Ending the Guardian Ad Litem Court Scam?

It may be possible.

The following set of thoughts are presented only for education, entertainment and information only. Absent intent or authority as legal advice.

Is the Guardian Ad Litem or Attorney for the Child, just a big money racket that the courts use to pillage parents out of astronomical fees?

1. AXIOM: The legal definition of “legal disability” in legal doctrine is summarized as “a person under 18 or mentally incompetent.

2. AXIOM: The court “appoints” a Guardian Ad Litem for the purpose of mitigating the “legal disability” of the state of being a minor.

3. The legal disability of minority (the state of being a minor) is

   1. A physical and/or mental impairment (the state of being a minor) (28 C.F.R. §35.108(a)(1)(i) that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

   2. Major life activities substantially impaired by the legal disability of a minor are caring for oneself, eating, sleeping, learning, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others and working (28 C.F.R. §35.108(c)(1)(i)).

   3. Other major life activities substantially limited are the operation of many of the major bodily functions, which are still developing through childhood and adolescence.

   4. The legal disability of a minor is a “physiological condition” that affects one or more body systems. The medical community has even designated special doctors for minors called pediatricians, because their body systems are developing, and substantially limited from being an adult, or of age of majority.

   5. “The term ‘substantially limits’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. ‘Substantially limits’ is not meant to be a demanding standard.” 28 C.F.R. §35.108(d)(1)(i)

4. AXIOM: The appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem, or attorney for the child (“GAL”) is a mitigator for the legal disability of a minor.

5. The courts demand that the parents pay for the services of the court-appointed GAL.

6. Since the GAL is appointed to “accommodate” or mitigate the legal disability of a minor, the court’s demand for the parents to cover this charge for this accommodation seems to violate 28 C.F.R. §35.130(f), which states:

   
   ”A public entity may not place a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids or program accessibility, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.”

7. The child(ren) are legally disabled individuals that need access to the courts, and because of their legal disability of minority, they are appointed lawyers by the court. The court is surcharging this accommodation, and forcing parents to pay for it.

8. There appears to be no case of first impression on the appellate or federal district court levels that assert that the “legal disability” of a minor is a disability that qualifies under the ADA, and thus the appointment of a GAL for the child cannot be surcharged by the courts.

9. If all of the foregoing is true, the courts pillage of parents for the GAL system could end by successfully bringing a case that:

   1. claims the legal disability of a minor as a disability under the ADA (as shown above), and

   2. claims that the appointment of a GAL or child lawyer is solely for the purpose of accommodating/mitigating that legal disability of a minor, and

   3. claims that the courts, in appointing this accommodation, is unlawfully surcharging parents for their children to have access to the courts as a disabled minor, and

   4. seeks the appropriate relief of reimbursement for every single GAL fee that the courts have forced parents to pay over the years.

Just food for thought…

P.D., JAY V. SHORE, Certified ADA Advocate

inimicus curiae