LD 522, SP 212 is a proposed bill that is being submitted by the Judiciary of Maine and the intention is to correct issues that are part of the Guardian ad litem program here in Maine. It is not clear how what is being proposed will really benefit the children and families of Maine. This is a bill that appears to be self serving for the 'stake holders' (ie. The divorce industry and Guardians ad litem) and an avenue for the states Judiciary to save face and give the appearance of correcting problems that has fermented for decades.
Take for instance “Recommendations for an Improved Process for Complaints Regarding Guardians Ad Litem” in the summary section. This is an open ended statement and gives no clear structure as to how the proposed complaint process is to be improved upon. Our understanding from a member of the committee that was assembled for reforming the complaint process is that the format being endorsed would benefit those that work within the courts. A complaint process with layers that for the average person trying to navigate the legalese would give up upon. This complaint process would also be maintained within the Judiciary – which in almost 40 years of problems has only managed to make the complaint process more bullet proof for the divorce industry and Guardians ad litem. The average person unfamiliar with legal process would probably benefit more from banging their head against a wall repeatedly. Our courts, Judges and Guardians ad litem have failed miserably to provide control, management and oversight of this 'profession' – are we expected that they can produce a transparent process for complaints that the average person can understand?
Contrast this to a proposal from Maine's licensing board which has a history of providing management and oversight of its members. The complaint process is understandable to the average person who is attempting to navigate a complaint against a Guardian ad litem for vocation and or malpractice. There is due process and accountability that is built in. The process is explained by those that handle the complaint to those that are filing a complaint. There is transparency involved that is not seen with the current process nor with what is being proposed by the Judiciary.
Which would you want to work within? A process that is highly legal and time consuming. One that will potentially cost the person trying to bring about a complaint thousands of dollars? Or a process that cost very little in terms of time and resources. That is not legalistic in its scope? If for no other reason this bill should be killed – the Judiciary may do some things well – oversight and management of Guardians ad litem is not one of them. The bill is self serving and makes reform closed to the public – the very same idea that has put Maine's Guardians ad litem in the hot water they find themselves in now. The complaint process should be moved from the closed process this bill is asking for and moved to an organization that is equipped to police its own. Maine's children cannot wait another 40 years for the idea of change to come. Maine's families cannot afford the cost – emotional and financial – that will come with a poorly thought out process for reform.
Please write to our Representatives to tell them that LD 522, SP 212 An Act To Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws should be laid to rest. That this is a bad piece of legislation. If you have questions, or need help in contacting our Representatives please email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com for support and information. We can also be found on Facebook for up to date information on Guardian ad litem and Parental Coordinator reform.
Showing posts with label mission creep. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mission creep. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Thursday, December 6, 2012
JUDICIAL BRANCH MANAGEMENT DILEMMA
In
thinking about why the Judicial Branch has such difficulty in
creating a management system for its GAL program, a number of
conceptual and structural impediments come to mind. The most readily
acknowledged issue is no money for supervision or for a bureaucratic
structure that would allow for normal bureaucratic management of
Guardians ad litem (GAL). The financial excuse is probably true given
the dire financial straights of the state, but we would say in
addition that even were money available, there are more serious
conceptual impediments preventing Judicial Branch’s internal
management of Guardians ad litem. There are at least three conceptual
issues that would make supervision or management of Guardians ad
litem in any Judicial system fraught with legal and ethical problems
unique to judicial branches of government.
The issues involve internal conflicts inherent in normal organizational role shifts, within a judicial system, from the role of supervision of vocational functioning of a supervisee to the administration of justice in cases involving complaints about supervision which seek legal solutions. Both GAL management and adjudication of formal, legal complaints about a Guardian’s management get very complex when these inherently conflicting activities have to occur within the same, small, fairly tight system. It would require a tight control over supervisory information and rigid compartmentalization of this information, so that information about supervision and management - and any conflict therein - does not seep into formal adjudication channels and pollute the fairness of any possible, future legal complaint process. Can it be done?
1.) Judicial Independence. In the spirit of Common Law, a judge is supposed to form his/her judgment about a case independently, uninfluenced (unswayed) by other branches of government or by partisan, community (or bureaucratic) politics.
This means standing apart from and being independent of politics and influence from the other branches of government. It should include not only formal political influence of the branches, but also government bureaucratic influences, including those of the judge’s own internal bureaucracy. This means using data presented in court by both parties to form an independent opinion and not to be swayed by outside influences or outside information or previous knowledge of the case. It would be difficult for a judge to resolve independently legal actions of any kind involving a Guardian ad litem; especially, a GAL with whom he/she has worked in court or even one who is known to the judicial system. Judicial independence gets damaged by foreknowledge of the GAL, by working relationships, by the rumors, by system gossip, by the system grapevines and by private awareness of the contentions.
The issues involve internal conflicts inherent in normal organizational role shifts, within a judicial system, from the role of supervision of vocational functioning of a supervisee to the administration of justice in cases involving complaints about supervision which seek legal solutions. Both GAL management and adjudication of formal, legal complaints about a Guardian’s management get very complex when these inherently conflicting activities have to occur within the same, small, fairly tight system. It would require a tight control over supervisory information and rigid compartmentalization of this information, so that information about supervision and management - and any conflict therein - does not seep into formal adjudication channels and pollute the fairness of any possible, future legal complaint process. Can it be done?
1.) Judicial Independence. In the spirit of Common Law, a judge is supposed to form his/her judgment about a case independently, uninfluenced (unswayed) by other branches of government or by partisan, community (or bureaucratic) politics.
This means standing apart from and being independent of politics and influence from the other branches of government. It should include not only formal political influence of the branches, but also government bureaucratic influences, including those of the judge’s own internal bureaucracy. This means using data presented in court by both parties to form an independent opinion and not to be swayed by outside influences or outside information or previous knowledge of the case. It would be difficult for a judge to resolve independently legal actions of any kind involving a Guardian ad litem; especially, a GAL with whom he/she has worked in court or even one who is known to the judicial system. Judicial independence gets damaged by foreknowledge of the GAL, by working relationships, by the rumors, by system gossip, by the system grapevines and by private awareness of the contentions.
A
theoretical problem might start with supervisory discord between a
GAL and his/her supervisor about an issue of supervision, leading to
an internal management hearing and subsequently pursued in a formal
court complaint. It might go the full route in court and continue as
a case of higher level appeal. Administrative supervision within any
such JB system - if there were conflicts - might at some point be apt
to tangle with the branches’ system for administering formal
justice, as those with supervisory grievances may seek legal appeal.
It poses a huge bureaucratic challenge to keep information from these
supervision and justice boundaries clean, separate and
non-communicating in a single, small bureaucracy. This is a very
special supervisory problem (unique?) for judicial systems, one that
is not faced by administrative bureaucracies in other branches of
government. Judicial independence, while an active member of a
bureaucratic branch of government is challenging to say the
least.
Having a non-judge be supervisor of a GAL would necessitate a bureaucracy to supervise the supervisor, a supervisory appellate process for conflicts arising out of supervision, and links within the same system to the judiciary for conflicts that "go legal". Judicial independence in Judicial Branches would necessitate a “Rube Goldberg” organizational structure and be strained to the degree that all judges would have to adopt an antisocial, personal ‘modus operandi’ to avoid contamination of their independence by normal internal organizational grapevines and normal organizational politics. And this would have to be at all times for perhaps an actually limited number of internal legal complaints. Can independence of one’s home bureaucracy be carried out, always, with any kind of credibility? What sort of person would avoid all informal social communications with system wide colleagues to be judicially independent? It is an example of the latent conflicting strains between supervision and legal functions within the same system that inevitably impinge on judicial independence.
2.) Judicial Impartiality. There are special challenges to maintaining judicial impartiality when one sits in formal judgment of a person who works in the same bureaucratic system, who is appointed by colleagues, who works for colleagues and friends in that system, who may be known personally or by reputation or rumor. The potential role conflicts and/or impartiality conflicts would seem enormous when colleagues, friends, coworkers must attempt to render impartial judgment. Can it happen? Can one have oversight of a working colleague (and at the same time maintain impartiality), with the unavoidable risk that the working colleague might at some point go to law with a formal complaint for some sort of problem resolution, which cannot be resolved in supervision? It is another serious conceptual impediment to the Judicial Branch system supervising or having oversight of GALs.
3.) Due Process. Implies that in a conflict, all parties and the judge will share in common, knowledge about the complaint and the case at the same time, and that everyone has equal opportunities to respond to all steps in the process. No one has the special advantage of being able to use secret information unknown to the other players or privately to exert undue influence. Well run courts are scrupulous about keeping all relevant information shared by all participants and to avoid ‘ex parte’ communications so no one has use of special knowledge not available to the others. Information has a power of its own to determine or influence outcomes. The idea of protecting due process poses special challenges to the hypothetical idea of supervision or of oversight within a judicial system, where all supervisory and oversight information would have to be kept rigidly apart from the justice side to avoid contaminating possible future due process in a hypothetical legal complaint from the same players. Can any organization - even a formal espionage organization - implement this degree of control over information that is internal to one part of the system in order to prevent seepage into another part of the same system?
These ideas are just a few conceptual and system reasons, why it is virtually an impossibility for the JB to construct a system of GAL oversight without violating very important traditional principles that are embedded in administering the law. This is not in any way to suggest that these principles are not vitally important and necessary in a court of law and need to be respected. It is simply to try to understand why these same respected principles that work so well in court render supervision of GALs virtually impossible in Judicial systems. It is the reason why many states have surrendered to the impossibility of doing supervision/oversight within their judicial branch and moved these activities to the administrative/executive branch.
Maine should do this for the same reasons.
Having a non-judge be supervisor of a GAL would necessitate a bureaucracy to supervise the supervisor, a supervisory appellate process for conflicts arising out of supervision, and links within the same system to the judiciary for conflicts that "go legal". Judicial independence in Judicial Branches would necessitate a “Rube Goldberg” organizational structure and be strained to the degree that all judges would have to adopt an antisocial, personal ‘modus operandi’ to avoid contamination of their independence by normal internal organizational grapevines and normal organizational politics. And this would have to be at all times for perhaps an actually limited number of internal legal complaints. Can independence of one’s home bureaucracy be carried out, always, with any kind of credibility? What sort of person would avoid all informal social communications with system wide colleagues to be judicially independent? It is an example of the latent conflicting strains between supervision and legal functions within the same system that inevitably impinge on judicial independence.
2.) Judicial Impartiality. There are special challenges to maintaining judicial impartiality when one sits in formal judgment of a person who works in the same bureaucratic system, who is appointed by colleagues, who works for colleagues and friends in that system, who may be known personally or by reputation or rumor. The potential role conflicts and/or impartiality conflicts would seem enormous when colleagues, friends, coworkers must attempt to render impartial judgment. Can it happen? Can one have oversight of a working colleague (and at the same time maintain impartiality), with the unavoidable risk that the working colleague might at some point go to law with a formal complaint for some sort of problem resolution, which cannot be resolved in supervision? It is another serious conceptual impediment to the Judicial Branch system supervising or having oversight of GALs.
3.) Due Process. Implies that in a conflict, all parties and the judge will share in common, knowledge about the complaint and the case at the same time, and that everyone has equal opportunities to respond to all steps in the process. No one has the special advantage of being able to use secret information unknown to the other players or privately to exert undue influence. Well run courts are scrupulous about keeping all relevant information shared by all participants and to avoid ‘ex parte’ communications so no one has use of special knowledge not available to the others. Information has a power of its own to determine or influence outcomes. The idea of protecting due process poses special challenges to the hypothetical idea of supervision or of oversight within a judicial system, where all supervisory and oversight information would have to be kept rigidly apart from the justice side to avoid contaminating possible future due process in a hypothetical legal complaint from the same players. Can any organization - even a formal espionage organization - implement this degree of control over information that is internal to one part of the system in order to prevent seepage into another part of the same system?
These ideas are just a few conceptual and system reasons, why it is virtually an impossibility for the JB to construct a system of GAL oversight without violating very important traditional principles that are embedded in administering the law. This is not in any way to suggest that these principles are not vitally important and necessary in a court of law and need to be respected. It is simply to try to understand why these same respected principles that work so well in court render supervision of GALs virtually impossible in Judicial systems. It is the reason why many states have surrendered to the impossibility of doing supervision/oversight within their judicial branch and moved these activities to the administrative/executive branch.
Maine should do this for the same reasons.
For more information on the issues of
Guardians ad litem we encourage you to read the 2006 OPEGA report.
Provided is a link to a summary – OPEGA. In addition there is the
report the Power of the Powerless which addresses many of the same
issues. If you have had any issues with Guardians ad litem we
encourage you to contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com
or like us on Facebook for information.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
No Management or Oversight for Guardians ad litem in the last 40 years
In 2006 OPEGA ( Office of Program Evaluation and Government
Accountability ) produced a report highlighting some of the problems
with the Guardian ad litem program in Maine. What OPEGA highlighted back
in 2006 for Maine are issues that sadly can be seen in many states
across the country.
One of the audit findings by OPEGA was that there is a lack of compliance, performance controls and evaluation systems. The Judicial Branch has not been competent when it comes to oversight or performance monitoring in the 30+ years prior to the report. Six years later we find the Judicial Branch still without any quality controls in place to monitor and evaluate Guardians ad litem. There is no mechanism to identify GALs that are not complying with requirements or who are not involved in the lives of the child(ren). OPEGA also recommended the establishment of an independent oversight board that would ask for feedback on GAL performance. Being able to give feedback and having a place where this feedback, good or bad, is available for consumers would help in the matter of oversight and management. An Angie’s list of sorts would weed out under performing GALs or limit their business. Those that perform to standards would be rewarded for their ethics and behavior.
It was 30+ years before OPEGA investigated and reported on this issue. Six years later the situation has not changed except that there has been 6 more years of damage to Maine's families and children. How much longer will Maine's children have to wait for change to come? If we wait for the Judicial Branch to bring about change it may be another 40 years. Can we wait that long?
If you want to read a summarized copy of the 2006 OPEGA report click here.
A copy of the report done in 2012 – the Power of the Powerless which covers many of the same issues can be found here.
If you are or know someone who has had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com. We can also be found on Facebook.
One of the audit findings by OPEGA was that there is a lack of compliance, performance controls and evaluation systems. The Judicial Branch has not been competent when it comes to oversight or performance monitoring in the 30+ years prior to the report. Six years later we find the Judicial Branch still without any quality controls in place to monitor and evaluate Guardians ad litem. There is no mechanism to identify GALs that are not complying with requirements or who are not involved in the lives of the child(ren). OPEGA also recommended the establishment of an independent oversight board that would ask for feedback on GAL performance. Being able to give feedback and having a place where this feedback, good or bad, is available for consumers would help in the matter of oversight and management. An Angie’s list of sorts would weed out under performing GALs or limit their business. Those that perform to standards would be rewarded for their ethics and behavior.
It was 30+ years before OPEGA investigated and reported on this issue. Six years later the situation has not changed except that there has been 6 more years of damage to Maine's families and children. How much longer will Maine's children have to wait for change to come? If we wait for the Judicial Branch to bring about change it may be another 40 years. Can we wait that long?
If you want to read a summarized copy of the 2006 OPEGA report click here.
A copy of the report done in 2012 – the Power of the Powerless which covers many of the same issues can be found here.
If you are or know someone who has had issues with a Guardian ad litem please contact us for support at NationalGALalert@gmail.com. We can also be found on Facebook.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
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.
Friday, October 26, 2012
"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.
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.
Monday, October 15, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)