AU - Parents "What do I owe?" - Family Court "How much you got?"

Mr. Craig Kelly appears to be a politician whom the Guardian ad litem/ Court reform movement could use. He recently gave a speech earlier this month regarding the use of a court appointed expert who by all appearances took advantage of the situation he was in by gouging the divorcing family. This issue is quite common in our Family Court system where judges grant a monopoly to Guardians ad litem and other court 'experts'. We must educate our politicians to the problems within our court systems -

FAMILY COURT RORTS – Speech in Parliament (November 2015);

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:18): Deputy Speaker, this morning I would like to talk about a rort — a rort that is going on in the Family Courts of Australia.

It is a rort that involves excessive fees, price gouging and virtual extortion; it is nothing other than a scam.

I am not going to name names today, but I put those on notice involved in this rort. If necessary, I will name names in this parliament.

Now Deputy Speaker, in a truly competitive market, I have no objection to anyone charging what the market will bear. In our free market, capitalist society, they are entitled to charge as much as the customer will FREELY pay.

However, where we have a situation where the Family Court orders a so-called ‘single expert” to do what is called a 'report' or an 'analysis', the court is granting them a monopoly.

And these people should not be allowed to exploit that monopoly position granted to them by the Family Court, by price gouge and charge excessive fees.

This is an area which should have government regulation where we set and regulate the fees where the Court does grant them a monopoly.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to give you an example of one of the current practices. I have a Family Court order in front of me, and it states that the participants in the Family Court, the father and the mother, should attend a particular ‘Mr X’ (name withheld) on a certain date for a further ‘single expert report’.

It goes on that the cost of ‘Mr X's’ report will be borne equally by the parties and that they will pay the sum of $8,000 each.

So Mr X is entitled to a sum of $16,000. (And parent of the child is unable to pay, they will be denied the right to even see their child, so the child is a victim of this rort as well)

When it was asked how this is calculated, it worked out at a fee of $700 per hour. That’s right Deputy Speaker; $700 per hour.

Now this is for a psychiatrist. If I look at the Australian Psychological Society's national schedule of recommended fees—the recommended fee schedule in place from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016—it sets out the recommended level of fees for an hour of consultation at $238.

So, because the courts are giving this particular individual a monopoly position—

(debate interrupted - Proceedings suspended from 11:21am to 11:34am) (debate resumed 11.34am)

-I will continue where I left off.

I was giving an example of the current practice of this rort whereby the scheduled fee recommended by the professional association is around $238 an hour (that’s $9,520 for a 40hr week – nice work if you can get it).

But in this case because the so-called expert involved has a court-ordered monopoly, they are able to charge what they like.

And they are charging 200% ABOVE the scheduled fee recommended by their professional association — a charge, including GST, of up to $700 an hour.

Deputy Speaker, I have no objection if in a fair, free and open competitive market if they want to charge $7,000 an hour, and someone is willing to pay this of their own free will.

But where the court compulsory orders a participant in the court proceedings to see an ‘single expert’ thereby granting such an individual a monopoly, and they charge such an excessive fee — a 200 % uplift, a $500 per hour UPLIFT (on the scheduled fee recommended by the professional association) — it is nothing other than an absolutely rort.

Deputy Speaker, I am not one for excessive government regulation,however we should have legislation that sets a maximum schedule of fees for these 'single experts' if they are to be given a court ordered monopoly.

For the current situation is very similar to what I remember in an old Chevy Chase movie, 'National Lampoon's Vacation', where Clark W. Griswall (played by Chevy Chase) crashed his car and had to get his car repaired. He pulls out this wallet and asks, ‘What do I owe you?'

And the repairer said, 'How much you got?' And when Clark complains about such price gouging, the repair pulls out this sheriff’s badge.

Deputy Speaker, his is akin to the same situation that we have going on in our Family Court today, and it is totally unacceptable.

Secondly, I have great concerns over some of the secrecy provisions in the Family Court. I would like to quote one Mr J Robert Oppenheimer from the 1950s. He said, which well applies to our Family Court today:

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism … We know that the wages of secrecy are corruption. We know that in secrecy error, undetected, will flourish and subvert.”

We need to end a few practices in our Family Court. We need to end the practice of secrecy.

We need to shine a bright light on the practices that are currently going on in our Family Court.

If we are going to continue to have the practice of single experts, a practice which I am greatly concerned about, we must have a schedule of professional fees they can charge. which must be reasonable.

And Deputy Speaker, regarding the current practices—these current rorts that I have outlined — I am putting these people on notice that they are being watched. This parliament is going to shine a light on their activities. (time expired).


If you have been involved in a case which has turned sour or just does not make sense we ask that you contact us at NationalGALalaert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

CT - Judge Says Lawyers Can Face 'Emotional Distress' Damages in Professional Malpractice Lawsuits

The following was published on September 28, 2015 in The Connecticut Law Tribune. While the original case which resulted in this ruling originated as an automobile accident - the basis might/ could be used in Family Court where we see lawyers fail to represent their clients.

CT Law Tribune

A judge's recent ruling in a legal malpractice case against a Madison attorney allows a former client's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress to remain, a decision which some in the legal malpractice defense field call "troubling."

Sharon Burns of North Haven sued her former lawyer, Ira Grudberg, in Superior Court in New Haven in 2014, asserting he failed to properly represent her in litigation which arose from an automobile accident.

In December 2014, Burns filed a four-count complaint against Grudberg. The first count, which claims legal malpractice, alleges Grudberg was negligent for failing to respond to discovery requests and for representing Burns when he knew he lacked the resources or time to do so diligently. The litigation also claimed breach of contract, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Full story: CT Law Tribune.

If you are having issues in Family Court we would encourage you to find us on Facebook and share what you have been going through.

W.VA Williamson attorney under investigation

Williamson Daily News

WILLIAMSON – In a W.Va. State Supreme Court ruling on Sept. 30, Lauren Thompson, Williamson Attorney, has been held in contempt of court and denied eligibility for guardian ad litem and any other court appointments until an investigation is concluded in the untimely filing of response briefs in two child abuse and neglect appeals.

According to legal dictionary.com, guardian ad litem is defined as “a guardian appointed by the court to represent the interests of infants, the unborn or incompetent persons in legal actions.”

On Wednesday Oct. 14, Thompson released a statement. Thompson said, “During the current Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigation I must refrain from making direct public comment on the allegations against me. I must instead trust in my decisions, past and present, and the process.”

In a Memorandum Decision filed by the Supreme Court the document states that, “by orders entered on April 16 and March 13, Ms. Thompson was directed to file a respondent’s brief or summary response on or May 20, 2015. Ms. Thompson failed to file the response briefs by the May 20, 2015 deadline.”

Full Story: Williamson Daily News

WI - Initiative helps county collect almost $8,000

I wonder why these debtors are failing to make payments. Maybe they were bled dry by the system and as a Guardian ad litem rarely adds any value to the process figured - won't pay.

Green Bay Press Gazette

When people owe you $16.6 million, you can't realistically expect to recoup it all at once.

That's why Brown County Clerk of Courts John Vander Leest isn't too discouraged that his latest initiative to put a dent in that debt netted less than $8,000.

"We will continue to refine the process to get more accurate addresses and hold parties accountable," Vander Leest said.

Vander Leest's new initiative involves trying to haul debtors into court and get them onto a court-ordered payment schedule. The initiative is similar to one the county does once a week for nonpayment in criminal cases, but this effort is aimed at those debtors who were supposed to pay for a "guardian ad litem," a lawyer representing their children during their divorce proceedings or paternity cases.

Full Story: Green Bay Press Gazette

TX - Texas guardianship bill seeks to strengthen individual rights

Watchdog Arena

A Tuesday hearing before the Texas House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence addressing HB 3914 rekindled the ongoing debate over abusive guardianship. Reform advocates call the system one-sided and exploitative even as probate court personnel and associated parties defended the status quo.

State Rep. Stephanie Klick, R-Fort Worth, introduced HB 3914, explaining how news coverage of high profile guardianship cases have made the public more aware of processes that occur in probate courts. The bill, she said, is to strengthen the due process of those proceedings while providing new protections and rights to persons alleged to be incapacitated by court-initiated guardianship proceedings.

“While we want to protect those truly incapacitated who might be at risk of being abused or exploited,” Klick noted, “the number of cases making news has been people who left you with the impression they didn’t really need a guardianship.”

Klick called guardianships “a pretty intrusive procedure.”

Guardianships can be of a person, of an estate or both. Depending on which, a person potentially cannot enter into a contract. They typically lose access to and control of their financial assets and physical property. Guardianships can cause a person to lose access of whom they can associate with. They can make no decisions regarding living arrangements or medical treatment. They can’t even vote.

HB 3914 seeks to establish additional requirements for court-initiated guardianship proceedings. It first calls for appointment of a guardian ad litem or court investigator to determine if the person is incapacitated and if a guardianship is necessary.

Full Story: Watchdog Arena

GA - Augusta courts respond to complaints against guardians ad litem

FOX6 WBRC

AUGUSTA, GA (WFXG) -

There's a new set of rules designed to help clear up problems in the Augusta Judicial Circuit's guardian ad litem system.

Tom Allgood, an attorney and one of the authors of the new rules and application process, said the changes started several months ago and took several re-drafts. The new rules are designed to keep a closer eye on the guardian ad litem system.

"It just got to be too cumbersome," Allgood said.

Judges making their own rules, guardians charging clients what they felt was fair, and some guardians taking on way more cases than others.

These were just some of the reasons for a 13-page comprehensive overhaul changing the guidelines and application process to become a guardian ad litem for the Augusta Judicial Circuit.

"All the judges had their own rules, and they had ways, or methods, but they each approved guardians for use or assignment in their cases individually," Allgood said. "It was just decided that we could better use this resource if we drafted some rules and guidelines that applied to every guardian assigning cases by any judge."

WFXG was the first to investigate allegations against Janet Weinberger and complaints about her billing practices.

Now, nearly six months after our story aired, new rules and bylaws are being drafted.

Full Story: FOX6 WBRC

ME - "All Judges Should Obey the Law, Like Anyone Else" US Associate Justice Elena Kagen

Must Maine Judges obey the law, "like anyone else"? It is a vital issue that must be decided by the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature as a result of this re-appointment hearing.

1.) WE OPPOSE THE RE-APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE JEFFREY MOSKOWITZ. We base our position on widespread reports from informants whom we know well, who have experienced in his court a repeated pattern of rudeness and disrespect, failure to follow the law, use of Guardians ad litem outside of their mandated functions and abuse of judicial discretion to operate by judicial whim. Please, be assured, we are not here to whine about a "bad custody decision"; we are concerned exclusively with a judge following the law, which we shall detail further on.

The family court system is destined to collapse from a loss of moral integrity, if its judges don't  follow the law themselves. And, remember Judge Moskowitz is a leader of judges in his position as Deputy Chief Judge.

2.) ATTACKING WITNESSES. Before addressing specific symptoms of the Moskowitz court that cry out for  a formal audit, before considering re-appointment, we would briefly like to strenuously object to the current public-unfriendly judicial re-appointment procedure. It leaves out people with actual experience before the judge at every step of the process. From the back room decisions between the Governor and his Judicial Selection Committee Chair, Joshua Tardy, to the opaque negotiations between various players for who gets listed for re-appointment, to the hearings before the Judiciary Committee when these re-appointment decisions have already been cast in concrete, the public is a decorative afterthought. Re-appointment is almost exclusively "private property" of the political leaders of the Maine Bar. Public stay out; public shut up. There is absolutely no room for meaningful opposition or other input from the public. This was made all too clear in the recent unprecedented attacks on witnesses, who testified before this legislative committee by Mr Tardy. Who in their right mind would risk public testimony and face such attacks from the Chair of the Judicial appointment/re-appointment committee? And for witnesses not to be allowed a chance to rebut  Mr Tardy's allegations by Chair, Senator Burns, was unfair and unnecessary.. THERE WERE POWERFUL REBUTTALS, firmly grounded in the truth and in facts. We can NEVER, in good conscience, encourage the public to bear witness about judges before Senator Burn's committee, without some understanding of the Committee chairman that they will be treated with normal respect and human dignity and that they will have some protection from future judicial caprice.

THE JUDICIAL VETTING PROCEDURE. The judicial vetting procedures for re-appointment seems based on a survey questionnaire sent out  to members of the bar to evaluate judges at 2 and 6 year intervals. This type of consumer survey is typically completed by motivated respondents and ignored by others. Though it has more pretentious claims, it is essentially a "popularity contest". Which judges do lawyers know and like? Which judges are "lawyer-friendly"? Though Tardy was unwilling to share the current survey with us, when asked, one wonders about the ratio of questionnaires mailed out to responses returned, the quality of responses, the number of "no responses". And the number and type of negative replies? These questions are vital is assessing the validity of the vetting survey instrument. Without a survey design that can address such questions, survey results are statistically meaningless razzle dazzle.

In the light of his much publicized role in the Great Northern Paper Company debacle, we feel that Mr Tardy was an unfortunate choice to lead the judicial re-appointment process. How can the judicial re-appointment process not be tainted by Mr Tardy's unfortunate marketing of the Great Northern Paper Company to the legislature - and its even more unfortunate aftermath for Maine taxpayers?  Ramming through a judicial re-appointment by using raw political force and power, while discrediting all public objections, does not inspire confidence. It is not a thoughtful, open, public  process for serious decisions about our courts. What kind of an outcome can the public expect from such a process?

3.) 74% 'PRO SE', AN INCONVENIENT FACT. We would remind you of a large but inconvenient fact. As far as family courts are concerned, the divorce bar is a minority group (26% of cases) that controls 99.9% of the re-appointment process from start to finish. Where are the majority 74% 'Pro se' in the re-appointment decision making process? Isn't something out of balance? This is a true blind spot in  Judicial Branch thinking, in the Governor's conceptualization of a judicial re-appointment committee. In fairness and in connection with the actual reality of today, it needs correction.

4.) VOICE OF THE PUBLIC: WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS ABOUT JUDGE MOSKOWITZ;

See Appendix for detailed quotes of various" voices of people" who have actually appeared before Judge Moskowitz and who have shared their experience with us. The thrust of the "voices" seems to be a repeated pattern of courtroom intimidation - or what might in some cases be called bullying. There are reports of a failure to follow the Rules for Guardian ad litem that is noted by our respondents so frequently that one wonders, does the judge know the rules for Guardians ad litem, or is he outsourcing  a wild form of total, 'ad lib',  judicial discretion to Guardians ad litem? There are reports of a failure to listen to all evidence. There are reports of failure to present a plan for reconciliation when custody sharing is uneven, and failure to respect witnesses and consultants. In our opinion, these comments are a "heads up", a warning to those involved in deciding re-appointment. There seems to be an awful lot of "smoke" coming from this court. The "smoke" cries out for a formal legislative investigation, an audit of this court. At the end of the day, one asks, "Is this the "rule of law"? Is this what Maine citizens want, is this what the legislature approves of?

5.) By your decision about re-appointment, you send a message to the judiciary and to the public. Will it be: we need to look into this further, or will it be judges can do whatever they like. Judicial standards be damned. Public be damned; don't bother your legislator. Mr Tardy and the powers behind him are "lobbying" hard for a "no judicial standard" standard. There are rules, but no enforcement, no supervision. It is all 'ad hoc' decided by a committee of peers, if they get a complaint. There is no functional way by which the public, taxpayers, may judge a judge or get a complaint followed by "corrective action". There is, effectively NO protection for the public.

Admittedly, the choices are stark. There is a questionable vetting process, with questionable vetting leadership, making use of flagrant suppression of any and all opposition. There have been no public challenges to judicial re-appointment in 20 years. To do it with integrity requires that the committee collect its own data, do its own 'vetting, make its own decisions. It is up to you.

Jerome A Collins

Kennebunkport, Maine

MeGAL is working to bring about change regarding our Family Court system and Guardian ad litem role. If you have had issues within the court system we would invite you to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

APPENDIX- VOICE OF THE PEOPLE REGARDING DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MOSKOWITZ

IL - From the community: Four Key Steps to Eliminate Child Abuse

Chicago Tribune

n support of awareness of National Child Abuse Prevention month, retired Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County judge and practicing family law attorney, Michael Ian Bender, offers a four-step educational guide to parents and guardians who want to raise children in a functional and happy home where abuse does not exist.

"In spite of the national spotlight on topics such as domestic violence and abuse at home, more work needs to be done to make childhood abuse a non-existent issue," says Bender. "The reality is that politicians and the media can discuss the problem ad nauseam, but the real progress is made when individuals-especially young parents-proactively seek guidance for how to raise children in a mutually loving and respectful manner. A happy family life means children have a greater chance of growing to their highest potential as emotionally well-adjusted human beings."

Full story: Chicago Tribune

ME - Maine bills could lessen custody tensions during divorce

Bangor Daily News

AUGUSTA, Maine — Bills aimed at lessening tensions between divorcing parents of minor children will be heard Tuesday afternoon before the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

Two bills would add to the “best interest of the child” standard used by courts in making custody decisions when couples divorce. Judges would be required to consider the value of having both parents involved in the child’s life, according to LD 642 and LD 346.

Both bills include exceptions in cases where domestic violence, abuse, neglect and/or drug use by a parent could be considered by a judge in determining how much time and under what circumstances children spend it with each parent.

“The basic goal of the bill is that, before anyone gets divorced, both parents get access to their children regardless of what their parenting skills are,” Sen. David Dutremble, D-Biddeford, said Monday. “Attorneys, guardians ad litem and judges step in and take the best interest of the child standard into consideration and make recommendations to the court. But how would someone who does not know your child know what the best interest of your child is supposed to be?”

Dutremble has advocated for changes in the oversight of guardians ad litem, who sometimes represent children in contested divorces, and the way the court system handles such cases.

Full story: Bangor daily News

GA - Augusta guardian ad litem program overhauled

While this is a step in the right direction the problem with this overhaul is that there appears no concerned citizens or parents who have faced the Family Court system were asked for their opinion. So we have lawyers developing new policies to control and provide "oversight" of Guardians ad litem. Concerned citizens and parents are left out of the process - because they are left out - a broken process remains broken. Just overhauled.

The Augusta Chronicle

The Augusta Judicial Circuit overhauled its guardian ad litem program last month, adopting new policies to contain growing outrage from families who say inexperienced child-custody evaluators are over billing them in court.

The new guidelines – written by the executive committee of the Augusta Bar Association’s Family Law Section – significantly revise billing, training and professional-conduct policies to provide general oversight and accountability for guardians, said Superior Court Judge Michael Annis.

According to updated rules, guardians cannot exceed $500 in fees on any case unless authorized by a judge, and must provide invoices that include a brief description of all charges, payments and credits to date to both parties and their attorneys each month.

Full story: The Augusta Chronicle

OH - Lorain attorney who worked as court-appointed child advocate charged with downloading child porn

The real issue is that this Guardian ad litem (GAL) is a court appointed officer. Someone who is backed backed by the court system. What does it say for the court system if it is endorsing this person. What kind of damage did this person do. Awhile ago we heard of a case where the GAL told a parent that he was going to have a weekend sleepover with her son. Mind you the GAL was in his late 50s and the child was 8 at the time. The mother fought in court and was coerced into allowing the sleepover to happen. The first time I heard this story my skin crawled and the thought which entered my mind is child porn.  Did it happen? In light of this case maybe it did. The fact of the matter is that our courts who we trust and entrust with our children's lives are ill prepared to deal with issues like the story we have here about a GAL.

Cleveland.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A fixture of Lorain County Domestic Relations Court who often worked with children in divorce and delinquency cases is facing a federal child pornography charge.

James Paterson, 49, admitted to an FBI agent in a March 30 interview that he had between 500 and 1,000 images and 200 videos of child pornography on his computer, according to a criminal complaint filed Tuesday. He also admitted to posting comments on websites where he claimed he was a pedophile and sexually abused children, though he also said he never abused any children.

Paterson, who lives in Lorain, was also a member of a website where users can download child porn. A search on his computer found images of children -- some less than a year old -- being sexually abused, the complaint says.

Paterson worked as a guardian ad litem -- a position appointed by a judge in custody, divorce and juvenile cases to advocate on behalf of a child. He started taking cases in February 2013, according to Jody Barilla, Lorain County Domestic Relations Court's administrator.

He represented 21 children between then and Tuesday, Barilla said, and judges removed him from four pending cases once they received word of the criminal case against him.

She said he passed a background check conducted by the local court.

At the time of his arrest, Paterson also had a law practice based out of his house.

Full story: Cleveland.com

If you are involved in a divorce/ custody do not take for granted that the Guardian ad litem is pure as the driven snow.

CT - Judicial critics opposing Connecticut justice renomination

WTNH News 8

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Critics of Connecticut’s judicial system are gearing up to oppose the reappointment of Chase Rogers as the chief justice of the State Supreme Court.

Upset with operations at the family, foreclosure and probate courts, activists were expected to turn out for Rogers’ confirmation hearing on Friday before the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. More than 200 detractors have signed an online petition, urging lawmakers to oppose her reappointment to a second eight-year term.

“Chief State Justice Rogers has failed our state and its citizens, families and children by presiding over and encouraging the operation of a court system which is operationally dysfunctional and unnecessarily antiquated, costly, time consuming and unlawfully political,” reads the petition posted on change.org.

One group, the Coalition for Connecticut Family Court Reform, has rented billboard space referring to Rogers. It also calls for passage of legislation this session that would impose changes on the family court system, including prohibiting the court from ordering supervised visitation except in certain circumstances and removing the immunity provided to guardians ad litem and attorneys for minors.

Despite the opposition, Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is standing by Rogers, who was first appointed chief justice in 2007 by former Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

“We have opted to reappoint the Chief Justice — she has our full confidence as she continues to move the Judicial branch forward,” read a statement issued by Malloy’s administration.

Full story: WTNH News 8


Related to this is the Judiciary Committee reappointment of the Hon Patricia Worth in Maine. There was considerable opposition to her appointment as well as the suggestion the state conducts an audit of her court to determine whether or not there are issues. She was renominated by a vote of 13 yea to 0 nay.

PA - Attorney imprisoned for tax fraud released to halfway house

The Times Tribune

An attorney sentenced to federal prison for failing to report income she received as Lackawanna County’s appointed guardian ad litem has been released to a halfway house.

Danielle Ross, 38, was released on Tuesday to finish serving the final month of the one-year prison sentence imposed for her guilty plea in December 2013 to a charge of attempted income tax evasion.

Mrs. Ross of Jermyn had served as the county’s sole guardian ad litem — a court-appointed attorney who represents the child’s interests in custody disputes involving their parents. A grand jury indicted her in February 2013 on charges she failed to report all income that was paid to her by parents who were ordered to use her services.

The case drew significant media and public attention based on complaints by parents who accused her of abusing her power. The complaints led to a state investigation into the county’s guardian ad litem program in 2011. The probe found multiple deficiencies but no criminal wrongdoing. A grand jury investigation later uncovered the federal tax evasion.

Full story: The Times Tribune

Maine - A Case to Deny Re-Appointment of Hon Patricia Worth

The reappointment of a Judge is an important task. Judges are tasked with interpreting our laws in a fair way and are supposed to be consistent with their interpretation. Lawyers, Guardians ad litem and other members of the Divorce Industry are currently tasked with providing data on the Judge. These are people who work with the Judge and whose livelihood will be determined by this person in the future. Complaining about the judges conduct could come back to haunt them. Is there any incentive to point out a judges flaws by this group or is the incentive to tread softly?

The public ( Prose ) - who represent 74% of the those who appear in Family Courts are rarely if ever sought after for their opinion. Yet it is this group who bear the weight of a re-appointment of a dysfunctional judge. Today we have a Judge who is one of four Family Court judges who is on the verge of being re-appointed. But - not without a fight by many brave souls who have been victimized by the Family Court in Belfast Maine:


Senator Burns, Representative Hobbins, members of the Judiciary Committee

My name is Jerome Collins, and I am a resident of Kennebunkport.

In addressing the task before you of deciding whether to re-appoint Judge Patricia Worth you face a choice. Do you follow past practice and merely listen to the "all is well" message of the Governor's Judicial Appointment Committee?  Or do you heed the cries of the public who have actually appeared before this judge?  At one end of the spectrum are professional references from the "legal industry" that she serves.  At the other end are the anguished cries from a few brave souls who dare to speak the truth about the abysmal human practices that pervade her court, the cruelty of her decisions, and havoc she wreaks on parents and children.

The Governor's Judicial Appointment Committee does not hear those sad voices. It talks only with members of the legal profession - judges, lawyers, leadership of the Bar, the Overseers of the Bar, and the disciplinary committees of the profession.  We all know that the members of any one profession are reticent about being forthright about a colleague’s shortcomings. But that reticence has no place in this process, because the judiciary was not established to insulate and protect itself.  It was established to protect the rights of the people.  Therefore, the people must be made part of the process.

We believe the reappointment of any judge should include inquiry into the experience of non-lawyers in that courtroom. We are told that 74% of litigants in Maine family courts are ‘pro se’.  This is a powerful statistic; it is a glaring majority of unrepresented people, in courts, acting as their own “lawyer”. Their voices also deserve to be part of the process.  We know Judge Worth has told pro se litigants “don’t come back to this court without a lawyer”. We are concerned that she feels entitled to unilaterally inflict the financial burden of hiring lawyers upon the citizens of Maine. And we must wonder what other constitutional rights are being violated by her?

As a grass roots group, we suggest some questions that might be raised in a “people-focused” legislative  audit of the Judge Worth court. It reflects many issues that were not covered by the Judicial Vetting Committee. In our opinion, this esteemed Judiciary Committee, cannot be fully informed and make well reasoned decisions about Judge Worth (or other judges) without the answers to these questions about the actual nature of a given court.

Judge Worth’s position on the Judicial Responsibility and Disability Committee and her approval by colleagues on the vetting committee makes the answer to the consumer oriented questions below the only way the Judiciary Committee will be able to have fair  “oversight” in this matter.  We feel that the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature needs to act upon its constitutional oversight power and act to protect the people of Maine. We suggest an audit of the Worth court before any decision is made as to reappointment. 

Here are some ideas that might go into such an audit:     

1. How many 'pro se' cases does Judge Worth see in her court?
2. How many has she ordered (or the equivalent) not to come back without a lawyer?
3. Do family court litigants (pro se and those with lawyers) feel intimidated by this judge?
4. Does the judge help 'pro se' litigants, or do they feel harassed and bullied?
5. How long does the judge take to render an opinion?
6. Are her judicial opinions fractured into components that come out at intervals requiring multiple appeals (and the expense involved) if one disagrees?
7. Does she accept as valid reports from Children's Protective, from clinical consultants, or does she offer opinions unrelated to professional opinions?  How often? Does she appear to feel she "knows better" than professional consultants? How often are her personal judicial opinions at variance with professional opinions?
8. How often do aggressive attorney's appear in her court? How often would they receive a favorable judgment? Are they reprimanded for overly aggressive behavior?
9. How does the judge treat litigants, 'pro se' or represented, who oppose aggressive attorney's? Who wins?
10. How many appeals have been made to the Supreme Court in opposition to her decisions? Results?
11. Does the Judge seem to have solid knowledge about the law and case law concerning Guardians ad litem and family matters? Does she rely on “judicial discretion” instead of law?
12. How often does this judge offer suspended "jail" in family matters and for what offenses?
13. How does she use supervised visits between parent and child? For what issues,  based on what evidence? Does she always have a plan for moving from supervised visits to regular visits and shared parenting?
14. Does she show idiosyncratic interpretations of laws and regulations?
15. How promptly does she respond to motions for findings of fact and law?  How often are these requests dismissed?
16. Is she on the Judicial Disability Committee? Other Judicial committees?
17. Have complaints been made against her practices as a judge? Does her position on the Judicial Responsibility and Disability Committee have a chilling effect on would-be complainants? Are lawyers and others intimidated?
18. Does she have health issues that might impact her judicial functioning?  How long has she handled family matter cases?  Is she in danger of “burn out”?
19. From CANON  3 (B.7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Does this cannon allow a judge to order a 'pro se' litigant not to ever appear without a lawyer?
20. The legislature has stated that unless otherwise warranted the public policy of the state is to assure frequent and continuing parent/child contact after divorce and that the courts should encourage shared rights are responsibilities in child rearing.  Does Judge Worth routinely follow that policy?
21. How many of Judge Worth’s cases are zero sum games when it comes to children: one parent wins and the other loses?  This result would not be consistent with the above legislative intent.  And of the winner/loser cases, are most of the “winner” cases handled by the same few lawyers?
22. Finally, do parents in family matters before Judge Worth have rights that are equal to or less than parents in Title 22 child protection matters?

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF A COURT AUDIT: A range of options for action. These are just ideas/examples some of which are obviously borrowed from other systems evaluating performance of professional workers.

• This court is functioning well and is serving citizens of Maine according to the spirit and letter of the law.
• This court needs more regular oversight from Judicial Branch authorities.
• This court needs regular professional supervision of the judge’s actions to correct some judicial “rough edges”.
• This judge shows deficiencies in the necessary knowledge, skill or experience (or intrusive personal factors)  to be a judge. These are in need of correction before continuing as a judge.
• This judge appears to be showing signs of “judicial burnout” or other personal issues and is in need of R&R, transfer to another type of court, further judicial education, mentoring, or a move into some other function within the Judicial Branch system.
• This judge is malfunctioning and should retire or be removed from being a judge.
• Other ideas for corrective action.

To find out more about how you can bring about change in our Family Court please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Maine - Tardiff V Sullivan - Another Poster Child case for a Dysfunctional Family Court

We are pleased to be able to publish this brief, a public document and an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court. It is a horrifying story. It shows how a series of court actions have deprived a good man, a good father, a good citizen from all but limited, very expensive supervised visits with his young son. The irrationality of the family  court  process and  its  actions are stunning to most lay readers. The basic tactic in her wish for total custody, as we read it, is that the mother, the former spouse and her aggressive lawyer, simply allege, again and again, that the father is abusive to the child. This allegation  of child abuse  on their part seems made very forcefully, but with absolutely no evidence that we can see. In fact when the father, Larry Tardiff, has had professional evaluations (please, note, the plural) the professionals find no evidence that would suggest any need for protection of the child in his presence or any irrational anger in need of correction. NONE! Judge Patricia Worth, the judge in this case, seems totally bamboozled by the strongly proclaimed, ungrounded allegations of danger to the child by the  mother and her attorney. It's allegations - by themselves - as an incredible power tool in court. In our view, the judge is failing to look at the facts, failing to move beyond the noise, substituting her impressions for actual professionally grounded facts and seems to have a poor grasp of some of the points of law that she is using against Larry. It is an unbelievable nightmare for this man and his son from which there seems to be No exit!

It is also important for a reader to remember that in a criminal case of child abuse, normally there would be a planned program back to full parenting. Dare we say that Larry would be better off were he a criminal abuser? One senses that Judge Worth ought to be removed from this case. She seems to be in a rut and unable to think "outside of the box" in this case.

The appeal is a search for rationality, a search for a chance for father and son to have a normal parenting relationship, a search for an end to Judge Worth's ungrounded decisions. We shall be presenting the decision of the Supreme Court in another posting. In the meantime, read on as the suspense about a Supreme Court decision builds.



The brief to the Supreme Court in Sullivan v Tardiff.

If you have had issues in Family Court of with Judge Patricia Worth we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Call us at 207-370-9801 or find us on Facebook. We are striving to being about reform in the Family Court system.

Maine - Management by Crisis - The Judicial Branch and Financial Shortfall 2015

Last week we had a sudden change to the Judiciary Committee schedule. The Judicial Branch was making a presentation to the Judiciary Committee for a supplemental budget of $1M to get through to July 2015. This is not the first time the Judicial Branch has gone back to the till at the last minute with hands out asking for more.

Most organizations have a budget to work with and it they miss the budget.... well there is trouble. The organization either fails or they look into why they have a shortfall and change to accommodate. As an individual it is the same thing. You anticipate what your expenses are for the upcoming month based on what you paid out in the past

When asked about the shortfall and why the Judicial Branch has a shortfall.... again - the spokesperson for the Judicial Branch answered "I don't know why".

Which should come as no surprise to anyone. Here we have an organization full of lawyers being run by lawyers . About the only thing that lawyers can do well and with efficiency is bill for services.

It might be time for the Judiciary to hire people who are professional managers and get past the management by crisis that we see year after year. Who can look at how things are run within the branch and bring efficiencies to the organization. Who would be able to say why there is a shortfall and make sure the Judicial Branch does not go back to the till again... and again with out held hands.

The management by crisis is but a symptom of a far greater problem that has infected the court system. We have seen it with the Guardian ad litem crisis and have seen it with the Family Courts. Our system of justice is crumbling down around us.

Support Family Court reform by contacting us at NatGAL at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

Nebraska - Douglas County Board votes to drop guardian ad litem contracts

Omaha Metro

The Douglas County Board voted unanimously Tuesday to drop its contracts with attorneys who act as guardians ad litem for children in juvenile court, board chairwoman Mary Ann Borgeson said.

Critics have long complained that many guardians don’t meet their statutory obligations to their juvenile clients and that the contracts lack accountability. A report last year by the state auditor faulted the county for poor oversight, though county officials said they weren’t sure how much authority they actually have to audit the work.

Full story: Omaha Metro

Georgia - Increased oversight needed for troubled guardian ad litem program

Augusta Chronicle

The Augusta Chronicle has done the public a great favor by drawing attention to problems faced, and to some extent created, by guardians ad litem, who are appointed by courts to represent the interests of children in divorce cases.

SINCE GUARDIANS do not represent the divorcing parents, they serve an important but entirely different role than do attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants. Attorneys are trained in adversarial proceedings to argue the case for their clients. Guardians, like the children they represent, find themselves in the middle of difficult and often troubling circumstances.

And while guardians seek to discover the best possible solution for children of divorce, “best possible” is almost always “least hurtful,” because divorce hardly ever is without pain for the affected children.

For more than 12 years, I served as a guardian in the Augusta Judicial Circuit on cases assigned to me by more than 10 judges.

During part of that time I served also as president of the guardian association (now defunct), which attempted through its bylaws, training programs and other forms of assistance to ensure professional and ethical work by individual guardians.

Full story: Augusta Chronicle

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