Henderson Law and Mediation Center (815) 726 - 8500
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Henderson Law and Mediation
23 West Jefferson Street
Joliet, Illinois 60432
Phone: (815) 726-8500
Fax: (815) 726-0856
GUARDIAN AD LITEM (GAL)
BECOMING A GUARDIAN AD LITEM; CHILD’S REPRESENTATIVE OR ATTORNEY
FOR THE CHILD
By: Angela D. Henderson
Generally parents are the best decision maker as to their own children’s needs.
The Constitution recognizes that fact and gives parents the right of unrestricted
access to their children subject to federal and state restrictions to that right. The
United States Supreme Court stated a parent's right to "the companionship, care,
custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious"
than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840,843,
(1952). “A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so
fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.” In re: J.S.and C.,324
A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
However, when parents file for a divorce they invite a Court’s authority into their
family under the state’s interest in protecting children. The divorce may be the
first time a parent has had their parental authority questioned. The Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction Act, 750 ILCS 35/1, et. Seq. is the federal statute that 750
ILCS 5/601 refers to as the one giving courts power to decide custody matters.
That statute refers to the home state, where the child has lived for the last six
months. The home state has statutory power to decide custody matters.750 ILCS
35/4.
The powers and duties of a child's representative are similar to those of a
guardian ad litem. Unlike a guardian ad litem a child's representative shall
consider the wishes of the child and not render an opinion, recommendation, or
report to the court and is not called as a witness but instead shall offer evidence-
based legal arguments. In other words, the child's representative is a hybrid of a
child's attorney and a child's guardian ad litem. “The more mature the child, the
likelier the court is to appoint an attorney to represent the child; the less mature,
the likelier that a guardian ad litem will be appointed; and for children of
intermediate maturity, there is the child's representative.” COONEY v. ROSSITER,
583 F.3d 967 (2009).
Ninety percent of custody outcomes are determined by the parents through
parenting agreements. (Melton, Petrila, Polythress & Slobogin, 2007.) When
parents cannot agree as to the decision making and caretaking decisions for their
children then the Court intervenes and, by default, is the sole decision maker as to
allocating parental duties. In making that determination, the Court must rely on
the “best interest factors” as designated by statute.
Further, the statutes provide systems to help evaluate those factors. A
psychological evaluation (604.b); an in-camera interview with the children; the
process of weighing the testimony and credibility of the witnesses; and an attorney
appointed to act in one of three capacities for the children (Child’s Representative
(CR); Attorney for the Child (AFC); Guardian ad Litem (GAL).
The purpose of the appointment of a GAL is to have a neutral, independent fact
finder who reports to the Court. Neither party hires the GAL: The GAL acts only
under the direction of the Court. In custody matters the GAL is required to be an
attorney and have practiced for at least two years. Further, the GAL must have
completed special and specific training geared toward child related issues. The
GAL should have some understanding of family dynamics, cultural and
environmental differences, as well as an understanding of the legal issues
presented.
The psychological evaluator (604.b) is taxed with establishing the parent’s abilities
and deficits as well as the fit between those attributes involved in the child’s
needs. The GAL, however, cannot make psychological determinations but is
taxed with a more practical approach. The GAL can investigate the facts as they
relate to the statutory
factors: who wants the children; why do they want the children; what do the
children want; and why; how are the children functioning in their home, school and
community; are the children safe with each parent. The GAL can inform the court
if each parent has a reasonable after-divorce plan and if they seem to have been
acting toward the children’s needs. Some times the investigation turns up no
allegations of psychological disorder but merely bad decision making by the
parents. The GAL is the one in the trenches seeing the interaction between the
parents and the children outside of the clinical setting.
Because we do not represent either party, nor do we represent the children, we
turn to the statutory language to find our role. We are to investigate; inform the
court; and make a recommendation. We historically have been called “The eyes
and the ears of the court” but that ignores the third element of our duties: to make
a recommendation.
WHAT WE ARE:
1. INVESTIGATOR: Not a private eye. We are not required to interview every
one the parties’ request: We know grandma and grandpa like their son (the
father). We need to talk to those witnesses that the GAL deems necessary to get
a view of the problems. If the children are doing well in school and there are no
allegations that the parents are not working effectively with the school, then there
is no reason to interview the teachers. Remember, the parties are oppositional
and they will set the parameters (to a great extent) of where the investigation
wanders. If Dad alleges Mother does drugs, investigate that. If Mother alleges
Father hits the kids, investigate that. Investigate those factors in dispute. If both
parents say there was no abuse between them in the marriage there is no need to
look further (attorney small print: unless other factors hint of other deviousness
such as they both lied to DCFS because they both hit the kids).
2. REPORTER TO THE COURT: What do we report? Everything. The duties
do not include the right to editorialize the investigation. That part where we add
your thoughts is the duty to make a recommendation. The Judge cannot go to the
home, cannot have witnesses unleashed from objections and cannot see both
parties interact with each other or the children. That is what the Court needs to be
informed about. The Court may have too much minutia with that type of reporting
but without a factual recitation of what you found, you run the risk of layering for
your viewpoint.
3. MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. This is often harder for the GAL than it is
for the Judge. We have become close to these children. We have been
immersed in their lives. They look to us, often, as the one who will make it all
right. We, as GAL’s loose sleep every night worrying that we are not doing the
right thing by these charges. I know the Judges go through the same angst, but
our relationship with the children is often unique. Remember, if the
recommendation was easy, there would be no GAL or psychological evaluation.
The Judges know that. They know there are usually serious issues for the
necessity of special appointments on a case. The Judge has a difficulty when they
have an inherent belief system that values a different factor than the Gal’s weight
on the factors. The Judge, above all, wants to do right by these children. So….
Make the best recommendation in your belief system that you can. Do not try to
mirror the Judge’s belief system because then you would not be neutral. The
Judge uses your information, your report, and weighs his factors. That is your
job… not to have a matching recommendation to the Judge’s determination.
WHAT WE ARE NOT:
1. We are not a psychologist determining a party’s mental health. We can
offer our observations and apply our interpretation of those observations as long
as the interpretation is that of a normal, regular person such as “There seems to
be something wrong with her. As an example: “She didn’t understand what I said to
her and was confused about what was going on” and “She didn’t get that
hoarding in the household caused her children to be socially isolated.”
2. We are not a decision maker. The Court has been tasked with making
custody decisions. The Court is allowed to rely on facts one of which is the
recommendation of a GAL. It is a compliment to the system when a Court does
not always agree with a GAL recommendation because that means the system is
working. The Gal looks at the nine factors, one of which, through their own
personal experience, has a smidge more weight than the others. Each Judge has
one factor that has a smidge more weight than the others. On a close case, the
difference may be that smidge. Often, the GAL has formed a bond with the
children. I hope that happens almost every time because this is the element that
makes us important to the system of protecting children. We need to care about
their welfare as much as the parents should care.
3. We are not the children’s attorney. We fight for the aura around the
children called “best interests”. We do not stand up for what they want because
what they want may not be the right answer. However, when all other factors are
relatively equal, what they want can be supported.
4. We are not social workers. We can recommend that the children and or
the parents attend counseling. We do not counsel. We can recommend that the
children get tutoring. We do not tutor. We can recommend a parenting schedule
but we do not live those parties’ lives.
5. We are not judges of social conscious. The “floor” of housekeeping is not
our standards; the standard of religious beliefs is not our belief; the comparison of
parenting skills is not our skills. The statute provides that GAL’s are attorneys, not
housekeepers, good parents or religious leaders. I have interviewed parties in
terrible locations, terrible homes, with terrible parenting skills. These problems are
only one element of one factor to consider. Occasionally one problem can be so
critical that it is the deciding factor. (As an example, a really great father,
connected to the children, teaches them morals and social skills, involves them in
family and church community but lives on a street with repeated muggings;
shootings and gang warfare while the other parent lives in a safe community).
CHILD REPRESENTATIVE (CR)
The designation of Child Representative evolved to cover the distance between
the old-fashioned GAL who was merely an investigator to the CR who zealously
fought for the child’s stated goals. The CR should advocate for the best interest
of the child and not ne4cessarily for the child’s stated wishes. This puts the duty
on the CR of deciding what to advocate for: what are the best interests of the
child. The CR must make his/her own professional determination prior to
launching representation of those best interests. Like the GAL who must weigh
the best interest factors in order to make a recommendation, the GAL must also
weigh those factors. The CR has the right to fully participate in the litigation and
make evidence based legal based arguments. How do GAL’s and CR differ?
While the GAL provides a written report and recommendation and is subject to
cross examination, the CR’s recommendations are made in pre-trial which is not
subject to cross examination.
ATTORNEY FOR CHILD
An AFC is an attorney who happens to have a minor for a client. The duties of an
AFC include advocacy, file pleadings, subpoena witnesses and examine witnesses
and advocate the child’s position. The AFC should focus the proceedings on the
child’s best interest and protect the child throughout the proceedings.
BECOMING A GUARDIAN AD LITEM; CHILD’S REPRESENTATIVE OR ATTORNEY
FOR THE CHILD
By: Angela D. Henderson
Generally parents are the best decision maker as to their own children’s needs.
The Constitution recognizes that fact and gives parents the right of unrestricted
access to their children subject to federal and state restrictions to that right. The
United States Supreme Court stated a parent's right to "the companionship, care,
custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious"
than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840,843,
(1952). “A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so
fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.” In re: J.S.and C.,324
A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
However, when parents file for a divorce they invite a Court’s authority into their
family under the state’s interest in protecting children. The divorce may be the
first time a parent has had their parental authority questioned. The Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction Act, 750 ILCS 35/1, et. Seq. is the federal statute that 750
ILCS 5/601 refers to as the one giving courts power to decide custody matters.
That statute refers to the home state, where the child has lived for the last six
months. The home state has statutory power to decide custody matters.750 ILCS
35/4.
The powers and duties of a child's representative are similar to those of a
guardian ad litem. Unlike a guardian ad litem a child's representative shall
consider the wishes of the child and not render an opinion, recommendation, or
report to the court and is not called as a witness but instead shall offer evidence-
based legal arguments. In other words, the child's representative is a hybrid of a
child's attorney and a child's guardian ad litem. “The more mature the child, the
likelier the court is to appoint an attorney to represent the child; the less mature,
the likelier that a guardian ad litem will be appointed; and for children of
intermediate maturity, there is the child's representative.” COONEY v. ROSSITER,
583 F.3d 967 (2009).
Ninety percent of custody outcomes are determined by the parents through
parenting agreements. (Melton, Petrila, Polythress & Slobogin, 2007.) When
parents cannot agree as to the decision making and caretaking decisions for their
children then the Court intervenes and, by default, is the sole decision maker as to
allocating parental duties. In making that determination, the Court must rely on
the “best interest factors” as designated by statute.
Further, the statutes provide systems to help evaluate those factors. A
psychological evaluation (604.b); an in-camera interview with the children; the
process of weighing the testimony and credibility of the witnesses; and an attorney
appointed to act in one of three capacities for the children (Child’s Representative
(CR); Attorney for the Child (AFC); Guardian ad Litem (GAL).
The purpose of the appointment of a GAL is to have a neutral, independent fact
finder who reports to the Court. Neither party hires the GAL: The GAL acts only
under the direction of the Court. In custody matters the GAL is required to be an
attorney and have practiced for at least two years. Further, the GAL must have
completed special and specific training geared toward child related issues. The
GAL should have some understanding of family dynamics, cultural and
environmental differences, as well as an understanding of the legal issues
presented.
The psychological evaluator (604.b) is taxed with establishing the parent’s abilities
and deficits as well as the fit between those attributes involved in the child’s
needs. The GAL, however, cannot make psychological determinations but is
taxed with a more practical approach. The GAL can investigate the facts as they
relate to the statutory
factors: who wants the children; why do they want the children; what do the
children want; and why; how are the children functioning in their home, school and
community; are the children safe with each parent. The GAL can inform the court
if each parent has a reasonable after-divorce plan and if they seem to have been
acting toward the children’s needs. Some times the investigation turns up no
allegations of psychological disorder but merely bad decision making by the
parents. The GAL is the one in the trenches seeing the interaction between the
parents and the children outside of the clinical setting.
Because we do not represent either party, nor do we represent the children, we
turn to the statutory language to find our role. We are to investigate; inform the
court; and make a recommendation. We historically have been called “The eyes
and the ears of the court” but that ignores the third element of our duties: to make
a recommendation.
WHAT WE ARE:
1. INVESTIGATOR: Not a private eye. We are not required to interview every
one the parties’ request: We know grandma and grandpa like their son (the
father). We need to talk to those witnesses that the GAL deems necessary to get
a view of the problems. If the children are doing well in school and there are no
allegations that the parents are not working effectively with the school, then there
is no reason to interview the teachers. Remember, the parties are oppositional
and they will set the parameters (to a great extent) of where the investigation
wanders. If Dad alleges Mother does drugs, investigate that. If Mother alleges
Father hits the kids, investigate that. Investigate those factors in dispute. If both
parents say there was no abuse between them in the marriage there is no need to
look further (attorney small print: unless other factors hint of other deviousness
such as they both lied to DCFS because they both hit the kids).
2. REPORTER TO THE COURT: What do we report? Everything. The duties
do not include the right to editorialize the investigation. That part where we add
your thoughts is the duty to make a recommendation. The Judge cannot go to the
home, cannot have witnesses unleashed from objections and cannot see both
parties interact with each other or the children. That is what the Court needs to be
informed about. The Court may have too much minutia with that type of reporting
but without a factual recitation of what you found, you run the risk of layering for
your viewpoint.
3. MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. This is often harder for the GAL than it is
for the Judge. We have become close to these children. We have been
immersed in their lives. They look to us, often, as the one who will make it all
right. We, as GAL’s loose sleep every night worrying that we are not doing the
right thing by these charges. I know the Judges go through the same angst, but
our relationship with the children is often unique. Remember, if the
recommendation was easy, there would be no GAL or psychological evaluation.
The Judges know that. They know there are usually serious issues for the
necessity of special appointments on a case. The Judge has a difficulty when they
have an inherent belief system that values a different factor than the Gal’s weight
on the factors. The Judge, above all, wants to do right by these children. So….
Make the best recommendation in your belief system that you can. Do not try to
mirror the Judge’s belief system because then you would not be neutral. The
Judge uses your information, your report, and weighs his factors. That is your
job… not to have a matching recommendation to the Judge’s determination.
WHAT WE ARE NOT:
1. We are not a psychologist determining a party’s mental health. We can
offer our observations and apply our interpretation of those observations as long
as the interpretation is that of a normal, regular person such as “There seems to
be something wrong with her. As an example: “She didn’t understand what I said to
her and was confused about what was going on” and “She didn’t get that
hoarding in the household caused her children to be socially isolated.”
2. We are not a decision maker. The Court has been tasked with making
custody decisions. The Court is allowed to rely on facts one of which is the
recommendation of a GAL. It is a compliment to the system when a Court does
not always agree with a GAL recommendation because that means the system is
working. The Gal looks at the nine factors, one of which, through their own
personal experience, has a smidge more weight than the others. Each Judge has
one factor that has a smidge more weight than the others. On a close case, the
difference may be that smidge. Often, the GAL has formed a bond with the
children. I hope that happens almost every time because this is the element that
makes us important to the system of protecting children. We need to care about
their welfare as much as the parents should care.
3. We are not the children’s attorney. We fight for the aura around the
children called “best interests”. We do not stand up for what they want because
what they want may not be the right answer. However, when all other factors are
relatively equal, what they want can be supported.
4. We are not social workers. We can recommend that the children and or
the parents attend counseling. We do not counsel. We can recommend that the
children get tutoring. We do not tutor. We can recommend a parenting schedule
but we do not live those parties’ lives.
5. We are not judges of social conscious. The “floor” of housekeeping is not
our standards; the standard of religious beliefs is not our belief; the comparison of
parenting skills is not our skills. The statute provides that GAL’s are attorneys, not
housekeepers, good parents or religious leaders. I have interviewed parties in
terrible locations, terrible homes, with terrible parenting skills. These problems are
only one element of one factor to consider. Occasionally one problem can be so
critical that it is the deciding factor. (As an example, a really great father,
connected to the children, teaches them morals and social skills, involves them in
family and church community but lives on a street with repeated muggings;
shootings and gang warfare while the other parent lives in a safe community).
CHILD REPRESENTATIVE (CR)
The designation of Child Representative evolved to cover the distance between
the old-fashioned GAL who was merely an investigator to the CR who zealously
fought for the child’s stated goals. The CR should advocate for the best interest
of the child and not ne4cessarily for the child’s stated wishes. This puts the duty
on the CR of deciding what to advocate for: what are the best interests of the
child. The CR must make his/her own professional determination prior to
launching representation of those best interests. Like the GAL who must weigh
the best interest factors in order to make a recommendation, the GAL must also
weigh those factors. The CR has the right to fully participate in the litigation and
make evidence based legal based arguments. How do GAL’s and CR differ?
While the GAL provides a written report and recommendation and is subject to
cross examination, the CR’s recommendations are made in pre-trial which is not
subject to cross examination.
ATTORNEY FOR CHILD
An AFC is an attorney who happens to have a minor for a client. The duties of an
AFC include advocacy, file pleadings, subpoena witnesses and examine witnesses
and advocate the child’s position. The AFC should focus the proceedings on the
child’s best interest and protect the child throughout the proceedings.
| ARTICLE IX. CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS PART A. RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION TO CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS Rule 900. Purpose and Scope (a) Purpose. Trial courts have a special responsibility in cases involving the care and custody of children. When a child is a ward of the court, the physical and emotional well-being of the child is literally the business of the court. The purpose of this article (Rules 900 et seq.) is to expedite cases affecting the custody of a child, to ensure the coordination of custody matters filed under different statutory Acts, and to focus child custody proceedings on the best interests of the child, while protecting the rights of other parties to the proceedings. (b)(1) Definitions. For the purposes of this article “child custody proceeding” means an action affecting child custody or visitation. “Child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18. (b)(2) Part A. Scope. Rules 900 through 920, except as stated therein, apply to all child custody proceedings initiated under article II, III, or IV of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984, the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 and article 112A of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, and guardianship matters involving a minor under article XI of the Probate Act of 1975. (b)(3) Part B. Scope of Rules 921 through 940. Rules 921 through 940 apply to child custody proceedings initiated under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, and the Illinois Parentage Act of 1984. (b)(4) Part C. Scope of Rule 942. Rule 942 applies to child custody proceedings under articles II, III, and IV of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. (c) Applicability of Other Rules. Applicable provisions of articles I and II of these rules shall continue to apply in child custody proceedings except as noted in this article. Rule 901. General Rules (a) Expedited Hearings. Child custody proceedings shall be scheduled and heard on an expedited basis. Hearings in child custody proceedings shall be held in strict compliance with applicable deadlines established by statute or by this article. (b) Setting of Hearings. Hearings in child custody proceedings shall be set for specific times. At each hearing, the next hearing shall be scheduled and the parties shall be notified of the date and time of the next hearing. Hearings rescheduled following a continuance shall be set for the earliest possible date. (c) Continuances. Parties, witnesses and counsel shall be held accountable for attending hearings in child custody proceedings. Continuances shall not be granted in child custody proceedings except for good cause shown and may be granted if the continuance is consistent with the health, safety and best interests of the child. The party requesting the continuance and the reasons for the continuance shall be documented in the record. (d) In any child custody proceeding taken under advisement by the trial court, the trial judge shall render its decision as soon as possible but not later than 60 days after the completion of the trial or hearing. (e) Appeals. Appeals from orders entered in child custody proceedings shall be pursuant to the applicable civil appeals rules. All such proceedings shall be expedited according to Rule 311(a). Rule 902. Pleadings (a) Complaint or Petition. The initial complaint or petition in a child custody proceeding shall state (1) whether the child involved is the subject of any other child custody proceeding pending before another division of the circuit court, or another court or administrative body of Illinois or of any other state, an Indian tribe, or a foreign country and (2) whether any order affecting the custody or visitation of the child has been entered by the circuit court or any of its divisions, or by another court or administrative body of Illinois or of any other state, an Indian tribe, or a foreign country. If any child custody proceeding is pending with respect to the child, or any order has been entered with respect to the custody or visitation of the child, the initial complaint or petition shall identify the tribunal involved and the parties to the action. (b) Verification of Initial Complaint or Petition. The plaintiff or petitioner in a child custody proceeding shall verify the pleadings required by paragraph (a) of this rule. If the plaintiff or petitioner is a public agency, the verification shall be on information and belief of the attorney filing the pleading and shall state that reasonable efforts were made to obtain all information relevant to the matters verified. (c) Answer or Appearance. In a child custody proceeding the defendant’s (or respondent’s) answer, if required, shall include a verified disclosure of any relevant information known to the defendant (or respondent) regarding any pending proceedings or orders described in paragraph (a) of this rule. Any defendant or respondent who appears but is not required to file an answer in the child custody matter shall be questioned under oath by the court at the party’s first appearance before the court regarding any proceedings or orders described in paragraph (a) of this rule. (d) Continuing Duty. The parties have a continuing duty to disclose information relating to other pending child custody proceedings or any existing orders affecting the custody or visitation of the child, and shall immediately disclose to the court and the other parties to the proceeding any such information obtained after the initial pleadings, answer or appearance. For more information please visit: WWW.ILGA.GOV |
This article was written for advertising purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.
| Proudly serving clients in the Will County area including the cities and towns of: Bolingbrook, Braidwood, Channahon, Crest Hill, Crete, Crystal Lawns, East Joliet, Elwood, Fairmont, Forest Park, Frankfort, Frankfort Square,Godley, Goodings Grove, Homer Glen, Ingalls Park, Joliet, Lakewood Shores, Lidice, Lockport, Manhattan, Mokena, Monee, New Lenox, Peotone, Plainfield, Preston Heights, Raynor Park, Ridgewood, Rockdale, Rockdale Junction, Romeoville, Shorewood, South Lockport, Symerton, Willowbrook and Wilmington. |