Ok, this is just crazy:
In most places in the U.S., if a parent is charged with abuse or neglect of a child and can’t afford a lawyer, he’s appointed one. That lawyer’s job is to defend the parent and reunite the family if possible.
But faced with a budget shortfall, New Hampshire has taken the unusual step of eliminating that funding.
The court and state officials charged with enforcing the new policy now worry that the lack of representation is hurting parents and their children — and children’s advocates are concerned that other states may eventually follow New Hampshire’s lead.
How is that even possible? I, like many of you, get most of my legal information from Boston Legal and Law and Order episodes, so I’m keenly aware of the “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you” portion of the typical Miranda warning. So how does New Hampshire get away with charging people with a crime and then telling them to piss off if they can’t afford a lawyer?
(via)
redshirt
Live Free or Die.
Sums it up.
piratedan
ohhhh, so that’s been amended to “You have the right to an attorney, good luck finding one”.
MikeJ
They get away with it because this lawyer wouldn’t be representing them for a crime. They would instead, be representing them in family court to determine if they were fit parents.
If they were charged with a crime, perhaps assault, and tried in a criminal court, they would get a lawyer for that.
PeakVT
Heh. Just posted a link to that. Are those cases civil proceedings? I don’t think the right to a lawyer applies, unfortunately.
Someguy
Child abuse and neglect proceedings are usually civil in nature, to take kids away from shitty parents.
You only get a free lawyer in criminal cases. If it’s you against Child Protective Services – or you against your landlord, or a business associate, or the Homeowners Association, you’re on your own.
Soonergrunt
I am not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure this has to do with the role of the lawyer, and the forum in this particular case. If accused in criminal court, yes, you get a lawyer, but the family court, where parental rights are decided is a civil forum, and you have no right to free representation in civil court.
Yes, I think it’s morally wrong. It’s what the law is, and it’s a result of the obsession with cutting taxes on the richest of our country.
cathyx
Perhaps the Miranda warning will get challenged in court. Keep the government out of my justice.
campionrules
Not clear if this is a criminal court.
If it isn’t, then the state can probably get away from the constitutional right to representation.
No criminal charges no 6th Amendment protection wrt representation.
Tonal Crow
Although the article isn’t clear on the point, I think these are civil parental rights revocation cases, not criminal neglect or abuse cases. As far as I know, the 6h Amendment right to a lawyer has been applied only to criminal cases.
Southern Beale
This isn’t the same as if a crime were committed. Social services falls under a different heading. Husband used to be a lawyer and took a lot of these family cases, pro bono and whatnot, you’re reimbursed a bare minimum for your time & expenses. It’s simply outrageous that they’d try to trim this expense, it’s like trying to lose weight by cutting the carrots from your fried chicken and cheeseburger diet. Unfuckingbelievable and amoral as shit. I hope the FSM sends a fucking tornado through the state house.
John Cole
Child neglect isn’t a crime in NH?
cathyx
Many cases in Family court go to an arbiter.
Loneoak
I imagine you would still get a lawyer if you were accused of criminal neglect and threatened with doing time, but that is a different matter than civil proceedings about parental rights.
Still, it’s very fucked in the head to take away someone’s kids because he is broke and then refuse to give him a lawyer to navigate the court system.
chopper
@redshirt:
now it’s “Live Fee or Die”. didn’t you get the memo?
Tonal Crow
@John Cole:
I expect most forms are, but there is an independent civil proceeding to terminate parental rights.
Brachiator
@John Cole:
Once you’re out of the womb, you’re on your own. Tough Love.
chopper
i’ll bet they still have plenty in the budget for strip searches at least.
whew, i was starting to worry there.
Phoenix_rising
It’s possible because child neglect and abuse are handled through administrative civil procedures, as opposed to criminal procedures. Different state call this administrative proceeding by different names, but it’s essentially about child welfare being a function of the civil apparatus of NH as opposed to a department of its state police.
Just as I have no “right” to ask a social worker to get a warrant to question my kid about my parenting, I would have no “right” to an attorney to get my kid back if I couldn’t afford one.
This system relies on two assumptions:
Most reports of child abuse and neglect represent (a fraction of the) real abuse and neglect, and
Social workers have every reason to walk away having filed a report that says, Nothing to see here, unless they have a set of facts likely to get the state/county sued (naked kids on floor with dog shit level “neglect”; most times there is also a drug charge filed there).
So if either of those assumptions happens to be faulty, there are significant and lasting effects on families.
But only the poor ones who can’t call their family attorney and get an apology out of the child welfare worker.
dr. bloor
I’m sure every family court judge in NH is rejoicing right now at the thought of parents going pro se in their courtrooms.
Basilisc
“Equal justice under law” is now a privilege, not a right. Just like voting.
superluminar, esq
This is just a massive trolling attempt on Burnsie and eemom, isn’t it? Well done Cole!
Punchy
Maybe they’ll just appoint Scalia to everyone who needs a lawyer. He’ll tell the judge to go eat broccoli, the parents will lose the kid(s), and Scalia can tell Mom and Dad to “Get over it”.
Southern Beale
@Phoenix_rising:
Thanks, that’s the technical terminology I was looking for. Not a lawyer, just married to one.
SFAW
If they’re innocent, they don’t need a lawyer. Truth will out.
If they’re guilty, then why should the state waste their money defending a guilty person?
See how easy that was? And trust me, if that ever gets to the Supreme Court, at least four of the “Non-activist, oh no, not us” Justices will adopt that position.
And Kennedy will, too, if Scalia offers to trash-talk a bleeding-heart liberal for two hours in exchange for Kennedy’s vote.
Nino will use sarcasm, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire. The liberals will pull their own heads off, rather than deal with that.
Face
@dr. bloor: I bet all those Soverign Citizens will be teh awesome to deal with in a courtroom sans proper legal training, protocol, etc.
Jay C
@John Cole:
Possibly, possibly not. NH, like a lot of other states, may have shifted simple “neglect” (absent, say, actual physical abuse) into a separate category of misbehavior, technically “against the law” but adjudicable in a different class/system of “courts” – where, apparently, the requirements for legal representation may or may not apply.
Otherwise, @what Southern Beale said:….
Roger Moore
@John Cole:
I’m sure it is, but that’s not what they’re talking about. There’s a criminal trial to determine if the parent is guilty of neglect, and a separate civil hearing to determine if they should retain custody. AFAIK, this is only about whether they get a lawyer for the civil hearing, not for the criminal trial.
Jay C
@chopper:
Or soon, “Live Free AND Die“….
scav
Family Values(tm) are apparently = 0 when measured in dollars.
Phoenix_rising
@Southern Beale: Not a lawyer, just married to one.
Also not a lawyer, but an adoptive parent and sometime guardian ad litem for abused kids.
Also, my mom was a child welfare worker for 42 years. Heard some stories that would curl your hair growing up, of two main types:
“I can’t believe that _______ (insert name of laziest co-worker) reported that family as ‘doesn’t meet threshold for custody’; she just didn’t want to have to vacuum out her county car after transporting those 5 filthy kids in it!” variety and
“I can’t believe that those nosy jerks over in ___________ (insert name of self-styled ‘exclusive’ neighborhood) called me on a 13 year old watching younger siblings after school–don’t they realize we have families with real problems in this county?” variety.
It’s hard out there for the committed adults who want all kids to be safe and fed and loved. It’s real hard out there for some kids.
Warren Terra
To all the people pointing out that this is a civil hearing over child custody, the accused versus the state, and is separate from any criminal charges that may arise: has this actually been tested in the courts? I believe the right to legal counsel in criminal trials is relatively recent (Warren Court?), but has the court definitively ruled that when standing accused by a representative of the State in civil court you have no right to a lawyer? After all, it’s the State threatening to take the child away and demanding you defend yourself, not your ex-spouse.
On the other hand, is this even a civil matter? Maybe it’s an administrative hearing. It could easily be conceivable that the government could set up a process to remove children from homes following sufficient cause and consideration without a judge even being involved unless the parent decides to sue the government over the decision – and you’re never guaranteed a lawyer with which to sue the state, I think …
Actually, pursuant to that last (and can you tell I’ve been pondering legal issues for a minute or two now): in the context of a criminal case are you ever entitled as a matter of right to legal counsel for the purpose of appealing a decision, beyond the initial trial? I’d rather doubt it, although I know some death penalties have been structured with automatic appeals as a safeguard, and those have probably been given legal counsel (though given it as a favor, not as of right)
RalfW
I hadn’t watched 60 minutes in years, but had mindless housework to do so I left it on. There was a segment last night about how Florida’s space coast is being decimated by the shutdown of the Shuttle program.
Several shots of men breaking down/near tears. Lots of vacant shops and foreclosed houses. A fair bit of anger at government.
60 Mins, in their inimitable style, more than 50% blamed Obama, but did also mention that Congress (not the GOP, but generically Congress) had slashed funding to half of Obama’s meager private-sector plan.
When the heckadoodle will the general public figure out that the no-taxes-anywhow-ever-not-me-and-especially-not-Goldman-execs mantra is the biggest failure/scam ever?
Is it even possible for average schlubs to connect the boldly dotted line? Is there a single journalist not on the margins of the media willing to help connect low taxes and austerity budgets to the daily pain being inflicted by doe-eyed Ryan and his cohort of revers Robin Hoods?
I know: No. Not for a while yet, till there’s money in a different storyline. Fer fvcks sake.
Martin
Because they’re neglectful and abusive. It says so right in the docket. Why should we redistribute taxpayer dollars to people that government documents say are neglectful and abusive?
dr. bloor
It occurs to me that anything the state thinks they’re saving on the representation end is going to be more than offset by the costs incurred when the number of kids in state custody increases because parents can’t advocate for themselves effectively.
Calouste
@SFAW:
It’s only a short distance from there to throwing people in a lake and declaring them guilty if they float and innocent if they sink.
Davis X. Machina
@dr. bloor: The savings — from my money, that I earned — is immediate, the increased cost is down the road, and therefore either not real, or born by someone who’s not me.
We’re a nation of developmentally delayed three-year-olds. Object permanence ought to be a voting prerequisite.
Citizen Alan
@cathyx:
Miranda was challenged back in 2000 and affirmed by Scotus 7-2 with Rehnquist writing for the majority. Guess which two Nazi pigs who are still on the Court voted to overturn it.
Randommentality
Criminal charges which carry potential jail time require attorney appointments. Non-jail cases and juvenile court cases may not have the same requirement. In my state (Iowa) juvenile child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) cases are the result of a complaint of abuse or neglect, and deal solely with custody of the child and reunification of the family. They are separate from any criminal abuse or neglect charges. Currently, all legal parents do get court appointed attorneys on CINA cases if they meet income guidelines as indigent. This is pursuant to statute, Iowa Code § 232.89(1), (2). I do not know whether, if the legislature repealed those provisions, the state Supreme Court would find a constitutional right to counsel in those cases. And we just got a Republican governor back thanks to a strong tea-party contingent. Yet another thing for court-appointed attorneys to worry about. So without looking it all up, I presume that’s what’s going on in NH.
ericblair
Look, the government shouldn’t interfere with your right to have the government take your kids away. Because freedom and shutup.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@RalfW: Never. Check out the tragedy that is Greece for a good look at what that mentality eventually leads to.
Warren Terra
@ericblair:
It is interesting that the same people who don’t want the government taking away your right to pollute or your right to shoot Teenagers With Skittles, and who whine about how the abolition of slavery was the uncompensated taking of private property, mostly don’t get upset about a lack of due process when the state incarcerates people or removes children from their parents home. I suppose if the children were their childrens’ property the Wingers would realize what the problem was.
elmo
@Face:
I actually have run into one of those in court. Not on one of my own cases, thank the FSM, but on the docket before mine. So I’m sitting there listening to him while he presents his arguments.
First, he wouldn’t go through the gate separating the gallery from counsel table and the well. He claimed that his doing so would constitute consent to the court’s jurisdiction.
Then, he objected to the flag. It had a fringe on it. He claimed that the fringe indicated that the court was under maritime jurisdiction and martial law. He refused to submit to martial law.
Finally, the judge asked him why he appeared to be speaking into his briefcase when it was his turn to talk, and asked, “Sir, do you have a recording device in your briefcase?”
At which point the man turned and fled the courtroom. Fun times.
Yevgraf
@dr. bloor:
The awesomeness is overwhelming. As GAL in a lot of cases, I got to see a lot of brilliant pro se behavior, and got to see just how well that played out.
Enlightened Liberal
@RalfW:
Oh, here it is:
Brevard County, Florida 2008 Election
Obama 44.2% 127,620
McCain 54.5% 157,589
Other 1.3% 3,718
Their neighbors voted for “austerity”, not jobs.
Yevgraf
@RalfW:
FIFY
Manned spaceflight has been at a dead end for two decades. We know how to do chemical lift into orbit AND to keep people alive in near earth spaceflight, but until such time as we can figure out how to do heavy lifting of great mass, we’re stuck between the Earth and Luna. Also, there’s the added bonus of there being no great justification for manned exploration at this time, when computers and remote control can do as much as can be accomplished now.
The manned program is a sinkhole for cash, all to aggrandize the egos of old white technical guys and jutting-chin wannabe astronauts.
gluon1
[Forewarning: I’m going some place dark with this; if you follow the links, you’re apt to be as troubled by the situation as I am.]
Actually, the system is much worse than you recognize. What NH is doing is depriving the parents of legal counsel. That’s a bad thing. But almost every state deprives the children of representation. Andrew Vachss explains the problem with that:
Also, too:
burnspbesq
@Someguy:
Not necessarily. In states that have mandatory pro bono, like New Jersey, a lot of appointments are for cases like this. I caught one when I was a third-year associate.
burnspbesq
@gluon1:
In theory, CPS represents the kids’ interests. How zealously they represent those interests in any particular case is a reasonable thing to inquire about.
kay
This is some of what I do, so I’ll start with the first error in the NPR story, and go from there.
This isn’t a criminal proceeding, so the parents aren’t “charged” with anything.
The child is adjudicated abused, neglected or dependant.
Parents plead “true” ( facts in complaint are true) they don’t plead guilty, because they aren’t charged with anything.
Parents in Ohio get the full spectrum of legal rights, including an expedited appeal in PC (permanent custody) cases.
It’s a juvenile court, so there are different rules, hearsay, for example, can come in because kids don’t testify, so experts or appointed guardians speak for them, but they get all the process protections.
In any event, the right to raise your children is a fundamental constitutional right, so this puts New Hampshire with Mississippi in not appointing counsel.
It’s a disaster for parents. They need counsel. It’s a profound act, the state raising your children.
burnspbesq
@Soonergrunt:
Fraid not. That’s been the law for as long as I can remember.
The Ancient Randonneur
Isn’t this, in effect, leaving the poor even more susceptible to the whims of the state? How often are the children of those with means taken from them? Almost never. Being poor is a crime in most states.
The “Live Free or Die” farce of New Hampshire also promotes REAL, actual social1sm by having STATE OWNED liquor stores.
ETA: Lest we forget this was done by a NH legislature full of right wing Tea Party nutjobs. Family values!
burnspbesq
@elmo:
You should sit in on a calendar call in the U.S. Tax Court some time. You will hear shit that will blow your mind and curl your hair, all at the same time.
kay
@burnspbesq:
The court appoints the child’s representative. Courts can appoint both a lawyer and a guardian, and often do, because the guardian’s reccomendation can be Contra to the child’s wishes.
CPS is representated by the prosecutor.
The guardian and the court appointed lawyer for the child are independent of the prosecutor, and are often directly opposed to the prosecutor.
Their client is the child, not the state.
kay
@burnspbesq:
Burns, I think you’re mistaken.
It isn’t the law in 48 states. That’s because raising your own children is a fundamental constitutional right.
Permanent custody cases in a juvenile court in Ohio are the juvenile court equivalent of a death penalty case.
That’s how the Ohio supreme court characterized them.
Parents get elaborate process. They get court appointed counsel for an expedited appeal.
kay
To understand how profound this is, I think you have to recognize that when parents lose their parental rights permanently, that child is as a stranger (legally) to their entire family, because childrens connection to their family of origin comes through the legal relationship with their parents.
Lawyers that don’t do a lot of this screw it up. They don’t understand the juvenile courts or the nature of the proceeding. They either treat it like a civil case, or treat it like a criminal case, and it’s neither.
The idea that these parents are going to have a shot in hell at keeping their kids is ludicrous.
rea
@Tonal Crow: My state (Michigan), at least, has concluded that termination of parental rights cases are sufficently quasi-criminal that a lawyer must be appointed if the parent is indigent and requests one. I thought that rule was based on federal precedent, but I’m too tired to research it right now.
gocart mozart
i don’t think these are criminal cases. parents aren’t charged with a “crime” so Miranda doesn’t apply. These are neglect cases in Juvenile court involving DCF where a child is removed from the parents, put in a foster home and perhaps ultimately adoption and termination of parental rights. In most if not all states,the poor have a right to court appointed counsel but I don’t think the SCOTUS has ever said it was a constitutional right. Nobody gives a fuck about the parental rights of poor parents anyway and plus it saves tax money and this will make adoptions quicker and easier so BooYah!*
* Last sentence was snark.
Omnes Omnibus
@kay: Burns is right in that there is no right to counsel mandated by the Constitution for civil cases. There are states have statutory or constitutional rights to appointed counsel in certain circumstances. It appears that NH may have had a statutory right to counsel in these family cases and then decided to repeal it.
Personally, I would support a civil Gideon to prevent this kind of crap in the future.
SFAW
I can never remember if a witch is supposed to weigh more or less than a duck. Probably comes from getting old.
kay
Also. In addition.
When parents lose their parental rights, the children become eligible for adoption.
I think it is tragic, short sighted and insane for New Hampshire to sever such a profound relationship without (essentially) informed, rational, careful process, knowing they are going to then start an adoption process.
I don’t think that’s fair to anyone, the children, the birth parents OR the adoptive parents.
What a bone headed way to save money. Whoever came up with this is an idiot.
Sophia
I’ve been appointed to represent parents in about a dozen of these cases. Theoretically, I could submit a bill for fees but no one ever gets paid in my county. All attorneys residing in the county go on the list and appointments are allegedly made at random. (Suggesting I have very bad luck).
I’ve spent many hours in the common waiting area (all cases are confidential so you don’t get into the courtroom until your case is called). I have never seen anyone remotely presenting as middle class. These people are uniformly poor. It’s not uncommon for their “neglect” to consist entirely of financial difficulties that prevent them from providing adequate food and shelter. As an attorney, it’s very difficult for me to explain to my clients that this process is not about how much you love your kids but about basic provision of goods and services.
gocart mozart
@SFAW:
If she floats, she weighs the same as a duck and is made out of wood and therefore a witch. If she drowns, she was innocent.
kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
But he’s not right that this has been the law forever.
It’s not the law in 48 states.
This isn’t minor, Omnes. I know these cases aren’t prestigious, and “kiddie court” gets short shrift, but the lawyers who say that usually have no idea what they’re doing, and, quite frankly suck at this work.
The idea that it’s fine because big firms will offer pro bono lawyers who do 1 of these on their way up the ladder is wrongheaded.
90% of it is building a relationship with the prosecutor and the agency and understanding that whole system.
They need counsel who do this work.
Omnes Omnibus
@kay: I do realize that is is serious. That is why I support efforts like this one in WI. Absent that, states that do not have put something in place do have to rely on people doing pro bono. I know that means that, even if the lawyer is talented and trying to do his or her best, the lawyer is not experienced in that area of the law and as a result is likely to fuck something up. This is one reason I make a point of not getting anywhere near this kind of case. I don’t know the area of law, anything I would do would have serious consequences, and, I believe that my doing even touching it would come close to malpractice.
ETA: As I understood burns, he was talking about an application of Gideon to civil cases not about state constitutions and law.
kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
They’ll have a case they can take up soon, because I’ll tell you what’s going to happen.
The judge is going to make a big mistake at PC hearing, and a lawyer is going to catch it when she gets the appeal. The parents won’t catch it because they have no idea what’s going on.
By then, the child will be on the adoption track, and everyone gets their hearts broken.
Unless New Hampshire has voided the appeal process, which I guess is possible :)
kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Juvenile judges are cranky about it. No one understands their court, and I think they get tired of training lawyers.
Criminal defense lawyers can wing it, and they’re fun because they’re so reflexively combative, but civil dabblers run into trouble, because they don’t know the juvenile rules, and they don’t know what the lawyer who does the appeal needs in the record.
Lojasmo
@Davis X. Machina:
That would blow your entire “white man wears a suit ” whine.
Lyrebird
@kay: Can I ask you a question from a different direction? It’s sounding a little like you think that removing a child & having the child be adopted is always a bad thing. I’ve certainly read that staying w/in the family is usually best, but surely not always? (Then again I’ve just been watching lots of heartstring-tugging videos from Wendy’s Wonderful Kids, probably biased at this point… They think adoption is better than aging out of the foster system w/o a permanent home.)
kay
@Lyrebird:
Sure. I don’t think adoption is bad, at all.
I do a lot of them. I also get court appointed to either represent or act as a guardian to children, so I’m often “on the other side”.
I do anything that goes through a juvenile court, adoption is technically probate, but in rural counties they combine the two courts.
My guiding principle w/adoption is information, and meticulous attention to process.
As long as I’m confident everyone knows exactly what’s going on and everyone is informed and treated decently and fairly, I think adoption is great.
Some of my happiest cases are adoptions :)
The best non-profit I work with is the one started by the founders of Wendy’s. They do great,
careful work. I trust them.
I have worked ( fought with) a religious org that I thought was coercive to mothers, and preachy
and horrible.
Ohio has a statutory preference for family placement, which (ironically) was pushed by conservative judges.
I guess they’ve abandoned another “bedrock principle”
kay
@Lyrebird:
The 12 month rule mentioned in the article was intended to avoid kids in Foster care for years, and I think it’s a good rule.
If parents can’t get their shit together in 12 months, barring some unavoidable catastrophe, in which case they get an exception, well, the kids can’t wait around forever.
So “12 in 22” I agree with.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@kay: That is all so true. I’m sure the juvenile judges get tired of in the court training. Part of the reason us criminal types can wing it is because we at least understand how key the relationship building part is. Even if we can be reflexively combative (busted) at times, we get the importance of knowing and understanding the players. The civil dabblers never have a clue about that because if they actually take one case a year to trial, they think they’re in the show for litigation.
I’ll stop now, but I’m trying to say I see your point, and endorse it heartily. Omnes, I’m not sure what burnsie was trying to say, because I’m still reeling from the revelation that he was ever a 3d year associate. I’d just assumed he’d sprung fully formed, as a cranky grey bearded tax guy who watched a little cricket on the side and spread his special sanctimony sauce throughout Balloon Juice threads.
SiubhanDuinne
@SFAW:
Syllepsis and zeugma, also too.
Omnes Omnibus
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): You know, I actually never was a third year associate. So there.
SiubhanDuinne
@RalfW:
I can deal with any number of “fucks” and “shits,” but “heckadoodle” should get you banned for a month.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Omnes Omnibus: Nor was I, but still. I had a pretty brief associate tenure before heading on to the local AG office (and in that period tried more cases than the litigation partner had tried in the last 12 years). Good point, however.
kay
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
I sometimes get “co-counsel” if it’s complicated, if it’s one dad, two moms, or the myriad combinations thereof, and the grandmas are intervening, etc., and I like to get one female criminal defense lawyer in particular, because she’s absolutely fearless.
She’ll try anything. She’s a kind person in “real life” she feeds the godammned RACOONS in her back yard, boo-hoo, they’re hungry, but she’s in total fight-mode at hearing, for hours. She never gets tired.
Triassic Sands
Simple. Four words.
United States of Amurka.
SFAW
Nino doesn’t use those, but he DOES know how to treat a female impersonator.
Oscarbob
In NYS, neglect and abuse cases are handled in Family Court. Occasionally, if the facts warrant it, a criminal case will also be brought. Each respondent is entitled to an assigned attorney if they are unable to afford their own, a situation which exists in 99.9% of these cases. My court now has a Family Court Public defenders office as well as a Conflict Defenders office, both of which are funded by the county. In addition, there is a separate panel of assigned attorneys available if either of the above are unavailable, and this panel is also assigned to represent the child/children, also at the expense of the county coffers. An attorney is appointed for the child on every custody, visitation, neglect and abuse case heard in my court. PD’s and CD’s receive a set salary and benefits. The assigned, or 18-B attorneys receive $75.00 per hour. Most neglect cases involve parental substance abuse, excessive corporal punishment, medical neglect of the children, educational neglect, and Dom.Viol. incidents in front of the children. Many times the goal is not to remove the children but to get the family the help m it needs to overcome the problem. This involves treatment or counseling in many cases, which is also paid for by the County. If the taxpayers ever saw an audit of the state family court system, between attorneys fees and the cost of the counseling and treatment provided, I think there might be an armed insurrection.
mclaren
This, John Cole, it what happens when the president of the united states tears up the constitution and wipes his ass with it.
President Barack Obama announced that the fifth amendment requiring due process of law and the sixth amendment requiring a trial by jury and the eighth amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment and the fourteenth amendment requiring the government to respect each citizen’s civil rights, were no longer part of the constitution. Barack Obama made his announcement when he ordered the assassination of an American citizen without even charging the guy with a crime.
The fish rots from the head, Cole.
Once the president tears up the constitution and burns it, why shouldn’t everyone else feel free to do so?
Sure, the constitution requires representation by counsel. But the constitution also requires that citizens be charged with a crime before the government can murder them. If we ignore the constitutional requirement to charge citizens with a crime, why the fuck not ignore the constitutional requirement that people charged with a crime get represented by counsel in court?
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, peeps, this is what happens when a society abandons the rule of law. THE LAW IS WHAT KEEPS SOCIETY FROM FALLING APART. Once you throw out the rule of law and do whatever-the-fuck the government feels like doing regardless of how illegal it is…the sky’s the limit.
Once your government no longer feels the need to charge you with a crime before ordering your assassination, the next logical step is for the government to no longer feel the need to provide you with a lawyer at trial (if you can’t afford a lawyer). The next logical step after that? Why even hold a trial. Just have the cops give a show of hands. Is the guy guilty? Show of hands. Okay, let’s kill him! And after that?
After that, anything goes, as in the old Cole Porter song. Why shouldn’t the government bring back slavery? It’s banned by the constitution, but since we’ve thrown out the constitution, who gives a shit? Fall behind on your credit card, bingo! You get auctioned off as a slave. And then why shouldn’t the government beat people to death for peacefully demonstrating in public? Sure, the first amendment prohibits that, but who gives a shit? Since we’ve thrown out the constitution, anything goes!
You people who support Barack Obama and eagerly defend Barack Obama are going to get the surprise of a lifetime when he gets re-elected and the few remaining constitutional rights disappear. Mr. Hope and Change morphed into Bush’s third term, and you clowns still haven’t come to grips with the true horror of that.
PhoenixRising
@kay: Yeah, but WHAT does she feed them?
….sorry, couldn’t resist. We have one of those in our local children’s court also. She delivers meals to Ronald McDonald House on Christian holidays. When the judges found out, because one of the families was in court and thanked her, they all about fainted with surprise.
brantl
@MikeJ: Ding! Ding! Ding!
brantl
@John Cole: Not if it isn’t prosecuted as such, no.
Lyrebird
@kay: Thanks. I don’t have any very original words to say other than this, but absolutely thanks for sharing your perspective, & more power to you!
jpe
@John Cole: I’m sure it is, and they’d get a free lawyer for the criminal proceedings. But not for the civil proceedings.
Sinister eyebrow
I’m a bit late to the game, but I’m a family law attorney and can actually explain how NH can do this.
First, there are criminal charges for child abuse ranging from misdemeanor to felony. There is also a parallel track in civil courts (usually Juvenille Court or Abuse/Neglect/Dependency Court)where Child Protective Services will bring an action to take children away from one or both parents because they are unfit, etc. and allegations of abuse or neglect have been substantiated by the agency. NH is pulling appointed counsel from the civil track.
Here in NC, there are attorneys appointed to represent the defendant parent(s) and a guardian ad litem to represent the interest of the child in the civil proceedings. This is not a requirement of the federal Constitution, but given the impact on both parent and child and the serious assault on the Constitutionally protected status of a parent to act as a parent to his/her child the state appoints attorneys.
Now, the 6th Amendment of the federal Constitution and most, but I’m not sure if all, state constitutions guarantee the right to counsel. The Supreme Court view of this is that the right to counsel attaches only when there is a possibility (even remote) of incarceration, even for a day. The CPS proceedings in juvenille court don’t carry a risk of incarceration, only losing custody of a child, so the 6th Amendment right does not attach. There are occasions, such as contempt actions, when jail is a potential penalty in civil court and therefore the right to counsel attaches.
I’ll also point out that many states, including my own, have used the Courts and the right to counsel as a place where they can save money and balance budgets. My own state reduced the rate paid to appointed attorneys so low that we actually lose money taking appointed cases (costs more to keep the doors open to the office per hour then we get paid). It also raised the indigency standard that a person has to meet in order to qualify for appointed counsel so that almost no one qualifies. As a result, the Courts are flooded by unrepresented parties whose children ultimately suffer if their case is not presented properly so a Judge can make an informed decision. Our local district courts have become a nearly unmanageable circus with thousands of litigants doing ridiculous or stupid things and tying up court calendars so that even an hour-long hearing requires 3-4 months lead time to get in front of a judge (in the meantime someone doesn’t get to see their child, or their house gets foreclosed on, etc.).
It’s a mess out here.
gvg
Foster Mom speaking. Several others with experience have already written but I’d like to add that not all child “abuse” is criminal. A fair amount is neglect (sometimes even food) out of mental incompetance. It would be pointless to charge them mostly because they aren’t taking care of themselves either and probably can’t. Family service agencies try to get the parents services and keep the families together if possible but money isn’t really there to look after the parents forever and a lot of times its best to look for adoptions. In Florida, the next step after parents is to consider other relatives. Florida also likes to encourage these relatives to actually legally adopt, so that the incompetant parents can’t come back later and fight to get the children and also it tends to make the arrangement for the childs safety more permanent. The parent can also specify someone they know to get the child-again for adoption. If the person can pass background checks, it can go through. Next the Foster families get asked to adopt.
Mentally incompetant people tend to be poor. they also aren’t too good in court. Not all such or even most should have their children removed. Courts have removed too many in the past and history hasn’t been kind. Messed up kids etc. At other times they haven’t removed enough kids when their was terrible abuse. there is a balance. I think cutting legal reps is a bad idea.
There is not enough money being spent on the whole child welfare system for it to function well anywhere that I’ve heard of. Money wouldn’t solve everything but the lack of it is doing a lot of harm.
BenA
@Southern Beale:
Welcome to your GOP paradise. Our deficit is out of control because of tax cuts for the wealthy and two wars of convenience… so we’ll cut programs for the working poor and the elderly… and double down on the tax cuts.
I’m so sick and tired of hearing how we can’t afford anything anymore…
The Sailor
@superluminar, esq: You have nothing to add to the discussion, do you?
+++
Just like ICE, the ‘civil’ system can lock you up, tear you away from your children, and convict you w/o access to a lawyer. And hold you without charges for as long as they want.
I’m surprised Cole didn’t know this.