Would you want a Guardian ad litem with this kind of training?

This is a look at two businesses. One financial the other legal. Both deal with sensitive information, rules and regulations. Both have training programs to give the tools needed to stay within accepted standards and compliance. Both are radically different.

With these two examples ask yourself who is better trained to handle difficult situations?

1. Training consists of 8 weeks of in class study during which the process, rules and regulations are learned. There is some applied training where the students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. Students are tested at certain points. This allows for the trainers to verify at least a minimal understanding to perform the job. There are also group discussions which at times involve people who have experience. These veterans able to give real life experience as to what the new trainees can expect. There is some role playing between seasoned professionals and the new trainees.

After 8 weeks of in class training the new trainees are able to put what has been learned to practical use. While in a real environment there are seasoned people available to answer questions. There is also several weeks of quality control to make sure the new trainees are doing the work properly and to correct any issues right away. This type of mentoring and internship tapers off over time depending on how quickly the new trainee learns.

Throughout this training there is constant feedback to the new trainees. In the working environment that feedback is even more important as a mistake made could cost the company financially. Handling other people’s money can become highly charged especially when something is perceived as going wrong. There are layers upon layers of company as well as legal rules and regulations involved to make sure those handling financial transactions are within compliance. Support from seasoned employees assures and reinforces the understanding that is needed to help customers while staying within compliance.


2. Training consists of 16 hours of in class study during which theory is learned. There may be some applied training where students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. There is no testing during the 16 hours of training nor at the end.

After 16 hours of training there is no feedback to the new trainee. There is no mentoring or internship for the new trainee. Experience is gained at the expense of the consumer. There is no means of testing whether the new trainee is within compliance or whether or not there is a basic understanding of the rules that govern the way he/ she is to operate.

While dealing with a person’s finances is a world apart from dealing with the complexities of a divorcing family there are similarities. Both can become highly charged when something is perceived as going wrong. Both can have a huge impact on the individual(s) involved both currently and into the future. It is the training though that defines how well one does the job in question.

With the training examples given we see the training one receives for handling people's money and for handling people's lives. We see that with one - the process given to train people is extremely careful in its approach. That there are tools and systems to give support so that errors may be caught before they become major issues and hurt a person or family. There are safeguards in place to help the trainee to continue to refine what has been learned and gain experience and to do so not at the expense of the consumer. With the other we see a training process that has been developed to handle people - children and families - who are in crisis and need help. The actions of these trainees have the very real possibility of scaring the people they are supposed to help. There are no tools to help the trainees at any time. Experience comes at the expense of the families and children.  There are no safeguards in place to prevent this damage from happening. There are no systems to catch errors before they become issues.

The first is an example of a training process that is used by businesses. The second is used by the Judicial Branch in training Guardians ad litem. Would you rather  have a Guardian ad litem who has gone through a training process that has clearly defined goals, offers some means to measure understanding and offers support through mentoring and internship programs? Or would you rather have someone who has gone through the current training process of sitting in a room and warming a seat for several hours?

The answer is obvious. The Judicial Branch has a training process for Guardians ad litem that in a business environment would fail to meet the needs of consumers. Under the current model the Judicial Branch would be overwhelmed with problems and it would either go out of business because of competition from businesses that have better training programs or it would change to meet the needs of those it is supposed to serve.  But…. The Judicial Branch is not a business but a monopoly that is accountable to no one. It also has lost sight who it is supposed to serve - being more concerned with how the stakeholders will react than consumers. As a result sub-standard training is allowed and even encouraged. Where those that come up with the training (the stakeholders) curriculum do so based on their own experience. To say (or post on ones "Professional Trainings" page) that one has experience in developing training does not mean one has the necessary tools or experience to do so. Currently there is no cohesiveness in the goal of Guardian ad litem training.

The training for Guardians ad litem should be removed from the control of the Judicial Branch and the stakeholders that are enmeshed in deciding what is acceptable training. Training should be done by professionals who know and understand the goals that are to be achieved and have experience in developing curriculum.


Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com

The Stakeholders with Maine Board of Overseers - do they have your best interest?

In 1978 the The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar was created by the Supreme Court of Maine. It is a private organization entrusted with the responsibility of oversight of Maine's lawyers. It is the only private organization that offers oversight of any group and or organization in the state.

The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar is also being endorsed by the Judiciary, Family Lawyers and Guardians ad litem as a means of offering oversight and management of Guardians ad litem. March 28, 2013 saw testimony from many people – almost exclusively those that endorsed the idea of oversight of Guardians ad litem through the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar were lawyers. Or they had a law background. Those that opposed the idea of using The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar were parents.

The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar has been used by consumers to complain about a lawyer they felt acted with impropriety. Not one made it by the initial “gate keeper” - the person who decides whether or not your concern is worthy enough to be heard. It is a highly legal process and is a dream for anyone in the legal profession. This is being endorsed and lobbied by stakeholders (are like stockholders and have a financial interest) – by those who have every reason for supporting the idea of Guardian ad litem management and complaints with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar. The following are those that may have an interest in the Board of Overseers and the regulation of Guardians ad litem through that private agency – the question you should ask is if they have your interest at hand:

Hon.Leigh I. Saufley

Hon.Charles C. LaVerdiere

Hon.Robert E. Mullen

Hon.Warren M. Silver

Ms.Mary Ann Lynch

Ms.Dawn M. Pelletier Esq.

Ms.Ilse Teeters-Trumpy Esq.

Sen.Mr. Roger J. Katz Esq.

Sen.Ms. Dawn Hill

Sen.Mr. Seth A. Goodall Esq

Rep.Mr. Jarrod Samuel Crockett Esq.

Rep.Mr. Stephen W. Moriarty Esq.

Rep.Mr. Charles R. Priest Esq.

Rep.Mr. Mark N. Dion Esq.

Rep.Mr. Kenneth Wade Fredette Esq.

Rep.Mr. Aaron Michael Frey Esq.

Rep.Mr. Barry J. Hobbins Esq.

Rep.Mr. Andrew T. Mason Esq.

Rep.Ms. Sharon A. Treat Esq.

This list is by no means complete but it does call into question whether your interests and concerns are really being heard. Or will the special interest of those who stand to lose should an equitable process of management and oversight finally come to Maine. You be the Judge and tell us and tell your Representatives what you think is right. Maine GAL alert encourages you to comment on this blog through email at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Special Interest Support of LD522 by Divorce Industry and GALs

On Thursday March 28th in testimony to the Judiciary Committee a number of people made excellent suggestions about controlling Guardian ad litem costs and fees.  Means testing, fee caps, regular bill reporting and ... oversight of billing by the management of the Judicial Branch would go a long way towards correcting the freewheeling ways of Guardians ad litem.  As we know, these ideas are fairly simple - and not rocket science.  Finance and many other Guardian ad litem issues should be fairly simple as no cost problems to fix.

The Judicial Branch faces a significant political problem.  Make that HUGE.  The political base, the support system, of the Judicial Branch is composed of the Legal Guild, lawyers, Guardians ad litem and Judges.  Asking - or demanding - that any part of this base take a smaller, financial cut in divorce cases  might be expected to result in a mass disaffection on the part of the Judicial Branch legal guild political base.  It might cost the Judicial Branch the political support of  the Legal Guild and the divorce industry.  It could result in profound alienation of this Guild base with political consequences for the Judicial Branch leadership. The Guardian ad litem reform movement threatens to disrupt the previous balance between Judicial Branch management and their affluent, powerful base - the divorce industry.

This Judicial Branch - lawyer political dynamic might explain the powerful, under the radar opposition to real people oriented Guardian ad litem reform.

The care and feeding of its lawyer base is one explanation about why the Judicial Branch always seems to defer to its "stakeholders", the divorce industry, lawyers and Guardians ad litem.  It may explain why the Judicial Branch allows its divorce industry "stakeholders" to dominate most of its planning committees for Guardian ad litem reform, such as the one from last Summer.  It leaves the Judicial Branch paralyzed in the present situation and may explain why it does nothing - or at best the bare minimum.  Pressure from the divorce industry not to change versus pressure from the "grass-roots" to change. The Judicial Branch is caught in a terrible bind.

The members of the divorce industry, including Guardians ad litem, make significant amounts of money off of divorcing couples.  It is a multi-million dollar industry.  Restrictions on the divorce industry of any kind could reduce their incomes. The current situation and its dynamics are in some ways similar to the robber barons of 19th century American history.

LD 522 is nothing less than a license to steal and plunder.  It favors the legal Barons; not divorcing families and children.  It is a gift from the Judicial Branch to its lawyer base.  It allows the predatory wolves to keep their sheep's clothing!

It will require significant political pressure and moral pressure to overcome this resistance to change for the benefit of our Maine children and families.

For information on how to help stop LD522 from passing contact us at MeGALalertt@gmail.com or find up to date information on Facebook.