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……….
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)