Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    The way I understand it, the GAL is recommended when they don't believe
    that both parents truly have the children's best interests in mind. 
    The GAL is supposed to be ONLY on the side of the kids, and doing what
    is best for the KIDS, regardless which parent is more influential to
    the courts.  I believe that they work/speak with the children and with
    both parents and then ultimately make a recommendation to the courts
    about who the children would be better placed with.  
    
    The theory is that the GAL can get more and more accurate information
    about both parents, over a period of time, then the courts can
    determine in an afternoon, and ultimately make a decision that's better
    for the kids.
    
    Good Luck!

    GAL's can become the ex wifes second attorney. The can be the worst
    thing imaginable to deal with. The are sexist, biased, butt-s*cking
    weasles that have an adjenda to fulfill before you get a chance to open
    your mouth. In fact, I have sued one. And am still working on taking
    this case to the supreme court.
    
    They are the lowest member of the food chain, and have no clue. You do
    not have to have a degree in child psylogoy (sp). You take some weekend
    crash course, and vola! Your the greatest thing that ever drew a breath
    of air... formally a lower form of animal life. And because they now
    have some high visibality clout, they now can play God. Making sexist
    and very biased reports. If you wish to read one sometime. Send me a
    self addressed stamped letter. And I will, at no charge, photo stat a
    typical report. 
    
    And if you happen to see a GAL crossing the street. You can gain
    valuable points buy killing vs maiming the slime!

    I take it George doesn't think much of them ;^).  Seriously though,
    it's been by experience that they are _supposed_ to represent only
    the best interests of the children.  They are _supposed_ to do an
    unbiased investigation of both parents and make recommendations to
    the court on the best interests of the children.  Judges rarely go
    against the recommendations of the GAL unless you have some serious
    evidence to the contrary.  In practice, they do minimal work for 
    maximum pay, with a blank check on the parents bank account ordered 
    by they court.  
    
    fred();

    ...gee.... How ever did you ever draw that conclusion fred!:)
    
    Not only do the draw max money for little work, and being at the low
    end of the gean pool..... I met one over the weekend. She went from
    rags to richs off the back side of the parents. And started in on me
    about my daughter, and taking her from her mom, and never mind that
    fact that mother lives with a self admitted child molester.

 Reply .0

 Although the previous replies paint a not so pretty picture of GAL's they
 are comments and opinions from people who have had bad experiences with them.
 However for a father seeking custody a GAL can sometimes be an asset or
 a hinderance to his case. One thing for sure if either parent requests
 a GAL the court will definately appoint one. In our custody case the GAL's
 recomendation to the court was not taken. I was the parent who requested the
 GAL and the court appointed one and set a cap of $500.00 for the GAL fees
 which would be divided by the parents. The GAL in our case recomended to the
 court that I "Dad" be granted sole physical custody based on his observations
 and the fact that Mom was not living within the town/school district where our
 children were residing and attending school. The court however didn't see
 this as a problem and granted Joint Physical Custody regardless of where Mom
 lived but did acknowledge that geographical proximity is important in a Joint
 Physical Custody decision.

 The problem with GAL's is that they are appointed by the court and not hired
 by the plaintiff or defendant. So its kind of like getting a fair or unbiased
 Judge/Master sometimes you get lucky. They are also in most cases overloaded
 and will probably tend to side with the mother in all but extreme cases. In
 my case I had to really work hard to prove to the GAL that I should be the
 custodial parent due to the current circumstances and for him to recomend
 this to the court. In court however he did not stand behind his written
 recomendations and I wanted to wring his neck. I guess he was just looking
 out for his own best interest instead of mine and not taking a stand to
 insure he keeps his jobs coming.

 So if your husband is requesting a GAL it probably won't hurt your case
 for custody "unless he gets lucky enough to get a GAL appointed who is
 an advocate for fathers rights" but it will hold things up and cost you
 both more money.

 Good Luck!

   Neil...

    ,,,guess Neil supports the weasel therm of a GAL. :) GAL also can mean,
    Good A** Leach.:)
    

	I worked with a GAL, and it turned out to be truly beneficial for me.

	I used a GAL during my attempt to get custody of my children.  

	I found him to be one of the most professional individuals I had
	dealt with in the court system.  He spent over a year speaking
	with the children, interviewing my ex and myself, teachers and
	guidance counselors, etc. but always considering the wishes and 
	welfare of the children.

	I was granted custody of my children over three years ago. Mainly
	based on the report from the GAL, as the Judge fell asleep during
	testimony on everyone involved.

	I have also recommended this same GAL to a friend, and he was given
	custody of his children within the same time frame.

	The gentlemen is in N. Andover Ma. and if anyone wants his name
	contact me via E-Mail


	Ken Brown (PCBUOA::KBROWN)

    Congratulations Ken!

    Yes, finding a GAL that is indeed fair and unbiased, that will do
    what's best for the _children_, is indeed the way it's _supposed_
    to work.  

    In all my years of fighting, I've often repeated that I'd settle
    for the system working the way it's supposed to.  Give me a truly
    fair and unbiased system and I'll take my chances.  If the children
    were truly better off with their mother, then so be it, but....

    fred();

    My 2 cents worth based on close friends experience:  99% of the GAL's 
    appointed are without a clue, sometimes they are attorneys (biased 
    toward the mother almost always), but most of them don't have any real
    qualifications as near as I can determine, they put their name on the
    GAL list, and can collect large sums for almost no work.  They will
    interview both parents, and recommend leaving the children where they
    are, or side with the mother.  They do not stick their necks out, and
    almost always favor the standard female side of the issue with respect
    to custody (in other words they follow the courts example, they don't
    make waves).  
    
    I'm sure there has got to be one or two good ones out there somewhere
    that really care, but I've never met one of them, mostly they are in
    this for the money, and would rather not go against the system if at
    all possible.  Often they don't get their facts straight, and you 
    need to know, that if the report is not accurate you should file a
    rebuttal within (30 days?) with the court clerk so it is added to your 
    case, and their word is not the final say in the matter.  Do this if
    they have documented any completely false and ridiculous and totally
    unsubstantiated statements that will tend to predjudice the courts, or 
    if they have just documented various claims by the ex that you have 
    rebuttal on in the form of other witnesses that they didn't bother to
    interview after you have requested that they do so.
    
    They are really pretty useless all in all.  This whole Massachusetts
    Divorce system could stand to be completely overhauled including this
    particuliar addition to the system.
    
    Fire the judges, stop using GAL's, eliminate the profit associated with
    having custody of the kids,  and then negotiate through private
    mediators to determine who gets what.  Unless real proven cause exists,
    both parents should always have joint custody and have equal time with
    the kids as agreed upon.  I'll bet if the money element was removed,
    and property was kept as a seperate issue apart from the kids, and
    everything was based on actual expenses of the child split 50/50
    and put into a special account only for the childs expenses, that there
    wouldn't be nearly as many custody battles as there are today in this
    state.  
    
    Good Luck, stay on top of the GAL while they are working on your case,
    and make sure to file rebuttal if any bad inacuracies exist in their
    filed opinion.
     

    	Well, I'm new to this NOTEs file, and I read the previous replies,
    and now I'm a little more concerned about my own situation. Soon after
    we filed for divorce, my wife made plans to move herself and the
    children 1200 miles away to Illinois (from N.H.). I couldn't convince
    her to stay. She wants to start over close to her family. We both
    agreed that joint custody was appropriate for the two kids, and that's
    what the temporary orders stipulate.
    	Since the wife and I couldn't agree on what was in the best
    interests of the kids in this matter, my attorney suggested that we
    request a GAL at the temporary hearing THIS THURSDAY. I agreed, based
    on what the GAL is supposed to do. I believe my wife's reasons for
    wanting to leave, although understood, do not justify separating the
    kids from one parent, especially when it involves pulling them out of
    school in the middle of the school year. I want them to stay in this
    area, at least temporarily and, if possible, indefinitely.
    	So what are my chances here? Will the GAL just agree with my wife
    that since she'll be happier out there, so will the kids? My wife has
    been feeding a load of crap to the kids, my parents, and to me which
    leads me to believe she might say anything to the GAL. Would they
    believe it at face value? Is this such a good idea, requesting the GAL
    at this Thursday's hearing, or is there some other alternative?

    Chances are as good as a snow ball in hell. She wines that she is going
    to a better job, or home. She wins... you loose. So, its either start
    putting up a big stink about it or move to Illinois if you want a
    relationship with your kids. Other wise, and I am telling you as it is,
    your going to be an uncle, or a distant relitive or a visitor in your
    kids lives. And that, as it was quoted to me by my last attorney, is
    a problem in the late 20th century. And its as unfair as divorce
    itself. And tis life as the sun will rise tomorrow.
    
    Best is to figure out what and why and say things to your gal that is
    convincing to him/her. The gal will side with momma from get go.
    
    My gal told me, when your in pain, what the first thing to come to your
    mouth. Momma! And when it comes to money, what comes to mind???
    Daaa-dee!! So, you work, she recieves....... 

    
    I have had a very good experience with the GAL (it's Guardian Ad not
    "et") that was/is involved in my seeking joint custody of my son.
    
    The investigation/report was quite thorough and his credentials are
    impeccable. I am about 28 months into this, and have about another
    6 months to go (not counting the appelate process).
    
    Rather than just having a GAL appointed by the court, my attorney took
    the approach of requesting a GAL that both sides could agree on. That 
    added several months to the process, but in the end, I ended up with 
    someone who was capable of being objective concerning my son's welfare.
    
    I strongly suspect that many GAL's are biased and not interested in the
    welfare of the children, but there are GAL's who are fair and
    objective.
    
    If anyone would like his name, please contact me off-line.
    
    BTW, as my attorney often reminds me, in America, you are entitled to
    all the justice you can afford. Based on my experiences with the system
    over the last 2+ years, I have found that to be accurate.
    
    	Don
    
    

    Is this something that could be handled by EAP or whatever HMO you
    belong to?  - Mike

    EAP and HMO's are reluctant because of legals. Most don't wanna get
    involved cause they are affraid someone will sue em. Or they figure
    we are psyco's with guns under our pillows. And certainly don't want to 
    talk to us.