LD 953 HP 656 An Act To Implement Changes in the Family Division To Improve the Experience of Pro Se Litigants

An Act To Implement Changes in the Family Division To Improve the Experience of Pro Se Litigants

CONCEPT DRAFT SUMMARY


This bill is a concept draft pursuant to Joint Rule 208.

This bill proposes to make changes to the practice, procedures and administration of the Family Division of the District Court in order to improve the experience and effectiveness of Prose litigants in matters before that court.

This bill will be before the Judiciary Committee and when it comes up for testimony we will post the event.

What you say as Pro se

Forget law terms - what we have found is that the Family Court judge just wants to know what kind of parent you are. The kind of Mother or Father you will be.

How you state your case is more important that what it is that you say to the judge.

Chief Justice Saufley on the Pro se Litigant before Maine Judicial Committee.

Chief Justice LeighI. Saufley recently spoke before the Judiciary Committee of Maine. Among many topics she mentioned Pro se representation. Presented here is the sound bite dealing with Prose. Below is the transcription of the sound bite:

"To many people who have to come to court without lawyers - and that is a very long conversation, but we have all kinds of innovations we are working on. We're watching other states to see what's working there. The bottom line is that  people should have an attorney to help them when something in their life has gone so wrong that they have to be in a court room. Its not a good idea to not be represented, so we're working on plans to help improve all of that... ummmm..."

The sound bite may be found here: Chief Justice Leigh Saufley.

We would like to ask Chief Justice Saufley if she could gave us an example of some of those "innovations" she mentioned. How will they make the court system better? Are some of these "innovations" simply a euphemism for more money for Maine courts? The problems that the Judicial Branch have - go beyond the mantra of more money and innovations. Our Judicial Branch is the foundation to our system of justice here in this state and the structure that they are trying to patch is beyond mere cosmetic changes for which they have proposed before in the past.

Take for example the Family Court system that the Chief Justice has admitted is in trouble. Guardians ad litem that practice psychology, social work and law without a license but sanctioned and encouraged by the court to do so. On a regular basis we see the use of Consumers have been subjected to Judicial Out Sourcing; Junk Science; Psycho-eugenics; Legal Abuse Syndrome and Moral Equivalency. There is no scientific basis or history for these ideas - yet - the courts fully embrace these ideas.  There is no management of the various parts and no oversight. 74% of the parents entering the Family Court system who do so Prose and for the vast majority they have no idea how to conduct them selves. We have court officers who provide the bare minimum of help to the 74%. What "innovations" will help these customers of Family Court services? More money will not help. Money has poured into finding a solution and so far the investment has bared no fruit. Why are we "watching" other states? Are we looking for a patch that is less painful for customers? Once those solutions are found will the Judicial Branch even be able to implement process and systems change? I mean we are talking about a bunch of lawyers here. They know how to find innovative ways of charging their clients - but do they know anything about systems and process improvement?

As a foundation upon which the various courts stand - the Judicial Branch cannot afford to continue to make decisions that harm their consumers to the benefit of the 26% who are not Prose. It may be time to stop patching the building(s) and bring in an outside contractor for help. Someone who is not embedded in law, knows systems analysis and can identify issues and ways to improve them so that we have a world class court - as we did in the past.

Please contact us if you need help in filling out forms for Family Court. We are not able to provide legal advice (we are not lawyers) - just help. Contact us at MeProseWay@gmail.com. Also find us on Facebook.

Non-Custodial Parent Rights of Contact

Most people go Prose because of the huge cost of hiring a lawyer who may or maynot work for you. Listened to a case online where the lawyers were going back and forth regarding the rights of contact.

The judge had ruled that the non-custodial parent had rights of contact but did not take the step of setting up a basic schedule that the divorcing family could use as a guide. As a result the parents and their lawyers were back in court - again - fighting over what could be considered an acceptable schedule. The outcome does not matter for the purposes of this post. What does matter is that you as a Prose litigant should make sure there is a basic visitation schedule hammered out by all parties and the judge before leaving court. Otherwise you will find yourself right back in court.

Some other things to consider. All ways be thinking of the future:

1. Make sure that you are involved in the caring of your child as the non-custodial parent. You may not be able to bring your child to the doctor - but make an effort to find out what happened at the visit. Do not rely on the ex to provide the information.
2. Get involved with your child's school and his/ her teacher(s). This can be something as simple as emailing on a regular basis with the teacher.
3. Keep a diary of events and or things you have done with your child(ren) in a bound notebook. This is useful as it documents what you have done. It can also be used to show if there are any problems which you may have had to face with visitation.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate in contacting us at MeProseway@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Judge to Pro se Litigant "Have You Learned Your Lesson Yet?"

The Judge told the Prose litigant. The Judge went on to inform the parent that "You are lucky that I am giving you any visitation". This was after the Prose litigant tried to present the case and to be heard in court. When the Prose litigant tried talking the "judge" cut the parent off. This parent was not allowed to present evidence. The lawyer for the other side was allowed to ask questions and present evidence.

In the end the "judge" asked the Prose litigant whether or not she learned the lesson?

If the lesson was that as a Prose litigant she was going to receive second rate justice. Then the lesson came over loud and clear. To add insult to injury the "judge" told the Prose litigant that under no circumstances could she return back to court without being represented. Or she would face jail time. Mind you this parent was Prose because she could no longer afford a lawyer and owed several thousand dollars.

So what does one do in a situation like this? She is prevented from filing any motion, court order and can't go to court without a lawyer whom she cannot afford? She has effectively been prevented from receiving any kind of justice. Is this what the American "Justice" system degenerated to?

For help in representing yourself please contact us at 207-200-7311; email us at meproseway@gmail.com or find us on Facebook

#Proselitigant

Should I Be Part of a Class Action Suit Against My Guardian ad litem?

Recently there was talk about doing a class action suit against a particular Guardian ad litem. Three years ago I would have been in favor of something like that. Today not so in light of all of the actions brought against Guardians ad litem in the state. In 10 years there have been numerous complaints filed against Guardians ad litem with the Head Judge (this does not even take into consideration the complaints filed at the lower court). Out of about 150 complaints initiated by consumers do you know how many were successful in correcting/ removing the Guardian ad litem?

ZERO/ NONE

Well there were two removed by the courts because of mental health issues but those were not initiated by consumers (I stand corrected). As a consumer interested in filing a complaint at the highest level you would be better off investing in the lottery. You stand a far better chance of getting a result (any result) from the purchase of a lottery ticket than you would in court.

In three years little has been accomplished in courts - rolling the dice and playing by their rules. They (the courts and divorce industry) hold the cards. On the other hand there is no reason holding us back from playing with a different set of rules a different deck of cards. 

Think Different.......

Thinking of filing a complaint against the Guardian ad litem who has been on your case? While we cannot guarantee that you will see positive results we can help you structure and write the complaint. In filing a complaint against a Guardian ad litem you cannot think of immediate results but the long term and getting things out about the GAL for the record.

Follow us on Facebook or email us at meproseway@gmail.com for help.

Family Court , 'Quo Vadis? "improvement, reform or implosion"?

As we observe the big picture of Maine’s Family Courts, we sense that  our family courts appear to be slowly imploding. It is not a visibly dramatic happening that grabs public attention. It is largely unnoticed and unrecognized symptoms of decay from within. This process of decline is unnoticed, except, perhaps, by those who pass through the family court experience , and many of these victims are so wounded by the experience that it is hard for them to view the experience in a larger perspective. It is frequently hard for all of the active players - judges, lawyers and users - to "see the woods for the trees"! Let us consider a few of the amazing "systems changes" that are progressing, unnoticed, and that are, like termites, silently eating the structure of family courts from within.

“THE "TERMITES":  From our perspective, serious structural damage to family courts is being caused by the seemingly inexorable growth of 'pro se'  (self) representation in family courts. This phenomenon is occurring, not just in Maine, but in every state in America. In Maine, the figure for 'pro se' representation in family courts is reported to be a startling 74% and growing. There is also the eye-popping figure of 86% of family court cases, which have only ONE lawyer. The figures for 'pro se' representation, we might add, are even higher in Connecticut and NY. One has to ask, what is the impact of this amazing growth of self-representation on the family court system, on normal, professionally guided and determined family court proceedings? What happens to a professional legal system, with long traditions and well-established protocols for inter-professional relations, with a focus on complex, human problem solving, When one of the two "players" in these contests is underrepresented and completely  ignorant of how to function in the well-structured, traditional setting? General systems theory would suggest chaos and profound, unprogrammed, unintended changes in the way the system functions. Well-intended attempts to patch the traditional 'status quo' models, further change the original system and bring with them further unintended consequences. The working system is not as it was - try as it may. Some call it broken. The ‘pro se’ “trend is not its friend”!

WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SYSTEM?: With the invasion of 'pro se' litigants in family courts, desperate, frightened people with no knowledge or skill in the law and its traditions, turn the courtroom into a scene of confusion, stress, emotional pain and misunderstanding. Judges struggle mightily with "judicial impartiality" in dealing with the 'pro se' litigant. To help, or not to help - and how to do so without unbalancing fairness and throwing impartiality to the winds. How can a judge - without guidelines or traditions for handling this invasion of amateurs - try to maintain a degree of balance and proportion in a situation in which the combatants/ competitors are so unevenly matched? The 'pro se' litigant is always anxious, frequently frightened (or terrified) by the utterly unfamiliar environment, by the task of hoping to rescue a beloved child and by the daunting tensions of the contest. It is a forced visit to a very "foreign country" with unfamiliar rules, language and procedures. How to cross examine, what are rules of evidence and, then, there are all too frequently the "objections" raised at every turn by an opposing lawyer. What do they mean to a 'pro se' litigant? How should they be handled by the litigant and/or by the judge? Can an "impartial" judge help a baffled 'pro se' litigant deal with “objections”? Some judges do try to offer help and to be kind without violating impartiality, but it poses serious challenges to all of the "players". There are also a number of very troubling reports that some judges are rude and vent frustration with the ineptitude of 'pro se' litigants. "Don't come back to this court unless you have a lawyer!" has been the dictum of several judges. We’d say, there is a crying need for data to measure the scope of the problems? Then, one can address the second issue: how does one correct this total systems problem?

We'd answer those judges, who resist dealing with the legally unrepresented, by saying that no one in their right mind would undertake the personal stress and misery of 'pro se', unless motivated by great love for their children and financial hardship! The 'pro se' situation is never a happy choice for anyone, and no one decides to go 'pro se' unless they are utterly desperate! There is also the important question of "outcome"? Who wins  in these uneven combat situations? No one has answers to this question, but we are inclined to say, "Three guesses and the first two don't count!”  However ... there is a crying need for actual data to move the conversation beyond anecdotes.

PRESERVING FAMILY COURTS FOR THE SHRINKING 26% WHO HAVE (MONEY) LAWYERS: Apart from the 74% 'pro se' litigants without lawyers, one should also consider the remaining 26% who have lawyers. One might in all honesty say that the expensive Maine family courts are being maintained for this affluent  minority and (more importantly) their lawyers. As an arena for a few lawyers (and the associated apparatus of consultants and GALs), the whole operation has become known by the public (countrywide), as the divorce industry. Should family courts and their whole expensive apparatus be maintained at public expense for a 26% minority of litigants and the juicy financial interests of  "the divorce bar"?

AS NEWS ABOUT THE 'PRO SE' DISASTER ESCAPES THE SYSTEM: In this age of the Internet, the public learns quickly about the unhappy state of affairs of 'pro se' litigants in family court. Paradoxically, in many cases, the public may well know more than members of the Judicial Branch who are tightly isolated from news of serious malfunctioning, cruelty. Bad management and unintended harm to children by omnipresent, "due process" concerns.  The public, in all likelihood, knows more about specific courts and specific judges and lawyers than does the Chief Justice. But... the bad stories, once out, cannot be controlled or suppressed. It causes severe damage to the credibility of the courts. The mechanisms of channeling public complaints about the distressing dysfunctions within the system are not user-friendly, are very expensive and in terms of corrective outcome ineffective. But the complaints and the "scandals" cannot be stopped by a protective system and an ineffective complaint protocol. They spread out like an Internet miasma from Ft Kent to Kittery, from Maine to California. They give the family courts and their entire operation a very black eye. It is very reminiscent of the recent scandals in another very closed system, the Catholic Church. Old methods and techniques of suppressing bad news, bad results and bad people don't work. The old system is badly broken and out of control, and the target symptom of this malaise can be seen most clearly in the 'pro se' situation.

HOW TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM - FROM WITHIN OR FROM WITHOUT? It is our strong impression that without some thoughtfully programmed intervention, a growing 'pro se' situation in family courts will lead to a massive major breakdown of these courts in concert with widespread, public, bad feeling spiraling out of control. It will be impossible to control this tsunami of bad handling of 'pro se' cases. As social media become increasingly aware, the courts will face increasing disrespect and a lack of public support. It is truly a simple question of "fix it, or it will fix you!" In our opinion, the usual Judicial Branch problem solvers, the "stake holders" are the wrong group to fix the problem. They are the 26% who benefit financially from the current  'status quo' of family courts. There is also the serious hard data problem. Nobody knows the full extent of the 'pro se' problem. It is impossible to formulate a fully rational, systemic, corrective intervention without data. Clearly, the definition of systemic data needs (and subsequent data collection and analysis) is not a task within the capability of a "stake holder's" committee.

We'd recommend a legislative audit of the 'pro se' problem, executed by a respected government agency with the capability of doing this. OPEGA comes to mind. The aim is not to embarrass or cause pain to anyone. It is to obtain an objective analysis of the 'pro se' system and to suggest  comprehensive systemic corrections. With sponsorship from all three branches of government, it would be to the credit of all to face a terrible problem with courage and intelligence.

For more information about what we are doing to change the Family Court system find us on Facebook or email us at MeProseway@gmail.com