On The ReAppointment of Hon Daniel Driscoll

Dear Committee Members

MeGAL, much like the Judicial Advisory Committee, conducted a survey on the re-appointment of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll. We asked participants whether they thought the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll should have another 7 years as judge in our courts. The responses are anonymous to protect those who still may be involved in cases before Judge Driscoll.

While we had less than a week to collect responses comsumers of judicial services responded. Parents, grandparents, friends and lawyers voiced their opinion. Comments were welcomed but limited.

1. 9% of respondents approve of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll's reappointment
2. 91% of respondents did not approve or questioned the reappointment of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll.
3. Of those who responded we know that 19% were Pro se. Of the Pro se litigants almost 100% expressed in their responses that the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll had issues with handling a non lawyer in his court.

Some comments that were left:

1. My experience with Driscoll was not good. I was Pro se in his court and it was a nightmare. He kept telling me that I couldn't call witnesses, or entering in evidence. My ex had a lawyer and the lawyer was allowed to call any witness he wanted and the same with evidence.

2. I was as a Pro se litigant up against a lawyer in Driscoll's court. While warned that I should get a lawyer I could not afford one. It was hard if not possible to introduce evidence or witnesses during the trial. The lawyer had no issue. I think Judge Driscoll didn't know how to be fair and that is a problem. Did I receive justice and did my ex? My ex would say that justice was handed out. I would disagree. My story was not heard and was limited. I was prevented from telling it because I did not know how to act in this court room culture. I think Judge Driscoll tried but he just is not equipped to handle Pro se.

3. I was a Pro se litigant in judge Driscoll's court room many years ago. My case is slowly collecting dust.

At the time that I was going to court I had a deep disdain for the judge. Now I feel sorry for him because he, like many other judges in the Family Court system, are ill equiped to handle Pro se litigants. Pro se litigants in Family Court represent a litle over 74% of the cases. Of these cases 86% are Pro se litigants going up against a lawyer. As a Pro se litigant it is like a caveman or Roman Leginary going into battle against a modern day solider. We are scared and unknowing how to ask.

In court judge Driscoll gave the impression of not understanding what I was experiencing. My impression was that I was expected to know how to act in court, to know the culture of the court. He did not understand what I was going through in trying to plead my case to him. I was up against a lawyer and at almost every turn I was shot down either by the lawyer or by the judge when I tried to present evidence or witnesses. The lawyer by my perception at the time had no problems doing either. As a result I was crucified and lost custody and visitation with my children.

As a Pro se litigant I was not accustomed to the culture of the court. I knew how to get justice when I had an issue with let’s say Wal Mart, Hannaford or any number of businesses. The industry I worked in deals with people trying to get their issues resolved. To me the courts would/ should be the same. I did study cases and talked with others before going to trial. Because I am not a lawyer working in law how was I to know the tricks used. Imagine as a consumer you go to a store because you bought an item that proved to be defective. When returning the item and asking for a refund you ask the wrong way. For instance you ask for a refund on the purchase price. But because you ask of a refund and not a store debit back to your credit card the request is denied. Bad analogy but I hope you understand.

In looking back I was not prepared to go up against a seasoned lawyer and doing so in an environment that is still foreign to me. I had no choice in the matter. How to talk and address the judge or the opposing lawyer. How to ask questions within this culture. Judge Driscoll, in looking back, did little to help me understand why for instance the motion I just presented made little or no sense. Or the argument I am trying to make.

I believe at the time judge Driscoll had little to no guidance for dealing with Pro se litigants. It is my understanding that this is still the same. How can one who is giving the appearance of being impartial and just (as no one can push their bias aside) be a judge in situations that they are ill equipped to handle? How can someone pass "fair" judgment in situations that involve Pro se litigants up against lawyers?

I am asking that judge Driscoll not be re-affirmed until there is a time when he has the skill set needed to deal with those situations involving Pro se litigants. Thank you for your time.


The Judicial Advisory Committee in their surveys to vet any judge almost exclusivly seeks and receives the opinions of lawyers. Those who work within the judicial industry. The human element is lost on the committee. The pain that parents and families go through is lost and unrecorded. We ask that you consider what these people have experienced.

Tomorrow February 2, 2017 you will hear from judges, lawyers and possibly other court officials. They will tell you how great this judge is and has been. How great his court is. Yet - you will be missing the stories of those who lived through his court process. MeGAL asks that you weigh what your vote means to those future cases. Will they be fair, will they be just, will they be in the publics best interest.

Thank you for your time

Paul Collins
MeGAL
Rockland, ME

The Re-Appointment of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll

Dear Members of Maine's Judiciary Committee,

Judges serve an important function within our society preserving the law. They do this by interpreting the law in a fair way and being consistent in that interpretation. The decision of reappointment should not be exclusive to lawyers, judges and assorted court officials as this leads to a legal professional perspective which does not take into consideration the real life experience of the public (consumers of judicial services). In re-appointing and doing so in a fair and equitable manner the views and experiences of the public (consumers of judicial services) of a judges service must be taken into consideration. Otherwise all we have is an “ole boy” network of approval. Every effort must be made to include the thoughtful input and experience of the people of Maine, who know from experience.

Without the actual human experiential dimension, any reappointment is just rubber stamping the judge back into the court. As our Judges are tasked with protecting and advancing our laws the current closed Judicial vetting system allows for the undermining of that task. Judges are not held accountable for their actions in this closed system. While it has been argued by the legal industry that complaints can be made against a judge by the general public. The process is alien and consumes a huge amount of their time and financial resources. The public (consumers of judicial services) is left with the feeling that their input is not wanted and it is better to leave things as they are out of frustration. Because of this dysfunctional system there is little recourse by the public to better the system. It results in a system that has and is slowly degrading, and judicial services becomes the tool of those who can afford justice over those who cannot. 

Are our Courts and specifically our Family Courts a public service for everyone - including the 74% who are Pro se. Or are they a publicly supported workplace for the Divorce and Legal Industry?

We see evidence that our Family Courts in Maine have a few Judges of questionable character. To be exact, there are four judges in our Family Court system, for whom we have very grave concerns about how they conduct themselves in their courts. One of these Judges is before you today and asking to be reappointed. While the decision to reappoint the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll may have already been recommended, we want to leave you with something to think about. Stop, look and listen then think:

If your decision is wrong, who will we (the public and your constituents) be able to hold accountable for the continued abuse, pain and suffering that families that we know, have gone through and will continue to go through?

Some before you on Thursday February 2, 2017 will be watching and commenting as the public and your constituents. They are risking much in being here before you.

Thank you for your time and efforts. It is time for an in depth audit of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll Family Court.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely

Paul Collins

MeGAL

Rockland, Maine

The above letter was submitted as testimony to the Judiciary Committee regarding the re-appointment of the Honorable Daniel F. Driscoll,

Pro se Civil Rights Abuse not Important Enough for Senator Susan Collins

In 2015 MeGAL approached Senator Susan Collins office for help in supporting the civil rights of Pro se parents who are being systematically abused by the justice system. It was pointed out that across the country over 50% of the "Family Court" cases are Pro se. Maine has the distinction of having 75% of court cases being Pro se.

As a Pro se litigant you are going into battle often knowing little or nothing about the rules of engagement. You are a caveman against a modern day soldier.

In June 2015 the process was started and in September of 2015 her office agreed to help and make inquires into this issue.

Almost two years later we are still being told that the office is working on the issue with the Department of Justice and that something maybe happening next month. This was the same canned answer given a month or so ago and the time before that. For all we know nothing has happened in the past two years other than being told that something maybe happening.

When pushed recently as to why Senator Collins did not go directly to Attorney General Loretta Lynch the staff person replied that the Senator only does that for "IMPORTANT" issues. Otherwise it is low level staff member to low level staff member for issues like ours. We asked if this meant that Senator Collins doesn't consider Maine and other families whose civil rights are being abused in Pro se "Family Court" cases as being important - we were told "Oh No. Every constituent is important! Everyone!".

Yeah sure they are Senator Collins.



That is why something is always going to happen "next" month.

MeGAL encourages you to contact Senator Collins to ask her why Pro se litigants whose civil rights are routinely abused by the system of Justice that should be protecting them. Why is this not important enough for her to pay attention to?

MeGAL is a grass root organization that is working for "Family Court" change and the management and oversight of court vendors like Guardians ad litem. If you are having a "Family Court" issue we encourage you to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.


Senator Susan Collins may be contacted by filling out this form

I Am 'Pro se' In This Family Court

I AM 'PRO SE' IN THIS FAMILY COURT: I am one of the 75% in Maine Family Courts who are forced by finances to represent themselves as litigants. This percentage in 2015 was approximately 17,065 Maine citizens forced to go into family court without a lawyer. Of these 17,065 'pro se' litigants, 85% of this group (14,505) must argue their case against a seasoned lawyer. It is an obviously uneven, unfair match.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I lack the legal knowledge, skill or experience to litigate against an educated, experienced lawyer. Our credentials for this vitally important custody contest are grossly unequal.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I do not understand courtroom procedure and practices. I am at a disadvantage against professionals who do. I am a foreigner, who doesn't understand the culture and practices of the legal profession.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I am inept when it comes to the clerical details of filing court papers, their format, terminology, timing, etc. I make mistakes in these matters, because these activities are unfamiliar to me. I am a "bother" to courthouse officials, because I take more time and need special instruction in clerical requirements

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I am frightened to be forced into a ‘zero sum game’, winner take all "contest” in which I have to legally "gamble" for parental rights to raise my child, based on my legal skill in a courtroom "contest”. I simply want to be a part of my child’s life and help him/her to grow up know his/her parent loves him/her.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I do not have the lawyerly skills to play the "money game", and I am easily trapped by a lawyer who does. My experienced lawyer opponents can use legal gamesmanship unknown to me that allow a courtroom “financial shakedown” on me for money I don't have. I lack the lawyerly skills to deal with this trap.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I am charged with being “in contempt" for non-payment of money I don't have, and I have been unable to get a hearing to asses my finances.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I have been threatened with jail without being warned about alternatives, or being afforded an attorney (according to constitutional law) to defend me or seeking a lesser form of action.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I am treated as a criminal abuser with no evidence and with no method of seeking exoneration. Every motion I file costs me money for my defense and may lead to me having to pay the fees of my opponent's. It gets worse and worse.  Trying to straighten this out is bankrupting me and not resolving the issue.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: Even though I have learned a few things about courts and the law from my experiences in court, I will always be outmatched by a trained lawyer.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I am not a social friend of this judge. I didn't go to USM law school with this judge. I don't work with this judge regularly in court on other cases. I don't attend bar/bench functions in this community I don't "vet" this judge for reappointment as do members of the local bar. Unlike members of the bar, I can't influence this judge's re-appointment. I am an alien to the legal culture and legal friendships that are enforced by sharing a common culture and frequent contacts.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I ask myself, why do we have to spend vast amounts of money (which I don't have) to end a marriage in court when many other countries have an easier way? The only people who benefit from American-style divorce are the legal profession.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: Why does my "ex's" lawyer act in ways that aim to exclude me as a parent in my child's upbringing? Doesn't my child need two active parents?  Why are there no plans for full reconciliation?

I AM 'PRO SE' IN FAMILY COURT: I am forced to play a fake role as a litigant in a charade that pretends we are in a court of law. But I am not a lawyer. I am not a member of the legal guild. I am unfamiliar with the rules of the game. My utter dysfunction in my assigned role gives lie to calling this a court of law.

I AM 'PRO SE' IN THIS COURT: Please give me access to justice and end this brutal nightmare.

MeGAL has been working for court change as the system for Family Court is badly broken. If you have been abused or seen others abused by this system we would encourage you to contact your Representative and educate him/ her. You may also contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or on Facebook.

The Court of Public Opinion and Connecticut’s Broken “Family” Court System

Social media exploded this week with public outrage over the Brock Turner rape case and the horrific ruling made by Judge Aaron Pesky, who has been harshly criticized for his far too lenient sentencing. Over 1,000,000 people nationwide have signed an online petition demanding this judge resign. In addition, prospective jurors being called by the court system are refusing to serve this judge on his cases.

We need this same kind of outrage focused on our state's very troubling “family” court system and the people who operate it.

"Family" court judges in this state, showing complete disregard for the complaints from thousands of parents, legislators, mental health professionals and attorneys calling for reform - continue to operate one of the most dysfunctional, inefficient, ineffective, costly, damaging and yes, corrupt “family” court systems in the country.

Connecticut remains dead last when it comes to enacting much needed operational and other reforms. As a reflection of this, over 85% of all parents in our “family” courts now appearing Pro Se and without proper legal representation. This as their cases continue to be allowed to drag on for months and even years, due to solely judicial negligence and their very troubling and concerning judicial orders and rulings.

This dysfunction, lack of any oversight, and failure to address judicial and attorney misconduct, causes over 11,500 cases to be returned to the “family” courts each year – when there are only 3,400 new custody cases filed in this state each year ( - Chief State Justice Rogers.) This reflects a critical and terminal operational dysfunction on the part of our Judiciary – not a problem with “a small number of disgruntled litigants” as some have tried to portray.

This as citizens and parents across the state continue to be routinely jailed by Judge Bozzuto and her “family” court judges for committing no crime. This as Judge Bozzuto and her “family” court judges operate as private debt collectors for a very small group of well-connected divorce attorneys and Guardian ad Litems. This as she and her “family” court judges continue to ignore all due process and basic civil, Constitutional and parental rights.

Her “family” court judges continue to fail the state, fail its citizens, and fail the best interests of the public, families and children – by failing to rule quickly and effectively. They instead prolong cases and ignore ongoing abuse and neglect of children by improperly outsourcing their judicial authority to a small group of well-connected Guardian ad Litems taking hundreds of millions of dollars from parents with complete immunity, with no oversight of any kind, and with no accountability of any kind, while offering no positive or beneficial outcome, of any kind.

“Family” court judges, who under Judge Bozzuto’s watch, Chief Court Administrator Carroll’s watch, and Chief State Justice Rogers’ watch and approval from their silence – continue to operate well-orchestrated "Kids for Cash" and "Pay Per View Parenting" programs designed to prolong custody cases solely to enrich a very small group of attorneys, best interests of families and children and THE PUBLIC be damned.

Judge Bozzuto and her “family” court judges continue to operate de facto and unlawful Debtor’s Prisons, by SHACKLING and JAILING PARENTS for committing no crime other and for not being able to afford to pay the small armies of “court appointed experts” Judge Bozzuto and her “family” court judges force onto custody cases for no valid reason or cause.

Who are these attorneys? Their names can be readily found by looking at the membership of the now disbanded AFCC in this state, and among the select group of private attorneys who have been invited to the highly secretive annual Judge’s Meeting coming up on June 24th.

We encourage as many legislators as possible to attend this annual gathering of judges and to ask them some very hard questions in regards to how and why our “family” courts continue to operate in this manner.

“Family” court judges who routinely look away, ignore, and often encourage the abuse and neglect of children, by refusing to enforce their own parenting orders, by denying access to justice by improperly requiring the filing of “Motions for Request for Leave” in “family” court cases – even on Emergency Ex Parte motions filed to protect children, and by routinely and diligently separating children from their fit and proper parents for no valid reason or cause, especially if a parent dares ask why they can’t have equal access and time with their child. And most notably, targeting parents with children who have autism or other special needs and disabilities.

If the Brock Turner case were before a Connecticut “family" court judge, the judge would have labelled both Brock and his victim as being "high conflict" even though only Brock committed a crime.

The judge would have then ordered his rape victim to attend "conflict management" sessions with Brock at $250-$500/hour so an “evaluator” could try and "resolve any differences" she may have with her attacker.

If they had a child, the “family” court judge and GAL would assign custody to Brock because of "his stable background" and force the mother and victim to spend thousands of dollars to fight to protect her child from him and to a parent in her child’s life. This would cost her tens of thousands of dollars and years in court – with no proper outcome or resolution.

She, as a victim, would become one of the 11,500 custody cases returned each year to our broken and dysfunctional “family” courts, and be attacked and prevented from filings motions by Judge Bozzuto’s “family” court judges for daring to come back to the court and to ask for the court to do the right thing.

Such is the actual state of affairs and “justice” in our state’s broken and dysfunctional “family” courts. And this is not exaggerated in any way.

This happens each and every day in our state's "family" courtrooms. If any of you doubt me and the thousands of parents who have been subjected to this and witnessed this firsthand – please, go sit in on any custody case in any “family courthouse and just watch.

All of this as Chief State Justice Rogers, Governor Malloy, and the Judiciary Committee continue to just look the other way at what Judge Bozzuto and her "family" judges engage in and practice - because there is money to be made and federal dollars are involved.

Social media exploded this week as the court of public opinion chimed in on the Brock Turner case. The same focus and social media attention is being brought on our state’s broken and dysfunctional “family” courts – as we the PUBLIC, will and can no longer accept or tolerate the status quo in our state’s broken “family” courts, and as this movement is growing very quickly nationwide, and in fact, internationally.

We demand far better. Our children and families and state – deserve far better.

And it is simply unacceptable on for any reason or on any level that our Legislature’s Judiciary Committee has not presented a single piece of much needed reform legislation in now two sessions. You should all be ashamed.

If not now, when; if not us, who.

- Peter T. Szymonik, the CT Coalition for Family Court Reform


Peter Szymonik is involved with "Family" Court reform in the state of Connecticut. We have known and worked with Peter for years often exchanging ideas on the issues relating to "Family" Court. While Peter is writing to those in his state of Connecticut what he is writing about can be applied to any state. If you have been involved in a case where the court system has failed we encourage you to become involved. Contact your representatives and educate them and others as to what the issues are. If you live in Connecticut you can help with reform by contacting Connecticut Family Court Reform (on Facebook). Or you may contact us at MeGAL to put you in touch with others in your state.


Additional Resources:

Biographies of Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers

2015-04-10 Rogers Pledges Court Improvements As Critics Express Displeasure

Connecticut Family Court Reform

FB - Coalition for Connecticut Family Court Reform

Family Matters

Ct Judge Bozzuto retaliates Pay GAL $9,600 or go to jail

If you would like to Judge your "Judge" - The Robing Room

Judicial Branch is Silent on The New World of GALs for Pro se

Several weeks ago when we learned about an educational experience being offered by the York Bar to its members concerning the new landscape of Guardians ad litem. We asked the Judicial Branch whether a similar experience was going to be offered to those parents who might find themselves in court Pro se. These parents we felt deserved the same kind of knowledge as lawyers - maybe even more so.

Three weeks later and we have still no response from the Judicial Branch - prompting us to send one last piece of correspondence on the matter. This was sent on April 25, 2016:



Mary Ann Lynch, Esq
Maine Judicial Branch

Dear Ms Lynch,

Three weeks ago I wrote you to ask if the Maine Judicial Branch had plans to educate 'pro se' litigants in Maine family courts about "The New World of GALs"? The Maine Bar is providing lawyers with a course of instruction on the new dimensions of this topic on Friday, April 29th. Three Maine judges are listed as participating in this educational offering for lawyers.

It seemed to many people with whom I've spoken that fair play would suggest that the 'pro se' majority (75%- 17,065 people) in family court need educational enlightenment on this matter as well. They are already at a significant disadvantage in court as non-lawyers. Absent education about GALs will further stack the deck against them in family court.

Does the Judicial Branch have any plans to address the educational disparity on the topic of GALs for 'pro se' litigants?

If you prefer not to reply to my query directly, would you consider offering enlightenment to the public on this topic via the Portland Press Herald or Bangor Daily News? It is an important dimension of "access to justice for all".

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins.
Kennebunkport,Maine


If we receive a response it will be published. It is our feeling though that the Judicial Branch will remain silent. That silence is deafening and speaks volumes as to the very problems we as parents face in court.

MeGAL through education is bringing about reform in our dysfunctional Family Courts. If you are a parent who has had a trying experience in court we encourage you to become involved. You can start by contacting us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

The New World of GALs - Will Pro se Lawyers be Invited?

Friday April 29, 2016 the Maine and York  county Bar will be holding an educational session titled "The New World of GALs".

The program is supposed to provide the tools needed for professionals to engage the best practices and to assist families going through child custody. It is being sold to area judges, lawyers and Guardians ad litem.

For parents who are representing themselves has this valuable course been marketed or even mentioned to them? Probably not - yet it is this very population ( 2015 - 17,065 case where there was at least one Pro se lawyer/litigant ) who should be attending.

We questioned the ethics and value of this course in correspondence with the Judicial Branch:


Mary Ann Lynch, Esq
Maine Judicial Branch


Dear Ms Lynch.


There has been great interest on the part of 'pro se' litigants  in the  York Bar's upcoming educational session, "THE NEW WORLD OF GALS", for Lawyers, Courts and GALs. We wonder whether the Judicial Branch has plans to provide some equal public education on this topic for 'pro se' litigants? Clearly, everyone in court, lawyers, judges, GALs and 'pro se', logically need the same information base on this important topic. Knowledge is a tool for everyone, and, as we know, knowledge is power.

There is particular interest in the panel at the end of the session in which several active, Maine judges participate. From the program agenda, these judges appear to offer a "how to" tutorial to the professional attendees about several topics. One topic to be addressed by the judges on the panel seems especially instructive and useful, coming from judges: "how to lose a case". In an adversarial contest, this "how to" ought to give an edge to those who have received instruction from these judges. Will the judges also be instructing 'pro se' litigants in "how to lose a case" at some point - or is this instruction exclusively for lawyers and GALs?

There is also the interesting matter of the post-conference reception, programmed for almost 2 hours. As this sort of thing goes at professional conferences, it is usually a useful opportunity for bonding, for fellowship and for professional gossip - a relaxing, fun time for bench and bar - and GALs. How do judges, if they participate in the reception, preserve their professional objectivity, their future courtroom impartiality? Can they put aside this bonding, fellowship and conviviality for an unbiased presiding over litigation involving 'pro se' "strangers" with whom they've never had a drink? Would these same judges come to a cocktail party gathering of 'pro se' litigants, if invited? The 'pro se' group is, after all, the majority player in family courts: 75% to 25%.

Sorry to burden you with our concerns, but the conference - to our eyes - might appear to unbalance the "scales of justice" in several ways, unless the Judicial Branch has plans for equitable teaching of 'pro se' litigants about "The New World of GALs", including, judicial instruction in "how to lose a case" and the useful opportunities for conviviality and bonding with all of the players at the end of the session.


It's about the "new normal" majority of 'pro se' in family court. Can it be made to work so all have "access to justice"?


Sincerely,


Jerome A Collins.


MeGAL works towards reforming the Family Court system through legislation and education. As a parent who has been abused in the system we encourage you to become involved. Your first step in doing so is to contact us at MEGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

Flicity Myers GAL

Open Letter to Hon Andrew Mead and the Justice Action Group

Hon. Andrew Mead
Chair
Maine Justice Action Group

Dear Justice Mead,

I was very pleased to be able to speak with you briefly, Tuesday, and to hear your presentation to members of the Legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Your presentation was helpful in getting a brief, general overview of your group's work in seeking "justice for all".

I think everyone agrees with the title of your "Maine Voices" contribution to the Portland Press Herald in 2014: "To ensure that justice truly is for all in Maine". My questions are about just how the Justice Action Group is doing this. You kindly encouraged me to forward questions for consideration by members of the Justice Action Group and herewith are my concerns and questions:

1. Has the committee set any numerical goals for measuring an improvement in Maine's access to justice, year by year? 75% using Maine family courts are widely reported to be 'pro se' litigants. This, on its face, suggests an access to justice problem for these people. It also suggests that, with no lawyer to represent them, they are a disadvantaged class in court. From state figures for 2015, 75%" equals about 17,065 self-representing Mainers, or over 1% of the state population. Does the committee hope its planned programmatic "interventions" will reduce these figures in a calculable way? Say, from 75% to 70%, or 65% in 1-5 years (or in some other specific time period)? As we know, these statistical numbers are not static. Older cases without service accumulate, many cases remain active for more than a year. New cases keep coming in at various rates. Without working statistics, statistical targets and a population-oriented approach, it is hard to measure the effectiveness of various types of interventions aimed at reducing the numerical size of the problem.

2. On the very commendable news about the expansion of legal services for the 'pro se' population, we frequently hear user concerns expressed about financial eligibility for no fee or low fee legal service. People report: I don't understand if I am eligible for services from web information? People we talk with express great difficulty in getting clear, straight answers when they call. We have wondered why these low cost legal services don't post simple, explicit, user-friendly information on their web sites that would enable viewers to see at a glance, if it is worth trying for their service. It shouldn't be "rocket science" for consumers. One spokesperson for low cost legal service told me in a recent phone conversation that their formula was complex, but it essentially boiled down to "food stamp" eligibility. The spokesperson added, "We don't want to be perceived by the bar as competitors for clients." To us it suggested a special interest problem in solving the 'pro se' problem. To what extent are your allowable target populations defined by bar concerns about losing potential clients? Is the bar concerned about "losses" inhibiting more rapid movement by your group? I would also ask about the "match" between geographic spread of the 'pro se' problem across the state and geographic spread/location of services for this population?

3. There is a very old saying, "Beggars shouldn't be choosers"; however, in modern times, a part of any good program management is regular program evaluation. Is there any evaluation of the quality of various legal programs for the poor, or, more recently - for those of "modest means"? Is the professional quality served "the poor" the same as that of full pay legal services, or is there an "economy service"? How do the "consumers" of these services feel about them? Are consumer satisfaction surveys being done?

4. From what I can determine, the Maine Justice Action Group is heavily weighted with members of the legal profession, yet the large majority of "advocacy" in family courts (75%) is being done by 'pro se' litigants. They know the 'pro se' experience, they know their problems with it, they know the things that do and do not work. This population makes up a very sizable majority; only 25% have lawyers. The 'pro se' litigant is the "new normal" in family courts (certainly numerically). Has consideration been given to proportional representation of this population in your access to justice deliberations? It might give the Justice Action Group fresh insights into what the experience feels like from the perspective of a 'pro se' person, and it might provide a healthy challenge to the inherent conservatism of any professionally dominated planning group. It is about taking a more deliberately consumer-friendly  orientation and about  thinking "outside of the professional box". I would also emphasize that there is a difference between "public members" of Judicial Branch committees and actual 'pro se' litigants. It is the latter who need to be heard.

5. Where does Maine fit nationally in the access to justice "spectrum"? Top rank? Middle?  Bottom? Have recommendations for improvements in the Maine program been suggested by the  national group? Are you seeing promising developments in other states that might fit Maine?

ADDENDUM FOR CONSIDERATION: Two more radical concepts have been discussed with us, and both might solve the current stresses of the 'pro se' access to justice problem, while perhaps raising other issues: (a) the Scandinavian approach to divorce seems to remove divorce from the courts altogether except for cases of proven abuse.  (b) divorce is an enormous "profit center" for many lawyers.  Shouldn't this unrepresented divorce population also be a professional bar responsibility for the privilege of a law license? Dividing the 'pro se' population equitably amongst all lawyers in regular office practice might be an amazing catalyst for other changes. It might actually lead to pressure from the divorce bar to adopt the Scandinavian approach to divorce and custody. In a stroke, this would eliminate the 'pro se' build up in divorces. But to move from concept to implementation one would need to alter the "Stakeholder" political dynamic. A large representation of "consumer stakeholders" on the Justice Action Group might alter the group's political dynamic and speed up the accessing of justice.

I offer these questions and thoughts as an outsider to your group, who has been an active observer of the family court 'pro se' problem for 4 1/2 years. I would suggest with all due respect that the access to justice problem is a large one and requires urgent action. As numbers have expanded (75%), there is inevitably an increase of stress, tension and breakage in the system. The "new normal" is not a happy normal by any means, and it is producing an  erosion of how courts function (or don't), It is a very unbalanced,  awkward "new normal" that disrupts grounded professional traditions. Most importantly, along with this damage is the very disturbing loss of public respect for our judicial system.

Please, do not hesitate to call on me if any of my queries are unclear.

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins, MD
Kennebunkport, Maine

MeGALs mission is bring about reform within the Guardian ad litem (GAL) and Family Court system. We do this though education and legislative process. If you have been hurt by court vendors (GALs) and/of Family Court we encourage you to let your representative know and please contact us. We may be reached at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find 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.

Part 1 - THE DICE ARE LOADED: A CONSUMER'S PERSPECTIVE

As members of the "divorce bar" are fond of saying when divorce and custody judgements are questioned by a "consumer", "Somebody has to win, and somebody has to lose." To which we would ask: "…but what if the dice are loaded?" Winning and losing a parent are very sad decisions to give a child, who needs both parents. Should divorce be played by the divorce bar as a "zero sum" courtroom gamble over children? In the "win or lose" dynamic are children well served, or is it a "championship game" for the divorce bar? Who gets the gold medal? Certainly not the children. Isn't the adversarial model inappropriate in a divorce where children are involved? What is "justice" for such children? What is justice for the parent who loses? Why does the bar never push for reform of this barbaric "win or lose" mode?

Herewith are a few topic headings viewed from a consumer's perspective that are about "broken family court structures" that load the dice against many who use family courts and in favor of those with expertise in "gaming" these courts. Individual divorce and custody cases get ground up for hamburger meat in this game. Our topic list aims to describe the broken family court "grinder". These structural topics (when filled in with cases) ought to explain the need for a legislative audit of family courts or "investigative reporting" by a courageous newspaper. Or both.

1. OUT OF DATE MANAGEMENT: There is no higher level management of the judges, GALs and lawyers who populate family courts, and there no systemic data for a manager to work with for "big picture" oversight of the family court  system. This information lack hides patterns of hard, recurrent data about courts/judges/lawyer/GALs who may present consistent problems to the public. It hides judge/lawyer relationships, and judge/lawyer patterns of outcomes that might suggest coziness, it hides averages for court time for divorce trials (billable hours) and masks  the practices of lawyers who might be considered "frequent flyers" or "contention profiteers".   

2. BROKEN: "Corrective Mechanisms" that don't correct. Protocols for complaints about GALs, lawyer, Judges and appeals challenge the 'pro se' complainant in the extreme.  These take hours to put together, they then go through screening procedures that "screen out" complaints said to be unworthy. But even after screening out "bad" complaints, few actual complaints yield "corrective action" of any kind. How to interpret this? A sign of perfection, or protection? Look at the micro (or non-existent)  numbers of corrective actions in each of these categories. There is also the awkward question: how does one correct a bad Supreme Court decision - or do they never make a bad decision? Guess not.  Get over it!

3. NO REAL MANAGERIAL OVERSIGHT: Oversight, such as it may be, relies entirely on non-lawyer "consumers'" cobbling together a quasi legal complaint and defending it; not professional surveillance of professionals by management. The only way those higher in the Judicial Branch know there is a problem is as a result of a successful complaint from the public. Almost no complaints filter through the various tight screens. Higher ups remain in blissful ignorance of malfunctioning. There is no modern management of defective functioning in this system. Bad practices can fly under the radar and continue to malpractice.   

4. OPACITY OF REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT: Regulations for the family court judicial system are developed "in the closet" of the Judicial Center behind closed doors with no public observation. Unlike legislative deliberative sessions and hearings,there is no transparency of the deliberative process- or of who deliberates (same old, same old committee members?). Why this "opacity"? Secrecy in deliberations will tend to promote 'status quo' conservatism, legal protectionism, rampant legal self-interest and nothing really changes. This is not in the public interest and hard to justify. Regulation development is treated like "top secret" activities.

5. DEFECTIVE VETTING OF JUDGES FOR APPOINTMENT/RE-APPOINTMENT: Every step in this process is opaque and leaves out the public, until near the ceremonial end. It is largely a popularity contest for political elements of the bar. Is a judge liked by small segments of the bar, who work at this task? Why is there no standard, formal testing and grading of a judge's knowledge of the law, knowledge of new laws, new regulations? The legislative reviews are an act of faith, rubber-stamping the bar committee's, (as is the Governor's). They simply sign-off on the bar's "judge- friendly vetting" decisions. The public would be better served if judges were obliged to take a certifying/re-certifying exam that tested their knowledge of the law and regulation, with results made public.  Otherwise, how do we know, how does the legislature know, how does the governor know? In plain English, they don't.

6. ABSENT PROFESSIONAL DISTANCE: The judiciary promotes friendly bench/bar relations,  But how friendly? Cozy lawyer/judge relationships are suggested by certain lawyers always scoring a win with certain judges in family courts. There are reports we hear of local bar members ganging up on a judge who dares to disfavor the more political members. Re-appointment is not in their "interest". There is a need for open statistical data That would show judges, lawyers, outcomes. A legislative audit would sample a few courts where anecdotal data suggest high frequency Judge/lawyer results.

7. INTIMIDATION: Intimidation of lawyers who fight too hard for their clients. A common client observation: "My lawyer is a lion in the office, but acts like a mouse in front of the Judge." Why? Lawyers who advocate too strongly for a client learn to beware of 'sua sponte' complaints of unprofessional behavior or claims of "contempt" (shown by brusqueness?). Maybe you don't fit in family law?  What about a career in bill collecting? What is contempt of court and how does it play-out when a judge is contemptible by any normal standards?   

8. ABUSE OF ABUSE ALLEGATIONS: The child abuse conundrum Lawyers' claims of abuse vs Children's Protective. Claims of child/spousal/other abuse are extremely common in divorce and custody cases, and such claims are used for "winning" decisions and money and generating billable hours. Referrals of abuse claims to Children's Protective are not favored.  They stop billable hours for the divorce bar. Follow the money. The billable hours stop when a referral is made to CP. The preference is to use "court consultants", who are "frequent flyers" with certain judges and certain lawyers.

9. ABSENT ACCESS TO JUSTICE: The 75% access to Justice failure is the core situation that is transforming Family Courts into a broken, unpredictable system in which self-representing people struggle for justice. This is approximately 17,062 people for 2015, using Judicial Branch numbers to calculate 75% of the total. It is the population of 'pro se' users, a "time bomb" that will in the end destroy family courts - with or without reform. 'Pro se' numerical dominance is "the new normal" for family courts, which are struggling to maintain "an old normal" in which lawyers were the interface for the pubic with justice. No more. Judges are at a loss about managing the 75% majority of self-representing litigants. Self-representing parties are just plain lost. It cries for answers. The absence of the old structure leads judges to perform in more high-handed, totalitarian, arbitrary ways and leads to huge problems of badly crafted outcomes. It cries for in-depth study.

MeGAL is working to bring about Guardian ad litem and Family Court reform. There are additional points to "The Dice Are Loaded" which may be found [HERE]. We encourage you to become involved and can do so by contacting us at MeGALalert@gmail.com as well as your state representative. 

Is the New Maine Guardian ad litem Complaint Process Fair to Parents?

The following was sent to Mary Ann Lynch of the Judicial Branch regarding the new and improved complaint process that the judicial branch has asked us (consumers) to use since September 1, 2015. While the new rules and complaint process is more robust it does present issues:

It is hard for some of us to understand the object of the "new" Guardian ad litem (GAL) complaint protocol. It is a confusing piece of work in terms of its aims or purpose!.  To some readers it appears to be a virtual Guardian ad litem Protective Society that aims at  discouraging complaints about GALs.  Not only is the multi layered complaint procedure very likely to intimidate, confuse and frustrate a 'Pro se' complainant, but also the committee, which will review and judge any of the complaints that may squeeze through the screening procedure, seems heavily slanted towards "friends of the GAL family".  To outside observers, both the design of the complaint protocol and the selection of a board  are nearly flawless, if one aims to suppress  public complaints.

Two guardian ad litem board members, Senator David Dutremble and Chair,  Dana Prescott, Esq.  appear to have other professional roles- which expose them to conflict with their GAL board role. One is a state senator with normal constituent obligations; the other has been an important leader in MEGALI, the Maine Guardian ad litem trade organization.  Mr Prescott has been rumored to be the successor to Toby Hollander, the organization's present leader.  MEGALI is a major support organization for GALs.  It provides educational supports, an online chatroom,, consultation on cases, group supervision of GALs and advises on problems associated with the GAL relationship with parties.  It may lead to Mr Prescott knowing about cases well before they wend their way through the formalities of the GAL complaint protocol.   Is this potential for "jumping the gun" before the usual steps in the complaint procedure permitted by the complaint protocol?

How might these potential organizational loyalty conflicts be handled by the program's creators or, for that matter, by compelainants?

As we understand it, the way the Board is structured for complaints,board members are not allowed to get involved in reviewing any actual case information until complaints have first gone through a staff screening process, and, then, their involvement is very structured, very legalistic, only in committee. Does this structure impact the ability of Senator Dutremble to hear the details of a GAL complaint from a constituent until it has been screened and presented to the committee by board staff? Would hearing a complaint directly from one of his constituent (such as me) create a "conflict of interest" for Senator Dutremble? Would he either have to abandon a constituent, or recuse himself from the committee?  It would appear that the senator might be bureaucratically hamstrung by accepting a board position.

There is also the matter of the senator (or any legislator) sponsoring possible GAL reform legislation while a committee member. As a member of the GAL board will he be limited legislatively? For instance, can he use his experience on the Board, as evidence to suggest needed reform of the GAL complaint protocol or of board make up? May he freely sponsor legislation, say, to move GAL oversight to the Administrative Bureau of licensing, using examples from his board experience? Or … will this present a conflict of interest?  Using data gathered from closed meetings to promote legislation aimed at demonstrating a problem and advocating reform legislation?

My worry, as one of Sen Dutremble's actual constituents, is that his role as a legislator and his role as a member of a Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem Board might at times present conflicts that would limit my access to him as a constituent. Have provisions been made for this sort of contingency?

Then there is situation of The GAL Complaint Board Chair, Dana Prescott. Mr Prescott  has been an intimate part of  the trade organization (MEGALI) that supports GALs.  Can The Chair of the committee even pretend to be "impartial" in dealing with GAL complaints with his base of case knowledge coming through the MEGALI system of which he is a member?  Or does impartiality in judging complaints matter to those who have created the complaint procedure?

There are other committee members perceived by the public as family court "warriors", with little sympathy for would be public complainers.  It looks like an airtight group.  Do you expect that any complaints will actually get through?  For many professional licensing boards there are projected annual averages or percentages of expected complaints needing corrective action of some sort.  Are you projecting any such numbers for this board.  From its structure and membership composition, it looks like 0% (zero)  sanctions for this board.

As the saying goes,  "the devil may be in the details", but many worry that the public is being short changed. We need your opinion on the several questions I raise about conflict management.


If you have had issues with Family Courts we would encourage you to contact us at MeGALalaert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Equal Access to Justice - Not as a Pro se litigant

In June of this year we wrote to the US Department of Justice regarding issues surrounding Pro se representation. Part of the issues a Pro se litigant has to deal with is the denial of equal rights and access to Justice. In Maine, Connecticut and New York the Pro se litigant makes up 74% or greater of the cases in court. In over 80% of these cases the Pro se litigant is up against a lawyer. Below is our letter to the Justice Department:


US Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington. DC 20530

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Civil Rights Complaint: 74% of Maine Family Court Users, Who are 'Pro se' Are Denied Equal Rights in Family Courts.

In Maine 74% of people in family courts are 'Pro se'. This amazing statistic comes from a personal communication from Maine's Chief Justice, and it has appeared in an essay by an Associate Chief Justice in the Portland Press Herald. There is also the statistic that in 86% of cases in family court there is only one lawyer. These limited numbers alone raise questions about whether equal justice is possible when a 'pro se' litigant is opposed by a lawyer.

Attempts to seek corrective action in discussion with leaders in the Maine Judicial Branch have gone nowhere.  Likewise, an attempt to obtain a legislative audit (see below) have been defeated, largely because of oppositional lobbying from the bar and the Judicial Branch. I am enclosing the content of the proposed bill, which aimed at obtaining further data about the nature of the 'Pro se' problem in Maine, so as to be able to move forward with rational planning to address the problem. It gives the gist of the civil rights problem in a nutshell. See below:

LD 953 An Act to Improve the Court Experience of 'Pro se' Litigants

Senator Burns, Representative Hobbins, members of the Judiciary Committee

It is a pleasure to endorse Rep Seavey's bill, LD 953, An Act to Improve the Court Experience of 'Pro se' Litigants. From my perspective as a member of Maine Guardian ad litem Alert, LD 953 is our most important piece of legislation this year. It calls for a legislative study, what one might call an audit, of the 'Pro se' experience of justice in one or more Maine family courts. The title of the bill calls for "an improvement of the court experience" of 'Pro' se litigants. But before we can "improve", we need to know "what exactly is that experience?"

We don't really know. Apart from the eye-popping statistic that 74% of litigants in family courts, we know almost nothing. I don't know, Mary Ann Lynch, Judicial Branch spokeswoman, doesn't know. The Chief Justice doesn't know. And ... most important - you as members of a legislative committee charged with constitutional "oversight of the Judiciary" don't know and need to know. You can't do "oversight" of any problem without knowing the nature of the problem and this requires data to work with.

Although the Judicial Branch will claim to be moving on the 74% 'pro se' problem, and though Justice Andrew Mead has had a committee working on the problem for a couple of years, these operations affecting the 74% majority users of family courts are not open to the public. Their deliberations are conducted out of public view. The from what we have learned, the committee aims to:

(a) raise money from lawyer donations to pay for legal services for some of the 74% 'Pro se' group,
(b) ask the bar to do more 'pro bono publico' work for the 74% 'Pro se' group,
(c) allow clerks in various courts to assist 'pro se' clients with paper work,
(d) ask judges to be more "user friendly" to 'Pro se' litigants and stop saying, "Don't come back to this court without a lawyer!" All of these efforts are fighting an ill-defined, gargantuan task with a "peashooter"! They are solving a problem with no data, no definition of the nature of the problem. From the feedback we get from our friends, these efforts are a well-intended, unsystematic, disorganized, "drop in the bucket". Normative family court pronouncements, coming from the Judicial Branch, continue to be written for lawyers. Shall we say, "Oops ... we forgot that only 26% represented by lawyers." The Norm, the usual, the average, the typical is 74% 'Pro se'.

The Judicial Branch is attempting to solve the 'pro se' problem, before they know the nature of the problem. They are posing unsystematic solutions for an unknown clientele, without involving this clientele in the solutions. Part of the problem in understanding the 74% 'Pro se' client is that the Judicial Branch has no electronic data that might shed light on these clients, so solutions are, of necessity, a "short in the dark", guess work, lacking an intervention model that fits the situation, driving blind. The Judicial Branch is not in the habit of conducting surveys or studies. The preferred approach is to assemble "stakeholders", to debate and recommend answers. Typically, "stakeholders" are politically powerful members of the "divorce industry", lawyers, judges at various levels, Guardians ad litem, who have a personal/professional stake in the answers. It is the "foxes" assessing the problems and needs of the "chickens in the hen-house"!

QUESTIONS IN NEED OF ANSWERS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION:

1. What are the demographics of the 74% 'Pro se' group? What is the gender spread? Socioeconomic levels? Education levels? Immigrants? Linguistically handicapped? Disabled?

2. What are the decisional outcomes of the 74% 'pro se' court experience? Do cases go well for the 'Pro se' litigant? How do 'Pro se' litigants evaluate their experience as consumers of family court service? What services or supports do they feel would have helped them?

3. What do lawyers, judges and GAL think about the 'Pro se' problem? Do they see it as the norm in family court or as the exception? How have they (or haven't they) adapted formal procedure to untrained litigants?

4. The 'Pro se' trajectory: How many people start as 'Pro se'? How many move to "Pro se' after they run out of money? How much money has the average 'Pro se' litigant spent before they decide to go 'Pro se'? What is the impact on 'Pro se' litigants previous experience on their savings, retirement, mortgages, college funds, family borrowing, other forms of borrowing?

5. How much time from work, vacation time, sick time, etc. must 'Pro se' litigants take to handle appearances in court and administrative activities normally handled by a lawyer? Employment consequences?

6. How do courts handle the 74% 'Pro se' litigant's lack of knowledge of courtroom procedure, rules of evidence, cross examination techniques, non-compliance with various professional protocols? Are 'Pro se' litigants treated as lawyers or as parties? Are there standards for 'Pro se' in court? What impact has the huge number of 'Pro se' litigants had on family courts? Can family courts still be considered "courts" when the participation of litigants is so unequal, uneven and out of keeping with courtroom standards and protocols?

7. 'Pro se' appeals to the Supreme Court: how many? Do they get help? What if their brief is not up to legal standards? Can a 'Pro se' simply do his/her own thing in forming a brief, or must they try to be a "junior, untrained lawyer?

The above questions are just a limited sample of things one needs to know in advance of rational frugal goal-oriented problem solving. The answers to these questions might guide planners in developing a rational plan to correct and reform family courts and address the 74% 'Pro se' problem. Family courts, in our view, are in a state of 'free fall" at the moment. Just the limited facts we have give us a "peek" into a what is a "court" in name only. 74% 'Pro se' and getting bigger. No demographic or statistical or geographic spread data to work or plan with. No standards for the 'Pro se' litigant that recognize their non-professional status and their need for tools and assistance in the name of justice. . No idea of who these people are and no idea about what might help them in their advocacy. Current Judicial Branch planning is not data based, not reality based, not consumer based. It is prescribing for others without knowing them. From our direct, personal experience, Clerks of courts give the behavioral message; they are not sure how to deal with 'Pro se' litigants and whether the 74% majority should get service priority or the priority is to serve the 26% real lawyers. They are wary of helping the 'Pro se' litigants with forms (it might be misconstrued as "legal help"). They are inconsistent from court to court in their explanations and directions. Their inconsistency leads to confusion, duplication and time consuming errors. Time consuming errors are "time off from work" for a 'Pro se ' litigant- no billable hours for a lawyer! It is as simple as that.

Finally there are the heartbreaking stories of the human wreckage of 'Pro se' litigants caused by Maine's family courts with no supervision, no oversight, no management. It cries for an audit or whatever you choose to call an assessment of this very broken system. Should it be repaired, or should it be terminated or will it simply "crash and burn on its own, if no action is taken?

We ask that the US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division help the 'Pro se'  citizens of Maine, who cannot obtain equal justice when they go to court on their own and "unarmed" with the "tools" of lawyers.

MeGAL is working to bring reform to the Family Court system. If you have had issues in Family Court we encourage you to reach out to us. We may be found on Facebook or via email at megalalert@gmail.com.

Complaining About Judicial Conduct - The Oversight of Judges

We welcome a chance to respond to Divorce Corp's invitation to speak out on the topic, "oversight of judges" or the efficacy of corrective action for allegations of judicial misbehavior. The brief answer to the issue posed by Divorce Corp is, “there is no functional oversight of judges." But it is more complicated than that. Our opinion comes from the perspective of our varied experience in family court reform in Maine. And ... we write with some understanding of (a) Judicial Branch mechanisms for judicial oversight, and (b) the Maine state legislature's take on its "oversight of the judiciary" (which includes judges) as a part of its constitutional powers. Problems with the complaint procedure for judges are a small part part of much larger, more serious systemic problems with the entire family court system. We feel that a dysfunctional complaint system for judges cannot be looked at in isolation, while the rest of the system seems irreparably broken and in a state of near collapse.

There is an historic lag between the Judiciary's self-concept of the nature of judges and that of the present day, informed public. In a pre-tech world, when the personal  attitudes and behaviors of judges were less visible to the public, a large part of a judges' power/mystique rested on his/her distance (invisibility) from public view. It was easier to sell the public an ideal image of core judicial attributes: impartiality, fairness, adroit use of discretion, adherence to the law, etc. However, in a Facebook/twitter/e-mail world, a poorly functioning judge may get continual exposure - warts and all, and this exposure puts a serious dent in the “ideal image" of what a judge should be. Judges can't escape the social media world in which everyone else lives. A bad judicial judgment can go “viral”. Traditional judicial 'gravitas' has been dealt a blow from which it will never recover.

How then to deal with the new reality of "warts and all" judicial images? From what we can see in family courts, the legal establishment is in self-serving denial of the problem. Judicial misconduct or the need for any form of corrective action get handled by a mix of firm denial, legalistic complaint - driven approaches, placement of “buddies” on the complaint committee and by attacks and slurs on those who would complain. It is the problem of self-regulation of any industry. It gets magnified in a very closed, very opaque system in which a great deal of money is involved.

In the midst of this new reality, the Maine Judicial Branch takes little visible administrative or management action in correcting judges. More troubling, if one looks at a recent posting on their web site, they seem to be  overtly calling for greater bench/bar coziness. A recent proposal to  replace, or modify, the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct seems aimed at an even more judge-friendly approach. One telling phrase from the "proposal" jumps out:  "... valuing close and regular contacts between the bench and the bar and in fostering involvement of judges with lawyers and non-lawyers in the larger community where judges live and work." To public readers  this phrase sounds like a call to enhance further the "old boy network".  Especially, if one considers the already “close regular contacts” that go on between the bar and the  bench right up to and including the Supreme Court. The bar has huge, powerful, not always wholesome influence on judges. By using a mix of bullying and "make nice" techniques they manage gain judicial compliance and "correct their actions"- if unfavorable to the BAR. One wonders about the impact of all of this coziness on judicial impartiality and the issue of “undue influence”? The BAR plays a pivotal role in supporting or opposing judges up for re-appointment. One worries that the criteria for these  judicial appointment or re-appointment matters are how lawyer friendly is this judge? This is all done beneath the public radar:

(A) Formal Judicial  oversight mechanisms:
    i) Judicial Responsibility and Disability Committee: Here is the link to this committee:
               
A big problem here is that this committee ignores the glaring fact that 74% of family court cases are ‘Pro se’. A similar 74% would probably be complainants. This web site as “how to” is not “user friendly” for a ‘Pro se’ complainant. It is multi-layered process, each layer must be put to rest before taking the next step. It is a very legalistic process. It requires legal knowledge. And the outcome? From what we can determine from many informants, ZIP!

Using a lawyer may make the legalistics a bit easier to navigate, but it is expensive and a lawyer must always be careful not to be too aggressive in promoting a claim or they may incur charges of disrespecting a judge and face a ‘sua sponte’ complaint from the Overseers of the BAR. It is a fraught situation to say the least, and having a lawyer doesn’t seem to make any difference in obtaining “corrective action”.

    ii) Use of a Supreme Court appeal mechanism to address judicial misbehavior.  In theory this is a possibility. The Supreme Court will hear cases involving claims of abuse of judicial discretion, but the attorney making the claim must walk a careful line. Here is a reproachful quote that may shed light: “[the lawyer] displays what appears to be a general disrespect for the court and for opposing attorney...”. This quote comes from a recent Court’s decision. This remark from the Court resulted in a ‘sua sponte’ complaint from the Overseers of the Bar, a subsidiary of the Court, about the lawyer, who had written a lengthy, unusually detailed, carefully documented brief. It made the case of serious judicial impropriety too perfectly!

(B) More Systemic approaches: Legislative actions of the Judiciary Committee of the Maine legislature.

The passage of legislative bills into law is one systemic strategy that, it is hoped, will correct some family court actions.

We have had some modest success in getting legislation passed in 2013 aimed at Guardian ad litem reform. It was the first rewrite of the GAL rules in many years. But ... Its subsequent implementation in any family court is a question of judicial discretion, judicial enforcement, judges following the law. Most don’t know the law; most ignore it claiming “judicial discretion.

     i) Passing laws or bills aimed at correcting excessive judicial  discretion. This is much needed but a daunting legislative challenge. The challenge comes in the form of the Legislature not being sure of the boundaries of its “oversight of the judiciary” constitutional mandate. But we are working on it.

     ii) Public testimony in opposition to judicial appointment and reappointments when these issues come before the Judiciary Committee of the legislature.

We have only just tried this approach this year with mixed results. On the one hand, testimony from the public about the egregious actions of a judge up for re-appointment raised serious doubts about the judge’s fitness. For the first time ever the re-appointment was not a slam dunk. It got postponed until the following week. In the interim, the divorce industry rallied the troops and conducted an email blitzkrieg on committee members endorsing the judge as a paragon. They also conducted a slur campaign on those who testified. It was an amazing performance from which we learned much. It is all part of the record, and we shall return to try this approach with modifications based on “lessons learned”.

In summary, family court problems are a complex network of interacting systemic problems. Attempts to solve one issue such as judicial misconduct have to be looked at in terms of the total system.

MeGAL is working to reform the Family Court and Guardian ad litem system. If you have had an issue in this area we would ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

Bullying Judges - Affects Lives

Does this title sound like preposterous, science fiction fantasy? The very idea of anyone bullying a stern, sober, black-robed judge, sitting high on the bench of a district court room sounds like one, huge stretch, but consider the dynamics. Judges by and large work continually with the same group of courthouse lawyers, and see them individually on a frequent, regular basis. Any judge is outnumbered by the collectivity of lawyers who regularly use his/her court. Every profession has its grape-vine, its politics, its activists. Add to this scenario the fact that the bar-bench relationship in any district is almost totally below the public radar. No one knows the group dynamics of this very closed legal system. What happens when a strongly political, very vocal, well-placed, local lawyer is unhappy with his/her handling by a judge - or wants special treatment or advantage? Conversations with friends, comparing notes, disenchantment, anger enhancement, and, EUREKA: an out of sight, bar-bench campaign in which any judge will be outnumbered, out-gunned. These putative dynamics are just part of a conceptual skeletal sketch of potential bar-bench dynamics. Obviously, there may be endless variations on the theme, ranging from mild group pressure, to lobbying for different issues, to polite disputes, to warfare and gang mind rape. To campaigns: GET RID OF THIS JUDGE - TOO INDEPENDENT!  or ...KEEP THIS JUDGE, HE/SHE IS OBSEQUIOUS TO OUR INTERESTS!

Lest anyone think we have gone off the deep end and lead a rich fantasy life, we have to admit that we were totally numb to the possibility of the above dynamics, until we heard stories from several "reliable sources" who have witnessed variations on this bar-bench power dynamic. It speaks to many concerns that we have witnessed. Why do local lawyers so frequently win over visiting lawyers? Why do local lawyers rarely get a reprimand from a presiding judge for bad courtroom behavior?  Why do certain, very politically well connected lawyers so frequently get their way in court? We suspect that this bench-bar dynamic may be more pronounced in a small town setting where professional boundaries and friendships may render boundaries more difficult to maintain. It shed light on the 'Pro se' situation too. 'Pro se' versus local lawyer. No contest here for the most part. The dynamic favors lawyers

The bar-bench dynamic may explain some of the weird, off the wall  judicial decisions that we, as consumers experience. Failure to listen to professional consultants, acceptance of fraudulent allegations of abuse that fly in the face of facts, tossing evidence out the window and operating on judicial opinion and using judicial discretion on "steroids". When judges get bullied by members of a mafiaesque bar, justice suffers and consumers are victimized..

It is particularly troubling, therefore, to see calls for a "closer bar-bench" relationship in writings posted on the Judicial Branch web site.  Some would say, if this relationship were any closer,in some cases it would result in mind-body fusion! Where are the degrees of separation? Boundaries? Impartiality? Discretion? One suspects that all of these principles get tested, prodded and (sometimes) hammered.

An audit of courts and 'Pro se' might shed light on some of this. But then one needs to think about how to manage this unhealthy bar-bench system? Further study is obviously needed before prescribing any action. But there are concepts from other professional systems that might be considered. Rotation of judges from court to court to break up entrenched dynamics? R & R for judges stuck in these bar-bench trenches. A support system for judges to discuss local bar pressures and outright bullying. 'Sua sponte' complaints to the overseers of the bar against lawyers who "bully". Encouraging the public to attend bar-bench meetings and keep the process honest. Or ... totally out of the box, what about an Overseers of the 'Pro se', for the 74% majority who use family courts?


Sorry, on that last one, but we couldn't resist!

The current process needs the light of day, the fresh air of public observation and opinion and a deconstruction of these "systems".

MeGAL is a grassroots organization committed to bringing reform to our Family Courts and Guardians ad litem systems. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

What Can Happen When You Go Pro se in Family Court?

Over a year ago Sarah Dalton went to the Supreme because of what she had experienced in a very dysfunctional Family Court process.

Tuesday (03/03/2014) Sarah Dalton went to court Prose against her ex and Susan Bixby of MittelAsen (who was representing her ex). You may remember her case going before the Supreme Court of Maine last year (see links below).

When I talked with her on Monday she had prepared herself for the worst. She was going back  into the court which had given her such a hard time.

In a twist - Judge Moskowitz encouraged the two parties to negotiate out of court. They did and Sarah has gone from having a minimum of supervised visits to three days of unsupervised visits a week. In Sarah's own words this was "miles ahead of where we were" - not perfect but better than what she had.

What is even more amazing is that she accomplished this Prose and should stand as an example to the 74% who go into court that one can represent themselves and have a positive outcome.

2014-02-22 Child Custody - An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521

2014-05-04 An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 - the Lawyers Debate

2014-05-10 An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 - the Final Dance 

Support Family Court reform by contacting us at MeGAL at MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding 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.

A flawed complaint process for Guardians ad litem in Family Court.

A “Make-Believe” Complaint Process for Guardians ad litem in Maine Family Courts.

While there is little to no current data to tell us exactly what happens with consumers’ complaints about Maine Guardians ad litem, some have actually received action - in the past. We have talked with people who complained (years ago) and were - hold your breath - successful in getting  “corrective action” using the then existing complaint process. That was back then - before GAL immunity - over ten years ago.

In 2001, a bill, LD 164 HP 153 was submitted, which proposed that anyone serving as a Guardian ad litem and acting as the courts agent would have quasi-judicial immunity "for acts performed within the scope of duties of the Guardian ad litem". This bill in its final disposition was recommended to not pass - and it did not. In 2004, however, Guardians ad litem were given quasi-judicial immunity which did not take effect until 2005.

Since 2005 out of an estimated 150 possible complaints from consumers about their GALs, submitted to Maine’s chief judge - not one - zero complaints ever received  any “corrective action”.

What we have for the past 9 - 10 years is a broken, make-believe, complaint process.  Either it’s “make-believe”, or ... we’d all be forced to say, all Guardians ad litem are perfect and don’t ever need any correction or improvement. How could this be where the emotional toil of divorce is so high and a parents child(ren) is at stake.

It should be noted that any time a consumer of Guardian ad litem services takes the time to give feedback - or to complain - about the services, they are giving, what most organizations would consider, valuable information service. Consumers (parents) are telling our court system that there are apparent flaws in the product and/ or service that is being provided. While the complaints and feedback may not be flattering and may expose flaws within the system, complaints/ feedback would give Maine’s judiciary an insight into their service product flaws and an opportunity to improve the quality.  Or ... to prevent tragic internal abuses, public harm and scandal.

Businesses, such as Wal-Mart, Apple and Amazon want to know what the public’s thoughts are about the service they provide. They understand the cost involved in acquiring and retaining the good will of a customer, and that an upset customer can cause untold damage. In a closed system that operates with no competition, like Maine’s Judicial Branch, the concepts of customer service and customer good will and respect go right out the window.  It is an increasingly out of touch anomaly in a consumer driven society.

What are some of the problems that we see with our current and proposed court complaint process:

1. The use of an inflexible and out dated information system. The data that the Judicial Branch retains is on pieces of paper in boxes at widely scattered district  court houses. In order to access this data, one must go to a particular court house in person and deal with court clerks who are often busy, inefficient and feel put - upon - unless you are a popular lawyer. Further, there are limits as to how many records one may examine on a given visit without a fee. (As an aside please note that customer service is often a foreign concept as there is no reason for giving good customer service. My experience with court clerks is that they do not know the product, are rude to customers - unless as noted above a popular lawyer - and look down upon customers). The current date is not useable and/ or meaningful.

2. Any information that one may glean is fragmented, often hand - written and insufficient. There is no common integrated system to collect and process data. This makes it virtually impossible to properly analyze any outcomes of any complaint.

3. Because there is a lack of transparent data and systemic protocol for data collection about Guardian ad litem complaints, this impairs the ability to do a proper external analysis/review/oversight. What little fragmented data there may be for public review, is all but useless to tease out any meaningful data.

4. The inconsistent handling of complaints. While there is a published complaint process on the Maine Judicial Branch web site, it is more or less a series of descriptive steps, with no examples. With no examples the consumer has to do their best in crafting a complaint. Do I just tell the problem like it is (as the justices on the Supreme Court told us back in November) or should the consumer point out why there is a legitimate complaint by citing law and statutes? It is a guessing game.

You are provided instructions on where to file that complaint. Without how to instructions, some ‘prose’ people write pages and pages of their “story”; others try over and over, like a game of “20 Questions”.  Is this how to do it? How about this? It is a conundrum. There is no clearly defined complaint process and or procedures. No one to help a ‘prose’ or consumer of Judicial services.

Where do the Rules for Maine Guardians ad litem fit?  Are they the gold standard?  Oops ... !  Your case involved “judicial discretion” about the Rules, and the judge (with discretion) threw the Rules out the window! Sorry, complaint dismissed! No Rules, No instructions, No limits on judicial discretion! It all equals no real, functional complaint process!  None.

Functionally, it also means absolutely NO oversight of any kind for GALs.  THEY ARE PERFECT! Bad sports, whiners, complainers, get lost!

Until the Judicial Branch decides to take the complaint process seriously there will be a public user problem. The Guardians ad litem role will be an unsupervised, non-functioning, cruel imposition on the public, who are forced to pay for a product with NO “quality assurance” from Maine’s Judicial Branch whatever.

We, as members of the public, are asking the Maine legislature act so as to move the “oversight” of Guardians ad litem to the Bureau of Professional and Financial Regulation.  This would place complaints under the purview of an organization that is well set up to address public complaints on professions of various kinds and that has a strong “consumer orientation”. The current situation is a travesty.


For more information on what we are doing in court reform please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook. Our number is: 207-370-9801.