|
If custody is in issue, a
guardian ad
litem ["GAL"]
for the child should be appointed to represent the child's best
interests.
Some of those interests are:
- to prevent parents from subjecting
the
child to multiple
evaluations in the hope of finding an expert who will support one or
another's
contentions
- to prevent repeated interviews of
the
child
CAVEAT: Being
appointed by a court as a GAL does not guarantee
that the person
appointed has the requisite credentials and knowledge to fulfill her
(or
his) responsibilities as a GAL.
- Do not hesitate to inquire about
the
proposed GAL's
credentials.
- That the person may have been a
family
service officer
in the court for many years is not necessaily indicative of the
person's
qualifications to act in the capacity of a GAL. Too many social
workers
have not been trained under the watchful eye of a
properly
qualified clinical psychologist. They are just put out there and
get "trained" on the job. More often than not, that simply is not
enough!
- Do not hesitate to challenge the
appointment of an
unqualified person to the GAL position!
In Massachusetts, for
instance, it
can be
quite
dangerous for both the child and the parent who is not the party
favored
by the GAL:
- the GAL is not required by law to
interview all the
parties or their representatives
- the GAL may include reports filled
with
hearsay from
anyone
- the GAL is not required to supply
these
reports to
the accused parent
- even a judge hearing the divorce
trial
cannot prevent
the GAL report (and attachments) from coming into evidence; the report
is automatically (by statute) considered evidence
- another way of putting it:
the
report can be
filed in the court over the objection of the parent who was ignored by
the GAL, not been given access to the GAL, not been given copies of the
documents provided by nonparties to the GAL . . .
Your one hope is that you will
get a judge
who recognizes
that the court-appointed GAL is not qualified. If the judge must,
as in Massachusetts (because of the statute), accept the report as
evidence,
the judge need not give the report much, if any,
weight.
Yes, the judge can ignore the report even though it came into
evidence!
The rationale is similar to that which a judge tells a jury: You
can
believe all the evidence, believe some of it, or believe none of it.
And while that may be helpful
to your cause
at
trial, the child's best interests have been ignored. In fact, the
child may have been damaged in the interim by improper procedures and
improper
attention to the child's needs.
So be alert!
Remember that
having
a driver's license does not mean you're a good driver. All that
having
a license means is that you drove well enough to pass the test on one
day.
Keep that principle in mind when assessing the proposed GAL's
credentials
and qualifications and training and experience.
A PLEASANT NOTE: New
Hampshire courts appear to be more sophisticated than Massachusetts
courts
in appointing GALs.
|
|
|