Court Opinion

ID: 9538297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:34:28.986752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:43.312986
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring.
I wholeheartedly concur in the disposition of this case. I am not persuaded that the provisions of § 14-3-211(a), W.S.1977 (1978 Supp.), were intended by the legislature to apply in proceedings conducted pursuant to § 14-2-301, et seq., W.S.1977. Nevertheless, I agree that a guardian ad litem should be required in connection with such proceedings.
Rule 17(c), W.R.C.P., provides in part:
“... The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person, ...” (Emphasis supplied.)
In DS v. Department of Public Assistance and Social Services, Wyo., 607 P.2d 911 (1980), we-identified parental rights with respect to the rearing of children as being of constitutional magnitude. Surely the interest of a child in being reared by its natural parents cannot be of a lesser stature. It is noteworthy that in that case, which also was instituted under provision of § 14-2-301, et seq., W.S.1977, a guardian ad litem was appointed by the court. I would hold that because of the significant interest of a child in connection with such proceedings the quoted provision of Rule 17(c), W.R.C.P., mandates the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Such a requirement is quite consistent with the legislative policy manifested by the provisions of § 14-3-211(a), W.S.1977 (1978 Supp.).