Fees For Guardians Ad Litem

It seems there are a few misconceptions out there about the Louisville, KY contempt motion heard this week against the Kentucky Finance and Administration Cabinet. The Courier-Journal headline reads Lawyers Seeking Higher State Fees
'There are 30 lawyers who represent children in abuse and neglect cases in Jefferson County's 10 Family Court divisions, and 40 more who represent indigent parents.
In the 12 months ending June 30, 3,592 new petitions were filed in abuse, neglect and dependency cases, the most in the 15-year history of Jefferson Family Court, said Jim Birmingham, the court's administrator.
Children in such cases by law must be appointed lawyers; judges may also appoint them for poor parents. The attorneys appear in court one day each week."
If I were a reader outside the system I would calculate, 3592 new cases in a year, 30 lawyers who are in court only one day per week, times $500 per case for the children = $65,866.67 per year per attorney, not bad for a day's work per week per year with little to no overhead!
This is not the case.
First, let's clear up that it is not the appointed attorneys for children who are seeking higher fees. While the statutory cap is $500 per case, for many years when a case is reopened for any number of changed circumstances, the appointed attorneys were paid for their time as if it were a new case. What changed is that the state stopped paying the fees for reopened cases, as I understand it.
While the attorneys are scheduled for one day per week in court, that is not indicative of the time spent on these cases. Further, in many cases the lawyers are paid less than $500.
Many of these attorneys are experienced, talented lawyers, precisely what we would insist upon for the representation of children otherwise without a voice.
As to the time incurred, I cannot say that I have ever done any volume of work in dependency court. What I have seen, however, is the most dedicated of professionals working all ours of the night and weekends. For example, during a custody dispute, dad accused mom's new husband of sexual abuse of one of the children. A Guardian Ad Litem was appointed (we won't discuss here the authority of the court to appoint a GAL in a custody dispute) to represent the children, who was luckily one of the GALs for that division's dependency docket. During a supervised visit, mom discovered bruising and whelps caused by dad's beating one of the children with a belt. She and the supervisor called the GAL, on an evening weekend, as I recall. The GAL raced downtown, took the children to Home Of The Innocents (since mom was still under investigation), calmed them down, eased their fears, talked about how fun Camp HOI was, and worked with the family in the resulting dependency action for many, many months through temporary out-of-county grandparent temporary placement to eventual parent stabilization and reunification.
How many attorneys would do this for $500? I'm still smarting over the $10,000+ in fees the parent I represented couldn't pay. Then, when problems recur and the case is reopened, who would you want appointed to represent those kids? The lawyer they already know, of course. But, if it is a reopening and the lawyer has already been paid $500, the state will say today, "sorry, you have already received your fee."
We need competent attorneys to do this grueling work. It is too bad we have already lost Teresa Kinberger, former head ot the Guardians Ad Litem Association who says the state is basically asking the GALs to work for free. Kudos to John Helmers and the other lawyers who are bringing this to a head. And, Chief Judge Stephen George was wise to make this hearing public even though abuse and dependency cases are confidential. While we don't agree that the Courier-Journal article fully lays out the competing concerns, it is a matter before the court of which the public has a right to be aware.
The Kentucky Law Blog also posted about this story.

Comments

[Angela Shelton]

I wanted to say that my parents have been tied up in court for three years trying to gain permanent custody of their granddaughter. She was placed in their custody after child protective services removed her from the biological mom at only a couple weeks old. These are the paternal grandparents. Since the mentally ill mother can not afford an attorney, she has been appointed one,(for three years)! As my parents have paid and continue to pay thousands. Even paid over $2000 for the mental records to be copied and sent to the judge! What do my parents get in the mail yesterday? A court order from the judge to pay the one time fee of $500 for the opposing counsel!!! What!!! They are ordering them to pay the attorney for the person they are fighting, along with all of the attorneys fees they have already paid for themselves. Is this legal? The opposing counsel has defineately done his work, but for my parents to pay him sounds absolutely unresonable to me. This is a Whitley County, KY case.

[Carolyn Elefant]

I think that when many of these court appointed programs were set up, the legislature contemplated that attorneys would be handling a case or two pro bono, rather than trying to earn a living off representation. Of course, this isn't a very realistic model for ensuring competent representation. I think what also happens in many cases where courts implement flat fees is that they discover that a few attorneys have abused the system, and they react by punishing everyone - not just attorneys, but the clients they represent.

[John Helmers]

Thanks for your support.

I wanted to inform your readers that I personally do not deserve all of the credit for "leading" this litigation. Joe Elder filed the origninal motion to hold the Cabinet in contempt of court. Other lawyers who have joined the cause are Chris Harrell, Dana Kolter, Cathy Wallace, and Elizabeth Bricking. Additionally, Richard Porter has litigated this issue in another division which resulted in the Cabinet being already held in contempt of Court for this identical issue.

It just seems less than fair for me to get the attention when it has been a true team effort.

John Helmers.