Minnesota Law Review

Note, The Due Process Rights of Parents to Cross-Examine Guardians Ad Litem in Custody Disputes: The Reality and the Ideal

Currently, state statutes that govern guardian ad litem appointments for children in custody disputes fail to protect the due process rights of parents. Focused solely on the best interests of children, these laws provide few safeguards against the infringement of parents’ rights to the care, custody, and control of their children, and a fair trial. State laws vaguely define the roles and duties of guardians ad litem, require little accountability, and insulate guardians ad litem from civil liability. The ability to cross-examine the guardians ad litem who recommend child placement is often a parent’s most significant protection against the power and influence of guardians ad litem. Unfortunately, many state laws either deny parents this protection explicitly, or diminish the protection’s capacity to adequately guard parents’ interests by providing guardians ad litem and trial judges with exceptional power and discretion.

This Note argues that states should adopt a model statute that clarifies the guardian ad litem’s role as a best interests attorney for the child. The statute should also specifically provide for guardian ad litem duties, training, and accountability. Beginning with an overview of current guardian ad litem laws and an examination of parental due process rights, this Note then compares three state statutes and assesses each statute’s impact on the rights of parents. This Note concludes that when the law defines the guardian ad litem’s role as a best interests attorney, parents’ due process rights are adequately protected without the need for cross-examination. An attorney’s vulnerability to civil suits and her limited power as advocate for a party to the proceedings eliminate the overreaching power and discretion allocated to guardians ad litem by current state statutes.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+


cforms contact form by delicious:days