Guardian Ad Litem Research Articles

The Guarantee of Children's Right in Determinating Guardian ad Litem on Sale and Purchase of Inherited Property

On selling the property of minors, absolutely parents must pay attention to the main objective, namely the welfare of the child. Thus, it is not used for personal interests and overrides the interests of children because this is contrary to children's rights. This study examines protecting children's rights for Guardian ad Litem (GAL), which will trade their children's property. To study the rules governing how a guardian ad litem can handle inherited property for the benefit of minors because he is considered an heir to his parent's property if his parents die. This study uses an empirical juridical methodology from the legislative framework, cases, conceptual frameworks, and interviews. Then, the novelty contains the role of the government in regulating minors who legally sell their inherited property and consider related children's rights. The study shows that Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN) of Kota Surakarta has carried out its duties effectively, supported by the conditions set for parents who want to sell the property on behalf of their children. The results of this study are the steps taken by the government to ensure that parents do not abuse their power to steal children's property and further examine guardian ad litem ship according to Islamic law. The role of BPN of Kota Surakarta is also in collaboration with the Religious Court in charge of determining guardian ad litem of minors. It can be concluded that the reasons for parents who want to sell their children's inheritance are clear and not abused by parents who want to become guardian ad litem. It caused the role of guardian ad litem in Islam to include the maintenance of themselves and their property. So that all guardians ad litem maintain health, justice, honesty, and good behavior.

The Children's Justice Clinic: Ensuring high‐quality legal representation for children through clinical legal education

AbstractJuvenile and family law uniquely require interdisciplinary education and experience to balance children's and families' legal rights with their best interests. Clinical legal education provides third‐year law students with advanced and applied experience in a specific area of law to prepare them for legal practice. Recent developments in clinical legal education advance this experience by integrating interdisciplinary experts and reflective practice into clinics. The Children's Justice Clinic is one such clinic that integrates classroom teaching, clinical legal practice, multidisciplinary expert consultation, and reflective practice to train practice‐ready Guardians ad Litem. Evaluation results from the first 5 years of the Children's Justice Clinic demonstrates that the Clinic is making progress toward its goals to provide third‐year law students with the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective Guardians Ad Litem, increase interest in child welfare and juvenile law practice among law students, and increase access to high‐quality legal representation for children. This paper presents the results from the evaluation and shares lessons learned during clinic development and implementation.

The Hybrid Guardian Ad Litem: Adopting Standards of Practice to Improve the Quality of Representation for Children in Custody Cases

The Hybrid Guardian Ad Litem: Adopting Standards of Practice to Improve the Quality of Representation for Children in Custody Cases

In the Best Interest of Children: A Proposal for Corporate Guardians Ad Litem

Children are corporate stakeholders without a direct voice in corporate decision-making. Other stakeholders, like employees, customers, and suppliers, can and do influence corporate strategy, but children lack the organization, standing, and legal capacity to assert similar influence. Instead of treating children as a coherent stakeholder group with rights and interests to be respected and supported, firms tend to view children only as potential victims or coveted consumers. Yet, that view is short sighted. Recent international norm-building related to children’s rights and business point toward a more comprehensive consideration of children’s interests in the broad range of business activities. Moreover, children’s best interests substantially overlap with sustainable business practices and implicate human rights generally. Firms must develop expertise in order to identify and give voice to the best interest of children, a capacity which most currently lack. This Article introduces the first corporate model that can effectively advocate for children’s best interests, which is an adapted version of the long-utilized guardian ad litem model used in family court proceedings. Courts appoint guardians ad litem when their decisions impact children who cannot adequately represent themselves because they lack the sophistication or capacity to advocate or state their own best interests. Guardians ad litem serve as objective and impartial officials whose duty is to protect and advocate for the best interest of the children—and they serve only the children. This Article therefore asserts that companies should embed “corporate guardians ad litem” within their organizations to ensure that the best interests of children are considered in the development of corporate strategy and decision-making. The Article introduces three versions of the corporate guardian ad litem, namely, director-level, officer-level, and project-level.

From Need to Policy: Community Supported Development and Implementation of the South Carolina Vulnerable Adult Guardian Ad Litem (SC VAGAL) Program.

Adult guardian ad litem programs are a necessary public service to protect adults from abuse and neglect. This article describes the development and implementation of an adult guardian ad litem program. We discuss the program's impetus, pilot testing, evaluation, and implementation of the program. Our experience highlights the vital role of diverse inter-sectoral stakeholders. Furthermore, the development process highlights the need for flexibility in program development, tension negotiation among stakeholders, and engagement of aging stakeholders in nontraditional arenas.

Perspectives on Informed Consent Practices for Minimal-Risk Research Involving Foster Youth.

* Abbreviations: GAL — : guardian ad litem IRB — : institutional review board There are >430 000 children in protective custody (ie, foster care) in the United States.1 Despite known health disparities,2–5 there continues to be limited research to develop an evidence base for diagnosing and intervening to improve health conditions for children in foster care.6 One identified obstacle to recruitment is obtaining informed consent, the legal requirement for understanding and voluntary agreement to participate in research. Foster youth do not have a traditional parent or guardian and instead have many adults playing different roles in their lives, including their children’s services caseworker, their foster caregiver, their biological parent, their court-appointed special advocate or guardian ad litem (GAL), and their judge or magistrate. Each plays a role in decision-making for the child and could participate in the informed consent process. Previous work has demonstrated inconsistent approaches for obtaining informed consent for youth in foster care to participate in minimal-risk research; a review of 49 publications revealed 14 different combinations of individuals used for informed consent, ranging from judge, caseworker, and caregiver consent with youth assent to biological parent consent only.7 For pediatric researchers wanting to develop evidence-based health guidelines and interventions for this population, obtaining consent from a legally empowered guardian for foster youth may appear to be an insurmountable barrier. Consensus would be beneficial to promoting research … Address correspondence to Mary V. Greiner, MD, MS, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, ML 2011, Cincinnati, OH 45229. E-mail: mary.greiner{at}cchmc.org

Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations

Arguably the most troubling aspect of justice system response to intimate partner violence is custody courts' failure to protect children when mothers allege the father is abusive. Family courts' errors in assessing adult and child abuse, and punitive responses to abuse allegations, have been widely documented. A significant contributor to these errors is the pseudo-scientific theory of parental alienation (PA). Originally termed parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the theory suggests that when mothers allege that a child is not safe with the father, they are doing so illegitimately, to alienate the child from the father. PA labeling often results in dismissal of women's and children's reports of abuse, and sometimes trumps even expert child abuse evaluations. PAS was explicitly based on negative stereotypes of mothers and has been widely discredited. The term parental alienation – while treated as distinct – is still widely used in ways that are virtually identical to PAS. Nonetheless, because PA is nominally gender neutral (and not called a scientific syndrome), it continues to have substantial credibility in court. The first goal of this project was to ascertain whether empirical evidence indicates that parental alienation is, like PAS, gender-biased in practice and outcome. Second, the study sought to explore outcomes in custody/abuse litigation by gender and by differing types of abuse. Analysis of over 2000 court opinions confirms that courts are skeptical of mothers’ claims of abuse by fathers; this skepticism is greatest when mothers claim child abuse. The findings also confirm that fathers’ cross-claims of parental alienation increase (virtually doubling) courts’ rejection of mothers’ abuse claims, and mothers’ losses of custody to the father accused of abuse. In comparing court responses when fathers accuse mothers of abuse, a significant gender difference is identified. Finally, the findings indicate that where Guardians Ad Litem or custody evaluators are appointed, unfavorable outcomes for mothers and gender differences are increased. The study relies solely on electronically available published opinions in child custody cases. It has produced an invaluable database identifying 10 years of published cases involving alienation, abuse and custody, while coding parties’ claims and defenses, outcomes, and other key factors by gender and parental status.

Teaming up in child welfare: The perspective of guardians ad litem on the components of interprofessional collaboration

Policies and researchers have emphasized the need for interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in the child welfare system. However, few child welfare studies have sought to identify the components of IPC and no studies have been conducted in the U.S. to examine the perspective of guardians ad litem (GALs) on these components. Understanding the GAL viewpoint is warranted as they are mandated to be appointed in court-involved child welfare cases. This qualitative study addresses these gaps by exploring the GAL perspective on the main components of IPC. Interviews were conducted with 12 GALs in a mountain region state. Nine components of IPC emerged from the analysis, including communication and information sharing; problem-solving; respect and appreciation; joint decision-making; clarifying roles, responsibilities and expectations; sharing ideas and perspectives; mutual trust; shared responsibility; and establishing shared goals. The findings can inform the development of strategies to improve IPC in child welfare and guide future research.

Moral Rights in the US: Still in Need of a Guardian Ad Litem

Over ten years ago in the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, I inquired whether authors’ “moral rights” had come of (digital) age in the US. Ever-hopeful at that time, I suggested that then-recent legislation enacted to enable the copyright law to respond to the challenges of digital media might, in addition to its principal goal of securing digital markets for works of authorship, also provide new means to protect authors’ interests in receiving attribution for their works and in safeguarding their integrity. The intervening years’ developments, however, indicate that, far from achieving their majority, US authors’ moral rights remain in their infancy, still in need of a guardian ad litem. Nor is it clear what legal institution can assume that role. Judicial interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act underscores that text’s limited utility as a legal basis for attribution rights. Moreover, the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Dastar v Twentieth-Century Fox has probably left authors worse off, because the Court removed recourse to the Lanham Trademarks Act as a source of attribution (and perhaps, integrity) rights. If statutes and caselaw afford no general basis of moral rights, might the convergence of contract law and digital communications yield agreements, private in form but public in impact, that collectively approximate attribution and integrity rights? This assessment of developments in moral rights in the U.S. since 2001 will first analyze the caselaw construing section 1202 of the DMCA, which prohibits removal or alteration of “copyright management information.” It will next summarize the damage Dastar has done to the development of moral rights. Finally, I will consider the extent to which online contracts and practices may supply an effective basis for the assertion of attribution and integrity rights. De facto implementation of attribution rights through digital watermarking and other means of incorporating authorship information in connection with the communication of digital copies or performances of work make possible the recognition of many levels of creative contributions, but without a legal obligation to credit creators, it is unclear whether authorship information will remain connected to the copies of their works. Regarding integrity rights, respect for the work as the author created it may, in the absence of enforceable legal or contract norms, yield to online users’ preference for “remix.” In that light, an alternative moral right of the author, proposed by Prof. Jessica Litman, and recounted in the previous AELJ essay, to compel comparison of the altered version with the original by obliging the modifying user to link back to it, is better than nothing. But, without a legal obligation to disclose alterations or link back to the original, the prospects for even this weakened integrity right do not presage imminent adolescence, much less a vigorous adulthood, for moral rights in the US.

An evaluation of a Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program in the rural south

Children in the court system who are abused or neglected are mandated by the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) to have special legal representation in the form of a Guardian ad Litem (GAL). A GAL can be a staff attorney or a volunteer layperson (known as a Court Appointed Special Advocate, or CASA) who has undergone GAL training. In some states, the CASA volunteer can be a substitute for the GAL, while in other states, including Georgia, the CASA is appointed by the judge as a complement to the staff attorney. To date, there has been very little research evaluating the fidelity of CASA programs where they are implemented, nor has there been much research on the CASA program more generally. Therefore, this study evaluates the fidelity of a rural CASA program using the Justice Program Fidelity Scale (JPFS; Miller & Miller, 2015) and interview data from 12 CASA volunteers, along with local CASA program statistics and training materials. The CASA program evaluated for the present study scored an 85.64% on the JPFS using combined scores from two researchers. Implications for practitioners working in the field of child abuse and prevention in rural areas, including implications specifically for a judicial circuit with no dedicated specialty judge for cases involving abused or neglected children, are discussed.

Guardians Ad Litem and Children's Attorneys in Arizona: A Qualitative Examination of the Roles

AbstractAn ongoing debate exists with little research support concerning the differences in the roles of guardians ad litem (GAL) and children's attorneys (CA) in dependency cases. Through qualitative interviews, this study examined GALs’ and CAs’ perceptions and execution of roles. Both executed their roles similarly and agreed the best interests of the child and the child's wishes are important. Shared goals included child safety, ensuring the child's voice is heard, keeping the family together, and minimizing the distress to the child. Challenges to executing their roles were often systemic, including overwhelmed courts and lack of community resources to serve clients’ needs.

An Evaluation of Social Work Practice in the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency in Working with Children and Families from Black Minority Ethnic Communities

ABSTRACTResearch in the area of working with ethnic minorities in the care system remains limited. The primary objective of this study was to consider the volume of cases referred to the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency (NIGALA) from ethnic minority families in 2013/14 and to generate knowledge from the cases about cultural competency in the Agency. The research design included a mixed-methods approach. Data collection involved three tools: a file audit to review cases referred to NIGALA between April 2013 and March 2014; a survey questionnaire administered to all guardians; and semi-structured interviews conducted with a sample of guardians. The study highlighted the volume and range of Black Minority Ethnic (BME) groups with whom guardians worked in 2013/14, identified the difficulties experienced by guardians in building rapport with families when interviewing via an interpreter and highlighted the time spent researching cultural factors. Less than one half of guardians indicated that they felt competent in dealing with cases involving BME children. Guardians presented as committed to developing their cultural awareness. A series of recommendations for improving practice was considered.

When Children Object: Amplifying an Older Child’s Objection to Termination of Parental Rights

Each year, thousands of children become wards of the state when a court terminates the legal rights of their parents. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 307,000 children lost their legal relationships to their parents in Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) proceedings. A growing percentage of child welfare cases involve older children. At the same time, too many young people lose their legal relationships with their parents without a family waiting to adopt them. The stakes are high for children in TPR cases; nonetheless, many children—even older children—cannot meaningfully participate in proceedings. Moreover, TPR cases threaten parents’ and children’s rights to familial association. Nonetheless, courts have struggled with how to incorporate the perspectives of older children in TPR cases. Children infrequently attend court proceedings, and the court may receive competing narratives regarding the child’s position. Children are not always represented by lawyers in TPR proceedings, and when they do have legal representation, it may only be by a guardian ad litem (GAL) who presents her position on what is in the child’s best interests, rather than advocating for what the child actually wants. This Article explores how courts should address an older child’s objection to TPR and ensure meaningful consideration of the child’s perspective. A small minority of states give courts the discretion to decline to terminate parental rights when an older child objects to termination. In states with such an exception, how should courts handle older children’s perspectives? What is the proper weight to give an objection? How should courts decide whether to terminate parental rights when an older child objects? This Article addresses these questions in three parts. First, the Article describes the state statutes that create exceptions to TPR when an older child objects and analyzes the case law relating to those exceptions. Second, the Article outlines why consideration of a child’s objection makes sense from legal and social work perspectives, especially in light of our current understanding of child development and legal decision-making in other contexts. Finally, the Article argues that states should adopt a hybrid version of the objections to termination currently in place in Virginia and Iowa. It also considers concerns of practical implementation.

A qualitative study of collaboration between guardians ad litem and caseworkers in the child welfare system

Various agencies and professionals in the child welfare system work together to prevent and treat child maltreatment. Prior research suggests their ability to collaborate is related to outcomes for children and families and agencies often implement strategies to improve collaboration. However, a review of the literature indicated a lack of research on collaboration between Guardians ad litem (GALs) and child protective services caseworkers. Examination of this relationship is warranted considering federal law mandates GALs be appointed for children in all court-involved child protection cases. This qualitative study begins to address this gap by exploring the GAL perspective on factors that promote or inhibit collaboration between themselves and caseworkers. Interviews were conducted with 12 GALs in a mountain region state. Participants emphasized five individual-level factors that impact the frequency and quality of collaboration with caseworkers. These include frequent and open communication, mutual respect, understanding the other's role and responsibilities, having an open mind, and valuing collaboration. Participants described in detail how these factors facilitate collaboration despite the organizational and systemic obstacles to working together. The findings may help explain why collaboration does not necessarily occur in frontline practice despite the presence of organizational policies and procedures intending to improve collaboration. These findings have several implications for improving GAL–caseworker collaboration in order to better serve children and families in the child welfare system.

Mississippi's Guardians Ad Litem Need Clarification of Their Role and Responsibilities

Currently, Mississippi has no centralized and clearly defined statute or rule for what qualifications a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) should possess, what details a chancellor should provide a GAL upon appointment, and which court’s rules will be followed, chancery court or youth court, in chancery cases involving allegations of child abuse or neglect. This Comment argues that, to truly protect the best interests of the child, the GALs need standards that are clear, uniform, and easily accessible. Specifically, this Comment argues for a specific rule concerning GALs in Mississippi.There needs to be either a revision to the existing rules or the adoption of a new uniform rule that clearly defines the GAL process. Such a revision or uniform rule would alleviate the confusion currently experienced by many GALs, both in chancery court and youth court cases involving child abuse and neglect allegations. The rule should address whether a GAL must be qualified as an expert or merely certified; what instructions a chancellor or youth court judge should provide the GAL regarding his role in the child protection proceeding; and whether the chancery court must follow chancery court rules or youth court rules during a hearing on allegations of child abuse or neglect.Part I of this Comment discusses how Mississippi’s Youth Court Act, Mississippi case law, and the Uniform Rules of Youth Court Practice have impacted the role of the GAL in Mississippi. Part II provides a summary of three recent Mississippi appellate opinions that discussed the GAL’s role and built upon each other to hold that GALs should be qualified as expert witnesses before they present opinion testimony. Part III argues that the GAL role in general needs to be clarified more fully, especially with respect to qualification or certification, appointment orders, and court rules.

Indigenous Guardians Ad Litem are Needed in Child Protection Cases

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that in 2010/11 indigenous children were: 8 times as likely to be the subject of substantiated abuse and neglect; 9 times more likely to be on a care and protection order; and 10 times as likely to be in out of home care than other children in the Australian community.In 2010 Bao-Er wrote an article published in the Law Society Journal of New South Wales (December 2009) titled Guardians ad litem are Needed in the Children's Court of NSW. In 2009, Judge Marien the then President of the Children's Court of NSW rejected the author's application on behalf of three Indigenous children for the appointment of an Indigenous guardian ad litem on their behalf in care and protection proceedings before the Children's Court (see Department of Human Services and “Kieran,” “Siobhan” and Robert Isaac NSW Children's Law News 11 November 2009.This paper argues that urgent legislative change is required to ensure that all Indigenous children taken before Children's Courts for their care and protection need themselves to be protected through the court process by the appointment in each and every case of specially trained Indigenous guardians ad litem. The paper was presented at the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights held in Sydney, Australia in March 2013.

Applying Method to the Madness: The Right to Court Appointed Guardians Ad Litem and Counsel for the Mentally Ill in Immigration Proceedings

Applying Method to the Madness: The Right to Court Appointed Guardians Ad Litem and Counsel for the Mentally Ill in Immigration Proceedings

Representation of Parents and Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases: The Importance of Early Appointment

The serious consequences of abuse and neglect proceedings including placement in foster care and termination of parental rights mandate that parents and children receive competent and well-trained legal representation. Unrepresented parents and children cannot match the expertise and sophistication of government lawyers and trained child welfare workers in complex child abuse and neglect proceedings. To ensure a fair opportunity to present their positions, answer their questions, and guide them through a challenging legal, administrative, and emotional process, courts must provide trained and well-prepared legal counsel to parents and children. Counsel protects important constitutional and legal rights, helps prevent the unnecessary entry of children into foster care, and assists in strengthening family supports. Many state legislatures provide attorneys for parents in abuse and neglect cases, while some states provide for only discretionary appointment. In others, the appointment occurs late in the case at the adjudicatory or termination of parental rights hearing. Federal law mandates that the child have representation from a guardian ad litem (GAL)

There Isn't Anything Like a GAL: The Guardian Ad Litem Service in Ireland

This article examines the role of the guardian ad litem service in Ireland within the context of public law proceedings. In the first part, the role of the guardian ad litem in Irish courts is outlined and this is followed by a discussion of the broader legal context informing the right of children to be heard in Irish courts. The article discusses some of the concerns about the lack of statutory regulation, standards and structure in the Irish guardian ad litem system. The tension inherent in expressing the wishes and views of children while making recommendations regarding their welfare and best interests is also considered. The article concludes with the view that giving children a statutory right to be heard which is not supported with adequate resources and proper frameworks is of limited value.

Reflections of a Guardian Ad Litem on the Participation of Looked-after Children in Public Law Proceedings

There is much debate about the rights of children relating to the nature and degree of their participation in Public Law Proceedings. Articles 12 (1) and 12 (2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 emphasise that children should be involved in decision-making about their welfare; and children who are capable of expressing their views should be given an opportunity to be heard in legal proceedings. This article is based on the reflective experience of a Guardian Ad Litem regarding the participation of “looked-after children” in Public Law Proceedings. It considers the nature and extent of variation in the elicitation, interpretation and use of a child's views, including the various expectations and misconceptions that may arise due to a lack of understanding and appreciation about the way in which to “weight” and use respectfully a child's wishes and feelings. There appears to be considerable variation in the way in which a child's expression of their “wishes and feelings” is used in the decision-making process. For example, one approach perceives a child as having an unequivocal right to have their views considered as the primary factor in decisions about their welfare while another approach holds that the views of relevant adults relative to children's views should have prominence in the decision-making process. Whilst it is important and beneficial to elicit children's views, due attention and care needs to be given to informing children appropriately about the weight that will be given to the expression of their wishes and feelings in decisions about their welfare, including the possibility that a final decision may not concur with their views.