Sunday, April 2, 2017

Kinship Providers Cri du Coeur

The expressive French phrase, 'un cri du coeur', says it all about the Picchiotti bills on behalf of kinship providers of custodial care for their grandchildren. These bills are truly a cry from the heart of good people, begging the Maine legislature to correct the daunting legal struggles they've had to go trough in Maine's courts to provide loving care for their grandchildren. These children have ended up in "kinship care", because of the gross dysfunction, neglect or abuse of their natural parents.

As one might say, "There ought to be a law!" Or, more reflectively, "Where has the law been?"

Listening to the intelligent, very well-crafted analyses of some of these bills by the Judiciary Committee analyst on Thursday, one had to concur with her astute reviews. The bills were frequently flawed with regard both to structure and content. And ... after very thoughtful discussion by the committee members, "OUGHT NOT TO PASS" was a logical committee decision. The bills were often described as:

  • Redundant: covered by existing laws.
  • Partially redundant- overlap with existing laws
  • Unconstitutional or challenging to the constitution
  • Apt to create confusion in the courtroom's analyses
  • There were other critiques of these bills that added to the "flawed status"

BUT... the grandparents 'cri du coeur' remains and cannot be silenced by very logical analysis a proposed law. The needs of these Maine children for loving care from a "kinship provider" don't evaporate, because a bill OUGHT NOT TO PASS.  

FURTHER, we'd say, "Redundancy, overlap, courtroom confusion and other critiques of the Picchiotti  bills don't answer our critique: IF THERE ALREADY ARE LAWS IN PLACE TO HELP THE KINSHP PROVIDERS AND THEIR GRANDCHILDREN, THEY MUST NOT BE WORKING. Or certainly not working as they should?

We smell a rat. A large rat!

All is not well. The Committee needs to dig deeper and understand why the bills were very seriously proposed.  Something isn't working for Maine Children and families. We need answers. We need corrective action.

MeGAL is working to bring about change to the "Family Court" system since 2012. We do so through the education of parents who are caught in the process as well as our representatives who are unaware of the issues involved in "Family Courts". For more information please email us at or find us on Facebook.

Felicity Meyers

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

We Support Rep John Picchiotti's Bills For Kinship Providers

We strongly support all of Rep John Picchiotti's bills. All of them are very  much needed by those children who have been abandoned by parents, or whose parents are  determined to be "unfit". The bills fill a gap in healthy  support systems for children in the care of (non-parental) kinship providers. They also provide much needed public support to the dedicated kinship providers themselves. The bills address issues that have cried out for attention for a very long time.


LD 063 An Act To Ensure Complete Investigations by Guardians Ad Litem - Sponsored by Rep Picchiotti. This bill requires that a Guardian ad litem should do a complete investigation and report on standardized, court approved forms that list topic headings the GAL tasks to be investigated and outcome of investigation. Reports must be provided to both parties well in advance of hearings. Tasks assigned by judge must comply with GAL role. We do not support the aspect calling for removal of the SUNSET CLAUSE - in this bill, and Rep Picchiotti tells us that it was put there in error by the Revisor's office. He plans to explain its removal to the Judiciary Committee when the bill is presented on Thursday, March 23rd at 1 pm.

LD 363 An Act To Make a Child Living with a Custodial Relative Caregiver Eligible for State-paid Legal Services - Sponsored by Rep Picchiotti. This bill aims at giving children, living with kinship providers, legal protection and legal representation in custody disputes between parents and de facto parents (foster kinship).  Guardians ad litem do not provide formal legal court representation to children in litigation situations. They gather information for the judge.

LD 429 An Act Concerning Guardians Ad Litem and Determinations Regarding the Best Interest of a Child in Custodial Relative Caregiver Cases - Sponsored by Rep Picchiotti. Act considers when the child's best interest is reviewed.  Giving custody to a relative must be considered.

LD 147 An Act To Amend the Maine Parentage Act - Sponsored by Rep Picchiotti. This bill prohibits a child support order from requiring payment of child support from the 'de facto' parent to another parent of the child if the 'de facto' parent became a 'de facto' parent due to the unwillingness or inability of the other parent to provide care for the child.

LD 282 An Act to Support Caregivers when Children Have Been abandoned by their Parents - Sponsored by Rep Picchiotti. This concerns caretaker relatives who take custody when a child's parents have abandoned them without formal guardianship or power of attorney. 'De facto' parents may petition the court to be appointed guardian. The law would amend factors for the court to consider in the child's best interest: parental participation in child's life, parental capacity, disposition of parent to uphold a normal parent-child relationship

LD 362 An Act to Allow Relative Caregivers Standing in Court - Sponsored by Rep Picchiotti. This bill specifies that a relative caregiver involved in a child protective proceeding has an unconditional right to intervene in the proceeding.

From our perspective these several bills correct the severe legal disadvantages that dedicated kinship providers have faced in their efforts to provide good homes to the children of parents who are "unfit". Often these children are their grandchildren. That they have not been considered by courts as providers of child care "in the child's best interest" is hard to understand; that they do not have standing in court is another illogical injustice to them and the children they care for; that they might be "hit on" for child support is simply unbelievable; and that the children in these cases have no legal representation is a failing of the courts to protect these vulnerable children.

Representative Picchiotti and the Kinship Provider group deserve enormous credit for bringing these issues to public and legislative attention. We sincerely hope that the legislature acts in favor of these bills.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

We Are Asking the Sun Set On LD 872

To: Members of the Judiciary Committee for Thursday, March 23rd at 1 pm

From: Jerome A Collins,  Maine Guardian ad litem Alert

Re: LD 457, the "Sunset" Bill, sponsor: Rep Matthew Moonen

We strongly oppose this bill. The sun should set  on the law, a the law itself  specifies, in October, 2017..

The original version of this law was conceived by Sen David Dutremble and me over a long afternoon, in 2012, at my kitchen table in Kennebunkport. We based our action on the facts that (a) nothing was happening at the Judicial Branch to reform the GAL program, (b) we were both hearing heartbreaking complaints from numerous victims of the GAL program that was the result of no program oversight or management, (c) there already existed a "blueprint" for GAL reform waiting to be activated in the form of the nationally respected 2006 OPEGA Audit of Maine GALs. We expanded the focus of the 2006 OPEGA report to cover all GALs, wherever they worked: Probate, Children's Protective or Divorce and Custody.

The Dutremble bill, LD 872 was born in the grass-roots, nourished by the legislative process with extensive emotional public hearings and signed into law by the Governor in late Spring 2013. It was a "people's bill" all the way. It solved "people problems" in family courts. It was a solution that grew out of long neglect by the Judicial Branch of their GAL program; it corrected a problem for vulnerable groups, who were forced to use GALs.

As not uncommonly happens, with laws created by the Legislature with strong citizen input, the Judicial Branch worked over the "Dutremble Law" using their preferred process, committees composed of "stakeholders": family court lawyers, GALs and family court judges - all with significant conflicts of interest. The law was radically  transformed from "people friendly" to "family bar and GAL-friendly". It is NO LONGER THE PEOPLE'S LAW; IT IS A LAWYERS' and GAL's LAW.. THIS RE-WORKED LAW IS NOT THE ONE WE WORKED TO CREATE. It may have the same name and number but it is a very different "creature".

The centerpiece of this "new" Judicial Branch law is the GAL complaint procedure, safely tucked into the Overseers of the Bar.
  • The complaint procedure is said to be a substitute for actual oversight and nonexistent management. It is not either.
  • The legislature had called for a "user-friendly" GAL  complaint procedure. It is now about as de-humanized a process as one could imagine.
  • The current procedure provides pages of legalistic instructions, but no human help.
  • The steps in the procedure are carried out by mail (US postal service). No names of those making decisions appear.
  • The consumer making a complaint fires of a complaint into a nameless, faceless, bureaucratic "black hole".
  • 100 % of consumer complaints have been dismissed without any corrective action of the mildest kind being taken. This is in the tradition of all previous complaint procedures that go back for years.
It is unclear whether these consumer complaints are viewed as legal complaints (breaking the law) or vocational complaints (competence). Once a complaint is dismissed, however, the GAL's name is cleared and removed from the record. The complaint never happened. We'd suggest that the Judiciary Committee members do a "walk through" of this process to get a feel for it. We'd also suggest that they obtain information about professional complaints from the Bureau of licensure, a very different process, a different more humane approach.

There are many other details I could mention, if I was allowed the time, but they are covered in our extensive rebuttal to Chief Judge Mary Kelly's report to the legislature. Here are the troubled topic headings:

  • Consumer satisfaction survey: We dare you to ask for data.
  • Financial ceilings for GAL services: Just motion the judge you need more time (and money) and the ceiling lifts.
  • Reporting information systematically and computer friendly - Rep Picchiotti's bill attempts to fill this missing piece.
  • Management and oversight of GALs - Sorry, it's covered by the GAL complaint procedure. It is? How?
  • Enforcement of GAL Rules and Standards - Sorry it's embedded in the GAL complaint procedure. With 100% dismissal are GALs "perfect"?
  • Data for any aspect of the law? What's data? Or. The numbers are "confidential", proprietary, secret.
  • Double talk: not intentionally. We have to protect all parties, but numbers how can they hurt anyone except the Judicial Branch?
The Maine legislature needs to ask itself: Is this the law, you sent to the Judicial Branch in 2013? We say it has had radical surgery at the JB since 2013? We say it is now very consumer-unfriendly. Do you want to inflict it on the people of Maine? If you can't decide, if you are confused by the opposing views on this law, you need an outside, objective OPEGA study to examine the problems and give you recommendations for action. We are told that Rep Moonen has already communicated to the Government Oversight Committee (and OPEGA) that an OPEGA study would be "premature", that the Judiciary Committee needs time to review Chief Judge Mary Kelly's report (and our rebuttal report?). It is unclear to us whether Moonen was expressing his personal views aimed at stalling OPEGA, or whether he expressed the sentiments of the Judiciary Committee as a whole. If the latter, this would close further public discussion of the "sunset" bill, until you review the opposing reports and decide where to go in resolving the questions raised. We are not afraid of any OPEGA analysis, are you?

It;s an airtight system

Jerome A Collins

If you are unable to attend on Thursday (and even if you are) we encourage you to submit written testimony to the Judiciary Committee. In submitting testimony please send to the following email address:

And ask that your written testimony be distributed to all members of the committee.

felicity myers GAL

Friday, March 10, 2017

Empty Promises: The Dutremble GAL Law in the Hands of the Judicial Branch

When courts get involved with families about any aspect of child custody, it is always a high stress situation for all concerned. For families and children facing divorce action, child protection considerations or probate mandated custody, the circumstantial dynamics are already dire for children and their parents. Courts add yet another level of stress to these situations, just by being courts. The courts  use unfamiliar language, an unfamiliar 'modus operandi' and a traditional adversarial model of problem solving that is imposed on top of the unstructured, human adversarial conditions.

Courts will frequently add a 'Guardian ad litem' to this volatile mix, and the total picture can  disintegrate further. A 'Guardian ad litem' is usually a lawyer or mental health professional, who works for the judge in the case, collecting data about the case that may not be easily accessible to the judge, such as home circumstances, parenting skills, health, education and mental health issues. All of this is to be carried out "in the child's best interest". It is a delicate balancing act, actively scrutinized by all the players, and, the stakes are extremely high - the child or children, who are up for varying custody arrangements.

Families involved with GALs, as they are called, have been very vocally unhappy with oversight of  the Maine GAL program for years. A nationally-respected, 2006 OPEGA Performance Audit of Maine GALs, did a careful analysis and made a series of recommendations aimed at program correction. It was largely tabled by the Judicial Branch. In 2013, Senator David Dutremble and many GAL victims decided to legislate reform of  the GAL program. They used the 2006 OPEGA Guardian ad litem Report as the basis for Chapter 406, a law to improve the functioning of GALs with respect to children. It involved many willing workers who were GAL program victims and lots of bipartisan legislative support - all the way the Governor. There was huge excitement and a great sense of accomplishment on the part of everyone who worked for the bill/law. After the bill was signed into law in the late Spring of 2013, it went to the Judicial Branch for implementation.

In the intervening time since 2013, the rumors about the fate of 2013, Chapter 406 have not been reassuring. Serious consumer problems continue under the new law. As required by the law, an extensive report on the program's progress was given to the Judiciary Committee by Chief Judge, Mary Kelly about 2 weeks ago. This was followed promptly with an equally extensive rebuttal to the Kelly Report by Maine Guardian ad litem Alert (MeGAL).

Here are a few of the concerns in our report.

The recent Kelly Report doesn't answer public questions: How are the various changes instituted by the Judicial Branch working? Are Consumers satisfied? Is there yet and oversight/ supervision of Guardians ad litem? If so, how? Is there any data to support public evaluation?

Judge Kelly's review ignores the important 2006 OPEGA Audit of Maine GALs, as a baseline measurement with which to gauge change.  OPEGA spelled out: "Here are the GAL problems - and here's what needs to be done to correct them!" To many consumers, the GAL problems in 2017 don't look too different from 2006. The significant issues for this program  continue to be the same: no managerial "oversight" of GALs., no enforcement of written changes dealing with the GAL role, no quality assurance and a complaint procedure that is not "user-friendly."

The cornerstone of the  recent Judicial Branch report is a detailed presentation of the new Guardian ad litem complaint procedure. This opaque, written procedure is handled exclusively by a mail exchanges of letters. It is the only avenue for enforcement of "oversight". It is coupled with a belief that judges appointing a Guardian ad litem exercise the best "oversight" of Guardians ad litem. It is a highly disputable concept, entangled in local Bench-Bar politics and power struggles - and it would require a judge to admit bad judgement in an appointment, calling attention to bad judgement in other decisions. Complaint procedures, which dismisses 100% of cases, seems highly suspect as oversight or quality assurance; particularly, when there is no other corrective action imposed. It raises the question: Doesn't the public deserve better? The complaint procedure is neither useful nor user-friendly.

It is time for the legislature to ask for an OPEGA audit, of the GAL program. An audit would analyze problems and lay-out a blueprint for change. Judge Mary Kelly could show leadership by joining in the call for OPEGA to evaluate her service.

Jerome A Collins

This piece ran in the Portland Press Herald on 03/10/2017 and may be found by following this link:

Empty promises: Guardian ad litem reform in hands of Judicial Branch

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Has the Guardian ad litem Problem Vanished - It Has According to the Judicial Branch

September 2012 the one public member on the Guardian ad litem  Task Force wrote a minority report to the Judicial Branch regarding issues with the task force. February 15, 2017 the Judicial Branch present their final report on LD 872. In reading the report and only this report one would assume that the problems associated with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem have been resolved or under control. It is a glowing report which may be found here - GAL Report 2-2017. In reading this report please keep in mind that while the Judicial Branch may feel that things are running like a well oiled machine. We would like to point out that this report is more self serving than anything and there are still very serious systemic issues which have only been whitewashed over. What follows is the minority report to the Judicial Branch September 21, 2012 (which has also been included in the recently submitted GAL Report.




From my position as the only public member of the 19-member committee, the only one with no personal financial interest in the Guardian ad litem problem, my perspective on the problem is quite from that of the majority of the committee. While I believe that the chairing of the meetings was fair and friendly, there were decidedly biased undercurrents among the participants. "Is there a GAL problem?" is still a serious issue for many. Why not just tweak the current system, which works so well (for GALS?) another fairly significant position. And, "if 'they' want change, make them pay for it," was the surprisingly hostile position of one prominent family lawyer. I mention these few (of many) examples of bias that I felt, to indicate a strong interest on the part of a significant number of the committee in clinging to the 'status quo' to the greatest extent possible. This protective conservatism of the majority colors the document and colors my current opinion of it.


The document I received appears to be very sketchy. It pulls together many threads of issues that wore discussed in our three meetings, but it leaves unresolved very significant questions of detail. There are no instructions for users. There are no guided forms for users. There is no explanation users in clear language the process would work, the steps they would lake, the algorithm. It is not geared towards a citizen complaint made without legal assistance. In general, user-oriented supports arc absent, It desires imitate the NH complaint process but in our estimation it falls short. Without more fleshed-out detail the document is a "tabula rasa" on which one can project ideas but without solid grounding. leaves a great deal to the input of the Supreme Court, but disallows helpful guidance to the court and forces to give the court a blank conceptual check, when we've never done business before and don't know if we share common ground.


What exactly is the conceptual nature of a complaint regarding a Guardian ad litem? Is it a legal complaint between two adversaries about allegations of harm or damage, or is it vocational complaint about GAL performance to an oversight agency from one or more members the public, which questions whether this worker's performance meets publicly approved/regulated standards of practice? In our opinion, the current document attempts to merge the two ideas unsuccessfully at the expense or the consumer complaint. It strives to address the vocational questions, but in a heavily legalistic context that is apt to suffocate the consumer. Part of the problem is that GAL's vocational considerations lack a standard of practice, and GALs themselves lack an experience in how to judge standard practices of colleagues. The document makes no mention of training for all concerned in oversight that might teach these skills even the use of the court room concept of "standing" belies a legalistic bias, which would be unfamiliar find constricting to consumers.

This awkwardness can be in the questions raised in committee about "standing." In consumer protection agencies, the notion of "standing as traditionally applied in court (who may participate) doesn't apply. It is off-topic. Any member of the public with direct actual experience of a worker's malfunctioning may bear witness. It enhances agency oversight. This awkwardness and conceptual model confusion makes the creation of the new complaint process worrisome. In NH it, was found after an initial placement of the complaint process in the Judicial Branch the lack of experience of this branch in dealing with vocational issues and consumer protection necessitated a move to the licensing bureau. We feel that this is very apt to happen in Maine.


This board with 12 members, two of whom would be from the public, with the other 10 being Guardians ad litem, to us to stack the decks wildly in favor of GALS. But it is a problem, not just in terms of numbers and composition. It also a problem of how such board would function in carrying out its duties. There is absolutely no tradition amongst the GALs in Maine or within their trade organization tor self-policing. There is little in the role or experience of GALs that prepares them to address consumer protection issues. Trade organizations , such as MEGALI, (and others) are well known for their tolerance or malfunctioning even as it approaches level of public scandal. Further what standards of practice would the panel be using? How would they judge a failing? Would any the panels have experience in assessing vocational functioning? It raises a host of questions about the knowledge skill and experience necessary to make critical vocational and consumer protective judgments.

In addition, there is also the very important question of attitude towards the public on the part of GALs, They see themselves us allies of judges and of the children they deal with. They are habituated to stand apart from the parties and exhibit independence. From our experience there is very often significant defensiveness to criticism on the part of these lightly trained GALs and of their trade organization. Some of these attitudinal biases surfaced during the recent Committee meetings. Examples: "Is there a. problem?"; "Do we need a new program?"

In our view board composition and hoard training the oversight role need to be reconsidered.


In brief, it is our view, as a matter of principle, that the public shouldn't have to pay to make a vocational complaint to the oversight agency about one or their workers, be that oversight the responsibility of the Judicial Branch or of the Administrative Branch. It should be noted that there is currently no charge for public complaints by Maine's licensing boards. A fee to make a complaint sends a perhaps unintentionally off-putting message to the public: your complaint will cost you. It is a deterrent; we don't really want to know. One member of the committee expressed the issue with considerable animus: "Make them pay!", and suggested complaints were "an ego issue." It raises a serious question: Does the Judicial Branch Truly want to know about malfunctioning officers of the court in order to correct these situations? "Make them pay"' is not an attitude that encourages the public to assist the Judicial Brunch in its oversight.


Although it was mentioned m the committee, the jurisdictional conflict about a GAL whose actions appear to be malpractice of their base profession is not addressed in the current proposal. It is a serious consumer protection issue that a professional could avoid corrective action from complaints to their licensing hoard by needing to address GAL complaints at the Judicial Branch first. It is a serious problem, troubling to the public. There needs to be a corrective plan developed with the licensing boards.


At the moment, then is an unofficial, recent embargo by the public on GAL complaints. This action has arisen, because many people felt that the current complaint process was demeaning, always resulted in dismissal-even in the face of serious considerations. People also felt that the seemly inevitable dismissal whitewashed malfunctioning GALS gave no consumer warning of bad actors. Will the new process be used? Hard to say, but its use will definitely be limited without out' endorsement, Your limited "statistics" are apt to be even better!

I regret having to address so many problems on the eve of submitting a proposal to the Supreme Court, but so many ideas were presented in the committee meetings without clear direction-other than broad principle-being agreed on that seeing a written proposal surfaces many concerns. These are expressed here as clearly as possible; however, I'd be pleased to explain further, if appropriate.

MeGAL has been working for Family Court change for over five years. In 2013 and 2015 we had a number of bills submitted to help bring about this change. We continue to work for this change and in 2017 we are requesting an audit much like what was done back in 2006. We encourage you to become involved in the education of family, friends, co-workers and your representatives as to what the issues are. You may also contact us at or finding us on Facebook.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Guardians ad Litem (GALs) Vendor Services Survey - Ending 2/15/2017

As part of LD 872 An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine the Judicial Branch was required to survey consumers of their vendors services.

If your case is finished you have an opportunity to take this survey as a way to give the Judicial Branch constructive feedback as to how their GAL vendor did.

The Judicial Branch is requesting parents and attorneys in completed Family Court/ Law and child protection cases to answer a brief survey about the experience with the Guardian ad litem's service.

There are four survey's available. The majority of those reading this blog should take survey two. A link to the main survey page may be found here.

Guardians ad Litem (GALs) Services Survey

If you were a parent who was involved in a family law matter, please complete Survey Two entitled, "Survey of Parents Regarding Guardians ad Litem in Family Law Cases." - Survey Two

The Judicial Branch is supposed to be making a presentation to the Judiciary Committee on 2/15/2017. As part of that presentation we expect that the Judicial Branch will be showing what statistics they have collected on their vendors. The survey is 12 questions in length with opportunity to comment. It is an an anonymous survey.

MeGAL works to educate parents and family members as well as our representatives to the issues that infect our Family Court system. If you have had a problem or feel that something just is not right with your GAL or Judge we encourage you to email us at or find us on Facebook.

Friday, February 3, 2017

On The ReAppointment of Hon Daniel Driscoll

Dear Committee Members

MeGAL, much like the Judicial Advisory Committee, conducted a survey on the re-appointment of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll. We asked participants whether they thought the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll should have another 7 years as judge in our courts. The responses are anonymous to protect those who still may be involved in cases before Judge Driscoll.

While we had less than a week to collect responses comsumers of judicial services responded. Parents, grandparents, friends and lawyers voiced their opinion. Comments were welcomed but limited.

1. 9% of respondents approve of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll's reappointment
2. 91% of respondents did not approve or questioned the reappointment of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll.
3. Of those who responded we know that 19% were Pro se. Of the Pro se litigants almost 100% expressed in their responses that the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll had issues with handling a non lawyer in his court.

Some comments that were left:

1. My experience with Driscoll was not good. I was Pro se in his court and it was a nightmare. He kept telling me that I couldn't call witnesses, or entering in evidence. My ex had a lawyer and the lawyer was allowed to call any witness he wanted and the same with evidence.

2. I was as a Pro se litigant up against a lawyer in Driscoll's court. While warned that I should get a lawyer I could not afford one. It was hard if not possible to introduce evidence or witnesses during the trial. The lawyer had no issue. I think Judge Driscoll didn't know how to be fair and that is a problem. Did I receive justice and did my ex? My ex would say that justice was handed out. I would disagree. My story was not heard and was limited. I was prevented from telling it because I did not know how to act in this court room culture. I think Judge Driscoll tried but he just is not equipped to handle Pro se.

3. I was a Pro se litigant in judge Driscoll's court room many years ago. My case is slowly collecting dust.

At the time that I was going to court I had a deep disdain for the judge. Now I feel sorry for him because he, like many other judges in the Family Court system, are ill equiped to handle Pro se litigants. Pro se litigants in Family Court represent a litle over 74% of the cases. Of these cases 86% are Pro se litigants going up against a lawyer. As a Pro se litigant it is like a caveman or Roman Leginary going into battle against a modern day solider. We are scared and unknowing how to ask.

In court judge Driscoll gave the impression of not understanding what I was experiencing. My impression was that I was expected to know how to act in court, to know the culture of the court. He did not understand what I was going through in trying to plead my case to him. I was up against a lawyer and at almost every turn I was shot down either by the lawyer or by the judge when I tried to present evidence or witnesses. The lawyer by my perception at the time had no problems doing either. As a result I was crucified and lost custody and visitation with my children.

As a Pro se litigant I was not accustomed to the culture of the court. I knew how to get justice when I had an issue with let’s say Wal Mart, Hannaford or any number of businesses. The industry I worked in deals with people trying to get their issues resolved. To me the courts would/ should be the same. I did study cases and talked with others before going to trial. Because I am not a lawyer working in law how was I to know the tricks used. Imagine as a consumer you go to a store because you bought an item that proved to be defective. When returning the item and asking for a refund you ask the wrong way. For instance you ask for a refund on the purchase price. But because you ask of a refund and not a store debit back to your credit card the request is denied. Bad analogy but I hope you understand.

In looking back I was not prepared to go up against a seasoned lawyer and doing so in an environment that is still foreign to me. I had no choice in the matter. How to talk and address the judge or the opposing lawyer. How to ask questions within this culture. Judge Driscoll, in looking back, did little to help me understand why for instance the motion I just presented made little or no sense. Or the argument I am trying to make.

I believe at the time judge Driscoll had little to no guidance for dealing with Pro se litigants. It is my understanding that this is still the same. How can one who is giving the appearance of being impartial and just (as no one can push their bias aside) be a judge in situations that they are ill equipped to handle? How can someone pass "fair" judgment in situations that involve Pro se litigants up against lawyers?

I am asking that judge Driscoll not be re-affirmed until there is a time when he has the skill set needed to deal with those situations involving Pro se litigants. Thank you for your time.

The Judicial Advisory Committee in their surveys to vet any judge almost exclusivly seeks and receives the opinions of lawyers. Those who work within the judicial industry. The human element is lost on the committee. The pain that parents and families go through is lost and unrecorded. We ask that you consider what these people have experienced.

Tomorrow February 2, 2017 you will hear from judges, lawyers and possibly other court officials. They will tell you how great this judge is and has been. How great his court is. Yet - you will be missing the stories of those who lived through his court process. MeGAL asks that you weigh what your vote means to those future cases. Will they be fair, will they be just, will they be in the publics best interest.

Thank you for your time

Paul Collins
Rockland, ME

Thursday, February 2, 2017

The Re-Appointment of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll

Dear Members of Maine's Judiciary Committee,

Judges serve an important function within our society preserving the law. They do this by interpreting the law in a fair way and being consistent in that interpretation. The decision of reappointment should not be exclusive to lawyers, judges and assorted court officials as this leads to a legal professional perspective which does not take into consideration the real life experience of the public (consumers of judicial services). In re-appointing and doing so in a fair and equitable manner the views and experiences of the public (consumers of judicial services) of a judges service must be taken into consideration. Otherwise all we have is an “ole boy” network of approval. Every effort must be made to include the thoughtful input and experience of the people of Maine, who know from experience.

Without the actual human experiential dimension, any reappointment is just rubber stamping the judge back into the court. As our Judges are tasked with protecting and advancing our laws the current closed Judicial vetting system allows for the undermining of that task. Judges are not held accountable for their actions in this closed system. While it has been argued by the legal industry that complaints can be made against a judge by the general public. The process is alien and consumes a huge amount of their time and financial resources. The public (consumers of judicial services) is left with the feeling that their input is not wanted and it is better to leave things as they are out of frustration. Because of this dysfunctional system there is little recourse by the public to better the system. It results in a system that has and is slowly degrading, and judicial services becomes the tool of those who can afford justice over those who cannot. 

Are our Courts and specifically our Family Courts a public service for everyone - including the 74% who are Pro se. Or are they a publicly supported workplace for the Divorce and Legal Industry?

We see evidence that our Family Courts in Maine have a few Judges of questionable character. To be exact, there are four judges in our Family Court system, for whom we have very grave concerns about how they conduct themselves in their courts. One of these Judges is before you today and asking to be reappointed. While the decision to reappoint the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll may have already been recommended, we want to leave you with something to think about. Stop, look and listen then think:

If your decision is wrong, who will we (the public and your constituents) be able to hold accountable for the continued abuse, pain and suffering that families that we know, have gone through and will continue to go through?

Some before you on Thursday February 2, 2017 will be watching and commenting as the public and your constituents. They are risking much in being here before you.

Thank you for your time and efforts. It is time for an in depth audit of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll Family Court.

Thank you for your time.


Paul Collins
Rockland, Maine

The above letter was submitted as testimony to the Judiciary Committee regarding the re-appointment of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll,