Mr. Craig Kelly appears to be a politician whom the Guardian ad litem/ Court reform movement could use. He recently gave a speech earlier this month regarding the use of a court appointed expert who by all appearances took advantage of the situation he was in by gouging the divorcing family. This issue is quite common in our Family Court system where judges grant a monopoly to Guardians ad litem and other court 'experts'. We must educate our politicians to the problems within our court systems -
FAMILY COURT RORTS – Speech in Parliament (November 2015);
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:18): Deputy Speaker, this morning I would like to talk about a rort — a rort that is going on in the Family Courts of Australia.
It is a rort that involves excessive fees, price gouging and virtual extortion; it is nothing other than a scam.
I am not going to name names today, but I put those on notice involved in this rort. If necessary, I will name names in this parliament.
Now Deputy Speaker, in a truly competitive market, I have no objection to anyone charging what the market will bear. In our free market, capitalist society, they are entitled to charge as much as the customer will FREELY pay.
However, where we have a situation where the Family Court orders a so-called ‘single expert” to do what is called a 'report' or an 'analysis', the court is granting them a monopoly.
And these people should not be allowed to exploit that monopoly position granted to them by the Family Court, by price gouge and charge excessive fees.
This is an area which should have government regulation where we set and regulate the fees where the Court does grant them a monopoly.
Deputy Speaker, I would like to give you an example of one of the current practices. I have a Family Court order in front of me, and it states that the participants in the Family Court, the father and the mother, should attend a particular ‘Mr X’ (name withheld) on a certain date for a further ‘single expert report’.
It goes on that the cost of ‘Mr X's’ report will be borne equally by the parties and that they will pay the sum of $8,000 each.
So Mr X is entitled to a sum of $16,000. (And parent of the child is unable to pay, they will be denied the right to even see their child, so the child is a victim of this rort as well)
When it was asked how this is calculated, it worked out at a fee of $700 per hour. That’s right Deputy Speaker; $700 per hour.
Now this is for a psychiatrist. If I look at the Australian Psychological Society's national schedule of recommended fees—the recommended fee schedule in place from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016—it sets out the recommended level of fees for an hour of consultation at $238.
So, because the courts are giving this particular individual a monopoly position—
(debate interrupted - Proceedings suspended from 11:21am to 11:34am) (debate resumed 11.34am)
-I will continue where I left off.
I was giving an example of the current practice of this rort whereby the scheduled fee recommended by the professional association is around $238 an hour (that’s $9,520 for a 40hr week – nice work if you can get it).
But in this case because the so-called expert involved has a court-ordered monopoly, they are able to charge what they like.
And they are charging 200% ABOVE the scheduled fee recommended by their professional association — a charge, including GST, of up to $700 an hour.
Deputy Speaker, I have no objection if in a fair, free and open competitive market if they want to charge $7,000 an hour, and someone is willing to pay this of their own free will.
But where the court compulsory orders a participant in the court proceedings to see an ‘single expert’ thereby granting such an individual a monopoly, and they charge such an excessive fee — a 200 % uplift, a $500 per hour UPLIFT (on the scheduled fee recommended by the professional association) — it is nothing other than an absolutely rort.
Deputy Speaker, I am not one for excessive government regulation,however we should have legislation that sets a maximum schedule of fees for these 'single experts' if they are to be given a court ordered monopoly.
For the current situation is very similar to what I remember in an old Chevy Chase movie, 'National Lampoon's Vacation', where Clark W. Griswall (played by Chevy Chase) crashed his car and had to get his car repaired. He pulls out this wallet and asks, ‘What do I owe you?'
And the repairer said, 'How much you got?' And when Clark complains about such price gouging, the repair pulls out this sheriff’s badge.
Deputy Speaker, his is akin to the same situation that we have going on in our Family Court today, and it is totally unacceptable.
Secondly, I have great concerns over some of the secrecy provisions in the Family Court. I would like to quote one Mr J Robert Oppenheimer from the 1950s. He said, which well applies to our Family Court today:
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism … We know that the wages of secrecy are corruption. We know that in secrecy error, undetected, will flourish and subvert.”
We need to end a few practices in our Family Court. We need to end the practice of secrecy.
We need to shine a bright light on the practices that are currently going on in our Family Court.
If we are going to continue to have the practice of single experts, a practice which I am greatly concerned about, we must have a schedule of professional fees they can charge. which must be reasonable.
And Deputy Speaker, regarding the current practices—these current rorts that I have outlined — I am putting these people on notice that they are being watched. This parliament is going to shine a light on their activities. (time expired).
If you have been involved in a case which has turned sour or just does not make sense we ask that you contact us at NationalGALalaert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Sunday, October 25, 2015
NY - Corrupt justice: what happens when judges' bias taints a case?
The Guardian
When Margaret Besen, a 51-year-old nurse from East Northport, Long Island, filed for divorce from her husband in March of 2010, she believed justice was on her side.
Judge William Kent’s preliminary ruling seemed like a first step toward compromise. Margaret and Stuart Besen, who agreed their marriage was beyond repair, would remain in their suburban Suffolk County house, living in separate rooms – and keeping away from each other – while sharing custody until a resolution could be reached.
But within weeks, the situation deteriorated. Stuart Besen, a politically connected attorney for the town of Huntington, had an anger problem, Margaret told authorities. The couple’s screaming matches left Margaret feeling intimidated and their children – a daughter, 11, and son, 7 – terrified, she said. So in August of that year she obtained an order of protection prohibiting Stuart from harassing her. Three weeks later, Stuart entered Margaret’s bedroom and hovered over her as she slept, she told police. They arrested him for violating the order, reporting that Stuart had stared down at Margaret with his arms folded on three consecutive nights. She got temporary possession of the family home.
In the years that followed, Besen’s hopes for an equitable settlement dwindled as she battled a series of harsh and hard-to-explain decisions against her. Though she could never prove anything, she suspected that the scales had tipped for reasons unrelated to the evidence in her case. If true, Besen faced what experts say is one of the most troubling threats to our nation’s system of justice: judges, who, through incompetence, bias or outright corruption, prevent the wronged from getting a fair hearing in our courts.
“The decorum and bias and the perfectly unethical behavior of the judges is really rampant,” said Amanda Lundergan, a defense attorney in Royal Palm Beach, Florida, who confronted a nest of judicial conflicts in her state’s rapid-fire foreclosure rulings – dubbed the “rocket-docket” – following the housing market collapse. “It’s judicial bullying.”
Full story: The Guardian
When Margaret Besen, a 51-year-old nurse from East Northport, Long Island, filed for divorce from her husband in March of 2010, she believed justice was on her side.
Judge William Kent’s preliminary ruling seemed like a first step toward compromise. Margaret and Stuart Besen, who agreed their marriage was beyond repair, would remain in their suburban Suffolk County house, living in separate rooms – and keeping away from each other – while sharing custody until a resolution could be reached.
But within weeks, the situation deteriorated. Stuart Besen, a politically connected attorney for the town of Huntington, had an anger problem, Margaret told authorities. The couple’s screaming matches left Margaret feeling intimidated and their children – a daughter, 11, and son, 7 – terrified, she said. So in August of that year she obtained an order of protection prohibiting Stuart from harassing her. Three weeks later, Stuart entered Margaret’s bedroom and hovered over her as she slept, she told police. They arrested him for violating the order, reporting that Stuart had stared down at Margaret with his arms folded on three consecutive nights. She got temporary possession of the family home.
In the years that followed, Besen’s hopes for an equitable settlement dwindled as she battled a series of harsh and hard-to-explain decisions against her. Though she could never prove anything, she suspected that the scales had tipped for reasons unrelated to the evidence in her case. If true, Besen faced what experts say is one of the most troubling threats to our nation’s system of justice: judges, who, through incompetence, bias or outright corruption, prevent the wronged from getting a fair hearing in our courts.
“The decorum and bias and the perfectly unethical behavior of the judges is really rampant,” said Amanda Lundergan, a defense attorney in Royal Palm Beach, Florida, who confronted a nest of judicial conflicts in her state’s rapid-fire foreclosure rulings – dubbed the “rocket-docket” – following the housing market collapse. “It’s judicial bullying.”
Full story: The Guardian
Thursday, October 15, 2015
CT - Judge Says Lawyers Can Face 'Emotional Distress' Damages in Professional Malpractice Lawsuits
The following was published on September 28, 2015 in The Connecticut Law Tribune. While the original case which resulted in this ruling originated as an automobile accident - the basis might/ could be used in Family Court where we see lawyers fail to represent their clients.
CT Law Tribune
A judge's recent ruling in a legal malpractice case against a Madison attorney allows a former client's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress to remain, a decision which some in the legal malpractice defense field call "troubling."
Sharon Burns of North Haven sued her former lawyer, Ira Grudberg, in Superior Court in New Haven in 2014, asserting he failed to properly represent her in litigation which arose from an automobile accident.
In December 2014, Burns filed a four-count complaint against Grudberg. The first count, which claims legal malpractice, alleges Grudberg was negligent for failing to respond to discovery requests and for representing Burns when he knew he lacked the resources or time to do so diligently. The litigation also claimed breach of contract, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Full story: CT Law Tribune.
If you are having issues in Family Court we would encourage you to find us on Facebook and share what you have been going through.
CT Law Tribune
A judge's recent ruling in a legal malpractice case against a Madison attorney allows a former client's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress to remain, a decision which some in the legal malpractice defense field call "troubling."
Sharon Burns of North Haven sued her former lawyer, Ira Grudberg, in Superior Court in New Haven in 2014, asserting he failed to properly represent her in litigation which arose from an automobile accident.
In December 2014, Burns filed a four-count complaint against Grudberg. The first count, which claims legal malpractice, alleges Grudberg was negligent for failing to respond to discovery requests and for representing Burns when he knew he lacked the resources or time to do so diligently. The litigation also claimed breach of contract, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Full story: CT Law Tribune.
If you are having issues in Family Court we would encourage you to find us on Facebook and share what you have been going through.
W.VA Williamson attorney under investigation
Williamson Daily News
WILLIAMSON – In a W.Va. State Supreme Court ruling on Sept. 30, Lauren Thompson, Williamson Attorney, has been held in contempt of court and denied eligibility for guardian ad litem and any other court appointments until an investigation is concluded in the untimely filing of response briefs in two child abuse and neglect appeals.
According to legal dictionary.com, guardian ad litem is defined as “a guardian appointed by the court to represent the interests of infants, the unborn or incompetent persons in legal actions.”
On Wednesday Oct. 14, Thompson released a statement. Thompson said, “During the current Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigation I must refrain from making direct public comment on the allegations against me. I must instead trust in my decisions, past and present, and the process.”
In a Memorandum Decision filed by the Supreme Court the document states that, “by orders entered on April 16 and March 13, Ms. Thompson was directed to file a respondent’s brief or summary response on or May 20, 2015. Ms. Thompson failed to file the response briefs by the May 20, 2015 deadline.”
Full Story: Williamson Daily News
WILLIAMSON – In a W.Va. State Supreme Court ruling on Sept. 30, Lauren Thompson, Williamson Attorney, has been held in contempt of court and denied eligibility for guardian ad litem and any other court appointments until an investigation is concluded in the untimely filing of response briefs in two child abuse and neglect appeals.
According to legal dictionary.com, guardian ad litem is defined as “a guardian appointed by the court to represent the interests of infants, the unborn or incompetent persons in legal actions.”
On Wednesday Oct. 14, Thompson released a statement. Thompson said, “During the current Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigation I must refrain from making direct public comment on the allegations against me. I must instead trust in my decisions, past and present, and the process.”
In a Memorandum Decision filed by the Supreme Court the document states that, “by orders entered on April 16 and March 13, Ms. Thompson was directed to file a respondent’s brief or summary response on or May 20, 2015. Ms. Thompson failed to file the response briefs by the May 20, 2015 deadline.”
Full Story: Williamson Daily News
Friday, September 11, 2015
NY - Father Not Obligated to Pay Child Support, Panel Finds
It happens more often than not where the non-custodial parent has his/her child(ren) withheld - yet is still obligated to pay child support. In this case then court is saying that the non-custodial parent does not have to continue making child support payments.
New York Law Journal
A father who has been prevented from seeing his son by the child's mother should not be obligated to pay child support, a Brooklyn appeals court ruled.
The Sept. 2 decision from a panel of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Matter of Coull v. Rottman, 2014-1516, reverses a 2014 ruling by Westchester County Family Court Judge Hal Greenwald denying Robert Coull's petition to suspend his obligation to make child support payments.
However, the panel left intact Greenwald's order denying Coull's motion to enforce his visitation rights and granting Pamela Rottman's cross-petition to suspend Coull's visitation rights for their son.
A forensic evaluator testified in Coull that Rottman's interference with a regular schedule of visitation between Coull and his son has resulted in a "pattern of alienation."
The evaluator also testified that she was unable to complete her report because the child did not appear for an interview and Rottman refused to allow her to speak with mental health providers or school officials.
Coull last visited his son in February 2010. For the next several months, he said he would go to the exchange location on visitation days, but often neither Rottman nor his son would be there. In one instance, both Rottman and the child appeared, but Rottman said the boy would not leave the car.
"Further, the record reflects that the mother, who represented herself before the Family Court, assumed an inappropriately hostile stance toward the father and witnesses who testified in his favor," the panel wrote.
Full Story: New York Law Journal
New York Law Journal
A father who has been prevented from seeing his son by the child's mother should not be obligated to pay child support, a Brooklyn appeals court ruled.
The Sept. 2 decision from a panel of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Matter of Coull v. Rottman, 2014-1516, reverses a 2014 ruling by Westchester County Family Court Judge Hal Greenwald denying Robert Coull's petition to suspend his obligation to make child support payments.
However, the panel left intact Greenwald's order denying Coull's motion to enforce his visitation rights and granting Pamela Rottman's cross-petition to suspend Coull's visitation rights for their son.
A forensic evaluator testified in Coull that Rottman's interference with a regular schedule of visitation between Coull and his son has resulted in a "pattern of alienation."
The evaluator also testified that she was unable to complete her report because the child did not appear for an interview and Rottman refused to allow her to speak with mental health providers or school officials.
Coull last visited his son in February 2010. For the next several months, he said he would go to the exchange location on visitation days, but often neither Rottman nor his son would be there. In one instance, both Rottman and the child appeared, but Rottman said the boy would not leave the car.
"Further, the record reflects that the mother, who represented herself before the Family Court, assumed an inappropriately hostile stance toward the father and witnesses who testified in his favor," the panel wrote.
Full Story: New York Law Journal
Sunday, August 30, 2015
WI - Initiative helps county collect almost $8,000
I wonder why these debtors are failing to make payments. Maybe they were bled dry by the system and as a Guardian ad litem rarely adds any value to the process figured - won't pay.
Green Bay Press Gazette
When people owe you $16.6 million, you can't realistically expect to recoup it all at once.
That's why Brown County Clerk of Courts John Vander Leest isn't too discouraged that his latest initiative to put a dent in that debt netted less than $8,000.
"We will continue to refine the process to get more accurate addresses and hold parties accountable," Vander Leest said.
Vander Leest's new initiative involves trying to haul debtors into court and get them onto a court-ordered payment schedule. The initiative is similar to one the county does once a week for nonpayment in criminal cases, but this effort is aimed at those debtors who were supposed to pay for a "guardian ad litem," a lawyer representing their children during their divorce proceedings or paternity cases.
Full Story: Green Bay Press Gazette
Green Bay Press Gazette
When people owe you $16.6 million, you can't realistically expect to recoup it all at once.
That's why Brown County Clerk of Courts John Vander Leest isn't too discouraged that his latest initiative to put a dent in that debt netted less than $8,000.
"We will continue to refine the process to get more accurate addresses and hold parties accountable," Vander Leest said.
Vander Leest's new initiative involves trying to haul debtors into court and get them onto a court-ordered payment schedule. The initiative is similar to one the county does once a week for nonpayment in criminal cases, but this effort is aimed at those debtors who were supposed to pay for a "guardian ad litem," a lawyer representing their children during their divorce proceedings or paternity cases.
Full Story: Green Bay Press Gazette
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
UT - New parenting law gives divorced parents equal time with children
Fox13
DRAPER, Utah – A new law is leveling the playing field between divorced parents.
The new law gives a parent who does not have custody of their child equal rights to time with their child.
As of Tuesday, both parents could get to spend equal time with their children.
Advocates say, traditionally, family courts awarded sole custody to one parent usually the mother, about 80 percent of the time.
Under House Bill 35, a judge could grant a non-custodial parent more time with their child.
So that means a child’s midweek visit becomes an overnight visit and a weekend visit to mom or dad’s ends Monday morning, instead of Sunday evening.
Full Story: Fox13
DRAPER, Utah – A new law is leveling the playing field between divorced parents.
The new law gives a parent who does not have custody of their child equal rights to time with their child.
As of Tuesday, both parents could get to spend equal time with their children.
Advocates say, traditionally, family courts awarded sole custody to one parent usually the mother, about 80 percent of the time.
Under House Bill 35, a judge could grant a non-custodial parent more time with their child.
So that means a child’s midweek visit becomes an overnight visit and a weekend visit to mom or dad’s ends Monday morning, instead of Sunday evening.
Full Story: Fox13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)