No matter who we voted for Tuesday, we all should be grateful for two things: First, let us be grateful that, when Barack Obama's mother decided she couldn't raise him for a while, no Child Protective Services agency ever got involved. And second, we should be glad that Marcia Lowry, founder and leader of the group that arrogantly calls itself "Children's Rights" (CR) was not suing the State of Hawaii from 1971 through 1979.
This was the time when Barack Obama was being raised by his grandmother who, so sadly, died Monday. Obama has said a great deal about how important Madelyn Payne Dunham was to him. On Tuesday, Obama made history – and odds are that wouldn't have happened had he not spent eight years living with Dunham in what now we would call informal kinship care.
But in those cases where, unlike Obama's, child protective services is involved, CR is trying to curb informal kinship care drastically. The group has decided that the magic bullet for foster care is licensing. So the group's latest crusade is trying to strong-arm states into requiring that every grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle or other relative who steps forward to care for a loved one whose parents are accused of maltreatment jumps through all the same hoops and meets all the same hypertechnical licensing requirements imposed on total strangers. With only limited exceptions, the CR rule would be: No license, no grandchild.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Congratulations to the President-Elect
As I noted in the post below, I try to keep this blog non-partisan. I want to mark the election, however, and pass on to you something that I believe to be very well said at the NCCPR blog:
Thursday, October 30, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
4th Regional Counsel seems heading for a crash
First, and let me get this out of the way: this is not gloating. I've never particularly wanted to see the OCCCRCs fail; I just don't see anything to disabuse me of the notion that failure is inevitable.
I've seen plenty of news articles over the past year stating that the offices are "up and running". I've not, until today, seen a news source take a closer look at how the offices are doing. This is from today's Daily Business Review. Some excerpts:
OK, you get the point. You should read the entire story. Here's a couple more interesting things. Remember, the 4th RC's budget began in 2007 was reported as "around $5 million":
I've been predicting all along that within a couple of years, the budget for the OCCCRCs will exceed the amount formerly paid to private (rotation) attorneys. And that leads me to what really caught my eye in the article:
And there's the real issue. Even we forgotten few in dependency defense have to exhibit a certain level of proficiency before our local ISC will put us on the list. The ABA has model qualifications for private dependency defense lawyers (and criminal defense lawyers as well, of course). It appears from reports similar to those in the quoted article that, other than a bar card, there are no standards for experience before one is sent out on the job as an assistant regional counsel.
I've seen plenty of news articles over the past year stating that the offices are "up and running". I've not, until today, seen a news source take a closer look at how the offices are doing. This is from today's Daily Business Review. Some excerpts:
In a foundering economy with tight employment prospects, a new West Palm Beach-based state agency created as a backup public defender’s office is having problems retaining lawyers, suffering massive turnover in its first year.
At least 26 attorneys and staffers have left the office — including many who were forced out. That is almost a third of the 79 employees hired since September 2007, according to records obtained by the Daily Business Review.[snip]...A number of the people have been fired, and others left when faced with dismissal, according to sources familiar with the office who spoke on condition of anonymity. Others who quit of their own accord cited bad management, heavy workloads, poor working conditions and inadequate pay. Some said they left because they were forced to take cases above their experience level.[snip]...Complaints from former staffers have prompted several officials to take a closer look at the office.
Chief Palm Beach Circuit Judge Kathleen Kroll said she plans to review the office’s representation. Citing the chief judge’s responsibility to monitor capital cases, she said she recently pulled the files of the two Palm Beach Circuit death penalty cases assigned to Massa’s office to see how they are progressing.
“There’s been some concerns raised, and we’re not sure if it’s just disgruntled employees or legitimate concerns about the office,” Kroll said. She wants to meet with Massa.
The Broward and Palm Beach public defenders plan to meet with each other to discuss the conflict counsel office....
OK, you get the point. You should read the entire story. Here's a couple more interesting things. Remember, the 4th RC's budget began in 2007 was reported as "around $5 million":
Critics claim the conflict counsel offices were woefully underfunded from the start. The 2008 state budget provided for a total of $7.1 million for the 4th DCA office and its allotted 63 positions. According to records obtained by the Review, more than 15 percent of these positions are open. The Legislature gave Massa a raise in July from $80,000 to $100,000. One of his chiefs, Jennifer Hixson, got a $17,000 raise to take her salary to $77,000. Some of the other employees also saw increases in salary.
I've been predicting all along that within a couple of years, the budget for the OCCCRCs will exceed the amount formerly paid to private (rotation) attorneys. And that leads me to what really caught my eye in the article:
“It gave me pause as to whether poor people were receiving the quality of representation and treatment that they’re entitled to,” Finkelstein said in an interview. “I don’t know whether or not the rumors are true, but it has certainly raised at least a warning that gives rise to questions that need to be posed.”
He said he plans to speak to Palm Beach Public Defender Carey Haughwout about concerns and potential problems about the office.
Haughwout said high turnover makes for “very unstable representation.” When told what the Review found, she said that’s much higher turnover than in her office.[snip]...Attorney Omar Ghaffar, who worked in the Fort Lauderdale office from May to September, said he was hired as a civil attorney, and his managers assigned him to criminal cases.
“I told them straight out that I’m not feeling comfortable doing these murder cases,” the former Broward assistant public defender said. He said he was assigned to cases he was barred from taking as a private attorney under the registry system that was in effect before the conflict counsel’s creation.
And there's the real issue. Even we forgotten few in dependency defense have to exhibit a certain level of proficiency before our local ISC will put us on the list. The ABA has model qualifications for private dependency defense lawyers (and criminal defense lawyers as well, of course). It appears from reports similar to those in the quoted article that, other than a bar card, there are no standards for experience before one is sent out on the job as an assistant regional counsel.
Hideous
Just a reminder that termination of parental rights is not always the best way to protect children.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
