Update (4/30/2009): SB 292 appears to be poised to die. According to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal by John L Smith, SB 292 " will be pulled from consideration" by "the author of the bill". He went on to say that "sources confirmed the Assembly will not act on it." It appears that our legislators realized that SB 292 was neither good for kids or for taxpayers, as written. It is commendable that the they were interested in discussing the needs of children in state custody. Hopefully they now see that "independent unpaid volunteer best interest advocates" (CASA/GALs) are critical to protect the needs of these children, even if they also have attorneys, and that volunteer advocates also reduce the burden on taxpayers. Wouldn't it be great if some attention was now paid to the problem that courts are mostly still not always following the curfent law which mandates that judges appoint volunteer GALs.
The biggest problem with SB292 as it is proposed is that it allows the state to legally avoid appointing volunteer advocates for kids.
Volunteer advocates (CASAs/ GALs) have a lot of freedom to do a lot of good for kids caught in the system at very low cost. Providing attorneys for kids in care is not a problem, judges routinely appoint them now when they are either asked to or think they are needed. Kids in care should definitely get attorneys when they need them but they need volunteer advocates even more than they need attorneys. GALs do many things for kids that attorneys can't. Volunteer advocates spend more time on and with kids than attorneys do or will.
If passed this legislation will cost taxpayers more money, create a more litigious environment, slow down a process which is already too slow, remove the only unbiased person from the courtroom and insure that even fewer kids in care get a strong advocate.
Nevada needs to step up and make sure that courts always appoint volunteer advocates. Volunteers will demand attorneys for kids when they are needed. Better for Kids. Better for Nevada
Cripples current law which is better, cheaper and un-enforced since 1985.
Creates an unfunded mandate that actually provides less service while costing the taxpayers more money.
Eliminates the provision requiring judges to appoint Volunteer Child Advocates (GALs - Gaurdian Ad-litems, CASAs - Court Appointed Special Advocates)
Requires judges to appoint attorneys for kids. Now it is optional.
Makes the system even more closed to the public than it already is.
Makes the system even more litigious and child unfriendly
Makes the system even more cumbersome and slow.
Removes the one unbiased and un-influenceable person from the courtroom.
Eliminates the guarantee that all kids in care get a strong independent advocate who is only working for the child's best interest and is not beholden to the system.
Removes the one person who represents the community.
Removes the one person who can actually go out and collect information for the judge.
Removes the one person who doesn't hav a huge caseload.
The legislative counsels description of the law is misleading and wrong.
Did the Senate realize what they were doing when they passed it?
According to this Associated Press Article in the Reno Gazette Journal: Democrats said that years of work went into crafting the measure, and it should be kept alive for the sake of policy and fiscal discussion. "We should continue this as a policy discussion and allow those who indicate that there are impacts to local government to continue to state their case, but the policy is what we're dealing with today," said state Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-North Las Vegas.
So let's let our legislators know that kids need Volunteer advocates, not just attorneys
