Opinion ID: 878887
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Role of Attorney Appointed to Represent Children in Custody Dispute

Text: The attorney appointed by the District Court to represent the children has raised an important and difficult ethical question  is the attorney appointed to represent a child in a custody dispute ethically bound to advocate the child's wishes or to advocate the child's best interests? Our remarks on this question are prefaced with the comment that we are addressing only the very narrow question of court-appointed representation of a child in a custody dispute arising out of a divorce. Nothing is being said about the representation of individuals suffering any disability besides minority nor are we addressing the representation of minors in adversary or quasiadversary proceedings. Clients under a disability are as entitled to the protection of their due process rights as any other client; if anything, these individuals have a greater need for zealous representation. Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A) is the applicable rule under the Code of Professional ethics. DR 7-101 Representing a Client Zealously. (A) A lawyer shall not intentionally: (1) Fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR 7-101(B). A lawyer does not violate this Disciplinary Rule, however, by acceding to reasonable requests of opposing counsel which do not prejudice the rights of his client, by being punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments, by avoiding offensive tactics, or by treating with courtesy and consideration all persons involved in the legal process. ... (B) In his representation of a client, a lawyer may: (1) Where permissible, exercise his professional judgment to waive or fail to assert a right or position of his client. Ethical Consideration 7-12 is also applicable: Any mental or physical condition of a client that renders him incapable of making a considered judgment on his own behalf casts additional responsibilities upon his lawyer. Where an incompetent is acting through a guardian or other legal representative, a lawyer must look to such representative for those decisions which are normally the prerogative of the client to make. If a client under disability has no legal representative, his lawyer may be compelled in court proceedings to make decisions on behalf of the client. If the client is capable of understanding the matter in question or of contributing to the advancement of his interests, regardless of whether he is legally disqualified from performing certain acts, the lawyer should obtain from him all possible aid. If the disability of a client and the lack of a legal representative compel the lawyer to make decisions for his client, the lawyer should consider all circumstances then prevailing and act with care to safeguard and advance the interests of his client. But obviously a lawyer cannot perform any act or make any decision which the law requires his client to perform or make, either acting for himself if competent, or by a duly constituted representative if legally incompetent. Under the presently proposed Rules of Professional Conduct the applicable rule will be Rule 1.14. RULE 1.14 Client Under a Disability. (a) When a client's ability to make adequately considered decisions in connection with the representation is impaired, whether because of minority, mental disability or for some other reasons, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the client. (b) A lawyer may seek the appointment of a guardian or take other protective action with respect to the client, only when the lawyer reasonably believes that the client cannot adequately act in the client's interest. Ordinarily, a lawyer's relationship with a disabled client should not differ from the normal client-lawyer relationship. In a normal client-lawyer relationship the lawyer's role is not to determine the client's interest, his role is to advocate the client's interest. The child custody dispute presents a unique situation because the child, although not a party to the action, is the person most affected by the action. The reason there is a custody action is that the child is not yet mature enough to be self-determining. In recognition of this the legislature passed § 40-4-205, MCA. The court may appoint an attorney to represent the interests of a minor dependent child with respect to his support, custody, and visitation. The county attorney and the deputy county attorneys, if any, may not be appointed for this purpose. The court shall enter an order for costs and fees in favor of the child's attorney. The order shall be made against either or both parents, except that if the responsible party is indigent, the costs shall be waived. The interest referred to in this statute is the child's best interests, not the child's wishes. As this Court has reiterated many times, in all matters relating to child custody and visitation, the best interests of the child controls. We recognize that in Montana the attorney for the child is not a guardian ad litem. Nevertheless his role in a custody dispute is to advocate the child's best interest, not the child's wishes. This is a difficult role, particularly when the child's expressed wishes conflict with the attorney's determination of his best interests. But, given the immaturity of the client and the pressures that often exist in a divorce situation, it is this Court's opinion that the best interests of the child, the paramount concern in all custody disputes, is best served by modifying the traditional lawyerclient relationship. As the Alaska Court stated in Veazey v. Veazey (Alaska 1977), 560 P.2d 382, 390: [I]t is equally plain that the guardian is not required to advocate whatever placement might seem preferable to a client of tender years. A young child may well prefer the less disciplined environment to the more disciplined one. He may prefer the parent who takes him on outings for recreational activities over the one who stays home to prepare his meals and keep the home clean. But the guardian would be abdicating his responsibility to his client and the court to use his best professional judgment, were he to automatically recommend that young child's preference without further scrutiny. A child who has been living for some time with one parent might understandably select that parent, good or bad, because it represents the only home the child has ever known. This `psychological parenthood,' while relevant, is not conclusive concerning what is in the child's best interests. A child may have his thinking consciously or subconsciously colored by one parent against the other. The guardian ad litem must try to delve into this question and take all relevant factors into account regardless of what the child may or may not believe he `ought' to say. This Court is aware that determining a child's best interests is difficult and is concerned about the child's right to an advocate. We reiterate our position that a child's wishes deserve serious consideration, In Re Marriage of Kramer (1978), 177 Mont. 61, 69, 580 P.2d 439, 444. If the court-appointed attorney concludes that the child's expressed wishes are not in his best interest the attorney must disclose this to the court. The district court must be clearly informed of the child's wishes and the basis for the attorney's determination that it is not in the child's best interest to live with the preferred parent. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Costs to the wife. HARRISON, MORRISON, GULBRANDSON and HUNTER, JJ., concur.