The letter requests that the Chief Judge investigate the conduct of a guardian ad litem, Liz Stout, in a child custody case involving the writer's daughter. The writer alleges that Ms. Stout made recommendations against the child's best interests and in violation of family law, which negatively impacted the writer financially and professionally. Despite previous requests, the office has refused to investigate until the case was closed. The writer believes Ms. Stout should be removed from the guardian ad litem roster to prevent similar situations in the future. Having lost faith in the legal system, the writer is considering working with media to produce a piece on the guardian ad litem system in Maine.

1. October 8, 2009
Chief Judge Ann Murray
State of Maine
Administrative Office of the Courts
163 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0171
Dear Chief Judge Murray:
This letter serves as my third request to investigate the conduct of Liz Stout, guardian ad litem
(GAL) and the resulting judgment for a case involving three year old Mila Malenko, daughter of
Lori Handrahan and Igor Malenko.
Previously, your office has refused to investigate, even though the GAL, Liz Stout, had
withdrawn from the case. Your office would not investigate until the Supreme Court ruling had
been made. Maine GAL states, very clearly, that GALs are subject to continual oversight and
monitoring. Apparently, this is de jure only because de facto, when oversight and monitoring is
requested the reply is that this will occur only when the case is closed.
The Supreme Court affirmed that primary residence cannot be condition. It was Ms. Stout’s
recommendation that primary residence be condition and I not be allowed to relocated back to
my job and home in Washington DC, that the judge enforced. Ms. Stout made this
recommendation in direct violation of family law, which she knows well, and she did it with
malicious intent. She was aware I would lose my job if I did not relocate to Washington DC and
the judge also noted this but still, even as my child’s primary earner by far, I was forced to
choose, my income, job, career and financial security or my child.
How can anyone argue, particularly in this economy, that is acting in the child’s best interest?
The result is that I am struggling not to be foreclosed on and am facing poverty. I cannot provide
my daughter with things she wants, like piano lessons, swimming lessons or new clothes,
because I no longer have an income. Even more unbelievable when I finally did lose my job as
Sr. Gender Advisor for CARE, and could no longer maintain my monthly payments to Ms. Stout
for her extremely expensive GAL bill (I had already paid the $2,500 retainer) she brought
contempt of court charges against me.
Ms. Stout did not implement a similar punishment on my former husband. The only way I was
able to avoid contempt of court hearing was to borrow, even more, money from a friend to pay
Ms. Stout off in full and I was forced to sign a waiver saying I would never sue Ms. Stout.
Ms. Stout then showed up at my home, also my work place, despite my repeated requests that
she not come to my home—and she stood for 20 minutes while I was on a job interview before a
panel of five on the telephone, and yelled up at my window “I can see you. I know you are home.
Come down Lori.” She did this not once but twice. Please see attached emails. Needless to say,
I did not get that job—and it was one that I desperately needed.
1

2. In addition to Ms. Stout causing me to lose my job, and thereby placing my daughter’s future in a
precious financial position, Ms. Stout has caused me to remain living half a block from my
former husband who has a private investigator monitoring me 24 hours. He and his lawyer,
Michael Waxman, have gone to everyone of Mila’s care-givers and threaten and harassed them
with lawsuit so that I have no child care left.
The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar has found Mr. Waxman in violation and has
recommended him for sanction based on what he has done to me and my daughter. Although,
Ms. Stout is no longer on the case, Mr. Waxman has continued to copy Ms. Stout on emails;
evidence of the collusion between the two and their mutual vow to destroy me. It should be very
concerning that a GAL has so closely aligned herself with a lawyer like Mr. Waxman who is so
clearly out of control, abusive and now will face sanctions.
As I have related before, Ms. Stout actively ignored, and keeping from the court, evidence that
demonstrated real and serious safety concerns for me and my daughter. I have already sent your
office the files from the case. I would again draw attention to Dr. Jackie Campbell, Dr. Leslie
Drozd and Lesley Devoe’s reports. Ms. Stout’s conduct in my case, alone, should be sufficient
to remove her from Maine’s GAL roster before she continues recommending more children be
placed back into abusive and dangerous situations that their mothers had the courage and
strength to escape.
When this all began I still had faith in America’s rule of law, due process, due diligence,
accountability and oversight. I actually believed that truth, evidence and facts mattered. I no
longer do. I hold very little hope that your office will hold Ms. Stout accountable. Yet, I persist
with the hope that in America evidence and truth must matter.
An independent media is what makes America great and the ability of the press to hold people
accountable through exposure of corruption is something that I have greater faith in than the
courts right now. Accordingly, producers at Frontline as well as Maine’s Channel 8 reporters and
two feminists’ documentary film-makers have been informed. There is consideration of
producing a piece on the GAL system in Maine. I have given them full access to my files and
my story.
Sincerely,
Lori Handrahan, Ph.D.
207-221-7706
28 Franklin Ter.
South Portland ME 04106
2