Discretionary appointment of counsel

During a proceeding involving the dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or annulment of a minor child’s parents or guardians, the minor may be appointed counsel:

(a) The court may appoint counsel or a guardian ad litem for any minor child or children of either or both parties at any time after the return day of a complaint under section 46b-45, if the court deems it to be in the best interests of the child or children. The court may appoint counsel or a guardian ad litem on its own motion, or at the request of either of the parties or of the legal guardian of any child or at the request of any child who is of sufficient age and capable of making an intelligent request.

(b) Counsel or a guardian ad litem for the minor child or children may also be appointed on the motion of the court or on the request of any person enumerated in subsection (a) of this section in any case before the court when the court finds that the custody, care, education, visitation or support of a minor child is in actual controversy, provided the court may make any order regarding a matter in controversy prior to the appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem where it finds immediate action necessary in the best interests of any child.

(c) In the absence of an agreement of the parties to the appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child in the parties’ matter and a canvassing by the court concerning the terms of such agreement, the court shall only appoint such counsel or guardian ad litem under this section when, in the court’s discretion, reasonable options and efforts to resolve a dispute of the parties concerning the custody, care, education, visitation or support of a minor child have been made.

(d) If the court deems the appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem for any minor child or children to be in the best interests of the child or children, such appointment shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 46b-12.

Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46b-54.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has further interpreted the statute, stating,

The appointment of counsel lies firmly within the trial court’s discretion in the best interests of the child. … The purpose of appointing counsel for a minor child in a dissolution action is to ensure independent representation of the child’s interests, and such representation must be entrusted to the professional judgment of appointed counsel within the usual constraints applicable to such representation.

Fennelly v. Norton, 985 A.2d 1026, 1040-41 (Conn. 2010), quoting Schult v. Schult, 699 A.2d 134, 139 (Conn. 1997).  However, the high court has also said that courts have the power to appoint counsel for children sua sponte pursuant to this statute, and that “in the absence of strong countervailing considerations such as physical urgency or financial stringency, the better course is to appoint independent counsel whenever the issue of child custody is seriously contested.” Yontef v. Yontef, 440 A.2d 899, 904 (Conn.  1981). 

See also Lambert v. Donahue, 827 A.2d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003) (“[T]he failure of the court to appoint an attorney [generally is] not such a clear abuse of discretion that [a party] would be entitled to reversal on that ground”); Payton v. Payton, 930 A.2d 802, 805 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007) (court appointed attorney as GAL rather than as advocate; “[T]he evidence does not reflect that the parties were indifferent to the impact that the custody determination would have on their child, which would have suggested that the child needed an appointed advocate to ensure the protection of her interests. In light of the court’s reasons for not appointing counsel for the child and the fact that neither party made such a request, we are not persuaded that the court improperly exercised its discretion in this regard.”); Baweja v. Baweja, No. HHD-FA18-6100233-S, 2021 WL 12152375 (Conn. Super. Ct. March 1, 2021) (unreported) (noting that although “[t]he court’s discretion to appoint an attorney is not limited by the prior appointment of a GAL[,]” attorney GAL appointed for 14-year-old child was sufficient, finding under the circumstances that it would not be in the child’s best interests to also appoint him an attorney, even though the GAL’s recommendations departed from child’s expressed wishes. Reasoning that plaintiff’s position on custody and parenting reflected child’s preferences).