"Because my ex abused my son/ daughter, this stranger (GAL) is deemed a more capable parent than me"

Parents 'prescribed' court ordered anger management.

Is it any wonder then why any parent when faced with a similar situation would feel anger towards a custody situation they find themselves in? Court vendors (Guardians ad litem, Parental Coordinators and other court experts) have been “prescribing” courses in anger management for quite some time. One Senior GAL is on record for recommending this because one of the parents was “caustic and controlling”. Are these parent(s) who are given these “prescriptions” by court vendors really in need of anger management? Or is this the “prescribers” attempt to control (and need to punish) the parent(s) as a result of an unfriendly or hostile interpersonal situation? The courts and court vendors appear not to have given much thought or “prescriptive” precision in recommending “anger management”.

Anger is an emotion and is not recognized as a diagnosable form of mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. Anger is not a primary condition but is a secondary emotion and is a part of many situations. The courts order and or prescribe “anger management” without the knowledge, skill or professional experience to know what they are doing with this alleged tool. The courts and their vendors(GALs, Parental Coordinators and Special Masters) are not clinicians trained to “prescribe” anything, they are reporters to the courts. In making these 'prescriptions' the courts and officers of the courts never describe the anger as being mild, severe, appropriate, inappropriate, controlled or out of control. If it is secondary to psychosis, drugs or alcohol or whether the anger is threatening the safety of others. In 'prescribing' therapy the courts and vendors of the courts do not set goals or an end point to 'anger management'.

So are the courts helping the parent(s) that are 'prescribed' treatment or are they delving into an area that they have no business being involved in? Causing more harm to the parent(s) in an attempt to control and manipulate them. It appears that the courts in 'prescribing' 'anger management' are doing nothing more than playing witch doctor in their pseudo-psychological, court 'prescribed' punishment for what is perceived as bad behavior. The reality is that the parent(s) are showing their frustration with a process that is so twisted and warped that it is devoid of any reality.

If you have fallen victim to court 'prescribed' therapy please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com for support or like us on Facebook for up to date information.

Your voice and opinion matters - please take a moment to take our anonymous survey on the state of Family Court [LINK].

The Pro se Problem in Family Courts - Prarental Coordinator

Mary Ann Lynch
Government and Media Counsel
Maine Judicial Branch

Dear Mary Ann,

It was a pleasure to talk with you by phone on Wednesday afternoon and to share a few thoughts about the very troubling 74% ‘pro se’ problem in Maine’s family courts. 74% is a powerful number that speaks to a socially unacceptable differential status of citizens/voters in the face of  justice. My purpose in calling you was  to be a “catalyst” for broad based problem-solving concerning the ‘pro se’ phenomenon. It seems to be growing numerically by leaps and bounds, despite valiant, well-documented efforts by your associates to contain it.

To me, as a former public health planner, there appears to be a lack of data about the nature of this problem that would be a vital necessity in designing a strategic intervention to reduce this unacceptable 74% number. The problem of ‘pro se’ numbers also appears to suffer (paradoxically) from well-intended attempts to try to solve the ‘pro’ se’ problem with inadequate problem definition. It puts “answers to the problem” before adequate “problem definition”, and thereby places the cart in front of the horse. Without wishing to disparage the ongoing work being attempted by those associated with the Maine Judicial Branch and the Maine Bar, I would suggest that there are some serious planning questions that need research and study before seeking answers.

Here, in brief, are a few of my thoughts, a recap and elaboration on our earlier phone discussion:

WHAT SHOULD THE GOALS FOR  ANY ‘PRO SE’ INTERVENTION BE? In any thoughtful, large scale, organized government plan, one needs clearly stated goals to aim for- and to keep the movement towards goals on target. I would suggest- tentatively - that the aim for the ‘pro se’ problem should be to reduce the incidence and prevalence of ‘pro se’ as a phenomenon in Maine family courts - “to move the “numbers needle” backwards”. To use a public health conceptualization, one might say ‘pro se’ is a growing epidemiological problem. What is the “epidemic” about, how is it spread over Maine’s “at risk” populations, who is vulnerable, what factors are causing it, what exacerbates its growth, what diminishes its growth and what “interventions” might well organized data suggest would be most effective? To that end, I suggest a sample of some very generic questions that an epidemiologist might ask before intervening in any epidemic.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF MAINE’S FAMILY COURT ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Beyond anecdote, who are the 74% of people who do ‘pro se’’ in Maine’s family courts? What sort of demographics do they represent? What ages, occupations, education levels, financial status, duration of marriage, number of children, geographic locations, previous marriages/relationships, health/mental health status?  What are the reasons that they are  doing ‘pro se’?  Financial reasons (examples)? Or other reasons?  All of these data would be useful tools in shaping rational problem-solving. Without such data, solving problems can only be based on anecdote, guess work, personal impressions, prejudice and bias. Bad information, as everyone knows, leads to bad answers!

DOES HAVING A LAWYER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUTCOME OF DIVORCE AND CUSTODY? What is the statistical record for various types of outcomes for ‘pro se’ litigants? How do things go when one party has a lawyer and the other doesn’t? What factors favor what outcome when both parties have a lawyer? Are there statistics for law firms and lawyers showing records of wins and losses? How do ‘pro se’’, lawyers, and judges view the contest?

HOW DO ‘PRO SE’ LITIGANTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR COURT EXPERIENCE? Were they helped to do pre-court paperwork? Was the help that they received effective or was it confusing? Did they get help or coaching before going to court? From what kinds of helping sources? How do ‘pro se’ litigants feel about their courtroom experience?  Were they put at ease by the judge? Were they treated respectfully? Did they encounter judicial hostility or overt rejection? Were they listened to? How did they handle evidentiary challenges (“object, object, object!”) from opposing counsel? Were they included in all conferences and administrative issues? Did they feel that they received treatment in court equal to opposing counsel (if there was one)? Do they have ideas for simplifying the process for making it less time consuming, fairer and with happier resolution? How were they and their children impacted by the personal stress of the  ‘pro se’ experience and its  aftermath?

HOW DO FAMILY COURT JUDGES FEEL ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH ‘PRO SE’ LITIGANTS? What kinds of problems do they experience? What impact does ‘pro se’ have on courtroom procedures and process? What are the biggest challenges in this situation for judges? What would they suggest to solve some of the problems associated with ‘pro se’? Do they have suggestions that might diminish the incidence of ‘pro se’ ?

HOW DOES THE DIVORCE BAR SEE THE ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Does everyone in a divorce and custody situation need a lawyer? What type of cases may not need a lawyer?  What about pre-court legal “coaching”? What about paraprofessional lawyers? What about defining custody as 50-50 in all cases- except proven abuse? What other ideas? What about disincentives for lawyers? What about fee caps on all cases, or needing certification from a judge to bill beyond a certain $$ figure?

Please, do not take the preceding paragraphs as any sort of concrete proposal. The remarks above are offered only as possible examples of epidemiological data for use in a very classic, rational problem solving process. The questions are more to get a conversation about planning going- or to say, we don’t want to go there, because...

To my thinking, all three branches of government should be involved in any such a conversation leading to a plan for action. The core issue at the heart of the ‘pro se’ problem problem is about how we are to treat Maine families and children in the throes of divorce and custody. It is a question about the well being of a  sub-population of huge importance to the future of Maine. Interest in the topic goes way beyond the interest and practices of one branch of government and one profession. Ideally all three branches of government should work on the issue and should sponsor the supportive legislation to enable the work. As to the question of who might  best do such a study or variations thereof in the interest of the public, my vote would be for OPEGA; others might have other choices. My personal aim would be to eliminate the dominance of “special interests” of stake holders from the “divorce industry”, who have been the dominant players heretofore. They don’t represent the people.


I hope this gives a bit more flesh on the bare bones we discussed on Wednesday? It is still skeletal!  It is just a beginning of a much needed larger conversation.

Thanks for your time, your always valuable perspective and your in depth knowledge of the Judicial Branch - and Maine government.

Sincerely,

Jerry Collins

CC: MeGALert

If you have had a bad experience in the Family Court systems or with a Guardian ad litem. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Maine - A Response to the Proposed Repeal and Replacement of Maine Guardian ad litem Rules

Hon. Leigh Saufley
Chief Justice
Maine Supreme Court


Dear Chief Justice Sauflley,

I am responding to the request from the Judicial Branch for comments from the public  on the proposed “new” Rules for Guardians ad litem. In my opinion, they are badly off the mark, if their aim is to help the majority of those public consumers, who might use them to understand how GAL’s function and how to make a complaint about a GAL’s defective performance. Perhaps unintentionally, they seem to distort the aims of the Maine legislature and the Governor who created the law in 2013. The Dutremble law was aimed at clarifying GAL functioning with appropriate boundaries and protecting consumers of Guardian ad litem services from abuse by GAL practitioners. The proposed “new” Rules, as I read them, shift aim and focus of the 2013 Dutremble law, and, by proposed regulation seem designed to defend and protect GALs, as members of “the legal guild”. Self-represented consumers of service are out of the picture altogether.

The proposed “new” Rules are lengthy (77 pages), often ambiguous and subject to many escape clauses. There are many statements in the Rules that are followed by exceptions to the rule. This oppositional duality throughout the Rules  neutralizes and confuses the intent, meaning and strength of the initial rule, and it probably reflects the anxiety of  “stake holders” on the working committee, who created the document. They may not want to be hampered or hemmed in by any Rules.

The section dealing with consumer complaints (see page 35 RULE 9. Guardian ad litem Review Board Complaint System) about GAL services is written in complex legal language, full of references to other laws, unfamiliar to the general public. It prescribes a labyrinthine, multi layered procedure for making a complaint. Even relatively trivial, minor complaints must follow this protocol. As I read it and imagined using it myself in a ‘pro se’ effort, I felt shut out and stymied. The complaint procedure is written by lawyers for lawyers. It also proposes that all consumer complaints be managed by the lawyers'’ “guild”, the Overseers of the Bar, considered a formidable entity by most of the public. The complaint procedure is an airtight, legalistic, time-consuming, intimidating piece of work that virtually no untrained, unrepresented “consumer” will be able to use to complain about service. Preventing complaints from self-represented members of the public appears to be its purpose. Kill all public complaints with legalistic complexity. "Pro se" be damned, is the message I read!

The most troubling problem is represented by the authorship of the proposal “new” Rules for GALs. It appears to be the work of a “Stakeholder’s committee”, almost exclusively members of the powerful “divorce industry”. The authors show no consideration for how a ‘pro se’ (self represented person) is supposed to use the arcane, complaint “tool”. As you reported to me earlier this year, a startling 74% of family court users are ‘pro se’. It is being proposed by “stockholders”, who authored it, that this 74% majority be given a complex, “legal tool” that they will be unable to use in making a complaint about GAL service. The Rules, as a tool, by their complexity, would exclude the majority of public users from making a complaint on their own. Shouldn’t ‘pro se’ persons also be considered significant “stakeholders”? Their stakes are their children, their time and their life savings; not professional financial advantage. Their kids are priceless to them (and to all of us) and represent future, valuable human resources for Maine. Why are ‘pro se’ stakeholders denied a seat at the table that would reflect their proportional, numerical dominance in courts? It might be viewed as an exclusionary problem of vast proportions that needs correction in the interest of public fairness, and in the interests of reality. It is an awkward commentary on family courts in a democratic society.

We need to understand the present reality that Family courts at this time are no longer  the exclusively purview of an  elite, professional group of the legal profession when 74% of users are self-represented non-lawyers! It is time for everyone to awaken to these startling facts and address the  major, unstoppable systems change that is going on right now!

It also should be noted that the public complaint protocol is the only “quality assurance” mechanism for the public governing the actions of Guardians ad litem. Without supervision, with just 18 hours of “education”, with quasi judicial immunity, with no meaningful “oversight”, a complaint from a consumer is the only way to request  major or minor “corrective action” for a malfunctioning GAL. If this procedure is so complex as to be unusable by non-lawyers, GALs are essentially in a position of being granted secular infallibility by the Judicial Branch. One has to ask rhetorically: “Don’t GALs ever need some form of  correction; are they always “perfect?” Can’t one find a more responsible way to correct and improve their function?

My opinion is that the Judicial Branch needs to go back to the drawing board and begin again in writing new Rules for GALs. It needs to include proportionally the biggest group of players in family courts, the 74% ‘pro se’ users, on any planning committee addressing “officers of the court”. It needs to approach the whole issue of GAL management in a much less defensive, overprotective manner. It needs to listen to and care about the  systemic changes catalyzed by amazing numbers of ‘pro se’ representatives. The present document is “tone deaf” to ‘pro se’.  Is this its aim, or is it impossible for the Judicial Branch to escape the political influence and power of the divorce bar?

We sincerely hope this document can be rewritten in tune with current realities, and with participation of those who are major users of the GAL system. Would it help the Judicial Branch to overcome the powerful, internal, self-serving, lobbying politics of the “divorce industry Bar”, if there were to be  grass roots legislation empowering ‘pro se’ representatives on JB committees and throughout the family court system?

Your 74% ‘pro se’ statistic is a powerful number that  cries for legal fairness and appropriate democratic empowerment!

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins, MD
Kennebunkport, Maine

For further information on the Family Court and divorce industry crisis please email at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

For further reading:

2014-05-28 PROPOSAL FOR AN AUDIT OF ‘PRO SE’ REPRESENTATION IN MAINE FAMILY COURTS

2014-03-18 Maine Voices: We must work together to ensure justice truly is for all in Maine - a response

A Basic Tool Kit for Grass Roots Family Court Reform

We have been asked by many people how we got MeGALalert, our Family Court and Guardian ad litem Parent Coordinator reform program, started and what beginning grassroots activists should do to get going?  We grew our program, MeGALalert by stages and degrees, learning by trial and error as we grew.  We quickly set two fixed goals: (1) education of the public about the need for reform of family courts and Guardians ad litem, and (2) legislation to produce change.  We feel that you can’t have legislated change for these dysfunctional systems without an enlightened, aware public that will support and push for change.  Legislation also requires that we  educate legislators about the family court and Guardian ad litem problems, and also that we help voters connect with legislators and- as constituents/voters - express their views and their wishes. Family court systems  are not anything that can be “fixed” quickly, because there are huge systemic problems and powerful internal forces that support  the dysfunction of family courts, and that keep dysfunction alive, well and growing. Long ago, we were instructed by one sophisticated  lawyer: “Follow the money!”

What we are outlining is a well planned systems intervention in a massive system, and it cannot be done quickly or without a well designed strategy and tactics, nor can these be effective without tools for intervention in all parts of the system.  Obviously, this is a complex undertaking.  We are always glad to share our thoughts and our approach, but to do so would take more than a simple, single blog posting.  We’ll start by giving a brief list of important generic systems intervention “must have”  “tools” that you may find useful in changing family court systems:

1. A blog or two (or more) with different focuses that will serve multiple purposes: give news, present issues and problems, make proposals for change and allow for public "conversations".

2. A Facebook page dedicated to court reform in your state, which can present more short-term "reform news" and sharing.

3. Building a base of credible political supporters, larger numbers of both friends and “victims” of the family court system.  E-mail addresses (and list-servs) for this group are critical, precious, invaluable .  One rule to follow: ALWAYS BLIND COPY (bcc)  MASS MAILINGS FOR PRIVACY).  Telephone numbers and physical addresses are useful also.  We started with our family court story (disaster) in a local weekly paper that got the attention of other family court “victims” who contacted us - and the rest is history as the numbers grew and grew.

4. Once you get stared, a core group of friends with a "work ethic", who can be counted on to help with some of the "heavy lifting".  Volunteer manpower, which can stay on top of what's happening in state government that may impact on users of family courts.

5. Getting to know your State Rep and State Senator and continuously educating them on the court reform issues is critical.  Getting to know other legislators, especially those who have gone through divorce and custody horrors.  “Victims” of family courts in the legislature are “golden”.  You also need to know which legislators are your enemies and “frenemies” , Which legislators will sabotage your efforts and support the ‘status quo’?  HINT: look for legislators who are lawyers!

6. Getting to know your state Governor and your Chief Justice.   Governors can submit bills and can veto bills, but they too need education.  Justices often want changes in the courts but they are constrained by their political base: the state bar and state lawyers who live handsomely off of family courts.  They hear appeals form family courts and their judgments become case law.

7. Building relations with the all elements of the media.  Know reporters, feed them stories.  Many court reporters are intimidated about journalistically challenging the courts and getting “shut out” of court news thereafter, but sometimes your news may tempt them out of timidity.  Small, local, weekly papers, we find, are most open to reporting our experience - and people do read them. Give them stories. This got us going. Don’t forget social media in all of its many forms.

8. Organize intimate, small showings of "Divorce Corp", the DVD, it is very educational, packs a punch and ought to be a "must see" for legislators and government decision makers.  It is a great “tool” for quick information and attitude change.

9. Make your most important goal: public education about the largely unknown scandal that is family courts in America. Without extensive education of the public you go nowhere.

10. Communicate, communicate, communicate. Keep everyone who writes to support you in the loop, up on the news - good and bad. Answer ALL e-mails asap.

11. Don't worry about money or setting up a nonprofit.  We've done it with no money and no corporation. Money and non-profits have their own problems and politics. We've done it with PEOPLE, who are FRIENDS. The most successful movement that produced massive political change was created by Vaclav Havel, former, Czech president, Nobel prize winner, writer and political dissident.

Finally, don't be discouraged by setbacks.  It is going to be a long term project. Family courts have solid support of a huge, wealthy industry ($50 billion), the “divorce industry”, these lawyers, like the “robber barons” of old, are not going to yield quickly or easily. But ... we have human and moral "right" on our side, and, once we connect, there are more of US than there are of THEM! Vaclav Havel called it “The power of the powerless”.

In the long run, if we keep at it , like others before us who fought injustice...

"WE SHALL OVERCOME ... SOMEDAY..."

MeGALalert can be reached by emailing us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or by finding us on Facebook. There is no magic bullet that can be used to help you with the issues you and your family are facing. We offer support and help in dealing with the family court system.

Michigan - HB 5082 Has passed the Judiciary Committee

Here is an update to a posting we made on June 5, 2014 concerning Michigan bill HB 5082 on Parent Coordinators. Yesterday testimony was given both for and against the bill.

This was a bill sponsored by a lawyer with what appears to be little - or actually no input from those who will have to use this 'service' of the court. The bill is typical in that it lacks any foresight as to the issues this role has when a divorcing family is breaking apart.

Can Kurt Heise (the bills sponsor) be considered a Politician Putting Children First? Or the Divorce Industry?

Michigan - Justice For Michigan Families Project - HB5082 Parent Coordinator

The state of Michigan is faced with a Family Court crisis where with bill HB5082 there is a call for an expansion and entrenchment of the Parental Coordinator role. On June 3, 2014 the bill was before the states Senate Judiciary Committee and it was felt the bill would pass hands down.

It did not.

The bill was tabled for one week to give the sponsor of the bill time to defend the bill.

While the bill has not been defeated - which is something we endorse - it also has not passed. The grassroots organization "Justice For Michigan Families Project" is working for Family Court reform and has started a write in campaign to the representatives and senators of Michigan. Justice For Michigan Families Project is asking that this bill not pass for the unrestricted harm it will bring to families already in turmoil.

Your support in helping to defeat this bill will go along way to educate others of the problems that are found in the Family Court system. Write, email or call your state representative and tell them to not support this bill HB5082.

If you are interested in trying to stop this bill from passing please contact us at MeFamilyCourt@gmail.com for further information.

Additional resources regarding the Parent Coordinator bill HB5082:

HB5082 (2013) The history on this bill
HB5082 (2013) Bill Sponsor - Representative and member of the divorce industry - Kurt Heise

Dear Parental Coordinator, Dear Family Court,

Santa has received letters from kids who want BOTH parents....