By Julia Donovan
In 2015, the New Haven DOJ office was supposed to investigate public corruption in Connecticut.
That year, a few decent Judiciary Committee members proposed HB-5505.
They wrote: “In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders a child undergo treatment or evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e … If after the two-week period, the parents have not reached an agreement on the selection of a licensed health care provider, the court shall select such provider after giving due consideration to the health insurance coverage and financial resources available to such parents…”
AFCC director Bruce Freedman objected to that part of the bill. In addition to not wanting health insurance provider oversight, he stated his need for “limited immunity provided by the court in order to be able to address the court in an open, honest and useful manner.“
So, no oversight plus immunity makes people most open, honest and useful?
How does that work, exactly?
Did any DOJ agents read Mr. Freedman’s letter?
If so, did anyone notice the incongruity of what Mr. Freedman did vs what he wrote?
There are many types of medical fraud in the world. Whenever one eye doctor treats patients very differently than all other eye doctors in the same field of care, that’s a huge red flag.
When psychologists contracted with Connecticut family courts conduct evaluations very differently (with no oversight or accountability) compared to psychologists who conduct different evaluations (with oversight and accountability) outside of family courts, that’s a huge red flag.
Mr. Freedman wrote:
Dear sirs
I am writing in hopes of correcting some misunderstandings about court-ordered psychological evaluations. I am a psychologist who has conducted many evaluations for courts throughout Connecticut. These studies serve the court in assisting judges to understand important family matters and point the court in the direction of what is best for children.
In order to do this:
– evaluators with the highest level of training and experience are used. These are Ph.D level psychologists with years of education, specific training and understanding of families and court matters. There are no shortcuts or substitutes for this expertise
– evaluators understand and do their best to avoid bias. The court relies on their neutrality and sensitivity to gender, culture and special problems.
– health insurance does not cover any of this work. It is not treatment nor assessment for treatment, and therefore health insurers are not responsible for reimbursement for such services
– evaluators are not therapists in this role. They advocate for children’s interests while considering the wishes strengths and concerns of parents and other parties. While evaluators may serve as treating psychologists in different cases, a therapist is not in a position to provide a comprehensive, neutral report to the court.
– Evaluators do difficult work in a dangerously litigious climate. They need limited immunity provided by the court in order to be able to address the court in an open, honest and useful manner
Sincerely
Bruce Freedman Ph.D
Did the Connecticut Judicial Committee not see what a dangerous quack Freedman appeared to be at that time?
He wrote: “[T]here are no shortcuts or substitutes for [his] expertise.” Okay, sure.
But did he tell the Judicial Committee: No “treatments or assessments for treatments” are required for “dangerously litigious climates”?
Or, did he tell the Judicial Committee: When he detects “dangerously litigious climates,” he always refers those dangerous cases to colleagues who assess cases in “dangerously litigious climates”?
Professional oversight could tell us how much harm Freedman has done to how many.
Oversight could tell us Freedman’s involvement caused how many fatalities in dangerously mismanaged cases. Oversight could tell us if Mr. Herman (the court-ordered evaluator in Fotis Dulos’ case) notified health insurers before or after Dulos’ homicidal and suicidal behaviors became obvious.
“As to those who contend that Mr. Dulos’ death reflects a consciousness of guilt, we say no,” his attorney Norm Pattis said. “We say it was more of a conscience overworn with the weight of the world that was too busy to listen and that wanted a story more than it wanted the truth.”
Jennifer Dulos disappeared during a high conflict divorce and custody case in CT.
What a dangerous state Connecticut has been and still is for so many families. Health insurance providers, professional boards, someone, anyone might be the best source of oversight for Connecticut family court quacks.
Why didn’t legislators set oversight in place for family courts years ago?
What kind of people in what kind of system allow such dangerous quackery to do so much harm to so many — with no oversight and accountability?
