Abused Swan 

Two years ago Deanna wrote Donna Mobilia twice asking what her knowledge and understanding is of domestic violence, how domestic violence impacts children, or how abusive men work. ( It is required that Guardian Ad Litmes have this knowledge to perform the best interest of the children.) After no response to either written request Deanna filed a motion to have Donna removed from her case. Donna stated to Judge Gardner that the court knows what her credentials are. Deanna's motion was denied. Deanna wrote the Chief of Justice Judge Paul Sullivan and asked what Donna's credentials were. His  response was to stop writing him because he was an administrator. 

On December 19, 2008 Deanna called Donna Mobilia's office and stated she wanted to be able to see her children for Christmas. The secretary called back and stated she talked to Donna and she said Deanna was ordered to have visitations at the YWCA. If she wants different arrangements she can file a motion. Every motion Deanna has filed in the last 9 years has been denied by Judge Patricia Gardner.

If Donna was working in the best interest of Deanna's children, she would make sure Deanna's children got to see their mother for Christmas. This is an example on how Guardian Ad Litems fail to do their job. This is a service the tax payers are paying for. 

On September 6, 2008 Deanna sent a letter to the Judge, GAL, FOC, and CPS. This letter stated 11 facts of the case and what she was going to present during the hearing. The GAL would have received this information on Tuesday, Wednesday at the latest. On Thursday morning, just before court, the GAL, Donna Mobilia, spoke with Deanna's former spouse. Next thing Deanna knew her former spouse withdrew his motion.  This tells Deanna that, Donna Mobilia gave her former spouse the information sent and that Donna also gave him legal advice. This shows that Donna Mobilia is bias in this case, and therefore is not representing Deanna's children's best interest.  When Deanna left the court she asked a security officer to walk her to he car. The security officer asked Deanna if she was to be in Judge Gardner's court. When Deanna stated yes the security officer told her that security was requested in the Judges court room for her hearing. 

The Guardian Ad Litem in this case has never been to Deanna’s home or has had a long conversation with her in the past four years.

Donna obtains incorrect information from Deanna's former spouse and states this information to the judge. Donna does not ask Deanna her side of the story, she just takes Deanna's former spouses side of the story as the truth. Deanna has proven her former spouse lying in court three time and the judge just ignores the evidence. 

When a Guardian Ad Litme has continuous conversations with one parent and no conversations with the other parent, it is apparent that the Guardian Ad Litem is bias. 

In court February 27, 2009 Donna Mobilia stated that she should not have to provide Deanna with her qualifications.

Doesn’t a good parent ask these questions of agencies and or business when doing business with them?

It is apparent that Donna has something to hide. Donna does not have the knowledge or understanding on domestic violence and is not adequate to represent children who come from such atmospheres.

We need better guidelines on who we let be Guardian Ad Litems in our court system.

Wake up people!

Donna Mobilia

is a

Guardian Ad Litme (GAL)

Attorney for children.

 Rate any lawyer at

 It is apparent that Donna Mobilia does not understand domestic violence in any shape or form and therefore allows children to be mentally abused by their fathers.