Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/guardians-ad-litem-a-solution-without-strength-in-helping-protect-dependent-children/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:38:48+00:00

Document:
The GAL also receives training and preparation for court, where the guardian is usually called to testify and give recommendations. In training, guardians are advised the court expects them to provide an “honest and sincere evaluation of the situation” based on the facts the GAL has personally observed through investigation, and to conclude with “objective recommendations as to alternatives available to the court to serve the best interests of the child.” The GAL is typically told nothing about hearsay or its exceptions under the rules of evidence, but is reassured “[y]ou have conducted a thorough review of the facts, you have written a sound report, you have prepared yourself well, you have nothing to fear from any court appearance.”16 GALs are trained to feel that they are fulfilling a statutory duty when they prepare reports and testify in court. Unfortunately, this type of training leaves many guardians unprepared for what can happen at the actual hearing.
Despite all of the well-intended powers enacted for the guardians ad litem, the lack of a statutory hearsay exception has a stifling effect on their ability to protect Florida’s children at the most critical stage of the process—in court.
F.S. §61.20 allows the court in child custody actions to “order a social investigation and study concerning all pertinent details relating to the child and each parent.” The statute requires the study result in a written report with recommendations. The statute also provides “[t]he court may consider the information contained in the study in making a decision on the child’s custody and the technical rules of evidence do not exclude the study from consideration.” The constitutionality of §61.20 was upheld in Kern v. Kern, 333 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1976). The Florida Supreme Court noted the section was a constitutional legislative acknowledgment that trial courts benefit from being able to consider “potentially valuable information compiled by professional social workers.” Kern suggests so long as the reports are made available to the parties far enough in advance that they have the opportunity to review the reports and call witnesses to corroborate or discredit them, due process is met.
Because GALs receive special training to conduct their statutorily mandated investigations and prepare their reports, and are available in court to testify to their investigative techniques, it seemed that GALs should fall within the hearsay exception.19 However, §61.20 contains the following crucial sentence: The study must be conducted by “qualified staff of the court; a [licensed] child-placing agency. . . ; a [licensed] psychologist. . . ; or a clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, or [licensed] mental health counselor.. . . ” Because neither this statute nor any other Florida law provides specifically that GALs come within this exception, hearsay objections to GAL testimony must be sustained. Scaringe v. Herrick, 711 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Moreover, the GAL report can be also excluded from being considered in evidence for the same reason. It can be shocking or unnerving for a guardian to discover for the first time in court that his or her testimony can be blocked by hearsay objections or that the GAL’s report serves more as a convenient reference for the parties’ attorneys than as evidence for the judge to consider. It is little wonder that some guardians are left feeling like the entire investigative and reporting process is a futile endeavor.
For example, a child may have told his GAL that he does not want to live with his mother because she says nasty things when she is drinking. The mother’s attorney will probably object to the introduction of this out-of-court statement on the grounds that it is hearsay and unfairly prejudicial to the mother. If the GAL tries to assert an opinion that the child would rather live with the father, the mother’s attorney will object on the grounds that the GAL is not an expert witness and as a lay person is only allowed to state an opinion based on personal knowledge. At this point the judge may simply decide that only by interviewing the child personally can he or she consider the child’s wishes in making a decision.22 This makes the GAL’s work duplicative at best.
The Second District’s opinion of “typical” GALs was perhaps best expressed in a case that did not concern children or dependency, but rather an adult woman in a permanent vegetative state and on life support. In affirming the trial judge’s decision not to appoint a GAL for the woman, the court stressed that “a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to the process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record.” In Re: Guardianship of: Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176, 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The court seems to feel that many GALs are simply not qualified to provide valuable assistance to judges, despite the legislature’s apparent confidence in GALs and the extensive training that GALs receive.
The Third District has also expressed reservations about the role of GALs in the judicial process. Judge Schwartz alluded to one reason that judges might have doubts about GALs when he praised the GAL in the case as one who “truly—and uniquely in my appellate experience—actually represented the interests of her ward, rather than acting as an adjunct of the Department of Children and Families.” S.D. v. DCF, 805 So. 2d 10, 15 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (Schwartz dissenting).
The Fifth District at least has clarified the “no fundamental error” doctrine to ensure that trial courts do not completely ignore the statutes requiring GAL appointment. In Vestal v. Vestal, 731 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the appellate court found reversible error when the trial court had never even attempted to appoint a GAL, even though the issue was not raised until appeal. In distinguishing the “no fundamental error” cases, the court noted that there was so little evidence and testimony in this case that the child’s interests were not adequately represented.28 the court did not address how long the trial court had to wait if a GAL was not available for appointment or what other measures the court should take on remand to protect the child’s interests.
Given the appellate trends, many Florida judges are unwilling to construe GAL authority broadly and instead strictly construe statutes such as §61.20 even when such construction undermines legislative intent. Of course, the Florida Legislature has also been inconsistent by mandating the appointment of GALs while traditionally providing insufficient financial support to the GAL program. While all branches of Florida’s government seem to recognize that GALs theoretically are an excellent idea, each branch has had hesitations or unrealistic expectations about the program that only limit its effectiveness.
If the goal of increasing the number of GALs is to provide children with someone to look out for their best interests, then GALs must continue to be trained and funded. If the point of having GALs write a detailed report of their investigations and recommendations is to provide judges with objective information, then GALs must have the same standing as social workers before the court and their testimony and reports must be allowed into evidence. Extending the §61.20 hearsay exception to GALs does not mean that judges “abdicate their fact-finding and decisional responsibilities”; it only means that GALs can actually present information from their statutorily mandated investigation, instead of merely engaging in what might otherwise be an exercise in futility. extending the §61.20 hearsay exception to GALs, the legislature can ensure that GALs are not silenced in the very proceedings in which children most need them to be able to speak. pursuing these actions, perhaps the governor can ensure the GAL program is truly the solution he intends it to be.
1 Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Protection, Blue Ribbon Panel Report , available at www.myflorida.com/myflorida/government/otherinfo/blueribbon (released May 28, 2002). Guardians ad litem in Florida must be at least 19 years old, have two letters of reference, pass a background check and two screening interviews, and complete 30 hours of initial training; there is also an annual six-hour continuing education requirement. Office of the State Courts Administrator, Dependency Volunteer Training Manual , Florida Guardian ad Litem Program, Introduction and Overview, **3–4.
2 Five-year-old Rilya Wilson’s DCF caseworker falsified visitation records to circumvent the requirement that she visit her assigned children every 30 days. Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Child Protection, supra note 1.
4 David Royse, State budget will privatize government personnel work , Assoc. Press Newswire (May 10, 2002).
5 Fla. Exec. Order 02-159 is available at www.myflorida.com/myflorida/government/otherinfo/documents/eo02-159.doc.
6 Fran Hathaway, Opinion, Some Children Do Have Saviors , Palm Beach Post, June 9, 2002.
7 Guardian Ad Litem Working Group, Final Report of the Guardian Ad Litem Working Group , *4, available at www.myflorida.com/myflorida/government/taskandcommissions/index (Sept. 15, 2002).
8 Governor Jeb Bush, quoted in Royse, supra note 4.
9 Fla. R. Juv. P . §8.215(c)(3) (2002); H. Lila Hubert, Comment, In the Child’s Best Interests: The Role of the Guardian ad Litem in Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings , 49 U. Miami L. Rev. 531, 566 n.48 (Winter 1994), citing Fla. Stat. §39.465(2)(b)(3) (1993).
10 Guidelines for Guardian Ad Litem Volunteers , Sixth Judicial Circuit, #8.
12 Dependency Volunteer Training Manual , supra note 1, at Roles and Responsibilities of the Guardian ad Litem, *38.
13 Renee Goldenberg and Nancy S. Palmer, Guardian ad Litem Programs: Where They Have Gone and Where They Are Going , 69 Fla. B .J. 83, 84 (Dec. 1995).
14 For a detailed discussion of termination of parental rights and a GAL’s ability to independently pursue such proceedings, see Hubert, supra note 9. Under Fla. Stat . §39.807(2)(a) (2002), a GAL must be appointed in every termination of parental rights proceeding.
15 Dependency Volunteer Training Manual , supra note 1, at Writing Reports, *9.
17 Goldenberg and Palmer, supra note 13, at 88. This article was written before Scaringe v. Herrick , 711 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1998).
18 Id ., quoting Comment, Use of Extra-Record Information in Custody Cases , 24 U. Chi. L. Rev. 349, 357 (1957).
19 Id .; Goldenberg and Palmer, supra note 13, at 88.
20 Fla. R. Juv. P . §8.215 (2002).
21 Of course, the parties can always agree by stipulation to allow the report into evidence. E.g., Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778, 780 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1998) (dissolution of marriage case). However, this is much less likely to happen in a dependency case, especially where the report clearly disfavors one side.
22 See Perez v. Perez , 767 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2000) (observing that the trial court obtained the parent’s permission to interview the children in camera after the trial court decided that under Scaringe the GAL’s testimony and report contained inadmissible hearsay).
23 It is interesting to note that Judge Blue, who specially concurred in Scaringe to voice his hesitations about GALs, also wrote the Roski decision. Judge Blue was elected as chief judge of the Second District in May 2001 and will serve in that capacity until June 30, 2003. Second District Court of Appeals Web site, available at www.2dca.org/judges/blue.
24 See L.D. v. DCF , 770 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2000) (observing that the trial judge’s opinion included a disclaimer that the court’s decision would have been the same even without the GAL’s testimony).
25 Hubert, supra note 9, at 565.
26 Michael J. Dale, Providing Counsel to Children in Dependency Proceedings in Florida , 25 Nova L. Rev . 769, 777 and 791 (Spring 2001); Fla. Stat . §§39.807(2)(a) (2002), 61.401.
27 E.F. , 639 So. 2d at 640; adopted by the Fifth District in Fisher v. HRS , 674 So. 2d 208, 208 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1996); cited with approval by the Third District in L.D. v. DCF , 770 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2000).
28 Vestal , 731 So. 2d at 829 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1999) (distinguishing In re E.F. and Fisher v. HRS ).
Michelle Johnson-Weider will graduate in May from Stetson University College of Law. As a volunteer guardian ad litem in the Sixth Judicial Circuit from February 2001 to May 2002, she prepared a report for and testified in one termination of parental rights trial. Upon graduation, she will work in Washington, D.C., as a staff attorney for the U.S. Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel.
This column is submitted onb ehalf of the Family Law Section, Caroline Black, chair, and Rana Holz, editor.

References: §61
 §61
 v. 
 §61
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §61
 §61
 §61
 §8
 §39
 §39
 v. 
 §8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.