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

Maine - A Case to Deny Re-Appointment of Hon Patricia Worth

The reappointment of a Judge is an important task. Judges are tasked with interpreting our laws in a fair way and are supposed to be consistent with their interpretation. Lawyers, Guardians ad litem and other members of the Divorce Industry are currently tasked with providing data on the Judge. These are people who work with the Judge and whose livelihood will be determined by this person in the future. Complaining about the judges conduct could come back to haunt them. Is there any incentive to point out a judges flaws by this group or is the incentive to tread softly?

The public ( Prose ) - who represent 74% of the those who appear in Family Courts are rarely if ever sought after for their opinion. Yet it is this group who bear the weight of a re-appointment of a dysfunctional judge. Today we have a Judge who is one of four Family Court judges who is on the verge of being re-appointed. But - not without a fight by many brave souls who have been victimized by the Family Court in Belfast Maine:


Senator Burns, Representative Hobbins, members of the Judiciary Committee

My name is Jerome Collins, and I am a resident of Kennebunkport.

In addressing the task before you of deciding whether to re-appoint Judge Patricia Worth you face a choice. Do you follow past practice and merely listen to the "all is well" message of the Governor's Judicial Appointment Committee?  Or do you heed the cries of the public who have actually appeared before this judge?  At one end of the spectrum are professional references from the "legal industry" that she serves.  At the other end are the anguished cries from a few brave souls who dare to speak the truth about the abysmal human practices that pervade her court, the cruelty of her decisions, and havoc she wreaks on parents and children.

The Governor's Judicial Appointment Committee does not hear those sad voices. It talks only with members of the legal profession - judges, lawyers, leadership of the Bar, the Overseers of the Bar, and the disciplinary committees of the profession.  We all know that the members of any one profession are reticent about being forthright about a colleague’s shortcomings. But that reticence has no place in this process, because the judiciary was not established to insulate and protect itself.  It was established to protect the rights of the people.  Therefore, the people must be made part of the process.

We believe the reappointment of any judge should include inquiry into the experience of non-lawyers in that courtroom. We are told that 74% of litigants in Maine family courts are ‘pro se’.  This is a powerful statistic; it is a glaring majority of unrepresented people, in courts, acting as their own “lawyer”. Their voices also deserve to be part of the process.  We know Judge Worth has told pro se litigants “don’t come back to this court without a lawyer”. We are concerned that she feels entitled to unilaterally inflict the financial burden of hiring lawyers upon the citizens of Maine. And we must wonder what other constitutional rights are being violated by her?

As a grass roots group, we suggest some questions that might be raised in a “people-focused” legislative  audit of the Judge Worth court. It reflects many issues that were not covered by the Judicial Vetting Committee. In our opinion, this esteemed Judiciary Committee, cannot be fully informed and make well reasoned decisions about Judge Worth (or other judges) without the answers to these questions about the actual nature of a given court.

Judge Worth’s position on the Judicial Responsibility and Disability Committee and her approval by colleagues on the vetting committee makes the answer to the consumer oriented questions below the only way the Judiciary Committee will be able to have fair  “oversight” in this matter.  We feel that the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature needs to act upon its constitutional oversight power and act to protect the people of Maine. We suggest an audit of the Worth court before any decision is made as to reappointment. 

Here are some ideas that might go into such an audit:     

1. How many 'pro se' cases does Judge Worth see in her court?
2. How many has she ordered (or the equivalent) not to come back without a lawyer?
3. Do family court litigants (pro se and those with lawyers) feel intimidated by this judge?
4. Does the judge help 'pro se' litigants, or do they feel harassed and bullied?
5. How long does the judge take to render an opinion?
6. Are her judicial opinions fractured into components that come out at intervals requiring multiple appeals (and the expense involved) if one disagrees?
7. Does she accept as valid reports from Children's Protective, from clinical consultants, or does she offer opinions unrelated to professional opinions?  How often? Does she appear to feel she "knows better" than professional consultants? How often are her personal judicial opinions at variance with professional opinions?
8. How often do aggressive attorney's appear in her court? How often would they receive a favorable judgment? Are they reprimanded for overly aggressive behavior?
9. How does the judge treat litigants, 'pro se' or represented, who oppose aggressive attorney's? Who wins?
10. How many appeals have been made to the Supreme Court in opposition to her decisions? Results?
11. Does the Judge seem to have solid knowledge about the law and case law concerning Guardians ad litem and family matters? Does she rely on “judicial discretion” instead of law?
12. How often does this judge offer suspended "jail" in family matters and for what offenses?
13. How does she use supervised visits between parent and child? For what issues,  based on what evidence? Does she always have a plan for moving from supervised visits to regular visits and shared parenting?
14. Does she show idiosyncratic interpretations of laws and regulations?
15. How promptly does she respond to motions for findings of fact and law?  How often are these requests dismissed?
16. Is she on the Judicial Disability Committee? Other Judicial committees?
17. Have complaints been made against her practices as a judge? Does her position on the Judicial Responsibility and Disability Committee have a chilling effect on would-be complainants? Are lawyers and others intimidated?
18. Does she have health issues that might impact her judicial functioning?  How long has she handled family matter cases?  Is she in danger of “burn out”?
19. From CANON  3 (B.7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Does this cannon allow a judge to order a 'pro se' litigant not to ever appear without a lawyer?
20. The legislature has stated that unless otherwise warranted the public policy of the state is to assure frequent and continuing parent/child contact after divorce and that the courts should encourage shared rights are responsibilities in child rearing.  Does Judge Worth routinely follow that policy?
21. How many of Judge Worth’s cases are zero sum games when it comes to children: one parent wins and the other loses?  This result would not be consistent with the above legislative intent.  And of the winner/loser cases, are most of the “winner” cases handled by the same few lawyers?
22. Finally, do parents in family matters before Judge Worth have rights that are equal to or less than parents in Title 22 child protection matters?

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF A COURT AUDIT: A range of options for action. These are just ideas/examples some of which are obviously borrowed from other systems evaluating performance of professional workers.

• This court is functioning well and is serving citizens of Maine according to the spirit and letter of the law.
• This court needs more regular oversight from Judicial Branch authorities.
• This court needs regular professional supervision of the judge’s actions to correct some judicial “rough edges”.
• This judge shows deficiencies in the necessary knowledge, skill or experience (or intrusive personal factors)  to be a judge. These are in need of correction before continuing as a judge.
• This judge appears to be showing signs of “judicial burnout” or other personal issues and is in need of R&R, transfer to another type of court, further judicial education, mentoring, or a move into some other function within the Judicial Branch system.
• This judge is malfunctioning and should retire or be removed from being a judge.
• Other ideas for corrective action.

To find out more about how you can bring about change in our Family Court please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Maine - Tardiff V Sullivan - Another Poster Child case for a Dysfunctional Family Court

We are pleased to be able to publish this brief, a public document and an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court. It is a horrifying story. It shows how a series of court actions have deprived a good man, a good father, a good citizen from all but limited, very expensive supervised visits with his young son. The irrationality of the family  court  process and  its  actions are stunning to most lay readers. The basic tactic in her wish for total custody, as we read it, is that the mother, the former spouse and her aggressive lawyer, simply allege, again and again, that the father is abusive to the child. This allegation  of child abuse  on their part seems made very forcefully, but with absolutely no evidence that we can see. In fact when the father, Larry Tardiff, has had professional evaluations (please, note, the plural) the professionals find no evidence that would suggest any need for protection of the child in his presence or any irrational anger in need of correction. NONE! Judge Patricia Worth, the judge in this case, seems totally bamboozled by the strongly proclaimed, ungrounded allegations of danger to the child by the  mother and her attorney. It's allegations - by themselves - as an incredible power tool in court. In our view, the judge is failing to look at the facts, failing to move beyond the noise, substituting her impressions for actual professionally grounded facts and seems to have a poor grasp of some of the points of law that she is using against Larry. It is an unbelievable nightmare for this man and his son from which there seems to be No exit!

It is also important for a reader to remember that in a criminal case of child abuse, normally there would be a planned program back to full parenting. Dare we say that Larry would be better off were he a criminal abuser? One senses that Judge Worth ought to be removed from this case. She seems to be in a rut and unable to think "outside of the box" in this case.

The appeal is a search for rationality, a search for a chance for father and son to have a normal parenting relationship, a search for an end to Judge Worth's ungrounded decisions. We shall be presenting the decision of the Supreme Court in another posting. In the meantime, read on as the suspense about a Supreme Court decision builds.



The brief to the Supreme Court in Sullivan v Tardiff.

If you have had issues in Family Court of with Judge Patricia Worth we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Call us at 207-370-9801 or find us on Facebook. We are striving to being about reform in the Family Court system.

Maine - Management by Crisis - The Judicial Branch and Financial Shortfall 2015

Last week we had a sudden change to the Judiciary Committee schedule. The Judicial Branch was making a presentation to the Judiciary Committee for a supplemental budget of $1M to get through to July 2015. This is not the first time the Judicial Branch has gone back to the till at the last minute with hands out asking for more.

Most organizations have a budget to work with and it they miss the budget.... well there is trouble. The organization either fails or they look into why they have a shortfall and change to accommodate. As an individual it is the same thing. You anticipate what your expenses are for the upcoming month based on what you paid out in the past

When asked about the shortfall and why the Judicial Branch has a shortfall.... again - the spokesperson for the Judicial Branch answered "I don't know why".

Which should come as no surprise to anyone. Here we have an organization full of lawyers being run by lawyers . About the only thing that lawyers can do well and with efficiency is bill for services.

It might be time for the Judiciary to hire people who are professional managers and get past the management by crisis that we see year after year. Who can look at how things are run within the branch and bring efficiencies to the organization. Who would be able to say why there is a shortfall and make sure the Judicial Branch does not go back to the till again... and again with out held hands.

The management by crisis is but a symptom of a far greater problem that has infected the court system. We have seen it with the Guardian ad litem crisis and have seen it with the Family Courts. Our system of justice is crumbling down around us.

Support Family Court reform by contacting us at NatGAL at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

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

Georgia - Increased oversight needed for troubled guardian ad litem program

Augusta Chronicle

The Augusta Chronicle has done the public a great favor by drawing attention to problems faced, and to some extent created, by guardians ad litem, who are appointed by courts to represent the interests of children in divorce cases.

SINCE GUARDIANS do not represent the divorcing parents, they serve an important but entirely different role than do attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants. Attorneys are trained in adversarial proceedings to argue the case for their clients. Guardians, like the children they represent, find themselves in the middle of difficult and often troubling circumstances.

And while guardians seek to discover the best possible solution for children of divorce, “best possible” is almost always “least hurtful,” because divorce hardly ever is without pain for the affected children.

For more than 12 years, I served as a guardian in the Augusta Judicial Circuit on cases assigned to me by more than 10 judges.

During part of that time I served also as president of the guardian association (now defunct), which attempted through its bylaws, training programs and other forms of assistance to ensure professional and ethical work by individual guardians.

Full story: Augusta Chronicle

Michigan - Judge Orders Deployed US Sailor To Attend Custody Hearing Or Lose Daughter, Face Arrest

This is a case that we missed but is a good story. It is a story of a member of military on active duty out in the Pacific Ocean who is ordered to court or be in contempt. He had no way of being able to comply with the 'Judges' order. This post shows what Matthew Hindes is up against in our court system.

CBS Seattle

Seattle, Wash. (CBS SEATTLE) – A U.S. Navy sailor from Washington State is currently serving on a submarine thousands of miles away in the Pacific Ocean, but a judge has ordered him into an impossible custody scenario: Appear in a Michigan courtroom Monday or risk losing custody of his 6-year-old daughter.

Navy submariner Matthew Hindes was given permanent custody of his daughter Kaylee in 2010, after she was reportedly removed from the home of his ex-wife, Angela, by child protective services. But now a judge has ordered him to appear in court Monday, or risk losing his daughter to his ex-wife in addition to a bench warrant being issued for his arrest, ABC News reports.

Hindes’ lawyers argue he should be protected by the Service Members Civil Relief Act, which states courts in custody cases may “grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days to defendants serving their country.”

But the Michigan judge hearing the case, circuit court judge Margaret Noe, disagrees, stating: “If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother.”

The judge reiterated that regardless of Hindes’ assignment under the Pacific Ocean, he will appear in court or face contempt of court.

Full story: CBS Seattle


Related story:

2014-06-19 ABC News Sailor Serving Overseas Ordered to Appear in Custody Fight

2014-08-16 Military Times Deployed submariner loses a round in custody battle

2014-08-20 BI Judge Takes Deployed Sailor's Daughter And Gives Temporary Custody To Her Mother

2014-10-28 SCRA Active Duty Submariner Wins SCRA Custody Suit