A legislative audit to determine if the Office of the Guardian ad Litem ought to be reined in has concluded the child protection agency could be expanded.

"It's more than ironic," said Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Sandy, who requested the review. "The audit will be turned upside down if this is turned into justification for expansion of the office."

The audit, which was released Thursday, assessed the probable caseload of the 31 attorneys who work in the office. Auditors determined they each averaged 174 cases, 100 more than what is considered manageable.

The office is requesting 3.5 additional employees be funded for next fiscal year, a request that makes Christensen cringe.

"While this audit is very, very helpful, it misses the focus," Christensen said, adding that the reported caseloads are "artificially high" and symptomatic of an out-of-control office.

While the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the best interests of a child in abuse or neglect cases is supposed to be discretionary, Christensen said it has become perfunctory and indicative of the "gang tackle" mentality of state child welfare officials.

Beyond Christensen's concerns, the audit did give rise to a number of recommendations that drew the attention of members of the legislature's Audit Subcommittee.

Among other things, the audit, in its random sampling of 35 files, found the office frequently failed to follow five of eight statutory duties. Kristen Brewer, director, said high caseloads prevented carrying out all those duties, which over time, she said, may have become unnecessary given how the office has evolved since it was established in 1994.

For example, the audit found that in 69 percent of the cases it surveyed, attorneys with the guardian ad litem office had not personally met with the minor, even though required by law. In 74 percent of the cases, the attorneys had failed to supervise the assessment of the appropriateness and safety of the minor's environment in their placement.

The audit also gave rise to concern that has been raised multiple times over the past several years, including by the state Supreme Court, about the lack of oversight of the office and the perception of conflict of interest.

Because the office is statutorily under the purview of the Judicial Council, judges encounter ethical problems of supervising attorneys who may appear before them in court. The result has been the council has deliberately isolated itself from oversight.

"We are concerned that because of this isolation, the GAL acts largely independent of any oversight authority which is unique for any department or agency in state government," the audit report stated.