Opinion ID: 2517807
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Issue II Appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem

Text: [¶25] While our reversal of the district court moots the need to discuss Mother's second issue regarding the lack of appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) for FM in this case, it raises a fundamental concern that is likely to arise again. The statute governing the appointment of a GAL for children in termination of parental rights actions is Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-312 (LexisNexis 2007), which in pertinent part reads: After the petition has been filed, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child unless the court finds the interests of the child will be represented adequately by the petitioner or another party to the action and are not adverse to that party. In this case no GAL was appointed to represent FM. The district court did not know of this until the trial. [¶26] We believe the statute unambiguously calls for a very specific procedure. With an unambiguous statute, this Court ascertains legislative intent by giving effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used. Jenkins v. State, ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., 2007 WY 39, ¶ 6, 153 P.3d 271, 273 (Wyo. 2007). The statute begins by stating that the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem (emphasis added). This mandates the court to appoint a GAL when a petition is filed. The only exception to this requirement is if the court finds the interests of the child will be represented adequately by the petitioner or another party to the action and are not adverse to that party. Therefore, in every termination case there must be an order either appointing a GAL or setting forth findings in accord with the statutory exception. We trust in the future district courts will be more attentive to following the mandates of this statute.