Wednesday Topic Soup

Since it's been over a week since I've posted anything, I'll make one post out of the various potential posts that have been rattling in my mind lately.

1. CLS (formerly CWLS) pow-wow is on tap for this Friday in Orlando. I'm considering popping in. I probably won't, though, but am open to any comments or observations from attendees. Incidentally, I don't understand the dropping of "Welfare" from "Child Welfare Legal Services". Just plain ol' "Child Legal Services" brings to mind an entity that specializes in suing Chuck E. Cheese over defective token dispensing machines.

2. Tampa public school teacher Stephanie Ragusa has been arrested for the third time in about a month for having sex with minors, which as we know is an act that is considered exploitive and abusive. When considered in the context of the actions of Texas in conducting class-action child removals, can someone explain to me why every single child of every single public school teacher in the Hillsborough County school district should not be immediately sheltered by DCF? If not, then why are the 400+ (the number keeps rising; Texas seems unable to simply count them correctly) children taken from the FLDS sect still -- every single one of them -- in foster care?

3. I've asked the question for years of licensed attorneys who specialize in dependency matters, and still can't find an answer to what ought to be a simple question: What really happens in practice to constitutional guarantees of freedom from unreasonable searches when the existence of a child is inserted into the fact pattern, and more importantly, why?

Anyway, a few weeks ago I won a shelter hearing. The judge found that there is no probable cause to shelter the children. DCF's attempt to establish supervision and jurisdiction over the family failed. Done. Over. As a practical matter, the judge noted that DCF often in such circumstances chooses to turn around and file what we call a "non-shelter petition", and as such set a status hearing later on to confirm whether or not that would be the case. The reason for this is judicial economy, and an effort to save money. Essentially I agree to sit in the shadows as defense attorney on the possibility that DCF will file a new petition, in which case I'll just crank back up and continue as attorney, rather than having discharged me when the shelter attempt failed and then appoint a new attorney later for the non-shelter.

All of this I understand, and in fact recommend as I am on board with helping out the court with efficiency.

What DCF does not understand is that in this twilight in-between period while I await a hypothetical future non-shelter action, there is simply no legal authority over the family. The shelter action was one case. It failed. The future, hypothetical and currently non-existent non-shelter case is a separate cause of action. It has to be. The elements are different, for one thing, and the issue of imminency has already been ruled upon.

That is of no matter to DCF. I get constant messages absolutely howling that the family is referring caseworkers to the father's attorney (me) instead of letting caseworkers inspect their home and children weekly, and are equally incensed that the parents are not "cooperating with services as required by the court"--that's in quotes because it is, in fact, a quote. A status report has been filed, and we all know what that means.

Mind you, I understand that there is a provision in Chapter 39 to obtain a court order to compel access to children if necessary during the investigation (PRE-SHELTER) phase of a DCF action. That's not what we're talking about here. In my case, we are past investigation and past judicial resolution of the matter in the parents' favor.

4. Item #2 is still bugging me. Seriously, Tampa school teachers, you are clearly members of a group of people who has at least one member with verified sexual charges against her. We have to take the Texas precedent with the FLDS sect seriously, so just go ahead and turn in your children.

5. Child support from poor parents. I'm whining a little here, but it seems odd to me think there is any important principle being redeemed when the state finds experts to opine that if you (a parent) allow child X around children Y and Z, you will be guilty of failure to protect, and then turn around and move for child support for child X.


In case I go another week between posts, everyone have a great weekend, and I hope all you C_LS attorneys enjoy your Friday meeting.