Newtown’s Judge Opposes Probate Overhaul Proposal

By John Voket

(This is the first of a two-part news feature on a proposed statewide probate court overhaul, and how Newtown officials are addressing the possibility of losing local probate services.)

Judge Margot Hall believes Newtown’s Probate Court is in fine working order. And she is not taking very kindly to a recent proposal to replace the 123 local probate courts with a new statewide system.

In a recent interview with The Bee, Judge Hall spoke at length defending communities like Newtown that might have to tap taxpayers to sustain a local court’s existence, while other towns either consolidate courts or shift caseloads to centralized Superior Court facilities in larger cities.

On October 4, 2004, Probate Court Administrator Judge James J. Lawlor announced the comprehensive overhaul plan, which was ordered by Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice William J. Sullivan earlier in the year.

Citing a “looming financial crisis in the state’s judicial system,” primarily blamed on skyrocketing health care and benefits costs, Judge Lawlor said in a release, “The plan would make the probate court system more efficient and professional, while avoiding wholesale court consolidation by allowing towns to address their individual needs.”

On December 16, 2004, Connecticut Chief Justice William Sullivan approved a modified plan and assigned Judge Lawlor with the responsibility of making whatever modifications to the probate system were, “necessary and appropriate.” Judge Sullivan further authorized legislation to be drafted reflecting those changes for consideration and possible action in the 2005 legislative session.

During her nearly 15 years as Newtown’s Judge of Probate, Judge Hall has administered many matters including probating wills and administration of estates; overseeing testamentary and living trusts; determining title to real and personal property; construing the meaning of wills and trusts; appointing guardians for the mentally retarded; appointing conservators of the person and the estate of incapable individuals; committing those suffering from mental illness, alcoholism, or drug addition to an appropriate facility; removing unfit parents as guardians of their children; terminating parental rights of parents who cannot fulfill parental responsibilities; granting adoptions; and granting name changes, among other matters.

But under the new proposal, these cases may not all fall under the authority of a single judge, or even a single court. Judge Lawlor’s plan recommends that any communities opting out of financing their Local Court, have cases consolidated into Urban Courts, modified Local Courts, and Specialty Courts.

Probate districts with populations under 50,000 could retain local probate services by accepting a radical new financial and funding structure. Towns and cities with populations over 50,000 would be serviced by the consolidated Urban Probate Courts.

Districts with populations greater than 10,000 and comprised of five or more towns would become Modified Local Probate Courts, and courts handling certain particular services — with their scope and locations yet to be determined — would become Specialty Probate Courts.

The latter might handle business like children’s matters, mental health issues, and other specified cases.

Judge Lawlor indicated that the new divisions of courts would help avoid the idea that the probate overhaul has taken a “one size fits all approach,” instead tailoring different types of courts to the particular needs in each region of the state.

While the plan addresses numerous ways in which Judge Lawlor hopes to change the system, as well as a modified formula in which towns would take four years to buy into the regionalized approach or foot a bulk of probate personnel and benefits costs themselves, there are virtually no proven formulas to guarantee that any of the changes will actually save the state money.

This is probably the issue that irks Newtown’s probate administrator the most.

“They’re too willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater,” she said of the sweeping proposal.

Judge Hall said she is joining a growing number of fellow small-town probate judges who favor a counter proposal that was summed up in a December 2004 rebuttal that ran in an op-ed piece in The Day of New London. In that rebuttal, Judge Richard Lightfoot suggests a business-style approach to fixing or refining areas of the system that are most likely to impact revenue on the plus and minus sides, instead of scrapping the 123-town system altogether.

“This plan lays the blame on finances, but the plan itself has nothing in it detailing proven ways it will positively impact finances,” Judge Hall said. “The fees and salaries are all set by statute. The only discretionary area involves hiring office staff.”

Judge Hall said she found Judge Lightfoot’s proposal for repairs instead of replacement to be, “a very analytical treatment that speaks to a lot of our perceived problems.

“I would like to see the proposal [to replace the existing system] looked at from the perspective of financial impact,” she said. “What is the changeover going to cost versus the cost to address and change particular areas of the existing system?”

(In the second part of our feature on the possible overhaul of the state probate courts, we will outline Judge Lightfoot’s counterproposal and hear from Newtown’s legislative representatives.)