A Job Description – the Foundation of Accountability for GALs and PCs.

The “Judiciary” has created a class of person that has no job description and these people work as court officers with no accountability, management or direction. They make life altering decisions and often play God with your life and that of your child. If they make a mistake – the courts say they are protected by “quasi” immunity and for all purposes - untouchable. 

They are Guardians ad litem (GAL) and Parental Coordinators (PC).

With no job description it is impossible to say what a PC or GAL is supposed to do and if they are doing something they should not. Mission creep has set in so that now a GAL or PC can 'recommend' therapy and do so with no reason, end point or methodology. All of this from just 16 hours of training.  You resist and the courts will coerce you into taking this therapy under threat of jail time or loss of custody. Or a GAL or PC may not report neglect or abuse when common sense dictates that they should report to DHHS. With no job description – you – as a parent have no recourse on this persons job performance – how do you prove they are wrong? You can't. As a result any complaint against a GAL or PC will go nowhere. That is why in five years not one GAL or PC has been removed or reprimanded in the course of doing their 'job' when a consumer has lodged a complaint. This despite mounting evidence that would suggest otherwise – that job performance is lacking.

A job description is a foundation upon which a job can be built upon. No foundation or one that is not solid and the structure of that job will be weak and rotten (like what we have currently). We urge those in state government to look at creating a job description for Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators. This is a no cost method of providing oversight and accountability to a 'profession' that has none. Let our representatives know how you have been affected by this lack of a job description – write, call or email them with your story. Or email MeGALalert@gmail.com and we will forward your story on to those who should be concerned.

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   


Contact the Governors Office:

Governor Paul LePage 

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

Almost 40 years with no Compliance System for Guardians ad litem

In 2006 OPEGA ( Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability ) produced a report highlighting some of the problems with the Guardian ad litem program in Maine. What OPEGA highlighted back in 2006 for Maine are issues that sadly can be seen in many states across the country.

One of the audit findings by OPEGA was that there is a lack of compliance, performance controls and evaluation systems. The Judicial Branch has not been competent when it comes to oversight or performance monitoring in the 30+ years prior to the report.  Six years later we find the Judicial Branch still without any quality controls in place to monitor and evaluate Guardians ad litem. There is no mechanism to identify GALs that are not complying with requirements or who are not involved in the lives of the child(ren). OPEGA also recommended the establishment of an independent oversight board that would ask for feedback on GAL performance. Being able to give feedback and having a place where this feedback, good or bad, is available for consumers would help in the matter of oversight and management. An Angie’s list of sorts would weed out under performing GALs or limit their business. Those that perform to standards would be rewarded for their ethics and behavior.

It was 30+ years before OPEGA investigated and reported on this issue. Six years later the situation has not changed except that there has been 6 more years of damage to Maine's families and children. How much longer will Maine's children have to wait for change to come? If we wait for the Judicial Branch to bring about change it may be another 40 years. Can we wait that long?

If you want to read a summarized copy of the 2006 OPRGA report click here.


A copy of the report done in 2012 – the Power of the Powerless which covers many of the same issues can be found here.


If you are or know someone who has had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us for support at MeGALalert@gmail.com. We can also be found on Facebook.

Guardians ad litem have a minimal of training to make life altering decisions

Is 16 hours of CORE training enough to make altering changes?

There are professions that have a profound impact on our lives. These people who can make life or death decisions or determine the outcome of a legal battle have in some cases years of training.

A doctor for instance goes through medical school which is an additional 4 years of education above college. Then depending on the branch of medicine another 2 to 5 years of residency before anyone can practice their profession. A lawyer is similar with 3 – 4 years of education after college. To become a Judge is an additional 7 years beyond law school.

To become an electrician, Plumber or a Lobsterman requires years of apprenticeship and thousands of hours of on the job training. These are just a few jobs where the path to that profession requires in some cases years of experience and training. Each level of training builds on the previous training.

A Guardian ad litem is a person that when introduced into a divorce/ custody battle can and does have a profound impact on a persons life. To become a Guardian ad litem one has to have a background as lawyer or social worker – yet unlike other professions the training a Guardian ad litem receives does not build on the previous education they may have. In fact Guardians ad litem do not use their previous background when working as a Guardian ad litem – or at least that is how it is supposed to work in theory. Guardians ad litem on average across the country have training from a low of 16 hours (Maine) to a high of 50 hours. This falls short of the thousands of hours that a Doctor, Plumber, Electrician or Lawyer have to go through. These professions can and do have a profound impact on a persons life and they are held accountable. Would you want a doctor to operate on you if you knew he had only 16 hours of training? Or how about a plumber without any apprenticeship?  The answer is no. Guardians ad litem though have a minimal of CORE training before they get to make life altering decisions on you and your family. If you push back you run the risk of the Guardian ad litem forcing you to take anger management or parental counseling for example. 16 hours, 50 hours or even 100 hours does not give you the educational background to make these kinds of life impacting decisions. Guardians ad litem are only para professionals with little or no background but lots of influence over your life.

If you have had issues with Guardians ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.

The Judicial Branch says, "No Problem" with Guardians ad litem. We say ...

    It may seem unusual to post a letter of resignation, but this letter has already received wide circulation by the Judicial Branch, so we felt the public should see it too.


Chief Justice Leigh Saufley
Maine Supreme Court

Dear Chief Justice Saufley,

    It is with regret that I am submitting my resignation from the Judicial Branch Committee reviewing the Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem.  I had initially hoped that, my experience in hearing from many who have been affected by malfunctioning Guardians ad litem, and also from my contacts with many in Maine government (and elsewhere) that I might be able to add a meaningful perspective to the problems facing  the committee. At this point, after participating quite actively in some very pleasant discussions of two Judicial Branch committees addressing Guardian ad litem reform, I feel that I am such a micro minority that my input in the final analysis is perceived as essentially irrelevant, or even unintentionally insulting to the Guardians ad litem and those who support them.

    The problem that I experienced is that the 20 people in the first committee - largely representatives of the “divorce industry”- and the 12 or so in the second, quite honestly and sincerely do not see a problem with the Guardian ad litem program as it stands. They see no problem with the complaint process either.  It poses something of a problem -solving paradox: 19/20 and 11/12 see no problem yet they are the dominant participants in a process allegedly aiming to make things better. The unasked question is: better for whom - for he public or for the “divorce industry”?  It is difficult to correct a problem, if the majority on a committee genuinely don’t believe there is a problem. The oft quoted, “only two complaints in two years”, seems to be the rationalization for this belief. For many discerning people, these numbers (and the structure behind them) hardly tell a very convincing story, but, as you know, sadly, there are no other numbers. So absent your statistics and other data, absent a belief that there is a Guardian ad litem problem, I am a voice crying in the wilderness, and the sole dissenter in every attempt at consensus.

    The only answer that I know of to this particular conundrum is outside consultation from a reputable consulting organization that will look at the big picture, including rapidly growing consumer dissent. The public needs to be included. Such consultants should recommend a design that fits Maine’s children and families, one that addresses some of the issues noted below.

    Our experience with a growing number of Maine families, has convinced us that there is a malfunctioning GAL program from a human perspective. It tells us that there are lots of as yet uncounted statistics out there. But you have to have modern IT methodologies to gather the numbers, you have to listen to those who are the living statistics and basically, you have to want to know. And its the complete absence of quality assurance, the absence of consumer protection (and the attitudes that go with each of these) that many find so troubling.

    The problems that we would address to a consultant are: the absence of a standard job description for a Guardian ad litem, the need for Rules and Regulations that guide the functions of the job description, training that under girds both the job description and the rules and regulations and that reflects the difference between the differing knowledge, skill and experience of GALs from vastly differing backgrounds, the need for a ‘practicum’, or internship, for GALs, so that they are not using the public as experiential guinea pigs as they gain practical experience. The need for oversight of a program with a vast impact on Maine’s children and families. These issues all speak to the need for adequate up-to-date data for a system of program management. It can be done; other states do it.

    It can’t be accomplished by those who see “no problem”.

    All of these management items need grounding in the experience of actual, real life, service users. You need a board of consumers to participate in every aspect of design to keep it from being out of touch with exclusively top down views. It will be useful in educating the “divorce industry” professionals that there is a problem, when there is a problem. And, frankly, the problem right now is destined to get bigger until it is acknowledged as a problem and those affected by the problem are involved.

    In addition to the problems of defining and building GAL identity briefly noted above, there are serious issues relating to process. Is statutory immunity for GALs in the public interest? What substitute does the public have if they are denied the ability to pursue claims of harm to themselves or their children from a GAL? Isn’t “quasi judicial immunity” one of several provisions that undermine accountability of GALs and that protect incompetent practitioners? Then there is the very troubling issue of ‘ex parte’ communications between GAL and judge, which in their permitted secret form allow for a “Star Chamber process”, a trial apart form the main trial that corrupts any pretense of due process.  ‘Ex parte’ makes the GAL into a court informer, paid by those against whom he/she is informing. It uses information obtained in interviews with parties in ways that indirectly cause them to testify against themselves. It urgently needs recognition as a problem and it needs correction. The Rules and Regulations for GALs governing confidentiality are currently so broad as to be meaningless. There is no profession in America that is as permissively unregulated of privileged and other sensitive client information. GALs have no functional restrictions governing confidentiality the way rules are currently written.

    All of the above are clearly “not a problem” for GALs or others who work in the “divorce industry” but I can assure you they are a huge problem for the public that is forced to pay for them!  Understandably, the above issues are  threatening to those who work in the “divorce industry”. They strike at the core of their profession and their income, but there are devastating numbers on the other side of the equation. Fees that impoverish families that cause bankruptcy, that cause the loss of a home, that impair the future education of children- these are a part of the heartbreak in the GAL experience. There is also the use of the court’s most brutal techniques for GAL bill - collecting that may be legal, but it is no less repulsive for being legal.

    To solve these problems with 19/20 participants or 11/12 who don’t see a problem, is a request for self-regulation with no impetus (or expectation?) for self-change. As a minority of one, I cannot be that much needed impetus for change. I can be much more effective in working for GAL reform outside of these committees, and can do so, very actively, once free of the current committee obligations without feeling compromised by two opposing commitments.

    Many thanks for affording me a window on this process.

    Sincerely,

    Jerome A Collins, MD


If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.

Maine Voices: Plan for complaints about guardians ad litem protects them, not kids

Portland Press Hearld

Since spring, there has been a growing grassroots movement in Maine, advocating that the judicial branch reform its guardian ad litem (GAL) program. None of this is new. There have been earlier, well done, state government reports that politely, but directly point out problems and call for program change.

Current guardian ad litem problems are not just "noise" from grassroots troublemakers. There is substantial noise from within the government itself. Guardian ad litem problems urgently demand reform.

Full story: Portland Press Hearld

Guardian ad litem Job description

A job description is like the foundation of a house. If you have a good and well built foundation the house that sits upon it will also be strong with few problems. If you have a poor foundation (or none), your house will, shift and shake, lack stability and have a lot of problems. Job descriptions are used almost universally throughout business, industry, government and elsewhere to put boundaries on a job, to describe roles and responsibilities, to give lines of authority and accountability. They are a key management tool. In normal oversight, managers ask, "Are you following your job description? You need to improve this or that part of your job description."

Maine's Judicial Branch is currently attempting to tackle the issue of Guardian ad litem reform. A  committee has proposed a complex new procedure for complaints about Guardians ad litem; another committee is currently addressing the issue of Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem. But ... er, folks, excuse me, there is no job description for Guardians ad litem. We have before us a collection of a new complaint procedure and new Rules and Regulations - both in search of a job description. There is no formal description of a Guardians ad litem job to which the Rules and Regulations can be tailored. No roles and functions, no lines of authority, no lines of accountability that are universally a part of a regular job description. There is also the matter of training of Guardians ad litem. In most settings in business, industry and government, the job description is the template, or basis, for job training and education. Training flows from the job pattern and re-enforces the job's roles and functions.

Great work, everyone. Now we just have to find a job that all this stuff will fit! It's doing things backwards.

No job description explains the current Guardian ad litem training design. It presumes a base of knowledge for which there is no evidence and adds a smidgen (16 hours) of social work and lawyer. Lawyers and Mental health or Social Workers have very different bases of knowledge, skill and experience. As one educator told us; education of Guardians ad litem is one root of the current Guardian ad litem problem. The "tap root" is no job description. Without a job description, it leaves the Guardian ad litem in the position of being all things to all people.

The problem is that, while fixing the Rules and Regulations may make the house look clean and polished, these Rules and Regulations have no job description as a grounded  foundation. The foundation is missing. In most settings Rules and Regulations would normally provide direction about how to play out the content of the job description. They elaborate on where the boundaries are located, and rules imply a problem when boundaries are crossed or ignored. They can be specific items reviewed in supervision and in internal organizational corrective action or in external complaints. But in the JB system, there is no supervision of Guardians ad litem, which leaves Rules and Regulations as a sort of disconnected, pious hope. An amorphous, very ambiguous claim of Guardians ad litem working in "the best interest of the child" – something that every parent is also doing – is not a substitute for an actual job description. There is no formal statement that defines who or what a Guardian ad litem is or does, their lines of accountability, their roles and functions.

A reliance on "works in the best interest of the child" as a job description accords the Guardian ad litem a magic mantle of omnipotence and omniscience that no other job in America holds, a sort of high priest/priestess accountable only to God, and the appointing court. Maine is faced with a huge problem with the Guardian ad litem system that starts with these questions: what are Guardians ad litem, what do they do, how are they trained, who has oversight of them, how is this exercised? A final very important question: are children and families safe as a result of their actions? And (this afterthought) why is everyone paying megabucks for this service?

Simply reviewing and rewriting Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem with no job description, does begin to address the core of the problem – just what is a Guardian ad litem?


Please let us know at MeGALalert@gmail.com what you think is wrong with the Guardian ad litem system.

The Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute and how it advocates for GAL bill collection

If you visit the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute web site and read their Mission Statement you will read about the noble cause that they have taken up for the child who finds him/ her self in the middle of a dispute between parents. The inference is about the compassion that they, as the Guardian ad litem trade organization, have for the child and the support that they give each other. It is in the Mission Statement that we see what Toby Hollander's Institute is all about. It is about the "compensation for those individuals serving as Guardian ad litem and providing mutual support and assistance on issues relating to the work of Guardians ad litem."

Currently, there is a case that was slated to be heard in the highest court, in which  we see the kind of support that the Guardian ad litem Institute gives to the rank and file. This case is about how the Institute advocates for the use of coercion by the courts to force a parent to pay for a Guardian ad litem services. That the Institute - in support of a particular Guardian ad litem - is  adding its voice in asking the court to have a parent thrown in jail, for non-payment of a GAL's bill. This seems to be one unappealing  interpretation of the Institute's Mission statement.  It is about Guardian ad litem compensation. In the end, it is not about what this court officer can do for the child. It is about what the court can do for this court officer - even if it means a parent is behind bars. One has to ask, how this kind of action is going to improve the welfare of a child? It makes one wonder about the bottom line; whose interest Maine's Guardians ad litem are really looking out for - theirs or the child?  And where are the courts when the public needs them?

It is planned actions like these that give the Maine Guardian ad litem a black eye. When they use the courts that they work in as "officers of the court" to be their "power bill collector" it may be legal, but it looks unfeeling. It looks like they are using their professional role connections for personal benefit. We feel that the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute has some serious public relations and identity problems. Do they want to be "part of the solution, or part of the problem?" Liens,  garnishing and jail for contempt don't cut it!

It you are having issues with a Guardian ad litem institute we encourage you to write to us. There are currently over 40 complaints about Guardians ad litem that we are aware of in the state of Maine.  The list continues to  grow. Is your Guardian ad litem part of this list? Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.

Maine's Judicial Branch Bullet Proof GALs

Maine's Judicial Branch is in the final stages of fine tuning a "new" Guardian ad litem complaint process.  From a review of this “new” proposal,which must go to the legislature for approval, we would say that the JB has done a masterful job of protecting Guardians ad litem, also known as"officers of the court".  The draft proposal, if it goes forward as is, will virtually guarantee each and every GAL that no complaint from the public will ever touch them.  They can remain free and  totally unaccountable.  It will be a huge relief for many Guardians ad litem whose activities have been the subject of much public anger about a malfunctioning GAL system and public calls for reform of the program.  No public complaint will break the tight legal barriers of the "new" complaint process, which appears even more likely to dismiss all complaints than the Judicial Branch's "old" complaint process.

Whew!  Looks like Guardians ad litem dodged that bullet!

It is a triumph of "foxes" designing security systems for the "hen house".  Credit must go to Justice Warren Silver and his committee of 20 who worked on the plan for an “open, fair process” for complaints about Guardians ad litem.  The huge preponderance of this 20 member committee were what might be called the Judicial Branch's core political  "base", Guardians ad litem, friends of Guardians ad litem, family court judges, and lawyers in the divorce "trade".  There was one lone member representing the public interest in this process.  There had been earlier talk of three public representatives, but, hey, why trouble the public about this sort of thing?  What does the public know anyway?  One public member should be plenty!

One of the curious paradoxes about this committee with a "reform" mandate from the Chief Justice was that the majority of the members openly (and sometimes heatedly) expressed their feeling that there was "no problem" with the system, especially the current complaint process.  Many felt the push for change was the result of political action by a small, noisy group that didn't reflect the views of most people using Guardians ad litem in their divorce. One family lawyer was vehement in his views about clients who want to complain: "Make them pay!  It's about ego!"  And ... the committee proposal does follow his strongly expressed suggestion. Those who use Guardians ad litem in their divorce will pay an upfront "tax" to support the complaint process and another fee for making a formal complaint.

Make ‘em pay!

The complaint process itself will be housed in the formidable bastion of the Overseers of the Bar and administered by them.  An administrative lawyer will do a screening check on all public complaints. If these complaints are felt to have merit, they will be passed on to a 12 member "volunteer panel" for determination of action on the complaint.  But ... what a panel!  10 Guardians ad litem and two members from the "public".  We're not sure what "public" means (friends and families of Guardians ad litem, agency people or Mr and Mrs “Grass-roots America”?).  We're wondering why 2 members of the public? For true GAL peace of mind, one or, better, none, should suffice.  Keep it a friendly little group of  like-minded colleagues.

Consumer protection?  Please, just trust the integrity of the JB, and its GAL "officers of the court".  We consider that our whole operation is about consumer protection.  Just take property liens, garnished wages and jail! These protect consumers from breaking the law for non-payment of their GAL’s bills. We protect consumers all the time.

Er, ...  do Guardians ad litem know how to judge their peers, or have they any experience in self-policing?  Do they even know or follow their own Rules and Regulations?   Do they have any experience with “consumer protection” issues? No, but that means they will be more spontaneously  empathic and “culturally sensitive” to colleagues who are beset by complainers and bad sports.  They are not bogged down by knowledge.  Dismissed, dismissed, dismissed!   What training does it take to say, “Dismissed”?  These complainers wanted change. You can be sure we'll give them “change”, but our change may not pan out to be what these “bad sports” wanted!

As you can see it is an elegant judicial sham.  It uses the ‘gravitas’ of the Overseers of the Bar to cover a heavily weighted panel of 10 Guardians ad litem whose threadbare training and experience  give them no preparation to address consumer complaints about malfunctioning colleagues and friends. But ... it takes no experience or education to say, “Dismissed!”  It is in essence a mini court trial in which “the burden of proof” is on the consumer.  Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you got a “lemon”.

How on earth  did we end up in a formal courtroom type of  process when we wanted to report vocational malfunctioning to the workers overseers? All we wanted was corrective action from those in charge at the JB.

Given that Maine’s licensing boards offer  consumer protection and consumer friendly models for addressing malfunctioning professionals, one has to ask:

Will the legislature buy these new “bullet proof vests” for Guardians ad litem with public money?

Sorry, GALs, the Days of Wine and Roses are Numbered

A plumber will pay $100 or more for their license. This same plumber needs 1 year of technical college and must pass a Journeyman Plumber exam. If you pass the test you must work under the supervision of a Master Plumber for 2000 hours to take a Master Plumbers exam.  The technical education and the supervised practice are to protect the public and to assure the  quality of plumbing professionals.

If you want to go lobstering you must pay $125 for the license and then it is .80 cents per tag. The potential Lobsterman has to be an apprentice for over 1000 hours to obtain the license.

In the State of Maine you have to have a license from one of the Administrative Branch  licensing boards if you are an Accountant, Doctor, Alcohol and Drug Counselor, Therapy Assistant, Oil and Solid Fuel Technician, Physical Therapist, Social Worker and more than 50 other professions.  These licenses are mandatory if you are to work in the specific profession. The government requiring a license for these professions means that as consumers we can rest assured that the professional person dealing with you has a minimum of training. That there is some form of  regulatory oversight of the occupation involved, because the trade or profession requires some type of specialized skill for the safety and well being of the public. Government and society have deemed that we do not want charlatans delivering  "free-for-all" services, and licensing with testing, continuing education requirements and periodic  license renewal is an accepted method of regulation and oversight. The board that grants the license is also the regulator .

Then there are the Guardians ad litem "professional". These "professionals" are "trained" for 16 hours. Unlike the other professions that have to be licensed the Guardian ad litem does not, nor are they tested on what they learned in the 16 hours. They do not have to apprentice under an experienced Guardian to learn the applied ropes of practice. Guardians ad litem do have continuing education requirements. While one would hope  that the courses for continuing education would be related to the work - from what we have seen this is not always the case. Unless bill collecting and practice management are considered essential technical courses for a Guardian ad litem. Maybe bill collecting is essential as the bills often put parents into bankruptcy.  Then, unlike other professionals  whose license are dependent on continuing education, Guardians ad litem in Maine can fulfill their continuing educational requirement through the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute (MEGALI). This is the  trade organization for the Guardians ad litem and an unregistered lobby for them.  We hear that it wants to be officially sanctioned to provide the required continuing educational experience. This trade organization has no oversight as an educational institution.  It simply decides what courses to market and sells them to members for continuing education credits.  No one supervises these courses, or evaluates their usefulness for job performance.   Without oversight they could hypothetically offer a course on the interior decoration of a Guardian ad litem's office, for 6 CME credits.

There is a very real need to have Guardians ad litem licensed by a professional board with experience in doing this - one with a consumer protection focus.  It should not be done through the Judiciary, which lacks experience in consumer protection and oversight. There is also a very real need to have the continuing education revamped and managed though a University or Community College. There is a desperate need to provide an educational experience that has substance and a job-related focus for people interested in becoming a Guardian ad litem. If Maine continues on the present course without change,  it is guaranteed that future Guardians ad litem will have continuing, severe issues and conflict with those they are supposed to be working for and with.

If you have had problems with a Guardian ad litem or want more information about the issues surrounding this profession please feel free to contact us at:
MeGALalert@gmail.com

Maine Guardians ad litem Oversight, Training and Accountability

A Guardian ad litem is created by Maine's Courts- from start to finish - with a mere 16 hours of training and a notebook. After this, a  Guardian ad litem is let loose on Maine's unsuspecting public and able to charge $125-$200 per hour.  There is no cap on their charges, no restriction of their activities, no enforcement of the rules they are supposed to follow, no supervision and no oversight.  Unbelievable?  But true!

If in the course of a custody battle you ask for a Guardian ad litem be thankful if you have one assigned that is fair and neutral and that follows the "Rules and Regs" for GALs. If you are unlucky  then be warned that it will be almost impossible to remove the Guardian ad litem. Filing a complaint about a GAL will also be useless.  There are no instructions, no guidelines for consumers to follow and no help from the Chief Judge's office.  Under the current system, Maine's courts look at a complaint from a legalistic standpoint, like an adversarial challenge- and not from a consumer's point of view as a call to a manager to investigate vocational functioning . Currently complaints will resolve nothing in terms of seeking to manage or to correct the behavior of the Guardian ad litem. Maine's courts do not understand the concept of consumer protection from flawed workers. Instead Maine's courts respond to consumer complaints with a process that protects the GAL as "an officer of the court".  It is like trying to remove a judge!

Guardians ad litem can bill what they want and for as much as they want. They do not have to justify their billing and may use the courts in which they work to collect their bills or set penalties for slow payers. Oh, and let's not forget that these bills cannot be discharged in bankruptcy court (there is a good chance you will find yourself there as a result) - and the courts could have you jailed for failure to make payment.

Accuracy and first hand evidence aren't necessary for these "16 hour wonders" to do their required reporting to the courts. They can present hearsay evidence  as fact and most courts will accept it. They do not need to be factual in the work they do and this will slip by unchallenged. Guardians ad litem can make wild speculative claims about events that may/ or may not happen in the future, sometimes referred to by informed critics  as "junk science". The courts will accept these "junk science" claims as fact - and, worse, base judgments on them. They can choose to ignore serious health and child endangerment  issues, and the courts will not enforce the fact that failure to report dangers to children is a violation of state law and is mandated reporting. GALs can endorse social behaviors that most normal people would find shocking and Maine's courts will accept this lack of common sense, if the GAL puts a "junk science" spin on it. The Guardian ad litem system and Maine's family courts frequently appear to have lost any common sense.

Maine has a serious GAL problem that has kept the state in the bottom of national rating systems for years. The role of Guardian ad litem will not go away and change is opposed by GALs.  Further, they are aligned with powerful political forces that fight GAL reform.. The Guardian ad litem Institute and some of its members, who are in Maine's legislature, will lobby to keep things the way they are.  $125 to $200 per hour, no supervision, no enforcement of rules and regs., no oversight looks pretty good!  Why change a "good thing"?. Many of these people are blind to the hurt and anger they are causing - looking down on the public they are supposed to serve and blaming their client for complaining. They are wrong and there is growing public and consumer sentiment to back this up.

Family Courts and our Children..... Is this how Justice is served?

Guardians ad litem, Judges and quite a few Family Lawyers consider the Maine Guardians ad litem issues that have been widely reported not to be a big problem. Or that is has been hyped by people who have special interest and as a result they are stirring things up. Quite often it is pointed out that these people have a gripe about how unfair the final custody agreement is set up as. Or finally that there is not much of a problem because there have only been 2 reprimands in the last 2 years. All of these themes are repeated over and over despite the facts which contradict these claims and despite the fact that Maine's Judicial Branch has shamefully little actual data. It's about "please, don't confuse me with the facts"!

We are presenting a short list of some of the GAL issues consumers have had to deal with. You be the Judge and tell us if you feel Maine's courts were doing their job by allowing these things to happen with no GAL oversight- What follows are from cases both ongoing and finalized.

1. The Guardian ad litem recommended a child's best interest is served by a parent that has a history of mental illness - the other parent does not.

2. The Guardian ad litem indicated that there is nothing wrong for a four year old to go to a bar late at night and witness violence and bad words. This came from a senior member of the Guardian ad Litem Institute.

3. The Guardian ad litem indicated that if a parent went to jail the child would grow up to become the next unabomber. This came from a senior member of the Guardian ad Litem Institute.

4. The Guardian ad litem took no action when it was brought to her attention that a young child suffered cigarette burns. The Guardian ad litem did not report this to DHHS as stated under the Rules for Guardians ad litem. Nor did this Guardian ad litem show she was protecting the interest of this child.

5. The Guardian ad litem made a diagnosis of a child's current and or future condition. Guardians ad litem do not have the authority to make a diagnosis nor do they have the training to do so.

6. A Guardian ad litem recommended that a 3 year old child was better off living with the father over the girls grandparents. The father has a history of drug use, jail time and has sexually molested his child. The grandparents are respectable people. The Guardian ad litem did not protect the interest of this child.

7. In numerous cases the Guardian ad litem has shown disrespect to a trained professional who has a background in child psychology by disregarding professional opinions, or seeking an opinion from another professional that would better fit the GAL's personal biases. This is contrary to the rules which state that a Guardian ad litem must work effectively with other professionals in the assessment of the child or parties to a case.

8. The Guardian ad litem failed to meet the child or the child and parent in a timely manner and failed to form a relationship with the child whose "best interest" they were claiming to serve. This is contrary to the rules for Guardians ad litem.

9. With numerous Guardians ad litem a parent has been made to jump through expensive unnecessary clinical hoops - anger management assessments and psychological evaluations without any clearly specified reasons for the referral from a trained professional, to name a few. These referrals were made by the GAL alone and were done with no reason, no goals and no time lines for duration.

10. In being a reporter of the court Guardians ad litem are supposed to establish a relationship with the child(ren) in the case. Often the Guardians ad litem with feel that they know the children enough to make life altering decisions after only 20 or 30 minutes. In one case the Guardian ad litem made life altering recommendations without ever having met the child in question.

11. With numerous complaints against Guardians ad litem there are claims of bias and the GAL failed to offer objective reasons for recommendations or actions. Guardians ad litem are supposed to be neutral reporters for the court.

12. With numerous recommendations that Guardians ad litem have filed in courts - one of the common complaints is the accuracy of information contained in their report. For instance we have seen the following:

• Bills that are not transparent and impossible to understand.
• Names that are not recorded correctly.
• Time lines that are not accurate.
• Dates that are not accurate.

13. Facts that are wrong, which the GAL refused to correct despite objective evidence. As a reporter of facts these Guardians ad litem failed to fulfill their most basic job requirement.

14. In numerous cases the Guardian ad litem had ex parte communication with the Judge. While this is allowed by the courts it is also stated that in fairness the Guardian ad litem must let the parties know of this communication - unless it is not 'in the best interest of the child'.

15. A Guardian ad litem knowing that a parent was incapacitated by prescription medications for several days out of a month felt that the young child was better off with this parent. The other parent had no history of drug use, mental illness nor violence.

16. In several cases the Guardian ad litem contradicted his/ her self on visitation recommendations. Changing what had been agreed upon. This often at the last minute and with no notice to the affected party.

17. The Guardian ad litem coached a parent on a psychological evaluation. This after he had already taken one and the results were not satisfactory. This action came from a senior member of the Guardian ad Litem Institute.

18. A Guardian ad litem producing a bill that represented 26% or the combined income of the parties involved in the divorce.

19. Limiting the time allowed with one parent - thus harming and in some cases destroying the bonds between parent and child. This being done contrary to M.R. Civ. P.Section 1653 (1) - "to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parent after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage and that is the public interest to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing to effect the policy.”

Maine has the distinction of being at the bottom in terms of our children. Is this really the way life should be for our children? Is this something that we should be proud of? Yet there are forces that are resistant to the thought of change. These are the same people who are and have been telling us there is no problem. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com and tell us your story.

The 'Dating Game' - Maine Guardian ad litem style

Custody tensions can be hard enough without the 'help' of a stranger coming in and making recommendations based on a bizarre and abstract idea that has no clear foundation other than that person's opinion.

For the past several years that Guardian ad litem role expansion has been what Maine’s Justice Saufly (and others) call "mission creep" in the role of Guardian ad litem. Going beyond what the courts have mandated and beyond the scope of these Guardian ad litem's professional training. One area of "mission creep" is that a Guardian ad litem has no right to prescribe unusual social behaviors in managing the lives of divorcing parents and their child.

There is one case that has made its way through the court system where a Judge has made history. The Guardian ad litem working this case has essentially recommended that the parents (both of them have remarried) start 'dating' allegedly 'in the child’s best interest' (the Guardian ad litem has rewritten to state that monthly 'meetings' are recommended – whatever it is called by the Guardian ad litem it is not something the Guardian ad litem has any authority nor mandate to recommend). What is interesting is that this Guardian ad litem has no background in psychology and is stretching the Guardian ad litem role way beyond any Maine statutes.. It is a Guardian ad litem as a law unto him/herself. As this Judge has endorsed the recommendation he/ she is in effect giving approval to court ordered dating for divorcees in the State of Maine. An embarrassing first in the United States for Maine and our court system.

According to rules for the Guardian ad litem section 3, 3.2, 12 (a) “Working effectively with other professionals involved in the assessment or treatment of the child” is something that can apparently be ignored by Guardian ad litems if it does not fit their personal opinion of the “child’s best interest” in any situation. This Guardian ad litem is imposing his/ her surreal bias on the situation and in opposition to the opinion of a licensed mental health professional, to say nothing of the wishes of one of the remarried parties. It is a do your own thing plan of action. This Guardian ad litem has no mandate nor training (nor does any Guardian ad litem in the State of Maine or in the US) to recommend this course of "over the top" action. What the goal of this situation is, is hard to understand - other than the claim that it may meet some need of one parent over the other. This and a totalitarian mind set on the Guardian ad litem's need to impose his/ her will. It would be laughable, as a bad joke, were it not so destructive of the lives of real people.

Should this bizarre recommendation actually be implemented – as it looks like it will - by the court; then both the Guardian ad litem and the court should be held responsible for this insane idea and lack of common sense. The Guardian ad litem should be dismissed - permanently. The Judge should be sanctioned at the very least if not removed. There is no room in Maine's Justice system for such bad jokes or decisions.

An example such as this one is a strong cry for effective, long overdue oversight of Maine Guardian ad litems. Those who would say that there is "no scandal" in the Guardian ad litem program must have an extremely tolerant view of scandal.