Maine's Judicial Branch is in the final stages of fine tuning a "new"
Guardian ad litem complaint process. From a review of this “new”
proposal,which must go to the legislature for approval, we would say
that the JB has done a masterful job of protecting Guardians ad litem,
also known as"officers of the court". The draft proposal, if it goes
forward as is, will virtually guarantee each and every GAL that no
complaint from the public will ever touch them. They can remain free
and totally unaccountable. It will be a huge relief for many Guardians
ad litem whose activities have been the subject of much public anger
about a malfunctioning GAL system and public calls for reform of the
program. No public complaint will break the tight legal barriers of the
"new" complaint process, which appears even more likely to dismiss all
complaints than the Judicial Branch's "old" complaint process.
Whew! Looks like Guardians ad litem dodged that bullet!
It
is a triumph of "foxes" designing security systems for the "hen
house". Credit must go to Justice Warren Silver and his committee of 20
who worked on the plan for an “open, fair process” for complaints about
Guardians ad litem. The huge preponderance of this 20 member committee
were what might be called the Judicial Branch's core political "base",
Guardians ad litem, friends of Guardians ad litem, family court judges,
and lawyers in the divorce "trade". There was one lone member
representing the public interest in this process. There had been
earlier talk of three public representatives, but, hey, why trouble the
public about this sort of thing? What does the public know anyway? One
public member should be plenty!
One of the curious paradoxes
about this committee with a "reform" mandate from the Chief Justice was
that the majority of the members openly (and sometimes heatedly)
expressed their feeling that there was "no problem" with the system,
especially the current complaint process. Many felt the push for change
was the result of political action by a small, noisy group that didn't
reflect the views of most people using Guardians ad litem in their
divorce. One family lawyer was vehement in his views about clients who
want to complain: "Make them pay! It's about ego!" And ... the
committee proposal does follow his strongly expressed suggestion. Those
who use Guardians ad litem in their divorce will pay an upfront "tax" to
support the complaint process and another fee for making a formal
complaint.
Make ‘em pay!
The complaint process itself will
be housed in the formidable bastion of the Overseers of the Bar and
administered by them. An administrative lawyer will do a screening
check on all public complaints. If these complaints are felt to have
merit, they will be passed on to a 12 member "volunteer panel" for
determination of action on the complaint. But ... what a panel! 10
Guardians ad litem and two members from the "public". We're not sure
what "public" means (friends and families of Guardians ad litem, agency
people or Mr and Mrs “Grass-roots America”?). We're wondering why 2
members of the public? For true GAL peace of mind, one or, better, none,
should suffice. Keep it a friendly little group of like-minded
colleagues.
Consumer protection? Please, just trust the
integrity of the JB, and its GAL "officers of the court". We consider
that our whole operation is about consumer protection. Just take
property liens, garnished wages and jail! These protect consumers from
breaking the law for non-payment of their GAL’s bills. We protect
consumers all the time.
Er, ... do Guardians ad litem know how
to judge their peers, or have they any experience in self-policing? Do
they even know or follow their own Rules and Regulations? Do they have
any experience with “consumer protection” issues? No, but that means
they will be more spontaneously empathic and “culturally sensitive” to
colleagues who are beset by complainers and bad sports. They are not
bogged down by knowledge. Dismissed, dismissed, dismissed! What
training does it take to say, “Dismissed”? These complainers wanted
change. You can be sure we'll give them “change”, but our change may not
pan out to be what these “bad sports” wanted!
As you can see it
is an elegant judicial sham. It uses the ‘gravitas’ of the Overseers of
the Bar to cover a heavily weighted panel of 10 Guardians ad litem
whose threadbare training and experience give them no preparation to
address consumer complaints about malfunctioning colleagues and friends.
But ... it takes no experience or education to say, “Dismissed!” It is
in essence a mini court trial in which “the burden of proof” is on the
consumer. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you got a “lemon”.
How
on earth did we end up in a formal courtroom type of process when we
wanted to report vocational malfunctioning to the workers overseers? All
we wanted was corrective action from those in charge at the JB.
Given
that Maine’s licensing boards offer consumer protection and consumer
friendly models for addressing malfunctioning professionals, one has to
ask:
Will the legislature buy these new “bullet proof vests” for Guardians ad litem with public money?
No comments:
Post a Comment