AU - Parents "What do I owe?" - Family Court "How much you got?"

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.

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.

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

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

CT - Judicial critics opposing Connecticut justice renomination

WTNH News 8

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Critics of Connecticut’s judicial system are gearing up to oppose the reappointment of Chase Rogers as the chief justice of the State Supreme Court.

Upset with operations at the family, foreclosure and probate courts, activists were expected to turn out for Rogers’ confirmation hearing on Friday before the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee. More than 200 detractors have signed an online petition, urging lawmakers to oppose her reappointment to a second eight-year term.

“Chief State Justice Rogers has failed our state and its citizens, families and children by presiding over and encouraging the operation of a court system which is operationally dysfunctional and unnecessarily antiquated, costly, time consuming and unlawfully political,” reads the petition posted on change.org.

One group, the Coalition for Connecticut Family Court Reform, has rented billboard space referring to Rogers. It also calls for passage of legislation this session that would impose changes on the family court system, including prohibiting the court from ordering supervised visitation except in certain circumstances and removing the immunity provided to guardians ad litem and attorneys for minors.

Despite the opposition, Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy is standing by Rogers, who was first appointed chief justice in 2007 by former Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

“We have opted to reappoint the Chief Justice — she has our full confidence as she continues to move the Judicial branch forward,” read a statement issued by Malloy’s administration.

Full story: WTNH News 8


Related to this is the Judiciary Committee reappointment of the Hon Patricia Worth in Maine. There was considerable opposition to her appointment as well as the suggestion the state conducts an audit of her court to determine whether or not there are issues. She was renominated by a vote of 13 yea to 0 nay.

Maine - Tardiff V Sullivan - Another Poster Child case for a Dysfunctional Family Court

We are pleased to be able to publish this brief, a public document and an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court. It is a horrifying story. It shows how a series of court actions have deprived a good man, a good father, a good citizen from all but limited, very expensive supervised visits with his young son. The irrationality of the family  court  process and  its  actions are stunning to most lay readers. The basic tactic in her wish for total custody, as we read it, is that the mother, the former spouse and her aggressive lawyer, simply allege, again and again, that the father is abusive to the child. This allegation  of child abuse  on their part seems made very forcefully, but with absolutely no evidence that we can see. In fact when the father, Larry Tardiff, has had professional evaluations (please, note, the plural) the professionals find no evidence that would suggest any need for protection of the child in his presence or any irrational anger in need of correction. NONE! Judge Patricia Worth, the judge in this case, seems totally bamboozled by the strongly proclaimed, ungrounded allegations of danger to the child by the  mother and her attorney. It's allegations - by themselves - as an incredible power tool in court. In our view, the judge is failing to look at the facts, failing to move beyond the noise, substituting her impressions for actual professionally grounded facts and seems to have a poor grasp of some of the points of law that she is using against Larry. It is an unbelievable nightmare for this man and his son from which there seems to be No exit!

It is also important for a reader to remember that in a criminal case of child abuse, normally there would be a planned program back to full parenting. Dare we say that Larry would be better off were he a criminal abuser? One senses that Judge Worth ought to be removed from this case. She seems to be in a rut and unable to think "outside of the box" in this case.

The appeal is a search for rationality, a search for a chance for father and son to have a normal parenting relationship, a search for an end to Judge Worth's ungrounded decisions. We shall be presenting the decision of the Supreme Court in another posting. In the meantime, read on as the suspense about a Supreme Court decision builds.



The brief to the Supreme Court in Sullivan v Tardiff.

If you have had issues in Family Court of with Judge Patricia Worth we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Call us at 207-370-9801 or find us on Facebook. We are striving to being about reform in the Family Court system.

Maine - Management by Crisis - The Judicial Branch and Financial Shortfall 2015

Last week we had a sudden change to the Judiciary Committee schedule. The Judicial Branch was making a presentation to the Judiciary Committee for a supplemental budget of $1M to get through to July 2015. This is not the first time the Judicial Branch has gone back to the till at the last minute with hands out asking for more.

Most organizations have a budget to work with and it they miss the budget.... well there is trouble. The organization either fails or they look into why they have a shortfall and change to accommodate. As an individual it is the same thing. You anticipate what your expenses are for the upcoming month based on what you paid out in the past

When asked about the shortfall and why the Judicial Branch has a shortfall.... again - the spokesperson for the Judicial Branch answered "I don't know why".

Which should come as no surprise to anyone. Here we have an organization full of lawyers being run by lawyers . About the only thing that lawyers can do well and with efficiency is bill for services.

It might be time for the Judiciary to hire people who are professional managers and get past the management by crisis that we see year after year. Who can look at how things are run within the branch and bring efficiencies to the organization. Who would be able to say why there is a shortfall and make sure the Judicial Branch does not go back to the till again... and again with out held hands.

The management by crisis is but a symptom of a far greater problem that has infected the court system. We have seen it with the Guardian ad litem crisis and have seen it with the Family Courts. Our system of justice is crumbling down around us.

Support Family Court reform by contacting us at NatGAL at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.

Georgia - Increased oversight needed for troubled guardian ad litem program

Augusta Chronicle

The Augusta Chronicle has done the public a great favor by drawing attention to problems faced, and to some extent created, by guardians ad litem, who are appointed by courts to represent the interests of children in divorce cases.

SINCE GUARDIANS do not represent the divorcing parents, they serve an important but entirely different role than do attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants. Attorneys are trained in adversarial proceedings to argue the case for their clients. Guardians, like the children they represent, find themselves in the middle of difficult and often troubling circumstances.

And while guardians seek to discover the best possible solution for children of divorce, “best possible” is almost always “least hurtful,” because divorce hardly ever is without pain for the affected children.

For more than 12 years, I served as a guardian in the Augusta Judicial Circuit on cases assigned to me by more than 10 judges.

During part of that time I served also as president of the guardian association (now defunct), which attempted through its bylaws, training programs and other forms of assistance to ensure professional and ethical work by individual guardians.

Full story: Augusta Chronicle

Michigan - Judge Orders Deployed US Sailor To Attend Custody Hearing Or Lose Daughter, Face Arrest

This is a case that we missed but is a good story. It is a story of a member of military on active duty out in the Pacific Ocean who is ordered to court or be in contempt. He had no way of being able to comply with the 'Judges' order. This post shows what Matthew Hindes is up against in our court system.

CBS Seattle

Seattle, Wash. (CBS SEATTLE) – A U.S. Navy sailor from Washington State is currently serving on a submarine thousands of miles away in the Pacific Ocean, but a judge has ordered him into an impossible custody scenario: Appear in a Michigan courtroom Monday or risk losing custody of his 6-year-old daughter.

Navy submariner Matthew Hindes was given permanent custody of his daughter Kaylee in 2010, after she was reportedly removed from the home of his ex-wife, Angela, by child protective services. But now a judge has ordered him to appear in court Monday, or risk losing his daughter to his ex-wife in addition to a bench warrant being issued for his arrest, ABC News reports.

Hindes’ lawyers argue he should be protected by the Service Members Civil Relief Act, which states courts in custody cases may “grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days to defendants serving their country.”

But the Michigan judge hearing the case, circuit court judge Margaret Noe, disagrees, stating: “If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother.”

The judge reiterated that regardless of Hindes’ assignment under the Pacific Ocean, he will appear in court or face contempt of court.

Full story: CBS Seattle


Related story:

2014-06-19 ABC News Sailor Serving Overseas Ordered to Appear in Custody Fight

2014-08-16 Military Times Deployed submariner loses a round in custody battle

2014-08-20 BI Judge Takes Deployed Sailor's Daughter And Gives Temporary Custody To Her Mother

2014-10-28 SCRA Active Duty Submariner Wins SCRA Custody Suit

Ireland - Child guardians get €200k from agency

If you think that the United States is the only place where they have issues with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem - think again. Canada, The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. This story comes to us from the emerald island. The article points out - any person can claim to be a guardian ad litem; that the system is ‘chaotic’ and a ‘free for all’. Nothing new here for those who have had the mis-fortune of a malpracticed Guardian ad litem. Surprisingly reform is being called for by an agency that has 32 Guardians ad litem working.

Irish Examiner

Nine firms and individuals acting as guardians to children in childcare court proceedings have received sums over €200,000 each from the Child and Family Agency this year.

Figures released by Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, show that, to the end of November this year, €6.76m has been paid to guardian ad litems — court appointees who act as independent voices for children in family law cases.

The 2014 figure compares to guardian ad litems receiving €7.18m in 2013.

In response to a freedom of information request, the figures show the largest provider or guardian ad litems services in the country, Barnardos-Beacon, this year received just over €3m for the service it provides.

Full story: Irish Examiner

Divorce Corp - Backdoor Deals and Cozy Relationships between GALs and Judges

Director Joe Sorge (DivorceCorp) interviews Maine psychiatrist and director of Maine Guardian Ad Litem Alert, Jerry Collins. They discuss the backdoor deals and cozy relationships between the guardian ad litems (GALs) and other family court professionals. Families are forced to pay outrageous fees and often get little for their money.

Learn how Guardians ad litem demand excessive fees and are essentially unregulated in their practice. It is another shocking example of the corrupt practices in US family courts.

DivorceCorp - Family Law Report: Jerry Collins Interview Part1


If you would like more information and become involved email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Indiana - This Dad Went To Prison For Trashing A Judge On His Blog, And He's Still Trying To Clear His Name

When my divorce started and the Guardian ad litem had started to show her intentions I remember coming across a posting on Dan Brewington. He is in the news again after serving 2.5 years in prison because of a free speech dispute.

Yahoo! News

 The Supreme Court recently heard a free speech dispute over a 27-year-old's angry Facebook rants, and now another guy is asking the justices to weigh in on whether his vitriolic blog posts deserve First Amendment protection.

That blogger, Dan Brewington, filed a petition in October asking the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction of violating an Indiana law against "intimidation" for writing highly unflattering blog posts about the judge  who sided against him in a custody battle.

Perhaps the worst thing in those blog posts was the repeated claim that Judge James D. Humphrey was a "child abuser," and here is how Brewington justified that claim to me: "He was taking away children from capable parents."

Brewington, now 41, already served two and a half years in prison for allegedly communicating threats to Humphrey. While he's already done his time, on Jan. 9 the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear his case and potentially overturn his conviction and clear his name.

"I've never been in trouble. I'm a friendly guy. I'm known around the neighborhood for volunteering," Brewington, who does computer-aided design from home, told me over the phone. "I don't know why they spent that much time coming after me."

Full story: Yahoo! News

Related news:
Dan's Adventures in Taking on the Family Courts

2013-02-26 USA Today - Indiana high court asked to review jailed blogger case

2013-09-25 TIL - Brewington case focuses First Amendment attention on Indiana

2014-08-07 EC 99.3 - Ind. Supreme Court Won’t Rehear Brewington Appeal

Nevada - Ex-judge Jones formally disbarred

Has anyone ever seen a Family Court Judge get removed from the bench?

Las Vegas Review Journal

The Nevada Supreme Court has officially disbarred former Family Court Judge Steven Jones.

All seven justices signed the order Dec. 5.

In September, Jones informed the State Bar of Nevada that he was giving up his law license after he pleaded guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a $2.6 million investment scheme.

As part of his plea agreement with the government, Jones also resigned from the Family Court bench. He did not seek reelection this year.

Full story: Las Vegas Review Journal


Related stories:
2014-05-02 LVRJ - Embattled Family Court Judge Steven Jones headed back to public payroll
2014-12-09 NBC3 - Former Family Court judge disbarred, awaits fraud sentence

National - What Would You Do if You Were A Guardian ad litem?

Imagine you are a Guardian ad litem tasked with making a recommendation on a case and you have the following to deal with:

One member has just accused the other of molesting the child of this divorcing family. You recommend that the accused has only supervised visits with this child. The Family Court Judge backs up your recommendation.

But there is a twist

You see the accused has another child with another partner. What do you do?

1. You do nothing - that child is not a party to the divorce.
2. You recommend that the accused parent can only have supervised contact with both children because that parent poses a threat to both of them.
3. You have Child Protective Services come in and determine whether or not the accused is really a threat.

Tell us what you would do - Either add a comment here or click this link which opens up in a new TAB or window.

The results will be published on Monday 7/8/2014

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.

Connecticut - 'Astronomical' Fees Assessed To Lawyer Who Testified For GAL Reform

The Connecticut Law Tribune

 A Connecticut lawyer who publicly voiced his concerns about high costs of guardians ad litem services was shocked by the timing of an Appellate Court decision in his own divorce case.

Just one business day after Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law a measure that will provide greater oversight of GALs and their fees, the court approved $252,000 in fees for two court-appointed child advocates. Some pro se parents who lobbied for GAL reform said they had been devastated financially by bills that were only a fraction as large.

The appeal was filed by Paul Greenan, a former Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom trusts and estates lawyer who now has a practice in Stamford. He claimed in court documents that the GAL and attorney for minor children appointed in his divorce case collectively spent just four-and-a-half hours with his two children, though that total was in dispute.

Full story: The Connecticut Law Tribune

Maine - An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 - the Lawyers Debate

We welcome this chance to publish the final two steps in an appeal to Maine's Supreme Court, the Dalton vs Dalton case. Step II, which follows here, is attorney Susan Bixby's reply to Beth Maloney's original brief.  Maloney’s brief, published here earlier, got the appeal process started. Step III is Maloney’s rebuttal of Bixby.

Along with our presentation here of the final two steps, we offer our layman’s observations and reactions to the 'arcana' of legal strategy used by these lawyers for a family court appeal.  Our non-expert, "grass roots" response to both pieces of writing is philosophical and common sense - not legal.  The philosophical flaws we see in both documents are about the basic human assumptions, the investigative process and the judicial decisions behind the  classic lawyerly strategies for how the "contentious divorce” (and its appeal) gets played.  For what it's worth, here is our personal take on the final two lawyerly exchanges in the Dalton v Dalton debate:

II.) SUSAN BIXBY'S APPROACH:

As we read it, Ms Bixby uses an all too common divorce strategy: to communicate by strong  inference that suburban housewife and mother of three children, Sarah Dalton, is a dangerous woman around children.  You may note that Bixby carefully comes close to the line of actually charging child abuse, but doesn't ever  cross it.  In her well designed response to the Maloney brief, Bixby strongly hints that, if Ms Dalton were left alone with her kids, God alone knows what bad - but unspecified - things might happen.  In tone it is all very subjunctive, speculative and scary.  She never crosses the line dividing hints of possible abuse from actual charges of abuse - for good reason.  It would end the family court hearings and - after investigation, might place the charge in criminal court, where a trial by jury would probably clear Ms Dalton of the "hints" of abuse issue.

Clearly, Ms Bixby's client , Mr. Dalton, is indirectly represented as wanting an “exclusive” - all of his children all of the time. No sharing. No concern about the children's need for a maternal parent. It is a hardball, legalistic "abuse game" right out of the movie, "Divorce Corp". Take no prisoners! The Bixby presentation raises the question in this reader's mind: "What exactly makes Ms Dalton 'unfit' as a mother , and after all of these years as a mother is she suddenly ‘nouveau’ abusive?"  And, another puzzle, why is she presented as, so far, being  immune to corrective therapy?  It is so stereotyped a legal strategy of demonizing a custody opponent as almost to be out of the tabloids!

Bixby, by her numerous claims that Maloney has ignored the "Rules of Evidence" more than implies that her legal opponent is dim and ignorant of how to use the "Rules of Evidence".  Tut tut!  As non-lawyers, what can we say?  The always meticulous, compulsive, detail-oriented Maloney, it is implied, needs to go back to the "Rules" book and bone up!  There is also an unmistakable hint from Bixby that Maloney needs lessons in legal etiquette and propriety. "Aggressive lawyering" is the operant phrase but there is more innuendo of absent professional refinement.

But read Part II, the Bixby reply and see what you think: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 Bixby's response.

To read the initial brief that was filed in February 2014 please follow this link: An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: DaltonVs. Dalton CUM-13-521.

If you have had problems in Family Court with a judge or Guardian ad litem please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

Maine - Is Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz promotion good for Maine's Families and children?

It is now official that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has been named Deputy Chief of Maine's District Courts. He is taking over from Deputy Chief Judge Mullen who is moving on to a Superior Court position.  How Moskowitz was selected and why he was selected among all of Maine's many district judges is a mystery to the public (and to the Legislature for that matter). Has he been promoted because of outstanding knowledge, skill and experience - or skills be damned - he is a "Buddy" of the courts? 

The soon to be Deputy Chief Judge Moskowitz has been a judge since 2008 and has had an interesting career in that time with many challenges and much controversy.

Starting with the case of Dr Lori Handrahan in 2008 and ending with the Dalton v Dalton case of 2013 there have been countless parents (and their children) that have reported suffering from decisions made in his courts. The Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz is one of four judges whose names consistently are reported to us by divorcing families as victims of his actions - after often high handed courtroom management and decisions that are hard to understand.

Though we do not know him personally, The Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has been repeatedly and consistently characterized by others as being irritable, harsh and  lacking in basic courtesy towards those in his court. This has been an especially common report from those who are represented  'pro se'. Intimidation by the judge, criticism of their lack of legal knowledge and courtroom sophistication is a complaint of those forced to do "pro se" by their inability to afford a lawyer (74% of cases). The judges attitude compounds the statistically huge "access to justice" problem. Being treated by a judge like a "low life" does not improve the confidence of already frightened people. We hear reports that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz has displayed a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding to the rules for Guardians ad litem - This is the yardstick for measuring a Guardian ad litem's performance. Yet, as deputy chief judge he will now be responsible for handling complaints regarding Guardians ad litem. Is there no better judge to have responsible than someone who is reported to have no clear concept of the rules governing those he is responsible to manage.

The Drug Court that the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz rules over is reported in the press to be a conflicted mess straying from its original blueprint, and a legal challenge has been raised by the Superior Court in Bangor about violations of the constitutionally mandated due process that many users of those courts receive. There is also the issue raised of flagrant 'ex parte' communications that the teamwork design of drug courts makes unavoidable and inevitable.

We ask: is Moskowitz the caliber of judge we want in our court? Has the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz truly had such a brilliant jurist as to warrant a highly significant, influential and pivotal promotion? Is he a respected leader in law and justice? Or is it because there is so much controversy surrounding this judge that by moving him upstairs  Chief Justice Saufley et al are better able to keep an eye on his functioning?

Enough complaints of damage and abuse have been reported by divorcing families entering this court house that we feel it is time for an outside inquiry, a formal legislative audit of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz' courts as well as the District Courts in general. In addition to our call for an audit by the legislature, the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz is coming up for review of his appointment in 2015 - it is time for people to let our representatives know how we, the public access this Judge.


If you have suffered through Judicial abuse - either through the hands of a Judge or Guardian ad litem we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

Related articles where the Hon Jeffery Moskowitz has had some influence:

PPH - Maine attorney general enters fray over divorce case

Maine - Child Custody - An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521

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.