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.

PROPOSAL FOR AN AUDIT OF ‘PRO SE’ REPRESENTATION IN MAINE FAMILY COURTS

Wikipedia defines an audit as: "A planned and documented activity performed by qualified personnel to determine by investigation, examination or evaluation of objective evidence  the adequacy and compliance with established procedures or applicable documents and the effectiveness of implementation.

A performance audit is increasingly used in government agencies as an examination of success in satisfying mission objectives.

Auditing is defined as a systematic and independent examination of data, statements, records and operations and performances of an enterprise for a stated purpose.

The purpose is then to give an opinion on the adequacy of controls and to improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes."

This is the working definition we use when we consider asking for an audit of ‘pro se’ issues in family courts.  Is the growth of ‘pro se’ representation impacting the “normal” functioning of family courts?  If so, how, and what are the qualitative implications?

'PRO SE' IN MAINE COURTS WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED:  'Pro se' representation in Maine courts is a problem of amateur, ”do-it-yourself “ players trying to navigate the arcane complexities and traditions of family law in family courts.  It is an incredible challenge to amateurs that is repeatedly and despairingly acknowledged by self representing users of family courts and by sympathetic members of the Judiciary.  It is also acknowledged, as a problem by the Maine Bar, which - in spite of its good faith efforts to find answers to the 'pro se' problem - sees the problem escape those efforts and grow numerically ever larger.

'PRO SE' NUMBERS:  Most people don't know the actual size, the statistics, of the 'pro se' problem in Maine Family Courts and are shocked when the hear the statistics.  74% is the number recently reported (personal communication) by Chief Justice Leigh Saufley.  Justice Andrew Mead in an "op ed" essay in the Portland Press Herald reported 3/4 'pro se' representation in family courts (or 75%).  But we won't quibble over 1%!!   It is a big problem.  ‘Pro se” users are the majority “parties” in family courts- a big majority!

And ... this 74% percentage isn't static.  It keeps on growing despite efforts by the Bar and the Judicial Branch to reduce the numbers - to reduce its prevalence.  From the absence of  successful “solutions” and the failure to reduce the numbers, one has to infer that there is a problem in diagnosing the "disease" - and its dynamics -  or that the corrective "medicine" isn't strong enough or isn't working fast enough.  Because the numbers keep growing there is an need for an opinion outside of the Judicial Branch about the nature and scope of the problems and for proposals to correct them.  We feel that OPEGA qualifies, given their experience in conducting audits and given their enviable reputation for fairness and objectivity. 

NATIONAL 'PRO SE' PERSPECTIVE: The 'pro se' problem is by no means just a Maine problem.  The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) reports that growing ‘pro se’ representation is a growing problem for every state.  Connecticut and New York are said to have 82 and 83% 'pro se', respectively.  Some of the problem seems related to national "macro economics" and the economic problems of the last several years.  Some of it is related to the escalating costs of private  legal services, which quickly become a financial deterrent to middle class family court users. But we have to ask, regardless of abstract economic speculation, do we really want to end up competing with Connecticut and New York for bigger ‘pro se’ numbers? What are we waiting for? 

Like it or not, the 74%  'pro se'  problem proclaims a 'de facto', two tier user (and social class) system in our courts - the wealthy 25% have lawyers, and the middle class 75% “do-it-yourself”.  The questions for the public are: (a) what are the root causes of  this social discrimination, can causes be addressed and (b) should we just let the problem continue (and grow) uncorrected?

THE HUMAN PROBLEMS behind the 'pro se' number: are public users, judges, lawyers and others. Any audit needs to consider who uses family courts 'pro se' and otherwise. What are the demographics? What are other differentiating features? How do 'pro se' users feel about their legal adequacy in court? What "tools" do they use in representing themselves? What is their experience of judges?  What outcomes differentiate those with lawyers form those with none. Is there a differential with regard to Guardian ad litem experiences?

Likewise there is a need to evaluate how judges perceive the 'pro se' issue.  What are the professional challenges for judges dealing with 'pro se'?  What solutions do they improvise to address the problems?  What suggestions or recommendations do they have for improvement?  What "tools" does the Judicial Branch already provide those doing self representation?  How useful/adequate are these?

We have heard many lawyers claim that they see no problem with the current operation of the family court system.  On a personal/professional level this is certainly understandable, because in cases where they oppose a 'pro se' "lawyer", they have an extreme professional advantage in their own favor. It must be like "taking candy from a baby"! There may be other advantages too in this sort of uneven "legal combat", but an audit would look at all of the dynamics and, one hopes, challenge complacency.

THE DEMOCRACY "PROBLEM":  Clearly a two class court system in which those with money for a lawyers are favored and those without a lawyer to represent them are disfavored poses a huge challenge to a democratic society. It is an enormous embarrassment to all of us to ignore the inequality. It is an important issue that needs thoughtful evaluation to diagnose the nature of the problem and to recommend intelligent proposals for correction that will be democratic and constitutional.

AN OPEGA PERFORMANCE AUDIT, we feel strongly,  is the way to go for Maine’s children and families, who are forced to represent themselves in family courts!  We ask the Legislature, the Judicial Branch and the Governor, along with the “grassroots” to support legislation to begin problem analysis and problem solving of the ‘pro se’ issue.

We are trying to bring about reform to the Guardian ad litem role and Family Court system. We encourage you to become involved and to contact us at 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.

Welcome to the Judicial Information Super Highway

In Maine the Judiciary is proud to point out that anyone can sift through cases that are finished. Only to do so will require going to the court house and looking though dusty boxes of papers that have your case or the case of someone else..

It is a 19th century filing system in the 21st century.

Imagine going to a branch of your bank and asking for an account balance. The teller cannot  give you your balance and that you must go to the branch where you made the deposit!  Or you call your credit card for account information and you are told that they are counting your charges on paper slips. Your information will be mailed to you. Would this be acceptable? No - of course not in this day and age - you want this information right away and it is available. Electronically.

In our courts this just does not happen.

You cannot look up your case online (unless your case goes before the Supreme Court). You cannot see whether your Guardian ad litem is working on just your case or 50 others - because it is not online. What cases are being heard today in your court - don't go online to find out because it is not there.  About the only thing that the courts have online is the address and contact information you need to get a court official in your court.

The Family Law Advisory Commission (FLAC) has come out with a glowing report for the battered Guardian ad litem program. FLAC comes out and indicates that GALs have played an essential role in family proceedings. That Guardians ad litem have been "instrumental in assuring positive" outcomes for children. FLAC goes further in stating that judges value the services of these Guardians ad litem highly. Guardians ad litem are responsive and professional as seen by the court system.

Yet where is the data to back up these accolades for Guardians ad litem? The data is in cardboard boxes sitting in the corners of our court houses. How many members of FLAC do you think went to our court houses to sift through the 'data' that is housed there? More than likely - None.  In other words the data used for the report - much like the data the courts appear to use - is based on the "feeling" or subjective opinion that Guardians ad litem are doing a great job. There are no hard numbers. There is no data. Well there is but for the sake of repeating - that data is in cardboard boxes sitting in the dark corners of our court houses. All readily accessible  by driving from court house to court house.

There is a demand for hard data in the new law...

Or….

The alternative is buying Chief Justice Saufley a speedy motor scooter so she can get on the Judicial Information Super highway and search those cardboard for that glowing Guardian ad litem data.


For more information please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or follow us on Facebook.

Do Stakeholders in Maine Board of Overseers have your Best Interest?

In 1978 the The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar was created by the Supreme Court of Maine. It is a private organization entrusted with the responsibility of oversight of Maine's lawyers. It is the only private organization that offers oversight of any group and or organization in the state.

The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar is also being endorsed by the Judiciary, Family Lawyers and Guardians ad litem as a means of offering oversight and management of Guardians ad litem. March 28, 2013 saw testimony from many people – almost exclusively those that endorsed the idea of oversight of Guardians ad litem through the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar were lawyers. Or they had a law background. Those that opposed the idea of using The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar were parents.

The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar has been used by consumers to complain about a lawyer they felt acted with impropriety. Not one made it by the initial “gate keeper” - the person who decides whether or not your concern is worthy enough to be heard. It is a highly legal process and is a dream for anyone in the legal profession. This is being endorsed and lobbied by stakeholders (are like stockholders and have a financial interest) – by those who have every reason for supporting the idea of Guardian ad litem management and complaints with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar. The following are those that may have an interest in the Board of Overseers and the regulation of Guardians ad litem through that private agency – the question you should ask is if they have your interest at hand:

Hon.Leigh I. Saufley

Hon.Charles C. LaVerdiere

Hon.Robert E. Mullen

Hon.Warren M. Silver

Ms.Mary Ann Lynch

Ms.Dawn M. Pelletier Esq.

Ms.Ilse Teeters-Trumpy Esq.

Sen.Mr. Roger J. Katz Esq.

Sen.Ms. Dawn Hill

Sen.Mr. Seth A. Goodall Esq

Rep.Mr. Jarrod Samuel Crockett Esq.

Rep.Mr. Stephen W. Moriarty Esq.

Rep.Mr. Charles R. Priest Esq.

Rep.Mr. Mark N. Dion Esq.

Rep.Mr. Kenneth Wade Fredette Esq.

Rep.Mr. Aaron Michael Frey Esq.

Rep.Mr. Barry J. Hobbins Esq.

Rep.Mr. Andrew T. Mason Esq.

Rep.Ms. Sharon A. Treat Esq.

This list is by no means complete but it does call into question whether your interests and concerns are really being heard. Or will the special interest of those who stand to lose should an equitable process of management and oversight finally come to Maine. You be the Judge and tell us and tell your Representatives what you think is right. Maine GAL alert encourages you to comment on this blog through email at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Is Maine Judiciary and GALs Violating Constitution?

The following letter suggest that there are serious issues with regards to LD522 and whether if it is implemented would be a violation of Maine's Constitution. This is not the first time where we have seen what would be an infringement of ones Constitutional rights here in Maine. This though holds the potential of being on a much larger scale.


April 10, 2013

Maine Judicial Committee

100 State House Station

Augusta, Maine 04333

Dear Judicial Committee Member,



Please find within a friendly reminder regarding LD 522; upon accepting your State of Maine Government position, you took an oath and made a pledge to up hold both the Maine and United States Constitutions.

The Maine Constitution is very direct and clear that  powers and responsibilities delegated to the Legislator, Governor, and Judicial Branch cannot be under any circumstances sub-delegated.

Whereas, LD 522 clearly does in fact sub delegated the responsibilities and power of oversight regarding Guardian Ad Litem’s to a private and non-government entity; being the Board of Overseers of the Maine Bar.

Therefore, as a member of this judicial committee, you have a responsibility and must reject LD522  and if it should be move forward to the State House and Senate  floor; could be a possible act in clear violation of the Maine Constitution. If for some reason, should LD522 be forward to the House and Senate floor; it must contain a proper disclosure that it may be in violation of the Maine Constitution.

I personally find it very troubling that some committee members whom should have a commanding knowledge of the Maine Constitution; would even consider supporting LD 522. Moreover, what is even more troubling is that LD522, was recommended by the Judicial Branch, which should have clearly known that these government powers and responsibilities cannot be sub-delegated to the board of overseers of the Maine Bar!

Another major U.S. Constitutional issue is the sub-delegation of powers in granting immunity or quasi - immunity to attorneys, or guardian ad litems that only represent individuals or a small group of individuals of the general public is prohibited; compare to attorneys that represents the vast majority of the general public with Constitutional rights which is acceptable. Therefore, LD 522 granting guardian ad litem quasi – immunity is in clear conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court opinion’s which have made it very clear as whom can be granted immunity and quasi-immunity. Therefore those attorneys, or guardian ad litems which only represent a child, or small group of children in a particular family will not qualify for any type of immunity, or quasi - immunity.

In closing, this committee should not recommend or allow LD522 to continue on to the floor of the Maine House, or Senate; due to what appears to be major Constitutional violations and conflicts.

Respectfully submitted by,


R Baizley


If you have an interest in bringing about Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Day of Reckoning - March 28 2013 - for Guardian ad litem Reform

The following four bills will be open for testimony by the public on Thursday March 28 starting at 1 pm. This is an opportunity for our group to speak of the issues we have had to deal with concerning Guardians ad litem, the Judiciary and Divorce Industry. The three that would help parents and children are LD 551, 872 and 975. LD 522 is a bill from the Judiciary which would take control in house of Guardians ad litem. In almost 40 years they have not been able to correct problems that many in the Judiciary and divorce industry do not see. Should LD 522 pass it would mean that reform would be a dead issue at least for this session. What ever momentum we currently have would be lost. The fight will be harder. How many families and children have to be hurt before there is meaningful change? You will have an opportunity to stop that hurt and help others that are experiencing the horrors of a Guardian ad litem gone wrong. Your voice is needed. Please help

LD 522, SP 212,  An Act To Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws
Link to PDF of bill: LD 522, SP 212
Link to schedule


LD 551, HP 370, An Act To Establish Certification Standards for
Guardians Ad Litem
Link to PDF of bill: LD 551, HP 370
Link to schedule


LD 872, SP 297, An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem
Services for the Children and Families of Maine
Link to PDF of bill: LD 872, SP 297
Link to schedule


LD 975, HP 689, An Act To Ensure Accountability of Guardians Ad Litem
and Parenting Coordinators
Link to PDF of bill: LD 975, HP 689
Link to Schedule


For more information please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information on Guardian ad litem reform. In addition please find below the email addresses of our representatives who are on the Judiciary Committee. Write to them and let them know how Guardian ad litem reform is important to you. How it is important to divorcing families. But.... mostly how important it is to our children who will continue to be harmed by the current process.

Judiciary Committee List:

Linda M. Valentino    D York County P. O. Box 1049 Saco ME 04072 (207) 282-5227
senatorvalentino@gmail.com

John L. Tuttle Jr.    D York County 176 Cottage Street Sanford ME 04073 (207) 324-5964
SenJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov

David C. Burns        R Washington County 159 Dodge Road Whiting ME 04691 (207) 733-8856
SenDavid.Burns@legislature.maine.gov

Charles R. Priest    D Brunswick 9 Bowker Street Brunswick ME 04011 (207) 725-5439
cpriest1@comcast.net    RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov

Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig    D Cape Elizabeth 6 Russet Lane Cape Elizabeth ME 04107 (207) 749-9443
kmderrig@maine.rr.com    RepKim.Monaghan-Derrig@legislature.maine.gov

Jennifer  DeChant    D Bath 1008 Middle Street Bath ME 04530 (207) 442-8486
dechantforbath@gmail.com    RepJennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov

Matthew W. Moonen    D Portland 17 Pine Street #2 Portland ME 04102 (207) 332-7823
matt.moonen@gmail.com    RepMatt.Moonen@legislature.maine.gov

Stephen W. Moriarty    D Cumberland 34 Blanchard Road Cumberland ME 04021 (207) 829-5095
smoriarty108@aol.com    repsteve.moriarty@legislature.maine.gov

Lisa Renee Villa    D Harrison P. O. Box 427 Harrison ME 04040 (207) 776-3118
Villa98staterep@gmail.com    RepLisa.Villa@legislature.maine.gov

Jarrod S. Crockett    R Bethel P. O. Box 701 Bethel ME 04217 (207) 875-5075
jarrodscrockett@gmail.com    RepJarrod.Crockett@legislature.maine.gov

Michael G. Beaulieu    R Auburn 27 Sherman Avenue Auburn ME 04210 (207) 784-0036
mike@mikeformaine.org    RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov

Anita  Peavey Haskell    R Milford 17 Pine Street Milford ME 04461 (207) 827-7296
RepAnita.Peaveyhaskell@legislature.maine.gov

Stacey K. Guerin    R Glenburn 79 Phillips Road Glenburn ME 04401 (207) 884-7118
repguerin@gmail.com    RepStacey.Guerin@legislature.maine.gov

Wayne T. Mitchell    D Penobscot Nation 14 Oak Hill Street, Penobscot Nation Indian Island ME 04468 (207) 827-0392
 waymitch10@hotmail.com    RepWayne.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov

LD 522, SP 212 An Act To Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws

Is a proposed bill that is being submitted by the Judiciary of Maine and the intention is to correct issues that are part of the Guardian ad litem program here in Maine. It is not clear how what is being proposed will really benefit the children and families of Maine. This is a bill that appears to be self serving for the 'stake holders' (ie. The divorce industry and Guardians ad litem) and an avenue for the states Judiciary to save face and give the appearance of correcting problems that has fermented for decades.

Take for instance “Recommendations for an Improved Process for Complaints Regarding Guardians Ad Litem” in the summary section. This is an open ended statement and gives no clear structure as to how the proposed complaint process is to be improved upon. Our understanding from a member of the committee that was assembled for reforming the complaint process is that the format being endorsed would benefit those that work within the courts. A complaint process with layers that for the average person trying to navigate the legalese would give up upon. This complaint process would also be maintained within the Judiciary – which in almost 40 years of problems has only managed to make the complaint process more bullet proof for the divorce industry and Guardians ad litem. The average person unfamiliar with legal process would probably benefit more from banging their head against a wall repeatedly. Our courts, Judges and Guardians ad litem have failed miserably to provide control, management and oversight of this 'profession' – are we expected that they can produce a transparent process for complaints that the average person can understand?

Contrast this to a proposal from Maine's licensing board  which has a history of providing management and oversight of its members. The complaint process is understandable to the average person who is attempting to navigate a complaint against a Guardian ad litem for vocation and or malpractice. There is due process and accountability that is built in. The process is explained by those that handle the complaint to those that are filing a complaint. There is transparency involved that is not seen with the current process nor with what is being proposed by the Judiciary.

Which would you want to work within? A process that is highly legal and time consuming. One that will potentially cost the person trying to bring about a complaint thousands of dollars? Or a process that cost very little in terms of time and resources. That is not legalistic in its scope? If for no other reason this bill should be killed – the Judiciary may do some things well – oversight and management of Guardians ad litem is not one of them. The bill is self serving and makes reform closed to the public – the very same idea that has put Maine's Guardians ad litem in the hot water they find themselves in now. The complaint process should be moved from the closed process this bill is asking for and moved to an organization that is equipped to police its own. Maine's children cannot wait another 40 years for the idea of change to come. Maine's families cannot afford the cost – emotional and financial – that will come with a poorly thought out process for reform.

Please write to our Representatives to tell them that  LD 522, SP 212 An Act To Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws should be laid to rest. That this is a bad piece of legislation. If you have questions, or need help in contacting our Representatives please email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com for support and information. We can also be found on Facebook for up to date information on  Guardian ad litem and Parental Coordinator reform.

Do you understand LD 522, SP 212?

There is a bill being that has been presented by our Judiciary that is impossible to understand:

LD 522, SP 212 An Act To Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws

This bill on Guardian ad litem reform seems innocent enough – if you do not really read through it. On the other hand if you try and understand what is being asked – it appears that the Judiciary is trying to pull a fast one on Maine’s citizens. In reading this bill it appears the Judiciary is asking the Legislature to give them a blank check. To turn the other way as they – the divorce industry, Guardians ad ltem and “stake holders” set the rules and oversight for Guardians ad litem. In almost 40 years the Judiciary, divorce industry and Guardians ad litem have failed to provide any measurable oversight and management of the Guardian ad litem system. It would appear that citizens of the state are being asked to believe in our court system to do the right thing.

Good intentions will not correct the problem that we are faced with. By letting the Judiciary take the process behind closed doors there will be no opportunity to correct the problems that we are all facing. To be more concerned with how the “stakeholders” feel is a sad commentary on Justice in Maine.  This bill appears to be bad for the people of Maine and good for those that make a living off of divorcing Maine families. We encourage you to write our Representatives and ask them to explain how this bill will benefit Maine families. If they cannot then they should kill this bill.

We are looking for your comments and thoughts on this bill. For more information and support please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for more up to date information.

Judiciary Committee List:


Linda M. Valentino    D York County P. O. Box 1049 Saco ME 04072 (207) 282-5227
     senatorvalentino@gmail.com
 
John L. Tuttle Jr.    D York County 176 Cottage Street Sanford ME 04073 (207) 324-5964
      SenJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov
 
David C. Burns        R Washington County 159 Dodge Road Whiting ME 04691 (207) 733-8856
      SenDavid.Burns@legislature.maine.gov
 
Charles R. Priest    D Brunswick 9 Bowker Street Brunswick ME 04011 (207) 725-5439
     cpriest1@comcast.net    RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
 
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig    D Cape Elizabeth 6 Russet Lane Cape Elizabeth ME 04107 (207) 749-9443
     kmderrig@maine.rr.com    RepKim.Monaghan-Derrig@legislature.maine.gov
 
Jennifer  DeChant    D Bath 1008 Middle Street Bath ME 04530 (207) 442-8486
     dechantforbath@gmail.com    RepJennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov
 
Matthew W. Moonen    D Portland 17 Pine Street #2 Portland ME 04102 (207) 332-7823
     matt.moonen@gmail.com    RepMatt.Moonen@legislature.maine.gov
 
Stephen W. Moriarty    D Cumberland 34 Blanchard Road Cumberland ME 04021 (207) 829-5095
     smoriarty108@aol.com    repsteve.moriarty@legislature.maine.gov
 
Lisa Renee Villa    D Harrison P. O. Box 427 Harrison ME 04040 (207) 776-3118
     Villa98staterep@gmail.com    RepLisa.Villa@legislature.maine.gov
 
Jarrod S. Crockett    R Bethel P. O. Box 701 Bethel ME 04217 (207) 875-5075
     jarrodscrockett@gmail.com    RepJarrod.Crockett@legislature.maine.gov
 
Michael G. Beaulieu    R Auburn 27 Sherman Avenue Auburn ME 04210 (207) 784-0036
     mike@mikeformaine.org    RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
 
Anita  Peavey Haskell    R Milford 17 Pine Street Milford ME 04461 (207) 827-7296
      RepAnita.Peaveyhaskell@legislature.maine.gov
 
Stacey K. Guerin    R Glenburn 79 Phillips Road Glenburn ME 04401 (207) 884-7118
     repguerin@gmail.com    RepStacey.Guerin@legislature.maine.gov
 
Wayne T. Mitchell    D Penobscot Nation 14 Oak Hill Street, Penobscot Nation Indian Island ME 04468 (207) 827-0392
     waymitch10@hotmail.com    RepWayne.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov

Guardian ad litem report abuse to DHHS – Ka Ching – Nope

Not your child's best interest

In any custody case where a Guardian ad litem of Parental Coordinator is involved they are supposed to report to DHHS (In Maine) if a “child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected, must make an immediate report to the Department of Human Services.” as stated in the Guardian ad litem Standards and Rules on the Maine Judiciary web site (look for 6.1 Mandated Reporting).

The reality of the situation that we have been made aware of is that Guardians ad litem rarely report abuse or neglect. How could this happen? Guardians ad litem are supposed to have the child's best interest at hand. Or is it maybe that Guardians ad litem have their own best interest. By reporting to DHHS such things as -

a child that was burned by a cigarette.
a child that went to bars late at night.
a child that was better off with a sex offender.
a child that was better off with a parent that had drug issues.

Ka ching – the cash register stops for the Guardian ad litem. The Guardian ad litem also ends up playing a marginalized and insignificant role in the childs life and the custody battle. The Guardian ad litem gives up control. People with any shred of common sense would question how a child burned by a cigarette is not considered abuse. Or that by placing a child with a known sex offender is safe and not a recipe for trouble. Yet when we are talking about these 'professionals' in the court system we look the other way. We are in a sense giving our approval for this continued abuse perpetuated by our courts and the divorce industry. Ka ching – it is about the money and not about your child.

Maine has received the grade of ( F ) by First Star  three reports in a row. Maine is criticized by the Center for Judicial Excellence for the issues within the system. Chief Justice Saufley in March of 2012 indicated that there were problems with GALs in the state. OPEGA in 2006 outlined problems with the system. The courts reiterated this finding in 2008. Yet the divorce industry has been satisfied with the status quo. “Make them pay” was the quote of one well established divorce lawyer during one of the committee meetings on GAL reform. Who really has the best interest of the child in any divorce? A stranger whose incentive is how many billable hours they can get out? Or the families that are thrown into a pit of insanity that we call Justice? You be the judge ka ching.

If your child(ren) have been abused by the system you are not alone. We are a growing grassroots organization that is fighting for reform please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information.

If you want to let your Senator or Representative know what your thoughts are on the current broke system that the divorce industry and courts maintain contact us for their information.

“The Only Source of Knowledge is Experience” Albert Einstein

We have been hearing a lot of talk about guardian ad litems lately. I guess I didn’t realize there were so many issues with them. Why hadn’t I heard of this problem before?” This question was posed on our blog. Unfortunately, our experience with Gal’s has been less than spectacular. Therefore, you go with what you know. For most of us the term Guardian ad litem is one that most people will never have knowledge of. Guardian ad litem or GAL is a person who works within the court system and usually involved in custody cases.They are supposed to collect information (facts) for the Judge.. Think of it this way, a Judge is only able to see a snapshot of the dispute. The GALs function provides the Judge a preview of sorts. Not the whole experience but hopefully enough that the Judge can get a sense of what is going on. There are rules and standards that the GAL operate under and management of the GAL during the investigation is in the hands of the judge that appointed him/ her.

GALs have been in the news lately because there is growing concern in the way they (GALs) are managed. Back in 2001 in the Final Report of the Committee to Review the Child Protective System – it was noted that there is no actual supervision or oversight of GALs other than the presiding Judge or through the complaint process. Back then there were 139 GALs registered. Today there are over 300 GALs registered and still no oversight.

The system as it stands is broken. The Chief Justice Leigh Saufley and The Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute recognize this fact as do several Senators and Legislators who have had personal experience. We have received emails from people who have also experienced frustration with a system that should be helpful but at times is not. There are scant statistics on how GALs operate within the system and no way of knowing if there are issues with an individual, group or system currently. As I said the system is broken and that is why you have been seeing news on the GAL industry. There are people who are concerned about the issue of oversight and management of GALs and are trying to fix the broken system. In the future there will be more as the issues are worked on by those involved.

Like us on Facebook at Megalalert or Megalhelp or send your questions or tell your story at megalalert@gmail.com

To make suggestions on ways to improve the system, please submit those to: lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov