The Pro se Problem in Family Courts - Prarental Coordinator

Mary Ann Lynch
Government and Media Counsel
Maine Judicial Branch

Dear Mary Ann,

It was a pleasure to talk with you by phone on Wednesday afternoon and to share a few thoughts about the very troubling 74% ‘pro se’ problem in Maine’s family courts. 74% is a powerful number that speaks to a socially unacceptable differential status of citizens/voters in the face of  justice. My purpose in calling you was  to be a “catalyst” for broad based problem-solving concerning the ‘pro se’ phenomenon. It seems to be growing numerically by leaps and bounds, despite valiant, well-documented efforts by your associates to contain it.

To me, as a former public health planner, there appears to be a lack of data about the nature of this problem that would be a vital necessity in designing a strategic intervention to reduce this unacceptable 74% number. The problem of ‘pro se’ numbers also appears to suffer (paradoxically) from well-intended attempts to try to solve the ‘pro’ se’ problem with inadequate problem definition. It puts “answers to the problem” before adequate “problem definition”, and thereby places the cart in front of the horse. Without wishing to disparage the ongoing work being attempted by those associated with the Maine Judicial Branch and the Maine Bar, I would suggest that there are some serious planning questions that need research and study before seeking answers.

Here, in brief, are a few of my thoughts, a recap and elaboration on our earlier phone discussion:

WHAT SHOULD THE GOALS FOR  ANY ‘PRO SE’ INTERVENTION BE? In any thoughtful, large scale, organized government plan, one needs clearly stated goals to aim for- and to keep the movement towards goals on target. I would suggest- tentatively - that the aim for the ‘pro se’ problem should be to reduce the incidence and prevalence of ‘pro se’ as a phenomenon in Maine family courts - “to move the “numbers needle” backwards”. To use a public health conceptualization, one might say ‘pro se’ is a growing epidemiological problem. What is the “epidemic” about, how is it spread over Maine’s “at risk” populations, who is vulnerable, what factors are causing it, what exacerbates its growth, what diminishes its growth and what “interventions” might well organized data suggest would be most effective? To that end, I suggest a sample of some very generic questions that an epidemiologist might ask before intervening in any epidemic.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF MAINE’S FAMILY COURT ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Beyond anecdote, who are the 74% of people who do ‘pro se’’ in Maine’s family courts? What sort of demographics do they represent? What ages, occupations, education levels, financial status, duration of marriage, number of children, geographic locations, previous marriages/relationships, health/mental health status?  What are the reasons that they are  doing ‘pro se’?  Financial reasons (examples)? Or other reasons?  All of these data would be useful tools in shaping rational problem-solving. Without such data, solving problems can only be based on anecdote, guess work, personal impressions, prejudice and bias. Bad information, as everyone knows, leads to bad answers!

DOES HAVING A LAWYER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUTCOME OF DIVORCE AND CUSTODY? What is the statistical record for various types of outcomes for ‘pro se’ litigants? How do things go when one party has a lawyer and the other doesn’t? What factors favor what outcome when both parties have a lawyer? Are there statistics for law firms and lawyers showing records of wins and losses? How do ‘pro se’’, lawyers, and judges view the contest?

HOW DO ‘PRO SE’ LITIGANTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR COURT EXPERIENCE? Were they helped to do pre-court paperwork? Was the help that they received effective or was it confusing? Did they get help or coaching before going to court? From what kinds of helping sources? How do ‘pro se’ litigants feel about their courtroom experience?  Were they put at ease by the judge? Were they treated respectfully? Did they encounter judicial hostility or overt rejection? Were they listened to? How did they handle evidentiary challenges (“object, object, object!”) from opposing counsel? Were they included in all conferences and administrative issues? Did they feel that they received treatment in court equal to opposing counsel (if there was one)? Do they have ideas for simplifying the process for making it less time consuming, fairer and with happier resolution? How were they and their children impacted by the personal stress of the  ‘pro se’ experience and its  aftermath?

HOW DO FAMILY COURT JUDGES FEEL ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH ‘PRO SE’ LITIGANTS? What kinds of problems do they experience? What impact does ‘pro se’ have on courtroom procedures and process? What are the biggest challenges in this situation for judges? What would they suggest to solve some of the problems associated with ‘pro se’? Do they have suggestions that might diminish the incidence of ‘pro se’ ?

HOW DOES THE DIVORCE BAR SEE THE ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Does everyone in a divorce and custody situation need a lawyer? What type of cases may not need a lawyer?  What about pre-court legal “coaching”? What about paraprofessional lawyers? What about defining custody as 50-50 in all cases- except proven abuse? What other ideas? What about disincentives for lawyers? What about fee caps on all cases, or needing certification from a judge to bill beyond a certain $$ figure?

Please, do not take the preceding paragraphs as any sort of concrete proposal. The remarks above are offered only as possible examples of epidemiological data for use in a very classic, rational problem solving process. The questions are more to get a conversation about planning going- or to say, we don’t want to go there, because...

To my thinking, all three branches of government should be involved in any such a conversation leading to a plan for action. The core issue at the heart of the ‘pro se’ problem problem is about how we are to treat Maine families and children in the throes of divorce and custody. It is a question about the well being of a  sub-population of huge importance to the future of Maine. Interest in the topic goes way beyond the interest and practices of one branch of government and one profession. Ideally all three branches of government should work on the issue and should sponsor the supportive legislation to enable the work. As to the question of who might  best do such a study or variations thereof in the interest of the public, my vote would be for OPEGA; others might have other choices. My personal aim would be to eliminate the dominance of “special interests” of stake holders from the “divorce industry”, who have been the dominant players heretofore. They don’t represent the people.


I hope this gives a bit more flesh on the bare bones we discussed on Wednesday? It is still skeletal!  It is just a beginning of a much needed larger conversation.

Thanks for your time, your always valuable perspective and your in depth knowledge of the Judicial Branch - and Maine government.

Sincerely,

Jerry Collins

CC: MeGALert

If you have had a bad experience in the Family Court systems or with a Guardian ad litem. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Is this Child Endangerment or Just a Legal Formality?

On July 8, 2013 for the first time a bill was signed into law that attempts to control the actions of Guardians ad litem in the state. To control the Judicial abuse that many parents have to deal with as a result of a divorce and or custody in Maine. July 8, 2013 while Governor Paul LePage was signing that bill our Judiciary was displaying the sensitivity that it has come to be known for. A parent who has been battling the courts and his ex for prescribed medical treatment that his son is in need of had asked the courts to look at and address this issue. This was denied that day by the higher courts.

Can this be considered a form of Child Abuse? Is this why so often we find that Guardians ad litem do not report abuse to the courts?

This parent has the prospect of going to court to fight a system that is turning a blind eye to a problem. Better to push the problem off on someone else than deal with the problem now. Will the courts be held accountable if this child comes to harm as a result of this negligence?

Several years ago there was a case where the father of a child that hit a brick wall when trying to get answers from Maines department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It was in many respects similar to this case. He was told that the acting mother did not have Maine Care insurance yet (this from both the acting mother, Guardian ad litem and the attorney for the mother). It was discovered on a visit to the doctors by the father that the acting mother had the insurance for her half brother - and had it for several months. In trying to secure a card for his son the father went to DHHS directly only to be told because of HIPPA regulations they (DHHS) could not talk with him about his son nor could the father request a card for his son. In fact DHHS could not even admit that the child was even in the system to the father. The acting mother was asked to give permission to DHHS so that DHHS could speak with the father - this was denied by the acting mother. The Guardian ad litem did nothing to help. The father's lawyer became involved only to be told the same thing. That the father of the child was not entitled to any information about his son that DHHS had on file unless the mother or acting mother gave permission for this to happen. In effect the father - was being prevented from caring for his son - yet was responsible for the medical care of his son. Information about his son was being kept from him by a system that essentially was saying that who ever got there first was in charge - this was admitted by several DHHS employees that the father talked with. In the end the father through his lawyer was able to secure a Maine Care Card that would allow him to take his son for treatment. Was this necessary?

One has to ask - how can a parent do what is right for their child(ren) if he/ she is prevented from doing so. If information or services are denied to a child for the mear reason of hurting the other parent. In the end the parent that is denying access (or at least making it hard to come by) is directly hurting his/ her child first and the other parent second. In the current case that is going on the courts have been put on notice that there is child neglect going on as the child is being denied his prescribed medical treatment. Court officers are mandatory child abuse and neglect reporters who must take action to protect the best interest of the child. While the higher court in this case appears not to want to steal the lower courts thunder - this parent approached the higher court because the lower courts were delaying any judgement. This parent has the prospect of waiting months before a judgement will be rendered. Meanwhile this parent's child will continue to go without treatment.

If you have conerns about a Guardian ad litem, Parental Coordinator or a Family Lawyer please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or stay up to date at Facebook.

We also encourage you to take our survey on Guardian ad litem performance which can be found here: GAL Performance Survey.

An Act To Retain the Position of Parent Coordinator in the Judicial Branch - LD47 has died

Just in case you thought it was not true - here is the time line and links to the state website:

Senate Docket
Jun 3, 2013    Accepted Report    ACCEPTED REPORT MAJ (ONTP) REP - PREVAILS

House Docket
May 21, 2013    Accepted Report    ACCEPTED REPORT MAJ (ONTP) REP - PREVAILS

Committee
May 20, 2013    Reported Out    ONTP/OTP-AM

This bill and the role of Parental Coordinator has been defeated. The role of Parental Coordinator will die out on Jan 1, 2014. If you consider what we were up against - Established and seasoned Representatives and Senators, Guardians ad litem and members of the divorce industry. They have power, money and influence and yet we were able to overcome this obstacle.

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.

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

The Inquisition is Alive and Well in Family Courts

The Spanish Inquisition relied on denunciations that were anonymous - the courts tortured and condemned heretics - depriving them of their worldly belongings. In many cases these heretics were executed as a means of saving their souls.

Several hundred years later we have the family court system that is alive and well in the state feeding off of the stress, pain and confusion of parents. While modern society has progressed beyond the physical torture to purify the soul our courts and officers of the courts have perfected psychological torture as a means to purify parents and keep them in line. It is warped thinking on the part of an industry that has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade as Judges have outsourced their powers to the courts underlings - Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators - modern societies inquisitors.

While the names have changed the role has not. Modern inquisitors (Guardians ad litem, Parental Coordinators, Family Lawyers and the special interests) use the power that Judges have lent them and expanded upon that gift. Taking common sense and squeezing every drop of sense out so that people entering the court system are entering a system that is twisted and insane. Where all the rules of human decency are thrown out and where hearsay is fact when uttered by Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators. No where else but in today’s court is it acceptable for people to burn a child, abuse them, deprive a child of their childhood and time with one or both parents. All of this is done with the shield of "In the child's best interest" being used to protect warped reasoning and violating your Constitutional rights.

Think about this - in reviewing the actions of your Guardian ad litem or Parental Coordinator how open minded have the courts been in listening to you? Do you really believe the courts and the Inquisitors that work for them will change? In almost 40 years of having Guardians ad litem mixed up in the court system the only solid change that has come about has not been for the child or parents. Change has come for the benefit of the Guardian ad litem at the expense of your child(ren) and yourself. To believe that the courts are now capable of reform and have the ability to move from the card board box age into the digital age of management and oversight and you are just kidding yourself. Change is in the air not because of the realization our benevolent courts system have but because those forced into the use of the courts inquisitors have started to fight back. Any meaningful change to the system has to involve all parties - or the system will fail like it has for the past 4 decades.

Please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for more information.

Out Sourcing of Constitutional Powers to Guardians ad litem.

Our Courts are asking for trouble in letting Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators decide whether a child(ren) spend  more time with one parent over another. Parents should not be put into a position of having to prove whether or not they are fit. It is also an abuse of judicial power by the courts, Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators if you as a parent are in fear of losing you child(ren). Our Judges tolerate and are encouraged to outsource their role to Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators. These quasi-judicial officers will quite often force parents into expensive investigations and examinations. This is a violation to be free of governmental/ judicial obstruction in the private lives of citizens.

Maine's Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators have been working with no oversight or accountability. There are quite a few in the state that have pushed the boundaries of their role to the point of abuse - Judicial Abuse, Guardian ad litem abuse and Parental Coordinator abuse. Your rights as a citizen as a parent in going through divorce are no less because of the circumstance of divorce. Yet time and again we have seen the basic rights that we often times take for granted - taken away or worse given away. The courts treat criminals with more respect and take great pains so as to not infringe on their basic rights. Yet divorcing parents are not given this same respect given to criminals.

You as a parent can do something about this. We encourage you to call your representative and tell them your story of Judicial Abuse. That our courts have failed us and to put oversight of Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators into the hands of this system is placing accountability in a branch of government that lost any respectable vision of what is right or wrong years ago. Our courts pander to the special interest that we have entrusted with protecting out children. Parents as a result suffer and pay for this.

Our Constitutional rights have and are being violated by court officers. This has been going on for years. It is time to take back what has been lost because it is in your child's best interest. Please contact us at NationalGALalert@ gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date dialogue on reforming the Guardian ad litem system in the state.

Please call your representatives on the Judiciary Committee and let them know how you feel about proposed Guardian ad litem oversight through the private organization - Maine Overseers of the Bar.


Contact information of the Judiciary Committee
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig    D Cape Elizabeth  (207) 749-9443
Jennifer  DeChant    D Bath          (207) 442-8486
Michael G. Beaulieu    R Auburn      (207) 784-0036
Matthew W. Moonen    D Portland      (207) 332-7823

Jarrod S. Crockett    R Bethel          (207) 875-5075

Linda M. Valentino    D York          (207) 282-5227
John L. Tuttle Jr.    D York         (207) 324-5964
Lisa Renee Villa    D Harrison          (207) 776-3118
David C. Burns        R Washington     (207) 733-8856
Charles R. Priest    D Brunswick      (207) 725-5439

Stephen W. Moriarty    D Cumberland      (207) 829-5095
Anita  Peavey Haskell    R Milford      (207) 827-7296
Stacey K. Guerin    R Glenburn          (207) 884-7118
Wayne T. Mitchell    D Penobscot Nation      (207) 827-0392

Parental Coordinators and Judges Routinely Violate Parental Rights

Are divorcing parents being discriminated against by Parental Coordinators and the courts? There have been and are cases in Maine where there has been unwarranted removal of a child from one parent to another. In doing so the Parental Coordinator and by default the courts are preventing a parent from exercising their parental rights. These rights are protected substantively under the Constitution of the Untied states.

When a Parental Coordinator makes this kind of recommendation to the courts and the courts enforces this recommendation (as we have seen time and again) - placing a child under primary control of one parent. It is being done so through the use of unchecked and unsubstantiated use of the state's power. This is discriminatory and prevents a parent from passing on his/ her beliefs to their child(ren).

For more information please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date information and ideas.

This country is not the only area where there are very real issues surrounding the family court system. In Canada – where there has been ongoing problems within their family court system – the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that an overhaul of the system needs to take place. That the family courts have operated in a dysfunctional way for decades much as they have here in the US. In this country though there is a resistance to any kind of much needed reform from our courts and the divorce industry – this is one of the reasons why in several states there is a push for reform of the broken Parental Coordinator program.

Presented below is some of the article from the Globe and Mail:

Report to Supreme Court chief justice calls for family law overhaul

An unreleased report commissioned by the country’s top judge is urging a radical overhaul of Canada’s family law system.

The report to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, scheduled for release next month, calls for restructuring the family law system from the ground up, with a focus on streamlining the court process and ending a fixation on combat.

The report, from a committee headed by Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell, goes on to make more than two dozen recommendations, including the creation of specialized judges who can shepherd a family law dispute from beginning to end.

The family law system has been under attack for much of the past two or three decades over litigation that drags out and the destructive effect of the adversarial process on couples who are vulnerable and prone to go on the attack. And the inordinate costs of litigation have led to a massive increase in the number of litigants who represent themselves – now as much as 70 or 80 per cent.

A copy of the report, obtained by The Globe and Mail, says that estranged spouses and their children are seriously damaged by the adversarial system; and that judges, lawyers and law schools must embrace a culture of mediation and settlement.

The ground-breaking report also recommends the imposition of painful cost awards against litigants who behave badly or impede settlements.

Full story: Globe and Mail

Additional material on family law as presented by the Globe and Mail: SupremeCourt Leadership

For more information and support please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

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.

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