Has the Guardian ad litem Problem Vanished - It Has According to the Judicial Branch

September 2012 the one public member on the Guardian ad litem  Task Force wrote a minority report to the Judicial Branch regarding issues with the task force. February 15, 2017 the Judicial Branch present their final report on LD 872. In reading the report and only this report one would assume that the problems associated with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem have been resolved or under control. It is a glowing report which may be found here - GAL Report 2-2017. In reading this report please keep in mind that while the Judicial Branch may feel that things are running like a well oiled machine. We would like to point out that this report is more self serving than anything and there are still very serious systemic issues which have only been whitewashed over. What follows is the minority report to the Judicial Branch September 21, 2012 (which has also been included in the recently submitted GAL Report.


TO: GUARDIAN AD LITEM TASK FORCE
FROM: JEROME A. COLLINS M.D.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2012
APPENDIX C

MINORITY COMMENTS ON REPORT TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH GUARDIANS AD LITEM TASK FORCE

CONTEXT:

From my position as the only public member of the 19-member committee, the only one with no personal financial interest in the Guardian ad litem problem, my perspective on the problem is quite from that of the majority of the committee. While I believe that the chairing of the meetings was fair and friendly, there were decidedly biased undercurrents among the participants. "Is there a GAL problem?" is still a serious issue for many. Why not just tweak the current system, which works so well (for GALS?) another fairly significant position. And, "if 'they' want change, make them pay for it," was the surprisingly hostile position of one prominent family lawyer. I mention these few (of many) examples of bias that I felt, to indicate a strong interest on the part of a significant number of the committee in clinging to the 'status quo' to the greatest extent possible. This protective conservatism of the majority colors the document and colors my current opinion of it.

THE CURRENT DOCUMENT:

The document I received appears to be very sketchy. It pulls together many threads of issues that wore discussed in our three meetings, but it leaves unresolved very significant questions of detail. There are no instructions for users. There are no guided forms for users. There is no explanation users in clear language the process would work, the steps they would lake, the algorithm. It is not geared towards a citizen complaint made without legal assistance. In general, user-oriented supports arc absent, It desires imitate the NH complaint process but in our estimation it falls short. Without more fleshed-out detail the document is a "tabula rasa" on which one can project ideas but without solid grounding. leaves a great deal to the input of the Supreme Court, but disallows helpful guidance to the court and forces to give the court a blank conceptual check, when we've never done business before and don't know if we share common ground.

THE UNDERLYING CONCEPTS:

What exactly is the conceptual nature of a complaint regarding a Guardian ad litem? Is it a legal complaint between two adversaries about allegations of harm or damage, or is it vocational complaint about GAL performance to an oversight agency from one or more members the public, which questions whether this worker's performance meets publicly approved/regulated standards of practice? In our opinion, the current document attempts to merge the two ideas unsuccessfully at the expense or the consumer complaint. It strives to address the vocational questions, but in a heavily legalistic context that is apt to suffocate the consumer. Part of the problem is that GAL's vocational considerations lack a standard of practice, and GALs themselves lack an experience in how to judge standard practices of colleagues. The document makes no mention of training for all concerned in oversight that might teach these skills even the use of the court room concept of "standing" belies a legalistic bias, which would be unfamiliar find constricting to consumers.

This awkwardness can be in the questions raised in committee about "standing." In consumer protection agencies, the notion of "standing as traditionally applied in court (who may participate) doesn't apply. It is off-topic. Any member of the public with direct actual experience of a worker's malfunctioning may bear witness. It enhances agency oversight. This awkwardness and conceptual model confusion makes the creation of the new complaint process worrisome. In NH it, was found after an initial placement of the complaint process in the Judicial Branch the lack of experience of this branch in dealing with vocational issues and consumer protection necessitated a move to the licensing bureau. We feel that this is very apt to happen in Maine.

THE 12 MEMBER REVIEW BOARD:

This board with 12 members, two of whom would be from the public, with the other 10 being Guardians ad litem, to us to stack the decks wildly in favor of GALS. But it is a problem, not just in terms of numbers and composition. It also a problem of how such board would function in carrying out its duties. There is absolutely no tradition amongst the GALs in Maine or within their trade organization tor self-policing. There is little in the role or experience of GALs that prepares them to address consumer protection issues. Trade organizations , such as MEGALI, (and others) are well known for their tolerance or malfunctioning even as it approaches level of public scandal. Further what standards of practice would the panel be using? How would they judge a failing? Would any the panels have experience in assessing vocational functioning? It raises a host of questions about the knowledge skill and experience necessary to make critical vocational and consumer protective judgments.

In addition, there is also the very important question of attitude towards the public on the part of GALs, They see themselves us allies of judges and of the children they deal with. They are habituated to stand apart from the parties and exhibit independence. From our experience there is very often significant defensiveness to criticism on the part of these lightly trained GALs and of their trade organization. Some of these attitudinal biases surfaced during the recent Committee meetings. Examples: "Is there a. problem?"; "Do we need a new program?"

In our view board composition and hoard training the oversight role need to be reconsidered.

FINANCING:

In brief, it is our view, as a matter of principle, that the public shouldn't have to pay to make a vocational complaint to the oversight agency about one or their workers, be that oversight the responsibility of the Judicial Branch or of the Administrative Branch. It should be noted that there is currently no charge for public complaints by Maine's licensing boards. A fee to make a complaint sends a perhaps unintentionally off-putting message to the public: your complaint will cost you. It is a deterrent; we don't really want to know. One member of the committee expressed the issue with considerable animus: "Make them pay!", and suggested complaints were "an ego issue." It raises a serious question: Does the Judicial Branch Truly want to know about malfunctioning officers of the court in order to correct these situations? "Make them pay"' is not an attitude that encourages the public to assist the Judicial Brunch in its oversight.

GAL OVERSIGHT AND LICENSING BOARD OVERSIGHT:

Although it was mentioned m the committee, the jurisdictional conflict about a GAL whose actions appear to be malpractice of their base profession is not addressed in the current proposal. It is a serious consumer protection issue that a professional could avoid corrective action from complaints to their licensing hoard by needing to address GAL complaints at the Judicial Branch first. It is a serious problem, troubling to the public. There needs to be a corrective plan developed with the licensing boards.

WILL THE "NEW COMPLAINT PROCESS" BE USED BY PUBLIC?

At the moment, then is an unofficial, recent embargo by the public on GAL complaints. This action has arisen, because many people felt that the current complaint process was demeaning, always resulted in dismissal-even in the face of serious considerations. People also felt that the seemly inevitable dismissal whitewashed malfunctioning GALS gave no consumer warning of bad actors. Will the new process be used? Hard to say, but its use will definitely be limited without out' endorsement, Your limited "statistics" are apt to be even better!

I regret having to address so many problems on the eve of submitting a proposal to the Supreme Court, but so many ideas were presented in the committee meetings without clear direction-other than broad principle-being agreed on that seeing a written proposal surfaces many concerns. These are expressed here as clearly as possible; however, I'd be pleased to explain further, if appropriate.


MeGAL has been working for Family Court change for over five years. In 2013 and 2015 we had a number of bills submitted to help bring about this change. We continue to work for this change and in 2017 we are requesting an audit much like what was done back in 2006. We encourage you to become involved in the education of family, friends, co-workers and your representatives as to what the issues are. You may also contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

Happy Halloween - The New Complaint Process – Are Parents on the Highway to Hell?

And you thought that Halloween was scary just wait until you try and file a complaint against a Guardian ad litem (GAL). September 1, 2015 consumers of judicial services in Maine's Family Courts were faced with changes in the GAL complaint process. 

Could Parents end up singing?

"I'm goin' down

All the way

I'm on the highway to hell" ( AC/DC – Highway To Hell )

Are the new rules and complaint process better for you the consumer of judicial services? Prior to September 1, 2015 we had a set of rules which came in at around 12 pages of fairly easy to understand process. The complaint process was easy to comprehend, almost intuitive. After September 1, 2015 we are faced with a whopping 60 pages of rules which the complaint process comprises a staggering 40 pages+ of process. Comments on Facebook suggest that the new complaint process if good for parents.

Or is it?

While the rules are for the most part remain the same as they were prior to September 1, 2015 the way in which a parent files a complaint has dramatically changed. For the better – we don’t think so – but you be the judge.

Here is a “simple” compare and contrast of the complaint process:

Pre-September 1, 2015 

The old rules had a fairly easy to understand process and procedure for filing a complaint if you felt the GAL on your case was or had malpracticed in his/ her role.

1    If the case was ongoing a complaint could be filed with the presiding judge. This was usually done as a Motion. The complaint would sit until after the case was decided.

2    If your case was over the next level was to file a complaint with the Head Judge.

While this process was flawed in so many ways it was a process which anyone could easily understand.

Post-September 1, 2015

Parents/ consumers of judicial services are faced with a process that is multi layered – and takes on the appearance of court room proceedings.

1. If the case is ongoing a complaint is filed with the presiding judge. This is done with the filing of a Motion.
2. If your case has been decided then filing a complaint is submitted to the Review Board through the Review Board’s Central Intake. A form must be filled out that is approved by the board.

a.       Board Counsel receives the complaint

i)                    Investigates the complaint

ii)                   Determines whether the complaint falls under the jurisdiction of the rules and determines whether or not the alleged facts – if true – constitute misconduct by the GAL.

b.      Board Counsel – Determines no misconduct

i)                    Complaint is dismissed

ii)                   Complainant has 21 days to see review of the decision

iii)                 See 2a. After the review has been completed if the Board Counsel determines there was no misconduct then complaint is dismissed and GAL is exonerated.

c.       Board Counsel – Determines misconduct

i)                    Board Counsel refers case to Board Clerk for hearing before Review Board Panel

ii)                   Pre-hearing Procedures

1)      Board Counsel files formal charges with Board Clerk

2)      Board Clerk assigns complaint to 3 member Review Board

3)      Respondent has 21 days to file written answer to Board Clerk and Board Counsel.

4)      21 days (no later than) in advance of hearing Board Clerk serves notice to Board Counsel and respondent of date and time of hearing. Written communication is sent to the complainant.

5)      14 days (at least) before hearing Board Clerk prepares for Board Counsel a statement of disciplinary sanction record.

6)      Discovery – Takes place 21 days after respondent’s answer (see c.ii.3). Information is exchanged

iii)                 Hearing

1)      Nature of the Proceedings – Chair of review Board Panel shall decide pre-hearing motions

2)      Inability to Properly Defend – If the respondent claims to be incapacitated – Board Counsel may recommend that Chief Judge suspend GAL from roster pending determination

iv)                 Review Board Panel Decision

1)      Dismissal

2)      Reprimand

3)      Removal

v)                  Appeal of Review Board Decision

The new process is daunting. In addition to the above there is the question of members being impartial. For instance there are several members rostered as Guardians ad litem and members of MEGALI (the trade organization for Guardians ad litem). MEGALI offers its members such services as a chat room, support and advice for GALs to name a few. Imagine submitting a complaint to the Board of a GAL who is a member of MEGALI. Is there any process in place which would/ will prevent the board members from discussing your complaint in the chat room of MEGALI? To our knowledge there is none. Your complaint could be decided even before it has been formally submitted.

“In America 40, 000 men and women every day”

(Redefine Families)

(Don't Fear) The Reaper Blue Öyster Cult

Is this a better process than what we had? Or is this just a scary Halloween trick thrust upon divorcing families in the state of Maine?

MeGAL is a grassroots organization that is fighting for Family Court and Pro se reform. You may find us on Facebook or you can email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.

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

Is the New Maine Guardian ad litem Complaint Process Fair to Parents?

The following was sent to Mary Ann Lynch of the Judicial Branch regarding the new and improved complaint process that the judicial branch has asked us (consumers) to use since September 1, 2015. While the new rules and complaint process is more robust it does present issues:

It is hard for some of us to understand the object of the "new" Guardian ad litem (GAL) complaint protocol. It is a confusing piece of work in terms of its aims or purpose!.  To some readers it appears to be a virtual Guardian ad litem Protective Society that aims at  discouraging complaints about GALs.  Not only is the multi layered complaint procedure very likely to intimidate, confuse and frustrate a 'Pro se' complainant, but also the committee, which will review and judge any of the complaints that may squeeze through the screening procedure, seems heavily slanted towards "friends of the GAL family".  To outside observers, both the design of the complaint protocol and the selection of a board  are nearly flawless, if one aims to suppress  public complaints.

Two guardian ad litem board members, Senator David Dutremble and Chair,  Dana Prescott, Esq.  appear to have other professional roles- which expose them to conflict with their GAL board role. One is a state senator with normal constituent obligations; the other has been an important leader in MEGALI, the Maine Guardian ad litem trade organization.  Mr Prescott has been rumored to be the successor to Toby Hollander, the organization's present leader.  MEGALI is a major support organization for GALs.  It provides educational supports, an online chatroom,, consultation on cases, group supervision of GALs and advises on problems associated with the GAL relationship with parties.  It may lead to Mr Prescott knowing about cases well before they wend their way through the formalities of the GAL complaint protocol.   Is this potential for "jumping the gun" before the usual steps in the complaint procedure permitted by the complaint protocol?

How might these potential organizational loyalty conflicts be handled by the program's creators or, for that matter, by compelainants?

As we understand it, the way the Board is structured for complaints,board members are not allowed to get involved in reviewing any actual case information until complaints have first gone through a staff screening process, and, then, their involvement is very structured, very legalistic, only in committee. Does this structure impact the ability of Senator Dutremble to hear the details of a GAL complaint from a constituent until it has been screened and presented to the committee by board staff? Would hearing a complaint directly from one of his constituent (such as me) create a "conflict of interest" for Senator Dutremble? Would he either have to abandon a constituent, or recuse himself from the committee?  It would appear that the senator might be bureaucratically hamstrung by accepting a board position.

There is also the matter of the senator (or any legislator) sponsoring possible GAL reform legislation while a committee member. As a member of the GAL board will he be limited legislatively? For instance, can he use his experience on the Board, as evidence to suggest needed reform of the GAL complaint protocol or of board make up? May he freely sponsor legislation, say, to move GAL oversight to the Administrative Bureau of licensing, using examples from his board experience? Or … will this present a conflict of interest?  Using data gathered from closed meetings to promote legislation aimed at demonstrating a problem and advocating reform legislation?

My worry, as one of Sen Dutremble's actual constituents, is that his role as a legislator and his role as a member of a Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem Board might at times present conflicts that would limit my access to him as a constituent. Have provisions been made for this sort of contingency?

Then there is situation of The GAL Complaint Board Chair, Dana Prescott. Mr Prescott  has been an intimate part of  the trade organization (MEGALI) that supports GALs.  Can The Chair of the committee even pretend to be "impartial" in dealing with GAL complaints with his base of case knowledge coming through the MEGALI system of which he is a member?  Or does impartiality in judging complaints matter to those who have created the complaint procedure?

There are other committee members perceived by the public as family court "warriors", with little sympathy for would be public complainers.  It looks like an airtight group.  Do you expect that any complaints will actually get through?  For many professional licensing boards there are projected annual averages or percentages of expected complaints needing corrective action of some sort.  Are you projecting any such numbers for this board.  From its structure and membership composition, it looks like 0% (zero)  sanctions for this board.

As the saying goes,  "the devil may be in the details", but many worry that the public is being short changed. We need your opinion on the several questions I raise about conflict management.


If you have had issues with Family Courts we would encourage you to contact us at MeGALalaert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

An Open Letter to Our Representatives from Sen David Dutremble

Parents, family members and friends are outraged over the recent "promotion" of Hon Jeffrey Moskowtz to Deputy Chief Judge. Senator David Dutremble  recently wrote to all of Maine's representatives, Gov. Paul LePage and the Judicial Branch concerning this "promotion". Both Sen David Dutremble and Rep Lisa Villa in questioning this promotion are doing what they were elected for. To represent the interest of you the constituent and not special interest like we see in the divorce industry (MEGALI - comes to mind as an example). They are both questioning the reasoning of this promotion as are many people who have been hurt.

We are publishing the letter from Sen David Dutremble to our representatives below as we feel it is a powerful letter which raises some serious questions. The email address of those who were CCed have been removed for the purposes of this post:

From: Senator David E. Dutremble

Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:47 PM

Subject: Re: communications from Lori Handrahan - Justice

To: Lisa Villa

Hi Lisa and all attached,

The recent string of emails raises enough concerns with the way things are run in the family courts.  It puzzles me why the entire legislature does not jump on board and ask for audits of the system(s).  Does it really puzzle me though?  Not really, there are many who tend to lose substantial gains if we allow a full audit.  We need more people like Lisa standing up for the people of Maine and I am continuing to be by her side and do what is right for the people of Maine.  

I have been watching the string of emails between Lisa, some high ranking officials and our constituents who many have been victimized in the family courts.  Lisa and I know there is an ongoing problem within the court system because we have been fighting it and we have lived it.  This is the reason I write this email so thousands of others do not have to go through the same process that us and many others have gone through.

I have heard legislators say, "there are winners and losers in family court and the only reason you're upset is because you lost".  My first reaction is, this is a person who has never had to use the family court system!  I would invite everyone to go spend some time in the family court system for a day, I think it would horrify you!   Why would it horrify you?  Because of a term commonly used in the courts "the best interest of the child"  yet this term has never been defined with a true meaning.  When a divorce takes place and the parents cannot agree on the custody of the child.  The court appoints a  GAL "guardian ad litem" to oversee the child's best interest.  I ask, How does this complete STRANGER know what the best interest of my child is?   When a court rules and says you can no longer see you child, it does change you!  It changed me!  At first it made me mad!  Really mad!  I wanted everyone in the system to pay for not being able to be with my kids half the time.  As a matter of fact, I almost killed myself because I thought it would be easier then to continue the fight for my kids.  My attorney told me the longer I try to fight in court, the longer it will take and the cost will be astronomical and they will break the bank, it's just how the system works.  If you think this is only affecting a small amount of people who are disgruntled, I would ask you to watch a movie called "Divorce Corp".  It took me three times to get through the whole movie because it's so upsetting.  Family Court is a problem throughout the United States and this movie will open your eyes.  I am no longer disgruntled at the system for my divorce because I was able to work out an arrangement without the court or the guardian.  As a matter of fact as soon as the lawyers, guardians and the courts were out of the picture, I was able to do more with regards to seeing my children and currently my daughter is away at college but I have my son week on and week off.

There has been a lot of questions around the recent appointment of Judge Moskowitz to oversee Guardian ad Litem work.  Several people have raised concerns with this appointment and have had less then favorable outcomes in the family court that was overseen by Judge Moskowitz.  So one must ask, Is it truly people who are disgruntled or is it truly a problem within his court?  I have my suspicions from what I had been through but I won't judge the judge.  Instead like the court system, I will ask OPEGA to be our Guardian ad Litem!  Let them do the inquire why so many people have had complaints about Judge Moskowitz and the Family Courts.

A friend of mine from Maine Guardian ad Litem Alert, wrote the following inquire and I think it's a reasonable set of questions that should be answered prior to Judge Moskowitz overseeing the Guardian Ad Litem program.  Many of you will say, there's those disgruntled people again, etc., etc.   That's what we hear all the time.  I also hear, If I get one more email from them I swear!  

However, I would ask these questions!

Why is this organization growing?  Why am I getting emails everyday about the system and how it has failed the many people we represent?

I am writing you at the request of many of our friends associated with Maine Guardian ad litem Alert, who have been dismayed by the news of the recent promotion of Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz to be Deputy Chief Judge of the Maine Districts Courts.  The appointment comes as a shock to many members of the public, who consider Judge Moskowitz the least likely candidate for appointment to this very important, pivotal office within the Judicial Branch operations.  We ask who was party to making this decision?  Why was he chosen over other candidates?  What was the objective basis for choosing him in terms of knowledge, skill and experience leading to this decision?

Judge Moskowitz is one of 4 family court judges about whom we consistently hear significant complaints from users of his court, victims of his actions.  A few amongst many of the complaints we hear fairly regularly are:

1.) A harsh, abrupt, demeaning manner, lack of courtesy, irritability and impatience with parties; especially those who may not concur with his thinking.

2.) An apparent lack of knowledge of the law, as it applies to Guardians ad litem.  He seems to have general knowledge, but seems not to know specifics.  It causes one to wonder about his knowledge of the law in other aspects.

3.) 'Pro se' representatives now constitute 74% of those appearing in family courts, a serious "access to justice" problem for the public, the legislature and the Judicial Branch.  Reports we consistently receive tell us that Judge Moskowitz is rude and demeaning to 'pro se' representatives, who are usually 'pro se' because they can't afford lawyers' services.  They are not there to provoke the judge, and overbearing judicial intimidation does not improve the situation.

4.) There are those who report that Judge Moskowitz conducts family court matters in a manner similar to his conduct of the so-called "drug courts", dogmatically, high-handedly.

5.) His judicial impartiality we are told by informed sources is a problem.  A too active expression of views that differ with the judge's is said to prejudice future appearances in that court.  The word on the street is, if you don't curry favor with him, don't plan on returning to his court!

6.)  By report the drug court operation is reportedly problematic from the perspective of serious concerns expressed about "Constitutional due process" issues, 'ex parte' communication, etc.

The details we hear differ from case to case but there is enough common concern raised to present a picture of a judge, who appears not to be functioning well in the public interest.  In our opinion, without further investigation of a formal nature, he does not seem to be suitable for a key, highly influential  leadership position in the District Courts.

Moving away from the recent Judicial Appointment, I will move into another area that has gained many email inquires and responses,

Lori Handrahan:

I know here it comes, Oh that crazy lady!, she's a nut job, she's mentally unstable, she's off her rocker!

These are just a few of the terms I hear when Lori's name is mentioned.

I my heart I have to ask, why is she fighting?  Why doesn't she give up?  What drives her?

I know what drove me when I was fighting the court system!   MY KIDS!   Is this what drives Lori?  According to her many emails it is.

I know Lori has made many other complaints against people in Maine from the Attorney General, Chief of Police, Attorneys and Judges now I'm not going to side with Lori because I don't even know her.  One does have to ask them self, Why are so many people upset by her allegations?  Why has she been banned from the state of Maine?  What harm would an internal audit of the system do?

Knowing the fight I had with my divorce and knowing that the system was there for anything but the best interest of the child, it makes one wonder.   Was she wronged in her case involving her daughter?  There are many people in this state alone that are not allowed to see their children due to some courts ruling stating it was the best interest of the child!  It makes me wonder if in fact there was wrong doing within the court system.

Lisa has raised very important issues and I support her efforts whole hearted!

I would also request an audit of the Handrahan case,

I would also request an audit of Judge Moskowitz being promoted to oversee the Guardian ad Litem program and his prior dealings within his court room.

I would also request that the entire Family Court system be reviewed to see if in fact it's fighting for the best interest of the child.

I believe that there is no harm in requesting these audits, and if no wrong doing has occurred it would be a lot easier for me to be able to return to my constituents and say, there was an independent audit done and these were the findings. 

Last I would again ask that everyone watch the movie called, "Divorce Corp" and witness first hand the million dollar industry that Family Courts have become!

Sincerely,

Senator David E. Dutremble

Senator David E. Dutremble

Representing District Four

Arundel, Biddeford (part)

Kennebunk and Kennebunkport

ddutrem1@gmail.com

(207) 229-6587

***Please note that any communications to or from your state senator sent via email could be considered public records and are therefore subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Access Act.***

If you have had issues with a Judge and or Guardian ad litem we would encourage you to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

In addition there is a Community Meeting to Discuss - Family Court Judges and GAL oversight on Friday May 2, 2014 from 4 pm - 8 pm at the Maine Community Center, 21 Nelson Rd South Portland.

The State of Maine Judicial Branch says there has never been any complaints about the judges in the Family Court system. This is an opportunity for you to share your concerns about Family Court Judges and Guardians ad litem. The data collected will be used for legislative reform and action.

You do not have to be directly related to the case - you can be a family member or a friend who experienced the Family Court system. You can also testify anonymously if you so choose. Please bring your case/ docket number. Testimony length may be limited based on the amount of people who show.

If you would like to testify but are not able to make it. Please email MeGALalert@gmail your testimony. You are not limited - currently - by time if you decide to email. Emails received by Friday morning - 9 am can be read at the meeting if you so choose to have us read on your behalf. Please indicate in the email that you would like us to do that.

Would you want a Guardian ad litem with this kind of training?

This is a look at two businesses. One financial the other legal. Both deal with sensitive information, rules and regulations. Both have training programs to give the tools needed to stay within accepted standards and compliance. Both are radically different.

With these two examples ask yourself who is better trained to handle difficult situations?

1. Training consists of 8 weeks of in class study during which the process, rules and regulations are learned. There is some applied training where the students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. Students are tested at certain points. This allows for the trainers to verify at least a minimal understanding to perform the job. There are also group discussions which at times involve people who have experience. These veterans able to give real life experience as to what the new trainees can expect. There is some role playing between seasoned professionals and the new trainees.

After 8 weeks of in class training the new trainees are able to put what has been learned to practical use. While in a real environment there are seasoned people available to answer questions. There is also several weeks of quality control to make sure the new trainees are doing the work properly and to correct any issues right away. This type of mentoring and internship tapers off over time depending on how quickly the new trainee learns.

Throughout this training there is constant feedback to the new trainees. In the working environment that feedback is even more important as a mistake made could cost the company financially. Handling other people’s money can become highly charged especially when something is perceived as going wrong. There are layers upon layers of company as well as legal rules and regulations involved to make sure those handling financial transactions are within compliance. Support from seasoned employees assures and reinforces the understanding that is needed to help customers while staying within compliance.


2. Training consists of 16 hours of in class study during which theory is learned. There may be some applied training where students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. There is no testing during the 16 hours of training nor at the end.

After 16 hours of training there is no feedback to the new trainee. There is no mentoring or internship for the new trainee. Experience is gained at the expense of the consumer. There is no means of testing whether the new trainee is within compliance or whether or not there is a basic understanding of the rules that govern the way he/ she is to operate.

While dealing with a person’s finances is a world apart from dealing with the complexities of a divorcing family there are similarities. Both can become highly charged when something is perceived as going wrong. Both can have a huge impact on the individual(s) involved both currently and into the future. It is the training though that defines how well one does the job in question.

With the training examples given we see the training one receives for handling people's money and for handling people's lives. We see that with one - the process given to train people is extremely careful in its approach. That there are tools and systems to give support so that errors may be caught before they become major issues and hurt a person or family. There are safeguards in place to help the trainee to continue to refine what has been learned and gain experience and to do so not at the expense of the consumer. With the other we see a training process that has been developed to handle people - children and families - who are in crisis and need help. The actions of these trainees have the very real possibility of scaring the people they are supposed to help. There are no tools to help the trainees at any time. Experience comes at the expense of the families and children.  There are no safeguards in place to prevent this damage from happening. There are no systems to catch errors before they become issues.

The first is an example of a training process that is used by businesses. The second is used by the Judicial Branch in training Guardians ad litem. Would you rather  have a Guardian ad litem who has gone through a training process that has clearly defined goals, offers some means to measure understanding and offers support through mentoring and internship programs? Or would you rather have someone who has gone through the current training process of sitting in a room and warming a seat for several hours?

The answer is obvious. The Judicial Branch has a training process for Guardians ad litem that in a business environment would fail to meet the needs of consumers. Under the current model the Judicial Branch would be overwhelmed with problems and it would either go out of business because of competition from businesses that have better training programs or it would change to meet the needs of those it is supposed to serve.  But…. The Judicial Branch is not a business but a monopoly that is accountable to no one. It also has lost sight who it is supposed to serve - being more concerned with how the stakeholders will react than consumers. As a result sub-standard training is allowed and even encouraged. Where those that come up with the training (the stakeholders) curriculum do so based on their own experience. To say (or post on ones "Professional Trainings" page) that one has experience in developing training does not mean one has the necessary tools or experience to do so. Currently there is no cohesiveness in the goal of Guardian ad litem training.

The training for Guardians ad litem should be removed from the control of the Judicial Branch and the stakeholders that are enmeshed in deciding what is acceptable training. Training should be done by professionals who know and understand the goals that are to be achieved and have experience in developing curriculum.


Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform on Facebook or email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com