Is Junk Science used in Family Courts?

Junk Science -

is the name given to popular, unscientific concepts, consultants and practices used in some courts to defend and justify actions and decisions that might be hard to justify otherwise.

Commonly there is no form of testing to prove or disprove an idea or recommendation that a Guardian ad litem or Family Court is promoting.

Junk science by its ungrounded, unscientific foundation potentially corrupts the judicial process, and it is the source of much human pain and disillusionment, when it is used.  It significantly undermines public confidence in the intelligence and fairness of the judiciary and the courts.

When Guardians ad litem and lawyers make far reaching pronouncements about a child or a party with whom they have had little interaction and offer speculative opinions for which they have no scientific basis, this is "junk science".  When they project into the future (no one can foretell the future), this is pure junk science, when they label parties and/or their children with catchy syndromes that are unrecognized by leading national professional organizations in the field, this is junk science.  When they recommend or prescribe trendy treatments or counseling that have no recognized  scientific basis, this is prescribing "junk science".  When some courts force unwanted treatment or demand the release of privileged, personal therapy records in non-criminal divorce cases- using the threat of contempt- this can only be labeled as practicing  “junk science”.  It is totalitarian and it is destructive of human worth, dignity and human rights.  It ill becomes a democratic society.  When some courts duplicate and/or override the findings of Children's Protective agencies or highly qualified professional consultants, this is junk practice.

Junk science is an area of court usage that needs careful, undefensive review, data collection and high level behavioral medicine consultation to develop the best standards if courts are to correct a bad practice

MeGAL work to bring about change in the Family Court system. We would encourage you to become involved by talking to your state representative. Please find us on Facebook.

felicity myers

Has Justice Donald Alexander Absolved Prolman’s Sins?

Justice Donald Alexander's decision in the Gary Prolman Overseers of the Maine Bar case suggests to many "civilians" that oversight of Maine lawyers is in free fall. Can lawyers do almost anything with no consequences? The Alexander decision is so far removed from public opinion and public common sense as to create widespread public disgust and distrust. In one fell swoop, Alexander gives himself, the Maine Bar and the Judiciary a very "black eye". His decision also raises very worrying questions about the law, lawyers, the judiciary and Maine's drug problem.

MeGAL to the Maine Bar:


Stephen Nelson, Esq
President Maine Bar Association

Dear Mr Nelson:

I am writing to you as president of the Maine Bar Association to express deep concern about Justice Donald Alexander's recent "absolution" of the "sins" of attorney Gary Prolman of Saco, (late of the federal penitentiary). The Alexander decision has raised much questioning about the oversight standards for lawyers amongst those members of the public, who have read reporter, Scott Dolan's, story on the topic. Others have read the actual 25 page decision itself, replete with gory details. Without exception, those with whom I have spoken are aghast at the decision. The detailed report of Prolman's unsavory, unethical, illegal activities that are well documented in the body of the Alexander decision, are challenging in the extreme to any public faith in Alexander, the Bar or Maine courts. We ask: is "oversight" of lawyers in free fall? On the topic of oversight, Justice Alexander appears to scorn public opinion. Many non-lawyers (and many silent lawyers) will read several, perhaps unintended, messages from Alexander's decision: (a) that Prolman must be a gigantic political powerhouse within the profession with an intimidatingly large, lawyerly base of support, and (b) the consequences of not restoring his license might lead to an even more frightening problem for the Court: the opening wide of a window on the drug culture of Maine's legal professionals at all levels. Better to keep Mr Prolman licensed and on the "bar team" than suffer the potential consequences of his enmity and that of his "friends".

In his decision, Justice Alexander's reasoning and use of the law seem to readers without a legal background like an abuse of the tools of the law. To many of us Alexander appears to minimize Prolman's illegal and unethical activities. His decision focuses on 2012 when Prolman's house of cards started to collapse, as the "feds" entered the picture. Alexander passes quickly over the lengthy chronicity of the drug and alcohol problems and other associated unethical and illegal actions. And he "absolves" Prolman of his "sins", restoring his license, because he is perceived as repentant. How else would he present and how does Alexander know that the "leopard has changed his spots"? It is more like the actions of a priest hearing confession than a Maine Supreme Court Justice reviewing "oversight" actions of the Overseers. The reasoning is legalistic, but utterly confusing. Non-lawyers sense a legal "shell game" is being played on them.

There are many examples of Alexander's reasoning that seem inadequate. The decision claims that Prolman's self-admitted, extensive drug and alcohol use ONLY affected his business judgement. "That there is NO evidence that his drug and alcohol use affected his law practice or his relationship with clients." This un-grounded opinion demonstrates, a "junk science" theory of brain function. Prolman's frontal lobes, while "under the influence", were apparently uniquely able to segregate "bad judgement" and "normal judgement" into two separate, airtight compartments, a bad one for business, and the other compartment, a normal one for his practice and his clients. It is "junk science" in the service of rationalizing an irrational  decision. With all respect, how does Alexander know that Prolman's practice was unaffected? Has he measured (or sought to have measured) the "half-life", or morning after effect, of alcohol or drugs on professional mental functions? What is the actual cognitive impairment factor, or does he believe Prolman immune to this usual sort of impairment? AA or NA or clinical psychiatry, all experts in addictive illnesses, would point to permanent structural changes in the brain's micro anatomy that always accompany chronic substance abuse. These change translate into actual functions. What happens to judgement, to intellectual functioning, to memory, to ability to calculated, to mood, to irritability? Answer: "not good things". Or … if not blind drunk or drugged, can an addicted lawyer just get by with clients, with "fake it till you make it"? More to the point, is that an acceptable public standard? There is a need to remember the inconvenient fact that addictions are never truly cured. They may go into remission for varying periods, but a "slip" or a fall off the wagon or full recurrence are common. Professionals would say it is the very nature of the higher risks associated with these conditions. Alexander's decision seems to ignore the professional science of addictions.

The conclusion that "reinstatement was in the public interest" is another unsubstantiated personal belief in Alexander's decision. Why is reinstatement in the pubic interest? How has Alexander arrived at this risk-laden conclusion? Mention is made of many letters supportive of Prolman from attorneys (and judges?). In this complex case with layers of intrigue and many twists and turns, one has to ask: who were the lawyers who wrote such letters? What was their relationship with Prolman? Many who read this statement wonder: Were those endorsing him "birds of a feather"? Did they fear that a Prolman without a law license might shine a spotlight on unbecoming actions of others in the profession? How many top shelf lawyers would consider writing a reference for this man? Members of the public can sense enough to know a whitewash job when they see it, and this case seems to requires a shipload of whitewash. The "public interest" in restoring his license, to us, implies that legal skills of any kind are in such short supply that Prolman's skills badly needed. We'd ask further: Is there any residual damage to his brain functioning, due to toxic death of frontal lobe brain cells from chronic alcohol and drug use? As one example, would he still be able to pass Maine Bar exams? Do those attorneys, interviewed by Scott Dolan, who strongly disagreed with Alexander's decision, support relicensing Prolman, or would they demand "witness protection" in return for their testimony? Even Scott Davis, counsel for the Overseers, backed off of an appeal. "The conclusions were not clearly erroneous; consequently, no good basis for appeal" was the quote reported in the newspaper. "Conclusions not clearly erroneous." Really? The Bar just fell in line. But the pubic remains unconvinced.

The Maine Bar earns a giant public credibility problem with this case. This judgement is a terrible advertisement for the functional integrity of bar oversight of its members. However adroitly the law is used to rationalize an admittedly very awkward decision, it isn't convincing to the public, and it adds to public cynicism and loss of faith in the legal profession. It is about damage to public trust that the profession is policing itself "in the public's interest". We suggest that building and maintaining public confidence in lawyers requires a system of true quality assurance. This is not an academic consideration. The legal profession, more than any profession is central to law enforcement and to whether we can all work together, as citizens, to eradicate the drug epidemic that so besets our state and our country.  As leaders, the legal profession needs to face the drug culture within the profession and move to correct it, honestly, courageously, or the "infection" will continue to spread in pervasively damaging ways both to the profession and to society. We propose a state government commission that would assess the scope of the drug problem in the legal profession, which is so strategically placed by its nature to influence the systemic drug problem in Maine for better or worse.. Many would gladly support enabling legislation for this project.

Dr Jerome A Collins
Kennebunkport ME


Addiction is not something that can be turned on or off. It does not just appear as is suggested by Justice Alexander. Addiction and the abuse of drugs and alcohol is something that grips your life in all areas. Did Justice Alexander make the right decision? MeGAL encourages you to research all aspects of addiction and how it may affect your lawyer, GAL and judge. We would also encourage you to become involved in the process of Judicial reform/ change by talking with your Representative. we can be contacted at MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

Further resources regarding the addiction of lawyers:

2014-01-07 17 Statistics on Drug Abuse Among Lawyers

2015-07-23 Lawyers struggle with mental health and substance abuse problems at a heightened rate

2016-02-04 High Rate of Problem Drinking Reported Among Lawyers

2016-07-12 'I Could No Longer Live with Myself': Lawyers Reveal Their Struggles with Alcohol ( to reaf the who article you will have to create an account)

Did the Overseers of the Bar Protect the Public or Kill the Messenger?

"Kill the Messenger" is the message we heard in the complaint before the panel at the Overseers of the Maine Bar in Augusta on June 17th at 9 am.  

As non-lawyers, we have been appalled by the Maine Supreme Court's handling of a lawyer, who tried to appeal lower court abuses in the contentious case of Dalton v. Dalton. To this untrained reader, the Supreme Court's "first team" (Saufley, Mead, Alexander, Gorman), while appearing to keep their own hands clean, wrote a decision, which essentially gave a blueprint to the Board of Overseers of the Maine Bar for a 'sua sponte' complaint against the lawyer in question. To public readers, this decision looks like the Court was giving hand signals to the Overseers to end to this lawyer's career in law. And… counsel for the Overseers, has essentially followed the Court's blueprint. He delivered a "petition" which many readers would say was a call to the Overseer's complaint commission for licensure death.

It is a powerful "shock and awe" move for the judiciary and its affiliates, and a Maine lawyer's career hangs in the balance. What did she do that got her in this powerful judiciary line of fire? What are the charges (crimes?) against her that provoked this kind of "nuclear" response from Maine's highest court and the legal minions at the Overseers? Murder, rape, arson, bomb threats, physical/child abuse, theft, psychotic behavior in court, lies, slander? None of these are in question, or the complaint and request for sanctions would most likely have been less stern. The Overseers claim in their policy statement on their web that their -

"purpose is not punishment, but protection of the public AND THE COURTS from attorneys who have demonstrated by their conduct that they are unable, or likely to be unable, to discharge their professional duties."

Our impression is that this case, both in its own right and in the lessons it carries for the profession, is about protecting the courts - not the public. We would add, in our view, it is about protecting courts from themselves and serious errors in judgement at all levels - bottom to top - in this case.

In a nutshell, the sanctioned attorney challenged (a) a Guardian ad litem's use of flagrant "junk science" in Dalton v Dalton to determine custody (and mandatory treatment of a young child) and (b) the court's unquestioning endorsement of this GAL's primitive clinical voodoo. Two "officers of the court", in effect, used witchcraft to make significant decisions with lasting emotional impact on a mother and child. At issue is the GAL's unlicensed, unauthorized, totally bogus diagnoses of "Post traumatic stress disorder" in a child who was involved in a custody dispute. The Guardian ad litem, a Social Worker by underlying profession made this medical/psychiatric diagnosis without recognizing 2 inconvenient facts: (a) Social Workers don't make medical diagnoses of any kind, and (b) Guardians ad litem at the time she made the diagnosis were not supposed to use their underlying clinical profession in their role as "officers of the court". She compounded her errors by referring the child to a clinical colleague for "scream and hit therapy", a professionally discredited "therapy" that has no scientific recognition. Nowhere in this entire clinical transaction was there a use of a medical clinician qualified to obtain a clinical history, conduct a physical and neurological examination, order and review laboratory and clinical tests, consider a differential diagnosis, consider various treatment options and then - only then - institute appropriate treatment.

The entire mistreatment ought to be a shameful embarrassment to any civilized, enlightened society. It is a tragedy for the child and her mother to be forced into this situation and ordered into an unrecognized form of  treatment. It is court authorized clinical experimentation. Forced treatment is always to be questioned; forced submission to a discredited therapy is frankly, court ordered child abuse and has no place in a free democratic society. It is an unbelievable totalitarian nightmare that is wrong by any standards one might apply.

But what is the bottom to top judiciary system to do with this admittedly "awkward", indefensible situation?  Distract public attention with "sound and fury"! It infers that the court was fine; it was the lawyer, who was abysmally lacking in knowledge of her profession. Her actions in court "attacked" the judge though witnesses say that she never raised her voice. She used- gasp, shudder- "leading questions". Though "leading questions" and many of the other supposed professional "crimes" listed by the Supreme Court (and later by counsel for the Overseers), got corrected on the spot in the lower court at the time, the damage to the law one gathers is incalculable! Were the consequences of the Supreme Court decision not so serious, one would be tempted to laugh at their predicament: having to defend clinical "witchcraft" as basis for custody in the lower court. But a mother and child have been impacted by this "witchcraft" and the career of an attorney hangs by a thread because she called it "witchcraft". There is the additional worry about the precedent of using "junk science" and "witchcraft" as acceptable standards in family courts.

As "grass roots" observers, our concerns in this case are several fold: (a) Junk Science as a basis for judgement is beyond wrong and needs some correction, such as a 'sua sponte' complaint about the "officers of the court" at all levels of this case for using incredibly abusive standards (b) The attack on a lawyer who had the courage and decency to say truthfully, "The Emperor has no clothes!" The example of an irrational attack by Maine's highest court and by the Overseers on this lawyer will send a terrible message to other family court lawyers: don't you DARE tell the truth about malfunctioning of "officers of the court". "Yell therapy" is perfectly OK if a GAL and judge approve it. Scientific opinion be damned! (c) The blind support of the Supreme Court defending "junk science" and out to get the asker of "leading questions" ( and the like)  is all too reminiscent of the movie, "Spotlight", and the abusive power plays it documented.

It is an "access to justice" situation 'par excellence', if our most courageous messengers to the court "get killed" when they deliver an honest but unwelcome message.

In our opinion there is a relatively immediate need to correct the abusive judgements of the judiciary at all levels in this case, so we can correct the shame of it. We would also propose a well-chosen (not just lawyers and judges) Maine Family Court Commission to study the terrible symptoms emerging from Maine's family courts, the growth of 'pro se' litigants, to diagnose and correct problems, including re-design of the system and to propose legislation. "Scream therapy" has no place in court mandated treatment (OR ANY LEGITIMATE TREATMENT PLAN) for child or adult!

MeGAL is working to reform "Family" Courts and the vendors the court system use (Guardians ad litem) through educational means and legislative action. We would encourage you to get involved in the process to bring about change. You can do this by contacting us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook. 

The Ethics of My Cousin Vinny - Is this Really Guardian ad litem training?

What is involved in training Guardians ad litem? Given the Guardians ad litem job, one might imagine a rigorous training program in which professionals designed the curriculum to match the job description, rules and.... the needs of the consumers. So much is on the line -  the recommendation of a Guardian ad litem  can and will have a major impact on the dynamics of any divorcing family.  It might be expected that the training they receive would be top notch. The courses they take would have some bearing on the job Guardians ad litem are authorized to do.

In the past several years the Judicial Branch, Maine Bar, MEGALI and Kids First Center, to name a few organizations, have offered training and continuing training (please note that what is offered is not continuing education) to the states Guardians ad litem. We would ask to what legally mandated, job related aim are courses such as:

The Ethics of My Cousin Vinny
Collection of GAL fees
Parental Alienation: What’s the GAL’s Role?
Youth Participation in Court Proceedings

None of these organizations that train have a specialized training background in curriculum development for job related training, such as one would get from an institution such as a college, or technical school or the very focused training used in large business enterprises. The courses listed come from the continuing training list that is available to Guardians ad litem. There is no description of what the courses entail and if they are relevant to the role of Guardian ad litem.

Then there is the question of if the person(s) giving the training is uniquely qualified to give training on the topic at hand?

Take for example the following:

Understanding, Assessing & Responding to Needs of the Triangulated Child - This interesting course might be just the thing for continuing education in social work, but Guardians ad litem are not social workers and by the rules published, they are not supposed to be doing social work.  Triangulation is a term that is used to explain family dynamics where one member of a family will not talk with another directly. Instead a third family member is used which creates a triangle of communication. It is a term used in psychology to help explain dysfunctional family dynamics. This is not a topic that is relevant to the role of Guardian ad litem. In addition, for a course such as this one would expect that it would be presented by someone who has a background in psychology. In this case it was presented by a lawyer.

The Social Cognitive Connection - This is another social worker course - good for social workers, but off topic for Guardians ad litem. What the term means is that people do not learn new behaviors only by trying them out. The survival of people is dependent on how people act in a socially acceptable way and that this behavior is rewarded. It is a term used in psychology to explain the way people learn, understand and react to the environment in which they live, work and play. This course was presented by a member of the board of directors of an organization that is heavily connected to the Judicial Branch. This organization is so connected to the Judicial Branch that it is promoted on the web site. There is no indication that the presenter has any background to present such a topic, or that she tailored her remarks to the specifics of the Guardians ad litem legally mandated job.

Parental Alienation - What’s the GAL’s Role?: This is another trendy topic for social workers but far removed from what the Guardians ad litem role is defined as. Parental Alienation is when a child expresses a strong dislike or even hatred towards one parent - usually the non-custodial parent. To explore this dynamic takes hours of time and as a result generates billable hours and social work improvisation. This course was presented by an organization that represents the best interest of the Guardian ad litem - not a psychologist or even a social worker. Maybe a more appropriate tile should have been "Parental Alienation - How a GAL can profit from it!"

While the above examples may be fun or interesting to attend, are they courses that will improve a Guardian ad litems mandated job performance? Probably not because as a Guardian ad litem the role requires the investigation of facts surrounding the divorcing family and the child(ren) involved. It does not require the use by the Guardian ad litem of psychology and sociology - that is what the professionals in those areas are there for. Those professionals have the education and training to interpret and understand a child, and have spent years studying the concepts needed to do so. A few hours training does not give a Guardian ad litem the needed tools to accomplish the task. Yet quite often they do. The need to tie training tightly to job function and only to job function seems to be lost on the family courts and Guardians ad litem themselves. The result are fun courses that lead to the use of junk science, psycho-eugenics and moral equivalency that infects the courts like a virus.

CONCLUSION:

When Guardians ad litem, soak up "My Cousin Vinny", it is at the expense of learning the less "entertaining" rules for Guardians ad litem.  To us, it appears to be a significant defect in Guardian ad litem training.  It also makes the reports of off topic/off role improvisations and creativity in the Guardian ad litem's role more understandable.  "Social Work lite" takes some Guardians ad litem back to the understandable security of their parent profession but it corrupts Guardian ad litem functioning (and confuses the public) by neglecting the role and functioning of a Guardian ad litem - that of a court appointed investigator.

The reform of Guardian ad litem training has to be a vital aspect of Guardian ad litem and court reform.  Sorry Vinny, you're fired!

Feel free to comment on Guardian ad litem training here - or email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.

Related posts:
Would you want a Guardian ad litem with this kind of training?