DON'T HIRE ELAINE PUDLOWSKI WITH CASH FOR KIDS LLC TO BE YOUR CHILDREN'S GUARDIAN AD LITEM - YOU WILL REGRET YOUR DECISION

 

Gardner v. Gardner, Case 1722-FC01210 St. Louis City, where the children's mother tried to disqualify Elaine Pudlowski for her malfeasance.  Read the Motion and decide yourself if Elaine Pudlowski is the right Guardian ad litem for your children.  

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY GUARDIAN AD LITEM ELAINE A. PUDLOWSKI PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD FOR GUARDIANS AD LITEM IN JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT DIVISION MATTERS

COMES NOW, Laura Gardner, by and through counsel and for her Motion to Disqualify Guardian ad Litem Elaine Pudlowski (hereinafter “GAL”) states the following:

1. Elaine Pudlowski was appointed Guardian ad Litem in the above styled case on September 19, 2017.

2. This case has no trial setting and was filed on April 19, 2017.

3. The GAL has demonstrated a prejudice towards Mother, Laura Gardner, since counsel’s involvement when they entered as co-counsel on or about March 23, 2018.

4. The standard for Guardians ad Litem in Juvenile and Family Court Division matters of St. Louis City, Missouri are as follows:

a. Standard 3.0 Independent Judgment of the Guardian ad Litem

(i) A guardian ad Litem shall be guided by the best interest of the child. The comment section states that the Guardian must act in the best interest of the child and must maintain objectivity.

b. Standard 4.0 General Duties and Responsibilities

(i) Paraphrasing the section the guardian shall be prepared to participate fully in any proceedings not merely defer to other parties. Guardian shall advocate in the best interest of the child. “The Court shall assure the Guardian ad Litem maintains independent representation of the child. The Court shall require the Guardian ad Litem to perform the duties faithfully and, upon failure to do so shall discharge the Guardian ad Litem and appoint another.”

(ii) The comment section of 4.0 states, “Prior to commencement of a hearing, the Guardian ad Litem should conduct all necessary interviews with persons having contact with or knowledge of the child in order to ascertain the child’s wishes, feelings, attachments and attitudes."

c. Standard 8.0 Progress of the case through the Court process.

(i) The Guardian ad Litem shall review the progress of a child’s case through the Court process and advocate for timely hearings, provision of necessary services, and compliance with Court Orders. This is especially important when dealing with a young child.

d. Standard 10.0 Participation in Case Related Activities

(i) The Guardian ad Litem shall participate in negotiating parenting plans and proposed orders. The Guardian ad Litem shall monitor implementation of Court Orders while the case is pending to determine Orders of the Court are being provided in a timely manner.

5. In support of Mother’s Motion respondent states the following:

a) GAL has failed to interview maternal grand-parents at any time. This means no communication of any kind, electronic, telephonic or in person (Violation of Standard 4.0).

b) GAL failed to interview paternal grand-parents at any time (Violation of Standard 4.0).

c) GAL has placed minor children of the parties in the custody of paternal grand-parents without any knowledge of the environment or a determination of whether paternal grandparents were fit to serve as care providers to the minor children (Violation of Standard 3.0 and 4.0).

d) GAL continues to maintain a diagnosis of Mother with an extremely rare psychological disorder, despite the Court appointed expert stating in her deposition that any two experts can come out with a different diagnosis relative to this disorder which occurs in 4/1000 of 1% in 2.5 million people. The Court appointed expert has never made this diagnosis and did not consult any specialist with knowledge of the diagnosis, which is an ethics violation in her own field of psychology. (APA Guidelines) (Violation of Standard 3.0).

e) Expert relied on an article from 1990 to form her opinion that mother suffers from a disorder not recognized by the DSM-V, which sets out recognized disorders. GAL ignored this testimony and continues to pursue diagnosis and use it against the maternal grandparents violating any teachings of psychological basis (Violation of Standard 3.0)

f) GAL was provided a video of paternal grand-parent leaving minor child unattended outside dad’s home, located in the city of St. Louis, while in her custody for 30 minutes. The child can be seen playing alone, knocking on the front door, walking around the front yard and sidewalk and no one answers the door. Paternal grand-mother lied under oath at her deposition about this matter and despite this information these facts have been disregarded by the GAL as she expresses no concern relative to the facts as a concern (Violation of Standard 3.0).

g) GAL in her most recent writing to all parties recommended that mother have only supervised custody, and that maternal grand-parents not exercise custody because they are somehow connected to GAL’s extreme belief of mom suffering from a disorder that as previously stated is not recognized by any area of psychology and so testified to by the Court appointed expert. All parties (mom, dad and paternal grandparents) have stated under oath that maternal grand-parents are good care providers to the minor children (Violation of Standard 3.0)

h) GAL has not taken any steps to enforce the alcohol evaluation of Father despite the Court’s Ordering this evaluation on or about August 16th, 2018 (Violation of Standard 3.0 and 8.0).

i) GAL decided that Dad can exercise unsupervised custody while disregarding his family issues of a history of being molested and abused. Court expert (psychologist) stated Dad may have a problem with addiction, related to alcohol abuse, marijuana and self-medicating. Despite the above issues raised in this case, Dad has been able to exercise unsupervised custody. These issues regarding Dad and the groundless diagnosis of mom’s mother have been conveniently dismissed by the GAL and no action has been taken to act in the best interest of children (Violation of Standard 3.0 and 4.0).

j) GAL has engaged in deliberate conduct to support her singular belief not in the best interest of the minor children (Violation of Standard 3.0).

k) GAL has punished Mother by limiting Mother’s time with her children, because Mother took child to Urgent Care for a lesion on the minor child’s buttock and a significant gash on the minor child’s arm, despite the Court appointed expert Dr. Bunning being shown the images and stating it would be perfectly reasonable for Mother to seek medical attention for the conditions depicted in the images (Violation of Standard 3.0 and 8.0).

l) Despite an Order by the Court Ordering father’s son from a prior relationship to not be around the minor children subject of these proceedings he has continued to be around the kids. This particular individual has had significant psychiatric issues and was in part the reason for the Courts Order. This has been totally ignored by the GAL (Violation of Standard 3.0, 8.0 and 10.0)

5. The above facts do not state all examples of the bias demonstrated by the GAL. The GAL has demonstrated a lack of objectivity and at the same times has not interviewed any of the family members around the parties to the case. A short list of people not interviewed to date include:

a. maternal and paternal grand-parents

b. siblings of the respective parties.

c. treaters of Mother for her RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis)

d. friends of Mother

e. teachers of child MG

6. Issues of the minor child being on the spectrum have been raised by treaters in the case. An opportunity to have the minor child evaluated by the staff at Washington University was squashed by the GAL and she refused to allow the child to attend the appointment. It should be noted that an appointment to be reviewed by Washington University can take up to 6 months to be seen by one of their specialist. Treaters and teachers have expressed their concern that the minor child may be on the spectrum.

7. The GAL has been paid fees in excess of $8,000 and has failed to discharge her duties.

WHEREFORE, Mother prays this Court grant an Order Dismissing GAL Elaine Pudlowski from this case and a new Guardian ad Litem be appointed by agreement of the parties and for such other relief as Court deems proper under the circumstances.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Kirk J. Wittner #53096

231 South Bemiston Suite 910

St. Louis, MO 63105

(314) 862-3535 (telephone)

(314) 862-5741 (facsimile)

Once Elaine Pudlowski is appointed as a GAL, a parent can never disqualify her.  Ask Elaine Pudlowski how many parents tried to disqualify her in her career. Before hiring Elaine Pudlowski for your case, ask her to provide you with the names of parents who were happy and not happy with her services. Make an informed decision to protect safety and wellbeing of your children.