Guardian

[John Bendix]

I have been reading on one of the posts about the function of the Guardian-ad-litem.

 

Do some some states use them to determine the level of interaction, visitation, living situations, and custody allowed by the parents during the seperation, and before and after the divorce?

 

In the states that utilize them, do they always check these factors out or is it only during disputes dealing with custody?

 

I do not know how this works.

[lostandhurt]

I wish I knew buddy. It would be nice to help you for a change.

 

lost

[novaseeker]

I have been reading on one of the posts about the function of the Guardian-ad-litem.

 

Do some some states use them to determine the level of interaction, visitation, living situations, and custody allowed by the parents during the seperation, and before and after the divorce?

 

In the states that utilize them, do they always check these factors out or is it only during disputes dealing with custody?

 

I do not know how this works.

 

It depends on the state.

 

In many states they act as the judge's deputy in examining the living arrangements and parent/child interactions and have a huge impact on custody determinations. They normally get involved where custodial or visitational rights are in dispute, but the court can appoint one itself if it wishes to do so. Normally they are only involved during the divorce proceeding, but they can also be involved thereafter in terms of subsequent disputes or if the judge wants one to be supervising what is happening.

[confusedmama]

They can be requested by either party or by the judge. They are the "voice of the children in the court proceedings" without the children having to be present to hear all the possibly dirty, nasty proceedings.

[John Bendix]

I want to get this straight. They speak for the children of the parents who are splitting up. An outside agent for the court is now fully determining what is in the best interest of the minor children that are involved. In the state that I live, the judge takes the children into chambers and talks to them. There is someone, who has many cases and knows my children for 1/millionth

of the time they have lived, that comes into the home(s) and determines how the children are to live with the respective parents. Is this correct?

 

In my case, the court appointed mediator, a former Family Court District Judge, told me that If I did not follow the court's procedures then they could determine the kids would be better off with my X. Some of the procedures in the divorce decree included: parents sitting together at all the kid's sporting

events, a list of chores for the kids posted in both homes, weekly meetings of the parents, weekly communication between the parents either by phone or e-mail, notification to the other parent if the minor is going more than 60 miles away from home, etc. The court social worker also has the right to inspect the living conditions of the home(s), without notice, 24/7.

 

I have some issues with this. I did not know that getting by getting a divorce invalidated my civil rigths. Especially the right to raise a healthy family without being under the microscope of a government agency. This is in a no-fault divorce (without alleged wrong doing) that I, and many others like me, did not pursue and had no decision in it. I would feel violated to be put through such scrutiny. It is almost being guilty of something and then going to have to prove myself innocent. I taken the responsibility to see my children become compassionate adults as my paramount pursuit. To have the court question that because I have been involved in a divorce procedure is a violation of my legal and ethical rights.

 

I relayed this to the court social worker and the court mediator. I further explained to them that if the court awarded full custody of my children to my X because of their general procedure policy and something detrimental happened to my kids, I would hold the court responsible. To this point (two years), no one has questioned my resolve in doing what is right for my children.

[novaseeker]

Family court judges can be rather pushy. They *do* see a lot of nonsense in their courtrooms, to be honest, and over time that grinds you down. I do think it's best to try to agree on as much as you can outside of the courtroom to avoid having the court impose its own conditions. Of course, you can't control whether that happens -- it rests on having a reasonable spouse, reasonable lawyers, and reasonable expectations on the part of both you and your stbx.

[avman]

It's not a violation of your rights. You are asking the court to make a decision as to which parent is better off having custody. The only way they can do that is to have a look at both people and study the situation. You don't want the judge flipping a coin or deciding based on a whim. So the only way the judge can gather information is to take a close look.

[John Bendix]

That is just the point.

 

I am not asking the court to decide which parent is better off having custody. I did not invite them into my home, my life or in the dissolution of my marriage. They have taken it upon themselves to "distribute" my children, those who I have helped bring into this world, according to their rules and procedures. I cannot not imagine anything else as void of human compassion as that. I was brought into court against my will with the only offense that I committed was having a wife that wanted to be on her own.

 

But yet, through their generalized policies and procedures, they determine what is best for the people that I have loved and raised for their entire lives. Through their dictates and legislation, they can say what is, generally, in the best interest of my children. From a humanistic position, I take umbrage at that.

 

The family and the children in it are the most fundamental units in the human experience. I am the custodial parent and still find that the system is archaic, has been refuted with much empirical data (that the family courts have in their possession and the majority of state legislatures are reviewing as we speak), lacks the understanding that I have the right to raise my family in a healthy and compassionate way as I see fit. If this act of interference is not a violation of my, my X's, and everyone else's civil liberties, I do not know what is.

[confusedmama]

The GaL is a neutral party coming in on an issue where there needs to be a neutral party. I've told my kids that they need to tell their "lawyer" what they want, not what their dad wants them too, not what they think will make one or the other of us happy, but what THEY want. Do I feel they spend enough time, not always. Do I think they make the right decisions, not always. Do I think it is better than my kids coming to court to see & hear their parents fighting about stuff that they shouldn't be concerned with-DEFINITELY!

 

As the parent who wants primary custody I have NO problem with them coming into my home-announced or not (although it doesn't work that way in VA). But I would have issue with a court telling me I had to sit,socialize, even be around the man who cheated & lied his way through our marriage. I believe those to be suggestions (and I have heard them also) not requirements.

 

Because the GaL does spend time in the homes & with the children I do feel they are better at determining than a judge who may hear the children for 30 scs, in chambers, where in my case they would know their dad is out there expecting them to say what he wants them to. It isn't perfect but this entire situation sucks as do MOST divorces

[John Bendix]

confusedmama,

 

I appreciate your view on this. I like your take on it.

 

Most seem to go along with whatever the powers that be, dictate. They do have experience but my family is not the same as the one that just left the court. I, for one, look for what is reasonable for each situation and do not want to be pigeon-holed into believing that those in authority know what is in my, my X's, or my children's best interest.

[novaseeker]

I sympathize with where you are coming from, John, but the issue is what does the state do when the parents disagree? I mean my ex and I did this all by our own agreement, so the court was not involved other than ratifying what we agreed to and incorporating it into the divorce decree. But if you are in a situation where the parents do not agree (which is common), the state has to act as referee -- there really isn't the option of taking your word for it, they have to act as referee somehow.

[avman]

I'm with novaseeker. The court needs some method of making a decision when the two parties don't agree. If you and your ex settled it between yourselves well then they wouldn't get involved. But if you can't do that and both people are making the statement that the kids are better off with them, well then the court has to decide. You don't want the court deciding that based on who has the better lawyer or who writes the best legal brief.

 

Admittedly it is intrusive to have someone else come into your home. But that's the only way they can observe how the children are doing.

[confusedmama]

The key point is the being reasonable. IF both parties agree, IF both parties are reasonable it all goes much smoother and a GaL doesn't get involved.

 

It is when that ideal doesn't happen that something has to be done. The courts would even rather have everyone agree and not get involved. I know I would have rather been able to have worked this out and not had the courts involved. Unfortunately, not all are reasonable.

 

I actually think that sometimes I would rather they come unannounced so that a true picture could be represented-not a painted picture of an almost reality.

[BeStrongBeHappy]

GaLs rarely get appointed if both parents are behaving reasonably, and not fighting over who gets the kids. Nor do they get appointed if there are no allegations by either party that the other parent may be abusive or neglectful or should be kept away from the children or restricted in access to them.

 

If there is even a hint of accusations, the court usually appoints the GaLs to try to get to the bottom of the story and to protect the children in the event there is really truth to the allegations, or if the parents disagree so badly that they can't settle custody issues between themselves. The GaL's job is to gather data in order for the judge to make custody decisions.

 

So the best way to avoid a GaL is to come to a custody agreement on your own with your spouse, and don't make accusations against one another that the judge hears about. They appoint the GaLs to protect the children and be their advocates in the divorce, not to try to invade a family.

 

They in essense are appointed when the parents show they may not be able to manage the divorce in a way that won't damage the children, either during the divorce or after the divorce. If the parents are fighting over who gets custory, or there are any allegations of abuse or that either parent is a bad or incompetent parent, that is the quickest way to get a GaL appointed.

 

The best way to avoid a GaL is to get along with your spouse and agree on custody issues and not make rash accusations of bad parenting against the spouse in court. That isn't always possible in a divorce, so that is why GaLs are appointed.