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
MI - Lawsuit against judge over child's removal can go forward
WXYZ
DETROIT (WXYZ) - A federal judge has ruled that a couple's lawsuit against a Wayne County judge can go forward.
They accuse family court Judge Judy Hartsfield of improperly having their son removed from their custody, relying on pre-signed child-removal orders filled out by a clerk.
"It was an unbelievable nightmare. Far worse than the death of my first child," said mother Claire Zimmeran.
Her husband, a professor at the University of Michigan, mistakenly gave their then 7-year old son Mike's Hard Lemonade, which contains alcohol, at a Detroit Tigers game. A security guard complained, and the boy ended up in foster care for three days and was then turned over to his mother.
"I felt totally helpless, I felt desperate," Zimmerman said.
Full story: WXYZ
DETROIT (WXYZ) - A federal judge has ruled that a couple's lawsuit against a Wayne County judge can go forward.
They accuse family court Judge Judy Hartsfield of improperly having their son removed from their custody, relying on pre-signed child-removal orders filled out by a clerk.
"It was an unbelievable nightmare. Far worse than the death of my first child," said mother Claire Zimmeran.
Her husband, a professor at the University of Michigan, mistakenly gave their then 7-year old son Mike's Hard Lemonade, which contains alcohol, at a Detroit Tigers game. A security guard complained, and the boy ended up in foster care for three days and was then turned over to his mother.
"I felt totally helpless, I felt desperate," Zimmerman said.
Full story: WXYZ
Monday, May 25, 2015
MN - An Opportunity for the Public to Comment and Provide Feedback to the Minnesota State GAL Board
URGENT UPDATE - This is an important opportunity for the public to provide input to the Minnesota State GAL Board. A group of concerned parents has been fighting for reform, and specifically asked to improve the complaint procedure so when you file a complaint against a Guardian it is actually heard and investigated. The Board responded and has published a draft of the proposed changes to the complaint procedure:
http://mn.gov/guardian-ad-litem/Notices/
You can submit feedback to Program Admin Suzanne Alliegro via instructions on the site. OR you can contact this group of parents, and work together with them to give feedback. They may offer public comment at the next GAL Board meeting.
E-mail: victimsofmanning@hotmail.com
OR
https://acalltoactionblog.wordpress.com/
http://mn.gov/guardian-ad-litem/Notices/
You can submit feedback to Program Admin Suzanne Alliegro via instructions on the site. OR you can contact this group of parents, and work together with them to give feedback. They may offer public comment at the next GAL Board meeting.
E-mail: victimsofmanning@hotmail.com
OR
https://acalltoactionblog.wordpress.com/
Sunday, May 17, 2015
TX - Texas guardianship bill seeks to strengthen individual rights
Watchdog Arena
A Tuesday hearing before the Texas House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence addressing HB 3914 rekindled the ongoing debate over abusive guardianship. Reform advocates call the system one-sided and exploitative even as probate court personnel and associated parties defended the status quo.
State Rep. Stephanie Klick, R-Fort Worth, introduced HB 3914, explaining how news coverage of high profile guardianship cases have made the public more aware of processes that occur in probate courts. The bill, she said, is to strengthen the due process of those proceedings while providing new protections and rights to persons alleged to be incapacitated by court-initiated guardianship proceedings.
“While we want to protect those truly incapacitated who might be at risk of being abused or exploited,” Klick noted, “the number of cases making news has been people who left you with the impression they didn’t really need a guardianship.”
Klick called guardianships “a pretty intrusive procedure.”
Guardianships can be of a person, of an estate or both. Depending on which, a person potentially cannot enter into a contract. They typically lose access to and control of their financial assets and physical property. Guardianships can cause a person to lose access of whom they can associate with. They can make no decisions regarding living arrangements or medical treatment. They can’t even vote.
HB 3914 seeks to establish additional requirements for court-initiated guardianship proceedings. It first calls for appointment of a guardian ad litem or court investigator to determine if the person is incapacitated and if a guardianship is necessary.
Full Story: Watchdog Arena
A Tuesday hearing before the Texas House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence addressing HB 3914 rekindled the ongoing debate over abusive guardianship. Reform advocates call the system one-sided and exploitative even as probate court personnel and associated parties defended the status quo.
State Rep. Stephanie Klick, R-Fort Worth, introduced HB 3914, explaining how news coverage of high profile guardianship cases have made the public more aware of processes that occur in probate courts. The bill, she said, is to strengthen the due process of those proceedings while providing new protections and rights to persons alleged to be incapacitated by court-initiated guardianship proceedings.
“While we want to protect those truly incapacitated who might be at risk of being abused or exploited,” Klick noted, “the number of cases making news has been people who left you with the impression they didn’t really need a guardianship.”
Klick called guardianships “a pretty intrusive procedure.”
Guardianships can be of a person, of an estate or both. Depending on which, a person potentially cannot enter into a contract. They typically lose access to and control of their financial assets and physical property. Guardianships can cause a person to lose access of whom they can associate with. They can make no decisions regarding living arrangements or medical treatment. They can’t even vote.
HB 3914 seeks to establish additional requirements for court-initiated guardianship proceedings. It first calls for appointment of a guardian ad litem or court investigator to determine if the person is incapacitated and if a guardianship is necessary.
Full Story: Watchdog Arena
GA - Augusta courts respond to complaints against guardians ad litem
FOX6 WBRC
AUGUSTA, GA (WFXG) -
There's a new set of rules designed to help clear up problems in the Augusta Judicial Circuit's guardian ad litem system.
Tom Allgood, an attorney and one of the authors of the new rules and application process, said the changes started several months ago and took several re-drafts. The new rules are designed to keep a closer eye on the guardian ad litem system.
"It just got to be too cumbersome," Allgood said.
Judges making their own rules, guardians charging clients what they felt was fair, and some guardians taking on way more cases than others.
These were just some of the reasons for a 13-page comprehensive overhaul changing the guidelines and application process to become a guardian ad litem for the Augusta Judicial Circuit.
"All the judges had their own rules, and they had ways, or methods, but they each approved guardians for use or assignment in their cases individually," Allgood said. "It was just decided that we could better use this resource if we drafted some rules and guidelines that applied to every guardian assigning cases by any judge."
WFXG was the first to investigate allegations against Janet Weinberger and complaints about her billing practices.
Now, nearly six months after our story aired, new rules and bylaws are being drafted.
Full Story: FOX6 WBRC
AUGUSTA, GA (WFXG) -
There's a new set of rules designed to help clear up problems in the Augusta Judicial Circuit's guardian ad litem system.
Tom Allgood, an attorney and one of the authors of the new rules and application process, said the changes started several months ago and took several re-drafts. The new rules are designed to keep a closer eye on the guardian ad litem system.
"It just got to be too cumbersome," Allgood said.
Judges making their own rules, guardians charging clients what they felt was fair, and some guardians taking on way more cases than others.
These were just some of the reasons for a 13-page comprehensive overhaul changing the guidelines and application process to become a guardian ad litem for the Augusta Judicial Circuit.
"All the judges had their own rules, and they had ways, or methods, but they each approved guardians for use or assignment in their cases individually," Allgood said. "It was just decided that we could better use this resource if we drafted some rules and guidelines that applied to every guardian assigning cases by any judge."
WFXG was the first to investigate allegations against Janet Weinberger and complaints about her billing practices.
Now, nearly six months after our story aired, new rules and bylaws are being drafted.
Full Story: FOX6 WBRC
MA - Taking it to the Hill: Child-centered divorce court reform deserves legislative support
Massachusetts leads the nation as one of 17 states proposing child-centered family court reform. Please urge our lawmakers to pass this historic proposal.
The bills H.1207 and S. 834 encourage shared parenting after divorce unless one parent is unfit. Currently, family courts award sole custody to one parent in roughly 80 percent of cases, reducing the other to little more than a visitor in the lives of their children. This seems based on the 1950s family model of breadwinners and homemakers. It is out of line with data on outcomes for children of divorce.
According to federal statistics, the 35 percent of children raised by single parents account for 63 percent of teen suicides, 71 percent of school dropouts and 85 percent of those in prison. Clearly, millions of families suffer under the existing broken system.
Further Reading: Wicked Local Lexington
The bills H.1207 and S. 834 encourage shared parenting after divorce unless one parent is unfit. Currently, family courts award sole custody to one parent in roughly 80 percent of cases, reducing the other to little more than a visitor in the lives of their children. This seems based on the 1950s family model of breadwinners and homemakers. It is out of line with data on outcomes for children of divorce.
According to federal statistics, the 35 percent of children raised by single parents account for 63 percent of teen suicides, 71 percent of school dropouts and 85 percent of those in prison. Clearly, millions of families suffer under the existing broken system.
Further Reading: Wicked Local Lexington
Friday, May 15, 2015
LTO and the Clowns from Ken & Mike's Show Support Judge Moskowitz
As a member of the LTO (Lawyers Trade Organization - a trade organization by lawyers for lawyers - or also known as the Maine Bar) he would/ should approve this judge. To do otherwise would mean the loss of billable hours in divorce court and a loss of lifestyle.
It would mean the further erosion of the 26% (the "majority" - lawyer represented cases ) and the very real possibility of a loss of income.
Read the full segment that these two clowns did in support of Judge Moskowitz - please follow this link:
To read the full segment of that show dealing with Judge Moskowitz please follow this link: Clowns-LTO
Thursday, May 7, 2015
ME - "All Judges Should Obey the Law, Like Anyone Else" US Associate Justice Elena Kagen
1.) WE OPPOSE THE
RE-APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE JEFFREY MOSKOWITZ. We base our position on widespread
reports from informants whom we know well, who have experienced in his court a
repeated pattern of rudeness and disrespect, failure to follow the law, use of Guardians
ad litem outside of their mandated
functions and abuse of judicial discretion to operate by judicial whim. Please,
be assured, we are not here to whine about a "bad custody decision";
we are concerned exclusively with a judge following the law, which we shall
detail further on.
The family court
system is destined to collapse from a loss of moral integrity, if its judges
don't follow the law themselves. And, remember Judge Moskowitz is a
leader of judges in his position as Deputy Chief Judge.
2.) ATTACKING
WITNESSES. Before addressing specific symptoms of the Moskowitz court that cry
out for a formal audit, before considering re-appointment, we would
briefly like to strenuously object to the current public-unfriendly judicial
re-appointment procedure. It leaves out people with actual experience before
the judge at every step of the process. From the back room decisions between
the Governor and his Judicial
Selection Committee Chair, Joshua Tardy, to the
opaque negotiations between various players for who gets listed for
re-appointment, to the hearings before the Judiciary Committee
when these re-appointment decisions have already been cast in concrete, the
public is a decorative afterthought. Re-appointment is almost exclusively
"private property" of the political leaders of the Maine Bar. Public
stay out; public shut up. There is absolutely no room for meaningful opposition
or other input from the public. This was made all too clear in the recent
unprecedented attacks on witnesses, who testified before this legislative
committee by Mr Tardy. Who in their right mind would risk public testimony and
face such attacks from the Chair of the Judicial appointment/re-appointment
committee? And for witnesses not to be allowed a chance to rebut Mr
Tardy's allegations by Chair, Senator
Burns, was unfair and unnecessary.. THERE WERE POWERFUL REBUTTALS, firmly
grounded in the truth and in facts. We can NEVER, in good conscience, encourage
the public to bear witness about judges before Senator Burn's committee,
without some understanding of the Committee chairman that they will be treated
with normal respect and human dignity and that they will have some protection
from future judicial caprice.
THE JUDICIAL VETTING
PROCEDURE. The judicial vetting procedures for re-appointment seems based on a
survey questionnaire sent out to members of the bar to evaluate judges at
2 and 6 year intervals. This type of consumer survey is typically completed by
motivated respondents and ignored by others. Though it has more pretentious
claims, it is essentially a "popularity contest". Which judges do
lawyers know and like? Which judges are "lawyer-friendly"? Though
Tardy was unwilling to share the current survey with us, when asked, one
wonders about the ratio of questionnaires mailed out to responses returned, the
quality of responses, the number of "no responses". And the number
and type of negative replies? These questions are vital is assessing the
validity of the vetting survey instrument. Without a survey design that can
address such questions, survey results are statistically meaningless razzle
dazzle.
In the light of his
much publicized role in the Great
Northern Paper Company debacle, we feel that Mr Tardy was an unfortunate
choice to lead the judicial re-appointment process. How can the judicial
re-appointment process not be tainted by Mr Tardy's unfortunate marketing of
the Great Northern Paper Company to the legislature - and its even more
unfortunate aftermath for Maine taxpayers? Ramming through a judicial
re-appointment by using raw political force and power, while discrediting all
public objections, does not inspire confidence. It is not a thoughtful, open,
public process for serious decisions about our courts. What kind of an
outcome can the public expect from such a process?
3.) 74% 'PRO
SE', AN INCONVENIENT FACT. We would remind you of a large but inconvenient
fact. As far as family courts are concerned, the divorce bar is a minority
group (26% of cases) that
controls 99.9% of the re-appointment process from start to finish. Where are
the majority 74% 'Pro se' in the
re-appointment decision making process? Isn't something out of balance? This is
a true blind spot in Judicial Branch thinking, in the Governor's
conceptualization of a judicial re-appointment committee. In fairness and in
connection with the actual reality of today, it needs correction.
4.) VOICE OF THE
PUBLIC: WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS ABOUT JUDGE MOSKOWITZ;
See Appendix for
detailed quotes of various" voices of people" who have actually
appeared before Judge Moskowitz and who have shared their experience with us.
The thrust of the "voices" seems to be a repeated pattern of
courtroom intimidation - or what might in some cases be called bullying. There
are reports of a failure to follow the Rules for
Guardian ad litem that is noted by our respondents so
frequently that one wonders, does the judge know the rules for Guardians ad litem, or is he outsourcing a wild form
of total, 'ad lib', judicial discretion to Guardians ad litem? There are reports of a failure to
listen to all evidence. There are reports of failure to present a plan for
reconciliation when custody sharing is uneven, and failure to respect witnesses
and consultants. In our opinion, these comments are a "heads up", a
warning to those involved in deciding re-appointment. There seems to be an
awful lot of "smoke" coming from this court. The "smoke"
cries out for a formal legislative investigation, an audit of this court. At
the end of the day, one asks, "Is this the "rule of law"? Is
this what Maine citizens want, is this what the legislature approves of?
5.) By your decision
about re-appointment, you send a message to the judiciary and to the public.
Will it be: we need to look into this further, or will it be judges can do
whatever they like. Judicial standards be damned. Public be damned; don't
bother your legislator. Mr Tardy and the powers behind him are
"lobbying" hard for a "no judicial standard" standard.
There are rules, but no enforcement, no supervision. It is all 'ad hoc' decided
by a committee of peers, if they get a complaint. There is no functional way by
which the public, taxpayers, may judge a judge or get a complaint followed by
"corrective action". There is, effectively NO protection for the
public.
Admittedly, the
choices are stark. There is a questionable vetting process, with questionable
vetting leadership, making use of flagrant suppression of any and all
opposition. There have been no public challenges to judicial re-appointment in
20 years. To do it with integrity requires that the committee collect its own
data, do its own 'vetting, make its own decisions. It is up to you.
Jerome A Collins
Kennebunkport, Maine
MeGAL
is working to bring about change regarding our Family Court system and Guardian
ad litem role. If you have had issues
within the court system we would invite you to contact us at
MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
APPENDIX- VOICE OF THE PEOPLE REGARDING DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MOSKOWITZ
APPENDIX- VOICE OF THE PEOPLE REGARDING DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MOSKOWITZ
Friday, May 1, 2015
ME - Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz expected to face opposition in reappointment
Many thanks to Judy Harrison (BDN) for the recent article: “Judge who levied gag order expected to face challenge in reappointment”
The article is about Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz and the issues surrounding his court room and the endorsement by Judicial Selection Committee (headed by Joshua Tardy Esq.) to Maine's Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary. May 7, 2015 will see the confirmation hearing of this judge at 2 pm.
It is also the story of one woman's experience in this court. She is not unique in the experience. It is a story of personal pain.
In addition we have a survey asking anyone who is willing to voice an opinion on his reappointment. The public (majority) was left out of the process. A committee consisting of lawyers ( headed by Joshua Tardy Esq. ) conducted a survey which went out to members of Maine’s Bar (minority). The results of our anonymous survey will be presented to the committee on May 7 and posted online. To take the survey click here. Survey will open in a new window/ tab.
Related articles:
Complaining About Judicial Conduct - The Oversight of Judges
The article is about Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz and the issues surrounding his court room and the endorsement by Judicial Selection Committee (headed by Joshua Tardy Esq.) to Maine's Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary. May 7, 2015 will see the confirmation hearing of this judge at 2 pm.
It is also the story of one woman's experience in this court. She is not unique in the experience. It is a story of personal pain.
In addition we have a survey asking anyone who is willing to voice an opinion on his reappointment. The public (majority) was left out of the process. A committee consisting of lawyers ( headed by Joshua Tardy Esq. ) conducted a survey which went out to members of Maine’s Bar (minority). The results of our anonymous survey will be presented to the committee on May 7 and posted online. To take the survey click here. Survey will open in a new window/ tab.
Related articles:
Complaining About Judicial Conduct - The Oversight of Judges
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
National - Documentary ‘Divorce Corp’ exposes corruption in family courts
Fox News 411
It’s a $50 billion a year industry, with more funds flooding in to family courts in the United States than all other court systems combined.
But according to filmmaker Joseph Sorge – who was inspired by his own divorce and custody battles a few years ago – it’s an unregulated mess in which children are ripped from their homes, insulting judges play God with parents’ lives, and unlicensed custody evaluators are more like extortionists.
“Audiences will be surprised to learn just how damaging the family courts process is, people don’t realize a judge can just take the kids away because they don’t like you,” Sorge, who compiled his findings into the expose-style documentary “Divorce Corp,” told FOX411. “People think this can’t happen in America, but it does.”
Narrated by TV personality Dr. Drew Pinsky, the film uses interviews with leading divorce lawyers, mediators, judges, politicians, litigants and journalists to showcase a family court system that doesn’t help families and children move on as they are sanctioned to do, but rather drags cases out for years, igniting a slew of consequences including bankruptcy, foreclosure, violence and even suicide.
“Divorce Corp” also paints a portrait of a system that routinely violates freedom of speech and an individual’s freedom to parent.
Full story: Fox News 411
It’s a $50 billion a year industry, with more funds flooding in to family courts in the United States than all other court systems combined.
But according to filmmaker Joseph Sorge – who was inspired by his own divorce and custody battles a few years ago – it’s an unregulated mess in which children are ripped from their homes, insulting judges play God with parents’ lives, and unlicensed custody evaluators are more like extortionists.
“Audiences will be surprised to learn just how damaging the family courts process is, people don’t realize a judge can just take the kids away because they don’t like you,” Sorge, who compiled his findings into the expose-style documentary “Divorce Corp,” told FOX411. “People think this can’t happen in America, but it does.”
Narrated by TV personality Dr. Drew Pinsky, the film uses interviews with leading divorce lawyers, mediators, judges, politicians, litigants and journalists to showcase a family court system that doesn’t help families and children move on as they are sanctioned to do, but rather drags cases out for years, igniting a slew of consequences including bankruptcy, foreclosure, violence and even suicide.
“Divorce Corp” also paints a portrait of a system that routinely violates freedom of speech and an individual’s freedom to parent.
Full story: Fox News 411
IL - From the community: Four Key Steps to Eliminate Child Abuse
Chicago Tribune
n support of awareness of National Child Abuse Prevention month, retired Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County judge and practicing family law attorney, Michael Ian Bender, offers a four-step educational guide to parents and guardians who want to raise children in a functional and happy home where abuse does not exist.
"In spite of the national spotlight on topics such as domestic violence and abuse at home, more work needs to be done to make childhood abuse a non-existent issue," says Bender. "The reality is that politicians and the media can discuss the problem ad nauseam, but the real progress is made when individuals-especially young parents-proactively seek guidance for how to raise children in a mutually loving and respectful manner. A happy family life means children have a greater chance of growing to their highest potential as emotionally well-adjusted human beings."
Full story: Chicago Tribune
n support of awareness of National Child Abuse Prevention month, retired Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County judge and practicing family law attorney, Michael Ian Bender, offers a four-step educational guide to parents and guardians who want to raise children in a functional and happy home where abuse does not exist.
"In spite of the national spotlight on topics such as domestic violence and abuse at home, more work needs to be done to make childhood abuse a non-existent issue," says Bender. "The reality is that politicians and the media can discuss the problem ad nauseam, but the real progress is made when individuals-especially young parents-proactively seek guidance for how to raise children in a mutually loving and respectful manner. A happy family life means children have a greater chance of growing to their highest potential as emotionally well-adjusted human beings."
Full story: Chicago Tribune
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
ME - Maine bills could lessen custody tensions during divorce
Bangor Daily News
AUGUSTA, Maine — Bills aimed at lessening tensions between divorcing parents of minor children will be heard Tuesday afternoon before the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
Two bills would add to the “best interest of the child” standard used by courts in making custody decisions when couples divorce. Judges would be required to consider the value of having both parents involved in the child’s life, according to LD 642 and LD 346.
Both bills include exceptions in cases where domestic violence, abuse, neglect and/or drug use by a parent could be considered by a judge in determining how much time and under what circumstances children spend it with each parent.
“The basic goal of the bill is that, before anyone gets divorced, both parents get access to their children regardless of what their parenting skills are,” Sen. David Dutremble, D-Biddeford, said Monday. “Attorneys, guardians ad litem and judges step in and take the best interest of the child standard into consideration and make recommendations to the court. But how would someone who does not know your child know what the best interest of your child is supposed to be?”
Dutremble has advocated for changes in the oversight of guardians ad litem, who sometimes represent children in contested divorces, and the way the court system handles such cases.
Full story: Bangor daily News
AUGUSTA, Maine — Bills aimed at lessening tensions between divorcing parents of minor children will be heard Tuesday afternoon before the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
Two bills would add to the “best interest of the child” standard used by courts in making custody decisions when couples divorce. Judges would be required to consider the value of having both parents involved in the child’s life, according to LD 642 and LD 346.
Both bills include exceptions in cases where domestic violence, abuse, neglect and/or drug use by a parent could be considered by a judge in determining how much time and under what circumstances children spend it with each parent.
“The basic goal of the bill is that, before anyone gets divorced, both parents get access to their children regardless of what their parenting skills are,” Sen. David Dutremble, D-Biddeford, said Monday. “Attorneys, guardians ad litem and judges step in and take the best interest of the child standard into consideration and make recommendations to the court. But how would someone who does not know your child know what the best interest of your child is supposed to be?”
Dutremble has advocated for changes in the oversight of guardians ad litem, who sometimes represent children in contested divorces, and the way the court system handles such cases.
Full story: Bangor daily News
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
GA - Augusta guardian ad litem program overhauled
While this is a step in the right direction the problem with this overhaul is that there appears no concerned citizens or parents who have faced the Family Court system were asked for their opinion. So we have lawyers developing new policies to control and provide "oversight" of Guardians ad litem. Concerned citizens and parents are left out of the process - because they are left out - a broken process remains broken. Just overhauled.
The Augusta Chronicle
The Augusta Judicial Circuit overhauled its guardian ad litem program last month, adopting new policies to contain growing outrage from families who say inexperienced child-custody evaluators are over billing them in court.
The new guidelines – written by the executive committee of the Augusta Bar Association’s Family Law Section – significantly revise billing, training and professional-conduct policies to provide general oversight and accountability for guardians, said Superior Court Judge Michael Annis.
According to updated rules, guardians cannot exceed $500 in fees on any case unless authorized by a judge, and must provide invoices that include a brief description of all charges, payments and credits to date to both parties and their attorneys each month.
Full story: The Augusta Chronicle
The Augusta Chronicle
The Augusta Judicial Circuit overhauled its guardian ad litem program last month, adopting new policies to contain growing outrage from families who say inexperienced child-custody evaluators are over billing them in court.
The new guidelines – written by the executive committee of the Augusta Bar Association’s Family Law Section – significantly revise billing, training and professional-conduct policies to provide general oversight and accountability for guardians, said Superior Court Judge Michael Annis.
According to updated rules, guardians cannot exceed $500 in fees on any case unless authorized by a judge, and must provide invoices that include a brief description of all charges, payments and credits to date to both parties and their attorneys each month.
Full story: The Augusta Chronicle
Friday, April 10, 2015
OH - Lorain attorney who worked as court-appointed child advocate charged with downloading child porn
The real issue is that this Guardian ad litem (GAL) is a court appointed officer. Someone who is backed backed by the court system. What does it say for the court system if it is endorsing this person. What kind of damage did this person do. Awhile ago we heard of a case where the GAL told a parent that he was going to have a weekend sleepover with her son. Mind you the GAL was in his late 50s and the child was 8 at the time. The mother fought in court and was coerced into allowing the sleepover to happen. The first time I heard this story my skin crawled and the thought which entered my mind is child porn. Did it happen? In light of this case maybe it did. The fact of the matter is that our courts who we trust and entrust with our children's lives are ill prepared to deal with issues like the story we have here about a GAL.
Cleveland.com
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A fixture of Lorain County Domestic Relations Court who often worked with children in divorce and delinquency cases is facing a federal child pornography charge.
James Paterson, 49, admitted to an FBI agent in a March 30 interview that he had between 500 and 1,000 images and 200 videos of child pornography on his computer, according to a criminal complaint filed Tuesday. He also admitted to posting comments on websites where he claimed he was a pedophile and sexually abused children, though he also said he never abused any children.
Paterson, who lives in Lorain, was also a member of a website where users can download child porn. A search on his computer found images of children -- some less than a year old -- being sexually abused, the complaint says.
Paterson worked as a guardian ad litem -- a position appointed by a judge in custody, divorce and juvenile cases to advocate on behalf of a child. He started taking cases in February 2013, according to Jody Barilla, Lorain County Domestic Relations Court's administrator.
He represented 21 children between then and Tuesday, Barilla said, and judges removed him from four pending cases once they received word of the criminal case against him.
She said he passed a background check conducted by the local court.
At the time of his arrest, Paterson also had a law practice based out of his house.
Full story: Cleveland.com
If you are involved in a divorce/ custody do not take for granted that the Guardian ad litem is pure as the driven snow.
Cleveland.com
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A fixture of Lorain County Domestic Relations Court who often worked with children in divorce and delinquency cases is facing a federal child pornography charge.
James Paterson, 49, admitted to an FBI agent in a March 30 interview that he had between 500 and 1,000 images and 200 videos of child pornography on his computer, according to a criminal complaint filed Tuesday. He also admitted to posting comments on websites where he claimed he was a pedophile and sexually abused children, though he also said he never abused any children.
Paterson, who lives in Lorain, was also a member of a website where users can download child porn. A search on his computer found images of children -- some less than a year old -- being sexually abused, the complaint says.
Paterson worked as a guardian ad litem -- a position appointed by a judge in custody, divorce and juvenile cases to advocate on behalf of a child. He started taking cases in February 2013, according to Jody Barilla, Lorain County Domestic Relations Court's administrator.
He represented 21 children between then and Tuesday, Barilla said, and judges removed him from four pending cases once they received word of the criminal case against him.
She said he passed a background check conducted by the local court.
At the time of his arrest, Paterson also had a law practice based out of his house.
Full story: Cleveland.com
If you are involved in a divorce/ custody do not take for granted that the Guardian ad litem is pure as the driven snow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)