The state has taken a step into the legal fee-setting business.
In wake of heated debate during the last legislative session over the cost of guardian ad litem and related services, the Judicial Branch has created a sliding fee scale in an attempt to control how much low- and moderate-income parents pay for for GALs, attorneys for minor children and other court-appointed lawyers who take part in contested custody cases.
The fee scale, which takes effect Oct. 1, will apply in instances where the combined annual gross income of both parents is between $39,062 and $100,000. Family law practitioners say the market rate for GALs is about $300 an hour, and some parents have complained that's led to total fees in a handful of contested custody cases of $30,000 or more. Under the sliding scale, the hourly fees will be considerably less.
For more information on this matter, please click on the link below:
http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202670484497/New-Pay-Scale-Restricts-Fees-For-Many-GALs#ixzz3DlfLZNIm
The sliding scale is an absolute joke. It does not prevent any of the malfeasance supposedly addressed by the new law or identified in the public testimony before the Judiciary Committee or the Task Force. In short, families will continue to face financial ruin at the hands of the GALs and AMCs supposedly representing their children. And those corrupt GALs and AMCs remain absolutely unaccountable to anyone.
ReplyDeleteGALs should be paid by the State as they are State actors enjoying governmental immunity. You could be certain that the legislature and judiciary would ensure rates would go way down if this was the case. It's non legal work anyway and attorney rates just aren't justified here. The new sliding scale doesn't account for liabilities someone may have, places one party who makes profoundly less in the same pot with someone making more, and allows a GAL to attach your house. Sounds worse for parents, not better. Should have never passed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the entire GAL system is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held that parents have a fundamental right in the care, custody and control of their children. In Connecticut, judges interpret precedents (from other judges, but not statutes) to require appointment of a GAL in many cases. As soon as a GAL is appointed, she alone has the right to represent the best interests of the children before the court. That right has been taken from the parents without any due process or finding (or even argument about) abuse or neglect. In addition, pursuant to other CT precedents, as soon as the GAL is appointed, only the GAL (and the parents) has the right to determine whether or when a kid's health care providers will testify. That's another fundamental parenting right that has been taken from the parents and given to the divorce industry without any due process. It cannot possibly be constitutional for parents to lose parenting rights without due process. If the parents aren't capable of representing the best interests of the children or are unsafe parents, DCF should step in as per juvenile law. Otherwise, the parents should retain all parenting rights. If the parents disagree, obviously each can argue their position to the judge, and the judge can decide. That's what judges are for. There is no need for GALs.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the GAL system is one big money making scam on parents. I could be wrong, but I believe that the GAL once appointed has the right to revoke a parental decision in regard to the children. I believe that the GAL can decide that a health care provider will or will not be allowed to testify despite what either parent wants. It is all pretty ridiculous and corrupt. You are correct. Unless DCF finds abuse and neglect and unless criminal charges have been confirmed against the parents after trial GALs have no business being appointed in any family matter. The presumption that children's interests will not be met without a GAL is a false assumption made without any kind of valid research data to support it. I hear you absolutely.
DeleteThe whole legal standard applied in family courts to strip a fit parent of parental rights is unconstitutional in custody cases. Constitutional rights need to be safeguarded with higher standards of scrutiny. A fit parent can lose rights with a preponderance of the evidence standard where the judge knows they don't have to look at evidence. They just say they decided on "credibility" and their "discretion" is basically non-appealale. There needs to be a higher standard of proof and detailed findings going to the best interest factors. Why a criminal is entitled to a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to protect his liberty from being taken away when a fit parent gets the preponderance standard is beyond me. The right to parent is more sacred than liberty itself is deserving of heightened protections. Things have to change. Another issue is handing over too much power to be abused. The family cases need to be given to juries who get it right almost all the time instead of being tried solely by a judge.
ReplyDeleteThis sliding scale fails to protect families from the financial damage inflicted by GALs or AMCs in any way. Basically, any couple that has enough income to live in Fairfield County will end up with an AMC and GAL who can bill whatever they want. That is SICK! And that doesn't include all of the psych evaluators, therapists, parenting coordinators and parenting schedulers and other business associates of the GAL and AMC which they will require the family to hire. The financial drain continues.
ReplyDelete