This case is an ongoing custody dispute between two biological parents regarding their 12-year old daughter, C. The Office of the Child Advocate had received several referrals on the child involving allegations of sexual abuse, and had concerns that C. needed an independent advocate of her expressed wishes in the matter. Loreto P. Rufo, Esq., agreed to serve as same and the Office filed a motion for appointment of Mr. Rufo as C.'s attorney. Father objected to the appointment and argued that OCA did not have standing to request an appointment of counsel for child in disputed custody cases between parents.

      The Family Court determined that since there were allegations of sexual abuse, this case fell under the definition of child welfare proceeding as set forth in 29 Del. C. § 9002A(6). As a child welfare proceeding, the Court found that "the ability of the minor child to voice her opinion in the Delaware proceeding [was] . . . appropriate and necessary." The Court also acknowledged its independent authority under 13 Del. C. § 721(c) to appoint an attorney to represent a child "where such serious allegations have been leveled." Until such time as it is determined the validity of the allegations, the child "has a justifiable right to have attorney representation in her best interest." [citing to In re: Petition of Frazer, Del. Supr., 720 A.2d 920 (1998).].

       The Family Court also held that even if an additional attorney for a child would lengthen the time of trial, the interests of justice outweigh it. The Court also rejected Father's argument that this case would "open the floodgates" to all other custody cases between parents, and held that the Court will have to "discern issues of representation of children on a case by case basis, and that the facts of this particular case provided sufficient cause and jurisdiction to allow the Office of the Child Advocate to request appointment of counsel."

Back to Case Law