Maine - Lawyers, Divorce Industry Like Mike - Should You?

We try to stay clear of partisan politics. After all, children's welfare in divorce and custody shouldn't be a partisan issue. So we try to remain "non-partisan",

BUT ...

Quite frankly, from the perspective of our Family Court, and Guardian ad litem (GAL) reform concerns, we "Don't like Mike" - that is Mike Michaud, one of ( 3 ) candidates running for Governor of Maine. In fact we would say to our GAL and Family Court reform friends, "Vote for anyone else for Governor, but not Mike!"

It's nothing personal, Mike, its your "special interest" lawyer friends, supporters and the fundraisers who we don't like! It is Maine's divorce industry that is "hell bent for election," divorce bar lawyers raising money for "Mike" like it is going out of style and the other, so - called "impartial" divorce industry people silently cheering for "Mike". They are hoping that he wins and that his gratitude for their support will preserve the very lucrative 'status quo' in our creaky, old, dysfunctional, Family Courts.

ASK YOURSELF - WHY DOES THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY SO AVIDLY SUPPORT MIKE MICHAUD? Why are lawyers, law firms and the judicial branch supporting Mike? The financial investment they are making in Mike Michaud is an investment in keeping the family court as we know it. It is an investment in their retirements, their children's education and their way of life.

Take a look at some of Mikes supporters:

Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fund raise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;

Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".

Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.

WHY DO THEY LIKE "MIKE"?  You can bet that it isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts, and it isn't because the divorce bar wants our kind of Family Court or Guardian ad litem reform.  They expect that "Mike's" "pay back" for their financial bucks will be strong support for the "divorce bar".  Keep lawyer privilege!  Keep our family courts as they are - a gold mine for lawyers and the Divorce Industry. Keep consumers out of this unregulated "industry".  "Mike" has a political  reputation for being an obedient,  good, ol boy. The divorce bar and their good friend, Senate President Justin Alfond ( 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014; 09/23/2014 ), are banking on a tight relationship with "Mike". Alfond is reported to have already told Senators in his caucus, enough already with GAL reform; the lawyers don't like it!

WE'D BET THAT MANY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ARE ALSO SILENTLY SUPPORTING  "MIKE" TOO (and not just their "prayers and good wishes"!). He is their kind of guy; supporting the interests of the "divorce industry" and will not supporting Family Court or GAL reform - just exactly as they are.

DO YOU SUPPORT THE "DIVORCE INDUSTRY"? A vote for "Mike" supports the divorce industry and perpetuates our victim hood in Family Courts. Use you precious vote thoughtfully, carefully and in the best interest of our children. Your vote can make a difference. Please, friends, anyone but "Mike" for Governor of Maine, please!

We'd also say, check out where our candidates for the Maine Senate and House of Representatives stand on our reform issues. We're splitting our vote on these candidates depending on whether they support our family court and GAL reform positions. For us, it's not about Republican or Democrat; we call ourselves "Childocrats"!

JOIN THE CHILDOCRAT PARTY TOO!

NationalGALert is a grassroots organization and like minded people who have a vested interest in the states Family Court process and reform. Please feel free to contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Connecticut - State Spells Out New Rules for Guardian Ad Litem Conduct

The law which went into effect earlier this month has the Judicial Branch regulate how Guardians ad litem are used. A sliding fee scale was created to help control the costs associated with this role. Please read:

The Connecticut Law Tribune

When the legislature approved a bill that created new standards for guardians ad litem and counsels for minor children earlier this year, the intent was to ease disputes in the family court system.

Under the law that went into effect Oct. 1, the Judicial Branch is now required to more closely regulate how the guardians are used. A sliding fee scale was created in September that is intended to control how much low and moderate-income parents will pay for the services of attorneys and guardians appointed to represent children in divorce and custody cases.

Now the final two requirements of the law have been finalized by the Judicial Branch with the creation of Code of Conduct for guardians ad litem and an informational website page to help inform the public about GAL and other services available for those with family law matters.

According to the Code of Conduct, which is now posted on the Judicial Branch website, guardians ad litem will have 24 new requirements to adhere to. The code requires all guardians ad litem to provide "competant representation," and treat all parties of family court proceedings with "respect, fairness and good faith."

Full story: The Connecticut Law Tribune

Connecticut: Mark Dubois: Anti-GAL Crowd Gives Rules Committee An Earful

The comments offer more insight than the writer who takes writes form the perspective of many lawyers. That parents/ consumers are "sour grapes" and that the divorce industry, GALs and judges are being bashed - we just don't understand as parents/ consumers......

The Connecticut Law Tribune

If what I saw the other day at the Rules Committee hearing on proposed Practice Book changes is any indication, the Judicial Branch (and all of us) are in for a rough year ahead.

For those who have never attended a Rules Committee hearing, it is commonly believed that things are pretty well set by the time they get to hearing stage and, absent some major upset or error, what has been proposed will be recommended to the judges for adoption after a pro forma airing. That was not to be the case this time, however.

I knew something was up when I uncharacteristically arrived a half-hour early and found a line of folks signing up to testify stretching out of the Supreme Court courtroom into the foyer. One of them was clearly their manager, as he walked back and forth giving advice on how to sign up anonymously and how some folks might want to pool their time to make a longer argument. I rightly guessed that this bunch were from the anti-GAL/AMC crowd, but I had no idea what was to follow.

Full story: The Connecticut Law Tribune

If you are interested in bringing about Family Court reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Maine - Credibility determinations are left to the sound Judgment of the trier of Fact

One (out of many) of our favorite quotes from a Maine Supreme Court decision has the ring of final authority that is almost biblical.  To us, it  effectively seems to say, folks,on this sacred verity there is no possible rebuttal.  It’s almost, “God is speaking!”  But, ... and not to disrespect God, here is the quote- and our rebuttal:

SUPREME COURT: “ NO PRINCIPLE OF APPELLATE REVIEW IS BETTER ESTABLISHED THAN THE PRINCIPLE THAT CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ARE LEFT TO THE SOUND JUDGMENT OF THE TRIER OF FACT”.

OUR REBUTTAL: To us, this is a statement of a nice ideal, or a “wish-it-were-true”- not the reality that the public experiences. If all judges possessed super human "infallibility", it might be true.  But they don't.  They are subject to human error, just like all other mortals.  In the case that lead to this quote, the judge was far from infallible about Guardians ad litem. He gave a vivid indisputable demonstration of his legal fallibility, when he improperly  referred a complaint about the Guardian ad litem in an active case that he was judging to the Chief Judge of the District Courts. Key issues: (a) the case was being actively argued in HIS court.(b) by the “rules” as stated on the Judicial Branch web site, he himself  is supposed to address and judge the merits of  complaints about Guardians ad litem in active cases in his court.

Despite being told by the untrained  'pro se' plaintiff that he was mistaken in making this referral he insisted on making this very inappropriate referral in violation of the Maine Rules for Guardians ad litem. If he didn't know the actual written Rules for Guardians ad litem with respect to complaints against Guardians ad litem, one has to  ask what else didn't he know about the Rules governing Guardians ad litem, and how could he judge a GAL's functional performance, absent full knowledge of the standards for the job?

The God-like quote above is a clear example of demonstrated  bias that favors an inept, uninformed judge, and it disfavors the ironically more informed  party who was represented 'pro se'. The decisions coming out of this flawed process both shape and distort  the actual facts to maintain an image that all is well in the courts, both probate and Supreme. This is not true in this case where the language of the decision and the actions of the lower court attempt to bamboozle a 'pro se' representative with statements that are provably false.

The court's decision raises a serious question about public "access to justice" and a constitutionally guaranteed "equal protection of the laws (for everyone)"! A 'pro se' representative, even with some "home study" can never match the skills of an experienced lawyer or the highly empowered (though in this case an uninformed) judge. It is an unequal legal conflict between "a peashooter vs a cannon".

So much for “CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ARE LEFT TO THE SOUND JUDGMENT OF THE TRIER OF FACT!

Maine has a 74% ‘pro se’ problem. 74% of court cases are receiving unequal access to  justice in Maine courts. It is a class discrimination “secret” that flies under the radar. It violates the US Constitution. For constitutional compliance and respect for “the rule of law” it needs correction asap!

For support please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com and you may also find us on Facebook.

Will your online petition make people aware of the issue?

You are upset because the system has betrayed you - you want to take action and show that they are wrong, corrupt or biased. What do you do - get an online petition going to show the powers that there is a problem and that people back you up. Before you go to one of many sights that offer up online petitions are you prepared to do some hard thinking and ask yourself some difficult questions before posting that petition?

Some things to think about while you contemplate the idea:

GOALS: It is critically important to have clear aims for any petition.  Who are you petitioning?  Exactly what do you want them to do?  Do they have the legal power/authority to do it?  Are they apt to respond to an Internet petition?  Have they ever responded to a similar petition like yours before?  Have you tried other methods to solve the problem about which you are petitioning?

NUMBERS NEEDED? How many petitioners do you think you can get to sign your petition?  Beyond your family and friends are there a large number of people who understand the issues you are raising and who will back you because they share the  views you express in the petition?  How many signers will you need to have any significance?  For an in-state project, it might take several thousand signers before anyone takes notice.  For a national project you will need hundreds and hundreds of thousands.  You are aiming to make a grass roots statement of political power.  Can you get the numbers to "speak" power? How?  Large organizations and governments don't respond to midgets.

DEFAULT POSITION: If the petition falls flat- with little to no response or action- what is your fallback plan?  Shouldn't you have other ideas in mind, or do you just drop it?

RISK MANAGEMENT: What are the risks for you and others who might sign an Internet petition?  Have you run the petition idea by your lawyer and/or others with experience?  Is it well-written and clear; does it avoid name calling or slander?  Have you considered whether the petition will make matters better or worse?  What if it fails to get the desired response?  Will it improve or damage your image, your credibility, your thinking, your ideas, your original aim?  Are there legal ramifications that can come back to bite you and those who sign the petition?  If the petition fails in its expressed aims will there be backlash?  Will it infuriate others in the system you are petitioning - and cause them to close their ranks?

DISTRACTION: Is the petition a waste of time in the sense of being a time-consuming distraction from actual things you might do with less risk and greater potential payoff?  Are you avoiding the hard emotional work that might have greater benefit?

Getting 25 or 50 of your friends to sign your petition is probably useless. They are signing it just for that reason - being your friend or family member. On the other hand if you talk with 25 or 50 strangers of which some end up signing is in the end more beneficial to your cause. You have created an awareness of your issue which you can then build upon. To put it another way - a person in power can ignore hundreds or even thousands of signatures. It becomes harder though to ignore 25, 30 or more who are screaming at their door - writing letters and becoming involved in your cause.

REMEMBER: The American Revolutionary players tried unsuccessfully to petition King George.  The fallback position was the Committees of Correspondence and then the  Revolutionary War.

Connecticut - Opinion: Family Court System Expensive, Inefficient And Abusive

Connecticut Law Tribune

On Feb. 26, there was a historic vote at the state Capitol in which family court Judge Leslie Olear was only narrowly reappointed by the legislature. This vote came after public protests which gained media attention and after legislators were called into action to address the serious problems in our state's family courts. After this vote, some members of the legal community understandably rushed to defend Judge Olear, claiming that the votes against her were politically motivated and only in response to complaints being expressed by a "small number of family court critics." This is simply not the case.

This vote came after scores of parents, adult children of divorce, grandparents, attorneys and business executives testified until the early morning hours in front of a task force in January, after more than 630 parents signed a petition demanding legislative reforms of the family court's broken guardian ad litem (GAL) system, and after legislators were inundated with thousands of complaints about our family courts from parents, as consumers of the family court system's services.

Full story: Connecticut Law Tribune


Related stories:
Connecticut Law Tribune - Opinion: Judge Became Pawn In Debate Over Family Court Issues

Connecticut - Opinion: Judge Became Pawn In Debate Over Family Court Issues

Kim Knox opens with placing the blame of the parent/ consumer and not on the Judges - especially not the 'Honorable Leslie Olear' who - because of circumstance finds herself on the hot seat. As the old saying indicates "what goes around comes around" - it would appear 'Honorable Leslie Olear' is getting what she deserves.

Connecticut Law Tribune

The Honorable Leslie Olear came before the General Assembly for reappointment on Feb. 26, having served the previous eight years with a stellar record. By all accounts, she is the type of judge that Connecticut deserves and needs: smart, hard-working and committed to doing what is fair and just.

But Olear had the misfortune of being a sitting family law judge when the reappointment vote was cast, and thus became a pawn in a highly charged, politically sensitive debate over structural issues in the family courts – a debate in which a small number of family court critics appear to be using the reappointment process as a means to give voice to their dissatisfaction about the functioning of that all-important docket within the Judicial Branch.

Full story: Connecticut Law Tribune

Related stories:
Connecticut - Opinion: Family Court System Expensive, Inefficient And Abusive

Maine - A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families

RE:   A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families.

The Governor

State of Maine

Dear Governor LePage,

Divorce in Maine, when child custody is involved, has evolved into an expensive, barbaric, often cruel process.  Custody decisions by our courts often seem irrational and  participants all too often find it impossible to correct a bad decision  or a bad process.   At Maine Guardian ad litem Alert, based on the data from our many contacts with people in the terrible  throes of divorce, we  increasingly feel that there is a need for a Maine Commission aimed at  assessing the impact of divorce and custody on Maine children and families- and  recommending  repairs to a badly broken family court system.  60 % of American marriages  are reported to end in divorce, and Maine is no different from the rest of the US.  But beyond dry statistics, our experience with hundreds of individuals tells us that there are psychological, social and economic side effects of the family court experience, that wreck the lives of those that have gone through divorce for years to come.  It is a shameful record.  It calls for action.

Although we would certainly support a broadly focused Commission that took a total systems approach, we would suggest that there are several important  areas where a  narrower commission might assess serious problems and propose solutions without crossing the boundaries of another branch of government: (a) the economics of divorce and its impact on the present and future of (60%) Maine citizens and on the state itself, (b) the jurisdictional disputes about which of two branches of government has final responsibility  for defining and resolving the diagnosis of adult or child abuse in divorce, and (c) problems associated with the family court’s  use of and referrals to state sponsored/funded clinics by the Judicial Branch.  This includes patient’s right to privacy issues;  standards of the types  and forms of  treatment; court-ordered, mandatory treatment; treatment effectiveness evaluations; confidentiality and the human rights issues of those receiving services.

1.)  Economic problems of divorcing in Maine.  The short story is that it is very expensive, running to thousands of dollars, with courts putting no limits on the charges to citizens from a growing number of ancillary players, in  a growing number of questionably effective peripheral  services.  The growth of these unevaluated “new” services- often court mandated- have become a part of an very expanded, very expensive “divorce industry”.  Families are impoverished. Retirement and college funds are emptied.  Homes are mortgaged to the hilt.  Credit from relatives and families is exhausted.  It is an expense with no boundaries and it grows year by year.  We have to ask: Is a booming economic expansion of the “divorce industry” retarding investment in other “industries”?  The Judicial Branch keeps virtually no data, our group has some limited financial data.  However, there is a need to measure the problem, its growth and to propose solutions.  Money drained from our economy by the “divorce industry” is money not available for other more productive investments; homes, education and retirement- just to name a few.

2.)  Allegations of child or spousal abuse are all too common in contested divorces.  Some allegations are real and serious and require appropriate action; other abuse claims are “strategic”, and need investigation and then labeling as such.  At the moment, there is all too often a “turf war” between the Children's Protective program (under Human Services) and the Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem program about which entity has the final say in abuse allegations.  There are likewise “turf wars” between GALs and those trained specialist professionals who assess “dangerousness” and other dysfunctional issues.  It all too frequently happens that, if opinions of trained professionals do not concur with a GALs opinion, they are frequently ignored in favor of the GAL’s more expensive opinion, a continuing investigation by the GAL.  It should be remembered that GALs have only 16-20 hours of training and no supervision when they override the findings of those with more training and supervision.  It should also be remembered that continuing to investigate “abuse” generates significant “billable hours” for GALs and burdens families with these costs.  More important is the question of whether someone with less knowledge, skill and experience will do a better job of danger evaluation for children and families than someone with specialist education, experience and supervision?

3.)  State sponsored or financed services and clinics are frequently used as referral sources by Guardians ad litem and by Maine’s courts.  The courts keep no statistics about the number of court referrals, which would help to describe (a) the size of their usage, (b) the problems encountered, (c) the outcomes  of treatment- both short and long term.  What is  the impact of court mandated treatment on children and families?  Are these court forced  referrals doing any measurable good?  How do they help?  What are we getting for our public  money?  Are the services requested by courts- such as various untested, unproved behavior change therapies-  scientifically grounded?  Is the state paying for “experimental” services on court referred children and adults  There is also the ethical/human rights issue of court mandated treatment in non-criminal cases.  Confidentiality issues and demand for what should be considered privileged information are troubling and, we are told,  don’t follow national standards.  There are instances of GALs sharing this clinical information- without “releases”- with other GALs and with unauthorized persons, using the threat of contempt if permission to release information is not granted.  It is an area that cries for study and repair.

These are just a few areas that might occupy the scrutiny of a circumscribed Commission to the benefit of our children and families.   We would be pleased to discuss further any of these suggested ideas, and we recognize that these suggestions are  just conversational openers.  It seems important to us to give a more human, rational  experience to children and families in divorce, the consumers of service.

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins, MD

While this is addressed to the Governor of Maine the ideas given here may be applied in any state. Feel free to use the letter and change what needs to be changed to fit the situation of your state.



For more information on what is wrong with  Family Courts and Guardians ad litem in the state follow us on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com

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

"Oversight" and what it means for Guardians ad litem

In the simplest terms, oversight means knowing what they do, how they spend their time. At the present no one in authority  actually knows the full details. No one in the higher levels of the Judicial Branch has a complete picture of "time spent" on your case, my case, the hundreds of cases that pass through Maine's family courts. No authority knows how many cases a Guardian ad litem is handling, which courts/judges use the most Guardians ad litem. Or what is the grand total amount of every rostered Guardian ad litem's billable hours for, say, the month of May? No one knows.  There is no oversight. 

In a word, no one has administrative or managerial oversight of Maine's Guardian ad litem program. No one has program numbers. And ... without numbers, data, statistics, it is impossible to describe the scope and size of Guardian ad litem program problems rationally.  It is impossible, to have a rational conversation between the public and various branches of government and impossible to seek rational solutions to a program that cries out for "oversight".

We would suggest that there are two kinds of "oversight", (a) oversight of ongoing cases in a divorce, which is sometimes called "case supervision", and (b) programmatic oversight, also called "programmatic administration or management".   Supervision, though desirable is costly and would require a large, expensive cadre of supervisors to monitor and correct the work of Guardians ad litem.  There is also the question of who would supervise the supervisors?  Where would they fit in a bureaucratic chain of command?

To keep the complexities of an  first-ever, Maine, oversight program relatively simple at the start, LD 872 has focused on program supervision, administrative supervision.  Essentially it seeks answers to the questions about: "What are the numbers?" How is Guardian ad litem time spent?  What are the billable hours?  How do district courts differ in their use of Guardians ad litem? And ... are there significant differences in the profiles of individual Guardian ad litem activities?  These are questions of huge interest to Maine children and families who pay dearly for this program.

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT THE Guardian ad litem's BILL:  LD 872 already calls for standardization of all Maine Guardian ad litem's bills.  Bills should be done monthly and should follow the itemization format used by lawyers: date, type of service, time spent, fee charged.  It would cover such topics as reading e-mails, phone conversations, report writing, time spent with parties, time spent with child, collateral contacts, travel, court appearances, etc.  We maintain that a standardized bill is a snapshot of what the Guardian ad litem claims to have done in any given month.  It is a work activity profile.  It is a record.  It will be mandatory.  There is minimal cost for this change.

COPIES OF ALL Guardian ad litem BILLS TO ADMINISTRATOR OF COURTS:  We are strongly recommending that it should also be mandatory for all 280  rostered Maine Guardians ad litem to send electronic copies of their standardized monthly bills to the Administrators of the Courts at no charge to anyone.  It would immediately, for the first time give the Judicial Branch massive amounts of hard, Guardian ad litem program  data, which is currently totally lacking.  It would give the necessary data for  first-ever program oversight of Maine's 280 Guardians ad litem.  It should prove interesting and useful to the legislature, the public and the Judicial Branch.  It will help to guide beneficial program changes for Maine's Guardian ad litem program.  It will be capable of answering many important program questions.

OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS FOR NEW Guardian ad litem DATA: We believe that inasmuch as the proposed oversight data is a tool, the Judicial Branch should have a primary interest in deciding how to use this new tool.  They should suggest their own questions for which they want answers from the data. 

But in addition to the Judicial Branch we have our own questions too.

OUR QUESTIONS:  How many Guardians ad litem are at work in Maine courts each month?  How many separate cases are Guardians ad litem carrying?  How much time is spent in reading e-mails?  Doing reports?  Making phone calls?  Seeing the child in the case?  Travel?  Court time?  Which courts use Guardians ad litem the most?  How do Guardian ad litem activity profiles differ?  What is the range of monthly billable hours for Guardians ad litem?  What is the total amount for all Guardian ad litem bills in each month?  In a year?  Are there associations between certain Guardians ad litem, certain lawyers and/or certain judges?

This is for starters, as a "warm-up".

WHO WOULD WORK WITH THIS DATA AND COSTING THIS ACTIVITY?  We suggest that the Administrator of the courts would be the proper locus for this activity, and that it should be attached to the component already doing administrative statistics.  By our reckoning the costs ought to be minimal.  Billing is already being done by Guardians ad litem at no cost to the legislature, changing to a standardized billing format should not add to cost.  Sending an electronic  copy of all monthly Guardian ad litem's bills to the JB should be a no cost event.  There is the need for a clerk to organize the data in such a manner as to answer previously defined questions.  There is the need for an existing administrative statistician to provide supervision and direction. 

We would suggest that all of this could be done for $75,000.00 or less, including overhead.  The $200,000.00 fiscal estimate currently attached to this bill for unspecified oversight functions seems expensive.  We offer a competitive idea.

For more information on Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information. In addition National GAL alert is conducting an informal survey on the cost and performance of Guardians ad litem. If you have 5 minutes we would encourage you to take one or both surveys. The data collected is being published and will be updated live in the future.


Guardian ad litem Cost Survey

Guardian ad litem Performance Survey

Is this a Violation of Maine's Constitution by Judiciary and Guardians ad litem

The following letter suggest that there are serious issues with regards to LD522 and whether if it is implemented would be a violation of Maine's Constitution. This is not the first time where we have seen what would be an infringement of ones Constitutional rights here in Maine. This though holds the potential of being on a much larger scale.


April 10, 2013

Maine Judicial Committee

100 State House Station

Augusta, Maine 04333

Dear Judicial Committee Member,



Please find within a friendly reminder regarding LD 522; upon accepting your State of Maine Government position, you took an oath and made a pledge to up hold both the Maine and United States Constitutions.

The Maine Constitution is very direct and clear that  powers and responsibilities delegated to the Legislator, Governor, and Judicial Branch cannot be under any circumstances sub-delegated.

Whereas, LD 522 clearly does in fact sub delegated the responsibilities and power of oversight regarding Guardian Ad Litem’s to a private and non-government entity; being the Board of Overseers of the Maine Bar.

Therefore, as a member of this judicial committee, you have a responsibility and must reject LD522  and if it should be move forward to the State House and Senate  floor; could be a possible act in clear violation of the Maine Constitution. If for some reason, should LD522 be forward to the House and Senate floor; it must contain a proper disclosure that it may be in violation of the Maine Constitution.

I personally find it very troubling that some committee members whom should have a commanding knowledge of the Maine Constitution; would even consider supporting LD 522. Moreover, what is even more troubling is that LD522, was recommended by the Judicial Branch, which should have clearly known that these government powers and responsibilities cannot be sub-delegated to the board of overseers of the Maine Bar!

Another major U.S. Constitutional issue is the sub-delegation of powers in granting immunity or quasi - immunity to attorneys, or guardian ad litems that only represent individuals or a small group of individuals of the general public is prohibited; compare to attorneys that represents the vast majority of the general public with Constitutional rights which is acceptable. Therefore, LD 522 granting guardian ad litem quasi – immunity is in clear conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court opinion’s which have made it very clear as whom can be granted immunity and quasi-immunity. Therefore those attorneys, or guardian ad litems which only represent a child, or small group of children in a particular family will not qualify for any type of immunity, or quasi - immunity.

In closing, this committee should not recommend or allow LD522 to continue on to the floor of the Maine House, or Senate; due to what appears to be major Constitutional violations and conflicts.

Respectfully submitted by,


R Baizley

If you have an interest in bringing about Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

LD522 - Why it hurts Maine's Families and Children - Why lawyers love it

On Thursday March 28th in testimony to the Judiciary Committee a number of people made excellent suggestions about controlling Guardian ad litem costs and fees.  Means testing, fee caps, regular bill reporting and ... oversight of billing by the management of the Judicial Branch would go a long way towards correcting the freewheeling ways of Guardians ad litem.  As we know, these ideas are fairly simple - and not rocket science.  Finance and many other Guardian ad litem issues should be fairly simple as no cost problems to fix.

The Judicial Branch faces a significant political problem.  Make that HUGE.  The political base, the support system, of the Judicial Branch is composed of the Legal Guild, lawyers, Guardians ad litem and Judges.  Asking - or demanding - that any part of this base take a smaller, financial cut in divorce cases  might be expected to result in a mass disaffection on the part of the Judicial Branch legal guild political base.  It might cost the Judicial Branch the political support of  the Legal Guild and the divorce industry.  It could result in profound alienation of this Guild base with political consequences for the Judicial Branch leadership. The Guardian ad litem reform movement threatens to disrupt the previous balance between Judicial Branch management and their affluent, powerful base - the divorce industry.

This Judicial Branch - lawyer political dynamic might explain the powerful, under the radar opposition to real people oriented Guardian ad litem reform.

The care and feeding of its lawyer base is one explanation about why the Judicial Branch always seems to defer to its "stakeholders", the divorce industry, lawyers and Guardians ad litem.  It may explain why the Judicial Branch allows its divorce industry "stakeholders" to dominate most of its planning committees for Guardian ad litem reform, such as the one from last Summer.  It leaves the Judicial Branch paralyzed in the present situation and may explain why it does nothing - or at best the bare minimum.  Pressure from the divorce industry not to change versus pressure from the "grass-roots" to change. The Judicial Branch is caught in a terrible bind.

The members of the divorce industry, including Guardians ad litem, make significant amounts of money off of divorcing couples.  It is a multi-million dollar industry.  Restrictions on the divorce industry of any kind could reduce their incomes. The current situation and its dynamics are in some ways similar to the robber barons of 19th century American history.  
LD 522 is nothing less than a license to steal and plunder.  It favors the legal Barons; not divorcing families and children.  It is a gift from the Judicial Branch to its lawyer base.  It allows the predatory wolves to keep their sheep's clothing!

It will require significant political pressure and moral pressure to overcome this resistance to change for the benefit of our Maine children and families.

For information on how to help stop LD522 from passing contact us at MeGALalertt@gmail.com or find up to date information on Facebook.