When parents have intractable differences regarding their children and look to the Court to resolve their differences, judges oftentimes appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to investigate the family’s overarching circumstances to determine how the child(ren)’s best interests will be best served, and then report their findings to the Court. The appointees are most often lawyers, psychologists or licensed social workers, depending upon who the judge deems will be most able to elucidate the information needed to make the best possible decision on behalf of a child(ren). Sometimes the judge, or one or both of the parent’s lawyers will request a lawyer be appointed to represent a child when they feel a child’s voice needs to be heard as much as or more than the situation needs to be investigated. No matter the precise nature of the appointment, once the appointment is made parents lose control over decisions to be made in regard to their children, assigning decision-making power to people who will hopefully distill what is in their child(ren)’s best interests.
In Marriage Story, the court appointed investigator comes across as an uninspired social worker, somewhat dull and entirely humorless. When things are going less than splendidly for Charlie, he wryly asks her if she ever observes married people. She answers flatly “No, why would I do that?” to which he tells her he was just kidding. But try as he might to humor and befriend her, she won’t allow herself to step out of her investigatory role. The irony of the situation is apparent in that despite the fact that he’s a competent father, under the scrutiny of an outsider’s lens Charlie feels incompetent when in truth like most all parents he is both capable and flawed- married people just aren’t typically observed under a microscope. As Nicole’s lawyer aptly posits at another point in the film, “criminal lawyers see bad people at their best, and divorce lawyers see good people at their worst.”
Having been appointed many times as guardian ad litem or attorney for children, I hope during those times my input added value to the child and the family’s situation. However there have certainly been some times when it felt easier to be effective than other times. It’s gratifying to know that when a parent struggles with mental health or addiction issues, or a child has significant needs that a parent isn’t equipped to support, your efforts can help the Court understand the needs and demands of a family. However, when both parents are loving and capable childcare providers but unable to work together on behalf of their child(ren), determining the best path forward is usually more nuanced and fraught with difficulties. The parents’ and children’s collateral support networks, schools, coaches, friends and family can all add information and give guidance toward a composite picture. But even with the best information and the purest of intentions, the very nature of children means that change is inevitable. At Consilium we try to give parents “the 10,000 foot perspective”, the ability to look down on their circumstances from the height of flight, and embrace the reality that though the days are long, th years are fleeting. Barring abuse, addictions and significant mental health
limitations, before ceding decision-making powers to the Courts, wise parents consider not only what they stand to gain, but also what they stand to lose.