May 23, 2013
Breaking News
You are here: Home / Corruption / Judge Herbert Barall’s Name Calling Ignoring Our Rights
Judge Herbert Barall’s Name Calling Ignoring Our Rights

Judge Herbert Barall’s Name Calling Ignoring Our Rights

JUDGE HERBERT BARALL’S HURTFUL NAME CALLING!

 
It is particularly difficult for litigants when they are in hearings in Family Court.  They often have to listen to testimony that is full of inaccuracies, their reputations are torn to shreds, and even though they want their stories told and the truth to come out, the procedures in the courtroom can often prevent that from taking place. 
 
In terms of life events, divorce and the litigation associated with it, has to be one of the most difficult experiences a person will go through.  Under these circumstances, Judges should have the wisdom and compassion to behave with patience and with neutrality and understanding towards both parties in a case.  Sometimes, even if a person loses his case, if a litigant believes that he or she was treated with kindness and fairness, that person will leave the trial court feeling, ok, I gave it my best shot, and I lost, but now I can move on.  That, to me, is the best case scenario. 
 
Unfortunately, there are too many Judges who believe that acting in a mean and bullying fashion, creating a level of hurt and pain that the litigant will never, ever forget, is the best way to carry on in the courtroom. 
 
Now, this is bad enough when you are talking about your average person who comes into the trial court, but the pain and suffering is further compounded in Family Court because the vast majority of individuals who come there have extended family, and, in particular, most tragically, young children, who are impacted by the emotional and legal outcome of what takes place in the legal arena. 
 
So when judges decide they don’t feel like showing self restraint any more, or feel that showing kindness, consideration, and wisdom is much to much trouble, and then take advantage of their position of power and authority to cause harm to the litigants who appear before them, using the bench as a bully pulpit to bully and attack litigants, to yell and slam their fists on the desk (as Judge Herbert Barall did to me), not only do they impact the individual litigants involved, they also send ripples of pain and suffering into the extended family, and most particularly into the lives of the young children involved, extending the harm and damage into subsequent generations.  What a shame and a disgrace when that happens, and don’t by any means start thinking that this is unusual. 
 
This is exactly what I experienced when the decision came out in my case in the Memorandum of Decision dated September 16, 2010 and corrected on September 30, 2010, both of which have been published online.  On page 11 of this decision, Judge Herbert Barall refers to my two younger children as “albino”. 
 
The amusing thing about the way he put it is that he said that I “claim” my children are albino.  Anyone who has looked at children with this condition, at their pale complexions, their white hair, and constantly jiggling and wobbling eyes, is likely to conclude that the assertion that they have it goes well beyond a claim. 
 
But isn’t this typical of what happens in Family Law; all of a sudden up is down, black is white, wrong is right, even when it goes beyond reason and completely contradicts the evidence you see right in front of you!  George Orwell himself would be mightily impressed. 
 
But this is not what I am complaining about.  What I am complaining about is the use of the term “albino” at all.  This term is considered extremely offensive to many people who have this condition.  It is often viewed by them as being on the level of calling a Jewish person, a kike, or calling a person of Italian origin, a wop, or referring to an African-American using the N word, or referring to women in the workplace as gals. 
 
As the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation (NOAH) states in its online worksheet “What do you call me?” “Regardless of the context, the word “albino” can sometimes be an ugly, jolting word to many, especially when heard unexpectedly.”  And further, “When a person is referred to as ‘an albino’, he or she is essentially being filed down to and defined by nothing more than their condition.  It’s as though the world looks at that person and sees only the condition of albinism.  In this way, it can feel like a dehumanizing label.”  
 
This is why the NOAH organization recommends that if you wish to refer to a person with this condition it is better to say that this is “a person with albinism.”  In fact, if you want to look up the website for the organization, it is www.albinism.org, because the use of the term albinism is far more preferable to people with albinism that the term albino. 
 
Of course, it really is a matter of preference, because there are people who don’t mind the term albino.  But the simple fact is, most people with albinism prefer the use of the term albinism and this is the term I use as a matter of course in school, at home, and in the presence of folks who have this condition.
 
Thus, I was offended when I found the term albino used in the Memorandum of Decision of September 16, 2010.  However, look, Judge Barall is an older fellow, from a much older generation, so I can understand that he would not be familiar with how offensive the term is.  So this is why I wrote Item #9 of my Motion to Correct and to Vacate, informing him that it is an offensive term and asking him to adjust that part of the Memorandum of Decision and change the term albino to person with albinism.  See this in my link to the motion:

 

 
This, to me, is simply a matter of courtesy and respect, not just towards my ex and I as parents, but also to the children. 
 
When my Motion was ignored, I subsequently submitted a complaint regarding this point to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines who is in charge of dealing with ADA accommodations at the judicial branch.  She pretty much stated that she couldn’t do anything about it.  I then filed a complaint with the Judicial Review Council in May 2011 and stated that “In his memorandum of decision in my case, Judge Barall used a term which is offensive in regard to my two daughters who have a disability.  Specifically, on line one of page 11 of this memorandum of decision, Judge Herbert Barall refers to my two daughters as “Albino”.   This is an old fashioned term which is considered offensive by those in the community of those with albinism and is culturally insensitive.” 
 
Nonetheless, the Judicial Review Council denied that I had any grounds for complaint and refused to do anything about it. 
 
My impression is that Family Court in Connecticut has simply not kept up with the times and is unaware that discriminating against people with disabilities is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Americans. This is why The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was passed. This is why the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 was passed and why its broad and sweeping mandate to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities was reaffirmed in the Amendments Act to the ADA of 2008. That is almost 40 years of legislation combating discrimination against people with disabilities.
 
The intention behind the Americans with Disabilities Act was to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and all aspects of American Society–Employers, Government Agencies, Schools, etc.–are all legally obligated to implement this mandate. 
 
Granting the existence of this Federal Law, no Judge has any excuse for using demeaning, degrading, or insulting language when referring to a person with a disability.  Yet, Judge Herbert Barall has chosen to use such language when referring to my children and the agencies which are supposed to hold him accountable and stop him from doing so have simply refused to do anything about it. 
 
There is a tremendous power that people have who are able to impose names on other people, particularly insulting names.  The childhood ditty goes, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”  We know that isn’t true.  Names can destroy, names can devastate, names can leave wounds that never heal. 
 
I myself came from an abusive family.  When I was ten there was a classroom in my elementary school where children with intellectual disabilities were placed.  In a show of what was then considered enlightenment, the Principal of our school told us that we were not supposed to call these children “retarded” we were supposed to call them ”Special Class.”  My parents, who, as I said, were very abusive, then picked up the term and instead of calling me by my name used to refer to me as Special Class. 
 
My father is dead now, and my mother has begun to retreat into the world of Alzheimers, but even now recalling those years is as painful as it ever was. 
 
I cannot follow my children around every day when they get on the bus, when they go to school, when they go to their after school activities.  I can’t protect them from every harm and hurt. Once a group of neighborhood children took it upon themselves to let me know that my daughter was being teased about her appearance and her visual disability on the bus home from school.  You cannot imagine the anger and pain that I felt when they told me about it. 
 
There will always be times when my children will face ignorance and bigotry in regard to their disability, and I will not always be able to protect them from it.  However, in Family Court, where the personnel are mandated by federal law to treat people equally, to show cultural sensitivity towards those with disabilities, it is appalling that my children should be called a hurtful name they do not wish to be called by a Judge who should know better. 
 
This has left me with the impression that there is no place for justice and common humanity in Family Court in Connecticut.  It is simply about who has the money, who has the power, and about judges who have been given complete freedom from accountability by the State of Connecticut and are allowed to act like bullies towards the vulnerable people who appear before them, particularly those with disabilities.

Tagged with:

  • guest

    It wouldn’t have killed the judge to have said something on the record thanking you for pointing out the most current appropriate terms for the condition. That he used an old-fashioned term that has fallen into disrepute is forgivable, easily, especially since this is an obscure condition and few would know the most appropriate terms for it. That he is above basic respect towards others and courtesy enough to respond to you, is not excusable.

Scroll To Top