1. December 27, 2009
Hon. Ann M. Murray
Chief Judge
Maine District Court
163 State House Station
Augusta Maine 04333
Dear Chief Judge Murray:
This is my sixth request to investigate the conduct of GAL Liz Stout. I have not yet received a
response to my November 2009 letter. I shall include the text of that letter again here.
There was and probably still is collusion, which is fraud, occurring between Liz Stout and
Michael Waxman, Mr. Malenko’s attorney. I am including a few recent emails from Mr.
Waxman along with some past emails where he and Ms. Stout show they are working in tandem.
By refusing to investigate and emergency remove Ms. Stout from the GAL roster, the Maine
courts are sanctioning Mr. Waxman’s behavior as well as that of Ms. Stout’s. GALs across the
state are being given implicit knowledge that they can side with the abuser, as some 80% do
according to the recent State-wide survey by Maine Domestic Violence Coalition, and that they
can acknowledge a child is at risk of sexual abuse but recommend custody to the potential sex
abuser anyway.
How can a GALs like this be allowed to continue?
Sincerely,
Lori Handrahan, Ph.D.
Sorrento Maine
207-221-7706
1

2. Your office refuses to investigate the conduct of GAL Liz Stout, claiming Maine GAL rules
prohibit investigation while litigation is ongoing. Maine Law reads:
B. Ongoing Evaluations, Reports and Oversight.
A Guardian is subject to ongoing oversight. The Chief Judge may initiate a review of a
Guardian based upon his or her own motion, a review of the Guardian's reports, complaints
received pursuant to Paragraph 4, Sub- Paragraph A, an observation of performance by a
judge, or any combination of these sources. Nothing in these rules limits a judge's right to
regulate a Guardian or remove a Guardian from his or her role in a particular proceeding on
motion of a party after notice and hearing…
• Ongoing means while something is in progress.
• “Nothing in these rules limits a judge’s right to regulate a Guardian or remove a
Guardian” is clear.
4. Complaints, Reviews, and Appeals. A. Response to Complaints.
The Chief Judge shall maintain a docket of all complaints filed concerning the performance of
Guardians. Complaints about the performance of a Guardian in a pending case are to be
directed by motion to the judge who appointed the Guardian or to the judge who is conducting
hearings in the case. The Chief Judge will not take any action with respect to, or initiate a
review with respect to, a complaint arising from a pending case. When a complaint, other than a
complaint in a pending case, is received the Chief Judge shall screen the complaint, and may
discuss the complaint with the Guardian or other participants in confidence.
• This section of Maine GAL law is clearly intended for cases where the GAL remains on
the case. The GAL, in this case, withdrew from the case in the spring of 2009 after I
testified about the case before Maine Judiciary Committee. What can either the
appointing judge or the current judge do about a GAL no longer on the case?
B. Review Procedures.
The Chief Judge may conduct a review of a Guardian in response to a complaint, or on his or
her own motion.
• This clearly provides wide discretion for the Chief Judge to conduct a review. This does
not say the Chief Judge may not conduct a review as long as litigation is pending.
5. Temporary or Emergency Removal.
The Chief Judge may remove or suspend a Guardian from the roster prior to initiation or
completion of the review procedure set forth in Section 4, paragraph B upon the Chief Judge's
determination that it is in the best interests of the Judicial Branch to do so.
2

3. • The Chief Judge is granted unlimited emergency power. In the case, of GAL Liz Stout, I
have informed the Chief Judge that according to Ken Altshuler, Ms. Stout has not only
done this to my daughter but has a body of practice as a GAL that is extremely
concerning. Mr. Altshuler calls her the most “dangerous GAL in the state of Maine” and
he has said he would be happy to discuss Mr. Stout’s GAL work with anyone.
• I would assume based on my daughter’s case alone, with a GAL acknowledging risk of
sexual abuse of a 2.5 year old but recommending joint custody in any case, for the child
to then be sexually abused, confirmed by Spurwink, within months of her father being
given unsupervised access due entirely to the GALs’ recommendations would constitute
emergency removal of this GAL from the roster.
Maine GAL is clear about the goals of the law:
B. Goals. These Rules and the incorporated Standards are designed to improve the services
provided by Guardians ad litem to the Court and to ensure that Guardians diligently work to
protect and promote the best interests of the children they are appointed to represent.
• Ms. Stout did not “diligently work to protect and promote the best interest” of my child.
• Ms. Stout recommended that my child, lose her only earning parent’s income of nearly
$100,000, which I did loose.
• Ms. Stout acknowledges there was a risk Mila’s father would sexually abuse but
recommended joint custody. Mila was abused within months. Spurwink has strongly
recommended supervised contact only.
• Ms. Stout knowingly and willful fabricated information (for example claiming the
domestic violence was “co-situational”) and actively ignored real evidence of risk of
harm to my daughter.
Your office’s refusal to investigate violates these goals as well as the spirit and letter of the law.
I hope your office will reconsider.
Sincerely,
Lori Handrahan, Ph.D.
207-221-7706
28 Franklin Ter.
South Portland ME 04106
Cc: Ken Altshuler
Attorney General Janet Mills
Gov. John Baldacci
Maine Coalition Against Sexual Violence
Sexual Response Services of Southern Maine
Downeast Sexual Assault Services
3