What is a Guardian ad Litem? Why should I care?

 On paper, a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) sounds like a brilliant idea: an impartial, trained advocate appointed to represent the best interests of a child in high-conflict custody cases. Their job is to investigate, observe, and make recommendations to the judge—helping courts make informed decisions in the child’s best interest.

But in practice? It’s a system riddled with bias, conflicts of interest, unchecked power, and devastating consequences for families who get caught in its gears.

Guardian ad Litems in Georgia—and across the United States—routinely operate without meaningful oversight. Though their role is supposed to be limited to fact-finding and advocacy for the child, GALs frequently cross the line into acting like mini-judges, therapists, and prosecutors rolled into one. They make sweeping recommendations about custody, visitation, therapy, schooling, and even parental fitness—often based on little more than personal impressions.

In many cases, they:

• Take sides early and refuse to consider contrary evidence
   
• Make snap judgments about one parent based on appearance, lifestyle, or past mistakes
   
• Rely on hearsay, unsworn statements, or biased interviews
   
• Fail to interview key witnesses or observe full family dynamics
   
• Ignore or misrepresent documents and timelines
   
• Retaliate against parents who question their conclusions or ethics
   

And worst of all? Their word carries enormous weight with the judge—often more than the parents, the evidence, or even mental health professionals.

In Georgia, GALs are typically private attorneys paid by the hour. Rates range from $150 to $300 or more—charged to the very families already strained by legal fees and life upheaval. There’s rarely a cap. Judges can appoint GALs on their own, without agreement by the parties, and once appointed, parents can be forced to pay thousands of dollars with little recourse.

Some courts appoint the same handful of GALs over and over again, creating entrenched relationships between judges, attorneys, and GALs that raise serious questions of impartiality. If you dare to challenge a GAL’s findings—or suggest they acted unfairly—you risk being painted as “uncooperative” or “hostile to the process,” labels that often end up in final orders.

GALs are supposed to serve the best interests of the child. But too often, their actions reflect personal bias, convenience, or power plays. “Best interest” becomes a vague shield that allows them to trample on the rights of parents, ignore the child’s actual needs, and issue recommendations based on subjective feelings instead of verifiable facts.

Many GALs are not trauma-informed. Few have backgrounds in child development, psychology, or abuse dynamics. Yet they wield enormous influence in decisions that shape a child’s entire future—who they live with, how often they see a parent, whether they get to maintain stable relationships with siblings or extended family.

If a GAL lies in a report, omits key facts, retaliates against a parent, or otherwise acts unethically, what happens? Almost always: nothing.

GALs enjoy quasi-immunity in Georgia, meaning they are shielded from lawsuits for most of what they do in their role—even when it causes significant harm. Complaints to the State Bar or to judicial oversight bodies are often dismissed or redirected. Judges are hesitant to remove GALs, even when serious concerns are raised, because doing so implies error or bias in their own courtroom.

This isn't just a Georgia issue. Across the country, families report the same problems:

• GALs who cozy up to the wealthier parent
   
• GALs who ignore abuse or favor charm over facts
   
• GALs who stretch out cases to continue billing
   
• GALs who blur the line between advocate and gatekeeper
   

In some states, GALs are public employees or court-appointed volunteers with better training and clearer limitations. But even there, the same themes emerge: lack of oversight, lack of transparency, and enormous, often unchecked influence over the fate of families.

If the legal system is going to use GALs, reforms are long overdue. At minimum:

• Training in trauma, bias, child development, and domestic abuse dynamics should be mandatory
   
• Affordability caps must be implemented—families should not go bankrupt trying to pay GALs
   
• Clear role boundaries must be enforced: GALs are not judges, therapists, or lawyers for the parents
   
• Oversight mechanisms must exist for removing GALs who abuse their position or fail in their duties
   
• Transparency is essential—recommendations should be evidence-based and subject to challenge
   

Until that happens, parents across Georgia and beyond are right to be wary. A Guardian ad Litem may walk into your life as a supposed neutral, but all too often, they leave a trail of harm, confusion, and permanent damage.