## Facts

- Eileen Miller and Clark Miller married in 1975 and had three minor children (ages 14, 11, and 9 at the time of the divorce filing).
- Eileen filed for divorce in December 1992; Clark counterclaimed, and both sought primary residence of the children.
- After a contested hearing, the trial court entered an interim order placing the children’s primary residence with Eileen and, by agreement, appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL); the order contemplated a psychological evaluation.
- A psychologist conducted family and individual meetings and home visits; the children declined opportunities to meet alone with the psychologist or the GAL.
- The psychologist’s report recommended primary residence with Clark; shortly thereafter, the GAL also recommended primary residence with Clark.
- Clark moved to amend the interim order to shift primary residence to him.
- One child contacted an attorney, and the children moved to intervene in the divorce as parties and to be represented by independent counsel separate from the GAL.
- The Superior Court granted both Clark’s motion to amend primary residence and the children’s motion to intervene with independent counsel.
- The matter was reported to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for review of the interlocutory order granting the children party intervention and independent counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Maine common law, statutes, or rules, minor children may intervene as parties in their parents’ divorce to participate in custody determinations through counsel of their choice, independent of a GAL.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held there was no common-law, statutory, or rule-based authorization for minor children to intervene as parties in their parents’ divorce with an attorney of their choice.
- The court vacated the interlocutory order permitting the children to intervene and be represented by independent counsel.
- The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings without the children as parties.

## Legal Principles

- Minor children generally lack the legal capacity to litigate in their own names; their interests are presented through representatives such as guardians or similar court-recognized mechanisms.
- In Maine divorce and custody matters, the court protects the child’s welfare through the best-interests framework and tools such as GAL appointments and court-directed evaluations, rather than by making children litigating parties.
- A GAL’s role is to represent the child’s best interests, which may differ from a child’s stated preference.
- Absent explicit authority in common law, statute, or procedural rule, courts may not transform custody disputes into multi-party litigation by granting children party status with separate counsel.

## Conclusion

Maine’s high court vacated an order allowing minor children to intervene as parties in their parents’ divorce with independent counsel, holding that custody-related interests are addressed through the court’s best-interests inquiry and court-appointed representatives, not through child party participation.


Miller v. Miller, 677 A.2d 64 (Me. 1996)