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 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.

As Proposed by Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) - Rules for Parental Coordinators

With little or no fanfare to the public the State of Maine Judicial Branch is asking for comments on the proposed rules for Parenting Coordinators (Proposed Rules forParenting Coordinators). A parental Coordinator is a “professional” Court Officer that comes in as a neutral party in high conflict divorce cases. They act as a mediator of sorts to help all parties involved to come to agreement. In theory the idea is well founded. In practice though the “profession” is wrapped in controversy – much like Guardians ad litem.

The Supreme Judicial Court is considering these proposed Rules for Parenting Coordinators. These rules were drafted and proposed by the Maine Guardian Ad Litem Institute (the trade organization founded by Toby Hollander - that promotes the special interests of Guardians ad litem within the state). At the same time there is a bill submitted by Representative Terry Hayes (D – Buckfield and MEGALI member) that essentially asks to retain the position of Parental Coordinators in the Judicial Branch (HP 42). The bill is to repeal the termination of the current law set for January 1, 2014.

We encourage the public to respond via email to ( lawcourt.clerk@courts.maine.gov ) in text or as an attachment (pdf). Comments must be filed with the clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court no later than Friday, January 25, 2013 at 4 pm. We echo the recommendations of the commission that reviewed these proposed rules – and that is to reject the adoption of the rules. We have had numerous complaints about the conduct of Parental Coordinators. Contracts that are unclear and the conduct that stretches beyond what the original scope of a Parental Coordinator. If you have questions or concerns about Parental Coordinators we encourage you to contact us for help and support at ParentalCoordinatorAlert@outlook.com