Guardians ad litem praised for doing a poor job… and a pat on the back

Maine FLAC or the Maine Family Law Advisory Commission issued their recommendations a month ago. The opening paragraphs are filled with encomiums lauding Guardians ad litem and the work they do.  It is hard to understand this high praise after the recent Maine legislative session which proposed significant changes in Maine's out-of-control Guardian ad litem program.  The comprehensive changes were made by the legislature (after study) at the request of citizens, who had experienced a disastrous Guardian ad litem system, which, intentionally or not, inflicted great harm on children and families going through divorce and custody. There were extensive hearings, with heart rendering testimony of cruel and unnecessary hardship inflicted on families and outrageous financial charges for Guardian ad litem services.  It seems inappropriate at best to laud services that the legislature, the governor, the bureaucracy and the public deemed in need of drastic overhaul.  It might suggest to many that the Family Law Advisory Commission " still "doesn't know it doesn't know!"

Furthermore, it perpetuates claims of quality without any data to back these claims.  Lacking data and minimizing the seriousness of the legislative study and subsequent mandate strikes us as a bad beginning to a review of Rules for Guardians ad litem.  The tired old claim that it is about "disappointed litigants and heightened expectations" simply doesn't cut it with the public, the legislature and the governor.  A half year of in depth legislative study, says that no oversight, no supervision, no enforcement of Rules, a non-functional complaint procedure and myriad other STRUCTURAL issues are the root of serious problems in the GAL program. Grass roots disappointment is secondary to a broken structural system that may work for GALs and judges, but it hasn't worked for the public.  Failure to recognize this by the likes of the Family Law commission (and others in the Judicial Branch) is a huge piece of the problem!  Recovery, they say, starts with admission of the problem - any problem.

A big piece of the problem is the continuing reliance of the Judicial Brach on "stakeholders," members of what we call "the divorce industry", who have a strong financial interest in the 'status quo'.  Perpetuating problem solving by "stakeholders" perpetuates blind privilege and out f touch views. It is worth noting that the one "public" member on the commission reviewing "GAL Rules" is a member of Children First, a GAL dominated advocacy group. It is adding another "fox" to the "chicken house security detail"!  There is a need for victims on this commission to help the Judicial Branch take a fresh, open look at things from a grass-roots perspective.  Right now it appears to be more of the "same old same old" attitude.

Letter from Chief Justice Saufley regarding FLAC.

If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem, Judge or the court system - please contact MeGALalert@gmail.com. Or like us on Facebook for up to date issues. If you want to express your opinion on the Guardian ad litem there is an on going survey about Guardian ad litem performance and cost.

Welcome to the Judicial Information Super Highway

In many states the Judiciary is proud to point out that anyone can sift through cases that are finished. Only to do so will require going to the court house and going though dusty boxes of papers that have your case or the case of someone else..

It is a 19th century filing system in the 21st century.

Imagine going to a branch of your bank and asking for an account balance. The teller cannot  give you your balance and that you must go to the branch where you made the deposit!  Or you call your credit card for account information and you are told that they are counting your charges on paper slips. Your information will be mailed to you. Would this be acceptable? No - of course not in this day and age - you want this information right away and it is available. Electronically.

In our courts this just does not happen.

You cannot look up your case online (unless your case goes before the Supreme Court). You cannot see whether your Guardian ad litem is working on just your case or 50 others - because it is not online. What cases are being heard today in your court - don't go online to find out because it is not there.  About the only thing that the courts have online is the address and contact information you need to get a court official in your court.

The Family Law Advisory Commission (FLAC) has come out with a glowing report for the battered Guardian ad litem program. FLAC comes out and indicates that GALs have played an essential role in family proceedings. That Guardians ad litem have been "instrumental in assuring positive" outcomes for children. FLAC goes further in stating that judges value the services of these Guardians ad litem highly. Guardians ad litem are responsive and professional as seen by the court system.

Yet where is the data to back up these accolades for Guardians ad litem? The data is in cardboard boxes sitting in the corners of our court houses. How many members of FLAC do you think went to our court houses to sift through the 'data' that is housed there? More than likely - None.  In other words the data used for the report - much like the data the courts appear to use - is based on the "feeling" or subjective opinion that Guardians ad litem are doing a great job. There are no hard numbers. There is no data. Well there is but for the sake of repeating - that data is in cardboard boxes sitting in the dark corners of our court houses. All readily accessible  by driving from court house to court house.

There is a demand for hard data in the new law...

Or….

The alternative is buying Chief Justice Saufley a speedy motor scooter so she can get on the Judicial Information Super highway and search those cardboard for that glowing Guardian ad litem data.


For more information please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or follow 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

New Rule - NO Parent Coordinators Allowed in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Family Law

Remember earlier this year when I wrote about the Superior Court’s ruling that a party has a right to a de novo hearing for a custody coordinator’s decision? Well, forget all of that.  As of today, April 23rd, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted Rule 1915.11-1 which states that parent coordinators are no more and the only judges have the authority to make decisions in child custody cases.  The new Rule reads as follows:

Only judges may make decisions in child custody cases.  Masters and hearing officers may make recommendations to the court.  Courts shall not appoint any other individual to make decisions or recommendations or alter a custody order in child custody cases.  Any order appointing a parenting coordinator shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective (Editor’s Note: May 23, 2013).  Local rules and administrative orders authorizing the appointment of parenting coordinators also shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective.

The role of the parent coordinator was established and upheld by the Superior Court in the Yates decision in 2008.  The revised Rule, which was adopted by the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee and after an opportunity for public comment, supersedes the case law and renders null and void any existing parent coordinator order.  

Full story: Pennsylvania Family Law

Further reading:
Trial Court Must Conduct De Novo Hearings for Parent Coordination Appeals

De novo

The third standard of review is de novo, review as if the appellate court were considering the question for the first time. Legal decisions of a lower court on questions of law are reviewed using this standard. This is sometimes also called the "legal error" standard. It allows the appeals court to substitute its own judgment about whether the lower court correctly applied the law. If the lower court did not correctly apply the law, then its judgment might be reversed, except if the error is a harmless one.

A new trial in which all issues are reviewed as if for the first time is called a trial de novo.

Further reading: Wikipedia-Standard of Review