Guardian Ad Litem Reform

Citizens working to protect children and stop the destruction of the family by Family Court injustice.

Posts Tagged ‘family court abuse’

U.S. Senate Hearing To Mandate Oppressive Reporting Laws For Child Neglect/Abuse

Posted by CultureVigilante on December 12, 2011

We have outlined, here, some of the abuses of courts and government departments that oversee families and domestic issues. Tomorrow, there is a bill that goes on the floor for debate that would require mandatory reporting by all adults of child abuse and neglect. While, of course, anyone should do so who is truly a witness to such bad acts, but a law requiring/mandating such action would absolutely lead to privacy violations within families as well as false allegations of abuse and neglect which would in turn clutter up the system, making it even more difficult to identify those truly at risk. And do we really want to increase the federal government’s roll in social services investigations.

S. 1877  is due for a Senate hearing tomorrow and you are urged to contact your representatives now to discourage this harmful and oppressive legislation.

U.S. Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

Homeschool Legal Defense (HSLA) offers some background on the issue:

Background:
S. 1877 will amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) to require—for the first time ever—every single state that receives federal funding under CAPTA to force every single adult to be a mandatory reporter of child abuse or neglect. Currently, most states only require certain people (e.g., doctors and teachers) to be mandatory reporters. HSLDA opposes this for the following reasons:

  • The federal government should not force the states to make every single adult a mandatory reporter of child abuse and neglect as a condition for receiving certain federal money. This is a violation of the principle of federalism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to force the states to make every adult a mandatory reporter.
  • Forcing the states to make every single adult a mandatory reporter with no exceptions will lead to a police-state environment, where every adult is forced to act as an informer against friends, family, and neighbors, or face possible charges. There are grave threats to liberty and personal privacy that could result from this.
  • Forcing every adult to be a mandatory reporter will likely lead to a massive increase in child abuse and neglect accusations and subsequent investigations. Individuals will likely report suspected child abuse and neglect out of an abundance of caution so they do not face possible charges. Instead of protecting children, this will (1) harm innocent families as they face baseless investigations, and (2) waste the time of social workers on baseless investigations, instead of protecting children who are actually being abused or neglected.

S. 1877 also creates a massive federally funded educational campaign and training program to inform citizens about the new mandatory reporting of child abuse laws in the states. HSLDA opposes this for the following reasons:

  • In a time of federal budget deficits, the federal government should not be spending $5 million to $10 million per year on a program that should be left to the states.
  • Although the program is established in S. 1877 as a federal grant program to the states, the secretary of Health and Human Services is given the authority to “develop and disseminate guidance and information on best practices for” the entire educational campaign and training program. This could easily lead to the federal government mandating to the states the entire reporting campaign.

In conclusion, S. 1877 will lead to a massive increase in child abuse and neglect investigations upon families. The stated purpose of S. 1877’s mandatory reporting expansion, along with the education campaign and training program is to “improve reporting” of child abuse and neglect. The bill will give states new federal grants to set up“experimental, model, and demonstration programs for testing innovative approaches and techniques that may improve reporting of and response to suspected and known incidents of child abuse or neglect by adults to the State child protective service agencies or to law enforcement agencies.”

Not only will S. 1877 require every single adult to be a mandatory reporter, S. 1877 will incentivize states to create untested, “experimental” programs that will increase the number of child abuse and neglect reports to CPS agencies.

HSLDA has seen firsthand how malicious or ignorant child abuse and neglect allegations have destroyed innocent families. A family has few protections against the power of CPS agencies. And even if a CPS investigation is closed as unfounded, the trauma to a young child, to an innocent family as a stranger (albeit maybe a well-intentioned stranger) enters the home and threatens to remove the children, is lasting and profound.

S. 1877 is unnecessary. The states—using federal money under the existing CAPTA statute—are fully capable of protecting children from legitimate abuse and neglect. S. 1877 will create a massive police state of reporting and will lead to unnecessary abuse and neglect investigations.

Advertisements

Posted in Family Court Abuse | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is Missouri’s Guardian Ad Litem System Another Vehicle Of Overreach Into The Lives Of Private Citizens?

Posted by CultureVigilante on September 15, 2011

Late on Monday, August 29, 2011, the Supreme Court of Missouri finally released its updated standards for guardians ad litem. In 1996, the court was mandated by the legislature to revise and update Guardian Ad Litem standards and have an implementation plan in place by July of 2011. In 2009, the court issued a press release seeking comments and recommendations, from the public, regarding revisions the standards, and in the 2010/2011 legislative session a bill was introduced in the senate, SB237, which finalized the process. Members of the revision committee included judges, attorneys and CASA volunteer administrators. While many attempts were made by citizens to contribute to the revision process, no members of the public were allowed to participate. Why?

Perhaps a judicial/legal system, that polices itself, didn’t want interference from outside the brotherhood. The first and most glaring revision to the new standards is stated in the first paragraph.

… the court shall only appoint a lawyer licensed by the Supreme Court who has completed the training required by these standards.

The court may designate a court appointed special advocate volunteer to assist in the performance of the guardian ad litem duties for the court as provided by law.

No where in Missouri Statutes 452.423 or 210.160 does it state that only a licensed attorney may represent a child in a proceeding as a guardian ad litem. It does allow for the guardian to be the legal representative, but never requires the representative to be licensed by the courts. Statute 210.830 allows for a child to be represented by a next friend and Statutes 453.025 and 211.462 allow for a legal advocate. Again, nothing about licensing by the courts being a requirement. The previous standards allowed for court appointed special advocates to also act as guardians ad litem when appointed by a judge. The new standards do not appear to reflect the statute guidelines. Laypeople who are navigating the court system, in Missouri, will rightfully be misinformed by this discrepancy if they do not get factual information from their attorneys or do their own research beyond reading the new standards.

How does this affect the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program? In reading through the statutes, there appears to be no differentiation between situations in which an attorney or a CASA volunteer may be appointed as a guardian ad litem. However, in a conversation with Missouri’s CASA Executive Director, Beth Dessem, she states CASA volunteers, in Missouri, only perform guardian ad litem duties in cases of neglect or abuse and not in family courts, unless abuse or neglect is present in those cases. It begs the question, how can a CASA volunteer perform as a GAL, in cases of divorce or abuse and neglect, if they are not licensed attorneys as stated in the new standard? Again, in the new standards document, the term “lawyer” is used throughout. It would appear that the court/legal system has developed its own criteria, outside the statutes, for assigning guardian ad litem duties. The CASA program is largely funded, in one form or another, by tax-payer dollars, either by state or local municipality funding. In family court cases, however, where guardians ad litem are assigned to various divorce proceedings, attorneys are awarded these cases and are paid by the litigants. It is not uncommon, as cases are often escalated and drawn out for long periods of time, for attorneys acting as GALs to make six figures from a single case. Could the legal network be stacking the deck, in favor of attorneys, to reap the most financial gain from the system?

Standard 5.0 outlines access between the GAL and the child. Throughout, the standard guidelines are given which summarize various opportunities for the GAL and child to communicate and see each other. However, comments for this section clearly suggest that the GAL should promote and maintain a “relationship” with the child. Is it appropriate for government entities to enter the family sphere to create relationships with clients? While it is reasonable to expect that GALs need to have access to clients and information regarding their client’s care and lifestyle, in order to provide the court with recommendations as to their best interests in neglect and abuse cases, is it reasonable to promote “relationships” with children, who may form emotional bonds, with someone who works for the court system? Are family courts overstepping their reach, into the family, by inferring more authority and closer “relationships” with clients, especially since not all cases in which GALs are assigned, involve neglect or abuse?

Has the Family Court turned into BIG BROTHER? Standard 7.0 addresses confidentiality and privilege. It outlines that information received during a case falls under the rules for professional conduct according to the Missouri Courts. The comment for this section, however, have lengthy explanations for various aspects, of which parents should be aware. It allows for GALs to receive information for every aspect of the child and family dynamic; schooling, psychological, medical, substance abuse, etc. Not necessarily unreasonable information to have when investigating neglect or abuse, but in cases of divorce, where GALs can be assigned for custody battles, they are also entitled to this information, even when abuse is not found or alleged. Problems, here, may arise with transparency. The comments state:

Only the court has the authority to rule on any request concerning the handling or disposition of the file and order its release or early destruction to rule on any request concerning the handling or disposition of the file. The guardian should not provide the file to anyone, including the child, without the consent of the court.

Does this also mean parents may not have access to the file without court approval? Will obtaining the file require costly attorney fees to draw up written requests to the court? Would parents have the ability to challenge any information entered into the file they feel is fallacious? Remember, not all cases in which GALs are assigned encompass neglect and abuse. One might even question: Are GALs being over used by the courts? Should parents have access to files generated by the court system? What recourse, to dispute false allegations, do citizens have?

Comments for standard 14.0 state that GAL practice is unique, complex and requires special education, training and experience. Perhaps that is why the Supreme Court decreased the required initial training from 12 hours to 8 hours, and subsequent continuing education from 6 hours to 3 hours annually. Beth Dessem, Missouri’s CASA Director states that CASA volunteers receive 30 hours of training to act as guardians ad litem.

The process of revising the GAL standards has been one of secrecy. After the Supreme Court issued a press release for public input, they shut the process down, from any inclusion of public opinion or oversight. Requests to get copies of rough drafts or attend meetings were denied or met with stonewalling. As the legislature took up the issue of approving the standards in the 2010/2011 legislative session they did so also without input or knowledge of their contents. They heard citizen testimony, in committee, about the abuses of the system and the courts refusal to release the content of standards revisions. Each member of the Missouri House and Senate also received model legislation from the citizenry in which they were asked to consider for inclusion into the new standards. The model legislation included, among other things:

Providing a vehicle to remove GALs who were abusing the system or not acting within guidelines

Create outside supervisory panels/boards to oversee guardian discipline issues

Provide limits for scope of investigations, to items listed on petitions that compel assigning them to the case

Impose time limits on investigations to prevent escalation of cases and prevent children from long term exposure to traumatic processes.

Require qualified expertise and additional training above the 12 hour mandate

Require GALs to pass background checks

Create avenues for families/children to communicate with the judge when GALs are overstepping guidelines or abusing their authority

Require the judges to set expenditure limits on GAL fees, and any other costs incurred in investigations

Remove immunity for GALs

Allow for punitive damages against GALs who wrongly accuse parties of abuse

All of these requests fell on deaf ears. SB237 was approved almost unanimously by the Missouri House and Senate. One lone senator, James Lembke, of District 1 cast a no vote.

Posted in GAL Standards | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Family Court Corruption Stories In Missouri

Posted by CultureVigilante on June 22, 2011

Here are two stories of bad family court experiences and examples of how bad judgements in family courts reinforce a dysfunctional culture. Only outrage from the public will motivate change and accountability. Aren’t the children reason enough to change the system?

Posted in Family Court Abuse | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Family Courts Get It Wrong Again, Dismantle The Family Culture In America

Posted by CultureVigilante on May 10, 2011

In this post on Culture Vigilante, you will read how a Durham family court judge sends a strong message about how she views the family structure of the community and country she serves. She also sends this message to the children involved in the case, who will forever be scarred by the lack of compassion and disregard she has for the children and mother before her in her court.

Cases like this are common in America, today. Most people are unaware of the atrocities that take place in courts until they are unfortunate enough to be entangle in the family court system. Read this story and be on the look out for others. There are many. They characterize the distinctive nature of rulings that come from family courts and how they shape, or dismantle, the family in America.

Posted in Family Court Abuse | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The State Can Take Your Children Away And You Have No Recourse

Posted by CultureVigilante on May 10, 2011

ParentalRights.org released this video, today, along with the tragic story of how the state of Michigan invaded a parent’s rights and took custody of their child. Stories of parental rights violation are happening all over the country. Parental rights are under attack and the attacker is the government, federal and state. The biggest ‘dirty little secret’ of our country is how family courts are unilaterally encroaching on fundamental rights of parents to destroy the family in our culture.

Posted in Family Court Abuse | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: