Times Leader
SCRANTON — Danielle Ross Pietralczyk, 37, of Jermyn, faces up to five years in federal prison after pleading guilty Monday to tax evasion and filing a false federal income tax return. She had served as guardian ad litem for the Lackawanna County Family Court prior to her February arrest.
Pietralczyk pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge A. Richard Caputo.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, tax returns verified by Pietralczyk under penalty of perjury failed to report any amounts of income she received from private paying clients while acting as the sole guardian ad litem for the Lackawanna County Family Court. The only income Ross reported for 2009 and 2010 was her county compensation reported on 1099 forms which she received as an independent contractor hired by Lackawanna County.
As the sole guardian ad litem for the Lackawanna County Family Court, she was provided with an annual compensation of $38,000. However, pursuant to a contract between Ross and Lackawanna County, Ross was permitted to bill private paying parties above her county compensation at a rate of $50 per hour. She managed and exercised complete control over her private billings and income, prosecutors say. That income was known only to Pietralczyk and not Lackawanna County, nor was Lackawanna County required to approve her private billings.
Full story: Times Leader
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
National - Dear Guardian ad litem, Dear Family Court,
Santa has received letters from kids who want BOTH parents....
Monday, December 16, 2013
Georgia Investigation exposes little oversight of child advocates
Georgia has problems with Guardians ad litem much like other states like Maine and Connecticut. In this article we have from official sources statements that state the obvious regarding the role that Guardians ad litem have.
CBS Atlanta
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) -
A CBS Atlanta News investigation uncovered questionable oversight of court-appointed advocates sworn to protect children.
In Georgia, guardians ad litem are attorneys appointed by judges to determine the best interest of children during contested custody cases, but some parents, attorneys and child development experts question the guardians' expertise and objectivity.
"The mental anguish for my children and me has been huge," said Gracie Ortiz Terrett.
She had asked for a guardian ad litem after a judge limited her custody of her 8- and 10-year-old children to one day a week and every other weekend. But Terret said guardians ad litem Raina Nadler and Jeanney Kutner were far from objective.
Full story: CBSAtlanta
CBS Atlanta
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) -
A CBS Atlanta News investigation uncovered questionable oversight of court-appointed advocates sworn to protect children.
In Georgia, guardians ad litem are attorneys appointed by judges to determine the best interest of children during contested custody cases, but some parents, attorneys and child development experts question the guardians' expertise and objectivity.
"The mental anguish for my children and me has been huge," said Gracie Ortiz Terrett.
She had asked for a guardian ad litem after a judge limited her custody of her 8- and 10-year-old children to one day a week and every other weekend. But Terret said guardians ad litem Raina Nadler and Jeanney Kutner were far from objective.
Full story: CBSAtlanta
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Connecticut Attorney Sharon Dornfeld troubled by comments from Parent
While this letter is regarding Guardians ad litem in another state what is being said can be equally applied to situations involving Guardians ad litem in any state:
Hello Ms. Dornfeld,
I'm told that you are troubled by my observations of the system. As an expert in legal operations, legal e-billing and legal spend management, I would again extend to you the invitation to meet with me at your convenience and at any time to discuss your perspectives and concerns, as well as to share mine and those of many other legal professionals equally as fed up with what our family courts have become and how they operate.
I was in the courthouse in Hartford today and saw many of my family attorney friends and contacts there. Two of them approached me and asked to meet with me next week - as they are considered testifying as to how bad the situation has become and how dramatically it has impacted them and their clients.
Veteran family law attorneys - one of whom wrote the attached letter. This would bring to 12 the number of family law attorneys I have organized and who will also speak out as Attorney Rutkin recently did, when the time is right and they no longer have to worry about retaliation against them.
And what does that say and reflect in regards to what our family court system has become, and the powers-that-be have created and perpetuated - when family law attorneys themselves are afraid to speak about their own industry for fear of how it may personally impact them?
Once again - the world has changed and the genie is out of the bottle. "The system" is no longer able to threaten and intimidate parents and attorneys into silence, social media has changed that forever and good riddance. And this is true not just here in Connecticut, but nationally and even internationally as well.
No parent or citizen should EVER have fear the Judiciary or suffer retaliation for speaking their opinion - EVER in the United States. That is not why I and my family came here from a communist country to see and experience.
Once again - shouldn't we all be ashamed of what our family courts have become and its complete lack of focus on families and children and abuses we have all suffered at the hands of the system?
The family court is supposed to be a source of resolution and closure - not open ended cycle and source and cause of abuse and therapy.
What's happened to the basic principles of common decency, common respect, understanding and compassion?
If you are "irritated" by my commentary - then I'm afraid I can offer you no apologies, because I and the thousands of parents, children of divorce, grandparents, family attorneys and GALs who have been severely impacted and financially and otherwise devastated by the horrific perspectives and policies you and others have promoted, are not the ones who are fault for what is wrong.
* The problems in our family court were not created by parents or our fault.
* It is not what we are responsible for or what we created.
* It is not what we want for ourselves and our children and our families or our state.
* It is not parents who are blatantly violating the basic principles of due process, civil and parental rights, or the rights of child.
* It is not parents who are acting in an unethical, immoral and illogical manner.
* It is not parents who are willfully ignoring violations of court order or the abuses and neglect of children.
* It is not parents who are in Court perpetuating and promoting conflict to profit from it.
* It is not parents who are imposing draconian and devastating financial orders on parents to punish them for being in court.
* It is not parents who are forcing the liquidation of retirement accounts and children's college funds and demanding payments from grandparents.
* It is not parents who jailing themselves solely because they have no means to pay.
PARENTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
And you do not use the same people who created a problem and who profit handsomely from it, to solve it.
It is perhaps most telling that after two months of hearings, and that as Chair, you have not called a single parent or child or divorce to testify - not one. And that every person who has been called, is a member of the divorce industry and someone who profits from and engages in perpetuating the problem. And no surprise - practically all of them members of FCC member, as you and Ms. Cousineau are.
* Which speaks volumes as to how co-opted and pointless the Task Force has become.
Task Forces are created by the legislature to solicit to hear testimony from people and citizens adversely impacted by a situation or problem - not those who create and profit from it.
It is equally as telling that we have not heard testimony from a single parent or child of divorce stating how wonderful the court system is, how much time their AMC/GAL spent with them to get to know them and how much they helped them, or how helpful a court ordered therapist was. And that any of this was worth the money taken from them or their parents and families. Why is that?
What the Task Force has become is like watching a home improvement show, where the focus of the show is to take pity on and only listen to shady contractor who did shoddy work and left the homeowner with a massive problem and walked away with all of their money.
Perhaps we should listen to the Chief Justice of Canada, who has publically come out and stated that family courts are beyond the point of repair, and need to be completely replaced with "something else." As an expert in legal operations and legal spend management, and business process improvement expert, I couldn't agree more. And applaud Attorney Rutkin for his recommendation that the state consider bringing in an outside management company to run the Judiciary and correct its operational dysfunctions. (I volunteer to help.)
Please let me know when you would like to meet and review the information I have to share with you and the Task Force. Most notably - an examination of the devastating financial impact the crisis in the family courts have exacted onto parents and families, and how many people it has thrown out of work, cost them their homes, and caused people to be unfairly jailed.
Regards
Peter Szymonik
Glastonbury, CT
www.galreform.org
Hello Ms. Dornfeld,
I'm told that you are troubled by my observations of the system. As an expert in legal operations, legal e-billing and legal spend management, I would again extend to you the invitation to meet with me at your convenience and at any time to discuss your perspectives and concerns, as well as to share mine and those of many other legal professionals equally as fed up with what our family courts have become and how they operate.
I was in the courthouse in Hartford today and saw many of my family attorney friends and contacts there. Two of them approached me and asked to meet with me next week - as they are considered testifying as to how bad the situation has become and how dramatically it has impacted them and their clients.
Veteran family law attorneys - one of whom wrote the attached letter. This would bring to 12 the number of family law attorneys I have organized and who will also speak out as Attorney Rutkin recently did, when the time is right and they no longer have to worry about retaliation against them.
And what does that say and reflect in regards to what our family court system has become, and the powers-that-be have created and perpetuated - when family law attorneys themselves are afraid to speak about their own industry for fear of how it may personally impact them?
Once again - the world has changed and the genie is out of the bottle. "The system" is no longer able to threaten and intimidate parents and attorneys into silence, social media has changed that forever and good riddance. And this is true not just here in Connecticut, but nationally and even internationally as well.
No parent or citizen should EVER have fear the Judiciary or suffer retaliation for speaking their opinion - EVER in the United States. That is not why I and my family came here from a communist country to see and experience.
Once again - shouldn't we all be ashamed of what our family courts have become and its complete lack of focus on families and children and abuses we have all suffered at the hands of the system?
The family court is supposed to be a source of resolution and closure - not open ended cycle and source and cause of abuse and therapy.
What's happened to the basic principles of common decency, common respect, understanding and compassion?
If you are "irritated" by my commentary - then I'm afraid I can offer you no apologies, because I and the thousands of parents, children of divorce, grandparents, family attorneys and GALs who have been severely impacted and financially and otherwise devastated by the horrific perspectives and policies you and others have promoted, are not the ones who are fault for what is wrong.
* The problems in our family court were not created by parents or our fault.
* It is not what we are responsible for or what we created.
* It is not what we want for ourselves and our children and our families or our state.
* It is not parents who are blatantly violating the basic principles of due process, civil and parental rights, or the rights of child.
* It is not parents who are acting in an unethical, immoral and illogical manner.
* It is not parents who are willfully ignoring violations of court order or the abuses and neglect of children.
* It is not parents who are in Court perpetuating and promoting conflict to profit from it.
* It is not parents who are imposing draconian and devastating financial orders on parents to punish them for being in court.
* It is not parents who are forcing the liquidation of retirement accounts and children's college funds and demanding payments from grandparents.
* It is not parents who jailing themselves solely because they have no means to pay.
PARENTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
And you do not use the same people who created a problem and who profit handsomely from it, to solve it.
It is perhaps most telling that after two months of hearings, and that as Chair, you have not called a single parent or child or divorce to testify - not one. And that every person who has been called, is a member of the divorce industry and someone who profits from and engages in perpetuating the problem. And no surprise - practically all of them members of FCC member, as you and Ms. Cousineau are.
* Which speaks volumes as to how co-opted and pointless the Task Force has become.
Task Forces are created by the legislature to solicit to hear testimony from people and citizens adversely impacted by a situation or problem - not those who create and profit from it.
It is equally as telling that we have not heard testimony from a single parent or child of divorce stating how wonderful the court system is, how much time their AMC/GAL spent with them to get to know them and how much they helped them, or how helpful a court ordered therapist was. And that any of this was worth the money taken from them or their parents and families. Why is that?
What the Task Force has become is like watching a home improvement show, where the focus of the show is to take pity on and only listen to shady contractor who did shoddy work and left the homeowner with a massive problem and walked away with all of their money.
Perhaps we should listen to the Chief Justice of Canada, who has publically come out and stated that family courts are beyond the point of repair, and need to be completely replaced with "something else." As an expert in legal operations and legal spend management, and business process improvement expert, I couldn't agree more. And applaud Attorney Rutkin for his recommendation that the state consider bringing in an outside management company to run the Judiciary and correct its operational dysfunctions. (I volunteer to help.)
Please let me know when you would like to meet and review the information I have to share with you and the Task Force. Most notably - an examination of the devastating financial impact the crisis in the family courts have exacted onto parents and families, and how many people it has thrown out of work, cost them their homes, and caused people to be unfairly jailed.
Regards
Peter Szymonik
Glastonbury, CT
www.galreform.org
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Pennsylvania - Man Accused Of Lewd Behavior Inside Family Court Office
Should this be considered normal behavoir? Is it being handled in an appropriate manner? If this was a parent in a divorce/ custody case that parent would be strung up and loose custody of his/ her child.
my fox philly
A child social worker who is a contractor for the Philadelphia Family Courts on 18th and Vine has been arrested for a disturbing crime.
Several sources tell us the man was caught masturbating inside his courthouse office while watching pornography.
Even more disturbing he was witnessed through a street window by two students at Hallahan Catholic Girls High School.
The man was in his office when around 7:15am on November 21. He was seen by the two students and one teacher walking to school across the street. Police were called immediately.
We've been told by 2 sources that the man is no longer working at family courts.
Full story and video: my fox philly
my fox philly
A child social worker who is a contractor for the Philadelphia Family Courts on 18th and Vine has been arrested for a disturbing crime.
Several sources tell us the man was caught masturbating inside his courthouse office while watching pornography.
Even more disturbing he was witnessed through a street window by two students at Hallahan Catholic Girls High School.
The man was in his office when around 7:15am on November 21. He was seen by the two students and one teacher walking to school across the street. Police were called immediately.
We've been told by 2 sources that the man is no longer working at family courts.
Full story and video: my fox philly
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Virginia - Mother of twins murdered by estranged husband addresses mental health issues
A tragic loss. Is this another case where the Guardian ad litem failed in her role to protect the children?
CBS6 WTRV
Virginia’s mental health system faces a shakeup in wake of the tragic stabbing involving State Senator Creigh Deeds.
Governor McDonnell told WTOP radio on Tuesday morning that he’s making preliminary recommendations for the upcoming two-year budget and will announce his recommendations next week.
Deeds was stabbed multiple times last Tuesday by his 24-year-old son, who Deeds had sought to have committed to a mental health facility just hours earlier, but was denied because the emergency custody timeline ran out.
The family’s painful ordeal, brings back terrible memories for a Hanover County mother, whose three-year-old twin daughters were murdered by their father in January 2012.
Kristi Hooper believes her daughters, Caroline and Madison, would still be alive if the court system had not failed to order an emergency psychiatric evaluation of her estranged husband in time.
Full story and video CBS6 WTRV
CBS6 WTRV
Virginia’s mental health system faces a shakeup in wake of the tragic stabbing involving State Senator Creigh Deeds.
Governor McDonnell told WTOP radio on Tuesday morning that he’s making preliminary recommendations for the upcoming two-year budget and will announce his recommendations next week.
Deeds was stabbed multiple times last Tuesday by his 24-year-old son, who Deeds had sought to have committed to a mental health facility just hours earlier, but was denied because the emergency custody timeline ran out.
The family’s painful ordeal, brings back terrible memories for a Hanover County mother, whose three-year-old twin daughters were murdered by their father in January 2012.
Kristi Hooper believes her daughters, Caroline and Madison, would still be alive if the court system had not failed to order an emergency psychiatric evaluation of her estranged husband in time.
Full story and video CBS6 WTRV
Friday, November 29, 2013
Maine - Notice of Opportunity to Comment - Proposed Amendment Rules for Guardians ad litem
The Judicial Branch in Maine is looking for comments regarding the proposed amendments to the rules for Guardians ad litem. This is an opportunity to express your thoughts on what future parents/ consumers will have to work with. Your experience with Guardians ad litem may have an impact on whether or not this amendment is used, canned or modified. That experience will mean nothing unless you respond by December 2, 2013 at 6:00 pm. Silence gives consent.
Want some ideas -
There is an abundance of ambiguous words and statements - "fair", "cultural sensitivity", "professionalism" and "ethics". While is is nice that these ideas are incorporated there is no way to define what or how these ideas will be applied. There is no defined means of testing whether a Guardian ad litem has been "fair" as example.
Training has been increased from the 16 hours Guardians ad litem go through and there is defined curriculum. Is this enough?
What is the best interest of the child? The phrase is used multiple times. While Maine has attempted to define this concept in statutes there is no means for testing whether a recommendation made by a Guardian ad litem is in a child's best interest. It tends to be based on the bias that the GAL brings to any case. Is taking a 4 year old to a bar late at night and exposing that child to violent adult behavior in the child's best interest? A Guardian ad litem thought so - the courts agreed - and the practice was allowed to continue.
You do not have to write a book, a single line comment is fine. Emailed comments may be mailed to: lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov
The Judicial Branch has a web page with instructions that may be found here: Proposed Amendments to Maine Rules for Guardians Ad Litem
\
For a pdf copy of the proposed rules: Maine Rules for Guardians Ad Litem
Because we do not know if comments will be posted - please CC any correspondence to MeGALalert@gmail.com so that we may post your comments for others to see.
Want some ideas -
There is an abundance of ambiguous words and statements - "fair", "cultural sensitivity", "professionalism" and "ethics". While is is nice that these ideas are incorporated there is no way to define what or how these ideas will be applied. There is no defined means of testing whether a Guardian ad litem has been "fair" as example.
Training has been increased from the 16 hours Guardians ad litem go through and there is defined curriculum. Is this enough?
What is the best interest of the child? The phrase is used multiple times. While Maine has attempted to define this concept in statutes there is no means for testing whether a recommendation made by a Guardian ad litem is in a child's best interest. It tends to be based on the bias that the GAL brings to any case. Is taking a 4 year old to a bar late at night and exposing that child to violent adult behavior in the child's best interest? A Guardian ad litem thought so - the courts agreed - and the practice was allowed to continue.
You do not have to write a book, a single line comment is fine. Emailed comments may be mailed to: lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov
The Judicial Branch has a web page with instructions that may be found here: Proposed Amendments to Maine Rules for Guardians Ad Litem
\
For a pdf copy of the proposed rules: Maine Rules for Guardians Ad Litem
Because we do not know if comments will be posted - please CC any correspondence to MeGALalert@gmail.com so that we may post your comments for others to see.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Pennsylvania - Judge suspends Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin's sentence until higher court rules on her appeal
While this does not directly relate to Guardians ad litem this is related to Court Officers and speaks to the corruption that winds its way into the Family Court/ Court system. Who pays - the consumers.
TribLIVE News
An Allegheny County judge on Friday suspended former state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin's sentence on her corruption conviction despite pleas from her attorney to let her continue serving a three-year term on house arrest, a tactic one legal expert said could save her from a worse fate.
Common Pleas Judge Lester G. Nauhaus released Melvin, 57, of Marshall pending the outcome of a Superior Court appeal that seeks to block Nauhaus from altering her sentence. The state court ruled this month that Melvin does not have to comply with part of the judge's sentence that requires her to write letters of apology to every judge in Pennsylvania on black-and-white photos of herself posing in handcuffs.
Full story: TribLIVE News
TribLIVE News
An Allegheny County judge on Friday suspended former state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin's sentence on her corruption conviction despite pleas from her attorney to let her continue serving a three-year term on house arrest, a tactic one legal expert said could save her from a worse fate.
Common Pleas Judge Lester G. Nauhaus released Melvin, 57, of Marshall pending the outcome of a Superior Court appeal that seeks to block Nauhaus from altering her sentence. The state court ruled this month that Melvin does not have to comply with part of the judge's sentence that requires her to write letters of apology to every judge in Pennsylvania on black-and-white photos of herself posing in handcuffs.
Full story: TribLIVE News
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Maine - Is this Really Oversight? How the Overseers of the Bar Operates.
The Overseers of the Bar has by all appearances an open process of complaint for the public. If I was researching a lawyer I am able to view 13 years of complaints brought against 247 lawyers. Each decision has a link provided so that I can see what the complaint was about and the outcome - the decision handed out to that lawyer. While the disciplinary action is written out in a way that only a lawyer could love (legalistic, specific and dry) it dose give the reasoning behind the decision.
What do the numbers show us?
There are currently 247 lawyers that have complaints where decisions have been handed out by the Overseers. Those decisions amount to a total of 362.
Of the 247 lawyers who had complaints 179 appeared before the Overseers only once. The balance of 68 lawyers appeared on multiple occasions. Of those 68 lawyers 29 appeared 3 or more times. In terms of the decisions handed out those 68 lawyers had 183 (or 50.55%) of the decisions handed out to them.
What was the order that the Overseers of the Board handed out to these lawyers. There are 43 categories that summarizes what action the Overseers recommends. Most mean nothing to the casual observer - maybe this is intended. The focus is on those that have meaning.
Reprimand is the most popular order given out to a wayward lawyer. This was handed out 36% of the time or 131 instances. Suspension is another popular order being handed out 4.7% of the time. Dismissal was handed out 8 times in 13 years. What is interesting is that 17 lawyers resigned and only 5 were disbarred. Those that were disbarred represents only 2% of the population who manages to make it to this point.
It is important to reflect on these numbers as it speaks to the process that the Overseers has in place and their ability to provide oversight to the lawyers that they license. Is the Overseers of the Bar able to provide effective oversight of those they license? Is the process that is in place a fair and equitable process to consumers of legal services as well as to lawyers? Or does the process favor lawyers? Is the process one that the average consumer can understand and easily navigate through?
What is not clear to anyone is how many times complaints were started against a lawyer and then was dropped because of the financial cost and time it would take. Or was weeded out at one of the many layers that is intended to make the process fair. Of those lawyers that had multiple complaints - how many more were started but were never completed or weeded out? The result of such filtering would be to allow a problem lawyer to continue and cause pain and suffering.
If you have any thoughts on the Overseers of the Bar we would encourage your comments here or on our Facebook page. You may also email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
What do the numbers show us?
There are currently 247 lawyers that have complaints where decisions have been handed out by the Overseers. Those decisions amount to a total of 362.
Of the 247 lawyers who had complaints 179 appeared before the Overseers only once. The balance of 68 lawyers appeared on multiple occasions. Of those 68 lawyers 29 appeared 3 or more times. In terms of the decisions handed out those 68 lawyers had 183 (or 50.55%) of the decisions handed out to them.
What was the order that the Overseers of the Board handed out to these lawyers. There are 43 categories that summarizes what action the Overseers recommends. Most mean nothing to the casual observer - maybe this is intended. The focus is on those that have meaning.
Reprimand is the most popular order given out to a wayward lawyer. This was handed out 36% of the time or 131 instances. Suspension is another popular order being handed out 4.7% of the time. Dismissal was handed out 8 times in 13 years. What is interesting is that 17 lawyers resigned and only 5 were disbarred. Those that were disbarred represents only 2% of the population who manages to make it to this point.
It is important to reflect on these numbers as it speaks to the process that the Overseers has in place and their ability to provide oversight to the lawyers that they license. Is the Overseers of the Bar able to provide effective oversight of those they license? Is the process that is in place a fair and equitable process to consumers of legal services as well as to lawyers? Or does the process favor lawyers? Is the process one that the average consumer can understand and easily navigate through?
What is not clear to anyone is how many times complaints were started against a lawyer and then was dropped because of the financial cost and time it would take. Or was weeded out at one of the many layers that is intended to make the process fair. Of those lawyers that had multiple complaints - how many more were started but were never completed or weeded out? The result of such filtering would be to allow a problem lawyer to continue and cause pain and suffering.
If you have any thoughts on the Overseers of the Bar we would encourage your comments here or on our Facebook page. You may also email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
Saturday, November 9, 2013
New York - Father says No to Child's demand of McDonald's - and loses visitation
What should have been a Happy Meal has turned out to be anything but this for a New York father in a hotly contested divorce case. The court appointed shrink Dr. Marilyn Schiller is branding the child's father as being incapable of caring for his 4-year old son for refusing McDonald's.
The father is fighting back against Dr. Schiller for defaming his character.
On October 30, 2013 father and son were preparing to go out for dinner. The son demanded McDonald's and the father said no. According to reports that son then "threw a temper tantrum" for being denied the Golden Arches. The fathers reasoning for refusal was that he felt his son had been eating too much junk food. So like any good parent he offered his son two options -
1. Pick another restaurant
2. No dinner at all
His son chose the latter and upon retuning back to his mother told on his dad. The mom promptly told Dr. Marilyn Schiller who in turn reported this incident to the presiding judge. Dr. Schiller made the recommendation of having the fathers visitation time reduced. Refusing a child McDonald's must be like burning a child with a cigarette, abusing a child or some other life altering event - at least according to Dr. Schiller.
Who is right here? The father for trying to be a good parent and not giving into the demands of a child and "exercising reasonable parental prerogatives"? Or the court appointed psychologist for recommending a more restricted visitation schedule as a result of not giving into the demands of a 4-year old? If the court appointed psychologist is right in her reasoning that denying McDonald's will cause so much harm to this child that the father's time needs to be restricted then many who are reading this have been hurt by our parents refusal to take us to McDonald's when young. What does it say about the Mayor of New York - Bloomberg - who is trying to curb the unhealthy eating choices that New Yorkers make - like McDonald's and other artery clogging eating establishments - that he is so much against. Would Bloomberg be considered a bad parent?
Although this is an extreme example of what is wrong with the family court system (the divorce industry, Guardians ad litem and other family court leaches) it does call into question about who really knows what is best for our children. In this case it appears Dr. Schiller and the mom knows what is best (sarcasm intended) - by giving into the demands of a 4-year old. The father does not (again sarcasm intended) because he refused as a parent to give in to his son, his child. What is the lesson that we can take away from this - that as a parent you do what your child wants - no matter how much it goes against your core values as a person or parent. Because if you don't the courts will take what is precious to you as they know what is best (sarcasm intended).
By the way - the mother took her son to McDonald's - reinforcing her son's bad behavior and the opinion of Dr. Schiller.
For support please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.
For further reading on this case:
Yahoo! Shine
NY Daily News
The father is fighting back against Dr. Schiller for defaming his character.
On October 30, 2013 father and son were preparing to go out for dinner. The son demanded McDonald's and the father said no. According to reports that son then "threw a temper tantrum" for being denied the Golden Arches. The fathers reasoning for refusal was that he felt his son had been eating too much junk food. So like any good parent he offered his son two options -
1. Pick another restaurant
2. No dinner at all
His son chose the latter and upon retuning back to his mother told on his dad. The mom promptly told Dr. Marilyn Schiller who in turn reported this incident to the presiding judge. Dr. Schiller made the recommendation of having the fathers visitation time reduced. Refusing a child McDonald's must be like burning a child with a cigarette, abusing a child or some other life altering event - at least according to Dr. Schiller.
Who is right here? The father for trying to be a good parent and not giving into the demands of a child and "exercising reasonable parental prerogatives"? Or the court appointed psychologist for recommending a more restricted visitation schedule as a result of not giving into the demands of a 4-year old? If the court appointed psychologist is right in her reasoning that denying McDonald's will cause so much harm to this child that the father's time needs to be restricted then many who are reading this have been hurt by our parents refusal to take us to McDonald's when young. What does it say about the Mayor of New York - Bloomberg - who is trying to curb the unhealthy eating choices that New Yorkers make - like McDonald's and other artery clogging eating establishments - that he is so much against. Would Bloomberg be considered a bad parent?
Although this is an extreme example of what is wrong with the family court system (the divorce industry, Guardians ad litem and other family court leaches) it does call into question about who really knows what is best for our children. In this case it appears Dr. Schiller and the mom knows what is best (sarcasm intended) - by giving into the demands of a 4-year old. The father does not (again sarcasm intended) because he refused as a parent to give in to his son, his child. What is the lesson that we can take away from this - that as a parent you do what your child wants - no matter how much it goes against your core values as a person or parent. Because if you don't the courts will take what is precious to you as they know what is best (sarcasm intended).
By the way - the mother took her son to McDonald's - reinforcing her son's bad behavior and the opinion of Dr. Schiller.
For support please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.
For further reading on this case:
Yahoo! Shine
NY Daily News
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
"New Guardians ad litem do not have the experience" Sarah Stark Oldham
In state of Connecticut parents and consumers have been dealing with a horrific family court and Guardian ad litem mess for years. The situation is so bad that families have been bankrupt emotionally and financially as a result of the process. On October 31 the task force that was created to investigate legal disputes involving the care and custody of children heard from a number of people.
One of those who gave testimony was Sarah Stark Oldham. Ms Oldham is the President of the Connecticut chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. During her testimony she defended the role of Guardians ad litem and the training of GALs. At one point Ms Oldham was asked why out of over a thousand certified GALs a judge would choose only out of a handful of Guardians ad litem - the response to that question was as stunning as it was troubling:
“Well, I think judges assign cases to a GAL who they think can handle the case and many of the new Guardians ad litem do not yet have any experience or the qualifications required to be assigned.”
The silence in the hearing room was deafening….
Rep. Minnie Gonzalez held up the list of court certified Guardians ad litem and said: “I’m sorry, if we are now certifying GALs, then every one of the people on this list should be able to handle a case – otherwise what is the point of certifying them?”
“Well, they just have to take the classes, there is no test at the end or way for them to pass or fail.”
Thank you Ms. Sarah "Sally" Stark Oldham. Thank you.
What Ms. Sarah "Sally" Stark Oldham confirmed for Connecticut and many other state Guardian ad litem education programs is that the training to become a Guardian ad litem is minimal at best and does little to prepare an up and coming Guardian ad litem on how to handle the complexities of a divorce/ custody. That Guardians ad litem are unleashed on an unsuspecting public able to make life changing decisions on people that they have little or no knowledge of. Decisions that have far reaching consequences and impact - yet are protected by a court system when a Guardian ad litem malpractices.
For support contact NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
One of those who gave testimony was Sarah Stark Oldham. Ms Oldham is the President of the Connecticut chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. During her testimony she defended the role of Guardians ad litem and the training of GALs. At one point Ms Oldham was asked why out of over a thousand certified GALs a judge would choose only out of a handful of Guardians ad litem - the response to that question was as stunning as it was troubling:
“Well, I think judges assign cases to a GAL who they think can handle the case and many of the new Guardians ad litem do not yet have any experience or the qualifications required to be assigned.”
The silence in the hearing room was deafening….
Rep. Minnie Gonzalez held up the list of court certified Guardians ad litem and said: “I’m sorry, if we are now certifying GALs, then every one of the people on this list should be able to handle a case – otherwise what is the point of certifying them?”
“Well, they just have to take the classes, there is no test at the end or way for them to pass or fail.”
Thank you Ms. Sarah "Sally" Stark Oldham. Thank you.
What Ms. Sarah "Sally" Stark Oldham confirmed for Connecticut and many other state Guardian ad litem education programs is that the training to become a Guardian ad litem is minimal at best and does little to prepare an up and coming Guardian ad litem on how to handle the complexities of a divorce/ custody. That Guardians ad litem are unleashed on an unsuspecting public able to make life changing decisions on people that they have little or no knowledge of. Decisions that have far reaching consequences and impact - yet are protected by a court system when a Guardian ad litem malpractices.
For support contact NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
National - This is why I am disobeying your order - An open letter to a Judge
Dear Judge,
Two years ago I appeared in your court. I was summoned there with only a few hours notice and appeared without a lawyer. Though no charges were pronounced against me, you legally removed my child from my care and protection, eliminated my right to make any decisions about her, and ordered me to stay away from her most of the time.
From what I have been able to gather about such proceedings, this outcome was nothing out of the ordinary. In fact it quickly became apparent to me that this outcome came very close to being decided in advance. What precisely was said during this brief hearing seems to have made very little difference. As it began, a gentleman who did not know me proceeded to assassinate my character as confidently as if he had personally witnessed each item in his litany of my imperfections. While again, there were no specific charges and nothing legally actionable, it was clear that his role was to translate somewhat vague private grievances against me into a formula that would appear to justify taking away my child.
What struck me at the time was how quickly and effortlessly a child was removed from the care and protection of her parent and her life carved up as if it were the bookings of a holiday cottage. Such and such days she would spend with the non-custodial parent, the rest with the custodial parent. You asked very few questions and sought very little information. The hearing was very brief, and suddenly, I was told, it was over. During the hearing I was allowed to speak very little and interrupted every time I tried. There seemed to be no burden of proof on those who sought to separate me from my child.
I realize that, given the number of similar cases that come before you, you issue these rulings as a matter of routine. I would not be surprised if you have no recollection of this particular case. Nevertheless, for me it was an eye-opening experience and probably the most important thirty minutes or so of my life.
You did not strike me as an unusually malicious or callous person. I am told you are considered among the more favorable judges for parents, and that the time you assigned permitting me to be with my children is relatively generous.
All this may be true. Yet it has also become apparent to me that what I witnessed in your courtroom was a tiny part of a vast system of largely impersonal and unaccountable power that was previously unknown to me, as it still is to most citizens. I am fully aware that you did not create this system and that you yourself may have very little control over it. Nevertheless you are a principal and active participant. So vast and so routine has this power become that you are able, with no background information and in a hearing lasting only a few minutes, to permanently separate a child from a parent without any indication that you were aware of the gravity of what you were doing.
While this central act was disturbing enough, what was again striking were the questions that were not asked, the subjects that were not brought up, the consequences that were not anticipated. You knew that I was accused of no wrongdoing and had agreed to no separation or divorce. You were also aware that I had never lived in this country with my family and that I had neither a residence nor a livelihood here. Yet a number of important matters were never discussed. Did I have a place to live? Did I have a way to get to where my daughter was? Could I work here? Did I have access to a car? Did the hours you permitted me to be with her bear any relation to when I might be able to find or keep employment? What costs would be involved for me or other parties?
You may recall that when my mother attempted to sit in on the hearing she was refused and escorted out. Yet the results of this hearing have profoundly and adversely affected her life. She was forced to take in and support a grown son who was now unemployed. She was forced to cancel the sale of her house so that I would have a place to stay. Her car has been commandeered so that I can see my children and get to work. Did these hardships for her enter into your ruling? They certainly were not brought up in the hearing. It did occur to me at the time, but I was cut off each time I attempted to speak.
What is also noteworthy is that I can recount my recollection of these proceedings without fear of contradiction or inaccuracy, not only because you probably do not remember details of the hearing, but also because no record of it now exists and no impartial witnesses were permitted to be present. In other words, there is nothing and no one to contradict or corroborate my recollection. By the same measure, there is no accountability or recorded reasoning for a ruling that has torn apart the home and world of an innocent child.
In short, it struck me that for the first time in my life I was personally witnessing an instance of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”: evil that has become so routinized and bureaucratized that otherwise decent people are able to tell themselves they are doing good when they are doing evil. It is profoundly ironic that I should have returned from five years in a post-totalitarian society to be confronted here in the United States with a new and unexpected version of the kind of bureaucratic dictatorship that has been perhaps the most notable feature of the politics of this century.
When we hear about children being forcibly taken from their parents by Nazi doctors or Communist apparatchiks we are filled with the deepest revulsion. In accounts of American slavery the division of slave families pierces deeper into our hearts than even the physical cruelties of that institution. What family court judges such as yourself do as a daily routine is not on the same level of evil. But it is not so completely different that we should classify the one as among the most detestable “crimes against humanity” and accept the other as desirable treatment for our own children. You may think this comparison offensive. But a government which criminalizes ordinary law-abiding citizens for something so basic as exercising their parental responsibilities is itself on the way to becoming a criminal regime. Parents such as I who are accused of nothing routinely have their children removed from their care and protection, are ordered to stay away from them and to pay money to those who have taken them, and are incarcerated if they refuse or are unable. These parents receive fewer constitutional protections for their basic civil rights and liberties than persons accused of vicious crimes. Yet there is no public outcry, no expose by muckraking journalists, no petition of outraged intellectuals, no review by international tribunals, no inquiries by human rights organizations, no voice of opposition.
Whatever may be said in favor of this practice, there is no justification for ordering me or any other innocent parent to stay away from our children in terms of their well-being. This is a practice that exists not for the welfare of children but for the power and enrichment of adults. It is a practice I cannot in conscience accept, and I believe no other parent can either.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I no longer consider your order binding on me and that it is my intention to disobey it. From this time forth I will consider myself free to be with my children whenever I or they choose. I will not hesitate to remove them from any institutional care center at which they are being stored. I will consider myself at liberty to go to any residence where they are being kept with the expectation that I will be permitted to be with my children. In short, I will behave as if I have the same right to do what I choose with my children when and where I choose as any other parent or as I had they day my eldest daughter was born, secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing to forfeit that right. All this will be done in the open view of the world.
At no time will I, as I have never done previously, behave in a disorderly manner; much less will I use any physical force. Consistent with what has always been my parental practice, I will quarrel with no one in the presence of my children. Should I be confronted, as I have been in the past, with contention, disrespect, or physical coercion, I will do my utmost not to respond in kind. Should I, as a creature endowed with my share of imperfections, be provoked to an indiscretion in the presence of my children, I will invoke the only tried and true remedy available to any parent in such circumstances, which is to say I will apologize. Witnessing this will do my children no harm and may possibly set an example they are not likely to see elsewhere. But I will also make it clear, as I must now make it clear to you, that I can no longer tolerate forced separation from my children.
I realize this is not the usual and, from your standpoint, preferred method of responding to a court order. I know that I am expected to hire a professional advocate to argue my case in a courtroom. Yet after prolonged and careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot pursue this course.
In the first place, to be brutally practical, I do not have the means. As a direct result of your ruling I was forced to resign my position, leave the only residence my family had ever had, and relocate here in order to be with my children. There is also something I find basically objectionable about any parent having to pay money to see his own children when he has been presented with no grounds for why they were taken in the first place. As with a conventional kidnapping, if I begin to pay money for this purpose, where does it end?
More to the point, it is not clear to me what I would argue in a courtroom, since not only have I have been accused of nothing; I have not accused anyone else of anything. In the absence of charges against me, I cannot and will not cooperate with an inquisition into my family life. It is also not my practice to discuss the shortcomings of members of my family with third parties, let alone to construct legal cases against them. Forcing me to do so as a condition of retaining my rights as a parent strikes me as morally equivalent to staging a cockfight. And again, I fail to see where it would end. Frankly, it appears to me that this entire process is designed less to arrive at any determination relevant to the welfare of my children than to provide business for associations of legal entrepreneurs.
Even more fundamentally, I cannot pursue this course because I cannot accept that you or anyone else has any grounds to intervene in my family and tell me when, where, and under what circumstances I may be with my children or to deny me the right to raise and protect them and make decisions for their welfare. In other words, it is not so much a particular ruling that I cannot accept as an unprovoked and unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over my family. You may reply that this was solicited by parties that include members of my family. Yet this does not alter the fact that it was done without any grounds whatever. It is equally true to say that some 30 years ago the armies of the Warsaw Pact were “invited” to enter the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, but this does not make it any less of any invasion.
I am also aware of the arguments against the alternative course of action I have chosen. No doubt I will be accused of inflicting an unpleasant experience upon my children by going to see them when I have not been authorized to do so. I have considered this at some length. It is this consideration, in part, that prevented me from responding in kind when my child was originally abducted from her home and before I was summoned to your court. I am sure that I was assisted in this restraint by the conviction that this country’s system of justice is fair and that justice would eventually prevail. (Yet I must regretfully note that this restraint seems to have counted nothing in my favor in your courtroom.) I would like to believe that conviction is still justified, though I am now convinced that this is more likely to be the case by refusing to accept your power to arbitrarily keep me from my children than by hiring a professional advocate to quibble over precisely how much you should do so.
I have also come to the conclusion that I cannot submit indefinitely to what amounts to a kind of blackmail, a blackmail rendered all the more heinous for holding as hostages two children and forcing a parent to stay away from them for fear of how others will respond to his presence. I trust you are familiar with the concept of a “heckler’s veto” and with its legal standing.
It is one thing to refrain from contention in the presence of children, which I have always done and will continue to do. It is another to acquiesce indefinitely in a crime committed against them. In fact it is precisely my concern to avoid further contention that leads me to take a public and open stand against this patent injustice rather than participating in a privately litigated battle that I cannot see will be to anything other than the detriment of my family.
The principal trauma being inflicted on my children is the forced destruction of their family and separation from one or both of their parents, a trauma that has been inflicted by your ruling. Given this, I firmly believe that, far from my harming my children, there are certain lessons in this that they need to be made aware of and that it is my responsibility as a parent to teach them. While I believe I have valid reasons as a citizen to disobey the law in this instance, I want to make clear to you that I also have connected but even more imperative ones as a parent.
It is my responsibility to teach my children that the proper course of action when faced with injustice is to resist and oppose it in a peaceful and dignified way. At some point they must learn that there are higher principles and a higher law they must always obey, even when it means they must break the civil law and accept the consequences for doing so. These are not only lessons that they can learn; they are lessons that they must learn and lessons that, in other contexts, we go to considerable lengths to teach them. In Sunday school my eldest daughter has already been exposed to the quiet courage of the Hebrew women, to the defiant stand of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to the public crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. In school she will soon be reading about the teachings and examples of Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As both a teacher of these ideas myself and a parent, I am acutely aware that there is no point in teaching our children one set of principles as being right in the abstract when we teach them the opposite by our own acts or failure to act precisely at the time when those principles are most needed to confront an injustice. It is perhaps unfortunate, but nevertheless unavoidable, that the circumstances of her life are now such that she must now witness the application of these principles sooner rather than later.
On the other hand, if I do not act I fear that the lessons my children are already learning are far more harmful than witnessing a parent peaceably and openly disobey an unjust court order. Virtually every principle of sound child-rearing is contravened by this immoral practice of forcibly separating children from their parents. For the sake of clarity and emphasis I will list the harmful messages I see them absorbing:
- They are learning that we put our own desires before the needs of others, including those we profess to love such as our own children.
- They are learning that children like themselves are not to be treated as people with needs and rights of their own, but used as tools and weapons in the quest for power and profit by adults.
- They are learning that ordinary family differences and disagreements are to be resolved not with love, understanding, and compromise, but with the courts and police.
- They are learning that the vows of marriage – and by extension all other pledges, promises, commitments, and agreements – mean nothing and can be abrogated when they are no longer to our advantage.
- They are learning that principles and values are something we adhere to only so long as they are convenient, and that we can invent the rules according to our momentary pleasure.
- They are learning that contrition and forgiveness mean nothing and that injuries to others are not to be atoned for and forgiven but nursed as grievances to be revenged when the opportunity presents itself.
- They are learning that when someone disagrees with us or has other ideas or beliefs than ours, we need not listen to him, even within our own family, because now we can use the courts to silence him and have the police keep him away.
- They are learning the methods of the bully, which in other contexts we attempt to discourage and protect them from.
- They are learning that anyone in their family can be eliminated when they fall out of favor – including, perhaps, our children themselves.
- They are learning that the instruments of the state and the justice system are not public tribunals for redressing public wrongs and establishing public justice but rather a system of hired force which we can marshal for private hurts, domestic differences, and personal grievances.
- They are learning that both the family and the state are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies for private injuries.
- They are learning that they need not accept or obey the authority of a parent – and by extension any other authority as well, including their teachers, ministers, parent, and eventually the laws and tribunals of the public state.
- They will learn that the police are not instruments for maintaining public order and protecting the weak, but hired mercenaries that we can marshal against members of our own family when we don’t agree with what they do or say.
- They will learn that the justice system of this country is not based on due process of law but instead rounds up and incarcerates citizens who are accused of no crime and uses the lives of innocent people – including children – for the aggrandizement of its own power.
- They will learn that a citizen of this country need not be charged with any offense that is actionable in a court of law in order to be summoned to one and stripped of his most fundamental constitutional rights.
- They will learn that the Constitution of the United States is a lie, and the Bill of Rights is a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by those whose responsibility it is to protect it from abuse by others.
I believe it is these lessons that account for the alienation and the adversarial relationship that so many children – especially the children of divorce – are now developing toward the justice system, the society in which they live, and their own families. I know that so long as these messages are being imparted to my children by those who seek to separate me from them and by the instruments of the public state such as your court (and by me as well so long as I acquiesce in your ruling) any attempt by me to impart contrary messages will be at cross-purposes with forces too massive for me to compete with and prevail against.
I am aware of a more serious objection to this course of action I am taking. This is the possibility that you will punish my disobedience by further reducing access to my children. This has indeed weighed heavily on my mind. The obvious rejoinder – that such an act of judicial bullying would belie any pretense that this process is concerned with “the best interest of the child” – is little comfort to me. As with other objections, this fear prevents most parents from responding as I have.
I certainly do value my time with my children, and am very reluctant to do anything that may jeopardize it. Until now I have tried to work within these constraints to have as much positive influence on my children as possible.
Yet I find I cannot remain content with this choice indefinitely, and in the long run I cannot hold it up to my children as an example worthy for them to follow. For one thing, I observe from the experience of many forcibly separated fathers that their allotted “visitation” is only one factor contributing to the gradual erosion of bonds with their children, and that it is not possible to be an adequate parent to children from whom one is kept separated by the police. Unlike some, I am not convinced that preserving or increasing my legally permitted time with my children, while still preserving the power to dictate the terms under which I may be a parent to them, is likely to make this system any less of an injustice or any less of a detriment to my relationship with my children.
To rest content with this would be to admit that this allotment of time you have decreed for me is really little more than what amounts to a bribe. Those who have more experience with the family judiciary than I inform me that bribery is widespread. I myself have not otherwise observed it first hand, and it is not my purpose here to make accusations. But in this instance I can see – and so can the world – that a kind of bribery has been openly offered and accepted. Vaclav Havel, the Czech former dissident and now president, has said that a truly corrupt system is one where the bribery is so systemic that it extends even to the public. They are bribed with material or other inducements to accept and acquiesce in a system they know to be corrupt and immoral. I believe something similar is at work here. Like many other parents, I have been effectively bribed with enough time with my children to buy my acquiescence in a system that is patently unjust, immoral, and illegal and one that reduces me to the status of something less than a true parent.
While I value time with my children and know it to be important to their well-being, I also know that the benefits it bestows cannot continue indefinitely and under any circumstances. At some point, as my children come to understand the choice their parent has made – that he has made his peace with a system that has robbed them of their most basic rights and needs in order to be permitted to “get along” with his life – the net effect will become more harmful to them than healthy. All the “visitation” and “custody” and “child support” in the world will not provide them with the parent they need if he bends his back and holds his tongue when he had the opportunity to stand upright and speak out.
There is, in other words, something here much more fundamental than disputes over “visitation”, “custody”, “child support”, and the other jargon of your trade. It concerns the unnatural power to take a child away from a parent they love and who loves them, to dictate to a parent who has done nothing wrong when and where he may see his children and what he can say and do with them, to invade and occupy a family and run it by judicial fiat. This is the arrogance of power. No parent can accept this and remain a parent. This is why I am acting.
Yours respectfully,
A Parent
This piece was originally written by Stephen Baskerville several years ago. It addresses the frustration that many parents face in a court system that is broken. It begs the question of how family courts, Guardians ad litem and the divorce industry can live with themselves at the end of the day.
If you have been involved in a divorce/ custody gone bad and for good reason please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Two years ago I appeared in your court. I was summoned there with only a few hours notice and appeared without a lawyer. Though no charges were pronounced against me, you legally removed my child from my care and protection, eliminated my right to make any decisions about her, and ordered me to stay away from her most of the time.
From what I have been able to gather about such proceedings, this outcome was nothing out of the ordinary. In fact it quickly became apparent to me that this outcome came very close to being decided in advance. What precisely was said during this brief hearing seems to have made very little difference. As it began, a gentleman who did not know me proceeded to assassinate my character as confidently as if he had personally witnessed each item in his litany of my imperfections. While again, there were no specific charges and nothing legally actionable, it was clear that his role was to translate somewhat vague private grievances against me into a formula that would appear to justify taking away my child.
What struck me at the time was how quickly and effortlessly a child was removed from the care and protection of her parent and her life carved up as if it were the bookings of a holiday cottage. Such and such days she would spend with the non-custodial parent, the rest with the custodial parent. You asked very few questions and sought very little information. The hearing was very brief, and suddenly, I was told, it was over. During the hearing I was allowed to speak very little and interrupted every time I tried. There seemed to be no burden of proof on those who sought to separate me from my child.
I realize that, given the number of similar cases that come before you, you issue these rulings as a matter of routine. I would not be surprised if you have no recollection of this particular case. Nevertheless, for me it was an eye-opening experience and probably the most important thirty minutes or so of my life.
You did not strike me as an unusually malicious or callous person. I am told you are considered among the more favorable judges for parents, and that the time you assigned permitting me to be with my children is relatively generous.
All this may be true. Yet it has also become apparent to me that what I witnessed in your courtroom was a tiny part of a vast system of largely impersonal and unaccountable power that was previously unknown to me, as it still is to most citizens. I am fully aware that you did not create this system and that you yourself may have very little control over it. Nevertheless you are a principal and active participant. So vast and so routine has this power become that you are able, with no background information and in a hearing lasting only a few minutes, to permanently separate a child from a parent without any indication that you were aware of the gravity of what you were doing.
While this central act was disturbing enough, what was again striking were the questions that were not asked, the subjects that were not brought up, the consequences that were not anticipated. You knew that I was accused of no wrongdoing and had agreed to no separation or divorce. You were also aware that I had never lived in this country with my family and that I had neither a residence nor a livelihood here. Yet a number of important matters were never discussed. Did I have a place to live? Did I have a way to get to where my daughter was? Could I work here? Did I have access to a car? Did the hours you permitted me to be with her bear any relation to when I might be able to find or keep employment? What costs would be involved for me or other parties?
You may recall that when my mother attempted to sit in on the hearing she was refused and escorted out. Yet the results of this hearing have profoundly and adversely affected her life. She was forced to take in and support a grown son who was now unemployed. She was forced to cancel the sale of her house so that I would have a place to stay. Her car has been commandeered so that I can see my children and get to work. Did these hardships for her enter into your ruling? They certainly were not brought up in the hearing. It did occur to me at the time, but I was cut off each time I attempted to speak.
What is also noteworthy is that I can recount my recollection of these proceedings without fear of contradiction or inaccuracy, not only because you probably do not remember details of the hearing, but also because no record of it now exists and no impartial witnesses were permitted to be present. In other words, there is nothing and no one to contradict or corroborate my recollection. By the same measure, there is no accountability or recorded reasoning for a ruling that has torn apart the home and world of an innocent child.
In short, it struck me that for the first time in my life I was personally witnessing an instance of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”: evil that has become so routinized and bureaucratized that otherwise decent people are able to tell themselves they are doing good when they are doing evil. It is profoundly ironic that I should have returned from five years in a post-totalitarian society to be confronted here in the United States with a new and unexpected version of the kind of bureaucratic dictatorship that has been perhaps the most notable feature of the politics of this century.
When we hear about children being forcibly taken from their parents by Nazi doctors or Communist apparatchiks we are filled with the deepest revulsion. In accounts of American slavery the division of slave families pierces deeper into our hearts than even the physical cruelties of that institution. What family court judges such as yourself do as a daily routine is not on the same level of evil. But it is not so completely different that we should classify the one as among the most detestable “crimes against humanity” and accept the other as desirable treatment for our own children. You may think this comparison offensive. But a government which criminalizes ordinary law-abiding citizens for something so basic as exercising their parental responsibilities is itself on the way to becoming a criminal regime. Parents such as I who are accused of nothing routinely have their children removed from their care and protection, are ordered to stay away from them and to pay money to those who have taken them, and are incarcerated if they refuse or are unable. These parents receive fewer constitutional protections for their basic civil rights and liberties than persons accused of vicious crimes. Yet there is no public outcry, no expose by muckraking journalists, no petition of outraged intellectuals, no review by international tribunals, no inquiries by human rights organizations, no voice of opposition.
Whatever may be said in favor of this practice, there is no justification for ordering me or any other innocent parent to stay away from our children in terms of their well-being. This is a practice that exists not for the welfare of children but for the power and enrichment of adults. It is a practice I cannot in conscience accept, and I believe no other parent can either.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I no longer consider your order binding on me and that it is my intention to disobey it. From this time forth I will consider myself free to be with my children whenever I or they choose. I will not hesitate to remove them from any institutional care center at which they are being stored. I will consider myself at liberty to go to any residence where they are being kept with the expectation that I will be permitted to be with my children. In short, I will behave as if I have the same right to do what I choose with my children when and where I choose as any other parent or as I had they day my eldest daughter was born, secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing to forfeit that right. All this will be done in the open view of the world.
At no time will I, as I have never done previously, behave in a disorderly manner; much less will I use any physical force. Consistent with what has always been my parental practice, I will quarrel with no one in the presence of my children. Should I be confronted, as I have been in the past, with contention, disrespect, or physical coercion, I will do my utmost not to respond in kind. Should I, as a creature endowed with my share of imperfections, be provoked to an indiscretion in the presence of my children, I will invoke the only tried and true remedy available to any parent in such circumstances, which is to say I will apologize. Witnessing this will do my children no harm and may possibly set an example they are not likely to see elsewhere. But I will also make it clear, as I must now make it clear to you, that I can no longer tolerate forced separation from my children.
I realize this is not the usual and, from your standpoint, preferred method of responding to a court order. I know that I am expected to hire a professional advocate to argue my case in a courtroom. Yet after prolonged and careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot pursue this course.
In the first place, to be brutally practical, I do not have the means. As a direct result of your ruling I was forced to resign my position, leave the only residence my family had ever had, and relocate here in order to be with my children. There is also something I find basically objectionable about any parent having to pay money to see his own children when he has been presented with no grounds for why they were taken in the first place. As with a conventional kidnapping, if I begin to pay money for this purpose, where does it end?
More to the point, it is not clear to me what I would argue in a courtroom, since not only have I have been accused of nothing; I have not accused anyone else of anything. In the absence of charges against me, I cannot and will not cooperate with an inquisition into my family life. It is also not my practice to discuss the shortcomings of members of my family with third parties, let alone to construct legal cases against them. Forcing me to do so as a condition of retaining my rights as a parent strikes me as morally equivalent to staging a cockfight. And again, I fail to see where it would end. Frankly, it appears to me that this entire process is designed less to arrive at any determination relevant to the welfare of my children than to provide business for associations of legal entrepreneurs.
Even more fundamentally, I cannot pursue this course because I cannot accept that you or anyone else has any grounds to intervene in my family and tell me when, where, and under what circumstances I may be with my children or to deny me the right to raise and protect them and make decisions for their welfare. In other words, it is not so much a particular ruling that I cannot accept as an unprovoked and unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over my family. You may reply that this was solicited by parties that include members of my family. Yet this does not alter the fact that it was done without any grounds whatever. It is equally true to say that some 30 years ago the armies of the Warsaw Pact were “invited” to enter the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, but this does not make it any less of any invasion.
I am also aware of the arguments against the alternative course of action I have chosen. No doubt I will be accused of inflicting an unpleasant experience upon my children by going to see them when I have not been authorized to do so. I have considered this at some length. It is this consideration, in part, that prevented me from responding in kind when my child was originally abducted from her home and before I was summoned to your court. I am sure that I was assisted in this restraint by the conviction that this country’s system of justice is fair and that justice would eventually prevail. (Yet I must regretfully note that this restraint seems to have counted nothing in my favor in your courtroom.) I would like to believe that conviction is still justified, though I am now convinced that this is more likely to be the case by refusing to accept your power to arbitrarily keep me from my children than by hiring a professional advocate to quibble over precisely how much you should do so.
I have also come to the conclusion that I cannot submit indefinitely to what amounts to a kind of blackmail, a blackmail rendered all the more heinous for holding as hostages two children and forcing a parent to stay away from them for fear of how others will respond to his presence. I trust you are familiar with the concept of a “heckler’s veto” and with its legal standing.
It is one thing to refrain from contention in the presence of children, which I have always done and will continue to do. It is another to acquiesce indefinitely in a crime committed against them. In fact it is precisely my concern to avoid further contention that leads me to take a public and open stand against this patent injustice rather than participating in a privately litigated battle that I cannot see will be to anything other than the detriment of my family.
The principal trauma being inflicted on my children is the forced destruction of their family and separation from one or both of their parents, a trauma that has been inflicted by your ruling. Given this, I firmly believe that, far from my harming my children, there are certain lessons in this that they need to be made aware of and that it is my responsibility as a parent to teach them. While I believe I have valid reasons as a citizen to disobey the law in this instance, I want to make clear to you that I also have connected but even more imperative ones as a parent.
It is my responsibility to teach my children that the proper course of action when faced with injustice is to resist and oppose it in a peaceful and dignified way. At some point they must learn that there are higher principles and a higher law they must always obey, even when it means they must break the civil law and accept the consequences for doing so. These are not only lessons that they can learn; they are lessons that they must learn and lessons that, in other contexts, we go to considerable lengths to teach them. In Sunday school my eldest daughter has already been exposed to the quiet courage of the Hebrew women, to the defiant stand of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to the public crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. In school she will soon be reading about the teachings and examples of Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As both a teacher of these ideas myself and a parent, I am acutely aware that there is no point in teaching our children one set of principles as being right in the abstract when we teach them the opposite by our own acts or failure to act precisely at the time when those principles are most needed to confront an injustice. It is perhaps unfortunate, but nevertheless unavoidable, that the circumstances of her life are now such that she must now witness the application of these principles sooner rather than later.
On the other hand, if I do not act I fear that the lessons my children are already learning are far more harmful than witnessing a parent peaceably and openly disobey an unjust court order. Virtually every principle of sound child-rearing is contravened by this immoral practice of forcibly separating children from their parents. For the sake of clarity and emphasis I will list the harmful messages I see them absorbing:
- They are learning that we put our own desires before the needs of others, including those we profess to love such as our own children.
- They are learning that children like themselves are not to be treated as people with needs and rights of their own, but used as tools and weapons in the quest for power and profit by adults.
- They are learning that ordinary family differences and disagreements are to be resolved not with love, understanding, and compromise, but with the courts and police.
- They are learning that the vows of marriage – and by extension all other pledges, promises, commitments, and agreements – mean nothing and can be abrogated when they are no longer to our advantage.
- They are learning that principles and values are something we adhere to only so long as they are convenient, and that we can invent the rules according to our momentary pleasure.
- They are learning that contrition and forgiveness mean nothing and that injuries to others are not to be atoned for and forgiven but nursed as grievances to be revenged when the opportunity presents itself.
- They are learning that when someone disagrees with us or has other ideas or beliefs than ours, we need not listen to him, even within our own family, because now we can use the courts to silence him and have the police keep him away.
- They are learning the methods of the bully, which in other contexts we attempt to discourage and protect them from.
- They are learning that anyone in their family can be eliminated when they fall out of favor – including, perhaps, our children themselves.
- They are learning that the instruments of the state and the justice system are not public tribunals for redressing public wrongs and establishing public justice but rather a system of hired force which we can marshal for private hurts, domestic differences, and personal grievances.
- They are learning that both the family and the state are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies for private injuries.
- They are learning that they need not accept or obey the authority of a parent – and by extension any other authority as well, including their teachers, ministers, parent, and eventually the laws and tribunals of the public state.
- They will learn that the police are not instruments for maintaining public order and protecting the weak, but hired mercenaries that we can marshal against members of our own family when we don’t agree with what they do or say.
- They will learn that the justice system of this country is not based on due process of law but instead rounds up and incarcerates citizens who are accused of no crime and uses the lives of innocent people – including children – for the aggrandizement of its own power.
- They will learn that a citizen of this country need not be charged with any offense that is actionable in a court of law in order to be summoned to one and stripped of his most fundamental constitutional rights.
- They will learn that the Constitution of the United States is a lie, and the Bill of Rights is a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by those whose responsibility it is to protect it from abuse by others.
I believe it is these lessons that account for the alienation and the adversarial relationship that so many children – especially the children of divorce – are now developing toward the justice system, the society in which they live, and their own families. I know that so long as these messages are being imparted to my children by those who seek to separate me from them and by the instruments of the public state such as your court (and by me as well so long as I acquiesce in your ruling) any attempt by me to impart contrary messages will be at cross-purposes with forces too massive for me to compete with and prevail against.
I am aware of a more serious objection to this course of action I am taking. This is the possibility that you will punish my disobedience by further reducing access to my children. This has indeed weighed heavily on my mind. The obvious rejoinder – that such an act of judicial bullying would belie any pretense that this process is concerned with “the best interest of the child” – is little comfort to me. As with other objections, this fear prevents most parents from responding as I have.
I certainly do value my time with my children, and am very reluctant to do anything that may jeopardize it. Until now I have tried to work within these constraints to have as much positive influence on my children as possible.
Yet I find I cannot remain content with this choice indefinitely, and in the long run I cannot hold it up to my children as an example worthy for them to follow. For one thing, I observe from the experience of many forcibly separated fathers that their allotted “visitation” is only one factor contributing to the gradual erosion of bonds with their children, and that it is not possible to be an adequate parent to children from whom one is kept separated by the police. Unlike some, I am not convinced that preserving or increasing my legally permitted time with my children, while still preserving the power to dictate the terms under which I may be a parent to them, is likely to make this system any less of an injustice or any less of a detriment to my relationship with my children.
To rest content with this would be to admit that this allotment of time you have decreed for me is really little more than what amounts to a bribe. Those who have more experience with the family judiciary than I inform me that bribery is widespread. I myself have not otherwise observed it first hand, and it is not my purpose here to make accusations. But in this instance I can see – and so can the world – that a kind of bribery has been openly offered and accepted. Vaclav Havel, the Czech former dissident and now president, has said that a truly corrupt system is one where the bribery is so systemic that it extends even to the public. They are bribed with material or other inducements to accept and acquiesce in a system they know to be corrupt and immoral. I believe something similar is at work here. Like many other parents, I have been effectively bribed with enough time with my children to buy my acquiescence in a system that is patently unjust, immoral, and illegal and one that reduces me to the status of something less than a true parent.
While I value time with my children and know it to be important to their well-being, I also know that the benefits it bestows cannot continue indefinitely and under any circumstances. At some point, as my children come to understand the choice their parent has made – that he has made his peace with a system that has robbed them of their most basic rights and needs in order to be permitted to “get along” with his life – the net effect will become more harmful to them than healthy. All the “visitation” and “custody” and “child support” in the world will not provide them with the parent they need if he bends his back and holds his tongue when he had the opportunity to stand upright and speak out.
There is, in other words, something here much more fundamental than disputes over “visitation”, “custody”, “child support”, and the other jargon of your trade. It concerns the unnatural power to take a child away from a parent they love and who loves them, to dictate to a parent who has done nothing wrong when and where he may see his children and what he can say and do with them, to invade and occupy a family and run it by judicial fiat. This is the arrogance of power. No parent can accept this and remain a parent. This is why I am acting.
Yours respectfully,
A Parent
This piece was originally written by Stephen Baskerville several years ago. It addresses the frustration that many parents face in a court system that is broken. It begs the question of how family courts, Guardians ad litem and the divorce industry can live with themselves at the end of the day.
If you have been involved in a divorce/ custody gone bad and for good reason please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Women wage campaign to impeach New Jersey judge Paul Escandon
It begs the question of who is providing oversight of the judges - in any state? The public and consumers of any state Judicial Branch are fed the same hash that everything is under control. Or is it? How do we know as a people, as a society that those who should be doling out justice are doing so in a way that is fair and by the law. How do we know that judges have oversight and accountability. That they are being managed? We don't. We have been brought up to trust a system that in many areas is corrupt and has no interest in making sure the system is working the way it is supposed to.
These women are proving just that. One of the women was upset and vented which led to other women connecting. Patterns start to emerge. While this case does not directly relate to a Guardian ad litem it does make one think about whether or not the people who are "managing" Guardians ad litem are themselves being managed. If there is no management of anyone then how do we know that there are no problems?
ABC News
MONMOUTH CO., N.J. (WABC) -- A group of women who say they've been discriminated against by a judge in Monmouth County, New Jersey are now trying to get him impeached. They've filed a petition with the state assembly to have the judge removed.
What's interesting is the role that social media has had in bringing these women together to share their stories. It started with one mother who thought she was alone in her legal battle with Judge Paul Escandon, but she discovered there are dozens with similar experiences.
"All of a sudden, one day I was his mother and the next day I had fewer rights than a babysitter on the street," Rachel Alitoff said.
Full story and video: ABC News
These women are proving just that. One of the women was upset and vented which led to other women connecting. Patterns start to emerge. While this case does not directly relate to a Guardian ad litem it does make one think about whether or not the people who are "managing" Guardians ad litem are themselves being managed. If there is no management of anyone then how do we know that there are no problems?
ABC News
MONMOUTH CO., N.J. (WABC) -- A group of women who say they've been discriminated against by a judge in Monmouth County, New Jersey are now trying to get him impeached. They've filed a petition with the state assembly to have the judge removed.
What's interesting is the role that social media has had in bringing these women together to share their stories. It started with one mother who thought she was alone in her legal battle with Judge Paul Escandon, but she discovered there are dozens with similar experiences.
"All of a sudden, one day I was his mother and the next day I had fewer rights than a babysitter on the street," Rachel Alitoff said.
Full story and video: ABC News
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Guardians ad litem praised for doing a poor job… and a pat on the back
Maine FLAC or the Maine Family Law Advisory Commission issued their recommendations a month ago. The opening paragraphs are filled with encomiums lauding Guardians ad litem and the work they do. It is hard to understand this high praise after the recent Maine legislative session which proposed significant changes in Maine's out-of-control Guardian ad litem program. The comprehensive changes were made by the legislature (after study) at the request of citizens, who had experienced a disastrous Guardian ad litem system, which, intentionally or not, inflicted great harm on children and families going through divorce and custody. There were extensive hearings, with heart rendering testimony of cruel and unnecessary hardship inflicted on families and outrageous financial charges for Guardian ad litem services. It seems inappropriate at best to laud services that the legislature, the governor, the bureaucracy and the public deemed in need of drastic overhaul. It might suggest to many that the Family Law Advisory Commission " still "doesn't know it doesn't know!"
Furthermore, it perpetuates claims of quality without any data to back these claims. Lacking data and minimizing the seriousness of the legislative study and subsequent mandate strikes us as a bad beginning to a review of Rules for Guardians ad litem. The tired old claim that it is about "disappointed litigants and heightened expectations" simply doesn't cut it with the public, the legislature and the governor. A half year of in depth legislative study, says that no oversight, no supervision, no enforcement of Rules, a non-functional complaint procedure and myriad other STRUCTURAL issues are the root of serious problems in the GAL program. Grass roots disappointment is secondary to a broken structural system that may work for GALs and judges, but it hasn't worked for the public. Failure to recognize this by the likes of the Family Law commission (and others in the Judicial Branch) is a huge piece of the problem! Recovery, they say, starts with admission of the problem - any problem.
A big piece of the problem is the continuing reliance of the Judicial Brach on "stakeholders," members of what we call "the divorce industry", who have a strong financial interest in the 'status quo'. Perpetuating problem solving by "stakeholders" perpetuates blind privilege and out f touch views. It is worth noting that the one "public" member on the commission reviewing "GAL Rules" is a member of Children First, a GAL dominated advocacy group. It is adding another "fox" to the "chicken house security detail"! There is a need for victims on this commission to help the Judicial Branch take a fresh, open look at things from a grass-roots perspective. Right now it appears to be more of the "same old same old" attitude.
Letter from Chief Justice Saufley regarding FLAC.
If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem, Judge or the court system - please contact NationalGALalert@gmail.com. Or like us on Facebook for up to date issues. If you want to express your opinion on the Guardian ad litem there is an on going survey about Guardian ad litem performance and cost.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Overseers of the Bar - Okay for lawyer to make bomb threats - what about GALs?
There are consequences for the actions that one makes in life. Calling in a bomb threat as an example will land the person making the call into a lot of trouble. If you manage not to serve any jail time there are other areas where you might be penalized to the point of losing your job.
Unless
You are a lawyer in the state who is brought before the Overseers of the Bar (an independent agency created by the Judiciary that is funded by fees paid by lawyers). In a case that was recently brought before the Overseers - a lawyer - who called in a bomb threat (twice) was essentially slapped on the wrist and is being allowed to continue practicing law. Part of his defense was that he had a series of medical conditions that were not being treated properly according to the defendant. In other words it is the "I'm not responsible for my actions" defense.
Why is this important?
The Overseers of the Bar is set to take over responsibility for Guardian ad litem complaints. The Judiciary is moving from a simple yet broken process (one that the average person could understand) to a highly complex process of complaint (a process that is very legalistic in scope). The reasoning behind this move was that the Overseers had the experience of handling complaints. The Judiciary, Guardians ad litem and divorce industry were all in favor of this change. Parents, friends and family surprisingly did not favor the move. Now imagine if in filing a complaint you are mildly successful to get to the point that the lawyer in the above case did. You are standing there in front of the board ready to prove how your GAL broke every rule and statute in the book. Then all of a sudden - the GAL brings out the tried and proven defense "I'm not responsible for my actions" because of (medical condition, parents didn't love me or some other issue). Bang you lose and the Guardian ad litem is free to continue operating as a GAL.
There is no data that shows how many lawyers are disciplined or lose their license as a result of breaking the law. A complaint or disciplinary action through the Overseers is a highly complex and legal process. Beyond the scope of most people without a legal background. Imagine what is going to happen if you attempt to complain through the Overseers of the Board?
If you have an issue with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.
In addition we are conducting a survey on Guardian ad litem Costs and Performance please share your thoughts on how your Guardian ad litem did on you case or families.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Some youths' guardians might not have visited Iowa Juvenile Home
A failure in the system because the judges and courts that provide "oversight and management" do not do so. In order to assess whether a situation is suitable for a child/ juvenile a Guardian ad litem must investigate. Part of an investigation would require a person to visit the place that a child/ juvenile. Quite often though this does not happen.
Des Moines Register
TOLEDO, IA. — The attorneys and guardians who represent youths at the Iowa Juvenile Home may have been unaware of the home’s use of long-term isolation rooms because they never saw the children’s actual living quarters, officials said Wednesday.
At the first meeting of the Iowa Juvenile Home Protection Task Force, the home’s interim superintendent, Mark Day, told the five members it appeared some of the attorneys may have been less diligent than others in serving their clients.
Under Iowa law, the court-appointed legal advocates for the youths, called guardians ad litem, should make firsthand observations of their clients’ living conditions to determine whether their needs are being met and their rights are not being violated.
Full story: Des Moines Register
Des Moines Register
TOLEDO, IA. — The attorneys and guardians who represent youths at the Iowa Juvenile Home may have been unaware of the home’s use of long-term isolation rooms because they never saw the children’s actual living quarters, officials said Wednesday.
At the first meeting of the Iowa Juvenile Home Protection Task Force, the home’s interim superintendent, Mark Day, told the five members it appeared some of the attorneys may have been less diligent than others in serving their clients.
Under Iowa law, the court-appointed legal advocates for the youths, called guardians ad litem, should make firsthand observations of their clients’ living conditions to determine whether their needs are being met and their rights are not being violated.
Full story: Des Moines Register
Sunday, September 22, 2013
The “Best Interest Police” coming to your divorce
Looked at from a distance, the whole concept of a states Guardian ad litem program is hard to understand from its official description. From what we hear from its users, it doesn't do much-if anything- to help children. It is confusing (and expensive) for families. It is unmanaged and un-supervised and is not accessible to the kind of functional "corrective action" that is available to most public programs. As we see it - operationally, Guardians ad litem have virtually absolute power to act in whatever they choose with divorcing families and children. Compliance with "Rules and Standards for Guardians ad litem" has no enforcement, therefore is purely voluntary on the part of the Guardian ad litem. It is a truly unique institution in democratic America more like the apparatus of a police state.
It might be asked why do non-criminal, non-abusing, divorcing couples need the Best Interest Police to investigate and determine whether their parenting practices and attitudes are in their children's "best interest"? Why aren't all American parents under the surveillance of Guardians ad litem as "best interest police" for their children. In the interests of equal opportunity, shouldn't the parenting practices of all American parents - divorcing and non-divorcing - be watched and evaluated equally carefully for the child's "best interest"? The obvious answer is that a total surveillance of everyone's parenting practices by outside agents of the government, or by whomever, would bring on a violent upheaval that would make the American Revolution seem like a Sunday school picnic. Guardians ad litem in divorces are the "nanny state" on totalitarian steroids.
Conceptually, we would suggest that Guardians ad litem seem to function 'de facto' as "Child's Best Interest Police", empowered by judges to look for the "evil that lurks in the hearts of 'men' (humans)". Watch out as those neighbors, friends of your spouse and others line up to share their thoughts about your parenting skills (and much more) in secret exchanges with a Guardian ad litem. Though there are "Rules and Standards for Guardians ad litem", there is no administrative "oversight" (no enforcement) from the mother organization, the Judicial Branch of state government. Such "oversight" as there might be comes from a feeble complaint process that depends on the courage of consumers to face-off against the "Best Interest Police" in the "Mother house" of all lawyers, the Overseers of the Bar.
It is a situation that is beyond "David and Goliath" to have the courage to complain to the Overseers. It is an all or nothing, winner-take-all situation and the odds against a complainer winning are formidable. Filing a consumer complaint, forces consumers to address both the substance of their Guardian ad litem complaint and the prejudice of the lawyers in the Overseers, who firmly believe that their colleague Guardians ad litem are "wonderful, do good work, help many children", unfounded opinions openly expressed by the Family Law Advisory Commission (and other Judicial Branch officials). How do you tell powerful people who admire and respect Guardians ad litem, that their colleagues, that the people they esteem have "messed up"? Where do you run for cover from a vindicated, vengeful Guardian ad litem when your complaint is dismissed? Where is the protection for a "complainer"?
It may be deemed impertinent for us to ask: "Why has no one ever done any formal program evaluation of this hugely expensive, , much criticized, run-away program? Are Guardians ad litem really "doing good work" or "helping children"? What do families say? What do children say? What do objective child-development evaluators (outside of the sweep of Judicial Branch/Muskie School influence) say? Is the program working for public benefit? Are kids better for having had a Guardian ad litem? After 39 years doesn't it need formal study and, perhaps, a bit of program tweaking? Where's the data? Why is there NO program evaluation data?
We would say that the absence of any well-founded program evaluation after 39 years is itself a public scandal. There are many symptoms of program dysfunction and many witnesses to this dysfunction. Program evaluation needs to move beyond judicial , "feel-good" anecdote.
Please comment here or contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com. There is also a Facebook page that is maintained that covers current issues and concerns. If you would like to express your opinion we would encourage you to take our survey on Guardian ad litem performance and or cost.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
23-month-old boy shows no brain activity after motel window fall
What the article does not say is how involved was the Guardian ad litem prior to the event? If the Guardian ad litem was involved in the case before the even. Did the Guardian ad litem do his/ her job in looking out for the boy?
local 10
MIAMI - A 23-month-old boy who fell from the second-story window of a motel in Hialeah is showing no brain activity, the child's guardian ad litem testified during a shelter hearing Tuesday.
Police arrested the boy's parents, Luis Enrique Rodriguez and Jacqueline Sanchez, at the El Paraiso Motel late Friday. Neither parent was at the hearing Tuesday, but both later spoke to Local 10.
Full story and video: local10
local 10
MIAMI - A 23-month-old boy who fell from the second-story window of a motel in Hialeah is showing no brain activity, the child's guardian ad litem testified during a shelter hearing Tuesday.
Police arrested the boy's parents, Luis Enrique Rodriguez and Jacqueline Sanchez, at the El Paraiso Motel late Friday. Neither parent was at the hearing Tuesday, but both later spoke to Local 10.
Full story and video: local10
Friday, September 13, 2013
GAL's...Huh...What Are They Good For? Absolutely Nothing!
Borrowing our title from the Edwin Starr/Temptations song denouncing war; there is a real problem for Guardian Ad Litem's: how to justify their existence? What do they add to a divorce (besides expense and harassment)? What do they know about parenting and a child's best interest? Is there an area of human relations expertise, and, if so, what is it?
Because their hypothetical expertise is highly debatable and at best very slim, they have to discover problems in parenting- problems that make their search appear valuable, but not so bad as to warrant a referral to Children's Protective Services and an escape of the money train.
They have gradually expanded their originally limited role to be a kind of Good Housekeeping certifier of parenting. They fundamentally offer an opinion grade of parents, like a school teacher. This one gets 100%, this one gets 35%; this one gets zero! Frequently, child's evaluation by experts is dismissed, and there is a search for an evaluator whose opinions agree with those of the GAL. Or the blanks in actual expert reports get filled in by the GAL with "junk science".
They have to find a problem to justify their existence.They have to rely on the power of the courts to back them and on their protection from liability by immunity to survive.
It is about an expensive investigation in search of a problem! It embodies the common approach (an accusation equals a fact) and common philosophical issues of other investigations in which the investigator's job security and professional existence depends on finding problems: the inquisition, the reign of terror, the Salem witch hunts and the search for Communists in public life of the 1950's!
For support please contact us at NatinoalGALalert@gmail.com or for current issues find us on Facebook.
Because their hypothetical expertise is highly debatable and at best very slim, they have to discover problems in parenting- problems that make their search appear valuable, but not so bad as to warrant a referral to Children's Protective Services and an escape of the money train.
They have gradually expanded their originally limited role to be a kind of Good Housekeeping certifier of parenting. They fundamentally offer an opinion grade of parents, like a school teacher. This one gets 100%, this one gets 35%; this one gets zero! Frequently, child's evaluation by experts is dismissed, and there is a search for an evaluator whose opinions agree with those of the GAL. Or the blanks in actual expert reports get filled in by the GAL with "junk science".
They have to find a problem to justify their existence.They have to rely on the power of the courts to back them and on their protection from liability by immunity to survive.
It is about an expensive investigation in search of a problem! It embodies the common approach (an accusation equals a fact) and common philosophical issues of other investigations in which the investigator's job security and professional existence depends on finding problems: the inquisition, the reign of terror, the Salem witch hunts and the search for Communists in public life of the 1950's!
For support please contact us at NatinoalGALalert@gmail.com or for current issues find us on Facebook.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Putting a HALT to Readdiction and Relapse
Recently we have heard from parents who have gone through divorce and who have secondary custody to a drug addict and/or an alcoholic. Those who have shared their story with us have acknowledged that at times their ex spouse have made the attempt at sobriety with some success but the probability of relapse is extremely high for these individuals.
When a recovering addict has pain and/or sleep issues, medical professionals need to be careful on what it is that the recovering addict can or cannot be prescribed.
Authorities on addiction, like AA and Alanon say that an alcoholic/addict has a sometimes fatal illness that can be arrested but NEVER “cured”. The disease is “incurable”. However, with help, it can go into “remission” (or recovery) and remain in “remission”, if the alcoholic/addict stops drinking/drugging and continuously works a recovery program, such as AA or Alanon, etc
These programs also speak to life dangers that signal a risk of recurrence of the active illness, using the acronym: HALT, as a collection of generic warning signals:
H = HUNGRY A= ANGRY L= LONELY T= TIRED
A recovering addict/alcoholic is at greater risk of a “slip” into addictive activities when any one or more of these single symptoms is present, is unrecognized (denial) and un-dealt with by the recovering addict/alcoholic. There is also the risk of re-addiction by medical persons who don’t fully understand addictions and the terrible risk for a recovering addict when they prescribe sleeping pills, sedatives, tranquilizers, etc. AA/Alanon call it “taking one’s booze in pill form.” Addicts are particularly sensitive to these medications that sedate their brain and make their resolve to live soberly less strong. A “slip” is very common in recovery.
Addiction is one of the toughest diseases to combat. Recovery programs say, stop feeling guilty/ashamed, start going to meetings, stop drugging/drinking and start to live soberly again with AA/Alanon program support.
It isn’t easy to cope with these illnesses, but it is vitally important to the addict and his/her family.
Additional credit to Dr. Jerome Collins
For additional information and support please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Justices Redefine Guardian Ad Litem Duties in Pennsylvania
While it is welcome that the role of a Guardian ad litem is becoming more defined by this change. Will this lead to better management of a Guardian ad litem by the courts and better consumer protection? Judges are usually charged with the oversight and management of a Guardian ad litem. The reality of this dynamic is that there usually is little to none. This change is more than likely one that is self serving with the appearance of better consumer protection.
This article may require the reader to sign up.
The Legal Intelligencer
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision earlier this month to alter the role of guardians ad litem in new procedural rules for custody cases should bring clarity to the role, several family law veterans said.
"When a child is suffering from harm or is in a diminished capacity, the guardian ad litem plays a very important role in speaking for the best interests of the child," said Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Barry Dozor, liaison for the Family and Juvenile Division. "The new rules are welcome and they provide a clear explanation of the roles for both a guardian ad litem and also for an attorney representing a minor."
"It lets the guardian ad litem know what the rules of the game are," Dozor continued, "because like any professional that provides advice, he may be required to testify, to be cross-examined and give reports and records, and we treat him as we treat all expert testimony."
From a family law attorney's perspective, Michael E. Bertin, a partner at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel in Philadelphia, said the new rule brings welcome specification.
Full story: The Legal Intelligencer
This article may require the reader to sign up.
The Legal Intelligencer
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision earlier this month to alter the role of guardians ad litem in new procedural rules for custody cases should bring clarity to the role, several family law veterans said.
"When a child is suffering from harm or is in a diminished capacity, the guardian ad litem plays a very important role in speaking for the best interests of the child," said Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Barry Dozor, liaison for the Family and Juvenile Division. "The new rules are welcome and they provide a clear explanation of the roles for both a guardian ad litem and also for an attorney representing a minor."
"It lets the guardian ad litem know what the rules of the game are," Dozor continued, "because like any professional that provides advice, he may be required to testify, to be cross-examined and give reports and records, and we treat him as we treat all expert testimony."
From a family law attorney's perspective, Michael E. Bertin, a partner at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel in Philadelphia, said the new rule brings welcome specification.
Full story: The Legal Intelligencer
Monday, August 26, 2013
A Cherokee County court has been asked to suspend visits between Veronica and her adoptive parents
This is a sad case in which the little girl is going to lose out. The adoptive parents are objecting to the use of a Guardian ad litem for representing their adoptive daughters "best interest". By introducing yet a third element into the mix the Guardian ad litem will add to the complexity of an already explosive situation.
Tulsa World
Confirming that her adoptive parents are being allowed to see Baby Veronica, a Cherokee County court has been asked to suspend their visits until further hearings can be held.
Meanwhile, Special Judge Holli Wells entered an "order of recusal," removing herself from the case, according to a court docket that was available Sunday.
Arriving from South Carolina two weeks ago, Matt and Melanie Capobianco had not seen Veronica since losing custody of her on New Year's Eve 2011.
In a flurry of activity that came Friday at the Cherokee County courthouse, the Capobiancos appear to be objecting to the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent their adoptive daughter's "best interests" during the court proceedings.
Full story: Tulsa World
Tulsa World
Confirming that her adoptive parents are being allowed to see Baby Veronica, a Cherokee County court has been asked to suspend their visits until further hearings can be held.
Meanwhile, Special Judge Holli Wells entered an "order of recusal," removing herself from the case, according to a court docket that was available Sunday.
Arriving from South Carolina two weeks ago, Matt and Melanie Capobianco had not seen Veronica since losing custody of her on New Year's Eve 2011.
In a flurry of activity that came Friday at the Cherokee County courthouse, the Capobiancos appear to be objecting to the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent their adoptive daughter's "best interests" during the court proceedings.
Full story: Tulsa World
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Guardian ad litem Mission Creep and their role as Investigator
This article is a basic recruitment piece for Guardians ad litem in the state of Florida. While that is not really an issue what is troubling is the quote the post uses from a Guardian ad litem Sandy Roth who describes her job as a GAL to be:
"These dedicated women and men are not investigators, although they often investigate. They are not case workers, but are intimately familiar with details of the case. They are not attorneys, although they represent the interests of the children in court. They aren’t foster parents or caregivers, but they visit the children regularly in their temporary homes. They’re not teachers or counselors, but they work with schools to ensure the children are progressing. They support the counseling needs of each child, but they are not therapists. Neither are they physicians or dentists, although they make sure the children’s medical and dental needs are met"
The description is made to sound like a Peace Corps job - the toughest job you'll ever love. While the job is a tough one the role is not. The basic role of a Guardian ad litem is that of an investigator and nothing more. To collect the facts of a case and present them to the Judge so that a Judge can make a decision. To put it into other terms. A families life is like a movie. The Guardian ad litem puts together a preview for the Judge of the family's life. Otherwise the Judge would only have photos of what that families life was like without the input from a Guardian ad litem.
Guardian ad litem Sandy Roth - while she may be a wonderful GAL - her role it appears has expanded beyond that of what a GAL is supposed to do in the traditional sense. This is the case for Guardians ad litem across the country. It is called "mission creep". Slowly over time the courts have allowed for the role to expand into areas the GAL has no professional training for. Many GALs have anywhere from 6 to 30 hours of training over a broad range of topics to help the new GAL function in their role of investigator. Yet - as Sandy suggests - a Guardian ad litem acts as an attorney by representing the best interest of the child. That they are pseudo therapists, doctors and dentists. They act as foster parents by visiting children on a regular basis. For anyone of these roles - Lawyers, Judges, Doctors, Therapists and Foster Parents can take years of training. Yet a Guardian ad litem might have 30 hours of training at most. Who is going to do a better job? Add to the mix of this pseudo-professional a lack of any kind of oversight and management and you have a very dangerous person who is making life altering decisions for families. Give the article a look.
Full story: OCALA
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Three Million in tax payer money paid to Guardian ad litem Lawyers
One of the biggest complaints by people is the huge sums of money that Guardians ad litem bill out on jobs. Clients complain about the crippling costs and Guardians ad litem complain about how it is the clients fault for the escalated costs. In Nebraska an audit is being conducted of their Guardian ad litem system. The audit has so far shown that one law firm - Incontro - has a tax lien of $50,000 against it. Guardian ad litem payments for Incontrol Law and Monahan Law (another law firm as part of the audit) are listed at the end of the article.
WOWT 6 News
Coloring books instead of legal pads are how lawyer Thomas Incontro helps his clients. Incontro is a Guardian Ad Litem and he says, "I have to ask them some difficult questions."
His firm is the voice of children in juvenile court. Incontro says, "I’ve personally represented children that have had broken bones, who are victims of shaken baby."
Incontro's seven attorneys represents up to a thousand children as Guardian ad Litems Incontro explains "We make recommendation to the judge on children. Do we think they should be unified with a parent or go for adoption."
In the last five years Douglas county taxpayers paid Incontro law close to three million dollars A Fact FInders check of Douglas county Register of Deeds records found three Federal and one state of Nebraska tax lien against Incontro totaling about 50-thousand dollars in unpaid taxes.
Full story: WOWT 6 News
Related story:
State to audit Douglas County's guardian ad litem program
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
State to audit Douglas County's guardian ad litem program
An audit of the Guardian ad litem system is being conducted because of complaints that Guardians ad litem carry heavy case loads and the "perceived" lack of accountability - something that is seen in every state. What is interesting is that the county being audited has contracted out to a law firm to provide the Guardian ad litem services. What will they (the auditors) find? Will it be the standard "sour grapes" that court systems use to explain off complaints by parents? Or will we see that there are very real system issues as a result of Guardians ad litem being given free reign over the cases they handle?
Omaha.com
State Auditor Mike Foley plans to audit the guardian ad litem program in Douglas County.
“We’d gotten wind of some issues,” Foley said, though he declined to elaborate.
Foley contacted the county earlier about an audit, and the Douglas County Board passed a resolution Tuesday inviting one.
“It’s something we need to look at,” board Chairwoman Mary Ann Borgeson said.
Full story: Omaha.com
Federal Judge dismisses lawsuit that challenged Guardian ad litem system
This Guardian ad litem has shown up before in the news - many times. She is the poster child of what is wrong with the Guardian ad litem system in any state. There are several things that are important about this article:
1. Dr Michale Stefanov challenged his Guardian ad litem in Federal Court.
2. The Federal court dismissed the case indicating that it was an ongoing case even though the custody order was finalized back in 2010. The Judge reasoned that because the custody could be modified it was considered ongoing.
While the challenge in Federal court is not new (my lawyer had suggested this course of action) the idea that a custody is considered ongoing until - I imagine - the child is 18 is new. Does this mean that a parent who is questioning the actions of a Guardian ad litem and seeking corrective action has to wait until his/ her child is 18 before pursuing legal action in Federal court (assuming that legal action in state courts are exhausted)?
Please read further:
The Times-Tribune
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Moscow man who challenged Lackawanna County's use of court-appointed attorneys in private child custody disputes.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann on Monday said the lawsuit filed by Dr. Michael Stefanov could not be heard in federal court because it involves an ongoing matter in state court.
Dr. Stefanov filed suit in March 2012 against Lackawanna County, Judges Trish Corbett, Chester Harhut and Thomas Munley and attorney Danielle Ross, who served as guardian ad litem, a court appointed attorney who represents the interest of the child in disputed custody matters.
Dr. Stefanov claimed Mrs. Ross, who is awaiting trial on charges of income tax evasion related to her court work, violated his constitutional rights by demanding he follow her often-unreasonable directives under the threat she would preclude him from seeing his son if he did not comply.
The lawsuit also faulted the county court system, alleging judges too freely appointed Mrs. Ross to cases where her intervention was not warranted, and failed to monitor her behavior to ensure she was not violating parents' rights.
Full story: The Times Tribune
Friday, July 12, 2013
Investigation into Judge and Guardian ad litem about huge bills in one case
Yesterday we posted about Judges and Guardians as litem that felt putting children back with their abusers was in the child's best interest. One Judge was quoted as saying the mother was subconsciously "re-victimizing" her child. It begs the question - since when do Judges and Guardians ad litem also practice medicine as part of their role in the court system? They do not have the training to do so. Yet our court system on a regular basis over rides or makes medical decisions. This is done with immunity.
While thinking about the ethics involved with the "re-victimizing" of the child comment you have to ask yourself - how is it that $133,000.89 can be charged for a case. This would mean the Guardian ad litem was charging $2600 a week for the 'work' being done. Can the Guardian ad litem really believe that this cost is in the best interest of the child?
Please read the continuing saga:
Investigation: Custody experts avoid questions about huge bills in one case
FULTON COUNTY, GA (CBS ATLANTA) -
Attorney James Holmes turned around and walked to the back of his mechanic's garage as CBS Atlanta News reporter Jeff Chirico tried to ask him questions about a $133,000 bill he charged to a family in the middle of a bitter custody dispute.
As a guardian ad litem in the case, Holmes is responsible for advocating for the best interest of a 10-year-old girl whose identity CBS Atlanta News is withholding.
Last month, Fulton County Superior Court Judge John Goger ordered the girl live with her father despite allegations that he had sexually abused her. Holmes and a court-appointed custody evaluator, Howard Drutman, recommended that the girl's father receive primary custody of his daughter.
According to a document filed in the custody case, Drutman and Holmes made that recommendation because they said the mother was subconsciously "re-victimizing" her daughter by not letting her progress past the abuse
Full story: CBS Atlanta
.
Related stories and information:
Judge John J. Goger
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Protestors: Judges and Guardians ad litem are putting children back with abusers
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) -
About two dozen protestors held signs and wore neon green shirts that read "Shame on you, Judge Goger" and "Shame on you, Judge Lane" as they marched outside the Fulton County Courthouse Monday.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge John Goger came under fire because of a recent order requiring a 10-year-old girl to live with her father, who was twice arrested for abusing her in a recent custody hearing.
CBS Atlanta News is not using the names of the parties to protect the child.
The mother of the girl told CBS Atlanta News reporter Jeff Chirico that she believes the judge did not consider the evidence and was influenced by her ex-husband's attorney.
Criminal charges against the girl's father were dropped for lack of evidence, but according to court records and the mother, five independent assessments supported the girl's story of repeated abuse.
Despite the allegations, the custody evaluator and court-appointed guardian ad litem, recommended the child be placed in the father's home because the mother was subconsciously "re victimizing" the child
Full story: CBS Atlanta
About two dozen protestors held signs and wore neon green shirts that read "Shame on you, Judge Goger" and "Shame on you, Judge Lane" as they marched outside the Fulton County Courthouse Monday.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge John Goger came under fire because of a recent order requiring a 10-year-old girl to live with her father, who was twice arrested for abusing her in a recent custody hearing.
CBS Atlanta News is not using the names of the parties to protect the child.
The mother of the girl told CBS Atlanta News reporter Jeff Chirico that she believes the judge did not consider the evidence and was influenced by her ex-husband's attorney.
Criminal charges against the girl's father were dropped for lack of evidence, but according to court records and the mother, five independent assessments supported the girl's story of repeated abuse.
Despite the allegations, the custody evaluator and court-appointed guardian ad litem, recommended the child be placed in the father's home because the mother was subconsciously "re victimizing" the child
Full story: CBS Atlanta
Sunday, July 7, 2013
July 8 2013 - In the best interest of the Child - Guardian ad litem reform
Monday, July 8th is a day for Maine children and families dealing with some aspect of divorce, to celebrate. Against all odds, against our wildest expectations, in our first year of existence as "grass-roots" advocates, we have a comprehensive Guardian ad litem reform bill! And... believe it or not, Maine - dare I say it - is leading the country.
It isn't that other states haven't done bits and pieces of Guardian ad litem reform, a legislative "tweak" here or there, but, as we well know, all would-be "change agents" face awesome "headwinds". The opponents of Guardian ad litem reform as we know are truly formidable. The Guardians ad litem themselves, the family lawyers, the family court judges and the whole apparatus of the Judicial Branch, the infamous "stakeholders" know the system, know the existing law, are well organized professionally and have the financial resources to wage a political war.
But we have made good friends who have spoken the truth, ever more loudly....
We have an ever growing, much cherished group of NationalGALalert friends. We have bit by bit, using modern media, expanded our group, talked, shared and born witness to the horrors of a serious Guardian ad litem scandal in Maine's Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch's Guardian ad litem program - with no oversight, no supervision and legal codes that have further re-enforced a lack of accountability - have pursued the self interest of its workers without visible restraint. And many children and their families have been badly hurt, as a result. Despite the very defensive claims of the Judicial Branch that it is about "bad sports", people who have had a bad custody decision, this has never been the focus of our issues. Our issues are about cruelty in decision making, ignorance in practice and blind greed. Our issues are about governing structures in the Guardian ad litem program that don't work, that fail the people who need them most. Our issues are about a Guardian ad litem program data base on sheets of paper in cardboard boxes in district courts, which the Supreme Court can't regularly access for management oversight. They don't know they don't know!
Our friends have courageously born witness in public, legislative testimony.
We now have an educated legislature that has full knowledge of the Guardian ad litem problems, thanks to yeoman's work by Senator David Dutremble, Representative Lisa Villa, Senator Linda Valentino and other members of the Judiciary Committee. We have a unanimous majority of the 35 members of the Maine Senate, who see the Guardian ad litem problem. It would be hard to find legislators in denial, after an awesome "educational session" with Senator Dutremble!
It is about everyone speaking the truth about the problem with simple courage.
It is also about support from the Executive Branch of our government: meetings of the Governor and constituents on Saturdays, as people poured out their hearts about personal victimization by Guardians ad litem, and the Governor listened. It is about Executive Branch participation in planning legislation from the first meeting in December 2012. It is about personal calls from the Governor to constituents, urging them to overcome their fears and testify to the Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2013. It is about the Governor signing the bill on July 8th.
At its core, it is an improbable story of "the power of the powerless", the power of "Truth" that can't be silenced, about courage and determination.
And ... friendship!
For more information please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook. In addition if you would like to express your opinion on the cost of Guardian ad litem service of the performance of a GAL. We would encourage you to take our survey. The results will be published later this summer (2013). The surveys can be found - here - Cost Performance. Thank you.
Friday, June 28, 2013
LD872 An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine
Has passed and is waiting to be signed into law by Governor Paul LePage
For the first time in almost 40 years there is going to be some measure of oversight of Guardians ad litem in the state of Maine. Since the late 90's bills have been sponsored that have strengthened the hand of Guardians ad litem. This often came at the expense of families and ultimately the children these 'professionals' were helping. With no oversight, accountability or management Guardians ad litem have become free spirits and operated outside of the boundaries of their original role.
In 2013 with the help of Sen David Dutremble and Rep Lisa Villa - bills were sponsored that attempted to correct the imbalance that had taken over. Out of four bills LD872 survived.
Today we are on the verge of having some measure of oversight. Where hard data on what is going on with Guardians ad litem will be generated and used instead of stuffed away in the card board boxes the system currently uses.
Please thank Sen David Dutremble, Rep Lisa Villa and the Judiciary Committee for all of the hard work and personal sacrifice that has been given to make this happen.
Sen. David Dutremble can be reached at: ddutrem1@gmail.com
Rep. Lisa Villa can be reached at: villa98staterep@gmail.com
For continued insight please email NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.
For the first time in almost 40 years there is going to be some measure of oversight of Guardians ad litem in the state of Maine. Since the late 90's bills have been sponsored that have strengthened the hand of Guardians ad litem. This often came at the expense of families and ultimately the children these 'professionals' were helping. With no oversight, accountability or management Guardians ad litem have become free spirits and operated outside of the boundaries of their original role.
In 2013 with the help of Sen David Dutremble and Rep Lisa Villa - bills were sponsored that attempted to correct the imbalance that had taken over. Out of four bills LD872 survived.
Today we are on the verge of having some measure of oversight. Where hard data on what is going on with Guardians ad litem will be generated and used instead of stuffed away in the card board boxes the system currently uses.
Please thank Sen David Dutremble, Rep Lisa Villa and the Judiciary Committee for all of the hard work and personal sacrifice that has been given to make this happen.
Sen. David Dutremble can be reached at: ddutrem1@gmail.com
Rep. Lisa Villa can be reached at: villa98staterep@gmail.com
For continued insight please email NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
"Oversight" and what it means for Guardians ad litem
In the simplest terms, oversight means knowing what they do, how they spend their time. At the present no one in authority actually knows the full details. No one in the higher levels of the Judicial Branch has a complete picture of "time spent" on your case, my case, the hundreds of cases that pass through Maine's family courts. No authority knows how many cases a Guardian ad litem is handling, which courts/judges use the most Guardians ad litem. Or what is the grand total amount of every rostered Guardian ad litem's billable hours for, say, the month of May? No one knows. There is no oversight.
In a word, no one has administrative or managerial oversight of Maine's Guardian ad litem program. No one has program numbers. And ... without numbers, data, statistics, it is impossible to describe the scope and size of Guardian ad litem program problems rationally. It is impossible, to have a rational conversation between the public and various branches of government and impossible to seek rational solutions to a program that cries out for "oversight".
We would suggest that there are two kinds of "oversight", (a) oversight of ongoing cases in a divorce, which is sometimes called "case supervision", and (b) programmatic oversight, also called "programmatic administration or management". Supervision, though desirable is costly and would require a large, expensive cadre of supervisors to monitor and correct the work of Guardians ad litem. There is also the question of who would supervise the supervisors? Where would they fit in a bureaucratic chain of command?
To keep the complexities of an first-ever, Maine, oversight program relatively simple at the start, LD 872 has focused on program supervision, administrative supervision. Essentially it seeks answers to the questions about: "What are the numbers?" How is Guardian ad litem time spent? What are the billable hours? How do district courts differ in their use of Guardians ad litem? And ... are there significant differences in the profiles of individual Guardian ad litem activities? These are questions of huge interest to Maine children and families who pay dearly for this program.
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT THE Guardian ad litem's BILL: LD 872 already calls for standardization of all Maine Guardian ad litem's bills. Bills should be done monthly and should follow the itemization format used by lawyers: date, type of service, time spent, fee charged. It would cover such topics as reading e-mails, phone conversations, report writing, time spent with parties, time spent with child, collateral contacts, travel, court appearances, etc. We maintain that a standardized bill is a snapshot of what the Guardian ad litem claims to have done in any given month. It is a work activity profile. It is a record. It will be mandatory. There is minimal cost for this change.
COPIES OF ALL Guardian ad litem BILLS TO ADMINISTRATOR OF COURTS: We are strongly recommending that it should also be mandatory for all 280 rostered Maine Guardians ad litem to send electronic copies of their standardized monthly bills to the Administrators of the Courts at no charge to anyone. It would immediately, for the first time give the Judicial Branch massive amounts of hard, Guardian ad litem program data, which is currently totally lacking. It would give the necessary data for first-ever program oversight of Maine's 280 Guardians ad litem. It should prove interesting and useful to the legislature, the public and the Judicial Branch. It will help to guide beneficial program changes for Maine's Guardian ad litem program. It will be capable of answering many important program questions.
OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS FOR NEW Guardian ad litem DATA: We believe that inasmuch as the proposed oversight data is a tool, the Judicial Branch should have a primary interest in deciding how to use this new tool. They should suggest their own questions for which they want answers from the data.
But in addition to the Judicial Branch we have our own questions too.
OUR QUESTIONS: How many Guardians ad litem are at work in Maine courts each month? How many separate cases are Guardians ad litem carrying? How much time is spent in reading e-mails? Doing reports? Making phone calls? Seeing the child in the case? Travel? Court time? Which courts use Guardians ad litem the most? How do Guardian ad litem activity profiles differ? What is the range of monthly billable hours for Guardians ad litem? What is the total amount for all Guardian ad litem bills in each month? In a year? Are there associations between certain Guardians ad litem, certain lawyers and/or certain judges?
This is for starters, as a "warm-up".
WHO WOULD WORK WITH THIS DATA AND COSTING THIS ACTIVITY? We suggest that the Administrator of the courts would be the proper locus for this activity, and that it should be attached to the component already doing administrative statistics. By our reckoning the costs ought to be minimal. Billing is already being done by Guardians ad litem at no cost to the legislature, changing to a standardized billing format should not add to cost. Sending an electronic copy of all monthly Guardian ad litem's bills to the JB should be a no cost event. There is the need for a clerk to organize the data in such a manner as to answer previously defined questions. There is the need for an existing administrative statistician to provide supervision and direction.
We would suggest that all of this could be done for $75,000.00 or less, including overhead. The $200,000.00 fiscal estimate currently attached to this bill for unspecified oversight functions seems expensive. We offer a competitive idea.
For more information on Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information. In addition National GAL alert is conducting an informal survey on the cost and performance of Guardians ad litem. If you have 5 minutes we would encourage you to take one or both surveys. The data collected is being published and will be updated live in the future.
Guardian ad litem Cost Survey
Guardian ad litem Performance Survey
In a word, no one has administrative or managerial oversight of Maine's Guardian ad litem program. No one has program numbers. And ... without numbers, data, statistics, it is impossible to describe the scope and size of Guardian ad litem program problems rationally. It is impossible, to have a rational conversation between the public and various branches of government and impossible to seek rational solutions to a program that cries out for "oversight".
We would suggest that there are two kinds of "oversight", (a) oversight of ongoing cases in a divorce, which is sometimes called "case supervision", and (b) programmatic oversight, also called "programmatic administration or management". Supervision, though desirable is costly and would require a large, expensive cadre of supervisors to monitor and correct the work of Guardians ad litem. There is also the question of who would supervise the supervisors? Where would they fit in a bureaucratic chain of command?
To keep the complexities of an first-ever, Maine, oversight program relatively simple at the start, LD 872 has focused on program supervision, administrative supervision. Essentially it seeks answers to the questions about: "What are the numbers?" How is Guardian ad litem time spent? What are the billable hours? How do district courts differ in their use of Guardians ad litem? And ... are there significant differences in the profiles of individual Guardian ad litem activities? These are questions of huge interest to Maine children and families who pay dearly for this program.
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT THE Guardian ad litem's BILL: LD 872 already calls for standardization of all Maine Guardian ad litem's bills. Bills should be done monthly and should follow the itemization format used by lawyers: date, type of service, time spent, fee charged. It would cover such topics as reading e-mails, phone conversations, report writing, time spent with parties, time spent with child, collateral contacts, travel, court appearances, etc. We maintain that a standardized bill is a snapshot of what the Guardian ad litem claims to have done in any given month. It is a work activity profile. It is a record. It will be mandatory. There is minimal cost for this change.
COPIES OF ALL Guardian ad litem BILLS TO ADMINISTRATOR OF COURTS: We are strongly recommending that it should also be mandatory for all 280 rostered Maine Guardians ad litem to send electronic copies of their standardized monthly bills to the Administrators of the Courts at no charge to anyone. It would immediately, for the first time give the Judicial Branch massive amounts of hard, Guardian ad litem program data, which is currently totally lacking. It would give the necessary data for first-ever program oversight of Maine's 280 Guardians ad litem. It should prove interesting and useful to the legislature, the public and the Judicial Branch. It will help to guide beneficial program changes for Maine's Guardian ad litem program. It will be capable of answering many important program questions.
OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS FOR NEW Guardian ad litem DATA: We believe that inasmuch as the proposed oversight data is a tool, the Judicial Branch should have a primary interest in deciding how to use this new tool. They should suggest their own questions for which they want answers from the data.
But in addition to the Judicial Branch we have our own questions too.
OUR QUESTIONS: How many Guardians ad litem are at work in Maine courts each month? How many separate cases are Guardians ad litem carrying? How much time is spent in reading e-mails? Doing reports? Making phone calls? Seeing the child in the case? Travel? Court time? Which courts use Guardians ad litem the most? How do Guardian ad litem activity profiles differ? What is the range of monthly billable hours for Guardians ad litem? What is the total amount for all Guardian ad litem bills in each month? In a year? Are there associations between certain Guardians ad litem, certain lawyers and/or certain judges?
This is for starters, as a "warm-up".
WHO WOULD WORK WITH THIS DATA AND COSTING THIS ACTIVITY? We suggest that the Administrator of the courts would be the proper locus for this activity, and that it should be attached to the component already doing administrative statistics. By our reckoning the costs ought to be minimal. Billing is already being done by Guardians ad litem at no cost to the legislature, changing to a standardized billing format should not add to cost. Sending an electronic copy of all monthly Guardian ad litem's bills to the JB should be a no cost event. There is the need for a clerk to organize the data in such a manner as to answer previously defined questions. There is the need for an existing administrative statistician to provide supervision and direction.
We would suggest that all of this could be done for $75,000.00 or less, including overhead. The $200,000.00 fiscal estimate currently attached to this bill for unspecified oversight functions seems expensive. We offer a competitive idea.
For more information on Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information. In addition National GAL alert is conducting an informal survey on the cost and performance of Guardians ad litem. If you have 5 minutes we would encourage you to take one or both surveys. The data collected is being published and will be updated live in the future.
Guardian ad litem Cost Survey
Guardian ad litem Performance Survey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)