Holy Cow

OMAHA, Neb. — Eleven children ranging in age from 1 to 17 were left at hospitals Wednesday under Nebraska's unique safe haven law, which allows caregivers to abandon youngsters as old as 19 without fear of prosecution.

Nine of the children came from one family. The six boys and three girls were left by their father, who was not identified, at Creighton University Medical Center's emergency room. Unrelated boys ages 11 and 15 also were surrendered Wednesday at Immanuel Medical Center.

The rest of the story is here.

Overheard at the Dependency Summit

In a workshop at Thurday's Florida Dependency Summit, 3rd District Regional Counsel Joseph George offered some comments in the group discussion.

The leader/instructor asked him to explain his office, and in doing so he proclaimed that "there are no more private attorneys" defending parents in dependency court. Your blog author can tell you that rumors of his lack of existence are wildly exaggerated.

Mr. George also stated that "We (the Regional Counsel attorneys) are not just parents' attorneys; we are a DCF partner." He said that twice. I don't wish to make too much of that, in the context of the discussion one could hear that to mean that he seeks to reunify parents....just like DCF does. I guess. Personally, I think my clients don't want to hear that I'm a DCF partner. They want me to work to mediate solutions sometimes, yes. They more often want me to oppose and fight DCF, thus the whole "defense" in defense attorney thing. Partner with DCF? I don't think they want that. And really, had I sat for an interview to be the Regional Counsel, I wouldn't have thought that they'd want to hear that one of my goals in largely replacing the private defense bar would be to partner with the opposition. Seriously, have any elected Public Defenders ever gone to a convention of prosecutors and law enforcement and told them that the Public Defender is their partner?

Enough of that.

Lastly, and the most fun:

In a small room that contained 15th Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Kathleen Kroll and Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Peggy Quince, Mr. George referred to his attorneys handling dependency cases as "My girls -- I mean attorneys".

A low "ooooooh" was heard from many in the room.

Incidentally, one of the points in the discussion (it was about media relations) made by the instructor was that, essentially, privacy is an illusion in this age (I agree) and that, in fact, what went on in the workshop may well be on the web before the end of the day.

So there you go.

See you at the summit!

If you happen to be at the Florida Dependency Summit 2008 over the next three days, I hope to bump into you.

I'll be the guy in a tie clutching his brand new copy of Chapter 39.

Seriously, if anyone wants to leave a comment here, I'll check an maybe we can get together and compare notes Thursday afternoon.

I'm not dead

You may have noticed very few posts lately.

It's not that there isn't news; it's not that there aren't things to blog about.

It's about being BUSY. So I apologize.

Here, in a flurry, are some things on my mind about dependency defense:

1. That Las Vegas seminar is coming up. There are only a few days left to register and get a discount for being part of a group. Get in contact with me and I can hook you up with that.

2. JAC. What can I say? These days, I'm stunned when I don't get an audit deficiency for the simplest of flat rate cases. My bookkeeper quit; it's just too much hassle dealing with JAC. My other two assistants can't keep up with the audit deficiencies. So, JAC wins. I no longer even know how much they owe me and can't find enough time to schedule enough hearings over contested fees. You win, JAC; you've made up a reason to avoid complying with your contract with me on scores of cases, and finally got me to think about how to withdraw with honor from defending dependency cases.

3. The Regional Counsel attorneys in my county (that being Orange) are good folks. They tend toward the zero experience in dependency cases, but the ones working it now are doing a pretty good job. I've enjoyed, in fact, my role as de facto mentor for some of them. Interesting rumor: the waiver cases (regarding parental notification for a minor getting an abortion) in the region are all being sent to Orange County because there aren't attorneys in neighboring counties to handle them. I'm not sure what significance that has, but it is interesting.

4. Speaking of JAC, they recently gave me an audit deficiency for not including in my billing the form that I myself came up with, drafted, and distributed on the Dependency Defense website. It seems that it is now required, so pardon me if I pat myself on the back for having thought of the need for it a year ago. Use this link to find the form in MSWord form so you can adapt it to your needs (see the section of that page labeled "forms").

5. Is anyone going to the dependency summit in Orlando at the end of August? Let me know, and we can get together and compare notes.

6. The best source of information about the Russo-Georgian War is at this link.

7. The ICPC is broken. Much, much more on that later.

Who should replace Bob Butterworth at DCF?

As you probably know, DCF Secretary Bob Butterworth resigned this week, effective August 15.

The question is, who do you readers think should take over?

I nominate Alan Abramowitz. I'll write more on that later.

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?