Is Maine Judiciary and GALs Violating Constitution?

The following letter suggest that there are serious issues with regards to LD522 and whether if it is implemented would be a violation of Maine's Constitution. This is not the first time where we have seen what would be an infringement of ones Constitutional rights here in Maine. This though holds the potential of being on a much larger scale.


April 10, 2013

Maine Judicial Committee

100 State House Station

Augusta, Maine 04333

Dear Judicial Committee Member,



Please find within a friendly reminder regarding LD 522; upon accepting your State of Maine Government position, you took an oath and made a pledge to up hold both the Maine and United States Constitutions.

The Maine Constitution is very direct and clear that  powers and responsibilities delegated to the Legislator, Governor, and Judicial Branch cannot be under any circumstances sub-delegated.

Whereas, LD 522 clearly does in fact sub delegated the responsibilities and power of oversight regarding Guardian Ad Litem’s to a private and non-government entity; being the Board of Overseers of the Maine Bar.

Therefore, as a member of this judicial committee, you have a responsibility and must reject LD522  and if it should be move forward to the State House and Senate  floor; could be a possible act in clear violation of the Maine Constitution. If for some reason, should LD522 be forward to the House and Senate floor; it must contain a proper disclosure that it may be in violation of the Maine Constitution.

I personally find it very troubling that some committee members whom should have a commanding knowledge of the Maine Constitution; would even consider supporting LD 522. Moreover, what is even more troubling is that LD522, was recommended by the Judicial Branch, which should have clearly known that these government powers and responsibilities cannot be sub-delegated to the board of overseers of the Maine Bar!

Another major U.S. Constitutional issue is the sub-delegation of powers in granting immunity or quasi - immunity to attorneys, or guardian ad litems that only represent individuals or a small group of individuals of the general public is prohibited; compare to attorneys that represents the vast majority of the general public with Constitutional rights which is acceptable. Therefore, LD 522 granting guardian ad litem quasi – immunity is in clear conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court opinion’s which have made it very clear as whom can be granted immunity and quasi-immunity. Therefore those attorneys, or guardian ad litems which only represent a child, or small group of children in a particular family will not qualify for any type of immunity, or quasi - immunity.

In closing, this committee should not recommend or allow LD522 to continue on to the floor of the Maine House, or Senate; due to what appears to be major Constitutional violations and conflicts.

Respectfully submitted by,


R Baizley


If you have an interest in bringing about Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Special Interest MEGALI proposing new Rules for Parental Coordinators to the Supreme Judicial Court

Original posting follows - Since this was originally posted the states Supreme Court has decided based on the recommendation and contributions of opinions by the public to not adopt the rules as presented by MEGALI. For the official ruling: ORDER ON PROPOSED MAINE RULES FOR PARENTING COORDINATORS We want to thank everyone who helped. Thank you for your efforts.


On January 10, 2013 the Supreme Judicial Court gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for Parenting Coordinators. The deadline for those comments were on of before January 25, 2013. At the time that this is being written none of those comments  were posted and it is not know whether or not any will be posted.

We feel that it is in the public’s best interest to know what is happening and why. That the rules, as they were presented to the court, were drafted by the special interest group – Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (the trade organization for Guardians ad litem). That Terry Hayes (a Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute member) has drafted legislation for Parental Coordinator to retain the position.  There are many people in the state that have been hurt by these unregulated officers of the court – much the same as with Guardians ad litem – which both Terry Hayes, Tobi Schneider and Toby Hollander (Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute President) are aware of. What the rules and proposed legislation appear to ask for are the same qualities that Guardians ad litem enjoy – thus ensuring what is in the best interest of the Parental Coordinator for a case and not what is in the child’s best interest.

Common Sense, a job description, protection for divorcing families from financial ruin and looking at child endangerment are issues that are not addressed with the proposed rules and legislation. The state cannot afford a carbon copy of what it has with the mess involving Guardians ad litem. The rules and legislation appear as nothing more than serving the self interest of those who call or would like to call Parental Coordinator their 'profession'.

The fifth in this series of letters is posted today. The previous four are presented after with links to pdf documents. Any names and personal information have been redacted:


It has come to my attention that there will be another hearing regarding Guardians ad Litum this
week.

As I stated in my last email, I am a social worker and have worked on teams helping families who are going through difficult times. My team works primarily with children at risk of removal from their home. Many times, the underlying issue is the stress caused by the parents whether they are living as a family or have separated. There are always mental health issues, not only for the child being treated, but with the parents as well.

When parents who fought while they lived together separate, the issues become even larger. Often times parents use their children as a tool against the other parent (so they will WIN) and horrific allegations are made. Teasing through the truth is not simple or easy and certainly, attorneys or others who do not have training/education in mental health treatment are not qualified to make these assessments. The GAL might refer the parents, or sometimes, just one parent, for assessments but these assessments are not enough to see the issues clearly. Attorneys and judges are not qualified to interpret assessments or to dig a little deeper to find the real truths.

At the very least, GALs should be required to have supervision with a qualified mental health practioner. Otherwise, an inexperienced person with no mental health background can interpret information incorrectly. Often times, a GAL's personal biases will determine their final decisions. I have seen this happen too often.

It should not take months and months for a GAL to make a determination. Again, with the proper training and supervision, the truth will reveal itself. Dragging these decisions out only adds to the stress and and increases the cost of GAL services, often placing one parent in financial distress. . AND in the end, the decisions do not always benefit the child,

I am not an advocate of anger management therapies as these therapies address only one parent's issues. There are two parents involved and it takes two to fight. There should be a thorough assessment done on both parents to reveal the truths. Please take the time to obtain a Diagnostic Statistic Manual IV (DSM IV) and read the information on personality disorders. You will find the information enlightening.

Forcing just one parent into assessments, and having the information, right or wrong, included in GAL reports which are being read by people with no education in mental health assessment, is also a violation of one's civil rights.

I recently supported a friend through a hearing and when the GAL included new information about the mother, the judge did not listen to the GAL and ignored concerns about the mother that were presented. In this case, the mother has a serious personality disorder which affects how she is raising their child. The woman presents well, but a trained professional is able to uncover the underlying issues. The child has been "brainwashed" into believing his father will hurt him and the result is depression and anxiety. This benefits the mother as she can say the child's diagnoses support her concerns for his well being, and extends the separation of child and father.

The matter at hand is the welfare of the child/ren and it is certainly worth your time to educate yourselves. Problems in childhood carry on through adulthood and the circle of violence often becomes generational.

Thank you for your time,
Name Redacted LSW BHP MHRT/c


Previous Letters:
Public Comment 001
Public Comment 002 2013-01-29
Public Comment 003 2013-01-30
Public Comment 004 2013-01-31

If you would like more information on Parental Coordinators please contact us at: parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com or feel free to comment.

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.