Dear Sirs:

I am unable to attend the Hearing on March 28 for much needed GAL reform. I would appreciate your
reading the following so that you can understand the havoc, disruption, cruelty and targeted abuse that
my children (and as a consequence, I) suffered at the direction of GAL Toby Hollander. I have transcripts
of all of the interviews that the GAL had will my minor disabled son. I also have the Court transcripts
which demonstrate the GALs verbal abuse, and threats.
The Judiciary was aware of all that transpired and therefore I do not believe that the Judiciary can
monitor GALs . We wouldnt be in this situation if the oversight were adequate.

I am shaking as I write this. The bulleted list below is the tip of the iceburg. Everything that I have
written is fully supported by emails (680) , Court transcripts, and transcripts of GAL conversations with a
minor disabled child.
When I am able, I will send a fully annotated report.


Whos Best Interests?

Our familys experience with the Court Appointed GAL demonstrates that:
State Funds were carelessly wasted at the discretion of the GAL by his Motions and resulting
Orders for duplicate evaluations, services, therapies, in direct conflict with the childs goals
established by his 9 member Theraputic Team.
At hearing, The GAL made a Recommendation that the child and his estranged father engage in
weekly Reunification Therapy, to be paid for by the mother (who was not employed outside of
the home, but instead was caring full time for the disabled child and his disabled Grandfather).
This Recommendation was made although the GAL had full knowledge that the weekly sessions
could not happen because the father had taken employment and was living over 1000 miles
away.
This Recommendation is contained in the Judgment.
Consequently, the disabled minor child was required to attend Reunification Therapy with a
different adult male, a man who was not a therapist, nor a family member. Thereapy took
place in a car in an empty parking lot, while being distantly supervised by the GAL (who has no
training in child development).
This Therapy resulted in the child receiving crisis services from CSI 5 times within one month.
This Therapy resulted in a report of abuse by CSI to DHHS.
Although GAL recommendations suggest that the GAL meet with the child throughout
proceedings, the GAL did not do this.
Instead, the GAL drove up his bill by daily phone conversations and emails with the childs
father.
During 4 years of representation of my son, the GAL communicated daily with the childs
father (by phone and email) even though neither the GAL, nor the father, saw or communicated
with the child whom the GAL was Court Appointed to represent). The constant communication
between these two men resulted in GAL billing in excess of $100,000, while the child was living
at the Federal Poverty level.
Although GAL recommendations require a GAL to assist on obtaining FAPE for a disabled child,
the GAL refused to do this.
The GAL completely ignored HIPPA laws.
With total disregard for the safety of the family, the GAL made a Motion, resulting in an Order
by the Portland District Court to require a member of the Secretary of States Address
Confidentiality Program to divulge location to her abuser or face 30 days in jail. (A transcript of
this Hearing is available).
The GAL did this with full knowledge of the risks to the family and knowledge that the abuser
had re-obtained his guns from the police department.
The GAL did this with full knowledge that the abuser suffered from Schizoaffective Disorder, Bi-
Polar Disorder and substance abuse issues (and had been found to be abusive, following
Hearing, by the Court,
The Court agreed with full knowledge. (For this reason alone, I do not believe that the Judiciary
should oversee the GAL program).


In January 2007, a private, for fee, GAL was appointed by the Portland District Court in our family
matter. From January 2007 through October 2011, the GAL engaged, or failed to engage, in the
following
1) Refused to attend a Protection from Abuse Hearing in February 2007. Following the 2 hour
Hearing, the Court found my husband to be abusive.
2) Refused to represent my 17 year-old daughter who had spoken openly to the GAL about abuse.
3) In April, 2007, following my daughters 18
th
birthday (March 10, 2007), the GAL filed a request
with her primary care physician, and obtained her medical records.
4) When confronted about this, the GAL stated that although he had illegally obtained the records,
he would not read the records. (See email dated 7/08/07 from Attorney Hollander (A).
5) Although my son had been receiving significant services from DHHS since 2001 (upon our move
to Maine) for his disability (Autism), the GAL determined that extensive expensive evaluations to
determine whether my son was Autistic was needed and made a Motion to request evaluations.
6) The GAL then scheduled an evaluation, gave me an incorrect address, and sent my son and I on
a wild goose chase to an appointment that had been scheduled and cancelled by the evaluator.
7) Following this, the GAL filed a Motion to enforce my attendance at evaluations, stating that I
was obstructionist (for attending the cancelled appointment with my son, a duplicated service
appointment to determine whether my son had a disability for which MaineCare had been
providing services for years).
8) This duplication of services was not only problematic for a child with Autism, but also, costly to
the taxpayers of Maine, who were paying for this duplication of services.
9) Prior to the GALs scheduling of numerous evaluations for my son, my sons developmental
Pediatrician (Maine Medical Center) in conjunction with my sons therapeutic Team had
informed the GAL that all evaluations were current, and that the child was receiving services.
10) In addition to evaluations for my son, the GAL also required evaluations for Abuse,
notwithstanding the Courts February 2007 Findings of Abuse, following a 2 hour Hearing (a
Hearing which the GAL declined to attend).
11) Again, Maine taxpayers paid for this duplication.
12) During the week of scheduled evaluations, I was again determined to be obstructionist because
my son , then age 11 years 10 months had to wait at Spurwink, during my appointment, without
a babysitter because his scheduled sitter, his Grandfather, broke his hip several days before and
was in the Hospital. Age to wait without a sitter at Spurwink was age 12, and my appointment
could not be rescheduled according to the GAL.
13) During the week of my appointments, my car mysteriously burst into flames in the Spurwink
parking lot.
14) No services for my resulting trauma (I was in the car and escaped) were offered, and I was
reprimanded for terminating my appointments early.( See B)
15) Although the GAL has a duty to observe the child and their interaction with both parents, in 4
years, the GAL never saw my son interact with his father, or myself, in person. (C). The GAL
refused to allow me in the home when he met with my son. I was required to wait on the porch
or in the basement. The GAL noted that the father and son had a strained relationship and
therefore, he declined to meet with them.
16) Following Evaluations and written reports, the GAL attempted to have all reports withheld from
one party in the Divorce, me. It required my contact with the CEO of Spurwink for my rights as a
consumer to be recognized and adhered to.
17) Because my son found all interactions with the GAL to be stressful, he taped recorded all
interactions and at times, requested that his Sweetser Case Manager be present.
18) 17) Throughout his representation of my son, the GAL refused to follow my sons Service
Plan,(email 9/24/07) .
19) In the fall of 2007, the GAL made a Motion to the Court to begin Reunification Therapy with
my son and his father, although father had recently taken a high paying job in the State of Ohio.
20) The GAL did not inform the Court that father had moved 1000 miles away and would be unlikely
to attend all appointments. (Father remained in Ohio for 5 years).
21) The GAL did not inform the Court or DHHS that the father was now earning a substantial salary
and that therefore child support could be adjusted and that father could now begin providing
health insurance to his children.
22) Regarding child support and health insurance the family was receiving MaineCare and food
stamps (while father was earning a substantial salary which the GAL refused to disclose to the
Court or DHHS).
23) During 4 years of representation of my son, the GAL communicated daily with the childs
father (by phone and email) even though neither the GAL, nor the father, saw or communicated
with the child whom the GAL was Court Appointed to represent). The constant communication
between these two men resulted in GAL billing in excess of $100,000, while the child was living
at the Federal Poverty level.


To be continued..
Gayle Fitzpatrick













A I have no idea whether or not Bs medical records would
substantiate her claims of abuse, though for the reasons stated below, I
doubt they do. As you are well aware, B insisted that I refrain from
reviewing her medical records. When I asked her to provide a release, she
would not. That was one of the reasons why I wanted to get her records and
have a discussion with her physicians. I was interested to learn from them
(the records and the doctors) to what degree her brain injuries might affect
her memory, her ability to accurately recount her own history, and to what
degree her injuries might have affected her perceptions of her past and/or
altered her personality or relationships with others, as sometimes happens
with closed head injuries. Thus, your assertion that her records would bear
her out on the issue of child abuse by C I find somewhat ironic as
when I got a set of records from her pediatrician, I was threatened with
"further action" by B. Since you no longer had authority to release
her records to me, I returned the records, unread, to her pediatrician.
B Dear Tanya,

Did you read my Email? I totally agreed to rescedule with Dr. Drach. That is why you have the time and
date. It is the time and date that Dr. Drach and I had already agreed upon, by phone, as mutually
available.I sent you an Email and requested that Dr. Drach contact you because I was firmly told by
Toby,in an Email I received from him yesterday, not to reschedule.

Toby wrote "I want to remind you that any delay made by re-scheduling appointments will also
delay the case going to Court. -Toby

In light of Toby's Email message, I requested that Dr. Drach call your office and clear this with you first,
and inform you of our mutually agreed upon time for the rescheduling of my appointment.He and I had
already worked it out by the time he called you.

I don't understand tis last sentence in your Email:"The Court Order dated May 15, 2007 states
"Defendant shall cooperate with GAL and evaluators and said evaluations. Please co-operate with
the scheduling needs of Spurwink. "

I have just demonstrated co-operation. Why have you written this? It makes no sense.

In addition, I also co-operated with Joyce Weinstein at Spurink when she asked for an additional time slot
to evaluate Jan. I even carried forth with my initial evaluation with Dr. Drach following my arrow escape
from a burning vechile in his parking lot. I offered to do this. In both of the circumstances listed, the
Spurwink evaluators initially wanted to cancel or postphone, until I made workable, mutually agreed upon,
suggestions with them.

Now that I think of it, I have demonstrated excellent cooperative skills. So why do you infer that my
behavior has been less than cooperative? Perhaps I'm misreading your last sentence, but it does indicate
that I'm not cooperating and others are required to ask me to cooperate or obtain a court order to enlist
my cooperation.- Gayle


C As I indicated in my email to you, quoted below, it is my intention
to see whether or not the video of Jan and Charles will suffice for seeing
Jan with his father.