Partnership created in 2006 Founded and funded by the Sapelo Foundation Partners include:

2. A statewide coalition advocating change to Georgia’s juvenile code and the underlying social service systems to better serve Georgia’s children and promote safer communities. To learn more, go to www.justga.org.

3. Origin of JUSTGeorgia • Partnership created in 2006 • Founded and funded by the Sapelo Foundation • Partners include: • Georgia Appleseed • The Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic at Emory Law School; and • Voices for Georgia's Children

4. What is the history of the Child Protection and Public Safety Act? • The underlying foundation of the Act is the Young Lawyers Division (YLD) Proposed Model Code (PMC) • The Juvenile code re-write began in 2004 by the YLD of the Georgia State Bar • The Proposed Model Code was drafted by three expert reporters, including a Georgia juvenile court judge and also a juvenile law professor who helped draft the 1971 Georgia Juvenile Code. • JUSTGeorgia engaged stakeholders with one-on-one and small group interviews statewide about the current juvenile code • Original drafting process included over 100 hours over several months and over 20 hours of stakeholder working group discussion

5. What is the history of the Child Protection and Public Safety Act? • Senator Bill Hamrick introduced Act as Senate Bill 292 in 2009 • Senate Judiciary held a series of hearings, resulting in thorough input on issues of interest to the Committee and the public • JUSTGeorgia facilitated discussions with stakeholders to find consensus around issues raised through the hearings • Senator Hamrick introduced SB 127 in 2011, and held additional hearings • HB 641 reflects further stakeholder input, compromise and political reality fleshed out by the Senate hearings

6. Stakeholder Working Group Includes: • Youth who have been in the foster care and delinquency systems • State agencies, including DHS/DFCS, DJJ, DBHDD, and OCA • Council of Juvenile Court Judges • Prosecuting Attorneys Council • Georgia Supreme Court Committee on Justice for Children • Attorneys who represent parents in juvenile court • Attorneys and guardians ad litem who represent children • Georgia CASA • The Georgia Association of Counsel for Children • Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta • Georgia Child Advocacy Centers • Interfaith Children’s Movement • Refugee Family Services • Southern Center for Human Rights • Juvenile Court Mediators • State Bar of Georgia • Association of County Commissioners of Georgia

7. Why Rewrite the Juvenile Code? • It has been four decades since Georgia’s juvenile code was passed; it has never undergone a full review • Experts in the field agree its time for a review

8. Three Overarching Themes of the Act (1) Creates and maintains stylistic consistency (2) Develops new organizational structure (3) Incorporates proposals for substantive revisions that reflect: • Federal law • Scientific research • Best practices based on research from 50 states

9. Theme One: Stylistic Consistency • Uses consistent language and style • Makes needed copyediting revisions to current code • Incorporates new terminology • Making references consistent (i.e. using “parent, guardian or legal custodian) • Provides definitions where definitions were needed, but did not exist, in current code

10. Theme Two: Organizational Structure • Reorganizes current juvenile code into 12 substantive articles • Each article is self-contained and has its own purpose statement • Different types of cases are no longer comingled • Timelines are included at the beginning of each article • Clearly states what is required at every stage of the process, in and out of court

11. Theme Three: Substantive Revisions • Article 1: General Provisions • General definitions and principles that would apply in all juvenile court proceedings • Article 2: Juvenile Court Administration • Governs creation and administration of juvenile courts and the appointment of judges

12. Theme Three: Substantive Revisions • Article 3: Dependency • Relates to cases involving children who have been abused or neglected • Article 4: Termination of Parent Rights • Governs proceedings to terminate a parent’s rights relative to their child when the parent is unable to safely and adequately care for the child

13. Theme Three: Substantive Revisions • Article 5: Independent Living Services • New provisions to ensure that children in foster care are given opportunities and assistance to plan for their futures • Article 6: Children in Need of Services • New approach for intervening with children who are currently considered “unruly,” as well as children who are unrestorably incompetent

14. Theme Three: Substantive Revisions • Article 7: Delinquency • Relates to cases involving children who have committed acts that would be crimes if the children were adults • Article 8: Competency • Governs proceedings to determine if a child is incompetent to proceed in delinquency cases, and what to do if the child is found incompetent

15. Theme Three: Substantive Revisions • Article 9: Parental Notification • No substantive changes; renumbering only • Article 10: Access to Hearings and Records • Few substantive changes

16. Theme Three: Substantive Revisions • Article 11: Emancipation • No substantive changes; renumbering only • Article 12: Office of the Child Advocate • No substantive changes; renumbering only

17. What’s Not in the Act • Repeal of SB 440: Automatic transfer to superior court of children accused of specific offenses • Limited reform made to transfer provisions through compromise with prosecutors and other stakeholders, allowing Superior Court Judges to transfer certain offenses back to juvenile court • Consistent age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18 • Removed due to up-front fiscal implications • Requiring an electronic recording of a child’s custodial interrogation if the child is accused of an offense that would be a felony-grade delinquent act • Removed due to concerns from prosecutors

18. What’s Not in the Act • Elimination of private petitions for abuse and neglect • Removed in a compromise with Juvenile Court Judges and Child Advocates • Concurrent jurisdiction for adoption • Removed in compromise with Superior Court Judges resulting in the adoption of Superior Court Rule 47

19. What Is in the Act: Article 1General Provisions • Expanded definitions section. Key new definitions: • Child abuse, including prenatal and emotional abuse • Party, clarifying that the child is a party • Child in need of services, replacing unruly child • Dependency, replacing deprivation

20. Article 1: General Provisions • One child/family, one judge (where possible) • Consolidation in cases where a child is both dependent and delinquent • Encourages mediation and provides statutory guidance • Provides factors to consider in determining “best interests” • Prohibits keeping children in adult correctional facilities

21. Article 2: Court Administration • Very few substantive changes • No major changes or controversy

22. Article 3: Dependency (formerly deprivation) • Shorter timelines for: • First review hearing • Permanency hearing for kids under 7 • Guidance on continuances • Discovery provision • Removal of time limitation on custody orders to DFCS • Prevents delegation of permanency hearings

23. Article 3: Dependency (formerly deprivation) • More specificity included on: • Case planning requirements • Ensures compliance with federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act • Clarifies efforts to keep siblings connected • Requires planning for educational stability • Court findings needed at various stages

24. Article 3: Dependency (formerly deprivation) • Child representation: • Every child gets a lawyer • Guardian ad Litem can also be appointed • Requires that these roles be kept separate

25. A Closer Look: Child Representation in Dependency • Under current state law, children are entitled to attorneys and guardians ad litem: • O.C.G.A § 15-11-6(b): “a party is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings alleging …deprivation ….Counsel must be provided for a child not represented by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.” • McBurrough v. Department of Human Resources, 150 Ga.App. 130, “Under our juvenile code, all parties, including the child, should be represented by an attorney.” • O.C.G.A. § 15-11- 9(b) “The court at any stage of a proceeding …shall appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a party to the proceeding if the child has no parent, guardian, or custodian appearing on the child's behalf or if the interests of the parent, guardian, or custodian appearing on the child's behalf conflict with the child's interests or in any other case in which the interests of the child require a guardian.”

26. A Closer Look: Child Representation in Dependency • Under current federal law, children are entitled to guardians ad litem, and this role can be filled by an attorney for the child: • CAPTA requires that: “…in every case involving an abused or neglected child which results in a judicial proceeding, a guardian ad litem, who has received training appropriate to the role, and who may be an attorney or a court appointed special advocate…shall be appointed to represent the child in such proceedings (I) to obtain first-hand, a clear understanding of the situation and needs of the child; and (II) to make recommendations to the court concerning the best interests of the child” (42 U.S.C § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xiii)) • HHS has interpreted this to include attorney representation. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/adopt02/02adpt7.htm)

27. A Closer Look: Child Representation in Dependency • Both the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA Model Rules contemplate attorneys representing children: • Comment 1 on Georgia Rule 1.14 states: “[A] client lacking legal competence often has the ability to understand, deliberate upon, and reach conclusions about matters affecting the client's own well-being. Furthermore, to an increasing extent the law recognizes intermediate degrees of competence. For example, children as young as five or six years of age, and certainly those of ten or twelve, are regarded as having opinions that are entitled to weight in legal proceedings concerning their custody.” • ABA advises child attorneys whose clients cannot state a position to advocate for the clients legal interests

28. A Closer Look: Child Representation in Dependency • Current Georgia practice is inconsistent • Today, the majority of states use a “hybrid” model of representation, blending best interests and attorney representation • National trends are toward more traditional attorney representation. Examples include: • Last year New York moved from a Hybrid to a pure attorney model • ABA Board of Delegates just passed a Model Act Governing the Representation of Children in Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Proceedings, recommending a traditional attorney model

29. Article 4:Termination of Parental Rights • Retention of child’s rights and relationships post-termination of parental rights until adoption • Bars voluntary surrender to a 3rd party after TPR petition is filed • Shortens timeframe for parental failure to participate in services • Reinstatement of parental rights

30. Article 5:Independent Living Services • Completely new article • Encourages normal, age-appropriate activities for kids in care • Tiered levels of services: • 14-16 pre-independent living services • 16-18 independent living services • 17-21 transitional living services • Aftercare to 23

31. Article 5:Independent Living Services • Judicial review • Under 18: part of permanency review hearings • Over 18: at least once a year • Though not in Article 5, the bill also includes a requirement that the Department have an administrative appeal process, for when services are denied or otherwise not provided

32. Article 6:Children in Need of Services • New approach, replaces “unruly” cases • Process: • Complaint • Mandatory multidisciplinary conference • Voluntary plan • Possible extension • Petition if voluntary plan fails • Adjudication and disposition

33. What Is in the Act: Article 6CHINS (continued) • Incorporation of ASFA • Also includes comprehensive services plan for children unrestorably incompetent to proceed in delinquency cases • Currently, DFCS is listed as the responsible agency

34. A Closer Look: Agency Responsible for CHINS • DJJ, DFCS, and DBHDD in agreement that the CHINS model is a better approach to unruly children • All three agencies are involved with the CHINS population in different ways, but no agency gets dedicated funding for this group • The model requires collaboration between all child-serving entities • Case management is key to success. Today, DFCS has the most developed case management expertise

35. Article 7: Delinquency • No waiver without consultation with counsel • Guidance on continuances • Protects statements made during intake, screening, treatment or evaluation • Incorporation of ASFA • Requires detention assessment instrument

36. Article 7: Delinquency • More flexibility on dispositions in designated felonies • Allows transfer back of 3 sex crimes from superior court • Keeping transferred kids in juvenile facilities until 17 • Requirement for prosecuting attorney in all cases

37. A Closer Look: Prosecutors in Delinquency Cases • Practice currently inconsistent across the state • Need to ensure due process and avoid unauthorized practice of law • Professional prosecutors bring deeper understanding, better use of discretion

38. Article 8: Competency • Requires competency evaluation of children under 13 accused of serious violent felonies • Separate process if the child is unlikely to ever become competent • Guidance for ongoing reports and review by the court

39. Article 9: Parental Notification • No substantive changes • Renumbering only

40. Article 10:Access to Records and Hearings • Very few substantive changes • No major changes or controversy

41. Article 11: Emancipation • No substantive changes • Renumbering only

42. Article 12:Office of the Child Advocate • No substantive changes • Renumbering only

43. A Closer Look: Financial / Resource Impacts • There are up-front costs to any major shift in practice • The reforms in the bill will bring substantial long-term savings • Ensuring parties are properly represented has been shown to lead to faster and more efficient resolution of cases • Keeping children out of adult facilities reduces recidivism and improves educational outcomes, saving up to $3 for every $1 spent • Effective early intervention with status offenders improves public safety by dramatically decreasing recidivism, saving up to $5 for every $1 spent • Providing quality independent living services to children aging out of foster care reduces homelessness, teen pregnancy, and criminality, and improves educational and employment outcomes, saving up to $3 for every $1 spent

44. What’s Next? • Continued consideration by House and Senate Judiciary Committee • Important public policy considerations remain to be explored and debated: • On-going input by stakeholders and general public • The Act’s sponsors and JUSTGeorgia are committed to transparency, stakeholder participation and thoughtful juvenile code reform

45. We Welcome Your Input! • Email us any questions or comments: • SKIRIJAN@southernco.com • wendiclifton@earthlink.net • shill@gaappleseed.org • kwidner@emory.edu • For more information or to join the JUSTGeorgia Coalition, visit www.justgeorgia.org