Everything you need to know about Florida child welfare news until something else comes along

Every time I tried to post this entry, I’d find something new in my inbox. 

News

DCF says its investigators and caseworkers are still carrying dangerously high caseloads. http://floridapolitics.com/archives/247809-workloads-work-life-balance-continue-hobble-children-services-workforce

The Tampa Bay Times is asking for records regarding abuse of adults by home health care providers. The case was assigned to Karen Gievers.  DCF is not objecting to the request. http://floridapolitics.com/archives/247326-times-court-order-dcf

The Orlando Sentinel reports on the use of $1B in state scholarships at poorly regulated and poorly managed private schools.  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-florida-school-voucher-investigation-1018-htmlstory.html

A federal case in Kentucky recently ruled that relative caregivers were entitled to the same payments as foster families. (Will Florida follow? Relatives get a fraction of what strangers get to care for the same kids.) http://www.the-messenger.com/news/local/article_0b84ad05-2c0c-5e14-abad-7772c6b4b7a9.html

Commentary

Agreed, judges cannot ban children from courtrooms. Please stop it. http://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2017/10/kids-are-people-too.html

Legislation

The Senate Finance Committee issued a report on the states’ weak oversight and control of their privatized child welfare providers. The report finds that 86 kids died while under one company’s care. (Florida uses/used this company too, but reportedly did not respond to the committee’s request for information.)

“State child welfare agencies report they have procedures in place to monitor child welfare providers’ performance and outcomes,” the report said. “But this investigation … shows that these policies are not always followed; exceptions are made, waivers are granted, profits are prioritized over children’s well-being, and sometimes those charged with keeping children safe look the other way.”

https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/featured/senate-report-slams-public-management-private-foster-care-industry/28470

In coordination with the release of the report, the Child Welfare Oversight and Accountability Act of 2017 was filed. It would increase incentives for relative care, monitor privatized systems more closely, and increase scrutiny of child deaths. https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/child-welfare-2/senate-foster-care-bill-incentivize-kin-monitor-private-providers-child-fatalities

In Florida, a bill to allow pro bono attorneys for kids to access due process funds is moving through committee.  http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/00146

And a bill to ban child marriages is also moving forward (which is to say we could stand to be a little less backwards). http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/00140

Regulation

DCF amended its rules on placing kids in out-of-state residential mental health programs. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/View_Notice.asp?id=19571319 

Sheridan House Ministries, which runs a child care facility (group home), received an exception to the rule that its program director have the required educational and experience levels. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/View_Notice.asp?id=19541928

DCF is amending its rules to clarify the procedures for missing kids. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/View_Notice.asp?id=19459478

DCF is also creating a rule on emergency and runaway shelters. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/View_Notice.asp?id=19411851 and https://www.flrules.org/gateway/View_Notice.asp?id=19411948

And DCF is amending its rule on out-of-state criminal checks. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/View_Notice.asp?id=19604008

 

Whew that’s it for now. 

Miami Herald tears open the juvenile delinquency system’s horrible secrets

hearldcover.png

Carol Marbin Miller and Audra Burch are unstoppable investigators. Their 2014 report Innocents Lost laid bare the child welfare system’s rampant lack of effort and oversight in abuse investigations. Now, with FIGHT CLUB, they set their sights on the juvenile delinquency system. And what they find is appalling: mismanagement of facilities, unbelievable hiring practices, and victimization of children that the Department of Juvenile Justice was charged with helping.

As I read through these articles, I could hear the voices of clients who have told similar stories over the years. Once they’re safely out of the programs, they often just want to look forward to better things instead of re-litigating the past. They had no sense that fighting would do any good for them or future incarcerated kids. The only rational strategy they saw was to escape.

One of my students today asked how this can continue to happen. “It doesn’t make any sense,” she said. But it does make sense. If you pull vulnerable kids out of their communities and homes, put them in isolated places behind locked closed doors, supervise them with some good staff who are poorly trained and unsupported, and supervise them with other staff who are evil, malicious, or unkind — this makes perfect sense. If you prioritize investment in security systems instead of schools, this makes sense. If kids who speak out get hurt and adults who don’t play along get fired, it makes sense. And if doing all of that generates $500 million a year in revenue for people who do not have to experience any of its harms, it almost couldn’t be any other way.  Despite whatever good moments may happen on any given day at any particular program, violence has always been a feature of these systems, not a bug.

It is very easy to dismiss or rationalize away a single child’s stories of mistreatment as an aberration or justly deserved punishment. Articles like this and other acts of collective reckoning are often the only avenue towards justice available. What those in power do with these stories will reflect their priorities and assumptions about the world we live in. We have to challenge those assumptions. The solutions cannot be a pay raise for staff (money does not make you good), better video cameras (too many eyes watched these things happen already), or higher penalties for staff who hurt kids (kids should not be put in harm’s way to put more people in jail).

If you watch the looped video on the Herald’s website long enough, the answer becomes pretty apparent. You don’t need to fix them. These programs shouldn’t even exist.

George Sheldon in talks to head Our Kids

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that George Sheldon is in talks with Our Kids to become their new CEO. Sheldon is the current Director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, and has a long career in politics and child welfare (wikipedia).

According to the Tribune, Our Kids’ board chair Keith Ward supports Sheldon. “He wants to come home. … We’re very fortunate,” Ward told the board, the Tribune reports. “He’s just No. 1 on anybody’s list.” But back in Illinois, Sheldon is facing ethics probes due to favoritism in contracting and hiring, and public controversy over the death of a child one day after investigators declared her safe. The Miami Herald got Sheldon’s side of the story.

Sheldon was Secretary of Florida DCF from 2008 to 2011 when Governor Scott took office. During his tenure Sheldon continued the reduction in out-of-home care started under Secretary Butterworth. To my knowledge, no former DCF Secretary has ever become CEO at a CBC.

secretaries.png

DCF investigating Miami’s child welfare dysfunction

The Department of Children and Families is convening a Peer Review Team to investigate the problems in Miami. I don’t know if it’s a public meeting, but it should be.  See email below for details.


From: Mike Carroll <Mike_Carroll@info.dcf.state.fl.us>
Date: 04/25/2017 10:30 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: “Ferradaz, Gilda” <Gilda.Ferradaz@myflfamilies.com>
Subject: Miami Peer Review Launch Meeting (5/1/17: Miami, Florida)

The Department of Children and Families will convene a peer review team to conduct an assessment of current operations and to develop recommendations to improve the relationships of stakeholders within the Miami-Dade child welfare system of care, strengthen behavioral health services for teens, and to clarify information-sharing. The commencement of the Miami Peer Review Team will take place on Monday, May 1, 2017 (9am) at 401 NW 2 Ave, Suite North-1011/Visionary Room, Miami, FL 33128, and you are invited to attend.

The team will facilitate multiple discussions with individuals and groups involved in the local child welfare system to engage various community stakeholders. The team’s work will build upon prior work completed in the region, including the Child Welfare and Behavioral Health Integration Self-Study and Peer Review, Southern Region Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties’ Child Welfare System of Care Peer Consultation Team Summary [found here], and relevant CIRRT reports [eventually will be found here].

The team, led by Lee Kaywork, CEO of Family Support Services of North Florida, consists of DCF leadership and external stakeholders. Team members include:

  • Vicki Abrams, DCF Assistant Secretary for Operations
  • Neil W. Boris, MD, Irving Harris Training Director, Florida State University–Center for Prevention and Early Intervention Policy Professor, Child Psychiatry
  • Skye Cleek, Program Manager: Henderson Behavioral Health
  • Rebecca Kapusta, DCF General Counsel
  • Kelly McGrath, DCF Assistant General Counsel
  • April May, DCF SunCoast SAMH Program Supervisor
  • Steven Murphy, Executive Director of Devereux Florida
  • Frank Prado, Director of Operations of Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office
  • Gertrude (Trudy) Petkovich, Foster Parent Consultant
  • Lorita Shirley, CEO of Eckerd Kids
  • Dr. Joyce Taylor, Consultant and Former Interim CEO of Our Kids Miami-Dade, Monroe

If you have any questions or need more details regarding the meeting, please contact Gilda P. Ferradaz at 786-257-5059 or Gilda.Ferradaz@MyFLFamilies.com. We hope you will be able to join us for this important meeting to help ensure that the state and community are working together to meet the needs of Florida’s children and families.

Sincerely,

Mike Carroll
Secretary
Florida Department of Children and Famlies

CYLC files petition for reunification through developmental disability services

The Children and Youth Law Clinic (where I work) recently filed a petition with the Agency for Persons with Disabilities asking the agency to clarify the procedure and criteria for removing foster children from the Waitlist when they are reunified with their parents. Specifically, we asked about the procedure for children with severe developmental disabilities who can safely be legally reunified with their parents but medically need to remain in a group home program for children with developmental disabilities.*

Below is the official notice, and a copy of the petition is here.

Notice of Declaratory Statement
Department: Department of Children and Families
Division: Agency for Persons with Disabilities
Petitioner: Robert Latham, Esq. for C.J.

Full Text: The petition seeks the agency’s opinion as to Section 393.065(5)(b), Florida Statutes applicability to the Petitioner and others similarly situated under various scenarios as to the proper procedures and necessary conditions for determining eligibility under Category 1, Category 2, and any additional conditions necessary to qualify for removal from the waitlist. Persons other than the original parties to a pending proceeding whose substantial interests will be affected by the disposition of the declaratory statement and who desire to become parties may file a motion to intervene with the Agency. The motion should be filed with the Agency Clerk at the above address within twenty one (21) days of publication of this notice. Any petition for leave to intervene must comply with the requirements set forth in Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-105.0027.
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/View_Notice.asp?id=18492873

* For the admin law nerds: we filed it as a Declaratory Statement instead of a petition for Rulemaking because we have a child who needs to exit now, not two years from now.

Judge C. Alan Lawson (5DCA) appointed to Florida Supreme Court. How did he rule on child welfare cases?

 

Governor Scott has appointed Judge C. Alan Lawson of the Fifth District to the Florida Supreme Court. Judge Lawson will replace Justice James E.C. Perry who has reached mandatory retirement age. News reports have focused on Judge Lawson’s conservative credentials, but I thought I would take a look  at his child welfare rulings to get a feel for what we can expect from our 86th justice.

Child Welfare Opinions

I could find only six opinions authored by Judge Lawson that dealt with child welfare issues (and one dissent, which I will discuss below). In these opinions I see a judge attempting to reach a decision in the text of the law, not the facts of the case. Five of his child welfare opinions are resolved with references to statutes, court rules, and the fundamental due process requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard. None of these five authored opinions dealt with substantive child welfare doctrines like harm or risk, though these issues are certainly present in every case.

  • Finding trial court improperly declared statute unconstitutional without proper notice to DCF; finding that statutory term “foster care” did not include placement with dependency guardian. DCF v. K.D., 45 So.3d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
  • Reversing TOS order with non-offending parent where offending parent working on case plan and no finding that reunification would be detrimental was made. M.M. v. DCF, 29 So.3d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
  • Holding standard for change of custody is the child’s best interest and finding no statutory preference for grandparents. Guardian ad Litem Program v. R.A., 995 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
  • Holding that statutes do not permit court to resume jurisdiction over children after relinquishing at TOS without adjudication of new dependency petition. C.B. v. DCF, 975 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
  • Reversing denial of shelter where DCF not permitted to present evidence of parent’s substance abuse. DCF. v. E.G., 939 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

A sixth opinion, however, did look at the question of what constitutes harm under Chapter 39: a 2006 case involving a lesbian couple. D.E. v. R.D.B., 929 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). In that case, the mother’s ex-partner (denoted “former lesbian lover” in the opinion) sought custody through a dependency action by providing expert testimony that her separation from the child could cause psychological harm to the child.  (It’s unstated in the opinion whether the expert had been able to evaluate the child or was testifying generally.) Judge Lawson affirmed the denial of the petition, holding that a parent’s decision to cut a child off from a non-parent is not grounds for a dependency. Instead of referring to Chapter 39 which (problematically for the ruling) describes a broad range of cognizable harms, Judge Lawson cited to dissolution cases that dismissed dependencies based on relocation of a child or a child’s general apprehension as to the conduct of the parties. The detailed statutory analysis seen in other opinions by Judge Lawson is not found here.

This would not be Judge Lawson’s last case involving lesbian parents. In T.M.H. v. D.M.T., 79 So.3d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), the issue of parental rights in a lesbian relationship was again before the court. This time, one partner transferred her eggs to the other partner, who carried and gave birth to the child. The couple then raised the child together for years, and — as couples sometimes do — separated. The majority held that both women had parental rights in the child. Judge Lawson issued a lengthy dissent, arguing that only the birth mother had any rights to the child under the statute and common law. The biological mother, under this reading, was an ovum donor to her own partner and that fact violated neither Due Process or Equal Protection. The Florida Supreme Court, in D.M.T. v. T.M.H., 129 So.3d 320 (Fla. 2013), agreed with Judge Lawson’s statutory construction, but ruled that a system that treated heterosexual and same-sex couples differently in such a fundamentally important way violated the constitution.

Special Immigrant Juvenile cases

The Florida Supreme Court is currently reviewing several cases involving private dependency petitions brought on behalf of unaccompanied alien children. Judge Lawson has not written any opinions on this issue, but he has concurred in two that are relevant.

In 2006, the Fifth District affirmed a finding of dependency against the abusive non-parent custodian of an alien child. In doing so, the Fifth noted that the Department and court had obligations under section 39.5075 with regards to the child’s immigration status. Morcroft v. DCF, 929 So.2d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (J. Lawson concurring).

In 2010, the Fifth District reversed the denial of a dependency petition where both parents were deceased and an uncle was caring for the child. In doing so, the Fifth rejected the argument that the court had no jurisdiction because the Attorney General had not issued specific consent (or, more properly, found that the argument was not supported by any evidence regarding the removal proceedings), and declined to dismiss the case as moot when the child turned 18 pending appeal.  L.T. v. DCF, 48 So.3d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (J. Lawson concurring).

In O.I.C.L., the Florida Supreme Court recently ruled, in a 3-1-3 plurality, that a dependency becomes moot when an alien child turns 18 pending appeal. Justice Perry joined the dissent in that case. Judge Lawson’s vote, if consistent with his 2010 concurrence, wouldn’t have changed that outcome. Another related case was just briefed for mootness and an opinion is pending.

Concurrences

Judge Lawson concurred in 32 child welfare cases over the years. I’ve categorized them below based on what appears to be the primary basis of each ruling. What arises out of these concurrences is a judge who does not like due process “gotchas” but will defer to common sense on procedural matters, a judge who will reach for statutes and rules to explain substantive decisions, and a judge who is comfortable deferring to trial judges in most cases. Judge Lawson had no trouble reversing a case for a clear statutory violation, such as in a 2012 ICWA case. The five times Judge Lawson joined in reversing a trial judge on the strength of the record, however, the facts supporting the order were either stale or nonexistent.

The rest of this post is a list of cases, so I will say here: Congrats to Judge Lawson on the appointment. A happy retirement to Justice Perry.

Due process rulings

  • Reversing TPR by implied consent where trial court held serial advisory hearings. R.A. v. DCF, 83 So.3d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
  • Reversing TOS where parent and DCF had different understanding of “maintain and strengthen” goal and mother’s eligibility for reunification. A.L. v. DCF, 53 So.3d 324 (Fla 5th DCA 2010).
  • Aligning with Fourth District that motion to dismiss at trial is not required to preserve sufficiency of evidence arguments. R.P. v. DCF, 49 So.3d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (mem.)
  • Reversing TPR by default where parent made efforts to appear and requested to appear by phone. B.D. v. DCF, 46 So.3d 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
  • Reversing case plan order where order was internally inconsistent. L.M. v. DCF, 19 So.3d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
  • Affirming TPR grounds not found in petition where no objection raised at trial. 940 So.2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Statutory or procedural rulings 

  • Affirming order requiring uncharged parent to participate in services. F.O. v. DCF, 94 So.3d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
  • Affirming case plan requiring drug court participation over objection of parent. J.W. v. DCF, 84 So.3d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
  • Finding a statutory right to counsel in private TPR proceedings. T.M.W. v. T.A.C., 80 So.3d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
  • Finding violation of ICWA required reversal of TPR. G.L. v. DCF, 80 So.3d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
  • Finding statutory authorization for “no new law violations” case plan task. S.S. v. DCF, 75 So.3d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
  • Denying petition to review trial court’s denial of step-father access to dependency proceeding. R.L.F. v. DCF, 63 So.3d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
  • Parent not entitled to attorney after surrender and therefore payment for services not authorized. Justice Administrative Com’n v. McNeilly, 59 So.3d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (mem.)
  • Reversing permanent guardianship order where no finding made why reunification with father was not possible as required by statute. R.T. v. DCF, 27 So.3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
  • Holding there is no mechanism to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims and certifying question to Florida Supreme Court. L.H. v. DCF, 995 So.2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
  • Applying rule of parental preference and permitting parent to rescind custody agreement without showing of fraud or duress. D.B. v. W.J.P., 962 So.2d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
  • Remanding long-term custody order to comply with statutory requirements. 944 So.2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
  • Affirming denial of foster parent’s motion to review change of placement where no clear abuse of discretion found. Guardian ad Litem Program v. DCF, 936 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Affirming trial court on facts

  • Affirming dependency for father with medically needy child. A.J. v. DCF, 111 So.3d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“The parents and child have had a rough road to navigate and will continue to face monumental obstacles. The purpose of the finding of dependency is not to punish the parents, but rather to help them meet the needs of a very challenged little girl.”).
  • Affirming TPR for failure to comply with case plan tasks by abusing prescription drugs. T.K. v. DCF, 67 So.3d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“In short, this mother is the face of a problem of epidemic proportions—the obtaining of large quantities of prescription medications from numerous physicians.”).
  • Affirming TPR for failure to comply with drug treatment. C.K. v. DCF, 65 So.3d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
  • Affirming TPR for egregious abuse where father failed to seek medical treatment for severe injuries for 6 hours. J.R. v. DCF, 28 So.3d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
  • Affirming TPR for failure to comply with case plan. D.C.J.-S. v. DCF, 16 So.3d 267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (mem.)
  • Affirming TPR where parent would be incarcerated for 60% of child’s minority. J.W.B. v. DCF, 8 So.3d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
  • Affirming TPR where evidence showed little progress of parent. J.Y. v. DCF, 10 So.3d 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[It] is far better for [this child] to be placed for adoption with a loving and stable family than it is to have [her] remain in foster care any longer awaiting the rehabilitation of [her] parents which will likely never occur.”).
  • Affirming TPR where placement with mother and grandmother was not found to be in best interests of child. C.F. v. DCF, 982 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“Though we have great sympathy for the mother, we are not in a position to second guess the considered judgment of the trial court.”).
  • Affirming TPR for both parents where DCF could not prove which parent committed egregious abuse. S.E.G. v. DCF, 977 So.2d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Reversing trial court on facts

  • Affirming TPR but reversing abandonment findings for parent who visited regularly and provided toys and clothing. C.B. v. DCF, 199 So.3d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (mem.).
  • Reversing denial of reunification for improper reliance on facts of original dependency without regard to progress of parent. J.C. v. DCF, 77 So.3d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (mem.).
  • Termination for abandonment not the least restrictive means where DCF fails to show why parent would not be amenable to reunification. R.L. v. DCF, 63 So.3d 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).
  • Reversing finding of abandonment for incarcerated father where DCF failed to present evidence of frequency and type of communications between father and child and ability to financially support. B.T. v. DCF, 16 So.3d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
  • Reversing denial of visitation for father where no evidence that substance abuse would place child at harm during supervised visits. B.H. v. DCF, 923 So.2d 609 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Florida DCF Adopts LGBTQ Group Home Protections on Transgender Day of Remembrance

Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance, a yearly memorial to transgender people who lost their lives to violence. Reports of homicides of transgender people have increased over the last years as families and friends of trans victims refuse to allow their identities to be erased. This year in Florida we remember with sadness India Clarke from Tampa, Vanessa Santillan from Miami, and Kristina Reinwald from Miami.

It is therefore deeply meaningful that today the Florida Department of Children & Families published its latest draft of group home rules incorporating protections for trans and gay youth, so that foster youth in group care can live openly, safely, and without discrimination or fear in their own homes. The rules are the result of hard work and dedication by the LGBTQ Child Welfare Network, a group of advocates and good people at DCF and other agencies who are standing up for LGBTQ youth across the state.

If you would like to join the LGBTQ Child Welfare Network and get more information on advocacy efforts for Florida’s LGBTQ youth in out-of-home care, you can do so by clicking here.

DCF holding workshop on Extended Foster Care and PESS rules today

The new Independent Living Program went into effect on January 1, and since that time it’s been operating without administrative rules. That’s not for lack of effort to get rules passed. Good people have been working on this: a previous round of proposed rules, which were detailed and provided lots of support to youth and guidance to workers, was rejected by the governor’s office. This round of proposed rules does almost nothing except create the forms that have to be filled out and tells youth how to appeal the decision if they get cut.

The new proposed rules are here:

On each of those sites, click “View Notice” and it will open a Word Doc that contains the proposed rules.

The workshop is open to the public. If you want to participate, you need only call in: 1-888-670-3525 Code: 3148793079#.  EFC is 10:00-12:00 and PESS is 1:00-3:00.

Now Hiring: Attorneys for Children

Florida’s dependent children finally have attorneys, or at least some of them do. Governor Scott today signed into law House Bill 561, which creates section 39.0135, entitled Appointment of an attorney for a dependent child with certain special needs, for:

  1. children who reside in or are being considered for placement in a skilled nursing home,
  2. children who have been prescribed a psychotropic medication and do not assent to take it,
  3. children with a diagnosis of developmental disability (autism, intellectual disability, spina bifida, Prader Willi Syndrome, Down Syndrome, or cerebral palsy),
  4. children who are placed in or who are being considered for placement in residential treatment centers, and
  5. children who are victims of human trafficking.

The passage of the law is, by itself, spectacular. It had the public support of the Department of Children and Families, the Guardian ad Litem Program, and the existing pro bono children’s bar. It passed both chambers unanimously. And its implementation thus far has energized and mobilized the children’s bar to prepre to welcome and support new attorneys who will come into the practice starting July 1.

What is even more important, however, is that the law does not limit an attorney’s representation solely to the chapter 39 dependency proceedings. Instead, the attorney is to provide a “complete range of legal services” for the duration of the case, which has been interpreted by everyone I’ve talked to to mean full holistic representation. Therefore, an attorney with a client diagnosed with a developmental disability would be responsible for seeking services for that child from APD through administrative appeals and beyond. An attorney with a client in a skilled nursing home could challenge the lack of available alternatives under Olmstead. An attorney with a human trafficking client involving pornography could bring a restitution claim, or could seek civil action against organized crime involved in the child’s exploitation. If the client is being considered for a residential treatment center, the attorney might not only challenge the placement but hold the facility accountable to the myriad of state and federal regulations involving treatment of children in RTCs. In a typical dependency case, the lack of available substance abuse programs would be a class action, not a continuance.

Child representation in Florida just got real.

Inviting lawyers to work in child welfare may sound like a tough sell. But, I can imagine a child welfare system that is a hub for positive legal and social change, where innovative, justice-minded attorneys come together with families, social workers, and community members to disrupt and mend the public and private institutions that have abused, abandoned, and neglected the weakest children and families in our state. In that world we would expend less effort sorting families into permanency goals or keeping track of federal compliance measures, and instead focus our energies on punching out towards the things that are dragging family after family into our courts. Any Florida attorney who is interested in joining that fight, apply within.

Michigan Supreme Court Rules One-Parent Doctrine Unconstitutional

Take note Florida: The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that removing a child from an uncharged parent is unconstitutional.

We accordingly hold that due process requires a specific adjudication of a parent’s unfitness before the state can infringe the constitutionally protected parent-child relationship. In doing so, we announce no new constitutional right. Rather, we affirm that an old constitutional right—a parent’s right to control the care, custody, and control of his or her children—applies to everyone, which is the very nature of constitutional rights. Because the one-parent doctrine allows the court to deprive a parent of this fundamental right without any finding that he or she is unfit, it is an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In re Sanders, — N.W.2d —- (2014).

Florida has a similar one-parent doctrine. Once a child is adjudicated dependent based on the actions of one parent, both parents can be required to participate in services. An uncharged parent can obtain custody, but only if he or she passes a home study. Home studies are notoriously subject to interpretation by the person or agency conducting them, and can prevent a child from going to a home that the child would not have been removed from in the first place. For example, a child would not be removed for living in an apartment that is too small, but a home study could be negative on that basis and require the child to go to foster care.

Florida should take another look at its one-parent doctrine.

The Michigan opinion is an explicit validation of Professor Vivek Sankaran’s 2009 law review article Parens Patriae Run Amuck: The Child Welfare System’s Disregard for the Constitutional Rights of Non-Offending Parents. Put that one in the pile of law review articles that actually mattered.