Random state control update

I try, I really try, to keep politics out of this blog. I mean that. The majority of my colleagues who defend parents in dependency cases are what we would call politically liberal. The majority of my colleagues who work for the state, both attorneys and case workers and their web of supervisors (and by the way, DCF attorneys in Florida are now required to announce themselves as "attorney for the State" in all proceedings) are what we would call politically liberal.

Cool.

So please excuse me if I mention this:

"Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look" at them, Jones-Kelley said"

It speaks for itself. Or at least, it ought to. Do I have this right? If a government official in charge of whether or not you get to keep your kids happens to hear your name somewhere, she by normal practice "takes a look" at you?

Scary.

Hey, how about this? Imagine you are a parent of a teen. Your teen is at school, and there is a sudden evacuation because there may be something lethal, something dangerous to life and limb, something frightening going on. Or maybe not. Your teen, standing outside the school and classroom and not especially being asked to participate in anything you might call learning, calls you on a cell phone to tell you that just in case you are worrying, she is o.k.

She gets suspended for violating the zero tolerance policy on involving parents in events that are 100% under the control of government, thank you very much.

I want to make a speech here, but I won't. Both of those links speak for themselves, and you and I (we dependency experts on both sides of the courtroom) know full well that "government", when it comes to deciding what is best for you and your children, is not some hyper-competent monolithic apparatus, but is usually instead a collection of scared young workers who will do anything but admit being wrong now and then.