When a large bureaucratic system is broken, with no management oversight and disdain for "users" of the system, it has a corrupting effect on everyone who must work in or use the system.
Many of our friends have commented with puzzlement about the weakness of their lawyer's defense of their divorce and custody issues. Some divorce lawyers talk a good game to clients in the office or on the phone, but wilt in court. There seems to be an effort to avoid ruffling the feathers of the GAL- or worse- the judge. Most clients expect that an expensive attorney will defend their case vigorously. It is confusing at first for clients to see the lawyer shift roles from "office superman" to "courtroom wimp". Gradually, many clients will recognize that there is something wrong with this picture.
There is frequently only a behavioral acknowledgment by your lawyer that he is working in a corrupt, totalitarian, insensitive and often illogical system. Lawyerly courage in defending your case will not be rewarded by the court, and a brave lawyer's future practice in that court is apt to be very dim. But the role shift from "superman" to "wimp" is so puzzling- so contrary to what we expect, that it may take a while to recognize and to overcome our denial ("this can't be happening").
The intent of sharing this letter, from which identities have been removed as much as possible, is not to condemn a particular lawyer's lack of courage and avoidance of conflict in court. It is an attempt to analyze further, why the family court system does not work for many families. There are those in the Judicial Branch, who say that the current system works if you just use it properly. This is true in theory, on paper, but ... there is widespread recognition by lawyers that they are tip-toeing through a "minefield" when they challenge a Guardian ad litem in front of a judge. It is about challenging judicial outsourcing- challenging a Guardian ad litem as the judge's deputy. Guardians ad litem as "junior judges, isn't on the books, but it is no less real.
It is this unspoken, behavioral acknowledgment, this awareness of professional danger that is more powerful that the rules on paper. A lawyer SHOULD be able to challenge a Guardian ad litem. However, there are enough who don't, because of professional fear of the consequences of a challenge. We think that the problem derives from the GAL's relationship to the judge. If the Guardian ad litem were only representing the child, it might make challenges easier.
Lawyerly fear is as powerful a determining factor, which limits Guardian ad litem challenges, as are the rules which say it is possible to challenge!
Here is an example:
Subject: Letter to a divorce lawyer
Divorce Attorney, Esq
Dear Attorney,
I have been copied on your response to your client's e-mail, and I am offering my own reactions to it. In it in you are effectively blaming your client for "misunderstanding"- what I would see as your complete disregard of his recent written requests to you about handling his GAL's bill. In two e-mails he asked (1) that you take no further action on the matter of his GAL's outrageous bill without first informing him of your plans, and (2) that you include, as an addendum, his memo to you proposing what he wants to see: (a) a cap on the bill, and (b) a series of very detailed reasons why the bill is problematic in its entirety. You have ignored both of his written requests on this matter. Furthermore, you have offered no reasons for your disregard.
It is very disturbing for all of us to witness this m.o., and it is not for the first time. It raises questions about your execution of your client's wishes, and also what you are doing and what are your aims? Perhaps, mistakenly, you feel you know better than your client what he wants or what he can achieve? Or ... does a failure to discuss the issues in advance with your client, allow you greater freedom of action to avoid personal professional awkwardness with the other players? Whose interest is served by this m.o.; yours or your client's?
You may recall that we had a number of, at first vaguely-formed, questions from the onset of the whole GAL adventure. At the beginning of the divorce. Initially, we knew little about GALs and the GAL process, so like any novices entering this arena we relied on you, as an experienced lawyer to inform us. As time went on, we increasingly wondered with alarm about how you were handling the GAL and your aims- if any? It lead us in desperation to hire another attorney to sort things out. The contrast between this attorney, a former GAL, and you in dealing with the GAL, was "night and day". No longer was it necessary to deny the reality of gross incompetence, harmful decisions and flagrant crookedness on the part of the GAL. But now that his attorney is out of the picture, there appears to be a reversion to your earlier policy of near total accommodation to the GAL.
Let me raise a few direct questions that have made us all very uneasy for a long time about how you are handling things:
1.) "This GAL is the best!" was your unequivocal endorsement at our first meeting with you in your office, where we addressed our puzzlement about the need for a GAL in this case. At that time, we never questioned the basis for your endorsement. But as time went on, and the GAL showed her colors, we asked ourselves: "How did you know? Had you used her in your professional work before? Were you acquainted with her in more personal terms, as a client or as the relative of a client? What did "best"mean? Informed consent in agreeing to the GAL process is important, and we assumed you were helping us to take that step. Had you some professional basis for your endorsement of this GAL when you told us she was "the best"? What basis?
2.) More recently you have altered your endorsement to: "I've never seen her act this way before." The inference might be from this observation that it's the our family that brings out her crookedness; it's situational. You have never told any of us at any time during this process, exactly how you, as a lawyer, evaluate her performance as a GAL. Is she top shelf or substandard? Yes, you have reluctantly moved on the Motion to Remove, but only after extreme pressure, and after including- without my permission- a strong, confidential memo from me to the Social Work Board that should never have been a part of the motion, a signal to the GAL (it's really just our family). Do you currently think that she is OK, or a menace to the public? Would you endorse her to future clients? Why did you table our detailed formal critique, a thoughtful response to the glaring deficiencies and errors in her final GAL report? In so doing you protected her from fire, but it wasn't in your client's interest. It is this sort of thing that makes us feel that you are not really on our team.
3.) Increasingly, our family has wondered about whether there is some latent or actual conflict of interest of some kind that underlies your kid gloves approach to the GAL. Do you or your firm currently have (or have you had) other business with her or members of her family? Have members of your family had involvement with her- clinical or otherwise? On every opportunity when there is a need to confront her poor judgment with actual evidence, you seem to write a stern letter, then dodge or back off, effectively making the GAL the deciding judge in you client's affairs. It has been a disturbing pattern. Our lawyer consultant demonstrated that total surrender to this GAL wasn't necessary to relate in a professionally respectable manner to a GAL. Is there a conflict?
4.) Your current plan for a 1/2 hour meeting in court to resolve the matter of the GAL's bill is an example of what we are talking about. Given the limited time you are requesting and with no prior list of justifying reasons for why the bill is outrageous, you are passing the decision to the GAL, the opposing attorney and the Judge. We've seen this program before, and it has always been a very bad one whatever happens in the privacy of a phone conference or in judges chambers with no client witnessing the actions, your negotiations are dismal. We invariably lose. In terms of the child's final custody decision. In the divorce decree, you have actually managed to negotiate less time for the child with his father than they had before the divorce! It is hard to understand how you could negotiate less or why.
5.) I would suggest to your client that he ask you to withdraw your request for a hearing on the GAL's bill. Immediately. You have no endorsement for the present action from your client. For things to proceed on this matter, you need your client's endorsement, you need a written financial proposal to the court that your client agrees to, you need a list of deficiencies in the bill distributed in advance with the hearing request, and for that it is obvious that you need more than 1/2 hour. It also needs to take place in the courtroom, not in the privacy of chambers, so that your client can watch your actions and guide you in what he will accept. You also need to be prepared to decline to compromise on unfair settlements. Let the judge decide if he is inclined to be punitive.
This is a very difficult letter, long over due. You might ask from our list of dissatisfactions why we continue with you? We have asked ourselves the same question many times. Our answer is that at this point, we feel totally trapped. You have all of the records of the case, we cannot begin afresh and bring a newcomer up to speed, nor can we afford a new retainer. We are stuck. As a way out of our mutual dilemma, I would ask that you consult with our consulting attorney on the GAL's bill and how she would resolve it. And proceed accordingly. your client cannot afford the GAL's bill. It will cripple his ability to provide for his son (and himself). It needs strong action
Sincerely,
Involved Family Member
(On behalf of the parent)
Showing posts with label Special Interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Special Interest. Show all posts
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Monday, March 4, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Special Interest MEGALI proposing new Rules for Parental Coordinators to the Supreme Judicial Court
Original posting follows - Since this was originally posted the states Supreme Court has decided based on the recommendation and contributions of opinions by the public to not adopt the rules as presented by MEGALI. For the official ruling: ORDER ON PROPOSED MAINE RULES FOR PARENTING COORDINATORS We want to thank everyone who helped. Thank you for your efforts.
On January 10, 2013 the Supreme Judicial Court gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for Parenting Coordinators. The deadline for those comments were on of before January 25, 2013. At the time that this is being written none of those comments were posted and it is not know whether or not any will be posted.
We feel that it is in the public’s best interest to know what is happening and why. That the rules, as they were presented to the court, were drafted by the special interest group – Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (the trade organization for Guardians ad litem). That Terry Hayes (a Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute member) has drafted legislation for Parental Coordinator to retain the position. There are many people in the state that have been hurt by these unregulated officers of the court – much the same as with Guardians ad litem – which both Terry Hayes, Tobi Schneider and Toby Hollander (Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute President) are aware of. What the rules and proposed legislation appear to ask for are the same qualities that Guardians ad litem enjoy – thus ensuring what is in the best interest of the Parental Coordinator for a case and not what is in the child’s best interest.
Common Sense, a job description, protection for divorcing families from financial ruin and looking at child endangerment are issues that are not addressed with the proposed rules and legislation. The state cannot afford a carbon copy of what it has with the mess involving Guardians ad litem. The rules and legislation appear as nothing more than serving the self interest of those who call or would like to call Parental Coordinator their 'profession'.
The fifth in this series of letters is posted today. The previous four are presented after with links to pdf documents. Any names and personal information have been redacted:
It has come to my attention that there will be another hearing regarding Guardians ad Litum this
week.
As I stated in my last email, I am a social worker and have worked on teams helping families who are going through difficult times. My team works primarily with children at risk of removal from their home. Many times, the underlying issue is the stress caused by the parents whether they are living as a family or have separated. There are always mental health issues, not only for the child being treated, but with the parents as well.
When parents who fought while they lived together separate, the issues become even larger. Often times parents use their children as a tool against the other parent (so they will WIN) and horrific allegations are made. Teasing through the truth is not simple or easy and certainly, attorneys or others who do not have training/education in mental health treatment are not qualified to make these assessments. The GAL might refer the parents, or sometimes, just one parent, for assessments but these assessments are not enough to see the issues clearly. Attorneys and judges are not qualified to interpret assessments or to dig a little deeper to find the real truths.
At the very least, GALs should be required to have supervision with a qualified mental health practioner. Otherwise, an inexperienced person with no mental health background can interpret information incorrectly. Often times, a GAL's personal biases will determine their final decisions. I have seen this happen too often.
It should not take months and months for a GAL to make a determination. Again, with the proper training and supervision, the truth will reveal itself. Dragging these decisions out only adds to the stress and and increases the cost of GAL services, often placing one parent in financial distress. . AND in the end, the decisions do not always benefit the child,
I am not an advocate of anger management therapies as these therapies address only one parent's issues. There are two parents involved and it takes two to fight. There should be a thorough assessment done on both parents to reveal the truths. Please take the time to obtain a Diagnostic Statistic Manual IV (DSM IV) and read the information on personality disorders. You will find the information enlightening.
Forcing just one parent into assessments, and having the information, right or wrong, included in GAL reports which are being read by people with no education in mental health assessment, is also a violation of one's civil rights.
I recently supported a friend through a hearing and when the GAL included new information about the mother, the judge did not listen to the GAL and ignored concerns about the mother that were presented. In this case, the mother has a serious personality disorder which affects how she is raising their child. The woman presents well, but a trained professional is able to uncover the underlying issues. The child has been "brainwashed" into believing his father will hurt him and the result is depression and anxiety. This benefits the mother as she can say the child's diagnoses support her concerns for his well being, and extends the separation of child and father.
The matter at hand is the welfare of the child/ren and it is certainly worth your time to educate yourselves. Problems in childhood carry on through adulthood and the circle of violence often becomes generational.
Thank you for your time,
Name Redacted LSW BHP MHRT/c
Previous Letters:
Public Comment 001
Public Comment 002 2013-01-29
Public Comment 003 2013-01-30
Public Comment 004 2013-01-31
If you would like more information on Parental Coordinators please contact us at: parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com or feel free to comment.
On January 10, 2013 the Supreme Judicial Court gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for Parenting Coordinators. The deadline for those comments were on of before January 25, 2013. At the time that this is being written none of those comments were posted and it is not know whether or not any will be posted.
We feel that it is in the public’s best interest to know what is happening and why. That the rules, as they were presented to the court, were drafted by the special interest group – Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (the trade organization for Guardians ad litem). That Terry Hayes (a Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute member) has drafted legislation for Parental Coordinator to retain the position. There are many people in the state that have been hurt by these unregulated officers of the court – much the same as with Guardians ad litem – which both Terry Hayes, Tobi Schneider and Toby Hollander (Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute President) are aware of. What the rules and proposed legislation appear to ask for are the same qualities that Guardians ad litem enjoy – thus ensuring what is in the best interest of the Parental Coordinator for a case and not what is in the child’s best interest.
Common Sense, a job description, protection for divorcing families from financial ruin and looking at child endangerment are issues that are not addressed with the proposed rules and legislation. The state cannot afford a carbon copy of what it has with the mess involving Guardians ad litem. The rules and legislation appear as nothing more than serving the self interest of those who call or would like to call Parental Coordinator their 'profession'.
The fifth in this series of letters is posted today. The previous four are presented after with links to pdf documents. Any names and personal information have been redacted:
It has come to my attention that there will be another hearing regarding Guardians ad Litum this
week.
As I stated in my last email, I am a social worker and have worked on teams helping families who are going through difficult times. My team works primarily with children at risk of removal from their home. Many times, the underlying issue is the stress caused by the parents whether they are living as a family or have separated. There are always mental health issues, not only for the child being treated, but with the parents as well.
When parents who fought while they lived together separate, the issues become even larger. Often times parents use their children as a tool against the other parent (so they will WIN) and horrific allegations are made. Teasing through the truth is not simple or easy and certainly, attorneys or others who do not have training/education in mental health treatment are not qualified to make these assessments. The GAL might refer the parents, or sometimes, just one parent, for assessments but these assessments are not enough to see the issues clearly. Attorneys and judges are not qualified to interpret assessments or to dig a little deeper to find the real truths.
At the very least, GALs should be required to have supervision with a qualified mental health practioner. Otherwise, an inexperienced person with no mental health background can interpret information incorrectly. Often times, a GAL's personal biases will determine their final decisions. I have seen this happen too often.
It should not take months and months for a GAL to make a determination. Again, with the proper training and supervision, the truth will reveal itself. Dragging these decisions out only adds to the stress and and increases the cost of GAL services, often placing one parent in financial distress. . AND in the end, the decisions do not always benefit the child,
I am not an advocate of anger management therapies as these therapies address only one parent's issues. There are two parents involved and it takes two to fight. There should be a thorough assessment done on both parents to reveal the truths. Please take the time to obtain a Diagnostic Statistic Manual IV (DSM IV) and read the information on personality disorders. You will find the information enlightening.
Forcing just one parent into assessments, and having the information, right or wrong, included in GAL reports which are being read by people with no education in mental health assessment, is also a violation of one's civil rights.
I recently supported a friend through a hearing and when the GAL included new information about the mother, the judge did not listen to the GAL and ignored concerns about the mother that were presented. In this case, the mother has a serious personality disorder which affects how she is raising their child. The woman presents well, but a trained professional is able to uncover the underlying issues. The child has been "brainwashed" into believing his father will hurt him and the result is depression and anxiety. This benefits the mother as she can say the child's diagnoses support her concerns for his well being, and extends the separation of child and father.
The matter at hand is the welfare of the child/ren and it is certainly worth your time to educate yourselves. Problems in childhood carry on through adulthood and the circle of violence often becomes generational.
Thank you for your time,
Name Redacted LSW BHP MHRT/c
Previous Letters:
Public Comment 001
Public Comment 002 2013-01-29
Public Comment 003 2013-01-30
Public Comment 004 2013-01-31
If you would like more information on Parental Coordinators please contact us at: parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com or feel free to comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)