Hand a blank check over to a stranger?

What do you know about your Guardian ad litem?

A Guardian a litem has been appointed to be a part of your custody case. Here is a stranger that is invading your life in the name of your child's best interest. This person is going to be making life altering decisions and recommendations to the court that will impact your life and that of your child for years to come.

What can you find out in Maine about this person's background and professional standing as a Guardian ad litem?

Nothing.

Maine is not the only state where the past of the Guardian ad litem is shrouded in secrecy.

You have to accept on faith that this person is going to perform their job  as a Guardian ad litem competently. You are going into this deal blind, because in many states there is not currently any form of oversight, accountability or consumer protection when using a Guardians ad litem service.

One simple and effective measure of Guardian ad litem quality and accountability would be for the Judicial branch to post online, any complaint or action against a Guardian ad litem. This might be for something as mundane as not fulfilling the continuing education hours, to more serious complaints on the family and superior court levels.

New Hampshire is one state that does this. New Hampshire also lists on the court's rosters whether or not a Guardian ad litem is under suspension. Although this approach is not perfect it does allow the consumer to know whether or not there have been past actions against  a Guardian ad litem and for what reason. It allows the consumer to decide whether or not being late on continuing education is a deal breaker for example. Or if there are other reasons or actions that might make you question whether or not this Guardian ad litem will be a good fit. It gives the consumer the ability to make choices and to do so from an informed perspective.

There is no consumer protection for the user of Guardian ad litem services in many states. There is plenty of legal liability protection for the Guardians ad litem themselves who operate in a very protected legal environment. The Judicial branch of many states needs to be using some standard data management tool for holding Guardians ad litem accountable by giving consumers online warning signals about a Guardians ad litem past performance. Making their past record transparent and public is one way of doing this.

Otherwise - with no public information - the Judicial branch risks marketing a defective or substandard product to the public - Again.

"In the child's best interest" a misleading and ambiguous standard for Guardians ad litem!

Although we may get hammered by opposing opinions (from Guardians ad litem), someone has to say it.  The current standard for child custody decisions, "in the child's best interest," is misleading and ambiguous!  It presumes that a Guardian ad litem using this standard has been anointed by God (and the appointing judge) and that the ensuing Guardian ad litem determinations are made objectively and above the contentious fray of a marriage dissolving. It assumes that one person, a Guardian ad litem, can read all of the many tea leaves and read only the child's "best interest" through the tangle of tea leaves at the bottom of the tea cup. It assumes that society will be better for such a ritual and such a formula.

It is wrong. And ... the whole notion of "in the child's best interest" as a court standard is deeply flawed conceptually, factually and legally. It also provides an irrefutable, unarguable weapon for any miscreant Guardian ad litem (or court) who chooses to abuse it. It is the ultimate authoritarian refuge that can be used to preclude any further exploration or discussion of issues. We are aware of reports of numerous abuses of "in the child's best interest". There is the refusal to disclose Guardian ad litem case records, the refusal to provide reasons behind complex, seemingly irrational Guardian ad litem decisions, the refusal to respond to client challenges about regulatory violations, the refusal to identify charges on a Guardians ad litem invoice of charges for service.  When challenged for enlightenment, the reply: Open discussion is "Not in the child's best interest!"  Sometimes this refusal to share data is reenforced with, "It might be dangerous." End of discussion. Over and out!

This kind of authoritarian claim that a Guardian ad litem, alone, using whatever resources, can determine what is "in the child's best interest", is misleading.  The child's wishes may be denied, and parental rights may be ignored.  Further there is no way of correcting the actions of a delinquent Guardian ad litem making such highly subjective decisions, other than a very expensive, time consuming, slow moving appeal to a higher court. Don't like it? Take your money and do an appeal to a higher court which created the unsupervised Guardians ad litem in the first place. No wonder there are so few appeals.  It is not about a lack of grievances, as some suggest. It is about the lack of money and energy and time to pursue a complex corrective action.

In the hands of a delinquent Guardian ad litem, the idea of "in the child's best interest" can be a devastating weapon that brooks no defense. It implicitly says: "Because I'm the Guardian ad litem, and I say so!"  The Guardian ad litem has no place in common law and shouldn't be setting custody standards in court!

Along with 'ex parte' discussions, "in the child's best interest" makes Guardians ad litem virtually bullet proof legally!

If you are having issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com. Thank you.

The 'Dating Game' - Guardian ad litem style

Custody tensions can be hard enough without the 'help' of a stranger coming in and making recommendations based on a bizarre and abstract idea that has no clear foundation other than that person's opinion.

For the past several years that Guardian ad litem role expansion has been what Maine’s Justice Saufly (and others) call "mission creep" in the role of Guardian ad litem. Going beyond what the courts have mandated and beyond the scope of these Guardian ad litem's professional training. One area of "mission creep" is that a Guardian ad litem has no right to prescribe unusual social behaviors in managing the lives of divorcing parents and their child.

There is one case that has made its way through the court system where a Judge has made history. The Guardian ad litem working this case has essentially recommended that the parents (both of them have remarried) start 'dating' allegedly 'in the child’s best interest' (the Guardian ad litem has rewritten to state that monthly 'meetings' are recommended – whatever it is called by the Guardian ad litem it is not something the Guardian ad litem has any authority nor mandate to recommend). What is interesting is that this Guardian ad litem has no background in psychology and is stretching the Guardian ad litem role way beyond any statutes.. It is a Guardian ad litem as a law unto him/herself. As this Judge has endorsed the recommendation he/ she is in effect giving approval to court ordered dating for divorcees in the.

In Maine where this case was heard the rules for the Guardian ad litem section 3, 3.2, 12 (a) “Working effectively with other professionals involved in the assessment or treatment of the child” is something that can apparently be ignored by Guardian ad litems if it does not fit their personal opinion of the “child’s best interest” in any situation. This Guardian ad litem is imposing his/ her surreal bias on the situation and in opposition to the opinion of a licensed mental health professional, to say nothing of the wishes of one of the remarried parties. It is a do your own thing plan of action. This Guardian ad litem has no mandate nor training (nor does any Guardian ad litem in the State of Maine or in the US) to recommend this course of "over the top" action. What the goal of this situation is, is hard to understand - other than the claim that it may meet some need of one parent over the other. This and a totalitarian mind set on the Guardian ad litem's need to impose his/ her will. It would be laughable, as a bad joke, were it not so destructive of the lives of real people.

Should this bizarre recommendation actually be implemented – as it looks like it will - by the court; then both the Guardian ad litem and the court should be held responsible for this insane idea and lack of common sense. The Guardian ad litem should be dismissed - permanently. The Judge should be sanctioned at the very least if not removed. There is no room in any Justice system for such bad jokes or decisions.

An example such as this one is a strong cry for effective, long overdue oversight of Guardians ad litem. Those who would say that there is "no scandal" in the Guardian ad litem program must have an extremely tolerant view of scandal.

If you have had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com.

The Foundation of a House and GAL Job Descriptions

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.