In the hands of a GAL are our Children Really Safe?
It strikes us that if
one uses a "in the child's best interest" standard, that an important
baseline consideration is: "Is the child safe?" Clearly there
are additional issues like the child's well being, its opportunities for normal,
physical and psychological growth and development, its social and moral
development, but central to society's interest is safety.
We have been
appalled by reports of GAL recommendations that propose assigning a child's
custody to a parent with an extensive history of alcoholism, prescription
drug abuse and felonious legal issues - especially when there are other, safer,
better choices. In these cases there has been no assessment of child's
safety or of the older idea of "parental fitness". The new, hip
view is that at all costs the GAL should avoid "social or cultural
bias". In bending over backwards to meet the avoidance of social or
cultural bias, the "broad-minded" GAL must give due consideration to
high risk parents, who might have been considered "unfit" in previous
years. Has the parent showed up drunk for an interview with the
GAL? Have they dilated pupils or do they stagger? If not observed
by the GAL, and if they say they are clean, they are innocent until proven
guilty. It is simple, blind denial, and it places "the best interest
of the child" at serious risk.
We feel that the
Judicial Branch should demand primary, professional information to back
up these recommendations. What do the physicians, psychologists, drug
counselors, parole officers have to say? What about family members (on
both sides)? What about independent psychological testing for fitness to
parent? What about an in depth assessment of the biases in favor of not
showing bias to cultural or social issues?
There is another
concern that comes out of "the child's best interest" standard,
mediation. Isn't mediation a conflict of interest for a GAL? If a
GAL stands for "the child's best interest", how can that GAL broker a deal with the parents? Doesn't best interest have
to be separate from: "I want; you want?" Carving up the child
for the parents is not necessarily in "the child's best
interest!" Parents are frequently told by GALs that whatever they
agree to will be recommended to the court. Mediation is one of the
"mission expansions" that has gradually been added to the GAL's
statutory role. It generates huge billable hours. Can a GAL, as an
arm of the court, be an unbiased mediator? In our opinion the legal power
behind a GAL precludes a free, open exchange necessary for true
mediation. The GAL is armed by his/her appointment in these
transactions, and wearing a gun precludes free discussion.
As old teachers say to children, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, the
choice is up to you." But GAL clients aren't
children!
We ask ... is this
'modus operandi' "in the best interest of the child" or in that of
the GAL?
The choice is up to
you.
The issue of a child's safety seems so fundamental that it ought to be a major focus of a GAL, the district court, the Judicial Branch, but it doesn't seem to be.
ReplyDeleteThere is a tendency to believe, no matter what, that a child should be with its parents. While this may frequently be true, it is not always true.
With no oversight, what can you expect?
We have heard any number of stories about very bad choices made by GALs with insufficient investigation, hearing only one side of a story, or with other sorts of ideological GAL bias. Giving residential custody to an addictive personality can be fraught with problems for the child, who is "in training" to become an addict.
DeleteMy ex wife and I had a GAL as part of our divorce and we had no problems that I can remember. But the bill was pretty high. I didn't know what to do and I am still making payments on it. Our divorce was 3 years ago. Anything you think I can do?
DeleteIf you are feeling that you have no understanding of the bill being presented ask the GAL for information. To explain why the bill that has been generated is what it is. The GAL is supposed to give you (upon request) the work that he/ she has done on the case with the exception of the notes. Email and phone records can and should be requested to see what exactly has been done. The GAL will not like this and chance are will go to court to prevent you from getting this information.
DeleteAlso setting up a payment plan of what you can afford goes a long way. Do that in writing telling the GAL that $50.00 a month is all that can be afforded (as an example). Then hold true to those payments. You have to make a show that there is an attempt to pay this bill. Unfortunately you can not discharge this bill in court and it will be there until you pay it off.
I feel for you as the bill is taking away from your child. The child that the GAL is supposed to have had the best interest of. So much for that as the almighty dollar is more important. Thanks for your question.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteChild safety is a major concern of First Star, a Washington advocacy group that gives each state a grade on how they protect children. Maine has repeatedly gotten an "F". Child safety is a major concern.
ReplyDeleteFirst Star is coming out with their third report in May. It will be interesting to see how Maine does.
DeleteThe safety of a child is best determined by family history (both sides of the story), primary data from mental health professionals, prison officials, parole officers, drug rehab counsellors, alcohol rehab facilities, court records- not just the say so of the patient. GALs frequently rely on the word of the patient (or supportive friends & relatives) that they have fully recovered. The question has to be asked in the interest of child safety: How do you know this person is safe?
ReplyDeleteAn addictive personality has a lifelong, deeply ingrained character problem, as has been well-documented by recovery programs and mental health professionals. And ... addicts are well-known to always project blame on people places and things. Taking personal responsibility is part of a lifelong recovery process for these people. It doesn't come easy.
GALs need to be especially cautious and thorough in their data collection in these situations in "the best interest of children".
This writer has hit the nail on the head. GALs must indeed need to be especially cautious and thorough in their data collection. However, ME GAL Alert continues to focus solely on addictive personalities when there are so many others that can negatively impact a child. Sociopathic personalities, narcissitic personalities, mentally and/or physically abusive spouses, people who use their children as pawns to strike back at their ex-spouses. All of these exist not only in Maine but around the country, and all of these are dangerous for a child. Why ME GAL Alert focuses solely on addictive personalities is beyond me. As an organization out to restructure the GAL system, it's imperative that this group broaden its focus and recognize that there are other negative situations in which an innocent child can be irrevocably damaged by a custodial parent.
DeleteIf you have not had a chance to read our other postings you will see that we are not focused on addictive personalities. For instance there is a posting on the removal of a GAL, informed consent and GAL confidentiality to name a few.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThere are many stories of bad parenting that have been brought to our attention in the brief time this blog has existed. It is not the role of a blog to pass judgement on any particular claim. That is the official duty of a GAL and the courts, which in our opinion and that of many others is seriously lacking.
ReplyDeleteOur purpose in creating this blog is to help educate the public about this problem and about what needs to be done to correct it. In doing this we have spoken with a great many people in various roles, from other consumers, to many state officials at all levels of government, and to people in other states. We are encouraging people all over Maine to bear witness to the serious problem of a Maine GAL program with no oversight, a broken system. We have tried to note the numerous, serious structural and systems deficiencies of the overall GAL system in Maine, many of which have been very eloquently presented by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court. An in depth assessment of dangerousness to children (from whatever cause) is just one frequently overlooked problem
We sympathize with all of those who have had hardship from a GAL's judgement,