By Nancy Grimm
When parents end up in court over custody or child support, emotions often run high. In these situations, the focus can quickly shift away from the most important person in the case – the child. That’s why, in Maryland, judges sometimes appoint attorneys whose only job is to represent the child’s interests. This includes legal matters such as abuse and neglect cases, adoption, guardianship and termination of parental rights.
Unlike the parents’ lawyers, these attorneys don’t fight for mom or dad. They represent the child, and depending on the case, they serve in one of three specific roles.
- Best Interest Attorney (BIA): Recommends what they believe is best for the child, even if the child disagrees.
- Child Advocate Attorney (CAA): Speaks for what the child wants, as long as the child can make a rational, informed decision.
- Child’s Privilege Attorney (CPA): Focuses on whether sensitive information – such as therapy or mental health records – should stay confidential or be disclosed in court.
These appointments typically happen in high-conflict or complex cases when parents disagree, when there are concerns about abuse or neglect, or when a child is old enough (often 16 or older) to clearly express a preference. The court focuses on the “best interest of the child” – the legal standard guiding all custody and support decisions.
Why appointing a child’s attorney matters
Giving a child their own lawyer can change the outcome of a case in powerful ways. Here’s why Maryland courts use them:
- Keeps the focus on the child
Attorneys ensure the child’s safety, emotional health and overall well-being remain front and center. They may uncover risks that others have overlooked.
- Gives the child a voice
In heated custody disputes, a child’s opinion can be drowned out. An attorney makes sure their perspective is heard – independent from either parent – so the child’s wishes or best interests are represented fairly in court.
- Reduces emotional strain
Instead of being pressured to “choose sides” or testify in court, the child can have their attorney speak for them.
- Tailors representation
Judges can assign the type of attorney that fits the child’s age, maturity and specific needs.
- Helps judges make better decisions
Attorneys gather facts, talk to key people and give the court a clearer picture of the child’s home life and needs.
- Protects rights and confidentiality
Especially in sensitive cases – such as those involving trauma, mental health or special education needs – attorneys safeguard sensitive information.
- Highlights serious issues
Abuse, domestic violence, substance use or poor co-parenting often come up in these disputes. Attorneys help ensure those concerns aren’t overlooked.
Training and accountability
Not just any lawyer can take on this role. Maryland requires that attorneys appointed to represent children complete at least six hours of specialized training before they are eligible. Training in child welfare law, child development, trauma standards, as well as child psychology, family dynamics, privilege law and domestic violence is strongly recommended.
Equally important, judges must make clear from the start which role the attorney is serving – BIA, CAA or CPA. Each role has unique responsibilities and confusing them can lead to ethical conflicts or undermine the child’s rights. Maryland case law reinforces this need for clarity to ensure fairness and protect children throughout the legal process.
The bigger picture
Maryland’s system for appointing attorneys for children is about more than just legal rules. It’s about protecting vulnerable children caught in the middle of disputes they didn’t ask for. By assigning the right kind of attorney, courts can make sure children are heard, their rights are protected and their well-being is prioritized.
For families, it’s an important reminder: custody and support battles aren’t just about parents winning or losing. At the heart of every case is a child whose future depends on the adults – judges, lawyers and parents – making decisions in their best interest.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the AFRO.