Advocates call Change in tax law “Fiscal Intimidation”
Under the current system, the child welfare case worker, parents or other family members and a volunteer appointed to speak for the child can all make suggestions on what should happen in a case before a juvenile judge.
The judge then makes his decision and the costs are paid from the child welfare levy. Under (Rep. Jeff] Espich’s bill, if the judge accepts any plan of action other than that offered by the state child welfare worker, the county property taxpayers would have to cover the difference in costs between the state’s recommendation and the final action.
This has child advocates upset, and they descended on the legislature yesterday to voice their concern:
”That’s fiscal intimidation,” said St. Joseph County Judge Peter J. Nemeth. “I have to start thinking about money when I’m looking at this case. Is that what I’m supposed to be doing? Or am I supposed to be protecting that child?” Link (Courier Press).
Head of the department, (former Marion County juvenile Judge) James Payne says that to achieve “uniformity,” the judges should be encouraged to listen to the recommendatioons of the Department. I wonder what we are paying judges to do in this system if they are to be forced by fiscal circumstances to simply impose the remedy called for by the Department. At that point, we should just save the money and cut the judges out of the process, leaving the Department to do what it thinks is right. Of course, that would deprive families of their basic rights to due process before the state steps in and rips them apart, but what kind of due process would they receive if the judge cannot afford to do anything other than accept the Department’s position?
February 8th, 2006 10:41
Government by people who don’t think the government (including the courts) should do anything that costs money. Or perhaps it is government dictates (from the DFC) brought to us by people who claim the government doesn’t do a good job at family interventions. They want to prove their point, I guess? Then get rid of the child welfare system altogether?