The attorney is an “attorney ad litem” whose sole rsponsibility is to represent “the best interest of the child”. The child does not get a new attorney just because the flds doesn’t like the way this one is handling the case. It is up to the Court to decide if undue influence is at work here.
I was only remarking on the way the article is written. The child has requested a new attorney and seems to want no part of the lawyer’s assertions yet they are there. In addition, the lawyer is requesting the things in the order, not the child nor the child’s mother. The way the title and the first paragraph reads, one would gather otherwise. I was actually quite happy that perhaps someone in the circle cracked who could allow legal indictments and constitutional correct charges brought forward if wrongdoing exists. After reading the full article I get an entirely different picture. So I asked the question if the attorney is the same one, the single lawyer that has been on Nancy Grace making outrageous claims. If so, does she represent the true interest of the child, or does she represent self interest..?