Schult v. Schult
Supreme Court of Connecticut
699 A.2d 134 (Conn. 1997)
Cheryl (plaintiff) and Jeffrey (defendant) Schult had one child with emotional and developmental issues; Cheryl filed for divorce seeking custody, and the child's maternal grandmother, Radin, intervened after the child was injured while in the care of Cheryl's live-in boyfriend, Norman, an injury Cheryl and Norman denied he caused. The trial court appointed both a guardian ad litem (at Cheryl's request) and a separate attorney for the child (at Jeffrey's request); several mental health experts testified the child should go to Radin because he wouldn't be safe with Cheryl and Norman, while only Cheryl, Norman, and the guardian ad litem testified he'd be safe with Cheryl. The child's own attorney recommended in closing that Radin receive custody, and the trial court granted Radin sole custody with visitation for both parents; the guardian ad litem appealed, arguing the child's attorney should have deferred to the guardian ad litem's contrary position.
Whether a court may allow an attorney representing a minor child in connection with a custody dispute to advocate a position that is contrary to that of the child's guardian ad litem, so long as it is in the best interests of the child to permit such dual, conflicting advocacy.