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 snake goes into the hole"

- is what a young girl told her mother one night before taking a bath.

On another occasion this girl told her mother -

"I have to hold the snake until it dies" - one night while she was bouncing up and down.

Awhile later the Guardian ad litem did a home evaluation of both parents. During the visit with the father he talked to the Guardian ad litem about his daughters pet snake. When the Guardian ad litem visited with the mother - the mother voiced concerned about the "snake" at the fathers house. The Guardian ad litem brushed off the "snake" the daughter talked of - saying that the father and daughter were exploring nature. That the mother was letting her imagination get the best of her and it was of no concern.

If you were the Guardian ad litem - what would you do? Take the test to voice your opinion and to find out what happened - TEST. Don't want to take the test - follow this link to read about the outcome - NGAL Complaint

For more information on Guardians ad litem and Family Courts please email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

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

Dear Guardian ad litem, Dear Family Court,

Santa has received letters from kids who want BOTH parents....

Connecticut Attorney Sharon Dornfeld troubled by comments from Parent

While this letter is regarding Guardians ad litem in another state what is being said can be equally applied to situations involving Guardians ad litem in any state:

Hello Ms. Dornfeld,

I'm told that you are troubled by my observations of the system. As an expert in legal operations, legal e-billing and legal spend management, I would again extend to you the invitation to meet with me at your convenience and at any time to discuss your perspectives and concerns, as well as to share mine and those of many other legal professionals equally as fed up with what our family courts have become and how they operate.

I was in the courthouse in Hartford today and saw many of my family attorney friends and contacts there. Two of them approached me and asked to meet with me next week - as they are considered testifying as to how bad the situation has become and how dramatically it has impacted them and their clients.

Veteran family law attorneys - one of whom wrote the attached letter. This would bring to 12 the number of family law attorneys I have organized and who will also speak out as Attorney Rutkin recently did, when the time is right and they no longer have to worry about retaliation against them.

And what does that say and reflect in regards to what our family court system has become, and the powers-that-be have created and perpetuated - when family law attorneys themselves are afraid to speak about their own industry for fear of how it may personally impact them?

Once again - the world has changed and the genie is out of the bottle. "The system" is no longer able to threaten and intimidate parents and attorneys into silence, social media has changed that forever and good riddance. And this is true not just here in Connecticut, but nationally and even internationally as well.

No parent or citizen should EVER have fear the Judiciary or suffer retaliation for speaking their opinion - EVER in the United States. That is not why I and my family came here from a communist country to see and experience.

Once again - shouldn't we all be ashamed of what our family courts have become and its complete lack of focus on families and children and abuses we have all suffered at the hands of the system?

The family court is supposed to be a source of resolution and closure - not open ended cycle and source and cause of abuse and therapy.

What's happened to the basic principles of common decency, common respect, understanding and compassion?

If you are "irritated" by my commentary - then I'm afraid I can offer you no apologies, because I and the thousands of parents, children of divorce, grandparents, family attorneys and GALs who have been severely impacted and financially and otherwise devastated by the horrific perspectives and policies you and others have promoted, are not the ones who are fault for what is wrong.

* The problems in our family court were not created by parents or our fault.

* It is not what we are responsible for or what we created.

* It is not what we want for ourselves and our children and our families or our state.

* It is not parents who are blatantly violating the basic principles of due process, civil and parental rights, or the rights of child.

* It is not parents who are acting in an unethical, immoral and illogical manner.

* It is not parents who are willfully ignoring violations of court order or the abuses and neglect of children.

* It is not parents who are in Court perpetuating and promoting conflict to profit from it.

* It is not parents who are imposing draconian and devastating financial orders on parents to punish them for being in court.

* It is not parents who are forcing the liquidation of retirement accounts and children's college funds and demanding payments from grandparents.

* It is not parents who jailing themselves solely because they have no means to pay.

PARENTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

And you do not use the same people who created a problem and who profit handsomely from it, to solve it.

It is perhaps most telling that after two months of hearings, and that as Chair, you have not called a single parent or child or divorce to testify - not one. And that every person who has been called, is a member of the divorce industry and someone who profits from and engages in perpetuating the problem. And no surprise - practically all of them members of FCC member, as you and Ms. Cousineau are.

* Which speaks volumes as to how co-opted and pointless the Task Force has become.

Task Forces are created by the legislature to solicit to hear testimony from people and citizens adversely impacted by a situation or problem - not those who create and profit from it.

It is equally as telling that we have not heard testimony from a single parent or child of divorce stating how wonderful the court system is, how much time their AMC/GAL spent with them to get to know them and how much they helped them, or how helpful a court ordered therapist was. And that any of this was worth the money taken from them or their parents and families. Why is that?

What the Task Force has become is like watching a home improvement show, where the focus of the show is to take pity on and only listen to shady contractor who did shoddy work and left the homeowner with a massive problem and walked away with all of their money.

Perhaps we should listen to the Chief Justice of Canada, who has publically come out and stated that family courts are beyond the point of repair, and need to be completely replaced with "something else." As an expert in legal operations and legal spend management, and business process improvement expert, I couldn't agree more. And applaud Attorney Rutkin for his recommendation that the state consider bringing in an outside management company to run the Judiciary and correct its operational dysfunctions. (I volunteer to help.)

Please let me know when you would like to meet and review the information I have to share with you and the Task Force. Most notably - an examination of the devastating financial impact the crisis in the family courts have exacted onto parents and families, and how many people it has thrown out of work, cost them their homes, and caused people to be unfairly jailed.

Regards

Peter Szymonik
Glastonbury, CT

www.galreform.org

Is this Really Oversight? How the Overseers of the Bar Operates.

The Overseers of the Bar has by all appearances an open process of complaint for the public. If I was researching a lawyer I am able to view 13 years of complaints brought against 247 lawyers. Each decision has a link provided so that I can see what the complaint was about and the outcome - the decision handed out to that lawyer. While the disciplinary action is written out in a way that only a lawyer could love (legalistic, specific and dry) it dose give the reasoning behind the decision.

What do the numbers show us?

There are currently 247 lawyers that have complaints where decisions have been handed out by the Overseers.  Those decisions amount to a total of 362.

Of the 247 lawyers who had complaints 179 appeared before the Overseers only once. The balance of 68 lawyers appeared on multiple occasions. Of those 68 lawyers 29 appeared 3 or more times. In terms of the decisions handed out those 68 lawyers had 183 (or 50.55%) of the decisions handed out to them.

What was the order  that the Overseers of the Board handed out to these lawyers. There are 43 categories that summarizes what action the Overseers recommends. Most mean nothing to the casual observer - maybe this is intended. The focus is on those that have meaning.

Reprimand is the most popular order given out to a wayward lawyer. This was handed out 36% of the time or 131 instances. Suspension is another popular order being handed out 4.7% of the time. Dismissal was handed out 8 times in 13 years. What is interesting is that 17 lawyers resigned and only 5 were disbarred. Those that were disbarred represents only 2% of the population who manages to make it to this point.

It is important to reflect on these numbers as it speaks to the process that the Overseers has in place and their ability to provide oversight to the lawyers that they license. Is the Overseers of the Bar able to provide effective oversight of those they license? Is the process that is in place a fair and equitable process to consumers of legal services as well as to lawyers? Or does the process favor lawyers? Is the process one that the average consumer can understand and easily navigate through?

What is not clear to anyone is how many times complaints were started against a lawyer and then was dropped because of the financial cost and time it would take. Or was weeded out at one of the many layers that is intended to make the process fair. Of those lawyers that had multiple complaints - how many more were started but were never completed or weeded out? The result of such filtering would be to allow a problem lawyer to continue and cause pain and suffering.

If you have any thoughts on the Overseers of the Bar we would encourage your comments here or on our Facebook page. You may also email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com

"New Guardians ad litem do not have the experience" Sarah Stark Oldham

In state of Connecticut parents and consumers have been dealing with a horrific family court and Guardian ad litem mess for years. The situation is so bad that families have been bankrupt emotionally and financially as a result of the process. On October 31 the task force that was created to investigate legal disputes involving the care and custody of children heard from a number of people.

One of those who  gave testimony was Sarah Stark Oldham. Ms Oldham is the President of the Connecticut chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. During her testimony she defended the role of Guardians ad litem and the training of GALs. At one point Ms Oldham was asked why out of over a thousand certified GALs a judge would choose only out of a handful of Guardians ad litem - the response to that question was as stunning as it was troubling:

“Well, I think judges assign cases to a GAL who they think can handle the case and many of the new Guardians ad litem do not yet have any experience or the qualifications required to be assigned.”

The silence in the hearing room was deafening….

Rep. Minnie Gonzalez held up the list of court certified Guardians ad litem and said:  “I’m sorry, if we are now certifying GALs, then every one of the people on this list should be able to handle a case – otherwise what is the point of certifying them?”

“Well, they just have to take the classes, there is no test at the end or way for them to pass or fail.”

Thank you Ms. Sarah "Sally" Stark Oldham.  Thank you.

What Ms. Sarah "Sally" Stark Oldham confirmed for Connecticut and many other state Guardian ad litem education programs is that the training to become a Guardian ad litem is minimal at best and does little to prepare an up and coming Guardian ad litem on how to handle the complexities of a divorce/ custody. That Guardians ad litem are unleashed on an unsuspecting public able to make life changing decisions on people that they have little or no knowledge of. Decisions that have far reaching consequences and impact - yet are protected by a court system when a Guardian ad litem malpractices.

For support contact NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.