Last week we had a sudden change to the Judiciary Committee schedule. The Judicial Branch was making a presentation to the Judiciary Committee for a supplemental budget of $1M to get through to July 2015. This is not the first time the Judicial Branch has gone back to the till at the last minute with hands out asking for more.
Most organizations have a budget to work with and it they miss the budget.... well there is trouble. The organization either fails or they look into why they have a shortfall and change to accommodate. As an individual it is the same thing. You anticipate what your expenses are for the upcoming month based on what you paid out in the past
When asked about the shortfall and why the Judicial Branch has a shortfall.... again - the spokesperson for the Judicial Branch answered "I don't know why".
Which should come as no surprise to anyone. Here we have an organization full of lawyers being run by lawyers . About the only thing that lawyers can do well and with efficiency is bill for services.
It might be time for the Judiciary to hire people who are professional managers and get past the management by crisis that we see year after year. Who can look at how things are run within the branch and bring efficiencies to the organization. Who would be able to say why there is a shortfall and make sure the Judicial Branch does not go back to the till again... and again with out held hands.
The management by crisis is but a symptom of a far greater problem that has infected the court system. We have seen it with the Guardian ad litem crisis and have seen it with the Family Courts. Our system of justice is crumbling down around us.
Support Family Court reform by contacting us at NatGAL at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or finding us on Facebook.
Showing posts with label family court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family court. Show all posts
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Ireland - Child guardians get €200k from agency
If you think that the United States is the only place where they have issues with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem - think again. Canada, The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. This story comes to us from the emerald island. The article points out - any person can claim to be a guardian ad litem; that the system is ‘chaotic’ and a ‘free for all’. Nothing new here for those who have had the mis-fortune of a malpracticed Guardian ad litem. Surprisingly reform is being called for by an agency that has 32 Guardians ad litem working.
Irish Examiner
Nine firms and individuals acting as guardians to children in childcare court proceedings have received sums over €200,000 each from the Child and Family Agency this year.
Figures released by Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, show that, to the end of November this year, €6.76m has been paid to guardian ad litems — court appointees who act as independent voices for children in family law cases.
The 2014 figure compares to guardian ad litems receiving €7.18m in 2013.
In response to a freedom of information request, the figures show the largest provider or guardian ad litems services in the country, Barnardos-Beacon, this year received just over €3m for the service it provides.
Full story: Irish Examiner
Irish Examiner
Nine firms and individuals acting as guardians to children in childcare court proceedings have received sums over €200,000 each from the Child and Family Agency this year.
Figures released by Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, show that, to the end of November this year, €6.76m has been paid to guardian ad litems — court appointees who act as independent voices for children in family law cases.
The 2014 figure compares to guardian ad litems receiving €7.18m in 2013.
In response to a freedom of information request, the figures show the largest provider or guardian ad litems services in the country, Barnardos-Beacon, this year received just over €3m for the service it provides.
Full story: Irish Examiner
Friday, April 18, 2014
Connecticut - Marisa Ringel testimony to Supreme Court
Connecticut has had a string of hearings dealing with Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. It is much needed there as it is in just about every state in the union. This following is written testimony that was presented to the Supreme Court in Hartford. While this parent speaks specifically to the rules for GALs in that state the general idea is one that can be applied in every court room.
This woman is saying that absent of any abuse or neglect - every parent should have a fundamental right to parent on an equal basis and that no parent should be forced into 'supervised visitation' absent of neglect or abuse. Yet how many parents are forced into that position by a Guardian ad litem or Family Court?
Supreme Court in Hartford
Public Hearing on Rules and Forms
Written Testimony of Marisa Ringel
April 14, 2014
Justices of the Supreme Court and/or Committee of Justices members:
I am hear today to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 14th Amendment clearly states:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In Stanley V. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651; 92 S.Ct. 1208, (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court stressed:
“The parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. ..A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.”
It is my suggestion that the Connecticut Practice Book incorporate these two quotes to open Section 25.
Every parent, absent abuse or neglect, in the Constitution State should have a fundamental equal right to parent their children without the interference of government.
While there is legislative authority granted to provide for various awards of custody in the State of Connecticut, there does not appear to be any specific legislative authority for a judge in the State of Connecticut to force a parent into “supervised visitation” absent abuse or neglect.
Yet, in the family courts of the State of Connecticut, “supervised visitation” is often ordered without any justification that a “child’s welfare” is in danger.
Therefore, I am proposing a new Practice Book Rule 25-70:
“No judicial authority shall have the right to issue an order of supervised visitation without conducting an evidentiary hearing to establish whether there are grounds for an order to show cause that “clear and present danger to the physical/psychological well-being of a child” exists that requires an limited time order of supervised visitation.
No order of supervised visitation shall remain in place for more than three months, without conducting another evidentiary hearing at which any party can call witnesses, including those supervising the visitation, to report to the court on their observations of the parent-child interactions.”
There are reports in Fairfield County of supervised visitation which have been in place for more than two years, in which fees in excess of $20,000 have been paid by a parent to conduct a once a week four hour visitation.
Supervised visitation cannot be seen as a “first option” response from a judicial authority to make parenting time “unaffordable” or a “punitive measure”.
The 1886 Supreme Court decision in Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 stated:
“Law and court proceedings that are ‘fair on their faces’ but administered ‘with an evil eye or heavy hand’ was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Family courts must provide divorced parent the same rights and obligations of their children as if still married. Otherwise, the court is administrating a criteria in a manner which discriminates against a class of citizens based on “un-married status”.
Such discrimination by the family court judges against any class of citizens who are no longer married would constitute a violation of Title 42, Section 1983.
Each of us who is speaking today, is a victim of orders of “supervised visitation” at the current time or in some past order issued in the family court system in Connecticut.
Each of us has been and has always aspired to be a “fit parent” and have been “humiliated” and “degraded” by a family court judge who has abused their powers in administering family court justice through ordering “supervised visitation” without an order to show cause.
This authority to order supervised visitation has no statutory authority and is therefore an abuse of discretion and must be curtailed.
Marisa Ringel
This woman is saying that absent of any abuse or neglect - every parent should have a fundamental right to parent on an equal basis and that no parent should be forced into 'supervised visitation' absent of neglect or abuse. Yet how many parents are forced into that position by a Guardian ad litem or Family Court?
Supreme Court in Hartford
Public Hearing on Rules and Forms
Written Testimony of Marisa Ringel
April 14, 2014
Justices of the Supreme Court and/or Committee of Justices members:
I am hear today to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 14th Amendment clearly states:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In Stanley V. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651; 92 S.Ct. 1208, (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court stressed:
“The parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. ..A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.”
It is my suggestion that the Connecticut Practice Book incorporate these two quotes to open Section 25.
Every parent, absent abuse or neglect, in the Constitution State should have a fundamental equal right to parent their children without the interference of government.
While there is legislative authority granted to provide for various awards of custody in the State of Connecticut, there does not appear to be any specific legislative authority for a judge in the State of Connecticut to force a parent into “supervised visitation” absent abuse or neglect.
Yet, in the family courts of the State of Connecticut, “supervised visitation” is often ordered without any justification that a “child’s welfare” is in danger.
Therefore, I am proposing a new Practice Book Rule 25-70:
“No judicial authority shall have the right to issue an order of supervised visitation without conducting an evidentiary hearing to establish whether there are grounds for an order to show cause that “clear and present danger to the physical/psychological well-being of a child” exists that requires an limited time order of supervised visitation.
No order of supervised visitation shall remain in place for more than three months, without conducting another evidentiary hearing at which any party can call witnesses, including those supervising the visitation, to report to the court on their observations of the parent-child interactions.”
There are reports in Fairfield County of supervised visitation which have been in place for more than two years, in which fees in excess of $20,000 have been paid by a parent to conduct a once a week four hour visitation.
Supervised visitation cannot be seen as a “first option” response from a judicial authority to make parenting time “unaffordable” or a “punitive measure”.
The 1886 Supreme Court decision in Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 stated:
“Law and court proceedings that are ‘fair on their faces’ but administered ‘with an evil eye or heavy hand’ was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Family courts must provide divorced parent the same rights and obligations of their children as if still married. Otherwise, the court is administrating a criteria in a manner which discriminates against a class of citizens based on “un-married status”.
Such discrimination by the family court judges against any class of citizens who are no longer married would constitute a violation of Title 42, Section 1983.
Each of us who is speaking today, is a victim of orders of “supervised visitation” at the current time or in some past order issued in the family court system in Connecticut.
Each of us has been and has always aspired to be a “fit parent” and have been “humiliated” and “degraded” by a family court judge who has abused their powers in administering family court justice through ordering “supervised visitation” without an order to show cause.
This authority to order supervised visitation has no statutory authority and is therefore an abuse of discretion and must be curtailed.
Marisa Ringel
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Maine - Child Custody - An appeal to Maine's Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521
It isn’t often that most people have a chance to read an actual divorce and custody story that is being appealed to Maine’s Supreme Court, as we write this. Child custody appeals are relatively rare. Most people, who might wish to appeal, are intimidated by the process; many are discouraged by lawyers, who don’t wish to offend a lower court judge by asking a higher court to intervene and correct a decision. Then, there is the huge amount of work involved and the not inconsiderable expense.
The process starts with a heartfelt disagreement with a lower court judgment and with the handling of the law in that court. It requires courage to challenge a family court judgment. It also always embodies a determined love of one’s child (children). In effect the appellant is very publicly saying - but in polite legal language - to the court, “You are dead wrong! Your judgment is not only unfair but badly arrived at. The tools you are using and the reasoning process are seriously defective! I strongly protest!” How a skilled attorney approaches this problem and chooses the most important issues out of a welter of possible “plots, subplots and very involved stories” is a matter of legal judgment. Most of us, as parents and family would get lost in a morass of the details that go into a custody fight. The enclosed brief of this particular case demonstrates the vitally necessary partnership between lawyer and client. It is a union of “heart and courage” and ”head” - the level, focused intellectual crafting of the case essentials by a lawyer. It will be, I guarantee you, a most interesting and informative “read”.
We’ve been hearing from family members some of the unbelievable details of this case, Dalton vs Dalton, for just over a year. We have held our breath each time there has been a court hearing, hoping for fairness, for a reasonable turn of events, for a review of hard facts and for correction of a frightening nightmare of misperception being acted out in court. But the process seemed only to get worse as time went on. The extreme and inaccurate views of the court and a Guardian ad litem have, unfortunately, become ever more rigidly entrenched. Hence, the difficult decision to appeal.
We have to say, in no way to diminish this very troubling case, that from our experience with many other friends, the clumsy handling of this case in this court is, unfortunately, by no means unique. This case is a poster child for other very similar cases, and it is an urgent clarion call for urgently needed Family Court Reform in Maine. Like most Family Courts in America today, Maine’s courts are in the views of many, badly broken, dysfunctional and urgently in need of reconceptualization and reconstruction. They have lost their moorings in the law, and they are cruelly hurting many of the families and children that they are supposed to serve.
Please, read the enclosed pdf with the details of the Supreme Court Appeal and see what you think. By all means, share it with friends and legal professionals. Ask the questions: “Is this how our courts should function? Is this your image of what you would expect from a court in a democratic society?”
Finally, who is in charge, where’s the oversight?
To view the case click on the link - Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521
For more information please contact NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook
The process starts with a heartfelt disagreement with a lower court judgment and with the handling of the law in that court. It requires courage to challenge a family court judgment. It also always embodies a determined love of one’s child (children). In effect the appellant is very publicly saying - but in polite legal language - to the court, “You are dead wrong! Your judgment is not only unfair but badly arrived at. The tools you are using and the reasoning process are seriously defective! I strongly protest!” How a skilled attorney approaches this problem and chooses the most important issues out of a welter of possible “plots, subplots and very involved stories” is a matter of legal judgment. Most of us, as parents and family would get lost in a morass of the details that go into a custody fight. The enclosed brief of this particular case demonstrates the vitally necessary partnership between lawyer and client. It is a union of “heart and courage” and ”head” - the level, focused intellectual crafting of the case essentials by a lawyer. It will be, I guarantee you, a most interesting and informative “read”.
We’ve been hearing from family members some of the unbelievable details of this case, Dalton vs Dalton, for just over a year. We have held our breath each time there has been a court hearing, hoping for fairness, for a reasonable turn of events, for a review of hard facts and for correction of a frightening nightmare of misperception being acted out in court. But the process seemed only to get worse as time went on. The extreme and inaccurate views of the court and a Guardian ad litem have, unfortunately, become ever more rigidly entrenched. Hence, the difficult decision to appeal.
We have to say, in no way to diminish this very troubling case, that from our experience with many other friends, the clumsy handling of this case in this court is, unfortunately, by no means unique. This case is a poster child for other very similar cases, and it is an urgent clarion call for urgently needed Family Court Reform in Maine. Like most Family Courts in America today, Maine’s courts are in the views of many, badly broken, dysfunctional and urgently in need of reconceptualization and reconstruction. They have lost their moorings in the law, and they are cruelly hurting many of the families and children that they are supposed to serve.
Please, read the enclosed pdf with the details of the Supreme Court Appeal and see what you think. By all means, share it with friends and legal professionals. Ask the questions: “Is this how our courts should function? Is this your image of what you would expect from a court in a democratic society?”
Finally, who is in charge, where’s the oversight?
To view the case click on the link - Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521
For more information please contact NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook
Monday, February 24, 2014
Maine - Family Court Abuse - A Parents Perspective
Dear Dr. Collins (et
al):
I cannot thank you
enough for all that you do for the impoverished, broken, and voiceless.
I thank everyone
within the NationalGALalert circles for the pro-active stance that has opened doors
once thought closed.
Our family's case is
literally "killing" my almost 16 year-old daughter; that was her
description - just yesterday - of how the numerous adversarial & prolonged
family court procedures have adversely effected her.
At present, she is
being held against her will within her dad's home: the GAL failed to hear her
pleas of wanting desperately to move back in with her mother {me} .
Additionally, the 2014 court order legally permits her father from allowing her
visitation with her mother {me}.
The last GAL failed
us on several occasions submitting an 18 page report filled with subjective
information - mostly inaccurate & malicious information -- provided to her
by my former husband.
The system has
failed our family in 2009-2010 and in 2012 to present: both of us parents have
considerable legal debt.
I am still in shock
over the final judgment given to me just 2 days after I appeared in Portland
(01/14/2104) to testify that I have been unable to contact Mary Ann Lynch via
email.
I know both myself
and my daughter suffer from a form of PTSD as a result of the on-going
post-divorce conflict initiated by my former husband but fanned and fueled by
those within the divorce industry.
Those who want to
point fingers can point to my former husband or to me BUT the truth is, my
former husband would not have been able to succeed in financially impoverishing
me without the support of the divorce industry.
Collectively, our
family has lost so much; the most tragic loss -- something that cannot be
replaced -- is my young daughters childhood. Both teens suffer separately and
differently from the conflict that results from drawn-out and highly
contentious court proceedings.
Conflict is all that
she knows / they know; the divorce industry knowingly or unknowing gave my
former husband positive reinforcement every time he sought legal counsel to
take me back to court -- twice since our original 2006 divorce.
Each consecutive
court process took twice as long as the prior and the costs involved doubled
from the previous process. I was just getting out of legal debt from the
2009-2010 process when my former took us back to court in 2012. That process
lasted 18 plus months and cost me over $20,000 when I only earned $10,000 in
2012 and $12,000 in 2013 (I was a full-time USM student until this past May).
Presently, my debt
is so astronomical that that my ability to pay court ordered child support
{calculated - mind you - on a salary
that I did not actually earn} has been greatly hindered: how is any of this in
the best interest of either teen? Or, the Maine tax payers? Or, to our
society???
As a result of the
collusion between the divorce industry and my former husband, my daughter has
fallen deeper and deeper into a depressions; she has twice attempted to end her
life {May and September of 2013}.
Maine care has
picked up all of the costs for her medical care. Maine tax payers are footing
the bill and , we as a society, are potentially losing a once energetic,
civic-minded, and highly accomplished student to a major depression and
self-harming behaviors both beginning after she was taken out of my home in
2010 and placed in the care of her dad.
I suggest that the
mayor and the divorce industry consider a "Truth and Reconciliation
Act" in order to acknowledge the pain and suffering that has taken place
-- for decades upon decades -- as a result of such a broken system.
Since 2006, I have
suffered - as well as the two minors -- enormous losses:
1. Loss of primary
home in 2010;
2. Loss of $100,000
equity in that primary home (2012 York, Maine);
3. Loss of all
material possessions sold off to pay down legal debt;
4. Loss of family
pet as former husband adopted the dog out of the family once he was granted
custody of both minors and their dog in 2010.
5. Decrease in
credit score by 100 points due to inability to pay mortgage on primary home
when former spouse was advised- by his lawyer-
to stop making child support payments in order to force me into signing
2010 post-judgment agreement;
6. Loss residential
custody of both teens due to loss of primary home (temporarily left homeless);
7. Loss 1/2
retirement fund in 2010 court process to pay GAL, legal fee's and mortgage
payments;
8. Loss all of
savings to date; accrued credit card debt is now equal to my 2013 annual
salary; loss all assets with exception to my vehicle that allows me to travel 3
hours a day to my full-time job;
9. Loss ALL parental
rights and responsibilities and all decision making powers due to erroneous GAL
report and due to her recommendation that losing all rights would end conflict;
10. Loss visitation
rights as all visitation is now up to the discretion of my former husband who
has been the instigator for all post-judgment discord;
11. The stress and the conflict has interfered with my work
at present, has created ongoing and extensive medical expenses, and has left
our daughter suicidal as well as feeling hopeless about her future;
12. The scars left
on the hearts of my two teenagers as well as myself may or may not ever heal;
time will tell. There is nothing more psychologically harmful than to lose the
right to parent: from 1996 until 2014, I gave my life to my children. I intended
and strove to raise well-adjusted, law abiding, and well-educated young adults.
That right has been taken from me; the family court system partook in that loss
of civil liberties.
The time for healing
is now.
Please allow those
of us who have to live with these court ordered "solutions" to family
matters be a part of the solution for creating a system that heals and supports
healthy family relations rather than a system that fuels the flames of discord
in order to "win" a case; we have a vast amount of anecdotal
information that would be an invaluable resource for those who are truly vested
in the well-being of Maine's children and in the health and welfare of the
state of Maine as a whole.
With sincere
gratitude for your time and consideration~
Suzanne
YDC-FM-06-XX
Former resident of
York Maine
Present Maine tax
payer
Social Justice
Advocate
This letter was
written to the courts and state government and came about as a result of the
post "A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on
Maine Children and Families". To read the letter to Gov. Paul LePage
follow this link.
For more information
please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Maine - A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families
RE: A Maine Commission to Assess the Impact of Divorce and Custody on Maine Children and Families.
The Governor
State of Maine
Dear Governor LePage,
Divorce in Maine, when child custody is involved, has evolved into an expensive, barbaric, often cruel process. Custody decisions by our courts often seem irrational and participants all too often find it impossible to correct a bad decision or a bad process. At Maine Guardian ad litem Alert, based on the data from our many contacts with people in the terrible throes of divorce, we increasingly feel that there is a need for a Maine Commission aimed at assessing the impact of divorce and custody on Maine children and families- and recommending repairs to a badly broken family court system. 60 % of American marriages are reported to end in divorce, and Maine is no different from the rest of the US. But beyond dry statistics, our experience with hundreds of individuals tells us that there are psychological, social and economic side effects of the family court experience, that wreck the lives of those that have gone through divorce for years to come. It is a shameful record. It calls for action.
Although we would certainly support a broadly focused Commission that took a total systems approach, we would suggest that there are several important areas where a narrower commission might assess serious problems and propose solutions without crossing the boundaries of another branch of government: (a) the economics of divorce and its impact on the present and future of (60%) Maine citizens and on the state itself, (b) the jurisdictional disputes about which of two branches of government has final responsibility for defining and resolving the diagnosis of adult or child abuse in divorce, and (c) problems associated with the family court’s use of and referrals to state sponsored/funded clinics by the Judicial Branch. This includes patient’s right to privacy issues; standards of the types and forms of treatment; court-ordered, mandatory treatment; treatment effectiveness evaluations; confidentiality and the human rights issues of those receiving services.
1.) Economic problems of divorcing in Maine. The short story is that it is very expensive, running to thousands of dollars, with courts putting no limits on the charges to citizens from a growing number of ancillary players, in a growing number of questionably effective peripheral services. The growth of these unevaluated “new” services- often court mandated- have become a part of an very expanded, very expensive “divorce industry”. Families are impoverished. Retirement and college funds are emptied. Homes are mortgaged to the hilt. Credit from relatives and families is exhausted. It is an expense with no boundaries and it grows year by year. We have to ask: Is a booming economic expansion of the “divorce industry” retarding investment in other “industries”? The Judicial Branch keeps virtually no data, our group has some limited financial data. However, there is a need to measure the problem, its growth and to propose solutions. Money drained from our economy by the “divorce industry” is money not available for other more productive investments; homes, education and retirement- just to name a few.
2.) Allegations of child or spousal abuse are all too common in contested divorces. Some allegations are real and serious and require appropriate action; other abuse claims are “strategic”, and need investigation and then labeling as such. At the moment, there is all too often a “turf war” between the Children's Protective program (under Human Services) and the Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem program about which entity has the final say in abuse allegations. There are likewise “turf wars” between GALs and those trained specialist professionals who assess “dangerousness” and other dysfunctional issues. It all too frequently happens that, if opinions of trained professionals do not concur with a GALs opinion, they are frequently ignored in favor of the GAL’s more expensive opinion, a continuing investigation by the GAL. It should be remembered that GALs have only 16-20 hours of training and no supervision when they override the findings of those with more training and supervision. It should also be remembered that continuing to investigate “abuse” generates significant “billable hours” for GALs and burdens families with these costs. More important is the question of whether someone with less knowledge, skill and experience will do a better job of danger evaluation for children and families than someone with specialist education, experience and supervision?
3.) State sponsored or financed services and clinics are frequently used as referral sources by Guardians ad litem and by Maine’s courts. The courts keep no statistics about the number of court referrals, which would help to describe (a) the size of their usage, (b) the problems encountered, (c) the outcomes of treatment- both short and long term. What is the impact of court mandated treatment on children and families? Are these court forced referrals doing any measurable good? How do they help? What are we getting for our public money? Are the services requested by courts- such as various untested, unproved behavior change therapies- scientifically grounded? Is the state paying for “experimental” services on court referred children and adults There is also the ethical/human rights issue of court mandated treatment in non-criminal cases. Confidentiality issues and demand for what should be considered privileged information are troubling and, we are told, don’t follow national standards. There are instances of GALs sharing this clinical information- without “releases”- with other GALs and with unauthorized persons, using the threat of contempt if permission to release information is not granted. It is an area that cries for study and repair.
These are just a few areas that might occupy the scrutiny of a circumscribed Commission to the benefit of our children and families. We would be pleased to discuss further any of these suggested ideas, and we recognize that these suggestions are just conversational openers. It seems important to us to give a more human, rational experience to children and families in divorce, the consumers of service.
Sincerely,
Jerome A Collins, MD
While this is addressed to the Governor of Maine the ideas given here may be applied in any state. Feel free to use the letter and change what needs to be changed to fit the situation of your state.
For more information on what is wrong with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem in the state follow us on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
The Governor
State of Maine
Dear Governor LePage,
Divorce in Maine, when child custody is involved, has evolved into an expensive, barbaric, often cruel process. Custody decisions by our courts often seem irrational and participants all too often find it impossible to correct a bad decision or a bad process. At Maine Guardian ad litem Alert, based on the data from our many contacts with people in the terrible throes of divorce, we increasingly feel that there is a need for a Maine Commission aimed at assessing the impact of divorce and custody on Maine children and families- and recommending repairs to a badly broken family court system. 60 % of American marriages are reported to end in divorce, and Maine is no different from the rest of the US. But beyond dry statistics, our experience with hundreds of individuals tells us that there are psychological, social and economic side effects of the family court experience, that wreck the lives of those that have gone through divorce for years to come. It is a shameful record. It calls for action.
Although we would certainly support a broadly focused Commission that took a total systems approach, we would suggest that there are several important areas where a narrower commission might assess serious problems and propose solutions without crossing the boundaries of another branch of government: (a) the economics of divorce and its impact on the present and future of (60%) Maine citizens and on the state itself, (b) the jurisdictional disputes about which of two branches of government has final responsibility for defining and resolving the diagnosis of adult or child abuse in divorce, and (c) problems associated with the family court’s use of and referrals to state sponsored/funded clinics by the Judicial Branch. This includes patient’s right to privacy issues; standards of the types and forms of treatment; court-ordered, mandatory treatment; treatment effectiveness evaluations; confidentiality and the human rights issues of those receiving services.
1.) Economic problems of divorcing in Maine. The short story is that it is very expensive, running to thousands of dollars, with courts putting no limits on the charges to citizens from a growing number of ancillary players, in a growing number of questionably effective peripheral services. The growth of these unevaluated “new” services- often court mandated- have become a part of an very expanded, very expensive “divorce industry”. Families are impoverished. Retirement and college funds are emptied. Homes are mortgaged to the hilt. Credit from relatives and families is exhausted. It is an expense with no boundaries and it grows year by year. We have to ask: Is a booming economic expansion of the “divorce industry” retarding investment in other “industries”? The Judicial Branch keeps virtually no data, our group has some limited financial data. However, there is a need to measure the problem, its growth and to propose solutions. Money drained from our economy by the “divorce industry” is money not available for other more productive investments; homes, education and retirement- just to name a few.
2.) Allegations of child or spousal abuse are all too common in contested divorces. Some allegations are real and serious and require appropriate action; other abuse claims are “strategic”, and need investigation and then labeling as such. At the moment, there is all too often a “turf war” between the Children's Protective program (under Human Services) and the Judicial Branch Guardian ad litem program about which entity has the final say in abuse allegations. There are likewise “turf wars” between GALs and those trained specialist professionals who assess “dangerousness” and other dysfunctional issues. It all too frequently happens that, if opinions of trained professionals do not concur with a GALs opinion, they are frequently ignored in favor of the GAL’s more expensive opinion, a continuing investigation by the GAL. It should be remembered that GALs have only 16-20 hours of training and no supervision when they override the findings of those with more training and supervision. It should also be remembered that continuing to investigate “abuse” generates significant “billable hours” for GALs and burdens families with these costs. More important is the question of whether someone with less knowledge, skill and experience will do a better job of danger evaluation for children and families than someone with specialist education, experience and supervision?
3.) State sponsored or financed services and clinics are frequently used as referral sources by Guardians ad litem and by Maine’s courts. The courts keep no statistics about the number of court referrals, which would help to describe (a) the size of their usage, (b) the problems encountered, (c) the outcomes of treatment- both short and long term. What is the impact of court mandated treatment on children and families? Are these court forced referrals doing any measurable good? How do they help? What are we getting for our public money? Are the services requested by courts- such as various untested, unproved behavior change therapies- scientifically grounded? Is the state paying for “experimental” services on court referred children and adults There is also the ethical/human rights issue of court mandated treatment in non-criminal cases. Confidentiality issues and demand for what should be considered privileged information are troubling and, we are told, don’t follow national standards. There are instances of GALs sharing this clinical information- without “releases”- with other GALs and with unauthorized persons, using the threat of contempt if permission to release information is not granted. It is an area that cries for study and repair.
These are just a few areas that might occupy the scrutiny of a circumscribed Commission to the benefit of our children and families. We would be pleased to discuss further any of these suggested ideas, and we recognize that these suggestions are just conversational openers. It seems important to us to give a more human, rational experience to children and families in divorce, the consumers of service.
Sincerely,
Jerome A Collins, MD
While this is addressed to the Governor of Maine the ideas given here may be applied in any state. Feel free to use the letter and change what needs to be changed to fit the situation of your state.
For more information on what is wrong with Family Courts and Guardians ad litem in the state follow us on Facebook or email us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Dear Guardian ad litem, Dear Family Court,
Santa has received letters from kids who want BOTH parents....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)