Santa has received letters from kids who want BOTH parents....
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Connecticut Attorney Sharon Dornfeld troubled by comments from Parent
While this letter is regarding Guardians ad litem what is being said can be equally applied to situations involving Parenting Coordinators:
Hello Ms. Dornfeld,
I'm told that you are troubled by my observations of the system. As an expert in legal operations, legal e-billing and legal spend management, I would again extend to you the invitation to meet with me at your convenience and at any time to discuss your perspectives and concerns, as well as to share mine and those of many other legal professionals equally as fed up with what our family courts have become and how they operate.
I was in the courthouse in Hartford today and saw many of my family attorney friends and contacts there. Two of them approached me and asked to meet with me next week - as they are considered testifying as to how bad the situation has become and how dramatically it has impacted them and their clients.
Veteran family law attorneys - one of whom wrote the attached letter. This would bring to 12 the number of family law attorneys I have organized and who will also speak out as Attorney Rutkin recently did, when the time is right and they no longer have to worry about retaliation against them.
And what does that say and reflect in regards to what our family court system has become, and the powers-that-be have created and perpetuated - when family law attorneys themselves are afraid to speak about their own industry for fear of how it may personally impact them?
Once again - the world has changed and the genie is out of the bottle. "The system" is no longer able to threaten and intimidate parents and attorneys into silence, social media has changed that forever and good riddance. And this is true not just here in Connecticut, but nationally and even internationally as well.
No parent or citizen should EVER have fear the Judiciary or suffer retaliation for speaking their opinion - EVER in the United States. That is not why I and my family came here from a communist country to see and experience.
Once again - shouldn't we all be ashamed of what our family courts have become and its complete lack of focus on families and children and abuses we have all suffered at the hands of the system?
The family court is supposed to be a source of resolution and closure - not open ended cycle and source and cause of abuse and therapy.
What's happened to the basic principles of common decency, common respect, understanding and compassion?
If you are "irritated" by my commentary - then I'm afraid I can offer you no apologies, because I and the thousands of parents, children of divorce, grandparents, family attorneys and GALs who have been severely impacted and financially and otherwise devastated by the horrific perspectives and policies you and others have promoted, are not the ones who are fault for what is wrong.
* The problems in our family court were not created by parents or our fault.
* It is not what we are responsible for or what we created.
* It is not what we want for ourselves and our children and our families or our state.
* It is not parents who are blatantly violating the basic principles of due process, civil and parental rights, or the rights of child.
* It is not parents who are acting in an unethical, immoral and illogical manner.
* It is not parents who are willfully ignoring violations of court order or the abuses and neglect of children.
* It is not parents who are in Court perpetuating and promoting conflict to profit from it.
* It is not parents who are imposing draconian and devastating financial orders on parents to punish them for being in court.
* It is not parents who are forcing the liquidation of retirement accounts and children's college funds and demanding payments from grandparents.
* It is not parents who jailing themselves solely because they have no means to pay.
PARENTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
And you do not use the same people who created a problem and who profit handsomely from it, to solve it.
It is perhaps most telling that after two months of hearings, and that as Chair, you have not called a single parent or child or divorce to testify - not one. And that every person who has been called, is a member of the divorce industry and someone who profits from and engages in perpetuating the problem. And no surprise - practically all of them members of FCC member, as you and Ms. Cousineau are.
* Which speaks volumes as to how co-opted and pointless the Task Force has become.
Task Forces are created by the legislature to solicit to hear testimony from people and citizens adversely impacted by a situation or problem - not those who create and profit from it.
It is equally as telling that we have not heard testimony from a single parent or child of divorce stating how wonderful the court system is, how much time their AMC/GAL spent with them to get to know them and how much they helped them, or how helpful a court ordered therapist was. And that any of this was worth the money taken from them or their parents and families. Why is that?
What the Task Force has become is like watching a home improvement show, where the focus of the show is to take pity on and only listen to shady contractor who did shoddy work and left the homeowner with a massive problem and walked away with all of their money.
Perhaps we should listen to the Chief Justice of Canada, who has publically come out and stated that family courts are beyond the point of repair, and need to be completely replaced with "something else." As an expert in legal operations and legal spend management, and business process improvement expert, I couldn't agree more. And applaud Attorney Rutkin for his recommendation that the state consider bringing in an outside management company to run the Judiciary and correct its operational dysfunctions. (I volunteer to help.)
Please let me know when you would like to meet and review the information I have to share with you and the Task Force. Most notably - an examination of the devastating financial impact the crisis in the family courts have exacted onto parents and families, and how many people it has thrown out of work, cost them their homes, and caused people to be unfairly jailed.
Regards
Peter Szymonik
Glastonbury, CT
www.galreform.org
Hello Ms. Dornfeld,
I'm told that you are troubled by my observations of the system. As an expert in legal operations, legal e-billing and legal spend management, I would again extend to you the invitation to meet with me at your convenience and at any time to discuss your perspectives and concerns, as well as to share mine and those of many other legal professionals equally as fed up with what our family courts have become and how they operate.
I was in the courthouse in Hartford today and saw many of my family attorney friends and contacts there. Two of them approached me and asked to meet with me next week - as they are considered testifying as to how bad the situation has become and how dramatically it has impacted them and their clients.
Veteran family law attorneys - one of whom wrote the attached letter. This would bring to 12 the number of family law attorneys I have organized and who will also speak out as Attorney Rutkin recently did, when the time is right and they no longer have to worry about retaliation against them.
And what does that say and reflect in regards to what our family court system has become, and the powers-that-be have created and perpetuated - when family law attorneys themselves are afraid to speak about their own industry for fear of how it may personally impact them?
Once again - the world has changed and the genie is out of the bottle. "The system" is no longer able to threaten and intimidate parents and attorneys into silence, social media has changed that forever and good riddance. And this is true not just here in Connecticut, but nationally and even internationally as well.
No parent or citizen should EVER have fear the Judiciary or suffer retaliation for speaking their opinion - EVER in the United States. That is not why I and my family came here from a communist country to see and experience.
Once again - shouldn't we all be ashamed of what our family courts have become and its complete lack of focus on families and children and abuses we have all suffered at the hands of the system?
The family court is supposed to be a source of resolution and closure - not open ended cycle and source and cause of abuse and therapy.
What's happened to the basic principles of common decency, common respect, understanding and compassion?
If you are "irritated" by my commentary - then I'm afraid I can offer you no apologies, because I and the thousands of parents, children of divorce, grandparents, family attorneys and GALs who have been severely impacted and financially and otherwise devastated by the horrific perspectives and policies you and others have promoted, are not the ones who are fault for what is wrong.
* The problems in our family court were not created by parents or our fault.
* It is not what we are responsible for or what we created.
* It is not what we want for ourselves and our children and our families or our state.
* It is not parents who are blatantly violating the basic principles of due process, civil and parental rights, or the rights of child.
* It is not parents who are acting in an unethical, immoral and illogical manner.
* It is not parents who are willfully ignoring violations of court order or the abuses and neglect of children.
* It is not parents who are in Court perpetuating and promoting conflict to profit from it.
* It is not parents who are imposing draconian and devastating financial orders on parents to punish them for being in court.
* It is not parents who are forcing the liquidation of retirement accounts and children's college funds and demanding payments from grandparents.
* It is not parents who jailing themselves solely because they have no means to pay.
PARENTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
And you do not use the same people who created a problem and who profit handsomely from it, to solve it.
It is perhaps most telling that after two months of hearings, and that as Chair, you have not called a single parent or child or divorce to testify - not one. And that every person who has been called, is a member of the divorce industry and someone who profits from and engages in perpetuating the problem. And no surprise - practically all of them members of FCC member, as you and Ms. Cousineau are.
* Which speaks volumes as to how co-opted and pointless the Task Force has become.
Task Forces are created by the legislature to solicit to hear testimony from people and citizens adversely impacted by a situation or problem - not those who create and profit from it.
It is equally as telling that we have not heard testimony from a single parent or child of divorce stating how wonderful the court system is, how much time their AMC/GAL spent with them to get to know them and how much they helped them, or how helpful a court ordered therapist was. And that any of this was worth the money taken from them or their parents and families. Why is that?
What the Task Force has become is like watching a home improvement show, where the focus of the show is to take pity on and only listen to shady contractor who did shoddy work and left the homeowner with a massive problem and walked away with all of their money.
Perhaps we should listen to the Chief Justice of Canada, who has publically come out and stated that family courts are beyond the point of repair, and need to be completely replaced with "something else." As an expert in legal operations and legal spend management, and business process improvement expert, I couldn't agree more. And applaud Attorney Rutkin for his recommendation that the state consider bringing in an outside management company to run the Judiciary and correct its operational dysfunctions. (I volunteer to help.)
Please let me know when you would like to meet and review the information I have to share with you and the Task Force. Most notably - an examination of the devastating financial impact the crisis in the family courts have exacted onto parents and families, and how many people it has thrown out of work, cost them their homes, and caused people to be unfairly jailed.
Regards
Peter Szymonik
Glastonbury, CT
www.galreform.org
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
This is why I am disobeying your order - An open letter to a Judge
Dear Judge,
Two years ago I appeared in your court. I was summoned there with only a few hours notice and appeared without a lawyer. Though no charges were pronounced against me, you legally removed my child from my care and protection, eliminated my right to make any decisions about her, and ordered me to stay away from her most of the time.
From what I have been able to gather about such proceedings, this outcome was nothing out of the ordinary. In fact it quickly became apparent to me that this outcome came very close to being decided in advance. What precisely was said during this brief hearing seems to have made very little difference. As it began, a gentleman who did not know me proceeded to assassinate my character as confidently as if he had personally witnessed each item in his litany of my imperfections. While again, there were no specific charges and nothing legally actionable, it was clear that his role was to translate somewhat vague private grievances against me into a formula that would appear to justify taking away my child.
What struck me at the time was how quickly and effortlessly a child was removed from the care and protection of her parent and her life carved up as if it were the bookings of a holiday cottage. Such and such days she would spend with the non-custodial parent, the rest with the custodial parent. You asked very few questions and sought very little information. The hearing was very brief, and suddenly, I was told, it was over. During the hearing I was allowed to speak very little and interrupted every time I tried. There seemed to be no burden of proof on those who sought to separate me from my child.
I realize that, given the number of similar cases that come before you, you issue these rulings as a matter of routine. I would not be surprised if you have no recollection of this particular case. Nevertheless, for me it was an eye-opening experience and probably the most important thirty minutes or so of my life.
You did not strike me as an unusually malicious or callous person. I am told you are considered among the more favorable judges for parents, and that the time you assigned permitting me to be with my children is relatively generous.
All this may be true. Yet it has also become apparent to me that what I witnessed in your courtroom was a tiny part of a vast system of largely impersonal and unaccountable power that was previously unknown to me, as it still is to most citizens. I am fully aware that you did not create this system and that you yourself may have very little control over it. Nevertheless you are a principal and active participant. So vast and so routine has this power become that you are able, with no background information and in a hearing lasting only a few minutes, to permanently separate a child from a parent without any indication that you were aware of the gravity of what you were doing.
While this central act was disturbing enough, what was again striking were the questions that were not asked, the subjects that were not brought up, the consequences that were not anticipated. You knew that I was accused of no wrongdoing and had agreed to no separation or divorce. You were also aware that I had never lived in this country with my family and that I had neither a residence nor a livelihood here. Yet a number of important matters were never discussed. Did I have a place to live? Did I have a way to get to where my daughter was? Could I work here? Did I have access to a car? Did the hours you permitted me to be with her bear any relation to when I might be able to find or keep employment? What costs would be involved for me or other parties?
You may recall that when my mother attempted to sit in on the hearing she was refused and escorted out. Yet the results of this hearing have profoundly and adversely affected her life. She was forced to take in and support a grown son who was now unemployed. She was forced to cancel the sale of her house so that I would have a place to stay. Her car has been commandeered so that I can see my children and get to work. Did these hardships for her enter into your ruling? They certainly were not brought up in the hearing. It did occur to me at the time, but I was cut off each time I attempted to speak.
What is also noteworthy is that I can recount my recollection of these proceedings without fear of contradiction or inaccuracy, not only because you probably do not remember details of the hearing, but also because no record of it now exists and no impartial witnesses were permitted to be present. In other words, there is nothing and no one to contradict or corroborate my recollection. By the same measure, there is no accountability or recorded reasoning for a ruling that has torn apart the home and world of an innocent child.
In short, it struck me that for the first time in my life I was personally witnessing an instance of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”: evil that has become so routinized and bureaucratized that otherwise decent people are able to tell themselves they are doing good when they are doing evil. It is profoundly ironic that I should have returned from five years in a post-totalitarian society to be confronted here in the United States with a new and unexpected version of the kind of bureaucratic dictatorship that has been perhaps the most notable feature of the politics of this century.
When we hear about children being forcibly taken from their parents by Nazi doctors or Communist apparatchiks we are filled with the deepest revulsion. In accounts of American slavery the division of slave families pierces deeper into our hearts than even the physical cruelties of that institution. What family court judges such as yourself do as a daily routine is not on the same level of evil. But it is not so completely different that we should classify the one as among the most detestable “crimes against humanity” and accept the other as desirable treatment for our own children. You may think this comparison offensive. But a government which criminalizes ordinary law-abiding citizens for something so basic as exercising their parental responsibilities is itself on the way to becoming a criminal regime. Parents such as I who are accused of nothing routinely have their children removed from their care and protection, are ordered to stay away from them and to pay money to those who have taken them, and are incarcerated if they refuse or are unable. These parents receive fewer constitutional protections for their basic civil rights and liberties than persons accused of vicious crimes. Yet there is no public outcry, no expose by muckraking journalists, no petition of outraged intellectuals, no review by international tribunals, no inquiries by human rights organizations, no voice of opposition.
Whatever may be said in favor of this practice, there is no justification for ordering me or any other innocent parent to stay away from our children in terms of their well-being. This is a practice that exists not for the welfare of children but for the power and enrichment of adults. It is a practice I cannot in conscience accept, and I believe no other parent can either.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I no longer consider your order binding on me and that it is my intention to disobey it. From this time forth I will consider myself free to be with my children whenever I or they choose. I will not hesitate to remove them from any institutional care center at which they are being stored. I will consider myself at liberty to go to any residence where they are being kept with the expectation that I will be permitted to be with my children. In short, I will behave as if I have the same right to do what I choose with my children when and where I choose as any other parent or as I had they day my eldest daughter was born, secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing to forfeit that right. All this will be done in the open view of the world.
At no time will I, as I have never done previously, behave in a disorderly manner; much less will I use any physical force. Consistent with what has always been my parental practice, I will quarrel with no one in the presence of my children. Should I be confronted, as I have been in the past, with contention, disrespect, or physical coercion, I will do my utmost not to respond in kind. Should I, as a creature endowed with my share of imperfections, be provoked to an indiscretion in the presence of my children, I will invoke the only tried and true remedy available to any parent in such circumstances, which is to say I will apologize. Witnessing this will do my children no harm and may possibly set an example they are not likely to see elsewhere. But I will also make it clear, as I must now make it clear to you, that I can no longer tolerate forced separation from my children.
I realize this is not the usual and, from your standpoint, preferred method of responding to a court order. I know that I am expected to hire a professional advocate to argue my case in a courtroom. Yet after prolonged and careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot pursue this course.
In the first place, to be brutally practical, I do not have the means. As a direct result of your ruling I was forced to resign my position, leave the only residence my family had ever had, and relocate here in order to be with my children. There is also something I find basically objectionable about any parent having to pay money to see his own children when he has been presented with no grounds for why they were taken in the first place. As with a conventional kidnapping, if I begin to pay money for this purpose, where does it end?
More to the point, it is not clear to me what I would argue in a courtroom, since not only have I have been accused of nothing; I have not accused anyone else of anything. In the absence of charges against me, I cannot and will not cooperate with an inquisition into my family life. It is also not my practice to discuss the shortcomings of members of my family with third parties, let alone to construct legal cases against them. Forcing me to do so as a condition of retaining my rights as a parent strikes me as morally equivalent to staging a cockfight. And again, I fail to see where it would end. Frankly, it appears to me that this entire process is designed less to arrive at any determination relevant to the welfare of my children than to provide business for associations of legal entrepreneurs.
Even more fundamentally, I cannot pursue this course because I cannot accept that you or anyone else has any grounds to intervene in my family and tell me when, where, and under what circumstances I may be with my children or to deny me the right to raise and protect them and make decisions for their welfare. In other words, it is not so much a particular ruling that I cannot accept as an unprovoked and unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over my family. You may reply that this was solicited by parties that include members of my family. Yet this does not alter the fact that it was done without any grounds whatever. It is equally true to say that some 30 years ago the armies of the Warsaw Pact were “invited” to enter the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, but this does not make it any less of any invasion.
I am also aware of the arguments against the alternative course of action I have chosen. No doubt I will be accused of inflicting an unpleasant experience upon my children by going to see them when I have not been authorized to do so. I have considered this at some length. It is this consideration, in part, that prevented me from responding in kind when my child was originally abducted from her home and before I was summoned to your court. I am sure that I was assisted in this restraint by the conviction that this country’s system of justice is fair and that justice would eventually prevail. (Yet I must regretfully note that this restraint seems to have counted nothing in my favor in your courtroom.) I would like to believe that conviction is still justified, though I am now convinced that this is more likely to be the case by refusing to accept your power to arbitrarily keep me from my children than by hiring a professional advocate to quibble over precisely how much you should do so.
I have also come to the conclusion that I cannot submit indefinitely to what amounts to a kind of blackmail, a blackmail rendered all the more heinous for holding as hostages two children and forcing a parent to stay away from them for fear of how others will respond to his presence. I trust you are familiar with the concept of a “heckler’s veto” and with its legal standing.
It is one thing to refrain from contention in the presence of children, which I have always done and will continue to do. It is another to acquiesce indefinitely in a crime committed against them. In fact it is precisely my concern to avoid further contention that leads me to take a public and open stand against this patent injustice rather than participating in a privately litigated battle that I cannot see will be to anything other than the detriment of my family.
The principal trauma being inflicted on my children is the forced destruction of their family and separation from one or both of their parents, a trauma that has been inflicted by your ruling. Given this, I firmly believe that, far from my harming my children, there are certain lessons in this that they need to be made aware of and that it is my responsibility as a parent to teach them. While I believe I have valid reasons as a citizen to disobey the law in this instance, I want to make clear to you that I also have connected but even more imperative ones as a parent.
It is my responsibility to teach my children that the proper course of action when faced with injustice is to resist and oppose it in a peaceful and dignified way. At some point they must learn that there are higher principles and a higher law they must always obey, even when it means they must break the civil law and accept the consequences for doing so. These are not only lessons that they can learn; they are lessons that they must learn and lessons that, in other contexts, we go to considerable lengths to teach them. In Sunday school my eldest daughter has already been exposed to the quiet courage of the Hebrew women, to the defiant stand of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to the public crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. In school she will soon be reading about the teachings and examples of Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As both a teacher of these ideas myself and a parent, I am acutely aware that there is no point in teaching our children one set of principles as being right in the abstract when we teach them the opposite by our own acts or failure to act precisely at the time when those principles are most needed to confront an injustice. It is perhaps unfortunate, but nevertheless unavoidable, that the circumstances of her life are now such that she must now witness the application of these principles sooner rather than later.
On the other hand, if I do not act I fear that the lessons my children are already learning are far more harmful than witnessing a parent peaceably and openly disobey an unjust court order. Virtually every principle of sound child-rearing is contravened by this immoral practice of forcibly separating children from their parents. For the sake of clarity and emphasis I will list the harmful messages I see them absorbing:
- They are learning that we put our own desires before the needs of others, including those we profess to love such as our own children.
- They are learning that children like themselves are not to be treated as people with needs and rights of their own, but used as tools and weapons in the quest for power and profit by adults.
- They are learning that ordinary family differences and disagreements are to be resolved not with love, understanding, and compromise, but with the courts and police.
- They are learning that the vows of marriage – and by extension all other pledges, promises, commitments, and agreements – mean nothing and can be abrogated when they are no longer to our advantage.
- They are learning that principles and values are something we adhere to only so long as they are convenient, and that we can invent the rules according to our momentary pleasure.
- They are learning that contrition and forgiveness mean nothing and that injuries to others are not to be atoned for and forgiven but nursed as grievances to be revenged when the opportunity presents itself.
- They are learning that when someone disagrees with us or has other ideas or beliefs than ours, we need not listen to him, even within our own family, because now we can use the courts to silence him and have the police keep him away.
- They are learning the methods of the bully, which in other contexts we attempt to discourage and protect them from.
- They are learning that anyone in their family can be eliminated when they fall out of favor – including, perhaps, our children themselves.
- They are learning that the instruments of the state and the justice system are not public tribunals for redressing public wrongs and establishing public justice but rather a system of hired force which we can marshal for private hurts, domestic differences, and personal grievances.
- They are learning that both the family and the state are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies for private injuries.
- They are learning that they need not accept or obey the authority of a parent – and by extension any other authority as well, including their teachers, ministers, parent, and eventually the laws and tribunals of the public state.
- They will learn that the police are not instruments for maintaining public order and protecting the weak, but hired mercenaries that we can marshal against members of our own family when we don’t agree with what they do or say.
- They will learn that the justice system of this country is not based on due process of law but instead rounds up and incarcerates citizens who are accused of no crime and uses the lives of innocent people – including children – for the aggrandizement of its own power.
- They will learn that a citizen of this country need not be charged with any offense that is actionable in a court of law in order to be summoned to one and stripped of his most fundamental constitutional rights.
- They will learn that the Constitution of the United States is a lie, and the Bill of Rights is a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by those whose responsibility it is to protect it from abuse by others.
I believe it is these lessons that account for the alienation and the adversarial relationship that so many children – especially the children of divorce – are now developing toward the justice system, the society in which they live, and their own families. I know that so long as these messages are being imparted to my children by those who seek to separate me from them and by the instruments of the public state such as your court (and by me as well so long as I acquiesce in your ruling) any attempt by me to impart contrary messages will be at cross-purposes with forces too massive for me to compete with and prevail against.
I am aware of a more serious objection to this course of action I am taking. This is the possibility that you will punish my disobedience by further reducing access to my children. This has indeed weighed heavily on my mind. The obvious rejoinder – that such an act of judicial bullying would belie any pretense that this process is concerned with “the best interest of the child” – is little comfort to me. As with other objections, this fear prevents most parents from responding as I have.
I certainly do value my time with my children, and am very reluctant to do anything that may jeopardize it. Until now I have tried to work within these constraints to have as much positive influence on my children as possible.
Yet I find I cannot remain content with this choice indefinitely, and in the long run I cannot hold it up to my children as an example worthy for them to follow. For one thing, I observe from the experience of many forcibly separated fathers that their allotted “visitation” is only one factor contributing to the gradual erosion of bonds with their children, and that it is not possible to be an adequate parent to children from whom one is kept separated by the police. Unlike some, I am not convinced that preserving or increasing my legally permitted time with my children, while still preserving the power to dictate the terms under which I may be a parent to them, is likely to make this system any less of an injustice or any less of a detriment to my relationship with my children.
To rest content with this would be to admit that this allotment of time you have decreed for me is really little more than what amounts to a bribe. Those who have more experience with the family judiciary than I inform me that bribery is widespread. I myself have not otherwise observed it first hand, and it is not my purpose here to make accusations. But in this instance I can see – and so can the world – that a kind of bribery has been openly offered and accepted. Vaclav Havel, the Czech former dissident and now president, has said that a truly corrupt system is one where the bribery is so systemic that it extends even to the public. They are bribed with material or other inducements to accept and acquiesce in a system they know to be corrupt and immoral. I believe something similar is at work here. Like many other parents, I have been effectively bribed with enough time with my children to buy my acquiescence in a system that is patently unjust, immoral, and illegal and one that reduces me to the status of something less than a true parent.
While I value time with my children and know it to be important to their well-being, I also know that the benefits it bestows cannot continue indefinitely and under any circumstances. At some point, as my children come to understand the choice their parent has made – that he has made his peace with a system that has robbed them of their most basic rights and needs in order to be permitted to “get along” with his life – the net effect will become more harmful to them than healthy. All the “visitation” and “custody” and “child support” in the world will not provide them with the parent they need if he bends his back and holds his tongue when he had the opportunity to stand upright and speak out.
There is, in other words, something here much more fundamental than disputes over “visitation”, “custody”, “child support”, and the other jargon of your trade. It concerns the unnatural power to take a child away from a parent they love and who loves them, to dictate to a parent who has done nothing wrong when and where he may see his children and what he can say and do with them, to invade and occupy a family and run it by judicial fiat. This is the arrogance of power. No parent can accept this and remain a parent. This is why I am acting.
Yours respectfully,
A Parent
This piece was originally written by Stephen Baskerville several years ago. It addresses the frustration that many parents face in a court system that is broken. It begs the question of how family courts, Guardians ad litem and the divorce industry can live with themselves at the end of the day.
If you have been involved in a divorce/ custody gone bad and for good reason please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Two years ago I appeared in your court. I was summoned there with only a few hours notice and appeared without a lawyer. Though no charges were pronounced against me, you legally removed my child from my care and protection, eliminated my right to make any decisions about her, and ordered me to stay away from her most of the time.
From what I have been able to gather about such proceedings, this outcome was nothing out of the ordinary. In fact it quickly became apparent to me that this outcome came very close to being decided in advance. What precisely was said during this brief hearing seems to have made very little difference. As it began, a gentleman who did not know me proceeded to assassinate my character as confidently as if he had personally witnessed each item in his litany of my imperfections. While again, there were no specific charges and nothing legally actionable, it was clear that his role was to translate somewhat vague private grievances against me into a formula that would appear to justify taking away my child.
What struck me at the time was how quickly and effortlessly a child was removed from the care and protection of her parent and her life carved up as if it were the bookings of a holiday cottage. Such and such days she would spend with the non-custodial parent, the rest with the custodial parent. You asked very few questions and sought very little information. The hearing was very brief, and suddenly, I was told, it was over. During the hearing I was allowed to speak very little and interrupted every time I tried. There seemed to be no burden of proof on those who sought to separate me from my child.
I realize that, given the number of similar cases that come before you, you issue these rulings as a matter of routine. I would not be surprised if you have no recollection of this particular case. Nevertheless, for me it was an eye-opening experience and probably the most important thirty minutes or so of my life.
You did not strike me as an unusually malicious or callous person. I am told you are considered among the more favorable judges for parents, and that the time you assigned permitting me to be with my children is relatively generous.
All this may be true. Yet it has also become apparent to me that what I witnessed in your courtroom was a tiny part of a vast system of largely impersonal and unaccountable power that was previously unknown to me, as it still is to most citizens. I am fully aware that you did not create this system and that you yourself may have very little control over it. Nevertheless you are a principal and active participant. So vast and so routine has this power become that you are able, with no background information and in a hearing lasting only a few minutes, to permanently separate a child from a parent without any indication that you were aware of the gravity of what you were doing.
While this central act was disturbing enough, what was again striking were the questions that were not asked, the subjects that were not brought up, the consequences that were not anticipated. You knew that I was accused of no wrongdoing and had agreed to no separation or divorce. You were also aware that I had never lived in this country with my family and that I had neither a residence nor a livelihood here. Yet a number of important matters were never discussed. Did I have a place to live? Did I have a way to get to where my daughter was? Could I work here? Did I have access to a car? Did the hours you permitted me to be with her bear any relation to when I might be able to find or keep employment? What costs would be involved for me or other parties?
You may recall that when my mother attempted to sit in on the hearing she was refused and escorted out. Yet the results of this hearing have profoundly and adversely affected her life. She was forced to take in and support a grown son who was now unemployed. She was forced to cancel the sale of her house so that I would have a place to stay. Her car has been commandeered so that I can see my children and get to work. Did these hardships for her enter into your ruling? They certainly were not brought up in the hearing. It did occur to me at the time, but I was cut off each time I attempted to speak.
What is also noteworthy is that I can recount my recollection of these proceedings without fear of contradiction or inaccuracy, not only because you probably do not remember details of the hearing, but also because no record of it now exists and no impartial witnesses were permitted to be present. In other words, there is nothing and no one to contradict or corroborate my recollection. By the same measure, there is no accountability or recorded reasoning for a ruling that has torn apart the home and world of an innocent child.
In short, it struck me that for the first time in my life I was personally witnessing an instance of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”: evil that has become so routinized and bureaucratized that otherwise decent people are able to tell themselves they are doing good when they are doing evil. It is profoundly ironic that I should have returned from five years in a post-totalitarian society to be confronted here in the United States with a new and unexpected version of the kind of bureaucratic dictatorship that has been perhaps the most notable feature of the politics of this century.
When we hear about children being forcibly taken from their parents by Nazi doctors or Communist apparatchiks we are filled with the deepest revulsion. In accounts of American slavery the division of slave families pierces deeper into our hearts than even the physical cruelties of that institution. What family court judges such as yourself do as a daily routine is not on the same level of evil. But it is not so completely different that we should classify the one as among the most detestable “crimes against humanity” and accept the other as desirable treatment for our own children. You may think this comparison offensive. But a government which criminalizes ordinary law-abiding citizens for something so basic as exercising their parental responsibilities is itself on the way to becoming a criminal regime. Parents such as I who are accused of nothing routinely have their children removed from their care and protection, are ordered to stay away from them and to pay money to those who have taken them, and are incarcerated if they refuse or are unable. These parents receive fewer constitutional protections for their basic civil rights and liberties than persons accused of vicious crimes. Yet there is no public outcry, no expose by muckraking journalists, no petition of outraged intellectuals, no review by international tribunals, no inquiries by human rights organizations, no voice of opposition.
Whatever may be said in favor of this practice, there is no justification for ordering me or any other innocent parent to stay away from our children in terms of their well-being. This is a practice that exists not for the welfare of children but for the power and enrichment of adults. It is a practice I cannot in conscience accept, and I believe no other parent can either.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I no longer consider your order binding on me and that it is my intention to disobey it. From this time forth I will consider myself free to be with my children whenever I or they choose. I will not hesitate to remove them from any institutional care center at which they are being stored. I will consider myself at liberty to go to any residence where they are being kept with the expectation that I will be permitted to be with my children. In short, I will behave as if I have the same right to do what I choose with my children when and where I choose as any other parent or as I had they day my eldest daughter was born, secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing to forfeit that right. All this will be done in the open view of the world.
At no time will I, as I have never done previously, behave in a disorderly manner; much less will I use any physical force. Consistent with what has always been my parental practice, I will quarrel with no one in the presence of my children. Should I be confronted, as I have been in the past, with contention, disrespect, or physical coercion, I will do my utmost not to respond in kind. Should I, as a creature endowed with my share of imperfections, be provoked to an indiscretion in the presence of my children, I will invoke the only tried and true remedy available to any parent in such circumstances, which is to say I will apologize. Witnessing this will do my children no harm and may possibly set an example they are not likely to see elsewhere. But I will also make it clear, as I must now make it clear to you, that I can no longer tolerate forced separation from my children.
I realize this is not the usual and, from your standpoint, preferred method of responding to a court order. I know that I am expected to hire a professional advocate to argue my case in a courtroom. Yet after prolonged and careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot pursue this course.
In the first place, to be brutally practical, I do not have the means. As a direct result of your ruling I was forced to resign my position, leave the only residence my family had ever had, and relocate here in order to be with my children. There is also something I find basically objectionable about any parent having to pay money to see his own children when he has been presented with no grounds for why they were taken in the first place. As with a conventional kidnapping, if I begin to pay money for this purpose, where does it end?
More to the point, it is not clear to me what I would argue in a courtroom, since not only have I have been accused of nothing; I have not accused anyone else of anything. In the absence of charges against me, I cannot and will not cooperate with an inquisition into my family life. It is also not my practice to discuss the shortcomings of members of my family with third parties, let alone to construct legal cases against them. Forcing me to do so as a condition of retaining my rights as a parent strikes me as morally equivalent to staging a cockfight. And again, I fail to see where it would end. Frankly, it appears to me that this entire process is designed less to arrive at any determination relevant to the welfare of my children than to provide business for associations of legal entrepreneurs.
Even more fundamentally, I cannot pursue this course because I cannot accept that you or anyone else has any grounds to intervene in my family and tell me when, where, and under what circumstances I may be with my children or to deny me the right to raise and protect them and make decisions for their welfare. In other words, it is not so much a particular ruling that I cannot accept as an unprovoked and unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over my family. You may reply that this was solicited by parties that include members of my family. Yet this does not alter the fact that it was done without any grounds whatever. It is equally true to say that some 30 years ago the armies of the Warsaw Pact were “invited” to enter the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, but this does not make it any less of any invasion.
I am also aware of the arguments against the alternative course of action I have chosen. No doubt I will be accused of inflicting an unpleasant experience upon my children by going to see them when I have not been authorized to do so. I have considered this at some length. It is this consideration, in part, that prevented me from responding in kind when my child was originally abducted from her home and before I was summoned to your court. I am sure that I was assisted in this restraint by the conviction that this country’s system of justice is fair and that justice would eventually prevail. (Yet I must regretfully note that this restraint seems to have counted nothing in my favor in your courtroom.) I would like to believe that conviction is still justified, though I am now convinced that this is more likely to be the case by refusing to accept your power to arbitrarily keep me from my children than by hiring a professional advocate to quibble over precisely how much you should do so.
I have also come to the conclusion that I cannot submit indefinitely to what amounts to a kind of blackmail, a blackmail rendered all the more heinous for holding as hostages two children and forcing a parent to stay away from them for fear of how others will respond to his presence. I trust you are familiar with the concept of a “heckler’s veto” and with its legal standing.
It is one thing to refrain from contention in the presence of children, which I have always done and will continue to do. It is another to acquiesce indefinitely in a crime committed against them. In fact it is precisely my concern to avoid further contention that leads me to take a public and open stand against this patent injustice rather than participating in a privately litigated battle that I cannot see will be to anything other than the detriment of my family.
The principal trauma being inflicted on my children is the forced destruction of their family and separation from one or both of their parents, a trauma that has been inflicted by your ruling. Given this, I firmly believe that, far from my harming my children, there are certain lessons in this that they need to be made aware of and that it is my responsibility as a parent to teach them. While I believe I have valid reasons as a citizen to disobey the law in this instance, I want to make clear to you that I also have connected but even more imperative ones as a parent.
It is my responsibility to teach my children that the proper course of action when faced with injustice is to resist and oppose it in a peaceful and dignified way. At some point they must learn that there are higher principles and a higher law they must always obey, even when it means they must break the civil law and accept the consequences for doing so. These are not only lessons that they can learn; they are lessons that they must learn and lessons that, in other contexts, we go to considerable lengths to teach them. In Sunday school my eldest daughter has already been exposed to the quiet courage of the Hebrew women, to the defiant stand of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to the public crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. In school she will soon be reading about the teachings and examples of Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As both a teacher of these ideas myself and a parent, I am acutely aware that there is no point in teaching our children one set of principles as being right in the abstract when we teach them the opposite by our own acts or failure to act precisely at the time when those principles are most needed to confront an injustice. It is perhaps unfortunate, but nevertheless unavoidable, that the circumstances of her life are now such that she must now witness the application of these principles sooner rather than later.
On the other hand, if I do not act I fear that the lessons my children are already learning are far more harmful than witnessing a parent peaceably and openly disobey an unjust court order. Virtually every principle of sound child-rearing is contravened by this immoral practice of forcibly separating children from their parents. For the sake of clarity and emphasis I will list the harmful messages I see them absorbing:
- They are learning that we put our own desires before the needs of others, including those we profess to love such as our own children.
- They are learning that children like themselves are not to be treated as people with needs and rights of their own, but used as tools and weapons in the quest for power and profit by adults.
- They are learning that ordinary family differences and disagreements are to be resolved not with love, understanding, and compromise, but with the courts and police.
- They are learning that the vows of marriage – and by extension all other pledges, promises, commitments, and agreements – mean nothing and can be abrogated when they are no longer to our advantage.
- They are learning that principles and values are something we adhere to only so long as they are convenient, and that we can invent the rules according to our momentary pleasure.
- They are learning that contrition and forgiveness mean nothing and that injuries to others are not to be atoned for and forgiven but nursed as grievances to be revenged when the opportunity presents itself.
- They are learning that when someone disagrees with us or has other ideas or beliefs than ours, we need not listen to him, even within our own family, because now we can use the courts to silence him and have the police keep him away.
- They are learning the methods of the bully, which in other contexts we attempt to discourage and protect them from.
- They are learning that anyone in their family can be eliminated when they fall out of favor – including, perhaps, our children themselves.
- They are learning that the instruments of the state and the justice system are not public tribunals for redressing public wrongs and establishing public justice but rather a system of hired force which we can marshal for private hurts, domestic differences, and personal grievances.
- They are learning that both the family and the state are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies for private injuries.
- They are learning that they need not accept or obey the authority of a parent – and by extension any other authority as well, including their teachers, ministers, parent, and eventually the laws and tribunals of the public state.
- They will learn that the police are not instruments for maintaining public order and protecting the weak, but hired mercenaries that we can marshal against members of our own family when we don’t agree with what they do or say.
- They will learn that the justice system of this country is not based on due process of law but instead rounds up and incarcerates citizens who are accused of no crime and uses the lives of innocent people – including children – for the aggrandizement of its own power.
- They will learn that a citizen of this country need not be charged with any offense that is actionable in a court of law in order to be summoned to one and stripped of his most fundamental constitutional rights.
- They will learn that the Constitution of the United States is a lie, and the Bill of Rights is a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by those whose responsibility it is to protect it from abuse by others.
I believe it is these lessons that account for the alienation and the adversarial relationship that so many children – especially the children of divorce – are now developing toward the justice system, the society in which they live, and their own families. I know that so long as these messages are being imparted to my children by those who seek to separate me from them and by the instruments of the public state such as your court (and by me as well so long as I acquiesce in your ruling) any attempt by me to impart contrary messages will be at cross-purposes with forces too massive for me to compete with and prevail against.
I am aware of a more serious objection to this course of action I am taking. This is the possibility that you will punish my disobedience by further reducing access to my children. This has indeed weighed heavily on my mind. The obvious rejoinder – that such an act of judicial bullying would belie any pretense that this process is concerned with “the best interest of the child” – is little comfort to me. As with other objections, this fear prevents most parents from responding as I have.
I certainly do value my time with my children, and am very reluctant to do anything that may jeopardize it. Until now I have tried to work within these constraints to have as much positive influence on my children as possible.
Yet I find I cannot remain content with this choice indefinitely, and in the long run I cannot hold it up to my children as an example worthy for them to follow. For one thing, I observe from the experience of many forcibly separated fathers that their allotted “visitation” is only one factor contributing to the gradual erosion of bonds with their children, and that it is not possible to be an adequate parent to children from whom one is kept separated by the police. Unlike some, I am not convinced that preserving or increasing my legally permitted time with my children, while still preserving the power to dictate the terms under which I may be a parent to them, is likely to make this system any less of an injustice or any less of a detriment to my relationship with my children.
To rest content with this would be to admit that this allotment of time you have decreed for me is really little more than what amounts to a bribe. Those who have more experience with the family judiciary than I inform me that bribery is widespread. I myself have not otherwise observed it first hand, and it is not my purpose here to make accusations. But in this instance I can see – and so can the world – that a kind of bribery has been openly offered and accepted. Vaclav Havel, the Czech former dissident and now president, has said that a truly corrupt system is one where the bribery is so systemic that it extends even to the public. They are bribed with material or other inducements to accept and acquiesce in a system they know to be corrupt and immoral. I believe something similar is at work here. Like many other parents, I have been effectively bribed with enough time with my children to buy my acquiescence in a system that is patently unjust, immoral, and illegal and one that reduces me to the status of something less than a true parent.
While I value time with my children and know it to be important to their well-being, I also know that the benefits it bestows cannot continue indefinitely and under any circumstances. At some point, as my children come to understand the choice their parent has made – that he has made his peace with a system that has robbed them of their most basic rights and needs in order to be permitted to “get along” with his life – the net effect will become more harmful to them than healthy. All the “visitation” and “custody” and “child support” in the world will not provide them with the parent they need if he bends his back and holds his tongue when he had the opportunity to stand upright and speak out.
There is, in other words, something here much more fundamental than disputes over “visitation”, “custody”, “child support”, and the other jargon of your trade. It concerns the unnatural power to take a child away from a parent they love and who loves them, to dictate to a parent who has done nothing wrong when and where he may see his children and what he can say and do with them, to invade and occupy a family and run it by judicial fiat. This is the arrogance of power. No parent can accept this and remain a parent. This is why I am acting.
Yours respectfully,
A Parent
This piece was originally written by Stephen Baskerville several years ago. It addresses the frustration that many parents face in a court system that is broken. It begs the question of how family courts, Guardians ad litem and the divorce industry can live with themselves at the end of the day.
If you have been involved in a divorce/ custody gone bad and for good reason please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Guardians ad litem praised for doing a poor job… and a pat on the back
Maine FLAC or the Maine Family Law Advisory Commission issued their recommendations a month ago. The opening paragraphs are filled with encomiums lauding Guardians ad litem and the work they do. It is hard to understand this high praise after the recent Maine legislative session which proposed significant changes in Maine's out-of-control Guardian ad litem program. The comprehensive changes were made by the legislature (after study) at the request of citizens, who had experienced a disastrous Guardian ad litem system, which, intentionally or not, inflicted great harm on children and families going through divorce and custody. There were extensive hearings, with heart rendering testimony of cruel and unnecessary hardship inflicted on families and outrageous financial charges for Guardian ad litem services. It seems inappropriate at best to laud services that the legislature, the governor, the bureaucracy and the public deemed in need of drastic overhaul. It might suggest to many that the Family Law Advisory Commission " still "doesn't know it doesn't know!"
Furthermore, it perpetuates claims of quality without any data to back these claims. Lacking data and minimizing the seriousness of the legislative study and subsequent mandate strikes us as a bad beginning to a review of Rules for Guardians ad litem. The tired old claim that it is about "disappointed litigants and heightened expectations" simply doesn't cut it with the public, the legislature and the governor. A half year of in depth legislative study, says that no oversight, no supervision, no enforcement of Rules, a non-functional complaint procedure and myriad other STRUCTURAL issues are the root of serious problems in the GAL program. Grass roots disappointment is secondary to a broken structural system that may work for GALs and judges, but it hasn't worked for the public. Failure to recognize this by the likes of the Family Law commission (and others in the Judicial Branch) is a huge piece of the problem! Recovery, they say, starts with admission of the problem - any problem.
A big piece of the problem is the continuing reliance of the Judicial Brach on "stakeholders," members of what we call "the divorce industry", who have a strong financial interest in the 'status quo'. Perpetuating problem solving by "stakeholders" perpetuates blind privilege and out f touch views. It is worth noting that the one "public" member on the commission reviewing "GAL Rules" is a member of Children First, a GAL dominated advocacy group. It is adding another "fox" to the "chicken house security detail"! There is a need for victims on this commission to help the Judicial Branch take a fresh, open look at things from a grass-roots perspective. Right now it appears to be more of the "same old same old" attitude.
Letter from Chief Justice Saufley regarding FLAC.
If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem, Judge or the court system - please contact MeGALalert@gmail.com. Or like us on Facebook for up to date issues. If you want to express your opinion on the Guardian ad litem there is an on going survey about Guardian ad litem performance and cost.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Welcome to the Judicial Information Super Highway
In many states the Judiciary is proud to point out that anyone can sift through cases that are finished. Only to do so will require going to the court house and going though dusty boxes of papers that have your case or the case of someone else..
It is a 19th century filing system in the 21st century.
Imagine going to a branch of your bank and asking for an account balance. The teller cannot give you your balance and that you must go to the branch where you made the deposit! Or you call your credit card for account information and you are told that they are counting your charges on paper slips. Your information will be mailed to you. Would this be acceptable? No - of course not in this day and age - you want this information right away and it is available. Electronically.
In our courts this just does not happen.
You cannot look up your case online (unless your case goes before the Supreme Court). You cannot see whether your Guardian ad litem is working on just your case or 50 others - because it is not online. What cases are being heard today in your court - don't go online to find out because it is not there. About the only thing that the courts have online is the address and contact information you need to get a court official in your court.
The Family Law Advisory Commission (FLAC) has come out with a glowing report for the battered Guardian ad litem program. FLAC comes out and indicates that GALs have played an essential role in family proceedings. That Guardians ad litem have been "instrumental in assuring positive" outcomes for children. FLAC goes further in stating that judges value the services of these Guardians ad litem highly. Guardians ad litem are responsive and professional as seen by the court system.
Yet where is the data to back up these accolades for Guardians ad litem? The data is in cardboard boxes sitting in the corners of our court houses. How many members of FLAC do you think went to our court houses to sift through the 'data' that is housed there? More than likely - None. In other words the data used for the report - much like the data the courts appear to use - is based on the "feeling" or subjective opinion that Guardians ad litem are doing a great job. There are no hard numbers. There is no data. Well there is but for the sake of repeating - that data is in cardboard boxes sitting in the dark corners of our court houses. All readily accessible by driving from court house to court house.
There is a demand for hard data in the new law...
Or….
The alternative is buying Chief Justice Saufley a speedy motor scooter so she can get on the Judicial Information Super highway and search those cardboard for that glowing Guardian ad litem data.
For more information please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or follow us on Facebook.
It is a 19th century filing system in the 21st century.
Imagine going to a branch of your bank and asking for an account balance. The teller cannot give you your balance and that you must go to the branch where you made the deposit! Or you call your credit card for account information and you are told that they are counting your charges on paper slips. Your information will be mailed to you. Would this be acceptable? No - of course not in this day and age - you want this information right away and it is available. Electronically.
In our courts this just does not happen.
You cannot look up your case online (unless your case goes before the Supreme Court). You cannot see whether your Guardian ad litem is working on just your case or 50 others - because it is not online. What cases are being heard today in your court - don't go online to find out because it is not there. About the only thing that the courts have online is the address and contact information you need to get a court official in your court.
The Family Law Advisory Commission (FLAC) has come out with a glowing report for the battered Guardian ad litem program. FLAC comes out and indicates that GALs have played an essential role in family proceedings. That Guardians ad litem have been "instrumental in assuring positive" outcomes for children. FLAC goes further in stating that judges value the services of these Guardians ad litem highly. Guardians ad litem are responsive and professional as seen by the court system.
Yet where is the data to back up these accolades for Guardians ad litem? The data is in cardboard boxes sitting in the corners of our court houses. How many members of FLAC do you think went to our court houses to sift through the 'data' that is housed there? More than likely - None. In other words the data used for the report - much like the data the courts appear to use - is based on the "feeling" or subjective opinion that Guardians ad litem are doing a great job. There are no hard numbers. There is no data. Well there is but for the sake of repeating - that data is in cardboard boxes sitting in the dark corners of our court houses. All readily accessible by driving from court house to court house.
There is a demand for hard data in the new law...
Or….
The alternative is buying Chief Justice Saufley a speedy motor scooter so she can get on the Judicial Information Super highway and search those cardboard for that glowing Guardian ad litem data.
For more information please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or follow us on Facebook.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Is this Child Endangerment or Just a Legal Formality?
On July 8, 2013 for the first time a bill was signed into law that attempts to control the actions of Guardians ad litem in the state. To control the Judicial abuse that many parents have to deal with as a result of a divorce and or custody in Maine. July 8, 2013 while Governor Paul LePage was signing that bill our Judiciary was displaying the sensitivity that it has come to be known for. A parent who has been battling the courts and his ex for prescribed medical treatment that his son is in need of had asked the courts to look at and address this issue. This was denied that day by the higher courts.
Can this be considered a form of Child Abuse? Is this why so often we find that Guardians ad litem do not report abuse to the courts?
This parent has the prospect of going to court to fight a system that is turning a blind eye to a problem. Better to push the problem off on someone else than deal with the problem now. Will the courts be held accountable if this child comes to harm as a result of this negligence?
Several years ago there was a case where the father of a child that hit a brick wall when trying to get answers from Maines department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It was in many respects similar to this case. He was told that the acting mother did not have Maine Care insurance yet (this from both the acting mother, Guardian ad litem and the attorney for the mother). It was discovered on a visit to the doctors by the father that the acting mother had the insurance for her half brother - and had it for several months. In trying to secure a card for his son the father went to DHHS directly only to be told because of HIPPA regulations they (DHHS) could not talk with him about his son nor could the father request a card for his son. In fact DHHS could not even admit that the child was even in the system to the father. The acting mother was asked to give permission to DHHS so that DHHS could speak with the father - this was denied by the acting mother. The Guardian ad litem did nothing to help. The father's lawyer became involved only to be told the same thing. That the father of the child was not entitled to any information about his son that DHHS had on file unless the mother or acting mother gave permission for this to happen. In effect the father - was being prevented from caring for his son - yet was responsible for the medical care of his son. Information about his son was being kept from him by a system that essentially was saying that who ever got there first was in charge - this was admitted by several DHHS employees that the father talked with. In the end the father through his lawyer was able to secure a Maine Care Card that would allow him to take his son for treatment. Was this necessary?
One has to ask - how can a parent do what is right for their child(ren) if he/ she is prevented from doing so. If information or services are denied to a child for the mear reason of hurting the other parent. In the end the parent that is denying access (or at least making it hard to come by) is directly hurting his/ her child first and the other parent second. In the current case that is going on the courts have been put on notice that there is child neglect going on as the child is being denied his prescribed medical treatment. Court officers are mandatory child abuse and neglect reporters who must take action to protect the best interest of the child. While the higher court in this case appears not to want to steal the lower courts thunder - this parent approached the higher court because the lower courts were delaying any judgement. This parent has the prospect of waiting months before a judgement will be rendered. Meanwhile this parent's child will continue to go without treatment.
If you have conerns about a Guardian ad litem, Parental Coordinator or a Family Lawyer please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or stay up to date at Facebook.
We also encourage you to take our survey on Guardian ad litem performance which can be found here: GAL Performance Survey.
Can this be considered a form of Child Abuse? Is this why so often we find that Guardians ad litem do not report abuse to the courts?
This parent has the prospect of going to court to fight a system that is turning a blind eye to a problem. Better to push the problem off on someone else than deal with the problem now. Will the courts be held accountable if this child comes to harm as a result of this negligence?
Several years ago there was a case where the father of a child that hit a brick wall when trying to get answers from Maines department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It was in many respects similar to this case. He was told that the acting mother did not have Maine Care insurance yet (this from both the acting mother, Guardian ad litem and the attorney for the mother). It was discovered on a visit to the doctors by the father that the acting mother had the insurance for her half brother - and had it for several months. In trying to secure a card for his son the father went to DHHS directly only to be told because of HIPPA regulations they (DHHS) could not talk with him about his son nor could the father request a card for his son. In fact DHHS could not even admit that the child was even in the system to the father. The acting mother was asked to give permission to DHHS so that DHHS could speak with the father - this was denied by the acting mother. The Guardian ad litem did nothing to help. The father's lawyer became involved only to be told the same thing. That the father of the child was not entitled to any information about his son that DHHS had on file unless the mother or acting mother gave permission for this to happen. In effect the father - was being prevented from caring for his son - yet was responsible for the medical care of his son. Information about his son was being kept from him by a system that essentially was saying that who ever got there first was in charge - this was admitted by several DHHS employees that the father talked with. In the end the father through his lawyer was able to secure a Maine Care Card that would allow him to take his son for treatment. Was this necessary?
One has to ask - how can a parent do what is right for their child(ren) if he/ she is prevented from doing so. If information or services are denied to a child for the mear reason of hurting the other parent. In the end the parent that is denying access (or at least making it hard to come by) is directly hurting his/ her child first and the other parent second. In the current case that is going on the courts have been put on notice that there is child neglect going on as the child is being denied his prescribed medical treatment. Court officers are mandatory child abuse and neglect reporters who must take action to protect the best interest of the child. While the higher court in this case appears not to want to steal the lower courts thunder - this parent approached the higher court because the lower courts were delaying any judgement. This parent has the prospect of waiting months before a judgement will be rendered. Meanwhile this parent's child will continue to go without treatment.
If you have conerns about a Guardian ad litem, Parental Coordinator or a Family Lawyer please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or stay up to date at Facebook.
We also encourage you to take our survey on Guardian ad litem performance which can be found here: GAL Performance Survey.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
An Act To Retain the Position of Parent Coordinator in the Judicial Branch - LD47 has died
Just in case you thought it was not true - here is the time line and links to the state website:
Senate Docket
Jun 3, 2013 Accepted Report ACCEPTED REPORT MAJ (ONTP) REP - PREVAILS
House Docket
May 21, 2013 Accepted Report ACCEPTED REPORT MAJ (ONTP) REP - PREVAILS
Committee
May 20, 2013 Reported Out ONTP/OTP-AM
This bill and the role of Parental Coordinator has been defeated. The role of Parental Coordinator will die out on Jan 1, 2014. If you consider what we were up against - Established and seasoned Representatives and Senators, Guardians ad litem and members of the divorce industry. They have power, money and influence and yet we were able to overcome this obstacle.
Senate Docket
Jun 3, 2013 Accepted Report ACCEPTED REPORT MAJ (ONTP) REP - PREVAILS
House Docket
May 21, 2013 Accepted Report ACCEPTED REPORT MAJ (ONTP) REP - PREVAILS
Committee
May 20, 2013 Reported Out ONTP/OTP-AM
This bill and the role of Parental Coordinator has been defeated. The role of Parental Coordinator will die out on Jan 1, 2014. If you consider what we were up against - Established and seasoned Representatives and Senators, Guardians ad litem and members of the divorce industry. They have power, money and influence and yet we were able to overcome this obstacle.
Friday, May 31, 2013
LD 47 - An Open Letter to President of the Maine Senate Justin Alfond
The following is a letter that was sent to Senator Justin Alfond asking for the reasons for tabling a bill that parents and the Judicial Branch do not want:
Subject: LD 47: Please, "kill" it!
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OF THE MAINE SENATE, JUSTIN ALFOND
President of the Maine Senate
Justin Alfond
Dear Senator Alfond,
Re LD 47 a bill to extend the Parent Coordinator program.
I am writing to add my name to the growing list of Maine people, who are distressed by the current turn of events surrounding LD 47. The bill seeks to extend the parent coordinator law until 2016, pending further “study”. It adds budget for a “supervisor”, and it seeks to determine if the program “has benefit”. We ask, “benefit for whom and judged by whom?” Are we talking about obvious “benefits” for Parent coordinators and lawyers, or “benefits” for the opposing public? To loosely paraphrase an expression from recent years, is it about protecting the famous 1% or the 99%?.
What is perplexing to growing numbers of the public is why this bill was tabled in the Senate- as we understand it from several sources, on orders from you through the caucus (on a motion from Senator Valentino). From whence comes the groundswell to save this bill? it is widely said that the groundswell for saving LD 47 comes from Rep Terry Hayes, a Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator herself, and Reps DeChant and Moonen, who were the minority opposing the majority vote to kill LD 47 in the Judiciary Committee. It is also said that there is a group of Portland lawyers, who have a financial and professional interest in saving the bill. It is last ditch lobbying by special interests for their personal “income preservation”.
Our question as observers is whether lobbying will prevail over the classical legislative process, which has voiced an opinion quite contrary to the “special interests”. We also can’t avoid the impression that by tabling a vote on LD 47, you are backing those with a “special interest” in it. We are also concerned that the proposed amendment to LD 47 is so shamefully bogus as to insult the intelligence of both the legislature and the public.
As we understand the amendment to LD 47, it proposes a supervisor (or coordinator) to have n unspecified role doing unspecified things with Parent Coordinators for a period until 2016. As you may be aware there are no job descriptions for the proposed supervisors or for their putative supervisees, nor are there any existing rules or standard for supervisor or Parent Coordinator supervisee, so supervision become a very mystical thing. What would the supervisor do in actual supervision without the guidelines of a job description or rules and standards? Furthermore, for whom would the supervisor of Parent Coordinators work (organizational chain of command)? How would “due process” issues be protected in district court cases? And ... finally, is the Judicial Branch asking for “Coordinators of Parent Coordinators? Have Rep Terry Hayes and the Portland lawyers usurped Mary Ann Lynches role? We have heard further rumors that LD 47 might be embedded in LD 872, Senator Dutremble’s bill. It would be shameful to do this. It would be like grafting an invasive cancer into a healthy body!
Even a superficial analysis of the amendment to LD 47 raises the suspicion that it is so badly conceived, from any functional point of view, that is seems to be a ruse on the part of Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator, Rep Hayes to extend the life of a bill that appeared to be going down to a well-deserved legislative death. Rep Hayes has a long experience in the Maine legislature, which makes us wonder whether this bill is offered by her friends in gratitude for her public service and to protect her financially in her old age?
The problems of Parent Coordinators are - if possible - even worse that the Guardian ad litem scandal. Like Guardians ad litem, they have no supervision, no oversight, operate virtually ‘ad lib’ for a year with no fee cap, generating huge fees that impoverish the parties. There are no rules and regulations, no standards. It is a gold mine for the Parent Coordinator - no wonder they are fighting vigorously to preserve this lush source of income. In our opinion it is a license to plunder.
LD 47 and its amendment ought to be “killed” asap! Please, use your leadership to do so. We join other members of the public with the hope that people can count on you to protect them from "special interest" abuse.
Sincerely,
Jerome A Collins, MD
Kennebunkport, Maine
To view the original bill LD47 sponsored by Representative Terry Hayes (Guardian ad litem). The Amendment to LD47.
Subject: LD 47: Please, "kill" it!
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OF THE MAINE SENATE, JUSTIN ALFOND
President of the Maine Senate
Justin Alfond
Dear Senator Alfond,
Re LD 47 a bill to extend the Parent Coordinator program.
I am writing to add my name to the growing list of Maine people, who are distressed by the current turn of events surrounding LD 47. The bill seeks to extend the parent coordinator law until 2016, pending further “study”. It adds budget for a “supervisor”, and it seeks to determine if the program “has benefit”. We ask, “benefit for whom and judged by whom?” Are we talking about obvious “benefits” for Parent coordinators and lawyers, or “benefits” for the opposing public? To loosely paraphrase an expression from recent years, is it about protecting the famous 1% or the 99%?.
What is perplexing to growing numbers of the public is why this bill was tabled in the Senate- as we understand it from several sources, on orders from you through the caucus (on a motion from Senator Valentino). From whence comes the groundswell to save this bill? it is widely said that the groundswell for saving LD 47 comes from Rep Terry Hayes, a Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator herself, and Reps DeChant and Moonen, who were the minority opposing the majority vote to kill LD 47 in the Judiciary Committee. It is also said that there is a group of Portland lawyers, who have a financial and professional interest in saving the bill. It is last ditch lobbying by special interests for their personal “income preservation”.
Our question as observers is whether lobbying will prevail over the classical legislative process, which has voiced an opinion quite contrary to the “special interests”. We also can’t avoid the impression that by tabling a vote on LD 47, you are backing those with a “special interest” in it. We are also concerned that the proposed amendment to LD 47 is so shamefully bogus as to insult the intelligence of both the legislature and the public.
As we understand the amendment to LD 47, it proposes a supervisor (or coordinator) to have n unspecified role doing unspecified things with Parent Coordinators for a period until 2016. As you may be aware there are no job descriptions for the proposed supervisors or for their putative supervisees, nor are there any existing rules or standard for supervisor or Parent Coordinator supervisee, so supervision become a very mystical thing. What would the supervisor do in actual supervision without the guidelines of a job description or rules and standards? Furthermore, for whom would the supervisor of Parent Coordinators work (organizational chain of command)? How would “due process” issues be protected in district court cases? And ... finally, is the Judicial Branch asking for “Coordinators of Parent Coordinators? Have Rep Terry Hayes and the Portland lawyers usurped Mary Ann Lynches role? We have heard further rumors that LD 47 might be embedded in LD 872, Senator Dutremble’s bill. It would be shameful to do this. It would be like grafting an invasive cancer into a healthy body!
Even a superficial analysis of the amendment to LD 47 raises the suspicion that it is so badly conceived, from any functional point of view, that is seems to be a ruse on the part of Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator, Rep Hayes to extend the life of a bill that appeared to be going down to a well-deserved legislative death. Rep Hayes has a long experience in the Maine legislature, which makes us wonder whether this bill is offered by her friends in gratitude for her public service and to protect her financially in her old age?
The problems of Parent Coordinators are - if possible - even worse that the Guardian ad litem scandal. Like Guardians ad litem, they have no supervision, no oversight, operate virtually ‘ad lib’ for a year with no fee cap, generating huge fees that impoverish the parties. There are no rules and regulations, no standards. It is a gold mine for the Parent Coordinator - no wonder they are fighting vigorously to preserve this lush source of income. In our opinion it is a license to plunder.
LD 47 and its amendment ought to be “killed” asap! Please, use your leadership to do so. We join other members of the public with the hope that people can count on you to protect them from "special interest" abuse.
Sincerely,
Jerome A Collins, MD
Kennebunkport, Maine
To view the original bill LD47 sponsored by Representative Terry Hayes (Guardian ad litem). The Amendment to LD47.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Has LD47 a bill to retain Parental Coordinators been killed? Or is it coming back to life?
LD47 has been tabled - this we have been told is done as a curtsey to those who might want to debate the issue. Or for legislators to be given a chance to more closely study the matter before voting on it.
One has to ask why this bill needs to be looked at more closely? On Feb 21, 2013 the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on LD47 "An Act To Retain the Position of Parent Coordinator in the Judicial Branch" most of it from families that had been hurt by the process. Old wounds were opened so that the Committee members could understand the experience. With the exception of two members the Committee voted that the bill ought not to pass (ONTP). Jennifer DeChant and Matthew Moonen voted for the bill.
The bill was killed - or so we thought.
The bill is back - despite being such a disaster of a bill. One that clearly favors Family Lawyers , Guardians ad litem (As represented by Toby Hollander President of the trade organization Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute - MEGALI) and current Parental Coordinators. This bill as sponsored by Teresa Hayes (Guardian ad litem) (Buckfield) had no shred of hope for families. It appears to be back with an amendment that would extend the role of Parental Coordinator out for another 2 years. This to give time to 'study' the effectiveness of this role and provide 'oversight'.
The bill and the amendment are an insult to the families and friends that testified to the experience of having a Parental Coordinator. One has to ask why those Representatives that support this bill hate children but love Family Lawyers?
To review the amendment to the bill: Committee Amendment
One has to ask why this bill needs to be looked at more closely? On Feb 21, 2013 the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on LD47 "An Act To Retain the Position of Parent Coordinator in the Judicial Branch" most of it from families that had been hurt by the process. Old wounds were opened so that the Committee members could understand the experience. With the exception of two members the Committee voted that the bill ought not to pass (ONTP). Jennifer DeChant and Matthew Moonen voted for the bill.
The bill was killed - or so we thought.
The bill is back - despite being such a disaster of a bill. One that clearly favors Family Lawyers , Guardians ad litem (As represented by Toby Hollander President of the trade organization Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute - MEGALI) and current Parental Coordinators. This bill as sponsored by Teresa Hayes (Guardian ad litem) (Buckfield) had no shred of hope for families. It appears to be back with an amendment that would extend the role of Parental Coordinator out for another 2 years. This to give time to 'study' the effectiveness of this role and provide 'oversight'.
The bill and the amendment are an insult to the families and friends that testified to the experience of having a Parental Coordinator. One has to ask why those Representatives that support this bill hate children but love Family Lawyers?
To review the amendment to the bill: Committee Amendment
Saturday, May 4, 2013
New Rule - NO Parent Coordinators Allowed in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Family Law
Remember earlier this year when I wrote about the Superior Court’s ruling that a party has a right to a de novo hearing for a custody coordinator’s decision? Well, forget all of that. As of today, April 23rd, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted Rule 1915.11-1 which states that parent coordinators are no more and the only judges have the authority to make decisions in child custody cases. The new Rule reads as follows:
Only judges may make decisions in child custody cases. Masters and hearing officers may make recommendations to the court. Courts shall not appoint any other individual to make decisions or recommendations or alter a custody order in child custody cases. Any order appointing a parenting coordinator shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective (Editor’s Note: May 23, 2013). Local rules and administrative orders authorizing the appointment of parenting coordinators also shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective.
The role of the parent coordinator was established and upheld by the Superior Court in the Yates decision in 2008. The revised Rule, which was adopted by the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee and after an opportunity for public comment, supersedes the case law and renders null and void any existing parent coordinator order.
Full story: Pennsylvania Family Law
Further reading:
Trial Court Must Conduct De Novo Hearings for Parent Coordination Appeals
De novo
The third standard of review is de novo, review as if the appellate court were considering the question for the first time. Legal decisions of a lower court on questions of law are reviewed using this standard. This is sometimes also called the "legal error" standard. It allows the appeals court to substitute its own judgment about whether the lower court correctly applied the law. If the lower court did not correctly apply the law, then its judgment might be reversed, except if the error is a harmless one.
A new trial in which all issues are reviewed as if for the first time is called a trial de novo.
Further reading: Wikipedia-Standard of Review
Remember earlier this year when I wrote about the Superior Court’s ruling that a party has a right to a de novo hearing for a custody coordinator’s decision? Well, forget all of that. As of today, April 23rd, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted Rule 1915.11-1 which states that parent coordinators are no more and the only judges have the authority to make decisions in child custody cases. The new Rule reads as follows:
Only judges may make decisions in child custody cases. Masters and hearing officers may make recommendations to the court. Courts shall not appoint any other individual to make decisions or recommendations or alter a custody order in child custody cases. Any order appointing a parenting coordinator shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective (Editor’s Note: May 23, 2013). Local rules and administrative orders authorizing the appointment of parenting coordinators also shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective.
The role of the parent coordinator was established and upheld by the Superior Court in the Yates decision in 2008. The revised Rule, which was adopted by the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee and after an opportunity for public comment, supersedes the case law and renders null and void any existing parent coordinator order.
Full story: Pennsylvania Family Law
Further reading:
Trial Court Must Conduct De Novo Hearings for Parent Coordination Appeals
De novo
The third standard of review is de novo, review as if the appellate court were considering the question for the first time. Legal decisions of a lower court on questions of law are reviewed using this standard. This is sometimes also called the "legal error" standard. It allows the appeals court to substitute its own judgment about whether the lower court correctly applied the law. If the lower court did not correctly apply the law, then its judgment might be reversed, except if the error is a harmless one.
A new trial in which all issues are reviewed as if for the first time is called a trial de novo.
Further reading: Wikipedia-Standard of Review
Sunday, April 28, 2013
The Inquisition is Alive and Well in Family Courts
The Spanish Inquisition relied on denunciations that were anonymous - the courts tortured and condemned heretics - depriving them of their worldly belongings. In many cases these heretics were executed as a means of saving their souls.
Several hundred years later we have the family court system that is alive and well in the state feeding off of the stress, pain and confusion of parents. While modern society has progressed beyond the physical torture to purify the soul our courts and officers of the courts have perfected psychological torture as a means to purify parents and keep them in line. It is warped thinking on the part of an industry that has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade as Judges have outsourced their powers to the courts underlings - Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators - modern societies inquisitors.
While the names have changed the role has not. Modern inquisitors (Guardians ad litem, Parental Coordinators, Family Lawyers and the special interests) use the power that Judges have lent them and expanded upon that gift. Taking common sense and squeezing every drop of sense out so that people entering the court system are entering a system that is twisted and insane. Where all the rules of human decency are thrown out and where hearsay is fact when uttered by Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators. No where else but in today’s court is it acceptable for people to burn a child, abuse them, deprive a child of their childhood and time with one or both parents. All of this is done with the shield of "In the child's best interest" being used to protect warped reasoning and violating your Constitutional rights.
Think about this - in reviewing the actions of your Guardian ad litem or Parental Coordinator how open minded have the courts been in listening to you? Do you really believe the courts and the Inquisitors that work for them will change? In almost 40 years of having Guardians ad litem mixed up in the court system the only solid change that has come about has not been for the child or parents. Change has come for the benefit of the Guardian ad litem at the expense of your child(ren) and yourself. To believe that the courts are now capable of reform and have the ability to move from the card board box age into the digital age of management and oversight and you are just kidding yourself. Change is in the air not because of the realization our benevolent courts system have but because those forced into the use of the courts inquisitors have started to fight back. Any meaningful change to the system has to involve all parties - or the system will fail like it has for the past 4 decades.
Please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for more information.
Several hundred years later we have the family court system that is alive and well in the state feeding off of the stress, pain and confusion of parents. While modern society has progressed beyond the physical torture to purify the soul our courts and officers of the courts have perfected psychological torture as a means to purify parents and keep them in line. It is warped thinking on the part of an industry that has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade as Judges have outsourced their powers to the courts underlings - Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators - modern societies inquisitors.
While the names have changed the role has not. Modern inquisitors (Guardians ad litem, Parental Coordinators, Family Lawyers and the special interests) use the power that Judges have lent them and expanded upon that gift. Taking common sense and squeezing every drop of sense out so that people entering the court system are entering a system that is twisted and insane. Where all the rules of human decency are thrown out and where hearsay is fact when uttered by Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators. No where else but in today’s court is it acceptable for people to burn a child, abuse them, deprive a child of their childhood and time with one or both parents. All of this is done with the shield of "In the child's best interest" being used to protect warped reasoning and violating your Constitutional rights.
Think about this - in reviewing the actions of your Guardian ad litem or Parental Coordinator how open minded have the courts been in listening to you? Do you really believe the courts and the Inquisitors that work for them will change? In almost 40 years of having Guardians ad litem mixed up in the court system the only solid change that has come about has not been for the child or parents. Change has come for the benefit of the Guardian ad litem at the expense of your child(ren) and yourself. To believe that the courts are now capable of reform and have the ability to move from the card board box age into the digital age of management and oversight and you are just kidding yourself. Change is in the air not because of the realization our benevolent courts system have but because those forced into the use of the courts inquisitors have started to fight back. Any meaningful change to the system has to involve all parties - or the system will fail like it has for the past 4 decades.
Please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for more information.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Out Sourcing of Constitutional Powers to Guardians ad litem.
Our Courts are asking for trouble in letting Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators decide whether a child(ren) spend more time with one parent over another. Parents should not be put into a position of having to prove whether or not they are fit. It is also an abuse of judicial power by the courts, Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators if you as a parent are in fear of losing you child(ren). Our Judges tolerate and are encouraged to outsource their role to Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators. These quasi-judicial officers will quite often force parents into expensive investigations and examinations. This is a violation to be free of governmental/ judicial obstruction in the private lives of citizens.
Maine's Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators have been working with no oversight or accountability. There are quite a few in the state that have pushed the boundaries of their role to the point of abuse - Judicial Abuse, Guardian ad litem abuse and Parental Coordinator abuse. Your rights as a citizen as a parent in going through divorce are no less because of the circumstance of divorce. Yet time and again we have seen the basic rights that we often times take for granted - taken away or worse given away. The courts treat criminals with more respect and take great pains so as to not infringe on their basic rights. Yet divorcing parents are not given this same respect given to criminals.
You as a parent can do something about this. We encourage you to call your representative and tell them your story of Judicial Abuse. That our courts have failed us and to put oversight of Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators into the hands of this system is placing accountability in a branch of government that lost any respectable vision of what is right or wrong years ago. Our courts pander to the special interest that we have entrusted with protecting out children. Parents as a result suffer and pay for this.
Our Constitutional rights have and are being violated by court officers. This has been going on for years. It is time to take back what has been lost because it is in your child's best interest. Please contact us at NationalGALalert@ gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date dialogue on reforming the Guardian ad litem system in the state.
Please call your representatives on the Judiciary Committee and let them know how you feel about proposed Guardian ad litem oversight through the private organization - Maine Overseers of the Bar.
Contact information of the Judiciary Committee
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig D Cape Elizabeth (207) 749-9443
Jennifer DeChant D Bath (207) 442-8486
Michael G. Beaulieu R Auburn (207) 784-0036
Matthew W. Moonen D Portland (207) 332-7823
Jarrod S. Crockett R Bethel (207) 875-5075
Linda M. Valentino D York (207) 282-5227
John L. Tuttle Jr. D York (207) 324-5964
Lisa Renee Villa D Harrison (207) 776-3118
David C. Burns R Washington (207) 733-8856
Charles R. Priest D Brunswick (207) 725-5439
Stephen W. Moriarty D Cumberland (207) 829-5095
Anita Peavey Haskell R Milford (207) 827-7296
Stacey K. Guerin R Glenburn (207) 884-7118
Wayne T. Mitchell D Penobscot Nation (207) 827-0392
Maine's Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators have been working with no oversight or accountability. There are quite a few in the state that have pushed the boundaries of their role to the point of abuse - Judicial Abuse, Guardian ad litem abuse and Parental Coordinator abuse. Your rights as a citizen as a parent in going through divorce are no less because of the circumstance of divorce. Yet time and again we have seen the basic rights that we often times take for granted - taken away or worse given away. The courts treat criminals with more respect and take great pains so as to not infringe on their basic rights. Yet divorcing parents are not given this same respect given to criminals.
You as a parent can do something about this. We encourage you to call your representative and tell them your story of Judicial Abuse. That our courts have failed us and to put oversight of Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators into the hands of this system is placing accountability in a branch of government that lost any respectable vision of what is right or wrong years ago. Our courts pander to the special interest that we have entrusted with protecting out children. Parents as a result suffer and pay for this.
Our Constitutional rights have and are being violated by court officers. This has been going on for years. It is time to take back what has been lost because it is in your child's best interest. Please contact us at NationalGALalert@ gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date dialogue on reforming the Guardian ad litem system in the state.
Please call your representatives on the Judiciary Committee and let them know how you feel about proposed Guardian ad litem oversight through the private organization - Maine Overseers of the Bar.
Contact information of the Judiciary Committee
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig D Cape Elizabeth (207) 749-9443
Jennifer DeChant D Bath (207) 442-8486
Michael G. Beaulieu R Auburn (207) 784-0036
Matthew W. Moonen D Portland (207) 332-7823
Jarrod S. Crockett R Bethel (207) 875-5075
Linda M. Valentino D York (207) 282-5227
John L. Tuttle Jr. D York (207) 324-5964
Lisa Renee Villa D Harrison (207) 776-3118
David C. Burns R Washington (207) 733-8856
Charles R. Priest D Brunswick (207) 725-5439
Stephen W. Moriarty D Cumberland (207) 829-5095
Anita Peavey Haskell R Milford (207) 827-7296
Stacey K. Guerin R Glenburn (207) 884-7118
Wayne T. Mitchell D Penobscot Nation (207) 827-0392
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Parental Coordinators and Judges Routinely Violate Parental Rights
Are divorcing parents being discriminated against by Parental Coordinators and the courts? There have been and are cases in Maine where there has been unwarranted removal of a child from one parent to another. In doing so the Parental Coordinator and by default the courts are preventing a parent from exercising their parental rights. These rights are protected substantively under the Constitution of the Untied states.
When a Parental Coordinator makes this kind of recommendation to the courts and the courts enforces this recommendation (as we have seen time and again) - placing a child under primary control of one parent. It is being done so through the use of unchecked and unsubstantiated use of the state's power. This is discriminatory and prevents a parent from passing on his/ her beliefs to their child(ren).
For more information please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date information and ideas.
When a Parental Coordinator makes this kind of recommendation to the courts and the courts enforces this recommendation (as we have seen time and again) - placing a child under primary control of one parent. It is being done so through the use of unchecked and unsubstantiated use of the state's power. This is discriminatory and prevents a parent from passing on his/ her beliefs to their child(ren).
For more information please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date information and ideas.
Monday, April 8, 2013
This country is not the only area
where there are very real issues surrounding the family court system.
In Canada – where there has been ongoing problems within their
family court system – the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that an
overhaul of the system needs to take place. That the family courts
have operated in a dysfunctional way for decades much as they have
here in the US. In this country though there is a resistance to any
kind of much needed reform from our courts and the divorce industry –
this is one of the reasons why in several states there is a push for
reform of the broken Parental Coordinator program.
Presented
below is some of the article from the Globe and Mail:
Report to Supreme Court chief justice calls for family law overhaul
An
unreleased report commissioned by the country’s top judge is urging
a radical overhaul of Canada’s family law system.
The
report to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, scheduled for release
next month, calls for restructuring the family law system from the
ground up, with a focus on streamlining the court process and ending
a fixation on combat.
The
report, from a committee headed by Supreme Court Justice Thomas
Cromwell, goes on to make more than two dozen recommendations,
including the creation of specialized judges who can shepherd a
family law dispute from beginning to end.
The
family law system has been under attack for much of the past two or
three decades over litigation that drags out and the destructive
effect of the adversarial process on couples who are vulnerable and
prone to go on the attack. And the inordinate costs of litigation
have led to a massive increase in the number of litigants who
represent themselves – now as much as 70 or 80 per cent.
A copy
of the report, obtained by The Globe and Mail, says that estranged
spouses and their children are seriously damaged by the adversarial
system; and that judges, lawyers and law schools must embrace a
culture of mediation and settlement.
The
ground-breaking report also recommends the imposition of painful cost
awards against litigants who behave badly or impede settlements.
Full
story: Globe and Mail
Additional
material on family law as presented by the Globe and Mail: SupremeCourt Leadership
For
more information and support please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
A Plea to Reject the Role of Parental Coordinator
On Thursday February 21, 2013 Maine Guardian ad litem Alert came out against the proposed legislation LD 47 HD 42 and sponsored by Rep Theresa Hayes (and Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute member - MEGALI). There were eight who spoke out against this bill. They were Dr. Jerome A. Collins MD, Mary Ann Lynch, Robert Baizley, Paul Collins, Meghan Spaulding, Roland Loranger, Diane Loranger and Senator David Dutremble. All had hard hitting points about why a Parental Coordinators role should not continue beyond 2014. What follows is the presentation that Meghan Spaulding gave to the Committee.
Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature
Senator Valentino, Members of the Judiciary Committee,
Re: LD47 HD42. sponsored by Rep Theresa Hayes
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to speak about an issue which has been of great concern to me and my family for several years.
Like Dr.Collins, I was blissfully unaware of the dysfunction of the GAL and PC system in Maine until five years ago after the first of two GALs was assigned to my post divorce case, followed shortly thereafter by the appointment of a parenting coordinator. At that time, I had never been involved in the courts, except for my divorce which was resolved in mediation outside the courtroom. I did not question the authority of the court to appoint a GAL/PC because I assumed they would be helpful in making sure that the best interests of my son would be their priority. Sadly, this blind faith in our justice system was naive and misguided and has been long since replaced by the bleak reality of a system that has eroded my parental rights and ignored the best interest of my son, and left me without any legal recourse or remedy. It is a nightmare that perhaps only Dickens or Hawthorne could have conjured along the allegorical tradition of Bleak House or The Scarlet letter.
Because we are here specifically for the issue of Parenting Coordinators (even though in my mind there is no difference), I will restrict my comments to my experience with the PC assigned to our case, even though I could speak volumes to GAL abuse just as readily, and am willing to share with anyone who seeks real consumer input after today's session.
After five years of post-divorce litigation abuse, I can see very clearly the collateral damage that is inflicted by a PC who is accountable to no one, and has no guidance or oversight to perform their job. I agree with all of the points of contention presented thus far by Dr. Collins and the other members of MEGALERT, including quasi-judicial immunity, "judicial outsourcing", lack of oversight and clear job descriptions, as well as the exorbitant fees and the potential to financially devastate Maine's families in their time of greatest vulnerability. It is truly unfortunate that the systematic lack of oversight has devolved the role of PC as one in which the PC's, according to the statute, were to be "neutral, third parties appointed by the court to oversee and resolve disputes" into a position that seems to be motivated mostly by ego, greed and profit by these lawyers turned armchair "therapists".
I never had a chance to meet the PC in my case before she was assigned and there was no way of looking up her name or checking a database to see if she had a record of success or to read what other parents had experienced. As a consumer, I have been taught that it is my responsibility to educate myself regarding the various choices in every service and profession that I elect to hire or contract for services, along the tradition of Caveat Emptor. No such due diligence is possible with GALs or PCs, since the lack of oversight and supervision has enabled the GAL industry to operate without producing any record of their impact, good or bad. They have been operating without the checks and balances that our forefathers created to protect citizens from abuses of power from any branch of government.
From the beginning, it was clear to me that our PC was more interested in expanding her role ("mission creep") into a mediator for our case than she was in her court-appointed duties as a PC. Afterall, she was a highly respected attorney whose normal hourly rate was in excess of $400 per hour, which was almost double the rate she charged as a PC. From the beginning, her involvement in the day-to-day decisions between my ex and myself was counter-therapeutic, as she would sometimes interrupt a reasonable request by one of us with her immediate decision on the issue, before the other parent even had a chance to reply and possibly work the issue out independent of the PC's opinion and involvement. Ultimately, my ex's indiscriminate requests for the PC's involvement prior to any good faith effort as outlined in our settlement became not only a financial burden to me as a single mother, but also a force of great detriment to my rights as a parent and citizen at the hands of our rogue and biased PC, who clearly did not like to be challenged on the scope of her authority or questioned as to her methods of practice and results from previous cases, which I had requested from her in the beginning of her appointment.
The PC was appointed before the summer of 2011, when my ex and I switched to a week on, week off schedule with our son, instead of our usual 2-2-5 shared custody during the school year. In the summer of 2011, prior to our final post-divorce settlement, we were instructed to submit our summer camp and vacation proposals to each other by May 15, with any disagreement to be decided by the PC. That summer I had full autonomy to decide what activities my son would be participating in on the weeks when he was with me in Portland. My son had a great summer. After our settlement the following October, we were bound by our agreement to submit our camp choices to one another no later than May 1, for the summer of 2012. The PC, who had somehow been reappointed to our case, in spite of her questionable methods and efficacy, decided that we could submit ideas on the weeks when our son was scheduled to be with the other parent, which was contrary to what we had done in the previous summer. There was no just cause for her capricious modification, except perhaps to increase her authority over the matter, which she had been trying to increase from the beginning, which was almost always biased in favor of my ex husband, who had plenty of money and political gravitas, as the then Governor Baldacci's oldest brother, to influence decisions both large and small in his favor. By late March of 2012, my ex husband was demanding that I give him an early decision on one of the camps he wanted my son to attend, because he was concerned that if I did not, the slots would be full by our May 1 deadline. Sadly, this situation could have been easily resolved by my ex husband by simply putting a deposit on the camp, which in almost all cases would have been refundable prior to June 1, and well before our cut-off date. Even though I had over six weeks before I had to submit my proposal, my ex went directly to the PC in an effort to invoke an immediate resolution and decision on the matter. I protested that her involvement was again, both premature and not in accordance with our mutual settlement agreement, but she proceeded to defend her jurisdiction and subsequent right to decide, in spite of my legitimate objections and lack of ability to pay her fees. On April 11th of 2012, the PC filed a motion to withdraw from our case and for an expedited hearing on the pending summer camp issue, even though it was still weeks before our settlement deadline. The magistrate granted her withdrawal from service but not until after she was allowed to file her recommendations for summer camp. It was an opportunity for the PC to inflict one last blow, and she took it with all her might. The recommendation she filed with the court used NONE of the suggestions I had for my son's summer, even on the weeks when he was with me, and required me to travel extensively to and from the various camps, sometimes up to 60 miles a day. By all accounts, her decision was punitive and because she had quasi-judicial immunity, there was no recourse for me to seek any just resolution. The impact of her decision was devastating financially as I could ill afford the cost of fuel for the miles I had to travel, and my ability to maintain full-time work was an impossibility and I lost another job as a result of the ongoing litigation which had been perpetuated by my ex and his attorney for over three years. As a result of the PC withdrawal, my ex filed another round of motions: for relief, modification and contempt. The modification was for full-custody and primary residence, and the contempt charge was meant as a means to procure the continued involvement of the PC, even though she herself stated in her request to withdraw that she believed her continued involvement would be "counterproductive and inefficient". It is worth mentioning that she never sent me a final bill, and resigned her entire practice as a PC shortly after she withdrew from my case. It doesn't seem fair that she was allowed to disengage so easily, while I am left to deal with her wreckage, and face the vexacious and abusive litigation that I am told is standard practice by my ex's attorney ending only when my son turns 18, or when I am so beaten down by the constant threats that I can no longer fight. My heart aches for my nine year old son, who is the real victim of this relentless battle.
The realization that the system has failed has been a long and painful awakening, to say the least. It is a profound disappointment to me personally and is a truly terrifying betrayal and deviation from the fundamental values of freedom and democracy that we share, and perhaps take for granted, as our birthright. The notion that the personal is political has finally come full circle for me fifteen years after first learning the concept as a student at Smith College. What was once merely a scholarly notion that held no real meaning for me has become a fully realized, personal mantra which calls me forth today out of devastation and silence to bear witness to this abuse and plead for your rejection of the poisonous proposal of LD 47.
Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature
Senator Valentino, Members of the Judiciary Committee,
Re: LD47 HD42. sponsored by Rep Theresa Hayes
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to speak about an issue which has been of great concern to me and my family for several years.
Like Dr.Collins, I was blissfully unaware of the dysfunction of the GAL and PC system in Maine until five years ago after the first of two GALs was assigned to my post divorce case, followed shortly thereafter by the appointment of a parenting coordinator. At that time, I had never been involved in the courts, except for my divorce which was resolved in mediation outside the courtroom. I did not question the authority of the court to appoint a GAL/PC because I assumed they would be helpful in making sure that the best interests of my son would be their priority. Sadly, this blind faith in our justice system was naive and misguided and has been long since replaced by the bleak reality of a system that has eroded my parental rights and ignored the best interest of my son, and left me without any legal recourse or remedy. It is a nightmare that perhaps only Dickens or Hawthorne could have conjured along the allegorical tradition of Bleak House or The Scarlet letter.
Because we are here specifically for the issue of Parenting Coordinators (even though in my mind there is no difference), I will restrict my comments to my experience with the PC assigned to our case, even though I could speak volumes to GAL abuse just as readily, and am willing to share with anyone who seeks real consumer input after today's session.
After five years of post-divorce litigation abuse, I can see very clearly the collateral damage that is inflicted by a PC who is accountable to no one, and has no guidance or oversight to perform their job. I agree with all of the points of contention presented thus far by Dr. Collins and the other members of MEGALERT, including quasi-judicial immunity, "judicial outsourcing", lack of oversight and clear job descriptions, as well as the exorbitant fees and the potential to financially devastate Maine's families in their time of greatest vulnerability. It is truly unfortunate that the systematic lack of oversight has devolved the role of PC as one in which the PC's, according to the statute, were to be "neutral, third parties appointed by the court to oversee and resolve disputes" into a position that seems to be motivated mostly by ego, greed and profit by these lawyers turned armchair "therapists".
I never had a chance to meet the PC in my case before she was assigned and there was no way of looking up her name or checking a database to see if she had a record of success or to read what other parents had experienced. As a consumer, I have been taught that it is my responsibility to educate myself regarding the various choices in every service and profession that I elect to hire or contract for services, along the tradition of Caveat Emptor. No such due diligence is possible with GALs or PCs, since the lack of oversight and supervision has enabled the GAL industry to operate without producing any record of their impact, good or bad. They have been operating without the checks and balances that our forefathers created to protect citizens from abuses of power from any branch of government.
From the beginning, it was clear to me that our PC was more interested in expanding her role ("mission creep") into a mediator for our case than she was in her court-appointed duties as a PC. Afterall, she was a highly respected attorney whose normal hourly rate was in excess of $400 per hour, which was almost double the rate she charged as a PC. From the beginning, her involvement in the day-to-day decisions between my ex and myself was counter-therapeutic, as she would sometimes interrupt a reasonable request by one of us with her immediate decision on the issue, before the other parent even had a chance to reply and possibly work the issue out independent of the PC's opinion and involvement. Ultimately, my ex's indiscriminate requests for the PC's involvement prior to any good faith effort as outlined in our settlement became not only a financial burden to me as a single mother, but also a force of great detriment to my rights as a parent and citizen at the hands of our rogue and biased PC, who clearly did not like to be challenged on the scope of her authority or questioned as to her methods of practice and results from previous cases, which I had requested from her in the beginning of her appointment.
The PC was appointed before the summer of 2011, when my ex and I switched to a week on, week off schedule with our son, instead of our usual 2-2-5 shared custody during the school year. In the summer of 2011, prior to our final post-divorce settlement, we were instructed to submit our summer camp and vacation proposals to each other by May 15, with any disagreement to be decided by the PC. That summer I had full autonomy to decide what activities my son would be participating in on the weeks when he was with me in Portland. My son had a great summer. After our settlement the following October, we were bound by our agreement to submit our camp choices to one another no later than May 1, for the summer of 2012. The PC, who had somehow been reappointed to our case, in spite of her questionable methods and efficacy, decided that we could submit ideas on the weeks when our son was scheduled to be with the other parent, which was contrary to what we had done in the previous summer. There was no just cause for her capricious modification, except perhaps to increase her authority over the matter, which she had been trying to increase from the beginning, which was almost always biased in favor of my ex husband, who had plenty of money and political gravitas, as the then Governor Baldacci's oldest brother, to influence decisions both large and small in his favor. By late March of 2012, my ex husband was demanding that I give him an early decision on one of the camps he wanted my son to attend, because he was concerned that if I did not, the slots would be full by our May 1 deadline. Sadly, this situation could have been easily resolved by my ex husband by simply putting a deposit on the camp, which in almost all cases would have been refundable prior to June 1, and well before our cut-off date. Even though I had over six weeks before I had to submit my proposal, my ex went directly to the PC in an effort to invoke an immediate resolution and decision on the matter. I protested that her involvement was again, both premature and not in accordance with our mutual settlement agreement, but she proceeded to defend her jurisdiction and subsequent right to decide, in spite of my legitimate objections and lack of ability to pay her fees. On April 11th of 2012, the PC filed a motion to withdraw from our case and for an expedited hearing on the pending summer camp issue, even though it was still weeks before our settlement deadline. The magistrate granted her withdrawal from service but not until after she was allowed to file her recommendations for summer camp. It was an opportunity for the PC to inflict one last blow, and she took it with all her might. The recommendation she filed with the court used NONE of the suggestions I had for my son's summer, even on the weeks when he was with me, and required me to travel extensively to and from the various camps, sometimes up to 60 miles a day. By all accounts, her decision was punitive and because she had quasi-judicial immunity, there was no recourse for me to seek any just resolution. The impact of her decision was devastating financially as I could ill afford the cost of fuel for the miles I had to travel, and my ability to maintain full-time work was an impossibility and I lost another job as a result of the ongoing litigation which had been perpetuated by my ex and his attorney for over three years. As a result of the PC withdrawal, my ex filed another round of motions: for relief, modification and contempt. The modification was for full-custody and primary residence, and the contempt charge was meant as a means to procure the continued involvement of the PC, even though she herself stated in her request to withdraw that she believed her continued involvement would be "counterproductive and inefficient". It is worth mentioning that she never sent me a final bill, and resigned her entire practice as a PC shortly after she withdrew from my case. It doesn't seem fair that she was allowed to disengage so easily, while I am left to deal with her wreckage, and face the vexacious and abusive litigation that I am told is standard practice by my ex's attorney ending only when my son turns 18, or when I am so beaten down by the constant threats that I can no longer fight. My heart aches for my nine year old son, who is the real victim of this relentless battle.
The realization that the system has failed has been a long and painful awakening, to say the least. It is a profound disappointment to me personally and is a truly terrifying betrayal and deviation from the fundamental values of freedom and democracy that we share, and perhaps take for granted, as our birthright. The notion that the personal is political has finally come full circle for me fifteen years after first learning the concept as a student at Smith College. What was once merely a scholarly notion that held no real meaning for me has become a fully realized, personal mantra which calls me forth today out of devastation and silence to bear witness to this abuse and plead for your rejection of the poisonous proposal of LD 47.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Zero Complaints Points to Larger Problems with Parental Coordinators
Ilse Teeters-Trumpy is an attorney with the firm Taylor McCormack & Frame and represented a group of family Lawyers that have come out in support of the bill sponsored by Terry Hayes LD47. Well spoken Ilse talked about why the role of PC should continue.
One of the points that Ilse brought to the attention of the committee members was the fact that out of 45 cases in 2011 that involved a PC there was not one complaint. While by itself this sounds like an amazing statistic - especially when compared to the complaints about GALs that the Judiciary receives on a yearly basis (average of 14) the number also told the committee nothing.
A broader statistic that we have heard is that since 2009 there have not been one complaint against a Parental Coordinator. As there are no numbers that the Judiciary has if we estimate 45 cases a year that would amount to 180 cases with no complaint.
Amazing! Does this mean that with a Parental Coordinator our courts have found a court officer and process that can sift through and in an equitable way come out with a resolution for parents that are in a highly charged and emotional situation?
The answer is - no. The reason - at least part of the reason - that there have been no complaints is that there is no process to file a complaint. Applying even bit of logic here - one would come to the conclusion that if there were no process there would be no complaint(s). Maybe the divorce industry is blind to logic? When questioned about how someone might complain it was offered that there was a possibility of doing so through the Judge that was managing the PC. Nothing though was stated that gave a firm process for which one could complain.
Zero complaints is not a number to be proud of. No process is so perfect to result in no problems. The divorce industry and Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) have been operating with blinders on and patting themselves on the back for finding a process that actually works. That Parental Coordinators who have no additional training above that of a GAL, no supervision, with no rules to guide them - manage to escape the kind of hot water that the states GALs find themselves in (who have rules - but no supervision). Simply amazing. Thursdays meeting opened a lot of eyes - lets hope that it also opened the eyes of those who came in support of the bill. Doubtful - but one can always hope.
Please contact us at parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com for support. Please feel free to comment.
One of the points that Ilse brought to the attention of the committee members was the fact that out of 45 cases in 2011 that involved a PC there was not one complaint. While by itself this sounds like an amazing statistic - especially when compared to the complaints about GALs that the Judiciary receives on a yearly basis (average of 14) the number also told the committee nothing.
A broader statistic that we have heard is that since 2009 there have not been one complaint against a Parental Coordinator. As there are no numbers that the Judiciary has if we estimate 45 cases a year that would amount to 180 cases with no complaint.
Amazing! Does this mean that with a Parental Coordinator our courts have found a court officer and process that can sift through and in an equitable way come out with a resolution for parents that are in a highly charged and emotional situation?
The answer is - no. The reason - at least part of the reason - that there have been no complaints is that there is no process to file a complaint. Applying even bit of logic here - one would come to the conclusion that if there were no process there would be no complaint(s). Maybe the divorce industry is blind to logic? When questioned about how someone might complain it was offered that there was a possibility of doing so through the Judge that was managing the PC. Nothing though was stated that gave a firm process for which one could complain.
Zero complaints is not a number to be proud of. No process is so perfect to result in no problems. The divorce industry and Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) have been operating with blinders on and patting themselves on the back for finding a process that actually works. That Parental Coordinators who have no additional training above that of a GAL, no supervision, with no rules to guide them - manage to escape the kind of hot water that the states GALs find themselves in (who have rules - but no supervision). Simply amazing. Thursdays meeting opened a lot of eyes - lets hope that it also opened the eyes of those who came in support of the bill. Doubtful - but one can always hope.
Please contact us at parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com for support. Please feel free to comment.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
LD 47 (HP 42) - An Act To Retain the Position of Parent Coordinator in the Judicial Branch
Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:30 PM, Room 438 State House in Augusta there is an opportunity for the public to let our representatives know your thoughts on continuing the role of Parental Coordinators. The current bill is slated to die on January 1, 2014 and for good reason this role within the Judiciary should be put to death. Consider the following:
Given the very real problems that the Judiciary has with its Guardians ad litem it makes little sense to create another role which will have the same issues from the start as Parental Coordinators. One also has to question why an organization such as the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) has been so involved with wanting the role of Parental Coordinator to be maintained in light of all of the controversy surrounding Guardians ad litem – which they represent. Is it a coincidence that MEGALI President Toby Hollander and member Tobi Schneider submitted rules for Parental Coordinators this past summer? Was it in anticipation of the bill Rep Terry Hayes (Buckfield) and MEGALI member submitted to retain the role beyond the January 1, 2014 date? We may never know.
The public has an opportunity to put to death a bill that has special interest written all over it. Killing the bill will send the message that the Judiciary and special interest should get its house in order before making any new additions. That any future additions should be well thought out and include input from all interested parties. Not just those who will be enriched by the process.
Please write to the members of the Joint Standing Committee on – Judiciary to let them know how you feel about Parental Coordinators and the undefined, under managed role they play in divorce. This bill was going to die in 2014 – we should let it do just that.
For more information and or support contact us at either MeGALalert@gmail or ParentalCoordinatorAlert@Outlook.com. We can also be found on Facebook or Twitter for more up to date information about what is happening.
A link to the schedule can be found here. A link to the actual bill can be found here.
Judiciary Committee List:
Linda M. Valentino D York County P. O. Box 1049 Saco ME 04072 (207) 282-5227
senatorvalentino@gmail.com
John L. Tuttle Jr. D York County 176 Cottage Street Sanford ME 04073 (207) 324-5964
SenJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov
David C. Burns R Washington County 159 Dodge Road Whiting ME 04691 (207) 733-8856
SenDavid.Burns@legislature.maine.gov
Charles R. Priest D Brunswick 9 Bowker Street Brunswick ME 04011 (207) 725-5439
cpriest1@comcast.net RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig D Cape Elizabeth 6 Russet Lane Cape Elizabeth ME 04107 (207) 749-9443
kmderrig@maine.rr.com RepKim.Monaghan-Derrig@legislature.maine.gov
Jennifer DeChant D Bath 1008 Middle Street Bath ME 04530 (207) 442-8486
dechantforbath@gmail.com RepJennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov
Matthew W. Moonen D Portland 17 Pine Street #2 Portland ME 04102 (207) 332-7823
matt.moonen@gmail.com RepMatt.Moonen@legislature.maine.gov
Stephen W. Moriarty D Cumberland 34 Blanchard Road Cumberland ME 04021 (207) 829-5095
smoriarty108@aol.com repsteve.moriarty@legislature.maine.gov
Lisa Renee Villa D Harrison P. O. Box 427 Harrison ME 04040 (207) 776-3118
Villa98staterep@gmail.com RepLisa.Villa@legislature.maine.gov
Jarrod S. Crockett R Bethel P. O. Box 701 Bethel ME 04217 (207) 875-5075
jarrodscrockett@gmail.com RepJarrod.Crockett@legislature.maine.gov
Michael G. Beaulieu R Auburn 27 Sherman Avenue Auburn ME 04210 (207) 784-0036
mike@mikeformaine.org RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
Anita Peavey Haskell R Milford 17 Pine Street Milford ME 04461 (207) 827-7296
RepAnita.Peaveyhaskell@legislature.maine.gov
Stacey K. Guerin R Glenburn 79 Phillips Road Glenburn ME 04401 (207) 884-7118
repguerin@gmail.com RepStacey.Guerin@legislature.maine.gov
Wayne T. Mitchell D Penobscot Nation 14 Oak Hill Street, Penobscot Nation Indian Island ME 04468 (207) 827-0392
waymitch10@hotmail.com RepWayne.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov
Governor Paul LePage
Office of the Governor
#1 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0001
- There is no defined job description for what a Parental Coordinator can and cannot do. There are no limits or boundaries.
- There are no rules by which a Parental Coordinator operates under or that are tied in with a job description.
- There is no training that is governed by a job description.
- There is no complaint process – The divorce industry and Judiciary will point out there have been no complaints against Parental Coordinators. For good reason – because there is no process to do so. We know of at least seven people who would complain against Parental Coordinators today if there was a process.
- This is another form of Judicial Outsourcing with no oversight or management by those who would be asked to do so.
- Parental Coordinators have immunity from any wrong doing and this is a problem because they essentially have immunity from everything. The role of Parental Coordinator has no definition as it would have with a job description to show how/ when a Parental Coordinator would and would not have immunity.
- The Divorce Industry and special interest groups have convinced the courts Parental Coordinators act with neutrality and no bias for the child or parents. No amount of training will make for a totally neutral person. Personal bias will enter into any process and taint any alleged neutrality that one may have. Parental Coordinators will act contrary to their mandate – this is human nature.
- There is no data to show how many cases current Parental Coordinators are handling and what the optimum case load is.
- There is no data to show if there are problems and where those problems are – for instance are there certain Parental Coordinators that have complaints against them. Or how many cases are being handled by any given Parental Coordinator.
Given the very real problems that the Judiciary has with its Guardians ad litem it makes little sense to create another role which will have the same issues from the start as Parental Coordinators. One also has to question why an organization such as the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) has been so involved with wanting the role of Parental Coordinator to be maintained in light of all of the controversy surrounding Guardians ad litem – which they represent. Is it a coincidence that MEGALI President Toby Hollander and member Tobi Schneider submitted rules for Parental Coordinators this past summer? Was it in anticipation of the bill Rep Terry Hayes (Buckfield) and MEGALI member submitted to retain the role beyond the January 1, 2014 date? We may never know.
The public has an opportunity to put to death a bill that has special interest written all over it. Killing the bill will send the message that the Judiciary and special interest should get its house in order before making any new additions. That any future additions should be well thought out and include input from all interested parties. Not just those who will be enriched by the process.
Please write to the members of the Joint Standing Committee on – Judiciary to let them know how you feel about Parental Coordinators and the undefined, under managed role they play in divorce. This bill was going to die in 2014 – we should let it do just that.
For more information and or support contact us at either MeGALalert@gmail or ParentalCoordinatorAlert@Outlook.com. We can also be found on Facebook or Twitter for more up to date information about what is happening.
A link to the schedule can be found here. A link to the actual bill can be found here.
Judiciary Committee List:
Linda M. Valentino D York County P. O. Box 1049 Saco ME 04072 (207) 282-5227
senatorvalentino@gmail.com
John L. Tuttle Jr. D York County 176 Cottage Street Sanford ME 04073 (207) 324-5964
SenJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov
David C. Burns R Washington County 159 Dodge Road Whiting ME 04691 (207) 733-8856
SenDavid.Burns@legislature.maine.gov
Charles R. Priest D Brunswick 9 Bowker Street Brunswick ME 04011 (207) 725-5439
cpriest1@comcast.net RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig D Cape Elizabeth 6 Russet Lane Cape Elizabeth ME 04107 (207) 749-9443
kmderrig@maine.rr.com RepKim.Monaghan-Derrig@legislature.maine.gov
Jennifer DeChant D Bath 1008 Middle Street Bath ME 04530 (207) 442-8486
dechantforbath@gmail.com RepJennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov
Matthew W. Moonen D Portland 17 Pine Street #2 Portland ME 04102 (207) 332-7823
matt.moonen@gmail.com RepMatt.Moonen@legislature.maine.gov
Stephen W. Moriarty D Cumberland 34 Blanchard Road Cumberland ME 04021 (207) 829-5095
smoriarty108@aol.com repsteve.moriarty@legislature.maine.gov
Lisa Renee Villa D Harrison P. O. Box 427 Harrison ME 04040 (207) 776-3118
Villa98staterep@gmail.com RepLisa.Villa@legislature.maine.gov
Jarrod S. Crockett R Bethel P. O. Box 701 Bethel ME 04217 (207) 875-5075
jarrodscrockett@gmail.com RepJarrod.Crockett@legislature.maine.gov
Michael G. Beaulieu R Auburn 27 Sherman Avenue Auburn ME 04210 (207) 784-0036
mike@mikeformaine.org RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
Anita Peavey Haskell R Milford 17 Pine Street Milford ME 04461 (207) 827-7296
RepAnita.Peaveyhaskell@legislature.maine.gov
Stacey K. Guerin R Glenburn 79 Phillips Road Glenburn ME 04401 (207) 884-7118
repguerin@gmail.com RepStacey.Guerin@legislature.maine.gov
Wayne T. Mitchell D Penobscot Nation 14 Oak Hill Street, Penobscot Nation Indian Island ME 04468 (207) 827-0392
waymitch10@hotmail.com RepWayne.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov
Governor Paul LePage
Office of the Governor
#1 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0001
Sunday, January 27, 2013
MEGALI - Special Interest - propose rules on Parental Coordinators
Since this post was originally run we have found out that the Judiciary has posted the comments received by the public. The names were included but the contact information was redacted. The link for those comments can be found here : COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING PROPOSED RULES FOR PARENTING COORDINATORS the document is 12 pages in length. The versions that we received are located at the bottom of this post.
The original posting -
On January 10, 2013 the Supreme Judicial Court gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for Parenting Coordinators. The deadline for those comments were on of before January 25, 2013. At the time that this is being written none of those comments were posted and it is not know whether or not any will be posted.
We feel that it is in the public’s best interest to know what is happening and why. That the rules, as they were presented to the court, were drafted by the special interest group – Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (the trade organization for Guardians ad litem). That Terry Hayes (a Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute member) has drafted legislation for Parental Coordinator to retain the position. There are many people in the state that have been hurt by these unregulated officers of the court – much the same as with Guardians ad litem – which both Terry Hayes, Tobi Schneider and Toby Hollander (Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute President) are aware of. What the rules and proposed legislation appear to ask for are the same qualities that Guardians ad litem enjoy – thus ensuring what is in the best interest of the Parental Coordinator for a case and not what is in the child’s best interest.
Common Sense, a job description, protection for divorcing families from financial ruin and looking at child endangerment are issues that are not addressed with the proposed rules and legislation. The state cannot afford a carbon copy of what it has with the mess involving Guardians ad litem. The rules and legislation appear as nothing more than serving the self interest of those who call or would like to call Parental Coordinator their 'profession'.
The fifth in this series of letters is posted today. The previous four are presented after with links to pdf documents. Any names and personal information have been redacted:
It has come to my attention that there will be another hearing regarding Guardians ad Litum this
week.
As I stated in my last email, I am a social worker and have worked on teams helping families who are
going through difficult times. My team works primarily with children at risk of removal from their
home. Many times, the underlying issue is the stress caused by the parents whether they are living as
a family or have separated. There are always mental health issues, not only for the child being treated,
but with the parents as well.
When parents who fought while they lived together separate, the issues become even larger. Often
times parents use their children as a tool against the other parent (so they will WIN) and horrific
allegations are made. Teasing through the truth is not simple or easy and certainly, attorneys or others
who do not have training/education in mental health treatment are not qualified to make these
assessments. The GAL might refer the parents, or sometimes, just one parent, for assessments but
these assessments are not enough to see the issues clearly. Attorneys and judges are not qualified to
interpret assessments or to dig a little deeper to find the real truths.
At the very least, GALs should be required to have supervision with a qualified mental health
practioner. Otherwise, an inexperienced person with no mental health background can interpret
information incorrectly. Often times, a GAL's personal biases will determine their final decisions. I have
seen this happen too often.
It should not take months and months for a GAL to make a determination. Again, with the proper
training and supervision, the truth will reveal itself. Dragging these decisions out only adds to the
stress and and increases the cost of GAL services, often placing one parent in financial distress. . AND
in the end, the decisions do not always benefit the child,
I am not an advocate of anger management therapies as these therapies address only one parent's
issues. There are two parents involved and it takes two to fight. There should be a thorough
assessment done on both parents to reveal the truths. Please take the time to obtain a Diagnostic
Statistic Manual IV (DSM IV) and read the information on personality disorders. You will find the
information enlightening.
Forcing just one parent into assessments, and having the information, right or wrong, included in GAL
reports which are being read by people with no education in mental health assessment, is also a
violation of one's civil rights.
I recently supported a friend through a hearing and when the GAL included new information about
the mother, the judge did not listen to the GAL and ignored concerns about the mother that were
presented. In this case, the mother has a serious personality disorder which affects how she is raising
their child. The woman presents well, but a trained professional is able to uncover the underlying
issues. The child has been "brainwashed" into believing his father will hurt him and the result is
depression and anxiety. This benefits the mother as she can say the child's diagnoses support her
concerns for his well being, and extends the separation of child and father.
The matter at hand is the welfare of the child/ren and it is certainly worth your time to educate
yourselves. Problems in childhood carry on through adulthood and the circle of violence often
becomes generational.
Thank you for your time,
Name Redacted LSW BHP MHRT/c
To read letters that have already been posted:
Letter to Supreme Judicial Court 001
Letter to Supreme Judicial Court 002 2013-01-29
Letter to Supreme Judicial Court 003 2013-01-30
Letter to Supreme Judicial Court 004 2013-01-31
If you would like more information on Parental Coordinators please contact us at: parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com or feel free to comment.
The original posting -
On January 10, 2013 the Supreme Judicial Court gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules for Parenting Coordinators. The deadline for those comments were on of before January 25, 2013. At the time that this is being written none of those comments were posted and it is not know whether or not any will be posted.
We feel that it is in the public’s best interest to know what is happening and why. That the rules, as they were presented to the court, were drafted by the special interest group – Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (the trade organization for Guardians ad litem). That Terry Hayes (a Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute member) has drafted legislation for Parental Coordinator to retain the position. There are many people in the state that have been hurt by these unregulated officers of the court – much the same as with Guardians ad litem – which both Terry Hayes, Tobi Schneider and Toby Hollander (Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute President) are aware of. What the rules and proposed legislation appear to ask for are the same qualities that Guardians ad litem enjoy – thus ensuring what is in the best interest of the Parental Coordinator for a case and not what is in the child’s best interest.
Common Sense, a job description, protection for divorcing families from financial ruin and looking at child endangerment are issues that are not addressed with the proposed rules and legislation. The state cannot afford a carbon copy of what it has with the mess involving Guardians ad litem. The rules and legislation appear as nothing more than serving the self interest of those who call or would like to call Parental Coordinator their 'profession'.
The fifth in this series of letters is posted today. The previous four are presented after with links to pdf documents. Any names and personal information have been redacted:
It has come to my attention that there will be another hearing regarding Guardians ad Litum this
week.
As I stated in my last email, I am a social worker and have worked on teams helping families who are
going through difficult times. My team works primarily with children at risk of removal from their
home. Many times, the underlying issue is the stress caused by the parents whether they are living as
a family or have separated. There are always mental health issues, not only for the child being treated,
but with the parents as well.
When parents who fought while they lived together separate, the issues become even larger. Often
times parents use their children as a tool against the other parent (so they will WIN) and horrific
allegations are made. Teasing through the truth is not simple or easy and certainly, attorneys or others
who do not have training/education in mental health treatment are not qualified to make these
assessments. The GAL might refer the parents, or sometimes, just one parent, for assessments but
these assessments are not enough to see the issues clearly. Attorneys and judges are not qualified to
interpret assessments or to dig a little deeper to find the real truths.
At the very least, GALs should be required to have supervision with a qualified mental health
practioner. Otherwise, an inexperienced person with no mental health background can interpret
information incorrectly. Often times, a GAL's personal biases will determine their final decisions. I have
seen this happen too often.
It should not take months and months for a GAL to make a determination. Again, with the proper
training and supervision, the truth will reveal itself. Dragging these decisions out only adds to the
stress and and increases the cost of GAL services, often placing one parent in financial distress. . AND
in the end, the decisions do not always benefit the child,
I am not an advocate of anger management therapies as these therapies address only one parent's
issues. There are two parents involved and it takes two to fight. There should be a thorough
assessment done on both parents to reveal the truths. Please take the time to obtain a Diagnostic
Statistic Manual IV (DSM IV) and read the information on personality disorders. You will find the
information enlightening.
Forcing just one parent into assessments, and having the information, right or wrong, included in GAL
reports which are being read by people with no education in mental health assessment, is also a
violation of one's civil rights.
I recently supported a friend through a hearing and when the GAL included new information about
the mother, the judge did not listen to the GAL and ignored concerns about the mother that were
presented. In this case, the mother has a serious personality disorder which affects how she is raising
their child. The woman presents well, but a trained professional is able to uncover the underlying
issues. The child has been "brainwashed" into believing his father will hurt him and the result is
depression and anxiety. This benefits the mother as she can say the child's diagnoses support her
concerns for his well being, and extends the separation of child and father.
The matter at hand is the welfare of the child/ren and it is certainly worth your time to educate
yourselves. Problems in childhood carry on through adulthood and the circle of violence often
becomes generational.
Thank you for your time,
Name Redacted LSW BHP MHRT/c
To read letters that have already been posted:
Letter to Supreme Judicial Court 001
Letter to Supreme Judicial Court 002 2013-01-29
Letter to Supreme Judicial Court 003 2013-01-30
Letter to Supreme Judicial Court 004 2013-01-31
If you would like more information on Parental Coordinators please contact us at: parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com or feel free to comment.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The Courts Reject Proposed Rules for Parental Coordinators
Where is consumer input? Toby Hollander of the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) was instrumental in drafting the current proposed rules for Parental Coordinators. Mr Hollander's MEGALI is the trade organization that represents the special interests of Guardians ad litem (GALs) in the state. The proposed rules for Parental Coordinators that Mr Hollander has submitted - look as if there was little or no consumer input. Given the controversy surrounding Guardians ad litem and the lack of consumer protection with them it is surprising that consumers were not more involved in the drafting of these new rules.
A Parental Coordinator (PC) is a Court Officer that is brought into a high conflict divorce and acts as a neutral party to bring resolution. In theory the idea makes sense. Unfortunately in practice this rarely happens if ever. There are no qualifications for a person who wants to become a PC yet they will decide which doctor your child goes to, what school he/ she attends and how much time your child can spend with you. The Parental Coordinator in your divorce becomes the parent – you become the child. With no qualifications other than being an adult – a parental coordinator will make life changing, personal, family and child rearing decisions.
What are the benefits of having a Parental Coordinator in your divorce? For the judge it means that you are no longer clogging up his/ her court room. The Judge sees a Parental Coordinator as a means of eliminating or reducing his/ her workload. Some would call this “Judicial Outsourcing”. For the Parental Coordinator it is an annuitized income that is for the most part guaranteed by the courts. For you the parent faced with this stranger and trying to make sense of a situation that can (and often does) become insane. You receive a large bill, a service that is of little value, frustration and anger.
The state currently has huge issues with Guardians ad litem and trying to correct almost 40 years of a broken system. The state and the Judiciary do not need to add another problem to their plate. On January 1, 2014 the role of a Parental Coordinator is set to expire and for many of divorcing families in the state who have had to deal with a Parental Coordinator that is probably a good thing. Fixing the problems that the state has in its courts should be a top priority – not creating another element to the divorce industry.
If you have had issues with a Parental Coordinator – for support please contact us at ParentalCoordinatorAlert@outlook.com. To view the current legislation to retain Parental Coordinators beyond 2014 (LD47 HP42) Download a copy of the proposed rules – links will only work in downloaded copy.
A Parental Coordinator (PC) is a Court Officer that is brought into a high conflict divorce and acts as a neutral party to bring resolution. In theory the idea makes sense. Unfortunately in practice this rarely happens if ever. There are no qualifications for a person who wants to become a PC yet they will decide which doctor your child goes to, what school he/ she attends and how much time your child can spend with you. The Parental Coordinator in your divorce becomes the parent – you become the child. With no qualifications other than being an adult – a parental coordinator will make life changing, personal, family and child rearing decisions.
What are the benefits of having a Parental Coordinator in your divorce? For the judge it means that you are no longer clogging up his/ her court room. The Judge sees a Parental Coordinator as a means of eliminating or reducing his/ her workload. Some would call this “Judicial Outsourcing”. For the Parental Coordinator it is an annuitized income that is for the most part guaranteed by the courts. For you the parent faced with this stranger and trying to make sense of a situation that can (and often does) become insane. You receive a large bill, a service that is of little value, frustration and anger.
The state currently has huge issues with Guardians ad litem and trying to correct almost 40 years of a broken system. The state and the Judiciary do not need to add another problem to their plate. On January 1, 2014 the role of a Parental Coordinator is set to expire and for many of divorcing families in the state who have had to deal with a Parental Coordinator that is probably a good thing. Fixing the problems that the state has in its courts should be a top priority – not creating another element to the divorce industry.
If you have had issues with a Parental Coordinator – for support please contact us at ParentalCoordinatorAlert@outlook.com. To view the current legislation to retain Parental Coordinators beyond 2014 (LD47 HP42) Download a copy of the proposed rules – links will only work in downloaded copy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)