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.