Has anyone ever seen a Family Court Judge get removed from the bench?
Las Vegas Review Journal
The Nevada Supreme Court has officially disbarred former Family Court Judge Steven Jones.
All seven justices signed the order Dec. 5.
In September, Jones informed the State Bar of Nevada that he was giving up his law license after he pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a $2.6 million investment scheme.
As part of his plea agreement with the government, Jones also resigned from the Family Court bench. He did not seek reelection this year.
Full story: Las Vegas Review Journal
Related stories:
2014-05-02 LVRJ - Embattled Family Court Judge Steven Jones headed back to public payroll
2014-12-09 NBC3 - Former Family Court judge disbarred, awaits fraud sentence
Friday, December 12, 2014
Friday, December 5, 2014
Georgia - What did judges know about guardian ad litem issues?
This should not come as a surprise that judges - people whom many of us were taught to show respect for the position they hold. Have complaints filed against them. In Georgia - a state that has huge problems with their family courts - we have a situation where a judge (Daniel Craig) is being investigated
AUGUSTA, GA - Fox 6 WBRC
We're following up on complaints against guardians ad litem in the Augusta Judicial Circuit, including those made against former magistrate judge Doug Nelson and longtime guardian Janet Weinberger.
We now know the Judicial Qualifications Committee is investigating what superior court judge Daniel Craig may have know about complaints against Nelson. The JQC annual report said in 2013, 75% of complaints against Georgia judges were rejected. But a letter from the JQC shows they are looking into these cases.
After hearing the JQC was getting involved – we wanted to know what the superior court judges who appoint and control these guardians know about the complaints?
Judge Daniel Craig presided over multiple cases in which mothers revealed to WFXG accusations that Doug Nelson was inappropriate with them while working on their cases.
Nelson has denied all allegations of wrong-doing.
Full story: Fox 6 WBRC
AUGUSTA, GA - Fox 6 WBRC
We're following up on complaints against guardians ad litem in the Augusta Judicial Circuit, including those made against former magistrate judge Doug Nelson and longtime guardian Janet Weinberger.
We now know the Judicial Qualifications Committee is investigating what superior court judge Daniel Craig may have know about complaints against Nelson. The JQC annual report said in 2013, 75% of complaints against Georgia judges were rejected. But a letter from the JQC shows they are looking into these cases.
After hearing the JQC was getting involved – we wanted to know what the superior court judges who appoint and control these guardians know about the complaints?
Judge Daniel Craig presided over multiple cases in which mothers revealed to WFXG accusations that Doug Nelson was inappropriate with them while working on their cases.
Nelson has denied all allegations of wrong-doing.
Full story: Fox 6 WBRC
Monday, November 17, 2014
Oklahoma - $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'
For those who have to pay support be thankful you are not this guy. Would anyone turn down 1% of this settlement? This case is unbelievable - give it a read.
CNN Money
Sometimes a billion dollars just isn't enough.
Sue Ann Hamm, the former wife of oil billionaire Harold Hamm, plans on appealing an Oklahoma court ruling earlier this week which awarded her nearly $1 billion in the couples' divorce.
Mrs. Hamm, 58, contends the award is not fair. The couple were married for 26 years, have two children and had no prenuptial agreement. As of August, Mr. Hamm was worth over $20 billion, according to Wealth-X.
"Sue Ann is disappointed in the outcome of this case," said her lawyer Ron Barber. "She dedicated 25 years as Harold's faithful partner in family and business."
As part of the settlement, Mrs. Hamm will be paid a third of the $995.5 million by the end of the year. Her ex-husband is on a payment plan for the remaining $650 million, which he will pay in installments of at least $7 million per month.
Mrs. Hamm, a lawyer and economist, held executive positions at Mr. Hamm's oil company, Continental Resources (CLR).
Full Story: CNN Money
CNN Money
Sometimes a billion dollars just isn't enough.
Sue Ann Hamm, the former wife of oil billionaire Harold Hamm, plans on appealing an Oklahoma court ruling earlier this week which awarded her nearly $1 billion in the couples' divorce.
Mrs. Hamm, 58, contends the award is not fair. The couple were married for 26 years, have two children and had no prenuptial agreement. As of August, Mr. Hamm was worth over $20 billion, according to Wealth-X.
"Sue Ann is disappointed in the outcome of this case," said her lawyer Ron Barber. "She dedicated 25 years as Harold's faithful partner in family and business."
As part of the settlement, Mrs. Hamm will be paid a third of the $995.5 million by the end of the year. Her ex-husband is on a payment plan for the remaining $650 million, which he will pay in installments of at least $7 million per month.
Mrs. Hamm, a lawyer and economist, held executive positions at Mr. Hamm's oil company, Continental Resources (CLR).
Full Story: CNN Money
Monday, November 10, 2014
Ireland - No long-term solution yet to vetting of court-appointed guardians
In Ireland it is recognized that there are problems with the Guardian ad litem program they have. For many of the same reasons as can be found here in this country.
RTE
Guardians ad Litem are appointed by the courts on a case-by-case basis to provide an independent voice in childcare cases.
Their role is to represent the best interests of the child. As such they have considerable access to children, many of whom are in State care.
Sources close to the process said the Courts Service "reluctantly" agreed to take over the role in the absence of any agreement with other agencies, including the Department of Children, over who should assume responsibility for vetting.
The State spent more than €11m on fees and legal costs for Guardians ad Litem last year.
An estimated 60 Guardians ad Litem currently offer their services to the courts but the system is unregulated and there is currently no mandatory vetting of them.
The Courts Service's move follows concerns over a long period of time that the system of appointing Guardians ad Litem was ad-hoc and unregulated.
Full story: RTE
RTE
Guardians ad Litem are appointed by the courts on a case-by-case basis to provide an independent voice in childcare cases.
Their role is to represent the best interests of the child. As such they have considerable access to children, many of whom are in State care.
Sources close to the process said the Courts Service "reluctantly" agreed to take over the role in the absence of any agreement with other agencies, including the Department of Children, over who should assume responsibility for vetting.
The State spent more than €11m on fees and legal costs for Guardians ad Litem last year.
An estimated 60 Guardians ad Litem currently offer their services to the courts but the system is unregulated and there is currently no mandatory vetting of them.
The Courts Service's move follows concerns over a long period of time that the system of appointing Guardians ad Litem was ad-hoc and unregulated.
Full story: RTE
Friday, November 7, 2014
Maine - New Rules for Guardians ad litem versus or ... Judicial Discretion.
We are sure that the 78 page document spelling out a set of new Rules for Maine Guardians ad litem represents many hours of work on the part of some Judicial Branch Committee. However, to this reader, they are a very perplexing document. Exactly what are they supposed to be? Are they a job description? Are they some sort of regulations aimed at governing and bounding the work related actions of Guardians ad litem in divorce and custody (and protective) cases? Are they a set of voluntary guidelines to be followed if the GAL wishes? Are they well intentioned (but empty) ideals? What are they? It is far from clear.
Any set of Rules on paper may look fine, but their value and meaning come from whether they are enforced or not- and how. For these new Rules there appears to be no enforcement. There appears to be no consequences of any kind for not following them. There is no designated entity responsible for oversight to see if the Rules are being followed. There is nothing we can see, except for the reporting of complaints by the ‘pro se’ public. This complaint process itself is a confusing procedure guaranteed to fail. To this reader the message in the new rules seems to be: "it would be nice if Guardians ad litem learned these Rules and tried to follow them. But if they don't, not to worry. There are no consequences.
The complaint procedure speaks loud and clear to these issues. For family courts in which 74% of litigants are 'pro se', the complaint protocol spelled out in the new Rules is frankly unusable. It's complexity, its lack of instruction about "how to", its legalistic posture, its insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" even in cases needing only minor corrective action, its extreme concern about due process, makes it bullet proof against any public complaint. It also has no use as a management tool, a heads up from a member of the public that is simply aiming to improve GAL quality in cases of less serious malfunctioning. We guess that the court feels that GALs don’t need management? GALs all over Maine can heave a sigh of relief. Courts can breath easier. The complaint procedure won't be used, or, if it is used by an unaware 'pro se' litigant they won’t succeed in penetrating its airtight defenses.
For the time being, Guardians ad litem will be able to escape any consequences of ‘pro se’ public complaints, but please don’t think that this will make the GAL problems go away. They will just fester, suppurate, expand and grow larger. Sooner or later the GAL malfunctioning problems will be uncontainable and a public scandal will burst through!
The "Catch 22" about the proposed new Rules (or the current ones) is that their courtroom enforcement appears to be totally a matter of judicial discretion. They can be discarded, amended or altered if a judge- quite independently of any rules- decides to order GAL actions not covered by the Rules for Maine GALs, or ... to ignore flagrant violations. a piece of this problem- in our experience- is that many judges and many GALs lack specific, detailed knowledge of the GAL Rules and have only a "general idea" about Rules for GALs. "Judicial discretion" seems to allow for creative use of the Rules in any which way.
To many of us, the recent Maine Supreme Court appeal, the Dalton vs Dalton case, appears to tell litigants that even a well-documented carefully reasoned exposition of what looks like a gross abuse of current GAL Rules by the GAL and documentation of a similar situation by the judge risks a "contempt of court" complaint. It also risks "hand signals' to the Overseers of the Bar to open a 'sua sponte' complaint against the lawyer who dared to document the problems. The implications of this series of actions seem clear to us: any lawyer who robustly defends a client faced with dysfunctional judicial or GAL behavior is in extreme professional danger. DON'T DO IT!
The answer to correcting the dysfunctions in GALs and judges seems to be to bury the problem, until the weight of scandal and and corruption from within cannot be suppressed. A massive public cry of outrage and a demand for action ensue. The fairly recent scandals in the Catholic Church come to mind as an example. Suppression only works for a shorter and shorter period in the age of the Internet.
In our interest for reform, we are tempted to say to the Judicial Branch, "Do nothing. Let your unenforced Rules and your unusable complaint procedures stand exactly as they are. In the long run, they have within their carefully crafted attempts to control and suppress the truth (at a time when the Internet dictates that “you can run, but can’t hide”), the inevitable roots of a huge scandal, forced change and reform. We're just not there yet!
There should be an easier way for all.
We shall overcome. ... someday!
Please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com for more information.
Any set of Rules on paper may look fine, but their value and meaning come from whether they are enforced or not- and how. For these new Rules there appears to be no enforcement. There appears to be no consequences of any kind for not following them. There is no designated entity responsible for oversight to see if the Rules are being followed. There is nothing we can see, except for the reporting of complaints by the ‘pro se’ public. This complaint process itself is a confusing procedure guaranteed to fail. To this reader the message in the new rules seems to be: "it would be nice if Guardians ad litem learned these Rules and tried to follow them. But if they don't, not to worry. There are no consequences.
The complaint procedure speaks loud and clear to these issues. For family courts in which 74% of litigants are 'pro se', the complaint protocol spelled out in the new Rules is frankly unusable. It's complexity, its lack of instruction about "how to", its legalistic posture, its insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" even in cases needing only minor corrective action, its extreme concern about due process, makes it bullet proof against any public complaint. It also has no use as a management tool, a heads up from a member of the public that is simply aiming to improve GAL quality in cases of less serious malfunctioning. We guess that the court feels that GALs don’t need management? GALs all over Maine can heave a sigh of relief. Courts can breath easier. The complaint procedure won't be used, or, if it is used by an unaware 'pro se' litigant they won’t succeed in penetrating its airtight defenses.
For the time being, Guardians ad litem will be able to escape any consequences of ‘pro se’ public complaints, but please don’t think that this will make the GAL problems go away. They will just fester, suppurate, expand and grow larger. Sooner or later the GAL malfunctioning problems will be uncontainable and a public scandal will burst through!
The "Catch 22" about the proposed new Rules (or the current ones) is that their courtroom enforcement appears to be totally a matter of judicial discretion. They can be discarded, amended or altered if a judge- quite independently of any rules- decides to order GAL actions not covered by the Rules for Maine GALs, or ... to ignore flagrant violations. a piece of this problem- in our experience- is that many judges and many GALs lack specific, detailed knowledge of the GAL Rules and have only a "general idea" about Rules for GALs. "Judicial discretion" seems to allow for creative use of the Rules in any which way.
To many of us, the recent Maine Supreme Court appeal, the Dalton vs Dalton case, appears to tell litigants that even a well-documented carefully reasoned exposition of what looks like a gross abuse of current GAL Rules by the GAL and documentation of a similar situation by the judge risks a "contempt of court" complaint. It also risks "hand signals' to the Overseers of the Bar to open a 'sua sponte' complaint against the lawyer who dared to document the problems. The implications of this series of actions seem clear to us: any lawyer who robustly defends a client faced with dysfunctional judicial or GAL behavior is in extreme professional danger. DON'T DO IT!
The answer to correcting the dysfunctions in GALs and judges seems to be to bury the problem, until the weight of scandal and and corruption from within cannot be suppressed. A massive public cry of outrage and a demand for action ensue. The fairly recent scandals in the Catholic Church come to mind as an example. Suppression only works for a shorter and shorter period in the age of the Internet.
In our interest for reform, we are tempted to say to the Judicial Branch, "Do nothing. Let your unenforced Rules and your unusable complaint procedures stand exactly as they are. In the long run, they have within their carefully crafted attempts to control and suppress the truth (at a time when the Internet dictates that “you can run, but can’t hide”), the inevitable roots of a huge scandal, forced change and reform. We're just not there yet!
There should be an easier way for all.
We shall overcome. ... someday!
Please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com for more information.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Connecticut - Ridgefield mother claims abuse in court-appointed guardianship
Sharon Dornfeld shows up time and again as a Guardian ad litem in Connecticut who is trouble. Trouble for those divorcing families that have to dael with her.
newstimes.com
RIDGEFIELD -- Following an acrimonious divorce, Rosemary Alfredo and her ex-husband couldn't agree whether their then-23-year-old daughter, Collette, who has Down syndrome, should move with her to Boston.
Alfredo felt her daughter, who holds a job and graduated from a special college for students with intellectual disabilities, could live independently there, with help from more comprehensive Massachusetts social services.
Her father disagreed, arguing Collette should be placed in a group home in Ridgefield.
So the couple went to Probate Court, where Judge Joseph Egan appointed a guardian ad litem, Danbury attorney Sharon Dornfeld, to represent Collette's interests and make recommendations to the judge about the move.
Alfredo at first welcomed the appointment.
"I thought it was better than dealing with my ex-husband," she said.
Full story: newstimes.com
newstimes.com
RIDGEFIELD -- Following an acrimonious divorce, Rosemary Alfredo and her ex-husband couldn't agree whether their then-23-year-old daughter, Collette, who has Down syndrome, should move with her to Boston.
Alfredo felt her daughter, who holds a job and graduated from a special college for students with intellectual disabilities, could live independently there, with help from more comprehensive Massachusetts social services.
Her father disagreed, arguing Collette should be placed in a group home in Ridgefield.
So the couple went to Probate Court, where Judge Joseph Egan appointed a guardian ad litem, Danbury attorney Sharon Dornfeld, to represent Collette's interests and make recommendations to the judge about the move.
Alfredo at first welcomed the appointment.
"I thought it was better than dealing with my ex-husband," she said.
Full story: newstimes.com
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Maine - Lawyers, Divorce Industry Like Mike - Should You?
We try to stay clear of partisan politics. After all, children's welfare in divorce and custody shouldn't be a partisan issue. So we try to remain "non-partisan",
BUT ...
Quite frankly, from the perspective of our Family Court, and Guardian ad litem (GAL) reform concerns, we "Don't like Mike" - that is Mike Michaud, one of ( 3 ) candidates running for Governor of Maine. In fact we would say to our GAL and Family Court reform friends, "Vote for anyone else for Governor, but not Mike!"
It's nothing personal, Mike, its your "special interest" lawyer friends, supporters and the fundraisers who we don't like! It is Maine's divorce industry that is "hell bent for election," divorce bar lawyers raising money for "Mike" like it is going out of style and the other, so - called "impartial" divorce industry people silently cheering for "Mike". They are hoping that he wins and that his gratitude for their support will preserve the very lucrative 'status quo' in our creaky, old, dysfunctional, Family Courts.
ASK YOURSELF - WHY DOES THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY SO AVIDLY SUPPORT MIKE MICHAUD? Why are lawyers, law firms and the judicial branch supporting Mike? The financial investment they are making in Mike Michaud is an investment in keeping the family court as we know it. It is an investment in their retirements, their children's education and their way of life.
Take a look at some of Mikes supporters:
Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fund raise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;
Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".
Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.
WHY DO THEY LIKE "MIKE"? You can bet that it isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts, and it isn't because the divorce bar wants our kind of Family Court or Guardian ad litem reform. They expect that "Mike's" "pay back" for their financial bucks will be strong support for the "divorce bar". Keep lawyer privilege! Keep our family courts as they are - a gold mine for lawyers and the Divorce Industry. Keep consumers out of this unregulated "industry". "Mike" has a political reputation for being an obedient, good, ol boy. The divorce bar and their good friend, Senate President Justin Alfond ( 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014; 09/23/2014 ), are banking on a tight relationship with "Mike". Alfond is reported to have already told Senators in his caucus, enough already with GAL reform; the lawyers don't like it!
WE'D BET THAT MANY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ARE ALSO SILENTLY SUPPORTING "MIKE" TOO (and not just their "prayers and good wishes"!). He is their kind of guy; supporting the interests of the "divorce industry" and will not supporting Family Court or GAL reform - just exactly as they are.
DO YOU SUPPORT THE "DIVORCE INDUSTRY"? A vote for "Mike" supports the divorce industry and perpetuates our victim hood in Family Courts. Use you precious vote thoughtfully, carefully and in the best interest of our children. Your vote can make a difference. Please, friends, anyone but "Mike" for Governor of Maine, please!
We'd also say, check out where our candidates for the Maine Senate and House of Representatives stand on our reform issues. We're splitting our vote on these candidates depending on whether they support our family court and GAL reform positions. For us, it's not about Republican or Democrat; we call ourselves "Childocrats"!
JOIN THE CHILDOCRAT PARTY TOO!
NationalGALert is a grassroots organization and like minded people who have a vested interest in the states Family Court process and reform. Please feel free to contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
BUT ...
Quite frankly, from the perspective of our Family Court, and Guardian ad litem (GAL) reform concerns, we "Don't like Mike" - that is Mike Michaud, one of ( 3 ) candidates running for Governor of Maine. In fact we would say to our GAL and Family Court reform friends, "Vote for anyone else for Governor, but not Mike!"
It's nothing personal, Mike, its your "special interest" lawyer friends, supporters and the fundraisers who we don't like! It is Maine's divorce industry that is "hell bent for election," divorce bar lawyers raising money for "Mike" like it is going out of style and the other, so - called "impartial" divorce industry people silently cheering for "Mike". They are hoping that he wins and that his gratitude for their support will preserve the very lucrative 'status quo' in our creaky, old, dysfunctional, Family Courts.
ASK YOURSELF - WHY DOES THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY SO AVIDLY SUPPORT MIKE MICHAUD? Why are lawyers, law firms and the judicial branch supporting Mike? The financial investment they are making in Mike Michaud is an investment in keeping the family court as we know it. It is an investment in their retirements, their children's education and their way of life.
Take a look at some of Mikes supporters:
Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fund raise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;
Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".
Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.
WHY DO THEY LIKE "MIKE"? You can bet that it isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts, and it isn't because the divorce bar wants our kind of Family Court or Guardian ad litem reform. They expect that "Mike's" "pay back" for their financial bucks will be strong support for the "divorce bar". Keep lawyer privilege! Keep our family courts as they are - a gold mine for lawyers and the Divorce Industry. Keep consumers out of this unregulated "industry". "Mike" has a political reputation for being an obedient, good, ol boy. The divorce bar and their good friend, Senate President Justin Alfond ( 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014; 09/23/2014 ), are banking on a tight relationship with "Mike". Alfond is reported to have already told Senators in his caucus, enough already with GAL reform; the lawyers don't like it!
WE'D BET THAT MANY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ARE ALSO SILENTLY SUPPORTING "MIKE" TOO (and not just their "prayers and good wishes"!). He is their kind of guy; supporting the interests of the "divorce industry" and will not supporting Family Court or GAL reform - just exactly as they are.
DO YOU SUPPORT THE "DIVORCE INDUSTRY"? A vote for "Mike" supports the divorce industry and perpetuates our victim hood in Family Courts. Use you precious vote thoughtfully, carefully and in the best interest of our children. Your vote can make a difference. Please, friends, anyone but "Mike" for Governor of Maine, please!
We'd also say, check out where our candidates for the Maine Senate and House of Representatives stand on our reform issues. We're splitting our vote on these candidates depending on whether they support our family court and GAL reform positions. For us, it's not about Republican or Democrat; we call ourselves "Childocrats"!
JOIN THE CHILDOCRAT PARTY TOO!
NationalGALert is a grassroots organization and like minded people who have a vested interest in the states Family Court process and reform. Please feel free to contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)