Hendrick v. Hendrick
No conflict of interest for appointing the same GAL for children of divorce action and child in paternity action.
In Re Marriage of Goberville v. Goberville
Trial court erroneously exercised it discretion where it does not refer to statutory factors, but was largely based on its belief that the temporary schedule was working and the recommendation of the GAL. The trial court cannot rely on GAL statements which are not in evidence.
In Re Marriage of Lofthus v. Lofthus
(1) Appointment of GAL was mandatory where modification sought by father would substantial alter the amount of time he was spending with the children. (2) Order that father pay all GAL fees was appropriate where motion for modification involved a certain degree of abuse of the legal system.
Olmsted v. Circuit Court for Dane County
Court cannot order an indigent party to pay GAL fees.
In Re Marriage of Hughes v. Hughes
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in not permitting child to testify. Trial court has the discretion of determining how to inform itself of the child’s preference, including not permitting the child to testify if not in the child’s best interests to do so.
Paige K.B. v. Molepske
GAL has absolute quasi-judicial immunity from negligence liability for acts within the scope of that GAL’s exercise of his or her statutory responsibilities.
In Re Marriage of Joshua K. v. Nancy K.
Section 767.045(4) alone regulates appointment of a GAL and describes scope of representation for minor. Child not entitled to adversary counsel.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kinast
Interviewing minor children without consent of the GAL violated prohibition from communicating with party known to be represented by counsel.
Friedrich v. Circuit Court for Dane County
Both the legislature and the supreme court have authority to regulate GAL fees.
In Re Paternity of Stephanie R.N.
GAL’s statements at oral argument are not evidence and not part of the record.
Marriage of Hollister v. Hollister
GAL is advocate for best interest of a child and is not a witness at trial.
In Re Marriage of Weiderholt v. Fischer
GAL is advocate for child’s best interests – not for child’s wishes.
In Re Paternity of A.M.L.
State’s motive and role in commencement of paternity action does not make it the sole party in interest. A child has a strong interest in a determination on its paternity, although it may be contrary to the best interest of a child that its paternity be established. Thus, commencement of paternity action by GAL was appropriate.
In Re Lockwood
GAL fees are not dischargeable under11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(5) as they are a support obligation.
In Re Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson
It was error for court to fail to appoint a GAL sua sponte where issue of paternity was raised post-judgment by motion to reopen.
In Re Marriage of Gannon
Guardian may seek divorce for incompetent.
Syno v. Syno
Guardian of an incompetent adult has the power to pursue a dissolution action.
In Re Marriage of Denowh ex rel Deck
Legal guardian does not have the power to file a divorce action on behalf of an incapacitated ward.
Tindell v. Rogosheske
GAL has absolute immunity from claims arising from alleged negligent performance of duties.
Miller v. Miller
Children may not intervene in their parents’ divorce action with their own lawyer.
- 1
- 2