The Governor’s FY 11 Budget comes out 1/28/10.
Line item 0330-0300 is the line item that pays for Guardian Ad Litems for kids removed from parent’s custody in either Juvenile Court or Probate and Family Court.
In our state, unlike even Georgia or Michigan [or many others] child welfare cases are all done under a cloak of darkness due to blanket impoundment whether helpful in a specific case or not. Without guardian ad litems including those for education, kids can really go without having their medications monitored, their educations protected, or their best interests watched over. Child’s counsel does not have the authority to sign an IEP, or monitor medication – just to bring matters to court.
I have a case right now where a judge refused to appoint an Educational Surrogate Parent [what would have been a Guardian Ad Litem for Education before Chief Justice for Administration and Management Mulligan – aka “the CJAM” – eliminated these GALs under his G.L.c.211B Sec.9 powers to save money at kids expense] because she said she could not due to the CJAM’s edict…so my client’s IEP cannot be signed. Niether of his parent’s have custody and there is no Guardian ad Litem for his education because such GAL’s no longer exist. VERY frustrating. And not good for this 12 year old, either.
Anyway, “NO MORE CUTS” and reversing bad cuts also means putting language in House One in line item 0330-0300 that funding for Guardian Ad Litems for kids in the custody of DCF spspecifically must be used for Guardian Ad Litems, including and re-authorizing Guardian Ad Litems for Education to be specifically included in this otherwise unallocated CJAM slush fund, to be at least the same amount spent on such GALs in 2011 as was spent in 2007.
For me that is PART of what “no more cuts to human services” means.
These kids cannot advocate for themselves. GALs don’t work for NGOs. All such GALs are independent contractors working at a loss, or break even basis at best. Many are clinicians, educators, and some are attorneys. NO lobbyist speaks for this critical role. NONE.
Deb, you are one of the best, most articulate advocates I know on behalf of these kids. You may not want to call yourself a lobbyist, but indeed you are, even if you are not “paid” by any non-profit. And anyway I’m going to call around to some child welfare coalitions to see if there is some group that already has this on their action agenda.
<
p>Meanwhile think about adding a revenue message to your budget request as Lew Finfer does.
GALS are is one of more than a hundred functions and roles and expenses, even bottled water, that are lumped invisibly into 0330-0300 and, in fact, totally unprotected and unmonitored at present. That is why Chief Justice Mulligan could eliminate the entire category of Guardian ad Litem and force hundreds of cases to be closed across the state on 24 hours notice on 11/14/2008. I think I have a “Champion” to seek to add the role of Guardian Ad Litem for Education into G.L.c.119 – which is a separate issue to funding and tracking, both of which should be done.
<
p>And no, I am not a “lobbyist” because no organization or executive sets my agenda – I am a citizen activist, a throwback to the old days of the Republic. It is not just that I am unpaid and unreimbursed by anyone, ever – but I am solely controlled by and responsible to my own conscience.
<
p>By way of disclosure, I once received some of these appointments – say 2 or 3 a year and they added maybe $1000-$2000 to my yearly income. But I also offered to do them pro bono [which means for free] and was denied. And even when there was some compensation, there was never payment for travel time, reimbursement for travel expenses or copies of files or anything like that.
<
p>I felt I saved more than one life – and really do have a child client with an unsigned IEP because in the current statutory set up, unless either DCF recruits an “educational surrogate parent” or a judge appoints an “Ed Surrogate” no one has the authority to sign for a kid in state custody. Those roles [Ed Surrogate parent/ed surrogate] have maybe 1/2 of the breadth and depth that the old Guardian Ad Litem for Education role had.
If you do, please let me know and I would gladly work with he/she/it/them.
This is what happens when we elect people outside of government, who have no true sense of the outcome of their policies. It all looks good on paper, as an academic exercise, but at the end of the day, when these bureaucrats put their pencils in their desks and go home, it’s the rest of us who have to sweep up after them. Amber, this is a disgrace. This poor kid is left in limbo because the adults didn’t think through their lameass policies.
<
p>I will never vote for a non-government candidate again. They have no understanding of the lives they touch and the damage they can do.
The only oversight for CJAM Mulligan is the SJC – and they reappointed CJAM Mulligan for another five years in 2009 AFTER he had eliminated the entire role and category of Guardian Ad Litem for Education and used his power over the judiciary to severely restrict the appointment of ANY Guardian Ad Litems or any payment for Guardian Ad Litems for any kid in state custody.
<
p>Not an elected role. The only way to control whether or not kids get Guardian Ad Litems is to:
<
p>1. Amend G.L.c.119 to specify when a Guardian Ad Litem must or should be appointed AND specificy that one of the categories of Guardian Ad Litem IS Guardian Ad Litem for Education [since parents CAN lose custody of their children for educational neglect].
<
p>2. Specify within line item 0330-0300 OR by a breakout line item that a set sum must/can only be spent for Guardian Ad Litem appointments and services.
<
p>Neither #1 nor #2 currently are in place, so guardian ad litem appointments are at the whim, caprice, and discretion of CJAM Mulligan and he does not value that work or he could not have shut down the entire class of Guardian Ad Litem cases, statewide, without review, on 11/14/2008 without prior notice or clinically appropriate review and buffering.
Any chance to sue for these services? Equal access under the law, etc?
<
p>And as for CJAM Mulligan, it’s the Governor’s Council who appoints the judges on the SJC, no? Maybe that’s the way to get to these guys.
<
p>No more lifetime appointments. We need a way to pry out the bad ones.
…with the advice and consent of Council. Is the CJAM a judge or not. If yes, then service should be during good behavior. If not (that is more of an administrator) it should be at the pleasure of the Governor.
Chief Justice Mulligan is indeed a judge.
In light of the cuts to the judiciary budget, I don’t envy Chief Justice Mulligan. The trial court is seriously underfunded, in my view. It’s easy to criticize this particular cut, but it would be more useful for folks advocating for restoration of this program to show which other funds within the trial court budget could stand further reductions.
<
p>TedF
It’s a nice academic exercise, but here’s an allegedly progressive governor allowing on his watch, these kinds of cuts. This hurts children, who through no fault of their own, need the voice of a GAL.
<
p>I didn’t sign up for this.
In general, I agree with you, AmberPaw. One issue, though, is that your wish to have the legislature earmark judiciary funds for a particular program is at odds with a really good reform in the FY10 budget, which was to eliminate the courthouse-by-courthouse line items that were preventing the Trial Court from allocating its resources efficiently and were a source of patronage. You can see this here: note the elimination of courthouse line items in all trial court departments.
<
p>I’m not saying the CJAM shouldn’t fund guardians ad litem. I’m just saying that it might be better to address this concern with the CJAM, perhaps through the bar associations, rather than encourage a return to aggressive management of the judiciary budget by the legislature.
<
p>TedF
First, while having a separate line item for each court is unique to Massachusetts, THIS CJAM uses transferability for reasons other than good management – more like a leash or manacles.
<
p>THIS cut [elimination of the entire class and role of Guardian Ad Litems for Education] was done with NO notice, NO comment and 24 hours notice statewide.
<
p>I have worked and fought for funding for the Judicial Branch as an equal branch of government for years. CJAM Mulligan knows that, and knows me as well – but I assure you, he has never consulted with me or anyone I know who holds office in a bar association either. His management stule is strictly top down, and rather like a general on the field.
<
p>Unfortunately, in this state the entire judicial branch is treated – and funded – more like an agency then a co-equal branch of government with predictable results.
<
p>That all being said, to shut down such clinically sensitive cases statewide on 24 hours notice and deny pro bono completion was, for me, the last straw and sufficient to make this issue my #1 concern.
<
p>No, these are not easy financial times but I suggest that a CJAM interested in allies, who treats the bar as colleaques and builds coaltions father than practicing governance by fiat might well have found himself, and his branch, better funded.
I suggest that after a year’s experiment with transferability, the concern became that resources were allocated not to meet public need, but as often to reward or to punish by the CJAM we currently have.
<
p>Therefore, though the Governor’s second and third budget eliminated separate line items as a “reform” the legislature put the separate line items back as a way to have some control and protection for individual courts where the central court administration governs by fiat without recourse.