Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLegislators’ peeve holds up money for child welfare
Dislike of DA’s use of resources prompted conditions on funding
Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2009 | 2 a.m.
David Roger
Sun Archives
- Gains in child protection threatened (5-7-2009)
- Bill that called for more lawyers for children might be dead (4-29-2009)
- Deadlines and dead ends (4-26-2009)
- Panel deadlocks on cuts that would trim child abuse investigations (4-24-2009)
- County Commission chairman rejecting child welfare cuts (11-19-2008)
- Struggling to protect our young (5-16-2003)
- County prepares to take foster care reins (7-6-2001)
Sun Coverage
A standoff between legislators and the Clark County district attorney is threatening state funding for the county’s child welfare system.
Since July 1 the state has withheld its money for social workers and other staff, according to county and state officials. Though the state Health and Human Services Department said it intends to release most of the $87 million allocated to pay for the county’s foster system over the next two years, some officials aren’t certain the state can legally release the money because of a provision inserted in an appropriation bill passed in the legislative session.
The language inserted in the bill made the funding of Clark County Child Welfare dependent on District Attorney David Roger’s changing his position on how child welfare disputes are settled.
Tension has been building for years between the district attorney and legislative Democrats — including Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, who is head of Legal Aid of Southern Nevada — over the handling of disputes in which it’s determined whether a child should be removed from foster care and placed with a family member.
In cases in which the district attorney’s office disagrees with a county Department of Family Services recommendation that a house is safe, Roger will sometimes send more than one attorney — one to represent the department and one to represent what Roger says are the child’s interests.
Roger said this practice, which has gone on for years, provides a vital check on the system.
“The Department of Family Services, as hard as they work, sometimes lets cases slip through the cracks,” Roger said. “We’re going to go to court to protect that child.”
However, some legislators, as well as the state Health and Human Services Department, say district attorneys should represent only the county Department of Family Services.
To put their belief into law, the legislative appropriations bill stated: “The appropriation of all of the sums ... are dependent upon all funds, whether state or local, being used in a manner such that the child welfare agencies are the sole client of the district attorneys in each case.”
Despite the provision, the Health and Human Services Department has released $3.5 million for foster parents and adoption subsidies, according to spokesman Ben Kieckhefer. It has withheld money so far for caseworkers, though Kieckhefer said the state would release all the rest of the money, except $1.5 million to pay for district attorneys.
“It is Director Mike Willden’s intention at this point to send Clark County money for caseworkers and withhold only money for the costs of the attorneys under the prosecutorial model,” Kieckhefer said, referring to the hearings in which two district attorneys are present.
Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, agreed that only a piece of the foster care money should be withheld from the county. But she acknowledged that the provision in the law could be interpreted as cutting off all state funding for the foster care system.
“Who would want that?” she wondered. “Who would want money taken away from foster parents and social services.”
Kieckhefer said Willden thinks the legislative intent was to withhold money from the Clark County district attorney if it’s used to send additional attorneys to court.
“If the state does not send most of the funding to Clark County there’s a significant risk the child welfare system will collapse,” he said. “Foster care parents will not take in kids; it will take longer to go in and protect children when they are in danger. That’s something Mike Willden is not willing to let happen.”
Roger said the bill does not differentiate between district attorney money and other county funding. He said the provision is unconstitutional because it’s a substantive change in the law, which the attorney general’s office has determined cannot be carried out through an appropriations act. It also violates an interlocal agreement between the state and county on how to fund the child welfare system, Roger said.
Roger said his office has not been notified in writing yet about what the state plans to do. But, he said, if a portion of the money is withheld “ultimately, I think there will be a lawsuit to review this matter. I’m hopeful it doesn’t get to that point.”
Smith said the appropriation act is not a substantial change to the law but merely clarifies what state law means when it says a district attorney can represent “the public interest.”
An opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau said the child welfare agencies are best able to “carry out the best interests of the public” because they have education, experience and expertise. Therefore, the district attorneys should represent only welfare agencies, it said.
Smith pointed out that district attorneys in other counties represent only the county agency.
In Washoe County, she said, “if there’s a disagreement, people work together more to figure out the issues. If there is a problem, people can work out what’s best for the kids and then go to the courtroom.”
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Photos: Olivia Culpo, 20, of Rhode Island is crowned 2012 Miss USA at Planet Hollywood
- US Navy hopes stealth ship answers a rising China
- Photos: Derek Hough celebrates 27th birthday at Tabu Ultra Lounge
- Learning about Electric Daisy Carnival fans will help Las Vegas court them
- On the horizon: A quick look at projects poised to shape downtown
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
"A standoff between legislators and the Clark County district attorney is threatening state funding for the county's child welfare system."
It's all really about the money, isn't it?
This legislature is doing the right thing!
"...Roger will sometimes send more than one attorney -- one to represent the department and one to represent what Roger says are the child's interests ..... "We're going to go to court to protect that child."
HUGE conflict of interest. Since children are rarely in court, nor is it even likely these attorneys have any meaningful conversation with the children about what they want, and because the "state's interests" is really just whatever the DA decides it is, it is just the DA's wishes masquerading as "the child's interests."
Go to a hearing sometime where a child is being removed from the parents. Truth, justice and the child's best interests are the last considerations of why they're there. Another family is ripped apart with lifelong trauma for all. For these people it's just a paycheck and another day at the office. All done in our name with our funding.
"Foster care parents will not take in kids; it will take longer to go in and protect children when they are in danger."
Since "danger" is the threshold inquiry here, have a look at what the Clark County Family Gestapo has been doing. Last fall there was a case where the children were removed because the father was arrested and the mother did not have any apparent way to support them. Family tragedies resulting from accidents are treated like crimes -- all to keep this DA and Gestapo in business.
It's all about the money, people. Your kids are just the excuse. Send them home or place them with relatives where they belong!
Great post KillerB.
What's particularly silly about Mr. Rogers' position is that there is a well-established infrastructure to represent the interests of the child in these types of hearings. Legal Aid of Southern Nevada has a number of dedicated and experienced staff attorneys in their CAP program whose entire professional focus is to represent the interests of the child. Moreover, as a matter of legal ethics, when an attorney practices as part of a group (e.g. a DA's office) one attorney's conflicts are imputed to all other lawyers in the firm. If the DA is representing DCFS (Dept of Child and Family Services) they clearly can't represent a different party with different interests absent a knowing and intelligent waiver from the client. I'm not sure how one gets one of those from a child without--you guessed it--providing the child with a lawyer. Finally, this entire imbroglio could have been prevented if hearing masters and judges would simply perform their gatekeeper function and refuse to permit the "extra" DA to "appear" on behalf of the child.
Why can't a single attorney represent "the department" and the interests of the child simultaneously? Another instance of "lwayers gone wild" with our tax dollars? Seems to me that the primary concern of "the department" should be the interests of the child and that any reasonably competent lawyer could handle both.
Look at the time and money wasted on OJ. Wants to make a name for himself. Maybe he wants these children placed for adoption with a morman run adoption agency, so they can be placed with a nice mormon family?
NLV--It's not a matter of "lawyers gone wild"--it's an ethical obligation imposed on us as lawyers by the Supreme Court to protect the client. Simply put, it is difficult for any woman (or man) to serve two masters, so the default rule is "one lawyer, one client." Moreover, I'm not aware of Nevada Legal Aid getting any tax funding--they are primarily funded through IOLTA receipts (Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts) and financial support from the community, including--but not limited to--from lawyers and their firms. Finally, the reason the child and DCFS need separate lawyers is that it is not uncommon for there to be a difference of opinion between DCFS and the child as to placement. If the child is to be given a voice, they need a lawyer. Period. Full stop. :)
LVLawyerGal - Given what've you've said is accurate, and in light of <An opinion from the Legislative Counsel Bureau said the child welfare agencies are best able to "carry out the best interests of the public" because they have education, experience and expertise.>, it appears that the second lawyer may be the only one looking out for the child, even over the "best interests of the public", in which case it sounds like a prudent action. (Though I think FS should make the bests interests of the child, not the public, its priority.) The DA, Family Services, Legal Aid, courts, and the legislature are all far from infalliable, so having an extra person specifically looking out for the child seems reasonable.
Good to know though that they get along so well in Washoe County -- guess they've never had an instance where Family Services made a mistake and a child was hurt?
NLV- -13 -- LawyerGal is right on with her post. Go back to my original post -- the state's interest too often becomes the child's interest by default.
I've been in court when a little girl, maybe 8, was crying and demanding to go home with her father. She had her own attorney who just shrugged then followed what they all decided to do behind closed doors. Which was what the State wanted, since it paid for all of them to be there. Even the judge didn't save her. Try walking away from that with dry eyes.