Corrupt CT Bringing corruption to a whole new level.
Joette Katz CT DCF Served Petition Writ Of Habeas Corpus
RETURN DATE: November 25, 2014
ERIC FOY, et al. SUPERIOR COURT
Petitioners, J.D OF MIDDLESEX
JOETTE KATZ, COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
F AMILES; CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
Respondent. OCTOBER 28, 2014
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
1.This petition, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, is filed pursuant to Connecticut Practice
Book § 25- 40 and under the authority of Connecticut General Statutes § 52-466.
2.The petitioners in this matter are Eric Foy (hereinafter “petitioner father”) and his three
minor children (hereinafter “petitioner children”).
3.The petitioner children were initially committed to the Department of Children and
Family Services (hereinafter “DCF”) via an Order of Temporary Custody entered on
March 20, 2014 and extended until further order by the court on April 4, 2014, and are
housed with a foster family somewhere in the vicinity of Hartford County.
4.Said commitment was unlawful and was entered into in violation of the petitioners’ rights
guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in
a. The commitment of the petitioner children violates both their and the petitioner
father’s right to associate protected by the First Amendment to the United States
b. The commitment of the petitioner children violates both their and the petitioner
father’s right to due process protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
c. The commitment of the petitioner children violates both their and the petitioner
father’s rights to live together as a family and to the sanctity of their family
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431U.S.494 (1977); Smith v. Organization of
Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977).
d. The commitment of the petitioner children violates both their and the petitioner
father’s fundamental right and liberty interest of parents to make decisions
concerning care, custody and control of their children protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405, U.S.
645, 651 (1972); Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997); Troxel v.
Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
5.The petitioner children were removed from the care and home of their petitioner parents
in the evening of Thursday March 20, 2014 by DCF.
6.Shortly thereafter the petitioner father retained Attorney Dwyer to assist him at a hearing
regarding the Order of Temporary Custody.
7.On Wednesday March 26, 2014 the petitioner father met with Attorney Dwyer to discuss
the case and the upcoming hearing.
8.On Friday April 4, 2014 a hearing was held in the Superior Court at the Judicial District
of Middletown before the honorable Eigo, J. regarding the extension or termination of the
Order of Temporary Custody.
9. On a recess at the above hearing, Attorney Dwyer met with opposing counsel, the
Guardian Ad Litem and the Attorney for the Minor Children, and afterwards informed the
petitioner father that DCF intended to vest sole custody with the mother, Lisa Foy, and
grant limited supervised visitation to the petitioner father only.
10. Based upon the information Attorney Dwyer conveyed to him, the petitioner father
withdrew his objection to the Order of Temporary Custody, to avoid a hearing where
DCF intended to grant sole custody to the mother against whom accusations of her
physically abusing the children had been made.
11. Based upon Attorney Dwyer’s counsel and the knowledge of those allegations, the
petitioner father believed his three minor children would be safer in foster care.
12. Based upon Attorney Dwyer’s counsel, the petitioner father believed that the children
would not remain in the custody ofDCF indefinitely.
13. Subsequently, Judge Elgo sustained the Order of Temporary Custody and extended it
until further order of the court.
14. The petitioner father had been granted supervised visitation twice a week for an hour
15. The petitioner father’s supervised visitation was suspended by way of an ex parte order –
without a hearing being held or scheduled – filed by the respondent on August 4, 2014.
16. On September 29, 2014, after the conclusion of a hearing on the respondents’ neglect
petition, the court adjudicated the petitioner children neglected and ordered that they
remain in the care and custody ofDCF.
17. In that same ruling on the neglect petition, the court ordered that the parties – petitioner
father and respondent mother – begin reunification therapy with a qualified therapist
18. Despite the best efforts of all involved, reunification therapy has yet to begin as no
qualified therapist has yet to agree to take the case.
19. The following therapists have declined to take the petitioner father’s case:
a. Dr. Howard M. Krieger, Ph.D.
i. Refused to become involved with the petitioner father’s case due to the
involvement of petitioner father’s choice of counsel.
b. Dr. Sidney Horowitz, Ph.D
i. Practice partner with Dr. Krieger at the Connecticut Resource Group,
c. Dr. Robert Horowitz, Ph.D.
i. Wanted quasi-judicial immunity prior to accepting the petitioner father’s
d. Dr. Bruce Freedman, Ph. D.
i. No reason given for refusal.
20. Upon information and belief the petitioner father believes that the therapists who have
declined to engage in reunification therapy is due to his choice of counsel.
21 . The said failure to begin reunification therapy is unlawful and is in violation of the
petitioners’ rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
a. The petitioner father is effectively prevented from enjoying his constitutional
light to counsel of choice protected by the Sixth Amendment to the United States
b.The petitioner has been placed in an untenable position in that he must now
choose which Constitutional rights are more important to him – the First, Sixth or
Fourteenth – as the circumstances indicate he does not enjoy the protection of all
constitutional amendments equally.
22. The petitioner father has not seen his children, the co-petitioners, since July of this year.
23. The petitioner father has not been able to write, email or call his children since the Order
of Temporary Custody went into effect.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
24. The petitioner father’s counsel was ineffective in the following ways:
a. But for the advice, counsel and representations made to him by Attorney Dwyer,
the petitioner father would not have withdrawn his opposition to the Order of
b. But for the advice, counsel and representations made to him by Attorney Dwyer,
the petitioner father would not have been in agreement with sustaining the Order
of Temporary Custody.
c. But for the advice, counsel and representations made to him by Attorney Dwyer,
the petitioner father maintains that he would still have physical custody of the
25. The petitioner father’s parental rights have not been terminated by any judicial
proceeding or authority.
26. It is best for the welfare of the three minor petitioners that they be able to see the
petitioner father and thus maintain their constitutionally protected familial rights and
27. The petitioner father has been placed in an unconstitutional position in the following
a. But for his choice of counsel, the petitioner father would have started the court-
ordered reunification therapy by the date of this petition.
b.But for the choice of his counsel, the petitioner father would not have to choose
which constitutional rights to exercise at the exclusion of others.
WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing reasons, the petitioners respectfully request
that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus.
Norman A. Pattis, Esq
Heather E. Rolfes, Esq
The Pattis Law Firm, LLC
649 Amity Road
Bethany, Ct 06524
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Middletown Superior Court against Joette Katz and DCF that is publicly available online on the Connecticut Judicial Website at http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=MMXCV146012760S
People can simply click on the Complaint to read it.
ERIC FOY- WE SUPPORT YOU, PRAYING YOUR CHILDREN ARE HOME WITH YOU SOON.
KINDLY LEAVE COMMENTS IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU NORMAN PATTIS & YOUR FIRM FOR FIGHTING FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, FOR ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS.