Standing Committee Hearings Judiciary Part 6 2347

STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS

JUDICIARY PART 6 2347 – 2800

2016

002347 c Carroll, Rhonda

From: itsbobbyd Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:08 PM To: JudTestiinony

Did you submit your public hearing testimony for MONDAY yet? Why not? · Don't know what to write? Don't know where to email it? Just don't have the time? Maybe this will help you. COPY & PASTE this letter below, fill in your information & email it to [email protected] by !O:OOA.M. On Monday, March 14,2016. MAKE SURE YOUR VOICE IS HEARD.

[email protected]

14 March 2016

Dear JudiCiary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN c .TRAFFICKING'

H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHEI HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Robert Dingman 4 cherry st Windsor Locks, Ct. 06096 860-997-3167 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

0 4 002348

c Carroll, Rhonda

From: Garnet Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:47 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: HB 5054 HB 5623 HB 5622 SB 429

14 March 2016

Pear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H. B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. c Thank you for your time. Sincerely,

Garnet Drakiotes · 70 Fitch Meadow Lane South Windsor, CT 06074 860 282 9091

''The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will Of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle c 1 • 002349

0 Carroll, Rhonda

From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:41 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Judicial Hearing Letter

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills; H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN I RAFFICKING' H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WAE I HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,

James E Franklin Oakdale, CT c

c 002350

0 Carroll, Rhonda

From: Deborah Furletti Sent Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:04 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: HB 5054, 5623, 5622, & SB 429

14 March 2016 Dear Judiciary Committee members; I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills; H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING' H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,

Deborah Furletti Darien, CT 06820 c

c 7 I 002351 c Carroll, Rhonda

From: Martin Garcia Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:49AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Bills

14 March 2016

. Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

H.B;S622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A •SUilABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Martin Garcia 288 Turkey Roost Road Monroe, CT 06468 203-610-7805

Sent from my iPhone

0 1 002352

carroll, Rhonda

From: ·Cheryl K. Graham Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:30 AM To: JudTestimony Subject H.B. 5054, H.B. 5623, H. a 5622, S.B. 429

Dear Judiciary Committee members; I'm a resident of Connecticut and wfsh to voice my opposition to the following raised bills; H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTI::CTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H. B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING' H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time, Sincerely,

Cheryl K. Graham 96 Mad River Rd c Wolcott, CT 06716

1 002353 c Carroll, Rhonda

From: Jim Griffin Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:39 AM To: JudTestimony

14 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H. B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTlMS OF. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTlMS OF HUMAN tRAFFICkiNG'

H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

C I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely; James Griffin 26 Belden Ave #1427 Norwalk, CT 06850

Jim Griffin [email protected] Mobile 203-434-4185 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimgriffin

0 1 002354

0 14 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Milford Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

This Bill is just opening the door to more miss use of temporary restraining orders and would violate people's RIGHTS to protect themselves about 40% of the time per statistics and any Bill that would do more harm than good should not be put to Law. And considering there is a better Bill in place already should tell you this Bill should be Vote No on.

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

There are parts of this Bill that are just to overreaching and should not passed. Why a Bill can't be put forward that does good and not push an agenda? Please Vote No. c H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

This Bill is just No on so rnany levels so please JUST SAY NO!

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

The Title of this Bill sounds better than what the actual Bill is. The overreaching wording in this Bill is just too much and common sense would tell you that it is not good and NOT be put in place .

., ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Walter Hagedorn 0 Milford, CT. 06461 002355

0 Carroll, Rhonda

From: [email protected] Sent Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:57 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Proposed Bills

13 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 .'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING' H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' ~.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. · Sincerely, Jeffrey C. Hall c ?Reynolds Hill Rd Mystic, CT 06355-2901 860-917-0327.

0 2 002356

Carroll, Rhonda

From: Erik Hansen Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:14AM To: JudTestimony Cc: Eastbury Inspection Svcs Subject: Testimony for today's proposed legislation

14 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

S.B."429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

0 I ask that all members of the committee to not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Erik Hansen 97 Brook Street Glastonbury, CT 06034

Sent from my iPhone

1 002357

0 Carroll, Rhonda

From: Robin < [email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 11:35 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Opposition of bills

13 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACTPROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, R0bin Henchcliffe Old Waterbury Rd Southbury CT 06488

Sent from my iPad

c 4 002358 0

Carroll, Rhonda

From; L Brz Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 6:50 AM To: JudT estimony Subject: Today's hearing

03/14/2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members:

I am a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN c TRAFFICKING'

H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WRE I HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Edward Hannen 333 Vincellette Street, Unit 4 7 Bridgeport, CT 06606 c 203-667-5265

1 002359 c Carroll, Rhonda

From: John Herbal Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 6:08 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Hearing for 3/14/2016

[email protected]

14 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, John Herbal Naugatuck ct 06770

c 1 002360

0 Carroll, Rhonda

From: Will Keller Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:37 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Public Hearing 14 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTlC VIOLENCE'

H. B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' .

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

I ask that all m~bers of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, c William Keller 26 Old Hawleyville Rd Bethel, CT 06801

0 2 002361

0 Carroll. Rhonda

From: StevesMail Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 11:00 PM To: JudTestimony . Subject: oppose new bills

14 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills; ' H. B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTiNG VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS ASUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Stephen Kennedy

Cheshire, Ct. 06410

0 z 002362 c Carroll, Rhonda

From: NOW SECURITY SYSTEMS INC Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:39AM To: JudTestimony Subject: House Bills 5054, 5623, 5622 and SB429

14 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTEGING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

H.B. 5622 'AN AG CONCERNING THE AVAILABILlTY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUIT ABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

C I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Russell E. Kieslich Jr.

North Haven, CT 06473

0 1 002363 c Carroll, Rhonda

From: Cheryl Lemos Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 8:48AM ·To: JudTestimony Subject Opposition to bills

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time, c Sincerely, Cheryl Lemos 650 Longbrook Avenue Stratford, CT 06614

c 2 002364

0 Carroll, Rhooda

From: Marino Limauro Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:S9 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Testimony

14 Marth 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. SOS4 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H. B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR.REVOLVER'

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Marino A. Limauro Jr. 2111 Little Meadow Road Guilford, CT 06437 203-457-2234

0 1 002365 c Carroll, Rhonda

From: Joe Senior Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:54 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Opposition to bills

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'

· H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. c Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Joseph Locke 339 Foresrt rd. Milford, Ct. 06461 2038782384

c 1 002366 c

Stat< Capitol Hartfurd, Connecticut 06106-1~91 SENATOR MARTIN M. LOONEY 132 Fort Hale. RDad PusmBNT PRO TEMPORB NewHa...,.ConnettiCQt 06512 Eleventh District . &.,.;, 20.}468~ Otpito~ 860-lftyJ Httvm, HAmden

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMfiTEE Senator Martin M. Looney March 14,2016

. In support of:

Governor's H.B. 50S4 An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence

S.B. 429 An Act Concerning Service ofRestraD!ing Orders

Good Morning Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, membe

It is beyond dispute that one of the most daogerous times in an abusive domestic relationship is the peribd immediately following the ~er'Vice of a JRO. It is in this initial, likely highly volatile stage that the victim of abuse may be most in need of protection _:and there is the ~D,ost lJ!gent need to prohibit the respondent's access to firearms. [tis due to this inherent danger that the laws of several states, including our neighbor Massachusetts, already require respondents to TROs to surrender any weapons or ammunition in the4· possession. With .H.B. 5054, victims of domestic violence in Connecticut will now receive the same, Clitically needed level of protection.

This is a crucial refonn that -m must uodertake fur the safety of successful TRO applicants and their families. TROs in Conne.cticut are granted when the court finds that an applicant !las · demonstrated bis or her allegation thl\t fu.ere is. an immediate. and present physical danger to the applicant, and that therefore emergency relief mustbe,granted. Given the emergency nature of such relief, in Connecticut and elsewhere, re-Spondents !<>ex parte TROs already call be $ubject to. numerous legal resllictions on their activities. They often cannot return home, or make contact 0 002367 c

with the successful applicant. They' also can be prohibited from discontinuing financial support for the applicant. Because of the need to immediately implement such necessary legal protections before a full hearing takes place, Connecticut law requires that a hearing before the court on the temporary order must be held extremely quickly - within 14 days from the issuance of the temporary order. The respondent quickly has his or her day in court, at which time the TRO is either dismissed or the order is converted into a permanent, year-long restraining order. Furthermore, the bill would provide the applicant the opportunity to indicate on the application form if the respondent is employed in a position which requires the ability to carry a firearm. The court can take that information into considemtion in scheduling a hearing as soon as pmcticable.

Thus, the reform demanded by H.B. 5054 is by its nature temporary and of extremely short duration- at most 14 days if the IRU IS served immediately, likely less if the TROis served sometime after that but before. the permat1ent hearing. And yet, the benefit to the sofety of applicants and their families could be without measure -literally, the difference between life and death We must require the temporary surrender of firearms and ammunition by individuals who are the subjects ofTROs in the State of Connecticut.

The bill also mandates that the State Marshal Comruission adopt rules to ensure access to a state marshal for a restmiuing order applicant imd to provide services to people with limited English proficiency or who are deaf or hearing impaired. In addition, the Chief Court Administrator must simplify the application process. Each applicant will receive a one-page, plain language explanation of how to apply for a restraining order. This will provide easi~r and streamlined· c access to applicants seeking these important legal protections.

The bill makes changes to the pi'Ocedure for service ofTROs. It provides that a police officer will accompany a state marshal when serving a TRO to a respondent when an applicant has indicated on the application form that the respondent possesses firearms or permits/eligibility certificates. Having trained law enforcement present to deescalate potentially dangei'OUS situations :will greatly enhance victim safety.

S.B. 429 goes a step furt!J.er and gives applicants the option of choosing that a police officer, · instead of a state marshal, actually serve the TRO to the resp()ndent when the applicaot has indicated that the respondent has firearms or a permit/eligibility certificate. The committee could consider combining these important proposals from both bills. In any event, I am fully supportive of both H.B. 5054 and S.B. 429.

It is noteworthy that these reforms regarding the procedure for service ofTROs were agreed upon in the Task Force to Study Service of Restraining Orders, created in Public Act 14-217. The Task Force met regularly from September 2014 through January 2015. It was comprised of representatives from the Police Chiefs Association, the Judicial Bmnch, state marshals, prosecutors, public defenders, the Departroent of Emergency Services and Public Protection, domestic violence advocacy organizations, the Office of the Victim Advocate, the General Assembly and others. It studied in depth the current process of serving restraining orders in Connecticut, as well as best pmctices from other states throughout both our region and the nation. The recommendations of the Task Force were all issued unanimously by its members. c 002368 c

~~Among the Task Force recommendations, H.B. 5054 proposes the following, all of which are already the law in several states in our regton:~~

• That current law be amended to require, as do many states throughout our region, that police officers are a part of the TRO service process in cases where the applicant has indicated as part of the application that the respondent is in possession of a firearm, ammunition or a firearm or ammunition permit or eligibility certificate; • Thllt current law be amended to allow the court to continue a TRO for up to fourteen additional days if it has not been served by the date of the hearing, as opposed to current law which requires applicants to start the entire process anew; • That current law be amended to require TROs to be served at least 3 days prior to the hearing, as opposed to the current 5 day requirement; • That there be a uniform procedure around utilization of the statewide judicial protective · order registry system and for reporting successful service attempts; • That more instructions and information be provided to applicants; and • That the Judicial Department engages in robust data collection procedures regarding orders, hearings and methods of service.

I urge you to support these essential reforms contained in H. B. 5054 and S.B. 429, which I . c believe will greatly enhance the safety ofTRO applicants in Connecticut as well as greatly improve the process of serving TROs. Thank you for your consideration.

~~0 002369~~

~~c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~FrOm: john lujick ~ent: Sunday, March B, 2016 11:09 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Testimony, written.~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Honorable Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~Being a legit resident of Connecticut and gun owner I wish to voice my concern against the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN -·I RAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHEI HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' c These bills are not properly formed and can be open for misuse and the harassment of a legitimate, honest gun owner. They do nothing to protect people in their present form. They need to be called back for review and citizen input. While the intent is protection the methodology to get there is flawed.

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills in their present state.~~

~~Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~John Lujick Hamden CT. c 1 002370 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Ania Macri Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:47 AM To: JudTestimony .~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN IRAFF!CKlNG'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING . WHEIHER A PERSON IS A SUIT ABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. As they violate due process and other rights guaranteed by the US and CT Constitutions. It will also adversely affect the people that it claims to benefit by c preventing them from self protection. Thank you for your time. · Sincerely, AniaMacri 36Nicolerd New Britain , CT 06053

~~0 1 002371 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Frankie Macri · Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:44 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Subject: HB S054,5G23,5622and SB429~~

~~> 14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN tRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING . WHE !HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S,B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. As they violate due process and other rights guaranteed by the US and CT Constitutions. It will also adversely affect the people that it claims to benefit by preventing them from self protection. Thank you for your time.

~~Sincerely, Giofranco Macri 36 Nicole rd New Britain , CT 06053~~

~~0 1 002372~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: John Z Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 6:55 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Hearing~~

~~03/14/2016 .~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members,~~

~~1am a resident of Connecticut and wishto voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills.~~

~~Thank you for your time regarding this matter.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Uly Ann Malizia 29 Meadowpark Ave E. Stamford, Ct 06905 203-569-3258~~

~~1 002373~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Comcast Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:27 AM To: JudTestimony . Subject: Oppose, H.B. 5054, 5623, 5622, S.B. 429~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee !Ilembers;~~

~~I am a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHE I HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills.~~

Note that Connecticut already has a seizure of firearm provision for persons posing a risk of injury to self or other under Sec. 29-38c - "Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of inuninent personal injury to self or others". In addition Connecticut already has a seizure of firearm provision for when a peace officer determines that a family violence crime has been committed under Sec. 46b-38b.

However, according to the Family Violence Arrests Annnal Report hands, fists, and feet were the most commonly used weapon to commit murder, used in 38 percent of the incidents. In only two incidents was there either an active or expired Court Order of Protection. In the 24 family violence homicides, hands, fists, feet were the most common weapon, nine (38%). Other weapons included knives, eight (33%) and firearms, seven (29% ). Clearly what we need to be concerned with is the violence, not the means.

And the there is the validity of ex parte restraining orders. In 2014, 45% of all ex parte temporary restraining orders were found not to be valid after the hearing. In 2015, 37% of all ex parte temporary restraining orders were found not to be valid after the hearing. ·

It is clear that the real issue is how long it takes to get a permanent restraining order, which of course is based on an investigation, evidence and an opportunity for the accused to respond. Given how often domestic violence does not involve a firearm, we should be focusing on accelerating existing processes with proper legal 0 proceedings rather that adding ineffective and unconstitutional aspects to the existing, slow moving process. 1 002374 c Thank you for your time.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Tom Maloney North Stonington, CT~~

~~2 002375 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Matthew Mcbrien Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 8:51AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Raised Bills~~

~~[email protected]. gov~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN tRAFFICKiNG'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, Matthew W McBrien 183 Concord Court Beacmi. Falls CT, 06403 203-500-7957~~

~~c 1 002376 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Scott McCienning Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 5:48AM To: JudTestimony Subject: [email protected]~~

~~[email protected]~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN. ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, Scott McClenning lOOFawnDr Cheshire, CT 06410~~

~~0 1 002377 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: mikwop . Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 10:00 AM To: JudTestimony~~

[email protected] 14 March 2016 Dear Judiciary Committee members; .. I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills; H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING' H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' . S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. c Sincerely, Frank McDonough 6 Peach Orchard Hill Plainville,Ct 06062-1541

~~0 1 002378~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:38 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Bills not to support~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members; I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Linda Mercier Wallingford, CT 06492~~

~~c 1 002379~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Joe Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 8:54AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Public Hearing Testimony~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~11m a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUI I ABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Joe Mirmina Jr c Manchester, CT 06042~~

~~c . 1 002380~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Fastlightning Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:23 PM To: JudTestimony Subject Opposition to following bills~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS· OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING c WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, [Michael F. Navaroli, Windsorlocks, 06096~~

~~Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone~~

~~0 1 002381 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Steve Obert Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 11:46 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Written testimony HBS054, HB 5623, HB5622, SB429~~

~~Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I am a resident of Connecticut and want to make known my opposition to the following raised bills:~~

~~H. B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H. B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee oppose these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, c Stephen Obert Hamden CT 06514~~

~~0 1 002382 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Robert Olson Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:42 AM To: · JudTestimony Subject Testimony for 3/14/16~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members; I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING' H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING wHEIHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO C.AAAY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. c Thank you for your time. Sincerely,~~

~~Robert Olson~~

~~119 Coleman Road~~

~~Middletown~~

~~0 1 002383~~

JUI»estirnony~cgactgov 14 March 2016 Dear Judiciary Committee members; I'm a resident of New Britain, Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills; H.B .. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF ~PICKING' H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, c David Ortiz New Britain, CT, 06052

~~c 002384 c~~

~~Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Jeff P . Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:24 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Testimony~~

~~March2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' ·~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF. HUMAN TRAFFICKING' .~~

H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHEIHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' c S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAJNING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~Jeff Palazzo~~

~~1 002385 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Anthony Piselli Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:45 AM To: JudTestimony. Subject: Todays Public hearings~~

~~14 March 2016 Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;·~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. c Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Anthony Piselli Sr. 17 Janet Street Milford, CT 06460 (203) 283-5154~~

~~0 1 002386~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Kyle Potenziani Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:06 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Opposition to Proposed Acts~~

~~13 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H. B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your tim.e. c Sincerely, Kyle Potenziani 1009 Durham Road Madison. CT 06443 · 203-215-9796~~

~~0 6 002387~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Andrew Purchia Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:20 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: HB 5054,5623,5622and SB429~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~~.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' c S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. As they violate due process and other rights guaranteed by the US and CT Constitutions. It will also adversely affect the people that it claims to benefit by preventing them from self protection. Thank you for your time.

~~Sincerely, Andrew Purchia 58 Steuben St Meriden, CT 06451~~

~~1 002388 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Mike Brokenanvil Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 4:52 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Dear Judiciary Committee members~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members,~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~.H. B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUM.AN :rRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAJLABILJl'tOJ' ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Michael Quigley Bethlehem, CT 06751~~

~~This email has been .checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus~~

~~1 002389 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Kevin Rame Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 8:37AM To: JudTestimony Subject HB 5054, HB 5623, HB 5622, 5B 429~~

14 March 2016 Dear Judiciary Committee members; I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills; H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING' H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' / S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Kevin Rame 190 Bender Rd. c Hamden, CT

~~0 1 002390 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 6:04 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Mondays Firearm Testimony~~

~~To my elected representatives,~~

~~I Oppose H.B. No. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' To seize Frrearrns, Airiiriunition, and Permits on all ex parte restraining orders.~~

I am Neutral H.B. No. 5597 'AN ACT PROTECTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RESTRAINING oRDERS' To protect domestic violence victims tlrrough use of the risk warrant process.set forth in section 29-38c of the general statutes.

I Oppose H.B. No. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING. THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHE 1HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' To allow chiefs of police, selectmen, wardens and the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners access to erased records for the purpose of determining a person's suitability to carry a pistol or revolver. c I Oppose H.B. No. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING' To increase protections for victims of domestic violence, human trafficking and sexual assault.

I Oppose S.B. No. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' To provide an applicant for a restraining order with the option of selecting either a police officer or a proper officer to serve such Order.

~~I OpposE S.B. No. 442 'AN ACT CONCERNING A VICTIM'S RIGHT TO BE REASONABLY PROTECTED FROM A PERSON ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A CRIME' To afford greater protections to crime victims.~~

~~Regards, RTF Firearms Training~~

~~c 1 002391 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Abigail Ruiz Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:08 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Testimony~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING · WHEtHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, c Abigail Ruiz~~

~~c 5 002392~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Holly Sanady Sent:· Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:27 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: HB5054, HB5623, HB5622 and SB429~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm ~ resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H,B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. c Sincerely,~~

~~Holly Sanady~~

~~334 Brown Brook Rd~~

~~Southbury, CT 064888~~

~~(2030 449-6252~~

~~0 1 002393 c~~

~~Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Michael Scheck Sellt Monday, March 14, 2016 11:51 AM To: JudTestirhony Subject H. B.'s 5054 5623 5622 S.B. 429~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT l'ROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE l'ERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR R.E'iOLVER' ..~~

~~c S.B. 429 'ANACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these .bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, Michael Scheck 671 Fire St. Oakdale, Ct 063 70 .~~

~~1 002394~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Antonio Simoes Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 7:47AM To: JudTestimony~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN 'tRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WH£ IHER A PERSON IS A SUIT ABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely,. c Antonio Simoes Newington CT. 06111~~

~~1 002395~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: · Seth Smith Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:52 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: HB 5054, HB 5623, HB 5622, SB429~~

[email protected] 14 March 2016 Dear Judiciary Committee members; I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills; H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING' H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.

~~Sincerely, Seth D. Smith c Easton CT 06612~~

~~0 1 002396 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: laura Springer Sent: · Monday, March 14, 2016 7:06 AM To: JudTestimony Subject:· OPPOSE Bills~~

~~March 14, 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' c H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills.~~

~~As a constituent, I will be watching actions on these measures closely.~~

~~Thank you for your time. 0 1 002397 c~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Laura Springer~~

~~14 Pine Rock Rd.~~

~~Southbury, CT 06488~~

~~2 002398 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:04 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: H.B. 5054,5623, 5622 and S.B. 429~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my~~

~~opposition~~

~~to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF c DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST~~

~~WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF~~

~~ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A~~

~~PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL~~

~~OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF~~

~~RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support C these bills.~~

~~1 002399 c~~

~~Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From:· . [email protected] Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:25AM To: JudTestimony Subject Written testimony~~

~~· 14 March 2016'~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the foliowing raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~c S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, Ken Stein 266 Old Eagleville Rd Coventry, CT 06238~~

~~860-655-0330~~

~~1 002400~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: [email protected] Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:07 AM To: JudTestimony Subject Notice of Opposition to proposed legislation~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee membeJS; I'm a residentof Newtown, Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

- H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' -A.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING' -A.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAH..ABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SOli ABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' . - S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

~~I ask that all members of the committee NOT support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, Bill Stevens. Newtown, 06470 c~~

~~1 002401 c~~

~~Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: [email protected] Sent Monday, March- 14, 2016 9:29AM To: JudTestimony Subject Submitted Testimony~~

~~14 March 2016 · Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACTCONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. · Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, · Warren Stevens 11 b PauiTerrace Southington, CT. 06489 Home : 860 628 9394~~

~~1 002402~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Michael Sulkis Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:40AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Testimony~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm ·a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' ·~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~• H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETAER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~0 I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, Michael Sulkis · Milford, CT 06461~~

~~Sent from my iPhone~~

~~c 1 002403 c ·carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:19 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Testimony March 14th Gun Bills~~

~~To my elected representatives,~~

~~I Oppose H.B. No. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' To seize F rrearms, Ammunition, and Permits on all ex parte restraining orders.~~

I am Neutral H. B. No. 5597 'AN ACT PROTECTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RESTRAINING ORDERS' To protect domestic violence victims through use of the risk warrant process set forth in section 29-38c of the general statutes.

I Oppose H.B. No. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' To allow chiefs of police, selectmen, wardens and the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners access to erased records far the purpose of determining a person's suitability to carry a pistol or revolver.

I Oppose H.B. No. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING To increase protections for victims of domestic violence, human trafficking and sexual assault. 0 I Oppose S.B. No. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' To provide an apphcant lor a restraining order with the option of selecting either a police officer or a proper officer to serve such order.

~~I Oppose S.B. No. 442 'AN ACT CONCERNING A VICTIM'S RIGHT TO BE REASONABLY PROTECTED FROM A PERSON ACCUSED OF COMMITIING A CRIME' To afford greater protections to crime victims.~~

~~Thank you~~~

~~Joseph Tampellini 102 Curtiss St Naugatuck CT 06770~~

~~6 002404 c~~

~~Dear members of the Joint Judiciary Committee,~~

I am writing to express my support for HB 5054 An Act Protecting Victims ofDomestic Violence, SB 429 An Act Concerning ServiCe of Restraining Orders and HB 5623 An Act Concerning V10lence Against Women And Victims OfHuman Trafficking.

It is vitally important that domestic abusers be disarmed if there is a restraining order against them, regardless of whether it is temporary or permanent. To put it succinctly, the benefits outweigh the risks: it is a matter of life or death for the victim. For an abuser to be allowed to keep his firearm during such a volatile time is absurd and inhumane.

There is no logic to disarming abusers subject to a permanent restraining order but not a temporary restraining order. Ex-parte orders have withstood constitutional challenges. I believe this will too,

I strongly oppose HB 5597 because it uses the risk warrant process instead of immediately removing firearms m the possession of the abuser. An in-depth study by the nonpartisan Battered Women's Justice Project concludes "giving judges the discretion and authority to order the surrender of firearms in an ex parte or temporary civil restraining order to be a substantially sounder policy because the responsibility and burden shifts from the victim to the state and courts and it does not add an extra hurdle for victims. At least twenty states concur and have c passed legislation authorizing or requiring the surrender of firearms at the ex parte stage." Thank you for your consideration of this life or death matter.

~~Shira Tarantino Stamford, CT March 14,2016~~

~~c 002405~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: mike thibault Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016.10:52 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: monday's testimonies~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H. B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H. B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. c Sincerely, Michael Thibault Riverton,CT~~

~~0 1 002406 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: John Thomas Sent Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:09 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Monday, March 14, 201~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN . tRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHE I HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I disagree with the intent of these bills and ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank c you for your time. Sincerely, John C Thomas Jr Rocky Hill, CT 06067~~

~~John C. Thomas Jr. 860-610-8509~~

~~c 1 002407 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Adam Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:17 AM To: ·JudTestimony Subject: Hearing testimony~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H. B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, Adam Tremlett 25 Walnut St, Naugatuck, CT~~

~~c 1 002408~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 5:59 PM To: JudTestimony~~

~~I To my elected representatives,~~

~~I Oppose H.B. No. 5054'' AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' To seize Firearms, Alririiunition, and Permits on all ex parte restraining orders.~~

I am Neutral H.B. No. 5597 'AN ACT PROTECTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RES~ To protect domestic violence victims through use offue risk warrant process set forfu in section 29-38c offue general statutes.

I Oppose H.B. No. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINiNG WHE I HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' To allow chiefs of police, selectrnen, wardens and fue Board of Firearms Permit Examiners access to erased records for fue purpose of determining a person's suitability to carry a pistol or revolver.. c I Oppose H.B. No. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HuMAN TRAFFICKING' To increase protections for victims of domestic violence, human trafficking and sexual assault.

I Oppose S.B. No. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' To provide an apphcant for a restraining order wifu fue option of selecting eifuer a police officer or a proper officer to serve such order.

~~I Oppose S.B. No. 442 'AN ACT CONCERNING A VICTIM'S RIGHT TO BE REASONABLY PROTECTED FROM A PERSON ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A CRIME' To afford greater protections to crime victims.~~

~~Regards, Robert D. Tworkowski, Jr.~~

~~c 2 002409~~

~~March 14,2016.~~

~~[email protected]~~

~~14 March 2016 ·~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the folloWing raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HOMAN IRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DEIERMIN!NG WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

Your current laws allow for continued abuse to occur and these seek victims have one less c defense mechanism? I ask that all members of the committee absolutely NOT support these bills. As a victim ofDV still going through abuse 3 years after fleeing due to current laws, thank you for your time.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Nicole Vacila East Windsor, CT 06088~~

~~0 002410 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: T~ra Veith Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 5:22 PM To: JudTestimony (Its 5517) Subject: CAGV supporter (14-eSia:J3) ( 1±6 )05tf) Dear Judiciary,~~

I am writing in support of CAGV's position on 3 bills pending that protect victims of domestic violence. Their situations are dire, why would we- as a society- allowtheir abusers to potentially use arms against them.

~~The victims need to be heard.~~

~~Do the right thing, ·~~

~~Tara Veith, Fairfield CT~~

~~1 002411 c Carroll, Rl,onda~~

~~From: Justin Volovski Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:27 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Please Read~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' C I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,~~

~~Justin Volovski~~

~~225 Foxwood Ln~~

~~Milford Ct~~

~~203-414-1482~~

~~c 2 002412 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Rick Wiese Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:39 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Judiciary Committee Testimony 3/14/2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN 'IRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

Each of these bills circumvents due process. It is for this reason tliat I ask that all members of the committee not c support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Rick Wiese Colchester, CT 06415

~~c 1 002413 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Bob Wildermuth Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:20 AM To: JudTestimony Subject Please honor the Bill of Rights~~

· 14 March 2016 Dear Judiciary Committee members; I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills; H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE' H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN I RAFFICKING' H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time. Sincerely,

~~Robert Wildermuth 66 Middlesex Ave Ext Portland CT 06480 c 860-558-5575~~

~~c 1 002414 c · Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Michael Yamakawa Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 5:41 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: opposition to the following raised bHis~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judidary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H. B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERAsED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUI I ABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, Michael Yamakawa. c Wilton, CT 06897~~

~~c 2 002415 c C11rroll, Rhond11~~

~~From: Gary Zannotti Se11t Monday, March 14, 2016 9:44AM To: JudTestimony. Subject: Opposition to raised bills~~

~~14 March 2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members;~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMININGWHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS' c I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills. Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely, Gary Zannotti~~

~~Enfield CT, 06082~~

~~c I 002416 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Lori B Sent:· Monday, March 14, 2016 6:45 AM . To: JudTestimony Subject: 3/14 Hearing~~

~~03/14/2016~~

~~Dear Judiciary Committee members:~~

~~I am a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;.~~

~~H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE'~~

~~H. B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN 1RAFFICKING'~~

~~I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills.~~

~~Thank you for your time.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~John Zebroski 1943 Long Ridge Road Stamford, CT 06903 203-667-1501~~

~~BTU Systems, LLC 29 Sunnyside Ave Stamford, CT 06902 203-323-3825 0~~

~~1 002417 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Cathy Roche Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 6:56 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Support HB5054 & SB429 Oppose HB 5597~~

~~Dear elected officials,~~

My father was in the army, he had a gun in the house. He was also abusive. Anytime I was at school and heard an ambulance, I thought it could be my mother, dead. That is no way for a child to grow up. I urge you to restrict access to fire arms to those who have shown the inability to behave in respectful and safe ways.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Cathy Roche [email protected] c~~

~~1 002418~~

~~Dear Members of the Judiciary Committee,~~

1emphatically endorse HB 5054, An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence; Having sworn police officers be present at service oftemporary restraining orders; if requested by the marshal making service; and removing firearms from subjects of temporary restraining orders pending a hearing to take place no more than 14 days later. This Bill provides safety measures necessary for victims of domestic abuse.

I emphatically endorse SB 429, An Act Concerning Service of Restraining Orders; This bill will allow that at the request of the applicant of the restraining order that a sworn police officer make service ofthe order. This a safe and common sense measure.

I oppose Bill HB 5597 because it sets into motion the risk warrant process if a restraining order indicates that the subject is considered a danger to the applicant. The risk warrant process, while effective and well intentioned, does not c serve the needs of many domestic violence victims.

~~Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters.~~

~~Sincerely,·~~

~~Deborah Palmieri~~

~~171 Paddock Hill Lane,~~

~~Fairfield, CT 06824~~

~~0 002419~~

~~March 14, 2016~~

~~Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on HB 5054, SB 429 and HB 5597~~

I would like to encourage the Judiciary Committee to support bills, HB 5054, An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence; arid SB 429 An Act Concerning Service of Restraining Orders. They both contain objectives which are Important for the safety of domestic violence victims: 1) having sworn police officers make service of temporary restraining orders; and 2) removing lirearms from subjects of temporary restraining orders pending a hearing to take place no more than 14 days later.

I encourage the Committee to oppose HB 5597, because it sets in motion the risk warrant process if a restraining order indicates Ilia! the subject is in possession of a firearm. The risk warrant process, while effective and well intentioned, does not serve the needs of many domestic violence victims, because it immediately sends police to confront the abuser. Many wo111en in this situation do not want to go to the police to confront the abuser. They feel that doing that puts them in greater jeopardy. They feel much more comfortable going to the safety and comfort of the court to obtain a restraining order and have it served. That is not as intimidating a situation, in their mind, as a· visit by a police who then obtain a risk warrant. This provision is opposed by the Battered Women's Justice Project, which is intimately aware of the implications for domestic violence victims of different requirements placed on them in c seeking protection from an .abusive partner. Thank you,

~~Barbara Richardson 31 Osborne Hill Rd Sandy Hook, CT 06482 [email protected]~~

~~0 002420 c~~

Good morning Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, and members of the committee. Safe Futures of Southeastern Connecticut provides lifesaving services to over 5,000 victims of domestic violence and sexual assault annually. Direct service programs include our 24 Hour Hotline, Emergency Shelter, Counseling and Advocacy Offices, Criminal Court based and Law Enforcement Advocates and our Transitional Living Program.

~~We urge you to support House Bill 5054 and House Bill 5623.~~

The goal of HB 5054 and sections 1-17 of HB 5623 is simple, to protect victims of domestic violence at the most dangerous time by temporarily removing firearms from their abusers when they have received notice that they are subject to a temporary, ex-parte restraining order.

In my 22 years working for Safe Futures, I have interviewed thousands of victims of domestic violence. I would have loved to have a victim testify today and even though they were eager to see these changes, they were reluctant to speak publicly.

I am a licensed revolver permit holder in the State of Connecticut. My current permit expires in 2018. My father is a retired school educator and also taught gun safety classes. His guns were always locked away. When I was going through my divorce a few years back, he called to ask if he could take my gun until things were settled. Although I knew I would not use the gun, I did not hesitate. I had a teenage daughter in the home and my ex-husband was going through a personal emotional time. I felt the need c to protect everyone. I had an experience as a child that impacted my life forever. My parents were separating and 1 remember my mother and father arguing. My mother was asking my father to leave as she discovered his infidelities. My four siblings and I were there so my parents went outside to talk. The next thing I heard was my father yelling, saying just take the gun and shoot me. I didn't know what was happening. All of us ran to the door and saw my father had a gun in his hand and kept telling my mother to take it and shoot him. This was extremely terrifying for all of us. ·

I look back and I am grateful that my mother ·is a gentle soul who wouldn't touch the gun, that my older sisters did not try to intervene and accidentally get shot, and that my father did not turn the gun on himself. My parents are educated and no·rmally civil adults and I am fortunate that we are all here today.

~~When domestic violence in entered into the equation, the outcomes can be grave. The number of IPV homicides that you have does not include the innocent bystanders or the suicide victims.~~

Just as victims are reluctant to speak publicly, they are also reluctant to involve the police. For these reasons we ask that it be the process to remove guns when ari ex parte order is granted for everyone's safety until things have settled down.

~~0 002421 c~~

~~March 13, 2016~~

~~To the honorable members ofth·e Judiciary Committee:~~

~~My name is Mike Burke and I am a resident of the state of Connecticut. I write to you today to voice opposition to several of the bills coming before you on March 14, 2016.~~

Justice in America holds that we are innocent until proven guilty. The tenet of due process in American jurisprudence is challenged by several bills before you today, namely: H.B. 5054 'AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,' and H.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING.'

These bills expose the subject of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to the confiscation of their personal property {firearms) and violate the subject's right to keep and bear arms under the federal and state constitution without due the process of law.

While the intent of the laws seem noble, statistics show us time and time again that gun confiscation and/or banning certain types of firearms does not alter the rate of violent crime, including murder. Those intent on committing violent crimes simply use alternate means to inflict damage. These bills do not protect against potential (and perhaps more likely) attacks involving knives, bats or other items c common to lethal as.saults. It is worth considering, then, why these bills focus on guns. If we are serious about protecting potential victims, and not intent on drafting specious gun control measures, we must consider better ways to protect the citizens of Connecticut. One simple measure might be to place subjects of a TRO under surveillance until a hearing can be convened. Another is to have a hearing within 48 hours, so the complainant does not have to live in fear for two weeks until a determination of guilt or innocence can be realized.

I ask that you vote against the bills I have listed above as they are a clear violation of due process law. have read that as many as 38% ofTRO's in CT are dismissed and that it can take up to two years for an innocent party to regain their firearms. This is unacceptable and illustrates the potential for abuse. Please vote against these bills so that new me_asures can be drafted which will protect the complainant and subject alike until guilt or innocence can be established.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Mike Burke Andover, CT~~

~~0 002422~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Lisa Schwartz Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:11 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Testimony for the Public Hearing of 3/14/16~~

I am writing to express my support for HB 5054, An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence, and SB 429, An Act Concerning Service of Restraining Orders. These are common sense measi.!res that help to secure the safety of those who may be vulnerable to harm by firearms.

I oppose HB 5597, because it sets in motion the risk warrant process if a restraining order indicates that the subject is in possession of a fuearm. Many victims of abuse fear violent reprisals from the abuser when police are brought to the home who then may get an immediate warrant to remove the subject's ftrearrils. These victims much prefer the safer route of going to the court for a restraining order.

~~Thank you for your consideration.~~

~~Lisa Schwartz Newtown, Connecticut c~~

~~0 3 002423 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

From: SCOTT SCHWEIZER Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:35 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Support HB 5054, An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence and SB 429 An Act Concerning Service of Restraining Orders

~~Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Security,~~

I am a registered Republican, a veteran ofthe Persian Gulf War and the parent of 2 young children in Norwalk, CT. I am writing to voice my strong support fcir HB 5054, An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence and SB 429 An Act Concerning Service of Restraining Orders. I am a strong supporter of common sense gun regulation and public safety. I am completely outraged at those who block reform- namely the gun lobby, the gun industry, their bought and paid for representatives and those with an absolutist gun fetish.

The issue of domestic violence deeply troubles me. Too often we read of violence and tragedies affecting families, women and children. These incidents involve the far too easy access to and prevalence of guns in our society. I truly believe these Bills are a common sense way of preventing violence, safeguarding lives and upholding the rights of everyone. I do not agree with the absolutist Second Amendment view that results in far too many preventable tragedies. c If you don't agree with me just read the firsthand accounts of domestic violence victims. As a citizen I expect the Law to safeguard our lives and liberty. These Bills are away to accomplish this.

We can endlessly wrangle over gun violence and be held hostage to Second Amendment Absolutists. I for one say it is long past time to stand up for our rights-- the right to live safely and go about our family business without the tyranny and fear of gun violence. No one should be held hostage by a man with a guri who refuses to respect the rights of others.

I will not support any candidate or party that opposes these Bills. Please uphold Connecticut's strong protections against gun violence by voting "yes" to bring HB 5054 and SB 429 to the full General Assembly for an up or down vote.

~~Thank you,~~

~~Mr. Scott Schweizer~~

~~Norwalk, CT 06851 c 1 002424 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Richard Pieczarka. Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 12:42 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Oppose H.B. 5054 and H.B. 5597~~

Please do not support H.B. 5054 or H.B. 5597. In 2014, 45 per cent of ex part temporary restraining orders were found not to be valid after a heanng before a judge. In 2015 that number was 37 per cent. You are now considering a law that would make ex parte temporary restraining orders an established law. For law makers of the "Constitution State" to even consider such a law is unconscionable. A person would be automatically "guilty" without a hearing and without facing the .person making the accusation. This is not only bad law, it is also "unconstitutional". We already have laws in place to address these issues. Please oppose H. B. 5054 and H. B. 5597. Thank you.

~~Richard Pieczarka 318 WalnutTrail Pine Lake Shores Coventry, Ct. 06238 [email protected] 860-742-1217 c~~

~~c 4 002425 c Oppose: Governo~s Bill No. 5054 -An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence Oppose: H.B No. 5597-An Act Protecting Domestic Violence Victims Seeking Restraining Orders~~

~~Oppose: H. B. No. 5623- An Act. Concerning Violence Against Women And Victims Of Human Trafficking~~

Each of these acts takes away a person's natural right of protection without a hearing, without a criminal charges, without a police report, without "due process" and does not follow the "strict scrutiny" test when removing a Constitutional Right as defined in several Supreme Court Decisions. These bills are nothing more than an action to grab guns from lawful ·gun owners.

If the affidavit from the applicant (the abused) does not have the standard of evidence of fact to arrest the respondent (the abuser), how can you take guns away without due process? The OLR in 2014 report, "Firearm Possession and Domestic Restraining or Protective Orders and Convictions' points out under Federal Law those convicted of domestic violence or that only those under Restraining Orders many not possess firearms. The major difference is Temporary Restraining Orders are not included since "Due Process" has not occurred.

I really would like this Committee to .look af the adverse effect by passage of this bill: A male applicant (the abuser), ·knowing the law as stated in this bill, now has the ability to disarm the respondent (the abused female victim) who has a firearm, and now defenseless because of this new law. During that 2 week period before her "Due Process' can be heard in front of a judge, she is killed by the applicant (the abuser) using only a knife. This is not hypothetical and actually happened in New Jersey last year. Again if there is not enough evidence to arrest the respondent, no guns should be removed until the day in court where both parties can be heard under "Due Process'. Hearsay is not evidence in court and this change to the process is now allowing c "hearsay" without due process to strip a Constitutional right away that does not follow strict scrutiny of the law. Gun ownership is protected by the Constitution as an inalienable right that must use strict scrutiny as stated in 2 Supreme Court decisions, Heller and McDonald and now the 4'" Circuit Court has just recently stated. While the appellate court did not directly invalidate the challenged "assault weapon' and magazine bans, it faulted the lower court for its dismissive "intermediate scrutiny" analysis and returned the case for reconsideration under "strict scrutiny,' the most demanding test in constitutional law.

While this Bill is not about "assault weapons' it does strengthen the argument that anytime a law is created it must pass Constitutional Strict Scrutiny tests when dealing with rights. In 1868, the 14th amendment was ratified by% of the states. This amendment forbids any state to deny any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law' or to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'

This amendment strengthens the "Due Process Clause" and compensation for taking life, liberty or property principles of the 5th Amendment, it forbids any state to deny any person "life, liberty or property', without due process of law.

From the Connecticut State's own Family Violence ·Report, only 1% of the violence was identified as using guns. That leaves 99% of victims where this law has no effect. What law is going to cover the other 99% where knives, hands, feet, or other weapons are used?

~~I OPPOSE these bills~~

~~James Ritchie 27 Matilda Drive 0 Bristol CT 002426~~

~~0 Testimony to the Judiciary Committee, March 14, 2016~~

~~March 14, 2016~~

~~Judiciary Committee Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106~~

~~Dear Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, and Honorary Members of the Judiciary Committee;~~

~~Oppose: H.B. No. 5054 AA PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Oppose: H.B. No. 5623 AAC VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING~~

I wish to voice my opposition to these bills that will remove firearms, solely based on EX PARTE orders. These bills will also disarm true domestic violence victims oftheir firearms, the same firearm they sought out to protect themselves. As you may be aware, abuse and false ex parte temporary restraining orders are the norm for the state of Connecticut. Abuser themselves often seek false TRO against their victims. This is just an added way for abuser to attempt to have control over their victims. I ask that no one be disarmed until given the opportunity to be heard by a judge. Where then and only then can a judge be able to determine who the real victim is. Over ten years ago, a convicted felon, who I had never met prior, filed for, and was granted, an ex parte TRO against myself. He filed for the ex parte TRO on behalf of his c estranged children. This person was previously convicted of violating multiple restraining orders. At the time the mother and I were living together with the children, I'm assuming he did thiS as an attempt to remove me from the situation. He signed a false ex parte TRO stating I was using corporal punishment on his child. If these bills were law, the. very same firearms we purchased and carried to protect ourselves and our family, from this felon would have· been removed. You CANNOT pass a bill that will allow abusers to remove firearms from the real victims. There are many people who choose to arm themselves for protection. PLEASE don't allow abusers to disarm them. For this reason, I ask for you to oppose such legislation and allow the current gun seizer laws be utilized.

~~SUPPORT: H.B. No. 5597 AN ACT PROTECTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RESTRAINING ORDERS~~

I ask that you support H.B. No. 5597, as a better alternative to the previously mentioned bills (H.B. 5054, H.B.5623). H.B. 5597 utilizes existing law. Opponents of this bill may argue that this b11i requires police involvement. I would like to point out that the same bills the opposition is supporting ALSO requires police to be involved.

I truly thank you for the opportunity to submit my written testimony and for your time. Sincerely, Ray Bevis Wolcott, CT 06716 0 002427 c PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HB 5054 AA PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SB 429, AAC SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORD.ERS HB S597, AA PROTECTGING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RESTRAINING ORDERS

~~Good Morning Sen. Coleman, Rep. Tong and Members of the Judiciary Committee~~

I would like to submit written testimony in favor of HB 5054. AA Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence and SB 429. AAC Service of Restraining Orders. These bills are intended to provide urgently needed protection against those who are victims of one of the most common acts of gun violence, that of an enraged partner shooting another in act of domestic violence. This is a common sense measure intended to protect the right of the gun owner by providing him or her with a hearing within 14 days. This removes a gun from the environment during a volatile time. It also gives the authority to put service of the order in the hands of trained police officers.

Like the First Amendment, the Second Amendment does not give unlimited rights. It certainly isn't intended to give a person a tool to terrorize or harm the victim of a violent domestic environment. In the Heller case, the late Justice Anton in Scalia acknowledged its limits: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.''

I also oppose HB 5597. This is a well-intentioned bill, but I understand that victims of domestic abuse fear the bill could have the unintended consequence of leading to violent reprisals. I understand and respect the wish of advocates for abuse victims to seek the protection of a court for a restraining order. c Very truly yours,

~~Mark Franklin~~

~~c 002428 c~~

~~Testimony regarding~~

~~HB 5054, AA Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence HB 5597, AA Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence Seeking Restraining Orders Judiciary Committee March 14, 2016~~

Good morning Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, Representative Fritz, Representative Adinolfi and members of the committee. Chrysalis Domestic Violence Services provided life-saving services to over 1600 in FY 2015. Service provided include 24hr hotline, Safety Planning, Shelter, Transitional Housing, Counseling, Child Advocacy, Systems Advocacy, Civil Advocacy, Family Violence Victim Advocacy, and Support Group. We serve victims and their children in the towns of Meriden and Wallingford CT

~~HB 5054~~

We urge your support of HB 5054, which will provide the most comprehensive protection for victims of domestic violence at the most dangerous time and strengthen processes within a system designed to help them. The goal is to protect vi.ctims of domestic violence when they are most vulnerable by temporarily removing firearms from their abuser. The bill also addresses several recommendations of the Task Force to Study Service of Restraining Orders established pursuant Public Act 14-217.

The most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence is when she or he takes steps to end the · relationship.1As the dynamic of domestic violence is power and control, once the abuser realizes that they are losing control over their-intimate partner, often the offender engages in more extreme actions to c regain control. · · Evidence-based research has shown that domestic assaults that involve firearms are 12 times more likely io result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force." And women in an abusive relationship are 5 times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a firearm-"' If state laws prohibit firearm possession by persons subject to restraining orders, this will reduce rates of intimate partner homicide of women by 12-13%; decreasing overall intimate partner homicides by 10%• Finally, at least 20 other states have given their courts explicit authority to temporarily remove firearms from some or all individuals subject to ex parte restraining orders.'

Connecticut has seen an average of 14 intimate partner homicides annually since 2000 and firearms are the most commonly used weapon in those homicides (39%)" The state has a vested interest in protecting the lives of victims of domestic violence. Not extending the same prohibition during the temporary order, which is the most dangerous period of time for a victim, is a serious gap in our laws. If this measure saves just one life by requiring the temporary, two week removal of firearms during an ex parte restraining order, then we believe it deserves the full support of the General Assembly.

~~HB 5597~~

~~We urge your rejection of HB 5597, which, though well-intentioned, poses an unnecessary risk to victims of domestic violence.~~

House Bill 5597 seeks to protect victims of domestic violence from gun violence by requiring the use of a nsk warran( when a victim applying for a civil restraining order elects to state that she or he believes that a family or household. member poses a risk of imminent personal injury to them. While we appreciate the intent of the proponents of HB 5597, we firmly believe that comprehensive protection through the state's civi.l restraining order, similar to the policies of 20 other states, remains the most commonsense practice in protecting victims of domestic violence; there are potential risk posed by the bill's specific language. 0 002429 c

Chrysalis Domestic Violence Services provides support to over 1600 domestic violence clients annually, and often we are working with victims that have been threatened with a weapon, including a firearm. In these cases extensive safety planning is necessary; in some instances we have had to advocate for out of state relocation when the threat of lethality is of high risk.

As the bill is written; once the victim chooses to state that she or he believes the respondent "poses a risk of imminent personal injury" to them, the court must automatiqallv beain the nsk warrant process. Unfortunately, the state only provides funding for Family Violence Victim Advocates in 4 civil courts throughout the state. It is unclear if there will be anyone to explain to the victim what a rtsk warrant is or the process that it entails and more specifically the amount of time the process will take. Victims seek out a civil order with the understanding that the police will not be involved. It is unlikely that any victim completing an application for a restraining order would not otherwise be consider 'imminent risk," as this is the standard for a temporary restraining order. With this proposed bill, victims may unknowingly trigger police involvement, including a full search of the respondenfs home. Such a process may easily entice their abuser and increase the possibility for retaliation. We cannot overstate _the risk associated with this well-intentioned proposal. We urge .the rejection of this measure.

Specifically, Chrysalis Domestic Violence Services worked with a victim whose abuser had made threats of gun violence via text message and social media. These threats were made directly after the victim had made the decision to end the relationship. She received pictures of a man's hand with a gun, and other messages implying that there was going to be trouble. This victim was extremely fearful of her safety and the safety of her children. The victim brought this information to the police department and they had stated that she did not have enough evidence for them to make an arrest because his messages were noi specific threats. The victim was dually concerned as the abuser had been convicted of felonies in the past and had served jail time. With good intention the police department called the abuser to "stop bothering and texting the victim". This action enraged the abuser and he came to the victim's home and confronted the victim, began destroying her belongings, and stated to her that he was not afraid of going back to jail. c She was hesitant in bringing the information back to the police as she did not want to escalate the situation any further. The victim at that point had reach to our agency for support. Through extensive safety planning Chrysalis helped her relocate to an affordable housing, provided some short term financial assistance, and referred the client for legal support to file for custody of their children. Additionally the client received counseling services from a sister domestic violence center as there was a personal connection with our adult advocate.

~~Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.~~

~~Linsey Walters MS Director of Program Chrysalis Domestic Violence Services [email protected]~~

1 Campbell, JC, et al. 2003. •Risk Factors for Femicide in AbusiVe Relationships: Results from a Muttistate Case Control Study." American Journal of Public Heaffh. 93(7): 1092. 11 Center for Gun Policy and Research. •Intimate Partner Violence and Firearms:· Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HeaHh, citing Saltzman LE, et al, 1992. "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults." Journal of the American Medical AssociaUon. 41(2): 281-83. 111 Supra note 3 . "' Vigdor ER, Mercy JA. 2006. 'Do Laws Restricting Aooess to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide?" Evaluation Review. 30:31346. v Arizona, CB\ifqmia, Hawaii; Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia. vi Connecticut State Police Crimes Analysis Unit; http://www.dps-data.ct.gov/dpslucr/ucr.aspx. c 002430 c Carroll, Rhonda

~~From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 12:16 PM To: JUDtestimony@cga;et.gov. . Subject: RE: an act protecting victims of domestic violence~~

~~Dear Legislators,~~

I am writing in support of HB 5054, An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence; and SB 429 An Act Concerning Service of Restraining Orders, the first requiring having sworn police officers make service of temporary restraining orders and the second removing firearms from subjects of temporary restraining orders pending a hearing to take place no more than 14 days later.

I am also writing in opposition to bill, HB 5597, because it sets in motion the risk warrant process if a restraining order indicates that the subject is in possession of a firearm. The risk warrant process, while effective and well intentioned, does not serve the needs of many domestic violence victims, because it immediately sends police to confront the abuser. Police can then seek an immediate warrant to remove firearms from that person. Many victims of c abuse fear violent reprisals from the abuser in bringing police into this process and much prefer going to the safety and protection of the court for the restraining order.

~~Thank you.~~

~~Linda Scacco 25 Arlington Road West Hartford, CT. 06107 860-490-6699~~

~~0 1 002431 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Pamela Hovland Sent Friday, March 11, 2016 11:46 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Upcoming legislation ...~~

~~To whom it may concern:~~

~~Regretfully, I cannot attend the public hearing on Monday regarding this upcoming legislation related to domestic violence.~~

~~I am writing to you to express my support for two pending bills, HB 6054, An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence; and SB 429 An Act Concerning Service of Restraining Orders.~~

I oppose the third bill, HB 6697, because it sets in motion the risk warrant process if a restraining order indicates that the subject is in possess1on of a firearm. The risk warrant process, while effective and well intentioned, does not serve the needs of many domestic violence victims, because it immediately sends police to confront the abuser. Police can then seek an immediate warrant to· remove firearms from that person. Many victims of abuse fear violent reprisals from the abuser in bringing police into this process and much prefer going to the safety and protection of the court for the restraining order.

~~Sincerely, c Pamela Hovland Wilton CT 06897~~

~~0 1 002432~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Penny Johnston Sent Friday, March 11, 2016 2:34 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Violence against women~~

~~Dear members of the Joint Judiciary Committee, .~~

I am writing to express my support for HB 5054 An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence, SB 429 An Act Concerning Service of Restraining Orders and HB 5623 An Act Concerning Violence Against Women And Victims Of Human Trafficking. There is no logic to disarming abusers subject to a permanent reStraining order but not a temporary restraining order. Ex-parte orders have withstood constitutional challenges. I believe this will too.

I strongly oppose HB 5597 because it uses the risk warrant process instead of immediately removing firearms in the possession of the abuser. An in-depth study by the nonpartisan Battered Women's Justice Project concludes "giving judges the discretion and authority to order the surrender of firearms in an ex parte or temporary civil restraining order to 'be a substantially sounder policy because the responsibility and burden shifts from the victim to the state and couits and it does not add an extra hurdle for victims. At least twenty states concur and have passed legislation authorizing or requiring the surrender of firearms at the ex parte stage." c Sent from my iPhone

~~c 1 002433~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~Fr~m: Mike Ninteau Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:53 PM To: JudTestimony Cc: Mike Ninteau Subject: HB 5054, 5597, 5623~~

~~Dear Committee Members~~

~~I am unable to attend the public hearing regarding the referenced bills in person so please consider the following. ·~~

I find it difficult to maintain a respectful tone as it is clear given the facts that these bills are yet again veiled attempts to remove more of my natural rights. The proposed legislation will not have an effect on a person intent on doing harm to someone else. Such perpetrators will use a hammer, bat, their fists or some other tool if they are determined to do great harm to another human being. ·

Please, enough with this nonsense. It is insulting how those who propose these bills claim to be guardians of the "victims" right yet care nothing of mine and the vast majority oflaw abiding citizens. c I repeat my statements from when you illegally stripped our rights when you passed SB1160 in 2013. We have a mental health crisis not a gun issue. There are already laws in place that do what your stated goals are here. We have enough laws, use them and leave the law abiding ·alone.

~~Thank You~~

~~Mike Ninteau LebanonCT~~

~~Sent from my iPad~~

~~1 002434 c~~

~~Testimony regarding~~

~~HB 5054, AA Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence HB 5597, AA Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence Seeking Restraining Orders HB 5623, AAC Violence Against Women and Victims of Human Trafficking~~

~~Judiciary Committee March 14,2016~~

Good morning Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, Representative Buck-Taylor, Representative Godfrey, Representative Harding, Senator McLachlan, Representative O'Neill, Representative Shaban, Representative Smith and members of the committee. My name is Ann Rodwell-Lawton and I am the Legislative Liaison and Director of Education, Training, and Outreach at the Women's Center of Greater Danbury. The Women's Center is the sole provider of services to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault in upper Fairfield and lower Litchfield county areas. During fiscal year 2015, the Women's Center provided life-saving services to over 26,817 individuals in our 13 town service area. All services provided were free, confidential, and trauma informed. These services include emergency shelter, individual counseling, safety plamting, court advocacy, support groups, crisis intervention through two 24- hour hotlines, lethality assessments, and educatioual and pririlary prevention programs. We serve victims and their children in 13 towns in the Greater Danbury area including Bethel, Bridgewater, Brookfield, Danbury, Kent, New Fairfield, New Milford, Newtown, Redding, c Ridgefield, Roxbury, Sherman, and Washington. HB 5054 & HB 5623

We urge your support ofHB 5054 and 1m 5623, which will provide the most comprehensive protection to victims of dOmestic violence at the most dangerous time and ·strengthen processes within a system designed to help them.

The goal ofHB 5054 and sections 1-17 ofHB 5623 is simple, to protect victims of domestic violence at the most dangerous time by temporarily removing fuearms from their abuser when the abuser has received notice that he or she is the subject of a temporary, ex parte restraining order.

Evidence-based research has shown that domestic assaults that involve firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.' And women in an abusive relationship are 5 times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a firearm. • Meaowhile, state Jaws prohibiting firearm possession by persons subject to restraining orders reduced fl'.tes of intimate partner homicide of women by 12- 13%, decreasing overall intimate partner homicides by I O%.w Finally, at least 20 other states have recognized the dangerous combination posed by domestic violence and firearms aod have given theii- courts explicit authority to temporarily remove firearms from some or all individuals subject to ex parte restraining orders. w

The Inost dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence is when she or he takes steps to end the relationship.v Because domestic violence is all about power and control of one partner over the other, when a victim makes steps to end the relationship, like filing a temporary restraining order, the abuser begins to realize that he or she is losing control over the victim. This often results in the offender taking more extreme actions to regain control. The threat of increased violence, when a victim files for a restraining order, is real. · c 002435

Connecticut has seen an average of 14 intimate partner homicides annually since 2000. The state has a vested interest in protecting the lives of victims of domestic violence. Existing state law prohibits anyone who is the subject of a full, one year restraining order [fom possessing firearms. Not extending the same prohibition during the temporary order which covers the most dangerous perind of time for a victim is a serious gap in our laws.

At the Women's Center it is not uncommon for victims we work with to express palpable fear and distress about their abuser having access to firearms. This often results in victim's feeling constantly on guard and in a state of alarm. This impacts our safety planning with victims, whether that is utilizing our emergency, confidential shelter or staying at another undisclosed location.

Recently we worked with a client that filed for a temporary restraining order and it was granted by the court. Her abuser had been emotionally, verbally, sexually, and physically abusive. Despite all the different forms of abuse she endured, the highest concern for her was his access to firearms. Her abuser repeatedly tslked about his interest ·in guns, the joy and power he felt when using a gun, and made it very clear that he had access to firearms. He disclosed to the victim's close friends that he had vivid dreams about killing her with a handgun. He also told the victim that he had dreams about shooting and killing her friends. It is clear that he enjoyed telling the gruesome details of these dreams and the fear it produced in the victim. He used the threat of violence via firearms as a means to maintain control and power in the relationship, knowing that this fear is paralyzing and would result in compliance as a means for safety.

While waiting the two weeks for her hearing we were highly concerned about her safety. She reported having increased arndety because she did not know how he responded when he was served. We provided intensive safety planning with the victim. Her colleagues at work, parents, friends, and the security at her residence were made aware of the situation and were told to call the police immediately if they saw him. Her family and close friends c also made sure their owo residences were secure in case he showed up lookingfor her. We also provided safety planning for getting to and leaving court

lfHB 5054 and HB 5623 were passed, this victim would have had more peace of mind as she waits for her court date to rece1ve a fulL one year restraining order. I cannot stress more to you the sense of urgency, vulnerability, and danger victims feel during the two week temporary restraining order period when they know abusers have access to firearms.

~~HB5597~~

~~We urge your rejection ofHB 5597, which, though well-intentioned, poses an unnecessary risk to victims of domestic violence.~~

House Bi115597 seeks to protect victims of domestic violence from gun violence by requiring the use of a risk warrant when a victim applying for a civil restraining order elects to state that she or he believes that a family" or household ·member poses a risk of imminent personal injury to thero. While we appreciate the intent of the proponents ofHB 5597, we firmly believe that comprehensive protection through the state's civil restraining order, similar to the policies of 20 other states, remains the most commonsense mechanism for protecting victims of domestic violence through the very process established by this body to protect them.

The Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, of which we are a member, has outlined numerous concerns regarding the risk warrant. We would like to align ourselves with those concerns and reasons why our coalition believes that the risk warrant should not be the exclusive means to remove frrearms from subjects of temporary restraining orders. We also want to highlight the potential risk posed by this specific language.

As the bill is written, once the victim chooses to state that she or he believes the respondent "poses a risk of imminent personal injury" to them, the cowt must automatically begin the risk warrant process. Unfortunately, it 0 002436

is not clear that there will be anyone to explain to the victim what a risk warrant is or process that it entails. The victim will have sought a civil order with the expectation that the police will not be involved and it is unlikely that any victim completing an application for a restraining order would not answer in the affirmative this question about "innninent risk," the very standard for a temporary restraining order. So now, in every instance, these victims may unknowingly trigger police involvement, including a full seaich of the respondent's home. Such a process may easily inceose their abuser and increase the possibility for retaliation. We cannot overstate the risk associated with this well-intentioned proposal. We urge rejection of this measure.

HB 5054 and HB 5623 are important measures that create strong protections for victims of domestic violence at the most Vulnerable time. During the two weeks of a temporary restraining order the threat of violence is the greatest. The removal of fireatms during this time period will save a life.

~~Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.~~

~~Ann Rodwell-Lawton Legislative Liaison Director of Education, Training, & Outreach Women's Center of Greater Danbury [email protected] (202)731-5200 ext. 233~~

1 Center for Gun Policy and Research. "Intimate Partner Violence and Fiream1s:. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, citi!1Q Saltzman LE, et al, 1992. 'Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults. • Journal of the American Medical Assoc/a~on. 41 (2): 281-83. c 11 Supra note 3 · 111 Vigdor ER, Mercy JA. 2006. "Do Laws Restricting Access to Fireanns by Domestic Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide?" Evaluation Review. 30:313-46. lv Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia. v Campbell, JC, et al. 2003. "Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study." American Journal of Public Health. 93(7): 1092.

~~www.wcogd.org~~

ADMINISlRAffi'E OFRCE.<:. SEXUAL DOMESTIC WOMEN'S 2 West Strnt Danbury, CTOJ.810 ASSAULT VIOLF..NCE CElR p;20l·7~1-5200 t 203·731·5207 HOTilNI! .ROTI.Th"E HFJ..PLilrro,'J]: [email protected] 203-731-5204 20S-7!1-520h 203-731-5200 c 002437 c

~~Testimony to CT Judiciary Committee March 13, 2016~~

~~Bob Ferguson Weston, CT HB 5054 HB 5597~~

~~Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee:~~

~~I am Bob Ferguson from Weston, CT.~~

The state of Connecticut is now well known as one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to gun laws. You will hear from people today that will talk about guns, domestic violence and the 2"d Amendment. The FACT is that this bill isn't about ANY of those things. These bills are primarily about the Due 1 1 Process clauses that are clearly stated in the 5 h and the 14 h Amendments.

c HB 5054is a bill that represents a solution in search of a problem. Now, by no means am I suggesting that domestic violence isn't a problem. It is something that should be eradicated wherever it occurs. However, CURRENT Connecticut .law (Sec 29-38c) already confiscates firearms from those that pose a risk of injury to themselves or others. HB 5597 is an improvement over the drastic eradication of due process that is brought on by HB 5054 but still does not totally limit the due process concerns; Our current restraining order process also already confiscates firearms from an individual under a permanent restraining order, which is not being disputed.

The way the current ex-parte restraining order process works is that an individual fills out a form with checked boxes on an unverified complaint and a judge decides· to grant an ex-parte restraining order. (The definition of ex-parte is literally by ONE party) Within 14 days, the State mandates that a hearing be held to listen to BOTH parties and determine if a permanent restraining order should be put into place. Invoking Sec. 29-38c actually provides far more protection for a sufferer of domestic abuse. In order to invoke 29-38c, an individual only needs to go to the police with a complaint, which are available 24-7. By relying on the TRO process, a victim must wait for the courts to be open during business hours. 0 002438 c

The PROPOSED bill, HB 5054 does ONE thing and ONE thing only.... it REMOVES the 14-day window which IS the due. process MANDATED by the constitution. Until the 14-day hearing takes place, the other party has ZERO opportunity to respond to any unsubstantiated allegations. I would be amenable to a proposal that shortens the timeframe for the hearing, which would offer more protection, BUT they key takeaway is that you cannot simply eliminate due process from the restraifling order system. The fact is that 48% ofTRO's are not granted permanent status. It is HIGHLY likely that these unsubstantiated TRO's would never be filed if the complaintant had to give the false complaint to the police, thereby invoking sec. 29-38c.

Now, you will hear from those today that argue that "this is no big deal" or "it's all for safety" or that "guns can easily be returned after 14 days." But, do you have any idea just how many people this will affect each year? How many people's constitutional right to due process will be stripped away and then reinstated at a c later date? Based on the attached statistics from the CT Justice Dept. Since 2008 ... 0NLY 52% OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE EVER GRANTED PERMANENT STATUS! In other word.s ... 48% of those "temporary" orders are FALSE or don't pass muster to be granted permanent status. That means that roughly 2500 CT residents each year would be DEPRIVED of their right to due process. If a permanent order is ordered after the 14 day waiting period, then guns and permits are confiscated from the home. Each CT resident deserves the right to defend false allegations, which happen half the time with temporary restraining orders.

Some will still argue that suspending due process temporarily isn't a big deal. They couldn't be more wrong. For those of you that think this law is about guns, you also couldn't be more wrong but I seriously doubt that you can see that. Therefore, I want you to imagine that YOU are in the following situation:

~~Your neighbor hears you yelling at your kids in the front yard for misbehaving. He calls Child Protective Services and reports you. CPS shows up 0 002439 c~~

at your door in 24 hours to remove your children from your home! This is only based on your neighbor's unsubstantiated statements that were given to a judge who made the order to take your children from your care. Now, CPS tells you not to worry, you will have a hearing in 14 days and if everything turns up ok your children will be returned to y~u, no harm, no foul. After all, this is only to protect the children in· case you actually turned out to abuse them. However, the will be taken from you "just in case" your neighbor's story is accurate.

Let's be clear... THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS PROPOSED BILL DOES!!! These actions very clearly violate the sth and 14th Amendments ... The 14th Amendment makes it abundantly clear that the "NO STATE (you legislators) SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW••• THAT DEPRIVES LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW."

The example that I gave simply would remove LIBERTY temporarily whereas the c proposed bill removes PROPERTY. If you are in favor of this proposed bill and don't think my example is relevant, please explain how you could ignore ONE word in the 14th amendment (PROPERTY) but not ignore the word the immediately proceeds it {LIBERTY.)

~~ANYTIME THAT A GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE AWAY A RIGHT ONE MINUTE, AND THEN DECIDE TO GIVE IT BACK THE NEXT ... THAT IS A "RIGHT" THAT NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!~~

~~Fifth Amendment:~~

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public d.anger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 0 002440 c

~~Fourteenth Arnendrnent:~~

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life. llbertv. or propertv. without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

~~CT Ex-parte restraining orders~~

% REFUSED Ex Parte Permanent (!errnanent (!ermanent Date 46b-15 46b-15 orders orders c 7/8/2009 7741 3939 51% 3802 2010 5138 2744 53% 2394 2011 4858 2523 52% 2335 2012 5257 2738 52% 2519 2013 5026 2636 52% 2390 2014 4409 2445 55% 1964 Total 15404

~~Total nurnber of CT citizens whose due process rights were suspended.~~

~~Source: CT.gov Judicial branch~~

~~According to CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 14 domestic homicides every year~~

~~Guns are used in 40% of those homicides, which equates to 5.6 per year. 0 How many happen during the 14-day waiting period before the hearing? 002441 c~~

~~Simple math estimates that 0.2 homicides occur in that 14-day Window each year. That amounts to ONE ever FIVE years I~~

~~This bill would deprive 11,600 people of their right to due process over FIVE years in order to force ONE determined criminal to use another weapon during the same period.~~

~~0 002442 c~~

~~March 14, 2016~~

~~To The Judiciary Committee:~~

I would like to testify in favor ofHB 5054 and SB 429. I am a professor of psychology at Trinity College and for many years facilitated a support group for women who had survived domestic violence. I am currently working with the Brain Injury Alliance of CT on better screening for individUals who have survived domestic violence.

Unfortunately, when a firearm is involved the survival rate plummets. If an abuser has access to a firearm, the victim is five times more likely to be killed. Firearms are simply more lethal. In Connecticut we see an average of 14 intimate partner homicides. every year, most frequently with a firearm, at about 39%. c The best chance for someone living with abuse is to leave the abuser. However, it is at the moment that she makes the move to leave that violence is most likely to escalate. As the abuser fears losing control, the need to wield power becomes greater. This is the moment when the victim is at most risk. Often, that moment is when she (as it is most often a woman) requests a restraining order. Thus, if a judge deems it appropriate to grant a temporary restraining order, it is essential that the subject of the restraining order surrender any firearms. These can then be returned if the full restraining order is not granted. This is a matter of public health and safety and may be the only chance for a victim of abuse to leave safely.

~~In the same vein, I oppose HB 5597 because, although well-intentioned, the language of the bill may put victims at greater risk by increasing the likelihood of violent retaliation by the abuser.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Sarab A. Raskin, PhD, ABPP/ABCN~~

~~0 JOO SUMMJTS'l'REET. HAJl.TPOil.D, CTo6Io6-3100 nt. (860) 2-97-l~l9 f:!AX {H6o) 2.97-2.5)8 www.rrincoU.cdu 002443~~

~~0 inte~house Worlcing toward ending domestic ~olence~~

~~HB 5054, AA Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence · HB 5623-AAC Agamst Violence Against Women and Victims of Human Trafficking~~

~~TESTIMONY OF PENNI MICCA SUBMITTED TO JUDICIAL COMMITTEE Friday, March 14,2016~~

Good afternoon Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and members of the Judicial Committee. . Interval House is one of Connecticut's largest and oldest domestic violence organizations. My role at Interval House· is that of a law enforcement advocate. I am co-located at the Manchester Police Department as part of a specialty unit called the Domestic Violence Outreach Team.(DVOT). With every service my colleagues and I provide to victims of domestic violence, there is a component of safety planning. Ongoing safety planning is crucial. I am here to submit testimony pertaining to two bills that have the potential to modify ex-parte restraining orders drastically and the potential to impact the safety of TRO applicants and those close to them.

We urge you to support HB 5~54 - An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence and sections 1-17 of HB 5623-An Act Concerning Violence Against Women and Victims of Human Trafficking. By doing so, you c will strengthen state laws and better protect victims of domestic violence. Firearms should be surrendered within 24 hours of being served rather than one to two weeks later depending on the hearing date. Given the . risks associated with gun ownership by batterers, there is an urgent need for this change;

I spend a great deal of time going over options with women who are looking to get out of abusive relationships or keep their former partners away from them because they feel terrorized and at risk day in day out. They are often amazed when they learn that if an ex parte restraining order is put into place, the courts will immediately (upon service): • Prohibit the respondent from returning to his home • Prohibit him from being within a designated distance from her • Prohibit him from having any contact with her whatsoever, and • Prohibit him (in some cases) from having any contact with his children

However, he does not have to surrender his frrearms for up to two weeks! They find it incredulous and it really is. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked, "He doesn't have to tum over his guns? What are they going to do, wait until he kills me?" Some go forward with the restraining order; some will not "You. don't understand", they say to me, "He has the guns, he will kill me. "

Even for victims for which frrearms aren't an issue, they worry about the respondent lying in wait for them after being served. When access to a firearm is thrown into the mix - the same frrearm that the respondent haS used to scare, threaten aild harm them, often makes a woman feel like a target - even though the order refers to her as the "protected party".

HB 5054 also addresses several recommendations of the Task Force to Study Service of Restraining Orders (established in Public Act I 4-217). The bill proposes several improvements to service of restraining orders c including: 002444

~~o Improved . services for applicants pertaining to ease of process and changes in service that enhance safety and o Articulating law enforcement's role in the process.~~

As a package, the bills specify clear procedures for the mechanism, immediacy and duration of gun removal and marshal service. Law enforcement and the courts will be able to increase systemic protections.

Both HB 5054 and HB 5623 work to meet the needs of victims of domestic violence. When victims come forward they show tremendous courage, and they deserve a system that does everything it can to help keep them safe. So, please vote yes on both of these bills.

~~Thank you. If I can answer any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.~~

~~c 002445~~

~~' 0~~

Testimony regarding HB 5054, AA Protecting Victims of DOmestic Violence HB 5597, AA Protecting Victims of DOmestic Violence Seeking Restraining Orders HB 5623, AAC Violence Against Women and Victims of Human Trafficking

~~Judiciary Committee March 14, 2016~~

Good morning Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, Representative Fox, Representative Morris, Representative O'Dea, Representative Shaban, Representative Simmons, and members of the Committee. The DomesticViolenceCrisisCenter (DVCC), a member program of the .Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV), serves victims of domestic violence in the communities of Stamford, Norwalk, Westport, New Canaan, Darien, Wilton, and Weston. · The DVCC is the only domestic violence victim service provider in Connecticut with attorneys on staff charged with providing representation to victims seeking civii restraining orders.

HB 5054. An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence; and HB 5623. An Act Concerning c Violence Against Women and Victims of Human Trafficking We urge your support of HB 5054 and HB 5623, which will protect victims of domestic violence at the most dangerous time, and strengthen processes within the system designed to help them.

HB 5054 and sections 1-17 of HB 5623 afford a critical protection to victims of domestic violence who have sought help by obtaining a temporary restraining order. By providing for the temporary removal of firearms and ammunition once an individual has received notice that he/she is subject to a temporary, ex parte restraining order, this bill may be, quite literally, a lifesaver. The bill also addresses several recommendations of the Task Force to Study Service of Restraining Orders established pursuant to Public Act 14-217.

The temporary removal of firearms provision is a common-sense measure that would provide protection during an emotionally volatile time when lethality indicators for victims are very high. Domestic violence is about power and control; if the abusive partner feels as though they are losing control over their partner, they may make desperate and deadly decisions to regain that control. In fact, women in relationships involving domestic violence are 70 times more likely to be killed in the two weeks after leaving an abu·ser.' Add to this that victims of domestic violence are 5 times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser has access to a gun," and it isn't hard to see why the proposed measure is so important to victim safety. While current law allows for firearms to be removed after a full restraining order is. granted, the lack of a similar protection during the two weeks a temporary restraining order is in place

~~DVCC360 IS A PROJECT OF THE DVCC 0 777 SUMMER STREET o SUITE 400 o STAMFORD CT 06901 o TEL: (203) 588-9100 o DVCCGT.ORG 002446~~

~~0 ------~~~

~~~'"' ~"' ' 360-~'v' ~-= fr \ '•" C>~J' J ------~~

~~paradoxically leaves victims vulnerable during the very period when they are most likely to be harmed.~~

These risks to victims are u~necessary and preventable. At least 20 states, including New York and Massachusetts, have already passed laws allowing for the removal of firearms from individuals subject to temporary restraining orders. 111 State laws prohibiting firearm possession by persons subject to restraining orders reduced rates of intimate partner homicide of women by 12"13%, decreasing overall intimate partner homicides by 10%.• Connecticut has seen an average of 14 intimate partner homicides annually since 2000 and firearms are the single most commonly used weapon in those homicides {39%).' It is time for Connecticut to close the gap in protection for victims.of domestic violence by allowing for the removal of firearms while a temporary restraining order is in place. Let us enable ex parte orders to serve the purpose for which they were intended -to provide immediate protection to victims of domestic violence.

~~HB 5597, Protecting_ VIctims of Domestic Violence Seeking Restraining Orders~~

We urge you to oppose_ HB 5597 whi.ch poses an unnecessary risk to victims of domestic c violence. Rather than prohibiting offenders from purchasing and/or possessing firearms automatically as a result of being the subject of a temporary restraining order, HB 5597 would require the criminal court to initiate the risk warrant process in order to accomplish this goal. We believe this proposal to protect victims by use of the risk warrant st;ltute, while well-intentioned, is misguided and extremely dangerous for victims of domestic violence.

The Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, of which we are a member, has outlined numerous concerns regarding use of the risk warrant. We would like to align ourselves with those concerns and reasons why our coalition believes that the risk warrant should not be the exclusive means to remove firearms from subjects of temporary restraining orders.

Many victims, while anxious to seek the protection of a civil restraining order, are justifiably wary of contacting or otherwise involving the police and/or the criminal justice system, for fear of retaliation by their abuser. Requiring a risk warrant in order to remove guns from the subject of a temporary restraining order unnecessarily inserts law enforcement into a civil process that already recognizes the need for victims to seek protection from abuse independent of the police. ·

Further, while HB 5054 would require the removal of firearms within 24 hours, this bill contains no time frame whatsoever for removal via the risk warrant process. Obtaining a risk warrant relies on a State's Attorney's decision to move forward with the process; the victim has no

~~DVCC360 IS A PROJECT OF THE DVCC 0 777 SUMMER STREET· SUITE 400 • STAMFORD CT 06901 • TEL: (203) 588-9100 • DVCCCT.ORG 002447~~

choice but to wait for, and rely upon th.at decision. Even if a State's Attorney did apply for the warrant, realistically, the wait for the warrant to be processed, filed and served could itself take up to two weeks. At this point, not only would the issue of victim safety during the temporary restraining order period be moot, but the entire exercise would be rendered futile, giventhat current law requires firearms to be surrendered anyway once a judge orders the temporary restraining order be extended into a permanent order. This is has the potential to leave victims in the very same predicament the bill purports to address.

~~Once again, we urge that you support HB 5054 and HB 5623, and oppose HB 5597. Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters.~~

~~Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.~~

~~Danielle Brown, Esq. Domestic Violence Crisis Center {203) 558-9100 [email protected] 0~~

1 "Myths and Facts About Domestic Violence," http://www.dvipiowa.org/myths-facts-about-domestic-violence/ (visited March 09, 2016). nCampbell, JC, et al. 2003. "Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study." American Journal of Public Health. 93(7): 1092. · nJ Ariiona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia. tv Vigdor ER, Mercy JA. 2006. "Do laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Partner Homicide?" Evaluation Review. 30:313-46. v Connecticut State Police Crimes Analysis Lin it; http://www.dps-data.ct.gov/dps/ucr/ucr.aspx.

~~DVCC360 IS A PROJECT OF THE DVCC 0 777 SUMMER STREET • SUITE 400 • STAMFORD CT 06901 • TEL: (203) 588-9100 • DVCCCT.ORG 002448~~

~~HB 5597 public hearing 3/14/2016~~

~~Regarding Proposed bill HB 5597:~~

~~I am writing to generally supportHB5597, but to also point out a continuing flaw in the law since the passage ofPA-3-13.~~

Using the risk warrant statute to confiscate the firearms after an investigation is already law, and tying it into the TRO statute is a great idea. This will avoid the confusion over the checkboxes ori the TRO form regarding lirO!'flllS confiseation/surrender, and serves to document the fact that investigation showed that a clear and present danger existed at the time of confiseation, not just one party's word about it

~~However, the risk warrant statute still has a major issue caused by the introduction ofPA 3-13, and that is regarding the handling of legaliy possesed banned weapons and magazines.~~

No provision is made for the return of "black rifles" or 'extended capacity' magazines which were subject to the ban imposed by Public Act 3-13 and prior statute. There is still no way to legally transfer these articles back to an exonerated citizen who legally possessed them before. confiscation. Also, no timeframe is mandated for the return of any property, nor is there a mandated timeframe for return of a Carry permit if it was required to be surrendered. Return of the permit is subject to the whim of the police, and a review hearing in front of the Firearms Permit Board of Examiners is now running close to 29 months backlogged. This effectively deprives the owner of a permit froin the right to exercise it for over 2 years! There is also no way for a judge to 'force' state police to return confiscated property, as this power is not clearly stated in the law(s). These situations are in blataut violation of the accused property rights. No one wants truly ineligible persons to possess weapons, but the pul;llic's right to due-process and to not be deprived of property MUST remain in place. . 0 The right to retain property except on judicial review and later to have property, ALL property, returned in an expeditious manner should charges and accusations be found to be unwarranted, MUST be protected.

~~Sincerely, William D. Curlew 60 Basswood Rd Windsor CT 06095~~

~~c 002449 c ccalov Testimony regarding~~

HB 5054, AA Protecting VIctims of Domestic VIolence HB 5587, AA PiiitiiCtlng Vlctlma of Domestic VIolence Saeldng Restraining Orders Member Organizations --mr5823, AN; VIolence Against Women and VIctims of Hullllin Trllfllckllig The Umbrella Center for Judiciary Committee Domestic Violence Services March 14, 2018 Ansonia, CT Good morning Senator Coleman, Rep

Prudli'nce Crandall Center Evidence-based research has shown that dornastlc assaults that lnwlve flraanns New Britain, CT are 12 Iimas more likely to resuH In death than those Involving other weapons or bodily force. 2 And woman In an abusiVe relationship are 5 times more likely to be TI1Eo L'mbre/J.a Center for killed If their abu&M has access to a firaann.• Meanwhile, atata laws prohibiting Dor,ltstic Violence Services fireann possession by parsons subject to restraining orders reduced rates of New Haven, CT Intimate partner homlckla of women by 12·13%, decreasing overall intimate partner 4 Sak f'utures homicides by 10%. Finally, at least 20 other- have recognized that dangerous New London, CT combination posed by domestic violence and firearms and have given their courts explicit authority to temporarily remove firaanns from some or an lndMduals subject Dotdt~tit Violence Crisi!; Center to ex parta restraining orders. • Norwalk, CT Connecticut has saen an average of 14 intimate partner homicides annuaUy since Wo•; :--l's Suppo11 Servkes 2000 and flreanns are lha single commonly used In those homicides Sharon, CT most waapon (39%).6 The atata has a vested Interest In protecting the lives of victims of domestic Dar ,c,tit Vlolem:e Crisis Center violence. Existing atata law prohibits an~ne who Is the subject of a fuU, ona year St~rnfo1·d, CT restraining order from possessing flraanns. Not extending the same prohibition during the temporary order which covers the most dangerous pariod of time for a Su.v1 tt Anthony Project victim Is a serious gap In our laws. If this measure saves just one life by requiring TorringtOn, CT the temporary, two week removal of firearms dumg ex parte restraining orders, then S.>h· !!nven we believe It deserves the full support of the Genaral Assembly. Waterbury, CT

~~Dorn~·stic Vlolenct:o Prcgrem 0 9U Situ Deane HIQ;hway I Lower ~etvell Wvth4rsfifild, CT 06109 Urtitc-d f~;~~

~~What Is a temporary, ax parte restraining order? Temporary relief when faced with "Immediate and present physical danger. •~~

Temporary restraining orders, also called ex parte restraining orders, can be Issued by the court upon an applcalion for a cMI restraining order in which the victim alleges an 'immediate and present physical danger' (CGS § -46b-15). Such order may be Issued by the court 'granting such relief asH deems appropriate.' With the ex parte order, the court also orders a hearing to be held within 14 days, commonly referred to as the 'two week hearing,' at which time the respondent has an opportuntty to be heard.

While the respondent is not present when the court Initially grents an ex parte order, a judge welgha all of the evidence presented In the swam affidavit submitted with the victin's application. The judge also has the option to interview the victim prior to granting the ex parte order.

An ex parte restraining order provides temporary relief to a victim and may Include an order for the respondent to stey away from the victim and vacate the family home, as well as to provide temporary custody of children to the victim.

WHh the intent to protect victims of domestic violence. at a wlnerable time, this General Assembly has established a process by which a judge may, for a two week period prior to a hearing, deny someone access to their horne and children Wthey believe, based on a swam stetementlo the court, that the individual poses 'immediate and present physical danger' to the victim. We are asking, given the overwhelming research that demonatrates how unsafe victims of domestic violence are when firearms are accessible, that respondents also be denied access to firearms during this temporary pertod.

What albout the Risk Wanarrt? A valuable tool, but not one that can fUlly protect a victim of domaatlc vto/ance, theteby resulting In dupl/catlva procaaaes In both eM/and criminal court. c Connecticut General Statutes § 29-38c provides for seizure of firearms and ammunition from persons posing risk of inmlnent personal injury to themselves or others. Commonly referred to as a 'risk warrant, • this law allows pollca officers or prosecutors to apply for a warrant to seize firearms when an Individual poses a risk to themselves or others. A judge detarmlnes whether or not to sign the warrant based on the evidence presented without any input from the individual whose firearms will be seized (ex perle similar to the restraining order process). If the warrant is issued, firearms are seized follOwing a full search of the individual's home. A hearing Is then held within two weeks at which time that Individual has a chance to be heard and the court determines Wthe firearms should be returned.

This lew provides a valuable tool for victims of domestic violence, but Hshould not be the only tool. It is one that we train our advocates on, but with all of the safety concerns that come along with ~- The risk warrant requires the involvement of law enforcemerrt. It is not always safe or In the bast interest of the victim to contact the police about the abuse. It may be that police involvement, especially a full search of the abuser's home while looking for firearms, will be perceived by the abuser as more threatening than a civil court order requiring them to temporarily surrender their firearms until the hearing. Victims may be fearful that the police will arrest their abuser and that action could impact their abuser's employment, or victims may have a cu~ral background with a deep di$1rust of law enforcement. Connacticut also has a 20% dual arrest rete (higher In some Individual communities) compared to the U.S. average of approximately 7% In 20107, so victims may fear that calling the police will resu~ In their own arrest

Battered Women's Justice Projact (BWJP), which is funded by the federal Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services to provide technical assistance related to the civil and criminal justice responses to Intimate partner violence, recenUy examined Conneclicufs options for protecting victims. Reviewing both the cMI restraining order and criminal risk warren~ BWJP concluded that, 'Victims need options. Going to law enforoement presents safety risks for many victims and, at the end of the day, victims still do not have the cMI restraining order that offers them significant protections during the critical departure period. Connecticut's Risk Warrant stetute fails to provide a safe and tenable option for victims of domestic violence and should not be the only mute available to victims who believe their abusers access to firearms Is a safety risk to them. As

c Pagel2 002451 c such, the Battered Women's Justice Project advocates that giving explicit authority to courts to order the suiT'8nder of fireanns in an ex parte or temporary restraining order addresses the complex relationship between gun control and protecting victims of domestic violence In tha nuanced way Hrequires. "8

The Connecticut General Assembly established a civil restraining order process in 1981 because there was some level of understendlng that pollee Involvement is not always In the best interest of victims. The risk WBifBnt was established In 1999 following a !regie Incident Involving mental illness and workplace violence, entirely saparate issues ftom the cheracleristics of power and control that contribute to domestic violence. It should not be a glvan that because both Incidents Involve gun violence that the response cen or should be same.

If the only avenue to immediately remove guns was through the risk warrant statute but a victim still needed their abuser to be removed ftom the home, then a victim would have to contact the pollee and ask them to apply for a risk warrant to get the gun removed and then go to the civil court to apply for a restrelnlng order to get their abuser removed ftom the home. Now there will be a two week hearing in on the risk warrant and a two waek hearing on the restraining order. It is an unneoessary Increased burden on both victims arid the judicial system, as well as an Increased cost for the judlclel system. The civil restraining order is an Important option for victims and should be a viable, comprehensive measure that addresses all safety issues.

What about "dlunnlng victims"? As the coallllon of entitles funded by fedetal and stalll golllll'riment to setve.ll#ctlms of domNIIc vlolenc., WBI8COtrlmend that vfritfms fearing for their lives ramow all firearms from the home, Including their own. ·

Some individuals have suggested that an unintended consequence of this bill will be disarming victims of domestic violence who become the respondent of a temporary restraining order under false pratensas by their abuser. The unlntsnded consequences of this scenario are not the problem that they have been framed to be. As the coalition of organizations funded by government to provide safety planning to victims, we would never recommend to a victim fearful for her or his life that she or he arm themselves for c protection. The Violence Polley Center cited unpubliShed Federal Bureau of Investigation data on firearm deaths, noting that In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an Intimate acquaintance In self defense, 83 woman were murdered by an lntimata acquaintance with a handgun.' Another study found that women In California "who died ftom violence were more likely, not less, to have pun:hased a handgun within the three years before death. "10 Meanwhile, resean:h on the Danger Assessment developed by Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell at Johna Hopkins UnlversHy found that, "In safety planning, en abuser's threats with a weapon or threats to kiN should be ratad as partlculariy serious, as should a possible murderer's access to a gun. Thus, the resean:hers suggest that the legal prohibition of those convicted of domestic violence Is especially Important to enforce, and any protection order should Include firearms sean:h-and-seizure provisions. "11 Evidence-based research has conslstentiy shown. the dangerous combination of domestic violence and firearms and that resean:h Informs our safety planning with victims.

~~Are other weapons used more often In intimats partner violence? No, not when consldettng fallll Incidents of /ntlmalll partner violence.~~

While some individuals may make the argument that other weapons are used more often in domestic violence, H is important to point out that those are atatistics for overall incidents of domestic violence. It is true that In incidents of nen..fatal domestic violence In Connecticut, hands/feet/lists are the most frequently used "weapon" to commH domestic assault 12 And that fact only serves to further highlight the urgency of our request to remove firearms during temporary restraining orders. Because, according to the CT State Police Crimes Analysis UnH annual Family Violence Homicide Report, firearms are the single most frequentiy used weapon in cases off!!!! Intimate partner violence in Connecticut (used In 39% of intimate partner homicides).,.

~~Firearms have also been nationally demonstrated as the most commonly used weapon in murder suicides, with a 2014 study showing 72% of murder-suicides nationwide In a 6 month period lnvclving an~~

c Pagei3 002452 c intimate partner and 94% of thoae murder-suicides Involving a gun.14 In Connecticut, of the 58 murder sulcidaa lnvoMng Intimate partners, 78% have Involved flneerms. •• The study, conducted by the Violence Policy Center, polms to the ease of offenders to act Impulsively when using a flneerm because of its "unmatched combination of high lethality and easy availability." Noting that ,he praaence of a gun allows the offender to act quickly,' the report theorizes that some of the deaths reviewed may have simply been Injuries If firearms were not readily avaHable. 18

As we noted eariier, domestic assaults that Involve firearms are 12 times more lkely to resuft in death than those lnvoMng othl!l' weapons or bodily force. 17 If a victim Is asseufted by someone UJ!ng their fists, or a hockey stick, or a bat, or even e knife, she or he is more likely to survive the essauH then If ft Is commftted with a gun. That is why fineerms, as a weapon In the context of domaatlc vlolenos, deserve the utmost scrutiny by the General Assembly.

~~What happens to flreanns and ammunition while the order Is In effect?~~

Individuals who are the subject of civil restraining order have two options whan surrendering fineerms and ammunition -thay can 111ore them with the pollee or sell them to a federally licensed fineerms dealer. This bill proposes those same two options for subjects of temporary restrictions. The bill also calls for a 24 hour surrender timeframe following notios of the order (down from two business days) and clarifies existing practice that local pollos departmen18 can accept storage of firearms and ammunition.

In terms of local polios accepting storage of fineerms end ammunition and any burden that may appear to praaent, ft Is Important to note that, according to the Judicial Branch, In FY13, there wars 628 ex parte orders Issues statewide that Included allegations of firearm possession. There were only 573 such lnstsnoss statewide in FY14 and 530 In FY15. Even large citiaa would not be overburdened. Below are the seven munlcipalltiaa with the highaat numbers of ex parte orders with allegations of firearms In FY13 and FY14 (and the only municipalities with 20 or more such orders): c

How quickly will gun pennlts/ellglblllty certificates be relnatatad If the temporary order expires? L.snguege has been Included In this year's bill to clarify that everything will be 181nstated following pollee vetftlca1/on via the ptDt.ctive order te{lislry that tha temporary order has expllfKl and that no other dlsquatlffcatlons exist.

For those individuals who are responden18 of temporary restraining orders that are not extended to full, one year orders following a hearing, language hes been Included to clarify that police sheD reinstate carry permits/eligibility certificates upon confirmation via the protective order registry that the temporary restraining ·order has expired and that no other parmR disqualifications axlst. (See sections 11 - 14)

What If the respondent of a temporary order needs to carry a flreann as part of his or her employment? The court will have tha option to schedule the hearing sooner for thoselndMduals who aN employed In a position for which canylng a tlreann Is essantla/.

This bill proposes the! courts be given the ability to order a hearing sooner then 14 days from the date of the application If the respondent Is employed In a position for which an essential element Is the ability to carry a firearms. {Sse section 3)

~~c Pagel4 002453 c~~

~~Recommendations of the 2014 Task Force to study Service of Restraining Orders~~

This biU also addresses several reoommendatlons of the Task Force to study Service of Resllaining Orde/8 eatsblished pursuant Public Act 14-217, which I co-chaired with Representative Michelle Cook. The task force, which met between September 2014 and January 2015, Included a comprahensive sat of stakeholders Including domestic violence advocates, state marshals, law enforcement, attorneys (including a prosecutor, public defender and legal aid attorney), a family court judge and court operations personnel.

Section 2 of the bill will requiras the State Marshal Commission to make ravislons to its policy manual for marshals that will enhance rasponsiveness to victims seeking their assistance with the service of restraining orders. This will Include uniform policies for the provision of consistent and rallable access to a state marshal. CurrenUy, marshals In some araes of the state utilize a "marshal of the day" sarvics whereby a marshalls assigned to the court on a specific day and they physically go to the court twice to make themselves available to victims. In other araas the court clerk will contact marshals as needed. And yet in olhar courts victims ara handed a list of marshals and the victim must find one willing to make service.

As you can see, the existing systam of serving rastrainlng orders can be a significant burden on the applicant of the rastralnlng order. Many victims apply without the assistance of an advocate or lawyer and finding a marshal to sarve the ordar Is not always easy, particularly for those Individuals who have limited Eng6sh proficiency. A raview and ravislon of policies to enhance rasponsiveness to victims of domestic violence seeking to have rastralning orders served will lncraase safaty and victim confidence In the systam sat up to help protact them. Proposed policy manual ravisions also caD for standards for assisting victims with limited Eng6sh proficiency or who ara deaf or hearing impairad and the accaptance of faxed copies of ordars to serve.

Section 3 of the bill proposas that the court be allowed to extand temporary, ex parte orders Wthe c applicant Is prasent at the two week hearing but the order has not yet been served. It also proposes that marshals be given additional Ume to serve ex parte orders and noUcas of hearing by decreasing the number of days (from 5 days to 3 days) prior to a hearing on a rastraining order by which the order or notice of hearing must be served.

State marshals face many chellangas when serving rastralning orders, Including deaHng with raspondants who era awara that their victim has applied for an order so they (the raspondents) actively awld service of said order. CurrenUy, if service cannot be succassfully made 5 days prior to the hearing and the raspondent does not show up to the hearing, the ex parte order may be dropped and the victim may have to raapply for the rastralnlng order, oflen leaving her or him with the feeling that the system siinply cannot help.

Allowing the court to extend the temporary protection so that service can be reattemptad Is a commonsense fix to ·assisting victims and ensuring that the system is responsive to them at a time when they ara experiencing significant trauma. Twenty (20) states allow for the extensions of temporary rastralnlng orders if service is not made prior to the hearing." In these states, the hearing Is rascheduled and the order automatically extanded until the hearing.

Section 3 of the bill also proposes that marshals be raquirad to Input notification of successful service into the Judicial Branch lntemet-bssed tracking system within two hours of service. Victims rely on the CT SAVIN system, which Is an automated system that notifies them of changas in their case. If notification of service Is not input in a timely manner, then victims era left not knowing whether or not they ara protected.

Section 3 of the bill also proposes that marshals take the following steps when serving ex parte rastralning orders with allegations of firearms: 1) provide notice to law enforcement In the town whera the order will be served, 2) send a copy of the order to law enforcement in that town, and 3) requesl that a police officer be prasent when they serve the order. During the task force, some stele marshals testified

c PagelS 002454 c regarding safety concerns related to service of restraining order and fiR181111s. lnCI8BS8d communication and partnership betwaen mershals and law anforcement will only serva to keap victims safer.

The bill also proposes a faw other changes designed to slrengthen court processes related to restraining orders: 1) Sacllon 4 allows the ChiBf Court Aclmlnlstrstor, where feasible, to provida space with the courthouse to pennK meetings between restraining order appllcationa and - marshals, and 2) Section 5 raqulras the Chief Court Administrator to revise and sinpllfy the process for filing for a restraining order and to provide a plain language explanation of how to apply, as well as to collect data related to service of restraining orders.

~~We thank Gowmor Malloy, Senate Ptesldent Looney and Speaker Sharkey for their continued laadershlp on protecting victims of domesUc violence.~~

~~HB5597~~

~~We urge yo11r Jajactlon Clf HB 5597, which, though well-Intentioned, p-an unnacassary risk to vlc:llms of domestic v1o18iiCi:~~

House BUI 5597 seeks to protect victims of domestic violence from gun violence by requiring the use of a riSk warrsrit (diSCUssed above on page 2) when a victim applying for a civil restrail!ing order elects to stala that she or he believes that a famUy or hoUsehold member poses a risk IX imminent personal injury to them. Whle wa appJaCiete the intent of the proponents of HB 5597. we firmly beliava that oomprahensiwl protection through th" -·s civil restraining oraer, sllliilar to the policies of 20 other atetea, remains the moat commonsense machenlsm for protecting victims IX domesUc violence through the very process asteblished by this body to protect them. While we hava already oullned our concerns regarding the risk warrant and raasoris why we believe that the risk warrsnt should not be the exdusiva maans to JamOW firearms from subjects of temporary restraining orders, we also want to highlight the c potential risk posed by this specific language. ·As the bill is written, once the victim chooses to - that she or he believes the JaSpOndenl "poses a risk of imminent penlonallnjury" to them, the ·court must automatically begin the risk warrant process. Unfortunately, since the alate only provides funding for FamUy VIOlence Victim Adwcstes In 4 civil couris throughout the alate, K Is not deer that there wiD be anyone to explain to the victim what a risk warrsnt Is or process that K entals. The victim will heva sought a civil order with the expeclallon that the pollee will not be Involved and K is unlikely that any victim com plating an appllcsllon for a Jaatrslnlng order would not answer In the Bffirmatiwl this question aboul"inminent risk," the very litendard for a temporary restraining order. So now, in every inatence, these victims may unknowingly trigger police lnvolvamerit, lndliding a fullsEi'ch of the i'eapOndl!nt's home. SUch a process may aaslly incense their abuser and Increase the posalbllty for retaliation. We cannot ovarstete the risk associated with this wall-Intentioned proposal. We urge rejection of this measure.

~~Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesKate to contact me with questions or for additional information.~~

~~Karen Jarmoc CEO [email protected]~~

1 Campbell. JC. et al. 2003. "Riak Factors fer Femicide In Abusl\18 R-shlpa: Results from a Multistate Csse Control Study." Amarlcan Jouma/ of Public Haallh. 93(7): 1082. 2 Center fer Gun Polley and Research. "lmma1e Partner VIolence and Firearms.• Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Hssllh, cHing Saltzman LE. et al, 1992. 'Waepon IIMIIvamant and Injury Outcomes In Family and lntima1e Assaults." Jouma/ of the Amarlcan Medlcel Asaoclation. 41(2~ 281-ll:l. 3 Supra no1s 3

~~c Pagel6 002455 c~~

• Vigdor ER, Mercy JA 2006. "Do Laws Reslrtcllng Access to Flraanns by Domestic Violenos Ollande111 Pravant 1-Partner Homicide?" Evaluallori Ret/low; 30:313-46. 5 Arizala, California, Hewall, lllklola, Maine, MaasschuaatiB, Mk:hlgan, Montana, Nebrug, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Cerollna, North Dakola, Pemaylvanla, T-. Utah, VIrginia, Washington, West VIrginia. 6 Ccinrlecllciul Slala Pollee C~mes Analyala Unll; hiiD:Ifwww.dos-data.ct.gov/dos!ucr/ucr.asox. 7 U~ Jilationaii--Based Reporting Syatam (NIBRS). 2010. • Battanid WDmlin'• Juatice Project (January 2016) Marnonondurn for the Connadlcut Coalition Agmst Domostlc Vlolenoil.on 1MM!Iher to Prolec! Vk:llnio of Domestic \!lolariDS from Flreanns Tivough Ccinnecticut'a Risk Warranl 5t8tut11 or ThrOugh Ccinnecticut'a Clvl Restraining Order Sta1ute as Ex P-Relief. • \!lolariDS PoleY cnar. "A Deadly Myth: Woman, Handguns, and Self-Defense." 2001. hiiD~twww.wc.orlJisludleslmyth.htm ,. ~iaaeal. KM, et al. 2003. "Asaoclstlon Batween Handgun Purchasa and Mortality from Fireann l~ury." Injury ~.$:<411-52. 11 Cllnpbil; JC, et al. 2003. "Assasslng Risk Factolll for lntlrna18 Partner Homicide." N&Uonallnstllute of Justlos JDU()n&J.25o: 14-19. 12 Supra note 6 "Ibid 14 Vlolenos Polley Cantor. "American Rou-: Murder Suicide In the United Statea. • October 2015. hiiD:I/www.ypc orq!studies!amroul2015.pdl 15 supra nota 6 .. SUpra note 10 17 Supra nota 2 11 Alabsna, ~. Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky. Maryland, New Me)dco, .NOrth Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vannont, Virginia, Washington, West VIrginia, Wlaoonsln. c

~~c Pagel7 0 0 0~~

~~" INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDES cca1ov·' con.. ctleul Co~ I~ on ..9"'""' t><>molltiCVI~o 2000-2014 ~~----r-~--~----~~

~~• 1 homicide • 2 homicides · I .....~~

~~3 homicides~~

~~~ 4 homicides~~

~~• S-1 0 homicides~~

~~11-20 homicides~~

~~• 21 + homicides~~

~~215 TOTAL HOMICIDES 183 FEMALE VlcnMS 32 MALE VlcnMS~~

~~WEAPONS USED PHYSICAL FDRCE-----, 5%~~

~~0 39% 0 N .Jlo. U1 Source: CT Department of Emergency Servfcas & Public Protection, CT State Pollee, en Crimes Analysis Unit; State of Connecticut Family VIolence Homicide Reports 2000- 2014 002457 c~~

~~@jcr •• ~ . ' ' lAtTERED WOftiEN'S JUSTICE PROJEa~~

Memorandum for the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence on c Whether to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence from Firearms Through Connecticut's Risk Warrant Statute or Through Connecticut's Civil Restraining Order Statute As Ex Parte Relief

~~Kristine Lizdas Legal Program Director Battered Women's Justice Project 1801 Nicollet Ave South, Suite 102 Minneapolis MN 55403~~

~~January, 2016~~

~~c 1 002458 c~~

~~I. Purpose~~

~~Adequately aiding victims of domestic violence demands careful analysis of the coocerns~~

~~of victims and the risks they face when attenipting to leave their abusers. Consequently, the most~~

~~effective legislation should take these factors into account. Connecticut's Risk Warrant statute,~~

~~while a valuable tool, does not fully address the needs and concerns of domestic violence victims~~

~~and should not be the ouly option available to victims who believe their abusers' access to firearms~~

~~is a safety risk to them. Rather, the Battered Women's Justice Project deems giving judges the~~

~~discretion and authority to order the surrender of firearms in an ex parte or temporary civil~~

~~restraining order to be a substantially sounder policy because the responsibility and burden shifts~~

~~from the victim to the state and courts, and it does not add an extrs hurdle for victims. At least~~

~~twenty states' concur and have passed legislation authorizing or requiring the surrender of firearms~~

~~c at the ex parte stage.~~

~~II. Background~~

~~To address gun violence at large, Connecticut adopted the Risk Warrant statute in 1999,~~

~~which allows law enforcement officers to seize firearms from any person who is deemed to pose~~

~~"a risk of imminent personal injury to himself ~r herself or to other individuals" after obtaining a~~

~~warrant. 2 Individuals must lodge a complaint about the threatening person with law enforcement.~~

~~The police, after investigating and determine probable cause, can then pursue a warrant to seize~~

1 Arizona, California, Hawaii, Dlinois, Maioe, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mootana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolioa, North Dakota, Pennsylvaoia, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia. 2 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 29-38c(a).

~~c 2 002459 c~~

~~firearms from individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others.3 As of 2015, Indiana and~~

~~California are the only states to have passed similar laws.4 From October 1999 through July 2013,~~

~~764 warrants for "imminent risk" gun seizures have been served in Connecticut, with 53% having~~

~~been served since 2010.5~~

~~Connecticut has strong restrictions on access to firearms by domestic violence perpetrators;~~

~~however, domestic violence deaths ren3ain prevalent in Connecticut, and are frequently the result~~

~~of gun crime. Nationally, domestic assaults involving firearms are 12 times more likely to result~~

~~in fatal violence than those involving other weapons or bodily harm, 6 and women are more at risk~~

~~to be victims of fatal domestic violence. Further, women in abusive relationships are 5 times more~~

~~likely to be killed iftheir abuser has access to a firearm. 7 Connecticut averaged 14 intimate partner~~

homicides per year between 2000 and 2012.8 Firearms were used in 39% of the 188 intimate c partner homicides that occurred between 2000 and 2012, msking firearms the most commouly used weapon to commit intimate partner homicide in Connecticut.•

3 /d. 4 While Connecticut and Indiana allow only law enforeement to seck the removal of firearms from dangerous individuals, California is the first state to adopt a law enabling inonediate family members to bring a petition for a gun violence restraining order. 5 Michael A. Norko & Madelon Baranokis. Gun Control Legislation in Connecticut: Effects ofPersons with Mental 0/ness, 46 Conn. Law Review 1609, 1616 (2014). 6 Center for Gun Policy and Research. "'ntimate Parmer Violence and Firearms." John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, citiog Satlmtan LE, et al., 1992. "Weapon Involvement and Jnjwy Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assanlts." Jownal of the American Medical Association. 41(2): 281-83. 7 Campbell, JC, et al. 2003. ''Risk Facters for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Stody." American Journal ofPublic Health. 93(7): 1092. 8 Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (July 2014) c.pon Further Examination: 2014 Findings&: RectimmendtJtions ofthe Connecticut Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee. p. 2. 'Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (December 2014) Fil'

~~c 3 002460 c~~

~~ill. Practical Considerations When Working with Victims of Domestic Violence~~

~~While the creation of the Risk Wanant statute speaks to a well-intentioned desire to protect~~

~~the public from dangerous persons with firearms, and may be a valuable tool for some individuals,~~

~~the statute places too great a burden on victims and further puts them at risk.~~

~~Use ofthe Criminal Justice System. The Risk Wanant statute requires a victim to report~~

~~their abuser to law enforcement; however, contacting the police is not always in the beat intereat~~

~~ofthe victim nor is it always safe. In a survey of over six h11Jl()red women who experienced partner~~

~~abuse, including women who had and had not contacted the police about their experiences with~~

~~domestic violence, both groups expressed a strong reluctance to turn to law enforcement for help~~

due to the possible - and potentially deadly - repercussions. More than half the women surveyed c stated that tumiog to the police would make things worse, with several victims frequently citing fear ofreprisal by their abuser. 10 Of the womet) who had not previously contacted the police, 70"/o

~~feared that calling the police would make things worse, that the offender would only get a slap on~~

~~the wrist, or calling the police would have negative consequences for them. 11 These concerns are~~

~~not merely speculative fears, as indicated by the accounts of victims who had uofortuoate~~

~~experiences in which "[the police] believed [her abuser] every time [she called the police] because~~

~~he didn't leave marks"12 or "sympathized with [her abuser] and said he [just] needed to stay away~~

~~from [the victim]." 13 Victims may also be threatened with arrest rather than their offenders or fear~~

~~duo! arrest, which poses a significant barrier to victims in Connecticut, where both the victim and~~

10 National Domestic Violence Hotline, Who Will Help Me? Domestic V'wlence Survivors Speak About Law Enforcement Responses. Washington, DC (2015). htto://www.thehotline.org/resources/law enforcement-resoonses. 11 /d., at3. 12 /d., at 8. 13 /d., at 6.

~~0 4 002461 c~~

~~abuser were arrested in 200/o of domestic violence cases. 14 Law enforcement can be a powerful,~~

~~beneficial tool for victims of domestic abuse in 1he right context, from providing specific safety~~

~~suggestions to arresting a victim's abuser; but obliging victims to initiate a criminal justice system~~

~~response might leave victims more wlnerable to additional harm.~~

~~Increased Burden on and Risk for V"~etims. Requiring a victim to go to 1he police places~~

~~additional burdens on 1he victim and forces 1he victim to take on a more active role when~~

~~attempting to leave 1heir abuser.~~

~~Connecticut's ex parte civil restraining order application allows a victim to indicate~~

~~whe1her 1he abuser possesses a fireann, but permits for a dangerous loophole in protection for~~

~~victims of domestic violence. The two-week period between 1he issuance of an ex parte order and~~

1he hearing for a permanent restraining order leaves victims ofdomestic violence wlnerable during c a highly dangerous time -1he period immediately after 1he victim takes steps to leave 1heir abuser. During 1his time, abusers might resort to extreme measures to regain power when they perceive

~~that their control over the victim is slipping, either to coerce the victim into staying or to retaliate~~

~~for the victim's attempt at departure. In at least twenty states, 15 courts have the explicit autltority~~

~~to address the temporary removal of firearms at the ex parte stage, offering victims of domestic~~

~~abuse significant protection during 1his time, evidenced by the fact that state laws that prohibit~~

~~persons subject to restraining orders from possessing firearms reduced rates of fatal domestic~~

14 Helen Ubifias. State's Domestic Violence Law Leads to High Rate of Duo/ Arrests: Officers' Practice ofTaking Both Accuser and Accused into Custody Can Traumatize Victims, IIARIFORD CoURANT, July 24, 2011. (20 II). http://articles.courant.com/20 11-07 -24/news/hc-ubinas-

~~c 5 002462 c~~

~~violence by 12-13%.16 In 2015, Connecticut courts issued 4,417 ex parte restraining and 2,788~~

~~long-term restraining orders following official bearings induced by either an ex parte order or an~~

~~Order for Hearing and Notice Summons. 17 By giving courts the explicit authority to require the~~

~~surrender of firearms at the ex parte stage, Connecticut would offer significantly more protection~~

~~to victims of domestic violence. Further, should a victim apply for a risk warrant, the victim then~~

~~must also apply for a civil restraining order if they need their abuser to be removed from the home.~~

~~This creates not only an additional burden for the victim, but the judicial system as well, by~~

~~requiring two hearings, one on the risk warrant that involves the time of state's attorneys and~~

~~police, and one on the restraining order that may involve a different judge.~~

~~Finally, accounting for the safety concerns of many victims supports adding language to~~

the civil restraining order statute that would grant courts and judges the power to authorize the c removal of firearms at the ex parte stage, prior to a formal hearing. Victims are extremely exposed to retaliation by their abusers. Seeking a civil restraining order has always required a cost-benefit

~~analysis for victims, but many victims ultimately determine that the safety benefits outweigh the~~

~~cost ofpossible retaliation. Connecticut's Risk Warrant statute, however, adds substantial cost for~~

~~victims because it requires the victim to be the primary actor in seeking seizure of firearms. When~~

~~applying for a civil restraining order, a petitioner only needs to disclose whether the respondent~~

~~possesses firearms or has used or threatened to use firearms, and indicate whether this poses a~~

~~safety concern for the petitioner. The victim is not required to spearhead any dispossession effort;~~

~~rather, the victim is able to distance him or herself from the actual request to prolnbit firearms~~

~~possession, thereby deflecting possible retaliation. By requiring a victim to take a more active role~~

16 Vigdor ER, Mercy JA. 2006. "Do Laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violeoce Offeoders Preveot Intimate Partner Homicide?" Evaluation Review. 30: 313-46. " State of Connecticut Judicial Bfllllllh Statistics on Protective Orders and Restraining Orders. http://www.jud.et.gov/statistics/prot_restrain!Prot_Restrain_Order.pdf

~~c 6 002463 c~~

~~- by asking bim or her to go to the police, wait for the police to determine that the victim's abuser~~

~~poses an immediate risk of harm, then wait for the court to assess the merits of the Risk Warrant~~

~~application, and file a separate application and affidavit for a civil restraining order-not only puts~~

~~a substantial burden on a victim, but ties the victim very closely to the firearm dispossession,~~

~~thereby increasing an abuser's likelihood of retaliation. Additionally, requiring victims to shoulder~~

~~the burden of firearm seizure or forfeiture is an enormous deterrent to help-seeking - many victims~~

~~would never avail themselves of the Risk Warrant Statute process for fear of reprisal. The issue of~~

~~whether to order the surrender of firearms more appropriately sits with the courts, and should be~~

~~an automatic consideration at the ex parte stage in restraining order applications in which firearm~~

~~possession is an issue. Shifting the onus ofremoving firearms to the courts provides an additional~~

~~shield between the victim and his or her abuser. c IV. Conclusion~~

~~Victims need options. Going to Jaw enforcement presents safety risks for many victims~~

~~and, at the end of the day, victims still do not have the civil restraining order that offers them~~

~~significant protection during the critical departure period. Connecticut's Risk Warrant statute~~

~~fails to provide a safe and tenable option for victims of domestic violence and should not be the~~

~~ouly route available to victims who believe their abusers' access to firearms is a safety risk to~~

~~them. As such, the Battered Women's Justice Project advocates that giviog explicit authority to~~

~~courts to order the surrender of firearms in an ex parte or temporary restraining order addresses~~

~~the complex relationship between gun control and protecting victims of domestic violence in the~~

~~nuanced way it requires.~~

~~c 7 002464 c~~

~~SAFE HAVEN '. <.~• '.'1! ··~ \11 .,, "'·· ,..,.,~~

~~Testimony regarding~~

~~HB 5054, AA Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence HB 5597, AA Protectthg Victims of Domestic VIolence Seeking Restraining Orders.~~

~~Judiciary Committee March 14, 2016~~

Good morning Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, Representative Rebimbas, Representative Berger, Representative Labriola, Representative O'Neill, Representative Sampson and members of the committee. Safe Haven of Greater Waterbury provided life-saving services to over 3,154 people in FY 2015. Service provided include emergency shelter, 24-hour crisis services, legal advocacy for both criminal and civil matters, advocacy sunrounding benefits, housing and job training, individual and peer group counseling and child advocacy including art therapy. We also provided presentations to over 2,754 adults and 14,464 students (ages 5-21) through our community education program. We serve victims and their children in the towns of Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Prospecl, Southbury, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott and Woodbury.

~~HB 5054~~

We urge your support of HB 5054, which will provide the most comprehensive protection of victims of domestic violence at the most dangerous time and strengthen processes within a system designed to help c them. The goal of this bill is simple, to protecl victims of domestic violence at the most dangerous time by temporarily removing firearms from their abuser when the abuser has received notice that he or she is the subjecl of a temporary, ex parte restraining order. The bill also addresses several recommendations of the Task Force to Study Service of Restraining Orders established pursuant Public Act 14-217.

The most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence is when she or he takes steps to end the relationship.' Because domestic violence is all about power and control of one partner over the other, this can be a particularly difficu~ time for the abuser, who will begin to realize that he or she is losing control over the victim. This may result in the offender taking more extreme actions to regain control.

Evidence-based research has shown that domestic assaults that involve firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force" And women in an abusive relationship are 5 times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a firearm." Meanwhile, state laws prohibtting firearm possession by persons subject to restraining orders reduced rates of intimate partner homicide of women by 12-13%, decreasing overall intimate partner homicides by 10%.• Finally, at least 20 other states have recognized that dangerous combination posed by domestic violence and firearms and have given their courts explicit authority to temporarily remoye firearms from some or all individuals subject to ex parte restraining orders.v

Connecticut has seen an average of 14 intimate partner homicides annually since 2000 and firearms are the single most commonly used weapon in those homicides (39%)" The state has a vested interest in protecting the lives of victims of domestic violence. Existing state law prohibits anyone who is the subject of a full, one year restraining order from possessing firearms. Not extending· the same prohibition during the temporary order which covers the most dangerous period of time for a victim is a serious gap In our laws. If this measure saves just one life by requiring the temporary, two week removal of firearms during ex parte restraining orders, then we believe it deserves the full support of the General Assembly.

~~P.O. Box !503 • Waterbury. CT 06721 • (:!03) 575-0388 • Fax 1203) 574-3.106 c Domesric Violence Holline t20JJ 57.5-0036 ·Sexual Assault H.otline (Z03) 753-3613 002465 c~~

The dynamics of emotional and physical abuse are chilling when compounded with the presence of firearms. Saying that firearms are a barrier for victims to leave is an understatement. When an abuser has access to a firearm tt is next to impossible to leave in the mindset of a victim. There is a level of fear that is hard to portray unless you have lived H or heard a firsthand account.

A victim described the constant verbal assaults by her abuser regarding her ineptitude at finding a career, her getting food on the table, her appearance, her education, her life choices. Her abuser would shove her to the ground, shove her against walls, grab her and squeeze her hard above the elbows and above her knees so the bruises wouldn't be · seen. Her abuser became so enraged one night that he yanked out her bangs from her scalp.

At the time she came to Safe Haven, he was tracking her by using her phone and was monitoring her every move. Her abuser would constantly accuse her of cheeUng on him. I asked her, ff he had any weapons or firearms that we needed to be concerned about .in regards to her safety. She ansviered with a resounding yes. He owned two guns that she knew of. He kept one in the bedside table and the other gun under the mattress, where they slept. Can you begin to imagine how it feels, to wake up to a life where there Is always a monster under the bed?

With utter sadness and despair she felt the only way out was through death. She was living a nightmare of constant manipulative tactics and control. In this situation, she was too scared and to even consider a restraining-order. The process as it stands could not guarantee her immediate protection.

Abusive partners are the minority. Abusive partners that portray imminent risk to victims are an even smaller minority of the population. We are not asking to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. We are talking about a small minority whose sole purpose is to control, manipulate and ·harm their partner and potentially any children in the home.

Abusers have a knack for figuring out when they will be getting served and often work to avoid service. As a civil process getting a restraining order is not easy. A victim must prove that there Is threat of physical harm or threat of c death. There has to be facts. A victim must write an affidavit and submit the restraining order paperwork to court. A victim must then ·wait to get it approved. If, an ex-parte is granted, then the victim must wait two weeks for the hearing and face the abuser in court.

~~HB 6597~~

~~We urge your rejection of HB 6597, which, though well-Intentioned, poses an unnecessary risk to victims of domestic violence.~~

House Bill 5597 seeks to protect victims of domestic violence from gun violence by requiring the use of a risk warrant (d1scussed above on page 2) when a victim applying for a civil restraining order elects to state that she or he believes that a family or household member poses a risk of imminent personal injury to them. While we appreciate the Intent of the proponents of HB 5597, we firmly believe that comprehensive protection through the state's civil restrsining order, similar to the pol1des of 20 other states, remains the most commonsense mechanism for protecting victims of domestic violence through the very process established by this body to protect them. While we have already outlined our concerns regarding the risk warrant and reasons why we believe that the risk warrant should not be the exclusive means to remove firearms from subjects of temporary restraining orders, we also want to highlight the potential risk posed by this specific language.

As the bill is written, once the victim chases to state that she or he believes the respondent 'poses a risk of imminent personal injury' to them, the court must automatically begin the risk warrant process. Unfortunately, since the state only provides ·funding for Family Violence Victim Advocates jn 4 civil courts throughout the state, tt is not clear that there will be anyone to explain to the victim what a risk warrant is or process that tt entails. The victim will have sought a civil order with the expectation that the police will not be Involved and II is unlikely that any victim completing an application for a restraining order would not answer in the affirmative this question about 'imminent risk,' the very standard for a temporary restraining order. So now, in every instance, these victims may unknowingly trigger police involvement, including a full search of the respondent's home. Such a process may easily incense their abuser and c 002466 c

~~increase the possibnity for retaliation. We cannot overstate the risk associated with this well-intentioned proposal. We urge rejection of this measure.~~

Some clients are hesitant to involve law enforcement for a variety of reasons. One recent example of a client that we helped did not trust the police. She called the police when her husband's behavior was escalating and she was fearful. When the police arrived, they said that they really could not do anything because he did not lay a hand on her. Did she really want to have him removed from the house? It was cold outside and he didn't have anywhere to go. The police left and the abuser stayed. A lew hours later, she called the pollee again as her abuse~s behavior continued to escalate. The same two Officers came to the residence and she heard the same thing. The police left again and the abuser stayed once again. The victim called Sale Haven the next day for some advice about what to do. This client did not trust the police after the two encounters that she had with them. If this new law were in place, why would she trust that the police would handle this situation in her best interest? If HB 5054 is passed into law, the judge has already made the determination that there is "imminent risk" when h6isHe s1gned-the TRO, taking the judgement out of the police Of!ice~s hands. The police would. just need to accompany the marshal to serve the TRO and remove any firearms and ammunition that is reported to be on the premises. ·

~~Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.~~

~~Lee R. Schlesinger, Executive Director Margaret L. Rosa, Associate Director Safe Haven of Greater Waterbury, Inc. [email protected] [email protected] 203.575.0388~~

1 Campbell, JC, et al. 2003. •Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study.• American Journal of Publio.Haalth. 93(7): 1092. c • Center for Gun Policy and Research. •Intimate Partner Violence and Firearms. • Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public . Health, citing Saltzman LE, et al, 1992. "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults: Journal of the American Medical Association. 41(2): 281-83. ~li Supra note 3 . lv Vlgdor ER, Mercy JA. 2006. ·oo Laws Restricting Access to Firearms by Domestic Violence Offenders Prevent Intimate Par,tner Homicide?" Evaluation Review. 30:31346. v Arizona, California. Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington,·WestVirginia. Yl Connecticut·State Pollee Crimes Analysis Unit; htto:/lvlww.dps..c:lata.ct.qov/dps/ucr/ucr.aspx.

~~c 002467 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: ·shirinandChris Dome Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:43 AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Domestic Violence~~

~~I iun writing to express my support. for HB 5054, An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence, and SB 429, An Act Coucerning Service of Restraining Orders. - · ---~~

Also, I oppose HB 5597, because it sets in motion the risk warrant process if a restraining order indicates that the subject is in possession of a firearm. Many victims of abuse fear violent reprisals from the abuser when police are brought to the horne who then may get an immediate warrant to remove the subject's firearms. These victims much prefer the safer route of going· to the court for a restraining order.

~~Thank you so much Shirin Dome 34 Saddle Ridge Road Wilton CT~~

~~0 1 002468 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Carrie Battaglia Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:42AM To: JudTestimony Subject domestic violence bills~~

~~Dear Members of the Judiciary Committee:~~

~~I am a Sandy Hook mom writing to you to express my support for H B 5054, An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence, and SB 429, An Act Concerning Service of Restraining Orders. -~~

I also oppose HB 5597, because it sets in motion therisk.warrant process if a restraining order indicates that the subject is in possession of a firearm. I do not want victims of abuse more fearful that they will be abused again after their abuser is confronted. A restraining order may be more effective and safer for the victim.

~~I feel that you have the power and responsibility to help keep women safe from domestic abusers.~~

~~c Thank you for your time. Carrie Battaglia Sandy Hook, CT~~

~~c 1 002469 c~~

~~STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICJAL BRANCH~~

~~EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION 231 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Omnecticut 06106 (860) 757-2270 Fax (860) 757-2215~~

~~Testimony of the Judicial Branch Judiciary Committee Public Hearing March 14,2016~~

~~H. B. 5530, An Act Concerning the Repayment of Child Support Arrearages~~

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the Judicial Branch regarding H. B. 5530, An Act Concerning the Repayment of Child Support Arrearages. Although the bill is trying to address a significant issue with c respect to the collection of past due child support, the Judicial Branch has concerns with how it is drafted.

The Connecticut Couunission for Child Support Guidelines was established ,pursuant to Section 46b-215a to review and issue updated guidelines. In its 2015 revisions, the Couunission increased the amount of an arrearage order from 50% to 100% of the imputed child support obligatio;, in situations where there is no longer a duty to pay current child support.

This legislative proposal appears to mandate something that is currently required under the 2015 Guidelines. Moreover, it iniposes an additional monetary threshold on the application of the 100% rule, requiring $3,000 in past due support. This additional monetary threshold may limit the application of the citrrent 100% rule, as adopted in the 2015 revision of the guidelines, and has the potential to limit child support collection on arrears under $3,000. c 1 002470 c

~~Finally, a subtle but important distinction is that the proposed legislation~~

calculates the 100% based on the weekly child support order "in effect prior to'~ the date the duty to support the child ended. Conversely, the Guidelines intentionally use 100% of an "imputed current support order," which has the effect of ensuring current income and ability is used to determine the arrearage order. A strict application of the proposed legislation may produce unintended child support orders where the obligated parent no longer has the same income or ability as when there was a minor child (e.g. a modilication parent who is now collecting social security disability but wasn't at the time his child support order was in effect),

~~Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on this bill.~~

~~c 2 002471 c ghla . Greater Hartford Legal Aid~~

~~Judiciary Committee public hearing, March 14, 2016 Testimony submitted by Lucy Potter, Attorney Greater Hartford Legal Aid~~

~~Raised Bill No. 5530·, An Act Concerning the Repayment of Child Support Arrearages Postbon: OPPOSE, OR AMEND AS SUGGESTED BELOW~~

I am an attorney at Greater Hartford Legal Aid and have served on the past five Child Support Guidelines Commissions. I have also represented many people in child support matters over the past twenty-five years.

Child support should be based on a person's ability to pay. The sanctions for not paying child support are very serious: loss of license, intercept of tax refunds and jail, to name a few. The Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines define what constitutes ability to pay for both current support and for arrearages. The Guidelines that were just issued in August of 2015 require that arrearage payments.continue at the rate of the current support order when the obligation for current support ends ..

To the extent this bill merely reiterates the change already made by the Guidelines c Commission, it is unnecessary. The bill also appears to suggest, however, that arrearage payments are to continue at the rate of the current support order, even if the obligor's ability to pay has decreased. To this extent, the bill would violate the principles of the Guidelines and should be rejected. A person should always have the right to request modification of an order to bring it into line with his or her ability to pay. Conn. Gen. Slats. 46b-86. Such a determination must necessarily be made on an individual basis in light of the particular facts in the particular case. A magistrate or judge also retains the ability to order lump sum payments toward an arrearage, where warranted, as the Guidelines specifically state.

~~To make H.B. 5530 consistent with the principles of the Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines, The word "higher" in lines 29-31 of the bill should be changed to read:~~

In addition, the court or a family support magistrate, after hearing, may determine that such arrearage be repaid at a higher or lower weekly rate based on the obligor's ability to pay. [or " ... at a different weekly rate .. ."]

This preserves the rule that the full order Will continue, without reduction or increase, unless there is a hearing at which the magistrate changes it up or down, based upon the obligor's ability to pay.

~~Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Inc. 999 Asylum Avenue, 3FI. Hortfo~~

~~WRITfEN TE81JMONY FOR PJffiLIC BEARING- 3D412016 - DB 5597~~

~~THE 2 ACTIVE VOTERS IN OUR HOUSEHOLD URGE YOU TO OPPOSE~~

~~HB 5597 'AN ACT PROTECTING DOMESTIC VI()LENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RES I RAINING ORDERS~~

~~Our main concern is that this bill will violate 'Due Process' without the opportunity for a hearing prior to the forced surrender of fireanns.~~

~~There are several laws already on the books,~~

~~It would be easy for the perpetrator to me the Ex Parte Restraining Order against the person to whom they are after. This would then take the protection away from the one who needs it.~~

~~The potential does exist for someone with a grudge to file a claim to harass or harm an innocent l?erson.~~

~~c Additional Concerns are as follows:~~

This bill violates the 2nd Amendment and CT State Constitution. Nearly half of all Ex Parte Restraining Orders in 2014 were vacated and did not get ordered by a judge to become a Full Restraining Order. In 2015, 37% of all ex Parte temporary restraining orders were found not to be valid after the hearing.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~John Buckley Linda Buckley~~

~~68 Dorman Road New Britain, CT 06053 c 002473~~

~~0 John F. Koch III 94 Far Horizons Drive Shelton, CT 06484 Phone(203)926.0224~~

~~March 13, 2016~~

~~To Whom It May Concem,~~

~~I write this not in opposition to HB No. 5597 AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE~~

This is just another attempt by this legislature to grab guns without due process of law. This bill allows for the taking of a person's natural right of protection without a hearing, without criminal charges, without a police report and without due process.

~~It is my understanding that CT already has a seizure of firearm provision for. when a peace officer determines that a family violence crime has been committed under 46b-38b.~~

~~For these reasons I remain in opposition to this bill. c Sincerely, j.:f4~~

~~c I 002474 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: .Glenn Frank Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 12:47 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: OPPOSEHB 5597- 'AN ACT PROTECTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

I am writing to express my firm opposition to this bill. While I am all for the protection of women and others from domestic violence. · I am 100% against the removal of a person's constitutional rights without due process. This bill does NOT protect law abiding gun owners from false claims.

~~While I can see that the wording of this bill is an improvement over HB 5054 the underlying act that this bill would invoke does NOT provide adequate due process ...~~

~~I ask that you vote against this proposed legislation.~~

~~Thank You, Glenn Frank Haddam, CT c~~

~~3 002475~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Susan Iseman Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:56 AM To: Judlestimony Subject: HB5597~~

I am NOT in favor of HB5597. Domestic Violence victims need the safety of the court system behind them when seeking protection from armed abusers, who may very well kill them and their children and God knows who else with their guns. These monsters do not have the right to own a fire arm when they have restraining orders against them. As a victim of domestic violence myself, many years ago, I know what these women and their families and friends go through during such horrible times. Trying to leave the abuser is difficult and the court system needs to step in immediately before yet another gun deat:h occurs!

~~Thanks.~~

~~Susan Iseman 4 Watch Hill WestportCT c Susan Iseman (646) 483-7451~~

~~7 002476 c~~

~~NATASHA M. PIBRRE, ESQ. State Victim Advocate~~

~~Testimony ofNatasha M. Pierre, Esq., State Victim Advocate Submitted to 1he Judiciary Committee Monday, March 14, 2016~~

Good morning Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and distinguished members of 1he Judiciary Committee. For 1he record, my name is Natasha Pierre and I am 1he Victim Advocate for 1he State of Connecticut. Thank you for 1he opportunity to provide testimony concerning:

Raised Bill No. 5597, An Act Protecting Domestic Violence Victims Seeking Restraining Orders c Raised Bill No. 5597 will enable applicants seeking relief from abuse against a family or household member the option of informing 1he court, at the time of the application, whe1her he/she has probable cause to believe that a family or household member poses a risk of imminent personal injury to the applicant. The court would then be required to refer the matter to the State's Attorney's office for commencement of risk warrant proceedings pursuant to existing law under C.G.S. §29-38c.

Raised Bill No. 5597 will also allow applicants seeking relief from abuse against a family or household member to inform the court whe1her 1he respondent holds an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver, a long gun eligibility certificate or an ammunition certificate. Currently, these applications allow applicants to inform the court whether the respondent holds a permit to carry a pistol or revolver. or possess one or more firearms or ammunition.

If enacted, Raised Bill No. 5597 will expand the amount of information that may be available to 1he court when considering an application for relief from abuse. The more information available to the court, the better informed the court will be when deciding whe1her to grant 1he relief requested by the applicant and deciding any appropriate measures necessary for the protection of the applicant.

The Office of the Victim Advocate fully supports Raised Bill No. 5549 which will undoubtedly provide additional tools to the court as well as protections to domestic violence victims and urges the Committee's favorable report. Thank you for consideration of my testimony. c 002477 c

~~March 14, 2016 Joint Committee on Judiciary Legislative Office Building, Room 2500 Hartford, Cf 06106~~

~~Testimony in SUPPORT for H.B. 5597 fAn Act Prntr:cling Domestic Violence Victims Seeking Restraining ·~ -~~

~~Dear Members of the Judiciary Committee,~~

~~I wish to express my SUPPORT for H.B. No. 5597 (An Act Protecting Domestic Violence Victims Seeking Restraining Orders).~~

This proposed legislation would inform the applicant of the option to state Whether they believe that a family or household member poses a risk of imminent personal injury to the applicant. This in tum would initiate an investigation using the 'Risk Warraots' under (CGS 29-38c), a tool already available to law enforceroent.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~RoyDowoey P.O.Box87 Higgaoum, cr 06441 c~~

~~c 002478 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: [email protected] on behalf of Mary Rose Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 2:04PM To: JudTestimony Subject: HB 5597~~

To Whom it may concern, I oppose the bill, HB 5597, because it sets in motion the risk warrant process if a restraining order indicates that the subject is in possession of a firearm. The risk warrant process, while effective and well intentioned, does not serve the needs of many domestic violence victims, because it immediately sends police to confront the abuser. Police can then seek an immediate warrant to remove firearms from that person. Many victims of abuse fear violent reprisals from the abuser in bringing police into this process and much prefer going to the safety and protection of the court for the restraining order.

~~Thanks for your attention to this matter,~~

~~Mary J. Rose 274 Wall St, Hebron, CT, 06248 c~~

~~1 002479 c~~

~~COALITION OF CONNECTICUT SPORTSMEN~~

~~P.O. Box 2506, Hartford, CT 06146, (203) 245-8076~~

~~http://www.ctsportsmen.com [email protected]~~

~~James Crook March 13, 2016~~

~~Testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee~~

~~Support H.B. No. 5597 (RAISED) AN ACT PROTECTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RESTRAINING ORDERS. (JUD)'~~

~~Although the risk warrant pursuant to section 29-38c, as amended by this act, is not perfect, it is the most balanced legislation before you today.~~

As with other statutes seeking prevention, there are problems inherent to balancing the social and political pressure to control individual behavior in a legal system arranged to maximize individual liberty. We propose that any legislation include that the application for such ex parte c order contain a statement that false statements are punishable by law, and if the applicant fails to appear at the required hearing in support of the application, the applicant may be held in contempt. In addition, we also suggest that, in no case will a respondent's firearms permit be revoked or firearms surrendered until after the hearing if the judge finds there is a clear, articulable danger. Upon vacating the order, the judge shall order the commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to automatically and immediately reinstate such permit if it has been revoked and to return all firearms, including those registered as so-called "assault weapons" or "large capacity magazines". Also, we would suggest that the time limit from the issuance of the restraining order to the hearing is shortened from fourteen (14) to three (3) or five (5) days because of the alleged dangers to the applicant. Most importantly, for the safety of those suffering from domestic violence, we urge you to accept these changes and effect the new legislation immediately after passage.

These suggestions would improve protections under current law and will also grant some semblance of equal protection. In addition, it will also protect victims of domestic violence who choose not to involve law enforcement.

The Coalition opposes most of the proposed legislation here today related to ex parte restraining orders firearms and veterans. Much of .the proposed language removes constitution protections guaranteed by the CT and US Constitutions. There are certainly grounds for questioning their constitutionality. Provisions of the United States Consmution and the CT constitution require that all citizens be given equal recognition under the law and that no group of citizens be shown special consideration. The proposed language also denies recipients due process, a constitutional privilege guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition, the proposed language enables the state to remove an individual's 2"' rights, for a . c 002480 c

~~period over 29 months based solely on hearsay. In addition, the language removes protections provided by the 2"" amendment from those who are victims of domestic violence.~~

~~Thank you!~~

~~c 002481 c~~

~~Testimony ofBrianna DeVivo Intern, The CT Alliance to End Sexual Violence Judiciary Committee March 14,2016~~

~~In Support of: H.B. 5605, Termination of Parental Rights~~

Honomble Chairs Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, and the members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is· Brianna DeVivo and I am an intern with the Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence. I am testifying in support of House Bill Number 5605, An Act Concerning the Termination of Parental Rights.

One of my projects as a Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence intern has been to research state's evidentiary standards for the termination of parental rights of a mpist. Current Connecticut law requires that in order for a woman who became pregnant as a result of rape to terminate their mpist' s parental rights, their rapist must b.e convicted of that sexual assault. This creates a large burden for these mothers, as rape is the most under-prosecuted crime in America and ouly 2% of sexual assault cases result in a conviction. Joined with the reality that between 25,000 and 32,000 pregnancies in the United States occur from mpe each year, the need for an c update in the standards by which parental rights of rapists are terminated is urgent. House Bill 5605 would allow victims of rape to terminate the parental rights of the rapist using a clear and convincing standard. This standard is already the typical standard for restriction of custody rights. Survivors of sexual assault should not be unfairly held to a higher standard of proof.

In holding these mothers to an unjust standard, we are forcing many of them into unwanted intemctions with their perpetrators. Vermont is one of the states that uses a clear and convincing standard. They felt so strongly about this that they put the following directly into their statute: "The state has a compelling interest in not forcing a victim of sexual assault or sexual exploitation to continue an ongoing relationship with the perpetrator of the crime. Such continued interaction can have traumatic psychological effects on the victim, making recovery more difficult and negatively affect the victim's ability to parent and to provide for the best interest of the child."

Connecticut women who have become mothers through a sexual assaultdeserve a new, fair, and appropriate standard to allow them to terminate the parental rights of their rapist. I thank you for your time today and urge you to act favorably on House Bill 5605. c 002482

~~In S\lfll)Ort ofHB5605 AN ACT CONCERNING TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS~~

~~Judiciary Committee Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106~~

~~Hell<> Commi\!U Members,~~

My name is Heather Francisco; I am an advocate at Safe Haven of Greater Waterbury. Safu Haven is a member center working under the guidance of the Coimectlcut Alliance to End Sexual Violence (fonruilly CONNSACS). Our sexual assault crisis center piovides free and confidenfial services to victims and survivors of sexual violence in Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Middlebury, Nangatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, Thomaston, Waferbury, Wa!e!1Dwn; Wolcott, and Woodbury. I am writing you ·today to ask for your continued support of HB 5605 An Act Concerning the Termination of l'areiltal 0 Rights. Under current l!IW in Conneoticut the staudard Judge& are required to use for termination of parental rights is a conviction. This differs from all othe.-rermination petitions in the state which require only clear and convincing evidence. Ifa rapist is not convicted his victim could then be forced to maintain · a relationship with the person who violated he; in one of the most intimate and personal ways. This is troubling when one considers the fact that rape is the most nnder-prosecu,ted crime in America with an estimated 2% of sexual assaults resol1ing in a conviction. l'he current law holds rape survivors at a higher standard than other woman seeking to restrict custody rights on the grounds of abuse, neglect, abandonment and even killing of a child. Connecticut is a forward thinking state and I am saddened to know that a conviction would not be required to terminate the parental rights of a parent who killed their child, but would for a parent whose child was a product of a sexlll!l !issa1llt. Rape results in· pregnancy for· · between 25,000 and 32,000 women annually in our COUirtry and we have an opportunity to make. sure that in Connecticut wlien this occurs we are nut holding survivors of selWlll assault to an unfairly higher standard of proof.

~~Thank you in advance for your time, effort, and consideration.~~

~~Heather Francisco, MSHSV Adult Advocate/Legislative Liaison Safe Haven of Greater Waterbury 29 Central Ave. Wa-rerbury, c:r 06702 (203)753-3613~~

~~0 P.O. Box 1503 ·Waterbury. CT067!l• t20J) 575-03~8-• Fit' ('0.1) 574·3306 Domestic Violence Hotline (203) 575~0036 • SexualAs:11auh Hotline (20.3) 753-3613 002483~~

TI11t Ce'lter for hmlly..l\lstk:e CONNECTICUT ALLIANCE~ {Bridgeport) 203-333-2233 hotllne TO END SEXUAL VIOLENCE 203-334-6154 offtce Support. Advocate. Prevem. ---- -····-···- Women's Canter formOJrly CONNSAGS of Greater Danbury 2()3..731·5204 hotline 203-731-5200 oHk:e Testimony of Deb Heinrich, Director of Polley and Public Relations Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual VIolence (formerly CONNSACS) Won1on & Families Center Judiciary Committee (Morldo11) 203-235-9297 offke March 14, 2016 {MiddletOwn) 203-34-'1-1474 office (NewHIMin) ln Support of: 203-235-444 hqtl!ne HBS60S TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS 203-JB9-5010 off.ce "iiii'562r AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING ~AN ACT PROTECTING VICDMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE R~pe Cthl, Center of Milford HBS623 AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN 203-878-1212 hotline ---TRAFFICKING 7.03-874·8712 offke SB442 AN ACf CONCERNING A VICTIM'S RIGHT TO BE REASON ARtY PROTECTED FROM --APERSONACCUSEDOFCOMMmiNG A CRIME YWCA New Britain Sexual Auault Crisis Service In Opposition to: {New Britalrl) HBS597 AN ACT CONCERNING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RESTRAINING ORDERS S60-223-1787 holline ~AN ACT CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO VICTIM SUPPORT GROUPS OF THE NAMES OF 860-225-4681 office - . (Hartford) VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 860-547-1022 ho1llne In Support with ReservatJons: 860-225~681 office HB5052 AN ACT CONCERNING PROTECTIONS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING

c The Ceoter for Sexual A'sault Crisis _Covnseting and EducatiOn (Stamford) Good Afternoon Senator Coleman, Representative Ton& Senator Kissel, Representative Rebimbas 203-329-2929 hotUne of 203-346-9346 olf'>Ct;t and members of the Judfdary Commlttee. My name Is Deb Heinrich and I am Director Polley and Public Relations for Connecticut Alllance to End Sexual VIolence (formerly CONNSACS). The Alliance Susao B. An-thony Project ts the state's leadlns voice to end sexual violence. We are a coalition of nine community-based (lorrington) 800-482-7133 hotllne sexual assault crisis services programs, which provide free and confidential sexual assault crisis 860-489-3798 offke counseling and victim advocacy to thousands of women, men and children ·across Connecticut each

~~Safa Haven of year. Gre11te1 Waterbury 203-753-3613 hotlrne There are many bills before you today for wh1ch we would like to voice our opinions. 203-753-3613 offi<::e~~

S11xual A.~1ult Crisis Center Support for HB5605 TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS (Identical language also found In of E11ste111 Conne::ticut HB56Z3) . t\'YIIIImantic) Ihis bill is of particular Importance to our alliance. It would allow a woman who has been 860-456-2789 hotline SW.f1.56-3595 offlce jmpregnated by rape to terminate the parental rights of the rapist using a clear and convincing {Now Lorldon) evidence standard, a standard that has been endorsed by the Supreme Court for matters of the 860.437-7766 hotllne termination of parental rights. 860-442-0604 office In Connecticut If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, her decision to continue the pregnancy will be Informed by the fact that the rapist can sue for custody and visitation rights. A rapist can use the child to further traumatize and have power over the suivlvor and the child for the next ~8 years. We are seeing cases right here In Connecticut where rapists are using the threat of suing for custody and visitation as a way to ensure that a victim does not report the crime.

~~·9~ Piddn Stnnrt St~towlde Z4 Hour East Hartford, CT 06108 Toll Free Hotline: S60-2B2-9SBI 1-888·999·5545 ENGLISH c EndSexuaiViolenceCT.org 1-888-568-8332 ESPA!i:lOL 002484~~

Connecticut law requires a rape conVIction before a woman Is allowed to petition the probate court to terminate the parental rights of a rapist. National statistics show, however, tha~ rape only ends In conviction 2% of ttie time. Even when survivors report to the pollee and undergo an invasive exam and evidence collection, their cases may not move forWard. For those that do, cases may languish In court while a victim waits for justice. Many times, rapists plead to lesser non-sexual assault charges. This does not mean that the rape did not happen. It does not mean that a woman should not have access to the legal system to terminate the parental rights of the rapist.

Growing concern about the health and well being of rape survivors across the country prompted Congress to address this very issue last summer and bring to light this barrier and the Importance of using the clear and convincing evidence standard to terminate the parental rights of a rapist. Through the passage of the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, the federal government Is offering federal dollar incentives to states that change their laws to the clear and convtnclng standard In these cases. If Connecticut passes HBSGOS, we will recetve an additional i

Currently, no conviction Is required to terminate parental rights In Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin. Maine Is considering this legislation right now and It has passed out of committee nearly unanimously and Is heading forward.

Probate judges are the experts In applying the clear and convincing evidence standard. They use It to decide If termination of parental rights Is appropriate as I mentioned before, they use It to decide If a person should be Involuntarily committed to a psychiatric Institution, they use It to rule on claims Involving wills and Inheritances, they use It In cases Involving Important family decisions such as withdrawing life support from a relative, and much more. The clear and convincing legal standard means that the evidence being presented must be highly and substantially more probable to be true rather than 0 untrue. In other states, evidence used to determine If the clear and convincing standard has been met Includes: pollee reports, sexual assault forensic exam kit findings, therapy records, reports to seKUal assault victim advocates with privileged communication status, witnesses, and DNA tests.

It Is Important to note that in the statutes for termination of parental rights, each and every reason that a judge may choose to terminate parental rights, and the list Is lengthy, uses the clear and convincing evidence standard. Every one. Including If the parent killed another child. However, the one and only statute that requires conviction Is If a woman Is Impregnated by rape. In other words, the rape of a woman Is being held to a higher standard than any other reason for terminating parental rights.

It Is estimated that there are between 25,000 and 32,000 rape-related pregnancies annually In the US. According to one recent study, 32% of the surVIvors continue the pregnancy. Women In Connecticut who have become Impregnated through rape should have access to a fair and appropriate evidentiary standard for terminating the custody rights of their rapists.

Support for HB56Zl AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING (Identical language also found In HB5623) The Connecticut State legislature and this committee In particular have shown exceptional leadership In working to raise awareness of and prevention of human trafficking. HB5621 contafns the logical next step In continuing that work. Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence Is a member of the Trafficking in Persons Counsel which Is chaired by the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women. We are In support of the multiple measures In this bllf that will aid Connecticut In Its ability to raise awareness of and to prevent human trafficking. Of particular Interest to us In this bill is the language In Section 7 that raises the age of a person who can be convicted of prostitution to 18. It should be assumed that children under 18 who are Involved prostitution are victims of human trafficking. They need our help and they need services riot prosecution.

In order to fully address human sex trafficking, we need to address the demand side of the equation. Sex trafficking relle_s on the people who demand these services. They should also be held accountable. Sections 8 and 9 provfd e for mom!tary c 002485 c

penalties to the person patronizing a prostitute. In addition, Section 8 removes t.he defense that a person just did nofknow that they were soliciting prostitution from a minor. Soliciting prostitution from a minor Is a serious crime and should·be treated as such. Section 12 focuses the forfeiture requlremen~s on the demand side as well, requiring aU property used or Intended for use to commit or facilitate the commission of patronizing a prostitute will be subject to forfeiture.

~~The measures In HBS621 focus on helping the people who are harmed by human trafficking as well as holding accountable the people who make human trafficking possible and profitable.~~

Support for HB5054 AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (Identical language also found In HB5623) When disCussing domestic vfolence and firearms, the statistics sPeak for themselves. A person In an abusive ~elatlonshlp Is five times more likely to be killed If their abuser has access to firearms. Domestic as5

Support for HBS623 AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING We are In support of the provisions of this bill. For specific testimony, pl~ase reference our above testimony for the bills c that also contain the same language: HB5605, HB5621, and HBS054.

Support for~AN ACT CONCERNING A VICTIM'S RIGHT TO BE REASONABLY PROTECTED FROM A PERSON ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A CRIME When a court Issues a protective order,lt can be a dangerous time for a victim of sexual assault, a time when there can be an increased risk of retaliation and further violence. Connecticut already has laws that require the subject of the protective order to surrender, dellver or transfer firearms. A vlctfm who has applied for and received the protection of a protective order has the right to know If the subject of the protective order has complied with the laws regarding their firearm possession as it directly affects their safety. Therefore we are In support of the additional language in Section 1 which requires that the victim be notified in a timely manner of the firearm possessjon compliance of the subject of a protective order.

We also appre.clate the language In Section 3 that Puts the onus on the court to notify a victim of a .crime that a defendant has applied to participate in a diversionary program so that a victim can have the opportunftyto be heard before the court rules on the application. Previous language put the onus on the defendant to notify the victim. Thus the defendant is provided the name and address of the victim In order to notify them of their application. This Is an unneceSSary risk and can be re-traumatlzlng to the victim. We agree that the court Is the more appropriate entity to notify a victim In these cases.

Section 4 also provides important notifications to victims when their perpetrators are arrested, released on bond and when they are to appear In court. Again, this Information Is critical to the victim's safety and peace of mind. In addition~ this information will allow the victim to exercise their rights to be present at the hearings.

~~According to the Connecticut State Constitution~ victims of crime have a right to be reasonably protected from the accused. The:;e measures ln~ll help to ensure that right i$ upheld, c 002486 c~~

Opposition to HBSS97 AN ACT CONCERNING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS SEEKING RESTRAINING ORDERS Though requesting a risk warrant to remove firearms Is a useful tool for victims of domestic violence, it Is not a tool that can be used successfully In every circumstance. The differences betw~n the risk warrant process and the restraining order process are significant to victims of domestic violence. Unlike applying for a restraining order, which Is a civil process, apprylng for a risk warrant requires pollee Involvement. There are many reasons why someone In a domestic violence situation may not wish to escalate the dangerous situation they are already In by contacting law enforcement. Connecticut In particular has a 20% dual arrest rate when law enforcement Is Involved In domestic violence sJtuatlons. Natloilally, that rate Is 7%. In Col").nectlcut, In some communities, the dual arrest rate Is even higher th_an 20%. When the risk Is that high that .a victim will also be arrested, It presents a barrier to Involving law enforcement. If a risk warrant Is Issued, not only are firearms taken, but the home Is searched. This can be perceived as a very provocative move and escalate anger and violence toward the victim. Ut11Jzlng the risk warrant system Is an Important option, but there are multiple ways ~ solve ·issues and .victims of dOmestic violence should not be limited to only receiving protection from firearms If they choose to report to law enforcement.

Opposition to~N ACT CONCERNING NOTIFICATION TO VICTIM SUPPORT GROUPS OF THE NAMES OF VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE We appreciate that this bill acknowledges the Important advocacy and support work that victim support groups provide to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. For survivors and victims of sexual assault, Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual VIolence memb~r programs offer 24/7 free and confidential crisis counseling and hotllne services from certified sexual assault vfctfm advocates, Information and referrals to social and legal services, short-term counseling for Individuals and groups, and community education programs concerning sexual assault Issues, safety concerns, etc. They also have c memoranda of understanding with most colleges and universities across the state to help provide support services to students.

We Invite anyone who encounters a survivor of sexual assault to ·provide that person with our contact Information so that they can contact us If they choose to do so. The key here Is to let them choose whether or not to reach out to us. People react to trauma In a variety of Ways. There Is no right or wrong way to react to or process trauma. Different people need different things. A survivor of trauma should be empowered to make their own decisions. This Includes whether or not to reach out to a victim support group. People who expei'lence the trauma of sexual assault have lost their power over decisions regarding their bodies. Reclai.ming their power to make their own decisions Is an Important part of the healing process. Providing them with Information and allowing them to decide what their next steps will be Is empowering them.

In addition, there may be a myriad of reasons why a survivor of sexual violence may not want to have their name given out. They may know someone who works at the local victim service group and may not want to disclose what Is happening to them to that particular acquaintance. They may have safety concerns. If victims know that their names will be given out, for many, It will discourage reporting. Sexual violence Is already severely underreported. Maintaining privacy Is of the utmost Importance.

Though the Intention of this legislation to connect victims and survtvors with much needed services Is honorable, there will be unintended consequences, Including further victimizing someone who has already lost their agency as well. as discouraging survivors from reporting.

Support with Reservations for HBSOSZ AN ACT CONCERNING PROTECTIONS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING As members of the Trafflcldng In Persons Counsel, we support the efforts of this bill to protect minors who are subject to human trafficking. Section 2 clarifies that a person Is gulltyoftrafflcklngln persons tf they compel or coerce a person under 18 to engage In sexual contact with one or more third pe.rsons, even one time. We question. however~ why this laneuage c 002487

~~' I , ~ c~~

would apply only to someone under 18 years of age. We propose that a person who compels or coerces anyone, whether or not they are under 18, to engage In sexual contact wfth one or more third persons Is guilty of trafficking In persons~ even one time. We hope that If this bill moves forward, that addition will be made. In Section 3, the bill creates a new crime Hpatronizlng a trafficked minor» as a class Bfelony. Unfortunately, It Includes the language "or reasonably should have known at the tlme of the offense" that the person was a minor. This language Is colloquially known as a "mistake In age defense". It allows a person to simply claim that they just didn't know that the person from whom they are enticing or solldtlng sex, which are both already crimes, Is a minor. The trend across the country for states that are taking up trafficking Issues Is to move away from allowing a "mistake In age defense" and removing It from their statutes. This language moves our state backward In our attempts to prevent human trafftcklng In part by hindering the ability to hold accountable people who are purchasing sex from minors who are being trafficked. Not only do we hope that this language will not be added to the statute, we hope that !twill be removed from Connecticut's statutes regarding prostitution and human sex trafficking as It Is In HB5621 AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING and HB5623 AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING,

~~I thank you for your consideration and would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this testimony and these bills.~~

~~Deb Heinrich, Director of Polley and Public Relations Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence (formerly CONN SACS) 860-282-9881 [email protected] c~~

~~c 002488 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: cerasale emidio Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 6:32 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: Fw: OLR Report Grandparent Rights Attachments: RimimbasOl.docx~~

To Ct. Judiciary Committee for my written testimony for Support of HB-5608, from Mr. John Schaefer, Founder of Grandparents Rights Assoc. of USA, now in 42. States. Sincerely, Emidio C.Cerasale, Director of GRAUSA,CT. Chapter

~~From: John Schafer Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 5:48 PM To: 'cerasale emidio' . Subject: RE: OLR Report Grandparent Rights~~

~~Here ya go man. Sorry I took so long, I was not home~~

~~John~~

~~c From: cerasale emidio [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 1:46PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OLR Report Grandparent Rights~~

John, please put in Word or PDF FILE AND SEND BACK TO ME RIGHT AWAY. I NEED TO SEND TO THE JUDICIARY WRITIEN TESTIMONY SITE: [email protected]. Its for Bill HB-5608. I need to send out today thanks,emidio

~~From: John Schafer Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 3:04PM To: 'zRepresentative Rosa. Rebimbas' Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: OLR Report Grandparent Rights~~

~~Good afternoon Representative Rebimbas,~~

One of the most important issues with Grandparent rights/visitation iss.ues, it the area of Troxil v. Granville dealing with the concept of "Intact Family". Thanks to that ruling, every state includes a condition saying an intact family is almost impossible to overrule. We actually consider that a good thing for the most part. The problem come in when an intact family consists of two parents who are both possible neglecting {or worse) the child(ren) in question. Many cases are borderline and do not actually meet the standard of a child protective ease, but the child Is still suffering. The grandparents are quite often very involved in these situations and have the welfare of the child at heart, and only want to protect their grandchild until the parents can get their act together. One of the symptoms these parents display is c usually aggravation with the grandparents, and accusations of trying to "take over", when all they really wanted was to 1 002489 c preserve the family connection with the child. I am ·sure there is language that could be used in a statute to address this kind of situation, and if someone can pass a bill that would survive Troxil v Granville challenges, it would be a home run for thousands of children all over the Nation.

We, at GRAUSA, are primarily concerned with the rights/ability of the children to know, understand, and have a connection with their extended family and heritage. Sadly, we have a whole generation of young parents who have been brought up in an "environment .of entitlement" which has instilled an attitude of believing they have all the answers, and no one could possibly know any l:)etter, in spite of many years of life experience. We also understand there really are some grandparents who do want to assume all control, and we recognize there must be provisions to deal with that. The bottom line is, it should always primarily boil down to what is best for the children.

Looking over the PDF file you sent, I can speak to several bills referenced. Because I live in South Carolina, and have· firsthand knowledge, I can give you a very good history of that legislation. In 2013, our General Assembly passed the first "Grandparents Rights" bill! was involved with. House bill H-3464 changed the statutes giving "Grandparents, and other relatives of the 1" and 2"'. Degree" the right to ask to be made a party to the case when Child Protective Services removed a child from the parents. I actually wrote the first drafts of that bill, and the reasoning was to allow the Grandparents, or relative to be able to ask for temporary custody, thus keeping the child out of the foster system·, and with extended family. Here is the link to that bill: http:Uwww.scstatehouse.gov/sess120 2013·2014/bills/3464.htm ---··-- [2013-2014 Bill 3464: Child custody- South Carolina ' · !www.scstatehouse.gov

~ext matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.) kA58, R98, H3464) AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 63-7-730, CODE OF LAWS OF ... c ··························································································································.····································································································································

In 2014, a bill passed that relaxed the conditions grandparents had to prove to win a visitation order (when CPS is not involved). It removed a contradiction in the statute that made it almost impossible to comply with all conditions. Grandparents are no longer required to prove they had a "parent like relationship" with the child. That is something almost no grandparent ever has anyway. Grands actually want the "Grandparent like relationship" which is the normal. GRAUSA backed and heavily promoted passage. Here is the link to that bill:

~~http:/lwww.scstatehouse.gov/sess120 2013-2014/bills/4348.htm~~

Just last week, New Jersey's Assembly introduced A-781 which will be a major revamp of the grandparent visitations laws there. The GRAUSA chapter in NJ is the driving force behind that bill. Here is a link:

~~https:/llegiscan.com/NJ/biii/A781/2016~~

Last year, Florida passed new grandparent visitation legislation. A few years before, the FL Supreme Court deemed the existing law unconstitutional, so now the Legislature is working to rebuild the statutes in a way that conforms to that same Troxil v Granville ruling.

There are several others. The Oklahoma legislative session just began today. Our GRAUSA state Director in OK is actually visiting the Legislature today attempting to get new bills introduced there, so I have no Information at this time on that effort. c ,, 2 002490 c As you can see, that "intact family" concept is the highest hurdle, as it should be, but the children still need a way to keep some contact with their heritage. That is our ultimate goal.

Thank you so very much for taking the time to consider these concerns, and we at GRAUSA look forward to working with you and the New Jersey Legislature. Please feel free to contact me at any time. My direct line at GRAUSA is (864) 855- 3860, and I will be glad to speak with you any time.

~~John Schafer- Director Grandparents Rights Association of the USA www.grausa.org~~

~~From: zRepresentative Rosa Rebimbas !mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 4:31 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: OLR Report Grandparent Rights~~

~~John Schafer Grandparents Rights Assoc.~~

I received a request from my constituent, Emidio C. Cerasale in Connecticut to propose legislation for Grandparents Rights. Attached is an OLR report of what we already have in place in Connecticut. I would like to ask what speciflc legislation you are looking for me to propose. Please keep in mind that my deadline _is February 5"'. c Sincerely, Rosa Rebimbas

~~c 3 002491 c Le~al Assistance Resource Center +of Connecticut, Inc.+ 16 Main St., 2"' floor+ New Britain, Connecticut 06051 phone (860) 6164472 +cell (860) 836-6355 + [email protected]~~

~~public --March 14,2016 Testimony of Raphael L. Podolsky~~

~~Recommended Committee action: NO ACTION ON THE BILL~~

The fundamental problem with this bill is that it appears not to comply with the constitutional standard for third-party visitation enunciated in the leading case of Roth v. · Weston, 259 Conn. 202 (2002), as modified in 2011 by DiGiovanni v. St. George, 300 Conn. 59 (2011 ). These cases affirmed the federal constitutional right of fit parents to make decisions about the raising of their children without interference from others, sometimes known as the right to family integrity. The cases explicitly hold that, as a threshold matter to litigation, third parties, including grandparents, cannot seek visitation over the objection of the child's parent unless they can show both that (1) they have a parent-like relationship with the child i!!]Q (2) denial of visitation to the third party would cause harm to the child analogous to neglect under the Juvenile Court statutes. c In 2012, the General Assembly cOdified these two cases in P.A. 12-137, which listed nine factors for the court to consider in determining whether the "parent-like relationship" test had been met. These include the length of the third party's relationship with the child and the length of any disruption that had occurred, the specific nature of the activities constituting the relationship, the death or the absence of the child's parent from the child's life, and other factors likely to be relevant to a relationship with a child. See C.G.S. 46b-59(b). It also added two factors that could be cited by grandparent applicants in particular: (1) their history of regular contact with the grandchild and (2) proof of a "close and substantial" relationship with the grandchild. See C.G.S. 46b-59(d). To our knowledge, these standards have not been challenged in court.

H. B. 5608 proposes to exempt grandparent applicants from the two-part Roth/D1G1ovanm test and for them to substitute a new, lower standard for grandparents that "compelling circumstances exist that overcome the presumption that the parental decision to deny such visitation is in the child's best interest." It seems to us very unlikely that this could pass the Roth/DiGiovanni test. Indeed, it may not even constitute an alternative standard because it is so non-specific and general, i.e., it is very close to an open-ended offer to judges to label anyihing "compelling" and thereby override what the Supreme Court has directly held to be.the fundament right to family integrity. We think it is doubtful that this would stand up in court.

We also think that, to a large extent, the eleven grandparent factors of C.G.S. 46b-59(b) and (d), if they are valid, provide as much leeway as is likely to survive constitutional challenge. In that sense, the bill is unnecessary, and the best focus for litigants would be to pr~sent to the court convincing evidence under those two subsections. c 002492 c

~~Henry J Martocchio 813 graham rd South Windsor ct 06074 860-432-4567 [email protected] Monday, March 14, 2016 Too the Judiciary Committee's [email protected];gov~~

~~Not in support or Raised Bill No. 5608~~

~~AN ACT CONCERNING A GRANDPARENT'S RIGHT OF VISITAT/ON WITH A GRANDCHILD.~~

~~I but I sit here today for discriminations' From grandparents and the courts stealing my child and trying to Fraud a Fit Father of his Full rights ..~~

Introduction The Americans with Disabilities Act to this day has not been full implemented 26 years after the congress passage and mandates of this civil right and due process right that the state actors and player do not want and will not give. But we sit c here today hearing grandparent wishes to over rule parents rights. Under the ADA of 1990 shows= No administrative compliance= no ADA compliance= all persons and attorneys have been, are, and will continue to be excluded from participation, denied the benefits of services programs activities of Conn, and discriminated against by reason of disability by the public entity known as the Conn services to the Public.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. Both public and private hospitals and health care facilities must provide their services to people with disabilities in a nondiscriminatory manner. To do so, they may have to modify their policies and procedures, provide auxiliary aids and services for effective communication, remove barriers fi·om existing facilities,

ADA OBJECTION PROTEST COMPLAINT Demands for REMEDIES/on/or About ADA All ADA Program Manager's & State of Conn Judicial Branch and AJI State Departments of Conn that Services the Public. This is a Request/ACTION OF Relief of Remedies for cases, In re Nathan R. M. H12-cp11-014212-a, Martocchio V. Savoir Et AI. FA 06-4006261, A c. 36368, A. C. 31363, AC 33597, AC 35741,SC 110192, sc 140383 and all past Tolland probate And the Greater Windsor matters and all services of state vendor and c I 002493 c

~~State Services to the public.~~

PLEASE look to the 1991 Regs coupled with the TAM for their preamble as best explanation of "public entitieS" """***responsibilities*** 11 ''"!!! From that, you can best tell if the Conn" was, is, will be tomorrow", compliant to Title II of the ADA and for subcontractors of state they hold not only title II but also Title III oblations .

~~Raised Bill No. 5608~~

~~AN ACT CONCERNING A GRANDP,ARENT'S RIGHT OF VISITATION WITH A GRANDCHILD.~~

~~Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:~~

~~Section 1. Subsection (b) of section 46b-59 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2016):~~

c (b). (1) A grandparent may submit a verified petition to the Superior Court for the right of visitation with any minor child. Such petition shall. include specific and good-faith allegations that (A) a parent-like relationship exists between the grandparent and the minor child and denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm; or (B) compelling circumstances exist that overcome the presumption that the parental decision to deny such visitation is in the child's best interest. Sukject to subsection (e) of this section, the court shall grant the right of visitation with any minor child to a grandparent if the court finds after hearing and by clear and convincing evidence that (i) a parent-like relationship exists between the grandparent and the minor child and denial of visitation · would cause real and significant harm; or (ii) compelling circumstances exist that overcome the presumption that the parental decision to deny such visitation is in the child's best interest.

[(b)] ill Any person, other than a grandparent. may submit a verified petition to the Superior Court for the right of visitation with any minor child, Such petition shall include specific and good-faith allegations that [(1)] a parent-like relationship exists between the person and the minor child[,] and [(2)] denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm. Subject to subsection (e) of this section; the court shall grant the right of visitation with any minor child to any person if the court finds after hearing and by clear and convincing evidence that c 2 002494 c

~~. a parent-like relationship exists between the person and the minor child and denial of visitation would cause real and significant harm.~~

The Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex pa11e E.R.G., 73 So. 3d 634, 86 A.L.R.6th 651 (Ala. 201 1), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1535, 182 L. Ed. 2d 161, (2012), held that a grandparent visitation statute violated the fundamental due process rights of parents and therefore was unenforceable, by not including a presumption in favor of parents when deciding questions of visitation, by looking only to the best interests of the child, and by substituting the judge for the parents in applying the best-interests standard, and also by not requiring a showing of a compelling state interest in awarding visitation to grandparents or a showing that application of the statute was the least restrictive means of achieving any state interest. This annotation collects and analyzes all cases that have addressed the validity of grandparent visitation statutes. · The court noted that the State's compelling interest is limited to overruling the decisions of unfit parents. Because parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children, the court noted that the law also presumes parental "care, custody, and control" to be superio~ to that of third persons under ordinary circumstances including cases involving visitation with nonparents.

To be constitutional, the court noted the Act must infringe upon the parent's right only to 0 the extent necessary to protect a compelling state interest and must do so in a narrowly tailored way, using the least restrictive means.

~~1. Compelling interest is CGS 46-b120 and 129 that is all! True harms and abuse.~~

2. Next is you are setting two class of citizens standards' grandparents and other. 3. The truths are De-facto Parents and Parents are the only two that gets visitation rights and why not Fix CGS 46b-56 . and the courts are today Trashing one parents rights for visiting and parenting there children based of False allegations or easy lies that when caught the courts are not punishing. 4. Where is the compliancy of Title II of the ADA

No administrative compliance= no ADA compliance= all persons and attorneys have been, are, and will continue to be excluded from participation, denied the benefits of services programs activities of Conn, and discriminated against by reason of disability by the public entity known as the Conn services to the Public.

~~0 3 002495 c~~

~~Including but not limiting to the following:~~

Violation and non-compliance of Settlement Agreement between the United States Department of Jnstice and the Connecticut Judicial Branch, Noyember 2003 and; Violations and non-compliance of Settlement Agreement In Raymond v. Rowland Civil Action NO. 3:03CV0118 fMRK) May 31. 2007 ( Only I Conn. Administration)All of State Actors & Players and State Contractors whom with invidious animus intent, effect or both of

The right of the grandparent to visit the grandchild is not a constitutional right. Traditionally, the common law of the United States denied grandparents visitation with a child over a parent's objections.

~~Therefore grandparent visitation rights are merely Conn Stat-utory rights, given by State Actors and Players and Legislatures. AS A Un- Constitutional Right.~~

Historically, parental rights were w1iversally recognized and protected under the U.S. Constitution. The current principle 'that only American laws only governs the relationship between parents and children in this country. c The Supreme Court's decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925}, to declare that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

~~In 1937, the Supreme Court found parental rights to be implicit in and protected by the Constitution (Palko v. Connecticut).~~

~~The 1972 Wisconsin v. Yoder decision (406 U.S. 205, 215} asserted that the "primary role of the parenta in the upbringing ofthelr children Is now established beyond debate as an American tradition."~~

~~Russell v. SANILAC COUNTY Dist. Court, ED Michigan. 2015- Google Scholar~~

... we have never held that any such right extends to grandparents.") {italics in original) (internal citation omitted); Brinkley v ... to grandparent visitation, Plaintiff cannot bring a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim regarding her canceled grandparent visitation rights, and thus ...

~~The Cou•1 in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), to declare that pat·ental rights, while very important, have limits.~~

~~The government may intcryene when the interest is of the highest order and c not otltenvlsc served; This section is a correct statement of current law.~~

~~4 002496 . . . . 0~~

~~Today, when the government has proper evidence of child abuse or neglect, it may and should prosecute a parent who is responsible for such behavior.~~

Why does Office of Conn Legislative Researcher, Researcher Report 2015-R-0082 leave out the Costs of litigations' and Experts doctors, Findings of Facts for Any crhninal history or history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or neglect by the petitioner and or who the Petitioner knows or is around past; (Child abuse was a daily thing in the 1900s to now- grandparents generation) how do you prove 2016? And how is the not a been a Financial burned on the children's Family and from ALL inherences' to the child , who wins the lawyer and doctors and GAL of the courts and Court Services and mandated programs cost?

Why are we not looking at Washington State, they are Equal and the Same, Common law states, as we are the Two Common Law states for family law. One would have to believe by Fact of Laws, We are not a Holy Matrimony Family Law State so stop looking at states that particles this type of laws. After all that is what is given us or conupt/problematic Guardians Ad Litem (GAL) on the childes best interest

Washington State RCWs >Title 26 >Chapter 26.09 >Section 26.09.240 26.09.231 « 26.09.240 » 26.09.255 RCW 26.09.240 c Visitation rights-Person other than parent-Grandparents' visitation rights. (I) A person other than a parent may petition the comt for visitation with a child at any time m· may intervene in a pending dissolution, legal separation, or modification of parenting plan proceeding. A person other than a parent may not petition for visitation under this section unless the child's parent or parents have commenced an action under this chapter. (2) A petition for visitation with a child by a person other than a parent must be filed in the county in which the child resides. · (3) A petition for visitation or a motion to intervene pursuant to this section shall be dismissed unless the petitioner or intervenor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a significant relationship exists with the child with whom visitation is sought. If the petition or motion is dismissed for failure to establish the existence of a significant relationship, the petitioner or Intervenor shall he ordered to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the parent, parents, other custodian, or representative of the child who responds to this petition or motion. (4) The comt may order visitation between the petitioner or intervenor and the child between whom a significant relationship exists upon a fmding supported by the evidence that the visitation is in the child's best interests. (S)(a) Visitation with a grandparent shall be presumed to be in the child's best interests when a significant relationship has been shown to exist. This presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of evidence showing that visitation would endanger the child's physical, mental, or emotional health. · (b) If the comt finds that reasonable visitation by a grandparent would be in the child's best interest except for hostilities that exist between the grandparent and one or c 5 002497

~~. I'~ Con.necticut's Legislative ~Commission on Aging A Nonpartisan Public Policy and Research Office of the Connecticut Genera{ Assembly~~

State Capi\(Y, Testimony of Julia Evans Starr 210 Capitol Ave. Executive Director Hartford, CT 06106 Connecticut's Legislative Commission on Aging 860-240-5200 I www.cga.etgovlcoa I I Judiciary Committee I Julia Evans Starr ' March 14, 2016 Execuuve Director I I Senator Coleman , Representative Tong and esteemed members of the Judiciary Deb Migneault I Committee, my name is· Julia Evans Starr and I am the Executive Director of Senior Policy Analyst I Connecticut's Legislative Commission on Aging. As you ·know, Connecticut's I t Legislative Commission on Aging is the non-partisan, public policy and research I Alyssa Norwood I office of the General Assembly, devoted to preparing Connecticut for a significantly Project Manager changed demographic and enhancing the lives of the present and future generat'ions of older adults.

~~Christianne Koval c Special Projects HB 5608: An Act Concerning a Grandparent's Right of VIsitation with a Grandchild Coordinator N Connecticut's Legislative Commission on Aging Informs~~

Special Act 11-12 established a Task Force to Study Grandparents' Visitation Rights. The Legislative Commission on Aging was charged with staffing the task force. The With 21 volunteer Task Force, comprised of attorneys representing parents and grandparents, a family board membets from across the state court judge, legislators and grandparents, went through an deliberate process in the Fall of 2011 to identify statutory changes to the third party visitation statute 46b-59 while satisfying constitutional.standards. The Task Force report can be found on the· Commission's website (www.cga.ct.gov/coa) and may help to inform your work.

Throughout the course of the Task Force's work, which analyzed various amendments to Connecticut's third party visitation statute, it was clear that it needed to be consistent with a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling. This ruling allows for only a very narrow exception for visits by a third party (such as a grandparent) over a fit parent's objection (Roth v West, 259 Conn. 202 (2002)). Accordingly, the recommendation of the Task Force which became law the following year (PA 12-137) reflects a slight reach in the authority for third parties and yet Is consistent with the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling. We're simply sharing the body of the Task Force work with you to help inform your deliberations. Thank you. c 002498 c Grandparents' Rights. ssociation of the United States of America

~~Good afternoon Representative Rebimbas,~~

One of the most important issues with Grandparent rights/visitation issues,. it the area of Troxil v. Granville dealing with the concept of "Intact Family". Thanks to that ruling, every state includes a condition saying an intact family is almost impossible to overrule. We actually consider that a good thing for the most part. The problem come in when an intact family consists of two parents who are both possible neglecting (or worse) the child(ren) in question. Many cases are borderline and do not actually meet.the standard of a child protective case, but the child is still suffering. The grandparents are quite often very involved in these situations and have the welfare of the child at heart, and only want to protect their grandchild until the parents can get their act together .. One of the symptoms these parents display is usually aggravation with the grandparents, and accusations of trying to "take over", when all they really wanted was to preserve the family connection with the child. I am sure there is 0 language that could be used in a statute to address this kind of situation, and if someone can pass a bill that would survive Troxil v Granville challenges, it would be a home run for thousands of children all over the Nation.

We, at GRAUSA, are primarily concerned with the rights/ability of the children to know, understand, and have a connection with their extended family and heritage. Sadly, we have a whole generation of young parents who have been brought up in an "environment of entitlement" which has instilled an attitude of believing they have all the answers, and no one could possibly know any better, in spite of many years of life experience. We also understand there really are some grandparents who do want to assume all control, and we recognize there must be provisions to deal with that. The bottom line is, it should always primarily boil down to what is best for the children.

Looking over the PDF file you sent, I can speak to several bills referenced. Because I live in South Carolina, and have firsthand knowledge, I can give you a very good history of that legislation. In 2013, our General Assembly passed the first "Grandparents Rights" bill I was involved with. House bill H-3464 changed the statutes giving "Grandparents, and other relatives of the 1" and 2"'. Degree" the right to ask to be made a party to the case when Child Protective Services removed a child from the parents. I actually wrote the first drafts of that bill, and the reasoning was to allow the Grandparents, or relative to be able to ask for temporary custody, thus keeping the child out of the foster system, and with extended family. Here is the link to that bill: http:Uwww.scstatehouse.gov/sess120 2013-2014/bills/3464.htm c 002499 c

In 2014, a bill passed that relaxed the conditions grandparents had to prove to win a visitation order (when CPS is not involved). It removed a contradiction in the statute that made it almost impossible to comply with all conditions. Grandparents are no longer required to prove they had a "parent like relationship" with the child. That is something almost no grandparent ever has anyway. Grands actually want the "Grandparent like relationship" which is the normal ..GRAUSA backed and heavily promoted passage. Here is the link to that bill: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120 2013-2014/bills/4348.htm

Last year, Florida passed new grandparent visitation legislation. A few years before, the FL Supreme Court deemed the existing law unconstitutional, so now tlie Legislature is working to rebuild the statutes in a way that conforms to that same Troxil v Granville ruling.

There are several others. The Oklahoma legislative session just began today. Our GRAUSA state Director in OK is actually visiting the Legislature today attempting to get new bills introduced there, so I c have no information at this time on that effort. As you can see, that "intact family'' concept is the highest hurdle, as it should be, but the children stili need a way to keep some contact with their heritage. That is our ultimate goal.

Thank you so very much for taking the time to consider these concerns, and we at GRAUSA look forward to working with you and the New Jersey Legislature. Please feel free to contact me at any time. My direct line at GRAUSA is (86"4) 855-3860, and I will be glad to speak with you any time.

~~John Schafer- Director~~

~~Grandparents Rights Association of the USA www.grausa.org~~

~~c 002500 c Children Have a Right to a Relationship With Grandparents I Educaloi https:/lwww.educaloi.qc.ca/enlcapsuleslchildren-have-rigbt-relaliooship-... @ educaloi.qc.ca~~

~~Home -a Families and Couples » Child Custody • Special Situations Children Have a Right to a Relationship With Grandparents~~

~~c Image Souroe I Gettytrragas~~

Sometimes, a child's parents and grandpartlnts don't get along. In some cases; the relationship is so bad that the parents forbid children from seeing their grandparents. What rights d6 grandchildren have in situations like this? Grandparents Are Important to Grandchildren

Imagine a situation where the relationship between the parents and grandparents has been a difficult one for years. Despite this, they make an effort to get along. The grandparents are always thrilled to babysit their grandchildren. They adore each other. But the last argument was very serious. For several months. now, the parents have prevented the grandparents from having contact with their grandchildren. The Legal Rights of Grandparents and Grandchildren

~~The law says that parents cannot stop grandchildren from having a relationship with their grandparents, unless there Is a serious reason.~~

If it is difficuH or impossible for grandparents to see their grandchildren because the parents are not allowing it, then the grandparents can file a request in lhe Superior Court of Quebec and ask for visiting rights. c VISiting rights allow an adult who does not have custody of the children to spend time with them.

~~I of3 3/13/2016 6:29PM 002501~~

~~Children Have a Right to a Relationship Wilh Grandparents 1Educaloi https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en!capsules/children-hav ... right-relatiooship-... c " Grandparents' Visiting Rights~~

~~Grandparents who want visiting rights so they can spend time with their grandchildren can ask a judge to let them see each other as often as they did before the problem arose.~~

~~However, even if they get visiting rights, grandparents will not be allowed to spend more time with the children than the parent who did not get custody after a breakup.~~

~~No matter what the situation, the judge will put the best interests of the grandchildren first, as opposed to the interests of the parents or grandparents.~~

The judge will also take into account the reason why the grandparents are asking for visiting rights. The law says that the purpose of these visiting rights is to give grandchildren a chance to get to know their · grandparents and develop a strong bond with them.

~~A judge could also decide that it is in the best interests of the children to limit contact with their grandparents. For example, contact could be limited to the following:~~

~~• telephone conversations~~

~~• letters~~

~~• family get-togethers c A judge also has the power to stop all contact between grandparents and grandchildren. Refusal to Give Grandparents Visiting Rights for a Serious Reason~~

~~A judge can refuse to give the grandparents visiting rights if the parents show there is a serious reason for refusing access to the children.~~

~~An argument between the parents and grandparents is not considered a serious enough reason to prevent access.~~

~~However, any situatfon that is against the grandchildren's best interests can be a serious reason.~~

~~Here are some examples of when preventing access might be in the children's best interests:~~

~~• The relationship between the parents and grandparents has turned into a legal battle.~~

~~• The grandparents are a bad influence on the grandchildren.~~

• The grandparents are trying to take over from the parents and are constantly stepping on the parents' rights to make decisions about the children. (In other words, they are interfering with the parents' parental authority.)

~~• The grandparents are physically or verbally abusive. toward their grandchildren. c • The grandchildren do not want to see the grandparents.~~

~~2of3 3/13/2016 6:29PM 002502~~

~~c Children Have a Right to a Relationship Wi1h Grandparents I Educaloi https://www.educaloi.qc.calenlcapsules/children-have-right-relalionship-... Protecting Grandchildren From Their Parents~~

~~Grandparents do not always agree with parents' choices about how the children are being raised, but they must respect the decisions of parents.~~

~~There is an exception to this rule: when the parents are putting their children's safety and development at risk.~~

~~Sometimes parents are not able to care for their children, either temporarily or permanently. This might happen if the parents have a drug or alcohol addiction or mental heatth problem..~~

~~If the parents are not able to care for their children, a court can award custody to someone else. In this type of case, the grandparents can try to get custody.~~

Important I This article explains in a general way the law that applies in Quebec. This article is not a legal opinion or legal advice. To find out the specific rules for your situation; consult a lawyer or notary.

~~3 of3 3113/2016 6:29PM 002503 c~~

~~March 13, 2016~~

~~Bill HB508- Hearing 3-14-16~~

~~To The Judiciary Committee:~~

I am a grandmother in the state of Connecticut. I have three girls, adopted at older ages from Eastern Europe. They have a background of abuse and neglect. Two of them have children, a girl who is 6, and a boy who is 5. We raised our granddaughter from July, 2010 to April, 2013. Our granddaughter was then placed with her biological father, who she had never lived with before. Today, I am not allowed to be alone with my granddaughter. I cannot babysit, take her to the park, or do any of the grandparent things I long to do with her. I guess I am one of the lucky ones,because I can go and see her, but the father must be there. · I am sometimes invited to Christmas plays or graduations, but I long for the one on-one contact we once shared. Everyone says that we did a good job raising her c and she was very bonded to my husband and me. I long to hold her! The intimate relationship we once had now seems to be gone. I have not been alone with her for almost a year. We are not included in her everyday life. My daughter chooses drugs over her only child.

The same thing is now happening with my grandson. He was at our house almost every weekend. I was the first person to hold him when he was born. My oldest daughter also has a problem with addiction. As it stands right now, I am allowed to take him for one hour and he cannot come to my home unless his caregiver or her husband is with him.- This is my grandson!

~~Pleqse help us have intimate relationships with our grandchildren in Connecticut!~~

~~Thank you.~~

~~Charlotte Pettit~~

~~10 Cedar Hill Orive~~

~~Prospect, CT 06712 Email: [email protected] c 002504 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Acevedo, Hilda C. Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:00AM To: JudTestimony~~

~~Mr. Chairman and Members of the Comittee:~~

My name is Hilda Acevedo and I am from the town ofVemon. The bill number 5621, An Act Concerning Human Trafficking is a bill I am in full support of. The reason I am m full support of this bill is because I feel it addresses different elements that will help eliminate the risk of human trafficking. For example, Sec 3 of the bill states that ali hotels, motels or similar lodging shall maintain records for no less than six months nom date of creation. This will hold hotels and similar lodging accountable to do their part to prevent human trafficking. Sec four states that all employees of hotels or similar lodging receive annual training on he recognition of potential victims of human trafficking and activities commonly associated with human trafficking. Sec five states that no operator of a motel or similar lodging shall offer an hourly rate for any sleepii:J.g accomendation. These sections of the bill are very important because they hold these establishments accountable for their part in prevention of human trafficking. Hotels and other lodging areas often turn a blind eye to human trafficking because they are able to profit from it themselves. Ifthe more awareness and prevention there could be, the better the state is able to fight against it.

Another reason I believe this bill should go forward as a law is because in section 10. Section 53a-90a it states "A person is guilty of enticing a minor when such person uses an interactive computer service to knowlingly c persuade, induce, entice or coerce any person under sixteen years of age .... " The amendment to that section is taking out the age of sixteen, and raising it to eigheen in order to protect minors. Any minor who falls is coerced into any form of prostitution is a victim and therefore should be protected.

~~This bill is very important to me. Thank you for taking time to read my written testimony.~~

~~Hilda A.~~

~~Sent from Outlook Mobile~~

~~1 002505 c~~

~~March 14, 2016~~

~~Dear Sen. Eric Coleman, Rep. William Ton& and members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary,~~

~~The Connecticut Lodging Association strongly opposes the details In Bill No. 5621, An Act Concerning Human Trafficking, due to the stipulations to be enforced on the lodgmg Industry.~~

The lodging industry supports awareness of this serious nationai and international issue. The Connecticut Lodging Association along with the partnership of the American Hotel and Lodging Association supports Human Trafficking education efforts through promotion of the Department of Homeland Security anti human trafficking Blue Campaign, as well as industry awareness campaigns/educational tools.

The industry reco8:nlzes human trafficking- mod~:!m day slavery- is not just a problem in developing nations; estimates show that thousands of men, women, and children are trafficked in the United States each year primarily for sexual or labor exploitation. Trafficking networks often rely on legitimate businesses to sustain their operations and infrastructure.

The lodging industry believes education is important to stop human-trafficking, and the lodging Industry is a key allY In anti-human trafficking efforts. ThoUgh Bill No. 5621 does not unify the efforts but Isolates the industry. Please consider a compromise to move forward In a strong anti-human trafficking campaign that c focuses on the nature of the issue not the regulation of an industry used In the process. Thank you for your time, effort and your support for a better Conne~icut.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Victor Antico Jr. President Connecticut Lodging Association~~

c Connecticut lDdgfng As~latiGn I 545long Wharf Dr. 4"' FL, New Haven, CT 065gJ P 860-635-5600 I E lnfo@ctlodglng. org 1 ctlodglng.org 002506 c .D. 1111 COIN.ECTICUT- JUVENILE TESTIMONY OF THE CONNECTICUT JUVENILE JUSTICE ALLIANCE JUSTICE FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMI'ITEE MARCH 14, 2016 ALLIANCE HB NO. 5621 AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING HB NO. 5623 AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and members of the Judiciary Committee: My name is Mallory LaPierre; I am the policy associate of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance. The Alliance is a statewide public policy and advocacy organization dedicated to stopping the criminalization of Connecticut's children. We believe in prevention to keep children from entering the system and best practice arid policy to ensure that children who do enter the system are treated safely, fairly, and effectively, so that they can ·succeed.

We strongly support HB 5621 and HB 5623, namely the provisions that would raise the age a child can be charged with prostitution frOm sixteen to eighteen years old. The intent of these bills is to recognize that children engaged in prostitution are victims of sexual exploitation and not criminals. -

The majority of U.S. children involved in prostitution are runaways and are past victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, and/or other forms of trauma.' These youth are manipulated by adults to engage in sexual acts in return for a fee and are coerced into continued prostitution by sophisticated psychological, emotional, and physical means.' These children need c to be connected to services and treatment rather than be punished. Furthermore, a seventeen-year-old Connecticut youth cannot vote, serve on a jury, get a marriage license on his or her own, or enter a casino. Connecticut's Raise the Age law acknowledged that children under the age of eighteen should be treated as juveniles and not adults. Moreover, the Department of Children and Families, the social service provider for those children involved in prostitution, states that youth can receive services from its agency until age eighteen.' Raising the age for which a child can be charged with prostitution would be more consistent with · Cormecticut's current laws.

~~Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony, which relies heavily on information and thinking from our colleagues at Connecticut Voices for Children.~~

Alliance member organizations: AFCAMP, Center for Children's Advocacy, Center for Effective Practice I CHDI, Children's Mental Health Connecticut, Connecticut Legal Services; Connecticut Voices for Children, Connecticut Youth Services Association, Community Partners in Action, FAVOR, LifeBridge, Office of the Chief Public Defender, Office of the Child Advocate, RYASAP, The Tow Foundation, The Village for Families and Children

1 Urbina, Ian. For RNnawqys on tlu Strnt, Sex B1!1J S111VivaJ. New York Times, Oct 27, 2009. Section A, pg. 1. 2 Kate Brittle, "Child Abuse by Another Name: Why the Child Welfare System is the Best Mechanism in Place to Address the Problem ofJuvenile Prostitution," HoftJrrl Lnv Review (2008), 6, 7. 3 Connecticut General Statutes Section 17a-93. Ava..ilable at: hqpt//GR' rrggyf2009/pnb/rhpp319a hrtp c 2470 Fairfield Avenue, Bridgeport CT 06605 203-579-2727 www.etjja.org 002507 c

~~i!>tate of «:onnerticut DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE~~

~~TESTIMONY OF THE .DMSION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE~~

~~H.B. No. 5621 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING.~~

~~H.B. No. 5623 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING~~

~~JOINT COMMI'ITEE ON JUDICIARY March 14,2016~~

The Division of Criminal Justice respectfully recommends the Committee's JOINT FAVORABLE SUBSTITUTE Report for H.B. No. 5621, An Act Concerning Human Trafficking, and H.B. No. 5623, An Act Concerning Violence Against Women and Victims of Human Trafficking. Both of these bills - which contain several identiCal sections - propose c valuable tools to assist in the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking cases. The Division commends the Committee for its consideration of these provisions and we recommend your strong support. However, while we support the overall intention and contents of these bills, we must oppose certain provisions and would respectfully recommend and request that the. Committee delete these sections should it decide to move forward with either or both ofthe.bills.

Section 2 of H.B. No. 5621, which .is identical to Section 19 of H.B: No. 5623, would impose onerous and unnecessary reporting requirements on each of the State's Attorneys. The information requested concerning the number and nature of trafficking cases is not readily available nor could it easily be obtained. This information does not come into the State's Attorney's offices; the police do investigations and apply for warrants. If, and only if, a warrant suggests trafficking in violation of the criminal statute would we be formally alerted to something that we could keep track of. To require the Division to attempt to compile this information also detracts from our ability to discharge our core responsibilities, including the actual investigation and prosecution of trafficking or other crimes. Further, even if the Division did compile such information, the disclosure of the details of ongoing investigations is at best unwise . and potentially illegal depending upon the nature of the investigation and the investigative tools that are being employed. A case in point would be ari investigatory grand jury, the proceedings of which are confidential pursuant to statute .

.The actual number of trafficking arrests itself also may not warrant the amount of time and effort that would be required for such reporting. Aecording to the Judicial Branch, in the five year period ending last December a total of 17 arrests were made over those five years for violations of Section 53a-192a, Trafficking in Persons. For the same five-year period, a total of

~~c AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 002508 c~~

two arrests were made for violating Section 53a-86(a)(2), which deals with promoting prostitution of a person under age 18. The Division acknowledges that human trafficking cases are likely underreported and that greater investigative and detection efforts are in order, however, the way to achieve this is not by imposing onerous and unnecessary repOrting requirements. It is through such initiatives as the Connecticut Human Trafficking Task Force, a multi-agency collaboration launched by the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut and including the Division and other law enforcement agencies on the state, local and federal levels.

Further, the Division would submit that the goal of the reporting requirements envisioned in these bills is already being achieved through the Trafficking in Persons Council. The Division participates in the council and will continue to partner with public and private agencies on the state, local and federal levels to study and make recominendations concerning trafficking and related issues. Finally, the Division stands ready at all times to provide any information that any committee of the General Assembly requests to the extent allowed by law. For these rea1;ons, the Division would respectfully request that the Committee delete section 2 of H.B. No. 5621 and section 19found-in H.B. No. 5623.

The Division supports Section 8 ofH.B. No. 5621 and section 25 ofH.B. No. 5623. These identical provisions would strengthen the ab1hty of the criminal justice system to conv1ct those who prey on teenage victims of sex trafficking. These sections would remove the requirement that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of the crime that the ')ohn" "knew or reasonably should have known at the time of the offense" that the teenage prostitute c was, in fact, under the age of 18 in order to convict the ')ohn" of the class C felony (maximum ten years' incilrceration).

The Division, however, must oppose the revisions to the prostitution statutes proposed in section 7 of H.B. No. 5621 and section 24 of H.B. No. 5623. These sections would no longer make it a ·crime for anyone under the age of 18 io engage in prostitution. While well-intentioned,. this approach is misguided and contrary to the fundamental reason the juvenile justice system exists. Such a change also could well prove detrimental the very victims of teenaged sex trafficking it is intended to benefit.

Anyone under age 18 who is charged with prostitution goes to the juvenile court. The underlying purpose of the juvenile court is to provide treatment and rehabilitation. The court cannot provide treatment if it cannot get io the child. This can be particularly true in cases of teenage sex trafficking where the child victim has been "groomed" and brought under the control of the person who is victimizing the child. These young victims are among the most likely to refuse to cooperate with the authorities either to assist in the prosecution of the john or the pimp. Police must have the ability to arrest such a 16- or 17-year-old for the child's own good and to get to the real criminals.

Retaining the current law does not mean that every 16- or 17-year-old who engages in prostitution is arrested. The police still have the option of not making an arrest and the prosecutor retains the discretion not to prosecute after an arrest has been made. Both the police and the prosecutor must, however, have the ability to utilize an arrest when it is the only tool available- for the good of the child and the public safety. The teenage victim who refuses to c 002509 c

cooperate today only increases the chances that there will be more such victims tomorrow. For these reasons, the Division respectfully recommends the Committee delete section 7 ofH.B. No. 5621 and section 24 ofH.B. No. 5623.

In conclusion, the Division of Criminal Justice respectfully recommends the Committee's JOINT FAVORABLE SUBSTITUTE as described herein shonld the Committee decide to move forward with either or both of these bills. The Division wishes to thank the Committee for affording this opportuoity to provide input on this matter and we would be happy to provide any additional information the Committee might require.

~~c 002510 c 30 Bank Street New Britain. CT 06051 T. (860) 223-4400 F. (860) 223-4488~~

~~www:ctbar.org~~

~~Testimony of the Connecticut Bar Association Human Rights and Responsibilities Section~~

~~In SUPPORT of~~

HB5621, An Act Concerning Human Trafficking And HB5623, An Act Concerning Violence Against Women And Victims Of Human Trafficking And HB5052, An Act Strengthening Protections for Victims of Human Trafficking

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Monday, March 14, 2016 c Good Morning Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, Senator Doyle, Representative Fox, Senator Kissel and Representative Rebintbas, and members of the Judiciary Committee.

The Connecticut Bar Association's Human Rights and Responsibilities Section supports HB5621, An Act Concerning Human Trafficking, HB5623, An Act Concerning Violence against Women and Victims of Human Trafficking, and HB5052, An Act Strengthening Protections for Victims of Human Trafficking.

~~The Human Rights and Responsibilities Section has for at least three years pursued support legislation that would provide protection for victims of human trafficking.~~

~~House Bills 5621, 5623 and 5052 propose a comprehensive set of provisions to monitor, limit and prevent human fraHICkfug.~~

The provisions include but are not limited to the following: • intpose new fines, increase existing fines and increase criminal penalties for persons convicted of human trafficking-related violations and/or sexnal violations against victims of human trafficking; broaden the age range of victims by increase the age of human trafficking victims from 16 years of age to 18 years of age for a human trafficking victim to be convicted as a prostitute; • require the Commissioner of Children and Families and the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection Commission develop a· training progrant to raise awareness of iitcidents of human trafficking; c 002511

~~c 30 Bank Street New Britain, Cf 06051 T. (860) 223-4400 6'::ecticut F. (860) 223-4488 Bar Association www.ctbar.org~~

• institute reforms designed to prevent human trafficking at hotels motels and similar lodgings; • require reporting to the General Assembly of human trafficking prosecutions and investigations; and • to amend the duties and composition of the trafficking in persons council.

It is welcomed that the Connecticut General Assembly has taken important steps to recognize and dea1 with the problem of human trafficking which is real and exists in Connecticut and throughout the country. Human Trafficking is recognized as a form of modem-day slavery where people profit from the control and exploitation of others. Because most of this slavery takes place out of the sight of the public, statistics are hard to confirm but it is believed that 80 percent of the human-trafficking victims· internationally are women and children and of that figure it is believed that nearly one-half are · children and teens under the age of 18. These are the people who are least likely to be able to escape this modem day slavery and end up on the streets or in the seedy motels of Conneeticut as prostitutes where they are exploited by their pimps and their johns.

Accordingly, as these efforts are important and critical steps to eliminate human trafficking and more effectively address the rights and protections of human trafficking victims, the Human Rights Section c of the CBA strongly supports House Bills 5621, 5623 and 5052, and respectfully urges the members of the Judiciary Committee to vote m favor of them.

~~Barbara Collins Alix Simonetti Chair Legislative Liaison~~

~~0 002512~~

Office of Chief Public Defender State of Connecticut 30 TRINITY STREET, 4'!11 FLOOR ATTORNEY SUSAN 0. STOREY HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106 CHIEF PUBUC DEFENDER TEL {860)5()9.6429 FAX (860-509-6499 [email protected]

Testimony of Attorney Michael S. Wagner, Senior Assistant Public Defender Office of Chief Public Defender March 14, 2016 c House Bill 5622 An Act Concerning The Availability Of Erased Records In Determining Whether A Person Is A Suitable Person To Carry A Pistol Or Revolver

The Office of Chief Public Defender opposes HB. 5622, An Act Concerning The Availability Of Erased Records In Determining Whether A Person is A Suitable Person To Carry A Pistol Or Revolver because it seeks to change the state's erasure statute, C.G.S. §54-142a, by allowing local law enforcement officials or selectman, or warden of a borough to access previously erased police, court, and records of any state's attorney pertaining to criminal charges that have been erased. Similar to concerns raised in the Division's testhnony regarding Raised Bill 5527, An Act Concerning Crimes Committed While Out On Pre Trial Release, this titll!s unnecessary and would be contrary to the legislative intent ofC.G.S. §54-142a, subjecting persons to the negative consequences which flow from criminal charges which do not result in conviction.

The State Supreme Court has spoken with clarity on this issue in State vs. Seth Aot 319 Conn. 494 (20 15). The Court explained that the legislature inteoded to insulate people who are arrested but never convicted from the adverse societal consequences that result from having an arrest record. "This history makes clear that "the purpose of the erasure statute ... is to protect innocent persons from the harmful consequences of a criminal charge [that] is subsequently dismissed." Id.

Local officials who process these applications and issue permits have available alternatives under state and federal law which can be utilized to determine whether it is appropriate to issue a permit. The Office of Chief Public Defender strongly urges this Committee not to act favorably c on this bill. 002513

~~0 CONNECTICUT POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION 1800 Silas Deane Highway-Rear Building, Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067 (860) 757-3909 Fax: (860) 529-4265 Web site: www.cpcanet.org~~

~~Testimony to the Committee on Judiciary March 14, 2016 Chief Paul Fitzgerald and Chief Paul Melanson, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association~~

~~HB 5622. AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER.~~

~~The Connecticut Police Chiefs Association supports HB 5622.~~

~~The legislature is considering several bills that would expand the conditions under which a record is erased.~~

Situations which currently prohibit the issuance of a pistol permit would become erased thereby allowing a person with a history of violence and criminal acts to obtain a permit. c HB 5622 will provide police departments with the tools to properly investigate the issuance of pistol permits.

~~c 002514 c~~

~~CCDL, Inc. POBox642 Groton, CT 06340 www.ccdl.us~~

~~Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc.~~

Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, and honorable members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary, My name is Chris Lemos and I am a resident of Stratford. I am also a certified firearms instructor and the Vice President of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League.

~~I am writing today in opposition to HB5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABIT..ITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLvER'~~

Connecticut's Criminal Records Erasure Statute, CoD.IL Gen. StaL § 54-142a requires that criminal records related to an arrest be destroyed if the individual is subsequently found not guilty or pardoned or if the charges are nolled or dismissed. The statnte further provides that " [a)ny person who shall have been the subject of such an erasure shall be deemed to have never been arrested within the meaning of the general statutes with .respect to the proceedings so erased and may so swear under oath."

We have this Erasure Statute to protect people who under our laws were not guilty of a crime from · c being persecuted in the futnre for a crime they did not commit Yet this bill proposes to do just that. It is an attempt to punish someone who has been deemed inn9cen( under state and federal law, by depriving them of a constitutional righL It is a founding principle of our country that a person is innocent until proven guilty. People subject to§ 54'142a are innocent, with ALL the rights of a citizen of this state.· Please treat them that way.

~~Thank you for your service to the people of Connecticut, and for your time and consideration on this matter. Chris Lemos Stratford, CT~~

~~Every Ci~:·. n lHas. a right . to bea~• _ 1i'i defense of hlme~Jf · d1~ atate, c Connecticut State conslftuttQil, Article First. SecUon 15 002515 c~~

~~COALITION OF CONNECTICUT SPORTSMEN~~

~~P.0. Box 2506, Hartford, CT 06146, (203) 245-8076~~

~~www.ctsportsmen.com [email protected]~~

~~Testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee~~

~~In OPPOSITION to Raised Bill No. 5622 AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER~~

~~James Crook March 14, 2016~~

Section 54-142a of the CT general statutes states "Any person who shall have been the subject of such an erasure shall be deemed to have never been arrested within the meaning of the general statutes with respect to the proceedings so erased and may so swear under oath." Logically records erased were accomplished for some reason. Under Jaw, these erasures occur because the accused, by a final judgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed. We read that as stating that the accused is innocent. We are also concerned about an individual's right to equal protection under the Jaw c and the presumption of innocence. We question why these records should be available to issuing authorities: "or (3) to a municipality's chief of poi ice or selectman or to a warden of a borough of the municipality, as the case may be, f.or the sole p,urpose·of determining whether a person who is the subject of such records is a suitable·person to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to section 29-28, or to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners for the sole purpose of determining an appeal by such person concerning such suitability pursuant to section 29-32b. Such disclosure of such records is subject also to any records destruction program pursuant to which the records may have been destroyed."

~~We urge Rejection. Thank you.~~

~~c 002516 c~~

~~COALITION OF CONNECTICUT SPORTSMEN~~

~~P.O. Box 2506, Hartford, CT 06146, (203) 245-8076~~

~~www.ctsportsmen.com [email protected]~~

Testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee In OPPOSITION to Raised Bill No. 5622 AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER By Robert T. Crook, Director March 14, 2016

~~Logically records erased were accomplished for some reason. We question why these records should be. available to permit to carry a pistol or revolver issuing authorities:~~

"or (3) to a municipalitv's chief of police or selectman or to a warden of a borough of the municipalitv. as the case may be. for the sole purpose of determining whether a person who is .the subject of such records is a suitable person to carrv a pistol or revolver pursuant to section 29-28. or to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners for the sole c purpose of determining an appeal by such person concerning such suitabilitv pursuant to section 29-32b. Such disclosure of such records is subject also to any records destruction program pursuant to which the records may have been destroyed."

Since Suitability is the sole criteria, a concern is that some issuing authorities may use this data, much of which is probably antiquated, to deny a permit further exacerbating the Board of Firearms Permit Examiner's over 2 year appeals process waiting period.

This bill also appears contrary to Raised Bill No. 454 AN ACT CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ERASURE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS https:/lwww.cga.ct.gov/2016fTOB/s/2016SB-00454-ROO-SB.htm which will be soon heard by this committee

~~We urge Rejection. Thank you.~~

~~c 002517 c~~

~~STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH~~

~~EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION 231 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (860) 757c2270 Fax (860) 757-2215~~

~~Testimony of the Judicial Branch Judiciary Committee Public Hearing March 14,2016~~

~~H.B. 5622, An Act Concerning the Availability of Erased Records in Determining Whether a Person is a Suitable Person to Carry a Pistol or Revolver~~

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the Judicial Branch regardmg H. B. 5622, An Act Concerning the Availability of Erased Records In Detennining Whether a Person is a Suitable Per5on to Carry a Pistol or Revolver.

The Judicial Branch does not take a position on the substance of this bill; however, we believe that the decision to order disclosure of erased records should remain in the court's discretion. As such, we believe that the language in line 5 should

~~11 re~ unchanged with "may"- instead of" shal1~~

~~Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. c 002518 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Kev Bal Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 4:18PM To: JudTestimony Subject: OPPOSE H.B No. S622~~

~~To my elected representetives,~~

~~I am writing to inform you of my opposition to H.B No. 5622 AN ACr CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DffiRMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A sUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER.~~

~~I oppose this bill on the following grounds.~~

Citizens who qualified under these programs (Youthful offender, Accelerated Rehabilitation, Juvenile offenses, etc .. ) had their records rightfully "erased" or sealed under law. To open them up for any reason other than what the law has allowed for years (only to be opened to see whether or not the offender has applied for the programs in the past) would serve as injustice t6 these citizens who most likely were sold this "deal" as a plea bargain or one time offense.

~~These citizens may have had a lapse in judgement for a moment that is not indicative of their suitability or character.~~

I would ask that if this passes, is the congress prepared to expand this application to members of law enforcement who no doubt, and I have specific knowledge, have used the same programs in the past to keep their jobs and apply for public service.

~~Would we also open this up to elected positions? We should be able to judge the suitebility of our representatives.~~

~~c I would like to know my doctors suitability if he is going to be performing surgery on me, perhaps he was arrested for · driving drunk? If he is an alcoholic I would like to know.~~

Could we open this requirement to firefighter and public inspectors? Perhaps 20 years ago these people have been charged with larceny. I would sure like to know if thieves are going to be in my house, regardless if they are putting out a fire or performing a tax assessment.

~~I am no attorney, but I am sure I would be consulting one to find out whether this would be considered ex post facto, or otherwise illegal.~~

On top of the aforementioned, recognize that should the permit applicant appeal his decision to the board of firearms permit examiners, that those hearing are public, and the minutes of which are posted online. You have now made that persons "erased or sealed" file completely public knowiedge, eradicating any purpose it existed for in the first place.

~~This is not a hard decision and I urge you to oppose HB 5622.~~

~~Regards, Kevin Balog~~

~~c 10 002519 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

From: Logyn Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 8:47 AM To: JudT estimony Cc: zRepresentative Stephen Harding; Sen. Mclachlan, Michael; Rep. Carter, Dan; Sen. Boucher, Toni; zRepresentative Rob Sampson; Sen. Markley, Joe Subject: RE: Opposition to raised bill 5622

~~I am opposed to raised bill5622 for the simple reason that NOLLED or erased records had been nailed or erased for good reasons. They are supposed to be as if they NEVER EXISTED.~~

~~Allowing their use for arbitrary and capricious use by local jurisdictions, after a Judge found whatever had been cause to erase such records is wrong and sjould be rejected.~~

~~Bill Hillman Bethel, CT c~~

~~c 1 002520 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

From: Glenn Frank Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 12:51 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: OPPOSE HBS622 -'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'

~~If a person's past actions or false convictions has been expunged - he or she has proven that they are fit to retain their second amendment rights.~~

~~Glenn Frank Haddarn,CT c~~

~~2 002521 c Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Kev Bal Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 5:11 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: oppose HB NO 5622~~

~~To my elected representatives,~~

~~I am writing to infonm you of my opposition to H.B No. 5622 AN Acr CONCERNING THE AVAILABILTIY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SOil ABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOl DR REVOlVER.~~

~~I oppose this bill on the following grounds.~~

Citizens who qualified under these programs (Youthful offender, Accelerated Rehabilitation, Juvenile offenses, etc .. ) had their records rightfully "erased" or sealed under law. To open them up for any reason other than what the law has allowed for years (only to be opened to see whether or not the offender has applied for the programs in the past) would serve as injustice to these citizens who most likely were sold this "deal" as a plea bargain or one time offense.

~~These citizens may have had a lapse in judgement for a moment that is not indicative of their suitability or characier.~~

I would ask that if this passes, is the congress prepared to expand this application to members of law enforcement who no ~oubt, and I have specific knowledge, have used the same programs in the past to keep their jobs and apply for public service. c Would we also open this up to elected positions? We should be able to judge the suitability of our representatives. I would like to know my doctors suitability if he is going to be perfonming surgery on me, perhaps he was arrested for driving drunk? If he is an alcoholic I would like to know.

~~I am no attorney, but I am sure I would be consulting one to find out whether this would be considered ex post facto, or otherwise illegal. ·~~

On top of the aforementioned, recognize that should the permit applicant appeal his decision to the board of fireanms permit examiners, that those hearilig are public, and the minutes of which are posted online. You have now made- that persons "erased or sealed" file completely public knowledge, eradicating any purpose it existed for in the first place.

~~These are some of the current laws for erasure of records.~~

Sec. 54-76o. Erasure of police and court records of youthful offender. Whenever any person has been adjudicated a youthful offender and has subsequently been discharged from. the supervision of the court or from the care of any institution or agency to whom he has been committed by the court, all police and court records pertaining to such youthful offender shall be automatically erased when such person attains twenty-oneyears of age, provided such person has not subsequent to being adjudged a youthful offender been convicted of a felony, as defined in section 53a-25, prior to attaining such age. Youthful offender status shall not be deemed conviction of a crime for the purposes of this section. Upon the entry of such an erasure order, all references including arrest, complaint, referrals, petitions, reports and orders, shall be removed from all agency, official and institutional files. The persons in charge of such records shall not disclose to c any person, except the subject of the record, upon submission of satisfactory proof of the subject's 3 002522

C identity in accordance with guideiines prescribed by the Chief Court Administrator; information pertaining to the record so erased. No youth who has be~ the subject of such an erasure order shall be deemed to have been arrested ab initio, within the meaning of the general statutes, with respect to proceedings so erased. Copies of the erasure order shall be sent to all persons, agencies, officials or institutions known to have information pertaining to the proceedings affecting such youth.

Sec. 54-56e. (Formerly Sec. 54-76p). Accelerated pretrial rehabilitation. (a) There shall be a pretrial program for accelerated rehabilitation of persons accused of a crime or crimes or a motor vehicle violation or violations for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment may be imposed, which crimes or violations are not of a serious nature.

(b) The court may, in its discretion, invoke such program on motion of the defendant or on niotion of a state's attorney or prosecuting attorney with respect to a defendant (1) who, the court believes, will probably not offend in the future, (2) who has no previous record of conviction of a crime or of a violation of section 14-196, subsection (c) of section 14-215, section 14-222a, subsection (a) of section 14-224 or section 14-227a, (3) who has not been adjudged a youthful offender within the preceding five years under the provisions of sections 54-76b to 54-76n, · inclusive, and ( 4) who states under oath, in open court or before any person designated by the clerk and duly authorized to administer oaths, under the penalties of perjury that the defendant has never had such program invoked in the defendant's behalf, provided the defendant shall agree thereto and provided notice has been given by the defendant, on a form approved by rule of court, to the victim or victims of such crime or motor vehicle violation, if any, by registered or certified mail and such victim or victims have an opportunity to be heard thereon. In determining whether to grant an c application under this section with respect to a person who has been adjudged a youthful offender under the provisions of sections 54-76b to 54-76n, inclusive, more than five years prior to the date of such application, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 54-76!, the court shall have access to the youthful offender records of such person and may consider the nature and circumstances of the crime with which such person was charged as a youth. Any defendant who makes application for participation in such program shall pay to the court an application fee of thirty-five dollars.

(c) This section shall not be applicable: (1) To any person charged with a class A felony, a class B felony, except a violation of section 53a-122 that does not involve the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, or a violation of section 14-227a, subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of section 53-21, section 53a-56b, 53a-60d, 53a-70, 53a-70a, 53a- 70b, 53a-71, 53a-72a, 53a-72b, 53a-90a, 53a-196e or 53a-196f, (2) to any person charged with a crime or motor vehicle violation who, as a result of the commission of such crime or motor vehicle violation, causes the death of another person, (3) to any person accused of a family violence crime as defined in section 46b-38a who (A) is eligible for tl:).e pretrial family violence education program established under section 46b-38c, or (B) has previously had the pretrial family violence education program invoked in such person's behalf, (4) to any person charged with a violation of section 2la- 267 or 21a-279 who (A) is eligible for the pretrial drug education program established under section 54-56i, or (B) has previously had the pretrial drug education program invoked in such person's behalf, (5) unless good cause is shown, to any person charged with a class C felony, or (6) c to any person charged with a violation of section 9-359 or 9-359a. 4 002523

0 (d) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, any defendant who enters such program shall pay to the court a participation fee of one hundred dollars. Any defendant who enters such program shall agree to the tolling of any statute of limitations with respect to such crime and to a waiver of the right to a speedy trial. Any such defendant shall appear in court and shall, under such conditions as the court shall order, be released to the custody of the Court Support Services Division, except that, if a criminal docket for drug-dependent persons has been established pursuant to section 51-181 b in the judicial district, such defendant may be transferred, under such conditions as the court shall order, to the court handling such docket for supervision by such court. If the defendant refuses to accept, or, having accepted, violates such conditions, the defendant's case shall be brought to trial. The period of such probation or supervision, or both, shall not exceed two years. If the defendant has reached the age of sixteen years but has not reached the age of eighteen years, the court may order that as a condition of such probation the defendant be referred for services to a youth service bureau established pursuant to section I 0-19rn, provided the court fmds, through an assessment by a youth service bureau or its designee, that the defendant is in need of and likely to benefit from such serviCes. When determining any conditions of probation to order for a person entering such program who was charged with a misdemeanor that did not involve the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person or a motor vehicle violation, the court shall consider ordering the person to perform community service in the community in which the offense or violation occurred. If the court determines that community . service is appropriate, such community service may be implemented by a community court established in accordance with section 51-181 c if the offense or violation occurred within the 0 jurisdiction of a community court established by said section. If the defendant is charged with a violation of section 46a-58, 53-37a, 53a-181j, 53a-181k or 53a-181l, the court may order that as a condition of such probation the defendant participate in a hate crimes diversion program as provided in subsection (e) of this section. If a defendant is charged with a violation of section 53-· 24 7, the court may order that a.S a condition of such probation the defendant undergo psychiatric or psychological counseling or participate in an animal cruelty prevention and education program provided such a program exists and is available to the defendant.

(e) If the court orders the defendant to participate in a hate crimes diversion program as a condition of probation, the defendant shall pay to the court a participation fee of four hundred· twenty-five dollars. No person may be excluded from such program for inability to pay such fee, provided (I) such person files with the court an affidavit of indigency or inability to pay, (2) such indigency or inability to pay is confmned by the Court Support Services Division, and (3) the court enters a fmding thereof. The Judicial Department shall contract with service providers, develop standards and oversee appropriate hate crimes diversion programs to meet the requirements of this section. Any defendant whose employment or residence makes it unreasonable to attend a hate crimes diversion program in this state may attend a program in another state which has standards substantially similar to, or higher than, those of this state, subjectto the approval of the court and payment of the application and program fees as provided in this section. The hate crimes diversion program shall consist of an educational program and supervised community service.

(f) If a defendant released to the custody of the Court Support Services Division satisfactorily c completes such defendant's period of probation, such defendant may apply for dismissal of the 5 002524

c charges against such defendant and the court, on fmding such satisfactory completion, shall dismiss such charges. If the defendant does not apply for dismissal of the charges against such defendant after satisfactorily completing such defendant's period of probation, the court, upon receipt of a report submitted by the Court Support Services Division that the defendant satisfactorily completed such defendant's period of probation, may on its own niotion make a finding of such satisfactory completion and dismiss such charges. If a defendant transferred to the court handling the criminal docket for drug-dependent persons satisfactorily completes such defendant's period of supervision, the court shall release the defendant to the custody of the Court Support Services Division under such conditions as the court shall order or shall dismiss such charges. Upon dismissal, all records of such charges shall be erased pursuant to section 54-142a. An order of the court denying a motion to dismiss the charges against a defendant who has completed such defendant's period of probation or supervision or terminating the participation of a defendant in such program shall be a fmal judgment for purposes of appeal.

Sec. 54-142a. (Formerly Sec. 54-90). Erasure of criminal records. (a) Whenever in any criminal case, on or after October 1, 1969, the accused, by a fmaljudgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed, all police and court records and reoords of any state's attorney pertaining to such charge shall be erased upon the expiration of the time to file a writ of error or take an appeal, if an appeal is not taken, or upon fmal determination of the appeal sustaining a finding of not guilty or a dismissal, if an appeal is taken. Nothing in this subsection shall require the erasure of any record pertaining to a charge for which the defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental c disease or defect or guilty but not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. (b) Whenever in any criminal case prior to October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, was found not guilty of the charge or the charge was dismissed, all police and court records and records of the state's or prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased by operation oflaw and the clerk or any person charged with the retention and control of such records shall not disclose to anyone their existence or any information pertaining to any charge so erased; provided nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the arrested person or any one of his heirs from filing a petition for erasure with the court granting such not guilty judgment or dismissal, or, where the matter had been before a municipal court, a trial justice, the Circuit Court or the Court of Common Pleas with the records center of the Judicial Department and thereupon all police and court records and records of the state's attorney, prosecuting attorney or prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased. Nothing in this subsection shall require the erasure of any record pertaining to a charge for which the defendant was found not guilty by rea5on of mental disease or defect.

(c) ( 1) Whenever any charge in a criminal case has been nolled in the Superior Court, or in the Court of Common Pleas, if at least thirteen months have elapsed since such nolle, all police and court records and records of the state's or prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased, except that in cases of nolles entered in the Superior Court, Court of Common Pleas, Circuit Court, municipal court or by a justice of the peace prior to April1, 1972, such records shall be deemed erased by operation of law and the clerk or the person charged with the retention and control of such records shall not disclose to anyone their existence c or any information pertaining to any charge so erased, provided nothing in this subsection shall 6 002525

0 prohibit the arrested person or any one of his heirs from filing a petition to the court or to the records center of the Judicial Department, as the case may be, to have such records erased, in which case such records shall be erased.

(2) Whenever any charge in a criminal case has been continued at the request of the prosecuting attorney, and a period of thirteen months has elapsed since the granting of such continuance during which period there has been no prosecution or other disposition of the matter, the charge shall be construed to have been nolled as of the date of termination of such thirteen-month period and such erasure may thereafter be effected or a petition filed therefor, as the case may be, as provided in this subsection for nolled cases.

(d) (I) Whenever prior to October 1, 1974, any person who has been convicted of an offense in any court of this state has received an absolute pardon for such offense, such person or any one of his heirs may, at any time subsequent to such pardon, file a petition with the superior court at the location in which such conviction was effected, or with the superior court at the location having custody of the records of such conviction or with the records center of the Judicial Department if such conviction was in the Court of Common Pleas, Circuit Court, municipal court or by a trial justice court, for an order of erasure, and the Superior Court or records center of the Judicial Department shall direct all police and court records and records. of the state's or prosecuting attorney pertaining to such case to be erased.

~~(2) Whenever such absolute pardon was received on or after October 1, 1974, such records shall 0 be erased.~~

(e) (1) The clerk of the court or any person charged with retention and control of such records in the records center of the Judicial Department or any law enforcement agency having information contained in such erased records shall not disclose to anyone, except the subject of the record, upon submission pursuant to guidelines prescribed by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator of satisfactory proof of the subject's identity, information pertaining to any charge erased under any provision of this section and such clerk or person charged with the retention and control of such records shall forward a notice of such erasure to any law enforcement agency to which he knows information concerning the arrest has been disseminated and such disseminated information shall be erased from the records of such law enforcement agency. Such clerk or such person, as the case may be, shall provide adequate security measures to safeguard against unauthorized access to or dissemination of such records or upon the request of the accused cause the actual physical destruction of such records, except that such clerk or such person shall not cause the actual physical destruction of such records until three years have elapsed from the date of the fmal disposition of the criminal case to which such records pertain. ·

~~(2) No fee shall be charged in any court with respect to any petition under this section.~~

(3) Any person who shall have been the subject of such an erasure shall be deemed to have never been arrested within the meaning of the general statutes with respect to the proceedings so 0 erased and may so swear under oath..

~~7 002526~~

c (f) Upon motion properly brought, the court or a judge thereof, if such court is not in.session, may order disclosure of such records (1) to a defendant in an action for false arrest arising out of the proceedings so erased, or (2) to the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel in ~

(g) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any police or court records or the records of any state's attorney or prosecuting attorney with respect to any information or indictment containing more than one count (1) while the criminal case is pending, or (2) when the criminal case is disposed of unless and until allcounts are entitled to erasure in accordance with the provisions ofthis section, except that when the criminal case is disposed of, electronic records or portions of electronic records released to the public that reference a charge that would otherwise be entitled to erasure under this section shall be erased in accordance with the provisions of this section; Nothing in this section shall require the erasure of any information contained in the registry of protective orders established pursuant to section 51 ~5c. For the purposes of this subsection, "electronic record" means any police or court record or the record of any state's attorney or prosecuting attorney that is an electronic record, as defined in section 1-267, or a computer printout.

~~c (h) For the purposes of this section, "court records" shall not include a record or transcript of the proceedings made or prepared by an official court reporter, assistant court reporter or monitor.~~

Sec. 54-142c. DisClosure of erased records. (a) The clerk of the court or any person charged with retention and control of erased records by the Chief Court Administrator or any criminal justice · agency having information contained in such erased records shall not disclose to anyone the existence of such erased records or information pertaining to any charge erased under any provision of this part, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, within two years from the date of disposition of any case, the clerk of the court or any person charged with retention and control of erased records by the Chief Court Administrator or any criminal justice agency having information contained in such erased records may disclose to the victim of a crime or the victim's legal representative·the fact that the case was dismissed. If such disclosure contains information from erased records, the identity of the defendant or defendants shall not be released, except that any information contained in such records, including the identity of the person charged may be released to the victim of the crime or the victim's representative upon written application by such victim or representative to the court stating (I) that a civil action has been commenced for loss or damage resulting from such act, or (2) the intent to bring a civil action for such loss or damage. Any person who obtains criminal history record information by falsely representing to be the victim of a crime or the victim's representative shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not less than one year or more than five years or both.

~~c This is not a hard decision and I urge you to oppose HB 5622.~~

~~8 002527~~

~~To the Connecticut General Assembly and whom it may concern:·~~

I am writing to voice my concerns about Connecticut's legislators and the Governor's continued vigorous pursuit to deny basic constitutional rights to Connecticut citizens. I am a firearm owner and avid hunter and have stood silent for too long while Governor Molloy and his cohorts have slowly pecked away at my 2"' amendment rights and my right to due process.

The idea that someone can essentially be immediately treated as a convicted felon as the result of an "ex parte" application is ludicrous. Anyone who does not like firearms, is offended by firearms, or just wants to "get even" with another individual can file for a restraining order. This proposed legislation will then deny the respondent his/her right to due process and his/her right to keep and bear arms.!! astounds me that these two basic rights afforded to all United States citizens will be denied to Connecticut residents because Governor Malloy and his cohorts do not like firearms. If they do not like firearms, they have the right not to buy them. I have been afforded the right to own firearms by the Constitution of the United States of America. if the Governor and his cohorts wish to seize those firearms, it should be done through due process, a fundamental common law process afforded to all citizens. Besides, Connecticut already has laws that deny possession, and allow for the removal of firearms.

The Connecticut General Assembly proposals are going the wrong way. House Bills 5622, 5623, and 5054 should be scrapped and relegated to a paper shredder. The Assembly should reverse its course and consider alternatives that strengthen the fundamental right to protect oneself. How about accelerated approval of firearm permits for victims of violent crimes? Or accelerated permit approval and free 0 firearm training for women who have suffered domestic abuse? How about a nationwide firearm carry policy, if not for everyone then the victims of violent crime so they can be protected wherever they are?

in 2014,45% of all ex parte restraining orders were found not to be valid after the hearing. in 2015, 37% were found not to be valid. if these bills were in place at the time of those orders, more than a third of all Connecticut citizens who were respondents would have been denied basic, fundamental rights afforded to all citizens. Why? Because Governor Malloy and his cohorts do not like firearms.

~~Taking away a person's natural right of protection without a hearing, without criminal charges, without a police report, and without due process is no way to protect Connecticut's citizens.~~

It is also time to revisit past gun grabbing legislation and repeal the ban on so called "assault'' weapons. The weapon of choice for terrorist is an AK-47 style rifie. Terrorists have no regard for the law, therefore I should be able to defend myself against and AK-47 style rifle. Governor Malloy has an armed contingent to protect him, so he does not have to worry. How am I supposed to defend myself and my family if Connecticut continues to chip away at my right to self-defense?

~~Most people in this state and this country believe in the constitutional protections afforded to all of us. it's time to listen. I vehemently oppose the gun grabbing bills befo.re the Assembly.~~

~~Daniel J. Kearney 41 Crestwood Drive East Hampton, CT 06424 c 002528 c~~

~~WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR PUBLIC HEARING- 3/l~~

~~THE 2 ACTIVE VOTERS IN OUR HOUSEHOLD URGE YOU TO OPPOSE~~

~~OPPOSE- HB 5622 AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS m DEIERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER.~~

~~Erased records have gone through due process to be erased.~~

~~This law would allow for much abuse in someone exercising hls or her right to get a permit.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~John Buckley 0 ·Linda Buckley~~

~~68 Dorman Road New Britain, CT 06053~~

~~c 002529~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Dan Marcil Sent Monday, March 14, 2016 9:50AM To: JudTestimony Subject: Testimony in opposition of 58429, HB5622, 58442, HB5623~~

~~To the honored members of the judiciary committee, thank you for reading my testimony.~~

My name is Dan Marcil, and I live in Thomaston. Wrth all due respect, I respectfully ask that you oppose each of the bills below. While I support the spirit of these bills and do not condone violence in any form, I believe these bills are flawed as written. I am deeply concerned with possible violations of constitutional due process of our citizens, and believe even the most well meaning laws, if not carefully crafted, are open to the possibility of abuse. ·

~~Oppose H.B. No~ 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHE I HER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER'~~

~~Oppose S.B. No. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'~~

~~Oppose S.B. No. 442 'AN ACT CONCERNING A VICTIM:s RIGHT TO BE REASONABLY 0 PROTECTED FROM A PERSON ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A CRIME'~~

~~Oppose H.B. No. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

~~I urge you to please vote no on these bills.~~

~~Respectfully,~~

~~Dan M~rrcil 385 High Street ext Thomaston, CT 06787~~

~~I 002530 c~~

~~WRITI'EN TESTIMONY FOR PllBUC HEARING- 311412016 · HB 5623~~

~~THE 2 ACTIVE VOTERS IN OUR HOUSEHOLD URGE YOU TO OPPOSE~~

~~HB OPPOSE· HB 5623 ·AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING~~

~~Our mam concern is that this bill will violate 'Due Process' without the opportunity for a hearing prior to the forced surrender of firearms.~~

~~There are several laws already on the books, (Sec.29-38c and Sec 46b-38b ), that allow seizure of frrearms while addressing some of the above concerns.~~

~~It would be easy for the perpetrator to file the Ex Parte Restraining Order agamst the person to whom they are after. This would then take the protection away from the one who needs it.~~

~~The potential does exist for someone with a grudge to file a claim to harass or harm an innocent .person. 0~~

~~Additional Concerns are as follows:~~

This bill violates the 2nd Amendment and CT State Constitution. Nearly half of all Ex Parte Restraining Orders in 2014 were vacated and did not get ordered by a judge to become a Full Restraining Order. In 2015,37% of all ex Parte temporary restraining orders were found not to be valid after the hearing.

~~Sincerely,~~

~~John Buckley Linda Buckley~~

~~68 Dorman Road New Britain, CT 06053~~

~~c 002531~~

~~HB 5623 public hearing 3/14/2016~~

~~Regarding Proposed bill HB 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND'VICTIMS OF HOMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

I am writing in opposition to HB5623. The proposed bill agcln subjects fue targets of ex-parte temporazy restraining orders to unconstitutiolilil confiscation of firearms, and impedes fuere right to apply for firearms perntits and certificates wifuout fue benefit of a hearing;

~~It serves to deny fue accused?:" amendment rights by adding an ex-parte TRO as a disqualifier for submitting an application for a carry perntit of ofuer firearms eligibility certificates ..~~

As in allfue ofuer flawed bills since PA-3-13 was passed, no provision is made for.fue return of"black rifles" or extended capacity magazines, fuose subject to fue ban imposed by Public Act 3-13 and prior statute. No timeframe is mandated for fue return of property, nor is fuere a timeframe for retum offue various perntits or certificates iffuey were required to be surrendered. Retum offue perntit(s) are subject to fue whim offue police, and a review hearing in front offue Firearms Perntit Board of Examiners is now running close to 29 monfus backlogged. This effectively deprives fue owner of a perntit from fue right to exercise it for over 2 :Years!

~~This is in blatant violation offue accused rights.~~

~~No one wants truly ineligible persons to possess weapons, but the public's right to due process and to not be deprived of property MUST remain in place.~~

The right to retain property except on judicial review, and later to have property, ALL property returned in an expeditious manner should charges and accusations be found to be nnwarranted MUST be protected. 0 There is clear and obvious potential for false accusations, especially where one perty in a domestic dispute simply wants to harass fue ofuer. False accusations, mixed wifu real accusations can only be separated by due process. Many cases are documented where :false accusations are levied, and the accuser faces no penalty. Over 45% of all TRO are DISMISSED during fue hearings. In HB 5054, fue damage to fue falsely accused is increased exponentially, given fue high value offue persona! properties seized. In fue case where an accusation is justified, fue focus must be on accelerated due process where a proper judicial order is issued prior to seizing personal property.

To repeat, a little nnder half offue TRO's signed by judges are subsequently DISMISSED at fue hearing. This means collecting fue legally owned firearms and valid carry perntits individnals for NO REASON in almost halffue cases. These are people who have comntitted NO CRIME. Consider this; a truly violent person needs no firearm to act on their violent intent. This bill will not help those truly in danger. A violent person will act, regardless of choice of weapon. Case law proves that For fuose denied due process and falsely accused, fuere must be severe penalties for fue individnal making such false accusations, and specific timeframes ordered for aofuorities to retum all property and rights wifuout delay. Municipalities must face fines for failure to retum property and permits when a temporazy order is made null.

~~Sincerely, William D. Curlew 60 Basswood Rd Windsor CT 06095 c 002532 c~~

~~March 14, 2016 .~~

~~Joint Committee on Judiciary Legislative Office Building. Room 2500 . Hartford, CT 06!06~~

~~Testimoey in OPPOSffiON to H B. No. 5623~~

~~Dear Members of the Judiciary Committee,~~

~~1 wish to express my OPPOSITION to Proposed Bill H.B. No. 5623 (An Act Concerning Violence Against Women and Victims of Human Trafficking).~~

This proposed legislation seeks to change current law by stripping a respondent of a temporary restraining Order of their fundamental Constitutional right to due process, and require them to imrilediately surrender firearms, ammunition, and permits prior to a hearing. This proposed legislation violates the "Due Process Clause" stated in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Bill Of Rights and Would take away soineone' s fundamental Constitutional Rights by the accusation of one person, ~thout a hearing, criminal charges, or a police report.

~~Approximately 37% of-terilporary restraining orders for 2015 were dismissed according to the Judicial Branch 1 Statistics/Reports on Protective/Restraining Orders • · .~~

This proposed legislation offers no penalty to the applicant for intentionally making a false statement meant to mislead public officials in their duty and cause the respondent harm. Nor does this bill establish a deadline or c provide for the immediate return of the respondent's personal property if the temporary restraining order is dismissed.

This creates a situation where the respondent of a temporary restraining order, who has surrendered their personal property to the State, and the temporary restraining order has been dismissed, could then have to wait for a hearing in front of the Board .ofFireanns Permit Examiners before getting their pennits and personal property back. At this time there is a 2+ year backlog in Board of Firearms Pennit Exain.iners hearings! 2 With the passage ofPA-13-Q3, asituation would exist \\'here someone who legally owns firear_ms and accessories restricted under this Act, and surrenders them, would not be able to ever get them transferred back.

Domestic violence is a serious issue and we all wish to see its prevention. There are existing. ways to protect victims of Domestic Violence in Connecticut. If someone is a victim ofDomestic Violence, or has been threatened, the use of'Risk Warrants' under (CGS 29-38c) is a tool already available to law enforcement. There is also a seizure of firearm provision for when a peace officer determines that a family violence crime has been committed under (CGS 46b-38b).

~~I urge you to vote NO on this proposed legislation.~~

~~Sincerely,~~

~~Roy Downey P.O.Box87 Higganum, CT. 06441~~

~~1. Judicial Branch Statistics/Reports on Protective/Restraining Orders http:/!www.jud.ct.gov/statisticslprot_restrain/Prot_ Restrain_ Order .pdf~~

~~2. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners http://www.ct.gov/bljlelcwp!view.asp?a-3598&Q-S74164 c 002533~~

~~0 Carroll, Rhonda~~

~~From: Glenn Frank Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 1:02 PM To: JudTestimony Subject: H.B. No. S623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF . RUMAN I RAFFICKING'~~

~~I am writing to express my firm opposition to this bill. I am 100% against the removal of a person's constitutional rights without due process.~~

~~I ask that you vote against this proposed legislation.~~

~~Thank You, Glenn Frank Haddam, CT c~~

~~1 002534~~

~~COALITION OF CONNECTICUT SPORTSMEN~~

~~P.O. Box 2506, Hartforo, CT 06146, (203) 245-8076~~

~~http://www.ctsportsmen.com [email protected]~~

~~James Crook March 13, 2016~~

~~Testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee~~

~~Oppose H. B. No. 5623 (RAISED~ AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VIC IIMS OF RO AN TRAFFICKING. (JUD) .~~

~~The Coalition of CT Sportsmen would request that the Judiciary committee remove lines 1-806 and JFS the remainder of the bill to the floor of the house.~~

The Coalition opposes most of the proposed legislation here today related to ex parte restraining orders firearms and veterans. Much of the proposed language removes constitution protections guaranteed by the CT and US Constitutions. There are certainly grounds for c questioning their constitutionality. Provisions of the United States Constitution and the CT constitution require that all citizens be given equal recognition under the law and that no group of citizens be shown special consideration. The proposed language also denies recipients due process, a constitutional privilege guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition, the proposed language enables the state t0 remove an individual's 2"• rights, for a period over 29 months based solely on hearsay. In addition, the language removes protections provided by the 2"• amendment from those who are victims of domestic violence.

As with other statutes seeking prevention, there are problems inherent to balancing the social and political pressure to control individual behavior in a legal system arranged to maximize individual liberty. We propose that any legislation include that the application for such ex parte order contain a statement that false statements are punishable by law, and if the applicant fails to appear at the required hearing in support of the application, the applicant may be held in contempt. In addition, we also suggest that, in no case will a respondent's firearms permit be revoked or firearms surrendered until after the hearing if the judge finds there is a clear, articulable danger. Upon vacating the order, the judge shall order the commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to automatically and immediately reinstate such permit if it has been revoked and to return all firearms, including those registered as so-called 'assault weapons" or 'large capacity magazines". Also, we would suggest that the time limit from the issuance of the restraining order to the hearing is shortened from fourteen (14) to three (3) to five (5) days because of the alleged dangers to the applicant. Most importantly, for the safety of those suffering from domestic violence, we urge you to accept these changes and effect the new legislation immediately after passage. .''I 002535 c

These suggestions would improve protections under current law and will also grant some semblance of equal protection. In add~ion, it will also protect victims of domestic violence who choose not to involve law enforcement. .

~~c 002536~~

~~Testimony for Public Hearing Judiciary Committee March i4, 2016~~

~~Kurt Weisheit Terryville, CT~~

~~Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee,~~

~~I'm a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;~~

~~OPPOSE: )i.B. 5623 'AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING'~~

OPPOSE: H.B. 5622 'AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER' 0 OPPOSE· S.B. 429 'AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS'

~~Thank you for your time and consideration.~~

~~Respectfully,~~

~~Kurt Weisheit~~

~~0 err---______.______~~

~~002537~~

~~'Transcript Infonnation Slieet Juaiciary Committee~~

~~(])ate: L3 h?~ C:. rrtme: 10:30 Jfearing (j@'().fll _ _,.cQ...,,.,...i>"----- {!!!!:x:apito(~~

~~Pu6Eic Jfearing Su6ject or CBiff :Num6ers: c Bt/f~ :fk___ /Jev!eH-.1~~

~~Presidlno Cliainnan: Sen. 'Eric<]). Cofeman~~

~~See encwsetC)fttetufance Sfieet for Committee :Mem6ers present.~~

~~c 002538~~

~~0 State of Connecticut GENERAL ASSEMBLY~~

~~Senator Eric D. Coleman Representative William Tong CO-CHAIRMAN CO-CHAIRMAN~~

~~Senator Paul Doyle, Vice-Chair Representative Dan Fox, Vice-Chair Senator John A. Kissel, Ranking Member Representative Rosa C. Rebimbas.. Ranking Member~~

~~JUDICIARY COMMITTEE~~

~~Judiciary Committee~~

~~PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA~~

~~Friday, March 18,2016~~

~~10:30 AM in Room 2D of the LOB~~

~~I. BILLS FOR REVIEW~~

1. S.B. No. 347 (RAISED) AN ACT ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR COURT c APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES IN CERTAIN JWENILE COURT MATTERS. (JUD) 2. S.B. No. 348 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT PROTECTIONS FOR AN EMPLOYEE WHO SERVES AS A STATE OR FEDERAL JUROR. (JUD) 3. S.B. No. 350 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF FAMILY SUPPORT MAGISTRATES. (JUD) 4. S.B. No. 426 (RAISED) AN ACT CREATING A TASK FORCE TO IMPROVE ' ACCESS TO LEGAL COUNSEL IN CIVIL MATTERS. (JUD) 5. S.B. No. 428 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING FUNDING OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE POOR. (JUD) 6. S.B. No. 430 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING AN ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION GUIDANCE. (JUD) 7. S.B. No. 431 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING CONSENT ORDERS ENTERED INTO BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. (JUD) 8. S.B. No. 454 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ERASURE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS. (JUD) 9. S.B. No. 455 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING WEAPONS IN VEHICLES. c (JUD) Room 2500 L.O.B., 300 Capitol Avenue. Hartford, CT 06106-1591 •:• Phone (860) 240-0530 •:0 FAX (860) 240-0196-> [email protected] 002539

c 10. S.B. No. 456 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN FORMER INMATES. (JUD) . 11. H.B. No. 5476 (RAISED) AN ACT EXPANDING THE USE OF DRUG DOCKETS. (JUD) 12. H.B. No. 5495 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING ENHANCED PENAL TIES FOR THREATENING A JUDGE. (JUD) 13. H.B. No. 5525 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING COURT AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS .. (JUD) 14. H.B. No. 5531 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS OR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER. (JUD) 15. H.B. No. 5606 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE CONNECTICUT REVISED UNIFORM FIDUCIARY ACCESS TO DIGITAL ASSETS ACT. (JUD) 16. H.B. No. 5629 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING A DIVERSIONARY PROGRAM FOR PERSONS UNDER AGE TWENTY-ONE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS AND CRIMES RELATED TO UNDERAGE DRINKING. (JUD) 17.H.B. No. 5631 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT SENTENCING COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO VICTIM NOTIFICATION. (JUD) c

~~c 002540 c JUDICIARY COMMITTEE~~

~~ATTENDANCE~~

~~__ Committee Meeting L_ Public Hearing- Subject Matter: R.ll.s r •.: t~•he""~~

~~lime: /c ~ 30 h/I'C Room: .2 C? @capitol~~

~~Vice Chairmen: I Sen. Paul Doyle I Rep. Dan Fox 7~~

~~Ranking Members: / [ Sen. John Kissel T I Rep. Rosa Rebimbas I/~~

Committee Members Present: Rep. AI Adinolfi J Sen. Art Linares _,f Rep. William Aman J Rep. Ben McGorty ../ c Rep_. David Baram v Sen. Michael McLachlan Rep. Jeffrey Berger .; Rep. Bruce Morris " Re~ Cecelia Buck-TCI}'Ior Rep. Tom O'Dea ./ Sen. Beth Bye / Rep. Arthur O'Neil / Rep. Vincent Candelora ./ Rep. Robyn Porter ..;- Rep. Christie Carpino .t Rep. Emmett Riley V/ Rep. Jeffrey Currey Rep. Robert Sampson J R~ Patricia Dillon ":/ Rep. Joseph Serra v Rep. Doug Dubitsky / Rep. John Shaban v' Sen. Mae Flexer Rep. Caroline Simmons ./ Rep. Mary Fritz " Rep. Richard Smith / Sen. Terry_ Gerratana Re~ Steve Stafstrom _:/ Rep. Bob Godfrey / Rep. Joseph Verrengia Rep. Minnie Gonzalez v' Rep. Toni Walker v R~ Joseph Gresko L Sen. Gary Winfield -L Rep. Stephen Harding .; Sen. Kevin Witkos Rep. Ernest Hewett v Rej1. David Labriola ,/ Rep. Roland Lemar J

~~0 Staff: $4-.. J) , , ..2~ 002541 1 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~CHAIRPERSONS: Senator Coleman Representative Tong Representative Fox~~

~~SENATORS: Looney, Kissel~~

~~REPRESENTATIVES: Baram, Dubitsky, Gresko, O'Dea, O'Neil, Rebimbas, Strafstrom, Willis~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : I want to convene this morning's public hearing of the Judiciary Committee and I will read a public announcement.~~

I ask your attention in the interest of safety, I 0 would ask you to note the location of and access to the exits in this hearing room. The two doors through which you entered the room are the emergency exits and are marked with exit signs. In an emergency, the two doors behind the legislators can also be used. In the event of an emergency, please walk quickly to the nearest exit. After exiting the room, go to your right and proceed to the main stairs or follow the exit signs to one of the fire stairs. Please quickly exit the building and follow any instructions from the Capitol Police. Do not delay and do not return unless or until you are advised that it is safe to do so.

In the event of a lockdown announcement, please remain in the hearing room and stay away from the exit doors until an all-clear announcement is heard. Thank you for your attention to that announcement. 0 002542 2 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

I would also announce that we do expect a crowd that exceeds the capacity of this room. There is an overflow room from which the proceedings of today can be viewed and that room would be 1B in this legislative office building.

For those of you who may not have participated in a Judiciary Committee public hearing, I would go over an overview of how we proceed and basically that is there are two lists. The first list is the list that state agency heads, legislatures and chief elected municipal officials sign and we will spend approximately the first hour of the hearing calling from that list.

At the conclusion of the first hour, we will call from the public list and each person that is called to present information to the committee will receive 0 approximately three minutes in order to make a presentation.

~~After that, questions from members of the committee can be responded to.~~

I am going to ask that the committee stand in recess momentarily so that legislative management can make an announcement that the public hearing has convened and will try to get as many members of the committee present to hear the presentations and the information that you are going to .... that the members of the public are going to provide to the committee.

~~(RECESS) 0 002543 3 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Good morning again, ladies and gentleman. I want to reconvene the public hearing of the Judiciary Committee.~~

To the members of the committee, you should be in possession of a written agenda for today's hearing on which are all of the bills which would be the subject of the presentations and information that we receive today.

Before we begin to call individuals, the chairs would like to acknowledge the presence of the director of the FBI, Mr. James Corney, and to make it clear that the FBI is present in the building, we are not being investigated.

~~(laughter) c But he has an interest in some of the items that are on today's agenda. Welcome Director Corney.~~

~~And the first person signed up to testify is Patrice Corney. Ms. Corney, if you would come forward and take a seat. There is a button that will activate the microphone, can you press that button?~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Does that work? I am not really the public speaker in the family, so I will do the best I can.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : You are being heard.~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Good.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : And we would like to welcome you as well and if you have an opening statement or c 002544 4 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~presentation that you would like to make, the committee would be very pleased to hear.~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Thank you very much, Senator Coleman and members of the Judiciary Committee. I really appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today.~~

My husband, Jim, and I are here as former foster parents in support of a bill, RAISED BILL NUMBER 347, because we believe that the passage of this bill will help foster children across the state of Connecticut.

Besides being foster parents, I was trained as a CASA volunteer in Bridgeport. I got my master's degree at Fairfield University and as a part of that program, I was an intern at FSW in Bridgeport which became LifeBridge and in case hearings there, whenever a case would come up with a foster family 0 or a foster child or a child aging out of care, I would raise my hand and try to take that case.

I also worked on trauma focus CBT task force and worked with DCF to help foster children in Connecticut and in those jobs as a foster parent and a therapist, I would have foster kids that I knew could be helped by CASA volunteers.

When I lived in Virginia, I had worked with friends were in CASA, were CASA volunteers and knew the way the program worked there. So I tried to seek out CASA volunteers for some of my clients and some of the children in our care and found out that in Connecticut, the statute, the statutory law did not allow that and I couldn't get those resources for 002545 5 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING them, so I was very frustrated and saddened that I couldn't get that help for these kids.

So that started my journey that brought me here. But first, I want to let you know why I think that is so important. While I was a therapist and a foster parent and a CASA volunteer, I worked with a lot of amazing professionals who worked to help foster children in this state. I worked with social workers and lawyers and judges and other foster parents and there are three things that make them different than CASA volunteers. Even though they care about these kids and do great, great work, they get paid and it is their job and there's been studies that show that foster children, especially older ones, get pretty cynical and they know when it is someone's job and they are getting paid and they value PD volunteers working with them and it is a c different kind of relationship.

Secondly, their caseloads. Lawyers in Connecticut can represent up to 100 foster children. We know social workers have very heavy case loads and they do the best they can, but in a lot of situations when they have a lot of cases, it is a lot of crisis management and they don't have the time that they want to spend with each foster child.

~~Judges change and have huge case loads as well and are very limited in the amount of time they can spend with kids.~~

CASA volunteers are volunteering their time. There is like one child, maybe two, and spend as much time as needed with the children. Foster children need one-on-one adult relationships. 0 002546 6 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

Not to give you a lot of statistics, but there are studies that show foster children with CASA volunteers receive more mental health and education services. They access money, services, and programs in the community that want to help these kids and it does not cost the state anything. It is free. They access those kinds of resources. They spend .... the foster kids with CASA volunteers spend an average of eight months less in care. They participate in their own permanency plan. They are more likely to pass all of their courses in school and they are less likely to have behavioral problems in school.

Also, foster children with CASA volunteers score better on important protective factors including access to those neighborhood resources we have been talking about, good relationships with adults, they have a sense of acceptance in their community, they 0 have a better ability to work with others and the ability to resolve conflict with others. They value achievements and most importantly, they have more hope for their future.

So, Connecticut does have two great CASA organizations already. Now, there are a thousand across the United States, so a lot of states have 20 or more because they are local and around the state. So we have two and so as soon as I was faced with this problem, I went out and met with them. I talked to them and learned more about how it works in Connecticut.

Well, right now, there is a separate door that has a crack in it and as part of Connecticut's commitment to foster kids, which gives them each a lawyer on 002547 7 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING certain cases when there is a conflict of interest or something, they can request a volunteer advocate. But that is really the only circumstances where these, these organizations are working in Connecticut.

~~What this bill does, it takes a separate door and will throw it wide open, so these CASA volunteers can work with kids across the state.~~

I am concerned that there is some confusion about funding for this. This is a totally volunteer, self-funded, raising money within the community. There are grants out there that they can apply for. We are asking for no funding, so I just want to make really clear that this has nothing to do with funding from the Judiciary or anyone else. This is c a self-funded volunteer program. All I am doing is asking you guys to open the door, so that judges can appointment CASA volunteers, so that they are recognized in the court. So that if a therapist, like me, a foster parent, a DCF worker .... I have met with DCF and they support this bill, that they can ask for a CASA volunteer so that these benefits can be given to foster children around Connecticut. It is my hope and prayer that it passes during this session and that you all will support it and help us to get that done. Thank you so much.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you Ms. Corney. Chairman Tong.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Welcome home to Connecticut. 0 002548 8 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Thank you.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): And thank you for your advocacy and reaching out to the members of the committee and its leadership and in particular, I know it has been a couple years now, several years now that you and supporters of CASA have been added and pushing and we had a chance to meet last year and Representative Shahan, who is a member of this committee, has been a great advocate for you and for CASA. I want to thank the director for being here today.

Just a few questions to understand more about CASA. You are saying that there is a small sliver of matters for which CASA volunteers are appointed? So, CASA volunteers are already working in Connecticut, is that right? 0 PATRICE COMEY: Yes.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): And which court houses are they working in?~~

PATRICE COMEY: You know, you would have to ask, when she comes up here those other directors, because I am not sure of all of them, but the one I worked as a CASA volunteer was in Bridgeport, the juvenile court.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): And you became involved because you personally have cared for foster children, you and your husband?~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Yes and in Virginia as well. 002549 9 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING REP. TONG (147TH): Okay.~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: In any emergency, we got certified as an emergency foster family right before we moved here, but I also had friends that were involved in the CASA program in Virginia.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): And so in the small sliver of cases, do you have any sense of volume of the number of kids that are served in Connecticut now?~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Less than 6%.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Less than 6%?~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Uh-huh.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): Do you know what the absolute c number is for that? PATRICE COMEY: Five ... well, I don't have it for this year. We did it for 2014, I think, and it was 5.6 or something like that, 5.7%.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): What does that translate into numbers of kids?~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: I don't have it in front of me.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Okay.~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: It is on the chart, that I ... I think I submitted it to you.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): You said it's narrow or a small crack in the door. Can you just expand on that? c 002550 10 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 What situation currently permits the use of a CASA or assignment of a CASA volunteer?

PATRICE COMEY: My understanding, and I am not a lawyer, is that every, because of this great state, every foster child in Connecticut gets a lawyer. These lawyers each have up to 100 cases, so ... but once they have a case, they are to "express the best interest of the child."

If the lawyer feels, or the judge or anyone feels, that what the child wants conflicts with what is in their best interest, say a child wants to go home to their birth parents, but it may not be safe or wants to go independent and leave care and the lawyer does not think it is in their best interest, but he still represents the child, then he can ask for an advocate for the child separate. While he still represents the child and what the child wants, it 0 becomes an objective, another person to investigate and represent just exclusively the best interest of the child.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): And what SENATE BILL 347 does is expands the jurisdiction really or the ambit of available matters for which CASA volunteers could be appointed, is that right?~~

PATRICE COMEY: I don't think so. I think it is a totally separate door because this is part of representing the child in court and it is part.of the judicial process and the statutes that it is under is not specific to CASA and it doesn't apply to CASA volunteers. 002551 11 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING This to me is a separate door, is a bill that is similar to what's in other states. Particularly, this one came from New Jersey because it was one of the shortest and simplest and that is working well.

It opens the door so that not just the judge or the lawyer, if there is a conflict of interest or anything that has to do with their representation in court, this is someone like me who is working as a family therapist or as a foster parent or even working with DCF where the child is aging out and needs support setting up a household or getting that driver's license, the things we were talking about.

Anyone under this could request and it would be up to the judge and it would be under the judge's discretion, but it is separate from this best interest representation in court and the c responsibility to represent them in court. Does that make sense?

~~REP. TONG (147TH):' Yes I think in looking at the language, it could include advocacy for the foster child in the judicial system.~~

PATRICE COMEY: Well only in that if they report to the court something that .... they could yes, say what is in .... but it would only be in there if as a volunteer and I think it would only be if they were asked. I am not sure. That is something not every volunteer...

~~REP. TONG (147TH): It says serve as a resource to the superior court.~~

~~0 002552 12 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Right, so if they were asked, they could be ... I think they would be an excellent resource.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Yeah.~~

PATRICE COMEY: But those roles, and I think it is in their as well, that they won't override or have any conflict with that role. I think it is pretty clear in there. There is a section and I can't quote it to you that says they will be separate and not interfere with that other part.

REP. TONG (147TH): And just to be clear. These are volunteers and CASA volunteers are not paid. Is that correct? PATRICE COMEY: That is correct. 0 REP. TONG (147): And you are not seeking through this legislation or otherwise any additional state funding in support of this effort?

PATRICE COMEY: No and in fact if it wasn't a totally volunteer community funded volunteer program, it would send a different message to the foster kids. It sends a message that the community cares and we are willing to pay for it and we are willing to do this for you. I think that is one of the great things about it.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you for being here.~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Senator Kissel. 002553 13 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Thank you very much Chairman Coleman. Ms. Corney, nice to see you.~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: You too.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): I appreciate the passion in your voice as you testify and I know that it is your husband who does all of the testifying in the family, especially before Congress and that this is sort of a novel thing for you and you are doing a fabulous job, but I just want to take a step back so that we can sort of get the broad brush 30,000 foot picture.

I think a lot of us sort of feel we understand what being a foster parent is, but you know what is the difference between, you know, being a foster parent c and adopting a child? How does that work mechanically?

~~PATRICE COMEY: It is, I don't know if there is a broad brushstroke that I can give you for that because I think it is different for every family and every person.~~

For us in our story, we had raised five children of our own and we are getting on in years. Our youngest daughter wanted to be a big sister, and we said that is not happening, and so one of the things we decided was I had experience working with foster children and we thought it was a great chance for our family to bring foster kids and help children in the community.

~~0 00255414 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

We mostly did infants and toddlers and my husband, when we agreed to do this made me promise we would not adopt because we had our own kids and we were of a certain age where I am not sure we could offer the same thing. we are going to re-negotiate when our last kid leaves and I would like to be foster parents again. But, so for us, it was just a way for us to bring that love in our home and share the love of our family.

We stayed in touch with some of the foster kids. We had young ones, so it is harder to stay in touch when they move on, but one in particular was adopted and we stayed very close to them and his mother has actually moved to Virginia and we still have contact with them.

So, a lot of foster families, even though the kids move on and I know senator Coleman knows this, even 0 as foster kids move on, you still track them and love them and are in their lives. There are cases where there are foster homes that are more transitory especially with older kids, where teenagers come in, they don't fit in, they move on. so some of those relationships are a little different in trying to put structure in their lives.

I really can't speak for all foster homes, but the goal would be to get all of these kids adopted, but in reality it doesn't happen, so CASA volunteers can be that one-on-one supportive relationship. Especially we have been talking to DCF if we get this door open, having a program to have a CASA volunteer to support these kids as they age out. 002555 15 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : Thank you very much for that detailed answer, the insight into your own family's personal history. I can see that re-negotiation might have been a surprise to your husband, but maybe there will be a total re-negotiation of a lot of things coming down the road.

~~PATRICE COMEY: (laughter).~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): And just so folks know, it says right in the title of the bill, but CASA stands for court appointed special advocate. It states in the title that it is for juvenile court matters, so this has nothing to do with family court side. This has specifically to do with juvenile court side, is that correct?

PATRICE COMEY: Yes and the fact that this program c and in the bill, it states it will be under the national CASA umbrella and any organization that wants to serve in this way in Connecticut will be under the national CASA umbrella. That is a requirement of the program and yes, you are correct.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): And your frustration is born out of the fact that Connecticut, while it has court-appointed special advocates, it is only utilizing them in a very narrow sense in that you have yourself and other volunteers again doing this out of the compassion of their hearts and their dedication to this and not seeking payment in any form, but there is no avenue for you to get in there and help these foster children.

~~So when you say there is a crack in the door over here, that is what we already have in Connecticut 0 002556 16 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

and it just sort of evolved that way, whereas other states have gone down in another direction where they afford this large window of opportunity, this other door as you stated, to allow volunteers to come in and help redirect these foster childs' lives.

You went through a litany of very laudable attainments. When a CASA volunteer is involved in a foster child's life that they do better in school, they finish their classes, just a whole wealth of things and you do a very good job of listing them.

I am not versed in psychology, but I am just wondering, you sort of said kids understand if someone is getting paid, but it seems that the volunteers really hit home and is that because the young people sort of believe that if someone is volunteering to help me out, I don't know if I would 0 go so far as to say love me, but they really super care about me and it is nice to know an adult out there, out of their own heart, wants to give of themselves to my life as opposed to it is part of their job and they are getting paid. Is that sort of what is the magic of this?

PATRICE COMEY: You are exactly correct. Also, CASA volunteers, because they only have one case or two at the most, the amount of time that they give to that child sends another message that is really important and also the fact that they are not going to leave them. There is abandonment issues with these kids where social workers they have grown to love or other people, teachers, or people in their lives have to move on, and a CASA worker is committed to not moving on. 002557 17 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): So if you have to estimate, and I know you can't pick a number precisely, but given the number of volunteers that we currently have in Connecticut, about how many foster children could be helped if this legislation was passed?

PATRICE COMEY: Again, I would defer to Stacey Sobel, who is the executive director. I know that they have to turn volunteers away because there is not a need for them, and I think it will take a while to get judges to start appointing them and to get people to recognize them, but my hope is that eventually thousands of foster children will be helped with this.

~~I don't know tomorrow, the minute, but I know we are going to get started right away and I am going to 0 help with the training and stay involved with it.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : I think you responded to Chairman Tong's question, but by adopting this legislation, we will be able to comport ourselves with some of the other states in the country that have availed themselves of this different avenue and it is my understanding that there are certain best practices states that we can emulate and you have familiarity of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and so perhaps we could follow along their path and try to .. even though we may be lagging now, we can jump right to the lead by looking at what really works well in other parts of the country. Would that be correct?

PATRICE COMEY: I agree. I have looked at models in other states and I have talked to the director of 0 00255818 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 CIP and the director of Children Advocates in Connecticut which are the two organizations, and I have been talking with them for almost a year now just about this kind of thing and what it would look like.

I have met with Joette Katz at DCF and the hope and the goal is to follow a model where we are having more of these volunteer organizations around the state and working with DCF and that eventually there would be an annual conference to bring people together and talk about what is working, what is not working, how we can train more volunteers, having you know a fair of services and charities around the state that want to help foster children so that all of the volunteers would know what is avail in the community and get the money that is out there and the resources to the kids through the volunteers. 0 That is the vision. It is a pretty big vision, but it won't even start until that door is opened through this bill.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): And just to sum up from my perspective, I think you indicated that there is pent up desire to want to participate in this. You said that volunteers are being turned away because there is not enough opportunity to utilize their skill sets and their passion in this field.

~~Just by way of observation, you touched a lot of very important points.~~

Myself, Senator Coleman and others on this committee serve on the Juvenile Justice Policy and oversight Committee. We are looking for ways to try to get 0 002559 19 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

young people on the right path. Certainly that would include foster children and by allowing volunteers to help them attain these goals that otherwise they lag a little bit not being afforded this opportunity, we could do a lot regarding that.

As far as completing courses of studies, there are other groups that I am involved with in this building that have tracked and sometimes it is difficult to actually benchmark things that if we do XYZ as a state government, we know the outcome is going to be better.

Certainly, young people that finish their course of studies in the high school system, they have a much greater chance of success staying out of criminal court system and things like that and that is provable. That is demonstrable. We can determine c that.

The other giant cloud that is hanging out there for all of us in this state is diminished revenues and still a considerable amount of burdens we have or responsibilities that we have, duties that we have as a state to fulfill for our citizenry and so we are going to have to be creative and do far more with less and so that means tapping into nonprofits, the churches out there, the volunteer networks, the people in our communities that want to help.

This bill actually helps in so many ways because here is a wellspring of volunteers that we could use, your passion, your insight, your knowledge, your skill sets and direct it towards helping these foster children better their lives, so I don't see any downside to this whatsoever. c 002560 20 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0

There might even be a desire to replicate some of this in other areas of our system, but for now, I like the fact that it is limited to the juvenile justice system, that it deals with volunteers and it taps into a wellspring of individuals that could only benefit the young people in our state, and so I really want to thank you for your passion and advocacy on behalf of this legislation. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there others with questions? I see none. Ms. Corney, I just want to commend you for the work that you are doing and commend the program that you are involved in.~~

I appreciate your advocacy on behalf of the program and this bill. I also appreciate the fact that this bill has given us an opportunity to interact with 0 one another and to share our notes concerning foster parenting.

You may or may not be interested, but I got a call coincidentally from one of my foster kids last night who was very excited about a new job that she was to start today and I am sure you probably had similar experiences about how heartwarming it is and gratifying it is to know that you played, hopefully, some positive role in the development of individuals like this particular foster child who stayed in my home.

I find it very admirable that the CASA program is involving so many volunteers not to mention the commitment of time, but the emotional commitment that must be involved in advocating for foster 002561 21 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 children. I have observed and experienced that many, if not all, foster children could use all the support that they can get.

I guess I am just curious where you find this pool of committed people that are so willing to spend time, energy and often times emotion in doing the work that they do. Is there some science that CASA has developed concerning picking these individuals?

~~PATRICE COMEY: I wish there was. I do think a lot of it is word of mouth. I think it is going to be a challenge to hopefully get more volunteers to meet the need.~~

I know in Virginia, when I was there, there would have open houses and fairs. They would go around and speak to churches and speak at schools and the c different community organizations and I had friends that asked me and would talk about it and try to get me too involved in Virginia, which I didn't end up doing it there, I did it here, but, so I think there are all kinds of ways to do it and I am a believer that people do care and when given the opportunity and when given the opportunity, they do step up.

Right now, they haven't had a real need to do that. They had more volunteers than need, but I think the goal, and again Stacey could address that, but you know speaking and having events and open houses, I think it is a need we can meet.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): When you became a volunteer, was there some specialized training that you became involved in? c 002562 22 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

PATRICE COMEY: I did, I did. It was focused on the court reporting the best interest of the child. When that conflict came up, that is how I served because it was different in Connecticut than when I am talking about. When I served, it was under that crack in the door program. My friends in Virginia were more in that wide open door program.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Well again, I want to thank you for what you are doing and thank you for your support of this bill.~~

~~PATRICE COMEY: Thank you so much.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Next is Alex Tsarkov and Leland Moore.~~

ALEX TSARKOV: Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, representative members, representative 0 (indiscernible 36:07.4) and members of the Judiciary Committee. For the record, my name is Alex Tsarkov and I am the executive director of the Connecticut Sentencing Committee. With me is Leland Moore of the Commission. We are permanent commission created about five years ago. Our members consist of all of the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system of Connecticut. They include commissioners of corrections, emergency services and public protection, mental health and addiction services, prosecutors, public defenders, judges, police chiefs and others vitally engaged in the criminal justice system.

We are here to support two bills that the commission proposed to the committee. The first is SENATE BILL 455 AND THAT IS CONCERING WEAPONS IN VEHICLES. 0 002563 23 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATE BILL 455 aims to amends against Weapons in a Motor Vehicle statutes to comply with the Connecticut Supreme Court narrow ruling in State V. Deciccio. In Deciccio, the defendant was convicted of two counts of having a weapon in a motor vehicle while using his vehicle to transport a dirk knife and police baton from his former residence to his new residence. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that Connecticut's Weapon in a Motor Vehicle Statute violates the Second Amendment to the extent that it acts as a complete prohibition in transportation of dirk knives and police batons between residences. SENATE BILL 455 is designed to rectify the now unconstitutional portion of the Weapon in a Motor Vehicle Statute in accordance of the court's narrow holding. c The proposal amends the statute by providing limited exceptions in allowing an individual to possess dirk knives and police batons in a motor vehicle if that individual is in the process of moving from one residence to another. In essence, this bill aims to clarify the existing ruling from our state's highest court. It was submitted in JFS language that is largely technical in nature, but we believe it would strengthen the bill.

The second bill that we would like to testify on is HOUSE BILL 5631 AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT SENTENCING COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO VICTIM NOTIFICATION. Do you want to talk about that one?

~~LELAND MOORE: Members of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to thank you for raising HOUSE BILL 5631, 0 1 I .-- -~ . 002564 24 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT SENTENCING COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO VICTIM NOTIFICATION.~~

Last session, you charged us through PUBLIC ACT 15- 84 with an evaluation and developing a proposal to address the needs of crime victims at sentencing. In response, we convened a working group that included the State Victim Advocate, members of the Judicial Branch, representatives of the Judicial Branch, state's attorney, public defender and the Department of Corrections.

That working group's recommendations were reviewed and unanimously endorsed by the full Sentencing Commission at our December meeting. Although existing notification systems provide a wealth of useful post conviction and pre-sentencing 0 information, crime victims would further benefit by having an understanding of a defendant's term of imprisonment and potential release date at the time of sentencing.

Periods of incarceration and community supervision can be impacted by changes in the law or release mechanisms. However advanced information allows crime victims to plan for their physical and mental health and safety concerns.

This bill ensures that crime victims have increased access to information regarding the defendant's term of imprisonment ·and release date. The commission respectively recommends the committee's joint favorable substitute report to strengthen this 0 002565 25 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING legislation and provide relevant information to a wider group of crime victims. ' Both Section 1 that addresses the court providing certain information at sentencing and Section 3 that addresses the Department of Corrections providing certain information to members of the public apply to sentences of more than a two-year term of imprisonment or total effective sentence of more than a two-year term of imprisonment. However under the bill before you, Section 2 that deals with the State's Attorneys providing information to victims at the time of proposed plea only applies to a term of imprisonment which is more than two years.

Unlike Section 1 and Section 3, Section 2, under the bill before you, is limited to a term of imprisonment which is more than two years. For c example, the defendant was sentenced to three years execution suspended at 18 months and two years probation, that sentence may not necessarily be covered by subsection 2 under the bill before you even though the total effective sentence exceeds two years.

The commission's intent was for Section 2 to apply for post plea agreements that provide for a total effective sentence of more than two years. Thus the commission respectively asks that the committee include a total effective sentence of more than two years in Section 2 so that it is consistent with Sections 1 and 3.

We would like to thank the committee for raising this important legislation and for your continued efforts to respond to needs of crime victims in the c 002566 26 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~state of Connecticut. We urge the. committee's joint favorable substitute report and are happy to take any questions at this ·time.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there any questions for these two gentleman? Chairman Tong?~~

REP. TONG (147TH): I just want to thank the former clerk of this committee for being here today and looking so respectable with his new glasses, beard and thank him for his work on the Sentencing Commission and wish him well on his impending graduation from law school.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Other questions or comments? Senator Kissel?~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Yeah, I just want to be aligned with the statement of the chair. You were 0 clerking in our office just not that long ago and now, you are on the official's list. That is pretty cool, so congratulations.

~~LELAND MOORE: Thank you Senator.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Further comments? I see none. Thank you both very much.~~

~~ALEX TSARKOV: Thank you.~~

~~LELAND MOORE: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Next is Scott Semple.~~

0 002567 27 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 SCOTT SEMPLE: Good morning, Mr. Chairs, ranking members and members of the Judiciary Committee. I am Scott Semple, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections.

I am here today in support of SENATE BILL 456; an ACT CONCERNING COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN FORMER INMATES. The department considers this legislation an important complement to Governor Malloy's Second Chance Society Initiatives and our continuing effort to reduce recidivism.

Currently, far too many inmates leave the Department of Corrections facilities without the benefit of community supervision administered by either the department or the judicial branch. As a direct result of this lack of support and supervision, this population of inmates has the highest rate of return c to DOC facilities. By providing needed assistance to inmates leaving prison, the department wants to break this cycle of reincarceration and accelerate the decline in the inmate population. This bill supports this critical service gap by providing supervision and case management to inmates returning to the community.

The department believes it would better serve inmates with their most important transitional needs such as employment, housing and necessary treatment programs. The result will be safer communities, fewer victims and lower reincarceration rates.

This bill serves as a companion to the Risk Reduction Earn Credit program which has reduced recidivism, increased participation in evidence- c 002568 28 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

based correctional programming and lower incidence of misconduct in our facilities. Any inmate who does not have community supervision to follow a sentence of incarceration is subject to the provisions of the bill and each inmate will be supervised by the department's Community Services Division by a parole officer for the number of days is aggregate time in prison was reduced by the Risk Reduction Earn Credit program.

Perhaps it is easy to share an example; it is easier to share an example. Let us say that a offender with a significant substance abuse program received a 30-month sentence for possession of larceny. While incarcerated, the offender shows exemplary behavior. He completes his institutional work assignments and participates in an addiction service program. As a function of this compliance with his Offender Accountability Plan, the inmate 0 receives 90 aggregate days of risk reduction earned credit.

Normally, this offender would be released without the benefit of supervision in the community at the conclusion of the sentence. Under this bill, he will now have a mandatory period of 90 days supervision in the community. While being supervised by a parole officer, they will have the benefit of continuing substance abuse counseling and a range of other community, residential and non residential contracted programs to assist a successful re-entry.

The DOC believes that this bill will further reduce recidivism and our optimism is based on research. I feel the corrections and recidivism reduction have 002569 29 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING changed a great deal in the last 10 years and we have much better risk assessment tools and better evidence-based interventions than ever before.

Higher risk offenders will serve more time and receive more services while incarcerated and importantly when the transition back into the community, low risk offenders will serve less time and require minimal support upon return. The important thing to remember is that every returning inmate will have the benefit of supervision. They need a response to their individual risk needs.

By actively engaging these offenders when they return to the community, the department will increase their likelihood of success and lower the rate of which offenders return back into custody saving the state significant dollars and fewer c inmate beds, programs and services. Thank you for this opportunity to present before you this morning.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you Commissioner. Are there questions? Senator Kissel?~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : Thank you Chairman Coleman. Commissioner Semple, it is great to see you as always and I want to say thank you for, I guess the way I would characterize it, as taking up the Risk Reduction Credit Program and making some what I believe are thoughtful changes to the program.

I know this is the Judiciary Committee and not Appropriations. I do serve on the Judicial Branch in Corrections Subcommittee of Appropriations and we struggled with your budget and the Judicial Branch's budget. I just want to touch there a little bit. 0 -----·'"-'- 002570 30 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

In light of the fact that we are asking everybody to do more with less and this is going to require some additional resources, is your position that it is money well spent in that if you continue to break the cycle of recidivism that putting this money up front for the supervision in the community will diminish the amount of folks coming back into the system such that ultimately, we will save money, have less victimization and have more success with folks leaving a life of crime or their addictions or whatever brought them into the system and becoming law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

~~SCOTT SEMPLE: Senator, thank you for your kind words.~~

~~You are right on target in that we believe that folks, lowering the recidivism number just by 5% 0 equates to about 12 million dollars in saving to the state.~~

The cost to implement something of this nature, there would be a cost because we have more folks that require supervision by parole officers, but it is a much more lower number, somewhere in the vicinity of about 3 million dollars.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : So assuming we get this bill moved forward and there is going to be a fiscal note attached to it, we should strive to make sure that the fiscal note, and I am sure you and your folks in your department will as well, try to bring into consideration the fact that this ultimately 12 million or 3 million means a net savings to the state of Connecticut of 9 million desperately needed 0 002571 31 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING dollars and what I always think is just as important, if not more important, forget about the money, just the less victimization because we have less crime going on out there. I don't know how it works. Do you folks go and when the bills hit the floor and there are fiscal notes, do you check them to make sure they are fair?

SCOTT SEMPLE: We have done our own assessment on what we believe the cost would be and what the benefits would be and we will work with, let's say in terms of you know whatever analyses they come up with, we will try to walk them through.

I think you are right in that you have to pay attention to the back end in terms of avoiding improving people's ability not to return into the system has huge, huge benefits not only from a c monetary perspective, but from a public safety perspective.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Thank you Commissioner. It always a pleasure seeing you here testifying before us. You have an open door policy with your department. You have been a pleasure to work with since how many years have we been working together?

~~SCOTT SEMPLE: A long time.~~

~~SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : It must be about a couple of decades now in various capacities and I really appreciate your openness and your leadership in the Department of Corrections. Thank you sir.~~

~~SCOTT SEMPLE: Thank you. 0 002572 32 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND} : Do other members have questions? Representative Rebimbas.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH}: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning Commissioner.~~

~~SCOTT SEMPLE: Good morning.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH}: First, thank you for bringing this to our attention.~~

It certainly sounds like sound policy, but I am looking at some of the testimony that has been provided and it appears that the Office of Victim Advocates had some concerns regarding this proposal, so I just wanted to kind of briefly discuss those with you and maybe you could address them.

When someone is let out early based on earned risk 0 reduction credit, the supervision that you are foreseeing, is this going to be conditions of that release that whatever services or programs that have been -- is it recommended to the individual or ordered that the individual partake of this?

~~SCOTT SEMPLE: These will be requirements or stipulations of the applied risk reduction earned credits post sentence.~~

So in actuality, I believe that it enhances the public safety model from the perspective that I had indicated in my testimony, the worst case scenario for anyone who is released from this agency is a straight what we call EOS, end of sentence. The propensity of that person to return into custody, especially if they are young, is much much greater 0 002573 33 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING than if we put them under a management model, where they are under the umbrella of the Department of Corrections.

Do I envision that we could experience some of level of failure? There is a risk management component to this, but that doesn't change the status of how the business currently operates. What we are trying to do is enhance our management model to support the needs of the offender.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And I certainly support the idea that something is better than nothing. If the individual were to fail, not complete, not participate, not comply with the stipulation, what are the ramifications?

SCOTT SEMPLE: Under the statute, the commission has c the discretion to withdraw the risk reduction earned credits. There may be an argument on the back end of an end of sentence scenario, but I think that the law protects us.

~~If this bill were to go forward in terms of you still have a management obligation under the umbrella of the agency.~~

So if for some reason, someone was incompensating to the point where we could not continue to manage him in the community, we may need to bring them back into custody either for a respite or if it is serious in nature, we would hold those risk reduction earned credits if they still are available to them. c 002574 34 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 So, we are not talking about -- most people who are doing significant sentences are going to have a probation and parole obligation. I think what we are talking about is some of these folks who don't have those obligations and we want to bring them into the management model, which I think is beneficial.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And that management model, supposedly there might be some victims from the underlying crime. Will they be advised throughout even the management model?~~

~~For example, if the individual were to be pulled in or was not complying with the stipulations, would those victims still be able to have the information necessary?~~

~~SCOTT SEMPLE: If they have applied and signed up 0 through our Victims Services Unit, yes they would.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you (indiscernible 54:03.3).~~

~~SCOTT SEMPLE: Yes ma'am.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Do other members have questions or comments? If not, Commissioner, thank you for your testimony.~~

~~SCOTT SEMPLE: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Next is Tanya Hughes. Good morning, Ms. Hughes.~~

0 002575 35 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING TANYA HUGHES: Thank you. Good afternoon Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, Senator Kissel, Representative Rebimbas, Vice Chairs and members of the Judiciary Committee.

My name is Tanya Hughes and I am the Executive Director of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. I am here to speak regarding SENATE BILL 430; AN ACT CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING AN ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION GUIDANCE.

CHRO already has testified in support of H.B. No. 5237, otherwise known as the Ban the Box Bill. We support measures to eliminate the barrier that a previous criminal conviction has on employment opportunities. Denying employment to individuals with criminal records may have an adverse impact on c members of minority groups and may violate federal laws against discrimination.

CHRO does recommend does recommend that S.B. No. 430 be modified. We recommend that enforcement of the EEOC's enforcement guidance be part of CHRO's responsibilities. Enforcement by the Department of Labor would duplicate work already being performed by CHRO and would be a lost opportunity for additional revenue for the general fund.

CHRO is currently under contract with the us Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to receive, investigate and litigate these types of complaints. Under this contract, CHRO receives money from the EEOC for each case filed and additional money for each case we close, all of which goes into the state's general fund. 0 002576 36 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0

~~CHRO already has experienced handling complaints under Connecticut general statutes 46a-80 in which the state of Connecticut is accused of discriminating based on a previous criminal conviction.~~

~~Extending CHRO's process to cover private sector employers will not substantially affect the workload of CHRO.~~

CHRO also has experience handling the type of complaints that will be brought for violations of S.B.-430. Individuals who believe that race was a factor in the denial of employment along with the criminal conviction can already file a complaint with CHRO.

CHRO supports the long overdue protections proposed 0 in S.B.-430. Enforcement, however, should properly be placed under CHRO. CHRO already has a process in place for investigating and litigating these claims and the federal government will provide a substantial portion of the funding required for doing so. The CHRO supports S.B.-430 with the changes I have described and we thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I am happy to answer any questions that you have.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are t.here questions? Representative Rebimbas.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and good morning.~~

~~TANYA HUGHES: Good morning. 0 002577 37 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Not being fully aware of all of the guidelines that have been issued by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, based on the testimony I am seeing that you provided, as well as ACLU, it is indicating that employers would now have to follow by all of those guidelines. It is during your testimony, I noticed you at least provided an example regarding obviously if someone was discriminated based on race.

~~TANYA HUGHES: Right.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): So I am just curious as to I am assuming those guidelines go far beyond that and you are indicating that now you would li~e all employers to adhere by all of the recommendations c EEOC has provided. So not being familiar with all of those guidelines, what would that also incorporate? Would that no longer allow an employer to be able to fire someone at will for example?

TANYA HUGHES: Not at all. The guidelines are just that, they are guidelines, but they don't direct the employer that you can't fire someone for cause or you know at will, but it does give you some guidance on how to avoid disparated impact or disparate treatment cases and so they look at it in more of a global aspect. They are very extensive the guidelines. I think it is probably 50 pages and the CHRO is already well-versed with it and we already participate in on-line training with the EEOC on a regular basis and so we will be able to handle that. 0 002578 38 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Is it your testimony that the employers now not adhering to the guidelines? Because again, in your testimony, you are saying they are guidelines, so they are not guidance but not requirements and I think this legislation would make them requirements.

~~TANYA HUGHES: I am not certain. I am going to have one our legal attorneys.~~

~~ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: So your question is about the guidelines in terms of what would be added going forward?~~

Right now, the EOC guidelines are applying to prior conviction cases on a race base, on a race basis. So, right now federal law prohibits discrimination on race and because people with -- minority people happen to have higher conviction rates for various 0 reasons, the law prohibits the use of prior convictions on that ground that there is disparate impact and minorities are greater affected by this kind of discrimination and by prior convictions being on applications.

What this bill does is really just mandate that those rules are followed by Connecticut employers. Right now, this is a federal guidance. We don't have specific laws in Connecticut regarding the application of those guidances to Connecticut employers. This law would make sure those guidelines are put in place on Connecticut employers.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): So does that eliminate the possibility of an employer not hiring an individual 002579 39 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING based on a prior conviction that may be directly related to the job position that is being offered?

~~ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: No. What the guidances does is it says that you can't have -- if the conviction is related to the job, for example fraud.~~

If you were convicted of fraud and you go into the banking industry, for example, you are certainly not required to hire that person. You are not required to hire anyone. What it says is that you can't use the prior conviction as the sole basis for refusal to hire in situations where the crime is not necessarily related to the job.

~~For example, if someone was convicted of a misdemeanor crime that was unrelated to any of the job qualifications, that would be something that the c guidelines are then targeted at.~~

REP .. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay and would that conviction be across the board only because on your testimony, correct me if I am wrong, but it sounded like you were equating a conviction with race that there is a higher prevalency. Are you indicating that an employer then could rely on a conviction so long as it does not impact on race?

~~ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: The current EEOC guidelines are specifically tied to race. They are based on Title 7 which is the antidiscrimination on race.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Well aware of that.~~

~~ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: The guidelines are based on those kinds of considerations that it is the 0 002580 40 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

disparate impaction, the racial impact which is the basis for the guidelines. With regard to using convictions in any other scenario, the guidelines are silent on them. The guidelines do really focus on the racial impact of prior conviction usage.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And how exactly will that be examined. If you have one employer making one decision, are you comparing that employer to that employer or are you comparing that employer to similar job opportunities throughout the state of Connecticut?

ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: It depends on the kind of case. It really is a case specific inquiry. We look at -- we as a commission and at the EEOC received individual complaints, but we also received wider complaints. We have commission-initiated complaints and so it depends on the specific 0 inquiry.

If someone came to us with a prior conviction and said that this policy prevented me from getting a job when it was solely due to the prior conviction and that I was otherwise fully qualified, that may be more individual specific inquiry.

If the commission receives a number of complaints regarding any specific employer, then we might do a commission initiated complaint inquiry in which case we would be looking more broadly, so it really depends on the situation.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): I appreciate your testimony, but I think that is where there is a lot of 002581 41 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEAR~NG confusion when I am looking at this and how this would be applied.

I am a little uneasy, although, I am always happy to hear on how the commission will be compensated that there may not be technically a fiscal note, but yet if you are going to be compensated based on a commission potential investigation, there is some question as to whether or not that would be appropriate.

~~ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: Right. To clarify, we only get compensated for claims that are filed with the EEOC.~~

A commission-initiated complaint would not receive those federal funds. Our contract is a work share agreement, so if someone dual files with both us and c the EEOC, we will investigate the complaint on behalf of the EEOC and that is where that funding comes from.

For example, someone could file and say that there was a -- that this policy discriminated against me. I filed with both the CHRO and the EEOC. The EEOC will give us the contract funds to investigate that specifically because they filed with the EEOC. So commission initiated complaints, that is solely with the commission and would not receive federal funds.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And would your compensation be irrelevant as to the outcome, whether or not the complainant was correct or incorrect or successful for lack of a better term?~~

0 002582 42 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: Yes, we are -- the compensation is not tied to any outcomes. On the basis of that, that could bias the investigation.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you for your testimony.~~

~~ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there other members who have questions or comments? Attorney, could you please, so we will have it for the record, state your name?~~

~~ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: Oh sorry, Attorney Spencer Hill.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Spencer Hill?~~

~~ATTORNEY SPENCER HILL: Yes. 0~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you both very much. Miriam Delphin-Rittmon.~~

~~MIRIAM DELPHIN-RITTMON: Good morning, Senator Coleman.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Good morning Commissioner.~~

\W.> SS3\ MIRIAM DELPHIN-RITTMON: Representative Tong and distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee. I am Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.

0 002583 43 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING I am here today to testify on HOUSE BILL 5531; AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS OR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER.

While our department respects the role of the Judiciary Committee has in ensuring public safety, we have serious concerns about the bill. This bill describes practices that are components of what is commonly referred to as outpatient commitment. The people we serve and those in our advocacy community refer to these practices often as forced medication and are practices that do not respect individual choice regarding medical and behavioral healthcare.

Over the past 15 years, the DMHAS behavioral health system of care has evolved to adopt an approach that is person-centered and recovery oriented. This evolution has helped us to understand the c relationship between the caregiver and individual as a collaborative one founded on mutual and thoughtful respect.

Our experience in the DMHAS clients have informed us that treatment planning, coordination of care and discharge planning are most effective .if developed with the individual served taking the lead in the architecture of the plan. Ultimately, tailoring a treatment plan to a person's stated needs would be more successful and this plan may or may not include medication.

Alarmingly, this bill encompasses both individuals with a mental illness or substance use disorder that are capable of informed consent. The tentative outpatient commitment taking significant departure from those of the recovery movement and remove the c 002584 44 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 desirable possibility of an individual's full participation in decisions regarding medication administration. It is paternalistic and as presented in this bill would not be operationalized in the community.

Interventions to which a person does not consent creates distrust between the treatment system and those that we serve. We see our role as one of promoting engagement and not estrangement, even when an individual's clinical needs are complex.

I would like also to emphasize the high cost associated with implementation of this bill. Resourcing intensive mechanisms at both the state and community level will be required to implement the strategies outlined in this bill.

Per the bill, resourcing would be required for 0 probate court, conservators, ambulance transportation, law enforcement support, emergency administration and potentially paraprofessional or medical staff to restrain individuals who are not consenting to medication administration. Connecticut has many programs that are acclaimed nationally.

Some examples include the community treatment programs or CITs, who partner with local police departments to de-escalate problems in the community. Supportive housing programs offer safe and affordable housing and care management to persons with serious mental illness to remain housed and responsible neighbors.

0 002585 45 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. 0 PUBLIC HEARING The DMHAS system of care includes community support services, medication management and peer support services. All of these services I have referenced emphasized individual choice, the right to live in the community and to enjoy the privileges of citizenship. None of these involve force and they are all effective.

All of these problems engage with the people we serve and honor their choices while ensuring their safety. An outpatient commitment statute would disrupt the collaborative relationship between caregivers and individuals and take the human and fiscal resources away from a recovery oriented treatment system. It would not enhance clinical care, community safety or recovery support. We ask you not to act favorably on the legislation before you. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and I c would be happy to answer any questions at this time. SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there any questions for the commissioner? Representative Rebimbas.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and good morning Commissioner.~~

~~MIRIAM DELPHIN-RITTMON: Hi, good morning.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Are you aware of any type of legislation like this in any other state?~~

MIRIAM DELPHIN-RITTMON: There are some states that have outpatient commitment laws. Connecticut has traditionally not been in support of outpatient commitment or forced medication for many of the reasons I talked about. For some individuals, it c 002586 46 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~could be quite traumatic not to mention a violation of their individual civil liberties if they are really not prepared or interested in taking medication.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Do you believe or are you aware of any circumstances, however limited, this may apply to or would be beneficial at all.~~

MIRIAM DELPHIN-RITTMON: In Connecticut, there is currently, I mean a physician can, we call a PC, so a person in emergency situations could be committed to or assigned to an inpatient setting. So, it is called a physician's emergency commitment, so there are very rare instances where commitment can happen and we consent along to some of the literature related to that law in Connecticut.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): For example, once they are 0 committed, obviously assume that they are getting all of the proper treatment, there comes a time where they are deemed to be at least compliant and safe enough to then be released, then the only way if heaven forbid the person with substance abuse or mental illness is noncompliant with any treatment or medication is then the only way to have them be committed?

MIRIAM DELPHIN-RITTMON: It is not the only way. I think a lot of the practices that I mentioned and there are a lot of evidence-based practices that could help a person really explore what some of their concerns are or what their interests or choices are.

0 002587 47 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING So motivational interviewing has been identified as the best practice that can help people grapple with questions around taking medication or not.

There are also a number or resources that (indiscernible 72:58.6) has developed recently around helping the individual explore some of their thoughts and preferences and feelings around medication usage, some of which include phone apps or other automated online apps that can help individuals with their preferences related to medication use.

~~At the root and at the center of each of those are choice, you know, the individual's choice and preference related to their treatment.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): So again in your professional c opinion, you don't believe this is necessary in the state of Connecticut?~~

~~MIRIAM DELPHIN-RITTMON: Not currently, not at all, yeah.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you for your testimony.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there further questions? Nothing. Thank you very much Commissioner.~~

~~MIRIAM DELPHIN-RITTMON: Thank you.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : While we appreciate the sentiment that is associated with this bill, we would ask all of those present to abide by the custom and rules of the committee and that is to refrain from showing any expression of support or c 002588 48 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 opposition to the testimonies being provided to the committee. I don't see Senator Looney in the room. With that being the case, (inaudible name).

~~UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning and thank you Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, members of the Judiciary Committee for this opportunity to be heard.~~

~~I am here today to speak against involuntary outpatient commitment or outpatient commitment as the case may be as it has been brought once again through H.B. No 5531.~~

My name is (inaudible name) and I am what crazy looks like. I am rocking recovery. I am a resident of Norwalk for the past 13 years and I am a registered voter. My current diagnosis is major depression with PTSD and an eating disorder .. My 0 weight has been in triple digits since the summer after hitting my low point of 82 pounds last winter and I have not wanted to die in several months, though I have thought despairingly of throwing my hands up in the air because of the organization that saved my life, my regional mental health board, may cease to exist thanks to the governor's proposed budget.

I can understand the desperation that drives well meaning people to ask for coercive measures. Their loved one, who is clearing suffering and perhaps in danger, refuses the treatment that can help them and perhaps is refusing the support of their family. I have heard from folks in my community and it is devastating, but the answer is not coercion because coercion does not promote voluntary compliance, the 0 002589 49 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 very thing these folks are looking to promote in their loved ones.

The answer, based on my experience as a person in recovery, is validation, specifically from others who have mental illness and addiction and are in recovery along with deliberate action to end the stigma of mental illness, addiction and treatments that may benefit us. I know that these two things do not offer immediate tangible results, but they are what worked for me and so many of my peers who are living in recovery in the community.

Validation specifically by connecting with peers who are also struggling and yet living in the community with whatever level of care and support we need is the message of hope I needed when I tried to hide my illness from my family. This message could not be c delivered in a treatment facility in the presence of a social worker or under the influence of law enforcement. This message for me had to be delivered in a room in my community where half a dozen other young adults like me, who are struggling, sat together and tried to figure out what we needed, how to ask for it, and what we could offer each other. There were no professionals there.

There was no copay and there were no medications, though we all did have each of those things. We did not all get better, but we all chose to be there and what stands out to me is that those of us in that group who felt heard by our providers have gotten better. We are still alive. We are not in jail. We are not in indefinite hospitalization. We are working hard to survive in a system of care that is under constant budget cuts. We felt listened to and c 002590 50 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

so we have kept up with treatment and kept fighting for our recovery under serious medical conditions, relationship upsets, family turmoil, unemployment and our psychiatric conditions. We felt heard, so we kept going. That is all there is to it. Please let us feel heard. I promise we will keep going.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Ms. (unidentifiable name) . Thank you for keeping going and thank you for your courage in being here today. Any questions or comments? Thank you very much.~~

~~(UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER): Thank you.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): Victor and I can't read the last name, Buccelli. Good afternoon. Victor, if you could please press the red button in front of you, thank you. 0 VICTOR BUCCELLI: Greetings Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and members of the Judiciary Committee. I am here to oppose the HB-5531, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS AND SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS.

I am a person in recovery from both substances and mental illness. I think it is wrong to really mandate someone to take medication against their will. If given enough information and insight, people will come to their own conclusions whether they need medication or not. This is also a form of discrimination as most people involuntarily committed to these programs would be of lower economic class or minority.

0 002591 51 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Please consider all of the people working hard to recover from these devastating medical diseases including myself. I have been sober since June 25, 2002, and have not been hospitalized since 1980. I thank you for your time concerning this matter, Victor Buccelli.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Victor, thank you. I want to commend you on all of your success in treatment.~~

~~VICTOR BUCCELLI: Thank you.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Any questions for Victor. No. Thank you. Carol G. Good afternoon.~~

CAROL G: Thank you so much for having me. Good morning, Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and c members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Carol G and I am a registered voter in the city of Waterbury. I am.here to testify for_~ 5531, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER.

What I have to say about taking medication comes from my own personal story. I did not know that I needed to be on medication. I thought there was nothing wrong with me at all. I lost all of my children and went to jail where I learned taking medication would be more helpful. Unfortunately for me, I had to learn the hard way that medication helps.

I would rather suggest that there was more information out there to inform-people how c 002592 52 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 medication helps because if they know, it might prevent them from fearing to take medication. I know there has to be a much gentler way to provide help to resistant people because I resisted for five years.

No matter how I got on medication, the fact is I needed it. People today need to be comforted and introduced in a nurturing way the help they will receive in taking medication. If we keep making it a battle like there is a winning fight about who is right and whether it is going to be my way or your way, the fight will go on forever.

I believe that introducing the detailed help that medication may bring will be much more helpful than forcing somebody to take medication that they fear will hurt them and you can't blame them for fearing because they know nothing about medication. I 0 believe rather it is better to counsel them about what the medication will do for them and give examples of people who have successful recovery and let them hear the words from the mouths of the people who successfully recovered with help. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Carol. Questions? Thank you so much for being here today.~~

~~CAROL G: You're welcome.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Vanessa McGee. Good afternoon.~~

\±~ 553} VANESSA MCGEE-SHERIFF: Correction, first of all, my name is known as Vanessa McGee-Sheriff. Good morning, I mean good afternoon, Senator Coleman, 0 002593 53 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Representative Tong and members of the Judiciary Committee.

My name is Vanessa McGee-Sheriff and I am a registered voter in the city of Waterbury. I am here to testify on HB number 5531, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARE AND TREAMTNET OF A PERSON WITH MENTAL ILLNESS OR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER.

I do not think that an individual should be mandated to take medication because in the past I have been given, forced to take medication and had terrible side effects. It took a long time to find the right medication and cost the tax payers a lot of money because I was in the hospital a long time. I was forced to take the medication and almost got hit by a car while on this medication and walked right in front of cars while on a heavy dose of medication. c Then, I was hospitalized again. This was 30 years ago.

Now, I have community support such as supportive housing, employment services and the independent center and I am in treatment and recovery. I am able to make my own decisions and choices, advocate for myself and my peers and have been out of the hospital for over eight years.

~~Please do not mandate involuntary outpatient treatment and consider all of the people sitting here and consider me. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you and I apologize for not getting your name correct, but that's the way it 0 002594 54 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 is on my sheet, but I appreciate you being here today. Any questions? Thank you so much.

~~VANESSA MCGEE-SHERIFF: Thank you.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Matthew Rowe. Good afternoon Matthew.~~

~~MATTHEW ROWE: Good afternoon.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thanks for being here.~~

~~MATTHEW ROWE: It's good to be here. Good morning Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and members of the Judiciary Committee.~~

My name is Matthew Rowe and I am a registered voter in Waterbury, Connecticut. I am here to testify on HB-5531, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF 0 PERSONS WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER.

I think back on the base of the Statue of Liberty, it says give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses longing to be free. The idea and/or pink elephant in the room is forced medication. People think that if you take meds, it will cure all. It doesn't. I take medications regularly, but still hear voices and I am schizoaffective. The patient's bill of rights gives me the right to refuse medication.

The majority of people with mental illness are in no way dangerous. I think back to World War II when Hitler murdered many people with mental illness before he moved on to the Jewish holocaust. He 002595 55 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING considered people with mental illness to be expendable. Forced medication, forced chemical restraints and (inaudible) is a failed idea.

We live in a nation where freedom is everything. Please leave us the choice to take or not to take medication. I know scores of people with psychosis who do not take medication and are for the most part happy people and pose no threat to anyone. I quote the great teacher, Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Vote no to H.B. No. 5531 and be free. Thank you.

REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Matthew. Any questions for Matthew? Again, I want to thank you and your colleagues for being here today and for your courage in coming to share your experiences. c We appreciate it. It makes a real impact on how we do these bills. In fact as you and your friends have been testifying, I have been asking questions up here to get a better understanding of the legislation and where it is coming from and what the motivations are, so I appreciate your time.

~~MATTHEW ROWE: Thank you sir.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): I don't think Senator Looney is here, but when Senator Looney arrives, I think our staff will let us know. Bill Clendenen. Good afternoon. If you would please press the button.~~

BILL CLENDENEN: Good afternoon Representative Tong, members of the committee, thank you for listening to me here today. c 002596 56 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 I am here to express the support of the Connecticut Bar Association for RAISED BILL NUMBER 426 and 428. The Connecticut Bar Association, of which I am probably the president, strongly supports these two bills.

Bill 426 does two things; one, it allows the judicial branch, if there are excess funds in the client's security funds to use their funds on an annual basis to support the legal aid programs. The second portion of the bill makes very modest increases in the court filing fees to further support legal aid. The projected revenues will at best meet half of the deficits facing the legal aid providers in Connecticut. The crisis continues to grow.

One of the basic tenants of the Connecticut Bar Association is to make access to justice for 0 everyone in Connecticut one of its top priorities. Presently in Connecticut, we have two classes of justice; one for the well to do and then the rest for the poor and the economically disadvantaged.

Year in and year out, people are evicted, people don't have help with protective orders. There are serious consequences to them and that takes me to ~which is the proposed task force. This is to study this task force which is a blue ribbon task force, has all the stakeholders in Connecticut as proposed members. It will look hard at how do we provide access to justice. Sometimes, it is called Civil Gideon and sometimes, it is called the Civil Right to Counsel, but this will be the first time that Connecticut has looked at the overall problem of access to justice, but all of the citizens of 002597 57 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Connecticut, not just the well to do. It is the first time and I have been practicing law almost 50 years in Connecticut that you had the legislature, the judiciary, the governor's office, the bar association, all of the stakeholders saying wait a minute, we have to look at it so that everyone has access to meaningful justice. There is no cost associated with 428 the way it is done. There is a short time line.

What I fear and what the bar association fears is unless we take the issue head-on, we are going to continue to have trying to fingers in the dice to stop the cutbacks. The cutbacks will continue. I know my time is up. I really thank you very much for listening to me and

~~I would appreciate any questions you would have and c I would respectively request that these two bills get your support and move on and I hope they pass.~~

~~Thank you so much.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you, Mr. Clendenen. Thank you for your leadership with the bar association. If you will give my regards to your son, Pat.~~

~~BILL CLENDENEN: I will.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): I want to ask you about Civil Gideon; well actually I just want to make a point.~~

I want to thank Senator Coleman and the bar association for its leadership on this initiative and the chief justice I know has been particularly focused on access to justice issues. c 002598 58 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0

I think it would be helpful, when we talk about Civil Gideon, we all know what we are talking about and it refers to the case of Gideon V Wainwright, which established the right to counsel in criminal cases.

I think it would be helpful if over the next several months or maybe before the end of session of the bar made an effort to educate people in this building about Gideon and about that case from which this initiative springs and why the holding of that case and the tradition that has developed around that case and our practice in our courts of the United States that the next logical step is to move to Civil Gideon or at least to embrace that conversation earnestly.

I think it would just be helpful to help everybody 0 understand that this is a bedrock constitutional principal and how we got to that place with Gideon and where we can go from here. If you can talk with folks about the bar and maybe put some focus into that. I don't know if there is time to put a little display down in the tunnel between here and the capitol or something like that, but often education campaigns like that are not just helpful but are important before we take a major step, so I commend that to you.

~~BILL CLENDENEN: I will do it sir.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Great. Representative Gonzalez.~~

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you for coming and testifying on behalf of the floor 002599 59 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING and to be sure that access for justice is for all. Thank you very much for that.

~~BILL CLENDENEN: It has been 50 years I have been working. I want to succeed for the people who live in our communities who are unable to get meaningful access to the courts.~~

~~REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Thank you very much for that.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Representative Rebimbas.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. Thank you for your testimony here today. Just want some information and clarification. In the proposed legislation, it talked about grants and aid to nonprofit organization. How do you foresee that working and which nonprofit organization would c be benefitting?

~~BILL CLENDENEN: The legislature has already -- you mean in 426?~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): No, 428.~~

BILL CLENDENEN: In 428, what would happen, based on studies, money could be funneled through the Connecticut Bar Foundation, which is the designated agency that the legislature has for taking the court fees and the like and if you have experiments as to how you can provide meaningful access on a cost effective basis, whether you could encourage pilot programs through the legal aid agencies that would happen, but the funding, particularly with the crisis, is not available now. 0 002600 60 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 The notion is how to study it, how to figure it out because there is a recent study out of Boston that shows significant savings that are generated by putting in $1 and you avoid all sorts of other costs for taxpayers, police services, educational services, homeless shelters. There is real savings to taxpayers but we have to bring that to the Connecticut perspective. One of the ways to do it is to have experiments, so you don't have to go whole hog into it, but to figure out how to do it. The mechanism is in place through the Connecticut Bar Foundation.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): So what you are saying, these funds wouldn't go for a study per se, it would be, when you are talking about study, you are talking about having the programs actually out there for these individuals, correct? 0 BILL CLENDENEN: Yes, but I think that is more down the road.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay. I just want to make sure that if legislation were to pass that this goes immediately to the need. So, how would this compare with the program that the Connecticut Bar Association already has, the pro bono initiative which is free legal services for individuals who can't afford it?

~~BILL CLENDENEN: It is a complement. The problem we have is the need is so great that we can't meet it.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH)' For lack of attorneys?~~

0 002601 61 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING BILL CLENDENEN: No, for just the lack of time. There are so many people that need the aid and our members put in thousands of hours of pro bono activity to supplement the work of the legal aid agencies and still one in ten eligible people can get the services. There just aren't enough resources.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): So the intent is this collection of funds that would be going to the Connecticut Foundation, Bar Foundation, is that correct? What's the name of the foundation?~~

~~BILL CLENDENEN: Connecticut Bar Foundation.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): The Connecticut Bar Foundation is to then be filtered out to, for c example, Connecticut Legal Services? BILL CLENDENEN: Yes. That is how it works. In 426, that is how those funds work. That is how they work now and the modest increases would supplement that. Because IOLTA, the Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts, is very low right now because of the interest rates, because of court filings are down, they are in deep trouble.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): So why would we be going to the Connecticut Bar Foundation instead of going straight to legal services?~~

BILL CLENDENEN: Because that is the mechanism you already set up. The mechanism already set up is to have the Connecticut Bar Foundation administer those funds to the state so it is at no cost to the state. There is no administrative burden. No taxpayer cost 0 002602 62 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 associated with it. The money goes there and they have these formulas that go out and they are audited and looked at by the Judicial Department, so this is really a no cost way to put the funds to the most effective use.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): What is the estimated revenue from the, as we have indicated, the modest increases?~~

BILL CLENDENEN: It may make a difference of $1 million or $900,000. It is unclear. It would be dependent on how many cases are filed, but most of it, as you look at the bill, most of the increases are $5 or $10. There is one $20 increase, so very modest increases in the filing fees.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And will the criteria for need base be the same as being currently utilized or 0 will that be different?~~

~~BILL CLENDENEN: No it is the same.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay.~~

BILL CLENDENEN: I mean the problem is that there is not enough money to meet the needs of the poorest of the poor. Forget the working poor, they don't have a shot, but the poorest of the poor can't get the access, so that is why we are trying to do this. Just to go back for a minute, that is why the task force study is so important. What are we missing? How do we do this? How do we help these individuals? You get someone who was evicted from their house, they are working, they end up as homeless. Their kids go into foster care. You 002603 63 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING heard all about foster care this morning. The kids go into foster care. The kids have trouble in the educational system and you get all those costs.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you on the situations.~~

~~BILL CLENDENEN: I'm sorry.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): The situations are very true and they exist, we understand that. I'm just trying to understand: A) How could we address these situations even quicker because we are dealing with two different bills.

~~BILL CLENDENEN: Yes.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): One asking for a task force c and then there is 428 and as we know what task force is, all well meaning, but many times reports come out and things don't get implemented and that is why I'm inquiring as you're here, because we do have the pro bono initiative that was my understanding that was providing free legal services to the most needy and again I just wanted to see whether or not there was a mechanism in to expand on the free services that we currently have.

I am trying to understand how all of the funds are going to then be filtered to the existing nonprofit that is serving the individuals that you are describing as well. It is just a matter of clarification and understanding, but I think the true intent here is just to make sure we all have the same intent, that this all gets to the most needy as quickly as possible. c 002604 64 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0

~~BILL CLENDENEN: And, I'm sorry.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): No, no, please.~~

~~BILL CLENDENEN: That mechanism is in place and has worked very effectively with the Connecticut Bar Foundation. The CBA will get none of this money. We have no financial stake in it.~~

~~We continue to recruit our members and other lawyers to provide these free legal services. As I said, there are thousands of hours being dedicated free of charge by Connecticut lawyers to do this.~~

The other money, as it is filtered through the state's system goes to the Connecticut Bar Foundation and they immediately get the money out to the providers. It is about as efficient as you can 0 get it, where you have no extra cost to the state. I think that is a key part is it is a very creative way to do it. You don't have a state mechanism. You don't have all of that cost built into it, so it goes to the private foundation and then the money goes out to the providers.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you.~~

~~BILL CLENDENEN: I hope that was~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): It does. You have been very responsive. Thank you for your testimony.~~

~~BILL CLENDENEN: Thanks.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Representative O'Dea. 0 002605 65 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING~~

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Attorney Clendenen. I graduated law school with your son at Catholic University, and so I wanted to thank you for your testimony, say hello and I appreciate all of your hard work.

BILL CLENDENEN: Thank you. I graduated in 1967 from Catholic and you know, it is interesting, if I just put this aside, I am very fortunate. I was a full scholarship student. I would not have been able to be here except for somebody helping me with the scholarship, so I am very appreciative.

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Further questions? Thank you c very much. BILL CLENDENEN: Thank you.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): Beverly Comfort. Beverly, how are you? Nice to see you. ~6"53{ BEVERLY COMFORT: I am good, thank you. My name is Beverly Comfort. I am from Wallingford and I want to address the senators, representatives and Judiciary Committee.

If someone were to come and take me out of my home because I didn't act right, I would first feel like a criminal. I would feel frightened and non trusting. That is when -- if they forced medications on me, I would feel like a guinea pig. Some of these medications I may not need. My body can't handle some of them. Then, some of them make 0 002606 66 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 me feel lethargic. I know my body and I would rather have to go to the hospital of my choice.

When I first was diagnosed as bipolar, they put me on many, many medications and I could hardly walk and I could hardly move my arms, my muscles hurt and it did not feel right. They said that is how you are supposed to feel and it just wasn't right. If I wanted to cry, I couldn't cry. So, I would rather be able to go to the hospital of my choice if I knew I wasn't doing well.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Beverly. Any questions for Beverly? Thank you for your patience and your testimony today.~~

~~BEVERLY COMFORT: Thank you.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Senator President. Mr. 0 President. Welcome back to the Judiciary Committee.~~

~~SENATOR LOONEY (11TH) : Good morning Representative Tong and distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee.~~

My name is Martin Looney, State Senator for the 11th District representing New Haven, Hamden and North Haven, and I am here to speak on two bills on your public hearing agenda today; SENATE BILL 426; AN ACT CREATING A TASK FORCE TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO LEGAL COUNSELOR IN CIVIL MATTERS and SENATE BILL 428; AN ACT CONCERNING FUNDING OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE POOR.

Lack of access to legal representation has become a national issue and one that greatly affects the 0 002607 67 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Connecticut residents. Despite the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch takes its obligation to provide access to justice profoundly and seriously, the state's legal assistance agencies provide representation to thousands of low income residents in Connecticut and attorneys also provide thousands of hours of pro bono legal services annually, many residents in Connecticut still do not have access to legal representation to their critical disadvantage and so many instances.

As things now stand, the unmet needs for Connecticut residents for legal representation have outstretched the dedicated efforts of the judicial branch and the bar to meet this demand and again, this is not just a state, but national problem. Indeed the statistics regarding self-representation in c Connecticut paint a stark picture. According to the Judicial Branch, in 85% of family law cases, at least one party is self-represented.

In housing matters, 75% of the time at least one party is self-represented. Overall, a quarter of all civil cases have at least one party self represented and this number goes up to 38% at the intermediate appellate level. These include cases of utmost importance where decisions are being made with regard to the rights of individuals that carry the utmost gravity.

~~Each and every day in housing court without a lawyer, Connecticut families face the prospect of eviction and potential homelessness.~~

0 002608 68 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 Each and every day in family court without a lawyer, restraining order applicants are striving to be made safe, yet are left to fill out the complicated legal applications by themselves and navigate the legal system without representation.

~~Other families are trying to get healthcare services or other potentially life-saving benefits all on their own and this list goes on day after day.~~

I would like to commend the leaders of the Judicial Branch and the bar, especially Chief Justice Chase Rogers and Connecticut Bar Association President Bill Clendenen and Dean Timothy Fisher of the University of Connecticut School of Law for their many recent powerful public statements on this issue and their efforts to combat crisis.

Chief Justice Rogers convened the Connecticut Access 0 to Justice Commission in 2011 to develop recommendations to help ensure equal access to all people. The legal aid and civil representation subcommittee released a 2013 report which included the following facts about the lack of civil legal representation in our state: First, self representation is especially prevalent and problematic in family housing foreclosure and small claims cases.

Secondly, because of the funding and resource shortfalls, Connecticut legal aid programs can only assist a fraction of low income people needing legal representation. For example, Connecticut legal services was able to only open about 3400 new cases out of the roughly 19,000 requests it received in 2013 and 2014. So even if the pro bono effort of 0 002609 69 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Connecticut attorneys were to be doubled, it would not fill the large gap in the need for legal services.

This is to be sure a deeply complicated issue especially in light of all of the competing critically urgent needs of our state and calls upon the state to provide assistance in so many years. Moreover, other states, especially our neighbor New York, have taken recent steps towards beginning to address this crisis, specifically in housing matters that need to be examined for their efficacy.

Therefore, I believe the appropriate next step would be to establish a public task force with a wide variety of stakeholders that would help the state determine how to move forward in increasing access c to legal representation. SENATE BILL 426 will establish a task force with a wide array of leaders from the Judicial Branch, the bar, the General Assembly and elsewhere with the purpose of first studying the nature, extent and consequence of Connecticut's unmet needs for legal representation in civil matters, especially those involved in essential human needs and second, reporting on those findings and most critically, third, making detailed recommendations to the legislature on how we can best help secure access to the justice and legal representation in civil legal matters, especially those involving essential human needs.

As you know, this problem has been exacerbated in recent years because of the decline in IOLTA funds. It used to go a long way towards funding legal c 002610 70 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 service operations, but since the decline in the real estate market and collapse of IOLTA funding several years ago, that funding stream has been reduced to something very negligible.

The second bill I would like to support is SENATE BILL 428 which could immediately expand funding for legal services to the poor by increasing funding for Connecticut legal aid programs and while I believe the task force really is necessary to help us plan holistically to address access to the representation crisis, SENATE BILL 428 is an immediately achievable way to provide potentially up to an extra million dollars a year in support of our absolutely critically, yet financially struggling legal aid programs.

This proposal would amend Connecticut general statutes 51-81d which grants the Superior Court the 0 authority to establish a Client Security Fund and strictly limits the purposes for which such funds could be used to reimburse client losses, attorney misconduct and to fund the Lawyers Referral and Substance Abuse Program. This bill would amend the statute to add a third permissible use of the fund and that is to allow the Superior Court to utilize the funds in the Client Security Fund to provide for delivery of legal services to the poor or for the delivery of legal services provided by legal aid organizations within the state.

However, the proposal specifies that only funds deposited from attorneys on or after October 1, 2016, would be permitted to be used for this third purpose. Also, there is no proposed increase in the annual fee paid to the Client Security Fund by 0 002611 71 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING individual attorneys. This fee of course is set by the Judicial Branch.

The bill would also marginally increase certain court filing fees that can be used to further fund legal aid programs and I thank Bill Clendenen, President of the Bar Association, for his support in testifying today in favor of this potential additional funding mechanism for legal aid.

These proposals are part of the solution to immediately increase access to the courts for the state's poorest residents with no impact on the state budget. I would urge the committee to take action on these bills.

Senate Bill 426 particularly addresses this issue of Civil Gideon around the country which many states c are beginning to grapple with. Dean Fisher in a speech at UConn Law School pointed out that we have in fact a marked failure in that there are large numbers of underemployed young attorneys looking for active work and yet large numbers of unrepresented defendants or unrepresented litigants who need help and there ought to be a way to help bring them together in ways that would be supportive and helpful to both.

~~Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you members of the committee.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Mr. President and thank you for your leadership on these issues broadly and these specific bills. c 002612 72 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 I should note that on Wednesday, we are going to hear bill,_HOUSE BILL 5639, AN ACT CONCERNING CONNECTICUT'S LEADERSHIP IN CORPORATION AND BUSINESS LAW.

You may recall, we created a commission on Connecticut's leadership in corporation and business law and as part of that commission's work, there were discussions and recommendations for something like a commercial docket similar to the New York Commercial Division's commercial jurisdiction in New York State Court. We have a proposal before this committee on Wednesday to create a similar mechanism tentatively or docket tentatively called the Connecticut Center for Commercial Claims and as part of that proposal, there would be various fees which could be dedicated to legal services.

So, it is an idea to create a business court to 0 adjudicate business disputes where the litigants have the resources and for and in exchange for the benefits of using that docket and access to the judiciary docket, they would pay a fee that could help, that we could use to help fund legal services, so I commend that legislation to use as well.

~~When you get a chance, when it comes out, have a look at it and we would love your support on that as well.~~

~~SENATOR LOONEY (11TH): Absolutely.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): Any questions for the Senate President? Thank you Mr. President. 002613 73 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR LOONEY (11TH) : Thank you Representative again. Thank you for the great work that this committee does year in and year out and one of my greatest experiences and great joys in my years in the General Assembly is the years that I served as a member of this committee. It was, I think in many ways, I learned more on that committee than I did in my years of law school and many aspects of legal practice. Thank you so much.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you. Suzanne Brown Walsh. Good afternoon.~~

~~SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: Good afternoon. Representative Tong and members of the committee, thank you so much for hearing my testimony today.~~

I am here on behalf of the Connecticut Bar c Association, Estates and Probate section, to support HOUSE BILL 5606, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CONNECTICUT REVISED UNIFORM FIDUCIAY ACCESS TO DIGITAL ASSETS ACT, which we call RUFADAA.

This is a consensus bill. It is supported by the Trust and Estates Bar as well as the tech industry and privacy advocates. I mention some of those companies specifically in my written testimony and I saw that the Internet Coalition has submitted written testimony in support of the bill.

So the original RUFADAA was introduced in Connecticut last year and a total of 27 states and it resulted in zero enactments. As a result of that stellar record, we went back to the drawing board with the tech industry and redrafted the act. 0 002614 74 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 Like the original act, the advised 25-15-1 basically clarifies that fiduciaries will have access to digital assets, so things like files on the laptops I see you both using, Cloud storage files, photos, social medial accounts and email accounts. Some of those digital assets, maybe most of them, are protected by federal privacy laws and some of them are not; however, none of them are specifically mentioned in probate codes.

I am aware that Connecticut has a limited email access statute, but I tried to use it and because it does not interact well with the federal privacy law, it does not work so well. The act is really important today. We all sort of live our lives digitally on a computer. We used computers.

To give you sort of a feel for this, the UK, United Kingdom Banking Association commissioned a study and 0 the results were released almost two years ago. They showed that over one billion with a B pounds were transacted electronically daily and that is in the UK, a much smaller country, and that their customers, their citizens were downloading 15,000 mobile banking applications every day, so there is just a huge scale here and a huge scope.

I would like to mention one sort of amusing example of the value of digital assets and that is a fellow named John Jacobs, about five years ago, made a killing on virtual assets. He mortgaged his house for $100,000, this is a true story, he bought a virtual asteroid or planet in the gaming platform Entropia Universe. He built a casino and some other destinations that garners, avatars, would visit. They would spend fiat currency to participate in 002615 75 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING these activities in this virtual world. He was earning $200 thousand a year in fiat currency from his virtual world and he sold those assets for $635 thousand so we really need this bill to sort of bring us up to speed and give fiduciary the tools they need to address modern digital assets. Fiduciary being conservators, personal representatives, agents who are powers of attorneys and trustees.

Just quickly, the revised act to date has been enacted in four states and is pending not only in Connecticut, but like 20 more, so we do expect widespread enactment and we expect that this will just be one phase to future laws on this topic. Thank you.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): I guess I lost the thread there c at the end. What is the connection between this act the guy who stated the online business?~~

SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: So our probate laws don't mention digital assets specifically, they talk in terms of traditional assets, intangible and tangible. The act specifically addresses the affect of account terms of service agreements, fiduciary access and the circumstances to which fiduciaries would be given access. So in other words, it clarifies when a fiduciary would be able to collect, manage and distribute an asset like the virtual pieces in the gaming platform. So what you don't want is you don't want to be lawyer at a fiduciary representing John Jacobs, who has this $635,000 virtual universe and not have the tools necessary to collect, manage or sell that asset. c 002616 76 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 REP. TONG (147TH): In the event that he needs a personal representative or conservator or somebody to manage those assets for?

SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: Correct. One of the things I learned during our process of drafting this act is that the tech industry is very much run by younger people who did not vision incapacity or death when they were designing their various product, so it is pretty important.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Does this act have any impact on access to digital assets by law enforcement?~~

~~SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: No. It is an act to give fiduciaries access to the digital assets of the person they represent.~~

The only connection would be if I'm personal 0 representative for a deceased member of law enforcement. Under the federal privacy laws, there are different rules that apply to third party access request by law enforcement and others. Fiduciary would be another, so law enforcement has - - so there are the federal privacy laws that tell the internet service providers that you cannot disclose. There are exceptions for law enforcement and there are two other exceptions for non-law enforcement.

So our act has nothing really to do with the law enforcement exceptions except I will say right now without the act, if you go in and make a request, let's say a Facebook, they tell you can't you get me a request from law enforcement. That is what they want to deal with because the provisions are 002617 77 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING different and because there are no fiduciary provisions right now.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Does it open the door or engender a larger conversation about law enforcement access to digital assets?~~

~~SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: They are unrelated.~~

~~REP. TONG (147th): Okay.~~

SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: Because they are separate pieces of the federal privacy laws. However, the one common thread is where you set that privacy bar, so in the original act, we set it much lower. In other words, we gave fiduciaries more access by default when a person had not planned and the privacy advocates wanted greater deference to c privacy intent, so it is the same sort of policy issue, but it is a completely separate part of the law if that makes sense.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Yes. You know where I am going with this?~~

~~SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: I do. It is the same.~~

~~REP. TONG (147th): It is the same issue.~~

~~SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: Proprietor issue, correct.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): In the Apple Computer situation.~~

SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: Well it is in a sense of where do we draw the line. Where do we allow the access when I the user haven't decided. Where do I let you c 002618 78 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 as my executor go into my files and where do we say no, he had to have told you you could do this, yes.

REP. TONG (147TH): It's another issue I think bears more discussion. I suspect one of the reasons why you were 0-27 last year is because lawmakers and policy makers are just trying to catch their breath and to catch up with these issues. Even though we live them, we haven't worked with them in our hands enough, I think. I'm not sure if we know yet where to draw that line. I think the Apple case and the case of the investigating of the shooters presents very thorny issues. I would commend you in that I think we need a larger conversation about these issues and without that, it is probably going to be hard to pass legislation around these issues.

SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: I will point out though that I would have argued and we would have argued for 0 greater access in the original act. This is a consensus bill and the ACLU and other privacy, the CDT, other privacy organizations have approved it. They think that this strikes a fair balance in this context and as far as encryption goes, I have nothing for encryption. Encryption isn't addressed. There is no fiduciary right to, you know, we can't break encryption and that doesn't, it is affected or this act doesn't affect that. I always tell my clients if you got your files encrypted, there nothing I do will help you with that.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much.~~

SUZANNE BROWN WALSH: Thank you very much. 0 002619 79 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING REP. TONG (147TH): Janet Oster. Good afternoon. HBS531 JANET OSTER: Is that right? Good afternoon friends, advocates, legislators, Governor Malloy 'and President Obama. It is very nice of you to host us today.

~~There is a wide difference between the people who are sitting in the room as consumers and the legislators who sit here in the room with us.~~

It is possible to bridge the gap and be equal. It is possible for you to help us and for us to help you. What we need is open-mindedness, hope and belief in each other and willingness to take risks, realizing what went wrong and try again. We need to stop focusing on small issues that are driven more by insurance companies like co-pays that do not c really have anything to do with helping people.

It doesn't mean I don't think it is important to take medication, as I myself take medication, but that is my choice and someone else might not want to do that. It is possible to bridge the gap and be equal. It is possible -- oh I am sorry.

We need to stop focusing on small issues that are driven more by insurance companies like co-pays that don't really have anything to do with helping people. I spent four years testifying about co-pays and the decision was finally made still doesn't reflect what is in our best interest. The people actually living with these issues, it is time to start asking us what is working and what is not working. Everyone in this room knows, I am miserable --(laughing) and what are we going to do c 002620 80 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 with all the people with psychiatric disabilities who also feel miserable?

I feel that all of us should get connected to what is important to us so we can try (inaudible). For me, I spent the last four years writing and I published five books. The fifth book is knocking at the board and will be published later in June. These books are available to be purchased online through Amazon, Kindle and you can also order paperback copies through Barnes and Noble and AuthorHouse.com. Anyone who is interested in writing a book or having it published, please feel free to contact me because I can help you get through the process and you might have a great deal of fun doing it.

~~However, all of these dreams and actions are nothing if you are not supported and loved for who we are 0 and guided out of our own darkness so we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.~~

Please do not forsake us again. If anyone of us is starving and alone, even people who are just having a hard time, I suggest that all individuals should have a personal helper who visits them as often as needed. We need to find people who can meet people where they are to hear their goals and offer guidance. This person will need to have a really warm heart and be very insightful and compassionate and willing to do a little risk-taking.

On Wednesday, I watched President Obama highly praise Merrick Garland as his nominee as the next Superior Court judge. Judge Garland said people cannot tell people what they should do or what they 002621 81 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING shouldn't do. If they don't believe what you believe, you cannot force them to adopt your belief. Please vote against BILL 5531. Thank you very much for listening.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you. Any questions for Janet. Thank you so much for being here.~~

~~JANET OSTER: This is one of my books.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Great, thank you.~~

~~JANET OSTER: Thank you very much.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Nour Alnajjar.~~

NOUR ALNAJJAR: Good afternoon. Dear committee members, I am Nour Alnajjar from New Britain and c former client of Connecticut legal services. I am in support of SENATE BILL 428 regarding legal services funding. The purpose of my testimony is to share my recent experience with Connecticut Legal Services.

I am a single mother of two children as well as a survivor of domestic violence. My story is about what it means to have a safe life. I lost my home safety, happiness and four years of my life because of my abuser, my ex-husband. I was weak emotionally and financially and I wasn't able to leave. When I left, as a result, I became homeless with two children. I stayed in a shelter for three weeks until I could find a safe place to live with my kids. c 002622 82 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 My dream since that was to get divorced and the idea of getting a lawyer was not an affordable option. I heard about Connecticut Legal Services. I started working on my dream. I went to the office and Connecticut Legal Services of New Britain contacted me regarding a referral from a domestic violence organization.

Mr. Martin Wheeler opened my case in May 2015. He submitted every single detail about my case and gave me a broad view of his legal length. Connecticut Legal Services prepared my divorce papers and contacted my ex-husband's lawyer to arrange an agreement and informed me of my court date. He represented me in court and supported my decision for sole custody of my children and helped me to transfer my ex-husband's personal items to his lawyer safely. This has allowed me to reach my goal and find that peace in my life. 0

Connecticut Legal Services helped me to honor my freedom in December 2015 when my divorce was granted. My new life wouldn't have been possible without the help of Connecticut Legal Services. Today, I am so grateful to be alive, to have two beautiful children who were not raised in a home filled with emotional, physical and mental violence and have an opportunity to hear my story so I can support legal services to continue helping the people who are in need. Thank you for your attention and consideration of my voice.

REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Nour and thank you for your powerful testimony about the impact that legal services has had on you and your family and your children are obviously very lucky to have a strong 0 002623 83 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING and committed mother like you who is fighting hard for them and for yourself and by your example showing them the right way to live their lives and to stand up for themselves.

~~NOUR ALNAJJAR: You are welcome.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Any questions? Thanks again. Caryl Lee Hall. Good afternoon.~~

~~CARYL LEE HALL: Good afternoon. Representative Tong and members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Karyl Lee Hall and I am an attorney with the Connecticut Legal Rights Project.~~

~~We represent low income people with psychiatric disabilities in among other context, the right to treatment, the right to refuse treatment and cases c under the patient's bill of rights.~~

We are in opposition to HOUSE BILL 5531; WHICH IS AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER because first expanding involuntary medication of persons with psychiatric disabilities to nursing homes and the community at large is overbroad to the max because permitting involuntary medication without any due process protection is unconstitutional in our opinion.

~~You have my testimony and so I am not going to read every word of it to you, but I do want to make certain points quickly.~~

First of all, as you all know, the Supreme Court has recognized that an individual has the 0 002624 84 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding involuntary administration of anti psychotic drugs. In Washington V. Harper, the court recognized that when forced medication is used to alter the will and the mind of the subject, it constitutes deprivation of liberty in the most literal and fundamental sense.

Presently in the state of Connecticut, you can experience involuntary medication in an in-hospital setting. However when that happens, there are strict due process protections in place. Most particularly in notice to the patient that he has access to advocacy services, legal services, 48 hours notice of any proceeding, et cetera. This proposed bill does not have any of those due process protections.

As the commissioner of (indiscernible 2:15:28.0), 0 this involuntary medication bill is unnecessary because in the State of Connecticut, we are way ahead of the curve in many respects. We are patient-centered. We have advocacy services. We have advanced directives. We have peer support. All of those things together encourage the appropriate medication to individuals.

Secondly as individuals who have come before me and who know better than me than anyone, certain medications do not work. Some medications work for some people and not for others. When it doesn't work, there are often severe side effects that impair the ability of individuals to work in their community and to have success family lives. 002625 85 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Finally, we all recognize that you probably wouldn't be considering this bill if it was requiring cancer patients who are capable of giving informed consent to undergo chemotherapy or surgery to give just one example. This bill focuses on a group of individuals separately in a way that we find not productive and discriminatory. We ask your support in our opposition to BILL 5531. Thank you.

REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you. As you were speaking and speaking about the constitutionality of the proposal, I had a law school flashback. I think it was Rochin V. California shocks the conscious, is that correct?

~~CARYL LEE HALL: Yep.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you so much for being here c and providing that testimony. Any further questions? Representative Baram.~~

REP. BARAM (15TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Quick question. Is your concern more about due process aspects or are you opposed to the concept of giving a conservator authority to consent to medication period. And if you are opposed to the conservator concept, how would you then propose that somebody, who needs medication, but perhaps is incapable or incompetent to make that decision, acquire the medication if they are just not cooperative.

CARYL LEE HALL: That is a very good question and a tough one. c 002626 86 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 I am against the bill because of the due process protection issue because if we start turning our back on due process, we go down a very long, grim and gloomy road for patient rights in particular, but in a way, empowering a conservator to make a decision for an individual is in a sense to take the liberty interest away in favor of giving it to someone else, so there is a connection, in a sense it is connected. Because they are both -- all of them are constitutional rights.

How, if I understand your question correctly, you are asking how would then society intervene in those situations where an individual needs medication? I would argue those situations in which an individual needs medication and isn't taking the medication, I think that is what you are saying, is in most circumstances the right of the individual to decide. 0 There are cases when individuals when they are not taking their medication either commit crimes, then society does intervene in a way that is pre-destined and acceptable to most people or the person doesn't take medication and the family is concerned and it causes worry and sadness. We are compassionate to those people, but the balance is to give, to put in place a situation which takes liberty away from many people because a much smaller number of individuals are either difficult for society at large to deal with or their families are concerned doesn't make sense. On balance, it doesn't make sense. So that is my unpopular answer.

REP. BARAM {15TH): I guess what I mean is if you have somebody who is a ward and that person, let's say is incompetent or for whatever reason is 002627 87 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING incapable of even making the choice, so that is why the probate court appointed a conservator of the person. If there was a due process provision that allowed let's say an application to a probable court with a hearing where the medical provider could testify and whomever else was appropriate, would you oppose giving the conservator authority under those conditions if there were certain due process protections. Again, I am not talking about someone who is competent and who can make their own choice. I am talking about somebody who is incompetent.

~~CARYL LEE HALL: You ask excellent questions and I obviously can't answer for every context.~~

What worries me about the scenario in which you present is, well several things really. One, if the person is so incompetent and is presenting c deterioration in their condition that seriously puts them at serious risk or society at serious risk, then hospitalization is the answer for that person and there are significant and strong due process protections around that.

If the individual doesn't meet the standards for commitment and a conservator thinks that person isn't competent or is competent and not making the right decision, the question then is and this is where I start saying this won't work and where my opposition is strong.

If I am a conservator for you and I say to you, you should take this medication and you're not taking it, so where do I take you? Do I call the police? I go first to the probate court and the probate court presumably says yes, yes you have the c 002628 88 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 authority and I give it to you. Then, I go to you and say you have to take this because the probate court said you have to be medicated and you say no. Where do I go? Do I bring the police in? Do I take you to the hospital forcibly? In the end, you are probably going to be committed anyway because if you continue to refuse, where do we go and that is a cost of the bill.

Not only it complicated in terms of rights, but the bill doesn't address about what happens about the money that is necessary for the intervention not only as it has been pointed out here by the probate court, whose docket is going to be somewhat larger, and the police whose responsibility will be somewhat broader and for the emergency rooms who are already over-crowded. I am not addressing this as directly as you might like, but it's because it is a complicated issue. Thank you. 0

~~REP. BARAM(15TH): Thank you very much. It is a complicated issue and I hope we can find a way to provide the protection, but yet get somebody help when needed. Thank you.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you. Further questions? Thank you so much. Scott Murphy. Mr. Murphy, nice to see you.~~

SCOTT MURPHY: Members of the committee, I am Scott Murphy. Until recently, for 20 years, I was the managing partner of Shipman and Goodwin, one of the largest Connecticut law firms, and I am here to testify in favor of SENATE BILL 428 THAT WOULD ALLOW CLIENT SECURITY FUND FEES TO BE USED TO SUPPORT LEGAL AID SERVICE INDIGENT. 0 002629 89 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING

As you know, there is a crisis in legal aid funding. The funding gap probably now is $2 million dollars or more a year which is going to cause additional lay-offs in organizations that are already stretched very, very think. Firms like Shipman and Goodwin has kept up. We have increased our direct financial support of those legal service organizations. We increased the number or pro bono volunteer hours that our lawyers are putting in and we have partners who serve in leadership capacities in those organizations, but it is not nearly enough.

In Connecticut, there are literally hundreds of thousands of individuals living at, below or near the poverty level. They have important life problems as we all do that need the help and intervention of the courts, often in situations c where that access can turn their life around or avoid a disastrous situation and it seems to me that the eminently reasonable solution to allow some of the fees are being paid in by those that can afford access to the courts to help those that can't afford that access to get the help they need and quite often avoid greater costs to the state in terms of solving problems that become greater because that access is denied.

I will just end with a personal anecdote. My daughter-in-law for eight years worked with at-risk children at Connecticut Legal Services, so I have some firsthand appreciation how hard legal aid lawyers work, the miracles they perform and the very modest pay frankly that they receive. The state really would get no better bang for its buck than c 002630 90 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 the passage of SENATE BILL 428. Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Mr. Murphy and thank you for your advocacy on these issues. Please give my regards to Alex Lloyd, your partner.~~

~~SCOTT MURPHY: I will.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): Also, I wanted to mention, to take the opportunity, received your letter and appreciate your advocacy on behalf of, I believe, the Center for Children's Advocacy and I did pass that along at my firm and hope that we can be helpful there. So, thank you for your work on that nonprofit as well.

~~SCOTT MURPHY: You're very welcome and thank you all. 0~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Any questions? Senator Coleman.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Attorney Murphy, I wonder whether or not if there would be any concern that taking money from the Client Security Fund would mean that those clients, who might be in need of that money might go wanting?

SCOTT MURPHY: My understanding of the way the bill would work is first it would only be new money coming in that would be available for this purpose and two, that there is an opportunity for a judgment to be made as to the adequacy of the funds for the original purpose before additional funds are made available for legal services organizations, so I think that concern is covered. It simply broadens 0 002631 91 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING the purpose, but there will be some discretion in judgment as to the allocation, I assume.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Thank you. I wanted folks to be clear about that. Thank you.~~

~~SCOTT MURPHY: Thank you.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Further questions? Thank you. Linda Lentini is next.~~

LINDA LENTINI: Good afternoon Senator Coleman and respective members of the judicial committee. My name is Linda Lentini and I am here to oppose H.B. No. 5531, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS OR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER. c I am a registered voter in Plainville, Connecticut, and I am a member of the Advocacy Unlimited Community.

In an article titled Involuntary Outpatient Commitment Myths and Facts by the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery states that there is no evidence that using court orders to mandate outpatient commitment is effective. It also states that there is ample evidence that intensive services provided on an involuntary basis can bring tremendous improvement in outcomes such as reduced hospitalizations, reduced arrests, longer tenure in stable housing and reduced symptoms.

As we re-visit this law again, we are still talking about the same basic human rights violations. This bill violates a person's right to choose and it is c 002632 92 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

only imposed on people who are already subjected to discrimination and marginalized by society. People like myself who have been fighting for the right to be treated the same by myself. People, like myself, who have been incarcerated or hospitalized and now are living a good life in the community.

As far as I know, we have under the Bill of Rights, the ten original amendments, the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Let's look at other impacts this bill would have on people besides the clear violation and explore how traumatizing force is on a person.

We currently have a higher number of individuals, some say 99% of people that are incarcerated or hospitalized that have been traumatized at some point in their life. Traumatic experiences happen 0 in everyone's life. People cope with life in different ways. If you don't believe me, just watch the news and let me know how traumatic just watching the news is to a person's overall mental health. How do you cope after hearing public testimony all day? What if somebody came along and told you how you had to cope and forced that option on you? I won't even go into the political arena right now. Trauma is defined as a deeply distressing and disturbing experience by Google.

Imagine how it would totally change how safe a person feels in society to have medication forced on them. How would you feel? How would you feel being forced to take medication you didn't believe helped you? Many people have clear beliefs in the 002633 93 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING medication that are being used especially in the mental health world.

The final point I would like to make is now many other less intrusive methods have we really explored in our state? How many people have been introduced after the traumatic experience to yoga, meditation and other mind/body healing techniques? There is clear evidence that calming our minds and bodies have a direct impact on our lives. Have we really explored all less intrusive and expensive methods? Just to recap, this is a direct violation of basic human rights and will traumatized people like myself who has already been marginalized and discriminated against and is not the less intrusive and expensive way.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Are there c questions for Ms. Lentini? I see none. We appreciate your testimony.~~

~~LINDA LENTINI: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Charles Bell is next and then Courtney Daly.~~

~~CHARLES BELL: Thank you Senator Coleman. Good afternoon members of the committee.~~

My name is Charles Bell. I am founder and executive director of a nonprofit organization called Fitting the Description. On August 22, 2014, while walking down the street in Beverly Hills, I was wrongfully detained and placed on the curb in handcuffs for 45 minutes. 0 002634 94 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 I was then transported to a police station, where I was held for six hours and finally questioned and released as being innocent because I was being held for fitting the description of a tall, bald, black male that had just been involved in a bank robbery. They determined from reviewing the video cameras six hours later that I was not that person, but at that point, I had been fingerprinted, photographed and had an arrest record.

~~They let me go that evening with a certificate of detention and told me specifically that I was only detained and not arrested.~~

Unfortunately a week later, I was notified that I had an arrest record out on the LA Sheriff Department's website that indicated that I had been held on $100,000 bail and I was being held for a felony for armed bank robbery and accessory to armed 0 bank robbery. As a result of that, I found out that a lot of folks don't know that when you are arrested, even though you are let go and told you are innocent, you never go to court and you never face any other charges other than that evening of being detained, you still have an arrest record.

The effect of having that arrest record is if you don't go through the process of getting it erased or expunged, it makes it difficult for you to get a loan from a house or it makes it difficult for you to get an apartment. It makes it difficult for you to get a job. If you want to sit for the bar, it makes it difficult through that whole process.

So, as a result of finding out how it affected myself, I started a nationwide effort called 0 002635 95 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING #AutoErase Initiative, which requires the arrest records of folks wrongfully arrested from mistaken identity or identity theft, for those records to be immediately and automatically erased.

Connecticut has been far ahead of the game as I looked through statutes of all 50 states, far ahead of the game of what they had on file. The current updates that are proposed in SENATE BILL 454 now updates it to match what North Carolina and Illinois recently signed into law as part of their #AutoErase Initiative and is currently being considered by ten other states as well. So, I would strongly encourage that this committee considers passage of 454 for the reasons that I had just mentioned.

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Any questions c for Mr. Bell. Representative O'Dea. REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you sir for your testimony. Talk about making lemonade out of lemons. I applaud you for what you have done for others in this bill and I will make sure I keep an eye on this. What happened to you should not have happened and I look forward with working with the chairman in trying to shuffle this through. Thank you.

CHARLES BELL: Thank you very much and if I can just comment on that. I like what you said. One of the phrases I have taken as I speak to youth and to law enforcement is that when life throws you lemons, in my case, I realized I still have my life because a lot of folks in that situation didn't, so I felt that, as John F. Kennedy once said, that one person can make a difference and everyone should try and c 002636 96 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 that has been the crusade that I have been on with regards to this particular message.

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): God bless, thank you.~~

~~CHARLES BELL: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (S02): Representative Rebimbas.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and good afternoon. I actually just want to associate my colleague's comments. As I read the legislation, I would've thought it was common sense. An officer for one reason or another made a mistake in the arrest, the fact that it even exists and is not something administratively that has taken place is just shocking, so thank you for sharing your story and obviously for the efforts you are doing. I look forward to seeing this legislation have an impact. 0

~~CHARLES BELL: Thank you very much.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Any others with comments? Representative Baram.~~

REP. BARAM (15TH): I too want to echo the words of my colleagues. While they were talking, I was just reading some of the testimony that was submitted and interestingly, I find that the Judicial Branch seems to have concerns about the bill because there is no period of time in which to take an appeal or otherwise to verify that the initial arrest was incorrect, but I think you are talking about a good example of where this seemed to follow you even after a reasonable period of time, so it is clearly something we need to address. 0 002637 97 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING

CHARLES BELL: The interesting thing is that I also read that letter from the Judicial Branch and two things that stood out to me are that yes indeed for my particular situation, they actually told me that night that I was innocent that they had proof, so it was a done deal in my situation, but yeah, I still ended up with an arrest record. The other interesting thing about that letter is that they identify if they had to send out letters to let folks know when a record had been erased, they would have to send out tens of thousands of letter. Step back and think about that for a second, that means that tens of thousands of people in this state each year are for some reason, for whatever reason are being released or are being said you are not guilty, you are okay. A certain percentage of that, I have to imagine was because of mistaken identity or c identity theft, so I found that really interesting from that position.

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Other members with questions or comments? From my standpoint, I just want to, I know you are traveling, so I want to thank you for making Connecticut one of your stops and we would appreciate your ongoing input into this bill. I presume you have a copy of it and whatever thoughts come to mind even subsequent to today that you might want to share with the committee, would certainly be welcome.

~~CHARLES BELL: Absolutely, thank you Senator.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thanks again for being here. Best wishes on your mission. c 002638 98 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 CHARLES BELL: Thank you. Thank you all for having me.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Courtney Daly is next.~~

~~COURTNEY DALY: Good afternoon.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Good afternoon.~~

~~COURTNEY DALY: Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and respective members of the committee.~~

~~My name is Courtney Daly and I am a resident of Portland, Connecticut. I am involved with Advocacy Unlimited, Inc, where I participate in workshops offered by Toivo.~~

I recently became an operator for Young Adult Online. Advocacy Unlimited is a statewide peer 0 online organization that is driven by people who have successfully navigated the service system and achieved their self-defined recovery.

I am here today to testify in opposition to HB-5531. I am testifying against this bill because I am a human being. I am a human being in recovery and I deserve to have a say in my recovery and in my treatment.

The times I was hospitalized against my will with the first time being at age 12, I was stripped of everything literally. I was stripped of my freedom, my clothes, my emotions, my outside support and any chance of hope and an ending of a childhood.

0 002639 99 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING My experience with discharging has been that I have been discharged worse than any time that I had arrived. Now over the years being identified such as bipolar personality disorder, anxiety, suicidal, decompensating, there should have been someone there to sit with me and listen. I should have been met by someone who truly understands what it is like to make it through extreme emotional difficulties. Thankfully, I didn't give up and I was finally afforded the opportunity, a few times actually, to enter treatment on my own. In these cases, I experienced the positive outcomes of recovery. This came from a 100% commitment to being part of my treatment. These are the times when I had long-term success and as I finally saw myself capable of committing to the work that it takes to define myself as a daughter, a sister, a friend, an c employee, a hard worker and a volunteer. I believe that individuals are capable of making informed consent and in which those individuals are people like me, we would lose our right and personal freedom to choose our treatment and then the trusting relationships with the providers in the greater community would be compromised.

We must maintain the ability for people to ask for help without fear of coercion of any kind. HB-5531 states that a conservator can be sought without authority to force compliance in the case that no less intrusive beneficial treatment is available.

Any time I was ever discharged from a hospital or mental health facility, it was always very brief and I was never provided with the opportunity to develop a thoughtful and deliberate plan. It was like I was c 002640 100 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~being kicked out and I always left more medicated and more traumatized and more hopeless. Looking at how far I have come, choice is absolutely vital.~~

Willingness and the ability to advocate for myself was what saved my life and with the help and support of my peers, I have created a healthy lifestyle which does include medication, therapy, yoga, exercise, music groups and journaling.

In conclusion given my trauma and treatment history, the role of choice in my life is the freedom I hold very dear. I live well today and that is because I have been exposed to many other options outside of medication and therapy. HB-3351 or 5331, sorry, 5531 sorry about that again, would take anyway any remaining freedom meant for people who may find themselves in a situation that may benefit from treatment or any other clinical services. Thank you 0 for your time.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): You are very welcome. Thank you. We are aware of what bill you are talking about. Representative O'Dea.~~

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Mr. Chair. Briefly, if you don't mind me asking, how did you get to those choices? In other words, were they brought to you or did you seek them out?~~

COURTNEY DALY: I believe both. Introduced through peers. Actually, Advocacy Unlimited, I was introduced to them five or six years ago and seeking out a healthy lifestyle for myself, I explored more options. I wanted more for myself besides medications, besides therapy, besides getting my 0 002641 101 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING treatment in an institution and I have the benefits that come from the other sources that sometimes insurances didn't pay for or the options. There are other options that we can explore. It is more available now, but ...

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chairman.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Others with questions or comments? If not, thank you Ms. Daly.~~

~~COURTNEY DALY: Thank you .~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Jamie Perez.~~

JAMIE PEREZ: Good afternoon, my name is Jamie Perez, and I am a resident of Hartford, Connecticut. c I am actively involved with Advocacy Unlimited as an operator for the statewide young adult online which is a peer run initiative for young people to connect with resources and find motivation to move forward and inspiration through speaking with other young people who have been there.

I am here to testify in opposition to HB-5531. The reason I am testifying is because there have been times that I had been hospitalized at different hospitals in Hartford. I found that they would not discharge me if I did not or refused to take my medication. I was restrained while being in the hospital and it is not a good feeling at all, especially because I experienced symptoms of a mental health challenge. People who experience mental health challenges should not be forcibly c ....._ ""-'--·- ______II· 002642 102 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~restrained given that they already have experienced trauma.~~

I don't think that you understand what it actually feels like to be forcibly medicated. They hold you down and stick a really big needle in your behind. It is not only scary to have a bunch of people restricting your movement, but it also hurts a lot.

In my case, I tried to speak out for someone who was being restrained for speaking in Spanish. The people working at the IOL did not understand the language he was speaking and because of his language barrier, they just assumed that he was speaking nonsense. Instead of finding a way to connect, they just threw him down on the ground and six guys held him down while he screamed. Of course, I got upset as he did not deserve that. That is not the way to treat someone going through a crisis. 0

When it comes to medication, doctors change pills and think they will just name any medication for you to take even if you state it has not worked in the past. For example, they forced me to take Risperdal even though I told them it did not work. They don't care.

People with mental health challenges are not treated equal in the community. We have to struggle to even get our own apartments. Discharge is a hassle too. They drug us up with pills and then try to make us sign all types of papers. Some people are not aware of what they are signing because they are so drugged up with meds.

0 l 002643 103 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING I believe that we need to keep our right to decide if we want to be on medication and this should not be forced on a person. I also think that if a person refuses to take medication at home, then they are refusing for a reason and maybe you should be asking why people don't want medication and why people feel like the treatment offered is totally inhuman.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Thank you. Are there questions? I see none. Thank you Jamie.~~

~~JAMIE PEREZ: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Peter Adorno. Good afternoon sir.~~

PETER ADORNO: Good afternoon. I want to first c start by saying God bless America. My name is Peter Adorno and I live in Waterbury, Connecticut, and I am here to support the SB-428 AN ACT CONCERNING FUNDING OF LEGAL SERVICES.

A couple of years ago, I applied for public housing in Waterbury. At this time, I was living in a private apartment. Unfortunately at that time, I was recovering from an operation for cancer of my left leg and I was going through a separation with my wife. This housing was very expensive and I was on a fixed income, so I wanted to move into public housing because it was much more affordable for me. When I finally moved on the waiting list, the management company did a background check and the management company told me that according to the report, I was convicted in 1999 for committing a c 002644 104 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 felony in Rhode Island for stealing goods. This was not true.

I was afraid because I was going to be denied admission to this housing, so I contacted Connecticut Legal Services in Waterbury. One of the attorneys, Mr. Brody, helped me and he contacted the Office of the Attorney General in Rhode Island, the Bureau of Criminal Identification. I provided them with copies of my driver's license and my social Security card. After the Office of the Attorney General researched it and confirmed that I had no criminal record and they sent me a notarized letter that stated I had no criminal record in Rhode Island.

After getting this letter, I was able to move into my new affordable elderly housing apartment, praise the Lordl Without Connecticut Legal Services' help, 0 I might not have been accepted. Also the waiting list for the elderly housing can be too long. When I was finally accepted, I was in the middle of my one-year lease and I was afraid if I moved into my new apartment, the old landlord might sue me for breaking my lease. My attorney at Connecticut Legal Services told me that there is a special law that protects the elderly, like myself, who are accepted into elderly socialized housing that if I give the landlord 30 days written notice before I move, I am allowed to terminate my lease before it ends. I notified my landlord that I would be moving into elderly housing. Knowing about this law was a big help in assistance and relieved me a lot of my anxieties at that time. Therefore, please support SB-428. 0 002645 105 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Elderly people like myself need lawyers that can help them when they have legal problems. I thank you so very much for your help.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : And thank you sir for your testimony? Any questions for Mr. Adorno? Representative Rebimbas.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Not so much a question, just a thank you for obviously making the travel up to Waterbury. I know it is not easy especially with all of the traffic and construction. It is the same roads that I travel coming from Naugatuck, so I know. Thank you for taking the time to be here and sharing your story.

~~PETER ADORNO: Thank you for your time and I hope c that you will support this bill. SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Any other members with a question or comment? If not, thank you very much Mr. Adorno.~~

~~PETER ADORNO: God bless you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Alexandra Ferguson. I am not seeing any response from Ms. Ferguson.~~

~~Wilnelira Bianci (cannot read name legibly on speaker sheet) .~~

~~WILNELIRA BIANCI: Good afternoon.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Good afternoon. c 002646 106 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 WILNELIRA BIANCI: My name is Wilnelira Bianci (sp) and I live in Hartford. I am raising my children by myself. I work part-time at night doing maintenance.

~~I am testifying support in SENATE BILL 428; AN ACT CONCERNING FUNDING OF LEGAL AID SERVICES FOR THE POOR.~~

I came for help for legal aid because my son has a serious learning disability and was struggling at school. He was frustrated by not being able to learn in his class. He hated to go to school. He would bang his head until he gave himself concussions and head injuries. He would cry outside of the building, anything to avoid going into his classroom. He has a disability (indiscernible 2:54:55.6) legal aid because they know the law. The school does not play around when a lawyer comes to a PTT meeting. 0

My GHLA attorney did help me by investigating my son's program and then getting him the service that he needed. The attorney discovered that my son was not given proper speech and language services for months and he was making no progress in reading and math. She helped me convince the school to send him to a more appropriate program where he is now happy and is actually learning.

We had to fight more than a few years to get this help. If I didn't have a legal aid lawyer, my son would still be struggling emotionally and physically, banging his head and still not learning. Please support legal aid funding because people like me need someone knowledgeable to fight for us. 0 002647 107 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Any questions for the lady? None. We appreciate the information you provided us with.

~~WILNELIRA BIANCI: Thank you and have a nice day.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): You too. James T. Shearin.~~

~~JAMES SHEARIN: Good afternoon Senator Coleman and members of the committee. I am here as President of the Connecticut Bar Foundation and speaking in support of bills 426 and 428.~~

426 is the Civil Gideon legislation that you heard Mr. Clendenen talk eloquently about. I have submitted written testimony and I will expand on that as appropriate. c With respect to 428, if I can address some question the committee had asked the previous speaking, particularly Representative Rembimbas. The 428 has two components to the bill. The first is to increase the fees under the CFGA program which is the Court Fees, Grants and Aid Program. That program was started in 2009. The fees were last raised in 2012. The proposed increases are less than 1% a year since 2012. The reason that program was started was because our IOLTA funding, which is the Interest On Lawyers Trust Accounts took a nosedive. The interest rates the banks pay us right now on IOLTA accounts is less than 20 basis points which means that we are averaging receipts of about $1,950,000 a year, whereas in 2007, we were over $20,000,000 a year. c 002648 108 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 So the CFGA funding that came into existence in 2009 was a way to stem that collapse. In 2012 with the fee increases, we expected that the receipts would get us somewhere in the $13,000,000 to $14,000,000 range. Again, partly because of the economy and the consequential decrease in court filings, those receipts last year amounted to $11.2 million dollars and this year, we expect them to go under $11,000,000.

The result is in 2014 as opposed to 2007, we are down by 30% in our funding. We are down by 20% in the available legal staff to address the legal needs of the poverty population. Without any mechanism to address the $2,000,000 deficit that we anticipate this year, we will be down 35% in the available legal staff to address the critical needs of the poverty population. The fee increases are self explanatory, the Client Security Fund. 0

The question you asked Senator Coleman, the fund right now stands at about $17,000,000. The claims against that fund are at about $12,000,000, so there appears to be sufficient reserves right now, but as the previous speaker noted and as I believe you understand, the branch would consider any portion of the receipts each year to be given to legal service agencies only after it has made a determination that there are adequate reserves to address lawyer defalcations.

I want to close and address a comment that Representative Gonzalez noted and I thought it was very astute. If we deprive a segment of our society equal access to the law because they cannot afford our system of justice, then the shield the law 0 002649 109 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING affords them as citizens will fall to the sword of those that can afford the system. The divide between the 'haves and the have not's will grow even wider and perhaps irreparably. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there questions? Representative Stafstrom.~~

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Attorney Shearin for being here. You practice frequently in the Connecticut courts, do you not, and as well as courts of other jurisdictions, do you have an understanding of how our court fee compare with those of other jurisdictions?

~~JAMES SHEARIN: The fees that we are charging c litigants in Connecticut are relatively less than in other states? We are running on the low side.~~

~~REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We are on the low side. So if we were to enact these fee increases, would it bring us in line with other jurisdictions or would we still be lower?~~

~~JAMES SHEARIN: We are still on the low side and notably these increases are potentially $5 to $10 a piece.~~

~~REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Other members have question? Representative Baram.~~

0 002650 110 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 REP. BARAM (15TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. While I do support the bill and I agree with your concluding comments, I do have a concern that at some point, our entry fees will be at a certain level that would deter people from perusing the justice that they are striving for. I know that I come across clients all the time. When you get to the point of explaining what the entry fee is, they look at you. I have even had cases where in a domestic dispute where the two sides sort of wait to see who is going to file first because they have to pay the fee. I just worry that at some point these fees will be increased to such a level that the justice that you are talking about will become difficult to achieve because of the filing fees and it will deter a lot of people, but I do feel we have an obligation and we need to make sure that legal services are properly funded. 0 JAMES SHEARIN: I appreciate that sir and you are right, it is a difficult balance act. All we need is a relatively modest increase in the interest rates and part of this problem would go away.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Any other members with questions or comments? No. Thank you.~~

~~JAMES SHEARIN: Thank you sir.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Suzi Craig.~~

~~SUZI CRAIG: Senator Coleman, committee members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.~~

0 l 002651 111 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING My name is Suzi Craig and I work for Mental Health Connecticut. We are an advocacy organization. We provide education and also service to about 4000 residents in Connecticut. Interestingly enough, our organization began by and named by Clifford Biers over 100 years ago, who was forced into treatment and was institutionalized. Once he left the system and actually treated himself, he vowed to reform the system, so we go pretty deep.

~~What I am speaking on today is our opposition to HB- 5531 which advocates for a practice generally known as involuntary outpatient commitment.~~

It is a bill such as this that violates the privacy of individuals. It creates roadblocks to effective care, spends dollars we don't have at the state and local level, and is just funding that could be c applied towards prevention and other programs that we know actually achieve positive results. It significant impacts the poor minorities and has the potential to cause the opposite of its intentions. Basically, it is intended to cause good, but really results in more harm than good.

Essentially, we live in a time where mental health continues to be misunderstood and treated with different rules than physical health. Forcing treatment onto a patient with diabetes or cancer is unfathomonable and it should be for someone with mental health conditions.

I will stop right there because you have my written testimony. You have heard from others. You have heard from the commissioner of DMS who gave fantastic testimony. You have heard from several c 002652 112 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 people who have lived with and personal experiences. You heard from the legal side. I would say that the thread running through all of us to quote one of .the testifiers was choice has made all the difference. It is really that we are focused on. Ensuring that we put our dollars and our time into our practices, our practices, programs and support that are really designed to encourage and help those that need it the most and not enforcement, which we know does not work. I will stop right here if you have any questions.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there any questions? There will be no questions. We appreciate your coming.~~

~~SUZI CRAIG: Thank you for your time.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Kim Smith is next. 0~~

~~KIM SMITH: Good afternoon and thank you very much senator Coleman and all other distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee.~~

To come before you to support BILL 428 for the continued and increased funding for Connecticut Legal Services and the vital role that they play in ensuring at-risk youth maintain their access to free and appropriate public education.

My name is Kimberly Smith and I am a retired juvenile probation officer with 20 years of state service helping and interviewing some of our most vulnerable court-involved youth. I have worked with hundreds of youth during my career and I have worked 0 002653 113 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING closely with Connecticut Legal Service attorneys on many cases during my time as a probation officer.

I would like to share my favorite success story regarding Connecticut Legal Services, but please understand that due to the confidential nature of juvenile court, there will be no names used. I worked with a ninth grader, who was referred to the court for truancy. After reviewing her case and interviewing her and her mother, we discovered she would regularly get up for school and get ready, but never make it pass the hallway of her apartment building where she was often found in tears.

The family shared that over the Thanksgiving holiday, the student's mother had been transported by ambulance to the hospital thus leaving her c teenage girls home alone to care for themselves for three days unaware of their mother's status. It was this traumatic event of not knowing if her mother was alive or not that appeared to trigger her school avoidance and the stress that she was experiencing leaving her mother every morning.

Although Connecticut Legal Services attorneys provided education and advocacy training to probation officer, I lacked the legal expertise to compel the school to conduct a special education evaluation required by state and federal law. I referred the family to Connecticut Legal Services, and their attorney worked with the family and school to hold a successful planning and placement team meeting and commenced the necessary evaluations. c le 002654 114 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 These evaluations indicated that the child required special education instruction within a smaller classroom setting to assist in supporting her emotionally while at the same time allowing her access to her academic instruction. When she was finally placed in this setting within her school, she thrived and sparkled, something that was missing for quite some time due to the overwhelming nature of a traditional school environment. She joined the track team that spring, graduated high school on time four years later, and began community college that fall.

Education is about more than academic instruction. It is about engaging children in developing skills and competency to help them successfully transition to adulthood. Without the support and representation of family by Connecticut Legal Services, this success story would likely have 0 not had happened and the reality would have been she would have dropped out at age 17 and had been catapulted into an adult world far too soon than she was prepared to handle. I would love to share some more success stories, but I appreciate your time.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Are there questions for Ms. Smith? Apparently no questions. Oh we do have a question. Representative O'Dea.~~

~~REP. O'DEA (!25TH): Thank you Chairman. Just briefly. You said you were retired. Is there any chance you want to go back and help further?~~

KIM SMITH: I love the work I do, or I did. I am very passionate about the work that I did. I just at this point in time I feel as though there are 0 002655 115 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING more proactive ways to support my community and I have began volunteering in my own community to kind of help those at-risk youth. I want more of a grassroots kind of level with the experience and training that I have been so graciously provided by the Court Support Services Division during my tenure as a probation officer.

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well thank you very much for your service. Thank you Mr. Chairman.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Any other members with questions or comments? I guess not. Thank you Ms. Smith.~~

~~KIM SMITH: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Is Jenny (3:10:21.1) in the c room? Okay. Daisy Pinto. Ms. Pinto, will you spell your first name for me to make sure I have it correct?~~

~~DAISY PINTO: Daisy.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Is it D-A-I-S-Y.~~

~~DAISY PINTO: S-Y, but it could be the wrong spelling.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : You may proceed. You may proceed.~~

DAISY PINTO: Good afternoon ladies and gentleman of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Daisy Pinto and I am the former for Connecticut Legal Services. I came to this hearing today to give you my testimony c 002656 116 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~in support of H.B. 424, AN ACT CONCERNING FUNDING FOR LEGAL AID TO THE POOR.~~

I want to tell you about the help that I received from Connecticut Legal Services. In 2011, Connecticut Legal Services, Inc, had continued to help me, my family to try our lifelong dream to experience our new life in the United States. Unfortunately, I was in an abusive relationship with my husband at that time. Connecticut Legal Services helped me to begin the process to become a legal resident of the United States. It was not an easy process. First Connecticut Legal Services told me to fill out an I-360 form which is a petition for special immigrant status from the us Citizenship and Immigration Service. Next, they helped me to file a self-petition form of Abusive US Citizen (inaudible) Permanent Residence. 0 When all of the paperwork was approved, Connecticut Legal Services helped me file the I-485, the Application for Permanent Residence for Abusive Status. If this wasn't enough, the agency finally helped me to get my divorce. When I had to temporarily move to Waterbury because of flooding in my Watertown apartment, Connecticut Legal Services counseled me regarding the law which let me keep my son (inaudible name) and his going to school. It was going to be a temporary move for us to Waterbury and I knew that (inaudible name) needed to have a consistent school experience. In addition to this, I felt that (inaudible name) needed to focus on his school work. Connecticut Legal Services helped us to become residents and both of us have a huge opportunity to have a better life.

0 002657 117 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING In addition to this, Connecticut Legal Services intervened for me to Connecticut Valley Community College and assisted the need for financial aid. Connecticut Legal Services explained my situation to the college, so they would understand my issues. Because I had been an abused person, the law protected me and the college believed that I did not qualify for financial aid because of that law. At the college, I first sought an English class and then a business class. With my newly acquired skills, I was able to apply for more jobs. I found my job interviews were more suitable and I became more valuable in the job market. I am now working part-time for the city of Waterbury and hoping to get hired full-time soon. (inaudible name) attends Sacred Heart High School on a scholarship.

Ladies and gentleman, I lost my strength, self c esteem and the ability to make my own decisions. If it wasn't for Connecticut Legal Services, my son and I could be homeless in a dire situation. For this reason, it is extremely important for you to increase the funds for this agency so the Connecticut Legal Services, Inc, could continue to support people like me .. That organization took me from a place of darkness to a world of light. Are there any questions?

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there questions? You did a great job. There do not appear to be any questions.~~

~~DAISY PINTO: Thank you. Thank you for your time this afternoon.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Nancy Schiavone is next. 0 002658 118 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0~~

~~NANCY SCHIAVONE: Thank you Senator Coleman and Representative Tong and the members of the Judiciary. I am speaking about BILL NUMBER 5531, involuntary outpatient commitment.~~

~~My name is Nancy Schiavone from Meriden, Connecticut.~~

I am definitely against roc putting misbehaved mentally challenged individuals in state-owned hospital because they stopped taking their medication or get arrested. I think they need more support from case management or a therapist or a psychiatrist that know their character and personalities than committing them to a state hospital. I think this action is very wrong. People with severe mental challenges can recover with the help of groups, 0 individual therapy and psychiatry. There is no need to commit them to a lifetime on a locked unit. Those days are over. Maybe shock therapy is an alternative. Compassion goes a long way and I am the voice of other consumers with severe mental challenges. Please help us recover.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Are there questions for the lady? I see none. we appreciate your testimony, thank you.~~

~~NANCY SCHIAVONE: You're welcome.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Daniel Olguin.~~

~~DANIEL OLGUIN: Can everybody hear me?~~

~~0 02659 119 March 18, 2016° dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : We hear you.~~

~~DANIEL OLGUIN: I am here to protest HB-5531. Dear Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, and representatives of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Daniel Olguin and I am West Hartford Connecticut.~~

My initial experiences with medications made my situation worse. The first drug I was put on made my depression and thoughts of suicide stronger. The second drug I was put on worked very well. My doctor ignored this because he believed that it was not at the therapeutic dose and he increased the drug. That made my depression and suicidal thoughts full blown and ever present.

Then the doctor decided it would be best if I went off cold turkey even though I was struggling more c than ever. The month of ~ithdrawal that followed was the worst month of my life. I had hallucinations that there were people in my house trying to kill me, vivid disturbing dreams, constant feeling of bugs crawling on my skin and feelings that the floor was shifting and that the walls were closing in around me. I went into the hospital because I was suicidal and almost every medication decision a doctor made pushed me even closer to suicide.

I ended up at Barlborough Treatment in Vermont and the doctors there adjusted my meds based on what I said I needed instead of what I was supposed to need. The combination of their open ears and creative drug application saved my life, but open ears and creative drug applications are not always c 002660 120 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 expected of psychiatrists and it causes a lot of problems.

The issue I have with forced medication is that it would make a part of the system that is already a problem worse. If I couldn't get a doctor to listen to me when it was voluntary, how can you believe giving them more power to forcibly medicate is going to make them listen. What about people with mental health problems who could use treatment but refuse? Maybe instead of asking how we can get these people to take their meds, we should ask why they don't.

It is important to understand that even though medications might dampen symptoms, the side effects can make overall mental health worse. As you are aware, it is difficult living with mental health problems, but I can assure you, it can be even worse trying to live with the side effects of medication. 0

I don't think many people would refuse treatment if treatment meant more than a trade-off and actually meant improvement. Medications can be a part of treatment, but there has to be a real and respectful doctor-patient relationship as well as other less invasive, but also effective treatments.

Having constituents or people in your life who refuse treatment might make you feel helpless, but medication often goes wrong even voluntary and focusing on only suppressing the symptoms and not greater mental health leads to failure and relapse.

Two years ago, I testified before the task force who studied the Provision of Behavior Health Services for Young Adults. I made suggestions for alternate 0 002661 121 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING treatments and my peers also made suggestions, but it was made clear that the only suggestions that matter are those of psychiatrists and that is really frustrating.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Any questions? Senator Kissel.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): I just want to thank you for sharing your personal story. I know first of all when I testify before another committee, I get nervous and I've been in this building for a quarter of a century almost. For regular folks, they are tremendously courageous. But for you and telling your story, that takes an awful lot of guts, so I am glad that whatever happened in your life turned around those feelings that you had because clearly you have a very important purpose and a reason for c being here and I just want to thank you and we are listening. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

~~DANIEL OLGUIN: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you Senator. Any others? Representative O'Dea.~~

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and I want to echo those comments of Senator Kissel. My wife is a psychiatric social worker in West Chester Residential Organization and I have heard stories of her trying to help young men dealing with medications and difficulties finding the right dosage and what not. One problem she would relate to me is that sometimes the medications would help in certain aspects of mental health, but then the person would think that they were okay and did not c 002662 122 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 need them anymore and then go off of them and then the problems would come back, so it is a tough cycle.

~~DANIEL OLGUIN: Yeah.~~

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Explain to us how you measure your personal rights and desires with the doctor. How do you weigh those with what the doctor believes is best and when some people go off the medications when they shouldn't? How would you articulate the best way to measure that and decide that?

DANIEL OLGUIN: Unfortunately you can make someone take the medication for 120 days like the bill says, but if they are not ready to get better, it is not going to happen. They are going to just drop again. In the end, it really has to come from the person. They have to be ready to be better or improve or 0 even like, you know, sometimes they are just not willing to take that treatment again, you know. So maybe there could be like other treatments that are, you know, available that other people might be willing to take instead of the medication or even just a little bit of medication and the rest treatment. I mean, actually, I would suggest alternate treatments because I do think that, you know, like in my personal experience like I was on a lot of medication after I first came out of the hospital. I found that when I had peer support in my life, I did not need as much medication and it helped a lot. Part of having a mental health problem is living in a world being someone with a mental health problem. Medication can't fix that, but medication is often used to cover up the problems created by that. I think that like people 0 002663 123 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING might be more willing to take medication if it was also a part of treatment instead of just treatment.

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much for your testimony.~~

~~DANIEL OLGUIN: Thank you.~~

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Any others with questions or comments? None. Thank you Daniel.~~

~~DANIEL OLGUIN: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Ben Solnit.~~

BEN SOLNIT: Good afternoon Senator Coleman, c Representative Tong, members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Ben Solnit. I am President of the Board of New Haven Legal Assistance Association and with me today is LAA's Executive Director, Susan Garcia Nofi, and the Executive Directors of Greater Hartford Legal Assistance, Jamey Bell and CLS, Connecticut Legal Services, Steven Eppler-Epstein.

I am here to testify in support of SENATE BILL 428. I want to thank you for all you have done in the past to help fund legal services and I want to urge you to support this bill. As you have heard from the other much more eloquent witnesses today including Tim Shearin from the lawyer's side and from our wonderful clients, we desperately need more resources. c 002664 124 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 We are down about 20% in staffing since the crisis hit in 2008. The legislature has constantly been supportive of GHIA and the other programs, but it hasn't been enough. As Mr. Shearin pointed out, the proposed hikes in filing fees are relatively modest and leave us still to address, I know Representative Baram is not here anymore to address his concern about not pricing ourselves out of a court system that works for everybody and also we do support the part of the bill that would give the judicial branch the ability and its discretion of when there is enough reserves to draw in the Client Security Fund to fund legal services.

We are working hard to raise money from other venues. We do a lot with the private bar. They are very supportive. You heard from Mr. Murphy, just one shining example of that. We are constantly putting in applications to foundations, but it is 0 not enough, so we need your help again. But in addition to you know being a very vital resource to low income people in Connecticut, we could only serve a fraction of those who could use our services, it is actually a good deal of the state to provide more legal services.

Whenever we help a victim of domestic violence, whenever we help someone stay in their house, we actually save the state money. When we reduce the need for other safety net services by keeping them in their house or if we help them get services that let them keep their job, same deal. It saves the state money in the long run.

We bring federal dollars in whenever we help a client obtain federal disability payments, so it is 002665 125 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.

For all of those reasons, we strongly support SENTAE BILL 426, I mean I'm sorry, SENATE BILL 428. We also support to follow on Attorney Clendenen's testimony and Tim Shearin's testimony, of Civil Gideon task force because like I said, we can only represent a small fraction of lower income people who have legal issues that could be more efficiency and more effectively addressed if there were more legal services, so we also support SENATE BILL 426, and I would be glad to answer any questions you might have.

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there questions? Representative Gonzalez. c REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you for coming and testifying on behalf of.428. I got a question. How does people that they don't speak the language and yes they know there are services and legal aid, but how do you end up with so many poor people that they hardly speak the language, they come here to testify. I receive phone calls from people that are telling me that they were not provided with the testimony. I agree that we need something because I support this bill and I think that I always supported this legal aid funding, always do, but what I hate is to see people that hardly speak the language and they are provided with testimony to come here and testify. I would prefer not to have to hear about people that hardly speak the language. They are nervous. I don't think that they feel comfortable, but I would like to know if they are kind of forced to do this. c ______.. ______.______,... __ ~ 002666 126 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

BEN SOLNIT: Not at all. They are not forced. We ask them if they would be willing and the only people you will see here are people who are so passionate about the help that they received from the legal aid lawyers that they want to take that journey as one of the other representatives talked about just physically getting here. You saw a gentleman here who had trouble walking and yes, people do have language barriers, but because they feel so strongly that they have been helped, they want you to understand. I mean Mr. Shearin and Mr. Clendenen and I were lawyers and I ge~ nervous too testifying here, but you know that is what I do. But for a client to come here, it is entirely of their own accord. I would turn that around to you and say what courage, what passion, what demonstration of need that someone who struggles with the language and sometimes has difficulty in 0 getting here physically, still want to come. They want to come. We don't force them. We ask them. We help prepare them because the system is intimidating, very intimidating. I respectfully, but emphatically reject the premise of your question.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Well I think that everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I see this year after year after year and people call me and they said that they gave me testimony and I'm nervous. I know that everybody gets nervous, I know that, but I think I would prepare people to come here and testify that really they are not struggling with language barriers. If they want to come on their own, like I see people here that they just have a little piece of paper and they are writing on their 0 002667 127 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING own, I think that's fine, but people who are provided a testimony for them to do this and they are really nervous and sometimes they don't want to do it, but because the help is there. Again, I am not against that bill. I am against people that are struggling, they feel nervous and sometimes they don't want to do it, but because they are getting that kind of service, they are here. That's my point.

BEN SOLNIT: All I can see, and I don't mean to argue with you, all I can say is I also in addition to being President of the Board of New Haven Legal Assistance, I volunteer part-time at CLS and a lot of our clients have trouble with English and we have to employ, we are lucky to have bilingual paraprofessional sometimes when sometimes we have this language line, but it is a big problem. But we c would never force any of them to come here, and yet we would absolutely make them as comfortable as possible by helping them prepare their testimony. I had this typed for me and I am a lawyer and English is my first language. I still ....

~~REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): I respect your opinion and I think you respect mine.~~

~~BEN SOLNIT: We can agree to disagree about it. Thank you.~~

~~REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Thank you.~~

~~BEN SOLNIT: Any other questions?~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Senator Kissel. c 002668 128 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : Thank you very much Chairman Coleman. I have been thinking about this as folks from legal aid and the foundation and Senator Looney have come up to speak about this Civil Gideon Bill and I know it is just a study, but I also serve on the Appropriations Committee, Judicial and Corrections Sub-Committee and I don't know if anything will happen this year when we finish up, but something is going to happen next year because the issue can only be postponed so long, so already the Judicial Branch is working out a plan for court closures and lay-offs. The governor proposed, whether it happens or not, but the governor proposed cuts in the neighborhood of $60 million. I was just across the hallway in Room 2C, Susan Storey, the chief public defender, was talking about how her agency was getting 80 new applications every month for habeas matters and it is just crippling her budget. The state's attorney's office is going to 0 have to make do with less and so, you just testified that you have had a 20% reduction in personnel and so we are facing a reality where yes, I understand people's aspirations. I don't see in the near term and when I say near term, I am saying 2 to 3 years, any stop to this and it is going to ramp up extraordinarily. The reality is here. The handwriting is on the wall and so I don't understand the purpose of putting together some task force to create expectations when we can't meet the obligations now that we have set out for ourselves. You're here before us on one bill saying increase fees and I agree with that and I have spoken to the leadership of legal aid and their advocates early on and I said I am okay with this, but then to have this other thing and have you folks come and say by the way, we would like this too where everywhere I 0 002669 129 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING look in the judicial process system is bleeding and it is only going to get worse. I don't understand the purpose of going down that path unless we can create some structure where all the lawyers work for free, we don't have the money to do the job that is before us now, so why do you advocate on behalf of this Civil Gideon task force when at the end of the day, if it would cost $1, we can't afford it?

BEN SOLNIT: I guess my best answer to that would be, we are preparing for the worst, but we still have to hope for the best and a task force does not commit funding for anything, but it is a big problem in this country. Even lower middle class people really don't have access to lawyers. As a proxy lawyers, those of us who were proxy lawyers know that you don't have a lawyer with you, it doesn't matter if you are poor or middle class, you are at a c huge, huge disadvantage and it is not a system of equal access to justice under the law. I wish I had a silver bullet or magic solution that all the great minds in the state hadn't thought of tell you about, but I don't, I don't.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : Well I appreciate your optimism, but it seems to be to be a disconnect that on the one hand, you are crying poverty and you need us to raise funds so that you could be bolstered because your funding stream is being rapidly diminished and at the same time setting a course for something and there is no targeting of dollars there. I just think at some point and again I am sorry you're the guy that happens to be the one for this little vent and then I'll shut up because I'm through. c 002670 130 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 BEN SOLNIT: No that's fine.

~~SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): No I'm sure the co-chairs want me to shut up, but, but, but ...~~

~~BEN SOLNIT: I'm having a wonderful time.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : But at some point, and I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle see the tsunami that is out there and whether it gets addressed in the next 2 months or not, it is not going away and so I appreciate your optimism, but in light of what is going on right now, I don't think I'm going to be able to support even a task force to study that issue when I know, I know what is coming down the road. I know there are lay-offs. I know there are court closures. I know that the things we have initiated to break the cycle of recidivism are at risk. Even right now, we all took a vow last 0 year for those of us who supported the Second Chance Society, and I am hearing from advocates that the funding stream to try and get people off of their addictions and the treatment isn't even there. So yeah we changed the whole mechanism to try to get people a second chance, but part of that commitment was the support services to allow people to break that cycle of recidivism and we yanked that rug out from right under those programs. This is just within the last year, so you know at some point, we have to determine what's our core mission as a government and fulfill those core duties before we start going off a field to look at other things and so sorry, that's it. That's my little soapbox statement for the day, but I appreciate your optimism. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

0 002671 131 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Sir I don't know what would give you the impression that we don't appreciate whatever comments you care to make. Other members with questions or comments? Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (069th): This is a somewhat divergent thing. First, I served with Senator Kissel on both Judiciary and Judiciary Corrections Sub-Committee and there are a lot questions about how much money we have to pay for keeping courthouses open so that other people have an opportunity to go to court, whether they need a lawyer, or whether they are at an advantage or disadvantage of having a lawyer, there may not be some courthouses open to even go to at the rate we are going right now.

I don't know if you are aware of it, but I will say it for everyone else who is thinking about these c things, the current budget deficit for the fiscal year we are supposed to be working on right is over $900 million. That is up $400 million in about a month's time from an earlier estimate when the governor first delivered his speech.

I was with the comptroller a few days ago for a dinner and he was telling the business community people that his estimate is the budget deficit is going to get even bigger by maybe a $100 million or something. So, that is the current fiscal year that is part of the biennium that we already passed a budget for.

The next two fiscal years, the next biennium, we are looking at $2 billion projected plus deficits per year, so that is $4 billion or roughly 10% of cost of running government that we are not going to have c 002672 132 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 enough money to pay for based on the projections both of the cost of government and of the revenues coming in.

Each of them is going in the wrong direction, so that is the context you are working in. I remember when, and I have been here long enough to remember when the decision was made to fund legal services out of the IOLTA account and I remember asking if that was going to be enough and I remember then Chairman of the Banks Committee who brought the bill out on the floor, yeah we've got this all figured out. Well, that was 1988.

The real estate market has changed and that was really where most of the money came from to pay for it was in the funds being held by lawyers and of course the world changed in so many ways. Not only did the real estate market die for awhile, but 0 everything has gone electronically. You don't put money in a bank account anymore and hold it there a week or two waiting for the closing to happen, all of those kinds of things.

An earlier witness testified that our current court fees are on the low side. Now, is that your understanding as well? I've never done a 50-state survey which is maybe something we should order up to find out.

BEN SOLNIT: I have no expertise in that area. I am going to have to defer to Jim Shearin. Jim Shearin of the Bar Foundation was the one who testified. I have no reason to disbelieve him, but I have not looked at that. 0 002673 133 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING REP. O'NEILL (69th): Because something that has crossed my mind from time to time and I am reluctant to voice this thing, but one of the things I noticed was if you start a case, except for a claim for jury, pretty much that is it, you pay your entry fee and you go. So whether you file one motion or a hundred motions and whether you feel a thousand page, well maybe not a thousand page, but a hundred page long memorandum of law or a two-page long memorandum, there is a thing I got when the bar sent me a thing about doing one page memos. I saw some kind of little thing about how to keep it down in terms of the amount of reading and writing and reading the judges have to do. But in effect, no matter how much you use the system, your entry fee is the same. So I can sometimes see, you can look up the cases and you can see 100 motions have been filed in a case. Sometimes, it is domestic but c sometimes it is just regular civil cases and it is not like there are 15 defendants, so the thought that crosses my mind is if you use the system a lot more, maybe for the initial entry fee you get 10 motions than after that, you have to start paying something for each additional motion passed that kind of motion or something for those people because not all cases are the same. You begin with an entry fee and they get a little bit of litigation. They get resolved after a couple of months and then other cases drag on for years and years, hundreds of motions and all kinds of things seem to be going on in those kinds of cases. In the conversations in folks have had in thinking about this, have you ever thought about that aspect or possibility?

~~BEN SOLNIT: I never heard of that before, but it does remind me in the federal system many years ago, c 002674 134 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

they had a presumption which could be rebutted, but you could file no more than a certain number of interrogatories to try to streamline things. In the state system in certain cases, you could only file standard interrogatories like seeking permission.

~~REP. O'NEILL (69th):~~

BEN SOLNIT: If you were to contemplate that, I think you at least have to have a way to get out of it for a case that deserved to get out of that. There would be a lot of issues, you know, dissuading people from bringing meritorious motions I suppose because it is a complicated case, but it is a very creative idea. I don't think the bar has thought about it. I, you know, we were very careful with working with them on this one to make sure the proposed fee raise was modest. You know $5 to $10 per fee generally speaking, but you know if you and 0 the private bar want to do that, we would certainly work with you on it.

REP. O'NEILL (69th): Well, I am not speaking on behalf of the private bar. That would be the last thing I would suggest I'm doing, but I was just sitting here thinking about our system that we got and you know listening to the medical examiner state that 48 out of 50 states using electronic death certificates. We along with West Virginia are the states that doesn't and we can't figure out why we are so far behind the times. Connecticut seems to have certain bad habits that are hard to get out of and now seem to be costing us a lot of money now that we are looking hard at the dollars we are spending.

0 002675 135 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. 0 PUBLIC HEARING BEN SOLNIT: I do know the Judicial Branch has been really really proactive at looking at ways to streamline things and to help folks, you know, in courthouses that don't have lawyers and in applying for ADR, early intervention to try to bring cases to a conclusion earlier. So they obviously would have to be part of any such conversations along with the private bar, but it is a very creative idea.

REP. O'NEILL (69th): Yeah because a couple .... was it last year or the year before, but one of these recent years, we said if a couple was married less than eight years that they can have a somewhat simplified form of divorce. So I mean maybe there are other things out there to reduce the demand for -- it would make it simplify the system for some categories of cases so they don't have to go through the same complexities. Because our system is kind c of designed for the maximum case in a lot of ways as opposed to the relatively simple case.

BEN SOLNIT: Right and just a riff on I think it was Representative Tong that gave me a law school flashback, where I was taking a course in comparative law and the professor was from Eastern Europe and said you know you folks in America you have this, and at the time the Cadillac, and that is how old I am, that was a really good car, so he said you have this Cadillac judicial system for everything and that is crazy. You ought to have ways of doing things that are less complex and I think that is an idea that might have some merit, but I strongly stress you would obviously have to have partnership not only with legal services, but the Judicial Department and the private bar to make c 002676 136 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 sure you did that correctly and you know not end up with something worse than a cure.

~~REP. O'NEILL (69th): Right, thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there other members with any questions or comments? It doesn't appear so. Thank you Attorney Solnit.~~

~~BEN SOLNIT: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Tracie Compositor.~~

TRACIE COMPOSITOR: I hope everybody got their venting out. Good afternoon, Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Tracie Compositor. I am here to testify in opposition of HB-5531. 0 I am person with lived experience and have utilized both mental health and addiction services. For years, I was in treatment with mental health issues and placed on dozens of medications. Throughout all the trials, titrating up and weaning off, nothing was working, so I self-medicated with drugs and alcohol.

I am telling you this because I know in my heart, I would have never have sought treatment if there was the possibility of being forced into treatment. I needed to be ready in my own time to accept what was being offered. As it turned out, many times what was being offered wasn't something I was interested in and had hardly participated and often ended up not following through. various types of group therapy was not effective for .me. Ultimately, I 0 002677 137 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING ended up doing my own research to find programs and thankfully, my providers listened. Then and only then did I begin on my journey of recovery.

Since beginning my recovery process, my path has not been linear, but when I am moving forward in a way that makes sense to me, I keep going. If this bill passes, I can assure you I will never seek treatment in traditional services out of fear that my right to choose will be taken away because of my documented mental health history.

I'd invite you to take a walk with me through a little scenario. I hit a bump in my recovery road. I go to see someone for treatment. This licensed professional reviews my history and makes the determination that I am potentially a danger to myself and then decides what type of treatment I c would be mandated to participate in and worse yet what medication I will be ordered to take. When do I get a clean slate?

I am here to report that people like myself do live well and do achieve recovery. On May 31, God willing, I will be four years sober. I do not take medication at all except for an occasional Tylenol and that is even rare. I choose to use non traditional services and support and it is working wonders for me. I found a support system with people who listen to me and give me constructive feedback and encouragement with no judgment and certainly not an ultimatum. I respond very well this approach and found that many of my peers do as well. c· 002678 138 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

I am now the program director for Focus on Recovery for the Community Bridger Program called Anatar miTana. Community Bridgers connect with the people who had long-term involvement with mental health and/or substance use services and are not engaged with the services that have been offered to them thus far. We offer peer delivered support to individuals who end up in probate court for the purposes of civil commitment or for those who are at risk. We need the person where they are at not just physically, but emotionally with no agenda.

We have success stories due to our methods, one of which I would like to share with you. When we met her, the state said that she was a lifer on the inpatient unit, where she had been for years. She also referred to the unit as her home. After connecting with her and developing a relationship over the next four months, she moved into the 0 community and now lives in New Britain. Over the next few months, she blossomed. Recently, she experienced the loss of her mom and she handled it without any setbacks due to her own personal growth and utilization of the support she has made. Never be defined by your past. It is just a lesson and not a life sentence. This statement is a Facebook post that I can appreciate due to my past. I continue to grow and learn because of my journey, a path I am truly grateful to be able to choose freely. Thank you.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Thank you. Any questions from members? I see none. Thank you very much.~~

~~TRACIE COMPOSITOR: Yep. 0 002679 139 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Allan Bowen and John Wench.~~

ALLAN BOWEN: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Allan Bowen and I am program specialist at MADD Connecticut for the Start Making a Right Turn Program. I would like to thank Co-Chairman Coleman, Co-Chairman Tong and the rest of the Judiciary Committee for the opportunity to submit testimony to speak in support of HOUSE BILL 5629. At this moment, I would like to respectively ask if I can have a victim of an alcohol-related crash to joint me during this testimony as well as a law enforcement official.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): I don't see why not. Sure proceed.~~

ALLAN BOWEN: Thank you. I would like to encourage c the Judiciary Committee to act favorably on the proposed legislation as I have been able to see the benefits of the program first hand having engaged in positive discussion and experience how education can support positive choices.

The MADD Smart Teen and Parent Program is a regularly recommended diversionary program for youth ages 16 to 21 along with parents whose teens are under the age of 18, who are currently in the criminal justice system placing motor vehicle violations and crimes related to underage drinking. ft the support of Connecticut geographical area courts and state attorneys, probation as well as juvenile probation departments that have utilized this diversionary program as a means to support the prevention of underage drinking and engagement in risky behaviors. c 002680 140 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0

MADD Connecticut has been able to educate over 4 thousand under 21-year-old clients throughout Connecticut who have had various motor vehicle and underage drinking related offenses. In 2015 alone, we served over 1 thousand under 21-year-old - excuse me, in 2015 alone, over 1000 21-year-old attendees as well as 300 parents received education through this scientific and evidence-based program. In addition to the educational component, MADD is able to offer the unique perspective from victims and survivors of impaired driving crashes and underage drinking incidences. At this time, I would like to introduce John Wench, a victim and speaker at our MADD Smart Program.

JOHN WENCH: Senator Coleman and members of the committee, thank you for your attention. I appreciate it. I want to share with you a personal 0 experience that certainly had a profound impact on my life. I am certainly speaking in passionate support of HOUSE BILL 5629 WHICH IS AN ACT CONCERNING DIVERSIONARY PROGRAM FOR PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21 FROM MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS AND CRIMES RELATED TO UNDERAGE DRINKING.

I usually start when I speak with MADD and Smart by saying that there are no guarantees in life and we know that, but one of the things I definitely guarantee is that I never thought I'd be speaking as a victim of a drunk driving crash.

On October 4, 1990, I was involved in a single vehicle accident and run-in when I was the passenger in a car driven by someone who was legally intoxicated. As a passenger, I bore the brunt of 0 002681 141 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING the collision as the car I was in literally wrapped around a telephone pole on the passenger side. The injuries were life-threatening, about an hour to get the car off the pole and me out of the car and I was incredibly fortunate to have survived.

The fantastic work by New England Fire and Police Department got me out of the care and LifeStar personnel and staff at Hartford Hospital kept me alive. I owe my life to them and I will forever be grateful. Had fractured ribs, shoulder, skull and a fractured skull with a traumatic brain injury and eventually PTSD. It was my legs that were impacted the most. A fractured femur and tibia in both legs with severed arteries which led to the eventual amputation of the left leg just above my knee.

At this point as a young man and athlete, I became c despondent and I truly lost my will to live. It was really devastation and depression beyond description. After multiple surgeries and a lengthy period of hospitalization and rehabilitation, my right leg was eventually saved, though it is highly compromised with steel rods through my femur and tibia and screws that fix both my ankle and knee joints.

For the record, the driver survived this crash as well, though he was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. The trial of this event would have a physical and emotional impact on me for the rest of my life. However since this event 25 years ago, I have been incredibly blessed to have the support that I do. This support has allowed me to live a very full life as a productive member of my community. c 002682 "142 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

I am now married 20 years and the father of three teens. I have been a professional educator in connecticut" for 15 years and I am currently a sixth grade math teacher at Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School in New London. I have remained determined not to let this event bring me down and ruin my life and the pain I feel in my legs every step I take is a constant reminder of the horrific experience that it was for me.

While this is a reality, I choose not to dwell on that and have rather decided to use this experience to help educate others and to turn what was a true nightmare for me to something that educate, impact and have a positive influence. It took me many many years to have the confidence and courage to share my experience, fearful of being pitied as I speak to groups as a victim. 0

An aspect of shame certainly kept me away from sharing my experience as well and I simply wasn't ready for a long time. When I finally decided to share my experience, I feel so comforted and supported by the outstanding professionals who work at MADD.

It was through MADD's VIP and Smart programs as a victim of a drunk driving crash that was absolutely 100% preventable, I have been provided an opportunity to turn this horrific experience into something very positive. Even many years later, the service MADD provides me in sharing my experience has been very healing to allow me to recognize that there are silver linings in all of our experiences and that I can have an influence in the sharing of 0 002683 ~43 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING an incident that traumatized me beyond words. Most important, most importantly, this experience is much greater than me.

As I share and educate, the response I get has led me to feel very strongly that my message resonates and that the Smart Program as a whole is an effective one. I genuinely believe that through this educational program, youthful offenders are being presented with something memorable, impactful and will make better decisions in the future because of this program. I am honored to have the opportunity to influence. I am so incredibly thankful from MADD's professionalism and educational programs.

In closing, I consistently remind myself that the very best thank you to all of those who helped me is c to live well and do my best. We all owe it to ourselves and our communities to live as well as we know how and to do our best. Support of.HOUSE BILL 5629 would be doing our best for our community. Thank you very much.

OFFICER GIL MAFFEO: My name is Officer Gil Maffeo, a 17-year veteran of the Waterford Police Department. Throughout my career, I've had to investigate numerous motor vehicle accidents that were the result of drunken impaired driving as well as other violations committed by persons under the age of 21.

As a result of the different things that I have seen, I have gotten involved with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and their Smart Program. The Smart Program allows me as a first responder and police 0 002684 144 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

officer to go in and speak to the youth as well as parents and explain to them that the impact that one poor decision may make could affect not just them, their entire family, their lives and also the lives of the first responders. I feel that this program educates parents and educates youth. It explains that there are consequences other than criminal, but civil consequences that they and their parents can end up facing down the road. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has proven time and time again that through education and awareness that we can help prevent tragedies one at a time and I support this program 100%.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Thank you all very much. I am very sorry to hear about your accident, but I admire greatly the way you are handling your life subsequent to it. 0 JOHN WENCH: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Questions from members? Senator Kissel.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Yeah, I actually want to commend all of you, but especially my sympathies go out to the victim of the crash. Again, one great thing about being a legislator is you get to see things you might not otherwise see and you know, people doing incredibly brave things and trying to leverage it up so that it could be a benefit to all of us. I know you support the bill, but what exactly is it about this Smart Program. The two or three most important parts that you folks feel we should have as a takeaway? 0 002685 145 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING ALLAN BOWEN: Yes, most importantly, it is keeping the youth out of the criminal justice system. It is allowing them to get a second chance.

One of the things that we cover in the program is the brain development and we realized that judgment is the last portion of the brain to completely develop and that is not done until the mid 20s. So a lot of the attendees that we are seeing under the age of 21 have made simple foolish decisions. They are thinking in that moment and not worried about the future consequences ahead.

Another thing is that they are receiving proper education. Some of these individuals may have a health class or anatomy and physiology class where they are only covering certain topics where we divulge into a lot of information. Some of c information that the law enforcement perspective suggests as well as the victims applying their knowledge. It allows them to be in a comfortable area, a judgment-free zone where they can ask the officers questions and gain insight about things where they don't have to worry about being judged or persecuted because of them actually asking that question. So, it is very enlightening. That is the number one thing I would say, enlightenment.

~~SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Great. Is there anything else you other two gentleman would like to add?~~

JOHN WENCH: I would just say as an educator for the past 15 years is the most important component to this is the educational aspect of it and I think that is so worthwhile to listen to the program to have me be a part of it and listen to the officers c 002686 146 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 and to see the whole program as it is integrated along with the parents is just a huge factor to not only influence the youthful offendent themselves, but certainly everyone in the room including the adults.

I am always taken away at the end of one of these sessions that I do with MADD and Smart as to the feeling that I get from the attendees that come up to me and come up to Allan and come up to the officers afterwards and express their thanks and that was really something I didn't expect, but I get a lot from. I didn't expect this when I came here, so we really get a deep sense or at least I do, I speak for myself, but I think I also speak for the others here, we get a true sense that it really is making a difference.

~~SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Officer? 0~~

OFFICER GIL MAFFEO: I enjoy having the opportunity to have a question and answer portion during this program so I can put any kind of rumors or anything that they hear on social media to rest, but also I come into these programs with the local kids.

One of the last things I say to them is if you need someone to talk to, if you have questions and on multiple occasions, I have given out cards to parents and I say give me a call. We would like to prevent a tragedy from occurring and if we can do it by pointing you in the right direction for the proper services, I would love to help or if you want to have more questions answered, I would be more than happy to address them. 0 147 March 18, 2016002687 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : I guess my last question is has this been adopted in any other states?

~~ALLAN BOWEN: Yes, this has been adopted in several other states as well. Connecticut is the frontrunner though. We know how to handle things in Connecticut and everything trickles down.~~

~~SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : It is always good to hear some good news about Connecticut. Thank you, all three of you, for your testimony. Thank you Mr. Chair.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Any others with questions for this panel? If not, we thank you all very much.~~

~~ALLAN BOWEN: Once again on behalf of MADD, we thank c you guys for having us, we appreciate it.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): You're welcome. Stephen Mendelsohn.~~

~~STEPHEN MENDELSOHN: Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and members of the committee, my name is Stephen Mendelsohn. I am autistic and a psychiatric survivor.~~

We in the psychiatric survivor's movement joined by others in the disability community have long and strenuously opposed the practice that has been euphemistically called outpatient commitment which is correctly called forced drugging. HB 5531 is a forced drugging bill. Just because a discriminatory and offensive practice is put under a medical c 002688148 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~umbrella does not mean that we should tolerate euphemisms to mask what is really going on.~~

Just as suicide is still suicide even when some try to redefine it as "aid in dying" when a doctor assists with the act, forced drugging is still forced drugging no matter what term proponents use to conceal its inherent violence.

Let me tell my own personal story. Back in the late 1970s, I was having problems. I was sent to the Institute of Living and there, I was given various psychiatric labels and eventually labeled with paranoid schizophrenia. I was put on dangerous neuroleptic drugs; Mellaril, Stelazine, Navane which caused severe dystonia and acathisia. That could make you go like -- and this was sheer torture. The psychiatrist responded to that by trying to increase the dose and I was lucky enough that my parents 0 didn't buy it and I managed to get out.

In spite of the psychiatric predictions here in my psychiatric records that I would decompensate into psychosis and perhaps kill myself, I got my first job in 1984 and have been for the most part gainfully employed and living independently ever since and I have been free of psychiatric drugs for over 36 years.

Unfortunately, the ugly label of paranoid schizophrenia followed me at least all the way to 2003 when I sought the assistance of BRS and it wasn't until my good friend, Kathy Ludlam, came up with a paper about adults with Asperger's and asked me this sounds like you and we finally got understood what my real disability was. My 0 002689 149 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING experience is hardly unique. I have met many other psychiatric survivors who have had far worse experiences, people who have had forced electric shock, insulin coma and this is a serious moral issue and it also dissuades people from seeking help that they really need.

As we learn in the assisted suicide debates, doctors make mistakes. There a medical mistake can be deadly. Here, it can deprive one of one's freedom and subject one to torture. Occasionally, you can lose your life from it too. With mental health, we are dealing with observable behavior rather than hard silence where psychiatric labels can easily be used as semantic blackjack to stigmatize and degrade the other. The model of the disability rights movement is nothing about us without us and it applies here just as much as it does to other c disabilities. We psychiatric survivors want and need to be treated as free and responsible adults as the same rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. Though should break the law, should be held accountable and punished.

It is easy to scapegoat the so-called mentally ill from murder and mayhem and deny basic civil liberties. Those who cite the Second Amendment while protesting against gun control ought to be especially wary of finding ways of depriving others of basic rights under the Constitution. If I can be labeled as "one of those people" so can any of you.

I ask you to put yourselves in the shoes of someone being subjected to forced drugging. How would you feel if you were stripped naked against your will and forcibly injected in your buttocks with long- c 002690 150 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 acting Haldol, Risperdal or Zyprexa? How would you adjust to the neuromuscular side effects, tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, massive weight gain or diabetes?

Why is forced drugging considered torture when done for Soviet dissidents or people being deported by immigration and customs enforcement, but yet perfectly acceptable for those people. Let us remember the golden rule here. As taught by Hillel, what is hateful you, do not do to any person, any person meaning well or sick, friend or foe. If you would deeply resent being forcibly drugged like this, then defend our right to resist the indignity of forced drugging which HB 5531 expands into the outpatient setting. The liberty you protect just might be your own.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Thank you. Any questions? 0 senator Kissel.~~

~~SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): So essentially your story is that you were misdiagnosed and you are actually on the spectrum, the autism spectrum?~~

STEPHEN MENDELSOHN: Yes, I think I was, probably back then nobody knew, but I mean. This could easi1y happen today. This is not something - people would say the bad old days, we don't do lobotomies anymore, but what are we doing now that you know that in 25 years from now or a generation from now are going to say we made a mistake.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Well, I very much appreciate your testimony. The gentleman from West Hartford that appeared before us earlier. 0 002691 151 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING

~~STEPHEN MENDELSOHN: Yeah.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : In response to Representative O'Dea's question I thought really gave a very insightful answer. You said hypothetically what we would look back on. I think perhaps we would look back on the fact that we used medicines and we just feel that is the cure as opposed to using medicines in light of an entire treatment set of things that means interpersonal contact and everything else and so .... drugs are great, but I don't think they are great in isolation and I hear the passion in your voice regarding this issue. Thank you for coming. Thank you Mr. Chair.

STEPHEN MENDELSOHN: Basically, if somebody is feeling that they are helped by any of these drugs, c that should be their choice. Nobody here is trying to take that choice away. We are simply saying, again this over focus on drugs, electric shock and the one paragraph I omitted points out again this whole focus on biopsychiatry, where we actually increased the suicide rate, the rate of homelessness and the number of people on SSEI and the incarceration rate, we basically destroyed hope. We are not just biological machines. There is a lot more to being a human being. Again, when you have this narrow biopsychiatric focus, you lose that sense of a more high touch approach. We are actually quite lucky here in Connecticut. We are one of the few states that has actually resisted this and has a very strong survivor, consumer, whatever you want to call our side of it, but a lot of other states have fallen for this and people are scared. c 002692152 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Any other members with questions? None. Thank you Steve.~~

~~STEPHEN MENDELSOHN: You are very welcome.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : I know those people who applauded were probably not in the room when I had attempted to make clear that we want you to abide by our rules and practices to refrain from any outward expressions of support or opposition to any of the testimony or anything else that takes place during these proceedings and we would appreciate it very much if you would respect and abide by our rules and practices. Thank you. Luz Feliz is next.

LUZ FELIZ: Good afternoon, dear Senator Coleman and respective members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Luz Feliz and I am a resident of New 0 Britain, Connecticut. I am testifying today because I am against_HB 5531.

The reason I am against this bill is because I feel that people should have the right choose what happens in their treatment without being punished. In my life, I have experienced situations similar to what were to happen if this bill were to pass. I would have definitely been an ideal candidate for forced treatment. However since I have been given choices about what is available to me in the community, I am now fully in charge of my life.

Today, I am a young adult warmline operator with Advocacy Unlimited and I co-facilitate a writing workshop at Toivo. Since becoming a part of this community, I have been able to find alternative ways 0 002693 153 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING of dealing with past trauma that I have not been able to resolve through any other approaches including medication. It has been nearly a year and I have regularly attended yoga, Alternatives to Suicide Peer Support Group and women's group like Beyond Anger and Violence.

Being with others who are engaged in healthy lifestyles and on their own road to recovery helps we remain hopeful. Throughout the last year, I have finally become okay with being me. With over 12 psychiatric hospitalizations since age 14, it is important I share with you how far I have come so that you understand that there are less-intrusive yet still beneficial options that are not made available to people when they are being discharged from the hospital. Honestly, I don't even think that treatment providers are aware of what is c available in their community.

Last July, I was an inpatient at the Hospital of Central Connecticut. While there, I had a difficult time and engaged in self-harm. No one knew that this happened, but I informed a staff member two days later because I thought they would understand. At that point, he called security and he told me I had to choose. I could choose to be restrained and forcibly medicated or I could voluntarily allow them to sedate me. At that moment, it felt like they were punishing me even though I was perfectly calm and just asking for help. This is one incident that occurred during this single hospital stay to demonstrate how inhumane our current delivery system operates. I feel like this legislation will only make things worse. Thank you. c 002694 154 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Any questions? No questions Luz. Thank you very much.~~

~~LUZ FELIZ: You're welcome.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Ryan Sullivan is next.~~

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: Good afternoon.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Good afternoon.~~

RYAN SULLIVAN: My name is Ryan sullivan and I am corporate counsel for Bic Corporation. Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for raising BILL NUMBER 431 which will clarify Connecticut general statute 22a-6dd.

We appreciate the opportunity to explain why passing this bill is in the best interest of all Connecticut 0 citizens. Bic is leading the effort to pass the bill with the support of many business and labor organizations, some of whom are here to testify as well. This bill is not an effort to direct a result in the dispute Bic has with the Department with Energy and Environmental Protection, it is simply an effort to clarify that all citizens who enter into an agreement with the agency can rely that their agreements are binding in that either side can go to court if the agreement is breached.

By way of background, in 1999, an enormous release or series of releases of the chemical trichloroethylene, known as TCE, was discovered on a hill above the Bic location in Milford. There is no dispute Bic was not the cause of that release. Four years after discovering that release, DEEP issued 0 2 155 March 18, 201600 69S dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING orders to the owners of the property where the TCE was found and to several other companies in the area including Bic. Bic was confident it was not a cause of TCE contamination, but was willing to enter into an agreement with DEEP to investigate its property.

Bic's exhaustive investigation found low levels of TCE on its property and concluded that it was caused by the known off-site release. When Bic and the agency disagreed and further work was required by the agreement, the agency filed suit. Bic counterclaimed asserting its compliance with the agreement. When this dispute was ready for trial, the agency unilaterally revoked the consent order, withdrew its lawsuit and moved to dismiss Bic's counterclaim of compliance.

The court determined that although consent orders c are in the nature of agreements to resolve disputes, absent legislative correction, the agency is technically authorized to unilaterally revoke consent orders.

The bill before you today is about protecting due process. It clarifies that when DEEP enters into agreements, known as consent orders with citizens, those agreements must be binding on both parties and the courts must be allowed to resolve any disputes or breaches concerning consent orders. DEEP rules expressly encourage using consent orders to resolve disputes with the agency and they have been used innumerable times.

It is a common belief in the business community that consent orders with DEEP are binding. However, the recent court decision would mean that consent orders c 002696 156 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 would be not binding. Further, they may be unilaterally revoked at any time. This renders consent orders useless as a tool to resolve disputes with the agency resulting in an unnecessary waste of time and money for all parties.

In conclusion, BILL NUMBER 431 provides the necessary clarification to section 22a-6dd. With this correction, it will now be clear that consent orders are binding on both parties and when breached may be remedied in court. This clarification benefits all parties with consent orders with the agency to date and those who may do so in the future. In this way, all citizens can confidently trust that the agreements that they enter into with DEEP are binding and that their right to due process will be protected. Thank you.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Chairman Tong. 0~~

REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Mr. Sullivan for being here today. I want to thank senator Slossberg and Milford Delegation to also bringing this issue to our attention. Just to be clear and I know you said it in your testimony, but this relates to the release of a chemical known as TCE, is that correct?

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: That is correct.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): And it has been demonstrated proven that Bic was not the source of the TCE, is that correct?~~

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: That is correct. Up the hill from the Bic site off the Bic property. 0 157 March 18, 201p02697 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): But Bic was asked to take action in response to the or in connection to the TCE release, is that correct?~~

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: Bic along with the other abutting landowners, yes.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Okay, so Bic and other landowners in the area took action to do what?~~

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: An exhaustive investigation, so we agreed with the agency that we will investigate this.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): And did you do that?~~

RYAN SULLIVAN: We did a multi-year, (inaudible) c investigation with identifying over 100 potential release areas on our site. Seven-hundred different samples were taken. Three different wells were drilled and we can conclusively say that we trust the results of that investigation that Bic was not the source of that contamination.

REP. TONG (147TH): When I first heard about this bill, I sort of had a hard time believing it. My understanding of consent decrees or consent orders at any level of government is that it is a settlement agreement between a government agency and either a private citizen or a business and in that way is a contract. Is my understanding, basic understanding of consent orders wrong?

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: I would say Representative that we agree wholeheartedly that your understanding, that c 002698 158 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

it was our understanding this was an agreement between the parties that could not be unilaterally revoked and I may have mentioned here, this is beyond Bic. There are many others out there that have entered into these agreements. It has been our experience that many others too are under the understanding that this is a binding agreement between parties.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): It is also my understanding that, you know, a consent order like any contract has offered an acceptance consideration. Would you say that all of those elements were present here?~~

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: I would.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): What is troubling to me is that private citizens and business enter into an agreement with the government and I understand the 0 government may reserve some right into that agreement, but to be able to pull the plug and unilaterally revoke just doesn't comport with my general understanding of how these agreements work and one has to wonder why would you even enter into an agreement with a government agency if there was a material risk that it could be revoked at any time.

RYAN SULLIVAN: I would agree and I think that is one of the great concerns here that those that are in the position currently to reach an agreement negotiating with the agency with this case law that is currently out there, there is not any guarantee that is in agreement, so I would understand the reluctance of parties to enter into such an agreement. 0 002699 159 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING REP. TONG (147TH): I also sit, in addition to this committee, I sit on the Environment Committee and in that committee, we all have a very real interest in ensuring that we take effective action against pollution and environmental contamination and one of the ways we do that, that the government does that is that it undertakes enforcement actions against private actors, who they perceive may be responsible for pollution or environmental contamination. But then one of the ways you resolve that and get action taken is to enter into an agreement, which compels somebody by agreement to do something, to clean something up. I would be very concerned that undermining that process would expose the environment to further contamination and pollution moving forward. All right thank you very much and thank you for being here. c SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : If I can just take a couple of minutes. I think I understand what is going on, but if you can respond to a couple of questions that I have, I might get some clarification. I am trying to appreciate the effect of was it the withdrawal of the case from court or revocation of the agreement that is the subject of the bill?

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: I think the primary issue is the unilateral revocation of a consent order which then resulted in the withdrawal of the lawsuit that the agency filed against the company.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : I think I heard you say there was a counterclaim that was filed in response to the complaint? c 002700 160 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

RYAN SULLIVAN: That is correct senator. So, Bic counterclaimed of compliance with the consent order, so that was the final shoe to drop. The agency filed for a motion to dismiss those counterclaims. Thus, the order was presented by the court identifying the legislative clarification that was necessary because without that, it would give the agency authority to unilaterally revoke these consent orders.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : was the motion to dismiss the counterclaim granted?~~

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: The motion to dismiss the counterclaim was granted.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : All right, thank you. Senator Kissel. 0 SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Thank you very much Chairman Coleman. I would like to associate myself with all of the remarks made by Chairman Tong.

Somewhere in the back dark recesses of my memory, the term ultra varies came up and I guess technically this doesn't -- we speak of government overreach because the courts decided that, if I am clear, but I certainly believe that in the spirit of government overreach, that is what our side did. When I say our side, I say the state of Connecticut. You're exactly correct and I commend Bic, yourself and the leadership of the company as well as others in the business community for bringing this to our attention.

0 002701 161 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING If we don't clarify this, no consent decree, no consent order in the state of Connecticut will be worth the paper it is typed on. Chairman Tong is exactly correct, why bother. We are being asked to do more with less budgetary and that includes our Attorney General's office and to have the State of Connecticut go through these hurdles and face, I think, clearly the determination was made legally, we are going to lose and so how can we get around losing this counterclaim.

You know what, we are going to do the expedient thing and just say well we are just going to pull the consent order and everybody is going to go well we never thought you could do that. It got tested and apparently it was unclear. It is not the first time that has happened and it won't be the last time that happens, but we need to create a state where c the business community can have reasonable expectations and right now, there is no predictability and that is a terrible state for business to thrive in let alone survive in.

I wholeheartedly support this initiative, this legislation. We should make it clear. It is unfortunate we have to make it clear, but sometimes we have to underline it, exclamation point, we really mean this.

A consent order by its verbiage consent, the State of Connecticut is consenting, you're consenting, there is an agreement. Chairman Tong, you know, the elements of a contract taking up a lot of folks time to get down this path, but hopefully this piece of legislation will pass the finish line before the close of session because I think we need that c 002702 162 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 predictability in our state not only to benefit the business community or individuals who are faced with these issues, but as Chairman Tong said from the other side too, very laudable and important environmental goals. If there is no trust b~tween one party with the other party, then that is a stalemate and it is going to force unneeded, unnecessary and expensive litigation, so thank you sir for coming to testify.

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: Thank you Senator.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Representative Gresko.~~

~~REP. GRESKO (12lst): Thank you Mr. Chairman. One question that I had was why the retroactive look back on this piece?~~

RYAN SULLIVAN: Well we think the retroactive look 0 back is necessary in this instance. There are a lot of these consent orders currently out there today. There are a lot of folks currently in limbo wondering what does this mean for us, so I would say to exclude those that have already been agreed to, those that have been revoked like Bic's wouldn't really be serving the necessary purpose to capture all of these consent orders as they exist.

~~REP. GRESKO (121st): Thank you Mr. Chair.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Representative O'Dea.~~

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for coming ana testifying.~~

0 163 March 18, 2016002703 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. 0 PUBLIC HEARING I am taking a look and thanks to Attorney (indiscernible 4:31:33.8) for passing on the decision from November 9, 2015, Judge Berger, no relation to Representative Berger, wrote that, if I may, that it is not the province of this court under the guise of statutory interpretation to legislate such a policy even if we were to agree with the defendants, it is better policy than one endorsed by the legislature as reflected in this statutory language.

You know, this is appalling in my opinion. I can't wait to hear from DEEP on this and their position. It can't possibly make any sense, so I appreciate your bringing this to our attention. Please let Steve Burkhart I send my regards and I promise I will look into this strongly as colleagues and see c if we can't fix this. RYAN SULLIVAN: Thank you Representative.

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Any other members with questions or comments? None. Thank you Mr. Sullivan.~~

~~RYAN SULLIVAN: Thank you sir.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Dennis Cahill is next.~~

DENNIS CAHILL: Okay, good afternoon Co-Chairs and members of the committee and thank you for hearing my testimony this afternoon. I am speaking in favor of SB 428. c 002704 164 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

My name is Dennis Cahill and I have lived at 651 State Street, Bridgeport, for the past 15 years. My building is a supportive housing facility owned by Alpha Community Services Branch of Central Connecticut Coast YMCA and it is designed exclusively to provide affordable permanent rental housing for the homeless population in Bridgeport.

As you might surmise, residents coming out of homelessness require a· large amount of remedial service and this specifically especially includes legal services. Since the building opened in the year 2000, our social services department has referred residents with lease or eviction problems to the Connecticut Legal Services Incorporated.

CLS has also conducted legal education workshops at the building to inform residents of the rights under tenant/landlord law and represented individuals 0 residents where management has been negligent on some points of the lease that would be known as civil suits they represented. Most of our residents are at very low income, on disability or low fixed income. CLS has provided this service free of charge as most residents are below 110% of the poverty line.

In February 2014, Alpha Community Services was granted a $20 rent increase by Bridgeport Housing Authority to cover increased operating expenses. This increase was not approved or paid by HUD from washington and so the $20 was added entirely to resident's rents and this put most residents above the 30% of income guidelines for Section 8 participants. Some residents received increases of $100 or more. 0 7 165 March 18, 2016002 05 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING

As president of our tenant association, I was referred to Connecticut Legal Services through a personal contact and they agreed to take this case in July 2014. Again, this was offered and done free of charge to residents. The case settled without going to court.

This year in January 2016 with an average rent credit of $600 per resident. This was for the previous two years of over-charges. May the committee understand how satisfied us residents are not only with the outcome of this rent case, but with CLS's very high success rate in eviction prevention the previous 15 years. CLS is the only firm providing these free services in the Bridgeport area for this population. c Along with our satisfaction, I also express our gratitude that we have CLS to represent low income residents. Without CLS's assistance, no resident could have made this case to the Housing Authority from their own resources and I ask the committee to support SB-428 so that Connecticut Legal Services may continue their operations on behalf of all of our low income residents.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Are there questions for Mr. Cahill? Representative Stafstrom.~~

REP. STAFSTROM (129th): Thank you Mr. Chair and not so much a question, but a comment. I want to publically thank Dennis for all of his advocacy over the years on so many issues involving homelessness and providing services to those most in need in our community of Bridgeport. c 002706 166 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0

For those who don't know, I actually had the pleasure of serving with Dennis on a non-profitable ward with Alpha for several years and he is a firm advocate and clearly as we see today an articulate spokesman for these issues. Dennis, I want to thank you for your support of this very important piece of legislation.

~~DENNIS CAHILL: I thank you for your compliment, Representative Stafstrom.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Others with questions or comments? If not, thank you very much Mr. Cahill. Mary Flicker is next.~~

MARY FLICKER: Good afternoon Chairman and committee members. 0 My name is Mary Flicker and I am from Fairfield, Connecticut. I am a volunteer child advocate with Child Advocates of Connecticut. I am here to support BILL NUMBER 347 to establish a program for volunteer court-appointed special advocates.

There is no downside to your support of this bill. There is no cost to the state. BILL 347 does not request any funding. Volunteer advocates are screened, extensively trained and closely supervised as they represent the best interest of children who have been abused or neglected. We do this because we want to help these children and give them hope for a better life.

As a court-appointed volunteer advocate, I unequivocally support BILL NUMBER 347. These 0 002707 167 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING children ha~e suffered unimaginable emotional, psychological and physical trauma. Many have spent most of their young lives in the foster care system. They do not trust. They do not know what it means to be loved or how to love and they have not learned what it means to be a valued member of a family. They are scarred and damaged survivors. These children desperately need the support that BILL NUMBER 347 provides.

As a volunteer advocate, I work closely with my child's DCF caseworker, therapist, school social worker, teachers and foster parents. I am available to respond to my child 24/7 if necessary. Often times, I am the only one available to respond to a call from school.

At times, my child has told me that she thinks no c one cares about her or knows anything about her. My goal is to consistently be the person that she knows cares about her. I spend a lot of time researching, identifying and connecting my child with community programs to promote her interests, health, education, and social development.

When she misses multiple days of school, I contact her school to get her assignments. I attend her school planning meetings, I take her calls and I respond to her text messages. I have been the one person around to celebrate her birthday with her the past two years.

~~I am a constant in her life. In the two plus years I have been her advocate, she has been in two different schools, over ten different foster homes and I have been with her through it all. We have c~~

( 002708 168 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 attended community enrichment events together and visited colleges. I have arranged for volunteer tutoring services. We have frequent contact with each other even if it is just a text messages to say good luck on your first day of school.

To sum up my relationship with my child, I mentor and mother her a little. I listen to her. I encourage her. I try to help her understand why she has to do certain things or why she should do certain things. I let her know that I understand that it really stinks that she did not get to grow up with her family, but I remind her that she has so many people that care about her, know her potential, and want her to succeed.

I want to give her hope that she can create a better life for herself with all of the support available to her. As a volunteer advocate, I spend anywhere 0 from 10 to 30 or more hours a month on my case. I am not a miracle worker. I try my best to help my child in any way I can.

~~Success is often measured in small victories, but if my child understands that I will be there for her no matter what she does, good or bad, I consider that a win.~~

~~I urge the committee to pass BILL NUMBER 347, so that more children can benefit from the support and guidance of a volunteer court-appointed special advocate.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Thank you. Are there any questions? I see none. we appreciate your testimony. 0 002709 169 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. 0 PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~MARY FLICKER: Thank you very much.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN: Nancy Alisberg.~~

NANCY ALISBERG: Good afternoon, Senator Coleman and Representative Tong and members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to comment in opposition to RAISED BILL 5531, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS.

~~I am the managing attorney and testifying on behalf of the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities and on behalf of the Advisory Board of OPA which also opposes this bill.~~

Imagine if you are leaving a hospital after c receiving treatment for a mental illness. You are feeling much better and ready to resume your life and your job, but imagine that instead of being able to go on with your life, the doctors there, who barely know you, have decided that you have to take a certain medication. You don't want to take that medication. You've taken it before with devastating side effects. You are able to provide informed consent. You have been informed why your provider wants you to take the medication, the type of medication the provider wants you to take, you have been told the advantages and disadvantages of the medication, whether there were medically acceptable alternatives to medications, the risks of the medication and the risk of not taking the medication. Yet you have made an informed decision not to take the medication. c 002710 170 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

Now imagine being told that your decision doesn't matter and that a judge, who doesn't know you, has decided that somebody else, who doesn't know you, can decide that in fact you have to take the medicine no matter what you say.

Further imagine that despite this order, you decide not to take the medication because you know how it is going to make you feel, therefore your conservator, who you met only once at the court hearing, calls the police, who come and pick you up at your job as a state legislature at the legislative office building and take you by ambulance to the emergency room where a doctor waits to give you a shot containing the medicine that you beg not to be forced to take. Imagine all of this because this could happen to you if this bill is enacted. 0 As James McGaughey, director of the Office of Protection and Advocacy said in 2012, our office opposes this measure because its provisions would interfere with building the type of trusting, respectful relationships between treatment providers and their clients that are essential in order for real treatment and recovery to occur and because it would undermine the efforts of our mental health system to escape reliance on coercive practices and to embrace the far more progressive and ultimately more successful approaches that are the hallmarks of a recovery oriented healthcare system.

Mr. McGaughey's 2012 testimony is just as relevant today as it was in 2012 and I ask you to read my full testimony which quotes what he said. 0 002711 171 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Thank you for your attention and if there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there questions? There are no questions. We thank you for your testimony. Jane Sullivan Wiley.~~

JANINE SULLIVAN WILEY: Good afternoon Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and members of the committee. My name is Janine Sullivan-Wiley and I am the executive direct of the Northwest Regional Mental Health Board.

Some of you may or may not know what the Regional Boards are, but they are community-based and put in place by the state legislature 41 years ago to assure a broad stakeholder oversight of mental c health services. Now, our members include people who are known as consumers, those who are in recovery from mental health or substance use disorder, family members, appointees from towns, concerned citizens. One of the benefits of that membership we have is that we really have all of the stakeholders involved when we look at issues to which there is not always agreement.

We wrestle with issues that have no fast or easy answers and BILL 5531 is one of those kinds of issues. The reason why some people have called for and are going to continue to call for forced medication of people with mental illness and substance use disorders are powerful. I have heard the anguished voices of family members when their loved ones are still actively using drugs or when c 002712 172 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

their mental illness is untreated. Our members include those people. They also include, however, some people in recovery and family members of people in recovery who experience firsthand what does work and you have heard earlier today from a lot of folks in recovery about what they see works and that is why I am in opposition to this bill.

First at this time with shrinking resources and services, people who need mental health treatment and are seeking mental health treatment and medication are often unable to get that because of the long wait times or the fact that right now there is lack of access to mental health or even substance use care. When people want this care and cannot get it, it seems unconscionable to force others to get the care they do not want. Will this divert, and this is our fear that it will divert the scarce resources there now from people who want and are 0 seeking care.

The second reason to oppose this bill is that forcing people to get mental health or substance use treatment, particularly medication, is often a path to resistance much more than a path to recovery. The best way to help a person choose whatever treatment or support will get them through to a point of recovery is outreach and engagement often by peers. Acceptance of the need for help and the decision to change is a process and in my testimony, you will see little pictures illustrating when people are forced and when people are able to choose.

The third thing is that the processes in this bill that I have read extensively have a slim chance of 0 173 March 18, 2016002713 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING actually working in a community setting. First, it would require emergency responders to transport people against their will to emergency departments. That provision puts our emergency responders at unnecessary risk and is counter to methods that police officers that have been trained in such as through crisis intervention training. It also puts the clients and their family members at unnecessary risks as people are forced into an ambulance or police car. Second, most medications are taken daily, I don't have much more, or more than once per day. With the provisions of this bill, you could potentially expect an ambulance to take a person into a hospital two or even three times per day. That is a colossal waste of resources the state does not have.

Next, forced medication is unlikely to help people c accept their illness or addiction and accept the treatment others feel that is needed and I would ask every person sitting here today, have you ever changed any behavior because somebody made you do it? No, it doesn't work that way.

Lastly, this provision would fail often at the emergency department itself. I have spoken to many doctors, who said that they would not forcibly medicate someone brought into the emergency department unless that person was an imminent risk to himself or others and not just a potential danger as stipulated in this bill. Actually if the person is in imminent danger to themselves or others, this state has excellent provisions for involuntary commitment and I brought copies today if anybody wants of the PEC certificates and a wonderful c 002714 174 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~research piece by your own Office of Legislative Research on how the current statutes work.~~

So, while some of the provisions of this bill may seem desirable and I totally understand why some people continue to advocate for such a thing, implementing this, I think, would be costly and potentially very dangerous. Forcing people to take medication at a time when people are seeking medication and treatment in the community seems utterly counterproductive, so I ask you to please vote no on this bill.

~~I have a variety of resources with me if you have any questions.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Thank you Janine, I apologize for misreading your name. 0 JANINE SULLIVAN-WILEY: Not a problem.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): At the beginning. Any questions or comments? There don't appear to be any. Thank you for your testimony.~~

~~JANINE SULLIVAN-WILEY: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Beverley Brakeman.~~

~~BEVERLEY BRAKEMAN: Good afternoon Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and members of the committee.~~

My name is Beverley Brakeman and I am the political director with the United Auto Workers, Region 9A. I am here along with some of attorneys and staff that we represent from the National Organization of Legal 0 002715 175 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Services Workers. Don't worry, they all don't want to talk, they just all want to be here. So, I have with me today: (unidentifiable first name) Mahoney, Mark Moore, Martin Wheeler, Cathy Cushman and Natalia Planell.

~~I have submitted written testimony which you can read. You have heard a lot of testimony on SENATE BILL 428 which we do support very strongly. I am not going to read my testimony.~~

You've heard from a lot of clients who have received incredibly important services and I want to talk a little bit about the lawyers who we represent and who are UAW members that do this hard work and what they have had to give up to provide the services that they do to residents across the state, many of c whom are constituents of yours. These are attorneys and staff who are overworked, they are underpaid, they are incredibly dedicated. They wake up thinking about their clients. They go to bed sleeping thinking about their clients and they spend their days thinking about their clients. They struggle deeply with the number of clients that they have to turn away. They take time from their own families and made numerous concessions to continue to keep the doors open at the programs where they serve. I have the utmost respect for these folks. They do incredible work and I don't think that there is a person in this room that would disagree with me on that.

This bill won't fix the problem. It doesn't even come close to fixing the problem. This is something that in every state that we cover in Region 9A, I c 002716 176 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

have to advocate on behalf of. It is just an ongoing problem because of the IOLTA issue and I wish there was a way this legislature could find a way to have enough money to fund these programs to provide these services so that these attorneys, their clients and the programs don't have to spend so much time coming here and advocating for funding every year.

~~It is really just crumbs at the end of the day, but they are crumbs that are very important and we do thank members of this committee and legislature for their incredible support of these programs.~~

I guess I would end, when I think about this issue and a lot of the issues before us today, I think of a quote by former Congressman Paul Wellstone, who once said, "We all do better when we all do better." I think that this is a group of workers, attorneys 0 and staff here who really live that every day. So, thank you for your time today.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Thank you. Are there questions? I see no questions. It is good to see you. I appreciate your testimony.~~

~~BEVERLEY BRAKEMAN: Thanks. Okay. Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Dr. Ken Black.~~

~~DR. KEN BLACK: Good afternoon Senator Coleman and \\~55'31 respective members of the Judiciary Committee.~~

I am Ken Black. I am a psychiatrist practicing for 40 years. I work on young adults (inaudible). I also serve on the Board of Directors of Advocacy 0 7 177 March 18, 2016002 17 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 Unlimited, a statewide peer run organization dedicated to providing safe and healing places for those in extreme states or having distressing experiences. I am here to give testimony in opposition to HB-5531.

I present to you a view from the trenches. My view of working with young adults who are coming out of DCF care after many years living in various facilities. We already have an explicit and wrenching view of the effects of forced outpatient treatment even in persons who cannot give informed consent. I am speaking about the young people in the care of DCF not yet 18.

This bill should not pass. Passage of this bill would bring to our adult population what forced compliance has already brought on our young adult c population. For example, a young man taking Clozapine submits to the required weekly blood test. Everyone compliments him on how well he is doing now that he is compliant with medication. In a meeting with me, he slips up and I question him. He admits he has not been taking his medication for months, but continued submitting to the weekly blood draws so no one would find out. I was stunned. "Why would you do such a thing?" I asked. "So you wouldn't put me in the hospital." "Why would I do that?" "Because every time I get upset, people want to increase my medications and if I really get upset, they put me back in the hospital." "But now you are 18 and have choices." So what, that doesn't change anything. c 002718178 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 If we don't defeat this bill, I fear for all of us. No one will get what he or she wants. Public safety would not be more secure. Persons experiencing extreme states coerced and forced to take medication after they have shown evidence of the ability to give informed consent will not improve. On the contrary, we force them to go underground like my own person.

Most of AOT bills come forth after violent tragedy. There was an outcry to do something. I agree, but let us not use the simple fixes of the past. Psychiatry has a dark history. We must not forget eugenics forced into institutionalizations, forced sterilizations, forced ECT and lobotomy. Force does not work. It never has and never will. It is the fix for our addiction to control our fears. It is painful to be with another who is suffering. 0 Rather than using force and putting people in unwanted places around strangers, why not suffer with the patient. Do any of us want to suffer alone? Have we become numb to suffering? Have we lost our humanity? In each of you is a vast store of love, empathy and willingness to care. I fear 30 years from now, people will look back at this day and ask what were they thinking. We are better than that.

Together, we can provide safe places for those in crisis to be with others who will walk together in the shadows of their extreme states of distressing experiences. Please vote no to HB-5531. Thank you.

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you doctor. Any questions? I see none. Thank you for your 0 002719 179 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING testimony. Bill Anderson. No response. Bill Anderson. Kathy Flaherty.

~~KATHY FLAHERTY: Good afternoon Senator Coleman and members of the committee.~~

My written testimony which I encourage you to read focuses on 5531 and I will come back to that in just a second, but I am, my name is Kathy Flaherty. I am the Executive Director of Connecticut Legal Rights Project and in my capacity as executive director of a legal services agency, I strongly urge you to support _SENATE BILL 428 and 426.

Our clients need us. The services that legal services provides gives people access to justice and access to the courts. It is so incredibly important and all of the programs are experiencing funding c cuts. We have the mechanism of the Bar Foundation that distributes the grant money that gets received and our clients need us.

So moving on from what I support, I am here to tell you what I am against. I am in opposition to~ 5531 because the bottom line is coercion doesn't work. I can tell you why it doesn't work because I have had it happen to me.

I was correctly diagnosed with bipolar disorder my first year at Harvard Law School. I was civilly committed to a psychiatric hospital for up to six months. I was discharged after 60 days when my insurance expired. I went into the hospital because I went to law school not knowing that I had bipolar disorder. c 002720 180 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

I had problems with depression and anxiety when I was in college. That is actually why I ended up being a lawyer because I dropped my senior thesis, but when I went to law school, it turned out I was on the verge of my first manic episode starting. I was seeing a psychiatrist. I started seeing her during orientation because I knew I had issues. She told me you are experiencing symptoms of mania. You are not sleeping, you are losing weight, you are starting a new student organization, you are joining every student organization on campus and my RA eventually told me buckle down and do you work. I told her to get off of my back or I am going to jump off the roof of Langdale Hall which is the law school library. I had no intention of doing it, but I have learned the consequences of making a flippant remark to the wrong person at the wrong time.

The next time I went for an appointment with my 0 psychiatrist, my dad was there. I am from Connecticut and I was going to school in Massachusetts and I knew something good was not going to happen at that appointment and I was right.

When I walked out of my psychiatrist's office, I was grabbed by four Harvard University Police Department officers and brought back in. She told me, "I am putting you in the hospital." I was like fine I will go.

I returned to law school the following year, but they put conditions on my readmission. They said you have to stay in treatment. You have to stay compliant with what your doctors tell you to do. I wanted to be in law school more than I wanted 0 002721 181 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING anything else at the time, so I was willing to do what people told me I needed to do to be there.

I had problems with side effects of gaining weight and other things. Really, it never helped. The bottom line is for the better part of my 25 years in the system, the medications did not make me well. The medications had really bad side effects and too many people think oh if only those people would take their meds, everything would be fine. I am here to tell you that is not true. I was compliant with my treatment for a really long time and most of the time that I was in treatment, I was also desperately suicidal and tried to kill myself several times.

I was very lucky my husband has stayed by me. I am very lucky I had employers that stayed by me, but what got me well was making connections to many of c the people in this room, learning how to take care of myself. I have not been on any medication at all for the last three years. Despite all of the stress of this budget session as you can imagine that we are probably feeling, I still am holding it together. So what I want to tell you is recovery is real, but forcing people into treatment is not the solution, so I urge you to reject the bill.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you Kathy. Any questions? I see none. We appreciate your testimony.~~

~~KATHY FLAHERTY: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Daniqua Boulware. Hi. c 002722 182 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~DANIQUA BOULWARE: Sorry. Who experienced mental health and co-occurring disorders? I am here today to testify in opposition to HB-5531.~~

The reason I am testifying is because I have recently identified what one may feel if treatment is forced upon them against their will and human ability to refuse treatment options presented upon the one search for support addressing mental health challenges.

While I have never been placed in four-point restraints or forced to take medications, which I have always refused, I recently felt limited in my options due to my new HuskyD insurance. In my past, I have always been granted access to treatment options and providers of my choice such as private practice and independent licensed clinicians for behavioral health referrals especially when I opt 0 out of seeing an agency such as psychiatry.

I recently requested referrals from a past treatment agency for marijuana abuse and emotional disorders, but was continually linked back to The Connection, Inc. Finally, I decided to follow up with scheduling an appointment due to time constraints and active symptoms. I was not happy due to my familiarity with the agency as a professional social worker and therapist. Having active clients in the same vicinity was not comforting, yet my only resource for relief.

I hesitantly moved forward only to be further disappointed by the informed consent and intake process. I was blatantly lied to and informed multiple times that my insurance dictated a 0 002723 183 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING treatment plan including seeing the psychiatrist for medication and attending individual and group therapy with case management support being optional. The provider was willing to expedite my number of appointments to that I could meet with the psychiatrist for an immediate prescription.

Following multiple clear and concise statements to her against medication, she finally stated that I could replace medication with double individual therapy appointments. Since then, I have maintained an average of one weekly individual and group session without repercussions from my health insurance or the agency.

The fact that professionals can mislead consumers to consent into treatment they are fully aware does not benefit or interest them is my main concern. c Professional and legal permission to force treatment against the will of consumers is not in agreement with the code of ethics I graduated honoring and practicing nor something I would ever suggest supporting.

~~Eliminating the rights of humans to make informed consent for or against treatment options identified by inpatient or outpatient providers is a step in the wrong direction.~~

If our overall goals remains focused on improving the outcome and well-being for humans experiencing mental health and/or substance use disorders, inviting legal conservators to force humans capable of seeking or refusing treatment options in the community seems like a burden waiting to happen. I personally imagine that this option will quickly c 002724 184 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

become overly used in the hope of sedating social issues instead of taking the time necessary to assess and develop a trusting working relationship and treatment plan based on a client-centered approach.

Further assessments will surely lead to more appropriate comprehensive list of referrals for treatment and support options for individuals to consider. If we dismiss our rights, I strongly believe we will face a financial burden utilizing conservators and enable professionals to disregard the true needs and rights of human consumers given even more power than already established. This is a dangerous slippery slope and looking at how far I have come as a professional provider and consumer of mental health and substance abuse treatment, I am a strong believer and advocate for client-centered treatment planning. 0

Consumer input and choice should always drive the referral process as this bill could never success with a one size fits all or most theory. The right to self-determination remains my favorite ethic of my social work profession and my motivation for healing as a consumer in general.

In conclusion, I would like the community members to know that I have always refused medications since my formal entry into treatment in 2008. Yet, I have always been pushed to consider this option. Relying on medicine and not humanity is unethical and not the only or best option available for people to improve their lives.

0 002725 185 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 I have first-hand experience refusing medication and first-hand experience helping consumers consider the pros and cons of medication treatment. When the choice is left to individuals in a humane and ethical manner, it is more likely to be considered and tried with appropriate consent just as it could be considered and refused with appropriate consent. Thank you.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you very much. Any questions for Ms. Boulware? We do appreciate your testimony.~~

~~DANIQUA BOULWARE: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Marcia DuFore.~~

MARCIA DUFORE: Good afternoon Senator Coleman and c distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Marcia DuFore, and I am the Executive Director of the North Central Regional Mental Health Board and I am here to offer testimony about HOUSE BILL 5531.

Our board has had numerous discussions about this topic and our members, as Janine reflected, represent differing points of view about this issue and have actually asked me not to take a stand for or against_HOUSE BILL 5531. Now that I am here, I feel as though I would be remiss if I didn't raise some important considerations for you to consider in your deliberations. You have my written testimony where I have reviewed some of these in detail. So instead, I want to talk with you about two worlds. c 002726 186 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

The house bill talks a lot about appointing a conservator with authority to consent to medication. In an ideal world, those who are appointed as conservators are people who know and care about the people that they are responsible to help. They are knowledgeable about and can access services and support that promote wellness and recovery. They take into account the wishes of the person and the person is involved in decisions that affect them at times and to the extent that they are able. Maybe a plan was worked out between the patient and the conservator that acknowledges and honors the person's preferences.

In such a case, a combination of advanced directives and power of attorney might just work as well as conservatorship. Even then, sometimes people need to be rescued from the adverse circumstances that they have fallen into. Having been rescued myself 0 in my younger years, I can appreciate and are very grateful for people that looked out for me when I was unable to do that for myself. In my case, those people were my family who would have laid down their lives to protect me.

So different from the ideal is that world that has been described to me by family members struggling to access appropriate care and healing for their loved ones. Some who have been appointed or are seeking appointments as conservators were to include the authority to consent to medication. It seems like a viable alternative to them until they find out that the only way to carry out their duties is to call 911 and have the person they love transported by ambulance to a hospital where medication is administered by force and you have heard the stories 0 7 187 March 18, 201p0272 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING about. They fear, rightfully so, that this kind of help will destroy any vestige of trust remaining in their relationship and will cause their loved ones to run and hide from them and from mental health care, perhaps causing them to be at even greater risk.

An alternative they talk about is to find an attorney that is appointed by the court. These come with a cost about $2000 per year per appointment. That is not enough time to take to get to know the person or the system of care that best supports their recovery. It is enough time to consent to the administration of medication. Alternatives that have been proposed by DMHAS and any of the advocates who have spoken so well here today take much more time and effort and many of these services are in c jeopardy given the current budget climate. There has been some talk about the budget and so I want to make sure that you think about the fiscal note that should be attached to such a bill that does not take into account the human suffering for individuals and families that are traumatized by crises, lack of services and by the forced treatment process.

The other considerations and fiscal notes I have attached with my written testimony, so I ask you to consider those things as you deliberate fiscal and human cost on this issue. Thank you very much for your time.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : And thank you. Are there any questions? Senator Kissel. c 002728 188 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Yeah, I just want to say Marcia, thank you for being patient and waiting all day to come and testify and while I know that you had to take a very balanced approach to this piece of legislation. There is an awful lot in here that bothers me concern and I think the folks who have had concerns with the bill have done a very good job of articulating these concerns, but thank you.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Other members with questions or comments? I see none. Thank you Marcia. Christine Rapillo is next.~~

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: Good afternoon. My name is Christine Rapillo. I am Director of Delinquency Defense and Child Protection through the Office of the Chief Public Defender and I am here on behalf of Susan Storey, Chief Public Defende.r, to express concerns over raised BILL 347, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A 0 PROGRAM FOR COUNT-APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES IN CERTAIN JUVENILE COURT MATTERS.

Our concern is that we believe that the legislation is unnecessary. There are two CASA agencies in Connecticut operating now and they are available in the juvenile courts to be appointed to be guardians ad litem. The judges in the juvenile courts can decide that instead of appointing a guardian ad litem attorney, excuse me, they can choose in the courts when available to appoint one of the volunteers.

Our concern here is that having someone else, having another special advocate into the juvenile court process would be overly confusing for all of the parties involved in the system. Children who have a 0 002729 189 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING pending court case at the juvenile court deal with a long list of adults. They have a social worker. They have an attorney. They may have an attorney who speaks of their expressed interest. They may have a guardian ad litem that has been appointed to advocate of their best interests. They may have an educational surrogate and it is our belief that adding another level into the court process is unnecessary because, again, the CASA volunteers can be appointed as guardians ad litem.

I was not here this morning to hear some of the testimony because I was over at the Appropriations with some members that are sitting here, but I did read some of the testimony and I believe this is a very well-intentioned proposal by people who truly want to do well for children, but I think it would be a better use program for children if they did it c in conjunction with the Department of Children and Families and not add another level to the court process.

Should the committee determine that this legislation should go forward, our legislation has some concerns that the proposal, as written, interferes with the due process rights of parties other than children in juvenile court matters. The proposal specifically gives CASA access to any party, so that would assume they would be given, once appointed, access to parents. Parents have individual due process rights in child protection cases. They are often faced with losing temporary access to their children or having their parental rights terminated. Although these are very difficult cases, those are people who are given attorneys and who are given due process rights and having somebody who is statutorily given c 002730 190 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 access to parties apparently without the ability to have their attorney work with them, we believe would violate due process.

I notice that there is a statement in the legislation that says this is not designed to interfere with people working with their attorneys. I think the language is contradictory and as written would really give us problems in court as people try to figure out who should be talking to who and it would just add an unnecessary level of confusion to what is already a very difficult process for families to navigate through.

So while it appears to be a well-intended proposal, our argument today is that it is an unnecessary proposal and it would be more appropriate for the CASA groups, if this is the role that they wish to take instead of being court-appointed guardians ad 0 litem, to work with the Department of Children and Families and be able to do all the wonderful things that they do for these young people, but in the capacity as a volunteer with the department and it is not necessary that they be court-appointed. So, thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer any questions.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there questions? Thank you Christine. Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Gonzalez.~~

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): This ?ILL 347, this doesn't have nothing to do with family courts. I think that I remember Senator Kissel asked that question and I think that it was very clear that they said that this person has to do nothing with family court. 0 191 March 18, 2016002731 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: No, I understand that as well. My understanding is that they are seeking to be involved in juvenile child court protection matters. Our agency is responsible both for providing court ordered guardians ad litem isn't just people in family court, we also manage the representation in juvenile court. So if the court appoints attorneys for children, attorneys for parents and guardians ad litem in child protection cases, our agency is involved with that as well. I agree with you that this is not designed, as proposed anyway, to deal with family court in any way.

~~REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Okay, thank you.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Any other members with questions or comments? Quick question. Among the c people that you name who may already play a role in a case involving, excuse me, a juvenile, and just for clarification, juveniles you work with are both foster children and otherwise?

~~CHRISTINE RAPILLO: I am addressing the DCF child protection clients that the agencies handles, yes.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND} : Among those that you mention, it may play a role in attorneys, social workers, educational surrogates and others, are all of those individuals being paid?~~

~~CHRISTINE RAPILLO: The list that I gave you, those individuals would be being paid, yes.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Okay. c 002732 192 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~CHRISTINE RAPILLO: Not all by our agency, but they are all being paid.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : One of the comments made by an earlier person who presented to the committee was that there is some research that is available that somehow or another intuitively foster children know when someone is performing a job and when someone is volunteering and there seems to be some benefit, positively to the juvenile when they understand that a person is there because they want to be there and they're contributing, volunteering their time. Do you have any comment or reaction to that?

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: I've seen that research as well. And as I said, I think the idea of a different volunteer that helps children with education, that helps them apply for college, that does the list of things I have heard some of the witnesses talk to is 0 a good idea.

My concern is that when you add that into the court process, where there are already all of these other people dealing with court, that it will confuse the court process. Many of these children spend a number of years committed to DCF, so they have a commitment and there are hearings that happen, but a portion of time, usually about two years at the beginning of the case, where it. is more active in court, I think having a volunteer to advocate for the young person while they are on DCF care sounds like a good idea.

I just think that having it be a court-appointed person that has a say in the court process that gets to intervene in what's happening in court, that gets 0 002733 193 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING access to talk to all of the parties adds an unnecessary layer of confusion. Again, the people that work at these organizations who do good work already have a mechanism to be involved in the court as a guardian ad litem now, so if the court felt that the child needed that particular type of relationship, they are free to appoint them now with a guardian ad litem in the case.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Okay. Representative Gonzalez.~~

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): For the second time, thank you. So, this volunteer, if this bill does pass, you are not going to have control of this volunteer. They are going to be on their own or they have to respond to you or? c CHRISTINE RAPILLO: This is not under our supervision in any way.

~~REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): No.~~

~~CHRISTINE RAPILLO: And they are not now either. They are operating currently in juvenile court and they are not under our supervision now either.~~

~~REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): So having a person that is a volunteer that is going to be no cost. you know, to the parents or the system, you think is not good and is going to be confusing?~~

CHRISTINE RAPILLO: I think that they have a mechanism to volunteer under the current system. What I think is confusing is adding a separate classification of an advocate. The people c 002734 194 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

themselves of Connecticut and the people from CIT in New Haven currently operate in juvenile courts as volunteers, as guardians ad litem, and my opinion is that that is the appropriate way for them to continues to do their advocacy or to do it separately with DCF as volunteers through the DCF process. To add another classification of advocate who participates in the court process is unnecessary because these folks that do the good work can already participate as a guardian ad litem and I do think that adding another classification would be confusing to the people who participate.

~~REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Representative Rebimbas.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and good afternoon. Just more of a clarification just 0 so we are certain what when we are talking about payments and such. Correct me if I am wrong, but any advocate, attorney for the minor child, guardian ad litem in the juvenile justice system is not paid by the parties, is that correct?

~~CHRISTINE RAPILLO: That's correct.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Any others with questions or comments? I see none. Thank you so much.~~

~~CHRISTINE RAPILLO: Thank you.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Cheryl Sharp. Stacey Sobel. 0 002735 195 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING STACEY SOBEL: Good afternoon Senator Coleman and esteem members of the Judiciary Committee. I have to say you have infinite patience. I thank you for your patience and dedication.

I'm Stacey Sobel from Southport Connecticut, and I serve as the Executive Director of Child Advocates of Southwest Connecticut and I am here in support of RAISED BILL 347, AN ACT ESTABLISING A PROGRAM FOR COURT-APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES IN CERTAIN JUVENILE COURT MATTERS.

Child Advocates of Southwest Connecticut is a not for profit and we recruit, train and supervise court-appointed volunteers to work to ensure that abused and neglected children have safe, loving and permanent homes. Child Advocates of Southwest Connecticut is a member of the National CASA c Organization.

~~Here are the top ten reasons why we support BILL 347:~~

Reason number 10: BILL 347, CAC supports_BILL 347 because this legislation will permit more of Connecticut's abused or neglected children to be helped by more trained volunteer advocates. Currently and for the last 20 years or so, approximately 5% of the children in Connecticut have been helped by volunteer advocates. The national average for CASA members is over 35%, so Children in Connecticut are not receiving volunteer advocates at the rate that is the national average.

~~Reason number 9: We support BILL 347 because the CASA model, the national CASA model, is successful c 002736 196 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~throughout the nation and in fact, the legislation, as described by Patrice Tomey this morning when she testified, is based on New Jersey's successful legislation.~~

Reason number 8: We support .BILL 347 because nationwide results demonstrate that volunteer advocates make a difference and I have submitted written testimony containing specific facts and detailed information apd you also all received a CASA info graphic in your packet today.

~~Reason number 7: We support BILL 347 because volunteer advocates provide one-on-one attention to a vulnerable child.~~

~~Reason number 6: We support 347 because the children know the difference between a paid attorney, a paid caseworker, a paid therapist, a 0 paid teacher and a volunteer who chooses to help them.~~

Reason number 5: We support BILL 347 because having a vital CASA program represents the best of citizen activism, of people helping each other because they care and sending a message to a child that someone cares about them.

Reason 4: We support BILL 347 because we have seen firsthand the impact that a single volunteer advocate can have on the life of an abused or neglected child and you heard from Mary Flicker about her case.

0 002737 197 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Reason number 3: We support BILL 347 because Connecticut has a proud history of helping every child born to neglectful or abusive parents.

~~Reason number 2: We support BILL 347 because there are trained advocates ready, willing and able to serve.~~

~~Reason number 1: We support BILL 347 because BILL 347 is no cost to the state budget.~~

This program will be community-funded and community supported because people care. I think someone here mentioned that we need to do more with less, well we will be doing more with none and we will manage to raise the funds to serve these children. We ask you to please pass this important legislation to open the door for more volunteer advocates help as many c abused and neglected children here in Connecticut as possible. Thank you.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you Stacey. Any questions? Representative Rebimbas and then Senator Kissel.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and good afternoon. Thank you for your testimony. Several questions. How many of the members or volunteers of your organization are currently GAL certified and on the list?

STACEY SOBEL: None of our volunteers are trained by the state as GAL. Our volunteers serve as court appointed advocates in child protection matters. They are trained by CASA organizations; it is a different training. Our volunteers do get trained c 002738 198 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 over 35 hours by our organization and then they need to complete 12 hours of continuing education each and every year.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): You can have your own criteria. Is there a reason why your volunteers or you haven't encouraged your volunteers to go through the certification for guardian ad litem so that you are able to assist the children in that way?

STACEY SOBEL: That training is only available for guardian ad litem in family court and we do not work in family court. It is not for, it is not for volunteers in juvenile protection cases. It is a different training. It covers different subject matter.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Your organization has a different training. Guardian ad litem training 0 throughout the state of Connecticut is for guardian ad litem to be appointed in both juvenile court as well as in family court, so specifically you are seeking to have access to the juvenile court and my understanding is you do have access to the juvenile court, but additional access to the juvenile court. So, is it something you guys haven't thought about in getting certified in order to be court-appointed guardian ad !items as well?

~~STACEY SOBEL: To the best of my knowledge and I can get back to you after the hearing on this, I believe the training is only available for family court matters.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay. My understanding is that incorrect. 0 002739 199 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Okay.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Because to be a court appointed guardian ad litem in the judicial system, which includes the juvenile court, you have to go through the certification, so I strongly encourage that both of us will confirm that information because it would be wonderful to have the volunteers with the training and knowledge that they already possess than to be able to certainly do the additional training in order to be appointed.

~~STACEY SOBEL: Absolutely and I will look into that.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): How are you accessing these children currently, whether through the court system? How are you getting access to them? c STACEY SOBEL: Currently when a case starts, the child's attorney, who is paid for by the state of Connecticut, must present what the child wants and what is in the child's best interest. But sometimes on occasion, those two things conflict.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay, if you don't mind, I have to bring you back to the question. How are you, your organization, accessing the children now current?~~

STACEY SOBEL: When an attorney that represents a child feels that there is a conflict between the two roles of what the child wishes and what's in the child's best interest, the attorney requests the judge to appoint a separate volunteer advocate and that is how we can be appointed to the cases now. It is only in that narrow opportunity and only the c 002740 200 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

child's attorney can request. With this new legislation is doing is what Patrice Tomey had referred to this morning, opening the door for other parties in the case, including DCF, to request volunteer advocates, CASA, to serve more children.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (070th): Have you guys reached out to the DCF?~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Yes. They strongly support this legislation.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Nope, hold on. Outside this legislation, have you reached out to DCF to work with DCF?~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Yes absolutely.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And have they been receptive to your assistance? 0~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Yes, absolutely. We are currently involved in a pilot program with DCF for older youth, 18 to 21, and we offered our free services to DCF, yes.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Have you also reached out to different foster organizations and offered your services to the different parents and guardians?~~

STACY SOBEL: Our role as a CASA or a court appointed volunteer is to focus on the child and I know that Chris testified that we would have access to all the parties, we really don't. We have access to the child and in order for us to speak with any other parties in the case, we need to have their attorney's permission before we can do that. So, we 0 002741 201 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING only, we will only speak to a foster parent about the child and to try to access information about what is in the best interest of the child, but we don't work with foster children, foster parents, that's the role of DCF.

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): I know DCF has one role.~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Yeah.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): But there is nothing that prevents any organization to reach out to another organization, as there are foster parent organizations, have you reached out to the foster parent organizations and volunteered your services.

~~STACEY SOBEL: No, we have not.~~

~~REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you for your testimony. c STACEY SOBEL: No problem.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Senator Kissel.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. With the utmost respect to my fellow ranking member, I am not really encouraging you guys to go on to the family side. It is tempestuous at this point and your calling is with the children's side, and so I would rather have you sort of start there. I actually strongly support this legislation.

~~STACEY SOBEL: Thank you.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : I think we as a state need you guys and you know, I respect Attorney Rapillo, but when she starts listing off that you got this person is getting paid, this person is getting paid c and this person is getting paid, first of all, we 002742 202 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

are not going to be able to live like that much longer. We can't have six or seven people all getting paid to handle these young people's cases. We are going to have to streamline. You said it and I have been saying it, we have got to do more with less. We have this wellspring of individuals who care and we have to fit you in. You know, if we were the first in the country, then we have to go slow, but we're not. We are pokey. Land of steady habits. We are so proud of the land of steady habits. There is a land of change that is holding down because we can't break free. You know, Ms. Tomey, she has friends, her husband works as the Director of the FBI, so they are down in Washington a lot. She knows how it is working in Virginia and it is working great in Virginia.

~~STACEY SOBEL: ·correct.~~

~~SEN. KISSEL (S07): This bill is patterned after New 0 Jersey. By the way, your presentation, the ten reasons, I thought that was fantastic.~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR KISEEL (7TH) : Too bad we are not being filmed today, but it would have been good for visuals.~~

STACEY SOBEL: Too bad. I appreciate your comments and I just want to add one thing to that. The judges in child protection don't meet the children. The judges really appreciate when they get our court reports because our court reports give them color, texture, information about the child. We are kind of like the judges' eyes and ears out in the community 0 002743 203 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING to report back really in detail with this child's life.

~~SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : I appreciate your response regarding Attorney Rapillo that you are not going to be just going and talking to all of these other things.~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: No.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : So basically her major argument was it would be confusing. I don't see what the confusion is. Here is this wonderful resource for this young, young individuals and the proven, or at least the studies that you have indicate that the child succeeds for a variety of reasons. It could be because of the volunteer nature or just someone who cares passionately and that translates or certain things are being c addressed that all of these other paid people aren't addressing, who knows. I don't know. But you know, if it is working everywhere else, what do you say to the sole argument that oh it would create confusion in the system because if it doesn't confuse other states, why would it confuse us?

STACEY SOBEL: I am so glad you asked that question because we in Connecticut have the laboratory for 20 years we have been providing voluntary advocates. Granted it is only in 5% of the cases, but we can tell you that it has not caused any confusion for the last 20 years in 5% of the cases right here in Connecticut. So you could view what we have been doing for the last 20 years as a pilot program to demonstrate that there is no confusion and the model works successfully throughout the nation. We will obviously do our very best to work with Chris c 002744 204 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~Rapillo's office to make sure there is no confusion, you have our word on that, but we haven't experienced that.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Again, thank you very much for your advocacy. I think you guys made a great presentation. I loved that answer to the last question that we have had a 20-year pilot and it hasn't been a problem there. It has been a benefit. But again, the key touchdown for me is the kids.

~~STACEY SOBEL: Absolutely.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): If you can point to me and say these kids have this extra person that is helping them out, is a volunteer, a trained volunteer, and they do this much better, than why are we not doing it? STACEY SOBEL: That's exactly right. 0 SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): We should have been doing it years ago.

~~STACEY SOBEL: That's exactly right.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you Senator. Representative Gonzalez and then Representative Rebimbas.~~

~~REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Thank you Mr. Chair. You see this is a good example of how a Democrat and Republican work together because I agree with him 100%.~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Yeah, there you go.~~

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Because when people say that Democrats and Republicans don't work together, uh- 0 002745 205 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING uh, this is a good example. But when I hear you say that you have 35 hours training, I like that because right now, if I am not mistaken, for the regular guardian ad litem, they charge thousands of dollars and they only have 30 hours of training. I was reading in the information about the guardians ad litem. I would like, honestly, I would like to see a program like this. When I met with Patrick Carroll, I recommended something like this for family court, having volunteers because I know for a fact that there are a lot of volunteers out there that would do a good job as guardians ad litem and they don't have to squeeze the family for money like they are doing right now. So I know that I love the bill, the state really needs you and this case really needs you and again, thank you for your testimony and I would like to see in the future something like this with family court. It will c eliminate a lot or problems we have right now. Thank you very much.

STACEY SOBEL: Thank you and I will just add to that comment that there are amazing volunteers in this state. Connecticut should be very proud of the talent that we have of citizens that are willing to stop up and help others. It is really, really heart-warming.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Probably not so much as a question other than I have to correct to the record. As my fellow ranking Senator Kissel, I think misrepresented my earlier comments. There was no request or encouragement that this be extended to the family court. You are speaking specifically regarding juvenile court only. You were referencing family court when it came to guardian ad litem certification which would be for c 002746 206 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

all guardian ad litems that serve throughout the · state of Connecticut including family court and juvenile court. However with that said, I would strongly encourage someone such as your volunteers to go through the program because guardian ad litems are not only attorneys but non-attorneys and I would not even wait to list legislation to get the great knowledge and experience of your volunteers involved in the court system right away. Who knows if you turn around and say we are still not going to charge anything, I still see the savings, I still see the benefits and hopefully the implementation, and I am not saying I am for or against this legislation, but I say we can act now and we don't necessarily need to wait.

~~STACEY SOBEL: We will be happy to look into that, thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Representative Gresko. 0~~

~~REP. GRESKO (121st): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Right now, you help 5%. What is your estimated percentage if this goes forward? How many percentage do you think there will be?~~

STACEY SOBEL: Well there are approximately 4000 children in foster care annually in Connecticut and I would say we are going to need time to ramp up and we are going to need time to educate the court, the judges, the DCF workers, so we will do the best we can to fundraise and as much money as we can fundraise, we will help more and more children, so it is really going to be a business plan, a strategic business plan that we are going to have to develop to help as many children. Our goal and our mission is to help as many children as possible. 0 002747 207 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING REP. GRESKO (121st): Thank you.

~~STACEY SOBEL: You're welcome.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Are there other members who have questions or comments? Representative Dubitsky and then Senator Kissel.~~

REP. DUBITSKY (047th): Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you very much for coming in. I represented abused and neglected children for many years as an attorney for minor child, never got paid and did it all pro bono and frankly, I think if there were another person, I'd be confused. You said that there is a very small window in which these volunteers would be appointed and that would be when the attorney for the minor child, in my instance it would be myself, found that there was conflict between what was in the child's best interest and c what the child wants.

~~STACEY SOBEL: Correct.~~

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): IN all the cases I have been involved in, that is the point where I go to the judge and say judge I think we need to appoint a guardian ad litem.~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Correct.~~

REP. DUBITSKY (47th): So now we've got me, we've got the guardian ad litem that is looking at that little sliver in between what is in the best interest and what the child wants, and now we add a third person that does what?

~~STACEY SOBEL: Well, it's not guaranteed that there is going to be a third person added. This is c 002748 208 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

something that needs to be requested on a case and it is very possible that on cases where there are a separate guardian ad litem, no one on the case will feel the need for a CASA volunteer. We are not saying that we are going to serve on every single case. We are not saying that we are going to serve on cases where there are GALs. It might or it might not be that way. The paid attorney GALs play a very very different role than our volunteer advocates do as far as our involvement with the children. Even if there is a GAL, the CASA volunteer still plays a very different role. We view our role as advocating in the community, not just in the court. So, it is a much wider role. The word mentoring comes to mind, the word modeling advocacy for these children, modeling for them how to advocate for themselves. It is a different role. It also is a more collaborative role. It is not as much court oriented as it is community-oriented. 0 REP. DUBITSKY (47th): In the context of a court proceeding that is trying to determine what is in the best interest of the child, what does it mean to advocate in the community?

STACEY SOBEL: Well, what our volunteers do is they write a written court report that goes to the judge. Our volunteers don't play a role in the court proceedings or in the court room. If the judge has a question for us, the judge asks us. But the things that we do in the community are the things that Mary Flicker, who was our volunteer, who was here previously was testifying about, she goes with the young woman on college visits. She works with her to make sure that she is on point with her grades at school. She helps her when her placement is failing. When her placement disrupts, she calls 0 274 209 March 18, 2016°0 9 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Mary. When she ran away from home, she called Mary. I mean this is a 24/7 job. It is a much different role. The attorneys do a great job to advocate legally in the court room. This is a job that accomplishes so much more. We don't play a role in the.court room the way you are thinking of an attorney. we are not practicing law. We sit quietly until the judge asks us a question, but we submit materials, written materials to the judge to help the judge be informed about what is going on in the child's life in a much more detailed way then they would get from the child's attorney. I hope that helps.

REP. DUBITSKY (47th): So that brings up two questions. One is if they, if they take the child to school and take the child shopping and show them and help them with all of the things in the c community, we do they have to be court-appointed to do that?

STACEY SOBEL: The reason that CASA is court appointed is that is the national model, court appointed special advocate because otherwise, they would not have any legal authority to be involved in the child's life. They wouldn't be able to submit a court report. This is the national CASA model is that we are court-appointed. You know CASA started 30 years ago in Seattle, Washington. A judge in child protection realized that community volunteers could play a significant role in the child protection system and help these children in many many ways that the court system could not afford to do. That is really the model we are trying to bring to Connecticut. We haven't had it here. You haven't really experienced working with a CASA volunteer because it hasn't existed in Connecticut. c 002750 210 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~we have done some of it as a guardian ad litem in this very small window that we currently have, but we have not been able to do the full role as a CASA volunteer.~~

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): Okay, so currently you do this in 5% of the cases?~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Approximately, approximately.~~

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): Okay, under what statute or auspices do you operate?~~

STACEY SOBEL: When the attorney requests a guardian ad litem to be appointed for the child, the attorney can request either an attorney guardian ad litem or a volunteer guardian ad litem. If it is an attorney appointed, it is one of the panel attorneys and the state pays for that. If it is a volunteer, it is one of the people from our program that has been 0 trained and they get appointed.

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): Okay, so that is currently.~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Yes and that is the judge's discretion and the attorney makes the request.~~

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): So why do you need this bill?~~

STACEY SOBEL: We need this bill because we are serving so few because so few attorneys for the children request our services. DCF wants us on more cases and there is no way for DCF to request us on cases under the current statutory framework.

REP. DUBITSKY (47th): So this is to, so right now, they only get the referral if it is asked for by the attorney? 0 002751 211 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING STACEY SOBEL: The child's attorney is the only one that can request it and many times to be perfectly honest with you, the child's attorney requests a paid panel attorney to serve as a guardian ad litem because they want their fellow panel attorneys to get the business and have a payment.

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): Okay and this would allow DCF to ask for it as well?~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: This would allow any part in the case to ask for us.~~

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): Okay.~~

STACEY SOBEL: So the mom's attorney can request us, the dad's attorney can request us, the child's attorney can request us, the AAJ that represents DCF can request us. Any part to the case can request a c volunteer advocate because they believe that the child could benefit from having an advocate by their side.

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): Okay, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: You're welcome.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Representative Rebimbas.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I apologize. This might be the third time, but I think I need to clarify something again. As we previously did on the record with the public defender, the juvenile court, the parties do not pay for guardian ad litem and attorneys for the minor child. It is paid by the state at a flat feet. c 002752 212 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 STACEY SOBEL: Correct.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Also, DCF does have a wide margin of abilities to make requests in the juvenile court. Now, I have not had any experience with CASA volunteers, but as you did indicate through your testimony, you had been utilized. Now, I think we all see benefits. The question is how to better implement that, but I just need to make sure that there is no misrepresentation regarding how these individuals are being paid in the juvenile court.

~~STACEY SOBEL: Well, when we serve, we are not paid at all. When an attorney serves as guardian ad litem in protection, the attorney is paid for out of Chris Rapillo's office.~~

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): I admire the work and services you guys are offering at no fees and I hope that you do look into getting certified as guardian 0 ad litems as I think it would be a world of saving even to the state in that regard.

~~STACEY SOBEL: We will be happy to look into it.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Further questions? Representative Willis.~~

REP. WILLIS (64th): I believe that I met with Christine Rapillo and I know that when they need a guardian ad litem, they pay because the state pays. I think it is a flat fee. I think the cap is $500 and $50 per hour, but sometimes, it goes maybe $7000, $10,000 depending on how many times, how many times the guardian ad litem needs to meet with the child. So it is my understanding, yes they do get paid when they get involved in juvenile court, so that is my opinion. So I would say that the more 0 002753 213 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING the merrier and if this is not going to cost any money to the state, I really love this. I will support this bill.

~~STACEY SOBEL: Thank you. I appreciate it.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Further questions? Thank you.~~

~~STACEY SOBEL: Thank you very much.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Yep. Ken Slater.~~

~~KEN SLATER: Good afternoon Chairman Tong and members of the Judiciary Committee.~~

My name is Ken Slater. I am an attorney with the firm of Halloran and Sage. I am here both on my own behalf as an attorney that does a fair amount of work in the environmental law realm and also as the attorney that represented Bic in the litigation that c gave rise to BILL 431, which I am speaking in support of that is regarding consent orders with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

First on my own behalf, I can say that over a couple decades of work involving typically businesses and property owners, but even environmental groups involved with adjudications contested cases in front of the agency and a very important rule that the agency has is an encouragement just like cases they have in litigations in the courts to try and settle them. There is an entire section in which it encourages settlements by way of agreements and I can tell you prior to this case and I can tell you by a lot of colleagues that work in this area, we all believed that when we entered into those kinds of agreements that they were binding on both parties and we were surprised to find that in this c 002754 214 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 particular case, the agency took the position that based on a statute that allows the agency to revoke an order.

If they order you to do something that they can change their mind or they can modify it, that is a unilateral order, but an agreement on the other hand, we believed was not subject to that. The court thought it was not entirely clear and there was no reason because the statute didn't specifically call it out that the statute involving orders could also apply to consent orders, so I think that the decision really called out for legislative clarification.

To Representative Gresko's point in earlier testimony when Bic's corporate counsel, Ryan Sullivan testified, I think it is very important that this clarifying legislation be retroactive and in fact much of the legislation that this committee 0 adopts, if it is remedial or if clarifying, is in fact automatically retroa.cti ve. What is ideal in what I do and what courts do is that the legislation makes it perfectly clear and we think that whether the agreement that was entered into last week, a year ago or tomorrow, the clarification by the general assembly that the agreement should be binding on both sides makes sense and it actually wouldn't make sense to say only agreements that are entered into the future apply.

One thing to comment that Representative O'Dea said earlier about looking forward to hearing from the agency, I learned today that actually the agency did submit some pre-filed testimony. There are a couple of points I would like to raise there, one directly related to what I just said and that is the agency 0 27 215 March 18, 2016°0 55 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING suggests that if this clarifying legislation was adopted that it would wreak havoc. I would say that the reverse is true that as you hear from all the pre-file testimony from business organizations, pounds, even environmental attorney who typically represents environmental groups, the havoc is wreaked by taking the position that agreements that people have entered into are no longer binding and it would be very difficult to get clients to enter into those kinds of agreement if they are advised, as I will have to do, that the agreements aren't worth anything until they are binding.

One last point would be you would see from the comment that there is a great deal of discussion about the concerns the agency had with respect to the consultant who did work for Bic. Bic is very confident and was and hoping to present its case to c the court that its consultant did an excellent job. Ironically when a complaint was raised against that party, that firm entered into a consent order itself and said I don't want to litigate this thing, I will dispute the allegations against us, but I will agree to some terms and that is exactly what happened. If in fact the agency has a strong case that the consultant did not adequate investigate this site, they will be able to demonstrate that. Bic just wants an opportunity to be heard on that. The agency will as well and an independent decision maker, that is the court, will be able to make the final decision and that is what Bic asks and I think that is sound policy. Thank you.

REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you for your testimony. Before you testified Mr. Slater, I went back and looked through the testimony of the department and maybe I am missing something, but it does strike me c II 002756 216 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

that it would wreak havoc in the other direction as you suggest. You know, if the point here and the goal of the department is to cause corrective action to be taken, short of a full blown trial which could take years and years and sometimes millions of dollars on environmental law claim, it would seem that if you can enter into an consent order that includes corrective action that is often the most efficient result that is most beneficial to the state and to the environment. Would you agree with that?

KEN SLATER: I would agree with that. What is also does, is it creates uncertainty. Like litigation, someone in a contested case has to decide I can invest in this battle, I can invest and I think there is a good chance I will win, but perhaps I will lose. The agency proposes a reasonable proposal, you do some investigation, you do some 0 remediation and you don't agree you're responsible for it which will accomplish the goals of both the agency and the business in having some finality and uncertainty to the process and that is what those agreements allow for, so I agree with you 100%.

REP. TONG (147TH): What troubles me is, you know, let's just say you operate a waterfront business in Representative Fox's district near the cove in Sandford and DEEP comes to you and says you know there is a problem with this property and you have to take action. You know there is some dispute that maybe lasts a year or two and at some point, the parties agree that some corrective action will be taken, it's expensive, but instead of slugging it out for another couple of years with lawyers on both sides that it makes sense to take this corrective action and then let's just assume this business 0 002757 217 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING comes to you and says, Mr. Slater, if I enter into this agreement is that going to be the end of it for me, you know should I enter this agreement and you know will I be able to rely on it that if I do this that it will be sufficient to the state and I can go back to running my business and not spend thousands and thousands of dollars on legal fees? It seems to me that you would not be able to provide any kind of assurance in that circumstance, is that right?

KEN SLATER: I would go so far as to say I would be committing malpractice if I didn't explain to them that they wouldn't have that finality, that they wouldn't have that reliance. They might take the leap of faith that if they do the work, the agency would be satisfied, but they would not be able to rely on that document the same way you would in virtually any other agreement. c REP. TONG (147TH): So incentive would there be to enter into an agreement?

KEN SLATER: I think that is exactly what calls out and I think the judge in the decision pointed that out that as a policy matter, I don't know if it is wise to take away that tool to be able to dissolve those disputes and have people invest in solutions rather than in the fight.

REP. TONG (147TH): What happens though, and this is essentially what DEEP is saying, what happens if DEEP discovers later that they entered into a consent agreement based on false pretenses that the business didn't tell the truth or the study that was conducted was not reliable and in fact the data showed something totally different, what does DEEP do then? 0 002758 218 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 KEN SLATER: DEEP would have all the remedies that you and I would have if we entered into an agreement and I made misrepresentations to you. That is a remedy the agency will have in front of the court to be able to get the consent order revoked altogether because it was entered into under false pretenses like you can with other agreements.

REP. TONG (147TH): What if they find out new information that really wasn't anybody's fault but requires action? So they had one theory about the environmental contamination, but now they discovered that really wasn't true and that you need to do something else? Does DEEP have remedies there?

KEN SLATER: I think that depends. That is a challenging one. I think there can be something entirely different that the agency would have powers to issue different orders, separate consent orders, so I think there is some complexity to that one, but 0 if you are dealing with the four corners and Bic is an excellent example. Right now, there is a dispute, the agency thinks that the investigation is not complete and that more needs to be done even though there has been no evidence of a direct release on the Bic site, they are not convinced that Bic is not an additional cause. The agency thinks they can prove something and Bic thinks something else. That is a dispute that the court could sort out and the same thing can be true there whether there are extenuating circumstances, some new information that would give the ability of the agency not be able to augment, revoke or change the order, they would be able to do that in front of a court.

REP. TONG (147TH): Representative O'Dea. 0 002759 219 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Attorney Slater. Going along, I did read through DEEP's response, Commissioner Klee's testimony. I wish he or someone here is going to testify on their behalf, but I'm sure I'm going to talk to them at some point in time. Taking a look at the end of their testimony, in addition to the questions the chair had pointed out undisclosed or undiscovered information, what about where you know they claim that if a party passes away or a business entity is dissolved, how would that be handled in a normal consent order situation?

KEN SLATER: I don't understand how it would be different than any other agreement. The law is well-established and the agreements are much of what business and human interaction are built on and there is a whole body of law that both through c legislation and case made law that deals with those situations, so I don't understand why it would be any different.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I don't either. I was just hoping you would educate me on what their angle was in that argument. I see they also state that it gives more flexibility to remove regulatory hurdles for new property owners. How would that be any different under the normal consent order type deals?

KEN SLATER: As with an agreement, I will point out one thing. I had an opportunity to review that. I am not certain if I'm going to file some additional written testimony afterwards, but I will study the commissioner's response more carefully and I might be able to clarify better than I am right now some of your questions, but I would think that, again, it's an agreement, so whether it be a successor c 002760 220 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~entity or the one that enters into the agreement, if there is a good solution, the parties can always modify it by agreement.~~

That is what is so important here that neither side should be able to do anything unilaterally and I think that the legislation that we are seeking to amend, I believe the general assembly believed they were enforceable when that legislation was adopted that specifically said the commissioner cannot require someone who has been ordered to remediate or consent order remediate to require to a different standard than existed at the time.

If the commissioner, if the general assembly thought the commissioner could simply revoke the order, I think that legislation would have been pointless, so you would have said so, so I really think we went 0 without saying they were enforceable until now and now it is just a great opportunity for clarification.

~~REP. O'DEA (125TH): And if one party committed fraud, you could certainly bring that to the court and the court could address that fraud claim, correct?~~

~~KEN SLATER: Absolute, absolutely, and that remedy exists and could result in nullification of the agreement and all the powers of the agency would have had after the agreement is nullified.~~

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Attorney Slater. Thank you Mr. Chair. 002761 221 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING REP. TONG (147TH): Further questions? Oh, Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129th): Just real quick, I think we are all reading along here and sort of thinking the same thing, so I don't want to beat a dead horse. Just going back to that flexibility argument one more time, in your experience, not just in the Bic case, but in your practice generally, presumably if DEEP is coming to a new owner of land and says we are going to provide you more flexibility and require less than what is required under the consent order, wouldn't the party be jumping up and down, the new land owner, saying of course we bought this piece of land expecting to have to do X, Y and Z and now you are only telling us we have to do X andY.

KEN SLATER: Absolutely and one step ahead of that, the owner is probably going to want to have some c certainty when they buy the property in the future that they have to do, you know, A, B, C, D, X, Y, Z. Knowing that they have to do that, that kind of finality of the consent order would probably be important for the purchase in the first place, but if you had someone, in the Brownfield situation, they were willing to come in and invest, they approached the agency and could the consent order be amended and it absolutely could. They could confirm it and change it and that is the beauty of the agreement. You just need to do two partners to do the agreement. In that case you would have it.

REP. STAFSTROM (129th): You'd amend it like any other contract, you wouldn't necessarily totally revoke the entire order, you just amend it by agreement of the parties. c 002762 222 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 KEN SLATER: Or you could do a substitute and create a new one and use the old terms and modifies it. There is a whole host of things as you can do with any other agreement.

REP. STAFSTROM (129th): Again, I think the statement was made when Bic's corporate counsel was here and I certainly echo the remarks from Representative O'Dea and from the chair that we appreciate you bringing this to our attention. I think what struck me in his testimony here is DEEP actually says this is not the first time they have done this. This is not the first consent order so they revoked. So I am curious again, sort of outside the Bic context, whether in your practice you have experienced this previously?

KEN SLATER: I haven't and in fact, I believe you will be hearing a member from the Bar Association. I think you will be hearing from the Bar Association 0 and their support for this. In the dialogue among the environmental section, I didn't learn from any of them that they had been involved in one where there had been a revocation. I don't have any double that the commissioner is correct in saying it has. I haven't heard of it and I don't think anyone or the active members of the environmental association at least raised that there had been one of these revocations before, so that was news to me.

~~REP. STAFSTROM (129th): Thank you for spending your Friday afternoon with us.~~

~~KEN SLATER: My pleasure. Thank you.~~

REP. TONG (147th): Further questions? Thank you. Scott Harrington. Good afternoon. 002763 223 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SCOTT HARRINGTON: Good afternoon, Representative Tong.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thanks from driving up from our neck of the woods.~~

SCOTT HARRINGTON: You're used to that. My name is Scott Harrington. I am here on behalf of the litigation section of the Connecticut Bar Association which I serve as chair of in opposition to RAISED BILL 5525.

~~I submitted some written testimony and I am not going to rehash the written testimony, but I want to get some background as to why the section is opposing the bill.~~

The section, and I have been involved with the leadership of the section probably going on ten c years between being a legislative liaison, and we have lockstep officers like the Connecticut Bar Association does, so I served as treasurer and secretary. We don't usually, unlike the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association who take positions on real substantive legislation, because we have a broad spectrum in the litigation section of the Connecticut Bar Association, we typically only take positions when we are dealing with either legislation or rules that effect access to the courts or effect the rules and the procedures by which we practice in the courts.

And we believe clearly this role, which as I understand from Representative Tong, I believe, it was your bill, we believe that the bill which essentially, and there is certainly nothing wrong with this, it worked in the federal court for years, c 002764 224 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~but the federal courts are different than the Connecticut courts in many respects, but it is essentially taking Rule 11 of the federal court and putting it on to the state court.~~

Typically that type of rule is really how a case proceeds in the court. It is not a substantive rule with what the law is, what types of cases you can bring, but it is when the case is in the court how the litigants conduct themselves whether they are self-represented or attorneys. That has traditionally been something the judges themselves through the rules of practice in the practice book as we call it practice book, traditionally, the judges themselves had those rules. They have a whole process by how they do it.

Anybody can propose a rule to the Rules Committee of the Superior Court. They meet on a monthly basis. They are public meetings. They publish their 0 agendas not so far in advance sometimes as we would like them to, but they do publish their agendas and anybody can propose a rule.

There is also the Civil Commission that is a standing committee that meets quarterly that proposes rules or rule changes, who then pass them on the Rules Committee. The Civil Commission is lawyers in the state of Connecticut and judges in the state of Connecticut, but I just want to point out very quickly is what we have now, we have rules that cover a fair portion of what is being proposed in 5525.

we have Rule 4.2, which is a rule that already exists that requires pleadings to be signed and by signing them, you are certifying that there's good 002765 225 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING grounds to support the allegation. Not the same language of what is in the proposed bill, but similar.

We also have Rule 10.5 which is essentially the same as what is going to be proposed to be repealed in section 2 of this bill which is virtually the same language which deals with costs and attorneys fees that can be imposed. I assume that rule will still stay there even if statute 52.99 is repealed.

~~Interestingly, the judges had increased the amount of attorney's fee that could be awarded, sort of (inaudible) filing from $10 in the statute to $500 in the practice book.~~

Plus as recently as January 1, 2015, Rule 1-25 went into effect and that particular rule was a sanctions rule that covers a lot in the proposal. It doesn't c allow a litigant to file a motion for sanctions, but it does allow a court on its own motion to allow sanctions. So I see my time is up, if anyone has any questions, I would be happy to answer them. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and give testimony.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Scott. I appreciate you providing the testimony and I do understand that state court is different.~~

I did read your testimony and strongly disagree that the separation of powers prevents us from legislating this area since we do so all the time, particularly on matters of procedure, Title 52 is rife with legislative intrusions into this area.

I am not aware of any of them being ruled unconstitutional, but with that being said I guess c 002766 226 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 the reason why I introduced the legislation because we hear, and you heard some of this today, about abuse in our courts. We hear in the family law context. We hear the complaints of litigants about the cost. We hear about over-aggressive tactics by lawyers. We hear about dilatory tactics. Maybe this is no different in federal court.

To be candid, much more of my practice is in federal court. I think there is a general sense, rightly or wrongly, that federal court can at times be more orderly and maybe the process is a little bit more transparent and less insular. You know, I don't think that is a controversial statement. The first time I walked into short calendar, it was like what is going on here (laughter). Sometimes, I say where's Senator Coleman, he's in short calendar, he won't be back for awhile.

So, I think we can all agree on that that there are 0 stark differences and sometimes, state court can be a little hard to penetrate, so this was an effort to introduce a concept that is well known to federal court practitioners, Rule 11, sanctions rarely used. You know as a litigant, you often with clients talk about filing a Rule 11 motion, but you rarely ever get there because it is like the nuclear option, but it's there and it hangs over you and I think it does keep lawyers in check. What is wrong with doing that here in Connecticut in state court?

SCOTT HARRINGTON: The section itself has not necessarily said that parts of Rule 11 in addition to what we already have in the existing practice book might not be something we would be willing to support as a rule change as opposed to a statute, and I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I would 0 002767 227 March 18, 2016 · dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING suggest, and I understand you agree and that is what lawyers do and we disagree, and I think that is one of the important things behind our opposition to Rule 11.

I happen to think some parts of Section 52 have not been ruled unconstitutional are because people don't raise them. We don't generally raise procedural things on appeal like that, but hard cases sometimes make bad law and the State V. Clementi case, there was a statute, it was in the criminal context, but there was a statute that required certain evidence to be given to the defense to you know exculpatory type evidence, a previous statement given by a witness, and that apparently was in contravention of a court rule.

They said it didn't and the court said they didn't have to give that and it was a bad case because it c involved some sexual assaults in some young people and they didn't want to overturn the conviction of these bad people and I think that might have been some of the motivation, but they basically found that statute unconstitutional.

We don't want to find a statute unconstitutional. We don't want to really litigate, we have enough litigation, and I'm not against that because it is what I do for a living, but we don't want to litigate collateral issues, but I think the problem is a lot of times people confuse advocacy and really firm advocacy for sanctionable conduct.

Personally, and I have been practicing in more state courts than federal courts, but I do some federal court work as well for 28 years and almost predominantly litigation, I really rarely see a need c 002768 228 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

for sanctions to come up or a desire for sanctions to come up. The only time they get raised from me is when I may have a self-represented party on the other side who for wanting of a better term who is abusing the system in my opinion and my client says can't we do anything about it.

Or two, if I have a local counsel for an out-of state lawyer who says let's move for sanctions on that. A lot times, I think sanction motions are used as a litigation tactic, not for purposes of stopping a frivolous claim or a frivolous defense, but really as a litigation tactic by aggressive lawyers. Sometimes you have to draw the line between good aggressive advocacy and you know when you cross the line.

~~REP. TONG (147TH): That is a very blurry line.~~

~~SCOTT HARRINGTON: I'm sorry? 0~~

REP. TONG (147TH): It is a very blurry line. I can tell you that among the members. Just because they have it as a federal rule, just doesn't mean we should have it. There is a contingency that says that. I tend to block those kinds of arguments out, but there is a contingency of people who object. One thing I will point out about Rule 11 is Rule 11 is something that was promulgated by the judges of the federal courts and not by Congress. So, it is the judges who are there and see on a daily basis, even though of us who litigate are not there on a daily basis seeing multiple cases, case after case after case, I think they are the ones that .... if nothing else, they should have input into whether or not we should have one of these rules. 0 002769 229 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING REP. TONG (147TH): If I'm not mistaken and I'm having a law school flashback, I think the federal rules of procedure are promulgated by Congress.

~~SCOTT HARRINGTON: I think they are promulgated by the judges and vetoed by Congress.~~

REP. TONG (147TH): They are approved and enacted by the Congress of the United States. It is different than the way we do it, but I do believe that the rules are promulgated by Congress as a technical matter and not ... ! agree that the courts have a role in it, but I think it is different than the way we do it frankly.

You know, your point about the courts having control of their rules and that maybe being the best way to do it is well taken. But I do think that there is room for improvement in the practice book that I c think all of us can agree on. If you are suggesting that the bar and the litigation section is willing to take a hard look at the general structure that has been constructed around sanctionable conduct and maybe review what we have as a state and where appropriate introduce elements, borrow elements of Rule 11 from the federal analog where appropriate and you want to report back to this committee on those efforts, I think we would be happy to receive your work.

~~SCOTT HARRINGTON: I would be happy to do that.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Representative O'Dea.~~

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you Mr. Chair. Just briefly, thank you counsel for your testimony. You know, right now, my pause in this legislation would be you know I haven't used a motion for sanctions 0 002770 230 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 for 22 years. I did threaten it recently to try and get counsel to be reasonable, but in state court, you really don't run into it much. My concern is could you see if this were out there, I think there would be an increase in litigation costs with people threatening this and not a decrease. What do you think counsel?

SCOTT HARRINGTON: I do and I think it would be ... there is a handful of cases where I am local counsel where I would have to be in a daily fight with counsel from out of state as to filing one of these motions if such a statute exists and it is generally not the way we practice in Connecticut. We try and work these things out.

Look, there is always going to be a situation, but the judges do have the inherent authority now to sanction. They are probably a lot more reluctant than a federal judge to do it because they don't 0 have lifetime appointments and they will have to come before this committee and answer questions about why they sanctioned somebody or why they didn't sanction somebody. I do think that you will have a rash of motions filed. If the statute exists even .... certainly if the statute is adopted by the judges at a later time, it would become a rule of the court, but if it is passed and you had the existing rules that we have and it is not adopted then you would have sort of a conflict there. someone can sanction badly enough or thinks that someone should be sanctioned badly enough, maybe we would find out if the appellate court or supreme court would find th9 statut9 unconstitutional. I just think it would create more motions unrelated to the merits of the case, whether as a litigation tactic or otherwise. 0 002771 231 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you and if the chairman would like more input on that, I would work with the Bar Association and try to improve our practice with rules as well. Thank you. Thank you counsel.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Chairman Tong has stepped away to short calendar. Representative Stafstrom.~~

REP. STAFSTROM (129th): Thank you Mr. Chair. Just really briefly, I think you raise an important point that Representative O'Dea and I were kind of joking about here sort of as you started your testimony.

We in the Connecticut Bar, those of us that practice in the Connecticut courts and even in district courts here in Connecticut, often pride ourselves in sort of being more collegial, a little less adversarial with our opposition than sometimes our counterparts to the south can be. I think that is an c important consideration that we need to keep in mind as we think about this legislation. What effect, if any, something like this might have sort of on the way we are accustomed to practicing here in Connecticut, which I think most of us who do sort of choose to because of the collegial nature here as opposed to some of our colleagues to the south shall we say. Actually just to the chairman's benefit, I did Google and thanks to the benefit of Wikipedia, the federal rules are actually promulgated by the US Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, but then Congress has seven months to veto them.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Representative Dubitsky.~~

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just have a quick question. You said you submitted written testimony? c 002772 232 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~SCOTT HARRINGTON: I did. Is it not there?~~

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): I am looking at the website and I don't see your testimony having been posted. Did you post it and when did you submit it?~~

~~SCOTT HARRINGTON: I believe it was submitted yesterday.~~

~~REP. DUBITSKY (47th): Alright. Thank you. I will track it down when it's posted. Thank you Mr. Chairman.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Any other members. Chairman Tong.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): I'm back from short calendar.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Anything else from members? If not, thank you very much for your testimony. 0 SCOTT HARRINGTON: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Daniela Giordano.~~

~~DANIELA GIORDANO: Good afternoon, almost evening Senator Coleman, Representative Tong and members of the Judiciary Committee.~~

My name is Daniela Giordano, I am the Policy "" 5 531 Director for NAMI Connecticut, National Alliance of Mental Illness, and we provide support, advocacy and education programs for individuals and family members around mental health.

I am going to try to keep my testimony a bit shorter. I know it has been a longer day and you have my written testimony online. I just really want to be another voice added to the opposition of 0 002773 233 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING the forced treatment BILL 5531. You have heard some very compelling testimony from numerous people through different angles and we alongside our other advocates also oppose this legislative proposal for a myriad of reasons.

I just want to really focus on a couple. As you already know, mental health is integral to our overall health and well-being and should not be treated any differently than other health conditions and despite this, there are no other illnesses for which you would even presume that we should use legal force to make someone take medications.

In fact, it is documented that over 50% of people that are prescribed heart medications do not take them or take them erratically, but no one would even think that we would use the intervention of a court order, healthcare police or actual law enforcement c to make people do so especially when individuals live in the community and the same issues apply to people with diabetes or other chronic health conditions.

The other, I think, important concept that we need to look at is people sometimes considered treatment resistant or noncompliant. This is a faulty concept. It requires an individual to fit and conform to a treatment system including when that system is not fully coordinated and most likely lacks the capacity and sometimes even the skills to do effective outreach and engagement with individuals to take care of their health concerns. Instead, the system is a player that needs to find ways to engage individuals in person-centered individualized ways and not give up on people. c 002774 234 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:3n A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 As we have heard, choice is really that essential word in all of these discussions. Additionally, the system most likely lacks the full range of services, support and housing that individuals would find helpful, at the time they would find helpful and this is not able to effectively connect people with these much broader range of services. This is especially of grave concern in our current budget climate which threatens to deeply cut current mental health and substance abuse services and supports which are not adequate as is at the current moment.

~~So forcing individuals to undergo forced treatment is unconscionable even in a good service climate but even more so in these difficult budget and service times.~~

on the other very positive side, as you have also heard, Connecticut has been and is a leader when it comes to recovery-oriented services that focus on an 0 individual's self-determined process and goals for their lives and well-being and has produced very positive results without coercion in the violation of individual rights. In my testimony, I have laid out again probably echoing a lot of other people's testimony, the kind of things that we have in Connecticut including peer support, interventions and you have heard from people who either work in peer run organizations or have benefitted from those services. May I just conclude?

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): You may continue.~~

DANIELA GIORDANO: As well as the Board of Housing, citizenship initiatives, specialized young adult services, wellness programs as well as jail diversion and reentry programs and using documents 0 002775 235 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING like advanced directives. So in conclusion, Connecticut through both the legislative process as well as work group and task force processes, has rightfully rejected involuntary outpatient commitment numerous times over the past 20 years. It is time to do so again and continue to support. individuals who have access to proven, effective, cost-effective solutions. Thank you for listening to another advocate once again.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Are there questions or comments? I see none. We appreciate your testimony.~~

~~DANIELA GIORDANO: Thank you.~~

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Janice Wieduwilt, and I know I'm butchering the last name, W-I-E-D-U-W-I-L-T. Anybody named Janice? If not, (Unidentifiable c name).~~

~~UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Good evening members of the Judiciary Committee. I'm in support of SB 428 for legal aid funding.~~

~~My name is (unidentifiable name) . I work part-time at Payless Shoe Stores and I am raising two children with my husband in New Haven.~~

In 2014, my husband and I invested all of our entire life savings in an apartment. At the time we had to move, but the apartment never got ready for us to move in. Without the money lost, we fell behind in rent and paying utilities like electricity got harder to pay. I became very afraid of not being able to provide a roof over my kids. We didn't have enough money to move or we could not go back to Puerto Rico. We literally were stuck. Then at an c 002776 236 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 orientation meeting at my daughter's school, I found Legal Aid Services and they said that they could help me with my housing situation.

My first thought, my first thought was I have to give this a try because it is a sign from above. The next day, I met with a lawyer to review the case and from there, the lawyer wrote a letter to my former landlord and within about a week, we received a check and got all of our money back, about $5000. It may not seem like a lot of money, but it was all the money that we had at the time. If it weren't for legal aid, I will still be in that situation not knowing what to do. I wonder how many other people they might be able to help who were in the same situation I was or much worse. Please make sure that Legal Aid has funding for all the people who need it, like I needed it. Thank you.

~~SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND) : Thank you. Any questions? 0 Representative Gonzalez.~~

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD): Thank you for coming in to testify and for sharing your story to do that. Most of us, I think that we care for the poor people. There is a perception that the legislators pass bills and sometimes they don't think about, but we do think about people. I will say that one of the bills that I really like is 428 and I plan to support. Well, thank you for coming in today and share the story with us.

~~UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Thank you and have a good evening.~~

SENATOR COLEMAN (2ND): Joe Williams. No response. Martha Mendez. Nancy Urgell. 0 002777 237 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING NANCY URGELL: My friends needed to come over here and give me support. They are on their way. I did not realize it would be soon. Okay, never mind.

Dear Committee, thank you for having your committee meeting today. I appreciate being able to come and tell you my story. I am advocate for all people with disabilities, especially people with mental disabilities.

I know what it is like to be forced to take medication because I am a consumer as well. I knew what it was like to be put on meds that did not work and became toxic in the system. One medication I was very allergic to, but I had to take it otherwise or I was going against doctor's orders. It made me sick. I could not say anything about. I found out later my insurance was not covering my stay at the nursing home and I had to leave. Before that, if I c didn't take the medication, I would not be compliant with the doctor and that would've been a big problem because I would still be at a convalescent home or a state-run psychiatric hospital. I found out my insurance was not covering my stay and I had to leave. I was not getting along with my mother at the time that I had to leave. If I didn't go with my mother, I would have had to go to a shelter. I've never been in a shelter. I made up with my mother and went with her, thank God. I had no problems with the meds that I took, but it was, but they were not the right medications.

Also I needed another medication that they refused to give me. I could not function without this medication. I could not get out of bed, shower, eat, or go to the day treatment. I had to go to another hospital to get the medication I desperately c 002778 238 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 needed. I was given the medication and I felt better. I forgot to mention, while I said before, because I was at the nursing home and I did not take the meds that I would have to go to the state-run hospital, I would've lost everything; my house, my car, my belongings. I had to take medications after medications were straight. I went to day treatment. The doctor there changed my medication. It was not right.

It is dangerous for the state to force medications or tell them we need to go to day treatment. It could be deadly if put on the wrong medication. I have to be on some older and some newer. It took 25 years for them to get my medications straight, maybe even longer than that. I take medications for my condition and I agreed to take them, but it is not right to force somebody to take medications that can make them sick. Please do not pass these bills. Thank you very much. Sorry. 0

SEN. TONG (147th): Thank you very much and thank you for your patience in being here today. I can assure you and everybody that sat here patiently that your testimony is very helpful and impactful to all of us.

NANCY URGELL: It is critical that they don't go to doctors. I mean I had this one doctor in one of the hospitals and he did not -- I had a migraine and I needed to take 100 mg of Imitrex. He gave me 25 mg. I had an ice pack on my under eye under my glasses. I could not see with the light. I was in excruciating pain and he would not give me 100 mg. Some of these doctors don't know what they are doing. So, I don't plan on going back to that 0 002779 239 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING hospital ever again because he is still there and I don't want to be put in that --

~~REP. TONG (147TH): I sometimes say I realize that I became an adult when I discovered that doctors and teachers were not infallible.~~

~~NANCY URGELL: Right.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Sorry Senator Kissel (laughter) or lawyers either. Any comments or questions? Thank you very much.~~

~~NANCY URGELL: I have one more thing.~~

~~REP. TONG (147th): Sure.~~

~~NANCY URGELL: I have a thing for people with disabilities. I promote this program called c Medicaid for Employees with Disabilities. I brought this up before.~~

I don't know if you can do it in this room at the time, but if you are disabled, working and paying employment taxes, it is possible to get Medicaid even if having an income of $75,000. My goal and my talent is to get the word out to Connecticut about this program because anyone can become disabled. I don't care who you are, no discrimination, but there is discrimination about people with mental disabilities and that has to stop.

I have not told my story ever. I am an advocate for people with disabilities that is how I describe myself. I do not describe myself as a consumer. Otherwise, I would not be able to work. I am happy, read my story, got it over with. c 002780 240 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you very much.

~~NANCY URGELL: Thank you for having me.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Yep. Stephanie Alicea. Good afternoon.~~

~~STEPHANIE ALICEA: Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie (inaudible). I am in favor of SB-428~~

I work part-time at Hercules Helping Hands as a companion. I go to school part-time and raising a child. I was in a situation, custody, with my daughter's father and he wanted to take custody away from me.

The reason I found Legal Aid is because there was substance abuse with that and I didn't know where to turn to. I have called lawyers and I didn't have the money to afford a lawyer. So I came up on 0 Greater Hartford Legal Aid to discuss my custody case. Before I called Legal Aid, I had sole custody of my daughter and her dad had limited visitation. He got arrested and got a criminal attorney involved in the custody case. I called everyone for help, but I didn't have the money for an attorney, like I said. So, I called Legal Aid and an attorney took my case.

Since court, now things have been really calm. I've been going to court not scared and not afraid and with more confidence. My GHLA attorney helped me by explaining what I needed to do to keep my daughter safe. Since I got a GHLA attorney, I have less anxiety. She always contacts me on different options we have on approaching a situation in court. I have not been any happier with the results. I went from not having hope to having justice and 0 002781 241 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING being able to really explain to the judge what was going on. If I didn't have legal aid, I would be lost and scared because of the fact that I thought I would lose my daughter. I would keep coming to court afraid and with more confidence. She really helped me understand that I am not alone and we have the court system and legal ways to do things.

Please support an increase in legal aid funding because I believe this is a great, great opportunity. This is a great low income-based program to help people get advice and representation by a GHLA lawyer. It's also important for people to have lawyers to help understand the process and documentation needed to be filed in court. I would recommend this program to people with all different problems and they will definitely get the help they need. c REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you Stephanie and thank you for speaking up and for your patience all day. Questions? Have a great weekend.

~~STEPHANIE ALICEA: Thanks, you too.~~

~~REP. TONG (147th): Cori Mackey.~~

~~CORI MACKEY: Good evening Representative Tong.~~

~~REP. TONG (147th): Good evening.~~

CORI MACKEY: And members of the committee. My name is Cori Mackey and I am the Executive Director of the Christian Activities Council here in Hartford. We are a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing leaders who act collectively for social justice. c 002782 242 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~I am testifying in support of SENATE BILL 428, AN ACT CONCERNING FUNDING OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE POOR.~~

My team of community organizers and I became involved with residents of a multi-family Hun subsidized apartment complex in the north end in late July 2015 when all residents were displaced by a fire. Many of these residents were all very low income including families with children who lost every they owned. Many lost legal documents and personal identification as they were forced to evacuate quickly.

The residents initially encountered problem with the city of Hartford's Relocation Assistance Program and were told that they would get two weeks in a motel. After that, they were expected to stay with friends or family or call 211 to find space at a shelter. 0 With Greater Hartford Legal Aid's help, we successfully organized the residents. The residents were able to bring attention to the problem in the city's relocation assistance program and get the real day-to-day help they all needed. Greater Hartford Legal Aid was critically important because they taught residents about their legal rights under the law and helped our organizers understand the law and benefits these residents were entitled to receive. This action saved some 40 residents from 18 units from being forced from stable housing to homelessness.

We also became aware that Greater Hartford Legal Aid has a case in court which is trying to improve the city's relocation program overall. We helped them fight that case as members of the affected 0 002783 243 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING communities so that tenants can get the relocation help they need and are entitled to when their homes are lost due to fire or code enforcement issues causing them to be vacated.

Legal aid provides critical services to our poorest most vulnerable residents. Providing adequate funding is not simply the right and just thing to do, but it is also a smart financial investment. The clients that Legal Aid represent live within the margins and are easy targets for predatory actions. A number of their clients found themselves at the mercy of predatory landlords, unscrupulous employers or violent spouses.

The work of Legal Aid is often the difference between a family remaining housed, employed and self-sufficient versus entering homelessness or joblessness needing to rely more fully on safe aid. c Someone will pay for the resulting consequences of these landlords and employers' actions and by supporting Greater Hartford Legal Aid, we are providing more opportunities for justice to be served and for their clients, our poorest residents, to have their rights protected.

I am asking you today to please support this bill for increased legal aid funding because right to legal representation, particularly that provided by the competent, passionate and dedicated staff of Hartford Legal Aid, is a critical lifeline to so many of our residents. We can't afford to lose these services. Thank you.

~~REP. TONG (14 7TH) : Thank you. Questions? Thank you very much. Chris McCormack. c 002784 244 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING~~

~~CHRIS MCCORMACK: I will be optimistic and say good afternoon and say I thought March madness was about basketball, but I see what is really going on.~~

~~REP. TONG ( 14 7TH) : This is nothing (laughter) .~~

~~CHRIS MCCORMACK: Good afternoon Chairman Tong and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.~~

My name is Chris McCormack and I am an environmental attorney at Pullman and Comley in Bridgeport, Connecticut. I am also the chair of the Environmental Section of the Connecticut Bar Association and sections legislative liaison.

So I am here today to testify on behalf of the section in support of SB-431. Our view is that this clarifies, usefully clarifies, that the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection cannot 0 unilaterally revoke a negotiated administrative order on consent. We need this clarification because consent orders are very useful and the notion of a unilateral ability on the part of the department to revoke is going to have a chilling affect on both existing and future such orders.

Consent orders are widely used to resolve issues concerning environmental compliance. There are probably hundreds outstanding right now both parties performing them. I know myself and my colleagues in the environmental section have many of them in our file cabinets. They come out from time to time and we look at them to try to counsel our clients and find out what we need to do next, find out whether the things the Department is asking them to do are

~~0 002785 245 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING the things that they have agreed to do and the Department has agreed to accept.~~

These are important to the regulated community. The benefits are obviously you resolve your liability. You can at least influence the outcome. When you are negotiating with the Administrative Department, you are not exactly in a strong position, but at least you have the opportunity to try to influence the outcome. If nothing else, you achieve predictability, clarity and certainty about your obligations.

I would submit that the consent order process, the consent order option is also valuable to the state. It conserves enforcement resources. Obviously, the state has limited resources and achieve more in settling the case than necessarily litigating them. I would emphasize that the consent order route often c affords the state the opportunity to achieve benefits, sometimes more than simple compliance. Many of these orders include supplemental projects or commitments that go beyond what the Department would be able to compel. So the Department also achieves predictability, clarity and certainty about the performance it's entitled to expect.

As a matter of law, and on behalf of the section, I do want to stress to this committee that it is very much the settled understanding of the bar that a consent order is essentially contractual in nature. There is case law that consent orders are construed and enforced like contracts and that they are mutually binding and enforceable on both the state and the respondent. The key to this, on both sides, is that they are reached on compromise. Settling parties give things up to obtain benefits. Like any c 002786 246 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

settlement, you do some horse trading. You give things up to get something. The issue presented by the decision of the Bic case I want to emphasize was a position that has not previously been advanced to the knowledge of anyone in our section and by the state and not previously adopted by any court.

Despite the legal authority, the decision was reached despite the citation of legal authority and I would refer you to footnote 6 of Judge Berger's opinion. I don't want to bog down too much in the Bic case because we are here to speak just on behalf of the Bar Association, but I would submit footnote 6 of that decision very accurately captures the generally accepted understanding and also cites to authority, so this is not just what everybody thinks about these things, this is also the way courts have construed them.

So, our position as to the difficult issue of 0 retroactivity is that because there are so many orders outstanding right now, I am more nervous about the orders that are in my file cabinet and I know my colleagues in the bar are. This decision came as a very unpleasant surprise to us. The notion of unilateral revocability came as a very unpleasant surprise to us. It would make it much more difficult for us to recommend to our clients that they enter into these things.

I would echo Mr. Slater's comment that it would be malpractice for me not to advise my clients of the compromise as they are being asked to accept in negotiations of this nature are revocable at this point given the state of the law. For all of those reasons, we support SB-431. 0 002787 247 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING I would also add that I have been sitting over here in the corner listening to some testimony for a while and I know it would be a breach of decorum for me to jump up and raise my hand and say call on me, but I would welcome your questions. Some of them I can address as representative of the association, some of them I have to distinguish and say I can only speak as a environmental lawyer with 28 years of experience doing this, but I would be happy to answer your questions.

REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you for your testimony and for the section's weighing in on this. It does seem to me that it would have a real chilling effect on people entering into these agreements. I mentioned offer acceptance earlier and also consideration the other powerful value in contract law's reliance and you are right, people do give up things when they c enter into these agreements. I suspect also going forward, were the statute to pass, that DEEP could put language in a consent order not to agree to the consent order unless it gave itself an out if it needed one and they could contract around that issue if they wanted to.

~~CHRIS MCCORMACK: Then they would have to negotiate the question of whether anybody would sign a provision with that agreement.~~

~~REP. TONG (147TH): Sure.~~

CHRIS MCCORMACK: Let me, let me put on my individual hat for a moment and just speak specifically to the question of what the consent orders say. c 002788 248 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 DEEP has a very well settled standard form of consent order and woe to you if you attempt to negotiate any of the standard terms. They are non negotiable. One of the standard terms is that if the Department concludes, in the exercise of its administrative discretion, which as we all know is very broad, that the actions required by this consent order are not fully protecting the human health and environment, the commissioner retains the authority to issue such other and further orders as the commissioner deems necessary.

So the notion that the real discretion of the commissioner is meaningfully constrained. By the inability to yank a consent order away from somebody is kind of a red herring here. on the contrary, and this is something we have to tell our clients, you realize don't you that if something else comes up and someone asked a question earlier about 0 conditions that may have been unknown the time the consent order was entered, you subsequently learn there is a different kind of contamination or different source or something like that, you are outside the consent order now and there might be borderline situations where the commissioner attempts to address to issue another order and you say wait a minute, we already have an agreement about that. But then that too would be a dispute that could be litigated before an impartial type unit. So, the Department does retain considerable discretion even within the framework of the standard consent order.

REP. TONG (147TH): Thank you. Questions? Senator Kissel. Senator Kissel is a ranking member and he will go first. 0 002789 249 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman and so in the Bic matter, if the Department had this out that is part of their essentially boilerplate, I am guessing that they must have looked at the circumstances and realized that there was nothing outside the four corners of that consent order that they could rely on to use that and so they figure the only thing that they could avail themselves upon was just this novel theory of well, we can withdraw. Would that be a fair analysis?

CHRIS MCCORMACK: I have to be careful here because I have tried to drive the discussion within this section as far away as possible in the particulars of the Bic case. It is a little bit of a ... I think on both sides, there are issues and problems and I have no idea who's right and who's wrong. Our position is completely and categorically independent c of the particulars of that case. Having said that, I am not a mind reader, but I think the best, and I will say this as an individual lawyer now, I think our best indication as to exactly what happened comes from the judge who heard the parties and I think you can see by reading Judge Berger's decision that something struck him as being extraordinarily strange and I am not going to go any further than that.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : Thank you. That was very political and very balanced as a response and just, you know, one of the judges that I cut my teeth on, jeepers, 32 years ago, MJ13 was a young judge, Marshall Berger, and I have the utmost respect for him. I appreciate the fact that you informed us that the Department has within its boilerplate an out that is recognizable and that we should as a matter of public policy make clear what I think all c 002790 250 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~of us thought was clear for many, many years. So, thank you counsel.~~

CHRIS MCCORMACK: If I may just follow briefly on the point about what we thought was clear for many, many years. One of the questions I tried to ask the section was has anybody ever seen this done before, the unilateral revocation of a consent order and no one had. Maybe somebody has who did not respond to that question, so I can't be totally certain, but I have to say that the section as a general, in general was simply thunderstruck by this.

~~SEN. TONG (147th): Representative Stafstrom.~~

REP. STAFSTROM (129th): Thank you Mr. Chair and Attorney McCormack, I think you answered my question with your concluding remarks there which is, you know, I am struck with sort of reconciling the testimony we heard today about how this is a novel 0 consent and has took the environmental law community by surprise with the testimony submitted by the commissioner that this is not the first time that this happened. That the commissioner and DEEP have availed themselves of revocation previously, I think was the last sentence of the written testimony, so I was just going to ask you whether you were aware of you or anybody in the section that has come forward was aware of any other instances where this has taken place.

CHRIS MCCORMACK: We were not and I was surprised to see that reference in the commissioner's testimony and in reading the text, it is not clear to me whether the revocations to which that testimony refers were mutually agreed to or perhaps even requested by the respondents, so that might be a use 0 002791 251 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING followup. I can certainly say that the expectation of people who enter into these orders is that they have an enforceable framework within which to operate with the Department, so that the notion, as with any contract, that one party can unilateral withdraw from anything of that nature is quite an unpleasant surprise.

~~REP. FOX (148th): Anything further? Thank you very much.~~

~~CHRIS MCCORMACK: Thank you for the opportunity.~~

~~REP. FOX (148th): David McGuire. Makayla Thistle.~~

~~MAKAYLA THISTLE: Hello.~~

~~REP. FOX (148th): Good evening.~~

MAKAYLA THISTLE: Thank you so much for having us c here today. Good afternoon, Senator Coleman, Representative Tong, respected members of the Judiciary Committee including Senator Kissel and Representative Baram.

~~My name is Makayla Thistle and I am a resident and active member of the Windsor Community. I am here today to testify in strong opposition to HB-5531.~~

As a person in long term recovery from a serious mental illness, I am keenly aware of the practices implemented within an inpatient setting to force individuals to comply with inadequate treatment. It was not even a decade ago that I was wondering the streets of Hartford seeking my next high and entering into a state of psychosis. I can assure you if my mother had the option to encourage forced medication, she would have upon me entering the 0 002792 252 March is, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~hospital for a one month stint following a suicide attempt.~~

If my mother were alive today, she can attest to the fear, anger and loss of control that she felt during that time in our lives. The thing is everything I experienced from my adolescence through my early young adult years was the reflection of a significant and prolonged trauma that I had experienced as a child.

I just can't help but wonder how many of the children in my son's school who are being disciplined for noncompliance are actually expressing an internal emotional struggle and why aren't we giving them time with loving and compassionate adults.

Since achieving recovery at the age of 21, I have dedicated my professional career to ensuring all 0 young people have the opportunity to achieve recovery. Going as far as dedicating my graduate studies and tens of thousands of dollars to the study of emerging adults as a behavioral health service population.

Since 2009, I produced three independent studies or reports that have described the state of recovery for young people in Connecticut and offering numerous recommendations that improve outcomes for young people who are currently engaged in behavioral health services. At no time over the past seven years has the theme emerged to indicate that forced treatment is the best practice. On the contrary, young people report that they already are being forced to comply with treatment and currently the

~~0 002793 253 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 most readily available option failed to meet person centeredness or authentic recovery orientation.~~

I found that it is only through sheer luck that a young person successfully achieves recovery and transitions into adulthood within the context that limits their self-determination and overall autonomy.

This legislation not only violates a person's constitutional rights, but it would put us back into an era of institutionalization. We have come so far as a state with innovative solutions that have yet to be fully invested in. It is imperative that we stand as a beacon of hope. Do you mind if I finish.

~~REP. FOX (148th): Yes continue.~~

~~MAKAYLA THISTLE: It was a good one too. That we c stand as a beacon of hope within a country that is driven by fear and pharmaceuticals.~~

I would ask that you vote against HB-5531 and then you reach out to the advocacy community to hear what is working for those that have successfully navigated the service system and have achieved a life of self-defined purpose. I believe that you have probably heard from experts in recovery here today who can be called upon to assist you to move our state forward. Feel free to reach out to me and I will be more than happy to share the research that I have conducted and join you in conversation. Thank you.

~~REP. FOX (148th): Thank you. Any questions? Senator Kissel.~~

0 002794 254 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : Makayla, it is great to see you again and it is always wonderful to have a constituent of one of the towns I represent. I don't think you are probably in my part of Windsor, but that is okay.

~~MAKAYLA THISTLE: Just over the line.~~

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH): Just over the line, shoot, but in any event. You are in Senator Coleman's district, but your advocacy is wonderful. You are a great public speaker and clearly you have been here all day and what is it 95% to 5% in opposition to the proposal, so I think we hear that people want self-determination. Your point is extremely well taken having just seen my son go through the teen years and now he is 20 and still in that developmental stage and the desire for autonomy, independence and having to make his own decisions and that is part of growth and it runs against 0 Mother Nature if for no other reason to try to force people to comply with something that maybe someone in the medical community might think is appropriate.

I thought the testimony from earlier today from the gentleman from West Hartford, he said if it's my choice to take a particular drug, it's my choice, but you have to look at it in terms of the context of an overall treatment plan and in context with interactions with other folks in the community as well. I think we need to sort of take a step back and look at everything holistically and he really brought that home, so thank you for being patient today and coming to testify.

~~MAKAYLA THISTLE: Thank you so much. 0 002795 255 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING REP. FOX (148th): Any further questions? Thank you so much. Steve Eppler-Epstein.~~

~~STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I can't believe I have to follow Makayla, it is impossible. Representative Fox, Representative Rebimbas and members of the committee.~~

~~My name is Steve Eppler-Epstein and I am the Executive Director of Connecticut Legal Services, one of the major legal services program in the state.~~

I want to thank you for your attention today to SENATE BILL 428 about funding of legal services. Really at time in lieu of any further testimony, I would just ask if you have questions you would like me to answer. c REP. FOX (148th): Any questions? Senator Kissel. SENATOR KISSEL (7TH) : Attorney Eppler-Epstein, I just want to say thank you for your advocacy. I think clearly there is strong support for the bill before us. We want to do, I think most of us or at least the vast majority, want to do what we can to keep that good work going. My only disagreement over the day was just sort of veering into the Civil Gideon discussion. I am concerned because are going to face difficulties in just achieving our core mission on the judicial side and when I am looking at potential lay-offs, court closures and things like that, I mean, I don't have a magic wand or a pot of gold, so I think that you guys are filling an important need and to me the priority is to make sure we keep the lights on and keep the good works going, so thank you for your advocacy. c 4-----l+--...-- . 002796 256 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: We deeply appreciate that, thank you.

~~REP. FOX (148th): Anything further? Thank you very much.~~

~~STEVE EPPLER-EPSTEIN: Thank you.~~

~~REP. FOX (148th): Mark Dost. Good evening.~~

~~MARK DOST: Good evening members of the committee. My name is Mark Dost.~~

I am an attorney and reside and work in Waterbury in Representative Berger's and Senator Hartley's districts. I am a member of the Executive Committee of the Estates and Probates Section and Elder Law section of the Connecticut Bar Association.

For the past year, the Elder Law Section and a fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate 0 council have come to support HB-5606, the connecticut Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act. I work with hundreds of clients each year to plan for the management of their finances and healthcare during incapacity and plan for the disposition of their assets following death.

The legal tools that we use for financial management including powers of attorneys of wills are generally very effective in granting authority to fiduciaries to carry out their duties. When an individual dies, their executors or administrators are required to marshal up his assets and identify debts and other financial obligations so they may pay his creditors, taxes that might be due and distribute what's left over to a spouse, children or other beneficiaries. 0 I I

002797 257 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING Connecticut law requires executors or administrators to perform these duties and gives them the necessary authority with one very big exception, the authority to access the individual's digital assets. When Internet users open an account or subscribe to a service and blindly click the terms of service agreement, they often unwittingly forfeit the right of their agents, executors and other fiduciaries to access their digital accounts during periods of incapacity and death.

In the past, executors and other fiduciaries could access financial information simply by waiting for statements to arrive in the mail. That is still often the case, but times are changing. For the past several years, more and more of us are turning to digital management of our accounts and conducting all of our financial activity and receiving all of c our financial records online. However ease of access during our lifetimes, often turns to no access after our deaths.

Executors, administrators and other fiduciaries are often prevented from accessing online accounts because right of access to the account is determined not by statute or will, but by the provider's terms of service agreement which often prohibits access.

~~The issue of fiduciary access to a consumer's account should be determined by the consumer, but not by unread terms of service agreements that offer the consumer no choice.~~

Our executors, administrators and other fiduciaries need to be able to do their jobs and for that to happen, the law needs to stop in. The Revised Uniform Act remedies the problem by enabling the c 002798 258 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING 0 individuals to give their fiduciaries access to their digital assess. It also respects the user's privacy rights by enabling individuals to prohibit access to some digital assets including electronic communication such as email. The act puts the consumer in charge.

The Revised Uniform Act was adopted by the Uniform Law Commission only last summer in 2015 and already four states; Florida, Tennessee, Wyoming, and Oregon, have enacted the legislation. Uniform Act has been introduced in 22 other states this year underscoring its importance and the urgency of its passage. The act complies with federal law and the act as revised has received the endorsement of AARP, Google, Facebook.

In Connecticut, the act has also been endorsed by the Connecticut Bar Association. The committee today heard testimony from Attorney Brown-Walsh from 0 Hartford. Attorney Walsh is the chair of the Uniform Law Commission Committee that drafted this landmark legislation and should be a source of pride to all of us in Connecticut that one of our own played such an important role in the development of this uniform act and reconciling the competing interest of consumers and industry.

In conclusion, I urge the committee to support this very important legislation and given Connecticut residents the right to give their executors, administrators and other fiduciaries access to their digital assess. Thank you.

~~REP. FOX (148th): Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. 0 002799 259 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. c PUBLIC HEARING STEVEN EPPLER-EPSTEIN: Thank you very much.~~

~~REP. FOX (148th): Joyce Heck. Eric Brown.~~

~~ERIC BROWN: I had a discussion in the hallway on the bill with DEEP's attorney, so I apologize.~~

~~REP. FOX (148th): No problem.~~

~~ERIC BROWN: Good afternoon Chairman Fox and distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee.~~

~~My name is Eric Brown. I am an attorney with the Connecticut Business Industry Association and I am here to speak on SENATE BILL 431.~~

~~I think you heard some outstanding testimony from legal experts and I just want to share maybe a little bit of a different perspective.~~

c Having worked in the agency back in the very early 90s and interning for a law firm of environmental practice before that, I remember very clearly at that time what the standard process was to issue a unilateral order. The department would put together its finding and here you go and you had 30 days to either appeal it or comply with it. It was basically back on those days malpractice to not automatically, you didn't have to read the order, in would go your appeal within the 30-day time frame and then would commence an excruciating, long, tedious, expensive, resource-intensive process of litigating and then generally negotiating some sort of final order, so the consent order from the perspective of the business community is, of course none of my members have to get into this problem, but those companies that do, it is much more efficient from both their perspective and the c 002800 260 March 18, 2016 dm/jh JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING

~~department's perspective, so it is an important enforcement tool.~~

I think the unfortunate situation we have now is and many have testified is that the whole credibility of those documents is in question. What we are looking at is a potential loss of that tool and that would be unfortunate not only from a legal perspective, but just from the perspective of state resources, business resources and how businesses are able to resolve problems that come up for the agency.

So, I just wanted to share that perspective with you and I hope that conversations will go on with the agency. I know they chose not to testify here today. I know they are concerned about unintended consequences and we certainly would be willing to work with you folks as well as the department to address those concerns, but the priority has to be maintaining the credibility and integrity of those 0 consent orders.

~~I'll leave it there and I thank you very much for sticking around and allowing me the opportunity to provide some comments. Thank you.~~

REP. FOX (148th): Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Michael Aslin. Kelvin Young. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Bragg. Anybody else wish to testify? I see none. Close the public hearing. Thank you very much.