rights generally are under attack and intrusiveness is facilitated by technological advances of both business and government, we are loathe to allow one of the last bastions of privacy, juvenile confidentiality, to be diminished in the least bit. We hold, therefore, that this state recognizes a compelling public policy of protecting the confidentiality of juvenile information in all court proceedings. In the instant case, much of the evidence is based on the education records of a juvenile. Even though W.Va.Code § 49-7-1 concerns particularly adoption records, juvenile court records and records disclosing the identity of a complainant in a child abuse and neglect proceeding, the same policy considerations are applicable. See Nelson v. Ferguson, 184 W.Va. 198, 399 S.E.2d 909 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Further, it is the policy of the Kanawha
holding that guardian ad litem and psychologist fees incurred in child custody proceedings and ordered to be paid directly to the guardian ad litem and psychologist were nondischargeable under  523a5 holding that where the trial court denies a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem in a child support case the order is unappealable holding that a paternity determination in which the child is not made a party and is not represented by a guardian ad litem is not binding on the child holding in syllabus point 4 that when a childs mental health records are sought to be produced and the child is not directly represented in the proceeding the child should be joined as a party and a guardian ad litem must be appointed by the circuit court to protect the childs rights holding that courtappointed guardian ad litem for child in child custody dispute did not act under color of state law