THE DOUGLAS VS DOUGLAS CASE
We don't know either of the Douglas's personally, nor are we advocating for them, but we find that just reading the court's report of their case online is a profoundly disturbing experience, increasingly so after several readings. The Maine Supreme Court decisions on their appeal appeared logical but seemed to take baby steps in correcting lower court confusion and custody actions that seem punitive and incomprehensible. It is the process and handling of the case before it reached Maine's Supreme Court that are so troubling. The core issue for us is that this might be a "poster child" case in which a Social Worker Guardian ad litem functions as an expert, with no oversight and no expertise in assessing parental fitness, for child custody and visitation purposes.
Maine Supreme Court Decision - Douglas vs. Douglas
Lower court decisions seem to have deprived Mr Douglas of any visits with one of his children for this child's first two years for no clearly documented reasons. How did this come about? What evidence was used to justify this radical action? Why is any contact with his older child (by his first marriage) only permitted with professional surveillance? Because there is no explanation of this (to us) extreme action in the court report, we suspect that the allegations that led to deprivation of the father's visiting rights with his child were arrived at 'ex parte' (one-on-one) between Guardian ad litem and judge. No one, including the man himself, will know the "crime" for which he is being "punished" with such restrictive child visitation. What is truly weird in this case is that Douglas has no such oversight or restrictions with his younger child who is not his ex-wife's child. This is not the first time we have seen this illogical situation in a custody dispute.
AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS IN A DEMOCRACY, WE HAVE TO ASK:
Is there a logical answer? Is Mr Douglas only dangerous to his older child- and not his younger child? Is he for some reason incapable of parenting the older child, but not his younger child? Is he in tenuous control of violent impulses? Is he in poor reality contact? Is he involved in criminal activities? Is he mentally subnormal and incapable of child care without close supervision. What is the exact nature of the impediment to him having ordinary, unsupervised visiting rights with his older child? The second part of our question would be, "Who decided this apparent craziness?" Was it the Guardian ad litem in this case, the Guardian ad litem and the judge? Who? And what is the expertise behind these opinions that drastically impact on this man and his eldest child? There is a surreal quality to the dry matter of fact court narrative in all of this. No visits for 2 years, for no apparent reason is presented "as if" this were a totally ordinary event that should require no further explanation or justification.
In terms of the visible evidence in the final report from the Supreme Court, the Guardian ad litem in this case seems guided by her conception of "in the child's best interest", and, in the report, uses unscientific, pseudo-psychological formulations and techniques to justify actions taken. In the lower court there appears to be an absence of any questioning of the Guardian ad litem's reasoning behind her clinical views and her recommendations. Let us pick just a few of the classic pieces of faux - reasoning that jump out of the report from the Supreme Court.
"CAUSTIC AND CONTROLLING", A NEW CRIME?
"Caustic and controlling" are quoted in the Supreme Court report as words used by the Guardian ad litem to describe the husband/father in this case and as part of the rationale depriving him of visitation with his son for 2 years. One has to ask, "So what?" How are "caustic and controlling" relevant to child safety, visitation or shared custody? Exactly why are these adjectives an impediment to the man, in this case, being a parent to his child? How many thousands of people in the US might be labelled "caustic and controlling"? Should we investigate and seize their children immediately? Should we consider mounting a public health campaign for this psychobabble problem? Is it like, physical exposure to lead, mercury, alcohol or measles? Or ... is this a pompous, pseudo-psychological, pseudo scientific way of saying that the Guardian ad litem accepts the opinion of the other parent that she finds the father to be obnoxious and on this basis denies visits with his child for 2 years? These are the kind of shallow "psychobabble" formulations that are without any scientific, or predictive significance, yet they seem to have had a powerful impact in court decisions and in Guardian ad litem reports. It is total nonsense used by the Guardian ad litem to imply that something of great and deep seriousness was going on. Unfortunately, it's not a joke. But this "psychobabble formulation" is a part of the apparatus that is used in all seriousness to justify no visits for two years! It has the power to destroy the earliest days of a parent child relationship. Better watch out for your ;"'caustic and controlling" tendencies if you go to court, they might grab your kids.
BEING IN CONTROL FOR AN HOUR INTERVIEW GETS "SUPERVISED" VISITS
In another part of the court report, the father's counselor observed with total seriousness, that during an hour in his/her office that the father and his other child related well. Are you surprised? Are you impressed by the "science"? This is another, "so what"? Why does this one hour observation have any usefulness, meaning or validity (for good or bad) in determining custody? It might suggest
- (a) that the father is fully normal and this is his usual demeanor
- (b) that he is mentally ill, but not so out of control that he can't hold it together for an hour when under observation
- (c)that the counselor is subnormal if he/she has faith in this sort of observation or pronouncement
- (d) that the GAL is subnormal to quote this "finding"
- (f) that the lower court is also subnormal, if it gives any meaning to this meaningless, but expensive, one hour ritual.
The earlier allegations by the child's mother of sexual abuse of the child by the father (a not uncommon divorce strategy) were quickly dismissed after appropriate investigation, but the father needed to do counseling (it's unclear for what purpose?) and visitations are withheld (why?). Later "tapered" visits (Guardian ad litems love this termonology), gradually extending time, are allowed with clinical supervision. It appears to be a case of treating the father's contacts with his child with extreme caution, without defining exactly what the danger is that requires such elaborate caution. Does anyone know, or is this data buried in 'ex parte", sealed confabs between Guardian ad litem and judge?
Either the father poses some sort of specific danger to the child, or his parental rights are being denied, his human rights are being violated, and the child is being deprived of 2 years of normal involvement with his father. The man's "parental fitness" problem- if there is one- needs explicit definition. And ... any treatment game plan need to be tied to some sort of problem for which treatment is a recognized solution? Otherwise, it looks like Guardian ad litem/judicial "bullying" of this father and child. Father is made to jump through "counseling hoops" at great expense, for no clearly stated reason. If there is no solid rationale behind it and no measurable goals, prescribing counseling for nothing is an expensive human rights abuse. Do counseling sessions without goals or evaluation do anyone but the counselor any good? How will an end point to counseling get defined? It strikes us as a perhaps well-intentioned example of "civilized violence". More punishment without a charge or conviction! When will this father be able to see his oldest child without professional supervision? Why not right now?
What is surprising is that some courts seem to have bought into this highly unscientific, pseudo-psychology mumbo jumbo without reservations. More frightening is the fact that they are enforcing counseling like an expensive form of totalitarian "attitude correction" (for what attitude?).
As citizens we find this case very upsetting for the above reasons, but it should be Exhibit A for the need for Guardian ad litem reform. Unfortunately, it is also Exhibit A for district court reform too. The intellectual shoddiness, the human rights violations and the resulting harm being done to a little boy, who can't spend any free time with his father, for no clear reason, for 2 years is shocking. No wonder Maine has gotten an "F" on its national report card for protection of children and children's rights for three years in a row. Clearly, we are not endorsing either of the Douglases as "parent of the year", but we can see no stated rationale in the court report for why Mr Douglas has been allowed no visitation with his child for 2 years. "Caustic and controlling" just doesn't cut it as a reason. You shouldn't have to be certified by a Guardian ad litem as "parent of the year" to share custody; especially when it is not a standard applied out of the courtroom. Is there a national or state parenting standard for which Mr Douglas gets a failing grade? Of course not, we haven't come to that outside of the judicial system. The failing grade goes to those who are responsible for this example of "cruel and unusual punishment".
While every case is unique, the mind boggling abuse of a Guardian ad litem with limited clinical skills playing a God-like expert, radically limiting visits, enforcing expensive counseling for no clear purpose, with no clear goals for no definable end point is so illogical and so contrary to democratic values as to be unbelievable. Yet it is a common paradigm in Maine and other states with failing report cards for children's rights.
There are many other similar stories in Maine and across the nation. The link below brings you to an interview given by the director for Judicial Excellence on Guardian ad litem/ Judicial abuse. The interview is just under 10 minutes in length:
Judicial Excellence interview
