LOOKING IN ON: CARSON CITY:

Roger ends practice that irked pols … in a way

In certain child welfare cases, DA won’t argue against, or for, county

By David McGrath Schwartz (contact), Cy Ryan (contact)

Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2009 | 2 a.m.

David Roger

Carson City — The county Department of Family Services will go to child welfare court hearings without a lawyer to push its recommendations on children’s futures when Clark County District Attorney David Roger disagrees with the department’s conclusions, according to a letter from the district attorney to state officials.

“If the caseworker disagrees with our decision, the caseworker is free to step up and voice their objection,” Roger said in an interview Tuesday.

The change in policy on how to handle child welfare cases — who should become an abused child’s guardian, for example, or whether a home is safe for a child — is the latest salvo in an ongoing battle between Roger and Democratic legislators over the county’s troubled child welfare system.

The state Health and Human Services Department has said it will withhold $1.5 million from Clark County because Roger sometimes sends two attorneys to hearings — one to argue the Clark County Department of Family Services’ position and another to argue what prosecutors believe is in the best interest of the child.

Roger argues that this system provides a check and balance on the county’s child welfare agency. Democratic lawmakers, as well as the county and other state officials, argue that the caseworkers have the expertise to know what is best for the children. They also say that having two attorneys from the same office can be confusing for a judge. (Lawmakers inserted language in an appropriations bill attempting to enforce their view.)

In Roger’s letter, dated Friday, the district attorney wrote that his office will send only one representative “to eliminate any confusion that may have arisen out of two deputies from this office appearing in child welfare court and exposing different arguments.”

He said the deputy district attorney will represent the public’s interest in keeping children safe. It’s the same model that had been used for years, until the county agency complained that it had no legal representation in court.

The Department of Family Services would not respond to Roger’s move Tuesday. In a statement, a county spokesman said the department hopes the issue is resolved quickly.

•••

The 2009 Legislature changed state law governing ballot measures, ending the requirement for a minimum number of signatures from each of the 17 counties and replacing it with a minimum from each congressional district.

The number of signatures must equal 10 percent of those who cast ballots in the past election. In addition, 18 more signatures must be gathered from any district to make up for the new voters who cast ballots in the past election but who were not assigned a precinct.

For the 2010 election cycle it will require 97,002 signatures on an initiative petition to get a proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution before voters. In 2008, the requirement was 58,628 signatures.

Breaking it down by congressional districts the numbers are: 24,943 signatures in the 1st Congressional District; 34,479 signatures in the 2nd Congressional District 2; and 37,560 signatures in the 3rd Congressional District.

Secretary of State Ross Miller said copies of initiative petitions can be filed with his office starting this week and signature-gathering must be completed by Aug. 4 of next year.

Miller said he will start accepting initiative petitions on Jan. 1 from people seeking to repeal, change or enact a new law.

Discussion: 12 comments so far…

By Birdiedreamin

9/2/09 at 3:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

david roger is a complete and total failure...
pathetic really...
hey davie boy...
what the hell is going on with the hepatitis criminals???
hmmm???
are they still enjoying their liberty???
are they laughing out loud at you???
david roger is pathetic...
david roger is absolutely pathetic!!!
By afveteran

9/2/09 at 5:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

David Roger enforces the law as written. Good 'nuff for all.
By geezelouise

9/2/09 at 6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

David Roger will hopefully be replaced by a DA that believes in justice for all. Not just for those who have money and political clout.

He is a failure.

I'd vote for Mickey Mouse before I ever vote for him.
By Birdiedreamin

9/2/09 at 6:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

leave it to a retarded republican to argue that "checks and balances" means sending two lawyers from the same office to argue different sides of an issue...
have these retarded republicans lost their minds...
david roger is a failure...
david roger is a complete and total failure...
oh by the way...
hey davie boy...
what the hell is going on with the hepatitis criminals???
hmmm???
are they still playing golf???
hmmm???
are they still going to parties???
hmmm???
tell you what skippy...
why don't you hold a press conference and give us your latest laundry list of excuses...
you sir...
are an incompetent joke!!!
By KillerB

9/2/09 at 7:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

"...the caseworkers have the expertise to know what is best for the children."

Besides psychobabble, more like their expertise is to keep the federal money flowing, and the most money flows when the most kids are in state custody. For the most part kids belong with their families.

"...the deputy district attorney will represent the public's interest in keeping children safe. It's the same model that had been used for years, until the county agency complained that it had no legal representation in court."

"Safe" is a loaded word -- an article here last fall proved according to this county's Family Gestapo no visible means of support was enough reason to remove kids from their mother.

And technically without an attorney the "agency" can't even participate as a party in court, since corporations cannot represent themselves.

What a mess! Anyone else get the feeling they really don't know what they're doing?
By LasVegasLawyerGal

9/2/09 at 7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Amazing--it only took the intervention of the Legislature, the Attorney General's Office and the Sun to persaude Mr. Roger of the wisdom of legal ethics that most law students learn as 2Ls in professional responsibility, i.e. that "one lawyer cannot represent two clients with adverse interests in the same proceeding". *sigh* See NV Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(a) for more info. Of course, in an ideal universe, the State Bar would investigate Mr. Roger for apparent multiple violations of RPC 1.7(a)--but then again, this is Las Vegas, so I probably have better odds of winning a Miss Universe title than the Bar actually doing its job.
By Birdiedreamin

9/2/09 at 9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

hey thumper...
i think you mean you're next...
right???
next for what skippy???
By caudex

9/2/09 at 2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

I'm confused. So David Rogers as the District Attorney cannot represent both the Agency and the child. However, Catherine Cortez-Masto can represent the Lt. Governor's Office and prosecute the Lt. Governor's Office. Not making a political statement. Just want some consistency in the rules. As LasVegasLawyerGal points out you can't do both.
By KillerB

9/2/09 at 2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

caudex -- what's to be confused about? This DA has long considered himself to be above the law, and just found out he's not. The AG still operates under that illusion. Being the state prosecutor, who's going to prosecute her? Another government official acting like the law applies to everyone else. Just remember that next election. Or grow a pair and start a recall.

And LVLawyerGal is still right.
By LasVegasLawyerGal

9/3/09 at 3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

I'm with you, caudex :) But then again, Dominic Gentile was my evidence professor in law school, so it's hard for me to be objective regarding the original decision by Judge Cadish (later overturned by Judge Adair) to appoint him as a special prosecutor in the Lt. Gov's case,. Mr. Gentile is one of the most talented and experienced members of our legal community--and definitely someone I would *not* want to be on the other side of a courtroom from. From my perspective, whenever there's even the appearance of a conflict, it's safer to appoint independent counsel so no one can question the result later on.