The PDs' proposal to take over dependency defense revealed

Thanks to a tipster for this. I now have the language of the proposal presented to the special session to hand over dependency defense cases to the various public defenders.

Before I list said language, I have a suggestion for the legislature:

Please consider that state law already requires DCF to refer most verified abuse reports to the appropriate SAO for possible prosecution. Please also consider that many of those who are clients of dependency defense attorneys are also clients of the public defenders for unrelated cases, e.g., a parent who is not accused of abuse, abandonment or neglect in the civil case is often incarcerated in another criminal case with a public defender as his or her attorney in the criminal case. If in the above example, where an inmate is perhaps considered a non-offending parent in the civil case and is also represented by a PD in a criminal case, the PD will have an ethical conflict in representing the offending parent in the civil dependency case. My point is that this proposal would cover a significantly lower percentage of dependency cases than you might think at first and a second or third tier of parent representation would still be necessary.

Now to the PDs proposed changes to current legislation:

2) For the period November 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010, the public defender of the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Judicial Circuits shall represent persons entitled to court-appointed counsel under the Federal or State Constitution or as authorized by general law in child dependency proceedings under chapter 39.

You can read the pdf of the PD's proposed legislative changes in its entirety at this link. Note the portions in blue.


Is this all about money? Of course it is. In fairness, if you take a look at this web-browser friendly version of the excel spreadsheet sent to the legislature, it looks like the PDs intend to handle dependency cases for a total of about $7.5 million dollars per year in only 6 circuits out of 20, and that might suggest a savings, until one wonders aloud whether or not the regional counsels ever truly meant to spend 15% percent of their entire budgets (of roughly $50 million if not soon cut) purely on dependency cases, which would make up a small minority of the regional counsels' duties, and whether doing this for 6 out of 20 circuits is worth the bother.

Let's work this math problem out. If the PDs in a total of 6 judicial circuits take over dependency defense, they suggest that the budgets for those 6 circuits ought to be increased by 7 and a half million per year (am I wrong about that and the PDs are proposing taking on a nearly 8 million dollar service without a budget increase?), and presumably the budgets for the new regional counsels would be decreased by the same amount. If the regional counsels in those circuits still have to meet all of their other expectations in criminal cases, probate cases, Jimmy Ryce cases, etc. on a diminished budget, and the PDs will still have to spin off a significant number or conflicts because the various parents in dependency cases often tend to also be indigent criminal defendants at odds with one another in the dependency cases, how much money will this proposal really save the taxpayers?

I don't know. I'm just a blogger.

Join the private attorneys' message board if you'd like and school me on this.