Taking a look around the state, things don't look promising for OCCCRC:
Per PD Laramore: Lewis Hasn't hired a staff:
http://www.newsherald.com/headlines/article.display.php?id=1097
Leon county just not sure how they will pay for the conflict offices:
http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/16689256.html
No comment from Flyte:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article416492.ece
With cuts in the state budget and expected cuts in local budgets, where is this all going. Have they done the math yet? Was this on the FCAT? Hopefully for the indigent clients these offices are charged with representing, this will turn around fast - but without appropriate funding what representation will they get????
Regional counsel might start taking cases in 17th circuit dependency this coming week. I'm not sure how well staffed the office is. We have five judges, three general magistrates, mediation that is routinely utlilized in dependency and then there is appeals, depositions, office administration, client contact (can't forget that) . . . . That is what they need to cover. I'll be posting the progress.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Supremes Rule - OCCCRC Constitutional
Well its done - until and unless the counties take action now.
Just as expected - the inclusion of the OCCCRC as public defenders was for sole "purpose of implementing the constitutional guidelines concerning funding." p. 18 of opinion.
To those who have been and will be hit hard by this- keep your head up, while still involved in dependency cases stand strong for zealous representation of parents, and remember as one door closes another opens.
Just as expected - the inclusion of the OCCCRC as public defenders was for sole "purpose of implementing the constitutional guidelines concerning funding." p. 18 of opinion.
To those who have been and will be hit hard by this- keep your head up, while still involved in dependency cases stand strong for zealous representation of parents, and remember as one door closes another opens.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Discipline via nozzle
The attorney mentioned in this now nation-wide story is a colleague of mine. As with most of these things, they only become visible stories when there is video.
Here's the question for you commenters: does this appearance on Good Morning America increase the pressure on DCF to remove the child?
I've wondered about the wisdom of appearing on national television on behalf of a client ever since the "baby in the oven" case highlighted by Nancy Grace on CNN. In that case I elected to keep things out of the media circus. In some ways I regret that, as I can't even get the local paper (Orlando Sentinel) to acknowledge the fact that the family in that case has been successfully and happily reunified. In most ways I don't regret it, since keeping the national news story alive longer would have made negotiating with DCF more difficult.
What do you think?
Here's the question for you commenters: does this appearance on Good Morning America increase the pressure on DCF to remove the child?
I've wondered about the wisdom of appearing on national television on behalf of a client ever since the "baby in the oven" case highlighted by Nancy Grace on CNN. In that case I elected to keep things out of the media circus. In some ways I regret that, as I can't even get the local paper (Orlando Sentinel) to acknowledge the fact that the family in that case has been successfully and happily reunified. In most ways I don't regret it, since keeping the national news story alive longer would have made negotiating with DCF more difficult.
What do you think?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Why we fight, part 3
I very purposefully keep my personal politics out of this blog. Dependency defenders come in various shapes and sizes, and I work with plenty of people who like me (it's mutual) but with whom I disagree vastly on various political issues.
It's with that in mind that I post the following. Here are two reasons I'm concerned about the future repercussions of gutting the pool of dependency defense experience in Florida might have.
I think the following links speak for themselves.
Here is the wave of the future: educational neglect.
Here is an example of the system being so unfamiliar with a foster child having any sense, drive, or ambition, that it simply cannot allow them to rise above his situation under any circumstances.
It's with that in mind that I post the following. Here are two reasons I'm concerned about the future repercussions of gutting the pool of dependency defense experience in Florida might have.
I think the following links speak for themselves.
Here is the wave of the future: educational neglect.
Here is an example of the system being so unfamiliar with a foster child having any sense, drive, or ambition, that it simply cannot allow them to rise above his situation under any circumstances.
It is time to organize
..or, why we fight, part 2...
I have from time to time blogged about specific cases I've had in order to illustrate the great good that competent dependency defense lawyers can do, not just for individual clients, but children, families, and for society, not to mention the state budget that feeds the enormous foster care machine.
I have posted some questions to which I'm still awaiting answers in "why we fight" (part 1).
As private defense attorneys, we deal with difficult clients, many of whom are mentally ill. The last hour I just spent returning email can attest to that. All for a whopping $1000 per case. As private defense attorneys, we've accumulated the experience and relationships with judges, DCF counsel and case managers, etc., that allow us from time to time change the dynamics of what happens when a case becomes entrenched in the system and, if I may be so bold, pull off miracles. Two Fridays ago I was dreading a judicial review hearing. The case was going on two years old. The client didn't follow my advice very well and was difficult to deal with. There was trouble with ICPC missteps and false starts in two states with the parents trying to satisfy the government with their case plan efforts, and we were on our fourth case worker not doing much to create options other than an eventual inevitable TPR.
I dreaded the judicial review hearing. More sadness over seeing a family that had been well and truly torn apart. More punting the ball down the field for a future hearing. Then I had an epiphany and perhaps an original thought. Five lawyers had been involved in the case for almost two years. Five minutes of argument after I had my new thought and suddenly the family was reunified, and supervision and jurisdiction terminated. Tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars saved. A family saved. It's hard to explain. A totality of experience in dependency court focused and came to a point of determination. A few minutes of talking, the judge's head cocks, eyebrows raise, a statute book is opened, the air in the room suddenly feels different, clients and extended family begin to cry with pent-up hope, and then...the ruling.
It's over. It's all o.k. now. The child has parents again.
That's not to say that employees of the Regional Counsels cannot or will not be capable of spectacular results in court. I hope and imagine that several of them will accomplish that.
It is to say that simple math tells us that the most experienced of Florida's dependency defenders are unlikely to accept $40,000 per year jobs and give up the joys of running their own practices to become employees of the Regional Counsels, and that is a lot of talent lost if they can no longer make a living doing this work.
This post is becoming long and a bit rambling, so let me take you to my point: we dependency defenders need to form an organization. We need a "Florida Association of Dependency Defense Lawyers" (FADDL), and we need to help our legislature make some relatively minor and common sense changes to the new RC law. First on the list of changes would be to allow the RCs to contract with (instead of making them employees) individuals or firms who are willing to negotiate a fair and proper fee for covering dependency defense in a county, circuit, or region. That is a key thing that is missing from the law as it is now written.
Look, the Supreme Court is going to uphold the RC law. I don't like predictions, but I'd be shocked if I'm wrong about that. We as private defense counsel need to figure out how to not only survive in the new environment, but also how to thrive and to significantly contribute to the solutions.
I envision a series of very professional "Family Preservation Legal Services" law firms who can contract with the RCs and do more with less and allow experienced defense attorneys to do what they love full time without having to become state employees.
Are you with me? The first step is to create the FADDL. I'm in, and can think of a few people who would like to pursue it as well.
Incidentally, I can tell you that a recent lunch meeting overheard at Macaroni Grill suggests that there are people thinking along the same lines.
I have from time to time blogged about specific cases I've had in order to illustrate the great good that competent dependency defense lawyers can do, not just for individual clients, but children, families, and for society, not to mention the state budget that feeds the enormous foster care machine.
I have posted some questions to which I'm still awaiting answers in "why we fight" (part 1).
As private defense attorneys, we deal with difficult clients, many of whom are mentally ill. The last hour I just spent returning email can attest to that. All for a whopping $1000 per case. As private defense attorneys, we've accumulated the experience and relationships with judges, DCF counsel and case managers, etc., that allow us from time to time change the dynamics of what happens when a case becomes entrenched in the system and, if I may be so bold, pull off miracles. Two Fridays ago I was dreading a judicial review hearing. The case was going on two years old. The client didn't follow my advice very well and was difficult to deal with. There was trouble with ICPC missteps and false starts in two states with the parents trying to satisfy the government with their case plan efforts, and we were on our fourth case worker not doing much to create options other than an eventual inevitable TPR.
I dreaded the judicial review hearing. More sadness over seeing a family that had been well and truly torn apart. More punting the ball down the field for a future hearing. Then I had an epiphany and perhaps an original thought. Five lawyers had been involved in the case for almost two years. Five minutes of argument after I had my new thought and suddenly the family was reunified, and supervision and jurisdiction terminated. Tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars saved. A family saved. It's hard to explain. A totality of experience in dependency court focused and came to a point of determination. A few minutes of talking, the judge's head cocks, eyebrows raise, a statute book is opened, the air in the room suddenly feels different, clients and extended family begin to cry with pent-up hope, and then...the ruling.
It's over. It's all o.k. now. The child has parents again.
That's not to say that employees of the Regional Counsels cannot or will not be capable of spectacular results in court. I hope and imagine that several of them will accomplish that.
It is to say that simple math tells us that the most experienced of Florida's dependency defenders are unlikely to accept $40,000 per year jobs and give up the joys of running their own practices to become employees of the Regional Counsels, and that is a lot of talent lost if they can no longer make a living doing this work.
This post is becoming long and a bit rambling, so let me take you to my point: we dependency defenders need to form an organization. We need a "Florida Association of Dependency Defense Lawyers" (FADDL), and we need to help our legislature make some relatively minor and common sense changes to the new RC law. First on the list of changes would be to allow the RCs to contract with (instead of making them employees) individuals or firms who are willing to negotiate a fair and proper fee for covering dependency defense in a county, circuit, or region. That is a key thing that is missing from the law as it is now written.
Look, the Supreme Court is going to uphold the RC law. I don't like predictions, but I'd be shocked if I'm wrong about that. We as private defense counsel need to figure out how to not only survive in the new environment, but also how to thrive and to significantly contribute to the solutions.
I envision a series of very professional "Family Preservation Legal Services" law firms who can contract with the RCs and do more with less and allow experienced defense attorneys to do what they love full time without having to become state employees.
Are you with me? The first step is to create the FADDL. I'm in, and can think of a few people who would like to pursue it as well.
Incidentally, I can tell you that a recent lunch meeting overheard at Macaroni Grill suggests that there are people thinking along the same lines.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Role Call
As of the 3/5/08 shelters, still no sign of Regional Counsel in the 17th Judicial Circuit - Broward County. Rumor has it that Regional Counsel is getting geared up to take cases here soon.
What's the rest of the state looking like?
FYI - there is at least one bill that was filed very recently calling for Regional Counsel to be repealed.
What's the rest of the state looking like?
FYI - there is at least one bill that was filed very recently calling for Regional Counsel to be repealed.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Predictions after the arguments
Wow. I don't have any good feelings about the argument. I am troubled however by the suggestion that they may in essence amend the statute by disregarding (deleting) the words public defender so that the statute is constitutional or alternatively interpreting (adding language) to suggest that the intent of the legislature was to include regional counsel as public defender for funding purposes only. The only advantage to the latter argument is that the counties should then pounce and argue that there is a problem with the legislature redefining the words "public defender" in the state constitution years after that provision was drafted and adopted.
I guess it depends on what school of thought you align yourself concerning to what extent the judiciary can legislate in order to preserve the legislation.
Now we wait.
I guess it depends on what school of thought you align yourself concerning to what extent the judiciary can legislate in order to preserve the legislation.
Now we wait.
[NOTE: I'm editing this even though it is TheReader's post to add a post title and to weigh in with my own prediction. I respect any who saw something else in the oral arguments, but to me it is very clear that the Regional Counsel law will be upheld to the letter, and probably praised in the opinion as bold and innovative. What happens to the budget of the RCs afterward is the topic of future speculation -- ArrMatey]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
