Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Am I the only one who sees this GAL is wrong?

The stages of realizing there is a problem with the Family Court System is universal for families, relatives and friends who have experienced the system first hand. In our frustration with the courts we spend different lengths of time working through a series of 5 steps that are similar to the 5 stages of Loss and Grief as first proposed by Elisabeth K├╝bler-Ross in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” No one person will go through this list in the order we have them and many will only experience a few.

Like the Five Stages our model is based on how we try to rationalize a process which cannot be rationalized. We may go through each stage in order or out of order. We may associate with each step or only a few. The Stages of Family Court Dysfunction (FCD) are:

1. Belief - As consumers of judicial services we enter the court system with the idea that this country has the best judicial system in the world. That the professionals who operate within this system do so with neutrality and fairness.

2. Self Doubt and Puzzlement - As the divorce/ custody process gains momentum and hints of flaws with the process start to show we think these issues are the result of things we are doing. "It must be me" that this is happening. We become puzzled by the direction of the divorce/ custody. We realize that things are not going in a direction which makes sense. There is often a flip flop of common sense and values. Black becomes White and White becomes Black.

3. Reason and Disillusionment - We begin to try reasoning with the players. The Guardian ad litem, lawyers and court. Presenting evidence and facts because if they only just read or viewed they would understand what is going on. Disillusionment creeps in when we realize that no matter how much evidence and facts presented - the system is unwilling to listen and understand what your concerns are.

4. Anger - As the reality of the situation starts to settle in we become upset that 'justice' does not exist. That those whom we have invested with our trust are untrustworthy. A system which is supposed to protect our children is more concerned with our behavior and whether or not a Guardian ad litem, Special Master or Parent Coordinator will get paid. Our anger can be aimed at anything - our ex, the children, the family pet even the court system.

5. Settlement - Sadly we may never find settlement as the process can continue far into the future. There are parents who settle and do so for far less than what they should and are grateful for what they have. Then there are others who carry on the fight long after their divorce/ custody is over to that future divorcing families will not have to go through what they have experienced.

The process one goes through is one of personal attitude change with exposure to more and more data. This data can come from many sources - from talking and sharing with others, the internet and those who have taken the issue publicly as well as personal experience. Some will try to fix this system with the hopes of repairing their own case; others do so as public spirited citizens, who hope to help others who are going through what they themselves have experienced. How one publicly markets both the human experience in need of fixing and the fixing itself is critical. It will require educating the public and politicians on what the issues are not only for your case but those of others. It took some time for you to understand that your case had problems. Imagine how others who have no experience with family court will respond? They will have a hard time understanding - some will get it. Many will not.

It is important to note that you are not alone and that others have experienced what you have gone through. There are many grassroots organizations that one can find offering support and help on a national as well as local level. It should be noted that out of 50 states there are very few instances of court officers who have been disciplined for malpractice.

If you have had issues with a court officer - Guardian ad litem, Special Master, Parental Coordinator or some other flavor of court appointed officer. We urge you to contact us at or find us on Facebook.

Friday, July 10, 2015

To Recuse Or Not To Recuse That is The Question

Judicial Disqualification or recusal has been an issue in Maine courts for years. This is especially so in our Family Court system where often a litigant will be seen by a judge who maybe a neighbor, a friend or even colleague. Recently Maine Supreme Judicial Court Associate Justice Ellen Gorman was quoted as saying that Maine's new Code of Judicial Conduct will deal with recusal as well as other issues.

Back in 2011 the Brennan Center for Justice sent a letter to Maine's Supreme Court regarding the issue of recusal. The letter is very polite, easy to understand but powerful critique of Maine's standards for judges. The letter has enormous relevance for those Maine litigants who have tried, unsuccessfully, to get a judge to recuse themselves. The Brennan letter would be a very valuable reference were a litigant to appeal a judges decision NOT to recuse him/herself. The current judicial recusal practices in Maine allow judges to ignore transparency and "arms length" principles for recusal as enunciated by the Brennan Center. Current practices allow our judges to refuse recusal with the more primitive and child like standard:

"Because I say so!"

We wish Maine could do better. Please find following the letter (with links to the original):

Letter to Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Proposed Amendments to Code of Conduct May 12, 2011

The Brennan Center for Justice and the Justice at Stake Campaign sent the following letter to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court commenting on proposed amendments to the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct.

Matthew E. Pollack
Executive Clerk
Maine Supreme Judicial Court
205 Newbury Street, Room 139
Portland, Maine 04101-4125

Re:      Maine Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability Proposed New Maine Code of Judicial Conduct

Dear Mr. Pollack,

We write on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law[1] and the Justice at Stake Campaign[2] to comment on the new Maine Code of Judicial Conduct proposed by the Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability on March 14, 2011. We commend the Committee for its rigorous and meticulous study of the 2007 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, and we believe the proposed new Maine Code of Judicial Conduct provides a strong foundation for the Supreme Judicial Court as it considers changes to the existing Code to reflect the 2007 ABA Model Code.

First, we would like to praise the Committee for emphasizing in Canon 2(A) the “appearance of impropriety” standard from Rule 1.2 of the 2007 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct. The standard is used in almost every state, and it has been an applicable standard for almost a century. The “appearance of impropriety” standard is critical in promoting public confidence in the judiciary, and it fortifies the public’s perception of the judiciary as impartial. By including this language in Canon 2(A), Maine can underline the important role that rigorous conduct rules play in safeguarding public perceptions of the judiciary.

Second, we would urge that, in conjunction with considering the Committee’s suggested changes to disqualification under Canon 3(E), the Court adopt a rule providing for review of disqualification motions by neutral judges, so that a challenged judge does not have the last and only word on whether to recuse. There are real tensions with notions of disinterested, impartial decision-making when a judge alleged to be biased is the only one who decides whether he or she can impartially hear a case.  Accordingly, to ensure wholly impartial consideration of disqualification requests, we would urge the Court to adopt a rule providing for prompt de novo review if a challenged judge denies a disqualification request.  Such a procedure governs disqualification practice in the trial courts of numerous states, and is followed by the supreme courts of at least nine states. [3]

To facilitate this meaningful review of disqualification decisions, we endorse a rule requiring transparent, reasoned decision-making on recusal requests. Accordingly, we would urge the court to adopt a requirement that recusal decisions be rendered in writing or on the record (with an exception for frivolous, untimely, or facially or procedurally insufficient disqualification requests).  The Michigan Supreme Court’s procedures for recusal motions supply a useful model: in that court, if a justice’s participation in a case is challenged, the justice must “publish his or her reasons about whether to participate;” if he or she denies the request, the remaining justices of the court can review the denial de novo.[4]

A rule requiring written disqualification decisions and providing prompt review of these decisions would enhance the effectiveness of Maine’s disqualification rules. Without a record as to why a disqualification decision is made, an effective review of the decision is not possible. The record of disqualification decisions and review of those decisions would set disqualification precedents that would provide substantive guidance for future questions. Finally, published decisions will provide the public with insight into the way Maine judges approach issues of impartiality.  In conjunction with the adoption of such procedures, the proposed Maine Code of Judicial Conduct will be effective in protecting the impartiality, integrity, and independence of the Maine judiciary and in promoting the public confidence and respect necessary for the judiciary to carry out its constitutionally vital role.

We commend the Committee for the significant accomplishment represented by the Report, and we thank the Court for the opportunity to submit this comment. We firmly believe that the proposed Maine Code of Judicial Conduct, if adopted, will make important advancements that help ensure the perception and reality of impartial justice in the state of Maine, and we believe that adoption of the further disqualification procedures described above will further ensure that Maine courts can carry out their constitutional role while enhancing the public confidence in the judiciary and protecting the public trust.

Respectfully submitted,

J. Adam Skaggs                                          Bert Brandenburg
Senior Counsel                                           Executive Director
Brennan Center for Justice                      Justice at Stake Campaign
161 Avenue of the Americas                   717 D St. NW, Ste. 203
New York, NY 10013                                 Washington, DC 20004

(646) 292–8331                                         (202) 588–9700

[1] The Brennan Center is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. The Brennan Center’s Fair Courts Project works to preserve fair and impartial courts and their role as the ultimate guarantor of equal justice in the country’s constitutional democracy.

[2] Justice at Stake is a nationwide, nonpartisan partnership of more than 50 judicial, legal, and citizen organizations. Its mission is to educate the public and work for reforms to keep politics and special interests out of the courtroom – so judges can do their job protecting the Constitution, individual rights, and the rule of law. The arguments expressed in this letter do not necessarily represent the opinion of every Justice at Stake partner or board member.

[3] See Adam Skaggs & Andrew Silver, Brennan Center for Justice, Promoting Fair and Impartial Courts through Recusal Reform 4-5 (2011) (citing high court procedures in Georgia, Mississippi, Michigan, Vermont, Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, Nevada, and Oregon in which a challenged justice’s initial decision on disqualification is subject to review by other members of the court), available at

[4] See Amendment of Rule 2.003 of the Michigan Court Rules, ADM File No. 2009-04 (Mich. S. Ct. 2009).

MeGAL is a group of people who advocate for Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform and educating the public on the issues in this system. We would encourage you to contact us at or find us on Facebook.

To view the original document from the Brennan Center for Justice:

2011-05-12 Maine Committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability Proposed New Maine Code of Judicial Conduct [pdf]

Other resources on judicial disqualification or recusal:

28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law [pdf]

Deciding Recusal Motions: Who Judges the Judges? [pdf]

Report of the Judicial Disqualification Project [pdf]

Making Judicial Recusal More Rigorous [pdf]

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Public Lockout: From Deliberations by the Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature

All legislative committees are mandated by Maine law to conduct hearings, deliberations, and work sessions in public.

But in a May 19 speech on the Senate floor, state Sen. David Dutremble (D-Biddeford) reported that the Judiciary Committee conducted such business in private over the weekend that started May 8. Its deliberations concerned the reappointment of controversial Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz – the judge who issued an illegal gag order in January – and whose reappointment was opposed by many members of the public.

Maine citizens deserve to know what transpired that weekend with their Judiciary Committee. Did the members, in fact, meet behind closed doors and/or have private conversations in violation of state mandates? A legislative inquiry into the actions of the committee is warranted to protect the interests of the public.

Here’s what is clear: Without a single comment or question, the Judiciary Committee on May 12 unanimously recommended that Moskowitz be reappointed. One by one, each committee member simply voted yes. Those of us who witnessed this were dumbfounded. It left us with the uncomfortable feeling that something was amiss. How was their unified position reached outside of public view?

This spring was the first time in 20 years that judicial reappointments were challenged. And many citizens vehemently and passionately expressed their opposition to Judge Moskowitz, as well as to Judge Patricia Worth before him. In both cases, the Judiciary Committee nevertheless unanimously recommended approval. And at least in the case of Moskowitz, committee members allegedly deliberated outside of the public’s view and earshot.

This is extremely concerning. State mandates requiring the utmost transparency are meant to protect us all.

Input from those who are consumers of the court system – not just lawyers who earn their livings in front of judges – must be heard. People also deserve to know that the systems set up to protect them are working as they’re supposed to. When systems become about protecting themselves instead of the citizens they were designed to protect, the delicate fabric and balance of our constitutional rights is put in jeopardy. Legislative maneuvers that eliminate transparency and thereby remove public oversight are the antithesis of a democratic society.

We urge the Maine Legislature to take action and give the public answers. When asked to explain how his committee could unanimously approve a judge with no public discussion whatsoever, the chair of Judiciary Committee, Sen. David Burns (R-Washington), responded that, “it is unfortunate that some individuals and legislators have tried to impugn the integrity of the committee members.”

Hey, I’m just asking a question! There’s nothing impugning in that. These aren’t lofty, academic issues – of concern to just a fragment of society. They’re the very foundation of public trust. Transparency is the key to a free and just society.

With what’s been publicly asserted, there is a clear need for a formal inquiry into this committee’s "13 yeses" that led to approval of a judge whose illegal order brought disgrace to our state around the globe. Members of the public should be included in this inquiry.

Those who may dismiss this call for investigation, attributing it to “sour grapes” or “angry litigants,” demonstrate a lack of respect for the most essential principles that define our nation. Private meetings and/or private discussions that result in appointing a judge who attempted to abrogate the First Amendment – one of our dearest rights – should be a concern to all of us, not just those who may face this particular judge in court. It is of little comfort that the order was retracted only after the Portland Press Herald defied it.

To date, the president of the Maine Senate, Michael Thibodeau, has failed to respond to requests for a public inquiry about the actions of the Judiciary Committee.

This raises additional concerns. Without a legislative inquiry and report, Maine citizens will be left to wonder if their legislative and judiciary truly are the separate branches of government that are fundamental to freedom and liberty. We need to know what our legislators are doing – and why they’re doing it.

If you agree with me on this, We urge readers to contact their legislator and request an investigation. Let’s just find out what happened.

MeGAL is working to bring about Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform so that those in the future do not have to experience what you experienced in this dysfunctional system. As part of this reform we encourage you to contact your representative to let him/ her know the issues you experienced with Family Court. Please contact us at or find us on Facebook for more information.

Other related posts:
2015-06-03 Public Access: Is the Judiciary Committee Leveling With You?

2015-05-25 Sen David Burns Replies to our Open Letter

2015-05-23 An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

2015-05-19 Senate Confirmation of the Hon. Jeffrey Moskowitz

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Public Access: Is the Judiciary Committee Leveling With You?

When State Senator, David Dutremble (D. Biddeford), in a speech form the floor of the Senate (audio) on Tuesday, accuses members of the Legislature's Judiciary Committee of manipulating the judiciary re-appointment of controversial Judge Moskowitz, it is a serious charge that demands investigation. When members of the public are excluded from important committee deliberations addressing this judicial re-appointment, something is seriously wrong. When there is no response from the President of the Maine Senate when asked by numerous people to investigate further, it looks like more exclusion. All of these recent actions raise ethical and legal questions in the minds of the public. What happened between members of the Judiciary Committee in their private deliberations about Judge Moskowitz over the weekend of May 9-10th? How were their unified positions reached outside of public view? And... is this secrecy permitted by laws that insist on transparency?

On Tuesday, May 12th, members of the committee reconvened in the Judiciary Committee hearing room, and without question, conversation or comment, submitted a string of 13 "yeses" (audio), approving Judge Moskowitz re-appointment and advancing the process to the Maine Senate. It left observers dumfounded. It was one further public exclusionary action in the judicial re-appointment process, which appeared to be tightly controlled, by Maine Bar interests at every step. It is about the need for active public "oversight" of judicial appointments - or re-appointments - that have heretofore been a "rubber stamp" process in the Legislature's Judiciary Committee. In the present re-appointment situation, reporters commented on the fact that committee members asked not one question of Judge Moskowitz during the public hearing.

The entire judicial vetting process - and the subsequent handling of its piece of the process by the Judiciary Committee - raises many questions. The primary question is: "is this process, which is said by some on the judicial re-appointment committee to be standard, in the public's interest"? We ask this question with special regard to those members of the public, who have the experience of using our courts? 74% of family court matters are 'Prose' (self-represented/without a lawyers); 26% (the minority) have lawyers, yet the process doesn't reflect this compelling statistic. "Private" deliberations in the Judiciary Committee are troubling and raise a slew of ethical and legal questions. Why hide deliberations? Why the secrecy? Aren't legislative maneuvers that eliminate transparency and, thereby remove public oversight, undesirable in a democratic society? 

Since the Judiciary Committee's 13 yeses approving Judge Moskowitz, there have been widely expressed concerns that the committee appeared to be "gaming the process", using techniques, known to senior members of the committee which enable public exclusion, while following the "letter" of the laws about transparency? We would suggest a knowledge of how to bypass the law - and, more importantly its use - is unseemly (and tainted?) in anyone, especially our elected officials.

We urge the Maine Legislature to take action in getting answers to these questions. They are not academic issues of concern to a fragment of society. They are the foundation of public trust: that we can see what our elected officials are doing. There is a need for a formal inquiry into the "13 yeses" that quickly decided approval of a "controversial judge" for reasons that remain opaque to the public. Investigation of this matter should be carried out in a transparent manner with public "consumers" of the system included.

One of our concerns is about committee attitude justifying the prejudicial dismissal of all opposition. Some on the judiciary committee dismiss opponents of Judge Moskowitz as only a bunch of people who got an unfavorable result in court. This characterization justifies secrecy? Not only is this claim untrue, betraying gross prejudice, secrecy in the judiciary committee cannot be justified by theories about good or bad results in courtrooms. It is about the integrity and honesty of our government.

MeGAL is working to bring about change in Family Court and the role of Guardian ad litem. We do this by educating the public and our representatives to the issues involved with this branch of the court system. If you have had a bad experience in Family Court or with a Guardian ad litem we would encourage you to contact us at or find us on Facebook.

Previous posts regarding the re-appointment of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz may be found here:
2015-05-23 An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

2015-05-25 Sen David Burns Replies to our Open Letter

Monday, May 25, 2015

Sen David Burns Replies to our Open Letter

Within hours of our letter going out to Senator David Burns we received a response back from him. Below is Sen Burn's response:

Dr. Collins,

Thank you for your questions. First and foremost, the Judiciary Chairs follow the Maine Constitution and Joint Rules to conduct the process of reviewing Judicial nominees. As I said on the Senate floor, our Committee listened to a very long and, we feel, fair Committee hearing on Judge Moskowitz, as we do for each nomination. The Chairs did all in our ability and power to give everyone opportunity to be heard on the issue. It is very difficult to be exact on just how much time each speaker gets without rudely cutting someone's time short. I believe that was done fairly, in spite of what some have protested about. Everyone's testimony is equally important. When there is written testimony, we try to keep oral comments as close to the allotted time as possible.

As you know, the Committee had much written comment and materials provided to them before, during and after the Public Hearing. Also, the rules that are set before us, allow for the nominee to have opportunity to respond to testimony given. After the hearing, there was a break where our individual caucuses had an opportunity to talk among themselves, which is consistent with the Legislature's Joint Rules in any issue brought before us. The Chairs were in agreement that a sufficient amount of time was needed for each Committee member to review and consider all that had been provided to them on this issue, before voting. It was also important for any response from the nominee to come forward. For these reasons the Chairs decided that we would hold the vote, as the rules allow, until after the weekend. As you also know, there was a considerable amount of unsolicited e-mails that were circulated to us during that time period. Each of those were provided to the clerk to be made a part of the public record. There were no inappropriate meetings or discussions that took place during that time that the Chairs are aware of. All testimony and written comment that the Committee was provided is public and available for public access.

When we reconvened, the Committee members had each come to their own conclusions of the "fitness" for this nominee to be reappointed and cast their vote accordingly. This is a process that is in place for us to follow and I believe that each Judiciary Committee member takes it very seriously. It is unfortunate that some individuals and legislators have tried to impugn the integrity of the Committee members. Having spent the last, nearly 5 months, with them, I can assure anyone that they are all very committed to fairness, transparency and of the utmost integrity. We all understand that some of the criticism over this "process" and some of the judicial nominees comes as a result of very difficult personal experiences with family courts and none of us minimize the importance of those experiences and the significance of those perspectives. However, some of the slanderous statements that have been made surrounding these proceedings are unconscionable and do not have any place in legitimate and constructive debate and discussion!


David Burns

MeGAL is working on Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. If you are or have been a consumer of judicial services and have had an issue with the court. We would encourage you to contact us at or find us on Facebook.

Letter to Sen David Burns may be found here:
2015-05-23 An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

Saturday, May 23, 2015

An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

In an effort to have government transparent we are publishing the following letter to Sen David Burns. The letter deals with the confirmation deliberations that the Judicial Committee had over a weekend before a unanimous vote was given. It was emailed to all committee members the Senate President and the Bangor Daily News as well as the Portland Press Herald. We are presenting to you the letter:

May 23, 2015
Senator David Burns
Chair Judiciary Committee

Dear Dave,

I’m writing you as chair of the Judiciary Committee to ask that you help us understand the committee's "deliberations" on the reappointment of Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz. Like many people who followed the May 12 proceedings, I'm puzzled.

What we witnessed that day was the committee entering the hearing room, sitting, and immediately giving a round of 13 "yeses" – with no comment and no questions. It was a stunningly synchronized delivery, and many people are wondering how this degree of orchestration was achieved.

From some of the committee members, we've heard a variety of “explanations” that shed little light on what actually transpired to arrive at a unanimous decision, and Sen. David Dutremble related some of these in his speech from the Senate floor on May 15. The Bangor Daily News and Portland Press Herald both have published several stories on the Moskowitz reappointment, but there clearly is more to this than was reported.

We'd like to understand why you chose not to include the public in your committee's deliberations on this "controversial judge."

I greatly would appreciate a reply. Thank you.


Jerry Collins

MeGAL supports any effort to bring about Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. Please contact us if you have had any issues in or with either at or find us on Facebook.

2015-05-23 Sen David Burns reply's - read his response HERE.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Senate Confirmation of the Hon. Jeffrey Moskowitz

In the end the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz was confirmed. We saw that it was going to happen. That the establishment and big money lawyers were going to ram it down our throats.

The flurry of activity behind the scenes. The letters that all of you who wrote in last minute attempt to sway the Senate to do the right thing - was not in vain.

We were inexperienced and trying to accomplish the impossible with no money or resources. We were up against the legal industry who has all of that.

What is interesting is how the Chair of the Judiciary Committee - Sen Robert Burns viewed the testimony saying that there was a lot of positive testimony for the Judge. Or to quote "Our committee had had overwhelming... supportive testimony" ( 18m37s - LINK). If we relied on this litmus test on whether or not a judge is qualified then the committee charged with vetting is nothing more than a front for who is our most popular judges. At least as far as lawyers are concerned - as consumer opinion is not as highly sought after as that of lawyers.

Sen, David Dutremble should be commended for giving a voice to the parents and consumers of judicial services in this judges court. we have said it before and we will say it again. He is a hero. For standing up for the people of Maine and not bowing to the pressure from the legal industry. We cannot thank him enough for sticking his neck out for us.

MeGAL is advocating for Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. The confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz  can be heard here. Please allow for loading (or downloading) as the file is 10.9 megs. If you have a story please contact us at or find us on Facebook.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Has Transparency Been Lost with the Judiciary Committee?

It would appear so at least with the reappointment of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz. After heated testimony was given on May 7th 2015 both for and against and a delay for confirming the judge until May 12, 2015.

May 12 we heard in a very brief ceremony with 13 yea votes or a unanimous decision by the Judiciary Committee for the reappointment of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz. No comments by members - like we had with the confirmation of the Hon. Patricia Worth - just the vote. All over in less than 5 minutes (Full audio may be found here).

From May 7th to May 12th we hear that the committee spontaneously deliberated on the topic of the reappointment of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz. During the weekend as we understand it new material was introduced to support the Judge Moskowitz which included audio and transcripts of cases. All of this was new to many who have been following this confirmation. What should be a transparent process has become cloudy for the public.

All legislative meetings and deliberations are required to be public - to maintain transparency. All testimony - evidence or data - is to be registered with the Clerk and made available to the public as we understand it. This weekends activities has set a chilling precedent for our state government. Think about this - if the content were instead a social issue (abortion, LGBT as examples) would there be blood in the streets for what happened? Policy being decided behind the scenes?

We are asking the Senate to consider delaying the nomination of this judge so that a more through investigation can be carried out. An investigation that would involve more than the mere opinion of lawyers who work within the system.

MeGAL is working to bring about change in the Family Court and Guardian ad litem system. If you have had issues within the Family Court system we would encourage you to contact us at or find us on Facebook.

Today (May 19, 2015) it is expected that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz will be confirmed and reappointed as Judge for another seven years by the Senate with Sen David Dutremble being the only Senator speaking out against the reappointment. The proceedings in the Senate start at 10 am and it is unknown exactly when the confirmation will take place. We believe sometime soon after the the opening prayer.

If interested in the proceeding please follow either of the two links.

For Audio:

For Video: