Court officials warn West Virginia lacks enough guardian ad litem attorneys; cite pay, geography and scheduling as barriers

At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Seniors, Children and Families, Supreme Court staff and practicing attorneys said West Virginia faces a shortage of guardian ad litem (GAL) and other child-abuse-and-neglect attorneys, and urged recruitment and changes to compensation and billing rules.

Cindy Largent, a speaker from the court’s office, told the committee the state maintains a register of attorneys who accept GAL and respondent appointments and that ‘‘as of October’’ there were 191 attorneys on that register. She said the system sees roughly 5,200 new petitions a year, adding, ‘‘As of October, we had 4,134’’ new children entering foster care in the calendar year, and warned the number of available attorneys is not sufficient to handle the workload.

The shortage has logistical consequences, Largent and others said. Attorneys frequently cover multiple counties and drive long distances; children are sometimes placed outside the state, complicating contact with siblings and casework. Largent described a confidential Guardian ad Litem comment line established under Chief Justice Armstead that provides a response within 48 hours but noted juvenile cases are confidential so the office often cannot share investigation findings.

Teresa Lyons, an attorney in Morgantown who works with the court improvement program, described the GAL role as ‘‘advocat[ing] for the best interest of the child,’’ combining investigative work with legal advocacy on removal decisions, placements, services and permanency planning. She said GALs typically represent sibling groups unless a conflict requires a second GAL and remain assigned to a case until permanency is achieved.

Keith Hoover, deputy administrative director in the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court, told the committee that recruiting competent lawyers is a priority but compensation remains a barrier. ‘‘Currently, the compensation for these lawyers is they are paid $60 an hour for out of court work and $80 an hour for in court work,’’ he said, adding those rates are ‘‘below market rates’’ for comparable private-practice work. Hoover described a working group that reviewed GAL responsibilities and said the court hopes clearer role definitions will help recruitment.

Hoover also noted a bill that would have allowed attorneys to bill MDT (multidisciplinary team) time at the in-court rate and adjusted compensation ‘‘passed out of the House’’ but ‘‘did not advance in the Senate.’’ He said a similar bill could be reintroduced next session and that the court will provide more information to the Legislature if requested.

Committee members pressed for more data. Delegate Kimball asked whether the court could provide average private-practice rates to benchmark compensation; Hoover said the court would try to gather that information but cautioned it is difficult because of practice and geographic diversity.

A senator from Jefferson raised accountability concerns, saying he still hears of GALs ‘‘who have never seen the child.’’ Hoover said the court’s revised Appendix A includes a requirement for a face-to-face meeting (the timing language to be confirmed) and pointed to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel as the mechanism for investigating ethical complaints, noting lawyers can face discipline up to suspension for fraudulent billing.

Speakers discussed other options to relieve workload, including outreach to law schools, recruitment initiatives, parent resource navigators and proposals to use paraprofessionals for some tasks; Hoover said the court would review proposals but emphasized that specifics would need to be provided for consideration.

Senator Conde (Raleigh) thanked the presenters and said the state has made progress since earlier meetings; Cindy Largent said the court has worked to be more transparent, share the comment line with foster-care ombudsmen and expand training and outreach.

The committee took no formal policy votes on GAL compensation at this meeting. The co-chair moved to adjourn and the committee approved the motion by voice vote.

The court’s staff identified several next steps: continue recruiting (including law-school outreach), finalize and publish the revised role-and-responsibilities appendix for public comment, provide legislators with compensation benchmarking data if feasible, and work with the Legislature if a compensation/billing bill is reintroduced.