BDN
By Judy Harrison, BDN Staff
AUGUSTA, Maine — People who feel they have been treated unfairly by Maine’s family court system Tuesday urged the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee to change how judges decide custody issues.
Two bills — LD 346 and LD 642 — would require judges to consider the value of having both parents involved in the lives of their children following a divorce. That would be an addition to the current legal standard of making decisions based on what is in the “best interest of the child.”
John Simpson, a Cumberland Foreside attorney and divorced father of two, urged the committee to recommend to the Legislature that the bills be enacted. He told the committee that his wife filed for divorce in 2013 and, initially, the couple was able to equally share the residential care of their children, now 5 and 3.
“Unfortunately, we could not agree on a permanent parenting schedule,” Simpson said. “I thought continuing with our shared schedule would be best for the children, but my wife wanted the children to live primarily with her.”
His voice breaking with emotion, Simpson told the committee that “despite clear proof that shared primary residential care was working very well for our children, the court accepted the guardian ad litem’s 1950s vintage opinion that young children should primarily reside with their mother. My children now spend twice as much time with their mom than their dad for no rational reason.”
Simpson recommended that judges who want to know what is in the best interest of the children of divorcing parents should ask the children.
About half a dozen other divorced parents echoed Simpson’s concerns and his emotional distress over the final custody decrees in their cases. Most complained about how the Guardians ad litem assigned to their cases “misrepresented” the facts of their cases to judges.
Full story: BDN
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Did the Maine Supreme Court Make the Right Decision to Terminate Parental Rights?
The headline that the Maine Supreme Court upheld the termination of parental rights of a man who killed two in front of his son.
The father killed the mother of his children and a friend back on July 25, 2011. After the killing the father led police on a high speed chase. The oldest son who witnessed and testified - suffered greatly. The fathers parental rights were terminated back in 2013 to which the father was appealing the decision.
While we do not always agree with the court in decisions and policy - we believe they are correct in upholding the earlier decision. For more details on the story please follow this link to the article in Bangor Daily News.
Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail or call 207-370-9801 for issues dealing with Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. Find us on Facebook.
The father killed the mother of his children and a friend back on July 25, 2011. After the killing the father led police on a high speed chase. The oldest son who witnessed and testified - suffered greatly. The fathers parental rights were terminated back in 2013 to which the father was appealing the decision.
While we do not always agree with the court in decisions and policy - we believe they are correct in upholding the earlier decision. For more details on the story please follow this link to the article in Bangor Daily News.
Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail or call 207-370-9801 for issues dealing with Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. Find us on Facebook.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Maine - New Rules for Guardians ad litem versus or ... Judicial Discretion.
We are sure that the 78 page document spelling out a set of new Rules for Maine Guardians ad litem represents many hours of work on the part of some Judicial Branch Committee. However, to this reader, they are a very perplexing document. Exactly what are they supposed to be? Are they a job description? Are they some sort of regulations aimed at governing and bounding the work related actions of Guardians ad litem in divorce and custody (and protective) cases? Are they a set of voluntary guidelines to be followed if the GAL wishes? Are they well intentioned (but empty) ideals? What are they? It is far from clear.
Any set of Rules on paper may look fine, but their value and meaning come from whether they are enforced or not- and how. For these new Rules there appears to be no enforcement. There appears to be no consequences of any kind for not following them. There is no designated entity responsible for oversight to see if the Rules are being followed. There is nothing we can see, except for the reporting of complaints by the ‘pro se’ public. This complaint process itself is a confusing procedure guaranteed to fail. To this reader the message in the new rules seems to be: "it would be nice if Guardians ad litem learned these Rules and tried to follow them. But if they don't, not to worry. There are no consequences.
The complaint procedure speaks loud and clear to these issues. For family courts in which 74% of litigants are 'pro se', the complaint protocol spelled out in the new Rules is frankly unusable. It's complexity, its lack of instruction about "how to", its legalistic posture, its insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" even in cases needing only minor corrective action, its extreme concern about due process, makes it bullet proof against any public complaint. It also has no use as a management tool, a heads up from a member of the public that is simply aiming to improve GAL quality in cases of less serious malfunctioning. We guess that the court feels that GALs don’t need management? GALs all over Maine can heave a sigh of relief. Courts can breath easier. The complaint procedure won't be used, or, if it is used by an unaware 'pro se' litigant they won’t succeed in penetrating its airtight defenses.
For the time being, Guardians ad litem will be able to escape any consequences of ‘pro se’ public complaints, but please don’t think that this will make the GAL problems go away. They will just fester, suppurate, expand and grow larger. Sooner or later the GAL malfunctioning problems will be uncontainable and a public scandal will burst through!
The "Catch 22" about the proposed new Rules (or the current ones) is that their courtroom enforcement appears to be totally a matter of judicial discretion. They can be discarded, amended or altered if a judge - quite independently of any rules- decides to order GAL actions not covered by the Rules for Maine GALs, or ... to ignore flagrant violations. a piece of this problem- in our experience- is that many judges and many GALs lack specific, detailed knowledge of the GAL Rules and have only a "general idea" about Rules for GALs. "Judicial discretion" seems to allow for creative use of the Rules in any which way.
To many of us, the recent Maine Supreme Court appeal, the Dalton v Dalton case, appears to tell litigants that even a well-documented carefully reasoned exposition of what looks like a gross abuse of current GAL Rules by the GAL and documentation of a similar situation by the judge risks a "contempt of court" complaint. It also risks "hand signals' to the Overseers of the Bar to open a 'sua sponte' complaint against the lawyer who dared to document the problems. The implications of this series of actions seem clear to us: any lawyer who robustly defends a client faced with dysfunctional judicial or GAL behavior is in extreme professional danger. DON'T DO IT!
The answer to correcting the dysfunctions in GALs and judges seems to be to bury the problem, until the weight of scandal and and corruption from within cannot be suppressed. A massive public cry of outrage and a demand for action ensue. The fairly recent scandals in the Catholic Church come to mind as an example. Suppression only works for a shorter and shorter period in the age of the Internet.
In our interest for reform, we are tempted to say to the Judicial Branch, "Do nothing. Let your unenforced Rules and your unusable complaint procedures stand exactly as they are. In the long run, they have within their carefully crafted attempts to control and suppress the truth (at a time when the Internet dictates that “you can run, but can’t hide”), the inevitable roots of a huge scandal, forced change and reform. We're just not there yet!
There should be an easier way for all.
We shall overcome. ... someday!
Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com for more information.
Any set of Rules on paper may look fine, but their value and meaning come from whether they are enforced or not- and how. For these new Rules there appears to be no enforcement. There appears to be no consequences of any kind for not following them. There is no designated entity responsible for oversight to see if the Rules are being followed. There is nothing we can see, except for the reporting of complaints by the ‘pro se’ public. This complaint process itself is a confusing procedure guaranteed to fail. To this reader the message in the new rules seems to be: "it would be nice if Guardians ad litem learned these Rules and tried to follow them. But if they don't, not to worry. There are no consequences.
The complaint procedure speaks loud and clear to these issues. For family courts in which 74% of litigants are 'pro se', the complaint protocol spelled out in the new Rules is frankly unusable. It's complexity, its lack of instruction about "how to", its legalistic posture, its insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" even in cases needing only minor corrective action, its extreme concern about due process, makes it bullet proof against any public complaint. It also has no use as a management tool, a heads up from a member of the public that is simply aiming to improve GAL quality in cases of less serious malfunctioning. We guess that the court feels that GALs don’t need management? GALs all over Maine can heave a sigh of relief. Courts can breath easier. The complaint procedure won't be used, or, if it is used by an unaware 'pro se' litigant they won’t succeed in penetrating its airtight defenses.
For the time being, Guardians ad litem will be able to escape any consequences of ‘pro se’ public complaints, but please don’t think that this will make the GAL problems go away. They will just fester, suppurate, expand and grow larger. Sooner or later the GAL malfunctioning problems will be uncontainable and a public scandal will burst through!
The "Catch 22" about the proposed new Rules (or the current ones) is that their courtroom enforcement appears to be totally a matter of judicial discretion. They can be discarded, amended or altered if a judge - quite independently of any rules- decides to order GAL actions not covered by the Rules for Maine GALs, or ... to ignore flagrant violations. a piece of this problem- in our experience- is that many judges and many GALs lack specific, detailed knowledge of the GAL Rules and have only a "general idea" about Rules for GALs. "Judicial discretion" seems to allow for creative use of the Rules in any which way.
To many of us, the recent Maine Supreme Court appeal, the Dalton v Dalton case, appears to tell litigants that even a well-documented carefully reasoned exposition of what looks like a gross abuse of current GAL Rules by the GAL and documentation of a similar situation by the judge risks a "contempt of court" complaint. It also risks "hand signals' to the Overseers of the Bar to open a 'sua sponte' complaint against the lawyer who dared to document the problems. The implications of this series of actions seem clear to us: any lawyer who robustly defends a client faced with dysfunctional judicial or GAL behavior is in extreme professional danger. DON'T DO IT!
The answer to correcting the dysfunctions in GALs and judges seems to be to bury the problem, until the weight of scandal and and corruption from within cannot be suppressed. A massive public cry of outrage and a demand for action ensue. The fairly recent scandals in the Catholic Church come to mind as an example. Suppression only works for a shorter and shorter period in the age of the Internet.
In our interest for reform, we are tempted to say to the Judicial Branch, "Do nothing. Let your unenforced Rules and your unusable complaint procedures stand exactly as they are. In the long run, they have within their carefully crafted attempts to control and suppress the truth (at a time when the Internet dictates that “you can run, but can’t hide”), the inevitable roots of a huge scandal, forced change and reform. We're just not there yet!
There should be an easier way for all.
We shall overcome. ... someday!
Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com for more information.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Oklahoma - $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'
For those who have to pay support be thankful you are not this guy. Would anyone turn down 1% of this settlement? This case is unbelievable - give it a read.
CNN Money
Sometimes a billion dollars just isn't enough.
Sue Ann Hamm, the former wife of oil billionaire Harold Hamm, plans on appealing an Oklahoma court ruling earlier this week which awarded her nearly $1 billion in the couples' divorce.
Mrs. Hamm, 58, contends the award is not fair. The couple were married for 26 years, have two children and had no prenuptial agreement. As of August, Mr. Hamm was worth over $20 billion, according to Wealth-X.
"Sue Ann is disappointed in the outcome of this case," said her lawyer Ron Barber. "She dedicated 25 years as Harold's faithful partner in family and business."
As part of the settlement, Mrs. Hamm will be paid a third of the $995.5 million by the end of the year. Her ex-husband is on a payment plan for the remaining $650 million, which he will pay in installments of at least $7 million per month.
Mrs. Hamm, a lawyer and economist, held executive positions at Mr. Hamm's oil company, Continental Resources (CLR).
Full Story: CNN Money
CNN Money
Sometimes a billion dollars just isn't enough.
Sue Ann Hamm, the former wife of oil billionaire Harold Hamm, plans on appealing an Oklahoma court ruling earlier this week which awarded her nearly $1 billion in the couples' divorce.
Mrs. Hamm, 58, contends the award is not fair. The couple were married for 26 years, have two children and had no prenuptial agreement. As of August, Mr. Hamm was worth over $20 billion, according to Wealth-X.
"Sue Ann is disappointed in the outcome of this case," said her lawyer Ron Barber. "She dedicated 25 years as Harold's faithful partner in family and business."
As part of the settlement, Mrs. Hamm will be paid a third of the $995.5 million by the end of the year. Her ex-husband is on a payment plan for the remaining $650 million, which he will pay in installments of at least $7 million per month.
Mrs. Hamm, a lawyer and economist, held executive positions at Mr. Hamm's oil company, Continental Resources (CLR).
Full Story: CNN Money
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Maine - Lawyers, Divorce Industry Like Mike - Should You?
Several years ago I went through a divorce which involved a Guardian ad litem (GAL). At the time I believed in the court system and had not reason to mistrust a GAL. As the divorce went from weeks to months it became apparent that this "officer of the court" was nothing more than an unmonitored GOD allowed to do an say and do anything they wanted. The very idea of a GAL in itself violates the rights that we have as citizens. Aside from the Guardian ad litem the whole process in Family Court has been and continues to be very revealing. It is a corrupt system that is in a slow state of decay.
Why is this important to you - A Republican, Independent or Democrat?
Three years ago I started to become politically active - being motivated by the corruption and decay I was seeing with Guardians ad litem and our Family Courts. There were few politicians that would give me the time of day - most brushing me aside as being sour grapes because of a divorce gone wrong.
Slowly though that has changed. In three years a grass roots group of like minded people have come together and managed to have legislation enacted (LD 872) which was signed by Gov. Paul LePage (July 2013). Since then there has been numerous pieces of correspondence with him regarding the issues in Family Court. This from myself and the many others who have been abused by the system. It has taken years to educate Gov. Paul LePage but he gets it and as a result the governor is clearly a Politician Putting Kids First.
The Governor has earned the wrath of many over the years. In the past few months he has been in the sights of the Judicial Branch (which has silently endorsed Mike Michaud), lawyers (with Mike Asen publicly stating that he and other lawyers do not want another 4 years of LePage), Guardians ad litem (which like the Judicial Branch has silently been endorsing Mike Michaud) and many who make their living off of divorcing families (the Divorce Industry) going through the Family Court system.
As a parent who has gone through or is going through a divorce and is considering a vote for Mike Michaud because of the values he may bring to the table, or the fact that he may be more polished than our current governor. I would ask this of you:
Why is it that the Judicial Branch, Family Court lawyers, GALs and the Divorce Industry like Mike so much? Why is it that they are raising money for Mike as if it were going out of style? Do you think they have your interest at heart?
We are asking you with this election to vote for anyone other than Mike Michaud. A vote for Mike in our eyes is a vote for the Divorce Industry and the status quo.
Some lawyers who like Mike:
Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fund raise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;
Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".
Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.
Stephanie Cotsirilos - former Wall Street Lawyer - has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Robert Gips Esq (DrummondWoodsun) has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Neil Jamieson Esq (Prescott Jamieson Nelson & Murphy) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014.
Brett D. Baber Esq (Lanham Blackwell & Baber) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Janis B. Cohen Esq. has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Elizabeth Scheffee Esq. (Givertz Scheffee & Lavoie, PA) has helped raised money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Richard S. Berne Esq. (Law Office of Richard Berne) - is helping Mike Michaud with campaign contributions - 08/11/2014.
Add to this list the fact that Senate President Justin Alfond has reportedly told Senators in his caucus - enough with GAL and Family Court reform……….
Why is this important to you - A Republican, Independent or Democrat?
Three years ago I started to become politically active - being motivated by the corruption and decay I was seeing with Guardians ad litem and our Family Courts. There were few politicians that would give me the time of day - most brushing me aside as being sour grapes because of a divorce gone wrong.
Slowly though that has changed. In three years a grass roots group of like minded people have come together and managed to have legislation enacted (LD 872) which was signed by Gov. Paul LePage (July 2013). Since then there has been numerous pieces of correspondence with him regarding the issues in Family Court. This from myself and the many others who have been abused by the system. It has taken years to educate Gov. Paul LePage but he gets it and as a result the governor is clearly a Politician Putting Kids First.
The Governor has earned the wrath of many over the years. In the past few months he has been in the sights of the Judicial Branch (which has silently endorsed Mike Michaud), lawyers (with Mike Asen publicly stating that he and other lawyers do not want another 4 years of LePage), Guardians ad litem (which like the Judicial Branch has silently been endorsing Mike Michaud) and many who make their living off of divorcing families (the Divorce Industry) going through the Family Court system.
As a parent who has gone through or is going through a divorce and is considering a vote for Mike Michaud because of the values he may bring to the table, or the fact that he may be more polished than our current governor. I would ask this of you:
Why is it that the Judicial Branch, Family Court lawyers, GALs and the Divorce Industry like Mike so much? Why is it that they are raising money for Mike as if it were going out of style? Do you think they have your interest at heart?
We are asking you with this election to vote for anyone other than Mike Michaud. A vote for Mike in our eyes is a vote for the Divorce Industry and the status quo.
Some lawyers who like Mike:
Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fund raise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;
Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".
Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.
Stephanie Cotsirilos - former Wall Street Lawyer - has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Robert Gips Esq (DrummondWoodsun) has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Neil Jamieson Esq (Prescott Jamieson Nelson & Murphy) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014.
Brett D. Baber Esq (Lanham Blackwell & Baber) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Janis B. Cohen Esq. has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Elizabeth Scheffee Esq. (Givertz Scheffee & Lavoie, PA) has helped raised money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.
Richard S. Berne Esq. (Law Office of Richard Berne) - is helping Mike Michaud with campaign contributions - 08/11/2014.
Add to this list the fact that Senate President Justin Alfond has reportedly told Senators in his caucus - enough with GAL and Family Court reform……….
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Maine - Proposed Repeal and Replacement of the Maine Bar Rules
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT
STATE OF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT
Proposed Repeal and Replacement of the Maine Bar Rules
Comments due on or before September 12, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
For those who are looking for a chuckle please find an opportunity to comment on the Proposed rules for the Maine Bar. The last set of rules were about as useful as nothing. Those were the rules that kept a lawyer in practice after her called in two bomb threats (his Meds were off) and numerous lawyers who were seen before the Bar and let off with a slap.
The notice may be found here:
http://www.courts.maine.gov/rules_adminorders/rules/proposed/m_bar_r_2014-7-16/m_bar_r_notice_2014-7-16.shtml
The proposed rules may be found here:
http://www.courts.maine.gov/rules_adminorders/rules/proposed/m_bar_r_2014-7-16/m_bar_r_proposed_2014-7-16.pdf
Can we expect an improvement or more of the same from the stakeholders? Your comments are welcome.
STATE OF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT
Proposed Repeal and Replacement of the Maine Bar Rules
Comments due on or before September 12, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
For those who are looking for a chuckle please find an opportunity to comment on the Proposed rules for the Maine Bar. The last set of rules were about as useful as nothing. Those were the rules that kept a lawyer in practice after her called in two bomb threats (his Meds were off) and numerous lawyers who were seen before the Bar and let off with a slap.
The notice may be found here:
http://www.courts.maine.gov/rules_adminorders/rules/proposed/m_bar_r_2014-7-16/m_bar_r_notice_2014-7-16.shtml
The proposed rules may be found here:
http://www.courts.maine.gov/rules_adminorders/rules/proposed/m_bar_r_2014-7-16/m_bar_r_proposed_2014-7-16.pdf
Can we expect an improvement or more of the same from the stakeholders? Your comments are welcome.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
UK - Cuts to legal aid force parents to defend themselves in family court cases
Not all that long ago 43% of the parents who showed up in Family Court were representing themselves. Last year that figure rose to 58% of the parents. In the UK there is a growing concern about access to justice as this figure for self representation continues to rise. Yet in the US there is little to no public concern yet - about access to justice. The problem is far worse in many states than in the UK. 85%, 84%, 74% and so on is the percentage of parents in the US representing themselves and this figure continues to rise.
The Independent
The number of parents forced to represent themselves before the family courts jumped by 20,000 last year following the withdrawal of legal aid for almost all family cases, official figures obtained by The Independent show.
The increase means that for the first time more than half of parents - 58 per cent - went into court without a lawyer fighting their case in 2013/14. Many were mothers from poor backgrounds.
In the previous year, before legal aid changes came in, just 43 per cent of parents before the family courts were not represented by lawyers.
The Government argued that cutting legal aid to family law would mean parents solved their disputes through mediation rather than battling in court. But in fact, the new figures show there was an annual increase in the number of parents resorting to the courts for child contact and residency battles after legal aid was withdrawn for most private family law issues in April 2013.
For further reading: The Independent
The Independent
The number of parents forced to represent themselves before the family courts jumped by 20,000 last year following the withdrawal of legal aid for almost all family cases, official figures obtained by The Independent show.
The increase means that for the first time more than half of parents - 58 per cent - went into court without a lawyer fighting their case in 2013/14. Many were mothers from poor backgrounds.
In the previous year, before legal aid changes came in, just 43 per cent of parents before the family courts were not represented by lawyers.
The Government argued that cutting legal aid to family law would mean parents solved their disputes through mediation rather than battling in court. But in fact, the new figures show there was an annual increase in the number of parents resorting to the courts for child contact and residency battles after legal aid was withdrawn for most private family law issues in April 2013.
For further reading: The Independent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)