C.L. (Mother) v. Office of Public Advocacy GAL Brenda Finley, D.R. (Father) v. Office of Public Advocacy GAL Brenda Finley, F.P. (Father) v. Office of Public Advocacy GAL Brenda Finley, J.P. (Father) v. Office of Public Advocacy GAL Brenda Finley, 500 P.3d 995

In four Kodiak CINA cases the superior court appointed Brenda Finley (an OPA-contracted guardian ad litem) and she disclosed under CINA Rule 11(e) that she also serves as a foster parent in unrelated OCS cases.
Parents moved to disqualify Finley and sought an evidentiary hearing and discovery into her foster-parent relationships, stipends, and ties to OCS.
The superior court held GALs are advocates (not an arm of the court) and applied the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, requiring an actual conflict under RPC 1.7 to disqualify; it denied an evidentiary hearing, finding foster status and stipend alone insufficient.
Parents appealed; the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the RPC or the Code of Judicial Conduct governs and whether the parents were entitled to further inquiry.
The Supreme Court held the RPC are the proper framework and reversed: disclosure of potential conflicts by a GAL warrants limited discovery under CINA Rule 8(f) so facts can be developed to determine whether a disqualifying conflict under RPC 1.7 exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Governing framework for GAL conflicts	GALs are neutral investigators; conflicts should be analyzed under the Code of Judicial Conduct	GALs perform advocate functions; Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct apply	GALs are advocates; apply Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct
Standard for disqualification	Finley’s foster-parent status and OCS stipend create at least an appearance of bias warranting a hearing	Foster status and stipend alone do not create a per se or actual conflict; need concrete facts showing material limitation	Not per se disqualifying; apply RPC 1.7: must show a significant risk that personal interest will materially limit GAL’s representation
Entitlement to discovery/hearing after disclosure	Due process requires the opportunity to investigate via hearing/discovery because CINA records are confidential and parents lack access to facts	Disclosure alone insufficient; broad inquiry would delay proceedings and invade privacy of foster cases	Superior court erred denying inquiry; CINA Rule 8(f) allows limited, court-supervised discovery into potential conflicts
Standard of review / sufficiency of pleadings	Parents need not already possess the confidential facts to obtain discovery	Under Hartley, no hearing where no genuine issue of material fact is shown	Hartley is distinguishable; court must permit limited discovery to develop facts when a GAL discloses a potential conflict

Ogden v. Ogden, 39 P.3d 513 (Alaska 2001) (custody-investigator conflicts analyzed under Code of Judicial Conduct)
Hartley v. Hartley, 205 P.3d 342 (Alaska 2009) (no evidentiary hearing when no genuine issue of material fact identified)
Daniels v. State, 17 P.3d 75 (Alaska App. 2001) (factors for disqualification even after waiver)
In re Hospitalization of Danielle B., 453 P.3d 200 (Alaska 2019) (reviewing legal application of facts de novo)
Chloe W. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 336 P.3d 1258 (Alaska 2014) (GAL procedural rights and role described)
Sherman B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 290 P.3d 421 (Alaska 2012) (standards for review and GAL-related matters)