In the hands of a GAL are our Children Really Safe?
It strikes us that if
one uses a "in the child's best interest" standard, that an important
baseline consideration is: "Is the child safe?" Clearly there
are additional issues like the child's well being, its opportunities for normal,
physical and psychological growth and development, its social and moral
development, but central to society's interest is safety.
We have been
appalled by reports of GAL recommendations that propose assigning a child's
custody to a parent with an extensive history of alcoholism, prescription
drug abuse and felonious legal issues - especially when there are other, safer,
better choices. In these cases there has been no assessment of child's
safety or of the older idea of "parental fitness". The new, hip
view is that at all costs the GAL should avoid "social or cultural
bias". In bending over backwards to meet the avoidance of social or
cultural bias, the "broad-minded" GAL must give due consideration to
high risk parents, who might have been considered "unfit" in previous
years. Has the parent showed up drunk for an interview with the
GAL? Have they dilated pupils or do they stagger? If not observed
by the GAL, and if they say they are clean, they are innocent until proven
guilty. It is simple, blind denial, and it places "the best interest
of the child" at serious risk.
We feel that the
Judicial Branch should demand primary, professional information to back
up these recommendations. What do the physicians, psychologists, drug
counselors, parole officers have to say? What about family members (on
both sides)? What about independent psychological testing for fitness to
parent? What about an in depth assessment of the biases in favor of not
showing bias to cultural or social issues?
There is another
concern that comes out of "the child's best interest" standard,
mediation. Isn't mediation a conflict of interest for a GAL? If a
GAL stands for "the child's best interest", how can that GAL broker a
"deal" with the parents? Doesn't "best interest" have
to be separate from: "I want; you want?" Carving up the child
for the parents is not necessarily in "the child's best
interest!" Parents are frequently told by GALs that whatever they
agree to will be recommended to the court. Mediation is one of the
"mission expansions" that has gradually been added to the GAL's
statutory role. It generates huge billable hours. Can a GAL, as an
arm of the court, be an unbiased mediator? In our opinion the legal power
behind a GAL precludes a free, open exchange necessary for true
mediation. The GAL is "armed" by his/her appointment in these
transactions, and wearing a "gun" precludes free discussion.
As old teachers are
wont to say to children, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, the
choice is up to you." But GAL clients aren't
children!
We ask ... is this
'modus operandi' "in the best interest of the child" or in that of
the GAL?
The choice is up to
you.
No comments:
Post a Comment