Is this Child Endangerment or Just a Legal Formality?

On July 8, 2013 for the first time a bill was signed into law that attempts to control the actions of Guardians ad litem in the state. To control the Judicial abuse that many parents have to deal with as a result of a divorce and or custody in Maine. July 8, 2013 while Governor Paul LePage was signing that bill our Judiciary was displaying the sensitivity that it has come to be known for. A parent who has been battling the courts and his ex for prescribed medical treatment that his son is in need of had asked the courts to look at and address this issue. This was denied that day by the higher courts.

Can this be considered a form of Child Abuse? Is this why so often we find that Guardians ad litem do not report abuse to the courts?

This parent has the prospect of going to court to fight a system that is turning a blind eye to a problem. Better to push the problem off on someone else than deal with the problem now. Will the courts be held accountable if this child comes to harm as a result of this negligence?

Several years ago there was a case where the father of a child that hit a brick wall when trying to get answers from Maines department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It was in many respects similar to this case. He was told that the acting mother did not have Maine Care insurance yet (this from both the acting mother, Guardian ad litem and the attorney for the mother). It was discovered on a visit to the doctors by the father that the acting mother had the insurance for her half brother - and had it for several months. In trying to secure a card for his son the father went to DHHS directly only to be told because of HIPPA regulations they (DHHS) could not talk with him about his son nor could the father request a card for his son. In fact DHHS could not even admit that the child was even in the system to the father. The acting mother was asked to give permission to DHHS so that DHHS could speak with the father - this was denied by the acting mother. The Guardian ad litem did nothing to help. The father's lawyer became involved only to be told the same thing. That the father of the child was not entitled to any information about his son that DHHS had on file unless the mother or acting mother gave permission for this to happen. In effect the father - was being prevented from caring for his son - yet was responsible for the medical care of his son. Information about his son was being kept from him by a system that essentially was saying that who ever got there first was in charge - this was admitted by several DHHS employees that the father talked with. In the end the father through his lawyer was able to secure a Maine Care Card that would allow him to at least take his son for treatment. Was this necessary?

One has to ask - how can a parent do what is right for their child(ren) if he/ she is prevented from doing so. If information or services are denied to a child for the mear reason of hurting the other parent. In the end the parent that is denying access (or at least making it hard to come by) is directly hurting his/ her child first and the other parent second. In the current case that is going on the courts have been put on notice that there is child neglect going on as the child is being denied his prescribed medical treatment. Court officers are mandatory child abuse and neglect reporters who must take action to protect the best interest of the child. While the higher court in this case appears not to want to steal the lower courts thunder - this parent approached the higher court because the lower courts were delaying any judgement. This parent has the prospect of waiting months before a judgement will be rendered. Meanwhile this parent's child will continue to go without treatment.

If you have conerns about a Guardian ad litem, Parental Coordinator or a Family Lawyer please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or stay up to date at Facebook.


We also encourage you to take our survey on Guardian ad litem performance which can be found here: GAL Performance Survey.

Do you understand LD 522, SP 212?

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

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

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

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

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

Judiciary Committee List:


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

Guardians ad litem are wonderful according to Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen

Maybe the Hon. Robert E. Mullen, Deputy Chief Judge who gave a presentation along with Judge Susan Longley at the recent meeting of the Joint Standing  Committee of the Judiciary missed what has been going on this past year. If they are to be believed Guardians ad litem are wonderful and the noise currently being made by concerned citizens is limited to a handful of people. According to them.

A year ago there were only 5 people in the state that voiced concern about Guardians ad litem that we were aware of. A year later we know of almost 400 people who have been touched in a negative way by a Guardian ad litem. These are people from all parts of the state. They are children, parents, grandparents, friends and co-workers who have all experienced the pain that results from a Guardian ad litem that is under managed and with no oversight. One has to ask where Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen and Judge Susan Longley are getting their information? Are their opinions based in any kind of reality or fact? Or is it based on the bubblegum reality that the divorce industry paints for their constituents – the courts and those representatives that have a vested interest in perpetuating the money machine known as Guardian ad litem?

On January 31, 2013 The Deputy Chief Judge gave a presentation that covered much of what the Judiciary and those in the Divorce industry have told us before in the past. That there is a process for complaints. That there are rules and standards the courts and Guardians ad litem live by.  While all of this looks good to those of us looking in from the outside –  the reality of those on the inside is not as good or clear. For instance there is no process that explains what a lay person needs to do to file a complaint. The Rules and Standards which are displayed for everyone to see are meaningless words to be used at the courts convenience. There is no informed consent – so that parents know how the information they are about to give to a Guardian ad litem and courts can be used against them. How their Constitutional rights may be violated. These are just a few of the issues that the divorce industry have ignored or are blaming on the parents and families caught up in the process.

“Guardians ad litem are wonderful" according to  Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen but there is mounting evidence to show there are very real problems. The Judiciary has known since 2006 of problems with its rostered GALs and the lack of oversight and management of these court officers.  Some of the issues are listed here:

1. 2006 OPEGA report that highlighted 11 areas that need reform or correction 
2. 2008 report by Maine's Judiciary that pointed out areas of concern
3. The National organization First Start which has rated Maine with a ( F ) for three reports 
4. The National organization Center for Judicial Excellence which pointed out problems with Maine 
5. In less than ( 1 ) year over 400 people have come out to question the actions of Guardians ad litem in a custody dispute.
6. In less than ( 1 ) year over 60 consumer complaints about GALs that are rostered in Maine.
7. Chief Justice Saufley who spoke in March of 2012 and who pointed out some of the horrors that divorcing families have had to experience at the hands of Guardians ad litem – sexual abuse, questionable billing practices, predatory practice, lack of management and lack of oversight to name a few of the items from the list she presented.
8. 2012 May 31 in Portland at the court house there were numerous consumer concerns about the role of Guardian ad litem – with follow up letters to the Judiciary
9. For this legislative session ( 5 ) bills dealing with some aspect of Guardian ad litem reform have been presented.

One has to ask Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen and Judge Susan Longley if the situation with Guardians ad litem are really “peaches and cream” then where is the proof – that is proof other than the shop worn 'statistic' of two Guardians ad litem in five years having been disciplined. Currently divorcing families have a loaded weapon pointed at them if a Guardian ad litem is brought onto the case. With no limitations, controls and immunity Guardians ad litem will leave a path of destruction in their wake. All of this is done with the blessing of the courts and 'in the best interest of the child'. It is time to bring about reform so that future families are not crippled.

If you have or had an issue with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Like us on Facebook or find us on twitter.

Judges in Maine Routinely Violate 5th Amendment Rights of Citizens

“Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case be a witness against himself” These are one of the the lofty, important human rights guaranteed to all US citizens by our world famous Constitution. Yet in state after state these 5th Amendment citizen rights are being violated by family courts, the very institutions that are supposed to protect those rights. This has been going on unnoticed by many for some time and has almost become accepted as a regular way of doing business by the courts, Judges, lawyers, officers of the courts and uninformed consumers.

What Judges are condoning- whether directly or indirectly- is asking one or both people involved in a custody to sign over their rights to privacy in confidential, privileged transactions, without explaining how this confidential information will be used- for or against the party. In the example provided below, the judge has ordered the defendant to provide proof of not only the attendance of counseling, but to allow the counselor to speak with the Plaintiff on the Defendants progress.

Click on image for expanded view

Why is this a violation of the defendants 5th Amendment rights? There may be those who will say that the defendant has a choice. He/ she does not have to agree to follow the judge’s order. And this, in theory, would be true. In this case, however, the defendant was faced with the following:

1. He/ She was threatened with contempt of court and jail if he/ she did not comply

2. He/ She could agree with the release of information to his/ her ex and the courts without knowing how his therapy records might be used by the opposing attorney and the alienated spouse: in his favor, or against him, to argue that he/she was an unfit parent, should not have time with his/her child. He is being asked to risk testifying against himself, if his therapy records are released. Self-incrimination versus contempt of court and jail. Tough choices!

Although both choices are horrible and personally damaging, What would you do? In going to jail there is the potential of losing one’s job, having a jail record and the loss of income during jail time. These are all tangible concerns and fears. We know what the potential consequences are in going to jail.

On the other hand by agreeing to the release of information, the "owner" of the information has no way of knowing in advance how that information is going to be used. It is impossible to give his/her “informed consent”, because it is impossible to know every possible or likely outcome of this action, and how it may affect your case. There is also no way to know that the information gained by the plaintiff and court will not be used as part of an attack by the plaintiff against the defendant. This is seen by many people as a sneaky, indirect way to get the defendant to testify against him/ herself. It is a violation of the defendants 5th Amendment rights, and it is all too frequently used by Judges that preside over family courts in custody disputes. It is also one of the many examples of how the Judicial process in family cases has corrupted itself. This process is in danger of becoming very ingrained in the system and it violates the constitutional 5th Amendment rights - to say nothing of common law principles about forcing consent.

The courts in the state are showing a lack of respect for the privileged, confidential information that is conveyed between the therapist and patient as an absolutely necessary part of therapy. In this case (as well as many others that we are aware of) under the threat of contempt of court, the defendant buckled and was forced into making a “release of information” decision that had ramifications that the Judge, plaintiff and most of all defendant had no way of knowing how it would play out. The Judge was in effect telling the defendant that he/ she would have to potentially testify against him/ her self – thus violating their rights under the constitution. The judge also unwittingly destroyed therapy by destroying the confidentiality necessary to make therapy work!

If you have had issues or if things about your case just don't seem right with your Guardian ad litem – please contact us for support at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook to stay up to date on issues and events. We encourage your thoughts on this subject please feel free to respond.