Fourth Edition A CHILD’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL A NATIONAL REPORT CARD ON LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR ABUSED & NEGLECTED CHILDREN The Children’s Advocacy Institute (CAI) was First Star Institute was created as a national founded in 1989 as part of the Center for Public 501(c)(3) public charity following a reorganization Interest Law at the University of San Diego (USD) of First Star and continues the policy advocacy and School of Law. CAI’s mission is to improve the publications, such as this Right to Counsel Report health, safety, development, and well-being of to improve the lives of abused and neglected children. CAI advocates in the legislature to make children.. the law, in the courts to interpret the law, before administrative agencies to implement the law, and We envision a world where all children have the before the public to educate Californians on the supports they need to grow up to lead happy and status of children. productive lives. We pursue our mission through research, public engagement, policy advocacy, CAI strives to educate policymakers about the education and litigation. needs of children – about their needs for economic security, adequate nutrition, health care, We work towards a day when all systems entrusted education, quality child care, and protection from with the care and protection of neglected and abuse, neglect, and injury. CAI’s goal is to ensure abused children nurture and fuel these children to that children’s interests are represented effectively heal and thrive. We work in coalition and in whenever and wherever government makes policy partnership with others to pursue a better world and budget decisions. for these children and youth. We believe that these youth have insights no other person has. Robert C. Fellmeth, J.D., CAI’s Executive Individually, they must be able to have a voice in Director, is the Price Professor of Public Interest their own lives. Collectively, we believe foster Law at the USD School of Law and founder of youth and former foster youth will provide the both CAI and the Center for Public Interest Law. knowledge and leadership to bring these systems Professor Fellmeth has over 30 years of experience forward. We are proud to build collaborations as a public interest law litigator, teacher, and with those who have experienced abuse, neglect scholar. and foster care as well as other experts whose work is grounded in data, child development, For more information about this report, education, and an understanding of our existing please contact: legal and social service systems. First Star Institute 4410 Massachusetts Ave., N.W, Ste. 255 © First Star Institute and the Children’s Advocacy Washington, DC 20016 Institute 2019 (202) 800-8411 www.firststaristitute.org or Children’s Advocacy Institute University of San Diego School of Law 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 (619)260-4806 / Fax: (619)260-4753 [email protected]/www.caichildlaw.org 2 A National Report Card on Legal Representation for Abused & Neglected Children A CHILD’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, 4TH ED. A National Report Card on Legal Representation for Abused and Neglected Children Authors Noy Davis, First Star Institute with Amy Harfeld, and Elisa Weichel, The Children’s Advocacy Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First Star Institute and the Children’s Advocacy Institute extend their warmest thanks to a number of individuals who contributed their knowledge and expertise to this project. Their insights and comments helped inform and improve this Fourth Edition, and we greatly appreciate their time and efforts. We solicited comments from individuals and officials in every state and would like to thank the many state officials and advocates who responded to our requests for feedback and information on their state laws and practices relevant to the legal representation of abused and neglected children. First Star Institute appreciates the commitment of its President Elissa T. Garr, and the members of the Board of Directors: Susan Barker Clem, Wayne Clem, Richard Garr, Lindsay Ellenbogen, Stuart Allan Haney, and Damian Miller. First Star Institute thanks the interns and volunteers who contributed to the research and analysis of this report: legal interns Chiara Inghirami, Guanying Li, and Taylor Pitts, intern Lindsay Broderick, research associate Charlotte Steiner and additional volunteers David Garr for technical support and Lewis Oleinick for statistical analysis. As data calculations within this report were performed by First Star Institute through its author, Noy Davis, questions on the calculations should be directed to this author. First Star Institute is deeply grateful for Noy Davis’ tremendous commitment and dedication in authoring this report. The Children’s Advocacy Institute appreciates the leadership of its Executive Director, Robert Fellmeth, and the dedication of the CAI Council for Children Bill Bentley, Denise Moreno Ducheny, Anne E. Fragasso, Esq., John M. Goldenring, M.D., M.P.H., J.D., Hon. Leon Kaplan (Ret.), David M. Meyers, Thomas A. Papageorge, J.D., Gary F. Redenbacher, J.D., Gary Richwald, M.D., M.P.H., Gloria Perez Samson, Ann Segal, John Thelan, Robert L. Black, M.D., Birt Harvey, M.D., Louise Horvitz, M.S.W., Psy.D., Paul A. Peterson, J.D., Blair Sadler, J.D., Alan Shumacher, M.D. and Owen Smith. The Children’s Advocacy Institute would like to express its gratitude to Nancy Tran and Kerah Lewis for their assistance in the research and drafting of portions of this report. 3 A Child’s Right to Counsel, 4th ed. 4 A National Report Card on Legal Representation for Abused & Neglected Children Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 CALL TO ACTION .................................................................................................................................................. 13 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 GRADING CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 16 GRADING METHODOLOGY POINT DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................................ 20 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF GRADING ................................................................................................................. 22 HIGHLIGHTS OF REPORT CARD ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 23 THE NATIONAL REPORT CARD.............................................................................................................................. 24 INDIVIDUAL CRITERIA RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 28 TRENDS THROUGH A CHILD’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL 2006 - 2018 ............................................................................ 36 STATE REPORT CARDS .......................................................................................................................................... 39 ALABAMA ............................................................................................................................................................ 40 ALASKA ................................................................................................................................................................ 42 ARIZONA .............................................................................................................................................................. 44 ARKANSAS ........................................................................................................................................................... 47 CALIFORNIA ......................................................................................................................................................... 49 COLORADO .......................................................................................................................................................... 52 CONNECTICUT ...................................................................................................................................................... 55 DELAWARE .......................................................................................................................................................... 57 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ....................................................................................................................................... 60 FLORIDA............................................................................................................................................................... 62 GEORGIA .............................................................................................................................................................. 65 HAWAII ................................................................................................................................................................ 68 IDAHO .................................................................................................................................................................. 70 ILLINOIS ..............................................................................................................................................................