Dear Dr. Collins (et al):
I cannot thank you enough for all that you do for the impoverished, broken, and voiceless.
I thank everyone within the NationalGALalert circles for the pro-active stance that has opened doors once thought closed.
Our family's case is literally "killing" my almost 16 year-old daughter; that was her description - just yesterday - of how the numerous adversarial & prolonged family court procedures have adversely effected her.
At present, she is being held against her will within her dad's home: the Guardian ad litem (GAL) failed to hear her pleas of wanting desperately to move back in with her mother {me}. Additionally, the 2014 court order legally permits her father from allowing her visitation with her mother {me}.
The last GAL failed us on several occasions submitting an 18 page report filled with subjective information - mostly inaccurate & malicious information -- provided to her by my former husband.
The system has failed our family in 2009-2010 and in 2012 to present: both of us parents have considerable legal debt.
I am still in shock over the final judgment given to me just 2 days after I appeared in Portland (01/14/2104) to testify that I have been unable to contact Mary Ann Lynch via email.
I know both myself and my daughter suffer from a form of PTSD as a result of the on-going post-divorce conflict initiated by my former husband but fanned and fueled by those within the divorce industry.
Those who want to point fingers can point to my former husband or to me BUT the truth is, my former husband would not have been able to succeed in financially impoverishing me without the support of the divorce industry.
Collectively, our family has lost so much; the most tragic loss -- something that cannot be replaced -- is my young daughters childhood. Both teens suffer separately and differently from the conflict that results from drawn-out and highly contentious court proceedings.
Conflict is all that she knows / they know; the divorce industry knowingly or unknowing gave my former husband positive reinforcement every time he sought legal counsel to take me back to court -- twice since our original 2006 divorce.
Each consecutive court process took twice as long as the prior and the costs involved doubled from the previous process. I was just getting out of legal debt from the 2009-2010 process when my former took us back to court in 2012. That process lasted 18 plus months and cost me over $20,000 when I only earned $10,000 in 2012 and $12,000 in 2013 (I was a full-time USM student until this past May).
Presently, my debt is so astronomical that that my ability to pay court ordered child support {calculated - mind you - on a salary that I did not actually earn} has been greatly hindered: how is any of this in the best interest of either teen? Or, the Maine tax payers? Or, to our society???
As a result of the collusion between the divorce industry and my former husband, my daughter has fallen deeper and deeper into a depressions; she has twice attempted to end her life {May and September of 2013}.
Maine care has picked up all of the costs for her medical care. Maine tax payers are footing the bill and , we as a society, are potentially losing a once energetic, civic-minded, and highly accomplished student to a major depression and self-harming behaviors both beginning after she was taken out of my home in 2010 and placed in the care of her dad.
I suggest that the mayor and the divorce industry consider a "Truth and Reconciliation Act" in order to acknowledge the pain and suffering that has taken place -- for decades upon decades -- as a result of such a broken system.
Since 2006, I have suffered - as well as the two minors -- enormous losses:
1. Loss of primary home in 2010;
2. Loss of $100,000 equity in that primary home (2012 York, Maine);
3. Loss of all material possessions sold off to pay down legal debt;
4. Loss of family pet as former husband adopted the dog out of the family once he was granted custody of both minors and their dog in 2010.
5. Decrease in credit score by 100 points due to inability to pay mortgage on primary home when former spouse was advised- by his lawyer- to stop making child support payments in order to force me into signing 2010 post-judgment agreement;
6. Loss residential custody of both teens due to loss of primary home (temporarily left homeless);
7. Loss 1/2 retirement fund in 2010 court process to pay GAL, legal fee's and mortgage payments;
8. Loss all of savings to date; accrued credit card debt is now equal to my 2013 annual salary; loss all assets with exception to my vehicle that allows me to travel 3 hours a day to my full-time job;
9. Loss ALL parental rights and responsibilities and all decision making powers due to erroneous GAL report and due to her recommendation that losing all rights would end conflict;
10. Loss visitation rights as all visitation is now up to the discretion of my former husband who has been the instigator for all post-judgment discord;
11. The stress and the conflict has interfered with my work at present, has created ongoing and extensive medical expenses, and has left our daughter suicidal as well as feeling hopeless about her future;
12. The scars left on the hearts of my two teenagers as well as myself may or may not ever heal; time will tell. There is nothing more psychologically harmful than to lose the right to parent: from 1996 until 2014, I gave my life to my children. I intended and strove to raise well-adjusted, law abiding, and well-educated young adults. That right has been taken from me; the family court system partook in that loss of civil liberties.
The time for healing is now.
Please allow those of us who have to live with these court ordered "solutions" to family matters be a part of the solution for creating a system that heals and supports healthy family relations rather than a system that fuels the flames of discord in order to "win" a case; we have a vast amount of anecdotal information that would be an invaluable resource for those who are truly vested in the well-being of Maine's children and in the health and welfare of the state of Maine as a whole.
With sincere gratitude for your time and consideration~
Suzanne
YDC-FM-06-XX
Former resident of York Maine
Present Maine tax payer
Social Justice Advocate
This letter was written to the courts and state government and came about as a result of the post "A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families". To read the letter to Gov. Paul LePage follow this link.
For more information please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Monday, February 10, 2014
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
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
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Connecticut - West Hartford Parents Still Fighting For Custody Of Daughter
FOX CT
She’s a Connecticut teenager who has been stuck out of state for nearly a year.
On Tuesday, Justina Pelletier has another chance to come home.
Fox Connecticut’s months-long investigation has prompted the State of Massachusetts to investigate Boston Children’s Hospital, where Pelletier was located for much of the past 12 months.
Pelletier’s next scheduled court hearing is Tuesday, Feb. 4, in Boston.
Despite signs of a return at her last hearing, Justina Pelletier is still not home.
Boston Children’s Hospital confirms that she’s no longer there, and sources say she’s now at a youth counseling and support program in Framingham, Mass.
Meanwhile, the State’s Department of Public Health has launched an investigation into Boston Children’s Hospital.
Full story: FOX CT
She’s a Connecticut teenager who has been stuck out of state for nearly a year.
On Tuesday, Justina Pelletier has another chance to come home.
Fox Connecticut’s months-long investigation has prompted the State of Massachusetts to investigate Boston Children’s Hospital, where Pelletier was located for much of the past 12 months.
Pelletier’s next scheduled court hearing is Tuesday, Feb. 4, in Boston.
Despite signs of a return at her last hearing, Justina Pelletier is still not home.
Boston Children’s Hospital confirms that she’s no longer there, and sources say she’s now at a youth counseling and support program in Framingham, Mass.
Meanwhile, the State’s Department of Public Health has launched an investigation into Boston Children’s Hospital.
Full story: FOX CT
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Michigan - Judge: St. Clair Shores mom charged with dismembering son was fit to be his guardian
The Detroit News
Mount Clemens — The judge who granted Donna Scrivo guardianship over her youngest son Ramsay in May said he questioned his decision after allegations surfaced this week that the woman dismembered her offspring.
But after reviewing the case file, Macomb Probate Judge Carl Marlinga said he was satisfied he’d made the right call.
“Certainly, I wondered about my decision after I heard the news,” Marlinga said. “But after the fact, I looked at the file and found there was nothing to suggest any mental health difficulties, or any ulterior motive at all. When you’re appointing a guardian, you can only go by the information you have available.”
Full story: The Detroit News
Mount Clemens — The judge who granted Donna Scrivo guardianship over her youngest son Ramsay in May said he questioned his decision after allegations surfaced this week that the woman dismembered her offspring.
But after reviewing the case file, Macomb Probate Judge Carl Marlinga said he was satisfied he’d made the right call.
“Certainly, I wondered about my decision after I heard the news,” Marlinga said. “But after the fact, I looked at the file and found there was nothing to suggest any mental health difficulties, or any ulterior motive at all. When you’re appointing a guardian, you can only go by the information you have available.”
Full story: The Detroit News
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Connecticut - Report On Child-Custody System Targets Areas To Examine
The Courant
A task force has identified areas of the state's child-custody system that it says the Judicial Branch ought to evaluate, including whether to establish billing rates for legal guardians appointed to represent children in contentious court cases.
The Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children issued a 43-page report Friday. The report comes after the volunteer 10-member group held 13 meetings and a 15-hour public hearing in four months.
There were many points of contention, including criticism over high legal costs. The task force studied, among other issues, the roles of lawyers and guardians appointed by courts to represent children.
"Given the issues that were within our charge, it was not unexpected that there would be disagreement and enthusiastic debate among the members of the Task Force," the report reads in part.
Full story: The Courant
A task force has identified areas of the state's child-custody system that it says the Judicial Branch ought to evaluate, including whether to establish billing rates for legal guardians appointed to represent children in contentious court cases.
The Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children issued a 43-page report Friday. The report comes after the volunteer 10-member group held 13 meetings and a 15-hour public hearing in four months.
There were many points of contention, including criticism over high legal costs. The task force studied, among other issues, the roles of lawyers and guardians appointed by courts to represent children.
"Given the issues that were within our charge, it was not unexpected that there would be disagreement and enthusiastic debate among the members of the Task Force," the report reads in part.
Full story: The Courant
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Connecticut - State's Child Custody System Under Scrutiny Over Costs
The Courant
Peter Szymonik of Glastonbury says he had to dip into his child's college fund to pay for the court-appointed guardians who represented his sons during his 2008 divorce.
"I've got this nightmare scenario," said Szymonik, a member of an advocacy group lobbying to reform the state's child custody system.
Criticism over high legal costs is just one area under examination by a state panel that must make recommendations to the legislature's Judiciary Committee by Feb. 1.
The task force is studying the roles of lawyers and guardians — called guardians ad litem — appointed by courts to represent children in contentious cases involving parenting and the custody and care of children.
It is also studying whether judges are complying with a statute requiring them to consider the best interests of children. The volunteer 10-member task force, formed last year, is also considering whether Connecticut should adopt a presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of a minor child in actions involving the custody and care of the child.
"We're here to look for solutions and try to see if we can improve the system that everybody is complaining about," one task force member, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (D-Hartford), said at a Jan. 9 public hearing.
Full story: The Courant
Peter Szymonik of Glastonbury says he had to dip into his child's college fund to pay for the court-appointed guardians who represented his sons during his 2008 divorce.
"I've got this nightmare scenario," said Szymonik, a member of an advocacy group lobbying to reform the state's child custody system.
Criticism over high legal costs is just one area under examination by a state panel that must make recommendations to the legislature's Judiciary Committee by Feb. 1.
The task force is studying the roles of lawyers and guardians — called guardians ad litem — appointed by courts to represent children in contentious cases involving parenting and the custody and care of children.
It is also studying whether judges are complying with a statute requiring them to consider the best interests of children. The volunteer 10-member task force, formed last year, is also considering whether Connecticut should adopt a presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of a minor child in actions involving the custody and care of the child.
"We're here to look for solutions and try to see if we can improve the system that everybody is complaining about," one task force member, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (D-Hartford), said at a Jan. 9 public hearing.
Full story: The Courant
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
National - "The snake goes into the hole"
- is what a young girl told her mother one night before taking a bath.
On another occasion this girl told her mother -
"I have to hold the snake until it dies" - one night while she was bouncing up and down.
Awhile later the Guardian ad litem did a home evaluation of both parents. During the visit with the father he talked to the Guardian ad litem about his daughters pet snake. When the Guardian ad litem visited with the mother - the mother voiced concerned about the "snake" at the fathers house. The Guardian ad litem brushed off the "snake" the daughter talked of - saying that the father and daughter were exploring nature. That the mother was letting her imagination get the best of her and it was of no concern.
If you were the Guardian ad litem - what would you do? Take the test to voice your opinion and to find out what happened - TEST. Don't want to take the test - follow this link to read about the outcome - NGAL Complaint
For more information on Guardians ad litem and Family Courts please email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
On another occasion this girl told her mother -
"I have to hold the snake until it dies" - one night while she was bouncing up and down.
Awhile later the Guardian ad litem did a home evaluation of both parents. During the visit with the father he talked to the Guardian ad litem about his daughters pet snake. When the Guardian ad litem visited with the mother - the mother voiced concerned about the "snake" at the fathers house. The Guardian ad litem brushed off the "snake" the daughter talked of - saying that the father and daughter were exploring nature. That the mother was letting her imagination get the best of her and it was of no concern.
If you were the Guardian ad litem - what would you do? Take the test to voice your opinion and to find out what happened - TEST. Don't want to take the test - follow this link to read about the outcome - NGAL Complaint
For more information on Guardians ad litem and Family Courts please email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)