NOTE: I am writing the summary of this meeting from my notes. If there are any problems or inaccuracies, please contact me at my email address and I will correct them. My email is:
The task force began by interviewing Attorney O' Shea regarding the rules for a public hearing. Members of the public can sign up and have a first come first served opportunity to be heard, or else you can have a lottery system.
With the lottery, people sign up an hour and a half before the hearing, speak in the order the names come up. If people arrive after the lottery, then they can be heard on a first come first served basis.
[From what I understand, the task force decided not to use the lottery system, but simply to have people sign up and be heard on a first come, first served basis.]
With the lottery, people sign up an hour and a half before the hearing, speak in the order the names come up. If people arrive after the lottery, then they can be heard on a first come first served basis.
[From what I understand, the task force decided not to use the lottery system, but simply to have people sign up and be heard on a first come, first served basis.]
Attorney Sharon Dornfeld expressed her concern that members of the public will speak outside of the realm of the three charges of the task force. She said she would want to ask that people speak only in respect to the three charges. She asked further if there would be a time limit on responses. The answer is there should be no time limit on questions. What if the response is a narrative? Attorney O'Shea said then it becomes a discretionary issue.
Rep. Minnie Gonzalez stated that she has been in the legislature for 17 years and has never stopped people from speaking about anything. Also, it is acceptable that task members ask any questions that they have. There is no time limit for questions and answers and it would be inappropriate to try to stop a speaker from saying what's on his or her mind.
Attorney O' Shea stated that you can put up a Notice for a Public Hearing on a specific bill and theoretically ask the public to limit their input to the three charges only, but he did not say you can force people to speak only about specific issues.
Ms. Jennifer Verraneault recommended the first come, first service basis for running the order of testimony given the way people will be coming in. She also stated she would recommend that folks stick to the three charges of the task first. Vargas also agreed that the first come first served basis would be the best approach.
The second speaker was Attorney Christine Rapillo, the Director of Juvenile Defense at the Office of the Public Defender.
Attorney Christine Rapillo presented forms and contracts for GALs and AMCs who work with the Office of the Public Defender (OPD). She stated that P.A. 1151 transferred the responsibility for GAL and AMC appointments to the Office of the Public Defender.
There are eligibility requirements for attorneys who wish to work as GALs or AMCs. They must complete the 30 hour GAL training program before they are allowed to have a contract. There were 1450 GAL appointments in the year 2013. The OPD has an application process and applicants must provide a resume. Those resumes are reviewed by a standing committee and then passed on to the Chief Public Defender who makes the final decision on hiring. There is one standard contract for the various types of cases.
GALs and AMCs receive a flat rate of $500 per child plus $50 per hour for court hearings and visits. An Attorney can request additional funds for complicated cases and can then bill for listed items. There is no cap for the hourly amount, but if it starts to be pretty expensive, the attorneys have to tell us why. Sometimes a case can go on for a really long time and then you need the ability to charge more. The Director of Assigned Council approves of such charges.
The OPD does not supervise private pay GALs. The CT Judicial Branch has a master list of all the folks who passed the GAL training. The judges are responsible for picking the GAL or AMC in family court cases.
Whenever there is a complaint regarding a state paid GAL or AMC, that complaint is logged into the computer. The attorney then receives a copy of the complaint.
Only a judge can remove a GAL from a case and they rarely if ever do so.
Only a judge can remove a GAL from a case and they rarely if ever do so.
In addition to the 30 hour GAL training, annually there are six additional hours of mandatory training in contracted areas. Also, the state has a contract with the Children's Law Center to provide an additional three hours of training. GALs in juvenile court do not need the 30 hour training.
Rep. Minnie Gonzalez was interested in knowing how the court determines whether a person is indigent so they are eligible for a State GAL or AMC. Would a person who is receiving food stamps be considered eligible?
Attorney Rapillo stated that most who receive food stamps are considered eligible for their services. However, the Court is solely responsible for making a determination regarding a litigant's ability to pay.
Ms. Jennifer Verraneault asked where does the flat fee of $500 for the GAL come from? The response from Attorney Rapillo is that it comes from State Appropriations. Ms. Verraneault said there are 1450 state GAL cases and 1357 private pay cases. Out of the state cases, how many of those are abuse and neglect. Attorney Rapillo stated that none are abuse and neglect. Ms. Verraneault further asked why there is such a large discrepancy between private pay cases and the OPD pay where private pay cases are forced to pay considerably more? Why are there no checks and balances with private pay cases in contrast to state cases where there are considerable checks and balances?
Attorney Rapillo responded that this is only the second year that the OPD has been in charge of GALs and AMCs and so she cannot comment on that question.
Ms. Jennifer Verraneault also asked about the GAL/AMC contract regarding why the contract is so very detailed. Attorney Rapillo responded that it was made to simplify the auditing process. They wanted all of their contract staff associated with the OPD to be similar. Auditors want people under contract. Contracts add 1. accountability; 2. checks and balances, and 3. consequences.
Ms. Verraneault asked Attorney Rapillo whether there should be similar contracts for private pay GALs and AMCs. Attorney Rapillo responded that State Agencies require a contract as a public entity. They have over 400 lawyers to manage. However, if the OPD extended their responsibilities to the 1300 GALs on the GAL list there would be a lot of administrative complexity involved in that. There are almost as many on private pay as on public pay, but there is no accountability for private pay.
Attorney Sue Cousineau stated that there is accountability. The Court oversees GALs and parties can file motions to remove these GALs. There are grievance procedures for mental health professionals and also grievance procedures for attorneys.
Ms. Jennifer Verraneault responded by saying in reality there is no way to have a GAL or AMC removed from a case through a judge. Statewide Grievance is known for ignoring complaints about attorneys, particularly when they come from self represented parties. Further she stated the Department of Public Health relies on volunteers to evaluate complaints and if there are no volunteers the job doesn't get done.
(Continued in Part II)
(Continued in Part II)
No comments:
Post a Comment