Opinion ID: 1356962
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jumping through hoops

Text: The majority also fails to identify the time at which a court must appoint a guardian ad litem. Syllabus point three of the majority opinion states the rule that a guardian is required where the person is involuntarily hospitalized, and yet syllabus point four states that it is error to terminate parental rights without a guardian ad litem where there has been a suggestion of involuntary hospitalization for mental illness. That leaves the door cracked open on the issue of exactly when this duty to appoint a guardian ad litem is triggered. I disagree with the majority's apparent conclusion that the suggestion of the Appellant's mental condition was an adequate basis for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Unless and until a court is informed of legal incapacity or involuntary commitment, that court should be under no duty to appoint a guardian ad litem. A suggestion of a mental condition is much too amorphous and indeterminate to be utilized as a standard for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The one saving grace the majority includes in its guardian ad litem requirement is that the trial court may, in its order appointing counsel, provide that the appointment imposes the additional status of guardian ad litem. Now that the majority has cast so much doubt as to exactly what (even a suggestion or suspicion of mental illness?) may create the obligation to appoint a guardian ad litem and so much confusion as to how a parent with some suggestion of mental illness may be notified, I recommend that the circuit courts routinely couch the orders appointing counsel in those terms. In fact, I will propose that the new Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings now out for public comment until August 15, 1996, include that requirement. Judicial training will have to be held at the next conference, and we'll get this esoteric hoop jumped. Whew! What a lot of troublefor what real gain?