Opinion ID: 1739016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appointment of attorney

Text: As to the issue of counsel for the child, a majority of the Committee concluded that an attorney was not required for every dependent child recommended for placement in a residential mental health facility; rather, the decision as to whether to appoint counsel for the child would lie within the dependency court's discretion. In support of its conclusion, the Committee looked to language in M.W. indicating that a child can be heard either through a GAL, an attorney, or both. [4] The Committee also considered that, although the Legislature mandated a GAL for all children placed in residential health treatment programs, it did not mandate an attorney. See generally § 39.407(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000). In objecting to the discretionary appointment of counsel to the dependent child, the minority report argues that giving a dependent child a meaningful opportunity to be heard is the hallmark of procedural due process. Therefore, the minority report concludes that any rules governing that child's opportunity to be heard are within the purview of what the Committee may properly recommend to this Court. The minority report also expresses the view that a dependent child must have an attorney who can advocate the child's position before the court. The report notes that a dependent child's attorney would owe the same duties of undivided loyalty, confidentiality, and competent representation to a child as is due to an adult client. Such advocacy, the minority report states, cannot be provided by the GAL or the GAL's attorney. If the child's position conflicts with that of the GAL, the GAL's attorney will be prohibited ethically from representing the child's interests, which will then result in counsel's failure to advise the court of the child's stated wishes. The minority report concludes that only an attorney for the child can properly give the child an opportunity to be heard. The minority's view and concerns are echoed by virtually every comment filed with the Court. These comments encompass two major themes. First, they contend that without an attorney, a child will not have a meaningful opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The comments addressing this theme assert that only the dependent child's own attorney can give meaning to the child's right to be heard by allowing the child to actively participate in such procedures as negotiating alternatives with the GAL and the Department. The University of Miami Children & Youth Law Clinic asserts that [c]ertainly, a dependent child cannot be expected to represent himself pro se and present evidence in his own behalf and cross-examine witnesses in any meaningful orderly manner. Further, only counsel appointed to represent the child will have an attorneyclient privileged relationship with the child; neither the GAL nor the GAL's attorney maintains such a privilege with the child. Related to this issue, the Florida Public Defender Association advances the argument that there are due process concerns with not appointing an attorney for a child when that child is committed against his or her wishes: It is the liberty interest of any child for whom involuntary commitment is sought and the massive curtailment of liberty that firmly roots the substantive right to counsel in the federal and state constitutions.... ... [T]his Court has already determined the constitutional existence of the right to the assistance of counsel for adults facing involuntary civil commitment. There is simply no meaningful distinction between adults for whom the state seeks involuntary commitment and children for whom the state, through the department, seeks similar commitment. (Citation omitted.) A further issue brought to light by the comments regarding the lack of mandatory counsel for the child centers around a pragmatic concern arising from the portion of the rule stating that [n]o hearing shall proceed without the presence of the child's guardian ad litem and/or attorney. According to the Florida Public Defender Association, if the court is not required to appoint an attorney for the child and a GAL is not available, the nonconsenting child will remain in placement with no counsel, no hearing, no access to the court, and no timely review of the initial placement. It is also asserted that should the GAL and his or her counsel advocate for continued residential placement of the child, there will be no one to argue the child's position, especially because under the proposed rule the child will not be present at the five-day status hearing. Thus, if the GAL and the Department agree as to placement, there is no need for either to move for a placement review. Moreover, if the court further determines that the child's presence is not in his or her best interest and the child is not represented, absolutely no one will advocate for the child's position. The Children's Advocacy Foundation asserts that it is essential for the protection of the rights of the child in the foster care system to have both a GAL and an attorney ad litem because each of these individuals serves separate purposes in advocating for the child and insisting upon the Department's proper performance of its duties: [T]he guardian ad litem can ... be involved ... as a stable constant adult in the child's life and may, in fact, be the only constant as a child's years in foster care drag on.... However, attorneys serve the essential role of advocating in court so that the child is represented by an attorney as are all of the other parties. The second major theme raised by the comments is that of therapeutic jurisprudence. According to the comment filed by Judge Ginger Wren and Professor Bruce Winick, Therapeutic jurisprudence is an interdisciplinary field of legal scholarship and approach to law reform that focuses attention upon law's impact on the mental health and psychological functioning of those it affects. According to Judge Wren and Professor Winick, the dependent child's perception as to whether he or she is being listened to and whether his or her opinion is respected and counted is integral to the child's behavioral and psychological progress. Their comment also explains that feelings of voluntariness rather than coercion in children facing placement tend to produce more effective behavior. Thus, Judge Wren and Professor Winick contend that [e]ven when the result of a hearing is adverse, people treated fairly, in good faith and with respect are more satisfied with the result and comply more readily with the outcome of the hearing. As such, a child who feels that he or she has been treated fairly in the course of the commitment proceedings will likely be more willing to accept hospitalization and treatment. The comment further asserts that juveniles involved in civil commitment hearings are likely to be particularly sensitive to issues of participation, dignity and trust. According to Judge Wren and Professor Winick, [c]ivil commitment hearings for juveniles that deny them the ability to articulate their wishes through counsel, but which solely use guardians ad litem to present the guardian's views of the juvenile's best interests, will not fulfill the juvenile's participatory or dignitary interests.