ACJA 7-210 was implemented to address findings that "[d]espite sustained efforts to expand the public access to legal services, significant unmet needs persist" and that "[m]ost people living in poverty, and the majority of moderate-income individuals, do not receive the legal help they need." The question then becomes, how does this proposal benefit those lower to moderate-income individuals? It doesn't. In fact, this proposal as written may do more harm to those very groups.

The explanation statement fails to explain the real impact of this proposal. Of note, the proposal specifies the Legal Paraprofessional ("LPs") can render services for " any petitioner." This would presumably include the Department of Child Safety/the Attorney General's Office. The qualifications even include an individual who completes the "Attorney General's Office internal employee dependency training program." This proposal then opens the door for LPs to handle every aspect of a DCS case with the exception of a "contested dependency adjudication or contested termination adjudication proceeding."

There are no exclusions for the various other evidentiary hearings that occur in juvenile court. That means LPs could handle Temporary Custody Hearings (Rule 333), Disposition Hearings (Rule 339), hearings on relieving DCS from providing reunification services (Rule 340), contested Review Hearings, contested Change of Physical Custody Hearings (Rule 342—formerly Rule 59), contested Guardianship Hearings, etc. This does not include hearings that are uncontested, but parties/the court want additional information.

How is the Court going to handle these issues as they arise? Historically, Assistant Attorney Generals have been put on the spot to address things as they arise. Are the courts going to change their practice and schedule more contested evidentiary hearings to allow licensed attorneys to appear? If so, how is that going to impact the courts' calendars? How is that going to be in the parties and the children's best interests?

If DCS was excluded from this proposal, I might be willing to provide my support. I frequently come across individuals that cannot afford counsel but want to initiate dependency or termination proceedings. Those petitioners can certainly file as Pro Per, but end up disadvantaged against court-appointed counsel.

The problem is, private cases must make up a rather small portion of dependency cases; ones filed by unrepresented individuals would make up a smaller portion. As it currently stands, DCS and the AGO would be the primary beneficiaries of this proposal, which was never the intent of ACJA 7-210.

Kyle Stephenson
Attorney
40 N Central Ave., Suite 2310
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
[email protected]
cantorlawgroup.com
602-254-8880 phone
602-255-0815 fax

The purpose of the Legal Professional (LP) designation was touted as being about increasing access to justice. The discussions predating the creation of LPs were centered around making sure those without resources could competently access the legal system at an affordable price. That was the reason ACJA 7-210 was created. With this new proposed addition of juvenile law, it sure seems like the State is trying to fix a staffing problem (AGs office is known for being understaffed) by misappropriating LPs, which were designed to help regular people. I cannot recall there being any discussion of the LP designation being used to HELP the government by the government.

My comment on this is brief but my feelings on this are significant. This is a slippery slope. This is NOT about wanting to somehow protect attorneys’ income and their jobs, as I know that was perceived to be the reason members of the Bar were not overly supportive of the LP designation in the first place. This is about making sure a government agency – who is actively removing child from their parents and affecting fundamental rights (where parents are entitled to counsel) – is represented by competent attorneys who can make these constitutionally impactful decisions and adequately advise the department.

Here’s my novel idea – pay AGs more! Treat them better!

Gregg Woodnick

Woodnick Law, PLLC
1747 E. Morten Ave, Ste 205
Phoenix, Arizona 85020
[email protected]
602-449-7980

My comment on this is going to be brief here but I represented DCS many years ago and have been in private practice navigating child abuse/criminal defense cases for over a decade. From my experience, the judicial system works best where there are competent and knowledgeable attorneys on both sides. Having to deal instead with an LP who is limited in their knowledge and scope of their involvement is a recipe for disaster and or cutting corners. We need good attorneys on both sides so that children are safe and parental rights are protected. Adding juvenile law to the limited purview of an LP is an idea that is meant to save money and streamline dependency findings, not increase access to justice.

Brad TenBrook
[email protected]

In reading the responses from others, and as a CLDP who has considered the LP certification due to this notice (higher education was based on at-risk youth counseling), and after being certified now for approximately 15 years, I have a tendency to lean towards what the attorneys are saying here. How can you expect a limited paraprofessional to be competent in this area? Is there some form of extensive training program to prepare them for the ins and outs of this area of practice? It would be like asking an estate planning attorney to take on a divorce.
I believe CLDP's and LLP's are to help alleviate the need in the more basic levels of legal assistance, i.e., the areas of "self-help" legal assistance that the courts are trying to address with the websites and online filing forms and procedures. As I had stated in the task force meeting, there is an abundance of people that need lower-level assistance due to lack of understanding/comprehension of forms and procedures in basic family law, probate, estate planning, etc., and attorneys seem to be okay with CLDP/LLP's keeping that workload down. In my experienced opinion, to be involved in juvenile law/child placement would take a very comprehensive training program to be able to have an LLP make effective decisions and keep mistakes/bad decisions at a minimum.
Sherrene Caley, AZ CLDP
Show Low, AZ
(928) 532-0632