“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

Who is watching our GALs?

In our opinion, Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute and others who consider GAL supervision, seem to have totally overlooked the complex goals, legal boundaries, chain of command, risks and authority issues that pervade any grounded concept of GAL supervision. Anyone proposing supervision designs - of any sort -  must think through the snags and pitfalls that may not be apparent at first.  As but one example, it appears to us that Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute's present, existing concept of group supervision of GAL's cases has not been carefully analyzed in terms of the multiple systems issues that are apt to challenge it.  In our view, among other considerations, it quite possibly may be in violation of the laws of confidentiality.

GAL supervision is a  very complicated issue.  Conceptually, one is looking at the idea of supervising "an officer of the court" who is appointed - not employed -  by the court,  whose fees come from consumers who are adversaries of each other, and who may themselves in the end be adversaries of the GAL.  Then, there is the child who is supposed to be the GAL's primary client and, finally, there is the judge.  Who precisely is the GAL working for?

Because GALs are created by the Judicial Branch of Maine government, and  since they are appointed by a district court and work under court orders, they are working for Maine's public court system.  And ... under what authority would the supervision of a court officer derive?  There appears to be nothing in the statutes that defines the roles and responsibilities of a GAL supervisor in any type of what might be called broadly supervisory activities.  Can non-governmental outsiders (like Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute) empower themselves - just by say - so - to supervise public officials of the Judicial system, such as judges, clerks or GALs?  By what process of legitimation?   Wouldn't a GAL supervisor also need to be created by the Judicial Branch and appointed by courts to supervise every GAL?  What would be the goals of GAL supervision: a focus on how a GAL fulfills statutory role requirements, a focus on handling clients, a focus on dealing with the courts? How would such a supervisor evaluate the GAL's handling of each of these separate  relationships?  What would be the chain of command for a supervisor?   To whom would a supervisor report, what would they required to report, and what supervisory standards would they observe?  Who would evaluate the supervisors, what would they evaluate and how would they do it?

Just declaring that you are a supervisor of a court appointee, a GAL or whomever, doesn't make it legitimate.  It is ungrounded, unclear in terms of its legitimating auspices, lacks a basis in law and it raises a slew of subsequent questions.  Or ... otherwise, anyone could simply declare themselves the "supervisor" of, say,  the Chief Justice - out of thin air, because of some shared common interest.  Obviously, such a claim would be totally presumptuous or misguided.

There are a number of other serious questions about this complex, potentially conflicted set of supervisory relationships that at present seem to go unexamined and unanswered.  Most importantly, who owns the highly sensitive, private  information about the family - the object of supervision, and who can give permission for a GAL to share it with a GAL supervisor (without legal standing), who is unknown to the parties? The court, the GAL, the clients, the child?  What happens to any idea of confidentiality in this supervision?  What is the liability of a potential GAL supervisor, if there are complaints of malpractice about a GAL?  Is a putative GAL supervisor responsible for reporting supervisee malpractice to the authorities?  Can they be subpoenaed in court cases?    Are GAL supervisors in a position similar to Catholic bishops in cases of clergy abuse?  Would a supervisor share the legal immunity claimed by a GAL, where would it come from and what would be its extent?  Would malpractice insurance cover GAL supervisors; would they be required to have it?  Can a supervisor who is also, say, a lawyer, an advocate, a lobbyist and a promoter of the GAL industry, also provide objective supervision on work quality of a colleague, who is a partner in these other activities?  Isn't there an inherent conflict in these roles, and isn't it likely to occur?   We feel that there would be a lot of built - in role conflict, and we doubt that any putative GAL supervisor would willingly "rat on a professional buddy" with whom they work closely in other activities - educational, political to name a few.

It is our sense that there have been attempts in the past - made without analysis of the complexities of the systems involved to graft a social work conceptual model of supervision onto the role of a GAL,  someone who works under the auspices of a regulated public, legal system and there is no basis for that sort of graft to take on a foreign system, and ... beaucoup problems.

 The issue of GAL supervision is a good example of how attempts to solve a problem with insufficient analysis and insufficient input from other perspectives might actually make the problem worse!  There is a need for outside consultation and consumer input on the issue of GAL supervision!


In the best interest of Maine's children!