New Hampshire will be saving money by ending court-appointed lawyers for parents charged with abuse and neglect.
What do decades of tax cuts and an economic crash mean in real terms? Well, this, for starters:
In most places in the U.S., if a parent is charged with abuse or neglect of a child and can’t afford a lawyer, he’s appointed one. That lawyer’s job is to defend the parent and reunite the family if possible.
But faced with a budget shortfall, New Hampshire has taken the unusual step of eliminating that funding.
The court and state officials charged with enforcing the new policy now worry that the lack of representation is hurting parents and their children — and children’s advocates are concerned that other states may eventually follow New Hampshire’s lead.
Let’s be honest here: most folks charged with child neglect are so charged because they haven’t got enough money, and these days, a lot more people are hard up. So they can’t hire their own lawyers, meaning they’re facing family court with nobody who can explain their legal rights or options, help determine what a just outcome is, nothing. People are going to lose their children who otherwise wouldn’t. And next we’ll hear that the foster-care system is short on funds too, because nobody could have anticipated the large influx of hurt, frightened kids being dumped into foster care.
But hey, they got Big Government off their backs, right?
This pisses you off?
Those of us who have been dealing with Child Welfare ALL OUT LIVES are saying – finally you’re hearing us. Finally you will understand our stories. It’s just a shame that millions of children had to suffer before the community got outraged.
And no, it is not constitutional. Family and juvenile courts make a mockery of the constitution.
This infuriates me!
A friend of mine took her kid to hospital because there was a bruise on his back, she’s now in year 2 of being followed by three social workers in case he’s being abused. And yet the government doesn’t have enough money to give her proper rent allowance, thus prolonging her risk of homelessness.
How the hell is this sh!t constitutional?!
Seriously, that’s like the only response I’ve got for this at the moment. Outrage and WTF?!
HeatherN, This decision by NH is consistent with a UNANIMOUS, 2011 decision of the US Supreme Court allowing indigent parents behind on their child support payments (due to unemployment, illness, whatever) to be packed off to jail without benefit of counsel. A written notice of their right to meet their burden of proof that they are, in fact, penniless, is sufficient according to SCOTUS. Several of the justices didn’t think even a xeroxed handout was needed to satisfy Due Process. The leading law review article on the subject, which predates the SCOTUS decision, is “The Silent Return of Debtors’ Prison”… Read more »