MN - An Opportunity for the Public to Comment and Provide Feedback to the Minnesota State GAL Board

URGENT UPDATE - This is an important opportunity for the public to provide input to the Minnesota State GAL Board. A group of concerned parents has been fighting for reform, and specifically asked to improve the complaint procedure so when you file a complaint against a Guardian it is actually heard and investigated. The Board responded and has published a draft of the proposed changes to the complaint procedure: 

http://mn.gov/guardian-ad-litem/Notices/

You can submit feedback to Program Admin Suzanne Alliegro via instructions on the site. OR you can contact this group of parents, and work together with them to give feedback. They may offer public comment at the next GAL Board meeting.

E-mail: victimsofmanning@hotmail.com

OR

https://acalltoactionblog.wordpress.com/

PA - Attorney imprisoned for tax fraud released to halfway house

The Times Tribune

An attorney sentenced to federal prison for failing to report income she received as Lackawanna County’s appointed guardian ad litem has been released to a halfway house.

Danielle Ross, 38, was released on Tuesday to finish serving the final month of the one-year prison sentence imposed for her guilty plea in December 2013 to a charge of attempted income tax evasion.

Mrs. Ross of Jermyn had served as the county’s sole guardian ad litem — a court-appointed attorney who represents the child’s interests in custody disputes involving their parents. A grand jury indicted her in February 2013 on charges she failed to report all income that was paid to her by parents who were ordered to use her services.

The case drew significant media and public attention based on complaints by parents who accused her of abusing her power. The complaints led to a state investigation into the county’s guardian ad litem program in 2011. The probe found multiple deficiencies but no criminal wrongdoing. A grand jury investigation later uncovered the federal tax evasion.

Full story: The Times Tribune

Nebraska - Douglas County Board votes to drop guardian ad litem contracts

Omaha Metro

The Douglas County Board voted unanimously Tuesday to drop its contracts with attorneys who act as guardians ad litem for children in juvenile court, board chairwoman Mary Ann Borgeson said.

Critics have long complained that many guardians don’t meet their statutory obligations to their juvenile clients and that the contracts lack accountability. A report last year by the state auditor faulted the county for poor oversight, though county officials said they weren’t sure how much authority they actually have to audit the work.

Full story: Omaha Metro

Ireland - Child guardians get €200k from agency

If you think that the United States is the only place where they have issues with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem - think again. Canada, The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. This story comes to us from the emerald island. The article points out - any person can claim to be a guardian ad litem; that the system is ‘chaotic’ and a ‘free for all’. Nothing new here for those who have had the mis-fortune of a malpracticed Guardian ad litem. Surprisingly reform is being called for by an agency that has 32 Guardians ad litem working.

Irish Examiner

Nine firms and individuals acting as guardians to children in childcare court proceedings have received sums over €200,000 each from the Child and Family Agency this year.

Figures released by Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, show that, to the end of November this year, €6.76m has been paid to guardian ad litems — court appointees who act as independent voices for children in family law cases.

The 2014 figure compares to guardian ad litems receiving €7.18m in 2013.

In response to a freedom of information request, the figures show the largest provider or guardian ad litems services in the country, Barnardos-Beacon, this year received just over €3m for the service it provides.

Full story: Irish Examiner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State to audit Douglas County's guardian ad litem program

An audit of the Guardian ad litem system is being conducted because of complaints that Guardians ad litem carry heavy case loads and the "perceived" lack of accountability - something that is seen in every state. What is interesting is that the county being audited has contracted out to a law firm to provide the Guardian ad litem services. What will they (the auditors) find? Will it be the standard "sour grapes" that court systems use to explain off complaints by parents? Or will we see that there are very real system issues as a result of Guardians ad litem being given free reign over the cases they handle?

Omaha.com

State Auditor Mike Foley plans to audit the guardian ad litem program in Douglas County.

“We’d gotten wind of some issues,” Foley said, though he declined to elaborate.

Foley contacted the county earlier about an audit, and the Douglas County Board passed a resolution Tuesday inviting one.

“It’s something we need to look at,” board Chairwoman Mary Ann Borgeson said.


Full story: Omaha.com

LD872 An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine

Has passed and is waiting to be signed into law by Governor Paul LePage

For the first time in almost 40 years there is going to be some measure of oversight of Guardians ad litem in the state of Maine. Since the late 90's bills have been sponsored that have strengthened the hand of Guardians ad litem. This often came at the expense of families and ultimately the children these 'professionals' were helping. With no oversight, accountability or management Guardians ad litem have become free spirits and operated outside of the boundaries of their original role.

In 2013 with the help of Sen David Dutremble and Rep Lisa Villa - bills were sponsored that attempted to correct the imbalance that had taken over. Out of four bills LD872 survived.

Today we are on the verge of having some measure of oversight. Where hard data on what is going on with Guardians ad litem will be generated and used instead of stuffed away in the card board boxes the system currently uses.

Please thank Sen David Dutremble, Rep Lisa Villa and the Judiciary Committee for all of the hard work and personal sacrifice that has been given to make this happen.

Sen. David Dutremble can be reached at: ddutrem1@gmail.com

Rep. Lisa Villa can be reached at:  villa98staterep@gmail.com


For continued insight please email NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.

"Oversight" and what it means for Guardians ad litem

In the simplest terms, oversight means knowing what they do, how they spend their time. At the present no one in authority  actually knows the full details. No one in the higher levels of the Judicial Branch has a complete picture of "time spent" on your case, my case, the hundreds of cases that pass through Maine's family courts. No authority knows how many cases a Guardian ad litem is handling, which courts/judges use the most Guardians ad litem. Or what is the grand total amount of every rostered Guardian ad litem's billable hours for, say, the month of May? No one knows.  There is no oversight. 

In a word, no one has administrative or managerial oversight of Maine's Guardian ad litem program. No one has program numbers. And ... without numbers, data, statistics, it is impossible to describe the scope and size of Guardian ad litem program problems rationally.  It is impossible, to have a rational conversation between the public and various branches of government and impossible to seek rational solutions to a program that cries out for "oversight".

We would suggest that there are two kinds of "oversight", (a) oversight of ongoing cases in a divorce, which is sometimes called "case supervision", and (b) programmatic oversight, also called "programmatic administration or management".   Supervision, though desirable is costly and would require a large, expensive cadre of supervisors to monitor and correct the work of Guardians ad litem.  There is also the question of who would supervise the supervisors?  Where would they fit in a bureaucratic chain of command?

To keep the complexities of an  first-ever, Maine, oversight program relatively simple at the start, LD 872 has focused on program supervision, administrative supervision.  Essentially it seeks answers to the questions about: "What are the numbers?" How is Guardian ad litem time spent?  What are the billable hours?  How do district courts differ in their use of Guardians ad litem? And ... are there significant differences in the profiles of individual Guardian ad litem activities?  These are questions of huge interest to Maine children and families who pay dearly for this program.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT THE Guardian ad litem's BILL:  LD 872 already calls for standardization of all Maine Guardian ad litem's bills.  Bills should be done monthly and should follow the itemization format used by lawyers: date, type of service, time spent, fee charged.  It would cover such topics as reading e-mails, phone conversations, report writing, time spent with parties, time spent with child, collateral contacts, travel, court appearances, etc.  We maintain that a standardized bill is a snapshot of what the Guardian ad litem claims to have done in any given month.  It is a work activity profile.  It is a record.  It will be mandatory.  There is minimal cost for this change.

COPIES OF ALL Guardian ad litem BILLS TO ADMINISTRATOR OF COURTS:  We are strongly recommending that it should also be mandatory for all 280  rostered Maine Guardians ad litem to send electronic copies of their standardized monthly bills to the Administrators of the Courts at no charge to anyone.  It would immediately, for the first time give the Judicial Branch massive amounts of hard, Guardian ad litem program  data, which is currently totally lacking.  It would give the necessary data for  first-ever program oversight of Maine's 280 Guardians ad litem.  It should prove interesting and useful to the legislature, the public and the Judicial Branch.  It will help to guide beneficial program changes for Maine's Guardian ad litem program.  It will be capable of answering many important program questions.

OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS FOR NEW Guardian ad litem DATA: We believe that inasmuch as the proposed oversight data is a tool, the Judicial Branch should have a primary interest in deciding how to use this new tool.  They should suggest their own questions for which they want answers from the data. 

But in addition to the Judicial Branch we have our own questions too.

OUR QUESTIONS:  How many Guardians ad litem are at work in Maine courts each month?  How many separate cases are Guardians ad litem carrying?  How much time is spent in reading e-mails?  Doing reports?  Making phone calls?  Seeing the child in the case?  Travel?  Court time?  Which courts use Guardians ad litem the most?  How do Guardian ad litem activity profiles differ?  What is the range of monthly billable hours for Guardians ad litem?  What is the total amount for all Guardian ad litem bills in each month?  In a year?  Are there associations between certain Guardians ad litem, certain lawyers and/or certain judges?

This is for starters, as a "warm-up".

WHO WOULD WORK WITH THIS DATA AND COSTING THIS ACTIVITY?  We suggest that the Administrator of the courts would be the proper locus for this activity, and that it should be attached to the component already doing administrative statistics.  By our reckoning the costs ought to be minimal.  Billing is already being done by Guardians ad litem at no cost to the legislature, changing to a standardized billing format should not add to cost.  Sending an electronic  copy of all monthly Guardian ad litem's bills to the JB should be a no cost event.  There is the need for a clerk to organize the data in such a manner as to answer previously defined questions.  There is the need for an existing administrative statistician to provide supervision and direction. 

We would suggest that all of this could be done for $75,000.00 or less, including overhead.  The $200,000.00 fiscal estimate currently attached to this bill for unspecified oversight functions seems expensive.  We offer a competitive idea.

For more information on Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information. In addition National GAL alert is conducting an informal survey on the cost and performance of Guardians ad litem. If you have 5 minutes we would encourage you to take one or both surveys. The data collected is being published and will be updated live in the future.


Guardian ad litem Cost Survey

Guardian ad litem Performance Survey

Rate the experience you had with your Guardian ad litem

How well has the Guardian ad litem worked for the state or for the people involved in a case? Are there problems with one Guardian ad litem or a Judge? No one knows because there is no public data showing where problems may be - so citizens of the state cannot make informed decisions about a Guardian ad litem. The Judicial Branch does not know and so they cannot correct problems with a Guardian ad litem, court or Judge.

In the past there was no opportunity to state whether the cost of a Guardian ad litem service was worth it. There was no opportunity to rate that service which had been provided. Any complaint or review would be through the courts and we have all seen just how effective that is in correcting any kind of problem. Or for letting consumers know what to expect.

That is until today.

There are two survey's that are being made available to those who have been influenced by a Guardian ad litem and the Judge that manages him/her. These survey's are short and you have the opportunity to add as much detail as you feel is necessary. While the Guardian ad litem name is asked the results for that person will not be displayed at this time. You do not have to give this persons name nor do you have to give your name. If you are interested in knowing whether a particular Guardian ad litem has been reviewed - that request can be emailed and some basic information can be provided as well as the names of others who have had an experience with that Guardian ad litem.

Thank you for taking the time to fill out one or both of these surveys. Please feel free to have family members, friends or others that were impacted by the Guardian ad litem recommendation(s) fill out the survey's.

NationalGALalert

Guardian ad litem Performance Survey

Guardian ad litem cost survey

For more information on Guardians ad litem please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information.

Appeals court upholds lower decision on harassment case

Brainerd Dispatch

When a man wanted to withdraw his guilty plea in district court, saying he was coerced into it, the Minnesota Court of Appeals looked at his case.

After a review, the appeals court affirmed the Crow Wing County District Court’s decision.
Gerald Villella Jr. entered an Alford guilty plea to two counts of harassing another with intent to influence or tamper with a judicial proceeding. Villella challenged the district court’s denial of his post-conviction petition to withdraw his plea, arguing his plea was neither accurate nor voluntary.

In April 2010, the state charged Villella with the harassment counts. The charges arose out of Villella’s actions against a district court judge and the guardian ad litem assigned to his child-custody case.

Full story:  Brainerd Dispatch

 

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.
 

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.

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.

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?

Can Maine's GALs be held accountable to their Rules and Standards?

Maine's Judiciary has Guardian ad litem Rules and Standards on their web site.  They state quite clearly that the Supreme Judicial Court “has adopted Rules and Standards of Practice for Guardians ad Litem in Title 19-A and Title 22 cases.” In other words the Guardians ad litem that they roster – or give their seal of approval to, must abide by these rules and standards. Or does it?

What is the reason for posting these Rules and Standards for the public?

1. They are posted to help the public understand how a Guardian ad litem is supposed to operate. They are the law in which they and the Judges that manage them must operate within.
2. They are posted to help the public understand the role of the Guardian ad litem. These Rules and Standards though are applied when convenient for the courts to use them. How and when they are used is kept from the consumer as they really do not understand this type of thing.
3. The Rules and Standards have been posted for the public’s benefit to give a warm and fuzzy feeling. The Rules and Standards in reality have no meaning and the court all but ignores what is written.

Although it is possible that of the three examples there have been instances where the first was actually applied – it is not known when that may have been the case. The second example like the first is non-existent. With the third example there are numerous instances that can be found dating back to 2003-04 (and possibly before) where Maine's Courts and Guardians ad litem have chosen to ignore the Rules and Standards. What does this mean to the consumer of this system that experiences a Guardian ad litem that operates outside of these rule and standards and you complain about him/ her? It means that the Judiciary has no interest in correcting the behavior of its own but will correct your behavior if you cause too much trouble.  Maine's Judiciary has ignored a problem that has been around for more than a decade. How many people have been hurt by the resistance to admit there is a very real problem? That is something that we are only now just beginning to see.  The current window dressing for oversight and accountability that we have seen is just that – Window Dressing – to satisfy the rank and file so that at the end of the day they – Maine's Judiciary, Judges and Guardians ad litem can path themselves on the back and say they did a great job helping out those poor consumers. Maine's Judiciary, Judges and Guardians ad litem are in need of a little reality and accountability.

If you or someone you know has been hurt in a divorce where a Guardian ad litem was involved please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. We can also be found on Facebook at: MeGALalert

To view the current Rules and Standards published by Maine's Judiciary please follow these links:

Rules

Standards

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

Employment opportunity helping Maine's children $100 - $200 per hour!!!

Do you want a high paying career with the potential of earning between $200,000 and $400,000 a year? Can you sit through 16 hours of lectures over three days? If so then you can become a Guardian ad litem and work for Maine’s Judiciary.

The benefits? A binder with loose instructions on what a Guardian ad litem must do. No supervision. No worry about making mistakes. Best of all knowing that Maine’s Justice system will force collection on any bill that you present!

The above ad is made up and is not all that far from the truth. In the state of Maine if you are a lawyer or social worker you can easily become a Guardian ad litem. To do so requires only 16 hours of lectures. There is no test in the end to see if there is an understanding of the concepts discussed, there is no mentoring program administered by the courts. You walk out with only the lecture and a loose leaf notebook to start your career. Upon becoming a Guardian ad litem you can count on Maine’s Court system backing you up. Your recommendations no matter how over the top they may be will be accepted as fact. In no other court that we are aware of is hearsay accepted as fact. As a Guardian ad litem if you have issues collecting from one or both parties involved this is not a problem because Maine’s courts will force the parties to pay by garnishing wages or putting a lien on your home to name a few of the strong arm tactics employed by the courts. There is no step that is too extreme for Guardian ad litem bill collection – keep in mind that it is all done with the child’s best interest. Finally, the role of a Guardian ad litem can profoundly change the way a broken family interacts, and what you do is protected with immunity by Maine’s Court system. It is impossible to remove a Guardian ad litem in this state. Any complaint no matter how horrific the Guardian ad litem may have been is a wasted complaint. Currently there is no functional due process for families.

Maine’s Court system is currently going through a process of trying to repair issues with the Guardian ad litem program. Although the Judicial Branch should be applauded for its efforts in trying to fix many of the problems it should be pointed out that it has taken years to get to this point. It has taken far too long, and there have been many families hurt by a process that is meant to help, but by design only hurts. Maine’s families have suffered enough.

Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com if you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem.

If interested in becoming a Guardian ad litem in Maine please follow this link for the requirements on becoming one:

Judicial requirements for Guardian ad litem

The content on this site is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice

FORCED TO BY LEMONS AT GUNPOINT

When there is no oversight, no supervision and no enforceable standard for GALs, the public is forced to buy an unknown product by the Judicial Branch, which creates (or rosters) them. More and more GALs come out of the JB "factory" which has no factory inspection, no test drive and no certificate of quality. To put it baldly, the JB has no idea about whether the wheels will stay on the car when it is driven at normal speed and no "factory recall". Furthermore, the market for this product is totally controlled by the JB. Courts can demand that couples going through a divorce and child custody battle must buy this product while providing no quality assurance.

Lemons for sale! And, no, you can never get your money back, or trade your "lemon" for a functional car. We are distressed that there is no functional system for making a complaint about GALs who are "lemons", and we ourselves are rapidly acquiring an ever lengthening list of "consumer complaints" about "lemons" and the hair raising details behind these complaints. We are considering various ways of informing the public about "lemons".

We are gaining an increasing awareness of the JB GAL complaint process, as it passes through the "oversight" of  Judge Charles LaVerdiere. We feel no confidence in his process for handling serious GAL complaints from the public. He provides only the briefest, flimsiest of instructions for complaining consumers, and there are no criteria for what might be categorical reasons for making complaints. His assessment of complaints seems opaque and secretive for someone charged by the JB with assuring quality for the public. We sense that if the Guardian ad litem being complained about says, in effect (and without challenge), "The complaint is a lie," that is the end of the matter. The judge doesn't act like a man who wants to know more- or to look more deeply. The public complaint is taken into a dark room at the JB and smothered! And the consumer is sent a "case dismissed" reply with no reasons for dismissal.  End of story! On this inadequate, secretive, "oversight" process, the Judicial Branch and Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (Guardian ad litem trade organization) proudly boast, "Only two Guardian ad litem reprimands in two years; one verbal, one written!" When you lift up the rug and look under it, it is not confidence inspiring.

This raises important consumer issues for a democratic society. Should consumers be forced into using and paying for "lemons", by the courts? Guardian ad litem fees at $120.00 to $200.00 per hour (in an un-itemized Guardian ad litem bill), can run to totals that range from $12,000.00 to $19,000.00 to $34,000.00 or more. The money is not insignificant for middle class couples.  It is a hefty price especially for a "lemon" with no quality assurance and no consumer protection.  It is a further outrage When the hapless consumer who refuses to pay for a "lemon" gets hauled into court by the Guardian ad litem in attempts to force payment, garnish wages or impose a jail sentence! Are we living in 18th century Europe or 21st century America? It looks like Guardian ad litems and Maine courts want to resurrect the long gone, long abolished, hateful "debtor's prison"!

The Judicial Branch's Guardian ad litem program is beyond broken. It badly needs a total overhaul and the public needs relief and protection from the barbarism of present practices. The financial impact of Guardian ad litems on the public is devastating a form of cruelty that should be unacceptable in a civilized society.


The Guardian ad litem program should be halted until it is repaired and the Judicial Branch can guarantee the public quality assurance.

Please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com

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