COLORADO CHILD CUSTODY DISCUSSION
	Click buttons above to go to sites

[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]  Click Here for Colorado Attorneys

Re: Proposed Special Advocate Bill

From: Mike Baran
Conditions of use: accepted & agree
Date: 14 Feb 2005
Time: 16:47:40
Remote Name: 24.8.232.68

Comments

Hello All, I testified to the House Judiciary Committee against HB 1157 on Jan 28th. I have followed your internet activity re: the topic of the abusive use court appointed helpers. To make positive change we need to organize at bit more than is presently the case I have spoken w/ Judy Schure, communicated w/ Dan Yates. I have a good chance of being appointed to the Standing Committe of Family Issues. I have the ear of Rep Jahn and Dottie Wham. I speak 2/14/05 w Rep Riesberg sponsopr of HB1157 and will testify again in front of the Health & Human Service Commiitee on Feb 16th. Please respond so we may coordinate our efforts. Nest is a running monolog of my efforts so far. Subject: We Must Seek Special Advocate & other Court Helper Accountability For Parents, Kids, Courts & Society-The Law Must Be Changed Hello, If you have ever been divorced w/ children you know how trying those times are. After almost ten years the stories I can tell... It doesn't help when the system fails and there are no checks & balances...no accountability. For those who don't know, there has been a reliance by the courts on therapists or other mental health professionals to investigate families and to help the judge & parents decide what is in the best interests of the children. They are called Special Advocates, custody evaluators & parenting coordinators. It is a good plan but flawed …w/o one safeguard. Therapists are people too. Some are good, some bad. Some are crazier than the people they see. What happens when one of these mental professionals runs amuck, has an ax to grind or other bias' ? What happens when they are incompetent or just screw up and give the Court faulty or just plain bad information? What happens when the Judge and the therapist are buddies and talk about & 'fix' their families at the cocktail party, on the golf course or the annual family law seminar/ mountain retreat? What happens is that someone-a dad, a mom or a grandparent is denied their rights and the kids best interests (which the Court has a primary duty to protect) are compromised or ignored. Families' futures should not be decided or even discussed ex parte (ie: w/o you there), yet I prove to you it happens every day. What happens to the therapist? NOTHING. And THAT IS WRONG! There is accountability in almost every other job in our society but Special Advocates are immune. They can lie, screw up and there is little if anything an aggrieved family can do about it. As you probably guess, I believe I my family has been greatly offended by one of these Special Advocates run amuck. She is highly regarded in her field and therefore thinks she is above reproach but she is not. After 7 years of her messing w/ my family I have had enough. It is now my mission to help change the law in Colorado so bad people/bad judgments/bad therapists can't hurt kids & parents during their most trying times. What I believe needs to be done is to require any and all interviews done for the purposes of family court to be recorded. The technology is cheap & simple. We do that in other parts of society ie: traffic cops video taping transgressions & arrests. Both society and the cops like it because then there is a record of what actually happened, its reviewable and bad people/bad cops can't get away w/ as much. Also issues are not so 'open to interpretation' & there is less 'he said/she said'. In addition the Special Advocates in Colorado have somehow finagled it so they are in great part immune from criminal & civil lawsuits if they are bad and ruin families and kids. That is not right. In fact, they should be held to a higher standard & be more accountable for this most important work... not less. The courts depend heavily on their court appointed mental health professionals. Even a good judge can allow a strong personal relationship w/ his court appointed mental health professionals to embolden a bad Special Advocate, etc to think that 'whatever they says will go' in that particular Court- even when it is wrong, even when they lie, even if just a little. This has happened in my family's case and probably in hundreds of others in Colorado. Somebody has to stand up & say enough is enough. Here I am. Behavior like this can't be tolerated & the law must be changed to protect us all. I hope you will send this communication on to others you may know who has had a similar experience w/ the system. I will not let this issue die. Families & kids & parenting are too basic & too important to be controlled by the unregulated & unaccountable. From a public policy standpoint, for proper decisions regarding this most important segment of society: the family unit- there must be an accurate record of interviews to weed out the bias', egos and spite of a few bad apples in the court-appointed mental health community. I’m just a dad trying to do the right thing. Our families deserve our public servants and those on whom they depend to do the same. Please help me change the system in order to require accountability. If you have a story to tell I will be collecting data to use to change the law. Thank you. Mike Baran 7110 W 35th Av Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303 237-8347 94DR2449 October 6, 2004 The Honorable Rebecca Love Kourlis Colorado Supreme Court 2 East 14th Av Denver, CO 80203 Dear Justice Kourlis, Thank you for your introduction at the August meeting of the Standing Committee On Family Issues. I look forward to meeting everyone again on October 22nd. I have studied the Final Report by the Commission On Families In The Colorado Courts and believe it is essential for this very important committee to have the input of an experienced family court ‘consumer’ for it to better fulfill its mission. I believe I am uniquely qualified to provide this input and perspective. As a committed, custodial father of three wonderful children, I became intimate with the divorce courts over 10 years ago. While I wish it were not so, my ex wife & I have had what the experts would mildly call a ‘high conflict divorce’. In those ten years, I have interacted frequently with the courts and its appointed helpers regarding our children. Over the years, in what I believe was the kids’ best interest, I have been involved with: 1. Two (2) District Court judges 2. Two (2) Magistrates 3. Two (2) separate custody evaluation teams w/ multiple supplemental updates 4. Two (2) Guardian Ad Litems 5. One (1) Arbitrator 6. One (1) Mediator 7. One (1) alcohol intervention 8. Initiated and defended one (1) restraining order 9. Nine (9) different court ordered mental heath professionals for my family 10. Five (5) attorneys 11. One (1) of the first Special Advocates who became a Parenting Coordinator who became a Special Advocate who became a Parenting Coordinator…. 12. One (1) successful appeal to the Court of Appeals 13. One (1) unsuccessful stay request to the Supreme Court I know what it feels like to be the scared, confused and naive ‘newbie’ trusting in the system but have since become the often frustrated, sometimes cynical realist about how the system fails when it’s broke. The system is, at times, so cumbersome & expensive that many parents are forced to acquiesce because of lack the resources or resolve-often to the detriment of the children. This should not happen when it comes to the most basic unit of our society –our families. I believe strongly in our country’s system of law being consistently applied and I understand that the family court system in Colorado does the best it can with its limited resources. Most court appointed helpers are professional and dedicated to really helping families and kids. However, I do believe ‘the system’ of using court helpers can & should be improved. Systematic safeguards must be designed to ensure ‘the system’ works for the sake of all families and children in Colorado. Even though each family and family situation is unique as well as complex, the goal of ‘the system’ should match the expectations of society - that similar family situations should have similar outcomes and that those outcomes should be in the best interests of the child as directed by the Colorado legislature. Cynicism, bias, complacency & incompetence have no place in the family courts. Unchecked power of court appointed helpers in the domestic relation courts hurts families and hurts children. It is important to set expectations for these professionals working with the family courts that they meet high standards of achievement for the families they serve and that a system of checks & balances is set up to insure accountability. I think I have a lot to offer to this end. I have many ideas on how the present system can better serve the families of Colorado. These past ten years, I have spent the equivalent dollars and time necessary to earn another college degree. This one is in the ‘Colorado Family Court system’. While I understand a lot of the work of the Committee is ‘legalese’ and complex, I’ve experienced much first hand. I am willing & able to listen. In addition, I am a quick learner having graduated summa cum laude and even learned to use the CU Law library during my short tenure there in 1979. I believe in always doing the right thing & giving back. I have had extensive involvement in my community and am past chairman of the accountability committee at my children’s elementary school. I want to assure you and all the members of the Committee my intention is to contribute positively- a ‘consumer-friendly’ viewpoint. I hope to share how the various facets of the system ‘feels’ to a parent and how things might be changed to ensure better outcomes for kids & families in Colorado. Committee members, Sue Waters & Gina Weitzenkorn each have had experience with my family and I am sure we might have disparate opinions on many issues. I know, however, we can work together. More importantly, I believe discussing those disparate opinions will lead to better solutions for the families in Colorado because they will have evolved from many different angles. I have included three letters of recommendations including two from my state legislators. They know me to be a passionate, consensus builder who looks at the whole picture. I look forward to the opportunity to work with your Committee to achieve its very important goals. If you think it is appropriate and you have the time, , I’d like to meet you & as many Committee members as I can, briefly, prior to Oct 22nd, 2004. Sincerely, Mike Baran 7110 W 35th Av Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303 237-8347 Feb 3, 2005 Dear Legislators, I am one of your constituents. My name is Mike Baran and I am the custodial father of 3 children who has unfortunately been involved in the family court system for 11 yrs. I am here concerning the first of three bills that were introduced on January 18 and assigned to the Judiciary Committee re: court appointed helpers in the family courts of Colorado First I want to say that I am a supporter of the use & input from properly trained, competent and accountable court appointed helpers in the family court system in Colorado. I believe that most mental health professionals and court appointed helpers get involved in the system because they care and they want to make positive difference for children. Good intentions, however, sometimes go bad. I believe the legislature and the courts must be especially careful now as it creates a coherent & cohesive process that both works effectively and protects the rights of families and the best interests of children in Colorado. I believe the current statute being looked at today already adequately addresses the concerns of the people of Colorado and to change would not be in the best interest of families and children because it does not take into account the relative credibility and influence of opinions of custody evaluators vs that of a Special Advocate (Child & Family Investigator) nor addresses the underlying problem of accountability plaguing the court appointed helper issue today in Colorado. The suggested addition of this wording in the statute gives dangerous and unwarranted weight to the opinion of an less qualified and potentially unaccountable Special Advocate over the, by definition, more thorough, professional and accountable opinions of custody evaluator. It has been my experience and observation that custody evaluations are performed by often teams of mental health professionals, many w/ doctorates in the field. The evaluation is intensive and costs between $5000-15,000. The custody evaluators are studied specialists who use professional criteria in their investigations and are at least accountable to their respective licensing boards. On the other hand, a Special Advocate (or Child & Family Investigator) may be an attorney, mental health professional but also someone who has had minimal training. Reportedly w/ as little as a 40 hour $1250 class you too can become a Special Advocate. Once you have curried the favor of a judge or two you are in business at $90-150 /hr. As a business person it’s a great business because you not accountable to anyone except the Judge or magistrate who appointed you. This is a problem. In especially when as in my particular case the Judge repeatedly said that the parties better do as the Special Advocate says because “95% of the time” he’s going to ratify the Special Advocate’s recommendations anyway. The real life situation now in an overburdened court system is that family courts are deferring decision making to persons who are not adequately accountable to their ultimate consumer the families of Colorado. It is dangerous for any court helper to be accountable to only the judge or magistrate that appoints them. The dangers possibly resulting from such a co-dependent relationship is not in the best interests of the children in Colorado. Lord Ashton originally coined the phrase “Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely”. George Orwell in his book “Animal Farm” described society’s consequence when absolute power is unchecked. When a person is in a position of such unchecked power the frailties of human nature are often exacerbated. Feelings of superiority, complacency, bias & deceit are inevitable in some situations where power is absolute and accountability is nil. Our families are too important to allow such abusive use of unchecked power. What if it were your family? Custody evaluations are typically performed in the beginning of a dissolution of marriage while Special Advocates are common to investigate later post decree issues. A Special Advocate who disagrees w/ the original custody evaluation or decree years later has a unique opportunity to change the decree if they want. The reworded statute allows and almost compels the Court to deny a supplemental evaluation if there is a Special Advocate report that offers recommendations that differ from the original custody evaluation even when sometimes years later a supplemental evaluation would be valuable if only to confirm the Special Advocate’s findings. If this bill becomes law, the court in effect will be allowed to give equal weight to a thorough accountable custody evaluation by qualified mental health specialist and that of his non accountable “helper”. While some might argue that children will be protected because the Court can only do so “if there is a Special Advocate report AND the Court finds that a supplemental evaluation will not serve the best interests of the children”, in the real world this simple rewording will allow abuse and over worked and frustrated judges to take the easy path. These are fine words ‘AND the Court finds that a supplemental evaluation will not serve the best interests of the children” but in practice, case law in Colorado does not mandate that the Court go into specifics about why a supplemental evaluation would not in the best interests of the children. The simple words “I find that a supplemental evaluation is not in the best interest of the children” is enough. My fear is that this new language will allow Special Advocates to guide judge’s decisions w/o the necessary accountability. I have heard this bill referred to as the Third Strike bill meant to stop frivolous engagement of families in the system. I disagree. To continue the baseball analogy please consider this scene: A Colorado Rockies pitcher is up 3-0 (3 balls no strikes) against a batter in the bottom of the inning. The umpire is tired. Time is then called by the umpire. In comes a Special Advocate relief pitcher picked not by either manager but by the umpire. The Special Advocate pitcher delivers the pitch (report). Its close but the umpire yells “Strike One! And then strangely, the umpire calls the batter out because of this propose legislation. He says doesn’t need to see another pitch because he believes the pitcher (Special Advocate) will pitch only strikes and therefore the fans don’t need to see any more. The batter is out on a 3-1 count. One pitch by one hand-selected player should never decide the future of a family in Colorado. I say the law already adequately addresses concerns of potential abuse by hostile parties. The rules should not be changed except to increase the accountability and installing appropriate checks & balances for court appointed helpers in the family courts of Colorado. Mike Baran 7110 W 35th Av Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 MikeBaran@Remax.net Feb 5, 2005 Dear Members of the Colorado House Judiciary Committee, Thanks you for listening to me about my concerns about HB 1157 in regards to the kids and families of Colorado. I was very nervous and have included the text of that testimony at the end of this email. After hearing statements by Representative Reisberg and proponents of the bill, I must comment further regarding those statements. I thought I heard Rep Riesberg respond to testimony or question that this proposed law specifically allows a one custody evaluation, one supplemental evaluation and one Special Advocate report. Three strikes & you’re out! I’ve read HB 1157 over & over. That is not what it says. In fact, the whole purpose of the law is to restrict the court from needing a third opinion if in the opinion of the court one custody evaluation and Special Advocate report is enough. In practice the danger is the court being permitted to give equal weight to two differently qualified opinions with the Special Advocate opinion being less qualified but the most current and potentially from the Court’s ‘trusted’ advisor. While I believe court helpers can be a positive addition to the often painful decisions regarding parenting issues in divorce. I believe it is imperative that there be a system or process in place that promotes real accountability for all court helpers in the family courts before the legislature gives these people increased power in the system over the most important aspects of our society families and children. As the system stands now in practice, court appointed helpers are accountable only to the judge that appoints them. It is as if the judge has his/her own private police force, accountable to no one but him/her. We do not allow such a situation in any other part of our society. It is admirable that there is beginning to be judicial directives and standards developed that are meant to guide the behavior of these court appointed helpers but w/o some sort of independent unbiased oversight and no real threat of consequence, our children and families are in significant danger of their fate being negatively affected by ‘all powerful’ court helpers. Ms Weitzenkorn, an attorney, testified in favor of the bill. She indicated that ‘passing’ a custody evaluation can be learned and that therefore you should limit the number of evaluations. If such a statement is true then it is also true that a well coached, better prepared , savvy participant can also ‘dupe’ the initial custody evaluation team and/or Special Advocate who might make a bad decision to the detriment of the children. It is my experience that attorneys do indeed coach their clients and it is conceivable that some parents are better coached then others. Behavior can be modified and masked in the near term. Parents can be trained to say the right thing to the right people at the right time. Patterns of behavior, however, are harder to hide. Professional evaluators are hopely trained to see through transparency to get to the truth and we trust the court to weigh all the facts. While intrusion into families is disruptive and extreme care must be exercised, the courts already have the necessary discretion to deny unnecessary or harmful intrusions. It is far worse if the truth is not ascertained and that decisions are made that negatively affect children… forever. By passing this bill you would be tying the hands of truth. You will be hurting children. Ms Weitenkorn when questioned seemed to confirm that a Special Advocate under the present system must to be either an attorney or mental health professional who additionally was somehow ‘certified’ to be competent. The current law and proposed legislation (to change Special Advocate to Child & Family Investigator) before you on Feb 10th is in conflict w/ such a statement. A Special Advocate does not need to have even a high school degree to decide that fate of a family. There is no licensing board. There is no certification mandated. Instead the new proposed legislation says that these very powerful individuals need only “APPROPRIATE TRAINING, QUALIFICATIONS AND AN INDEPENDENT PERSPECTIVE ACCEPTABLE TO THE COURT”. If the Judge likes you...you’re in! It is up to the legislature NOW to ensure that a system and process is in place before uncertified classes start popping up promising “in just 1 week, you too can become a highly paid court helper & have the power to decide the fate of 1000s of families & children in Colorado”. Such a scenario sounds far fetched but it is happening already. There is absolutely no oversight body for such a person. I am so passionate about this issue not because I have any more axes to grind but because I have seen the abuse possible and that is being done right now. It is wrong and it affects that which we hold most precious. There is no place a father, a mother, a grandparent or even a child can go to right a true & life changing wrong by a court’s ‘favorite little helper’. The proposed legislation before the committee this session will only encourage further problems for Colorado families unless first the legislature tackles the issue accountability. To that end I have some ideas: 1-Safeguards so courts are limited in having a preferred cadre of professionals they appoint. Such a practice breeds complacency on both the part of the helper and court. To accomplish this I believe a court could rotate appointments through a list of the different qualified and licensed court helpers acceptable to the particular Judical District. An added benefit of this small procedural change is that the Court might benefit from varying perspectives & techniques presented. 2-Allow and even encourage that a party’s conversations w/ a court appointed helper be recorded. We do so in law enforcement and the courts so a reviewable record is made to protect all parties. Everyone likes it except those who abused the previous system. As it is now, it’s your word of what was said vs that of the court’s little helper. 2-While I understand the present budget constraints and the possible reticence to add another regulatory body, I believe the system is already in place that could effectively address the issue. It is the Department of Regulatory Agency-Division of Registration. I was surprised to see that in addition to those professionals one might normally think are both licensed and accountable to a review board, that kickboxers, midwifes, hearing aid providers, acupuncturists, river rafters and even your barber are held more accountable than those earning hundreds of dollars an hour and who presently could decide the fate of your family. The benefits of licensing all court appointed helpers though DORA would be: a- It could be made self funding through a licensing fee of all court helpers and an additional fee paid by the parents at the time a divorce is filed if children are involved. b- Standards and licensing requirements & continuing education could be established and/or monitored. Presently we don’t even know how many and who is a court appointed helper in Colorado. c- Complaints could be heard and addressed. The licensing review boards are a relatively cheap way to ensure accountability through combined peer and public review. Such a system will help increase professionalism & weed out co dependent relationships between the courts and their helpers. It is important to address that DORA already oversees licensing of various mental health professionals who may also work in the family courts as Special Advocates, Custody Evaluators, Mediators, Arbitrators and Parenting Coordinators. I believe when change comes that the two functions be distinct & separated. This would be prudent because of the very specialized nature of the skills needed in family courts, the nature in which payment is received- “court ordered” and the need for any disciplinary action taken by to a review board to be taken into account regarding previous actions of the Court in a family matter. It does not help the family in Colorado if their Special Advocate later loses a license or receives and Letter of Admonishment if the such a decision does right a wrong that may have been cause by the actions of the Special Advocate. The legislature I believe must include language that requires unbiased Court review of family cases tainted by bad information as it codifies a workable system for the benefit of Coloradoans. Mike Baran 7110 W 35th Av Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 MikeBaran@Remax.net 303 237-8347 Hello All, I have done more thinking about the 3 Strikes HB 1157 and think I understand some of our confusion. There are 2 scenarios that can happen. 1-The language in the bill would allow an evaluation (strike 1) and then prior to a Special Advocate report (strike 3) a supplemental eval (strike 2). 2-It however would deny due process and the finding of the truth in a situation where there is but one intensive evaluation (strike 1) and a much less qualified SA report (strike 2). This is how it went in my particular case. The 2 evaluators conclusions were diametrically opposed to each other. The Court used it discretion to weigh the facts in both revaluations and ruled permanent orders that "favored' me. Two years later after repeated contentious actions by Mom and the retirement of our Judge The new judge assigned a new GAL and then SA (whom the new judge admittedly relied on "95% of the time"). The new SA changed the original order w/o merit or due process. Armed w/ the lack of accountability, over the next few years reports and recommendations were given by the special advocate who I believed was biased, manipulative and minimized physical and mental abuse being suffered by the children. After 5 years, I felt it was very important for the kids to have an opportunity to talk to anyone other than the SA because she was not doing her job. I asked the SA be removed or for the Judge to talk to the kids or for a new supplemental evaluation. Because the Judge and the unregulated SA did not have the extra power proposed by HB 1157 a $4500 supplemental evaluation (paid by me) was allowed by the same eval team who originally were not favorable to me. Their new evaluation found that the kids were, in fact, in danger at Mom's house and that they were suffering emotionally. The Judge reluctantly moved to protect the children (the SA was not present because of a medical emergency). Since then SA has, relying on the co dependent relationship enjoyed w/ the Judge, doggedly acted to change the protective order w/ which she was the only professional who disagreed. The SA actions were biased at best and unethical and illegal (perjury) at its worse . If HB 1157 passes, children in a similar situation would be harmed. I understand the courts' concern about a family's and society's need for closure and protection against vengeful litigants. However, the law as written allows due process. To limit due process would harm children. There is specific language already used in the divorce statute 14-10-128.5 re: arbitration that I think could be instead added here also to discourage abusive use of evaluations by vengeful parents. That language is: In circumstances in which a party moves for a de novo review (insert supplemental evaluation) by the court, the court shall order the nonprevailing party to pay the fees and costs of the prevailing party and the fees of the arbitrator (evaluator) incurred in responding to the application or motion unless the court finds that it would be manifestly unjust. The actual amended statute follows: SECTION 3. 14-10-128.5, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 14-10-128.5. Appointment of arbitrator - de novo review of award. (1) With the consent of all parties, the court may appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties concerning the parties' minor or dependent children, including but not limited to parenting time, nonrecurring adjustments to child support, and disputed parental decisions. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, all awards entered by an arbitrator appointed pursuant to this section shall be in writing. The arbitrator's award shall be effective immediately upon entry and shall continue in effect until vacated by the arbitrator pursuant to section 13-22-214 PART 2 OF ARTICLE 22 OF TITLE 13, C.R.S., modified or corrected by the arbitrator pursuant to section 13-22-215 PART 2 OF ARTICLE 22 OF TITLE 13, C.R.S., or modified by the court pursuant to a de novo review under subsection (2) of this section. (2) Any party may apply to have the arbitrator's award vacated, modified, or corrected pursuant to the "Uniform Arbitration Act of 1975", part 2 of article 22 of title 13, C.R.S., or may move the court to modify the arbitrator's award pursuant to 1732 Courts Ch. 363 a de novo review of such award. In circumstances in which a party moves for a de novo review by the court, the court shall order the nonprevailing party to pay the fees and costs of the prevailing party and the fees of the arbitrator incurred in responding to the application or motion unless the court finds that it would be manifestly unjust. While properly wording HB 1157 does not address the major underlying issue of accountability and the relative worth of "real" custody evaluations and the 'reports' of other unqualified & non accountable court appointed helpers, I think my suggested change addresses the legitimate concerns of using to courts to harm families. Attached is an ad for the class being offered to become a "certified"?! Special Advocate. I count 20 areas of expertise that will be covered in the 40 hour class. When train is completed, Special Advocates can earn $90-140 / hr. It is ludicrous to me that children & family futures are to be decided by such people and that there will be no where to go to find out who these people are or to weed out bad apples. Apparently the attachment is restricted. Below is the link directly to the publication in which the Special Advocate class ad is placed. http://gnome.com/rd/results/rdq_"Colorado_Council_of_Mediators"/www.coloradomediation.org/f=searchemall&o=gurC3hi.Y Apparently that link isn't direct either. I can not print or attach the ad for some reason. I believe it can be manually accessed by clicking on the link below and then the 'Newletter" link on the left bottom and then the Jan 05 issue. Everyone should look at it because it raises multiple questions. Mike Baran 303 237-8347 This is a good piece of ammo by the the PC’s themselves http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/parentcoord_final.pdf

Last changed: June 03, 2009