Lawmaker renews criticism of guardian ad litem office
The charge was made before members of the Legislature's Interim Judiciary Committee, where Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, said colleagues were missing the point of an audit's findings released in February.
Performed by the legislative auditor general, the probe concluded the attorneys appointed by the court to represent the "best interests" of children had high caseloads that compromised their efficiency — including statutory requirements to meet with the child and document certain steps taken in cases.
A caveat of the audit's findings, however, pointed to the dire lack of policies and documentation that thwarted the auditors' ability to accurately determine how many cases the agency actually works to conclusion.
That problem, Christensen emphasized, illustrates the need for lawmakers to exercise more authority over the management of the office, including requesting a supplemental audit looking at the specific functions of the executive director. He said he plans to make such a request and also wants to draft legislation to produce more changes in the office.
In that instance, the then-12-year-old boy was at the center of a controversy surrounding his parents' refusal to seek chemotherapy treatment for cancer they were not convinced he had. The case, which pitted parental rights against a system set up to ensure the welfare of children, garnered national attention and precipitated the involvement of the courts — to the point where his parents were criminally charged.
Christensen maintains the state only backed off after a judge had the chance to listen to the wishes of the child, which he said were shielded by the guardian ad litem's office. Since then, Christensen and several other lawmakers have sought to restore balance to a system they say is too unfairly tipped against parents.
A central component of the criticism leveled at the guardian ad litem's office is that it is supervised by the Judicial Council, the governing body over the courts.
A 2001 Utah Supreme Court decision pointed to the inherent conflict, asserting it is problematic for independent advocates to be so closely intertwined with judges who may hear their cases.
Although the issue has been raised repeatedly over the years, officials have struggled to find an appropriate home for the office. Legislative research shows Utah's system is not out of the ordinary, with 23 of 29 states that administer their advocacy programs through the judicial branch.
When questioned by his colleagues on what he viewed as the best solution, Christensen suggested letting the administrative services of the office be left to the courts but direct oversight of the director and his functions to the Legislature, such as the Child Welfare Oversight Panel or another entity like the Foster Care Citizen Review Board.
The laws governing the office, he added, should also be changed. "They need to be amended so the performance matches the statute, and the statute matches the realities. It is an oversight issue."
E-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com
You can be the first to comment on this story.