UPDATED REVIEW - PUBLIC RECORD WARNING To parents, litigants, and especially single mothers: This is not a casual review. This is a documented account based on billing records, transcripts, and court outcomes from Will County, Illinois (Case No. 16 F 759). It concerns the conduct of Antoinette Granholm, who previously served as Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in my case. This update follows a forensic audit of her billing, communications, and investigative conduct. $14,836.25 Billed -- No In-Person Evaluation of the Mother Ms. Granholm billed $14,836.25 to determine the "best interests" of my child. She spent zero hours in in-person contact with me. Not one meeting. Not one evaluation. Not one attempt to observe me as a parent. A Guardian ad Litem is expected to assess both parents directly. Failing to meet one parent at all while making recommendations that impact custody is a fundamental failure of that responsibility. Repetitive "Clarification" Emails That Generated Billable Time My interactions consisted of: * Multi-page emails (4-5 pages at a time) * Repetitive and overlapping questions * Follow-up "clarifications" that re-asked the same questions in different wording This created a pattern: Ask Answer Re-ask Bill Repeat This did not move the investigation forward. It increased billable time while creating unnecessary confusion and financial strain. Anonymous Allegation Introduced Without Evidence Ms. Granholm referenced an "anonymous call" alleging both parents were unfit due to substance abuse. There was: * No identified source * No verification * No supporting documentation Despite this, the allegation was introduced into the case. Using unverified, anonymous claims in a custody matter--then billing for it--raises serious concerns about reliability and fairness. Investigative Imbalance While I received no in-person contact, billing records reflect hours spent communicating with the petitioner's extended family, including his sister. A Guardian ad Litem is supposed to evaluate parents--not substitute that responsibility with third-party narratives. Relevant Evidence Overlooked Documented evidence was provided regarding the other parent, including: * Multiple DUIs * Restraining orders * A pattern of concerning behavior Instead of focusing on current, relevant facts, the investigation emphasized decades-old, unrelated personal history. That is not balanced investigation. That is selective focus. Court Oversight Matters The Court did not adopt the sanctions Ms. Granholm supported. Judge Raymond Nash reviewed the matter independently and did not uphold her recommendations. That distinction is critical. It reflects that judicial oversight can and does correct flawed investigative conclusions. Clear Contrast With Current Case Progress Since that time, the case has continued under new GAL oversight. Without naming individuals, the difference is clear: * Direct communication is occurring * The process is more balanced * The focus is on current, relevant facts This contrast highlights how much impact a GAL's approach has on the outcome of a case. Documented Pattern I have identified 76 documented inconsistencies and false statements under oath within transcripts related to Ms. Granholm's involvement. This is not opinion. This is documented. Systemic Concern -- Read This Carefully This is bigger than one case. If this level of conduct becomes acceptable-- where a parent can be evaluated without ever being met, where anonymous claims can be introduced without evidence, and where billing outweighs actual investigation-- then the question becomes: What kind of system are our children and the next generation of parents walking into? Because one day, the judge who carefully reviews and corrects these failures will not be on the bench. And if the standard shifts toward unchecked recommendations and imbalanced investigations, parents will be walking into a system where decisions are made without full, fair evaluation. Let that sink in. FINAL STATEMENT A Guardian ad Litem is supposed to be the independent voice for a child's best interests. In this case, the record reflects: * No in-person evaluation of one parent * Reliance on unverified, anonymous information * Imbalanced investigative practices * Billing not aligned with meaningful inquiry That is not a difference of opinion. That is a failure of the role. ADVICE TO OTHER PARENTS * Request in-person meetings immediately * Document everything * Review billing entries line-by-line * Do not assume neutrality--verify it This review is shared for one reason: Accountability. Because what is allowed in one case becomes the standard in the next. read more

Recent Update: 2+ years later and even our original child therapist has recommended that the custody arrangement be amended and I thankfully now have 70% legal custody in a Motion to Modify Parenting Time with an Agreed Court Order. Hence, this is why, it is truly from my very own personal experience and therefore my own personal opinion, I would not use or recommend Adam Gynac. Again, as a minority female, I truly felt completely discriminated against. read more

Our case was assigned by the court for mediation on disputes between my ex and I. I was hoping that Mr Gynac, as a "Professional" would be able to help us see through these issues and find a solution. Mr Gyanc laid into my ex pretty good and at the time I believed that I was right and left mediation believing everything I was doing was ok because he told my ex and I this. He went as far as saying he's sees it this way and the judge would rule the same exact way. I kept status quo thinking Mr Gynac who is also a GAL and online it says top 40 lawyer for under 40, (this list must not be hard to get on), and I was just advised by an attorney that Mr Gynac was completely wrong and now i'm facing multiple violations of our agreement and thousands of dollars of court fees due to him assuring me I was in the right with how i was operating. The internet appears to be (and this site) littered with similar stories of deceit and wrong doing by this firm and urge anyone who gets their case assigned to Mr Gynac to immediately ask for another mediator, and lord forbid, GAL. You may feel that you were in the right and won in mediation when you leave, but what matters most is the court and i'm feeling the backlash now due to Mr Gynac's flat out wrong advice. read more

This law firm is compassionate and thorough. They answered all my questions and kept me advised every step of the way. Thank you for going above and beyond Toni & Adam! read more