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.
Friday, May 31, 2013
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)