Washington courts rarely discipline guardians ad litem accused of misconduct in custody cases

Minimal oversight of these court evaluators makes it difficult for parents to challenge flawed reports without risking damage to their cases

By Kelsey Turner

Stephanie Maya thought the facts were on her side in the custody case for her 3-year-old son.

She’d recently escaped an abusive relationship with her ex-boyfriend, the father of her son. He had been arrested for physically assaulting and strangling her, an experience that Maya says happened repeatedly throughout their relationship, often while he was drunk and often in front of their toddler.

The guardian ad litem — court appointed in May 2024 to represent the best interests of her son and investigate issues that could impact his safety, like domestic violence — knew about the dad’s pending domestic violence charges and court orders prohibiting him from contacting Maya.

So Maya was shocked when the guardian ad litem, Meredith Gerhart, submitted a report that portrayed Maya as a potentially criminal abuser. Gerhart, a well-respected attorney in Thurston County, a community on the southern tip of the Puget Sound, wrote that Maya had three “prior offenses involving domestic violence” based on a list provided to her by Maya’s ex-boyfriend. Yet a background check would have confirmed that Maya was the one who reported those assaults to law enforcement — as a victim and witness.

“The fact that I was trying to do something good, and she used that against me to try to paint me as this criminal, as an abuser, was very upsetting,” said Maya, 34. “She never once even asked me if any of that was true.”

The report, which Maya says includes many other false claims from her ex-boyfriend stated like facts, had a near immediate impact on her custody case. A court commissioner ordered that the child spend weekends with his dad — who, until that point, was only allowed supervised visits — and said the report “clearly establishes” that Maya was causing conflict in the co-parenting relationship, a finding that can lead to restrictions on parenting time. Gerhart, who’s still working as a guardian ad litem in Thurston County, said she cannot comment for this article because the case is active.

It took nearly a year and the help of a lawyer for a court review board to formally reprimand Gerhart for failing to make “any effort” to substantiate the claims of Maya’s ex, who pleaded guilty in February 2026 to assaulting Maya and interfering with her attempt to call 911. It’s a rare instance of a parent successfully proving that an investigation of a guardian ad litem — a neutral third-party court investigator also referred to as a GAL — was unfairly biased, although parents and attorneys say they see biased reports all the time.

Guardians ad litem have been appointed in over 7,100 Washington family law cases since 2020, according to data from the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts. Although they don’t have a direct say in custody outcomes, their conclusions and recommendations can hold significant weight in court.

But despite courts’ frequent reliance on these professionals — and the sometimes tens of thousands of dollars that parents must pay for them — there’s little independent oversight of the role, leaving many parents without a meaningful way to hold them accountable for inaccurate, biased or shoddy investigations that shape custody cases.

The decision to remove guardians ad litem or their reports from a case is up to the judge, yet judges have limited insight into how investigations are conducted. Even in instances when court committees or judges found that a guardian ad litem conducted a biased investigation, or stepped outside the scope of their role, discipline rarely extended beyond a reprimand and orders for additional training, according to InvestigateWest’s review of grievances and removals of guardians ad litem in Washington.

While those court investigators may go on to work with more families, some parents are left fighting the consequences of questionable reports for years. Parents say their kids have been placed in homes with potentially abusive adults, and some have even lost custody to their abusers.

Other than a state-mandated three-and-a-half-day training, Washington’s guardians ad litem — like those in other states — have few standardized qualifications, and they have no managers or statewide agencies vetting their work. Some started their careers over a decade ago, when there were even fewer training requirements.

Advocates and researchers across the nation — from Washington to Idaho to Georgia to New Hampshire — have called on their legislatures to require more training and accountability for guardians ad litem as their use in family court and influence in custody cases has grown in recent decades. Washington state legislators acknowledged the need to address this insufficient oversight in a work session in December that discussed gaps in the oversight system and impacts of biased investigations on parents.

State Rep. Jamila Taylor, chair of the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee who led the session, noted a “strong interest” for guardian ad litem reform within the family law community.

“We probably do need to have a commission or some sort of review of the GAL statute and how we can navigate these issues around a very unregulated practice,” Taylor said in the session.

This minimal oversight makes it difficult for parents to challenge flawed reports without risking damage to their own cases — and, in some cases, even their chances of retaining custody of their children.

“Complaining about the way a GAL is going about something can be a dangerous space, because the court can feel like you’re distracting from the main issue,” said Jeffrey Keddie, a managing attorney at the Northwest Justice Project, a nonprofit legal aid program, who helps lead the state’s guardian ad litem trainings. “It’s about likability half the time, and if you become less likable, that can be very problematic.”

Their lack of understanding of issues like domestic violence can harm children for life, said Dawn Sydney, a family law attorney and former guardian ad litem in King County. “There has to be some system set up where there’s some accountability for these people.”

Discipline is rare, and limited

In Washington, the only avenue for parents to formally complain about a guardian ad litem is through the same superior court where their family law case is taking place. While most large counties have review committees made up of judges or other court officials to handle complaints, in King County — the state’s most populous county that appoints among the most guardians ad litem — grievances are reviewed by just one judge.

InvestigateWest requested complaints from six counties with the highest number of guardian ad litem appointments in Washington family law cases, and reviewed other complaints and court filings by parents alleging misconduct. While they flag common concerns with reports, such as one-sided investigations, incorrect or misleading information, and missed deadlines that delay cases for months, many parents and attorneys say they hesitate to file grievances because they fear it will do more harm than good.

“I don’t have faith that most GALs can separate their anger at a complaint being lodged at them from their neutrality as a GAL,” said Jennifer Summerville, Maya’s attorney.

In 2024 and 2025, a total of 31 grievances were filed against guardians ad litem across King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, Cowlitz and Clark counties, according to each superior court’s administrations. Just four were found to have merit and are publicly available, including Maya’s. However, at least in some cases, grievances are dismissed without any evaluation of their merit.

Those four founded complaints offer a window into how guardians ad litem face limited discipline and continue holding influence in cases, despite the deficiencies:

• Thurston County’s review board found that Gerhart’s report and investigation “do not show independence, objectivity, or the appearance of fairness.” Apart from a requirement to correct the report regarding Maya’s criminal history, the report remains part of Maya’s case, meaning it could still influence the custody outcome.
• After a father called a Clark County guardian ad litem to raise concerns about her investigation, the court investigator became hostile and told him, “If that comes out in court I will take you to the wall,” according to the father’s notes from their phone call. A judge removed the court investigator from the case, and a court committee admonished her to remain respectful. She still works as a guardian ad litem, and her report remains part of the case.
• Only one grievance resulted in removal from a county registry — meaning a guardian ad litem can no longer work in that county, the most severe discipline a court can impose. But a Thurston County judge reversed the removal after the guardian ad litem appealed the decision. A review committee found that he repeatedly inserted personal commentary and humor in his reports and acted outside of his role, such as creating his own “trauma scale” and facilitating a meeting between a domestic violence victim and perpetrator. He’s currently suspended but can be reinstated after completing a corrective action plan.
• A Snohomish County guardian ad litem who was reassigned to a case in 2021 to conduct a quick follow-up investigation dropped out of contact with the court and could not be reached by the mom or her attorney for over a year. The court investigator resigned before the grievance was filed, limiting any sanctions the court could impose.

Parents aren’t notified about guardians ad litem’s disciplinary history when they’re appointed to a case, according to judicial officers. To get that disciplinary history, a person would need to file public records requests with the court where a guardian ad litem has worked. While many counties require guardians ad litem to disclose past grievances or case removals on their applications to continue working in the county, only Pierce County publishes those applications online.

If a guardian ad litem is barred from working in a county due to a grievance, the county’s superior court must notify the Administrative Office of the Courts, which will then share that information to courts across the state. But this is rare. The office said it hasn’t been notified of any such removals in the last five years.

The mom in Snohomish County, Katie Buss, spent two years trying to get a $2,500 refund for a report that was never written after the court investigator disappeared from the case. But she estimates that the guardian ad litem cost her closer to $8,000, between the cost of removing her from the case, an initial report that was later thrown out and attorney fees for the 15 months they could not reach her. Buss also spent another $1,575 for a new guardian ad litem.

Because the court investigator had resigned, the only sanction the court could impose was a promise not to reinstate her if she ever applied again. It couldn’t help Buss recoup the lost money.

“I did everything the system asked of me,” Buss told InvestigateWest. “I followed court orders, participated in evaluations, and relied on the processes that were supposed to protect my child. Instead, the system failed to provide meaningful accountability.”

Risks to filing a complaint

On Christmas Eve 2024, Maya logged into Zoom for a court hearing to review Gerhart’s guardian ad litem report. She listened as Thurston County Superior Court Commissioner Nathan Kortokrax praised Gerhart’s “thorough” work. While some judicial officers may balk at a 50-page report, Kortokrax said he actually appreciated it. He even read it twice.

With Gerhart seated in the courtroom and no attorney representing her at the time, Maya stayed quiet.

“Right then and there, I was like, ‘I will not have a voice tonight,’” she said. “I was just so scared to speak up against her.”

Due in part to parents’ fear of retaliation by the guardian ad litem or the court, only a couple dozen formal grievances have been filed across Washington’s most populous counties since 2024, despite guardians ad litem having served on hundreds of cases.

For parents who are already facing reputational attacks in the family law arena, convincing the court that a well-known guardian ad litem is not trustworthy can seem like an insurmountable task.

“If that guardian ad litem has the respect of the court, you’re going to have to really prove that they did a lot wrong to get them removed from a case,” said Keddie, the Northwest Justice Project attorney. “It’s near impossible.”

Some parents also worry that a guardian ad litem’s collegial relationships with judicial officers and attorneys make courts less willing to hold them accountable. Like Gerhart, who has been chair of the Thurston County Bar Association’s family law section since 2019, many guardians ad litem are respected attorneys or social workers. Some even work as temporary judicial officers.

Alicia Burton, a Pierce County Superior Court judge who chairs the county’s guardian ad litem grievance committee, said that as a family law judge, she didn’t hesitate to call out biased behavior. But Burton acknowledges that making such accusations can be intimidating even for judicial officers.

“It’s a hard thing to do as a judge, to tell a well-respected guardian ad litem who’s been in Pierce County for years, to say, ‘I thought your investigation was one-sided,’” Burton said.

In heated custody battles involving allegations of abuse, judges face the challenge of sorting through many competing accusations. Parents accuse each other of lying, abusers claim to be victims, and both parents may have histories that raise concerns about the children’s safety. These dynamics can make it difficult for judges to discern whether a parent’s complaint against a guardian ad litem is valid or just an expression of their personal dissatisfaction with how a report portrays them.

Superior Court Judge Aimée Sutton, who oversees King County’s family court and handles such grievances, said she’s received only a couple of complaints in the last two years and decided neither had merit.

“We all, in this line of work, have to deal with people complaining about us. It happens to lawyers all the time, it happens to judges every day,” Sutton said, adding that complaints are often from parents unhappy with the outcome of a report or ruling.

For many parents, however, the possibility of retaliation feels real — and they don’t always trust that the court will protect them. This is the risk that a Clark County dad weighed when he tried to remove a guardian ad litem in 2024.

Leslie, who asked to go by his first name, questioned the guardian ad litem in his custody case for relying heavily on a previous ex-girlfriend for information that he said was inaccurate. Leslie had been arrested 15 years before for allegedly assaulting that ex-girlfriend during an argument, a history that Leslie says he had disclosed to the guardian ad litem. That charge was also dismissed.

The guardian ad litem, Robin Jones, threatened to take him “to the wall” if he brought his concerns about Jones to the court, according to Leslie’s notes from their phone call. He took that to mean that Jones would do “everything in her power” to try to minimize his time with his child, he said.

In the weeks after their phone call, according to Leslie’s complaint, Jones contacted two of Leslie’s workplace supervisors and shared some of these claims about his previous relationship, as well as medical information about his gender transition surgery without his permission. One of Leslie’s supervisors said in a court declaration that the conversation with Jones “did not sit well” and that she was “very surprised with the lack of confidentiality for such sensitive information.”

Leslie felt that it was an intentional effort by Jones to sabotage his employment and wanted her off his case. His lawyer wasn’t supportive of removing Jones and withdrew, so he hired another to help him file the motion. A judge approved the removal in October 2024, finding that Jones had disclosed information to third parties without Leslie’s consent. Jones declined to comment due to the active case, and her responses to Leslie’s grievance are not publicly available.

But her report remains part of the court record, and even though a court advisory committee found merit to his claim that Jones threatened him, the only discipline was an admonishment for Jones to “remain respectful and courteous.” The committee did not find merit to his allegation that Jones disseminated false information to third parties and found insufficient evidence supporting that she disclosed confidential medical information to third parties.

Leslie, whose case is still pending, felt like he had to put a lot on the line to get any form of accountability.

“It is so dangerous because you are putting recommendations for your time with your children at risk by taking those steps,” he said.

Few guardrails

As courts entrust them to represent what’s best for the children, even some guardians ad litem say they feel unsupported or unprepared for complex cases.

Dawn Sydney, a family law attorney in King County, became a guardian ad litem in 2017. After serving on around a dozen cases, she stopped taking assignments because she felt uncomfortable with the power she held over families and the prospect of getting it wrong.

It’s time consuming to write a thorough report, Sydney said, especially for guardians ad litem who, like her, often have other jobs as attorneys or social workers. Conducting more in-depth investigations also means charging parents potentially exorbitant fees, as private rates can reach up to $300 per hour.

“My rates for GAL cases are lower than my attorney hourly rate, and yet as much as I’d like to say, ‘I don't charge for that,’ I do have a practice, I have staff, I have a mortgage that I have to pay,” Sydney said.

She thinks these challenges, along with insufficient training, mean many court investigators “just don’t do great jobs.”

Although she’s no longer taking cases as a guardian ad litem, Sydney continues seeing the consequences of shoddy investigations as a lawyer representing domestic violence survivors. In 2020, while representing a mom in King County, she successfully removed a guardian ad litem from a case who admitted to altering the mom’s form consenting to the release of medical information and falsely attributing a quote to a therapist. The resulting discipline for the guardian ad litem, Meera Shin, was no more than a “slap on the hand,” Sydney said.

“I would lose my license for that. A doctor would lose their license for that,” Sydney said.

Shin continued working as a guardian ad litem in Snohomish County for several years and is still on King County’s registry. The removal process, meanwhile, cost Sydney’s client thousands of dollars.

Shin said her errors were not in bad faith — she thought she had the mom’s permission to access the medical records, and she altered the release to speed up the paperwork process. She admits it was a mistake and agrees with the judge’s decision to remove her, she told InvestigateWest. It was the first big family law case that she’d been assigned to, and she felt largely unprepared for its complexity.

“If they did not remove me, and if I did not have this experience, I wouldn’t have known,” she said.

Yet in the court order discharging Shin, the judge said it was “far from clear” whether Shin “understands the gravity of what she did.” Six years later, Shin, who has a Ph.D. in child development and family studies, said she still doesn’t feel confident in the role and plans to leave the profession once her current cases wrap up. She thinks more ongoing training could have helped her find more success.

In Maya’s case, Gerhart defended her investigation by pointing to a disclaimer that she includes in all her reports, which states: “The content of this report assumes that all information provided and reported to the GAL is true and correct.” Gerhart didn’t see a need to correct the false information about Maya’s criminal history because it was the father’s statement, not hers, and the father later clarified his claims directly with the court.

The review board disagreed. In a November letter of reprimand, they concluded that her report “appeared to be written from the perspective” of Maya’s ex-partner and that Gerhart is still obligated to make reasonable efforts to be informed about the case. The board required her to correct the report regarding Maya’s criminal history, stop using the disclaimer and complete at least two hours of guardian ad litem training.

It was a bittersweet outcome for Maya, who’s still waiting for her more-than-two-year custody case to go to trial. Several other statements that Maya had flagged in the report, which remains a part of the case, also were not corrected.

But for parents like Maya, the impact of guardian ad litem misconduct runs deeper than the words themselves. Gerhart’s report plunged Maya into a deep depression as she confronted the possibility of losing time with her son.

“I started to believe that I was a bad person,” Maya said. “That maybe I wasn’t good enough for my child. That maybe I was the problem.” 

Full Article & Source:
Washington courts rarely discipline guardians ad litem accused of misconduct in custody cases 

How Often Does a Judge Agree with a Guardian ad Litem?

BY: Jacob Maslow 

A guardian ad litem within the legal system is critical in helping judges make informed decisions regarding the best interest of minors or incompetent individuals. However, a question from this partnership is how often a judge agrees with the recommendations provided by a guardian ad litem. Understanding the level of concurrence between the two parties sheds light on the overall effectiveness of the guardian ad litem system.

A guardian ad litem is appointed to primarily represent the interests of the child or incapacitated individual, carefully investigating and reporting their circumstances and needs. Their findings greatly impact the judge’s decision-making process. While both the judge and the guardian ad litem work together to serve the best interests of the party in question, the judge ultimately makes the final determination.

To examine the frequency of judges agreeing with guardian ad litem recommendations, one must consider various factors, including the qualifications of the individual appointed, the nature of the case, and the jurisdiction’s legal guidelines. A judge’s decisions may not solely rely on the advice of the guardian ad litem, but it is undeniable that their input is a significant factor in the legal proceedings.

Role of Guardian Ad Litem

Duties and Responsibilities

Guardian ad litem (GAL) is a court-appointed representative who acts in the best interest of a child or incapacitated adult in legal proceedings. Their main goal is to ensure the well-being of the person they represent. Some of their key duties and responsibilities include:

• Investigating the facts of the case
• Interviewing the child, parents, and other relevant parties
• Reviewing relevant documents, such as medical records and school reports
• Making recommendations to the court regarding custody, visitation, and other matters
• Monitoring implementation of court orders to ensure compliance

Training and Qualifications

To become a guardian ad litem, one must complete specialized training that varies from state to state but typically includes:

• Introductory courses on child advocacy, family law, and dependency issues
• Training in communication skills and interviewing techniques
• Information on cultural competency and ethical considerations
• Continuing education courses to maintain qualifications

Some states require that guardians ad litem hold a professional license, such as a law or social work degree. In contrast, others only mandate relevant experience working with children or vulnerable adults.

Difference Between Lawyer and Guardian Ad Litem

Although guardians ad litem and lawyers may have similar training in law, there are key differences between the two roles:

Lawyer	Guardian Ad Litem
Represents a client in legal proceedings	Represents the best interests of a child or incapacitated adult
Provides legal advice to the client	Provides recommendations to the court based on investigation findings
Advocates for client’s wishes	Advocates for the child or incapacitated adult’s best interests

In summary, the guardian ad litem plays a crucial role in the legal system, focusing on the well-being of children and incapacitated adults. Their duties and responsibilities involve investigating, interviewing, and making recommendations to the court. To qualify for this role, specialized training and qualifications are required. It’s important to note that the role of a guardian ad litem differs from that of an attorney by representing the child’s or adult’s best interests rather than advocating for a specific client’s wishes.

Appointing a Guardian Ad Litem

Custody Cases

In custody cases, the court may appoint a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) to represent the child’s best interests. The GAL conducts an independent investigation, interviews all relevant parties, and recommends child custody to the judge. The GAL must maintain a neutral, clear, and knowledgeable tone when presenting its findings.

The judge considers the GAL’s recommendation but is not bound to follow it. However, judges typically give substantial weight to the GAL’s recommendations, as they are considered experts in determining the child’s best interests.

Abuse and Neglect Cases

In abuse and neglect cases, the appointment of a GAL is often mandatory. The GAL advocates for the child involved in the case, ensuring their welfare is prioritized throughout the legal process. The judge relies on the GAL’s assessment to make informed decisions on the child’s placement and any necessary protective measures.

A GAL’s role in these cases includes but is not limited to:

• Investigating allegations of abuse or neglect
• Assessing the needs of the child
• Recommending appropriate services
• Monitoring the case’s progress

Divorce Proceedings

During a divorce proceeding, a judge may appoint a GAL if the court feels that the parents may not adequately represent the child’s interests. The GAL’s primary responsibility is to provide an impartial perspective on the child’s best interests concerning custody, visitation, and overall well-being.

In divorce proceedings, the GAL may perform the following tasks:

• Evaluating each parent’s ability and willingness to meet the child’s needs
• Identifying any potential conflicts of interest
• Assessing the child’s relationships with each parent
• Recommending a custody and visitation arrangement

In any case, the judge retains the ultimate authority to make the final determination. However, the GAL’s input significantly influences the court’s decision in the child’s best interest.

Working with the Guardian Ad Litem

Impact on Child Custody Cases

A guardian ad litem plays a crucial role in child custody matters. They are appointed to represent the best interests of the child (ward) in cases involving abuse, neglect, or other contentious matters. Judges often consider the guardian ad litem’s report and recommendations when deciding on a custody case.

Throughout the trial, the guardian ad litem conducts investigations to gather information about the child’s circumstances, such as interviewing the child, parents, teachers, and other adults involved in the child’s life. They also review relevant records to provide a comprehensive assessment.

Cooperating with Investigations

All parties involved in a custody matter must cooperate with the guardian ad litem’s investigation. This includes providing accurate information and access to records and participating in interviews or other required meetings.

By working with the guardian ad litem, the parties can help ensure the most accurate representation of the child’s needs and best interests is presented to the judge. Cooperation may also lead to a smoother and more efficient trial process.

Expressing Concerns and Complaints

If any party has concerns or complaints regarding the guardian ad litem’s work, it is important to address them professionally and respectfully. Parties can:

• Communicate their concerns directly to the guardian ad litem
• Seek legal guidance through their attorney
• If necessary, approach the court with the issue

Maintaining a clear and open line of communication can help address concerns while preserving the integrity of the guardian ad litem’s role in the case.

Guardian Ad Litem’s Report and Recommendations

Factors Influencing the Report

A Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) is appointed to represent the best interests of a child in cases, including custody cases. In preparing their report and recommendations, a GAL considers various factors such as the child’s needs, the parent’s capacity to meet them, and potential risks or benefits. The GAL will also assess parental cooperation, communication, and history of abuse or neglect.

During the evaluation process, the GAL gathers information from multiple sources, including interviews with the child, parents, teachers, and other relevant parties and reviewing documents such as school and medical records.

Addressing Biases and Objections

To provide an impartial and unbiased report, a GAL must be aware of any potential biases and address them accordingly. Some common biases that may arise include personal beliefs or misconceptions about a particular party, as well as susceptibility to the influence of one party over another. To combat these biases, a GAL should:

• Use objective, fact-based information in their recommendations
• Be transparent about their methodology and decision-making process
• Remain open to feedback and critique from involved parties and the court

If attorneys or parties in the case voice objections to the GAL’s recommendations, they must be considered and addressed. This might include revisiting the evidence, seeking additional input, or clarifying aspects of the report.

Role of Evidence

Evidence plays a crucial role in a GAL’s report and recommendations. They must collect, analyze, and rely on a wide range of evidence to provide accurate and well-informed recommendations. Types of evidence considered include:

• Testimonies from key witnesses, such as parents, teachers, and medical professionals
• School and medical records
• Expert evaluations, including psychological assessments and parenting capacity evaluations
• Documented history of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence

The GAL must weigh the evidence objectively and use it to guide their recommendations, ensuring the child’s best interests are prioritized. A judge will consider the report and recommendations, along with the strength and quality of the evidence when making their final decision in a case.

Judge’s Consideration of Guardian Ad Litem’s Opinion

Weight Given to Recommendations

In most cases, the court greatly values the opinion of the guardian ad litem (GAL), as they are appointed to represent the child’s best interests. The GAL investigates the situation, interviews all relevant parties, and provides a detailed report, including recommendations based on their findings. While the judge is not required to follow the GAL’s recommendations, they typically carry significant weight, as they are primarily focused on the child’s welfare.

Impact on Decision-Making

The court thoroughly examines the GAL’s report and recommendations, considering factors such as the child’s emotional and physical well-being, the ability of the parents to meet the child’s needs, and any patterns of abuse, neglect, or violence. The impact of the opinions may vary, depending on the case’s specifics and the strength of the other evidence presented. Nevertheless, without valid reasons, the judge would rarely discount the GAL’s input entirely.

Cooperation with Other Professionals

A guardian ad litem often works alongside other professionals, such as therapists, social workers, and school personnel, to gather the necessary information for their report. This multidisciplinary approach ensures a more comprehensive understanding of the child’s circumstances, allowing the judge to make a better-informed decision.

By collaborating with other professionals, the GAL’s recommendations can integrate different perspectives and expertise, thereby enhancing their credibility and weight in the eyes of the court. In many cases, this collaboration might lead to stronger recommendations which, in turn, could influence the judge’s final decision more significantly.

Removing a Guardian Ad Litem

Grounds for Removal

A judge may consider removing a guardian ad litem (GAL) from a case for several reasons. These include conflicts of interest, failure to adequately represent the best interests of the allegedly incapacitated person or child, or any other actions that could damage the integrity of the case. Additionally, if a GAL is found to have violated their ethical or professional responsibilities, they may also be removed from their role.

Process and Consequences

Removing a GAL typically begins with a request to the court by one of the involved parties. This request must outline the specific reasons for the proposed removal, such as neglect, conflict of interest, or unprofessional conduct. The court will then evaluate the claims and determine if removal is warranted. Suppose the court decides to remove the GAL. In that case, a replacement may be appointed, and the removed GAL may face the consequences, including disciplinary action or, in severe cases, compensation claims for damages caused by their actions.

Alternatives to Guardians Ad Litem

In some cases, instead of appointing a new GAL, the court may consider alternatives such as:

• Conservators: A conservator may be more appropriate if an incapacitated person needs assistance in managing their financial affairs or property. The court appoints conservators and has specific duties related to the incapacitated individual’s assets and financial well-being.
• Attorneys: In some cases, the court may appoint an attorney to represent the best interests of the individual in question. This may be more appropriate if the individual needs legal representation but not necessarily ongoing protection or advocacy.
• Mediation: For certain disputes, mediation may be a better option. This is a process in which a neutral third party helps the involved parties arrive at an agreement or resolution, typically without needing a GAL.

By exploring these alternatives, the court may identify a solution that better addresses the specific needs and concerns of the involved parties.

Best Interests of the Child

Mental and Emotional Health

A key aspect in a judge’s decision-making process when considering the recommendations of a guardian ad litem is the mental and emotional health of the child. This includes evaluating the child’s needs for therapy, counseling, and any other necessary interventions or support services. A guardian ad litem may assess various factors such as the child’s temperament, experiences of trauma or neglect, and attachment to caregivers to advocate for the child’s best interest.

Stability and Relationships

Stability in a child’s life is crucial to their overall well-being. A judge may look into the child’s current living environment, the stability of the parents or guardians, and the child’s relationships with their family members. Ensuring a stable home is paramount in determining the child’s best interests. A guardian ad litem may present information about the child’s education, extracurricular activities, and social circles, among other aspects, to support their recommendations.

Visitation Rights

Another factor that a judge may take into account when agreeing or disagreeing with a guardian ad litem’s assessment is visitation rights. Balancing the child’s need for contact with their biological parents and maintaining security is vital. The guardian ad litem may recommend specific visitation schedules or details, such as supervised visits or locations, to facilitate contact. A judge would weigh these suggestions based on the child’s emotional state and relationships with their parents.

Parenting Plan and Evaluators

Parenting Plan Basics

A parenting plan is a legal document that outlines how divorced or separated parents will raise, care for, and make decisions about their minor children. The plan covers physical custody, visitation schedules, holidays, education, medical care, and more. Parents may create the plan together, or a judge may decide the details if an agreement cannot be reached.

Working with Parenting Evaluators

Parenting evaluators, also known as child custody evaluators, are professionals who assess the best interests of a child in divorce or separation cases. The court may appoint them, or the parents may select an evaluator. These evaluators are crucial in helping the court determine the most appropriate parenting plan.

Parenting evaluators consider factors such as:

• The child’s emotional, physical, and educational needs
• The ability of each parent to meet these needs
• The child’s relationship with each parent
• The parent’s ability to communicate and cooperate in raising the child
• Any history of domestic violence or abuse

Once the evaluation is completed, a report containing the evaluator’s findings and recommendations is submitted to the court. The judge then considers the evaluator’s recommendations when determining the final parenting plan.

In cases where a guardian ad litem (GAL) is involved, they may work closely with the parenting evaluator to ensure the child’s best interests are represented. A GAL is a court-appointed advocate for the child in a divorce or custody case.

It is not uncommon for judges to agree with the recommendations of both GALs and parenting evaluators, as they are considered neutral parties with the child’s best interests as their primary focus. While there is no specific data on the frequency of judges agreeing with GALs or parenting evaluators, their input is highly regarded in the decision-making process.

In conclusion, a parenting plan is an essential document outlining the responsibilities and expectations of divorced or separated parents. Parenting evaluators and guardian ad litems play significant roles in ensuring that the child’s best interests are represented during the creation of these plans.

FAQs

How often does a judge agree with a guardian ad litem?

While there is no specific percentage or rate at which judges agree with a guardian ad litem (GAL), it is common for judges to give significant weight to their recommendations. This is because a GAL is appointed as an independent investigator to represent a child’s or incapacitated adult’s best interests. They are typically experienced professionals with expertise in assessing the needs and interests of the individuals they represent.

What factors do judges consider when evaluating a GAL’s recommendation?

Judges may consider several factors when evaluating a GAL’s recommendations, including:

• The GAL’s qualifications and experience
• The thoroughness of the GAL’s investigation and report
• The consistency of the GAL’s recommendation with other evidence presented in the case
• The reasonableness of the GAL’s recommendation based on the facts and circumstances of the case

Are there cases where judges may disagree or not fully adopt a GAL’s recommendation?

There are instances where judges may disagree or not fully adopt a GAL’s recommendation. Some reasons for this include:

• Finding that the GAL’s recommendation is not supported by the evidence presented in the case
• Finding that the GAL failed to consider a critical piece of information
• Believing that the GAL’s recommendation is not in the individual’s best interests based on the specific circumstances of the case

Despite these possibilities, judges often rely on and give significant deference to GAL recommendations due to their unique role and expertise.

How can someone challenge or counter a GAL’s recommendation if they disagree?

If an individual disagrees with a GAL’s recommendation, there are several steps they may take to challenge or counter it:

• Presenting additional evidence or witnesses to support their position
• Retaining an independent expert to provide a separate evaluation or opinion
• Filing a written objection to the GAL’s report, detailing the specific reasons for their disagreement
• Requesting that the judge require the GAL to provide further explanation or clarification of their recommendation
• Requesting an opportunity to cross-examine the GAL during a hearing or trial

Regardless of the approach taken, it is important for the individual to present a well-reasoned and supported argument in order to challenge a GAL’s recommendation effectively.

Full Article & Source:
How Often Does a Judge Agree with a Guardian ad Litem?

James Tupper Has 'Little to No Claim' in Legal Proceedings with Anne Heche's Son: Legal Expert

Anne Heche's son, Homer Laffoon, may have the upper hand in legal proceedings against James Tupper's request to become the guardian ad litem of his 13-year-old son Atlas Heche Tupper

By Kelly Wynne and Stephanie Wenger 

Video

James Tupper may have no legal ground in asking to be the guardian ad litem of his biological son, Atlas Heche Tupper, according to a legal expert.

Family law expert, Atousa Saei, explained to PEOPLE why Anne Heche's son and Atlas' half-brother, Homer Laffoon, may have the upper hand in litigation regarding Heche's estate.

"I really think that Tupper is just going to be kind of faded out of this whole situation," Saei told PEOPLE. "I think he's the father of a minor who stands to inherit from his mother, and I think that's really going to be the extent of his involvement here. I don't think that the court's going to find that he's a valid — that he's the executor of it, of the estate."

She added, "I also don't think the court is likely to award him as the [guardian ad litem] here. Because remember, if the court does need to appoint someone as the GAL, the court can just appoint a neutral. It doesn't have to be him." 

Photo: David Buchan/BAFTA LA/Getty

On Tuesday, Laffoon, 20, filed an opposition — obtained by PEOPLE — against Tupper's request to become the guardian ad litem of Atlas, 13. This is not the same as a legal guardian, however, it gives the guardian rights to decide what is in the best interest of the child in a legal sense. Theoretically, this would give Tupper, 57, control over Heche's estate as passed on to Atlas.

Saei compared this to Britney Spears' former conservatorship. "Sometimes, as we saw in the Britney Spears case, the guardian ad litem in representing the best interest of the incapacitated party might report back to the court things that are completely, completely different than what that incapacitated party wants," she said. 

Photo:  getty (2); Anne Heche/Instagram

On Monday, Tupper filed paperwork asking that Laffoon (whom Heche shared with ex-husband Coleman Laffoon) be removed as the temporary executor of Heche's estate.

His legal claim, obtained by PEOPLE, stated: "In order to preserve family harmony and a healthy, brotherly relationship between ATLAS and HOMER, and given the complexity this estate will foreseeably involve – i.e. intellectual property and publishing issues, possibly third party claims, and public relations issues – a bonded, neutral, private professional fiduciary would be a more appropriate administrator." 

Photo:  Rachel Murray/Getty

Laffoon's response asked for Tupper to be removed from any involvement in Heche's estate, as they were no longer in a relationship at the time of her death. To do this, he cited possible "conflict of interest" — which relates to the potential of a lawsuit by Heche's estate to remove him as any beneficiary.

"[Laffoon] raises up something interesting where he said, 'Had they been married, during the divorce process, that would've been handled, but because they weren't married, it's like an oversight on her end where she just failed to change the beneficiaries of some of her accounts,'" Saei added. "So now he's got the money and they pointed to that as a direct conflict of interest in being appointed a guardian ad litem because they were saying that the estate may actually have to go sue him." 

In September, Tupper surfaced an email from Heche dated 2011 that was to serve as an electronic will, after it was assumed Heche died without a will. Laffoon has challenged the will's legitimacy because it was not physically signed, or overseen by two legal witnesses.

In Saei's professional opinion, this will is not valid. "I think it fails in more than one area," she said. "It's not just that it's electronic, but it's also because you don't have a valid signature, you don't have witnesses and so forth." 

Heche died after being involved in a fiery car accident in Los Angeles on Aug. 5. After being in a coma, the state of California declared Heche legally dead on Aug. 12. She was temporarily kept on life support in order to donate her organs. On Aug. 14, her rep confirmed to PEOPLE she had been taken off of life support.  

Full Article & Source:
James Tupper Has 'Little to No Claim' in Legal Proceedings with Anne Heche's Son: Legal Expert

"Mama B" Bashinsky Guardianship Abuse Case Goes Back To Alabama Supreme Court

News provided by   

The estate of “Mama B” Bashinsky

Mar 10, 2021, 10:30 ET

BIRMINGHAM, Ala., March 10, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, legal counsel for the estate of the late Joann "Mama B" Bashinsky, the beloved Alabama philanthropist, announced several developments in the case of the permanent guardianship petition that haunted her for the last 18 months of her life before she passed away on January 3, 2021.

On Friday, Bashinsky's counsel filed an appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court on one motion challenging an order issued by Judge A. Lee Tucker to pay a guardian ad litem fees for his own attorney on a prior matter. Following their appeal, Judge Tucker hastily ruled on numerous motions that have been delayed for weeks. Most notably, Tucker made a highly unusual ruling to deny the motion to dismiss the case in light of Mrs. Bashinsky's death, further highlighting the numerous conflicts of interest among those involved in the case, including the judges and petitioners. The family is now forced to have to go to the Alabama Supreme Court once again because Judge Tucker won't let the case die.

"These new decisions by Judge A. Lee Tucker are extremely disheartening, and confirm the corruption within the Jefferson County guardianship system at the hands of temporary conservator Greg Hawley and  guardian ad litem Ken Guin, as directed first by Judge Alan King and now by Judge Tucker," said attorney Susan Walker. "In my opinion, his latest rulings show that this court is failing to provide justice and fairness, as the Judge continues a case that has tormented the friends and family of Mama B, who suffered great distress for the last months of her life because of the permanent petition for guardianship and for conservatorship that threatened her finances and independence."

The case has taken many unseemly twists and turns from the first day Mrs. Bashinsky's fomer employees, John McKleroy and Patty Townsend, filed a petition to place her under a guardianship the very day she appropriately terminated them. On July 2, 2020, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion declaring the emergency petition failed to establish an emergency and holding Mrs. Bashinsky was denied her constitutional due process rights. Since her death, the burden of exorbitant and unnecessary expenses on her family has endured as they navigate a case that would have typically died with the subject.

"Since the Alabama Supreme Court last saw this case, in my opinion it's clear that petitioners McKleroy and Townsend along with former temporary conservator Hawley and guardian ad litem Guin are not acting in the best interests of Mrs. Bashinksy, but in their own financial interests, especially considering that they continue to pursue the assets of an elderly widow no longer alive to defend herself," said attorney Walker. "There is no plausible explanation in my opinion as to why Judge Tucker would drag out the case of a deceased woman other than that it's in the best interests of his friends in a system ripe with corruption and financial exploitation."

There is currently unprecedented national attention on the issue of guardianship abuse, spurred on by major motion pictures, documentaries, and passionate opinion pieces from national political leaders like Gov Mike Huckabee, who called conservatorship abuse of seniors "a nationwide epidemic" deserving of "bipartisan reform and a grassroots campaign" when speaking of Mrs. Bashinsky's legal battle against predatory and exploitative petitioners.

People are becoming aware of the injustices suffered by vulnerable individuals, and they're ready to come to the defense of those who have been subjected to abusive treatment by a system that was supposed to help, not hurt them. People can help by reaching out to their elected officials, calling the Attorney for Jefferson County and their state legislators and demanding justice for Mama B, and starting conversations within their spheres of influence

"Every person in the state of Alabama who has an elderly loved one should pay close attention and realize the implications of this case," said Walker. "With a national spotlight on guardianship abuse currently, there's never been a better time for reform," she concluded.

Reference: CASE NO. 19BHM02213

For more information about Joann Bashinsky and guardianship abuse, go to:

https://bashinsky.com/

Full Article & Source:

"Mama B" Bashinsky Guardianship Abuse Case Goes Back To Alabama Supreme Court 

 

See Also:

Joann Bashinsky

Chicago Attorney And Guardian Ad Litem Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Woman Whose Children He Represented

By Christopher Hacker and Charlie De Mar

CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago family attorney who represented children in the midst of custody battles is accused of offering to recommend a parent get full custody of her children in exchange for sex, in addition to sexually assaulting several employees.

In 2016, David Pasulka offered to recommend that a judge give a woman sole custody of her two children, for whom he was appointed guardian ad litem — an attorney who represents children in a custody dispute — as long as she had sex with him, according to a complaint filed on July 13 by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC).

Pasulka also sexually abused three female employees of his law firm, David P. Pasulka and Associates, between 2012 and 2018, the complaint said.

In Cook County, a guardian ad litem serves as an attorney for the children of parents in divorce or other domestic issues. Guardians ad litem investigate cases and interview the children before ultimately presenting their findings to a judge, who determines the custody arrangement for the children.

The complaint details allegations of sexual abuse beginning in 2012, and documents obtained by CBS 2 indicate the ARDC received its first allegation in March 2017. When asked why the ARDC took over three years from the date of the first allegation to release the formal complaint, an ARDC spokesperson declined to comment citing Illinois Supreme Court rules that prevent the ARDC from discussing disciplinary action.

Pasulka has been suspended from serving as guardian ad litem in Cook County; Judge Grace Dickler, who presides over domestic relations cases, prevented him from doing so on Monday when she found out about the complaint, according to a spokesperson for Office of the Chief Judge of Cook County.
Dickler also suspended Pasulka from “any other Court Committee to which he has been appointed” in the domestic relations division due to the “serious allegations” in the complaint, the spokesperson said.

When asked why Judge Dickler found out about the complaint over a week after it was filed, the ARDC spokesperson replied “I do not know.”

The complaint says Pasulka was explicit about the arrangement: sex in exchange for a favorable recommendation regarding the custody of her two children.

According to the complaint, “[Pasulka] stated to [the woman] that, in order to receive his support in recommending that she receive sole custody, she only had to ‘do a little extra something’ and that she was a ‘smart girl’ and that if she really wanted her children, he could ‘do that’ for her if she would have sex with him.”

The complaint said this wasn’t the first time Pasulka had engaged in sexual misconduct in a professional setting.

According to the complaint, Pasulka repeatedly asked three female employees to engage in sexual acts with him, and often forcibly kissed and inappropriately touched them. The complaint also says that, on several occasions, Pasulka forcibly penetrated the employees.

According to the complaint, Pasulka used his position of power over the employees.

“As [the woman’s] employer, [Pasulka] maintained a position of power over her, in that she was financially dependent upon her job at the firm as her only source of income,” the complaint said of one of the women. “In addition, during the duration of her employment, [Pasulka] routinely told [the woman] about his connections in the family law field, including connections with judges, attorneys, and bar associations and implied his ability to affect her professional success.”

The complaint says Pasulka pressured the women, telling one “he was looking for a ‘team player’ and that she should be a ‘team player’ and that ‘you’re saying no when you should be saying yes,'” the complaint said, adding that Pasulka even told one woman “Your friend, [one of the women in the complaint], does not say no.”

The complaint also alleges “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentations related to manipulation of an alcohol testing device” in a 2017 DUI arrest.

The complaint said that, in 2017, Pasulka consumed as much as a pint of vodka before driving to his home in north suburban Glenview. While driving on the Kennedy Expressway, he rear-ended another car and drove away without stopping, the complaint alleged. Pasulka exited the Kennedy Expressway and drove to a Starbucks in Niles and hit the Starbucks building with his car before driving away, according to the complaint.

Pasulka was eventually stopped by officers with the Niles Police Department, and refused to submit to a portable breath test, according to the complaint. He was charged with a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, and sentenced to 12 months of court supervision, the complaint said.

Pasulka agreed to abstain from drugs and alcohol and participate in Alcoholics Anonymous, as well as use a “Soberlink” device, which measures alcohol content, three times a day, the complaint alleged.

The complaint alleges, Pasulka later violated that agreement by relapsing and drinking alcohol on several occasions, as well as tampering with the device.

Pasulka hasn’t been charged criminally in connection with any of the incidents in the ARDC complaint. Both the Chief Judge’s spokesperson and the ARDC spokesperson declined to comment on potential charges citing Illinois Supreme Court rules. A spokesperson for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office said “we have not been asked to review these matters by law enforcement who would conduct the initial investigation.”

Pasulka told CBS 2’s Charlie De Mar he denies all the allegations against him. Pasulka said he is a leader in his field and has represented thousands of children, and feels he is being “dragged through the mud,” adding that “this is the worst thing that’s ever been laid on me.”

Full Article & Source:
Chicago Attorney And Guardian Ad Litem Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Woman Whose Children He Represented

Child porn suspect served as court-appointed guardian

ELYRIA — A man who was arrested Tuesday on child pornography charges has a long history of working around children, from being a former Juvenile Court magistrate to — more recently — a court-appointed guardian.

Former court magistrate James Paterson, 49, of Lorain, was charged Tuesday with receiving child pornography after FBI investigators discovered “hundreds” of sexually explicit images of children on his computer.

Paterson worked as a magistrate for Judge David Berta with the Lorain County Juvenile Court from 2007 to 2013, when he left and took a position as a guardian ad litem for the court, according to Jody Barilla, court administrator for Lorain County Domestic Relations Court.

A guardian ad litem is appointed by the court to represent children in certain domestic cases — often guardianship cases or delinquency cases where there is an issue between a child and parent.

Guardians ad litem often interview the children they’re assigned to work with, whether alone or with a parent, before making a recommendation to the court on the case, Barilla said.

To become a guardian ad litem, candidates have to go through training and a background check.

Since taking the job in February 2013, Paterson has worked with 21 children, according to Barilla. Most of his cases were delinquency cases, Barilla said, meaning that Paterson would have been working more frequently with teenagers.

At the time he was arrested Tuesday, Paterson was active as a guardian and had four open cases, Barilla said.

The arrest came as a result of at least four months of investigation during which the FBI discovered Paterson was frequenting child pornography sites and leaving comments identifying himself as a pedophile, according to a complaint filed Monday by the FBI in the U.S. District Court.

The online activity led investigators to search Paterson’s house Monday where they found a computer with hundreds of images of children from newborn to 6 years old being sexually abused, according to the FBI.

Paterson, who was home at the time, admitted to authorities to having a collection of between 500 to 1,000 sexually explicit images of children.

“Paterson admitted to posting comments online in which he self-identified himself as a pedophile and to sexually abusing children,” the complaint stated.

After his arrest, however, Paterson said he never physically abused any children.

Special Agent Kelly Liberti, a spokeswoman for the Cleveland FBI, said she couldn’t comment Friday whether the FBI is conducting an investigation into Paterson’s interactions with children during his time as a guardian ad litem.

Paterson was in federal custody Wednesday and is scheduled to have a detention hearing at 2 p.m. Monday at the U.S. District Court in Cleveland.

Full Article & Source:
Child porn suspect served as court-appointed guardian

Defining the players

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — It is important to understand the various players in a case involving an incapacitated person. Among the positions a New Mexico District Court judge appoints:

Guardian Ad Litem 

The court appoints an attorney to represent the person alleged to be incapacitated. They are present at court proceedings to speak on behalf of the potential ward and inform the court as to what they believe is in the potential ward’s best interest.

 

Court Visitor

This person is usually a social worker or for-profit care manager who evaluates the potential ward, determines what they are capable of doing and what daily activities they need help with. They present their findings about family dynamics to the court and make a recommendation on whether a permanent guardian should be appointed.

Qualified Health Care Professional

A physician, nurse practitioner, psychiatrist or a neuropsychologist is assigned to determine the level of mental and physical impairment and make a report to the court. In New Mexico, such a report is routinely ordered even if the elder has already been determined to have dementia.

Permanent Guardian

This person is appointed after an initial 60- to 90-day assessment to make decisions about a ward’s medical care, where they will live, what kind of care they will receive and who will provide that care. After hiring in-home caregivers, the guardian often relies on their firsthand reports about conditions in the home, especially family relationships with the ward. A guardian can be a for-profit corporation or an individual, such as a family member.

Conservator

This appointee can be a bank, corporation or an individual. The conservator handles all of the ward’s finances. They pay the monthly bills, maintain the ward’s home and property, manage the estate investments and make decisions about what the ward’s future care needs might be, ensuring there are enough assets in place to pay for that care. The conservator, working with the guardian, can also hire companies to provide services for the ward.

Caregiver

This position is determined by the guardian, who hires the necessary number of staff to provide the ward with in-home care. Caregivers are assigned to wide-ranging tasks, from providing simple companionship and light meal preparation to constant bedside monitoring with responsibility for dispensing medicines. They are usually provided by a company, which bonds the employees and conducts background checks.

Full Article & Source:
Defining the players

Harris County Texas Judge Guy Herman's Testimony at the Senate Committee on State Affairs on SB1876

Source:
Judge Guy Herman Insulting Battered Families of Judicial Abuse

Tonight on T.S. Radio: Marlena Fearing: The Corruption in Minnesota Courts and Elsewhere

Guest : Marlena Fearing, an extraordinary woman who is an accomplished land developer, real estate agent and business owner.  She has also worked tirelessly as a guardian ad litem for children and adults and knows what really goes on inside these courtrooms.  She can speak to the the back room deals that harm so many.  Marlena has also devoted much of her time to caring for the homeless.

Licensed Real Estate Broker – Minnesota since 1975
Licensed Land Developer and General Contractor            
Licensed Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem – trained in court room proceedings     
Licensed in Mexico for Land Development (Odyssey de Mexico)  
Operation Brotherhood – A Minnesota non-profit corporation – President/CEO- A non-profit organization with a mission statement to serve as “First Call for Help” providing food, housing and shelter for homeless.
Guardian Ad Litem – Court appointed by Dakota County, MN to serve as an advocate for vulnerable adults and children in a courtroom setting. My role was to advise the court as to the best interest of the vulnerable adult/child.

Organizations:
MAGAL – Minnesota Chapter for Guardian Ad Litem
Women’s League of Minnesota –  Served as Vice- President
Lions Club, Garrison MN- Lioness/ Women’s Division – Providing food/ shelter
PFAW – Wrote various articles for publication/Civil Rights Violations

4:00 pm PST … 5:00 pm MST … 6:00 pm CST … 7:00 pm EST

LISTEN LIVE or listen to the archive later

Ridgefield mother claims abuse in court-appointed guardianship

Collette DiVitto & Rosemary Alfredo

RIDGEFIELD -- Following an acrimonious divorce, Rosemary Alfredo and her ex-husband couldn't agree whether their then-23-year-old daughter, Collette, who has Down syndrome, should move with her to Boston.

Alfredo felt her daughter, who holds a job and graduated from a special college for students with intellectual disabilities, could live independently there, with help from more comprehensive Massachusetts social services.

Her father disagreed, arguing Collette should be placed in a group home in Ridgefield.

So the couple went to Probate Court, where Judge Joseph Egan appointed a guardian ad litem, Danbury attorney Sharon Dornfeld, to represent Collette's interests and make recommendations to the judge about the move.

Alfredo at first welcomed the appointment.

"I thought it was better than dealing with my ex-husband," she said.

In May, Alfredo found a place in Boston, hoping to move there permanently with Collette. In July, the court allowed Collette to stay there temporarily, with a final decision pending an assessment by state-appointed experts.

But on Oct. 10, the judge gave Alfredo 10 days to return Collette to Connecticut to live with her father, Daniel DiVitto, in Ridgefield.

"The court is trying to take my daughter away against her will and put her somewhere where she doesn't want to be," Alfredo said.

Dornfeld refused to comment on the case, as did Elizabeth Sharpe, a Greenwich attorney appointed as Collette's limited guardian. Egan also declined to comment.

Alfredo has decided to disobey the court order. And she is fighting the guardians, who she believes are no longer acting in her daughter's best interests. She has racked up more than $50,000 in legal bills in a system she says is violating her daughter's civil liberties.

Collette is thriving in her new environment, her mother said. She works as a teacher's aide in an elementary school, goes to Zumba classes, takes self-defense lessons and has many friends.

Alfredo said Collette does not want to return to Connecticut, and she believes her daughter's wishes should be respected.

Besides, she said, the court already has access to three psychological evaluations that prove Collette's competency.

In one of those evaluations, she is described as "an articulate and sociable young woman who demonstrates a broad range of skills and resourcefulness which far exceed what one might expect on the basis of her tested IQ."

Alfredo said Collette even asked Egan in an earlier court appearance to replace Sharpe because she doesn't like her, but the judge refused.

"This is not about a mother's fight for her child," Alfredo said. "This has to do with a young girl with Down syndrome whose civil rights are being violated. She has the right to live the life that she wants and nobody is letting her do that."

Barbara Jackins, an attorney with the Special Needs Law Group of Massachusetts who is familiar with the case and with Collette, characterized Sharpe's approach to the case as "overly legalistic."

"This seems like a runaway guardianship case," Jackins said. "It's just bewildering how anyone would make (Collette) move back to Connecticut, away from a package of services in Massachusetts, and go live with her father, who she doesn't get along with."

Alfredo said she is willing to take whatever risks come from defying the court order, because she feels it's what Collette wants.

"My daughter won't go," Alfredo said. "And I'm not going to physically force her."

Full Article & Source:
Ridgefield mother claims abuse in court-appointed guardianship

Korean Vietnam War Vet Inside VA System Held Against HIs Will

NOTE:  The journalist who wrote the article below, Michael Volpe, will be a guest tonight on a special episode of T.S. Radio with Marti Oakley (8:00 pm EST) and he will be speaking about this case. So we thought it appropriate to re-post the article so everyone can re-read and re-familiarize yourselves with it.

After the article was published, Mr. Hughes said hopefully, "Maybe now someone can help me...."

Norman Hughes Jr., 81, is a Korean and Vietnam War veteran who’s currently paying $7,000 per month to live in the Kirby Pines Retirement Home in Memphis even though he told The Daily Caller he wants to live with a caretaker named Debbie McCoy — at her home paying $2,700 per month — where she has run a VA-certified living assistance facility for fifteen years with no complaints until this case.

“I need somebody to help me get out of here,” said Hughes from his room.

In late 2012, Hughes was living with McCoy when he decided to remove his cousin, Mary Ann Phillips, from a bank account he held with nearly $150,000 in it because of a pattern of unpaid bills and missing money.

According to interviews with Hughes, his son Bernard, granddaughter Cavita, ex-wife Doris Jones, and McCoy, Phillips was enraged by the move and approached the VA with a series of unsubstantiated charges which were filed formally on December 29, 2012.

Philips claimed that Hughes was unshaven and dirty, that his room was a mess, and that he had developed a bed sore at McCoy’s home.

But Bernard and Cavita Hughes said they both visited Hughes regularly during this time period and would have noticed if it wasn’t clean and safe.

In early 2013, Norman Hughes went to the Memphis VA to get treated for a form of neuropathy. While in the hospital, Phillips told him he needed to take some tests with another doctor.

Phillips took Hughes to see Dr. Felicie Wyatt, who specialized in internal  and geriatric medicine, telling him he needed routine tests.

Instead, Dr. Wyatt tested Hughes for his mental competency.

Hughes, his son, and McCoy all insist he was tricked into seeing this doctor.

Buoyed by Dr. Wyatt’s competency determination, Phillips and the VA maneuvered the case into probate court where Memphis attorney Keith Dobbs was appointed VA guardian — he named Phillips conservator.

According to court records, Dobbs has been receiving 7% of Hughes monthly retirement income for more than a year.

Full Article and Source:
Korean, Vietnam War Vet Inside VA System Held Against His Will

See Also: