Showing posts with label mission creep. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mission creep. Show all posts
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Guardian ad litem Mission Creep and their role as Investigator
This article is a basic recruitment piece for Guardians ad litem in the state of Florida. While that is not really an issue what is troubling is the quote the post uses from a Guardian ad litem Sandy Roth who describes her job as a GAL to be:
"These dedicated women and men are not investigators, although they often investigate. They are not case workers, but are intimately familiar with details of the case. They are not attorneys, although they represent the interests of the children in court. They aren’t foster parents or caregivers, but they visit the children regularly in their temporary homes. They’re not teachers or counselors, but they work with schools to ensure the children are progressing. They support the counseling needs of each child, but they are not therapists. Neither are they physicians or dentists, although they make sure the children’s medical and dental needs are met"
The description is made to sound like a Peace Corps job - the toughest job you'll ever love. While the job is a tough one the role is not. The basic role of a Guardian ad litem is that of an investigator and nothing more. To collect the facts of a case and present them to the Judge so that a Judge can make a decision. To put it into other terms. A families life is like a movie. The Guardian ad litem puts together a preview for the Judge of the family's life. Otherwise the Judge would only have photos of what that families life was like without the input from a Guardian ad litem.
Guardian ad litem Sandy Roth - while she may be a wonderful GAL - her role it appears has expanded beyond that of what a GAL is supposed to do in the traditional sense. This is the case for Guardians ad litem across the country. It is called "mission creep". Slowly over time the courts have allowed for the role to expand into areas the GAL has no professional training for. Many GALs have anywhere from 6 to 30 hours of training over a broad range of topics to help the new GAL function in their role of investigator. Yet - as Sandy suggests - a Guardian ad litem acts as an attorney by representing the best interest of the child. That they are pseudo therapists, doctors and dentists. They act as foster parents by visiting children on a regular basis. For anyone of these roles - Lawyers, Judges, Doctors, Therapists and Foster Parents can take years of training. Yet a Guardian ad litem might have 30 hours of training at most. Who is going to do a better job? Add to the mix of this pseudo-professional a lack of any kind of oversight and management and you have a very dangerous person who is making life altering decisions for families. Give the article a look.
Full story: OCALA
Thursday, December 6, 2012
The Judicial Branch Dilemma in Managing Guardians ad litem
In
thinking about why the Judicial Branch has such difficulty in
creating a management system for its GAL program, a number of
conceptual and structural impediments come to mind. The most readily
acknowledged issue is no money for supervision or for a bureaucratic
structure that would allow for normal bureaucratic management of
Guardians ad litem (GAL). The financial excuse is probably true given
the dire financial straights of the state, but we would say in
addition that even were money available, there are more serious
conceptual impediments preventing Judicial Branch’s internal
management of Guardians ad litem. There are at least three conceptual
issues that would make supervision or management of Guardians ad
litem in any Judicial system fraught with legal and ethical problems
unique to judicial branches of government.
The issues involve internal conflicts inherent in normal organizational role shifts, within a judicial system, from the role of supervision of vocational functioning of a supervisee to the administration of justice in cases involving complaints about supervision which seek legal solutions. Both GAL management and adjudication of formal, legal complaints about a Guardian’s management get very complex when these inherently conflicting activities have to occur within the same, small, fairly tight system. It would require a tight control over supervisory information and rigid compartmentalization of this information, so that information about supervision and management - and any conflict therein - does not seep into formal adjudication channels and pollute the fairness of any possible, future legal complaint process. Can it be done?
1.) Judicial Independence. In the spirit of Common Law, a judge is supposed to form his/her judgment about a case independently, uninfluenced (unswayed) by other branches of government or by partisan, community (or bureaucratic) politics.
This means standing apart from and being independent of politics and influence from the other branches of government. It should include not only formal political influence of the branches, but also government bureaucratic influences, including those of the judge’s own internal bureaucracy. This means using data presented in court by both parties to form an independent opinion and not to be swayed by outside influences or outside information or previous knowledge of the case. It would be difficult for a judge to resolve independently legal actions of any kind involving a Guardian ad litem; especially, a GAL with whom he/she has worked in court or even one who is known to the judicial system. Judicial independence gets damaged by foreknowledge of the GAL, by working relationships, by the rumors, by system gossip, by the system grapevines and by private awareness of the contentions.
The issues involve internal conflicts inherent in normal organizational role shifts, within a judicial system, from the role of supervision of vocational functioning of a supervisee to the administration of justice in cases involving complaints about supervision which seek legal solutions. Both GAL management and adjudication of formal, legal complaints about a Guardian’s management get very complex when these inherently conflicting activities have to occur within the same, small, fairly tight system. It would require a tight control over supervisory information and rigid compartmentalization of this information, so that information about supervision and management - and any conflict therein - does not seep into formal adjudication channels and pollute the fairness of any possible, future legal complaint process. Can it be done?
1.) Judicial Independence. In the spirit of Common Law, a judge is supposed to form his/her judgment about a case independently, uninfluenced (unswayed) by other branches of government or by partisan, community (or bureaucratic) politics.
This means standing apart from and being independent of politics and influence from the other branches of government. It should include not only formal political influence of the branches, but also government bureaucratic influences, including those of the judge’s own internal bureaucracy. This means using data presented in court by both parties to form an independent opinion and not to be swayed by outside influences or outside information or previous knowledge of the case. It would be difficult for a judge to resolve independently legal actions of any kind involving a Guardian ad litem; especially, a GAL with whom he/she has worked in court or even one who is known to the judicial system. Judicial independence gets damaged by foreknowledge of the GAL, by working relationships, by the rumors, by system gossip, by the system grapevines and by private awareness of the contentions.
A
theoretical problem might start with supervisory discord between a
GAL and his/her supervisor about an issue of supervision, leading to
an internal management hearing and subsequently pursued in a formal
court complaint. It might go the full route in court and continue as
a case of higher level appeal. Administrative supervision within any
such JB system - if there were conflicts - might at some point be apt
to tangle with the branches’ system for administering formal
justice, as those with supervisory grievances may seek legal appeal.
It poses a huge bureaucratic challenge to keep information from these
supervision and justice boundaries clean, separate and
non-communicating in a single, small bureaucracy. This is a very
special supervisory problem (unique?) for judicial systems, one that
is not faced by administrative bureaucracies in other branches of
government. Judicial independence, while an active member of a
bureaucratic branch of government is challenging to say the
least.
Having a non-judge be supervisor of a GAL would necessitate a bureaucracy to supervise the supervisor, a supervisory appellate process for conflicts arising out of supervision, and links within the same system to the judiciary for conflicts that "go legal". Judicial independence in Judicial Branches would necessitate a “Rube Goldberg” organizational structure and be strained to the degree that all judges would have to adopt an antisocial, personal ‘modus operandi’ to avoid contamination of their independence by normal internal organizational grapevines and normal organizational politics. And this would have to be at all times for perhaps an actually limited number of internal legal complaints. Can independence of one’s home bureaucracy be carried out, always, with any kind of credibility? What sort of person would avoid all informal social communications with system wide colleagues to be judicially independent? It is an example of the latent conflicting strains between supervision and legal functions within the same system that inevitably impinge on judicial independence.
2.) Judicial Impartiality. There are special challenges to maintaining judicial impartiality when one sits in formal judgment of a person who works in the same bureaucratic system, who is appointed by colleagues, who works for colleagues and friends in that system, who may be known personally or by reputation or rumor. The potential role conflicts and/or impartiality conflicts would seem enormous when colleagues, friends, coworkers must attempt to render impartial judgment. Can it happen? Can one have oversight of a working colleague (and at the same time maintain impartiality), with the unavoidable risk that the working colleague might at some point go to law with a formal complaint for some sort of problem resolution, which cannot be resolved in supervision? It is another serious conceptual impediment to the Judicial Branch system supervising or having oversight of GALs.
3.) Due Process. Implies that in a conflict, all parties and the judge will share in common, knowledge about the complaint and the case at the same time, and that everyone has equal opportunities to respond to all steps in the process. No one has the special advantage of being able to use secret information unknown to the other players or privately to exert undue influence. Well run courts are scrupulous about keeping all relevant information shared by all participants and to avoid ‘ex parte’ communications so no one has use of special knowledge not available to the others. Information has a power of its own to determine or influence outcomes. The idea of protecting due process poses special challenges to the hypothetical idea of supervision or of oversight within a judicial system, where all supervisory and oversight information would have to be kept rigidly apart from the justice side to avoid contaminating possible future due process in a hypothetical legal complaint from the same players. Can any organization - even a formal espionage organization - implement this degree of control over information that is internal to one part of the system in order to prevent seepage into another part of the same system?
These ideas are just a few conceptual and system reasons, why it is virtually an impossibility for the JB to construct a system of GAL oversight without violating very important traditional principles that are embedded in administering the law. This is not in any way to suggest that these principles are not vitally important and necessary in a court of law and need to be respected. It is simply to try to understand why these same respected principles that work so well in court render supervision of GALs virtually impossible in Judicial systems. It is the reason why many states have surrendered to the impossibility of doing supervision/oversight within their judicial branch and moved these activities to the administrative/executive branch.
Maine should do this for the same reasons.
Having a non-judge be supervisor of a GAL would necessitate a bureaucracy to supervise the supervisor, a supervisory appellate process for conflicts arising out of supervision, and links within the same system to the judiciary for conflicts that "go legal". Judicial independence in Judicial Branches would necessitate a “Rube Goldberg” organizational structure and be strained to the degree that all judges would have to adopt an antisocial, personal ‘modus operandi’ to avoid contamination of their independence by normal internal organizational grapevines and normal organizational politics. And this would have to be at all times for perhaps an actually limited number of internal legal complaints. Can independence of one’s home bureaucracy be carried out, always, with any kind of credibility? What sort of person would avoid all informal social communications with system wide colleagues to be judicially independent? It is an example of the latent conflicting strains between supervision and legal functions within the same system that inevitably impinge on judicial independence.
2.) Judicial Impartiality. There are special challenges to maintaining judicial impartiality when one sits in formal judgment of a person who works in the same bureaucratic system, who is appointed by colleagues, who works for colleagues and friends in that system, who may be known personally or by reputation or rumor. The potential role conflicts and/or impartiality conflicts would seem enormous when colleagues, friends, coworkers must attempt to render impartial judgment. Can it happen? Can one have oversight of a working colleague (and at the same time maintain impartiality), with the unavoidable risk that the working colleague might at some point go to law with a formal complaint for some sort of problem resolution, which cannot be resolved in supervision? It is another serious conceptual impediment to the Judicial Branch system supervising or having oversight of GALs.
3.) Due Process. Implies that in a conflict, all parties and the judge will share in common, knowledge about the complaint and the case at the same time, and that everyone has equal opportunities to respond to all steps in the process. No one has the special advantage of being able to use secret information unknown to the other players or privately to exert undue influence. Well run courts are scrupulous about keeping all relevant information shared by all participants and to avoid ‘ex parte’ communications so no one has use of special knowledge not available to the others. Information has a power of its own to determine or influence outcomes. The idea of protecting due process poses special challenges to the hypothetical idea of supervision or of oversight within a judicial system, where all supervisory and oversight information would have to be kept rigidly apart from the justice side to avoid contaminating possible future due process in a hypothetical legal complaint from the same players. Can any organization - even a formal espionage organization - implement this degree of control over information that is internal to one part of the system in order to prevent seepage into another part of the same system?
These ideas are just a few conceptual and system reasons, why it is virtually an impossibility for the JB to construct a system of GAL oversight without violating very important traditional principles that are embedded in administering the law. This is not in any way to suggest that these principles are not vitally important and necessary in a court of law and need to be respected. It is simply to try to understand why these same respected principles that work so well in court render supervision of GALs virtually impossible in Judicial systems. It is the reason why many states have surrendered to the impossibility of doing supervision/oversight within their judicial branch and moved these activities to the administrative/executive branch.
Maine should do this for the same reasons.
For more information on the issues of
Guardians ad litem we encourage you to read the 2006 OPEGA report.
Provided is a link to a summary – OPEGA. In addition there is the
report the Power of the Powerless which addresses many of the same
issues. If you have had any issues with Guardians ad litem we
encourage you to contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
or like us on Facebook for information.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Almost 40 years with no Management or Oversight for Guardians ad litem
One of the audit findings by OPEGA was that there is a lack of compliance, performance controls and evaluation systems. The Judicial Branch has not been competent when it comes to oversight or performance monitoring in the 30+ years prior to the report. Six years later we find the Judicial Branch still without any quality controls in place to monitor and evaluate Guardians ad litem. There is no mechanism to identify GALs that are not complying with requirements or who are not involved in the lives of the child(ren). OPEGA also recommended the establishment of an independent oversight board that would ask for feedback on GAL performance. Being able to give feedback and having a place where this feedback, good or bad, is available for consumers would help in the matter of oversight and management. An Angie’s list of sorts would weed out under performing GALs or limit their business. Those that perform to standards would be rewarded for their ethics and behavior.
It was 30+ years before OPEGA investigated and reported on this issue. Six years later the situation has not changed except that there has been 6 more years of damage to Maine's families and children. How much longer will Maine's children have to wait for change to come? If we wait for the Judicial Branch to bring about change it may be another 40 years. Can we wait that long?
If you want to read a summarized copy of the 2006 OPEGA report click here.
A copy of the report done in 2012 – the Power of the Powerless which covers many of the same issues can be found here.
If you are or know someone who has had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com. We can also be found on Facebook.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
A Job Description for GALs - or is it?
A job description is like the foundation of a house. If you have a good and well built foundation the house that sits upon it will also be strong with few problems. If you have a poor foundation (or none), your house will, shift and shake, lack stability and have a lot of problems. Job descriptions are used almost universally throughout business, industry, government and elsewhere to put boundaries on a job, to describe roles and responsibilities, to give lines of authority and accountability. They are a key management tool. In normal oversight, managers ask, "Are you following your job description? You need to improve this or that part of your job description."
Maine's Judicial Branch is currently attempting to tackle the issue of Guardian ad litem reform. A committee has proposed a complex new procedure for complaints about Guardians ad litem; another committee is currently addressing the issue of Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem. But ... er, folks, excuse me, there is no job description for Guardians ad litem. We have before us a collection of a new complaint procedure and new Rules and Regulations - both in search of a job description. There is no formal description of a Guardians ad litem job to which the Rules and Regulations can be tailored. No roles and functions, no lines of authority, no lines of accountability that are universally a part of a regular job description. There is also the matter of training of Guardians ad litem. In most settings in business, industry and government, the job description is the template, or basis, for job training and education. Training flows from the job pattern and re-enforces the job's roles and functions.
Great work, everyone. Now we just have to find a job that all this stuff will fit! It's doing things backwards.
No job description explains the current Guardian ad litem training design. It presumes a base of knowledge for which there is no evidence and adds a smidgen (16 hours) of social work and lawyer. Lawyers and Mental health or Social Workers have very different bases of knowledge, skill and experience. As one educator told us; education of Guardians ad litem is one root of the current Guardian ad litem problem. The "tap root" is no job description. Without a job description, it leaves the Guardian ad litem in the position of being all things to all people.
The problem is that, while fixing the Rules and Regulations may make the house look clean and polished, these Rules and Regulations have no job description as a grounded foundation. The foundation is missing. In most settings Rules and Regulations would normally provide direction about how to play out the content of the job description. They elaborate on where the boundaries are located, and rules imply a problem when boundaries are crossed or ignored. They can be specific items reviewed in supervision and in internal organizational corrective action or in external complaints. But in the JB system, there is no supervision of Guardians ad litem, which leaves Rules and Regulations as a sort of disconnected, pious hope. An amorphous, very ambiguous claim of Guardians ad litem working in "the best interest of the child" – something that every parent is also doing – is not a substitute for an actual job description. There is no formal statement that defines who or what a Guardian ad litem is or does, their lines of accountability, their roles and functions.
A reliance on "works in the best interest of the child" as a job description accords the Guardian ad litem a magic mantle of omnipotence and omniscience that no other job in America holds, a sort of high priest/priestess accountable only to God, and the appointing court. Maine is faced with a huge problem with the Guardian ad litem system that starts with these questions: what are Guardians ad litem, what do they do, how are they trained, who has oversight of them, how is this exercised? A final very important question: are children and families safe as a result of their actions? And (this afterthought) why is everyone paying megabucks for this service?
Simply reviewing and rewriting Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem with no job description, does begin to address the core of the problem – just what is a Guardian ad litem?
Please let us know at MeGALalert@gmail.com what you think is wrong with the Guardian ad litem system. To find out more about what is wrong visit us at meGALalert.blogspot.com.
Maine's Judicial Branch is currently attempting to tackle the issue of Guardian ad litem reform. A committee has proposed a complex new procedure for complaints about Guardians ad litem; another committee is currently addressing the issue of Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem. But ... er, folks, excuse me, there is no job description for Guardians ad litem. We have before us a collection of a new complaint procedure and new Rules and Regulations - both in search of a job description. There is no formal description of a Guardians ad litem job to which the Rules and Regulations can be tailored. No roles and functions, no lines of authority, no lines of accountability that are universally a part of a regular job description. There is also the matter of training of Guardians ad litem. In most settings in business, industry and government, the job description is the template, or basis, for job training and education. Training flows from the job pattern and re-enforces the job's roles and functions.
Great work, everyone. Now we just have to find a job that all this stuff will fit! It's doing things backwards.
No job description explains the current Guardian ad litem training design. It presumes a base of knowledge for which there is no evidence and adds a smidgen (16 hours) of social work and lawyer. Lawyers and Mental health or Social Workers have very different bases of knowledge, skill and experience. As one educator told us; education of Guardians ad litem is one root of the current Guardian ad litem problem. The "tap root" is no job description. Without a job description, it leaves the Guardian ad litem in the position of being all things to all people.
The problem is that, while fixing the Rules and Regulations may make the house look clean and polished, these Rules and Regulations have no job description as a grounded foundation. The foundation is missing. In most settings Rules and Regulations would normally provide direction about how to play out the content of the job description. They elaborate on where the boundaries are located, and rules imply a problem when boundaries are crossed or ignored. They can be specific items reviewed in supervision and in internal organizational corrective action or in external complaints. But in the JB system, there is no supervision of Guardians ad litem, which leaves Rules and Regulations as a sort of disconnected, pious hope. An amorphous, very ambiguous claim of Guardians ad litem working in "the best interest of the child" – something that every parent is also doing – is not a substitute for an actual job description. There is no formal statement that defines who or what a Guardian ad litem is or does, their lines of accountability, their roles and functions.
A reliance on "works in the best interest of the child" as a job description accords the Guardian ad litem a magic mantle of omnipotence and omniscience that no other job in America holds, a sort of high priest/priestess accountable only to God, and the appointing court. Maine is faced with a huge problem with the Guardian ad litem system that starts with these questions: what are Guardians ad litem, what do they do, how are they trained, who has oversight of them, how is this exercised? A final very important question: are children and families safe as a result of their actions? And (this afterthought) why is everyone paying megabucks for this service?
Simply reviewing and rewriting Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem with no job description, does begin to address the core of the problem – just what is a Guardian ad litem?
Please let us know at MeGALalert@gmail.com what you think is wrong with the Guardian ad litem system. To find out more about what is wrong visit us at meGALalert.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Guardians ad litem using the courts as personal bill collectors
If you visit the
Maine Guardian ad litem Institute web site and read their Mission Statement you
will read about the noble cause that they have taken up for the child who finds
him/ her self in the middle of a dispute between parents. The inference is about
the compassion that they, as the Guardian ad litem trade organization, have for
the child and the support that they give each other. It is in the Mission
Statement that we see what Toby Hollander's Institute is all about. It is about
the "compensation for those individuals serving as Guardian ad litem and
providing mutual support and assistance on issues relating to the work of
Guardians ad litem."
Currently, there is
a case that was slated to be heard in the highest court, in which we see the kind of support that the Guardian
ad litem Institute gives to the rank and file. This case is about how the
Institute advocates for the use of coercion by the courts to force a parent to
pay for a Guardian ad litem services. That the Institute - in support of a
particular Guardian ad litem - is adding
its voice in asking the court to have a parent thrown in jail, for non-payment
of a GAL's bill. This seems to be one unappealing interpretation of the Institute's Mission
statement. It is about Guardian ad litem
compensation. In the end, it is not about what this court officer can do for
the child. It is about what the court can do for this court officer - even if
it means a parent is behind bars. One has to ask, how this kind of action is
going to improve the welfare of a child? It makes one wonder about the bottom
line; whose interest Maine's Guardians ad litem are really looking out for -
theirs or the child? And where are the
courts when the public needs them?
It is planned
actions like these that give the Maine Guardian ad litem a black eye. When they
use the courts that they work in as "officers of the court" to be
their "power bill collector" it may be legal, but it looks unfeeling.
It looks like they are using their professional role connections for personal
benefit. We feel that the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute has some serious
public relations and identity problems. Do they want to be "part of the
solution, or part of the problem?" Liens,
garnishing and jail for contempt don't cut it!
It you are having
issues with a Guardian ad litem institute we encourage you to write to us.
There are currently over 40 complaints about Guardians ad litem that we are
aware of in the state of Maine. The list
continues to grow. Is your Guardian ad
litem part of this list? Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.
In addition there is
work going on for reform to the Guardian ad litem system. We would encourage
you to write to members of the Joint Standing Committee on - Judiciary and let
them know how you feel about Guardians ad litem and the noble cause they have
taken up.
Joint Standing Committee on - Judiciary
Sen. Dave Hastings dhastings@hastings-law.com
Sen. Richard G. Woodbury Dick.Woodbury@legislature.maine.gov
Sen. Cynthia Dill dillforussenate@gmail.com
Rep. Joan M. Nass RepJoan.Nass@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. G. Paul Waterhouse RepPaul.Waterhouse@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Michael G. Beaulieu RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Ralph W. Sarty, Jr. RepRalph.Sarty@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Bradley S. Moulton RepBrad.Moulton@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Leslie T. Fossel RepLes.Fossel@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Charles R. Priest RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Maeghan Maloney maeghanformaine@gmail.com
Rep. Megan M. Rochelo RepMegan.Rochelo@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig kmderrig@maine.rr.com
Sen. Dave Hastings dhastings@hastings-law.com
Sen. Richard G. Woodbury Dick.Woodbury@legislature.maine.gov
Sen. Cynthia Dill dillforussenate@gmail.com
Rep. Joan M. Nass RepJoan.Nass@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. G. Paul Waterhouse RepPaul.Waterhouse@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Michael G. Beaulieu RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Ralph W. Sarty, Jr. RepRalph.Sarty@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Bradley S. Moulton RepBrad.Moulton@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Leslie T. Fossel RepLes.Fossel@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Charles R. Priest RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Maeghan Maloney maeghanformaine@gmail.com
Rep. Megan M. Rochelo RepMegan.Rochelo@legislature.maine.gov
Rep. Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig kmderrig@maine.rr.com
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Where does the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute and Toby Hollander stand?
Stay tuned as we expose what concerns the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute the most? Money, power or influence? Find out how Toby Hollander and the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute really feels about you...... The consumer.....
in the next 24 hours....
Monday, September 17, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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'.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- A Guardian ad litem producing a bill that represented 26% or the combined income of the parties involved in the divorce.
- 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.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Late appeal allowed for GAL fee award made without notice - Gudino v. Gudino
APPEALS – APPELLATE PROCEDURE – EXCUSING PROCEDURAL DEFAULT – FEE AWARDS
(AT TRIAL) – GUARDIANS AD LITEM. We’ve all seen many short opinions
wherein the appellant is out of luck because the incomplete Record
supposedly leaves the appellate court with nothing to go on. But in an unpublished opinion called Gudino v. Gudino,
the Court of Appeals looks it all over, discusses much in careful
detail, declares that “given the undeveloped state of the Record, we
decline to address these issues for the first time on appeal,” and
decides the appeal for –
Full story: Virginia Family Law Appeals
Full story: Virginia Family Law Appeals
Monday, July 9, 2012
Critics worry about lack of oversight of court-appointed child advocates in Maine, urge reform
By Judy Harrison, BDN Staff
Posted June 01, 2012, at 11:02 a.m.
PORTLAND, Maine — People seeking reforms to the guardian ad litem program in the state court system expressed their concerns Thursday in a meeting with Leigh Saufley, chief justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Many of the 50 or so people who attended the meeting had experience with the program during their divorce proceedings. Others at the event, which was structured like a hearing before a legislative committee, were lawyers who work as guardians ad litem.
Guardians ad litem, or GALs, are appointed by judges “to represent the best interests of one or more children in legal proceedings for divorce, determination of parental rights and responsibilities, child protection and similar legal actions in Maine,” according to information on the court system’s website. Guardians ad litem may be lawyers or mental health professionals.
Full story: BangorDailyNews
Posted June 01, 2012, at 11:02 a.m.
PORTLAND, Maine — People seeking reforms to the guardian ad litem program in the state court system expressed their concerns Thursday in a meeting with Leigh Saufley, chief justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Many of the 50 or so people who attended the meeting had experience with the program during their divorce proceedings. Others at the event, which was structured like a hearing before a legislative committee, were lawyers who work as guardians ad litem.
Guardians ad litem, or GALs, are appointed by judges “to represent the best interests of one or more children in legal proceedings for divorce, determination of parental rights and responsibilities, child protection and similar legal actions in Maine,” according to information on the court system’s website. Guardians ad litem may be lawyers or mental health professionals.
Full story: BangorDailyNews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)