In Re Marriage of Weiderholt v. Fischer
GAL is advocate for child’s best interests – not for child’s wishes.
Marriage of Hollister v. Hollister
GAL is advocate for best interest of a child and is not a witness at trial.
In Re Paternity of Stephanie R.N.
GAL’s statements at oral argument are not evidence and not part of the record.
Friedrich v. Circuit Court for Dane County
Both the legislature and the supreme court have authority to regulate GAL fees.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kinast
Interviewing minor children without consent of the GAL violated prohibition from communicating with party known to be represented by counsel.
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.
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 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.
Olmsted v. Circuit Court for Dane County
Court cannot order an indigent party to pay GAL fees.
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.