Nebraska high court again rules father’s consent necessary for adoption

March 8, 2014 § Leave a comment

Nebraska high court again rules father’s consent necessary for adoption

23 hours ago  •  By MARGERY A. BECK / The Associated Press

For a second time, the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that a father who was intentionally misled about the birth of his child can stop the baby’s adoption.

In a ruling Friday, the state’s high court said the consent of the father, listed in court documents as Jeremiah J., is required by state law for the child to be put up for adoption. Further, the high court said the child’s mother, identified as Dakota D., failed to prove Jeremiah met any of the exceptions for consent because she did not show he had abandoned her or the child or that he would be an unfit parent.

Jeremiah learned in June 2011 that Dakota, his ex-girlfriend, was pregnant. Five months later, he was contacted by an adoption agency caseworker who told him he had been identified as the baby’s father and that Dakota planned to put the baby, due Feb. 18, 2012, up for adoption, according to court documents. Jeremiah told the caseworker he did not want that, then tried many times to reach Dakota, but she did not return his calls, records say.

The child was born Feb. 9, but Jeremiah was not told of the birth. He contacted Dakota on Feb. 13, but she did not tell him the baby had been born. Jeremiah also repeatedly called the hospital and caseworker to try to learn of the birth, but they refused to tell him, citing privacy policies. The adoption was put on hold after Jeremiah filed his appeal.

Dakota later testified in court that she did not tell Jeremiah of the child’s birth because she did not want him to know about it during the five days he had to object to the adoption.

A Hall County court ruled in the mother’s favor, saying Jeremiah could have hired an attorney sooner, but the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed that ruling last year, noting the mother’s deception. The lower court then ruled in Jeremiah’s favor, and Dakota appealed, arguing he is not a fit parent because he has an unstable work history, has used drugs and has a criminal record, among other things.

She also argued that Jeremiah neglected the child after she was born, and did not provide financial support for her or the child.

But the state’s high court rejected those arguments Friday, saying Jeremiah’s criminal record consisted of misdemeanor convictions as a teen. The court also noted that Jeremiah has denied any drug use, and that he has a stable job paying more than $12 an hour.

“And in any event, low income or an unstable job history does not alone establish parental unfitness,” Nebraska Supreme Court Justice Michael McCormack wrote for the court.

The high court also rejected arguments that Jeremiah did not provide financial support.

“Dakota clearly does not want to have Jeremiah in the life of the child, and she chose to not provide Jeremiah with a fair opportunity to offer financial support,” McCormack wrote.

Jeremiah’s attorney, Mark Porto of Grand Island, said the next step will be to file a paternity action in an effort to establish custody and visitation issues.

“He’s thrilled that he’ll be able to be a part of his daughter’s life,” Porto said.

An attorney for Dakota did not immediately return a message left Friday.


Weller children file lawsuit against state DSHS look for scrib link great pleading to educate for future ….

March 8, 2014 § Leave a comment

Weller children file lawsuit against state DSHS

Attorney says agency was told of peril many times before acting

By Paris Achen, Columbian courts reporter

Published: March 7, 2014, 1:50 PM

Updated: March 7, 2014, 7:28 PM

  • Buy this photoSandra and Jeffrey Weller enter Judge Barbara Johnson’s courtroom for sentencing in Clark County Superior Court March 20, 2013. The Wellers were convicted of imprisoning, starving and beating their adopted twins. Sandra received a sentence of 20 years, and Jeffrey received 21 years. (Steven Lane/The Columbian)

Five children who were abused by their parents in Vancouver have filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the state, alleging that the Department of Social and Health Services failed to adequately respond to dozens of complaints about their welfare over an eight-year period.

Jeffrey and Sandra Weller of Vancouver each were sentenced March 20, 2013, to two decades in prison for imprisoning, starving and beating their adopted twins. A Clark County jury found Sandra Weller guilty of nine separate counts related to the twins’ abuse; Jeffrey Weller was found guilty of 13, related to both the twins’ abuse and assaults against the couple’s biological children.

The children’s Seattle attorney, David Moody, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the children Friday in Clark Superior Court.

One of the children’s teachers alone warned the DSHS a dozen times about possible abuse of the children and urged that they be removed from the Weller home, Moody said.

“He has documents he kept,” Moody said Friday. “He has voice-mail messages. There are a number of educators from the local school district who voiced serious warnings to DSHS over a period of years.”

“Those concerns were ignored every time,” he said.

The lawsuit follows a $54 million tort claim the children filed Dec. 18 with the DSHS. Tort claims give public agencies a 60-day notice of a lawsuit and allows them an opportunity to settle a case before litigation.

In this case, the children received no response, Moody said.

John Wiley, a DSHS spokesman, said the agency often does respond to and resolve tort claims prior to litigation.

“However, this case is complex, involving numerous plaintiffs alleging negligence based on activities that occurred over a number of years. As such, it requires more than the statutory 60 days to analyze and investigate the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim,” Wiley said. “It would not be in the taxpayers’ best interest to quickly make a settlement offer on a $54 million claim without a reasonable and diligent investigation into that claim by the state.”

Wiley said the agency has no other comment on the lawsuit at this time.

“We’ll let the court decide the merits of the case,” he said. “We don’t comment on the merits of the case.”

The lawsuit also alleges that the DSHS failed to obtain Sandra Weller’s Child Protective Services history in California, where she adopted the twins with her ex-husband. There were seven referrals about Sandra Weller’s possibly abusing and neglecting the twins and some other foster children who were in her care between 1998 and 2002, the lawsuit states. At one point, the state of California revoked her foster care license and took the twins into protective custody, according to the lawsuit.

Some of the complaints that Washington caseworkers allegedly ignored included allegations of threats against one of the twins’ lives and withholding food as punishment, according to the lawsuit.

For example, in April 2004, the DSHS received a complaint that Sandra Weller had told the 8-year-old female twin that, “If I had a knife right now, you would be gone,” according to the lawsuit. A month later, the agency received another complaint that the twins were “so stressed they are literally pulling their hair out,” the lawsuit states.

In September 2004, there was a complaint that the Wellers locked food cabinets in the house and locked the children in their room, which had an alarm on the door, the lawsuit says.

DSHS social workers visited the Weller home in October 2004. On Nov. 1, 2004, the social worker concluded that the allegations of negligent treatment or maltreatment were “unfounded,” according to the lawsuit.

The DSHS finally removed the children from the Weller home Oct. 7, 2011, after one of the twins left a note about their abuse at her therapist’s office.

“Please, help,” the twin wrote. “Behind the laundry room door is a big wooden stick covered in blood. They use it on me and (my brother) … If you leave without us, we’ll all ran (sic) away.”

The twins were substantially underweight and malnourished when they were taken into state custody, according to testimony at the Wellers’ trial.

They also testified at trial that Jeffrey Weller, often at the instruction of Sandra, regularly beat them with a 42-inch-long piece of scrap lumber. Police investigators found it stained with blood.

Moody, the children’s attorney, specializes in civil litigation against the DSHS related to the abuse of children or vulnerable adults. He said he won the largest jury verdict award against the DSHS — $17.8 million — in February 2000 in a vulnerable adult abuse case in Pierce County in which he demonstrated that the DSHS was negligent by inadequately investigating abuse allegations.

prenda at it again

March 8, 2014 § Leave a comment

Copyright, Child Custody and Cocaine in the County Courts

June 11, 2013 § Leave a comment

Copyright, Child Custody and Cocaine in the County Courts

Once upon a time there was  The Steele Law Firm LLC, IL SOS records show it was formed by  a 2006 University of Minnesota Law school graduate, John Lawrence Steele Jr. Esq.  Billed as a family law firm in 2008 -2011, the Chicago, IL practice, the Steele Law Firm LLC was fighting custody battles and purported pornography pirates. Yes, budding family law attorney, John Steele was devoted to saving children and the tranny porn industry! He started filing suits against 1000′s of John Does, dubbed himself the “pirate slayer” and set out to make cool millions! Despite John Steele having a fine ring to it for a porn name, perhaps the Steele Law Firm wasn’t catchy enough for copyright trolling; seems Steele decided to try on some other names: Media Copyright Group, Steele Hansmeier, Prenda, Anti-Piracy Law Group and the Chicago Family Law Group LLC.  Maybe it still wasn’t quite the right fit because in a rather complex web of “stories”, Steele claims to have retired, sold his family law firm to Peter R. Olson of the Peter Olson Law Firm and blogger extraordinaire Solo in Chicago.

Craigslist, where the finest lawyers come to but and sell law firms!

Now, according to a Solo in Chicago  blog post by Glenview,  IL native and Domestic Relations attorney, Peter R. Olson Esq. – in October 2008 he was checking out Craigslist,  looking for God knows what; and he found a law firm for sale.  By golly, it just happened to belong to his buddy, John the Pirate Slayer Steele! Despite the fact that Peter Olson had his own law firm and his Des Plaines condo was being foreclosed on and he was being sued by multiple creditors the purchase of a family law firm associated with pornography must have struck him as a solid investment.

No offense to Craigslist! Craigslist is great! Everyone knows that you can get some wonderful and affordable items on Craigslist: intimate encounters, a dorm fridge, slightly used slipcovers, re-homed lawn gnome, law firms – you know, really important stuff!  A quick look at the Cook County docket shows that Mr. Steele seems to have dropped all but one or two of his special  family clients in the summer / fall of 2011. But who needs clients when you’ve got a *found it on Craigslist* law firm to control! There is still no clarity about who actually owns the Steele Law Firm turned Chicago Family Law Group. Court documents show over a year of changing names, attorney, and firms numbers and stories with no end or truth in sight. Surely, NO ONE has ANY suspicion that they are laundering copyright money through that family law firm. No, doubt the Criminal Investigations Unit of the IRS won’t have any questions about Steele or Olson’s explanation about THAT firm. <cough*cough> Especially after that deposition about not paying any taxes! Nevis? St. Kitts? Offshore accounts? Trusts? Really? Come on guys who owns the CFLG?

So what happens when lawyers go rogue? 

Despite Steele’s claims of retirement and the Prenda was solely owned by attorney, Paul A Duffy, Steele seemed to be popping up all over the country at all sorts of court dates. As Steele showed up in court room after court room, some other things seemed to follow.  Yes, it was an outcry from many of extortion, lies, belligerent pleadings, threats in the hallway, improper service, questionable rulings in questionable places, and altered states.  Claims of identity theft, forgeries, and out and out lies.  It seems everyone affiliated with Steele stands accused of being involved with fraud. In time it seems most of the country caught on to the tricks and were no longer going to be fooled by troll games. On May 6th 2013, the Honorable Otis D Wright II issued an order for sanctions against Steele and some his minions in the form of 81k, a referral to the IRS criminal investigations unit and United States Attorney Office and the state and federal bar associations. Further, Judge Wright used words like “moral turpitude” as he described Steele, his minions and their business model. Still Cook County and St. Claire County seemed to be very willing to indulge the same behaviors that other federal court judges felt to be possibly criminal in nature.   Oh the men of Prenda fought hard to sue the internet or anyone that dared to speak out about their experiences with Prenda or Steele and they fought to do it in St. Claire County. Gosh, hate much?

Rut-Ro-Raggy! The Feds want to talk to ya!

But it seems that there is a little problem, the Feds are in St. Clair County. Moreover, it seems that a buddy of Steele, James Fogarty was dealing some coke to some judges, Cook and Christ. Christ  died of an overdose of cocaine allegedly provided to him by Fogarty. It looks that the drugs and mess don’t begin or end there or with those three people or that court system.

Bloomberg News and both touched on the Steele  – Forgarty connection or at least what they knew about at the time. But is there more to that story? Read the news of the impact that cocaine had in the St. Clair court cases, is it any different in Will County or Cook County?

There were a lot of questionable rulings and the cocaine / dealer connection now explains much of how those rulings came to be in St. Clair Co. but what about the other counties?

Great! We’ve got judges on drugs making rulings for their dealer and Steele is sending dealers to do his dirty work.

How can the average litigant stand a chance of receiving any sort of justice when they are up against attorneys that are allowed to practice despite the overwhelming evidence of their abuse and misuse of the legal process. Seriously, what sort of world do we live in where it’s okay for a lawyer to send a drug dealer to someones home to “serve them” legal papers. Papers which are now really under-fire because a tsunami of evidence has surfaced to show that the “pirate slayer” is really the honeypot pusher. Could it get anymore disgusting?

How can anyone get a shot at justice when the judge is indebted to their dealer; to keep them supplied with cocaine and heroine and to keep their drug problem a secret?   It’s an environment where blackmail and extortion flourish and the innocent suffer the worst consequences. St. Clair news has already reported on how rulings were made in favor of the dealer. If you look at Cook County and Will County, is any different? When judges and lawyers get caught up in child porn, trafficking, drugs and dirty money – it’s clear that rulings are made based on vices, not the law.

What about the children in family court? Is this why so many rulings appear to defy both man and God’s law? If it’s not because of a vice, why are so many people crying out with nearly identical stories about their children being sent to live with their abuser? How does the court justify cutting off all contact with the protective parent? Now that the court has embarrassed “Parental  Alienation”, how come they always seem to accuse the non-alienating parent of alienation?  What is seen frequently is that the alienating parent pretends to be the “friendly parent” and accuses the other parent of PAS. The court then places the child with the REAL PA parent on the grounds that that parent will foster a relationship with the child and the other parent and then the REAL PA parent joins the court in cutting  off all contact with the other parent akin to a termination of parental rights. Why isn’t THAT parental alienation?  Why are children so frequently turned over to abusers despite the overwhelming evidence?  There are cases where the parent is clearly involved in drugs, child pornography, sexual abuse, and other harmful behaviors and the judges punish the parent that offers the court proof. It almost seems like the more evidence the protective parent has, the worse the ruling. The parents with no evidence of abuse and false allegations win.  The parents with pictures of the other parent watching child porn on the computer and witnesses of physical abuse lose. Good parents are disposable. Unlike coke and porn, good people and good parents just don’t seem to have much value anymore.

Looking at the fall out in St. Clair, the news lists some rulings that were not made because of the law or the merits of the case, the rulings were made based on vices and personal issues. This has to be eradicated. The very purpose of the legal system is to enforce the law for the betterment of society.  When lawyers are allowed to use forged  documents, extortion and break the law   – justice is denied. Evil prevails. When judges are beholden to their dealers, the law becomes useless. The best pleading or the most skilled lawyer won’t help the case, because it’s decided on a drug deal, not the law. We might as just cancel court and send the judges home, because noting good comes of this situation.

It’s great that the FBI is investigating St. Clair, but they need to come take a look at why Judge Pornlito was allowed to sit on the bench in Will County watching porn on the county computer on the tax payer dollars while making decisions about the futures of children and families. They need to look at why the Cook County Judge(s) in the Lucy Vega case doesn’t want to see the evidence of the father allegedly watching child porn. They need to look at why so many complaints about Due Process and abusive and erratic behavior are posted on the Robing Room about Judge Raul Vega in room 3001 at the Daley Center. They need to look at why Child Representative Jerry S. Goldberg used someone with a history of domestic violence to provide “professional supervision” between alleged abusers and their children. How about the DOJ coming in to take a look at the blatant ADA violations?

It wouldn’t take a big fancy sting. It just takes sitting in a few court rooms for a few days and taking a look at the records. (The complete record)

A check on the ARDC web site shows that John Steele, Peter Olson, and Paul Duffy are still free to practice law today. The judges of Will and Cook County go unchecked.


We need more Judge Wright’s – to judge right. We need eyes on the court and people to speak out about it and not shut up until the problems are fixed. We need the FBI to look at the similarities in judgments in Will, Cook and St. Clair Co. – maybe that won’t be the only similarity they find.  The common threads might be right in front of their eyes. Really, right in front of your eyes.

Thank you for visiting today’s blog posting Willcountyprose @

Be sure to come back and read the extra special mid week blog post.


Special thanks to the good guys – doing good work. I like your suit.  You do this country proud.


Thanks to the judges and attorneys that are doing a stellar job. Your services are deeply appreciated. 


Justice will out!


Read more about Judge Otis D. Wright II and his outstanding command of the law and justice:

Read more about Lucy Vega’s battle to save her son:


Read more about Prenda and his purported porn piracy shakedown:


Read more about the man child rep, Jerry Goldberg used to provide professional supervision between parents and children:


Read more about the rulings St. Clair Co, IL judges made in favor of their drug dealer:


Read more about the suspected collusion between Prenda attorneys and opposing counsel in Cook co and St. Clair co.:


*Be sure to read the “Agreed Orders” linked in the FCT web site. Look familiar?


Read more about what happened to The Steele Law Firm LLC and Chicago Family Law Group LLC:


Read more about how “SJD” (Sophisticated Jane Doe) and Die Troll Die successfully kicked off a movement to fight back against abuse of the legal process:


View the interactive timeline, map and cartoons of the evolution of IMHO fraud:


The timeline has some links to some documents that you might not have expected. Over 360 & growing!

Ohai DHS! Come back soon!


About these ads

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here.

Tell me more | Dismiss this message

Tagged: ,,

Leave a Reply

This happens in every court house in ILLINOIS its called the COTTAGE INDUSTRY

December 23, 2013 § 2 Comments

Parental Alienation -Cover-up of a ‘Foreseeable harm’

Emotional and Psychological abuse is all about Power and Control.  It is the misuse of that power and control where the abuse is defined. The Best Interest of the Child statute of Virginia was written to give Judges ‘wide latitude’ in determining the presence of abuse in the family.  Parental alienation is the abuse of power and control by the custodial parent and can be prevented.  Parental alienation is not a mystery, and understanding domestic violence, abuse, and the dynamics of power and control are all that are required to prevent it.  Dr. Samenow understood this and accurately refers to abusers as ‘controllers’.

High Conflict divorce is also not a mystery. All the research into High Conflict divorce shows that they are defined by the extensive litigation.  Janet Johnston is the best known researcher of high conflict divorce and parental alienation. Her work dating back to the the 1990′s shows that 80% of divorce cases are settled, either up front, or as the case moves through the process.  Studies have found that only 20% of divorcing or separating families take the case to Court.  Only 4-5% ultimately go to trial, with most cases settling at some point earlier in the process.’   Janet Johnston also found there to be a ‘severe psychopathology’ in one or both parties, in high conflict divorces where visitation is litigated.  My ex-wife has never even attempted to settle.  My case has had over 50 hearings and I have been put in jail 4 times, at the request of my ex-wife. Her father was convicted of accomplice to murder, and the Court still has no psychological information about my ex-wife or her head injury.

Domestic Violence is also almost always present in High Conflict Divorce. Peter Jaffe is one of the World’s leading experts on children, domestic violence, and custody.  The research used by Jaffe to support the claim that Domestic Violence is present in 75% of that 5% of Couples that actually go to trial.  The research into Jaffe’s research is supported by multiple studies and very well documented.

Children in the Crossfire: Child Custody Determinations Among Couples With a History of Intimate Partner Violence,” Violence Against Women, Vol. 11, No. 8, August 2005, – See more at:

In 1997, The Virginia Commission on Domestic Violence Prevention conducted a study into Custody Cases.  The study found that in custody cases where there was also a domestic abuse case in court, only 25% of the custody files referenced the existence of the domestic abuse case.  So, of all the cases in Virginia that are high-conflict, about 50% of the domestic violence is not even considered by the Court in making Custody decisions.  This is a systemic failure.

In my relationship, I had no power or control.  My friends, family and everyone that knows me or my ex-wife and her family, knows that I had no power or control. Dr. Samenow was given the witnesses that would confirm the imbalance of power, control and money in the relationship. Dr. Samenow never contacted my psychiatrist or 5 other witnesses that were provided to verify the abuse of power in the relationship.  I even provided Dr. Samenow with a signed release to speak to my psychiatrist who began treating me for depression and abuse, 2 years after my ex-wife’s traumatic brain injury.  The head injury was very serious and was also identified as a source of conflict in the relationship, in a deposition for the personal injury lawsuit.

Dr. Samenow was also shown a ripped shirt that I had brought into his office, as evidence of domestic violence.  My ex-wife had assaulted me, in front of our children, on January 19, 2008. She attacked me from behind as I tried to escape her anger. She woke me out of bed to help her find her keys, which were in my pants pocket  on the floor. Before she woke me up, she had already taken my car keys.  She was also already in a state. When I found her the keys the anger did not dissipate.  After 8 years, my conditioned response, at this point, was to flee, not to fight.  When I attempted to leave and go to the gym, I found my keys missing.  She mockingly claimed she had no idea where the keys were and followed me around the house, as I looked. I wanted out of there, so I picked up a tray of her jewelry beads, and explained very calmly, as my children were right there, that if she gives me the keys, I won’t turn over the tray.  She didn’t give me my keys to leave, so I overturned the tray and calmly grabbed another tray.  I asked her a second time to for my keys and calmly turned over the second tray.  My ex-wife flew into a rage and began hitting and scratching me from behind, ripping the shirt, I showed Dr. Samenow, from my body. The police found me behind a locked door with our children.  When they were taken out, I broke down. This event is a microcosm of the dynamic of our relationship and this entire divorce and Dr. Samenow completely misrepresented it to the Court. My ex-wife would become irrational, use instrumental aggression and prevent me from escaping, I would then respond with an elevated reactive aggression.  I am not proud of my reactions, but they were not the source of conflict. Just like our divorce.

Here is what Dr. Samenow included in his report about the incident:

Ms. Mackney spoke of her husband’s explosive nature in citing a particular incident in which Mr. Mackney became upset and scattered her jewelry materials all over the room. This was after an argument which had eventuated in each taking the other’s keys.

“He took the drawers out and threw the jewelry – thousands of dollars worth of jewelry. There were two trays sorted by size. He dumped both of these. I was trying to stop him. I called the police. He was going to delete my work files on the computer.”

Dr. Samenow failed to include the Domestic Violence of my ex-wife. I was the one to call the police on her, and I threatened to delete her work files because her father took the shirt, I brought in to show him as evidence. My nature is also not explosive, as anyone has known me or dated me would tell you.  I have no history of violence or aggression in my relationships. None.  Dr. Samenow also withheld my reports of my ex-wife attacking me on our honeymoon, while I was driving our rental car.

Judge Bellows became aware that there was evidence of domestic violence, that Dr. Samenow left all of it from his report, in April 2009.  Dr. Samenow was paid by my ex-wife as a witness to testify after Dr. Zuckerman had testified that there was ‘no reason’ why I should not have access to my children.  Dr. Samenow got on the stand and I pulled out the shirt and asked him under oath if he had seen the shirt before.  He admitted that I brought it into his office to show him, but there is no reference to it in his report.

The legal profession and the psychological profession are failing to protect children from a foreseeable harm, by ignoring the dynamics of power and control and the presence of Domestic Violence.  The Courts who are responsible for managing the conflict and are beholden on the Psychological professionals and forensic evaluators to understand the conflict.  The law empowers Judges to also obtain information about the conflict through other methods, such as Guardian Ad Litems, Parenting Coordinators, and Court Appointed Special Advocates.

The Law, as written, empowers Judges to protect children from parental alienation.  They have the tools at their disposal to determine the presence of abuse.  Judge Bellows knew there was domestic violence and that Dr. Samenow failed to report it.  Two months later, he held me in contempt of court and took away visitation with my children for not includinga receipt, when I faxed a copy of a lease to my ex-wife’s attorney.

Judge Bellows covered up for the fraud of Dr. Stanton Samenow and failed to protect children from a foreseeable harm, especially when you read all the motions that were filed with the Court that he denied.  Judge Bellows chose to protect the professional reputation of Dr. Samenow and Judge Ney over protecting children from abuse.  Judge Bellows was the Judge in another case where Dr. Samenow testified as a witness for the Commonwealth and was also accused of not documenting the facts accurately.

Share this:


November 28, 2013 § Leave a comment






Proposed Amendments to Maine Rules for Guardians Ad Litem

Comments due on or before Monday, December 2, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court invites comments on proposed amendments to the Maine Rules for Guardians ad Litem. The proposed amendments are available on the Court’s website at rules_adminorders/rules/proposed/gal/proposed_amends_mr_gals_2013-11-13.pdf.

Any comments should be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court by Monday, December 2, 2013, at 4:00 p.m. Comments in writing should be mailed to the address below. Comments sent via email may be in the text of an email or in an attachment to an email, addressed to If the comments are in an attachment, the attachment must be a document in portable document format (.pdf). The Clerk’s Office will acknowledge receipt of the e-mail via a reply e-mail.

All comments must contain (1) the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the individual submitting the comments; and (2) the name, mailing address, and primary telephone number of the organization (if any) on whose behalf the comments are submitted. An individual need not be an attorney to submit comments on behalf of an organization.

Dated: November 13, 2013

Matthew Pollack
Executive Clerk
Maine Supreme Judicial Court 205 Newbury Street Room 139 Portland, Maine 04112-0368 (207) 822-4146



1. The Maine Rules for Guardians Ad Litem, which were last amended in March 2001, are repealed upon approval of this amendment.

2. The following Maine Rules for Guardians Ad Litem are adopted to read as follows:


(a) Authority and Scope. These Rules are adopted pursuant to 4 M.R.S. §§ 1551 to 1557, 18-A M.R.S. § 1-112, 19-A M.R.S. § 1507, and 22 M.R.S. § 4005, to address practice and performance of guardians ad litem in the District Court, the Superior Court, and the Probate Court. They govern the qualifications for guardians ad litem, standards of conduct for guardians ad litem, appointment of guardians ad litem, and placement of guardians ad litem on, and removal of guardians ad litem from, the guardian ad litem Roster.

(b) Goals. These Rules are designed to govern and define the services provided by guardians ad litem to the court and to promote the best interests of the children whose interests they are appointed to represent. These Rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. When appointed pursuant to these Rules, a guardian ad litem is a quasi-judicial officer of the court, primarily subject to and governed by the court in the individual proceeding and by the guardian ad litem oversight process more generally. A guardian ad litem must tailor his or her work to the particular needs and circumstances of each case, as identified in the court order appointing the guardian ad litem, but, in general, a guardian ad litem shall

(1) represent consistently the best interests of the child and provide information to the court that assists the court in determining the best interests of the child;

(2) understand and uphold the law and court orders related to the guardian ad litem’s appointment;

page1image17672 page1image17832 page1image17992 page1image18152 page1image18312 page1image18472 page1image18632 page1image18792 page1image18952 page1image19112 page1image19272 page1image19432 page1image19592 page1image19752 page1image19912 page1image20072 page1image20232 page1image20392 page1image20552 page1image20712 page1image20872 page1image21032 page1image21192 page1image21352

(3) maintain the highest standards of professionalism, cultural sensitivity, and ethics;

(4) recognize that timely resolution of each matter serves the best interests of the child and the child’s need for stability;

(5) within the scope of authority defined by statute or court order, plan, carry out, document, and complete thorough, appropriate, and fair investigations in a timely fashion;

(6) communicate in a developmentally appropriate way with the child;

(7) make well-reasoned and factually based recommendations regarding the best interests of the child as directed by the order of appointment;

(8) pursuant to the order of appointment, include parties in the investigation, use effective communication techniques, recognize limitations that may be imposed by the financial resources of the parties as applicable, and be aware of the cultural and socioeconomic status of the parties; and

(9) Complete assignments and written reports in a timely manner and communicate effectively with the court in motions, reports, recommendations and testimony.

(c) Definitions. As used in these Rules, the following terms have the following definitions:

(1) CASA or CASA Program. “CASA” means a court appointed special advocate, and “CASA Program” means the Court Appointed Special Advocate Program established in Title 4, Chapter 31.

(2) Chief Judge. “Chief Judge” means the Chief Judge of the District Court or the Chief Judge’s designee.

(3) Judge or Court. “Judge” or “Court” means a Justice of the Superior Court, a Judge of the District Court, a Judge of the Probate Court, or a Family Law Magistrate.

(4) Roster. “Roster” means the roster of guardians ad litem maintained by the Chief Judge that separately identifies CASAs and individuals approved to serve


page2image16448 page2image16608 page2image16768 page2image16928 page2image17088 page2image17248 page2image17408 page2image17568 page2image17728 page2image17888 page2image18048 page2image18208 page2image18368 page2image18528 page2image18688 page2image18848 page2image19008 page2image19168 page2image19328 page2image19488 page2image19648 page2image19808 page2image19968 page2image20128 page2image20288 page2image20448 page2image20608 page2image20768 page2image20928

As guardians ad litem in Title 18-A proceedings, Title 19-A proceedings, and/or Title 22 proceedings.

RULE 2. GUARDIANS AD LITEM (a) Appointment.

(1) Title 18-A and 19-A Proceedings. In Title 18-A and Title 19-A proceedings a judge may appoint, without any findings, any person listed on the Roster. In addition, when a suitable guardian ad litem included on the roster is not available for appointment, a court may, for good cause shown and after consultation with the parties, appoint an attorney admitted to practice in this State who, after consideration by the court of all of the circumstances of the particular case, in the opinion of the appointing court has the necessary skills and experience to serve as a guardian ad litem. For the purposes of this paragraph, good cause may include the appointment of a guardian ad litem on a pro bono basis.

(2) Child Protection Proceedings. Guardians ad litem appointed in child protection proceedings pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4005 shall be either a CASA or an attorney listed on the Roster. If neither a CASA nor a rostered attorney is available, the court may appoint another attorney.

(b) Application, Selection, and Placement of Guardians ad Litem on Roster.

(1) Application.
(A) Form. Roster applications shall be submitted on the official

form that can be obtained from the Family Division of the Maine District Court. The Chief Judge may accept an application filed on a substitute form if the Chief Judge determines that substantially all of the information required by the official form has been furnished. The Chief Judge may reject an application that is incomplete or does not meet applicable criteria, or the Chief Judge may require an applicant to provide additional information or explanation.

(B) Application Periods. The Chief Judge will accept applications and will review them periodically.

(2) Selection, Qualifications. The Chief Judge shall screen applications utilizing the criteria set forth in this section.


page3image18368 page3image18528 page3image18688 page3image18848 page3image19008 page3image19168 page3image19328 page3image19488 page3image19648 page3image19808 page3image19968 page3image20128 page3image20288 page3image20448 page3image20608 page3image20768 page3image20928 page3image21088 page3image21248 page3image21408 page3image21568 page3image21728 page3image21888 page3image22048 page3image22208 page3image22368 page3image22528 page3image22688 page3image22848 page3image23008 page3image23168 page3image23328

(3) Criteria for Initial Listing on the Roster. To become listed on the Roster an applicant must demonstrate

(A) Credentials.

(i) A current valid license to practice law in the State of Maine;

(ii) A current valid license to practice as an LCSW, LPC, LCPC, LMSW, LMFT, LPaC, psychologist or psychiatrist in the State of Maine; or

(iii) A Certification of Qualification by the Director of the CASA program, provided that a CASA Certification qualified individual may be appointed a guardian ad litem only pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4005.

(B) Core Training. Attendance at a guardian ad litem training with a curriculum of at least 18 hours for Title 18-A and/or 19-A rostering and 23 hours for Title 22 rostering that has been approved by the Chief Judge satisfies this requirement. The curriculum must include specified learning outcomes and activities designed to meet these outcomes, and must cover Titles 18-A, 19-A, and 22; dynamics of domestic abuse and its effect on children; dynamics of separation and divorce and its effect on children; child development; timing and impact of court related events from a child’s perspective; the effects of abuse, neglect and trauma on children; substance abuse; mental health; family finance and the impact of separation and divorce; legal issues and processes; professionalism as a guardian ad litem; the duties and obligations of the guardian ad litem as an agent of the court; and interviewing techniques.

For a guardian ad litem acting under the auspices of the CASA program, successful completion of CASA training satisfies this requirement. CASA guardians ad litem who accept appointment in non-CASA cases must complete the core training requirements.

(C) Good Character. The applicant must demonstrate to the Chief Judge that he or she is presently of good character and fitness to serve as a guardian ad litem.


page4image17352 page4image17512 page4image17672 page4image17832 page4image17992 page4image18152 page4image18312 page4image18472 page4image18632 page4image18792 page4image18952 page4image19112 page4image19272 page4image19432 page4image19592 page4image19752 page4image19912 page4image20072 page4image20232 page4image20392 page4image20552 page4image20712 page4image20872 page4image21032 page4image21192 page4image21352 page4image21512 page4image21672 page4image21832 page4image21992

(4) Placement on Roster. The Chief Judge shall notify applicants of the results of the application screening process. Applicants who pass application screening are conditionally accepted, and shall complete a release authorizing the Administrative Office of the Courts to conduct a background check consisting of: (A) a criminal history information check, (B) a child protective services information check, and (C) a certificate of good standing from the licensing authority for the Applicant’s profession, which must include disclosure of any disciplinary action taken regarding the applicant in the 10 years preceding the date of the application.

Applicants whose background check results are satisfactory to the Chief Judge will be finally accepted and placed on the roster. Applicants whose background check results are not satisfactory to the Chief Judge shall not be finally accepted and placed on the roster.

Applicants whose initial checks indicate a material problem may be disqualified or asked for additional information or releases.

The requirements for initial rostering must be maintained in order for a guardian ad litem to remain in good standing and included on the roster.

The decision of the Chief Judge is final and not subject to appeal.

(5) Continuing Education Requirements. Unless these requirements are waived by the Chief Judge, a guardian ad litem shall attend and complete any continuing professional education events or seminars designated as mandatory by the Chief Judge. In addition, in each 12-month period, a guardian ad litem must annually participate in a total of at least 6 hours of continuing professional education programs applicable to one or more of the issues identified as core training issues in Rule 2(b)(3)(B). At least one credit hour shall be primarily concerned with professionalism education. Qualifying professionalism education topics include professional responsibility as a guardian ad litem; legal ethics related to guardian ad litem work; conflicts of interest; diversity awareness in the legal profession; confidentiality of guardian ad litem records in Title 18-A, 19-A, and/or 22 cases; communication with parents involved in Title 18-A, 19-A, and/or 22 cases and their children; and complaint avoidance topics such as file management and billing practices.

Completion of the specified training hours shall be demonstrated by filing a statement, on a form approved by the Chief Judge, by August 31 of each year. A


page5image20688 page5image20848 page5image21008 page5image21168 page5image21328 page5image21488 page5image21648 page5image21808 page5image21968 page5image22128 page5image22288 page5image22448 page5image22608 page5image22768 page5image22928 page5image23088 page5image23248 page5image23408 page5image23568 page5image23728 page5image23888 page5image24048 page5image24208 page5image24368 page5image24528 page5image24688 page5image24848 page5image25008 page5image25168 page5image25328 page5image25488 page5image25648 page5image25808 page5image25968

guardian ad litem who does not file the statement of completion of the requisite number of training hours by August 31 of each year shall be subject to sanctions, which could include permanent removal from the roster.

(6) Acceptance of Court Referrals. A guardian ad litem should anticipate being asked to accept at least one Title 19-A pro bono or reduced fee referral from the Judicial Branch per calendar year, other than Title 22 cases, and should do so to the extent consistent with the guardian ad litem’s other professional, personal, and other public interest service.

(7) Guardian ad Litem Resignation or Leave of Absence. A guardian ad litem may resign from the Roster at any time. A guardian ad litem may request a leave of absence from the Roster from the Chief Judge, who may accept the request, reject it, or condition acceptance on such terms as the Chief Judge believes are in the best interests of the Judicial Branch.


page6image9392 page6image9552 page6image9712 page6image9872 page6image10032 page6image10192 page6image10352 page6image10512 page6image10672 page6image10832 page6image10992 page6image11152 page6image11312 page6image11472




page6image12888 page6image13048

Pursuant to 18-A M.R.S. § 1-112(f), 19-A M.R.S. § 1507(6), 22 M.R.S. § 4005(1)(G), and these Rules, guardians ad litem are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from liability for actions undertaken pursuant to their appointments and these Rules.

(a) Appointment to a Case. An individual shall act in a case as a guardian

ad litem only as authorized by

(1) a limited purpose appointment order issued pursuant to Rule 5(b)(5), 4 M.R.S. § 1555, and either 19-A M.R.S. § 1507 or 18-A M.R.S. § 1-112;

(2) a standard appointment order issued pursuant to Rule 5(b)(6), 4 M.R.S. § 1555, and either 19-A M.R.S. § 1507 or 18-A M.R.S. § 1-112;

* This Rule is the focus of work by the Task Force chaired by Justice Silver.

page6image20560 page6image20720 page6image20880 page6image21040 page6image21200 page6image21360 page6image21520 page6image21680 page6image21840 page6image22000 page6image22160 page6image22320 page6image22480

(3) an expanded appointment order issued pursuant to Rule 5(b)(7), 4 M.R.S. § 1555, and either 19-A M.R.S. § 1507 or 18-A M.R.S. § 1-112; or

(4) an appointment order issued pursuant to Rule 5(c), 4 M.R.S. § 1556, and 22 M.R.S. § 4005.

(b) Title 18-A and 19-A Appointments.

(1) Consideration of Appointment. In proceedings to determine parental rights and responsibilities and guardianship of a minor pursuant to Title 18-A and in contested proceedings pursuant to Title 19-A, section 904, 1653, or 1803 in which a minor child is involved, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the child when the court has reason for special concern as to the welfare of a minor child. A guardian ad litem may be appointed by agreement of the parties, or on motion by one of the parties, or by the court, acting on its own motion.

(2) Timing of Motion for Appointment. In a Title 19-A proceeding, any motion or request to the court for appointment of a guardian ad litem shall be filed no later than the conference with the court following the first scheduled mediation session or 60 days after the first conference with the court, if mediation is waived. A motion or request for appointment of a guardian ad litem may be considered at a later time only if the court finds that

  1. (A)  there is good cause for the late motion;
  2. (B)  the reasons for the late motion could not have been anticipated

at a point when a timely motion could have been filed; and

(C) the appointment will not unreasonably delay resolution of the matter or harm the best interest of the child in achieving clarity in parental rights and responsibilities for the child.

(3) Factors to Consider. In determining whether an appointment must be made, the court shall consider

  1. (A)  The wishes of the parties;
  2. (B)  The age of the child;


page7image18232 page7image18392 page7image18552 page7image18712 page7image18872 page7image19032 page7image19192 page7image19352 page7image19512 page7image19672 page7image19832 page7image19992 page7image20152 page7image20312 page7image20472 page7image20632 page7image20792 page7image20952 page7image21112 page7image21272 page7image21432 page7image21592 page7image21752 page7image21912 page7image22072 page7image22232 page7image22392 page7image22552 page7image22712 page7image22872

(C) The nature of the proceeding, including the contentiousness of the hearing;

  1. (D)  The financial resources of the parties;
  2. (E)  The extent to which a guardian ad litem may assist in providing

information concerning the best interest of the child;

(F) Whether the family has experienced a history of domestic abuse;

  1. (G)  Alleged abuse of the child by one of the parties; and
  2. (H)  Other factors the court determines relevant.

(4) Contents of Appointment Order. The appointment shall be by court order, which shall be a limited purpose appointment order, a standard appointment order, or an expanded appointment order. The appointment order, which must be written on the court-approved form, shall

(A) Specify the guardian ad litem’s length of appointment; duties, including the filing of a written report pursuant to 4 M.R.S. § 1555(6) and either 19-A M.R.S. § 1507(5) or 18-A M.R.S. § 1-112(e); and fee arrangements, including hourly rates, timing of payments to be made by the parties, and the maximum amount of fees that may be charged for the case without further order of the court. The guardian ad litem may not perform and shall not be expected to perform any duties beyond those specified in the appointment order, unless subsequently ordered to do so by the court.

(B) If, in order to perform any specified duties, the guardian ad litem needs information concerning the child or parents, the court may order the parents to sign an authorization form allowing the release of the necessary information. The court order may specify that the guardian ad litem must be allowed access to the child by caretakers of the child, whether the caretakers are individuals, authorized agencies, or childcare providers.

(C) In Title 18-A proceedings, the court shall specify who is responsible for payment of the guardian ad litem’s fees. In Title 19-A proceedings, the order shall specify that payment for the services of the guardian ad litem is the responsibility of the parties pursuant to 19-A M.R.S.


page8image18880 page8image19040 page8image19200 page8image19360 page8image19520 page8image19680 page8image19840 page8image20000 page8image20160 page8image20320 page8image20480 page8image20640 page8image20800 page8image20960 page8image21120 page8image21280 page8image21440 page8image21600 page8image21760 page8image21920 page8image22080 page8image22240 page8image22400 page8image22560 page8image22720 page8image22880 page8image23040 page8image23200 page8image23360 page8image23520 page8image23680

§ 1507(7), with the terms of payment specified in the order. In determining the responsibility for payment, the court shall consider

(i) The income and earnings of the parties;

(ii) The marital and nonmarital assets of the parties;

(iii) The division of property made or anticipated as part of the final divorce or separation;

(iv) Which party requested appointment of a guardian ad litem; and

(v) Other factors deemed relevant by the court, which shall be stated with specificity in the appointment order.

When appointment of the guardian ad litem or the fee arrangements for payment of the guardian ad litem are not agreed to by the parties, the court shall state in the appointment order its findings, based on the criteria stated above, supporting the appointment of the guardian ad litem and the fee payment order.

Collection of payment of fees, if a collection action is necessary, shall proceed pursuant to Title 14 and shall not be pursued in the action in which the guardian ad litem is appointed.

(5) Limited Purpose Appointment Order. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a specified, limited purpose or purposes. The order must specify the duties that the guardian ad litem shall perform, the duration of the appointment, the maximum number of hours that may be spent on the case by the guardian ad litem, the hourly fee rate, and the maximum fee that may be charged by the guardian ad litem. The order shall further specify when the fee shall be paid and by whom. If the payments ordered to be made before the guardian ad litem commences the investigation, if any, are not paid as ordered, the guardian ad litem shall notify the court, and the court may vacate the appointment order or take such other action it deems appropriate under the circumstances.

(6) Standard Appointment Order. The standard appointment order shall list the duties of the guardian ad litem to be performed pursuant to the order.

(A) Those duties, in each standard appointment order, shall be:


page9image19176 page9image19336 page9image19496 page9image19656 page9image19816 page9image19976 page9image20136 page9image20296 page9image20456 page9image20616 page9image20776 page9image20936 page9image21096 page9image21256 page9image21416 page9image21576 page9image21736 page9image21896 page9image22056 page9image22216 page9image22376 page9image22536 page9image22696 page9image22856 page9image23016 page9image23176 page9image23336 page9image23496 page9image23656 page9image23816 page9image23976

(i) Observing the child or children in the home or homes where the child or children regularly reside, and for each child over the age of 3, conducting a face-to-face interview with the child;

(ii) Interviewing each parent and each other adult who resides in the home or homes where the child or children regularly reside; and

(iii) Completing and filing a written report of investigations, findings, and recommendations as ordered by the court when the case is to proceed to a contested hearing, with copies of the report to each party and the court, within the time specified in the appointment order.

(B) For the performance of these duties, the appointment order shall specify a maximum fee and direct that a specified sum be paid within a set time before the guardian ad litem commences the investigation, with the remainder to be paid within 14 days after the filing of the written report. If the payments ordered to be made before the guardian ad litem commences the investigation are not paid as ordered, the guardian ad litem shall notify the court, and the court may vacate the appointment order or take such other action it deems appropriate under the circumstances.

(7) Expanded Appointment Order. The original appointment order or an amended appointment order may specify any additional duties of the guardian ad litem that shall be individually approved by the court.

(A) The additional duties may include

(i) Interviewing teachers and other people who have knowledge of the child or family;

(ii) Reviewing mental health, medical and school records of the child;

(iii) Reviewing mental health and medical records of the parents;

(iv) Having qualified people perform medical and mental evaluations of the child, within a time and at a cost to be stated in the order;

(v) Having qualified people perform medical and mental evaluations of the parents, within a time and at a cost to be stated in the order;


page10image18432 page10image18592 page10image18752 page10image18912 page10image19072 page10image19232 page10image19392 page10image19552 page10image19712 page10image19872 page10image20032 page10image20192 page10image20352 page10image20512 page10image20672 page10image20832 page10image20992 page10image21152 page10image21312 page10image21472 page10image21632 page10image21792 page10image21952 page10image22112 page10image22272 page10image22432 page10image22592 page10image22752 page10image22912 page10image23072 page10image23232

(vi) Procuring counseling for the child;

(vii) Retaining an attorney to represent the guardian ad litem in the pending proceeding, with approval of the court;

(viii) Subpoenaing witnesses and documents, and examining and cross-examining witnesses;

(ix) Serving as a contact person between the parents and the child; or

(x) Other duties that the court determines necessary, including, but not limited to, filing pleadings and testifying in court.

(B) If any additional duties are ordered to be performed pursuant to the original appointment order or an amendment of that order, the timing, report preparation deadlines, fee arrangements, and maximum fee limits set in the original appointment order shall be amended to recognize the additional duties set to be performed pursuant to the appointment order.

(8) Best Interest of the child. In performance of duties in Title 18-A and Title 19-A proceedings, the guardian ad litem shall use the standard of the best interest of the child as stated in 19-A M.R.S. §1653(3).

(9) Wishes of the child. The guardian ad litem shall make the wishes of the child known to the court if the child has expressed them, regardless of the recommendation of the guardian ad litem.

(10) Written report. A guardian ad litem shall provide a copy of any required final written report to the parties and the court at least 14 days in advance of the final hearing. The report is admissible as evidence and subject to cross-examination and rebuttal, whether or not objected to by a party. Any objections to the report shall be filed at least 7 days in advance of the final hearing.

(11) Court’s agent. A person serving as a guardian ad litem pursuant to 4 M.R.S. § 1555 and either 18-A M.R.S. § 1-112 or 19-A M.R.S. § 1507 acts as the court’s agent and is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for acts performed within the scope of the guardian ad litem’s duties.


page11image18000 page11image18160 page11image18320 page11image18480 page11image18640 page11image18800 page11image18960 page11image19120 page11image19280 page11image19440 page11image19600 page11image19760 page11image19920 page11image20080 page11image20240 page11image20400 page11image20560 page11image20720 page11image20880 page11image21040 page11image21200 page11image21360 page11image21520 page11image21680 page11image21840 page11image22000 page11image22160 page11image22320 page11image22480

(c) Title 22 Appointment Order. Guardian ad litem appointment orders entered pursuant to 4 M.R.S. § 1556 and 22 M.R.S. § 4005 must be written on a court-approved form and shall specify the terms and conditions of the guardian ad litem’s appointment as stated in Title 22 and in these Rules. The guardian ad litem has no authority to perform and shall not be expected to perform any duties beyond those specified in the appointment order, unless subsequently ordered to do so by the court.

(1) Meet and Interview Child. The guardian ad litem shall be provided access to the child by any agency or person. Irrespective of the child’s age, the guardian ad litem should visit with the child as soon as possible after appointment, consistent with statutory requirements or the order of appointment, or both. Unless otherwise specified by the court, the initial meeting must take place within 7 days after appointment. The guardian ad litem should meet with the child prior to court hearings and when apprised of emergencies or significant events that are likely to have an impact on the child. Unless otherwise specified by the court, the guardian ad litem must meet with the child at least quarterly.

(2) Investigation. In pursuit of the best interests of the child, the guardian ad litem should be given access to all reports and records relevant to the case and investigate to ascertain the facts. The investigation must include, when possible


page12image13344 page12image13504 page12image13664 page12image13824 page12image13984 page12image14144 page12image14304 page12image14464 page12image14624 page12image14784 page12image14944 page12image15104 page12image15264 page12image15424 page12image15584 page12image15744 page12image15904 page12image16064 page12image16224 page12image16384 page12image16544

and appropriate, (A) (B) (C) (D)

and other persons who have been involved in caring for or treating the child.

(3) Court filings. The guardian ad litem should file such reports, motions, responses, or objections as necessary and appropriate to the stage of the case to assist the court in identifying the best interests of the child and provide copies to all parties of record. In the event any new developments or significant changes in the child’s circumstances occur during the pendency of the court process, the guardian

the following:
Review of relevant mental health records and materials;
Review of relevant medical records;
Review of relevant school records and other pertinent materials; Interviews with the child with or without other persons present;

page12image24224 page12image24384 page12image24544 page12image24704 page12image24864 page12image25024


Interviews with parents, foster parents, teachers, caseworkers,

page12image26224 page12image26384 page12image26544 page12image26704 page12image26864 page12image27024 page12image27184

ad litem may file appropriate pleadings. Relief requested may include, but is not limited to:

  1. (A)  A mental or physical examination of a party or the child;
  2. (B)  A parenting, custody or visitation evaluation;
  3. (C)  An increase, decrease, or termination of contact, or the

imposition of conditions on contact;

  1. (D)  Restraining or enjoining a change of placement;
  2. (E)  Contempt for noncompliance with a court order;
  3. (F)  Termination of the parent-child relationship;
  4. (G)  Child support;
  5. (H)  A protective order concerning the child’s privileged

communications or tangible or intangible property;

  1. (I)  A request for services for child or family; and
  2. (J)  Dismissal of petitions or motions.

(4) Participation in Hearing. The guardian ad litem shall appear at all child protection proceedings to represent the child’s best interests, unless previously excused by order of the court, and other proceedings as ordered by the court. The guardian ad litem may present evidence and ensure that, where appropriate, witnesses are called and examined, including, but not limited to, foster parents and psychiatric, psychological, medical, or other expert witnesses. If the guardian ad litem testifies, the guardian ad litem shall be duly sworn as a witness and be subject to cross-examination.

(5) Protection of Child as Witness. The guardian ad litem shall protect the interests of the child who is a witness in any judicial proceeding relating to the case in which the guardian ad litem has been appointed. The guardian ad litem may advocate for special procedures, including, but not limited to, special procedures to protect the child witness from unnecessary psychological harm resulting from the child’s testimony, with or without the consent of other parties.


page13image16672 page13image16832 page13image16992 page13image17152 page13image17312 page13image17472 page13image17632 page13image17792 page13image17952 page13image18112 page13image18272 page13image18432 page13image18592 page13image18752 page13image18912 page13image19072 page13image19232 page13image19392 page13image19552 page13image19712 page13image19872 page13image20032 page13image20192 page13image20352 page13image20512 page13image20672 page13image20832 page13image20992

(6) Recommendations to the Court. The guardian ad litem shall recommend appropriate services, by motion for court order if necessary, to access entitlements, to protect the child’s interests, and to implement a service plan.

For interim or preliminary protection hearings, the guardian ad litem should, except as otherwise required, appear in court and offer recommendations subject to questions by the court and parties or counsel. The guardian ad litem should present written recommendations to the parties and the court reasonably in advance of any interim or final hearing. The report shall be based on the guardian ad litem’s investigation and evaluation and provide reasons in support of these recommendations. Unless otherwise specified by the court, the guardian ad litem must make a subsequent report at least semi-annually. Whether or not the guardian ad litem’s report is objected to, the report may be reviewed by the court and is fully admissible. In addition, whether or not the guardian ad litem’s report is objected to, the guardian ad litem may offer evidence to the court.

(7) Development of Services. The guardian ad litem should advocate for appropriate services, by motion for court order if necessary, to access entitlements, to protect the child’s interests, and to implement a service plan. These services may include, but are not limited to

  1. (A)  Family preservation prevention or reunification services;
  2. (B)  Sibling and family visitation;
  3. (C)  Child support;
  4. (D)  Domestic violence prevention, intervention, and treatment;
  5. (E)  Medical and mental health care, including residential/inpatient

and outpatient psychiatric treatment if necessary and appropriate;

  1. (F)  Drug and alcohol treatment;
  2. (G)  Parenting education;
  3. (H)  Semi-independent and independent living services;


page14image16104 page14image16264 page14image16424 page14image16584 page14image16744 page14image16904 page14image17064 page14image17224 page14image17384 page14image17544 page14image17704 page14image17864 page14image18024 page14image18184 page14image18344 page14image18504 page14image18664 page14image18824 page14image18984 page14image19144 page14image19304 page14image19464 page14image19624 page14image19784 page14image19944 page14image20104 page14image20264

(I) Foster care, including therapeutic foster or group home care if necessary and appropriate;

  1. (J)  Termination of parental rights action;
  2. (K)  Adoption services;
  3. (L)  Education, including special education and related services if

necessary and appropriate;

  1. (M)  Recreational or social services;
  2. (N)  Housing; and
  3. (O)  Supplemental security income (SSI) to help support needed

services, if necessary and appropriate.

(8) Best interests of the child. In performing the duties specified in the appointment order, the guardian ad litem shall use the standard of the best interest of the child.

(9) Additional Powers. A guardian ad litem has a broad potential scope of activity and authority in Title 22 proceedings. However, in most cases completion of all activities and the exercise of all powers are not necessary and, pursuant to 4 M.R.S. § 1556(2)(B), a guardian ad litem may not perform any duties beyond those specified by court order. Accordingly, in addition to the above elements, the guardian ad litem’s investigation may, where ordered by the court, include

(A) Reviewing the court files of siblings and other family members, and other case-related records of involved social service agencies and other service providers;

(B) Contacting lawyers for other parties and other guardians ad litem in the case and in other relevant cases for background information;

(C) Obtaining necessary authorizations for the release of information;

(D) Interviewing individuals involved with the child, including school personnel, child welfare case workers, foster parents, and other


page15image15368 page15image15528 page15image15688 page15image15848 page15image16008 page15image16168 page15image16328 page15image16488 page15image16648 page15image16808 page15image16968 page15image17128 page15image17288 page15image17448 page15image17608 page15image17768 page15image17928 page15image18088 page15image18248 page15image18408 page15image18568 page15image18728 page15image18888 page15image19048 page15image19208 page15image19368 page15image19528 page15image19688 page15image19848 page15image20008

caretakers, neighbors, relatives, coaches, clergy, mental health professionals, physicians, law enforcement officers, and potential witnesses;

(E) Reviewing relevant photographs, video or audio tapes and other evidence;

(F) Attending and participating in, where appropriate, treatment, placement, administrative hearings, other proceedings involving legal issues, and school case conferences concerning the child as needed;

(G) Assessing any physical, sexual, developmental, and/or emotional risks to or abuse of the child by utilizing risk assessment tools; evaluations, assessments, and reports; medical records; observation; and interviews with appropriate persons;

(H) Working effectively with other professionals involved in the assessment or treatment of the child and/or parties to a child’s case, to include:

(i) identifying the need for assessments related to domestic violence, abuse of a child, chemical dependency, mental health, and/or special developmental, educational, or medical needs of a child, and making referrals to appropriate specialists or treatment programs;

(ii) requesting educational testing of, or an individualized education plan for, a child;

(iii) understanding measurement tools, risk assessments, and reports related to domestic violence, abuse of a child, chemical dependence, mental health, and/or the special needs of a child; and

(iv) understanding scientific data related to paternity and/or medical needs of a child; disclosing information to other professionals, when it is in the child’s best interests to do so, in order that they can adequately perform their functions; and reviewing tentative conclusions or recommendations with them in order to test their validity or appropriateness;

(I) Participating in the development and negotiation, including mediation, of any plans or orders that affect the best interests of the child; and


page16image16048 page16image16208 page16image16368 page16image16528 page16image16688 page16image16848 page16image17008 page16image17168 page16image17328 page16image17488 page16image17648 page16image17808 page16image17968 page16image18128 page16image18288 page16image18448 page16image18608 page16image18768 page16image18928 page16image19088 page16image19248 page16image19408 page16image19568 page16image19728 page16image19888 page16image20048 page16image20208 page16image20368 page16image20528 page16image20688 page16image20848

(J) Monitoring implementation of service plans and court orders, through the termination or expiration of the guardian ad litem’s appointment, to determine whether services ordered by the court are being provided in a timely manner.

(10) Appointment of Counsel for Guardian ad litem. A guardian ad litem may petition the court to appoint a lawyer to represent the guardian ad litem when, in the judgment of the guardian ad litem, such appointment is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the guardian ad litem’s role. The guardian ad litem should understand that such an appointment is highly unusual, and that extraordinary cause will be necessary for such an appointment if the guardian ad litem is an attorney.


(a) Faithfully perform duties. The guardian ad litem must maintain independent representation of the best interests of the child and perform the guardian ad litem’s duties faithfully. Upon failure of the guardian ad litem to do so, the appointing court may discharge the guardian ad litem and appoint a successor or, in Title 18-A and 19-A cases, proceed without a guardian ad litem.

(b) Court’s agent. As a quasi-judicial officer, the guardian ad litem shall exercise his or her independent judgment on behalf of the child in all relevant matters, respecting the court’s obligation under Canon 3(B)(8) of the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct to “dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly.”

(c) Develop Understanding of Litigation. Commencing upon appointment, the guardian ad litem should, to the extent reasonably possible, considering the resources authorized for the guardian ad litem:

(1) Obtain copies of all relevant pleadings and notices;

(2) In Title 22 cases, unless excused by the court, and in Title 18-A and 19-A cases, when directed by the court, participate in depositions, negotiations, and discovery that are relevant to the child’s best interests, and participate in all case management, pretrial or other conferences, and hearings, unless excused by the court;


page17image18352 page17image18512 page17image18672 page17image18832 page17image18992 page17image19152 page17image19312 page17image19472 page17image19632 page17image19792 page17image19952 page17image20112 page17image20272 page17image20432 page17image20592 page17image20752 page17image20912 page17image21072 page17image21232 page17image21392 page17image21552 page17image21712 page17image21872 page17image22032 page17image22192 page17image22352 page17image22512 page17image22672 page17image22832 page17image22992 page17image23152 page17image23312

(3) Confirm with the Court Clerk that he or she has been appointed. The Clerk shall send copies of all subsequent notices and orders to the guardian ad litem. Parties and their counsel are on notice that the guardian ad litem is entitled to copies of all pleadings and correspondence with the court and is entitled to reasonable notification prior to case conferences, changes of placement, and other changes of circumstances affecting the child and the child’s family;

(4) Not cause case delays and attempt to reduce case delays. If unnecessary delays are encountered, the guardian ad litem should remind the court or its staff of the need to speedily resolve children’s issues;

(5) Include parties in the investigation, employ effective communication techniques, and be sensitive to the culture and socio-economic status of the parties.

(d) Explanation of Court Process. The guardian ad litem shall explain, when appropriate, the court process and the role of the guardian ad litem to the child. The guardian ad litem will assure, when necessary, that the child is informed of the purpose of court proceeding.

(e) Advocate for Clear Court Orders. The guardian ad litem should request orders that are clear, specific, and, where appropriate in Title 22 cases, include a time line for the assessment, services, placement, treatment, and evaluation of the child and the child’s family.

(f) Mandated Reporting. Pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4011-A, while acting in their professional capacity as guardians ad litem, guardians ad litem are mandated reporters, and if a guardian ad litem knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected, the guardian ad litem must make an immediate report to the Department of Health and Human Services.

(g) Confidentiality. A guardian ad litem shall observe all statutes, rules and regulations concerning confidentiality. A guardian ad litem shall not disclose information or participate in the disclosure of information relating to a case to any person who is not a party to the case, except as necessary to perform the guardian ad litem’s duties, or as may be specifically provided by law or by these Rules. Communications made to a guardian ad litem, including those made to a guardian ad litem by a child, are not privileged and may or may not be disclosed to the parties, to the court, or to professionals providing services to the child or the family based on the guardian ad litem’s evaluation of the best interests of the child. A guardian ad litem’s notes and work papers are privileged and shall not be disclosed


page18image22928 page18image23088 page18image23248 page18image23408 page18image23568 page18image23728 page18image23888 page18image24048 page18image24208 page18image24368 page18image24528 page18image24688 page18image24848 page18image25008 page18image25168 page18image25328 page18image25488 page18image25648 page18image25808 page18image25968 page18image26128 page18image26288 page18image26448 page18image26608 page18image26768 page18image26928 page18image27088 page18image27248 page18image27408 page18image27568 page18image27728 page18image27888 page18image28048 page18image28208

to any person. A court may review a guardian ad litem’s decision not to disclose information after an in-camera examination of the information in question. If the guardian ad litem is an attorney, she or he acts in his capacity as a guardian ad litem, rather than as an attorney, and information he or she receives is not subject to the attorney-client privilege.

A guardian ad litem may, when it is in the best interests of a child, initiate or participate in ex parte communications with the court about a particular case pursuant to Canon 3(B)(7)(C) of the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct. However, as a matter of due process and fundamental fairness, the guardian ad litem or the court must promptly disclose the nature of the communication to the parties or their counsel, unless such disclosure is likely to present a risk of harm to the child or a party, in which case the court will take such steps as are necessary to alleviate the potential for harm, and when the danger of harm has passed, disclose the nature of the communication to the parties or their counsel.

(h) Conflicts. If a guardian ad litem determines that there is a conflict of interest requiring withdrawal, the guardian ad litem should continue to perform as the guardian ad litem and seek permission from the court to withdraw. The guardian ad litem should request appointment of a successor guardian ad litem without revealing the details of the conflict, unless the guardian ad litem determines that it is in the child’s best interests to disclose the details.

If a guardian ad litem is appointed for siblings, a conflict for one child may also be a conflict that could require that the guardian ad litem seek to withdraw from representing all of the children.

(i) Withdrawal. A guardian ad litem may seek to withdraw by filing a motion with the court that appointed the guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem must continue representation until the motion is granted, and if the court’s order so provides, until a successor guardian ad litem is appointed. In Title 19-A cases, an order that appoints a guardian ad litem “for the duration of the case” does not obligate the guardian ad litem to serve once a final judgment has been rendered by the trial court. In Title 22 cases, an order that appoints a guardian ad litem “for the duration of the case” obligates the guardian ad litem to serve until final action, including adoption of the child.

Advisory Note – _____ 201_


page19image22456 page19image22616 page19image22776 page19image22936 page19image23096 page19image23256 page19image23416 page19image23576 page19image23736 page19image23896 page19image24056 page19image24216 page19image24376 page19image24536 page19image24696 page19image24856 page19image25016 page19image25176 page19image25336 page19image25496 page19image25656 page19image25816 page19image25976 page19image26136 page19image26296 page19image26456 page19image26616 page19image26776 page19image26936 page19image27096 page19image27256 page19image27416

The LSW license, which requires only a bachelor’s degree, has been removed from the list of licensures that form the predicate of a guardian application. Each of the other licenses requires at least a master’s degree.

3. These amended rules shall take effect on ________ __, 201_.


easy way to get paid lets see how many do the wrong thing and attach their brothers and sisters in the bar?

October 5, 2013 § Leave a comment

Please forward to the GAL in question that most recent opinion (Earlywine) regarding the retainers and leveling the playing field statute. The way I understand it, the GAL need not even go to bankruptcy court.  He or she just need to go back to mom’s and dad’s attorney and DISGORGE THEM!

If the leveling the playing field statute applies for the interim fees, then it should also apply to the final fees, or it would render the statute meaningless as our Supreme Court would reason.

 Once the GALs and the child reps start going after the moneys mom’s and dad’s attorneys had already earned and spent, we would see that the attorneys will settle faster not to get caught in the cottage ind. of the family law gals or child rep. that destroy the families monies for the children not to   have a lot of support their children in the future?

So, please make sure that all GALs and CHILD REPS know about the newest law.

The appearance that this happens everywhere is true these scumbags have no honor and its worst among the thieves….

August 12, 2013 § Leave a comment

As detail unfold, more likely than not we will learn that the dad was forced into supervised visitation by the Family Courts. More likely than not, there were allegations by mom to keep dad from the child. More likely than not, the Guardian ad Litem recommended SV to the Court as the only means that dad could see his child. Dad desperately wanted to be part of his child’s life, yet the Court and GAL system push dad to this act. Dad did not kill himself and his child, the Family Courts and NH GAL program killed both of them. Did you know that the NH coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse program sets precedence within the Family courts? Did you know that there is an Administrative Order (AO), establish by NH CADVSA, states that, Unrestricted Visitation are appropriate when there is no Domestic Violence or Sexual Abuse AND the parents agree to the conditions of shared parenting? What happens when one party, more times than not it is the mom, do not agree to the conditions of shared parenting? Did you know that a requirement to be in the NH supervised visitation centers, including this YMCA, is that you have to be cleared of the allegations that warrant you to be in supervised visited in the first place? So why was this Dad there in the first place? The GAL program put him there. The NH GAL program and the Family Courts cause this tragedy. Nothing else, when will this process learn that it is causing the problem.

this goes on in every where in every state and elsewhere this is the work of the (W.D.C) …..

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with gal at Will County Pro-se.