For those following along with the proceedings in the Florida Supreme Court, here is a link to the latest filing.
I find the portion about public policy considerations, starting on page 20, to be the most interesting part.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I was glad to see the acknowledgment of the right to counsel and the magnitude of the right in cases that could lead to TPR - even if it is just a footnote.
The courts have distinguished rights in CH 39 proceedings along the line of cases that could result in TPR as opposed to those where TPR is not likely. I submit that this distinction exists only on paper - given the push for permanency within 12 months, I dont' think that anyone can say at the beginning of a case, with any certainty, that any particular dependency case will never lead to TPR. All of the cases carry that potential. I've had many cases where the children were not removed at the inception but removed later when the parent messed up. I've also had many cases where nonoffending parents become offending during the case. In both circumstances, TPR is very possible.
I also found the severability argument persuasive - just think the ISC's could be back in business and the awful compensation scheme in the new law could be gone - at least for a short time.
Now we wait - again.
Post a Comment