Child representative appointment did not violate a custodial parent’s due process rights, since the parent had opportunity to question the basis for the representative’s recommendations; if the representative were ultimately required to testify in court, another attorney would be appointed to represent the child, so that no ethical violation would occur. Bates v. Bates
 This section governs the appointment of an attorney or guardian ad litem for the minor children.  Gibson v. Barton
Child’s Interests
 Where child’s custodial parent asked the court to appoint an attorney to act in the child’s best interests, where he filed an appearance, attended some hearings, but never joined or intervened in the mother’s petition to declare paternity, were the child’s interests adequately protected so as not to necessitate the additional appointment of a guardian ad litem.  Koenig ex rel. Koenig v. Koening
College Expenses
 Although this section does not provide for the appointment of an attorney to represent the interest of a child with respect to payment of the child’s college expenses, this section does recognize that circumstances may exist in which a child’s interest may need protection by an attorney “with respect to his support, custody and visitation” from the conflicting interest of the child’s parents.  Miller v. Miller
Evidence Considered
 Trial court did not err in allowing guardians ad litem to listen to tapes that were inadmissible at trial where review of the tapes materially advanced their ability to determine and defend the child’s interests.  In re Karonis