National - "The snake goes into the hole"

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

On another occasion this girl told her mother -

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

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

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


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

National - This is why I am disobeying your order - An open letter to a Judge

Dear Judge,

Two years ago I appeared in your court. I was summoned there with only a few hours notice and appeared without a lawyer. Though no charges were pronounced against me, you legally removed my child from my care and protection, eliminated my right to make any decisions about her, and ordered me to stay away from her most of the time.

From what I have been able to gather about such proceedings, this outcome was nothing out of the ordinary. In fact it quickly became apparent to me that this outcome came very close to being decided in advance. What precisely was said during this brief hearing seems to have made very little difference. As it began, a gentleman who did not know me proceeded to assassinate my character as confidently as if he had personally witnessed each item in his litany of my imperfections. While again, there were no specific charges and nothing legally actionable, it was clear that his role was to translate somewhat vague private grievances against me into a formula that would appear to justify taking away my child.

What struck me at the time was how quickly and effortlessly a child was removed from the care and protection of her parent and her life carved up as if it were the bookings of a holiday cottage. Such and such days she would spend with the non-custodial parent, the rest with the custodial parent. You asked very few questions and sought very little information. The hearing was very brief, and suddenly, I was told, it was over. During the hearing I was allowed to speak very little and interrupted every time I tried. There seemed to be no burden of proof on those who sought to separate me from my child.

I realize that, given the number of similar cases that come before you, you issue these rulings as a matter of routine. I would not be surprised if you have no recollection of this particular case. Nevertheless, for me it was an eye-opening experience and probably the most important thirty minutes or so of my life.

You did not strike me as an unusually malicious or callous person. I am told you are considered among the more favorable judges for parents, and that the time you assigned permitting me to be with my children is relatively generous.

All this may be true. Yet it has also become apparent to me that what I witnessed in your courtroom was a tiny part of a vast system of largely impersonal and unaccountable power that was previously unknown to me, as it still is to most citizens. I am fully aware that you did not create this system and that you yourself may have very little control over it. Nevertheless you are a principal and active participant. So vast and so routine has this power become that you are able, with no background information and in a hearing lasting only a few minutes, to permanently separate a child from a parent without any indication that you were aware of the gravity of what you were doing.

While this central act was disturbing enough, what was again striking were the questions that were not asked, the subjects that were not brought up, the consequences that were not anticipated. You knew that I was accused of no wrongdoing and had agreed to no separation or divorce. You were also aware that I had never lived in this country with my family and that I had neither a residence nor a livelihood here. Yet a number of important matters were never discussed. Did I have a place to live? Did I have a way to get to where my daughter was? Could I work here? Did I have access to a car? Did the hours you permitted me to be with her bear any relation to when I might be able to find or keep employment? What costs would be involved for me or other parties?

You may recall that when my mother attempted to sit in on the hearing she was refused and escorted out. Yet the results of this hearing have profoundly and adversely affected her life. She was forced to take in and support a grown son who was now unemployed. She was forced to cancel the sale of her house so that I would have a place to stay. Her car has been commandeered so that I can see my children and get to work. Did these hardships for her enter into your ruling? They certainly were not brought up in the hearing. It did occur to me at the time, but I was cut off each time I attempted to speak.

What is also noteworthy is that I can recount my recollection of these proceedings without fear of contradiction or inaccuracy, not only because you probably do not remember details of the hearing, but also because no record of it now exists and no impartial witnesses were permitted to be present. In other words, there is nothing and no one to contradict or corroborate my recollection. By the same measure, there is no accountability or recorded reasoning for a ruling that has torn apart the home and world of an innocent child.

In short, it struck me that for the first time in my life I was personally witnessing an instance of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”: evil that has become so routinized and bureaucratized that otherwise decent people are able to tell themselves they are doing good when they are doing evil. It is profoundly ironic that I should have returned from five years in a post-totalitarian society to be confronted here in the United States with a new and unexpected version of the kind of bureaucratic dictatorship that has been perhaps the most notable feature of the politics of this century.

When we hear about children being forcibly taken from their parents by Nazi doctors or Communist apparatchiks we are filled with the deepest revulsion. In accounts of American slavery the division of slave families pierces deeper into our hearts than even the physical cruelties of that institution. What family court judges such as yourself do as a daily routine is not on the same level of evil. But it is not so completely different that we should classify the one as among the most detestable “crimes against humanity” and accept the other as desirable treatment for our own children. You may think this comparison offensive. But a government which criminalizes ordinary law-abiding citizens for something so basic as exercising their parental responsibilities is itself on the way to becoming a criminal regime. Parents such as I who are accused of nothing routinely have their children removed from their care and protection, are ordered to stay away from them and to pay money to those who have taken them, and are incarcerated if they refuse or are unable. These parents receive fewer constitutional protections for their basic civil rights and liberties than persons accused of vicious crimes. Yet there is no public outcry, no expose by muckraking journalists, no petition of outraged intellectuals, no review by international tribunals, no inquiries by human rights organizations, no voice of opposition.

Whatever may be said in favor of this practice, there is no justification for ordering me or any other innocent parent to stay away from our children in terms of their well-being. This is a practice that exists not for the welfare of children but for the power and enrichment of adults. It is a practice I cannot in conscience accept, and I believe no other parent can either.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I no longer consider your order binding on me and that it is my intention to disobey it. From this time forth I will consider myself free to be with my children whenever I or they choose. I will not hesitate to remove them from any institutional care center at which they are being stored. I will consider myself at liberty to go to any residence where they are being kept with the expectation that I will be permitted to be with my children. In short, I will behave as if I have the same right to do what I choose with my children when and where I choose as any other parent or as I had they day my eldest daughter was born, secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing to forfeit that right. All this will be done in the open view of the world.

At no time will I, as I have never done previously, behave in a disorderly manner; much less will I use any physical force. Consistent with what has always been my parental practice, I will quarrel with no one in the presence of my children. Should I be confronted, as I have been in the past, with contention, disrespect, or physical coercion, I will do my utmost not to respond in kind. Should I, as a creature endowed with my share of imperfections, be provoked to an indiscretion in the presence of my children, I will invoke the only tried and true remedy available to any parent in such circumstances, which is to say I will apologize. Witnessing this will do my children no harm and may possibly set an example they are not likely to see elsewhere. But I will also make it clear, as I must now make it clear to you, that I can no longer tolerate forced separation from my children.

I realize this is not the usual and, from your standpoint, preferred method of responding to a court order. I know that I am expected to hire a professional advocate to argue my case in a courtroom. Yet after prolonged and careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot pursue this course.

In the first place, to be brutally practical, I do not have the means. As a direct result of your ruling I was forced to resign my position, leave the only residence my family had ever had, and relocate here in order to be with my children. There is also something I find basically objectionable about any parent having to pay money to see his own children when he has been presented with no grounds for why they were taken in the first place. As with a conventional kidnapping, if I begin to pay money for this purpose, where does it end?

More to the point, it is not clear to me what I would argue in a courtroom, since not only have I have been accused of nothing; I have not accused anyone else of anything. In the absence of charges against me, I cannot and will not cooperate with an inquisition into my family life. It is also not my practice to discuss the shortcomings of members of my family with third parties, let alone to construct legal cases against them. Forcing me to do so as a condition of retaining my rights as a parent strikes me as morally equivalent to staging a cockfight. And again, I fail to see where it would end. Frankly, it appears to me that this entire process is designed less to arrive at any determination relevant to the welfare of my children than to provide business for associations of legal entrepreneurs.

Even more fundamentally, I cannot pursue this course because I cannot accept that you or anyone else has any grounds to intervene in my family and tell me when, where, and under what circumstances I may be with my children or to deny me the right to raise and protect them and make decisions for their welfare. In other words, it is not so much a particular ruling that I cannot accept as an unprovoked and unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over my family. You may reply that this was solicited by parties that include members of my family. Yet this does not alter the fact that it was done without any grounds whatever. It is equally true to say that some 30 years ago the armies of the Warsaw Pact were “invited” to enter the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, but this does not make it any less of any invasion.

I am also aware of the arguments against the alternative course of action I have chosen. No doubt I will be accused of inflicting an unpleasant experience upon my children by going to see them when I have not been authorized to do so. I have considered this at some length. It is this consideration, in part, that prevented me from responding in kind when my child was originally abducted from her home and before I was summoned to your court. I am sure that I was assisted in this restraint by the conviction that this country’s system of justice is fair and that justice would eventually prevail. (Yet I must regretfully note that this restraint seems to have counted nothing in my favor in your courtroom.) I would like to believe that conviction is still justified, though I am now convinced that this is more likely to be the case by refusing to accept your power to arbitrarily keep me from my children than by hiring a professional advocate to quibble over precisely how much you should do so.

I have also come to the conclusion that I cannot submit indefinitely to what amounts to a kind of blackmail, a blackmail rendered all the more heinous for holding as hostages two children and forcing a parent to stay away from them for fear of how others will respond to his presence. I trust you are familiar with the concept of a “heckler’s veto” and with its legal standing.

It is one thing to refrain from contention in the presence of children, which I have always done and will continue to do. It is another to acquiesce indefinitely in a crime committed against them. In fact it is precisely my concern to avoid further contention that leads me to take a public and open stand against this patent injustice rather than participating in a privately litigated battle that I cannot see will be to anything other than the detriment of my family.

The principal trauma being inflicted on my children is the forced destruction of their family and separation from one or both of their parents, a trauma that has been inflicted by your ruling. Given this, I firmly believe that, far from my harming my children, there are certain lessons in this that they need to be made aware of and that it is my responsibility as a parent to teach them. While I believe I have valid reasons as a citizen to disobey the law in this instance, I want to make clear to you that I also have connected but even more imperative ones as a parent.

It is my responsibility to teach my children that the proper course of action when faced with injustice is to resist and oppose it in a peaceful and dignified way. At some point they must learn that there are higher principles and a higher law they must always obey, even when it means they must break the civil law and accept the consequences for doing so. These are not only lessons that they can learn; they are lessons that they must learn and lessons that, in other contexts, we go to considerable lengths to teach them. In Sunday school my eldest daughter has already been exposed to the quiet courage of the Hebrew women, to the defiant stand of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to the public crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. In school she will soon be reading about the teachings and examples of Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As both a teacher of these ideas myself and a parent, I am acutely aware that there is no point in teaching our children one set of principles as being right in the abstract when we teach them the opposite by our own acts or failure to act precisely at the time when those principles are most needed to confront an injustice. It is perhaps unfortunate, but nevertheless unavoidable, that the circumstances of her life are now such that she must now witness the application of these principles sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, if I do not act I fear that the lessons my children are already learning are far more harmful than witnessing a parent peaceably and openly disobey an unjust court order. Virtually every principle of sound child-rearing is contravened by this immoral practice of forcibly separating children from their parents. For the sake of clarity and emphasis I will list the harmful messages I see them absorbing:

- They are learning that we put our own desires before the needs of others, including those we profess to love such as our own children.

- They are learning that children like themselves are not to be treated as people with needs and rights of their own, but used as tools and weapons in the quest for power and profit by adults.

- They are learning that ordinary family differences and disagreements are to be resolved not with love, understanding, and compromise, but with the courts and police.

- They are learning that the vows of marriage – and by extension all other pledges, promises, commitments, and agreements – mean nothing and can be abrogated when they are no longer to our advantage.

- They are learning that principles and values are something we adhere to only so long as they are convenient, and that we can invent the rules according to our momentary pleasure.

- They are learning that contrition and forgiveness mean nothing and that injuries to others are not to be atoned for and forgiven but nursed as grievances to be revenged when the opportunity presents itself.

- They are learning that when someone disagrees with us or has other ideas or beliefs than ours, we need not listen to him, even within our own family, because now we can use the courts to silence him and have the police keep him away.

- They are learning the methods of the bully, which in other contexts we attempt to discourage and protect them from.

- They are learning that anyone in their family can be eliminated when they fall out of favor – including, perhaps, our children themselves.

- They are learning that the instruments of the state and the justice system are not public tribunals for redressing public wrongs and establishing public justice but rather a system of hired force which we can marshal for private hurts, domestic differences, and personal grievances.

- They are learning that both the family and the state are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies for private injuries.

- They are learning that they need not accept or obey the authority of a parent – and by extension any other authority as well, including their teachers, ministers, parent, and eventually the laws and tribunals of the public state.

- They will learn that the police are not instruments for maintaining public order and protecting the weak, but hired mercenaries that we can marshal against members of our own family when we don’t agree with what they do or say.

- They will learn that the justice system of this country is not based on due process of law but instead rounds up and incarcerates citizens who are accused of no crime and uses the lives of innocent people – including children – for the aggrandizement of its own power.

- They will learn that a citizen of this country need not be charged with any offense that is actionable in a court of law in order to be summoned to one and stripped of his most fundamental constitutional rights.

- They will learn that the Constitution of the United States is a lie, and the Bill of Rights is a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by those whose responsibility it is to protect it from abuse by others.

I believe it is these lessons that account for the alienation and the adversarial relationship that so many children – especially the children of divorce – are now developing toward the justice system, the society in which they live, and their own families. I know that so long as these messages are being imparted to my children by those who seek to separate me from them and by the instruments of the public state such as your court (and by me as well so long as I acquiesce in your ruling) any attempt by me to impart contrary messages will be at cross-purposes with forces too massive for me to compete with and prevail against.

I am aware of a more serious objection to this course of action I am taking. This is the possibility that you will punish my disobedience by further reducing access to my children. This has indeed weighed heavily on my mind. The obvious rejoinder – that such an act of judicial bullying would belie any pretense that this process is concerned with “the best interest of the child” – is little comfort to me. As with other objections, this fear prevents most parents from responding as I have.

I certainly do value my time with my children, and am very reluctant to do anything that may jeopardize it. Until now I have tried to work within these constraints to have as much positive influence on my children as possible.

Yet I find I cannot remain content with this choice indefinitely, and in the long run I cannot hold it up to my children as an example worthy for them to follow. For one thing, I observe from the experience of many forcibly separated fathers that their allotted “visitation” is only one factor contributing to the gradual erosion of bonds with their children, and that it is not possible to be an adequate parent to children from whom one is kept separated by the police. Unlike some, I am not convinced that preserving or increasing my legally permitted time with my children, while still preserving the power to dictate the terms under which I may be a parent to them, is likely to make this system any less of an injustice or any less of a detriment to my relationship with my children.

To rest content with this would be to admit that this allotment of time you have decreed for me is really little more than what amounts to a bribe. Those who have more experience with the family judiciary than I inform me that bribery is widespread. I myself have not otherwise observed it first hand, and it is not my purpose here to make accusations. But in this instance I can see – and so can the world – that a kind of bribery has been openly offered and accepted. Vaclav Havel, the Czech former dissident and now president, has said that a truly corrupt system is one where the bribery is so systemic that it extends even to the public. They are bribed with material or other inducements to accept and acquiesce in a system they know to be corrupt and immoral. I believe something similar is at work here. Like many other parents, I have been effectively bribed with enough time with my children to buy my acquiescence in a system that is patently unjust, immoral, and illegal and one that reduces me to the status of something less than a true parent.

While I value time with my children and know it to be important to their well-being, I also know that the benefits it bestows cannot continue indefinitely and under any circumstances. At some point, as my children come to understand the choice their parent has made – that he has made his peace with a system that has robbed them of their most basic rights and needs in order to be permitted to “get along” with his life – the net effect will become more harmful to them than healthy. All the “visitation” and “custody” and “child support” in the world will not provide them with the parent they need if he bends his back and holds his tongue when he had the opportunity to stand upright and speak out.

There is, in other words, something here much more fundamental than disputes over “visitation”, “custody”, “child support”, and the other jargon of your trade. It concerns the unnatural power to take a child away from a parent they love and who loves them, to dictate to a parent who has done nothing wrong when and where he may see his children and what he can say and do with them, to invade and occupy a family and run it by judicial fiat. This is the arrogance of power. No parent can accept this and remain a parent. This is why I am acting.


Yours respectfully,
A Parent

This piece was originally written by Stephen Baskerville several years ago. It addresses the frustration that many parents face in a court system that is broken. It begs the question of how family courts, Guardians ad litem and the divorce industry can live with themselves at the end of the day.

If you have been involved in a divorce/ custody gone bad and for good reason please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Guardians ad litem praised for doing a poor job… and a pat on the back

Maine FLAC or the Maine Family Law Advisory Commission issued their recommendations a month ago. The opening paragraphs are filled with encomiums lauding Guardians ad litem and the work they do.  It is hard to understand this high praise after the recent Maine legislative session which proposed significant changes in Maine's out-of-control Guardian ad litem program.  The comprehensive changes were made by the legislature (after study) at the request of citizens, who had experienced a disastrous Guardian ad litem system, which, intentionally or not, inflicted great harm on children and families going through divorce and custody. There were extensive hearings, with heart rendering testimony of cruel and unnecessary hardship inflicted on families and outrageous financial charges for Guardian ad litem services.  It seems inappropriate at best to laud services that the legislature, the governor, the bureaucracy and the public deemed in need of drastic overhaul.  It might suggest to many that the Family Law Advisory Commission " still "doesn't know it doesn't know!"

Furthermore, it perpetuates claims of quality without any data to back these claims.  Lacking data and minimizing the seriousness of the legislative study and subsequent mandate strikes us as a bad beginning to a review of Rules for Guardians ad litem.  The tired old claim that it is about "disappointed litigants and heightened expectations" simply doesn't cut it with the public, the legislature and the governor.  A half year of in depth legislative study, says that no oversight, no supervision, no enforcement of Rules, a non-functional complaint procedure and myriad other STRUCTURAL issues are the root of serious problems in the GAL program. Grass roots disappointment is secondary to a broken structural system that may work for GALs and judges, but it hasn't worked for the public.  Failure to recognize this by the likes of the Family Law commission (and others in the Judicial Branch) is a huge piece of the problem!  Recovery, they say, starts with admission of the problem - any problem.

A big piece of the problem is the continuing reliance of the Judicial Brach on "stakeholders," members of what we call "the divorce industry", who have a strong financial interest in the 'status quo'.  Perpetuating problem solving by "stakeholders" perpetuates blind privilege and out f touch views. It is worth noting that the one "public" member on the commission reviewing "GAL Rules" is a member of Children First, a GAL dominated advocacy group. It is adding another "fox" to the "chicken house security detail"!  There is a need for victims on this commission to help the Judicial Branch take a fresh, open look at things from a grass-roots perspective.  Right now it appears to be more of the "same old same old" attitude.

Letter from Chief Justice Saufley regarding FLAC.

If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem, Judge or the court system - please contact NationalGALalert@gmail.com. Or like us on Facebook for up to date issues. If you want to express your opinion on the Guardian ad litem there is an on going survey about Guardian ad litem performance and cost.

Putting a HALT to Readdiction and Relapse

Recently we have heard from parents who have gone through divorce and who have secondary custody to a drug addict and/or an alcoholic. Those who have shared their story with us have acknowledged that at times their ex spouse have made the attempt at sobriety with some success but the probability of relapse is extremely high for these individuals.

When a recovering addict has pain and/or sleep issues, medical professionals need to be careful on what it is that the recovering addict can or cannot be prescribed.

Authorities on addiction, like AA and Alanon say that an alcoholic/addict has  a sometimes fatal illness that  can be arrested but NEVER “cured”.  The disease is “incurable”.  However, with help, it can go into “remission” (or recovery) and remain in “remission”, if the alcoholic/addict stops drinking/drugging and continuously works a recovery program, such as AA or Alanon, etc

These programs also speak to life dangers that signal a risk of recurrence of the active illness, using the acronym: HALT, as a collection of generic warning signals:

H = HUNGRY   A= ANGRY   L= LONELY   T= TIRED

A recovering addict/alcoholic is at greater risk of a “slip” into addictive activities when any one or more of these single symptoms is present, is unrecognized (denial) and un-dealt with by the recovering addict/alcoholic.  There is also the risk of re-addiction by medical persons who don’t fully understand addictions and  the terrible risk for a recovering addict when they prescribe sleeping pills, sedatives, tranquilizers, etc.  AA/Alanon call it “taking one’s booze in pill form.”  Addicts are particularly sensitive to these medications that sedate their brain and make their resolve to live soberly less strong.  A “slip” is very common  in recovery.

Addiction is one of the toughest diseases to combat.  Recovery programs say, stop feeling guilty/ashamed, start going to meetings, stop drugging/drinking and start to live soberly again with AA/Alanon program support.

It isn’t easy to cope with these illnesses, but it is vitally important to the addict and his/her family.

Additional credit to Dr. Jerome Collins

For additional information and support please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

"This GALs is the best" - An open letter to a Lawyer about representing a clients needs

When a large bureaucratic system is broken, with no management oversight and disdain for "users" of the system, it has a corrupting effect on everyone who must work in or use the system.

Many of our friends have commented with puzzlement about the weakness of their lawyer's defense of their divorce and custody issues. Some divorce lawyers talk a good game to clients in the office or on the phone, but wilt in court. There seems to be an effort to avoid ruffling the feathers of the GAL- or worse- the judge. Most clients expect that an expensive attorney will defend their case vigorously. It is confusing at first for clients to see the lawyer shift roles from "office superman" to "courtroom wimp". Gradually, many clients will recognize that there is something wrong with this picture.

There is frequently only a behavioral acknowledgment by your lawyer that he is working in a corrupt, totalitarian, insensitive and often illogical system. Lawyerly courage in defending your case will not be rewarded by the court, and a brave lawyer's future practice in that court is apt to be very dim. But the role shift from "superman" to "wimp" is so puzzling- so contrary to what we expect, that it may take a while to recognize and to overcome our denial ("this can't be happening").

The intent of sharing this letter, from which identities have been removed as much as possible, is not to condemn a particular lawyer's lack of courage and avoidance of conflict in court. It is an attempt to analyze further, why the family court system does not work for many families. There are those in the Judicial Branch, who say that the current system works if you just use it properly. This is true in theory, on paper, but ... there is widespread recognition by lawyers that they are tip-toeing through a "minefield" when they challenge a Guardian ad litem in front of a judge. It is about challenging judicial outsourcing- challenging a Guardian ad litem as the judge's deputy. Guardians ad litem as "junior judges, isn't on the books, but it is no less real.

It is this unspoken, behavioral acknowledgment, this awareness of professional danger that is more powerful that the rules on paper. A lawyer SHOULD be able to challenge a Guardian ad litem. However, there are enough who don't, because of professional fear of the consequences of a challenge. We think that the problem derives from the GAL's relationship to the judge. If the Guardian ad litem were only representing the child, it might make challenges easier.

Lawyerly fear is as powerful a determining factor, which limits Guardian ad litem challenges, as are the rules which say it is possible to challenge!

Here is an example:

Subject: Letter to a divorce lawyer

Divorce Attorney, Esq

Dear Attorney,

I have been copied on your response to your client's e-mail, and I am offering my own reactions to it. In it in you are effectively blaming your client for "misunderstanding"- what I would see as your complete disregard of his recent written requests to you about handling his GAL's bill. In two e-mails he asked (1) that you take no further action on the matter of his GAL's outrageous bill without first informing him of your plans, and (2) that you include, as an addendum, his memo to you proposing what he wants to see: (a) a cap on the bill, and (b) a series of very detailed reasons why the bill is problematic in its entirety. You have ignored both of his written requests on this matter. Furthermore, you have offered no reasons for your disregard.

It is very disturbing for all of us to witness this m.o., and it is not for the first time. It raises questions about your execution of your client's wishes, and also what you are doing and what are your aims? Perhaps, mistakenly, you feel you know better than your client what he wants or what he can achieve? Or ... does a failure to discuss the issues in advance with your client, allow you greater freedom of action to avoid personal professional awkwardness with the other players? Whose interest is served by this m.o.; yours or your client's?

You may recall that we had a number of, at first vaguely-formed, questions from the onset of the whole GAL adventure. At the beginning of the divorce. Initially, we knew little about GALs and the GAL process, so like any novices entering this arena we relied on you, as an experienced lawyer to inform us. As time went on, we increasingly wondered with alarm about how you were handling the GAL and your aims- if any? It lead us in desperation to hire another attorney to sort things out. The contrast between this attorney, a former GAL, and you in dealing with the GAL, was "night and day". No longer was it necessary to deny the reality of gross incompetence, harmful decisions and flagrant crookedness on the part of the GAL. But now that his attorney is out of the picture, there appears to be a reversion to your earlier policy of near total accommodation to the GAL.

Let me raise a few direct questions that have made us all very uneasy for a long time about how you are handling things:

1.) "This GAL is the best!" was your unequivocal endorsement at our first meeting with you in your office, where we addressed our puzzlement about the need for a GAL in this case. At that time, we never questioned the basis for your endorsement. But as time went on, and the GAL showed her colors, we asked ourselves: "How did you know? Had you used her in your professional work before? Were you acquainted with her in more personal terms, as a client or as the relative of a client? What did "best"mean? Informed consent in agreeing to the GAL process is important, and we assumed you were helping us to take that step. Had you some professional basis for your endorsement of this GAL when you told us she was "the best"? What basis?

2.) More recently you have altered your endorsement to: "I've never seen her act this way before." The inference might be from this observation that it's the our family that brings out her crookedness; it's situational. You have never told any of us at any time during this process, exactly how you, as a lawyer, evaluate her performance as a GAL. Is she top shelf or substandard? Yes, you have reluctantly moved on the Motion to Remove, but only after extreme pressure, and after including- without my permission- a strong, confidential memo from me to the Social Work Board that should never have been a part of the motion, a signal to the GAL (it's really just our family). Do you currently think that she is OK, or a menace to the public? Would you endorse her to future clients? Why did you table our detailed formal critique, a thoughtful response to the glaring deficiencies and errors in her final GAL report? In so doing you protected her from fire, but it wasn't in your client's interest. It is this sort of thing that makes us feel that you are not really on our team.

3.) Increasingly, our family has wondered about whether there is some latent or actual conflict of interest of some kind that underlies your kid gloves approach to the GAL. Do you or your firm currently have (or have you had) other business with her or members of her family? Have members of your family had involvement with her- clinical or otherwise? On every opportunity when there is a need to confront her poor judgment with actual evidence, you seem to write a stern letter, then dodge or back off, effectively making the GAL the deciding judge in you client's affairs. It has been a disturbing pattern. Our lawyer consultant demonstrated that total surrender to this GAL wasn't necessary to relate in a professionally respectable manner to a GAL. Is there a conflict?

4.) Your current plan for a 1/2 hour meeting in court to resolve the matter of the GAL's bill is an example of what we are talking about. Given the limited time you are requesting and with no prior list of justifying reasons for why the bill is outrageous, you are passing the decision to the GAL, the opposing attorney and the Judge. We've seen this program before, and it has always been a very bad one whatever happens in the privacy of a phone conference or in judges chambers with no client witnessing the actions, your negotiations are dismal. We invariably lose. In terms of the child's final custody decision. In the divorce decree, you have actually managed to negotiate less time for the child with his father than they had before the divorce! It is hard to understand how you could negotiate less or why.

5.) I would suggest to your client that he ask you to withdraw your request for a hearing on the GAL's bill. Immediately. You have no endorsement for the present action from your client. For things to proceed on this matter, you need your client's endorsement, you need a written financial proposal to the court that your client agrees to, you need a list of deficiencies in the bill distributed in advance with the hearing request, and for that it is obvious that you need more than 1/2 hour. It also needs to take place in the courtroom, not in the privacy of chambers, so that your client can watch your actions and guide you in what he will accept. You also need to be prepared to decline to compromise on unfair settlements. Let the judge decide if he is inclined to be punitive.

This is a very difficult letter, long over due. You might ask from our list of dissatisfactions why we continue with you? We have asked ourselves the same question many times. Our answer is that at this point, we feel totally trapped. You have all of the records of the case, we cannot begin afresh and bring a newcomer up to speed, nor can we afford a new retainer. We are stuck. As a way out of our mutual dilemma, I would ask that you consult with our consulting attorney on the GAL's bill and how she would resolve it. And proceed accordingly. your client cannot afford the GAL's bill. It will cripple his ability to provide for his son (and himself). It needs strong action

Sincerely,

Involved Family Member
(On behalf of the parent)

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.

Will LD 522, SP 212 help the Children of Maine

LD 522, SP 212 An Act To Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws

Is a proposed bill that is being submitted by the Judiciary of Maine and the intention is to correct issues that are part of the Guardian ad litem program here in Maine. It is not clear how what is being proposed will really benefit the children and families of Maine. This is a bill that appears to be self serving for the 'stake holders' (ie. The divorce industry and Guardians ad litem) and an avenue for the states Judiciary to save face and give the appearance of correcting problems that has fermented for decades.

Take for instance “Recommendations for an Improved Process for Complaints Regarding Guardians Ad Litem” in the summary section. This is an open ended statement and gives no clear structure as to how the proposed complaint process is to be improved upon. Our understanding from a member of the committee that was assembled for reforming the complaint process is that the format being endorsed would benefit those that work within the courts. A complaint process with layers that for the average person trying to navigate the legalese would give up upon. This complaint process would also be maintained within the Judiciary – which in almost 40 years of problems has only managed to make the complaint process more bullet proof for the divorce industry and Guardians ad litem. The average person unfamiliar with legal process would probably benefit more from banging their head against a wall repeatedly. Our courts, Judges and Guardians ad litem have failed miserably to provide control, management and oversight of this 'profession' – are we expected that they can produce a transparent process for complaints that the average person can understand?

Contrast this to a proposal from Maine's licensing board  which has a history of providing management and oversight of its members. The complaint process is understandable to the average person who is attempting to navigate a complaint against a Guardian ad litem for vocation and or malpractice. There is due process and accountability that is built in. The process is explained by those that handle the complaint to those that are filing a complaint. There is transparency involved that is not seen with the current process nor with what is being proposed by the Judiciary.

Which would you want to work within? A process that is highly legal and time consuming. One that will potentially cost the person trying to bring about a complaint thousands of dollars? Or a process that cost very little in terms of time and resources. That is not legalistic in its scope? If for no other reason this bill should be killed – the Judiciary may do some things well – oversight and management of Guardians ad litem is not one of them. The bill is self serving and makes reform closed to the public – the very same idea that has put Maine's Guardians ad litem in the hot water they find themselves in now. The complaint process should be moved from the closed process this bill is asking for and moved to an organization that is equipped to police its own. Maine's children cannot wait another 40 years for the idea of change to come. Maine's families cannot afford the cost – emotional and financial – that will come with a poorly thought out process for reform.

Please write to our Representatives to tell them that  LD 522, SP 212 An Act To Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws should be laid to rest. That this is a bad piece of legislation. If you have questions, or need help in contacting our Representatives please email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com for support and information. We can also be found on Facebook for up to date information on  Guardian ad litem and Parental Coordinator reform.

Mo. court to appoint lawyer for Belcher baby

Yahoo! News

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri court will appoint a lawyer to protect the interests of the 4-month-old daughter of the late Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher as her grandparents argue over custody.

Belcher fatally shot the child's mother, Kasandra Perkins, on Dec. 1 in their Kansas City home, then drove to Arrowhead Stadium and killed himself in front of coaches and the team's general manager. Belcher's mother, Cheryl Shepherd, had been living with the couple for about two weeks and was in the home when her son killed Perkins.

Shepherd received temporary custody of Belcher's daughter, Zoey, soon after the shootings and filed a petition in mid-December asking to be appointed as Zoey's guardian and conservator of her estate, which could be worth millions of dollars.



Full story: Yahoo! News

In the hands of a Guardian ad litem are our Children Really Safe?

Guardians ad litem and the Safety of Our Children

It strikes us that if one uses a "in the child's best interest" standard, that an important baseline consideration is: "Is the child safe?"  Clearly there are additional issues like the child's well being, its opportunities for normal, physical and psychological growth and development, its social and moral development, but central to society's interest is safety.

We have been appalled by reports of Guardian ad litem recommendations that propose assigning a child's custody to a parent with an extensive history of alcoholism, prescription  drug abuse and felonious legal issues - especially when there are other, safer, better choices.  In these cases there has been no assessment of child's safety or of the older idea of "parental fitness".  The new, hip view is that at all costs the Guardian ad litem should avoid "social or cultural bias".  In bending over backwards to meet the avoidance of social or cultural bias, the "broad-minded" Guardian ad litem must give due consideration to high risk parents, who might have been considered "unfit" in previous years.  Has the parent showed up drunk for an interview with the Guardian ad litem?  Have they dilated pupils or do they stagger?  If not observed by the Guardian ad litem, and if they say they are clean, they are innocent until proven guilty.  It is simple, blind denial, and it places "the best interest of the child" at serious risk.

We feel that the Judicial Branch should demand primary, professional  information to back up these recommendations.  What do the physicians, psychologists, drug counselors, parole officers have to say?  What about family members (on both sides)?  What about independent psychological testing for fitness to parent?  What about an in depth assessment of the biases in favor of not showing bias to cultural or social issues?

There is another concern that comes out of "the child's best interest" standard, mediation.  Isn't mediation a conflict of interest for a Guardian ad litem?  If a Guardian ad litem stands for "the child's best interest", how can that Guardian ad litem broker a "deal" with the parents?  Doesn't "best interest" have to be separate from: "I want; you want?"  Carving up the child for the parents is not necessarily in "the child's best interest!"  Parents are frequently told by Guardians ad litem that whatever they agree to will be recommended to the court.  Mediation is one of the "mission expansions" that has gradually been added to the Guardians ad litem statutory role.  It generates huge billable hours.  Can a Guardian ad litem, as an arm of the court, be an unbiased mediator?  In our opinion the legal power behind a Guardian ad litem precludes a free, open exchange necessary for true mediation.  The Guardian ad litem is "armed" by his/her appointment in these transactions, and wearing a "gun" precludes free discussion.

As old teachers are wont to say to children, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, the choice is up to you."  But Guardian ad litem clients aren't children!  

We ask ... is this 'modus operandi' "in the best interest of the child" or in that of the Guardian ad litem?

The choice is up to you.
i
If you are having issues with a Guardian ad litem or knows someone who is please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com.

Secrecy shrouds the case of girl found in closet

The Kansas City Star

By LAURA BAUER The Kansas City Star

Updated: 2012-10-07T05:17:28Z

Three months after authorities found a little girl locked in a Kansas City closet, dehydrated and malnourished, unanswered questions still haunt family members, advocates and some lawmakers.

How, for five years, did the girl known as LP basically disappear after the system had recognized her to be a child in danger? Did child welfare workers follow up after she and her little sister were reunited with their mother in March 2007?

Full story: The Kansas City Star

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/06/3851469/secrecy-shrouds-the-case-of-girl.html#storylink=cpy

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:

1. 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?
2.  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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

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

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....

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?

Sorry, GALs, the Days of Wine and Roses are Numbered

A plumber will pay $100 or more for their license. This same plumber needs 1 year of technical college and must pass a Journeyman Plumber exam. If you pass the test you must work under the supervision of a Master Plumber for 2000 hours to take a Master Plumbers exam.  The technical education and the supervised practice are to protect the public and to assure the  quality of plumbing professionals.

If you want to go lobstering you must pay $125 for the license and then it is .80 cents per tag. The potential Lobsterman has to be an apprentice for over 1000 hours to obtain the license.

In the State of Maine you have to have a license from one of the Administrative Branch  licensing boards if you are an Accountant, Doctor, Alcohol and Drug Counselor, Therapy Assistant, Oil and Solid Fuel Technician, Physical Therapist, Social Worker and more than 50 other professions.  These licenses are mandatory if you are to work in the specific profession. The government requiring a license for these professions means that as consumers we can rest assured that the professional person dealing with you has a minimum of training. That there is some form of  regulatory oversight of the occupation involved, because the trade or profession requires some type of specialized skill for the safety and well being of the public. Government and society have deemed that we do not want charlatans delivering  "free-for-all" services, and licensing with testing, continuing education requirements and periodic  license renewal is an accepted method of regulation and oversight. The board that grants the license is also the regulator .

Then there are the Guardians ad litem "professional". These "professionals" are "trained" for 16 hours. Unlike the other professions that have to be licensed the Guardian ad litem does not, nor are they tested on what they learned in the 16 hours. They do not have to apprentice under an experienced Guardian to learn the applied ropes of practice. Guardians ad litem do have continuing education requirements. While one would hope  that the courses for continuing education would be related to the work - from what we have seen this is not always the case. Unless bill collecting and practice management are considered essential technical courses for a Guardian ad litem. Maybe bill collecting is essential as the bills often put parents into bankruptcy.  Then, unlike other professionals  whose license are dependent on continuing education, Guardians ad litem in Maine can fulfill their continuing educational requirement through the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute (MEGALI). This is the  trade organization for the Guardians ad litem and an unregistered lobby for them.  We hear that it wants to be officially sanctioned to provide the required continuing educational experience. This trade organization has no oversight as an educational institution.  It simply decides what courses to market and sells them to members for continuing education credits.  No one supervises these courses, or evaluates their usefulness for job performance.   Without oversight they could hypothetically offer a course on the interior decoration of a Guardian ad litem's office, for 6 CME credits.

There is a very real need to have Guardians ad litem licensed by a professional board with experience in doing this - one with a consumer protection focus.  It should not be done through the Judiciary, which lacks experience in consumer protection and oversight. There is also a very real need to have the continuing education revamped and managed though a University or Community College. There is a desperate need to provide an educational experience that has substance and a job-related focus for people interested in becoming a Guardian ad litem. If Maine continues on the present course without change,  it is guaranteed that future Guardians ad litem will have continuing, severe issues and conflict with those they are supposed to be working for and with.

If you have had problems with a Guardian ad litem or want more information about the issues surrounding this profession please feel free to contact us at:
MeGALalert@gmail.com

Maine Guardians ad litem Oversight, Training and Accountability

A Guardian ad litem is created by Maine's Courts- from start to finish - with a mere 16 hours of training and a notebook. After this, a  Guardian ad litem is let loose on Maine's unsuspecting public and able to charge $125-$200 per hour.  There is no cap on their charges, no restriction of their activities, no enforcement of the rules they are supposed to follow, no supervision and no oversight.  Unbelievable?  But true!

If in the course of a custody battle you ask for a Guardian ad litem be thankful if you have one assigned that is fair and neutral and that follows the "Rules and Regs" for GALs. If you are unlucky  then be warned that it will be almost impossible to remove the Guardian ad litem. Filing a complaint about a GAL will also be useless.  There are no instructions, no guidelines for consumers to follow and no help from the Chief Judge's office.  Under the current system, Maine's courts look at a complaint from a legalistic standpoint, like an adversarial challenge- and not from a consumer's point of view as a call to a manager to investigate vocational functioning . Currently complaints will resolve nothing in terms of seeking to manage or to correct the behavior of the Guardian ad litem. Maine's courts do not understand the concept of consumer protection from flawed workers. Instead Maine's courts respond to consumer complaints with a process that protects the GAL as "an officer of the court".  It is like trying to remove a judge!

Guardians ad litem can bill what they want and for as much as they want. They do not have to justify their billing and may use the courts in which they work to collect their bills or set penalties for slow payers. Oh, and let's not forget that these bills cannot be discharged in bankruptcy court (there is a good chance you will find yourself there as a result) - and the courts could have you jailed for failure to make payment.

Accuracy and first hand evidence aren't necessary for these "16 hour wonders" to do their required reporting to the courts. They can present hearsay evidence  as fact and most courts will accept it. They do not need to be factual in the work they do and this will slip by unchallenged. Guardians ad litem can make wild speculative claims about events that may/ or may not happen in the future, sometimes referred to by informed critics  as "junk science". The courts will accept these "junk science" claims as fact - and, worse, base judgments on them. They can choose to ignore serious health and child endangerment  issues, and the courts will not enforce the fact that failure to report dangers to children is a violation of state law and is mandated reporting. GALs can endorse social behaviors that most normal people would find shocking and Maine's courts will accept this lack of common sense, if the GAL puts a "junk science" spin on it. The Guardian ad litem system and Maine's family courts frequently appear to have lost any common sense.

Maine has a serious GAL problem that has kept the state in the bottom of national rating systems for years. The role of Guardian ad litem will not go away and change is opposed by GALs.  Further, they are aligned with powerful political forces that fight GAL reform.. The Guardian ad litem Institute and some of its members, who are in Maine's legislature, will lobby to keep things the way they are.  $125 to $200 per hour, no supervision, no enforcement of rules and regs., no oversight looks pretty good!  Why change a "good thing"?. Many of these people are blind to the hurt and anger they are causing - looking down on the public they are supposed to serve and blaming their client for complaining. They are wrong and there is growing public and consumer sentiment to back this up.

State of Connecticut Judiciary Committee: Reform the State's Horribly Corrupt and Broken Guardian ad Litem System

Reform the State's Horribly Self Serving and Broken Guardian ad Litem System

Connecticut's Guardian ad Litem system is horribly broken. Judges are routinely raiding children's college funds, parents’ retirement accounts, and every other asset a family may own and diverting it into the hands of Guardian ad Litems who operate without a system of checks and balance and without accountability.

Many parents feel these GALs do not perform the services assigned to them by the state, or do so poorly and without impunity. GALs are also given the protection of immunity and therefore are believed not held truly accountable for any malfeasance, malfeasance, or any repercussion as a result of poor performance.

There is absolutely no oversight of any kind, and no one to complain to - as many judges were themselves formerly GALs and simply perpetuate the problem. The state court system is financially and emotionally devastating parents and families already suffering from a divorce and a poor economy. This is costing people their homes and their jobs - all under the completely false premise that any of this is "in the best interests of children."

Full story: Reform Guardian ad litem     and to sign the petition.

Maine's Guardians ad litems and the Courts say there is No Problem

Guardians ad litem, Judges and quite a few Family Lawyers consider the Maine Guardians ad litem issues that have been widely reported not to be a big problem. Or that is has been hyped by people who have special interest and as a result they are stirring things up. Quite often it is pointed out that these people have a gripe about how unfair the final custody agreement is set up as. Or finally that there is not much of a problem because there have only been 2 reprimands in the last 2 years. All of these themes are repeated over and over despite the facts which contradict these claims and despite the fact that Maine's Judicial Branch has shamefully little actual data. It's about "please, don't confuse me with the facts"!

We are presenting a short list of some of the GAL issues consumers have had to deal with. You be the Judge and tell us if you feel Maine's courts were doing their job by allowing these things to happen with no GAL oversight- What follows are from cases both ongoing and finalized.

1. The Guardian ad litem recommended a child's best interest is served by a parent that has a history of mental illness - the other parent does not.

2. The Guardian ad litem indicated that there is nothing wrong for a four year old to go to a bar late at night and witness violence and bad words. This came from a senior member of the Guardian ad Litem Institute.

3. The Guardian ad litem indicated that if a parent went to jail the child would grow up to become the next unabomber. This came from a senior member of the Guardian ad Litem Institute.

4. The Guardian ad litem took no action when it was brought to her attention that a young child suffered cigarette burns. The Guardian ad litem did not report this to DHHS as stated under the Rules for Guardians ad litem. Nor did this Guardian ad litem show she was protecting the interest of this child.

5. The Guardian ad litem made a diagnosis of a child's current and or future condition. Guardians ad litem do not have the authority to make a diagnosis nor do they have the training to do so.

6. A Guardian ad litem recommended that a 3 year old child was better off living with the father over the girls grandparents. The father has a history of drug use, jail time and has sexually molested his child. The grandparents are respectable people. The Guardian ad litem did not protect the interest of this child.

7. In numerous cases the Guardian ad litem has shown disrespect to a trained professional who has a background in child psychology by disregarding professional opinions, or seeking an opinion from another professional that would better fit the GAL's personal biases. This is contrary to the rules which state that a Guardian ad litem must work effectively with other professionals in the assessment of the child or parties to a case.

8. The Guardian ad litem failed to meet the child or the child and parent in a timely manner and failed to form a relationship with the child whose "best interest" they were claiming to serve. This is contrary to the rules for Guardians ad litem.

9. With numerous Guardians ad litem a parent has been made to jump through expensive unnecessary clinical hoops - anger management assessments and psychological evaluations without any clearly specified reasons for the referral from a trained professional, to name a few. These referrals were made by the GAL alone and were done with no reason, no goals and no time lines for duration.

10. In being a reporter of the court Guardians ad litem are supposed to establish a relationship with the child(ren) in the case. Often the Guardians ad litem with feel that they know the children enough to make life altering decisions after only 20 or 30 minutes. In one case the Guardian ad litem made life altering recommendations without ever having met the child in question.

11. With numerous complaints against Guardians ad litem there are claims of bias and the GAL failed to offer objective reasons for recommendations or actions. Guardians ad litem are supposed to be neutral reporters for the court.

12. With numerous recommendations that Guardians ad litem have filed in courts - one of the common complaints is the accuracy of information contained in their report. For instance we have seen the following:

• Bills that are not transparent and impossible to understand.
• Names that are not recorded correctly.
• Time lines that are not accurate.
• Dates that are not accurate.

13. Facts that are wrong, which the GAL refused to correct despite objective evidence. As a reporter of facts these Guardians ad litem failed to fulfill their most basic job requirement.

14. In numerous cases the Guardian ad litem had ex parte communication with the Judge. While this is allowed by the courts it is also stated that in fairness the Guardian ad litem must let the parties know of this communication - unless it is not 'in the best interest of the child'.

15. A Guardian ad litem knowing that a parent was incapacitated by prescription medications for several days out of a month felt that the young child was better off with this parent. The other parent had no history of drug use, mental illness nor violence.

16. In several cases the Guardian ad litem contradicted his/ her self on visitation recommendations. Changing what had been agreed upon. This often at the last minute and with no notice to the affected party.

17. The Guardian ad litem coached a parent on a psychological evaluation. This after he had already taken one and the results were not satisfactory. This action came from a senior member of the Guardian ad Litem Institute.

18. A Guardian ad litem producing a bill that represented 26% or the combined income of the parties involved in the divorce.

19. Limiting the time allowed with one parent - thus harming and in some cases destroying the bonds between parent and child. This being done contrary to M.R. Civ. P.Section 1653 (1) - "to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parent after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage and that is the public interest to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing to effect the policy.”

Maine has the distinction of being at the bottom in terms of our children. Is this really the way life should be for our children? Is this something that we should be proud of? Yet there are forces that are resistant to the thought of change. These are the same people who are and have been telling us there is no problem. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com and tell us your story.

NC requests guardian in child porn case

By John Harbin
Times-News Staff Writer

Prosecutors have filed a motion to have a guardian ad litem appointed for the victim in a federal case involving the alleged exploitation of a minor and child pornography.

Former teacher Deborah Lee Tipton, 45, of Hendersonville was indicted on April 4 in U.S. District Court and charged with one count of sexual exploitation of children and two counts of possession and disseminating child pornography, according to court records.

Full story: BlueRidgeNow

When is Burning a Child with a Cigarette Okay?

There is a case in Maine that has run its course through the system. The case is a perversion of Justice and the father has been put through the wringer by the Guardian ad litem.

The father recently filed a complaint with the head Judge – Judge LaVerdiere – in which he complained about the Guardian ad litem and the neglect this woman showed for the case and the child. This father was and still is upset with the medieval process that he and others have to go though with the Guardians ad litem assigned to their case. There is a shopping list of why this Guardian ad litem practiced neglect and bias – throwing any shred of common sense out the window and not looking out for this child's best interest.

1. This Guardian ad litem neglected the child’s safety. Several years ago in July it was brought to the GALs attention that his son was burned – it appeared that the burns were caused by cigarettes. In addition there were several large bruises on his shoulders that his son complained about. The father sought treatment for his son as any good parent would do. He also complained to the Guardian ad litem.

According to the rules for Guardians ad litem if a GAL knows that a child has been abused he/ she must make an immediate report to DHHS. In this case the GAL did not report and dismissed the fathers concern. In addition the father was accused of causing trouble – which could be true if a parents concern for their child is causing trouble.

2. Despite the fact that the father has no history of drug or alcohol use or mental illness he was forced to have mental evaluations done so that he may have limited supervised visits with his child. These visits are limited to once a week for a few hours. In addition he was forced to have an assessment done for anger management because the Guardian ad litem felt the father had issues in controlling his anger. This father did what any parent would do when faced with the threat at losing contact with their child. He complied. The Dr. doing the evaluation pointed out that the fathers perceived anger was justified considering the harassment he was getting from the Guardian ad litem. The Guardian ad litem chose to ignore the findings of this Dr – thus disrespecting the opinion of a professional and making a diagnosis of the problem. This Guardian ad litem (and this would also apply for any Guardian ad litem) has no authority to make a diagnosis – never. This Guardian ad litem under rule 3, 3.2, 12(a) is supposed to work with other professionals involved in the assessment or treatment of the parties involved. She clearly did not.

3. This Guardian ad litem showed bias against the father. In addition to the assessments the father was forced to take – this despite the fact he had no history of violence, mental illness or alcohol and drug use – the mother was never asked to do the same. The mother as part of her daily regimen of coping with life is on a mix of ten plus drugs that includes - Vicodin, Oxycontin, Ativan, Neurotin, Phenergin and Medicinal Marijuana. The child was placed under the mothers care despite the knowledge the mother was often incapacitated by these drugs. Is it any wonder the father may have shown frustration towards the Guardian ad litem's recommendations?

The Judgment of this Guardian ad litem is clouded. Both the rules and standards state that a Guardian ad litem must make well reasoned and defensible recommendation regarding the best interest of the child and be an independent voice, free of bias. In all three points it is questionable whether the child’s safety was taken into consideration. Certainly the 'best interest of the child' was ignored. These points and others were cited in the complaint to Head Judge LaVerdiere. He went through and weighed the rights and wrongs – and in the end decided, upon consultation with the Guardian ad litem, that this Guardian ad litem did nothing wrong. Well at least nothing that would warrant even the light slaps on the wrist that Maine's Judiciary has doled out to their GALs. You be the Judge and let us know if the Guardian ad litem was right or wrong.

email: MeGALalert@gmail.com

For more information on the rules and standards please follow these links:

Rules: http://www.courts.state.me.us/maine_courts/family/gal/rules.html

Standards: http://www.courts.state.me.us/maine_courts/family/gal/standards.html