Court Opinion

ID: 9670271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:17:49.800185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.495998
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting in part.
I concur in the judgment of the court. I dissent from that part of the opinion which suggests that a guardian ad litem should *722have been appointed for the appellant even though she was represented by other counsel in the proceeding.
The purpose of appointing a guardian ad litem to represent an incompetent or a minor is to ensure that the interests of such a party are protected. Workman v. Workman, 167 Neb. 857, 95 N.W.2d 186 (1959).
It is the duty of a guardian ad litem to protect the rights of the party he represents, regardless of the party’s willingness to give them away. Workman v. Workman, 174 Neb. 471, 118 N.W.2d 764 (1962).
Ordinarily, it is unnecessary to appoint separate counsel for a party who, because of a disability, is represented by a guardian ad litem. Similarly, where the party under disability is already represented by counsel, as in this case, it would seem unnecessary to appoint a separate guardian ad litem to carry on the defense.
Except in unusual situations, such as in Orr v. Knowles, 215 Neb. 49, 337 N.W.2d 699 (1983), it should not be necessary to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent a party who is also represented by separate counsel.
Colwell, D. J., Retired, joins in this dissent.