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.
Showing posts with label Terry Hayes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terry Hayes. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
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
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.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)