CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COUNSEL FOR THE MINOR CHILD AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM!

The new Code of Conduct for Counsel For the Minor Child and Guardian Ad Litem is available today in compliance with Bill #494.  See the link below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/family/GAL_code.pdf

AMC/GAL SLIDING SCALE STARTING OCTOBER 2014!

For those of you interested in the AMC/GAL sliding scale which will be instituted in October 2014 in response to S.B. #494, please click on the link below. 

 


http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/press387.pdf

THE CT LAW TRIBUNE CONTRIBUTES ITS TWO CENTS TO THE GAL DEBATE!

In an recent editorial, the CT Law Tribune states the following:

"By now, everyone is fully aware of the ongoing debate over guardians ad litem, attorneys for minor children, and the various criticisms of judges and virtually all of the legal professionals involved in contested divorce and family matters involving children. In the legislature, bills have been passed. In the Superior Court Rules Committee, changes to the Practice Book are being drafted. Yet amidst all of this newly minted "procedure," the essential question to be answered in every contested family matter involving a child remains the same: What is in the best interest of the child?"

For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202658985503/Editorial%3A-In-GAL-Debate%2C-Best-Interest-Of-The-Child-Must-Remain-Top-Priority#ixzz34MyHXmVO

CT LAW TRIBUNE OPINION PIECE ON GALS REQUIRING BETTER OVERSIGHT!

Attorney Michelle Cruz shares her opinions on the GAL system as follows:

"Recently, criticism of the state's guardians ad litem have hit an all-time high. GALs are reportedly withdrawing from their cases left and right, while grievances appear to be mounting. Family court, by definition, is charged with high emotions and children, unfortunately, are at the center of the storm. The GAL is supposed to be a beacon in the dark night, illuminating a path so a child can endure the tumultuous waters of a divorce or custody battle.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

This very issue came up the other day while I camped out in court, waiting for a hearing. I heard a family court judge explaining to countless divorcing couples, unable to come to an agreement over custody and visitation of their children, about the limitations of a guardian ad litem. The judge explained that the best person to decide the child's future is often their parent. The parents, in most cases, understand their children and, if they can come to an agreement, are the most qualified to make these life-altering decisions.

The judge went on to caution the couples marching through the courtroom that a GAL is an outsider — a third party — coming in to assess, investigate and make recommendations for the couple's children. Even though they attempt to do the right thing, the judge said, the GAL is still an outsider looking in."

For more on this topic, please click on the link below: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202651364859/Opinion%3A-Better-Oversight-Needed-For-Guardians-Ad-Litem#ixzz2z4o25a4k

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS ON GAL REFORM BILL!

"The Legislature's Judiciary Committee has approved a bill proposing reforms for the state's guardian ad litem system that would give parents a greater say as to who would represent their children during custody proceedings, as well as new authority to request the removal of a GAL from a case.  


But advocates for sweeping changes in family courts, while calling the measure a step in the right direction, said it does not go far enough to address a system they see as fundamentally unfair. Before the Judiciary Committee voted April 2, some lawmakers seemed sympathetic to such concerns and indicated broader changes could be coming in the future. "We're trying to get our arms around this," said state Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield.  


Currently, there are about 1,000 guardians ad litem registered with the state who may be appointed to represent the interests of a minor child or children in a child custody dispute. The GALs are not required to be attorneys, although most are."


For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202649875681/GAL-Reform-Bill-Moves-Forward#ixzz2yEoEuWHu

VIRGINIA CITIZEN RESPONDS TO CT'S GAL CRISIS! ARE WE LIVING IN OZ?

I would suggest that the sheeple of Connecticut revolt against the Chase Rodgers and her Flying Monkeys.  

 

More enlightened governance found in the Commonwealth of Virginia has formally addressed this issue of GAL purpose, function, standards, performance and compensation.  The enlightened people and the enlightened government of Virginia have created a manual, which the Flying Monkeys of Corrupticut could simply copy and bring to Wicked Witch Chase and her evil sisters Lynda, Holly, Liz and brother Gerry.  The sheeple could ask their malicious masters why they could not be treated equally as the citizens of Virginia?  Why must Connecticut sheeple be fleeced when the equal parents of Virginia and their children's college funds (529) are protected from the plunder of Flying Monkeys. 

Perhaps the sheeple of Corrupticut could beg their Oz masters that they could be equal to the citizens of Virginia, protected by the same federal Constitution.  Why must sheeple of Corrupticut be so fleeced for the benefit of the most deceitful and crooked legal lizards before the bench?  Why are such crooked legal lizards rewarded with such spoils by the judges of Corrupticut?  The judges of Virginia do not plunder college savings plans for the benefit of Virginia lawyers.  Why are Corrupticut lawyers of such uniqueness and protection that they are spoiled in cash solely by the Corrupticut judges?  Is this Nutmeg Racketeering?  Nutmeg Rico?  Nutmeg extortion? Nutmeg mutton?

Poor sheeple of Corrupticut, what has god done to you and your children.

It may upset the cash flow, revenue generation, incarceration activities and other childish antics of the Wicked Witch and her flying family court mafia to realize that in a mature, civilized society, the people are not judicial cash cows.

A Virginia lawyer, appointed as GAL gets $55/hr out of court, $75/hr in court and it is paid by the court.  In Virginia, the Constitution does not have due process for the government to seize property in the civil action of granting a divorce.  Too bad Corrupticut does not apply such federal Constitutional protections for its sheeple.

Can the sheeple of Corrupticut beg their butchers for the same procedures and constitutional protections afforded the simple people of Virginia??

Can the sheeple of Corrupticut beg Chase Rodgers to have a judiciary more like Virginia??  Are the sheeple of Corrupticut just sheeple??

See the Virginia GAL Manual at the link below: 

 

http://www.courts.state.va.us/courtadmin/aoc/cip/programs/gal/children/advocacy_in_motion.pdf

Perhaps a bucket of pure constitutional water can be dumped over the Wicked Witch, let her melt to the floor, disperse the flying monkeys and simply be more Virginia like.   

RAISED BILL 494 RE GALS, RAISED BY SENATOR KISSEL

General Assembly


Raised Bill No. 494

February Session, 2014


LCO No. 3068


*03068_______JUD*

Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY


Introduced by:


(JUD)


AN ACT CONCERNING GUARDIANS AD LITEM AND ATTORNEYS FOR MINOR CHILDREN IN FAMILY RELATIONS MATTERS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2014) (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, prior to appointing counsel or a guardian ad litem for any minor child in a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, the court shall provide the parties to the matter with written notification of five persons who the court has determined eligible to serve as counsel or a guardian ad litem for any child in such matter. Not later than two weeks after the date on which the court provides such written notification to the parties, the parties shall provide written notification to the court of the name of the person who the parties have selected to serve as counsel or a guardian ad litem for their matter. In the event that the parties (1) fail to timely provide the court with the name of the person to serve as counsel or a guardian ad litem for their matter, or (2) cannot agree on the name of the person who shall serve as counsel or a guardian ad litem for their matter, the court shall appoint counsel or a guardian ad litem for the minor child by selecting one person from the five names provided to the parties.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply when the parties have requested that councel or a guardian ad litem be appointed and present to the court a written agreement that contains the name of the person who the parties have selected to serve as counsel or a guardian ad litem for the minor child for their matter.

(c) Not later than twenty-one days following the date on which the court enters an initial order appointing counsel or a guardian ad litem for any minor child pursuant to this section, the court shall enter a subsequent order that includes the following information: (1) The specific nature of the work that is to be undertaken by such counsel or guardian ad litem; (2) the date on which the appointment of such counsel or guardian ad litem is to end, provided such end date may be extended for good cause shown pursuant to an order of the court; (3) the deadline for such counsel or guardian ad litem to report back to the court concerning the work undertaken; (4) the fee schedule of such counsel or guardian ad litem which shall minimally set forth (A) the amount of the retainer, (B) the hourly rate to be charged, and (C) the apportionment of the retainer and hourly fees between the parties; and (5) a proposed schedule of periodic court review of the work undertaken by such counsel or guardian ad litem and the fees charged by such counsel or guardian ad litem. Periodic court review shall be undertaken not less than every six months following the date of the appointment of such counsel or guardian ad litem, unless such periodic court review is waived by the parties and any such counsel or guardian ad litem pursuant to a written agreement filed with the court.

Sec. 2. Section 46b-54 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2014):

(a) The court may appoint counsel for any minor child or children of either or both parties at any time after the return day of a complaint under section 46b-45, if the court deems it to be in the best interests of the child or children. The court may appoint counsel on its own motion, or at the request of either of the parties or of the legal guardian of any child or at the request of any child who is of sufficient age and capable of making an intelligent request.

(b) Counsel for the minor child or children may also be appointed on the motion of the court or on the request of any person enumerated in subsection (a) of this section in any case before the court when the court finds that the custody, care, education, visitation or support of a minor child is in actual controversy, provided the court may make any order regarding a matter in controversy prior to the appointment of counsel where it finds immediate action necessary in the best interests of any child.

(c) If the court deems the appointment of counsel for any minor child or children to be in the best interests of the child or children, such appointment shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of this act.

[(c)] (d) Counsel for the minor child or children shall be heard on all matters pertaining to the interests of any child, including the custody, care, support, education and visitation of the child, so long as the court deems such representation to be in the best interests of the child.

Sec. 3. Section 46b-57 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2014):

In any controversy before the Superior Court as to the custody of minor children, and on any complaint under this chapter or section 46b-1 or 51-348a, if there is any minor child of either or both parties, the court, if it has jurisdiction under the provisions of chapter 815p, may allow any interested third party or parties to intervene upon motion. The court may award full or partial custody, care, education and visitation rights of such child to any such third party upon such conditions and limitations as it deems equitable. Before allowing any such intervention, the court may appoint counsel for the child or children pursuant to the provisions of section 46b-54, as amended by this act, and section 1 of this act. In making any order under this section, the court shall be guided by the best interests of the child, giving consideration to the wishes of the child if the child is of sufficient age and capable of forming an intelligent preference.

Sec. 4. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2014) Any party to an action involving the custody, care, support, education and visitation of a child shall have standing to file a motion that seeks removal of counsel for the minor child or a guardian ad litem for the minor child. The Judicial Branch shall establish a procedure to effectuate the hearing of a motion seeking removal of such counsel or guardian ad litem. Prior to hearing such motion, the court may refer the parties to mediation with a family services officer employed by the Judicial Branch. If the allegations set forth in the motion cannot be resolved through mediation, a hearing shall be held on the motion and a decision on the motion shall be made by the court. The presiding judge shall determine the judge who is assigned to hear such motion.

Sec. 5. Section 46b-62 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2014):

(a) In any proceeding seeking relief under the provisions of this chapter and sections 17b-743, 17b-744, 45a-257, 46b-1, 46b-6, 46b-212 to 46b-213w, inclusive, 47-14g, 51-348a and 52-362, the court may order either spouse or, if such proceeding concerns the custody, care, education, visitation or support of a minor child, either parent to pay the reasonable attorney's fees of the other in accordance with their respective financial abilities and the criteria set forth in section 46b-82. If, in any proceeding under this chapter and said sections, the court appoints [an attorney] counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child, the court may order the father, mother or an intervening party, individually or in any combination, to pay the reasonable fees of [the attorney] counsel or the guardian ad litem or may order the payment of [the attorney's] counsel's or the guardian ad litem's fees in whole or in part from the estate of the child. If the child is receiving or has received state aid or care, the compensation of [the attorney] counsel or the guardian ad litem for the minor child shall be established and paid by the Public Defender Services Commission.

(b) If, in any proceeding under this chapter and sections 17b-743, 17b-744, 45a-257, 46b-1, 46b-6, 46b-212 to 46b-213w, inclusive, 47-14g, 51-348a and 52-362, the court appoints counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child, the court may not order the father, mother or an intervening party, individually or in any combination, to pay the reasonable fees of counsel or the guardian ad litem for a minor child from a college savings account, including any account established pursuant to any qualified tuition program, as defined in Section 529(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, that has been established for the benefit of the minor child.

(c) In any proceeding under this chapter and sections 17b-743, 17b-744, 45a-257, 46b-1, 46b-6, 46b-212 to 46b-213w, inclusive, 47-14g, 51-348a and 52-362, in which the court appoints counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child, the court may order that the fees owing to such counsel or guardian ad litem be calculated on a sliding-scale basis after giving due consideration to the income and assets of the parties to the proceeding.

(d) The Judicial Branch shall develop and implement a methodology for calculating, on a sliding-scale basis, the fees owing to counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child appointed in any proceeding under this chapter and sections 17b-743, 17b-744, 45a-257, 46b-1, 46b-6, 46b-212 to 46b-213w, inclusive, 47-14g, 51-348a and 52-362.

Sec. 6. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2014) The Judicial Branch shall develop a publication that informs parties to a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, about the roles and responsibilities of counsel for the minor child and the guardian ad litem when such persons are appointed by the court to serve in a family relations matter. Such publication shall be available to the public in hard copy and be accessible electronically on the Internet web site of the Judicial Branch.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:

Section 1

October 1, 2014

New section

Sec. 2

October 1, 2014

46b-54

Sec. 3

October 1, 2014

46b-57

Sec. 4

October 1, 2014

New section

Sec. 5

October 1, 2014

46b-62

Sec. 6

July 1, 2014

New section

Statement of Purpose:

To: (1) Provide greater clarity to court orders involving the appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child; (2) provide parties to a family relations matter with standing to remove counsel or the guardian ad litem for a minor child appointed in such matter; (3) enact new provisions concerning the payment of fees to counsel and the guardian ad litem for a minor child; and (4) require the Judicial Branch to develop a publication that informs parties to a family relations matter about the roles and responsibilities of counsel for the minor child and the guardian ad litem.

[Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by underline, except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined.]

NPR RADIO PROGRAM TODAY ON GUARDIANS AD LITEM!

Earlier this month, The Connecticut Law Tribune reported that a number of the state’s guardian ad litem lawyers had withdrawn from their child custody cases. Their actions came in response to growing tension within the family court system, where parents and advocates have ridiculed custody professionals for their high fees and lack of oversight.

This hour, we take a closer look at some of the issues within Connecticut’s family court system. A state task force is looking into what some have called a broken system. What’s fueling the tension between families and family courts? What can be done to resolve it?

GUESTS:

• Peter Szymonik - Leader in Connecticut's family court reform movement
• Attorney Jeffrey Mickelson - Guardian ad litem
• Dr. Elizabeth Thayer - Partner at Beacon Behavioral Services, LLC
• State Representative Edwin Vargas - Representative for the 6th Assembly District 

http://wnpr.org/post/look-inside-connecticuts-family-court-system

CT LAW TRIBUNE HEADS MEDIA BLITZ IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE'S WORST GALS!

"Increasingly angry tactics have been pervading the public inquiry into family court custody reform, triggering a fight-or-flight response from top members of the family bar.

 

Some are ready to throw in the towel, or at least take a long time out.

Dozens of lawyers who work as guardians ad litem (GALs) or attorneys for minor children are in the process of withdrawing their representation, or are no longer accepting such appointments."

For more information, please click on the link below:

 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202647045067/GALs-Are-Withdrawing-From-Cases-As-Court-Reform-Tensions-Grow-#ixzz2wGZP7GkP

DEFENDING THE UNDEFENDABLE: CT LAW TRIBUNE GOES TO BAT FOR SLEAZY GALS!

"Appointed by judges to represent the interests of children in custody disputes, guardians ad litem typically operate below the radar of public opinion. But in recent weeks, they have come under a microscope.

 

GALs were a focal point of a state task force looking into family court costs. They are primary targets of advocates who say they are upset that custody disputes have become far too expensive for the average person to wage, and that GAL fees reaching $30,000 or more are unconscionable."

For more information, please click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202647040265/Legislature-Considers-Guardian-Ad-Litem-Reform-#ixzz2wGXj54xk

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS ERIC STEVENS FILES GRIEVANCE AGAINST FORMER GAL, ENFIELD LAWYER MARY T. BARGAMINI!

"A man embroiled in a bitter custody battle with his former wife has filed a complaint with the Statewide Grievance Committee against Enfield lawyer Mary T. Bergamini, a court-appointed child advocate for his daughter.

The action is just the latest twist in a bizarre case in which Eric Stevens claims his former wife, Tracy, hired a hitman to kill him. Stevens is angry that, despite his ex-wife's arrest, she retains custody of the couple's nearly 9-year-old daughter. The stakes are high: The Associated Press, citing police, reported that there's a $50 million fund linked to the girl's custody.

Stevens' complaint accuses Bergamini, who represented the little girl as the guardian ad litem in court proceedings, of corruption and perjury. The state Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel would not comment on the details of the complaint. "I have nothing to report," said Chief Disciplinary Counsel Patricia King. "There's no grievance complaint with probable cause findings and any filing prior to a finding of probable cause is not public."

For more information, click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202646131404/Guardian-Ad-Litem-Grieved-For-Role-In-%27Hitman%27-Custody-Case#ixzz2vapZ5Kxr

ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS IN THE NEW HAVEN REGISTER: GALS SHOULD BE REGULATED!

Attorney Norm Pattis begins by saying, "Superior Court Judge Leslie Olear of West Hartford is no doubt a profoundly grateful jurist. She was nearly turned out of office by lawmakers the other day. The House of Representative voted 78-67 to permit her to keep her job, an unusually narrow margin. The state Senate voted 28-4 to keep her, but only after the House had already approved her.

 

What nearly derailed the career of this judge?

 

The family law "system is crying out for reform," said Hartford Democrat Rep. Edwin Vargas. "I'm not saying that this judge is the only one that doesn't deserve reappointment. There are quite a few of them."

 

What is remarkable is that dozens of other lawmakers apparently agree with Vargas. If so, these lawmakers should offer us something more than bullying judges who are doing the best they can with the flawed legal doctrines and policies that lawmakers created in the first place.

 

I've never appeared before Judge Olear; indeed, I don't think I could pick her out of a lineup if my life depended on it, so I don't know whether the near-torpedoing of her judicial career was warranted."

 

For more information on Attorney Pattis' remarks, please click on the link below:

http://m.nhregister.com/nhregister/pm_108702/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=L17kUBE2

WHAT IS THIS? KINDERGARTEN? NO, FAMILY COURT CAN'T TREAT EVERYONE AS AN INDIVIDUAL!

I heard testimony before the task force stating that each family court case is "individual."  Every case is individual and has to be treated individually. 

 

There is something sacred about a concept like that--to the point where ordinary men and women would be afraid to challenge it.  Like transubstantiation or homeland security--these are ideas you wouldn't want to get too close to for fear of causing offense. 

 

Like the earlier concept of "intangibles" that we touched upon in another blog, how could I possibly dare to challenge the idea that people should be treated like individuals and that their cases should be treated individually. 

 

But you see, I have to challenge these ideas because they are so darned stupid. 

 

The bottom line is I haven't noticed anyone treating anyone individually since I was in family court. 

 

I have already spoken about the fact that repeatedly the attorneys and GALs I have seen operating in family court repeatedly disregard and ignore the fact that children have special needs or other special medical requirements.  They aren't treating these children individually or considering their individual requirements. 

 

The Court is not treating litigants as individuals either; in fact, it is directly ignoring people as individuals, particularly when it randomly labels people as having a mental illness when there is no direct evidence to confirm such a label.  When the Court refuses to listen to what a litigant has to say or review a document about his or her case because of some rule invented in the medieval age, or out of pure and simple spite as happens frequently, I wouldn't call that particularly individualized. 

 

Of course, I certainly can't say I absolutely oppose individualized attention.  Look, if I could, I would give everyone individualized attention. 

 

As a teacher, if I could just go to school every day and work one on one with students instead of in groups, I would definitely do that.  How much more individualized can you get than one on one teaching?  However, to be honest with you, the fact is that I don't have the opportunity. 

 

Most of my classes have at least 25 to 30 students per class and I have no doubt that there are some students who are not getting a teaching style adequate to their needs.  When I teach night classes at the local college, I will sometimes have students as old as 75 and as young as 15, and classes with 30 students or more.  As a result, sorry guys, students in my classroom are not getting the kind of individualized education that they might receive under the kind of ideal circumstances where I could give that one on one individualized education. 

 

Since I am teaching a large classroom full of students with a broad range of learning styles, ages, and needs, even though I'd like every one of my students to have a learning program individually tailored to each of their needs, instead I have to streamline my approach and ask the students to live up to certain objective standards required by the group learning experience. 

 

If some students can't keep up, that's too bad, because I am not a babysitter.  I am a teacher. 

 

Likewise with family court, it would be great if we could have individual judges, mental health professionals, attorneys, family relations officers, and clerks, etc. spend entire days, weeks, years working with a particular couple.  However,  just like the local school and university where I work, the Court is unable to do this. 

 

Why? 

 

Let me speak slowly so that people on this task force understand, because I know that this concept is often as hard for them to understand as it is for GALs and AMCs and family court attorney's in general. 

 

We do not have such endless resources in our legal system. 

 

Individual families do not have such endless financial resources either to carry on individualized lawsuits in family court. 

 

As a consequence, it is foolish and misguided to state as a minimum goal for litigants in family court and family court itself that everyone must be treated as an individual. 

 

First of all, it makes no sense because family court personnel have a lengthy history of disregarding litigants as individuals and the many comments sent to the task force reflect the truth of that assertion. 

 

Second of all, it makes no sense because family court does not have the money, particularly in these difficult economic times. 

 

Third of all, it is criminal to make demands that litigants who have simply come to the family court to get divorced pay hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars so that they can meet the expectations of some GALs and AMCs that litigants should be treated individually. 

 

If GALs, AMCs, and family attorneys could stop inventing ways to treat litigants as individuals, perhaps we would no longer see the decimation of an entire family's life savings.  I am sure that many children represented by GALs and AMCs would be willing to forego the individualized care and treatment just so they could still obtain a college education down the road! 

 

You see, what is going on here is that these rogue GALs and AMCs, who consider the need for individualized attention preeminent, have been allowed to eclipse parents who have simply made reasonable requests that the Court allow them to safeguard their children's future education. 

 

Such parents don't want "individualized attention"!  They want their children to have a future! 

 

The bottom line is that GALs and AMCs use concepts like "litigants are individuals who need to be treated individually" as a means to extort money from families who can little afford it. 

 

We all live in the real world.  I would like to be treated individually and take a trip to London this year.  But guess what!  I can't afford it.  I'd like to buy a new $40,000 car because, as an individual, that would be really, really cool.  But guess what!  I can't afford it. 

 

Take a look at the indigent clients at Family Court.  Are they having unlimited access to State GALs and AMCs ready to treat them as individuals?  No.  Why not?  Because the State cannot afford it.  Why?  Because Family Court has a budget and they cannot overrun their budget! 

 

There are many other litigants of modest means who manage to make their way through the court system with financial and parental agreements, all without the assistance of GALs and AMCs.  Are their cases any different than cases in which the Court appoints highly expensive, private GALs and AMCs? 

 

No, not at all. 

 

So why don't they get GALs and AMCs anyway since they need the individualized attention? 

 

Because there is no money and they cannot afford it. 

 

It's amazing how that goes. 

 

If you cannot afford to pay your rent, you will be thrown out on the street, even if it is not in your individualized best interest. 

 

When I went to pharmacy yesterday and my medical insurance refused to pay for my prescription, I was unable to purchase it. 

 

Why? 

 

Because even though it is in my individualized best interest to have that medication, if I cannot afford it, no one is going to be giving me any. 

 

This is life.  This is the way it is in the real world.  Why should it be any different in the legal field. 

 

I'm always amazed by the way in which attorneys talk as though they live in outer space somewhere with stars flying by trickling money at their wake. 

 

No.  Just no. 

 

These attorneys need to get a grip and start facing facts like the rest of us have to. 

 

You might say, well some people have the money to waste, so it's no big deal if they spend it on individual care.  That may be true, but if that is the case litigants should have informed consent and the right to choice.  Up until this point, family court judges and manipulative attorneys have denied the majority of litigants that right. 

 

Furthermore, college money is not extra money.  It is money every dime of which will eventually go to a college education.  Retirement money, which GALs and AMCs frequently take, is not extra money.  Litigants will desperately need that money eventually in order to have a decent standard of living upon retirement.

 

We need to put specific limits on how much GALs and AMCs can charge in particular cases, we need to develop specific job descriptions for these roles, and establish more stringent levels of accountability. 

 

We need to send the message to these people that the party is over!  

GAL ABUSE HAPPENING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY! HERE IS A REPORT FROM ATLANTA!

No oversight!
Outrageous Fees!
Bullying and Threats!
Biased Decision Making!
Harm to Young Children!
Plus Judicial Indifference to these Crimes!

This and more in the following television news report in Atlanta:

To listen to the report on GAL abuse in Atlanta, please click on the link below:

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/22258017/investigation-exposes-little-oversight-of-child-advocates#.UZThjP6SMpU.wordpress

WHAT CAN GAL'S DO?

I can recall speaking to the GAL in my case early in my custody matter in family court.  My ex had done some really damaging things to the kids and I called the GAL to see if she would do something about it. 

 

When I got her on the phone, she pretty much told me there was nothing she could do and that it was up to the attorneys in the case to take active steps on behalf of the children.  I'm like what the heck use are you if you can't even defend my kids and you are the GAL? 

 

Since then I have wondered about what she said.  Was she actually telling the truth? 

 

If you view her role as primarily investigatory, rather than one of advocacy, then it does make some sense.   

 

In looking through my case file I can see that for the better part of the first year in action, my GAL hadn't even filed an appearance with the court.  When she finally did submit her appearance it was in order to file a Motion For Order demanding that I open up to her the results of a psychological test that I took where I had apparently forgotten to sign a motion for release. 

 

That was pretty much the only motion she ever filed in what was a highly contentious divorce. 

 

I have heard of other GALs filing repeated Motions for Contempt in regard to unpaid attorney's fees, i.e. their attorney's fees.  One friend of mine told me that was improper and that the only motion a GAL is supposed to be able to file is a Motion For Advice. 

 

The bottom line, still, is that GALs are not supposed to be engaged in major involvement with the court system.  They are supposed to leave that to the attorneys for the parties in the case. 

 

However, currently there is one way that GALs can get the attention of the judge in a matter--they can submit a request for a status conference by filing Form JD-FM-219.  The link for this particular form is on the Connecticut Judicial Website at the following location:

 

http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/fm219.pdf 

 

This form pretty much gives a GAL a broad and expansive range of options for requesting a judges' attention, as long as they bring it up within the context of a Status Conference. 

 

The form the GAL uses to obtain a Status Conference includes a section entitled "not urgent but requiring the Court's attention".  In this section a GAL can check off a request to have an attorney assigned to represent her should the case go to appeal.  She can also check off a box indicating that the matter to be adjudicated is a question of outstanding attorney's fees.

 

Another section addresses other matters a GAL can check off which are a matter of urgency--one regarding a situation which is an emergency in regard to the children and another to alert the court that one of the parties is not in compliance with orders regarding the children.  These latter concerns are worded so broadly that each could encompass pretty much anything. 

 

For example, I love the word "emergency"!  What does emergency mean in the eyes of a GAL or the trial court in a family matter?  It is my guess that the loose and shoddy definition of what the term "emergency" means will cause havoc for years to come in family court.

 

Why?  Because pretty much I would say anything meets the definition of emergency.  In family court, the favored party can cry "Wolf!" all they want and get away with murder.  

 

You'd think an emergency would be life threatening, like being dangled off a bridge by the hand, or being exposed to a drug orgy or a drive by shooting. 

 

But "no" according the family court some of the most insignificant matters are considered worth depriving the other party of access to his or her children.  Things like, mother made an off color remark about father in the presence of the children, or father expressed worry about his job--stuff like that is apparently worthy of a status conference, or an ex parte motion for sole custody. 

 

Meanwhile, the actual abuse of the favored party in denying a parent access to his or her child, or real abuse such as neglect or physical violence, who cares about that--right! 

 

Watch out for the fact that when GAL's call for a Status Conference they are likely to do so with little or absolutely no advanced notice to the less favored side.  Of course, doing so is a complete violation of a litigant's right to have reasonable notice of any court action and of any charges against him or her. 

 

But unfortunately, GALs can evade such protections of litigant rights by saying the subject matter was an emergency regarding the children and required immediate action.  For many judges that excuses all sorts of wrongdoing and misrepresentations which result in the denial of the children's actual right to access to their parents. 


Related Article:

http://www.divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/02/guardian-ad-litem.html