Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

um-_“—;Ym__“ l
I Case 3:03-cv-00571-ISBU Document 27 Filed 02/O2/2004 Page 1 of 3 I
CJ O r
1: I
UNITED STATES DISTRICTII I, T.,T; I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Ilillll FEB -2 ID l2= 25 I
Jane Doe, Jr. PPAJane DoeSr.,etaI. : W .,,. A E - _ _· I
Jane Doe, Sr. Plaintiff UQ ,3,: i g ji- ,“, -4? ; ` I
E CIVIL NO:3:03 cv sri (sew) I
City of Waterbury et al. l
Defendants
: January 28, 2004
RESPONSE AND OEIJECTION TO POST-HEARING MEMORANDUM OF PROPOSED I
INTERVENOR, DARLEENE DUNBAR COMMISSIONER OF CHILD AND FAMILIES DATED -
JANUARY 16, 2004 I
The proposed intervenors were directed by this Court on December 22,
2003 to submit a supplemental memorandum indicating the qualirications ofthe attorneys
for the Commissioner of Children and Families, (hereinafter referred to as DCF) and to
address any potential conflict of interests issue between the plaintiff mothers and the I
existing private counsel prosecuting the claims in the above referenced matter. The
proposed intervenor has failed in all respects to follow that Court direction.
I
Therefore, the memorandum by the proposed intervenor was unresponsive to the
Court’s request and the relief requested by DCF should be denied in its entirety for this and
I
the following reasons:
1. DCF has failed to appropriately respond to the two issues the Court directed it I
I
to brief on December 22, 2003.
2. While DCF is correct that it will not reduce the plaintiffs recovery by any fees I
or costs, we question the incentive by DCF to achieve the maximum
- 1 -
if g D g ccrr j caaeae
it g D ;_ ‘*‘r j aaaaet

I { Case 3:03-cv-OO571—?RlJ Document 27 Filed O2/O2/@4 Page 2 of 3 {

compensation for the minor child beyond recouping the State ln that it will
place on this litigation.
3. DCF has neglected to properly protect the interests of the minor child in this
action and has taken no steps to date to indicate that the child would be better
served by DCF representation. N
4. The Court has the broad discretionary powers to appoint a guardian ad litem
for the protection ofthe minor child as it has already seen tit to do so by the I
previous appointment of Attorney Lynn Jenkins in this matter. Atty. Jenkins is
highly qualitied to protect and oversee the interests of the minor child.
5. Given the cunent number of cases against DCF for inability to protect and
properly cre for and oversee the children under its current administration we
feel it would be an overwhelming task for DCF to take on this litigation and
properly protect this child’s interest in vindicating her civil interests.
Due to the foregoing and additional reasons as detailed in the attached
memorandum of law, we respectfully request that the motion by the Proposed lntervener be
denied in its entirety and that the Court re-appoint Atty. Jenkins as the Guardian Ad Litem of
the minor child.
Respectfully submitted,
Attomey G ld L. Harmon
By: 5
Gerald L. Har (ct 13523) l
290 Pratt Street E
Meriden, CT 06450
(203) 6394 956
- 2 -

, 1
Case 3:03-cv-00571-€Fi5J Document 27 Filed O2/O2/%O%4 Page 3 of 3
CERTlFiCATION
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing plaintiffs response to post hearing
memorandum of proposed intervenor were mailed to the following parties of record on I
January 28, 2004 as follows:
l
l
l
Elliot B. Spector, Esq. Attorney Andrew Bowman
Sack, Spector and Karsten 1804 Post Road East
836 Farmington Avenue Westport, CT 06880 `
West Hartford, CT 061 19 |
Susan T. Pearlman Esq. Attorney Erskine D. Mclntosh
110 Sherman Street The Law Offices of Erskine D. Mclntosh
Hartford, CT 06105 3129 Whitney Avenue 2"‘* Floor
Hamden, Ct 06518
District Court Clerk’s Ofnce Attorney Michael W. Mackniak
915 Lafayette Blvd 87 Meadow Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604 Naugatuck, 06770 _
Judge Stefan R. Underhill
Chambers
915 Lafayette Blvd
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Attorney Michael S. Hillis .
Dobrowski, Knapsack and Hillis, LLC I _
205 Whitney Avenue _ i
New Haven, Ct 06511 ` , __
Y•7'7l|]”PV on, Esq. i
V l
- 3 -