factually sufficient vs. legally sufficient

[SM_in_FL]

Hi, Soc!
Today we received the report and recommendations of the Gm for the hearing held on the third of this month. In it there's a line I don't quite understand and so hoped that you could please enlighten me. Basically he fired the GAL and that's what it's referring to. It says:

1. The GM finds an objection to the GAL's report was filed by DH.

2. (here's where I don't understand) The Gm finds the GAl's report is legally sufficient but not factually sufficient.

3. The Gm recommends an appointment of another GAL and a discharge of this GAL.

Ok, sooo.....

1. What does number 2 mean?

2. Is this firing a good thing?

Thanks Soc!!
SM

[socrateaser]

>1. What does number 2 mean?

Means that the GAL's report satisfied the legal requirements by covering all of the factors necessary to making an evaluation, and more importantly, at least from the viewpoint of the GAL, was not so deficient in content as to be negligently prepared and therefore actionable by the party who paid for the GAL.

However, the report does not satisfy the burden of production, i.e., it must put forth sufficient evidence on the issues contained therein, before the trier of facts (judge), to permit a finding on the issues.

In short, the report is so lacking in details, that the GM can't make a decision.

>2. Is this firing a good thing?

If I were the person paying for the report, I would be a very unhappy camper, because I just paid for nothing.

Anyway, I don't have enough facts to form a conclusion. Hope I've helped.

[SM_in_FL]

It was pro bono and by the court's own motion, Soc. Does that have any bearing?
SM

[socrateaser]

Probably a law student. Guess he/she failed the practical exam, huh?

[SM_in_FL]

:D