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 MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Felicity Meyers

Does Lawyers in Libraries work at bringing Access to Justice to those in Need?

Maine has a lawyer-sponsored program that has been pulled together by various groups called "Lawyers in Libraries". The idea seem to be that as a consumer you could make an appointment to sit down with a lawyer and receive legal help/ advice/ consultation/ referral. This years program had 22 libraries from across the state participate. Most had a volunteer lawyer available for two hours and appointments ranged from 10-15 minutes per scheduled client. In some cases consumers could get more time if no one showed up after your time.

This is one way that lawyers and Maine's courts are trying (Claiming?) to bring Access to Justice to those who need it. In Maine it is estimated that over 113,000 in 2015 had issues with accessing justice of which 17,065 are in Family Courts alone. It is a huge task to bring these people the tools they need to have a fair and equitable "access to justice".

Lawyers in Libraries (L in L) has been promoted for several years now and we wanted to know how effective the program has been with reducing the numbers of unservered populations and bringing access to justice to those in need. We wrote to Justice Andrew Mead the following:



From: J M Coll
Sent: May 11, 2016 9:39 AM
To: Justice Andrew Mead , "Stephen D. Nelson Esq" , SenDavid Burns
Cc: Mary Ann Lynch*** , Avery.T.Day, gkesich, jharrison, sdolan
Subject: Fw: Access to Justice: Lawyers in Libraries?

Justice Andrew Mead
Maine Judicial Branch
Justice Access Group

Dear Justice Mead,

We've been watching with interest last weeks unfolding of the "Lawyers in Libraries" program.

It  has been touted in some quarters as a component of a larger "access to justice" strategy that aims to address the large numbers of Mainers who are excluded from "access", because they go to court 'pro se', or on their own. Our team of observers have looked at the Maine program and have pooled their observational data about six such "L in L" programs in Maine libraries this past week. With all due respect, we have to conclude that the Maine program in its present form, in our view does virtually nothing to improve Maine citizens' "access justice". The "L in L" program is extremely unlikely to lower this state's statistics of those who lack legal support for "access to justice". Let us be more specific in our observations:

1.) The program goals are unclear. Is the program's aim to polish the professional image of Maine lawyers as nice people with a charm "offensive" in a community setting? Does it aim to provide service to unserved populations of Mainers and thereby to reduce 'pro se' statistics? Does it aim to market private legal services to the public and improve the private practices of lawyers who might not yet have a "full practice"? It is hard to measure success or failure quantitatively without specified goals.

2.) The present "lawyers in libraries" program is not a population-oriented approach, which would define the demographics of Maine's underserved populations, target them and aim a intervention, or a series of interventions, at recruiting them for appropriate legal service. The goal would be reducing incidence and prevalence of the problem in the target population. A 'pro se' population in family courts who are 75% 'pro se' (17,065 people in 2015), would be one good example of a legally unserved population. Were one truly wishing to reach this population, one would need to define it demographically, decide where (which locales) best to make contact and how best "to speak" to such a population. One might use a targeted marketing campaign, such as is very common today in many large businesses which want to reach unserved new markets.

3.) From our examination of "lawyers in libraries" in several towns across Maine, we observe that "volunteer" lawyers do not appear in many town libraries. The "L in L" lawyer volunteers (out of 3,100 Maine Bar members) are few in number ,and there is a limited donation of time. In several libraries there is only one lawyer for 2 hours at the end of one day. For example one Maine city of 21.000 population had one 2 hour session scheduled from 5:30 - 7:30 pm for the entire week, a fairly frugal, lawyerly service donation. We have to ask,what miracles of law are accomplished in 10 - 15 minute appointments, over 2 hours, with even the most skilled lawyer or the most fast talking client? Typically volunteer lawyers spoke briefly at the start of the scheduled time, and there are handouts of "legal resources" which list free and low cost services, such as are posted on the Maine Judicial Branch web site. Public attendance in some instances was a total of 3 people, but notices, advertising this program, in several instances, seemed to be last minute postings in the newspapers or the paper's online version. The volunteer lawyers seemed pleasant enough, but because of their areas of special practice, were often less informed in other legal issues beyond their practice interests. They could only explain and provided very general information but avoided any direct legal advice. For those Maine libraries with no program, we wonder why? Is it because of lack of interest on the part of the majority of the 3,100 Bar members? Is it due to negative feeling on the part of Bar members about the value of the program? How is "access to justice" improved by the "L in L" program? Most importantly, does this effort have any impact on the statistics?

4.) We have to say that the "L in L" program does no harm, but we'd ask, does it do any good for the public who seek access? In our opinion, this program has serious problems of focus and design. If it desires to reduce the huge statistical problem of "lack of access to justice", it is embarrassingly inadequate and superficial. To learn from this past week's experience, do any of the program's sponsors plan a post-program evaluation? Besides our assessment, does the "access to justice" committee intend to do any form of program assessment? We suggest, based on our observations, that you need either to re-design this program top to bottom, or scrap it  With regret, we have to say, as the "L in L" program stands at the moment, it does nothing that we can see to improve badly needed "access to justice" in Maine.

Mainers are still waiting for "access to justice".

    Sincerely,

    Jerome A Collins


Within about 30 minutes Justice Andrew Mead replied back:



From: Andrew Mead
Sent: May 11, 2016 10:13 AM
To: J & M Coll
Cc: "Stephen D. Nelson Esq" , SenDavid Burns , Mary Ann Lynch*** , "Day, Avery T" , gkesich, jharrison, sdolan
Subject: Re: Fw: Access to Justice: Lawyers in Libraries?

Dr. Collins -

Thank you for your note. I will pass your comments along to the New Lawyers Section of the Maine State Bar Association. The New Lawyers Section has taken over the administration of the program.

My original vision for the program was to have volunteer lawyers available on a given day--perhaps the first of each month--at every public library in the state. The lawyers would be available to give generalized advice and refer folks to legal services organizations and private lawyers as appropriate. The program would be directed at individuals in the poverty and modest means economic categories, but no one would be turned away from the sessions. The overarching goal is to connect more people with legal representation.

Unfortunately the scope of such a program renders it administratively unfeasible without the creation of a fully staffed organization to run it. Accordingly, the current program, limited in scope as it must be, continues to evolve as a pilot program. The biggest challenge is getting the word out. Most folks who would benefit from speaking with a lawyer simply don't know that lawyers are available to meet with them in some libraries on Law Day.

It is my hope that the program will continue to gain traction as public awareness grows. The lawyers and the libraries continue to be committed to it. I agree that the current Lawyers in Libraries program is a very small initiative in contrast to the enormous need, but we need to pursue every possible avenue to improve access to justice. For the individuals who did connect with legal services as a result of the Lawyers in Libraries, the program was a success for them.

It is my hope that the New Lawyers Section will continue this initiative (which it undertook only very recently) and grow it to the point where public knows that libraries can be the crucial link between folks who need legal representation and the lawyers who can serve them.

Thank you for your continuing interest in access to justice issues.

A. Mead



Lawyers in Libraries was developed as a result of the "Khoury Report" which was commissioned by the Justice Action League (JAG). As part of the recommendations Lawyers would volunteer once a year on Law Day in libraries to offer legal service and in certain circumstances legal advice. This was part of a plan to bring access to justice to a growing number of consumers who were in desperate need of legal help and guidance.

It is not known how effective the Law Day - Lawyers in Libraries is. Simple math shows that for 2015 an estimated 900-1000 could be helped for the time allotment of 15 minutes per client. Is 15 minutes once a year enough time to help consumers who need greater access to justice? Or is this a way for lawyers to find new clients who need legal representation?

MeGAL is working for Family Court reform. In 2015 there were 17,065 people in Family Court who struggled with access to justice. Who for what ever reason could not afford to hire a lawyer or keep one through to the end of their case. If you have had issues with Access 2 Justice (A2J) we encourage you to contact your representatives to let them know. You should also get involved with change and can start by contacting us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

Will Parents (Pro se) Be Given the Same Educational Experiences as Lawyers - We Asked

We have sent several letters to the Judicial Branch regarding the course which was being offered by the York County and Maine Bar to its members. We asked whether or not the Judicial Branch had any plans to give the same type of educational experience to parents ( especially those who are Pro se ) as they would benefit from the wisdom of lawyers, Guardians ad litem and judges who spoke on April 29, 2016.

The Judicial Branch's response follows. Please keep in mind that this is an un-edited version:























The non-response from the Judicial Branch is in itself a response to the concerns that parents - especially those which are Pro se - continue to be discriminated by various forms of legal entities. That we do not deserve the same knowledge as lawyers, Guardians ad litem and Judges.

In 2015 there were an estimated 17,065 parties who found themselves in Family Court as a Pro se lawyer/ litigant. It would be safe to say that almost all of these people would benefit from the same kind of guidance and education that the privileged lawyers and Guardians ad litem received during the educational session. To be able to learn from judges what you need to do to win your case would have been worth the time.

We encourage you to educate our representatives with the experiences you have had in Family Court. A dysfunctional, adversarial system that has in practice no checks and balances. If you would like to become involved or have a story to tell please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Judicial Branch is Silent on The New World of GALs for Pro se

Several weeks ago when we learned about an educational experience being offered by the York Bar to its members concerning the new landscape of Guardians ad litem. We asked the Judicial Branch whether a similar experience was going to be offered to those parents who might find themselves in court Pro se. These parents we felt deserved the same kind of knowledge as lawyers - maybe even more so.

Three weeks later and we have still no response from the Judicial Branch - prompting us to send one last piece of correspondence on the matter. This was sent on April 25, 2016:



Mary Ann Lynch, Esq
Maine Judicial Branch

Dear Ms Lynch,

Three weeks ago I wrote you to ask if the Maine Judicial Branch had plans to educate 'pro se' litigants in Maine family courts about "The New World of GALs"? The Maine Bar is providing lawyers with a course of instruction on the new dimensions of this topic on Friday, April 29th. Three Maine judges are listed as participating in this educational offering for lawyers.

It seemed to many people with whom I've spoken that fair play would suggest that the 'pro se' majority (75%- 17,065 people) in family court need educational enlightenment on this matter as well. They are already at a significant disadvantage in court as non-lawyers. Absent education about GALs will further stack the deck against them in family court.

Does the Judicial Branch have any plans to address the educational disparity on the topic of GALs for 'pro se' litigants?

If you prefer not to reply to my query directly, would you consider offering enlightenment to the public on this topic via the Portland Press Herald or Bangor Daily News? It is an important dimension of "access to justice for all".

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins.
Kennebunkport,Maine


If we receive a response it will be published. It is our feeling though that the Judicial Branch will remain silent. That silence is deafening and speaks volumes as to the very problems we as parents face in court.

MeGAL through education is bringing about reform in our dysfunctional Family Courts. If you are a parent who has had a trying experience in court we encourage you to become involved. You can start by contacting us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

The New World of GALs for Lawyers and Courts (and GALs)

Several years ago Chief Justice Saufley told us that there was a problem with consumers of judicial services receiving access to justice (A2J). At that time the statistic she used was that 74% of cases in Maine Family Courts were Pro se. In 2015 that represented 17,065 cases.

We agree that there is a huge problem.

On Friday April 29 the Maine and York County Bar are presenting a all day course called "The New World of GALs for Lawyers and Courts (and GALs)" which covers a variety of topics and explores the new "paradigm" for lawyer, magistrates and Guardians ad litem. What is left off are those who represent themselves - the Pro se litigant or maybe the Pro se lawyer. Of course anyone is invited and if you are lucky enough not to be a member of the bar the cost to you is a cool $245.00 - if you have it.

Is this the way to help the 17,000+ litigants who happen to represent themselves. We don't think so and we ask the President of the Maine Bar how this course helps the self represented?



Stephen Nelson, Esq
President Maine Bar

Dear Mr Nelson,

Re "New World go GALs"

Most "consumers"  who have been through family court for divorce and custody - both 'pro se' and with a lawyer, and who have had the experience of a GAL, are deeply interested in educational events for lawyers and others who work with GALs. We are especially on the alert when we see the title of a CLE, "The New World of GALs". Everyone wants to know the nature of lawyer education about GALs - and what is "new". Will it be significant learning?

Please, let me, as a non-lawyer, former educator share a few thoughts (and some perspective) on this upcoming educational offering for the Bar. As a former educator with curriculum development experience, I look at educational offerings from a structural viewpoint, and ask the following questions: for whom is the offering designed, how will it help the intended student, what is one seeking to accomplish/teach (educational goals), who set these goals, how will you know goals were achieved, will there be learning measurement or just opinion, will this teaching last beyond the presentation, say, in 6 months, 1 year? All of these classic, structural questions are aimed at determining the quality and value of an educational program. I offer the following thoughts about the April 29th program, because of their potential unintended consequences on both attendees and indirectly, later on those who are "consumers" of court services.

I hope that my comments might help the York Bar (and others) to consider a few "blind spots" in program design, and, as the poet Robert Burns put it: "to see counsels as others see us".

1.) The April 29th CLE appears to be an educational offering for those members of the "divorce bar", who will represent the 25% of litigants in family courts, who can afford a lawyer. As far as one can determine, it hopes to provide those lawyers who attend with additional "tools" for the paying clients' benefit.  Perhaps unintentionally, it will further the already significant gap in legal information between the 75%  'pro se' litigants and the 25% represented by the divorce bar. In this regard, the admission price for 'pro se' litigants to attend as auditors, $245.00, is a guaranteed deterrent for most 'pro se' litigants. The price (for "consumers") alone sends, a perhaps unintentional exclusionary message. One has to ask, Don't 'pro se' litigants, the overwhelming majority, need the "new" information about GALs too? It raises some very interesting "ACCESS TO JUSTICE" issues for everyone. As they say, knowledge is to be power.

While your CLE, in our opinion, might not be a very effective teaching model for anyone, the public deserves a chance to look and evaluate, on their own, the quality and value of lawyer CLEs. Their observation may well be the only evaluation of this educational product. Further, they will directly experience the impact of the fall-out from such education in court - for better or worse.

2.) Given the recent, very extensive public contention about GALs in Maine, we are also struck by the total absence of 'pro se' speakers or "consumers" of GAL service, presenting their perspective, as individuals or on panels. There are two speakers who present a 1 hour sociological, "cultural competency", perspective. They include 6 sub-topics in 1 hour, between the 2 speakers, covering culture, poverty, family structure, etc. In a 1 hour presentation by 2 people, with 6 sub-topics to cover. Evenly dividing the time between the two speakers,  this might allow, say, 5 minutes per sub-topic, per speaker. So much for "sociology". Can this sort of presentation - even with highly skilled teachers - be anything other than superficial? It risks taking an important topic and reducing it to "sound bites", "pop sociology", or meaningless tit bits of information of limited value as "working tools" for a member of the "divorce bar". It also puts some of your 75% 'pro se' opponents in the position of being exotic "sociological specimens" that require a series of 5 minute sociological  explanations to make them understandable to legal audiences.

Pity the poor psychologist who also speaks for an hour and is advertised as covering 8 sub-topics. By our calculation this is 7.5 minutes per sub-topic. Psychological enlightenment in 7.5 minutes? The same problem applies here: good topics; not enough time to teach anything meaningful or useful. Both sociology and psychology are subjects about which students spend years acquiring professional knowledge, skill and experience. 7.5 minutes?

In all fairness, might it not be more valuable to the lawyer attendees to get them thinking about their own cultural traits that may impair their functioning with non-lawyer litigants, say, the sociology of lawyers, their cultural blind spots, their unconscious biases, their family structure, their beliefs in what is normal, their cultural values? But, this too would require more than 7.5 minutes. A micro brief sociological presentation about anyone, lawyer or clients of the most diverse sorts, will dehumanize, marginalize or stereotype them. Brief sociology or brief psychology presentations are not a substitute for authentic presentations by real people who have gone into the system bare - with no legal tools?

3.) One of the topics mentioned in the program is: "how to lose a case". In divorce and custody cases which we hear about, there is much emphasis on winning or losing in legal "combat". A "zero sum game" is a tragedy for any child caught in the middle of a gladiatorial courtroom combat - with or without GALs. We have asked, is a traditional adversarial model a benefit to any child in any divorce?  Does GAL's role enhance or diminish the "win/lose" model? What is the responsibility of the lawyers, GAL's and judges in reducing prolonged, inter-party conflict, discouraging contention between parties in divorce and custody and reducing time (and cost)? Where is the CLE instruction in dealing with an opponent who is not a lawyer in a fair, ethical, non-gladiatorial way?  Lawyers  have a big role in promoting or discouraging contention, and many would say that the financial incentives of billable hours promote "wars and battles".

4.) The (for many) "hot button" topic of "judicial discretion" in adhering to the "new GAL rules" is another very important problem that appears to be ignored. The "new world of GALs" may be fine and good, but will the "old world of judicial discretion" render the "new world old"? It has been observed by 'pro se' litigants - not infrequently - that judges often have only a general idea about rules for GALs and don't adhere to them. Will judges follow the "new" rules"? What if they don't? Will anyone care - or notice?

There are some very "spiffy" topics covered in this CLE, for which specialist professionals spend years in study. A one hour session on psychology or sociology with numerous sub-topics at about 7 minutes per subject, is woefully inadequate and potentially harmful. One fears that the psychology and sociology in an hour's presentation of "sound bites" will re-enforce already rampant junk science stereotypes and further lawyer and GAL biases.How will those who designed the course know what lessons (good or bad) have ben learned, or … whether they are unintentionally teaching stereotyping and bias??  Doesn't the education committee need to move this kind of session beyond mere ritual of required attendance at CLEs?


In closing, poet Alexander Pope's words, come to mind:

A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
And drinking deeply softens us again.

Yours for deeper educational draughts on the "new" world of GALs.

Jerome A Collins


MeGAL is working to correct the problems in Family Court and the Guardian ad litem system. If you have had issues we would encourage you to become involved to bring about change. The may be accomplished by contacting your state representative and by contacting us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

Part 3 - THE DICE ARE LOADED: A CONSUMER'S PERSPECTIVE

20.  INADEQUATE SERVING INSTRUCTIONS/EXPLANATIONS FOR 'PRO SE' "USERS": Although the 'pro se' litigants are a 75% majority (17,000 people in 2015, they are not accommodated by the courts even on small matters like serving court papers. No one explains that a registered letter receipt requested, doesn't have to be signed - even when served to a court official. No one explains that a sheriff-served paper, although expensive, is the only sure way. There is also a lack of clarity about court fees. As of this writing, it is not clear whether expensive court fees have to be re-paid for a new attempt after failed service. There is also the matter of "grumpy" clerical officials, who are grudging in providing information to majority 'pro se' users, while more obliging to "frequent flyer" local lawyers, who know the ropes. It is a small but significant, symbolic example of a failure by the court system at even its lowest level to recognize the "new normal" of majority 'pro se' litigants.

For a list of issues as we see them with our Family Courts read [PART1] and [PART2]. Family Courts and the vendors (GALs and court experts) who work within do so in a broken system. To change this system we encourage you to contact your representatives and let them know of the troubles you have experienced. Let them know that there are over 17,000 others.

Part 1 - THE DICE ARE LOADED: A CONSUMER'S PERSPECTIVE

As members of the "divorce bar" are fond of saying when divorce and custody judgements are questioned by a "consumer", "Somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose." To which we would ask: "…but what if the dice are loaded?" Winning and losing a parent are very sad decisions to give a child, who needs both parents. Should divorce be played by the divorce bar as a "zero sum" courtroom gamble over children? In the "win or lose" dynamic are children well served, or is it a "championship game" for the divorce bar? Who gets the gold medal? Certainly not the children. Isn't the adversarial model inappropriate in a divorce where children are involved? What is "justice" for such children? What is justice for the parent who loses? Why does the bar never push for reform of this barbaric "win or lose" mode?

Herewith are a few topic headings viewed from a consumer's perspective that are about "broken family court structures" that load the dice against many who use family courts and in favor of those with expertise in "gaming" these courts. Individual divorce and custody cases get ground up for hamburger meat in this game. Our topic list aims to describe the broken family court "grinder". These structural topics (when filled in with cases) ought to explain the need for a legislative audit of family courts or "investigative reporting" by a courageous newspaper. Or both.

1. OUT OF DATE MANAGEMENT: There is no higher level management of the judges, GALs and lawyers who populate family courts, and there no systemic data for a manager to work with for "big picture" oversight of the family court  system. This information lack hides patterns of hard, recurrent data about courts/judges/lawyer/GALs who may present consistent problems to the public. It hides judge/lawyer relationships, and judge/lawyer patterns of outcomes that might suggest coziness, it hides averages for court time for divorce trials (billable hours) and masks  the practices of lawyers who might be considered "frequent flyers" or "contention profiteers".   

2. BROKEN: "Corrective Mechanisms" that don't correct. Protocols for complaints about GALs, lawyer, Judges and appeals challenge the 'pro se' complainant in the extreme.  These take hours to put together, they then go through screening procedures that "screen out" complaints said to be unworthy. But even after screening out "bad" complaints, few actual complaints yield "corrective action" of any kind. How to interpret this? A sign of perfection, or protection? Look at the micro (or non-existent)  numbers of corrective actions in each of these categories. There is also the awkward question: how does one correct a bad Supreme Court decision - or do they never make a bad decision? Guess not.  Get over it!

3. NO REAL MANAGERIAL OVERSIGHT: Oversight, such as it may be, relies entirely on non-lawyer "consumers'" cobbling together a quasi legal complaint and defending it; not professional surveillance of professionals by management. The only way those higher in the Judicial Branch know there is a problem is as a result of a successful complaint from the public. Almost no complaints filter through the various tight screens. Higher ups remain in blissful ignorance of malfunctioning. There is no modern management of defective functioning in this system. Bad practices can fly under the radar and continue to malpractice.   

4. OPACITY OF REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT: Regulations for the family court judicial system are developed "in the closet" of the Judicial Center behind closed doors with no public observation. Unlike legislative deliberative sessions and hearings,there is no transparency of the deliberative process- or of who deliberates (same old, same old committee members?). Why this "opacity"? Secrecy in deliberations will tend to promote 'status quo' conservatism, legal protectionism, rampant legal self-interest and nothing really changes. This is not in the public interest and hard to justify. Regulation development is treated like "top secret" activities.

5. DEFECTIVE VETTING OF JUDGES FOR APPOINTMENT/RE-APPOINTMENT: Every step in this process is opaque and leaves out the public, until near the ceremonial end. It is largely a popularity contest for political elements of the bar. Is a judge liked by small segments of the bar, who work at this task? Why is there no standard, formal testing and grading of a judge's knowledge of the law, knowledge of new laws, new regulations? The legislative reviews are an act of faith, rubber-stamping the bar committee's, (as is the Governor's). They simply sign-off on the bar's "judge- friendly vetting" decisions. The public would be better served if judges were obliged to take a certifying/re-certifying exam that tested their knowledge of the law and regulation, with results made public.  Otherwise, how do we know, how does the legislature know, how does the governor know? In plain English, they don't.

6. ABSENT PROFESSIONAL DISTANCE: The judiciary promotes friendly bench/bar relations,  But how friendly? Cozy lawyer/judge relationships are suggested by certain lawyers always scoring a win with certain judges in family courts. There are reports we hear of local bar members ganging up on a judge who dares to disfavor the more political members. Re-appointment is not in their "interest". There is a need for open statistical data That would show judges, lawyers, outcomes. A legislative audit would sample a few courts where anecdotal data suggest high frequency Judge/lawyer results.

7. INTIMIDATION: Intimidation of lawyers who fight too hard for their clients. A common client observation: "My lawyer is a lion in the office, but acts like a mouse in front of the Judge." Why? Lawyers who advocate too strongly for a client learn to beware of 'sua sponte' complaints of unprofessional behavior or claims of "contempt" (shown by brusqueness?). Maybe you don't fit in family law?  What about a career in bill collecting? What is contempt of court and how does it play-out when a judge is contemptible by any normal standards?   

8. ABUSE OF ABUSE ALLEGATIONS: The child abuse conundrum Lawyers' claims of abuse vs Children's Protective. Claims of child/spousal/other abuse are extremely common in divorce and custody cases, and such claims are used for "winning" decisions and money and generating billable hours. Referrals of abuse claims to Children's Protective are not favored.  They stop billable hours for the divorce bar. Follow the money. The billable hours stop when a referral is made to CP. The preference is to use "court consultants", who are "frequent flyers" with certain judges and certain lawyers.

9. ABSENT ACCESS TO JUSTICE: The 75% access to Justice failure is the core situation that is transforming Family Courts into a broken, unpredictable system in which self-representing people struggle for justice. This is approximately 17,062 people for 2015, using Judicial Branch numbers to calculate 75% of the total. It is the population of 'pro se' users, a "time bomb" that will in the end destroy family courts - with or without reform. 'Pro se' numerical dominance is "the new normal" for family courts, which are struggling to maintain "an old normal" in which lawyers were the interface for the pubic with justice. No more. Judges are at a loss about managing the 75% majority of self-representing litigants. Self-representing parties are just plain lost. It cries for answers. The absence of the old structure leads judges to perform in more high-handed, totalitarian, arbitrary ways and leads to huge problems of badly crafted outcomes. It cries for in-depth study.

MeGAL is working to bring about Guardian ad litem and Family Court reform. There are additional points to "The Dice Are Loaded" which may be found [HERE]. We encourage you to become involved and can do so by contacting us at MeGALalert@gmail.com as well as your state representative. 

Part 2 - THE DICE ARE LOADED: A CONSUMER'S PERSPECTIVE

Part two of the Dice are Loaded

10. WHY NO MANDATORY SERVICE FOR A LAW LICENSE: A tax supported state law school trains students for private practice of law. Students select cases in the law clinic on the basis of what interests them, not randomly or first come, first served. The clinic's clients must be at the dire poverty level (food stamps or equivalent) so as to avoid taking even a minimally paying client from the private divorce bar. Clinic clients, however, are getting quasi amateur services. For all of the public tax support (physical plant, teachers and support staff salaries) there is no public pay back in terms of mandatory public service. Why no obligatory service for students, or for members of the bar? Training for the new normal 'pro se' court lacks a syllabus because the reality of new normal hasn't been recognized. The same might be said of the judge's role training for a 'pro se' court. What is it? May we see a book of instructions, if there is one?

11. JUDICIAL DISCRETION ON STEROIDS: Judicial Discretion in family courts seems to be a creative act, badly in need of clear, consistent boundaries. We are told by legislators, "We make the law, the judiciary re-writes the law 'de facto' using judicial discretion in decisions". Individual judges use rampant discretion in court which the higher ups are unaware of, unless there is a successful formal public complaint. Oversight only exists as the result of a complaint pursued by a consumer, often without a lawyer and with no legal background. 

12. FREE LEGAL SERVICES - PAUPERS ONLY, PLEASE: A basic principle for free legal service seems to be that free legal service mustn't compete with the financial interests of the bar. Only food stamps qualifies, please. There are many not on food stamps who cannot receive 'pro bono' or other services because they haven't utterly exhausted every last penny of their own and their family's financial resources, sold their homes, emptied retirement and college plans and pauperized themselves. Like the rest of the legal system, eligibility criteria for low cost services are not well-publicized and are a near secret. The message to the public seems aimed at discouraging users, if possible. Don't want to take paying customers - even poor ones - from the divorce bar's billable hours.  This is a part of the reason why a committee of the legal profession's attention to the growing 'pro se population' doesn't move off of the dime.

13. KEEPING THE PRESS UNDER WRAPS: Freedom of the press gets tweaked by lawyer-lobby.  6000 lawyers don't like court reform essays, articles, opinions. 'Ex officio' we have been told that editors receive lawyer comment on contributions critical of the family courts, with un-rebutted, self-serving, predictable answers. Consumers may not quote the law impeccably, but they know when practices violate common sense and "legally correct" may not be justice. They know from experience when corrective mechanisms work and when they don't. There is also a political aspect that frequently comes into play.

14. MONEY MACHINE FUELS DYSFUNCTIONAL CONTENTION: The lawyers easy money machine is called divorce and custody. For it to pay maximally it necessitates a keep 'em fighting 'modus operandi". The "contentious divorce" is "Champagne and caviar" for the divorce bar. It is about endless, gorgeous, billable hours, consultants, GALs, Kids First.  BUCKS. The divorce bar blames clients for contentiousness, but it is their "coaching" of clients that cranks them up, eggs them on for continued fighting. I know we can win!  Are you going to let him/her get away with that? It is about billable hours. The contentious divorce ends when the client runs out of money and the lawyer loses interest.

15. SELF-POLICING, A NON-STARTER: Self-policing by the family court legal profession (a formal complaint from another lawyer) is rare among practitioners in the same courts, who are members of the local bar. Don't mess with your buddies. It is less rare when an outsider enters the game and horns in on turf. Lawyers may whisper and mutter under their breath about judges and bad judgements, but don't issue complaints, unless their interests suffer. They know the legal facts; they also know the "facts of life".  

16. EX OFICIO POWER: Want to win your case? Go to the "Godfather". He's expensive, but he has fingers in every pie with power and influence to spare. Certain lawyers play a huge political role in the family court system and get amazing results.

17. THE SWAMP INHABITED BY CONSULTANTS: Court psychological consultants are a piece of work! Often selected because they "deliver" for certain lawyers and judges on whose referrals they depend. Why do courts use the same old, same old and not contract with recognized quality consultants from, say, Maine Medical Center, the Mass General, etc?  It seems to be about control and "predictable" results. Why do the same consultants seem to get recommended again and again by the same lawyers and judges? Too bad, no statistics!   

18. GOLDFISH BOWL THERAPY: Court mandated counseling in which the details are shared with opposing counsel (not confidential) is professionally indefensible. It can never be therapy. When it occurs it is shameful judicial act, public mind rape and a travesty of any accepted therapy. It should be outlawed.

19. RECONCILIATION IS RARE AS A STATED GOAL: Reconciliation between allegedly abusive parents and child is very infrequently  a formal, written goal in family courts once a judgement is made; it is almost always a part of the plan in human services, Children's Protective cases. Why the difference in not requiring  a plan for reconciliation in every case? We'd say one word: Bucks! Keep the motions (bucks) for reconciliation coming in family courts. Don't reconcile till they run out of money.

Hi, stranger, care to gamble the custody of your child in this broken system? Who complains about this sad zero sum game that cheats parents and children? Is this war necessary? Does it do anyone any good? Have the courts, the Judicial Branch, the bar ever studied the impact of this barbarism on child development? Any simple evaluative studies, such as those done in every industry and profession? One court official opined that they are "tacky". Those who advocate change  are called, "Whiners. Bad sports! Radicals who want to destroy our fine legal system!"  

Every one of the items on our list has cases to back it. The structural problems we note do not come out of thin air. They cry for a legislative audit or courageous investigative reporting. Just ask. We can tell you case by case "where the bodies are buried."


MeGAL is working to bring about Guardian ad litem and Family Court reform. There are additional points to "The Dice Are Loaded" which may be found [HERE]. We encourage you to become involved and can do so by contacting us at MeGALalert@gmail.com as well as your state representative. 

The following have been added to the growing list (updated 02/23/2016):

20.  INADEQUATE SERVING INSTRUCTIONS/EXPLANATIONS FOR 'PRO SE' "USERS": Although the 'pro se' litigants are a 75% majority (17,000 people in 2015, they are not accommodated by the courts even on small matters like serving court papers. No one explains that a registered letter receipt requested, doesn't have to be signed - even when served to a court official. No one explains that a sheriff-served paper, although expensive, is the only sure way. There is also a lack of clarity about court fees. As of this writing, it is not clear whether expensive court fees have to be re-paid for a new attempt after failed service. There is also the matter of "grumpy" clerical officials, who are grudging in providing information to majority 'pro se' users, while more obliging to "frequent flyer" local lawyers, who know the ropes. It is a small but significant, symbolic example of a failure by the court system at even its lowest level to recognize the "new normal" of majority 'pro se' litigants.

Why LePage's tax Reform Plan Rattles Lawyers

Under the current proposal lawyer's fees will be subject to the new expanded tax and the lawyer's are upset. They claim that by taxing their services - people (consumers/ parents) will not be able to afford a lawyer.

What?

Lawyer's concerned about their fees being beyond the reach of the average consumer. If there were such a concern Maine would not be one of the leaders in the country for Prose representation - especially in Family Courts. Almost 75% (74% to be exact as quoted by Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley) of parents in Family Courts end up representing themselves because they can no longer afford a lawyer. Adding a tax onto their services (lawyers) is not the problem for the average consumer in Maine especially in Family Court. It is the lawyers and court system they work within which is the problem for the average consumer. The adversarial process makes it an expensive proposition to be in court.

In four years we have been contacted by parents who were devastated by lawyers and the Family Court system. There was no concern for these parents that they were being financially devastated. No concern from these lawyers about the fees and billable hours which was ruining their clients. Which makes their (lawyers) concern about the tax unwarranted and unbelievable.

Should a lawyer express concern to you about the added expense of a tax on their services. Ask them what they have done lately to keep the cost of their services down for you.

MeGAL is working for reform within the Family Court system. For more details please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Or our phone - 207-370-9801 - and leave a short message.

A Brief History of Guardian ad litem and Family Court Reform

INTRODUCTION: We offer this abbreviated time line to share where we’ve been, what we’ve studied and what we’ve learned about Maine (and other states) Family Court systems  in the last 4 years or so.  Our MeGALert goals have always been: (a) Education of ourselves and others about the Guardian ad litem (GAL)/family court systems problems and (b) Corrective legislation. Our education has come to us from hundreds of Maine family court cases, from contacts and work with all 3 branches of Maine government and from study, study, study! We are well-informed consumers of family court services in Maine!

Enclosed is a skeletal timeline of our GAL/Family court reform activities with the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches of Maine Government. It gives perspective, but it leaves out a lot of important content for brevity. For anyone who is interested, additional content can be supplied easily, if needed to "fill in the blanks".

01. 2011-10-28 - MeGALert (Dr Collins) made contacts with Beth Ashcroft, Director, OPEGA to discuss the troubling GAL experience and problems of numerous persons in Maine. She suggested that an option might be to request an audit of the GAL program. We were interested in the audit idea, but, because we were novices at it, OPEGA kindly provided assistance to us in completing forms for a GAL audit.

02. 2012-02-12 - We attended a Maine State House Meeting of the Government Oversight Committee to hear our GAL audit proposal. It was sponsored by Sen Nancy Sullivan and Beth Ashcroft (OPEGA) presented the details. The Committee voted to forward the audit request to the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature with a request for prompt action.

03. 2012-03-08 - Meeting of the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature. The Chief Justice and members of the Judiciary were invited to speak. The Chief Justice stunned many in the committee room, saying that there was no GAL supervision or oversight, but offered to work on this and return in September, 2012.

04. 2012-05-15 - MeGALert issues a full, formal Report on Maine GALs from consumer perspective. We titled it, "The Power of the Powerless", after the concept of Czech activist, Vaclav Havel. It covered 18 pages and reported numerous structural and design problems with the Maine GAL program. Our Report was circulated to members of the Judiciary, the Legislature, the Executive Branches of Government, the press, media, the public.

05. 2012-05-31 - Along with other associates, we participated in a Judicial Branch public hearing and testimony on Maine GALs, at  the courthouse, Portland. Many members of the public, lawyers and GALs testified during a long hearing.

06. 2012-07/08 - Judicial Branch established two work committees composed of divorce industry stake holders. It included ONE “public member”, Jerome A Collins, MD.  (a) One committee of 20 members endorsed a highly legalistic GAL complaint protocol that was very “consumer unfriendly”, whether the consumer were to be  ‘pro se’ or with legal support. Dr Collins did a written “minority report” opposing the proposal and wrote an “op ed” piece (like the minority report) in the Portland Press Herald. (b) The second committee was composed of 15 stake holders from the divorce industry and one public member, Dr Collins. Dr Collins resigned with a long written explanation that the public interests were minimized in a rush to accommodate the “divorce industry” on every possible “correction”. A deterrent fee of $100.00 to file a complaint about a GAL seemed very “unfriendly” to complainants and unprecedented in other systems of a similar nature.

07. 2012-12-07 - A planning Meeting was held at the State House: Rep Dennis Keschl, Beth Ashcroft (OPEGA), Michael Cianchette, esq (legal counsel to Gov), Larry Tardiff, and Jerome A Collins, MD to plan for submitting a GAL reform bill, along the lines recommended in the 2006 OPEGA Report on Maine GALs.  Sen David Dutremble later joined this committee, Sen Roger Katz and Mary Ann Lynch had been invited but were unable to attend.

08. 2013 Spring - LD 872 went through numerous debates, discussions, revisions and rewrites in the legislature from March 28th till June 25th, 2013 when it passed both the house and senate and the appropriations committee.

09. 2013-07-08 - Governor Paul R LePage signs LD 872 into law in the presence of numerous MeGALert members who had been victims of GAL malfunctioning. The Bill indicated that the Judicial Branch was to come up with a proposal for a GAL complaint protocol that was “user friendly”.

10. 2012-15 July/ Jan - We have been active in many areas. First and most important, we try to support  the numerous people who contact us with hair-raising, GAL/ family court/ ‘pro se’ problems. We put people in touch with others with similar problems. We offer educational information about ‘pro se’ and other family court perils. To the extent we are able as non-lawyers, we support appeals of family court judgments. We talk and advise people in other states who have heard about us and who want to copy our m.o. We write on our blogs and provide “news” on our Facebook page. We testify verbally and in writing on all Judicial Branch proposals affecting family courts and GALs. Though in all honesty, it is a tough organization, and we have to say that while they listen, we have not been terribly successful in getting consumer-oriented “reform”.

BUT... we are very informed; we have learned a lot in 4 years; we know most of the players; we know the problems “in depth”.

Our Family Court System is badly broken and it is harming the divorcing families and children who are forced to use it. Fixing this broken system will ,mean educating or representatives.

To find out how you can bring about change. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.