Tardiff V Sullivan – Another Poster Child case for a Dysfunctional Family Court

We are pleased to be able to publish this brief, a public document and an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court. It is a horrifying story. It shows how a series of court actions have deprived a good man, a good father, a good citizen from all but limited, very expensive supervised visits with his young son. The irrationality of the family  court  process and  its  actions are stunning to most lay readers. The basic tactic in her wish for total custody, as we read it, is that the mother, the former spouse and her aggressive lawyer, simply allege, again and again, that the father is abusive to the child. This allegation  of child abuse  on their part seems made very forcefully, but with absolutely no evidence that we can see. In fact when the father, Larry Tardiff, has had professional evaluations (please, note, the plural) the professionals find no evidence that would suggest any need for protection of the child in his presence or any irrational anger in need of correction. NONE! Judge Patricia Worth, the judge in this case, seems totally bamboozled by the strongly proclaimed, ungrounded allegations of danger to the child by the  mother and her attorney. It’s allegations – by themselves – as an incredible power tool in court. In our view, the judge is failing to look at the facts, failing to move beyond the noise, substituting her impressions for actual professionally grounded facts and seems to have a poor grasp of some of the points of law that she is using against Larry. It is an unbelievable nightmare for this man and his son from which there seems to be No exit!

It is also important for a reader to remember that in a criminal case of child abuse, normally there would be a planned program back to full parenting. Dare we say that Larry would be better off were he a criminal abuser? One senses that Judge Worth ought to be removed from this case. She seems to be in a rut and unable to think “outside of the box” in this case.

The appeal is a search for rationality, a search for a chance for father and son to have a normal parenting relationship, a search for an end to Judge Worth’s ungrounded decisions. We shall be presenting the decision of the Supreme Court in another posting. In the meantime, read on as the suspense about a Supreme Court decision builds.

The brief which was submitted to the Supreme Court may be found here. Please note that the name of the child has been redacted and that the pdf will need to be down loaded for the links to function properly.

If you have had issues in Family Court of with Judge Patricia Worth we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Call us at 207-370-9801 or find us on Facebook. We are striving to being about reform in the Family Court system.

Chief Justice Saufley on the Pro se Litigant before Maine Judicial Committee.

Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley recently spoke before the Judiciary Committee of Maine. Among many topics she mentioned Pro se representation. Presented here is the sound bite dealing with Prose. Below is the transcription of the sound bite:

“To many people who have to come to court without lawyers – and that is a very long conversation, but we have all kinds of innovations we are working on. We’re watching other states to see what’s working there. The bottom line is that people should have an attorney to help them when something in their life has gone so wrong that they have to be in a court room. Its not a good idea to not be represented, so we’re working on plans to help improve all of that… ummmm…”

The sound bite may be found here: Chief Justice Leigh Saufley.

We would like to ask Chief Justice Saufley if she could gave us an example of some of those “innovations” she mentioned. How will they make the court system better? Are some of these “innovations” simply a euphemism for more money for Maine courts? The problems that the Judicial Branch have – go beyond the mantra of more money and innovations. Our Judicial Branch is the foundation to our system of justice here in this state and the structure that they are trying to patch is beyond mere cosmetic changes for which they have proposed before in the past.

Take for example the Family Court system that the Chief Justice has admitted is in trouble. Guardians ad litem that practice psychology, social work and law without a license but sanctioned and encouraged by the court to do so. On a regular basis we see the use of Consumers have been subjected to Judicial Out Sourcing; Junk Science; Psycho-eugenics; Legal Abuse Syndrome and Moral Equivalency. There is no scientific basis or history for these ideas – yet – the courts fully embrace these ideas. There is no management of the various parts and no oversight. 74% of the parents entering the Family Court system who do so Pro se and for the vast majority they have no idea how to conduct them selves. We have court officers who provide the bare minimum of help to the 74%. What “innovations” will help these customers of Family Court services? More money will not help. Money has poured into finding a solution and so far the investment has bared no fruit. Why are we “watching” other states? Are we looking for a patch that is less painful for customers? Once those solutions are found will the Judicial Branch even be able to implement process and systems change? I mean we are talking about a bunch of lawyers here. They know how to find innovative ways of charging their clients – but do they know anything about systems and process improvement?

As a foundation upon which the various courts stand – the Judicial Branch cannot afford to continue to make decisions that harm their consumers to the benefit of the 26% who are not Pro se. It may be time to stop patching the building(s) and bring in an outside contractor for help. Someone who is not embedded in law, knows systems analysis and can identify issues and ways to improve them so that we have a world class court – as we did in the past.

Please contact us if you need help in filling out forms for Family Court. We are not able to provide legal advice (we are not lawyers) – just help. Contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Also find us on Facebook.

Child Trafficking American Style: How Cash-for-Kids exists and how to Stop It by January 16, 2015

Divorce Corp has asked for our help in trying to stop the – Cash-for-kids – that goes on between the states and Federal government. These videos encapsulates the problems that parents suffer through in the Family Court system. Towards the end Joe Sorge and Divorce Corp tell you how you can make a difference:

Director Joe Sorge (Divorce Corp) reveals how good intentions gone bad and a callous legal profession has catapulted the United States into the unenviable position of leading the developed world in single parent households. Six billion dollars per year of taxpayer money motivates some of the worst public policy imaginable, leading to the bankrupting of families, the imprisonment of wage earners, and the manipulation and misuse of children as a currency for separating parents and opportunistic professionals. The Federal Government has opened up a rare opportunity to comment on these outdated and dysfunctional laws. Joe Sorge makes an appeal to write to Washington by the end of the public comment period, January 16, 2015, to reform these misguided Federal regulations. A link is provided to Divorce Corp’s web site, showing recommended changes to the Federal Regulations, and suggested reform language to send to Washington.

A YouTube video may be found here: YouTube

Please share this video with your contacts and look for us on Facebook.

DivorceCorp and MeGALert – Conflicts of Interest Within the Sordid Divorce Industry

Part 2 of the interview between Directory Joe Sorge (DivorceCorp) and former psychiatrist and director of Maine Guardian ad Litem Alert, Jerry Collins. Part 2 exposes the conflicts of interest within the sordid Divorce Industry. Find out how the Judiciary in Maine handled the new law (LD 872 – An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine) which dared to spoil their insider dealings.

DivorceCorp – Family Law Report: Jerry Collins Interview Part2

DivorceCorp – Family Law Report: Jerry Collins Interview Part1

If you would like more information and become involved email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Divorce Corp – Backdoor Deals and Cozy Relationships between GALs and Judges

Director Joe Sorge interviews Maine psychiatrist and director of Maine Guardian Ad Litem Alert, Jerry Collins. They discuss the backdoor deals and cozy relationships between the guardian ad litems (GALs) and other family court professionals. Families are forced to pay outrageous fees and often get little for their money.

Learn how Guardians ad litem demand excessive fees and are essentially unregulated in their practice. It is another shocking example of the corrupt practices in US family courts.

DivorceCorp – Family Law Report: Jerry Collins Interview Part1

If you would like more information and become involved email us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

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

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.

A Basic Tool Kit for Grass Roots Family Court Reform

We have been asked by many people how we got MeGALalert, our Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform program, started and what beginning grassroots activists should do to get going?  We grew our program, MeGALalert 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…”

MeGALalert can be reached by emailing us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or by finding us on Facebook. 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.

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