Connecticut Task Force hears accounts of victimization by family court?The appearance the rbi is listing other cities.
March 6, 2014 § Leave a comment
CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2014 — More than 80 parents testified before the Connecticut legislature on January 9, 2014, providing heart-wrenching details of victimization by the family court.
The hearing, called by Connecticut’s Legislative Task Force on Family Courts was an effort to uncover the truth about the atrocities by the Court.
Some have argued that the actions of the Connecticut family courts resemble human trafficking.
Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as”
“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.”
A small group of judges and mental health professionals in Connecticut appear to have manipulated the fact that fit parents will do almost anything to rescue their children to hold those families hostage. These individuals warped the law so that victimized families could not object or refuse to participate, or risk losing their children forever.
These families are literally dying for custody, but who would believe divorcing parents over the opinions of such highly regarded professionals?
The energy in the legislative hearing room that day was not stuffy, cold or formal. As victimized parents gathered in greater numbers, the room became charged with tension that felt more like a gladatorial arena preparing for a fight between David and Goliath.
The ten member panel sat divided in half on a stage. Some task force members seemed adversarial to the prospect of meaningful systemic reform, perhaps due to their own conflicting financial stake in maintaining the status quo.
Several mental health and legal professionals affiliated with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) seated on the top tier, while a Judicial Branch manager and a female State representative sat between two task force members affiliated with the National Parents Organization, a father’s rights group formerly known as Fathers and Families. A few legislators sat in the fringes, listening with their jaws on the ground as the horrors unfolded.
Parents nervously paced the hallways, clutching and memorizing statements many had to wait 15 hours to give. Although the parents came from all different walks of life, they all had the same story about how they had been fleeced by officers of the courts and falsely discredited.
Although the majority of attendees were men and fathers, there was a consensus that this was not about gender as much as about making sure the legislative branch of government understood how the judicial branch had failed them.
Parents explained how they lost everything in the scams, and put their billing records on the legislative record to prove it. Many privately admitted that after going through the courts, they no longer believed in God, but today they had placed their faith in the legislature and the press to renew it.
Perhaps the AFCC professionals who had ruled the courts for decades with their cronies expected that that they would dominate the legislative hearing, but this was not their property and so there was no pretense of respect or formality when attempts to abscond were made. At times, parents and members of the panel exploded with anger at each other for dragging things out, hurling accusations of fraud and corruption at each other. Afterwards, they retreated to their corners to lick their wounds, get a drink of water, and rest until the imaginary bell would ring, letting them know it was time to get back in the ring.
During the 14 hour hearing, drama was at a premium. Grown men and women cried with sadness and frustration as they spoke of the loss of their children and their life’s work. The halls were littered with devastated parents and professionals who sobbed after telling their stories, comforting one another over the loss of a murdered child or a childhood home. Childless mothers said lives no longer had meaning and they would kill themselves but for the fear of leaving their children alone in the hell the courts had taken them to.
At one point, an industry professional normally kept tucked safely away from such tragedies at a nonprofit legal clinic asked, “Is it really this bad?”
“Yes,” I said. ”It’s actually far worse when you think of all the fearful litigants who are not here.”
It was literally do or die time for these families. It had become clear that the consequences of not speaking out were more catastrophic than any potential retribution a litigating parent might experience in return for their testimony. With the sale of the BrooklynBridge pending before the task force, these parents had no time to waste. On that day, they placed their faith on our Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine with the hope that legislators would impose justice reforms that the judicial branch had refused to consider while Connecticut families were destroyed in their courtrooms.
The consensus was that Connecticut’s family courts have evolved into an unregulated multi-billion dollar industry that represents a real threat to public safety.
KIDS FOR CASH OR ASYLUM RULES?
When you go to a court hearing, there is one judge who controls all communication in the room to ensure only one person is speaking at a time. This can be torture for a parent who is not on the stand and filled with anxiety while listening to corrupt professionals testimony in ways that might result in harm to their families. Yet judges can fine, arrest, and jail you for speaking out of turn in court, a scenario unlikely to play out in the legislature.
For a year, I reviewed hundreds of cases and watched in horror while Connecticut family court judges allowed bogus testimony intended to make violent offenders, even pedophiles look like model parents, while fit parents without criminal records who tried to rescue their kids from dangerous situations were made to appear mentally ill.
Covering the story of court corruption for over a year, I had listened to numerous accounts of children who had been raped and brutalized under the careful watch of the family court industry. I had held my breath in court hearings while judges whose questionable financials I had reviewed called themselves impartial fact finders, then allowed outrageous miscarriages of justice to occur. These findings terrified me so much that I wrote the first two articles of the exposé under a pseudonym to protect my own identity from the predators I exposed. But I quickly found support from professionals and parents shunned by local media who said release of this type of information was long overdue.
This type of brazen misuse of mental healthcare assessments and ex parte hearings were the main vehicles used by predatory family court industry professionals to justify custody switches placing children in the care of violent offenders (like Joshua Komisarjevsky), then opening up the floodgates to years of profitable extortion based litigation services. It didn’t seem to matter if the parents wanted or needed the services or whether they could even afford them because the parents couldn’t object or take their business elsewhere. The families were never the intended beneficiaries, the professionals billing them were.
In these types of cases, the fit parent always vowed they would never stop fighting for their child, but in the end they would always be bankrupted out of their parenting rights by court ordered therapists and evaluators who didn’t take their insurance, visitation supervisors who knew their services wouldn’t be needed if they wrote reports favorable to children, and GAL’s who had barely met the kids they represented and billed parents they barely knew hundreds of thousands of dollars for services no one could verify. If parents didn’t pay up or complained, the professionals often testified in court in ways that made them look unfit and their kids were taken away. The parents themselves had nothing to show for their money except a path of devastation and a child whose life still hung helplessly in the balance.
Often I’d seen cases where judges acted more like collection agencies for unethical and greedy GAL’s engaged in outrageous misconduct who filed outrageous billing statements and motions to place liens on the parent’s homes, wages, pensions, even the kid’s college funds. Many times, parents I had spoken to were thrown in jail for nonpayment at the be haste of a GAL or judge who argued it was in the children’s best interests. As if the kids needed these bogus professionals more than they needed survival necessities like access to their parents, a home, or a few bags of groceries.
When the parents ran out of money, the Public Defender’s office and family court industry nonprofits funded by the taxpayers would pick up the tab. At one point last spring, I’d tried to obtain some of the payment records from the Public Defender under the State’s open records laws. When the agency refused, a hearing was held before the State’s Freedom of Information Commission in Hartford. The Attorney General’s office represented the Public Defender’s Office and I was alone and pro se. The Attorney General must have thought this was important because he called the Public Defender’s top 5 administrators (all attorneys) to take time off from their work defending the litigation embroiled poor to serve as witnesses. I’m sure some of these victimized childless parents would have appreciated the same type of zealous advocacy when it came to all the failed opportunities the state has had to rescue their kids, but chose not to.
January 26, 2014 § Leave a comment
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Here is a man who authored and orchestrated every Civil Rights Act perpetrated by Judges and engineered Treason offenses violating every provision of the KU KLUX KLAN ACT of 1871 at an innocent man of color.
Alderman Edward Burke has utilized every member of the Democratic Party to help him frame an innocent man of impregnating a woman who was in fact impregnated by her natural biological father who was a Police Officer, this was the second daughter he impregnated;
Alderman Edward Burke used African American Judge R. Morgan Hamilton as she perjured and falsified court documents aided and abbeted in a criminal conspiracy as Burke had a CTA attorney in Ronald Bartkowicz manufactured a warrant against CTA employee Badge 26115 saying he was not an employee to prevent CTA from paying him back wages resulting from his work-related injury because members under the Daley administration stole his wages while off injured on duty;
Because R. Morgan Hamilton was a good servant for her Messiah in Ed Burke he made her a permanent Associate Judge never to be voted for retention on the bench.
William Stewart Boyd was perhaps the slickest deceptive manipulator ever to wear a robe negotiated an Associate judge position out of Edward Burke because he knew I never owed child support and was aware of all criminal acts of the parties who was responsible for framing me kept his mouth shut.
Alderman Edward Burke had appointed legal aid attorney who was the former Senior attorney in legal aid refused to provide me any legal representation saying their were too many judges involved, Burke assigned him to my case where he placed me in Contempt of Court for Allegedly owing child support.
Alderman Edward Burke had access to medical records of my families medical history where therapy was being provided had Donald Jonker to assist him the same DCFS attorney who was responsible helping him take an African American child from her mother.
Alderman Edward Burke orchestrated DCFS to manufacture abuse charges against myself as my daughters therapist (Marcia Ward) provided altered medical records impersonating a Doctor and not a therapist.
Alderman Edward Burke has made it his mission to destroy me and my family at all costs had my sick brother arrested and placed in Cook County jail because the United States Attorney refused to prosecute my brother for allegedly spitting on President Obama’s Secret Service, hew was transported to St. Bernard Hospital spent 2-3 weeks hospitalized, he was not out 3-4 days before he was arrested name placated all over the media.
Rosemary Higgins was in Juvenile court where DCFS lodged bogus charges against my mother for child Lock-out which was not true a lot of irregularities had took place in that case but Judge Higgins ignored them never provided her with a court order, as for myself I had been before her Aunt Lauretta Higgins who refused to address the wrongful Acts of Perjury Fraud etc., Judge Higgins said she had no jurisdiction., the matter was appealed before the 1st Division where her husband Warren D. Wolfson was the Judge Denying every motion presented before the courts.
Rosemary Higgins became the Judge in my brothers case had him locked up for 6 months behind a cell in prison on June 6, 11 two Doctors testified he was unfit to stand trial, initially Public defender was removed from the case, a Shelli Blair (Air Head Public Defender) was assigned when I suggested that a Motion be filed substituting Judges Monday June 10, 2013, her reply, you guys had a lot of bad luck with judges or misfortunes but I assure you she is not with Warren D. Wolfson anymore, my reply, don’t care.
Tuesday June 11, 2013, Theresa Nelson was back on the case, the States Attorney was arguing my brother was unfit for trial mentally, but the Public Defender was arguing he was fit; needless to say Judge Higgins agreed with the States Attorney finding him unfit mentally very smart but the Doctors testimony was to compelling.
Under the present administration of Democrats with the Political Machine they find ways to oppress people of color by whatever means necessary so as to generate revenue for all white attorneys as blacks and Hispanics are used as a means of income for Terrorist running the City.
No white person under any magnitude is subjected to this level of Terrorist treatment in this city.
APPEAL TO THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT
6.) That because Craig Fulton never legally owned the property but has been very successful with incredible support induced reliance on a number of entities could not access the authority of a licensed and bonded locksmith, to enter the residence had the Sheriff to act outside their jurisdiction by committing a felony (breaking and entering into a home);
January 20, 2014 § Leave a comment
BEFORE YOU STEP ONE FOOT INTO FAMILY COURT – READ THIS!
A colleague of mine, Anne Stevenson, recently testified before the Connecticut legislature on behalf of good parents and ethical court employees who feared retribution if they spoke up themselves against the corruption, fraud and shady deals in Connecticut’s family court system.
The content of her testimony is critically important, and not widely understood, so I agreed to post it here to provide folks with a better understanding of how the “divorce industry” in Connecticut is ruining families financially, and subjecting children to dangerous custody arrangements.
Her proposed changes for reform, set forth below, were provided to the Connecticut legislature but are applicable to other states as well because the problems in Connecticut are systemic in American family courts.
(1) Court appointments for mental health services should be made with due preference given to providers who accept the parent’s insurance. Parents are too often ordered to obtain mental health services from providers who do not accept their insurance. This forces parents to pay out of pocket, leaving many literally bankrupt.
Some of the cases involve insurance fraud and the deliberate misdiagnosis of parents as having mental illnesses when they are perfectly healthy, and prescribing medicine and treatments the patient does not need.
(2) GALs and court personnel should have to submit statements of financial interest, just like the ones judge’s must fill out every year. These statements should be provided to the litigants prior to a GAL’s appointment or assignment to a case, and published on the Judicial Branch’s website (alongside the Judge’s statements of financial interest). This way, parents and professionals alike can avert conflicts of interest before they have a chance to affect the integrity of a case.
(3) Courts should track the number of assignments each family court industry professional (GAL, expert, visitation supervisors, etc.) receives, and make that information available to the public on the Judicial Branch’s website. GAL caseloads are not accurately reported or tracked according to the attorney’s vendor number, as required by law. Moreover, appointments of GALs and other professionals are not trackable in the current system. All vendors appointed and assigned to cases need to be assigned vendor numbers and tracked the same way attorneys are tracked, and the information must be made available to the public.
(4) Task Force panels should be created to collect data about the problem of industry professionals misusing the system, and appropriate cases should be referred to appropriate professional oversight authorities. Many parents testified in Connecticut that they were victims of fraud. They had their life savings, their children, their personal safety, their employment destroyed due to unethical professionals assigned to their case who created problems they could then profitably “solve” in what sounded like false billing scams and extortion. Parents also testified that despite having filed formal complaints against the various professionals to oversight boards, their complaints were thrown out without any meaningful investigation. The names of court-appointed “favorites” came up over and over again. A task force in every state should be created to obtain statistics on how many complaints are filed against court “favorites” and whether oversight authorities like professional mental health licensing boards, Judicial Review Commissions and Board of Bar Overseers are effectively responding to the complaints.
(5) The Judicial Branch should get out of the GAL training business. Many GALs are “certified” using the Judicial Branch’s FREE AFCC training program. States should not be spending tax dollars training private attorneys and psychologists to be “certified” as GALs who are then effectively “supervised” by the Judicial Branch. In Connecticut, such certification practices have led to harmful results in part because there is no “decertification” process to prevent substandard actions that hurt families. While judges have authority to sanction GALs, no GAL has ever been sanctioned for misconduct in Connecticut despite countless reports of misconduct and poor decision-making
Training and oversight of GALs (and supervised visitation professionals) should be removed from the authority of the Judicial Branch.
(6) GALs and Supervised Visitation professionals need formal training with accreditation from public health and education agencies. GALs and supervised visitation professionals oversee vulnerable families, many of which include victims of violent crimes. In Connecticut, you cannot represent children as an attorney unless you complete 20+ years of formal education, plus various exams and accreditation reviews. In fact, you cannot run a daycare center without passing various exams and receiving accreditation from agencies such as the Department of Public Health, which then provides oversight and continuing education, etc.
But when victims of violent crimes and abuse come to family court, there are no standards whatsoever to ensure that the professionals making decisions about children are similarly experienced and capable of acting in children’s best interests.
Dangerous criminals are allowed to serve as visitation supervisors and even GALs and judges have authority to appoint them to positions where their actions and decisions threaten the well-being of children.
There is no accreditation, no security for children and no place to file a complaint when parents get ripped off or the untrained professional provides false or misleading statements to the court, or provides inadequate services.
(7) Courts need to track how often offenders obtain custody when an allegation of violent crime is raised or when a restraining order is in place. There is much dispute about the frequency with which abusers win custody of their victims, but one thing is certain: Courts often place the parental and property rights of offenders seeking control and ownership of victims over the rights of children to be safe. Decisions often rest on the recommendations of family court industry professionals who earn a lot of money off the endless [sometime inconclusive] assessments and billable hours they purport to spend in the name of “advocacy,” “investigation” and mental health services.
One man in Connecticut was labeled a “jealous ex” by family services when he requested information concerning his children’s whereabouts and the identity of individuals who were caring for them. His ex-wife’s new boyfriend was subsequently arrested for brutally murdering his son.
Other testimony included a mom who read from police reports which explaining how her ex was arrested for various violent crimes, with multiple weapons, and that police had to taser him to subdue him because he was so rageful. She showed pictures her ex had taken of her young daughters naked in suggestive poses with naked grown men, which he allegedly posted on a website. Although the man submitted written testimony admitting he had done this, the GAL did not refer the case for prosecution after concluding that the photos were “art.” The GAL then blamed the victims for reporting the matter, and fought to help the offender get custody and overnight visits with his daughters.
Another woman described how when she sought treatment for injuries her son allegedly sustained at his father’s hands during a brutal rape (confirmed later by medical professionals), the judge gave the father sole custody and revoked the mother’s rights even though there was no finding that the other was unfit or that she had abused or neglected her child. After paying out over $1 million in legal expenses, the mom was left without sufficient funds to purchase her parenting time and has not seen her child [who remains with the alleged perpetrator] in nearly 2 years.
(8) CSSD should no longer accept grants requiring it to incentivize decision-makers to remove children from a fit parent’s home and place children with identified predators. Many parents testified about court decisions that arbitrarily revoked their custody rights, only to have the family court industry professionals then effectively “sell” them back their parenting time back in what one man called a “pay per view” racket, where good parents could only visit with their children if they paid for therapy, assessments, court dates, and supervised visitation programs prescribed by the courts.
(9) CSSD should no longer accept grants requiring it to arbitrarily discriminate against parents on the basis of gender or marital status.
Testimony in Connecticut revealed many problematic CSSD programs funded by HHS Access and Visitation, VAWA, and Responsible Fatherhood grants. If you look at the grant applications and MOA for the Fatherhood program, for example, you can see that state officials sign agreements with several other State agencies, INCLUDING THE DEPT OF CORRECTIONS AND DEPT OF PAROLE, to help dangerous offenders obtain custody. In a section of the grant reports from Connecticut labeled “Problem Solving Court,” CSSD is clearly working overtime to help drug addicts, violent offenders, and violent parents with serious mental illnesses get custody of victimized children.
Testimony also detailed the way that assessments and recommendations made by CSSD about parenting plans were often defective, and placed children in profitably dangerous homes without due consideration for their well-being. The stated purpose of these grants is to help good fathers, but the funding incentives create dangerous conditions for kids because the grant money is intended to provide even incarcerated prisoners with “technical assistance” so they can obtain visitation rights, avoid criminal penalties and seek “reunification” therapy with children they are not fit to be around.
The infamous Connecticut murderer Joshua Komisarjevsky was a beneficiary of misguided funding incentives when he obtained sole custody of his daughter despite the fact that he was a drug addict on parole and wore a GPS bracelet to the custody hearing. His parole records detail the ways the Dept. of Corrections was encouraging him to sue for custody and helping him obtain resources to assist him with his case. The Hartford Courant reported that Komisarjevsky’s case was approved by Family Services as an appropriate candidate for “Conflict Resolution” in family court, (thus allowing the flow of grant monies) as if the guy was no different than a bickering parent. A few weeks after obtaining custody of his daughter, he murdered the Petit family after raping 11-year-old Michaela.
Another distraught parent testified the judge in his case repeatedly refused to enforce orders to facilitate his parenting time. The GAL withheld his son’s education records from him, and the court was initially ineffective at protecting his parental rights to see his son’s file. When he finally received a copy of the records, he learned that an accused prolific pedophile priest naed Richard McGann was on the list of adults approved to pick up his son from school—but he, the father, was not. The man hasn’t seen his son in years.
A national non-profit that advocates for priest abuse victims, SNAP, discovered McGann’s whereabouts and reported to DPH that the guy was living at a day care center and that the archdiocese had suspended McGann from the priesthood and paid out “a substantial amount” in connection with allegations McGann repeatedly raped and exploited children during his tenure as a priest.
While the Fatherhood grant agreement requires DPH to work on behalf of “fit” fathers, the system appears to be working more effectively on behalf of predators like McGann, which makes sense given that the grant money can only be justified if offenders and noncustodial parents are able to increase their time with children.
(10) Courts should not be contracting with the AFCC, and State workers who are running it should be fired. State Judicial Branch employees should not be using their offices and taxpayer money to run a private trade association that promotes the family court industry and the “collaborative efforts” of the AFCC professionals who do business in their courtrooms. Based on the number of complaints about GALs alone, the GAL trainings should not be allowed to use an AFCC curriculum, and the judicial branch should not be allowed to contract with AFCC to set up family court services.
Testimony included shocking stories about judges collaborating with certain attorneys and psychologists and effectively operating a private trade association for family court professionals from their state offices, and funding it with the money allocated by the government to family courts which are supposed to HELP families, not FUND an industry. The documents filed with the Sec. of State in Connecticut showed that Judicial Branch employees were listed as directors and officers of entities benefitting form the disbursement of these grant monies.
Brave parents in Connecticut testified about their concerns regarding the apparent “collusion” between AFCC leaders and family court professionals. Many testified that AFCC leaders and members do not disclose their conflict of interest to the families whose cases they influence, and because the AFCC leaders are State employees promoting the private industry complained of, this creates a disincentive to discipline any AFCC members or to even acknowledge there is a problem. They do not tell litigants, for example, that they are in business together. Who could possibly hope to have a judge hold AFCC accountable for a conflict of interest when the courts directly benefit from the conflict?
In addition to testimony about the AFCC’s involvement with GALs, many people testified that Family Services’ screening intake assessments were defective because they failed to accurately discern between fit loving parents and violent offenders who are not.
Important testimony on that point can be found here:
The list of AFCC affiliates can be found here:
You can read up on AFCC’s history in the Connecticut courts below. Please note that the old newsletters show that in many cases, CSSD administrators who served as AFCC officers were raising money for the AFCC from the public and family court industry professionals with instructions to mail that funding directly to their Judicial Branch offices during times when the corporation was not registered to do business in Connecticut. These administrators oversee HHS Access and Visitation programs, VAWA, and Responsible Fatherhood programs and their funding.
You can also read about how CSSD came to hire the AFCC: The attached newsletters show that:
(a) In 2001, CSSD director Robert Tompkins received an award from AFCC for his outstanding member contributions.
(b) In 2002, Grant sat on the AFCC’s Board of Directors.
In 2002, CSSD awarded the AFCC a [taxpayer funded] contract to overhaul the family court’s case intake protocols and address the court’s federal Access and Visitation program and growing number of “high conflict” cases.
The Family Civil Intake Assessment Project in the Connecticut family courts reports were apparently peddled as “independent research,” a collaboration between disinterested professionals and the researchers from AFCC. The reports can be found here:
You can read up on how CSSD family court personnel allowed their names and time to be used by the AFCC to promote AFCC “task force” activities here:
(11) Complaints about family courts should be referred to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services, for investigation. Testimony in Connecticut included reports of widespread complaints from parents that they were being victimized by fraud and false billing scams, and that they were wrongfully losing custody because they were falsely discredited. Nearly all these parents (who did not know each other and were from all walks of life and geographic areas) had good reputations and voiced the same complaints about the misconduct in their family court cases, but were all treated as liars and unfit parents. By contrast, the State Auditor found that CSSD has misappropriated millions of dollars in family court-related matters, yet no one was discredited and the misappropriation activities were never referred to law enforcement for prosecution.
In the absence of meaningful oversight by the states, federal oversight agencies such as the DHHS and the DOJ must step in and investigate.
January 5, 2014 § Leave a comment
The appearance of stealing moneys from other parents only to try to look good has its marets of doing this for so long .
The appearance that the DOJ has been watching for some time now is funny ,The list from over 20 plus year of gals and now to include child reps not following the statues which has more than an appearance of statuory fraud in many case that have been pulled and looked at ….
Smile we have seen plenty of what you do in many court rooms to have turned over enough to let the legislature know what fraud on what level that has more than state involvement of federal dollars….
January 1, 2014 § Leave a comment
Short Description: ADOPTION ACT-UNFIT PARENT
|8/23/2013||Senate||Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0532|
Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
|750 ILCS 50/1||from Ch. 40, par. 1501|
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Adoption Act. Makes various changes in provisions including in the definition of “unfit person” a parent who fails to make reasonable efforts to correct specified conditions or reasonable progress toward the return of the child so that the provisions include: failure by a parent to make reasonable efforts to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication of neglected or abused minor or dependent minor; and failure by a parent to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent during any 9-month period following the adjudication. Deletes language that included, in provisions defining “failure to make reasonable progress toward the return of the child to the parent” when a service plan has been established to correct the conditions that were the basis for the removal of the child from the parent and those services were available, the parent’s failure to substantially fulfill his or her obligations under the service plan and correct the conditions that brought the child into care during any 9-month period following an adjudication under specified provisions of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. Makes other changes.
|2/15/2013||Senate||Filed with Secretary by Sen. Darin M. LaHood|
|2/15/2013||Senate||Referred to Assignments|
|2/27/2013||Senate||Assigned to Judiciary|
|3/6/2013||Senate||Added as Chief Co-Sponsor Sen. David Koehler|
|3/19/2013||Senate||Do Pass Judiciary; 011-000-001|
|3/19/2013||Senate||Placed on Calendar Order of 2nd Reading March 20, 2013|
|4/10/2013||Senate||Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading April 11, 2013|
|4/24/2013||Senate||Third Reading – Passed; 053-000-001|
|4/25/2013||House||Arrived in House|
|4/25/2013||House||Chief House Sponsor Rep. Jehan A. Gordon-Booth|
|4/29/2013||House||Referred to Rules Committee|
|4/29/2013||House||Assigned to Adoption Reform|
|5/3/2013||House||Added Alternate Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch|
|5/9/2013||House||Do Pass / Short Debate Adoption Reform; 004-000-000|
|5/9/2013||House||Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading – Short Debate|
|5/10/2013||House||Second Reading – Short Debate|
|5/10/2013||House||Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading – Short Debate|
|5/15/2013||House||Third Reading – Short Debate – Passed 112-002-001|
|5/15/2013||House||Motion Filed to Reconsider Vote Rep. Rita Mayfield|
|5/29/2013||House||Motion to Reconsider Vote – Withdrawn Rep. Rita Mayfield|
|5/29/2013||Senate||Passed Both Houses|
|6/27/2013||Senate||Sent to the Governor|
|8/23/2013||Senate||Effective Date January 1, 2014|
|8/23/2013||Senate||Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0532|