Since spring, there has been a growing grassroots movement in Maine, advocating that the judicial branch reform its guardian ad litem (GAL) program. None of this is new. There have been earlier, well done, state government reports that politely, but directly point out problems and call for program change.

Current guardian ad litem problems are not just “noise” from grassroots troublemakers. There is substantial noise from within the government itself. Guardian ad litem problems urgently demand reform.

The judicial branch has recently attempted to come up with a plan for a complaint process for public (and other) use in connection with GALs malfunctioning. This started with the establishment of an advisory committee, which was dominated by a majority from Maine’s “divorce industry,” including GALs.

It was not a consumer-friendly group, and it frankly saw no problems with the GAL program as it is, and no problems with the current opaque complaint process.

It has resulted in committee endorsement of a very legalistic new complaint process to be lodged with the Board of Overseers of the Bar. Its design is complex, time-consuming and expensive for the public. It is less about judicial branch oversight of those GALs, who work for it, and more about the public having to do all of the heavy lifting.

In effect, its message is: “You say you have a guardian ad litem problem, prove it.”

We advocates of reform strongly oppose this new proposal.

In March, the chief justice proposed to send a “new” GAL complaint procedure to the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature on or around Oct. 15.

This “new” proposal, as I read it, essentially furthers the protective advantages of GALs and does little for the public. Its legalistic language and procedures will be difficult for most “consumers” to understand.

It will prove difficult for most people to use without the guidance (and expense) of a lawyer. Its procedures will drag out a complaint against a GAL over months or years.

And it offers a model in which the burden is on the “consumer,” who has to prove that he/she got a substandard “product,” rather than the oversight of an agency that wants to investigate its product in order to assure the public about the standards and vocational quality of this product.

In brief, it seems geared toward settling a legal “fight.” It does nothing for consumer protection from a defective product.

It is also a problem with regard to routine $100 charges to all parties using a GAL at the start of their process. It is, in effect, a “tax” or penalty for having a GAL involved in a divorce, and it sends an unfriendly, almost punitive message to consumers.

It forces consumers to pay for possible future judicial branch oversight actions, which may not happen. This approach echoes the outspoken animus of one of the judicial branch committee members who are endorsing this proposed program: “Make ’em pay!”

In this new design, GALs themselves will play the majority role in any investigation of consumer complaints about another GAL. They have no tradition or history of any type of self-regulation.

A public complaint must pass through two separate investigative tiers of GALs, which are a sort of double filter. The “foxes” are firmly in charge of “complaining hens.”

The judicial branch is “reinventing the wheel” with its new bureaucratic design. There is already an effective oversight organization: Maine’s licensing boards in the administrative branch, which has vast experience in doing this sort of thing.

The licensing board can also do a program at less cost — $79,214 versus $120,000 for the judicial branch. The licensing boards have a widely recognized consumer protection ethos.

The new judicial branch proposal effectively “bullet-proofs” GALs from public complaints with its cumbersome legal approach.

As the only public member (dissenting) of the judicial branch committee that is proposing this design, I feel that the judicial branch missed an opportunity for genuine consumer protective reform.

After three, two-hour meetings with a committee of 20 largely composed of guardians ad litem and other members of the “divorce industry,” the product is exactly what one would expect.

The judicial branch seems stuck in bondage to its base, GALs and others in the divorce industry.

Maine children and families have deserved better for a long time.The proposal seems geared toward settling a legal “fight.” It does nothing for consumer protection from a defective product.

Jerome A. Collins, M.D., lives in Kennebunkport.