Has passed and is waiting to be signed into law by Governor Paul LePage
For the first time in almost 40 years there is going to be some measure of oversight of Guardians ad litem in the state of Maine. Since the late 90's bills have been sponsored that have strengthened the hand of Guardians ad litem. This often came at the expense of families and ultimately the children these 'professionals' were helping. With no oversight, accountability or management Guardians ad litem have become free spirits and operated outside of the boundaries of their original role.
In 2013 with the help of Sen David Dutremble and Rep Lisa Villa - bills were sponsored that attempted to correct the imbalance that had taken over. Out of four bills LD872 survived.
Today we are on the verge of having some measure of oversight. Where hard data on what is going on with Guardians ad litem will be generated and used instead of stuffed away in the card board boxes the system currently uses.
Please thank Sen David Dutremble, Rep Lisa Villa and the Judiciary Committee for all of the hard work and personal sacrifice that has been given to make this happen.
Sen. David Dutremble can be reached at: ddutrem1@gmail.com
Rep. Lisa Villa can be reached at: villa98staterep@gmail.com
For continued insight please email NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Thursday, June 20, 2013
LD872 - What is meant by Guardian ad litem "Oversight"?
In the simplest terms, oversight means knowing what they do, how they spend their time. At the present no one in authority actually knows the full details. No one in the higher levels of the Judicial Branch has a complete picture of "time spent" on your case, my case, the hundreds of cases that pass through Maine's family courts. No authority knows how many cases a Guardian ad litem is handling, which courts/judges use the most Guardians ad litem. Or what is the grand total amount of every rostered Guardian ad litem's billable hours for, say, the month of May? No one knows. There is no oversight.
In a word, no one has administrative or managerial oversight of Maine's Guardian ad litem program. No one has program numbers. And ... without numbers, data, statistics, it is impossible to describe the scope and size of Guardian ad litem program problems rationally. It is impossible, to have a rational conversation between the public and various branches of government and impossible to seek rational solutions to a program that cries out for "oversight".
We would suggest that there are two kinds of "oversight", (a) oversight of ongoing cases in a divorce, which is sometimes called "case supervision", and (b) programmatic oversight, also called "programmatic administration or management". Supervision, though desirable is costly and would require a large, expensive cadre of supervisors to monitor and correct the work of Guardians ad litem. There is also the question of who would supervise the supervisors? Where would they fit in a bureaucratic chain of command?
To keep the complexities of an first-ever, Maine, oversight program relatively simple at the start, LD 872 has focused on program supervision, administrative supervision. Essentially it seeks answers to the questions about: "What are the numbers?" How is Guardian ad litem time spent? What are the billable hours? How do district courts differ in their use of Guardians ad litem? And ... are there significant differences in the profiles of individual Guardian ad litem activities? These are questions of huge interest to Maine children and families who pay dearly for this program.
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT THE Guardian ad litem's BILL: LD 872 already calls for standardization of all Maine Guardian ad litem's bills. Bills should be done monthly and should follow the itemization format used by lawyers: date, type of service, time spent, fee charged. It would cover such topics as reading e-mails, phone conversations, report writing, time spent with parties, time spent with child, collateral contacts, travel, court appearances, etc. We maintain that a standardized bill is a snapshot of what the Guardian ad litem claims to have done in any given month. It is a work activity profile. It is a record. It will be mandatory. There is minimal cost for this change.
COPIES OF ALL Guardian ad litem BILLS TO ADMINISTRATOR OF COURTS: We are strongly recommending that it should also be mandatory for all 280 rostered Maine Guardians ad litem to send electronic copies of their standardized monthly bills to the Administrators of the Courts at no charge to anyone. It would immediately, for the first time give the Judicial Branch massive amounts of hard, Guardian ad litem program data, which is currently totally lacking. It would give the necessary data for first-ever program oversight of Maine's 280 Guardians ad litem. It should prove interesting and useful to the legislature, the public and the Judicial Branch. It will help to guide beneficial program changes for Maine's Guardian ad litem program. It will be capable of answering many important program questions.
OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS FOR NEW Guardian ad litem DATA: We believe that inasmuch as the proposed oversight data is a tool, the Judicial Branch should have a primary interest in deciding how to use this new tool. They should suggest their own questions for which they want answers from the data.
But in addition to the Judicial Branch we have our own questions too.
OUR QUESTIONS: How many Guardians ad litem are at work in Maine courts each month? How many separate cases are Guardians ad litem carrying? How much time is spent in reading e-mails? Doing reports? Making phone calls? Seeing the child in the case? Travel? Court time? Which courts use Guardians ad litem the most? How do Guardian ad litem activity profiles differ? What is the range of monthly billable hours for Guardians ad litem? What is the total amount for all Guardian ad litem bills in each month? In a year? Are there associations between certain Guardians ad litem, certain lawyers and/or certain judges?
This is for starters, as a "warm-up".
WHO WOULD WORK WITH THIS DATA AND COSTING THIS ACTIVITY? We suggest that the Administrator of the courts would be the proper locus for this activity, and that it should be attached to the component already doing administrative statistics. By our reckoning the costs ought to be minimal. Billing is already being done by Guardians ad litem at no cost to the legislature, changing to a standardized billing format should not add to cost. Sending an electronic copy of all monthly Guardian ad litem's bills to the JB should be a no cost event. There is the need for a clerk to organize the data in such a manner as to answer previously defined questions. There is the need for an existing administrative statistician to provide supervision and direction.
We would suggest that all of this could be done for $75,000.00 or less, including overhead. The $200,000.00 fiscal estimate currently attached to this bill for unspecified oversight functions seems expensive. We offer a competitive idea.
For more information on Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information. In addition National GAL alert is conducting an informal survey on the cost and performance of Guardians ad litem. If you have 5 minutes we would encourage you to take one or both surveys. The data collected is being published and will be updated live in the future.
Guardian ad litem Cost Survey
Guardian ad litem Performance Survey
In a word, no one has administrative or managerial oversight of Maine's Guardian ad litem program. No one has program numbers. And ... without numbers, data, statistics, it is impossible to describe the scope and size of Guardian ad litem program problems rationally. It is impossible, to have a rational conversation between the public and various branches of government and impossible to seek rational solutions to a program that cries out for "oversight".
We would suggest that there are two kinds of "oversight", (a) oversight of ongoing cases in a divorce, which is sometimes called "case supervision", and (b) programmatic oversight, also called "programmatic administration or management". Supervision, though desirable is costly and would require a large, expensive cadre of supervisors to monitor and correct the work of Guardians ad litem. There is also the question of who would supervise the supervisors? Where would they fit in a bureaucratic chain of command?
To keep the complexities of an first-ever, Maine, oversight program relatively simple at the start, LD 872 has focused on program supervision, administrative supervision. Essentially it seeks answers to the questions about: "What are the numbers?" How is Guardian ad litem time spent? What are the billable hours? How do district courts differ in their use of Guardians ad litem? And ... are there significant differences in the profiles of individual Guardian ad litem activities? These are questions of huge interest to Maine children and families who pay dearly for this program.
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT THE Guardian ad litem's BILL: LD 872 already calls for standardization of all Maine Guardian ad litem's bills. Bills should be done monthly and should follow the itemization format used by lawyers: date, type of service, time spent, fee charged. It would cover such topics as reading e-mails, phone conversations, report writing, time spent with parties, time spent with child, collateral contacts, travel, court appearances, etc. We maintain that a standardized bill is a snapshot of what the Guardian ad litem claims to have done in any given month. It is a work activity profile. It is a record. It will be mandatory. There is minimal cost for this change.
COPIES OF ALL Guardian ad litem BILLS TO ADMINISTRATOR OF COURTS: We are strongly recommending that it should also be mandatory for all 280 rostered Maine Guardians ad litem to send electronic copies of their standardized monthly bills to the Administrators of the Courts at no charge to anyone. It would immediately, for the first time give the Judicial Branch massive amounts of hard, Guardian ad litem program data, which is currently totally lacking. It would give the necessary data for first-ever program oversight of Maine's 280 Guardians ad litem. It should prove interesting and useful to the legislature, the public and the Judicial Branch. It will help to guide beneficial program changes for Maine's Guardian ad litem program. It will be capable of answering many important program questions.
OVERSIGHT QUESTIONS FOR NEW Guardian ad litem DATA: We believe that inasmuch as the proposed oversight data is a tool, the Judicial Branch should have a primary interest in deciding how to use this new tool. They should suggest their own questions for which they want answers from the data.
But in addition to the Judicial Branch we have our own questions too.
OUR QUESTIONS: How many Guardians ad litem are at work in Maine courts each month? How many separate cases are Guardians ad litem carrying? How much time is spent in reading e-mails? Doing reports? Making phone calls? Seeing the child in the case? Travel? Court time? Which courts use Guardians ad litem the most? How do Guardian ad litem activity profiles differ? What is the range of monthly billable hours for Guardians ad litem? What is the total amount for all Guardian ad litem bills in each month? In a year? Are there associations between certain Guardians ad litem, certain lawyers and/or certain judges?
This is for starters, as a "warm-up".
WHO WOULD WORK WITH THIS DATA AND COSTING THIS ACTIVITY? We suggest that the Administrator of the courts would be the proper locus for this activity, and that it should be attached to the component already doing administrative statistics. By our reckoning the costs ought to be minimal. Billing is already being done by Guardians ad litem at no cost to the legislature, changing to a standardized billing format should not add to cost. Sending an electronic copy of all monthly Guardian ad litem's bills to the JB should be a no cost event. There is the need for a clerk to organize the data in such a manner as to answer previously defined questions. There is the need for an existing administrative statistician to provide supervision and direction.
We would suggest that all of this could be done for $75,000.00 or less, including overhead. The $200,000.00 fiscal estimate currently attached to this bill for unspecified oversight functions seems expensive. We offer a competitive idea.
For more information on Guardian ad litem reform please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or like us on Facebook for up to date information. In addition National GAL alert is conducting an informal survey on the cost and performance of Guardians ad litem. If you have 5 minutes we would encourage you to take one or both surveys. The data collected is being published and will be updated live in the future.
Guardian ad litem Cost Survey
Guardian ad litem Performance Survey
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Guardian ad litem Recommends Using Surrogate Father for Re-Introduction
Back in March of this year we published the story of a parent whose child was forced to spend a weekend with a Guardian ad litem. This was to be just the child and Guardian ad litem who was at the time 60 years old. It was a story that showed how wrong the present situation is and has been. March 28 parents were told by the divorce industry that the system we have is better than nothing. Is it really?
Today we have another example of a Guardian ad litem whose judgment is questionable. Where the thought process lacks any common sense and the idea that this was accepted by the presiding Judge without the thought of questioning the Guardian ad litem.
The Guardian ad litem for this case is one of the most senior and respected Guardians ad litem in the state – making the story that much worse.
The child lived with his mother as the father lived out of state some 1000 miles away and had little to do with his son for most of his life. The divorce then custody changed this as the father had renewed interest in his child. Because the child had little contact with his father in many years the Guardian ad litem thought a reintroduction of father and son was in order. Now remember the father lived about 1000 miles away making reunification visits impossible. As a Guardian ad litem and officer of the court the specialized training that is involved gives powers that we as parents lack (sarcasm here). Why else would this senior Guardian ad litem with years of training suggested that a surrogate father take the place of the father?
That is correct – the Guardian ad litem suggested and forced the child to go through the reintroduction with the surrogate father. To add to the creepy factor. This was done in a parking lot with the boy and 'father' alone in a car for the prescribed time that the Guardian ad litem felt necessary. The mother was allowed to be at the same parking lot but at some distance from this reunification therapy. While the Guardian ad litem thought this was a great idea and he probably thought he was doing a good thing the opposite happened. The mother was by all rights upset and out raged with this arrangement and complained, and complained loudly. What did this do? Well for those of you who operate within the realm of common sense – nothing – despite what you may think. It did escalate the conflict and tension in this custody dispute.
Stories like this scream as to why Guardians ad litem and the Divorce Industry left to their own devices for so long have corrupted a system and themselves. How can anyone believe that this kind behavior within our court system would be deemed acceptable and professional? Yet there are many parents that become trapped – trying to correct what is so wrong but finding themselves confronted by an uncaring system.
On March 28 2013 we heard that “the system we have is better than nothing, so we support that system – regardless of the many flaws – because its all that we can afford” - the question we must ask is if we really can afford the many problems of our current system? Can we afford to continue to hurt families and children because we cannot afford to do better? Can we afford to allow the Divorce Industry and Guardians ad litem to continue to fly under the radar?
Please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date information.
Today we have another example of a Guardian ad litem whose judgment is questionable. Where the thought process lacks any common sense and the idea that this was accepted by the presiding Judge without the thought of questioning the Guardian ad litem.
The Guardian ad litem for this case is one of the most senior and respected Guardians ad litem in the state – making the story that much worse.
The child lived with his mother as the father lived out of state some 1000 miles away and had little to do with his son for most of his life. The divorce then custody changed this as the father had renewed interest in his child. Because the child had little contact with his father in many years the Guardian ad litem thought a reintroduction of father and son was in order. Now remember the father lived about 1000 miles away making reunification visits impossible. As a Guardian ad litem and officer of the court the specialized training that is involved gives powers that we as parents lack (sarcasm here). Why else would this senior Guardian ad litem with years of training suggested that a surrogate father take the place of the father?
That is correct – the Guardian ad litem suggested and forced the child to go through the reintroduction with the surrogate father. To add to the creepy factor. This was done in a parking lot with the boy and 'father' alone in a car for the prescribed time that the Guardian ad litem felt necessary. The mother was allowed to be at the same parking lot but at some distance from this reunification therapy. While the Guardian ad litem thought this was a great idea and he probably thought he was doing a good thing the opposite happened. The mother was by all rights upset and out raged with this arrangement and complained, and complained loudly. What did this do? Well for those of you who operate within the realm of common sense – nothing – despite what you may think. It did escalate the conflict and tension in this custody dispute.
Stories like this scream as to why Guardians ad litem and the Divorce Industry left to their own devices for so long have corrupted a system and themselves. How can anyone believe that this kind behavior within our court system would be deemed acceptable and professional? Yet there are many parents that become trapped – trying to correct what is so wrong but finding themselves confronted by an uncaring system.
On March 28 2013 we heard that “the system we have is better than nothing, so we support that system – regardless of the many flaws – because its all that we can afford” - the question we must ask is if we really can afford the many problems of our current system? Can we afford to continue to hurt families and children because we cannot afford to do better? Can we afford to allow the Divorce Industry and Guardians ad litem to continue to fly under the radar?
Please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for up to date information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)