The following was
sent to Mary Ann Lynch of the Judicial Branch regarding the new and improved
complaint process that the judicial branch has asked us (consumers) to use
since September 1, 2015. While the new rules and complaint process is more
robust it does present issues:
It is hard for some
of us to understand the object of the "new" Guardian ad litem (GAL)
complaint protocol. It is a confusing piece of work in terms of its aims or
purpose!. To some readers it appears to
be a virtual Guardian ad litem Protective Society that aims at discouraging complaints about GALs. Not only is the multi layered complaint
procedure very likely to intimidate, confuse and frustrate a 'Pro se'
complainant, but also the committee, which will review and judge any of the
complaints that may squeeze through the screening procedure, seems heavily
slanted towards "friends of the GAL family". To outside observers, both the design of the
complaint protocol and the selection of a board
are nearly flawless, if one aims to suppress public complaints.
Two guardian ad
litem board members, Senator David Dutremble and Chair, Dana Prescott, Esq. appear to have other professional roles-
which expose them to conflict with their GAL board role. One is a state senator
with normal constituent obligations; the other has been an important leader in
MEGALI, the Maine Guardian ad litem trade organization. Mr Prescott has been rumored to be the successor
to Toby Hollander, the organization's present leader. MEGALI is a major support organization for
GALs. It provides educational supports,
an online chatroom,, consultation on cases, group supervision of GALs and
advises on problems associated with the GAL relationship with parties. It may lead to Mr Prescott knowing about
cases well before they wend their way through the formalities of the GAL
complaint protocol. Is this potential
for "jumping the gun" before the usual steps in the complaint
procedure permitted by the complaint protocol?
How might these
potential organizational loyalty conflicts be handled by the program's creators
or, for that matter, by compelainants?
As we understand it,
the way the Board is structured for complaints,board members are not allowed to
get involved in reviewing any actual case information until complaints have
first gone through a staff screening process, and, then, their involvement is
very structured, very legalistic, only in committee. Does this structure impact
the ability of Senator Dutremble to hear the details of a GAL complaint from a
constituent until it has been screened and presented to the committee by board
staff? Would hearing a complaint directly from one of his constituent (such as
me) create a "conflict of interest" for Senator Dutremble? Would he
either have to abandon a constituent, or recuse himself from the
committee? It would appear that the
senator might be bureaucratically hamstrung by accepting a board position.
There is also the
matter of the senator (or any legislator) sponsoring possible GAL reform
legislation while a committee member. As a member of the GAL board will he be
limited legislatively? For instance, can he use his experience on the Board, as
evidence to suggest needed reform of the GAL complaint protocol or of board
make up? May he freely sponsor legislation, say, to move GAL oversight to the
Administrative Bureau of licensing, using examples from his board experience?
Or … will this present a conflict of interest?
Using data gathered from closed meetings to promote legislation aimed at
demonstrating a problem and advocating reform legislation?
My worry, as one of
Sen Dutremble's actual constituents, is that his role as a legislator and his
role as a member of a Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem Board might at times
present conflicts that would limit my access to him as a constituent. Have provisions
been made for this sort of contingency?
Then there is
situation of The GAL Complaint Board Chair, Dana Prescott. Mr Prescott has been an intimate part of the trade organization (MEGALI) that supports
GALs. Can The Chair of the committee
even pretend to be "impartial" in dealing with GAL complaints with
his base of case knowledge coming through the MEGALI system of which he is a
member? Or does impartiality in judging
complaints matter to those who have created the complaint procedure?
There are other
committee members perceived by the public as family court "warriors",
with little sympathy for would be public complainers. It looks like an airtight group. Do you expect that any complaints will
actually get through? For many
professional licensing boards there are projected annual averages or
percentages of expected complaints needing corrective action of some sort. Are you projecting any such numbers for this
board. From its structure and membership
composition, it looks like 0% (zero)
sanctions for this board.
As the saying
goes, "the devil may be in the
details", but many worry that the public is being short changed. We need
your opinion on the several questions I raise about conflict management.
If you have had
issues with Family Courts we would encourage you to contact us at
MeGALalaert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
