Independent and court-ordered forensic neuropsychological examinations: Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology ☆

Shane S. BushCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
NAN Policy & Planning Committee1

496 Smithtown Bypass, Ste. 304, Smithtown, NY 11787, USA

Accepted 1 June 2005. Available online 1 August 2005.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2005.06.003, How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Cited by in Scopus (14)

Permissions & Reprints

Abstract

Independent forensic neuropsychological examinations are performed by neuropsychologists who are hired as independent contractors by third parties to make determinations regarding neuropsychological functioning. The responsibilities of neuropsychologists when performing independent or court-ordered forensic examinations differ from those of clinical examinations. Because neuropsychological training typically occurs in clinical contexts, the transition to forensic contexts may result in uncertainty about how to negotiate the unique responsibilities of the forensic examiner role. Neuropsychologists are responsible for maintaining the highest standards of professional practice when performing independent and court-ordered forensic examinations. To reach and maintain the highest standards of practice, neuropsychologists must understand the unique relationships with retaining parties and examinees and strive to maintain true independence and objectivity. Although a true neuropsychologist–patient relationship is not considered to exist within the context of a forensic neuropsychological evaluation, neuropsychologists have ethical responsibilities to both the retaining party and the examinee.
Keywords

Independent;
Court-ordered;
Forensic;
Neuropsychological;
Examination

1. Purpose

The responsibilities of the neuropsychologist in the context of performing an independent forensic examination differ from those of the clinical examination. Because neuropsychological training typically occurs in clinical contexts, the transition to the independent forensic examiner role may result in uncertainty about how to negotiate the unique responsibilities of this role. The purpose of this paper is to identify some of the areas of distinction between independent forensic and clinical examinations and to offer recommendations for those performing independent and court-ordered forensic neuropsychological examinations. Much of the information pertaining to independent forensic examinations also applies to forensic examinations in general.
2. The neuropsychologist–retaining party relationship
An independent forensic neuropsychological examination, also referred to as an independent medical examination (IME), independent psychological examination, or compulsory examination in some jurisdictions, is performed by a neuropsychologist who is hired as an independent contractor by a third party, such as an insurance company, an attorney, or the court to make a determination regarding neuropsychological functioning. Referral questions in civil litigation often involve determination of the presence or absence of neurological and/or psychiatric disorders, causality related to a specific event or injury, prognosis, medical necessity of treatment, and/or disability status. In criminal litigation, the neuropsychological examination may be used to assist in determining competency to stand trial, issues of responsibility for the crime, or in sentencing/mitigation. The nature of the examination may range from a relatively brief clinical interview to a comprehensive examination that includes extensive psychological or neuropsychological test administration.

The role of the neuropsychologist when performing an independent neuropsychological examination is narrowly defined. The neuropsychologist has been hired by a third party seeking answers to specific questions related to brain–behavior relationships. In contrast to clinical contexts, the neuropsychologist does not work for the person being examined. As a result, the examination parameters and professional requirements are often different. The neuropsychologist must be aware of the overlapping yet often quite distinct professional and ethical conduct required in independent examination context.
3. The neuropsychologist–patient relationship
The relationship of the neuropsychologist with the examinee when performing an independent neuropsychological examination parallels but also differs in important ways from that of the clinical examination, with limits on the usual neuropsychologist–patient relationship. The neuropsychologist has been hired by a third party seeking answers to specific questions. In the pursuit of such answers, the role of the neuropsychologist in independent forensic contexts is similar to that of clinical contexts in a number of ways. Consistent with the Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association (2002), the neuropsychologist strives to conduct a proper examination (Ethical Standard 9) and practices only within the bounds of professional competence (Ethical Standard 2). The examination procedures that comprise proficient clinical examinations are also required for forensic examinations.

In contrast to the above similarities, differences between clinical and forensic roles exist as well. With independent forensic examinations the neuropsychologist does not work for the person being examined, nor is the neuropsychologist the agent of the examinee. The goal is to determine the examinee’s neuropsychological status as accurately as possible whether or not the conclusions advance or compromise the examinee’s interests. As a result, the relationship between the neuropsychologist and the examinee is different. These differences are seen with regard to informed consent (see Section 6), privilege and confidentiality (see Section 5), the information provided to the examinee following the examination regarding the results (see Sections 10 and 12), and typically an absence of follow-up treatment (see Section 13).

In summary, neuropsychologists do not have the same obligations to an examinee in an independent forensic examination that they do in a clinical examination. Nevertheless, certain professional responsibilities exist whenever a neuropsychologist conducts an examination. Therefore, although no true neuropsychologist–patient relationship should be considered to exist within the context of a forensic neuropsychological evaluation, the neuropsychologist is nonetheless obligated to perform his/her evaluation in a manner consistent with recognized ethical codes and the responsibilities inherent in any professional clinical evaluation (see Section 9).
4. Objectivity

A primary responsibility of neuropsychologists performing independent neuropsychological examinations is to strive to examine neuropsychological status objectively. Interpretation of results should ideally be made without preconceived ideas about the examinee and with proper attention to the potential effects of bias. Attempts to satisfy the examinee or align with the retaining third party have the potential to bias conclusions and recommendations. Care should be taken to consider potential biases and take action to guard against them (Sweet & Moulthrop, 1999).
5. Confidentiality

As in other professional contexts, neuropsychologists have a responsibility to maintain examinee confidentiality, except to report findings to the retaining party and as required by law. Legal reporting requirements may include situations of danger to oneself, danger to others, and neglect or abuse of children or the elderly. With independent examinations, the retaining party may hold the privilege regarding communication of findings. The neuropsychologist maintains responsibility for knowing who holds the privilege regarding communication of findings. Examinees should be informed of the limits of confidentiality as part of the informed consent process prior to beginning the examination (Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991; Sweet, Grote, & van Gorp, 2002).
6. Informed consent and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

At the outset of an independent examination, the neuropsychologist should disclose fully the nature of the relationship between him/herself and the retaining party, explain how such a relationship might be perceived as representing a potential conflict of interest between the retaining party and the examinee, and assure the examinee of the continued adherence to professional ethics. Confidentiality issues should be discussed (as described above).

In some independent examination contexts, the examinee is not required to provide consent to the examination. In such situations, if the examinee refuses to read and/or sign an informed consent form, the neuropsychologist should nevertheless provide a verbal description of the content contained in the form and seek the examinee’s assent to engage in the examination (Fisher, Johnson-Greene, & Barth, 2002). In other contexts, informed consent is required. It is the neuropsychologist’s responsibility to know the consent requirements of the examination context. The consent process should be documented in the examination report, if one is generated. A sample informed consent form is contained in Appendix A. The reader is also referred to the separate NAN position paper on informed consent (Johnson-Greene & NAN Policy and Planning Committee, 2005).
7. Third party observer

Requests to have independent and other forensic neuropsychological examinations observed by an interested party or recorded in an audio or video format are common. In some jurisdictions, examinees have a statutory right to have their independent examinations observed or recorded. Observation by an involved third party and recording of a neuropsychological examination are problematic and raise complex issues, such as whether the results could be invalidated and how test security will be maintained. The National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN) position paper on third party observers, as well as that of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), apply in this context ( [AACN, 2001] and [NAN, 2000a]). Forensic examiners who receive such requests need to be knowledgeable of the relevant issues and are encouraged to respond only after careful consideration.
8. Examination procedures

The neuropsychologist maintains responsibility for conducting an examination adequate to answer the questions defining the examination. That is, the neuropsychologist determines which procedures are required to answer the questions posed by the retaining party. A request may be made by the retaining party to administer certain tests. If the neuropsychologist believes that different, or additional, measures should be used, he/she should explain the reasoning behind the proposed tests/procedures and seek approval from the retaining party. If the retaining party indicates that the measures preferred by the neuropsychologist may be given, but will not be reimbursed, the neuropsychologist must make a decision about how to proceed that upholds high standards of professional practice, such as administering the additional tests pro bono or refusing to perform the examination. If the retaining party requests that specific measures be administered that the neuropsychologist considers inappropriate, the neuropsychologist should explain why the measures are considered inappropriate in an attempt to educate the retaining party. If the retaining party insists on the use of measures that the neuropsychologist considers inappropriate, the neuropsychologist should consider whether it is advisable to accept the referral. The neuropsychologist may be ethically obligated to document in the examination report any constraints placed on the examination. The neuropsychologist maintains responsibility for the measures administered and should accept, extend, or reject recommendations based on the appropriateness of such recommendations for a given examination.

There may be instances in which the neuropsychologist is asked to provide the retaining party with a list of the examination measures in advance of the examination. To minimize the possibility of successful coaching of the examinee on how to approach the test administration, the neuropsychologist may choose to provide related but nonspecific information, such as a description of the neuropsychological domains to be assessed or a list of all measures in one’s armamentarium, without declaring which measures will be selected for the examination in question.
9. Scope of interpretation

Some retaining parties may request that a determination be made with regard to the presence or absence of a specific neuropsychological condition and request that no other conditions be discussed. However, if failure to document another condition can result in harm to the examinee, the option of nondisclosure may not be ethically viable. If this becomes a point of concern, the neuropsychologist should seek clarification from the retaining party regarding the reason for the limitation posed, present his/her reasoning regarding the presence of a different condition, and consider the judiciousness of accepting cases in which limitations are placed on independence.
10. Presentation of findings

Independent neuropsychological examinations typically differ from clinical examinations regarding the provision of feedback and release of results. With independent neuropsychological examinations, neuropsychologists typically do not provide the examinee with feedback regarding results, conclusions, or recommendations. Reports are released to the retaining party and not to examinees or their family members, doctors, lawyers, or other representatives without the permission of the retaining party. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 does not seem to alter examinee access to neuropsychological records in forensic contexts (Connell & Koocher, 2003; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). HIPAA states that information compiled in anticipation of use in civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings is not subject to the same right of review and amendment as is health care information in general [Section 164.524(a)(1)(ii)] (also see Section 15).

However, some exceptions to the typical release mandates do exist. For example, if the examinee reports suicidal intent, the neuropsychologist must report such findings to the appropriate authorities. In addition, the concept of due diligence underscores the neuropsychologist’s ethical and professional responsibility to address substantial medical problems that were not considered in the referral question. If in the course of the examination the neuropsychologist discovers important and previously unrealized health abnormalities, the neuropsychologist has a responsibility to inform the examinee and to suggest that treatment be pursued from an appropriate health care professional. In addition to verbal feedback, such findings and recommendations should be documented in the written report. There may be instances in which the substantial health concern is not suspected until after the neuropsychologist–examinee contact has ended (e.g., during interpretation of the test data). In such instances, the neuropsychologist should clearly document the findings, request that the retaining party convey the information to the examinee or other appropriate parties, and follow-up to ensure that such information has been conveyed.
11. Revising reports

The retaining party may request that reports be modified with regard to format and/or content. However, there are very few acceptable reasons to modify reports once they have been completed. A request that comes from an invested party and reflects that party’s self-interest in the outcome of a case represents a request for the neuropsychologist to become a biased advocate, rather than an objective expert. As a result, such requests should be considered carefully in reference to standards for objectivity. Modifications must ultimately reflect the beliefs of the neuropsychologist, not those of another party. Modifications involving either additions to the report or omissions from the report might well be considered equally problematic if they do not reflect the examiner’s opinions. Neuropsychologists should retain copies of all completed reports, including those later modified.
12. Release of raw data

Issues related to test security and release of data have been discussed at length in the psychology and neuropsychology literature. The 2002 APA Ethics Code (Standards 9.04 and 9.11) and the NAN position paper on test security apply in this context (e.g., NAN, 2000b).
13. Termination of the relationship with the retaining part

The relationship between the neuropsychologist and the retaining third party may end when payment for services is made, when the report is submitted, or when testimony has been provided. The neuropsychologist should determine beforehand when the relationship will be considered terminated, as the neuropsychologist’s ability to respond to subsequent requests for reports or data may be determined by the status of the relationship with the retaining party. Similarly, the nature of who holds the privilege (who is responsible for protecting the examinee’s confidentiality) regarding the neuropsychological results/data following termination of the relationship should be clarified in advance.

In rare cases, an examinee may return to the neuropsychologist to request treatment from that individual. If the independent examination relationship has ended and the forensic action that initiated the examination has been completed, the neuropsychologist may consider providing such treatment, or refer them to another qualified professional. Once a treating relationship has been established, further independent examinations would be prohibited.
14. Licensing board and ethics committee complaints

The American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology recently drafted an official position on ethical complaints made against neuropsychologists during legal proceedings (AACN, 2003). The AACN paper notes the importance that appropriate complaints can serve for the protection of the public and the integrity of the profession. The paper also states that some complainants may have more self-serving motivations. Suggestions for processing complaints involving forensic examinations are offered. The National Academy of Neuropsychology concurs with the position of AACN regarding ethics complaints in forensic cases.
15. State and federal laws

Jurisdictions differ with respect to the issues discussed in this paper. Some state laws do not specify that any entity other than the examinee is the client, whereas others acknowledge that neuropsychological services may be retained by an entity other than the examinee. State and federal laws provide guidelines for the maintenance and dissemination of records and raw test data and must be considered primary when determining how to respond to requests for records.
16. Conclusions

Neuropsychologists are responsible for maintaining the highest standards of professional practice when performing independent and court-ordered forensic examinations and must strive to maintain true independence and objectivity. Although a true neuropsychologist–patient relationship is not considered to exist within the context of a forensic neuropsychological evaluation, neuropsychologists have ethical responsibilities to both the retaining party and the examinee.

1004 S.S. Bush / Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 20 (2005) 997–1007
Appendix A
American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. (2001). Policy statement on the presence of third party observers
in neuropsychological assessment.

The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 433–439.
American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. (2003). Official position of the American Academy of Clinical
Neuropsychology on ethical complaints made against clinical neuropsychologists during adversarial proceedings.
The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17(4), 443–445.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American
Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073.
Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists.
Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 655–665.
Connell, M., & Koocher, G. P. (2003). HIPAA and forensic practice. American Psychology Law Society News,
23(2), 16–19.
Fisher, J. M., Johnson-Greene, D., & Barth, J. T. (2002). Examination, diagnosis, and interventions in clinical
neuropsychology in general and with special populations: An overview. In S. S. Bush & M. L. Drexler (Eds.),
Ethical issues in clinical neuropsychology (pp. 3–22). Lisse, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
Johnson-Greene, D., & NAN Policy and Planning Committee. (2005). Informed consent: Official statement of the
National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20(3), 335–340.
National Academy of Neuropsychology. (2000a). Presence of third party observers during neuropsychological
testing: Official statement of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
15(5), 379–380.

Incoming search terms:

• corrupt psychologist
• Cps court ordered psych evaluation
• cps court ordered psychological evaluation
• ct court ordered psychiatric evluation
• how to get a court ordered psychiatric evaluation connecticut
• i/o psychology and the evaluation of predictors
• ordering psych evaluations in state of ct
• what entails a court ordered mental evaluation in conn

HOW TO DISCIPLINE YOUR CHILD
How do you keep a 1-year-old from heading toward the VCR? What should you do when your preschooler
throws a fit?  How can you get your adolescent to respect your authority?  Find out here how to
vary your approach to discipline to best fit your family.

Whatever the age of your child, it’s important to be consistent in disciplining your child.  If you
don’t stick to the rules and consequences that you set up, your child isn’t likely to either.

Ages 0 to 2
Knowing that babies and toddlers are naturally curious, it’s a good idea to eliminate any
temptations for your young child to act out. Keep your young child’s environment relatively free of
no-no’s – items such as VCRs, stereos, jewelry, and especially cleaning supplies and medications
should be kept well out of his reach. When your crawling baby or roving toddler heads toward an
unacceptable or dangerous play object, calmly say, “No,” and redirect your child by either removing
him or her from
the area or engaging your child’s attention with an appropriate activity.

Timeouts can be effective discipline for toddlers.  A child who has been hitting, biting, or
throwing food, for example, should be told why that behavior is unacceptable and taken to a
designated timeout area – a kitchen chair or bottom stair – for a minute or two to calm down
(longer timeouts are not effective for toddlers).

It’s important to not spank, hit, or slap a child of any age.  Babies and toddlers are especially
unlikely to be able to make any connection between their behavior and physical punishment.  They
will only feel the pain of the hit.

And don’t forget, kids learn by watching adults, particularly their parents.  Make sure your
behavior is role-model material.  You will make a much stronger impact on your child if he sees you
putting your belongings away, too, rather than if you just tell him or her to pick up the toys
while you leave your stuff strewn across the kitchen counter.

Ages 3 to 5
As your child grows and can begin to understand the connection between actions and consequences,
make sure you begin to communicate the rules of your family’s home.  It’s important to explain to
kids what you expect of them before you punish them for a certain behavior.  For instance, the
first time your 3-year-old uses crayons to decorate the living room wall, you should discuss why
that is not allowed and what will happen if your child does this again.  Explain to your child that
he or she will have to help clean the wall and will not be able to use the crayons for the rest of
the afternoon.  If
your child draws on the walls again a few days later, it’s a good idea to remind your child that
crayons
are for paper only and then enforce the consequences.

The earlier parents can set up this kind of “I set the rules and you’re expected to listen or
accept the consequences,” the better for everyone.  Although it’s sometimes easier for parents to
ignore occasional bad behavior or fail to follow through on some threatened punishment, this risks
setting a bad precedent. Consistency is the key to effective discipline.  It’s important for
parents to decide together what the rules are and then be consistent in upholding them.

At the same time you become clear on what behaviors will be punished, don’t forget to reward good
behaviors. And don’t underestimate the positive effect that your praise can have on your
child. Discipline is not just about punishment.  Parents need to remember to recognize good
behavior. For example, you could say, “I’m proud of you for sharing your toys at playgroup.”  This
is usually

more effective than punishing a child for the opposite behavior – not sharing. And be specific when
praising your child; don’t just say, “Good job!”

If your child is displaying an unacceptable behavior that just won’t go away no matter what you do,
consider setting up a chart system. Put up a chart with a box for each day of the week on the
refrigerator and decide how many chances you’ll give your child to display the unacceptable
behavior before some punishment kicks in or how long the proper behavior must be displayed before
it is rewarded. Then simply keep track by monitoring on a daily basis. This will give your child
(and you) a concrete look at how he or she doing. Once this begins to work, don’t forget to praise
your child for learning to control misbehavior (see bottom of article for additional information on
controlling misbehavior) and especially for overcoming any stubborn problem.

Timeouts also can work well for children at this stage. Establish a suitable timeout place that is
free of distractions and will force your child to think about how he or she has behaved. Remember,
getting sent to your room may have meant something in the days before computers, TVs, and video
games were stored there. Don’t forget to consider the length of time that will best suit your
child. Experts say
1 minute for each year of age is a good rule of thumb to follow; others recommend using the timeout
until the child is calmed down (to teach self-regulation).

It’s important to tell your child what the right thing to do is, not just to tell your child what
not to do. For example, instead of telling your child: “Don’t jump on the couch,” you may want to
say: “Please sit on the furniture and put your feet on the floor.”

Ages 6 to 8
Timeouts and consequences are also effective discipline strategies with this age group.

Again, consistency is crucial, as is following through. Make good on any promises of discipline or
else you will risk undermining your authority. Kids have to believe that you mean what you say.
This is not to say you can’t give second chances or allow your child a certain margin of error, but
for the most part, you should follow through with what you say.

Be careful not to make unrealistic threats of punishment (“Slam that door and you’ll never watch TV
again!”) in anger, since not following through could weaken all your threats. If you threaten to
turn the car around and go home if the squabbling in the backseat doesn’t stop, make sure you do
exactly that. The lost day at the beach is much less valuable than the credibility you’ll gain with
your kids.

Huge punishments may take away your power as a parent. If you ground your son or daughter for a
month, your child may not feel motivated to change his or her behavior because everything has
already been taken away.

Ages 9 to 12
Kids in this age group – just as with all ages – can be disciplined with natural consequences. As
they mature and request more independence and responsibility, teaching them to deal with the
consequences of their behavior is an effective and appropriate method of discipline.

For example, if your fifth grader has not done his or her homework before bedtime, should you make
him or her stay up or help him finish? Probably not, since you’ll be missing an opportunity to
teach your child something about life. If he or she doesn’t do homework earlier, your child will go
to school without it the next day and suffer the resulting bad grade.

It’s natural for you to want to rescue your child from any mistakes, but in the long run you’ll be
doing your child more of a favor if you let him or her fail sometimes. Your child will see what
behaving
improperly can mean, and will probably not make those mistakes again. However, if your child does
not seem to be learning from natural consequences, you should set up your own consequences to help
him modify his behavior more effectively.

Ages 13 and Up
By now you’ve laid the groundwork. Your child knows what’s expected of him or her and knows that
you mean what you say about the consequences of bad behavior. Don’t let down your guard now -
discipline is just as important for teens as it is for younger children. Just like the 4-year-old
who needs you to set a bedtime and stick to it, no matter how much he or she whines, your teen
needs to know
boundaries, too.

Make sure to set up rules regarding homework, visits by friends, curfews, and dating and discuss
them beforehand with your teenager so there will be no misunderstandings. Your teen, although he or
she will probably complain from time to time, will realize that you are in control. Believe it or
not, teens still want and need you to set limits and enforce order in their lives, even as you
grant them greater freedom and responsibility.

When your teen does break a rule, taking away privileges may seem to be the best plan of action.
While it’s fine to take away the car for a week, for example, be sure to discuss with your child
why coming home an hour past curfew is unacceptable and worrisome.

It’s also important to give a teenager some control over life. Not only will this limit the number
of power struggles you may have, it will help your teen to respect the decisions you must make for
him or her. With a younger teen, you could allow him or her to make his or her own decisions
concerning school clothes, hair styles, or even the condition of his or her room. As your teen gets
older, that realm of control might be extended to include an occasional relaxed curfew.

It’s also important to focus on the positives. For example, have your child earn a later curfew by
demonstrating positive behavior, rather than giving your teen an earlier curfew as punishment for
irresponsible behavior.

A Word About Spanking
There is perhaps no more controversial form of discipline than spanking. Here are some reasons why
the American Academy of Pediatrics encourages parents to avoid spanking:

•    Spanking teaches children that it’s OK to hit when they’re angry.
•    Spanking can physically harm children.
•    Rather than teaching children how to change their behavior, spanking makes them fearful of
their parents and teaches them merely to avoid getting caught.
•    In the case of children who are looking for attention by acting out, spanking may
inadvertently
“reward” children by giving them attention – negative attention is better than no attention at all.

source: http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/child_welfare_services/pdf/misbehavior.pdf

Incoming search terms:

• kid being punished
• boy getting spanked
• spanking baby
• dad hitting child
• how to punish a kid
• corruptct spank
• child gets spanked
• disciplining kid
• parent hitting kid
• dad hitting kid

That is a question I hear a lot of parents asking and a good question indeed.  When it comes to CT DCF their answer is not quite an answer, they basically tell you to use your best judgement so they can then use it against you at a later time, but for the people who would like to see what the DCF has to sayLEAVING your child home alone…

Deciding when your child is ready to stay home alone is a difficult decision for parents. There is
no set age, either prescribed by law or by child development experts. It comes down to a judgment
call on the part of parents.

Fortunately, there are some guidelines and certain factors to consider, as well as things to do if
you decide to leave your children home alone.

To decide if your child can take care of himself, consider:

His age.  Experts believe a child should be at least 12 before he is left alone, and at least 15
before he can care for a younger brother or sister. These are the minimum ages. Not every child is
ready then
His maturity.  Can he think things through, plan ahead, make good decisions.
His ability to handle urgent situations.  Your child should show good judgment and follow your
rules. He should know how to get help, what to do in a fire, how to deal with visitors and callers,
etc.
The environment.  Is it safe? Are there people nearby who can be trusted to watch out for your
child?
How long he will be alone. An hour or two might be fine; a day may be too long.
His feelings. If he’s nervous about being alone or isn’t sure he can handle certain situations,
he’s not ready.
If you feel your child can stay alone, give him what he needs to be safe, including: The house key.
Have him keep it in a safe, but hidden place, like a zippered part of his
backpack.
Phone numbers. Next to the phone, post a number where you can be reached (or you might want to get
a pager if you’re not always near a phone) and numbers of two neighbors who are likely to be home
and who have agreed to look out for your child. Tell them what time he comes home from school.

Safety rules. When your child is home alone, he should:

•    not enter the house if he sees something suspicious (e.g. an open door, broken window, strange
people).He should go to a neighbor’s house, call 911, then you. Not let anyone in. Delivery people
can be told to go to a neighbor’s house and repair people can come back.
•    not tell anyone he is home alone. If someone calls, your child can say, “My mother (father)
can’t come to the phone right now. Can I take a message?”
•    not go to anyone’s house without your permission.
•    Schedule a time each day to check in with one another.
Teach your child:

•    When to call 911 and what to say.
•    How to prevent fires and what to do if one breaks out (E.g. get out of the house fast and call
911 from a neighbor’s house).
•    Basic first aid (some towns offer courses for children). Some towns and employers offer a
“home alone” class for children; ask your town recreation department, school or employer.

Try leaving your child home alone for an hour or two and see how he does before you do it long
term. Each day, talk to your child about what he did during the day. Ask him often how he feels
about staying home alone. Review safety rules.

If you, or your child have any doubts, it is best to make other arrangements. Maybe another parent,
college student, or local after-school program can help out.

If you need to find care for your child, check with INFOLINE (211), your relatives, neighbors and
friends, your child’s school, your city or town parks and recreation department, or a local
YMCA/YWCA.
your child’s school, your city or town parks and recreation department, or a local YMCA/YWCA.

Source: http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/child_welfare_services/pdf/leaving_your_child_alone.pdf

Incoming search terms:

• how old do children have to be to stay home alone in CT
• how old do you have to be to stay home alone
• how old do you have to be to watch a rated r movie
• how old does a child have tobe to be left home alone
• how old does kid have tobe to stay alone in ct

Information Obtained From the jud.ct.gov website

Incoming search terms:

• hartford ct adult probation employee directory
• adult probation willimantic
• ada is corrupt
• judicial branch hartford ct contact info
• judicial branch in danbury ct
• jury adm jud ct gov
• juvenile matters probation hartford staff directory
• maureen hille Connecticut
• michael federici connecticut
• michael federici state of connecticut

A motion for intervention, in the context of family law, is a petition by an interested party to testify to the best interests of a child when the existing parties cannot adequately protect a child’s best interests. The laws granting intervenors a procedural right to be heard by the court are designed to make sure the court has free and ready access to all relevant information.

Laws governing motions for intervention vary by jurisdiction, but typically provide that such a motion may be granted based upon the following:

1. A caregiver relationship exists between the person and the child or ward;
2. The intervention is in the best interests of the child or ward;
3. The reason for intervention and the specific relief sought are consistent with the best interests of the child or ward; and
4. The existing parties cannot adequately protect the best interests of the child or ward without the intervention.

In some instances, intervention is allowed “as of right”, and in other cases, it is permissive. The mandatory or permissive status of the intervening party may affect their right to appeal a denial of the motion to intervene.

Incoming search terms:

• motion for intervention CT
• ct motion to intervene form
• motion to intervene ct
• motion to intervene cps
• motion to intervene connecticut
• motion of intervention ct
• ct dcf intervention process
• denial of motion to intervene AND ct
• Dcf cps intervention
• ct-motion to intervene

Here’s the oath taken by Connecticut attorneys upon entering the profession:

You solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will do nothing dishonest, and will not knowingly allow anything dishonest to be done in court, and that you will inform the court of any dishonesty of which you have knowledge; that you will not knowingly maintain or assist in maintaining any cause of action that is false or unlawful; that you will not obstruct any cause of action for personal gain or malice; but that you will exercise the office of attorney, in any court in which you may practice, according to the best of your learning and judgment, faithfully, to both your client and the court; so help you God or upon penalty of perjury.  Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 1-25.

For Connecticut attorney’s, prior to stumbling upon this post, when was the last time you thought about or read your oath?

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CONNECTICUT LAW BLOG

Incoming search terms:

• Corrupt attorneys CT
• are ct attorneys dishonest and corrupt?
• attorney oath connecticut
• client is an attorney perjury connecticut
• connecticut attorney oath
• Perjury in Connecticut
• punishment for perjury in connecticut
• state of ct attorney oath

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)^[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to rear their children, struck down a Washington state law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections.

[edit] Impact of Troxel v. Granville

In the case of Troxel v. Granville, the United States Supreme Court has said that “the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”^[2] The Supreme Court also made it clear that this fundamental right is implicated in grandparent visitation cases. The plurality opinion stated at the outset that statutes allowing grandparent visitation orders to be imposed over parental objection “present questions of constitutional import.” The Supreme Court flatly declared that a parent’s fundamental right to the “care, custody and control of their children” was “at issue in this case.” The Supreme Court struck down the Washington grandparent visitation statute because it unconstitutionally infringed on that fundamental parental right.

State courts considering non-parent visitation petitions must apply “a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.”.^[3] Troxel requires that State courts must give “special weight” to a fit parent’s decision to deny non-parent visitation. “Choices [parents make] about the upbringing of children . . . are among associational rights . . . sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”^[4] This principle must inform our understanding of the “special weight” Troxel requires courts to give to parents’ decisions concerning whether, when and how grandparents will associate with their children. Even though Troxel does not define “special weight,” previous Supreme Court precedent indicates that “special weight” is a strong term signifying very considerable deference.^[5] The “special weight” requirement, as illuminated by these prior Supreme Court cases, means that the deference provided to the parent’s wishes will only be overcome by some compelling governmental interest and overwhelmingly clear factual circumstances supporting that governmental interest.

[edit] See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 530
• List of United States Supreme Court cases
• Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume

[edit] References

• Works related to Troxel v. Granville at Wikisource
• Edward Walsh, “Court Limits Visitation Rights of Grandparents; State Can’t Overrule Decision Of a Fit Parent, Justices Say,” Washington Post, June 6, 2000.

1. ^ 530 U.S. 57 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
2. ^ Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65; 120 S Ct 2054, 2060 (2000).
3. ^ Troxel, 530 US at 69; 120 S Ct at 2061, 2062.
4. ^ MLB v. SLJ, 519 U.S. 102, 116-117 (1996).
5. ^ See, e.g., Comstock v. Group of Institutional Investors, 335 US 211, 230 (1948); Tibbs v. Florida, 457 US 31 (1982).

Incoming search terms:

• troxel v granville and similar cases
• troxel v granville washington post

Incoming search terms:

• discrimination and cps

• It is unconstitutional for a Child Protective Agency or Investigator to conduct ANY investigation, without a caregiver’s WILLFUL permission, in a residence or within the curtilage of private property without a warrant, when “imminent danger” or “exigency” does not exist.
  
• Anonymous reports are NEVER probable cause.
  
• It is a “seizure” to speak to a child without consent.
  
• Removing a child from the non-offending parent  because the child witnessed domestic violence is unlawful and unconstitutional.
  
• Denying DCF entry is NOT hindering an investigation. It is an assertion of one’s 4th Amendment right, as well as your right to remain silent.

CLICK HERE to download the handbook in WORD format.

CLICK HERE to download the handbook in PDF format.

If medical information is given out without permission, *click here* to File a HIPAA (Personal Health Information Protection Privacy Rule) Complaint. If you are uncertain or would like clarification on HIPAA related issues, you may contact CMS for additional help at 1-866-282-0659, or submit your questions to the CMS’ HIPAA email address at askhipaa@cms.hhs.gov.

information obtained from ctdcfwatch.com

When we fail to protect children, We ultimately fail to protect ourselves.

Please!   Help stop the Silence about Child Abuse.  A whistle-blower complaint was filed with the Attorney General’s Office in Connecticut, March 2007. The basis of the complaint was the covering up of child abuse by people who’s job it was to protect children and didn’t. This complaint instituted a 18 month investigation which is still running. We are afraid this matter is being buried and we need your help.

Quote by the Prosecutor, One of the people under investigation. ( In Writing she states. )   “Even if a person deliberately lies under oath and the State can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt such conduct does not constitute perjury unless it involves a material statement. In other words, it is not perjury to deliberately lie under oath regarding non-material facts.”

A prosecutor’s job is to protect and to bring forth the truth. But this prosecutor didn’t protect or bring forth the truth, leaving this child to fend for herself. This should be troubling to all in this country, that in Connecticut a prosecutor says it is alright to deliberately lie while under a lawful oath as long as one claims it is not material to the matter. This certainly presents a convenience when one is committing perjury.

Therefore: The signers of this petition are asking Mr. Richard Blumenthal, the Attorney General of Connecticut, to ensure that justice is done and with a resolution soon, for the sake of this child and others.

One does not have to live in Connecticut to sign this Petition or comment, as this is a National Issue.

Sign the petition: Earth Angel Site