Addressing Domestic Abuse in Family Court Cases Involving

Guardians ad Litem in Wisconsin

Prepared for

Legal Action of Wisconsin, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin, and Office of Court Operations of the Director of State Courts

By

Oindrila Chattopadhyay, Abigail Harrison, Madeline McIlhon, Charles Pratt, Christine Welcher, and Tia Westhoff

Workshop in Public Affairs Spring 2021

i

©2021 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. All rights reserved.

For an online copy, see

www.lafollette.wisc.edu/research-public-service/workshops-in-public-affairs

publications@lafollette.wisc.edu

The Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs is a teaching and research

department of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The school takes no stand on policy issues; opinions expressed in these pages reflect the views of the authors.

The University of Wisconsin–Madison is an equal opportunity and affirmative-action

educator and employer. We promote excellence through diversity in all programs.

ii

Table of Contents

Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................................................iv

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................. v

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................vi

Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

Background on Guardians ad Litem in Wisconsin .......................................................................................... 4

Guardian ad Litem Qualifications in Other States .......................................................................................... 6

Minnesota ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Data ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Advocate Survey ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Clerk of Circuit Court Survey ......................................................................................................................... 10

GAL Survey .................................................................................................................................................... 11

Data-Driven Findings and Themes ................................................................................................................. 13

Payment and Payment Methods ...................................................................................................................... 14

Training .......................................................................................................................................................... 16

Access to Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 17

Uniformity in Addressing Domestic Abuse ..................................................................................................... 18

Case Studies ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

Milwaukee County .......................................................................................................................................... 19

Rural Northern Counties ................................................................................................................................ 21

Dane County ................................................................................................................................................... 22

Sauk County.................................................................................................................................................... 24

Case Study Findings and Themes ...................................................................................................................... 25

Payment .......................................................................................................................................................... 25

Pro Se Representation .................................................................................................................................... 25

Resources ....................................................................................................................................................... 26

Training .......................................................................................................................................................... 26

Assumptions and Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 26

Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 27

High-Priority Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 27

Moderate-Priority Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 28

iii

Long-Term Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 29

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 29

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix 1: Survey Sent to WI GALs ............................................................................................................ 33

Appendix 2: Survey Sent to WI Advocates .................................................................................................... 35

Appendix 3: Survey Sent to WI Clerks of Circuit Court .............................................................................. 36

Appendix 4: Case Study Survey Interview Guide .......................................................................................... 37

Appendix 5: Map of Survey Responses per County ...................................................................................... 38

Appendix 6: Survey Data Analysis Methodology .......................................................................................... 39

Appendix 7: Quantitative Data Cleaning Guide ............................................................................................ 40

Appendix 8: Advocate Survey Analysis .......................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 9: GAL Survey Analysis ................................................................................................................. 42

iv

Figures and Tables Figure 1: Findings Related to the Barriers GALs Face in Addressing Domestic Abuse .............................. 1 Figure 2: Family Court Cases in WI with GALs .......................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Percent of Family Court Cases with GALs ................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Advocate Survey — Routine Issues Advocates See in GAL Cases ............................................ 10 Figure 5: CoC Survey — County GAL Expenditure Per CCAP FA Case ................................................. 11 Figure 6: GAL Survey — Active GAL Cases by Experience .................................................................... 12 Figure 7: CoC Survey — County GAL Deposit Amounts ......................................................................... 14 Figure 8: GAL Survey — GAL Responses to System Improvements ........................................................ 15 Figure 9: GAL Survey — Reported Issues with GAL Payments ............................................................... 15 Figure 10: GAL Survey — Assistance in Addressing Domestic Abuse ..................................................... 16 Figure 11: GAL Survey — Training Request by County Type .................................................................. 16 Figure 12: GAL Survey — Training Request by Occupation ..................................................................... 17 Figure 13: GAL Survey — Request for Uniformity in Addressing DA ..................................................... 19 Figure 14 (Appendix): Distribution of Survey Responses by County ........................................................ 38 Figure 15 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Active Overall Caseload .............................................................. 43 Figure 16 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Percent of Active GAL Appointments Within Overall Caseload 43 Figure 17 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Average Hours Worked ............................................................... 44 Figure 18 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Average Hours Worked by County Type .................................... 44 Figure 19 (Appendix): Guidebook Tool Use by County Type ................................................................... 45 Figure 20 (Appendix): Routine GAL Practices by County Type ............................................................... 45 Figure 21 (Appendix): GAL Survey — DA Screening Tool Type and Use by County Type .................... 46 Figure 22 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Barriers to Data on DA in GAL Cases ........................................ 47 Table 1: Minnesota GAL Board History ................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2: GAL Survey — Survey Respondents by County Type ....................................................................... 13 Table 3 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Respondents by County Type Expanded ............................................. 42 Table 4 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Q14 Codes ................................................................................................ 46 Table 5 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Q18 Codes ................................................................................................ 47

v

Foreword This report is the result of collaboration between the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Robert Held and Megan Sprecher with Legal Action of Wisconsin, Amber Peterson with the Director of State Courts Office of Court Operations, and Jennifer Johnson with the Rise Law Center and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin. The objective of our Master’s program is to provide graduate students at La Follette the opportunity to improve their policy analysis and practice skills while in this case, providing these clients with an analysis of the work of Guardians ad Litem (GALs), attorneys who play a critical role in the family court system by representing the best interests of children in Wisconsin Family Court especially when there may be cases of domestic abuse in the family separation process. The La Follette School offers a two-year graduate program leading to a Master of Domestic Public Affairs (MPA) or International Public Affairs (MIPA) degree. Students study policy analysis and public management and can choose to pursue a concentration in a policy focus area. They spend the first year and a half of the program taking courses in which they develop the expertise needed to analyze public policies. The authors of this report are all in their final semester of their degree program and are enrolled in Public Affairs 860/869, the Workshop in Public Affairs. Although acquiring a set of policy analysis skills is important, there is no substitute for actually conducting an independent policy analysis as a means of experiential learning. Public Affairs 860/869 gives graduate students that opportunity.

The clients for this project requested insights into the barriers GALs face while addressing domestic abuse in the Wisconsin Family Court system. The task was to deliver a clearer picture of GAL practice in cases involving domestic abuse and learn how to improve that system. To do so, the team conducted case studies in four counties, surveyed three different groups of stakeholders, and examined Minnesota’s GAL system.

The recommendations in the report are presented in three tiers: high priority, moderate priority, and meeting longer term goals. The recommendations are based squarely on their research findings and address the need for more GAL training and education surrounding domestic abuse, adequate and assured compensation for the GAL work performed, access to additional resources for evidence collection, greater reliance on the expertise of social services personnel, and providing additional victim resources when the need is evident. These should all lead to greater judicial uniformity in addressing domestic abuse across cases, court officials, and county court systems. If implemented, these policies and practices can make a GAL’s work more successful, improving outcomes for domestic abuse victims, families, and children across Wisconsin.

Timothy M. Smeeding Lee Rainwater Distinguished Professor of Public Affairs and Economics

May 2021 Madison, Wisconsin

vi

Acknowledgements We would like to thank our clients: Robert Held and Megan Sprecher with Legal Action of Wisconsin, Amber Peterson with the Director of State Courts Office of Court Operations, and Jennifer Johnson with the Rise Law Center and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin. We sincerely appreciate the time, resources, and experience they offered throughout the report process. We especially thank Professor Timothy Smeeding, whose guidance and feedback helped us complete this report. We would also like to thank Bonnie MacRitchie at the La Follette School of Public Affairs for support with coordination and research and Marek Makowski at the University of Wisconsin–Madison for editorial assistance. Additionally, we would like to thank many who took time out of their busy schedules to participate in interviews that were crucial in guiding our case studies and conclusions. Thank you to Tami Baker-Olson, Kay Cederberg, Amy Collins O'Hara, Terrence Conkel, John Danner, Kate DeLorenzo, Eve Dennison Pollock, Michael Dwyer, Virginia Escudero, Mark Fremgen, Jason Hanson, Genie Hedlund, Margaret Kaiser, Wendy Klicko, Angela Kujak, Amanda RR Mayer, Alex Miller, Jennifer Montalvo, Patricia Moses, Tanya Neuens, Neal Nielsen, Sharon Nielsen, Crysta L Parkin, Amber Raffeet August, Gretchen Viney, Carrie Wastlick, Sarah Weber, and Julie Whitney. We also extend our gratitude to those individuals and organizations that assisted in our research but chose to remain anonymous. Clients Our clients are Legal Action of Wisconsin, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin, and the Director of State Courts Office of Court Operations. Legal Action of Wisconsin is a nonprofit law firm that provides free civil legal services to Wisconsin clients at the most vulnerable times in their lives. End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin is a nonprofit organization led by social policy advocates, attorneys, and experts who work to support, connect, equip, empower, and lead organizations for social change to end domestic violence. The Director of State Courts Office of Court Operations provides technical assistance to the circuit courts in areas such as records management, caseload management, automation, personnel, policy analysis, and budget.

vii

Acronyms

CCAP Consolidated Court Automation Programs CLE Continuing Legal Education DA Domestic Abuse FA Family Court FCS Family Court Services GAL Guardian ad Litem GALB Guardian ad Litem Board of Minnesota GALP Guardian ad Litem Program of Minnesota ICWA Indian Child Welfare Act

1

Executive Summary Guardians ad Litem (GALs) are attorneys who play a critical role in the family court system by representing the best interests of children. Legal Action of Wisconsin, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin, and the Director of State Courts Office of Court Operations requested insights into the barriers GALs faced while addressing domestic abuse in the Wisconsin Family Court system. The default of the court is to assign fifty-fifty placement of the children, which may occur even when domestic abuse between the parents is known or suspected. Our task was to deliver a clearer picture of GAL practice in cases involving domestic abuse and learn how a GAL’s interviews and supporting evidence play a role in the final recommendation to the courts. To do so, we conducted case studies in four counties, surveyed stakeholders, and examined Minnesota’s GAL system. The recommendations provided in this paper are based on our research findings. Our report analyzes surveys from three stakeholder groups in Wisconsin: GALs, Clerks of Circuit Court, and domestic abuse victim advocates. Responses received included 213 GALs, 57 clerks, and 20 advocates. GALs addressed the need for more training and education surrounding domestic abuse, access to additional resources for evidence collection, the expertise of social services personnel, victim resources, and judicial uniformity in addressing domestic abuse across cases, court officials, and counties.

Figure 1: Findings Related to the Barriers GALs Face in Addressing Domestic Abuse

To supplement the surveys, case studies were conducted in select Wisconsin counties to better understand specific features of the Wisconsin GAL system. Interviews in Milwaukee, Dane, Sauk, and a collection of small northern counties were conducted with local stakeholders. Twenty-six interviews were conducted in total, including one in Minnesota. Four themes were reflected in the analysis of the interviews: issues regarding payments, pro se representation (parents representing themselves in a case), resources, and training. An in-depth analysis of Minnesota’s GAL Board is included because of the similarity of populations and the board’s extensive reforms to its system over the last couple decades.

2

Our team developed seven recommendations and prioritized them into three categories with three recommendations labeled as high priority, two recommendations labeled as moderate priority, and two recommendations listed as long-term options. Our recommendations, in order of priority, are listed below. High Priority

• Revamp required training for GALs to improve issues such as mental health, substance abuse, child development, trauma, and more, as well as include court officials and advocates in training. This aims to inform individuals involved in deciding family law cases about domestic abuse and its effects on children.

• Limit the effects of pro se representation by creating free or low-cost community resources to aid parties’ understanding of the laws and court system. This aims to assist a GAL when they are the only lawyer involved in a case, by taking away the burden of assisting parties through the legal system and describing the GAL’s role to parties.

Moderate Priority

• Require counties to take responsibility for billing and payments or consider contracted GALs. This aims to help GALs focus on their role by allowing them to do their job without worrying about collecting payments from parties or petitioning the courts for payments (often unbillable hours). It would also free them from the bias of knowing that one party is paying while the other is not. A contract may add to prestige and comradery in the GAL position.

• Create a website to list all practicing GALs, including their locations and special skills, to aid in GAL selection and networking. This aims to provide a resource for courts when appointing GALs and provide GALs with legal resources to assist them in delivering the best possible service. The website would be a centralized database for GAL tools such as guidebooks, DA screening tools, and local advocacy groups.

• Expand GAL access to additional social service resources such as social workers, child psychologists, domestic abuse counselors, and other professionals. These professionals can assist not only in making recommendations and acting as witnesses in a case but also providing social service resources for parties involved.

Long-Term

• Prioritize increasing cultural competency and diversity for practicing GALs in the court system. This aims to add new and diverse GALs to the court system through recruitment and potential incentives. GALs of culturally diverse backgrounds and GALs who speak second languages are needed in addition to young attorneys in rural counties.

• Create an oversight board to administer statewide GAL services to increase efficiency and share resources throughout the state. This will build on the changes Minnesota has made to its GAL system by creating a centralized board that organizes the state’s GALs and assists in certifying GALs if the law is changed to allow other social service professionals to act as GALs.

GALs are central to the Family Court system. Wisconsin GALs face many barriers in their duties, which often exceed the guardians’ expertise and resources. This can make addressing a large societal problem like domestic abuse very difficult. However, we believe that our recommendations, if implemented, can make GALs’ work more successful, improving outcomes not only for DA victims but families and courts across Wisconsin.

3

Introduction Guardians ad Litem (GALs) play a critical role in the Family Court system by representing the best interests of children. A GAL is appointed to represent the child’s best interest when the court has a special concern for the child’s welfare or during a contested custody or physical placement of the child (Wis. Stat. § 767.407(1)(a)). During investigation, a GAL is charged with determining whether either parent has engaged in domestic abuse (Wis. Stat. § 767.407(4)). The GAL then provides a specific recommendation for custody and placement in the best interest of the child and advocates in court if necessary. The legal definition of “domestic abuse” concerns actions “engaged in by an adult family member or adult household member against another adult family member or adult household member, by an adult caregiver against an adult who is under the caregiver's care, by an adult against his or her adult former spouse, by an adult against an adult with whom the individual has or had a dating relationship, or by an adult against an adult with whom the person has a child in common.” Actions may include intentional infliction of physical pain, physical injury, or illness; intentional impairment of physical condition; sexual assault; stalking; damages to personal property; or a threat to engage in any of that conduct (Wis. Stat. § 813.12(1)(am)). Domestic abuse (DA) between parents raises concerns about the impacts on children in the household. Most immediately, there are concerns about the safety of the child and the ability for each parent to adequately care for the child when abuse is present. Further, there may be short- and long-term health impacts that affect the child physically, mentally, and socially. Research indicates that witnessing domestic abuse may have other detrimental lifetime impacts, including negative effects on education, relationships, and future family stability.

Though GALs are statutorily required to screen for domestic abuse in every case, survivors of domestic abuse and advocates sometimes find that a thorough investigation of the abuse is not completed. As a result, the court may not adequately factor domestic abuse into its custody and placement decisions. Many factors contribute to the complexity of a GAL’s investigation of domestic abuse. To determine whether abuse has taken place, a GAL can utilize the testimony of either parent or other witnesses, along with previous criminal convictions, police reports, Child Protective Services records, or other forms of legal documentation. However, a lack of documentation does not mean that abuse has not taken place. In fact, domestic abuse often goes unreported for a myriad of reasons. Neither parent may want to admit—let alone formally report—the abuse. The abusive parent has the most incentive to appear reasonable throughout the case (Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin 2017). If a GAL lacks sufficient knowledge about domestic abuse or its existence in the family is concealed, a GAL may not be able to account for it without a full investigation. Further, a GAL’s own beliefs and experiences about parenting, marriage, and relationships may interfere with the investigation. Differences in ethnicity or cultural backgrounds often prevent open and honest discussions during the interview process. A GAL’s ability to use empathy and interpersonal skills can be essential to the investigation; however, these are not skills emphasized in most legal educations and they are not often drawn upon during GALs’ work in other areas of the law. Additionally, the court system has a preference to keep families intact where possible, which may influence considerations. There may be other barriers facing GALs aside from those directly related to domestic abuse. Parents may be unable or unwilling to pay the GAL. There may be motivation to minimize the number of hours worked on a case, whether to keep costs low for parents without the ability to pay or because the GAL knows that they may not be paid. GALs may also have multiple cases at the same time. Overall, the supply of GALs may be limited due to any of these factors.

4

The goal of our analysis is to gain insight on these and other barriers for GALs in the implementation of best practices concerning domestic abuse in the Wisconsin Family Court system. Our study collected data through surveys of GALs, clerks, and advocates, as well as interviews of individuals involved with the Family Court system (stakeholders) in four counties. Clerks were included to provide insight into the appointment and outcome of a GAL’s work in court. Advocates gave insight on the experiences of individuals who have experienced domestic abuse. GALs were surveyed and interviewed to provide their experiences working within the family court system. Our task is to deliver a clearer picture of GAL practice in cases involving domestic abuse, using case studies in four different counties, responses from three surveys, and literary reviews. Our recommendations for the improvement of Wisconsin’s GAL system result from the analysis of our research. Survey responses received from 213 GALs, 57 clerks, and 20 advocates, as well as the 26 interviews, showed four themes: issues regarding payments, increased pro se representation, lack of resources, and improvement to training. An in-depth analysis of Minnesota’s GAL Board for comparison was conducted due to the similarity of populations and the board’s extensive reforms to its system over the last couple of decades. Our findings suggest a focus on standardization throughout the state could improve all four areas of concern.

Background on Guardians ad Litem in Wisconsin The Wisconsin Supreme Court has “long been a leader in its concern for the rights of children in divorce cases” (Curley and Herman 1995). In 1955, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recommended that a “competent and disinterested attorney” be appointed as a GAL for a minor (Supreme Court of Wisconsin 1955). Sixteen years later, in 1971, Wisconsin became the first state to require GALs for children in custody disputes (Gleiss 2010). In 1989, the Supreme Court adopted Section 767.045 (subsequently renumbered to 767.407) in the Wisconsin Statutes defining a GAL’s responsibility as an attorney to advocate for the best interest of the child, on par with attorneys who represent parents in these cases (Curley and Herman 1995). Wisconsin requires that a GAL must be an attorney licensed to practice law in Wisconsin without any conflicts of interest in the case (Wis. Stat. § 767.407(3)). A GAL does not have the rights or duties of a parent but rather advocates for the best interest of the child after an investigation. GALs are appointed by a family court commissioner or a judge. Counties differ on GAL appointment procedure: some have contracts with a set list of attorneys and others have lists of attorneys who can take appointments. Wisconsin requires that all GALs appointed to a family case after January 1, 2021, have nine hours of approved credits to be eligible to serve as a GAL (Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 35.015(1) 2021). At least three of the nine GAL credits must be on the topic of family violence (Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 35.015(1)(a) 2021). After the initial reporting period, GALs are required to receive at least one credit of family violence training in all subsequent reporting periods (Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 35.015(1m)(a) 2021). In addition to the Supreme Court Rules regarding GAL training requirements, counties may require additional rules and procedures to be eligible to serve. The Wisconsin State Bar uses a self-enforcing standard for GALs: by accepting a GAL appointment, the attorney is certifying that they have met the requirements to be a GAL. Payment for GAL services varies across counties and judges. In many cases, each parent pays half of the GAL fee, but this differs depending on the parents’ circumstances. Sometimes counties will pay the GALs up front. In other cases, the counties are not involved in fee collection unless the GAL brings a complaint before the court. If the parents are unable to pay, the county may pay the GAL in advance for

5

their services and recoup the costs from parents later on. In private pay cases, a GAL can set the rate for services. However, if payment is incomplete, the GAL may have to expend time and energy recovering fees throughout the case or even after the case’s completion. Some counties choose to exercise control over payment rates by contracting GAL services directly with attorneys or firms. Circuit Court Judge Patricia Curley and family law practitioner Gregg Hermann offer a commentary on contracting practices in their 1995 article on Wisconsin GALs: “Where the attorneys are well-qualified, contract GALs have been a benefit to children. However, the limitation on pay also provides a disincentive for the GAL to perform the extra hours of service sometimes necessary in these cases” (1995). Many counties choose not to set contracts with GALs but rather maintain lists of eligible attorneys and offer cases when a GAL appointment is necessary. Some judges will assign the next GAL on the list; others will tailor their choice to their perceived best fit for each case. The Wisconsin State Bar provides standardized practice guidelines for GALs (State Bar of Wisconsin 2016). The practice guidelines were originally published in 1997 and updated in 2012 and 2016. The guidebook provides information on GAL training and experience; appointment process and payment terms; investigative practices with parents, children, and collateral sources; statutory provisions; court appearances; a checklist; and sample letters. Additionally, the Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardians ad Litem: Addressing Custody, Placement, and Safety Issues was released in March 2017 by the Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin. The guidebook provides detailed methods for GALs to identify, define, and evaluate domestic abuse, along with concrete guidelines for making their recommendations to the court. Optional trainings are regularly provided to GALs interested in learning more about the guidebook.

Over the past five years, GAL appointments have been falling, consistent with the drop in overall cases under the Family Court classification. Part of the drop in 2020 can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, although lower marriage rates have also reduced the need for Family Court cases that focus on divorce and placement of the children. The percentage of Family Court cases that involved GALs varies substantially by county over the most recent six-year period from 2015 to 2020.

Figure 2: Family Court Cases in WI with GALs

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Total Number of Family Court Cases Filed Per Year in Wisconsin with GAL Appointments

Total Family Court Cases with Class Code 40101 or 40201

Total Family Court Cases with Class Code 40101 or 40201 and a GAL as a party/attorney onthe case

6

Figure 3: Percent of Family Court Cases with GALs

Guardian ad Litem Qualifications in Other States According to Federle and Gadomski (2010), “The term ‘guardian ad litem’ is very much a chameleon.” Though the term appears in statutes across the United States' 56 jurisdictions, in no two jurisdictions does it carry the same definition. To compound matters, state statutes are frequently undergoing amendments, as are county-level practices. According to a 2017 compilation by the United States Children’s Bureau, 15 states require that a GAL must be an attorney. In the remaining states, non-attorneys may be allowed to serve as GALs, specifically in child abuse and neglect proceedings (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2017). In Minnesota, GALs are specially trained community volunteers and state employees (Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Board 2021). In Michigan statutes, lawyer-GALs and lay-GALs are distinct classifications (Mich. Stat. § 712A.13a). In Indiana, a GAL may be an attorney, volunteer, or employee of a county program, and, if a non-attorney, the GAL must complete the same court-approved training program required of a court-appointed special advocate (Ind. Code 31-9-2-50

Powered by Bing © GeoNames, Microsoft, TomTom

7

2021). In other Midwest states, such as Iowa, Illinois, and North Dakota, GALs are required to be attorneys. Further legal study is recommended to learn more about the current statute and common practice of using non-attorneys as GALs, specifically in Family Court cases. Minnesota Minnesota was selected for an in-depth study due to its proximity to Wisconsin and recent significant changes to its GAL system. We conducted the Minnesota case study as a literature review of the history behind the changes, the specific changes made, and the effects of the changes in each place, along with an interview with several stakeholders in the GAL system. Minnesota’s GAL Program History The Guardian ad Litem system in Minnesota has undergone many revisions during the last two decades. Originating from a citizen-requested statewide audit of GALs, the Minnesota Supreme Court was urged to overhaul the program to provide clear standards for recruitment, appointments, supervision, training, and evaluation. The audit found a lack of consistency between counties, especially for required training and a process for complaints and supervision (Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Board). After several assessments and revisions, the Judicial Council of the Minnesota Supreme Court, which oversaw the GAL program, recommended moving responsibility to a newly created Guardian ad Litem Board. It would consist of seven members: four appointed by the Governor and three appointed by the Chief Justice (Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Board). Board members supervise the 10 districts within the state to ensure the guidelines defined in the GAL System Program Standards are upheld. Since needs and resources differ among districts, programs are customized to handle local needs while still operating within statewide mandates. In 2010, the Minnesota legislature passed Minn. Stat. § 480.35 to create the independent GAL Board. The Board hired the first program administrator in 2011.

Minnesota GAL Board History 1995 State audit showed little consistency, no standardized

training or requirements, no accountability mechanism. 2005–2007

"GAL System Standards" are developed.

1997 Supreme Court Advisory Task Force on GAL system recommends training requirements, & administrative standards.

2005–2006

GAL workgroup recommends increased training and qualification standards, training institute & certification program, and GAL Advisory Committee (GALAC).

1999 "Rules of GAL Procedure" is completed, requiring 40 hours of pre-service training.

2007–2008

GALAC charged with examining long-term and systemic challenges and how to best address them.

2001 The State Funding Subcommittee Report addresses lack of uniformity.

2009 Legislative approval granted for GAL Program to move out of the court system, creating an independent GAL Board

2002 The Minnesota GAL Program, with a state office and 10 district offices, is officially created.

2010 Minnesota Legislature passes Minn. Stat. §480.35 to create an independent GAL Board.

2003 Stakeholders review & propose revisions to "Minnesota Rules of GAL Procedure" & "GAL-Related Rules of Procedure."

October of 2010

First GAL Board is convened with seven members: four appointed by the Governor & three by the Chief Justice.

2005 "Guardian ad Litem Quality Assurance Review Procedure" is implemented statewide.

January of 2011

GAL Board hires first Program Administrator.

Table 1: Minnesota GAL Board History

Minnesota GAL Board The Board’s mission is to increase cost effectiveness by sharing resources, ideas, and structural organization. With a cohesive support structure for GALs, the Board increases accountability and ensures ethical standards. Its main duties are to approve and recommend budgetary guidelines to the state legislature and oversee the distribution of funding received. The Board is also responsible for maintaining standards and procedures that affect GAL work. When necessary, it proposes statutory changes to the state legislature and rule changes to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Daily implementation and supervision

8

are the responsibility of the program administrator, who reports directly to the Board. Minnesota’s GAL Requirements Unlike Wisconsin, GALs in Minnesota are not required to be practicing attorneys. They are required to hold a degree “in psychology, social work, education, nursing, law, or child related discipline or have an equivalent combination of training, education or experience” (Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Board). In Minnesota, the GAL’s role is also to advocate for the best interest of the child, but as an expert witness. A child’s attorney, if appointed, represents the child’s wishes. Minnesota intentionally separates GALs from acting as attorneys by cementing their role as expert witnesses who can report on the status of a home. Several members of the GAL Board referenced issues of “role creep” in cases where the GAL was an attorney. They often saw the GAL attempting to play the role of legal representative in addition to that of the expert witness. With this clear separation of roles, GALs submit written reports into evidence and are cross-examined as witnesses if called. Interviewees commented that a “lay GAL model allows for a wider range of relevant experience in the GAL pool including those with social work, chemical dependency, and mental health education and experience.” Minnesota has also seen an increase in the number of pro se cases, but they address this issue by appointing an attorney for any child older than 10. A judge mentioned that in the absence of parent representation the GAL is even more crucial in providing unbiased information about the child’s best interest. According to Minnesota Statute § 245C.14-.15, GALs must submit to background checks and be able to pass a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension check before being considered for employment. They must also commit to serving at least one and a half years. Once these requirements are confirmed, they are evaluated based on defined hiring practices outlined by the GAL System Program Standards. Prior to field work, GALs must record 40 hours of pre-service training in four areas: Juvenile Protection Training, Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Training, Domestic Violence Training, and Family Court Training. An additional 15 hours of continuing education must be completed annually, three of which must be in cultural competency topics. A statewide learning management system and curriculum provide consistency in training standards and materials. In the last biannual state budget, the Guardian ad Litem Program (GALP) was granted additional funding to create a training division with paid staff who will not only continuously improve and revise current training but will introduce longitudinal training for GALs to improve advocacy skills and better understand court procedures. Each of the 10 districts have program support staff and district managers to ensure program standards. GALs and support staff have been state employees since the changes of 2010. Paid attorneys are also on staff to provide legal advice and guidance through the legal system. This collaboration creates an efficient allocation of skills, knowledge, and education between GALs and attorneys. Eight of the districts have a mix of full- and part-time paid staff while the two larger districts include unpaid volunteer staff. Volunteer staff must also pass all background checks, training, and credentialing requirements, and generally only take two to three cases per year. Overall, the reduction of volunteers in the system is a priority. In recent years, the system was reduced from 400 to 180 volunteers. GALP interviewees unanimously upheld the importance of having GALs available at a moment's notice. Especially in cases of DA, a GAL can be assigned and begin meeting with the child immediately. The program’s ability to effectively advocate for all children is a source of pride within the system. Recent increases in funding have allowed for the separation of Family Court and ICWA Divisions, which provides even more specialized care and attention for the affected children. Even with a recent increase in state funding, the GALP is advocating for more money and resources to be able to provide custody studies and more GAL placements in rural areas. Early calls for consistency in reimbursement of services was one of the driving forces behind the system reforms (Minnesota State Legislature). Even though GALs are paid state employees, the overall

9

wage is still a factor in recruitment and retention. In addition to state funding, districts also receive fees paid by the parties that can be increased or decreased by the judge based upon the party’s ability to pay. The standardized total fee structure for GAL appointments is as follows:

Abuse, Neglect, and TPR Cases — $1,000 All Other Juvenile Cases — $500 Family Cases — $1,500 Orders for Protection — no charge Other Cases — $500

Another area of concern addressed by the reforms was accountability (Minnesota State Legislature). Ultimately, GALs are accountable to the public. Offended parties may file complaints via the State GAL Complaint Forms, which are submitted to the district administration office. GALs are given due process as the complaints are investigated and punishment is detailed in “Complaint Investigation and Appeals Process” and “State Guardian ad Litem Board Complaint Form.” This reform allows for the dismissal and replacement of GALs, which was previously absent.

Data To begin our analysis of the Wisconsin GAL system, we worked with survey data from legal advocates and clerks collected by the clients and a survey of GALs that we designed. Participation in surveys was completely voluntary and respondents were able to answer or skip questions at their discretion. In this section, we summarize key findings from these three surveys. For distribution of survey responses by county, duration of survey in the field, response rate, cleaning guide, and methodology, please refer to Appendices 5, 6, and 7. Advocate Survey Overview of Key Findings Though a low response rate of 11 percent limits our ability to draw generalizable conclusions, we can glean some takeaways. In certain counties, the number of judges and commissioners hearing family law cases or the number of GALs could fall below the ideal levels to serve population size. Due to a lack of GALs who speak languages other than English, many non-English speaking families may be facing higher barriers in accessing legal resources, even though some courts offer interpreter services. In its limited scope, the survey indicates that judges largely operate similarly with regard to GAL appointment processes. However, taking on GAL work regularly could be more conducive under certain kinds of institutional set-ups (e.g., a contract system). When asked to estimate the number of GALs in their county that use the Domestic Abuse Guidebook regularly based on their experience, most advocates were unsure (12 out of 20). Most importantly, when asked to estimate whether certain routine procedures were followed by GALs in their county (Figure 4), 12 respondents cited the GAL not meeting with child, 16 cited the GAL not understanding domestic abuse, 19 cited the GAL not recognizing domestic abuse, and 17 cited the GAL not spending enough time and energy on the case. Twelve respondents also said that GALs are often not held accountable by the judge or commissioner, and two said that judges or commissioners sometimes do not listen to the GAL’s recommendation. Additionally, 15 respondents thought that resources like supervised visitation or exchange centers and mental health counseling services were lacking. Regarding improvements to the GAL system in their counties, most respondents (12 out of 18) touched on the theme of further training and education. Accountability and GAL position requirements were also mentioned in the responses as areas for improvement.

10

A full report on the Advocate Survey with questions and a detailed breakdown of responses not addressed here can be found in Appendices 2 and 8.

Figure 4: Advocate Survey — Routine Issues Advocates See in GAL Cases

Clerk of Circuit Court Survey Overview of Key Findings Clerks of Circuit Court are responsible for recordkeeping and provided us with insight into their counties’ court operations. The questions included in this survey can be found in Appendix 3. Counties were asked to indicate how GALs are appointed. Six indicated the only attorneys considered were a certain number contracted by the county. The majority of counties (45) indicated that their county maintains a list of approved attorneys that are appointed by the court. Six counties indicated a mixed method approach with a certain number of contracted attorneys along with a list of approved attorneys. However, two counties, Milwaukee and Buffalo, indicated that there is an avenue for GAL appointments which are neither contracted nor on an approved list, opening the possibility of potentially unprepared attorneys serving in this capacity. County expenditure on GALs varies greatly, which is expected given different populations. Surprisingly, it remained varied when we compared Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) data from 2019 FA cases that had GAL appointments to the counties’ reported Chapter 767 GAL expenditures. Unsurprisingly, Milwaukee County had the largest GAL expenditure in 2019 at $831,805, but also had the largest per-case expenditure at $25,994. This analysis included 55 of the responding 57 counties, as two did not respond to the expenditure question. This data is imperfect: one county that reported 2019 expenditure had zero family court cases that required a GAL in CCAP. This could indicate that some clerks are not using the standard GAL code when adding a GAL to a case. Three counties reported no expenditure but had family court cases with GALs in CCAP. If CCAP or reported expenditure are inaccurate, it could be the reason for the large variation in court expenditure on GAL cases in family cases. Additionally, there did not appear to be a strong correlation between how GALs were paid—whether the county pays and collects from parties or parties pay GAL directly—and the average county

11

expenditure. When asked what happens if a party is indigent and cannot afford GAL fees in county court, counties had differing responses but generally fell into five categories, with some counties indicating they offer multiple options. The largest group reported that the county pays for the GAL (36 counties). Twenty-five counties indicated that they utilize waivers for indigent families. Twenty counties reported that GAL fees cannot be waived, though some indicated the deposit may be waived if parties pay the amount later. Seventeen counties stated they utilize payment plans to help indigent families fulfill the payment requirements. Six counties indicated fees are seldom waived. Finally, two indicated they rarely encounter indigent families. Importantly, of the 20 counties that do not waive fees, only eight indicated they have payment plans available.

Twelve clerks indicated that their county struggles to find quality GALs to appoint in family law cases. The reasons cited include not enough attorneys practicing in their county or region, a lack of attorneys looking to practice family law, and retiring attorneys. Fourteen counties added further comments: five counties said GAL availability was an issue and another five clerks commented on GAL rates and fees as a retention and recruitment barrier. Due to the free-form nature of open-ended questions, we find the high correlation in responses worth noting. GAL Survey The purpose of this survey was to gain additional insight into the current barriers GALs encounter and the support framework they have when working on family law cases involving domestic abuse. Although the analysis includes three surveys in total, we consider the information gathered directly from GALs practicing in Wisconsin through the GAL survey as the central source of information, whereas the clerk and advocate surveys, while critical to our analysis, serve as secondary, complementary references. Overview of Key Findings In total, we received 213 responses from GALs across the state, with representation in all but four small counties in Wisconsin (Bayfield, Douglas, Florence, and Menominee). For a copy of the survey questions and a detailed breakdown of responses for each question in this survey, including those not mentioned in the key findings presented below, refer to Appendices 1 and 9.

Figure 5: CoC Survey — County GAL Expenditure Per CCAP FA Case

12

Among the respondents in this survey, higher levels of experience in GAL work do not seem to be correlated with taking fewer GAL appointments. Figure 6 illustrates that most GAL respondents of varying experience levels handle a caseload of 20 or fewer active GAL appointments at a time. A breakdown of each experience category by active GAL caseload does not indicate any pattern of GAL work burnout where GALs with higher experience levels overwhelmingly represent lower caseload subcategories. The majority of our respondents (67 percent) said they had been doing GAL work for 10 years or more. But if many GALs serve for only a year or two and then leave GAL work, that turnover is not captured in this data.

In order to identify the sample of Wisconsin counties in which the 213 GAL survey respondents practice, we asked respondents to indicate the county or counties where they accept GAL appointments. Of the 213 responses, 73 indicated that they practiced in a single county, 106 indicated that they practiced in multiple counites, and 34 chose not to provide the county or counties in which they practice. In total, all Wisconsin counties—with the exception of Bayfield, Douglas, Florence, and Menominee—were represented among the survey respondents. Because it is common for GALs to practice in multiple counties, we categorized responses by county type, indexing by urban, mid-sized, rural, or a combination of these. As shown in Table 2, GALs work across the state and often have caseloads split between counties. Because of this, respondents were coded into the multi-county category only if they worked in multiple counties and the counties they worked in were not similar in population size.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20 or fewer cases 21 - 40 cases 41 - 60 cases 61 - 80 cases 81 - 100 cases More than 100cases

Approximate Number of Active GAL Cases vs Experience of GAL Respondent

10 years or more 5 years to less than 10 years 1 year to less than 5 years Less than 1 year

Figure 6: GAL Survey — Active GAL Cases by Experience

13

Breakdown of Which County Type GAL Survey Respondents Practice In

Table 2: GAL Survey — Survey Respondents by County Type

While identifying counties in which respondents accept GAL appointments is important in determining whether our survey sample is representative of the GAL population in Wisconsin, the ability to identify which county/county type a GAL survey respondent practices in allows us to better understand the diversity of needs and barriers GALs face in different counties. Though we use the county type division table above as an identifier throughout our GAL survey analysis, it is important to note that the mid-size county population in our analysis only represents 7 percent of total respondents because the majority of GALs who accept appointments in mid-size counties also accept appointments in rural and urban counties and as such were coded as multi-county.

Most GALs surveyed (94 percent) do not practice in languages other than English. This indicates a higher barrier for access to GAL services for non-English speakers, a finding consistent with data from our other surveys. The majority of GAL respondents (63 percent) said that their primary county of practice offers GAL fee waivers for indigent family law litigants. Eleven percent of respondents said that their primary county of practice does not offer a waiver, while 26 percent were unsure of this provision in their county. Most GALs (56 percent) said that they are appointed and begin work before a deposit has been paid. Another 31 percent said they are appointed before the deposit is paid but do not begin their work until the deposit is paid. Thirteen percent said they are appointed after the deposit has been paid. This indicates there may be issues with GALs working without promise of payment and/or delays in a GAL’s investigation if parties do not pay in a timely fashion. Sixty-one percent of respondents indicated that they know about the Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardians ad Litem and use it in their practice, while 24 percent said they are familiar with the guidebook but do not use it. Only 15 percent of the GALs who responded to the survey were not familiar with the guidebook. A link to the guidebook was provided for survey respondents. However, this data may be inflated, as most people who received our survey were from a client list of GALs who had attended a domestic abuse training that included information about the guidebook. The guidebook is a compilation of best practices for GALs when screening for and addressing domestic abuse, and its disuse could indicate an issue in GAL practices in cases involving domestic abuse. Results from stakeholders’ surveys give more insights into barriers experienced by GAL when addressing DA in their cases. The findings are used below to highlight areas of concern deemed the important by the participants.

Data-Driven Findings and Themes Through our survey analysis, four themes presented themselves as main areas of concern: training and education surrounding domestic abuse, the GAL payments system, access to additional resources, and

As Percent

14

judicial uniformity in addressing domestic abuse across cases, court officials, and counties. We further examine and analyze each area below to support our findings. Payment and Payment Methods Clerks were asked to indicate how GALs are paid in their respective counties. Forty-two respondents indicated that the county pays the GAL, then collects the money from the parties, though one county said that private payments would be required if a party seeks a specific attorney as a GAL. Three counties indicated that the parties are expected to pay the GAL directly at the conclusion of the case; however, if parties are indigent or do not pay after 90 days, the county may pay the GAL and seek collection from the parties. Two counties indicated parties are expected to pay the GAL directly in regular intervals as the case proceeds. The remaining 10 counties have either hybrid systems or slight differences. Five said they utilize a mixed system of payment methods for GALs depending on the case. Three indicated that funds are generally deposited and paid to GALs by the county or court and, if insufficient, the county or court will pay the remainder and seek collections for the parties. One county indicated that it pays the GAL the amount of the deposit, but the GAL must collect any additional funds directly from the parties after the initial deposit has been billed. Finally, one county indicated that parties are to pay GALs directly but, if GALs are not paid, the court will pay GALs and seek collections.

Figure 7: CoC Survey — County GAL Deposit Amounts

The clerks indicated the deposit amount required by their respective counties. Some answered by stating the deposit per party and others gave a total figure or ambiguous response as to whether the amount is per party or total. We have split these out in Figure 7. The hourly rates reported for GALs in responding counties varied from $70 to $200 per hour, with two counties not responding. We included recouped, billed, and hourly rates, but not contracted salary broken down into hours. With 46 out of the 55 counties responding, the majority of counties (84 percent) indicated a GAL pay rate of $100 per hour. When GALs were asked, “What do you think can be improved about the overall GAL system, separate from addressing domestic abuse in family cases? (e.g., appointment process, payments, training, resources, etc.),” 65 out of 127, or approximately 51 percent of respondents, mentioned the GAL payment system. Of the GAL survey responses that mentioned payments, concerns related to the structure or

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

$150-$499 $500-$599 $600-$699 $700-$799 $900-$1,000 $2,000

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

Clerks of Circuit Court Survey: GAL Deposit Amounts

Per Party Total or Ambiguous

15

payment process accounted for 61 percent of responses, concerns related to pay rates accounted for 27 percent, and general or ambiguous payment concerns the remaining eight percent. Respondents felt that “having to collect fees has an impact on the implicit bias of the GAL towards the parent(s) not paying” and that the time spent pursuing payments coupled with the financial burden of unpaid services deters qualified GALs from taking cases. Another respondent stated:

“Honestly, I’ve stopped taking a large amount of family GAL cases due to the low pay—even at the new $100/hour, you’re doing twice the emotional work for less than half of the pay—and [I’m] feeling like the system isn’t working for children.”

The strain of collecting fees and a perceived lack of support from the court was evident across responses, as one GAL survey respondent writes:

“Too often the GAL’s invoice is not prioritized. It does not assist the GAL in attempting consensus on custody and placement issues and at the same time having to threaten litigation to get a party to pay for services. The county should guarantee the GAL payment and seek reimbursement from the party directly as the county has more tools to get tax intercepts, etc.”

Issues related to the GAL payment process was a common theme, with a relatively high percent of GALs requesting change in all county types, as illustrated in Figure 9. From the GAL survey responses, payment was the predominantly mentioned issue when asked about improvements related to the overall GAL system (excluding domestic abuse issues). As GALs are often already billing at a lower rate than the private market rate for attorney services, the burden of payment collection, including unbillable time spent pursuing collections through the court, discourages GALs from taking appointments. GALs who practice in counties with GAL contract systems or counties where GALs are not required to collect direct payments from the parties tended to have more positive

Figure 9: GAL Survey — Reported Issues with GAL Payments

Figure 8: GAL Survey — GAL Responses to System Improvements

16

responses to the overall GAL system or mentioned these supports specifically as a relief. Training As illustrated in the following figures, when asked, “What could be done to help you better address domestic abuse in family law cases, including additional training or resources?,” 62 of the 125, or 50 percent, of respondents mentioned or requested additional training, not only among GALs but for court officials and counsel as well. Seventy percent of GALs practicing in urban counties mentioned a lack of training for DA as an issue.

GAL survey respondents requested increased access to training, including:

• Interactive training that includes videos and roleplay focused on interviewing parents and children. • Training to increase awareness of resources with additional cross-training from mental health

professionals about child development, family systems, interviewing children, use of child specialists, Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse, and other mental health issues.

• Education centered on evidence-based recommendations on placement for particular age ranges. • Training from domestic abuse professionals to understand and integrate mediation and custody

study services. Although this list is far from exhaustive, it illustrates the wide variety of training GALs requested in order for them to properly recognize DA and address it during their custody and placement recommendations. While additional training for GALs was prevalent, respondents also felt that there was a lack of understanding of DA by counsel and court officials (Figure 12). Respondents noted that “…there is an expectation on the part of some judges and commissioners that serious domestic abuse would be supported by evidence such

Figure 11: GAL Survey — Training Request by County Type

50%

21%

9% 8% 12% 10%

Training GAL Resources Victim Supports UniformityRelated to DAConsideration

Other NothingPerc

ent o

f Tot

al R

espo

nses

What Could be Improved to Help You Better Address Domestic Abuse in Family Law Cases

0

10

20

30

40

Urban Mid-size Rural Multi-county County notspecified

Num

ber o

r Res

pons

es

Total Responses by County Type Compared to Responses by County Type That Requested More

Domestic Abuse Training and Education

Number of Q19 responses by countyNumber of Q19 responses that requested more Training and Education

Figure 10: GAL Survey — Assistance in Addressing Domestic Abuse

17

as police reports, third-party witnesses, or photographs. This isn't the case, and we know it's not the case…even though domestic abuse is a factor in the statutes on placement, I think it is sometimes viewed only tangentially to placement.” Multiple GALs who responded to the survey felt the “Judiciary need[ed] additional training to understand that domestic abuse is much broader than physical abuse and the patience to hear evidence attempting to show the more subtle forms of abuse.” GAL respondents also felt this lack of understanding was also prevalent among attorneys. While GALs must fulfill continuing education credits each year to practice, many survey respondents felt that there remains a significant lack of training on DA for both seasoned GALs and attorneys new to the work. Although the newly implemented three-credit family violence training requirement for GALs seeking appointments in family cases aims to address this perceived deficit, there is currently no DA-specific continuing education requirement in Wisconsin for judges, commissioners, or counsel. Without the appropriate skills to recognize and understand the impacts of DA presented, the court will be unable to make fully informed placement decisions when DA is present in a case.

Access to Resources In the GAL survey, 26 of the 125 respondents cited increased access to resources in response to the question, “What could be done to help you better address domestic abuse in family law cases, including additional training or resources?” Responses coded as resources were sub-coded further (based on key attributes) into three categories: general resources; resources for evidence collection, such as records access; and social services expertise. The lack of resources was also reflected in the GALs’ ability to access central information and records related to potential domestic abuse or allegations of abuse in their cases. While general records access did not appear to be a substantial barrier for GAL survey respondents, access to out-of-state records, access to pending/active cases, and timing were the most frequently cited barriers related to records in the GAL surveys. According to one survey response, “the GAL is essentially on their own. A better support system and resources are necessary. GALs frequently have to make recommendations based on their gut instinct because there are no professionals involved.” While survey respondents’ requests for victim supports were highest in rural counties, requests for resources to aid in identifying and addressing domestic abuse or allegations of domestic abuse were prevalent in all county types. One response to the GAL survey noted that “[t]he biggest area in which I see GAL practice lacking in my county is knowledge of available resources and programs to which to refer families...It would be extremely useful, and ultimately, more efficient, to have a county-wide centralized database of providers to which GALs could refer families.” Based on the response rate and key attributes within the GAL survey, key resources needed for GALs to perform their jobs are often unavailable. For example, according to one survey response, GALs “don't

Figure 12: GAL Survey — Training Request by Occupation

69%

19%10% 8%

GAL Court Officials Counsel Everyone

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al R

espo

nses

Type of training requested

Percent of GALs Who Requested Additional Training for GALs, Court Officials, Counsel, and Everyone

18

have a lot of good options in northern counties regarding places for supervised visits to take place, so [they] are often given the choice of having ZERO contact between parent and child because no one is available to supervise, which can be emotionally damaging, or [engaging in] unsupervised contact between parent and child, which may be unsafe for the child.”

Uniformity in Addressing Domestic Abuse GALs addressed issues surrounding uniformity in cases with domestic abuse or allegations of abuse as well as uniformity across the Wisconsin GAL system as a whole. While not as prevalent as the three other themes in our report (see Figure 10), we felt the weight of the subject in correlation with similar trends in our case studies elevated the issues surrounding uniformity. According to the open-ended responses in the GAL survey, we found significant variation from judge to judge in how domestic abuse is considered. This complicates the GALs’ task and fails to hold GALs accountable for the quality of their work. The lack of consistency, realistic expectations, and a uniform approach to abuse or allegations of abuse by all court officials was a theme in our survey analysis. As one GAL explained it:

“…there are a lot of really poor GALs out there, and there is not a uniform way that courts treat them and their recommendations. Some GALs meet with scared kids for 15 minutes at their office and then think they know everything about the children, and then the court takes the GAL's recommendation as gospel. It's frightening, really. I'd like to see a uniform system of how GAL reports/recommendations come in, better guidelines on what weight to give them, and what GALs have to certify that they've done…It's pretty much a free-for-all. There's no clear definitions of what is in the best interests of the children, so it leaves it up to each individual GAL to define for themselves.”

Requests for improvement included mandatory worksheets submitted to the judges to confirm DA has been assessed and state forms that have a box for parties to check if there is DA involved in a case. According to one GAL survey respondent:

“[t]here is a very big problem with judges and GALs that completely ignore DV [domestic violence] concerns when it comes to the children. For example, they treat joint legal custody as a given despite the presumptions found in 767.41(2)(d)1. There's also caselaw, Glidewell v. Glidewell, 2015 WI App 64, that seems to ignore the fact that a party suffering from PTSD or other effects of abuse may feel like they cannot raise those presumptions at the time of the initial matter, and then lose the ability to bring it back up later forever, allowing the cycle of abuse to continue (the abuser's use of power and control over the victim doesn't stop at the time of a divorce—it changes shape to power and control over the children) and, in my opinion, that's wrong and would require legislative action.”

19

Figure 13: GAL Survey — Request for Uniformity in Addressing DA

Survey Summary In our analysis of these three surveys, we found that the themes each stakeholder group discussed highlight aspects of the GAL and family court systems that can be improved. They include: (1) payments and payment methods, (2) DA training of individuals involved in the Family Court system, (3) access to resources such as social workers, and (4) uniformity across counties in addressing domestic abuse indicate changes.

Case Studies To supplement the surveys, we conducted case studies in four Wisconsin counties to better understand specific features of the Wisconsin GAL system. For the four case studies, we selected counties after discussing with the clients, based on three factors: availability of contacts for interviews, demographics and location of the county, and unique aspects of the county’s GAL system. Each study included interviews with the three stakeholders previously defined. The goal was to interview two members of each stakeholder group in each case study; however, this was not always feasible. At least one person from each stakeholder group was interviewed for each case study. In total we completed 25 interviews, including 10 GALs, six advocates, and nine court officials (judge or clerk/commissioner), with seven interviews in Milwaukee County, five in Dane, five in Sauk, and nine in small northern counties. For each subject, a focused interview was conducted (Yin 1994) over Zoom or email using a “Case Study Interview Guide” (Appendix 4). The eight open-ended questions were used more strictly in early interviews, but as we became more aware of the specific aspects of the county’s system, the guide’s questions were used more as a framework and we asked follow-up questions to gain more specific information. Milwaukee County Milwaukee County, which includes the city of Milwaukee, is located on Lake Michigan in the southeast part of the state and is the most populous county in Wisconsin (951,226 people). It is categorized as an urban county for the purposes of our survey data. It is also the most diverse county in the state, with the smallest white only population of any other county (59.2 percent), and 17.5 percent of residents speak a language other than English at home. Milwaukee County was selected because of recent reforms made to the GAL system (“US Census Data Milwaukee County”).

0

10

20

30

40

Urban Mid-size Rural Multi-county County notspecifiedN

umbe

r or R

espo

nses

Total Responses by County Type Compared to Responses by County Type That Requested More Uniformity Addressing

Cases with Domestic Abuse

Number of Q19 responses by countyNumber of Q19 responses that requested more uniformity addressing cases with DA

20

Improvements in GAL Training and Credentialing Interviewees all stated there were higher training and experience standards for GALs in Milwaukee County. Although there are not explicitly higher training standards in the Milwaukee’s Circuit Court rules, GALs are required to reapply annually, certifying that they have met the Supreme Court training requirements. The rules also require that all registered GALs must take cases at the county pay rate and must have had at least 25 GAL cases in the previous three years (Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 35.015(1)(a) 2021) (Milwaukee County Circuit Court Rules 2019). All interviewees spoke highly of these additional credentialing requirements, and no one mentioned it as a barrier to GAL practice in the county. One interviewee who had stopped working in Milwaukee County stated that the reason for departure was primarily due to lack of resources and payment issues. Implementation of additional training was mentioned as a problem, which possibly led to reducing some of benefits of the new requirements. The issue most frequently raised regarding training was the difficulty of applying it in the court setting, as well as the lack of training for judges and commissioners. Many GALs said that training has improved GAL recognition of DA, but they often find it difficult to admit into evidence in a court environment. Judges and commissioners do not get the same level of DA training as GALs, meaning that they do not always recognize DA. Milwaukee County may be especially vulnerable to this because of its mandatory four-year rotating appointments of family court judges. GALs often mentioned judges had to get familiar with the Domestic Abuse Guidebook and it was difficult to develop relationships with and create feedback loops with GALs. Advantages of Semi-Contracted System Milwaukee County uses what is best described as a semi-contracted system for GAL services. The county contracts with two firms: Legal Aid Society, which takes the majority of cases, and Centro Legal. Each firm pays its employees directly, which gives a GAL the ability to work without worrying about billing and collecting from the parties. The firms also provide additional resources to GALs (Legal Aid has a social worker on-staff) that can assist the GAL with their investigation and provide expertise in trauma and child psychology. This was hailed as a great resource by many interviewees from all stakeholder groups. Although this system worked well for county pay cases, it created a social cliff phenomenon for private pay cases. In these cases, GALs are expected to collect from and bill parties on their own. This creates an incentive for GALs to provide less service not only because they might not get paid but also to reduce the bill for a party struggling financially. Court officials mentioned that discretion in picking a GAL for a case is used to decrease the burden on the parties. A list of fees charged by the GALs and their expertise are used by court officials to match GALs with cases to ensure the best outcomes. Additionally, GALs in the private pay sector complained of the lack of social services resources more than in the county pay sector. One private pay GAL interviewee cited the payment difficulties and lack of resources as the reason for no longer practicing in Milwaukee County. Generally Under-Resourced Almost all interviewees mentioned the overall lack of social resources in Milwaukee County, especially considering its large population and high poverty levels. A court official stated, “Our law mandates mediation in custody disputes and mandatory unbiased custody studies, but in a lot of cases they do not have the funds. The funding is woefully inadequate.” Many GALs also mentioned that COVID restrictions created a greater lack of visitation spots throughout the county and that safe visitation sites have always been an issue. In response to safety concerns, one interviewee appreciated the opportunity to have an onsite deputy escort parties to and from their vehicles.

21

Another issue that came up due to the large amount of diversity in the county was the lack of cultural competency between GALs and the parties. This was often brought up as barrier for GALs to comprehensively understand the issues the parties face. Rural Northern Counties We initially focused this case study on Vilas County. However, due to the difficulty of procuring enough stakeholders to interview and the overlap between counties in the region, we decided to broaden the case study to include stakeholders from St. Croix County, Oneida County, Bayfield County, and Marathon County. All counties are located in Northern Wisconsin and are categorized as rural counties for the purposes of our survey data. They range from populations of 15,036 to 135,396 people, which are between 86.1 percent and 93.7 percent White, while 2.6 percent to 8.2 percent speak a language other than English at home. We selected these counties to improve the regional and demographic diversity of the case study group (“US Census Data Vilas County”). Northern county interviewees frequently mentioned the use of web meetings for interviews, mediations, and even court appearances. All interviewees praised the technology, not only for convenience of time and travel, but also for the safety of victims. Continuation of web meeting technologies was proposed by all who mentioned using it in their practice. Increased Barriers Involving DA Northern counties are less populated and thus tend to have tighter-knit communities. These small communities also tend to have fewer attorneys and even fewer GALs. This familiarity can be problematic for GALs from the area. GALs from outside the area can be viewed as outsiders and less trustworthy. Of GALs currently practicing, concerns about lack of diversity and average age were mentioned by almost all the interviewees. The demographics of the area are predominantly White, and issues of cultural bias exist, especially when working with Native Americans and those of Hmong descent. Small counties also often lack the resources, such as safe places for supervised visitations and transfers, as well as funding to provide services such as Dane County’s Family Court Services (FCS), as discussed later in the report. One GAL admitted to only seeing a custody study used once during her entire time as a GAL, even though they are required by state law (Wis. Stat. § 767.405(14)(a)). One GAL lamented, “The biggest barrier is how to share the children’s voice with the court in an appropriate way as an attorney...I wish there was a forensic report or custody evaluation for us to get the information.” Another issue prevalent in smaller communities is the fear or shame of admitting DA. While many mentioned this in conjunction with fear of reprisal by the perpetrator, a few also noted stigma within the court system. An advocate stated, “For good or ill, we do run into a lot more than we would like—for example, a GAL saying that he doesn’t believe in the power and control wheel and that it’s just something made up by women looking to get back at their ex.” More training in DA, mental health, substance abuse. and child trauma were cited as ways to impact this underlying bias. Greater Power of the GAL Because there are so few resources and often at least one pro se party, GALs have a lot of responsibility and power when it comes to the decisions of the court. One GAL stated, “If anything, I know I am effectively deciding cases. The judges respect the GAL position in my case.” A court official confirmed that “GAL(s) are (the) eyes and ears of the court.” When consistency regarding admitting evidence, submitting reports to the courts, and basic procedures of investigation are lacking, bias can compound the issue.

22

One interesting trend in some northern counties is required mediation. The courts require mediation first; however, many areas do not prioritize it (Wis. Stat. § 767.405(3)). In some northern counties, if mediation does not work, a GAL is assigned. This trend was specifically mentioned in Bayfield, Ashland, Vilas, and Oneida counties. The rationale was to get both parties talking before tensions rose. Successful mediation reportedly shortened the process and was less harmful to the children. The practice was also described as highly successful in Tribal Courts by those interviewed who work in that jurisdiction as well. Issues with Payment Receipt of GAL payment was not described as a great burden in the northern counties. Many counties have enacted procedures whereby full or partial payment must be paid by both parties prior to a GAL’s assignment to a case. In St. Croix County, there is a contracted and salaried GALs. One GAL shared that “you’re on demand: if there’s a hearing you have to be there. It does take out a lot of the paperwork and streamlines things.” While pre-payment is positive for GALs, the burden can be detrimental for families. Often pre-payment can be as much as $500 per party. Indigent parties can apply for a waiver or a reduction, but that takes time as well. Shifting responsibility from the GAL to the county may prove beneficial. The county has more resources, such as the state’s collection agency and paycheck liens, which allow them to ensure payment for services. In such situations, GALs are paid by the county and do not have the additional burden of attempting to collect payments through additional court judgements. Tribal Courts Northern counties contain tribal courts, which operate independently. Each tribe has its own code of law and bar association, which means any attorney or GAL appointed must be certified by that tribe. Some tribes allow GALs who are not certified attorneys with the state, though they must still attend the trainings and complete the tribal certification for their bar. Tribal courts may also have tribal elders in place of a state-licensed judge. Tribal courts do lack a centralized case management system, like CCAP for the circuit courts, which can be a problem for GALs investigating DA. However, tribal courts can access Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA), which is the version of CCAP accessible to the public. An advocate with years of experience in the tribal courts explained that tribal courts prioritize compromise and conflict resolution because their communities are so tight-knit. A “peace process” is the first stage in which parties are brought together to mediate an agreement. If this does not achieve an acceptable outcome, the more traditional route of GAL appointment follows. Advocates and GALs who had experience with the tribal courts tended to prefer them over state courts. Due to federal funding and programs, the tribal courts had greater access to resources, not only for conflict resolution and pro se parties, but also to support the families long-term, such as treatment and counseling services for anger management, substance abuse, and more. Even with their increased resources and resolution prioritization, addressing DA remains a problem. One advocate stated, “There’s just a lot of tragedy in Indian Country,” suggesting that there could be some desensitization to DA within the tribal court system. The legal definition of DA and what many believe to be DA may prove to be different things. Dane County Dane County is located in the south-central region of Wisconsin and is home the state’s capital city, Madison, as well as the flagship campus of the UW System, University of Wisconsin-Madison. The county’s population is 536,078 people, the second largest in Wisconsin, of which 83.9 percent are White, and 11.1 percent speak a language other than English at home. It is categorized as an urban county for the purposes of our survey data. Dane County was selected due to its common use of custody studies in its

23

GAL process, as well the accessibility of contacts (“US Census Data Dane County”). Lack of Training and Standardization A consistent comment throughout all interviews in Dane County was the need for additional training and standardization. While all interviewees mentioned the need and value of training, especially on DA, they also admitted wanting additional training on mental health, child psychology, substance abuse, and LGBTQ issues. One interviewee was concerned requiring additional training might introduce an additional barrier for GALs. In addition to requiring training for GALs, many of the interviewees mentioned the need for training on such topics for court officials to ensure all parties were more equipped to fully understand the implications of a case, even if evidence was difficult to admit. Lack of diversity and cultural awareness were also mentioned in several of the interviews but was not a common theme. Due to its size, Dane County does have larger minority populations and non-English speakers, which can make cultural competency a barrier to a complete understanding of the family situation. While use of the DA Handbook for GALs was mentioned, interviewees in all three categories indicated some additional direction could be helpful. They suggested a checklist to fill out and return to the judge verifying all recommended steps were taken (and explanations if not taken). A checklist could help to ensure all GALs process cases in a similar manner and that judges and court commissioners prioritize compliance and accountability. Effectiveness of Custody Studies Dane County was chosen for its use of custody studies for cases involving placement of the children. Custody studies are performed by a social worker and are administered through FCS. DA can be difficult to prove, especially when restraining orders were either never requested or were denied, making the availability of a custody study the only way to admit such claims into evidence. GALs not only appreciated the information in the study but also the second opinion confirming their own. Through follow-up questions with interviewees, it appeared that the true value of FCS was much greater than just the custody study. FCS can request and obtain information faster and easier than GALs and they do not pay for things like file copies, which reduces additional costs GALs must pass on to their parties. A private pay GAL mentioned always being mindful of time and expenses because “these were real people writing real checks out of their real bank accounts.” FCS alleviates a portion of expenses passed on to the parties in private pay cases. Inadequacy of Payment Process There was unanimous consensus that the payment process in Dane County must be re-evaluated. While Dane County is an urban county and has resources many other counties lack, many GALs felt the additional hassle and uncertainty of payment was a major barrier. A court official was also very concerned with the low pay given the expectations of GALs. As a remedy, in their courtroom, the official required that a GAL not be paid less per hour than the attorneys representing the two parties. All court officials interviewed mentioned appreciation for GALs. One interviewee said they were “blessed” to have so many people committed to the work and willing to do a quality job even if they might not get paid. GAL appointment process was mentioned by several interviewees as both a positive and a negative. Several judges maintain a list of GALs who practice in Dane County. The list designates backgrounds and skill areas, as well as the level of pay the GAL will be willing to accept. On the positive side, the list makes it easier for judges to assign GALs based on the specifics of the case. Because the GALs are known and respected by the judges who choose them, they are given more leeway when discussing recommendations with the parties. Advocates and GALs mentioned the benefits this flexibility can have

24

on the outcome and children’s wellbeing during the process. However, the lack of a standardized list may make it difficult for new GALs to enter the system. This lack may also impact accountability in the eyes of parties and advocates. One interviewee mentioned not being able to file complaints or to have GALs removed from cases, even after documented verbal confrontations between the GAL and one of the parties. Sauk County Sauk County is located to the northwest of Dane County, also in the south-central region of the state. The county seat is Baraboo. The population of 63,922 people is 94.1 percent White, and 6.4 percent speak a language other than English at home. For the purposes of our study, Sauk County was categorized as a rural county, and selected because of its use of contracted GALs (“US Census Data Sauk County”). Advantages of the Contracted GAL System Sauk County’s GAL system is completely contracted. It consists of two tiers of GALs, six GALs in total. Tier One GALs practice both family law and other cases needing GALs. Tier Two GALs only practice in family law cases. GALs are paid directly by the county, sparing them the burden of collection from parties themselves, though they must still invoice the county for their services. According to the court commissioner, GALs are paid monthly: $3,700 for Tier One and $2,000 for Tier Two. Other interviewees mentioned the rate was low but that the security of knowing they will get paid offsets the burden. GALs are picked in order from the list, not discretionarily matched like in other counties. This is somewhat required to maintain the payment structure, but some stakeholders mentioned that it does make it difficult to match GALs to produce better GAL-party relationships. The contracted system also had some indirect benefits. Many mentioned how being a contracted GAL was a coveted position and an ethos of public service had developed within the group. There is a very low rate of turnover, which mostly stems from retirement and rarely from resignation. This may be partly due to a lack of a formal review process or reticence to remove GALs from the list. Also, many mentioned the quarterly meetings between judges and GALs as helpful in promoting continuous improvement in the system and offsetting some of the difficulties GALs face getting judges to recognize DA. The exclusivity of this group and tight relationship formed between judges and GALs did cause some concerns of implicit biases. All interviewees, when questioned specifically about Sauk County, stated that it was their preferred system. A court official said, “I encourage all counties to do that [have a contracted system].” One interviewee mentioned that Sauk County may have more problems than other counties, but the statement seemed to apply to Sauk’s legal system in general rather than specifically to Sauk’s GAL system in child custody cases. Difficulties of Pro Se Representation Pro se representation, was mentioned throughout the state as a large, exceedingly more common burden for GALs. Many GALs stated that in cases with pro se representation they faced the added burden of having to help both parents navigate the legal process on top of representing the best interests of the child. This burden makes it very difficult to remain impartial and can inhibit the GAL’s ability to present their findings in court. Pro se representation was cited in almost every interview in Sauk County, leading a few interviewees to mention steps the county was taking to reduce the burden. One of the initiatives was a free legal aid clinic to provide advice to parents. This has been in the works in the county for some time, but there are issues

25

needing resolution (e.g., whether an attorney providing legal advice in the clinic would be obligated to represent that party in court). Another interviewee mentioned that better communication between GALs and advocates could provide additional resources for parents in need of advice as well as create a feedback mechanism for continuous improvement for all stakeholders. It was also mentioned that a close relationship between advocates and court officials (as well as GALs) may undermine public trust of advocates.

Case Study Findings and Themes From our interviews, there were four themes that could be applied statewide: issues with payment, barrier from increased pro se representation, lack of resources (with social service resources at the forefront), and the need for additional training across stakeholder groups. Payment Difficulties with payments were a common topic in many interviews in many counties. GALs often have to bill and collect their own fees from parties in order to be compensated for their services. Because cases that involve DA often require the greatest investigation, when the parties are of lower socioeconomic status it can put the GAL in a difficult position. Contributing to this burden, precedent prevents counties from paying when at least one non-indigent party exists (Olmsted v. Dane County 2000). GALs often are forced to decide between doing a thorough investigation and running up a bill for parents with little means to pay. Many counties have created very complicated and discretionary appointment processes, matching GALs willing to accept lower fees with parties of lower economic status to reduce the effect of this payment structure. While this matching appointment process has benefits in improving cultural competency and expertise is some cases, it can also lead to burnout, as some GALs will receive mostly lower pay cases. The contracted system in Sauk County and semi-contracted system in Milwaukee County were both credited with reducing payment barriers. Sauk’s system, in which GALs are contracted directly through the county, also created a culture of public service and a close cohort. This increased the ability for all stakeholders to train, standardize, and implement improvements. Milwaukee County’s system, in which the firms Legal Aid and Centro Legal are contracted by the county, further separates GALs from worries about payment. The firms were also able to provide greater resources to GALs, usually including an on-staff social worker. Milwaukee County’s firm-based system reduces the county’s control over GALs, since the firms have direct control over their individual GALs. However, this may be easier for small counties that want to privatize. Other models included St. Croix County’s one salaried GAL and counties that do not directly contract but handle payments. Pro Se Representation Pro se representation was commonly mentioned in all counties as a burden on GALs that had increased over time. Most GALs mentioned that it has become much more common for them to be the only attorneys in the case. They stated that this requires them to direct both parties through the legal process as well as represent the best interest of the child. This not only greatly increases their workload but also creates a conflict of interest if GALs feel pressure to guide parties through the process. Lack of attorneys made it even more difficult for GALs to introduce DA in a court setting. Sauk County has taken steps to diminish the effects of pro se representation by working to create a free legal clinic that GALs could send pro se parties to for legal advice. One court official mentioned that better communication between GALs and advocates may also relieve the strain of pro se representation, but it was also stated that collaboration between advocates and the legal system can undermine the

26

public’s trust in advocates. Resources In every interview, respondents commented on the lack of resources to properly handle DA. Access to social services was at the forefront. Frequently, they cited the “unrealistic expectations” of GALs who are not trained social service professionals. One court official went so far as to claim GALs should be social workers and not attorneys “because it would be easier to teach court procedure to a social worker than training an attorney to be a social worker.” Dane County’s Family Court Services and Milwaukee County’s contracts were examples in which partnerships between social services and GALs helped legitimize the evaluation of the GAL and provide a way to enter DA into evidence. Many also complained about the “woefully underfunded” system in general. Steps towards securing additional funds through the county or state were often mentioned to help with lack of meeting sites, interpreters, and child custody studies, which are mandated but often unavailable due to lack of funding. The introduction of Zoom technologies received praise for increasing victims’ feelings of safety and reduced anxiety for both parties. Training Additional training was consistently mentioned in all interviews. GALs seemed to want more training to help them be more proficient in their jobs and were not concerned about it being an increased burden. They mentioned they would prefer trainings run through the state at lower costs. Recommendations for more training ranged from a wider variety of topics—mental health, substance abuse, child psychology and trauma, and LGBTQ issues—to requiring court officials to take the training. A recommendation of including court officials, GALs, and advocates at the same trainings would help to expose all groups to a more complete picture of how the system works. Many GALs and court officials lamented the lack of understanding legal definitions of DA from those outside the legal system. The need for more training, or higher training standards, resulted from experiences with lack of cultural competency, lack of diversity in the system and in the surrounding communities, and bias against the existence or importance of DA and its affects. Another suggestion for addressing inconsistencies with training and retention was to develop a checklist based on the four steps mentioned in the guidebook: 1) identify domestic abuse, 2) define the nature and context of abuse, 3) evaluate the implications of abuse, and 4) make informed recommendations that account for the domestic abuse. Such a checklist could help standardize the process and reduce implicit bias.

Assumptions and Limitations Due to the nature of our surveys and self-selection, we assume that the individuals who responded to the three surveys and our interview requests are not fully representative of the opinions of all GALs, clerks, or advocates. These individuals are more likely to be those who have stronger opinions regarding issues of domestic abuse in GAL work. While this is helpful in hearing what individuals want to change, it is expected to be biased toward additional resources and improvements to GAL processes in Wisconsin. Response rates for our surveys are uncertain or poor, apart from the clerk survey, which had one survey sent to each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties and a 79 percent response rate. The advocate survey was sent to a listserv of approximately 179 individuals and had a response rate of about 11 percent. Given that the survey sampling for the advocate survey relied on a listserv compiled by one of the clients, it could be

27

categorized as a combination of convenience and snowball sampling methods in which each of the survey recipients could have shared the survey with colleagues within their network. Hence, the survey findings may be subject to bias and overrepresent the views of people within our client’s network who are familiar with their work or who feel strongly about the GAL process. The GAL survey was originally sent to the Wisconsin State Bar’s GAL listserv of about 250 individuals but due to the listserv’s security measures, the survey was not distributed. The client later sent the survey to a list of 294 individuals who had taken a domestic abuse GAL training in the past. This greatly increased our response rate, as we had only received responses from individuals interviewed for our case studies. We assume there was some snowball sampling in this survey as well because individuals were encouraged to share the survey with GAL colleagues. While this may have increased responses, there is an inherent bias in our sample. The mass email was sent to individuals who had taken the client’s domestic abuse training and thus were more likely to have firm opinions on the subject and familiarity with the guidebook. There was also bias in selection for case studies. First, we were more likely to reach out to individuals who indicated their willingness to speak to us in the initial survey. Second, the counties selected for the case studies were chosen based on factors such as how they conduct GAL work, geography, and potential willingness to work with our team. Third, many of the contacts for the case studies were direct referrals from the client, which may have led to bias as these individuals were more likely to have strong, and generally similar, opinions on changes needed for GALs to better address DA. While the methodology remained the same throughout the fieldwork, we utilized information gleaned from the surveys and earlier interviews to focus the inquiry. For example, we were better able to provide and extract more detailed information in later interviews based on suggestions from earlier data collection methods. Another limitation of our evaluation was the jurisdiction. This analysis focused solely on the GAL practice in Wisconsin’s Family Court System. This excluded the tribal jurisdictions across the state, which are not bound by the same laws as the Wisconsin Court System. While we acknowledge that these jurisdictions have historically been overlooked as marginalized communities, their status as distinct from the State of Wisconsin would warrant a separate study and analysis. However, in our interviews we were able to hear from some GALs who work in both Wisconsin and tribal courts.

Findings and Recommendations Based on the almost identical findings of our survey and case studies, we recommend the following seven actions to help GALs in Wisconsin better address domestic abuse. The recommendations are listed according to the urgency with which they should be considered as well as the feasibility of their implementation within the Wisconsin system. The monetization of costs and benefits of each recommendation were beyond the scope of this study; however, further analysis is recommended. High-Priority Recommendations Revamp Required Training Continuing Legal Education on DA is already required for GALs, though survey and case study findings point to a significant need for additional training related to the domestic abuse, child psychology, mental health, diversity, cultural competency, substance abuse, and much more. Many GALs interviewed mentioned difficulty in getting court officials to recognize DA and a lack of understanding by advocates

28

regarding the stringent legal definition of DA. Our research indicates it would be beneficial for GALs, court officials, and advocates to attend trainings together so that all parties better understand the system and their roles. We recommend that the Wisconsin Supreme Court consider requiring court officials to receive the same DA CLE training as GALs and even invite advocates to participate. The Wisconsin Supreme Court set the current requirements via ruling, indicating a similar process will be required for mandatory training additions or improvements. Though it would take time to modify and implement, it could be expedited with strong stakeholder and county-level support. In the short term, organizations that hold trainings, such as the Wisconsin State Bar and individual county courts, could work to implement some of the changes, such as offering a wider array of topics and inviting advocates to participate. Limit Effects of Pro Se Representation Pro se representation across the state increases the burden on GALs who increasingly find themselves as the only attorney in a case. Sauk County is attempting to remedy the situation by creating a free legal aid clinic with the help of pro bono attorneys who can help pro se parties navigate the legal system and court procedures. Organizations in St. Croix County host classes and training sessions open to the public on a wide variety of subjects including DA, child development, and judicial information. Creation of a program for community trainings or promotion of public-private or non-profit partnerships could assist localities in creating similar programs. Interviewees also mentioned improving relationships between GALs and advocacy groups could also help. Creating such training programs will take buy-in from local court officials as well as the legal community, as they will likely rely on pro bono work. We recommend regional groups or partnerships for efficiency and resource conservation, particularly in counties with smaller populations. Counties Should Take on Billing Responsibility and Consider Contracting GALS Payment was at the forefront of our interviews and surveys. Not all counties appoint GALs through contracts, which leaves GALs responsible for collecting payment from parties. Time spent pursuing payment, coupled with the financial burden of unpaid services, deters qualified GALs from taking cases and may incentivize GALs to work less on these cases. Counties have better resources to collect full payment from parties, including as the state’s collection agency, enforcement, tax intercepts, payroll garnishments, and payment plans. The GALs and court officials we met with in contracted systems preferred this model. However, contracting may not be a solution for every county. Counties should consider their budgets and specific needs as they explore transitioning to a contracted system. Sauk and Bayfield Counties may serve as models. A new state law or Supreme Court ruling would be needed to mandate all counties switch their GAL payment structures. In order to combat issues with payment and direct collections by GALs, we recommend that counties should either contract their GALs or take over the responsibility for billing.

Moderate-Priority Recommendations Create A Statewide GAL Website A frequent complaint was the lack of standardization of GAL processes throughout the state. Many counties are not aware of the total number of GALs willing to practice in their county, nor do they know all GALs who had specialized backgrounds, cultural competencies, or language skills, which could improve outcomes in assigned cases. Creating a statewide website to identify GALs and their areas of expertise could improve this process. In addition to identification, the website could serve as a forum to connect the network of GALs. In Sauk County, interviewees credited quarterly meetings with GALs and court officials with improving their Family Court operations. Another section of the website should also include standardized tools for GALs to provide clear responsibilities and expectations for both court officials and GALs. The website could be added to the current Wisconsin State Bar website, which would reduce the time and resources needed for such an endeavor.

29

Provide GALs with Social Service Resources Respondents often mentioned unreasonable expectations of GALs, especially when it came to assessing DA. GALs appreciated the contributions and expertise of social service professionals who aid in their investigations and lend a second pair of eyes to the case, whether through external organizations or internal Family Court Services. Greater availability to custody studies and access to resources, especially for language interpreters in Spanish and Hmong, would greatly reduce the burden on GALs. Wisconsin’s counties should consider 1) a public-private partnership such as Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, 2) sharing services with other courts or state programs such as Dane County’s Family Court Services, or 3) contracting social service professionals as a resource for GALs similar to the process used to contract GALs. Though custody studies and mediation services are required by state law, a lack of funding at the county level means they are often given low priority. Since all options would increase county budget needs for court services, we recommend legislative approval and/or funding reallocations. Further research is recommended to design the best budget proposal for Wisconsin’s families and county courts. Long-Term Recommendations Recruit Diverse GALs Lack of diversity in GALs and court officials is a problem throughout the state, and this carries the risk of implicit bias. DA is not easy for many victims to admit, and it is even more difficult if they do not have a trusting relationship with GALs due to cultural or language barriers. Our study found it to be important to prioritize diversity by promoting cultural competency and recruiting attorneys from communities of color and minority backgrounds. We recommend a recruitment campaign to bring attorneys into the GAL ranks, with added attention to diversity. One possible mechanism to recruit could include student loan forgiveness to work in rural areas or underserved communities. Whether through state- or county-level action, the campaign should be tailored to the needs of Wisconsin communities. Oversight Board Due to a declining number of attorneys and inefficiencies in GAL system, a more radical renovation of the system may be necessary in the future. Deliberations should include the following modifications: (1) extending the eligibility for a GAL appointment to include licensed social workers and psychologists, (2) standardizing the payment process, and (3) creating a centralized system for GAL oversight and administration. We found Minnesota experienced many of the same issues as Wisconsin before its overhaul of the GAL system. While the creation of the oversight board took years and required incremental changes, the new system addressed previous concerns and yielded lower costs, increased efficiency, and standardization in GAL procedures and expectations. As with Minnesota, in Wisconsin incremental changes can be achieved through Supreme Court rule, but the formation of a new department or agency would require legislative approval. Political will and budget are the primary obstacles. However, if counties address the above recommendations, Wisconsin may find that important steps have already been taken to ameliorate the problems.

Conclusion GALs are central to the family court system and are tasked with representing the best interests of children. Our clients wanted a clearer picture of the barriers GALs face while practicing family law cases and how those barriers affected their ability to address DA. To this end, we surveyed the three primary stakeholders in the family court system: court officials,

30

advocates, and GALs. We then created case studies in specific areas of the state to gain a local understanding of the system by interviewing family court stakeholders. Overall, we found that GALs face a lack of resources, lack of training, and difficulties in receiving payment. We produced a set of seven recommendations to address the consequences of these barriers. As is true throughout our country’s criminal justice system, Wisconsin GALs are often asked to do a job that exceeds the original boundaries of their role, one in which they do not currently have the expertise and resources to achieve. This can make addressing a large societal problem, like domestic abuse, very difficult or nearly impossible in some situations. But we believe that our recommendations, if implemented, can make the GALs more successful, improving outcomes not only for DA victims but families and children across Wisconsin.

31

References Curley, Patricia S., and Gregg Herman. 1995. “Representing the Best Interests of Children: The

Wisconsin Experience.” Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 13 (1): 123–36.

Federle, Katherine Hunt, and Danielle Gadomski. 2010. “The Curious Case of the Guardian Ad Litem.” University of Dayton Law Review 36: 16.

Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin. 2017. Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Wisconsin Guardians Ad Litem: Addressing Custody, Placement, and Safety Issues, March, 160.

Ind. Code 31-9-2-50. 2021. http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/f/6/8/a/f68a1f17/TITLE31_AR9_ch2.pdf.

Mich. Stat. § 712A.13a. 2016. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(f4g2r5iobc24hpztfo2yrwvy))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-712A-13a.

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Rules. 2019. https://www.wisbar.org/directories/courtrules/wisconsin%20circuit%20court%20rules/milwaukee%20county%20circuit%20court%20rules.pdf.

Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Board. 2021. “What Is a GAL?” Mn.Gov. 2021. https://mn.gov/guardian-ad-litem/program-information/what-is-a-gal.jsp.

———. n.d. “About Us.” Guardian Ad Litem. Accessed March 11, 2021. https://mn.gov/guardian-ad-litem/program-information/.

Minnesota State Legislature. n.d. Minn. Stat. § 480.35. Accessed March 1, 2021. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/480.35.

Olmsted v. Dane County, Circuit Court of Wisconsin. 2000. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-court-of-appeals/1030383.html.

State Bar of Wisconsin. 2016. “GAL Practice Guidelines Provided by the Family Law Section of the

State Bar of Wisconsin.” WisBar. 2016. https://www.wisbar.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/1-GAL-Practice-Guidelines-2016-Update.pdf.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin. 1955. “Edwards v. Edwards.” Justia Law. 1955. https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/1955/270-wis-48-4.html.

United States Census Bureau. 2019. “US Census Data Dane County.” 2019. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0500000US55025.

United States Census Bureau. 2019. “US Census Data Milwaukee County.” 2019. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0500000US55079.

United States Census Bureau. 2019. “US Census Data Sauk County.” 2019. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0500000US55111.

32

United States Census Bureau. 2019. “US Census Data Vilas County.” 2019. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0500000US55125.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2017. “Representation of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings.” Childwelfare.Gov, 85.

Wis. Stat. § 767.405(3). https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/767/v/405.

Wis. Stat. § 767.405(14)(a). https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/767/v/405.

Wis. Stat. § 767.407(1)(a). https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/767/v/407.

Wis. Stat. § 767.407(3). https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/767/v/407.

Wis. Stat. § 767.407(4). https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/767/v/407.

Wis. Stat. § 813.12(1)(Am). https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/813/12.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 35.015(1). 2021. https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/rules/chap35.pdf.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 35.015(1)(a). 2021. https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/rules/chap35.pdf.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 35.015(1m)(a). 2021. https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/rules/chap35.pdf.

Yin, Robert K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Applied Social Research Methods Series, v. 5. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

33

Appendix 1: Survey Sent to WI GALs Guardians ad Litem Questionnaire

UW-Madison’s La Follette School of Public Affairs is doing a capstone project during their Spring 2021 semester on the guardian ad litem (GAL) process in Wisconsin family law cases, with a specific focus on family cases involving domestic abuse. The purpose of this survey is to gain additional insight into the current barriers GALs encounter and the support framework they have when working on cases that involve domestic abuse. The team at the University of Wisconsin requests your consent for participation in this project by completing the following survey. The survey results will be anonymous, but if you choose to include contact information, we may contact you for a more in-depth interview. No names will be connected to individual comments or answers in the survey. By submitting this survey, you consent to have your answers and comments used for this project. Participation in this survey is completely voluntary. If you decide not to participate there will not be any negative consequences. Please be aware that if you decide to participate, you may stop participating at any time and you may decide not to answer any specific question. The survey will take 10 minutes or less. Section 1: General Practice

1. In what county (or counties) do you accept GAL appointments? If multiple counties, please list the counties by caseload from largest to smallest. (e.g., Dane, Brown, Dodge). [Short answer]

2. Approximately how many active cases do you have in your average workload? a. 0-20 e. 81-100 b. 21-40 f. 101-150 c. 41-60 g. 151-200 d. 61-80 h. 200+

3. Of those active cases, what percentage are active GAL appointments? a. 0-20% c. 41-60% e. 81-99% b. 21-40% d. 61-80% f. 100%

4. How many hours in an average week do you spend on your GAL appointment cases? (Short Answer) 5. Do you practice GAL work in any language(s) other than English? (Yes/No) 6. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, what other language(s) do you use? (Short Answer) 7. How long have you been serving as a GAL?

a. Less than 1 year b. 1 year to less than 5 years c. 5 years to less than 10 years d. 10 years or more

8. To your knowledge, does your primary county of practice offer GAL fee waivers for indigent family law litigants? (Yes/No/Unsure)

9. Which of the following best aligns with the process of the majority of your GAL cases? a. I am appointed after the deposit has been paid b. I am appointed before deposit has been paid but do not begin GAL work until deposit is c. I am appointed and begin work before deposit has been paid

Section 2: Addressing Domestic Abuse in Family Law Cases The following link will take you to the Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Wisconsin Guardians ad Litem (GAL Guidebook)

10. Are you familiar with the GAL Guidebook that was released in March, 2017? a. I use the GAL Guidebook in my practice b. I am familiar with the Guidebook but I do not use it

34

c. I am not familiar with the Guidebook 11. What resources or information do you find most helpful in the GAL Guidebook? (select all that apply)

a. Domestic abuse screening tool b. Interview questions for adult parties c. Interview questions for child parties d. Sample recommendations e. Other (please list) f. N/A

12. If you selected “Other,” please explain. (Short Answer) 13. In your general GAL practice, do you routinely do the following? Select all that apply. (Please note, we

understand that since COVID-19, routines may have changed.) a. Meet with child(ren) ages 0-2 b. Meet with child(ren) ages 3-5 c. Meet with child(ren) ages 6-10 d. Meet with child(ren) ages 11-18 e. Hold meetings with child(ren)

at home f. Hold meetings with child(ren) at school

g. Hold meetings with child(ren) in the office

h. Hold meetings with child(ren) at a public location (e.g. park, café, community center, etc.)

i. Meet with both parents j. Interview other individuals (e.g. teachers, counselors, law enforcement, etc.) to collect information

14. If you would like to clarify any of your above responses, please explain. (Short Answer) 15. How often in your GAL cases do you screen for domestic abuse using a systematic or standardized screening

tool? a. Always b. Very often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never

16. If you use a screening tool, is it your own or the tool provided in the GAL Guidebook? a. I use the screening tool provided in the GAL Guidebook b. I use my own screening tool from another source c. I do not use a standardized screening tool

17. How often do you encounter barriers to accessing the following sources for information regarding domestic abuse in your GAL cases?

Always Very Often

Sometimes Rarely Never

Prior convictions in state Prior convictions or pending cases out of state (when applicable)

Pending criminal cases Pending civil cases Police reports 9-1-1 calls

18. If you would like to clarify your above responses, please explain. (Short Answer) Section 3: Comments and Suggestions

19. What could be done to help you better address domestic abuse in family law cases, including additional training or resources? (Short Answer)

20. What do you think can be improved about the overall GAL system, separate from addressing domestic abuse in family cases? (e.g., appointment process, payments, training, resources, etc.). (Short Answer)

21. Is there anything else you would like to share including how your GAL practice has changed in response to COVID-19? (Short Answer)

22. If you are willing to answer follow up questions, please include your name and email address (Short Answer)

35

Appendix 2: Survey Sent to WI Advocates This survey was designed and sent by the client prior to project start.

Legal Advocates Questionnaire

The La Follette School of Public Affairs is doing a capstone project studying the guardian ad litem system in Wisconsin. As part of their research, they want to hear from domestic abuse advocates like you. Please answer this survey based on your experiences in one county. If you provide advocacy services in more than one county, please feel free to take the survey more than once to record your answers for each county in which you provide services. Thank you for taking the time to answer this survey and work to improve the family law system in Wisconsin.

1. In what county do you provide services? (Short Answer) 2. How many judges in your county hear family law cases? (Short Answer) 3. How many commissioners in your county hear family law cases? (Short Answer) 4. Approximately how many different attorneys are appointed as GALs in your county? (Short Answer) 5. Approximately how many GALs speak a language other than English in your county? (Short Answer) 6. Approximately how many GALs in your county practice other areas of law in addition to doing GAL work?

(Short Answer) 7. Does GAL appointment process differ by judge/commissioner in your county? (Yes/No) 8. Based on the cases you work on, about how often are GALs appointed in family law cases with minor

children in your county? a. 100% c. 50% e. 0% b. 75% d. 25% f. Unsure

9. Based on the cases you work on, do some judges/commissioners appoint GALs in these cases more than others in your county? (Yes/No)

10. Based on the cases you work on, about how many GALs in your county use the Domestic Violence Guidebook for GALs regularly?

a. 100% c. 50% e. 0% b. 75% d. 25% f. Unsure

11. Based on the cases you work on, about how often is an indigent family law litigant granted a fee waiver for GAL fees in your county?

a. 100% c. 50% e. 0% b. 75% d. 25% f. Unsure

12. What is the process for an indigent family law litigant in your county to request a fee waiver? (Short Answer) 13. Do you routinely see any of the following in your county (check all that apply)?

a. GAL not meeting with child b. GAL not understanding domestic abuse c. GAL not recognizing domestic abuse d. GAL not spending enough time/energy

on case e. GAL not held accountable by

judge/commissioner f. Judge/commissioner doesn't listen to

GAL's recommendation g. Not enough resources (ex:

supervised visitation/exchange centers, mental health counseling)

14. Which of the following are available in your county without a wait list and at an affordable rate? a. Supervised visitation/exchange centers b. Mental health counseling c. Anger management d. Batterers treatment

15. What could be done to improve the GAL system in your county? (Short Answer) 16. What do you like about how the GAL system in your county works? (Short Answer) 17. Is there anything else you would like to share? (Short Answer) 18. If you are willing to answer follow up questions, please include your name and email address. (Short Answer)

36

Appendix 3: Survey Sent to WI Clerks of Circuit Court This survey was designed and sent by the client prior to project start.

Clerks of Circuit Court Questionnaire UW-Madison’s La Follette School of Public Affairs is doing a capstone project on guardians ad litem (GALs) serving in Wisconsin family law cases during their Spring 2021 semester. As part of their research, they want to hear from clerks of circuit court regarding the process for appointing and paying GALs in your county. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this short survey. 1. What county do you work in? (Short Answer) 2. How are GALs appointed in your county?

a. A certain number of GALs are contracted to work by the county. b. There is a list of approved attorneys that are appointed by the court. c. Certain attorneys are contracted and some are selected from a list. d. Other – please explain

3. If you answered "other" to the previous question, please explain. (Short Answer) 4. What was your county’s expenditure amount for GALs appointed in Chapter 767 cases in 2019? (See the

“JuryAtty” worksheet on the 2019 Annual Report of Actual Revenues and Expenditures (CS-147).). (Short Answer)

5. What amount of money did your county recoup for GAL appointments in Chapter 767 cases in 2019? (See the “JuryAtty” worksheet on the 2019 Annual Report of Actual Revenues and Expenditures (CS-147).). (Short Answer)

6. What is the hourly rate GALs are paid in your county? (Short Answer) 7. Do you require the parties to pay a deposit when a GAL is appointed in a family case?

a. Yes (If yes, how much) b. No c. Other

8. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, how much? If "other", please explain. (Short Answer) 9. How do GALs get paid in your county?

a. The county pays the GAL fee and collects the money from the parties. b. The parties are expected to pay the GAL directly at the conclusion of the case. c. The parties are expected to pay GAL directly in regular intervals as the case proceeds. d. Other (explain)

10. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, how much? If "other", please explain. (Short Answer) 11. What happens if a party is indigent and can’t afford a GAL in a family case? Can the GAL fee be waived? If

so, does the county pay? (Short Answer) 12. Does your county struggle to find quality GALs to appoint in family cases? (Yes/No) 13. If you answered "yes" to the previous question, how much? If "other", please explain. (Short Answer) 14. Does someone in your county keep track of which GALs speak languages other than English? (Yes/No/Unsure) 15. Is there anything else you would like to share about GALs in your county? (Short Answer) 16. If you are willing to answer follow up questions, please include your name and email. (Short Answer)

37

Appendix 4: Case Study Survey Interview Guide

Interview Protocol

Explain the purpose of the interview and introduce the ground rules Hello, my name is (NAME). Before getting started, I wanted to first thank you for taking the time to sit down with us today and go over the general format, and timeframe of the interview. I am facilitating this interview on behalf of a team of UW-Madison's La Follette School of Public Affairs students for a capstone project focused on the guardian ad litem (GAL) process in Wisconsin family law cases, with a specific focus on family cases involving domestic abuse. The purpose of this interview is to gain additional county level insight into the current barriers GALs encounter and the support framework they have when working on cases that involve domestic abuse. The information we receive from our discussion today will help us develop research about GAL system in Wisconsin. Address terms of confidentiality I will not be recording this session; however, our reports will identify your name in the appendix as a key informant unless you request otherwise. We will not be quoting any source without prior written approval via email. Explain the format of the interview Interviews are scheduled for 30 minutes, but please let me know if you have time constraints or want to skip any questions. We have (8) open ended questions in total. Although we may follow up on an answer for clarification or additional information, our primary role is to listen and record your responses. With that said, feel free to say as little or as much as you would like. Do you have any questions before we get started? Questions Before we start, can you introduce yourself and say a little about your role?

1. What do you think works well in the current Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) system in your county? 2. Where do you think the current Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) system fails or is inadequate in your county? 3. Are there any unique differences between your GAL system and that of other counties? (credentialling,

training, selection etc.) 4. Are there any specific barriers to your county GALs face (specifically when handling cases involving

domestic abuse)? 5. What recommendations do you have for improvement of GAL system in your county (specifically when

handling cases involving domestic abuse)? 6. Given what we have discussed, what is one thing that you would change in the Wisconsin’s or your

county’s GAL System? 7. Who else should we be talking to? 8. Anything else you would like to add?

Conclusion Thank you very much for your time today. It’s been very useful to talk with you. (Reiterate again what will happen; make sure they are comfortable with stories, etc.)

38

Appendix 5: Map of Survey Responses per County The political map of Wisconsin in Figure 14 shows the distribution of our survey responses by county. The map uses shades of blue, with the lighter color gradient signifying lower number of responses and the darker color gradient signifying counties with higher number of responses.

32

0

Combined Map of Survey Responses

Powered by Bing

© GeoNames, Microsoft, TomTom

Figure 14 (Appendix): Distribution of Survey Responses by County

39

Appendix 6: Survey Data Analysis Methodology The clients sent two surveys prior to the start of our work to Clerks of Circuit Court and legal advocates. The survey to legal advocates was fielded from January 22, 2021, through February 1, 2021, via Google Forms. The legal advocate survey was sent using the End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin's legal advocates listserv. As of November 2020, this listserv contained 179 people: mainly advocates from the domestic abuse programs throughout Wisconsin but also some other domestic abuse program staff, attorneys, and people from other community organizations. The questions contained in this survey can be found in Appendix 2. The survey resulted in a low response rate of 11.17 percent when we consider a listserv of at least 179 recipients and a total of 20 responses from advocates providing services in 23 counties in Wisconsin. The survey to clerks was fielded from January 21, 2021, through January 29, 2021, via Google Forms. The clerk survey was sent to all 72 clerks via a listserv maintained by the Director of State Courts Office. Of Wisconsin’s 72 counties, 57 clerks responded to the survey administered by our clients in January 2021. This corresponds with a response rate of 79 percent. The questions included in this survey can be found in Appendix 3. The GAL survey was developed by our team and administered through Google Forms between February 18, 2021, and March 1, 2021. While first responses to the GAL survey were received on February 18, 2021, the mass email that began our data collection was sent on February 22, 2021. This large email was sent to the client’s list of 294 GALs who attended their domestic abuse training. Earlier responses were from case study interviewees and GALs within their network. We received 213 responses on this survey. Considering at least 294 recipients on our client's emailing list, the survey had a response rate of 72.8 percent. The survey consisted of 22 multiple choice and short answer questions developed by our survey team and was built and administered through Google Forms. These questions can be found in Appendix 1. For the quantitative analysis, we created and utilized the data cleaning guide found in Appendix 7. Additionally, we utilized some coding and pivot tables to better understand the data. To analyze the qualitative data, our team coded each open-ended question from all three surveys into high-level themes. Overarching themes were then coded into sub-theme/nodes based on key attributes and representative quotes were chosen to highlight unique thoughts or common trends among responses. Responses that contained multiple sub-themes were cross-coded making the overall count greater than the total response rate in some cases.

40

Appendix 7: Quantitative Data Cleaning Guide

1 Change from all capital letters to first capital letter only or proper noun capitals 2 Remove "County" from county line so all are name of county only 3 Remove dollar signs in monetary lines 4 Round dollars to nearest whole dollar amount with .5 rounding up and .49 rounding down 5 Change all written numbers to numerals 6 If a range is provided, enter the mean of the range 7 Remove "per hour" in answers or similar from "hourly rate" question 8 Keep most recent hourly rate at nearest dollar (same rounding as rule 4) 9 Input two dashes "--" for missing data

10 If answers provided fall in different groupings (i.e. per party vs. total or hourly vs. monthly) split into two columns

11 If "unsure" indicator is followed by a number or range, include number with "*" as unsure indicator (i.e. "i don't know maybe 3-4" becomes 3.5*)

12 "unknown" = "don't know" = "unsure." i.e., change all to "unsure"

41

Appendix 8: Advocate Survey Analysis The Legal Advocate Survey received a total of 20 responses from advocates providing services in 23 counties in Wisconsin. According to these responses, the number of judges hearing family law cases in the various counties ranges from 1 to 8 with a median value of 3. The number of commissioners in each county who heard family law cases ranged from 0 to 16, with a median of 1. Three respondents were unsure of this number for their counties. The number of attorneys appointed as GALs in the various counties were found to range between 1 and approximately 13, with the median value around 4. Nine of the respondents were unsure of this number in their county. Number of judges and commissioners hearing family law cases or the number of GALs in certain counties could be below the ideal levels with respect to the population size in each case. According to the respondents, the number of GALs in their county who speak languages other than English range from zero to three, with nine respondents being unsure about the number in their county. One respondent mentioned that though there are no GALs in their county who speaks another language, the court offers interpreter services. This points to a barrier for non-English speaking families in accessing legal resources in many cases. There is some uncertainty estimating the number of GALs in a county practicing other areas of law in addition to GAL work. One respondent estimated that regular GALs solely do GAL work, while five respondents said that most or all GALs practice other areas of law in their county and eight respondents were unsure of this number. In each county, the number of GALs practicing other areas of law ranged from one to six. Only six out of 20 respondents said that GAL appointment process differs by judge or commissioner in their county, and the frequency of GAL appointments in family law cases with minor children varied between 25 percent and 100 percent, with most respondents (12 out of 20) saying it happens in 75 percent of cases. Most respondents (14 out of 20) did not think that some judges or commissioners appointed GALs more than others in their county. These responses raise certain questions. For example, whether taking on GAL work regularly is more conducive under certain kinds of institutional set-ups (like a contract system) more than others. However, in its limited scope the survey seems to indicate that judges largely operate similarly with regard to GAL appointment processes. When asked to estimate about how many GALs in their county use the Domestic Abuse Guidebook regularly, 12 out of 20 respondents said they were unsure. Four said that 0 percent of GALs in their county followed the guidebook regularly, two said 25 percent, one said 75 percent, and one said 100 percent. Regarding GAL fee waivers for indigent family law litigants in their county, most respondents (12 out of 19) were unsure of the frequency of such waivers being granted. When asked about the fee waiver process for an indigent family law litigant, 11 out of 19 respondents on this question cited the use of a form to apply for the waiver, and four said that the waiver could be requested in court. The four “unsure” responses regarding the process of requesting such a waiver could be indicative of less-than-ideal levels of awareness of available resources and procedures on the part of advocates. On the availability of resources like supervised visitation and exchange centers, mental health counseling, anger management, and batterers treatment, a number of our respondents (9 out of 20) did not respond. Since there was no “unsure” or “none of the above” options mentioned in the original survey questions, we could not tell from this data whether these services are absent or whether our respondents were uncertain about what is available in their county. That is indicative of an area for improvement either way.

42

Appendix 9: GAL Survey Analysis This section of the appendix includes information and analysis on the GAL survey responses not covered in the body of the report. Q1. The majority of GALs surveyed noted that they take GAL appointments in multiple counties and county types. In total, all 72 Wisconsin counties—with the exception of Bayfield, Douglas, Florence, and Menominee—were represented among the survey respondents. The table below is an expanded version of Table 2 in that it identifies more directly the type of county GAL survey respondents accept appointments.

County Type GAL Survey Respondents Practice in Expanded Version

County Type Number of Responses As Percent

Single county responses Respondent did not specify county 34 16.00% Urban 48 22.50% Mid-size, urban leaning 10 4.70% Mid-size, rural leaning 3 1.40% Rural 71 33.30% Multiple county responses Urban leaning counties 2 0.90% Mid-size county mix 21 9.90% Rural leaning counties 8 3.80% Rural urban split 9 4.20% All county types — urban, mid-size, and rural 7 3.30% Total responses 213 100%

Table 3 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Respondents by County Type Expanded

Q2. The active caseload of respondents varied with 23 percent having 41-60 cases, about 21 percent each with 0-20 cases or 21-41 cases. Around 15 percent of respondents indicated having 61-80 cases and 11 percent reported having 81-100 cases. Five percent of respondents had 101-150 cases, two percent had 151-200, and another 2 percent had more than 200 cases.

43

Figure 15 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Active Overall Caseload

Q3. The most common percent of active cases that involved GAL work was less than 20 percent. However, 11 percent of respondents had only GAL cases.

Figure 16 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Percent of Active GAL Appointments Within Overall Caseload

Q4. To better understand the workload related to accepting GAL appointments for family law cases, we ask GAL survey respondents to provide an estimate of the average amount of hours they spend a week on GAL casework related to family law cases. Below is a breakdown of the average number of hours survey respondents spend per week on GAL casework. The average number of hours respondents spend per week on GAL casework is illustrated in Figure 17.

21%

21%

23%

15%

11%

5% 2% 2%

Percentage of Repondents with Specified Range of Active Cases in Their Average Workload

0-2021-4041-6061-8081-100101-150151-200200+

Range of active

48%

19%

13%

3%

6%

10%

Percentage of Active GAL Appointments in Average Caseload

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-99% 100%

44

Figure 17 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Average Hours Worked

By cross-coding the survey responses, we found that more than 60% of GALs who work in rural counties spend 10 or fewer hours a week on average on GAL Family law appointments. More than 58 percent of GALs who work in urban counties spend on average 10 or fewer hours a week on GAL family law appointments, while 26 percent of GALs who practice in multiple county types practice 20 to 40 hours a week on average.

Figure 18 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Average Hours Worked by County Type

Q5. The six percent of respondents who reported doing GAL work in languages other than English said they practiced in Spanish, German, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Rohingya, Arabic, Burmese, Hmong, Punjabi, and French, with Spanish being the most common answer. Q6. When asked “Do you practice GAL work in any language(s) other than English?,” 11 of the 213 responses indicated that they practice in another language, eight of which answered Spanish.

72

37

13

2530

7

26

01020304050607080

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-40 40+ Varies

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

Hours Per Week

Average Number of Hours Respondents Spend Per Week on GAL Casework

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-40 40+ Varies

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

Number of Hours GAL Survey Respondents Work On GAL Appointment Cases per Week by County Type

Urban Mid-size Rural Multi-county County not specified

45

Q7. The majority of GALs who responded to our survey had 10 or more years of experience: 67 percent said they had been doing GAL work for 10 years or more, 14 percent indicated five to 10 years, and 16 percent indicated one year to less than five years. Only three percent indicated they had been doing GAL work for less than one year. Q11. Resources respondents found helpful in the GAL DA Guidebook is illustrated in the graph below.

Figure 19 (Appendix): Guidebook Tool Use by County Type

Q12. What surveyed GALs routinely do in their practice is described below. It is worth noting that some changes, like meeting in public locations, likely resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 20 (Appendix): Routine GAL Practices by County Type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Domestic abusescreening tool

Interview questionsfor adult parties

Interview questionsfor child parties

Samplerecommendations

N/A

Perc

ent o

f Res

pond

ents

Reported Usefulness of Guidebook Tools by County Type

County not specified Urban Mid-size Rural Multi-county

46

Q13. Most GALs surveyed always or very often screen for domestic abuse by using a standardized screening tool, and most of the GALs who routinely screen are using the guidebook tool.

Figure 21 (Appendix): GAL Survey — DA Screening Tool Type and Use by County Type

Q14. If you would like to clarify any of your above responses, please explain. GALS who chose to clarify their response to Q13 (“In your general GAL practice, do you routinely do the following?”) responded in an open-ended format in Q14. Of the 213 survey respondents, 83 GALs felt the need to clarify their responses with additional comments. The table of codes is as follows:

Codes Responses Home visits 9 Observe the non-verbal children 7 N/A 6 Covid comments 9 Other 12 Varies case by case 16 Avoid school "safe space" 15 No response 130 Meet with the parent 11

Table 4 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Q14 Codes

05

10152025303540

Never Rarely Sometimes Very often Always (blank)

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

How often in your GAL cases do you screen for domestic abuse using a systematic or standardized screening tool?

Standardized Domestic Abuse Screening Tool Utilization

I do not use a standardized screening toolI use my own screening tool from another sourceI use the screening tool provided in the GAL GuidebookNo response

47

Q15. We did not find that access to sources for information regarding DA in the court system or police was regularly an issue, though individuals clarified that in some jurisdictions getting data could take time. Below are the individuals who indicated they “Always” or “Very often” encountered barriers to accessing data.

Figure 22 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Barriers to Data on DA in GAL Cases

Q18. If you would like to clarify your above responses, please explain. GALs who chose to clarify their response to Q17 (“How often do you encounter barriers to accessing the following sources for information regarding domestic abuse in your GAL cases? [Prior convictions in state]?”) responded in an open-ended format in Q18. Of the 213 survey respondents, 41 GALs felt the need to clarify their responses with additional comments. The table of codes is as follows:

Code Responses Barriers to acquiring records 20 General 5 Out of state records 3

Barriers to pending/active cases 6

Timing 6 911 calls are not used 11 No issues/neutral 10 Other 5 No response 172

Table 5 (Appendix): GAL Survey — Q18 Codes

0

5

10

15

20

25

Prior convictionsor pending casesout of state (when

applicable)

Pending criminalcases

9-1-1 calls Prior convictionsin state

Police reports

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

How Often a GAL Answered "Always" or "Very Often" When Asked "Do You Encounter Barriers to Accessing the Following Sources for

Information Regarding Domestic Abuse in Your GAL Cases?"

County not specified Urban Mid-size Rural Multi-county