Impossible to Understand LD 522, SP 212 to Amend GAL laws

There is a bill being that has been presented by our Judiciary that is impossible to understand:

LD 522, SP 212 An Act To Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws

This bill on Guardian ad litem reform seems innocent enough – if you do not really read through it. On the other hand if you try and understand what is being asked – it appears that the Judiciary is trying to pull a fast one on Maine’s citizens. In reading this bill it appears the Judiciary is asking the Legislature to give them a blank check. To turn the other way as they – the divorce industry, Guardians ad ltem and “stake holders” set the rules and oversight for Guardians ad litem. In almost 40 years the Judiciary, divorce industry and Guardians ad litem have failed to provide any measurable oversight and management of the Guardian ad litem system. It would appear that citizens of the state are being asked to believe in our court system to do the right thing.

Good intentions will not correct the problem that we are faced with. By letting the Judiciary take the process behind closed doors there will be no opportunity to correct the problems that we are all facing. To be more concerned with how the “stakeholders” feel is a sad commentary on Justice in Maine.  This bill appears to be bad for the people of Maine and good for those that make a living off of divorcing Maine families. We encourage you to write our Representatives and ask them to explain how this bill will benefit Maine families. If they cannot then they should kill this bill.

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

Judiciary Committee List:

Linda M. Valentino    D York County P. O. Box 1049 Saco ME 04072 (207) 282-5227
     senatorvalentino@gmail.com
  
John L. Tuttle Jr.    D York County 176 Cottage Street Sanford ME 04073 (207) 324-5964
      SenJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov
 
David C. Burns        R Washington County 159 Dodge Road Whiting ME 04691 (207) 733-8856
      SenDavid.Burns@legislature.maine.gov
 
Charles R. Priest    D Brunswick 9 Bowker Street Brunswick ME 04011 (207) 725-5439
     cpriest1@comcast.net    RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
 
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig    D Cape Elizabeth 6 Russet Lane Cape Elizabeth ME 04107 (207) 749-9443
     kmderrig@maine.rr.com    RepKim.Monaghan-Derrig@legislature.maine.gov
  
Jennifer  DeChant    D Bath 1008 Middle Street Bath ME 04530 (207) 442-8486
     dechantforbath@gmail.com    RepJennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov
  
Matthew W. Moonen    D Portland 17 Pine Street #2 Portland ME 04102 (207) 332-7823
     matt.moonen@gmail.com    RepMatt.Moonen@legislature.maine.gov
  
Stephen W. Moriarty    D Cumberland 34 Blanchard Road Cumberland ME 04021 (207) 829-5095
     smoriarty108@aol.com    repsteve.moriarty@legislature.maine.gov
  
Lisa Renee Villa    D Harrison P. O. Box 427 Harrison ME 04040 (207) 776-3118
     Villa98staterep@gmail.com    RepLisa.Villa@legislature.maine.gov
  
Jarrod S. Crockett    R Bethel P. O. Box 701 Bethel ME 04217 (207) 875-5075
     jarrodscrockett@gmail.com    RepJarrod.Crockett@legislature.maine.gov
  
Michael G. Beaulieu    R Auburn 27 Sherman Avenue Auburn ME 04210 (207) 784-0036
     mike@mikeformaine.org    RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
  
Anita  Peavey Haskell    R Milford 17 Pine Street Milford ME 04461 (207) 827-7296
      RepAnita.Peaveyhaskell@legislature.maine.gov
  
Stacey K. Guerin    R Glenburn 79 Phillips Road Glenburn ME 04401 (207) 884-7118
     repguerin@gmail.com    RepStacey.Guerin@legislature.maine.gov
  
Wayne T. Mitchell    D Penobscot Nation 14 Oak Hill Street, Penobscot Nation Indian Island ME 04468 (207) 827-0392
     waymitch10@hotmail.com    RepWayne.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov

Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen says Guardians ad litem are wonderful

Maybe the Hon. Robert E. Mullen, Deputy Chief Judge who gave a presentation along with Judge Susan Longley at the recent meeting of the Joint Standing  Committee of the Judiciary missed what has been going on this past year. If they are to be believed Guardians ad litem are wonderful and the noise currently being made by concerned citizens is limited to a handful of people. According to them.

A year ago there were only 5 people in the state that voiced concern about Guardians ad litem that we were aware of. A year later we know of almost 400 people who have been touched in a negative way by a Guardian ad litem. These are people from all parts of the state. They are children, parents, grandparents, friends and co-workers who have all experienced the pain that results from a Guardian ad litem that is under managed and with no oversight. One has to ask where Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen and Judge Susan Longley are getting their information? Are their opinions based in any kind of reality or fact? Or is it based on the bubblegum reality that the divorce industry paints for their constituents – the courts and those representatives that have a vested interest in perpetuating the money machine known as Guardian ad litem?

On January 31, 2013 The Deputy Chief Judge gave a presentation that covered much of what the Judiciary and those in the Divorce industry have told us before in the past. That there is a process for complaints. That there are rules and standards the courts and Guardians ad litem live by.  While all of this looks good to those of us looking in from the outside –  the reality of those on the inside is not as good or clear. For instance there is no process that explains what a lay person needs to do to file a complaint. The Rules and Standards which are displayed for everyone to see are meaningless words to be used at the courts convenience. There is no informed consent – so that parents know how the information they are about to give to a Guardian ad litem and courts can be used against them. How their Constitutional rights may be violated. These are just a few of the issues that the divorce industry have ignored or are blaming on the parents and families caught up in the process.

“Guardians ad litem are wonderful" according to  Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen but there is mounting evidence to show there are very real problems. The Judiciary has known since 2006 of problems with its rostered GALs and the lack of oversight and management of these court officers.  Some of the issues are listed here:

1. 2006 OPEGA report that highlighted 11 areas that need reform or correction 
2. 2008 report by Maine's Judiciary that pointed out areas of concern
3. The National organization First Start which has rated Maine with a ( F ) for three reports 
4. The National organization Center for Judicial Excellence which pointed out problems with Maine 
5. In less than ( 1 ) year over 400 people have come out to question the actions of Guardians ad litem in a custody dispute.
6. In less than ( 1 ) year over 60 consumer complaints about GALs that are rostered in Maine.
7. Chief Justice Saufley who spoke in March of 2012 and who pointed out some of the horrors that divorcing families have had to experience at the hands of Guardians ad litem – sexual abuse, questionable billing practices, predatory practice, lack of management and lack of oversight to name a few of the items from the list she presented.
8. 2012 May 31 in Portland at the court house there were numerous consumer concerns about the role of Guardian ad litem – with follow up letters to the Judiciary
9. For this legislative session ( 5 ) bills dealing with some aspect of Guardian ad litem reform have been presented.

One has to ask Deputy Chief Judge Robert E. Mullen and Judge Susan Longley if the situation with Guardians ad litem are really “peaches and cream” then where is the proof – that is proof other than the shop worn 'statistic' of two Guardians ad litem in five years having been disciplined. Currently divorcing families have a loaded weapon pointed at them if a Guardian ad litem is brought onto the case. With no limitations, controls and immunity Guardians ad litem will leave a path of destruction in their wake. All of this is done with the blessing of the courts and 'in the best interest of the child'. It is time to bring about reform so that future families are not crippled.

If you have or had an issue with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Like us on Facebook or find us on twitter.

No Job description - No Accountability or Management for GALs and PCs

The “Judiciary” has created a class of person that has no job description and these people work as court officers with no accountability, management or direction. They make life altering decisions and often play God with your life and that of your child. If they make a mistake – the courts say they are protected by “quasi” immunity and for all purposes - untouchable. 
They are Guardians ad litem (GAL) and Parental Coordinators (PC).

With no job description it is impossible to say what a PC or GAL is supposed to do and if they are doing something they should not. Mission creep has set in so that now a GAL or PC can 'recommend' therapy and do so with no reason, end point or methodology. All of this from just 16 hours of training.  You resist and the courts will coerce you into taking this therapy under threat of jail time or loss of custody. Or a GAL or PC may not report neglect or abuse when common sense dictates that they should report to DHHS. With no job description – you – as a parent have no recourse on this persons job performance – how do you prove they are wrong? You can't. As a result any complaint against a GAL or PC will go nowhere. That is why in five years not one GAL or PC has been removed or reprimanded in the course of doing their 'job' when a consumer has lodged a complaint. This despite mounting evidence that would suggest otherwise – that job performance is lacking.

A job description is a foundation upon which a job can be built upon. No foundation or one that is not solid and the structure of that job will be weak and rotten (like what we have currently). We urge those in state government to look at creating a job description for Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators. This is a no cost method of providing oversight and accountability to a 'profession' that has none. Let our representatives know how you have been affected by this lack of a job description – write, call or email them with your story. Or email MeGALalert@gmail.com and we will forward your story on to those who should be concerned.

Court Sanctioned Abuse of Our Children - Ka Ching it is all about the Money

Not your child's best interest

In any custody case where a Guardian ad litem of Parental Coordinator is involved they are supposed to report to DHHS (In Maine) if a “child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected, must make an immediate report to the Department of Human Services.” as stated in the Guardian ad litem Standards and Rules on the Maine Judiciary web site (look for 6.1 Mandated Reporting).

The reality of the situation that we have been made aware of is that Guardians ad litem rarely report abuse or neglect. How could this happen? Guardians ad litem are supposed to have the child's best interest at hand. Or is it maybe that Guardians ad litem have their own best interest. By reporting to DHHS such things as -

a child that was burned by a cigarette.
a child that went to bars late at night.
a child that was better off with a sex offender.
a child that was better off with a parent that had drug issues.

Ka ching – the cash register stops for the Guardian ad litem. The Guardian ad litem also ends up playing a marginalized and insignificant role in the childs life and the custody battle. The Guardian ad litem gives up control. People with any shred of common sense would question how a child burned by a cigarette is not considered abuse. Or that by placing a child with a known sex offender is safe and not a recipe for trouble. Yet when we are talking about these 'professionals' in the court system we look the other way. We are in a sense giving our approval for this continued abuse perpetuated by our courts and the divorce industry. Ka ching – it is about the money and not about your child.

Maine has received the grade of ( F ) by First Star three reports in a row. Maine is criticized by the Center for Judicial Excellence for the issues within the system. Chief Justice Saufley in March of 2012 indicated that there were problems with GALs in the state. OPEGA in 2006 outlined problems with the system. The courts reiterated this finding in 2008. Yet the divorce industry has been satisfied with the status quo. “Make them pay” was the quote of one well established divorce lawyer during one of the committee meetings on GAL reform. Who really has the best interest of the child in any divorce? A stranger whose incentive is how many billable hours they can get out? Or the families that are thrown into a pit of insanity that we call Justice? You be the judge ka ching.

If your child(ren) have been abused by the system you are not alone. We are a growing grassroots organization that is fighting for reform please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information.

If you want to let your Senator or Representative know what your thoughts are on the current broke system that the divorce industry and courts maintain contact us for their information.

Prescribing Snake Oil and Witchcraft to help divorcing families by our Court

"Because my ex abused my son/ daughter, this stranger (GAL) is deemed a more capable parent than me?"

Is it any wonder then why any parent when faced with a similar situation would feel anger towards a custody situation they find themselves in? Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators have been “prescribing” courses in anger management for quite some time. One Senior GAL is on record for recommending this because one of the parents was “caustic and controlling”. Are these parent(s) who are given this “prescription” by court officers really in need of anger management? Or is this the “prescribers'” attempt to control (and need to punish) the parent(s) as a result of an unfriendly or hostile interpersonal situation? The courts and court officers appear have not given much thought or “prescriptive” precision in recommending “anger management”.

Anger is an emotion and is not recognized as a diagnosable form of mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. Anger is not a primary condition but is a secondary emotion and is a part of many situations. The courts order and or prescribe “anger management” without the knowledge, skill or professional experience to know what they are doing with this alleged “tool”. The courts and their officers (GALs and Parental Coordinators) are not clinicians trained to “prescribe” anything they are reporters to the courts. In making these “prescriptions” the courts and officers of the courts never describe the 'anger' as being mild, severe, appropriate, inappropriate, controlled or out of control. If it is secondary to psychosis, drugs or alcohol or whether the anger is threatening the safety of others. In 'prescribing' therapy the courts and officers of the courts do not set goals or an end point to 'anger management'.

So are the courts helping the parent(s) that are 'prescribed' treatment or are they delving into an area that they have no business being involved in? Causing more harm to the parent(s) in an attempt to control and manipulate them. It appears that the courts in 'prescribing' 'anger management' are doing nothing more than playing witch doctor in their pseudo-psychological, court 'prescribed' punishment for what is perceived as bad behavior. The reality is that the parent(s) are showing their frustration with a process that is so twisted and warped that it is devoid of any reality.

If you have fallen victim to court 'prescribed' therapy please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com for support or like us on Facebook for up to date information.

The Dilemma of Judicial Management of Guardians ad litem

In thinking about why the Judicial Branch has such difficulty in creating a management system for its GAL program, a number of conceptual and structural impediments come to mind. The most readily acknowledged issue is no money for supervision or for a bureaucratic structure that would allow for normal bureaucratic management of Guardians ad litem (GAL). The financial excuse is probably true given the dire financial straights of the state, but we would say in addition that even were money available, there are more serious conceptual impediments preventing Judicial Branch’s internal management of Guardians ad litem. There are at least three conceptual issues that would make supervision or management of Guardians ad litem in any Judicial system fraught with legal and ethical problems unique to judicial branches of government.

The issues involve internal conflicts inherent in normal organizational role shifts, within a judicial system, from the role of supervision of vocational functioning of a supervisee to the administration of justice in cases involving complaints about supervision which seek legal solutions. Both GAL management and adjudication of formal, legal complaints about a Guardian’s management get very complex when these inherently conflicting activities have to occur within the same, small, fairly tight system. It would require a tight control over supervisory information and rigid compartmentalization of this information, so that information about supervision and management - and any conflict therein - does not seep into formal adjudication channels and pollute the fairness of any possible, future legal complaint process. Can it be done?

1.) Judicial Independence. In the spirit of Common Law, a judge is supposed to form his/her judgment about a case independently, uninfluenced (unswayed) by other branches of government or by partisan, community (or bureaucratic) politics.

This means standing apart from and being independent of politics and influence from the other branches of government. It should include not only formal political influence of the branches, but also government bureaucratic influences, including those of the judge’s own internal bureaucracy. This means using data presented in court by both parties to form an independent opinion and not to be swayed by outside influences or outside information or previous knowledge of the case. It would be difficult for a judge to resolve independently legal actions of any kind involving a Guardian ad litem; especially, a GAL with whom he/she has worked in court or even one who is known to the judicial system. Judicial independence gets damaged by foreknowledge of the GAL, by working relationships, by the rumors, by system gossip, by the system grapevines and by private awareness of the contentions.
 

A theoretical problem might start with supervisory discord between a GAL and his/her supervisor about an issue of supervision, leading to an internal management hearing and subsequently pursued in a formal court complaint. It might go the full route in court and continue as a case of higher level appeal. Administrative supervision within any such JB system - if there were conflicts - might at some point be apt to tangle with the branches’ system for administering formal justice, as those with supervisory grievances may seek legal appeal. It poses a huge bureaucratic challenge to keep information from these supervision and justice boundaries clean, separate and non-communicating in a single, small bureaucracy. This is a very special supervisory problem (unique?) for judicial systems, one that is not faced by administrative bureaucracies in other branches of government. Judicial independence, while an active member of a bureaucratic branch of government is challenging to say the least.

Having a non-judge be supervisor of a GAL would necessitate a bureaucracy to supervise the supervisor, a supervisory appellate process for conflicts arising out of supervision, and links within the same system to the judiciary for conflicts that "go legal". Judicial independence in Judicial Branches would necessitate a “Rube Goldberg” organizational structure and be strained to the degree that all judges would have to adopt an antisocial, personal ‘modus operandi’ to avoid contamination of their independence by normal internal organizational grapevines and normal organizational politics. And this would have to be at all times for perhaps an actually limited number of internal legal complaints. Can independence of one’s home bureaucracy be carried out, always, with any kind of credibility? What sort of person would avoid all informal social communications with system wide colleagues to be judicially independent? It is an example of the latent conflicting strains between supervision and legal functions within the same system that inevitably impinge on judicial independence.

2.) Judicial Impartiality. There are special challenges to maintaining judicial impartiality when one sits in formal judgment of a person who works in the same bureaucratic system, who is appointed by colleagues, who works for colleagues and friends in that system, who may be known personally or by reputation or rumor. The potential role conflicts and/or impartiality conflicts would seem enormous when colleagues, friends, coworkers must attempt to render impartial judgment. Can it happen? Can one have oversight of a working colleague (and at the same time maintain impartiality), with the unavoidable risk that the working colleague might at some point go to law with a formal complaint for some sort of problem resolution, which cannot be resolved in supervision? It is another serious conceptual impediment to the Judicial Branch system supervising or having oversight of GALs.

3.) Due Process. Implies that in a conflict, all parties and the judge will share in common, knowledge about the complaint and the case at the same time, and that everyone has equal opportunities to respond to all steps in the process. No one has the special advantage of being able to use secret information unknown to the other players or privately to exert undue influence. Well run courts are scrupulous about keeping all relevant information shared by all participants and to avoid ‘ex parte’ communications so no one has use of special knowledge not available to the others. Information has a power of its own to determine or influence outcomes. The idea of protecting due process poses special challenges to the hypothetical idea of supervision or of oversight within a judicial system, where all supervisory and oversight information would have to be kept rigidly apart from the justice side to avoid contaminating possible future due process in a hypothetical legal complaint from the same players. Can any organization - even a formal espionage organization - implement this degree of control over information that is internal to one part of the system in order to prevent seepage into another part of the same system?

These ideas are just a few conceptual and system reasons, why it is virtually an impossibility for the JB to construct a system of GAL oversight without violating very important traditional principles that are embedded in administering the law. This is not in any way to suggest that these principles are not vitally important and necessary in a court of law and need to be respected. It is simply to try to understand why these same respected principles that work so well in court render supervision of GALs virtually impossible in Judicial systems. It is the reason why many states have surrendered to the impossibility of doing supervision/oversight within their judicial branch and moved these activities to the administrative/executive branch.

Maine should do this for the same reasons.

For more information on the issues of Guardians ad litem we encourage you to read the 2006 OPEGA report. Provided is a link to a summary – OPEGA. In addition there is the report the Power of the Powerless which addresses many of the same issues. If you have had any issues with Guardians ad litem we encourage you to contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for information.

No Oversight for Guardians ad litem for almost 40 years

In 2006 OPEGA ( Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability ) produced a report highlighting some of the problems with the Guardian ad litem program in Maine. What OPEGA highlighted back in 2006 for Maine are issues that sadly can be seen in many states across the country.

One of the audit findings by OPEGA was that there is a lack of compliance, performance controls and evaluation systems. The Judicial Branch has not been competent when it comes to oversight or performance monitoring in the 30+ years prior to the report.  Six years later we find the Judicial Branch still without any quality controls in place to monitor and evaluate Guardians ad litem. There is no mechanism to identify GALs that are not complying with requirements or who are not involved in the lives of the child(ren). OPEGA also recommended the establishment of an independent oversight board that would ask for feedback on GAL performance. Being able to give feedback and having a place where this feedback, good or bad, is available for consumers would help in the matter of oversight and management. An Angie’s list of sorts would weed out under performing GALs or limit their business. Those that perform to standards would be rewarded for their ethics and behavior.

It was 30+ years before OPEGA investigated and reported on this issue. Six years later the situation has not changed except that there has been 6 more years of damage to Maine's families and children. How much longer will Maine's children have to wait for change to come? If we wait for the Judicial Branch to bring about change it may be another 40 years. Can we wait that long?

If you want to read a summarized copy of the 2006 OPEGA report click here.

A copy of the report done in 2012 – the Power of the Powerless which covers many of the same issues can be found here.

If you are or know someone who has had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com. We can also be found on Facebook.