- Report: #1304665
Complaint Review: Michele Bermel - Chappaqua New York
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Michele Bermel
39 Garden Ridge Chappaqua, 10514 New York, USA
Phone:
914-238-0320
Web:
michelebermel.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Michele Bermel Michelle Bermel Extremely unethical law guardian, which was PROVEN in court. She should be forever banned from "representing" vulnerable children. Complete disgrace. One lawyer I spoke with speculated drug use and believes she is being referred significantly less cases Chappaqua New York
I understand why provisions are in place that will not allow for an easy removal of law guardian. The husband wouldn't like her/him if he feels he/she sides with the wife and vice versa. At the same time, there should be more channels of awareness to the actions and inactions of law guardians as a whole. In my opinion, a law guardian should be held to a higher standard as they are representing children who are not only vulnerable because of their age but also as they are going through the many transitions of divorce. Ms. Bermel should lose her license for what she has done and I am going to dedicate myself to have that happen. I fuly intend to re-open a filing with the ethics committee in an attempt to spare others - in partiular children - from her wrath. I also intend to lobby for higher standards in law guardianship to include harsh punishments for those abusing authority of their role in their representation of children. Protector versus prey. Bermel is not a protector. She is a shamefull disgrace.
I truly don't know where to start with Bermel. She was the law guardian for our children during a three year divorce. In a nutshell:
1) Bermel intentionally misrepresented and actively manipulated our children throughout the processs. One of my daughters felt so little trust for her she secretly taped a session.
2) Bermel did not advocate in the best interests of our children. As an example, we had a full psychiatric evauation scheduleed for our daughter after many months of my ex unnessarily lentthening the start of the process. We had agreed to the evaluation in Bermel's office with Bermel. At the last minute and after he and I had spent approx. 1K meeting with the psychiatrist he decided on in-network only when he had many thousands in the bank and had agreed in Bermel's presence to the use of thiis particular psychiatrist for our daughter. Ms. Bermel allowed for his whim. Rather than utilize the authority of her role to advocate for our childr's needs she simply responded "Be that as it may". It took almost two full years longer for my husband to once again agree to a full evaulation. By then, our daugher's behavior spirlals had become severe.
2) Ms. Bermel blatantly lied and misrepresented my children multiple times on the record during conference in an effort to aid ex-husband and his attorney to gain an unwarranted custody change. It was proven that my ex-husband, his lawyer and Ms. Bermel all lied and a Judge violated my constitutional rights by basing a custody change in whole or in part on their lies and misrepresentations. It was subsequently over-ruled with custody reverted back. While the wrongdoings came to light, Bermel barely got a slap on the hand. That woman could have completely changed my childrens liives. My children are counting on her representation of them being true and accurate as is a judge.
3) Ms. Bermel would wait 5-6 months to send a bill - plenty of time for a client to lose track. Then she will threaten if not paid within 10 days. Myself and my lawyer repeatedly requested more frequent billing. Ms. Bermel refused to comply. She would charge plenty of time to "reading and reviewing" emails - yet routinely forego interjecting any response or provide voice on our children's behalf. With the continual lack of response I find it highly unlikely she read the emails she was charging to read. WATCH HER BILLS.
2 Updates & Rebuttals
Honorable? Please! She's being reported with documentation
#2Author of original report
Sat, August 27, 2016
All those out there - I would be more than happy to share the court transcript along with the motion vacating an intiial change in custody which was granted to my ex based on PROVEN lies and misrepresentations in court by Ms. Bermel, my ex and my ex husbands attorney - leading to a FULL VACATE of the intital change in custody (at a cost of $20,000 to me to rectify and she had the pure audacity to send me to a bill for her services). Ms. Bermel stated abuses and my admission to her of such abuses - which NEVER happened - all to effectuate an unwarranted change in custody to my ex. He is classic for the blah blah blah mispresentations he wrote. My ex has no idea what honorable is. EVERY motion my ex and his "talented" attorney submitted without prior party consent during this entire process has been vacated due to proven lies and misrepresentations- Ms. Bermel is the perfect "pea in their pod". Be very wary of Ms. Bermel with your children. I am currently reporting her to head of Law Guardian ethics committee with all documentation proving everything stated. I am also working with children's rights groups in an effort to help protect other children from law guardians like Ms. Bermel. Parents are put in a very tough position with law guardians. Since law guardians have the ability to change custody parents may keep quiet rather than defend their children's rights if they do not believe they are being provided true and adequate represetnation. I was a prime example. I filed the Motion to Dismiss my ex notes in his rebuttal two weeks prior to the court appearance wherein the Motion and its merits were to be discussed. Rather, it became a stage for Ms. Bermel to divert attention from very real issues raised in my Motion and rather make me out to be an "abuser" of my children. Custody was changed that day from the bench based on oral arguments alone. Yes, my constiutational rights were in fact violated.
Law guardians are generally brought in for high conflict divorce when children are already vulnerable and easy prey. Allow your children the justice of working with someone who truly has their best interests at heart. As noted, I am working hard to protect other children and parents via advocate groups and the grievance committee from such a horrific experience.
john
Mahopac,New York,
USA
Defending an honorable professional!
#3General Comment
Fri, July 22, 2016
I will not make any comments except to say that these statments above by my future x-wife are a very sad attempt at tarnishing the career of someone who does not deserve this level of attack for the work that she accomplished working with my children. Our children never communicated any of what she suggests to me and very happily met with Ms Bermel and had a great relationship with her from the very beginning to the very end or this contentious process.
Just to clarify - My X filed a motion to have Ms. Bermel removed for the case for no good reason except that based upon a situation that occured between my X and my daughter, Ms Bermel requested access to my Xs psychiatrist. Prior to that point as noted by the court, my X did not complain and in fact praised Ms Bermel's efforts in the case and in dealing with the children. The decision by the judge was to eventually deny her motion to have Ms. Bermel removed from the case after an incredibly lengthy dissertation of the value of the role of the attorney for the chilren by the judge. Therefore this entire post is in fact retaliation for my X not getting her way with the law guardian which was upheld by the then Judge on the case and still remains as the law guardian even with the new judge on the case.
The constitutional right that was violated or the idea that Ms Bermel was proven wrong or in any way discredited is pure folly. The judge eventually decided to give me temporary custody based upon the facts heard and my Xs actions without us filing a formal motion because he deemed it necessary based upon a set of emergency circumstances. Unfortunately because we did not file a motion and the judge by making a decision from the bench based upon the context before him without even a formal request or motion, the action by the judge was overturned by the following judge that moved into the rotation at the beginning of the year. It has only taken a couple of appearances in court to then have this judge realize how disputatious and unagreeble my X is at this point. His comments are below labeled Judge 2
PS...I am sure she will rebutt my post, but this is my one and only post to clearly refute her ridiculous claims and set the record straight for the sake of protecting a professional that has done her best in a very difficult circumstance.
These are all excerpts from actual court transcipts and not the conjecture and opinion as provided by my x-wife.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge 1 - In the decision to deny removal of Ms Bermel...
THR COURT: She was instrumental in resolving issues of custody an access regarding the parties" children. Both parties complimented her for her efforts when her appointement originally terminated.
THE COURT: Simply put, in her papers the plaintiff (my X) misconstrues the role of the attorney for the children. The attorney for the children is not acting to faciitate the desires of the parent.
THE COURT: The plaintiff's request that she be relieved of her pro rata share of the fees associated with the appointment of the attorney for the children is rejected.
THE COURT: In addition, the court rejects any claim that the attorney for the children has committed malpractice or otherwise failed to meet her responsibilites to her client.
THE COURT: It is apparent to this court that Plaintiff's dislike of the attorney for the children fuels her claimed inablity to pay her fee or her share of the forensic evaluation.
THE COURT: For her to claim that she cannot afford to pay the fees that she is ordered to pay is and insult to the intelligence of this court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge 2 - Not the original judge but the most recent judge that presided over the case starting earlier this year...
THE COURT: Trying to get you to commit to something is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
THE COURT: That's part of the problem. When you have constantly shifting positions, you sometimes don't remember things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments from her own lawyer on March 25th, 2016 after he attempted to be removed from the case because of his inability to work with her. This was in fact the fifth lawyer that she had engaged.
I want the record clear I am not comfortable with any responses she gave to you today. I am not at all comfortable with any of the things she said to you today. And I still intend to seek relief from your order, notwithstanding what we do here today. Just putting it out there.
This is where we have the problem. We are reaffirming those two stipulations and modifying them by these terms, when the extant terms remain in full force and effect. I explained that to my client a hundred times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
