Court Opinion

ID: 9771055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:29:51.601658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:24.129572
License: Public Domain

CRANDALL, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The statute in question is simple and straightforward. It requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem in any proceeding in which child abuse or neglect is alleged. The intent of the statute is to protect the child. As such, it should be broadly construed to achieve that purpose. An allegation that husband hit his child with a shoe is clearly sufficient to put the trial court on notice that child abuse may have occurred. At that point, the statute mandates the appointment of a guardian. Here, the parties are adults who have attorneys to speak for them and to protect their interests. The statute directs that a guardian should be appointed to speak for the child and to protect her interests.
The trial court acted without jurisdiction when it failed to comply with the statute. I would therefore make the preliminary order in prohibition absolute.