Opinion ID: 1982028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: IIIGuardian ad Litem

Text: Rebecca argues that the trial court erred in appointing a guardian ad litem for the child at the conclusion of the hearing. The guardian ad litem was appointed to serve as an advocate of the child's best interests and specifically to serve as contact person for the parties and to have general supervision over [Kirk's] visitation with the child.... Pursuant to § 14-09-06.4, N.D.C.C., and Rule 4.1, N.D.R.O.C., the trial court in a custody, support, or visitation proceeding may, in its discretion and on its own initiative, appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor child where the court has reason for special concern as to the future welfare of the child. Contrary to Rebecca's position, we do not believe that the lack of a presently pending proceeding involving the child forecloses the trial court from appointing a guardian ad litem. The trial court has continuing jurisdiction over the care, custody and education of minor children. Muraskin v. Muraskin, 283 N.W.2d 140, 142 (N.D.1979). These parties have had continuing problems with visitation ever since the initial divorce decree in February 1982. The court specifically found that Rebecca has continually resisted all attempts by [Kirk] to have a normal father/daughter relationship with his child and to have visitation with his child free from interference from [Rebecca] and her family. A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable manner. Zajac v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 372 N.W.2d 897, 899 (N.D.1985). We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing this guardian ad litem.