role of a "guardian ad-litem", is one of the most
hotly-contested areas of the law when it comes to children's rights. A
GAL is supposed to, by law, represent the "best interests" of
the child. What are the best interests of the child? To be with one
parent over another, or to have to make a choice? Is it to validate
incompetent evaluations or improper decision by the courts? Absolutely
not! Yet this is precisely the GAL's role in virtually all legal
proceedings in which they are employed.
The appointed guardian ad litem was Megan Stanley. Since my son is special needs, I expressly requested a person who was proficient with special needs children with emphasis on my son's deafness. This person was neither proficient in sign language nor did she have any experience with deaf children or the deaf community. Therefore incapable of understanding the special needs of My Son. When I met Ms. Stanley I informed her of the numerous procedural errors committed by Mr. Bungi, Ms. Holman, and Ms. Anderson. I also made sure to inform her of the instances of abuse that had been clearly documented. Ms. Stanley did not do a follow up on any of the procedural issues I raised, as well as the abuse issues that I had presented her. Instead she did the least amount of work she could do. She accepted Petitioner/Motherís statements as fact and ignored the numerous inconsistencies within them in violation of RCW 9A.72.050. Ms. Stanley did contact my references, but ignored the information they presented. She also made no mention of the many errors committed by Ms. Anderson. In fact Ms. Stanley claimed that she found no problems with Ms. Andersonís recommendations and that her recommendations would mirror that of Ms. Andersonís assessment. This alone should be grounds for Ms. Stanley immediate disbarment! I believe that she should also be charge criminally in this case since she is guilty of the same crimes that the rest of these officials are.
Those crimes being, providing false statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.040, accepting false statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.040,providing inconsistent statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.050(1), accepting inconsistent statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.050(1), tampering with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a)(b), Filing a false report pursuant to RCW 42.20.040, unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180(1)(8)(b)(13), failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010. Even though I attempted to stay in close contact with Ms. Stanley, she never bothered to keep me informed of her findings or reasons therein. With all that had transpired up to this point I was seeing a very clear pattern of abuse of power, negligence of duty, bias, criminal misconduct, ignorance and arrogance on the part of the court and court appointed officers in this case. Once Ms. Stanley had completed her investigation there was a court date set for final arguments, the custody decision, visitation, and child support.
No judge and no law has the right, under the US Constitution, to enter a custody order unless one or both parents are first found unfit for custody with specific findings of fact and law to support that order. Absent such a judicial finding, supported by evidence entered into the record of the proceeding and thus subject to objective review on appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction and authority to interfere with the rights of both children and parents to each other's time, comfort and guidance. Only where a parent has demonstrated through their actions their lack of ability should a court ever step in. After all the most important thing to protect are the fundamental rights of parents and their children.
This Page Created by AAAdvanced Engineering Concepts
Send Questions or Comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2003