Kentucky lawmakers review guardian ad litem system as cases rise, pay and staffing shortfalls persist

FRANKFORT, Ky. — Judicial and executive branch officials told a House subcommittee Tuesday that Kentucky’s guardian ad litem (GAL) program is under strain from rising caseloads, low statutory fee limits and a shortage of attorneys in rural counties — and that any large-scale administrative change would require new funding, clearer statute language and safeguards against conflicts of interest.

Chief Justice Deborah Hembree Lambert told the House Subcommittee on Justice, Public Safety and Judiciary that an audit and follow-up work since 2019 reduced statewide GAL payments “from a little over $14,000,000” to “around $12,000,000,” even as judges reported growing dockets. “We do need to talk about the fees of guardian ad litems and to make sure that we are providing sufficiently, to cover the constitutional needs of representation,” she said.

The committee heard that the current statutory fee cap for court-appointed counsel at the trial-court level dates to 1986 and remains $500. Judges and local court officials said that amount no longer covers typical expenses or time: “The fees are woefully low when you consider that these are the people who are representing parents who are basically facing a death penalty for their family,” Hopkins County Family Court Judge Susan Wesley McClure said.

Why it matters: GALs and court-appointed counsel represent children and parents in dependency, neglect and abuse proceedings, adoptions and termination-of-parental-rights cases. Committee members said they were gathering information ahead of the budget cycle and possible future legislation; Chairwoman Representative Dietz said, “This is a discussion. We're not voting on anything today.”

Scope and caseload trends District and family court judges described rising caseloads statewide. The judiciary reported roughly 18,515 cases in February 2023 and said the count rose by “another 5 500 plus cases” by February 2024. The judicial presenters calculated a rough average expenditure of about $650 per case when total payments are divided by case count; they emphasized that figure is “per case, not per attorney” and many cases involve multiple appointed lawyers.

Rural attorney shortages and costs Several judges described acute shortages of available local attorneys in rural counties, pointing to retirements, low pay relative to private practice and limited local opportunities that push new lawyers to urban areas. District Judge Amy Sullivan Anderson described counties with only two or three available attorneys for appointment and said travel and unpaid expenses reduce net compensation for those who accept appointments. The judiciary identified roughly 22 attorneys statewide who had grossed more than $70,000 from GAL fees; one county-level example cited an attorney who received nearly $150,000 in payments in the reporting period.

Training and rule changes Judges said the courts revised statewide rules and training after the 2019 review. Family Court Rule 36 was cited as requiring an open, nonexclusive appointment list so the same few attorneys are not the only appointees in a jurisdiction. Family Court Rule 37 — discussed by presenters — requires an initial eligibility training for attorneys and now includes continuing education: judges said the revised practice rule calls for four hours of multidisciplinary training every two years covering child development, trauma-informed practice, substance-use issues and related topics.

Payment processing and data Representatives of the Finance and Administration Cabinet described operational changes to speed and audit GAL payments. Tina Howard, executive director of the Office of Administrative Services, said the cabinet “now designate[s] 4 people, 4 employees full time to work the payment.” Cindy Hall, a staff assistant, said the office processes roughly 16,400 payment documents in a fiscal year and, as of February, had processed about $8 million of payments; the general assembly appropriated $12,300,000 for fiscal year 2025. Hall told the committee the office receives about 881 forms weekly, identifies roughly 260 duplicate submissions per week and returns about 66 forms weekly for correction. She said the office uses KRS 45.453 as a reference for timely payments and enters approved documents into the statewide accounting system, EMARS.

Possible administrative models and conflict concerns Representatives of the Department of Public Advocacy (DPA) told the panel they could contribute administrative capacity, training and a centralized voucher or portal system, but cautioned against assigning GAL work directly to DPA’s existing trial offices. Public Advocate Damon Preston said DPA has “a statewide network … with a national reputation for excellence,” and “DPA could play an administrative role in organizing and holding that system accountable.” At the same time, he warned that if GAL work were folded into underfunded DPA operations, “you are linking them for the future … and there's a risk to that,” citing conflict-of-interest and staffing concerns. Multiple judges said conflicts could arise if a single office handled both criminal defense and GAL appointments in overlapping matters.

Questions for further study Committee members and presenters identified several data gaps and follow-up items: better breakdowns of payments by case type (for example, dependency/neglect versus civil domestic-violence appointments), whether large individual payments reflect county-by-county practices or judge-level variance, and whether the state is fully pursuing federal reimbursement options (testimony referred to possible “Title IV-E” federal funds, described in the hearing as “4 e funds”) through memorandum-of-understanding arrangements between relevant cabinets and the courts.

What legislators said they might do next Judges asked to participate in further, formalized discussions; Judge McClure requested a possible joint task force with the legislature. Finance staff said they had improved processing and asked for continued statutory flexibility in appropriations. DPA and judicial leaders said any change in administration or funding should be accompanied by clear statutory definitions, new resources for training and administration, and a voucher/case-management portal if centralized oversight is chosen.

The subcommittee took no votes and made no formal decisions during the session. Members said they will continue to gather data and may return to the topic during the budget process and in future committee meetings.

Sources: Testimony before the Kentucky House Subcommittee on Justice, Public Safety and Judiciary, Feb. 25, 2025 (presenters and text cited in transcript).