strip banner

Corrupt CT  Bringing corruption to a whole new level.

Joette-Katz-DCF-commissioner-CtJoette Katz CT DCF Commissioner

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

at MIDDLETOWN

v.

JOETTE KATZ, COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

F AMILES; CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILES

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

that:

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

Constitution.
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

each visit.

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

immediately.

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,

LLC.

c. Dr. Robert Horowitz, Ph.D.

i. Wanted quasi-judicial immunity prior to accepting the petitioner father’s

case.

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.

in that:

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

Constitution.

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

Temporary Custody.

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

petitioner children.

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

relationships.

Unconstitutional Position

27. The petitioner father has been placed in an unconstitutional position in the following

ways:

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.

ERIC FOY

PETITIONER FATHER

Norman A. Pattis, Esq

Heather E. Rolfes, Esq

The Pattis Law Firm, LLC

649 Amity Road

Bethany, Ct 06524

203.393.3017 (tel)

203.393.9745 (fx)

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.

 

Advertisements