The Judicial Branch Problem of Management of Guardians ad litem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maine should do this for the same reasons.

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

Judicial "Out Sourcing" and the role it plays in Divorce Custody Cases

An out of state friend has suggested the concept of judicial out sourcing as a way of describing the use of Guardians ad litem and associated divorce helpers, coaches and therapists in Maine Family Courts (and elsewhere). The basic idea is that today, judges almost routinely call upon ancillary court workers, like Guardians ad litem, and delegate, or subcontract to them, important aspects of their judicial function in family law divorce/custody cases. The ancillary worker “borrows” judicial authority, power and legal immunity and conducts an investigation into disputed child custody claims. Previously what used to be decided by an open, adversarial trial, in a courtroom, following the precedents of age old common law, now gets mediated, negotiated, manipulated or forced outside of court into unsatisfactory resolution by workers who frequently lack a legal background, lack public accountability and who lack recognizable skills in mediation or negotiation. Common law gets thrown to the wind in these procedural nightmares in which there may be multiple other helping “sub-subcontractors”, all acting as ‘de facto’, mini judges.

We would maintain that judicial out sourcing in divorce custody cases is corrupting decision-making in family court cases involving custody. It is the cause of much confusion and bad feeling for all parties. This confusion is the direct result of the delegation of judicial functions to various, well-intentioned judicial “helpers” who are unregulated, unsupervised, unaccountable, poorly trained and who, as a result, frequently operate in idiosyncratic, capricious, unprofessional ways to the detriment of families and children.

One of the criticisms of Guardians ad litem in the 2006 Maine OPEGA report (Office of Program Evaluation and Governmental Accountability) was the lack of clear role definition for Guardians ad litem. There is no job description for GALs. There are rules and standards for Guardians ad litem, but there is no oversight and no enforcement from any management structure within the Judicial Branch. The result is that GALs essentially are free to do their “own thing”, interpret rules and standards as they see fit, see them as suggestions or loose guidelines, or ignore them completely, with no consequences. The bad feeling that the public experiences from this “lawlessness” is incalculable. Judges frequently feel that they have oversight from courtroom observation alone, or from ‘ex parte’ communications. But these judicial claims of oversight lack the knowledge about what goes on out of court between the GAL and the parties and they become unavoidably biased by confidential 'ex parte' communications between judge and GAL. These out of courtroom conversations between judges and GALs also destroy the common law concept of open decisions openly arrived at - to say nothing of the inherent “due process” violations in secret 'ex parte' communications.

Then there are the quasi-amateur mediation and negotiation functions undertaken by GALs that further corrupt legal proceedings. In these nontraditional functions, GALs often try to operate with a postmodern, conceptual framework of “moral equivalency”. In all cases, each party is equally “bad”. It is a parody of impartiality. Whatever “A” did is balanced in this perverted equation by equally bad things done by “B”. If “A” beat their child to a pulp; it was caused by living with “B”, who was “caustic and controlling” or so emotionally difficult to be with that any “normal” parent would do the same to his/her child out of frustration. Parent A drinks: Parent B drove him/her to drink. Parent A does “bad” things; Parent B pushed his/her buttons. He/she couldn’t help themselves! ”Victims” in these situations are rescued by the GAL’s use of “pop” sociology, “pop” psychology. This ‘faux science’ has been called “junk science” by a California group seeking tighter oversight on the all too common use of non-expert GALs as “expert witnesses” in court. Then there is use of force by GALs to gain consent to a biased custody agreement. Raw force is frequently hidden by threats that non agreement will lead to “recommendations” to reduce the non-compliant parent’s visitation with his/her child, to “recommendations” that he/she must do anger therapy (for normal anger?), to needs for expensive co-parenting therapy- all of these are highly disputable, unproved forms of forced “help”. They are supposedly “remedies” but they are without any definition of the problem needing remediation. They add enormous confusion and huge cost to the proceedings for the parties involved. And forced “help” of whatever kind is outside of common law. It is basically punishment without a trial. Yet the illegality of “force” is ignored, and these barbarisms find refuge in the armamentaria of Maine family court judges. We can point to many cases in which this has taken place.

The Judiciary needs to clean house when it comes to ancillary “divorce midwives”, who complicate the delivery of a custody judgment in a contended divorce. GALs, anger therapists, negotiators, mediators, co-parenting counselors and the rapidly growing cast of expensive divorce help end by piling confusion on confusion- and dollar on dollar. Are these “helpers” really necessary? Do they help? They totally pervert the judicial process. And they lack any scientific basis or credibility outside of the courts which use them. We need to ask, why are they better than an adversarial trial in court? Can anyone show us reputable scientific studies that would endorse the effectiveness of these “therapies” which are popular and boosted by many Maine courtrooms? We can safely say that there are none. These are legal “therapies” promoted by judges and their subcontractors with no other basis than that judges like them.

These harmful practices need to end! They cannot be repaired. If you have been involved with a Guardian ad litem where things just don't make sense – please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook to stay up to date on the issues.

Almost 40 years with no Oversight for Guardians ad litem

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

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

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

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


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


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

The Malfunctioning of Maine's Guardian ad litem (GAL) program

In 2006 OPEGA (Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability) did a report on the Guardian ad litem (GAL) system for the state. This came over 30 years after GALs were created as mandated by the Federal Government. From that investigation that was completed six years ago came 11 recommendations to help fix the problems that had been festering for so long. As was pointed out in the last post – none – of these recommendations have been acted upon.

One out of the 11 issues that OPEGA found with the Guardian ad litem program is addressed:

1. OPEGA found back in 2006 that GAL services were not being managed as a program with a focus on the quality and effectiveness of service delivery.

When OPEGA made the recommendations back in 2006 the Judicial Branch agreed to convene a task force to evaluate what OPEGA advised. October 2007 The Judicial Branch was to put forth its recommendations and how it was going to fix the problem. Five years later nothing has happened with the Guardian ad litem program and the issues that confront this very broken system. In 2008 Toby Hollander President of the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (the trade organization for Guardians ad litem – also known as MEGALI) basically reiterates what OPEGA had indicated was wrong in his “Proposal to Create a Guardian ad Litem Commission and Office of the Child's Advocate”.

In this proposal that Mr Hollander echoed the OPEGA report in that the weakness of oversight of Guardians ad litem was a major concern. Mr Hollander is quoted as stating “There is no ongoing supervision of Guardians. There is no effort to evaluate the quality or efficiency of their work.” One would think that in 2012 four years after his proposal that there would be more support from the Guardians ad litem that MEGALI fights for in the recent committee investigations in Guardian ad litem oversight and management. It should come as no surprise though that MEGALI and the Judicial Branch have walked lockstep perusing no change despite recognition that change is needed.

Since May 2012 we are aware of over 40 people, 40 families who have been hurt by these organizations. How many others during the prior six years or the 30 plus years before that have been harmed because the Judicial Branch and more recently MEGALI have chosen to turn away and do nothing to fix a problem – a problem that continues to fester?

If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem or know someone who has. Please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook

The Executive Branch of Government's Proposal for Guardian ad litem Reform

As citizens of Maine, we challenge the Judiciary and their political base, the divorce industry: Is there a single current report or any data whatsoever that shows where Guardians ad litem have had a positive influence on children and their parents? The Judiciary and the divorce industry repeatedly claim that there is no problem with the present GAL situation and their bland denial of a problem is not sufficient when the well being of our Maine children and families are at stake. If there is no problem as this group would have us believe then why is there such overwhelming evidence that contradicts their claim. Do a search on Guardian ad litem reform or problems and the searcher is faced with a mountain of information and reasons why there are problems.

These problems run the gamut from punitively high costs, to non-existant management and control to cases where the Guardian ad litem is blind to child endangerment. Least we not forget - the Guardian ad litem program is a state sponsored, state created and state perpetuated program which lacks any form of management as other state programs have. The Judiciary is a tax funded state agency. Is this lack of oversight in the "childs best interest"?

Maine produced an incredibly thoughtful report back in 2006 done by OPEGA (Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability). It is a report that highlighted many issues with title 22 (Children's Protective) cases. We feel, from our experience, that the issues brought to light are also directly relevant to all cases involving  GALs and are not just specific to title 22. The selection, training and functions of GALs are identical no matter what their work focus. The Rules and Regulations that are supposed to govern them are identical, and the complaint procedure, whatever it may be, is identical.

The 2006 OPEGA Audit on Guardian ad litem performance was the first and only Guardian ad litem functional evaluation in over thirty years. OPEGA made 11 sensible recommendations on how the Guardian ad litem program could be made more accountable. In brief the program suffered from a lack of any standard recognizable form of program management. In the six years since – none of the recommendations have been implemented by the Judicial branch here in Maine.

This should come as no surprise as the Judicial Branch has no management tools for oversight. In addition, they have to walk carefully to avoid offending their political base in the divorce industry, an array of powerful lawyers, Guardians ad litem, and others who make a rich living from divorce. They have dragged their feet on a problem that they are encouraged by their base to view as coming from just a few people. The Judicial branch and divorce industry have repeatedly pointed out that  there are only on average 13-14 complaints a year and that one or two result in any kind of action.

These threadbare numbers need to be put into context. Why are they so low? Does the Judicial Branch make it easy for consumers with legitimate issues to complain? Do they use complaints as a management information tool to correct Guardian ad litem practitioners, or to improve the program? We have followed some of these complaints, and the problems with the complaint process are obvious. No criteria for making a complaint, no instructions, no feed back and no opportunity to rebut a Guardian ad litem's denial. These figures have no weight at all. The Judicial Branch runs an undemocratic, unregulated, authoritarian system that is at pains to cater to the divorce industry. We can realistically expect no change in this 'modus operandi'. The Judiciary and divorce industry are unlikely to self-regulate in ways that will correct the problems and serve the public and our children.

The committee currently working with members of the divorce industry will make change - a word here and a word there. The changes being worked on by the industry and Judicial Branch will do nothing more than reinforce the status quo. Meanwhile the life-style of the divorce industry will continue riding upon the backs of consumers who must mortgage their homes, increase their indebtedness and worry about the future education of their children. Maine Guardian ad litem Alert has been made aware of over 40 reasonable complaints that stem from improper management of Guardians ad litem. This since May of 2012. It is interesting to note that 8 of these complaints  are against just 2 Guardians ad litem. There is a problem here and it is not limited to "just a few unhappy people" as one prominent Senator pointed out back in January 2012.

We encourage you to check out what OPEGA recommended back in 2006. The OPEGA recommendations need to be implemented, the entire Guardian ad litem program needs to be moved to the Administrative Branch (as other states have done) where there can be real program management.

2006 OPEGA – GAL Final Report


2006 OPEGA – Executive Summary


2006 OPEGA – Annual Report pages 19-20 extracted


2012 The Power of the Powerless


If you or someone you know has had issues with a Guardian ad litem we ask that you contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com

The foundation for a GAL - a Job Description

A job description is like the foundation of a house. If you have a good and well built foundation the house that sits upon it will also be strong with few problems. If you have a poor foundation (or none), your house will, shift and shake, lack stability and have a lot of problems. Job descriptions are used almost universally throughout business, industry, government and elsewhere to put boundaries on a job, to describe roles and responsibilities, to give lines of authority and accountability. They are a key management tool. In normal oversight, managers ask, "Are you following your job description? You need to improve this or that part of your job description."

Maine's Judicial Branch is currently attempting to tackle the issue of Guardian ad litem reform. A  committee has proposed a complex new procedure for complaints about Guardians ad litem; another committee is currently addressing the issue of Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem. But ... er, folks, excuse me, there is no job description for Guardians ad litem. We have before us a collection of a new complaint procedure and new Rules and Regulations - both in search of a job description. There is no formal description of a Guardians ad litem job to which the Rules and Regulations can be tailored. No roles and functions, no lines of authority, no lines of accountability that are universally a part of a regular job description. There is also the matter of training of Guardians ad litem. In most settings in business, industry and government, the job description is the template, or basis, for job training and education. Training flows from the job pattern and re-enforces the job's roles and functions.

Great work, everyone. Now we just have to find a job that all this stuff will fit! It's doing things backwards.

No job description explains the current Guardian ad litem training design. It presumes a base of knowledge for which there is no evidence and adds a smidgen (16 hours) of social work and lawyer. Lawyers and Mental health or Social Workers have very different bases of knowledge, skill and experience. As one educator told us; education of Guardians ad litem is one root of the current Guardian ad litem problem. The "tap root" is no job description. Without a job description, it leaves the Guardian ad litem in the position of being all things to all people.

The problem is that, while fixing the Rules and Regulations may make the house look clean and polished, these Rules and Regulations have no job description as a grounded  foundation. The foundation is missing. In most settings Rules and Regulations would normally provide direction about how to play out the content of the job description. They elaborate on where the boundaries are located, and rules imply a problem when boundaries are crossed or ignored. They can be specific items reviewed in supervision and in internal organizational corrective action or in external complaints. But in the JB system, there is no supervision of Guardians ad litem, which leaves Rules and Regulations as a sort of disconnected, pious hope. An amorphous, very ambiguous claim of Guardians ad litem working in "the best interest of the child" – something that every parent is also doing – is not a substitute for an actual job description. There is no formal statement that defines who or what a Guardian ad litem is or does, their lines of accountability, their roles and functions.

A reliance on "works in the best interest of the child" as a job description accords the Guardian ad litem a magic mantle of omnipotence and omniscience that no other job in America holds, a sort of high priest/priestess accountable only to God, and the appointing court. Maine is faced with a huge problem with the Guardian ad litem system that starts with these questions: what are Guardians ad litem, what do they do, how are they trained, who has oversight of them, how is this exercised? A final very important question: are children and families safe as a result of their actions? And (this afterthought) why is everyone paying megabucks for this service?

Simply reviewing and rewriting Rules and Regulations for Guardians ad litem with no job description, does begin to address the core of the problem – just what is a Guardian ad litem?


Please let us know at MeGALalert@gmail.com what you think is wrong with the Guardian ad litem system. To find out more about what is wrong visit us at meGALalert.blogspot.com.

The Judiciary and Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute say this is an improvement

Making an official complaint about the Guardian ad litem who has worked with you and your family is a daunting process. It forces you to deal with the Judicial Branch of our state government, which is an unfamiliar organization and an unfamiliar activity for most people.  You have to guess what they will agree is a valid complaint. At the moment, unlike the state of NH, our Judicial Branch gives no instruction about how to. The current complaint process simply says, if you believe that a Guardian ad litem has not acted in the “best interests” of your child, you may make a complaint to the Chief Judge of the District Courts. It has been a most frustrating process for most grassroots consumers. The answer from this process seems to be inevitable: dismissal - without reasons given or without a chance to participate in the investigation or rebut the Guardian ad litem’s defense.

But ... in response to public pressure, the Judicial Branch has just finished drafting  a “new" complaint process concerning Guardians ad litem. In our view, it is NOT an improvement over the old procedure.  Unless... you are planning to go to law school for instructions in how to use this new complaint procedure by yourself. It was designed in 3, 2 hour meetings by a committee of 20 persons, all but one are called,“stake holders”, read: members of the divorce industry; District court judges, family law lawyers, and Guardians ad litem. Given their special interests, they did a terrific job of “bullet proofing” Guardians ad litem from public complaints.  

The Judicial Branch has settled on a process that is not consumer friendly, but it is very Guardian ad litem friendly. Its fancy legalistics make the current process look like a primitive bow and arrow approach.  It has been endorsed by 19 of the 20 Judicial Branch Committee members (one public member dissented in a “minority” report). It now goes to the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature for approval. We sincerely hope that it isn’t approved.

The basic structure of what is being proposed adds several layers of complexity and will take considerable time to complete. It will be administered by The Overseers of the Bar, which is under the Judicial Branch.  As we understand it, the steps one would have to go through would roughly follow:

1. File your complaint in writing (no instructions yet), and a staff lawyer on the Overseers of the Bar will review the complaint to decide whether or not it has merit, and you will be told why. If it is felt to be without merit, then the complaint would die here. If it is felt to have merit, then it goes to a panel, a committee, the majority of whom are Guardians ad litem.  Consumers are also on the panel buy in a minority position, and we don’t know how consumer is defined: friends of Guardians ad litem or consumers who will advocate for the public?
2. The first Panel - would review the complaint and conduct an investigation of the complaint. This process could take anywhere from one month to five or six. If the first Panel determines there is no merit to the complaint, it is rejected and the reason for rejection is sent to both the Guardian ad litem and complainer. If on the other hand the complaint is accepted, then it goes to the second Panel.
3. The second Panel - would review the complaint independently and conduct an investigation of the complaint. This process could take anywhere from one to (unknown) months. If the second Committee determines there is no merit to the complaint, it is rejected (dismissed). If on the other hand the complaint is accepted then it goes to what would amount to as a mini trial.
4. The Mini Trial - Both sides would come together to plead their case. You as the person who filed the complaint would have to prove that the Guardian ad litem had abused his/ her position/ role. The Guardian ad litem would have to prove nothing. The burden of proof is on the one complaining. If you were not able to prove your case the trial would end end the complaint would be dismissed.

In all fairness, we may have some of this legalistic tangle wrong. Our excuse is that we haven’t been to law school yet, but we’re considering it! Our own difficulty in understanding this process, as informed consumers makes the point that it is indeed confusing. As a consumer - would you feel comfortable when faced with such a daunting labyrinthine task as we understand it?

The Judicial Branch, in proposing this complex, lengthy  process, is saying to the public that they want nothing to do with oversight. That the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the consumer to determine quality of their officers of the court. Can you prove we have a defective officer of the Court to two Panels of other Officers of the Court?  It is a tough assignment!  Can anybody do it?

As the consumer filing this complaint you quite possible will want to hire a lawyer. That will cost you the time and expense. An additional detail:  the Judicial Branch is asking to TAX every divorcing couple $100 to cover the cost of this extremely user-unfriendly process. Imagine the next time you go to a store and purchase something and being told that you are going to be charged extra - to cover the cost of any potential complaint you may have. The consumer who has little or no experience with this type of system that is being proposed will probably back off of the complaint because of the daunting process before him/ her. Is it any wonder that there have been only 2 complaints a year? This is a good way to make sure there are no complaints.

We urge consumers to ask their legislators to fight this Judicial Branch proposal. We urge consumers not to use it if it is approved. If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.

Maine's courts as personal bill collectors for GALs

 If you visit the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute web site and read their Mission Statement you will read about the noble cause that they have taken up for the child who finds him/ her self in the middle of a dispute between parents. The inference is about the compassion that they, as the Guardian ad litem trade organization, have for the child and the support that they give each other. It is in the Mission Statement that we see what Toby Hollander's Institute is all about. It is about the "compensation for those individuals serving as Guardian ad litem and providing mutual support and assistance on issues relating to the work of Guardians ad litem."

Currently, there is a case that was slated to be heard in the highest court, in which  we see the kind of support that the Guardian ad litem Institute gives to the rank and file. This case is about how the Institute advocates for the use of coercion by the courts to force a parent to pay for a Guardian ad litem services. That the Institute - in support of a particular Guardian ad litem - is  adding its voice in asking the court to have a parent thrown in jail, for non-payment of a GAL's bill. This seems to be one unappealing  interpretation of the Institute's Mission statement.  It is about Guardian ad litem compensation. In the end, it is not about what this court officer can do for the child. It is about what the court can do for this court officer - even if it means a parent is behind bars. One has to ask, how this kind of action is going to improve the welfare of a child? It makes one wonder about the bottom line; whose interest Maine's Guardians ad litem are really looking out for - theirs or the child?  And where are the courts when the public needs them?

It is planned actions like these that give the Maine Guardian ad litem a black eye. When they use the courts that they work in as "officers of the court" to be their "power bill collector" it may be legal, but it looks unfeeling. It looks like they are using their professional role connections for personal benefit. We feel that the Maine Guardian ad litem Institute has some serious public relations and identity problems. Do they want to be "part of the solution, or part of the problem?" Liens,  garnishing and jail for contempt don't cut it!

It you are having issues with a Guardian ad litem institute we encourage you to write to us. There are currently over 40 complaints about Guardians ad litem that we are aware of in the state of Maine.  The list continues to  grow. Is your Guardian ad litem part of this list? Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com.