Problems with the Complaint Process - Our reply

To: Mary Ann Lynch, Esq

From: Jerome A Collins, MD

Subject: Your reply to my query.

1.) As you state, there was indeed a very long time period for public (and other) input into the new GAL Rules and the complaint Board. It went on over a period of years. I can safely say that during its extremely lengthy "gestation period", there were numerous public occasions in legislative hearings, in JB committees  and in private conversations with you, in which very strong opposition to the placement of the Board under the management of the Overseers of the Bar was expressed. It was no secret. There was virtually unanimous opposition by our group - and by any and all GAL service consumers - to having the complaint protocol handled by the lawyers' "guild".  So from a consumer/grass-roots/user perspective the Judicial Branch has chosen a lawyer-friendly rather than a consumer friendly approach to GAL  complaint management.

I would add that the most significant problems with the actual Board could not be evident until a Board was appointed, so there was absolutely no way of raising our concerns about the Board composition and membership in advance.

2.) Your refusal to answer the questions in my earlier memo is (to my knowledge) a first for you in all the time I have known you, and admired your incredible (and commendable) work ethic. I asked questions seeking guidance from you on general principles about the particular committee. It struck me and others that Senator Dutremble (or any legislator) would be severely hamstrung in his service to  constituents, if his constituents were to have a GAL complaint. It also seems that Mr Prescott will have extensive external channels of information about GALs from MEGALI members, just by being a member of MEGALI himself, and that his access to this information effectively sabotaged the purity of the screening steps to be conducted by the Overseers' staff. It is not hard to imagine that he will have all sorts of information about "officers of the court" who belong to his "club"  before anyone else on the committee.  Everyone is equal, but some are more equal, as they say.

I regret that you are unwilling to provide guidance as an informational service to those who might consider using the GAL complaint service.  As things stand with the GAL Board, we are tempted to borrow from Ralph Nader's comment about General Motors: "Unsafe at any speed!!"  Not designed for the safety of families and children!

The emails between MeGAL and the Judicial Branch:

2015-10-21 Is the New Maine Guardian ad litem Complaint Process Fair to Parents?

2015-10-30 The Judicial Branch replies on the Complaint Process

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.

The Pro se Problem in Family Courts - The Judicial Branch Response

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Pro se Problem in Family Courts

Mary Ann Lynch
Government and Media Counsel
Maine Judicial Branch

Dear Mary Ann,

It was a pleasure to talk with you by phone on Wednesday afternoon and to share a few thoughts about the very troubling 74% ‘pro se’ problem in Maine’s family courts. 74% is a powerful number that speaks to a socially unacceptable differential status of citizens/voters in the face of  justice. My purpose in calling you was  to be a “catalyst” for broad based problem-solving concerning the ‘pro se’ phenomenon. It seems to be growing numerically by leaps and bounds, despite valiant, well-documented efforts by your associates to contain it.

To me, as a former public health planner, there appears to be a lack of data about the nature of this problem that would be a vital necessity in designing a strategic intervention to reduce this unacceptable 74% number. The problem of ‘pro se’ numbers also appears to suffer (paradoxically) from well-intended attempts to try to solve the ‘pro’ se’ problem with inadequate problem definition. It puts “answers to the problem” before adequate “problem definition”, and thereby places the cart in front of the horse. Without wishing to disparage the ongoing work being attempted by those associated with the Maine Judicial Branch and the Maine Bar, I would suggest that there are some serious planning questions that need research and study before seeking answers.

Here, in brief, are a few of my thoughts, a recap and elaboration on our earlier phone discussion:

WHAT SHOULD THE GOALS FOR  ANY ‘PRO SE’ INTERVENTION BE? In any thoughtful, large scale, organized government plan, one needs clearly stated goals to aim for - and to keep the movement towards goals on target. I would suggest- tentatively- that the aim for the ‘pro se’ problem should be to reduce the incidence and prevalence of ‘pro se’ as a phenomenon in Maine family courts - “to move the “numbers needle” backwards”. To use a public health conceptualization, one might say ‘pro se’ is a growing epidemiological problem. What is the “epidemic” about, how is it spread over Maine’s “at risk” populations, who is vulnerable, what factors are causing it, what exacerbates its growth, what diminishes its growth and what “interventions” might well organized data suggest would be most effective? To that end, I suggest a sample of some very generic questions that an epidemiologist might ask before intervening in any epidemic.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF MAINE’S FAMILY COURT ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Beyond anecdote, who are the 74% of people who do ‘pro se’’ in Maine’s family courts? What sort of demographics do they represent? What ages, occupations, education levels, financial status, duration of marriage, number of children, geographic locations, previous marriages/relationships, health/mental health status?  What are the reasons that they are  doing ‘pro se’?  Financial reasons (examples)? Or other reasons?  All of these data would be useful tools in shaping rational problem-solving. Without such data, solving problems can only be based on anecdote, guess work, personal impressions, prejudice and bias. Bad information, as everyone knows, leads to bad answers!

DOES HAVING A LAWYER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUTCOME OF DIVORCE AND CUSTODY? What is the statistical record for various types of outcomes for ‘pro se’ litigants? How do things go when one party has a lawyer and the other doesn’t? What factors favor what outcome when both parties have a lawyer? Are there statistics for law firms and lawyers showing records of wins and losses? How do ‘pro se’’, lawyers, and judges view the contest?

HOW DO ‘PRO SE’ LITIGANTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR COURT EXPERIENCE? Were they helped to do pre-court paperwork? Was the help that they received effective or was it confusing? Did they get help or coaching before going to court? From what kinds of helping sources? How do ‘pro se’ litigants feel about their courtroom experience?  Were they put at ease by the judge? Were they treated respectfully? Did they encounter judicial hostility or overt rejection? Were they listened to? How did they handle evidentiary challenges (“object, object, object!”) from opposing counsel? Were they included in all conferences and administrative issues? Did they feel that they received treatment in court equal to opposing counsel (if there was one)? Do they have ideas for simplifying the process for making it less time consuming, fairer and with happier resolution? How were they and their children impacted by the personal stress of the  ‘pro se’ experience and its  aftermath?

HOW DO FAMILY COURT JUDGES FEEL ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH ‘PRO SE’ LITIGANTS? What kinds of problems do they experience? What impact does ‘pro se’ have on courtroom procedures and process? What are the biggest challenges in this situation for judges? What would they suggest to solve some of the problems associated with ‘pro se’? Do they have suggestions that might diminish the incidence of ‘pro se’ ?

HOW DOES THE DIVORCE BAR SEE THE ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Does everyone in a divorce and custody situation need a lawyer? What type of cases may not need a lawyer?  What about pre-court legal “coaching”? What about paraprofessional lawyers? What about defining custody as 50-50 in all cases- except proven abuse? What other ideas? What about disincentives for lawyers? What about fee caps on all cases, or needing certification from a judge to bill beyond a certain $$ figure?

Please, do not take the preceding paragraphs as any sort of concrete proposal. The remarks above are offered only as possible examples of epidemiological data for use in a very classic, rational problem solving process. The questions are more to get a conversation about planning going- or to say, we don’t want to go there, because...

To my thinking, all three branches of government should be involved in any such a conversation leading to a plan for action. The core issue at the heart of the ‘pro se’ problem problem is about how we are to treat Maine families and children in the throes of divorce and custody. It is a question about the well being of a  sub-population of huge importance to the future of Maine. Interest in the topic goes way beyond the interest and practices of one branch of government and one profession. Ideally all three branches of government should work on the issue and should sponsor the supportive legislation to enable the work. As to the question of who might  best do such a study or variations thereof in the interest of the public, my vote would be for OPEGA; others might have other choices. My personal aim would be to eliminate the dominance of “special interests” of stake holders from the “divorce industry”, who have been the dominant players heretofore. They don’t represent the people.

I hope this gives a bit more flesh on the bare bones we discussed on Wednesday? It is still skeletal!  It is just a beginning of a much needed larger conversation.

Thanks for your time, your always valuable perspective and your in depth knowledge of the Judicial Branch - and Maine government.

Sincerely,

Jerry Collins

CC: MeGALert

If you have had a bad experience in the Family Court systems or with a Guardian ad litem. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

An Open Letter to President of the Maine Senate Justin Alfond on LD47

The following is a letter that was sent to Senator Justin Alfond asking for the reasons on tabling a bill that parents and the Judicial Branch do not want:

Subject: LD 47: Please, "kill" it!


AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OF THE MAINE SENATE, JUSTIN ALFOND

President of the Maine Senate
Justin Alfond

Dear Senator Alfond,

Re LD 47 a bill to extend the Parent Coordinator program.

I am writing to add my name to the growing list of Maine people, who are distressed by the current turn of events surrounding LD 47.  The bill seeks to extend the parent coordinator law until 2016, pending further “study”.  It adds budget for a “supervisor”, and it seeks to determine if the program “has benefit”.  We ask, “benefit for whom and judged by whom?”  Are we talking about obvious “benefits” for Parent coordinators and lawyers, or “benefits” for the opposing public?  To loosely paraphrase an expression from recent years, is it about protecting  the famous 1% or the 99%?.

What is perplexing to growing numbers of the public is why this bill was tabled in the Senate- as we understand it from several sources, on orders from you through the caucus (on a motion from Senator Valentino).  From whence comes the groundswell to save this bill?  it is widely said that the groundswell for saving LD 47 comes from Rep Terry Hayes, a Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator herself, and Reps DeChant and Moonen, who were the minority opposing the majority vote to kill LD 47 in the Judiciary Committee.  It is also said that there is a group of Portland lawyers, who have a  financial and professional interest in saving the bill.  It is last ditch lobbying by special interests for their personal  “income preservation”.

Our question as observers is whether lobbying will prevail over the classical legislative process, which has voiced an opinion quite contrary to the “special interests”.  We also can’t avoid the impression that by tabling a vote on LD 47, you are backing those with a “special interest” in it.  We are also concerned that the proposed amendment to LD 47  is so shamefully bogus as to insult  the intelligence of  both the legislature and the public.

As we understand the amendment to LD 47, it proposes a supervisor (or coordinator) to have n unspecified role doing unspecified things with Parent Coordinators for a period until 2016.  As you may be aware there are no job descriptions for the proposed supervisors or for their putative supervisees, nor are there any existing rules or standard for supervisor or Parent Coordinator supervisee, so supervision become a very mystical thing.  What would the supervisor do in actual supervision without the guidelines of a job description or rules and standards?  Furthermore, for whom would the supervisor of Parent Coordinators work (organizational chain of command)?  How would “due process” issues be protected in district court cases?  And ... finally, is the Judicial Branch asking for “Coordinators of Parent Coordinators?  Have  Rep Terry Hayes and the Portland lawyers usurped Mary Ann Lynches role?  We have heard further rumors that LD 47 might be embedded in LD 872, Senator Dutremble’s bill.  It would be shameful to do this.  It would be like grafting an invasive cancer into a healthy body!

Even a superficial analysis of the amendment to LD 47 raises the suspicion that it is so badly conceived, from any functional point of view, that is seems to be  a ruse on the part of  Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator, Rep Hayes to extend the life of a bill that appeared to be going down to a well-deserved legislative death.  Rep Hayes has a long experience in the Maine legislature, which makes us wonder whether this bill is offered by her friends in gratitude for her public service and to protect her financially in her old age?

The problems of Parent Coordinators are - if possible - even worse that the Guardian ad litem scandal.  Like Guardians ad litem, they have no supervision, no oversight, operate virtually ‘ad lib’ for a year with no fee cap, generating huge fees that impoverish the parties.  There are no rules and regulations, no standards.  It is a gold mine for the Parent Coordinator - no wonder they are fighting vigorously to preserve this lush source of income.  In our opinion it is a license to plunder.

LD 47 and its amendment ought to be “killed” asap!  Please, use your leadership to do so.  We join other members of the public with the hope that people can count on you to protect them from "special interest" abuse.

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins, MD

Kennebunkport, Maine

To view the original bill LD47 sponsored by Representative Terry Hayes (Guardian ad litem). The Amendment to LD47.

The Inquisitors of Modern Society - Guardians ad litem

The Spanish Inquisition relied on denunciations that were anonymous - the courts tortured and condemned heretics - depriving them of their worldly belongings. In many cases these heretics were executed as a means of saving their souls.

Several hundred years later we have the family court system that is alive and well in the state feeding off of the stress, pain and confusion of parents. While modern society has progressed beyond the physical torture to purify the soul our courts and officers of the courts have perfected psychological torture as a means to purify parents and keep them in line. It is warped thinking on the part of an industry that has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade as Judges have outsourced their powers to the courts underlings - Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators - modern societies inquisitors.

While the names have changed the role has not. Modern inquisitors (Guardians ad litem, Parental Coordinators, Family Lawyers and the special interests) use the power that Judges have lent them and expanded upon that gift. Taking common sense and squeezing every drop of sense out so that people entering the court system are entering a system that is twisted and insane. Where all the rules of human decency are thrown out and where hearsay is fact when uttered by Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators. No where else but in today’s court is it acceptable for people to burn a child, abuse them, deprive a child of their childhood and time with one or both parents. All of this is done with the shield of "In the child's best interest" being used to protect warped reasoning and violating your Constitutional rights.

Think about this - in reviewing the actions of your Guardian ad litem or Parental Coordinator how open minded have the courts been in listening to you? Do you really believe the courts and the Inquisitors that work for them will change? In almost 40 years of having Guardians ad litem mixed up in the court system the only solid change that has come about has not been for the child or parents. Change has come for the benefit of the Guardian ad litem at the expense of your child(ren) and yourself. To believe that the courts are now capable of reform and have the ability to move from the card board box age into the digital age of management and oversight and you are just kidding yourself. Change is in the air not because of the realization our benevolent courts system have but because those forced into the use of the courts inquisitors have started to fight back. Any meaningful change to the system has to involve all parties - or the system will fail like it has for the past 4 decades.

Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for more information.