Here is a summary of our preliminary findings from our key informant discussions in 10 states. Currently, we are in the midst of our first year national needs assessment that will guide our approach in subsequent years. The national needs assessment has multiple components, including a literature review, on-site visits, and key informant phone discussions in 10 states: CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, IA, IL, NY and WA. Within each of these states, we have talked to judges that convene dependency hearings, attorneys that represent children, CASAs, child welfare agency staff that spend time in court and the CIP state director or designee.

Here are some emerging issues from the analysis of the state key informant discussions. The data consists of answers to questions from a protocol developed to track the key elements of a quality child representation system. (See QIC Model.) These findings are mere impressions and quite preliminary. We will make the findings from our more systematic analysis available soon.

 

Generally, attorney appointment occurs at the removal hearing. CASA appointment varies upon use and availability.

 

In most places, qualifications are not extensive. Most respondents said they would like to see more pre-appointment training requirements.

 

GAL or Best Interests role seems more prevalent than expressed wishes role.
 

When there is a conflict, most said they inform the court of both best interests recommendation and child’s wishes. A minority mentioned that they would bring the child to court.

Almost none indicated they use any specific set of criteria for determining the capacity of the child to express their wishes. Most cited getting to know the child as the best way to determine capacity. In jurisdictions where the role is split between a GAL and attorney, attorneys seem to be less concerned about the child's capacity.

 

Almost all report that attorneys visit the child. A minority said the attorneys only meet with the child at court.

Problem solving and negotiating solutions emerged as important activities.

A minority said they deal with educational issues/attend school meetings.

 

Few reported supports for independent attorneys. Attorneys in child advocacy offices for the most part have access to administrative support and social workers. Attorneys said they use networking with colleagues as an informal support. Some mentioned Internet tools as valuable resources.

 

This seems to be the issue on which there is the most consensus. Stakeholders would like to see more training requirements, especially in the areas of child development and litigation.

 

This varies by jurisdiction. It is unclear whether the majority feel children’s attorneys are undercompensated.

 

Attorneys generally reported that their caseloads are manageable, though in response to other questions they would mention that time is a challenge. Some stakeholders felt attorney caseloads are too high, but it does not appear to be the majority response.

 

Lack of money was cited frequently as a problem affecting both resources for attorneys and families.  Some, though not the majority, thought attorneys who represent only children are more effective. A significant minority said attorneys should be required to represent both parent and children. Regardless of practice concentration, stakeholders thought attorneys practicing in this area should be knowledgeable about child development and issues affecting families.

 

There were a variety of recommendations posed. The following appeared most frequently:

• Attorneys need a central entity that provides training, oversight and support.

• Child law needs to be recognized as an important area of practice, and must receive adequate funding.

• In jurisdictions where caseloads are a problem, respondents said they should be reduced.

• In jurisdictions that rely heavily on CASAs, stakeholders said every child should have a CASA.