LD 47 - An Open Letter to President of the Maine Senate Justin Alfond

The following is a letter that was sent to Senator Justin Alfond asking for the reasons for tabling a bill that parents and the Judicial Branch do not want:

Subject: LD 47: Please, "kill" it!


AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OF THE MAINE SENATE, JUSTIN ALFOND

President of the Maine Senate
Justin Alfond

Dear Senator Alfond,

Re LD 47 a bill to extend the Parent Coordinator program.

I am writing to add my name to the growing list of Maine people, who are distressed by the current turn of events surrounding LD 47.  The bill seeks to extend the parent coordinator law until 2016, pending further “study”.  It adds budget for a “supervisor”, and it seeks to determine if the program “has benefit”.  We ask, “benefit for whom and judged by whom?”  Are we talking about obvious “benefits” for Parent coordinators and lawyers, or “benefits” for the opposing public?  To loosely paraphrase an expression from recent years, is it about protecting  the famous 1% or the 99%?.

What is perplexing to growing numbers of the public is why this bill was tabled in the Senate- as we understand it from several sources, on orders from you through the caucus (on a motion from Senator Valentino).  From whence comes the groundswell to save this bill?  it is widely said that the groundswell for saving LD 47 comes from Rep Terry Hayes, a Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator herself, and Reps DeChant and Moonen, who were the minority opposing the majority vote to kill LD 47 in the Judiciary Committee.  It is also said that there is a group of Portland lawyers, who have a  financial and professional interest in saving the bill.  It is last ditch lobbying by special interests for their personal  “income preservation”.

Our question as observers is whether lobbying will prevail over the classical legislative process, which has voiced an opinion quite contrary to the “special interests”.  We also can’t avoid the impression that by tabling a vote on LD 47, you are backing those with a “special interest” in it.  We are also concerned that the proposed amendment to LD 47  is so shamefully bogus as to insult  the intelligence of  both the legislature and the public.

As we understand the amendment to LD 47, it proposes a supervisor (or coordinator) to have n unspecified role doing unspecified things with Parent Coordinators for a period until 2016.  As you may be aware there are no job descriptions for the proposed supervisors or for their putative supervisees, nor are there any existing rules or standard for supervisor or Parent Coordinator supervisee, so supervision become a very mystical thing.  What would the supervisor do in actual supervision without the guidelines of a job description or rules and standards?  Furthermore, for whom would the supervisor of Parent Coordinators work (organizational chain of command)?  How would “due process” issues be protected in district court cases?  And ... finally, is the Judicial Branch asking for “Coordinators of Parent Coordinators?  Have  Rep Terry Hayes and the Portland lawyers usurped Mary Ann Lynches role?  We have heard further rumors that LD 47 might be embedded in LD 872, Senator Dutremble’s bill.  It would be shameful to do this.  It would be like grafting an invasive cancer into a healthy body!

Even a superficial analysis of the amendment to LD 47 raises the suspicion that it is so badly conceived, from any functional point of view, that is seems to be  a ruse on the part of  Guardian ad litem/Parental Coordinator, Rep Hayes to extend the life of a bill that appeared to be going down to a well-deserved legislative death.  Rep Hayes has a long experience in the Maine legislature, which makes us wonder whether this bill is offered by her friends in gratitude for her public service and to protect her financially in her old age?

The problems of Parent Coordinators are - if possible - even worse that the Guardian ad litem scandal.  Like Guardians ad litem, they have no supervision, no oversight, operate virtually ‘ad lib’ for a year with no fee cap, generating huge fees that impoverish the parties.  There are no rules and regulations, no standards.  It is a gold mine for the Parent Coordinator - no wonder they are fighting vigorously to preserve this lush source of income.  In our opinion it is a license to plunder.

LD 47 and its amendment ought to be “killed” asap!  Please, use your leadership to do so.  We join other members of the public with the hope that people can count on you to protect them from "special interest" abuse.

Sincerely,

Jerome A Collins, MD

Kennebunkport, Maine

To view the original bill LD47 sponsored by Representative Terry Hayes (Guardian ad litem). The Amendment to LD47.

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.

Canada Recognizes a Problem with Family Courts

This country is not the only area where there are very real issues surrounding the family court system. In Canada – where there has been ongoing problems within their family court system – the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that an overhaul of the system needs to take place. That the family courts have operated in a dysfunctional way for decades much as they have here in the US. In this country though there is a resistance to any kind of much needed reform from our courts and the divorce industry – this is one of the reasons why in several states there is a push for reform of the broken Parental Coordinator program.

Presented below is some of the article from the Globe and Mail:

Report to Supreme Court chief justice calls for family law overhaul

An unreleased report commissioned by the country’s top judge is urging a radical overhaul of Canada’s family law system.

The report to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, scheduled for release next month, calls for restructuring the family law system from the ground up, with a focus on streamlining the court process and ending a fixation on combat.

The report, from a committee headed by Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell, goes on to make more than two dozen recommendations, including the creation of specialized judges who can shepherd a family law dispute from beginning to end.

The family law system has been under attack for much of the past two or three decades over litigation that drags out and the destructive effect of the adversarial process on couples who are vulnerable and prone to go on the attack. And the inordinate costs of litigation have led to a massive increase in the number of litigants who represent themselves – now as much as 70 or 80 per cent.

A copy of the report, obtained by The Globe and Mail, says that estranged spouses and their children are seriously damaged by the adversarial system; and that judges, lawyers and law schools must embrace a culture of mediation and settlement.

The ground-breaking report also recommends the imposition of painful cost awards against litigants who behave badly or impede settlements.

Full story: Globe and Mail

Additional material on family law as presented by the Globe and Mail: SupremeCourt Leadership

For more information and support please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.