Opinion
August 12, 1993
Appeal from the Family Court, Bronx County (Cira Martinez, J.).
The Family Court erred in denying the Law Guardian's motion to be relieved and the child's application for substitution of counsel. Family Court Act §§ 241 and 249 (a) specifically provide for representation of a child by counsel of his or her own choosing. Children are entitled to counsel of their choice because it is their interests that are at stake (see, Matter of Fargnoli v Faber, 105 A.D.2d 523, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 631).
The Law Guardian's role is to provide assistance of counsel to help protect the interests of minors who are the subject of Family Court proceedings and "to help them express their wishes to the court" (Family Ct Act § 241; see also, Matter of Scott L. v Bruce N., 134 Misc.2d 240, 242). Where, as here, both the Law Guardian and the teenage child have explicitly expressed their failure to communicate, the child has indicated her lack of trust in her appointed representative, her fear that this representative will not effectively communicate her wishes to the court and her belief that the Law Guardian has been influenced by her adoptive mother, the proper course was to relieve the Law Guardian and permit substitution of counsel of the child's choosing.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.