Kirsten "Kiki"Dunton

This guardian ad litem is incredibly biased and ignores child abuse reports by mandatory reports if the report does not favor her preferred parent. Her preferred parents are consistently represented by the same law firm. This woman needs to be stopped before she ruins more lives.

My Florida family court case lasted 3 years and left me with serious concerns about the investigative process, transparency, and accountability within the system. My greatest concern was the Guardian ad Litem assigned to my case. A Guardian ad Litem is not exempt from the Florida Evidence Code. A GAL may testify regarding matters within the GAL's personal knowledge and observations, but may not introduce inadmissible hearsay by repeating out-of-court statements to prove the truth of those statements unless a recognized exception to the hearsay rule applies. Throughout the proceedings, I provided documentation that I believed could objectively verify disputed issues, including transportation records, school information, medical records, and written communications. In my experience, those records were not consistently used to verify competing claims, while unsupported narratives were given significant weight. For more than two years, I assumed the overwhelming majority of the transportation required by the parenting schedule, resulting in substantial mileage, lost work opportunities, and financial hardship. I was advised that financial considerations were not part of the Guardian ad Litem's evaluation. However, the practical burdens of a parenting plan directly affect a parent's ability to maintain employment, provide stability, and meet a child's needs. I believe those realities should be considered when evaluating a child's best interests. I also presented documentation regarding concerns for my child's safety and medical care. I did not believe those concerns received t

The Guardian ad Litem appeared to place significant emphasis on relatively minor school attendance concerns, including a small number of tardies, while giving comparatively limited attention to more serious allegations involving the father’s history and conduct. According to the information available, the father had previously experienced a removal/loss of custody involving other children. There were also allegations involving the father’s association with an individual described as a pedophile who was reportedly attempting to gain access to the child, as well as allegations concerning large handprint bruises observed on the child and attributed to the father. These issues were not meaningfully addressed or emphasized in the Guardian ad Litem’s report. At the same time, the report reportedly recommended a reverse custody provision if the child accumulated more than two tardies for any reason. There are also concerns regarding imbalance in the investigative process. The Guardian ad Litem reportedly conducted extensive communication with individuals aligned with the father while failing to contact or meaningfully engage with collateral sources identified by the mother. Taken together, these circumstances raise concerns regarding proportionality, neutrality, and the consistency with which allegations and risk factors were evaluated.

There are concerns regarding this Guardian ad Litem’s pattern of involvement in cases connected to the same attorney representing fathers in family law matters. In multiple cases, serious allegations involving the fathers appear to receive limited scrutiny, while allegations against mothers are amplified and emphasized. A recurring issue raised by several mothers involves accusations related to eating disorders and nutritional concerns, despite questions regarding the Guardian ad Litem’s qualifications to make clinical or nutritional assessments. There are also concerns that allegations involving sexual abuse by fathers are minimized or dismissed without meaningful investigation. Additionally, the Guardian ad Litem appears to place significant weight on collateral sources aligned with the father, while responding negatively or dismissively when collateral witnesses supporting the mother provide conflicting information or perspectives. Taken together, these patterns raise concerns regarding neutrality, investigative balance, and the consistent treatment of allegations across cases.

She allowed a complete violation of time-sharing and decision making and didn't budge when a therapist called DCF on the Father after speaking to the child once.