Opinion ID: 1891717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appointment of guardian ad litem.

Text: No guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the children in the proceedings which are the subject of this appeal. Sec. 247.045, Stats. (Supreme Court Order, 50 Wis.2d vii, ix, effective July 1, 1971), [3] requires the court to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent minor children in any action affecting marriage when the court has reason for special concern as to the future welfare of the minor children. This court recently traced the twenty-year development of Wisconsin law from the first mild endorsement of representation for children to the strong mandate embodied in sec. 247.045, Stats., supra; de Montigny v. de Montigny, 70 Wis.2d 131, 138-140, 233 N.W.2d 463 (1975). The concept was further strengthened in de Montigny, supra, in which this court held that, by definition, a determination of custody raises special concern for the children's welfare. Custody was again the question in Bahr v. Bahr, supra , the previous appeal in the action now before the court. On that appeal, this court unequivocally stated: . . . The only matter at issue was the future welfare of the minor children of the divorced parents. In this situation `it is an abuse of discretion, patently prejudicial, to fail sua sponte to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor children.' de Montigny, supra, page 137. Bahr v. Bahr, supra, 148. [8] Melanie submits that the increase in visitation rights is too inconsequential to raise a special concern. This objection misses the point of both de Montigny, supra, and Bahr, supra . While the increase in visitation from 24 days to approximately 75 days per year may itself be reason for concern, the special concern test is not quantitative, but qualitative. That is, the court must look to the nature of the interests affected, rather than their magnitude. Thus this court recognized in de Montigny, supra, 137, that the appointment of a guardian ad litem is discretionary when the issues are only peripherally related to the children's welfare. Representation is obligatory, however, whenever the child's welfare is put directly in issue. [9] There can be no question that the children's welfare was directly at issue in the present action. As the court below repeatedly and properly recognized, the child's welfare is the paramount concern in the determination of visitation rights. The fact that neither party requested a guardian ad litem is irrelevant. Bahr v. Bahr, supra, 148. Under the facts of this case we are of the opinion the proper exercise of judicial discretion mandated the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Weichman v. Weichman, supra . The requirement that the children have independent representation does not in any way suggest that the parents or the trial court were unmindful of the children's welfare. Rather, it reflects the conviction that the children are best served by the presence of a vigorous advocate free to investigate, consult with them at length, marshal evidence, and to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. The judge cannot play this role. Properly understood, therefore, the guardian ad litem does not usurp the judge's function; he aids it. As this court recognized in de Montigny, supra, 142: Where the most important parties to the proceedings were wholly without their own representation, adequate fact finding and enlightened and informed decision making are impossible. . . . [10] Melanie argues that any requirement for a guardian ad litem was satisfied by the court's appointment of a guardian in earlier custody proceedings and by the submission of the guardian's report in July of 1976. This argument is not persuasive, particularly when she urges that circumstances had changed substantially after August fifth. Moreover, a guardian ad litem is more than a nominal representative; he is an active advocate, the attorney for the children. de Montigny, supra, 138, 141. This requires more than a report from the previous hearing. Finally, Melanie says that representation for the child has never been held mandatory in proceedings concerning visitation. She is correct, and we do not here hold that it is mandatory in all proceedings to modify visitation rights. [4] However, in a case such as the present one, we are of the opinion that the proper exercise of judicial discretion required the appointment of a guardian ad litem.