§ 5334. Guardian ad litem for child.
(a) Appointment.--The court may on its own motion or the motion of a party appoint a guardian ad litem
to represent the child in the action. The court may assess the cost upon the parties
or any of them or as otherwise provided by law. The guardian ad litem must be an attorney
at law.
(b) Powers and duties.--The guardian ad litem shall be charged with representation of the legal interests
and the best interests of the child during the proceedings and shall do all of the
following:
(1) If appropriate to the child's age and maturity, meet with the child as soon as possible
following the appointment and on a regular basis thereafter.
(2) On a timely basis, be given access to relevant court records, reports of examination
of the parents or other custodian of the child and medical, psychological and school
records.
(3) Participate in all proceedings.
(4) Conduct such further investigation necessary to ascertain relevant facts for presentation
to the court.
(5) Interview potential witnesses, including the child's parents and caretakers, if any.
The guardian ad litem may examine and cross-examine witnesses and present witnesses
and evidence necessary to protect the best interests of the child.
(6) Make specific recommendations in a written report to the court relating to the best
interests of the child, including any services necessary to address the child's needs
and safety. The court shall make the written report part of the record so that it
may be reviewed by the parties. The parties may file with the court written comments
regarding the contents of the report. The comments filed by the parties shall also
become part of the record.
(7) Explain the proceedings to the child to the extent appropriate given the child's age,
mental condition and emotional condition.
(8) Advise the court of the child's wishes to the extent that they can be ascertained
and present to the court whatever evidence exists to support the child's wishes. When
appropriate because of the age or mental and emotional condition of the child, determine
to the fullest extent possible the wishes of the child and communicate this information
to the court. A difference between the child's wishes under this paragraph and the
recommendations under paragraph (6) shall not be considered a conflict of interest
for the guardian ad litem.
(c) Abuse.--If substantial allegations of abuse are made, the court may appoint a guardian ad
litem for the child if:
(1) counsel for the child is not appointed under section 5335 (relating to counsel for
child); and
(2) the court is satisfied that the relevant information will be presented to the court
only with such appointment.
(d) Evidence subject to examination.--A guardian ad litem may not testify except as authorized by Rule 3.7 of the Rules
of Professional Conduct, but may make legal argument based on relevant evidence that
shall be subject to examination by the parties.
(e) Costs.--The court may order a party to pay all or part of the costs of appointing a guardian
ad litem under this section.
(f) Education and training.--A court appointing a guardian ad litem under this section shall make reasonable efforts
to appoint a guardian ad litem who received evidence-based education and training
relating to child abuse, including child sexual abuse, domestic abuse education and
the effect of child sexual abuse and domestic abuse on children.
(Apr. 15, 2024, P.L.24, No.8, eff. 120 days)
2024 Amendment. Act 8 amended subsec. (c) and added subsec. (f). See section 1 of Act 8 in the appendix
to this title for special provisions relating to findings and declarations.
Suspension by Court Rule. Section 5334 was suspended by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1915.25, effective
April 1, 2023, insofar as it requires that a guardian ad litem be an attorney, permits
the guardian ad litem to represent both the best interests and legal interests of
the child, provides the guardian ad litem the right to examine, cross-examine, present
witnesses and present evidence on behalf of the child, and prohibits the guardian
ad litem from testifying.
Notes of Decisions
M.G. v. L.D., Appeal of: C.B.D., 155 A.3d 1083 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 4× “21 While the changes became effective three 21 The Editors’ Note following 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334 explained, - 28 - J-A08005-16 J-A08006-16 months after the trial court first endowed Attorney Kane Brown with her court-ordered authority during June 2013, the alterations were operative…”
C.L. v. M.P., 255 A.3d 514 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 5× “For the ____________________________________________ 1 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334. 2 A prior divided panel of this Court affirmed the trial court’s orders in a memorandum decision that has been withdrawn.”
K.M.G. v. H.M.W., 171 A.3d 839 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“11-2 and 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334? Mother’s Brief at 9 (suggested answers and unnecessary capitalization omitted).”
L.M.P. v. E.C., 149 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Appellant argues that given the complexity of the case, the obligations imposed by the Appointment Order, the demands of the parties, and the obligations imposed by the Guardian Ad Litem for Child Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334(b), the trial court’s decision was manifestly…”
C.L. v. M.P., 2021 Pa. Super. 107 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 5× “For the ____________________________________________ 1 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334. 2 A prior divided panel of this Court affirmed the trial court’s orders in a memorandum decision that has been withdrawn.”
C.L. v. M.P., 2020 Pa. Super. 159 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 4× “(“Father”), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334, with restrictions as to disclosure and dissemination by the GAL, as well as the ability to object to the GAL’s testimony and/or report or recommendation.”
L.M.P. v. E.C., 149 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Appellant argues that given the complexity of the case, the obligations imposed by the Appointment Order, the demands of the parties, and the obligations imposed by the Guardian Ad Litem for Child Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334(b), the trial court’s decision was manifestly…”
N.W.M. v. Langenbach, P., Aplts. (Pa. 2024).
· cites it 3× “misidentifies the legal source of GALs’ obligations as 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334 and Pa.R.Civ.P. 1915.11-2.”
M.G. v. L.D., Appeal of: B.D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Thus, upon remand, the trial court shall state Attorney Kane 20 The Editors’ Note following 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334 explained, SUSPENDED IN PART 23 Pa.”
L.M.P. v. E.C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Since the trial court already found that the GAL actually spent the time listed on her invoices and that she performed the work in an exemplary manner, we remand the matter to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine for each time entry: 1) whether the Appointment Order or…”
S.L.R. v. R.V. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“11-2, Note, (stating, “23 Pa.C.S. § 5334 is suspended in so far as it .”
K.M.G. v. H.M.W., 171 A.3d 839 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“11-2 and 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334? Mother’s Brief at 9 (suggested answers and unnecessary capitalization omitted).”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5334(b) — 3 cases
L.M.P. v. E.C., 149 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Appellant argues that given the complexity of the case, the obligations imposed by the Appointment Order, the demands of the parties, and the obligations imposed by the Guardian Ad Litem for Child Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334(b), the trial court’s decision was manifestly…”
L.M.P. v. E.C., 149 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Appellant argues that given the complexity of the case, the obligations imposed by the Appointment Order, the demands of the parties, and the obligations imposed by the Guardian Ad Litem for Child Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334(b), the trial court’s decision was manifestly…”
L.M.P. v. E.C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Since the trial court already found that the GAL actually spent the time listed on her invoices and that she performed the work in an exemplary manner, we remand the matter to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine for each time entry: 1) whether the Appointment Order or…”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5334(b)(2) — 2 cases
C.L. v. M.P., 255 A.3d 514 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“For the ____________________________________________ 1 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334. 2 A prior divided panel of this Court affirmed the trial court’s orders in a memorandum decision that has been withdrawn.”
C.L. v. M.P., 2021 Pa. Super. 107 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“For the ____________________________________________ 1 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334. 2 A prior divided panel of this Court affirmed the trial court’s orders in a memorandum decision that has been withdrawn.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5334(b)(6) — 3 cases
C.L. v. M.P., 255 A.3d 514 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“For the ____________________________________________ 1 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334. 2 A prior divided panel of this Court affirmed the trial court’s orders in a memorandum decision that has been withdrawn.”
C.L. v. M.P., 2021 Pa. Super. 107 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“For the ____________________________________________ 1 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334. 2 A prior divided panel of this Court affirmed the trial court’s orders in a memorandum decision that has been withdrawn.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5334(e) — 3 cases
L.M.P. v. E.C., 149 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Appellant argues that given the complexity of the case, the obligations imposed by the Appointment Order, the demands of the parties, and the obligations imposed by the Guardian Ad Litem for Child Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334(b), the trial court’s decision was manifestly…”
L.M.P. v. E.C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Since the trial court already found that the GAL actually spent the time listed on her invoices and that she performed the work in an exemplary manner, we remand the matter to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine for each time entry: 1) whether the Appointment Order or…”
L.M.P. v. E.C., 149 A.3d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Appellant argues that given the complexity of the case, the obligations imposed by the Appointment Order, the demands of the parties, and the obligations imposed by the Guardian Ad Litem for Child Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334(b), the trial court’s decision was manifestly…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.