Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
An Analysis
of Actual
Practice in
Child
Dependency
Cases
Guardians ad Litem
5. Qualifications - in many jurisdictions, guardian ad Litem is required to be an attorney.
However there is a significant portion of jurisdictions where the GAL is not an attorney.
6. Responsibilities - The GAL is generally appointed to represent the best interests of the
child (to be distinguished from representing the child). This representation is based solely
on the subjective analysis of the GAL appointed to the case. In most jurisdictions, they,
too, are required to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances and
background surrounding the case. They are the legal voice of the child in the courtroom.
A guardian ad Litem does not necessarily replace an attorney who represents the child,
however in most jurisdictions a child is not allowed to have an attorney to represent their
wishes to before the court. GALs are generally required to make a minimum amount of
contact and to submit written reports to the court and all parties. The GALs
recommendations often carry significant weight within the courtroom.
7. Practices - once again, a mechanism that was designed to ensure that the children have a
voice in the proceedings that affect them, has broken down when applied in real life.
Many times children will report that they do not know who their GAL is, or that the GAL
rarely, if ever, talks to them. There have been reported circumstances were children will
insist to their guardian ad Litem that they prefer to live with one parent over the other,
generally due to circumstances of abuse, and the guardian ad Litem will ignore the
children’s reports of abuse at the hands of the offending parent, Emil actually recommend
to the court that the child be returned to the offending parent.in want New York case, a 13
your old girl explained Turner GAL that her mother had pulled a gun her, had beaten her,
and had subjected her to sexual abuse. The girl begged the GAL to tell the court she
wanted to live with her dad. The GAL told little girl, “it’s better for little girls to live with
their moms. I’m going to Teleport that you want to live with your mom.” This child has
had to resort to filing her own appeal with the New York Supreme Court.
The only difference between this case and the millions of other cases around the
country, is at this child was desperate enough to learn how to file an appeal. Many
children are not competent to be able to address these issues at all, and suffer silently
all their fates are being decided by people who won’t listen to them.
Children have been reported as repeatedly begging their GALs to be allowed to
talk to the judge. GALs will not even bring their request before the judge, because of the
child were to talk to the judge, it would indicate that what the GAL said bears no
resemblance to the child’s statements about the case. Children must be kept silent in
many of the child abuse and neglect cases because their statements will not support the
reports made by caseworkers, CASA’s, GALs and other professionals in the case.
What ultimately ends up happening, is that rather than acting in the best interest of
the child, the GAL is acting to promote his own personal agenda. This may be due to
training which instills the notion once again to “err on the side of the child”which is
nothing more than an excuse to conduct a sloppy investigation. We again have another
professional on the case who presents the parents are perpetrators, and requires that they
prove their innocence rather than giving them the presumption of innocence. Since most
children are removed based on nothing more than a risk assessment, how can a parent
prove that they will not abuse or neglect their child in the future?
There are certain jurisdictions where GALs are required to submit written reports
to the court, and they refused to do so. They will make a verbal report to the court and
since the parent has no knowledge of the content of that report until the GAL others it in
the courtroom, they have no way of preparing a defense against it. By refusing to be
placed under oath to allow the report to be subjected to cross-examination, they deny the
parents due process and exert undue control over the outcome of the case.