Opinion ID: 2330409
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Guardian Ad Litem Qualifications

Text: We next address the petitioner's argument that Blake was unqualified to be a GAL as a matter of law. The petitioner argues that pursuant to RSA 458:17-a (2004) (repealed 2005), a GAL is required to be admitted to practice law in New Hampshire. The petitioner fails to cite any language in RSA 458:17-a that requires a GAL to be a New Hampshire attorney, and we find none. Paragraph IV of the statute states that the court is responsible for providing [s]tandards and requirements for registration as a guardian ad litem. RSA 458:17-a, IV(a). However, the rules for GAL certification that governed the Family Division contained no requirement that a GAL be a New Hampshire attorney. See System-wide Guardian Ad Litem Application, Certification and Practice Rule 1.4(c); see also Family Div. R. (Domestic Relations) 15(A) (incorporating the State-wide guardian ad litem application, certification and practice document as a rule of the family division). While the Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem prepared by the superior court in 1983 state that a GAL shall be an attorney admitted to practice in New Hampshire, see Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem, par. 1, the guidelines are not for the purpose of imposing rules or strict procedures, Preface to Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem, supra, and have not been adopted as rules of the Family Division. Accordingly, we reject the petitioner's argument that because Blake was not a member of the New Hampshire bar, she was unqualified and appointed in violation of RSA 458:17-a.