Eileen Thomas LLC. Family Law review
Eileen Thomas LLC. Family Law review
Review of Eileen Thomas, LLC. Family Law lawyer
Eileen Thomas, LLC An Atlanta, (GA) Family Law Lawyer, who has a place of business at: 6075 Barfield Rd Suite 109, Atlanta, GA 30328
Eileen Thomas is also a member of the Atlanta Collaborative Divorce Alliance.
Update July 8th 2023
The following changes have been made which are in direct and stark contrast to Ms Thomas's findings. This demonstrates her complete and utter incompetence in the field of acting as a Guardian Ad Litum.
1. Ms Thomas insisted our daughter attend a private school which put our daughter at a severe disadvantage in terms of academic and social interactions. This was in direct opposition to the evidence presented to her. Our daughter has subsequently changed to a public school which is a huge relief, but this was told to Ms Thomas three years ago.
The effect on our daughter has been poorer grades, increased and severe anxiety, and ongoing social pressures which resulted in her being deeply unhappy at the school Ms Thomas recommended and insisted on.
2. The parenting plan which Ms Thomas insisted on has been largely ignored by the parent Ms Thomas sided with. GAL's are meant to be impartial, fair and unbiased. Due to Ms Thomas's own personal experience through divorce and custody battles, Ms Thomas holds a deep rooted bias against men.
3. The lack of investigation or action by Ms Thomas - The Guardian (protector) of our child, has resulted in our daughter facing ongoing verbal and disparaging abuse from the parent who Ms Thomas favored, and who had a history of abuse which Ms Thomas was made aware of. Ms Thomas took no action whatsoever to prevent this abuse from occurring. The result is our daughter is subject to abuse on a regular and frequent basis. The details too crude to publish on a public website.
Costs
It is important for potential customers of Ms Thomas to understand her rates. She charged me $250 per hour and total fees of $25,000. This was for GAL services for which she did basically nothing. She didn't even contact my mother or brother for an interview. Think about that for a minute - not even doing basic due diligence.
For this work, Ms Thomas provided no value whatsoever. In fact Ms Thomas did more harm than good, and exposed our daughter to ongoing abuse and anxiety.
None of the children liked her at all. They referred to her as a "horrible person".
If this is the value you are seeking from a GAL, I would encourage you to use Ms Thomas in your case.
-----------
In Short
When I reflect on the performance of Ms Eileen Thomas as a GAL, it truly does underscore there is a need for reform around how custody and visitation is decided in that GAL's are at liberty to make recommendations without any recourse or consequence to themselves, even if they fail to follow the guidelines which are included at the bottom of this article. This seems completely counterintuitive to the best interest of the child(ren).
Much of the evidence which was given to Ms Eileen Thomas was entirely ignored. Much of this evidence has subsequently come to pass. Ms Thomas was quite literally obsessed with the first Trump Impeachment trial, but ignored our case almost in its entirety and certainly ignored the evidence we had collected throughout the process. Fortunately the LCE judge largely ignored her input.
Ms Eileen Thomas was an unnecessary distraction who did not follow reasonable or ethical protocols typical of someone in her position.
I wholeheartedly regret hiring Eileen Thomas. The highly regarded person who recommended Eileen Thomas to me is deeply apologetic. Not a single person who met with Eileen Thomas, including the children found her pleasant, professional, unbiased or acting in the best interest of the children. Her half-hearted and unprofessional efforts will have severe and lasting negative affects on the children. However, I would strongly recommend that you meet with Eileen Thomas in person and make up you own mind as she may be a good fit for your situation.
Background
· I hired Eileen Thomas as a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) based on a recommendation. I have had prior experience working with GAL’s in New York and Georgia. My prior experience when working with GAL’s had been that GAL's are typically professional, courteous, and thorough in their investigations.
· Eileen Thomas met with our daughter mostly at the mother’s house which was inconsistent with my prior experience where a GAL would typically meet equally at each party’s home.
· Eileen Thomas failed to contact multiple witnesses that I had provided her with. Again this was inconsistent with my prior experiences where the GAL had contacted all witnesses that had been shared with them.
· Eileen Thomas made an interim recommendation to share custody time 50/50 based on a week-on / week-off basis. We were led to believe her position remained unchanged until very late in the process. At which point she informed me she would be changing her recommendation to a 60/40 split in the mother’s favor. This recommendation came completely out of the blue.
· We discovered that Eileen Thomas changed her recommendation following multiple conversations with the opposing party ex-parte (i.e., without my lawyer’s knowledge or participation). This is again inconsistent with my prior experiences where the GALs include both parties’ lawyers in all communications. We became aware of these conversations by chance, only six weeks after they had occurred. This is highly unusual.
· Interestingly, while Eileen Thomas billed me religiously each month, the month during which the ex-parte discussions had taken place, she failed to invoice me until the following month. Had I received an invoice I would have been made aware that these ex-parte discussions had taken place.
· Eileen Thomas did not respond to multiple pertinent emails or questions which I had sent her, and to which she had agreed to provide such information. One example is that Eileen Thomas committed to providing guidance on an acceptable travel time to middle school but failed to provide this detail for more than five months! Another example is that Eileen Thomas had agreed to alternative accommodation, but then changed her mind suggesting that that only alternative was to move.
- Two days before the late case evaluation (i.e., the final session before a matter goes to trial), Eileen Thomas suggested that a maximum of 20-minutes travel time in rush-hour traffic was acceptable. For those that know Atlanta traffic, this is all but impossible to achieve.
- Eileen Thomas was asked by the LCE judge if she had completed the journey herself. She had not, and was essentially sidelined based on the lack of evidence which she had failed to collect. Eileen Thomas told me this was "so unusual, and had never happened to her before", but the fact that she had failed to satisfy the judge speaks for itself.
- Eileen Thomas stated that she is more interested in "hear-say" information than evidence. This is highly surprising for a person practicing law given that all courts seek evidence.
- Eileen Thomas made no attempt to leverage co-parenting coordinators to improve the separated parents relationship, or attempt changes to the schedule to allow the child to experience the alternative. In fact, Eileen Thomas offered certain alternatives, only to renege on them when I demonstrated I would accommodate her demands. This is in strong contrast with her advertising message which is: "A Less Adversarial Approach To Divorce". In my experience, her involvement elevated contention significantly. This was supported by statements made by the children involved.
- Eileen Thomas was excluded from the final negotiations during the late case evaluation (LCE) given it became apparent that her input undermined the goal of resolving the matter.
- My attorney voluntarily drew up a subpoena for Eileen Thomas's case file given her conduct. This was quite alarming and gives some indication around the confidence her peers placed on her work.
· Once the case had been resolved, Eileen Thomas made a phone call to the mother to offer “condolences” (her own words) for the outcome which was 50/50, but did not call the father at all. I found this particularly odd given I had hired her and, in theory, had equal interaction with her.
- I was instructed to record every single conversation I had with Eileen Thomas given her propensity to switch sides, not fulfill her commitments, and demonstrate behaviors which where inconsistent with the general behaviors of her peers.
- Eileen Thomas agreed that because she had been sidelined by the LCE she would not charge me for the time she spent in "Zoom isolation". However she again reneged on this and sent me a subsequent invoice months later asking I pay the outstanding amount. I sent her an email showing my account with a zero balance, but in true style she failed to respond to that email either. Further evidence of her committing to one thing only to renege on it later, without informing the parties involved. This is a common theme with Eileen Thomas.
- Eileen Thomas is rated favorably on AVVO and Superlawyers.com. I attempted to share this information with AVVO to protect the public and children from similar negative impacts, but they refused to post anything other than positive feedback. Superlawyers.com is managed and controlled by the account holder which is ... Eileen Thomas. If you try to post anything other than positive feedback, it is rejected. It is therefore completely predicable that she rates herself favorably.
HOW CUSTODY IS DECIDED IN GEORGIA
It is useful to remind GAL's and the public how the state of Georgia generally makes custody decisions.
The court will base its custody decision solely on the “best interest” of the child or children - what will best promote the child's welfare and happiness. O.C.G.A. section 19-9-3(a)(2). O.C.G.A. section 19-9-3(a)(3) provides a list of factors the court should consider. These include:
(A) The love, affection, bonding, and emotional ties existing between each parent and the child;
(B) The love, affection, bonding, and emotional ties existing between the child and his or her siblings, half siblings, and step siblings and the residence of such other children;
(C) The capacity and disposition of each parent to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and rearing of the child;
(D) Each parent's knowledge and familiarity of the child and the child's needs;
(E) The capacity and disposition of each parent to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, day-to-day needs, and other necessary basic care, with consideration made for the potential payment of child support by the other parent;
(F) The home environment of each parent considering the promotion of nurturance and safety of the child rather than superficial or material factors;
(G) The importance of continuity in the child's life and the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity;
(H) The stability of the family unit of each of the parents and the presence or absence of each parent's support systems within the community to benefit the child;
(I) The mental and physical health of each parent;
(J) Each parent's involvement, or lack thereof, in the child's educational, social, and extracurricular activities;
(K) Each parent's employment schedule and the related flexibility or limitations, if any, of a parent to care for the child;
(L) The home, school, and community record and history of the child, as well as any health or educational special needs of the child;
(M) Each parent's past performance and relative abilities for future performance of parenting responsibilities;
(N) The willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent, consistent with the best interest of the child;
(O) Any recommendation by a court appointed custody evaluator or guardian ad litem;
(P) Any evidence of family violence or sexual, mental, or physical child abuse or criminal history of either parent; and
(Q) Any evidence of substance abuse by either parent.