One reader left the task force hearing Thursday, January 9, 2014 with the following insights. Does anyone else want to add to this list?
"I learned a lot listening to so many stories. Some high-level thoughts:
1. Our judges do not consistently follow laws or recognize constitutional rights, particularly for pro se litigants. If we cannot fix this, there isn't much point in passing yet another law that will be ignored.
2. Likewise, parties are unable to enforce existing court orders. If we cannot fix this, there isn't much point in issuing more orders.
3. I think addressing the prior two points would ameliorate many situations where parents have been denied access to their children. I think this is a more practical solution than adopting a presumption of shared parenting. (I'm not opposed to such presumption, but I fear it raises many other issues and would be difficult to adopt while providing little benefit that couldn't be more easily obtained by fixing the first two problems).
4. Denial of access is a real problem that must be addressed the instant it occurs. I think resolution of such situations must be Fast Tracked ahead of everything (except allegations of physical domestic violence). And willful violators have to be punished in some manner and forced to bear the financial cost of righting their actions.
5. GAL abuse is rampant. The system gives private, profit-maximizing individuals the incentive to fleece families in difficult situations without consequence. In my mind, that incentive will always exist when any party (whether called a GAL, AMC, or anything else) has the ability to use government compulsion to impose costs on families. I really don't think it can be regulated away. And NO ONE explained why GALs are necessary in the first place. I think that the interests of the children can and must be represented by the parents, and a judge can then decide, even in the highest conflict cases."
Verrenault's weeping during lizard Jerry's testimony re: PA was an EMBARRASSMENT to ANYONE who hoped to realize meaningful change in the GAL system. She had NO BUSINESS questioning this bullying, pathetic excuse for a boyfriend. Shame on HER.
ReplyDeleteFurther, the deadbeat dad on the panel, Weissmuller, is BEST FRIENDS with him, and he asked a bunch of bullshit questions. Please, all, google Weissmuller and look at his case: he is a posing phony who does NOT want to pay for his kids--JUST LIKE JERRY MASTRANGELO.
ReplyDeleteHi, there! If you have any evidence to this effect which you could send me, I will follow up on it. I did call Gerry Mastangelo's ex wife's attorney's office as a journalist and asked if I could get her perspective on what has gone on, but they did not want to comment. I haven't seen anything so far which would explain why Gerry's kids won't see him. I had no seen in court documents anything indicating that Gerry did not wish to pay. But if you have information to this effect, I'd be interested in seeing it, as I have said again. I welcome anyone who has insights into the truth of what is going on and if there is anything I don't know, I certainly want to find out.
ReplyDelete