On Thursday February 21, 2013 Maine Guardian ad litem Alert came out against the proposed legislation LD 47 HD 42 and sponsored by Rep Theresa Hayes (and Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute member - MEGALI). There were eight who spoke out against this bill. They were Dr. Jerome A. Collins MD, Mary Ann Lynch, Robert Baizley, Paul Collins, Meghan Spaulding, Roland Loranger, Diane Loranger and Senator David Dutremble. All had hard hitting points about why a Parental Coordinators role should not continue beyond 2014. What follows is the presentation that Meghan Spaulding gave to the Committee.
Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature
Senator Valentino, Members of the Judiciary Committee,
Re: LD47 HD42. sponsored by Rep Theresa Hayes
Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to speak about an issue which has been of great concern to me and my family for several years.
Like Dr.Collins, I was blissfully unaware of the dysfunction of the GAL and PC system in Maine until five years ago after the first of two GALs was assigned to my post divorce case, followed shortly thereafter by the appointment of a parenting coordinator. At that time, I had never been involved in the courts, except for my divorce which was resolved in mediation outside the courtroom. I did not question the authority of the court to appoint a GAL/PC because I assumed they would be helpful in making sure that the best interests of my son would be their priority. Sadly, this blind faith in our justice system was naive and misguided and has been long since replaced by the bleak reality of a system that has eroded my parental rights and ignored the best interest of my son, and left me without any legal recourse or remedy. It is a nightmare that perhaps only Dickens or Hawthorne could have conjured along the allegorical tradition of Bleak House or The Scarlet letter.
Because we are here specifically for the issue of Parenting Coordinators (even though in my mind there is no difference), I will restrict my comments to my experience with the PC assigned to our case, even though I could speak volumes to GAL abuse just as readily, and am willing to share with anyone who seeks real consumer input after today's session.
After five years of post-divorce litigation abuse, I can see very clearly the collateral damage that is inflicted by a PC who is accountable to no one, and has no guidance or oversight to perform their job. I agree with all of the points of contention presented thus far by Dr. Collins and the other members of MEGALERT, including quasi-judicial immunity, "judicial outsourcing", lack of oversight and clear job descriptions, as well as the exorbitant fees and the potential to financially devastate Maine's families in their time of greatest vulnerability. It is truly unfortunate that the systematic lack of oversight has devolved the role of PC as one in which the PC's, according to the statute, were to be "neutral, third parties appointed by the court to oversee and resolve disputes" into a position that seems to be motivated mostly by ego, greed and profit by these lawyers turned armchair "therapists".
I never had a chance to meet the PC in my case before she was assigned and there was no way of looking up her name or checking a database to see if she had a record of success or to read what other parents had experienced. As a consumer, I have been taught that it is my responsibility to educate myself regarding the various choices in every service and profession that I elect to hire or contract for services, along the tradition of Caveat Emptor. No such due diligence is possible with GALs or PCs, since the lack of oversight and supervision has enabled the GAL industry to operate without producing any record of their impact, good or bad. They have been operating without the checks and balances that our forefathers created to protect citizens from abuses of power from any branch of government.
From the beginning, it was clear to me that our PC was more interested in expanding her role ("mission creep") into a mediator for our case than she was in her court-appointed duties as a PC. Afterall, she was a highly respected attorney whose normal hourly rate was in excess of $400 per hour, which was almost double the rate she charged as a PC. From the beginning, her involvement in the day-to-day decisions between my ex and myself was counter-therapeutic, as she would sometimes interrupt a reasonable request by one of us with her immediate decision on the issue, before the other parent even had a chance to reply and possibly work the issue out independent of the PC's opinion and involvement. Ultimately, my ex's indiscriminate requests for the PC's involvement prior to any good faith effort as outlined in our settlement became not only a financial burden to me as a single mother, but also a force of great detriment to my rights as a parent and citizen at the hands of our rogue and biased PC, who clearly did not like to be challenged on the scope of her authority or questioned as to her methods of practice and results from previous cases, which I had requested from her in the beginning of her appointment.
The PC was appointed before the summer of 2011, when my ex and I switched to a week on, week off schedule with our son, instead of our usual 2-2-5 shared custody during the school year. In the summer of 2011, prior to our final post-divorce settlement, we were instructed to submit our summer camp and vacation proposals to each other by May 15, with any disagreement to be decided by the PC. That summer I had full autonomy to decide what activities my son would be participating in on the weeks when he was with me in Portland. My son had a great summer. After our settlement the following October, we were bound by our agreement to submit our camp choices to one another no later than May 1, for the summer of 2012. The PC, who had somehow been reappointed to our case, in spite of her questionable methods and efficacy, decided that we could submit ideas on the weeks when our son was scheduled to be with the other parent, which was contrary to what we had done in the previous summer. There was no just cause for her capricious modification, except perhaps to increase her authority over the matter, which she had been trying to increase from the beginning, which was almost always biased in favor of my ex husband, who had plenty of money and political gravitas, as the then Governor Baldacci's oldest brother, to influence decisions both large and small in his favor. By late March of 2012, my ex husband was demanding that I give him an early decision on one of the camps he wanted my son to attend, because he was concerned that if I did not, the slots would be full by our May 1 deadline. Sadly, this situation could have been easily resolved by my ex husband by simply putting a deposit on the camp, which in almost all cases would have been refundable prior to June 1, and well before our cut-off date. Even though I had over six weeks before I had to submit my proposal, my ex went directly to the PC in an effort to invoke an immediate resolution and decision on the matter. I protested that her involvement was again, both premature and not in accordance with our mutual settlement agreement, but she proceeded to defend her jurisdiction and subsequent right to decide, in spite of my legitimate objections and lack of ability to pay her fees. On April 11th of 2012, the PC filed a motion to withdraw from our case and for an expedited hearing on the pending summer camp issue, even though it was still weeks before our settlement deadline. The magistrate granted her withdrawal from service but not until after she was allowed to file her recommendations for summer camp. It was an opportunity for the PC to inflict one last blow, and she took it with all her might. The recommendation she filed with the court used NONE of the suggestions I had for my son's summer, even on the weeks when he was with me, and required me to travel extensively to and from the various camps, sometimes up to 60 miles a day. By all accounts, her decision was punitive and because she had quasi-judicial immunity, there was no recourse for me to seek any just resolution. The impact of her decision was devastating financially as I could ill afford the cost of fuel for the miles I had to travel, and my ability to maintain full-time work was an impossibility and I lost another job as a result of the ongoing litigation which had been perpetuated by my ex and his attorney for over three years. As a result of the PC withdrawal, my ex filed another round of motions: for relief, modification and contempt. The modification was for full-custody and primary residence, and the contempt charge was meant as a means to procure the continued involvement of the PC, even though she herself stated in her request to withdraw that she believed her continued involvement would be "counterproductive and inefficient". It is worth mentioning that she never sent me a final bill, and resigned her entire practice as a PC shortly after she withdrew from my case. It doesn't seem fair that she was allowed to disengage so easily, while I am left to deal with her wreckage, and face the vexacious and abusive litigation that I am told is standard practice by my ex's attorney ending only when my son turns 18, or when I am so beaten down by the constant threats that I can no longer fight. My heart aches for my nine year old son, who is the real victim of this relentless battle.
The realization that the system has failed has been a long and painful awakening, to say the least. It is a profound disappointment to me personally and is a truly terrifying betrayal and deviation from the fundamental values of freedom and democracy that we share, and perhaps take for granted, as our birthright. The notion that the personal is political has finally come full circle for me fifteen years after first learning the concept as a student at Smith College. What was once merely a scholarly notion that held no real meaning for me has become a fully realized, personal mantra which calls me forth today out of devastation and silence to bear witness to this abuse and plead for your rejection of the poisonous proposal of LD 47.
