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:

1. There is no defined job description for what a Parental Coordinator can and cannot do. There are no limits or boundaries.
2. There are no rules by which a Parental Coordinator operates under or that are tied in with a job description.
3. There is no training that is governed by a job description.
4. 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.
5. This is another form of Judicial Outsourcing with no oversight or management by those who would be asked to do so.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. There is no data to show how many cases current Parental Coordinators are handling and what the optimum case load is.
9. 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

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