Guardians ad Litem (GALs) Vendor Services Survey - Ending 2/15/2017

As part of LD 872 An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine the Judicial Branch was required to survey consumers of their vendors services.

If your case is finished you have an opportunity to take this survey as a way to give the Judicial Branch constructive feedback as to how their GAL vendor did.

The Judicial Branch is requesting parents and attorneys in completed Family Court/ Law and child protection cases to answer a brief survey about the experience with the Guardian ad litem's service.

There are four survey's available. The majority of those reading this blog should take survey two. A link to the main survey page may be found here.

Guardians ad Litem (GALs) Services Survey

If you were a parent who was involved in a family law matter, please complete Survey Two entitled, "Survey of Parents Regarding Guardians ad Litem in Family Law Cases." - Survey Two

The Judicial Branch is supposed to be making a presentation to the Judiciary Committee on 2/15/2017. As part of that presentation we expect that the Judicial Branch will be showing what statistics they have collected on their vendors. The survey is 12 questions in length with opportunity to comment. It is an an anonymous survey.

MeGAL works to educate parents and family members as well as our representatives to the issues that infect our Family Court system. If you have had a problem or feel that something just is not right with your GAL or Judge we encourage you to email us at NatGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

National - Equal Access to Justice - Not as a Pro se litigant

In June of this year we wrote to the US Department of Justice regarding issues surrounding Pro se representation. Part of the issues a Pro se litigant has to deal with is the denial of equal rights and access to Justice. In Maine, Connecticut and New York the Pro se litigant makes up 74% or greater of the cases in court. In over 80% of these cases the Pro se litigant is up against a lawyer. Below is our letter to the Justice Department:


US Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington. DC 20530

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Civil Rights Complaint: 74% of Maine Family Court Users, Who are 'Pro se' Are Denied Equal Rights in Family Courts.

In Maine 74% of people in family courts are 'Pro se'. This amazing statistic comes from a personal communication from Maine's Chief Justice, and it has appeared in an essay by an Associate Chief Justice in the Portland Press Herald. There is also the statistic that in 86% of cases in family court there is only one lawyer. These limited numbers alone raise questions about whether equal justice is possible when a 'pro se' litigant is opposed by a lawyer.

Attempts to seek corrective action in discussion with leaders in the Maine Judicial Branch have gone nowhere.  Likewise, an attempt to obtain a legislative audit (see below) have been defeated, largely because of oppositional lobbying from the bar and the Judicial Branch. I am enclosing the content of the proposed bill, which aimed at obtaining further data about the nature of the 'Pro se' problem in Maine, so as to be able to move forward with rational planning to address the problem. It gives the gist of the civil rights problem in a nutshell. See below:

LD 953 An Act to Improve the Court Experience of 'Pro se' Litigants

Senator Burns, Representative Hobbins, members of the Judiciary Committee

It is a pleasure to endorse Rep Seavey's bill, LD 953, An Act to Improve the Court Experience of 'Pro se' Litigants. From my perspective as a member of Maine Guardian ad litem Alert, LD 953 is our most important piece of legislation this year. It calls for a legislative study, what one might call an audit, of the 'Pro se' experience of justice in one or more Maine family courts. The title of the bill calls for "an improvement of the court experience" of 'Pro' se litigants. But before we can "improve", we need to know "what exactly is that experience?"

We don't really know. Apart from the eye-popping statistic that 74% of litigants in family courts, we know almost nothing. I don't know, Mary Ann Lynch, Judicial Branch spokeswoman, doesn't know. The Chief Justice doesn't know. And ... most important - you as members of a legislative committee charged with constitutional "oversight of the Judiciary" don't know and need to know. You can't do "oversight" of any problem without knowing the nature of the problem and this requires data to work with.

Although the Judicial Branch will claim to be moving on the 74% 'pro se' problem, and though Justice Andrew Mead has had a committee working on the problem for a couple of years, these operations affecting the 74% majority users of family courts are not open to the public. Their deliberations are conducted out of public view. The from what we have learned, the committee aims to:

(a) raise money from lawyer donations to pay for legal services for some of the 74% 'Pro se' group,
(b) ask the bar to do more 'pro bono publico' work for the 74% 'Pro se' group,
(c) allow clerks in various courts to assist 'pro se' clients with paper work,
(d) ask judges to be more "user friendly" to 'Pro se' litigants and stop saying, "Don't come back to this court without a lawyer!" All of these efforts are fighting an ill-defined, gargantuan task with a "peashooter"! They are solving a problem with no data, no definition of the nature of the problem. From the feedback we get from our friends, these efforts are a well-intended, unsystematic, disorganized, "drop in the bucket". Normative family court pronouncements, coming from the Judicial Branch, continue to be written for lawyers. Shall we say, "Oops ... we forgot that only 26% represented by lawyers." The Norm, the usual, the average, the typical is 74% 'Pro se'.

The Judicial Branch is attempting to solve the 'pro se' problem, before they know the nature of the problem. They are posing unsystematic solutions for an unknown clientele, without involving this clientele in the solutions. Part of the problem in understanding the 74% 'Pro se' client is that the Judicial Branch has no electronic data that might shed light on these clients, so solutions are, of necessity, a "short in the dark", guess work, lacking an intervention model that fits the situation, driving blind. The Judicial Branch is not in the habit of conducting surveys or studies. The preferred approach is to assemble "stakeholders", to debate and recommend answers. Typically, "stakeholders" are politically powerful members of the "divorce industry", lawyers, judges at various levels, Guardians ad litem, who have a personal/professional stake in the answers. It is the "foxes" assessing the problems and needs of the "chickens in the hen-house"!

QUESTIONS IN NEED OF ANSWERS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION:

1. What are the demographics of the 74% 'Pro se' group? What is the gender spread? Socioeconomic levels? Education levels? Immigrants? Linguistically handicapped? Disabled?

2. What are the decisional outcomes of the 74% 'pro se' court experience? Do cases go well for the 'Pro se' litigant? How do 'Pro se' litigants evaluate their experience as consumers of family court service? What services or supports do they feel would have helped them?

3. What do lawyers, judges and GAL think about the 'Pro se' problem? Do they see it as the norm in family court or as the exception? How have they (or haven't they) adapted formal procedure to untrained litigants?

4. The 'Pro se' trajectory: How many people start as 'Pro se'? How many move to "Pro se' after they run out of money? How much money has the average 'Pro se' litigant spent before they decide to go 'Pro se'? What is the impact on 'Pro se' litigants previous experience on their savings, retirement, mortgages, college funds, family borrowing, other forms of borrowing?

5. How much time from work, vacation time, sick time, etc. must 'Pro se' litigants take to handle appearances in court and administrative activities normally handled by a lawyer? Employment consequences?

6. How do courts handle the 74% 'Pro se' litigant's lack of knowledge of courtroom procedure, rules of evidence, cross examination techniques, non-compliance with various professional protocols? Are 'Pro se' litigants treated as lawyers or as parties? Are there standards for 'Pro se' in court? What impact has the huge number of 'Pro se' litigants had on family courts? Can family courts still be considered "courts" when the participation of litigants is so unequal, uneven and out of keeping with courtroom standards and protocols?

7. 'Pro se' appeals to the Supreme Court: how many? Do they get help? What if their brief is not up to legal standards? Can a 'Pro se' simply do his/her own thing in forming a brief, or must they try to be a "junior, untrained lawyer?

The above questions are just a limited sample of things one needs to know in advance of rational frugal goal-oriented problem solving. The answers to these questions might guide planners in developing a rational plan to correct and reform family courts and address the 74% 'Pro se' problem. Family courts, in our view, are in a state of 'free fall" at the moment. Just the limited facts we have give us a "peek" into a what is a "court" in name only. 74% 'Pro se' and getting bigger. No demographic or statistical or geographic spread data to work or plan with. No standards for the 'Pro se' litigant that recognize their non-professional status and their need for tools and assistance in the name of justice. . No idea of who these people are and no idea about what might help them in their advocacy. Current Judicial Branch planning is not data based, not reality based, not consumer based. It is prescribing for others without knowing them. From our direct, personal experience, Clerks of courts give the behavioral message; they are not sure how to deal with 'Pro se' litigants and whether the 74% majority should get service priority or the priority is to serve the 26% real lawyers. They are wary of helping the 'Pro se' litigants with forms (it might be misconstrued as "legal help"). They are inconsistent from court to court in their explanations and directions. Their inconsistency leads to confusion, duplication and time consuming errors. Time consuming errors are "time off from work" for a 'Pro se ' litigant- no billable hours for a lawyer! It is as simple as that.

Finally there are the heartbreaking stories of the human wreckage of 'Pro se' litigants caused by Maine's family courts with no supervision, no oversight, no management. It cries for an audit or whatever you choose to call an assessment of this very broken system. Should it be repaired, or should it be terminated or will it simply "crash and burn on its own, if no action is taken?

We ask that the US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division help the 'Pro se'  citizens of Maine, who cannot obtain equal justice when they go to court on their own and "unarmed" with the "tools" of lawyers.

NatGAL is working to bring reform to the Family Court system. If you have had issues in Family Court we encourage you to reach out to us. We may be found on Facebook or via email at nationalgalalert@gmail.com.

ME - Is the Re-appointment Process of Judges Broken - the Endorsement of the Hon Patricia Worth

On Thursday March 19, 2015 was a moment of truth at the re-appointment hearing for the Hon Patricia Worth. A gang of lawyers, a representative of the bar, a judge and the head of the Judicial re-appointment committee came to give testimony about Judge Worth - which was glowing. Stating that we are lucky in this state to have such a judge, that this judge is caring about the clients before her, helping those who are Prose and involved in the community. If the testimony stopped there (and quite often it does), one would come away from the hearing that there is nothing wrong with our judges in this state. Classic lawyer references of another lawyer

But these fawning views are out of touch with reality in our Family Courts and courts in general.

A unique and quite different "reality check" was offered by several parents and concerned citizens. They did something that was previously unthinkable. These parents and citizens stood before the States Judiciary Committee, a room full of lawyers and judges and told true, personal stories of Judicial abuse which was inflicted and suffered in the Judge Worth Family Court.

These parents and citizens who went before the Judicial Committee were scared, upset, concerned and outnumbered by those testifying from the legal profession. They were in a personally uncomfortable position but had the strength to stand up and let the committee know - their elected Representatives - that there is a problem. A BIG problem that has been festering for years which needs to be addressed.

Their testimony touched all listeners, as they presented the human face of parents ripped away from their children. Stripped financially. Emotions drained by the process that a judge put them through.

Are our Family Courts there to inflict punishment on good parents? In the Worth Court one would think that is the case where good solid parents are prevented from having a relationship with their children. Supervised visits are common, testing, screening and various questionable courses with no end in sight. No goal for outcome - but there is always a carrot being dangled in front of their faces to keep them hoping, keep them hooked. These parents would be better served by Child Protective - because the worse of abusers has a goal. Not in this court.

How many lawyers came out to testify that there might be a problem with this court? By our count not one. You see there is a disincentive to tell the truth when the committee is collecting testimony. As a lawyer working in Hon Patricia Worth's court, if I speak ill of her performance and behavior I put my professional career at risk. I put my family's financial lives at risk. Because now the Judge can pay back my testimonial truth in unfavorable judgements.  Or… engineer a 'Sua sonte' complaint with the Overseers of the Bar against me.

These parents and concerned citizens took a risk. You can also. It you have been hurt by the Family Court process. By a Guardian ad litem. Speak up and let your representatives know what you went through. Rock the boat and educate those around you. If you remain silent - change will never come. You can bet the other side is talking. Support Family Court reform. Contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com - find us on Facebook or call/text 207-370-9801

Provided here is some of the testimony given by concerned citizens and parents:

Dr Jerome A Collins - Audio

Kirk Thomas - Audio

Laurie Ryan - Audio

Christie Griffin - Audio

Christie Starett - Audio

Maine - Lawyers, Divorce Industry Like Mike - Should You?

We try to stay clear of partisan politics. After all, children's welfare in divorce and custody shouldn't be a partisan issue. So we try to remain "non-partisan",

BUT ...

Quite frankly, from the perspective of our Family Court, and Guardian ad litem (GAL) reform concerns, we "Don't like Mike" - that is Mike Michaud, one of ( 3 ) candidates running for Governor of Maine. In fact we would say to our GAL and Family Court reform friends, "Vote for anyone else for Governor, but not Mike!"

It's nothing personal, Mike, its your "special interest" lawyer friends, supporters and the fundraisers who we don't like! It is Maine's divorce industry that is "hell bent for election," divorce bar lawyers raising money for "Mike" like it is going out of style and the other, so - called "impartial" divorce industry people silently cheering for "Mike". They are hoping that he wins and that his gratitude for their support will preserve the very lucrative 'status quo' in our creaky, old, dysfunctional, Family Courts.

ASK YOURSELF - WHY DOES THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY SO AVIDLY SUPPORT MIKE MICHAUD? Why are lawyers, law firms and the judicial branch supporting Mike? The financial investment they are making in Mike Michaud is an investment in keeping the family court as we know it. It is an investment in their retirements, their children's education and their way of life.

Take a look at some of Mikes supporters:

Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fund raise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;

Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".

Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.

WHY DO THEY LIKE "MIKE"?  You can bet that it isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts, and it isn't because the divorce bar wants our kind of Family Court or Guardian ad litem reform.  They expect that "Mike's" "pay back" for their financial bucks will be strong support for the "divorce bar".  Keep lawyer privilege!  Keep our family courts as they are - a gold mine for lawyers and the Divorce Industry. Keep consumers out of this unregulated "industry".  "Mike" has a political  reputation for being an obedient,  good, ol boy. The divorce bar and their good friend, Senate President Justin Alfond ( 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014; 09/23/2014 ), are banking on a tight relationship with "Mike". Alfond is reported to have already told Senators in his caucus, enough already with GAL reform; the lawyers don't like it!

WE'D BET THAT MANY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ARE ALSO SILENTLY SUPPORTING  "MIKE" TOO (and not just their "prayers and good wishes"!). He is their kind of guy; supporting the interests of the "divorce industry" and will not supporting Family Court or GAL reform - just exactly as they are.

DO YOU SUPPORT THE "DIVORCE INDUSTRY"? A vote for "Mike" supports the divorce industry and perpetuates our victim hood in Family Courts. Use you precious vote thoughtfully, carefully and in the best interest of our children. Your vote can make a difference. Please, friends, anyone but "Mike" for Governor of Maine, please!

We'd also say, check out where our candidates for the Maine Senate and House of Representatives stand on our reform issues. We're splitting our vote on these candidates depending on whether they support our family court and GAL reform positions. For us, it's not about Republican or Democrat; we call ourselves "Childocrats"!

JOIN THE CHILDOCRAT PARTY TOO!

NationalGALert is a grassroots organization and like minded people who have a vested interest in the states Family Court process and reform. Please feel free to contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

A Basic Tool Kit for Grass Roots Family Court Reform

We have been asked by many people how we got NationalGALalert, our Family Court and GAL reform program, started and what beginning grassroots activists should do to get going?  We grew our program, NationalGALalert 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..."

NationalGALalert can be reached by emailing us at NationalGALalert@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.

Will your online petition make people aware of the issue?

You are upset because the system has betrayed you - you want to take action and show that they are wrong, corrupt or biased. What do you do - get an online petition going to show the powers that there is a problem and that people back you up. Before you go to one of many sights that offer up online petitions are you prepared to do some hard thinking and ask yourself some difficult questions before posting that petition?

Some things to think about while you contemplate the idea:

GOALS: It is critically important to have clear aims for any petition.  Who are you petitioning?  Exactly what do you want them to do?  Do they have the legal power/authority to do it?  Are they apt to respond to an Internet petition?  Have they ever responded to a similar petition like yours before?  Have you tried other methods to solve the problem about which you are petitioning?

NUMBERS NEEDED? How many petitioners do you think you can get to sign your petition?  Beyond your family and friends are there a large number of people who understand the issues you are raising and who will back you because they share the  views you express in the petition?  How many signers will you need to have any significance?  For an in-state project, it might take several thousand signers before anyone takes notice.  For a national project you will need hundreds and hundreds of thousands.  You are aiming to make a grass roots statement of political power.  Can you get the numbers to "speak" power? How?  Large organizations and governments don't respond to midgets.

DEFAULT POSITION: If the petition falls flat- with little to no response or action- what is your fallback plan?  Shouldn't you have other ideas in mind, or do you just drop it?

RISK MANAGEMENT: What are the risks for you and others who might sign an Internet petition?  Have you run the petition idea by your lawyer and/or others with experience?  Is it well-written and clear; does it avoid name calling or slander?  Have you considered whether the petition will make matters better or worse?  What if it fails to get the desired response?  Will it improve or damage your image, your credibility, your thinking, your ideas, your original aim?  Are there legal ramifications that can come back to bite you and those who sign the petition?  If the petition fails in its expressed aims will there be backlash?  Will it infuriate others in the system you are petitioning - and cause them to close their ranks?

DISTRACTION: Is the petition a waste of time in the sense of being a time-consuming distraction from actual things you might do with less risk and greater potential payoff?  Are you avoiding the hard emotional work that might have greater benefit?

Getting 25 or 50 of your friends to sign your petition is probably useless. They are signing it just for that reason - being your friend or family member. On the other hand if you talk with 25 or 50 strangers of which some end up signing is in the end more beneficial to your cause. You have created an awareness of your issue which you can then build upon. To put it another way - a person in power can ignore hundreds or even thousands of signatures. It becomes harder though to ignore 25, 30 or more who are screaming at their door - writing letters and becoming involved in your cause.

REMEMBER: The American Revolutionary players tried unsuccessfully to petition King George.  The fallback position was the Committees of Correspondence and then the  Revolutionary War.

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

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 NationalGALalert@gmail.com

Family Law Advisory Commission Review of Proposed Rules for Guardians ad litem

The following letter was sent out this morning to the Hon Leigh Saufley directly with copies going to the Governor and members of the Judiciary Committee. While the Hon Leigh Saufley asked for commentary from the committee that is working on reforming the Guardian ad litem complaint process - NationalGALalert, and the consumers of the Divorce Industry do have a say in what happens with any reform. This maybe even more so when considering that the Family Law Advisory Commission had not one consumer.



Hon Leigh Saufley
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of Maine

Dear Chief Justice Saufley,

Re Family Law Advisory Commission Review of  Proposed Rules for GALs

  Although Maine Guardian ad litem Alert has not been asked for input on the commission’s review, it is a public document, and we have read it with interest.  For the sake of Maine’s children and families, our consumer base, we felt that there was an important missing piece in the review, a grassroots/consumer perspective.  Our perspective has been gained through an extensive network of friends and their families all over the state, who have shared their Guardian ad litem (GAL) experiences with us.  We have a better overview than most courts about which GAL names appear frequently as problems, as well as the recurrent, repetitious nature of their malfunctioning.  From our extensive (and growing) contacts- in person, by phone and via e-mail- we have acquired a lot of data.  We have a very good idea of the operational problems associated with Judicial Branches GAL program. It is important consumer data (and viewpoint) that is missing (and much needed) in your deliberations.  In addition, we have also collected systematic consumer satisfaction data that suggests that you have “GAL product problems” with your market.

  Herewith we offer a “consumer (or user) perspective”.  We hope it serves to helpfully complicate and enlarge the standard views of your “stakeholders”..

1.) Solving the GAL problem: first legislation and now implementation. From the tone of the Commission’s review, many of us have asked, “Does the Family Law Advisory Commission (FLAC) truly believe that there have been Guardian ad litem problems tied to dysfunctional structural issues?  Or are the problems still perceived as noise from “disappointed litigants”?” The judiciary’s answer to this isn’t clear to many of us.  The legislature, the bureaucracy, the Governor and significant numbers of “grass roots” consumers of GAL services have been resounding in their documentation that there have been problems with the GAL program and have been determined to solve them.  However, the Family Law Advisory Commission’s perception appears less certain.  Because a problem can’t be solved, unless it is recognized, the opening paragraphs of the Commission’s review, loaded with accolades for GALs, is troubling to past and present GAL service consumers.  It suggests to the grassroots a FLAC perception of GAL problems, more about sentiment than substance!  Furthermore, such FLAC praise, with no numerical data behind it, is read by many as a statement of overt prejudicial bias that favors GALs.  How will this sort of rosy sentiment and unqualified support of GALs impact the implementation of PL 2013 C 406?   Consumer input in the Commission’s review might have balanced Commission’s glowing praise of GALs with less rosy consumer experience.  The new law was enacted to repair significant scandal in the GAL program.

2.) From our reading of it, there is some wary reflection in the review about the newly mandated “scope of GAL duties”.  GAL functions have been significantly (and deliberately) circumscribed.  Over the 39 years of the GAL program, there have been significant “mission creep”, some by court usage, and some by GAL’s “creative improvisation”.  “Mission creep” over many years has resulted in a serious, “cost inflation” of unrestricted billable hours for GAL services.  It has also lead to GAL activities for which GALs have no competence and to myriad fanciful “improvisations”.  To mention but two especially egregious examples from many : a need for a child to spend the weekend alone with his GAL and the notion of a GAL seeking a surrogate father for another child, whose father was out of state.  Neither of these “creative” ideas, appeared in any version of Rules for Guardians ad litem!  There has been widespread public demand that the GAL role be limited, clear, well bounded, and that activities beyond the published role description be considered malfunctioning and possible malpractice.

3.) From its design, the consequences of PL 2013 C 406 are clear, well-recognized and very much “intended” by its legislative/public architects.  In clipping the wings of “innovative” GAL activities, it will undoubtedly expand the judicial/court role and should make for a much busier time for judges.  There has been very deep public concern that the Guardian ad litem program had come to function, unofficially, like a junior-judge program.  The term “judicial out sourcing” has been used by some of the public to define this phenomenon.   It has unofficially (and perhaps unwittingly) allowed some GALs to presume that they have vast judicial authority and power.   It should be remembered that these are court appointed persons, who have operated within a deficient administrative structure:  no functional oversight, no supervision, no functional public complaint process, and quasi-judicial immunity.  These badly designed structures have been the structural basis of much unaccountable activity by GALs.  Poorly designed program structures have been primarily responsible for much personal hardship for children and families, a secondary result of bad program design.

  Our sense is that judges are apt to have more work as an intended result of a reduced GAL role.  It challenges judges and the Judicial Branch (and “consumers”?) to find intelligent, user-friendly methods of processing a heavier work load.  Ideally, we would hope that this pressure might impel family courts to significant, further reforms in the public interest.

  IDEAS TO CONSIDER. (a) Aiming at a reduction of the adversarial m.o. in custody disputes might be one such goal. (b) A starting presumption in all divorces of equal competence in parenting their child (until proven otherwise) might be another point. (c) Greater referral to and use of  formal children’s protective services for child endangerment issues might be yet another, better way of addressing  allegations of unfitness to parent.  (d) The “child’s best interest standard” in our opinion also needs review.  As we see it, it is a concept guaranteed to generate intense bad feeling, challenges and contention, as every parent with personal child rearing experience inevitably questions the special expertise of GALs, with limited training, playing God with Maine’s children! (e) A move to strengthen ‘pro se’ legal representation through court sponsored educational programs and modifications in court procedures to further this growing national (and Maine) trend, and (f) a broadly based Maine Family Court Reform Commission might be a way to redesign family courts in a more child-friendly/ user- friendly manner.

  But in the obvious increased work load for judges resulting from a diminished/ circumscribed GAL role, one hopes that this “opportunity/ crisis will not go to waste”!

4.) The Commission appears to be perplexed about the issue of “goals” and “standards” in the stakeholder’s report.  It was the intent of the architects of the law that the goals of the GAL program should define the aims of GAL activity and that these should be broadened to include children and families, as well as the courts.  In our view, the aim should be for GALs to be one element in a process involving the parties, their lawyers and the court in working together to facilitate and stabilize the   divorce and custody process.  Not to include those who privately pay extensive costs for the GAL service has skewed this service, has raised questions about the nature of the GAL “contract” with parties and the court and is a frequent source of bad feeling.   In many cases, when handled insensitively, it is the source of GAL attitudes that are deeply offensive to the public: “Even though you pay, we are not supposed to be doing anything for you- it’s the courts we work for!”  Being included in the program’s stated “goals” is subtle but important change for those who pay for this service and all parties to the process.

  Rules and standards of conduct are the instructions for how GALs are to deliver their service and how to achieve the goals mentioned above.  To us, they are the directions for how to act in aiming at the aforementioned goals.  Both goals and standards are aimed at clarifying the “GAL contract” with the public and the courts.  Both give the public a measure of what a GAL is expected to deliver.  They respond to the consumer questions: what is the “deal”; what is the “contract”?  Standards provide an ethical base for how rules are to be executed.

5.) The complaint protocol is a vitally important topic for all “grassroots consumers” of GAL services.  This is because, in a system with no oversight, no supervision, no visible enforcement of Rules and Standards for GALs, serious issues of GAL boundary control and “mission creep”, there is a normal managerial need for “corrective action” when GALs are malfunctioning or malpracticing.  Although Judicial Branch representatives insist that there are safeguards to deal with GAL malfunctioning, if they are used properly, we have encountered significant numbers of  consumers (and their lawyers),  who have experienced  failed attempts to use these “safeguards”.  They don’t appear to work reliably in the many cases we know of.  It would appear to us that a well-functioning, well designed complaint protocol is the only tool for “grassroots consumers” to obtain “corrective action” on poor GAL performance.  It is also the only tool for signaling to the Judicial Branch that there are problems with a GAL or with the program.

  Meaningful corrective action for GALs of any sort appears totally reliant on consumers making a successful formal complaint.  The Judicial Branch has no apparent regular, systemic , internal assessment tools for regularly evaluating GAL performance, nor is there  a standard  “quality assurance” protocol for its GAL program.  The Judicial Branch therefore is in the position of relying on consumers to bring defects in individual GALs and in the program to the attention of “management”.  Complaints are about all that is available for JB managers to gain knowledge of how its GAL program is working.  Given these considerations, the complaint procedure had better work, or the Judicial Branch is effectively giving GALs permission “to do their own thing” with no consequences!  And we are back to “square one”!

  A legalistic complaint procedure for GAL performance is not a reasonable substitute for the JB having some internal standardized management responsibility for QA and for addressing on its own GAL malfunctioning on a regular basis.  No organization is perfect, yet the Judicial Branch has no way on its own of identifying or correcting minor or major malfunction in GALs.  The operational hypothesis appears to embody the idea that all GALs and the program are “perfect” until legally proven otherwise!

  As consumers of GAL services, we have particularly strong objections to the concept of using the Overseers of the Bar as the locus for GAL complaints.  Our concerns are:

a.) The nature of the Overseers of the Bar: It is a private, not for profit professional “guild” that is independently financially supported by its lawyer-members.  It embodies the language, culture and adversarial conceptual perspective of lawyers, which is alien to most consumers (especially ‘pro se’), who might wish to make a complaint.  As a private, not for profit organization, it lacks any specific public accountability for its actions.

b.) To us, there is an absence of clear lines of accountability from the Overseers to the Judicial Branch or to any government entity.  We would expect that, at some level, it is accountable to those who support it financially, its dues-paying lawyer members.  The Overseers of the Bar has no chain of command connecting it to the Judicial Branch.  It is quite independent of the Judicial Branch.  We ask: will (can) it have regular Judicial Branch managerial review of its functioning regarding consumer complaints?   How might complaints about the Overseers’ handling of particular complaints be addressed, or is it expected that there will never be complaints?  How will the Judicial Branch know if thing go less well that “perfectly”?  Where is the public oversight?  Will there be program evaluation?

c.) The, to us,  inevitable, professional, cultural  bias of a lawyers “guild” towards its lawyer members who finance it, will be understandably intimidating to consumers with a complaint, even if represented by an attorney- more intimidating if ‘pro se’.  Consumer’s trust and faith in a fair and equitable complaint process is very apt to be impaired by having to complain about “an officer of the court” to a lawyer’s guild organization!

d.) We have been made aware of the previous experience of the many members of the Maine public in addressing complaints about lawyers to the Overseers of the Bar.  The interaction is not   encouraging.  Why would their handling of a new complaint process will be any more “consumer friendly”.   Any new complaint procedure, as a minimum, should have clear written instructions in how to make a complaint, a written explanation of what constitutes a proper complaint, guidance on the steps in the process and people who can answer questions about process and procedure.  It should be doable ‘pro se’.

e.)  We question whether an adversarial model is one designed to correct and repair individual GALs or a GAL systems problems?  It distorts the question of basic internal program management, by squeezing it into an adversarial  legal conceptual framework.  Prove we made a mistake vs. how can we improve the quality of this person’s work and improve the program quality?  It is a defensive posture as opposed to a managerial corrective posture.  It is no substitute for internal quality assurance.

f.)  Use of the Overseers is a very cumbersome way of addressing “quality control” and consumer protection issues in the GAL program.  It passes the buck for the initiation of problem solving- individual and programmatic - to consumers and eliminates the JB from addressing corrective interventions with GALs.  The JB selects them and trains them, but assumes no regular formal management responsibility after that.

g.) A limited numbers of GAL complaints from consumers should in no way be taken as a signal that the GAL program is nearly "perfect".  It should be read as a condemnation of the complaint process that is cumbersome, opaque and user unfriendly that by its very structure and process disrespects and deters consumer "feedback".  It should also be read as a sign of consumer fear of reprisal from a system that is defensive of GALs and hasn't encouraged "corrective input" from grassroots sources, while conducting no formal program evaluation itself.

The Commission’s expressed concerns about “consumers (or their lawyers) abusing complaint procedures in ongoing active cases is a top down concern.  It needs to be contrasted with the opposite viewpoint of many consumers’ bad experience of being stuck with a malfunctioning GAL remaining on the case until it is over, causing untold damage and harm to children and families.  Don’t remove the cancer until all of the patient’s other issues are taken care of!  It is an excellent example of the court legalistic concerns vs. the consumer’s human concerns, and they are almost polar opposites.

h.) Our final concern is that we have heard thoughtful friends raise constitutional questions about the apparent “out sourcing” of its oversight/complaint requirement by the Judicial Branch to a private, non-governmental agency, with no formal public accountability.  Can the Judicial Branch pass its designated oversight powers to a private agency, a professional guild, with no clear, visible accountability to the government of Maine and its elected officials?

  In the end analysis, we would maintain that true consumer input (as opposed to public representatives) is badly needed by Family Courts in their work and in the design of whatever changes they make.  A professional, elite, top down conceptual ‘modus operandi’ can easily get out of touch or at cross-purposes with those who use the service.  Being out of touch exposes the courts to bad feeling, bad results and myriad misunderstandings with those who use (and pay for and vote for) their service.  As you are undoubtedly aware, there is widespread disaffection with the Family Court system in Maine at the present which has lead to .the passage of 2013 C 406, a comprehensive reform of Maine’s Guardian ad litem program, the first in 39 years.  The law is not perfect, but it is a beginning, and as such we stand behind it.  Our remarks above are intended as a respectful expression from the grass roots to those charged with implementing the law. We have tried to be respectful but also frank in expressing a few qualms.  It is vitally important for Maine’s court system to know what consumers of your family court services are thinking about implementation of the law.   We stand ready to help Maine’s children and families- and the Family Courts- in whatever way we can.

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins, MD

Kennebunkport, Maine

cc: Megalalert

If you have had an experience with a Guardian ad litem (or Parental Coordinator) please contact NationalGALalert at NationalGALalert@gmail.com. In addition for current topics and discussions please find us on Facebook.

"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 Me 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

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.

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.