Kids, Not Cases
Related Links
Judges make better decisions when children and their families -- with adequate legal representation -- participate in child welfare proceedings.
By Susan Robison
December 2007
I never went to court. I have been in and out of foster care since I was a baby, and I really resent that I never got the chance to speak on my behalf or even be present when my future was being discussed.” This South Dakota foster youth’s experience is all too common. In addition to being excluded from the courts that make life-altering decisions, many children in foster care do not receive the legal representation that the rest of us expect as a fundamental, democratic right.
In Colorado, during 12 years in foster care, 19-year-old Andrew has been in 42 placements. And not once was he present for the numerous court hearings about his case. Despite state statutes requiring that all children with dependency cases have an appointed advocate, an “attorney guardian ad litem” who acts in the child’s best interest, Andrew has met with his only a couple of times, and they have never had what he considers a meaningful, private conversation.
Access to court and legal representation for children who have been abused or neglected can vary from case to case and even from proceeding to proceeding. Both the decision-making process and the results for children can stray far from legislative intent, often without legislators even knowing it. The courts, the ultimate decision makers in these cases, are far removed from legislative scrutiny.
Instead of playing the blame game that seems to dominate child welfare discussions, a growing number of legislators are determined to forge a new, more informed and productive dialogue with the courts. And that includes shining a light on court performance.
Read the full article. (Registered subscribers and NCSL members only.)
Register now! (Subscribers only.)
Subscribe now to get the rest of this article and more news from the national magazine of policy and politics, State Legislatures!
Comments
Post a comment- Colorado's 2007 Respondent Parent Counsel statewide assessment achieved its goal of validating why court-appointed attorneys for parents need more money.
Be scrupulous, legislators, when more money is requested. The quality of representation MUST meet minimum standards. RPC attorneys must represent their clients, and not the whims of Social Services, as it is now.
No parent input was used. Had it been, this problem would be apparent. Ineffective assistance of counsel cannot continue, its about ethics, not the money.
Submitted By: Rosemary Van Gorder , CO
Date Posted: 01-16-08
- I am moving up the ladder to each government entity or contract providers who managed my nieces and nephews. I thank the foster people for all they have done. But the rest, have got to get off the whitch hunt of the parents and the d and n cases especially making statement of special needs that cause kids to be split and then biological family cannot reunite them all because of this tactic of social service. We are going to have a town hall meeting in grand junction colo. I am trying to get everyone on the same page for the sake of the children and their best interest not the Social Service best interest.
Submitted By: Gloria Sanchez from In the process grassroots for biological family, CO
Date Posted: 01-20-08