Public Access: Is the Judiciary Committee Leveling With You?

When State Senator, David Dutremble (D. Biddeford), in a speech form the floor of the Senate (audio) on Tuesday, accuses members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee of manipulating the judiciary re-appointment of controversial Judge Moskowitz, it is a serious charge that demands investigation. When members of the public are excluded from important committee deliberations addressing this judicial re-appointment, something is seriously wrong. When there is no response from the President of the Maine Senate when asked by numerous people to investigate further, it looks like more exclusion. All of these recent actions raise ethical and legal questions in the minds of the public. What happened between members of the Judiciary Committee in their private deliberations about Judge Moskowitz over the weekend of May 9-10th? How were their unified positions reached outside of public view? And… is this secrecy permitted by laws that insist on transparency?

On Tuesday, May 12th, members of the committee reconvened in the Judiciary Committee hearing room, and without question, conversation or comment, submitted a string of 13 “yeses” (audio), approving Judge Moskowitz re-appointment and advancing the process to the Maine Senate. It left observers dumfounded. It was one further public exclusionary action in the judicial re-appointment process, which appeared to be tightly controlled, by Maine Bar interests at every step. It is about the need for active public “oversight” of judicial appointments – or re-appointments – that have heretofore been a “rubber stamp” process in the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee. In the present re-appointment situation, reporters commented on the fact that committee members asked not one question of Judge Moskowitz during the public hearing.

The entire judicial vetting process – and the subsequent handling of its piece of the process by the Judiciary Committee – raises many questions. The primary question is: “is this process, which is said by some on the judicial re-appointment committee to be standard, in the public’s interest”? We ask this question with special regard to those members of the public, who have the experience of using our courts? 74% of family court matters are ‘Pro se’ (self-represented/without a lawyers); 26% (the minority) have lawyers, yet the process doesn’t reflect this compelling statistic. “Private” deliberations in the Judiciary Committee are troubling and raise a slew of ethical and legal questions. Why hide deliberations? Why the secrecy? Aren’t legislative maneuvers that eliminate transparency and, thereby remove public oversight, undesirable in a democratic society?

Since the Judiciary Committee’s 13 yeses approving Judge Moskowitz, there have been widely expressed concerns that the committee appeared to be “gaming the process”, using techniques, known to senior members of the committee which enable public exclusion, while following the “letter” of the laws about transparency? We would suggest a knowledge of how to bypass the law – and, more importantly its use – is unseemly (and tainted?) in anyone, especially our elected officials.

We urge the Maine Legislature to take action in getting answers to these questions. They are not academic issues of concern to a fragment of society. They are the foundation of public trust: that we can see what our elected officials are doing. There is a need for a formal inquiry into the “13 yeses” that quickly decided approval of a “controversial judge” for reasons that remain opaque to the public. Investigation of this matter should be carried out in a transparent manner with public “consumers” of the system included.

One of our concerns is about committee attitude justifying the prejudicial dismissal of all opposition. Some on the judiciary committee dismiss opponents of Judge Moskowitz as only a bunch of people who got an unfavorable result in court. This characterization justifies secrecy?   Not only is this claim untrue, betraying gross prejudice, secrecy in the judiciary committee cannot be justified by theories about good or bad results in courtrooms. It is about the integrity and honesty of our government.

MeGAL is working to bring about change in Family Court and the role of Guardian ad litem. We do this by educating the public and our representatives to the issues involved with this branch of the court system. If you have had a bad experience in Family Court or with a Guardian ad litem we would encourage you to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Previous posts regarding the re-appointment of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz may be found here:
2015-05-23 An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

2015-05-25 Sen David Burns Replies to our Open Letter

Twitter:
#ReappointmentOFMoskowitz   #MeGAL

Is the Re-appointment Process of Judges Broken – the Endorsement of the Hon Patricia Worth

On Thursday March 19, 2015 was a moment of truth at the re-appointment hearing for the Hon Patricia Worth. A gang of lawyers, a representative of the bar, a judge and the head of the Judicial re-appointment committee came to give testimony about Judge Worth – which was glowing. Stating that we are lucky in this state to have such a judge, that this judge is caring about the clients before her, helping those who are Prose and involved in the community. If the testimony stopped there (and quite often it does), one would come away from the hearing that there is nothing wrong with our judges in this state. Classic lawyer references of another lawyer

But these fawning views are out of touch with reality in our Family Courts and courts in general.

A unique and quite different “reality check” was offered by several parents and concerned citizens. They did something that was previously unthinkable. These parents and citizens stood before the States Judiciary Committee, a room full of lawyers and judges and told true, personal stories of Judicial abuse which was inflicted and suffered in the Judge Worth Family Court.

These parents and citizens who went before the Judicial Committee were scared, upset, concerned and outnumbered by those testifying from the legal profession. They were in a personally uncomfortable position but had the strength to stand up and let the committee know – their elected Representatives – that there is a problem. A BIG problem that has been festering for years which needs to be addressed.

Their testimony touched all listeners, as they presented the human face of parents ripped away from their children. Stripped financially. Emotions drained by the process that a judge put them through.

Are our Family Courts there to inflict punishment on good parents? In the Worth Court one would think that is the case where good solid parents are prevented from having a relationship with their children. Supervised visits are common, testing, screening and various questionable courses with no end in sight. No goal for outcome – but there is always a carrot being dangled in front of their faces to keep them hoping, keep them hooked. These parents would be better served by Child Protective – because the worse of abusers has a goal. Not in this court.

How many lawyers came out to testify that there might be a problem with this court? By our count not one. You see there is a disincentive to tell the truth when the committee is collecting testimony. As a lawyer working in Hon Patricia Worth‘s court, if I speak ill of her performance and behavior I put my professional career at risk. I put my family’s financial lives at risk. Because now the Judge can pay back my testimonial truth in unfavorable judgements.  Or… engineer a ‘Sua sonte‘ complaint with the Overseers of the Bar against me.

These parents and concerned citizens took a risk. You can also. It you have been hurt by the Family Court process. By a Guardian ad litem. Speak up and let your representatives know what you went through. Rock the boat and educate those around you. If you remain silent – change will never come. You can bet the other side is talking. Support Family Court reform. Contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com – find us on Facebook or call/text 207-370-9801

Provided here is some of the testimony given by concerned citizens and parents:

Dr Jerome A Collins – Audio

Kirk Thomas – Audio

Laurie Ryan – Audio

Christie Griffin – Audio

Christie Starett – Audio

In Family Court Both Parents Should Be Involved

In many cases throughout the state and country we have heard stories of parents being ripped away from their children by our courts. These are parents who are solid citizens, who have no background of drug or alcohol abuse. No history of mental illness. They do have a love for their children and fight for them when things appear wrong.

For this they are often punished. Take for instance the case of Dalton v Dalton which went before the Supreme Court of Maine. With this case the lawyer actually represented the client – and fought for Sarah Dalton. The opening brief slammed the Guardian ad litem and the Family Court Judge on the case (it should be noted that the ‘judge’ in question went on to get a promotion back in April. This promotion is not related to this case). The brief sited case law as to why the court was in error. In the end it came down to aggressive lawyering on the part of Sarah’s lawyer as being bad. The complaint on the GAL and ‘judge’ was wiped clean and the mother who was fighting for her children was punished as was the lawyer.

We heard from a mother who earns at the poverty level – pays the GAL bill and pays child support to her ex (who it should be noted allegedly works for a family business and is paid under the table. He has managed to purchase a brand new truck and lives in a house that cost over $350.000.00. The reportedly earns in the neighborhood of $5000.00 – it is amazing that someone in an income this low would be given the credit needed for the house and truck). She went back to court to try and get some relief from the crushing financial burden she has been encumbered with. The ‘judge’ (who it should be noted is one of the four worse in the state told this mother that because she earns more than the father she is responsible for payment. To add insult to injury the ‘judge’ took even more time away from the little she has with her kids. It should be noted that the mother is still struggling to make ends meet.

Then there is the father who has fought for his son against all odds. He is up against one of the worst judges in the state (this judge is different than the one mentioned above but is one of four who are the worst in the state). He has no history of mental illness nor does he use or abuse drugs or alcohol (it should be noted though that his ex does). Yet he has had to go through a battery of mental health and parenting tests – his ex has not – at a huge cost to him. He has been stripped financially and is working two jobs to meet the child support requirements – his ex does not work. He is living as close to poverty as one could without actually being in poverty. To add insult to injury he has had his son all but stripped away from his life – to the point where on the few occasions he has had contact with his child – the child cries because he misses his father.

The list – and the pain – goes on. Every parent should have the opportunity to be a part of their child’s life. Every divorce should start off with the idea that the custody is going to be 50/50 and that one or both parent(s) will lose or gain from there. If one side suggest the other needs testing – then both parents should be tested. There should be an equitable balance between the two halves of the divorcing family. It is not a game to be played out with the children as the prize. The only reason why a child should have limited and tempered time with one parent or another if there is cause for that. This should be based not on some ambiguous and ill-defined standard such as “the best interest of the child” standard. But on a standard which can be measured and tested – we like the term “is the child safe”. Is a child safe in the house of a drug addict with mental health issues? Or with a parent who holds down a job and contributes to the family? Is the child safe in an ever changing environment? Or one where a parent has lived for years?

In 2015 we hope that there will be more even-handed division of a child’s time of divorcing families between their parents. A child needs the wisdom of both parents and their families. Not to be limited to one. That will only come about if the current family court changes or goes away.

Thank you for following us on Facebook and out blogs. Please feel free to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or call us at 207-370-9801 (ME). We hope you can join us in 2015 to bring about legislative change. Thank you.

Family Court , ‘Quo Vadis? “improvement, reform or implosion”?

As we observe the big picture of Maine’s Family Courts, we sense that  our family courts appear to be slowly imploding. It is not a visibly dramatic happening that grabs public attention. It is largely unnoticed and unrecognized symptoms of decay from within. This process of decline is unnoticed, except, perhaps, by those who pass through the family court experience , and many of these victims are so wounded by the experience that it is hard for them to view the experience in a larger perspective. It is frequently hard for all of the active players – judges, lawyers and users – to “see the woods for the trees”! Let us consider a few of the amazing “systems changes” that are progressing, unnoticed, and that are, like termites, silently eating the structure of family courts from within.

“THE “TERMITES”:  From our perspective, serious structural damage to family courts is being caused by the seemingly inexorable growth of ‘pro se‘  (self) representation in family courts. This phenomenon is occurring, not just in Maine, but in every state in America. In Maine, the figure for ‘pro se’ representation in family courts is reported to be a startling 74% and growing. There is also the eye-popping figure of 86% of family court cases, which have only ONE lawyer. The figures for ‘pro se’ representation, we might add, are even higher in Connecticut and NY. One has to ask, what is the impact of this amazing growth of self-representation on the family court system, on normal, professionally guided and determined family court proceedings? What happens to a professional legal system, with long traditions and well-established protocols for inter-professional relations, with a focus on complex, human problem solving, When one of the two “players” in these contests is underrepresented and completely  ignorant of how to function in the well-structured, traditional setting? General systems theory would suggest chaos and profound, unprogrammed, unintended changes in the way the system functions. Well-intended attempts to patch the traditional ‘status quo’ models, further change the original system and bring with them further unintended consequences. The working system is not as it was – try as it may. Some call it broken. The ‘pro se’ “trend is not its friend”!

WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SYSTEM?: With the invasion of ‘pro se’ litigants in family courts, desperate, frightened people with no knowledge or skill in the law and its traditions, turn the courtroom into a scene of confusion, stress, emotional pain and misunderstanding. Judges struggle mightily with “judicial impartiality” in dealing with the ‘pro se’ litigant. To help, or not to help – and how to do so without unbalancing fairness and throwing impartiality to the winds. How can a judge – without guidelines or traditions for handling this invasion of amateurs – try to maintain a degree of balance and proportion in a situation in which the combatants/ competitors are so unevenly matched? The ‘pro se’ litigant is always anxious, frequently frightened (or terrified) by the utterly unfamiliar environment, by the task of hoping to rescue a beloved child and by the daunting tensions of the contest. It is a forced visit to a very “foreign country” with unfamiliar rules, language and procedures. How to cross examine, what are rules of evidence and, then, there are all too frequently the “objections” raised at every turn by an opposing lawyer. What do they mean to a ‘pro se’ litigant? How should they be handled by the litigant and/or by the judge? Can an “impartial” judge help a baffled ‘pro se’ litigant deal with “objections”? Some judges do try to offer help and to be kind without violating impartiality, but it poses serious challenges to all of the “players”. There are also a number of very troubling reports that some judges are rude and vent frustration with the ineptitude of ‘pro se’ litigants. “Don’t come back to this court unless you have a lawyer!” has been the dictum of several judges. We’d say, there is a crying need for data to measure the scope of the problems? Then, one can address the second issue: how does one correct this total systems problem?

We’d answer those judges, who resist dealing with the legally unrepresented, by saying that no one in their right mind would undertake the personal stress and misery of ‘pro se’, unless motivated by great love for their children and financial hardship! The ‘pro se’ situation is never a happy choice for anyone, and no one decides to go ‘pro se’ unless they are utterly desperate! There is also the important question of “outcome”? Who wins  in these uneven combat situations? No one has answers to this question, but we are inclined to say, “Three guesses and the first two don’t count!”  However … there is a crying need for actual data to move the conversation beyond anecdotes.

PRESERVING FAMILY COURTS FOR THE SHRINKING 26% WHO HAVE (MONEY) LAWYERS: Apart from the 74% ‘pro se’ litigants without lawyers, one should also consider the remaining 26% who have lawyers. One might in all honesty say that the expensive Maine family courts are being maintained for this affluent  minority and (more importantly) their lawyers. As an arena for a few lawyers (and the associated apparatus of consultants and GALs), the whole operation has become known by the public (countrywide), as the divorce industry. Should family courts and their whole expensive apparatus be maintained at public expense for a 26% minority of litigants and the juicy financial interests of  “the divorce bar”?

AS NEWS ABOUT THE ‘PRO SE’ DISASTER ESCAPES THE SYSTEM: In this age of the Internet, the public learns quickly about the unhappy state of affairs of ‘pro se’ litigants in family court. Paradoxically, in many cases, the public may well know more than members of the Judicial Branch who are tightly isolated from news of serious malfunctioning, cruelty. Bad management and unintended harm to children by omnipresent, “due process” concerns.  The public, in all likelihood, knows more about specific courts and specific judges and lawyers than does the Chief Justice. But… the bad stories, once out, cannot be controlled or suppressed. It causes severe damage to the credibility of the courts. The mechanisms of channeling public complaints about the distressing dysfunctions within the system are not user-friendly, are very expensive and in terms of corrective outcome ineffective. But the complaints and the “scandals” cannot be stopped by a protective system and an ineffective complaint protocol. They spread out like an Internet miasma from Ft Kent to Kittery, from Maine to California. They give the family courts and their entire operation a very black eye. It is very reminiscent of the recent scandals in another very closed system, the Catholic Church. Old methods and techniques of suppressing bad news, bad results and bad people don’t work. The old system is badly broken and out of control, and the target symptom of this malaise can be seen most clearly in the ‘pro se’ situation.

HOW TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM – FROM WITHIN OR FROM WITHOUT? It is our strong impression that without some thoughtfully programmed intervention, a growing ‘pro se’ situation in family courts will lead to a massive major breakdown of these courts in concert with widespread, public, bad feeling spiraling out of control. It will be impossible to control this tsunami of bad handling of ‘pro se’ cases. As social media become increasingly aware, the courts will face increasing disrespect and a lack of public support. It is truly a simple question of “fix it, or it will fix you!” In our opinion, the usual Judicial Branch problem solvers, the “stake holders” are the wrong group to fix the problem. They are the 26% who benefit financially from the current  ‘status quo’ of family courts. There is also the serious hard data problem. Nobody knows the full extent of the ‘pro se’ problem. It is impossible to formulate a fully rational, systemic, corrective intervention without data. Clearly, the definition of systemic data needs (and subsequent data collection and analysis) is not a task within the capability of a “stake holder’s” committee.

We’d recommend a legislative audit of the ‘pro se’ problem, executed by a respected government agency with the capability of doing this. OPEGA comes to mind. The aim is not to embarrass or cause pain to anyone. It is to obtain an objective analysis of the ‘pro se’ system and to suggest  comprehensive systemic corrections. With sponsorship from all three branches of government, it would be to the credit of all to face a terrible problem with courage and intelligence.

For more information about what we are doing to change the Family Court system find us on Facebook or email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com

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 vs 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.

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

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 in the State of Maine. 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.

MeGALert 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 – both here in Maine as well as nationally. We would encourage you to contact us at MeGALalert@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.

An appeal to Maine’s Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 – the Final Dance

The final installment in the appeal to Maine’s Supreme Court of Dalton V Dalton – Maloney response to Bixby.

III) BETH MALONEY’S REPLY TO SUSAN BIXBY

 

By our reading, the Maloney reply to Bixby’s response is a lot easier for a non-lawyer to follow and to understand. It is a coherent narrative. It tells a very sad story clearly. It is about how a mother has been strategically demonized by her opponents, and how the impact of this demonization has influenced the judge’s custody decision. It presents Ms Dalton as the victim of a “railroad job” with several of the court players appearing far from “impartial”. The brief offers examples of flaws in the information gathering process and of the Guardian ad litem (GAL) in this case operating outside of the boundaries of “Rules for GALs”. Maloney is knocking on the door of the court for equal parent time, which is a position that we, as family court reformers, endorse for every child custody case in a divorce, unless there is proven child abuse. They key word is “proven”. There is no proof that we can see in this family court case – for good reason. It would (or should) remove the case to criminal court.

We ask, “So why ever is a family court dealing with alleged child abuse? Isn’t it outside of their mandate, their skills?” Child abuse is a crime. A claim of child abuse should have a criminal investigation and be tried in a criminal court with a jury, if there is evidence. “Strategic” claims of abuse should be tossed out of family courts; particularly, if the criminal investigation of such claims has already yielded a big, fat “zero”! Without hard facts soft allegations of abuse constitute a cruel “witch hunt”. We also feel that various forms of court prescribed therapy and parental training, which are mostly without scientific grounding, ought to be tossed out too, as more beneficial to the service provider’s pocketbook that to the recipient of service’s psyche.

In Ms Dalton’s case, it is unclear whether anyone has actually diagnosed a problem for which – despite no diagnosis – she is nonetheless being treated? Nor does there seem to be a clear aim or endpoint which would say she has passed the test and can now be a “card-carrying” parent, So the court and the opposing lawyer keep the treatment for unspecified problems just rolling along – perhaps forever? Treatment for the “bad” parent, parent counseling for the “bad” parent, supervised visits for the “bad” parent are part of the family court and family lawyer’s strategic games that keep the process going on forever with no goals. All done in the name of “the child’s best interest”, until the money runs out! It is a cruel travesty that should stop.

Even Maloney in her response to Bixby bows to this hideous “game” when she says that Ms Dalton is “showing progress” with these junk therapy efforts. “Progress” in what, compared to what, to what end? As non-lawyers, who don’t have to play the courtroom game, we’d prefer to hit head-on this bogus therapy for an unspecified condition, with no visible end point. Ms Dalton doesn’t need any of it to rein in her imaginary alleged intense child abuse impulses. It is a disconnected prescription for therapy for no named condition “discovered” as an opportunity by an opposing divorce lawyer. And it is a stereotyped strategy used all over America. A lawyer spots a lucrative opportunity to get a client on a treadmill from which there is no exit. No end until the money runs out!

Reply brief of Appellant can be found here: Dalton v Dalton Final.

If you have had problems in Family Court with a judge or Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

 

The first two briefs may be found here:

2014-03-02 Child Custody – An appeal to Maine’s Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521

2014-05-05 An appeal to Maine’s Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 – the Lawyers Debate

 

 

 

 

An appeal to Maine’s Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 – the Lawyers Debate

We welcome this chance to publish the final two steps in an appeal to Maine’s Supreme Court, the Dalton vs Dalton case. Step II, which follows here, is attorney Susan Bixby’s reply to Beth Maloney’s original brief. Maloney’s brief, published here earlier, got the appeal process started. Step III is Maloney’s rebuttal of Bixby.

Along with our presentation here of the final two steps, we offer our layman’s observations and reactions to the ‘arcana’ of legal strategy used by these lawyers for a family court appeal. Our non-expert, “grass roots” response to both pieces of writing is philosophical and common sense – not legal. The philosophical flaws we see in both documents are about the basic human assumptions, the investigative process and the judicial decisions behind the classic lawyerly strategies for how the “contentious divorce” (and its appeal) gets played. For what it’s worth, here is our personal take on the final two lawyerly exchanges in the Dalton v Dalton debate:

 

II.) SUSAN BIXBY’S APPROACH:

 

As we read it, Ms Bixby uses an all too common divorce strategy: to communicate by strong inference that suburban housewife and mother of three children, Sarah Dalton, is a dangerous woman around children. You may note that Bixby carefully comes close to the line of actually charging child abuse, but doesn’t ever cross it. In her well designed response to the Maloney brief, Bixby strongly hints that, if Ms Dalton were left alone with her kids, God alone knows what bad – but unspecified – things might happen. In tone it is all very subjunctive, speculative and scary. She never crosses the line dividing hints of possible abuse from actual charges of abuse – for good reason. It would end the family court hearings and – after investigation, might place the charge in criminal court, where a trial by jury would probably clear Ms Dalton of the “hints” of abuse issue.

Clearly, Ms Bixby’s client , Mr. Dalton, is indirectly represented as wanting an “exclusive” – all of his children all of the time. No sharing. No concern about the children’s need for a maternal parent. It is a hardball, legalistic “abuse game” right out of the movie, “Divorce Corp“. Take no prisoners! The Bixby presentation raises the question in this reader’s mind: “What exactly makes Ms Dalton ‘unfit’ as a mother , and after all of these years as a mother is she suddenly ‘nouveau’ abusive?” And, another puzzle, why is she presented as, so far, being immune to corrective therapy? It is so stereotyped a legal strategy of demonizing a custody opponent as almost to be out of the tabloids!

Bixby, by her numerous claims that Maloney has ignored the “Rules of Evidence” more than implies that her legal opponent is dim and ignorant of how to use the “Rules of Evidence”. Tut tut! As non-lawyers, what can we say? The always meticulous, compulsive, detail-oriented Maloney, it is implied, needs to go back to the “Rules” book and bone up! There is also an unmistakable hint from Bixby that Maloney needs lessons in legal etiquette and propriety. “Aggressive lawyering” is the operant phrase but there is more innuendo of absent professional refinement.

But read Part II, the Bixby reply and see what you think: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521 Bixby’s response.

To read the initial brief that was filed in February 2014 please follow this link: An appeal to Maine’s Supreme Court: Dalton Vs. Dalton CUM-13-521.

If you have had problems in Family Court with a judge or Guardian ad litem please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

FOUR QUESTIONS FOR MAINE’S FAMILY COURTS

Maine has four pressing very functional questions for Maine’s family courts. They have been raised repeatedly by many citizen users of these courts, and the absence of clear, understandable answers poses a significant intellectual barrier to justice in these courts. At present the answers to these questions seem like a sort of lottery or, worse, a guessing game for the public. We would insist that the intellectual challenge of answering them isn’t beyond the ability of the courts and also that it shouldn’t be a different answer every time the issues come up,

1. Education for Guardians ad litem (GALs), judges, lawyers and the public about the content of the rules for GALs and how to use them is vital. While the court’s’ experience may be different, it is our impression and that of a good many others that Guardians ad litem, judges, lawyers frequently have only a “general knowledge” of these important rules. The public who dig into them assiduously are often better informed on details. Our opinion is that a “general knowledge ” of the rules is insufficient for court professionals, if the rules are serious and to be used both to define the role and the role boundaries of a GAL. In our opinion and that of many, knowledge of the rules is so essential that it should be taught in depth and tested and retested after some period of time. The essential question is: do these court professionals have an exact knowledge of the rules, as a core “tool of their trade”? How do we know? A test would help confirm that teaching has sunk in.

2. In our experience the question often arises as to whether a Guardian ad litem is “commanding” a party to perform a certain action or merely alerting the party to a “suggestion” the GAL will subsequently make to a judge. This is particularly troublesome when a GAL is addressing actions that fall outside of the specified GAL role. As we are sure the courts must be aware, this is a point of huge contention and would benefit from clarification of the issue, along with teaching re-enforcement.

3. In virtually every occupation, there is a routine, regular, standard procedure for managerial correction and improvement of performance. No one is considered “perfect”; every human makes mistakes (major or minor). One of the problem that consumers feel about GALs is the apparent lack of a managerial mechanism for helping a faltering GAL to improve performance, such as focused education on a particular skill, special reading, following a mentor, personal counseling, etc. It would both help a GAL and bolster public confidence that performance will improve.

4. Finally, we raise the very vexed question of Guardian ad litem actions outside of the role boundaries defined by rules. In virtually every other profession in the world this would be considered unacceptable, and a range of in house sanctions would be applied ranging from severe warning , to loss of job, to legal action. This area is in enormous need of clarification, unless one is granting GALs a degree of near infallibility that even the Pope doesn’t claim!

It is long overdue for the court to give those who use family courts answers to these simple questions.

For further information and support please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.