Sympathetic Detachment as the Cornerstone of GAL Professionalism:

Written by Steven Cayton – Attorney at Law/Guardian ad Litem/Mediator, Cayton Legal LLC

As GAL trainings have matured, so too has our conversation about what it means to be a professional GAL. Among the most debated and, at times, misunderstood topics is the idea that a GAL must be 'neutral.' Yet, like many professions, we often find ourselves awash in overlapping terms—neutrality, objectivity, impartiality—that are used interchangeably or ambiguously. A term borrowed from psychology, 'sympathetic detachment,' has more recently emerged as a compelling standard. It appears in Georgia’s Lawyer’s Creed and Aspirational Statement on Professionalism, and while initially written for attorneys, it offers clear guidance for GALs whether attorneys or not.

Each of these concepts attempts to describe how a professional, in this case a GAL should conduct themselves—how to remain appropriately distanced from the emotional intensity of family law cases while still performing the job with diligence, care, and insight. But to ensure clarity and professionalism, we must define these terms precisely and understand how they interact.

Objectivity is commonly understood as the absence of favoritism or bias. At the outset of a case, GALs should indeed strive to be objective investigators, approaching all parties with the same baseline assumptions and procedural fairness. But it is disingenuous to pretend we remain entirely objective throughout the case. As we spend time with the parties, children, evidence, and environments involved, we begin forming impressions and opinions about what is in the best interest of the child. By the time a report or testimony is given, the GAL has necessarily formed a preference grounded in professional analysis and experience. That is our job.

The idea that we can or should remain objectively detached from forming opinions by the end of the case is not only unrealistic—it is contrary to our defined role. We are not automatons; we are expert witnesses on what is in the best interest of a child [2]. Our opinions are informed by, experience, and the particulars of each case as well as statutes & court rules, (Specifically GA Code § 19-9-3 (2024) & Georgia USCR 24.9). While objectivity is a useful framework for beginning a case and mitigating bias, it is not sustainable—or even desirable—as an endpoint.

Neutrality, in contrast, is more about impartiality across similarly situated cases. For example, if allegations of substance abuse are made, a neutral GAL might request drug testing in every case, varying only the type of test based on facts. But within an individual case, neutrality becomes harder to define. One party may be more cooperative or credible than the other. That doesn’t mean the GAL is biased; it means they are applying professional judgment in context. True neutrality, like objectivity, is a helpful starting point but not the best standard for what we should aspire to as a final posture.

This is where sympathetic detachment becomes most useful. The Lawyer’s Creed instructs: 'Maintain the sympathetic detachment that permits objective and independent advice to clients.' For GALs, replace 'clients' with 'children, parties, and the Court,' and this becomes a guiding principle. Sympathetic detachment allows us to care deeply about the integrity of our work and the welfare of the children we serve, while not becoming emotionally enmeshed with any party. It fosters professionalism, preserves judgment, and supports mental resilience in the face of emotional intensity. Perhaps most importantly, Sympathetic detachment is an intentional and professional choice to maintain emotional distance from the case while still remaining empathetic and compassionate.

Unlike objectivity and neutrality, sympathetic detachment acknowledges the complexity of human experience. It permits opinion, but demands professionalism. It accepts emotional awareness, but prohibits emotional entanglement. It is the most honest and sustainable posture for a GAL to adopt by the end of a case.

Of course, maintaining this detachment requires best practices. GALs must acknowledge their limitations and potential biases. Reports should present both sides’ arguments fairly, then explain—factually and analytically—why one view is more persuasive. Investigative challenges should be documented without editorializing. A report should be unimpeachable in its honesty and structure, even if one party disagrees with the conclusions.

Ultimately, we should strive to describe our role in the clearest and most accurate terms available. Objectivity may guide the beginning of our process. Neutrality may shape our procedural fairness. But it is sympathetic detachment that should define our professional identity. By embracing this principle, GALs will improve the quality of their work, elevate public and judicial confidence in their recommendations, and safeguard their own mental well-being in the process.

Footnotes

[1] See O.C.G.A. § 19-9-3 and Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9 for the legal framework guiding best interest analysis and GAL appointments in Georgia.

[2] Melton, G. B., et al. (2017). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts. Guilford Press. This text discusses how expert witnesses in custody cases form opinions within a legal and psychological context.

[3] See Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research and Guba & Lincoln (1982), Epistemological and Methodological Bases of Naturalistic Inquiry, for critiques of the notion of complete objectivity in human services work.

[4] See American Bar Association (2003). Standards of Practice for Lawyers Representing Children in Custody Cases, emphasizing impartial presentation of all relevant perspectives.

[5] See National CASA/GAL Association (2020). Standards for Local Programs, which outline professional expectations for GALs, including conduct, transparency, and ethics. https://member.nationalcasagal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Standards-for-Local-CASAGAL-Programs-2020-PROGRAMS-STRUCTURED-AS-NONPROFITS_single_page_layout.pdf