In Hoskins v. Hoskins, 152 which was pending while Morgan was before the Kentucky Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals pointed out the role that the Kentucky Supreme Court played in
clarifying the role of the guardian ad litem. 153 In Hoskins, the parents had joint custody and
neither parent was the primary residential custodian. 154 The mother filed a motion for
modification of custody and parenting time. 155 The trial court appointed a GAL to submit a
report making a recommendation as to custody and parenting issues, and asked that it be
submitted within thirty days, similar to the report submitted in Morgan. 156 The GAL interviewed
the child and filed a report in which the GAL, among other things, disclosed confidences of the
child. 157 The GAL recommended that the trial court follow the child’s expressed wishes, and the
trial court generally followed the recommendation, continuing the parties’ joint custody
arrangement, naming the mother as the primary physical custodian and giving the father
parenting time pursuant to the local rule. 158 The trial court made its decision without citing to
specific evidence or allowing the GAL’s report or the GAL herself to be cross examined. 159 The
father appealed the trial court’s order. 160 The Court of Appeals noted that, under Morgan, the
roles of Friend of the Court and GAL could not be confused. 161 A statutorily-permitted Friend of
the Court would be allowed to file a report with the court and be cross examined. 162 A GAL,
however, would “participate actively as legal counsel for the child,” including all the
153 Id. at 2.
154 Id. at 1.
156 Morgan, 441 S.W.3d at 96.
157 Hoskins, 2015 WL 222177, at 1.
158 Id. at 2.
159 Id. at 4.
160 Id. at 2.