B. THE NATIONAL TREND

Several writers are offering an innovative approach to understanding the roles and responsibilities in representing children. One approach is authored by Professor Koh Peters who addresses the "wishes/best interest" dichotomy by offering what she calls "contextual/child-centered lawyering." Peters, Jean Koh, Representing Children in Child Protective Proceedings: Ethical and Practical Dimensions at 2.3 (b), n.17 (Michie 1997). Professor Peters argues that the polarizing debate between representing best interests and representing the child's expressed wishes should be set aside. Rather than divided, these two missions are complementary. She asserts that the law guardian is to reflect on the child's point of view by entering and understanding the world of the child client along with respecting him/her as a unique and subjective individual. She calls upon the attorney to maintain this approach from the point of initial client contact until closure of the attorney/client relationship. The "Peters Model" is as follows:

1. Determine the child's unique circumstances through a full and efficient investigation;
2. Assess the child at the moment of determination;
3. Determine the alternative options for the client;
4. Examine each option in light of the 2 child welfare paradigms: psychological parent (primary caretaker) and family network (extended family resources) (NOTE: The 2 paradigms are fully discussed in the Peters article, infra);
5. Utilize mental health and social work experts if the analysis becomes too complex; and
6. Present the best option or options.

The author Marv Ventrell further endorses this model of the law guardian's role by explaining that, optimally, the law guardian/CASA team should apply a synthesis of beneficence ("best interest") and autonomy (child's expressed position) in advocating for their child clients. See Ventrell, Marv, Models of Child Advocacy, supra at 135-142.

Debate surrounding this "synthesis" approach has suggested that a "hybrid" role may be the best framework within which to advocate for children. However, current ethical rules (i.e., the ABA Standards) may in fact hinder this approach. The law guardian is cautioned to not perceive the approach as permitting "relaxed representation", but as providing an alternative to serving as a "robotic mouthpiece" for clients who may not be entirely capable of protecting their own best interests.

These three authors, Peters, Haralambie and Ventrell, will assist any child advocate who has struggled with the confusion of role ambiguity. For additional reading on the roles and responsibilities of the GAL, please see: Child Advocacy at a Crossroads: The Development and Direction of Children's Law in America, NACC Children's Law Manual Series (1996 Edition) (can be obtained by contacting the Nat'l Assoc. Of Counsel for Children, 1205 Oneida Street, Denver, Colorado 80220; (303)322-2260), Perry and Teply, Interviewing, Counseling and In-Court Examination of Children: Practical Approaches for Attorneys, 18 Creighton L.Rev. 1369 (1985), Walker, Anne Graffam, Ph.D., Handbook on Questioning Children: A Linguistic Perspective (1994); Rich, John, Interviewing Children and Adolescents (1986)