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

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]