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
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Connecticut - Judge Orders West Hartford Girl - Justina Pelletier - To Remain In Mass. State Custody
The bottom line here is that the Boston Children's Hospital has over stepped its boundaries in keeping Justina locked up at their facility. The message being sent is that they (the hospital) knows what is in the best interest of the child. This despite misdiagnosing the reason for the child's illness. How dare the parents challenge the hospital. Now a Guardian ad litem has been thrown into the mix who is supposed to investigate the situation to determine the "child's best interest". The Guardian ad litem from all appearance has recommended waiting to see and has given the parents guidelines that they must meet and or adhere to before their child can come home.
FOXCT
A fifteen-year-old West Hartford girl, Justina Pelletier, will remain in Massachusetts State custody, for now.
Sources indicate that based largely on the recommendation of a court-appointed guardian-ad-Litem assigned on December 20, Judge Joseph Johnston, ruled that Pelletier will not return home to Connecticut right now, but could be returned soon.
Sources say the next court hearing will be February.
A Judge-issued gag order placed on Nov. 7 remains in place.
Permanent custody has not been determined yet but sources indicate that if Pelletier’s parents follow strict court-ordered guidelines, Justina could be returned home to West Hartford within weeks.
Today marks 11 months since Justina Pelletier was admitted to Boston Children’s Hospital in February 2013.
Full story: FOXCT
FOXCT
A fifteen-year-old West Hartford girl, Justina Pelletier, will remain in Massachusetts State custody, for now.
Sources indicate that based largely on the recommendation of a court-appointed guardian-ad-Litem assigned on December 20, Judge Joseph Johnston, ruled that Pelletier will not return home to Connecticut right now, but could be returned soon.
Sources say the next court hearing will be February.
A Judge-issued gag order placed on Nov. 7 remains in place.
Permanent custody has not been determined yet but sources indicate that if Pelletier’s parents follow strict court-ordered guidelines, Justina could be returned home to West Hartford within weeks.
Today marks 11 months since Justina Pelletier was admitted to Boston Children’s Hospital in February 2013.
Full story: FOXCT
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Arizona - Gov. Jan Brewer Dissolves Agency Overseeing Child Protective Services
While the following does not deal directly with Guardians ad litem it does show that government will enact change if there are issues with a system. In this case Child Protective Services was deemed to be so broken that repairing its parts would not correct the problem. That a complete overhaul was needed. In Canada we are seeing the same thing with their Family Court system.
KANU Public Radio
Gov. Jan Brewer has made an executive order to shut down the agency that oversees the state’s Child Protective Services. As Arizona Public Radio’s Ryan Heinsius reports, the order comes after at least a year of widespread mismanagement at CPS.
Yesterday, the governor announced the dissolution of the Department of Economic Security Division of Children, Youth and Families.
CPS services will now be handled by the newly created Division of Child Safety and Family Services, a stand-alone department within DES. The former agency is under scrutiny because of thousands of child abuse and neglect cases that were reported but never investigated.
Full story: KANU Public Radio
Related stories:
Gov. Brewer overhauls Child Protective Services
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona Overhauls Child Welfare System
Report to Supreme Court chief justice calls for family law overhaul
Calls grow for ‘dramatic’ overhaul of Canada’s adversarial family law system
The Worst Kept Legal Secret of the Decade: Family Law Needs A Complete Overhaul
KANU Public Radio
Gov. Jan Brewer has made an executive order to shut down the agency that oversees the state’s Child Protective Services. As Arizona Public Radio’s Ryan Heinsius reports, the order comes after at least a year of widespread mismanagement at CPS.
Yesterday, the governor announced the dissolution of the Department of Economic Security Division of Children, Youth and Families.
CPS services will now be handled by the newly created Division of Child Safety and Family Services, a stand-alone department within DES. The former agency is under scrutiny because of thousands of child abuse and neglect cases that were reported but never investigated.
Full story: KANU Public Radio
Related stories:
Gov. Brewer overhauls Child Protective Services
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona Overhauls Child Welfare System
Report to Supreme Court chief justice calls for family law overhaul
Calls grow for ‘dramatic’ overhaul of Canada’s adversarial family law system
The Worst Kept Legal Secret of the Decade: Family Law Needs A Complete Overhaul
Thursday, January 2, 2014
National - Would you want a Guardian ad litem with this kind of training?
This is a look at two businesses. One financial the other legal. Both deal with sensitive information, rules and regulations. Both have training programs to give the tools needed to stay within accepted standards and compliance. Both are radically different.
With these two examples ask yourself who is better trained to handle difficult situations?
1. Training consists of 8 weeks of in class study during which the process, rules and regulations are learned. There is some applied training where the students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. Students are tested at certain points. This allows for the trainers to verify at least a minimal understanding to perform the job. There are also group discussions which at times involve people who have experience. These veterans able to give real life experience as to what the new trainees can expect. There is some role playing between seasoned professionals and the new trainees.
After 8 weeks of in class training the new trainees are able to put what has been learned to practical use. While in a real environment there are seasoned people available to answer questions. There is also several weeks of quality control to make sure the new trainees are doing the work properly and to correct any issues right away. This type of mentoring and internship tapers off over time depending on how quickly the new trainee learns.
Throughout this training there is constant feedback to the new trainees. In the working environment that feedback is even more important as a mistake made could cost the company financially. Handling other people’s money can become highly charged especially when something is perceived as going wrong. There are layers upon layers of company as well as legal rules and regulations involved to make sure those handling financial transactions are within compliance. Support from seasoned employees assures and reinforces the understanding that is needed to help customers while staying within compliance.
2. Training consists of 16 hours of in class study during which theory is learned. There may be some applied training where students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. There is no testing during the 16 hours of training nor at the end.
After 16 hours of training there is no feedback to the new trainee. There is no mentoring or internship for the new trainee. Experience is gained at the expense of the consumer. There is no means of testing whether the new trainee is within compliance or whether or not there is a basic understanding of the rules that govern the way he/ she is to operate.
While dealing with a person’s finances is a world apart from dealing with the complexities of a divorcing family there are similarities. Both can become highly charged when something is perceived as going wrong. Both can have a huge impact on the individual(s) involved both currently and into the future. It is the training though that defines how well one does the job in question.
With the training examples given we see the training one receives for handling people's money and for handling people's lives. We see that with one - the process given to train people is extremely careful in its approach. That there are tools and systems to give support so that errors may be caught before they become major issues and hurt a person or family. There are safeguards in place to help the trainee to continue to refine what has been learned and gain experience and to do so not at the expense of the consumer. With the other we see a training process that has been developed to handle people - children and families - who are in crisis and need help. The actions of these trainees have the very real possibility of scaring the people they are supposed to help. There are no tools to help the trainees at any time. Experience comes at the expense of the families and children. There are no safeguards in place to prevent this damage from happening. There are no systems to catch errors before they become issues.
The first is an example of a training process that is used by businesses. The second is used by the Judicial Branch in training Guardians ad litem. Would you rather have a Guardian ad litem who has gone through a training process that has clearly defined goals, offers some means to measure understanding and offers support through mentoring and internship programs? Or would you rather have someone who has gone through the current training process of sitting in a room and warming a seat for several hours?
The answer is obvious. The Judicial Branch has a training process for Guardians ad litem that in a business environment would fail to meet the needs of consumers. Under the current model the Judicial Branch would be overwhelmed with problems and it would either go out of business because of competition from businesses that have better training programs or it would change to meet the needs of those it is supposed to serve. But…. The Judicial Branch is not a business but a monopoly that is accountable to no one. It also has lost sight who it is supposed to serve - being more concerned with how the stakeholders will react than consumers. As a result sub-standard training is allowed and even encouraged. Where those that come up with the training (the stakeholders) curriculum do so based on their own experience. To say (or post on ones "Professional Trainings" page) that one has experience in developing training does not mean one has the necessary tools or experience to do so. Currently there is no cohesiveness in the goal of Guardian ad litem training.
The training for Guardians ad litem should be removed from the control of the Judicial Branch and the stakeholders that are enmeshed in deciding what is acceptable training. Training should be done by professionals who know and understand the goals that are to be achieved and have experience in developing curriculum.
Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
With these two examples ask yourself who is better trained to handle difficult situations?
1. Training consists of 8 weeks of in class study during which the process, rules and regulations are learned. There is some applied training where the students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. Students are tested at certain points. This allows for the trainers to verify at least a minimal understanding to perform the job. There are also group discussions which at times involve people who have experience. These veterans able to give real life experience as to what the new trainees can expect. There is some role playing between seasoned professionals and the new trainees.
After 8 weeks of in class training the new trainees are able to put what has been learned to practical use. While in a real environment there are seasoned people available to answer questions. There is also several weeks of quality control to make sure the new trainees are doing the work properly and to correct any issues right away. This type of mentoring and internship tapers off over time depending on how quickly the new trainee learns.
Throughout this training there is constant feedback to the new trainees. In the working environment that feedback is even more important as a mistake made could cost the company financially. Handling other people’s money can become highly charged especially when something is perceived as going wrong. There are layers upon layers of company as well as legal rules and regulations involved to make sure those handling financial transactions are within compliance. Support from seasoned employees assures and reinforces the understanding that is needed to help customers while staying within compliance.
2. Training consists of 16 hours of in class study during which theory is learned. There may be some applied training where students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. There is no testing during the 16 hours of training nor at the end.
After 16 hours of training there is no feedback to the new trainee. There is no mentoring or internship for the new trainee. Experience is gained at the expense of the consumer. There is no means of testing whether the new trainee is within compliance or whether or not there is a basic understanding of the rules that govern the way he/ she is to operate.
While dealing with a person’s finances is a world apart from dealing with the complexities of a divorcing family there are similarities. Both can become highly charged when something is perceived as going wrong. Both can have a huge impact on the individual(s) involved both currently and into the future. It is the training though that defines how well one does the job in question.
With the training examples given we see the training one receives for handling people's money and for handling people's lives. We see that with one - the process given to train people is extremely careful in its approach. That there are tools and systems to give support so that errors may be caught before they become major issues and hurt a person or family. There are safeguards in place to help the trainee to continue to refine what has been learned and gain experience and to do so not at the expense of the consumer. With the other we see a training process that has been developed to handle people - children and families - who are in crisis and need help. The actions of these trainees have the very real possibility of scaring the people they are supposed to help. There are no tools to help the trainees at any time. Experience comes at the expense of the families and children. There are no safeguards in place to prevent this damage from happening. There are no systems to catch errors before they become issues.
The first is an example of a training process that is used by businesses. The second is used by the Judicial Branch in training Guardians ad litem. Would you rather have a Guardian ad litem who has gone through a training process that has clearly defined goals, offers some means to measure understanding and offers support through mentoring and internship programs? Or would you rather have someone who has gone through the current training process of sitting in a room and warming a seat for several hours?
The answer is obvious. The Judicial Branch has a training process for Guardians ad litem that in a business environment would fail to meet the needs of consumers. Under the current model the Judicial Branch would be overwhelmed with problems and it would either go out of business because of competition from businesses that have better training programs or it would change to meet the needs of those it is supposed to serve. But…. The Judicial Branch is not a business but a monopoly that is accountable to no one. It also has lost sight who it is supposed to serve - being more concerned with how the stakeholders will react than consumers. As a result sub-standard training is allowed and even encouraged. Where those that come up with the training (the stakeholders) curriculum do so based on their own experience. To say (or post on ones "Professional Trainings" page) that one has experience in developing training does not mean one has the necessary tools or experience to do so. Currently there is no cohesiveness in the goal of Guardian ad litem training.
The training for Guardians ad litem should be removed from the control of the Judicial Branch and the stakeholders that are enmeshed in deciding what is acceptable training. Training should be done by professionals who know and understand the goals that are to be achieved and have experience in developing curriculum.
Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)