GAL recommendations are nowhere close to being the best way
GAL recommendations are nowhere close to being the best way to determining the child’s best interest.
This post is the thirteenth in series of 15 posts on the subject of custody evaluations and the appointment of guardians ad litem (“GALs” for short) in Utah child custody cases when the judge could simply interview the children instead. You do not have to read all 16 posts to benefit from this series. Read as many or as few as you wish.
The purpose of this series is to make the case for the proposition that an interview by the judge is a faster, more accurate, more particular, more reliable, and less expensive form of evidence than what a GAL and/or custody evaluator provides.
If a guardian ad litem claims to tell the court what a child said, that violates the rule against hearsay and violates the privilege against disclosure of attorney client communications.
When I point out to the court a guardian ad litem’s attempts to proffer hearsay statements, I am either ignored or told that there is a special exception for guardians ad litem (which is not true). When I try to invoke Utah rule of evidence 806 to cross examine a child on the hearsay statements (to determine whether what the child is alleged to have said is actually what the child said), I’m either giving an emperor’s new clothes kind of denial or just ignored. Now you understand that if the judge would question the child directly, there would be little to no need to cross-examine the child in the first place (if the judge questioned the children well, for example). Likewise, if a judge would question a child directly there would rarely, if ever, be a need to appoint a guardian ad litem or custody evaluator for the child’s benefit either. I do not understand why we have guardians ad litem or custody evaluators serve the purpose of “giving the child a voice” when the child has his or her own voice and is perfectly capable of using it, especially in articulating and attempting to advance the child’s own best interest by speaking directly with the court as to the child’s experiences, observations, ceilings, concerns, opinions and desires, without the child’s words being parsed or filtered or misconstrued by second and third hand intermediaries.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277Tags: attorney client communications, ceilings, child, claims, concerns, court, cross examine, directly, disclosure, emperor's new clothes, experiences, filtered, GAL, guardian ad litem, hearsay, ignored, interview, judge, misconstrued, observations, opinions and desires, privilege, proffer, question, recommendations, second hand, third hand, Utah Rule of Evidence 806, violates, voice