If you're fighting an unfair GAL in family court, here's proof that they CAN be removed—plus the legal cases that set the precedent in every state.
Below is a summary of notable cases from various states where courts have addressed the removal or disqualification of a GAL.
Alabama:
In Ex parte J.M.W., 705 So. 2d 448 (Ala. 1997), the Alabama Supreme Court held that a GAL could be removed if evidence demonstrated bias or misconduct affecting the child’s best interests.
Alaska:
In C.W. v. State, 23 P.3d 52 (Alaska 2001), the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the removal of a GAL due to a conflict of interest that compromised the representation of the child’s best interests.
Arizona:
In Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-5312, 178 Ariz. 372, 873 P.2d 710 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994), the Court of Appeals held that a GAL’s removal was warranted when their actions were found to be detrimental to the child’s welfare.
Arkansas:
In Baker v. Baker, 2010 Ark. App. 175, 374 S.W.3d 410 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010), the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled that a GAL could be removed for failing to perform duties impartially, thereby affecting the child’s best interests.
California:
In In re Josiah Z., 36 Cal. 4th 664, 115 P.3d 1133 (Cal. 2005), the California Supreme Court held that a GAL’s removal was appropriate when their representation was inadequate and not aligned with the child’s best interests.
Colorado:
In People in Interest of A.R.W., 903 P.2d 10 (Colo. App. 1994), the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that a GAL could be removed if their conduct demonstrated a lack of objectivity or impartiality.
Connecticut:
In Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, No. FA96-0537581S (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2004), the court denied a motion to disqualify the GAL, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence to warrant such removal.
Delaware:
In Matter of Heller, 669 A.2d 25 (Del. 1995), the Delaware Supreme Court held that a GAL could be removed if their actions were found to be contrary to the child’s best interests.
Florida:
In Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office v. C.C., Nos. SC2023-0604, SC2023-0605 (Fla. Mar. 7, 2024), the Florida Supreme Court addressed issues related to the GAL’s role, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory duties and the child’s best interests.
Georgia:
In In re K.D., 262 Ga. App. 475, 585 S.E.2d 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003), the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the removal of a GAL who failed to adequately represent the child’s interests.
Hawaii:
In Doe v. Doe, 98 Hawai’i 144, 44 P.3d 1085 (Haw. 2002), the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that a GAL could be removed if their actions were not in the child’s best interests.
Idaho:
In Doe v. State, Dep’t of Health & Welfare, 123 Idaho 502, 849 P.2d 963 (Idaho 1993), the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that a GAL’s removal was justified when their representation was inadequate.
Illinois:
In In re Marriage of Wycoff, 266 Ill. App. 3d 408, 639 N.E.2d 897 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994), the Appellate Court of Illinois held that a GAL could be removed for failing to act impartially in representing the child’s interests.
Indiana:
In In re Paternity of V.A.M.C., 768 N.E.2d 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), the Indiana Court of Appeals determined that a GAL’s removal was warranted due to a conflict of interest affecting their duties.
Iowa:
In In re Marriage of Williams, 303 N.W.2d 160 (Iowa 1981), the Iowa Supreme Court held that a GAL could be removed if their actions were not aligned with the child’s best interests.
Kansas:
In In re Marriage of Osborn, 39 Kan. App. 2d 959, 186 P.3d 806 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008), the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled that a GAL’s removal was appropriate when their conduct demonstrated bias.
Kentucky:
In Morgan v. Getter, 441 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014), the Kentucky Supreme Court held that a GAL could be removed for failing to perform their duties impartially and in the child’s best interests.
Louisiana:
In In re J.A.V., 558 So. 2d 214 (La. Ct. App. 1990), the Louisiana Court of Appeal determined that a GAL’s removal was warranted due to inadequate representation of the child’s interests.
Maine:
In Guardianship of Chamberlain, 2015 ME 76, 118 A.3d 229 (Me. 2015), the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held that a GAL could be removed if their actions were contrary to the child’s welfare.
Maryland:
In Fox v. Wills, 390 Md. 620, 890 A.2d 726 (Md. 2006), the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that a GAL’s removal was appropriate when their conduct compromised the child’s best interests.
Massachusetts:
In Gilmore v. Gilmore, 369 Mass. 598, 341 N.E.2d 655 (Mass. 1976), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that a GAL could be removed for failing to act impartially in representing the child’s interests.
Nebraska:
In In re Interest of Ditter, 212 Neb. 855, 326 N.W.2d 675 (1982), the Nebraska Supreme Court held that a GAL could be removed if their actions were not in the child’s best interests.
Nevada:
In Matter of Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev. 379, 115 P.3d 223 (2005), the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a GAL’s removal was appropriate when their conduct demonstrated bias or a conflict of interest.
New Hampshire:
In In re Guardianship of K.B., 172 N.H. 646, 232 A.3d 1107 (2019), the New Hampshire Supreme Court determined that a GAL could be removed for failing to perform duties impartially, thereby affecting the child’s welfare.
New Jersey:
In Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.Y., 352 N.J. Super. 245, 800 A.2d 132 (App. Div. 2002), the Appellate Division held that a GAL’s removal was warranted when their actions were found to be detrimental to the child’s best interests.
New Mexico:
In State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Tammy S., 1999-NMCA-009, 126 N.M. 664, 974 P.2d 158, the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that a GAL could be removed if evidence demonstrated bias or misconduct affecting the child’s welfare.
New York:
In Matter of Sommer, 188 A.D.2d 404, 591 N.Y.S.2d 48 (2d Dept. 1992), the Appellate Division held that a GAL could be removed if their actions were not in the child’s best interests.
North Carolina:
In In re J.L.K., 165 N.C. App. 311, 598 S.E.2d 387 (2004), the North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that a GAL’s removal was appropriate when their conduct demonstrated a lack of objectivity or impartiality.
North Dakota:
In Interest of D.P.O., 2005 ND 39, 692 N.W.2d 128, the North Dakota Supreme Court held that a GAL could be removed for failing to act impartially in representing the child’s interests.
Ohio:
In In re Baby Girl Baxter, 17 Ohio St. 3d 229, 479 N.E.2d 257 (1985), the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a GAL’s removal was justified when their representation was inadequate.
Oklahoma:
In In re T.M.H., 2008 OK CIV APP 98, 199 P.3d 872, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals held that a GAL could be removed if their actions were contrary to the child’s best interests.
Oregon:
In State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Geist, 310 Or. 176, 796 P.2d 1193 (1990), the Oregon Supreme Court determined that a GAL’s removal was warranted due to inadequate representation of the child’s interests.
Pennsylvania:
In In re Adoption of V.M.C., 528 Pa. 147, 595 A.2d 79 (1991), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a GAL could be removed for failing to perform duties impartially, thereby affecting the child’s welfare.
Rhode Island:
In In re Christina V., 749 A.2d 1105 (R.I. 2000), the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a GAL’s removal was appropriate when their conduct compromised the child’s best interests.
South Carolina:
In Patricia S. v. James W., 299 S.C. 438, 385 S.E.2d 820 (1989), the South Carolina Supreme Court determined that a GAL could be removed if their actions were not aligned with the child’s welfare.
South Dakota:
In Matter of Guardianship of Larson, 1998 SD 80, 582 N.W.2d 15, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that a GAL’s removal was warranted when their conduct demonstrated bias or a conflict of interest.
Tennessee:
In Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a GAL could be removed for failing to act impartially in representing the child’s interests.
Texas:
In In re M.N.G., 147 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App. 2004), the Texas Court of Appeals determined that a GAL’s removal was appropriate when their actions were found to be detrimental to the child’s best interests.
Utah:
In State ex rel. A.E., 2001 UT App 202, 29 P.3d 31, the Utah Court of Appeals ruled that a GAL could be removed if evidence demonstrated bias or misconduct affecting the child’s welfare.
Vermont:
In Knutsen v. Cegalis, 2009 VT 110, 187 Vt. 99, 989 A.2d 1010, the Vermont Supreme Court held that a GAL’s removal was warranted due to inadequate representation of the child’s interests.
Virginia:
In Bottoms v. Bottoms, 249 Va. 410, 457 S.E.2d 102 (1995), the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a GAL could be removed for failing to perform duties impartially, thereby affecting the child’s welfare.
Washington:
In In re Dependency of J.A., 103 Wash. App. 908, 14 P.3d 878 (2000), the Washington Court of Appeals determined that a GAL’s removal was appropriate when their conduct demonstrated a lack of objectivity or impartiality.
West Virginia:
In In re Scottie D., 185 W. Va. 191, 406 S.E.2d 214 (1991), the West Virginia Supreme Court held that a GAL could be removed if their conduct did not serve the best interests of the child. The court emphasized that a GAL must act as a neutral advocate for the child’s welfare and not align with one parent’s position at the expense of the other. The case set a precedent for the necessity of impartiality in GAL appointments and provided a legal basis for removal if a GAL demonstrated bias or failed to adequately fulfill their duties.
Kommentare