Mary Margaret Farren v. Michael Farren (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

While the defendant filed a motion for the appointment of a Guardian-ad-Litem in the above entitled matter, it should be noted that pursuant to the order of the superior court for criminal matters in Stamford, a restraining order and order of protection has been entered that has not been modified or removed and it is unlikely that any change will be made in that matter in the foreseeable future.   The criminal court order takes precedence over any order that might issue or emanate from the family court with respect to orders for protection.   In addition there is no indication that either of the children have expressed any interest in having contact with their father and the oldest child has indicated just the contrary.   There is no allegation that the plaintiff has been anything but a responsible mother.

There is no requirement that the court appoint a Guardian-at-Litem unless there is a compelling reason.   In addition thereto trial is scheduled to commence on February 14, 2011, the court having found exigent circumstances.   There is no claim that the children in this matter have separate interests in the proceedings that could be directly affected or could be injured for failure to appoint a Guardian-ad-Litem.

There are no underlying facts that set forth any reason it is in the best interest of the children to appoint a Guardian-ad-Litem at this time.   Newman v. Newman, 235 Conn. 82, 99 (1995);  35 Conn.App. 449.   Failure to appoint counsel for a minor child is not an abuse of discretion.  Pisch v. Pisch, 7 Conn.App. 720 (1986).   Any appointment at this time would only serve to delay the commencement of proceeding.

Counsel for the defendant have failed to set forth a valid reason why the court should make any such appointment at this time.   Any appointment would have the effect of interfering with the orders of the criminal court.

OWENS, J.T.R.

Owens, Howard T., J.T.R.