Has the Guardian ad litem Problem Vanished - It Has According to the Judicial Branch

September 2012 the one public member on the Guardian ad litem  Task Force wrote a minority report to the Judicial Branch regarding issues with the task force. February 15, 2017 the Judicial Branch present their final report on LD 872. In reading the report and only this report one would assume that the problems associated with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem have been resolved or under control. It is a glowing report which may be found here - GAL Report 2-2017. In reading this report please keep in mind that while the Judicial Branch may feel that things are running like a well oiled machine. We would like to point out that this report is more self serving than anything and there are still very serious systemic issues which have only been whitewashed over. What follows is the minority report to the Judicial Branch September 21, 2012 (which has also been included in the recently submitted GAL Report.


TO: GUARDIAN AD LITEM TASK FORCE
FROM: JEROME A. COLLINS M.D.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2012
APPENDIX C

MINORITY COMMENTS ON REPORT TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH GUARDIANS AD LITEM TASK FORCE

CONTEXT:

From my position as the only public member of the 19-member committee, the only one with no personal financial interest in the Guardian ad litem problem, my perspective on the problem is quite from that of the majority of the committee. While I believe that the chairing of the meetings was fair and friendly, there were decidedly biased undercurrents among the participants. "Is there a GAL problem?" is still a serious issue for many. Why not just tweak the current system, which works so well (for GALS?) another fairly significant position. And, "if 'they' want change, make them pay for it," was the surprisingly hostile position of one prominent family lawyer. I mention these few (of many) examples of bias that I felt, to indicate a strong interest on the part of a significant number of the committee in clinging to the 'status quo' to the greatest extent possible. This protective conservatism of the majority colors the document and colors my current opinion of it.

THE CURRENT DOCUMENT:

The document I received appears to be very sketchy. It pulls together many threads of issues that wore discussed in our three meetings, but it leaves unresolved very significant questions of detail. There are no instructions for users. There are no guided forms for users. There is no explanation users in clear language the process would work, the steps they would lake, the algorithm. It is not geared towards a citizen complaint made without legal assistance. In general, user-oriented supports arc absent, It desires imitate the NH complaint process but in our estimation it falls short. Without more fleshed-out detail the document is a "tabula rasa" on which one can project ideas but without solid grounding. leaves a great deal to the input of the Supreme Court, but disallows helpful guidance to the court and forces to give the court a blank conceptual check, when we've never done business before and don't know if we share common ground.

THE UNDERLYING CONCEPTS:

What exactly is the conceptual nature of a complaint regarding a Guardian ad litem? Is it a legal complaint between two adversaries about allegations of harm or damage, or is it vocational complaint about GAL performance to an oversight agency from one or more members the public, which questions whether this worker's performance meets publicly approved/regulated standards of practice? In our opinion, the current document attempts to merge the two ideas unsuccessfully at the expense or the consumer complaint. It strives to address the vocational questions, but in a heavily legalistic context that is apt to suffocate the consumer. Part of the problem is that GAL's vocational considerations lack a standard of practice, and GALs themselves lack an experience in how to judge standard practices of colleagues. The document makes no mention of training for all concerned in oversight that might teach these skills even the use of the court room concept of "standing" belies a legalistic bias, which would be unfamiliar find constricting to consumers.

This awkwardness can be in the questions raised in committee about "standing." In consumer protection agencies, the notion of "standing as traditionally applied in court (who may participate) doesn't apply. It is off-topic. Any member of the public with direct actual experience of a worker's malfunctioning may bear witness. It enhances agency oversight. This awkwardness and conceptual model confusion makes the creation of the new complaint process worrisome. In NH it, was found after an initial placement of the complaint process in the Judicial Branch the lack of experience of this branch in dealing with vocational issues and consumer protection necessitated a move to the licensing bureau. We feel that this is very apt to happen in Maine.

THE 12 MEMBER REVIEW BOARD:

This board with 12 members, two of whom would be from the public, with the other 10 being Guardians ad litem, to us to stack the decks wildly in favor of GALS. But it is a problem, not just in terms of numbers and composition. It also a problem of how such board would function in carrying out its duties. There is absolutely no tradition amongst the GALs in Maine or within their trade organization tor self-policing. There is little in the role or experience of GALs that prepares them to address consumer protection issues. Trade organizations , such as MEGALI, (and others) are well known for their tolerance or malfunctioning even as it approaches level of public scandal. Further what standards of practice would the panel be using? How would they judge a failing? Would any the panels have experience in assessing vocational functioning? It raises a host of questions about the knowledge skill and experience necessary to make critical vocational and consumer protective judgments.

In addition, there is also the very important question of attitude towards the public on the part of GALs, They see themselves us allies of judges and of the children they deal with. They are habituated to stand apart from the parties and exhibit independence. From our experience there is very often significant defensiveness to criticism on the part of these lightly trained GALs and of their trade organization. Some of these attitudinal biases surfaced during the recent Committee meetings. Examples: "Is there a. problem?"; "Do we need a new program?"

In our view board composition and hoard training the oversight role need to be reconsidered.

FINANCING:

In brief, it is our view, as a matter of principle, that the public shouldn't have to pay to make a vocational complaint to the oversight agency about one or their workers, be that oversight the responsibility of the Judicial Branch or of the Administrative Branch. It should be noted that there is currently no charge for public complaints by Maine's licensing boards. A fee to make a complaint sends a perhaps unintentionally off-putting message to the public: your complaint will cost you. It is a deterrent; we don't really want to know. One member of the committee expressed the issue with considerable animus: "Make them pay!", and suggested complaints were "an ego issue." It raises a serious question: Does the Judicial Branch Truly want to know about malfunctioning officers of the court in order to correct these situations? "Make them pay"' is not an attitude that encourages the public to assist the Judicial Brunch in its oversight.

GAL OVERSIGHT AND LICENSING BOARD OVERSIGHT:

Although it was mentioned m the committee, the jurisdictional conflict about a GAL whose actions appear to be malpractice of their base profession is not addressed in the current proposal. It is a serious consumer protection issue that a professional could avoid corrective action from complaints to their licensing hoard by needing to address GAL complaints at the Judicial Branch first. It is a serious problem, troubling to the public. There needs to be a corrective plan developed with the licensing boards.

WILL THE "NEW COMPLAINT PROCESS" BE USED BY PUBLIC?

At the moment, then is an unofficial, recent embargo by the public on GAL complaints. This action has arisen, because many people felt that the current complaint process was demeaning, always resulted in dismissal-even in the face of serious considerations. People also felt that the seemly inevitable dismissal whitewashed malfunctioning GALS gave no consumer warning of bad actors. Will the new process be used? Hard to say, but its use will definitely be limited without out' endorsement, Your limited "statistics" are apt to be even better!

I regret having to address so many problems on the eve of submitting a proposal to the Supreme Court, but so many ideas were presented in the committee meetings without clear direction-other than broad principle-being agreed on that seeing a written proposal surfaces many concerns. These are expressed here as clearly as possible; however, I'd be pleased to explain further, if appropriate.


MeGAL has been working for Family Court change for over five years. In 2013 and 2015 we had a number of bills submitted to help bring about this change. We continue to work for this change and in 2017 we are requesting an audit much like what was done back in 2006. We encourage you to become involved in the education of family, friends, co-workers and your representatives as to what the issues are. You may also contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

Part 3 - THE DICE ARE LOADED: A CONSUMER'S PERSPECTIVE

20.  INADEQUATE SERVING INSTRUCTIONS/EXPLANATIONS FOR 'PRO SE' "USERS": Although the 'pro se' litigants are a 75% majority (17,000 people in 2015, they are not accommodated by the courts even on small matters like serving court papers. No one explains that a registered letter receipt requested, doesn't have to be signed - even when served to a court official. No one explains that a sheriff-served paper, although expensive, is the only sure way. There is also a lack of clarity about court fees. As of this writing, it is not clear whether expensive court fees have to be re-paid for a new attempt after failed service. There is also the matter of "grumpy" clerical officials, who are grudging in providing information to majority 'pro se' users, while more obliging to "frequent flyer" local lawyers, who know the ropes. It is a small but significant, symbolic example of a failure by the court system at even its lowest level to recognize the "new normal" of majority 'pro se' litigants.

For a list of issues as we see them with our Family Courts read [PART1] and [PART2]. Family Courts and the vendors (GALs and court experts) who work within do so in a broken system. To change this system we encourage you to contact your representatives and let them know of the troubles you have experienced. Let them know that there are over 17,000 others.

Speak Out - 2015 Survey on the State of our Family Courts

As a consumer of Judicial Services rarely have you ever been given the opportunity to provide feedback to your Family Court system on how they are doing. There is no exit survey on the experience you just had. As a result our Family Court system has no idea on how well (or badly) it is doing.

Until now.

We want to know what your experience has been as a consumer, lawyer, judge or Guardian ad litem (and other court vendors) within this system. The data collected will be used and provided to our representatives as well as the Judicial Branch and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The survey on the state of our Family Courts asks 13 questions anonymously and provides you an opportunity to expand on any and all of the topics.

In January 2016 we will be publishing the results of this survey.

2015 State of Family Courts [ LINK ]

Senate Confirmation of the Hon. Jeffrey Moskowitz

In the end the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz was confirmed. We saw that it was going to happen. That the establishment and big money lawyers were going to ram it down our throats.

The flurry of activity behind the scenes. The letters that all of you who wrote in last minute attempt to sway the Senate to do the right thing - was not in vain.

We were inexperienced and trying to accomplish the impossible with no money or resources. We were up against the legal industry who has all of that.

What is interesting is how the Chair of the Judiciary Committee - Sen Robert Burns viewed the testimony saying that there was a lot of positive testimony for the Judge. Or to quote "Our committee had had overwhelming... supportive testimony" ( 18m37s - LINK). If we relied on this litmus test on whether or not a judge is qualified then the committee charged with vetting is nothing more than a front for who is our most popular judges. At least as far as lawyers are concerned - as consumer opinion is not as highly sought after as that of lawyers.

Sen, David Dutremble should be commended for giving a voice to the parents and consumers of judicial services in this judges court. we have said it before and we will say it again. He is a hero. For standing up for the people of Maine and not bowing to the pressure from the legal industry. We cannot thank him enough for sticking his neck out for us.

MeGAL is advocating for Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. The confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz  can be heard here. Please allow for loading (or downloading) as the file is 10.9 megs. If you have a story please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

LD 349, SP 132, 127th Legislature An Act To Ensure Accountability of Guardians Ad Litem

Summary of this bill:

1. Removes the quasi-judicial immunity provided to guardians ad litem by statute;

2. Allows a cause of action and the award of punitive damages against guardians ad litem who falsely accuse parties of abuse or neglect or who intentionally exclude relevant information from reports to the parties or the court;

3. Requires the court to impose limits on the extent of investigations to be undertaken by a guardian ad litem;

4. Requires all guardians ad litem to have a minimum amount of completed course work in social work; and

5. Requires the court to set expenditure limits on guardian ad litem fees and any other costs incurred in investigations or the completion of the duties of the appointment.

The bill may be found here: 127th Legislature

You may also find out about other bills relating to Family Court and Guardian ad litem here.

This Bill was presented by Senator DUTREMBLE of York.
Cosponsored by Representative CRAFTS of Lisbon and Senator: PATRICK of Oxford, Representatives: FECTEAU of Biddeford, SHAW of Standish, SHORT of Pittsfield, VEROW of Brewer, WOOD of Sabattus.

If you would like to give testimony with regards to Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Why is the Divorce Industry Calling Us "Bad Sports"…. Again.

Once again, we are hearing from the Maine divorce industry a repeat of their 2013 analysis of consumer complaints about Maine Guardians ad litem (GALs) and Family Courts. To put it in a very small nutshell: "Whiners!",  "Losers!",  "Those with a bad result in court!"

And ... there is that timeworn, mindless 'mantra' that in a contested divorce somebody HAS TO WIN, and somebody HAS TO LOSE! It is the "has to" that functions as a "we rest our case"  conversation stopper.  It implies that there is no other way than an adversarial model of child custody dispute resolution, that all family matter cases split neatly into "good guys" and "bad guys", and that family court judges and their sidekick GALs are OMNISCIENT. Impartiality reigns. Please, move on.

It is hard to believe that these tired, worn-out articles of lawyerly faith are being dragged out once again in 2015 for the 127th Legislature. We thought that they had been laid to rest on March 28th, 2013, when members of the public testified before the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature, all afternoon and into the early evening. Judiciary Committee members were profoundly moved by the credibility of stories of horrifying family court and GAL dysfunction.  It was a "wake up call" for even the most skeptical legislator, and it lead to LD 872, a GAL reform bill, being passed into law and signed by the Governor on July 8th 2013.

But ... once more with feeling! Let's refocus the lawyer's stereotyped conversation.

To begin with, no one is asking the legislature  for a change in the outcome of their custody case, much as many are unhappy with the steps leading to their outcome. Please, note that there are 7 brand new bills before the Judiciary Committee that address GAL and Family Court issues.  None of these bills are about the outcome of a particular divorce or a group of divorces. None of these bills are about "whining", "losing", or "bad result". They are all about much needed structural reform for GALs and Family Courts. They speak to court dysfunctions in urgent need of repair. They implicitly speak to the impossibility of having a "good outcome" as the result of a badly broken, dysfunctional process. They may also speak to "deferred maintenance" by the Judicial Branch that badly needs repair. In addition, we would maintain that the beneficiary of the current dysfunctional 'status quo' are the lawyers in the 26% minority of family court cases which can afford to pay for a lawyer.

So much for "whiners"!!  Who is whining now?

Most of the bills deal with the grossly inadequate structural design issues, such as, 18 hours of GAL training for a job requiring high level professional skills, the absence (after 3 years of  hard work by the Judicial Branch) of a consumer friendly complaint protocol that will enable “corrective action” of recognized GAL dysfunction, moving the complaint procedure to the Bureau of Professional Licensing (after 3 years of no working plan by the Judicial Branch), eliminating quasi judicial immunity from GALs when they "improvise" activities outside of their written "Rules", disallowing judges to use “discretion” about whether Rules for Maine GALs are followed - or not. Judges, we feel, should follow the law like anyone else.

One of the most important bills in our opinion, is the bill calling for an audit of 'Prose' litigants in family courts. 74% of litigants in family matter cases cannot afford a lawyer and must go it alone in court. It is a terrifying situation to be alone in an unfamiliar legal culture advocating for your child. Beyond the immobilizing fear of combat in court, it is an extremely unfair situation.

For 74% of Maine people involved in family court matters, Family Courts are no longer an impartial court but the setting for a crude "gladiatorial fight". Unarmed combatants against fully armed lawyers. It is beyond "David and Goliath". There is an urgent humane need for Maine to move the "whiner"/"Loser/"bad result" conversation into a review of solid facts. What is the experience for 'Prose' consumers? How do judges and lawyers function with 74% of nonprofessionals in their courts? How can this situation be reformed? How can the horrifying 74% 'Prose' numbers be reduced significantly?

Without wanting to appear  "to whine" about it, we feel that an audit by an organization, like OPEGA, will give answers and eliminate lawyerly name calling as a foil for real answers.

Just call me a "bad sport", as they did in 2012.

MeGAL believes in educating and legislative process. If you would like to become involved in reforming our Family Court and Guardian ad litem system please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or call at 207-370-9801. We may also be found on Facebook.

For further reading relating to Prose litigants in Family Courts:

2014-11-12 Family Court , 'Quo Vadis? "improvement, reform or implosion"?
2014-09-28 The Pro se Problem in Family Courts
2014-05-28 PROPOSAL FOR AN AUDIT OF ‘PRO SE’ REPRESENTATION IN MAINE FAMILY COURTS
2014-03-18 Maine Voices: We must work together to ensure justice truly is for all in Maine - a response

2015 - MeGAL bills for Family Court and Guardian ad litem Reform

This year we are lucky enough to have ( 6 ) bills which have been sponsored for legislation. While we do not expect all of them to become bills/ laws - if nothing more this will be an opportunity to educate our representatives to the problems in our Family Court system. In 2013 we had several bills sponsored of which one became a bill ( LD 872 ). The following are bills which we know are related to the issues in Family Court. Look over the list and if you find others that should be a part of this list please contact us (see below):

LR 825 Title: An Act To Require Shared Parenting of Minor Children When the Parents Separate - Sen. Dutremble of York

LD 349, SP 132 Title: An Act To Ensure Accountability of Guardians Ad Litem - Sen. Dutremble of York

LR 831 Title: An Act To Require That a Guardian Ad Litem Be Licensed - Sen. Dutremble of York

LR 832 Title: An Act To Define the "Best Interest" of a Child - Sen. Dutremble of York

LR 1436 Title: An Act To Provide an Audit of Pro Se Experience in Family Courts - Rep. Seavey of Kennebunkport

LR1658 Title: An Act To Move Oversight of Guardians Ad Litem to the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation -Sen. Dutremble of York

To find the bill listings please do a search based on the LR "Number". For example searching for "832" should bring you to " An Act To Define the "Best Interest" of a Child Sen. Dutremble of York". In addition there are a number of bills which may or may not pertain to Family Court Reform which may be found on page 77 under JUD - Judicial Dept

This is a pdf file which may need to be downloaded: 127th Maine State Legislature

Please feel free to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com for further information on becoming involved and/ or if you find bills that may be of interest as it relates to the Family Court. You may also find us on Facebook.

Should I Be Part of a Class Action Suit Against My Guardian ad litem?

Recently there was talk about doing a class action suit against a particular Guardian ad litem. Three years ago I would have been in favor of something like that. Today not so in light of all of the actions brought against Guardians ad litem in the state. In 10 years there have been numerous complaints filed against Guardians ad litem with the Head Judge (this does not even take into consideration the complaints filed at the lower court). Out of about 150 complaints initiated by consumers do you know how many were successful in correcting/ removing the Guardian ad litem

ZERO/ NONE

Well there were two removed by the courts because of mental health issues but those were not initiated by consumers (I stand corrected). As a consumer interested in filing a complaint at the highest level you would be better off investing in the lottery. You stand a far better chance of getting a result (any result) from the purchase of a lottery ticket than you would in court.

In three years little has been accomplished in courts - rolling the dice and playing by their rules. They (the courts and divorce industry) hold the cards. On the other hand there is no reason holding us back from playing with a different set of rules a different deck of cards. Think Different.......

 Find us on Facebook of email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com

Family Court , 'Quo Vadis? "improvement, reform or implosion"?

As we observe the big picture of Maine’s Family Courts, we sense that  our family courts appear to be slowly imploding. It is not a visibly dramatic happening that grabs public attention. It is largely unnoticed and unrecognized symptoms of decay from within. This process of decline is unnoticed, except, perhaps, by those who pass through the family court experience , and many of these victims are so wounded by the experience that it is hard for them to view the experience in a larger perspective. It is frequently hard for all of the active players - judges, lawyers and users - to "see the woods for the trees"! Let us consider a few of the amazing "systems changes" that are progressing, unnoticed, and that are, like termites, silently eating the structure of family courts from within.

“THE "TERMITES":  From our perspective, serious structural damage to family courts is being caused by the seemingly inexorable growth of 'pro se'  (self) representation in family courts. This phenomenon is occurring, not just in Maine, but in every state in America. In Maine, the figure for 'pro se' representation in family courts is reported to be a startling 74% and growing. There is also the eye-popping figure of 86% of family court cases, which have only ONE lawyer. The figures for 'pro se' representation, we might add, are even higher in Connecticut and NY. One has to ask, what is the impact of this amazing growth of self-representation on the family court system, on normal, professionally guided and determined family court proceedings? What happens to a professional legal system, with long traditions and well-established protocols for inter-professional relations, with a focus on complex, human problem solving, When one of the two "players" in these contests is underrepresented and completely  ignorant of how to function in the well-structured, traditional setting? General systems theory would suggest chaos and profound, unprogrammed, unintended changes in the way the system functions. Well-intended attempts to patch the traditional 'status quo' models, further change the original system and bring with them further unintended consequences. The working system is not as it was - try as it may. Some call it broken. The ‘pro se’ “trend is not its friend”!

WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SYSTEM?: With the invasion of 'pro se' litigants in family courts, desperate, frightened people with no knowledge or skill in the law and its traditions, turn the courtroom into a scene of confusion, stress, emotional pain and misunderstanding. Judges struggle mightily with "judicial impartiality" in dealing with the 'pro se' litigant. To help, or not to help - and how to do so without unbalancing fairness and throwing impartiality to the winds. How can a judge - without guidelines or traditions for handling this invasion of amateurs - try to maintain a degree of balance and proportion in a situation in which the combatants/ competitors are so unevenly matched? The 'pro se' litigant is always anxious, frequently frightened (or terrified) by the utterly unfamiliar environment, by the task of hoping to rescue a beloved child and by the daunting tensions of the contest. It is a forced visit to a very "foreign country" with unfamiliar rules, language and procedures. How to cross examine, what are rules of evidence and, then, there are all too frequently the "objections" raised at every turn by an opposing lawyer. What do they mean to a 'pro se' litigant? How should they be handled by the litigant and/or by the judge? Can an "impartial" judge help a baffled 'pro se' litigant deal with “objections”? Some judges do try to offer help and to be kind without violating impartiality, but it poses serious challenges to all of the "players". There are also a number of very troubling reports that some judges are rude and vent frustration with the ineptitude of 'pro se' litigants. "Don't come back to this court unless you have a lawyer!" has been the dictum of several judges. We’d say, there is a crying need for data to measure the scope of the problems? Then, one can address the second issue: how does one correct this total systems problem?

We'd answer those judges, who resist dealing with the legally unrepresented, by saying that no one in their right mind would undertake the personal stress and misery of 'pro se', unless motivated by great love for their children and financial hardship! The 'pro se' situation is never a happy choice for anyone, and no one decides to go 'pro se' unless they are utterly desperate! There is also the important question of "outcome"? Who wins  in these uneven combat situations? No one has answers to this question, but we are inclined to say, "Three guesses and the first two don't count!”  However ... there is a crying need for actual data to move the conversation beyond anecdotes.

PRESERVING FAMILY COURTS FOR THE SHRINKING 26% WHO HAVE (MONEY) LAWYERS: Apart from the 74% 'pro se' litigants without lawyers, one should also consider the remaining 26% who have lawyers. One might in all honesty say that the expensive Maine family courts are being maintained for this affluent  minority and (more importantly) their lawyers. As an arena for a few lawyers (and the associated apparatus of consultants and GALs), the whole operation has become known by the public (countrywide), as the divorce industry. Should family courts and their whole expensive apparatus be maintained at public expense for a 26% minority of litigants and the juicy financial interests of  "the divorce bar"?

AS NEWS ABOUT THE 'PRO SE' DISASTER ESCAPES THE SYSTEM: In this age of the Internet, the public learns quickly about the unhappy state of affairs of 'pro se' litigants in family court. Paradoxically, in many cases, the public may well know more than members of the Judicial Branch who are tightly isolated from news of serious malfunctioning, cruelty. Bad management and unintended harm to children by omnipresent, "due process" concerns.  The public, in all likelihood, knows more about specific courts and specific judges and lawyers than does the Chief Justice. But... the bad stories, once out, cannot be controlled or suppressed. It causes severe damage to the credibility of the courts. The mechanisms of channeling public complaints about the distressing dysfunctions within the system are not user-friendly, are very expensive and in terms of corrective outcome ineffective. But the complaints and the "scandals" cannot be stopped by a protective system and an ineffective complaint protocol. They spread out like an Internet miasma from Ft Kent to Kittery, from Maine to California. They give the family courts and their entire operation a very black eye. It is very reminiscent of the recent scandals in another very closed system, the Catholic Church. Old methods and techniques of suppressing bad news, bad results and bad people don't work. The old system is badly broken and out of control, and the target symptom of this malaise can be seen most clearly in the 'pro se' situation.

HOW TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM - FROM WITHIN OR FROM WITHOUT? It is our strong impression that without some thoughtfully programmed intervention, a growing 'pro se' situation in family courts will lead to a massive major breakdown of these courts in concert with widespread, public, bad feeling spiraling out of control. It will be impossible to control this tsunami of bad handling of 'pro se' cases. As social media become increasingly aware, the courts will face increasing disrespect and a lack of public support. It is truly a simple question of "fix it, or it will fix you!" In our opinion, the usual Judicial Branch problem solvers, the "stake holders" are the wrong group to fix the problem. They are the 26% who benefit financially from the current  'status quo' of family courts. There is also the serious hard data problem. Nobody knows the full extent of the 'pro se' problem. It is impossible to formulate a fully rational, systemic, corrective intervention without data. Clearly, the definition of systemic data needs (and subsequent data collection and analysis) is not a task within the capability of a "stake holder's" committee.

We'd recommend a legislative audit of the 'pro se' problem, executed by a respected government agency with the capability of doing this. OPEGA comes to mind. The aim is not to embarrass or cause pain to anyone. It is to obtain an objective analysis of the 'pro se' system and to suggest  comprehensive systemic corrections. With sponsorship from all three branches of government, it would be to the credit of all to face a terrible problem with courage and intelligence.

For more information about what we are doing to change the Family Court system find us on Facebook or email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com

New Rules for Guardians ad litem versus or ... Judicial Discretion.

We are sure that the 78 page document spelling out a set of new Rules for Maine Guardians ad litem represents many hours of work on the part of some Judicial Branch Committee. However, to this reader, they are a very perplexing document. Exactly what are they supposed to be? Are they a job description? Are they some sort of regulations aimed at governing and bounding the work related actions of Guardians ad litem in divorce and custody (and protective) cases? Are they a set of voluntary guidelines to be followed if the GAL wishes? Are they well intentioned (but empty) ideals? What are they? It is far from clear.

Any set of Rules on paper may look fine, but their value and meaning  come from whether they are enforced or not- and how. For these new Rules there  appears to be no enforcement. There appears to be no consequences of any kind for not following them. There is no designated entity responsible for oversight to see if the Rules are being followed. There is nothing we can see, except for the reporting of complaints by the ‘pro se’ public. This complaint process itself is a confusing procedure guaranteed to fail. To this reader the message in the new rules seems to be: "it would be nice if Guardians ad litem learned these Rules and tried to follow them. But if they don't, not to worry. There are no consequences.

The complaint procedure speaks loud and clear to these issues. For family courts in which 74% of litigants are 'pro se', the complaint protocol spelled out in the new Rules is frankly unusable. It's complexity, its lack of instruction about "how to", its legalistic posture, its insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" even in cases needing only minor corrective action, its extreme concern about due process, makes it bullet proof against any public complaint. It also has no use as a management tool, a heads up from a member of the public that is simply aiming to improve GAL quality in cases of less serious malfunctioning. We guess that the court feels that GALs don’t need management? GALs all over Maine can heave a sigh of relief. Courts can breath easier. The complaint procedure won't be used, or, if it is used by an unaware 'pro se' litigant they won’t succeed in penetrating its airtight defenses.

For the time being, Guardians ad litem will be able to escape any consequences of  ‘pro se’ public complaints, but please don’t think that this will make the  GAL problems go away. They will just fester, suppurate, expand and grow larger.  Sooner or later the GAL malfunctioning problems will be uncontainable and a public scandal will burst through!

The "Catch 22" about the proposed new Rules (or the current ones) is that their courtroom enforcement appears to be totally a matter of judicial discretion. They can be discarded, amended or altered if a judge- quite independently of any rules - decides to order GAL actions not covered by the Rules for Maine GALs, or ... to ignore flagrant violations.  a piece of this problem- in our experience- is that many judges and many GALs lack specific, detailed knowledge of the GAL Rules and have only a "general idea" about Rules for GALs.  "Judicial discretion" seems to allow for creative use of the Rules in any which way.

To many of us, the recent Maine Supreme Court appeal, the Dalton vs Dalton case, appears to tell litigants that even a well-documented carefully reasoned exposition of what looks like a gross abuse of current GAL Rules by the GAL and documentation of a similar situation by the  judge  risks a "contempt of court" complaint.  It also risks "hand signals'  to the Overseers of the Bar to open a 'sua sponte' complaint against the lawyer who dared to document the problems.  The implications of this series of actions seem clear to us: any lawyer who robustly defends a client faced with dysfunctional judicial or GAL behavior is in extreme professional danger. DON'T DO IT!

The answer to correcting the dysfunctions in GALs and judges seems to be to bury the problem, until the weight of scandal and and corruption from within cannot be suppressed. A massive public cry of outrage and a demand  for action ensue.  The fairly recent scandals in the Catholic Church come to mind as an example. Suppression only works for a shorter and shorter period in the age of the Internet.

In our interest for reform, we are tempted to say to the Judicial Branch, "Do nothing.  Let your unenforced Rules and your unusable complaint procedures stand exactly as they are.  In the long run, they have within their carefully crafted attempts to control and suppress the truth (at a time when the Internet dictates that “you can run, but can’t hide”), the inevitable roots of a huge scandal, forced change and reform.  We're just not there yet!

There should be an easier way for all.

We shall overcome.  ... someday!

Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com for more information.

Will your online petition make people aware of the issue?

You are upset because the system has betrayed you - you want to take action and show that they are wrong, corrupt or biased. What do you do - get an online petition going to show the powers that there is a problem and that people back you up. Before you go to one of many sights that offer up online petitions are you prepared to do some hard thinking and ask yourself some difficult questions before posting that petition?

Some things to think about while you contemplate the idea:

GOALS: It is critically important to have clear aims for any petition.  Who are you petitioning?  Exactly what do you want them to do?  Do they have the legal power/authority to do it?  Are they apt to respond to an Internet petition?  Have they ever responded to a similar petition like yours before?  Have you tried other methods to solve the problem about which you are petitioning?

NUMBERS NEEDED? How many petitioners do you think you can get to sign your petition?  Beyond your family and friends are there a large number of people who understand the issues you are raising and who will back you because they share the  views you express in the petition?  How many signers will you need to have any significance?  For an in-state project, it might take several thousand signers before anyone takes notice.  For a national project you will need hundreds and hundreds of thousands.  You are aiming to make a grass roots statement of political power.  Can you get the numbers to "speak" power? How?  Large organizations and governments don't respond to midgets.

DEFAULT POSITION: If the petition falls flat- with little to no response or action- what is your fallback plan?  Shouldn't you have other ideas in mind, or do you just drop it?

RISK MANAGEMENT: What are the risks for you and others who might sign an Internet petition?  Have you run the petition idea by your lawyer and/or others with experience?  Is it well-written and clear; does it avoid name calling or slander?  Have you considered whether the petition will make matters better or worse?  What if it fails to get the desired response?  Will it improve or damage your image, your credibility, your thinking, your ideas, your original aim?  Are there legal ramifications that can come back to bite you and those who sign the petition?  If the petition fails in its expressed aims will there be backlash?  Will it infuriate others in the system you are petitioning - and cause them to close their ranks?

DISTRACTION: Is the petition a waste of time in the sense of being a time-consuming distraction from actual things you might do with less risk and greater potential payoff?  Are you avoiding the hard emotional work that might have greater benefit?

Getting 25 or 50 of your friends to sign your petition is probably useless. They are signing it just for that reason - being your friend or family member. On the other hand if you talk with 25 or 50 strangers of which some end up signing is in the end more beneficial to your cause. You have created an awareness of your issue which you can then build upon. To put it another way - a person in power can ignore hundreds or even thousands of signatures. It becomes harder though to ignore 25, 30 or more who are screaming at their door - writing letters and becoming involved in your cause.

REMEMBER: The American Revolutionary players tried unsuccessfully to petition King George.  The fallback position was the Committees of Correspondence and then the  Revolutionary War.

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

This is why I am disobeying your order - An open letter to a Judge

Dear Judge,

Two years ago I appeared in your court. I was summoned there with only a few hours notice and appeared without a lawyer. Though no charges were pronounced against me, you legally removed my child from my care and protection, eliminated my right to make any decisions about her, and ordered me to stay away from her most of the time.

From what I have been able to gather about such proceedings, this outcome was nothing out of the ordinary. In fact it quickly became apparent to me that this outcome came very close to being decided in advance. What precisely was said during this brief hearing seems to have made very little difference. As it began, a gentleman who did not know me proceeded to assassinate my character as confidently as if he had personally witnessed each item in his litany of my imperfections. While again, there were no specific charges and nothing legally actionable, it was clear that his role was to translate somewhat vague private grievances against me into a formula that would appear to justify taking away my child.

What struck me at the time was how quickly and effortlessly a child was removed from the care and protection of her parent and her life carved up as if it were the bookings of a holiday cottage. Such and such days she would spend with the non-custodial parent, the rest with the custodial parent. You asked very few questions and sought very little information. The hearing was very brief, and suddenly, I was told, it was over. During the hearing I was allowed to speak very little and interrupted every time I tried. There seemed to be no burden of proof on those who sought to separate me from my child.

I realize that, given the number of similar cases that come before you, you issue these rulings as a matter of routine. I would not be surprised if you have no recollection of this particular case. Nevertheless, for me it was an eye-opening experience and probably the most important thirty minutes or so of my life.

You did not strike me as an unusually malicious or callous person. I am told you are considered among the more favorable judges for parents, and that the time you assigned permitting me to be with my children is relatively generous.

All this may be true. Yet it has also become apparent to me that what I witnessed in your courtroom was a tiny part of a vast system of largely impersonal and unaccountable power that was previously unknown to me, as it still is to most citizens. I am fully aware that you did not create this system and that you yourself may have very little control over it. Nevertheless you are a principal and active participant. So vast and so routine has this power become that you are able, with no background information and in a hearing lasting only a few minutes, to permanently separate a child from a parent without any indication that you were aware of the gravity of what you were doing.

While this central act was disturbing enough, what was again striking were the questions that were not asked, the subjects that were not brought up, the consequences that were not anticipated. You knew that I was accused of no wrongdoing and had agreed to no separation or divorce. You were also aware that I had never lived in this country with my family and that I had neither a residence nor a livelihood here. Yet a number of important matters were never discussed. Did I have a place to live? Did I have a way to get to where my daughter was? Could I work here? Did I have access to a car? Did the hours you permitted me to be with her bear any relation to when I might be able to find or keep employment? What costs would be involved for me or other parties?

You may recall that when my mother attempted to sit in on the hearing she was refused and escorted out. Yet the results of this hearing have profoundly and adversely affected her life. She was forced to take in and support a grown son who was now unemployed. She was forced to cancel the sale of her house so that I would have a place to stay. Her car has been commandeered so that I can see my children and get to work. Did these hardships for her enter into your ruling? They certainly were not brought up in the hearing. It did occur to me at the time, but I was cut off each time I attempted to speak.

What is also noteworthy is that I can recount my recollection of these proceedings without fear of contradiction or inaccuracy, not only because you probably do not remember details of the hearing, but also because no record of it now exists and no impartial witnesses were permitted to be present. In other words, there is nothing and no one to contradict or corroborate my recollection. By the same measure, there is no accountability or recorded reasoning for a ruling that has torn apart the home and world of an innocent child.

In short, it struck me that for the first time in my life I was personally witnessing an instance of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”: evil that has become so routinized and bureaucratized that otherwise decent people are able to tell themselves they are doing good when they are doing evil. It is profoundly ironic that I should have returned from five years in a post-totalitarian society to be confronted here in the United States with a new and unexpected version of the kind of bureaucratic dictatorship that has been perhaps the most notable feature of the politics of this century.

When we hear about children being forcibly taken from their parents by Nazi doctors or Communist apparatchiks we are filled with the deepest revulsion. In accounts of American slavery the division of slave families pierces deeper into our hearts than even the physical cruelties of that institution. What family court judges such as yourself do as a daily routine is not on the same level of evil. But it is not so completely different that we should classify the one as among the most detestable “crimes against humanity” and accept the other as desirable treatment for our own children. You may think this comparison offensive. But a government which criminalizes ordinary law-abiding citizens for something so basic as exercising their parental responsibilities is itself on the way to becoming a criminal regime. Parents such as I who are accused of nothing routinely have their children removed from their care and protection, are ordered to stay away from them and to pay money to those who have taken them, and are incarcerated if they refuse or are unable. These parents receive fewer constitutional protections for their basic civil rights and liberties than persons accused of vicious crimes. Yet there is no public outcry, no expose by muckraking journalists, no petition of outraged intellectuals, no review by international tribunals, no inquiries by human rights organizations, no voice of opposition.

Whatever may be said in favor of this practice, there is no justification for ordering me or any other innocent parent to stay away from our children in terms of their well-being. This is a practice that exists not for the welfare of children but for the power and enrichment of adults. It is a practice I cannot in conscience accept, and I believe no other parent can either.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I no longer consider your order binding on me and that it is my intention to disobey it. From this time forth I will consider myself free to be with my children whenever I or they choose. I will not hesitate to remove them from any institutional care center at which they are being stored. I will consider myself at liberty to go to any residence where they are being kept with the expectation that I will be permitted to be with my children. In short, I will behave as if I have the same right to do what I choose with my children when and where I choose as any other parent or as I had they day my eldest daughter was born, secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing to forfeit that right. All this will be done in the open view of the world.

At no time will I, as I have never done previously, behave in a disorderly manner; much less will I use any physical force. Consistent with what has always been my parental practice, I will quarrel with no one in the presence of my children. Should I be confronted, as I have been in the past, with contention, disrespect, or physical coercion, I will do my utmost not to respond in kind. Should I, as a creature endowed with my share of imperfections, be provoked to an indiscretion in the presence of my children, I will invoke the only tried and true remedy available to any parent in such circumstances, which is to say I will apologize. Witnessing this will do my children no harm and may possibly set an example they are not likely to see elsewhere. But I will also make it clear, as I must now make it clear to you, that I can no longer tolerate forced separation from my children.

I realize this is not the usual and, from your standpoint, preferred method of responding to a court order. I know that I am expected to hire a professional advocate to argue my case in a courtroom. Yet after prolonged and careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot pursue this course.

In the first place, to be brutally practical, I do not have the means. As a direct result of your ruling I was forced to resign my position, leave the only residence my family had ever had, and relocate here in order to be with my children. There is also something I find basically objectionable about any parent having to pay money to see his own children when he has been presented with no grounds for why they were taken in the first place. As with a conventional kidnapping, if I begin to pay money for this purpose, where does it end?

More to the point, it is not clear to me what I would argue in a courtroom, since not only have I have been accused of nothing; I have not accused anyone else of anything. In the absence of charges against me, I cannot and will not cooperate with an inquisition into my family life. It is also not my practice to discuss the shortcomings of members of my family with third parties, let alone to construct legal cases against them. Forcing me to do so as a condition of retaining my rights as a parent strikes me as morally equivalent to staging a cockfight. And again, I fail to see where it would end. Frankly, it appears to me that this entire process is designed less to arrive at any determination relevant to the welfare of my children than to provide business for associations of legal entrepreneurs.

Even more fundamentally, I cannot pursue this course because I cannot accept that you or anyone else has any grounds to intervene in my family and tell me when, where, and under what circumstances I may be with my children or to deny me the right to raise and protect them and make decisions for their welfare. In other words, it is not so much a particular ruling that I cannot accept as an unprovoked and unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over my family. You may reply that this was solicited by parties that include members of my family. Yet this does not alter the fact that it was done without any grounds whatever. It is equally true to say that some 30 years ago the armies of the Warsaw Pact were “invited” to enter the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, but this does not make it any less of any invasion.

I am also aware of the arguments against the alternative course of action I have chosen. No doubt I will be accused of inflicting an unpleasant experience upon my children by going to see them when I have not been authorized to do so. I have considered this at some length. It is this consideration, in part, that prevented me from responding in kind when my child was originally abducted from her home and before I was summoned to your court. I am sure that I was assisted in this restraint by the conviction that this country’s system of justice is fair and that justice would eventually prevail. (Yet I must regretfully note that this restraint seems to have counted nothing in my favor in your courtroom.) I would like to believe that conviction is still justified, though I am now convinced that this is more likely to be the case by refusing to accept your power to arbitrarily keep me from my children than by hiring a professional advocate to quibble over precisely how much you should do so.

I have also come to the conclusion that I cannot submit indefinitely to what amounts to a kind of blackmail, a blackmail rendered all the more heinous for holding as hostages two children and forcing a parent to stay away from them for fear of how others will respond to his presence. I trust you are familiar with the concept of a “heckler’s veto” and with its legal standing.

It is one thing to refrain from contention in the presence of children, which I have always done and will continue to do. It is another to acquiesce indefinitely in a crime committed against them. In fact it is precisely my concern to avoid further contention that leads me to take a public and open stand against this patent injustice rather than participating in a privately litigated battle that I cannot see will be to anything other than the detriment of my family.

The principal trauma being inflicted on my children is the forced destruction of their family and separation from one or both of their parents, a trauma that has been inflicted by your ruling. Given this, I firmly believe that, far from my harming my children, there are certain lessons in this that they need to be made aware of and that it is my responsibility as a parent to teach them. While I believe I have valid reasons as a citizen to disobey the law in this instance, I want to make clear to you that I also have connected but even more imperative ones as a parent.

It is my responsibility to teach my children that the proper course of action when faced with injustice is to resist and oppose it in a peaceful and dignified way. At some point they must learn that there are higher principles and a higher law they must always obey, even when it means they must break the civil law and accept the consequences for doing so. These are not only lessons that they can learn; they are lessons that they must learn and lessons that, in other contexts, we go to considerable lengths to teach them. In Sunday school my eldest daughter has already been exposed to the quiet courage of the Hebrew women, to the defiant stand of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to the public crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. In school she will soon be reading about the teachings and examples of Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As both a teacher of these ideas myself and a parent, I am acutely aware that there is no point in teaching our children one set of principles as being right in the abstract when we teach them the opposite by our own acts or failure to act precisely at the time when those principles are most needed to confront an injustice. It is perhaps unfortunate, but nevertheless unavoidable, that the circumstances of her life are now such that she must now witness the application of these principles sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, if I do not act I fear that the lessons my children are already learning are far more harmful than witnessing a parent peaceably and openly disobey an unjust court order. Virtually every principle of sound child-rearing is contravened by this immoral practice of forcibly separating children from their parents. For the sake of clarity and emphasis I will list the harmful messages I see them absorbing:

- They are learning that we put our own desires before the needs of others, including those we profess to love such as our own children.

- They are learning that children like themselves are not to be treated as people with needs and rights of their own, but used as tools and weapons in the quest for power and profit by adults.

- They are learning that ordinary family differences and disagreements are to be resolved not with love, understanding, and compromise, but with the courts and police.

- They are learning that the vows of marriage – and by extension all other pledges, promises, commitments, and agreements – mean nothing and can be abrogated when they are no longer to our advantage.

- They are learning that principles and values are something we adhere to only so long as they are convenient, and that we can invent the rules according to our momentary pleasure.

- They are learning that contrition and forgiveness mean nothing and that injuries to others are not to be atoned for and forgiven but nursed as grievances to be revenged when the opportunity presents itself.

- They are learning that when someone disagrees with us or has other ideas or beliefs than ours, we need not listen to him, even within our own family, because now we can use the courts to silence him and have the police keep him away.

- They are learning the methods of the bully, which in other contexts we attempt to discourage and protect them from.

- They are learning that anyone in their family can be eliminated when they fall out of favor – including, perhaps, our children themselves.

- They are learning that the instruments of the state and the justice system are not public tribunals for redressing public wrongs and establishing public justice but rather a system of hired force which we can marshal for private hurts, domestic differences, and personal grievances.

- They are learning that both the family and the state are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies for private injuries.

- They are learning that they need not accept or obey the authority of a parent – and by extension any other authority as well, including their teachers, ministers, parent, and eventually the laws and tribunals of the public state.

- They will learn that the police are not instruments for maintaining public order and protecting the weak, but hired mercenaries that we can marshal against members of our own family when we don’t agree with what they do or say.

- They will learn that the justice system of this country is not based on due process of law but instead rounds up and incarcerates citizens who are accused of no crime and uses the lives of innocent people – including children – for the aggrandizement of its own power.

- They will learn that a citizen of this country need not be charged with any offense that is actionable in a court of law in order to be summoned to one and stripped of his most fundamental constitutional rights.

- They will learn that the Constitution of the United States is a lie, and the Bill of Rights is a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by those whose responsibility it is to protect it from abuse by others.

I believe it is these lessons that account for the alienation and the adversarial relationship that so many children – especially the children of divorce – are now developing toward the justice system, the society in which they live, and their own families. I know that so long as these messages are being imparted to my children by those who seek to separate me from them and by the instruments of the public state such as your court (and by me as well so long as I acquiesce in your ruling) any attempt by me to impart contrary messages will be at cross-purposes with forces too massive for me to compete with and prevail against.

I am aware of a more serious objection to this course of action I am taking. This is the possibility that you will punish my disobedience by further reducing access to my children. This has indeed weighed heavily on my mind. The obvious rejoinder – that such an act of judicial bullying would belie any pretense that this process is concerned with “the best interest of the child” – is little comfort to me. As with other objections, this fear prevents most parents from responding as I have.

I certainly do value my time with my children, and am very reluctant to do anything that may jeopardize it. Until now I have tried to work within these constraints to have as much positive influence on my children as possible.

Yet I find I cannot remain content with this choice indefinitely, and in the long run I cannot hold it up to my children as an example worthy for them to follow. For one thing, I observe from the experience of many forcibly separated fathers that their allotted “visitation” is only one factor contributing to the gradual erosion of bonds with their children, and that it is not possible to be an adequate parent to children from whom one is kept separated by the police. Unlike some, I am not convinced that preserving or increasing my legally permitted time with my children, while still preserving the power to dictate the terms under which I may be a parent to them, is likely to make this system any less of an injustice or any less of a detriment to my relationship with my children.

To rest content with this would be to admit that this allotment of time you have decreed for me is really little more than what amounts to a bribe. Those who have more experience with the family judiciary than I inform me that bribery is widespread. I myself have not otherwise observed it first hand, and it is not my purpose here to make accusations. But in this instance I can see – and so can the world – that a kind of bribery has been openly offered and accepted. Vaclav Havel, the Czech former dissident and now president, has said that a truly corrupt system is one where the bribery is so systemic that it extends even to the public. They are bribed with material or other inducements to accept and acquiesce in a system they know to be corrupt and immoral. I believe something similar is at work here. Like many other parents, I have been effectively bribed with enough time with my children to buy my acquiescence in a system that is patently unjust, immoral, and illegal and one that reduces me to the status of something less than a true parent.

While I value time with my children and know it to be important to their well-being, I also know that the benefits it bestows cannot continue indefinitely and under any circumstances. At some point, as my children come to understand the choice their parent has made – that he has made his peace with a system that has robbed them of their most basic rights and needs in order to be permitted to “get along” with his life – the net effect will become more harmful to them than healthy. All the “visitation” and “custody” and “child support” in the world will not provide them with the parent they need if he bends his back and holds his tongue when he had the opportunity to stand upright and speak out.

There is, in other words, something here much more fundamental than disputes over “visitation”, “custody”, “child support”, and the other jargon of your trade. It concerns the unnatural power to take a child away from a parent they love and who loves them, to dictate to a parent who has done nothing wrong when and where he may see his children and what he can say and do with them, to invade and occupy a family and run it by judicial fiat. This is the arrogance of power. No parent can accept this and remain a parent. This is why I am acting.


Yours respectfully,
A Parent

This piece was originally written by Stephen Baskerville several years ago. It addresses the frustration that many parents face in a court system that is broken. It begs the question of how family courts, Guardians ad litem and the divorce industry can live with themselves at the end of the day.

If you have been involved in a divorce/ custody gone bad and for good reason please contact us for support at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Guardians ad litem praised for doing a poor job… and a pat on the back

Maine FLAC or the Maine Family Law Advisory Commission issued their recommendations a month ago. The opening paragraphs are filled with encomiums lauding Guardians ad litem and the work they do.  It is hard to understand this high praise after the recent Maine legislative session which proposed significant changes in Maine's out-of-control Guardian ad litem program.  The comprehensive changes were made by the legislature (after study) at the request of citizens, who had experienced a disastrous Guardian ad litem system, which, intentionally or not, inflicted great harm on children and families going through divorce and custody. There were extensive hearings, with heart rendering testimony of cruel and unnecessary hardship inflicted on families and outrageous financial charges for Guardian ad litem services.  It seems inappropriate at best to laud services that the legislature, the governor, the bureaucracy and the public deemed in need of drastic overhaul.  It might suggest to many that the Family Law Advisory Commission " still "doesn't know it doesn't know!"

Furthermore, it perpetuates claims of quality without any data to back these claims.  Lacking data and minimizing the seriousness of the legislative study and subsequent mandate strikes us as a bad beginning to a review of Rules for Guardians ad litem.  The tired old claim that it is about "disappointed litigants and heightened expectations" simply doesn't cut it with the public, the legislature and the governor.  A half year of in depth legislative study, says that no oversight, no supervision, no enforcement of Rules, a non-functional complaint procedure and myriad other STRUCTURAL issues are the root of serious problems in the GAL program. Grass roots disappointment is secondary to a broken structural system that may work for GALs and judges, but it hasn't worked for the public.  Failure to recognize this by the likes of the Family Law commission (and others in the Judicial Branch) is a huge piece of the problem!  Recovery, they say, starts with admission of the problem - any problem.

A big piece of the problem is the continuing reliance of the Judicial Branch on "stakeholders," members of what we call "the divorce industry", who have a strong financial interest in the 'status quo'.  Perpetuating problem solving by "stakeholders" perpetuates blind privilege and out f touch views. It is worth noting that the one "public" member on the commission reviewing "GAL Rules" is a member of Children First, a GAL dominated advocacy group. It is adding another "fox" to the "chicken house security detail"!  There is a need for victims on this commission to help the Judicial Branch take a fresh, open look at things from a grass-roots perspective.  Right now it appears to be more of the "same old same old" attitude.

Letter from Chief Justice Saufley regarding FLAC.

If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem, Judge or the court system - please contact MeGALalert@gmail.com. Or like us on Facebook for up to date issues. If you want to express your opinion on the Guardian ad litem there is an on going survey about Guardian ad litem performance and cost.

Overseers of the Bar - Okay for lawyer to make bomb threats - what about GALs?

There are consequences for the actions that one makes in life. Calling in a bomb threat as an example will land the person making the call into a lot of trouble. If you manage not to serve any jail time there are other areas where you might be penalized to the point of losing your job.

Unless

You are a lawyer in the state who is brought before the Overseers of the Bar (an independent agency created by the Judiciary that is funded by fees paid by lawyers). In a case that was recently brought before the Overseers - a lawyer - who called in a bomb threat (twice) was essentially slapped on the wrist and is being allowed to continue practicing law. Part of his defense was that he had a series of medical conditions that were not being treated properly according to the defendant. In other words it is the "I'm not responsible for my actions" defense.

Why is this important?

The Overseers of the Bar is set to take over responsibility for Guardian ad litem complaints. The Judiciary  is moving from a simple yet  broken process (one that the average person could understand) to a highly complex process of complaint (a process that is very legalistic in scope). The reasoning behind this move was that the Overseers had the experience of handling complaints. The Judiciary, Guardians ad litem and divorce industry were all in favor of this change. Parents, friends and family surprisingly did not favor the move. Now imagine if in filing a complaint you are mildly successful to get to the point that the lawyer in the above case did. You are standing there in front of the board ready to prove how your GAL broke every rule and statute in the book. Then all of a sudden - the GAL brings out the tried and proven defense "I'm not responsible for my actions" because of (medical condition, parents didn't love me or some other issue). Bang you lose and the Guardian ad litem is free to continue operating as a GAL.

There is no data that shows how many lawyers are disciplined or lose their license as a result of breaking the law. A complaint or disciplinary action through the Overseers is a highly complex and legal process. Beyond the scope of most people without a legal background. Imagine what is going to happen if you attempt to complain through the Overseers of the Board?

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

In addition we are conducting a survey on Guardian ad litem costs and Performance please share your thoughts on how your Guardian ad litem did on you case or families.

What do we mean by Guardian ad litem "oversight"?

In the simplest terms, oversight means knowing what they do, how they spend their time. At the present no one in authority  actually knows the full details. No one in the higher levels of the Judicial Branch has a complete picture of "time spent" on your case, my case, the hundreds of cases that pass through Maine's family courts. No authority knows how many cases a Guardian ad litem is handling, which courts/judges use the most Guardians ad litem. Or what is the grand total amount of every rostered Guardian ad litem's billable hours for, say, the month of May? No one knows.  There is no oversight.

In a word, no one has administrative or managerial oversight of Maine's Guardian ad litem program. No one has program numbers. And ... without numbers, data, statistics, it is impossible to describe the scope and size of Guardian ad litem program problems rationally.  It is impossible, to have a rational conversation between the public and various branches of government and impossible to seek rational solutions to a program that cries out for "oversight".

We would suggest that there are two kinds of "oversight", (a) oversight of ongoing cases in a divorce, which is sometimes called "case supervision", and (b) programmatic oversight, also called "programmatic administration or management".   Supervision, though desirable is costly and would require a large, expensive cadre of supervisors to monitor and correct the work of Guardians ad litem.  There is also the question of who would supervise the supervisors?  Where would they fit in a bureaucratic chain of command?

To keep the complexities of an  first-ever, Maine, oversight program relatively simple at the start, LD 872 has focused on program supervision, administrative supervision.  Essentially it seeks answers to the questions about: "What are the numbers?" How is Guardian ad litem time spent?  What are the billable hours?  How do district courts differ in their use of Guardians ad litem? And ... are there significant differences in the profiles of individual Guardian ad litem activities?  These are questions of huge interest to Maine children and families who pay dearly for this program.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT THE Guardian ad litem's BILL:  LD 872 already calls for standardization of all Maine Guardian ad litem's bills.  Bills should be done monthly and should follow the itemization format used by lawyers: date, type of service, time spent, fee charged.  It would cover such topics as reading e-mails, phone conversations, report writing, time spent with parties, time spent with child, collateral contacts, travel, court appearances, etc.  We maintain that a standardized bill is a snapshot of what the Guardian ad litem claims to have done in any given month.  It is a work activity profile.  It is a record.  It will be mandatory.  There is minimal cost for this change.

COPIES OF ALL Guardian ad litem BILLS TO ADMINISTRATOR OF COURTS:  We are strongly recommending that it should also be mandatory for all 280  rostered Maine Guardians ad litem to send electronic copies of their standardized monthly bills to the Administrators of the Courts at no charge to anyone.  It would immediately, for the first time give the Judicial Branch massive amounts of hard, Guardian ad litem program  data, which is currently totally lacking.  It would give the necessary data for  first-ever program oversight of Maine's 280 Guardians ad litem.  It should prove interesting and useful to the legislature, the public and the Judicial Branch.  It will help to guide beneficial program changes for Maine's Guardian ad litem program.  It will be capable of answering many important program questions.

OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS FOR NEW Guardian ad litem DATA: We believe that inasmuch as the proposed oversight data is a tool, the Judicial Branch should have a primary interest in deciding how to use this new tool.  They should suggest their own questions for which they want answers from the data.

But in addition to the Judicial Branch we have our own questions too.

OUR QUESTIONS:  How many Guardians ad litem are at work in Maine courts each month?  How many separate cases are Guardians ad litem carrying?  How much time is spent in reading e-mails?  Doing reports?  Making phone calls?  Seeing the child in the case?  Travel?  Court time?  Which courts use Guardians ad litem the most?  How do Guardian ad litem activity profiles differ?  What is the range of monthly billable hours for Guardians ad litem?  What is the total amount for all Guardian ad litem bills in each month?  In a year?  Are there associations between certain Guardians ad litem, certain lawyers and/or certain judges?

This is for starters, as a "warm-up".

WHO WOULD WORK WITH THIS DATA AND COSTING THIS ACTIVITY?  We suggest that the Administrator of the courts would be the proper locus for this activity, and that it should be attached to the component already doing administrative statistics.  By our reckoning the costs ought to be minimal.  Billing is already being done by Guardians ad litem at no cost to the legislature, changing to a standardized billing format should not add to cost.  Sending an electronic  copy of all monthly Guardian ad litem's bills to the Judicial Branch should be a no cost event.  There is the need for a clerk to organize the data in such a manner as to answer previously defined questions.  There is the need for an existing administrative statistician to provide supervision and direction.

We would suggest that all of this could be done for $75,000.00 or less, including overhead.  The $200,000.00 fiscal estimate currently attached to this bill for unspecified oversight functions seems expensive.  We offer a competitive idea.

For more information on Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information. In addition Me GAL alert is conducting an informal survey on the cost and performance of Guardians ad litem. If you have 5 minutes we would encourage you to take one or both surveys. The data collected is being published and will be updated live in the future.


Guardian ad litem Cost Survey

Guardian ad litem Performance Survey

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

When a large bureaucratic system is broken, with no management oversight and disdain for "users" of the system, it has a corrupting effect on everyone who must work in or use the system.

Many of our friends have commented with puzzlement about the weakness of their lawyer's defense of their divorce and custody issues. Some divorce lawyers talk a good game to clients in the office or on the phone, but wilt in court. There seems to be an effort to avoid ruffling the feathers of the GAL- or worse- the judge. Most clients expect that an expensive attorney will defend their case vigorously. It is confusing at first for clients to see the lawyer shift roles from "office superman" to "courtroom wimp". Gradually, many clients will recognize that there is something wrong with this picture.

There is frequently only a behavioral acknowledgment by your lawyer that he is working in a corrupt, totalitarian, insensitive and often illogical system. Lawyerly courage in defending your case will not be rewarded by the court, and a brave lawyer's future practice in that court is apt to be very dim. But the role shift from "superman" to "wimp" is so puzzling- so contrary to what we expect, that it may take a while to recognize and to overcome our denial ("this can't be happening").

The intent of sharing this letter, from which identities have been removed as much as possible, is not to condemn a particular lawyer's lack of courage and avoidance of conflict in court. It is an attempt to analyze further, why the family court system does not work for many families. There are those in the Judicial Branch, who say that the current system works if you just use it properly. This is true in theory, on paper, but ... there is widespread recognition by lawyers that they are tip-toeing through a "minefield" when they challenge a Guardian ad litem in front of a judge. It is about challenging judicial outsourcing- challenging a Guardian ad litem as the judge's deputy. Guardians ad litem as "junior judges, isn't on the books, but it is no less real.

It is this unspoken, behavioral acknowledgment, this awareness of professional danger that is more powerful that the rules on paper. A lawyer SHOULD be able to challenge a Guardian ad litem. However, there are enough who don't, because of professional fear of the consequences of a challenge. We think that the problem derives from the GAL's relationship to the judge. If the Guardian ad litem were only representing the child, it might make challenges easier.

Lawyerly fear is as powerful a determining factor, which limits Guardian ad litem challenges, as are the rules which say it is possible to challenge!

Here is an example:

Subject: Letter to a divorce lawyer

Divorce Attorney, Esq

Dear Attorney,

I have been copied on your response to your client's e-mail, and I am offering my own reactions to it. In it in you are effectively blaming your client for "misunderstanding"- what I would see as your complete disregard of his recent written requests to you about handling his GAL's bill. In two e-mails he asked (1) that you take no further action on the matter of his GAL's outrageous bill without first informing him of your plans, and (2) that you include, as an addendum, his memo to you proposing what he wants to see: (a) a cap on the bill, and (b) a series of very detailed reasons why the bill is problematic in its entirety. You have ignored both of his written requests on this matter. Furthermore, you have offered no reasons for your disregard.

It is very disturbing for all of us to witness this m.o., and it is not for the first time. It raises questions about your execution of your client's wishes, and also what you are doing and what are your aims? Perhaps, mistakenly, you feel you know better than your client what he wants or what he can achieve? Or ... does a failure to discuss the issues in advance with your client, allow you greater freedom of action to avoid personal professional awkwardness with the other players? Whose interest is served by this m.o.; yours or your client's?

You may recall that we had a number of, at first vaguely-formed, questions from the onset of the whole GAL adventure. At the beginning of the divorce. Initially, we knew little about GALs and the GAL process, so like any novices entering this arena we relied on you, as an experienced lawyer to inform us. As time went on, we increasingly wondered with alarm about how you were handling the GAL and your aims- if any? It lead us in desperation to hire another attorney to sort things out. The contrast between this attorney, a former GAL, and you in dealing with the GAL, was "night and day". No longer was it necessary to deny the reality of gross incompetence, harmful decisions and flagrant crookedness on the part of the GAL. But now that his attorney is out of the picture, there appears to be a reversion to your earlier policy of near total accommodation to the GAL.

Let me raise a few direct questions that have made us all very uneasy for a long time about how you are handling things:

1.) "This GAL is the best!" was your unequivocal endorsement at our first meeting with you in your office, where we addressed our puzzlement about the need for a GAL in this case. At that time, we never questioned the basis for your endorsement. But as time went on, and the GAL showed her colors, we asked ourselves: "How did you know? Had you used her in your professional work before? Were you acquainted with her in more personal terms, as a client or as the relative of a client? What did "best"mean? Informed consent in agreeing to the GAL process is important, and we assumed you were helping us to take that step. Had you some professional basis for your endorsement of this GAL when you told us she was "the best"? What basis?

2.) More recently you have altered your endorsement to: "I've never seen her act this way before." The inference might be from this observation that it's the our family that brings out her crookedness; it's situational. You have never told any of us at any time during this process, exactly how you, as a lawyer, evaluate her performance as a GAL. Is she top shelf or substandard? Yes, you have reluctantly moved on the Motion to Remove, but only after extreme pressure, and after including- without my permission- a strong, confidential memo from me to the Social Work Board that should never have been a part of the motion, a signal to the GAL (it's really just our family). Do you currently think that she is OK, or a menace to the public? Would you endorse her to future clients? Why did you table our detailed formal critique, a thoughtful response to the glaring deficiencies and errors in her final GAL report? In so doing you protected her from fire, but it wasn't in your client's interest. It is this sort of thing that makes us feel that you are not really on our team.

3.) Increasingly, our family has wondered about whether there is some latent or actual conflict of interest of some kind that underlies your kid gloves approach to the GAL. Do you or your firm currently have (or have you had) other business with her or members of her family? Have members of your family had involvement with her- clinical or otherwise? On every opportunity when there is a need to confront her poor judgment with actual evidence, you seem to write a stern letter, then dodge or back off, effectively making the GAL the deciding judge in you client's affairs. It has been a disturbing pattern. Our lawyer consultant demonstrated that total surrender to this GAL wasn't necessary to relate in a professionally respectable manner to a GAL. Is there a conflict?

4.) Your current plan for a 1/2 hour meeting in court to resolve the matter of the GAL's bill is an example of what we are talking about. Given the limited time you are requesting and with no prior list of justifying reasons for why the bill is outrageous, you are passing the decision to the GAL, the opposing attorney and the Judge. We've seen this program before, and it has always been a very bad one whatever happens in the privacy of a phone conference or in judges chambers with no client witnessing the actions, your negotiations are dismal. We invariably lose. In terms of the child's final custody decision. In the divorce decree, you have actually managed to negotiate less time for the child with his father than they had before the divorce! It is hard to understand how you could negotiate less or why.

5.) I would suggest to your client that he ask you to withdraw your request for a hearing on the GAL's bill. Immediately. You have no endorsement for the present action from your client. For things to proceed on this matter, you need your client's endorsement, you need a written financial proposal to the court that your client agrees to, you need a list of deficiencies in the bill distributed in advance with the hearing request, and for that it is obvious that you need more than 1/2 hour. It also needs to take place in the courtroom, not in the privacy of chambers, so that your client can watch your actions and guide you in what he will accept. You also need to be prepared to decline to compromise on unfair settlements. Let the judge decide if he is inclined to be punitive.

This is a very difficult letter, long over due. You might ask from our list of dissatisfactions why we continue with you? We have asked ourselves the same question many times. Our answer is that at this point, we feel totally trapped. You have all of the records of the case, we cannot begin afresh and bring a newcomer up to speed, nor can we afford a new retainer. We are stuck. As a way out of our mutual dilemma, I would ask that you consult with our consulting attorney on the GAL's bill and how she would resolve it. And proceed accordingly. your client cannot afford the GAL's bill. It will cripple his ability to provide for his son (and himself). It needs strong action

Sincerely,

Involved Family Member
(On behalf of the parent)