|
Webmaster note: The following letter to the Washington State Bar News is by CCJ Board Member Lawrence Hutt on the subject of Guardians ad Litem in family law cases. It is as timely and on point today as it was when first published in 1997. Author's note: I was digging through old emails and found this gem of marsupial wisdom. The BarNews is the official attorney magazine here in Washington state which goes out each month to every attorney. Supposedly, this is the only letter to the editor from a non-attorney that was ever published. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BarNews
Dear Sir/Madam: I find it almost impossible to believe that anybody still doesn't get it, to use a common vernacular, about guardians ad litem in family law. What is the problem with the legal community, and Washington attorneys in particular? Anyone who has any knowledge of how the law changes in response to the societal pressures around it should easily see the family law GAL dinosaur for exactly what it is: an extinct concept that is on lifesupport only because it generates lucrative fees while allowing the exercise of unbridled power. If those in the legal system would only be forced to stare into a video camera while reciting their pontifications on this subject, and then freely pass said video around to strangers, there would be no more family law GALs in very short order. [Professor of Law] Raven Lidman is the only one who I have heard who even tries to tell the truth about this cesspool. Notwithstanding my respect for her, I still am amazed that she refuses to call it what it is: a clever method for raiding a marital community for fees while wielding power over two emotionally pained individuals in a manner unavailable to even the President of the United States. The Navajo Nation calls the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) something different. They say it stands for Bossing Indians Around. In Washington courts, GAL stands for Getting All the Loot. Possibly, in the case of attorney GALs, one could say Generating Abusive Litigation. Why is a GAL in family law an extinct dinosaur on lifesupport? Because the law has changed so that children are no longer property. It was only when children were treated legally as property (which had some potential constitutional rights) that it was necessary to appoint a protector to make sure that the attorneys didn't take the "property" concept too far while zealously advocating for their clients. Today children are viewed as "not quite full persons". The exceptions to this make it a swiss cheese view but generally it is accurate. Here is a radical idea I would like all the attorneys to consider: Ban GALs (and investigators) in family law, period. I can hear the screams of anguish already from those who profess to care about children but are only lining their pockets while destroying parent-child relationships. But the truth is that if there is a case where a GAL might be needed to protect a child's best interests (the operative phrase under RCW 26.12.175), the very first thing a judge should do is to transfer the case to Juvenile court as a dependency case and order the State to come in as a party to represent the child and fulfill the GAL role. Why is this not done presently? Simple. It triggers constitutional rights for the parents in defense of their rights. Free attorneys and all that other crap. You say it would be too costly? Okay, try this one: any allegations of abuse by one parent against the other parent that are not simultaneously accompanied by a crime report to the local police results in an immediate transfer of primary residential placement to the accused parent and limitations imposed on the false accuser. If a police report is actually made, then the case goes to juvenile as a dependency case anyway since any criminal activity inside a family per se endangers children. The end result is that if a GAL is appointed, it is under the law and in the court which is designed to handle the issues causing it. Just because two people are being divorced doesn't mean they are not capable of doing the right things. Teaching people to kowtow and worship a GAL under the premise that if they genuflect properly they will win the case is revolting to my stomach. It should be to everyone else as well. Sincerely,
Contact the author at pgroup@childrensjustice.org |
| Home |