NY - Corrupt justice: what happens when judges' bias taints a case?

The Guardian

When Margaret Besen, a 51-year-old nurse from East Northport, Long Island, filed for divorce from her husband in March of 2010, she believed justice was on her side.

Judge William Kent’s preliminary ruling seemed like a first step toward compromise. Margaret and Stuart Besen, who agreed their marriage was beyond repair, would remain in their suburban Suffolk County house, living in separate rooms – and keeping away from each other – while sharing custody until a resolution could be reached.

But within weeks, the situation deteriorated. Stuart Besen, a politically connected attorney for the town of Huntington, had an anger problem, Margaret told authorities. The couple’s screaming matches left Margaret feeling intimidated and their children – a daughter, 11, and son, 7 – terrified, she said. So in August of that year she obtained an order of protection prohibiting Stuart from harassing her. Three weeks later, Stuart entered Margaret’s bedroom and hovered over her as she slept, she told police. They arrested him for violating the order, reporting that Stuart had stared down at Margaret with his arms folded on three consecutive nights. She got temporary possession of the family home.

In the years that followed, Besen’s hopes for an equitable settlement dwindled as she battled a series of harsh and hard-to-explain decisions against her. Though she could never prove anything, she suspected that the scales had tipped for reasons unrelated to the evidence in her case. If true, Besen faced what experts say is one of the most troubling threats to our nation’s system of justice: judges, who, through incompetence, bias or outright corruption, prevent the wronged from getting a fair hearing in our courts.

“The decorum and bias and the perfectly unethical behavior of the judges is really rampant,” said Amanda Lundergan, a defense attorney in Royal Palm Beach, Florida, who confronted a nest of judicial conflicts in her state’s rapid-fire foreclosure rulings – dubbed the “rocket-docket” – following the housing market collapse. “It’s judicial bullying.”

Full story: The Guardian

Missouri - Alicia Napalan - Money means custody in Family Courts

By Alicia Napalan
West Plains, Missouri

Recently I went through a divorce. I was unable to afford an attorney, while my ex-husband was. I was denied legal aid, twice, due to a lack of funds. My husband was granted full custody of my four year old son. I have one weekend of supervised visitation. I have to pay him $100 per each visitation. As well as $3500 for his attorneys fees in 60 days. All because I was expected to have the same amount of knowledge in representing myself as someone who spent years in law school. I have a job, a car, my own place, I don't do drugs, and my son wasn't abused. Clearly, justice can't be done when one party is represented while the other is not.

In the large amount of time I spent in court, I saw crying mothers over and over, asking the judge what to do, and repeating that they can't afford an attorney. And the judge is only allowed to respond with, "you are expected to know, if you represent yourself. I cannot give you legal advice." The Legal Service Corporation is largely responsible for the funding for state legal aid programs. Even though the budget is 350 million, with supplemental funding from LSC, the total amount of legal aid available for civil cases is still grossly inadequate.

According to LSC's widely released 2005 report "Documenting the Justice Gap in America: The Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans", all legal aid offices nationwide, LSC-funded or not, are together able to meet only about 20 percent of the estimated legal needs of low-income people in the United States.

I lost custody of my child, because I could not do enough research on my own, to stand up against an attorney who had been in practice for years. Hard solid evidence I had was not accepted by the judge because a lack of foundation. 90% of what came out of my mouth was objected to. All on top of the fact that I have social anxiety, and fear of speaking to people and crowds.

I'm requesting that Congress grant more funding for LSC so that more low income families may have a chance at justice. So those extra funds can trickle down to all State Legal Aid programs. It wasn't a piece of furniture I was fighting for. It was my child. And I lost him because I lack funds.

I'm terrified of the emotional Impact It will have on my child being away from me. If I miss my deadline to pay for my visitation, my ex-husband refuses to let me see him. And its getting increasingly harder to make that deadline because he is garnishing my wages for the attorneys fees the judge granted I pay him. I believe with an increase in funding for legal aid services, more families will have a chance at justice, and be spared the same hardships I'm going through.

Alicia Napalan can be found on Facebook. Alicia represents a significant problem that is growing daily. Access to Justice within the Family Court system. The national average of 'Pro se' representation is over 50% with some states over 75% of parents representing themselves (Maine 74%, Connecticut 82% and New York at 85%). This is a two tiered system of justice between the haves (those who are able to afford legal representation) and the have not's (those who are not able to afford representation). NationalGALalert is trying to bring about reform to the Family Court system. If you are interested in helping then please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com of like us on Facebook.

Pennsylvania - Former Guardian ad litem Danielle Ross asks Judge for Probation

PA Homepage

A former Guardian ad litem (GAL) from Lackawanna County PA has asked a judge for leniency with her sentencing which was scheduled for Wednesday 04/16/2014.

Danielle Ross the former GAL is asking for probation after pleading guilty to income tax evasion.





Full story: PA Homepage

Connecticut - Opinion: Judge Became Pawn In Debate Over Family Court Issues

Kim Knox opens with placing the blame of the parent/ consumer and not on the Judges - especially not the 'Honorable Leslie Olear' who - because of circumstance finds herself on the hot seat. As the old saying indicates "what goes around comes around" - it would appear 'Honorable Leslie Olear' is getting what she deserves.

Connecticut Law Tribune

The Honorable Leslie Olear came before the General Assembly for reappointment on Feb. 26, having served the previous eight years with a stellar record. By all accounts, she is the type of judge that Connecticut deserves and needs: smart, hard-working and committed to doing what is fair and just.

But Olear had the misfortune of being a sitting family law judge when the reappointment vote was cast, and thus became a pawn in a highly charged, politically sensitive debate over structural issues in the family courts – a debate in which a small number of family court critics appear to be using the reappointment process as a means to give voice to their dissatisfaction about the functioning of that all-important docket within the Judicial Branch.

Full story: Connecticut Law Tribune

Related stories:
Connecticut - Opinion: Family Court System Expensive, Inefficient And Abusive

Maine - Child Custody - An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521

It isn’t often that most people have a chance to read an actual divorce and custody story that is being appealed to Maine’s Supreme Court, as we write this.  Child custody appeals are relatively rare. Most people, who might wish to appeal, are intimidated by the process; many are discouraged by lawyers, who don’t wish to offend a lower court judge by asking a higher court to intervene and correct a decision. Then, there is the huge amount of work involved and the not inconsiderable expense.

The process starts with a heartfelt disagreement with a lower court judgment and with the handling of the law in that court. It requires courage to challenge a family court judgment. It also always embodies a determined love of one’s child (children). In effect the appellant is very publicly saying - but in polite legal language - to the court, “You are dead wrong!  Your judgment is not only unfair but badly arrived at. The tools you are using and the reasoning process are seriously defective!  I strongly protest!”  How a skilled attorney approaches this problem and chooses the most important issues out of a welter of possible “plots, subplots and very involved stories” is a matter of legal judgment. Most of us, as parents and family would get lost in a morass of the details that go into a custody fight. The enclosed brief of this particular case demonstrates the vitally necessary partnership between lawyer and client. It is a union of “heart and courage” and ”head” - the level, focused intellectual crafting of the case essentials by a lawyer. It will be, I guarantee you, a most interesting and informative “read”.

We’ve been hearing from family members some of the unbelievable details of this case, Dalton vs Dalton, for just over a year. We have held our breath each time there has been a court hearing, hoping for fairness, for a reasonable turn of events, for a review of hard facts and for correction of a frightening nightmare of misperception being acted out in court. But the process seemed only to get worse as time went on. The extreme and inaccurate views of the court and a Guardian ad litem have, unfortunately, become ever more rigidly entrenched. Hence, the difficult decision to appeal.

We have to say, in no way to diminish this very troubling case, that from our experience with many other friends, the clumsy handling of this case in this court is, unfortunately, by no means unique. This case is a poster child for other very similar cases, and it is an urgent clarion call for urgently needed Family Court Reform in Maine. Like most Family Courts in America today, Maine’s courts are in the views of many, badly broken, dysfunctional and urgently in need of reconceptualization and reconstruction. They have lost their moorings in the law, and they are cruelly hurting many of the families and children that they are supposed to serve.

Please, read the enclosed pdf with the details of the Supreme Court Appeal and see what you think.  By all means, share it with friends and legal professionals.  Ask the questions: “Is this how our courts should function?  Is this your image of what you would expect from a court in a democratic society?”

Finally, who is in charge, where’s the oversight?

To view the case click on the link - Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521

For more information please contact MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook

Pennsylvania - Judge suspends Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin's sentence until higher court rules on her appeal

While this does not directly relate to Guardians ad litem this is related to Court Officers and speaks to the corruption that winds its way into the Family Court/ Court system. Who pays - the consumers.

TribLIVE News

 An Allegheny County judge on Friday suspended former state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin's sentence on her corruption conviction despite pleas from her attorney to let her continue serving a three-year term on house arrest, a tactic one legal expert said could save her from a worse fate.

Common Pleas Judge Lester G. Nauhaus released Melvin, 57, of Marshall pending the outcome of a Superior Court appeal that seeks to block Nauhaus from altering her sentence. The state court ruled this month that Melvin does not have to comply with part of the judge's sentence that requires her to write letters of apology to every judge in Pennsylvania on black-and-white photos of herself posing in handcuffs.

Full story: TribLIVE News

Women wage campaign to impeach New Jersey judge Paul Escandon

It begs the question of who is providing oversight of the judges - in any state? The public and consumers of any state Judicial Branch are fed the same hash that everything is under control. Or is it? How do we know as a people, as a society that those who should be doling out justice are doing so in a way that is fair and by the law. How do we know that judges have oversight and accountability. That they are being managed? We don't. We have been brought up to trust a system that in many areas is corrupt and has no interest in making sure the system is working the way it is supposed to.

These women are proving just that. One of the women was upset and vented which led to other women connecting. Patterns start to emerge. While this case does not directly relate to a Guardian ad litem it does make one think about whether or not the people who are "managing" Guardians ad litem are themselves being managed. If there is no management of anyone then how do we know that there are no problems?

ABC News

 MONMOUTH CO., N.J. (WABC) -- A group of women who say they've been discriminated against by a judge in Monmouth County, New Jersey are now trying to get him impeached. They've filed a petition with the state assembly to have the judge removed.

What's interesting is the role that social media has had in bringing these women together to share their stories. It started with one mother who thought she was alone in her legal battle with Judge Paul Escandon, but she discovered there are dozens with similar experiences.

"All of a sudden, one day I was his mother and the next day I had fewer rights than a babysitter on the street," Rachel Alitoff said.

Full story and video: ABC News

In Utah a Grandmother fights for the best interest of her grandson

In Utah there is a young boy whose Grandmother is fighting for his life. This child was taken by the state on June 14th 2010 because the mother had made poor choices in her life. The grandmother of the boy tried to figure out how she could take custody of this boy - she could not afford an attorney. This Grandmother had been raising this boy from birth along with his brother - she had an emotional, physical and financial connection to these brothers.

In 2011 after having focused on the lives of her grandsons she was confronted with a court hearing in February. It was at this time the Judge first brought up the idea of adoption  of one of the brothers. A therapist was ordered to research the matter of whether or not it would be in the best interest of the boy to be separated. The therapist Rachael Jones spoke with everyone that was involved with the boys life at the time. In April 2011 the foster parents who were attempting to adopt the child backed out. There was a new family that was interested in adoption. The grandmother now was only seeing her grandson twice a month for three hours of unsupervised visits. The therapist indicated that it would not be in the best interest of this boy to be adopted and should stay with the family at the court hearing.

The Judge stopped the therapist before she could finish and indicated that the child was going to be adopted. The grandmother in shock because of what she had just heard timidly raised her hand to ask the Judge if she could speak. The Judge barked to her saying "If you think you can change my mind - you are not...... but go ahead." The grandmother pleaded with the judge and the judge thanked the grandmother - the judge then turned her attention to the new foster parents who had only been with the child for less than three weeks and asked if they wanted to adopt. They said yes. In December 2011 there was a finalized adoption hearing.

The grandmother fought the system, the judge and the Guardian ad litem that became involved. Last November the grandmother was told by the courts that it was final - the boy stays with his new foster parents. On May 7, 2013 this grandmother is being given a second chance to bring her grandson back into his family and to be with his brother. Please follow this link for the appeal and follow the trials of this child and grandmother on Facebook.

STATE OF UTAH, in the interest of C.C. and K.H., to read about the appeal.





For up to date information on Guardian ad litem reform please write us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.