The Problem with Private Guardians ad Litem. Part 1 of 3
Utah Code § 78A-2-705 provides that, “The court may appoint an attorney as a private attorney guardian ad litem to represent the best interests of the minor in any district court action when: child abuse, child sexual abuse, or neglect is alleged in any proceeding, and the court has made a finding that an adult party is not indigent as determined under Section 78B-22-202; or the custody of, or parent-time with, a child is at issue.
What is a guardian ad litem? According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a guardian ad litem is a lawyer, appointed by the court to appear in a lawsuit on behalf of an incompetent adult or on behalf of a minor child party. At first blush, the concept of a guardian ad litem sounds pretty good, right? Unfortunately, the way private guardians ad litem (known as PGALs, for short) are utilized in Utah’s courts in child custody disputes is simply wrongheaded and contrary to the fundamental principles of fact finding, due process of law, and justice itself.
Given that children have the greatest stake in the custody and parent-time awards, I cannot see how any competent jurist could justify barring a sufficiently (sufficiently, not excessively) competent, intelligent, mature, and credible minor child witness (especially, but not exclusively, a child who wants to testify) from testifying on those subjects.
PGALs are not appointed for the purpose of ensuring a child never testifies on/for the record in his/her own words, yet that is what many GALs/PGALs believe (and they act accordingly). I’ve encountered PGALs and judges who object to children who want to testify–not because the children are incompetent or incredible or in serious danger if they testify, but “as a matter of general principle” (whatever that means).
PGALs are not witnesses (expert or otherwise). PGALs cannot testify, but most PGALs I know believe they can testify, nonetheless. Most PGALs I know believe that they are an exception to the hearsay rule. Most PGALs I know believe that one of the purposes of their appointment is ensuring a child’s own, unfiltered, un-summarized, direct, on the record testimony is never heard. This is wrong. PGALs claim that one of their roles is to prevent the child from getting involved in the case. This is wrong too.
Every witness (child or otherwise) is inherently involved to some degree or another in the case in which the witness testifies. Most witnesses (even party witnesses) are reluctant witnesses. It has been my experience that, as a lazy, disingenuous way to prevent any child of any age from testifying for the record, those who oppose child testimony define “harm’s a child” as synonymous with “child is reluctant” or “child might be reluctant” or “the child’s testimony could upset a parent and the parent might retaliate against the child” or “simply having to contemplate the subjects raised in the course of testifying is asking too much of any child.” These lazy, disingenuous people equate any and all testifying from the mouth of the child on the record with inherently causing the child harm.
I could easily identify a dozen Utah attorneys who, with a straight face, will unqualifiedly agree with the statement, “Any child who testifies directly on the record on the subject of the custody or parent-time awards that will apply to him/her is unduly harmed by his/her testifying.” It’s a fatuously overbroad contention and they know (or should know) it, but it’s not about coming up with sincere, good-faith opposition to child testimony, it’s about contriving what is labeled an excuse (plausible or otherwise) to prevent child testimony.
Another “reason” for banning on/for the record child testimony that a child’s preferences and desires do not control the custody and parent-time awards. That’s embarrassingly disingenuous. I am aware of no one ever arguing, “Once the child has testified for the record, the court is inexorably bound to award custody and parent-time as the child wants,” yet I have seen many memoranda that argue against child testimony on the “grounds” that a child should not testify because “the [child’s] expressed desires [regarding future custody or parent-time schedules] are not controlling.” (see Utah Code Section 30-3-10(5)(b)(i)).
It is not my purpose, in seeking the testimony of children on subjects relevant to the custody and parent-time awards, to harm those children. By the same token, unless child testimony is honestly found to be unduly harmful to a child, then a child should not be prevented from testifying simply because someone can think of any kind of harm–no matter how slight–that testifying might cause the child.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Tags: children, Children in Divorce, custody, divorce issues, PGAL