96 Children’s Legal Rights Journal [Vol. 37: 1 2017]
under Kentucky Family Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 6 subject to cross examination;
second, an attorney for the child who would not file a report or advisory opinion and would not
be subject to cross examination; or third, an approach allowing for the appointment of two
attorneys, one to act in each of the delineated roles as the case required. 106
Counsel for the GAL argued that in Kentucky, a GAL must be an attorney, and was therefore
bound to follow the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct. 107 Counsel for the GAL argued
that the GAL was not investigator or a witness, subject to examination by the parties, but rather
was counsel for the child. The GAL’s role was, first and foremost, to act in his or her capacity as
an attorney to represent the interests of the child to whom he or she was appointed to
In addition, Counsel for the GAL argued that the GAL’s relation to the court was clear: since
the GAL was required to be a practicing attorney, it followed that the GAL was required to
perform his duties as an attorney and not an investigator/reporter. Finally, the Counsel for GAL
suggested that the mother's argument that the GAL served as a court investigator was incorrect
because the investigator/reporter statutes made no mention of GALs and did not apply to
GALs. 109 Rather, Counsel for the GAL argued that the statutes anticipated that the court might
require the help of an expert instead of or in addition to the GAL when making its custody
determination. 110 Counsel for the GAL argued that the statute was meant to apply to such
106 Id. at 20-21.
107 KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 403.090( 1) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 7, 12, 13 of the 2017 Reg. Sess.).
108 See also, Black v. Wiedeman, 254 S.W.2d 344, 346 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952).
109 KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 403.290 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 7, 12, 13 of the 2017 Reg. Sess.); KY. REV. STAT.
ANN. § 403.300 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 7, 12, 13 of the 2017 Reg. Sess.).
110 Brief of the Guardian ad Litem at 20, Morgan v. Getter, 441 S. W.3d 94 (Ky. 2014) (No. 2013-CA-000655) 2013
Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 517, at 2 (Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2013).