We have been asked by many people how we got MeGALalert, our Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform program, started and what beginning grassroots activists should do to get going? We grew our program, MeGALalert by stages and degrees, learning by trial and error as we grew. We quickly set two fixed goals: (1) education of the public about the need for reform of family courts and Guardians ad litem, and (2) legislation to produce change. We feel that you can’t have legislated change for these dysfunctional systems without an enlightened, aware public that will support and push for change. Legislation also requires that we educate legislators about the family court and Guardian ad litem problems, and also that we help voters connect with legislators and- as constituents/voters - express their views and their wishes. Family court systems are not anything that can be “fixed” quickly, because there are huge systemic problems and powerful internal forces that support the dysfunction of family courts, and that keep dysfunction alive, well and growing. Long ago, we were instructed by one sophisticated lawyer: “Follow the money!”
What we are outlining is a well planned systems intervention in a massive system, and it cannot be done quickly or without a well designed strategy and tactics, nor can these be effective without tools for intervention in all parts of the system. Obviously, this is a complex undertaking. We are always glad to share our thoughts and our approach, but to do so would take more than a simple, single blog posting. We’ll start by giving a brief list of important generic systems intervention “must have” “tools” that you may find useful in changing family court systems:
1. A blog or two (or more) with different focuses that will serve multiple purposes: give news, present issues and problems, make proposals for change and allow for public "conversations".
2. A Facebook page dedicated to court reform in your state, which can present more short-term "reform news" and sharing.
3. Building a base of credible political supporters, larger numbers of both friends and “victims” of the family court system. E-mail addresses (and list-servs) for this group are critical, precious, invaluable . One rule to follow: ALWAYS BLIND COPY (bcc) MASS MAILINGS FOR PRIVACY). Telephone numbers and physical addresses are useful also. We started with our family court story (disaster) in a local weekly paper that got the attention of other family court “victims” who contacted us - and the rest is history as the numbers grew and grew.
4. Once you get stared, a core group of friends with a "work ethic", who can be counted on to help with some of the "heavy lifting". Volunteer manpower, which can stay on top of what's happening in state government that may impact on users of family courts.
5. Getting to know your State Rep and State Senator and continuously educating them on the court reform issues is critical. Getting to know other legislators, especially those who have gone through divorce and custody horrors. “Victims” of family courts in the legislature are “golden”. You also need to know which legislators are your enemies and “frenemies” , Which legislators will sabotage your efforts and support the ‘status quo’? HINT: look for legislators who are lawyers!
6. Getting to know your state Governor and your Chief Justice. Governors can submit bills and can veto bills, but they too need education. Justices often want changes in the courts but they are constrained by their political base: the state bar and state lawyers who live handsomely off of family courts. They hear appeals form family courts and their judgments become case law.
7. Building relations with the all elements of the media. Know reporters, feed them stories. Many court reporters are intimidated about journalistically challenging the courts and getting “shut out” of court news thereafter, but sometimes your news may tempt them out of timidity. Small, local, weekly papers, we find, are most open to reporting our experience - and people do read them. Give them stories. This got us going. Don’t forget social media in all of its many forms.
8. Organize intimate, small showings of "Divorce Corp", the DVD, it is very educational, packs a punch and ought to be a "must see" for legislators and government decision makers. It is a great “tool” for quick information and attitude change.
9. Make your most important goal: public education about the largely unknown scandal that is family courts in America. Without extensive education of the public you go nowhere.
10. Communicate, communicate, communicate. Keep everyone who writes to support you in the loop, up on the news - good and bad. Answer ALL e-mails asap.
11. Don't worry about money or setting up a nonprofit. We've done it with no money and no corporation. Money and non-profits have their own problems and politics. We've done it with PEOPLE, who are FRIENDS. The most successful movement that produced massive political change was created by Vaclav Havel, former, Czech president, Nobel prize winner, writer and political dissident.
Finally, don't be discouraged by setbacks. It is going to be a long term project. Family courts have solid support of a huge, wealthy industry ($50 billion), the “divorce industry”, these lawyers, like the “robber barons” of old, are not going to yield quickly or easily. But ... we have human and moral "right" on our side, and, once we connect, there are more of US than there are of THEM! Vaclav Havel called it “The power of the powerless”.
In the long run, if we keep at it , like others before us who fought injustice...
"WE SHALL OVERCOME ... SOMEDAY..."
MeGALalert can be reached by emailing us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or by finding us on Facebook. There is no magic bullet that can be used to help you with the issues you and your family are facing. We offer support and help in dealing with the family court system.
Showing posts with label Judicial Branch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judicial Branch. Show all posts
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Monday, February 10, 2014
Maine - A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families
RE: A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families.
The Governor
State of Maine
Dear Governor LePage,
Divorce in Maine, when child custody is involved, has evolved into an expensive, barbaric, often cruel process. Custody decisions by our courts often seem irrational and participants all too often find it impossible to correct a bad decision or a bad process. At Maine Guardian ad litem Alert, based on the data from our many contacts with people in the terrible throes of divorce, we increasingly feel that there is a need for a Maine Commission aimed at assessing the impact of divorce and custody on Maine children and families- and recommending repairs to a badly broken family court system. 60 % of American marriages are reported to end in divorce, and Maine is no different from the rest of the US. But beyond dry statistics, our experience with hundreds of individuals tells us that there are psychological, social and economic side effects of the family court experience, that wreck the lives of those that have gone through divorce for years to come. It is a shameful record. It calls for action.
Although we would certainly support a broadly focused Commission that took a total systems approach, we would suggest that there are several important areas where a narrower commission might assess serious problems and propose solutions without crossing the boundaries of another branch of government: (a) the economics of divorce and its impact on the present and future of (60%) Maine citizens and on the state itself, (b) the jurisdictional disputes about which of two branches of government has final responsibility for defining and resolving the diagnosis of adult or child abuse in divorce, and (c) problems associated with the family court’s use of and referrals to state sponsored/funded clinics by the Judicial Branch. This includes patient’s right to privacy issues; standards of the types and forms of treatment; court-ordered, mandatory treatment; treatment effectiveness evaluations; confidentiality and the human rights issues of those receiving services.
1.) Economic problems of divorcing in Maine. The short story is that it is very expensive, running to thousands of dollars, with courts putting no limits on the charges to citizens from a growing number of ancillary players, in a growing number of questionably effective peripheral services. The growth of these unevaluated “new” services- often court mandated- have become a part of an very expanded, very expensive “divorce industry”. Families are impoverished. Retirement and college funds are emptied. Homes are mortgaged to the hilt. Credit from relatives and families is exhausted. It is an expense with no boundaries and it grows year by year. We have to ask: Is a booming economic expansion of the “divorce industry” retarding investment in other “industries”? The Judicial Branch keeps virtually no data, our group has some limited financial data. However, there is a need to measure the problem, its growth and to propose solutions. Money drained from our economy by the “divorce industry” is money not available for other more productive investments; homes, education and retirement- just to name a few.
2.) Allegations of child or spousal abuse are all too common in contested divorces. Some allegations are real and serious and require appropriate action; other abuse claims are “strategic”, and need investigation and then labeling as such. At the moment, there is all too often a “turf war” between the Children's Protective program (under Human Services) and the Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem program about which entity has the final say in abuse allegations. There are likewise “turf wars” between GALs and those trained specialist professionals who assess “dangerousness” and other dysfunctional issues. It all too frequently happens that, if opinions of trained professionals do not concur with a GALs opinion, they are frequently ignored in favor of the GAL’s more expensive opinion, a continuing investigation by the GAL. It should be remembered that GALs have only 16-20 hours of training and no supervision when they override the findings of those with more training and supervision. It should also be remembered that continuing to investigate “abuse” generates significant “billable hours” for GALs and burdens families with these costs. More important is the question of whether someone with less knowledge, skill and experience will do a better job of danger evaluation for children and families than someone with specialist education, experience and supervision?
3.) State sponsored or financed services and clinics are frequently used as referral sources by Guardians ad litem and by Maine’s courts. The courts keep no statistics about the number of court referrals, which would help to describe (a) the size of their usage, (b) the problems encountered, (c) the outcomes of treatment- both short and long term. What is the impact of court mandated treatment on children and families? Are these court forced referrals doing any measurable good? How do they help? What are we getting for our public money? Are the services requested by courts- such as various untested, unproved behavior change therapies- scientifically grounded? Is the state paying for “experimental” services on court referred children and adults There is also the ethical/human rights issue of court mandated treatment in non-criminal cases. Confidentiality issues and demand for what should be considered privileged information are troubling and, we are told, don’t follow national standards. There are instances of GALs sharing this clinical information- without “releases”- with other GALs and with unauthorized persons, using the threat of contempt if permission to release information is not granted. It is an area that cries for study and repair.
These are just a few areas that might occupy the scrutiny of a circumscribed Commission to the benefit of our children and families. We would be pleased to discuss further any of these suggested ideas, and we recognize that these suggestions are just conversational openers. It seems important to us to give a more human, rational experience to children and families in divorce, the consumers of service.
Sincerely,
Jerome A Collins, MD
While this is addressed to the Governor of Maine the ideas given here may be applied in any state. Feel free to use the letter and change what needs to be changed to fit the situation of your state.
For more information on what is wrong with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem in the state follow us on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
The Governor
State of Maine
Dear Governor LePage,
Divorce in Maine, when child custody is involved, has evolved into an expensive, barbaric, often cruel process. Custody decisions by our courts often seem irrational and participants all too often find it impossible to correct a bad decision or a bad process. At Maine Guardian ad litem Alert, based on the data from our many contacts with people in the terrible throes of divorce, we increasingly feel that there is a need for a Maine Commission aimed at assessing the impact of divorce and custody on Maine children and families- and recommending repairs to a badly broken family court system. 60 % of American marriages are reported to end in divorce, and Maine is no different from the rest of the US. But beyond dry statistics, our experience with hundreds of individuals tells us that there are psychological, social and economic side effects of the family court experience, that wreck the lives of those that have gone through divorce for years to come. It is a shameful record. It calls for action.
Although we would certainly support a broadly focused Commission that took a total systems approach, we would suggest that there are several important areas where a narrower commission might assess serious problems and propose solutions without crossing the boundaries of another branch of government: (a) the economics of divorce and its impact on the present and future of (60%) Maine citizens and on the state itself, (b) the jurisdictional disputes about which of two branches of government has final responsibility for defining and resolving the diagnosis of adult or child abuse in divorce, and (c) problems associated with the family court’s use of and referrals to state sponsored/funded clinics by the Judicial Branch. This includes patient’s right to privacy issues; standards of the types and forms of treatment; court-ordered, mandatory treatment; treatment effectiveness evaluations; confidentiality and the human rights issues of those receiving services.
1.) Economic problems of divorcing in Maine. The short story is that it is very expensive, running to thousands of dollars, with courts putting no limits on the charges to citizens from a growing number of ancillary players, in a growing number of questionably effective peripheral services. The growth of these unevaluated “new” services- often court mandated- have become a part of an very expanded, very expensive “divorce industry”. Families are impoverished. Retirement and college funds are emptied. Homes are mortgaged to the hilt. Credit from relatives and families is exhausted. It is an expense with no boundaries and it grows year by year. We have to ask: Is a booming economic expansion of the “divorce industry” retarding investment in other “industries”? The Judicial Branch keeps virtually no data, our group has some limited financial data. However, there is a need to measure the problem, its growth and to propose solutions. Money drained from our economy by the “divorce industry” is money not available for other more productive investments; homes, education and retirement- just to name a few.
2.) Allegations of child or spousal abuse are all too common in contested divorces. Some allegations are real and serious and require appropriate action; other abuse claims are “strategic”, and need investigation and then labeling as such. At the moment, there is all too often a “turf war” between the Children's Protective program (under Human Services) and the Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem program about which entity has the final say in abuse allegations. There are likewise “turf wars” between GALs and those trained specialist professionals who assess “dangerousness” and other dysfunctional issues. It all too frequently happens that, if opinions of trained professionals do not concur with a GALs opinion, they are frequently ignored in favor of the GAL’s more expensive opinion, a continuing investigation by the GAL. It should be remembered that GALs have only 16-20 hours of training and no supervision when they override the findings of those with more training and supervision. It should also be remembered that continuing to investigate “abuse” generates significant “billable hours” for GALs and burdens families with these costs. More important is the question of whether someone with less knowledge, skill and experience will do a better job of danger evaluation for children and families than someone with specialist education, experience and supervision?
3.) State sponsored or financed services and clinics are frequently used as referral sources by Guardians ad litem and by Maine’s courts. The courts keep no statistics about the number of court referrals, which would help to describe (a) the size of their usage, (b) the problems encountered, (c) the outcomes of treatment- both short and long term. What is the impact of court mandated treatment on children and families? Are these court forced referrals doing any measurable good? How do they help? What are we getting for our public money? Are the services requested by courts- such as various untested, unproved behavior change therapies- scientifically grounded? Is the state paying for “experimental” services on court referred children and adults There is also the ethical/human rights issue of court mandated treatment in non-criminal cases. Confidentiality issues and demand for what should be considered privileged information are troubling and, we are told, don’t follow national standards. There are instances of GALs sharing this clinical information- without “releases”- with other GALs and with unauthorized persons, using the threat of contempt if permission to release information is not granted. It is an area that cries for study and repair.
These are just a few areas that might occupy the scrutiny of a circumscribed Commission to the benefit of our children and families. We would be pleased to discuss further any of these suggested ideas, and we recognize that these suggestions are just conversational openers. It seems important to us to give a more human, rational experience to children and families in divorce, the consumers of service.
Sincerely,
Jerome A Collins, MD
While this is addressed to the Governor of Maine the ideas given here may be applied in any state. Feel free to use the letter and change what needs to be changed to fit the situation of your state.
For more information on what is wrong with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem in the state follow us on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Would you want a Guardian ad litem with this kind of training?
This is a look at two businesses. One financial the other legal. Both deal with sensitive information, rules and regulations. Both have training programs to give the tools needed to stay within accepted standards and compliance. Both are radically different.
With these two examples ask yourself who is better trained to handle difficult situations?
1. Training consists of 8 weeks of in class study during which the process, rules and regulations are learned. There is some applied training where the students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. Students are tested at certain points. This allows for the trainers to verify at least a minimal understanding to perform the job. There are also group discussions which at times involve people who have experience. These veterans able to give real life experience as to what the new trainees can expect. There is some role playing between seasoned professionals and the new trainees.
After 8 weeks of in class training the new trainees are able to put what has been learned to practical use. While in a real environment there are seasoned people available to answer questions. There is also several weeks of quality control to make sure the new trainees are doing the work properly and to correct any issues right away. This type of mentoring and internship tapers off over time depending on how quickly the new trainee learns.
Throughout this training there is constant feedback to the new trainees. In the working environment that feedback is even more important as a mistake made could cost the company financially. Handling other people’s money can become highly charged especially when something is perceived as going wrong. There are layers upon layers of company as well as legal rules and regulations involved to make sure those handling financial transactions are within compliance. Support from seasoned employees assures and reinforces the understanding that is needed to help customers while staying within compliance.
2. Training consists of 16 hours of in class study during which theory is learned. There may be some applied training where students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. There is no testing during the 16 hours of training nor at the end.
After 16 hours of training there is no feedback to the new trainee. There is no mentoring or internship for the new trainee. Experience is gained at the expense of the consumer. There is no means of testing whether the new trainee is within compliance or whether or not there is a basic understanding of the rules that govern the way he/ she is to operate.
While dealing with a person’s finances is a world apart from dealing with the complexities of a divorcing family there are similarities. Both can become highly charged when something is perceived as going wrong. Both can have a huge impact on the individual(s) involved both currently and into the future. It is the training though that defines how well one does the job in question.
With the training examples given we see the training one receives for handling people's money and for handling people's lives. We see that with one - the process given to train people is extremely careful in its approach. That there are tools and systems to give support so that errors may be caught before they become major issues and hurt a person or family. There are safeguards in place to help the trainee to continue to refine what has been learned and gain experience and to do so not at the expense of the consumer. With the other we see a training process that has been developed to handle people - children and families - who are in crisis and need help. The actions of these trainees have the very real possibility of scaring the people they are supposed to help. There are no tools to help the trainees at any time. Experience comes at the expense of the families and children. There are no safeguards in place to prevent this damage from happening. There are no systems to catch errors before they become issues.
The first is an example of a training process that is used by businesses. The second is used by the Judicial Branch in training Guardians ad litem. Would you rather have a Guardian ad litem who has gone through a training process that has clearly defined goals, offers some means to measure understanding and offers support through mentoring and internship programs? Or would you rather have someone who has gone through the current training process of sitting in a room and warming a seat for several hours?
The answer is obvious. The Judicial Branch has a training process for Guardians ad litem that in a business environment would fail to meet the needs of consumers. Under the current model the Judicial Branch would be overwhelmed with problems and it would either go out of business because of competition from businesses that have better training programs or it would change to meet the needs of those it is supposed to serve. But…. The Judicial Branch is not a business but a monopoly that is accountable to no one. It also has lost sight who it is supposed to serve - being more concerned with how the stakeholders will react than consumers. As a result sub-standard training is allowed and even encouraged. Where those that come up with the training (the stakeholders) curriculum do so based on their own experience. To say (or post on ones "Professional Trainings" page) that one has experience in developing training does not mean one has the necessary tools or experience to do so. Currently there is no cohesiveness in the goal of Guardian ad litem training.
The training for Guardians ad litem should be removed from the control of the Judicial Branch and the stakeholders that are enmeshed in deciding what is acceptable training. Training should be done by professionals who know and understand the goals that are to be achieved and have experience in developing curriculum.
Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform on Facebook or email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com
With these two examples ask yourself who is better trained to handle difficult situations?
1. Training consists of 8 weeks of in class study during which the process, rules and regulations are learned. There is some applied training where the students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. Students are tested at certain points. This allows for the trainers to verify at least a minimal understanding to perform the job. There are also group discussions which at times involve people who have experience. These veterans able to give real life experience as to what the new trainees can expect. There is some role playing between seasoned professionals and the new trainees.
After 8 weeks of in class training the new trainees are able to put what has been learned to practical use. While in a real environment there are seasoned people available to answer questions. There is also several weeks of quality control to make sure the new trainees are doing the work properly and to correct any issues right away. This type of mentoring and internship tapers off over time depending on how quickly the new trainee learns.
Throughout this training there is constant feedback to the new trainees. In the working environment that feedback is even more important as a mistake made could cost the company financially. Handling other people’s money can become highly charged especially when something is perceived as going wrong. There are layers upon layers of company as well as legal rules and regulations involved to make sure those handling financial transactions are within compliance. Support from seasoned employees assures and reinforces the understanding that is needed to help customers while staying within compliance.
2. Training consists of 16 hours of in class study during which theory is learned. There may be some applied training where students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. There is no testing during the 16 hours of training nor at the end.
After 16 hours of training there is no feedback to the new trainee. There is no mentoring or internship for the new trainee. Experience is gained at the expense of the consumer. There is no means of testing whether the new trainee is within compliance or whether or not there is a basic understanding of the rules that govern the way he/ she is to operate.
While dealing with a person’s finances is a world apart from dealing with the complexities of a divorcing family there are similarities. Both can become highly charged when something is perceived as going wrong. Both can have a huge impact on the individual(s) involved both currently and into the future. It is the training though that defines how well one does the job in question.
With the training examples given we see the training one receives for handling people's money and for handling people's lives. We see that with one - the process given to train people is extremely careful in its approach. That there are tools and systems to give support so that errors may be caught before they become major issues and hurt a person or family. There are safeguards in place to help the trainee to continue to refine what has been learned and gain experience and to do so not at the expense of the consumer. With the other we see a training process that has been developed to handle people - children and families - who are in crisis and need help. The actions of these trainees have the very real possibility of scaring the people they are supposed to help. There are no tools to help the trainees at any time. Experience comes at the expense of the families and children. There are no safeguards in place to prevent this damage from happening. There are no systems to catch errors before they become issues.
The first is an example of a training process that is used by businesses. The second is used by the Judicial Branch in training Guardians ad litem. Would you rather have a Guardian ad litem who has gone through a training process that has clearly defined goals, offers some means to measure understanding and offers support through mentoring and internship programs? Or would you rather have someone who has gone through the current training process of sitting in a room and warming a seat for several hours?
The answer is obvious. The Judicial Branch has a training process for Guardians ad litem that in a business environment would fail to meet the needs of consumers. Under the current model the Judicial Branch would be overwhelmed with problems and it would either go out of business because of competition from businesses that have better training programs or it would change to meet the needs of those it is supposed to serve. But…. The Judicial Branch is not a business but a monopoly that is accountable to no one. It also has lost sight who it is supposed to serve - being more concerned with how the stakeholders will react than consumers. As a result sub-standard training is allowed and even encouraged. Where those that come up with the training (the stakeholders) curriculum do so based on their own experience. To say (or post on ones "Professional Trainings" page) that one has experience in developing training does not mean one has the necessary tools or experience to do so. Currently there is no cohesiveness in the goal of Guardian ad litem training.
The training for Guardians ad litem should be removed from the control of the Judicial Branch and the stakeholders that are enmeshed in deciding what is acceptable training. Training should be done by professionals who know and understand the goals that are to be achieved and have experience in developing curriculum.
Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform on Facebook or email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com
Thursday, June 20, 2013
LD872 - "Oversight" and what it means for Guardians ad litem
In the simplest terms, oversight means knowing what they do, how they spend their time. At the present no one in authority actually knows the full details. No one in the higher levels of the Judicial Branch has a complete picture of "time spent" on your case, my case, the hundreds of cases that pass through Maine's family courts. No authority knows how many cases a Guardian ad litem is handling, which courts/judges use the most Guardians ad litem. Or what is the grand total amount of every rostered Guardian ad litem's billable hours for, say, the month of May? No one knows. There is no oversight.
In a word, no one has administrative or managerial oversight of Maine's Guardian ad litem program. No one has program numbers. And ... without numbers, data, statistics, it is impossible to describe the scope and size of Guardian ad litem program problems rationally. It is impossible, to have a rational conversation between the public and various branches of government and impossible to seek rational solutions to a program that cries out for "oversight".
We would suggest that there are two kinds of "oversight", (a) oversight of ongoing cases in a divorce, which is sometimes called "case supervision", and (b) programmatic oversight, also called "programmatic administration or management". Supervision, though desirable is costly and would require a large, expensive cadre of supervisors to monitor and correct the work of Guardians ad litem. There is also the question of who would supervise the supervisors? Where would they fit in a bureaucratic chain of command?
To keep the complexities of an first-ever, Maine, oversight program relatively simple at the start, LD 872 has focused on program supervision, administrative supervision. Essentially it seeks answers to the questions about: "What are the numbers?" How is Guardian ad litem time spent? What are the billable hours? How do district courts differ in their use of Guardians ad litem? And ... are there significant differences in the profiles of individual Guardian ad litem activities? These are questions of huge interest to Maine children and families who pay dearly for this program.
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT THE Guardian ad litem's BILL: LD 872 already calls for standardization of all Maine Guardian ad litem's bills. Bills should be done monthly and should follow the itemization format used by lawyers: date, type of service, time spent, fee charged. It would cover such topics as reading e-mails, phone conversations, report writing, time spent with parties, time spent with child, collateral contacts, travel, court appearances, etc. We maintain that a standardized bill is a snapshot of what the Guardian ad litem claims to have done in any given month. It is a work activity profile. It is a record. It will be mandatory. There is minimal cost for this change.
COPIES OF ALL Guardian ad litem BILLS TO ADMINISTRATOR OF COURTS: We are strongly recommending that it should also be mandatory for all 280 rostered Maine Guardians ad litem to send electronic copies of their standardized monthly bills to the Administrators of the Courts at no charge to anyone. It would immediately, for the first time give the Judicial Branch massive amounts of hard, Guardian ad litem program data, which is currently totally lacking. It would give the necessary data for first-ever program oversight of Maine's 280 Guardians ad litem. It should prove interesting and useful to the legislature, the public and the Judicial Branch. It will help to guide beneficial program changes for Maine's Guardian ad litem program. It will be capable of answering many important program questions.
OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS FOR NEW Guardian ad litem DATA: We believe that inasmuch as the proposed oversight data is a tool, the Judicial Branch should have a primary interest in deciding how to use this new tool. They should suggest their own questions for which they want answers from the data.
But in addition to the Judicial Branch we have our own questions too.
OUR QUESTIONS: How many Guardians ad litem are at work in Maine courts each month? How many separate cases are Guardians ad litem carrying? How much time is spent in reading e-mails? Doing reports? Making phone calls? Seeing the child in the case? Travel? Court time? Which courts use Guardians ad litem the most? How do Guardian ad litem activity profiles differ? What is the range of monthly billable hours for Guardians ad litem? What is the total amount for all Guardian ad litem bills in each month? In a year? Are there associations between certain Guardians ad litem, certain lawyers and/or certain judges?
This is for starters, as a "warm-up".
WHO WOULD WORK WITH THIS DATA AND COSTING THIS ACTIVITY? We suggest that the Administrator of the courts would be the proper locus for this activity, and that it should be attached to the component already doing administrative statistics. By our reckoning the costs ought to be minimal. Billing is already being done by Guardians ad litem at no cost to the legislature, changing to a standardized billing format should not add to cost. Sending an electronic copy of all monthly Guardian ad litem's bills to the JB should be a no cost event. There is the need for a clerk to organize the data in such a manner as to answer previously defined questions. There is the need for an existing administrative statistician to provide supervision and direction.
We would suggest that all of this could be done for $75,000.00 or less, including overhead. The $200,000.00 fiscal estimate currently attached to this bill for unspecified oversight functions seems expensive. We offer a competitive idea.
For more information on Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information. In addition National GAL alert is conducting an informal survey on the cost and performance of Guardians ad litem. If you have 5 minutes we would encourage you to take one or both surveys. The data collected is being published and will be updated live in the future.
Guardian ad litem Cost Survey
Guardian ad litem Performance Survey
In a word, no one has administrative or managerial oversight of Maine's Guardian ad litem program. No one has program numbers. And ... without numbers, data, statistics, it is impossible to describe the scope and size of Guardian ad litem program problems rationally. It is impossible, to have a rational conversation between the public and various branches of government and impossible to seek rational solutions to a program that cries out for "oversight".
We would suggest that there are two kinds of "oversight", (a) oversight of ongoing cases in a divorce, which is sometimes called "case supervision", and (b) programmatic oversight, also called "programmatic administration or management". Supervision, though desirable is costly and would require a large, expensive cadre of supervisors to monitor and correct the work of Guardians ad litem. There is also the question of who would supervise the supervisors? Where would they fit in a bureaucratic chain of command?
To keep the complexities of an first-ever, Maine, oversight program relatively simple at the start, LD 872 has focused on program supervision, administrative supervision. Essentially it seeks answers to the questions about: "What are the numbers?" How is Guardian ad litem time spent? What are the billable hours? How do district courts differ in their use of Guardians ad litem? And ... are there significant differences in the profiles of individual Guardian ad litem activities? These are questions of huge interest to Maine children and families who pay dearly for this program.
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT THE Guardian ad litem's BILL: LD 872 already calls for standardization of all Maine Guardian ad litem's bills. Bills should be done monthly and should follow the itemization format used by lawyers: date, type of service, time spent, fee charged. It would cover such topics as reading e-mails, phone conversations, report writing, time spent with parties, time spent with child, collateral contacts, travel, court appearances, etc. We maintain that a standardized bill is a snapshot of what the Guardian ad litem claims to have done in any given month. It is a work activity profile. It is a record. It will be mandatory. There is minimal cost for this change.
COPIES OF ALL Guardian ad litem BILLS TO ADMINISTRATOR OF COURTS: We are strongly recommending that it should also be mandatory for all 280 rostered Maine Guardians ad litem to send electronic copies of their standardized monthly bills to the Administrators of the Courts at no charge to anyone. It would immediately, for the first time give the Judicial Branch massive amounts of hard, Guardian ad litem program data, which is currently totally lacking. It would give the necessary data for first-ever program oversight of Maine's 280 Guardians ad litem. It should prove interesting and useful to the legislature, the public and the Judicial Branch. It will help to guide beneficial program changes for Maine's Guardian ad litem program. It will be capable of answering many important program questions.
OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS FOR NEW Guardian ad litem DATA: We believe that inasmuch as the proposed oversight data is a tool, the Judicial Branch should have a primary interest in deciding how to use this new tool. They should suggest their own questions for which they want answers from the data.
But in addition to the Judicial Branch we have our own questions too.
OUR QUESTIONS: How many Guardians ad litem are at work in Maine courts each month? How many separate cases are Guardians ad litem carrying? How much time is spent in reading e-mails? Doing reports? Making phone calls? Seeing the child in the case? Travel? Court time? Which courts use Guardians ad litem the most? How do Guardian ad litem activity profiles differ? What is the range of monthly billable hours for Guardians ad litem? What is the total amount for all Guardian ad litem bills in each month? In a year? Are there associations between certain Guardians ad litem, certain lawyers and/or certain judges?
This is for starters, as a "warm-up".
WHO WOULD WORK WITH THIS DATA AND COSTING THIS ACTIVITY? We suggest that the Administrator of the courts would be the proper locus for this activity, and that it should be attached to the component already doing administrative statistics. By our reckoning the costs ought to be minimal. Billing is already being done by Guardians ad litem at no cost to the legislature, changing to a standardized billing format should not add to cost. Sending an electronic copy of all monthly Guardian ad litem's bills to the JB should be a no cost event. There is the need for a clerk to organize the data in such a manner as to answer previously defined questions. There is the need for an existing administrative statistician to provide supervision and direction.
We would suggest that all of this could be done for $75,000.00 or less, including overhead. The $200,000.00 fiscal estimate currently attached to this bill for unspecified oversight functions seems expensive. We offer a competitive idea.
For more information on Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information. In addition National GAL alert is conducting an informal survey on the cost and performance of Guardians ad litem. If you have 5 minutes we would encourage you to take one or both surveys. The data collected is being published and will be updated live in the future.
Guardian ad litem Cost Survey
Guardian ad litem Performance Survey
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Is This a Violation of Maine's Constitution by Judiciary and Guardians ad litem
The following letter suggest that there are serious issues with regards to LD522 and whether if it is implemented would be a violation of Maine's Constitution. This is not the first time where we have seen what would be an infringement of ones Constitutional rights here in Maine. This though holds the potential of being on a much larger scale.
April 10, 2013
Maine Judicial Committee
100 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333
Dear Judicial Committee Member,
Please find within a friendly reminder regarding LD 522; upon accepting your State of Maine Government position, you took an oath and made a pledge to up hold both the Maine and United States Constitutions.
The Maine Constitution is very direct and clear that powers and responsibilities delegated to the Legislator, Governor, and Judicial Branch cannot be under any circumstances sub-delegated.
Whereas, LD 522 clearly does in fact sub delegated the responsibilities and power of oversight regarding Guardian Ad Litem’s to a private and non-government entity; being the Board of Overseers of the Maine Bar.
Therefore, as a member of this judicial committee, you have a responsibility and must reject LD522 and if it should be move forward to the State House and Senate floor; could be a possible act in clear violation of the Maine Constitution. If for some reason, should LD522 be forward to the House and Senate floor; it must contain a proper disclosure that it may be in violation of the Maine Constitution.
I personally find it very troubling that some committee members whom should have a commanding knowledge of the Maine Constitution; would even consider supporting LD 522. Moreover, what is even more troubling is that LD522, was recommended by the Judicial Branch, which should have clearly known that these government powers and responsibilities cannot be sub-delegated to the board of overseers of the Maine Bar!
Another major U.S. Constitutional issue is the sub-delegation of powers in granting immunity or quasi - immunity to attorneys, or guardian ad litems that only represent individuals or a small group of individuals of the general public is prohibited; compare to attorneys that represents the vast majority of the general public with Constitutional rights which is acceptable. Therefore, LD 522 granting guardian ad litem quasi – immunity is in clear conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court opinion’s which have made it very clear as whom can be granted immunity and quasi-immunity. Therefore those attorneys, or guardian ad litems which only represent a child, or small group of children in a particular family will not qualify for any type of immunity, or quasi - immunity.
In closing, this committee should not recommend or allow LD522 to continue on to the floor of the Maine House, or Senate; due to what appears to be major Constitutional violations and conflicts.
Respectfully submitted by,
R Baizley
If you have an interest in bringing about Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
April 10, 2013
Maine Judicial Committee
100 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333
Dear Judicial Committee Member,
Please find within a friendly reminder regarding LD 522; upon accepting your State of Maine Government position, you took an oath and made a pledge to up hold both the Maine and United States Constitutions.
The Maine Constitution is very direct and clear that powers and responsibilities delegated to the Legislator, Governor, and Judicial Branch cannot be under any circumstances sub-delegated.
Whereas, LD 522 clearly does in fact sub delegated the responsibilities and power of oversight regarding Guardian Ad Litem’s to a private and non-government entity; being the Board of Overseers of the Maine Bar.
Therefore, as a member of this judicial committee, you have a responsibility and must reject LD522 and if it should be move forward to the State House and Senate floor; could be a possible act in clear violation of the Maine Constitution. If for some reason, should LD522 be forward to the House and Senate floor; it must contain a proper disclosure that it may be in violation of the Maine Constitution.
I personally find it very troubling that some committee members whom should have a commanding knowledge of the Maine Constitution; would even consider supporting LD 522. Moreover, what is even more troubling is that LD522, was recommended by the Judicial Branch, which should have clearly known that these government powers and responsibilities cannot be sub-delegated to the board of overseers of the Maine Bar!
Another major U.S. Constitutional issue is the sub-delegation of powers in granting immunity or quasi - immunity to attorneys, or guardian ad litems that only represent individuals or a small group of individuals of the general public is prohibited; compare to attorneys that represents the vast majority of the general public with Constitutional rights which is acceptable. Therefore, LD 522 granting guardian ad litem quasi – immunity is in clear conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court opinion’s which have made it very clear as whom can be granted immunity and quasi-immunity. Therefore those attorneys, or guardian ad litems which only represent a child, or small group of children in a particular family will not qualify for any type of immunity, or quasi - immunity.
In closing, this committee should not recommend or allow LD522 to continue on to the floor of the Maine House, or Senate; due to what appears to be major Constitutional violations and conflicts.
Respectfully submitted by,
R Baizley
If you have an interest in bringing about Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Monday, April 1, 2013
LD522 Does Not Level the Playing Field Between Parents - GALs
LD522 - Why it hurts Maine's Families and Children - Why lawyers love it
On Thursday March 28th in testimony to the Judiciary Committee a number of people made excellent suggestions about controlling Guardian ad litem costs and fees. Means testing, fee caps, regular bill reporting and ... oversight of billing by the management of the Judicial Branch would go a long way towards correcting the freewheeling ways of Guardians ad litem. As we know, these ideas are fairly simple - and not rocket science. Finance and many other Guardian ad litem issues should be fairly simple as no cost problems to fix.
The Judicial Branch faces a significant political problem. Make that HUGE. The political base, the support system, of the Judicial Branch is composed of the Legal Guild, lawyers, Guardians ad litem and Judges. Asking - or demanding - that any part of this base take a smaller, financial cut in divorce cases might be expected to result in a mass disaffection on the part of the Judicial Branch legal guild political base. It might cost the Judicial Branch the political support of the Legal Guild and the divorce industry. It could result in profound alienation of this Guild base with political consequences for the Judicial Branch leadership. The Guardian ad litem reform movement threatens to disrupt the previous balance between Judicial Branch management and their affluent, powerful base - the divorce industry.
This Judicial Branch - lawyer political dynamic might explain the powerful, under the radar opposition to real people oriented Guardian ad litem reform.
The care and feeding of its lawyer base is one explanation about why the Judicial Branch always seems to defer to its "stakeholders", the divorce industry, lawyers and Guardians ad litem. It may explain why the Judicial Branch allows its divorce industry "stakeholders" to dominate most of its planning committees for Guardian ad litem reform, such as the one from last Summer. It leaves the Judicial Branch paralyzed in the present situation and may explain why it does nothing - or at best the bare minimum. Pressure from the divorce industry not to change versus pressure from the "grass-roots" to change. The Judicial Branch is caught in a terrible bind.
The members of the divorce industry, including Guardians ad litem, make significant amounts of money off of divorcing couples. It is a multi-million dollar industry. Restrictions on the divorce industry of any kind could reduce their incomes. The current situation and its dynamics are in some ways similar to the robber barons of 19th century American history.
LD 522 is nothing less than a license to steal and plunder. It favors the legal Barons; not divorcing families and children. It is a gift from the Judicial Branch to its lawyer base. It allows the predatory wolves to keep their sheep's clothing!
It will require significant political pressure and moral pressure to overcome this resistance to change for the benefit of our Maine children and families.
For information on how to help stop LD522 from passing contact us at MeGALalertt@gmail.com or find up to date information on Facebook.
On Thursday March 28th in testimony to the Judiciary Committee a number of people made excellent suggestions about controlling Guardian ad litem costs and fees. Means testing, fee caps, regular bill reporting and ... oversight of billing by the management of the Judicial Branch would go a long way towards correcting the freewheeling ways of Guardians ad litem. As we know, these ideas are fairly simple - and not rocket science. Finance and many other Guardian ad litem issues should be fairly simple as no cost problems to fix.
The Judicial Branch faces a significant political problem. Make that HUGE. The political base, the support system, of the Judicial Branch is composed of the Legal Guild, lawyers, Guardians ad litem and Judges. Asking - or demanding - that any part of this base take a smaller, financial cut in divorce cases might be expected to result in a mass disaffection on the part of the Judicial Branch legal guild political base. It might cost the Judicial Branch the political support of the Legal Guild and the divorce industry. It could result in profound alienation of this Guild base with political consequences for the Judicial Branch leadership. The Guardian ad litem reform movement threatens to disrupt the previous balance between Judicial Branch management and their affluent, powerful base - the divorce industry.
This Judicial Branch - lawyer political dynamic might explain the powerful, under the radar opposition to real people oriented Guardian ad litem reform.
The care and feeding of its lawyer base is one explanation about why the Judicial Branch always seems to defer to its "stakeholders", the divorce industry, lawyers and Guardians ad litem. It may explain why the Judicial Branch allows its divorce industry "stakeholders" to dominate most of its planning committees for Guardian ad litem reform, such as the one from last Summer. It leaves the Judicial Branch paralyzed in the present situation and may explain why it does nothing - or at best the bare minimum. Pressure from the divorce industry not to change versus pressure from the "grass-roots" to change. The Judicial Branch is caught in a terrible bind.
The members of the divorce industry, including Guardians ad litem, make significant amounts of money off of divorcing couples. It is a multi-million dollar industry. Restrictions on the divorce industry of any kind could reduce their incomes. The current situation and its dynamics are in some ways similar to the robber barons of 19th century American history.
LD 522 is nothing less than a license to steal and plunder. It favors the legal Barons; not divorcing families and children. It is a gift from the Judicial Branch to its lawyer base. It allows the predatory wolves to keep their sheep's clothing!
It will require significant political pressure and moral pressure to overcome this resistance to change for the benefit of our Maine children and families.
For information on how to help stop LD522 from passing contact us at MeGALalertt@gmail.com or find up to date information on Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)