Ireland - Child guardians get €200k from agency

If you think that the United States is the only place where they have issues with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem - think again. Canada, The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. This story comes to us from the emerald island. The article points out - any person can claim to be a guardian ad litem; that the system is ‘chaotic’ and a ‘free for all’. Nothing new here for those who have had the mis-fortune of a malpracticed Guardian ad litem. Surprisingly reform is being called for by an agency that has 32 Guardians ad litem working.

Irish Examiner

Nine firms and individuals acting as guardians to children in childcare court proceedings have received sums over €200,000 each from the Child and Family Agency this year.

Figures released by Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, show that, to the end of November this year, €6.76m has been paid to guardian ad litems — court appointees who act as independent voices for children in family law cases.

The 2014 figure compares to guardian ad litems receiving €7.18m in 2013.

In response to a freedom of information request, the figures show the largest provider or guardian ad litems services in the country, Barnardos-Beacon, this year received just over €3m for the service it provides.

Full story: Irish Examiner

Nevada - State panel hires 2 experts to guide child welfare reforms

Another "Blue Ribbon Panel" has been put together to figure out what is wrong with the Family Court system. There is a very strong chance that there are no consumers on this panel to help with coming up with a possible solution. The solution that this panel will come up with will only make things worse for those within the system.

Las Vegas Review Journal

The state blue ribbon committee created to spearhead improvements to Clark County child welfare and the court system has added two additional experts to guide its work before the 2015 Legislature begins.

The state has found money to bring on board national expert Sophia Gatowski to help shape the committee’s recommendations. Consultant Stephen Rubin, a retired Arizona judge, also has been invited to work with the committee.

“This is a step, I believe, in the right direction,” Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy Saitta said Tuesday during the committee’s second meeting in Las Vegas.

The committee, appointed by Saitta, outlined some of its preliminary objectives, which include having one family work with the same judge to provide consistency as the case is resolved. The panel also wants more professional development for Family Services workers in following policy and procedure and suggested a public campaign informing the community about what foster care is and seeking foster parent volunteers.

The committee will meet a third time at 1 p.m. on Jan. 15, before the Legislature convenes Feb. 4.

Rubin said Gatowski will produce a report for the committee, which she will start writing after the January meeting. The retired judge will assist her in writing the report, which could go to the Legislature and might be made public.

Full story: Las Vegas Review Journal

Divorce Corp - Backdoor Deals and Cozy Relationships between GALs and Judges

Director Joe Sorge (DivorceCorp) interviews Maine psychiatrist and director of Maine Guardian Ad Litem Alert, Jerry Collins. They discuss the backdoor deals and cozy relationships between the guardian ad litems (GALs) and other family court professionals. Families are forced to pay outrageous fees and often get little for their money.

Learn how Guardians ad litem demand excessive fees and are essentially unregulated in their practice. It is another shocking example of the corrupt practices in US family courts.

DivorceCorp - Family Law Report: Jerry Collins Interview Part1


If you would like more information and become involved email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Indiana - This Dad Went To Prison For Trashing A Judge On His Blog, And He's Still Trying To Clear His Name

When my divorce started and the Guardian ad litem had started to show her intentions I remember coming across a posting on Dan Brewington. He is in the news again after serving 2.5 years in prison because of a free speech dispute.

Yahoo! News

 The Supreme Court recently heard a free speech dispute over a 27-year-old's angry Facebook rants, and now another guy is asking the justices to weigh in on whether his vitriolic blog posts deserve First Amendment protection.

That blogger, Dan Brewington, filed a petition in October asking the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction of violating an Indiana law against "intimidation" for writing highly unflattering blog posts about the judge  who sided against him in a custody battle.

Perhaps the worst thing in those blog posts was the repeated claim that Judge James D. Humphrey was a "child abuser," and here is how Brewington justified that claim to me: "He was taking away children from capable parents."

Brewington, now 41, already served two and a half years in prison for allegedly communicating threats to Humphrey. While he's already done his time, on Jan. 9 the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear his case and potentially overturn his conviction and clear his name.

"I've never been in trouble. I'm a friendly guy. I'm known around the neighborhood for volunteering," Brewington, who does computer-aided design from home, told me over the phone. "I don't know why they spent that much time coming after me."

Full story: Yahoo! News

Related news:
Dan's Adventures in Taking on the Family Courts

2013-02-26 USA Today - Indiana high court asked to review jailed blogger case

2013-09-25 TIL - Brewington case focuses First Amendment attention on Indiana

2014-08-07 EC 99.3 - Ind. Supreme Court Won’t Rehear Brewington Appeal

Nevada - Ex-judge Jones formally disbarred

Has anyone ever seen a Family Court Judge get removed from the bench?

Las Vegas Review Journal

The Nevada Supreme Court has officially disbarred former Family Court Judge Steven Jones.

All seven justices signed the order Dec. 5.

In September, Jones informed the State Bar of Nevada that he was giving up his law license after he pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a $2.6 million investment scheme.

As part of his plea agreement with the government, Jones also resigned from the Family Court bench. He did not seek reelection this year.

Full story: Las Vegas Review Journal


Related stories:
2014-05-02 LVRJ - Embattled Family Court Judge Steven Jones headed back to public payroll
2014-12-09 NBC3 - Former Family Court judge disbarred, awaits fraud sentence

Georgia - What did judges know about guardian ad litem issues?

This should not come as a surprise that judges - people whom many of us were taught to show respect for the position they hold. Have complaints filed against them. In Georgia - a state that has huge problems with their family courts - we have a situation where a judge (Daniel Craig) is being investigated

AUGUSTA, GA - Fox 6 WBRC

We're following up on complaints against guardians ad litem in the Augusta Judicial Circuit, including those made against former magistrate judge Doug Nelson and longtime guardian Janet Weinberger.

We now know the Judicial Qualifications Committee is investigating what superior court judge Daniel Craig may have know about complaints against Nelson. The JQC annual report said in 2013, 75% of complaints against Georgia judges were rejected. But a letter from the JQC shows they are looking into these cases.

After hearing the JQC was getting involved – we wanted to know what the superior court judges who appoint and control these guardians know about the complaints?

Judge Daniel Craig presided over multiple cases in which mothers revealed to WFXG accusations that Doug Nelson was inappropriate with them while working on their cases.

Nelson has denied all allegations of wrong-doing.

Full story: Fox 6 WBRC

Oklahoma - $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

For those who have to pay support be thankful you are not this guy. Would anyone turn down 1% of this settlement? This case is unbelievable - give it a read.

CNN Money

Sometimes a billion dollars just isn't enough.

Sue Ann Hamm, the former wife of oil billionaire Harold Hamm, plans on appealing an Oklahoma court ruling earlier this week which awarded her nearly $1 billion in the couples' divorce.

Mrs. Hamm, 58, contends the award is not fair. The couple were married for 26 years, have two children and had no prenuptial agreement. As of August, Mr. Hamm was worth over $20 billion, according to Wealth-X.

"Sue Ann is disappointed in the outcome of this case," said her lawyer Ron Barber. "She dedicated 25 years as Harold's faithful partner in family and business."

As part of the settlement, Mrs. Hamm will be paid a third of the $995.5 million by the end of the year. Her ex-husband is on a payment plan for the remaining $650 million, which he will pay in installments of at least $7 million per month.

Mrs. Hamm, a lawyer and economist, held executive positions at Mr. Hamm's oil company, Continental Resources (CLR).

Full Story: CNN Money

Ireland - No long-term solution yet to vetting of court-appointed guardians

In Ireland it is recognized that there are problems with the Guardian ad litem program they have. For many of the same reasons as can be found here in this country.

RTE

Guardians ad Litem are appointed by the courts on a case-by-case basis to provide an independent voice in childcare cases.

Their role is to represent the best interests of the child. As such they have considerable access to children, many of whom are in State care.

Sources close to the process said the Courts Service "reluctantly" agreed to take over the role in the absence of any agreement with other agencies, including the Department of Children, over who should assume responsibility for vetting.

The State spent more than €11m on fees and legal costs for Guardians ad Litem last year.

An estimated 60 Guardians ad Litem currently offer their services to the courts but the system is unregulated and there is currently no mandatory vetting of them.

The Courts Service's move follows concerns over a long period of time that the system of appointing Guardians ad Litem was ad-hoc and unregulated.

Full story: RTE

Maine - New Rules for Guardians ad litem versus or ... Judicial Discretion.

We are sure that the 78 page document spelling out a set of new Rules for Maine Guardians ad litem represents many hours of work on the part of some Judicial Branch Committee. However, to this reader, they are a very perplexing document. Exactly what are they supposed to be? Are they a job description? Are they some sort of regulations aimed at governing and bounding the work related actions of Guardians ad litem in divorce and custody (and protective) cases? Are they a set of voluntary guidelines to be followed if the GAL wishes? Are they well intentioned (but empty) ideals? What are they? It is far from clear.

Any set of Rules on paper may look fine, but their value and meaning come from whether they are enforced or not- and how. For these new Rules there appears to be no enforcement. There appears to be no consequences of any kind for not following them. There is no designated entity responsible for oversight to see if the Rules are being followed. There is nothing we can see, except for the reporting of complaints by the ‘pro se’ public. This complaint process itself is a confusing procedure guaranteed to fail. To this reader the message in the new rules seems to be: "it would be nice if Guardians ad litem learned these Rules and tried to follow them. But if they don't, not to worry. There are no consequences.

The complaint procedure speaks loud and clear to these issues. For family courts in which 74% of litigants are 'pro se', the complaint protocol spelled out in the new Rules is frankly unusable. It's complexity, its lack of instruction about "how to", its legalistic posture, its insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" even in cases needing only minor corrective action, its extreme concern about due process, makes it bullet proof against any public complaint. It also has no use as a management tool, a heads up from a member of the public that is simply aiming to improve GAL quality in cases of less serious malfunctioning. We guess that the court feels that GALs don’t need management? GALs all over Maine can heave a sigh of relief. Courts can breath easier. The complaint procedure won't be used, or, if it is used by an unaware 'pro se' litigant they won’t succeed in penetrating its airtight defenses.

For the time being, Guardians ad litem will be able to escape any consequences of ‘pro se’ public complaints, but please don’t think that this will make the GAL problems go away. They will just fester, suppurate, expand and grow larger. Sooner or later the GAL malfunctioning problems will be uncontainable and a public scandal will burst through!

The "Catch 22" about the proposed new Rules (or the current ones) is that their courtroom enforcement appears to be totally a matter of judicial discretion. They can be discarded, amended or altered if a judge- quite independently of any rules- decides to order GAL actions not covered by the Rules for Maine GALs, or ... to ignore flagrant violations. a piece of this problem- in our experience- is that many judges and many GALs lack specific, detailed knowledge of the GAL Rules and have only a "general idea" about Rules for GALs. "Judicial discretion" seems to allow for creative use of the Rules in any which way.

To many of us, the recent Maine Supreme Court appeal, the Dalton vs Dalton case, appears to tell litigants that even a well-documented carefully reasoned exposition of what looks like a gross abuse of current GAL Rules by the GAL and documentation of a similar situation by the judge risks a "contempt of court" complaint. It also risks "hand signals' to the Overseers of the Bar to open a 'sua sponte' complaint against the lawyer who dared to document the problems. The implications of this series of actions seem clear to us: any lawyer who robustly defends a client faced with dysfunctional judicial or GAL behavior is in extreme professional danger. DON'T DO IT!

The answer to correcting the dysfunctions in GALs and judges seems to be to bury the problem, until the weight of scandal and and corruption from within cannot be suppressed. A massive public cry of outrage and a demand for action ensue. The fairly recent scandals in the Catholic Church come to mind as an example. Suppression only works for a shorter and shorter period in the age of the Internet.

In our interest for reform, we are tempted to say to the Judicial Branch, "Do nothing. Let your unenforced Rules and your unusable complaint procedures stand exactly as they are. In the long run, they have within their carefully crafted attempts to control and suppress the truth (at a time when the Internet dictates that “you can run, but can’t hide”), the inevitable roots of a huge scandal, forced change and reform. We're just not there yet!

There should be an easier way for all.

We shall overcome. ... someday!

Please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com for more information.

Connecticut - Ridgefield mother claims abuse in court-appointed guardianship

Sharon Dornfeld shows up time and again as a Guardian ad litem in Connecticut who is trouble. Trouble for those divorcing families that have to dael with her.

newstimes.com

RIDGEFIELD -- Following an acrimonious divorce, Rosemary Alfredo and her ex-husband couldn't agree whether their then-23-year-old daughter, Collette, who has Down syndrome, should move with her to Boston.

Alfredo felt her daughter, who holds a job and graduated from a special college for students with intellectual disabilities, could live independently there, with help from more comprehensive Massachusetts social services.

Her father disagreed, arguing Collette should be placed in a group home in Ridgefield.

So the couple went to Probate Court, where Judge Joseph Egan appointed a guardian ad litem, Danbury attorney Sharon Dornfeld, to represent Collette's interests and make recommendations to the judge about the move.

Alfredo at first welcomed the appointment.

"I thought it was better than dealing with my ex-husband," she said.

Full story: newstimes.com

Maine - Lawyers, Divorce Industry Like Mike - Should You?

We try to stay clear of partisan politics. After all, children's welfare in divorce and custody shouldn't be a partisan issue. So we try to remain "non-partisan",

BUT ...

Quite frankly, from the perspective of our Family Court, and Guardian ad litem (GAL) reform concerns, we "Don't like Mike" - that is Mike Michaud, one of ( 3 ) candidates running for Governor of Maine. In fact we would say to our GAL and Family Court reform friends, "Vote for anyone else for Governor, but not Mike!"

It's nothing personal, Mike, its your "special interest" lawyer friends, supporters and the fundraisers who we don't like! It is Maine's divorce industry that is "hell bent for election," divorce bar lawyers raising money for "Mike" like it is going out of style and the other, so - called "impartial" divorce industry people silently cheering for "Mike". They are hoping that he wins and that his gratitude for their support will preserve the very lucrative 'status quo' in our creaky, old, dysfunctional, Family Courts.

ASK YOURSELF - WHY DOES THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY SO AVIDLY SUPPORT MIKE MICHAUD? Why are lawyers, law firms and the judicial branch supporting Mike? The financial investment they are making in Mike Michaud is an investment in keeping the family court as we know it. It is an investment in their retirements, their children's education and their way of life.

Take a look at some of Mikes supporters:

Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fund raise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;

Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".

Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.

WHY DO THEY LIKE "MIKE"?  You can bet that it isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts, and it isn't because the divorce bar wants our kind of Family Court or Guardian ad litem reform.  They expect that "Mike's" "pay back" for their financial bucks will be strong support for the "divorce bar".  Keep lawyer privilege!  Keep our family courts as they are - a gold mine for lawyers and the Divorce Industry. Keep consumers out of this unregulated "industry".  "Mike" has a political  reputation for being an obedient,  good, ol boy. The divorce bar and their good friend, Senate President Justin Alfond ( 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014; 09/23/2014 ), are banking on a tight relationship with "Mike". Alfond is reported to have already told Senators in his caucus, enough already with GAL reform; the lawyers don't like it!

WE'D BET THAT MANY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ARE ALSO SILENTLY SUPPORTING  "MIKE" TOO (and not just their "prayers and good wishes"!). He is their kind of guy; supporting the interests of the "divorce industry" and will not supporting Family Court or GAL reform - just exactly as they are.

DO YOU SUPPORT THE "DIVORCE INDUSTRY"? A vote for "Mike" supports the divorce industry and perpetuates our victim hood in Family Courts. Use you precious vote thoughtfully, carefully and in the best interest of our children. Your vote can make a difference. Please, friends, anyone but "Mike" for Governor of Maine, please!

We'd also say, check out where our candidates for the Maine Senate and House of Representatives stand on our reform issues. We're splitting our vote on these candidates depending on whether they support our family court and GAL reform positions. For us, it's not about Republican or Democrat; we call ourselves "Childocrats"!

JOIN THE CHILDOCRAT PARTY TOO!

NationalGALert is a grassroots organization and like minded people who have a vested interest in the states Family Court process and reform. Please feel free to contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Connecticut - State Spells Out New Rules for Guardian Ad Litem Conduct

The law which went into effect earlier this month has the Judicial Branch regulate how Guardians ad litem are used. A sliding fee scale was created to help control the costs associated with this role. Please read:

The Connecticut Law Tribune

When the legislature approved a bill that created new standards for guardians ad litem and counsels for minor children earlier this year, the intent was to ease disputes in the family court system.

Under the law that went into effect Oct. 1, the Judicial Branch is now required to more closely regulate how the guardians are used. A sliding fee scale was created in September that is intended to control how much low and moderate-income parents will pay for the services of attorneys and guardians appointed to represent children in divorce and custody cases.

Now the final two requirements of the law have been finalized by the Judicial Branch with the creation of Code of Conduct for guardians ad litem and an informational website page to help inform the public about GAL and other services available for those with family law matters.

According to the Code of Conduct, which is now posted on the Judicial Branch website, guardians ad litem will have 24 new requirements to adhere to. The code requires all guardians ad litem to provide "competant representation," and treat all parties of family court proceedings with "respect, fairness and good faith."

Full story: The Connecticut Law Tribune

North Carolina - Outreach founder charged with child abduction

While it appears that this person was not a Guardian ad litem it does make for interesting reading.

By Michael Todd - Michael.Todd@JDNews.com

A community outreach founder — whose website says the woman is an ordained minister with a degree in criminal justice — appeared in court Tuesday, accused of impersonating a social worker and abducting a 3-year-old girl from the child’s father, according to court documents.

Jeanette Medleycott-Lopez, 43, of Poodle Lane in Holly Ridge was charged Friday by Onslow County Sheriff’s Office with misdemeanor impersonation of law enforcement and abduction of children.

Warrants list a Hubert address for the complainant.

Medleycott-Lopez — whose name also appears as “Jeanette Lopez” in other court documents — is accused of telling the child’s father that she was a Department of Social Services worker and Guardian Ad Litem court advocate for children, according to warrants.

Full story: JDNews.com

Opinion: In Defense Of Self-Represented Litigants

A strong piece on the issues of having Pro Se litigants.

The Connecticut Law Tribune

Despite the economic barriers to justice faced by struggling Connecticut families, rising from the ashes of the highly charged public debates over how to reform the family courts is a shockingly insensitive outcry from court industry insiders demonizing the 85 percent of divorcing parents who have chosen to invest in their families instead of attorneys.

Tauck v. Tauck was perhaps the most inefficient and expensive trial in Connecticut family court history, spanning over five years, 600-plus filings, and ending in an 86-day trial in 2007 that played out before Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone on Middletown's Regional Family Trial Docket. According to the Hartford Courant, the family paid out some $13.3 million in fees to the dozens of legal industry professionals on the case, including $1.3 million paid (without challenge) to attorney Gaetano Ferro, the children's guardian ad litem.

For further reading: The Connecticut Law Tribune

UK - Cuts to legal aid force parents to defend themselves in family court cases

Not all that long ago 43% of the parents who showed up in Family Court were representing themselves. Last year that figure rose to 58% of the parents. In the UK there is a growing concern about access to justice as this figure for self representation continues to rise. Yet in the US there is little to no public concern yet - about access to justice. The problem is far worse in many states than in the UK. 85%, 84%, 74% and so on is the percentage of parents in the US representing themselves and this figure continues to rise.

The Independent

The number of parents forced to represent themselves before the family courts jumped by 20,000 last year following the withdrawal of legal aid for almost all family cases, official figures obtained by The Independent show.

The increase means that for the first time more than half of parents - 58 per cent - went into court without a lawyer fighting their case in 2013/14. Many were mothers from poor backgrounds.

In the previous year, before legal aid changes came in, just 43 per cent of parents before the family courts were not represented by lawyers.

The Government argued that cutting legal aid to family law would mean parents solved their disputes through mediation rather than battling in court. But in fact, the new figures show there was an annual increase in the number of parents resorting to the courts for child contact and residency battles after legal aid was withdrawn for most private family law issues in April 2013.

For further reading: The Independent

National - What Would You Do if You Were A Guardian ad litem?

Imagine you are a Guardian ad litem tasked with making a recommendation on a case and you have the following to deal with:

One member has just accused the other of molesting the child of this divorcing family. You recommend that the accused has only supervised visits with this child. The Family Court Judge backs up your recommendation.

But there is a twist

You see the accused has another child with another partner. What do you do?

1. You do nothing - that child is not a party to the divorce.
2. You recommend that the accused parent can only have supervised contact with both children because that parent poses a threat to both of them.
3. You have Child Protective Services come in and determine whether or not the accused is really a threat.

Tell us what you would do - Either add a comment here or click this link which opens up in a new TAB or window.

The results will be published on Monday 7/8/2014

Scotland UK - Scottish children don't need these government spies

Big Brother appears to be coming to Scotland with a state sponsored Guardian of all of the children in Scotland. Peeking through the keyholes of families to make sure that the states children are eating properly, going to bed on time and behaving correctly according to the state standards. It is surveillance of Scottish Families that is supported and endorsed by Scottish National Party (SNP).

Scottish children don't need these government spies

The Guardian

The SNP's proposal to allow state guardians to be named for every child in Scotland is interfering and unhelpful

The SNP's disturbing, seven-year obsession with looking through the nation's keyholes to ensure we are all behaving, sitting straight, eating properly and getting to bed early continues. It is surely only a matter of time before the Scottish government's children's minister, Aileen Campbell, is invited to North Korea to make a presentation on how her party has managed to secure such coast-to-coast state surveillance of families without any bad publicity.

Last Wednesday night, the government effectively paved the way for official surveillance of family life by allowing for state guardians to be appointed for every child in Scotland. The move is part of the SNP's otherwise sound and thoughtful children and young people bill, which also guarantees free school meals for children in primary year one to three and a significant increase in nursery provision. This interventionist, hand-wringing party of state busybodies simply cannot help itself, though, and they ruined the tenor of the legislation with their state guardians.

For further information:

2014-02-22 The Guardian - Scottish children don't need these government spies

Missouri - Alicia Napalan - Money means custody in Family Courts

By Alicia Napalan
West Plains, Missouri

Recently I went through a divorce. I was unable to afford an attorney, while my ex-husband was. I was denied legal aid, twice, due to a lack of funds. My husband was granted full custody of my four year old son. I have one weekend of supervised visitation. I have to pay him $100 per each visitation. As well as $3500 for his attorneys fees in 60 days. All because I was expected to have the same amount of knowledge in representing myself as someone who spent years in law school. I have a job, a car, my own place, I don't do drugs, and my son wasn't abused. Clearly, justice can't be done when one party is represented while the other is not.

In the large amount of time I spent in court, I saw crying mothers over and over, asking the judge what to do, and repeating that they can't afford an attorney. And the judge is only allowed to respond with, "you are expected to know, if you represent yourself. I cannot give you legal advice." The Legal Service Corporation is largely responsible for the funding for state legal aid programs. Even though the budget is 350 million, with supplemental funding from LSC, the total amount of legal aid available for civil cases is still grossly inadequate.

According to LSC's widely released 2005 report "Documenting the Justice Gap in America: The Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans", all legal aid offices nationwide, LSC-funded or not, are together able to meet only about 20 percent of the estimated legal needs of low-income people in the United States.

I lost custody of my child, because I could not do enough research on my own, to stand up against an attorney who had been in practice for years. Hard solid evidence I had was not accepted by the judge because a lack of foundation. 90% of what came out of my mouth was objected to. All on top of the fact that I have social anxiety, and fear of speaking to people and crowds.

I'm requesting that Congress grant more funding for LSC so that more low income families may have a chance at justice. So those extra funds can trickle down to all State Legal Aid programs. It wasn't a piece of furniture I was fighting for. It was my child. And I lost him because I lack funds.

I'm terrified of the emotional Impact It will have on my child being away from me. If I miss my deadline to pay for my visitation, my ex-husband refuses to let me see him. And its getting increasingly harder to make that deadline because he is garnishing my wages for the attorneys fees the judge granted I pay him. I believe with an increase in funding for legal aid services, more families will have a chance at justice, and be spared the same hardships I'm going through.

Alicia Napalan can be found on Facebook. Alicia represents a significant problem that is growing daily. Access to Justice within the Family Court system. The national average of 'Pro se' representation is over 50% with some states over 75% of parents representing themselves (Maine 74%, Connecticut 82% and New York at 85%). This is a two tiered system of justice between the haves (those who are able to afford legal representation) and the have not's (those who are not able to afford representation). NationalGALalert is trying to bring about reform to the Family Court system. If you are interested in helping then please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com of like us on Facebook.

Connecticut: Mark Dubois: Anti-GAL Crowd Gives Rules Committee An Earful

The comments offer more insight than the writer who takes writes form the perspective of many lawyers. That parents/ consumers are "sour grapes" and that the divorce industry, GALs and judges are being bashed - we just don't understand as parents/ consumers......

The Connecticut Law Tribune

If what I saw the other day at the Rules Committee hearing on proposed Practice Book changes is any indication, the Judicial Branch (and all of us) are in for a rough year ahead.

For those who have never attended a Rules Committee hearing, it is commonly believed that things are pretty well set by the time they get to hearing stage and, absent some major upset or error, what has been proposed will be recommended to the judges for adoption after a pro forma airing. That was not to be the case this time, however.

I knew something was up when I uncharacteristically arrived a half-hour early and found a line of folks signing up to testify stretching out of the Supreme Court courtroom into the foyer. One of them was clearly their manager, as he walked back and forth giving advice on how to sign up anonymously and how some folks might want to pool their time to make a longer argument. I rightly guessed that this bunch were from the anti-GAL/AMC crowd, but I had no idea what was to follow.

Full story: The Connecticut Law Tribune

If you are interested in bringing about Family Court reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Connecticut - 'Astronomical' Fees Assessed To Lawyer Who Testified For GAL Reform

The Connecticut Law Tribune

 A Connecticut lawyer who publicly voiced his concerns about high costs of guardians ad litem services was shocked by the timing of an Appellate Court decision in his own divorce case.

Just one business day after Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law a measure that will provide greater oversight of GALs and their fees, the court approved $252,000 in fees for two court-appointed child advocates. Some pro se parents who lobbied for GAL reform said they had been devastated financially by bills that were only a fraction as large.

The appeal was filed by Paul Greenan, a former Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom trusts and estates lawyer who now has a practice in Stamford. He claimed in court documents that the GAL and attorney for minor children appointed in his divorce case collectively spent just four-and-a-half hours with his two children, though that total was in dispute.

Full story: The Connecticut Law Tribune

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

We welcome this chance to publish the final two steps in an appeal to Maine's Supreme Court, the Dalton vs Dalton case. Step II, which follows here, is attorney Susan Bixby's reply to Beth Maloney's original brief.  Maloney’s brief, published here earlier, got the appeal process started. Step III is Maloney’s rebuttal of Bixby.

Along with our presentation here of the final two steps, we offer our layman’s observations and reactions to the 'arcana' of legal strategy used by these lawyers for a family court appeal.  Our non-expert, "grass roots" response to both pieces of writing is philosophical and common sense - not legal.  The philosophical flaws we see in both documents are about the basic human assumptions, the investigative process and the judicial decisions behind the  classic lawyerly strategies for how the "contentious divorce” (and its appeal) gets played.  For what it's worth, here is our personal take on the final two lawyerly exchanges in the Dalton v Dalton debate:

II.) SUSAN BIXBY'S APPROACH:

As we read it, Ms Bixby uses an all too common divorce strategy: to communicate by strong  inference that suburban housewife and mother of three children, Sarah Dalton, is a dangerous woman around children.  You may note that Bixby carefully comes close to the line of actually charging child abuse, but doesn't ever  cross it.  In her well designed response to the Maloney brief, Bixby strongly hints that, if Ms Dalton were left alone with her kids, God alone knows what bad - but unspecified - things might happen.  In tone it is all very subjunctive, speculative and scary.  She never crosses the line dividing hints of possible abuse from actual charges of abuse - for good reason.  It would end the family court hearings and - after investigation, might place the charge in criminal court, where a trial by jury would probably clear Ms Dalton of the "hints" of abuse issue.

Clearly, Ms Bixby's client , Mr. Dalton, is indirectly represented as wanting an “exclusive” - all of his children all of the time. No sharing. No concern about the children's need for a maternal parent. It is a hardball, legalistic "abuse game" right out of the movie, "Divorce Corp". Take no prisoners! The Bixby presentation raises the question in this reader's mind: "What exactly makes Ms Dalton 'unfit' as a mother , and after all of these years as a mother is she suddenly ‘nouveau’ abusive?"  And, another puzzle, why is she presented as, so far, being  immune to corrective therapy?  It is so stereotyped a legal strategy of demonizing a custody opponent as almost to be out of the tabloids!

Bixby, by her numerous claims that Maloney has ignored the "Rules of Evidence" more than implies that her legal opponent is dim and ignorant of how to use the "Rules of Evidence".  Tut tut!  As non-lawyers, what can we say?  The always meticulous, compulsive, detail-oriented Maloney, it is implied, needs to go back to the "Rules" book and bone up!  There is also an unmistakable hint from Bixby that Maloney needs lessons in legal etiquette and propriety. "Aggressive lawyering" is the operant phrase but there is more innuendo of absent professional refinement.

But read Part II, the Bixby reply and see what you think: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 Bixby's response.

To read the initial brief that was filed in February 2014 please follow this link: An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: DaltonVs. Dalton CUM-13-521.

If you have had problems in Family Court with a judge or Guardian ad litem please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

Georgia - Columbia County judge resigns over misconduct allegations

The Augusta Chronicle

A Columbia County magistrate judge resigned his office Thursday amid allegations that he had behaved inappropriately toward women he had encountered as a guardian ad litem, officials said.

Doug Nelson, who had been a magistrate judge since 2007, submitted his resignation at the Evans courthouse, said Columbia County Chief Magistrate Judge Jason Troiano. It was effective immediately, Troiano said.

Nelson had been notified earlier Thursday that Troiano had taken him off the court calendar and intended to refer him to the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Com­mission.

“While it is inappropriate to comment on the matter, I take the allegations very seriously,” Troiano said in a statement. “The integrity of Columbia County Magistrate Court and the judicial process are of utmost concern.”

At least two women have accused Nelson of inappropriate remarks and touching while serving as a court-appointed guardian ad litem in their divorce cases, court officials said.

Full story: The Augusta Chronicle

Maine - Is Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz promotion good for Maine's Families and children?

It is now official that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has been named Deputy Chief of Maine's District Courts. He is taking over from Deputy Chief Judge Mullen who is moving on to a Superior Court position.  How Moskowitz was selected and why he was selected among all of Maine's many district judges is a mystery to the public (and to the Legislature for that matter). Has he been promoted because of outstanding knowledge, skill and experience - or skills be damned - he is a "Buddy" of the courts? 

The soon to be Deputy Chief Judge Moskowitz has been a judge since 2008 and has had an interesting career in that time with many challenges and much controversy.

Starting with the case of Dr Lori Handrahan in 2008 and ending with the Dalton v Dalton case of 2013 there have been countless parents (and their children) that have reported suffering from decisions made in his courts. The Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz is one of four judges whose names consistently are reported to us by divorcing families as victims of his actions - after often high handed courtroom management and decisions that are hard to understand.

Though we do not know him personally, The Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has been repeatedly and consistently characterized by others as being irritable, harsh and  lacking in basic courtesy towards those in his court. This has been an especially common report from those who are represented  'pro se'. Intimidation by the judge, criticism of their lack of legal knowledge and courtroom sophistication is a complaint of those forced to do "pro se" by their inability to afford a lawyer (74% of cases). The judges attitude compounds the statistically huge "access to justice" problem. Being treated by a judge like a "low life" does not improve the confidence of already frightened people. We hear reports that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has displayed a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding to the rules for Guardians ad litem - This is the yardstick for measuring a Guardian ad litem's performance. Yet, as deputy chief judge he will now be responsible for handling complaints regarding Guardians ad litem. Is there no better judge to have responsible than someone who is reported to have no clear concept of the rules governing those he is responsible to manage.

The Drug Court that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz rules over is reported in the press to be a conflicted mess straying from its original blueprint, and a legal challenge has been raised by the Superior Court in Bangor about violations of the constitutionally mandated due process that many users of those courts receive. There is also the issue raised of flagrant 'ex parte' communications that the teamwork design of drug courts makes unavoidable and inevitable.

We ask: is Moskowitz the caliber of judge we want in our court? Has the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz truly had such a brilliant jurist as to warrant a highly significant, influential and pivotal promotion? Is he a respected leader in law and justice? Or is it because there is so much controversy surrounding this judge that by moving him upstairs  Chief Justice Saufley et al are better able to keep an eye on his functioning?

Enough complaints of damage and abuse have been reported by divorcing families entering this court house that we feel it is time for an outside inquiry, a formal legislative audit of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz' courts as well as the District Courts in general. In addition to our call for an audit by the legislature, the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz is coming up for review of his appointment in 2015 - it is time for people to let our representatives know how we, the public access this Judge.


If you have suffered through Judicial abuse - either through the hands of a Judge or Guardian ad litem we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

Related articles where the Hon Jeffery Moskowitz has had some influence:

PPH - Maine attorney general enters fray over divorce case

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

Pennsylvania - Former Guardian ad litem Danielle Ross asks Judge for Probation

PA Homepage

A former Guardian ad litem (GAL) from Lackawanna County PA has asked a judge for leniency with her sentencing which was scheduled for Wednesday 04/16/2014.

Danielle Ross the former GAL is asking for probation after pleading guilty to income tax evasion.





Full story: PA Homepage

Maine - Credibility determinations are left to the sound Judgment of the trier of Fact

One (out of many) of our favorite quotes from a Maine Supreme Court decision has the ring of final authority that is almost biblical.  To us, it  effectively seems to say, folks,on this sacred verity there is no possible rebuttal.  It’s almost, “God is speaking!”  But, ... and not to disrespect God, here is the quote- and our rebuttal:

SUPREME COURT: “ NO PRINCIPLE OF APPELLATE REVIEW IS BETTER ESTABLISHED THAN THE PRINCIPLE THAT CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ARE LEFT TO THE SOUND JUDGMENT OF THE TRIER OF FACT”.

OUR REBUTTAL: To us, this is a statement of a nice ideal, or a “wish-it-were-true”- not the reality that the public experiences. If all judges possessed super human "infallibility", it might be true.  But they don't.  They are subject to human error, just like all other mortals.  In the case that lead to this quote, the judge was far from infallible about Guardians ad litem. He gave a vivid indisputable demonstration of his legal fallibility, when he improperly  referred a complaint about the Guardian ad litem in an active case that he was judging to the Chief Judge of the District Courts. Key issues: (a) the case was being actively argued in HIS court.(b) by the “rules” as stated on the Judicial Branch web site, he himself  is supposed to address and judge the merits of  complaints about Guardians ad litem in active cases in his court.

Despite being told by the untrained  'pro se' plaintiff that he was mistaken in making this referral he insisted on making this very inappropriate referral in violation of the Maine Rules for Guardians ad litem. If he didn't know the actual written Rules for Guardians ad litem with respect to complaints against Guardians ad litem, one has to  ask what else didn't he know about the Rules governing Guardians ad litem, and how could he judge a GAL's functional performance, absent full knowledge of the standards for the job?

The God-like quote above is a clear example of demonstrated  bias that favors an inept, uninformed judge, and it disfavors the ironically more informed  party who was represented 'pro se'. The decisions coming out of this flawed process both shape and distort  the actual facts to maintain an image that all is well in the courts, both probate and Supreme. This is not true in this case where the language of the decision and the actions of the lower court attempt to bamboozle a 'pro se' representative with statements that are provably false.

The court's decision raises a serious question about public "access to justice" and a constitutionally guaranteed "equal protection of the laws (for everyone)"! A 'pro se' representative, even with some "home study" can never match the skills of an experienced lawyer or the highly empowered (though in this case an uninformed) judge. It is an unequal legal conflict between "a peashooter vs a cannon".

So much for “CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ARE LEFT TO THE SOUND JUDGMENT OF THE TRIER OF FACT!

Maine has a 74% ‘pro se’ problem. 74% of court cases are receiving unequal access to  justice in Maine courts. It is a class discrimination “secret” that flies under the radar. It violates the US Constitution. For constitutional compliance and respect for “the rule of law” it needs correction asap!

For support please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com and you may also find us on Facebook.

Connecticut - Emotions Run High At Hearing on Guardian Ad Litems - SB 494

In another emotional and charged scene parents once again spoke to their Representatives at the Judiciary Committee regarding a bill that was before them - SB 494. This is how as a parent you can bring about change to an abusive system. While your own personal experience my be compelling it alone will not bring about the change needed to reform Family Court. Parents/ consumers in Connecticut have succeeded - regardless of whether this bill goes far enough or not. Change is coming and it takes time.

CT News Junkie

Rep. Dan Carter, R-Bethel said he remembers the first time he had a constituent bring the issue up to him.

“I thought she was off her rocker. She was sending me so much information that I couldn’t absorb it. I finally spoke to her, I sat down and got to know her,” he said. “I found out that this group of people may appear nuts to us. You know why? Because they’ve lost their kids. Because they’re victims of what they feel like is an unfair system.”

Many of the parents believe the family court system fosters prolonged custody battles for the benefit of the guardians and consultants affiliated with the court. Some reported GAL bills in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Colleen Buden told the committee that “parents are treated like criminals” in family court.

“Almost all the cases are the same. It’s the Connecticut family court playbook — the targeted parent is accused of having a mental illness. At that point the targeted parent hires professionals to fend of the allegations but once you clear one allegation along comes another. It’s endless. Most allegations come from the guardian ad litem,” she said.

Full story: CT News Junkie

Will your online petition make people aware of the issue?

You are upset because the system has betrayed you - you want to take action and show that they are wrong, corrupt or biased. What do you do - get an online petition going to show the powers that there is a problem and that people back you up. Before you go to one of many sights that offer up online petitions are you prepared to do some hard thinking and ask yourself some difficult questions before posting that petition?

Some things to think about while you contemplate the idea:

GOALS: It is critically important to have clear aims for any petition.  Who are you petitioning?  Exactly what do you want them to do?  Do they have the legal power/authority to do it?  Are they apt to respond to an Internet petition?  Have they ever responded to a similar petition like yours before?  Have you tried other methods to solve the problem about which you are petitioning?

NUMBERS NEEDED? How many petitioners do you think you can get to sign your petition?  Beyond your family and friends are there a large number of people who understand the issues you are raising and who will back you because they share the  views you express in the petition?  How many signers will you need to have any significance?  For an in-state project, it might take several thousand signers before anyone takes notice.  For a national project you will need hundreds and hundreds of thousands.  You are aiming to make a grass roots statement of political power.  Can you get the numbers to "speak" power? How?  Large organizations and governments don't respond to midgets.

DEFAULT POSITION: If the petition falls flat- with little to no response or action- what is your fallback plan?  Shouldn't you have other ideas in mind, or do you just drop it?

RISK MANAGEMENT: What are the risks for you and others who might sign an Internet petition?  Have you run the petition idea by your lawyer and/or others with experience?  Is it well-written and clear; does it avoid name calling or slander?  Have you considered whether the petition will make matters better or worse?  What if it fails to get the desired response?  Will it improve or damage your image, your credibility, your thinking, your ideas, your original aim?  Are there legal ramifications that can come back to bite you and those who sign the petition?  If the petition fails in its expressed aims will there be backlash?  Will it infuriate others in the system you are petitioning - and cause them to close their ranks?

DISTRACTION: Is the petition a waste of time in the sense of being a time-consuming distraction from actual things you might do with less risk and greater potential payoff?  Are you avoiding the hard emotional work that might have greater benefit?

Getting 25 or 50 of your friends to sign your petition is probably useless. They are signing it just for that reason - being your friend or family member. On the other hand if you talk with 25 or 50 strangers of which some end up signing is in the end more beneficial to your cause. You have created an awareness of your issue which you can then build upon. To put it another way - a person in power can ignore hundreds or even thousands of signatures. It becomes harder though to ignore 25, 30 or more who are screaming at their door - writing letters and becoming involved in your cause.

REMEMBER: The American Revolutionary players tried unsuccessfully to petition King George.  The fallback position was the Committees of Correspondence and then the  Revolutionary War.

Connecticut - Public Service Announcement - Guardians ad litem have feelings please be sensitive

Recently Guardians ad litem have come under intense scrutiny in Connecticut for their actions in family court. They are crying that the role is mis-understood by consumers and the public in general. It is so bad that Guardians ad litem have asked to be withdrawn from cases. Is this because they feel that in doing so it is in the best interest of the child(ren) they represent? Or because for the first time their actions are coming under more scrutiny? Presented here are two articles from the Connecticut Law Tribune:

GALs Are Withdrawing From Cases As Court Reform Tensions Grow

Connecticut Law Tribune

Increasingly angry tactics have been pervading the public inquiry into family court custody reform, triggering a fight-or-flight response from top members of the family bar.

Some are ready to throw in the towel, or at least take a long time out.

Dozens of lawyers who work as guardians ad litem (GALs) or attorneys for minor children are in the process of withdrawing their representation, or are no longer accepting such appointments.

For example, in the past 30 days, Steven Dembo, of Hartford's Berman, Bourns, Aaron & Dembo, has asked to withdraw from four of his eight Guardian ad litem appointments. The requests are due in part to increasing attacks of the work done by Guardians ad litem on Internet websites and Facebook pages highlighting problems in Connecticut's family courts.

Full story: The Connecticut Law Tribune

Editorial: Legislature Considers Guardian Ad Litem Reform

The Connecticut Law Tribune

Appointed by judges to represent the interests of children in custody disputes, Guardians ad litem typically operate below the radar of public opinion. But in recent weeks, they have come under a microscope.

GALs were a focal point of a state task force looking into family court costs. They are primary targets of advocates who say they are upset that custody disputes have become far too expensive for the average person to wage, and that GAL fees reaching $30,000 or more are unconscionable.

They have captured the attention of legislators, some of whom have already expressed determination to increase oversight of GALs. And they have prompted a rare newspaper column by the state's chief justice, who agrees that some reforms are needed.

Full story: The Connecticut Law Tribune

It is well worth reading the comments posted by others.

Connecticut - Opinion: Family Court System Expensive, Inefficient And Abusive

Connecticut Law Tribune

On Feb. 26, there was a historic vote at the state Capitol in which family court Judge Leslie Olear was only narrowly reappointed by the legislature. This vote came after public protests which gained media attention and after legislators were called into action to address the serious problems in our state's family courts. After this vote, some members of the legal community understandably rushed to defend Judge Olear, claiming that the votes against her were politically motivated and only in response to complaints being expressed by a "small number of family court critics." This is simply not the case.

This vote came after scores of parents, adult children of divorce, grandparents, attorneys and business executives testified until the early morning hours in front of a task force in January, after more than 630 parents signed a petition demanding legislative reforms of the family court's broken guardian ad litem (GAL) system, and after legislators were inundated with thousands of complaints about our family courts from parents, as consumers of the family court system's services.

Full story: Connecticut Law Tribune


Related stories:
Connecticut Law Tribune - Opinion: Judge Became Pawn In Debate Over Family Court Issues

Connecticut - Opinion: Judge Became Pawn In Debate Over Family Court Issues

Kim Knox opens with placing the blame of the parent/ consumer and not on the Judges - especially not the 'Honorable Leslie Olear' who - because of circumstance finds herself on the hot seat. As the old saying indicates "what goes around comes around" - it would appear 'Honorable Leslie Olear' is getting what she deserves.

Connecticut Law Tribune

The Honorable Leslie Olear came before the General Assembly for reappointment on Feb. 26, having served the previous eight years with a stellar record. By all accounts, she is the type of judge that Connecticut deserves and needs: smart, hard-working and committed to doing what is fair and just.

But Olear had the misfortune of being a sitting family law judge when the reappointment vote was cast, and thus became a pawn in a highly charged, politically sensitive debate over structural issues in the family courts – a debate in which a small number of family court critics appear to be using the reappointment process as a means to give voice to their dissatisfaction about the functioning of that all-important docket within the Judicial Branch.

Full story: Connecticut Law Tribune

Related stories:
Connecticut - Opinion: Family Court System Expensive, Inefficient And Abusive

Washington - Families' futures decided with little oversight

This article puts into perspective the issues that surround parent evaluators, Guardians ad litem and other court sanctioned divorce industry businesses/ people. Quite often the methods used in testing parents are questionable relying on junk science or psycho-eugenics to determine a parents ability to parent.



Seattle PI

In the field of family law, a little-examined group of professionals has enough influence to separate fathers from children and relegate mothers to weekends-only status, based on little more than an opinion.

So-called parent evaluators need no particular credentials or training. They may use any method they wish, charge what they please and remain virtually free of oversight. Yet their word can upend families in a single stroke.

In recent decades, as dockets have become clogged with warring parents battling for custody of their children, overwhelmed judges have turned increasingly toward this cluster of psychologists and social workers for guidance. But as there is almost no check on their influence, any human foible might result in a faulty or unfair report -- with enormous implications for those families under the microscope.

Full story: Seattle PI

For more information please find us on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com.

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

It isn’t often that most people have a chance to read an actual divorce and custody story that is being appealed to Maine’s Supreme Court, as we write this.  Child custody appeals are relatively rare. Most people, who might wish to appeal, are intimidated by the process; many are discouraged by lawyers, who don’t wish to offend a lower court judge by asking a higher court to intervene and correct a decision. Then, there is the huge amount of work involved and the not inconsiderable expense.

The process starts with a heartfelt disagreement with a lower court judgment and with the handling of the law in that court. It requires courage to challenge a family court judgment. It also always embodies a determined love of one’s child (children). In effect the appellant is very publicly saying - but in polite legal language - to the court, “You are dead wrong!  Your judgment is not only unfair but badly arrived at. The tools you are using and the reasoning process are seriously defective!  I strongly protest!”  How a skilled attorney approaches this problem and chooses the most important issues out of a welter of possible “plots, subplots and very involved stories” is a matter of legal judgment. Most of us, as parents and family would get lost in a morass of the details that go into a custody fight. The enclosed brief of this particular case demonstrates the vitally necessary partnership between lawyer and client. It is a union of “heart and courage” and ”head” - the level, focused intellectual crafting of the case essentials by a lawyer. It will be, I guarantee you, a most interesting and informative “read”.

We’ve been hearing from family members some of the unbelievable details of this case, Dalton vs Dalton, for just over a year. We have held our breath each time there has been a court hearing, hoping for fairness, for a reasonable turn of events, for a review of hard facts and for correction of a frightening nightmare of misperception being acted out in court. But the process seemed only to get worse as time went on. The extreme and inaccurate views of the court and a Guardian ad litem have, unfortunately, become ever more rigidly entrenched. Hence, the difficult decision to appeal.

We have to say, in no way to diminish this very troubling case, that from our experience with many other friends, the clumsy handling of this case in this court is, unfortunately, by no means unique. This case is a poster child for other very similar cases, and it is an urgent clarion call for urgently needed Family Court Reform in Maine. Like most Family Courts in America today, Maine’s courts are in the views of many, badly broken, dysfunctional and urgently in need of reconceptualization and reconstruction. They have lost their moorings in the law, and they are cruelly hurting many of the families and children that they are supposed to serve.

Please, read the enclosed pdf with the details of the Supreme Court Appeal and see what you think.  By all means, share it with friends and legal professionals.  Ask the questions: “Is this how our courts should function?  Is this your image of what you would expect from a court in a democratic society?”

Finally, who is in charge, where’s the oversight?

To view the case click on the link - Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521

For more information please contact MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook

Utah - Bill that would provide jury trials in parental rights termination proceedings advances to House

Desert News

SALT LAKE CITY — Legislation that would give parents the option of requesting a jury trial to decide whether their parental rights should be terminated cleared a House committee Friday.

The House Health and Human Services Committee voted 5-4 to give HB318 a favorable recommendation.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, said the legislation is intended to uphold parents' fundamental liberty interests guaranteed by the Constitution.

"You have state officials, whether it's the attorney general, the guardian ad litem, (the Division of Child and Family Services) or the juvenile court themselves, they're there repeatedly. This is what they deal with. Then one individual comes in wanting due process of law. One individual comes in wanting to know their constitutional rights will be honored," Christensen said.

Full story: Desert News

Family Court Abuse - A Parents Perspective

Dear Dr. Collins (et al):

I cannot thank you enough for all that you do for the impoverished, broken, and voiceless.

I thank everyone within the NationalGALalert circles for the pro-active stance that has opened doors once thought closed.

Our family's case is literally "killing" my almost 16 year-old daughter; that was her description - just yesterday - of how the numerous adversarial & prolonged family court procedures have adversely effected her.

At present, she is being held against her will within her dad's home: the Guardian ad litem (GAL) failed to hear her pleas of wanting desperately to move back in with her mother {me}. Additionally, the 2014 court order legally permits her father from allowing her visitation with her mother {me}.

The last GAL failed us on several occasions submitting an 18 page report filled with subjective information - mostly inaccurate & malicious information -- provided to her by my former husband.

The system has failed our family in 2009-2010 and in 2012 to present: both of us parents have considerable legal debt.

I am still in shock over the final judgment given to me just 2 days after I appeared in Portland (01/14/2104) to testify that I have been unable to contact Mary Ann Lynch via email.

I know both myself and my daughter suffer from a form of PTSD as a result of the on-going post-divorce conflict initiated by my former husband but fanned and fueled by those within the divorce industry.

Those who want to point fingers can point to my former husband or to me BUT the truth is, my former husband would not have been able to succeed in financially impoverishing me without the support of the divorce industry.

Collectively, our family has lost so much; the most tragic loss -- something that cannot be replaced -- is my young daughters childhood. Both teens suffer separately and differently from the conflict that results from drawn-out and highly contentious court proceedings.

Conflict is all that she knows / they know; the divorce industry knowingly or unknowing gave my former husband positive reinforcement every time he sought legal counsel to take me back to court -- twice since our original 2006 divorce.

Each consecutive court process took twice as long as the prior and the costs involved doubled from the previous process. I was just getting out of legal debt from the 2009-2010 process when my former took us back to court in 2012. That process lasted 18 plus months and cost me over $20,000 when I only earned $10,000 in 2012 and $12,000 in 2013 (I was a full-time USM student until this past May).

Presently, my debt is so astronomical that that my ability to pay court ordered child support {calculated - mind you -  on a salary that I did not actually earn} has been greatly hindered: how is any of this in the best interest of either teen? Or, the Maine tax payers? Or, to our society???

As a result of the collusion between the divorce industry and my former husband, my daughter has fallen deeper and deeper into a depressions; she has twice attempted to end her life {May and September of 2013}.

Maine care has picked up all of the costs for her medical care. Maine tax payers are footing the bill and , we as a society, are potentially losing a once energetic, civic-minded, and highly accomplished student to a major depression and self-harming behaviors both beginning after she was taken out of my home in 2010 and placed in the care of her dad.

I suggest that the mayor and the divorce industry consider a "Truth and Reconciliation Act" in order to acknowledge the pain and suffering that has taken place -- for decades upon decades -- as a result of such a broken system.


Since 2006, I have suffered - as well as the two minors -- enormous losses:

1. Loss of primary home in 2010;
2. Loss of $100,000 equity in that primary home (2012 York, Maine);
3. Loss of all material possessions sold off to pay down legal debt;
4. Loss of family pet as former husband adopted the dog out of the family once he was granted custody of both minors and their dog in 2010.
5. Decrease in credit score by 100 points due to inability to pay mortgage on primary home when former spouse was advised- by his lawyer-  to stop making child support payments in order to force me into signing 2010 post-judgment agreement;
6. Loss residential custody of both teens due to loss of primary home (temporarily left homeless);
7. Loss 1/2 retirement fund in 2010 court process to pay GAL, legal fee's and mortgage payments;
8. Loss all of savings to date; accrued credit card debt is now equal to my 2013 annual salary; loss all assets with exception to my vehicle that allows me to travel 3 hours a day to my full-time job;
9. Loss ALL parental rights and responsibilities and all decision making powers due to erroneous GAL report and due to her recommendation that losing all rights would end conflict;
10. Loss visitation rights as all visitation is now up to the discretion of my former husband who has been the instigator for all post-judgment discord;
11. The stress  and the conflict has interfered with my work at present, has created ongoing and extensive medical expenses, and has left our daughter suicidal as well as feeling hopeless about her future;
12. The scars left on the hearts of my two teenagers as well as myself may or may not ever heal; time will tell. There is nothing more psychologically harmful than to lose the right to parent: from 1996 until 2014, I gave my life to my children. I intended and strove to raise well-adjusted, law abiding, and well-educated young adults. That right has been taken from me; the family court system partook in that loss of civil liberties.

The time for healing is now.

Please allow those of us who have to live with these court ordered "solutions" to family matters be a part of the solution for creating a system that heals and supports healthy family relations rather than a system that fuels the flames of discord in order to "win" a case; we have a vast amount of anecdotal information that would be an invaluable resource for those who are truly vested in the well-being of Maine's children and in the health and welfare of the state of Maine as a whole.

With sincere gratitude for your time and consideration~


Suzanne
YDC-FM-06-XX

Former resident of York Maine
Present Maine tax payer
Social Justice Advocate

This letter was written to the courts and state government and came about as a result of the post "A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families". To read the letter to Gov. Paul LePage follow this link.

For more information please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Maine - A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families

RE:   A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families.

The Governor

State of Maine

Dear Governor LePage,

Divorce in Maine, when child custody is involved, has evolved into an expensive, barbaric, often cruel process.  Custody decisions by our courts often seem irrational and  participants all too often find it impossible to correct a bad decision  or a bad process.   At Maine Guardian ad litem Alert, based on the data from our many contacts with people in the terrible  throes of divorce, we  increasingly feel that there is a need for a Maine Commission aimed at  assessing the impact of divorce and custody on Maine children and families- and  recommending  repairs to a badly broken family court system.  60 % of American marriages  are reported to end in divorce, and Maine is no different from the rest of the US.  But beyond dry statistics, our experience with hundreds of individuals tells us that there are psychological, social and economic side effects of the family court experience, that wreck the lives of those that have gone through divorce for years to come.  It is a shameful record.  It calls for action.

Although we would certainly support a broadly focused Commission that took a total systems approach, we would suggest that there are several important  areas where a  narrower commission might assess serious problems and propose solutions without crossing the boundaries of another branch of government: (a) the economics of divorce and its impact on the present and future of (60%) Maine citizens and on the state itself, (b) the jurisdictional disputes about which of two branches of government has final responsibility  for defining and resolving the diagnosis of adult or child abuse in divorce, and (c) problems associated with the family court’s  use of and referrals to state sponsored/funded clinics by the Judicial Branch.  This includes patient’s right to privacy issues;  standards of the types  and forms of  treatment; court-ordered, mandatory treatment; treatment effectiveness evaluations; confidentiality and the human rights issues of those receiving services.

1.)  Economic problems of divorcing in Maine.  The short story is that it is very expensive, running to thousands of dollars, with courts putting no limits on the charges to citizens from a growing number of ancillary players, in  a growing number of questionably effective peripheral  services.  The growth of these unevaluated “new” services- often court mandated- have become a part of an very expanded, very expensive “divorce industry”.  Families are impoverished. Retirement and college funds are emptied.  Homes are mortgaged to the hilt.  Credit from relatives and families is exhausted.  It is an expense with no boundaries and it grows year by year.  We have to ask: Is a booming economic expansion of the “divorce industry” retarding investment in other “industries”?  The Judicial Branch keeps virtually no data, our group has some limited financial data.  However, there is a need to measure the problem, its growth and to propose solutions.  Money drained from our economy by the “divorce industry” is money not available for other more productive investments; homes, education and retirement- just to name a few.

2.)  Allegations of child or spousal abuse are all too common in contested divorces.  Some allegations are real and serious and require appropriate action; other abuse claims are “strategic”, and need investigation and then labeling as such.  At the moment, there is all too often a “turf war” between the Children's Protective program (under Human Services) and the Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem program about which entity has the final say in abuse allegations.  There are likewise “turf wars” between GALs and those trained specialist professionals who assess “dangerousness” and other dysfunctional issues.  It all too frequently happens that, if opinions of trained professionals do not concur with a GALs opinion, they are frequently ignored in favor of the GAL’s more expensive opinion, a continuing investigation by the GAL.  It should be remembered that GALs have only 16-20 hours of training and no supervision when they override the findings of those with more training and supervision.  It should also be remembered that continuing to investigate “abuse” generates significant “billable hours” for GALs and burdens families with these costs.  More important is the question of whether someone with less knowledge, skill and experience will do a better job of danger evaluation for children and families than someone with specialist education, experience and supervision?

3.)  State sponsored or financed services and clinics are frequently used as referral sources by Guardians ad litem and by Maine’s courts.  The courts keep no statistics about the number of court referrals, which would help to describe (a) the size of their usage, (b) the problems encountered, (c) the outcomes  of treatment- both short and long term.  What is  the impact of court mandated treatment on children and families?  Are these court forced  referrals doing any measurable good?  How do they help?  What are we getting for our public  money?  Are the services requested by courts- such as various untested, unproved behavior change therapies-  scientifically grounded?  Is the state paying for “experimental” services on court referred children and adults  There is also the ethical/human rights issue of court mandated treatment in non-criminal cases.  Confidentiality issues and demand for what should be considered privileged information are troubling and, we are told,  don’t follow national standards.  There are instances of GALs sharing this clinical information- without “releases”- with other GALs and with unauthorized persons, using the threat of contempt if permission to release information is not granted.  It is an area that cries for study and repair.

These are just a few areas that might occupy the scrutiny of a circumscribed Commission to the benefit of our children and families.   We would be pleased to discuss further any of these suggested ideas, and we recognize that these suggestions are  just conversational openers.  It seems important to us to give a more human, rational  experience to children and families in divorce, the consumers of service.

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins, MD

While this is addressed to the Governor of Maine the ideas given here may be applied in any state. Feel free to use the letter and change what needs to be changed to fit the situation of your state.



For more information on what is wrong with  Family Courts and Guardians ad litem in the state follow us on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com

Connecticut - West Hartford Parents Still Fighting For Custody Of Daughter

FOX CT

She’s a Connecticut teenager who has been stuck out of state for nearly a year.

On Tuesday, Justina Pelletier has another chance to come home.

Fox Connecticut’s months-long investigation has prompted the State of Massachusetts to investigate Boston Children’s Hospital, where Pelletier was located for much of the past 12 months.

Pelletier’s next scheduled court hearing is Tuesday, Feb. 4, in Boston.

Despite signs of a return at her last hearing, Justina Pelletier is still not home.

Boston Children’s Hospital confirms that she’s no longer there, and sources say she’s now at a youth counseling and support program in Framingham, Mass.

Meanwhile, the State’s Department of Public Health has launched an investigation into Boston Children’s Hospital.

Full story: FOX CT

Michigan - Judge: St. Clair Shores mom charged with dismembering son was fit to be his guardian

The Detroit News

Mount Clemens — The judge who granted Donna Scrivo guardianship over her youngest son Ramsay in May said he questioned his decision after allegations surfaced this week that the woman dismembered her offspring.

But after reviewing the case file, Macomb Probate Judge Carl Marlinga said he was satisfied he’d made the right call.

“Certainly, I wondered about my decision after I heard the news,” Marlinga said. “But after the fact, I looked at the file and found there was nothing to suggest any mental health difficulties, or any ulterior motive at all. When you’re appointing a guardian, you can only go by the information you have available.”

Full story: The Detroit News

Connecticut - Report On Child-Custody System Targets Areas To Examine

The Courant

A task force has identified areas of the state's child-custody system that it says the Judicial Branch ought to evaluate, including whether to establish billing rates for legal guardians appointed to represent children in contentious court cases.

The Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children issued a 43-page report Friday. The report comes after the volunteer 10-member group held 13 meetings and a 15-hour public hearing in four months.

There were many points of contention, including criticism over high legal costs. The task force studied, among other issues, the roles of lawyers and guardians appointed by courts to represent children.

"Given the issues that were within our charge, it was not unexpected that there would be disagreement and enthusiastic debate among the members of the Task Force," the report reads in part.

Full story: The Courant

Connecticut - State's Child Custody System Under Scrutiny Over Costs

The Courant

Peter Szymonik of Glastonbury says he had to dip into his child's college fund to pay for the court-appointed guardians who represented his sons during his 2008 divorce.

"I've got this nightmare scenario," said Szymonik, a member of an advocacy group lobbying to reform the state's child custody system.

Criticism over high legal costs is just one area under examination by a state panel that must make recommendations to the legislature's Judiciary Committee by Feb. 1.

The task force is studying the roles of lawyers and guardians — called guardians ad litem — appointed by courts to represent children in contentious cases involving parenting and the custody and care of children.

It is also studying whether judges are complying with a statute requiring them to consider the best interests of children. The volunteer 10-member task force, formed last year, is also considering whether Connecticut should adopt a presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of a minor child in actions involving the custody and care of the child.

"We're here to look for solutions and try to see if we can improve the system that everybody is complaining about," one task force member, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (D-Hartford), said at a Jan. 9 public hearing.

Full story: The Courant

National - "The snake goes into the hole"

- is what a young girl told her mother one night before taking a bath.

On another occasion this girl told her mother -

"I have to hold the snake until it dies" - one night while she was bouncing up and down.

Awhile later the Guardian ad litem did a home evaluation of both parents. During the visit with the father he talked to the Guardian ad litem about his daughters pet snake. When the Guardian ad litem visited with the mother - the mother voiced concerned about the "snake" at the fathers house. The Guardian ad litem brushed off the "snake" the daughter talked of - saying that the father and daughter were exploring nature. That the mother was letting her imagination get the best of her and it was of no concern.

If you were the Guardian ad litem - what would you do? Take the test to voice your opinion and to find out what happened - TEST. Don't want to take the test - follow this link to read about the outcome - NGAL Complaint


For more information on Guardians ad litem and Family Courts please email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.