Case Title: In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165(A)

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC07-1162

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2008-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC07-1162 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUVENILE 
PROCEDURE 8.165(a). 
 
[May 1, 2008] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to 
the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), 
Fla. Const. 
 
In 2004, the Juvenile Court Rules Committee (Committee) filed its regular-
cycle report proposing amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.  
Among the proposed amendments were several amendments to rule 8.165, 
Providing Counsel to Parties, applicable in juvenile delinquency proceedings.  
Specifically, the Committee proposed amending subdivision (a), Duty of the Court, 
to require that a child be given a meaningful opportunity to confer with counsel 
before waiving his or her right to counsel and that all such waivers be in writing.  
The Committee also proposed new subdivision (b)(3) requiring that when a child 
 
- 2 - 
enters a plea or is being tried for a delinquent act, the written waiver of counsel be 
submitted “in the presence of a parent, legal custodian, responsible adult relative, 
or attorney assigned by the court to assist the child, who shall verify on the written 
waiver that the child’s decision to waive counsel has been discussed with the child 
and appears to be knowing and voluntary.”  See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.165(b)(3).  These 
proposals were unanimously recommended to the Committee by The Florida Bar’s 
Commission on the Legal Needs of Children (Commission), an interdisciplinary 
statewide commission whose mission is to study the legal needs of children in 
Florida and recommend ways to help children appearing in Florida courts.  The 
Commission’s 2002 report addressed the legal needs of children according to five 
priority areas:  (1) representation; (2) treatment and services; (3) confidentiality; 
(4) education and the role of The Florida Bar; and (5) technology and the court.  
With regard to representation, the Commission adopted the Representation 
Subcommittee’s Report, which made a number of recommendations to improve the 
representation of children in Florida courts.  The Commission noted that a 
disturbing number of children waive their right to counsel in delinquency 
proceedings and drafted the proposed amendments to rule 8.165(a) to provide 
standards to be used before a child in delinquency proceedings may waive his or 
her right to counsel.  Final Report of The Florida Bar Commission on the Legal 
 
- 3 - 
Needs of Children 5, 12-13, appendix A (2002).1  Additionally, both the Steering 
Committee on Families and Children in the Court (Steering Committee) and the 
Florida Public Defender Association (FPDA) supported the proposals.  After 
considering the Committee’s report and hearing oral argument, the Court adopted 
the amendment to rule 8.165(a) requiring all waivers of counsel to be in writing, as 
well as new subdivision (b)(3).  However, the Court ultimately deferred 
consideration of the proposed amendment requiring prewaiver consultation with an 
attorney, stating:  
Although we believe that consultation with an attorney prior to 
waiving counsel is an important additional safeguard designed to 
protect a juvenile’s constitutional right to counsel, we are also mindful 
of the potential financial impact of this requirement.  We note that one 
of the recommendations of the representation subcommittee that was 
adopted by the full Commission on the Legal Needs of Children was 
to encourage efforts seeking legislative changes that would “create” a 
right to a prewaiver consultation and authorize the public defender to 
provide the required consultation.  In fact, in its June 2002 Final 
Report, the Commission specifically recommended: 
 
5. Florida law should specifically create a right for children 
to consult counsel, short of outright appointment for the 
duration of the case, in the following instances: 
a. Regarding waiver of counsel or other right or legal 
interest in a delinquency proceeding, prior to the appointment 
of the Public Defender by a judge, or at any time thereafter 
where waiver is sought; 
 
                                          
 
 
1.  The proposals submitted to the Court by the Juvenile Court Rules 
Committee were almost identical to the proposed amendments drafted by the 
Commission.   
 
- 4 - 
. . . . 
6. Florida law should specifically authorize the Public 
Defender to provide the consultation services outlined in # 5 
above. This recommendation would necessitate the legislature 
appropriating additional funds for the Public Defender to 
adequately provide consultation services. 
 
These two recommended changes in the law could be made by 
amending sections 985.203(1) and 27.51, Florida Statutes (2004). 
Because of the potential financial impact of the amendment to rule 
8.165(a) regarding consultation with attorneys and our desire to work 
cooperatively with the Legislature, we urge the Legislature to consider 
the Commission's recommendations. We also strongly urge that the 
voluntary practice that exists in many jurisdictions in which 
consultation with an attorney takes place be continued and, where 
possible, expanded in the interim. 
We thus decline to adopt at this time the portion of rule 8.165(a) 
regarding consultation with an attorney prior to a waiver.  We 
emphasize that we are not rejecting this proposed amendment to rule 
8.165(a), but are merely deferring its consideration.  We intend to 
readdress the adoption of the amendment to rule 8.165(a) at a future 
time following the conclusion of the legislative session.  We further 
take this opportunity to reinforce that it is critical for delinquency 
judges to ensure that any waiver of counsel by a child is knowingly 
and voluntarily given, especially prior to accepting a plea of guilty or 
nolo contendere. 
 
Amendments to Fla. Rules of Juv. Pro., 894 So. 2d 875, 880-81 (Fla. 2005).   
 
Subsequently, given the Court’s concerns regarding the potential financial 
impact on the public defenders of requiring a prewaiver consultation with counsel, 
the Court directed the Committee to seek input from the FPDA concerning this 
issue.  Further, in 2005, the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) conducted 
an assessment of children’s access to counsel in delinquency proceedings in 
Florida and issued a report.  This report made some sobering observations.  The 
 
- 5 - 
NJDC reported that (1) even very young children in Florida’s courts routinely 
waive counsel, sometimes with subtle encouragement from judges; (2) that this is 
done without counsel being present or any meaningful discussion of the potential 
long term disadvantages; (3) that the rule requiring a written waiver is generally 
followed, but seems to be regarded as a substitute for a meaningful inquiry into the 
child’s understanding; (4) that the rule requiring consultation with an adult about 
the waiver decision is “routinely flouted,” and (5) that consultation with a parent 
may also be an inadequate safeguard, given the other subtle disincentives for 
exercising the right to counsel, such as indigence and application fees, surcharges, 
complex application forms, and inadequate oversight of indigence determinations 
by judges.  Patricia Puritz & Cathryn Crawford, National Juvenile Defender 
Center, Florida: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of 
Representation in Delinquency Proceedings 3 (2006), available at 
http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Florida % 20Assessment.pdf .  The NJDC’s report also 
made the following specific recommendation: 
Further restrictions on waiver of counsel must be established 
consistent with national standards. Youth should not be permitted to 
waive counsel without prior consultation with such counsel. Counsel 
should assist the client in making an informed, knowing and voluntary 
choice and stand-by counsel should be available in the event of 
waiver. It is imperative that youth understand the long-term 
consequences of a juvenile adjudication.  
 
Id. at 4.    
 
- 6 - 
 
Accordingly, on June 22, 2007, the Committee resubmitted the proposed 
amendment to rule 8.165(a) to the Court.  The Committee’s report states that the 
FPDA continues to support the proposed amendment and believes there would be 
only minimal fiscal impact as a result of public defenders providing a prewaiver 
consultation in juvenile dependency proceedings.  Additionally, the Committee 
notes that several bills in accordance with the Commission’s recommendations 
were introduced in subsequent legislative sessions,2 and although these bills 
ultimately failed to pass, the staff analyses for several of them, relying upon 
representations of the FPDA, noted minimal fiscal impact.3  The proposed rule 
amendment at issue passed the Committee by a vote of fourteen to five, and was 
                                          
 
 
2.  See Fla. SB 88 (2007) (died in Juvenile Justice Committee); Fla. HB 53 
(2007) (withdrawn prior to introduction); Fla. HB 7 (2007) (died in Juvenile 
Justice Committee); Fla. SB 526 (2006) (passed by Senate but died in House 
Judiciary Committee); Fla. CS for SB 1218 (2005) (died in Senate Judiciary 
Committee).  
 
3.  See Fla. S. Comm. on Judiciary, SB 88 (2007) Staff Analysis 3-4 (Mar. 7, 
2007) (on file with comm.); Fla. S. Comm. on Crim. Just., SB 88 (2007) Staff 
Analysis 3-4 (Feb. 1, 2007) (on file with comm.); Fla. S. Comm. on Crim. Just., 
SB 526 (2006) Staff Analysis 2-3 (Jan. 6, 2006) (on file with comm.); Fla. S. 
Comm. on Crim. Just., CS for SB 1218 (2005) Staff Analysis 2-3 (Apr. 7, 2005) 
(on file with comm.).  Of course, as acknowledged in these staff analyses, the 
potential fiscal impact that cannot be determined is that which may occur if more 
children decide not to waive their right to counsel as a result of the prewaiver 
consultation.  The staff analyses noted that according to the FDPA, in large circuits 
like the Fourth (Jacksonville), the Eleventh (Miami), and the Thirteenth (Tampa) 
there would be no impact because the common practice is to appoint a public 
defender to almost all indigent children.  Other circuits that do not have this 
practice could realize a significant increase in caseloads.     
 
- 7 - 
approved by the Executive Committee of The Florida Bar Board of Governors by a 
unanimous vote of ten to zero.   
 
After submission to the Court, the proposed amendment was published for 
comment in the July 15, 2007, edition of The Florida Bar News.  One comment 
was received from the FPDA in favor of the proposed amendment.  In its 
comment, the FPDA expressly agreed to provide the consultation services required 
by the proposed amendment.  The FPDA also represented that it believes the fiscal 
impact of requiring a prewaiver consultation will be minimal, and the resulting 
increase in caseloads that may occur in some circuits if more children decide not to 
waive their right to counsel will not be unduly burdensome.  The FPDA states that 
“[m]ost [public defender] offices will be able to absorb the increases within current 
staffing levels or with the addition of a minimal number of positions.”  Finally, the 
FPDA requests that the Court balance any potential financial impact against the 
likelihood that, if the amendment to the rule is adopted, there will be fewer 
reversals on appeal in cases in which a child has not received legal counsel. 
 
After considering the Committee’s report and the FPDA’s comments, we 
adopt the amendment to rule 8.165(a) as proposed by the Committee.  We adopt 
the amendment because we agree with the Committee, the Commission, the 
Steering Committee, the FPDA, and the NJDC that consultation with an attorney 
 
- 8 - 
prior to waiving counsel is an important and necessary procedural safeguard 
designed to protect a juvenile’s constitutional right to counsel. 
 
The substantive right to counsel for children in juvenile delinquency 
proceedings is firmly established under the United States Constitution and Florida 
Statutes.  In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 36 (1967); § 985.033(1), Fla. Stat. (2007) (stating 
that a child is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any 
delinquency proceeding).  Florida courts have a duty to protect that right.  Florida 
Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165 governs the appointment and waiver of counsel 
in juvenile delinquency proceedings.  This rule “contains specific guidelines to 
ensure that the substantive right of a juvenile to counsel is protected.”  K.E.N. v. 
State, 892 So. 2d 1176, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).  Part of protecting and 
effectuating a child’s right to counsel in juvenile delinquency proceedings is 
ensuring that a waiver of that right by the child is knowing and voluntary.  This 
Court has noted that “[i]t is extremely doubtful that any child of limited experience 
can possibly comprehend the importance of counsel.”  State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 
204, 211 (Fla. 2001) (quoting P.L.S. v. State, 745 So. 2d 555, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 
1999)).  Especially given the observations brought to light by the NJDC’s 
assessment of children’s access to counsel in delinquency proceedings in our 
courts, it is clear that additional safeguards are needed.  Accordingly, we conclude 
that a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel before waiving the right to 
 
- 9 - 
counsel is a necessary step in effectuating and protecting the child’s substantive 
right to counsel.  
 
Accordingly, we hereby adopt the amendment to rule 8.165(a) as set forth in 
the appendix to this opinion.  Additions are indicated by underscoring; deletions 
are indicated by struck-through type.  The amendment shall become effective on 
July 1, 2008, at 12:01 a.m. 
 
It is so ordered.  
LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. 
BELL, J., dissents with an opinion, in which WELLS and CANTERO, JJ., concur. 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT. 
 
 
BELL, J., dissenting. 
Although I fully agree that the problem of juveniles waiving their right to 
counsel and entering pleas without an adequate understanding of the implications 
of that decision is a substantial issue that must be confronted, I cannot agree with 
the amendment to rule 8.165(a).  Essentially, this amendment creates a new, 
unwaivable right in all juveniles to a prewaiver consultation with counsel.  Such a 
change is clearly substantive, not procedural.4  And, given the complete absence of 
                                          
 
4.  This Court has defined substantive law, procedural law, and judicial 
procedural rules as follows:  
 
 
- 10 - 
any substantive law upon which to base this new rule, I do not believe we can or 
should use our procedural rulemaking authority to impose such a sweeping 
mandate.  To do so puts the proverbial cart before the horse. 
On January 27, 2005, we approved all but one of the Juvenile Court Rules 
Committee’s 2004 recommended changes to the Rules of Juvenile Procedure.  
Among the approved changes was an amendment to rule 8.165(a) requiring that 
any waiver by a child of the right to counsel be in writing.  Rule 8.165(b)(3) was 
also added to require that (1) the written waiver of counsel be submitted to the 
court in the presence of a parent, legal guardian, responsible adult relative, or 
attorney assigned by the court to assist the child; and (2) this individual must verify 
that the child’s decision to waive counsel has been discussed and appears to be 
knowing and voluntary.   
The only rule change recommended by the Committee that we declined to 
adopt in January 2005 was the proposed amendment to rule 8.165(a) that, in 
                                                                                                                                        
Substantive law prescribes the duties and rights under our 
system of government.  The responsibility to make substantive law is 
in the legislature within the limits of the state and federal 
constitutions.  Procedural law concerns the means and method to 
apply and enforce those duties and rights.  Procedural rules 
concerning the judicial branch are the responsibility of this Court, 
subject to repeal by the legislature in accordance with our 
constitutional provisions.  
Benyard v. Wainwright, 322 So. 2d 473, 475 (Fla. 1975); see also Allen v. 
Butterworth, 756 So. 2d 52, 60 (Fla. 2000) (citing In re Rules of Criminal 
Procedure, 272 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 1972) (Adkins, J., concurring)).  
 
- 11 - 
addition to the above changes, would mandate that every child consult with an 
attorney prior to the court accepting a waiver of the right to counsel.  The reasons 
we gave at the time for declining to adopt this mandate were “[b]ecause of the 
potential financial impact of the amendment . . . and our desire to work 
cooperatively with the Legislature.”  Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Juvenile 
Procedure, 894 So. 2d 875, 880-81 (Fla. 2005).  Now, the majority has decided to 
go ahead and adopt this amendment to rule 8.165(a).   
 
Instead of imposing this substantive change by amending a procedural rule, I 
believe we should continue to follow the recommendation of the Commission on 
the Legal Needs of Children (the Commission) and, as we did in January of 2005, 
encourage efforts seeking legislative changes that would (as the Commission 
properly stated) “create” this new right to a prewaiver consultation and authorize 
the public defender to provide the required consultation.  The Commission 
recommended changes in Florida law, not in our rules of procedure.  The 
Commission rightly understood that a substantive change in the law would be 
required in order to address the problem of uncounseled waivers of the right to 
counsel.5  As we noted in our prior opinion, in its June 2002 Final Report, the 
Commission specifically recommended that 
                                          
 
 
5.  The magnitude of a problem with unrepresented juveniles is highlighted 
in the June 2002 Final Report of the Florida Bar’s Commission on the Legal Needs 
of Children.  But, interestingly, the problem discussed in this report is not that 
 
- 12 - 
 
5.   Florida law should specifically create a right for children to 
consult counsel, short of outright appointment for the duration of the 
case, in the following instances: 
 
a.  Regarding waiver of counsel or other right or legal  
interest in a delinquency proceeding, prior to the appointment  
of the Public Defender by a judge, or at any time thereafter  
where waiver is sought; 
 
. . . . 
 
6.  Florida law should specifically authorize the Public 
Defender to provide the consultation services outlined in #5 above.  
This recommendation would necessitate the legislature appropriating 
                                                                                                                                        
unrepresented juveniles were not freely, voluntarily, and knowingly waiving their 
right to counsel.  The problem the Commission discusses was related to waiver of 
counsel and recidivism.  Though an important social issue, addressing the problem 
of recidivism is not the purpose of rule 8.165.  The report does say that a 
preliminary finding that children entitled to legal representation in delinquency 
cases often waived that right was “[a]larming to many commissioners.”  Final 
Report of the Florida Bar’s Commission on the Legal Needs of Children 7 (2002).  
However, when this statement is viewed in context, the substance of the 
presentation being discussed relates to preliminary research on the relationship 
between recidivism and waiver of counsel.  Two university researchers shared with 
the Commission their preliminary findings on juveniles transferred to adult court 
who have no lawyer because they have waived their constitutional right to counsel.  
What these researchers found was that 
 
[a]bout five percent of the transfers (to adult court) and about 23 
percent of juvenile retainees with relatively serious offenses had no 
counsel of record.  There is a representation issue that might be 
important to look into a little more, and it ties with recidivism.  Be 
careful.  The controls haven’t been done.  But preliminary results 
show that among the transfers to adult court who didn’t have counsel, 
70 percent of them re-offended.  And 44 percent of the juvenile justice 
retainees re-offended when they didn’t have counsel.  In both 
instances, this is the highest percentage of re-offense.  Failure to have 
counsel or legal representation is linked, at least at this basic analysis, 
to higher rates of recidivism. 
Id. 
 
- 13 - 
additional funds for the Public Defender to adequately provide 
consultation services.   
Amendments to Fla. Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 894 So. 2d at 880 (emphasis 
added).  “These two recommended changes in the law could be made by amending 
sections 985.203(1) and 27.51, Florida Statutes (2004).”  894 So. 2d at 880. 
Legislative enactment of the Commission’s recommended changes to the 
statutory law would provide the requisite basis for this Court to amend rule 8.165.  
This change in law also could come from a change in the case law.  Unfortunately, 
no such change in the law has occurred.  And, absent any case holding that such 
prewaiver consultations are constitutionally or statutorily required, seeking the 
statutory changes recommended by the Commission remains the only proper 
means to address this serious public policy issue.  Indeed, this is the only means 
that properly respects the separation of powers mandated by article II, section 3 of 
the Florida Constitution.  See Boyd v. Becker, 627 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1993) 
(“While the Florida Constitution grants this Court exclusive rule-making authority, 
this power is limited to rules governing procedural matters and does not extend to 
substantive rights.”) (citing art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.).   
Seeking a change in Florida law is not only the approach the Commission 
recommended to solve the problem but also the approach that resolves the 
concerns raised by both the minority report of the Juvenile Court Rules Committee 
and the Supreme Court’s Steering Committee on Families and Children in the 
 
- 14 - 
Courts (SCFCC).  The minority report dissents from this rule amendment because 
of the belief that the change is substantive, not procedural.  The SCFCC raised 
similar concerns.   
Unwilling to await the necessary change in substantive law, the majority has 
decided to go ahead and impose this significant change in a rules case.  The 
majority’s rationale for doing so rests in large part upon three factors occurring 
since our January 27, 2005, decision:  
 
1.  The Florida Public Defenders Association continues to 
support the change.  And, the FPDA believes the change will have 
minimal fiscal impact;  
 
2.  In its 2005 report, the National Juvenile Defender Center 
(NJDC) recommends this change.  (The NJDC is a juvenile defense 
bar advocacy group that describes itself as “created in 1999 to respond 
to the critical need to build capacity of the juvenile defense bar and to 
improve access to counsel and quality of representation for children in 
the justice system.)” National Juvenile Defender Center, About Us,     
http://www.njdc.info/about_us.php; and  
 
3. Proposed legislation supporting this substantive change in the 
law failed to pass during the 2006 and 2007 Florida legislative 
sessions. 
These three factors are an insufficient basis for this Court to usurp the legislative 
prerogative to make this policy decision and to impose the change in a rules case.   
Awaiting appropriate changes in the substantive law does not mean that the 
problem of inappropriate waivers of the right to counsel by juveniles cannot be 
addressed by the judicial system.  As the proponents of this rule amendment 
explained at oral argument, prewaiver consultations with counsel are currently a 
 
- 15 - 
common, voluntary procedure in many areas of the state.  These voluntary 
procedures are guided by the discretion of the local trial judge and the cooperative 
efforts of the public defenders, state attorneys, and the local bar.  Until there is a 
substantive change in the law, I believe every effort should be made to encourage 
all juvenile judges, state attorneys, public defenders, and local bar associations to 
adopt similar means to assist the trial judge in assuring that any juvenile who 
waives the right to counsel does so freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.   
In addition to these internal efforts, it is also appropriate to pursue changes 
in the substantive law.  Those who are convinced that the creation of this new right 
to a prewaiver consultation is the best public policy should continue to urge the 
Legislature to adopt the Commission’s recommendations and make the funds 
available to hire any additional public defenders necessary to provide these 
additional services.  Otherwise, the change would have to come in an appropriate 
case.  But, until the substantive law is changed, this Court should not use its rule-
making authority to, as the Commission phrased it, “create” an unwaivable right to 
a prewaiver consultation with counsel.  In other words, until the substantive law is 
changed, we should not unilaterally transform these voluntary efforts across the 
state into a new “duty and right.”   
Finally, I must raise one significant, ancillary point of concern about the 
inevitable, unintended consequences of this new mandate.  The creation of this 
 
- 16 - 
new, unwaivable right to a prewaiver consultation with counsel will spawn 
significant collateral issues not addressed by the proponents or the majority.  The 
proponents posit that the prewaiver consultations will result in fewer reversals on 
direct appeal.  This might be true.  However, this argument ignores the reality that 
the conversion of what is now a voluntary procedure into a mandatory one also 
will generate collateral challenges to the adequacy of the prewaiver consultation 
afforded by the “consulting counsel.”  This newly created “consulting counsel” 
will not have the typical attorney-client relationship with the child.  The nature of 
this new relationship and the scope of duties expected of this “advisory counsel” 
will have to be developed by case law.  Moreover, when a child (who at the time of 
his collateral proceeding will often have become an adult) challenges the nature 
and scope of any advice given by his “consulting counsel,” ascertaining what 
actually transpired between the two will be subject to an uncertainty of proof even 
greater than the troubling uncertainties our courts presently confront in collateral 
proceedings where there is an established attorney-client relationship.    
In summary, the problem of juvenile waivers of counsel is a significant issue 
that should be addressed by appropriate means.  And, if we are to convert the 
current voluntary procedures into mandatory ones, there should first be a change in 
the statutory or case law.  Once this substantive change is achieved, this 
amendment to rule 8.165(a) would be appropriate.  However, until this substantive 
 
- 17 - 
right to a prewaiver consultation with counsel is created by a substantive change in 
the law, it is inappropriate for this Court to amend this procedural rule.   
For the reasons stated above, I dissent to this one amendment.  
WELLS and CANTERO, JJ., concur. 
 
 
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 
 
Robert W. Mason, Chair, Juvenile Court Rules Committee, Public Defender’s 
Office, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Jacksonville, Florida; John F. Harkness, Jr., 
Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Carlos J. Martinez, Vice President, Florida Public Defender Association, Miami, 
Florida, 
 
 
Responding with comments 
 
 
- 18 - 
APPENDIX 
 
RULE 8.165.  
PROVIDING COUNSEL TO PARTIES 
 
 
(a)  
Duty of the Court. 
The court shall advise the child of the child’s 
right to counsel. The court shall appoint counsel as provided by law unless waived 
by the child at each stage of the proceeding. Waiver of counsel can occur only after 
the child has had a meaningful opportunity to confer with counsel regarding the 
child’s right to counsel, the consequences of waiving counsel, and any other 
factors that would assist the child in making the decision to waive counsel. This 
waiver shall be in writing.  
 
 
(b) 
[No change]