Divorce and what is in the 'best interest' of the child Guardian Ad Litem Alert
FM UPDATE FM — If you are going through a divorce and have a conflict with your soon to be ex with regards to your child, beware of the GAL (guardian ad litem) that's appointed. You may experience bias, poor judgment, excessive charges and unclear billing.
My friend is finishing up with a divorce where a GAL (guardian ad litem) had been appointed to look after the interests of his now 7 year old son. The GAL in question is also a LCSW social worker but in this particular case is acting in capacity of a GAL only.
What that means is, as a social worker, which is one of her titles, she would be in trouble for doing what she did in this case but because she is also a Guardian ad litem (GAL) she can hide behind that title, there is no forum to complain except to the judge who appointed her in the first place. The judge would have to admit he made a mistake by appointing a defective GAL, that would make him look incompetent; therefore it is unlikely to happen
At the request of his wife, the GAL made a diagnosis of his child potentially having psychological consequences if the mother went to prison as she was scheduled to do. The GAL claimed that his child could become another ‘Unabomber’ amongst other possible terrorists listed in the letter and used that in a mailing to the prison pardon board. .
That would be enough of a problem if that were the only issue. The GAL had never met the child when the diagnosis was made. The mother and child lived in Montana at this time. The letter was written on LCSW social worker letterhead as opposed to personal stationary to carry the weight of her being a LCSW. Another letter was written on LCSW letterhead to the court offering clinical insight regarding a ‘perfect storm’ that was looming but in each case she was able to hide behind the protection afforded GAL’s.
The mother has an acrimonious and strained relationship with my friend’s parents due in part to the mother’s many arrests and rehabs. My friends father is a retired psychiatrist with deep community ties and a spotless record. But on the mother’s recommendations due to her dislike of the parents, the grandparents have very controlled and limited contact with their grandson with the GAL’s blessing.
My friend brought the GAL, in front of the Board of Social Worker Licensure in Gardiner and they found her to have shown bias in favor of the mother, they were disturbed by her writing that letter on LCSW letterhead and presenting a diagnosis in the capacity of a GAL. The licensing board did not mention what others thought were a big part of the complaint, the diagnosis having been made without having ever having met the child on top of the aforementioned issues. It was not known whether or not they knew of this at the time of the meeting.
The case was listened to with the above being said but dismissed on a technicality. The forum in which it was in is for social workers and although she is also a social worker she was not acting in that capacity officially in this case.
My friend is extremely frustrated at the protection the GAL is afforded. She has been deficient in her duties and overstepping her boundaries as a GAL.
The judge in the case said she was doing a commendable job BUT that was before this was brought before the panel of social workers and prejudice was found.
The bill which has exceeded $11,000 was presented by the GAL at the end of the case with minimal breakdown of the charges. The combined income of the parents is $45,000 with the burden of the bill being placed on my friends shoulders. There is a case Desmond vs. Desmond that talks about the capping of fees in particular when the parents have financial difficulties.
The GAL profession appears to have no oversight, is highly connected and is very protected.
To our legislators in Augusta, in 2006, a report was done by a committee called OPEGA and they did a review of the GAL (guardian ad litem) system in the state of Maine and said there were many issues that needed correcting and that it would be addressed at a later date. It is 2012, why has nothing been done?
Bankrupting the family, bias and lies, is this in the best interest of the child?
We want to get your story. We want to legislate on a local and national level.
Cap fees to what a family can afford and allow complaints and laws suits when the guardian ad litem shows bias and incompetence and has lied. In surrounding professions such as lawyers and social workers they can be sued for these things, why can't you sue or complain about the GAL?
megalalert@gmail.com for Maine issues and nationalgalalert@gmail.com if you know someone with GAL (guardian ad litem) issues who live out of state.
Also, please visit us on our Facebook pages megalalert and nationalgalalert for updates.
Thanks!
.jpg)
Friday, my friend fired his attorney. It wasn't like my friends attorney didn't want to be released as his lawyer. You see the lawyer, the GAL (guardian ad litem) and the judge will all see each other and have to work with one another long after my friends divorce is over. My friend has had such an awful time with the GAL with her lies, bias and excessive yet undetailed bill so my friend challenging the results the GAL has produced and the yet to be explained bill makes the lawyer and judge more than uncomfortable, He (the lawyer) actually had the nerve to say it would be in the son's best interest for my friend to pay the $11,000 plus the GAL says is owed! No, I don't think that is true. I think if my friend and I just shut up, he pays the bill and we don't rock the boat, that the lawyer, the GAL , the judge and the broken system continues. I know that we will not be quiet because the system is wrong as it stands right now. Please help us fix it. On Facebook see megalalert and nationalgalalert and email us at megalalert@gmail.com and nationalgalalert@gmail.com
Friday, my friend fired his attorney. It wasn't like my friends attorney didn't want to be released as his lawyer. You see the lawyer, the GAL (guardian ad litem) and the judge will all see each other and have to work with one another long after my friends divorce is over. My friend has had such an awful time with the GAL with her lies, bias and excessive yet undetailed bill so my friend challenging the results the GAL has produced and the yet to be explained bill makes the lawyer and judge more than uncomfortable, He (the lawyer) actually had the nerve to say it would be in the son's best interest for my friend to pay the $11,000 plus the GAL says is owed! No, I don't think that is true. I think if my friend and I just shut up, he pays the bill and we don't rock the boat, that the lawyer, the GAL , the judge and the broken system continues. I know that we will not be quiet because the system is wrong as it stands right now. Please help us fix it. On Facebook see megalalert and nationalgalalert and email us at megalalert@gmail.com and nationalgalalert@gmail.com
The GAL (guardian ad litem) audits from 3 states Utah, Florida, and Minnesota all make the same suggestion, that the GAL profession get moved from the judicial branch of government to the executive branch of government to help eliminate the judge appointing the GAL that was recommended from the lawyer representing one of the divorcing parties. This helps eliminate the cozy relationship between the judge who appoints the GAL (guardian ad litem) the lawyer who recommended the GAL and the GAL. This goes on all the time and in my friends case, kept his attorney, whom he fired Friday, from properly representing him as the judge, attorney and GAL will be working together long after my friends divorce case is over.
The lawyer he fired was supposed to be representing my friend all out, as my friend was his paying client. Instead the attorney was worried that his relationship with the judge and GAL (guardian ad litem) would be damaged and the attorney would have to work alongside the judge and GAL so he was not effective in representing my friend.
With the GAL having been so bias and writing letters on behalf of my friends ex wife to keep her out of prison, a definite violation of neutrality on the GAL's part, the bill that the GAL (guardian ad litem) presented that shows she 'sent an email' 'made a phone call' and amounted to over $11,000 my friend wanted records and clarification of what this GAL actually did. He asked his attorney to subpoena her files, his attorney balked and wouldn't do it instead reducing the request to a discovery of record, giving the GAL (guardian ad litem) loads of time to 'review' her records.
Amazing to me that a lawyer you are paying to represent you and he would not follow through for his client. Taking the GAL office and moving it to another branch of government or separating it from the judicial branch in some way would keep the lawyers, judges and GAL's from the current incestuous relationship they now enjoy.
The GAL (guardian ad litem) in question is trying to collect on her bill of over $11,000 for her 'services' provided. A bill that says things like 'sent email', 'made phone call', etc. It is vague and excessive. In a case I mentioned in my blog Desmond vs. Desmond the parties invoved made just over $70,000 combined, my friend and his ex make significantly less. This is what the court had to say about this issue: The litigation has cost these parties—in addition to the significant legal fees they have separately incurred—thousands of dollars in guardian ad litem fees. This is an extraordinary expense for parties whose combined annual incomes total just over $70,000. Courts hearing family cases are encouraged to cap and/or monitor the costs associated with litigation whenever necessary to protect the child’s best interest so that the funds needed to feed, clothe, and educate children are not spent on generating guardian ad litem reports or paying substantial attorney fees. I am hoping for justice in my friends case and for others. Visit us on Facebook megalalert for Maine issues and nationalgalalert for national issues.
Today my friend fired his attorney. It wasn't like my friends attorney didn't want to be released as his lawyer. You see the lawyer, the GAL (guardian ad litem) and the judge will all see each other and have to work with one another long after my friends divorce is over. My friend has had such an awful time with the GAL with her lies, bias and excessive yet undetailed bill so my friend challenging the results the GAL has produced and the yet to be explained bill makes the lawyer and judge more than uncomfortable, He (the lawyer) actually had the nerve to say it would be in the son's best interest for my friend to pay the $11,000 plus the GAL says is owed! No, I don't think that is true. I think if my friend and I just shut up, he pays the bill and we don't rock the boat, that the lawyer, the GAL , the judge and the broken system continues. I know that we will not be quiet because the system is wrong as it stands right now. Please help us fix it. On Facebook see megalalert and nationalgalalert and email us at megalalert@gmail.com and nationalgalalert@gmail.com
The GAL (guardian ad litem) in question is trying to collect on her bill of over $11,000 for her 'services' provided. A bill that says things like 'sent email', made phone call, etc. It is vague and excessive. In a case I mentioned in my blog Desmond vs. Desmond the parties invoved made just over $70,000 combined, my friend and his ex make significantly less. This is what the court had to say about this issue: The litigation has cost these parties—in addition to the significant legal fees they have separately incurred—thousands of dollars in guardian ad litem fees. This is an extraordinary expense for parties whose combined annual incomes total just over $70,000. Courts hearing family cases are encouraged to cap and/or monitor the costs associated with litigation whenever necessary to protect the child’s best interest so that the funds needed to feed, clothe, and educate children are not spent on generating guardian ad litem reports or paying substantial attorney fees. I am hoping for justice in my friends case and for others. Visit us on Facebook megalalert for Maine issues and nationalgalalert for national issues.
No Clear Complaint Process
For the parties in a custody case, the Probate and Family Court process can be confusing. This already difficult process can become a nightmare if a party feels that a GAL appointed to the case has acted in an incompetent or biased manner. In such a situation, the dissatisfied party may not know where to turn for assistance. Although Committee interviews with the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court revealed that he will hear complaints about the process, many parties are unaware that they can bring a complaint to his attention. Furthermore, taking an issue to the highest level of the Probate and Family Court may seem intimidating for many people.
Currently, if a party in a case would like to file a complaint there are two choices: they can file a complaint with the presiding judge in the case or with the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court. During the Committee investigation, no attorney or GAL who was interviewed by the Committee was aware of any complaint process other than filing an objection about a GAL’s conduct with the presiding judge. Presently, the Court does not provide parties or their attorneys with information regarding their rights when a GAL is appointed to their case or how they can file a complaint concerning a GAL. Many probate attorneys interviewed were reluctant to file a complaint with a presiding judge because they would likely come into contact with the GAL in future cases and were concerned about retribution.
The lack of a well-understood forum for resolving complaints specifically related to the GAL process creates numerous problems. First, parties can leave the Probate and Family Court feeling that the process was unfair and that justice was not served. Second, without a well-known system to address complaints about the conduct of GALs, allegations of bias, negligence, and incompetence may go unaddressed. Without a centralized complaint process and adequate record keeping, it is difficult for the court to identify specific areas where a GAL might require discipline or further training. In the most severe cases, it might be necessary to permanently disqualify the GAL.
Another audit ignored which leads us to wonder why this keeps happening. Organizations like the Maine Gal Institute which are supposedly meant to help guardian ad litems and the public with resources to search for a GAL, update the public on goals and legislation may be act as a shield between the consumer and the guardian ad litem preventing complaints and a process for lawsuits for incompetent and/or biased GAL's. Remove the protection from this profession. Lawyers, social workers, judges, my word even plumbers are not immune from lawsuits when they do a poor job. Let's even the playing field and take off the kid gloves.
An effort to shift the Office of the Guardian Ad Litem from the judicial to the executive branch moved forward Tuesday
HB174, sponsored by Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, would transfer oversight of the office, which provides legal counsel for children involved in court proceedings, to the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.
The office is now overseen by the Judicial Council, the governing body over the state courts. However, a citizens' oversight panel was also created last year to address concerns raised in a 2005 legislative audit about the conflict of interest of having guardian ad litem attorneys testify before judges who also supervise the office.
It is that conflict that Christensen, a persistent critic of the office and requestor of the original audit, hopes to eliminate with HB174.
"The thrust of this bill, is it implements the audit," he said. "It shores up the definition of the duties and it moves the guardian ad litem over to the executive branch for greater independence."
As advocates for children involved in judicial proceedings, attorneys often take opposing positions than the state, Brewer said.
A fairly common example would be a situation where the Division of Child and Family Services seeks to remove a child from his home. The Attorney General's Office would represent DCFS and the child's parents would have their attorney, while the Guardian Ad Litem's Office would seek to represent the best interests of the child.
"Our role (in some cases) is also to protect the child against what the state might be recommending," she said. "And if we are all in the executive branch, there's a concern that we would not be able to take an opposing position to a sister state agency."
The House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee passed HB174 on a 4-3 vote, with those voting against the measure encouraging additional study of the issue during the interim session.
We have decided to go all out and gather information and legislate but we need your help.
megalalert@gmail.com for Maine issues and nationalgalalert@gmail.com if you know someone with GAL (guardian ad litem) issues who live out of state.
Also, please visit us on our Facebook pages megalalert and nationalgalalert (national guard for updates.
We want to get your story. We want to legislate on a local and national level.
megalalert@gmail.com for Maine issues and nationalgalalert@gmail.com if you know someone with GAL (guardian ad litem) issues who live out of state.
Also, please visit us on our Facebook pages megalalert and nationalgalalert for updates.
Thanks!
Anson, I am sorry that you are experiencing this. I would like to let you know we are going to the legislators in the state to try and get things changed. it is very tedious and frustrating. Would we be able to use your name as an example of those this is happening to? I have had over 800 hits on this issue so there must really be a problem. It may help you and your family and maybe my friend, if not, I am hoping to save another family from this injustice.
I agree the same thing has happened in our family with the GAL totally believing a mentally ill mother and withholding visitation without cause. I could go on and on. My son has no protection order against him, is gainfully employed and is current with his support. However his 4 year old son is only allowed to visit 2 days weekly, no vacations, until he is seven. The grandparents (us) have no way to see him as it takes more than two days to get to the island and visit plus arrange a return boat ride. It is ridiculous and criminal. A judge has never heard this and it was decided by a mediator and the GAL. My son has appealed but his attorney has withdrawn. It seems as if everyone is in everyone's pocket. We cannot seem to get justice even after spending almost $60,000.00.