Justice Denied: The Crisis in Legal Representation of Birth Parents in Child Protective Proceedings
date post
30-May-2018Category
Documents
view
256download
0
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of Justice Denied: The Crisis in Legal Representation of Birth Parents in Child Protective Proceedings
8/9/2019 Justice Denied: The Crisis in Legal Representation of Birth Parents in Child Protective Proceedings
1/77
JUSTICE DENIEDTHE CRISIS IN LEGAL REPRESENTATIONOF
BIRTH PARENTS IN CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS
A Report by
Mark Green
Public Advocate
for the City of New York
and
C-PLAN: Child Planning and Advocacy Now,
a special project of the Accountability Project, Inc.
Hank Orenstein, C-PLAN Director
Deirdre OSullivan, C-PLAN Special Counsel
Laurel W. Eisner, General Counsel, Office of the Public Advocate
May 2000
8/9/2019 Justice Denied: The Crisis in Legal Representation of Birth Parents in Child Protective Proceedings
2/77
Acknowledgments
SPECIAL THANKS TO:
Howard Goodman
Dalia HusbandJason Kanter
Jennifer Muhle
Amy Randall
Felicia Summers
C-PLAN staff and interns
for their assistance in producing this report
We also thank former C-PLAN Director, Jane Golden, for her efforts in initiating this study
We also thank the following people for their assistance and cooperation in providing us with
information and guidance: Katharine Law, Director, Law Guardian Program, First Department;
Harriet Weinberger, Director, Law Guardian Program, Second Department; Monica Drinane,
Attorney-In-Charge, Juvenile Rights Division, Legal Aid Society; Lauren Shapiro, Director,
Family Law Unit, Brooklyn Legal Services; Charles Hollander, Deputy General Counsel, Division
of Legal Services, Administration for Childrens Services; Michael Arsham, Director, Child
Welfare Organizing Project; Lynn Slater, Lawyers for Children; Honorable Joseph M. Lauria,
Administrative Judge, New York City Family Court; Rosemarie Wyman, former Court Attorney
to Judge Joseph Lauria; Edwina Richardson, Member, Assigned Counsel Panel and Advisory
Committee, First Department; Prof. Martin Guggenheim, NYU Law School; and Martha Raimon,former C-PLAN Staff Attorney
and
To all the parents, attorneys and judges who were willing to share their experiences
in Family Court
C-PLAN WISHES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUPPORT OF THE FOLLOWING
SUPPORTERS OF OUR FAMILY COURT INITIATIVE:
Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, The Child Welfare Fund, Morrison & Foerster Foundation.
WE ARE ALSO GRATEFUL TO OUR OTHER FUNDERS FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF THE C-
PLAN PROJECT:
Lily Auchincloss Foundation, David & Minnie Berk Foundation, Edna F. Blum Foundation, JENJO
Foundation, Albert Kunstadter Family Foundation, Louis & Harold Price Foundation, Nate B. &
Frances Spingold Foundation, Van Ameringen Foundation
8/9/2019 Justice Denied: The Crisis in Legal Representation of Birth Parents in Child Protective Proceedings
3/77
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I - THE ANATOMY OF THE SYSTEM
A. The Evolution of the Right to Counsel in New York City
Family Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. New York Citys Child Welfare System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. The Statutory Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Who Represents the Parties in Abuse and Neglect Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
a. Legal Counsel for the Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
b. Legal Counsel for the City (ACS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
c. Legal Counsel for the Parents (Respondents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
II - THE CRISIS IN FAMILY COURT
A. The Grossly Insufficient Number of Attorneys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. The First Department (Manhattan and the Bronx) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2. The Second Department (Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B. Timing of the Assignment of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C. Duration of the Assignment of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
D. Inadequate Fees Lead to Inadequate Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8/9/2019 Justice Denied: The Crisis in Legal Representation of Birth Parents in Child Protective Proceedings
4/77
1. Difficulty Recruiting and Retaining Attorneys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2. Disincentive to Perform Out-of-Court Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
E. Lack of Institutionalized Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
F. The Lack of Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
G. Insufficient Accountability and Judicial Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
H. The Impact on Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
III - RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Short Term Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Increase Reimbursement Rates to $75 Per Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2. Expand Pilot Projects Providing Interdisciplinary Representation to Respondents 36
3. Establish Specialized Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4. Establish Continuity of Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5. Increase Oversight and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6. Replicate and Expand the Successful Model Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B. Long-Term Recommendation - An Organization for Parent Representation . . . . . . . . . . 44
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
APPENDICES
A. Regulations Governing Assigned Counsel
1. First Department Assigned Counsel Panel Application
2. Second Department Assigned Counsel Panel Application
8/9/2019 Justice Denied: The Crisis in Legal Representation of Birth Parents in Child Protective Proceedings
5/77
B. Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator, Assigned Counsel Plan Attorney Payments,
(1998)
C. First Department Appellate Divisions Report to the New York State Unified Court System,
Representation of Indigent Defendants, (1998)
D. Second Department Appellate Divisions Report to the New York State Unified Court
System, Representation of Indigent Defendants, (1998)
E. Christianson, S., Cut-Rate Justice or High-Priced Fleecing?, Empire State Report (May
1999)
F. Sample Client Bill of Rights
G. C-PLAN Survey
H. About C-PLAN
8/9/2019 Justice Denied: The Crisis in Legal Representation of Birth Parents in Child Protective Proceedings
6/77
1 The City of New York, Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Management Audit, Audit o f the Administration for
Childrens Services Efforts to Move Child ren Out of Foster Care , (November 30, 1999). Recognizing that New York
City children spend too much time in foster care, the Administration for Childrens Services (ACS) developed the
STAR (Safe and Timely Adoptions and Reunifications) Program to create flexible funding for foster care agencies to
suppor t a continuum of services for families. ACS, The STAR Program: Program Description (February 2000).
2 Telephone interview with Mike Kharfen, Director of Public Affairs for the Administration of Children and Families,
Health and Human Services (April 11, 2000).
3As of June 30, 1999, there were 36,648 children in care, as reported by the Administration for Childrens Services,
Reform Plan Indicators Status Report 2 (March 2000) at 98.
4 This is based on an average cost of $15,000 per year to keep a child in a foster care boarding h ome (a family home)
and an average cost of $54,000 per year to keep a child in congregate care facility. Approximately four-fifths of
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There is nearly unanimous agreement among Family Court practitioners, judges and child welfare
advocates that the current system for providing legal counsel to indigent parents accused of abuse and
neglect in New York City neither protects the rights of parents nor serves the best interests of children.
It denies parents due process, profoundly disrupts family life, and leads to inappropriately lengthy and
costly foster care stays for children.
New York State law grants parents accused of neglect or abuse the right to counsel in Family
Court proceedings. For those families who cannot afford to hire their own lawyers, Article 18-B of the
State County Law authorizes assignment of government-subsidized lawyers (known colloquially as
assigned counsel or 18-B lawyers). That system is now in severe crisis. The reimbursement rates
are grossly disproportionate to the cost of maintaining a law practice; th