Our Courts are asking for trouble in letting Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators decide whether a child(ren) spend more time with one parent over another. Parents should not be put into a position of having to prove whether or not they are fit. It is also an abuse of judicial power by the courts, Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators if you as a parent are in fear of losing you child(ren). Our Judges tolerate and are encouraged to outsource their role to Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators. These quasi-judicial officers will quite often force parents into expensive investigations and examinations. This is a violation to be free of governmental/ judicial obstruction in the private lives of citizens.
Maine's Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators have been working with no oversight or accountability. There are quite a few in the state that have pushed the boundaries of their role to the point of abuse - Judicial Abuse, Guardian ad litem abuse and Parental Coordinator abuse. Your rights as a citizen as a parent in going through divorce are no less because of the circumstance of divorce. Yet time and again we have seen the basic rights that we often times take for granted - taken away or worse given away. The courts treat criminals with more respect and take great pains so as to not infringe on their basic rights. Yet divorcing parents are not given this same respect given to criminals.
You as a parent can do something about this. We encourage you to call your representative and tell them your story of Judicial Abuse. That our courts have failed us and to put oversight of Guardians ad litem and Parental Coordinators into the hands of this system is placing accountability in a branch of government that lost any respectable vision of what is right or wrong years ago. Our courts pander to the special interest that we have entrusted with protecting out children. Parents as a result suffer and pay for this.
Our Constitutional rights have and are being violated by court officers. This has been going on for years. It is time to take back what has been lost because it is in your child's best interest. Please contact us at NationalGALalert@ gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date dialogue on reforming the Guardian ad litem system in the state.
Please call your representatives on the Judiciary Committee and let them know how you feel about proposed Guardian ad litem oversight through the private organization - Maine Overseers of the Bar.
Contact information of the Judiciary Committee
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig D Cape Elizabeth (207) 749-9443
Jennifer DeChant D Bath (207) 442-8486
Michael G. Beaulieu R Auburn (207) 784-0036
Matthew W. Moonen D Portland (207) 332-7823
Jarrod S. Crockett R Bethel (207) 875-5075
Linda M. Valentino D York (207) 282-5227
John L. Tuttle Jr. D York (207) 324-5964
Lisa Renee Villa D Harrison (207) 776-3118
David C. Burns R Washington (207) 733-8856
Charles R. Priest D Brunswick (207) 725-5439
Stephen W. Moriarty D Cumberland (207) 829-5095
Anita Peavey Haskell R Milford (207) 827-7296
Stacey K. Guerin R Glenburn (207) 884-7118
Wayne T. Mitchell D Penobscot Nation (207) 827-0392
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Parental Rights being Routinely Violated by Parental Coordinators and Judges
Are divorcing parents being discriminated against by Parental Coordinators and the courts? There have been and are cases in Maine where there has been unwarranted removal of a child from one parent to another. In doing so the Parental Coordinator and by default the courts are preventing a parent from exercising their parental rights. These rights are protected substantively under the Constitution of the Untied states.
When a Parental Coordinator makes this kind of recommendation to the courts and the courts enforces this recommendation (as we have seen time and again) - placing a child under primary control of one parent. It is being done so through the use of unchecked and unsubstantiated use of the state's power. This is discriminatory and prevents a parent from passing on his/ her beliefs to their child(ren).
For more information please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date information and ideas.
When a Parental Coordinator makes this kind of recommendation to the courts and the courts enforces this recommendation (as we have seen time and again) - placing a child under primary control of one parent. It is being done so through the use of unchecked and unsubstantiated use of the state's power. This is discriminatory and prevents a parent from passing on his/ her beliefs to their child(ren).
For more information please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date information and ideas.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, April 8, 2013
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.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
A Plea to Reject the Role of Parental Coordinator in Maine
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.
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.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Larger Problems with Parental Coordinators with only Zero Complaints in 4 years
Ilse Teeters-Trumpy is an attorney with the firm Taylor McCormack & Frame and represented a group of family Lawyers that have come out in support of the bill sponsored by Terry Hayes LD47. Well spoken Ilse talked about why the role of PC should continue.
One of the points that Ilse brought to the attention of the committee members was the fact that out of 45 cases in 2011 that involved a PC there was not one complaint. While by itself this sounds like an amazing statistic - especially when compared to the complaints about GALs that the Judiciary receives on a yearly basis (average of 14) the number also told the committee nothing.
A broader statistic that we have heard is that since 2009 there have not been one complaint against a Parental Coordinator. As there are no numbers that the Judiciary has if we estimate 45 cases a year that would amount to 180 cases with no complaint.
Amazing! Does this mean that with a Parental Coordinator our courts have found a court officer and process that can sift through and in an equitable way come out with a resolution for parents that are in a highly charged and emotional situation?
The answer is - no. The reason - at least part of the reason - that there have been no complaints is that there is no process to file a complaint. Applying even bit of logic here - one would come to the conclusion that if there were no process there would be no complaint(s). Maybe the divorce industry is blind to logic? When questioned about how someone might complain it was offered that there was a possibility of doing so through the Judge that was managing the PC. Nothing though was stated that gave a firm process for which one could complain.
Zero complaints is not a number to be proud of. No process is so perfect to result in no problems. The divorce industry and Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) have been operating with blinders on and patting themselves on the back for finding a process that actually works. That Parental Coordinators who have no additional training above that of a GAL, no supervision, with no rules to guide them - manage to escape the kind of hot water that the states GALs find themselves in (who have rules - but no supervision). Simply amazing. Thursdays meeting opened a lot of eyes - lets hope that it also opened the eyes of those who came in support of the bill. Doubtful - but one can always hope.
Please contact us at parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com for support. Please feel free to comment.
One of the points that Ilse brought to the attention of the committee members was the fact that out of 45 cases in 2011 that involved a PC there was not one complaint. While by itself this sounds like an amazing statistic - especially when compared to the complaints about GALs that the Judiciary receives on a yearly basis (average of 14) the number also told the committee nothing.
A broader statistic that we have heard is that since 2009 there have not been one complaint against a Parental Coordinator. As there are no numbers that the Judiciary has if we estimate 45 cases a year that would amount to 180 cases with no complaint.
Amazing! Does this mean that with a Parental Coordinator our courts have found a court officer and process that can sift through and in an equitable way come out with a resolution for parents that are in a highly charged and emotional situation?
The answer is - no. The reason - at least part of the reason - that there have been no complaints is that there is no process to file a complaint. Applying even bit of logic here - one would come to the conclusion that if there were no process there would be no complaint(s). Maybe the divorce industry is blind to logic? When questioned about how someone might complain it was offered that there was a possibility of doing so through the Judge that was managing the PC. Nothing though was stated that gave a firm process for which one could complain.
Zero complaints is not a number to be proud of. No process is so perfect to result in no problems. The divorce industry and Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) have been operating with blinders on and patting themselves on the back for finding a process that actually works. That Parental Coordinators who have no additional training above that of a GAL, no supervision, with no rules to guide them - manage to escape the kind of hot water that the states GALs find themselves in (who have rules - but no supervision). Simply amazing. Thursdays meeting opened a lot of eyes - lets hope that it also opened the eyes of those who came in support of the bill. Doubtful - but one can always hope.
Please contact us at parentalcoordinatoralert@outlook.com for support. Please feel free to comment.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
An Act To Retain the Position of Parent Coordinator in the Judicial Branch submitted by Terry Hayes
Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:30 PM, Room 438 State House in Augusta there is an opportunity for the public to let our representatives know your thoughts on continuing the role of Parental Coordinators. The current bill is slated to die on January 1, 2014 and for good reason this role within the Judiciary should be put to death. Consider the following:
Given the very real problems that the Judiciary has with its Guardians ad litem it makes little sense to create another role which will have the same issues from the start as Parental Coordinators. One also has to question why an organization such as the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) has been so involved with wanting the role of Parental Coordinator to be maintained in light of all of the controversy surrounding Guardians ad litem – which they represent. Is it a coincidence that MEGALI President Toby Hollander and member Tobi Schneider submitted rules for Parental Coordinators this past summer? Was it in anticipation of the bill Rep Terry Hayes (Buckfield) and MEGALI member submitted to retain the role beyond the January 1, 2014 date? We may never know.
The public has an opportunity to put to death a bill that has special interest written all over it. Killing the bill will send the message that the Judiciary and special interest should get its house in order before making any new additions. That any future additions should be well thought out and include input from all interested parties. Not just those who will be enriched by the process.
Please write to the members of the Joint Standing Committee on – Judiciary to let them know how you feel about Parental Coordinators and the undefined, under managed role they play in divorce. This bill was going to die in 2014 – we should let it do just that.
For more information and or support contact us at either MeGALalert@gmail or ParentalCoordinatorAlert@Outlook.com. We can also be found on Facebook or Twitter for more up to date information about what is happening.
A link to the schedule can be found here. A link to the actual bill can be found here.
Judiciary Committee List:
Linda M. Valentino D York County P. O. Box 1049 Saco ME 04072 (207) 282-5227
senatorvalentino@gmail.com
John L. Tuttle Jr. D York County 176 Cottage Street Sanford ME 04073 (207) 324-5964
SenJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov
David C. Burns R Washington County 159 Dodge Road Whiting ME 04691 (207) 733-8856
SenDavid.Burns@legislature.maine.gov
Charles R. Priest D Brunswick 9 Bowker Street Brunswick ME 04011 (207) 725-5439
cpriest1@comcast.net RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig D Cape Elizabeth 6 Russet Lane Cape Elizabeth ME 04107 (207) 749-9443
kmderrig@maine.rr.com RepKim.Monaghan-Derrig@legislature.maine.gov
Jennifer DeChant D Bath 1008 Middle Street Bath ME 04530 (207) 442-8486
dechantforbath@gmail.com RepJennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov
Matthew W. Moonen D Portland 17 Pine Street #2 Portland ME 04102 (207) 332-7823
matt.moonen@gmail.com RepMatt.Moonen@legislature.maine.gov
Stephen W. Moriarty D Cumberland 34 Blanchard Road Cumberland ME 04021 (207) 829-5095
smoriarty108@aol.com repsteve.moriarty@legislature.maine.gov
Lisa Renee Villa D Harrison P. O. Box 427 Harrison ME 04040 (207) 776-3118
Villa98staterep@gmail.com RepLisa.Villa@legislature.maine.gov
Jarrod S. Crockett R Bethel P. O. Box 701 Bethel ME 04217 (207) 875-5075
jarrodscrockett@gmail.com RepJarrod.Crockett@legislature.maine.gov
Michael G. Beaulieu R Auburn 27 Sherman Avenue Auburn ME 04210 (207) 784-0036
mike@mikeformaine.org RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
Anita Peavey Haskell R Milford 17 Pine Street Milford ME 04461 (207) 827-7296
RepAnita.Peaveyhaskell@legislature.maine.gov
Stacey K. Guerin R Glenburn 79 Phillips Road Glenburn ME 04401 (207) 884-7118
repguerin@gmail.com RepStacey.Guerin@legislature.maine.gov
Wayne T. Mitchell D Penobscot Nation 14 Oak Hill Street, Penobscot Nation Indian Island ME 04468 (207) 827-0392
waymitch10@hotmail.com RepWayne.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov
Governor Paul LePage
Office of the Governor
#1 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0001
- There is no defined job description for what a Parental Coordinator can and cannot do. There are no limits or boundaries.
- There are no rules by which a Parental Coordinator operates under or that are tied in with a job description.
- There is no training that is governed by a job description.
- There is no complaint process – The divorce industry and Judiciary will point out there have been no complaints against Parental Coordinators. For good reason – because there is no process to do so. We know of at least seven people who would complain against Parental Coordinators today if there was a process.
- This is another form of Judicial Outsourcing with no oversight or management by those who would be asked to do so.
- Parental Coordinators have immunity from any wrong doing and this is a problem because they essentially have immunity from everything. The role of Parental Coordinator has no definition as it would have with a job description to show how/ when a Parental Coordinator would and would not have immunity.
- The Divorce Industry and special interest groups have convinced the courts Parental Coordinators act with neutrality and no bias for the child or parents. No amount of training will make for a totally neutral person. Personal bias will enter into any process and taint any alleged neutrality that one may have. Parental Coordinators will act contrary to their mandate – this is human nature.
- There is no data to show how many cases current Parental Coordinators are handling and what the optimum case load is.
- There is no data to show if there are problems and where those problems are – for instance are there certain Parental Coordinators that have complaints against them. Or how many cases are being handled by any given Parental Coordinator.
Given the very real problems that the Judiciary has with its Guardians ad litem it makes little sense to create another role which will have the same issues from the start as Parental Coordinators. One also has to question why an organization such as the Maine Guardian ad Litem Institute (MEGALI) has been so involved with wanting the role of Parental Coordinator to be maintained in light of all of the controversy surrounding Guardians ad litem – which they represent. Is it a coincidence that MEGALI President Toby Hollander and member Tobi Schneider submitted rules for Parental Coordinators this past summer? Was it in anticipation of the bill Rep Terry Hayes (Buckfield) and MEGALI member submitted to retain the role beyond the January 1, 2014 date? We may never know.
The public has an opportunity to put to death a bill that has special interest written all over it. Killing the bill will send the message that the Judiciary and special interest should get its house in order before making any new additions. That any future additions should be well thought out and include input from all interested parties. Not just those who will be enriched by the process.
Please write to the members of the Joint Standing Committee on – Judiciary to let them know how you feel about Parental Coordinators and the undefined, under managed role they play in divorce. This bill was going to die in 2014 – we should let it do just that.
For more information and or support contact us at either MeGALalert@gmail or ParentalCoordinatorAlert@Outlook.com. We can also be found on Facebook or Twitter for more up to date information about what is happening.
A link to the schedule can be found here. A link to the actual bill can be found here.
Judiciary Committee List:
Linda M. Valentino D York County P. O. Box 1049 Saco ME 04072 (207) 282-5227
senatorvalentino@gmail.com
John L. Tuttle Jr. D York County 176 Cottage Street Sanford ME 04073 (207) 324-5964
SenJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov
David C. Burns R Washington County 159 Dodge Road Whiting ME 04691 (207) 733-8856
SenDavid.Burns@legislature.maine.gov
Charles R. Priest D Brunswick 9 Bowker Street Brunswick ME 04011 (207) 725-5439
cpriest1@comcast.net RepCharles.Priest@legislature.maine.gov
Kimberly J. Monaghan-Derrig D Cape Elizabeth 6 Russet Lane Cape Elizabeth ME 04107 (207) 749-9443
kmderrig@maine.rr.com RepKim.Monaghan-Derrig@legislature.maine.gov
Jennifer DeChant D Bath 1008 Middle Street Bath ME 04530 (207) 442-8486
dechantforbath@gmail.com RepJennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov
Matthew W. Moonen D Portland 17 Pine Street #2 Portland ME 04102 (207) 332-7823
matt.moonen@gmail.com RepMatt.Moonen@legislature.maine.gov
Stephen W. Moriarty D Cumberland 34 Blanchard Road Cumberland ME 04021 (207) 829-5095
smoriarty108@aol.com repsteve.moriarty@legislature.maine.gov
Lisa Renee Villa D Harrison P. O. Box 427 Harrison ME 04040 (207) 776-3118
Villa98staterep@gmail.com RepLisa.Villa@legislature.maine.gov
Jarrod S. Crockett R Bethel P. O. Box 701 Bethel ME 04217 (207) 875-5075
jarrodscrockett@gmail.com RepJarrod.Crockett@legislature.maine.gov
Michael G. Beaulieu R Auburn 27 Sherman Avenue Auburn ME 04210 (207) 784-0036
mike@mikeformaine.org RepMike.Beaulieu@legislature.maine.gov
Anita Peavey Haskell R Milford 17 Pine Street Milford ME 04461 (207) 827-7296
RepAnita.Peaveyhaskell@legislature.maine.gov
Stacey K. Guerin R Glenburn 79 Phillips Road Glenburn ME 04401 (207) 884-7118
repguerin@gmail.com RepStacey.Guerin@legislature.maine.gov
Wayne T. Mitchell D Penobscot Nation 14 Oak Hill Street, Penobscot Nation Indian Island ME 04468 (207) 827-0392
waymitch10@hotmail.com RepWayne.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov
Governor Paul LePage
Office of the Governor
#1 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)