Federal Judge dismisses lawsuit that challenged Guardian ad litem system

This Guardian ad litem has shown up before in the news - many times. She is the poster child of what is wrong with the Guardian ad litem system in any state. There are several things that are important about this article:

1. Dr Michale Stefanov challenged his Guardian ad litem in Federal Court.
2. The Federal court dismissed the case indicating that it was an ongoing case even though the custody order was finalized back in 2010. The Judge reasoned that because the custody could be modified it was considered ongoing.

While the challenge in Federal court is not new (my lawyer had suggested this course of action) the idea that a custody is considered ongoing until - I imagine - the child is 18 is new. Does this mean that a parent who is questioning the actions of a Guardian ad litem and seeking corrective action has to wait until his/ her child is 18 before pursuing legal action in Federal court (assuming that legal action in state courts are exhausted)?

Please read further:

The Times-Tribune

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Moscow man who challenged Lackawanna County's use of court-appointed attorneys in private child custody disputes.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann on Monday said the lawsuit filed by Dr. Michael Stefanov could not be heard in federal court because it involves an ongoing matter in state court.

Dr. Stefanov filed suit in March 2012 against Lackawanna County, Judges Trish Corbett, Chester Harhut and Thomas Munley and attorney Danielle Ross, who served as guardian ad litem, a court appointed attorney who represents the interest of the child in disputed custody matters.

Dr. Stefanov claimed Mrs. Ross, who is awaiting trial on charges of income tax evasion related to her court work, violated his constitutional rights by demanding he follow her often-unreasonable directives under the threat she would preclude him from seeing his son if he did not comply.

The lawsuit also faulted the county court system, alleging judges too freely appointed Mrs. Ross to cases where her intervention was not warranted, and failed to monitor her behavior to ensure she was not violating parents' rights.

Full story: The Times Tribune