AU - Parents "What do I owe?" - Family Court "How much you got?"

Mr. Craig Kelly appears to be a politician whom the Guardian ad litem/ Court reform movement could use. He recently gave a speech earlier this month regarding the use of a court appointed expert who by all appearances took advantage of the situation he was in by gouging the divorcing family. This issue is quite common in our Family Court system where judges grant a monopoly to Guardians ad litem and other court 'experts'. We must educate our politicians to the problems within our court systems -

FAMILY COURT RORTS – Speech in Parliament (November 2015);

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:18): Deputy Speaker, this morning I would like to talk about a rort — a rort that is going on in the Family Courts of Australia.

It is a rort that involves excessive fees, price gouging and virtual extortion; it is nothing other than a scam.

I am not going to name names today, but I put those on notice involved in this rort. If necessary, I will name names in this parliament.

Now Deputy Speaker, in a truly competitive market, I have no objection to anyone charging what the market will bear. In our free market, capitalist society, they are entitled to charge as much as the customer will FREELY pay.

However, where we have a situation where the Family Court orders a so-called ‘single expert” to do what is called a 'report' or an 'analysis', the court is granting them a monopoly.

And these people should not be allowed to exploit that monopoly position granted to them by the Family Court, by price gouge and charge excessive fees.

This is an area which should have government regulation where we set and regulate the fees where the Court does grant them a monopoly.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to give you an example of one of the current practices. I have a Family Court order in front of me, and it states that the participants in the Family Court, the father and the mother, should attend a particular ‘Mr X’ (name withheld) on a certain date for a further ‘single expert report’.

It goes on that the cost of ‘Mr X's’ report will be borne equally by the parties and that they will pay the sum of $8,000 each.

So Mr X is entitled to a sum of $16,000. (And parent of the child is unable to pay, they will be denied the right to even see their child, so the child is a victim of this rort as well)

When it was asked how this is calculated, it worked out at a fee of $700 per hour. That’s right Deputy Speaker; $700 per hour.

Now this is for a psychiatrist. If I look at the Australian Psychological Society's national schedule of recommended fees—the recommended fee schedule in place from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016—it sets out the recommended level of fees for an hour of consultation at $238.

So, because the courts are giving this particular individual a monopoly position—

(debate interrupted - Proceedings suspended from 11:21am to 11:34am) (debate resumed 11.34am)

-I will continue where I left off.

I was giving an example of the current practice of this rort whereby the scheduled fee recommended by the professional association is around $238 an hour (that’s $9,520 for a 40hr week – nice work if you can get it).

But in this case because the so-called expert involved has a court-ordered monopoly, they are able to charge what they like.

And they are charging 200% ABOVE the scheduled fee recommended by their professional association — a charge, including GST, of up to $700 an hour.

Deputy Speaker, I have no objection if in a fair, free and open competitive market if they want to charge $7,000 an hour, and someone is willing to pay this of their own free will.

But where the court compulsory orders a participant in the court proceedings to see an ‘single expert’ thereby granting such an individual a monopoly, and they charge such an excessive fee — a 200 % uplift, a $500 per hour UPLIFT (on the scheduled fee recommended by the professional association) — it is nothing other than an absolutely rort.

Deputy Speaker, I am not one for excessive government regulation,however we should have legislation that sets a maximum schedule of fees for these 'single experts' if they are to be given a court ordered monopoly.

For the current situation is very similar to what I remember in an old Chevy Chase movie, 'National Lampoon's Vacation', where Clark W. Griswall (played by Chevy Chase) crashed his car and had to get his car repaired. He pulls out this wallet and asks, ‘What do I owe you?'

And the repairer said, 'How much you got?' And when Clark complains about such price gouging, the repair pulls out this sheriff’s badge.

Deputy Speaker, his is akin to the same situation that we have going on in our Family Court today, and it is totally unacceptable.

Secondly, I have great concerns over some of the secrecy provisions in the Family Court. I would like to quote one Mr J Robert Oppenheimer from the 1950s. He said, which well applies to our Family Court today:

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism … We know that the wages of secrecy are corruption. We know that in secrecy error, undetected, will flourish and subvert.”

We need to end a few practices in our Family Court. We need to end the practice of secrecy.

We need to shine a bright light on the practices that are currently going on in our Family Court.

If we are going to continue to have the practice of single experts, a practice which I am greatly concerned about, we must have a schedule of professional fees they can charge. which must be reasonable.

And Deputy Speaker, regarding the current practices—these current rorts that I have outlined — I am putting these people on notice that they are being watched. This parliament is going to shine a light on their activities. (time expired).


If you have been involved in a case which has turned sour or just does not make sense we ask that you contact us at NationalGALalaert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Am I the only one who sees this GAL is wrong?

The stages of realizing there is a problem with the Family Court System is universal for families, relatives and friends who have experienced the system first hand. In our frustration with the courts we spend different lengths of time working through a series of 5 steps that are similar to the 5 stages of Loss and Grief as first proposed by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” No one person will go through this list in the order we have them and many will only experience a few.

Like the Five Stages our model is based on how we try to rationalize a process which cannot be rationalized. We may go through each stage in order or out of order. We may associate with each step or only a few. The Stages of Family Court Dysfunction (FCD) are:

1. Belief - As consumers of judicial services we enter the court system with the idea that this country has the best judicial system in the world. That the professionals who operate within this system do so with neutrality and fairness.

2. Self Doubt and Puzzlement - As the divorce/ custody process gains momentum and hints of flaws with the process start to show we think these issues are the result of things we are doing. "It must be me" that this is happening. We become puzzled by the direction of the divorce/ custody. We realize that things are not going in a direction which makes sense. There is often a flip flop of common sense and values. Black becomes White and White becomes Black.

3. Reason and Disillusionment - We begin to try reasoning with the players. The Guardian ad litem, lawyers and court. Presenting evidence and facts because if they only just read or viewed they would understand what is going on. Disillusionment creeps in when we realize that no matter how much evidence and facts presented - the system is unwilling to listen and understand what your concerns are.

4. Anger - As the reality of the situation starts to settle in we become upset that 'justice' does not exist. That those whom we have invested with our trust are untrustworthy. A system which is supposed to protect our children is more concerned with our behavior and whether or not a Guardian ad litem, Special Master or Parent Coordinator will get paid. Our anger can be aimed at anything - our ex, the children, the family pet even the court system.

5. Settlement - Sadly we may never find settlement as the process can continue far into the future. There are parents who settle and do so for far less than what they should and are grateful for what they have. Then there are others who carry on the fight long after their divorce/ custody is over to that future divorcing families will not have to go through what they have experienced.

The process one goes through is one of personal attitude change with exposure to more and more data. This data can come from many sources - from talking and sharing with others, the internet and those who have taken the issue publicly as well as personal experience. Some will try to fix this system with the hopes of repairing their own case; others do so as public spirited citizens, who hope to help others who are going through what they themselves have experienced. How one publicly markets both the human experience in need of fixing and the fixing itself is critical. It will require educating the public and politicians on what the issues are not only for your case but those of others. It took some time for you to understand that your case had problems. Imagine how others who have no experience with family court will respond? They will have a hard time understanding - some will get it. Many will not.

It is important to note that you are not alone and that others have experienced what you have gone through. There are many grassroots organizations that one can find offering support and help on a national as well as local level. It should be noted that out of 50 states there are very few instances of court officers who have been disciplined for malpractice.

If you have had issues with a court officer - Guardian ad litem, Special Master, Parental Coordinator or some other flavor of court appointed officer. We urge you to contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Lorain attorney who worked as court-appointed child advocate charged with downloading child porn

The real issue is that this Guardian ad litem (GAL) is a court appointed officer. Someone who is backed backed by the court system. What does it say for the court system if it is endorsing this person. What kind of damage did this person do to the children he was advocating for? Awhile ago we heard of a case where the GAL told a parent that he was going to have a weekend sleepover with her son. Mind you the GAL was in his late 50s and the child was 8 at the time. The mother fought in court and was coerced into allowing the sleepover to happen. The first time I heard this story my skin crawled and the thought which entered my mind is child porn. Did it happen? In light of this case maybe it did. The fact of the matter is that our courts who we trust and entrust with our children's lives are ill prepared to deal with issues like the story we have here about a GAL who failed in his role. Who malpracticed

Cleveland.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A fixture of Lorain County Domestic Relations Court who often worked with children in divorce and delinquency cases is facing a federal child pornography charge.

James Paterson, 49, admitted to an FBI agent in a March 30 interview that he had between 500 and 1,000 images and 200 videos of child pornography on his computer, according to a criminal complaint filed Tuesday. He also admitted to posting comments on websites where he claimed he was a pedophile and sexually abused children, though he also said he never abused any children.

Paterson, who lives in Lorain, was also a member of a website where users can download child porn. A search on his computer found images of children -- some less than a year old -- being sexually abused, the complaint says.

Paterson worked as a guardian ad litem -- a position appointed by a judge in custody, divorce and juvenile cases to advocate on behalf of a child. He started taking cases in February 2013, according to Jody Barilla, Lorain County Domestic Relations Court's administrator.

He represented 21 children between then and Tuesday, Barilla said, and judges removed him from four pending cases once they received word of the criminal case against him.

She said he passed a background check conducted by the local court.

At the time of his arrest, Paterson also had a law practice based out of his house.

Full story: Cleveland.com

If you are involved in a divorce/ custody do not take for granted that the Guardian ad litem is pure as the driven snow.

New pages offering new resources for parents

The following pages have been added to Ohio GAL alert. These pages are resources for parents going through divorce/ custody:

Resources for Parents - Rules and statutes that define the role of Guardian ad litem. In order to understand whether a GAL has malpracticed you have to understand what defines the GALs role.

GALs in Court - This page has cases in which a Guardian ad litem was mentioned.

Calender of Events - Showing events that may relate to Guardians ad litem or the court system in which the work in.

GALs in the News - This page lists articles in which Guardians ad litem are mentioned.

If there is data which should be added we ask that you please contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com

New Rule Proposed For Keeping Highly Personal Information Confidential in Juvenile and Domestic Cases

December 22, 2014

The Ohio Supreme Court is accepting public comments until Feb 20, 2015 on an amendment to the Rules of Superintendence. The proposed amendment may be found here: Sup.R 44(C)(2)(h).

Comments may be emailed to: Stephanie.Nelson@sc.ohio.gova

Ohio - Child Trafficking American Style: How Cash-for-Kids exists and how to Stop It by January 16, 2015

Divorce Corp has asked for our help in trying to stop the - Cash-for-kids - that goes on between the states and Federal government. These videos encapsulates the problems that parents suffer through in the Family Court system. Towards the end Joe Sorge and Divorce Corp tell you how you can make a difference:

Director Joe Sorge (Divorce Corp) reveals how good intentions gone bad and a callous legal profession has catapulted the United States into the unenviable position of leading the developed world in single parent households. Six billion dollars per year of taxpayer money motivates some of the worst public policy imaginable, leading to the bankrupting of families, the imprisonment of wage earners, and the manipulation and misuse of children as a currency for separating parents and opportunistic professionals. The Federal Government has opened up a rare opportunity to comment on these outdated and dysfunctional laws. Joe Sorge makes an appeal to write to Washington by the end of the public comment period, January 16, 2015, to reform these misguided Federal regulations. A link is provided to Divorce Corp’s web site, showing recommended changes to the Federal Regulations, and suggested reform language to send to Washington.

A YouTube video may be found here - YouTube

Please share this video with your contacts or find out more on Facebook.

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.......