The law guardian in a case is an attorney that represents the child in contested custody cases. The Law guardian in New York State is now referred to as the “attorney for the child”. The attorney for the child, or law guardian, will play a significant and elevated role in custody cases throughout the State of New York. The New York matrimonial bar is often at odds with respect to whether or not the attorney for the child performs a crucial verses dispensable role in a New York matrimonial case or New York Family Court case.

While it is not mandatory that a Court appoint a law guardian or attorney in any given custody case, the practice of Judges in New York State is that the Court will appoint one where a custody conflict ensues. The role of an attorney for the child is complex. Historically an attorney for the child was used by the Court for the purpose of doing a preliminary and ongoing investigation into the life of a child. Often times they were asked to do home studies of the child and report back to the Court as to which parent was best suited to care for the child or which custodial relationship would be in the best interests of the child. Historically the role entailed wearing two hats, the first of which was advocating for the subjective “best interests of the child” and the second of which was expressing to the Court the stated preference of the child in cases where the child is old enough to knowledgeably articulate preference, and the child has no mental incapacity which would impede that thought process. The role of the law guardian has evolved since its inception through local court rules that allow attorneys for the child to represent only the stated interests of the child or else to articulate reasons why the child’s preference should be substituted for the attorneys’ subjective insight as to what would be in the best interests of the child. If the child is young or otherwise incapacitated and unable to intelligently express a preference that must be reported to the court and only then may the law guardian express their subjective views as to the best interests of the child. The attorney for the child or children, or the law Guardians, are like any other attorney, generally well respected professionals set on performing their professional role with zeal and vigor. That said, by virtue of the role they play in custody litigation, they are being paid by litigants who have no control over the legal time spent on the case. Sometimes it happens that there is excessive spending by overly zealous law guardians whose style is to micro manage the lives of the party litigants. Some law guardians see it as their job to manage the family’s choices as to the extracurricular activities of the child, or as to their choice of doctors, schools, summer camps and day care, often skewing the more important aspects of custody litigation that play a far greater role in the determination of the best interests of the child or children.

There are several reasons why the bar and bench should reconsider the appointment of law guardians in litigation. First, lawyers for children are often witnesses to the home environment, statements of the child, and the actions of each parent. Yet attorneys are not allowed to call this witness of sorts to the stand. Because attorneys for the child cannot be called to testify an inherent conflict of interest occurs since attorneys under the law cannot simultaneously perform a dual role as witness and counsel. Another conflict occurs where a successful parent in a previous custody suit contributes a sizable donation to the organization in which a law guardian is associated and then that case comes back to court in the form of a petition for modification of custody. In that instance, because of their familiarity with the underlying facts, the law guardian (or some other law guardian associated with the same sponsoring nonprofit panel) is usually ordered to resume their role in the modification case. While this procedure is logically sounds and judicious it also has its pitfalls. One is that because there is no transparency in nonprofit organizations that accept anonymous donations, often times that law guardian is unwittingly wed to the position of the association that may or may not have received a donation. That topic alone is worthy of another debate in another article, as an attorney for the child may find it difficult to reconcile their bias in favor of one parent over another. As an example, an attorney may have an understandable but unforgiveable allegiance to their sponsoring not for profit organization by virtue of the fact that they have obtained an “income producing” assignment by a nonprofit organization, such that they may feel compelled to substitute the views of said organization for their own considered judgment. Further, if said organization has promised to keep a party litigant’s donation anonymous, then the other litigant might be unknowingly prejudiced by said pecuniary interest. To conclude on this point, the attorney for the child may be unable to set aside their bias in their recommendations to the Court, thus raising the spectrum of a semblance of impropriety which the Professional Ethics code tells attorneys to avoid. Second, the facts obtained by the attorney for the child remains within the province of that attorney, who has, for all practical purposes, been assigned as an investigatory arm of the court. He or she is immune from cross examination and by virtue of the role of an attorney for children; the parties are precluded from advancing their case through the use of this law guardian.

Third, the law guardian’s ultimate recommendation to the Court as to custody is given great weight in the decision making of the Court. This is because the Judiciary acknowledges that they lack the time and resources to investigate the facts surrounding the home environment of the child and the fitness of the parents. Typically the Court relies upon the attorney for the child to investigate the child’s circumstances and report back to the court which poses the problem of interjecting an attorney into the role of witness. This poses the question as to whether lawyers for children are qualified to make such psychologically advances assessments in a case were said questions are more suitably delegated to a psychologist trained in ascertaining the fitness to parent and the emotional and psychological deficits and strengths of the respective parties. They are also better equipped to interview children. The upside of having a law guardian is obvious. The law guardian can often assume the role as mediator for the court, and try to resolve custodial problems in that capacity. The law guardian also tries to remain neutral until the trial date, such that there is the x factor involved, to wit, the question of winning or losing after trial is wide open until the lawyer for the child weighs with their recommendation and said facts puts pressure on the parties to settle their case before trial. That said, there is an inherent conflict in the use of law guardians in custody cases where more and more Judicial Departments lean toward private pay law guardians. The unconscious incentive to earn fees may theoretically impede the professional responsibility to settle cases, as their clients are children to whom they are not accountable for their fee. This may explain the protracted nature of custody litigation as an attorney for the child is not held accountable for their fee to their client who does not control the financial aspects of the case. The next problematic issue arises where a Court next delegates too much responsibility onto the law guardian and relies too heavily on the law guardian's opinion in the rendering of a custody determination. The solution to this problem may very well be to assign any investigative work on behalf of the children to a psychological forensic expert, who would be more adept at ascertaining the strengths and weaknesses of each party and would testify to same at trial, and to eliminate or redefine a law guardian’s role in the legal proceedings.

Fourth, there is a financial hardship to the parties in having to pay for a third attorney. The Court appoints the attorney for the child from a designated panel such as the 18-B panel comprised of private New York attorneys. Only the indigent are eligible for the appointment of a free law guardian from the Legal Aid Society, Lawyers for Children, or the like. There are private pay panel approved by the respective Judicial committee adn often times the Court asks the attorneys for recommendations and makes great efforts to get the attorneys to consent to a law guardian. In the latter instance, the attorney for the child is paid by the parties on a prorate basis Fourth, There is a sizable cost that comes into play in a New York City divorce case or in a Manhattan family court case. Unless you are litigating in a New York Family Court, custody cases involving attorneys for the child can usually become extremely expensive and it is the litigants that pay for it. There is an inherent conflict where there is a huge disparity in income as an attorney may become more disposed to favor the party who is the paying parent over the less affluent parent. Usually the cost of the law guardian fee can be as low as $7,500.00 and as high as $1,000,000.00 or thereabouts depending upon the nature of the case, the complexity of the issues, the law guardian's hourly fee and the length of the proceedings. The cost is normally borne proportionate to the income of the parties. Thus, the person paying for the law guardian may very well be favored although that is not the usual norm. However, New York divorce lawyer and New York city custody lawyers are often concerned about this issue as the disenfranchised litigant can barely pay for their own lawyer let alone pay for an appease the cost of a lawyer for the child.

Fifth, judicial economy may not be best served through the appointment of a law guardian. By virtue of their appointment in case, law guardians may necessarily prolong litigation, being yet a third attorney obliged to call witnesses, conduct cross examination and make oral arguments. Thus, by the very nature of their involvement the law guardian can almost double the judicial time spent at fact findings and trial. Necessary or not, this factor alone causes financial devastation for the middle class litigant who can barely afford their own attorneys and forensic experts let alone another attorney.

Sixth, children of litigants are not parties to an action for custody, but rather are the subject of a custody case and hence there is no statutory requirement that they be represented by counsel. Much should be said for the fact that like in all other cases, the adversarial nature of litigation should arrive at the truth without the interjection of a third non-party attorney.

In conclusion, for the above reasons, a serious debate should be had as to the necessity of having a child represented by counsel in a custody dispute. The parents of the child and other extrinsic witnesses can best describe to the court the circumstances and relationship of the child to the respective parents. The appointed psychologist has more time than a law guardian to investigate the psychological well being of the parents and child and renders an opinion and may be called upon to testify or be cross examined at trial. Yet the New York State system of Justices continues to routinely appoint law guardians to their cases at great expense and peril to the best interest of the child. To be clear, attorneys for children are not unprofessional lawyers but rather very good lawyers that are highly trained in traditional methods of ascertaining what is in the child’s best interests and advocating for them. This writer does not accuse law guardians of unscrupulous conduct but rather is desirous of highlighting some of the pitfalls in relying upon them as some sort of infrastructure that works in the place of the Court. Certainly as a whole the law guardian is not unhelpful to the Courts in New York divorce or New York custody cases. However the matrimonial bar and family court lawyers often questions whether justice would be better served without them, or whether their role needs to be re-defined in the interest of justice. If they are to remain an investigatory tool then they should be the subject of cross examination just like any other expert witness. Moreover, New York State Divorce lawyers are often frustrated by their stated opinion as to the position of a mere child too young to participate in a custody determination which can change their entire life. In contrast to the opinion of a law guardian, who better than the children's parents to participate in a judicial determination as to which parent is best suited to be the custodial parent? The aforementioned question plagues many New York matrimonial attorneys; although many lawyers are too afraid to question the effectiveness of a law guardian in a custody case since indeed this establishment is well rooted and ensconced in the New York State legal system.

New York City divorce lawyers and New York State custody attorneys are asked to comment on this article as the author is currently working on a survey and will be writing a law review article on the topic of the role of the law guardian in New York City divorce litigation.

Home owners at risk of losing their homes may now have an avenue of recourse. Lisa Beth Older, a New York Attorney, will perform an in-depth constitutional analysis of present bank lending practices which will be offered as a basis for a proposed Congressional review. Victims of lending abuses are invited to join in the submission of a brief one-page complaint addressed to Lisa Beth Older, Esq. so that an assessment can be made as to whether or not the latest lending policies are widespread, whether they intentionally violate anti-trust laws, whether the constitutional rights of individual consumers in the free market place have been violated, and whether or not legislative or judicial intervention is warranted.

“The housing crisis is caused in large part by predatory banking practices.” The government is planning on bailing out the very institutions that caused the home foreclosure crisis without similarly bailing out victimized home owners suffering from unduly high interest rates. These suspect loan practices use unfair or fraudulent loan criteria to deny credit to the credit-worthy. The lending practices currently being reviewed involve refusal of lending institutions to provide pre-existing borrowers with the same interest rate currently offer to new borrowers. The current high paying borrowers were lured into low flexible variable rate loans, and were verbally promised lock-in rates if rates increased. After the rates increased exponentially, borrowers locked in their loans at significantly higher fixed interest rates relying upon the lender’s promise that once interest rates declined again they could always convert their loan back to an adjustable variable rate. However, these high paying borrowers, in reliance upon this misleading information, applied for the adjustable loan and were unceremoniously declined. Presently it appears that while new customer loan applications are being accepted, pre-existing mortgagor applications have been denied by the same institution that offered them their previous low interest variable rate home equity loan in the first instance. Accordingly, as attorney Lisa Beth Older says, “All government bail-outs offered to lending institutions should be contingent upon bail-outs for borrowers victimized by predatory practices.” The government’s failure to regulate banks has resulted in the flagrant violation of constitutional rights, alleges attorney Lisa Beth Older. It is a violation of equal protection under the law if a bank provides lower interest rate loans to new mortgagors, while refusing to refinance existing customer loans at the same interest rate where both of the aforementioned home loan borrowers are similarly financially situated with respect to their income, loan-to-risk ratio, and credit status. The result is that the middle class person with pre-existing excellent credit is stuck with a higher interest rate, the new borrower is able to secure a lower interest rate, and the banks can use both borrowers to cover the losses incurred in the foreclosure market due to their own predatory practices.

Moreover, lending institutions and commercial banks may very well be in violation of the Anti-Trust Act. Lisa Beth Older says that an investigation should be held by Congress to review any potential scheme of collectively engaging in the adoption of widespread abusive lending practice that refuse to re-finance loans for borrowers who had their house on the market within the last 90 to 120 days. This scheme has forced many home owners into foreclosure or debt. “The deplorable widespread lending practice of denying refinancing to qualified borrowers, who, in precedent months, listed their home for sale, should be carefully scrutinized by our government,” says Lisa Beth Older, Esq.

Commercial banks are further refusing to reduce interest rates for status quo customers with good credit based upon other bogus excuses such as the value to loan ratio is not sufficient, or by using old tax rolls in lieu of real estate appraisals. Lisa Beth Older, Esq. is further asking Congress for a moratorium on foreclosures. Lisa Beth Older will make application to hold a Congressional hearing if there is enough evidence of widespread abuse. If you feel you are a victim of such unfair bank practices feel free to mail your complaint to
FRONT DESK at Gateway Plaza (Attn Lisa Older Esq.)
375 South End Ave
Building 400
NY NY 10280

To ensure review, please be sure to bold FRONT DESK DELIVERY on the face of your envelope. Make it no more than one page. Include your name, address, telephone number, the financial institution in question, and your email address, together with a brief one-half (1/2) page description of how, when and why you were refused refinancing. Be sure you sign and/or notarize your complaint. Emails will not be accepted. All submissions longer than one page will be returned to the sender.

New York City Attorney Lisa Beth Older, Esq., through her client, is challenging Presidential Candidates John McCain and Barack Obama as to who will be the first to secure for the American people the one available penultimate energy source that can eliminate our reliance on foreign oil. The intellectual property rights are a national treasure and they are now available for sale. The battery technology owned by attorney Older's client is the answer to John McCain's promise of $300 million for the development of a new car battery technology. "This battery technology also answers Barack Obama's speeches imploring America to develop a new car battery that would rejuvenate America's economy, end the energy crisis, and provide thousands of job opportunities."

QUENSOR (TM) is the Quantum High Energy Density Storage or Retrieval Device that will revolutionize the way cars would be powered by a clean and cheap consumer friendly energy. This battery will help save our planet in peril and rid the need for pollutant lead batteries, oil, and carbon dioxide pollutant combustion engines, thus globally minimizing green house gases.

The question becomes "which of the two candidates has the chutzpah" to step forward, and make this urgently needed technology available to the people. This technology will place America on the map as the forerunner of renewable energy solutions, and will leave behind a global environmentally-friendly legacy for generations to come.

In an interview with Attorney Lisa Beth Older, attorney for the patent holder, Ms. Older states that her client's position is to sell this technology to America. However, in the event Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama, due to their own political ineptitude does not take advantage of obtaining this technology, then her client next offers any global investors, private, corporate or otherwise to be the first to benefit from this trillion dollar business opportunity, such as Japanese car manufacturers who historically have shown an interest in this technology and have a proven track record for buying significantly important intellectual property rights.

The technology is here, the timing is now, and our government needs to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. "We now challenge each candidate to show us the money and develop this much needed technology."

Attorney Lisa Beth Order's client owns the intellectual property rights to the technology QUENSOR (TM). The solid-state Quensor TM has an energy density of about 1-15killowatt- hours/kilogram, which is comparable to gasoline, or more. A fundamentally new principle and a new method of manufacture are employed. If the upper limit of 15 kilowatt-hours per kilogram is assumed, a 60 pound Quensor device can supply an electric car at 50 miles per hour for 30 hours, or a total of 1500 miles on a single charge. This technology is developed by the world renowned scientist and Presidential adviser for JFK and can quickly and efficiently integrate into the American economy.

High Profile New York Divorce Lawyer Lisa Beth Older, Esq. is pleased to announce that she now offers consumers FREE video divorce information on her website which was previously sold on the open market.

NYCdivorceLawyer.net offers many free chapters, anything from prenuptial to separation agreements to custody and child support, or whether it's information about Family Court, about custody, equitable distribution, uncontested divorces or contested divorces. You'll even find video divorce information about prenuptial agreements.

Attorney Lisa Beth Older wishes for this information to be helpful when contemplating a divorce or even preparing for marriage. You may now view "Divorce Tactics" the TV show FREE with New York City divorce Lawyer Lisa Beth Older, Esq. This free and easily obtainable comprehensive overview of information may be viewed in your own home and should help consumers and prospective clients understand the intricacies of divorce process without having to pay for the video which previously sold for $29.95.