Hon. Leigh Saufley
Chief Justice
Maine Supreme Court
Dear Chief Justice Sauflley,
I am responding to the request from the Judicial Branch for comments from the public on the proposed “new” Rules for Guardians ad litem. In my opinion, they are badly off the mark, if their aim is to help the majority of those public consumers, who might use them to understand how GAL’s function and how to make a complaint about a GAL’s defective performance. Perhaps unintentionally, they seem to distort the aims of the Maine legislature and the Governor who created the law in 2013. The Dutremble law was aimed at clarifying GAL functioning with appropriate boundaries and protecting consumers of Guardian ad litem services from abuse by GAL practitioners. The proposed “new” Rules, as I read them, shift aim and focus of the 2013 Dutremble law, and, by proposed regulation seem designed to defend and protect GALs, as members of “the legal guild”. Self-represented consumers of service are out of the picture altogether.
The proposed “new” Rules are lengthy (77 pages), often ambiguous and subject to many escape clauses. There are many statements in the Rules that are followed by exceptions to the rule. This oppositional duality throughout the Rules neutralizes and confuses the intent, meaning and strength of the initial rule, and it probably reflects the anxiety of “stake holders” on the working committee, who created the document. They may not want to be hampered or hemmed in by any Rules.
The section dealing with consumer complaints (see page 35 RULE 9. Guardian ad litem Review Board Complaint System) about GAL services is written in complex legal language, full of references to other laws, unfamiliar to the general public. It prescribes a labyrinthine, multi layered procedure for making a complaint. Even relatively trivial, minor complaints must follow this protocol. As I read it and imagined using it myself in a ‘pro se’ effort, I felt shut out and stymied. The complaint procedure is written by lawyers for lawyers. It also proposes that all consumer complaints be managed by the lawyers'’ “guild”, the Overseers of the Bar, considered a formidable entity by most of the public. The complaint procedure is an airtight, legalistic, time-consuming, intimidating piece of work that virtually no untrained, unrepresented “consumer” will be able to use to complain about service. Preventing complaints from self-represented members of the public appears to be its purpose. Kill all public complaints with legalistic complexity. "Pro se" be damned, is the message I read!
The most troubling problem is represented by the authorship of the proposal “new” Rules for GALs. It appears to be the work of a “Stakeholder’s committee”, almost exclusively members of the powerful “divorce industry”. The authors show no consideration for how a ‘pro se’ (self represented person) is supposed to use the arcane, complaint “tool”. As you reported to me earlier this year, a startling 74% of family court users are ‘pro se’. It is being proposed by “stockholders”, who authored it, that this 74% majority be given a complex, “legal tool” that they will be unable to use in making a complaint about GAL service. The Rules, as a tool, by their complexity, would exclude the majority of public users from making a complaint on their own. Shouldn’t ‘pro se’ persons also be considered significant “stakeholders”? Their stakes are their children, their time and their life savings; not professional financial advantage. Their kids are priceless to them (and to all of us) and represent future, valuable human resources for Maine. Why are ‘pro se’ stakeholders denied a seat at the table that would reflect their proportional, numerical dominance in courts? It might be viewed as an exclusionary problem of vast proportions that needs correction in the interest of public fairness, and in the interests of reality. It is an awkward commentary on family courts in a democratic society.
We need to understand the present reality that Family courts at this time are no longer the exclusively purview of an elite, professional group of the legal profession when 74% of users are self-represented non-lawyers! It is time for everyone to awaken to these startling facts and address the major, unstoppable systems change that is going on right now!
It also should be noted that the public complaint protocol is the only “quality assurance” mechanism for the public governing the actions of Guardians ad litem. Without supervision, with just 18 hours of “education”, with quasi judicial immunity, with no meaningful “oversight”, a complaint from a consumer is the only way to request major or minor “corrective action” for a malfunctioning GAL. If this procedure is so complex as to be unusable by non-lawyers, GALs are essentially in a position of being granted secular infallibility by the Judicial Branch. One has to ask rhetorically: “Don’t GALs ever need some form of correction; are they always “perfect?” Can’t one find a more responsible way to correct and improve their function?
My opinion is that the Judicial Branch needs to go back to the drawing board and begin again in writing new Rules for GALs. It needs to include proportionally the biggest group of players in family courts, the 74% ‘pro se’ users, on any planning committee addressing “officers of the court”. It needs to approach the whole issue of GAL management in a much less defensive, overprotective manner. It needs to listen to and care about the systemic changes catalyzed by amazing numbers of ‘pro se’ representatives. The present document is “tone deaf” to ‘pro se’. Is this its aim, or is it impossible for the Judicial Branch to escape the political influence and power of the divorce bar?
We sincerely hope this document can be rewritten in tune with current realities, and with participation of those who are major users of the GAL system. Would it help the Judicial Branch to overcome the powerful, internal, self-serving, lobbying politics of the “divorce industry Bar”, if there were to be grass roots legislation empowering ‘pro se’ representatives on JB committees and throughout the family court system?
Your 74% ‘pro se’ statistic is a powerful number that cries for legal fairness and appropriate democratic empowerment!
Sincerely,
Jerome A Collins, MD
Kennebunkport, Maine
For further information on the Family Court and divorce industry crisis please email at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
For further reading:
2014-05-28 PROPOSAL FOR AN AUDIT OF ‘PRO SE’ REPRESENTATION IN MAINE FAMILY COURTS
2014-03-18 Maine Voices: We must work together to ensure justice truly is for all in Maine - a response
Showing posts with label oversight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oversight. Show all posts
Monday, September 1, 2014
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
This is why I am disobeying your order - An open letter to a Judge
Dear Judge,
Two years ago I appeared in your court. I was summoned there with only a few hours notice and appeared without a lawyer. Though no charges were pronounced against me, you legally removed my child from my care and protection, eliminated my right to make any decisions about her, and ordered me to stay away from her most of the time.
From what I have been able to gather about such proceedings, this outcome was nothing out of the ordinary. In fact it quickly became apparent to me that this outcome came very close to being decided in advance. What precisely was said during this brief hearing seems to have made very little difference. As it began, a gentleman who did not know me proceeded to assassinate my character as confidently as if he had personally witnessed each item in his litany of my imperfections. While again, there were no specific charges and nothing legally actionable, it was clear that his role was to translate somewhat vague private grievances against me into a formula that would appear to justify taking away my child.
What struck me at the time was how quickly and effortlessly a child was removed from the care and protection of her parent and her life carved up as if it were the bookings of a holiday cottage. Such and such days she would spend with the non-custodial parent, the rest with the custodial parent. You asked very few questions and sought very little information. The hearing was very brief, and suddenly, I was told, it was over. During the hearing I was allowed to speak very little and interrupted every time I tried. There seemed to be no burden of proof on those who sought to separate me from my child.
I realize that, given the number of similar cases that come before you, you issue these rulings as a matter of routine. I would not be surprised if you have no recollection of this particular case. Nevertheless, for me it was an eye-opening experience and probably the most important thirty minutes or so of my life.
You did not strike me as an unusually malicious or callous person. I am told you are considered among the more favorable judges for parents, and that the time you assigned permitting me to be with my children is relatively generous.
All this may be true. Yet it has also become apparent to me that what I witnessed in your courtroom was a tiny part of a vast system of largely impersonal and unaccountable power that was previously unknown to me, as it still is to most citizens. I am fully aware that you did not create this system and that you yourself may have very little control over it. Nevertheless you are a principal and active participant. So vast and so routine has this power become that you are able, with no background information and in a hearing lasting only a few minutes, to permanently separate a child from a parent without any indication that you were aware of the gravity of what you were doing.
While this central act was disturbing enough, what was again striking were the questions that were not asked, the subjects that were not brought up, the consequences that were not anticipated. You knew that I was accused of no wrongdoing and had agreed to no separation or divorce. You were also aware that I had never lived in this country with my family and that I had neither a residence nor a livelihood here. Yet a number of important matters were never discussed. Did I have a place to live? Did I have a way to get to where my daughter was? Could I work here? Did I have access to a car? Did the hours you permitted me to be with her bear any relation to when I might be able to find or keep employment? What costs would be involved for me or other parties?
You may recall that when my mother attempted to sit in on the hearing she was refused and escorted out. Yet the results of this hearing have profoundly and adversely affected her life. She was forced to take in and support a grown son who was now unemployed. She was forced to cancel the sale of her house so that I would have a place to stay. Her car has been commandeered so that I can see my children and get to work. Did these hardships for her enter into your ruling? They certainly were not brought up in the hearing. It did occur to me at the time, but I was cut off each time I attempted to speak.
What is also noteworthy is that I can recount my recollection of these proceedings without fear of contradiction or inaccuracy, not only because you probably do not remember details of the hearing, but also because no record of it now exists and no impartial witnesses were permitted to be present. In other words, there is nothing and no one to contradict or corroborate my recollection. By the same measure, there is no accountability or recorded reasoning for a ruling that has torn apart the home and world of an innocent child.
In short, it struck me that for the first time in my life I was personally witnessing an instance of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”: evil that has become so routinized and bureaucratized that otherwise decent people are able to tell themselves they are doing good when they are doing evil. It is profoundly ironic that I should have returned from five years in a post-totalitarian society to be confronted here in the United States with a new and unexpected version of the kind of bureaucratic dictatorship that has been perhaps the most notable feature of the politics of this century.
When we hear about children being forcibly taken from their parents by Nazi doctors or Communist apparatchiks we are filled with the deepest revulsion. In accounts of American slavery the division of slave families pierces deeper into our hearts than even the physical cruelties of that institution. What family court judges such as yourself do as a daily routine is not on the same level of evil. But it is not so completely different that we should classify the one as among the most detestable “crimes against humanity” and accept the other as desirable treatment for our own children. You may think this comparison offensive. But a government which criminalizes ordinary law-abiding citizens for something so basic as exercising their parental responsibilities is itself on the way to becoming a criminal regime. Parents such as I who are accused of nothing routinely have their children removed from their care and protection, are ordered to stay away from them and to pay money to those who have taken them, and are incarcerated if they refuse or are unable. These parents receive fewer constitutional protections for their basic civil rights and liberties than persons accused of vicious crimes. Yet there is no public outcry, no expose by muckraking journalists, no petition of outraged intellectuals, no review by international tribunals, no inquiries by human rights organizations, no voice of opposition.
Whatever may be said in favor of this practice, there is no justification for ordering me or any other innocent parent to stay away from our children in terms of their well-being. This is a practice that exists not for the welfare of children but for the power and enrichment of adults. It is a practice I cannot in conscience accept, and I believe no other parent can either.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I no longer consider your order binding on me and that it is my intention to disobey it. From this time forth I will consider myself free to be with my children whenever I or they choose. I will not hesitate to remove them from any institutional care center at which they are being stored. I will consider myself at liberty to go to any residence where they are being kept with the expectation that I will be permitted to be with my children. In short, I will behave as if I have the same right to do what I choose with my children when and where I choose as any other parent or as I had they day my eldest daughter was born, secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing to forfeit that right. All this will be done in the open view of the world.
At no time will I, as I have never done previously, behave in a disorderly manner; much less will I use any physical force. Consistent with what has always been my parental practice, I will quarrel with no one in the presence of my children. Should I be confronted, as I have been in the past, with contention, disrespect, or physical coercion, I will do my utmost not to respond in kind. Should I, as a creature endowed with my share of imperfections, be provoked to an indiscretion in the presence of my children, I will invoke the only tried and true remedy available to any parent in such circumstances, which is to say I will apologize. Witnessing this will do my children no harm and may possibly set an example they are not likely to see elsewhere. But I will also make it clear, as I must now make it clear to you, that I can no longer tolerate forced separation from my children.
I realize this is not the usual and, from your standpoint, preferred method of responding to a court order. I know that I am expected to hire a professional advocate to argue my case in a courtroom. Yet after prolonged and careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot pursue this course.
In the first place, to be brutally practical, I do not have the means. As a direct result of your ruling I was forced to resign my position, leave the only residence my family had ever had, and relocate here in order to be with my children. There is also something I find basically objectionable about any parent having to pay money to see his own children when he has been presented with no grounds for why they were taken in the first place. As with a conventional kidnapping, if I begin to pay money for this purpose, where does it end?
More to the point, it is not clear to me what I would argue in a courtroom, since not only have I have been accused of nothing; I have not accused anyone else of anything. In the absence of charges against me, I cannot and will not cooperate with an inquisition into my family life. It is also not my practice to discuss the shortcomings of members of my family with third parties, let alone to construct legal cases against them. Forcing me to do so as a condition of retaining my rights as a parent strikes me as morally equivalent to staging a cockfight. And again, I fail to see where it would end. Frankly, it appears to me that this entire process is designed less to arrive at any determination relevant to the welfare of my children than to provide business for associations of legal entrepreneurs.
Even more fundamentally, I cannot pursue this course because I cannot accept that you or anyone else has any grounds to intervene in my family and tell me when, where, and under what circumstances I may be with my children or to deny me the right to raise and protect them and make decisions for their welfare. In other words, it is not so much a particular ruling that I cannot accept as an unprovoked and unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over my family. You may reply that this was solicited by parties that include members of my family. Yet this does not alter the fact that it was done without any grounds whatever. It is equally true to say that some 30 years ago the armies of the Warsaw Pact were “invited” to enter the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, but this does not make it any less of any invasion.
I am also aware of the arguments against the alternative course of action I have chosen. No doubt I will be accused of inflicting an unpleasant experience upon my children by going to see them when I have not been authorized to do so. I have considered this at some length. It is this consideration, in part, that prevented me from responding in kind when my child was originally abducted from her home and before I was summoned to your court. I am sure that I was assisted in this restraint by the conviction that this country’s system of justice is fair and that justice would eventually prevail. (Yet I must regretfully note that this restraint seems to have counted nothing in my favor in your courtroom.) I would like to believe that conviction is still justified, though I am now convinced that this is more likely to be the case by refusing to accept your power to arbitrarily keep me from my children than by hiring a professional advocate to quibble over precisely how much you should do so.
I have also come to the conclusion that I cannot submit indefinitely to what amounts to a kind of blackmail, a blackmail rendered all the more heinous for holding as hostages two children and forcing a parent to stay away from them for fear of how others will respond to his presence. I trust you are familiar with the concept of a “heckler’s veto” and with its legal standing.
It is one thing to refrain from contention in the presence of children, which I have always done and will continue to do. It is another to acquiesce indefinitely in a crime committed against them. In fact it is precisely my concern to avoid further contention that leads me to take a public and open stand against this patent injustice rather than participating in a privately litigated battle that I cannot see will be to anything other than the detriment of my family.
The principal trauma being inflicted on my children is the forced destruction of their family and separation from one or both of their parents, a trauma that has been inflicted by your ruling. Given this, I firmly believe that, far from my harming my children, there are certain lessons in this that they need to be made aware of and that it is my responsibility as a parent to teach them. While I believe I have valid reasons as a citizen to disobey the law in this instance, I want to make clear to you that I also have connected but even more imperative ones as a parent.
It is my responsibility to teach my children that the proper course of action when faced with injustice is to resist and oppose it in a peaceful and dignified way. At some point they must learn that there are higher principles and a higher law they must always obey, even when it means they must break the civil law and accept the consequences for doing so. These are not only lessons that they can learn; they are lessons that they must learn and lessons that, in other contexts, we go to considerable lengths to teach them. In Sunday school my eldest daughter has already been exposed to the quiet courage of the Hebrew women, to the defiant stand of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to the public crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. In school she will soon be reading about the teachings and examples of Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As both a teacher of these ideas myself and a parent, I am acutely aware that there is no point in teaching our children one set of principles as being right in the abstract when we teach them the opposite by our own acts or failure to act precisely at the time when those principles are most needed to confront an injustice. It is perhaps unfortunate, but nevertheless unavoidable, that the circumstances of her life are now such that she must now witness the application of these principles sooner rather than later.
On the other hand, if I do not act I fear that the lessons my children are already learning are far more harmful than witnessing a parent peaceably and openly disobey an unjust court order. Virtually every principle of sound child-rearing is contravened by this immoral practice of forcibly separating children from their parents. For the sake of clarity and emphasis I will list the harmful messages I see them absorbing:
- They are learning that we put our own desires before the needs of others, including those we profess to love such as our own children.
- They are learning that children like themselves are not to be treated as people with needs and rights of their own, but used as tools and weapons in the quest for power and profit by adults.
- They are learning that ordinary family differences and disagreements are to be resolved not with love, understanding, and compromise, but with the courts and police.
- They are learning that the vows of marriage – and by extension all other pledges, promises, commitments, and agreements – mean nothing and can be abrogated when they are no longer to our advantage.
- They are learning that principles and values are something we adhere to only so long as they are convenient, and that we can invent the rules according to our momentary pleasure.
- They are learning that contrition and forgiveness mean nothing and that injuries to others are not to be atoned for and forgiven but nursed as grievances to be revenged when the opportunity presents itself.
- They are learning that when someone disagrees with us or has other ideas or beliefs than ours, we need not listen to him, even within our own family, because now we can use the courts to silence him and have the police keep him away.
- They are learning the methods of the bully, which in other contexts we attempt to discourage and protect them from.
- They are learning that anyone in their family can be eliminated when they fall out of favor – including, perhaps, our children themselves.
- They are learning that the instruments of the state and the justice system are not public tribunals for redressing public wrongs and establishing public justice but rather a system of hired force which we can marshal for private hurts, domestic differences, and personal grievances.
- They are learning that both the family and the state are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies for private injuries.
- They are learning that they need not accept or obey the authority of a parent – and by extension any other authority as well, including their teachers, ministers, parent, and eventually the laws and tribunals of the public state.
- They will learn that the police are not instruments for maintaining public order and protecting the weak, but hired mercenaries that we can marshal against members of our own family when we don’t agree with what they do or say.
- They will learn that the justice system of this country is not based on due process of law but instead rounds up and incarcerates citizens who are accused of no crime and uses the lives of innocent people – including children – for the aggrandizement of its own power.
- They will learn that a citizen of this country need not be charged with any offense that is actionable in a court of law in order to be summoned to one and stripped of his most fundamental constitutional rights.
- They will learn that the Constitution of the United States is a lie, and the Bill of Rights is a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by those whose responsibility it is to protect it from abuse by others.
I believe it is these lessons that account for the alienation and the adversarial relationship that so many children – especially the children of divorce – are now developing toward the justice system, the society in which they live, and their own families. I know that so long as these messages are being imparted to my children by those who seek to separate me from them and by the instruments of the public state such as your court (and by me as well so long as I acquiesce in your ruling) any attempt by me to impart contrary messages will be at cross-purposes with forces too massive for me to compete with and prevail against.
I am aware of a more serious objection to this course of action I am taking. This is the possibility that you will punish my disobedience by further reducing access to my children. This has indeed weighed heavily on my mind. The obvious rejoinder – that such an act of judicial bullying would belie any pretense that this process is concerned with “the best interest of the child” – is little comfort to me. As with other objections, this fear prevents most parents from responding as I have.
I certainly do value my time with my children, and am very reluctant to do anything that may jeopardize it. Until now I have tried to work within these constraints to have as much positive influence on my children as possible.
Yet I find I cannot remain content with this choice indefinitely, and in the long run I cannot hold it up to my children as an example worthy for them to follow. For one thing, I observe from the experience of many forcibly separated fathers that their allotted “visitation” is only one factor contributing to the gradual erosion of bonds with their children, and that it is not possible to be an adequate parent to children from whom one is kept separated by the police. Unlike some, I am not convinced that preserving or increasing my legally permitted time with my children, while still preserving the power to dictate the terms under which I may be a parent to them, is likely to make this system any less of an injustice or any less of a detriment to my relationship with my children.
To rest content with this would be to admit that this allotment of time you have decreed for me is really little more than what amounts to a bribe. Those who have more experience with the family judiciary than I inform me that bribery is widespread. I myself have not otherwise observed it first hand, and it is not my purpose here to make accusations. But in this instance I can see – and so can the world – that a kind of bribery has been openly offered and accepted. Vaclav Havel, the Czech former dissident and now president, has said that a truly corrupt system is one where the bribery is so systemic that it extends even to the public. They are bribed with material or other inducements to accept and acquiesce in a system they know to be corrupt and immoral. I believe something similar is at work here. Like many other parents, I have been effectively bribed with enough time with my children to buy my acquiescence in a system that is patently unjust, immoral, and illegal and one that reduces me to the status of something less than a true parent.
While I value time with my children and know it to be important to their well-being, I also know that the benefits it bestows cannot continue indefinitely and under any circumstances. At some point, as my children come to understand the choice their parent has made – that he has made his peace with a system that has robbed them of their most basic rights and needs in order to be permitted to “get along” with his life – the net effect will become more harmful to them than healthy. All the “visitation” and “custody” and “child support” in the world will not provide them with the parent they need if he bends his back and holds his tongue when he had the opportunity to stand upright and speak out.
There is, in other words, something here much more fundamental than disputes over “visitation”, “custody”, “child support”, and the other jargon of your trade. It concerns the unnatural power to take a child away from a parent they love and who loves them, to dictate to a parent who has done nothing wrong when and where he may see his children and what he can say and do with them, to invade and occupy a family and run it by judicial fiat. This is the arrogance of power. No parent can accept this and remain a parent. This is why I am acting.
Yours respectfully,
A Parent
This piece was originally written by Stephen Baskerville several years ago. It addresses the frustration that many parents face in a court system that is broken. It begs the question of how family courts, Guardians ad litem and the divorce industry can live with themselves at the end of the day.
If you have been involved in a divorce/ custody gone bad and for good reason please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Two years ago I appeared in your court. I was summoned there with only a few hours notice and appeared without a lawyer. Though no charges were pronounced against me, you legally removed my child from my care and protection, eliminated my right to make any decisions about her, and ordered me to stay away from her most of the time.
From what I have been able to gather about such proceedings, this outcome was nothing out of the ordinary. In fact it quickly became apparent to me that this outcome came very close to being decided in advance. What precisely was said during this brief hearing seems to have made very little difference. As it began, a gentleman who did not know me proceeded to assassinate my character as confidently as if he had personally witnessed each item in his litany of my imperfections. While again, there were no specific charges and nothing legally actionable, it was clear that his role was to translate somewhat vague private grievances against me into a formula that would appear to justify taking away my child.
What struck me at the time was how quickly and effortlessly a child was removed from the care and protection of her parent and her life carved up as if it were the bookings of a holiday cottage. Such and such days she would spend with the non-custodial parent, the rest with the custodial parent. You asked very few questions and sought very little information. The hearing was very brief, and suddenly, I was told, it was over. During the hearing I was allowed to speak very little and interrupted every time I tried. There seemed to be no burden of proof on those who sought to separate me from my child.
I realize that, given the number of similar cases that come before you, you issue these rulings as a matter of routine. I would not be surprised if you have no recollection of this particular case. Nevertheless, for me it was an eye-opening experience and probably the most important thirty minutes or so of my life.
You did not strike me as an unusually malicious or callous person. I am told you are considered among the more favorable judges for parents, and that the time you assigned permitting me to be with my children is relatively generous.
All this may be true. Yet it has also become apparent to me that what I witnessed in your courtroom was a tiny part of a vast system of largely impersonal and unaccountable power that was previously unknown to me, as it still is to most citizens. I am fully aware that you did not create this system and that you yourself may have very little control over it. Nevertheless you are a principal and active participant. So vast and so routine has this power become that you are able, with no background information and in a hearing lasting only a few minutes, to permanently separate a child from a parent without any indication that you were aware of the gravity of what you were doing.
While this central act was disturbing enough, what was again striking were the questions that were not asked, the subjects that were not brought up, the consequences that were not anticipated. You knew that I was accused of no wrongdoing and had agreed to no separation or divorce. You were also aware that I had never lived in this country with my family and that I had neither a residence nor a livelihood here. Yet a number of important matters were never discussed. Did I have a place to live? Did I have a way to get to where my daughter was? Could I work here? Did I have access to a car? Did the hours you permitted me to be with her bear any relation to when I might be able to find or keep employment? What costs would be involved for me or other parties?
You may recall that when my mother attempted to sit in on the hearing she was refused and escorted out. Yet the results of this hearing have profoundly and adversely affected her life. She was forced to take in and support a grown son who was now unemployed. She was forced to cancel the sale of her house so that I would have a place to stay. Her car has been commandeered so that I can see my children and get to work. Did these hardships for her enter into your ruling? They certainly were not brought up in the hearing. It did occur to me at the time, but I was cut off each time I attempted to speak.
What is also noteworthy is that I can recount my recollection of these proceedings without fear of contradiction or inaccuracy, not only because you probably do not remember details of the hearing, but also because no record of it now exists and no impartial witnesses were permitted to be present. In other words, there is nothing and no one to contradict or corroborate my recollection. By the same measure, there is no accountability or recorded reasoning for a ruling that has torn apart the home and world of an innocent child.
In short, it struck me that for the first time in my life I was personally witnessing an instance of what Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”: evil that has become so routinized and bureaucratized that otherwise decent people are able to tell themselves they are doing good when they are doing evil. It is profoundly ironic that I should have returned from five years in a post-totalitarian society to be confronted here in the United States with a new and unexpected version of the kind of bureaucratic dictatorship that has been perhaps the most notable feature of the politics of this century.
When we hear about children being forcibly taken from their parents by Nazi doctors or Communist apparatchiks we are filled with the deepest revulsion. In accounts of American slavery the division of slave families pierces deeper into our hearts than even the physical cruelties of that institution. What family court judges such as yourself do as a daily routine is not on the same level of evil. But it is not so completely different that we should classify the one as among the most detestable “crimes against humanity” and accept the other as desirable treatment for our own children. You may think this comparison offensive. But a government which criminalizes ordinary law-abiding citizens for something so basic as exercising their parental responsibilities is itself on the way to becoming a criminal regime. Parents such as I who are accused of nothing routinely have their children removed from their care and protection, are ordered to stay away from them and to pay money to those who have taken them, and are incarcerated if they refuse or are unable. These parents receive fewer constitutional protections for their basic civil rights and liberties than persons accused of vicious crimes. Yet there is no public outcry, no expose by muckraking journalists, no petition of outraged intellectuals, no review by international tribunals, no inquiries by human rights organizations, no voice of opposition.
Whatever may be said in favor of this practice, there is no justification for ordering me or any other innocent parent to stay away from our children in terms of their well-being. This is a practice that exists not for the welfare of children but for the power and enrichment of adults. It is a practice I cannot in conscience accept, and I believe no other parent can either.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I no longer consider your order binding on me and that it is my intention to disobey it. From this time forth I will consider myself free to be with my children whenever I or they choose. I will not hesitate to remove them from any institutional care center at which they are being stored. I will consider myself at liberty to go to any residence where they are being kept with the expectation that I will be permitted to be with my children. In short, I will behave as if I have the same right to do what I choose with my children when and where I choose as any other parent or as I had they day my eldest daughter was born, secure in the knowledge that I have done nothing to forfeit that right. All this will be done in the open view of the world.
At no time will I, as I have never done previously, behave in a disorderly manner; much less will I use any physical force. Consistent with what has always been my parental practice, I will quarrel with no one in the presence of my children. Should I be confronted, as I have been in the past, with contention, disrespect, or physical coercion, I will do my utmost not to respond in kind. Should I, as a creature endowed with my share of imperfections, be provoked to an indiscretion in the presence of my children, I will invoke the only tried and true remedy available to any parent in such circumstances, which is to say I will apologize. Witnessing this will do my children no harm and may possibly set an example they are not likely to see elsewhere. But I will also make it clear, as I must now make it clear to you, that I can no longer tolerate forced separation from my children.
I realize this is not the usual and, from your standpoint, preferred method of responding to a court order. I know that I am expected to hire a professional advocate to argue my case in a courtroom. Yet after prolonged and careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot pursue this course.
In the first place, to be brutally practical, I do not have the means. As a direct result of your ruling I was forced to resign my position, leave the only residence my family had ever had, and relocate here in order to be with my children. There is also something I find basically objectionable about any parent having to pay money to see his own children when he has been presented with no grounds for why they were taken in the first place. As with a conventional kidnapping, if I begin to pay money for this purpose, where does it end?
More to the point, it is not clear to me what I would argue in a courtroom, since not only have I have been accused of nothing; I have not accused anyone else of anything. In the absence of charges against me, I cannot and will not cooperate with an inquisition into my family life. It is also not my practice to discuss the shortcomings of members of my family with third parties, let alone to construct legal cases against them. Forcing me to do so as a condition of retaining my rights as a parent strikes me as morally equivalent to staging a cockfight. And again, I fail to see where it would end. Frankly, it appears to me that this entire process is designed less to arrive at any determination relevant to the welfare of my children than to provide business for associations of legal entrepreneurs.
Even more fundamentally, I cannot pursue this course because I cannot accept that you or anyone else has any grounds to intervene in my family and tell me when, where, and under what circumstances I may be with my children or to deny me the right to raise and protect them and make decisions for their welfare. In other words, it is not so much a particular ruling that I cannot accept as an unprovoked and unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over my family. You may reply that this was solicited by parties that include members of my family. Yet this does not alter the fact that it was done without any grounds whatever. It is equally true to say that some 30 years ago the armies of the Warsaw Pact were “invited” to enter the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, but this does not make it any less of any invasion.
I am also aware of the arguments against the alternative course of action I have chosen. No doubt I will be accused of inflicting an unpleasant experience upon my children by going to see them when I have not been authorized to do so. I have considered this at some length. It is this consideration, in part, that prevented me from responding in kind when my child was originally abducted from her home and before I was summoned to your court. I am sure that I was assisted in this restraint by the conviction that this country’s system of justice is fair and that justice would eventually prevail. (Yet I must regretfully note that this restraint seems to have counted nothing in my favor in your courtroom.) I would like to believe that conviction is still justified, though I am now convinced that this is more likely to be the case by refusing to accept your power to arbitrarily keep me from my children than by hiring a professional advocate to quibble over precisely how much you should do so.
I have also come to the conclusion that I cannot submit indefinitely to what amounts to a kind of blackmail, a blackmail rendered all the more heinous for holding as hostages two children and forcing a parent to stay away from them for fear of how others will respond to his presence. I trust you are familiar with the concept of a “heckler’s veto” and with its legal standing.
It is one thing to refrain from contention in the presence of children, which I have always done and will continue to do. It is another to acquiesce indefinitely in a crime committed against them. In fact it is precisely my concern to avoid further contention that leads me to take a public and open stand against this patent injustice rather than participating in a privately litigated battle that I cannot see will be to anything other than the detriment of my family.
The principal trauma being inflicted on my children is the forced destruction of their family and separation from one or both of their parents, a trauma that has been inflicted by your ruling. Given this, I firmly believe that, far from my harming my children, there are certain lessons in this that they need to be made aware of and that it is my responsibility as a parent to teach them. While I believe I have valid reasons as a citizen to disobey the law in this instance, I want to make clear to you that I also have connected but even more imperative ones as a parent.
It is my responsibility to teach my children that the proper course of action when faced with injustice is to resist and oppose it in a peaceful and dignified way. At some point they must learn that there are higher principles and a higher law they must always obey, even when it means they must break the civil law and accept the consequences for doing so. These are not only lessons that they can learn; they are lessons that they must learn and lessons that, in other contexts, we go to considerable lengths to teach them. In Sunday school my eldest daughter has already been exposed to the quiet courage of the Hebrew women, to the defiant stand of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to the public crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. In school she will soon be reading about the teachings and examples of Socrates, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As both a teacher of these ideas myself and a parent, I am acutely aware that there is no point in teaching our children one set of principles as being right in the abstract when we teach them the opposite by our own acts or failure to act precisely at the time when those principles are most needed to confront an injustice. It is perhaps unfortunate, but nevertheless unavoidable, that the circumstances of her life are now such that she must now witness the application of these principles sooner rather than later.
On the other hand, if I do not act I fear that the lessons my children are already learning are far more harmful than witnessing a parent peaceably and openly disobey an unjust court order. Virtually every principle of sound child-rearing is contravened by this immoral practice of forcibly separating children from their parents. For the sake of clarity and emphasis I will list the harmful messages I see them absorbing:
- They are learning that we put our own desires before the needs of others, including those we profess to love such as our own children.
- They are learning that children like themselves are not to be treated as people with needs and rights of their own, but used as tools and weapons in the quest for power and profit by adults.
- They are learning that ordinary family differences and disagreements are to be resolved not with love, understanding, and compromise, but with the courts and police.
- They are learning that the vows of marriage – and by extension all other pledges, promises, commitments, and agreements – mean nothing and can be abrogated when they are no longer to our advantage.
- They are learning that principles and values are something we adhere to only so long as they are convenient, and that we can invent the rules according to our momentary pleasure.
- They are learning that contrition and forgiveness mean nothing and that injuries to others are not to be atoned for and forgiven but nursed as grievances to be revenged when the opportunity presents itself.
- They are learning that when someone disagrees with us or has other ideas or beliefs than ours, we need not listen to him, even within our own family, because now we can use the courts to silence him and have the police keep him away.
- They are learning the methods of the bully, which in other contexts we attempt to discourage and protect them from.
- They are learning that anyone in their family can be eliminated when they fall out of favor – including, perhaps, our children themselves.
- They are learning that the instruments of the state and the justice system are not public tribunals for redressing public wrongs and establishing public justice but rather a system of hired force which we can marshal for private hurts, domestic differences, and personal grievances.
- They are learning that both the family and the state are dictatorships, ruled by an arbitrary power which can be marshaled against private enemies for private injuries.
- They are learning that they need not accept or obey the authority of a parent – and by extension any other authority as well, including their teachers, ministers, parent, and eventually the laws and tribunals of the public state.
- They will learn that the police are not instruments for maintaining public order and protecting the weak, but hired mercenaries that we can marshal against members of our own family when we don’t agree with what they do or say.
- They will learn that the justice system of this country is not based on due process of law but instead rounds up and incarcerates citizens who are accused of no crime and uses the lives of innocent people – including children – for the aggrandizement of its own power.
- They will learn that a citizen of this country need not be charged with any offense that is actionable in a court of law in order to be summoned to one and stripped of his most fundamental constitutional rights.
- They will learn that the Constitution of the United States is a lie, and the Bill of Rights is a meaningless piece of paper that can be ignored by those whose responsibility it is to protect it from abuse by others.
I believe it is these lessons that account for the alienation and the adversarial relationship that so many children – especially the children of divorce – are now developing toward the justice system, the society in which they live, and their own families. I know that so long as these messages are being imparted to my children by those who seek to separate me from them and by the instruments of the public state such as your court (and by me as well so long as I acquiesce in your ruling) any attempt by me to impart contrary messages will be at cross-purposes with forces too massive for me to compete with and prevail against.
I am aware of a more serious objection to this course of action I am taking. This is the possibility that you will punish my disobedience by further reducing access to my children. This has indeed weighed heavily on my mind. The obvious rejoinder – that such an act of judicial bullying would belie any pretense that this process is concerned with “the best interest of the child” – is little comfort to me. As with other objections, this fear prevents most parents from responding as I have.
I certainly do value my time with my children, and am very reluctant to do anything that may jeopardize it. Until now I have tried to work within these constraints to have as much positive influence on my children as possible.
Yet I find I cannot remain content with this choice indefinitely, and in the long run I cannot hold it up to my children as an example worthy for them to follow. For one thing, I observe from the experience of many forcibly separated fathers that their allotted “visitation” is only one factor contributing to the gradual erosion of bonds with their children, and that it is not possible to be an adequate parent to children from whom one is kept separated by the police. Unlike some, I am not convinced that preserving or increasing my legally permitted time with my children, while still preserving the power to dictate the terms under which I may be a parent to them, is likely to make this system any less of an injustice or any less of a detriment to my relationship with my children.
To rest content with this would be to admit that this allotment of time you have decreed for me is really little more than what amounts to a bribe. Those who have more experience with the family judiciary than I inform me that bribery is widespread. I myself have not otherwise observed it first hand, and it is not my purpose here to make accusations. But in this instance I can see – and so can the world – that a kind of bribery has been openly offered and accepted. Vaclav Havel, the Czech former dissident and now president, has said that a truly corrupt system is one where the bribery is so systemic that it extends even to the public. They are bribed with material or other inducements to accept and acquiesce in a system they know to be corrupt and immoral. I believe something similar is at work here. Like many other parents, I have been effectively bribed with enough time with my children to buy my acquiescence in a system that is patently unjust, immoral, and illegal and one that reduces me to the status of something less than a true parent.
While I value time with my children and know it to be important to their well-being, I also know that the benefits it bestows cannot continue indefinitely and under any circumstances. At some point, as my children come to understand the choice their parent has made – that he has made his peace with a system that has robbed them of their most basic rights and needs in order to be permitted to “get along” with his life – the net effect will become more harmful to them than healthy. All the “visitation” and “custody” and “child support” in the world will not provide them with the parent they need if he bends his back and holds his tongue when he had the opportunity to stand upright and speak out.
There is, in other words, something here much more fundamental than disputes over “visitation”, “custody”, “child support”, and the other jargon of your trade. It concerns the unnatural power to take a child away from a parent they love and who loves them, to dictate to a parent who has done nothing wrong when and where he may see his children and what he can say and do with them, to invade and occupy a family and run it by judicial fiat. This is the arrogance of power. No parent can accept this and remain a parent. This is why I am acting.
Yours respectfully,
A Parent
This piece was originally written by Stephen Baskerville several years ago. It addresses the frustration that many parents face in a court system that is broken. It begs the question of how family courts, Guardians ad litem and the divorce industry can live with themselves at the end of the day.
If you have been involved in a divorce/ custody gone bad and for good reason please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)