing to -- whether you or your organization as a proponent of this Bill would be willing to engage in further discussions with some of the Criminal Defense bar to see if we can effectuate the intent of this without risking, running afoul of some constitutional violation.

LUCY NOLAN: So, yes, I would be very happy to speak with Members of the Criminal Defense Bar. And I did see the testimony that was from them that was submitted yesterday, and to me, it seemed like that what they were talking about was sort of affirmative consent. And I think it's a little bit different. Affirmative consent is maybe a higher bar that the person, they have to get a yes. Right? And if they don't get a yes, then the defendant could be found to be negligent.

I would think that that would change the burden of proof. It’s very truthful that it makes me very nervous to be sitting here in front of a bunch of very good lawyers and answering some of these 197 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

questions. So, take that part. That's why I’d love to talk to the Criminal Defense team. What I understand -- and this information came from the American Law Institute, is where I got the information that it is about it's the reasonable standard of care and that it -- I’m just going to look at my written testimony.

Because they still have to prove that permission wasn't given. And so, not reasonable standard. Sorry, I have to find this -- reasonable doubt, I’m sorry. So that they have to still prove that it was reasonable doubt.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Beyond reasonable doubt. Right. Okay. Yes, and I guess I know certainly Representative Gilchrest and others have been great proponents of this and I think something most all of us can support the intent of. I guess my concern and issue as we move forward is just making sure that whatever we pass will actually withstand constitutional muster and challenge.

I think that that's often kind of the challenge or the struggle we have in crafting some of these laws. But I certainly appreciate you being with us in your advocacy on it today.

LUCY NOLAN: Thank you, and I appreciate making sure that it's a good law. Right? I mean we don't want to put something in there that's going to make it worse. So, thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Thank you, Representative Stafstrom. Comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I’m Seeing none. Thank you very much, Ms. Nolan for joining us. It's good to see you again. Hope you enjoy the rest of the afternoon.

LUCY NOLAN: Thank you.

198 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we have Anne Harrigan, followed by Jenn Lawlor and Hope Estrella. Is Anne Harrigan in?

ANNE HARRIGAN: Yes, I’m here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right, you have three minutes.

ANNE HARRIGAN: Good afternoon, distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. I’m here today to speak in support of house Bill 6657 especially as it concerns the revisions to vacatur provision, which would allow victims of human trafficking to have convictions cleared from their record when incurred during their victimization.

As faculty at Quinnipiac University, I have been working with others on the CBA Committee on human trafficking. For two years, I have collaborated with QU law students and faculty, very knowledgeable Members of various organizations who work with victims of trafficking as well as other Members of the Connecticut Bar on the very serious issue of human trafficking here in Connecticut.

I have listened carefully to those who work tirelessly for victims of trafficking as they describe how their work is hindered by imprecise and inadequate legislation. Perhaps more importantly, I have heard the heart-wrenching stories from survivors -- people who, against all odds, managed to escape their horrendous situations, only to be subjected to further injustices as they maneuver through the justice system that could -- if I may be so presumptuous to say -- that could be better- designed to help them.

H.B. 6657 corrects some of those inadequacies for victims of human trafficking, especially with the revision to the vacatur provision. Traffickers target and isolate vulnerable victims, we all know this, often children, and work overtime to 199 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

manipulate and control them. As younger victims grow older, they are forced to commit illegal acts and then threatened with exposure if they try to reclaim their independence.

Victims are then arrested and convicted. Their illegal acts often include crimes other than prostitution, such as larceny, assault, drug possession and more. Under Connecticut's current law, survivors of trafficking can only ask the Court to vacate a prostitution conviction. Most trafficking victims have convictions for crimes other than prostitution -- crimes which are not subject to vacatur under Connecticut's existing statute.

I would urge the 2021 session of the Connecticut Legislature to authorize, responsible decriminalization for trap trafficking survivors. H.B. 6657 containing the vacatur provision also contains several sections which are consistent with the reality that traffic individuals are victims that warrant sympathy and assistance, not punishment. The changes to the legislation in H.B. 6657 will allow those who work with trafficking victims to use the law and the systems in place to help survivors recover from their traumas and rebuild their lives to become contributing Members of our communities.

Accordingly, I ask you to support this legislation in its entirety. Thank you for your consideration and letting me speak here today.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Ms. Harrigan. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. I want to thank you very much for joining us today and offering your testimony. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

ANNE HARRIGAN: Thank you.

200 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Jenn Lawlor, followed by Hope Estrella and Lillian Kang. Jenn Lawlor?

JENN LAWLOR: Good afternoon.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Good afternoon. you have three minutes.

JENN LAWLOR: My name is Jenn Lawlor. I’m grateful to be here speaking to you today and I have the opportunity to support both SB 6 and SB 1060. Many of you on this Committee are aware that my daughter, Emily Todd was killed by a dating partner, shortly after she tried to end the relationship with him in December 2018.

Please know that I am here today speaking not only a someone who understands what happens in the most tragic outcome of an abusive controlling relationship, but also as someone who has dedicated their life to working with children and families. While I have needed to take a hiatus from my career, prior to my daughter's homicide, I’ve been practicing in the fields of Community and Clinical Social work for more than half of my life.

I have held a licensed to practice in Connecticut since 2004, I hold a Certificate of Specialization in the area of children and families, and it is through my near 25-year career that I have met with and come to know countless adults and so many innocent children impacted by the toxicity in their homes.

For many of the same reasons already stated here today, I think it is imperative to include coercive control and the legal definition of domestic abuse and to also allow and encourage this new definition to be embraced as part of family court and custody proceedings. I believe that the current definition of domestic abuse is dangerously restricting what the Court can and will do to protect innocent victims like children in desperate need of their 201 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

help and that by adapting the language, which I understand, needs to be further developed.

Much like is being suggested by Senator Kasser, the Legislature will allow judges to elevate all forms of domestic violence to the scrutiny that it deserves. It is far too common in cases involving child custody that innocent children are treated like property, to be divided versus a valuable human being, who has caught up in the same cycle of abuse their parent exiting the relationship has been.

Research shows us that domestic violence only presents us physical violence that can be verified and 10% of reported cases. It is alarming to me to read that upon review, many cases included in abusers’ escalating pattern of coercive control tactics, but they were not recognized by the Court. I believe enacting these Bills will protect countless Connecticut parents and children who have been harmed while seeking safety from an abusive partner in Family Court.

Without discussing the reality of coercive control, the attention, discussion and legislative change it needs, an abuser will continue to find ways to punish a victim for leaving and more often than not, this happens by redirecting their abuse toward their children and/or taking their parent through hellacious litigation for control of the children once their adult partner stands up for themselves and exits the relationship.

Mr. Evan Stark, a professor at Rutgers University introduced the concept of coercive control in his book titled, Coercive Control, and he shows how abuse and relationships include a combination of violent and non-violent tactics.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Lawlor?

JENN LAWLOR: Yes, I just saw Mr. Timer come up. Thank you. As you can imagine, I could easily go on 202 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

for a very long time discussing this, but I am aware of time. Please discuss amongst yourselves the reality of family courts that does not often recognize the patterns of coercive control on its own, and that Jennifer's Law aims to improve the Court’s capacity to do so. I believe it's in doing this that you will empower families to seek help and ensure they are treated with respect and dignity, and you will also keep children safe from the abuse being turned toward them as a parent loses the control to continue abusing their partner and spouse. Thank you for your time today.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. And I just want to thank you for joining us, again. I knew you’ve joined us many times and I know your advocacy and where it comes from. We really appreciate that. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Representative Harding?

REP. HARDING (107TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and really, I just want to echo exactly what Senator Winfield just said, Jennifer. I am honored to know you; I am honored to see firsthand what you do. Just what you've gone through and what had an ability to do and fight for, I just can't speak on how inspirational it is to me and to many residents throughout our local community. You're an amazing woman, your daughter was an amazing moment, and thank you for all you do. So, I just want to say that. Thanks.

JENN LAWLOR: Thank you, Senator Harding.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Senator Kasser?

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, so much, Jenn, for sharing your story and also sharing part of your own history as a clinical social worker and with years and years of experience, dealing with children and families and seeing firsthand the devastating impact that abuse 203 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

within a family can have on children. I think that's the story that we're hearing over and over again today. And the question is, what are we going to do about it?

And I heard you say very clearly that children are often treated as property in custody cases and if we're really going to ensure that children are not treated as property, that their safety, their emotional and physical well-being is prioritized, then don't we have to look at and recognize the beginning of the custody case whether there is abuse going on?

JENN LAWLOR: Absolutely. I can't say it enough. Today listening to different pieces of testimony from adults who at one point may have been a child in my office and seeing the connection between what I could easily project 20 years down the road for that child suffering and very little that could be done in the courtroom is incredulous. Just a few speakers ago, you had someone from Stamford on and I could easily visualize what her life would have looked like in my office. And that's the population that I have spent my life working with particularly young children that just get that they are minimized, they are not considered valuable individuals, the way that an adult is especially in something like a Family Court situation.

It's often referred to as the children don't have a say, the adults have to work it out, and we send kids off to -- I say we collectively as humans, we send kids off to some pretty horrific situations just based on how the limitations of what the court system has to work with.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Right and that's exactly what I’m trying to do with your help and a lot of other people's help is give the Court more tools so that they can recognize, and identify and address, domestic violence and coercive control in the beginning of the case, so that it doesn't have these 204 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

devastating consequences and doesn't last for years unnecessarily. And so, the children are not used as property or pawns between parents. But I just want to switch gears for a second. Since you referenced Evan Stark, the person who wrote the book and coined the term ‘coercive control’ who testified earlier today in support of SB 1060. He actually helped draft it was my advisor on this for over a year.

Going into the technicalities of coercive control statute, he testified very clearly that there should not be a requirement to prove the intent of the perpetrator. Would you agree with that? Does a victim have to prove intent?

JENN LAWLOR: I do not believe that that is. In some ways I don't even find that humane, to tell you the truth. Because quite often, the person in that scenario being asked to prove intent has been in an invisible way battered down so much that we are then asking them to stand up, make good steps for themselves, for their safety of themselves, safety of their children and prove it. And I think that's horrible. I think that's what the final draft of any legislation that comes should use at the forefront of establishing policy is, how are you going to write this up, so that there is not more honest put on a victim?

It takes a really long time for somebody to come back into themselves when they have been traumatized and abused in so many other things. So, in the nature of how immediate coming out of that unhealthy relationship and then having to go into Court and proceedings and to prove something, that's hurtful.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): And presumably makes it much more harder to prove.

JENN LAWLOR: Absolutely.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Right. And by the same token, having to prove harm is also very 205 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

challenging. We heard earlier from someone who is a neighbor of Jennifer Farber Dulos and saw her every day and said -- you couldn't tell. You couldn't tell. There were no visible signs that she was a victim and that most victims of domestic violence do not present publicly as victims. There are no visible signs of harm. So, having to prove in a courtroom, having to prove actual harm is also an additional legal burden.

Instead, I think what we're hearing today is that the actions themselves, the pattern of actions speak for themselves and because it's a pattern, it is identifiable, early and catching it early is a way to prevent the pattern from escalating to physical violence and ultimately to murder, which is what we do see and, unfortunately have experienced -- and you've experienced firsthand.

So, I just I want to thank you again for everything you do to advocate for victims, and for survivors, and for making sure that we pass laws that believe them and protect them because that's what they deserve.

JENN LAWLOR: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator. Comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. Ms. Lawlor, I want to thank you again for joining us and for the work that you do. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

JENN LAWLOR: Thank you, Senator Winfield. Take care.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You, too. Next, we have Hope Estrella, followed by Lillian Kang and Sheila Hayre. Is Hope Estrella in?

HOPE ESTRELLA: Yes. Good afternoon.

206 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Good afternoon.

HOPE ESTRELLA: Members the Judiciary Committee, thank you for allowing me to speak today. I’m Hope Estrella, Co-President of Quinnipiac School of Laws, Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and member of the Human Trafficking Prevention Project. I’m speaking today in support of Bill 6657 and expanding Connecticut's vacatur statue to victims of human trafficking, regardless of whether or not the applicant has a conviction of prostitution.

This proposal recognizes the reality that traffickers often forced victims of human trafficking to commit crimes, other than prostitution due to force, fraud or coercion. I’ve also submitted written testimony and so I will attempt to be brief and summarize my points and will answer any questions that you have at the end.

To begin, a properly functioning justice system aims to aid victims by providing protection, vindication and support. On the other hand, a broken system places blame and stigmatization on victims for the suffering they endured and how they endured that suffering. In this instance, we are penalizing victims for crimes committed while the victims were under the force, fraud or coercion of another person. There are simply no justice to be sought and punishing these victims more than their abusers have already punished them.

The current legislation only allows victims to vacate crimes of prostitution and therefore the statute is to promote justice. In fact, there's a blatant injustice and holding a person accountable for their actions while being human-trafficked and forced into depraved acts for another person. Moreover, it's naive to think that the only crime a trafficking victim would commit due to the victimization will be prostitution. Often, victims will have to commit other crimes such as theft, 207 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

truancy or drug-related offenses to survive their abusers.

Other times they commit crimes because the abusers forced them to and then use those crimes to manipulate and control the victims. For example, a trafficker may introduce drugs to the victim to get them addicted to the drugs and relying on the trafficker. Convicting a victim of these crimes does not comport with the goals of the judiciary system.

Moreover, criminal records hinder survivors from being able to move on from there victimization. Having a criminal record can keep victims from getting jobs, receiving medical care, furthering their education, receiving housing assistance or applying for a loan. Criminal records may even prevent victims can become parents through adoption or fostering.

Also, if the victim has a criminal record, they may be prohibited from obtaining licensures and would be unable to, for example, open a crisis center for other victims. Thus, the criminal record denies victims the opportunity to help other victims provide support to one another and create a flow of income. It's the goal of every Court and the Department of Justice to reenter citizens into their communities after incarceration.

As I just outlined, reentering society is difficult for victims of human trafficking who have criminal records. Expanding Connecticut General Statute 54- 95C comports with the goals of the Courts and the US Department of Justice. It allows citizens to reenter the communities, so that victims can compete for jobs attain, stable housing, support their children and their families and contribute to their communities.

Finally, I just like to mention that there's multi- stakeholder support for this legislation. I see 208 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that I’m out of time. I’d like to just briefly conclude. For the foregoing reasons I hope that this legislation and this Committee can expand Connecticut General Statute 54-95C. Thank you so much for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. I want to thank you for joining us today and offering your testimony. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

HOPE ESTRELLA: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next we'll have Lillian Kang, followed by Sheila Hayre and then Jennifer Four -- no I’m sorry, and then Cynthia Lill. Is Lillian in?

LILLIAN KANG: Hello. Yes, I’m right here. Can you hear me?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I can. We cannot see though.

LILLIAN KANG: I’m sorry. I’m in litigation, so I have to stay anonymous as possible.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Got it.

LILLIAN KANG: I am here in support of SB 6, SB 1060 Jennifer's Law. From what I’ve experienced in the courtroom, if you're not strangulated or almost murdered, domestic violence has no weight. Waiting until the absolute worst possible result is what is leading to continuous homicide and extreme abuse for both women and children in our country. The Courts are really saying to abusers that tolerance for domestic violence and child abuse is very high. By four to five women a day die from intimate partner violence, 1,800 women died in 2018, 773 children have died within the Family Court system due to the post-separation of partners. 209 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

A study shows 50% of children are currently being abused or witnessing abuse, leading to trauma and children. Judges are completely failing to see manipulate deceitful coercive men in the courtroom. These men are extremely convincing, they know the laws, they know how to stay under the radar. These men do not want to be held accountable, the judges are minimizing and about the prevalence and incidence of child abuse and child sexual abuse, which is creating the perfect storm.

Suicide is now the Number 2 killer of children in the teenage years. Monthly school shootings come in place. Children are crying out for help. Over trillion dollars are spent in domestic violence and we know domestic violence is a genderized crime, enabling male violence has also led to monthly bombings, mass shootings, child pornography, child sexual trafficking. Many of these men are domestic violence perpetrators that could have been stopped.

As someone suffering from trauma from domestic violence, I wish these symptoms on no one. I much rather be hit than endure these symptoms. They're incredibly frightening, so I don't understand how children can endure trauma symptoms. They're very heavy mental illnesses. Trauma is a consequence of extreme mental abuse and extremely serious. Retriggering and re-traumatization, which is occurring of the Court system forces us to co-parent and stand ears of litigation in the Court system.

These had extremely damaging consequences where PTSD will now change the complex PTSD. Not only do I have a diagnosis for PTSD, my children both have severe learning disabilities IEPs, they have behavioral issues, they have severe medical conditions requiring a Federal 504B. These consequences and connections at domestic violence are not being seen by the Court system. ACE clearly shows the consequences of ongoing violence in children's lives. 210 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The judges also are failing to notice the signs of patterns of legal abuse in these violent men. Abuse never stops, it just changes its form. They use the legal system to get back at their victims. These men will most likely file for full custody motions and not necessarily to spend more time with children, but to lower their child support or get back at the victim. They want constant access to the victim through the Court system. They drag out litigation to bleed a single mother dry of money, they also file multiple motions and petitions -- all these tactics are currently missed -- I’m sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Kang? Your time has elapsed. If you could summarize?

LILLIAN KANG: Sure. Men who abused children and women are extremely violent and this is also not being recognized by the Court. Joint Custody, co- parenting creates unbelievable stress for the whole system. All this needs to be changed. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Representative Palm.

REP. PALM (36TH): -- Mr. Chair. Ma’am, can you just run by us again, please, that statistic about the 600 or 700 children? Was that a Connecticut figure and what does that represent again, please?

LILLIAN KANG: That is nationwide data over the last 10 years. These are children that have been killed by family members -- mostly fathers. That year post-separation when you file for divorce, that's likely when a homicide will occur and unfortunately, that is occurring.

REP. PALM (36TH): Do you have any idea how many kids in Connecticut have been killed after a separation judgment?

211 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

LILLIAN KANG: It's under the Center for judicial Excellence website. I’m in New York state, we've had about 40 here.

REP. PALM (36TH): Okay. Thank you very much.

LILLIAN KANG: You're welcome.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I don't see any. Ms. Kang, I want to thank you for joining us this afternoon and offer your testimony. I hope you enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

LILLIAN KANG: Thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Sheila Hayre, followed by Cynthia Lill and then Jennifer Four. Is Sheila Hayre in?

SHEILA HAYRE: Yes, and Senator Winfield, would you mind if my student Cynthia Lill went first? We were told that would be okay. She's just behind me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): She's the one right next after you? She can go first and then you can go, yes.

SHEILA HAYRE: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Absolutely. Cynthia Lill?

CYNTHIA LILL: Thank you, Senator. Hello.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Good afternoon. You have three minutes.

CYNTHIA LILL: Thank you. Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Cindy Lill and I’m a third-year law student at Quinnipiac where I am the Executive Chair of the Human Trafficking Prevention project and a student 212 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

with the Civil Justice Clinic where we propose the vacatur provision and I’m here with my Professor, Sheila Hayre. We've combined our test or testimony jointly, and we want to each take our three minutes, but if allowed, we’d be happy to answer questions together.

Our materials, including anonymous testimony from one of our clients was submitted on the website and we started advocating for this change almost two years ago after seeing survivors of trafficking enter our clinic with criminal convictions that were standing in their way. I’m here to testify in support of House Bill 6657 and while we support the entire Bill, I would like to limit my comments to Section 7, the vacatur provision.

I understand I only have three minutes, but I want to use my time to be honest with you all about the horrors that I have seen survivors face, the stories that they have shared with me and why they are vulnerable to criminal activity and need this relief. One of the first survivors I met was a woman who was beaten so badly by her trafficker that she needed complete reconstruction of her jaw.

This woman was raped on a daily basis and forced to sell herself multiple times a day over and over since the age of 12. Even with broken ribs from her beatings, her trafficker made her work. She faced unimaginable abuse by strange men saying, “We wouldn't believe the things that she was made to do.” She was treated as property. Even, today, years after she has escaped her trafficker, she is forced to live with the consequences.

She looks down to her body and sees the brand that her trafficker marked her with, a tattoo of her name, his name, reminding her every day that she was once viewed as his. She was forced to carry her trafficker’s baby. Every single day she must look down at her child's face and be reminded of her trafficker. 213 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Victims have told me about the trauma that follows them years after they leave their trafficker. The PTSD doesn't just go away, it takes years to heal. Survivors have told me that as grown women, they need to have their mother sleep in the same bed as them, just to feel a sense of comfort. Every day, these women live in fear. This fear explains why victims don't speak out; this fear explains why victims are compelled to engage in criminal activity by their traffickers; even activity as extreme as recruiting other victims, especially when this has been their license the age of 12 years old.

Saying no to a trafficker is not an option. To stay alive, these survivors had to obey. This fear explains why survivors are not here today to share their stories to you directly, and this is why vacatur is needed. The survivors have lived so long and fear, they have faced so much and a criminal record should be the last thing in their way. Survivors deserve the opportunity to obtain adequate housing, get an education, become a nurse or a teacher. These women that I have worked with, want to be known as mothers, friends, daughters, coworkers, students, survivors and not felons.

Thank you for your time today and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. And I’m going to let Sheila Hayre do her testimony and then we'll take questions for one or both of you together. Ms. Hayre?

SHEILA HAYRE: Great. Thank you so much. Thanks to the Committee. My name is Sheila Hayre. I teach at Quinnipiac University School of Law in the Civil Justice Clinic and I’m a little scared to admit I also teach immigration so maybe I’ll get some immigration questions. I am here to support House Bill 6657. I support the entire Bill, however, because this vacatur provision essentially came out 214 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of our clinic, Cindy and I worked on it long and hard for two years, eat, slept, drank vacatur. We are going to focus our comments on that and we hope that you will ask questions because we want to show off our knowledge but also really show off our commitment and passion about this and fighting for trafficking victims.

I also hope that at the end, if I have time, I can address a couple of the comments made by state's attorney, Sharmese Walcott. Very quickly, I just want to say our materials got uploaded in a slightly funny way. There are three QU clinic materials. One of them involves testimony from anonymous client of ours, so I’m going to talk about that right now, but I also wanted to say, former DCF Commissioner Joette Katz also submitted testimony this morning. So, look for that. She is in support of vacatur, applying to all her convictions.

So, I have three words that I hope you'll remember today: hidden, conviction, integrity and culpability. The client testimony that we submitted anonymously was submitted, because as Cindy alluded, I don't know if there's anything left for me to say after Cindy has spoken -- but remains hidden and what's amazing about that testimony, is she remains hidden. Her mother knows about our trafficking but her father doesn't. Years after the trafficking, her own fiancé, who is the father of her child, still does not know about that trafficking. So, hidden but also afraid. Those two women were very careful about what they send their testimony because they still live in fear that the trafficker will find them, he knows where they live -- he and his posse, as they say, know where they live.

So, as Cindy pointed out, who is missing here? Trafficking victims. And this is what we find in the Criminal Justice system and it has an impact. Trafficking victims are hidden throughout the criminal justice process. We put on a panel recently and it was a great opportunity to talk to a 215 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

state prosecutor from Florida and she told me, vacatur is important. I support as a prosecutor, vacatur applications, because I find out information that leads me to question whether we should have arrested, whether we should have charged, whether we should have prosecuted, whether we should have convicted, whether we should have sent in some of these people.

So, it gives the Criminal Justice system an opportunity to correct flaws, to promote conviction, integrity. And I just want to also highlight the words of our anonymous trafficking survivor who said to us, “I was hidden throughout the process, I told my defense counsel that I was a trafficking victim and he said, ‘I don't think it's going to make any difference to the prosecutor.’” And that's a sad story, but the truth is, trafficking is not something that's recognized clearly under the law as a defense. We can go into that more if you have questions.

So, it's really about culpability too, what these prosecutors told me and what prosecutors who support vacatur, petition say is that when you find out this information, had we known at the beginning, we simply would not have acted in the same way and this gives us an opportunity to correct that. This is about the system trying to get it wrong. And I think when you have that perspective, you, I think come to this conclusion that it is only just to allow vacatur applications from all victims who have been convicted of all crimes. If I have a few more minutes -- or no, that's fine, Senator. It’s fine and cut me off as long as you promise to ask me a question.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Why, I may or may not, but I see other people with their hands up, so. Representative Gilchrest?

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, professor Hayre and Ms. Lill. It's good to see 216 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

you for all of your work on this important legislation. Based on what you said, Ms. Lill about there being years and years of recovery for these victims and then you, professor, speaking about victims being hidden, can you speak more to why the part in process would not be an acceptable process and why we need this expanded vacatur here in Connecticut?

CYNTHIA LILL: Definitely. So, we have actually worked with a survivor in the pardons process, and I know Teresa Leonard who was referenced before and Marie's testimony went through the pardons process and it's really a process, it's not well-equipped for trafficking survivors. So, the pardons process really looks at what the applicant did since they've been convicted, since they have served their sentence.

With vacatur, what we are doing is going back and looking at that conviction and what the circumstances were underlying that conviction. So, this is more of a process where victims are saying I’m the same person I was then, but these were the circumstances, rather than, “This is how much I’ve changed.” Which is more of what they do in the pardons process. And they're looking at a bunch of evidence, which is more suitable for a courtroom than it is the pardons process.

SHEILA HAYRE: Yes, and can I just add to that? Cindy and I looked at each other, perplexed when we were trying to do this pardon application because it just simply didn't ask the right questions. It's all about, “Have I reformed myself after the crime?” It's not about looking at whether I committed the crime and really the heart of vacatur is about going back and reassessing the process and getting it right. And I think it's unfair of us to be asking the Board of Pardon and Parole to take that look when they're clearly not set up to do that and when a Court is probably institutionally best-equipped for. 217 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I would just also add, it as a highly public process and I know Cindy and I can talk at length about how folks were not trained and again it's horrible to talk about how you were brutally raped and tortured and threatened in front of a group of people. So, I really applaud the Legislature that passed this current vacatur law, because I think it recognizes that this is not something institutionally that should be forced upon the Board of Pardon and Parole.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I have one more question. Ms. Hayre, you mentioned the testimony earlier today that requested removing A and B felonies based on all of the work that you both have done and the panel discussions you've held. Why do you feel that we should be including A and B felonies in Connecticut's vacatur statute?

SHEILA HAYRE: Cindy, you want to start, or should I?

CYNTHIA LILL: You could start, Sheila.

SHEILA HAYRE: Okay. Darn. Okay. Yes, great question, thank you. And I really respect what state’s attorney Walcott is saying about A and B felonies. Again, I think, principally, we shouldn't do it and I really think what she is suggesting is, it should be an uphill battle and I absolutely think it will be. I think these are going to be the cases that are going to be the hardest ones to succeed on, but I do want to talk about what some of these cases would look like.

I think the strong cases that are going to be winners are ones where you see the prosecution joining the petition. I think that's one thing. And I think prosecutors are not going to join petitions in cases where the evidence is questionable. We also see cases where it's long after the victim has tried to enter the society, 218 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

serve their sentences and now trying to get housing, a job, move on with their lives with their children and see obstacles. So, this is often very far at the end of the process, I think that's another very important thing to point out.

And the one vacatur case that we've had in Connecticut I worked on, I helped with, I should say, we had an HSI victim verification letter. That is HSI as Homeland Security Investigations, saying to the Court, “This person is a trafficking victim, we are now after the fact, using them to go against the trafficker.” And I think the point, there is it would be a tragedy, I think if we were to somehow arbitrarily limit at that when there are possibly meritorious few -- maybe rare -- but meritorious cases out there where we need to take a second look.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Gilchrest. Representative Blumenthal?

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to you, professor Hayre. Thanks for being with us today.

SHEILA HAYRE: Thanks for inviting us.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): And I just want to thank, first of all, you and all your students for all your work on this Bill and all the policy behind it. First of all, I just wanted to ask if you had any other comments you wanted to make in response to the State's Attorney's Office’s testimony.

SHEILA HAYRE: I think the only other thing that I found a little perplexing was the comment that including A and B felonies, might encourage traffickers to use victims to commit those crimes more often. And I just went over it in my head a couple of times around and around and I just can't 219 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

see it. And I think the one of the main reasons is, if you look at the process of vacatur, as we've been discussing, it is about culpability. It's about taking a look at the crime and saying, “Wait a second. If we knew this victim was a trafficking victim, we'd see they weren't culpable and that there is a trafficker using force, fraud and coercion, by definition, trafficking in order to get the victim to do this.”

So, I think if anything, it's the averse. The vacatur process tends to expose traffickers. I don't think there's any way to have that conversation without saying, “I am not culpable. Here's what happened and here's who did it.” So, I think that I just can't get my head around that. I think in fact, it exposes traffickers and the only other thing is yes, traffickers absolutely use victims to commit crimes.

However, I just think the vacatur piece is so far down that I’m not sure, the issue is do I need to think down the road about whether after the conviction -- and I don't care if they get convicted -- but then I’m very happy way down the road that they get vacatur. I’m just not sure that I’m seeing how that works. So, I’d love to have more of a conversation about that, but I’m not seeing it.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Okay. Thanks for the answer. I guess a kind of a technical question on Section 7C of the Bill. What level of causation or what test for causation do you think we're going to be using? Or what would be the level of causation as a result of having been a victim of another person that constitutes trafficking. In other words, would it be a bit -- for standard, would it be substantial factor, would it be some other standard of proof?

SHEILA HAYRE: Cindy, do you want to take this one, or shall I? Totally your call.

220 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CYNTHIA LILL: You could take this one.

SHEILA HAYRE: Okay. So, again I’m going to duck this a little bit just to say that it is as a result of having been a victim of conduct of another person, and I’ll leave it there. I think the 2016 Legislature imported that standard and we call it the nexus standard. What do you need to show that you committed the crime and what is the connection between the crime and the trafficking? And again, I think, appropriately the Connecticut Legislature in 2016 broaden that to say, as a result of. Maybe we're getting into the weeds a little bit, Senator Blumenthal or Representative Blumenthal, but I think that it’s much better than what was previously in there, which was at the time of.

And I think actually what this Bill does beautifully is cleans up a correction in one part where they missed that language and the other. So, it's a little bit of a broader -- sorry that's too wonky as a response. Maybe Cindy can jump in and save me, but I think that's absolutely a good standard. I don't want to pine too much on what that looks like, except I think as we've heard from prosecutors and folks who work in this area, when you see the evidence, as a result of, becomes pretty clear.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Okay, thank you. And wonkiness was exactly what I was looking for, so I appreciate it. So, one other issue, or question or two, let's see. I think one concern that some people may have with regards to Section 7C, especially with the most serious offenses, the A and B felonies is perhaps the shall standard, the idea that the judge does not have discretion if that causative link is proved between the trafficking and the crime. That there may be some circumstances where a person who has committed a really serious offense -- there are obviously some circumstances where a person commits a really serious offense and it can be totally attributable to the fact that they were trafficked. 221 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

They really didn't have a whole lot of agency in it and I think most people would agree that in those cases, it would likely be appropriate if there's some sort of vacatur. But I think, maybe there will be concerns that in some cases, there would be a causative link, but it's not the same sort of link that I described before. It's not a lack of agency. There may have been other circumstances that made the offense more blameworthy.

What would you think of potentially changing the language from ‘shall’ to ‘may’ or some other intermediate non-mandatory command to the court for the most serious crimes?

SHEILA HAYRE: And again, Representative Blumenthal, I can't tell whether this is a low-ball or high-ball questions, so, I’m going to take the low-ball. Cindy, do you want to take the answer or should I?

CYNTHIA LILL: Well, the only thing I would say is as it's written right now is what I’m looking at. The ‘shall’ has kept in for prostitution offenses, to keep that the same as what it has been, but the ‘may’ makes it that the judge has discretion for all other convictions besides prostitution. So, the judge will take in all the evidence, hear the prosecutor, hear any other victims who are implicated in the case and has discretion whether or not to grant or deny.

SHEILA HAYRE: And I just want to add to that -- Thank you Cindy -- that really, we have a problem with the statute. I hope everybody is seeing that. When we looked at the statute, the first three clients through our doors did not have prostitution convictions. It was clear as day to us, their convictions were connected to the trafficking. We looked at the statute and we’re completely out of luck. And then, what we noticed was, “Oh, yikes, there is a shall in there.”

222 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

In 2013, the original statute was passed, it was just about prostitution and it just use the shall. Then in 2016 and I think this goes to State Attorney Sharmese Walcott's point about what do you include? The Legislature said, “This is too narrow. We need to broaden it. Let's include -- And I daresay at that point they decided to include all crimes. The only problem is there was a scrivener’s error and the ‘shall’ was left in. I think it's plain language. You have to read the statute now to allow someone only can get their foot in the door, under the statute if they have a prostitution conviction. But once they get their foot in the door, because we didn't change the shall to a ‘may’, they can vacate any conviction, which was a change.

And again, I wish our materials were easy and up, I can send that to you, I think it explains that easily. But I think what you're getting at, Representative Blumenthal, is ‘we have a problem Houston’. As much as I’m in favor of vacatur, I’m not in favor of shall vacating any conviction, if someone can get their foot in the door of the prostitution conviction. I think the judge should look at each and every conviction with an eye to seeing, “Is there enough evidence? Is it as a result of?” And what is the prosecution saying? What is the victim saying? And then making a decision. I don't think shall should apply to anything but prostitution.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Okay. Well, I appreciate that and, Cindy, you're right, I misread the Bill language. That shall, you’re correct it just applies to the prostitution-oriented offense and the rest is permissive. So, thank you for illuminating me on that subject.

SHEILA HAYRE: And, if I may say one more thing, State’s Attorney Walcott, I think makes the argument, “Let's go back and limit it to As and Bs, but I think if you look at 2016, the Legislature was 223 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

opening wide up, which is what we're proposing to do.”

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Okay, well, I really appreciate your answers, as well as all your work on this legislation. I’ve had the opportunity to observe you and the TIP Council and the Bar Association and some of the work that's been going on around this and it's really laudatory. So, thank you to you and your students for all your work. Appreciate you being here.

SHEILA HAYRE: And thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Palm?

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening professor. I, too, have a question about the vacatur. I just want make sure I’m understanding you correctly, that when you say you don't think it would be problematic, is that because you believe that both the prosecutor and the Defense Attorney would see through the roof -- I’m going to use a very unilaterally term -- but if the trafficker were trying to use vacatur as an excuse, that both parties would see it. Is that what I’m getting from what you're saying?

SHEILA HAYRE: Well, it's interesting. No, I think that's a great question because, again, it makes me think about State's Attorney Walcott's argument that this might encourage the Commission of A and B felonies. And I do think maybe at the conviction stage, traffickers are definitely using victims to commit crimes. But I actually wonder how much they're thinking, “Oh, wait. I feel so bad that I threw that person under the bus. I wonder if it's just I’m escaping liability.” This is why we see so many crimes. The trafficker is escaping liability and how do you do it? You use victims who are completely under your control.

224 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, at the vacatur stage, it seems, first of all way too far removed. It begs the question of whether the trafficker at this point, even cares what's happened to the victim. If the victim is already convicted, I wonder if the trafficker is even thinking that far down the line. And I guess my main point is, and I think you're talking about specious claims, I do think first of all, there's no way to make a claim specious or not without pointing the finger to say, “He did it.” So, I would be very fascinated to see someone, like concoct an entire story that involves a completely different trafficker and convinces anyone.

I think, as you note, prosecutors are not going to be -- I respect the prosecution for being cautious on this one, they're not likely to weigh in easily, but that's why I think the system right now is going to work with any type of felony. The only other thing about speciousness and it's funny, this is where I practice in a different area -- in immigration, which is a rather draconian system, wow, they blow us out of the water. They do not want to be interviewing victims when they're assessing their trafficking claims for the TV stuff, which I think is a really fascinating model, and I hope we will push that way when we see this being implemented. Like, do you really need to be re- victimizing somebody by having a full-blown hearing? Or can it be done in the papers?

But, too, I would say -- and I completely lost my train of thought. The standard is any credible evidence which is, I think an interesting one.

REP. PALM (36TH): You're basically saying that the evidentiary trail is going to lead back to the trauma?

SHEILA HAYRE: Absolutely. And I would hope with the evidentiary trail would be broad. And I'm happy to speak to this because Cindy and I have talked a lot. I mean, again, I think if you -- I hope that 225 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

if you get an HSI verification letter -- victim verification letter that any crime would, at least, be eligible to apply. The Judge can still say no, but at least let them come forward and say, "Hey, look, I got all this evidence, if you still don't want to accept it, fine. But at least let me have the opportunity to make my case." And I think the hope -- the amount of evidence that we submit in these TVC cases is pretty incredible. Things you wouldn't even imagine.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you, professor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's it for me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Palm. Comment a question for Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. I want to thank you both for joining us today and offering your testimony. It was helpful.

SHEILA HAYRE: Thank you for your patience.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Absolutely. Enjoy the rest of your evening. Next, we have Jennifer Four, followed by Jonathan Perloe, and Jamie Manirakiza. Is Jennifer Four in?

JENNIFER FOUR: Yes, I'm here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. I -- you have your three minutes and I'm trying it back over to Chairman Stafstrom.

JENNIFER FOUR: Hi, good afternoon, Distinguished Members of the Judicial Committee. Thank you for allowing me to be here. My name is Jennifer Four. I am from Monroe, Connecticut and a Member of the Connecticut Protective Moms. I'm a protective mom trying to keep myself and my two kids safe from continued abuse as I go through Connecticut family court proceedings. I'm submitting this testimony in favor of 1060 Jennifer's Law to update this Connecticut civil statutes to better protect women 226 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and children like me from dangerous domestic violence abusers even when the behavior falls short of physical threats or actions.

I have been a victim of domestic violence for the past 17 years subjected to all forms of coercive control from financial abuse, intimidation, emotional verbal, gaslighting, isolation, threats to take my children out of the country. This escalated to physical and sexual assaults. No one understands it until you're living it, it just all of a sudden is there and you don't know what and how it happened. The children have witnessed his behavior towards me and have also been subjected to it themselves.

Behind me if you can see, there's pictures of bathrooms doors that he bashed in repeatedly when going after my daughter. My daughter ran and hid in the bathroom because she was afraid of him. He got upset because she wouldn't eat what he made for breakfast. And he bashed and there's punch marks in the door. It's not the first or last time. Another time she hid herself into the bathroom. I wasn't home. Locked herself. He told her he was going to break down that door.

Imagine what a child feels when there's no other adult home and you -- you're locked behind a bathroom and all you hear is your father bashing the door ready to come at you. I had to call my niece to come and get her to save her. And then another time my son had to lock himself into the bathroom because he had the audacity to say, "I'm not going to go with you to a place," and again punch the door. But it gets better. My father had to replace the bathroom doors. And he said to my father, "Why are you bothering? I'm just going to do it again."

And then another time he went after my daughter was assaulting her, I came in to save her. I pushed him away from her. But he had all this rage. And he couldn't let go of it. He took it out on her door 227 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

pulverizing the door. All I could do is hold my daughter with the notion we knew if he turned back, he would break her bones. And another time he was assaulting her, and this one was the camel that brought the straw back. My daughter was screaming for me. He was going after her again. And I pulled her away from him because he had her pin down and he was beating her with his other hand. My 12-year-old son felt the need to take this knife right here and use it to protect my daughter and me. My -- I walked in after my husband was taking it away from him.

It was then that I filed for a restraining order. I -- a month after the restraining order, I got the restraining order with the notion of guardian litem would be appointed. A month after the guardian ad litem is recommending visitation with the children. They haven't gone to therapy. He has not taking ownership. He has not been to any treatment.

And now I'm in the middle of a psychological evaluation because they're making accusations. I am unable to protect my kids because I'll be accused of parental alienation. I'm in the middle of it and that my restraining order extension I was able to get the restraining order extended for myself but not my kids because I didn't meet the threshold. And at the restraining order hearing the guardian litem and his lawyer are saying more than likely, the evaluator will be recommending forced reunification of my 16-year-old daughter with her father who has said --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ma'am --

JENNIFER FOUR: Opened up about the abuse.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ma'am I hate -- I -- sorry to interrupt you. But we're pretty far past the three minutes. I just -- I just --

JENNIFER FOUR: I'm sorry. I just -- 228 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): That's -- no, I totally understand. But if you could just summarize the rest.

JENNIFER FOUR: And just in summary, please help victims and kids like me pass this Bill. If you believe kids have a right not to be abused and be safe, please pass it.

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate you being here and, certainly, understand how emotional this is. Seeing no questions in the Committee, I really do appreciate you being with us today and for sharing with us. Next up, we have -- let's see, Jonathan Perloe. I don't believe we have Jamie Manirakiza.

JENNIFER FOUR: How much longer do I go?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sorry. Jamie Manirakiza.

JENNIFER FOUR: I do -- I -- I can see Senator. I - - well --

JAMIE MANIRAKIZA: Hello.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Hi, ma'am. How are you?

JAMIE MANIRAKIZA: I'm good. How are you?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good. I'm sorry. I butchered the last name.

JAMIE MANIRAKIZA: That's okay. Thank you for the opportunity. Are you --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead. We can hear you. Yep.

JAMIE MANIRAKIZA: Okay. All right. Well thank you to the Judiciary Committee for having us here today. I'll just be brief. I know there's been countless testimonies. I am the Executive Director of 229 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Partnership to End Human Trafficking. We are a local non-profit here in Connecticut. We provide programming and housing for survivors of sex trafficking in Bridgeport, Connecticut at an undisclosed location.

Although pet, partnerships and human trafficking is new to the state, I have been working in the field of survivor services for over 10 years, throughout numerous states in the Northeast. In this time, I witnessed countless cases of trafficking victims. Oh, I apologize, I should say I'm here in support of House Bill 6657, specifically supporting the vacatur provision. I want to speak to just some cases that I've worked with over the time that I -- I've been in the field.

So, I've witnessed countless cases of traffickers placing their victims front and center for all criminal culpability, distancing themselves from any guise of misconduct. Traffickers will often employ techniques, such as renting a hotel room in the victim's name/identification, setting up a bank account and wiring all transactions through the victim's identity, giving them a deadly weapon and forcing them to hold that weapon against a sex buyer to rob them for additional money, all of which are real examples of cases that I have worked with in my career, and they are not uncommon cases.

All of these tactics and more are used in order to maintain the traffickers' illegal business and their anonymity. It is no surprise to us that victims of trafficking, who almost never self-identify as a victim at first encounter, are often accused of crimes that are a direct result of their victimization. It takes time and healing to peel back the layers of grooming, manipulation and coercion filled up by a trafficker to unveil the level of duress survivor and dirt.

Furthermore, often domestic victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation, particularly those of color 230 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

are not acknowledged as victims of crime and are instead arrested for prostitution-related offenses. By contrast, in many jurisdictions, buyers face little to no consequences for their role and exploiting vulnerable women and girls.

House Bill 6657 recognizes the complexities of the crime of human trafficking, and the remedy needed to ensure that survivors receive restorative justice options and a better future. We really believe that survivors need an opportunity to have a future and in which includes clearing their records. We know that their future depends on being able to apply for a job with a livable wage, go back to college and obtain permanent housing, all of which are impeded by having a criminal record -- records that their traffickers built their business on and represent their victimization, their pain and shame in our communities. So, we stand here today alongside survivors, representing those that we work with, and the many that will come in contact with our housing program in support of House Bill 6657. Thank you for this opportunity.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, ma'am. I certainly appreciate you being with us. And, in addition, certainly appreciate your work in the city of Bridgeport. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, have a -- have a great evening.

JAMIE MANIRAKIZA: Thank you. David Michel, I do not see. Looks like Jonathan Perloe has joined us.

JONATHAN PERLOE: Yes.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead, Jonathan.

JONATHAN PERLOE: Hello Chairs Winfield and Stafstrom, Vice Chairs Kasser and Blumenthal, Ranking Members Kisser and Fishbein and Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Jonathan Perloe. I'm submitting this 231 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

testimony as a private citizen in favor of SB 1060 to update Connecticut civil statutes to better protect women and children from the insidious behavior of domestic abusers, even when that behavior falls short of physical threats or actions.

Many of you know me from my advocacy work to prevent gun violence. Indeed, the first time I testified before this Committee was in 2015, in support of the Bill that passed the following year that created subjects of temporary restraining orders from possessing firearms. It was then that I learned how pervasive domestic violence is in our society, and the terror that so many women are subjected to by intimate partners. The stories of women and their children who were killed by their partners was horrifying, and worse, our state was failing to protect them when the dangers were evident.

What we learned then was that domestic abuse is about control. Certainly, guns are a primary tool for keeping control. Some 4.5 million women have been threatened with a gun. Nearly 1 million have been shot or shot out by an intimate partner. But abusers don't need guns to exert control. That's why Connecticut civil statutes need to be expanded to recognize non-physical forms of control, including the concept of coercive control.

One of the most important obligations of government is to keep its citizens safe. Safety goes beyond physical safety and must include protections against abuse in all of its forms. Abusers shouldn't be allowed to use a woman's financial dependence or the threat of taking custody of her children, other forms of intimidation to keep partners and relationships against their will or punish them for escaping abusive relationships. I find it particularly troubling that we have allowed our court system to be weaponized to enable men to continue the reins of control. Not only is the state not protecting its citizens, it has become 232 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

complicit by allowing its institutions to be used to terrorize women and children.

Further evidence of the failure of our laws is that some of these behaviors would be criminal if they were committed by strangers, rather than intimate partners. By passing SB 1060, Connecticut has the opportunity to better protect our citizens by recognizing that coercive control is dangerous and cruel, and must be accounted for when evaluating protective orders, divorce and child custody proceedings.

I understand that concerns about possible unintended consequences of this Bill's language have been raised by some domestic violence advocates that I respect, and I appreciate the drafting statutes is a complicated process. And my support for this Bill doesn't mean that the current language might not be improved or tweaked. By protecting women against coercive control, we will also save lives since non- physical abuse is often a precursor to physical violence, as evidenced by the fact that intimate partners are responsible for half of all women murdered. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Jonathan.

JONATHAN PERLOE: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Certainly, appreciate being with us. Questions or comments from the Committee? If not, have a great evening.

JONATHAN PERLOE: Thank you so much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I had David Michel, followed by Erin Sheehan. Looks like Erin is with us. Go ahead.

ERIN SHEEHAN: Hi, everyone. Thank you, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Senator Kasser, Representative Blumenthal, Senator Kissel, 233 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Representative Fishbein and esteemed Members of the Judiciary Committee. I'm Erin Sheehan. I'm testifying today on behalf of Connecticut Voices for Children. We're testifying in support of SB 6, AN ACT CONCERNING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM; and SB 1069, AN ACT CONCERNING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. First, we support SB 6, AN ACT CONCERNING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS.

Our organization envisions a state that is thriving and equitable where all children reach their full potential. Ending domestic violence is intrinsically linked to this vision, because children and families can't achieve their full potential while experiencing or witnessing any form of physical, emotional or verbal abuse. This was particularly important amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Preliminary research found that domestic violence in the United States spiked by 8.1%. Following the imposition of stay-at-home orders at the start of the pandemic. Communities of color and other marginalized groups have been particularly affected. While one in three white women report having experienced domestic violence during the pandemic, rates of abuse increased to around 50% or more for those who are marginalized by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship status and cognitive physical ability. Ending domestic violence and protecting those who experience it is essential to achieving a thriving and equitable state. The changes provided by SB 6 are urgently necessary to protect the victims and their children.

Next, we also support SB 1069, AN ACT CONCERNING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. This law is an important first step in ending the practice and supporting survivors. Because of the limited information available on the practice of FGM in Connecticut, this Bill's proposed study is critical to identify 234 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

best practices to mitigate or end the practice, as well as to support survivors.

In addition, we echo the recommendations of the Connecticut coalition to end FGM, SB 1069, should not only require the Commissioner of Public Health to conduct a study on FGM in the state, but also unequivocally reiterate that FGM is a form of violence and Bana in the state of Connecticut. Both of these Bills are critical steps forward towards protecting survivors of violence and ending the practices that cause harm to our communities. Therefore, we urge the Committee to pass SB 6 and SB 1069. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Hello. Sorry about that. Sorry about that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for coming in. I apologize. I was out at another meeting for a few minutes so I'm not sure if anybody else has addressed this during the time that I was on the meeting, most of the day. Nobody's really talked about the female genital mutilation Bill. And I was wondering if you could just explain a little bit about what that is and why you think this Bill would help.

ERIN SHEEHAN: Yeah. So FGM is essentially the practice of mutilating or cutting the female genitals and there is no medical purpose when it's happening when we're talking about it in this context. So, one of the big concerns that advocates have is that we don't know a lot about if FGM is happening in Connecticut or the extent to which it is happening. We only have anecdotal evidence or evidence about the extent to the problem in the United States as a whole. So, one key thing about the proposed study that this Bill recommends is that. It would help us figure out more about what's going on in Connecticut and how we can mitigate the 235 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

practice and the practice and support all of the survivors who have experienced it.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): And why -- I thank you for that. Now, you use the word survivors as if this were a horrific practice. Now, I agree that it is, but and I've actually introduced Bill to ban it at least once probably a couple of times over the last several years. But if you wouldn't mind explaining what it actually -- what's the purpose of it, and why people do it.

ERIN SHEEHAN: Yeah. So, generally speaking. There is not a medical purpose to this. I know that there are purposes -- well, I don't want to say their purposes. I do know that it's more common in other countries, not necessarily in the United States, but it has been condemned as a human rights violation by many organizations, global and domestic, and there isn't a medical purpose to it.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well, thank you very much, I appreciate your coming in and discussing it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ERIN SHEEHAN: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further comments from the Committee? Further questions or comments, if not, thanks for being with us, ma'am.

ERIN SHEEHAN: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yvette Young would be next.

YVETTE YOUNG: Yep. Thank you. Hello, Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is yvette Young. And I am the Associate Vice President of Programs and Advocacy at the Village for Families and Children. I have done anti trafficking work for six years. And so, therefore, I'm in support of House Bill 6657, AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING. 236 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I want you to imagine that your child or someone you loved is forced, manipulated, groomed, or coerced into a life of trafficking. While being trafficked, they are not given a fee for being forced to perform sex acts or labor servitude, but instead they receive food, clothing, electronics, etc. as payment. Does that make them any less of a victim? Imagine that the same loved ones are told to perform between five to 25 sex acts a night and their trafficker chooses not to pay them or even provide their basic needs. Does that make them any less of a victim?

Well, according to our current trafficking in person law, they will not be considered a human trafficking victim because in these cases, there was not an exchange for a fee. Would you be okay with knowing that your child or your loved one was brutally violated and their abuser walked free because of our current trafficking law does not include the language anything of value? If money is not being exchanged, that does not change the victimization. The fact is, our children are being sold and bought. We need a law that states that it is trafficking if there is an exchange of sex for anything of value.

Victim blaming continues to be a pervasive narrative in our culture. When a child or adult is manipulated, forced and groomed into a life of sex or labor trafficking, people are quick to say it was a choice. The victim-blaming narrative spills over into our Judicial system, where victims of human trafficking, who were forced to commit illegal crimes while being trafficked, are then held accountable for the crimes that they were forced to commit. When we blame victims, we are saying they had a choice and they do not. They are often beaten, tortured, and threatened to in exchange -- engage in criminal behaviors. By its very nature, the crime of human trafficking involves compelling a person to do something they would not otherwise necessarily have done on their own. 237 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

It is time that we release trafficking victims from the burden of accountability. They have to carry beyond the victimization. I society hold them more accountable for their offenses, and often allow their traffickers and buyers to walk free. Children who have been trafficked and committed a crime while being trafficked deserves an affirmative defense in any prosecution or delinquency proceedings. Adults who were convicted of a crime they were forced to commit while being trafficked deserves to have those convictions vacated.

I have been working in the anti-trafficking movement for six years. And every time I must testify for a Bill to protect victims, my heart is heavy. I am saddened that as advocates, we must justify why our children and those most vulnerable among us need to be protected.

Our responsibility as adults is to protect our children and those who are vulnerable. Protection can come in many forms. Protection is letting our children know that if anyone sexually exploits them by offering not only a fee, but anything of value, that those individuals will be held accountable for their actions. Protections means elevating the needs of victims about those are their exploiters. Protection is providing --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ms. Young, Ms. Young, Ms. Young, you're past the three minute mark.

YVETTE YOUNG: I'll wrap up. Protection is providing them with an affirmative defense and vacating convictions related to crimes they commit while being trafficked. Show trafficking victims that you are invested in protecting them by supporting House Bill 6657. Thank you for your time. And I'll take any questions if you have.

238 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, ma'am. We do have a couple questions for you. Representative Gilchrest.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not so much a question or a comment. Hello, Ms. Young. So good to see you.

YVETTE YOUNG: Hello.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Want to thank you for all the work you do across the state, educating communities and families about what human trafficking is and what it looks like in order to protect all of our children. Thank you.

YVETTE YOUNG: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for coming in. Very much appreciate it. Two quick things. First off, I know there are people that let -- think of the word "trafficking" as moving people from one place to another. That's not always the case in human trafficking, is it?

YVETTE YOUNG: No, it's not. Actually, one of the things -- one of the statistics that we share when I do trainings is that over 60% of the cases that we're referring to department, children and family with children living at home with a parent or guardian. And what that means is that these children are being trafficked where -- on their parents, without their parents knowing.

So, their trafficker could have picked them up from school exploited them, bring them back home. It could have happened on a weekend. A lot of victims are trafficked within their own neighborhoods and within their own communities. They're not kidnapped and brought and exploited elsewhere. Those cases do exist. But the majority of victimization we see in 239 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the United States are kids living locally and being trafficked either by a family member, or by someone who is claiming to be someone that loves them or in a relationship with them and using that vulnerability to exploit them.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Got it. Well, thank you for that. I appreciate it. The other thing is, you mentioned two different things. You mentioned sexual exploit -- excuse me -- sexual exploitation and forced labor. Could you give me some examples of what you're talking about with regard to forced labor?

YVETTE YOUNG: So, forced labor is debt -- anyone that has a debt bondage, and they're being forced to work to pay off that debt, so they're not receiving direct payment for the services they're provided. You're looking at domestic servitude, is a form of labor trafficking.

In any industry, in our society, there are individuals who are being forced to work without compensation, or they are paying back a debt that they could never pay off, because they were promised to come to the United States, or they were promised that they will have a better life, even within the United States. And then someone is taking advantage of them and exploiting them on the labor side.

So, we talked about how human trafficking, it is both sex trafficking and exploitation. But there is also labor exploitation that happens in our state. We have a lot of data on the adult side of labor trafficking. We only have a handful of cases for children on the labor side.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, give me some --

YVETTE YVENG; That does not mean that our children are not being labor-trafficked.

240 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Can you give me some examples of what you mean by labor traffic? Some -- if you have any anecdotes, so I'd be interested to know what industries or the -- it's prevalent in and that type of thing.

YVETTE YOUNG: So -- as I said, domestic servitude, so those who are working within homes. We had one case with a DCF with children, where the kids were going to school, falling asleep every day, and no one could figure out what was going on. And what was discovered when they were investigating for educational was those kids were being forced to clean the home that they lived in every single night before they could go to sleep. So that's a labor trafficking situation.

In some nail salons, you'll have individuals who are being forced to work in those industries. And that could be a labor situation. And it could be in a restaurant, it could be in a hotel, like any of those industries, where someone is being forced to do labor without appropriate compensation or without appropriate living conditions, etc., those are labor violations. And so, they -- there are cases like that that exists in the State of Connecticut and the Labor Department has a lot of details and statistics on that.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate the education. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Further questions or comments? If not, I want to thank you for being with us, ma'am.

YVETTE YOUNG: Thank you.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): I see David Mandel has joined us.

DAVID MANDEL: Yes, here I am.

241 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead, sir.

DAVID MANDEL: Okay, thank you. Senator Winfield, Rep. Stafstrom, Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary. My name is David Mandel, Executive Director of the Safe & Together Institute. And I'm testifying here today in favor of the passage of SB 1060.

Before I speak directly about the Bill itself, I want to give a little background on the work of the Safe & Together Institute. We're a go -- global leader in transforming the response of systems where coercive control is impacting children and families. And for 15 years, the Safe & Together model, which uses coercive control as our framework for assessing child safety has been adopted by governments, and service providers in multiple countries including New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, including state government to Florida, Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico, Iowa, and in New York. The model has been presented to the American Judges Association. We've written peer review paper for the National Council of family juvenile court Judges. And here in Connecticut, the safety of their model was the backbone of the DCF domestic violence response for numerous years when I consulted to the department.

So, the reason for the background for 15 years, these agencies have invested in approach to places an understanding of coercive control at the center of their processes to make the best decisions possible related to children. The model has been adopted in family courts related to custody evaluators of Michigan and child best interest advocates in Ohio. And in the next few months, we'll be training the entire family court -- set of evaluators registers and Judges -- across the entire country of Australia in the Safe & Together model using courts of control is the main framework to help them improve their existing assessments in family court custody, access and divorce. 242 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

From this international perspective, I believe this Bill represents a groundbreaking-effort to update filming court practices in Connecticut, bringing them in line with the experience and needs of adult and child domestic violence survivors and with the emerging practice around the globe. If implemented, it will offer an early pathway to identify coercive control through the evidentiary hearing process, saying the case on the right path from the beginning. This process will help children may have dangerous and harmful situations from the start.

Coercive control as a concept offers one of the best roadmaps for assessing the harm that domestic violence perpetrator can cause a child and good assessments by well-trained professionals who understand the linkages between coercive control, child safety and best interest can help Judges make good decisions related to custody and access. I want to close by highlighting my support for the provision of Bill that adjusts the training and experience need to provide expert testimony or meaningful evaluation recommendations to the court, the parts of the Bill that seek to remove allegations of alienation and take them off the table in situations of abuse, and the sexes that help the court contextualize protective efforts of a parent that seeks to prevent the harm to them caused by the perpetrator those things being used against them. These are important and very forward-thinking provisions.

We've seen in Connecticut, referring back to the Connecticut Appellate Court Judgement in regarding Jamie Zysk but just goes back to 2010 April 2010, that when the finders of facts are given information about patterns of coercive control, and just linkages to child safety well-being, the court finds it easier to identify the protective efforts of the other parent and make decisions that keep children safe. So, I want to support the Legislature implementing, pass this law and supporting the 243 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

implementation across the relevant agencies, courts and professionals to make effective. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, sir. Senator Kasser?

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you so much, Mr. Mandel, for your groundbreaking work in this country and in other countries to keep children safe. Can you just elaborate a little you said that the coercive control offered -- framework offers a roadmap to assess harm to children? Can you just elaborate a little bit on what those -- what that roadmap is, and how it can --

DAVID MANDEL: Coercive control looking at a course of conduct that doesn't just focus on physical violence, but looks at all the things that were presented by survivors here today, you know, whether it's, you know, breaking down doors, whether it's controlling money, whether it's limiting contact with other people, whether it's impacting somebody's job or employment, whether it's making threats to take kids away from them, whether it's calling DCF and making false allegations.

That perpetrators behaviors using coercive control, impact child and family functioning in significant ways. They disrupt housing, where the kids can leave, disconnect them from families. And none of that is captured in a model that really just looks for physical violence is the definition of domestic violence. And so, the work we do really, really ties that pattern of coercive control to how it -- the perpetrator's behavior changes, family ecology, where they're living, access to school medical care, how it undercuts the other person's parenting, and how that all feeds into developmental issue with kids, physical safety issue with kids, academic issues with kids. It's a much more robust framework for really explaining why child safety should be a concern of custody and access decisions. 244 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. And can you explain why child safety should maybe be elevated to be the first issue that is -- that is addressed? And as you said coercive control framework is a way to -- is a lens through which decision makers see something entirely different than they see, without having that framework as a tool.

DAVID MANDELA: You know, the best systems that we know -- one, that there really identified domestic violence and custody and access issues, do it early, and do it before orders are entered, you know, so they're really kind of before the track gets set. You know, I'm looking at the Australian system, which actually is quite good. And they're asking us to come in and make it better, but they do early screening, and in their in their family court processes to really determine if there's domestic violence present.

And when you raise safety up, it really gives a chance to address really critical issues as it relates to where should the kids go? What -- it puts above this idea of, of the rights to the other parent to have access. I think a lot of times what happens to county court is it's -- the party goes to the rights of the parents have access to the kids, whatever relationship with the kids, and the courts don't get the evidence information they need around the harm that person might have done to the child over the course of time, and the ways they put their needs in front of the kids needs in an evidentiary hearing around coercive control, particularly one that kind of thinks about safety and harm, you know, slightly brought away than just as somebody in danger of being hit today, but really kind of tells a wider story. I think we'll give Judges what they need to make a decision about whether this should -- safety should be prioritized or this can go down the traditional best interest track.

245 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. And you mentioned specifically a screening tool -- an early screening tool. Can you tell us more about that, and how that works in Australia or whatever -- wherever --

DAVID MANDEL: Yes, that -- they use -- they use a process. And I don't have the name of the tool in front of me right now. But they make family violence screening part of the front door of their family court process. It's a standard element, and they look for it, and they assess for it at the beginning of all their cases. And I think -- I think that's -- I think that's -- I think that's important. And I think there's different ways to develop these systems. And one is to go looking for because it shows up so frequently. And I think other ones is waiting for the litigants to raise it. And I think the more progressive systems go looking for.

This what we do in child welfare systems. We recommend universal screening in child welfare cases, everyone that comes in even educational neglect, or its medical neglect, or it's addiction issues, because the co-occurrence of those issues in that system are so high that a responsible system actively screens universally. I think family court would benefit from similar processes as well.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, I completely agree and doing some form of universal screening that doesn't rely on a victim -- first of all, to identify as a victim because we know many don't even --

DAVID MANDEL: Right.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): We heard today testimony; people didn't even realize that that was something that they had a right to be free from. So not relying on victims, identifying as victims or having to advocate are having to come forth and make claims 246 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and make charges that could then, of course, result in retaliation and greater harm to themselves or their children, not putting the onus on the victim - -

DAVID MANDEL: Right.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): But requiring the system itself to say, "Okay, we're going to do a screening of the family dynamic," because a family, a family is an ecosystem. And unless the court or the decision makers understand what the forces are at play in that ecosystem, how can they make a fully informed decision about what's in the best interest or safety of the child. So, I fully concur that a standardized screening tool that really assesses more than lethality, that really assesses coercive control and power dynamic in a family is critical. So, thank you for being a leader in that and creating that in other states and countries. And I hope that you will help guide us here in Connecticut, to do something similar.

DAVID MANDEL: Thank you.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Senator. Just a brief follow up on that. I -- sorry, I heard you refer to kind of roadmaps and training and the like. I'm wondering from your work nationally, how many other states -- if you know how many other states have a definition of course control actually written into statute?

DAVID MANDEL: I'm not aware. And you know, what, I wouldn't claim to know every single statute. And if you're talking about criminal statutes or family court civil statutes, I'm not aware of many places or any place in the United States where it's written in right now.

247 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And I think it's what's happening overseas is it was passed in England, five years ago, was recently updated. One the best version is the Scottish version that includes pets and children and talks about acts that happen outside the Scottish jurisdiction because they really want a comprehensive view of this.

And so, there's been a lot of discussion. There's discussion about passing course of control laws in Australia right now very actively. But it's a growing wave. But I'm not aware of other states Representative that are there in the -- in the -- in the -- in the -- including right now, but I might not know.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Right, thanks. Appreciate being with us and sharing your expertise with us.

DAVID MANDEL: Sure. You're welcome.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next will be Ruth -- oh, sorry, Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Sorry. I just wanted to answer the question since California has passed -- both California and Hawaii have passed laws with coercive -- codifying coercive control. But California has gone a step further and also said that if coercive control is found, that creates a presumption of custody for the protective parents so that a parent that has been -- that has been adjudicated and abusive parent is no -- not necessarily considered safe for the child either. So, I just want to answer your question, Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thanks, Senator, we can certainly -- yep. Next up will be Ruth Stearns Mandel. And I'm testifying in support of SB 640. And I just want to thank you, Rep. Stafstrom and Winfield and the Members of the joint Committee for asking us here today.

248 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I am a survivor of coercive control in a cult, and this law speaks to the finality of the horror of coercive control when it ends in murder. But as a survivor of childhood coercive control, I know that there are still many living breathing victims whose lives are irrevocably touched by the trauma and the choices of these perpetrators as parents, not just to murder but to control, to shame, to demean, to abuse, and to financially harm their children.

Those children are not just the children of the victim, as one brave 14-year-old survivor, an officer involved domestic violence and coercive control recently told me. Those children are victims in and of themselves. And I wish to acknowledge them here, as they didn't just suffer deaths, but they suffered in life, alongside their parents, as their parents chose to harm them.

As Dr. Emma Katz says on her research on coercive control in children, coercive control can harm children and young people emotionally, psychologically, physically, socially and educationally. And as Luke and Ryan Hart, who lost their mother and sister to their coercively controlling father have said, coercive control is often an undetected, pattern-based crime, which is less about what is done to you, but what is taken away from you.

Coercive control is a liberty crime, where freedoms are removed by the perpetrator's behaviors, which constantly create an atmosphere of fear, alarm and threat in adult and child victims. As children, we feel invisible, and gaslit by professionals, because no one believes the hell that we are experiencing at home because often there are no bruises.

This encapsulates the isolation and danger we face from ignorance of the pattern-based nature of coercive control. Our bodies are steeped in fear of an unpredictable, demeaning, verbally, emotionally and psychologically abusive human, who blames us and 249 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

our cope -- and our other parent for the harm they create. And we live in constant fear, which is often much worse than being beaten.

The impact of that on child wellbeing extends far into adulthood as we have heard, but what is far worse is actually professionals normalizing coercive control out of their ignorance about the pattern- based aspects of it, and calling it relationship issues, high conflict issues. It blinds abuse to the -- and it blinds adults to the harm that we experienced as children, and it continues the cycle going.

When our perpetrator is a person in a position of power, be it a wealthy real estate developer or a police officer, they are very careful to operate just outside the ability of professionals to detect and recognize these patterns of behaviors, which is why it is important to codify an understanding of coercive control inside the law. Professionals must -- thank --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Hey, ma'am, we're -- ma'am we're at the three-minute mark. You should wrap up too.

RUTH STEARNS: Thank you. Professionals must be trained to recognize the patterns of behaviors of coerce and control and the warning signs that children show when they are being perpetrated against at home. You cannot rely on a dislocated shoulder or spiral fractures or head trauma. As professionals, we must see the acts of threats, the kicked-in doors, the removed car keys, the food rationing, the threats into the meaning and the manipulations of the person who is choosing --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yep. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

RUTH STEARNS: Thank you very much.

250 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Appreciate you being with us today and for sharing with us. Questions or comments? Seeing none, I appreciate you being here.

RUTH STEARNS: Thank you,

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Kathleen Russell go next.

KATHLEEN RUSSELL: Yes, hello.

KATHLEEN RUSSELL: Good afternoon Committee Members. I am Kathleen Russell, the Founding Executive Director of the Center for Judicial Excellence, a national nonprofit committed to protecting child abuse and domestic violence survivors and our nation's family courts and to fostering accountability throughout the Judicial branch. For 15 years, the center has been a voice for vulnerable children and a catalyst for child safety at the federal and state level. We're here today to issue strong support for SB 1060. And urge your passage of Jennifer's law.

The center is an official resource to the current HBO miniseries Allen V. Farrow in 2018. We co-led the lobbying effort to pass the first congressional resolution on child safety and family courts with 86 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, which put the U.S. House of Representatives on record for the first time that family courts must improve their adjudication of child custody cases by placing child safety at the forefront, Justice Senator Castor's legislation does.

We've passed numerous laws to protect children and family courts, along with judicial accountability measures such as the first statewide audit of the commission on judicial performance in California, which showed grievous lapses in the oversight of the judicial branch.

Seven months old Aiden Marina, who's been talked about numerous times this morning, pictured here was 251 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

tossed off the Arrigoni Bridge into the Connecticut River by his father who told Aiden's mom that he could make her son disappear any time of the day. She reported, "He told me how he could make me disappear, told me how he could kill me, told me he would put me in the ground." His threats were classic coercive control. Yet when mom asked for her restraining order to be made permanent, the Judge revoked it and berated both parents telling them to "Grow up." We routinely see this by family court Judges all the time. If SB 1060 had been the law in 2015, this sweet boy may well have been protected under Section 2.

I want to close by mentioning a claim the Researcher Jacquelyn Campbell developed a 20-question danger assessment survey to help victims ascertain the risk of homicide. This is the gold standard used by law enforcement, D.V. shelters and courts worldwide. Seven of the 20 questions explicitly describe coercive control. Many child homicides that we research have no history of physical violence, yet coercive control was often there in the family.

Many of the provisions in SB 1060 were also included in formal recommendations by the Maryland workgroup to study child custody proceedings involving child abuse or domestic violence allegations. Headed by the Maryland Secretary of State, this panel of experts met for over a year to study Family Court crisis. Their well -- they recommend --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ma'am. We're --

KATHLEEN RUSSELL: I got one more sentence, thanks. SB 1060 is spot on with the wreck -- recommendations in this 110-page report issued by Maryland experts. Too many children are dying and the courts are not protecting. And this isn't a huge step forward and we strongly support the Bill.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ma'am, let 252 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

me just ask quickly, did Maryland -- based on that report, did Maryland come up with a definition of coercive control that was put into statute?

KATHLEEN RUSSELL: Maryland has an A number of Bills that issued for fourth from the recommendations report. And those are currently being discussed right now. I'm not clear on all of the various Bills, but there are a number of them moving forward.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, thanks. Questions or comments from the Committee? Senator Kasser?

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick comment, because, Kathleen, you're the first to refer to the House congressional resolution 72 that you -- that you help pass. And if you could just restate so this is a bipartisan resolution passed by Congress in 2018, I believe. And what did it essentially tell us, state Legislatures to do? What did it instruct us to do?

KATHLEEN RUSSELL: Yes, this resolution was historic. It was a three-year effort to get this passed by the House unanimously. And the very first provision states child safety. It's -- the House basically says it's the sense of Congress. The child safety should be the first priority of custody and parenting adjudications. And that court should resolve safety risks and claims of family violence first, as a fundamental consideration before assessing other best interest factors.

So, your legislation ties directly in with this congressional resolution. It also deals with the various court appointees that show up in these cases, making sure they're properly trained in domestic violence and child abuse. And you know that all the evidence is peer reviewed research and not junk science, which we see happening in family courts around the country.

253 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much. And thank you so much for your work and your testimony today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, I appreciate you being with us.

KATHLEEN RUSSELL: Thank you. Next up will be Gina Medico.

GINA MEDICO: Yes, thank you. Can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yep. Go ahead, ma'am.

GINA MEDICO: I thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak. My name is Gina Medico. I'm originally from Cromwell, Connecticut and a member of Connecticut Protective Moms. I'm a protective mom trying to keep from happening to other women the abuse I experienced while in family court proceedings. I am testifying in favor of Jennifer's Law, SB 1060 and SB 6. I am testifying today to bring light to how coercive control or emotional abuse is used as a weapon in the courtroom. And we're strategic legal tactics and current laws do not protect women from coercive control. Until I learned what domestic violence or domestic abuse was, I didn't realize that the control started shortly after we met.

It was subtle erosion of my self-esteem and wellbeing, little put downs like making comments about my clothes, making derogatory comments about my friends, how I talk and things like that, repeatedly telling me that I was crazy. I realized that he hardly -- he was hardly home and spent most of his time drinking and not contributing to the care of our children or household chores. When my car was not running right, he would tell me it was only my imagination, and then I would be stuck on the side of the road with two small children. 254 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Like Jennifer Magnano, my former husband told the court that I was mentally unstable because I sought help for abuse -- child abuse. In 1996, there were no mobile phones. When he came home in the early morning hours again, intoxicated, and was -- and I was awakened by his weight on top of me. I tried to move to living room as he knew I had an early work morning -- meeting and the responses -- responsibility of our two young children morning routine. He tried preventing me from leaving the room and then push me over the chairman couch. When I broke free to call for help, he ripped the phone out of the wall. He then removed the distributor cap from my car, disabling it. I grabbed the keys to his truck and pretended that I was walking away from the house. I was able to hop in his car and drive to the payphone down the -- down the street.

Like so many other survivors of domestic violence, we just want the abuse to stop. I call this parent and not the police because I did not want him to be in trouble. When my pleading failed, I tried to leave again. His parents blocked the back exit and he blocked the front door. I stood there for 15 minutes. I kneed him in the groin and his parents convinced him to leave. My active defense were presented to the court that I was abusive towards him. He was a victim because I defended myself and I admitted it. He never admitted to ever touching me. I got a restraining order. However, he got custody of our children. The courts left it up to him to when I was able to see them or not.

It took six years for someone to evaluate my case and determine that my husband was abusive, along with the Judicial system and the mental health system. I was granted shared custody, the verbal abuse continued for another 10 years. Domestic abuse is emotional, mental, financial and social. When a woman is killed, all the money and funding and for shelter, research and education mean nothing. The introduction of this Bill is long 255 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

overdue, and only scratches the surface of the work needs to be done to end domestic abuse. Child custody should never be associated with the phrases such as strategy to win women and children safety, emotional wellbeing, peace of mind are not a sport where the one who is more skilled at manipulating the system wins. I support this Bill and I do hope that we can make some changes in our --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Ma'am.

GINA MEDICO: Thank you --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Appreciate your testimony. Appreciate you being with us to share your story and sticking with us as we -- as we reach our eight here.

GINA MEDICO: Very important that we do something.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Questions or comments. If not, I appreciate I appreciate it and enjoy the rest of your evening.

GINA MEDICO: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sue Shatney?

SUE SHATNEY: Shatney, yes.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead, ma'am.

SUE SHATNEY: Thank you. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members and Distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Sue Shatney from Haddam Neck. I'm a Board Member of Connecticut Protective Moms. I also have my Master's Degree in Social Work and a Certified Sign Language Interpreter. I am also a protective mom trying to keep myself and my children safe.

256 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I'm testifying in favor of Jennifer's Law, SB 1060, the same day I'm forced into what I consider court sanctioned abuse. That is forced mediation with a counter parent who sees through a dirty lens of what he needs and not the needs of the child. I've also submitted written testimony that looks nothing like what I'm saying to you right now. As you can imagine, I've been extremely triggered by reliving some of the issues that our collective moms have had to experience today.

I, too, did not realize what -- until well after that I had left that I was in an abusive relationship. I blamed myself, I developed an anxiety and panic disorder, the long-term impact of coercive control. I am currently in the middle of a custody evaluation where the recommendations do not match the evidence collected. We have been in front of multifamily relations officers and the most recent has identified the issues of coercive control, yet instead of changing the power and control issues, my ex has the recommendations are to give him complete control without having any of the financial and liability to any of his decisions he gets to me.

It is documented that he has isolated me for my family of origin, it is documented that he does not believe and respectfully disagrees or have a different understanding. With anything I say or document, yeah, or forced by the Court to come to agreements. The family relations officer deducted that he does use the litigation system to terrorize and financially hurt me yet blamed me for not following along with his interpretation, yes, his interpretation of what the agreement sets.

I do follow the agreement as written, yet told that I need to be more fit -- flexible to fit his needs without consideration for my daughter's. It is recognized that he has confirmation bias and will only accept information in that moment, in that time, to fit his needs. So intent is questioned, as 257 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the system is set now, intent can be clear, it still doesn't matter because coercive control is not taken into consideration. I am asking for you all to listen today to the survivors and victims. We are the ones who are experiencing what is going on, what is working and what's not working. Please support Jennifer's Law, SB 1060.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you ma'am.

SUE SHATNEY: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I appreciate you being with us and sharing your story. Questions or comments? If not, enjoy the evening.

SUE SHATNEY: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Laura Richards. Is Laura Richards with us? Ms. Richards?

LAURA RICHARDS: Can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can hear you, but your videos not on then. Would you want to up --

LAURA RICHARDS: Okay. I'll put it on. Hold on one second.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): There you go.

LAURA RICHARDS: Okay. Should I start?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yep. Go ahead, ma'am.

LAURA RICHARDS: Thank you. So, thank you for your time. I'm speaking in support of SB 1060. I spent 25 years of my career analyzing violence against women and girls, predominantly male violence and I'm the Former Head of the Homicide Prevention Unit in New Scotland Yard, and I've worked with thousands of victims in the U.K. and here in the U.S. And I successfully spearheaded law reform on coercive 258 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

control in the U.K. will be criminalized it in 2015, and I helped draft the law and the guidance.

Now here in America, four to five women a day and murdered by a current or former male partner, and most of these cases are about are about coercive control. So much more must be done. Too often people think about domestic abuse as being physical. But in my experience, most cases involve psychological, financial, emotional, physical and sexual to reinforce power and control. And there's coercive control, which is the most insidious and dangerous of all the behaviors. And coercive control is a strategic behavioral regime, it's a pattern of behavior and it's used to control dominate subjugate and entrap women, it includes physical and non-physical behaviors and that its basic level rules and regulations are introduced with a fear of consequences broken with the sole purpose of exacting obedience.

But the abuse is personalized and idiosyncratic and so it slowly, the abuse of would take her agency autonomy and self-esteem. And in my experience, in most cases, of coercive control, there's likely to be sexual coercion. And some perpetrators we use a regime of behaviors to very effectively hide the recognized crimes, such as raping forced imprisonment and often the rules are introduced under the guise of, "It's for your own good or your own protection," and their control and is as elaborate as a spider's web.

The abusers are often manipulative. They frequently weaponize the family justice system, social system and criminal justice system against the victims. Therefore, proof of intent and the burden being placed upon the victims must not be required within the law. It's an almost impossible standard to meet. And we must focus on the perpetrator's behavior not the victim.

259 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And my research reviewing murders shows that 76% of domestic violence, murders, happen on separation and arguments about child contact and child custody precede the murders. I estimate that about 80% happen within the first six months of separation and there's often coercive control pre-separation and post-separation, with the women's fears being routinely dismissed by professionals.

“If she stays, she will be killed. If she leaves, he would track her down using the family and criminal justice systems to find her and kill her. She cannot win.” Jennifer Magnano’s case highlights this sadly and you heard from Jennifer's children, Jessica, David and Emily who were also victims and I’m proud to be working with them now.

Jennifer did everything right. She played by the rules, and she was brutally murdered and now three children are growing up without their mother like thousands of others. Coercive control correlates significantly reflect familicide and femicide and that's why I call these cases “murder in slow motion.” There are many opportunities to prevent them and professionals in the Family Court criminal justice system can play a key role in protecting women and children.

And I’m just going to finish up by saying that there's an opportunity to ensure that this happens by enacting SB 1060. It will save lives and it will save money. Thank you for listening.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. We have a question from Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, for coming in. It sounds like you've got an awful lot of experience in this field. One thing that I’m not sure has been discussed, what is the typical age range of people in these relationships? Almost everybody who has testified so far has testified about people who have kids. Is that 260 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

always the case? Is it typical? What's the general age range?

LAURA RICHARDS: There isn't a general age range. We know a lot of young people are in relationships, where a person is using coercive control. And I’m not using abusive relationship intentionally because there is always an actor, and I’ve also worked many cases with older victims in their 60s and 70s.

So there really is -- as we identify coercive control more and more and we educate people, of course, more victims come forward and now we've got five years-worth of data in England and Wales. So, there's no typical victim, there's no typical age group, but we know when it happens in families like with the Magnano case, that it affects the children and normally the female adult.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, well, thank you very much. That was my only question. I appreciate your time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LAURA RICHARDS: You’re welcome.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator Kasser?

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much, Ms. Richards. What an impressive background and career you have. I know you're a criminal behavior analyst and you said you were the Head of the Homicide Prevention Unit at New Scotland Yard. So, you really understand more than us, certainly, what leads an abuser to perpetrate a crime. And you said also that 76% of domestic violence, murders, happen around custody.

Can you explain a little bit more about the correlation between -- if it's nonviolent coercive control, what is the predictable pattern of when it actually becomes violent? Is that around custody cases oftentimes? Or what leads to violence?

261 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

LAURA RICHARDS: Well, firstly, I run the Homicide Prevention Unit, the Sexual Offences Section and the Violent Crime Intelligence Unit and New Scotland Yard and I was the Home Offices Violence Advisor. So, really, my 25 years I’ve spent analyzing and profiling these cases and profiling dangerous men. The one thing that I see a couple of things that happens in terms of motivation, many perpetrators do it because they can, and their entitlement, and patriarchy, and our culture, and our ecosystem unfortunately, enables the behavior.

And they then get greenlit and it is about power and control, it's about being dominant and getting their needs met. And that's why the relationship is very much steepened. You normally get an imbalance of one trying to meet the other's needs all the time and there isn't balance, and there isn't any equilibrium and it's when a victim is trying to assert her autonomy that things can escalate.

So, having interviewed many perpetrators and ask them, “Why did you do what you did?” Some would just say simply, “Because I could.” Because no one held them accountable, because no one stopped them, no one said, “That’s not acceptable.” And that's why I believe we have to have laws that include coercive control and the definition to make it clear, it's not acceptable.

Now vis-à-vis separation. It's the heightened time of risk. It takes someone at least seven times to successfully leave the abuser. And if there is finality, i.e., there's a child contact proceeding where they don't get the custody or if there's a trigger events, that finality point can be a catastrophic element within that situation, and it is the perpetrators last act, if you will, “If I can't have you, no one can. If you report me, I will kill you.”

All these things are said and we know that when there's coercive control and stalking, at least one- 262 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

in-two, will act on that. But again, most professionals aren't trained on this and that's why it's so important that training takes place, because this figure of four to five women in the U.S., every day being coercive be controlled and murdered is alarming, and you good people have a great opportunity here to change that.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. It is alarming, but what gives me hope is that it's also identifiable and if we wanted to, we could identify it with screening, with training, with early intervention with early assessment, so that perhaps that 76% number that you gave -- 76% of domestic violence, murders happen either at or during some form of Family Court proceeding when the abuser is losing or has lost control of the victim. And that's certainly what happened in the Jennifer Magnano case.

Since you are an international expert on this and you have advised other countries and legislature's on how to go about this, and in this country, we're really just at the beginning stages of trying to identify coercive control and codify it in a way that really protects victims. Do you have any advice for us?

LAURA RICHARDS: Yes. I’m working in Australia currently and they are going to legislate on coercive control. And I think to steer away from intent is my advice. And to ensure professionals are trained to understand it is the pattern and to put the perpetrators’ behavior at the center of asking questions. And particularly when we know that so many of them at least one-in-four are serial abusers, so they do it to multiple women.

So, my advice would be that it's multiple things that needs to be done. It's never just one thing. And vis-à-vis screening, I did create the DASH Risk Model in the UK, which is the Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour Based Violence 263 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Risk model. When used by the Metropolitan Police Service, we reduce murders by 58% which was 33 women less dead every year. So that equates to about £1.54 million pounds to £2 million pounds per murder.

And I don't like to put it in financial terms, but you save money and you save lives, and at a time where everyone's looking at resources, why would you not want to do this? To get the best tools, the professionals trained and bringing up-to-date best legislation based on my experience, people's experience, who have been doing this across the world. I would highly recommend that you listen very carefully to the Magnano children and to all the survivors today, because they lived an experience must be reflected within the Family Justice system, the Criminal Justice system and the Social Justice system.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. Thank you so much for everything you do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Howard?

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, MS. Richards for being here and sharing your experience with us. I think it's been very valuable and very important. And I think you nailed it. I think you're absolutely right. My experience, having investigated domestic homicides as well that it's when the perpetrators losing control, that is often the catalyst.

One of the things that I found and I’m interested in your opinion on this is by the time victims find themselves in a coercive control situation or any situation where they're being controlled, it's difficult for them at that point to find the pathway out. I would imagine you would agree and certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that once someone is in that situation, it's a lot more difficult to educate them the way out. 264 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I’m wondering if in your work in another state or another country, we've taken some steps to educate people even before they’re in a relationship as to what their options are and what the warning signs are to keep a lookout for before it gets that point? If you could speak to that, because I think it's relevant, I would certainly appreciate it.

LAURA RICHARDS: Yes. Absolutely key. The early intervention and prevention as you heard from Emily Thibeault about her mother Jennifer and then the pattern repeating because she was just so used to living with that behavior. So, in the UK, we're spending a lot of time investing in educating young people and in social media campaigns, as well as in the U.S.

I was part of creating Dirty John which you may have seen on TV or heard the podcast, or the documentary series, Dirty John the Dirty Truth which was showing how Debra Newell was coercively controlled, and it was a gradual process and all the behaviors that John did, which were highly idiosyncratic. The more you can talk to that in your popular culture -- so, it's in radio, it's on podcast, it's in TV shows, it's in schools where we talk about not just the mechanics of sexual behaviors, we talk about the healthy aspects of relationships, what is healthy? What is love? And what's control?

Because right now there's a huge -- well there's a lot of people that are confused about what's love and what's controlling behavior, because oftentimes the abuser will dress it up as, “I’m doing this because I love you and I’m jealous because I care about you,” so, the more we can do to educate the better.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): I thank you for the answer and one final question. When say in schools, what age are you doing that? Because there's a critical age with kids. Right? There’s a point in their life, 265 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

where they think, “Well, this will never happen to me. This doesn't apply to me.” And then there's a point I don't know where that is where they can accept that it could. I guess that depends on their home experience. Where are you doing that now? What age?

LAURA RICHARDS: So, teenagers and up, but obviously younger people are much more aware now because of being online and because of social media. So, once people start asking those questions and start having relationships between their peer group and they become sexual, it's the age that when we talk about what sex is, we should also be talking about what love is, what's healthy and what's not.

I’ve worked with far too many young people, who asked me questions about very controlling behavior and they're telling me, “It's because he says he loves me. And he does it, because such and such.” At those points I’m hearing what the excuses are, but also for young boys they mirror what surround them. So, it's not necessarily their intention to behave like that, but the earlier we get in and help redress that balance and ensure that younger people know what's healthy and what's not, the better.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Have you been doing this long enough, that you can speak to the efficiency of it or its effectiveness? In other words, have you been doing that education with young folks ahead of time long enough to say, “Hey, we're seeing that it's working.” Or not quite long enough to make that determination yet?

LAURA RICHARDS: Well, I can say anecdotally we know where it works where you talk to young people and, like you heard from Emily, when she read the Scott’s letters. Even though she knew her mother had been killed, she needed someone to sit down with her and actually say, “This is the pattern repeating.” Because too often you just get used to that behavior if you've been brought up in it. 266 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, we know that when we do manage to do social media campaigns, when we do engage, I can talk, personally about hundreds of young people that I’ve engaged with and help them reframe and understand what's happening and understand -- I called them the ‘red flags’, so that they can then make a decision about whether this is a relationship that's good for them and healthy for them, or whether it's one that they should think about exiting before they're emotionally invested.

And the sooner you're in to help them have those conversations and you’re accessible to mothers, fathers, because younger people will talk to their families and their friends before they will come to someone like me or someone like you because that's what happens in all situations. That's why we must put material online in social media campaigns and you never know how many people you touch or reach. Even with my podcast, Real Crime Profile and Crime Analyst. I reach millions of people all across the world.

Some of them write to me and say, “Because you've talked about coercive control, I realized you were describing me.” You can't capture that metric. It's very hard to say, but I can tell you, certainly from doing a lot of my work that I do now in the media through TV shows, through podcasting, I reach far more people than I ever would from sitting on a Zoom call, or going into a classroom, or going into a school. And that's why it has to be a mass multimedia education campaign.

It's not just about what happens in schools, it's about getting the message out across the board and using every medium possible to do so.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Yes. I think that's an excellent point. I really thank you so much for your testimony. Thanks for being here, for 267 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

answering my questions, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.

LAURA RICHARDS: It's a pleasure, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Than you. Further questions or comments? If not, I appreciate you being with us, ma’am.

LAURA RICHARDS: Thanks.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Frank Riccio.

FRANK RICCIO: Good evening, Chairman Stafstrom, Senator Winfield, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Frank Riccio, I’m a Criminal Defense attorney from Bridgeport and I practice for 22 years. I’m also currently the President of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

We have submitted testimony in support of Raised Senate Bill 6 and House Bill 6557. I want to focus my testimony actually on Raised House Bill 6648 and this deals with that concerning sexual assault in the absence of consent. The concern from the Defense Bar and I think it's a large concern, is that the Bill as proposed completely redefines consent in a manner that unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof.

It shifts the burden of proof to the accused to prove affirmative consent to each act rather than requiring the prosecution to prove lack of consent, and this is violative of many constitutional provisions -- the presumption of innocence, for one, so, that affects the process concerns. A defendant in a criminal case has the right to remain silent is not required to testify against himself.

268 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

What this modification, this proposal does, is it modifies -- well, it doesn't modify, it forces the defendant to have to testify when the Constitution says he does not have to. The American Bar Association two years ago tried to pass a resolution with similar language and that did not pass. It was postponed due to concerns about this very issue that it affects constitutional rights of the criminally accused.

Many states, as my testimony states, have tried to pass similar resolutions and similar Bills and in many states as stated, they've all been turned down. In fact, the Center for Prosecutorial Integrity in 2019 even asked the American Bar Association to vote this down due to concerns about the changing and the shifting of the burden of proof from really away from what has been the bedrock of our Criminal Justice system. You're forcing defendants to have to testify and you're forcing that the state do not have to prove lack of consent, which is how every sexual assault case that's tried and is considered works.

Our national affiliate, the National Association of Criminal Defense lawyers also has stated the same thing. They have suggested language that I would suggest to the Committee be considered and it is the last paragraph in my written testimony. What it does do is it affirms that the burden of proof not shift the prosecution much for each and every element of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Consent may be expressed by words or actions or it may be inferred from behavior both action and inaction, while physical or verbal resistance in it of itself is not necessary to prove lack of consent, the absence of physical or verbal resistance may be considered.

So, the submission is that, as currently constituted, it is very concerning that it would violate state and Federal Constitutional laws regarding due process and the Fifth Amendment 269 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

concerns regarding the right to remain silent and I will answer any questions that the Committee has.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sure. Attorney Riccio, I think, Representative Gilchrest's is up.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Riccio. And I apologize, I’m now in my car, but I am parked. I want to start by saying as the proponent of this Bill, I would really like the opportunity to work together and I’ll take a look at your language. But I did have some questions. When you're speaking about this switching the burden of proof, how is this proposal different than what we currently have in State Statute with regards to robbery, or car theft, which also mentioned consent?

And I contend that beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecutor is still going to have to prove that there was the lack of consent. And so, how does this proposal differ from those other laws in terms of shifting the burden of proof?

FRANK RICCIO: This proposal by changing the language of how the term consent is defined, creates a burden shift in that it causes a defendant to essentially -- it makes it a strict liability crime in that. It essentially says that a defendant is assumed to have not had consent, unless he or she presents evidence to prove that there was consent. And I understand that the comparison that you're making on this -- and I would really appreciate, working together with you on this.

The concern is that this burden, it's a clear burden shifting because the way that the term consensus define, is creating an affirmative consent obligation. I understand that the phrase affirmative consent is not specifically within the Bill, but the language in it essentially says so much. So, it forces a defendant who not normally would have or ever have the right to testify as a 270 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

choice to not testify, if he or she chooses, forces that person to do that.

So, I understand the comparison, but especially in these sexual assault cases of which I’ve tried many over the years, there is a typical practice by prosecutors to prove a lack of consent. And then a defendant can do what he or she decides to do. It’s in their Defense.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you. So, the language was taken from the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision, so I think it is important for folks to know that currently, sexual assault in the fourth- degree references consent, but it was never defined. So, this is the definition that is currently being used with regards to sexual assault in the fourth degree. The American Law Institute does recommend a contextual consent definition, and so, I would love to work with you all and have conversations about that potential definition.

FRANK RICCIO: I would appreciate that. Thank you.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, and I want to just publicly thank both of you for your willingness to work on this. I do think it's an important issue. I do think this is one of those that we can get there, we just got to get the language kind of tightened up and cleaned up. I think passing new laws is great, but we need to make sure they pass constitutional muster because if the they don't, they're really not worth the paper they're written on.

So, I look forward to you guys connecting. I know the 's Office has reached out on this as well, so I would ask that they be part of this conversation as well and you guys get back to the Committee sooner rather than later, so that we can try to move this up before you have to. 271 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

FRANK RICCIO: Absolutely, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right. Thanks, Attorney Riccio. Good seeing you as always.

FRANK RICCIO: Same here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We'll see you around Bridgeport.

FRANK RICCIO: Yes.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Alina Marquez Reynolds.

ALINA MARQUEZ REYNOLDS: Yes, thank you. Good evening, distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Alina Marquez Reynolds and I’m the General Counsel and Senior Advisor to the Justice Initiative at the Grace Farms Foundation. And, along with my colleague, Rod Khattabi who's the Director of the Justice Initiative and really with the whole team there at the foundation, we work to combat human trafficking here in our state, across the United States and around the globe.

And we do that by building the capacity of Law Enforcement, and agencies, and service provider organizations to effectively identify victims of trafficking, to employ trauma informed best practices at every step of the way and to bring perpetrators of these crimes to justice.

I’m testifying here tonight in support of the amended vacatur language and an act concerning human trafficking. As a former Assistant United States Attorney here in the district of Connecticut and with Rod, my colleague, who's the former Resident Agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations for the New Haven office.

272 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We have seen firsthand how the proposed changes to the vacatur statute in this state would better help victims of trafficking and how, in turn, that would make our communities safer. As former law enforcement officials experienced in investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases, we know that defendants who operate trafficking enterprises exert control over every single aspect of that criminal enterprise.

What we know comes from first-hand accounts of survivors. In case-after-case, survivors teach that exploitation and suffered at the hands of traffickers, took away their ability to act freely and that almost everything they did was at the direction and under the control of the offender. Not surprisingly, this results in trafficking victims who plead guilty to or are convicted of crimes and these crimes go well beyond just prostitution -- includes narcotics offenses, larceny offenses and really any type of crime that you’d have to use in order to run a trafficking enterprise.

Trafficking victims and survivors who find themselves saddled as such criminal convictions deserve criminal justice relief. They deserve the best chance possible at rebuilding their lives after suffering the of trafficking. While our State and our country grapple with criminal justice reform, expanding the vacatur language to include crimes other than prostitution is a meaningful step towards advancing the successful re-entry of victims in our communities,

A victim of trafficking does not have the right to choose whether they will or will not obey their trafficker because an action is illegal. They are subject to physical and emotional damage should they not follow orders. We are asking that the law better reflect these circumstances. We can and we should provide a legal pathway for victims to vacate crimes that were forced upon them. Victims deserve 273 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

a second chance. And with that I would open it up to any questions the Members may have in particular around whether there should be any restrictions on the types of crimes that victims could seek to vacate.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right, I’ll take the bait. Should there be any restrictions with respect to A & B felonies, as we heard testimony from the State's Attorney's office today?

ALINA MARQUEZ REYNOLDS: Right. So, I was here this morning and I understand where she's coming from, and you know with my prosecutor hat on, I know the concern is you’re going to do justice and you want to make sure justice is done at every stage of the prosecution. And there are what I think as the way it's written, it provides enough safety that justice will still be done.

I know from the cases I did and have prosecuted here in this district that, at the outset of the case when we first make , the prosecutor has a lot of discretion. We have a great amount of discretion as to who to charge, what charges to bring, and on the federal side we had enormous amount of resources to provide to the women that we identified, usually women as victims.

And I know from cases that no matter how hard we try, these victims at that stage in the case were often still controlled by the offender, by the trafficker. The traffickers take years and years of grooming these women and no matter how many times, so I would meet with them, or the agents would meet with them, there were still willing to commit additional crimes like obstructing justice or perjury in the or getting rid of evidence.

So, what I think is important is that we offer and we build into the Criminal Justice system and I think that's what the State Attorney does, we build 274 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

in the possibility for relief down the road at the conclusion of the case after a victim who took a charge, went to jail and was convicted. At that point, if she makes the case, if the prosecutor as the law provides has a right to weigh in and as it's written the judge still has the discretion to deny the motion, so I think it's important -- I agree with the way it's written and I think there's nothing there to protect against .

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you I’m. I’m seeing no further questions or comments. I appreciate you being with us and sharing your expertise on this.

ALINA MARQUEZ REYNOLDS: Thank you very much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I am going to pass the gavel back to Chairman Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Next, we have Ivelisse Rivera-Godreau, followed by Maureen Martowska and Joan Kloth-Zanard. Is Ivelisse in? Ivelisse Rivera-Godreau? Maureen Martowska?

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Yes, that's me. Can you hear me?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I can hear you. You have your three minutes.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Thank you. While I support the efforts, my name is Maureen and I’m a retired attorney and while I support the efforts to further protect legitimate victims of domestic violence, I cannot support this Bill. I believe the current language will weaponize bad actors who raise false allegations of domestic violence in order to gain the system to obtain speedy custody of their children.

Coercive control with the inclusion of isolation now opens the door for PA victims to equal us this Bill 275 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

whereas isolation is also a hallmark of PA. False allegations undermine and hurt legitimate claims of both domestic violence and parental alienation victims and obstructs the ability of the Court to get to the truth.

Perjury though mentioned many times and is rendered meaningless because Family Courts, mostly do not enforce consequences for perjury, which further incentivizes the false allegations to gain the system. The changes I feel are needed is to eliminate Lines 523 through 540 of Bill 1060.

Lines 535 through 538 mandates that the Court identify in its order any contributing behaviors by the other parent as to why a child may not want contact. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding between parental estrangement and parental alienation. Parental alienation is the unreasonable and unjustified rejection of the other parent that is encouraged by one parent.

Parental estrangement is the reasonable rejection by the child, which may include contributions of one of both parents. In alienation cases, there's no need to identify the basis for the child's rejection since by its very definition, it's unjustifiable and unreasonable rejection by the child, meaning there is no reasonable behaviors or contributions by the other parent that the Court needs to identify.

Additionally, Lines 523 to 527 prohibits the Court from removing a child from the alienator if there was an established positive relationship. And this can't be used for the purpose to improve the alienated parents’ relationship. In translation, this means the alienator can't have the alienated child removed just to repair or improve the damage relationship with the other parent.

Professionals and parental alienation will advise you that this approach is contra indicated in severe alienation cases where complete removal from an 276 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

alienated parent is not only preferred, but clinically necessary so that the manipulated child can be helped in the absence of interference and undermining the by the alienating parent.

Next, Lines 531 through 535 prohibit identifying and labeling --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Martowska?

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Okay. I’ll wind this up then. Labeling any evidence presented in court custody matters as PA, unless an evidentiary hearing with expert testimony meets Daubert standards. This is an attempt to delegitimize parental alienation by requiring a full-blown evidentiary hearing with experts.

Just to clarify, parental Alienation is recognized by the American Bar Association, the American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry, the AFCC, the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Martowska?

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Just two others, and American Pediatrics, the American Association of Pediatrics and the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. And I’m welcome to take any questions if there are any.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Representative Dubitsky has a comment or a question.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming in. We have heard from many witnesses tonight, or all day -- well, actually, we heard a couple of things. We heard that aren't the alienation isn't really a thing? And does it really exist and we also heard some witnesses that seem to indicate that it was, but it only worked against the abused parent. 277 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Can we hear what your opinion is on what clinical alienation is and isn’t.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Yes. Parental alienation -- and I can attest to this only because my son -- I’m a grandmother, an alienated grandmother. This case, this is so similar to -- but domestic violence victims are so similar to parental alienation victims. They have so much alike that they should be working together. Because parental alienation victims fully respect that they are legitimate claims for parental alienation.

We have lived it. We've been 16 years, we've seen the gamut as an attorney and as an impacted alienated person who's been heavily involved in parental alienation and bringing to the Legislative Office building. I have been part of that with other legislators to present parental alienation, having boards of experts that included Dr. Miller, we had Linda Gottlieb, we had many, many people come in to give these presentations, to give the statistical information that is needed to show that this is a real item, it does exist.

It has to be addressed, because in both cases, domestic violence and parental alienation required the courts, just as you've heard from domestic violence victims, one should not negate the other. They both exist. They both are real, but when we have false allegations, it really undermines the system and then uncovers the Family Court process, especially in a pandemic error when Judge Albis has just introduced the triage and pathways initiative, specifically aimed at expediting cases getting to a faster resolution and unfortunately whereas I do believe this legislation domestic parental alienation victims would support the fact that you're trying to protect people who have exhibited coercive behavior.

278 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

But practically, in the system we have today, in the pandemic system, you are looking at an elongated process with a backlog -- just in Hartford alone and this was just recently engaging with the Court on a remote resolution date, there was over 1000 cases in backlog, never mind what's coming into the Court. To get a contempt heard, we're looking at three months, domestic violence, victims and parental alienation victims need an expedited avenue to get immediate intervention. Swift intervention is what's needed in both camps.

It requires the resources, the personnel, the dedication and what you've heard exactly from domestic violence victims is very true for parental alienation. There needs to be certification and training by professionals that are well-recognized, pure-recognized and have demonstrated an expertise in education in being able to identify both types of issues and --

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. I don't mean to cut you off, but I think you're starting to go a little bit far afield from my initial question. But let me ask you this. We have heard testimony that parental alienation is often used sort of as a counter-attack and that when one party -- typically the abused party -- brings up issues of abuse and that the other party will then come in and counter-attack with parental alienation as a charge against the abused person. What would you say about that?

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: I say that this is why we have the judges and it's so critical that the judges be able, with their discretion, to see the facts before them and make the decision, having been well-trained and well-educated which, right now, I have to agree with the camp that they perhaps are not as well educated and trained as they need to be. It does take quite a bit of information and understanding and study to get to that point, but it needs to be done.

279 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

People who are from the parental alienation deal with that and have dealt with it for years, just like domestic violence. When you do not see your children simply because the other parent is saying that, “Gee, I’ve got my kids engaged in activities on the dates that they're supposed to see the other parent,” and their activities take priority. When there are all types of excuses given to not abide by Court orders and the Court not actually enforcing those orders, it creates a big issue for both camps.

So yes, parental alienation is a very real thing. Imagine having access to your child, stripped from you. It’s horrendous. So, the judge, there needs to be an independent party and that part that judge needs to hear all the facts and all the issues before it. Yes, that needs to happen in both cases. I do believe there is legitimate claims for domestic violence and there's legitimate claims for parental abuse.

But I will tell you one thing, if you do anything, you need to have the bite of perjury and enforceable consequences to when you have false allegations made. Because without it, you are just incentivizing the weaponization of this Bill and creating more litigation, which will make your cases more backlog for both camps. It's very critical, but this is --

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Is it you’re feeling that that it does not exist at the moment?

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: I’m sorry I couldn't hear you.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Is it you’re feeling that does not exist at the moment?

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: That, 16 years of being in and out of the Hartford Family Court tells me that does not exist. And also, conversations with my legal peers would have readily acknowledge that implementation and consequences for false 280 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

allegations and perjury needs to be enforced. In other states, we just had a symposium by shared parenting where we have experts, such as Dr. Heinz Dr. Fabricius from the University of Arizona who testified that even Arizona found that by implementing such consequences, a price to be paid, whether it is modifying the custody, implementing fines, sanctions have an absolute consequence on making sure that false allegation does not undermine domestic violence -- legitimate domestic violence claims and legitimate parental alienation claims.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Well, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your giving us your responses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: You're welcome.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Fishbein?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Maureen. Nice to see you. I can tell you that I do know that parental alienation exists. I guess part of the problem is that it's subjective. What one person thinks may be alienation, to them is not necessarily alienation to another. The scenario I give you is you have a mom and dad, two kids, and mom is in an abusive relationship. Mom takes it upon herself for protection of her children to not have them around the father, for whatever reason -- he drinks, has a temper and that kind of stuff.

She in good faith, does not want the children to be subject to the abuse that she has she has suffered and that's a legitimate action right on her behalf. From his perspective though, he claims, “She's not letting the around the children” and that's parental alienation. Right?

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Well, no. I think that's a misunderstood concept. Just as you heard testimony from the domestic violence camp where there are 281 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

screening tools, the STARS model on people who are professionally trained and educated in parental alienation would tell you about the Five-Factor model. That Five-Factor model actually involves assessing whether the child contact. In that contact, is there a manifestation of refusal by the child?

The second step would be was there a previously good relationship between that parent? The third step would be, is there any history of abuse or neglect beforehand? The fourth step would be, are there alienating behaviors, and there are 17 of them that are identified by those well-educated in parental alienation. Lastly, there are eight manifestations of alienation. So, there is a model that can clinically be used to determine whether there is true parental alienation.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I don't disagree and all I was saying was that he would claim in that situation more than likely, that parental alienation is going on.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And then the Court would hear evidence of all of those STAR factors that you just went through and then make a determination, based upon the weighing of them, credibility witnesses all that stuff whether or not it rose to that level, but you would agree with me that takes time.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Yes. Yes, it does take time.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And it takes many times in those legitimate cases of parental alienation. You have a GAL; you've got a family relations evaluation that takes usually about six months. You have a lot of engagement by the court before there's an ultimate determination. Correct? That’s the process.

282 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Yes. There is there is a process in place for that, yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, part of what I heard you say was the judges are not effectively trained about parental alienation, those kinds of things? What is your basis? Have you gone through the judge’s training?

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Well, let me just put it this way, I do know, for instance, there was a judicial institute that trains judges on certain aspects. GALs get training as well as far as the different things that they'll encounter in family cases. But the training, let's just say that I believe that both domestic violence and parental alienation really requires a certification level of dealing with this because, in effect, really, in both cases, we're dealing with emotional abuse of the children. Emotional child abuse.

And I think that, right now, the way that things have evolved in society in the increasing numbers we're seeing of claims of domestic violence and also parental alienation, that there has been increasing research on ways to identify it to assist these judges. I don't believe that the training has been really comprehensive enough or intense enough. There are maybe some trainings, but it would be interesting to understand myself. I’m not claiming that I know everything, but it would be very interesting to see how many -- what are the number of hours? With whom did they train? Have they trained with different groups of experts? And are there different theories about parental alienation?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I don't want to get that -- if that's the case, then you know there's ways that we could address that. I’m just trying to get to under what basis do you make the representation? Because I went through the GAL training and I think we spent like a whole day on parental alienation and we heard from experts and that kind of stuff. And 283 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

you could have gone through the training. I don't know.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Well, no, and I am going to correct you there because, let me tell you, in my 16 years of being in the Court, it took me approximately two years to fully come to understand the concept of parental alienation and that's because of the disinformation, as well as the overwhelming amount of information and the misunderstanding of parental alienation.

For instance, a lot of people don't understand that parental alienation typically is identified or connected with Cluster B traits of personality -- -- there are there's a bunch of different mental health issues, and depending on where you get your training and what parental alienation -- for instance judges. I was involved with the Connecticut Coalition for Family Court Reform for several years. I’ve had many parents come to me who've had a judge that said they don't believe in parental alienation.

And just here, as you can see in this legislation in this Bill before you, they want to eliminate in lines -- let's go back here -- they want to eliminate the ability of somebody involved in parental alienation, to bring evidence forward and label it as parental alienation until you can bring forth a full-blown evidentiary hearing with all the costly mandates that follow with it, with getting experts to identify --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Can I just --

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: -- the scientifically and professionally accepted in the community and peer- reviewed.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And that's of concerned, and so as we have this conversation, can you just point 284 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

me to the lines of the Bill? Just so that I can read that as we're talking?

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Yes. Lines 531 to 535 and it says “A Court may not admit evidence of any psychological or medical theory or label that is related to the child's resistance to maintain contact with a parent unless such evidence is generally accepted by the scientific and professional community.” What would happen if a Bill said that domestic violence victims could not admit evidence of “coercive control” without mounting the same huge expensive legal defense that comes with an evidentiary hearing?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I know where that language comes from. That's Daubert Challenge, essentially, ascertaining but whoever wrote this -- well, you and I both know that parental alienation comes in different flavors and --

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Right. Exactly.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): -- employed in different manners. I don't know that anybody could always meet that bar in those cases. So, I really thank you for bringing that language to my attention in here

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Yes. You’re more --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): -- and I thank you for the discussion, too.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: You're more than welcome, and again I would urge you and the others to look at the languages in Lines 523 through 540.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I thank you for that and you have a good evening.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: You, too.

285 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative. Other comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Comments or questions? I’m seeing none. Thank you very much for joining us and to offer your testimony. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.

MAUREEN MARTOWSKA: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We have Ivelisse Rivera- Godreau, Joan Kloth-Zanard, Ilene Braunstein. Is Ivelisse Rivera-Godreau in? Joan Kloth-Zanard?

JOAN KLOTH-ZANARD: Good evening. While I support portions of Bill 1060, there are serious legal and constitutional and psychological abuse flaws. I am a victim of abuse. With 35 years of experience, training and education, including Guardian ad Litem training, domestic violence training, masters and marriage and family therapy, author and founder of the oldest, largest running nonprofit for parental alienation, now you know where I’m going.

I am here speaking for hundreds of parents in Connecticut and thousands around the world who are afraid to speak up because of retaliation. Whether false or true allegations of coercive control and custodial interference, my nonprofit helps them all. Domestic violence and coercive control is genderless, raceless, colorless, creedless, odorless and religiousness.

Think the recent John Mast case, the Rod McCall case in Texas, and so many more abused fathers. My husband is a victim of abuse and alienation by his second wife. Coercive control is a form of impeding a relationship with a healthy loving parent. It is the precursor to physical, domestic violence and old domestic violence cases. Thus, parental alienation, which is the impediment of a relationship is part of the key to recognizing when a family is at risk. Every one of the women who spoke about their domestic violence case has the same signs and 286 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

symptoms and alienating behaviors as the parents and children that I work with. To say there was no evidence or research is to say that domestic violence does not exist either.

There are years of research that shows men are abused at the same rate by women. Using emergency room studies where male victims of domestic violence, refused to allow the ER to report it. Why? Because they were afraid of having it turned around on them. Furthermore, if you don't believe it exists, then you need to hear the voices of the children who have spoken up on our monthly webinars called Childhood Interrupted.

These children speak about what it is like, what they heard, what they felt, what they wanted, what they knew, what they needed and more. Alienation is real, it is not junk signs. As to these mothers who have been falsely accused, I have helped quite a few falsely-accused mothers not only get their kids back but get their kids back from DCF. It's just a bit of a Catch-22. What happens with these mothers who were falsely accused of alienation, DCF tells them they're not allowed to return the children.

So, they don't, but this is a Catch-22 because DCF never tells the Family Court and there's a Court order in place that says that they must return the children for visitation. They don't return them because DCF tells them they can’t, they’ll be charged with neglect. They return them. If they don't return them, they get charged with alienation. This is a failure between DCF and the courts.

I do not care what we call it -- coercive controlling a child relationship with the other parent is child abuse. The signs and symptoms or behaviors are exactly the same as coercive control. I have a program called “Three Strikes, You're Out” back in 2014. I said it just like that to the judiciary.

287 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Kloth-Zanard, your three minutes has elapsed. Could you summarize?

JOAN KLOTH-ZANARD: Yes, I am. This program, I offered this up. It would help. It would allow only 12 weeks and three chances for parents to comply with Court orders. Education is imperative, I have offered to do education for free. Those opposed to this theory are harming children further. I also believe that in the states where coercive control --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Kloth-Zanard?

JOAN KLOTH-ZANARD: I’m rounding it up now. Where coercive control passed, they did not eliminate alienation and, as far as this delicious malicious litigation, this is what [inaudible] orders are for. We don't need legislation, we have laws.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Kloth-Zanard, I’m going to ask you to stop. I appreciate it, but we have a lot of people left to go. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I don't see any. Did you offer written testimony as well?

JOAN KLOTH-ZANARD: Yes, I did, but my I spoke differently from my written testimony. There are three flyers that provides statistical data of the past 35 years that talk about the miss, the truths, parental alienation is real and that parental alienation can cause domestic violence.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. Ms. Kloth-Zanard, if you if you want, you can still submit those if you want--

JOAN KLOTH-ZANARD: They were submitted with my testimony. I’m hoping everybody got them.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. Well, I’ll check after hearing. Thank you very much for joining us 288 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

this evening and for offering your testimony. I hope you enjoy the rest of the evening. We have Ilene Braunstein, Brian Mezick, Dr. Stephanie Leite. Is Ilene Braunstein in?

ILENE BRAUNSTEIN: I am.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have your three minutes.

ILENE BRAUNSTEIN: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Ilene Braunstein. I’ve been working in human and social services for 30 years and for 15, I’ve overseen healing emotionally abused lives, HEAL, which provides individual and group support for women and men in Connecticut and beyond.

I’m speaking today in support of SB 1060. To underscore the need for a more thorough understanding of family and intimate partner abuse that will enable the expansion of protection for those victimized as well as those attempting to escape and achieve a higher quality of life and far too often just to save her life.

Physical abuse is in arguably horrific, but by its very nature, it's the visible tip of the iceberg. It has already been said that defining domestic violence in solely physical terms has us missing the humongous base of the iceberg. There is no one demographic or population affected by coercive control, psychological, emotional and financial abuse, workplace harassment and even abuse perpetrated within the heart of a seemingly innocuous faith community.

The intersectionality of poverty, sexism, ageism, gender identity bias systemic racial , healthcare inequality, dysfunctional family systems and toxic work environment leaves us virtually no one untouched. The question of age range came up a 289 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

little while ago. I’ve worked with clients who were unsafe within their own homes in their 80s.

Having worked with women and men in support groups and its clients, I’ve heard so many of the same stories that you have since this hearing began. Coercive control comprises the bulk of the abuse and suffering that comes through our support circles and my practice. The results of psychological attacks and intimidation and ends up being as deadly to a target as if that target had been the victim of physical violence.

Coercive control and psychological and emotional abuse has been and is being under-recognized and it's hard, it’s too often fall through the legal cracks in the system as it stands. The cost to both the individual and the Community is incalculable.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Brownstein, your turn has elapsed. If you could summarize?

ILENE BRAUNSTEIN: I will. I have three sentences. That's what makes the passage of SB 1060 so vital. Unless as a society, we close the gaps in our Law Enforcement and judicial systems, we are failing the vulnerable, which can be any of us at any time. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Is there a comment or a question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. Thank you for sticking around and joining us this evening to offer your testimony. I appreciate it.

ILENE BRAUNSTEIN: Thank you for the opportunity.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right. Brian Mezick, followed by Dr. Stephanie Leite and Jennifer Strong. Is Brian Mezick in?

BRIAN MEZICK: Yes.

290 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have three minutes.

BRIAN MEZICK: Thank you, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Vice Chairs, Ranking Members and Members of the Judiciary Committee. It's very good to be with you. My name is Brian Mezick. I’m a Connecticut State Marshal based out in New Haven. As you can see, I’m working to my car, my office today, out serving papers. I’m here on behalf of the State Marshal Association of Connecticut, which represents marshals across the state and we're here to comment on SB 6, an act concerning domestic violence and criminal justice reforms.

Listening to the testimony today, I’m reminded again of how important and time-sensitive service of restraining orders are. In the case of TROs as you know, the order’s not in effect until served by the Marshal and placed in the electronic Protective Order Registry, so I’m here to express a couple of concerns that the State Marshals have about the Bill, specifically Lines 184 through 186.

This section wants to place in statute that marshals must accept all restraining orders for service via email. When people think email, they usually think efficiency or they might think of the dreaded spam, or trash folder, or the perennial question, “Hey, did you get my email?” But when it comes to restraining orders and our State Marshals, Marshals are the boots on the ground.

We’re out serving physical papers directly to respondents and abusers. We also show up at Court every day, twice a day 12:30 pm to 1:00 pm, 4:35 pm on a rotation. We’re statutorily required to physically appear and meet applicants at 15 courthouses across the state and throughout the pandemic, that never stopped, so we're out and about working out of our vehicles. We're not, if you will, waiting by our computers for emails to come in, we don’t have printers in our car, we drive very 291 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

long distances across our counties and we only get paid when we serve the process and we can only charge for one trip.

So, the way the language and the Bill is written, all restraining orders must be accepted via email and there's a lot of open questions and pitfalls that could -- our concern is that this could unnecessarily delay service of these orders. And we understand there's a desire of the advocacy groups. They want to email these to the marshals. It's easier for them. But we're out and about, we're working, we’re showing up at the courthouses here and the goal is, at least from the perspective of the Marshal, I think the Committee would agree, how do we get these served as soon as possible? How do we protect the victim, by getting these served immediately?

And emailing, ironically might have the opposite effect. So, we filed written testimony and outlined some questions and concerns we have about the integrity and the process of such an email system. Some of the concerns just quickly, are how would we verify that it's a true copy of the original because these orders are not posted online. The Violence Against Women Act prevents those dockets from the being put online. We're also concerned about the burden of shifting, printing these and the time and travel finding a printer to get these orders done. So, it might slow down the process.

So, we would say the most expeditious way to serve these restraining orders is the current system that's in place, receiving them at the courthouse. So, we would ask the Committee to remove Lines 184 to 186. It really needs to be studied first and the language is just too vague. We want to do a good job and continue doing a good job in this department for the State and the DV victims and we don't think the language does that. There are some lacking here.

292 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, I thank you for the opportunity to raise the concerns of the Marshals. Sometimes we get overlooked, so we appreciate the time and, of course, I’ll answer any questions the Members of the Committee have. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. And I know that Representative Fishbein has a comment or a question.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hey Brian, nice to see you again.

BRIAN MEZICK: Hello.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And I jumped on a little late during your testimony. To the last I heard, there was marshals that were assigned to each courthouse, they’d show up at four o’clock to get whatever restraining orders were granted that day and then they would go and do their job. Is that process currently in place?

BRIAN MEZICK: Correct. That's been the process for quite some time. Going back, I think, at least 15 years. It's a very carefully, constructed and statutorily constructed and regulatory constructed from the State Marshal Commission system. 12:30 pm to 1:00 pm and 4:30 pm to 5:00 pm in 15 courthouses across the State. So, we're on a rotation by courthouses. The Commission has a statutory responsibility to equitably distribute restraining order duty.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes. And have you run into any problems with that process in your many years of doing this?

BRIAN MEZICK: No. The system is very good and in meeting with the applicants at the courthouse, we really do get vital information about how to serve these very quickly. I could certainly give you anecdotes about that. I just had one yesterday that 293 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I was talking with applicant for about five or 10 minutes outside the courthouse during my signed shift. There was very little information, but in talking to her, we realized the respondent was in the New Haven lockup. I called over there, they released him, he went back to the apartment. The family wanted to go back and I counseled them, “Don't go back, let me go there and see if he's there” and I was able to make service of the order.

If we're going to transition to some sort of email system where they're getting email to the Marshals at all different times, there's obviously the verification aspect of if the papers are the actual papers that came out of the Court, but there could be a delay because we're not driving around with printers. When we're there for those two half-hour shifts, I might get one restraining order or 15 restraining orders. I’ll go and serve it nearly immediately like this is our priority today that we're assigned this task.

So, email sounds good, but there's a lot to be desired and there's a lot to be worked out and we just can't be supportive of the language, the way it's written. It's asking us to do a lot with little and I don't think it will ultimately benefit the applicants and those who need to be protected.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes. And I thank you for your example about being able to meet with one of these individuals, because that's like spot-on. If you had gotten emailed that restraining order, you would take any information you had there on the cover sheet and tried to track him down, you probably may not even know the person is in lockup or something like that. So, it’s a perfect example and thank you for coming here and nice to see you again. Thank you.

BRIAN MEZICK: Thank you.

294 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Gilchrest?

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Mezick for being here tonight. Can you let us know where the legislation says that all of these have to be delivered by email?

BRIAN MEZICK: Sure, it's Lines 184 through 186. It doesn't say that all have to, but it says that the proper officer responsible for executing such service -- that's us the State Marshals -- shall accept all documents in an electronic format if presented to such officer in such format. So, how would they be presented? What if someone emailed one to us and it got lost in a certain folder or we didn't get it, or they were missing pages? Where's the responsibility to serve half a restraining order packet? Once that they send it to two marshals, we actually had this happen.

Because some of these things came about during the pandemic, back in March and April. Obviously, courthouses were closing, the judicial branch was doing their priority one business. We were still serving restraining orders throughout, we never stopped. We were getting some via email from the domestic violence advocacy groups, they were sending them to us. But by the summer, all the applicants really gave them to us from the Court. We would get a few from the advocacy groups via email, but it says that we shall accept all documents in electronic format. So, that means if it was sent to us via email, we would have to do it via email.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Yes. It is my understanding that if it's sent by email, you would have to accept it, but that the majority will still likely be on paper in the courthouse.

BRIAN MEZICK: Correct. The ones that we have gotten via email since the coronavirus pandemic, it's worked and it hasn't worked. There have been 295 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

issues. For example, myself, I received a restraining order via email from an advocacy group. I went to serve it and knocked on the door and the applicant said, “I’ve already been served with this.” I said, it must be something else. Must be another process. He came and showed me, it was the exact same papers. They got sent to two marshals.

So, that doesn't happen when there's an original copy. There would be a lot of things that we need to be worked out to verify the integrity of the system if it's via email. We don't do any other civil process work in this manner on electronic document. If there is a foreclosure case, a summary process case, we have to serve a true and attested copy of the original document and make a return to core on the original document. So, this would be a departure from that.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Okay. I have heard from folks that it made the process easier on the victim’s side, which is why I’m interested in seeing us pursue this. When you also mentioned having a conversation and in-person with the victim, it's my understanding that that conversation can be by phone. Is that you're understanding too, based on this legislation? That it doesn't have to be in- person.

BRIAN MEZICK: I don't think there's anything in the legislation that speaks to us communicating with the applicant. It's what would happen in practice if these came via email and I think the intention would be from the advocacy groups and it would be a subset, but there's nothing in a language that would prevent all of them from coming via email.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Mezick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BRIAN MEZICK: Thank you.

296 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Is there a comment or a question from Members of the Committee? Comments or question? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Mezick for joining us. Thank you for your service.

BRIAN MEZICK: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I hope you have a good evening. We have next Dr. Stephanie Leite, Jennifer Strong and then I am told that Ivelisse Rivera- Godreau could actually testify so as Dr. Leite. Is Jennifer strong in?

JENNIFER STRONG: Yes, I’m her.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I cannot see you. You have three minutes.

JENNIFER STRONG: Thank you. Sorry, I choose not to be seen.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay.

JENNIFER STRONG: Good evening, Senator Winfield and the distinguished Members of the Judicial Committee. My name is Jennifer Strong. I am using a pseudonym for my children and my protection. I moved to Stamford CT in 2007 from out of country. I was an emergency trauma nurse who wants identified an advocate for domestic victims. But now, I am a protective mother trying to keep myself and, more importantly, my three children safe from continued abuse while in the Connecticut Family Court proceedings.

I am testifying in favor of Jennifers' Law SB 1060. I’ve also submitted my written testimony with a small sampling of the abuse my children and I have experienced, as well as links and articles with evidence-based research on violence against women on misuse of alienation and domestic violence cases in the Family Court. I have also included a tool to 297 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

help identify a coercive control and abuse tool called SAFeR.

I stay to protect my children and hope I would not be killed, but at the same time, I could not escape. My ex threatened me that if I left, I would lose the kids, the house and everything. Having coercive control not only identified for TRO, but in Family Court would have been helpful to help understand how children are victimized and weaponized as part of domestic violence.

In 2015, both my ex and I filed for divorce, custody and protective orders at the same time. I was successful in obtaining a Temporary Restraining Order for myself, which led to three criminal protective orders, which later was extended to include my three children, but only stayed in place for 10 months.

Our case has been in Stanford in Middletown Court for six years. To-date our case has almost 400 pleadings in our case docket. There have been numerous professionals involved. As of 2019, we have collectively spent over $2.5 million dollars, and this number keeps growing due to continue litigation. In hindsight, the abuse from my ex had been ongoing since 2004 at a slowly escalating progression. It follows a pattern of coercive control tactics to isolate, keep us in a constant state of fear and anxiety while keeping control over my actions and to intimidate, humiliate and control me and each of our children.

That coercive control still exist post-divorce and continues and litigation abuse with his feelings that he is the victim. Research shows that only 10% domestic violence cases present with physical harm, but from my own experience, I would say that is the coercive control, verbal, emotional, stalking and psychological abuse and tactics like gaslighting that are more devastating than the scars and pain of the physical and sexual abuse itself. 298 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The consequences of coercive control in a lifetime of unseen traumatic emotional psychological scars for mothers and children as proof in the study. I’m also concerned for the future of my children and either becoming victims are abusers themselves and becoming productive Members of society. Despite DCF’s substantiation in our case of domestic abuse of both myself, my children and its substantiation by a Sexual Assault Response Team investigation, which stands for [inaudible] abuse --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Strong.

JENNIFER STRONG: I will wrap it up. Even though domestic abuse was identified, unfortunately, other tactics were used to basically invalidate my claims and, in the end, I lost custody of my children. We need to strengthen and protect to keep domestic abuse victims and children safe. While in Family Court proceedings, we need to protect mothers and children and I ask for your assistance. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Is there a comment or a question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Jennifer for telling your story. I know it's very painful to recount. You mentioned that there, I think you said DCF -- there was proof, there was evidence, there was other objective agencies that determine that there was child abuse and domestic abuse in your case and yet, what happened? The Court didn't believe it? How did you lose custody of your children if there was --

JENNIFER STRONG: That is correct. There was multiple substantiation of domestic abuse of myself and the children. There was a SART, which is a Sexual Assault Response Team, which is DCF and the Police, and the State's attorneys -- specialized team who investigate domestic violence. They 299 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

concluded there was sexual assault and actually an was applied for first degree sexual abuse, so a fourth arrest warrant for my ex.

And there was subsequent substantiations of inappropriate touched by my ex-husband by DCF as well. Unfortunately, many of the Court professionals like guardian ad litem and custody evaluators had no experience in domestic violence coercive control and used parental alienation as a tactic to basically say that all of this was made up, despite the overwhelming evidence, including evidence that my husband had role-played an incest as a father-daughter relationship with an underage daughter.

So, despite the overwhelming evidence and expert testimony that was provided, the Court determined that I was alienating. So parental alienation was used. Even though that it is not legal, the World Health Organization will not include it into the DSM-5, which is the book that basically assists with all the mental health diagnoses.

Unfortunately, what also occurs is because many of these experts use tools for example, mental health tools -- I can’t think of the name of the tool right now -- they use the psychological tools that if you use in domestic violence, one, it will now identify domestic violence; two in domestic violence victims who often have anxiety, PTSD, it does not unfortunately, you come up as many times as a what they call Cluster B diagnosis of some type of psychological problem.

Unfortunately, this is very common as coming up as a domestic abuse victim. They then use that and weaponize it against you, saying that you are mentally ill and are the one causing the problems. So, this could further weaponize and that's probably how it occurred.

300 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you. But long story short, there was documented proof, verified proof of child sexual abuse and yet---

JENNIFER STRONG: Yes.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): That person gained full custody of the child? Sexual abuser gained full custody of the children? Correct?

JENNIFER STRONG: That is correct. Actually, in John Meyer’s study where parental alienation is used when a victim of female claims domestic violence and there's an allegation of sexual abuse found that essentially 98% of moms lost custody of their kids even when it was substantiated. So, that is the one case out of 50 that basically, all those 50 cases, except for that one where moms all lost custody.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): And in addition, children who were victims of sexual abuse, were handed over to the abusers?

JENNIFER STRONG: That's correct.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): For legal rights?

JENNIFER STRONG: What happens is that unfortunately, in my case, the reason that I lost all my protective orders was because those custody evaluators and guardian ad litem then went to the Police and said that I was alienating the father and was able to get all those charges dropped and convinced the state's attorney not to prosecute because they said it was an alienation case. The Guardian --

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): How do you know?

JENNIFER STRONG: -- even warned me that if I pursued -- even though there was a charge and arrest warrant, that if I pursued -- to go to court, I would lose custody and I was threatened. So, this 301 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

continues to be an ongoing problem where family, even though they're not legally or you even have a contract that says they will not interfere criminally, they do and that affects a criminal investigation.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, thank you, thank you, for sharing your story and this important information. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

JENNIFER STRONG: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Kasser. Comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Seeing no more, thank you very much for joining us this evening. I hope you can enjoy the rest of your evening. Next, we have Dr. Stephanie Leite. I’m sorry, I’m probably mispronouncing your name.

STEPHANIE LEITE: That's okay it's a tough one -- Leite.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Leite. Sorry about that. You have three minutes.

STEPHANIE LEITE: All right, I’m just going to start my timer as well. Also, it's a pleasure to be here this evening, thank you for being here tonight and throughout the legislative season. I’m speaking on behalf of the Connecticut Psychological Association and in support of adding the term ‘coercive control’ to legislature involving family members, as discussed in SB 1060 because the term ‘domestic violence’ is outdated and it really needs to be replaced or amended with the term ‘coercive control’.

As background, my name is Dr. Stephanie Stein Leite, I’m up I’m a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist in the state of Connecticut, New York and my practice is in Hartford, and I’m President of the Forensic Division of the Connecticut Psychological 302 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Association and also the President of the New England chapter of the Association of Threat Assessment professionals and the common denominator, and all my work is prevention of violence and creating safety for the people of Connecticut, so I take it very, very seriously.

And I know you've heard a lot about coercive control and domestic violence today, so I’ll be super-fast and just say that the term ‘coercive control’ is an example of a term that encapsulates the nuances of these very difficult situations much better than the old-fashioned term, domestic violence. Because we know that the harm that happens inside family relationships, it's not all violence and it's also not all inside the home.

So, for many years, those of us in the profession have used like an alphabet soup of domestic violence, coercive control, intimate partner violence, DVCCIPV. And the term coercive control is the center of that and it’s super-descriptive because trauma and damage are caused when a dominant partner controls the less-dominant partner, literally coercive control.

So, when a woman is isolated and unable to see her family, that’s coercive control. And when a student can’t go to class because her boyfriend has destroyed her textbook or reset the alarm on her phone so she doesn’t wake up in time for class, that’s coercive control. And when a man has to show his wife the receipt from CVS and have his phone checked, that’s also coercive control.

So, we have cyber-stalking, holding back gas money, hiding car keys, controlling someone with drugs and medicine, forcing sex, physical violence, threats to commit suicide, these are all forms of control and these all happen every day in our State. And Coercive control is more and more discussed in the Court and the wheel of power and control is used more and more often and there are many practical 303 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

applications for our understanding of coercive control, such as those suggested by SB 1060.

But we also have to take care that legislation doesn't hamstring the courts, because these cases are so complicated and coercive control should also be used in child abuse and trafficking, which you have been discussing here today. And I remain for any questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Senator Kasser?

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you so much for your testimony and support of 1060. So, how would you recommend that coercive control be introduced into Family Court proceedings in such a way that doesn't hamstring the Court, but that identifies what's happening early on in a case so that everybody’s safety is considered?

STEPHANIE LEITE: I think, partly because I just love the term coercive control because it's on a [inaudible] it says what it says it is. I think that perhaps even just replacing some of the legislation or the rules for the Court and replacing DV when CC, or doing DV/CC done so often would be a really good start.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So, in the in the best interest factors, if the words ‘domestic abuse’ or ‘domestic violence’ were replaced with ‘coercive control’ you think that would help change how Courts -- and then Courts would refer back to a definition somewhere else in the Statute? Do you think that would help them recognize it?

STEPHANIE LEITE: Correct. There’s all the statutory factors that the Court has to look at in child custody cases and the 14th of statutory factor talks about domestic violence. So, it should also, for example, talk about coercive control and as you 304 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

mentioned in your Bill, this should obviously also go hand-in-hand with continued training as to the many different faces of coercive control for the judiciary.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Totally agree. Yes, training is so critical. We can't recognize something if we don't know what it is and we're not trained to see it, and what we've heard today is so many people explaining how it is not visible and certainly not to the untrained eye. Well, thank you so much for your support in all this and for your testimony today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Kasser. Comment or question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Seeing none. Thank you very much for joining us this evening to offer your testimony and I hope you have a good evening. Next, we’ll hear from Ivelisse Rivera- Godreau. Are you able to testify now? Hello? Ms. Godreau?

IVELISSE RIVERA-GODREAU: Hello. Hi. Good evening.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Hi.

IVELISSE RIVERA-GODREAU: Can you hear me?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You are on. You have three minutes.

IVELISSE RIVERA-GODREAU: Okay. So, good evening Members of the Judiciary Committee. I’m sorry, a lot of technical issues. I’m finally here. I’m here to support the proposed Bill Number 6657, which would allow the vacatur that go beyond the charges of sex trafficking, prostitution- - beyond these charges. My name is Dr. Ivelisse Rivera. I’m sorry, it's late and I’m a little bit tired. I’m a Family Physician, I work for ProHealth Physicians in Manchester Connecticut. I am also a faculty at the Netter School of Medicine of Quinnipiac University. 305 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

There I not only teach, but also, I mentor the human trafficking prevention project, the division of the School of Medicine. I also worked for the underground as a volunteer and mentor of victims of human trafficking. So, just to summarize it's been 20 years that I practice medicine and it wasn't until a few years ago that I became aware of what human trafficking is.

Incredibly, being a doctor, I did not know this was a real problem until I started reading and meditating myself and beyond that I started learning what complex trauma was which is what really most of -- if not all of -- our human traffic victims that we have come across suffer. So, I started serving these survivors for 15 months ago. Some of them are my patients and I’ve been following them they're only as their Family Physician and as their primary care provider, but also, I have the opportunity and the privilege to be part of their lives, being a mentor and share life with them.

And what these has taught me is that complex trauma is not only something that is related to PTSD complex trauma, speaks about repetitive trauma throughout life specially starting in childhood. And what it does is beyond what your Post Traumatic Stress Disorder would do. It goes beyond the suspicion that something is going to happen, the fear that something's going to happen beyond the nightmares. It affects all realms of life, their ability to associate with other people, their interpersonal relationship, their cognitive ability, the way they react to life, and also, obviously, their multiple physical ailments that come as a result of a complex trauma, either directly or indirectly.

As part of my work with them, I have been able to also get involved in the social challenges that these have brought to them and including the 306 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

criminal charges that came as a result, indirect or direct of the human trafficking that they endured.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Godreau?

IVELISSE RIVERA-GODREAU: Yes?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Your time has elapsed. If you can summarize?

IVELISSE RIVERA-GODREAU: Yes. So, what I’m trying to do, in summary, these victims that have suffered complex trauma and have been abused and coerced basically are of vulnerable and have been manipulated into committing crimes that were beyond their control -- either directly or indirectly and that's why I believe that the vacatur should include charges beyond prostitution, charges that would include all their crimes that they committed under the duress of being trafficked.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you.

IVELISSE RIVERA-GODREAU: Thank you very much for your attention.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): There’s a comment or a question from Representative Gilchrest.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, Doctor for being here. It’s a comment. I just wanted to thank you for all the work you do with survivors of trafficking and for using your voice to advocate. Thank you.

IVELISSE RIVERA-GODREAU: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Is there a comment or question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? If not, thank you very much for joining us, thank you for sticking round through all of the trouble you had getting on to provide us with your testimony. It’s much 307 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

appreciated and I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.

IVELISSE RIVERA-GODREAU: All right. Thank you very much. Have a good night.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You, too. Next, we have Cindy Prizio, Colleen Ni Chairmhaic and Maria McKeon. Cindy Prizio, are you online? Colleen Ni Chairmhaic? Maria McKeon? They will be followed by Jennifer M. and Wayne Valaitis.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Hello?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Hello. You have three minutes.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: My name is Colleen Chairmhaic. I believe that I just came up. Can you hear me?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We can hear you. You have three minutes.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Okay. My name is Colleen Chairmhaic, I’m an Attorney and Counselor of Law, educated in Ireland and I’ve been practicing and America for 20 years. I’m the Volunteer General Counsel of the Family Civil Liberties Union after it merged to include both genders. I strongly support the criminalization of coercive control in the State of Connecticut and I’m happy that there is legislation before the Judiciary Committee today, so that Connecticut State can catch up with other international jurisdictions to criminalize coercive control because coercive control is the cornerstone of domestic violence.

However, I’m concerned about the application of this law to Family Court versus a court of evidence and law. Family Court is a court of discretion and equity and I’m concerned that this proposed law will be weaponized and it will do further harm to 308 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

survivors of domestic violence. I think that Family Court needs to build a better foundation and it needs to focus on de-escalation of conflict in cases, not agitation of conflicts. I believe that this film, made out of tools, the arsenals of weapons, a litigant may have at their disposal.

I think that the first thing that Connecticut needs to do is make a memorandum of understanding to reverse-discriminate against women, gender-neutral. Connecticut State signed an agreement -- nine state agencies of Connecticut State signed an agreement stated -- I’m looking at it now, February 26, 2010 and they agreed to reverse-discriminate against women to posture for funding from the fatherhood initiative That was signed by the Department of Social Service, Department of Children and Families, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Public Health, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction, Department of Labor, the State Department of Education of the Judicial Branch and Court Support Services Division.

In this Bill I’m concerned that on Page 7, if somebody makes an automatic protective order on allegations which may or may not be unsubstantiated, the other party has to pay rent and mortgage payments and utilities for 120 days. There's a huge advantage to doing that and that this would continue. When we have an issue with coercive control, all one party has to do is repeat back those allegations to the other party and all things being considered equal, the woman will lose.

So, I have a grave concern with that. I hope that this could be corrected by the removal of language of Page 7 and Page 17. On page 17 it says, that notwithstanding the provisions of Subdivision 5 of this subsection, the Court should not remove the charge from the custody or care of her competent and safe parents. [inaudible] knows anything about coercive control, it's that the child is going to be petrified of saying anything against the controlling 309 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

parents, because it’s just going to make things worse.

So, notwithstanding coercive control and the finding of coercive control, the child won’t be taken away. So, I’m concerned that in its application to Family Court, that it is going to be weaponized. I think that Family Court needs to create a better foundation to start with and build on that foundation.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Just want to let you know, your time has elapsed. If you could summarize?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Yes. My summary is that I believe that Family Courts should start de- escalating instead of weaponizing litigants and coercive control needs to be made a serious criminal offense and raise Bill 1060 and all legislation and understandings needs to be gender-neutral.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. I see Senator Kasser has a comment or a question.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I agree with the premise. All of our laws should be gender-neutral and we should have full equality under the law. But I don't find the language that you're referring to on Page 7. Could you please give line number?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Right, I was actually referring to something different, and I’m sorry I had a phone call coming in which distracted me and my train of thought. I was referring to first the foundation of Family court that needs to be built before these laws can come in place. I think that it needs to be stripped down. I believe that you need to have a strong foundation before you build on anything, so that it's done right. There was a memorandum of understanding signed by nine state agencies with the State of Connecticut, which agreed 310 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to reverse-discriminate against women, to posture for funding from the fatherhood initiative.

That's wrong. So, if you’ve got a case of two parents in a wishy-washy for the Family Court where it's all about discretion, divert doesn't apply, [inaudible] doesn’t apply and one party says that, “She's coercively controlling,” the other party says, “She's coercively controlling,” the man will be believed and it's going to be a situation of he who draws first blood wins. So, I’m concerned about this Bill being used as a weapon for strategic thing, and I would prefer that it stays in the realm of Criminal Court, which is a court of evidence in law which appears to be functioning relatively well and that you have to prove the case against somebody before rights and privileges are taken away.

In Family Court, that's not the case. You can make up anything and they don't prosecute perjury.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Well, again, I’m concerned because I don't really know what section of the Bill you're referring to. Sorry. There is nothing in this Bill that says that somebody can make an allegation of coercive control and not prove it. It says quite the opposite, that if you make an allegation of any form of abuse, child abuse, coercive control, domestic violence, you have to prove it. You have to prove it in a real evidentiary hearing. So, it's quite the opposite of what you're saying, but I also understood you to say that -- did you just say that coercive control should only be part of criminal statutes? We shouldn't have coercive control in Family Law.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: No, I believe that coercive control needs to be criminalized and I think that that should come first and foremost. My concern with applying it to Family Court in a system, which is not working well, that there is a system where yet, you have to prove coercive control, but first you can file an ex parte order and you can get an 311 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

automatic order of custody. And you can get all of the benefits of that automatic order of custody based upon unfounded allegations. It's just on your word.

So, you make up all of this stuff about the other party, you put that in an ex parte order, you get the benefit of that ex parte order, you can continue that for 120 days or 14 days, whatever it is. But you get the benefit of that and then you go back to court and the other person that’s on the defensive.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): I’m sorry, but that misrepresents --

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: They have to prove it after the fact, but then even if they do prove it, with continuance as it says on Page 17, notwithstanding the provisions, the Court will not remove a child from the custody or care of her competent and safe parent with one of the children expressing, demonstrates a positive relationship with. So, if the child has got Stockholm syndrome after they got taken away, they see that the mom is powerless, the father is the power person. Right?

So now, the child is petrified of saying anything against them. So, the person is going to benefit from lying to the Court. Now I understand that the application I’m talking about isn’t probably going to be in about 5% of cases. We're not talking about the 95% of cases which this law would work well for, but I would be concerned about people being weaponized. I think that the Family Courts needs to be fixed before we add new weapons to the arsenal of tools that aggressive litigants can have at their disposal. And I’m concerned that in a court system, which does discriminate against women and has agreed to discriminate against women, that this will not have the consequences that it should have. I think that it could be used as a tool by abusers to further victimize victims.

312 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): So, if you agree that this legislation would help 95% of victims and you also agree that the current system is not helping victims --

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: No --

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Why would you not want to --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): One second, Senator Kasser, one second. I’m going to remind both Senator Kasser and everybody on the Committee and everybody who's testifying that when you're talking, if there's cross-talking is difficult to follow and we want to make sure that we can get a good transcript and all the things we've talked about several times. So, if you could all refrain from cross-talking, that would be appreciated.

Senator Kasser, you may proceed.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not my intention to cross-talk. I’m just really trying to understand because I hear you saying two different things, which to me sounds contradictory. If the current system isn't working, as you said and victims are already being not believed, not protected, because the laws recognize the form of abuse that they are subjected to, then, why would you not support something that you just said would help 95% of victims?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I think that the Family Court system works now for 95% of people and I’m talking about the 5% of people who have the misfortune of being at the opposite side of manipulative users who weaponized reports. I think that in that 5% category, this law could add a weapon for them to be able to use against people.

So, again for all of this [inaudible] 5%. I think that the Family Court can work in that uncontested cases where money isn't involved, where children 313 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

aren't involved, where parties can collaboratively resolve and keep the focus on the best interest of the children. But there are going to be abusers who will try to take children from parents, to punish them for leaving them, to do bad things through the court system and my concern with this legislation, I’m just focusing on those 5% of people.

If one person gets harmed, that's a bad thing. If one person gets killed, that's a bad thing. If one person's life is destroyed because of legislation that's a bad thing and if there's ways to clean it up, I would expect that people would want to do that. My concern with this is that Family Court needs to have a foundation first where the Memorandum of Understanding is made to gender- neutral so that the State of Connecticut doesn't endorse discrimination.

And then I think building upon that, you can come back and have a law, which if you're claiming coercive control, get rid of the ex parte piece where you're paying somebody else's mortgage for 120 days, you're paying their utilities for 120 days, if you make an allegation and then, if you can continue that out and you can continue that ex parte order, then notwithstanding the provision, court won't ruin the child.

If the child is saying that, “No, no, no. I’m okay here.” Because they're scared of the coercively controlling parent. So, what I’m trying to say here is that there's areas of improvement in this and I believe that before you add more weapons into Family Court, that the Family Court needs to fix the foundation for those 5% of people that are affirmed by the Family Courts of the state of Connecticut including Jennifer Dulos and the entire Dulos family.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Well, what's curious is that all of the survivors that we've heard from today strongly support this and say that it would help 314 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

them, including, in fact, the spokesperson for Jennifer Farber Dulos’ submitted testimony for this Bill, not for--. Excuse me, I’m not finished. If we really want to protect the victims, we should actually listen to them and listen to what they're telling us to do. That's all of my questions. Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator Winfield.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I absolutely agree with you, that coercive control needs to be --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. We're not here to argue with each other. I know that there is another comment or question from Representative Dubitsky and that is for you. So, I want to get to him. Representative Dubitsky?

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming in. I must admit I’ve been listening and participating in this hearing all day and your testimony has probably confused me more than anybody else's. I was hoping that Senator Kasser’s -- your colloquy with her may have might have cleared it up, but it really didn't. So, let me ask you a couple of questions. First off, what organization do you work with?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I’m an attorney at Law. I’m a survivor of extreme coercive control and I volunteer as the General Counsel of the Family Civil Liberties Union after it merged in through both genders. I absolutely, 100% support the criminalization of coercive control. I’ve been a victim of coercive control as decided by Family Relations, as decided by the custody evaluators as appointed by DCF.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. So, you're an attorney? I don't mean to interrupt you, but let’s just --

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I’m an attorney, but I’m also coming in a personal capacity. 315 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Got it. And who are most of your clients?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I’m not speaking on behalf of my clients. I came here because, as I said, I’m a survivor of extreme coercive control as the Judicial Branch said, as the Custody Evaluators said. The only reason I live in Connecticut is because of extreme coercive control and I have been on the receiving end of a very aggressive man who spent $1.2 million dollars coming after me weaponizing every single tool in the arsenal of Family Court against me.

I have survived that because of my education and because of my ability to stand up for myself. When I read this Bill, I read it with the eyes of somebody who is hyper-vigilant on what could be used against survivors.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): I will get to that.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: And it’s those nuances that I wanted to address to say that in courts of discretion and so-called equity, it really matters what judge you have and it shouldn't.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: In criminal court, in other courts of law, you apply the facts of the evidence and you get a predictable outcome.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): I don't mean to interrupt you, but I just -- I sort of have a line of questioning that will help me clear up the confusion that I’ve got right now, and if you would just try to stick to my questions, I would very much appreciate it.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Absolutely.

316 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Do you --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative Dubitsky, thank you for your indulgence because there was a little bit of, not interruption. There was a little bit of cross-talk. I’m just going to remind --

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): I apologize.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I’m not asking for anyone to apologize; I’m just reminding everyone that cross-talk is not useful for the Committee. Proceed, Representative.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you practice in the area of Family Law?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: No, I did not study Family Court. I went to law school -- divorce was illegal in Ireland.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Now, you had mentioned that multiple agencies or departments of the Connecticut government got together and agreed to discriminate against women. Can you just explain what that means?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Okay, so there was a Memorandum of Understanding, I’m happy to email it to you. I got to [inaudible] for your request. It was signed by nine state agencies including the judicial branch and it's an understanding that whereas and it says here on Page 3, whereas fathers who were separated from their children suffer adverse psychological consequences such as depression and low self-esteem, whereas children are better off with fatherhood custody, whereas they're going to posture for funding from the Fatherhood Initiative, no such language was intended for women.

And I find that very concerning and I found that to be reverse-discriminatory and I actually brought this to the district court in Connecticut and I 317 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

said, with a proposal and I wasn't looking for any other relief, other than an order, making this Memorandum of Understanding gender-neutral and the State of Connecticut used its manpower to attack the complaints on standing grounds, instead of just saying, “Okay, let's make the law gender-neutral.”

And I found that concerning because for me, it was an absolute nightmare going through the Family Court of the State of Connecticut and I can't imagine what it would be like for people without my education and Family background to do it.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Going back to the memorandum, you read one sentence --

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I can read it for you.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): No, I don't need you to read it to me, just tell me --

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: [inaudible] document.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Just explain to me what you're talking about, when did this happen? And what was the purpose of this agreement between government agencies to discriminate against women?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Okay, so this is an agreement which was initially dated February 26, 2010 and it was an agreement, which was an understanding -- and I can send you a copy of it -- which I obtained by a FOIA request and it started that year and it continued. It was re-adapted multiple years and it's still in place. And it agrees that fathers, when they’re separated from children, suffer adverse psychological consequences. Children who were separated from their fathers don't do as well in school and have other problems.

It's an understanding and then later on in the document, it says that there is an agreement to work with the Fatherhood Initiative and to apply for 318 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

funding. So, if you put all of the pieces together, which I hope that you will read these documents, it does read to me that, all things being considered equal that the courts are incentivized to favor a father in custody for financial purposes. I find that very concerning and especially in light of this law because in a case of experts, say, orders if he who draws first blood win and the woman makes an allegation and then the man mirrors and echoes those same allegations back, you're going to come to a situation where the man is going to win even if he is a violent offender, because you don't have to substantiate these claims early on.

And the Bill, even though it's really well-intended and I understand why survivors of domestic violence would want it, but even though its intention is good, it's going to be used in direct opposite [inaudible] as intended.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Do you have any statistics or any evidence that the Connecticut Court system is systematically discriminating against women based on this memorandum of understanding?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Yes, I do. I only logged in a short during this testimony. I did hear a woman, I think her name was Jennifer, speaking, and her story is very consistent with other stories that I’ve heard as the Volunteer General Counsel of the FCLU. I get called every week from women often ashamed of speaking up who say that they've gone into court, they've claimed domestic violence, their response to that has been alienation and they've ended up losing all custody, because when a man's position and the woman's position counter each other, their discretion seems to go in favor of the man.

And I know 27 women in the Farmington Valley area who lost all custody after claiming domestic violence and if they claimed child sex abuse, they typically -- I believe the statistics are 98% and 319 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

lose custody and that's a problem. There is an epidemic of mothers losing custody and a lot of mothers are afraid to come forward and because they're ashamed and embarrassed, because we're socially-conditioned to believe that a mother would be a primary parent and the discrimination against that is worse now.

I am a joined custodial parent, so this is not my story, but again, if I had gone to court, without my educational and Family background I would have been a statistic, and if I have a voice, I have to speak up and say that there is a problem.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, well, if you have any statistics, perhaps you could submit them into the record.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I have. I’d be happy to email them to you afterwards. I have spreadsheets that I can send to you, too.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): That will be great. My other question is, you were talking about weaponizing the provisions of this Bill.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Yes.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Who are you talking about weaponized them? Are you talking about the abuser weaponized seeing it? Or are you talking about somebody who would be making false allegations and using it against the other party or both?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I’m talking about both. I think that the abuser can weaponize it and make a false allegation of coercive control and because it's so wishy-washy and they don't apply diverge or perjure and its progeny in Family Courts of equity, that they can get an ex parte order, they can continue, and continue, and continue until the child is in a system of care which is constant and then then the Courts don't want to disrupt it. And the 320 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

net effect is that the abuser gets rewarded for lying to the Court and perjury is never prosecuted, now and in the Family Courts in the State of Connecticut.

And I’ve seen this time and time again. Every week, another woman calls me and says that, “I went to court. My ex is abusive. Coercive control is the cornerstone of abuse.” So, abusers are far more likely to seek custody of children than non-abusers and the net effect is that they win and they get sole custody of the child, because there's nothing worse to do to a parent than to take away their child from them.

So, I strongly support legislation on coercive control. It's just that the Family Courts in the State of Connecticut need to build a proper foundation, so it’s used properly. I’d hate to see a law designed to protect women, be used against women. And there are certain areas in this that I see. Firstly, I think that you need to make that Memorandum of Understanding gender-neutral.

And then upon that foundation, clean up some of this legislation and to make sure that it's not weaponized against survivors. And again, as I said to Senator Kasser, the majority of parents are not evil and twisted. The majority of parents will consider their children. They don't want conflict. The majority of fathers don't want to take their children away from their mothers. The majority of mothers don't want to alienate their children from their fathers. I’m talking about the 5% of people, maybe secondary to personality disorders, narcissism or whatever it might be who do go into the Courts and look for weapons to use against the other side.

And there are attorneys willing to take their money and do that and there are a lot of attorneys in the State of Connecticut who are willing to lie to the Court and they get away with it, because perjury is not prosecuted. 321 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, well, thank you. Thank you very much for your answers and for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Thank you very much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Hold on, ma’am. Representative Fishbein, I believe has a brief question.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You just made a statement that perjury is never prosecuted in Connecticut Courts.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Your company, the outfit that you work with are out of New York. Right?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: No. Firstly, I should say that the reason why I’m testifying is I’m a survivor of extreme coercive control. Since the Family of Civil Liberties Union is established in New Jersey and it is a national, international organization and I happen to volunteer as the General Counsel after it merged to include both genders.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. What is the basis of your factual statement that perjury is never prosecuted in Connecticut Courts?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Based upon my experience of witnessing, reading files in Connecticut, being a litigant before the Family Courts for 10 years, for watching other people's cases pouring over Court records to understand how this can happen, seeing the inhumanity, seeing people, parents cry, seeing children destroyed.

322 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): A child crying is not going to do --

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I’ve seen lies, after lies, after lies under the immunity from defamation in Court pleadings being hurled for one parent to the other. I’ve seen attorneys file the identical pleading for ex parte orders, emergency orders against five different entirely different people. It's a standard boilerplate thing that they do, “Let's arrest the party” strategic arrest, “Let’s get an ex parte order, let's get joint custody for the first four months and right after those orders come undone, let’s file an ex parte order for something that’s completely and utterly fabricated.”

They're not only not prosecuted, but they're rewarded and encouraged for this and I’ve seen it time and time again. And it's not prosecuted and it should be.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Does your operation, your company work out of Connecticut or some other state?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: The Family Civil Liberties Union is in Connecticut, yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: And it’s in New York, and it's in New Jersey, and it's in Texas, and it's in many different places. I live in Connecticut; I live in the vicinity of Avon Connecticut. I have mitigated before the Family Courts of the State of Connecticut for a decade.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, the question was, what state? We can get there step-by-step. On your website, you claim that you believe that, “A small minority of unethical attorneys within the Family Court system counsel their emotional clients --

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Yes. 323 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): To lie, filibuster and create conflict for the benefit of their Billing --

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And harm children and families in the process.” That’s the statement. Your mission of the Family Civil Liberties Union is to have fair court processes. Right?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, in the context of your mission, how many grievance complaints have you made against these lawyers that allegedly do this?

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I’ve never filed a grievance against any attorney.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Because I can tell you that perjury is prosecuted in this day.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I’m so happy to hear. That I would love to see transcripts of that and I’d love to know how to do that, because there are attorneys who do commit perjury and my concern is that they turn around and say, “Well, we were just working on our clients. We didn't really know that and they say that -- Well, it's just arguments. It's not an affidavit. It's just arguments. I would be thrilled to see perjury prosecuted.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes. Well, perjury -- we're both lawyers, an underlying, underpinning of perjury would have to be some sort of oath and a violation of that oath. In the Court process, a lawyer doesn't go into court and take an oath.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: And lawyer firms.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Lawyer when they present a case don't, doesn't take an oath. 324 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: No, a lawyer, does it for.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Hold on, hold on, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, hold on a second. Number one, we've got quite a bit of argument going on over the top of each other. The other thing I'm going to suggest is we've gotten a little field of the Bill before us at this point, I think we could, we can spend half the night discussing how yes, lawyers have a level of judicial immunity and cannot general be prosecuted for perjury, a witness can, but I don't know that at 10 hours into this hearing with some folks who still want to share their stories with us. They we're on the Bill in front of us, so I'm going to turn this back over to represented Fishbein to finishes inquiry, but I would, I would suggest we would get back onto the Bill for us a little bit. Representative.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you and I totally agree with you. I'm just trying to, you know people take away statements that are made at these public hearings as being truthful and I just, I just want to make sure that.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I would love to see evidence of perjury being prosecuted and if you have that, I would be so happy to read it.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, excuse me, excuse me ma'am. Representative Fishbein was talking. Representative, please finish your thought.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I mean I can just it, as a way of example, I had a lawyer on the stand in a divorce case who swore to a document and I was able to prove through cross examination that he was lying and that was an affirmation to a document. Judge recessed the proceedings, called the grievance Committee, a criminal complaint was made with regard to that and 325 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that's what we would have here under the process you know, but anyway I don't want to.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you.

COLLEEN NI CHAIRMHAIC: I'm happy to hear that.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, thank you Representative Fishbein. Thank you, ma’am, for being with us to testify this evening. Next up will be Maria McKeon.

MARIA MCKEON: Hello. I’m Maria McKeon. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify about this Bill. I'm speaking to support the Bill SB 1060. I am a family lawyer I represent both men and women, I often run into situations where women more often than men are subject to abuse by their spouse that they're often going to divorce. I often get calls before they even start divorce proceedings and I'm told that when they discuss it with their spouse getting a divorce, the person often will threaten them and tell them that, if you divorce me, I will financially ruin you. I will take the kids away etc. and they're very fearful of that because they've been abused for a long time and whether it's verbal abuse or course of control or physical abuse. It's always the same. They are absolutely desperately afraid of the spouses, so oftentimes they never take the next step to get divorced, because of the fear of the abuse that's going on.

But for those that do go through the process and start in it, I've had a number of instances where the husband in in many cases is the one that's the abuser and he is often using the kids as weapons and I'll give you a couple of examples of how he's using them as weapons, I see the father when he's with the children will tell the children that if you say anything bad against me I'm going to go to jail, whether it's true or not, the kids don't know that, and so they often are encouraging the kids to 326 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

basically tell the JAIL that something is going to happen bad to daddy, if they say anything negative.

They will do financial matters where they'll load the kids up with gifts, Christmas time, they'll buy them tons of gifts to act like they're the best Daddy in the world, at the same time they're not paying their child support or they're not paying their Bills, the mortgage or other things, so the mother is becoming financially crippled by the actions of the dad and the kids are thinking dad's just great because he's taking us on great trips or he's buying us, you know lots of presents, we get to go out to nice restaurants, were often living in a better house and so all of that to me, is other examples of using the kids as weapons to get back at the wife and quite honestly it's the they fight an awful lot to get 5050 custody, to avoid child support because, for whatever reason, they are, and I was on the child support guideline Commission when the rules were changed, but one of the concerns was is that if they made the rules in such a way that dad and mom were making approximately the same income they wouldn't have to pay child support.

So, I've seen a big upswing in a number of dads trying to argue for 50/50 on the kids' time to because they think they're going to get away from child support. Even though they don't realize that if they make a lot more money than the mom that they still have to pay child support, but I've seen active efforts by the dads trying to get 50/50 when they've never had an as much interest in being with the kids up until that time and I also see that post-divorce, that the same dad who is arguing 50/50 after the divorce is granted that they basically drop out on spending as much time with the kids as they did before and I'm not saying this is evolved as there's many, many great.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ma'am, we're -- we're past the three-minute mark.

327 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MARIA MCKEON: I do apologize.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): That's okay.

MARIA MCKEON: So, I'll just finish up quickly, I see a lot of weaponized in filing motions or using up jail time, because that drives up the Bill and usually the parents have to spend 50/50 on it, so I just I'll leave you with that and just say that my experience is that if you can pass this Bill, it would be, I think, very beneficial to protect moms who are being abused and dads too when it does happen to the dads, it's not always just the moms. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you for, thank you for being with us, and certainly for sharing your expertise and sticking it out with us, so thank you. Next up will be Jennifer M.

"JENNIFER" M.: Hi good evening, can you hear me OK.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can go.

"JENNIFER" M.: Okay, thank you. Good evening Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in a huge, thank you to Senator Kasser and others who have worked hard to bring Senate Bill 1060 forward. I'm speaking today under the name Jennifer M. I am from Fairfield Connecticut. And I'm in strong support of Jennifer's law. The doula story is not unique. Jennifer story is my story. I did submit written testimony of one page letter, as well as a narrative and hopes of informing the Committee on real examples of ongoing coercive control. All of which occurred while I have been entangled in various family court systems.

After being on today from 10 o'clock in the morning, I've decided to use this time to speak to a few things. There's been talk about unintended consequences of this legislation and may I 328 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

respectfully remind all here that Jennifer Dulos and Jennifer Mangano are unintended consequences. Their children are as well, unintended consequences due to outdated laws. My case, my reality as I speak today and those of my children are real and ongoing unintended consequences. Jennifer across Connecticut desperately need leaders and lawmakers for help. We need you. Present family court law, no matter how well intended are out of date and fall short of protecting those most vulnerable victims of abuse children. Children are seen as property in divorce cases, unfortunately, of course, parents have rights, but should they negate the rights of children.

When those who overtly and brazenly abuse, stalking harassing controlling and manipulating. Repeatedly not held to account in the family court room, they are only emboldened more and more, and as a result, the course of control escalates. When an abuser overtly refuses to follow court order and they're not held to account it emboldens them. When they see the victim is scared enough to seek restraining order and then she's denied repeatedly, it emboldens them. It is dangerous. If Jennifer's law had been in place back in 2014 during emergency custody hearing brought by my husband in Stamford Connecticut, our judge would have had the tools and the training to consider these intensely shocking patterns of course of control to determine that my children were not safe.

Instead, we've been mired in eight years of needless litigation, with no end in sight and quickly I'd like to point out that there's been talk of educating our youth throughout social media platforms, perhaps, or in school curriculum and I will say firsthand that my children have received education through Connecticut Public Schools, health curriculum about healthy and unhealthy relationships. The me-too movement has informed our youth, and I will just say that the family court, sadly, is falling behind. They, my children are 329 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ordered to do something that they know is detrimental. And I will just close by saying the Jennifer Dulos and Jennifer Mangano we're doing their best within the current system.

It continues to be my biggest daily struggle to navigate protecting myself and my children without being perceived as a problem parent in court. Paranoid to others or half of the high conflict couple to be grouped together with the abuser or, worse, to have to defend oneself against false allegations of alienation is wrong and validating to victims, it's also damaging and extremely confusing to their children. Thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, mam. I appreciate you being with us and sharing your story with us tonight. Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to thank you Jennifer for pointing out that the unintended consequences of the system are tragic cases like Jennifer Farber Dulos, like Jennifer Mangano, like their children and like you and all the other victims, every victim that we heard from today, every survivor had a similar story and you're all the unintended consequences, so thank you for speaking out. Eight years of litigation and family court is not good for anybody that is an unintended consequence of the current system, so thank you for speaking out and helping us make the change that we need to make in this state. Really appreciate your voice.

"JENNIFER" M.: Thank you, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, thank you both. Thanks again for being with us mam. I am going to pass the gavel back to Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Wayne Valaitis, Catherine Campbell and 330 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Jeryl Gray. Is Wayne Valaitis in. Catherine Campbell.

CATHERINE CAMPBELL: Not I'm here and unmuted.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay, your three minutes.

CATHERINE CAMPBELL: Thank you so much, Chairman and Judiciary, Judiciary Committee, thank you for allowing us all to testify today for 10 hours now. I'm Catherine Campbell and I'm the executive director at California Protective Parents Association. I'm here in support for SB 1060. We have worked for over 20 years to raise awareness and educating, advocate and the family court crisis and we've done that, on a federal and state level that other people have talked about, we've been a part of those programs. We have heard great testimony here today therefore I'd like to take a step back and to look out at how our culture has changed. Many of us present today, I am glad you're here still, thank you. Can probably remember watching TV shows that had two officers approached the door of a home where they were called too. The husband answers the door and says it's just a disagreement with his wife.

The one male officer turns to his male partner and says it's just a domestic abuse. It's a family matter. We have learned that what was behind that door, there was abuse. We began to name that as abuse. The family matter turned out to be domestic violence. We learned that we needed to name it, to end it. We shifted the culture and that's where we are now. We are naming coercive control to better understand the facts of what's happening to those who are abused. There are many that have no visible bruises, but that does not mean there is no abuse, as we've heard over and over again today. Once again, we're naming coercive control to end it. We are shifting the culture once again. We thank Evan Stark who spoke earlier, who is the expert and founder of naming this course to control. I thank him for helping to write this Bill. 331 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We all must be able to name this now. From California to Connecticut these cases are the same, the control is unbearable to live with and without support of naming this abuse, it's hard to be protected, it is, it can rise to domestic terrorism. Families are living through the wars within their own homes and when the battles move to the Court, as if they if they haven't been able to get that far without the language it can't support them. By naming course of control into this law, you are allowing those officers to protect the victims. You are giving the courts reason to address this immediately. For this helps give us new structure to understand domestic violence. At this time, we already know the effects of abuse dismissed. Adverse childhood experiences rise. Many children lose their parents, such as the Jennifer's.

Children even are being murdered in these cases and someone asked earlier, and since 2013 there have been five children murdered in Connecticut according to the Center for judicial excellence and if they survive many children are forced to live with their named abusers. Many times, for the abuse is dismissed and the protective parent is blamed for using parental alienation. Our goal is to protect those caught in this torment of control before it gets to this point. Naming it can end abuse cycles, it means we can continue to move our system forward and be that sorry, let me say that again. It means we can continue to move from a system that becomes another layer of abuse to a victim. When we can't name their abuse and we need to move to institutional courage that where we can name it to end it. I'm going to ask all of you who are here it's my time all right. I'm just going to end. I'm going to ask you all to pass 1060 to improve the outcome for Connecticut and be a role model for the 15 seven other states as well, thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Is there a comment or question for Members of the Committee? 332 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Comment or question, I do not see any on it, well Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Sorry, sorry, just a quick one. Could you please Catherine, could you please explain a little bit about because we heard earlier about parental alienation syndrome, as opposed to one parent alienating another, alienating the child from the other parent, we know that that's very real, parents do that, especially in domestic violence cases, a course of control cases that parents weaponize the children against one another, can you just distinguish between like that which is a very real phenomenon and the legal strategy of parental alienation syndrome and how that is very different from the alienation.

CATHERINE CAMPBELL: Yes, definitely and I thank you for asking that because I've heard some conflicting testimony today and, quite honestly, it does happen that a person will do that, that they will bad mouth apparent and really say bad things about the other parent and, and that is wrong, but we parental alienation syndrome and it really kind of just, they kind of cut off the last name and they were being challenged with using parental alienation syndrome. Started from Richard Gardner and he was using it to say you know these children actually they're not upset at being abused. They're only upset because you're telling them, they should be upset. Right, this was a strategy used when children were being sexually abused. He believed that it was okay for adult child relationships, which we certainly don't believe in and they work so hard to use that strategy, and it became very effective.

He was self-published this is not in the DSM; this is not accepted. In the state of California, the judiciary, the Commission on judicial performance, everyone knows that this cannot be used in California courts. It shouldn't be used anywhere in the state and we did work on the legislation in the federal legislation and everyone realizes, this is 333 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

not science, this is someone's opinion and what we like to say, as we do realize that some people do the wrong thing that is course of control and I recommend everybody read Evan Stark’s book. I'm not an expert in it, but I'm glad he was here today and we can see from John Myers research that when someone is claiming abuse, usually the woman is dismissed, but when they have the added layer, and I can give you some numbers if you'd like, but when they have the added numbers of saying well she's claiming abuse, but I'm claiming that she's using parental alienation and we can see that that clearly is used as a strategy and those cases that are believed to go way down, it's really shocking and it's something that we need to curtail.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, thank you so much, thank you, Mr. Chair.

CATHERINE CAMPBELL: Thank you for having me today.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Senator. Comment or question from other Members of the Committee. Comment or question? Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us this evening and hope you enjoy the rest of the evening.

CATHERINE CAMPBELL: Thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You're up. Next, we have Jeryl Gray, Jamey Bell and Hui Yee Diong. Is Jeryl Gray in.

JERYL GRAY: I'm on.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have three minutes.

JERYL GRAY: Thank you, Sir. Good evening Members of the Judiciary Committee and all. I am speaking to you tonight in favor of House Bill 1060 of the introduction of this current incarnation of this Bill designates the topic of this matter to be specifically within the jurisdiction of one of the 334 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

three courts of equity. I think superior court, family court addressing the problem of the dynamic of coercion control and violence perpetrated by family members upon Members of their household, family or personal environment. In addressing the context and content that are delineated by this Bill, I wish to bring forth a different perspective and contact from that which is defined by the context and content provided by this Bill and by the other person's giving testimony here.

I provide the specifics of our own experience in my submitted written testimony, which I hope you will take the time to read and go forward with on that. I'm justifying person today to give you my contribution of the results that learning understanding, I have painfully gained and experiencing what is a much larger context of the issue of the problem as being outside of and beyond constricted and limited purview of just one of three the courts that have been the family court. Our own horrific experiences, while having looking time and with the experiences of victim too have been involved in family court has not occurred within the realm of being involved or participatory in any family court case. We have not ever been involved in the family court machine. Instead, we have been so similarly victimized, abused, preyed upon exploited coerced by and via parties as are so involved in the other so defined course of court of equity, up being the Connecticut probate court.

While the abuse and predatory victimization that we have experienced at the hands of so-called family Members of the same nature as that experienced by victims within family court cases. Sufferings of abuse and coercion of victims and in probate court or further amplified increased by the active and deliberate. Enablement facilitation and actual weaponization provided to the perpetrators of the abuse and coercion by the self-interested self- profiting interested parties operating within the probate court cases. Probate court appointed 335 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

guardians and conservators make huge sums of money to provide supposing oversight and care with the benefit of the probate court sentence divorce and, in our case, as my Connecticut visiting Florida mother was a wealthy woman with assets to be plundered and looted by the rapaciously predatory Connecticut probate court interested parties, he was sentenced to un-ruling captivity within the Milford Connecticut house of her violent pathological abusive son.

Again, soon she had had an attorney created protective order for purpose of all these elusive collaborative complicit conspiratorial interested parties pursuing their own unjust self and gain. Sadly, I am not unaware that the family court machine also operate in the context of bluffing its enabling self-interested insider parties in that court jurisdiction of the issues of abuse scores and control, most particularly in the family court, the guardian ad litem business enterprise. So, while I support the Bill and the inclusion and utilization of lines 31 through 82 and the new provisions of this Bill with those two specifics specifically of defining the meaning of coercive control and defining of the parties that are to be considered in situations and involving the coercion control and violence perpetrated by family members upon numbers of their household family or personal environment. My and my mother's bitter experience.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Its time.

JERYL GRAY: All right, I'm finishing, leads me to a more authentic and comprehensive view of what these courts do. My and my mother's bitter experience informs me the expectation of either family court or probate court operating into aspiration to and pursuing a protecting system, helping the victim is misplaced.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Miss. Gray. Is there a comment or question from Members of the 336 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Committee? Comment or question? I don't see any, thank you for joining us again, I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.

JERYL GRAY: Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we have Jamey Bell, Hui Yee Diong and Peter Szymonik. Is Jamey Bell in.

JAMEY BELL: Yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have three minutes you may begin.

JAMEY BELL: Thank you, good evening chairs and Members of the Committee.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You are, let me just interrupt you. You are very, very low, can you.

JAMEY BELL: Is that better.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): It’s a little bit better.

JAMEY BELL: I can put on, hold on. Is that better.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I can hear you a little better. Yeah.

JAMEY BELL: Okay, thank you, sorry about that. My name is Jamey Bell. I'm the Executive Director of Greater Hartford Legal Aid and I'm testifying here tonight, on behalf of Greater Hartford Legal Aid and Connecticut Legal Services in support of Senate Bill 6 sections 12 and 13 which provides grants for counsel to low-income victims of domestic violence, seeking restraining orders. You have my testimony. I will repeat any of it here. I'll just instead make two short points. In addition to what we all know, intuitively about the importance and the effect of having a lawyer for a victim of domestic violence, seeking a restraining order.

337 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Research studies, including one by the Department of Justice prove that having legal representation increases safety for domestic violence victims. And of course, we know that that is only more true and urgent for very low-income victims of domestic violence, whom we represent and who have, by definition, many fewer resources to assure their safety than more resourced victims. Secondly states legal aid programs have been providing zealous advocacy for domestic violence victims living in poverty for decades, and we do so, particularly effectively and economically. That, in closing, I just want to thank the Committee and the legislature, for your decades long support for legal aid and legal services to people living in poverty, who need lawyers to meet their basic human needs for safety, shelter and survival. My colleagues from other legal services programs and also my own will testify, on the other provisions of senate Bill 6 and 1060.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I don't see any. I want to thank you very much for sticking around and testifying and thank you for the work you do.

JAMEY BELL: Thank you, Senator Winfield likewise. Bye, bye.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Hui Yee Diong, Peter Szymonik and John Clapp. Is Hui Diong in.

HUI YEE DIONG: Yes. Can you hear me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have three minutes.

HUI YEE DIONG: Yeah. Okay. To the Judiciary Committee Chairs, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Hui Diong, I'm a graduate student at Yo Public Health and a policy fellow at a 338 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Commission on women, children, senior's equity and opportunity. I'm here today to testify in strong support of H.B. 6648 an act concerning sexual assault and the absence of consent. As a concern resident committed to creating a safer and more welcoming state, I recognize the importance of clearly defined sexual assault statutes that will allow victims to adequately seek justice. In Connecticut one in two women and one in five men have experienced sexual violence in their lifetimes and over quarter of victims' experiences for the first time between 11 to 17 years old.

Victims of sexual violence often suffer long term consequences, including poor physical and mental health and having difficulty returning to school; therefore, it is critical for us to do all that is necessary to protect victims of sexual assault. The current sexual assault sexual applies to victims who are caused or force to submit to sexual intercourse. As well as two persons who are unable to provide consent, such as children and those who are mentally incapacitated or there may be an implicit assumption in the Statute that sexual assault is non- consensual. The explicit inclusion of consent in our sexual assault sexual acknowledges the significance of a lack of consent in defining sexual crimes. However, ever since Connecticut general statutes section 53 8-66 entitled let of consent was repealed in 1975.

There's been no specific guidance in a penal code regarding the role of consent in sexual assault cases. State law must be clear that silence does not mean consent. Rather consent is affirmative and deliberate. 82% of young people, so they agree they're not seeing no, that's not established consent for sexual activity. Consent is not defined by what you were, where you go or past consent. People have the right to say no, at every single step in a sexual encounter. I believe that by defining consent and clarifying that sexual intercourse without consent is a crime. This Bill 339 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

takes an important step in seeking justice for victims of sexual assault, including not only persons who could not consent, but also those who did not consent to sexual contact. Thank you to the Committee for the opportunity to testify. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Is there a comment or a question from any member of the Committee? Comment or question? Representative Gilchrist.

REP. GILCHREST: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for being here tonight, wonderful job and I appreciate your testimony.

HUI YEE DIONG: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Comment or question from Members of the Committee. Comment or question, if not, thank you very much for joining us this evening, I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.

HUI YEE DIONG: Thank you. You too.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we have Peter Szymonik followed by John Clapp and then Marc Moorash. Is Peter Szymonik in.

PETER SZYMONIK: Yes. I’m Senator Winfield. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right, you have your three minutes.

PETER SZYMONIK: Thanks Sir. So, I'd like to thank the Committee for holding the hearing on this very important topic and I am strongly against the Bills that are being proposed, which is Committee Bill 6 and Senate Bill 1060 and I'll explain why, in a few minutes. I have written testimony that's been submitted to the Judiciary Committee. A way of 340 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

background, I’m a Polish immigrant, my family escape communism and in our culture and in our family, family education come first and foremost and divorces almost unheard of. I currently live in Glastonbury and I have five children. Two for my first marriage, a step child and two children from my second marriage and two of my children or three much has special needs.

My wife, Monica who will be testifying in a few minutes and I both met in 2014 ironically at the legislative office building testifying about problems in our family court system, we've been testifying about that ever since for about 12 years. A member of the Connecticut coalition for family quarter form, it also the family Civil Liberties Union and Colleen Corvex spoke earlier, as our general counsel here in the state of Connecticut. We've worked with literally hundreds of parents who I would offer our experts on these issues and not those who profit enrich themselves from effect rating the problems in our family court.

One of the things that I would like to remind Members of this Committee and people are on the Committee back in 2018 is a judge Elizabeth Bozzuto testifying before the Committee in 2018 pointing out that the family courts are not equipped to handle cases of domestic violence. And there's multiple reasons for that. One of the core reasons is that the family courts are not courts of evidence for law, there of course of equity. And people don't understand what that means is it's a huge distinction. What that means is the judges in the family courts have wide discretion, which means they are free to ignore evidence that’s presented before them.

You can have 99% of the evidence and testimony in your favor and the judge can still ignore it. It's often called the Wild West of law. When we look at these particular items that are in this Bill will focus on course of control and the expansion of what 341 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the definition of domestic violence means. What course of control and the expansion, that we have in this language is attempting to do is to criminalize parenting feelings and bad behavior which are not necessarily criminal? You can have a situation where someone's acting in a boorish manner, or acting in a in a hostile manner, but it doesn't rise to the level of criminal act. And what's going to happen in our family courts, people are going to run in there with claims, claiming that bad behaviors criminal behavior and get a restraining order to basically prevent children from parents seeing their children, based on opinion and conjecture, not an evidence.

And I'll offer one scenario that it came to mind when I was reading the Bill. One of the issues of course of controls, a financial component, so picture this canaries this scenario of a married couple with both parents are working. It's decided that the wife is going to pay for all the household Bills out of their, out of her personal account, while the husband pays out of the, pays for their retirement accounts out of his account. They decided to get divorced. What's going to happen. The divorce attorneys are going to encourage them to claim converse of control because they don't have control over the each other's financial situations. And again, it's based on opinion, it's not based on actual criminal activity. Another scenario I provide is, if you have a situation where you have two people that are getting into an argument.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Szymonik.

PETER SZYMONIK: Sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Your time has elapsed, if you can summarize.

PETER SZYMONIK: Sure. I'll just jump to the end. Basic point of trying to make is that the language and these Bills would have done absolutely nothing 342 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to prevent to do all tragedy. And the reason that would have done nothing is because it's trying to control behavior which the family courts are not equipped to address. One of the issues, one of the problems with this Bill is that it doesn't have a corresponding component that addresses the issue of fraud perjury and false claims presented to the Court by attorneys and by people that are trying to get control over their situation and just to control what Representative Fishbein was representing. Quite frankly the professional rules of conduct and judicial candidates are completely ignored in this state. We actually have a Supreme Court ruling called Sims vs Sema that said, point blank that attorneys can commit fraud and perjury and our courts and not be held accountable.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I’m going to stop this there. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I don't see any. Mr. Szymonik, your frequent flyer with us here in the Judiciary Committee so it's good to hear from you and I hope you enjoy the rest of the evening.

PETER SZYMONIK: Thank you very much Senator.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Alright. Next, we have John Clapp followed by Mark Moorash and Suzanne Aronson. IS John Clapp in.

JOHN CLAPP: Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Your three minutes.

JOHN CLAPP: Okay, thank you Senator Winfield and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is John M Clapp. PhD and Chair of the shared parenting Council of Connecticut. I have over 20 years of experience working with emotionally distressed parents who are deeply fearful about the custody of their children, about their opportunity to share time with their children, after separation. My testimony has been approved by the SBCs board of 343 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

directors. Like many, I am shocked by the Dulos tragedy and I agreed that course of control and parental alienation should be recognized by the courts.

However, the proposed Bill does not provide a solution to these problems; instead, the Bill promotes conflict and incentivizes the use of the courts to alienate one parent. So, one thing I would hope that the Committee takes a careful look at is the new triage and pathways approach. Proposed and actually implemented by Judge Albus in the family court system. It is evidence based, and it should be given a chance to work by treating custody disputes, for what they are, and the vast majority of cases. Emotional and psychological issues requiring conflict resolution not the heavy participation of lawyers in filing motions. Such an approach might have a word of the Dulos tragedy. Given a plethora of firearms in a state to propose Bill will not affecting the lever a similar tragedy in the future, unfortunately. So, here's what I mean when I say that the Bill is going to weaponize custody dispute. It, it does not require substantial evidence for claims of domestic violence or course of control.

And on the domestic violence issue, of course, the shared parenting Council of Connecticut does not advocate share parenting or weekend visitation of any sort. In cases where child abuse or neglect has been established by the DCS investigation. DCF has rigorous criteria for abuse and neglect and standards for investigating such claims. This is not the case in family court. Share parenting prevents parental alienation if it's implemented early in the process of proposed by Judge Albus in the triage and pathways approach. Parental alienation is of course a form of child abuse which deliberately separates a child from a loving parent, uses a child as a pawn in the divorce process and the evidence for this has been compiled by Professor Linda Nielsen, a PhD Wake Forest University and I 344 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have a citation and testimony. Also, I want to point out that.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Clapp, Mr. Clapp, Mr. Clapp, your’s time has elapsed, if you could summarize.

JOHN CLAPP: Okay sure I have citations for why this is not a gender issue and, in my testimony, I have detailed responses to some of the issues raised in the Bill. So, in summary, I hope that the emotional revulsion, we all feel for the Dulos tragedy. Does not lead to the adoption, this poorly crafted Bill that incentivize conflict over child custody. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Clapp. There's a comment or a question from Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good evening, Sir, I just wanted to ask you about the shared parenting aspect, because you know I find that sometimes that's weaponized also in that. You have the traditional family with you know let's say two children, mom staying home, taking care of the kids, dads out there, you know working. They're going to get a divorce and all of a sudden, the father's claims well I want shared parenting. I won’t half time, when that hasn't been the case, you know how, how does one deal with that, through the weaponizing of that because that's scary to moms. I know that I have that all the time, but you know, in the context of weaponizing the procedure that you're talking about in the context of shared parenting, how does one get through that process.

JOHN CLAPP: Well, what I hear from many professionals I've worked with over the years is that what you need to do is nip that situation in the bud. This whole conflict cases have to be headed off at the very beginning and that's what the triage and pathways approach attempts to do. 345 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay.

JOHN CLAPP: That's the best that's the best way because, once you get entrenched in those positions and the kids are being used as pawns, there's often there's no going back.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, and that that's the procedure, the Judge Albus have talked about with us a few weeks ago and they would give that higher retention, but I thank you, Sir, for your testimony here tonight, thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative Fishbein. Comment or question from other Members of the Committee. Comment or question? I do not see any Mr. Clapp. Thank you very much for joining us and hope you have a great evening.

JOHN CLAPP: Thank you, you too.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mark Moorash followed by Suzanne Aronson and Hector Moreira. Is. Mr. Moorash in.

MARC MOORASH: I'm here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You may proceed, you have three minutes.

MARC MOORASH: Thank you. Honorable Chairs, Vice- chairs, Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Mark Moorash, I'm here to speak on SB 1060. In July of 2020 I filed ex-parte for custody of my two children Lucian and Victor. Eight days after I file for custody my boys were kidnapped by their mother, it was six months until I saw my children again and it felt like decades. For nearly three years I lived in the basement of my own house to try and do what was best for my children, to co-parent, to provide love and a roof and food. Coercive control is mind owing and if I did not have sex with my 346 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

abuser even after I repeatedly said no, she prevented me from seeing my children. Coercive control was a year of my being told, when the relationship was clearly over “get me pregnant or else I will find some other way to do so.” It was meant to time and financially do a child that would not be mine, if I still wanted access to my own two children. Their favorite coercive control tactic of my abuser was to threaten to call in a false domestic violence claim, knowing that regardless of truth I'd likely be arrested. One person shield as another person's weapon.

After the kidnapping DCF was involved. When I asked the DCF caseworker, she had read the police report, she replied there's a police report. She then said but there's a protective order against you right, to which I responded no, there was not it was denied. Of course, DCF closed the case, all accusations against me were unsubstantiated. While this Bill has aspects that would have helped my children and myself, as written, it is not adequate nor just and legislation should not be about what is best for some, more about making some folks collateral damage, for example in line 449 “the child is safe and is freely without interference requested on supervised visitation.” Are we really writing legislation that would put a child in the middle like this, do we really think it healthy and possible for my or any four-year-old request on supervised visitation?

A child who, when he tells me he loves me, follows up by saying “don't tell mama that, she'll get angry.” Or rather, revealing statement about the course of course of control my son is under. I find it astounding that the language in this Bill squarely put children in the middle. Coercive control is obviously also the threat of having my children taken by the other parent, because the laws in Connecticut allow parental kidnapping and the attempts to close this loophole has been ignored. Custodial interference is one of the most damaging 347 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

forms of coercive control, and it is not mentioned in this Bill. Is kidnapping and the threat there have meant to be an afterthought, the phrase but not limited to is not strong enough when it comes to this legislation. In 1999 the Connecticut Supreme Court determined that even a custodial parent could be guilty of custodial interference. Over 20 years later this decision has not been codified and custodial interference, the sanitized Connecticut way of referring to the kidnapping of children by their own parent is rarely ever applied, because it uses the litmus test of intent. This year there was yet another attempt to close the loophole and proposed Bill H.B. 5354. It was not raised, if we really want to protect children from coercive control, please codify the Connecticut supreme court's decision into law through an amendment to this Bill.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Moorash.

MARC MOORASH: I'll summarize.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you.

MARC MOORASH: Okay, what I've learned in the past several months is that it takes only one parent to put children in the middle, it takes two parents to amplify. All I can do as a parent in an ongoing situation of coercive control against us is not amplify the harm. But I shouldn't have to fight and protect my children from legislation that also whether inadvertently or not also puts them in the middle and amplifies the same harm from which I'm trying to protect them, thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, comment or question from Members of the Committee. Comment or question? Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Sir I'm just trying to get to the you know, kidnapping 348 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

comes in different flavors, can you just briefly tell us what happened.

MARC MOORASH: So I filed for ex-parte custody and a restraining order and as soon as she received them, she left with the children, and even though DCF told her, she needs to let me see the children and family services told her, she needs to let me see the children, she simply refused because 5397 and 5398 custodial interference laws in the state of Connecticut even though they're felonies, they're looked at under intense and once you get into custody court, the police will just tell you that it's a civil matter and they won't even consider custodial interference. The Center for Missing and Exploited Children have for years been asking states to solve every loophole.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sir, I just want to talk about your particular situation.

MARC MOORASH: Okay.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, my understanding is that you applied for a restraining order and that that was denied.

MARC MOORASH: In my restraining order, I said that if it wasn't granted, I was afraid my children would be kidnapped, it was denied and sure enough, it happened, I even wrote it in my papers.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so you applied for a restraining order the restraining order was denied and then your wife took your children where?

MARC MOORASH: So, I didn't know for a while, because DCF put a safety plan in place before they even spoke with me. I eventually learned that she was staying with friends who were made an official foster care home and that is where they are still living, now eight months later yeah.

349 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so DCF doesn't do a safety plan without somebody calling DCF and making a complaint. Did she call DCF or did you.

MARC MOORASH: Know here's what happened, so she contacted the Women's Center and Danbury and told them that I had locked her in a bedroom and had hit her. The police in Brookfield came out to my house ready to kick down my door, came inside and found all of it to be false that there wasn't even a way to lock her in a room so on and so forth. In fact, they let me stay in the house, which, as you well know, is rare in a domestic situation because the law used to be that somebody had to go to jail and they now have discretion. So, they found it to be so false that they, let me stay here. But unfortunately, there's no evidence needed for a women's shelter, there was no evidence for DCF to put a safety plan in place. They all just believed her, and then they spoke with me and when I said, as I mentioned in my testimony once DCF looked at the police report that said all of the accusations were false, DCF very quickly turned and you know unsubstantiated everything.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. But the children they did what 97 our hold and then place the children in foster care.

MARC MOORASH: No, the children have been with their mother, for the last eight months.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay and that’s. Okay, thank you, I just wanted to get some more information, thank you Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Comment or question from Members of the Committee. Comment or question? I see none. Mr. Moorash thank you very much for coming back and joining us, I hope you have a good evening.

MARC MOORASH: Thank you, you as well. 350 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we have Susan Aronson followed by Hector Moreira and then Shira Tarantino. Susan Aronson. Susan Arenson, Hector Morera.

HECTOR MORERA: Good evening, Senator Winfield and other Members of the Judiciary Committee. I submitted. My name is Hector Morera from Glastonbury Connecticut. I'm here to provide some common on SB 1060. I submitted written testimony. I'm not going to read from it, but I sent you a copy please feel free to read it. I'm really concerned about lines; I believe 522 to 540 of the Bill. I'm worried that it creates the bar for prove, it elevates the bar for proving it parental alienation at a higher level than someone coming in for coercive of control. I'm not denying that there isn't problems with coercive control. Of course, there is in fact I've caught watch numerous of the cases where women were falsely accuses of parental alienation.

Ms. Fulton's case, Ms. Sorrentino’s case, court watches case, I've seen how parental alienation can be misused in court, so I don't deny that. But I, my concern is that for every case where parental alienation is misuse, I seen a case where it's been mishandled by the Court and I'm scared that flat 22 can file for these going to make it worse. I go to for the last eight years, I go to a support group once a month for about once a month whenever I can go for parental alienated parents, so good mix 50% mothers and fathers. And yes, I can't hold the court responsible for every elimination case it's only so much power they have but, by, by demonizing parental alienation I'm scared you're going to create a situation where it's impossible to get any relief in court for alienated targeted parents and that's my biggest concern with this Bill.

I don't have a problem you helping out DV victims, I’ve, I've gone out and helped the DV victims, I can spend an hour talking about all the work I've done 351 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to try to help DV victims. I'm just really concerned that our attorney, what attorney Eppler- Epstein said earlier on, the spot on, this appears to put course of control before the 16 best interest child standards. I don't understand why you just don't create a 17 best interest and say here include coercive control. You have a very good definition of coercive control, so it makes it very hard for the judge to miss you know, to misunderstand the intent of what coercive control is. So, I really don't know what you just didn't do that on, I support everything that Ms. Martowska said and she wrote very good testimony I really hope you get a chance to read it. It's includes a lot of legal. I see Mr. Time or how much do I have time left.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Timer indicates your time has elapsed, if you want, if you want to summarize, you can do that.

HECTOR MORERA: Again, I mean I'm not questioning the need for including course of control in court cases. I'm just concerned that this Bill swings a pendulum too far on one side and demonizes parental alienation where for every case that they miss use a parental alienation, I see where they didn't, it wasn't properly addressed. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Comment or question for Members of the Committee. Comment or question? I don't see any I want to thank you very much for joining us this evening. Enjoy the rest of your evening. Next, we have Shira Tarantino, Monica Szymonik and Shirley Pripstein. Shira Tarantino.

SHIRA TARANTINO: Hi, thank you so much for having me here, thank you Judiciary Committee, Committee co-chairs and Members. I support Bill SB 1060 an act concerning coercive control, otherwise known as Jennifer's law. I'm a resident of Stanford Connecticut and co-founder of pink wave, which is a civic action Community organization based in Stanford Connecticut whose mission is to support and 352 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

stand up for the rights of women, girls, trans-women and non-binary people. The following insight stems from both my advocacy and from my personal experience. I am urging you to change the so that coercive control can be fully recognized in family court.

Coercive control is abuse. Abuse in coercive control are not mutually exclusive. Coercive control may not be able to be proven with the simple photograph, but it is identifiable. Coercive control is not subjective, it is a pattern of abuse that threatens, isolates, frightens, manipulates and controls the victims. Coercive control is intimate terrorism and it is a tool of abuse that can be used against the children, as well as the spouse. The victim can be made to feel isolated and dependent on the abuser. Coercive control is persistent in nature and entrapment and control can go on for years risking the emotional health and wellbeing of both the adult victim and the children who stand to lose the entirety of a typical childhood.

Coercive control is a buildup of aggressions over time. It's nuanced and it often is constructed to avoid physical evidence. Coercive control inherently lacks obvious intent, which is what makes it so dangerous and so effective. Coercive control cannot only take the form of financial abuse and reoccurring litigation, but it can also take the form of other even more stealth abuses such as tightly regulated ways in which a spouse can dress, walk, talk spend their time or even how they have sex underneath, under the threat of fear of consequence. This type of abuse removes one parent's rights and liberties to not only move about freely in life, but coercive control removes the ability for the victimized parent to make important parental decisions in their children's lives. Children are active victims in a coercive controlling abusive relationship and SB 1060 will help prioritize the children.

353 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

In life we recognize coercive control as abuse, so I don't see why family court can't do the same. Civil law should be changed so that coercive control can be fully recognized in family court.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Its time. Your time is elapsed, if you would summarize please.

SHIRA TARANTINO: Okay. I'll summarize. Thank you. SB 1060 will balance the restoration of freedom, autonomy, and dignity of people and a partner relationship making it safer not only for the adult victim, but also for the children and without this law, all victims remain unsafe and the children of these abusive relationships are doomed to a childhood filled with ongoing fear and trauma. Please vote yes on SB 1060. Thank you very much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Representative Blumenthal.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sure, I just want to say hi and thank you for being here with us today and for contributing your testimony and for sticking with us all this time. I really appreciate.

SHIRA TARANTINO: Thanks for listening.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): And thanks for all your work, I thank all the other organizations you work with, Stanford and other you work with.

SHIRA TARANTINO: Great.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Blumenthal. Comment or question from Members of the Committee. Comment or question? I don't see any, so I want to thank you very much for joining us this evening. Enjoy the rest of your evening. Next, we 354 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have Monica Szymonik followed by Shirley Pripstein and I see Tess Reagan is in the room, so she will go after that. Miss. Szymonik you in.

MONICA SZYMONIK: Yes, how are you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I am well, and you have three minutes and I'm going to turn it back over to our chairman Stafstrom, as you take your time to make it gospel.

MONICA SZYMONIK: Sure. Thank you so much, Members of the Committee here, this is wonderful that you're holding this sort of legislation. I've been fighting in the family court system since 2010. My own son was taken from me when he was four. He's now 14 and I have simply been fighting to be an equal parent, not the primary parent, not a soul custodial parent. But I'm fighting to be equal and it's unfortunate that in 2021, we are still fighting for equality in the family court system. So, I wrote a book called broken system, broken heart, it is all about how to maintain your health and sanity after your children have been ruthless and taken away from you and I also run a business, called the best interest of the parent and I help moms and dads empower themselves through healing in the family court system so that they can show up as the best version of themselves, while they're fighting this, this system.

So, I'm actually opposed to any legislation that puts even more discretion in the laps of the family court judge who have been mismanaging parental rights since the 1970s, we do not, the constitution's is not even recognize and family law at all and fundamental rights are the, parental rights are the only fundamental rights that could be taken away from a parent, unfit parent on a preponderance of evidence standard I lost so, I lost all rights to my son on the best interest of the child standard, which is simply that the opinion of a judge and so to put even more discretion in the 355 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

hands of these judges, is an abomination to justice, and I believe that this is simply going to be another tactic that abusers can use to get sole custody.

They could fast track their way into sole custody just by saying that they're being controlled by the other partner and the other question I have for this is what kind of due process will be in place to protect the accused will be accused get full due process if they are being, if their parental rights are being put on the, on the chopping block, will they have full opportunity to stand up against the allegations, so you know I lost my father in 1983 on preponderance of evidence and I lost my son on a preponderance of evidence and I feel that, until we fix the family court system and put, and mandate that the judges uphold the constitution in family law, then we could start giving them more and more discretion on what kind of situations they manage, but I believe that we need to endow the police departments to take over these coercive control situations, why are we not doing that, if abuses against the law, why aren't we empowering the police to conduct full investigations, which will protect not only the accuser but the victim, you know both parties will be more adequately protected with extra due process.

The other problem with this legislation is that it's privatizing safety. We now have to pay for safety if I find being abused; I have to pay an attorney for safety, instead of calling the police and having an investigation done for free. So why are parents being forced to pay for their own safety in the family courts. This if this is a safety issue, it should be managed by taxpayer funded police, so I might have used up my time so I'll stop here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, thank you very much. Questions or comments from the Committee. If not, we appreciate you sticking it out with us and for sharing your testimony today. 356 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

MONICA SZYMONIK: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Shirley Pripstein. Shirley Pripstein with us. Let's try Tess Reagan.

TESS REAGAN: Hi. Hello, can you see me?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: Surely, Pripstein’s here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, all right, you know what let's, let's do Shirley Pripstein and then followed by Tess Reagan. So, go ahead and Miss. Shirley Pripstein.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: Hey, Thank you. Senator Stafstrom, Members of the Committee, my name is Shirley Pripstein, I’m a family law attorney with Greater Hartford legal aid. I have been so since 1980 and have several years of experience, representing victims of domestic violence that restraining order hearings. You have before you two Bills pertaining to domestic violence SB 6 and SB 1060. They each modify 46 be 15, but with regard to coercive control, but in different ways, and then after that they go off in completely different directions.

On behalf of the three legal services programs, we support SB 6 with regard to the definition; I think the goal is to make it easier to get a restraining order. I have a slight problem with 40, with 1060 lines 54 to 57 and lines 386 to 87 because they delete the current language, and I think rather than delete the current language, you should, we should just add coercive control. I have listened to Senator Kasser’s questioning of other, of other people who have testified with regard to proving intent. I, as I look at the two different definitions to me either one would work, I don't I don't see that know, it's not a criminal case, I 357 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

don't, and intense is proven, I am a lawyer so intent is sometimes proven by the act of the person.

I don't have a problem with your definition. I don't have a problem with the CCAD definition, but I do think that the existing language shouldn't be deleted and that coercive your definition of coercive control should be added. I have a problem with lines 391 to 392 in lines 520 to line 521. Those lines delete the requirement that it's not a requirement. Those lines state that the that the factors not need that they judge or the jail doesn't need to give the factors equal weight or state how much they weigh the factors and I think it would be a real mistake to delete those lines, it would lead to appeals. That that language is there for a reason, it will be more problematical and more unable to abusers to cause increased litigation, if you delete those lines.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank, Thank you ma'am we're with.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: With regard to prioritizing the safety of the child.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Ma’am, ma’am we are at the three-minute mark, so just needs to summarize, please.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: Okay, I, I also think that you should also prioritize the safety of each of the parents. Many times, in my practice, I've, they have orders, with regard to visitation from the children, but the visitation orders will also endanger the mother and that I think visitation order should also consider the safety of the update parents. So, I will be happy to answer any questions.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Are there questions or comments from the Committee. Seeing none, oh Senator Flexer. 358 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Thank you Mr. Chair. Good evening. Attorney Pripstein, thank you for your testimony this evening. I know it's been a long day, but I just wanted to dig in a little bit more around the last part of your comments. Are you talking about the sections that deal with custody and the involvement of children in those hearings?

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: In 1060 in two places in the modification of 46 B54 in the modification of 46 B56 where it lists the factors. The Bill as it would add safety of the child and prioritize safety of the child, what I'm saying is that, in addition to all of the problems that we think it might cause to prioritize one thing over another, if you're going to prioritize safety of the child, also think about safety of each of the parents, because sometimes you have visitation orders and the visitation order jeopardizes the safety of the mother. Because you have to have an exchange of the children and that puts the mother at risk.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Okay. And I will take that answer, because when I'm concerned that the proposal may require children when a parent has been found to have committed coercive control that the children could request unsupervised visits, with the other parent. Is that you're reading as well.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: I think there are there are a lot of problems with the language as, as written. I'm just trying to highlight a few a few things. I don't think the courts are equipped to really have a separate hearing on the issue of coercive control before you do anything else, and I think if you do that, you may wind up making the situation worse in terms of financial coercion because you're then you're not getting a hearing on the financial orders. The judicial branch proposal is to have a conflict resolution conference six weeks in.

359 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Well, my practice has always been starting a case with emotion for alimony and child support. Do it by an order of hearing a notice and you get your hearing two weeks after the return date and you get the money to start flowing. So, six weeks in is late to me for, for an initial bringing in of the parties to see where the cases that and I think you need to have a hearing on the financial issues somewhat early, now I know that there are different considerations in, I'm going to say downstate in Fairfield county where there's a lot of money and they're often needs to be a lot of discovery for financial orders, those are not usually my situations.

My situations somebody is a wage earner and I can look at a paycheck stub. Where I have my client bring in a cookie, has access to a tax, a jointly filed tax return that might be relatively easy and I don't have to do, extensive discovery always do some, but I, I think, having a hearing on the issue of coercive control in the very beginning to and putting everything else aside and then having everything flow from that, I think that's going to prove on workable. I understand the intent of it, I I'm concerned that it will prove unworkable. I believe the family last section of the bar will come in and touch submit testimony in opposition to that I want, I want to see something that works.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): And thank you for that, and do you have a sense of what that something that would work would be at this point, or no.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: Well, I think, I think thinking that there's a lot that the family court can do that will make the situation better other than trying to make restraining orders easier to get. I think it's a false hope, I think, I think we're bound by considerations of access to the courts and that I have found that when extensive motions are filed and repetitive motions. I file an objection to the motion. I file a motion for sanctions and I ask for 360 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

these, the section of the practice book that requires would allow, enables the Court to order a request for leave before motion can be filed to be invoked and I get that.

So, I -- I haven't had too much of a problem with that and I -- I have gone over my 40 years pretty well at keeping my clients alive. I've had one client killed that was Ramona Kendall, I will add to your list of deaths and in that case the restraining order was denied. I wasn't the Attorney from my office who did the restraining order application. We got an order for exclusive use. I, she was not sleeping at the residence. I advised her that an order for exclusive use wasn't the same as a restraining order and she shouldn't go in and that she should make sure he was out, she said there's no harm in trying and she went in that morning and he shot her, shot the two children and burned them. So set the whole place on fire.

So, I was -- you know, like could I listened to the Magnano children testify, and I certainly remember that case because I knew all the attorneys involved in the case and I was very glad that he didn't shoot them. So here we are. I wish I could say that I thought this would, would, would be terrific I don't. And I but I do I do like the definition better, of course, of control in 1016, but I think it needs to be added to what we have rather than substitute.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH): Thank you, thank you for that answer, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you Senator. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening Shirley. Thank you for sticking it out with us.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: Thank you. 361 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm glad to you know you and I are in the trenches here so I'm sure you've heard some of these stories here today about people being dragged to the family court and you know, one of the things that they've used or pointed us to is the disparity and moneys and nobody's mentioned and I'm sure you could speak to the fact that you know, in a divorce you know, a woman who doesn't have income has the ability to petition the Court to have the other side pay their attorneys fee right.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: You have that ability, it is, it is, in my experience it happens rarely and, in my case, is of course I'm legal aid, so my clients don't pay. And I'm very sensitive to the fact that opposing parties are paying, which may be why I have had a fairly decent relationship with the private bar. But in the in the middle-income range, I think, I think that doesn't happen so much because the opposing party, the husband or the father because 50% of the cases they're not married. Doesn't have enough income to really support paying two attorneys so it doesn't happen as much as you would like to see it happen, which is one reason we're supporting SB 6, which has the funding provisions in it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, I know. Understood. I just find that that's a sometimes a tool that is helpful, especially after it gets to the point that there's just a little bit too much litigious activity in judges are more apt to recognize that and to order that, so you know you want to file emotion you're going to end up paying for, you know, otherwise cut it out, so but I thank you for coming here tonight and sticking out with us.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you mam for being with us tonight. 362 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN: Okay, turn it over to my colleague Tess.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Tess Reagan.

TESS REAGAN: Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today in support of Section 5 of SB 6. My name is Tess Reagan. I'm a staff attorney with Greater Hartford legally aid, practicing in our immigration unit. And our unit works exclusively with victims of domestic and sexual violence in seeking immigration relief. Section 5 of SB 6 relates to one such form of relief, commonly known as a U Visa. U Visa is available to victims of certain crimes, who have been helpful or likely to be helpful in the investigation of that crime. Before applying for U Visa with immigration authorities a victimless first obtain a certification from a law enforcement agency attesting to their helpfulness.

Current state law provides that these requests be expeditiously processed, but does not define what constitutes expeditious processing. As a result, many victims wait months or even years, to find out whether a law enforcement agency will certify to their helpfulness. Delaying their ability to seek U Visa and leaving victims vulnerable. Compounding this need for expeditious processing on the local level is a federal cap of 10,000 U Visas to be issued each year. Because of this limit and growing number of people applying for U Visas delays of several months and certification can have huge impacts on how long it takes for an applicant to eventually receive relief.

As an example, I would like to share the story of one of our clients will call her Marta. Marta is single mother of three US citizen children and a victim of sexual and domestic violence. She cooperated with law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of her abuser and subsequently 363 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

sought U Visa certification. The agency in question took about six months to process Marta’s request and, in this time, roughly 18,000 other people applied for U Visas. Because of this delay, Marta could end up waiting an additional two years before she received her U Visa. During that time, she will be without lawful status, will not have a work permit or a social security number enabling her to provide for herself and her children.

Certification delays can have other devastating effects on victims as well. Federal law provides that a parent can include minor children up to age 21 as derivative beneficiaries of their U Visa, but the application must be submitted before the child turns 21. Waiting months or years to receive a certification may cause such children who themselves are often victims of trauma to lose eligibility for believe for relief. SB 6 would rectify these issues; it provides for U Visa certification processing to be completed within 60 days of receipt of the request or within 14 days after receipt if the victim is an immigration removal proceedings or the victim's family member will lose eligibility by age. Please help victims like Marta. Please vote in favor of SB 6. Thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, questions or comments from the Committee. If not, I want to thank you for sticking out with us, I think you're almost 12 hours into this, I think you're the first person who's actually specifically raised the U Visa probation, which I think is a certainly very important provision of SB 6 and I thank you for sticking out with us to highlight that.

TESS REAGAN: Thank you very much, thank you to all of the Members of the Committee, I appreciate it. Have a good night.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): next I have Jennifer Ocho.

JENNIFER OCHO: Yes, I'm here. 364 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, go ahead mam.

JENNIFER OCHO: I'm testifying under a pseudonym. I'm a member of Connecticut protective moms. I'm submitting this testimony in favor of S.B 1060 Jennifer's law. Jennifer Dulos and I begged the Court to keep our families safe from increasingly abusive of husbands. The provincial definition of abuse in Connecticut and some of the same experts failed us both. I lost access to my children, my life savings, my home and car while trying to protect my family. My ex-husband continues to emotionally, verbally, financially, and legally abused me and our children. When he attacked our son, I reported him to the police. He was arrested and I filed for divorce.

In retaliation he fought for sole custody. We were court ordered to bird nest in the family home, which was traumatic. He conversed our children to record me, took everything of value without penalty and ordered well being checked by police in the middle of the night. He verbally attacked me in front of our kids, threaten coaches and neighbors, drove toward me with his truck, ran my friend's son off the road and cursed at school administrators, but none of these incidents met the current definition of abuse. The three-month custody study evaluation of our family confirmed he was turning the children against me, isolating them and involving them in our divorce. However, I could not get a trial date in the six months before it was rendered stale and sealed. I was pressured to sign a mediated parenting plan, so that my kids could be spared a custody trial in Middletown and their dad could work toward 50/50 custody.

Our parenting plan expired due to his non-compliance and achieving even one of the required goals. He got rid of monitor calls and visitation by calling the supervisor a paid monkey and getting him to quit. He took our children out of the country to an 365 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

unknown destination, during my parenting time with zero repercussions. The police and FBI called violations of the parenting plan a civil matter and referred me back to family court. While he filed endless motions, I was under represented or unrepresented due to insurmountable legal Bills. We were court ordered to reunification camp and costly therapy. None of these experts were trained to identify coercive control and there were no laws to hold my ex-accountable for his abuse.

Meanwhile, my children began to buck the structure and budget in my small apartment, which sharply contrasted the freedom and expensive lifestyle, with their father. My self-employed X one, a reduction in alimony three times, a refund for overpayment in previous years and a credit against underpayment of alimony because he controls his income. Reduced amount has not been paid in full for years. When I ran out of savings during my recovery from major surgery, I had to give up my apartment. Despite legally having 50/50 custody, I have had no access to my children, since that day, three years ago.

Jennifer's law would protect me against these types of coercive control, instead, after almost six years of complying with every order in family court, I lost everything, including the children that I set out to protect. I'm available for questions, and I thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you ma'am. I appreciate you sticking with us through . We’re throwing your story. Seeing no questions, have a nice evening.

JENNIFER OCHO: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Jackie Kaiko.

JACKIE KAIKO: Good evening, distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jackie Keiko and I live in Stanford. I support SB 1060. I'm 366 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

horrified by some of the stories I heard today from women who have directly and indirectly suffered from domestic violence abuse in coercive control. We've heard so many stories today of how Connecticut law is not properly protecting the health, welfare and safety of children and their mothers through family court proceedings. At the most essential our laws are supposed to enhance and protect lives, especially those are the most vulnerable our children. This must be fixed and now is the time to fix it. An SB 1060 is the way to start to fix it. Jennifer's law would make many lives worth living.

Lives that might otherwise be hopelessly damaged were terminated. I'm not a domestic violence expert. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an elected Member of the General Assembly. But if I were a member of the GA, given the testimony given today, I don't think I'd be able to live with myself, if I didn't vote yes on SB 1060. So, I asked you to please vote yes in support of Bill SB 1060 an act concerning to reverse of control AKA Jennifer's law, lives depend on it, thank you for your time and consideration.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you ma'am. We appreciate, Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and I just want to thank you so much Jackie. While you're not an elected official you should be an elected official because I don't know anybody, who works harder than you do on all sorts of issues and policies that help people and protect our rights and defend our democracy and promote a more fair and just in humane world for everybody, so thank you for your advocacy on this and on so many other issues, so glad to see you.

JACKIE KAIKO: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Blumenthal.

367 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and I don't think I can say it better than Senator Kasser did so, I'll just say thank you Jackie for sticking it out, thank you for sharing your testimony with us, and thank you for all your work in Stanford and the area. Really appreciate it.

JACKIE KAIKO: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Seeing no further questions, thank you ma'am for joining us tonight. Okay next up I think we have Betsy Keller with us.

BETSY KELLER: Hi. I know I'm I think I'm number 101 here and I'm going to start off by having everyone take out their laptop or cell phone and I want each of you to pull up the picture if you have children, I'm really asking you from my heart and not trying to be goofy. I want you to pull the picture of your child, your niece or nephew or a pet. If you don't have children a pet, and I want you to look at that picture when I’m talking and I want you to realize that you've heard over 100 testimonies today and you have to understand for each of the moms who were testifying or domestic violence victims they're testifying because they love their children and they want to protect their children.

And the only way they can protect their children, once you leave an abuser is through the family court system, so I want all of you to look at a picture of your child and focus on it for a minute and understand that if you have someone abusive in your life that you thought was your partner but slowly and surely, they became demanding controlling abuse of maybe physically abusive. That, how could you live how, how can you protect these children, and then the critical moment when you say I've had enough you've been abusing me, I'm going to leave, that person turns to you and says I'm taking your children away from you.

368 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

You never see your children. You'll have to see them with the psychologist sitting at the malls called supervised visitation. You'll have to see your child sitting in a park with a private detective is hired for $300 dollars an hour, but why, why are you taking my children because you're an unfit parent. You're an unfit parent, you're emotional, you're hysterical. This is the experience that every one of my moms under Connecticut protective moms today told you, their story feeling that sense of desperation to keep their kids safe, so they were not with someone who was abusing them emotionally, financially, not repeating the pattern that happened with them.

I saw a great quote today and it said when you're forced in family court as a protective mom to tell your children, your father loves you. He may be a little loopy, he may be abusive, he loves you, you are teaching your children look at their photos, to only understand that abuse is love, you're teaching, we're going out and spending millions of dollars in funding on teen dating programs, in our high schools and we're telling young women that abuses not love. But as a protective mom in family court in Connecticut, you were told that if you don't support the father of your children, even if he's a dangerous, psychopathic abuser maybe, such as [inaudible] you are teaching your kids that love is abuse. I'm going to read for one minute.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): No ma'am -- ma'am we hit the --

BETSY KELLER: I’m already done.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah.

BETSY KELLER: I just need to say who I am. My name is Betsy Keller and I've lived in Greenwich for 25 years and I'm submitting testimony today in favor of SB 1060 Jennifer's law to uptake Connecticut's 369 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

family court laws to better protect DV victims and their kids seeking safety.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you.

BETSY KELLER: I am founder of Connecticut protected moms.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah. We have a written statement you're.

BETSY KELLER: Yeah absolutely.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): More than willing, more than happy to have you submitted electronically, so that we read up.

BETSY KELLER: I did. I did.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Great. Thank you. Questions or comments. Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Betsy, for all the work you've been doing for years to organize and bring together people who have had this experience, who have the experience and think that they're the only ones, having the experience until you connect them to one another and tell them they're not crazy. This is actually fairly common and it may just be in 3% of the cases, but those 3% high conflict cases most often involve domestic violence and coercive control, so I just want to ask you, I know you've done some serving of the hundred moms that you work with, how many were actually assessed it when they started their family court proceeding their custody case, how many were assessed for domestic violence, is family services, give them any sort of screening.

BETSY KELLER: No, and in fact, when I asked the question in our survey of 100 Connecticut moms in family court, almost 90% of them were told, never to discuss the domestic abuse and playing coercive 370 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

control in their family court case. They would be alleged as liars and trying to brainwash or as some people call it parental alienation their children from a father, but lawyers told them the family relations, counselors told them their therapist told them, they all knew the statistics, based on Jim Meyers research, when a mom alleges abuse in a family court setting, she's 81% chance of losing custody of the children to the abuser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, no further questions. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Senator and thank you Betsy for sticking with us all the way through today and over here, it really was this morning and stuck through to the end to testify. Okay, I know this is slightly unorthodox, but we did have a technical glitch early on, where Jessica Rosenbeck testimony was cut off on us, and I think she would like a brief minute or so just to conclude her testimony that we were not able to hear, so ma'am if you could appreciate sticking out already.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Is it Okay, if I read the whole thing again it just it's really important to me and I didn't really, I don't feel like anybody really heard what I got what I said.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go forward.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Okay. Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Okay, good evening, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak again. As you've heard in my sibling's testimonies, we endured a hellish experience at the hands of Scott Magnano, including but not limited to sexual abuse, physical violence and coercive control. During their 15-year marriage Scott's level of violence and control gradually became more and more prolific, as others before me have testified. It was slow and he broke us down over time. Before we knew it, he taken control of our finances, communication with the 371 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

outside world, personal relationships, emotions, psyches you name it he controlled it.

He did this using tactic to find a coercive control, he used , threats of physical violence, isolation, and intimidation to name a few. He did this so well that we were constantly on edge, constantly on alert and afraid, even in his absence. The heightened level of stress, we were raised under his severely impacted us as adults, though; I believe we are strong and productive Members of society. I'd be remiss and not acknowledging the very real and lasting effects, I recognize and all three of us. We struggle with anxiety, depression, PTSD, decision making, self-esteem and body image issues, fear of those in positions of authority, the constant need to explain ourselves, over apologize, difficulty in relationships, I could go on and on. It's been extremely hard to deal with these things in the absence of our mother and we were left to pick up the pieces alone.

Our story has been described to me as one of the best examples of coercive control people have seen documented, while I appreciate that we can now use our experience to initiate change. It really makes me wish a wall like this, had already been in, place so that we could be an example of how things should go instead of highlighting the failures of so many. I can impress upon you enough, how helpless and disheartened we felt as our please fell on seemingly deaf ears. We filed the reports, we told the truth only to be met with comments, such as, and I quote this just sounds like she's trying to get the upper hand and a divorce case for this is too long, shorten it.

That was such a proverbial slap in the face. We gave details outlining our absolute nightmare of an experience to try to save ourselves and try to get justice and we were brushed off. I'd like to read a short portion of one of my mother's reports at this time. Jessica and I had to keep track of our 372 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

periods and leave a note for Scott sat our kitchen island stating when we were due for our next one. Days before he would criticize everything we said and did saying that we were even more stupid when we were getting our period. He told me never to plan to clean or do anything important when I had my period because I would probably screw it up.

He said I was useless a week before, the week during, and a week after my period, according to that I was useless almost all the time. After I left him, he said to a friend, he thought that I wasn't thinking right when I left, because I was on my period. This may not, this may seem trivial to some, but I feel like if someone had the proper training, they would have seen it as the cruel and emotional tool that it was using our gender and humiliation to continue to be us down. Scott always said he killed my mom and that he killed me first and make her watch.

I'm grateful I wasn't there that night that our mother was taken because I surely wouldn't be here today to keep fighting for change. But I also regret it because it kills me to know that my brother and sister have to shoulder those awful memories and I can't use that pain. And my brother mentioned we've been here before, and again we are asking for your help. Please consider this Bill and ensure that our mother didn't die in vain, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you ma'am. Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you so much Jessica and to your siblings for coming forward and telling the story which is so painful and I know you've told it before and you've told it to the Connecticut legislature before and legislation was passed Jennifer's law back in 2008 and here we are again and apparently, very little has changed and that law hasn't wasn't even 373 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

enforced, so I just want to ask you, in closing how do you think this Bill Jennifer's law SB 1060 if it were the law, when you were, when you were a child, and this was going on in your life, how do you think it might have changed the outcome.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Ideally, I just think that it would have led to maybe more people not just listening to us, but actually hearing us, and I think that coercive control is the kind of thing that leaves invisible marks, you know we are only felt by the victim and I just think, that I think that we would have been listened to, I hope, we would have been listened to, I hope that you know, should this pass that other families don't struggle, the way that we did. They feel more listen; to they feel more secure, I can't tell you how many nights we watched my mom cry, because she was waiting for calls back from, you know from the police, she was waiting for information.

She was waiting for the next step and she did everything she was told to do, she did everything the right way, and she still seem so defeated and it broke my heart, and I know that. She did feel some strength in the end, you know, I think that she may be held like a glimmer of hope and I'm you know, unfortunately, it didn't work out but, I think, I am optimistic that if something like this, you know, is in place that it it'll help people and that's just that's really, I know it's my mom would love.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you that's certainly what I want what so many people want and I'm so sorry for what you have gone through, but I hope that it wasn't in vain, and I hope that we will pass second Jennifer's law that honors your mom, all of the Jennifer's, all of the victims, regardless of their name, their age, their gender, their location, their socioeconomic status, race, all victims of domestic violence coercive control would be helped by this. I just want to thank you so much again and 374 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

wish you well and that's really it. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Chairman Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, a Representative Stafstrom. I just wanted to thank you, it was a little bit earlier in a day and you stuck around and I think we all can feel it, this is, this is really real for you, given your circumstances, and you know I don't know that I would have been able to stick around and listen to it. After what happened with your testimony, so I just I felt like I couldn't like you come in and do that and not. Thank you for sticking around to provide us with the testimony and phone, it is very much appreciated, thank you.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak again.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I want to obviously echo the comments of my co-chairman certainly it, I know it took a lot to just stick out through the end here, and we gave the whole college try, for you know, a couple times early on we're trying to rest of it, but I'm glad you got the audio worked out and.

JESSICA ROSENBECK: Yeah, thank you so much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Able to do this, so great. Matter administrator unless I'm missing, something I think that may bring us to the end.

DEB BLANCHARD: That is the end. There's no one else, there was no one else in the waiting room, so I suggest we.

375 March 24, 2021 ib/rr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right, good, so what I, I want to close our public hearing for today, I want to thank again thank the Members of the public, the Members of this Committee and especially our staff for sticking it out, we it's only Wednesday and this Committee has 24 her hours of testimony now on. Some very intense not just Bills, but subjects and personal stories over the span of Monday and Wednesday.

I almost hate to say this, but we will be back on Friday, we're hoping for a little more abbreviated day than we had Monday and today, but we will be playing one of our critical functions, which is a critical function of government, which is as the basically appellate court to the decisions of the claims, Commissioner, so that will be Friday's hearing and I hope folks can join us for that, because certainly that as much as we've had a long week, that is, that is one of our core functions that this Committee performs and we look forward to seeing you on Friday unless there's anything from Senator Winfield, do not believe so, have a great evening everybody.