Why Was the Guardian ad Litem Already Biased for the Adoptive Parents? By her own admission; because she had been working with the Capobiancos before the BIRTH of Veronica.I’m so very curious on how a woman appointed to act in the best interests of a child, could do so before she is even born. Even the SOCTUS said the following about about her that really, if she had connections before, are untrue:

“The Guardian ad Litem, Ms. Jo M. Prowell (“the Guardian”), is the duly appointed representative of the respondent child (“Baby Girl”) in these proceedings, with standing to file this brief on Baby Girl’s behalf. The Guardian exhaustively considered the respondent child’s best interests and concluded that they clearly would be served by allowing her adoptive parents to retain custody.”

Oh look! I happen to have the actual court transcripts of The Direct and Cross Examination of Christy Maldonado in Adoptive Couple vs Baby Girl dated September 13, 2011 Now before I share this bit of court document candy with you, I do want to take a moment to point out Judge Malphrus’ Bench Ruling on this aspect of the case as it SPECIFICALLY relates to the issue of Dusten Brown’s attempts to support Christy Maldonado and his unborn daughter Veronica Rose Brown AND also to the issue of what rights he “signed away.” Being that, you know, those are the most common nails in his coffin of public opinion and why he should lose his daughter again.