Lawyers, Divorce Industry Like Mike - Should You?

Several years ago I went through a divorce which involved a Guardian ad litem (GAL). At the time I believed in the court system and had not reason to mistrust a GAL. As the divorce went from weeks to months it became apparent that this "officer of the court" was nothing more than an unmonitored GOD allowed to do an say and do anything they wanted. The very idea of a GAL in itself violates the rights that we have as citizens. Aside from the Guardian ad litem the whole process in Family Court has been and continues to be very revealing. It is a corrupt system that is in a slow state of decay.

Why is this important to you - A Republican, Independent or Democrat?

Three years ago I started to become politically active - being motivated by the corruption and decay I was seeing with Guardians ad litem and our Family Courts. There were few politicians that would give me the time of day - most brushing me aside as being sour grapes because of a divorce gone wrong.

Slowly though that has changed. In three years a grass roots group of like minded people have come together and managed to have legislation enacted (LD 872) which was signed by Gov. Paul LePage (July 2013). Since then there has been numerous pieces of correspondence with him regarding the issues in Family Court. This from myself and the many others who have been abused by the system. It has taken years to educate Gov. Paul LePage but he gets it and as a result the governor is clearly a Politician Putting Kids First.

The Governor has earned the wrath of many over the years. In the past few months he has been in the sights of the Judicial Branch (which has silently endorsed Mike Michaud), lawyers (with Mike Asen publicly stating that he and other lawyers do not want another 4 years of LePage), Guardians ad litem (which like the Judicial Branch has silently been endorsing Mike Michaud) and many who make their living off of divorcing families (the Divorce Industry) going through the Family Court system.

As a parent who has gone through or is going through a divorce and is considering a vote for Mike Michaud because of the values he may bring to the table, or the fact that he may be more polished than our current governor. I would ask this of you:

Why is it that the Judicial Branch, Family Court lawyers, GALs and the Divorce Industry like Mike so much? Why is it that they are raising money for Mike as if it were going out of style? Do you think they have your interest at heart?



If Mike is elected will he listen to your voice as a concerned parent or the voice of the Divorce Industry which has supported him financially?

We are asking you with this election to vote for anyone other than Mike Michaud. A vote for Mike in our eyes is a vote for the Divorce Industry and the status quo.

Some of the lawyers who like Mike:

Michael Asen Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped fundraise for Mike on several occasions - 07/25/2014; 08/11/2014; 08/14/2014;

Michael Asen Esq has also been quoted by the Portland Press Herald as saying “My highest priority is making sure we don’t have another four years of this governor.” in an August 12, 2014 posting and referring to Gov. Paul LePage. Remember Gov. Paul LePage signed the Dutremble bill LD 872 "An Act To Improve the Quality of Guardian ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine" which the Judicial Branch hated as did lawyers and Guardians ad litem. Michael Asen Esq is also the chair of fund raising for Maine lawyers who like "Mike".

Diane Dusini Esq (MittelAsen) - has helped raise money for Mike on at least one occasion - 08/11/2014. It should be noted that is also the President of the Maine Bar.

Stephanie Cotsirilos - former Wall Street Lawyer - has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Robert Gips Esq (DrummondWoodsun) has helped raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Neil Jamieson Esq (Prescott Jamieson Nelson & Murphy) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 07/21/2014; 08/11/2014.

Brett D. Baber Esq (Lanham Blackwell & Baber) has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Janis B. Cohen Esq. has helped to raise money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Elizabeth Scheffee Esq. (Givertz Scheffee & Lavoie, PA) has helped raised money for Mike Michaud - 08/11/2014.

Richard S. Berne Esq. (Law Office of Richard Berne) - is helping Mike Michaud with campaign contributions - 08/11/2014.

Add to this list the fact that Senate President Justin Alfond has reportedly told Senators in his caucus - enough with GAL and Family Court reform……….

Putting Children First - An Audit of 'Pro se' Representation in Maine Family Courts

Wikipedia defines an audit as: "A planned and documented activity performed by qualified personnel to determine by investigation, examination or evaluation of objective evidence  the adequacy and compliance with established procedures or applicable documents and the effectiveness of implementation.

A performance audit is increasingly used in government agencies as an examination of success in satisfying mission objectives.

Auditing is defined as a systematic and independent examination of data, statements, records and operations and performances of an enterprise for a stated purpose.

The purpose is then to give an opinion on the adequacy of controls and to improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes."

This is the working definition we use when we consider asking for an audit of ‘pro se’ issues in family courts.  Is the growth of ‘pro se’ representation impacting the “normal” functioning of family courts?  If so, how, and what are the qualitative implications?

'PRO SE' IN MAINE COURTS WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED:  'Pro se' representation in Maine courts is a problem of amateur, ”do-it-yourself “ players trying to navigate the arcane complexities and traditions of family law in family courts.  It is an incredible challenge to amateurs that is repeatedly and despairingly acknowledged by self representing users of family courts and by sympathetic members of the Judiciary.  It is also acknowledged, as a problem by the Maine Bar, which - in spite of its good faith efforts to find answers to the 'pro se' problem - sees the problem escape those efforts and grow numerically ever larger.

'PRO SE' NUMBERS:  Most people don't know the actual size, the statistics, of the 'pro se' problem in Maine Family Courts and are shocked when the hear the statistics.  74% is the number recently reported (personal communication) by Chief Justice Leigh Saufley.  Justice Andrew Mead in an "op ed" essay in the Portland Press Herald reported 3/4 'pro se' representation in family courts (or 75%).  But we won't quibble over 1%!!   It is a big problem.  ‘Pro se” users are the majority “parties” in family courts- a big majority!

And ... this 74% percentage isn't static.  It keeps on growing despite efforts by the Bar and the Judicial Branch to reduce the numbers - to reduce its prevalence.  From the absence of  successful “solutions” and the failure to reduce the numbers, one has to infer that there is a problem in diagnosing the "disease" - and its dynamics -  or that the corrective "medicine" isn't strong enough or isn't working fast enough.  Because the numbers keep growing there is an need for an opinion outside of the Judicial Branch about the nature and scope of the problems and for proposals to correct them.  We feel that OPEGA qualifies, given their experience in conducting audits and given their enviable reputation for fairness and objectivity.

NATIONAL 'PRO SE' PERSPECTIVE: The 'pro se' problem is by no means just a Maine problem.  The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) reports that growing ‘pro se’ representation is a growing problem for every state.  Connecticut and New York are said to have 82 and 83% 'pro se', respectively.  Some of the problem seems related to national "macro economics" and the economic problems of the last several years.  Some of it is related to the escalating costs of private  legal services, which quickly become a financial deterrent to middle class family court users. But we have to ask, regardless of abstract economic speculation, do we really want to end up competing with Connecticut and New York for bigger ‘pro se’ numbers? What are we waiting for?

Like it or not, the 74%  'pro se'  problem proclaims a 'de facto', two tier user (and social class) system in our courts - the wealthy 25% have lawyers, and the middle class 75% “do-it-yourself”.  The questions for the public are: (a) what are the root causes of  this social discrimination, can causes be addressed and (b) should we just let the problem continue (and grow) uncorrected?

THE HUMAN PROBLEMS behind the 'pro se' number: are public users, judges, lawyers and others. Any audit needs to consider who uses family courts 'pro se' and otherwise. What are the demographics? What are other differentiating features? How do 'pro se' users feel about their legal adequacy in court? What "tools" do they use in representing themselves? What is their experience of judges?  What outcomes differentiate those with lawyers form those with none. Is there a differential with regard to Guardian ad litem experiences?

Likewise there is a need to evaluate how judges perceive the 'pro se' issue.  What are the professional challenges for judges dealing with 'pro se'?  What solutions do they improvise to address the problems?  What suggestions or recommendations do they have for improvement?  What "tools" does the Judicial Branch already provide those doing self representation?  How useful/adequate are these?

We have heard many lawyers claim that they see no problem with the current operation of the family court system.  On a personal/professional level this is certainly understandable, because in cases where they oppose a 'pro se' "lawyer", they have an extreme professional advantage in their own favor. It must be like "taking candy from a baby"! There may be other advantages too in this sort of uneven "legal combat", but an audit would look at all of the dynamics and, one hopes, challenge complacency.

THE DEMOCRACY "PROBLEM":  Clearly a two class court system in which those with money for a lawyers are favored and those without a lawyer to represent them are disfavored poses a huge challenge to a democratic society. It is an enormous embarrassment to all of us to ignore the inequality. It is an important issue that needs thoughtful evaluation to diagnose the nature of the problem and to recommend intelligent proposals for correction that will be democratic and constitutional.

AN OPEGA PERFORMANCE AUDIT, we feel strongly,  is the way to go for Maine’s children and families, who are forced to represent themselves in family courts!  We ask the Legislature, the Judicial Branch and the Governor, along with the “grassroots” to support legislation to begin problem analysis and problem solving of the ‘pro se’ issue.


.
.
Supporting candidates that are Putting Children First during this election cycle. Candidates that are willing to support an audit of the Family Court system in Maine. For more information please contact us at Republicanofme@gmail.com

Judges in Maine are making Medical decisions

We are told that Judge Andre Janelle ordered a party into therapy, and on the first visit with the therapist, the client/ patient was asked what was the reason for seeking therapy.

The client reported saying that he/ she "was upset and disappointed with society". The therapist indicated that would not do, as it had to be a technical reason – such as depression or the sessions would not be paid for. The client stated that he/ she was glad to be divorcing, and not depressed, but the therapist continued to press the “depression” issue. The therapist had a struggle in trying to come up with a diagnostic category for this court ordered therapy. Finally the client told the therapist to put down whatever he/ she wanted. The client was never interviewed or counseled by the therapist for this diagnosis. There was no reason for the therapy other than Judge Janelle ordered it to be done. There was no depression experienced by the client/ patient. The “reason” was being fabricated for billing and court purposes, so a state (taxpayer - funded) agency would pay. It would also label the patient for the record as being depressed and this could be used in future court appearances against the patient/ client.

When Judge Andre Janelle forced this parent into “junk therapy” based on a Guardian ad litem “junk science” recommendation did he consider any of the following questions before forcing therapy:

1. Is the therapy really necessary?
2. Is there an accepted diagnosis of a problem for which therapy is indicated?
3. Is the treatment a valid, recognized form of treatment?
4. Is it approved of by professional societies?
5. In the end is it really effective therapy?
6. What us the aim of the Judge's prescription and can it be defined?
7. Will this therapy work on someone without a diagnosis?
8. Does this forced therapy have the potential of causing harm?
9. Is the treatment ethical? Or does it force treatment that humiliates with no definable therapeutic purpose?

Judge Andre Janelle probably also didn't consider some other very real issues like: Human Rights violations – where courts and their officers who are unqualified (both in training or background in diagnosis, counseling and or therapy) are forcing innocent people into unnecessary sessions. These therapies such as recommended by Judge Janelle appear to be methods of control and punishment and not of treating an actual problem. In this case as in many the judge forced the release of therapy records by the party. What ever good that may have come from the “therapy” was dissolved from that point on. The trust necessary for any form of therapy – which is founded on near absolute confidentiality – was broken with that request. Confidences are ended. No privacy = no therapy. Forcing the release of information to be shared with the opposing lawyers and their clients – can be damaging in unforeseen ways to not only the client but also those innocently mentioned in therapy. Will Judge Andre Janelle or the Guardian ad litem be held libel for possible damages? Will the lawyers, therapist or 3^rd party payers be held accountable? In the examples provided above – probably not as they either have immunity or deep pockets. It will come down to the person with the most to loose that will risk the cost of liability. This poses some interesting legal questions and issues.

The question that should be asked is why insurance companies and government health agencies – who are paying for this – are accepting this sham of forced therapy being prescribed by the likes of Judge Janelle? Do they realize what they are paying for? These Judicial/ Guardian ad litem prescriptions are frequently 'pro forma', and executed with little thought and no diagnosis but as a means of “Judicial Outsourcing” - about saving time for the judge in court that effecting any helping change in patients/ clients.

All third party payers - government (tax payer funded) or private - should have an interest in this set of issues; especially, if they are made aware of it. The money spent by these organizations is being wasted because of a Judicial recommendation that often has little or no bearing on a court case. Or is abused as a means of controlling a situation. The professional organizations, like the American Psychiatric Association have long had an interest, and have written volumes on the issues of confidentiality, informed consent, human rights - and the plethora of legal and ethical issues associated with these questions.

If you are or have been in a situation where the Guardian ad litem or the courts have ordered court sanctioned therapy please contact MeGALalert@gmail.com or like them on Facebook for up to date information on reform within the Judicial system and how you can help bring about change.

Does District 94 candidate Terry Hayes have your interest at hand - or her own?

With this election it may be time for District Candidate 94 Terry Hayes to retire. It would appear that Terry has lost sight of who she works for – you and I. Instead as we have been finding out Terry Hayes has been working to promote the interest of her business and profession – that of Guardian ad litem.

For the past year there has been growing controversy over the management and oversight of Guardians ad litem. There have been two reports one in 2006 and the other this year that draws attention to this fact. Terry Hayes feels otherwise. Why shouldn't she – she has a business that caters to Guardians ad litem, she is a member of the Guardian ad litem Institute (a trade organization that promotes the interest of Guardians ad litem – which is often contrary to the child’s best interest) and in her position as the minority whip leader Terry has used her position to get any and all correspondence relating to Guardians ad litem.

Is this what Augusta needs? A candidate that shamelessly promotes her interest over those of her constituency. District 94 deserves to represented by someone who will look out for their interest. Tim Turner offers a fresh perspective for District 94 as a man with integrity and honor. Vote Terry Hayes out in District 94 this election cycle.