This article came out on April 11, 2013.
Biddeford-Saco-OOB Courier
By Tracey Collins
Contributing Writer
BIDDEFORD – Eight years after his divorce, state Sen. David Dutremble (DDistrict 4) is lending his political support and personal experience to reform the laws that govern court-appointed guardians in family matters.
On March 28, Dutremble joined fellow lawmakers and citizens from York County to testify at a public hearing of the Maine State Judicial Committee in Augusta.
“Prior to my divorce I had never entered a courtroom as a defendant. I can assure you, the appointment of a guardian ad litem was one of the worst experiences of my life – and I am a full-time firefighter,” said Dutremble during his testimony.
The guardian appointed during his divorce suggested his work schedule as a veteran firefighter would not be healthy for his children and recommended he change jobs.
Since 1979, guardian ad litems have been appointed by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services under Title 22. In 1994, the statute was extended to include court appointed guardians in Title 19 family law matters. According to the judiciary, as the number of divorces and other stressful family matter cases have increased, so too have the needs for court-appointed parties to represent the best interest of children caught in the crossfire of contentious family matters, such as custody disputes. The problem, said Dutremble, is that the system is skewed to benefit the divorce industry, not the children caught in the middle.
Full story: Courier
Showing posts with label Title 22. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Title 22. Show all posts
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Monday, April 1, 2013
LD522 - Why it hurts Maine's Families and Children - Why lawyers love it
On Thursday March 28th in testimony to the Judiciary Committee a number of people made excellent suggestions about controlling Guardian ad litem costs and fees. Means testing, fee caps, regular bill reporting and ... oversight of billing by the management of the Judicial Branch would go a long way towards correcting the freewheeling ways of Guardians ad litem. As we know, these ideas are fairly simple - and not rocket science. Finance and many other Guardian ad litem issues should be fairly simple as no cost problems to fix.
The Judicial Branch faces a significant political problem. Make that HUGE. The political base, the support system, of the Judicial Branch is composed of the Legal Guild, lawyers, Guardians ad litem and Judges. Asking - or demanding - that any part of this base take a smaller, financial cut in divorce cases might be expected to result in a mass disaffection on the part of the Judicial Branch legal guild political base. It might cost the Judicial Branch the political support of the Legal Guild and the divorce industry. It could result in profound alienation of this Guild base with political consequences for the Judicial Branch leadership. The Guardian ad litem reform movement threatens to disrupt the previous balance between Judicial Branch management and their affluent, powerful base - the divorce industry.
This Judicial Branch - lawyer political dynamic might explain the powerful, under the radar opposition to real people oriented Guardian ad litem reform.
The care and feeding of its lawyer base is one explanation about why the Judicial Branch always seems to defer to its "stakeholders", the divorce industry, lawyers and Guardians ad litem. It may explain why the Judicial Branch allows its divorce industry "stakeholders" to dominate most of its planning committees for Guardian ad litem reform, such as the one from last Summer. It leaves the Judicial Branch paralyzed in the present situation and may explain why it does nothing - or at best the bare minimum. Pressure from the divorce industry not to change versus pressure from the "grass-roots" to change. The Judicial Branch is caught in a terrible bind.
The members of the divorce industry, including Guardians ad litem, make significant amounts of money off of divorcing couples. It is a multi-million dollar industry. Restrictions on the divorce industry of any kind could reduce their incomes. The current situation and its dynamics are in some ways similar to the robber barons of 19th century American history.
LD 522 is nothing less than a license to steal and plunder. It favors the legal Barons; not divorcing families and children. It is a gift from the Judicial Branch to its lawyer base. It allows the predatory wolves to keep their sheep's clothing!
It will require significant political pressure and moral pressure to overcome this resistance to change for the benefit of our Maine children and families.
For information on how to help stop LD522 from passing contact us at MeGALalertt@gmail.com or find up to date information on Facebook.
The Judicial Branch faces a significant political problem. Make that HUGE. The political base, the support system, of the Judicial Branch is composed of the Legal Guild, lawyers, Guardians ad litem and Judges. Asking - or demanding - that any part of this base take a smaller, financial cut in divorce cases might be expected to result in a mass disaffection on the part of the Judicial Branch legal guild political base. It might cost the Judicial Branch the political support of the Legal Guild and the divorce industry. It could result in profound alienation of this Guild base with political consequences for the Judicial Branch leadership. The Guardian ad litem reform movement threatens to disrupt the previous balance between Judicial Branch management and their affluent, powerful base - the divorce industry.
This Judicial Branch - lawyer political dynamic might explain the powerful, under the radar opposition to real people oriented Guardian ad litem reform.
The care and feeding of its lawyer base is one explanation about why the Judicial Branch always seems to defer to its "stakeholders", the divorce industry, lawyers and Guardians ad litem. It may explain why the Judicial Branch allows its divorce industry "stakeholders" to dominate most of its planning committees for Guardian ad litem reform, such as the one from last Summer. It leaves the Judicial Branch paralyzed in the present situation and may explain why it does nothing - or at best the bare minimum. Pressure from the divorce industry not to change versus pressure from the "grass-roots" to change. The Judicial Branch is caught in a terrible bind.
The members of the divorce industry, including Guardians ad litem, make significant amounts of money off of divorcing couples. It is a multi-million dollar industry. Restrictions on the divorce industry of any kind could reduce their incomes. The current situation and its dynamics are in some ways similar to the robber barons of 19th century American history.
LD 522 is nothing less than a license to steal and plunder. It favors the legal Barons; not divorcing families and children. It is a gift from the Judicial Branch to its lawyer base. It allows the predatory wolves to keep their sheep's clothing!
It will require significant political pressure and moral pressure to overcome this resistance to change for the benefit of our Maine children and families.
For information on how to help stop LD522 from passing contact us at MeGALalertt@gmail.com or find up to date information on Facebook.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
A Job Description for GALs - or is it?
A job description is like the foundation of a house. If you have a good and well built foundation the house that sits upon it will also be strong with few problems. If you have a poor foundation (or none), your house will, shift and shake, lack stability and have a lot of problems. Job descriptions are used almost universally throughout business, industry, government and elsewhere to put boundaries on a job, to describe roles and responsibilities, to give lines of authority and accountability. They are a key management tool. In normal oversight, managers ask, "Are you following your job description? You need to improve this or that part of your job description."
Maine's Judicial Branch is currently attempting to tackle the issue of Guardian ad litem reform. A committee has proposed a complex new procedure for complaints about Guardians ad litem; another committee is currently addressing the issue of Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem. But ... er, folks, excuse me, there is no job description for Guardians ad litem. We have before us a collection of a new complaint procedure and new Rules and Regulations - both in search of a job description. There is no formal description of a Guardians ad litem job to which the Rules and Regulations can be tailored. No roles and functions, no lines of authority, no lines of accountability that are universally a part of a regular job description. There is also the matter of training of Guardians ad litem. In most settings in business, industry and government, the job description is the template, or basis, for job training and education. Training flows from the job pattern and re-enforces the job's roles and functions.
Great work, everyone. Now we just have to find a job that all this stuff will fit! It's doing things backwards.
No job description explains the current Guardian ad litem training design. It presumes a base of knowledge for which there is no evidence and adds a smidgen (16 hours) of social work and lawyer. Lawyers and Mental health or Social Workers have very different bases of knowledge, skill and experience. As one educator told us; education of Guardians ad litem is one root of the current Guardian ad litem problem. The "tap root" is no job description. Without a job description, it leaves the Guardian ad litem in the position of being all things to all people.
The problem is that, while fixing the Rules and Regulations may make the house look clean and polished, these Rules and Regulations have no job description as a grounded foundation. The foundation is missing. In most settings Rules and Regulations would normally provide direction about how to play out the content of the job description. They elaborate on where the boundaries are located, and rules imply a problem when boundaries are crossed or ignored. They can be specific items reviewed in supervision and in internal organizational corrective action or in external complaints. But in the JB system, there is no supervision of Guardians ad litem, which leaves Rules and Regulations as a sort of disconnected, pious hope. An amorphous, very ambiguous claim of Guardians ad litem working in "the best interest of the child" – something that every parent is also doing – is not a substitute for an actual job description. There is no formal statement that defines who or what a Guardian ad litem is or does, their lines of accountability, their roles and functions.
A reliance on "works in the best interest of the child" as a job description accords the Guardian ad litem a magic mantle of omnipotence and omniscience that no other job in America holds, a sort of high priest/priestess accountable only to God, and the appointing court. Maine is faced with a huge problem with the Guardian ad litem system that starts with these questions: what are Guardians ad litem, what do they do, how are they trained, who has oversight of them, how is this exercised? A final very important question: are children and families safe as a result of their actions? And (this afterthought) why is everyone paying megabucks for this service?
Simply reviewing and rewriting Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem with no job description, does begin to address the core of the problem – just what is a Guardian ad litem?
Please let us know at MeGALalert@gmail.com what you think is wrong with the Guardian ad litem system. To find out more about what is wrong visit us at meGALalert.blogspot.com.
Maine's Judicial Branch is currently attempting to tackle the issue of Guardian ad litem reform. A committee has proposed a complex new procedure for complaints about Guardians ad litem; another committee is currently addressing the issue of Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem. But ... er, folks, excuse me, there is no job description for Guardians ad litem. We have before us a collection of a new complaint procedure and new Rules and Regulations - both in search of a job description. There is no formal description of a Guardians ad litem job to which the Rules and Regulations can be tailored. No roles and functions, no lines of authority, no lines of accountability that are universally a part of a regular job description. There is also the matter of training of Guardians ad litem. In most settings in business, industry and government, the job description is the template, or basis, for job training and education. Training flows from the job pattern and re-enforces the job's roles and functions.
Great work, everyone. Now we just have to find a job that all this stuff will fit! It's doing things backwards.
No job description explains the current Guardian ad litem training design. It presumes a base of knowledge for which there is no evidence and adds a smidgen (16 hours) of social work and lawyer. Lawyers and Mental health or Social Workers have very different bases of knowledge, skill and experience. As one educator told us; education of Guardians ad litem is one root of the current Guardian ad litem problem. The "tap root" is no job description. Without a job description, it leaves the Guardian ad litem in the position of being all things to all people.
The problem is that, while fixing the Rules and Regulations may make the house look clean and polished, these Rules and Regulations have no job description as a grounded foundation. The foundation is missing. In most settings Rules and Regulations would normally provide direction about how to play out the content of the job description. They elaborate on where the boundaries are located, and rules imply a problem when boundaries are crossed or ignored. They can be specific items reviewed in supervision and in internal organizational corrective action or in external complaints. But in the JB system, there is no supervision of Guardians ad litem, which leaves Rules and Regulations as a sort of disconnected, pious hope. An amorphous, very ambiguous claim of Guardians ad litem working in "the best interest of the child" – something that every parent is also doing – is not a substitute for an actual job description. There is no formal statement that defines who or what a Guardian ad litem is or does, their lines of accountability, their roles and functions.
A reliance on "works in the best interest of the child" as a job description accords the Guardian ad litem a magic mantle of omnipotence and omniscience that no other job in America holds, a sort of high priest/priestess accountable only to God, and the appointing court. Maine is faced with a huge problem with the Guardian ad litem system that starts with these questions: what are Guardians ad litem, what do they do, how are they trained, who has oversight of them, how is this exercised? A final very important question: are children and families safe as a result of their actions? And (this afterthought) why is everyone paying megabucks for this service?
Simply reviewing and rewriting Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem with no job description, does begin to address the core of the problem – just what is a Guardian ad litem?
Please let us know at MeGALalert@gmail.com what you think is wrong with the Guardian ad litem system. To find out more about what is wrong visit us at meGALalert.blogspot.com.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Is this an improvement for consumers?
Making an official complaint about the Guardian ad litem who has worked with you and your family is a daunting process. It forces you to deal with the Judicial Branch of our state government, which is an unfamiliar organization and an unfamiliar activity for most people. You have to guess what they will agree is a valid complaint. At the moment, unlike the state of NH, our Judicial Branch gives no instruction about how to. The current complaint process simply says, if you believe that a Guardian ad litem has not acted in the “best interests” of your child, you may make a complaint to the Chief Judge of the District Courts. It has been a most frustrating process for most grassroots consumers. The answer from this process seems to be inevitable: dismissal - without reasons given or without a chance to participate in the investigation or rebut the Guardian ad litem’s defense.
But ... in response to public pressure, the Judicial Branch has just finished drafting a “new" complaint process concerning Guardians ad litem. In our view, it is NOT an improvement over the old procedure. Unless... you are planning to go to law school for instructions in how to use this new complaint procedure by yourself. It was designed in 3, 2 hour meetings by a committee of 20 persons, all but one are called,“stake holders”, read: members of the divorce industry; District court judges, family law lawyers, and Guardians ad litem. Given their special interests, they did a terrific job of “bullet proofing” Guardians ad litem from public complaints.
The Judicial Branch has settled on a process that is not consumer friendly, but it is very Guardian ad litem friendly. Its fancy legalistics make the current process look like a primitive bow and arrow approach. It has been endorsed by 19 of the 20 Judicial Branch Committee members (one public member dissented in a “minority” report). It now goes to the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature for approval. We sincerely hope that it isn’t approved.
The basic structure of what is being proposed adds several layers of complexity and will take considerable time to complete. It will be administered by The Overseers of the Bar, which is under the Judicial Branch. As we understand it, the steps one would have to go through would roughly follow:
In all fairness, we may have some of this legalistic tangle wrong. Our excuse is that we haven’t been to law school yet, but we’re considering it! Our own difficulty in understanding this process, as informed consumers makes the point that it is indeed confusing. As a consumer - would you feel comfortable when faced with such a daunting labyrinthine task as we understand it?
The Judicial Branch, in proposing this complex, lengthy process, is saying to the public that they want nothing to do with oversight. That the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the consumer to determine quality of their officers of the court. Can you prove we have a defective officer of the Court to two Panels of other Officers of the Court? It is a tough assignment! Can anybody do it?
As the consumer filing this complaint you quite possible will want to hire a lawyer. That will cost you the time and expense. An additional detail: the Judicial Branch is asking to TAX every divorcing couple $100 to cover the cost of this extremely user-unfriendly process. Imagine the next time you go to a store and purchase something and being told that you are going to be charged extra - to cover the cost of any potential complaint you may have. The consumer who has little or no experience with this type of system that is being proposed will probably back off of the complaint because of the daunting process before him/ her. Is it any wonder that there have been only 2 complaints a year? This is a good way to make sure there are no complaints.
We urge consumers to ask their legislators to fight this Judicial Branch proposal. We urge consumers not to use it if it is approved. If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.
But ... in response to public pressure, the Judicial Branch has just finished drafting a “new" complaint process concerning Guardians ad litem. In our view, it is NOT an improvement over the old procedure. Unless... you are planning to go to law school for instructions in how to use this new complaint procedure by yourself. It was designed in 3, 2 hour meetings by a committee of 20 persons, all but one are called,“stake holders”, read: members of the divorce industry; District court judges, family law lawyers, and Guardians ad litem. Given their special interests, they did a terrific job of “bullet proofing” Guardians ad litem from public complaints.
The Judicial Branch has settled on a process that is not consumer friendly, but it is very Guardian ad litem friendly. Its fancy legalistics make the current process look like a primitive bow and arrow approach. It has been endorsed by 19 of the 20 Judicial Branch Committee members (one public member dissented in a “minority” report). It now goes to the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature for approval. We sincerely hope that it isn’t approved.
The basic structure of what is being proposed adds several layers of complexity and will take considerable time to complete. It will be administered by The Overseers of the Bar, which is under the Judicial Branch. As we understand it, the steps one would have to go through would roughly follow:
- File your complaint in writing (no instructions yet), and a staff lawyer on the Overseers of the Bar will review the complaint to decide whether or not it has merit, and you will be told why. If it is felt to be without merit, then the complaint would die here. If it is felt to have merit, then it goes to a panel, a committee, the majority of whom are Guardians ad litem. Consumers are also on the panel buy in a minority position, and we don’t know how consumer is defined: friends of Guardians ad litem or consumers who will advocate for the public?
- The first Panel - would review the complaint and conduct an investigation of the complaint. This process could take anywhere from one month to five or six. If the first Panel determines there is no merit to the complaint, it is rejected and the reason for rejection is sent to both the Guardian ad litem and complainer. If on the other hand the complaint is accepted, then it goes to the second Panel.
- The second Panel - would review the complaint independently and conduct an investigation of the complaint. This process could take anywhere from one to (unknown) months. If the second Committee determines there is no merit to the complaint, it is rejected (dismissed). If on the other hand the complaint is accepted then it goes to what would amount to as a mini trial.
- The Mini Trial - Both sides would come together to plead their case. You as the person who filed the complaint would have to prove that the Guardian ad litem had abused his/ her position/ role. The Guardian ad litem would have to prove nothing. The burden of proof is on the one complaining. If you were not able to prove your case the trial would end end the complaint would be dismissed.
In all fairness, we may have some of this legalistic tangle wrong. Our excuse is that we haven’t been to law school yet, but we’re considering it! Our own difficulty in understanding this process, as informed consumers makes the point that it is indeed confusing. As a consumer - would you feel comfortable when faced with such a daunting labyrinthine task as we understand it?
The Judicial Branch, in proposing this complex, lengthy process, is saying to the public that they want nothing to do with oversight. That the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the consumer to determine quality of their officers of the court. Can you prove we have a defective officer of the Court to two Panels of other Officers of the Court? It is a tough assignment! Can anybody do it?
As the consumer filing this complaint you quite possible will want to hire a lawyer. That will cost you the time and expense. An additional detail: the Judicial Branch is asking to TAX every divorcing couple $100 to cover the cost of this extremely user-unfriendly process. Imagine the next time you go to a store and purchase something and being told that you are going to be charged extra - to cover the cost of any potential complaint you may have. The consumer who has little or no experience with this type of system that is being proposed will probably back off of the complaint because of the daunting process before him/ her. Is it any wonder that there have been only 2 complaints a year? This is a good way to make sure there are no complaints.
We urge consumers to ask their legislators to fight this Judicial Branch proposal. We urge consumers not to use it if it is approved. If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Guardians ad litem using the courts as personal bill collectors
If you visit the
Maine Guardian ad litem Institute web site and read their Mission Statement you
will read about the noble cause that they have taken up for the child who finds
him/ her self in the middle of a dispute between parents. The inference is about
the compassion that they, as the Guardian ad litem trade organization, have for
the child and the support that they give each other. It is in the Mission
Statement that we see what Toby Hollander's Institute is all about. It is about
the "compensation for those individuals serving as Guardian ad litem and
providing mutual support and assistance on issues relating to the work of
Guardians ad litem."
Currently, there is
a case that was slated to be heard in the highest court, in which we see the kind of support that the Guardian
ad litem Institute gives to the rank and file. This case is about how the
Institute advocates for the use of coercion by the courts to force a parent to
pay for a Guardian ad litem services. That the Institute - in support of a
particular Guardian ad litem - is adding
its voice in asking the court to have a parent thrown in jail, for non-payment
of a GAL's bill. This seems to be one unappealing interpretation of the Institute's Mission
statement. It is about Guardian ad litem
compensation. In the end, it is not about what this court officer can do for
the child. It is about what the court can do for this court officer - even if
it means a parent is behind bars. One has to ask, how this kind of action is
going to improve the welfare of a child? It makes one wonder about the bottom
line; whose interest Maine's Guardians ad litem are really looking out for -
theirs or the child? And where are the
courts when the public needs them?
It is planned
actions like these that give the Maine Guardian ad litem a black eye. When they
use the courts that they work in as "officers of the court" to be
their "power bill collector" it may be legal, but it looks unfeeling.
It looks like they are using their professional role connections for personal
benefit. We feel that the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute has some serious
public relations and identity problems. Do they want to be "part of the
solution, or part of the problem?" Liens,
garnishing and jail for contempt don't cut it!
It you are having
issues with a Guardian ad litem institute we encourage you to write to us.
There are currently over 40 complaints about Guardians ad litem that we are
aware of in the state of Maine. The list
continues to grow. Is your Guardian ad
litem part of this list? Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.
In addition there is
work going on for reform to the Guardian ad litem system. We would encourage
you to write to members of the Joint Standing Committee on - Judiciary and let
them know how you feel about Guardians ad litem and the noble cause they have
taken up.
Joint Standing Committee on - Judiciary
Sen. Dave Hastings dhastings@hastings-law.com
Sen. Richard G. Woodbury Dick.Woodbury@legislature.maine.gov
Sen. Cynthia Dill dillforussenate@gmail.com
Rep. Joan M. Nass RepJoan.Nass@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. G. Paul Waterhouse RepPaul.Waterhouse@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Michael G. Beaulieu RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Ralph W. Sarty, Jr. RepRalph.Sarty@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Bradley S. Moulton RepBrad.Moulton@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Leslie T. Fossel RepLes.Fossel@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Charles R. Priest RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Maeghan Maloney maeghanformaine@gmail.com
Rep. Megan M. Rochelo RepMegan.Rochelo@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig kmderrig@maine.rr.com
Sen. Dave Hastings dhastings@hastings-law.com
Sen. Richard G. Woodbury Dick.Woodbury@legislature.maine.gov
Sen. Cynthia Dill dillforussenate@gmail.com
Rep. Joan M. Nass RepJoan.Nass@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. G. Paul Waterhouse RepPaul.Waterhouse@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Michael G. Beaulieu RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Ralph W. Sarty, Jr. RepRalph.Sarty@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Bradley S. Moulton RepBrad.Moulton@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Leslie T. Fossel RepLes.Fossel@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Charles R. Priest RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Maeghan Maloney maeghanformaine@gmail.com
Rep. Megan M. Rochelo RepMegan.Rochelo@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig kmderrig@maine.rr.com
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Where does the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute and Toby Hollander stand?
Stay tuned as we expose what concerns the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute the most? Money, power or influence? Find out how Toby Hollander and the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute really feels about you...... The consumer.....
in the next 24 hours....
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Maine's Courts are Protecting GALs Making them Bullet Proof!
Maine's Judicial Branch is in the final stages of fine tuning a "new"
Guardian ad litem complaint process. From a review of this “new”
proposal,which must go to the legislature for approval, we would say
that the JB has done a masterful job of protecting Guardians ad litem,
also known as"officers of the court". The draft proposal, if it goes
forward as is, will virtually guarantee each and every GAL that no
complaint from the public will ever touch them. They can remain free
and totally unaccountable. It will be a huge relief for many Guardians
ad litem whose activities have been the subject of much public anger
about a malfunctioning GAL system and public calls for reform of the
program. No public complaint will break the tight legal barriers of the
"new" complaint process, which appears even more likely to dismiss all
complaints than the Judicial Branch's "old" complaint process.
Whew! Looks like Guardians ad litem dodged that bullet!
It is a triumph of "foxes" designing security systems for the "hen house". Credit must go to Justice Warren Silver and his committee of 20 who worked on the plan for an “open, fair process” for complaints about Guardians ad litem. The huge preponderance of this 20 member committee were what might be called the Judicial Branch's core political "base", Guardians ad litem, friends of Guardians ad litem, family court judges, and lawyers in the divorce "trade". There was one lone member representing the public interest in this process. There had been earlier talk of three public representatives, but, hey, why trouble the public about this sort of thing? What does the public know anyway? One public member should be plenty!
One of the curious paradoxes about this committee with a "reform" mandate from the Chief Justice was that the majority of the members openly (and sometimes heatedly) expressed their feeling that there was "no problem" with the system, especially the current complaint process. Many felt the push for change was the result of political action by a small, noisy group that didn't reflect the views of most people using Guardians ad litem in their divorce. One family lawyer was vehement in his views about clients who want to complain: "Make them pay! It's about ego!" And ... the committee proposal does follow his strongly expressed suggestion. Those who use Guardians ad litem in their divorce will pay an upfront "tax" to support the complaint process and another fee for making a formal complaint.
Make ‘em pay!
The complaint process itself will be housed in the formidable bastion of the Overseers of the Bar and administered by them. An administrative lawyer will do a screening check on all public complaints. If these complaints are felt to have merit, they will be passed on to a 12 member "volunteer panel" for determination of action on the complaint. But ... what a panel! 10 Guardians ad litem and two members from the "public". We're not sure what "public" means (friends and families of Guardians ad litem, agency people or Mr and Mrs “Grass-roots America”?). We're wondering why 2 members of the public? For true GAL peace of mind, one or, better, none, should suffice. Keep it a friendly little group of like-minded colleagues.
Consumer protection? Please, just trust the integrity of the JB, and its GAL "officers of the court". We consider that our whole operation is about consumer protection. Just take property liens, garnished wages and jail! These protect consumers from breaking the law for non-payment of their GAL’s bills. We protect consumers all the time.
Er, ... do Guardians ad litem know how to judge their peers, or have they any experience in self-policing? Do they even know or follow their own Rules and Regulations? Do they have any experience with “consumer protection” issues? No, but that means they will be more spontaneously empathic and “culturally sensitive” to colleagues who are beset by complainers and bad sports. They are not bogged down by knowledge. Dismissed, dismissed, dismissed! What training does it take to say, “Dismissed”? These complainers wanted change. You can be sure we'll give them “change”, but our change may not pan out to be what these “bad sports” wanted!
As you can see it is an elegant judicial sham. It uses the ‘gravitas’ of the Overseers of the Bar to cover a heavily weighted panel of 10 Guardians ad litem whose threadbare training and experience give them no preparation to address consumer complaints about malfunctioning colleagues and friends. But ... it takes no experience or education to say, “Dismissed!” It is in essence a mini court trial in which “the burden of proof” is on the consumer. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you got a “lemon”.
How on earth did we end up in a formal courtroom type of process when we wanted to report vocational malfunctioning to the workers overseers? All we wanted was corrective action from those in charge at the JB.
Given that Maine’s licensing boards offer consumer protection and consumer friendly models for addressing malfunctioning professionals, one has to ask:
Will the legislature buy these new “bullet proof vests” for Guardians ad litem with public money?
Whew! Looks like Guardians ad litem dodged that bullet!
It is a triumph of "foxes" designing security systems for the "hen house". Credit must go to Justice Warren Silver and his committee of 20 who worked on the plan for an “open, fair process” for complaints about Guardians ad litem. The huge preponderance of this 20 member committee were what might be called the Judicial Branch's core political "base", Guardians ad litem, friends of Guardians ad litem, family court judges, and lawyers in the divorce "trade". There was one lone member representing the public interest in this process. There had been earlier talk of three public representatives, but, hey, why trouble the public about this sort of thing? What does the public know anyway? One public member should be plenty!
One of the curious paradoxes about this committee with a "reform" mandate from the Chief Justice was that the majority of the members openly (and sometimes heatedly) expressed their feeling that there was "no problem" with the system, especially the current complaint process. Many felt the push for change was the result of political action by a small, noisy group that didn't reflect the views of most people using Guardians ad litem in their divorce. One family lawyer was vehement in his views about clients who want to complain: "Make them pay! It's about ego!" And ... the committee proposal does follow his strongly expressed suggestion. Those who use Guardians ad litem in their divorce will pay an upfront "tax" to support the complaint process and another fee for making a formal complaint.
Make ‘em pay!
The complaint process itself will be housed in the formidable bastion of the Overseers of the Bar and administered by them. An administrative lawyer will do a screening check on all public complaints. If these complaints are felt to have merit, they will be passed on to a 12 member "volunteer panel" for determination of action on the complaint. But ... what a panel! 10 Guardians ad litem and two members from the "public". We're not sure what "public" means (friends and families of Guardians ad litem, agency people or Mr and Mrs “Grass-roots America”?). We're wondering why 2 members of the public? For true GAL peace of mind, one or, better, none, should suffice. Keep it a friendly little group of like-minded colleagues.
Consumer protection? Please, just trust the integrity of the JB, and its GAL "officers of the court". We consider that our whole operation is about consumer protection. Just take property liens, garnished wages and jail! These protect consumers from breaking the law for non-payment of their GAL’s bills. We protect consumers all the time.
Er, ... do Guardians ad litem know how to judge their peers, or have they any experience in self-policing? Do they even know or follow their own Rules and Regulations? Do they have any experience with “consumer protection” issues? No, but that means they will be more spontaneously empathic and “culturally sensitive” to colleagues who are beset by complainers and bad sports. They are not bogged down by knowledge. Dismissed, dismissed, dismissed! What training does it take to say, “Dismissed”? These complainers wanted change. You can be sure we'll give them “change”, but our change may not pan out to be what these “bad sports” wanted!
As you can see it is an elegant judicial sham. It uses the ‘gravitas’ of the Overseers of the Bar to cover a heavily weighted panel of 10 Guardians ad litem whose threadbare training and experience give them no preparation to address consumer complaints about malfunctioning colleagues and friends. But ... it takes no experience or education to say, “Dismissed!” It is in essence a mini court trial in which “the burden of proof” is on the consumer. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you got a “lemon”.
How on earth did we end up in a formal courtroom type of process when we wanted to report vocational malfunctioning to the workers overseers? All we wanted was corrective action from those in charge at the JB.
Given that Maine’s licensing boards offer consumer protection and consumer friendly models for addressing malfunctioning professionals, one has to ask:
Will the legislature buy these new “bullet proof vests” for Guardians ad litem with public money?
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Can Maine's GALs be held accountable to their Rules and Standards?
Maine's Judiciary has Guardian ad litem Rules and Standards on their web site. They state quite clearly that the Supreme Judicial Court “has adopted Rules and Standards of Practice for Guardians ad Litem in Title 19-A and Title 22 cases.” In other words the Guardians ad litem that they roster – or give their seal of approval to, must abide by these rules and standards. Or does it?
What is the reason for posting these Rules and Standards for the public?
Although it is possible that of the three examples there have been instances where the first was actually applied – it is not known when that may have been the case. The second example like the first is non-existent. With the third example there are numerous instances that can be found dating back to 2003-04 (and possibly before) where Maine's Courts and Guardians ad litem have chosen to ignore the Rules and Standards. What does this mean to the consumer of this system that experiences a Guardian ad litem that operates outside of these rule and standards and you complain about him/ her? It means that the Judiciary has no interest in correcting the behavior of its own but will correct your behavior if you cause too much trouble. Maine's Judiciary has ignored a problem that has been around for more than a decade. How many people have been hurt by the resistance to admit there is a very real problem? That is something that we are only now just beginning to see. The current window dressing for oversight and accountability that we have seen is just that – Window Dressing – to satisfy the rank and file so that at the end of the day they – Maine's Judiciary, Judges and Guardians ad litem can path themselves on the back and say they did a great job helping out those poor consumers. Maine's Judiciary, Judges and Guardians ad litem are in need of a little reality and accountability.
If you or someone you know has been hurt in a divorce where a Guardian ad litem was involved please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. We can also be found on Facebook at: MeGALalert
To view the current Rules and Standards published by Maine's Judiciary please follow these links:
Rules
Standards
What is the reason for posting these Rules and Standards for the public?
- They are posted to help the public understand how a Guardian ad litem is supposed to operate. They are the law in which they and the Judges that manage them must operate within.
- They are posted to help the public understand the role of the Guardian ad litem. These Rules and Standards though are applied when convenient for the courts to use them. How and when they are used is kept from the consumer as they really do not understand this type of thing.
- The Rules and Standards have been posted for the public’s benefit to give a warm and fuzzy feeling. The Rules and Standards in reality have no meaning and the court all but ignores what is written.
Although it is possible that of the three examples there have been instances where the first was actually applied – it is not known when that may have been the case. The second example like the first is non-existent. With the third example there are numerous instances that can be found dating back to 2003-04 (and possibly before) where Maine's Courts and Guardians ad litem have chosen to ignore the Rules and Standards. What does this mean to the consumer of this system that experiences a Guardian ad litem that operates outside of these rule and standards and you complain about him/ her? It means that the Judiciary has no interest in correcting the behavior of its own but will correct your behavior if you cause too much trouble. Maine's Judiciary has ignored a problem that has been around for more than a decade. How many people have been hurt by the resistance to admit there is a very real problem? That is something that we are only now just beginning to see. The current window dressing for oversight and accountability that we have seen is just that – Window Dressing – to satisfy the rank and file so that at the end of the day they – Maine's Judiciary, Judges and Guardians ad litem can path themselves on the back and say they did a great job helping out those poor consumers. Maine's Judiciary, Judges and Guardians ad litem are in need of a little reality and accountability.
If you or someone you know has been hurt in a divorce where a Guardian ad litem was involved please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. We can also be found on Facebook at: MeGALalert
To view the current Rules and Standards published by Maine's Judiciary please follow these links:
Rules
Standards
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)