a statewide coalition advocating change to georgia’s juvenile code and the underlying social...

A statewide coalition advocating change to Georgia’s juvenile code and the underlying social service systems to better serve Georgia’s children and promote safer communities.

To learn more, go to www.justga.org.

Partnership created in 2006 Founded and funded by the Sapelo Foundation Partners include:

Georgia AppleseedThe Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic at Emory

Law School; andVoices for Georgia's Children

Origin of JUSTGeorgia

What is the history of the Child Protection and Public Safety Act?

The underlying foundation of the Act is the Young Lawyers Division (YLD) Proposed Model Code (PMC)

The Juvenile code re-write began in 2004 by the YLD of the Georgia State Bar

The Proposed Model Code was drafted by three expert reporters, including a Georgia juvenile court judge and also a juvenile law professor who helped draft the 1971 Georgia Juvenile Code.

JUSTGeorgia engaged stakeholders with one-on-one and small group interviews statewide about the current juvenile code

Original drafting process included over 100 hours over several months and over 20 hours of stakeholder working group discussion

What is the history of the Child Protection and Public Safety Act?

Senator Bill Hamrick introduced Act as Senate Bill 292 in 2009 Senate Judiciary held a series of hearings, resulting in

thorough input on issues of interest to the Committee and the public

JUSTGeorgia facilitated discussions with stakeholders to find consensus around issues raised through the hearings

Senator Hamrick introduced SB 127 in 2011, and held additional hearings

HB 641 reflects further stakeholder input, compromise and political reality fleshed out by the Senate hearings

Stakeholder Working Group Includes:

Youth who have been in the foster care and delinquency systems State agencies, including DHS/DFCS, DJJ, DBHDD, and OCA Council of Juvenile Court Judges Prosecuting Attorneys Council Georgia Supreme Court Committee on Justice for Children Attorneys who represent parents in juvenile court Attorneys and guardians ad litem who represent children Georgia CASA The Georgia Association of Counsel for Children Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Georgia Child Advocacy Centers Interfaith Children’s Movement Refugee Family Services Southern Center for Human Rights Juvenile Court Mediators State Bar of Georgia Association of County Commissioners of Georgia

Why Rewrite the Juvenile Code?

It has been four decades since Georgia’s juvenile code was passed; it has never undergone a full review

Experts in the field agree its time for a review

Three Overarching Themes of the Act

(1) Creates and maintains stylistic consistency

(2) Develops new organizational structure

(3) Incorporates proposals for substantive revisions that reflect: – Federal law– Scientific research– Best practices based on research from 50 states

Theme One: Stylistic Consistency

Uses consistent language and style Makes needed copyediting revisions to

current code Incorporates new terminology Making references consistent (i.e. using

“parent, guardian or legal custodian) Provides definitions where definitions were

needed, but did not exist, in current code

Theme Two: Organizational Structure

Reorganizes current juvenile code into 12 substantive articles

Each article is self-contained and has its own purpose statement

Different types of cases are no longer comingled Timelines are included at the beginning of each

article Clearly states what is required at every stage of the

process, in and out of court

Theme Three: Substantive Revisions

Article 1: General Provisions– General definitions and principles that would

apply in all juvenile court proceedings Article 2: Juvenile Court Administration

– Governs creation and administration of juvenile courts and the appointment of judges


Article 3: Dependency– Relates to cases involving children who have

been abused or neglected Article 4: Termination of Parent Rights

– Governs proceedings to terminate a parent’s rights relative to their child when the parent is unable to safely and adequately care for the child


Article 5: Independent Living Services– New provisions to ensure that children in foster

care are given opportunities and assistance to plan for their futures

Article 6: Children in Need of Services– New approach for intervening with children who

are currently considered “unruly,” as well as children who are unrestorably incompetent


Article 7: Delinquency– Relates to cases involving children who have

committed acts that would be crimes if the children were adults

Article 8: Competency– Governs proceedings to determine if a child is

incompetent to proceed in delinquency cases, and what to do if the child is found incompetent


Article 9: Parental Notification– No substantive changes; renumbering only

Article 10: Access to Hearings and Records– Few substantive changes


Article 11: Emancipation– No substantive changes; renumbering only

Article 12: Office of the Child Advocate– No substantive changes; renumbering only

What’s Not in the Act

Repeal of SB 440: Automatic transfer to superior court of children accused of specific offenses– Limited reform made to transfer provisions through compromise

with prosecutors and other stakeholders, allowing Superior Court Judges to transfer certain offenses back to juvenile court

Consistent age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18– Removed due to up-front fiscal implications

Requiring an electronic recording of a child’s custodial interrogation if the child is accused of an offense that would be a felony-grade delinquent act– Removed due to concerns from prosecutors

What’s Not in the Act

Elimination of private petitions for abuse and neglect– Removed in a compromise with Juvenile Court

Judges and Child Advocates Concurrent jurisdiction for adoption

– Removed in compromise with Superior Court Judges resulting in the adoption of Superior Court Rule 47

What Is in the Act: Article 1General Provisions

Expanded definitions section. Key new definitions:– Child abuse, including prenatal and emotional

abuse– Party, clarifying that the child is a party– Child in need of services, replacing unruly child– Dependency, replacing deprivation

Article 1: General Provisions

One child/family, one judge (where possible) Consolidation in cases where a child is both

dependent and delinquent Encourages mediation and provides statutory

guidance Provides factors to consider in determining “best

interests” Prohibits keeping children in adult correctional

facilities

Article 2: Court Administration

Very few substantive changes No major changes or controversy

Article 3: Dependency (formerly deprivation)

Shorter timelines for:– First review hearing – Permanency hearing for kids under 7

Guidance on continuances Discovery provision Removal of time limitation on custody orders

to DFCS Prevents delegation of permanency hearings


More specificity included on:– Case planning requirements

Ensures compliance with federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act

– Clarifies efforts to keep siblings connected– Requires planning for educational stability

– Court findings needed at various stages


Child representation:– Every child gets a lawyer– Guardian ad Litem can also be appointed– Requires that these roles be kept separate

A Closer Look: Child Representation in Dependency

Under current state law, children are entitled to attorneys and guardians ad litem:

– O.C.G.A § 15-11-6(b): “a party is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings alleging …deprivation ….Counsel must be provided for a child not represented by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.”

– McBurrough v. Department of Human Resources, 150 Ga.App. 130, “Under our juvenile code, all parties, including the child, should be represented by an attorney.”

– O.C.G.A. § 15-11- 9(b) “The court at any stage of a proceeding …shall appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a party to the proceeding if the child has no parent, guardian, or custodian appearing on the child's behalf or if the interests of the parent, guardian, or custodian appearing on the child's behalf conflict with the child's interests or in any other case in which the interests of the child require a guardian.”


Under current federal law, children are entitled to guardians ad litem, and this role can be filled by an attorney for the child:

– CAPTA requires that: “…in every case involving an abused or neglected child which results in a judicial proceeding, a guardian ad litem, who has received training appropriate to the role, and who may be an attorney or a court appointed special advocate…shall be appointed to represent the child in such proceedings (I) to obtain first-hand, a clear understanding of the situation and needs of the child; and (II) to make recommendations to the court concerning the best interests of the child” (42 U.S.C § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xiii))

– HHS has interpreted this to include attorney representation. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/adopt02/02adpt7.htm)


Both the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA Model Rules contemplate attorneys representing children:

– Comment 1 on Georgia Rule 1.14 states: “[A] client lacking legal competence often has the ability to understand, deliberate upon, and reach conclusions about matters affecting the client's own well-being. Furthermore, to an increasing extent the law recognizes intermediate degrees of competence. For example, children as young as five or six years of age, and certainly those of ten or twelve, are regarded as having opinions that are entitled to weight in legal proceedings concerning their custody.”

– ABA advises child attorneys whose clients cannot state a position to advocate for the clients legal interests


Current Georgia practice is inconsistent Today, the majority of states use a “hybrid” model of

representation, blending best interests and attorney representation

National trends are toward more traditional attorney representation. Examples include:

– Last year New York moved from a Hybrid to a pure attorney model

– ABA Board of Delegates just passed a Model Act Governing the Representation of Children in Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Proceedings, recommending a traditional attorney model

Article 4:Termination of Parental Rights

Retention of child’s rights and relationships post-termination of parental rights until adoption

Bars voluntary surrender to a 3rd party after TPR petition is filed

Shortens timeframe for parental failure to participate in services

Reinstatement of parental rights

Article 5:Independent Living Services

Completely new article Encourages normal, age-appropriate

activities for kids in care Tiered levels of services:

– 14-16 pre-independent living services– 16-18 independent living services– 17-21 transitional living services– Aftercare to 23

Article 5:Independent Living Services

Judicial review – Under 18: part of permanency review hearings– Over 18: at least once a year

Though not in Article 5, the bill also includes a requirement that the Department have an administrative appeal process, for when services are denied or otherwise not provided

Article 6:Children in Need of Services

New approach, replaces “unruly” cases Process:

– Complaint– Mandatory multidisciplinary conference– Voluntary plan– Possible extension– Petition if voluntary plan fails– Adjudication and disposition

What Is in the Act: Article 6CHINS (continued)

Incorporation of ASFA Also includes comprehensive services plan

for children unrestorably incompetent to proceed in delinquency cases

Currently, DFCS is listed as the responsible agency

A Closer Look: Agency Responsible for CHINS

DJJ, DFCS, and DBHDD in agreement that the CHINS model is a better approach to unruly children

All three agencies are involved with the CHINS population in different ways, but no agency gets dedicated funding for this group

The model requires collaboration between all child-serving entities

Case management is key to success. Today, DFCS has the most developed case management expertise

Article 7: Delinquency

No waiver without consultation with counsel Guidance on continuances Protects statements made during intake,

screening, treatment or evaluation Incorporation of ASFA Requires detention assessment instrument

Article 7: Delinquency

More flexibility on dispositions in designated felonies

Allows transfer back of 3 sex crimes from superior court

Keeping transferred kids in juvenile facilities until 17

Requirement for prosecuting attorney in all cases

A Closer Look: Prosecutors in Delinquency Cases

Practice currently inconsistent across the state Need to ensure due process and avoid unauthorized

practice of law Professional prosecutors bring deeper

understanding, better use of discretion

Article 8: Competency

Requires competency evaluation of children under 13 accused of serious violent felonies

Separate process if the child is unlikely to ever become competent

Guidance for ongoing reports and review by the court

Article 9: Parental Notification

No substantive changes Renumbering only

Article 10:Access to Records and Hearings

Very few substantive changes No major changes or controversy

Article 11: Emancipation


Article 12:Office of the Child Advocate


A Closer Look: Financial / Resource Impacts

There are up-front costs to any major shift in practice The reforms in the bill will bring substantial long-term

savings– Ensuring parties are properly represented has been shown to lead to

faster and more efficient resolution of cases– Keeping children out of adult facilities reduces recidivism and

improves educational outcomes, saving up to $3 for every $1 spent– Effective early intervention with status offenders improves public

safety by dramatically decreasing recidivism, saving up to $5 for every $1 spent

– Providing quality independent living services to children aging out of foster care reduces homelessness, teen pregnancy, and criminality, and improves educational and employment outcomes, saving up to $3 for every $1 spent

What’s Next?

Continued consideration by House and Senate Judiciary Committee

Important public policy considerations remain to be explored and debated:

On-going input by stakeholders and general public The Act’s sponsors and JUSTGeorgia are committed

to transparency, stakeholder participation and thoughtful juvenile code reform

We Welcome Your Input!

Email us any questions or comments:– [email protected]– [email protected]– [email protected]– [email protected]

For more information or to join the JUSTGeorgia Coalition, visit www.justgeorgia.org

a statewide coalition advocating change to georgia’s juvenile code and the underlying social...

Documents

georgia juvenile code

georgias juvenile code

juvenile courtattorneys

current juvenile codeoriginal

georgia juvenile court

juvenile law professor

child protection

public safety act