You mean the statute means what it says it says?

Homeless for one night......

Good stuff, although it strikes me that an appellate decision that more or less recites the exact language that's already in the statute isn't an enormous victory.

Here's the link to the article, "Homelessness no excuse to remove child"

Here's an excerpt:

A Miami appeals court rebuked the state child-welfare agency Wednesday for removing a 12-year-old boy from his mother because she was homeless, ruling that not having a home for a child does not by itself constitute abuse....''Homelessness, derived solely from a custodian's financial inability, does not constitute the kind or level of abuse, neglect or abandonment necessary to justify removal of a child, unless [the state] offers services to the homeless custodian and those services are rejected,'' the court wrote....[Hey, here's my old friend Alan again]Alan Abramowitz, who took over as head of DCF's Miami operations last year with a reputation for preserving troubled families and reducing foster-care caseloads, hailed the ruling. ''If we removed a child because of homelessness we should be reversed,'' Abramowitz said. ``We are obligated to offer services to keep families together.''[but...but...but...]DCF is continuing to investigate the case of the mother, identified in court papers only as M.B., and agency administrators are ''reviewing our options'' before deciding how to proceed, Abramowitz said, adding that new information about the family emerged after the hearing that was presided over by Judge Manno Schurr in April.

My advice regarding that last part: get the investigation and what you intend to allege right the first time. That's helpful for everybody.

Here's a pdf of the decision from the 3rd.

It is a relatively short 5 page opinion. It points out the circular logic of a shelter petition that attempts to get around the mandate to provide services prior to removal because, in DCF's opinion, it can't provide the mandated services to minimize the danger to the child because...wait for it...the child is in imminent danger without said services in place.

I know. We've all been there.

It's also interesting to me that even though during the time between the filing of the shelter petition and the shelter hearing, the mother had secured a place to stay, and yet the judge sheltered the child anyway entering an order finding that the mother had no place to stay. That's an example of the first allegations sticking hard to cases, no matter what actual facts might develop later. That's one of the most frustrating things about dependency cases, in my opinion. You can litigate every single allegation, and disprove all of them, but the original allegations will be at the top of every single document ever filed subsequently.

Counties taking up Justice Pariente's suggestion

Now this is bold. I can't blame the RC for trying, I suppose.

In Flagler, the council's [sic] request included hiring an additional staff member, Hadeed said Friday.

"We contend that even if the law were constitutional, which we claim it is not, payment of salaries clearly is not the obligation of counties," Hadeed said.

"Council" above should have been written "counsel".

Here is the larger context of that quote:

The Florida Association of Counties met Wednesday and opted to move forward with the suit, which was a stipulation Flagler commissioners attached before agreeing to join. Association members also decided that Flagler and other small Florida counties can get on board for a one-time cost of $500....[snip]...The association's lawsuit questions the constitutionality of an unfunded state mandate relating to indigent legal representation, or court-provided public defenders. Recent state legislation is requiring counties to contribute to a newly created entity, the Regional Conflict Counsel, by paying for office space, utilities, office equipment, security and maintenance.

And this from Broward:

A new, obscure state agency that helps represent the poor in court has rented offices on posh Las Olas Boulevard and wants Broward County taxpayers to pick up the $416,000- a-year tab.

County commissioners, forced to reduce services to provide property tax relief, refuse to pay the rent and ordered their attorneys to join other counties in a lawsuit.

Comments: $416k each and every year is a lot of money. Call me a rube, or worse if you'd like, but I wouldn't be going down that road were I the RC. The OCCCRCs are designed for failure in the first place, however unintentionally, and only creativity and innovation will allow any of them to succeed. So since most of the attorneys are in court all the time anyway, why not buy a building in a less expensive, but still relatively central location, and make it work with shared offices, telecommuting, etc. Only the paralegals and whoever answers the phones need to be in the office most days. The RC himself (I would say him or herself, but there aren't any hers occupying those offices) should be out riding the circuit, in my opinion, or else on the phone or at meetings with judges and the like, none of which requires one inch of full time office space.

Oh, and my second comment: Why weren't newspapers writing about this "obscure" state agency before the legislation creating it passed?