A Guardian ad Litem is an “arm of the court.”

Randy McCalla GAL complaints.
Judges appoint them and rely on their judgment. Therefore, a motion to remove a GAL is an implicit criticism of the judge’s own appointee. You cannot win by simply stating you disagree with the GAL’s recommendation. You must prove that the GAL has abandoned their statutory duty and is no longer acting in the child’s best interests.

sign the petition now

Randy McCalla GAL complaints

According to court filings, the GAL’s role is defined by three key actions:

Filing the Emergency Motion: On January 29, 2024, McCalla filed an “Emergency Motion to Modify Custody”. This motion allegedly relied on a therapist’s report which the mother was not allowed to see or respond to.

Withholding Exculpatory Evidence: During this same period, the DCF investigation reported “no disclosures” from the children and flagged that their responses seemed “prodded”. DCF later confirmed the case was “unsubstantiated”. Filings allege McCalla had access to this information and did not disclose it to the court.

Conditioning Justice on Fees: On April 1, 2025, the court canceled the final custody trial, citing $13,531.25 in unpaid fees owed to McCalla. This action occurred after the mother had requested judicial review of the GAL’s billing.

Randy McCalla GAL complaints

A Pattern of Ignoring Protective Evidence

December 1, 2023

Child Advocacy Center Confirms Abuse: Forensic interview confirms abuse allegations against the father, Craig Miller.

No Protective Action: The GAL allegedly failed to file an emergency motion to protect the children or modify custody based on this confirmation. Fully relied on paid therapist from Craig Miller and ignored the forensic interview.

December 1, 2023

January 1, 2024

Mother Cleared by DCF: Kansas DCF fully clears Meghann of “every allegation” just weeks before the removal.

Ignored Exculpatory Evidence: The GAL reportedly sided with the therapist to remove the children after the mother was cleared by the state’s own investigators.

January 1, 2024

Randy McCalla GAL complaints

A Pattern of Obstructing Reunification

July 1, 2024

Court Orders Reunification: A judge issues an order to restore contact between Meghann and her children through therapy

Allowed Obstruction: The GAL allegedly did nothing when Craig Miller “repeatedly canceled sessions,” allowing the father to violate the spirit of the court’s order.

July 1, 2024

Randy McCalla GAL complaints

A Pattern of Creating Financial Conflicts

April 1, 2025

Custody Trial Scheduled: Meghann is set to have her 4-day trial to present her evidence.

Creates a “Paywall”: The GAL’s fees are used to cancel the trial. The judge rules the trial is conditional on Meghann pre-paying the GAL $13,531.25. $4000 were pre trial fees that were not incurred yet.

April 1, 2025

sign the petition now

Randy McCalla GAL complaints

1. Key Legal Issues

Breach of Statutory Duty: The core issue is whether the GAL is still representing the child’s best interests as required by law, or if they have become a biased advocate for one parent.
Demonstrable Bias vs. Disagreement: You must prove actual bias—a preconceived alignment with one party—not just a difference in professional opinion.
Conflict of Interest: You must demonstrate that the GAL has a conflict that prevents them from being impartial. In your file, the $13,531.25 fee has allegedly been weaponized, creating a direct financial conflict.

Arguments for Meghann’s Case

Randy McCalla GAL complaints:
The GAL Actively Ignored Exculpatory and Protective Evidence.

The Argument: “The GAL’s primary duty is to protect the child. This GAL had two explosive pieces of evidence: a DCF clearance letter for the mother and a child advocacy center’s confirmation of the daughter’s sexual abuse allegations against the father. The GAL’s recommendation to keep the children with the alleged abuser and away from the cleared parent is not just negligent; it is a willful disregard for credible, third-party evidence, proving they are not acting in the child’s best interests.”

The GAL Is Demonstrably Biased by Enabling Obstruction.

The Argument: “The court’s own July 2024 order required reunification therapy. However, the father ‘repeatedly canceled sessions’, and the GAL did nothing to stop it. By siding with the father, the GAL has aligned against the court’s own reunification order and is actively participating in the obstruction of the parent-child relationship.”

The GAL Has a Direct, Unconscionable Financial Conflict of Interest.
The Argument: “The GAL has ceased to be a neutral party and is now a financial adversary. By conditioning the April 2025 custody trial on the pre-payment of $13,531.25, the GAL has created a ‘pay-to-play’ system. They have a direct financial incentive to support the party who pays them (the father) and to block the mother—who has documented financial hardship—from ever having her day in court. This is a profound and incurable conflict of interest and a violation of Due Process.

2. Relevant Kansas Law

K.S.A. § 23-3207: This is the statute that authorizes the court to appoint a GAL “to represent the child’s best interests.” The GAL has violated this specific mandate. Kansas Supreme Court Rule 110 (Standards for Guardians ad Litem): These rules provide the ethical and performance standards for GALs. A key standard is independence. A GAL must “avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest” and “conduct an independent, balanced, and thorough investigation.”

Due Process (14th Amendment): The GAL’s alleged action of conditioning a trial on their fee payment is a powerful argument that they are actively participating in a denial of Meghann’s constitutional right to be heard.

sign the petition now