# Ask the Guardian ad Litem **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 14, 2016, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guardian-ad-litem/768558 "2016-10-14T21:52:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2016, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guardian-ad-litem/768558/21 "2016-10-16T23:47:32Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Is attending the seminar all that is required to become a GAL? In theory, can anyone become a GAL by registering for and surviving (heh) the seminar, or do only certain people get the opportunity to attend the seminar? For example, do you have to pass an entrance exam? Is it lottery based? Do you have to be recommended by an existing GAL? I don’t know how laymen GALs get appointed. It doesn’t happen very often because of the requirement to also appoint a lawyer. It’s generally cheaper to just appoint a certified lawyer and go from there. > [@](#): > > How much discretion does a GAL typically have to make their own recommendations without being forced by existing policies, standards, or rules of inference? For example, would a GAL be more likely to say, “The child’s bedroom contains 100 parts per million of mold according to a measurement taken on October 14 by one of those Certified Mold Detection Guys. More than 50 parts per million of mold constitutes neglect per se under Family Adjudication Law 33.4 Subsection Q Addendum 3, therefore NEGLECT! Terminate them parental rights! We’ll teach them to neglect a child!” or “Based on my holistic analysis of the child’s overall home situation with reference to the cultural, economic, educational, religious, and epistemological backgrounds of all the family members, the parents lack of emotional support for their child rises to what in my professional opinion constitutes clinically significant neglect. I recommend termination of parental rights.”? Sorry. None of that has any basis in reality. TPR is a very serious matter, and not something to be recommended flippantly. There are specific statutory criteria that must be met. Serious abuse/neglect, abandonment, or the parent is “otherwise unfit” due to a list of factors. Nobody quibbles about parts per million of any damn thing. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guardian-ad-litem/768558/22 "2016-10-16T23:54:27Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > …Sorry. None of that has any basis in reality. TPR is a very serious matter, and not something to be recommended flippantly. There are specific statutory criteria that must be met. Serious abuse/neglect, abandonment, or the parent is “otherwise unfit” due to a list of factors. Nobody quibbles about parts per million of any damn thing. Perhaps my example was a bit exaggerated. What I meant to ask was whether GAL recommendations are primarily based on (coldly, perhaps) applying complex rules of logic to sets of observed facts according to strict statutory criteria and popping an answer out of an algorithm (E.g. X happened, X implies Y according to Rule Z, Y constitutes Neglect, therefore Neglect), or are they more holistic professional judgments that attempt to harmonize statutory criteria and reality into an overall assessment that is greater than 1 + 1 = 2 (e.g. X happened, X implies Y under most cases if it is reasonable to conclude such given the circumstances, which I think are met, Y constitutes Neglect if the GAL in their professional opinion considers it ‘serious’, which I do because of Reasons A B and C (See Best Practices in Family Togetherness by Johnson, Murphy, and Smith, et al., 1995), therefore Neglect)? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guardian-ad-litem/768558/23 "2016-10-17T02:08:23Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Perhaps my example was a bit exaggerated. What I meant to ask was whether GAL recommendations are primarily based on (coldly, perhaps) applying complex rules of logic to sets of observed facts according to strict statutory criteria and popping an answer out of an algorithm (E.g. X happened, X implies Y according to Rule Z, Y constitutes Neglect, therefore Neglect), or are they more holistic professional judgments that attempt to harmonize statutory criteria and reality into an overall assessment that is greater than 1 + 1 = 2 (e.g. X happened, X implies Y under most cases if it is reasonable to conclude such given the circumstances, which I think are met, Y constitutes Neglect if the GAL in their professional opinion considers it ‘serious’, which I do because of Reasons A B and C (See Best Practices in Family Togetherness by Johnson, Murphy, and Smith, et al., 1995), therefore Neglect)? At least in my cases, it’s the more holistic approach. I want as much information as I can get in a TPR case. If the bio parent shows up in court, I’m going to listen to whatever they have to say, review any documents/pictures/etc they have to show me, and if necessary, conduct a home visit even if it means traveling out of state and getting a police escort while I do it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guardian-ad-litem/768558.md?page=1)