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
Showing posts with label GAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GAL. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2015
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.
Friday, July 4, 2014
National - What Would You Do if You Were A Guardian ad litem?
Imagine you are a Guardian ad litem tasked with making a recommendation on a case and you have the following to deal with:
One member has just accused the other of molesting the child of this divorcing family. You recommend that the accused has only supervised visits with this child. The Family Court Judge backs up your recommendation.
But there is a twist
You see the accused has another child with another partner. What do you do?
1. You do nothing - that child is not a party to the divorce.
2. You recommend that the accused parent can only have supervised contact with both children because that parent poses a threat to both of them.
3. You have Child Protective Services come in and determine whether or not the accused is really a threat.
Tell us what you would do - Either add a comment here or click this link which opens up in a new TAB or window.
The results will be published on Monday 7/8/2014
One member has just accused the other of molesting the child of this divorcing family. You recommend that the accused has only supervised visits with this child. The Family Court Judge backs up your recommendation.
But there is a twist
You see the accused has another child with another partner. What do you do?
1. You do nothing - that child is not a party to the divorce.
2. You recommend that the accused parent can only have supervised contact with both children because that parent poses a threat to both of them.
3. You have Child Protective Services come in and determine whether or not the accused is really a threat.
Tell us what you would do - Either add a comment here or click this link which opens up in a new TAB or window.
The results will be published on Monday 7/8/2014
Sunday, June 29, 2014
National - According to Family Court - Field Trip to Bar Late at Night is Good for Child
File this under lack of Common Sense within the Family Court System -
As a parent if your four year old child came to you and told you she was scared of being in a situation your ex put her in what would you do? If your child was taken to an adult environment, a bar, late at night where there was loud music, alcohol and intoxicated adults involved. What would you do? Would it make a difference if you were involved in a divorce and custody battle? It might.
Most parents would try to take some kind of protective action for their child. If a Guardian ad litem was involved – you would complain to them; after all, that is what they are put in place for. Clearly a child (no matter what the age) being put into an inappropriate adult situation is not in the child’s best interest. Nor does the child feel emotionally safe in these situations. Common sense would dictate that this child (or any child) should be protected and removed from this situation or environment.
The child in question told her father that she felt scared being in the bars to which she was taken by her mother. She witnessed fights and yelling, and her mom's boyfriend being pushed around. “Bad words” were often being said between people. When the father brought this to the Guardian ad litem's attention (the person who is supposed to be looking out for the best interest of this child) – the Guardian ad litem stated that the father simply did not trust that his four year old daughter was in good hands. The father, concerned for his daughters safety, continued to make his point and express his concern. His concern was not taken seriously by the Guardian ad litem. Instead of investigating whether or not the situation of a child’s late night visit to bars was good for the child, this Guardian ad litem continued to blame the father for trying to cause trouble.
How are we to believe, as this Guardian ad litem and the Judge would seem to be doing, that this little girl's 'best interest' was served by late night visits to bars that she found frightening? What about the child's emotional safety? Is this kind of place a good moral environment for children? To say the least of what this child is learning from the experience? We would say that common sense was not used by the child’s mother nor by the Guardian ad litem for that matter. Sadly, this type of poor judgment is frequently seen with quite a number of Guardians ad litem nationally. Examples like this are the reason why there is now - and has been - a very real need for Guardian ad litem and Family Court reform.
Family Court Reform is a grassroots organization dedicated to supporting parents who have been abused by the family court system. In addition we educate and promote reform through legislation - on a national level. We would encourage you to contact us at MeFamCourt@gmail.com and tell us your story. In addition we may be found on Facebook.
The Power of the Powerless - 2012 by MeGALert
Family Court Survey - We want your opinion regarding the experience you had in Family Court.
As a parent if your four year old child came to you and told you she was scared of being in a situation your ex put her in what would you do? If your child was taken to an adult environment, a bar, late at night where there was loud music, alcohol and intoxicated adults involved. What would you do? Would it make a difference if you were involved in a divorce and custody battle? It might.
Most parents would try to take some kind of protective action for their child. If a Guardian ad litem was involved – you would complain to them; after all, that is what they are put in place for. Clearly a child (no matter what the age) being put into an inappropriate adult situation is not in the child’s best interest. Nor does the child feel emotionally safe in these situations. Common sense would dictate that this child (or any child) should be protected and removed from this situation or environment.
The child in question told her father that she felt scared being in the bars to which she was taken by her mother. She witnessed fights and yelling, and her mom's boyfriend being pushed around. “Bad words” were often being said between people. When the father brought this to the Guardian ad litem's attention (the person who is supposed to be looking out for the best interest of this child) – the Guardian ad litem stated that the father simply did not trust that his four year old daughter was in good hands. The father, concerned for his daughters safety, continued to make his point and express his concern. His concern was not taken seriously by the Guardian ad litem. Instead of investigating whether or not the situation of a child’s late night visit to bars was good for the child, this Guardian ad litem continued to blame the father for trying to cause trouble.
How are we to believe, as this Guardian ad litem and the Judge would seem to be doing, that this little girl's 'best interest' was served by late night visits to bars that she found frightening? What about the child's emotional safety? Is this kind of place a good moral environment for children? To say the least of what this child is learning from the experience? We would say that common sense was not used by the child’s mother nor by the Guardian ad litem for that matter. Sadly, this type of poor judgment is frequently seen with quite a number of Guardians ad litem nationally. Examples like this are the reason why there is now - and has been - a very real need for Guardian ad litem and Family Court reform.
Family Court Reform is a grassroots organization dedicated to supporting parents who have been abused by the family court system. In addition we educate and promote reform through legislation - on a national level. We would encourage you to contact us at MeFamCourt@gmail.com and tell us your story. In addition we may be found on Facebook.
The Power of the Powerless - 2012 by MeGALert
Family Court Survey - We want your opinion regarding the experience you had in Family Court.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
A Basic Tool Kit for Grass Roots Family Court Reform
We have been asked by many people how we got Family Court Reform, our Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform program, started and what beginning grassroots activists should do to get going? We grew our program, Family Court Reform by stages and degrees, learning by trial and error as we grew. We quickly set two fixed goals: (1) education of the public about the need for reform of family courts and Guardians ad litem, and (2) legislation to produce change. We feel that you can’t have legislated change for these dysfunctional systems without an enlightened, aware public that will support and push for change. Legislation also requires that we educate legislators about the family court and Guardian ad litem problems, and also that we help voters connect with legislators and- as constituents/voters - express their views and their wishes. Family court systems are not anything that can be “fixed” quickly, because there are huge systemic problems and powerful internal forces that support the dysfunction of family courts, and that keep dysfunction alive, well and growing. Long ago, we were instructed by one sophisticated lawyer: “Follow the money!”
What we are outlining is a well planned systems intervention in a massive system, and it cannot be done quickly or without a well designed strategy and tactics, nor can these be effective without tools for intervention in all parts of the system. Obviously, this is a complex undertaking. We are always glad to share our thoughts and our approach, but to do so would take more than a simple, single blog posting. We’ll start by giving a brief list of important generic systems intervention “must have” “tools” that you may find useful in changing family court systems:
1. A blog or two (or more) with different focuses that will serve multiple purposes: give news, present issues and problems, make proposals for change and allow for public "conversations".
2. A Facebook page dedicated to court reform in your state, which can present more short-term "reform news" and sharing.
3. Building a base of credible political supporters, larger numbers of both friends and “victims” of the family court system. E-mail addresses (and list-servs) for this group are critical, precious, invaluable . One rule to follow: ALWAYS BLIND COPY (bcc) MASS MAILINGS FOR PRIVACY). Telephone numbers and physical addresses are useful also. We started with our family court story (disaster) in a local weekly paper that got the attention of other family court “victims” who contacted us - and the rest is history as the numbers grew and grew.
4. Once you get stared, a core group of friends with a "work ethic", who can be counted on to help with some of the "heavy lifting". Volunteer manpower, which can stay on top of what's happening in state government that may impact on users of family courts.
5. Getting to know your State Rep and State Senator and continuously educating them on the court reform issues is critical. Getting to know other legislators, especially those who have gone through divorce and custody horrors. “Victims” of family courts in the legislature are “golden”. You also need to know which legislators are your enemies and “frenemies” , Which legislators will sabotage your efforts and support the ‘status quo’? HINT: look for legislators who are lawyers!
6. Getting to know your state Governor and your Chief Justice. Governors can submit bills and can veto bills, but they too need education. Justices often want changes in the courts but they are constrained by their political base: the state bar and state lawyers who live handsomely off of family courts. They hear appeals form family courts and their judgments become case law.
7. Building relations with the all elements of the media. Know reporters, feed them stories. Many court reporters are intimidated about journalistically challenging the courts and getting “shut out” of court news thereafter, but sometimes your news may tempt them out of timidity. Small, local, weekly papers, we find, are most open to reporting our experience - and people do read them. Give them stories. This got us going. Don’t forget social media in all of its many forms.
8. Organize intimate, small showings of "Divorce Corp", the DVD, it is very educational, packs a punch and ought to be a "must see" for legislators and government decision makers. It is a great “tool” for quick information and attitude change.
9. Make your most important goal: public education about the largely unknown scandal that is family courts in America. Without extensive education of the public you go nowhere.
10. Communicate, communicate, communicate. Keep everyone who writes to support you in the loop, up on the news - good and bad. Answer ALL e-mails asap.
11. Don't worry about money or setting up a nonprofit. We've done it with no money and no corporation. Money and non-profits have their own problems and politics. We've done it with PEOPLE, who are FRIENDS. The most successful movement that produced massive political change was created by Vaclav Havel, former, Czech president, Nobel prize winner, writer and political dissident.
Finally, don't be discouraged by setbacks. It is going to be a long term project. Family courts have solid support of a huge, wealthy industry ($50 billion), the “divorce industry”, these lawyers, like the “robber barons” of old, are not going to yield quickly or easily. But ... we have human and moral "right" on our side, and, once we connect, there are more of US than there are of THEM! Vaclav Havel called it “The power of the powerless”.
In the long run, if we keep at it , like others before us who fought injustice...
"WE SHALL OVERCOME ... SOMEDAY..."
Family Court Reform can be reached by emailing us at Mefamcourt@gmail.com. There is no magic bullet that can be used to help you with the issues you and your family are facing. We offer support and help in dealing with the family court system.
What we are outlining is a well planned systems intervention in a massive system, and it cannot be done quickly or without a well designed strategy and tactics, nor can these be effective without tools for intervention in all parts of the system. Obviously, this is a complex undertaking. We are always glad to share our thoughts and our approach, but to do so would take more than a simple, single blog posting. We’ll start by giving a brief list of important generic systems intervention “must have” “tools” that you may find useful in changing family court systems:
1. A blog or two (or more) with different focuses that will serve multiple purposes: give news, present issues and problems, make proposals for change and allow for public "conversations".
2. A Facebook page dedicated to court reform in your state, which can present more short-term "reform news" and sharing.
3. Building a base of credible political supporters, larger numbers of both friends and “victims” of the family court system. E-mail addresses (and list-servs) for this group are critical, precious, invaluable . One rule to follow: ALWAYS BLIND COPY (bcc) MASS MAILINGS FOR PRIVACY). Telephone numbers and physical addresses are useful also. We started with our family court story (disaster) in a local weekly paper that got the attention of other family court “victims” who contacted us - and the rest is history as the numbers grew and grew.
4. Once you get stared, a core group of friends with a "work ethic", who can be counted on to help with some of the "heavy lifting". Volunteer manpower, which can stay on top of what's happening in state government that may impact on users of family courts.
5. Getting to know your State Rep and State Senator and continuously educating them on the court reform issues is critical. Getting to know other legislators, especially those who have gone through divorce and custody horrors. “Victims” of family courts in the legislature are “golden”. You also need to know which legislators are your enemies and “frenemies” , Which legislators will sabotage your efforts and support the ‘status quo’? HINT: look for legislators who are lawyers!
6. Getting to know your state Governor and your Chief Justice. Governors can submit bills and can veto bills, but they too need education. Justices often want changes in the courts but they are constrained by their political base: the state bar and state lawyers who live handsomely off of family courts. They hear appeals form family courts and their judgments become case law.
7. Building relations with the all elements of the media. Know reporters, feed them stories. Many court reporters are intimidated about journalistically challenging the courts and getting “shut out” of court news thereafter, but sometimes your news may tempt them out of timidity. Small, local, weekly papers, we find, are most open to reporting our experience - and people do read them. Give them stories. This got us going. Don’t forget social media in all of its many forms.
8. Organize intimate, small showings of "Divorce Corp", the DVD, it is very educational, packs a punch and ought to be a "must see" for legislators and government decision makers. It is a great “tool” for quick information and attitude change.
9. Make your most important goal: public education about the largely unknown scandal that is family courts in America. Without extensive education of the public you go nowhere.
10. Communicate, communicate, communicate. Keep everyone who writes to support you in the loop, up on the news - good and bad. Answer ALL e-mails asap.
11. Don't worry about money or setting up a nonprofit. We've done it with no money and no corporation. Money and non-profits have their own problems and politics. We've done it with PEOPLE, who are FRIENDS. The most successful movement that produced massive political change was created by Vaclav Havel, former, Czech president, Nobel prize winner, writer and political dissident.
Finally, don't be discouraged by setbacks. It is going to be a long term project. Family courts have solid support of a huge, wealthy industry ($50 billion), the “divorce industry”, these lawyers, like the “robber barons” of old, are not going to yield quickly or easily. But ... we have human and moral "right" on our side, and, once we connect, there are more of US than there are of THEM! Vaclav Havel called it “The power of the powerless”.
In the long run, if we keep at it , like others before us who fought injustice...
"WE SHALL OVERCOME ... SOMEDAY..."
Family Court Reform can be reached by emailing us at Mefamcourt@gmail.com. There is no magic bullet that can be used to help you with the issues you and your family are facing. We offer support and help in dealing with the family court system.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Maine - Porposal for an Audit of 'Pro se' Representation in Family Courts
Wikipedia defines an audit as: "A planned and documented activity performed by qualified personnel to determine by investigation, examination or evaluation of objective evidence the adequacy and compliance with established procedures or applicable documents and the effectiveness of implementation.
A performance audit is increasingly used in government agencies as an examination of success in satisfying mission objectives.
Auditing is defined as a systematic and independent examination of data, statements, records and operations and performances of an enterprise for a stated purpose.
The purpose is then to give an opinion on the adequacy of controls and to improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes."
This is the working definition we use when we consider asking for an audit of ‘pro se’ issues in family courts. Is the growth of ‘pro se’ representation impacting the “normal” functioning of family courts? If so, how, and what are the qualitative implications?
'PRO SE' IN MAINE COURTS WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED: 'Pro se' representation in Maine courts is a problem of amateur, ”do-it-yourself “ players trying to navigate the arcane complexities and traditions of family law in family courts. It is an incredible challenge to amateurs that is repeatedly and despairingly acknowledged by self representing users of family courts and by sympathetic members of the Judiciary. It is also acknowledged, as a problem by the Maine Bar, which - in spite of its good faith efforts to find answers to the 'pro se' problem - sees the problem escape those efforts and grow numerically ever larger.
'PRO SE' NUMBERS: Most people don't know the actual size, the statistics, of the 'pro se' problem in Maine Family Courts and are shocked when the hear the statistics. 74% is the number recently reported (personal communication) by Chief Justice Leigh Saufley. Justice Andrew Mead in an "op ed" essay in the Portland Press Herald reported 3/4 'pro se' representation in family courts (or 75%). But we won't quibble over 1%!! It is a big problem. ‘Pro se” users are the majority “parties” in family courts- a big majority!
And ... this 74% percentage isn't static. It keeps on growing despite efforts by the Bar and the Judicial Branch to reduce the numbers - to reduce its prevalence. From the absence of successful “solutions” and the failure to reduce the numbers, one has to infer that there is a problem in diagnosing the "disease" - and its dynamics - or that the corrective "medicine" isn't strong enough or isn't working fast enough. Because the numbers keep growing there is an need for an opinion outside of the Judicial Branch about the nature and scope of the problems and for proposals to correct them. We feel that OPEGA qualifies, given their experience in conducting audits and given their enviable reputation for fairness and objectivity.
NATIONAL 'PRO SE' PERSPECTIVE: The 'pro se' problem is by no means just a Maine problem. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) reports that growing ‘pro se’ representation is a growing problem for every state. Connecticut and New York are said to have 82 and 83% 'pro se', respectively. Some of the problem seems related to national "macro economics" and the economic problems of the last several years. Some of it is related to the escalating costs of private legal services, which quickly become a financial deterrent to middle class family court users. But we have to ask, regardless of abstract economic speculation, do we really want to end up competing with Connecticut and New York for bigger ‘pro se’ numbers? What are we waiting for?
Like it or not, the 74% 'pro se' problem proclaims a 'de facto', two tier user (and social class) system in our courts - the wealthy 25% have lawyers, and the middle class 75% “do-it-yourself”. The questions for the public are: (a) what are the root causes of this social discrimination, can causes be addressed and (b) should we just let the problem continue (and grow) uncorrected?
THE HUMAN PROBLEMS behind the 'pro se' number: are public users, judges, lawyers and others. Any audit needs to consider who uses family courts 'pro se' and otherwise. What are the demographics? What are other differentiating features? How do 'pro se' users feel about their legal adequacy in court? What "tools" do they use in representing themselves? What is their experience of judges? What outcomes differentiate those with lawyers form those with none. Is there a differential with regard to Guardian ad litem experiences?
Likewise there is a need to evaluate how judges perceive the 'pro se' issue. What are the professional challenges for judges dealing with 'pro se'? What solutions do they improvise to address the problems? What suggestions or recommendations do they have for improvement? What "tools" does the Judicial Branch already provide those doing self representation? How useful/adequate are these?
We have heard many lawyers claim that they see no problem with the current operation of the family court system. On a personal/professional level this is certainly understandable, because in cases where they oppose a 'pro se' "lawyer", they have an extreme professional advantage in their own favor. It must be like "taking candy from a baby"! There may be other advantages too in this sort of uneven "legal combat", but an audit would look at all of the dynamics and, one hopes, challenge complacency.
THE DEMOCRACY "PROBLEM": Clearly a two class court system in which those with money for a lawyers are favored and those without a lawyer to represent them are disfavored poses a huge challenge to a democratic society. It is an enormous embarrassment to all of us to ignore the inequality. It is an important issue that needs thoughtful evaluation to diagnose the nature of the problem and to recommend intelligent proposals for correction that will be democratic and constitutional.
AN OPEGA PERFORMANCE AUDIT, we feel strongly, is the way to go for Maine’s children and families, who are forced to represent themselves in family courts! We ask the Legislature, the Judicial Branch and the Governor, along with the “grassroots” to support legislation to begin problem analysis and problem solving of the ‘pro se’ issue.
We are trying to bring about reform to the Guardian ad litem role and Family Court system. We encourage you to become involved and to contact us at MeFAMCourt@gmail.com.
A performance audit is increasingly used in government agencies as an examination of success in satisfying mission objectives.
Auditing is defined as a systematic and independent examination of data, statements, records and operations and performances of an enterprise for a stated purpose.
The purpose is then to give an opinion on the adequacy of controls and to improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes."
This is the working definition we use when we consider asking for an audit of ‘pro se’ issues in family courts. Is the growth of ‘pro se’ representation impacting the “normal” functioning of family courts? If so, how, and what are the qualitative implications?
'PRO SE' IN MAINE COURTS WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED: 'Pro se' representation in Maine courts is a problem of amateur, ”do-it-yourself “ players trying to navigate the arcane complexities and traditions of family law in family courts. It is an incredible challenge to amateurs that is repeatedly and despairingly acknowledged by self representing users of family courts and by sympathetic members of the Judiciary. It is also acknowledged, as a problem by the Maine Bar, which - in spite of its good faith efforts to find answers to the 'pro se' problem - sees the problem escape those efforts and grow numerically ever larger.
'PRO SE' NUMBERS: Most people don't know the actual size, the statistics, of the 'pro se' problem in Maine Family Courts and are shocked when the hear the statistics. 74% is the number recently reported (personal communication) by Chief Justice Leigh Saufley. Justice Andrew Mead in an "op ed" essay in the Portland Press Herald reported 3/4 'pro se' representation in family courts (or 75%). But we won't quibble over 1%!! It is a big problem. ‘Pro se” users are the majority “parties” in family courts- a big majority!
And ... this 74% percentage isn't static. It keeps on growing despite efforts by the Bar and the Judicial Branch to reduce the numbers - to reduce its prevalence. From the absence of successful “solutions” and the failure to reduce the numbers, one has to infer that there is a problem in diagnosing the "disease" - and its dynamics - or that the corrective "medicine" isn't strong enough or isn't working fast enough. Because the numbers keep growing there is an need for an opinion outside of the Judicial Branch about the nature and scope of the problems and for proposals to correct them. We feel that OPEGA qualifies, given their experience in conducting audits and given their enviable reputation for fairness and objectivity.
NATIONAL 'PRO SE' PERSPECTIVE: The 'pro se' problem is by no means just a Maine problem. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) reports that growing ‘pro se’ representation is a growing problem for every state. Connecticut and New York are said to have 82 and 83% 'pro se', respectively. Some of the problem seems related to national "macro economics" and the economic problems of the last several years. Some of it is related to the escalating costs of private legal services, which quickly become a financial deterrent to middle class family court users. But we have to ask, regardless of abstract economic speculation, do we really want to end up competing with Connecticut and New York for bigger ‘pro se’ numbers? What are we waiting for?
Like it or not, the 74% 'pro se' problem proclaims a 'de facto', two tier user (and social class) system in our courts - the wealthy 25% have lawyers, and the middle class 75% “do-it-yourself”. The questions for the public are: (a) what are the root causes of this social discrimination, can causes be addressed and (b) should we just let the problem continue (and grow) uncorrected?
THE HUMAN PROBLEMS behind the 'pro se' number: are public users, judges, lawyers and others. Any audit needs to consider who uses family courts 'pro se' and otherwise. What are the demographics? What are other differentiating features? How do 'pro se' users feel about their legal adequacy in court? What "tools" do they use in representing themselves? What is their experience of judges? What outcomes differentiate those with lawyers form those with none. Is there a differential with regard to Guardian ad litem experiences?
Likewise there is a need to evaluate how judges perceive the 'pro se' issue. What are the professional challenges for judges dealing with 'pro se'? What solutions do they improvise to address the problems? What suggestions or recommendations do they have for improvement? What "tools" does the Judicial Branch already provide those doing self representation? How useful/adequate are these?
We have heard many lawyers claim that they see no problem with the current operation of the family court system. On a personal/professional level this is certainly understandable, because in cases where they oppose a 'pro se' "lawyer", they have an extreme professional advantage in their own favor. It must be like "taking candy from a baby"! There may be other advantages too in this sort of uneven "legal combat", but an audit would look at all of the dynamics and, one hopes, challenge complacency.
THE DEMOCRACY "PROBLEM": Clearly a two class court system in which those with money for a lawyers are favored and those without a lawyer to represent them are disfavored poses a huge challenge to a democratic society. It is an enormous embarrassment to all of us to ignore the inequality. It is an important issue that needs thoughtful evaluation to diagnose the nature of the problem and to recommend intelligent proposals for correction that will be democratic and constitutional.
AN OPEGA PERFORMANCE AUDIT, we feel strongly, is the way to go for Maine’s children and families, who are forced to represent themselves in family courts! We ask the Legislature, the Judicial Branch and the Governor, along with the “grassroots” to support legislation to begin problem analysis and problem solving of the ‘pro se’ issue.
We are trying to bring about reform to the Guardian ad litem role and Family Court system. We encourage you to become involved and to contact us at MeFAMCourt@gmail.com.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Make the Connections - FCR - Connect the DOTS
Putting Children First is not a priority for these politicians - but only in name. We want to know how politicians fall. Do they believe in Putting Children First and support Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. Or do they believe in putting the Divorce Industry First?
Tell us where you think your politician stands - answer our easy four question survey here.
If you have had issues with the Family Court in your state we ask that you please contact us at: mefamcourt@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)