In re W.R., E.H., and V.R.

Court properly determined that respondent-mother was entitled to new trial as to all three minor children, as per se conflict of interest existed, because one of the respondent-fathers was represented by attorney who had mediated a prior family court case three years earlier between respondent-father and respondent-mother. Even though attorney had never represented respondent-mother, she was once in a position to access information about her and possibly form opinion as to which parent should have custody of one of the minors, and had taken adversarial position to that of respondent-mother. (O'BRIEN and WRIGHT, concurring.)