Does this sound like the GAL is getting pushed out to you?

[Before you can make things better, you have to stop making them worse...]

We have had a very biased GAL... . biased towards BPD mom over the stable father the kids were raised by for 9 years.  We FINALLY brought the case to a judge, and because an expert witness was going to be late, the judge just met with the attorneys and the GAL in chambers.  They were there for about an hour.  Our attorney presented the BPD diagnosis and the PA, and the judge, having just gone to a training on PA, took the PA very seriously.   According to our attorney, the judge is sympathetic to DH and is aware of some of the "serious behaviors" of BPD mom. The case is now all about reuniting DH and DSD, who has been even more alienated from her dad since she has been living with her mom the past two years.

They are going to let DSD's therapist do the reunification.  We were fighting against this because we feel she is biased.  However, they have enlisted a specialist in PA to have individual sessions with DH and "bridge the gap" with the reunification therapist.  They implied the PA therapist would be monitoring the progress of the reunification therapy.

The judge is also going to have an in-camera interview with DSD.  I am not sure why--it seemed a bit odd.  

Monitoring the therapy and interviewing the child seem like a job for a GAL to me--am I wrong to think that some of the GAL's duties are being taken away from him?  I am hoping the judge is seeing what a crappy job he did and is not happy.  

On a side note, the PA therapist did a very long intake with DH and seemed horrified about the GAL's job, saying he overstepped his bounds (removing kids from a stable home where they had been with DH for 9 years and recommending they move in with their mom over 100 miles away).  She likes DH, and I know she is in good favor with the judge.  I am hopeful that she will be a good advocate for DH's case.

[sanemom]

We have had a very biased GAL... . biased towards BPD mom over the stable father the kids were raised by for 9 years.  We FINALLY brought the case to a judge, and because an expert witness was going to be late, the judge just met with the attorneys and the GAL in chambers.  They were there for about an hour.  Our attorney presented the BPD diagnosis and the PA, and the judge, having just gone to a training on PA, took the PA very seriously.   According to our attorney, the judge is sympathetic to DH and is aware of some of the "serious behaviors" of BPD mom. The case is now all about reuniting DH and DSD, who has been even more alienated from her dad since she has been living with her mom the past two years.

They are going to let DSD's therapist do the reunification.  We were fighting against this because we feel she is biased.  However, they have enlisted a specialist in PA to have individual sessions with DH and "bridge the gap" with the reunification therapist.  They implied the PA therapist would be monitoring the progress of the reunification therapy.

The judge is also going to have an in-camera interview with DSD.  I am not sure why--it seemed a bit odd.  

Monitoring the therapy and interviewing the child seem like a job for a GAL to me--am I wrong to think that some of the GAL's duties are being taken away from him?  I am hoping the judge is seeing what a crappy job he did and is not happy.  

On a side note, the PA therapist did a very long intake with DH and seemed horrified about the GAL's job, saying he overstepped his bounds (removing kids from a stable home where they had been with DH for 9 years and recommending they move in with their mom over 100 miles away).  She likes DH, and I know she is in good favor with the judge.  I am hopeful that she will be a good advocate for DH's case.

[marbleloser]

It could be that the judge is wanting to put some of his PA training to use.It may be a technique he learned during training.It certainly can't hurt and if nothing else,he might not take the GAL's recommendation.

The therapist is a good one to have in his corner.A GAL's recommendation is usually rubberstamped by the judge from all I hear,but I just can't see one totally removing the child who's been in his custody for 9 years and just giving over to mom.

The GAL being a man,and mom being a woman,probably played a large part in that.He could be a white knight GAL and I'm sure she gave him the sob story.

[sanemom]

It could be that the judge is wanting to put some of his PA training to use.It may be a technique he learned during training.It certainly can't hurt and if nothing else,he might not take the GAL's recommendation.

The therapist is a good one to have in his corner.A GAL's recommendation is usually rubberstamped by the judge from all I hear,but I just can't see one totally removing the child who's been in his custody for 9 years and just giving over to mom.

The GAL being a man,and mom being a woman,probably played a large part in that.He could be a white knight GAL and I'm sure she gave him the sob story.

The GAL's original recommendation was that all three kids move in with BPD mom.  BPD mom only really wanted DSD so DH kept the boys.  One thing we know for sure is that this 2 1/2 year old recommendation will have to be revisited, and it is a sure thing that the boys will not be moving in with their mom.  Nothing was ever legally settled because DH was horrified by how unstable BPD mom's life continued to be (and, bc BPD mom can't hold a job, she could not afford to hire an attorney to settle it).

Yes, I believe he was and still is playing the role of a knight in shining armor.  I had to bite my tongue when he was so concerned about the possibility of DSD going to a new therapist for reunification therapy; he wasn't concerned about her moving 6 times in two years, living with three different men, but he is worried about her changing therapists?

[marbleloser]

Strange how the mentality of some of these people,who have childrens welfare in their hands,is isn't it? Downright scary.