Florida DCF Report

8/17/2019 Florida DCF Report

1/133

Report

Dependency Roles Workgroup

April 2016


2/133

Table

of

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Workgroup Members.................................................................................................................................... 3

Workgroup Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 5

Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Background ................................................................................................................................................. 10

Statutory Framework .............................................................................................................................. 10

Stages of

the

Dependency

Process

.........................................................................................................

11

Investigation: ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Adjudication: ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Disposition: ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Appeal: ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Children’s Legal Services ............................................................................................................................. 13

History: .................................................................................................................................................... 13

Two Models of Representation in Child Dependency Cases: ................................................................. 15

The Role and Responsibilities of the Agency Lawyer: ............................................................................. 16

Areas of Confusion Identified: ................................................................................................................ 17

New Practice Model .................................................................................................................................... 18

Turnover and

Retention

of

Child

Welfare

Professionals

............................................................................

19

Other Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 20

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 20


3/133

Introduction

In November 2015, Secretary Mike Carroll of the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF or

the Department)

established

a workgroup

designed

to

identify

the

operational

role

of

three

primary

professional groups in the dependency process: Children’s Legal Services, Case Management and Child

Protective Investigations. This charge originated as a focus on Children’s Legal Services only in the

Southern Region due to feedback from local stakeholders about the lack of a common understanding of

the roles and responsibilities of the three professional groups. Shortly thereafter, it became more

apparent that there could be a broader issue of role confusion among all three professional groups and

more wide spread than just the Southern Region. In response, Secretary Carroll asked for a statewide

assessment of the roles and how they are operationalized in each region and judicial circuit across the

State. The

focus

of

the

workgroup

concentrated

on

the

roles

and

responsibilities

as

prescribed

in

the

applicable statutes in comparison with how these three professional groups were actually performing in

the very complex child welfare system established in Florida. Secretary Carroll’s charge set forth the

need and desire to clarify the roles of all three professional groups in order to improve the critical

decision‐making opportunities for each group and to provide better outcomes for Florida’s children.

In an effort to meet the Secretary’s charge, the workgroup examined the Department’s initiatives that

affect the work of the child welfare professionals, the statutory framework and rules that govern how

the work

is

to

be

performed,

and

the

business

and

legal

relationships

with

stakeholders.

Additionally,

the workgroup looked at existing materials such as Critical Incident Rapid Response Team (CIRRT)

reports1, Legislative Office of Program Policy and Planning (OPPAGA) reports, internal data, and reports

relating to the workforce.

The Department has undertaken two large initiatives almost simultaneously: first, a restructuring of the

legal unit in 2008 in an effort to professionalize the workforce and bring more credibility to the

Department when appearing before the judiciary.

Secondly, in

2011

while

the

legal

restructure

was

still

ongoing,

the

Department

operationalized

a new

practice model for child protective investigations and case management. The changes embodied in this

new practice model are far‐reaching and ambitious. While this practice model, unique to Florida,

incorporates the best information available about child welfare practice from around the country, as a


4/133

Assistant Secretary for Operations, DCF. More than 36 years of experience in the health and

human services field. Has administered child welfare, adult protection, substance abuse and

mental health

services

and

economic

self

‐sufficiency

programs

throughout

Florida.

Sandy Bohrer

Partner, Holland & Knight. Board member and former board chair, Our Kids of Miami

Dade/Monroe. Special counsel to DCF Secretary George Sheldon. Adjunct Professor, University

of Miami, “Children and the Law.” Advisor, American Law Institute project, “Children and the

Law.”

Karen

Hill

Children’s Legal Services. Division Director/Assistant State Attorney, 6th Judicial Circuit. Child

Welfare Legal Services/Children’s Legal Services since 1992; Assistant State Attorney since May

2000, Division Director since May 2012.

Rebecca Kapusta

General Counsel, DCF. Ten years of service with DCF; has served in several roles beginning with

CWLS in 2001. Has served as Assistant General Counsel, Assistant Regional Counsel, and most

recently as

Region

Legal

Counsel

in

the

DCF

SunCoast

Region.

Billy Kent

Northeast Region Family and Community Services Director. Nineteen years of public service;

with DCF since 2006. Has been a Child Protective Investigator, a Child Protective Investigator

Supervisor, a Child Protective Investigator Specialist, a Region Planner, and Director of Strategic

Planning (Kids Central Inc.), and a Family Safety Operations Manager for the DCF Central Region.

Traci Leavine

Director of Child Welfare Practice, DCF. Has worked since 1999 in various capacities within DCF

and community based care organizations, including child protective investigations, case


5/133

Retired as Assistant Commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in February

2005, following a 32‐year career with university, municipal, and state law enforcement agencies

in Florida.

Since

his

retirement

from

active

law

enforcement,

he

has

provided

training

and

management consulting services to a number of law enforcement and social services agencies,

not‐for‐profit organizations, and professional associations. From January 2007 through January

2011, he served as an advisor to Secretaries Bob Butterworth and George Sheldon of Florida’s

Department of Children and Families. Dr. Sewell received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Criminology

from Florida State University.2

Charles Scherer

Regional Operational

Manager

for

Child

Protective

Investigations

for

DCF

Southern

Region.

Sixteen years of public service and eleven and a half years with the Florida Department of

Children and Families. Served as a Child Protective Investigator, Child Protective Investigator

Supervisor, Acting Program Administrator for Child Protective Investigations, Government

Analyst II in the Office of the DCF Assistant Secretary for Operations, Operations Manager in the

Office of the DCF Assistant Secretary for Operations/Deputy Secretary, and Deputy Director of

the Florida Abuse Hotline.

David

Silverstein

Attorney Supervisor and Training Director, Office of the Attorney General, Children’s Legal

Services, Hillsborough County. Admitted to Florida Bar 1991. Former, DCF CWLS Senior Attorney

and Managing Attorney. Former Chair of the Juvenile Rules Committee of the Florida Bar. Has

authored several rule revisions and forms to improve the dependency process. Has authored

“Preliminary Dependency Proceedings,“ Florida Juvenile Law and Practice, since 2005.

Bronwyn Stanford

Regional Managing

Director,

Southern

Region,

DCF.

Formerly

CLS

Statewide

Deputy

Director

and

Chief Legal Counsel.

Staff: Cristina Batista


6/133

The first workgroup meeting of the Dependency Roles Review Workgroup was held January 6, 2016 at

the DCF

Southern

Region

office3.

After the workgroup meeting, regional meetings were conducted with leadership in the six regions.

These meetings occurred as follows: Southern and Southeast Regions on January 7, 2016; Central and

SunCoast Regions on January 13, 2016; Northwest Region on January 19, 2016; and Northeast Region on

January 21, 2016. These meetings were led by Vicki Abrams, Rebecca Kapusta4, Grainne O’Sullivan, and

Peggy Sanford. Focus group facilitators for each region attended when available. The meetings were

held either at local DCF locations or community based care lead agency locations. The purpose of these

meetings was

to

explain

the

review

to

regional

leadership

and

to

finalize

plans

for

the

focus

groups

in

each region.

Facilitators began focus groups after the regional meetings were completed.

Southern Region focus groups were conducted January 19 and 20, 2016.

Southeast Region focus groups were conducted January 20 and 21, 2016.

Northwest Region focus groups were conducted January 20 and 21, 2016.

Northeast Region focus groups were conducted January 25 and 26, 2016.

SunCoast Region

focus

groups

were

conducted

February

1 and

2,

2016.

Central Region focus groups were conducted February 2 and 3, 2016.

Focus groups covering seven focus group sessions were held over two consecutive days.5 These sessions

separated groups by roles: Child Protective Investigators, including representatives for sheriff’s offices

where those offices have responsibility for child protective investigations, (CPI), CPI Supervisors, Case

Managers (CM), Case Manager Supervisors, Children’s Legal Services (CLS) attorneys, and CLS

Supervisors. The composition of the seventh group was left open for assignment by regional leadership.

Two focus

group

facilitators

were

chosen

from

the

Dependency

Roles

Review

workgroup.

These

facilitators did not, however, hold focus groups in their current region of employment. In addition, each

focus group team was provided with a recorder to transcribe as closely as possible the comments made

during the focus groups


7/133

1.1. The mission of the Department of Children and Families is set forth at s. 20.19(1)(a), Florida

Statutes:

The mission of the Department of Children and Families is to work in partnership with local

communities to protect the vulnerable, promote strong and economically self ‐sufficient

families, and advance personal and family recovery and resiliency.

1.2. The roles assigned to carry out this mission in the Child Welfare arena are the Child Welfare

Professionals: Child Protective Investigators, Case Managers, and Children’s Legal Services

Attorneys. Throughout this report, these three actors are referred to as “Child Welfare

Professionals.” 1.3. All the authority and responsibility for actions in the dependency system by all the Child

Welfare Professionals flow from the legislative grant of authority to DCF. None of the Child

Welfare Professionals have independent authority to act contrary to the mission and position

of the Department.

1.4. The Legislature has directed that the CPI function be performed by grants to local sheriffs in

four counties (Broward, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas), and authorized DCF to enter into similar

grant agreements with sheriffs of other counties to provide child protective services. DCF

entered into

grant

agreements

with

Seminole

and

Hillsborough

County

sheriffs

under

this

provision. The Legislature has further directed that all case management functions be

performed through contract with community based care (CBC) lead agencies, which are private

non‐profit agencies. CBCs have for the most part subcontracted the case management function

to case management agencies, which are also private non‐profit agencies. In the 6th Judicial

Circuit (Pinellas and Pasco Counties), CLS services are performed under contract with the Office

of the State Attorney, and in the 13th Judicial Circuit (Hillsborough County) and the 17th Judicial

Circuit (Broward County), CLS services are performed under contract with the Office of the

Attorney General.

1.5.

As a result of the outsourcing directed or authorized by the Legislature, none of the Child

Welfare Professionals in Pinellas, Pasco, Hillsborough, or Broward counties are DCF employees.

Child welfare services in the remaining counties are performed by a combination of DCF


8/133

1.7. The Child Welfare Professional roles are interdependent. Each serves the statutory mission of

the Department to protect vulnerable children, promote strong and economically self ‐sufficient

families, and

advance

personal

and

family

recovery

and

resiliency.

None

is

more

important

than

the others, and appropriate decision making in the dependency process requires the expertise

of all.

1.8. The legislatively mandated outsourcing of CM and, in some areas, CPI and CLS functions has

increased the complexity of the system but has not changed the basic responsibilities of each

role.

2.

The child welfare system in Florida, recognized as one of the most complex in the nation, has been

subject to three major stressors that have intensified role confusion. These three stressors are: the

restructuring of

the

Children’s

Legal

Services

component;

the

implementation

of

the

New

Practice

Model; and very high turnover rates for Child Welfare Professionals, particularly among CPIs. The

turnover issue is being addressed extensively in other reports and will not be examined in this

report.

3. Children’s Legal Services (CLS)

3.1. The Legislature has required that DCF be represented by counsel in dependency proceedings.

CLS, the group selected by the Department to perform this role, includes attorneys under

contract to represent the Department through arrangements with the Office of the Attorney

General and

the

State

Attorney’s

Office

in

the

6th

Judicial

Circuit.

3.2. In 2008, the Department began implementing a model of representation sometimes referred to

as the “prosecutorial model,” which emphasized the role of the attorney in dependency

decision making. In this model, attorneys have described their allegiance primarily to “the State

of Florida,” rather than to DCF. In this view, rather than being contracted representatives of

DCF, CMs and CPIs are viewed as expert witnesses, the “eyes and ears of the attorney.” In some

areas of the state, the prosecutorial model has been misinterpreted to authorize CLS to make

independent decisions regarding all court issues, including whether to take or continue existing

court action.

3.3.

This attempt to implement a prosecutorial model within the agency context has compounded

an already complex dependency system, further confusing the role of CLS and its relationship

with other child welfare professionals. This confusion is a barrier to the cooperation and


9/133

resulted in role confusion as each of the professions interprets its role slightly differently, and

there is no opportunity during training for teams to work out for themselves a coherent

approach for

implementing

the

model.

4.5. The new model requires additional assessment and different data entry from prior practice.

Respondents report that once the new requirements are implemented, better decision making

occurs.

4.6. The relationship between current statute and the New Practice Model is not fully understood

by many of the Child Welfare Professionals or their supervisors. This inability to articulate the

coordination between current statute and the New Practice Model has led to confusion as to

application of the model at various stages of the dependency process. As well as to confusion

as to

how

to

apply

the

provisions

of

the

statute

to

the

new

model.

This

confusion

has

caused

frustration in some instances on the part of the Child Welfare Professionals themselves as well

as the Guardian ad Litem (GAL).

5. Other Findings

5.1. Child welfare professionals report that they elect to do this work for the most part because of a

desire to protect children. They say they leave because they are unable to carve out time for

their own families and because they feel unsupported in their jobs. They also reported feeling

overwhelmed by the paperwork required in their jobs.

5.2.

Specific areas

of

role

confusion

occur

when

a child

is

removed

from

the

home,

when

an

in

‐home safety plan is not functional or adequate, and at the appellate stage of the dependency

process.

5.3. According to survey respondents, CLS makes virtually all decisions regarding the appeal of cases

in the dependency system. The level of consultation with any of the other Child Welfare

Professionals or with DCF administration in filing appeals is reported to be low as is the sharing

of information about the status of the appeals or the implications of the decisions in the

appeals.

5.4.

CPIs are

performing

duties

that

could

be

delegated

to

less

highly

trained

individuals

if

positions

still existed in the Department to perform those duties.

5.5.

The lack of teamwork, when it occurs, leads each professional to feel both that he or she does

not “own the case” and that he or she is doing a disproportionate amount of work on the case.


10/133

over the years makes learning from past efforts very difficult6. Other agencies maintain

histories on their websites, a version of which would have been very helpful in preparing this

report. See

for

example,

the

Department

of

Corrections

website,

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/timeline/index.html.

Background

Statutory Framework

The Florida Constitution contemplates the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and

judicial branches

of

the

government.

The

executive

branch

has

the

purpose

of

executing

the

programs

and policies adopted by the Legislature and of making policy recommendations to the Legislature.7

The head of (each executive) department may recommend the establishment of additional divisions,

bureaus, sections, and subsections of the department to promote efficient and effective operation of

the department. However, additional divisions, or offices in the Department of Children and Families…

may be established only by specific statutory enactment. New bureaus, sections, and subsections of

departments may be initiated by a department and established as recommended by the Department of

Management Services and approved by the Executive Office of the Governor, or may be established by

specific statutory

enactment.8

The Department is created in section 20.19, Florida Statutes:

The mission of the Department of Children and Families is to work in partnership with local

communities to protect the vulnerable, promote strong and economically self ‐sufficient families,

and advance personal and family recovery and resiliency.9

This section of law outlines the services the Department is to provide and describes the structure of the

Department to

deliver

these

services,

as

follows:

The Department, through offices, shall provide services relating to:

1 Ad lt t ti


11/133

The Secretary of the Department is authorized to consolidate, restructure, or rearrange the offices of

the department in consultation with the Executive Office of the Governor, provided any such

consolidation, restructuring,

or

rearranging

is

capable

of

meeting

functions

and

activities

and

achieving

outcomes as delineated in state and federal laws, rules, and regulations. The Secretary is also authorized

to appoint additional managers and administrators as he or she determines are necessary for the

effective management of the Department.11

To the extent allowed by law and within specific appropriations, the Department must deliver services

by contract through private providers.12

The Department’s statutory responsibility for child welfare includes the dependency process from the

call to

the

mandated

statewide

hotline13

through

the

judicial

and

non

‐ judicial

decisions

related

to

dependency, to the closing of the dependency case either judicially or non‐ judicially. The services are

delivered by child welfare professionals employed by the Department, its contractors, or its

subcontractors or, in the case of sheriff’s offices performing protective investigations, by grant

agreements.

The law requires that the Department be represented by counsel at each dependency proceeding.

Through its attorneys, the Department is required to make recommendations to the court on issues

before the court and may support its recommendations through testimony and other evidence by its

own employees, employees of sheriff’s offices providing child protection services, employees of its

contractors, employees of its contractor’s subcontractors, or from any other relevant source.14

All procedures under chapter 39 are to be conducted according to the Florida Rules of Juvenile

Procedure unless otherwise provided by law.15 Additionally, DCF has been granted rule‐making authority

for the efficient and effective management of all programs, services, facilities, and functions necessary

for implementing the provisions of chapter 39, so long as those rules do not conflict with the Florida

Rules of Juvenile Procedure.16

Stages of the Dependency Process

There are four major stages of the dependency process: investigation, adjudication, disposition, and

appeal. There are three major child welfare professionals responsible for the delivery of services for the


12/133

Investigation:

Broadly speaking, the initiation of a child protection case begins when a call is accepted by the Florida

Child Abuse

Hotline

and

referred

for

protective

investigation.

19

A

CPI

20

is

assigned

to

investigate

the

report. The duties of the CPI include making an initial safety assessment and perceived needs for the

child and his or her family.21 The specific activities required to determine child safety are statutorily

outlined.22 These duties include utilizing a standardized safety assessment instrument to determine the

present and impending dangers present for each child. If present or impending danger is identified, the

CPI must either implement a safety plan or take the child into custody. If a safety plan is required, the

CPI must collaborate with the community based care lead agency in its development.23

If the CPI determines that the child is in need of protection and supervision, the Department may file a

petition for dependency. If the CPI determines that the interests of the child and the public will be best served by providing child care or other treatment voluntarily and the services offered are accepted by

the child’s caretakers, the family may be referred for voluntary services.24

CPIs are authorized to take children into custody when the CPI has probable cause to support a finding:

1. that the child has been abused, neglected, or abandoned, or is suffering from or is

imminent danger of illness or injury as a result of abuse, neglect, or abandonment;

2.

that

the

parent

or

legal

custodian

of

the

child

has

materially

violated

a

condition

of

placement imposed by the court; or

3. that the child has no parent, legal custodian, or responsible adult relative

immediately known and available to provide supervision and care.25

CMs are not permitted to take a child into custody without a prior court order authorizing the removal

or change of placement. If the child is taken into custody by a CPI, the CPI is required to review the facts

supporting the removal with an attorney representing the Department. The purpose of this review is to

determine whether there is probable cause for the filing of a shelter petition.26 If the facts are sufficient

and the

child

has

not

been

returned

to

the

custody

of

the

parent

or

legal

custodian,

the

Department

is

required to file the petition and the attorney representing the Department is required to request that a

shelter hearing be held within 24 hours after the removal of the child.27


13/133

followed by an arraignment hearing29 and, if necessary, by an adjudication hearing.30 If a child is

adjudicated dependent, the court conducts a disposition hearing.31

If a contested

adjudicatory

hearing

is

held,

the

attorney

for

the

Department

will

present

witnesses

to

support the adjudication of dependency. These witnesses may include the CPI investigating the case and

the CM who has provided services during the pendency of the case.

Disposition:

If a child is adjudicated dependent, the court reviews and accepts the case plan which contains the tasks

and services the parents are required to complete. The court retains jurisdiction over the case and is

required to conduct judicial reviews every six months to monitor the family’s progress until the child

achieves permanency.32

One

of

the

options

for

permanency,

adoption,

requires

the

termination

of

parental rights. All petitions seeking an adjudication to terminate parental rights pursuant to Chapter 39,

Florida Statutes, must be initiated by the filing of a petition by the Department, the GAL, or any other

person who has knowledge of the facts alleged or is informed of them and believes them to be true.33

At the judicial review hearings, the attorney for the Department will present documents and may

present testimony from the CM assigned to the case. The role of the CPI is less significant at this stage

than either of the others, but may become important if a change of placement is sought. The CPI’s

testimony may

also

be

necessary

in

establishing

the

grounds

for

termination

of

parental

rights.

Appeal:

The parties in a dependency case have a right to appeal orders granting or denying a dependency

adjudication or termination of parental rights. CLS has the responsibility to pursue appeals and to inform

the other Child Welfare Professionals of the status of the appeal as well as the implications of any

rulings by the Court on the appeal.

Children’s Legal Services


14/133

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The final opinion ordered HRS to end the practice of law by

its lay counselors by January 1, 1990.34

In response

to

these

opinions,

the

legislature

appropriated

funds

for

HRS

to

hire

lawyers,

and

Child

Welfare Legal Services (CWLS) was established within HRS. While there was never any specific

substantive legislation outside of the appropriations bill describing the program, there was never any

doubt that the positions were established to represent the agency (then HRS, now DCF) in dependency

hearings. The reporting structure for the lawyers varied slightly over time, but until 2008 always

involved both the Office of General Counsel and the regional administration of the Department.

In 2004, proposals were made to transfer the CWLS function from DCF. Four options were explored by

the Legislature’s

Office

of

Program

Policy

Analysis

and

Government

Accountability

(OPPAGA).

These

were: contracting with other governmental entities, for‐profit law firms, or not‐for‐profit entities, or

retaining the service within DCF. OPPAGA concluded that transferring the function to state attorneys or

the Attorney General was not feasible because these entities did not wish to expand their involvement

in the function and that contracting with (community based care) lead agencies was not feasible as it

would create potential conflicts of interest. The report pointed out the uncertain cost impacts of

contracting with private law firms and recommended that, if the function was to be retained within DCF,

the Department should take steps to improve staff professional development and accountability. The

report recommended

that

the

legislature

should

consider

clarifying

whose

interests

are

represented

by

CWLS attorneys in dependency proceedings.35

In September 2005, in a follow‐up report to the 2004 Special Report, OPPAGA reported that CWLS was

making some improvements but continued progress was needed.36 Specifically, OPPAGA recommended

that CWLS adopt a case tracking system and a quality assurance system, while recognizing that steps had

been taken to reduce caseloads, enhance professional development, and improve the accountability

system for CWLS attorneys.

In May

2007,

then

‐Secretary

Robert

Butterworth

convened

a workgroup

to

examine

the

delivery

of

services by both the General Counsel’s Office and Child Welfare Legal Services. The Secretary’s charge to

the workgroup was to develop recommendations to result in:


15/133

The process and substance of initial training, capacity for ongoing continuing education, and

professional development of Departmental attorneys; and

The processes

for

recruitment,

selection,

and

retention

of

Departmental

attorneys.

37

This report contained 123 recommendations, the most pertinent of which were for reorganization of the

CWLS function into an “autonomous unit reporting to the State CWLS Director, apart from the General

Counsel and Regional Legal Counsel offices.” The new statewide law firm name should be Children’s

Legal Services. This report recognized that all CWLS lawyers, whether employed by the Department, the

Office of the Attorney General, or a state attorney, represent the legal interests of the Department as

the client. Later in the report, the client of CWLS attorneys is described as “the State of Florida,

Department of Children and Families.” Co‐location with CPIs and CMs was recommended whenever

feasible, as

was

better

role

definition,

professionalism,

and

budget

control.

The

report

did

not

make

specific recommendations as to either an “agency model” or a “prosecutorial model” to be adopted by

the agency for its legal representation.

By January 16, 2008, many of the structural changes recommended by the report had been made. At the

same time, the Department began to analogize its attorneys to prosecutors in criminal cases and to

characterize CPIs and CMs as expert witnesses, “the critical eyes and ears of the attorney in the field.”38

Using the resources now under the budgetary control of the CLS Statewide Director, a training effort for

lawyers was

undertaken

with

the

goal

of

increasing

the

professionalism

of

the

lawyers

and

conveying

the vision of their role as “the prosecution arm of the dependency system.”39 That effort has culminated

in a year‐round training curriculum developed and led by a three‐member CLS Statewide Training Team.

The Training Team conducts an intense multi‐day New Attorney Training every quarter, a bi‐annual

multi‐day Advanced Litigation Academy, bimonthly hot topic webinars, monthly case law conference

calls, practice pointers, and onsite live training for attorneys, CPIs, and case management. 40

By 2015, the vision of the CLS lawyer as a prosecutor whose client is the State of Florida had evolved to

the

point

where

the

Department

was

not

even

recognized

in

the

overview

posted

on

the

CLS

website.

This overview specifically rejected the agency model of representation, saying in part that “the CLS

model can be analogized to that of the prosecutor which allows CLS attorneys to further the State’s

position regarding a child’s best interest as opposed to defending the Department.”41


16/133

In the agency representation model, the agency attorney represents the agency as a legal entity, much

the same as in‐house counsel’s role in representing a corporation. According to the American Bar

Association (ABA),

the

benefits

of

this

model

include:

Reliance on agency’s familiarity with a child and family in decision making;

Value placed on the agency’s expertise in making decisions regarding the safety, permanency

and well‐being of children and on the lawyer’s legal expertise on legal matters;

Consistent decision making and interpretation of laws;

Legal action supported by caseworker opinion, thus boosting caseworker credibility in court, for

example in deciding when to file an initial petition; and

The attorney is very familiar with the agency and its practices and policies.

The only drawback to this model cited by the ABA is the potential for caseworkers to believe that the

attorney represents them personally rather than the agency as a whole. In Florida’s decentralized

system, this confusion could also mean that lead agencies or their subcontractors believe that the

attorneys represent them or their agencies rather than representing the Department.

In the prosecutorial model, an elected or appointed attorney or employee of that elected or appointed

attorney files petitions and appears in court on behalf of the agency and represents the state or “the

people”

of

the

jurisdiction.

This

may

mean

the

elected

attorney

may

override

the

views

of

the

agency

in

court. The one positive aspect of this model cited by the ABA is that the attorney may be more in tune

with the wishes and beliefs of the community and how the community feels about handling child

welfare cases. Concerns with the model include:

The caseworker is often the only party in court without an attorney speaking for him or her;

The caseworker’s expertise may be ignored, as the attorney has the ultimate say;

The attorney may be handling all the business for the community and therefore not be able to

specialize in child welfare law;

Political agendas may play a large role in decision‐making;

The agency as a whole may not be getting legal advice on policy issues;

The attorney’s personal beliefs about issues such as permanency rather than caseworker


17/133

As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As an adviser, a lawyer

provides a client with an informed understanding of the client’s legal rights and obligations and

explains

their

practical

implications.

As

an

advocate,

a

lawyer

zealously

asserts

the

client’s

position under the rules of the adversary system. As a negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result

advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealing with others. As

an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client’s legal affairs and reporting about them to the

client or to others.43

The Rules of Professional Conduct apply to lawyers representing organizations, and lawyers representing

governmental agencies are a subclass of this category of lawyers.44 Governmental lawyers may have a

special responsibility to the public in balancing confidentiality requirements and the public interest, but

are otherwise

held

to

the

same

standards

as

lawyers

representing

any

organization.45

Areas of Confusion Identified:

Applying these principles to the dependency process, the CLS lawyer is required to inform DCF of its

legal rights and obligations and to explain their practical implications. It is also incumbent on CLS to

educate the other professionals about the importance of case law in interpreting statutes, especially in

areas that may limit the ability of the Department to act to protect children, such as domestic violence

and substance abuse cases. The lawyer is required to zealously represent DCF’s position consistent with

the Department’s

mission

under

the

rules

of

the

adversary

system

as

established

by

statute,

rule,

and

case law. CLS is required to seek results advantageous to DCF but consistent with honest dealing with

others. Finally, CLS is required to act to examine DCF’s legal affairs and report about them to the client

or others.

Three specific areas of confusion were identified. The first is in the area of findings of probable cause.46

The CPI’s discussion with CLS about probable cause to remove a child from the child’s home is not for

the purpose of determining whether probable cause exists, since this is a function of the court. The

purpose

of

the

discussion

is

to

determine

whether

a

credible

case

can

be

made

for

probable

cause

based on the facts so the Department and the CLS attorney will not face sanctions for pursuing frivolous

claims. There has been confusion with the prosecutorial model which has led some Child Welfare

Professionals to believe that CLS has the authority to make the decision as to whether probable cause


18/133

made, on the facts available, applying current statutory and case law, that the filing is not made

frivolously.47

Another area

of

role

confusion

arises

when

CPIs

and

CMs

turn

to

CLS

for

answers

to

questions

better

directed to their own supervisors. This practice may result from the fact that CLS has a lower turnover

rate, higher education requirements, and more sophisticated training than the other professionals. In an

effort to be helpful, it is easy for CLS to overstep its area of expertise into decision making more

appropriately done by the other professionals.

Finally, the organizational structure of the Department and of CLS do not support interaction and

communication between CLS and the other Child Welfare Professionals. In the most current DCF

organizational chart,

CLS

operates

as

a silo,

reporting

directly

to

the

Secretary,

without

any

structured

interaction with the Office of Child Welfare (where the other professionals are housed), the Office of the

General Counsel, or Regional Administrators.48

New Practice Model

Another Department initiative to bring the “best interest of the child” to the forefront of practice began

after the tragic death of Nubia Barahona in February 2011. The Department assembled a special review

panel to

examine

the

history

of

the

case

and

provide

recommendations

to

improve

Florida’s

child

welfare system.49 The panel recommended a re‐engineering of child protective investigations that

encompassed recruitment, selection and training, as well as technology enhancements, review of

investigative processes and practices, and collaboration with law enforcement and external partners.

This New Practice Model, unique to Florida, incorporates the best information available about child

welfare practice from around the country. The model is designed to establish a standardized teamwork

approach to assessing child safety and risk, utilizing internal and external expertise. The vision was to

transform

the

role

of

the

hotline,

investigations

and

case

management,

so

that

each

component

of

the

system works as an integrated and highly interdependent unit, equipped to:

gather better information;


19/133

Implementation plans were developed at the regional and circuit level through “Regional Champions,”

who became instrumental in moving the vision and practice forward, despite multiple changes in

leadership

and

project

leads.

Florida now has what many experts describe as one of the nation’s most comprehensive and complex

child welfare practice models. The Department has embarked on a monumental shift in how cases are

handled, moving away from being incident‐focused to assessment‐focused.50 Developing and

maintaining a highly skilled workforce is essential for both investigations and case management. Key

skills workers must have to effectively apply the practice model and appropriately intervene include

critical thinking, interviewing and the ability to engage families.

Operationalizing the

New

Practice

Model

has

involved

challenges,

including

very

limited

resources

at

a headquarters and regional level to provide hands‐on support to frontline staff and a lack of alignment of

policy, rule and statute with the new practice, which in turn created conflict among child protective

investigators, case managers, Children’s Legal Services, and the judiciary.

Additional challenges were faced in training the workforce. Because workers had to be trained while

continuing to carry their full caseloads and responsibilities, a staggered implementation to the new

practice was deployed. Limited resources for training frontline staff in the mandatory eight‐day training

forced training in single professional groups in many areas. Currently, skill level varies throughout the

system of care, ranging from a thorough level of understanding the New Practice Model to very little

understanding. There is a perception among the Child Welfare Professionals interviewed that others in

their local systems of care do not understand the model as well as they do. This perception has

contributed to role confusion as each of the professionals interprets its role (and the roles of the others)

differently.

Many staff interviewed reported feeling ill‐equipped to practice the model with fidelity, as high and

constant turnover have led to little opportunity to attend available trainings. High caseloads and

pressure to

close

cases

in

a timely

fashion

have

resulted

in

a large

portion

of

the

workforce

that,

despite

having less than two years on the job, reported feeling burnt out and not supported.

Judges and Guardians ad Litem vary in their understanding and acceptance of the New Practice Model,


20/133

confusion, the reasons and remedies for this issue are beyond the scope of this report and provide more

than adequate grounds for separate exploration.51

Other

Findings

Findings in the report not specifically addressed in the background information were based on

information gathered from the survey and the focus groups, with the exception of the final finding,

which was based on attempts to gather DCF history for the preparation of this report.52

Conclusion The Department has made great strides in meeting its mission statement by restructuring the legal arm

of the organization while at the same time deploying a New Practice Model for its operational team. The

initiatives have the common thread of driving the best interests of children to the forefront of decision

making while professionalizing the workforce. Both required a very robust training process to be

implemented within the limitations of resources and workforce needs. The implementation process for

the new practice model and the shift to a more prosecutorial model for CLS, have created an imbalance

toward ownership of decision‐making in cases by CLS, rather than to the ideal of each professional

having equal

and

interactive

decision

‐making

responsibility.

The

imbalance

of

power

among

the

Child

Welfare Professionals has compounded the underlying role confusion resulting from high turnover and

training not coordinated among the professionals. Some regions and circuits have taken steps to

improve communications and to support front line workers. Co‐location is essential, as is supported

decision‐making and realistic time expectation for the professionals. Coordinated training efforts, in

which teams consisting of the professionals who will work together on cases are trained together, have

been tried on a limited basis and show the potential for a better understanding of roles on the part of all

the professionals.


21/133

Report: Dependency Roles Workgroup

April 2016

Appendix A:

2015 Annual Critical Incident Rapid Response Team Advisory

Committee


22/133

Appendix A


23/133

Appendix A


24/133

Appendix A


25/133

Appendix A


26/133

Appendix A


27/133

Appendix A


28/133

Appendix A


29/133

Appendix A


30/133

Appendix A


31/133

Appendix A


32/133

Appendix A


33/133

Appendix A


34/133

Appendix A


35/133

Appendix A


36/133


April 2016

Appendix B:

Survey Respondent Demographics


37/133

Dependency Roles Review Survey Questions, December 2015.

1. Please rate: I am able to get legal advice from the attorney assigned to a case when I need it.

2. I feel like a member of a team acting to protect children.

3. It is the responsibility of the lawyers to teach caseworkers and investigators about court

procedures.

4. I understand what is expected of me in court appearances.

5. It is the responsibility of the lawyers to review JRSSRS and case plans.

6. Communication with lawyers is a strength of the dependency system in my area.

7. Communication with caseworkers and investigators is a strength of the dependency system in

my area.

8. Communication with DCF administrators and policy advisors is a strength of the dependency

system.

9. The CLS attorneys in my circuit listen to my concerns and opinions.

10. DCF administrators are involved members of the dependency team.

11. I am able to get in touch with case managers when I need them for legal issues or court

preparation.

12. I am able to get in touch with investigators when I need them for legal issues or court

preparation

Appendix B


38/133

22. Do you get a copy of orders after each dependency hearing?

23. Do you get a copy of Orders to Show Cause?

24. Do you get a copy of Orders that are believed to be improper?

25.

Do you attend staffings for case closure in non-judicial cases?

26. Do you attend staffings for case closure in judicial cases?

27. Does CLS participate in the decision to change the placement of children in licensed care?

28.

Does CLS participate in the decision to change the placement of children in relative placements?

29. Do you have cases where one child has been removed from the home and others remain in the

home?

30. Do you attend permanency staffings?

31. Do you receive adequate preparation from CLS for hearings?

32.

Who decides when a TPR petition should be filed?

33. Do you know which cases are going to be heard in enough time to prepare for court?

34. CLS meets face to face with me to staff cases prior to court?

35. When a child needs to be removed from a pre-adoptive home, CM notifies CLS and requests an

order to modify placement of the child.

36. CLS is a participant in Adoption Review Committee decisions.

37. CLS represents the decision of the Regional Managing Director in court hearings related to

Appendix B


39/133


40/133


41/133


42/133


April 2016

Appendix C:

Workgroup Agendas and Minutes


43/133

Agenda‐ Initial Workgroup Meeting

January 6, 2016

401 NW 2nd Ave

Suite N‐1007 – Visionary Room

Miami FL 33128

Begin 1:00 pm

Welcome/Overview of Project/Introductions Rebecca Kapusta 10 minutes

Opening Remarks/ History/Workgroup meeting schedule Peggy Sanford 15 minutes

Outline of

Materials

already

provided

and

how

to

access

Cristina

Batista

5 minutes

CIRRT Summary Traci Leavine 20 minutes

Summary of Survey Results Peggy Sanford

Traci Leavine 30 minutes

BREAK

(2:30‐2:45)

15

minutes

Appendix C


44/133

di


45/133

January 7 – Southern and Southeast regional meetings

January 13 – Central and Suncoast regional meetings

January

19

–

Northwest

regional

meeting

January 21 – Northeast regional meeting

February 4 – Team meeting in Tampa DCF Office, 9 am‐4 pm

February 23 – Final team meeting in Tallahassee DCF Office, 12 pm – 4 pm

Cristina Batista informed team of Dropbox online repository for historical and relevant

documents to be accessed by team members.

Traci Leavine

presented

an

overview

of

the

Critical

Incident

Rapid

Response

Teams

(CIRRT)

process and important trends. She spoke to the themes of the CIRRTs and how the reports

revealed concerns of dependency process as it relates to role and function of employees.

Peggy Sanford and Traci Leavine presented a preliminary summary of survey results,

acknowledging that two large counties did not participate in the survey.

Grainne O’Sullivan

and

Peggy

Sanford

presented

the

team

with

a review

of

focus

group

assignments. The team members were given a draft focus group guide with the initial

statement and questions broken down by role. Peggy Sanford reviewed the focus group

questions with the team and requested input from all attendees.

Team members were informed of their assigned partners and region(s) and selected dates for

focus group meetings.

Actions

Appendix C

A di C


46/133

Agenda

Dependency Roles Workgroup Meeting

February 4, 2016

Tampa

Welcome Rebecca Kapusta

Minutes of January Meeting Cristina Batista

Survey Results (draft) Peggy Sanford/Cristina Batista

Process Outline for Focus Group presentation Peggy Sanford

Southern Region Focus Group Pennypacker/Hill

Southeast

Region

Focus

Group

Stanford/Kent

Lunch

Northwest Region Focus Group Borher/Sherer

Northeast

Region

Focus

Group Kent/Leavine

Suncoast

Region

Focus

Group

Bohrer/Sherer

Central Region Focus Group Stanford/Silverstein

Appendix C


47/133

A di C


48/133

role group, circuit‐ or region‐specific responses, and critical information to be shared (if not already

covered). Team members presented as follows:

Karen Hill

and

Stephen

Pennypacker–

Southern

Region

Billy Kent and Bronwyn Stanford – Southeast Region

Sandy Borher and Charles Scherer – Northwest Region

Sandy Borher and Charles Scherer – SunCoast Region

Billy Kent and Traci Leavine – Northeast Region

David Silverstein and Bronwyn Stanford – Central Region

Actions

Team members were asked to provide a summary of each region in written form by Thursday February

11, 2016.

Team members were asked to provide categorization for survey questions based on focus group results

by

either

report,

Tableau

presentation,

or

irrelevant.

End: 4:00 PM

Appendix C

A di C


49/133

Agenda


1317 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee FL

February 23, 2015

12‐4 pm

Begin 12:00 pm

Welcome and thanks Secretary Carroll 5 minutes

Administrative issues (travel etc) Peggy Sanford 5 minutes

Approval of Minutes of February 4 meeting Peggy Sanford 5 minutes

Plan for

giving

feedback

to

regional

leadership

Peggy

Sanford

15

minutes

Feedback: What have we learned? Peggy Sanford 30 minutes

Review of proposed first finding Peggy Sanford 30 minutes

Discussion re: additional findings All 1 hour

Next steps Peggy Sanford 15 minutes

Additional questions

or

remarks

All 15

minutes

Thanks and close Rebecca Kapusta 5 minutes

Appendix C


50/133

Appendix C


51/133

There was a high level of participation and it was clear that individuals feel passionately about this

process and wanted to contribute their concerns and perspectives. Individuals are expecting and excited

to have change that would clarify the roles for them in this dependency process. There needs to be

engagement with CPI and CM with the families we serve. With most of the cases that the Department

goes through good outcomes are achieved, but when there isn’t communication, the consequences are

too high.

Debriefing of Regions

The team members will present a high level summary of the focus group sessions to regional leadership.

Proposed

First

Finding

The team members reviewed the first proposed finding and provided input and revisions.

Actions

Team members will give Cristina Batista dates of availability to meet with regions for debriefing

meetings.

Peggy Sanford, Rebecca Kapusta and Grainne O’Sullivan will meet to decide upon a reasonable amount

of findings and distribute a list to the team.

The team will meet over VTC on Wednesday March 9th to discuss the final list of findings.

End: 4:00 PM

Appendix C

Appendix C


52/133

Agenda


VTC

March 9, 2016

3‐5 pm

Welcome

Review of Minutes for February 24 meeting

Report from Focus Group Leaders

Northwest Bohrer/Sherer

Northeast Kent/Leavine

Suncoast

Bohrer/Sherer

Southern Pennypacker/Hill

Review of Draft Findings

Next Steps

Appendix C


53/133


54/133


April 2016

Appendix D:

Focus Group Assignments, Questions, and Summary of Results

Appendix D


55/133

Team Assignments – Focus Group Meetings

Team

Members

Dates Times Region Location

Stephen

Pennypacker

Karen Hill

Jan 19 & 20 January 19

CPIs and Intake Group, CPI Sup, CM

CM Sup

9-10:30, 11-12:30, 1:30-3, 3:30-5pm

January 20

CLS Attorneys, CLS Supervisors, Lead

CBC and Admins

9-10:30, 11-12:30, 1:30-3pm

Southern

Region

Brickell Room

Bronwyn

Stanford

Billy Kent

Jan 20 & 21 January 20 – CPI, CPI Sup, CM, CM Sup

9-10:30, 11-12:30, 1-2:30, 3-4:30pm

January 21 – CLS, CLS Sup, Admins

9-10:30am, 11-12:30pm, 1-2:30pm

Southeast

Region

ChildNet Palm Beach

4100 Okeechobee Blvd

West Palm Beach, FL 33409

Bronwyn

Stanford

David

Silverstein

Feb 2 & 3 February 2 – CPI, CPI Sup, CM, CM Sup

9-10:30am, 11-12:30pm, 1:30-3pm,

3:30-5pm

February 3 – CLS, CLS Sup, Other TBD

9-1030am, 11-1230pm, 1:30-3:00pm

Central

Region

4001 Pelee Street, Orlando,

FL 32817 (CBCCFL) Dream

Conference Room

Sandy Bohrer

Charles

Scherer

Feb 1 & 2 February 1 – CPI, CPI Sup, CM, CM Sup

9-10:30am, 11-12:30pm, 1:30-3pm,

3:30-5pm

February 2 – CLS, CLS Sup,

Administration

9-1030am 11-1230pm 1:30-3:00pm

Suncoast

Region

Sarasota DCF Office

Appendix D

Appendix D


56/133

Focus Group Questions, January-February 2016.

1. Who do you consider to be members of the team working in your circuit toprotect children? Do you feel that CPIs, CMs, CLS, and DCF administration

work together as a team? If so, how well do they work together? What do you

consider your role to be in the dependency process?

2. When do CPIs and CLS communicate? When do CMs and CLS communicate?

When do CPIs and CMs communicate? When do any of these communicate

with DCF administration? Is the communication professional and helpful? Is the

communication usually face to face, by email, telephone, or other? Are there

barriers to effective communication? What could made the communication

better?

3. Who makes the decision to remove a child, CPI, CM, CLS, DCF? Is this answer

different for different circumstances? Describe.

4. How have the changes to the DCF practice methodology enhanced orchallenged working with the legal system, including the judiciary? In what

important ways does the new practice model differ from previous practice?

5. What happens when there is disagreement between CLS and either CPI or

CM? For example, if the CM believes a motion should be filed in a case and

CLS disagrees? Or if a CPI believes a dependency petition should be filed and

CLS disagrees?

6. What are the important outside influences that affect the workers in the

Appendix D


57/133


58/133


59/133


60/133


61/133


62/133


63/133


64/133


65/133


66/133


67/133


68/133


69/133


70/133


71/133


72/133


73/133


74/133


April 2016

Appendix E:

Timeline HRS-DCF 1965-2015

Appendix E


75/133

Time Line: HRS/DCF, 1965-2015

Year Action

1969 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) created by the Florida

Legislature. Consolidated sixteen separate agencies, councils, and programs into seven

divisions of one department: Corrections, Family Services, Health, Mental Health,

Retardation, Vocational Rehabilitation, and Youth Services.

1973 Two new divisions added to HRS: Aging and Children’s Medical Services.

1978 Department of Corrections created.

1989 Florida Supreme Court issues advisory opinions invalidating portions of chapter 39 andruling that “by January 1, 1990, HRS must end the practice of law by its lay counselors

under these statutes.”518 So.2d 1270 (FL 1988); 547 So.2d 909 (FL 1989).

1990 Child Welfare Legal Services (CWLS) lawyers begin practice, using agency model.

1991 Department of Elder Affairs created

1992 Agency for Health Care Administration created

1994 Department of Juvenile Justice created.

1994 Legislature enacts s. 409.1671, directing the outsourcing of “the provision of foster care

and related services statewide.” 1996 HRS divided into two entities: Department of Children and Families and Department of

Health

1996 Legislature authorized, in the general appropriations act, pilots for legal services to be

delivered for DCF by the Office of the State Attorney in the 8th and 16th Judicial Circuits

and by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) in the 17th Judicial Circuit. Currently, the

Office of the State Attorney provides legal services in the 6th Judicial Circuit and the OAG

provides the services in circuit 13 in addition to circuit 17. The state attorney offices in

the 8th

and 16th

circuits no longer provide these services.1998 Legislature grants authority for child protective investigations to sheriffs in Pinellas,

Manatee, Broward, and Pasco counties. Later extended to Seminole (2000), Hillsborough


76/133


April 2016

Appendix F:

Report of the Department of Children and Families Legal

Workgroup, September 17, 2007

Appendix F


77/133

Report of theDepartment of Children and Families

Legal Workgroup

Appendix F


78/133

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................ i

Charge from the Secretary ................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................1

General Counsel Organizational Structure ............................................................2

Child Welfare Legal Services ...............................................................................7Overview and Organizational Structure .........................................................7Practice Standards ...................................................................................... 11Relations with Community-Based Care Providers ....................................... 11

Support Staff ....................................................................................................... 14Legal Resources ................................................................................................. 15

Case Tracking and Quality Assurance ................................................................ 15

Budget and Financial Management ..................................................................... 18

Training and Professional Development .............................................................. 19

Recruitment and Retention .................................................................................. 20

Funding ............................................................................................................... 21

Future Tasks ....................................................................................................... 23

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 24

Appendices Appendix A. Organizational Charts................................................................... 25

Appendix B. Statewide CWLS –General Counsel Crossover Practice ............. 27

Appendix C. General Counsel Position Descriptions ........................................ 29 Appendix D. Legal Counsel Role in Contracts .................................................. 34

Appendix E Comparative Matrix of Recommendations 37

Appendix F


79/133

Introduction

On May 7, 2007, Secretary Robert A. Butterworth established a Legal Review Workgroup(Workgroup) to examine the two units within the Department providing legal services: the

Office of General Counsel (GC) and Child Welfare Legal Services (CWLS), and developrecommendations to enhance the methods by which these units provide such services.The Workgroup evaluated prior studies, reviewed current operations in the light of bestpractices, and convened a series of meetings to take testimony that led to thedevelopment of this Report. This Report is offered as a recommended blueprint to re-organize and re-engineer the delivery of the Department’s legal services, to improve thequality of legal representation, and to promote effective communication, coordination, andcollaboration both within the Department and between the Department and its community-

based lead agencies and service providers (Community Partners).

Charge from Secretary Butterworth

In establishing this Workgroup, Secretary Butterworth charged the Workgroup withdeveloping recommendations to result in:

Organization and reporting structure of the General Counsel and District LegalCounsel offices, reflective of the proposed Regional and circuit-based structure of the Department;

Organization, management, and reporting structure of Child Welfare LegalServices, including the attorney-client relationship, the relationship withcommunity-based providers, and the decision-making processes;

The interaction between General Counsel staff and Child Welfare Legal Servicesattorneys in representing the Department, in carrying out their routine responsibilities,and with respect to appellate practice and cases of statewide concern;

Staff support, legal resources and tools available to the Department’s attorneys;

The legal budget process, with emphasis on litigation expenses, expert witnesses,and the use of outside counsel;

The docketing and case tracking system currently used by the Department’s Officef G l C l d Child W lf L l S i

Appendix F


80/133

Judge Nikki Ann Clark, Circuit Court, 2nd Judicial Circuit, Chair of the FloridaSupreme Court Committee on Children and Families in the Court

Murray Greenberg, former County Attorney, Miami-Dade County

Legal Review Workgroup Guest Participants

To assure a broad view of the Department and representation of outside CommunityPartners, the following individuals participated at meetings of the Workgroup:

John Copelan, General Counsel, Department of Children & Families Peggy Sanford, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Children & Families Gregory Venz, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Children & Families

John Traphofner, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Children & Families Jason Dimitris, Chief of Staff, Department of Children & Families Jacob Jackson, District Legal Counsel, District 10, Department of Children & Families Colleen Farnsworth, District Legal Counsel, District 9, Department of Children & Families Walter Sachs, Director of Contracted Client Services, Department of Children & Families Marjorie Desporte, Senior Attorney, Southeast Zone, Contract Resource Team,

Department of Children & Families Jack Moss, District Administrator, District 10, Department of Children & Families

Sandy Bohrer, Partner, Holland & Knight Nakeitha Hodrick, Child Welfare Legal Services Managing Attorney, District 11,

Department of Children & Families Lori Fehr, Child Welfare Legal Services Managing Attorney, Northwest Region, Circuit

1, Department of Children & Families Linda Spector, Child Welfare Legal Services Managing Attorney, District 9,

Department of Children & Families Fran Allegra, Chief Executive Officer, Our Kids Inc.

Lee Johnson, Executive Vice President, Sarasota YMCA Jim Adams, Executive Director, Family Support Services of North Florida Steven Blumenthal and Fawn Moore, Protective Investigations Unit, Pasco County

Sh iff' Offi

Appendix F


81/133

Executive Summary

Throughout Workgroup meetings, several issues regularly surfaced and guided bothdiscussions and recommendations. First, the Workgroup strongly believes the success

of any legal organizational structure requires a professional, business-like approach toplanning and implementation, driven by Secretary Butterworth’s Six Guiding Principles:Integrity, Leadership, Transparency, Accountability, Community Partnerships and anOrientation to Action.

Second, the effective improvement of the Department’s legal services requiresdeliberate and institutionalized cultural change within the Department. There must beacceptance of the administration’s commitment to accountability for direct services in

cooperation with Community Partners, and that acceptance must permeate throughoutthe Department. The Department’s employees, and its leadership at all levels, mustrecognize the critical importance of high quality legal services in achieving theDepartment’s mission, and must ensure that anything less than first rate legalrepresentation cannot be accepted as an attitude or practice. Instead, the culture of theDepartment must be one which demands and receives excellence in attorneys’performance of their legal and ethical duties.

Third, Department attorneys must be committed to providing ethical and effective legal

representation, particularly with respect to protecting the legal rights and needs ofvulnerable citizens. Legal decisions must be made after careful consideration ofcomplete and accurate information derived from all available sources, and all legalactions must respect the dignity of the parties and the fairness of the legal process aswell as all statutory requirements. The Department must embrace best legal practicesand examine all relevant models and potential pilot projects designed to heighten thelevel of professionalism. Fundamental to implementation of these principles is acomprehensive training component that establishes expectations from pre-service

through professional development. The Department must continuously evaluate andrefine its legal procedures, and keep pace with the evolution of the applicable laws andpolicies.

Appendix F


82/133

operating relationships of Department attorneys, other Department employees andCommunity Partners must be clearly defined and articulated. The Department and itsCommunity Partners must resolve disputes, clarify ambiguities that exist, and respond in

a coordinated, timely and dec

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phil-ammann
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Florida DCF Report

Documents