Parents involved in a contested allocation of parental responsibilities or parenting time case are often surprised to learn that the court can appoint an attorney to represent their child. In Illinois, this attorney is commonly referred to as an Attorney for the Child, or AFC.

​

The authority for appointing an Attorney for the Child is found in Section 506 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/506. The statute authorizes the court to appoint an Attorney for the Child, a Guardian ad Litem, or a Child's Representative when the court determines that such an appointment may assist in resolving issues involving parental responsibilities, parenting time, relocation, education, medical decisions, or other matters affecting the welfare of a child.

​

An Attorney for the Child is exactly what the title suggests: an attorney whose client is the child. Although the appointment occurs within a divorce, parentage, or post-decree proceeding between parents, the AFC does not represent either parent. The AFC represents the child.

​

This distinction is critical because many parents mistakenly assume that any attorney appointed for a child is automatically tasked with determining what is in the child's best interests. That is not the role of an Attorney for the Child.

 

Instead, the AFC generally owes the child the same duties owed to any client, including loyalty, confidentiality, communication, and advocacy. In many cases, the AFC serves as the child's voice in litigation.

 

Why Would a Court Appoint an Attorney for the Child?

​

Not every case requires the appointment of an Attorney for the Child. In fact, many cases proceed from beginning to end without any appointment under Section 506.

 

However, there are situations where an AFC can be extremely beneficial.

 

One common example involves older children. As children mature, their opinions often become more developed, more consistent, and more relevant to the issues before the court. While Illinois law does not permit children to decide where they will live or which parent they will spend time with, the preferences of a mature child may be entitled to consideration under the best-interest factors set forth in Illinois law.

 

Consider the sixteen-year-old who refuses to spend parenting time with one parent. Consider the seventeen-year-old who drives, works part-time, participates in athletics, and maintains a busy social life. Consider the teenager who has formed strong opinions about school, extracurricular activities, or living arrangements.

 

In those situations, a judge may conclude that the child's voice should be heard through an attorney rather than forcing the child to testify in open court.

 

The appointment can also be helpful where a child has become caught in the middle of ongoing parental conflict. Rather than receiving information solely through competing allegations made by the parents, the court may benefit from hearing the child's perspective through an independent attorney.

 

An AFC may also be appropriate where allegations of parental alienation, manipulation, coaching, or undue influence are being made. Parents frequently accuse one another of pressuring children to adopt certain positions. An attorney representing the child can sometimes help the court separate genuine preferences from parental influence.

 

The Reality of Older Children

 

One of the most practical reasons for requesting an Attorney for the Child involves the reality that older children are often difficult to force into compliance with parenting orders.

 

Many parents arrive in court seeking enforcement of parenting schedules involving fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen-year-old children. While a court certainly has authority to enter orders regarding parenting time, there are practical limitations to what either parent can realistically accomplish.

 

A father cannot physically carry a sixteen-year-old into a vehicle and transport the child to parenting time. A mother cannot reasonably ground a seventeen-year-old into compliance if the relationship between the child and the other parent has completely deteriorated.

Judges understand these realities.

 

An Attorney for the Child can help the court understand why an older child is refusing parenting time, whether the refusal is reasonable, whether the child is being influenced by a parent, and whether modification of the parenting schedule should be considered.

 

In many cases, understanding the child's actual position becomes more important than attempting to impose a schedule that is unlikely to be followed.

 

What Can an Attorney for the Child Do?

 

An Attorney for the Child is not a passive participant. The AFC may review records, communicate with therapists, counselors, teachers, coaches, and other individuals who possess relevant information. The attorney may participate in discovery, issue subpoenas, file motions, examine witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, participate in settlement conferences, and advocate before the court.

 

The AFC may also meet privately with the child.

 

Because the child is the client, communications between the child and the attorney may be protected in ways similar to communications between any attorney and client.

 

This frequently provides children with a greater sense of comfort than being interviewed by a court-appointed investigator or being required to testify in court.

 

When Requesting an AFC May Not Be Helpful

 

Although there are situations where an Attorney for the Child can provide tremendous value, there are also circumstances where the appointment may create unnecessary expense. If the child is very young, the child's ability to formulate and communicate meaningful preferences may be limited. Likewise, if the central dispute concerns issues that have little connection to the child's wishes, such as financial matters between the parents, the appointment may provide limited benefit.

 

Parents should also understand that an Attorney for the Child does not guarantee that the child's preferences will prevail. The AFC may advocate for the child's wishes, but the ultimate decision remains with the court.

 

Some parents request an AFC believing that the attorney will automatically support their position. That assumption is often incorrect. Once appointed, the AFC's loyalty belongs to the child, not the parent who requested the appointment.

 

Who Pays for the Attorney for the Child?

 

Section 506 grants Illinois courts broad discretion regarding fees. In many cases, the court will order the parents to share the fees equally. However, equal allocation is not required. The court may allocate fees based upon income, financial resources, litigation conduct, or other equitable considerations. In some cases, one parent may be ordered to pay a greater percentage of the fees. In others, the court may ultimately reallocate fees at the conclusion of the case based upon the conduct of the parties throughout the litigation.

 

The cost of an AFC should always be weighed against the potential benefit of obtaining meaningful information that may assist the court in reaching an appropriate decision.

 

Attorney for the Child Versus Guardian ad Litem

 

Parents frequently confuse an Attorney for the Child with a Guardian ad Litem.

The difference is significant. A Guardian ad Litem investigates the facts and makes recommendations based upon what the GAL believes to be in the child's best interests.

 

An Attorney for the Child represents the child.

 

The AFC is not appointed to determine what the attorney believes is best. Rather, the AFC serves as an advocate for the child in much the same way an attorney advocates for any client.

 

The distinction may appear subtle, but it often has enormous consequences in litigation.

 

Is Requesting an Attorney for the Child Right for Your Case?

 

Every family law case is different. In some cases, the appointment of an Attorney for the Child can dramatically improve the court's understanding of a mature child's wishes and concerns. In others, the appointment may add cost without providing meaningful benefit.

 

The decision often depends upon the child's age, maturity, level of involvement in the dispute, and the issues presently before the court.

 

Determining whether to seek the appointment of an Attorney for the Child requires careful analysis of both the facts and the likely litigation strategy moving forward.

 

Attorney Paul D. Nordini has represented parents in some of the most heavily contested parenting and allocation disputes throughout DuPage, Cook, Will, Kane, and surrounding Illinois counties. He has litigated cases involving Attorneys for the Child, Child's Representatives, Guardians ad Litem, custody evaluators, therapists, DCFS investigations, allegations of parental alienation, emergency parenting disputes, and complex post-decree modifications.

 

Understanding when to request an Attorney for the Child (and when not to) can significantly impact the direction of a case. Mr. Nordini works closely with clients to evaluate whether an AFC appointment will genuinely advance the child's interests and the client's litigation objectives, while avoiding unnecessary expense and delay. In high-conflict parenting litigation, strategic decisions often matter as much as the underlying facts, and the selection of the appropriate Section 506 professional can have a lasting impact on the outcome of the case.