An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 - the Final Dance

The final installment in the appeal to Maine's Supreme Court of Dalton V Dalton - Maloney's response to Bixby.

III) BETH MALONEY’S REPLY TO SUSAN BIXBY

By our reading, the Maloney reply to Bixby’s response is a lot easier for a non-lawyer to follow and to understand. It is a coherent narrative. It tells a very sad story clearly. It is about how a mother has been strategically demonized by her opponents, and how the impact of this demonization has influenced the judge's custody decision. It presents Ms Dalton as the victim of a “railroad job” with several of the court players appearing far from “impartial”. The brief offers examples of flaws in the information gathering process and of the Guardian ad litem (GAL) in this case operating outside of the boundaries of “Rules for GALs”.  Maloney is knocking on the door of the court for equal parent time, which is a position that we, as family court reformers, endorse for every child custody case in a divorce, unless there is proven child abuse. They key word is “proven”.  There is no proof that we can see in this family court case - for good reason.  It would (or should) remove the case to criminal court.

We ask, “So why ever is a family court dealing with alleged child abuse?  Isn’t it outside of their mandate, their skills?” Child abuse is a crime. A claim of child abuse should have a criminal investigation and be tried in a criminal court with a jury, if there is evidence. “Strategic” claims of abuse should be tossed out of family courts; particularly, if the criminal investigation of such claims has already yielded a big, fat  “zero”! Without hard facts soft allegations of abuse constitute a cruel “witch hunt”. We also feel that various forms of court prescribed therapy and parental training, which are mostly without scientific grounding, ought to be tossed out too, as more beneficial to the service provider’s pocketbook that to the recipient of service’s psyche.

In Ms Dalton’s case, it is unclear whether anyone has actually diagnosed a problem for which - despite no diagnosis -  she is nonetheless being treated?  Nor does there seem to be a clear aim or endpoint which would say she has passed the test and can now be a “card-carrying” parent,  So the court and the opposing lawyer  keep the treatment for unspecified problems just rolling along - perhaps forever?  Treatment for the “bad” parent, parent counseling for the “bad” parent, supervised visits for the “bad” parent are part of the family court and family lawyer’s strategic games  that keep the process going on forever with no goals.  All done in the name of “the child’s best interest”, until the money runs out!  It is a cruel travesty that should stop.

Even Maloney in her response to Bixby bows to this hideous “game” when she says that Ms Dalton is “showing progress” with these junk therapy efforts.  “Progress” in what, compared to what, to what end?  As non-lawyers, who don’t have to play the courtroom game, we’d prefer to hit head-on  this bogus therapy for an unspecified  condition, with no visible end point.  Ms Dalton doesn’t need any of it to rein in her imaginary alleged intense child abuse impulses.  It is a disconnected prescription for therapy for no named condition “discovered” as an opportunity by an opposing  divorce lawyer.  And it is a stereotyped strategy used all over America.  A lawyer spots a lucrative opportunity to get a client on a treadmill from which there is no exit.  No end until the money runs out!

Reply brief of Appellant can be found here: Dalton v Dalton Final

If you have had problems in Family Court with a judge or Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

The first two briefs may be found here:
2014-02-22 Child Custody - An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521

2014-05-04 An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 - the Lawyers Debate

An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 - the Lawyers Debate

We welcome this chance to publish the final two steps in an appeal to Maine's Supreme Court, the Dalton vs Dalton case. Step II, which follows here, is attorney Susan Bixby's reply to Beth Maloney's original brief.  Maloney’s brief, published here earlier, got the appeal process started. Step III is Maloney’s rebuttal of Bixby.

Along with our presentation here of the final two steps, we offer our layman’s observations and reactions to the 'arcana' of legal strategy used by these lawyers for a family court appeal.  Our non-expert, "grass roots" response to both pieces of writing is philosophical and common sense - not legal.  The philosophical flaws we see in both documents are about the basic human assumptions, the investigative process and the judicial decisions behind the  classic lawyerly strategies for how the "contentious divorce” (and its appeal) gets played.  For what it's worth, here is our personal take on the final two lawyerly exchanges in the Dalton v Dalton debate:

II.) SUSAN BIXBY'S APPROACH:

As we read it, Ms Bixby uses an all too common divorce strategy: to communicate by strong  inference that suburban housewife and mother of three children, Sarah Dalton, is a dangerous woman around children.  You may note that Bixby carefully comes close to the line of actually charging child abuse, but doesn't ever  cross it.  In her well designed response to the Maloney brief, Bixby strongly hints that, if Ms Dalton were left alone with her kids, God alone knows what bad - but unspecified - things might happen.  In tone it is all very subjunctive, speculative and scary.  She never crosses the line dividing hints of possible abuse from actual charges of abuse - for good reason.  It would end the family court hearings and - after investigation, might place the charge in criminal court, where a trial by jury would probably clear Ms Dalton of the "hints" of abuse issue.

Clearly, Ms Bixby's client , Mr. Dalton, is indirectly represented as wanting an “exclusive” - all of his children all of the time. No sharing. No concern about the children's need for a maternal parent. It is a hardball, legalistic "abuse game" right out of the movie, "Divorce Corp". Take no prisoners! The Bixby presentation raises the question in this reader's mind: "What exactly makes Ms Dalton 'unfit' as a mother , and after all of these years as a mother is she suddenly ‘nouveau’ abusive?"  And, another puzzle, why is she presented as, so far, being  immune to corrective therapy?  It is so stereotyped a legal strategy of demonizing a custody opponent as almost to be out of the tabloids!

Bixby, by her numerous claims that Maloney has ignored the "Rules of Evidence" more than implies that her legal opponent is dim and ignorant of how to use the "Rules of Evidence".  Tut tut!  As non-lawyers, what can we say?  The always meticulous, compulsive, detail-oriented Maloney, it is implied, needs to go back to the "Rules" book and bone up!  There is also an unmistakable hint from Bixby that Maloney needs lessons in legal etiquette and propriety. "Aggressive lawyering" is the operant phrase but there is more innuendo of absent professional refinement.

But read Part II, the Bixby reply and see what you think: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 Bixby's response.

To read the initial brief that was filed in February 2014 please follow this link: An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521.

If you have had problems in Family Court with a judge or Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

"New Guardians ad litem do not have the experience" Sarah Stark Oldham

In state of Connecticut parents and consumers have been dealing with a horrific family court and Guardian ad litem mess for years. The situation is so bad that families have been bankrupt emotionally and financially as a result of the process. On October 31 the task force that was created to investigate legal disputes involving the care and custody of children heard from a number of people.

One of those who  gave testimony was Sarah Stark Oldham. Ms Oldham is the President of the Connecticut chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. During her testimony she defended the role of Guardians ad litem and the training of GALs. At one point Ms Oldham was asked why out of over a thousand certified GALs a judge would choose only out of a handful of Guardians ad litem - the response to that question was as stunning as it was troubling:

“Well, I think judges assign cases to a GAL who they think can handle the case and many of the new Guardians ad litem do not yet have any experience or the qualifications required to be assigned.”

The silence in the hearing room was deafening….

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez held up the list of court certified Guardians ad litem and said:  “I’m sorry, if we are now certifying GALs, then every one of the people on this list should be able to handle a case – otherwise what is the point of certifying them?”

“Well, they just have to take the classes, there is no test at the end or way for them to pass or fail.”

Thank you Ms. Sarah "Sally" Stark Oldham.  Thank you.

What Ms. Sarah "Sally" Stark Oldham confirmed for Connecticut and many other state Guardian ad litem education programs is that the training to become a Guardian ad litem is minimal at best and does little to prepare an up and coming Guardian ad litem on how to handle the complexities of a divorce/ custody. That Guardians ad litem are unleashed on an unsuspecting public able to make life changing decisions on people that they have little or no knowledge of. Decisions that have far reaching consequences and impact - yet are protected by a court system when a Guardian ad litem malpractices.

For support contact MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Guardians ad litem praised for doing a poor job… and a pat on the back

Maine FLAC or the Maine Family Law Advisory Commission issued their recommendations a month ago. The opening paragraphs are filled with encomiums lauding Guardians ad litem and the work they do.  It is hard to understand this high praise after the recent Maine legislative session which proposed significant changes in Maine's out-of-control Guardian ad litem program.  The comprehensive changes were made by the legislature (after study) at the request of citizens, who had experienced a disastrous Guardian ad litem system, which, intentionally or not, inflicted great harm on children and families going through divorce and custody. There were extensive hearings, with heart rendering testimony of cruel and unnecessary hardship inflicted on families and outrageous financial charges for Guardian ad litem services.  It seems inappropriate at best to laud services that the legislature, the governor, the bureaucracy and the public deemed in need of drastic overhaul.  It might suggest to many that the Family Law Advisory Commission " still "doesn't know it doesn't know!"

Furthermore, it perpetuates claims of quality without any data to back these claims.  Lacking data and minimizing the seriousness of the legislative study and subsequent mandate strikes us as a bad beginning to a review of Rules for Guardians ad litem.  The tired old claim that it is about "disappointed litigants and heightened expectations" simply doesn't cut it with the public, the legislature and the governor.  A half year of in depth legislative study, says that no oversight, no supervision, no enforcement of Rules, a non-functional complaint procedure and myriad other STRUCTURAL issues are the root of serious problems in the GAL program. Grass roots disappointment is secondary to a broken structural system that may work for GALs and judges, but it hasn't worked for the public.  Failure to recognize this by the likes of the Family Law commission (and others in the Judicial Branch) is a huge piece of the problem!  Recovery, they say, starts with admission of the problem - any problem.

A big piece of the problem is the continuing reliance of the Judicial Branch on "stakeholders," members of what we call "the divorce industry", who have a strong financial interest in the 'status quo'.  Perpetuating problem solving by "stakeholders" perpetuates blind privilege and out f touch views. It is worth noting that the one "public" member on the commission reviewing "GAL Rules" is a member of Children First, a GAL dominated advocacy group. It is adding another "fox" to the "chicken house security detail"!  There is a need for victims on this commission to help the Judicial Branch take a fresh, open look at things from a grass-roots perspective.  Right now it appears to be more of the "same old same old" attitude.

Letter from Chief Justice Saufley regarding FLAC.

If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem, Judge or the court system - please contact MeGALalert@gmail.com. Or like us on Facebook for up to date issues. If you want to express your opinion on the Guardian ad litem there is an on going survey about Guardian ad litem performance and cost.

Is this Child Endangerment or Just a Legal Formality?

On July 8, 2013 for the first time a bill was signed into law that attempts to control the actions of Guardians ad litem in the state. To control the Judicial abuse that many parents have to deal with as a result of a divorce and or custody in Maine. July 8, 2013 while Governor Paul LePage was signing that bill our Judiciary was displaying the sensitivity that it has come to be known for. A parent who has been battling the courts and his ex for prescribed medical treatment that his son is in need of had asked the courts to look at and address this issue. This was denied that day by the higher courts.

Can this be considered a form of Child Abuse? Is this why so often we find that Guardians ad litem do not report abuse to the courts?

This parent has the prospect of going to court to fight a system that is turning a blind eye to a problem. Better to push the problem off on someone else than deal with the problem now. Will the courts be held accountable if this child comes to harm as a result of this negligence?

Several years ago there was a case where the father of a child that hit a brick wall when trying to get answers from Maines department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It was in many respects similar to this case. He was told that the acting mother did not have Maine Care insurance yet (this from both the acting mother, Guardian ad litem and the attorney for the mother). It was discovered on a visit to the doctors by the father that the acting mother had the insurance for her half brother - and had it for several months. In trying to secure a card for his son the father went to DHHS directly only to be told because of HIPPA regulations they (DHHS) could not talk with him about his son nor could the father request a card for his son. In fact DHHS could not even admit that the child was even in the system to the father. The acting mother was asked to give permission to DHHS so that DHHS could speak with the father - this was denied by the acting mother. The Guardian ad litem did nothing to help. The father's lawyer became involved only to be told the same thing. That the father of the child was not entitled to any information about his son that DHHS had on file unless the mother or acting mother gave permission for this to happen. In effect the father - was being prevented from caring for his son - yet was responsible for the medical care of his son. Information about his son was being kept from him by a system that essentially was saying that who ever got there first was in charge - this was admitted by several DHHS employees that the father talked with. In the end the father through his lawyer was able to secure a Maine Care Card that would allow him to at least take his son for treatment. Was this necessary?

One has to ask - how can a parent do what is right for their child(ren) if he/ she is prevented from doing so. If information or services are denied to a child for the mear reason of hurting the other parent. In the end the parent that is denying access (or at least making it hard to come by) is directly hurting his/ her child first and the other parent second. In the current case that is going on the courts have been put on notice that there is child neglect going on as the child is being denied his prescribed medical treatment. Court officers are mandatory child abuse and neglect reporters who must take action to protect the best interest of the child. While the higher court in this case appears not to want to steal the lower courts thunder - this parent approached the higher court because the lower courts were delaying any judgement. This parent has the prospect of waiting months before a judgement will be rendered. Meanwhile this parent's child will continue to go without treatment.

If you have conerns about a Guardian ad litem, Parental Coordinator or a Family Lawyer please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or stay up to date at Facebook.


We also encourage you to take our survey on Guardian ad litem performance which can be found here: GAL Performance Survey.