Pisch v. Pisch, 7 Conn. App. 720, 725-26, 510 A.2d 455 (1986). Lambert attempts to analogize the present case to that of G.S. v. T.S., 23 Conn. App. 509, 582 A.2d 467 (1990), wherein this court held that it was an abuse of discretion not to appoint counsel for the minor children. Id., 510.

For example, the majority cites the best interests of the child standard, which is applied in termination of parental rights cases; see, e.g., In re John G., 56 Conn. App. 12, 17, 740 A.2d 496 (1999) ("[i]n the dispositional phase, the trial court determines whether termination is in the best interests of the child"); and in awarding custody in dissolution cases; see, e.g., General Statutes § 46b-56 (b); G.S. v. T.S., 23 Conn. App. 509, 514, 582 A.2d 467 (1990) ("[t]he guiding principle applicable to determining the custody of children in a dissolution proceeding is the best interests of the child"). The majority's consideration of the grievant's drug offenses overlooks the complexity of this state's Penal Code to address wrongs of various degrees against our society.

This means that the attorney is not to take a passive role in the hearing on custody. He should represent the children actively and present to the court all the evidence he can marshal concerning the best interests of the children.See also, J.A.R. v. Superior Court, 179 Ariz. 267, 877 P.2d 1323, 1331 (Ct.App. 1994); G.S. v. T.S., 23 Conn. App. 509, 582 A.2d 467 (1990) (court commits plain error if it fails to appoint independent counsel for children involved in custody dispute that involved allegations of sexual abuse); In re Marriage of Barnthouse, 765 P.2d 610 (Colo.Ct.App. 1988), cert. denied sub nom Barnthouse v. Barnthouse, 490 U.S. 1021, 109 S.Ct. 1747, 104 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989) (child's attorney should take an active role in presenting evidence); Veazey v. Veazey, 560 P.2d 382, 390-91 (Alaska 1977). Without question, Mahak's attorney did not fulfill her responsibility when she failed to participate at the hearing or at closing arguments.

Further, it has been recognized that in contested custody proceedings, the interests of one or both of the parents may be adverse to the best interests of the child. See G. S. v. T. S., 23 Conn. App. 509, 582 A.2d 467 (1990). In summary, the Connecticut law as to custody determinations pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-56 is that the court has an independent duty to determine an arrangement that meets the best interests of the child and is not limited to adopting the claims of one or both of the parents.

Indeed, "[w]hen custody is contested and there are allegations of [mistreatment], children have a unique need to be represented by counsel who will advocate their best interests." G.S. v. T.S., 23 Conn. App. 509, 516, 582 A.2d 467 (1990). In child custody proceedings, parents lack the necessary professional and emotional judgment to further the best interests of their children.

In other jurisdictions, some courts have concluded that it constitutes an abuse of discretion to fail to allow a child to have independent representation when allegations are made by the parents of abuse, neglect, or other conduct that endangers the child. See, e.g., G.S. v. T.S., 23 Conn. App. 509, 582 A.2d 467, 470 (1990) ("[w]hen custody is contested and there are allegations of neglect and abuse, children have a unique need to be represented by counsel who will advocate their best interests"); Levitt v. Levitt, 79 Md. App. 394, 556 A.2d 1162 (1989), cert. denied, 316 Md. 549, 560 A.2d 1118 (1989) (separate attorney for 5-year old child was required in change of custody proceeding where parents presented only their own interests in custody); Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 440 A.2d 899, 908 (1981) (independent counsel must be appointed whenever custody is seriously contested). We believe this factor is an important consideration in deciding whether a child should have independent counsel in a contested custody case.

" In G.S. v. T.S., 23 Conn.App. 509 (1990), the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to appoint an attorney for the minor child when custody was contested and there were allegations of neglect and abuse. It is disputed that this matter is not a dissolution case but rather, a case brought pursuant to the Hague Convention to determine whether or not this court has jurisdiction.

" G. S. v. T. S., 23 Conn. App. 509, 582 A.2d 467 (1990). The court acts pursuant to General Statutes, Sec. 46b-56(b) which provides:

Section 46b-54 of the Connecticut General Statutes, is vague. Though the role of attorney for the minor child is vigorously, and appropriately, championed by our appellate courts (Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 284 (1981); G.S. v. T.S., 23 Conn. App. 509, 515 (1990), the issues detailed above have not yet been explored by those courts. Until there is greater clarification, this trial court, in this fact situation, will not give credence to the recommendations of this court appointed attorney for the minor child.

Her claim is buttressed by a recommendation by the Family Relations report which was filed on June 14, 1990, although no attorney had been appointed for the child prior to the dissolution. See G.S. v. T.S., 23 Conn. App. 509, 516, 517. Such report recommended that custody be awarded to the defendant.