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

GAL's...Huh...What Are They Good For? Absolutely Nothing!

Borrowing our title from the Edwin Starr/Temptations song denouncing war; there is a real problem for Guardian Ad Litem's: how to justify their existence? What do they add to a divorce (besides expense and harassment)? What do they know about parenting and a child's best interest? Is there an area of human relations expertise, and, if so, what is it?

Because their hypothetical expertise is highly debatable and at best very slim, they have to discover problems in parenting- problems that make their search appear valuable, but not so bad as to warrant a referral to Children's Protective Services and an escape of the money train.

They have gradually expanded their originally limited role to be a kind of Good Housekeeping certifier of parenting. They fundamentally offer an opinion  grade of  parents, like a school teacher. This one gets 100%, this one gets 35%; this one gets zero! Frequently, child's evaluation by experts is dismissed, and there is a search for an evaluator whose opinions agree with those of the GAL.  Or the blanks in actual  expert reports get filled in by the GAL with "junk science".

They have to find a problem to justify their existence.They have to rely on the power of the courts to back them and on their protection from liability by immunity to survive.

It is about an expensive investigation in search of a problem!  It embodies the common approach (an accusation equals a fact) and common philosophical  issues of other investigations in which the investigator's job security and professional existence depends on finding problems: the inquisition, the reign of terror, the Salem witch hunts and the search for Communists in public life of the 1950's!

For support please contact us at NatinoalGALalert@gmail.com or for current issues find us on Facebook.

LD872 - Our View on How Guardian ad litem Reform Should be Crafted

On Thursday May 9 at 2 pm at the State House in Augusta (room 428) there will be the final hearing on the bill LD872. What will it look like? We have caught glimpses of the direction the bill may take. Chairperson Sen. Linda Valentino we are told wants unanimous backing of this bill in order for it to move on. What will it look like?  There are four points that we would like to see incorporated in LD872.

Guardian ad litem Job description: In the original LD872 (link to original concept - this is not the finished bill) it was presented that the role of Guardian ad litem is missing a clearly defined job description.  This is one of the recommendations made by OPEGA in 2006. This Job description should be a statute - rules and standards are disposable  as we have experienced many times. Judges have to comply with statutes. 

- As a suggestion for a Guardian ad litem job description - A Guardian ad litem is a court appointed specialist in some contested divorces who has responsibilities to the court, the child and the parents. The Guardian ad litem is responsible  to propose the best plan for the child(ren) custody arrangements in a disputed divorce. The starting point of a Guardians ad litem work is the presumption that every child needs both parents equally, unless, subsequently there are provable over-riding reasons to the contrary. To this end the Guardian ad litem collects relevant data for the court, interviews relevant people, forms a relationship with the child and proposes custody recommendations to the court, the child and the parties. In the event of a dispute about data or recommendations there should be an opportunity for open cross examination in court. Any additional activities undertaken by the Guardian ad litem with the parties which add to billable hours should be by contract for services mutually agreed to by the Guardian ad litem and the parties paying for the service and would not be covered by immunity

Guardian ad litem Complaint Protocol: The ability to file a complaint and having a clearly defined complaint protocol - Any complaint protocol should have a quality assurance and consumer protection goal. It should be readily accomplished 'pro se' by parties or others who have witnessed or experienced Guardian ad litem malpractice. It requires a comprehensive written instructions, standardized form to registering the complaint. An official should be available to aide those making a complaint and explain the steps in the complaint process. There should be instructions of what constitutes a legitimate complaint against a Guardian ad litem. Feedback and complaint status information are also needed. Apart from the investigation procedures there should be as much public transparency as possible and opportunities for full rebuttal at appropriate times in the procedure. When disciplinary or corrective action is taken this should be posted publicly for consumer protection. Dismissals of complaints should be explained to complainants in a way that is understandable.

It is inappropriate for a private - not for profit - organization funded by lawyers such as the Maine Overseers of the Bar to carry out public oversight function for Maine's court officials of any kind at any status level. It is inappropriate for the legislature to authorize Judicial function of oversight to private organizations the Overseers of the Bar. A private organization has no immediate accountability to Maine Government or to the people of the State of Maine. The Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI - a trade organization of the Guardian ad litem industry) or Chamber of Commerce as not for profit organizations are conceptually not too different as private organizations with a special interest  focus as the Overseers of the Bar. While the Overseers of the Bar - as a guild - boasts perhaps a more distinguished membership than some of the aforementioned organizations - they are heavily identified as special interest and have no accountability to the public. The Guardian ad litem complaint process belongs under the direction of public government surveillance in the Judicial Branch or as a function of the Bureau of Financial Regulation.

Guardian ad litem Immunity - should only cover for those activities specifically covered by the core job description (see section 1). All non core activities, such as service contracts with parties for various expanded mission functions would not be immune from liability.

Parents as part of the Child's Best Interest. The best interest of the Child addresses the social, health and educational needs. In addition it needs an explicit statement that every child needs both parents as being in the child(ren) best interest. Every child(ren) should be presumed to need equal parenting time with both parents - unless there are specific proven reasons (hard evidence) why this should not happen. There should be an opportunity to debate this question fully in court. A Guardian ad litem opinion on "the best interest" is of no more value or validity than any other persons opinion. Facts should be what is needed to move from a 50/50 parenting split for a child. This shift in emphasis would aim at diminishing the destructive, competitive and adversarial atmosphere that is present in custody disputes - starting with equity of custody as a given. It would place the burden of evidentiary proof for less than equitable custody on the Guardian ad litem - and not the parties.

With LD872 we have a state to craft a role that works for the child, the parents and family as well as the courts. Or with LD872 our Representatives can pander to the powerful special interest that talk of equitable change for children and parents. Please contact our Representatives and help to educate them on the need for meaningful reform. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com for contact information on your Representative. Follow us on Facebook for up to date information on Guardian ad litem reform.