First, let me apologize for my absence. Even when there is no news on the state level, there is plenty to say about dependency defense. The fact is, I've been wiped out with what seems to be the flu for over a week.
Second, welcome to co-blogger TheReader, appearing for the first time in the post below. It's great to have a contributor!
Now on the post. The reply brief of the State has been posted in the FACDL quo warranto action set for oral arguement before the Florida Supreme Court in just fifteen days.
You can read the reply brief at this link.
I don't see much there that is new after the initial brief, except perhaps for a new emphasis on the arguement that the civil responsibilities of the RCs are severable from the criminal side if the criminal part is found unconstitutional.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The Supreme Court already found that TPR's require appointment of counsel as it involves a constitutional liberty interest, how does the state get around that in civil cases?
...and since dependency cases are generally the predicate for later filed TPR cases, you need appointed counsel in dependency cases as well....
Actually, there is no constitutional right to counsel in dependency as, even though your children are removed, you can get them back. That was the Supreme Court reasoning when the issue of "effective counsel" was raised in the dependency context. Appointment of counsel is a state requirement.
Post a Comment