Appointment of GAL Does Not Give Rise to Attorney-Client Relationship

Tennessee child custody case summary on gaurdian ad litem representation in divorce.

Benjamin Runyon v. Lisa Zacharias

The defendant in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case was an attorney who had been appointed in 2012 as a guardian ad litem for three children during their parent’s divorce case.

The oldest child turned 18 during the divorce proceedings.  Three years later, he sued the guardian ad litem, claiming that she had violated his confidentiality by disclosing his psychological records in the divorce case without his knowledge or consent.

The trial court, Judge Robert L. Childers, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that a guardian ad litem must represent the best interests of the children, which is different from representing a child in the context of an attorney-client relationship.  It also noted that the order under which she was appointed authorized her to collect confidential information, and to release it as may be necessary.

The plaintiff then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  After looking at the rules governing guardians ad litem, the court turned to the facts of the case and the plaintiff’s arguments.

The appeals court first looked at the defense of quasi-judicial immunity.  The defendant argued that this doctrine also supported dismissing the complaint.  The court held that this defense was not available.  It nonetheless affirmed, because it agreed with the lower court that the complaint did not state a claim.

The plaintiff first argued that because he had reached the age of 18, the defendant ceased to be his guardian ad litem.  However, the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant that her appointment continued, particularly because she was still representing the younger siblings in that role.

The court then turned to a discussion of the relationship between a guardian ad litem and a child.  The plaintiff argued that because the guardian must advocate for the child, this gives rise to an attorney-client relationship.  The trial court had pointed out that the guardian ad litem is required to represent the child’s best interest, and not the child.  The appeals court agreed with this analysis.  Even though the guardian is an attorney, the governing rule makes clear that this attorney represents the interests of the child, and not the child as a client.  It also noted that the rule addressed many points inconsistent with an attorney-client relationship.

The court then turned to the disclosure of confidential information.  It zeroed in on an exception to confidentiality when disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation.  Under the guardian ad litem rules, certain disclosures were required, and the court held that they satisfied this exception.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

No. W2016-02141-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2018).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.

See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.