Stormy Enright hasn’t seen her son in nearly two years. She lives in Colorado and her son remains in Connecticut following a contentious custody dispute in court in which she raised abuse allegations against her ex-boyfriend, but the parenting plan ultimately awarded primary physical custody to the father with the instructions that the two parents – who were already at odds – were to work out a visitation schedule for Stormy on their own.
The parenting plan, according to Stormy, was created by the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) assigned to her son. A GAL is often assigned by a family court judge to represent the best interest of the child when there is a custody dispute between parents or a high conflict divorce that can see hundreds of filings between two contentious individuals.
The GAL is given instructions by the judge and, according to the Guardian ad Litem Code of Conduct, the GAL is to carry out the court’s orders and “identify and communicate to the court the best interests of the minor child without being bound by the child’s preferences.” They interview family and friends, gather facts, try to work out an arrangement between the parents, and ultimately report their findings and recommendations to the judge. They are the eyes and ears of the court when a custody dispute makes ascertaining the truth difficult.
In Connecticut and in family courts nationwide, the best interest of the child typically means having an established and nurturing relationship with both parents, a guideline that is followed and enforced by family court sometimes to a fault.
However, in Stormy’s case, her relationship with her son was complicated by the fact that she was in Colorado, forced to flee Connecticut, she says, where she had no family or support, having been isolated with her former boyfriend and his family for years before he dropped her off alone in front of LaGuardia Airport.
Stormy says the parenting plan created by the GAL and signed off on by all parties, awarded her joint legal custody of her son, but did not allow for her to see him because visitation was essentially dictated by the father. According to the parenting plan, “If Defendant is visiting from out of state, the Defendant shall advise the father in writing, within two weeks notice and the parties shall make plans for parenting access.”
To her, it was a non-plan. Already strapped for money from paying her attorney, Stormy couldn’t afford to fly to Connecticut in the hopes of working something out, and the father refused to allow Stormy to fly out and bring her son back to Colorado for a visit.
“They’re just not interested in me being his mom, essentially,” Stormy said in an interview. When she pointed out to the GAL that the father was not facilitating the visits outlined in the parenting plan, the GAL advised her to consult an attorney. Although Stormy still has Zoom calls with her son, she hasn’t physically seen him since 2024.
Stormy filed an official complaint over how the GAL handled her case with the Standing Committee on Guardians ad Litem and Attorneys for the Minor Child in Family Matters, a committee formed in 2017 by the Judicial Branch to establish GAL training curriculums, approve individuals to serve as GALs, and to “establish and administer a process by which an individual may be removed from the list of those deemed eligible for appointment as a guardian ad litem or attorney for the minor child.”
The committee was formed following intense pressure from aggrieved parents that bubbled to the surface in 2013 resulting in a legislative task force that issued a report and recommendations. Prior to formation of the Standing Committee, the use and practices of GALs had been a gray area easily subject to abuse – or at least allegations of abuse – particularly when it came to financial issues.
The vast majority of GALs are attorneys and they charge attorney rates. During a contentious divorce or custody case, those costs, which are borne by one or both parents depending on the judge’s determination, can add up to tens or sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Allegations from the early 2010s that GALs were essentially doing more harm than good and bankrupting people in the process drove the push for accountability, eventually leading to the Standing Committee, a nine-member panel that includes experienced judges, attorneys who served as GALs, state agency representatives, and a representative from the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
While the Standing Committee has been in place since 2017, whether it has resulted in true oversight or accountability for GALs is another story.
Stormy submitted her complaint the committee in June 2025, alleging the GAL on her case removed overnight visitation “after a judicial decision was already made that overnight visitation would be granted;” that the GAL requested Stormy only be allowed supervised visits and then did not obtain the supervisors report “that said there were no safety issues with the mother of the minor child;” and lastly, that the GAL “failed to properly investigate abuse of the minor child.”
Stormy submitted her complaint to the Standing Committee where a two-person subcommittee examines the complaint and determines whether there is probable cause to remove the GAL from the approved list; it has never found probable cause.
Despite the formation of the committee in 2017, it wasn’t until June 2019 that the committee approved the rules and process for removing a GAL from the approved list, and it wasn’t until September 2019 before they made the complaint process public.
Since that time, there have been 47 complaints submitted to the Standing Committee, including one before the committee had even approved the process. Not one of those complaints has ever made it past the initial probable cause review, and all have been dismissed by a unanimous vote of the full committee. Unless probable cause is found, record of the complaint and the GAL response remain confidential, as are the “deliberations” by the Probable Cause panel, according to the committee’s removal procedures.
Complainants must submit their complaint within one year of the alleged violation and the complainant is not permitted to submit proof or evidence with their complaint, only their allegations.
If the full committee determines there is probable cause for removal, the committee can temporarily suspended the GAL immediately, but a full hearing before the committee will determine whether the GAL is subject to temporary suspension, removal of from the GAL list altogether, or referred to the Statewide Grievance Committee or Department of Public Health if they are a licensed mental health professional.
After filing her complaint, Stormy says she never heard anything back – no phone call or interview or request for proof of her claims. Hers, like 46 other complaints, was likely dismissed, although it is difficult to tell as the committee only references complaint numbers.
Part of the problem, it appears, is that in drafting what constitutes grounds for removal of a GAL from the approved list, the committee set the bar so high that likely nothing a GAL does would ever warrant removal.
While attorneys can and are disciplined by the Statewide Grievance Committee for small accounting errors, and even judges are required to avoid even the appearance of impropriety under the Judicial Review Council, GALs can only be removed from the approved list if they “present an imminent risk of significant harm to the health, safety, or welfare of the public.” What constitutes an imminent risk to the health, safety, or welfare of the public is not defined, and, so far, no one has been found to present such a risk.
Indeed, in response to a complaint filed in 2020, a GAL wrote to the Standing Committee that the complainant “cannot present any evidence that I am an imminent risk of significant harm to the health, safety, or welfare of the public, which is the standard for disqualification he is seeking.” The GAL asked that the complaint be dismissed, which it promptly was.
The question is not necessarily the validity of Stormy’s or anyone else’s claims per se, but rather whether anyone with any complaint would ever get a hearing and whether a committee whose stated purpose is oversight of a very fraught role in the judicial system that involves both sensitive child custody determinations and large sums of money, is fulfilling that mission and addressing the concerns that brought about its creation in the first place.
“I don’t know why it’s like this, but I want it stopped,” Enright said. “Nothing has happened. No one has reached out to me at all. No one has talked to me about this. No one cares what my story is, they’d rather just think that I’m f***ing crazy.”
The Task Force
The Standing Committee on Guardians ad Litem, like the Statewide Grievance Committee and the Judicial Review Council, is essentially a self-policing organization. The board, like the boards of the other two oversight committees, is made up largely of professionals who play some supervisory role the system they oversee.
Members of the Standing Committee cycle in and out but currently includes Chief Administrative Judge for Family Matters Leo Diana, and Judge Jennifer Macierowski. It also includes Justine Rakich-Kelly, executive director of the Children’s Law Center, whose attorneys have served as GALs on hundreds of cases, and family law attorney Edward J. Bryan, whose website lists him as a trained GAL but is not currently listed as an active GAL.
While DCP Commissioner Bryan Cafferelli is there only as a citizen participant, the agency he oversees is responsible for ensuring consumers aren’t taken advantage of by businesses and has more stringent standards than GALs; there is Barbara Cass from the Department of Public Health, the agency that controls licensing for mental health professionals and social workers, Assistant Attorney General Nisa J. Khan, and Rachel Boucher from the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
The Standing Committee is a creation of the Judicial Branch, not the legislature, but it has its roots in a task force created by the legislature in 2013 in response to shocking concerns raised by parents who had been through the family court system and claimed to have been harmed by the GALs on their case.
Creation of the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children was an amendment to a 2013 bill that would change family court law to assume a 50/50 shared parenting plan for all divorces unless certain circumstances showed this would be detrimental to the children. The proposed change was pushed for by some parents and organizations who believed it would decrease custody disputes; it was opposed by both the Connecticut Bar Association and the Judicial Branch.
While the Task Force would examine the shared parenting concept, it was largely created to examine the role of GALs and the fees assessed on parents for attorneys, psychologists, and therapists throughout the divorce process, and was chaired by two attorney GALs – Sue Cousineau and Sharon Wicks Dornfeld.
The public hearing in January 2014 saw a large amount of testimony from parents who had been through the family court system, many described paying tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to a GAL to determine the best interest of the child only to end up estranged from their children altogether. Some of the bills ranged from $20,000 to over $100,000, not including the cost of attorneys and many times the costs for psychologists to conduct evaluations of the parents and children, which again, added thousands to the tab.
“$80,000 is what my ex-husband and I were forced to pay our guardian,” Linda Demirali wrote in public testimony. “We are middle class, and we had to sell our home, go through our savings and take out loans to pay for the GAL and our attorneys.”
“We have no rights, and the GAL has complete immunity with no oversight,” Demirali continued. “My daughter is a sophomore in high school, and I have saved nothing for college because of this.”
Another mother described how she filed grievances with the Statewide Grievance Committee against the attorney GAL but those grievances “were dismissed immediately.” Other parents described either going to jail or being threatened with jail time for not paying the GAL.
Faced with tens of thousands in attorney’s fees and saddled with another attorney in the form of a GAL, who often then recommends psychologists to conduct evaluations for thousands more, many parents began to posit a cabal within the family court system to extract as much money from contentious divorce hearings as possible. And while it sounds fanciful, the idea was not completely without evidence.
At the time, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), a national association of various professionals who provide services-for-hire to the family court system, had a chapter in Connecticut. Many highly influential Connecticut family court attorneys, judges, and psychologists, including those serving on the Task Force, were members, organizers, fundraisers, and presenters at AFCC conferences.
Former Chief Administrative Judge for Family Matters Lynda B. Munro was on the Connecticut chapter’s board along with Task Force chair Sue Cousineau and Munro developed the GAL training program along with numerous other attorneys, psychologists and judges, many of whom were also part of the AFCC. Although the Connecticut AFCC chapter went defunct in 2015, its influence carries on in various family court practices.
One stepfather, recounting how his wife was “punished by the courts due to the lack of due diligence and professional ethics on the part of the GAL,” pointed out that the judge in her case was “an AFCC Director and all the court-appointed professionals on this case were also AFCC members.” Another woman listed twelve attorneys, judges, and psychologists who were part of her divorce case and who were “affiliated” with the AFCC.
Even those who offered testimony without any reference to the AFCC often made the case that the system appeared to be a money machine built on cronyism: attorneys request a GAL, the judge appoints a GAL who is an attorney well-known to the court, and the GAL then assigns a psychologist and a custody evaluator well-known to the court. All of it racking up tens of thousands of dollars. At the time, there was little a parent could do to have a GAL removed once they were assigned.
The financial issues came along with numerous other complaints: not actually meeting with the children; ignoring signs and reports of abuse; GALs using coercive tactics to get parents to sign off on their parenting plans, which ultimately left some of them not seeing their children for long periods of time; withholding or hiding reports or showing bias toward a parent, and lastly, sometimes not doing much at all to justify the mandatory high price tag.
With a GAL having the ability to greatly influence a custody hearing, including where the child will live and how often the child will see a parent and under what circumstances, the power dynamic created a coercive situation in which parents wouldn’t or couldn’t raise objections or complaints without fear it would bias the GAL against them.
However, attorneys and representatives from organizations that work in the judicial system also testified. While nearly all conceded that there is always room for improvement in any profession, they stringently pushed back on the idea that GALs are acting unethically and basically extracting money.
Instead, they testified that it was a difficult, demanding, and, at times, rewarding role but usually one in which one or both parties is going to come away dissatisfied with the outcome. With GALs typically assigned for high conflict divorces that involve hundreds of motions filed, often by pro se litigants, the fact that GAL fees add up quickly, they say, is more due to the parents continuing the conflict than any malfeasance.
“My GAL/AMC work is emotionally draining and demanding,” wrote attorney Lisa J. Capalli. “First, in no area of my family work do I feel as much responsibility to my clients as I do when my client/ward is a child whose parents are involved in litigation. Second, it is often heartbreaking to see what parents and extended family members will do to their children. Third, parents are often rude, disrespectful and threatening toward me and have little sense of boundaries.”
“An undercurrent within the Task Force’s examination of this first issue has been the issue of cost. It is, and has been, my experience that child advocates are not getting rich doing this work as GALs and AMCs. We often are the last to be paid, when paid at all,” wrote Robert D. Zaslow, an attorney and, at the time, a board member of the Connecticut AFCC. “My experience leads me to believe that the cases in which complaints of GAL fees being excessive are made from those cases in which one or both of the litigating parents is churning the litigation.”
The Committee ultimately released their final report with a list of recommendations for the Judicial Branch to consider and included recommendations that were not unanimously agreed to by the full committee. However, among the unanimous recommendations were that “the Judicial Branch examine whether to establish a supervisory unit to receive complaints about, oversee and evaluate AMCs and GALs,” and “establish a procedure to remove an AMC or GAL from the list of approved individuals ‘when good cause is found.’”
Following the report, the General Assembly moved forward with legislative changes to the GAL system in 2014 that was approved unanimously in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The changes included allowing “certain parties” to seek removal of a GAL from a case through filing a motion in court; established a list of factors GALs must consider in determining the best interest of the child; established a sliding scale for GAL fees for families with less money and prohibiting the raiding of college funds to pay for GALs, and finally developing a GAL code of conduct.
While the legislation only required the Judicial Branch to develop a court process by which a GAL could be removed through filing a motion, the Judicial Branch took one of the recommendations from the task force and implemented it by establishing a committee to oversee GAL and AMC conduct and to establish a procedure by which an individual can be removed from the list of GALs.
But whether the Oversight Committee has lived up to expectations is up for debate. While it has established a method by which someone can be removed from the list of approved GALs, whether that method is reasonable is up for debate.
The Vocal Micro-Minority
Throughout public hearing testimony before both the Judiciary Committee regarding the 2014 bill, An Act Concerning Guardians ad Litem and Attorneys for the Minor Child, several attorneys and judges pushed back against what they called the “family court reformers,” whom they believed were mistaken in their accusations against GALs and the family court system in general.
While all systems can be improved, they argued, GAL billing practices and “collusion” between attorneys, GALs, and judges were either low on the list of needed reforms or demonstrated a misunderstanding of a process and system that sees thousands of cases each year in which there are no problems and things run relatively smoothly.
“As in any system, there is always room for improvement,” attorney, GAL, and former chair of the Task Force Sue Cousineau wrote in testimony. “But I do not agree with the vocal micro-minority that the family court system is broken… This is not about the GALs or the AMCs or the parents. It is about protecting children from the conflict of their litigating parents.”
“Family court attorneys, GALs, and mental health professionals who work in the family court arena volunteer hundreds if not thousands of hours each year trying to help families resolve their issues in a positive way,” the Children’s Law Center submitted in testimony, whose executive director is a current member of the Standing Committee. “Unfortunately, instead of providing the tools and support necessary to continue to do this vital work, the recent ‘reform movement’ has demonized these professionals. This has gone on too long unchecked.”
Indeed, there was testimony submitted by the Connecticut Coalition for Family Court Reform signed by 700 individuals calling to “reform our state family court’s broken and inherently corrupt Guardian ad Litem system.”
“The system we currently have is terribly ineffective, abusive, damaging and does not in any way address the best interests of the children and families of this state,” the Coalition letter stated. “Each of us has had suffered Guardian ad Litems who have billed outrageous sums of money and caused our families and our children very real harm. We have had no one to complain to, no one to turn to, no one to file complaints with.”
Jennifer Verraneault was one of those signatories and one of those who pushed lawmakers to create the Task Force on which she served. Verraneault was spurred to action after watching what her partner experienced in the family court system.
Verraneault believes the Task Force was formed largely to placate that “vocal micro-minority” by lawmakers who thought any reforms suggested by the Task Force wouldn’t go very far.
“It kind of backfired on them because there was such an outpouring of parents,” Verraneault said in an interview. “It was unbelievable how many people came out and testified. It was a crazy amount of people for many hours.”
Despite the positive changes the Task Force was able to effectuate, she feels the Task Force was ultimately restrained as it was chaired by Cousineau and Dornfeld.
“Unfortunately, the chairs who were selected were basically the gatekeepers,” Verraneault continued. “It was like fighting against them because they were GALs. They were part of the problem.”
But the Task Force had the added effect of spurring the Judicial Branch to action, according to information supplied by Deputy Chief Court Administrator Anna Ficeto.
“The creation of the committee began after the task force report and was part of the progression of regulating the appointment of guardians ad litem,” Ficeto wrote in response to Inside Investigator’s questions. “Legislation in 2014 created a new process for the appointment of guardians ad litem and, among other things, called for the Judicial Branch to create a code of conduct for GALs. The Rules Committee of the Superior Court began formulating requirements for the training of people to become eligible for appointment as a GAL and ultimately adopted rules in 2016 that created the Standing Committee to oversee the process.”
Divorce mediator Colleen O’Neil, who occasionally works with couples brought to her by GALs, says she believes the intent of forming the Standing Committee, like the original Task Force, was “quiet the noise from people complaining,” but has since morphed from “an oversight committee to a shield.”
“People can complain to it [the Standing Committee]. It’s like a receptacle for the complaint with no investigation, no oversight of judges and attorneys, which is the problem to begin with, so you have a community policing itself,” O’Neill said. “You have families who, if they want to file a complaint, can’t get access to any of the information, no discovery, no nothing. I think the rule they put to it – imminent risk – it’s not even in the same category.”
Despite the high “imminent risk” threshold, the 47 complaints submitted to the Standing Committee over six years is vanishingly small in comparison with the number of family court cases on which GALs serve each year and even compared to the number of complaints filed against judges.
The current list of GALs numbers roughly 182, although there is churn as GALs either maintain their certification or let it lapse. According to information supplied by the Judicial Department, in fiscal year 2025 GALs were assigned to 628 family court cases; there were only nine complaints received and dismissed by the Standing Committee during that same time.
For comparison, the Judicial Review Council, which oversees 299 judges, family support magistrates, administrative law judges, and family court referees (retired judges appointed to decide a family court case) received 234 complaints, and dismissed 135 complaints after investigation as having “no factual basis.”
The difference between the two bodies, however, are the rules surrounding complaint investigation. According to the Judicial Review Council’s annual reports, each complaint is “thoroughly investigated by the Executive Director,” who then reports his findings to the full Council, who receives all the evidence in advance of their meeting, can request additional evidence, and ultimately makes the determination whether to move forward.
Under state statute, judges can be censured, suspended, or removed from office for prejudicial conduct, neglectful or incompetent performance of their duties, willful violation of the code of conduct, and filing a fraudulent financial statement among other things.
For the Standing Committee, aside of the imminent risk threshold, a committee of two receives the complaint without evidence and then makes their recommendation to the full Committee. A full quorum is five of the nine members, and it functions by majority vote, meaning that ultimately it only takes three members to dismiss a complaint outright.
“The devil is in the details,” Maureen Martowska, a retired Massachusetts attorney who became a family court reform advocate after watching what her son experienced and testified in 2013 and 2014, said. “Imminent risk of significant harm to the health, safety or welfare of the public is an overly broad definition. So much so, that it renders it vague and meaningless. Because that gives the power to the probable cause committee to define what that means.”
“You would think that grounds for removal would be any violation of the GAL code of ethics. Nope. Not there. You have to ask yourself why,” Martwoska said. “The people they have on there, they may say they are members of the public, but there’s always a nexus of some sort to a state agency, or a line of revenue, or the judiciary. There isn’t the transparency needed to support a truly independent oversight of GALs. They have a veil of protection over them.”
Of course, absence of a problem does not necessarily mean there is a problem, but Peter Szymonik, a long-time family court reform activist who likewise testified before both the Task Force and the Judiciary Committee, says that the lack of complaints filed submitted to the Standing Committee is likely either due to people not being aware of its existence, see little utility in filing a complaint or, perhaps, have been encouraged not to because custody of their children hang in the balance.
“I run Facebook pages with parents, and they are in the system, and I haven’t heard a lot of people saying they’ve filed complaints against GALs and I think one of the reasons for that is they’re probably being encouraged not to by their attorneys,” Szymonik said. “The people I work with have already had a taste of what the system is like and don’t see the point in doing that.”
Szymonik says that instead of filing a complaint with the Standing Committee to have a GAL removed from the approved list, parents in the family court system are successfully filing motions in court to have the GAL removed from their case, one of the reforms contained in the bill passed in 2014.
“We’ve had parents who have success doing that citing constitutional issues,” Szymonik continued. “Have a GAL on your case is one of the worst mistakes you can make because you’re essentially telling the court that you’re incapable of being a parent. If you allow the GAL to stay on the case uncontested, if you get an adverse ruling and decide to appeal, the appellate court will say you didn’t challenge the assumption of your parental rights.”
The “vocal micro-minority” of family court reformers never really went away following passage of the 2014 law. Instead, many of them have banded into separate groups who differ on what the appropriate reforms should be and ushering in new sets of parents and divorcees every year who have had bad experiences with the family court system and giving rise to new calls for reform.
However, those who have been through the system already, and have watched GALs become judges don’t forget and bring their experiences to public hearings on judicial appointments.
When former GAL Barry Armata was nominated to become a judge in 2017, barely squeaked by a confirmation vote in the House of Representatives after family court reform activists voiced their opposition and Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, led a contingent of representatives against the appointment.
When Superior Court Judge Gerard Adelman was up for reconfirmation, some parents who had come before him in court submitted scathing testimony in opposition. Even former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Chase T. Rogers faced harsh criticism regarding her time in the family court system.
“The only thing we could actually get done was to have a bill in front of the Judiciary Committee to kind of manage the GALs,” said Jennifer Verranault, one of the original Task Force members and whose advocacy, in part, led to the creation of the Task Force to begin with. “I don’t know what’s happening now. I’ve heard it’s just as bad.”
Absolute Quasi-Judicial Immunity
In the wake of the 2014 legislation, the Judicial Branch released a report in 2015 on its family court initiatives and some of the progress that had been made. Among the statistics cited were allowing judges to use family relations counselors instead of GALs, removing more than 500 individuals from the approved GAL list, implementation of a sliding scale for GAL payment, and a 24 percent reduction in GALs appointed to cases from 1,618 to 1,235 cases.
Of note, roughly three-quarters of those surveyed who had been through the family court system reported they were satisfied with their overall court experience, while roughly one-quarter were not, and nearly two percent reported filing a complaint against the family court system.
By 2017, when the Judicial Branch updated its report, the use of GALs had declined even further. The number of approved GALs had dropped from 1,200 in 2014 to 400 in 2016, and the number of cases to which a GAL was assigned decreased from 1,594 to 889. The report also announced the formation of the Standing Committee per a rule change in the Practice Book.
These days, the numbers are even lower. In fiscal year 2025, GALs were assigned to 628 cases following an uptick in 2022 and 2023 as cases that were delayed during the pandemic were finally adjudicated. As of this writing, there have been 587 assignments for fiscal year 2026.
As indicated before, as of this writing there were only 182 GALs on the approved list, many of whom have gone through the family court process in their personal lives, including having a GAL assigned to their case. It’s a dramatic decline from the 1,200 listed in 2014, and even a fewer number of approved GALs take cases.
Inside Investigator conducted a review of all the approved GALs and looked at the number of cases they’d been assigned; 75 of them show no online listing of having ever served as a GAL, while for others it appears they serve as GALs full time, generally in the same two or three court districts. Leaving aside the Children’s Law Center, which has handled hundreds of GAL assignments, some GALs handled between 50 and 85 cases, according to our review.
It’s not a new phenomenon. In 2013, roughly 90 percent of the 1,000 GALs did not take assignments leaving the remaining 10 percent of GALs getting all the work at the time.
Although mental health professionals and licensed social workers can be GALs, they are very few and are assigned to very few cases. According to our review of the current list of 182 approved GALs who have worked on 1,627 cases combined, only 21 are social workers or therapists, and have been assigned a combined 15 cases to serve as GAL. The rest are all attorneys.
Deputy Chief Administrator Ficeto says the discrepancy is because the GALs, under the changes implemented in 2014, are agreed to by both parties and the “parties seem to choose attorneys much more often than mental health professionals.” According to language posted on the Standing Committee’s website, they appear to be seeking out additional mental health professionals to serve as GALs.
As indicated before, comparing the number of GAL assignments in 2025 to the number of complaints received by the Standing Committee gives a percentage of 1.4 percent, lower than the complaints listed in the Judicial Department’s 2015 report. Lower GAL assignments, early identification of cases that may require a GAL, the ability to bring in family services, and the ability for a litigant to file a motion for removal have likely led to the low number of complaints before the Standing Committee.
But the question of oversight and accountability remains. Ficeto did not indicate what is meant by an “imminent risk of significant harm to the health, safety or welfare of the public,” and under what circumstances a GAL could present such a risk.
While the Standing Committee is meant to be a place for complainants to get fair consideration, some who are either unaware of the Committee’s existence or feel they will not get a fair hearing have filed lawsuits alleging misdeeds by the GALs who served on their family court cases.
In 2025, a lawsuit filed against Sue Cousineau, alleged “a continuous, multi-year pattern of misconduct by the Defendants, characterized by constitutional and statutory violations, intentional misrepresentations to the Court, and the malicious exploitation of a minor child to achieve extrajudicial and retaliatory ends.”
The Plaintiff also filed a second lawsuit against her own former divorce attorney, who is also on the approved GAL list, alleging collusion with Cousineau and the court appointed psychologist.
“These acts, taken under the guise of legal representation, deprived Plaintiff of her parental rights, violated her constitutional protections, and contributed to the unlawful separation of a mother and her child,” the Plaintiff wrote.
Both lawsuits are ongoing but, like many who come before family court for divorce proceedings, the Plaintiff is representing herself and the claim likely has little chance of success. That’s because the GAL system is undergirded by two court cases, including a case by the Connecticut Supreme Court, that guarantees GALs immunity from liability, but not necessarily from professional discipline.
In 2000, plaintiff Paul Carrubba attempted to sue Emily Moskowitz, the GAL assigned during his divorce proceeding, alleging Moskowitz had caused emotional distress intentionally or negligently, and had engaged in legal malpractice against his son. In 2005, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that GALs and AMCs have “absolute, quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken during or, activities necessary to, the performance of functions that are integral to the judicial process.”
But that does not mean that GALs are not subject to professional discipline, according to 2009 court ruling in Shaughnessey v. Statewide Grievance Committee. Attorney Sheryl A. Shaughnessey claimed immunity from potential discipline by the Statewide Grievance Committee for filing a judgement lien on property to collect her GAL fees. The court determined that a GAL cannot claim immunity from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys, referring to Carrubba v. Moskowitz.
“The court made it crystal clear that a guardian ad litem’s absolute quasi-judicial immunity from legal liability in connection with her guardianship work does not include immunity from professional discipline for ethical violation committed in the course of that work,” the court ruled.
“If a GAL is a Connecticut licensed attorney, and the Statewide Grievance Committee received a complaint about the attorney, it would be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book Section 2-32,” Ficeto wrote. “Any GAL not qualified to serve would be removed from the list.”
Of course, the difficulty in any of this, is that a parent who may have just lost a custody battle based on the findings and recommendations of a GAL, may perceive any number of “ethical violations,” based on their emotional response to the outcome. The result becomes another contentious he said, she said battle, this time between the parent and the GAL. It is often this very situation in custody battles that causes a judge to assign a GAL in the first place.
Of course, it is not a given that a judge will accept the finding and recommendation of a GAL. During a 2025 custody dispute in which the father claimed to be Michael the Archangel and had made a serious of increasingly bizarre and at times threatening statements and emails, the GAL recommended granting the mother full legal and physical custody pending the father receiving a physical and mental evaluation.
The judge ignored all of it, awarded joint custody to the father and then chastised the mother for withholding visitation from a man she had multiple restraining orders against.
“There Has To Be Accountability”
In 2022, amidst an on-going high conflict divorce, Casey Schrieber lodged a complaint against the GAL assigned to her case with the Standing Committee. In it she alleged the GAL engaged in “inappropriate conduct,” ignored abuse allegations and statements by therapists, and “misrepresented facts on multiple occasions,” as the GAL pushed for the children to be reunited with their father.
Although the complaint indicates that she has audio and email evidence of her allegations, the Probable Cause panel did not determine there was a need to investigate further and her complaint was dismissed. A pro se litigant, Schreiber was ultimately more successful bringing a motion to have the GAL removed from her case. He was ultimately replaced with a GAL from the Children’s Law Center, but the issues continue.
Schreiber is part of a new wave of family court reform activists comprised mostly of women who helped push through Jennifer’s Law in 2021 redefining domestic abuse to include coercive control who say the family court system is ignoring domestic abuse and enabling abusive partners to use children as pawns to continue exerting control. GALs can be part of the problem, they believe, but not the whole problem.
“There has to be accountability. We cannot have a GAL allowed to perjure themselves or to misrepresent the facts,” Schreiber said, adding that she believes there isn’t enough training around domestic violence, child abuse, and child development. “I think it is wild that you have attorneys making decisions for children when they have absolutely no clue the developmental stages kids have.”
“In Connecticut, it’s best interest of the child. I’m not understanding why we’re bringing in more attorneys,” O’Neil said. “They’re not therapists.”
However, it should be noted that even if the Standing Committee did find grounds to move forward with a complaint, discipline would only be removal from a list. While that could be somewhat damaging professionally for some GALs, it does not necessarily open doors for any further action, although, one can assume that if an attorney was found to be an imminent risk to the public he or she would likely face the Statewide Grievance Committee as well.
During the most recent Standing Committee meeting in June, which is open to the public, the Committee members met in executive session before dismissing two complaints, but the agenda quickly turned toward revising the Committee’s complaint process and their ability to discipline GALs, including adding a second tier of discipline. Committee members acknowledged the imminent risk threshold for removal was a “very high bar that, to date, no one has met,” and believe there should be a disciplinary standard for GALs who violate the code of conduct, do not maintain the appropriate training, or do not act in the child’s best interest.
While committee members envisioned adding remedial disciplinary measures like suspension or forms of intervention if they determine a GAL has violated the code of conduct, at present it does not appear they have the authority to do so: the Connecticut Practice Book only allows for removal of a GAL from the list. It’s an “all or nothing cliff,” as one member put it, and empowering the Committee with greater flexibility when it comes to discipline will likely require a rule change, something they plan to discuss with legal services.
“The standard should really be if you violate the GAL code of ethics,” Schreiber said. “If you want to tell me there would be too many complaints, guess what? That’s telling you enough, that’s your problem.”
“The whole thing [family court] needs to be revamped but I don’t have faith that it ever will be,” Verraneault said. “If things didn’t change back in 2013, 2014 when we drew so much attention, I don’t know how it’s going to change.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I know first hand in Connecticut that DCF follows their own rules. I had a GAL and a psychologist for siblings I wanted to adopt paid for by DCF. Ultimately DCF completely ignored both and put the kids back in danger. It’s all just smoke and mirrors.
Thank you Mark. Sent a complaint into the GaL committee. Dismissed it. Then I went to the bar association in Hartford. It was at least looked at. Dismissed without writing explanations. I couldn’t find a single attorney to represent me in my bar association complaints. Sent in a big circle by the Connecticut attorneys. Landed with a referral to Casey’s GaL. He declined my case stating he didn’t want to have to take himself off cases with my for GAL. After a lecture on father’s rights in the state of Connecticut. No mention of ethics on following the code of conduct or attorney practice book eithics. I sent a copy of my complaint to a state legislator on the Judiciary committee a month or so ago. Thankfully my case is over and my child is in my life. Now an adult. With agency of their own. Not under the GaL. Significant improvement needs to be made. I hope the legislator read it and took it seriously. These are children’s lives and the parents effected by these people NOT following the guidelines they are supposed to. Thank you to the inside investigator for the opportunity to inform the public on what is happening inside system. Federally and state funded. Asking the state reconciliation for allowing complaints to be public with the redactions of names. The legal system should not be under wraps to the public even protecting the privacy of family members. Thank you again to the inside investigator series to bring awareness to the public. Big fees for appointments on cases poor services rendered. Big price to children caught in these cases. Sincerely a Big thanks. Survivor litigt. Supporting spot light for accountability and change.
The history of the state of Connecticut and family court system. In the 80 s Richard Gardner began parental alienation theories. In the early 90s Dr Pine from Connecticut appeared in the New York times presenting parental alienation claims for family court. Dr Pine was a practicing psychologist in the state of Connecticut family court system for years and was convicted of fraud in other matters. In the mid 90s the welfare reform act was passed. Largely promoted by the state of Connecticut. Personal responsibility, healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. In 1998 father’s and families were established in neighboring Massachusetts. Promoting parental alienation claims and 50 50 custody. Now known as the national parenting organization which continues to make the same claim. In 1996 the largest resources center for parental alienation claims was established in Southern portion of Connecticut. Reported to have a history with Richard Gardner long time family friends. After moving to Connecticut from New Jersey. Working relationship with the parental alienation study group associated with Vanderbilt University. One of the largest donners for Miami and appearing in the Espstein files. Epstein personal assistant living in the state of Connecticut in the wealthy suburbs next to New York. The majority of cases highlighted to the public are wealthy and often place the mother as the villain of the story. Other cases in which the fathers found guilty don’t make it to the public. In the early 90s the welfare reform act was instituted. Personal responsibility healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. The country exceeds $115 billion dollars in arrearges for child support. Title 4d is under attack by the same organizations. The state of Connecticut was the first to enact fatherhood legislation with funding in 1999. The same year the fatherhood initiative coined maternal gatekeeper claims. Mothers as a barrier to fatherhood. Another gender based accusation to be used in the family court system. Today in the modernization project the fatherhood initiative is now fatherhood inclusion. Dei framework used beyond the programs for parenting skills and promoting healthy marriage and or co parenting. Fatherlessness and incarceration. In the 80s criminal justice reform began to take shape. By the mid 2000 Connecticut was in full swing and is the leader in criminal justice reform. In the mid 2000 parental alienation claims within the AFCC were promoted in conference. AFCC influence Marsh Klein Pruitt fatherhood psychology. Smith college mass. Experimental psychology. Connecticut lead through DCF funding streams. The high conflict couple. Husband Kyle Pruitt head of Yale children psychology department. The GALs have been heavily influenced by the teaching as well as the judges engaged in the most complex cases involving alligations. Family court Judicial branches have influenced criminal investigations. Leading to no charges filed such as the Mawahinny divorce case. Through the gals in another wealthy fathers case highlighted by the Connecticut Alienation groups. Since the 80s women have been incarcerated by 600 percent increase. The majority minority and coming from poverty. Single mothers households are twice as likely to live in poverty. Poverty is the cause one of the leading cause of society’s issues. The state wide legal services doesn’t appear to be rendering aids to domestic violence victims enged in costly legal battles where parental alienation claims are alleged. Women silenced and unable to afford legal assistance. Forced to represent themselves. Statewide legal services for family law is now headed by an attorney from an extremely expensive firm in Hartford. The statewide legal services having a significant amount of bad reviews. The GALs are from the public defenders office. Receiving grants for state lead program for criminal justice reform. Low numbers of crimes are reported in Connecticut. Yet we see weekly disaster in Connecticut related to children welfare. The state is keeping the largest portion of Tanf block grant funding to themselves under other. Just like the electric bill. Women are rendered impoverished and incarcerated. This is not equity it’s an ambush. The majority of people complaining are the wealthy avoiding legal system scrutiny over the system and cases. No legal assistance is given to the least monitized women involved in these cases. This is a direct result on the welfare reform. The entire Judicial branch is partnered with the memorandum of understanding for fatherhood. Both criminal and civil. The child support system. The largest ” reform” groups often attack those who speak up about all of this. Pointing to domestic violence funding which is not even been allowed previously to educate family court judges or those working in the system. The funding streams are helping the most monitized population in Connecticut. Leaving the low ” equity” portion to fight for child safety and themselves. The GALs have been a big part of this entire problem. The silencing of women 64 percent of the workforce in the state. Paying taxes. For the top wage earners living closer to the New York boarder.
I forgot to mention that the Connecticut department of public health opened a complaint against the AFCC psychologist and then never replied. Ghosted me
I filed a complaint against my AFCC GaL for engaging in reunification therapy which she insisted upon. An attorney rendering mental health services in conjunction with her former business partner in the Connecticut divorce collaborative. While representing the fathers girlfriend’s family in another family court legal matter. Apparently the bar association and the department of public health feels this type of conduct should be ignored. Hopefully no other parents will be forced to allow an attorney to engage in or render mental health services to their minor children. Hopefully third party payers will not use the Connecticut labors legal service funds to pay for such appointments and fail to disclose it. Funds for the children not the member involved in divorce procedures. While using union dues to pay for attorneys colluding with gals and hand picked therapist. Withheld evidence from family court judges. Judicial immunity and no disclosure to the public about these complaints that fade away and the appointment continues into more questionable cases.
Judges, attorneys, and family relations counselors are not child specialists and have no business deciding children’s best interest or their future. A 40 hour course does not make them child specialists. Attorney Sue Cousineau said “as long as the parent staying in Connecticut has basic minimal parenting skills there’s no reason for kids to ever move out of state”. That has absolutely nothing to do with the best interest of children. She uses her own standard not the legal standard. She made this statement the first time I met her before she even started investigating my case, so right from the start there was no hope. Her sole work is GAL work. The longer she prolongs a case the more money she makes. She also made the false assumption that I was leaning on my 7-year-old son for support simply because he said he wants to live with me because he wants to take care of me. He only said that because he’s a super sweet little boy. It had nothing to do with me leaning on him. I had three sisters and a mother to lean on for support. There was no need or reason to lean on my son. Everything about these investigators, the GALs the family relations counselors, they base all of their findings on false assumptions. They’re idiots. I complained to Judge Adelman in court that my ex was manipulating the children and coaching them what to say during skype calls, gave examples of this clear behavior, and had recordings. Judge Adelman said in court that he used to be a GAL and “its easy to tell if a parent is coercing a child”. That is a statement made by someone who clearly doesn’t understand children, manipulation, or is intentionally biased against mothers. Attorney Justine Rakich-Kelly admitted she only investigated issues on my ex-husband’s motion, not mine. She doesn’t understand children or how to properly question children without putting ideas in their head. She admitted she doesn’t question the children about any issues raised by parent and merely waits for the children to bring it up. If they don’t, then she assumes the parent lied and it’s not a real issue. She thinks giving the children a toy and going for a 10 minute walk down the street will get them to open up about abuse. She doesn’t understand that the children still have to go back to the abuser, still live with them every day, and are terrified to say anything bad about the parent they have to live with for fear of further or worse abuse. She thinks if a child tells her one small bad thing, then they will also feel comfortable to tell her everything. She dismisses concerns based on her own personal beliefs instead of respecting the personal values of the parent. After Judge Adelman made his order, I asked for it to be typed up instead of having to use the transcript and Justine offered to type it. She typed it the way she wanted it, not the way the judge said it in court. I brought it to her attention and filed a clarification but the order was never changed. How can a GAL type her own order contrary to what the judge ordered in court and the judge to sign it? This system destroys lives. They all make money off of destroying lives. They are evil to the core. And dare I say a lot of them happen to be Jewish. My ex-husband’s attorney used the restroom before court and had a call on her cell left on the table and the GAL Justine turned and said oh tell Anna that Tracy is calling her. Justine has liked or commented online on the judge’s clerk Wictpria’s post when she completed her GAL training. These people are all connected, they all know each other, they’re all friends, some of them are related. Judge Adelman and Judge Schluger donate to the children’s Law Center and then Justine makes recommendations based on what she knows they want her to do. She is their little minion. All of this has to stop. This whole system has to be completely revamped. Children are suffering daily at the hands of these monsters.
The children family law center is heavily influenced by the now retired Doug Edwards. Fatherhood initiative and Judicial branch employee. Mr. Edwards ran some good programs but I think the children law center has a funding blind spot. Sue and Judge Adelman know where the funding is coming from. Here is hoping Judge Adelman well in retirement. ASAP. Sue sailed into the sunset. Family services is partnered to believe even the worst in society can be granted access to their children. There AFCC members are trained to think your a liar.
Adelman retired?
Sue retired. Adelmonster is still on the bench.
How do Sue Cousineau and Justine Rakich-Kelly oversee themselves? How is that not a conflict of interest?
Over ten years ago, the state of Kansas issued a 64-page set of strict guidelines for their GALs. They also created a *citizen’s review board* to oversee complaints about GALs. Citizen volunteers, not the attorneys and judges who are part of ‘the system’ and perpetuate and ignore the abuses of authority and corruption.
The state of Maryland also had a problem with their GALs. They addressed the problem by stripping their GALs of immunity. Within three years, all of the bad and corrupt GALs left the system, those who took their jobs seriously stayed, and the average length and cost of custody cases was cut in half.
CT, has done *nothing* in spite of decades of complaints. When the most connected players and worst offenders in the “family” court system being comically asked to oversee complaints about to GALs. (With Gov. Lamont appointing Barry Armata to the Judicial Review Board….)
We need to do much better.
A citizen review board is a good idea. However since there is much divide on the topic it would be different to find non biased individuals to volunteer for the board. Just like in Stormy case the alligations of domestic abuse were never investigated. ” Go to criminal court” it’s appearing that appointments of Gals from the public defenders office receiving funding for criminal justice reform. Is the family law division hindering the protection of the crime. Obstructing justice in the criminal matters? For the sake of having both parents in the lives of their children. With a heavy influence and investment for lowering crime statistics? With the misuse of parental alienation and gatekeepers claims? Unbiased individuals among the set of volunteers to be on this type of committee maybe harder to come by. Who gets to decide who would be on such committee? Because the politicians have done a poor job of dealing with the family court. There are extremely large division on how to handle things. The 2014 hearings have yeilded fighting for legislation. With unbalanced education within the Judicial system of family law. There are instances where splitting custody is not appropriate. The application of parental alienation and gatekeeping is not appropriate. Yet strongly advocated for. As well as a preconceived notion that in 99 percent of domestic violence accusations are false. The same could be said for believing all who claim they are victims. Much accusations have been tossed over fences of those who would be interested in volunteering. Those who are complaining all have concerns about the politicians and court professionals. Where do we go from here?
You raise an interesting point of why our state has three (or more) different GAL systems.
Why is the one in “family” court an unmonitored free-for-all designed to allow a very small number of well-connected divorce attorneys to effectively print money for themselves, charging $350-$750/hour, yet in the criminal, juvenile and probate courts GALs work at state rates capped at $50 hour.
Why are GALs almost exclusively assigned (forced) onto cases where the parents earn six figures, where they are almost unheard of if the parents make less than $100K/year or are on state aid?
Why doesn’t the state or court system track or report what GALs are paid, anywhere? (Maine passed a law mandating public disclosure of their fees.)
Where do we go from here?
Let’s look at what has worked in other states and is quickly being adopted by them.
This includes adopting a presumption of shared and equal parenting absent a finding of abuse or neglect in a criminal court of evidence and law (which “family” courts are not.) This is now law in over a dozen states.
The length and cost of custody cases has dropped dramatically in every state where this has been adopted – to the benefit of parents, children and their families.
Remove the profit incentive caused by divorce attorneys, the courts, and GALs, deliberately pitting parents against each other and promoting gender-based conflict, and the dynamic in courts changes dramatically and remains focused where it should be. On the two new families that are being created.
The simple answer is we don’t need GALs – period. GALs are a grand fiction made up by the Divorce Industry to enrich attorneys, nothing more.
There has never once been any study that has proved they improve the outcomes of divorce cases in any way. And all the evidence and public testimony is that they make things far worse and often end up bankrupting the parents and scarring the children.
Strangers in suits and robes do not know what is best for children. Especially when their sole motivation is lining their bank accounts by unnecessarily prolonging cases – for YEARS in some cases.
Their fit parents do.
The history of GALs is that the federal government provided money to the states for GALs in cases where both parents were found to be unfit and incapable of being parents – in courts of evidence and law. Which “family” courts are not. They are solely civil courts of equity.
They are not designed or equipped to hear cases involving abuse or neglect and Judge Bozzuto herself admitted this when she testified before the Judiciary Committee back in 2019.
So this begs the question of why “her family courts” continue to hear these claims. In a court where the parents who tells the biggest lies or pays the most “wins.”
The Divorce Industry twisted the federal GAL funding to prevent those federal funds from funding GALs in “family” courts. And from a legal perspective, to make the assignment of a GAL, and just that assignment, to mean both parents ARE invalid and incapable.
To trample their fundamental and federally recognized parental rights. No one explains the legal implications of this to the parents when the GAL is forced ono their cases.
Suffice to say the CT has one of the very worst and most corrupt “family” court systems in the country – consistently rated as dead last in the country for modernization and reform.
Our “family” courts are operated by judges who used to be divorce attorneys and GALs taking care of their own cabal. Perpetuating and exacerbating a massive problem.
Our “family” courts need a top down overhaul or to be replaced with something else, because they are well beyond the point of simple repair.
Again, looking at other states – this past session New Hampshire passed major reforms recognizing parental rights in their “family” courts.
This included a proposal to abolish their “family” courts altogether and move the cases and judges back to the general civil court docket where full due process of law would apply.
As a mental health counselor I have worked with divorced families. working with GAL’s was challenging. In one case I documented the calls and emails not returned. She was furious. They twist what you say. See the literature of “Weaponization of the courts by men” filing many motions they bankrupt the mom. CT receives federal funds for the fatherhood initiative to empower men. See Book Legal abuse syndrome a PTSD affecting moms. I applied for GAL and no response. Its a tragic way to treat people navigating a difficult road
Making gender-based arguments is the doing the Divorce Industry’s bidding for them.
“Family” courts are equal opportunity destroyers of parents, children and families.
The gender-based myths have been circulating out there for well over 30 years now, and never once proven to be anything but that. With the Divorce Industry stoking the flames and laughing at us all the way to the bank.
You raise an interested point about GAL assignments. One of the two GALs in my case was assigned to *52* cases in the same courthouse, at the same time. When there were plenty of other GALs in that same courthouse who couldn’t get assigned to a single case. Even ones who offered to work on cases at state rates of $50/hour.
One parent I worked with was a working mother who had a GAL assigned to her case which neither she nor her partner could afford. When the GAL realized there was no money to be made from either of them, the GAL quit the case.
The new GAL they had assigned was used to working on juvenile cases and accepted the assignment at the state rate of $50/hour. He finished his work within two weeks and presented the court with an exhaustive 16-page report, finding there was no reason for the court not to assign joint and equal custody. The mother was thrilled. The GAL was told he would never be assigned to case in that courthouse again given the precedent he set.
It’s a gender based argument when the entire legal system in the state of Connecticut is based on fatherhood. Which governor the entire state agencies based on following the partnership. Care and custody of children is not just based on criminal charges. As pointed out prior the criminal system is being instructed by gals working in the criminal justice division. Had a sliding scale gal. She never followed up with the witnesses written on the paperwork. It’s not just the wealthy. Middle class is being bankrupt as well. Judges have on court records made statements that the child is going to be a school shooter. That came from the Connecticut fatherhood initiatives. White women of privilege. Another statement made by Connecticut fatherhood initiatives. Pitting minority community against the large group of women speaking out especially in the wealther portion of the state. Regurgitated in the comment section of the commission on women children senior equity and opportunity comments on Facebook comment section. Painting women predominantly white ones as the villain in in systemic problems. Also creating a barrier for women in any shade to unite against the broken family court system. While father’s rights groups are formed perhaps in various shades of fatherhood supporting one another. No mention or focus on white privilege men. The fatherhood initiative now inclusion running programs for majority minority fathers but the legislation and strategic planning is for all shades of fatherhood. Including those who need and are not in fatherhood programs. Anthony Gay fatherhood initiative and children support services. Maternal gatekeepers and mothers as a barrier to fatherhood. Biased opinion. Criminal justice reform promoted as a black and brown project. Beneficial to all men regardless of color. Men’s financial worth as a productive member of society. When on average in Connecticut make half the salary. The fatherhood initiative paid for 6 men to become lactation consultants. For inclusion. Federal and state funded. Women make up over half of the work force in Connecticut. Portrayed as gold digger and working the system. Appearing to have their tax dollars used against them by men who claim the system is discrimination against them. There is absolutely a gender based issue in the state of Connecticut. Including the reform movement. Women are relentlessly painted as the villain in family court system. Yet no benefits. All education surrounding fatherhood psychology. Complaints of short haired woman in the divorce industry. Alluding to the advocating of women your either a lesbian or man hater. Everyone wants transparency and accountability. A gender war is absolutely going on surrounding family court. I blame my personal experience on the ability to be profiled in the system. The family law industry is absolutely taking advantage. Attorneys advertising to use parental alienation claims the minute you are arrested for domestic violence. The portraying that this is a wealth issue is inaccurate. The state of Connecticut is benifiting from the male victim ideology financially. ” Families” means fathers and families. Just no one is calling it out. Head of household the larger wage earners.
Do you support the following? Robert Garza touring with Dr. Bill Barnet parental alienation. No disclosure of documents, county or location of Texas court house. ” Women Filing for divorce for gifts and prizes” presenting modified version of the three strikes rule presented in Connecticut in 2014. Domestic violence victims arrested in Connecticut when the children are resisting. Witnessed DV. Custody transfer to father while criminal charges are pending. ” Put down the sword” Connecticut gal. While she assisted in custody flip. To get criminal charges dropped lowering violent crime statistics? The present father. Arizona police officer promotion of domestic violence charges are false. Women as malisous alienators in custody battles. The manicured mommy. Creating mass hysteria over domestic violence legislation in family court. David Weigel family court fraud warriors project. Wall of shame cherry picking case he wants to be promoted under Alienation umbrella. Praising judges for awarding father custody in Hartford CT court cases. Wall of shame placing anyone he feels is a malicious alienator. Mark Ludwig reporting to charge $350 a person to promote fatherhood legislation. Ryan tuf Dad. Cry wolf registry. Crash out over domestic violence registry which you need 2 charges. Present father reporting charging fathers $250 an hour for what exactly? Robert Garza reported to charge up to $450 an hour for what exactly to fathers? So are you saying you don’t support those who project women are the majority of the problem in family court? I’ve yet to see the parental alienation study group or education resources promote cases where the mother has been ” alienated” from the children. We are most definitely at war in reform spaces
http://www.galreform.org
As a court reform advocate and retired attorney who worked on drafting the GAL Code of Ethics and was present with Gov. Malloy when much needed reform legislation over GALs was signed, I am extremely saddened to hear that nearly a decade and a half later, GAL abuses continue to be inadequately addressed. CT GALs are once again taking advantage of families, and the newly implemented Standing Committee over GALs is allowing this to happen by failing to establish meaningful, fully articulated and transparent criteria to remove GALs. A “no-brainer” in establishing such a standard would include removal of any GAL who violates the GAL Code of Ethics. Indeed, it is explicitly stated in sect II (r) of the Code that the GAL is subject to removal by the judge for “violation of this Code of Conduct” and the Subcommittee, if it were truly independent, should equally have the power to remove such GALS for ethical violations as well. Once again, the power is left with the judiciary – the very entity not providing timely and adequate oversight of these GALs back in 2014!
The Standing Committee is a creation of the Judicial Branch. Was the Judicial Branch truly interested in effectuating GAL changes when they established the Standing Committee over GALs or were they simply there to placate the very vocal minority? GALs must receive professional discipline for ethical violations committed in the course of that work.
“Imminent risk of significant harm to the health, safety or welfare of the public” is an inappropriate criteria to determine removal of a GAL because it creates an impossibly high and misaligned threshold for removing a GAL. It misidentifies the victim and insteady uses the “public” at large. GAL’s incompetence or bias harms an individual child, not public welfare. “Imminent harm” is also inappropriate as a criteria for dismissal. GAL misconduct usually manifests as slow, insidious harm. This includes biased reporting, failure to interview teachers, ignoring signs of emotional abuse. While damaging to a child’s psychological development, these actions rarely meet the legal definition of an “imminent physical emergency.” When a regulatory body—such as a standing committee—uses this standard, it makes a GAL practically unremovable. Applying a “public safety crisis” standard to GALs essentially immunizes them from accountability for poor performance or professional negligence.The entire purpose of a GAL is to protect and advocate for the “best interests of the child.” The standard should focus on whether the GAL is successfully serving the child’s well-being, not whether they are actively endangering public safety. There has to be the will by the Judiciary to serve families, not themselves and not the GALs. Legislators must also get smart.