Do you understand LD 522, SP 212?

There is a bill being that has been presented by our Judiciary that is impossible to understand:

LD 522, SP 212 An Act To Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws

This bill on Guardian ad litem reform seems innocent enough – if you do not really read through it. On the other hand if you try and understand what is being asked – it appears that the Judiciary is trying to pull a fast one on Maine’s citizens. In reading this bill it appears the Judiciary is asking the Legislature to give them a blank check. To turn the other way as they – the divorce industry, Guardians ad ltem and “stake holders” set the rules and oversight for Guardians ad litem. In almost 40 years the Judiciary, divorce industry and Guardians ad litem have failed to provide any measurable oversight and management of the Guardian ad litem system. It would appear that citizens of the state are being asked to believe in our court system to do the right thing.

Good intentions will not correct the problem that we are faced with. By letting the Judiciary take the process behind closed doors there will be no opportunity to correct the problems that we are all facing. To be more concerned with how the “stakeholders” feel is a sad commentary on Justice in Maine.  This bill appears to be bad for the people of Maine and good for those that make a living off of divorcing Maine families. We encourage you to write our Representatives and ask them to explain how this bill will benefit Maine families. If they cannot then they should kill this bill.

We are looking for your comments and thoughts on this bill. For more information and support please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for more up to date information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judiciary Committee List:

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


Governor Paul LePage

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

Guardians ad litem are wonderful according to Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen

Maybe the Hon. Robert E. Mullen, Deputy Chief Judge who gave a presentation along with Judge Susan Longley at the recent meeting of the Joint Standing  Committee of the Judiciary missed what has been going on this past year. If they are to be believed Guardians ad litem are wonderful and the noise currently being made by concerned citizens is limited to a handful of people. According to them.

A year ago there were only 5 people in the state that voiced concern about Guardians ad litem that we were aware of. A year later we know of almost 400 people who have been touched in a negative way by a Guardian ad litem. These are people from all parts of the state. They are children, parents, grandparents, friends and co-workers who have all experienced the pain that results from a Guardian ad litem that is under managed and with no oversight. One has to ask where Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen and Judge Susan Longley are getting their information? Are their opinions based in any kind of reality or fact? Or is it based on the bubblegum reality that the divorce industry paints for their constituents – the courts and those representatives that have a vested interest in perpetuating the money machine known as Guardian ad litem?

On January 31, 2013 The Deputy Chief Judge gave a presentation that covered much of what the Judiciary and those in the Divorce industry have told us before in the past. That there is a process for complaints. That there are rules and standards the courts and Guardians ad litem live by.  While all of this looks good to those of us looking in from the outside –  the reality of those on the inside is not as good or clear. For instance there is no process that explains what a lay person needs to do to file a complaint. The Rules and Standards which are displayed for everyone to see are meaningless words to be used at the courts convenience. There is no informed consent – so that parents know how the information they are about to give to a Guardian ad litem and courts can be used against them. How their Constitutional rights may be violated. These are just a few of the issues that the divorce industry have ignored or are blaming on the parents and families caught up in the process.

“Guardians ad litem are wonderful" according to  Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen but there is mounting evidence to show there are very real problems. The Judiciary has known since 2006 of problems with its rostered GALs and the lack of oversight and management of these court officers.  Some of the issues are listed here:

1. 2006 OPEGA report that highlighted 11 areas that need reform or correction 
2. 2008 report by Maine's Judiciary that pointed out areas of concern
3. The National organization First Start which has rated Maine with a ( F ) for three reports 
4. The National organization Center for Judicial Excellence which pointed out problems with Maine 
5. In less than ( 1 ) year over 400 people have come out to question the actions of Guardians ad litem in a custody dispute.
6. In less than ( 1 ) year over 60 consumer complaints about GALs that are rostered in Maine.
7. Chief Justice Saufley who spoke in March of 2012 and who pointed out some of the horrors that divorcing families have had to experience at the hands of Guardians ad litem – sexual abuse, questionable billing practices, predatory practice, lack of management and lack of oversight to name a few of the items from the list she presented.
8. 2012 May 31 in Portland at the court house there were numerous consumer concerns about the role of Guardian ad litem – with follow up letters to the Judiciary
9. For this legislative session ( 5 ) bills dealing with some aspect of Guardian ad litem reform have been presented.

One has to ask Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen and Judge Susan Longley if the situation with Guardians ad litem are really “peaches and cream” then where is the proof – that is proof other than the shop worn 'statistic' of two Guardians ad litem in five years having been disciplined. Currently divorcing families have a loaded weapon pointed at them if a Guardian ad litem is brought onto the case. With no limitations, controls and immunity Guardians ad litem will leave a path of destruction in their wake. All of this is done with the blessing of the courts and 'in the best interest of the child'. It is time to bring about reform so that future families are not crippled.

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

Special Interest MEGALI proposing new Rules for Parental Coordinators to the Supreme Judicial Court

Original posting follows - Since this was originally posted the states Supreme Court has decided based on the recommendation and contributions of opinions by the public to not adopt the rules as presented by MEGALI. For the official ruling: ORDER ON PROPOSED MAINE RULES FOR PARENTING COORDINATORS We want to thank everyone who helped. Thank you for your efforts.


On January 10, 2013 the Supreme Judicial Court gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for Parenting Coordinators. The deadline for those comments were on of before January 25, 2013. At the time that this is being written none of those comments  were posted and it is not know whether or not any will be posted.

We feel that it is in the public’s best interest to know what is happening and why. That the rules, as they were presented to the court, were drafted by the special interest group – Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (the trade organization for Guardians ad litem). That Terry Hayes (a Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute member) has drafted legislation for Parental Coordinator to retain the position.  There are many people in the state that have been hurt by these unregulated officers of the court – much the same as with Guardians ad litem – which both Terry Hayes, Tobi Schneider and Toby Hollander (Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute President) are aware of. What the rules and proposed legislation appear to ask for are the same qualities that Guardians ad litem enjoy – thus ensuring what is in the best interest of the Parental Coordinator for a case and not what is in the child’s best interest.

Common Sense, a job description, protection for divorcing families from financial ruin and looking at child endangerment are issues that are not addressed with the proposed rules and legislation. The state cannot afford a carbon copy of what it has with the mess involving Guardians ad litem. The rules and legislation appear as nothing more than serving the self interest of those who call or would like to call Parental Coordinator their 'profession'.

The fifth in this series of letters is posted today. The previous four are presented after with links to pdf documents. Any names and personal information have been redacted:


It has come to my attention that there will be another hearing regarding Guardians ad Litum this
week.

As I stated in my last email, I am a social worker and have worked on teams helping families who are going through difficult times. My team works primarily with children at risk of removal from their home. Many times, the underlying issue is the stress caused by the parents whether they are living as a family or have separated. There are always mental health issues, not only for the child being treated, but with the parents as well.

When parents who fought while they lived together separate, the issues become even larger. Often times parents use their children as a tool against the other parent (so they will WIN) and horrific allegations are made. Teasing through the truth is not simple or easy and certainly, attorneys or others who do not have training/education in mental health treatment are not qualified to make these assessments. The GAL might refer the parents, or sometimes, just one parent, for assessments but these assessments are not enough to see the issues clearly. Attorneys and judges are not qualified to interpret assessments or to dig a little deeper to find the real truths.

At the very least, GALs should be required to have supervision with a qualified mental health practioner. Otherwise, an inexperienced person with no mental health background can interpret information incorrectly. Often times, a GAL's personal biases will determine their final decisions. I have seen this happen too often.

It should not take months and months for a GAL to make a determination. Again, with the proper training and supervision, the truth will reveal itself. Dragging these decisions out only adds to the stress and and increases the cost of GAL services, often placing one parent in financial distress. . AND in the end, the decisions do not always benefit the child,

I am not an advocate of anger management therapies as these therapies address only one parent's issues. There are two parents involved and it takes two to fight. There should be a thorough assessment done on both parents to reveal the truths. Please take the time to obtain a Diagnostic Statistic Manual IV (DSM IV) and read the information on personality disorders. You will find the information enlightening.

Forcing just one parent into assessments, and having the information, right or wrong, included in GAL reports which are being read by people with no education in mental health assessment, is also a violation of one's civil rights.

I recently supported a friend through a hearing and when the GAL included new information about the mother, the judge did not listen to the GAL and ignored concerns about the mother that were presented. In this case, the mother has a serious personality disorder which affects how she is raising their child. The woman presents well, but a trained professional is able to uncover the underlying issues. The child has been "brainwashed" into believing his father will hurt him and the result is depression and anxiety. This benefits the mother as she can say the child's diagnoses support her concerns for his well being, and extends the separation of child and father.

The matter at hand is the welfare of the child/ren and it is certainly worth your time to educate yourselves. Problems in childhood carry on through adulthood and the circle of violence often becomes generational.

Thank you for your time,
Name Redacted LSW BHP MHRT/c


Previous Letters:
Public Comment 001
Public Comment 002 2013-01-29
Public Comment 003 2013-01-30
Public Comment 004 2013-01-31

If you would like more information on Parental Coordinators please contact us at: parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com or feel free to comment.

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

Guardian ad litem report abuse to DHHS – Ka Ching – Nope

Not your child's best interest

In any custody case where a Guardian ad litem of Parental Coordinator is involved they are supposed to report to DHHS (In Maine) if a “child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected, must make an immediate report to the Department of Human Services.” as stated in the Guardian ad litem Standards and Rules on the Maine Judiciary web site (look for 6.1 Mandated Reporting).

The reality of the situation that we have been made aware of is that Guardians ad litem rarely report abuse or neglect. How could this happen? Guardians ad litem are supposed to have the child's best interest at hand. Or is it maybe that Guardians ad litem have their own best interest. By reporting to DHHS such things as -

a child that was burned by a cigarette.
a child that went to bars late at night.
a child that was better off with a sex offender.
a child that was better off with a parent that had drug issues.

Ka ching – the cash register stops for the Guardian ad litem. The Guardian ad litem also ends up playing a marginalized and insignificant role in the childs life and the custody battle. The Guardian ad litem gives up control. People with any shred of common sense would question how a child burned by a cigarette is not considered abuse. Or that by placing a child with a known sex offender is safe and not a recipe for trouble. Yet when we are talking about these 'professionals' in the court system we look the other way. We are in a sense giving our approval for this continued abuse perpetuated by our courts and the divorce industry. Ka ching – it is about the money and not about your child.

Maine has received the grade of ( F ) by First Star  three reports in a row. Maine is criticized by the Center for Judicial Excellence for the issues within the system. Chief Justice Saufley in March of 2012 indicated that there were problems with GALs in the state. OPEGA in 2006 outlined problems with the system. The courts reiterated this finding in 2008. Yet the divorce industry has been satisfied with the status quo. “Make them pay” was the quote of one well established divorce lawyer during one of the committee meetings on GAL reform. Who really has the best interest of the child in any divorce? A stranger whose incentive is how many billable hours they can get out? Or the families that are thrown into a pit of insanity that we call Justice? You be the judge ka ching.

If your child(ren) have been abused by the system you are not alone. We are a growing grassroots organization that is fighting for reform please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information.

If you want to let your Senator or Representative know what your thoughts are on the current broke system that the divorce industry and courts maintain contact us for their information.

The Courts are Prescribing Snake Oil and Witchcraft in the name of helping Families

"Because my ex abused my son/ daughter, this stranger (GAL) is deemed a more capable parent than me"

 

Is it any wonder then why any parent when faced with a similar situation would feel anger towards a custody situation they find themselves in? Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators have been “prescribing” courses in anger management for quite some time. One Senior GAL is on record for recommending this because one of the parents was “caustic and controlling”. Are these parent(s) who are given this “prescription” by court officers really in need of anger management? Or is this the “prescribers'” attempt to control (and need to punish) the parent(s) as a result of an unfriendly or hostile interpersonal situation? The courts and court officers appear have not given much thought or “prescriptive” precision in recommending “anger management”.

Anger is an emotion and is not recognized as a diagnosable form of mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. Anger is not a primary condition but is a secondary emotion and is a part of many situations. The courts order and or prescribe “anger management” without the knowledge, skill or professional experience to know what they are doing with this alleged “tool”. The courts and their officers (GALs and Parental Coordinators) are not clinicians trained to “prescribe” anything, they are reporters to the courts. In making these 'prescriptions' the courts and officers of the courts never describe the 'anger' as being mild, severe, appropriate, inappropriate, controlled or out of control. If it is secondary to psychosis, drugs or alcohol or whether the anger is threatening the safety of others. In 'prescribing' therapy the courts and officers of the courts do not set goals or an end point to 'anger management'.

So are the courts helping the parent(s) that are 'prescribed' treatment or are they delving into an area that they have no business being involved in? Causing more harm to the parent(s) in an attempt to control and manipulate them. It appears that the courts in 'prescribing' 'anger management' are doing nothing more than playing witch doctor in their pseudo-psychological, court 'prescribed' punishment for what is perceived as bad behavior. The reality is that the parent(s) are showing their frustration with a process that is so twisted and warped that it is devoid of any reality.

If you have fallen victim to court 'prescribed' therapy please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com for support or like us on Facebook for up to date information.

Guardian ad litem reform - "You've come a long way Baby"

As they used to say in the old ad, “You’ve come a long way, Baby!”

We are one year old today - and growing. And... what a year it has been! We literally started at “ground zero”, and it has been a year of vast growth and learning for all of us.  We started, as did most of our associates, with a series of bizarre custody rulings in an individual divorce case.  We were perplexed, confused, hurting and utterly frustrated by the seemingly unique irrationality in play. “This can’t be really happening.”  “There is something so very wrong with this picture; are we doing something wrong?”  As we began connecting with others in the same boat, it slowly dawned on us that there must be some “rogue” Guardians ad litem in the system.  Our view of the problem expanded when we read the famous 2006 OPEGA report, and started to work with OPEGA on an audit request. It expanded further when we experienced unsuccessful political attempts to derail this audit request. Involvement with the Judicial Branch’s attempts to reform the system with a majority of “divorce industry” players, as “reformers” added further enlightenment. And... we began to conceptualize a very dysfunctional, inhuman Guardian ad litem system, an element of dysfunction in the larger family court system.

Our growth has been energized by the several blogs we’ve created. These, in turn, have been moved by and infused with the ideas and problems experienced by those associated with us. We have been a mutual instruction program about GALs, courts, the law and political action.  We have attracted ever growing notice in Maine, both new friends and those more wary of us. It is said only slightly joking that we are now required reading for GALs and MEGALI, their trade organization. We have also attracted notice and had very interesting “conversations” with a great many lawyers, legislators and “civilians” in other states and from a number of people in common law countries, all of which, like us, are struggling with much needed GAL reform. Our several blogs give us a voice, allow for sharing of ideas and are an important educational tool.

Our aim in creating and writing the blogs has been to support individuals, like us, who have been caught in an irrational divorce/custody process with powerful forces, Maine's Judicial Branch- especially its family courts - and the wealthy, powerful members of the divorce industry.  We try to educate those who have been (or are) consumers, who are trying to understand the apparently irrational aspects of these two forces, and we try to offer non-legal help, support, and encouragement, where we can. We are not attempting to debate directly with either courts or the divorce industry about their merits (or faults). We are an educational service (supportive sharing) for the victims, not for the victimizers.  While we can offer a general acknowledgment that there are some fair GALs, we would still maintain that they are players in a totalitarian system with many defects (as we will continue to note).  Choosing to be an integral part of this kind of dysfunctional, oppressive system always carries the potential to taint all of its players.  We are admirers of Vaclav Havel, the Czech  writer and dissident, who approached parallel problems with a spirit of simplicity and universal brotherhood, while speaking his mind at the same time.  May we do half as well, as Havel!

As we turn one year old, we thank all of our friends and also our opponents; both have helped us to learn and, from our learning, to share what we know. May our coming second year bring us all equal growth!



Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.