Santa has received letters from kids who want BOTH parents....
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Sunday, December 22, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
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
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
Sunday, December 15, 2013
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
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
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
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
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
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Father says No to Child's demand of McDonald's - and loses visitation
What should have been a Happy Meal has turned out to be anything but this for a New York father in a hotly contested divorce case. The court appointed shrink Dr. Marilyn Schiller is branding the child's father as being incapable of caring for his 4-year old son for refusing McDonald's.
The father is fighting back against Dr. Schiller for defaming his character.
On October 30, 2013 father and son were preparing to go out for dinner. The son demanded McDonald's and the father said no. According to reports that son then "threw a temper tantrum" for being denied the Golden Arches. The fathers reasoning for refusal was that he felt his son had been eating too much junk food. So like any good parent he offered his son two options -
1. Pick another restaurant
2. No dinner at all
His son chose the latter and upon retuning back to his mother told on his dad. The mom promptly told Dr. Marilyn Schiller who in turn reported this incident to the presiding judge. Dr. Schiller made the recommendation of having the fathers visitation time reduced. Refusing a child McDonald's must be like burning a child with a cigarette, abusing a child or some other life altering event - at least according to Dr. Schiller.
Who is right here? The father for trying to be a good parent and not giving into the demands of a child and "exercising reasonable parental prerogatives"? Or the court appointed psychologist for recommending a more restricted visitation schedule as a result of not giving into the demands of a 4-year old? If the court appointed psychologist is right in her reasoning that denying McDonald's will cause so much harm to this child that the father's time needs to be restricted then many who are reading this have been hurt by our parents refusal to take us to McDonald's when young. What does it say about the Mayor of New York - Bloomberg - who is trying to curb the unhealthy eating choices that New Yorkers make - like McDonald's and other artery clogging eating establishments - that he is so much against. Would Bloomberg be considered a bad parent?
Although this is an extreme example of what is wrong with the family court system (the divorce industry, Guardians ad litem and other family court leaches) it does call into question about who really knows what is best for our children. In this case it appears Dr. Schiller and the mom knows what is best (sarcasm intended) - by giving into the demands of a 4-year old. The father does not (again sarcasm intended) because he refused as a parent to give in to his son, his child. What is the lesson that we can take away from this - that as a parent you do what your child wants - no matter how much it goes against your core values as a person or parent. Because if you don't the courts will take what is precious to you as they know what is best (sarcasm intended).
By the way - the mother took her son to McDonald's - reinforcing her son's bad behavior and the opinion of Dr. Schiller.
For support please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.
For further reading on this case:
Yahoo! Shine
NY Daily News
The father is fighting back against Dr. Schiller for defaming his character.
On October 30, 2013 father and son were preparing to go out for dinner. The son demanded McDonald's and the father said no. According to reports that son then "threw a temper tantrum" for being denied the Golden Arches. The fathers reasoning for refusal was that he felt his son had been eating too much junk food. So like any good parent he offered his son two options -
1. Pick another restaurant
2. No dinner at all
His son chose the latter and upon retuning back to his mother told on his dad. The mom promptly told Dr. Marilyn Schiller who in turn reported this incident to the presiding judge. Dr. Schiller made the recommendation of having the fathers visitation time reduced. Refusing a child McDonald's must be like burning a child with a cigarette, abusing a child or some other life altering event - at least according to Dr. Schiller.
Who is right here? The father for trying to be a good parent and not giving into the demands of a child and "exercising reasonable parental prerogatives"? Or the court appointed psychologist for recommending a more restricted visitation schedule as a result of not giving into the demands of a 4-year old? If the court appointed psychologist is right in her reasoning that denying McDonald's will cause so much harm to this child that the father's time needs to be restricted then many who are reading this have been hurt by our parents refusal to take us to McDonald's when young. What does it say about the Mayor of New York - Bloomberg - who is trying to curb the unhealthy eating choices that New Yorkers make - like McDonald's and other artery clogging eating establishments - that he is so much against. Would Bloomberg be considered a bad parent?
Although this is an extreme example of what is wrong with the family court system (the divorce industry, Guardians ad litem and other family court leaches) it does call into question about who really knows what is best for our children. In this case it appears Dr. Schiller and the mom knows what is best (sarcasm intended) - by giving into the demands of a 4-year old. The father does not (again sarcasm intended) because he refused as a parent to give in to his son, his child. What is the lesson that we can take away from this - that as a parent you do what your child wants - no matter how much it goes against your core values as a person or parent. Because if you don't the courts will take what is precious to you as they know what is best (sarcasm intended).
By the way - the mother took her son to McDonald's - reinforcing her son's bad behavior and the opinion of Dr. Schiller.
For support please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.
For further reading on this case:
Yahoo! Shine
NY Daily News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)