Washington Courts: Judicial News Report Detail

Enhancing the Guardian ad Litem System

A ten-month study has concluded it would be unrealistic for the state to mandate the use of volunteer, court-appointed special advocates (CASA). It also said superior court judges must be proactive in the exercise of what, ultimately, is their responsibility: system oversight and the handling of grievances relating to guardian ad litems.

Local courts should also conduct regular reviews of training programs, the equitable distribution of workload among GALs, court rules, statutes and case law, according to the 70-page Guardian Ad Litem Project report, scheduled to be distributed mid-August.

The report was issued in response to action by the 1996 Legislature which required the state court administrator to develop a statewide training and education curriculum for CASA volunteers; review the feasibility of their mandatory use statewide; and study problems with the court's guardian ad litem system.

Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Durham convened a steering committee a year ago to address the legislative mandate. Chaired by King County Superior Court Judge George Mattson, the group was divided into two subcommittees, including one to address education and certification, the other, issues on the mandatory use of CASA and GAL systems. Members included superior and juvenile court administrators, plus representatives of the national CASA organization, the Department of Social and Health Services, and the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

The committee's findings were included in a final report set for distribution to key legislators, committee staff, superior and juvenile court administrators, and presiding judges.

System problems

GAL and CASA problems were not seen as pervasive statewide--primarily, it was several, alleged local abuses in one county that prompted the 1996 legislation.

"It was felt there were severe abuses of the system," OAC juvenile court coordinator Mike Curtis explained. "Some thought there was favoritism among the judges who appointed the paid GALS. Others thought GALS were overstepping their bounds, as far as their role and authority."

As "friend of the court," the general role of a GAL is to represent the best interests of a child or incapacitated adult. GALS may be paid attorneys or volunteer advocates.

"In a juvenile dependency case, an attorney represents the parent, and another attorney represents the state. The guardian ad litem represents what that person believes is in the best interest of the child," Curtis said. "It can get interesting, because when a kid turns 12, he is eligible to have an attorney appointed--they can have both an attorney and a guardian ad litem. The guardian represents the child's best interests, and the attorney represents what the child wants--and those may conflict."

The brainchild of now-retired King County Superior Court Judge David Soukup, the CASA program began in 1977. Soon after it's implementation in Seattle, a survey by pollster Arthur D. Little found the program was one of three of the nation's most successful examples of citizen participation in the juvenile justice system. Representatives of several criminal justice organizations recommended the Seattle model be replicated nationwide.

"Since then, it has become a national program replication, with headquarters located in Seattle," Curtis said. Due to it's success, the Legislature asked OAC to look into statewide, mandatory use of CASAs.

Though unpaid, CASAs are supervised and trained. "That is one of the reasons the state wanted us to look at mandatory CASAs statewide," said Curtis.

"The CASA program comes with supervision, it has staff who manages volunteers, it has legal counsel available, it screens and trains volunteers." Though paid GAL's generally follow each court's criteria for eligibility, training, if required, is inconsistent statewide, he said.

Though feasible, the study committee said it believed mandatory use of CASAs would "... encroach upon the courts' responsibility to develop GAL systems suited to their needs and to the demographics of their jurisdiction." During 1997, the report said, 19 of 33 juvenile courts used CASA volunteers. Of those without such programs, most have functional, cost-effective GAL systems.

Their volunteer status does not make CASAs immune from complaints normally leveled at paid GALs. "It seems the more common complaint about a CASA, is coming from the public defender or an AG, who does not necessarily agree with the volunteer and feels that they have been given too much power or credence by the court," said Curtis.

Mandatory training

Because a guardian's role is to investigate a case and make recommendations back to the court in the best interest of the child, many in the judicial community feel baseline training is needed, including basic knowledge of child development issues.

"There are so many things that play into a child's behavior...if you haven't had some background and training, it's likely you are not going to be able to catch those issues, or be able to respond to them appropriately," Curtis said.

OAC judicial education specialist Krista Goldstine-Cole staffed the sub-committee on training, and helped develop the curriculum mandated by the Legislature. Last month, Goldstine-Cole was honored by the Washington State Bar Association's family law section as its 1997 "professional of the year," for her role in the effort.

The new curriculum is divided into twelve topical areas, including investigation, interviewing, and child development; chemical dependency and mental health; child abuse and neglect; and domestic violence.

"There are a lot of GALS out there who haven't necessarily had the training," said Curtis. "That's not to say they aren't doing adequate work, but I think what they can learn from the kind of training we've outlined in the curriculum would be beneficial to any GAL currently practicing."

Because of the 1996 Legislation, all GALs--including CASAs--appointed to their first case after January 1, 1998 will be required to complete the curriculum. Responsibility for implementation and training falls to local jurisdictions and CLE providers, however, the report recommends funding come from the state.

Recommendations: Need for judicial oversight

According to Curtis, there were few surprises in the committee's recommendations: most were universally accepted by committee members.

One of the report's strongest recommendations is the need for judicial oversight of the GAL program.

"The most common threads' of citizen concern with GAL systems, are (1) the perceived lack of accountability for GALs, (2) favoritism in appointments, and (3) the court's inconsistency in exercising its responsibility for GAL system oversight," said the report. "The judges of each judicial district have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the quality and integrity of the court's GAL program."

The report recommends local courts conduct regular reviews of GAL training programs, equitable distribution of workloads among GALs, court rules, statutes, and case law, as well as local court policies and procedures.

Grievances, and the role of GALs are also addressed in the report, including the possibility of Supreme Court-adopted court rules that establish statewide standards.

"Judges...were supportive of the concept of using court rule to direct the grievance process, and to establish a code of conduct, as opposed to statute," said Curtis, recognizing the court rule process gives judges more control over what goes into it. "If it's by statute, there's more (chance of ) encroachment by the Legislature into the judicial branch of government," Curtis said.

The report also includes recommendations relating to private funding of CASAs, GAL certification and funding, ex parte communication, and confidentiality issues.

Outcome: A Formalized System

Curtis stressed the report's many recommendations really amount to a proactive stance to protect and enhance the current system.

"There were primarily problems with one court, but even there, they weren't pervasive," said Curtis. "Certain individuals may have done questionable things, and when people had concerns, their system for responding was weak."

"But there are thousands of cases annually where guardian ad litems are appointed, and there is no public outcry. I think a lot of what we are doing are preventative, supplemental things that will help the system, and address issues should they arise. But, for the most part, the systems in those counties are functioning at an adequate level."

Curtis said implementation of the committee recommendations will improve the current system.

"I think it will establish a formalized system for GALS in this state. One of the big things is that it will send a signal that judges want to retain control over this system."

Full copies of the report will be distributed about the third week of August to superior and juvenile court administrators, and to presiding judges. For more information, contact Mike Curtis, Office of the Administrator for the Courts,(360) 705-5227.