Custody tensions can be hard enough without the 'help' of a stranger coming in and making recommendations based on a bizarre and abstract idea that has no clear foundation other than that person's opinion.
For the past several years that Guardian ad litem role expansion has been what Maine’s Justice Saufly (and others) call "mission creep" in the role of Guardian ad litem. Going beyond what the courts have mandated and beyond the scope of these Guardian ad litem's professional training. One area of "mission creep" is that a Guardian ad litem has no right to prescribe unusual social behaviors in managing the lives of divorcing parents and their child.
There is one case that has made its way through the court system where a Judge has made history. The Guardian ad litem working this case has essentially recommended that the parents (both of them have remarried) start 'dating' allegedly 'in the child’s best interest' (the Guardian ad litem has rewritten to state that monthly 'meetings' are recommended – whatever it is called by the Guardian ad litem it is not something the Guardian ad litem has any authority nor mandate to recommend). What is interesting is that this Guardian ad litem has no background in psychology and is stretching the Guardian ad litem role way beyond any Maine statutes.. It is a Guardian ad litem as a law unto him/herself. As this Judge has endorsed the recommendation he/ she is in effect giving approval to court ordered dating for divorcees in the State of Maine. An embarrassing first in the United States for Maine and our court system.
According to rules for the Guardian ad litem section 3, 3.2, 12 (a) “Working effectively with other professionals involved in the assessment or treatment of the child” is something that can apparently be ignored by Guardian ad litems if it does not fit their personal opinion of the “child’s best interest” in any situation. This Guardian ad litem is imposing his/ her surreal bias on the situation and in opposition to the opinion of a licensed mental health professional, to say nothing of the wishes of one of the remarried parties. It is a do your own thing plan of action. This Guardian ad litem has no mandate nor training (nor does any Guardian ad litem in the State of Maine or in the US) to recommend this course of "over the top" action. What the goal of this situation is, is hard to understand - other than the claim that it may meet some need of one parent over the other. This and a totalitarian mind set on the Guardian ad litem's need to impose his/ her will. It would be laughable, as a bad joke, were it not so destructive of the lives of real people.
Should this bizarre recommendation actually be implemented – as it looks like it will - by the court; then both the Guardian ad litem and the court should be held responsible for this insane idea and lack of common sense. The Guardian ad litem should be dismissed - permanently. The Judge should be sanctioned at the very least if not removed. There is no room in Maine's Justice system for such bad jokes or decisions.
An example such as this one is a strong cry for effective, long overdue oversight of Maine Guardian ad litems. Those who would say that there is "no scandal" in the Guardian ad litem program must have an extremely tolerant view of scandal.
For the past several years that Guardian ad litem role expansion has been what Maine’s Justice Saufly (and others) call "mission creep" in the role of Guardian ad litem. Going beyond what the courts have mandated and beyond the scope of these Guardian ad litem's professional training. One area of "mission creep" is that a Guardian ad litem has no right to prescribe unusual social behaviors in managing the lives of divorcing parents and their child.
There is one case that has made its way through the court system where a Judge has made history. The Guardian ad litem working this case has essentially recommended that the parents (both of them have remarried) start 'dating' allegedly 'in the child’s best interest' (the Guardian ad litem has rewritten to state that monthly 'meetings' are recommended – whatever it is called by the Guardian ad litem it is not something the Guardian ad litem has any authority nor mandate to recommend). What is interesting is that this Guardian ad litem has no background in psychology and is stretching the Guardian ad litem role way beyond any Maine statutes.. It is a Guardian ad litem as a law unto him/herself. As this Judge has endorsed the recommendation he/ she is in effect giving approval to court ordered dating for divorcees in the State of Maine. An embarrassing first in the United States for Maine and our court system.
According to rules for the Guardian ad litem section 3, 3.2, 12 (a) “Working effectively with other professionals involved in the assessment or treatment of the child” is something that can apparently be ignored by Guardian ad litems if it does not fit their personal opinion of the “child’s best interest” in any situation. This Guardian ad litem is imposing his/ her surreal bias on the situation and in opposition to the opinion of a licensed mental health professional, to say nothing of the wishes of one of the remarried parties. It is a do your own thing plan of action. This Guardian ad litem has no mandate nor training (nor does any Guardian ad litem in the State of Maine or in the US) to recommend this course of "over the top" action. What the goal of this situation is, is hard to understand - other than the claim that it may meet some need of one parent over the other. This and a totalitarian mind set on the Guardian ad litem's need to impose his/ her will. It would be laughable, as a bad joke, were it not so destructive of the lives of real people.
Should this bizarre recommendation actually be implemented – as it looks like it will - by the court; then both the Guardian ad litem and the court should be held responsible for this insane idea and lack of common sense. The Guardian ad litem should be dismissed - permanently. The Judge should be sanctioned at the very least if not removed. There is no room in Maine's Justice system for such bad jokes or decisions.
An example such as this one is a strong cry for effective, long overdue oversight of Maine Guardian ad litems. Those who would say that there is "no scandal" in the Guardian ad litem program must have an extremely tolerant view of scandal.
A GAL essentially "pimping " a date with one's ex "in the child's best interest" is as crazy as it gets. Or maybe not...
ReplyDeleteWe are receiving messages from the great beyond from Sigmud Freud...
Hey, Sig, what do you think?
This is certainly true. It is unbelievable that a GAL would make such an obscene recommendation. It is even more unbelievable that a Judge actually went along with the recommendation. The problem runs deeper than just this GAL.
DeleteForced dates with your ex when you are remarried, that seems way out of line. What about the spouses are they welcomed to attend these dates /meetings?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. In this case the answer is no. This would be an exclusive 'date' between the two parties and at least half of the party feels very uncomfortable about the 'date'. In addition a counselor prior to the recommendation had indicated that there would be no benefit to anyone involved. When you are a rouge Guardian ad litem you really do not have to listen to anyone - and the courts will do as you recommend because some of our Judges have lost any common sense of what is right or wrong.
DeleteIt is disturbing when a GAL who holds the cards in a divorce uses his/her power so flagrantly- and the judge fails to take corrective action. It is a two part game, GAL AND judge. The GAL proposes some of these crazy ideas; the judge endorses them (actively or passively), or fails to listen to "consumer complaints". Both GAL and judge in such situations are at fault.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. You are right the GAL for what ever reason is abusing his/ her power. From our point of view the judge has lost all common sense in this case for agreeing with this obscene recommendation. There is a lot wrong with the workings of our court system.
DeleteI can't imagine having to leave my spouse at home because of a court order forcing me to go on a date/ private meeting with my EX. There is something really wrong with this. People divorce for a reason. The party that is uncomfortable with this type of forced social interaction probably has a good reason to feel uncomfortable. What ever happen to individual rights? My Ex and I get along fine however I can't imagine being ordered to have to meet with him privately without my husband around. It is just not something that anyone should be forced to do. This GAL seems to be way out of line. Did a judge really approve of this?
ReplyDeleteWe would agree with your statement... Who in their right mind would think of ordering this as part of the custody recommendation. What is sad is that a person trained in mental health was consulted and recommended that these 'dates' not happen as they would benefit no one.. no one. The GAL went against this recommendation - this despite having no training in mental health or family matters. This GAL is way out of line and it is sad to say that the Judge did go along with the recommendation. This is why the GAL system broken for so long needs to be completely overhauled from the ground up. There is so much wrong with it.
Delete