A Catastrophe in Foster Care
Posted: 10 Jan 2010 09:07 PM PST
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
July 18, 1995
FOSTER CARE IS MEANT to be a safe haven for the saddest kids in America -- those who have been abandoned, hurt, or neglected by their parents. But it slowly seems to be turning into a system where children who were treated badly are sent to be treated badly again.
In March, 2-year-old Corese Goldman of Chicago died of drowning and blunt injuries at the hands of his foster mother. She is accused of killing Corese by forcing his head under water as a way to toilet-train him.
Luis Perez, 13 months, died on July 8 in Springfield, Mass., after being scalded in a bathtub. He had been one of five foster children -- four of them no older than 3 -- placed in the care of a single woman. In Boston not long before, 24-year-old Raul Vasquez, an unemployed single man, was arrested for raping one of two dozen boys the commonwealth had put in his custody.
Maryland officials put Laura Clem and her two brothers in foster care after their alcoholic mother was killed. For two years, the children were repeatedly molested in their foster home. Examined at age 3 1/2, Laura didn't know her own name, and bruises mantled her body.
Since 1993, an Arizona child has died in foster care, on average, once every 7 1/2 weeks. According to The Arizona Republic, at least four children have been "viciously beaten to death" by their foster parents.
Such horror stories, thank God, are not the norm. There are many wonderful people in the foster-care system, caseworkers and substitute parents who give of themselves generously. No one suggests that most children in foster care are as bad off as they would be had they been left in their original, dysfunctional households.
But in far too many cases they are no better off. And without exception they are worse off than they would be if a pair of devoted parents were allowed to adopt them.
In recent years, the number of American children in substitute care has exploded. Today it stands at close to 500,000. Every year more kids enter foster care than leave it. Way more: The population of children who are wards of the state is growing 33 times faster than the population of children overall.
At this moment, 50,000 foster children are free to be adopted. Their birth parents' legal rights have been severed. Nothing stands between them and the tens of thousands of potential adoptive parents who could give them permanent, stable homes -- except the government.
But the government has far less interest in getting these kids adopted than the kids do. For the state it is literally more rewarding to prolong foster care -- even bad foster care -- than to promote adoption.
In the new issue of Policy Review, Conna Craig of the Institute for Children dissects the awful cruelty of the foster care "leviathan." A former foster child who calls herself "one of the lucky ones" -- she was adopted by loving foster parents -- Craig is at pains to dispel the notion that what child welfare agencies mostly need is more money.
"America already is spending $10 billion a year on foster care and adoption services through public agencies," she writes. "The problem with foster care is not the level of government spending, it is the structure of that spending. The funding system gives child welfare bureaucracies incentives to keep even free-to-be-adopted kids in state care. State . . . agencies are neither rewarded for helping children find adoptive homes nor penalized for failing to do so."
Cockeyed incentives permeate the system. Foster parents are paid hundreds of dollars per month per child, with the amount rising as each child gets older. The longer kids remain unadopted, the more lucrative they become. "The money is tax free," notes Craig. "It doesn't take much imagination to see that paying people to parent can lead to mischief. . . . For too many foster parents, the children in their homes are reduced to mere income streams."
States typically claim that "special needs" render children unadoptable. To Craig this is the ultimate heresy. Every child is adoptable, she says. Sick children. Minority children. Older children. It is a myth, she says, "that adoptive parents are interested only in 'healthy white babies'" -- look at the waiting lists of parents seeking black or Hispanic kids, or kids with Down syndrome or AIDS. But to the state, an unadopted "special needs" child is valuable: The designation triggers a federal subsidy.
Craig scorns the bureaucracy's bias against transracial adoption, which robs black children of adoring moms and dads. She reports that adults deemed unfit to adopt are often hired as foster parents. She details the "victim status" that allows abusive birth parents to assert their legal rights for years: While children bounce between foster homes, their birth parents "are given multiple chances to fail at parenting."
For generations, the adoption of unwanted or uncared-for children was a private endeavor, and on the whole it worked. Now the system is dominated by the state. As a result, kids by the tens of thousands languish in foster care, while parents by the tens of thousands yearn to adopt.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Monday, January 11, 2010
Federal appeals court judges question dismissal of R.I. child advocate’s lawsuit
Federal appeals court judges question dismissal of R.I. child advocate’s lawsuit
01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, January 6, 2010
By Katie Mulvaney
Journal Staff Writer
BOSTON — A federal appeals court panel that includes retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter appeared perplexed Tuesday by the dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families of widespread abuse and neglect of children in state foster care.
Rhode Island Child Advocate Jametta O. Alston and the New York-based advocacy group Children’s Rights asked the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Senior U.S. District Judge Ronald R. Lagueux’s dismissal of the lawsuit alleging the system was underfunded, understaffed and mismanaged, and that children were being molested, beaten and shuffled from home to home while in state foster care. They argued that Lagueux had used a law intended to guarantee children access to the federal courts instead to bar them from seeking justice.
The DCYF countered that Lagueux was correct in finding that the children’s interests were already being served in state Family Court, where guardians had been appointed to handle each child’s case.
“The District Court judge did find these … children have the ability to have their voices heard,” Asst. Attorney General Brenda D. Baum said.
But those arguments did not sit well with the appeals court judges. Lagueux’s ruling seemed to chronicle years of mistreatment of children in state care, only to reject the three “next friends” chosen to represent the children in bringing the lawsuit in U.S. District Court, noted Senior Judge Norman H. Stahl.
Didn’t Lagueux have the duty to then name appropriate people to take on the children’s federal case? Stahl asked. A minor may only bring suit when represented by a “next friend” or guardian appointed by the court. By dismissing the case, the judge is essentially saying “what is going on is good enough?” Stahl said.
Souter echoed that reasoning. “He’s throwing up his hands and throwing the case out,” said Souter, who returned to the appeals court for the first time since his retirement.
The record, Baum said, is thick with Family Court documents that show active engagement in the children’s cases. Souter replied that Family Court involvement is not in question. What is, he said, is whether “insufficient things are being done to protect children.”
Alston’s case may target the DCYF, Baum said, but Family Court is also involved in decision making. “It can’t be limited to them.”
The case, Souter said, boils down to whether the Family Court and the DCYF are doing the best they can. Alston is claiming, he said, that the next friends are needed because the system “does not provide minimum things that need to be provided.”
Susan Lambiase, associate director of Children’s Rights, argued that the Family Court guardians were not appropriate to represent the children in federal court because they were part of the system the suit seeks to overhaul.
She asked the appeals court to develop a test to gauge whether a next friend is qualified not on how close he or she is to the child, but on whether the person has a “good-faith interest in seeking justice” on a child’s behalf.
“[The next friends] are not ideologues,” Lambiase said. “They are here on behalf of the children.”
Alston and Children’s Rights filed the suit in 2007 on behalf of the 3,000 children in state custody following the death of T.J. Wright, a Woonsocket toddler beaten to death by his aunt and her boyfriend while in DCYF care. The suit initially named 10 children as plaintiffs and sought class-action status, saying their civil rights were being violated.
Alston appointed “next friends” to represent the children, including one child’s former foster mother, another’s past school psychologist and a Brown University professor who specializes in child maltreatment.
Lagueux dismissed the suit, saying Alston had no authority to proceed because the children were already under state Family Court jurisdiction. The three “next friends,” he said, had limited or nonexistent relationships with the children.
Alston wept after Tuesday’s arguments. “This is the first time I’ve heard judges understand the plight of children in their care,” she said. “It’s the first time I’ve seen how facts and justice can blend.”
Jim Lee, chief of the attorney general’s civil division, was more circumspect. “I think they see it as a serious case, and they’re going to give it serious consideration.” He was accompanied by Kevin Aucoin, chief counsel of the DCYF.
kmulvane@projo.com
http://www.projo.com/news/content/ADVOCATE_APPEAL_01-06-10_S7H0RRK_v8.3a64771.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, January 6, 2010
By Katie Mulvaney
Journal Staff Writer
BOSTON — A federal appeals court panel that includes retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter appeared perplexed Tuesday by the dismissal of a lawsuit that accuses the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families of widespread abuse and neglect of children in state foster care.
Rhode Island Child Advocate Jametta O. Alston and the New York-based advocacy group Children’s Rights asked the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Senior U.S. District Judge Ronald R. Lagueux’s dismissal of the lawsuit alleging the system was underfunded, understaffed and mismanaged, and that children were being molested, beaten and shuffled from home to home while in state foster care. They argued that Lagueux had used a law intended to guarantee children access to the federal courts instead to bar them from seeking justice.
The DCYF countered that Lagueux was correct in finding that the children’s interests were already being served in state Family Court, where guardians had been appointed to handle each child’s case.
“The District Court judge did find these … children have the ability to have their voices heard,” Asst. Attorney General Brenda D. Baum said.
But those arguments did not sit well with the appeals court judges. Lagueux’s ruling seemed to chronicle years of mistreatment of children in state care, only to reject the three “next friends” chosen to represent the children in bringing the lawsuit in U.S. District Court, noted Senior Judge Norman H. Stahl.
Didn’t Lagueux have the duty to then name appropriate people to take on the children’s federal case? Stahl asked. A minor may only bring suit when represented by a “next friend” or guardian appointed by the court. By dismissing the case, the judge is essentially saying “what is going on is good enough?” Stahl said.
Souter echoed that reasoning. “He’s throwing up his hands and throwing the case out,” said Souter, who returned to the appeals court for the first time since his retirement.
The record, Baum said, is thick with Family Court documents that show active engagement in the children’s cases. Souter replied that Family Court involvement is not in question. What is, he said, is whether “insufficient things are being done to protect children.”
Alston’s case may target the DCYF, Baum said, but Family Court is also involved in decision making. “It can’t be limited to them.”
The case, Souter said, boils down to whether the Family Court and the DCYF are doing the best they can. Alston is claiming, he said, that the next friends are needed because the system “does not provide minimum things that need to be provided.”
Susan Lambiase, associate director of Children’s Rights, argued that the Family Court guardians were not appropriate to represent the children in federal court because they were part of the system the suit seeks to overhaul.
She asked the appeals court to develop a test to gauge whether a next friend is qualified not on how close he or she is to the child, but on whether the person has a “good-faith interest in seeking justice” on a child’s behalf.
“[The next friends] are not ideologues,” Lambiase said. “They are here on behalf of the children.”
Alston and Children’s Rights filed the suit in 2007 on behalf of the 3,000 children in state custody following the death of T.J. Wright, a Woonsocket toddler beaten to death by his aunt and her boyfriend while in DCYF care. The suit initially named 10 children as plaintiffs and sought class-action status, saying their civil rights were being violated.
Alston appointed “next friends” to represent the children, including one child’s former foster mother, another’s past school psychologist and a Brown University professor who specializes in child maltreatment.
Lagueux dismissed the suit, saying Alston had no authority to proceed because the children were already under state Family Court jurisdiction. The three “next friends,” he said, had limited or nonexistent relationships with the children.
Alston wept after Tuesday’s arguments. “This is the first time I’ve heard judges understand the plight of children in their care,” she said. “It’s the first time I’ve seen how facts and justice can blend.”
Jim Lee, chief of the attorney general’s civil division, was more circumspect. “I think they see it as a serious case, and they’re going to give it serious consideration.” He was accompanied by Kevin Aucoin, chief counsel of the DCYF.
kmulvane@projo.com
http://www.projo.com/news/content/ADVOCATE_APPEAL_01-06-10_S7H0RRK_v8.3a64771.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPS and False Reports of Abuse
Child Abuse Site
Kelli Deister
Bella Online's Child Abuse Editor
CPS and False Reports of Abuse
We live in a time when there are some people that abuse the system that is in place to help children that are being abused. Child Protective Services is an agency that is in place in every State across the United States. The name of the agency may not be Child Protective Services. It may be under another name. In order to find the agency in your State, you must look in your local telephone book. If you look under the Department of Social Services, you will find the agency that takes reports of suspected child abuse. For example, one State's agency is titled, Department of Children & Family Services. Apparently, the agency title was changed to bring the focus more on the family instead of just the child.
Child Protective Services (CPS) has been established so that people that have witnessed the abuse of a child, or suspect that abuse is occuring, can call them and report the abuse. A person can call CPS anonymously and leave information, such as the child's name, the parent's names, and the address of the family, if known. The person from CPS that is taking the call will also ask the caller the reason for their call. They will want to know if abuse has been witnessed, as well as why abuse is suspected. Once the call has been made to CPS, an individual from CPS will then be sent to the family's home to investigate the claim of abuse.
It is important to note that there are indeed people that call and report abuse, when no abuse is actually happening. A person may have a personal problem with another individual and simply call and make a false claim of abuse, in order to put the family through the investigative process. Some people get into an argument with a friend or loved one and make the call merely out of spite or anger. This is just wrong! It is also abuse of the system that is in place to help children.
CPS resources are to be taken very seriously! If no abuse is occuring, there should be no call placed to CPS. It is not just the money spent to investigate the false claims of abuse that is so wrong. It is the fact that the family unit is put through a very emotional time once the investigative process begins. Sometimes the children are removed from the home when a person says they suspect abuse, until it has been determined that no abuse is actually happening in the home. This is terribly wrong.
It not only messes with the routine that the child has at home, it also puts undue stress upon the family unit, especially the parents. Parents and children are seperated, which is very difficult for all involved. Parents are also then forced to prove that there is no abuse occuring within their home. I personally know of one family that is currently going through this difficult process. Their child has a medical condition and truly needs to be back home with his family. Having to learn of this situation has been very difficult for me because I believe the claims of abuse are false.
I believe very strongly that if the person making the false claim should become known to CPS, they should be punished for their actions. A person that calls 911 and either makes a prank call or a false report is punished upon doing so. This is because their call could have possibly prevented someone really in need of assistance from getting through to the proper authorities. When a CPS worker must go and investigate a false claim of child abuse, it uses funds that could have been put towards helping a child that is truly in danger.
If a call has been made regarding your children, you have every right to inform CPS of those people that you believe might have made the call. This will enable the person from CPS to investigate that person as well and could very well clear your family from claims of suspected abuse.
The services of Child Protective Services must be taken seriously. They are in place to help children that are truly being abused. (Too bad this isn't true. They are there to protect children, but don't. They are only thinking of the money to be made off of unabused children whose parents are falsely accused!)
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art65216.asp
Kelli Deister
Bella Online's Child Abuse Editor
CPS and False Reports of Abuse
We live in a time when there are some people that abuse the system that is in place to help children that are being abused. Child Protective Services is an agency that is in place in every State across the United States. The name of the agency may not be Child Protective Services. It may be under another name. In order to find the agency in your State, you must look in your local telephone book. If you look under the Department of Social Services, you will find the agency that takes reports of suspected child abuse. For example, one State's agency is titled, Department of Children & Family Services. Apparently, the agency title was changed to bring the focus more on the family instead of just the child.
Child Protective Services (CPS) has been established so that people that have witnessed the abuse of a child, or suspect that abuse is occuring, can call them and report the abuse. A person can call CPS anonymously and leave information, such as the child's name, the parent's names, and the address of the family, if known. The person from CPS that is taking the call will also ask the caller the reason for their call. They will want to know if abuse has been witnessed, as well as why abuse is suspected. Once the call has been made to CPS, an individual from CPS will then be sent to the family's home to investigate the claim of abuse.
It is important to note that there are indeed people that call and report abuse, when no abuse is actually happening. A person may have a personal problem with another individual and simply call and make a false claim of abuse, in order to put the family through the investigative process. Some people get into an argument with a friend or loved one and make the call merely out of spite or anger. This is just wrong! It is also abuse of the system that is in place to help children.
CPS resources are to be taken very seriously! If no abuse is occuring, there should be no call placed to CPS. It is not just the money spent to investigate the false claims of abuse that is so wrong. It is the fact that the family unit is put through a very emotional time once the investigative process begins. Sometimes the children are removed from the home when a person says they suspect abuse, until it has been determined that no abuse is actually happening in the home. This is terribly wrong.
It not only messes with the routine that the child has at home, it also puts undue stress upon the family unit, especially the parents. Parents and children are seperated, which is very difficult for all involved. Parents are also then forced to prove that there is no abuse occuring within their home. I personally know of one family that is currently going through this difficult process. Their child has a medical condition and truly needs to be back home with his family. Having to learn of this situation has been very difficult for me because I believe the claims of abuse are false.
I believe very strongly that if the person making the false claim should become known to CPS, they should be punished for their actions. A person that calls 911 and either makes a prank call or a false report is punished upon doing so. This is because their call could have possibly prevented someone really in need of assistance from getting through to the proper authorities. When a CPS worker must go and investigate a false claim of child abuse, it uses funds that could have been put towards helping a child that is truly in danger.
If a call has been made regarding your children, you have every right to inform CPS of those people that you believe might have made the call. This will enable the person from CPS to investigate that person as well and could very well clear your family from claims of suspected abuse.
The services of Child Protective Services must be taken seriously. They are in place to help children that are truly being abused. (Too bad this isn't true. They are there to protect children, but don't. They are only thinking of the money to be made off of unabused children whose parents are falsely accused!)
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art65216.asp
The Truth About the Family Court
COURT-APPOINTED PARENTING EVALUATORS AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM: PRACTICAL REALITIES AND AN ARGUMENT FOR ABOLITION
Download entire article: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/index.html
COURT-APPOINTED PARENTING EVALUATORS AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM:
PRACTICAL REALITIES AND AN ARGUMENT FOR ABOLITION
© 2006 by Margaret K. Dore, Esq. 1
Seattle, Washington
A. Introduction
This article describes the practical realities of child custody recommendations by court-appointed parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem. It argues that given these realities, the role of such persons should be abolished from child custody practice. Only with this course will the problems with their use be eliminated. Children will be better protected by the courts.
B. The Evaluation Process
Parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem
investigate custody arrangements and report back to
the court with their recommendations.2 In some
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
Third Party Custody and Visitation: Illinois Comes to Terms with Troxel v. Granville
by David M. Cotter . . . .. Page 61
states, the guardian ad litem does not make a
"recommendation," but instead provides his position via a brief.3
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are also known as custody investigators, forensic experts and law guardians.4 Evaluators are usually psychologists or social workers; guardians ad litem are often lawyers. Sometimes guardians ad litem are lay persons, for example, with the CASA program.5 Many, if not most of these persons are hardworking and conscientious.
1. Appointment
It is not uncommon for an evaluator/guardian ad
litem to be appointed via nomination or suggestion.6
With this situation, attorneys can and do advocate
for the appointment of evaluators/guardians ad litem
whose views are compatible to their cases. For
example, if a father claims that the mother is
alienating him from the child, the father's attorney
might suggest evaluators known to find alienation
determinative.
©COPYRIGHT 2006 BY THE NATIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH GROUP, INC., A RESEARCH GROUP COMPANY
DIVORCE LITIGATION
with the parents and the children.
In some courts, it is permissible for attorneys to
contact evaluators/guardians ad litem prior to appointment. Such contact can be ostensibly to verify availability. Its real purpose may be to "test the waters" regarding one's case. If the reaction is favorable, the attorney will move forward to
advocate appointment. If the reaction is
unfavorable, the attorney may look elsewhere.
Certain attorneys also tend to work with certain
evaluators/guardians ad litem. In other words, they
develop business relationships. With these
circumstances, the person appointed can be pre-
aligned to one side.
2. Investigation
Once appointment is made, the lobbying campaign continues. Each side provides the evaluator/guardian ad litem with information including multiple level hearsay.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem also typically meet
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may contact third
parties. They may also conduct or commission psychological (profile) testing for the parents or the children.7
3. Report
The results of the investigation, any
psychological testing and recommendations of the
evaluator/guardian ad litem are typically
summarized in a report filed with the court.8 In
these reports, the evaluator/guardian ad litem may
or may not rely on applicable law. This
phenomenon has been documented in at least one
reported decision. See Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d
239, 242 at fn. 2 (Vt. 1995) (describing survey
results).9
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may also rely on their own personal, social or cultural values. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D. states:
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Editor in Chief . Brett R. Turner, Esq.
Executive Editor . . . . Laura W. Morgan, Esq.
Assistant Editor .. David M. Cotter, Esq.
Circulation . Anne de Angelis
DIVORCE LITIGATION (ISSN 1050-141X) is published
monthly by National Legal Research Group, Inc., a Research
Group Company, 2421 Ivy Road, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906; (800) 727-6574. Send address
changes to DIVORCE LITIGATION, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906. Our e-mail address is
DivLit@nlrg.com; our website is http://www.nlrg.com.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative
information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with
the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or
other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent
person should be sought. From a Declaration of Principles jointly
adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a
Committee of Publishers.
Editorial Board
Paul J. Buser, Esq. ... Scottsdale, AZ
Albert L. Cohn, Esq. . . . Saddle Brook, NJ
Robert T. Hinds Jr., Esq. .. Littleton, CO
Albert M. Bonin, Esq. .. Denver, CO
Dr. Cheryl Karp . . . . Tucson, AZ
Leonard Karp, Esq. . . ... Tucson, AZ
Richard Orsinger, Esq. . . .. San Antonio, TX
James J. Podell, Esq. ... Milwaukee, WI
Peggy L. Podell, Esq. . . . Milwaukee, WI
Bernard Rinella, Esq. . . . Chicago, IL
Robert G. Spector, Esq. ... Norman, OK
Carolyn S. Thompson, Esq. . . ..Oklahoma City, OK
John A. Turcotte Jr., Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
Michael C. Walther, Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
54
DIVORCE LITIGATION
When an evaluator recommends [a child's
placement] we are learning not about the
relative capacities of the parties but, instead,
about the relative values of the evaluators.10
4. Trial
By the time of trial, the evaluator/guardian ad
litem is in the position of defending his report and
recommendations. In states where the guardian ad
litem files a brief, he is in the position of defending
the brief.
Factors encouraging this phenomenon include the need of the evaluator/guardian ad litem to maintain his reputation, to thereby gain more appointments.11 He may also be concerned that the judge will reduce his fees if his recommendation or brief does not prevail.12
At this point, the evaluator/guardian ad litem's recommendations can become more strongly stated, i.e., more "black and white". The recommended parent may thus be portrayed as more clearly "good" and the other as more clearly "bad." But the reality may be in the middle, i.e., that like all of us, neither parent is perfect.
At trial, the evaluator/guardian ad litem typically testifies about his report and recommendations. This testimony typically includes hearsay previously provided by the parties.13 Repeated yet again, its substance can become grossly distorted—like a story repeated multiple times as part of a children's "telephone game."14
Evaluator/guardian ad litem testimony can also
include opinions on credibility.15 The author has
seen as a basis for such opinions, a parent's
psychological profile, for example, that a parent has
an "elevated lie scale." The author has observed
such testimony to be extremely prejudicial.16
The above situation is quite different from the
admission of an investigator's testimony in other
contexts. For example, an investigator in a criminal
trial would not be allowed to testify as to his or her
recommendations regarding conviction, as to
hearsay, or as to his or her opinion on witness
credibility.17
C. Judicial Reliance on Evaluators/Guardians
Ad litem
Most judges perceive evaluators/guardians ad litem as neutral investigators or advisors.18 Evaluator-psychologists can be held in especially high esteem.
With this status, the reports and
recommendations of an evaluator/guardian ad litem
can become the factual and legal standard for trial.
The burden of the non-recommended party is thus
to disprove a factual and legal standard. The burden
of the recommended party is merely to provide
corroboration for the standard. In Gilbert, 664 A.2d
at 242, the Supreme Court of Vermont found such
burden-shifting so unfair as to require reversal.
A related problem is the legitimization of
improper evidence through the evaluator/guardian
ad litem. In one record reviewed by this author, the
evaluator testified that the mother's family was
"manipulative" and dishonest. On cross-
examination, the evaluator conceded that as a basis
for her opinion, she was relying on unsigned written
statements provided by the father. Had the father
sought to admit these statements through himself,
they would have been viewed as hearsay, lacking
authenticity and self-serving. But admitted as they
were through the evaluator, their thrust
(manipulative/dishonest) was instead perceived as
fact. Such "fact" was then incorporated into the
court's decision; the child was removed from the
mother's primary care.
55
DIVORCE LITIGATION
With the perceived neutrality of
evaluators/guardians ad litem, their positions are often determinative.19 But as described above, evaluators/guardians ad litem are not neutral. Once they make their recommendations, they are in the position of defending them; they have conflicts of interest including concerns about their future appointments and fees.
D. Reforms
The poor quality of custody evaluations has been reported in the literature.20 Proposed reforms have ranged from making changes designed to improve their quality, to their complete elimination.21
Perhaps the most common approach has been to establish evaluation standards. In Washington State, for example, there are now court rules that require guardians ad litem to maintain documentation that substantiates their
recommendations.22 Minimum standards have also been imposed through case law. See, e.g., Patel v. Patel, 555 S.E.2d 386, 390 (S.C. 2001).23
Another approach has been to redefine the role of
the guardian ad litem as a lawyer for the child.
With this approach, the guardian ad litem does not
make a recommendation, but instead provides his
position via a brief. As noted above, this approach
is already used in some states. It is also promoted
by the ABA's "Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases," which
call for the appointment of a "Best Interests
Attorney."24 The Best Interests Attorney does not
act as a witness or make reports and
recommendations.25 He files briefs and makes
arguments.26
In Wisconsin, guardians ad litem have this role.27
Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy Hollingsworth
report that these persons nonetheless function like
traditional guardians ad litem, i.e., they in effect
56
give reports and recommendations.28 A similar
phenomenon has been noted in New York. There is
a "recurring problem" that courts expect the
attorney for the child to give a recommendation.29
The concept of the Best Interests Attorney is, regardless, flawed. He represents the child's best interests, which is the ultimate issue before the court. There is the potential for the court to be usurped, or to at least not consider the evidence as carefully because he has already made the best interests determination.30
The conflicts of interest described above also continue to exist. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney has concerns about his future appointments and fees. Once he submits his brief, he is in the position of defending it. There are also problems with the evidence. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney relies on hearsay.31
E. Evaluators/Guardians ad Litem Should
be Eliminated from Child Custody
Proceedings
Another way to look at the use of
evaluators/guardians ad litem is that they act as a filter or prism between the court and the evidence.32 They are like "spin doctors." They tell the court what it sees, which can make a difference as to the court's perception.33 The court's normal decision-
making function is distorted so that children are harmed. Attorney Richard Ducote states:
[I]n domestic violence and abuse cases,
where courts are even more eager to
appoint GALS, children are frequently
ending up in the custody of the abusers
and separated from their protecting
parents. This tragedy does not happen
in spite of the GALS, but rather because
of the GALS.34
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform,
makes a similar point regarding the CASA program:
[W]e conclude that the only real
accomplishment of CASA is to
encourage the needless removal of
children from their homes.35
The distortion of the court's decision-making
ability cannot be rectified by reforms that leave the
filter of the evaluator/guardian ad litem in place.
The only reform that will eliminate the problem of
the filter is the elimination of the filter itself.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem must be eliminated
from child custody practice.
F. Conclusion
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are often hard working and conscientious. There are, however, fundamental problems with their role. They cause the court's normal decision-making function to be distorted. Wrong decisions are made.
Court-appointed evaluator and guardians ad litem must be eliminated from child custody practice—for the sake of the children.
Endnotes
1. Margaret Dore is an attorney in private practice
in Seattle, Washington. Her published decisions
include: In re Guardianship of Stamm, 91 P.3d 126,
133 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (reversing due to the
improper admission of guardian ad litem
testimony), and Lawrence v. Lawrence, 20 P.3d
972, 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (use of the
"friendly parent" concept in a child custody case
"would be an abuse of discretion"). Lawrence was
nationally recognized. See, e.g., Wendy N. Davis,
Family Values in Flux, 87 ABA Journal 26
(October 2001). Ms. Dore is a former law clerk to
the Washington State Supreme Court and the
Washington State Court of Appeals. She worked
for the United States Department of Justice. She is
Vice Chair of the Elder Law Committee of the ABA
Family Law Section. She was nominated for the
2005 Butch Blum/Law & Politics "Award of
Excellence." She is a graduate of the University of
Washington School of Law. She has an M.B.A. in
Finance and a B.A. in Accounting. She passed the
C.P.A. examination in 1982. Further information
about Ms. Dore and her practice can be viewed at
www.margaretdore.com.
This article is based on: Margaret K. Dore,
Parenting Evaluators and GALs: Practical Realities, King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, December 1999.
2. See, e.g., Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 ("In both
guardianship and custody cases, the role of the GAL is the same: to investigate and supply information and recommendations to the court . . .").
3. See Raven C. Lidman and Betsy R.
Hollingsworth, The Guardian ad Litem in Child
Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial
System Stretched Beyond Recognition, 6 Geo.
Mason L. Rev. 255, 271, and 277, fn. 106 (1998)
(describing the guardian ad litem's role in
Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot testify
themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
57
DIVORCE LITIGATION
4. See, e.g., Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at
255, fn. 2.
5. The Court Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA) was founded by a Seattle judge. See www.nationalcasa.org/htm/about.htm. There are more than 900 CASA programs in operation
throughout the country, which are also known as Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Programs. Id.
6. See, for example, Wash. Rev. Code 26.12.177(2)(a) (2005) ("The parties may make a joint recommendation for the appointment of a "guardian ad litem . . .").
7. Cf. Margaret A. Hagen, PhD, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Regan Books, Chapter 8 (1997); and Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, 857 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (fourteen psychological tests performed on parents, seven psychological tests performed on children).
8. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 278, ¶ 3.
9. A similar issue is reported in the Comments to the Washington State Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules, as follows:
Apparently GALs are not following statutory requirements, nor are the courts consistent in enforcing them.
GALR 2, Washington State Bar Association Comment, § (p).
10. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D., "The Medicalization of Judicial Decision-Making", The Elder L. Rep., Vol. X, No. 7, February 1999, p. 3, ¶1, last line.
11. Richard Ducote, Guardians ad Litem in Private Custody Litigation: The Case of Abolition," 3 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 106, 146 (2002):
58
One of the particularly stealthy problems of
GALs is the conflict of interest issue. This
most commonly occurs when a GAL fights to
keep a child in the custody of a parent
previously endorsed and exonerated by the
GAL, despite mounting proof that the parent
is indeed abusive and the GAL erred. . . . In
such instances, GALs have forcefully opposed
the introduction of new abuse evidence and
instead have increased the blame on the non-
abusive parent. . . [T]he GAL hopes to avoid
any judicial finding that suggests his or her incompetence and jeopardizes future lucrative GAL appointments.
12. Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy
Hollingsworth make a similar point. Lidman and
Hollingsworth, supra at 302, ¶ 2. See also,
Margaret A. Hagen, supra at 207-08.
13. Cf. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
14. Cf. Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d 239, 243 (Vt. 1995) (describing the guardian ad litem's facts as "double or triple hearsay when reported").
15. Id.
16. Cf. Marriage of Luckey, 868 P.2d 189, 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) ("the use of profile
testimony is unfairly prejudicial"). See also, State
v. Carlson, 906 P.2d 999, 1002-03 (Wash. Ct. App.
1995):
[No] witness may give an opinion on another witness' credibility. . . . An expert opinion [on
credibility] will not "assist the trier of fact" .
. . because there is no scientific basis for such
an opinion, save the polygraph, and the
polygraph is not generally accepted as a scientifically reliable technique. (footnotes
omitted).
17. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
DIVORCE LITIGATION
18. Cf. Stamm, 91 P.3d at 129, quoting Fernando
v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (the guardian ad litem acts as a "neutral advisor to the court").
19. See Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 297, 2d ¶ ("[m]ore often, . . . [t]he judge merely confirms the guardian ad litem's decision").
20. See, e.g., Dana Royce Baerger, et al. A
Methodology for Reviewing the Reliability and
Relevance of Child Custody Evaluations, 18 J. Am.
Acad. Matrim. Law., 35, p. 36 ("Concern regarding
the generally poor qualify of [child custody
evaluations] has prompted some commentators to
suggest an end to the use of [evaluations] in divorce
proceedings"); Timothy M. Tippins, Custody
Evaluations-Part I: Expertise by Default?, N.Y. L.
J., 7/15/03, p. 3, col. 1, Conclusion ("If the custody
recommendation is little more than a personal value,
judgment, intuition, or an educated guess, rather
than a conclusion compelled by reliable and valid
scientific research, it should not be received"); and
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 301 ("Soon
thereafter . . . [the parents] learn that this guardian
ad litem is a mere mortal getting information from
here and there, frequently not verifying anything .
. .").
21. See, e.g., Matrimonial Commission Report to
the Chief Judge of the State of New York, Hon.
Sondra Miller, Chairperson, February 2006,
(www.courts.state.ny.us/reports/matrimonialcom missionreport.pdf), p 46 ("Proposed reforms from many different sources have ranged from eliminating the use of forensics altogether to instituting changes that will insure the quality and proper use of the reports . . ."); and Ducote, supra at 115 ("Guardians ad litem must be abolished in private custody cases . . .").
22. The Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules
(GALR) were adopted by the Washington State
Supreme Court in 2001. See GALR § 2(p) and
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_
rules.list&group=sup&set=GALR.
23. See also, Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 (limiting the admissibility of guardian ad litem testimony to that which is helpful under ER 702); and Heistand v. Heistand, 673 N.W.2d 531, 311-12 (Neb. 2004) (reversing because the guardian ad litem had been allowed to testify as an expert).
24. The Best Interests Attorney" is defined as a
"lawyer who provides independent legal services
for the purpose of protecting a child's best interests,
without being bound by the child's directives or
objectives." American Bar Association Section of
Family Law Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases, p. 2, §
II.B. (Approved by the American Bar Association
House of Delegates, August 2003)
(http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/aba.standards.pdf#s
earch='ABA%20Standards%20of%20Practice%2
0for%20Lawyers%20Representing%20Children').
25. Id., p. 3, § III.B.
26. Id., p. 6, § III.G.
27. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271, and
277, fn. 106 (describing the guardian ad litem's role
in Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can
make arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
28. Lidman and Hollingsworth state:
The Wisconsin courts' opinions have an
exasperated tone as they repeatedly reiterate
that these guardians ad litem must perform
lawyer-like functions: they can examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual
material in reports. Trial courts, parents'
59
DIVORCE LITIGATION
attorneys, and guardian ad litem-lawyers have
been chastised for "lapses" such as:
permitting the guardian ad litem to file a
"report" twenty days after the close of trial; or
allowing the guardian ad litem to file a
preliminary report and make an oral report to
the court after closing arguments. But
Wisconsin appellate courts do not reverse for
these lapses. Instead the reviewing courts characterize preliminary reports as briefs and
oral reports as arguments. (Footnotes
omitted).
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271.
29. Matrimonial Commission Report, supra at 43.
30. Cf. C.W. v. K.A.W., 774 A.2d 745, 749 (Pa.
2001) (the trial court's reliance on the guardian ad
litem constituted "egregious examples of the trial
court delegating its judicial power to a non-judicial
officer"); and Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So. 2d 772,
777 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) ("The overarching
problem in this case is that the trial court effectively
60
delegated its judicial authority to the parenting
coordinator").
31. See e.g., ABA Standards of Practice, supra at § V.E.
32. Cf. Small Justice: Little Justice in America's
Family Courts, Education Supplement, p. 6,
Intermedia Inc., Seattle WA 2001 (describing
evaluators and guardians ad litem as a filter). See also http://www.intermedia-inc.com/title.asp?sku= SM03&subcatID=29.
33. Id.
34. Ducote, supra at 135-36 (footnote omitted).
35. National Coalition for Child Protection
Reform, press release, p. 1
(http://www.law.capital.edu/adoption/news_cases/ documents/NATIONAL_COALITION_response. pdf#search='Caliber%20%26%20Wexler%20%26 %20CASA%20%26%202122006'); see also
http://www.nccpr.org/.
Download entire article: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/index.html
COURT-APPOINTED PARENTING EVALUATORS AND GUARDIANS AD LITEM:
PRACTICAL REALITIES AND AN ARGUMENT FOR ABOLITION
© 2006 by Margaret K. Dore, Esq. 1
Seattle, Washington
A. Introduction
This article describes the practical realities of child custody recommendations by court-appointed parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem. It argues that given these realities, the role of such persons should be abolished from child custody practice. Only with this course will the problems with their use be eliminated. Children will be better protected by the courts.
B. The Evaluation Process
Parenting evaluators and guardians ad litem
investigate custody arrangements and report back to
the court with their recommendations.2 In some
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
Third Party Custody and Visitation: Illinois Comes to Terms with Troxel v. Granville
by David M. Cotter . . . .. Page 61
states, the guardian ad litem does not make a
"recommendation," but instead provides his position via a brief.3
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are also known as custody investigators, forensic experts and law guardians.4 Evaluators are usually psychologists or social workers; guardians ad litem are often lawyers. Sometimes guardians ad litem are lay persons, for example, with the CASA program.5 Many, if not most of these persons are hardworking and conscientious.
1. Appointment
It is not uncommon for an evaluator/guardian ad
litem to be appointed via nomination or suggestion.6
With this situation, attorneys can and do advocate
for the appointment of evaluators/guardians ad litem
whose views are compatible to their cases. For
example, if a father claims that the mother is
alienating him from the child, the father's attorney
might suggest evaluators known to find alienation
determinative.
©COPYRIGHT 2006 BY THE NATIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH GROUP, INC., A RESEARCH GROUP COMPANY
DIVORCE LITIGATION
with the parents and the children.
In some courts, it is permissible for attorneys to
contact evaluators/guardians ad litem prior to appointment. Such contact can be ostensibly to verify availability. Its real purpose may be to "test the waters" regarding one's case. If the reaction is favorable, the attorney will move forward to
advocate appointment. If the reaction is
unfavorable, the attorney may look elsewhere.
Certain attorneys also tend to work with certain
evaluators/guardians ad litem. In other words, they
develop business relationships. With these
circumstances, the person appointed can be pre-
aligned to one side.
2. Investigation
Once appointment is made, the lobbying campaign continues. Each side provides the evaluator/guardian ad litem with information including multiple level hearsay.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem also typically meet
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may contact third
parties. They may also conduct or commission psychological (profile) testing for the parents or the children.7
3. Report
The results of the investigation, any
psychological testing and recommendations of the
evaluator/guardian ad litem are typically
summarized in a report filed with the court.8 In
these reports, the evaluator/guardian ad litem may
or may not rely on applicable law. This
phenomenon has been documented in at least one
reported decision. See Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d
239, 242 at fn. 2 (Vt. 1995) (describing survey
results).9
Evaluators/guardians ad litem may also rely on their own personal, social or cultural values. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D. states:
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Editor in Chief . Brett R. Turner, Esq.
Executive Editor . . . . Laura W. Morgan, Esq.
Assistant Editor .. David M. Cotter, Esq.
Circulation . Anne de Angelis
DIVORCE LITIGATION (ISSN 1050-141X) is published
monthly by National Legal Research Group, Inc., a Research
Group Company, 2421 Ivy Road, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906; (800) 727-6574. Send address
changes to DIVORCE LITIGATION, Post Office Box 7187,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906. Our e-mail address is
DivLit@nlrg.com; our website is http://www.nlrg.com.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative
information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with
the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or
other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent
person should be sought. From a Declaration of Principles jointly
adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a
Committee of Publishers.
Editorial Board
Paul J. Buser, Esq. ... Scottsdale, AZ
Albert L. Cohn, Esq. . . . Saddle Brook, NJ
Robert T. Hinds Jr., Esq. .. Littleton, CO
Albert M. Bonin, Esq. .. Denver, CO
Dr. Cheryl Karp . . . . Tucson, AZ
Leonard Karp, Esq. . . ... Tucson, AZ
Richard Orsinger, Esq. . . .. San Antonio, TX
James J. Podell, Esq. ... Milwaukee, WI
Peggy L. Podell, Esq. . . . Milwaukee, WI
Bernard Rinella, Esq. . . . Chicago, IL
Robert G. Spector, Esq. ... Norman, OK
Carolyn S. Thompson, Esq. . . ..Oklahoma City, OK
John A. Turcotte Jr., Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
Michael C. Walther, Esq. . . .. St. Louis, MO
54
DIVORCE LITIGATION
When an evaluator recommends [a child's
placement] we are learning not about the
relative capacities of the parties but, instead,
about the relative values of the evaluators.10
4. Trial
By the time of trial, the evaluator/guardian ad
litem is in the position of defending his report and
recommendations. In states where the guardian ad
litem files a brief, he is in the position of defending
the brief.
Factors encouraging this phenomenon include the need of the evaluator/guardian ad litem to maintain his reputation, to thereby gain more appointments.11 He may also be concerned that the judge will reduce his fees if his recommendation or brief does not prevail.12
At this point, the evaluator/guardian ad litem's recommendations can become more strongly stated, i.e., more "black and white". The recommended parent may thus be portrayed as more clearly "good" and the other as more clearly "bad." But the reality may be in the middle, i.e., that like all of us, neither parent is perfect.
At trial, the evaluator/guardian ad litem typically testifies about his report and recommendations. This testimony typically includes hearsay previously provided by the parties.13 Repeated yet again, its substance can become grossly distorted—like a story repeated multiple times as part of a children's "telephone game."14
Evaluator/guardian ad litem testimony can also
include opinions on credibility.15 The author has
seen as a basis for such opinions, a parent's
psychological profile, for example, that a parent has
an "elevated lie scale." The author has observed
such testimony to be extremely prejudicial.16
The above situation is quite different from the
admission of an investigator's testimony in other
contexts. For example, an investigator in a criminal
trial would not be allowed to testify as to his or her
recommendations regarding conviction, as to
hearsay, or as to his or her opinion on witness
credibility.17
C. Judicial Reliance on Evaluators/Guardians
Ad litem
Most judges perceive evaluators/guardians ad litem as neutral investigators or advisors.18 Evaluator-psychologists can be held in especially high esteem.
With this status, the reports and
recommendations of an evaluator/guardian ad litem
can become the factual and legal standard for trial.
The burden of the non-recommended party is thus
to disprove a factual and legal standard. The burden
of the recommended party is merely to provide
corroboration for the standard. In Gilbert, 664 A.2d
at 242, the Supreme Court of Vermont found such
burden-shifting so unfair as to require reversal.
A related problem is the legitimization of
improper evidence through the evaluator/guardian
ad litem. In one record reviewed by this author, the
evaluator testified that the mother's family was
"manipulative" and dishonest. On cross-
examination, the evaluator conceded that as a basis
for her opinion, she was relying on unsigned written
statements provided by the father. Had the father
sought to admit these statements through himself,
they would have been viewed as hearsay, lacking
authenticity and self-serving. But admitted as they
were through the evaluator, their thrust
(manipulative/dishonest) was instead perceived as
fact. Such "fact" was then incorporated into the
court's decision; the child was removed from the
mother's primary care.
55
DIVORCE LITIGATION
With the perceived neutrality of
evaluators/guardians ad litem, their positions are often determinative.19 But as described above, evaluators/guardians ad litem are not neutral. Once they make their recommendations, they are in the position of defending them; they have conflicts of interest including concerns about their future appointments and fees.
D. Reforms
The poor quality of custody evaluations has been reported in the literature.20 Proposed reforms have ranged from making changes designed to improve their quality, to their complete elimination.21
Perhaps the most common approach has been to establish evaluation standards. In Washington State, for example, there are now court rules that require guardians ad litem to maintain documentation that substantiates their
recommendations.22 Minimum standards have also been imposed through case law. See, e.g., Patel v. Patel, 555 S.E.2d 386, 390 (S.C. 2001).23
Another approach has been to redefine the role of
the guardian ad litem as a lawyer for the child.
With this approach, the guardian ad litem does not
make a recommendation, but instead provides his
position via a brief. As noted above, this approach
is already used in some states. It is also promoted
by the ABA's "Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases," which
call for the appointment of a "Best Interests
Attorney."24 The Best Interests Attorney does not
act as a witness or make reports and
recommendations.25 He files briefs and makes
arguments.26
In Wisconsin, guardians ad litem have this role.27
Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy Hollingsworth
report that these persons nonetheless function like
traditional guardians ad litem, i.e., they in effect
56
give reports and recommendations.28 A similar
phenomenon has been noted in New York. There is
a "recurring problem" that courts expect the
attorney for the child to give a recommendation.29
The concept of the Best Interests Attorney is, regardless, flawed. He represents the child's best interests, which is the ultimate issue before the court. There is the potential for the court to be usurped, or to at least not consider the evidence as carefully because he has already made the best interests determination.30
The conflicts of interest described above also continue to exist. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney has concerns about his future appointments and fees. Once he submits his brief, he is in the position of defending it. There are also problems with the evidence. As with a traditional guardian ad litem, the Best Interests Attorney relies on hearsay.31
E. Evaluators/Guardians ad Litem Should
be Eliminated from Child Custody
Proceedings
Another way to look at the use of
evaluators/guardians ad litem is that they act as a filter or prism between the court and the evidence.32 They are like "spin doctors." They tell the court what it sees, which can make a difference as to the court's perception.33 The court's normal decision-
making function is distorted so that children are harmed. Attorney Richard Ducote states:
[I]n domestic violence and abuse cases,
where courts are even more eager to
appoint GALS, children are frequently
ending up in the custody of the abusers
and separated from their protecting
parents. This tragedy does not happen
in spite of the GALS, but rather because
of the GALS.34
DIVORCE LITIGATION
Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform,
makes a similar point regarding the CASA program:
[W]e conclude that the only real
accomplishment of CASA is to
encourage the needless removal of
children from their homes.35
The distortion of the court's decision-making
ability cannot be rectified by reforms that leave the
filter of the evaluator/guardian ad litem in place.
The only reform that will eliminate the problem of
the filter is the elimination of the filter itself.
Evaluators/guardians ad litem must be eliminated
from child custody practice.
F. Conclusion
Evaluators and guardians ad litem are often hard working and conscientious. There are, however, fundamental problems with their role. They cause the court's normal decision-making function to be distorted. Wrong decisions are made.
Court-appointed evaluator and guardians ad litem must be eliminated from child custody practice—for the sake of the children.
Endnotes
1. Margaret Dore is an attorney in private practice
in Seattle, Washington. Her published decisions
include: In re Guardianship of Stamm, 91 P.3d 126,
133 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (reversing due to the
improper admission of guardian ad litem
testimony), and Lawrence v. Lawrence, 20 P.3d
972, 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (use of the
"friendly parent" concept in a child custody case
"would be an abuse of discretion"). Lawrence was
nationally recognized. See, e.g., Wendy N. Davis,
Family Values in Flux, 87 ABA Journal 26
(October 2001). Ms. Dore is a former law clerk to
the Washington State Supreme Court and the
Washington State Court of Appeals. She worked
for the United States Department of Justice. She is
Vice Chair of the Elder Law Committee of the ABA
Family Law Section. She was nominated for the
2005 Butch Blum/Law & Politics "Award of
Excellence." She is a graduate of the University of
Washington School of Law. She has an M.B.A. in
Finance and a B.A. in Accounting. She passed the
C.P.A. examination in 1982. Further information
about Ms. Dore and her practice can be viewed at
www.margaretdore.com.
This article is based on: Margaret K. Dore,
Parenting Evaluators and GALs: Practical Realities, King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, December 1999.
2. See, e.g., Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 ("In both
guardianship and custody cases, the role of the GAL is the same: to investigate and supply information and recommendations to the court . . .").
3. See Raven C. Lidman and Betsy R.
Hollingsworth, The Guardian ad Litem in Child
Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial
System Stretched Beyond Recognition, 6 Geo.
Mason L. Rev. 255, 271, and 277, fn. 106 (1998)
(describing the guardian ad litem's role in
Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot testify
themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
57
DIVORCE LITIGATION
4. See, e.g., Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at
255, fn. 2.
5. The Court Appointed Special Advocate Program (CASA) was founded by a Seattle judge. See www.nationalcasa.org/htm/about.htm. There are more than 900 CASA programs in operation
throughout the country, which are also known as Volunteer Guardian ad Litem Programs. Id.
6. See, for example, Wash. Rev. Code 26.12.177(2)(a) (2005) ("The parties may make a joint recommendation for the appointment of a "guardian ad litem . . .").
7. Cf. Margaret A. Hagen, PhD, Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Regan Books, Chapter 8 (1997); and Higginbotham v. Higginbotham, 857 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (fourteen psychological tests performed on parents, seven psychological tests performed on children).
8. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 278, ¶ 3.
9. A similar issue is reported in the Comments to the Washington State Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules, as follows:
Apparently GALs are not following statutory requirements, nor are the courts consistent in enforcing them.
GALR 2, Washington State Bar Association Comment, § (p).
10. Paul S. Appelbaum, M.D., "The Medicalization of Judicial Decision-Making", The Elder L. Rep., Vol. X, No. 7, February 1999, p. 3, ¶1, last line.
11. Richard Ducote, Guardians ad Litem in Private Custody Litigation: The Case of Abolition," 3 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 106, 146 (2002):
58
One of the particularly stealthy problems of
GALs is the conflict of interest issue. This
most commonly occurs when a GAL fights to
keep a child in the custody of a parent
previously endorsed and exonerated by the
GAL, despite mounting proof that the parent
is indeed abusive and the GAL erred. . . . In
such instances, GALs have forcefully opposed
the introduction of new abuse evidence and
instead have increased the blame on the non-
abusive parent. . . [T]he GAL hopes to avoid
any judicial finding that suggests his or her incompetence and jeopardizes future lucrative GAL appointments.
12. Professors Raven Lidman and Betsy
Hollingsworth make a similar point. Lidman and
Hollingsworth, supra at 302, ¶ 2. See also,
Margaret A. Hagen, supra at 207-08.
13. Cf. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
14. Cf. Gilbert v. Gilbert, 664 A.2d 239, 243 (Vt. 1995) (describing the guardian ad litem's facts as "double or triple hearsay when reported").
15. Id.
16. Cf. Marriage of Luckey, 868 P.2d 189, 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) ("the use of profile
testimony is unfairly prejudicial"). See also, State
v. Carlson, 906 P.2d 999, 1002-03 (Wash. Ct. App.
1995):
[No] witness may give an opinion on another witness' credibility. . . . An expert opinion [on
credibility] will not "assist the trier of fact" .
. . because there is no scientific basis for such
an opinion, save the polygraph, and the
polygraph is not generally accepted as a scientifically reliable technique. (footnotes
omitted).
17. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 279.
DIVORCE LITIGATION
18. Cf. Stamm, 91 P.3d at 129, quoting Fernando
v. Nieswandt, 940 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (the guardian ad litem acts as a "neutral advisor to the court").
19. See Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 297, 2d ¶ ("[m]ore often, . . . [t]he judge merely confirms the guardian ad litem's decision").
20. See, e.g., Dana Royce Baerger, et al. A
Methodology for Reviewing the Reliability and
Relevance of Child Custody Evaluations, 18 J. Am.
Acad. Matrim. Law., 35, p. 36 ("Concern regarding
the generally poor qualify of [child custody
evaluations] has prompted some commentators to
suggest an end to the use of [evaluations] in divorce
proceedings"); Timothy M. Tippins, Custody
Evaluations-Part I: Expertise by Default?, N.Y. L.
J., 7/15/03, p. 3, col. 1, Conclusion ("If the custody
recommendation is little more than a personal value,
judgment, intuition, or an educated guess, rather
than a conclusion compelled by reliable and valid
scientific research, it should not be received"); and
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra, at 301 ("Soon
thereafter . . . [the parents] learn that this guardian
ad litem is a mere mortal getting information from
here and there, frequently not verifying anything .
. .").
21. See, e.g., Matrimonial Commission Report to
the Chief Judge of the State of New York, Hon.
Sondra Miller, Chairperson, February 2006,
(www.courts.state.ny.us/reports/matrimonialcom missionreport.pdf), p 46 ("Proposed reforms from many different sources have ranged from eliminating the use of forensics altogether to instituting changes that will insure the quality and proper use of the reports . . ."); and Ducote, supra at 115 ("Guardians ad litem must be abolished in private custody cases . . .").
22. The Superior Court Guardian ad Litem Rules
(GALR) were adopted by the Washington State
Supreme Court in 2001. See GALR § 2(p) and
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_
rules.list&group=sup&set=GALR.
23. See also, Stamm, 91 P.3d at 130 (limiting the admissibility of guardian ad litem testimony to that which is helpful under ER 702); and Heistand v. Heistand, 673 N.W.2d 531, 311-12 (Neb. 2004) (reversing because the guardian ad litem had been allowed to testify as an expert).
24. The Best Interests Attorney" is defined as a
"lawyer who provides independent legal services
for the purpose of protecting a child's best interests,
without being bound by the child's directives or
objectives." American Bar Association Section of
Family Law Standards of Practice for Lawyers
Representing Children in Custody Cases, p. 2, §
II.B. (Approved by the American Bar Association
House of Delegates, August 2003)
(http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/aba.standards.pdf#s
earch='ABA%20Standards%20of%20Practice%2
0for%20Lawyers%20Representing%20Children').
25. Id., p. 3, § III.B.
26. Id., p. 6, § III.G.
27. Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271, and
277, fn. 106 (describing the guardian ad litem's role
in Wisconsin as a lawyer for the child, "they can
make arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual material in
reports").
28. Lidman and Hollingsworth state:
The Wisconsin courts' opinions have an
exasperated tone as they repeatedly reiterate
that these guardians ad litem must perform
lawyer-like functions: they can examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and they can make
arguments and file briefs, but they cannot
testify themselves nor offer new factual
material in reports. Trial courts, parents'
59
DIVORCE LITIGATION
attorneys, and guardian ad litem-lawyers have
been chastised for "lapses" such as:
permitting the guardian ad litem to file a
"report" twenty days after the close of trial; or
allowing the guardian ad litem to file a
preliminary report and make an oral report to
the court after closing arguments. But
Wisconsin appellate courts do not reverse for
these lapses. Instead the reviewing courts characterize preliminary reports as briefs and
oral reports as arguments. (Footnotes
omitted).
Lidman and Hollingsworth, supra at 271.
29. Matrimonial Commission Report, supra at 43.
30. Cf. C.W. v. K.A.W., 774 A.2d 745, 749 (Pa.
2001) (the trial court's reliance on the guardian ad
litem constituted "egregious examples of the trial
court delegating its judicial power to a non-judicial
officer"); and Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So. 2d 772,
777 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) ("The overarching
problem in this case is that the trial court effectively
60
delegated its judicial authority to the parenting
coordinator").
31. See e.g., ABA Standards of Practice, supra at § V.E.
32. Cf. Small Justice: Little Justice in America's
Family Courts, Education Supplement, p. 6,
Intermedia Inc., Seattle WA 2001 (describing
evaluators and guardians ad litem as a filter). See also http://www.intermedia-inc.com/title.asp?sku= SM03&subcatID=29.
33. Id.
34. Ducote, supra at 135-36 (footnote omitted).
35. National Coalition for Child Protection
Reform, press release, p. 1
(http://www.law.capital.edu/adoption/news_cases/ documents/NATIONAL_COALITION_response. pdf#search='Caliber%20%26%20Wexler%20%26 %20CASA%20%26%202122006'); see also
http://www.nccpr.org/.
Bill refocuses child-welfare laws
Bill refocuses child-welfare laws
Monday, January 11, 2010 2:55 AM
By Rita Price
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
When child-protection workers are called to investigate, they follow a law that focuses on findings of abuse, neglect or dependency.
"We go out and figure out who to blame," said Crystal Ward Allen, executive director of the Public Children Services Association of Ohio. "That's not always what's best for the child."
Allen said that's why, after more than six years of study, Ohio child-welfare advocates are pushing for an about-face in the old protection laws.
A bill introduced in the General Assembly would replace the existing model with a "Child in Need of Protective Services" statute.
The CHIPS proposal lists seven categories of circumstance -- including harm by exposure to substance misuse or a lack of health care -- in which the child could be ruled in need of protective services.
Existing law focuses on whether there has been abuse or neglect of a child, or whether the child needs to be dependent on the state because the parent is unable to care for him or her.
"It's really changing the thinking from parental punishment in the court system to the needs of the child in the civil system," said Denise St. Clair, executive director of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University Law School in the Discovery District.
Proponents say the new definitions in House Bill 371 would make it easier to get help for children and would create more consistency among Ohio's 88 Children Services agencies.
Or the 500-page bill might reverse a welcome trend in which the number of Ohio children in out-of-home care has dropped by more than 40 percent since 2001, one critic says.
"The very act of calling so many possible symptoms and scenarios to the attention of front-line workers is likely to prompt a surge in abuse and neglect cases and a spike in foster-care placements," Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Arlington, Va., wrote in an e-mail.
"And that means this bill also is a budget-buster."
Wexler said current law already allows "almost anything imaginable" to be considered abuse or neglect.
"There is not a parent in Ohio who wouldn't be at risk of losing her or his child to foster care at some point under the provisions of this bill, were a caseworker inclined to take that child away," Wexler wrote.
Supporters say the proposal should do the opposite. They call it a heavily researched attempt to reduce foster placements, and to remedy problems that have been debated -- and cited by federal overseers -- for years.
"I think this will give us a cleaner guide to the situations that warrant child-enforcement action," said Eric Fenner, executive director of Franklin County Children Services. Fenner served on the Ohio Supreme Court subcommittee that examined the need for new child-welfare laws.
"I also think parents will feel better about our having to be more descriptive, to give more explanations," he said. "It gives people a stronger position to challenge our decisions."
St. Clair said the legislation would keep kids safer because their condition, not an abuse finding, is paramount. For example, current law can exempt corporal punishment that results in harm, such as bruises, that would be considered abuse if someone other than a parent did it. Under the new proposal, that exception is eliminated because the focus is simply on whether the child is harmed.
A young girl who has been forced to watch sexually explicit material on television or the Internet might not be a "victim of sexual activity" under current law, St. Clair said, but she could be a "child in need of protective services."
The seven categories that allow for protective services under the proposal are physical, sexual or emotional harm; harm from exposure to substance misuse; and the lack of necessary health care, legally required education or care or supervision.
None would replace the criminal provisions that allow for prosecution of abusers or go soft on those who hurt children, Fenner said.
Fewer than 15 other states have similar "child in need" statutes, and half of those address delinquency instead of protection, St. Clair said.
"This has been years and years in the making," she said. "It really is groundbreaking in its detail."
To read more about the legislation, go to http://www.ohiochildlaw.com/.
rprice@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/11/copy/CHIPS.ART_ART_01-11-10_B1_I0G8VJQ.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
Monday, January 11, 2010 2:55 AM
By Rita Price
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
When child-protection workers are called to investigate, they follow a law that focuses on findings of abuse, neglect or dependency.
"We go out and figure out who to blame," said Crystal Ward Allen, executive director of the Public Children Services Association of Ohio. "That's not always what's best for the child."
Allen said that's why, after more than six years of study, Ohio child-welfare advocates are pushing for an about-face in the old protection laws.
A bill introduced in the General Assembly would replace the existing model with a "Child in Need of Protective Services" statute.
The CHIPS proposal lists seven categories of circumstance -- including harm by exposure to substance misuse or a lack of health care -- in which the child could be ruled in need of protective services.
Existing law focuses on whether there has been abuse or neglect of a child, or whether the child needs to be dependent on the state because the parent is unable to care for him or her.
"It's really changing the thinking from parental punishment in the court system to the needs of the child in the civil system," said Denise St. Clair, executive director of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University Law School in the Discovery District.
Proponents say the new definitions in House Bill 371 would make it easier to get help for children and would create more consistency among Ohio's 88 Children Services agencies.
Or the 500-page bill might reverse a welcome trend in which the number of Ohio children in out-of-home care has dropped by more than 40 percent since 2001, one critic says.
"The very act of calling so many possible symptoms and scenarios to the attention of front-line workers is likely to prompt a surge in abuse and neglect cases and a spike in foster-care placements," Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Arlington, Va., wrote in an e-mail.
"And that means this bill also is a budget-buster."
Wexler said current law already allows "almost anything imaginable" to be considered abuse or neglect.
"There is not a parent in Ohio who wouldn't be at risk of losing her or his child to foster care at some point under the provisions of this bill, were a caseworker inclined to take that child away," Wexler wrote.
Supporters say the proposal should do the opposite. They call it a heavily researched attempt to reduce foster placements, and to remedy problems that have been debated -- and cited by federal overseers -- for years.
"I think this will give us a cleaner guide to the situations that warrant child-enforcement action," said Eric Fenner, executive director of Franklin County Children Services. Fenner served on the Ohio Supreme Court subcommittee that examined the need for new child-welfare laws.
"I also think parents will feel better about our having to be more descriptive, to give more explanations," he said. "It gives people a stronger position to challenge our decisions."
St. Clair said the legislation would keep kids safer because their condition, not an abuse finding, is paramount. For example, current law can exempt corporal punishment that results in harm, such as bruises, that would be considered abuse if someone other than a parent did it. Under the new proposal, that exception is eliminated because the focus is simply on whether the child is harmed.
A young girl who has been forced to watch sexually explicit material on television or the Internet might not be a "victim of sexual activity" under current law, St. Clair said, but she could be a "child in need of protective services."
The seven categories that allow for protective services under the proposal are physical, sexual or emotional harm; harm from exposure to substance misuse; and the lack of necessary health care, legally required education or care or supervision.
None would replace the criminal provisions that allow for prosecution of abusers or go soft on those who hurt children, Fenner said.
Fewer than 15 other states have similar "child in need" statutes, and half of those address delinquency instead of protection, St. Clair said.
"This has been years and years in the making," she said. "It really is groundbreaking in its detail."
To read more about the legislation, go to http://www.ohiochildlaw.com/.
rprice@dispatch.com
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/01/11/copy/CHIPS.ART_ART_01-11-10_B1_I0G8VJQ.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Unmarried couple's custody case hits snag (The Supreme Court Dislikes Second Guessing the Decisions of the Lower Court's)
Portsmouth
Unmarried couple's custody case hits snag
No automatic appeal in fight
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 2010 - 12:00 am
Janet Todd and James Miller met online in 1999 and by 2003 had two girls and the start of what would be among the most "tortured" custody fights in the Portsmouth family court.
For five years, they have exchanged allegations of sexual abuse and mental delusions, according to court records. This fall, after finding the two incapable of co-parenting, a marital master awarded Todd, of Hampton, primary custody and Miller "liberal" visitation.
Surprising no one, Miller, who lives in New York and wants the girls, ages 6 and 7, there, appealed to the state Supreme Court.
And there, Miller was surprised.
Because Miller, 51, and Todd, 43, never married, neither has the automatic right to an appeal. Miller is entitled only to a "discretionary appeal," meaning that he and his lawyer, Joshua Gordon of Concord, must persuade the court to hear their case.
The court declined to do that late last month.
Now, Gordon is asking the court to reconsider, partly on the grounds of discrimination.
"Treating the relationship between children and unmarried parents differently than the relationship between children of married parents is unlawful and unconstitutional," Gordon wrote the court.
Gordon cited a 2007 federal report that showed Miller and his girls are not alone: More than 31 percent of New Hampshire children were born to unmarried parents, the report said.
Todd's two lawyers, Elizabeth Olcott of Concord and John Carr of Boston, have until Thursday to object. Carr said they will.
"This has nothing to do with discrimination," Carr said. "It has to do with the attorney for the father looking for a second bite of the apple."
The New Hampshire Supreme Court greatly expanded the opportunity for appellate review in January 2004, when it announced it would take all direct appeals from the state courts.
For the 25 years prior, the justices had been screening each case and deciding whether it merited the high court's review. In 2002, for example, the court received 813 appeals but agreed to hear only 316, or 39 percent, of them, according to the court's media office.
Two years ago, the state Supreme Court amended the appeal process again, this time by reducing the number of domestic cases it would promise to consider. The court cited limited resources and a burgeoning family law caseload - too many cases involved ongoing disputes in divorces that justices had already decided.
Doreen Connor, a lawyer with Wiggin and Nourie in Manchester who's studied this issue, said the justices also disliked second-guessing lower courts on fact-based decisions such as visitation schedules and child support payments.
Under the new rule, the court will guarantee an appeal only on matters decided in the original divorce decree or legal separation. The court no longer will automatically hear repeat issues from a single divorce.
Now, it's the court's discretion whether to hear family issues that come up after the divorce or outside a divorce.
That includes the request of a divorced father who loses his job and can't get his child support adjusted. And the appeal from divorced parents who seek an amendment to their visitation schedule.
And unmarried parents like Miller, dissatisfied with the court's custody decision.
As hoped, the new rule greatly reduced the number of family law appeals taken up by the court.
Connor found that in 2007, the year before the rule took effect, 47 percent of the court's 103 family court appeals would have fallen into the discretionary category. In 2008, the new rule's first year, the court received 112 family law appeals, 54 of which were discretionary.
Of those 54 discretionary appeals, Connor reported, the court declined to take 27.
Connor agrees with Gordon's interpretation of the Miller situation. Had Miller and Todd been married, Miller's appeal of the custody plan would have been guaranteed consideration by the justices.
The court ultimately may not have made Miller any happier with its decision, she said, but he would have been heard.
"I think it's too restrictive," she said of the new rule. "If you are in a multiple-car accident, every time you have a trial you have the right of automatic appeal. Family law involves rights that are dearer and nearer the heart than what you were compensated for the car accident."
Gordon doesn't disagree wholly with the notion of discretionary appeals for some family law matters.
"These cases can go on forever," he said. "Every time one (of the parents) loses, they appeal. And there are parties that file appeals every year. It's understandable that the Supreme Court does not want to take it up again and again."
Gordon would like the court to give exception to parties like Miller, who had not appealed his case previously. That would allow the court discretion while giving unmarried parents the same appeal rights married parents have.
Miller, reached in New York last week, called the court's policy "outrageous."
In family court, he said, "it's all about what's right for the children," he said. "But the Supreme Court has made it all about the marital status. It's just not right."
Should Gordon persuade the court to take up Miller's appeal, he will argue that the girls' mother abused Miller by repeatedly accusing him of sexually assaulting at least one of the girls. The police in three states and state officials have cleared Miller of these allegations, according to court papers.
Gordon believes the allegations at times alienated Millers' children against him and that the lower court unfairly considered the allegations and alienation when deciding custody.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/FRONTPAGE/1100390
Unmarried couple's custody case hits snag
No automatic appeal in fight
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 10, 2010 - 12:00 am
Janet Todd and James Miller met online in 1999 and by 2003 had two girls and the start of what would be among the most "tortured" custody fights in the Portsmouth family court.
For five years, they have exchanged allegations of sexual abuse and mental delusions, according to court records. This fall, after finding the two incapable of co-parenting, a marital master awarded Todd, of Hampton, primary custody and Miller "liberal" visitation.
Surprising no one, Miller, who lives in New York and wants the girls, ages 6 and 7, there, appealed to the state Supreme Court.
And there, Miller was surprised.
Because Miller, 51, and Todd, 43, never married, neither has the automatic right to an appeal. Miller is entitled only to a "discretionary appeal," meaning that he and his lawyer, Joshua Gordon of Concord, must persuade the court to hear their case.
The court declined to do that late last month.
Now, Gordon is asking the court to reconsider, partly on the grounds of discrimination.
"Treating the relationship between children and unmarried parents differently than the relationship between children of married parents is unlawful and unconstitutional," Gordon wrote the court.
Gordon cited a 2007 federal report that showed Miller and his girls are not alone: More than 31 percent of New Hampshire children were born to unmarried parents, the report said.
Todd's two lawyers, Elizabeth Olcott of Concord and John Carr of Boston, have until Thursday to object. Carr said they will.
"This has nothing to do with discrimination," Carr said. "It has to do with the attorney for the father looking for a second bite of the apple."
The New Hampshire Supreme Court greatly expanded the opportunity for appellate review in January 2004, when it announced it would take all direct appeals from the state courts.
For the 25 years prior, the justices had been screening each case and deciding whether it merited the high court's review. In 2002, for example, the court received 813 appeals but agreed to hear only 316, or 39 percent, of them, according to the court's media office.
Two years ago, the state Supreme Court amended the appeal process again, this time by reducing the number of domestic cases it would promise to consider. The court cited limited resources and a burgeoning family law caseload - too many cases involved ongoing disputes in divorces that justices had already decided.
Doreen Connor, a lawyer with Wiggin and Nourie in Manchester who's studied this issue, said the justices also disliked second-guessing lower courts on fact-based decisions such as visitation schedules and child support payments.
Under the new rule, the court will guarantee an appeal only on matters decided in the original divorce decree or legal separation. The court no longer will automatically hear repeat issues from a single divorce.
Now, it's the court's discretion whether to hear family issues that come up after the divorce or outside a divorce.
That includes the request of a divorced father who loses his job and can't get his child support adjusted. And the appeal from divorced parents who seek an amendment to their visitation schedule.
And unmarried parents like Miller, dissatisfied with the court's custody decision.
As hoped, the new rule greatly reduced the number of family law appeals taken up by the court.
Connor found that in 2007, the year before the rule took effect, 47 percent of the court's 103 family court appeals would have fallen into the discretionary category. In 2008, the new rule's first year, the court received 112 family law appeals, 54 of which were discretionary.
Of those 54 discretionary appeals, Connor reported, the court declined to take 27.
Connor agrees with Gordon's interpretation of the Miller situation. Had Miller and Todd been married, Miller's appeal of the custody plan would have been guaranteed consideration by the justices.
The court ultimately may not have made Miller any happier with its decision, she said, but he would have been heard.
"I think it's too restrictive," she said of the new rule. "If you are in a multiple-car accident, every time you have a trial you have the right of automatic appeal. Family law involves rights that are dearer and nearer the heart than what you were compensated for the car accident."
Gordon doesn't disagree wholly with the notion of discretionary appeals for some family law matters.
"These cases can go on forever," he said. "Every time one (of the parents) loses, they appeal. And there are parties that file appeals every year. It's understandable that the Supreme Court does not want to take it up again and again."
Gordon would like the court to give exception to parties like Miller, who had not appealed his case previously. That would allow the court discretion while giving unmarried parents the same appeal rights married parents have.
Miller, reached in New York last week, called the court's policy "outrageous."
In family court, he said, "it's all about what's right for the children," he said. "But the Supreme Court has made it all about the marital status. It's just not right."
Should Gordon persuade the court to take up Miller's appeal, he will argue that the girls' mother abused Miller by repeatedly accusing him of sexually assaulting at least one of the girls. The police in three states and state officials have cleared Miller of these allegations, according to court papers.
Gordon believes the allegations at times alienated Millers' children against him and that the lower court unfairly considered the allegations and alienation when deciding custody.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/FRONTPAGE/1100390
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
How Child Protection Services Buys and Sells Our ChildrenA Site To Teach Parents how to Protect themselves and their Children from being abused by Child Protection Services
Home About This SiteTitle IV Funding Senate Set To Renew 1997 Law That Pays CPS to Kidnap Children Summary of Adoption and Safe Families Act Child Protective Services- Historical Review and Current System Written by William Wesley Patton The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services Child Protection Services in Michagin Written by An Attorney United States Supreme Court Parental Rights CaseLaw Our Nation consistently Maintained that parents posses a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit- not the state Drugging Foster Children Profane Justice by Suzanne Shell Letter to a Judge by Hope Crabtree Important Information by a Lawyer Your Constitutional Rights Under Miranda This is What Happens When States Take Your Children How to Protect Yourself From CPS Author Brenda Alexander who lost her children to CPS Information About the Child Protective Services Program of the Department of Human Services CPS Victories for Parent’s Rights May Help in Dealing with CPS Federal laws Affecting State Proceedings This is the Going Rate for the Buying of Our Children in Georgia How Safe is the System? It Isn’t Fourth Amendment Rights A Report Which was Written by An Intern – Be Sure and Read the Part Highlighted in Bold On Psychiarty and Child Protective Services in the United States By Dr. Fred Baughman The Official How List For Aquiring Federal and State Money When Children Taken By the State Are Adopted Out Author Yvonne Mason Home > Abuse by CPS >
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
January 10, 2010 yvonnemason
The New York Times published an article today, Bleak Stories Follow a Lawsuit on Oklahoma Foster Care, in which it was reported that Oklahoma boasts one of the worst records for children enduring abuse within foster and group homes. The Federal data also shows that Oklahoma children experience frequent moves, extended stays in shelters and lack getting much needed therapy. The state is also needing more social workers, foster homes, and various therapies to offer the children in its care.
A new lawsuit, filed in February by advocacy group, Children’s Rights, as well as local lawyers, details not only the above stated issues within the Oklahoma foster care system, but also the psychological damage that the children suffer after placement in the system. The hope is that this lawsuit will force change, as this course of action has helped other states overhaul broken systems.
Oklahoma’s Department of Human Services is fighting the suit. Their defense? A good record for monthly checks, which are performed by social workers, on the foster families. Allegedly, they are so diligent with the monthly checks, more issues are found. Therefore, their record appears to be worse than other states where they are not as diligent in making their monthly rounds. Foster parents and children in Oklahoma are not buying this story as they report that the workers are not showing up for the checks, but falsifying documents stating that the visits occurred.
For now, the hope is that the lawsuit will proceed and the court will force Oklahoma to step up and take care of the children in foster care.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/oklahoma-has-worst-record-for-child-abuse-within-foster-or-group-homes/
Home About This SiteTitle IV Funding Senate Set To Renew 1997 Law That Pays CPS to Kidnap Children Summary of Adoption and Safe Families Act Child Protective Services- Historical Review and Current System Written by William Wesley Patton The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services Child Protection Services in Michagin Written by An Attorney United States Supreme Court Parental Rights CaseLaw Our Nation consistently Maintained that parents posses a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit- not the state Drugging Foster Children Profane Justice by Suzanne Shell Letter to a Judge by Hope Crabtree Important Information by a Lawyer Your Constitutional Rights Under Miranda This is What Happens When States Take Your Children How to Protect Yourself From CPS Author Brenda Alexander who lost her children to CPS Information About the Child Protective Services Program of the Department of Human Services CPS Victories for Parent’s Rights May Help in Dealing with CPS Federal laws Affecting State Proceedings This is the Going Rate for the Buying of Our Children in Georgia How Safe is the System? It Isn’t Fourth Amendment Rights A Report Which was Written by An Intern – Be Sure and Read the Part Highlighted in Bold On Psychiarty and Child Protective Services in the United States By Dr. Fred Baughman The Official How List For Aquiring Federal and State Money When Children Taken By the State Are Adopted Out Author Yvonne Mason Home > Abuse by CPS >
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
Oklahoma Has Worst Record for Child Abuse within Foster or Group Homes
January 10, 2010 yvonnemason
The New York Times published an article today, Bleak Stories Follow a Lawsuit on Oklahoma Foster Care, in which it was reported that Oklahoma boasts one of the worst records for children enduring abuse within foster and group homes. The Federal data also shows that Oklahoma children experience frequent moves, extended stays in shelters and lack getting much needed therapy. The state is also needing more social workers, foster homes, and various therapies to offer the children in its care.
A new lawsuit, filed in February by advocacy group, Children’s Rights, as well as local lawyers, details not only the above stated issues within the Oklahoma foster care system, but also the psychological damage that the children suffer after placement in the system. The hope is that this lawsuit will force change, as this course of action has helped other states overhaul broken systems.
Oklahoma’s Department of Human Services is fighting the suit. Their defense? A good record for monthly checks, which are performed by social workers, on the foster families. Allegedly, they are so diligent with the monthly checks, more issues are found. Therefore, their record appears to be worse than other states where they are not as diligent in making their monthly rounds. Foster parents and children in Oklahoma are not buying this story as they report that the workers are not showing up for the checks, but falsifying documents stating that the visits occurred.
For now, the hope is that the lawsuit will proceed and the court will force Oklahoma to step up and take care of the children in foster care.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/oklahoma-has-worst-record-for-child-abuse-within-foster-or-group-homes/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)