A Brief History of Guardian ad litem and Family Court Reform

INTRODUCTION: We offer this abbreviated time line to share where we’ve been, what we’ve studied and what we’ve learned about Maine (and other states) Family Court systems  in the last 4 years or so.  Our MeGALert goals have always been: (a) Education of ourselves and others about the Guardian ad litem (GAL)/family court systems problems and (b) Corrective legislation. Our education has come to us from hundreds of Maine family court cases, from contacts and work with all 3 branches of Maine government and from study, study, study! We are well-informed consumers of family court services in Maine!

Enclosed is a skeletal timeline of our GAL/Family court reform activities with the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches of Maine Government. It gives perspective, but it leaves out a lot of important content for brevity. For anyone who is interested, additional content can be supplied easily, if needed to "fill in the blanks".

01. 2011-10-28 - MeGALert (Dr Collins) made contacts with Beth Ashcroft, Director, OPEGA to discuss the troubling GAL experience and problems of numerous persons in Maine. She suggested that an option might be to request an audit of the GAL program. We were interested in the audit idea, but, because we were novices at it, OPEGA kindly provided assistance to us in completing forms for a GAL audit.

02. 2012-02-12 - We attended a Maine State House Meeting of the Government Oversight Committee to hear our GAL audit proposal. It was sponsored by Sen Nancy Sullivan and Beth Ashcroft (OPEGA) presented the details. The Committee voted to forward the audit request to the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature with a request for prompt action.

03. 2012-03-08 - Meeting of the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature. The Chief Justice and members of the Judiciary were invited to speak. The Chief Justice stunned many in the committee room, saying that there was no GAL supervision or oversight, but offered to work on this and return in September, 2012.

04. 2012-05-15 - MeGALert issues a full, formal Report on Maine GALs from consumer perspective. We titled it, "The Power of the Powerless", after the concept of Czech activist, Vaclav Havel. It covered 18 pages and reported numerous structural and design problems with the Maine GAL program. Our Report was circulated to members of the Judiciary, the Legislature, the Executive Branches of Government, the press, media, the public.

05. 2012-05-31 - Along with other associates, we participated in a Judicial Branch public hearing and testimony on Maine GALs, at  the courthouse, Portland. Many members of the public, lawyers and GALs testified during a long hearing.

06. 2012-07/08 - Judicial Branch established two work committees composed of divorce industry stake holders. It included ONE “public member”, Jerome A Collins, MD.  (a) One committee of 20 members endorsed a highly legalistic GAL complaint protocol that was very “consumer unfriendly”, whether the consumer were to be  ‘pro se’ or with legal support. Dr Collins did a written “minority report” opposing the proposal and wrote an “op ed” piece (like the minority report) in the Portland Press Herald. (b) The second committee was composed of 15 stake holders from the divorce industry and one public member, Dr Collins. Dr Collins resigned with a long written explanation that the public interests were minimized in a rush to accommodate the “divorce industry” on every possible “correction”. A deterrent fee of $100.00 to file a complaint about a GAL seemed very “unfriendly” to complainants and unprecedented in other systems of a similar nature.

07. 2012-12-07 - A planning Meeting was held at the State House: Rep Dennis Keschl, Beth Ashcroft (OPEGA), Michael Cianchette, esq (legal counsel to Gov), Larry Tardiff, and Jerome A Collins, MD to plan for submitting a GAL reform bill, along the lines recommended in the 2006 OPEGA Report on Maine GALs.  Sen David Dutremble later joined this committee, Sen Roger Katz and Mary Ann Lynch had been invited but were unable to attend.

08. 2013 Spring - LD 872 went through numerous debates, discussions, revisions and rewrites in the legislature from March 28th till June 25th, 2013 when it passed both the house and senate and the appropriations committee.

09. 2013-07-08 - Governor Paul R LePage signs LD 872 into law in the presence of numerous MeGALert members who had been victims of GAL malfunctioning. The Bill indicated that the Judicial Branch was to come up with a proposal for a GAL complaint protocol that was “user friendly”.

10. 2012-15 July/ Jan - We have been active in many areas. First and most important, we try to support  the numerous people who contact us with hair-raising, GAL/ family court/ ‘pro se’ problems. We put people in touch with others with similar problems. We offer educational information about ‘pro se’ and other family court perils. To the extent we are able as non-lawyers, we support appeals of family court judgments. We talk and advise people in other states who have heard about us and who want to copy our m.o. We write on our blogs and provide “news” on our Facebook page. We testify verbally and in writing on all Judicial Branch proposals affecting family courts and GALs. Though in all honesty, it is a tough organization, and we have to say that while they listen, we have not been terribly successful in getting consumer-oriented “reform”.

BUT... we are very informed; we have learned a lot in 4 years; we know most of the players; we know the problems “in depth”.

Our Family Court System is badly broken and it is harming the divorcing families and children who are forced to use it. Fixing this broken system will ,mean educating or representatives.

To find out how you can bring about change. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families

RE:   A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families.

The Governor

State of Maine

Dear Governor LePage,

Divorce in Maine, when child custody is involved, has evolved into an expensive, barbaric, often cruel process.  Custody decisions by our courts often seem irrational and  participants all too often find it impossible to correct a bad decision  or a bad process.   At Maine Guardian ad litem Alert (MeGALert), based on the data from our many contacts with people in the terrible  throes of divorce, we  increasingly feel that there is a need for a Maine Commission aimed at assessing the impact of divorce and custody on Maine children and families- and  recommending  repairs to a badly broken family court system. 60 % of American marriages  are reported to end in divorce, and Maine is no different from the rest of the US. But beyond dry statistics, our experience with hundreds of individuals tells us that there are psychological, social and economic side effects of the family court experience, that wreck the lives of those that have gone through divorce for years to come. It is a shameful record. It calls for action.

Although we would certainly support a broadly focused Commission that took a total systems approach, we would suggest that there are several important  areas where a narrower commission might assess serious problems and propose solutions without crossing the boundaries of another branch of government: (a) the economics of divorce and its impact on the present and future of (60%) Maine citizens and on the state itself, (b) the jurisdictional disputes about which of two branches of government has final responsibility  for defining and resolving the diagnosis of adult or child abuse in divorce, and (c) problems associated with the family court’s  use of and referrals to state sponsored/funded clinics by the Judicial Branch. This includes patient’s right to privacy issues; standards of the types and forms of  treatment; court-ordered, mandatory treatment; treatment effectiveness evaluations; confidentiality and the human rights issues of those receiving services.

1.) Economic problems of divorcing in Maine.  The short story is that it is very expensive, running to thousands of dollars, with courts putting no limits on the charges to citizens from a growing number of ancillary players, in  a growing number of questionably effective peripheral  services.  The growth of these unevaluated “new” services- often court mandated- have become a part of an very expanded, very expensive “divorce industry”. Families are impoverished. Retirement and college funds are emptied.  Homes are mortgaged to the hilt. Credit from relatives and families is exhausted.  It is an expense with no boundaries and it grows year by year. We have to ask: Is a booming economic expansion of the “divorce industry” retarding investment in other “industries”? The Judicial Branch keeps virtually no data, our group has some limited financial data. However, there is a need to measure the problem, its growth and to propose solutions.  Money drained from our economy by the “divorce industry” is money not available for other more productive investments; homes, education and retirement - just to name a few.

2.) Allegations of child or spousal abuse are all too common in contested divorces. Some allegations are real and serious and require appropriate action; other abuse claims are “strategic”, and need investigation and then labeling as such. At the moment, there is all too often a “turf war” between the Children's Protective program (under Human Services) and the Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem program about which entity has the final say in abuse allegations. There are likewise “turf wars” between Guardians ad litem and those trained specialist professionals who assess “dangerousness” and other dysfunctional issues.  It all too frequently happens that, if opinions of trained professionals do not concur with a Guardians ad litem opinion, they are frequently ignored in favor of the Guardian ad litem’s more expensive opinion, a continuing investigation by the Guardian ad litem. It should be remembered that Guardians ad litem have only 16-20 hours of training and no supervision when they override the findings of those with more training and supervision.  It should also be remembered that continuing to investigate “abuse” generates significant “billable hours” for Guardians ad litem and burdens families with these costs.  More important is the question of whether someone with less knowledge, skill and experience will do a better job of danger evaluation for children and families than someone with specialist education, experience and supervision?

3.) State sponsored or financed services and clinics are frequently used as referral sources by Guardians ad litem and by Maine’s courts.  The courts keep no statistics about the number of court referrals, which would help to describe (a) the size of their usage, (b) the problems encountered, (c) the outcomes  of treatment- both short and long term.  What is  the impact of court mandated treatment on children and families?  Are these court forced  referrals doing any measurable good?  How do they help? What are we getting for our public  money?  Are the services requested by courts- such as various untested, unproved behavior change therapies-  scientifically grounded?  Is the state paying for “experimental” services on court referred children and adults  There is also the ethical/human rights issue of court mandated treatment in non-criminal cases.  Confidentiality issues and demand for what should be considered privileged information are troubling and, we are told,  don’t follow national standards. There are instances of Guardians ad litem sharing this clinical information- without “releases”- with other Guardians ad litem and with unauthorized persons, using the threat of contempt if permission to release information is not granted. It is an area that cries for study and repair.

These are just a few areas that might occupy the scrutiny of a circumscribed Commission to the benefit of our children and families. We would be pleased to discuss further any of these suggested ideas, and we recognize that these suggestions are  just conversational openers. It seems important to us to give a more human, rational  experience to children and families in divorce, the consumers of service.

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins, MD

CC: Maine Guardian ad litem Alert

To read one view from a parent on the judicial abuse she has suffered. Please follow this link to read "Family Court Abuse - A Parents Perspective"

For more information on what is wrong with  Family Courts and Guardians ad litem in the state follow us on Facebook or email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com

Terry Hayes - LD 47 (HP 42) - An Act To Retain the Position of Parent Coordinator in the Judicial Branch

Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:30 PM, Room 438 State House in Augusta there is an opportunity for the public to let our representatives know your thoughts on continuing the role of Parental Coordinators. The current bill is slated to die on January 1, 2014 and for good reason this role within the Judiciary should be put to death. Consider the following:

1. There is no defined job description for what a Parental Coordinator can and cannot do. There are no limits or boundaries.
2. There are no rules by which a Parental Coordinator operates under or that are tied in with a job description.
3. There is no training that is governed by a job description.
4. There is no complaint process – The divorce industry and Judiciary will point out there have been no complaints against Parental Coordinators. For good reason – because there is no process to do so. We know of at least seven people who would complain against Parental Coordinators today if there was a process.
5. This is another form of Judicial Outsourcing with no oversight or management by those who would be asked to do so.
6. Parental Coordinators have immunity from any wrong doing and this is a problem because they essentially have immunity from everything. The role of Parental Coordinator has no definition as it would have with a job description to show how/ when a Parental Coordinator would and would not have immunity.
7. The Divorce Industry and special interest groups have convinced the courts Parental Coordinators act with neutrality and no bias for the child or parents. No amount of training will make for a totally neutral person. Personal bias will enter into any process and taint any alleged neutrality that one may have. Parental Coordinators will act contrary to their mandate – this is human nature.
8. There is no data to show how many cases current Parental Coordinators are handling and what the optimum case load is.
9. There is no data to show if there are problems and where those problems are – for instance are there certain Parental Coordinators that have complaints against them. Or how many cases are being handled by any given Parental Coordinator.

Given the very real problems that the Judiciary has with its Guardians ad litem it makes little sense to create another role which will have the same issues from the start as Parental Coordinators. One also has to question why an organization such as the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) has been so involved with wanting the role of Parental Coordinator to be maintained in light of all of the controversy surrounding Guardians ad litem – which they represent. Is it a coincidence that MEGALI President Toby Hollander and member Tobi Schneider submitted rules for Parental Coordinators this past summer? Was it in anticipation of the bill Rep Terry Hayes (Buckfield) and MEGALI member submitted to retain the role beyond the January 1, 2014 date? We may never know.

The public has an opportunity to put to death a bill that has special interest written all over it. Killing the bill will send the message that the Judiciary and special interest should get its house in order before making any new additions. That any future additions should be well thought out and include input from all interested parties. Not just those who will be enriched by the process.

Please write to the members of the Joint Standing Committee on – Judiciary to let them know how you feel about Parental Coordinators and the undefined, under managed role they play in divorce. This bill was going to die in 2014 – we should let it do just that.

For more information and or support contact us at either MeGALalert@gmail or ParentalCoordinatorAlert@Outlook.com. We can also be found on Facebook or Twitter for more up to date information about what is happening.

A link to the schedule can be found here. A link to the actual bill can be found here.

Judiciary Committee List:

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


Governor Paul LePage

Office of the Governor
#1 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0001