In the Child's Best Interest - July 8 2013 - Guardian ad litem Reform in Maine

Monday, July 8th is a day for Maine children and families dealing with some aspect of divorce, to celebrate. Against all odds, against our wildest expectations, in our first year of existence as "grass-roots" advocates, we have a comprehensive Guardian ad litem reform bill! And... believe it or not, Maine - dare I say it - is leading the country.

It isn't that other states haven't done bits and pieces of Guardian ad litem reform, a legislative "tweak" here or there, but, as we well know, all would-be "change agents" face awesome "headwinds". The opponents of Guardian ad litem reform as we know are truly formidable. The Guardians ad litem themselves, the family lawyers, the family court judges and the whole apparatus of the Judicial Branch, the infamous "stakeholders" know the system, know the existing law, are well organized professionally and have the financial resources to wage a political war.

But we have made good friends who have spoken the truth, ever more loudly....

We have an ever growing, much cherished group of Megalalert friends. We have bit by bit, using modern media, expanded our group, talked, shared and born witness to the horrors of a serious Guardian ad litem scandal in Maine's Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch's Guardian ad litem program - with no oversight, no supervision and legal codes that have further re-enforced a lack of accountability - have pursued the self interest of its workers without visible restraint. And many children and their families have been badly hurt, as a result. Despite the very defensive claims of the Judicial Branch that it is about "bad sports", people who have had a bad custody decision, this has never been the focus of our issues. Our issues are about cruelty in decision making, ignorance in practice and blind greed. Our issues are about governing structures in the Guardian ad litem program that don't work, that fail the people who need them most. Our issues are about a Guardian ad litem program data base on sheets of paper  in cardboard boxes in district courts, which the Supreme Court can't regularly access for management oversight.  They don't know they don't know!

Our friends have courageously born witness in public, legislative testimony.

We now have an educated legislature that has full knowledge of the Guardian ad litem problems, thanks to yeoman's work by Senator David Dutremble, Representative Lisa Villa, Senator Linda Valentino and other members of the Judiciary Committee. We have a unanimous majority of the 35 members of the Maine Senate, who see the Guardian ad litem problem. It would be hard to find legislators in denial, after an awesome  "educational session" with Senator Dutremble!

It is about everyone speaking the truth about the problem with simple courage.

It is also about support from the Executive Branch of our government: meetings of the Governor and constituents on Saturdays, as people poured out their hearts about personal victimization by Guardians ad litem, and the Governor listened.  It is about Executive Branch participation in planning legislation from the first meeting in December 2012.  It is about personal calls from the Governor to constituents, urging them to overcome their fears and testify to the Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2013. It is about the Governor signing the bill on July 8th.

At its core, it is an improbable story of "the power of the powerless", the power of "Truth" that can't be silenced, about courage and determination.

And ... friendship!

For more information please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook. In addition if you would like to express your opinion on the cost of Guardian ad litem service of the performance of a GAL. We would encourage you to take our survey. The results will be published later this summer (2013). The surveys can be found - here - Cost   Performance. Thank you.

"This GALs is the best" - An open letter to a Lawyer about representing a clients needs

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)

The Role of Judicial "Out Sourcing" in Divorce Custody Cases

An out of state friend has suggested the concept of judicial out sourcing as a way of describing the use of Guardians ad litem and associated divorce helpers, coaches and therapists in Maine Family Courts (and elsewhere). The basic idea is that today, judges almost routinely call upon ancillary court workers, like Guardians ad litem, and delegate, or subcontract to them, important aspects of their judicial function in family law divorce/custody cases. The ancillary worker “borrows” judicial authority, power and legal immunity and conducts an investigation into disputed child custody claims. Previously what used to be decided by an open, adversarial trial, in a courtroom, following the precedents of age old common law, now gets mediated, negotiated, manipulated or forced outside of court into unsatisfactory resolution by workers who frequently lack a legal background, lack public accountability and who lack recognizable skills in mediation or negotiation. Common law gets thrown to the wind in these procedural nightmares in which there may be multiple other helping “sub-subcontractors”, all acting as ‘de facto’, mini judges.

We would maintain that judicial out sourcing in divorce custody cases is corrupting decision-making in family court cases involving custody. It is the cause of much confusion and bad feeling for all parties. This confusion is the direct result of the delegation of judicial functions to various, well-intentioned judicial “helpers” who are unregulated, unsupervised, unaccountable, poorly trained and who, as a result, frequently operate in idiosyncratic, capricious, unprofessional ways to the detriment of families and children.

One of the criticisms of Guardians ad litem in the 2006 Maine OPEGA report (Office of Program Evaluation and Governmental Accountability) was the lack of clear role definition for Guardians ad litem. There is no job description for GALs. There are rules and standards for Guardians ad litem, but there is no oversight and no enforcement from any management structure within the Judicial Branch. The result is that GALs essentially are free to do their “own thing”, interpret rules and standards as they see fit, see them as suggestions or loose guidelines, or ignore them completely, with no consequences. The bad feeling that the public experiences from this “lawlessness” is incalculable. Judges frequently feel that they have oversight from courtroom observation alone, or from ‘ex parte’ communications. But these judicial claims of oversight lack the knowledge about what goes on out of court between the GAL and the parties and they become unavoidably biased by confidential 'ex parte' communications between judge and GAL. These out of courtroom conversations between judges and GALs also destroy the common law concept of open decisions openly arrived at - to say nothing of the inherent “due process” violations in secret 'ex parte' communications.

Then there are the quasi-amateur mediation and negotiation functions undertaken by GALs that further corrupt legal proceedings. In these nontraditional functions, GALs often try to operate with a postmodern, conceptual framework of “moral equivalency”. In all cases, each party is equally “bad”. It is a parody of impartiality. Whatever “A” did is balanced in this perverted equation by equally bad things done by “B”. If “A” beat their child to a pulp; it was caused by living with “B”, who was “caustic and controlling” or so emotionally difficult to be with that any “normal” parent would do the same to his/her child out of frustration. Parent A drinks: Parent B drove him/her to drink. Parent A does “bad” things; Parent B pushed his/her buttons. He/she couldn’t help themself! ”Victims” in these situations are rescued by the GAL’s use of “pop” sociology, “pop” psychology. This ‘faux science’ has been called “junk science” by a California group seeking tighter oversight on the all too common use of non-expert GALs as “expert witnesses” in court. Then there is use of force by GALs to gain consent to a biased custody agreement. Raw force is frequently hidden by threats that non agreement will lead to “recommendations” to reduce the non-compliant parent’s visitation with his/her child, to “recommendations” that he/she must do anger therapy (for normal anger?), to needs for expensive co-parenting therapy- all of these are highly disputable, unproved forms of forced “help”. They are supposedly “remedies” but they are without any definition of the problem needing remediation. They add enormous confusion and huge cost to the proceedings for the parties involved. And forced “help” of whatever kind is outside of common law. It is basically punishment without a trial. Yet the illegality of “force” is ignored, and these barbarisms find refuge in the armamentaria of Maine family court judges. We can point to many cases in which this has taken place.

The Judiciary needs to clean house when it comes to ancillary “divorce midwives”, who complicate the delivery of a custody judgment in a contended divorce. GALs, anger therapists, negotiators, mediators, co-parenting counselors and the rapidly growing cast of expensive divorce help end by piling confusion on confusion- and dollar on dollar. Are these “helpers” really necessary? Do they help? They totally pervert the judicial process. And they lack any scientific basis or credibility outside of the courts which use them. We need to ask, why are they better than an adversarial trial in court? Can anyone show us reputable scientific studies that would endorse the effectiveness of these “therapies” which are popular and boosted by many Maine courtrooms? We can safely say that there are none. These are legal “therapies” promoted by judges and their subcontractors with no other basis than that judges like them.

These harmful practices need to end. They cannot be repaired. If you have been involved with a Guardian ad litem where things just don't make sense – please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook to stay up to date on the issues.

Almost 40 years with no Compliance System for Guardians ad litem

In 2006 OPEGA ( Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability ) produced a report highlighting some of the problems with the Guardian ad litem program in Maine. What OPEGA highlighted back in 2006 for Maine are issues that sadly can be seen in many states across the country.

One of the audit findings by OPEGA was that there is a lack of compliance, performance controls and evaluation systems. The Judicial Branch has not been competent when it comes to oversight or performance monitoring in the 30+ years prior to the report.  Six years later we find the Judicial Branch still without any quality controls in place to monitor and evaluate Guardians ad litem. There is no mechanism to identify GALs that are not complying with requirements or who are not involved in the lives of the child(ren). OPEGA also recommended the establishment of an independent oversight board that would ask for feedback on GAL performance. Being able to give feedback and having a place where this feedback, good or bad, is available for consumers would help in the matter of oversight and management. An Angie’s list of sorts would weed out under performing GALs or limit their business. Those that perform to standards would be rewarded for their ethics and behavior.

It was 30+ years before OPEGA investigated and reported on this issue. Six years later the situation has not changed except that there has been 6 more years of damage to Maine's families and children. How much longer will Maine's children have to wait for change to come? If we wait for the Judicial Branch to bring about change it may be another 40 years. Can we wait that long?

If you want to read a summarized copy of the 2006 OPRGA report click here.


A copy of the report done in 2012 – the Power of the Powerless which covers many of the same issues can be found here.


If you are or know someone who has had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us for support at MeGALalert@gmail.com. We can also be found on Facebook.

A Proposal for Guardian ad litem reform from the Executive Branch of Maine Government

As citizens of Maine, we challenge the Judiciary and their political base, the divorce industry: Is there a single current report or any data whatsoever that shows where Guardians ad litem have had a positive influence on children and their parents? The Judiciary and the divorce industry repeatedly claim that there is no problem with the present GAL situation and their bland denial of a problem is not sufficient when the well being of our Maine children and families are at stake. If there is no problem as this group would have us believe then why is there such overwhelming evidence that contradicts their claim. Do a search on Guardian ad litem reform or problems and the searcher is faced with a mountain of information and reasons why there are problems.

These problems run the gamut from punitively high costs, to non-existant management and control to cases where the Guardian ad litem is blind to child endangerment. Least we not forget - the Guardian ad litem program is a state sponsored, state created and state perpetuated program which lacks any form of management as other state programs have. The Judiciary is a tax funded state agency. Is this lack of oversight in the "childs best interest"?

Maine produced an incredibly thoughtful report back in 2006 done by OPEGA (Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability). It is a report that highlighted many issues with title 22 (Children's Protective) cases. We feel, from our experience, that the issues brought to light are also directly relevant to all cases involving  GALs and are not just specific to title 22. The selection, training and functions of GALs are identical no matter what their work focus. The Rules and Regulations that are supposed to govern them are identical, and the complaint procedure, whatever it may be, is identical.

The 2006 OPEGA Audit on Guardian ad litem performance was the first and only Guardian ad litem functional evaluation in over thirty years. OPEGA made 11 sensible recommendations on how the Guardian ad litem program could be made more accountable. In brief the program suffered from a lack of any standard recognizable form of program management. In the six years since – none of the recommendations have been implemented by the Judicial branch here in Maine.

This should come as no surprise as the Judicial Branch has no management tools for oversight. In addition, they have to walk carefully to avoid offending their political base in the divorce industry, an array of powerful lawyers, Guardians ad litem, and others who make a rich living from divorce. They have dragged their feet on a problem that they are encouraged by their base to view as coming from just a few people. The Judicial branch and divorce industry have repeatedly pointed out that  there are only on average 13-14 complaints a year and that one or two result in any kind of action. 

These threadbare numbers need to be put into context. Why are they so low? Does the Judicial Branch make it easy for consumers with legitimate issues to complain? Do they use complaints as a management information tool to correct Guardian ad litem practitioners, or to improve the program? We have followed some of these complaints, and the problems with the complaint process are obvious. No criteria for making a complaint, no instructions, no feed back and no opportunity to rebut a Guardian ad litem's denial. These figures have no weight at all. The Judicial Branch runs an undemocratic, unregulated, authoritarian system that is at pains to cater to the divorce industry. We can realistically expect no change in this 'modus operandi'. The Judiciary and divorce industry are unlikely to self-regulate in ways that will correct the problems and serve the public and our children.  

The committee currently working with members of the divorce industry will make change - a word here and a word there. The changes being worked on by the industry and Judicial Branch will do nothing more than reinforce the status quo. Meanwhile the life-style of the divorce industry will continue riding upon the backs of consumers who must mortgage their homes, increase their indebtedness and worry about the future education of their children. Maine Guardian ad litem Alert has been made aware of over 40 reasonable complaints that stem from improper management of Guardians ad litem. This since May of 2012. It is interesting to note that 8 of these complaints  are against just 2 Guardians ad litem. There is a problem here and it is not limited to "just a few unhappy people" as one prominent Senator pointed out back in January 2012.

We encourage you to check out what OPEGA recommended back in 2006. The OPEGA recommendations need to be implemented, the entire Guardian ad litem program needs to be moved to the Administrative Branch (as other states have done) where there can be real program management.


2006 OPEGA – GAL Final Report

2006 OPEGA – Executive Summary

2006 OPEGA – Annual Report pages 19-20 extracted

2012 The Power of the Powerless


If you or someone you know has had issues with a Guardian ad litem we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com

Will this really be good for the Consumer?

Making an official complaint about the Guardian ad litem who has worked with you and your family is a daunting process. It forces you to deal with the Judicial Branch of our state government, which is an unfamiliar organization and an unfamiliar activity for most people.  You have to guess what they will agree is a valid complaint. At the moment, unlike the state of NH, our Judicial Branch gives no instruction about how to. The current complaint process simply says, if you believe that a Guardian ad litem has not acted in the “best interests” of your child, you may make a complaint to the Chief Judge of the District Courts. It has been a most frustrating process for most grassroots consumers. The answer from this process seems to be inevitable: dismissal - without reasons given or without a chance to participate in the investigation or rebut the Guardian ad litem’s defense.

But ... in response to public pressure, the Judicial Branch has just finished drafting  a “new" complaint process concerning Guardians ad litem. In our view, it is NOT an improvement over the old procedure.  Unless... you are planning to go to law school for instructions in how to use this new complaint procedure by yourself. It was designed in 3, 2 hour meetings by a committee of 20 persons, all but one are called,“stake holders”, read: members of the divorce industry; District court judges, family law lawyers, and Guardians ad litem. Given their special interests, they did a terrific job of “bullet proofing” Guardians ad litem from public complaints.  

The Judicial Branch has settled on a process that is not consumer friendly, but it is very Guardian ad litem friendly. Its fancy legalistics make the current process look like a primitive bow and arrow approach.  It has been endorsed by 19 of the 20 Judicial Branch Committee members (one public member dissented in a “minority” report). It now goes to the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature for approval. We sincerely hope that it isn’t approved.

The basic structure of what is being proposed adds several layers of complexity and will take considerable time to complete. It will be administered by The Overseers of the Bar, which is under the Judicial Branch.  As we understand it, the steps one would have to go through would roughly follow:

1. File your complaint in writing (no instructions yet), and a staff lawyer on the Overseers of the Bar will review the complaint to decide whether or not it has merit, and you will be told why. If it is felt to be without merit, then the complaint would die here. If it is felt to have merit, then it goes to a panel, a committee, the majority of whom are Guardians ad litem.  Consumers are also on the panel buy in a minority position, and we don’t know how consumer is defined: friends of Guardians ad litem or consumers who will advocate for the public?
2. The first Panel - would review the complaint and conduct an investigation of the complaint. This process could take anywhere from one month to five or six. If the first Panel determines there is no merit to the complaint, it is rejected and the reason for rejection is sent to both the Guardian ad litem and complainer. If on the other hand the complaint is accepted, then it goes to the second Panel.
3. The second Panel - would review the complaint independently and conduct an investigation of the complaint. This process could take anywhere from one to (unknown) months. If the second Committee determines there is no merit to the complaint, it is rejected (dismissed). If on the other hand the complaint is accepted then it goes to what would amount to as a mini trial.
4. The Mini Trial - Both sides would come together to plead their case. You as the person who filed the complaint would have to prove that the Guardian ad litem had abused his/ her position/ role. The Guardian ad litem would have to prove nothing. The burden of proof is on the one complaining. If you were not able to prove your case the trial would end end the complaint would be dismissed.

In all fairness, we may have some of this legalistic tangle wrong. Our excuse is that we haven’t been to law school yet, but we’re considering it! Our own difficulty in understanding this process, as informed consumers makes the point that it is indeed confusing. As a consumer - would you feel comfortable when faced with such a daunting labyrinthine task as we understand it?

The Judicial Branch, in proposing this complex, lengthy  process, is saying to the public that they want nothing to do with oversight. That the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the consumer to determine quality of their officers of the court. Can you prove we have a defective officer of the Court to two Panels of other Officers of the Court?  It is a tough assignment!  Can anybody do it?

As the consumer filing this complaint you quite possible will want to hire a lawyer. That will cost you the time and expense. An additional detail:  the Judicial Branch is asking to TAX every divorcing couple $100 to cover the cost of this extremely user-unfriendly process. Imagine the next time you go to a store and purchase something and being told that you are going to be charged extra - to cover the cost of any potential complaint you may have. The consumer who has little or no experience with this type of system that is being proposed will probably back off of the complaint because of the daunting process before him/ her. Is it any wonder that there have been only 2 complaints a year? This is a good way to make sure there are no complaints.

We urge consumers to ask their legislators to fight this Judicial Branch proposal. We urge consumers not to use it if it is approved. If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.

Maine's Judicial Branch Bullet Proof GALs

Maine's Judicial Branch is in the final stages of fine tuning a "new" Guardian ad litem complaint process.  From a review of this “new” proposal,which must go to the legislature for approval, we would say that the JB has done a masterful job of protecting Guardians ad litem, also known as"officers of the court".  The draft proposal, if it goes forward as is, will virtually guarantee each and every GAL that no complaint from the public will ever touch them.  They can remain free and  totally unaccountable.  It will be a huge relief for many Guardians ad litem whose activities have been the subject of much public anger about a malfunctioning GAL system and public calls for reform of the program.  No public complaint will break the tight legal barriers of the "new" complaint process, which appears even more likely to dismiss all complaints than the Judicial Branch's "old" complaint process.

Whew!  Looks like Guardians ad litem dodged that bullet!

It is a triumph of "foxes" designing security systems for the "hen house".  Credit must go to Justice Warren Silver and his committee of 20 who worked on the plan for an “open, fair process” for complaints about Guardians ad litem.  The huge preponderance of this 20 member committee were what might be called the Judicial Branch's core political  "base", Guardians ad litem, friends of Guardians ad litem, family court judges, and lawyers in the divorce "trade".  There was one lone member representing the public interest in this process.  There had been earlier talk of three public representatives, but, hey, why trouble the public about this sort of thing?  What does the public know anyway?  One public member should be plenty!

One of the curious paradoxes about this committee with a "reform" mandate from the Chief Justice was that the majority of the members openly (and sometimes heatedly) expressed their feeling that there was "no problem" with the system, especially the current complaint process.  Many felt the push for change was the result of political action by a small, noisy group that didn't reflect the views of most people using Guardians ad litem in their divorce. One family lawyer was vehement in his views about clients who want to complain: "Make them pay!  It's about ego!"  And ... the committee proposal does follow his strongly expressed suggestion. Those who use Guardians ad litem in their divorce will pay an upfront "tax" to support the complaint process and another fee for making a formal complaint.

Make ‘em pay!

The complaint process itself will be housed in the formidable bastion of the Overseers of the Bar and administered by them.  An administrative lawyer will do a screening check on all public complaints. If these complaints are felt to have merit, they will be passed on to a 12 member "volunteer panel" for determination of action on the complaint.  But ... what a panel!  10 Guardians ad litem and two members from the "public".  We're not sure what "public" means (friends and families of Guardians ad litem, agency people or Mr and Mrs “Grass-roots America”?).  We're wondering why 2 members of the public? For true GAL peace of mind, one or, better, none, should suffice.  Keep it a friendly little group of  like-minded colleagues.

Consumer protection?  Please, just trust the integrity of the JB, and its GAL "officers of the court".  We consider that our whole operation is about consumer protection.  Just take property liens, garnished wages and jail! These protect consumers from breaking the law for non-payment of their GAL’s bills. We protect consumers all the time.

Er, ...  do Guardians ad litem know how to judge their peers, or have they any experience in self-policing?  Do they even know or follow their own Rules and Regulations?   Do they have any experience with “consumer protection” issues? No, but that means they will be more spontaneously  empathic and “culturally sensitive” to colleagues who are beset by complainers and bad sports.  They are not bogged down by knowledge.  Dismissed, dismissed, dismissed!   What training does it take to say, “Dismissed”?  These complainers wanted change. You can be sure we'll give them “change”, but our change may not pan out to be what these “bad sports” wanted!

As you can see it is an elegant judicial sham.  It uses the ‘gravitas’ of the Overseers of the Bar to cover a heavily weighted panel of 10 Guardians ad litem whose threadbare training and experience  give them no preparation to address consumer complaints about malfunctioning colleagues and friends. But ... it takes no experience or education to say, “Dismissed!”  It is in essence a mini court trial in which “the burden of proof” is on the consumer.  Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you got a “lemon”.

How on earth  did we end up in a formal courtroom type of  process when we wanted to report vocational malfunctioning to the workers overseers? All we wanted was corrective action from those in charge at the JB.

Given that Maine’s licensing boards offer  consumer protection and consumer friendly models for addressing malfunctioning professionals, one has to ask:

Will the legislature buy these new “bullet proof vests” for Guardians ad litem with public money?

Are Guardians ad litem above the Rules and Standards?

Maine's Judiciary has Guardian ad litem Rules and Standards on their web site.  They state quite clearly that the Supreme Judicial Court “has adopted Rules and Standards of Practice for Guardians ad Litem in Title 19-A and Title 22 cases.” In other words the Guardians ad litem that they roster – or give their seal of approval to, must abide by these rules and standards. Or does it?

What is the reason for posting these Rules and Standards for the public?

1. They are posted to help the public understand how a Guardian ad litem is supposed to operate. They are the law in which they and the Judges that manage them must operate within.
2. They are posted to help the public understand the role of the Guardian ad litem. These Rules and Standards though are applied when convenient for the courts to use them. How and when they are used is kept from the consumer as they really do not understand this type of thing.
3. The Rules and Standards have been posted for the public’s benefit to give a warm and fuzzy feeling. The Rules and Standards in reality have no meaning and the court all but ignores what is written.

Although it is possible that of the three examples there have been instances where the first was actually applied – it is not known when that may have been the case. The second example like the first is non-existent. With the third example there are numerous instances that can be found dating back to 2003-04 (and possibly before) where Maine's Courts and Guardians ad litem have chosen to ignore the Rules and Standards. What does this mean to the consumer of this system that experiences a Guardian ad litem that operates outside of these rule and standards and you complain about him/ her? It means that the Judiciary has no interest in correcting the behavior of its own but will correct your behavior if you cause too much trouble.  Maine's Judiciary has ignored a problem that has been around for more than a decade. How many people have been hurt by the resistance to admit there is a very real problem? That is something that we are only now just beginning to see.  The current window dressing for oversight and accountability that we have seen is just that – Window Dressing – to satisfy the rank and file so that at the end of the day they – Maine's Judiciary, Judges and Guardians ad litem can path themselves on the back and say they did a great job helping out those poor consumers. Maine's Judiciary, Judges and Guardians ad litem are in need of a little reality and accountability.

If you or someone you know has been hurt in a divorce where a Guardian ad litem was involved please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.





To view the current Rules and Standards published by Maine's Judiciary please follow these links:

Rules

Standards

Sorry, GALs, the Days of Wine and Roses are Numbered

A plumber will pay $100 or more for their license. This same plumber needs 1 year of technical college and must pass a Journeyman Plumber exam. If you pass the test you must work under the supervision of a Master Plumber for 2000 hours to take a Master Plumbers exam.  The technical education and the supervised practice are to protect the public and to assure the  quality of plumbing professionals.

If you want to go lobstering you must pay $125 for the license and then it is .80 cents per tag. The potential Lobsterman has to be an apprentice for over 1000 hours to obtain the license.

In the State of Maine you have to have a license from one of the Administrative Branch  licensing boards if you are an Accountant, Doctor, Alcohol and Drug Counselor, Therapy Assistant, Oil and Solid Fuel Technician, Physical Therapist, Social Worker and more than 50 other professions.  These licenses are mandatory if you are to work in the specific profession. The government requiring a license for these professions means that as consumers we can rest assured that the professional person dealing with you has a minimum of training. That there is some form of  regulatory oversight of the occupation involved, because the trade or profession requires some type of specialized skill for the safety and well being of the public. Government and society have deemed that we do not want charlatans delivering  "free-for-all" services, and licensing with testing, continuing education requirements and periodic  license renewal is an accepted method of regulation and oversight. The board that grants the license is also the regulator .

Then there are the Guardians ad litem "professional". These "professionals" are "trained" for 16 hours. Unlike the other professions that have to be licensed the Guardian ad litem does not, nor are they tested on what they learned in the 16 hours. They do not have to apprentice under an experienced Guardian to learn the applied ropes of practice. Guardians ad litem do have continuing education requirements. While one would hope  that the courses for continuing education would be related to the work - from what we have seen this is not always the case. Unless bill collecting and practice management are considered essential technical courses for a Guardian ad litem. Maybe bill collecting is essential as the bills often put parents into bankruptcy.  Then, unlike other professionals  whose license are dependent on continuing education, Guardians ad litem in Maine can fulfill their continuing educational requirement through the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute (MEGALI). This is the  trade organization for the Guardians ad litem and an unregistered lobby for them.  We hear that it wants to be officially sanctioned to provide the required continuing educational experience. This trade organization has no oversight as an educational institution.  It simply decides what courses to market and sells them to members for continuing education credits.  No one supervises these courses, or evaluates their usefulness for job performance.   Without oversight they could hypothetically offer a course on the interior decoration of a Guardian ad litem's office, for 6 CME credits.

There is a very real need to have Guardians ad litem licensed by a professional board with experience in doing this - one with a consumer protection focus.  It should not be done through the Judiciary, which lacks experience in consumer protection and oversight. There is also a very real need to have the continuing education revamped and managed though a University or Community College. There is a desperate need to provide an educational experience that has substance and a job-related focus for people interested in becoming a Guardian ad litem. If Maine continues on the present course without change,  it is guaranteed that future Guardians ad litem will have continuing, severe issues and conflict with those they are supposed to be working for and with.

If you have had problems with a Guardian ad litem or want more information about the issues surrounding this profession please feel free to contact us at:
MeGALalert@gmail.com

Family Courts and our Children..... Is this how Justice is served?

Guardians ad litem, Judges and quite a few Family Lawyers consider the Maine Guardians ad litem issues that have been widely reported not to be a big problem. Or that is has been hyped by people who have special interest and as a result they are stirring things up. Quite often it is pointed out that these people have a gripe about how unfair the final custody agreement is set up as. Or finally that there is not much of a problem because there have only been 2 reprimands in the last 2 years. All of these themes are repeated over and over despite the facts which contradict these claims and despite the fact that Maine's Judicial Branch has shamefully little actual data. It's about "please, don't confuse me with the facts"!

We are presenting a short list of some of the GAL issues consumers have had to deal with. You be the Judge and tell us if you feel Maine's courts were doing their job by allowing these things to happen with no GAL oversight- What follows are from cases both ongoing and finalized.

1. The Guardian ad litem recommended a child's best interest is served by a parent that has a history of mental illness - the other parent does not.

2. The Guardian ad litem indicated that there is nothing wrong for a four year old to go to a bar late at night and witness violence and bad words. This came from a senior member of the Guardian ad Litem Institute.

3. The Guardian ad litem indicated that if a parent went to jail the child would grow up to become the next unabomber. This came from a senior member of the Guardian ad Litem Institute.

4. The Guardian ad litem took no action when it was brought to her attention that a young child suffered cigarette burns. The Guardian ad litem did not report this to DHHS as stated under the Rules for Guardians ad litem. Nor did this Guardian ad litem show she was protecting the interest of this child.

5. The Guardian ad litem made a diagnosis of a child's current and or future condition. Guardians ad litem do not have the authority to make a diagnosis nor do they have the training to do so.

6. A Guardian ad litem recommended that a 3 year old child was better off living with the father over the girls grandparents. The father has a history of drug use, jail time and has sexually molested his child. The grandparents are respectable people. The Guardian ad litem did not protect the interest of this child.

7. In numerous cases the Guardian ad litem has shown disrespect to a trained professional who has a background in child psychology by disregarding professional opinions, or seeking an opinion from another professional that would better fit the GAL's personal biases. This is contrary to the rules which state that a Guardian ad litem must work effectively with other professionals in the assessment of the child or parties to a case.

8. The Guardian ad litem failed to meet the child or the child and parent in a timely manner and failed to form a relationship with the child whose "best interest" they were claiming to serve. This is contrary to the rules for Guardians ad litem.

9. With numerous Guardians ad litem a parent has been made to jump through expensive unnecessary clinical hoops - anger management assessments and psychological evaluations without any clearly specified reasons for the referral from a trained professional, to name a few. These referrals were made by the GAL alone and were done with no reason, no goals and no time lines for duration.

10. In being a reporter of the court Guardians ad litem are supposed to establish a relationship with the child(ren) in the case. Often the Guardians ad litem with feel that they know the children enough to make life altering decisions after only 20 or 30 minutes. In one case the Guardian ad litem made life altering recommendations without ever having met the child in question.

11. With numerous complaints against Guardians ad litem there are claims of bias and the GAL failed to offer objective reasons for recommendations or actions. Guardians ad litem are supposed to be neutral reporters for the court.

12. With numerous recommendations that Guardians ad litem have filed in courts - one of the common complaints is the accuracy of information contained in their report. For instance we have seen the following:

• Bills that are not transparent and impossible to understand.
• Names that are not recorded correctly.
• Time lines that are not accurate.
• Dates that are not accurate.

13. Facts that are wrong, which the GAL refused to correct despite objective evidence. As a reporter of facts these Guardians ad litem failed to fulfill their most basic job requirement.

14. In numerous cases the Guardian ad litem had ex parte communication with the Judge. While this is allowed by the courts it is also stated that in fairness the Guardian ad litem must let the parties know of this communication - unless it is not 'in the best interest of the child'.

15. A Guardian ad litem knowing that a parent was incapacitated by prescription medications for several days out of a month felt that the young child was better off with this parent. The other parent had no history of drug use, mental illness nor violence.

16. In several cases the Guardian ad litem contradicted his/ her self on visitation recommendations. Changing what had been agreed upon. This often at the last minute and with no notice to the affected party.

17. The Guardian ad litem coached a parent on a psychological evaluation. This after he had already taken one and the results were not satisfactory. This action came from a senior member of the Guardian ad Litem Institute.

18. A Guardian ad litem producing a bill that represented 26% or the combined income of the parties involved in the divorce.

19. Limiting the time allowed with one parent - thus harming and in some cases destroying the bonds between parent and child. This being done contrary to M.R. Civ. P.Section 1653 (1) - "to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parent after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage and that is the public interest to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing to effect the policy.”

Maine has the distinction of being at the bottom in terms of our children. Is this really the way life should be for our children? Is this something that we should be proud of? Yet there are forces that are resistant to the thought of change. These are the same people who are and have been telling us there is no problem. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com and tell us your story.

Maine's courts ignore Rules and Standards for Guardians ad litem

The Rules and Standards for Guardians ad litem are posted on the Maine's Judiciary web site. The rules and guidelines are there for the public to view. To help them understand the process that the courts and Guardians ad litem must go through and adhere to while caring out their job and responsibilities.

Unfortunately when it comes to the Rules and Guidelines it is not known whether Maine's courts and Guardians ad litems really must follow them. In the past two years there have been 28 complaints that resulted in 2 reprimands. One written the other verbal which eventually resulted in dismissal of those Guardians ad litem. Guardians ad litem and the trade organization Maine Guardian ad litem institution point to this static as proof that the current system is working the way it is supposed. What we are not told is the reason for these dismissals.

The two reprimands had nothing to do with:

•  A child being burned by cigarettes – Section 6 (6.1) Mandated reporting: Where a “Guardian knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected” is supposed to report to DHHS and it is not.

•  A Guardian ad litem must meet and establish a relationship with the child(ren) in any case. Section 2 (2.2) “Meet and Interview Child. Establishing and maintaining a relationship with a child is a foundation of the Guardian's duties.” - 30 minutes with a child does not constitute a relationship with a child(ren). Yet many Guardians ad litem only meet with child(ren) for not much more than this.

• Under the rules section 3 (3.2), (12) “Working effectively with other professionals involved in the assessment or treatment of the child and/or parties to a child's case” - Guardians ad litem often use psychological testing as a weapon to control a party. This is often used time and time again against the party in question. If the party in question refuses the Guardian ad litem will use the court to force the issue. The use of professionals or programs by Guardians ad litem are without boundaries, goals or endings. They pose a huge financial burden on the party that it is being used against. This is not working effectively.

• Guardians ad litem often do not explain the court process to child(ren) as they are mandated to do under section 3, (3.3).

We have on file over 25 complaints against Guardians ad litem that have merit. These are not complaints where the person complaining is upset with the outcome. These are complaints against the process that was used. These are complaints that we have collected since June 2012. These complaints under the current broken system would all be rejected and the Guardian ad litem would be exonerated. Maine is at the bottom for a reason. It is not because, as some would have us believe, that they system is working as it should. Maine is at the bottom because the Guardians ad litem operate in a system where they can do what they want with no repercussions.

For more information contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com