It is wrong. And ... the whole notion of "in the child's best interest" as a court standard is deeply flawed conceptually, factually and legally. It also provides an irrefutable, unarguable weapon for any miscreant GAL (or court) who chooses to abuse it. It is the ultimate authoritarian refuge that can be used to preclude any further exploration or discussion of issues. We are aware of reports of numerous abuses of "in the child's best interest". There is the refusal to disclose GAL case records, the refusal to provide reasons behind complex, seemingly irrational GAL decisions, the refusal to respond to client challenges about regulatory violations, the refusal to identify charges on a GALs invoice of charges for service. When challenged for enlightenment, the reply: Open discussion is "Not in the child's best interest!" Sometimes this refusal to share data is reenforced with, "It might be dangerous." End of discussion. Over and out!
This kind of authoritarian claim that a GAL, alone, using whatever resources, can determine what is "in the child's best interest", is misleading. The child's wishes may be denied, and parental rights may be ignored. Further there is no way of correcting the actions of a delinquent GAL making such highly subjective decisions, other than a very expensive, time consuming, slow moving appeal to a higher court. Don't like it? Take your money and do an appeal to a higher court which created the unsupervised GALs in the first place. No wonder there are so few appeals. It is not about a lack of grievances, as some suggest. It is about the lack of money and energy and time to pursue a complex corrective action.
In the hands of a delinquent GAL, the idea of "in the child's best interest" can be a devastating weapon that brooks no defense. It implicitly says: "Because I'm the Mommy, and I say so!" "Mommy" has no place in common law and shouldn't be setting custody standards in court!
Along with 'ex parte' discussions, "in the child's best interest" makes GALs virtually bullet proof legally!