## Facts

- Two children, George F. and Frank F., entered state custody in 1988 after severe physical and sexual abuse and resulting psychological and behavioral problems.
- George had significant disabilities: he was deaf, legally blind, and communicated only through sign language.
- Although freed for adoption in 1991, the children remained in custody for years and experienced many foster placements.
- In 1996, the children’s court ordered the agency to secure an unconditional, long-term placement for George.
- The agency pursued an institutional placement; the guardian ad litem (GAL) questioned its suitability (including communication and staffing concerns) and sought court intervention to prevent an inappropriate move.
- The agency’s counsel instructed staff not to communicate directly with the GAL, asserting such staff were counsel’s “clients” and that ex parte contact would violate the professional “no-contact” rule.
- The GAL reported being unable to obtain timely, day-to-day information necessary to monitor care and placement, and sought a court order clarifying that direct contact with agency personnel for welfare information was permitted.
- The children’s court ruled that the GAL could communicate ex parte with agency personnel for child-welfare information and that no ethics rule barred the contacts; the agency appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a court-appointed attorney guardian ad litem in an abuse-and-neglect proceeding is prohibited by the no-contact rule from communicating ex parte with agency social workers and case personnel about the child’s welfare.
2. Whether agency social workers and similar personnel are “clients” or otherwise “represented persons” of the agency’s counsel for purposes of the no-contact rule in this setting.
3. How the GAL’s statutory duties to investigate and report to the children’s court should be reconciled with professional-conduct restrictions on communications with represented persons.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the children’s court order.
- The no-contact rule did not prohibit the GAL from ex parte communications with agency social workers and case personnel to obtain information related to the child’s welfare.
- Agency line staff involved in the case were not treated as the individual “clients” of the agency’s litigation counsel for purposes of applying the no-contact rule.
- The GAL’s statutory investigatory and reporting duties required access to information from those providing services and making placement decisions, and the ethics rules could not be used to block that access.

## Legal Principles

- In abuse-and-neglect proceedings, an attorney GAL’s statutory mandate to investigate, gather information, and report to the court supports direct communications with persons involved in the child’s care and services.
- Organizational or governmental counsel represents the entity; not every employee is automatically a “represented person” whose communications are barred under the no-contact rule.
- Professional-conduct rules must be interpreted consistently with governing child-protection statutes; ethics rules may not be applied in a way that frustrates the court’s fact-finding function or the child-protective purposes of the Children’s Code.
- Ex parte communications are permitted when authorized by law or when the contacted individuals are not “represented persons” within the scope of the no-contact rule as applied to the matter.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an order allowing a guardian ad litem to communicate directly with child-welfare agency social workers and similar personnel to obtain information about a child’s status and placement, holding that the no-contact rule did not bar such communications and could not be used to impede the GAL’s statutory duties to protect the child’s best interests.


State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. George F., 125 N.M. 597, 964 P.2d 158 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998)