When a minor child receives settlement funds in a personal injury claim, the law treats that recovery differently than it would for an adult. In Virginia, courts may require the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) to independently evaluate the proposed settlement and ensure that it is fair, reasonable, and in the child’s best interests.
An “infant” in legal terminology simply means anyone under the age of eighteen.
The Guardian ad Litem does not represent the insurance company. The GAL does not represent the parents. The GAL represents the interests of the child.
What Is an Infant Settlement?
An infant settlement arises when a minor is entitled to receive money from a personal injury claim. This most often occurs when:
- An insurance company negotiates directly with an unrepresented family
- A settlement amount exceeds a modest threshold (often $5,000–$10,000 or more)
- A court-approved compromise is requested or required
If a minor is represented by counsel throughout the claim, the appointment of a GAL is often unnecessary. However, when a family is unrepresented — which is common in smaller claims — the court may require independent review before approving the compromise.
The purpose is straightforward: children cannot legally waive their own rights. The Court must ensure the settlement is full and fair.
The Role of the Guardian ad Litem
In Virginia, the authority for infant settlements and the appointment of a GAL is found in:
- Virginia Code § 8.01-424 (Compromise of infant claims)
- Virginia Code § 8.01-9 (Appointment and duties of a guardian ad litem)
The Court relies heavily on the GAL’s independent investigation before approving any settlement involving a minor.
The Guardian ad Litem’s responsibilities typically include:
- Reviewing liability and the facts surrounding the injury
- Evaluating medical records and medical expenses
- Confirming outstanding liens (Medicaid, TRICARE, ERISA plans, etc.)
- Assessing attorney’s fees and litigation costs, if applicable
- Determining the net recovery to the child
- Evaluating whether the proposed amount is reasonable in light of the injury
- Recommending how funds should be safeguarded (clerk-held funds, structured annuities, restricted accounts, etc.)
- Preparing a written report to the Court and appearing at the approval hearing
If the GAL believes the settlement is not adequate, the GAL may recommend that the insurance company renegotiate the amount.
The obligation is to the child — and to what the Court will approve.
Addressing a Common Misunderstanding
In many infant settlement cases, the insurance company requests the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem. Because of that, families sometimes worry that the GAL was “hired” to protect the insurance carrier.
That is not the case.
A Guardian ad Litem is an officer of the Court. The duty is independent and exclusively focused on the child’s legal and financial interests. If the proposed settlement is insufficient, the GAL may require changes, additional documentation, or further negotiation before recommending approval.
The Court expects nothing less.
Why Independent Review Matters
Children do not have the legal capacity to protect their own interests. Parents, understandably, may feel pressure to resolve a claim quickly — particularly if medical bills are mounting.
The Court’s involvement ensures that:
- The child’s long-term interests are protected
- Funds are preserved until adulthood
- Any structured payout is appropriate
- Liens are properly addressed
- The settlement reflects the nature and seriousness of the injury
Judges rely on experienced Guardians ad Litem to provide careful, neutral analysis in these matters.
A Court-Trusted Role
Serving as Guardian ad Litem in infant settlement matters requires both personal injury knowledge and an understanding of court approval standards. The role is not adversarial. It is protective.
The focus remains where it should: on ensuring that a minor’s recovery is fair, properly structured, and legally sound.
When appointed, we approach each matter with independence, attention to detail, and a clear understanding that the Court’s trust — and the child’s future — depend on thorough evaluation