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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Dear Guardian ad litem, Dear Family Court,

Santa has received letters from kids who want BOTH parents....

Judicial Branch has announced a Task Force to hold public hearings on Family Matters Cases

The Task Force will hold public meetings to gather public comments and suggestions that will be used to better serve the needs of children and families. Public meetings will be held at the following courts and the speaker will be limited in time to talk (we estimate that speakers will have between 2 - 3 minutes). If you would like to speak, the following locations will be holding meetings from 4:15 pm - 6:00 pm:

January 6, 2014 (Presque Isle District Court)
January 7, 2014 (Calais District Court)
January 8, 2014 (Bangor District Court)
January 9, 2014 (Rockland District Court)
January 13, 2014 (Lewiston District Court)
January 14, 2014 (Portland District Court)
January 15, 2014 (Springvale District Court)
January 16, 2014 (Augusta District Court)

If you are not able to attend comments may be emailed to:

lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov

Or mailed to:

State of Maine
Administrative Office of the Courts
171 State House Station
24 Slone Street, 1st Bldg, 1st Floor
Augusta, ME 04333-0171

Comments will be accepted until January 24, 2014 until 5:00 pm.

There is a lot wrong with with the family courts in the state of Maine. The use of unregulated Guardians ad litem, the acceptance of junk science and a lack of common sense when dealing with cases. These are just a few of the problems with the Family Court system. There are many more. If you are planning on attending or writing in please contact MeGALalert@gmail.com for some ideas on what you can bring to the courts attention. Keeping silent means you are giving consent to the problems we have all dealt with.

Any comments emailed to the Judicial Branch please cc MeGALalert@gmail.com and the comments will be posted with any personal information removed.

Email - IMPORTANT BENCH/BAR FOR FAMILY LAW PRACTITIONERS!

We were provided with an email about the following event to be presented by Tracie Adamson Esq, Judicial Branch Family Division Manager. We do not know if this is open to the public - but the public should be aware that it is happening. Of particular interest is GAL orders and practice - which we believe will cover LD872. If anyone does manage to go please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. We want to know what was discussed during the meeting. Thank you.

Provided below is the email we received:

Subject: Fwd: Family Bench/Bar 12-19-13

IMPORTANT BENCH/BAR FOR FAMILY LAW PRACTITIONERS!

Join York County District Court Judges and Magistrates to learn about several changes in family law practice including:
(1) Changes in child support requirements related to the new interface between the District Court and DHHS/DSER;
(2) Block Scheduling for all family matter court events;
(3) GAL orders and practice.

Judicial Branch Family Division Manager Tracie Adamson will be present to provide information on these issues.

Additional issues or concerns from the bar can be raised as time permits!

Biddeford District Court
Thursday, December 19, 2013
4:00pm

Connecticut Attorney Sharon Dornfeld troubled by comments from Parent

While this letter is regarding Guardians ad litem in another state what is being said can be equally applied to situations involving Guardians ad litem in any state:

Hello Ms. Dornfeld,

I'm told that you are troubled by my observations of the system. As an expert in legal operations, legal e-billing and legal spend management, I would again extend to you the invitation to meet with me at your convenience and at any time to discuss your perspectives and concerns, as well as to share mine and those of many other legal professionals equally as fed up with what our family courts have become and how they operate.

I was in the courthouse in Hartford today and saw many of my family attorney friends and contacts there. Two of them approached me and asked to meet with me next week - as they are considered testifying as to how bad the situation has become and how dramatically it has impacted them and their clients.

Veteran family law attorneys - one of whom wrote the attached letter. This would bring to 12 the number of family law attorneys I have organized and who will also speak out as Attorney Rutkin recently did, when the time is right and they no longer have to worry about retaliation against them.

And what does that say and reflect in regards to what our family court system has become, and the powers-that-be have created and perpetuated - when family law attorneys themselves are afraid to speak about their own industry for fear of how it may personally impact them?

Once again - the world has changed and the genie is out of the bottle. "The system" is no longer able to threaten and intimidate parents and attorneys into silence, social media has changed that forever and good riddance. And this is true not just here in Connecticut, but nationally and even internationally as well.

No parent or citizen should EVER have fear the Judiciary or suffer retaliation for speaking their opinion - EVER in the United States. That is not why I and my family came here from a communist country to see and experience.

Once again - shouldn't we all be ashamed of what our family courts have become and its complete lack of focus on families and children and abuses we have all suffered at the hands of the system?

The family court is supposed to be a source of resolution and closure - not open ended cycle and source and cause of abuse and therapy.

What's happened to the basic principles of common decency, common respect, understanding and compassion?

If you are "irritated" by my commentary - then I'm afraid I can offer you no apologies, because I and the thousands of parents, children of divorce, grandparents, family attorneys and GALs who have been severely impacted and financially and otherwise devastated by the horrific perspectives and policies you and others have promoted, are not the ones who are fault for what is wrong.

* The problems in our family court were not created by parents or our fault.

* It is not what we are responsible for or what we created.

* It is not what we want for ourselves and our children and our families or our state.

* It is not parents who are blatantly violating the basic principles of due process, civil and parental rights, or the rights of child.

* It is not parents who are acting in an unethical, immoral and illogical manner.

* It is not parents who are willfully ignoring violations of court order or the abuses and neglect of children.

* It is not parents who are in Court perpetuating and promoting conflict to profit from it.

* It is not parents who are imposing draconian and devastating financial orders on parents to punish them for being in court.

* It is not parents who are forcing the liquidation of retirement accounts and children's college funds and demanding payments from grandparents.

* It is not parents who jailing themselves solely because they have no means to pay.

PARENTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

And you do not use the same people who created a problem and who profit handsomely from it, to solve it.

It is perhaps most telling that after two months of hearings, and that as Chair, you have not called a single parent or child or divorce to testify - not one. And that every person who has been called, is a member of the divorce industry and someone who profits from and engages in perpetuating the problem. And no surprise - practically all of them members of FCC member, as you and Ms. Cousineau are.

* Which speaks volumes as to how co-opted and pointless the Task Force has become.

Task Forces are created by the legislature to solicit to hear testimony from people and citizens adversely impacted by a situation or problem - not those who create and profit from it.

It is equally as telling that we have not heard testimony from a single parent or child of divorce stating how wonderful the court system is, how much time their AMC/GAL spent with them to get to know them and how much they helped them, or how helpful a court ordered therapist was. And that any of this was worth the money taken from them or their parents and families. Why is that?

What the Task Force has become is like watching a home improvement show, where the focus of the show is to take pity on and only listen to shady contractor who did shoddy work and left the homeowner with a massive problem and walked away with all of their money.

Perhaps we should listen to the Chief Justice of Canada, who has publically come out and stated that family courts are beyond the point of repair, and need to be completely replaced with "something else." As an expert in legal operations and legal spend management, and business process improvement expert, I couldn't agree more. And applaud Attorney Rutkin for his recommendation that the state consider bringing in an outside management company to run the Judiciary and correct its operational dysfunctions. (I volunteer to help.)

Please let me know when you would like to meet and review the information I have to share with you and the Task Force. Most notably - an examination of the devastating financial impact the crisis in the family courts have exacted onto parents and families, and how many people it has thrown out of work, cost them their homes, and caused people to be unfairly jailed.

Regards

Peter Szymonik
Glastonbury, CT

www.galreform.org

Notice of Opportunity to Comment - Proposed Amendment Rules for Guardians ad litem

The Judicial Branch is looking for comments regarding the proposed amendments to the rules for Guardians ad litem. This is an opportunity to express your thoughts on what future parents/ consumers will have to work with. Your experience with Guardians ad litem may have an impact on whether or not this amendment is used, canned or modified. That experience will mean nothing unless you respond by December 2, 2013 at 6:00 pm. Silence gives consent.

Want some ideas -

There is an abundance of ambiguous words and statements - "fair", "cultural sensitivity", "professionalism" and "ethics". While is is nice that these ideas are incorporated there is no way to define what or how these ideas will be applied. There is no defined means of testing whether a Guardian ad litem has been "fair" as example.

Training has been increased from the 16 hours Guardians ad litem go through and there is defined curriculum. Is this enough?

What is the best interest of the child? The phrase is used multiple times. While Maine has attempted to define this concept in statutes there is no means for testing whether a recommendation made by a Guardian ad litem is in a child's best interest. It tends to be based on the bias that the GAL brings to any case. Is taking a 4 year old to a bar late at night and exposing that child to violent adult behavior in the child's best interest? A Guardian ad litem thought so - the courts agreed - and the practice was allowed to continue.

You do not have to write a book, a single line comment is fine.

The Judicial Branch has a web page with instructions that may be found here:

http://www.courts.state.me.us/rules_adminorders/rules/proposed/gal/notice_opp_comment_mr_gals_2013-11-13.shtml

For a pdf copy of the proposed rules:

http://www.courts.state.me.us/rules_adminorders/rules/proposed/gal/proposed_amends_mr_gals_2013-11-13.pdf

Because we do not know if comments will be posted - please CC any correspondence to MeGALalert@gmail.com so that comments may be available for others to see.

2013-12-05:
Comments that parents/ consumers sent in and CCed MeGAL may be found on the blogs "Voice of the People". To date there have been no postings on the Judicial Branch web site and it is not known whether they will be publishing any.

Bomb Threats and Secrecy – How the Overseers Handle Discipline of Lawyers

Recently, there have been two lawyers who have faced significant complaints before the Overseers of the Bar. We ask: Did the bar provide the oversight and management that the public expects?

One of the lawyers,  Ron Hoffman, was brought before the board because he called in two bomb threats to Academy Hill and G.D. Cushing elementary schools within two minutes of each other and saying that "there is a bomb in your school!". The calls resulted in the evacuation of over 350 children and worried countless teachers and parents as a result. The calls produced anger and confusion amongst both children and adults in the community as school officials testified.

Ron Hoffman had lied to the police when confronted about the bomb threat calls. Your average person on the street calling in a bomb threat would find themselves incarcerated and facing the loss of a job. Ron Hoffman told the board that there were medical conditions he was suffering from, and that the treatment from his doctors was not proper. It was bad medical treatment; not his bad judgment that caused the alarming behavior. The board felt that Ron's newly revised regimen of counseling and medications should allow him to continue practicing law.

Another lawyer, Charles Bean Esq, has been before the board four times in nine years. The first time before the board was back in 2006. Then again in 2006, 2011 and finally in 2013. In 2013 the board appears to have had enough and ordered that his resignation be given to Justice Andrew Mead. There is no public reason given why Bean resigned. The records are sealed and will only be made public should Bean decide he should seek reinstatement to the Bar.  Yes, "Reinstatement to the Bar" he may still return to serve the public at some future time.

If one visits the Overseers of the Bar web site and searches for the latest on Charles R. Bean, Esq. one can find his case dated October 29, 2013. Clicking the link brings the reader to a very brief background on Charles Bean Esq. Then refers to Maine Bar 7.3(g) which is "Disciplinary Proceedings: Other Provisions" and subsection refers to "Resignations by Attorneys Under Disciplinary Investigation". Basically what Maine Bar 7.3(g) says is that the lawyer is guilty of the crimes he has been accused of doing. It does not go into other areas where the lawyer may have violated the Maine Bar Rules. We are left with the feeling that what Charles Bean Esq. has done must truly be horrendous. Compare THIS  to the relative slap on the wrist that Ron Hoffman Esq received for calling in a bomb threat.

Is the Overseers of the Bar, as a private not for profit organization, able to police those they are entrusted to license and provide oversight for? Can they hand out a fair and equitable disciplinary action that is in the public interest Think about this - in these two cases has the legal standard of Maine lawyers been improved by this process? What about those who complained about these two lawyers - are they pleased by the outcome?

If you have any thoughts on the Overseers of the Bar we would encourage your comments here or on our Facebook page. You may also email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com

Further Reading - Is this Really Oversight? How the Overseers of the Bar Operates.

Is this Really Oversight? How the Overseers of the Bar Operates.

The Overseers of the Bar has by all appearances an open process of complaint for the public. If I was researching a lawyer I am able to view 13 years of complaints brought against 247 lawyers. Each decision has a link provided so that I can see what the complaint was about and the outcome - the decision handed out to that lawyer. While the disciplinary action is written out in a way that only a lawyer could love (legalistic, specific and dry) it dose give the reasoning behind the decision.

What do the numbers show us?

There are currently 247 lawyers that have complaints where decisions have been handed out by the Overseers.  Those decisions amount to a total of 362.

Of the 247 lawyers who had complaints 179 appeared before the Overseers only once. The balance of 68 lawyers appeared on multiple occasions. Of those 68 lawyers 29 appeared 3 or more times. In terms of the decisions handed out those 68 lawyers had 183 (or 50.55%) of the decisions handed out to them.

What was the order  that the Overseers of the Board handed out to these lawyers. There are 43 categories that summarizes what action the Overseers recommends. Most mean nothing to the casual observer - maybe this is intended. The focus is on those that have meaning.

Reprimand is the most popular order given out to a wayward lawyer. This was handed out 36% of the time or 131 instances. Suspension is another popular order being handed out 4.7% of the time. Dismissal was handed out 8 times in 13 years. What is interesting is that 17 lawyers resigned and only 5 were disbarred. Those that were disbarred represents only 2% of the population who manages to make it to this point.

It is important to reflect on these numbers as it speaks to the process that the Overseers has in place and their ability to provide oversight to the lawyers that they license. Is the Overseers of the Bar able to provide effective oversight of those they license? Is the process that is in place a fair and equitable process to consumers of legal services as well as to lawyers? Or does the process favor lawyers? Is the process one that the average consumer can understand and easily navigate through?

What is not clear to anyone is how many times complaints were started against a lawyer and then was dropped because of the financial cost and time it would take. Or was weeded out at one of the many layers that is intended to make the process fair. Of those lawyers that had multiple complaints - how many more were started but were never completed or weeded out? The result of such filtering would be to allow a problem lawyer to continue and cause pain and suffering.

If you have any thoughts on the Overseers of the Bar we would encourage your comments here or on our Facebook page. You may also email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com