Opinion ID: 6345064
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deficiencies of the Guardian ad Litem

Text: Petitioner Mother also argues that the guardian ad litem’s representation of the children in this matter was deficient because: (1) the guardian failed to file a report prior to the adjudicatory hearing; and (2) the guardian failed to meet with the children throughout the underlying proceedings. At the outset, we note that Petitioner Mother’s first argument is without merit as the guardian was under no obligation to file a report prior the adjudicatory hearing. Rather, Rule 18a of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings directs that a guardian must file a report five days before a 20 dispositional hearing. This matter never reached disposition, so a report was not required. Nevertheless, we do find the guardian’s representation of the children was inadequate for the reasons discussed infra. Petitioner Mother contends that the guardian failed to meet with the children consistently throughout the underlying proceedings. In fact, Petitioner Mother argues in her brief that the guardian met with the children only once, roughly six months into the proceedings, and did not ask the children about the sexual abuse allegations at that time. In his response, the guardian concedes this fact. We also note that the guardian met with the children at least once more — on February 7, 2022, as indicated in the guardian’s Rule 11(j) status update filed with this Court. This Court has long held that [e]ach child in an abuse and neglect case is entitled to effective representation of counsel. To further that goal, [W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(f)] mandates that a child has a right to be represented by counsel in every stage of abuse and neglect proceedings. Furthermore, Rule [21.03] of the West Virginia [Trial Court Rules] provides that a guardian ad litem shall make a full and independent investigation of the facts involved in the proceeding, and shall make his or her recommendations known to the court. Rules 1.1 and 1.3 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, respectively, require an attorney to provide competent representation to a client, and to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. The Guidelines for Guardians Ad Litem in Abuse and Neglect cases, which are adopted in this opinion and attached as Appendix A, are in harmony with the applicable provisions of the West Virginia Code, the West Virginia [Trial Court Rules], and the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, 21 and provide attorneys who serve as guardians ad litem with direction as to the duties in representing the best interests of the children for whom they are appointed. Syl. Pt. 5, In re Jeffery R.L., 190 W. Va. 24, 435 S.E.2d 162 (1993); see also W. Va. Code § 49-4-601(f)(1) (Supp. 2021) (“In any proceeding under this article, the child shall have counsel to represent his or her interests at all stages of the proceedings.”). In this regard, we recently stated that “we question whether a guardian can effectively and competently represent their child wards when they do not maintain contact with them throughout the proceedings, if for no other reason than to ascertain whether they are safe and well.” In re B.C., S.C., and T.C., Nos. 20-0979 and 20-0994, 2021 WL 5216715,  n.6 (W. Va. Nov. 9, 2021) (memorandum decision). While we declined to address the conduct of the guardian in B.C. who met with the children only once, we can no longer ignore what we believe is becoming a troubling pattern. Lest there be any confusion going forward, let us be clear: in effectively representing a child, it is imperative that a guardian maintain contact with the child throughout the proceedings, just as they would any other client. Doing so is necessary, at a minimum, to understand what is in that child’s best interests and what the guardian must do to effectively advocate for those interests. This requirement is not new. In fact, Rule 18a(b) of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings refers guardians to Appendix A – Guidelines for Children’s Guardians Ad Litem in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (hereinafter “Appendix A”) for a thorough explanation of their duties as guardians ad litem. Specifically, Appendix A requires not only that the guardian schedule an initial in-person meeting with 22 the child, but also that the guardian “[m]aintain contact with the child throughout the case to monitor whether the child is receiving counseling, tutoring, or any other services needed to provide as much support as possible under the circumstances.” App. A(C)(7); see also App. A(C)(6)(a) (directing the guardian to conduct in-home visits, when appropriate, to observe the living environment and the child’s interactions with parents or caretakers). Guardians ad litem are integral to the functioning of our court system, and we greatly commend them for representing our state’s most vulnerable individuals — our children — particularly in abuse and neglect actions. We further recognize that matters such as these involve extensive time and energy commitments, and that many guardians represent multiple child wards at a time. However, the legal and ethical obligations involved in representing a client do not lessen simply because that client is a child or because the attorney has additional clients to whom they must attend. Children are entitled — by statute, by court rules, and by the holdings of this Court — to effective legal representation. See App. A(B)(1) (“The Rules of Professional Conduct apply to a GAL’s representation of a child in an abuse and neglect proceeding.”); see also W. Va. R. Pro. Conduct 1.1 and 1.3 (requiring an attorney to provide competent representation to a client, and to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.). While there may be certain limited exceptions, we are firmly of the opinion that failure to maintain contact with a child ward throughout the proceedings is an abdication of a guardian ad litem’s legal and ethical responsibilities to that child and constitutes inadequate representation. As the guardian in this case failed to maintain contact with these children 23 — other than the single meeting before the adjudicatory hearing and the single meeting for purposes of updating this Court on the children’s status — his representation of these children was deficient. Our analysis does not end there. We are also concerned that the guardian was present during the in camera interviews of the children discussed extensively above, yet, at no point did he object to the circuit court’s conduct or questioning of the children. Further, despite their distress — apparent to this Court even through a cold record — the guardian made no effort to pause or terminate the interviews, soothe the children, or in any way protect or advocate for the children’s interests as their attorney should have. In fact, despite L.R.’s apparent emotional state at the end of her interview, the guardian proceeded to ask her several questions of his own. Appendix A of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings explains that guardians must [a]ssess whether it is appropriate for the child to participate in court hearings or multi-disciplinary team meetings. The [guardian] is to participate in any discussions regarding the proposed testimony of the child and, if it is determined that the child’s testimony is necessary, strongly advocate for the testimony to be taken in an acceptable and emotionally neutral setting. App. A(D)(4) (emphasis added). As set forth above, there was nothing emotionally neutral about the setting in which the children’s testimony was taken in this case, and it is 24 abundantly clear from the record that the guardian did nothing throughout the interviews to advocate for the children in this regard. That is a dereliction of the guardian’s duties. When asked about this at oral argument, the guardian responded that he believed the circuit court’s conduct was appropriate during the children’s respective in camera interviews. We strongly disagree and find it troubling that the children’s legal counsel would sanction behavior that was not only apparently traumatizing, but was in clear violation of this Court’s precedents, the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, and the Rules of Evidence. For these reasons, we find that the guardian ad litem’s representation of the children in this matter was deficient. In hopes of averting comparable procedural difficulties going forward, we direct that the new circuit judge appoint a new guardian ad litem to represent the children.