The bottom line here is that the Boston Children's Hospital has over stepped its boundaries in keeping Justina locked up at their facility. The message being sent is that they (the hospital) knows what is in the best interest of the child. This despite misdiagnosing the reason for the child's illness. How dare the parents challenge the hospital. Now a Guardian ad litem has been thrown into the mix who is supposed to investigate the situation to determine the "child's best interest". The Guardian ad litem from all appearance has recommended waiting to see and has given the parents guidelines that they must meet and or adhere to before their child can come home.
FOXCT
A fifteen-year-old West Hartford girl, Justina Pelletier, will remain in Massachusetts State custody, for now.
Sources indicate that based largely on the recommendation of a court-appointed guardian-ad-Litem assigned on December 20, Judge Joseph Johnston, ruled that Pelletier will not return home to Connecticut right now, but could be returned soon.
Sources say the next court hearing will be February.
A Judge-issued gag order placed on Nov. 7 remains in place.
Permanent custody has not been determined yet but sources indicate that if Pelletier’s parents follow strict court-ordered guidelines, Justina could be returned home to West Hartford within weeks.
Today marks 11 months since Justina Pelletier was admitted to Boston Children’s Hospital in February 2013.
Full story: FOXCT
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Arizona - Gov. Jan Brewer Dissolves Agency Overseeing Child Protective Services
While the following does not deal directly with Guardians ad litem it does show that government will enact change if there are issues with a system. In this case Child Protective Services was deemed to be so broken that repairing its parts would not correct the problem. That a complete overhaul was needed. In Canada we are seeing the same thing with their Family Court system.
KANU Public Radio
Gov. Jan Brewer has made an executive order to shut down the agency that oversees the state’s Child Protective Services. As Arizona Public Radio’s Ryan Heinsius reports, the order comes after at least a year of widespread mismanagement at CPS.
Yesterday, the governor announced the dissolution of the Department of Economic Security Division of Children, Youth and Families.
CPS services will now be handled by the newly created Division of Child Safety and Family Services, a stand-alone department within DES. The former agency is under scrutiny because of thousands of child abuse and neglect cases that were reported but never investigated.
Full story: KANU Public Radio
Related stories:
Gov. Brewer overhauls Child Protective Services
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona Overhauls Child Welfare System
Report to Supreme Court chief justice calls for family law overhaul
Calls grow for ‘dramatic’ overhaul of Canada’s adversarial family law system
The Worst Kept Legal Secret of the Decade: Family Law Needs A Complete Overhaul
KANU Public Radio
Gov. Jan Brewer has made an executive order to shut down the agency that oversees the state’s Child Protective Services. As Arizona Public Radio’s Ryan Heinsius reports, the order comes after at least a year of widespread mismanagement at CPS.
Yesterday, the governor announced the dissolution of the Department of Economic Security Division of Children, Youth and Families.
CPS services will now be handled by the newly created Division of Child Safety and Family Services, a stand-alone department within DES. The former agency is under scrutiny because of thousands of child abuse and neglect cases that were reported but never investigated.
Full story: KANU Public Radio
Related stories:
Gov. Brewer overhauls Child Protective Services
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona Overhauls Child Welfare System
Report to Supreme Court chief justice calls for family law overhaul
Calls grow for ‘dramatic’ overhaul of Canada’s adversarial family law system
The Worst Kept Legal Secret of the Decade: Family Law Needs A Complete Overhaul
Thursday, January 2, 2014
National - Would you want a Guardian ad litem with this kind of training?
This is a look at two businesses. One financial the other legal. Both deal with sensitive information, rules and regulations. Both have training programs to give the tools needed to stay within accepted standards and compliance. Both are radically different.
With these two examples ask yourself who is better trained to handle difficult situations?
1. Training consists of 8 weeks of in class study during which the process, rules and regulations are learned. There is some applied training where the students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. Students are tested at certain points. This allows for the trainers to verify at least a minimal understanding to perform the job. There are also group discussions which at times involve people who have experience. These veterans able to give real life experience as to what the new trainees can expect. There is some role playing between seasoned professionals and the new trainees.
After 8 weeks of in class training the new trainees are able to put what has been learned to practical use. While in a real environment there are seasoned people available to answer questions. There is also several weeks of quality control to make sure the new trainees are doing the work properly and to correct any issues right away. This type of mentoring and internship tapers off over time depending on how quickly the new trainee learns.
Throughout this training there is constant feedback to the new trainees. In the working environment that feedback is even more important as a mistake made could cost the company financially. Handling other people’s money can become highly charged especially when something is perceived as going wrong. There are layers upon layers of company as well as legal rules and regulations involved to make sure those handling financial transactions are within compliance. Support from seasoned employees assures and reinforces the understanding that is needed to help customers while staying within compliance.
2. Training consists of 16 hours of in class study during which theory is learned. There may be some applied training where students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. There is no testing during the 16 hours of training nor at the end.
After 16 hours of training there is no feedback to the new trainee. There is no mentoring or internship for the new trainee. Experience is gained at the expense of the consumer. There is no means of testing whether the new trainee is within compliance or whether or not there is a basic understanding of the rules that govern the way he/ she is to operate.
While dealing with a person’s finances is a world apart from dealing with the complexities of a divorcing family there are similarities. Both can become highly charged when something is perceived as going wrong. Both can have a huge impact on the individual(s) involved both currently and into the future. It is the training though that defines how well one does the job in question.
With the training examples given we see the training one receives for handling people's money and for handling people's lives. We see that with one - the process given to train people is extremely careful in its approach. That there are tools and systems to give support so that errors may be caught before they become major issues and hurt a person or family. There are safeguards in place to help the trainee to continue to refine what has been learned and gain experience and to do so not at the expense of the consumer. With the other we see a training process that has been developed to handle people - children and families - who are in crisis and need help. The actions of these trainees have the very real possibility of scaring the people they are supposed to help. There are no tools to help the trainees at any time. Experience comes at the expense of the families and children. There are no safeguards in place to prevent this damage from happening. There are no systems to catch errors before they become issues.
The first is an example of a training process that is used by businesses. The second is used by the Judicial Branch in training Guardians ad litem. Would you rather have a Guardian ad litem who has gone through a training process that has clearly defined goals, offers some means to measure understanding and offers support through mentoring and internship programs? Or would you rather have someone who has gone through the current training process of sitting in a room and warming a seat for several hours?
The answer is obvious. The Judicial Branch has a training process for Guardians ad litem that in a business environment would fail to meet the needs of consumers. Under the current model the Judicial Branch would be overwhelmed with problems and it would either go out of business because of competition from businesses that have better training programs or it would change to meet the needs of those it is supposed to serve. But…. The Judicial Branch is not a business but a monopoly that is accountable to no one. It also has lost sight who it is supposed to serve - being more concerned with how the stakeholders will react than consumers. As a result sub-standard training is allowed and even encouraged. Where those that come up with the training (the stakeholders) curriculum do so based on their own experience. To say (or post on ones "Professional Trainings" page) that one has experience in developing training does not mean one has the necessary tools or experience to do so. Currently there is no cohesiveness in the goal of Guardian ad litem training.
The training for Guardians ad litem should be removed from the control of the Judicial Branch and the stakeholders that are enmeshed in deciding what is acceptable training. Training should be done by professionals who know and understand the goals that are to be achieved and have experience in developing curriculum.
Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
With these two examples ask yourself who is better trained to handle difficult situations?
1. Training consists of 8 weeks of in class study during which the process, rules and regulations are learned. There is some applied training where the students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. Students are tested at certain points. This allows for the trainers to verify at least a minimal understanding to perform the job. There are also group discussions which at times involve people who have experience. These veterans able to give real life experience as to what the new trainees can expect. There is some role playing between seasoned professionals and the new trainees.
After 8 weeks of in class training the new trainees are able to put what has been learned to practical use. While in a real environment there are seasoned people available to answer questions. There is also several weeks of quality control to make sure the new trainees are doing the work properly and to correct any issues right away. This type of mentoring and internship tapers off over time depending on how quickly the new trainee learns.
Throughout this training there is constant feedback to the new trainees. In the working environment that feedback is even more important as a mistake made could cost the company financially. Handling other people’s money can become highly charged especially when something is perceived as going wrong. There are layers upon layers of company as well as legal rules and regulations involved to make sure those handling financial transactions are within compliance. Support from seasoned employees assures and reinforces the understanding that is needed to help customers while staying within compliance.
2. Training consists of 16 hours of in class study during which theory is learned. There may be some applied training where students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. There is no testing during the 16 hours of training nor at the end.
After 16 hours of training there is no feedback to the new trainee. There is no mentoring or internship for the new trainee. Experience is gained at the expense of the consumer. There is no means of testing whether the new trainee is within compliance or whether or not there is a basic understanding of the rules that govern the way he/ she is to operate.
While dealing with a person’s finances is a world apart from dealing with the complexities of a divorcing family there are similarities. Both can become highly charged when something is perceived as going wrong. Both can have a huge impact on the individual(s) involved both currently and into the future. It is the training though that defines how well one does the job in question.
With the training examples given we see the training one receives for handling people's money and for handling people's lives. We see that with one - the process given to train people is extremely careful in its approach. That there are tools and systems to give support so that errors may be caught before they become major issues and hurt a person or family. There are safeguards in place to help the trainee to continue to refine what has been learned and gain experience and to do so not at the expense of the consumer. With the other we see a training process that has been developed to handle people - children and families - who are in crisis and need help. The actions of these trainees have the very real possibility of scaring the people they are supposed to help. There are no tools to help the trainees at any time. Experience comes at the expense of the families and children. There are no safeguards in place to prevent this damage from happening. There are no systems to catch errors before they become issues.
The first is an example of a training process that is used by businesses. The second is used by the Judicial Branch in training Guardians ad litem. Would you rather have a Guardian ad litem who has gone through a training process that has clearly defined goals, offers some means to measure understanding and offers support through mentoring and internship programs? Or would you rather have someone who has gone through the current training process of sitting in a room and warming a seat for several hours?
The answer is obvious. The Judicial Branch has a training process for Guardians ad litem that in a business environment would fail to meet the needs of consumers. Under the current model the Judicial Branch would be overwhelmed with problems and it would either go out of business because of competition from businesses that have better training programs or it would change to meet the needs of those it is supposed to serve. But…. The Judicial Branch is not a business but a monopoly that is accountable to no one. It also has lost sight who it is supposed to serve - being more concerned with how the stakeholders will react than consumers. As a result sub-standard training is allowed and even encouraged. Where those that come up with the training (the stakeholders) curriculum do so based on their own experience. To say (or post on ones "Professional Trainings" page) that one has experience in developing training does not mean one has the necessary tools or experience to do so. Currently there is no cohesiveness in the goal of Guardian ad litem training.
The training for Guardians ad litem should be removed from the control of the Judicial Branch and the stakeholders that are enmeshed in deciding what is acceptable training. Training should be done by professionals who know and understand the goals that are to be achieved and have experience in developing curriculum.
Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Pennsylvania - Former Lackawanna County Guardian ad litem pleads guilty
Times Leader
SCRANTON — Danielle Ross Pietralczyk, 37, of Jermyn, faces up to five years in federal prison after pleading guilty Monday to tax evasion and filing a false federal income tax return. She had served as guardian ad litem for the Lackawanna County Family Court prior to her February arrest.
Pietralczyk pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge A. Richard Caputo.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, tax returns verified by Pietralczyk under penalty of perjury failed to report any amounts of income she received from private paying clients while acting as the sole guardian ad litem for the Lackawanna County Family Court. The only income Ross reported for 2009 and 2010 was her county compensation reported on 1099 forms which she received as an independent contractor hired by Lackawanna County.
As the sole guardian ad litem for the Lackawanna County Family Court, she was provided with an annual compensation of $38,000. However, pursuant to a contract between Ross and Lackawanna County, Ross was permitted to bill private paying parties above her county compensation at a rate of $50 per hour. She managed and exercised complete control over her private billings and income, prosecutors say. That income was known only to Pietralczyk and not Lackawanna County, nor was Lackawanna County required to approve her private billings.
Full story: Times Leader
SCRANTON — Danielle Ross Pietralczyk, 37, of Jermyn, faces up to five years in federal prison after pleading guilty Monday to tax evasion and filing a false federal income tax return. She had served as guardian ad litem for the Lackawanna County Family Court prior to her February arrest.
Pietralczyk pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge A. Richard Caputo.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, tax returns verified by Pietralczyk under penalty of perjury failed to report any amounts of income she received from private paying clients while acting as the sole guardian ad litem for the Lackawanna County Family Court. The only income Ross reported for 2009 and 2010 was her county compensation reported on 1099 forms which she received as an independent contractor hired by Lackawanna County.
As the sole guardian ad litem for the Lackawanna County Family Court, she was provided with an annual compensation of $38,000. However, pursuant to a contract between Ross and Lackawanna County, Ross was permitted to bill private paying parties above her county compensation at a rate of $50 per hour. She managed and exercised complete control over her private billings and income, prosecutors say. That income was known only to Pietralczyk and not Lackawanna County, nor was Lackawanna County required to approve her private billings.
Full story: Times Leader
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
National - Dear Guardian ad litem, Dear Family Court,
Santa has received letters from kids who want BOTH parents....
Monday, December 16, 2013
Georgia Investigation exposes little oversight of child advocates
Georgia has problems with Guardians ad litem much like other states like Maine and Connecticut. In this article we have from official sources statements that state the obvious regarding the role that Guardians ad litem have.
CBS Atlanta
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) -
A CBS Atlanta News investigation uncovered questionable oversight of court-appointed advocates sworn to protect children.
In Georgia, guardians ad litem are attorneys appointed by judges to determine the best interest of children during contested custody cases, but some parents, attorneys and child development experts question the guardians' expertise and objectivity.
"The mental anguish for my children and me has been huge," said Gracie Ortiz Terrett.
She had asked for a guardian ad litem after a judge limited her custody of her 8- and 10-year-old children to one day a week and every other weekend. But Terret said guardians ad litem Raina Nadler and Jeanney Kutner were far from objective.
Full story: CBSAtlanta
CBS Atlanta
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) -
A CBS Atlanta News investigation uncovered questionable oversight of court-appointed advocates sworn to protect children.
In Georgia, guardians ad litem are attorneys appointed by judges to determine the best interest of children during contested custody cases, but some parents, attorneys and child development experts question the guardians' expertise and objectivity.
"The mental anguish for my children and me has been huge," said Gracie Ortiz Terrett.
She had asked for a guardian ad litem after a judge limited her custody of her 8- and 10-year-old children to one day a week and every other weekend. But Terret said guardians ad litem Raina Nadler and Jeanney Kutner were far from objective.
Full story: CBSAtlanta
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Connecticut Attorney Sharon Dornfeld troubled by comments from Parent
While this letter is regarding Guardians ad litem in another state what is being said can be equally applied to situations involving Guardians ad litem in any state:
Hello Ms. Dornfeld,
I'm told that you are troubled by my observations of the system. As an expert in legal operations, legal e-billing and legal spend management, I would again extend to you the invitation to meet with me at your convenience and at any time to discuss your perspectives and concerns, as well as to share mine and those of many other legal professionals equally as fed up with what our family courts have become and how they operate.
I was in the courthouse in Hartford today and saw many of my family attorney friends and contacts there. Two of them approached me and asked to meet with me next week - as they are considered testifying as to how bad the situation has become and how dramatically it has impacted them and their clients.
Veteran family law attorneys - one of whom wrote the attached letter. This would bring to 12 the number of family law attorneys I have organized and who will also speak out as Attorney Rutkin recently did, when the time is right and they no longer have to worry about retaliation against them.
And what does that say and reflect in regards to what our family court system has become, and the powers-that-be have created and perpetuated - when family law attorneys themselves are afraid to speak about their own industry for fear of how it may personally impact them?
Once again - the world has changed and the genie is out of the bottle. "The system" is no longer able to threaten and intimidate parents and attorneys into silence, social media has changed that forever and good riddance. And this is true not just here in Connecticut, but nationally and even internationally as well.
No parent or citizen should EVER have fear the Judiciary or suffer retaliation for speaking their opinion - EVER in the United States. That is not why I and my family came here from a communist country to see and experience.
Once again - shouldn't we all be ashamed of what our family courts have become and its complete lack of focus on families and children and abuses we have all suffered at the hands of the system?
The family court is supposed to be a source of resolution and closure - not open ended cycle and source and cause of abuse and therapy.
What's happened to the basic principles of common decency, common respect, understanding and compassion?
If you are "irritated" by my commentary - then I'm afraid I can offer you no apologies, because I and the thousands of parents, children of divorce, grandparents, family attorneys and GALs who have been severely impacted and financially and otherwise devastated by the horrific perspectives and policies you and others have promoted, are not the ones who are fault for what is wrong.
* The problems in our family court were not created by parents or our fault.
* It is not what we are responsible for or what we created.
* It is not what we want for ourselves and our children and our families or our state.
* It is not parents who are blatantly violating the basic principles of due process, civil and parental rights, or the rights of child.
* It is not parents who are acting in an unethical, immoral and illogical manner.
* It is not parents who are willfully ignoring violations of court order or the abuses and neglect of children.
* It is not parents who are in Court perpetuating and promoting conflict to profit from it.
* It is not parents who are imposing draconian and devastating financial orders on parents to punish them for being in court.
* It is not parents who are forcing the liquidation of retirement accounts and children's college funds and demanding payments from grandparents.
* It is not parents who jailing themselves solely because they have no means to pay.
PARENTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
And you do not use the same people who created a problem and who profit handsomely from it, to solve it.
It is perhaps most telling that after two months of hearings, and that as Chair, you have not called a single parent or child or divorce to testify - not one. And that every person who has been called, is a member of the divorce industry and someone who profits from and engages in perpetuating the problem. And no surprise - practically all of them members of FCC member, as you and Ms. Cousineau are.
* Which speaks volumes as to how co-opted and pointless the Task Force has become.
Task Forces are created by the legislature to solicit to hear testimony from people and citizens adversely impacted by a situation or problem - not those who create and profit from it.
It is equally as telling that we have not heard testimony from a single parent or child of divorce stating how wonderful the court system is, how much time their AMC/GAL spent with them to get to know them and how much they helped them, or how helpful a court ordered therapist was. And that any of this was worth the money taken from them or their parents and families. Why is that?
What the Task Force has become is like watching a home improvement show, where the focus of the show is to take pity on and only listen to shady contractor who did shoddy work and left the homeowner with a massive problem and walked away with all of their money.
Perhaps we should listen to the Chief Justice of Canada, who has publically come out and stated that family courts are beyond the point of repair, and need to be completely replaced with "something else." As an expert in legal operations and legal spend management, and business process improvement expert, I couldn't agree more. And applaud Attorney Rutkin for his recommendation that the state consider bringing in an outside management company to run the Judiciary and correct its operational dysfunctions. (I volunteer to help.)
Please let me know when you would like to meet and review the information I have to share with you and the Task Force. Most notably - an examination of the devastating financial impact the crisis in the family courts have exacted onto parents and families, and how many people it has thrown out of work, cost them their homes, and caused people to be unfairly jailed.
Regards
Peter Szymonik
Glastonbury, CT
www.galreform.org
Hello Ms. Dornfeld,
I'm told that you are troubled by my observations of the system. As an expert in legal operations, legal e-billing and legal spend management, I would again extend to you the invitation to meet with me at your convenience and at any time to discuss your perspectives and concerns, as well as to share mine and those of many other legal professionals equally as fed up with what our family courts have become and how they operate.
I was in the courthouse in Hartford today and saw many of my family attorney friends and contacts there. Two of them approached me and asked to meet with me next week - as they are considered testifying as to how bad the situation has become and how dramatically it has impacted them and their clients.
Veteran family law attorneys - one of whom wrote the attached letter. This would bring to 12 the number of family law attorneys I have organized and who will also speak out as Attorney Rutkin recently did, when the time is right and they no longer have to worry about retaliation against them.
And what does that say and reflect in regards to what our family court system has become, and the powers-that-be have created and perpetuated - when family law attorneys themselves are afraid to speak about their own industry for fear of how it may personally impact them?
Once again - the world has changed and the genie is out of the bottle. "The system" is no longer able to threaten and intimidate parents and attorneys into silence, social media has changed that forever and good riddance. And this is true not just here in Connecticut, but nationally and even internationally as well.
No parent or citizen should EVER have fear the Judiciary or suffer retaliation for speaking their opinion - EVER in the United States. That is not why I and my family came here from a communist country to see and experience.
Once again - shouldn't we all be ashamed of what our family courts have become and its complete lack of focus on families and children and abuses we have all suffered at the hands of the system?
The family court is supposed to be a source of resolution and closure - not open ended cycle and source and cause of abuse and therapy.
What's happened to the basic principles of common decency, common respect, understanding and compassion?
If you are "irritated" by my commentary - then I'm afraid I can offer you no apologies, because I and the thousands of parents, children of divorce, grandparents, family attorneys and GALs who have been severely impacted and financially and otherwise devastated by the horrific perspectives and policies you and others have promoted, are not the ones who are fault for what is wrong.
* The problems in our family court were not created by parents or our fault.
* It is not what we are responsible for or what we created.
* It is not what we want for ourselves and our children and our families or our state.
* It is not parents who are blatantly violating the basic principles of due process, civil and parental rights, or the rights of child.
* It is not parents who are acting in an unethical, immoral and illogical manner.
* It is not parents who are willfully ignoring violations of court order or the abuses and neglect of children.
* It is not parents who are in Court perpetuating and promoting conflict to profit from it.
* It is not parents who are imposing draconian and devastating financial orders on parents to punish them for being in court.
* It is not parents who are forcing the liquidation of retirement accounts and children's college funds and demanding payments from grandparents.
* It is not parents who jailing themselves solely because they have no means to pay.
PARENTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
And you do not use the same people who created a problem and who profit handsomely from it, to solve it.
It is perhaps most telling that after two months of hearings, and that as Chair, you have not called a single parent or child or divorce to testify - not one. And that every person who has been called, is a member of the divorce industry and someone who profits from and engages in perpetuating the problem. And no surprise - practically all of them members of FCC member, as you and Ms. Cousineau are.
* Which speaks volumes as to how co-opted and pointless the Task Force has become.
Task Forces are created by the legislature to solicit to hear testimony from people and citizens adversely impacted by a situation or problem - not those who create and profit from it.
It is equally as telling that we have not heard testimony from a single parent or child of divorce stating how wonderful the court system is, how much time their AMC/GAL spent with them to get to know them and how much they helped them, or how helpful a court ordered therapist was. And that any of this was worth the money taken from them or their parents and families. Why is that?
What the Task Force has become is like watching a home improvement show, where the focus of the show is to take pity on and only listen to shady contractor who did shoddy work and left the homeowner with a massive problem and walked away with all of their money.
Perhaps we should listen to the Chief Justice of Canada, who has publically come out and stated that family courts are beyond the point of repair, and need to be completely replaced with "something else." As an expert in legal operations and legal spend management, and business process improvement expert, I couldn't agree more. And applaud Attorney Rutkin for his recommendation that the state consider bringing in an outside management company to run the Judiciary and correct its operational dysfunctions. (I volunteer to help.)
Please let me know when you would like to meet and review the information I have to share with you and the Task Force. Most notably - an examination of the devastating financial impact the crisis in the family courts have exacted onto parents and families, and how many people it has thrown out of work, cost them their homes, and caused people to be unfairly jailed.
Regards
Peter Szymonik
Glastonbury, CT
www.galreform.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)