Parenting-time dispute; Distinguishing between a guardian ad litem (GAL) & a lawyer/guardian ad litem (LGAL); Appointment of a GAL; MCL 722.24; A GAL’s powers & duties; MCL 712A.17d; A LGAL’s powers & duties; MCL 712A.17d(1)(d); MCL 722.22(h); MCL 722.24(2) & (3); Principle that a GAL does not need to be an attorney; MCL 722.22(g); MCL 712A.13a(1)(f)

The court held that the trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL (F) as an LGAL and denying the parties’ the right to question her at a hearing. However, it found the trial court did not err by requiring the parties to compensate F for her services. The trial court appointed F during the parties’ parenting-time dispute, but denied them the right to question her during a hearing, finding she was actually a LGAL. Following the hearing, it issued an order permitting F to withdraw from the case and requiring the parties to pay her fees. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant-father that the trial court incorrectly treated F as an LGAL rather than a GAL. It “clearly appointed [F] to serve as GAL, not LGAL . . . .” If it “erred and actually intended [her] to serve as LGAL, [it] needed to enter a corrected order. [It] did not do so and therefore [F] remained a GAL.” Although F fulfilled her role, the trial court interfered with defendant’s “right to examine her and to thereby controvert her report by denying his request to call [her] to the stand.” While F “is an attorney by trade, she was not serving as an attorney or an LGAL in this case. [She] created a report to help the court assess [the child’s] best interests and allowing the parties to examine the author on the stand furthers that interest.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.