Divorce Law Journal

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.

John Walsh, Co-Founder and CEO of Morton Center to Retire

John Walsh, CEO of the Morton Center, an alcohol treatment center in Louisville,KY will retire next year. John co-founded the Morton Center in 1984. Over the years he became an indispensable resource to family law practitioners. If substance abuse was a concern for a child's safety, we could always count on John to objectively assess and make neutral recommendations. As often as not, he did not find an endangerment or even an addiction issue. When he found a serious problem that could endanger children, he always had a plan. Those who entered treatment under his direction were held strictly but compassionately accountable.
This level of trust and respect should make anyone happy with his life's accomplishments, but those feats are only the ones touching family lawyers and are the tip of the iceberg.
John has been a very active member of the Kentucky Family Law Network, Inc, the Louisville interdisciplinary collaborative law group.
How on earth does a community replace a guy like this? Knowing John, he has no doubt mentored well and has a plan in place.

Kentucky Children In Crisis

The Kentucky committee reviewing dependency, abuse, neglect and quick trigger adoptions met last week. If you read the Courier Journal report and the Lexington Herald-Leader story, they hardly seem to be covering the same meeting. Add to that, though, the Kentucky Post article about grandparents raising their grandchildren, and it all adds up to a huge problem. Leadership to find solutions and money to implement them will hold the keys to solving this crisis.

Louisville, KY Drug Court

It was welcome news that the state found funding for the Jefferson County family court drug court program. Yet, it is concerning that this program was not funded in the budget, and that a front page newspaper article was required to get it back in gear. The blogosphere is full of speculating on the "story behind the story." I think the Kentucky Law Blog's queries, though, are straight on:

"Why was drug court overlooked and ignored during the normal funding cycle when the AOC web pages, chief justice resume', and press releases abound with its praise?
Why were those involved in drug court left in the dark during the funding process?
This is the second time that funds were re-allocated for a project (eg., the minority law school scholarships - CLEO and now Drug Courts) which raises questions as to the reliability of the budgeting numbers going in and/or what programs or activities are being deprived of funds?
Where was $287,000 found during financially difficult times as now, and which programs paid the price?
What effect will this funding interruption have on the program and its personnel since classes were postponed and personnel let go when the money was running out?
Does the state auditor need to look at these books to see if there are any more funds that can be wisely used?
Is it wise to now finance the program outside of the AOC and will that result in loss of AOC oversight?"

A couple of weeks ago a group of mediators met for dinner to talk about how to do things better. The waiter, learning that some judges were present (those present actually included retired judges who are now serving as mediators) asked whether Judge Ryan would be coming. When someone asked why he wanted to know, he said "because he saved my life in drug court." Family drug court not only saves the lives of the addicts, but positively impacts the next generations, too.

First Report of Committee Studying "Quick Trigger" Adoptions

A Kentucky State Government press release sent after the first meeting of the committee studying "quick trigger" adoptions announces it will meet monthly and possibly recommend legislation in 2007. It is good news that the 12 member panel will personally be headed by The Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services Cabinet Secretary Mark D. Birdwhistell.
The panel is getting off to a good start, said Tom Emberton Jr., commissioner of the Department for Community Based Services (DCBS), the office that oversees public adoptions.
Emberton said his staff is ready for the panel’s constructive evaluation.
“We look forward to working with this group to achieve good outcomes for children,” he said. “We are asking for an honest assessment of our practices.”
Thanks to Mike Stevens, of the Kentucky Law Blog, for forwarding the press release.

Family Drug Court

Eleanor Garber, Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division Judge is surprised and disappointed that Kentucky state funding has been eliminated for her cutting edge program designed to treat drug addicts so their children can be reunited with them, the Courier-Journal reports.
"Drug Court officials said yesterday that they had thought that after meetings last summer, the state Administrative Office of the Courts would request that the General Assembly allocate funding for both the family court program and a separate Adult Drug Court program in Jefferson County.
Instead, the AOC, which manages Kentucky's judicial system, requested funds for only the adult drug court -- and even that was funded only for the 2008 fiscal year, and not this year. "I was blown away," Garber said. "For reasons unknown to us, they did not ask for funds for our drug court."
Jason Nemes, general counsel to Kentucky Chief Justice Joseph Lambert, said he wasn't involved in the meetings last summer and didn't know of any agreements made to fund the family court program.
He said the AOC focused on persuading the General Assembly to allocate money to expand the adult drug court program statewide.
"It was a calculation we made to do the best we could," Nemes said. "… I don't want to say one is more successful than the other but adult drug court is maybe more measurable."
Nemes added it's possible that funding may yet be found for the family drug court program in Jefferson County, which he agreed has been successful.
"It's premature to say it's going to close down," Nemes said. "There may be something that can be done. We're not sure at this point."
But Jefferson County Attorney Irv Maze, whose office helps run the local program, said:
"We are going to continue to fight the fight, but the likelihood of success is remote."
Officials with the Family Court drug program also complained that no AOC officials told them they wouldn't receive funding this year until a few months ago.
"Why didn't they let us know earlier?" Garber asked. "I would have done anything to try to find other sources."
Nemes said he didn't know about any communication problems and noted that "we're not at cross purposes" with Jefferson County officials."
Kentucky Law Blog comments on the story and links to the AOC budget through 2005. "With some programs being slashed within the AOC, then the question is how does a member of the public provide input to our Administrative Office of the Courts on what should or should be done and how should those priorities be affected?
Family Drug Court supporters are surely going to scrutinize the AOC's spending habits now that it has struck home and slashed a program with much local support within the courts and by the public."
Comment: Surely the heads of the executive and judicial branches can explain why funding for this program which had been jump started by a $1.2M federal grant was not sought from the legislature. Child protective services and the successful parents are surely owed an answer. ""There's lots of people that complain that we don't do enough to reunify families, and then a program like this gets cut," Sky Tanghe, a social worker with the state Child Protective Services, said of the family drug court. "To see this not available anymore is quite a shame." A mom helped by the family drug court agreed. "Without the program, I would never know that I have a disease, that I suffer from drug addiction," she said. "I learned how to live, how to be responsible."
UPDATE: The Kentucky Law Blog reports on the Courier-Journal August 8,2006 editorial and links to an AOC 2004 press release bragging about the success of drug courts.

Termination of Parental Rights; The Impossible Wisdom Required of Social Workers

Her Most Difficult Call- When is a Mother so troubled, or troubling that a welfare worker must take her kids from her? by Daniel Bergner, is the New York Times Magazine, July 23, 2006 cover story. It's heartbreaking to read, but important for us to realize what a difficult job these dedicated professionals have. Double that for the judge who must make the ultimate call.

Agency Accused of Taking Children From Biological Families

Valerie Honeycutt Spears wrote a detailed summary in the Herald-Leader of this week's legislative hearing in Frankfort on premature termination of parental rights.

Appointment of GAL Requires Notice and Hearing

Case Law Development: Appointment of GAL for parent in dependency action requires notice and hearing, from the Family Law Prof Blog. In states where there is statutory authority for a GAL in dependency cases, including Kentucky, this case may be inapplicable. But see our prior post on Guardians Ad Litem where there is not statutory authority.

Representing Children: A Resource

Steven Kriegshaber, Louisville attorney, and a past president of the Kentucky Chapter of the AAML, serves on the national AAML Special Concerns of Children Committee, and helped author a publication, REPRESENTING CHILDREN: Standards for Attorneys & Guardian Ad Litems in Custody or Visitation Proceedings. Published several years ago, it advocates that GALs not make recommendations to the court. As with all AAML publications and positions, much study and deliberation uas undertaken before it was released. He also wrote "Representing Children in Divorce Litigation,'' The Advocate, July/August 1997 . The AAML publication remains available for purchase online. The cost? $10.

State to Hold Hearings on Quick Trigger Adoptions

The KentuckyLawBlog reports today that the state will hold hearings on children hastily removed from biological parents to facilitate "quick trigger" adoptions. The post links to a Lexington Herald-Leader story. The hearings in the legislature will begin June 21, 2006 at 1 p.m.

Termination of Parental Rights Reversed Even Though Parent Did Not Object

In a story in yesterday's Lexington Herald-Leader, the recent unpublished opinion of V.S. v. Commonwealth was the topic. It is newsworthy because of the ongoing investigation into "quick-trigger" adoptions.

More on Investigation of Children Improperly Removed from Domestic Violence Victims

 

The Kentucky Office of Inspector General is investigating whether children whose mothers are domestic-violence victims, and others are being inappropriately removed from their families to increase state foster-care adoptions and federal financial bonuses. The matter is also under review by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, by various grass-roots organizations and, most recently, by Gov. Ernie Fletcher. For the whoe story by Valarie Honeycutt Spears, click here: Herald-Leader, We found the story on the Family Law Professor’s Blog, but hopefully we’ll soon have the Lexington Herald Leader on RSS feed, too.

Lexington Children Removed from Abused Women in Shelters

The Courier Journal printed an AP story on Monday revealing that the state has removed 50 children in the last year from women who fled to Lexington, KY shelters to escape domestic violence. That morning I asked Nina Mosley, a Louisville attorney who often represents women in shelters (and whose husband is the Director of Wayside Christian Mission in Louisville) whether she has seen such removals in Jefferson County and was pleased to hear that had not been her experience. She only sees children removed when a serious issue such as drug abuse causes the children to be neglected. Today's CJ editorial page confirmed the issue appears limited to Lexington. Surely a thorough investigation will follow.