Hideous

Just a reminder that termination of parental rights is not always the best way to protect children.

End Game

There is a reason there aren't posts here very often. It's related to the fact that my effort at building an online community of dependency defense lawyers has failed, I think.

Let's start with this: the J.A.C (the ironically named Justice Administrative Commission) has been demanding hearings and contesting payment for lawyers who have represented so-called "non-offending parents". Never mind that Chapter 39 is quite clear about all parents' entitlement to counsel; never mind that the very notion of non-offending parents was created by case law; never mind the irony that JAC is presenting case law, instead of Chapter 39, in hearings to twist a ruling somewhere that there is no constitutional right to effective counsel in dependency proceedings to mean that there is no constitutional right to counsel at all in dependency proceedings at all. Never mind all of that. What is important is that a governmental agency that goes by the name of "Justice Administrative Commission" spends what seems to be 98% of its time and resources seeing to it that those who seek justice for the indigent have a hell of hard time being paid for doing so, despite the contract JAC signs with them.

Now consider this: when I was asked by many in my circuit if I would apply for the position of Regional Counsel, I was flattered, but I answered honestly; I could not, with my experience in operating complex organizations and handling budgets and personnel, in good faith apply for a job that I knew simply could not succeed in its mission. I knew, and know, that the Regional Counsel offices simply cannot handle their mandates without at least twice (more likely triple) the budgets given to them. Of course, if their budgets were doubled, they'd be more expensive than the old wheel/rotation system of using private lawyers did, but that doesn't matter anymore because that ship has sailed.

Next consider this: it seemed strange that the Republican legislature of the State of Florida created a governmental solution, instead of a private solution, to the problem of indigent defense costs. Surely there were other options. I had plenty of them in my head. Nobody asked me. Nobody asked anyone who is in the trenches as appointed counsel in dependency cases.

As I write this, the nation is torn over fears spread by the republican President, the democrat Congress, and on down, that only the government can save us from a credit crisis created by...wait for it...the policies of past presidents and Congress. There is a link here, I think, or at least a fear of a link.

What if the whole point of the recent changes in Florida is to get rid of the notion of court-appointed attorneys for the indigent in dependency cases? What if that is the desired result? I give you the Cloward-Priven strategy, in which a system is overloaded with demands on it with the purpose of causing it to collapse (remember my response to why I wouldn't in good conscience apply for Regional Counsel) to the point that the system collapses and the public clamors for reform...in this case that reform being that indigent parents in dependency cases are not entitled to counsel.

I have come to believe that that is the end game. Put together all of the above, underscored by JAC's position in its various hearings about fees, along with the very predictable failure of the Regional Counsel offices, together with the fact that in at least one Florida jurisdiction, the Public Defender is no longer required to take certain cases, with other jurisdictions looking to grab on to this notion, all leading to a collapse of the Regional Counsels, and.....and....

The only thing that will make fiscal and legal sense after all of that is for Florida's appellate courts to back off and say that the indigent in dependency cases are not entitled to counsel at all, despite what the legislature said in Chapter 39.

And then the cost of an unfettered DCF and unlimited costs incurred by foster care without any watchdogs will come to roost. I started DependencyDefense.com with the notion that those costs and consequences were the whole point. I'm beginning to wonder if I was wrong. Costs and consequences be damned, I now seriously wonder if the Cloward-Priven strategy might not be in full effect, and the whole point of this is simply to create near-absolute power of government over any family who might be subjected to an anonymous phone call to the government. That it was a Republican legislature and a Republican Governor who gave us this is a little baffling, but less so every day that I see the plan to squeeze out competent lawyers for indigent parents come to fruition.

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.