Monday, March 24, 2014
Monday, March 17, 2014
Spotlight: Angela Fonnesbeck
I practice primarily in Northern Utah. My office is based in Logan, Cache County.
I currently serve as a conflict public defender in the First District Juvenile Court.
I love being a parental defender because it gives me the opportunity to help educate people. I feel that when I can help people understand both the Court system and the child welfare process I give them a fighting chance. I truly believe that knowledge is power. My experience is that folks attend a Court hearing or talk with a case worker and hear all the words that are being said, but walk out of the room with little understanding of what it all meant or what is expected of them. While I cannot make choices for my clients, I can at least give them the tools to navigate a system that is complex and confusing.
I think it is rare for a parental defender to walk out of a Court room and feel like they have “won” a victory. But when the Utah Court of Appeals issued its decision in In re: B.R. I felt like I had at least given my client, and all parents, hope. While ultimately the Utah Supreme Court overturned the appellate decision – perhaps making appeals more difficult for all of us – in this case mom was able to successfully reunite with one of her children, and have an arm’s length relationship with the others. Every few years I hear from Mom who tells me all is going well.
There are lots of tips and trick out there but I found that one of the best things for me is to check in with my clients regularly, rather than waiting for a call from them. Sometimes it is just a phone call from my assistant asking for an update. Other times I ask the client to meet with me in person. This keeps me informed. It provides the opportunity to help a client overcome an obstacle before it becomes a problem pointed out to the Judge, or allows me to gather information to ensure that Judge knows about all the positive things going on with my client. While it varies from case to case, I try to never go more than two weeks without a contact with a client. I have discovered that being proactive with my client from the very beginning helps both of us stay on track.
I currently serve as a conflict public defender in the First District Juvenile Court.
I love being a parental defender because it gives me the opportunity to help educate people. I feel that when I can help people understand both the Court system and the child welfare process I give them a fighting chance. I truly believe that knowledge is power. My experience is that folks attend a Court hearing or talk with a case worker and hear all the words that are being said, but walk out of the room with little understanding of what it all meant or what is expected of them. While I cannot make choices for my clients, I can at least give them the tools to navigate a system that is complex and confusing.
I think it is rare for a parental defender to walk out of a Court room and feel like they have “won” a victory. But when the Utah Court of Appeals issued its decision in In re: B.R. I felt like I had at least given my client, and all parents, hope. While ultimately the Utah Supreme Court overturned the appellate decision – perhaps making appeals more difficult for all of us – in this case mom was able to successfully reunite with one of her children, and have an arm’s length relationship with the others. Every few years I hear from Mom who tells me all is going well.
There are lots of tips and trick out there but I found that one of the best things for me is to check in with my clients regularly, rather than waiting for a call from them. Sometimes it is just a phone call from my assistant asking for an update. Other times I ask the client to meet with me in person. This keeps me informed. It provides the opportunity to help a client overcome an obstacle before it becomes a problem pointed out to the Judge, or allows me to gather information to ensure that Judge knows about all the positive things going on with my client. While it varies from case to case, I try to never go more than two weeks without a contact with a client. I have discovered that being proactive with my client from the very beginning helps both of us stay on track.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Spotlight: Grant Dickinson
We have begun to receive submissions in our profile contest. Grant is hoping that not too many of you will enter so he can win the iPad mini. I think you should give him a run for his money. The contest rules are found HERE and you have until April 3rd to enter.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Review of our January CLE Events--Helping Incarcerated Parents
In January, the new directors of the Parental Defense Alliance-Grant Dickinson and David Boyer-traveled to Brigham City and to Cedar City for two lunch CLE events. They were able to connect with the regional Parental Defense attorneys and provide some information about representing incarcerated parents.
The most important
thing to remember when representing incarcerated parents is to educate the
Court of its heightened responsibilities to incarcerated parents and to ask for
services. The only reason services can be denied is if the Court finds
that the services would be detrimental to the child.
We have posted the
slideshow below for your review. (It is also available on the website HERE). We also anticipate making the entire training available online at a future date.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Spotlight Contest! Enter to Win an iPad Mini
The Parental Defense Alliance would like to get to know its
members a little better, so we are holding a contest. We will be drawing one of your names for an
iPad Mini at the Annual Conference. (You
do not need to be present to win).
Here’s how to enter:
Using your phone (or other recording device) create a video
profile of yourself OR create the profile in writing and include a photo.
Each profile should include:
1. Your name,
2. Where you practice,
3. Whether you have a county contract or not, and
4. At least two of the following:
a. Something you love about being a parental defender,
b. a case where you were able to successfully advocate a good outcome for a client, or
c. A tip or trick in practicing parental defense law that could benefit others.
Email your submission to Kate Hansen at kate@parentaldefense.org on or
before April 3, 2014. [Note: If your
file is too big to email, let Kate know and she can make other arrangements for
the submission such as a google doc or dropbox folder.]
We will hold a random drawing at the Annual Conference for
the iPad Mini. Following the conference
we will highlight each profile on the blog, thus giving us all a chance to get
to know the parental defenders from around the state.
We look forward to your submissions!
The Contest is open to all parental defense attorneys practicing
in the State of Utah.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Report on The Effects of the ICPC on Kids in Foster Care
A new report called Foster Kids in Limbo: The Effects of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children on the Permanency of Children in Foster Care has been issued to the Annie E. Casey Foundation by Professor Vivek S. Sankaran of the University Michigan Law School.
The report highlights the major problems with the ICPC, finding that
Despite its good intentions, the ICPC has become unworkable. It contains no specific deadlines for the completion of interstate home studies. It does not set clear standards for how child welfare agencies must evaluate potential placements. It allows child welfare agencies to deny placements with parents and relatives for seemingly arbitrary reasons. And it prohibits courts from reviewing placement denials yet fails to provide administrative procedures for parents and relatives seeking an independent review of a denial.
The results are not very surprising, but raise some interesting constitutional questions when it is a birth parent whose request is being denied:
The Constitution demands that parents be accorded a presumption of fitness absent a judicial finding to the contrary. That a state agency, without any judicial finding of unfitness, could summarily declare a parent unfit to care for his or her child is a serious constitutional problem; that it apparently happens so frequently without any administrative or judicial review is evidence that the ICPC system is in serious need of reform.
You can check out the information gathered and see some of the specific cases highlighted in a full copy of the Report, which is available HERE.
Have any of you had difficulty navigating the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children? We'd love to know.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Assisting Parents with Disabilities
As Parental Defense Attorneys there are times when our clients have difficulties beyond the average case. Those difficulties can include cognitive disabilities and impairments. There are times when our clients’ difficulties affect their case and their ability to complete reunification services. As their attorneys it is our responsibilities to make sure their rights are protected.
In order to effectively advocate on behalf of our clients we need to determine if they have special needs beyond the normal case. We should review the circumstances of the case and our clients’ abilities to determine if we need to ask for additional services.
If necessary, we can refer the court and DCFS to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title II prohibits discrimination by public entities against individuals by reason of disability. It further prohibits exclusion from participation or denial of benefits. It requires “reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures . . . when necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability." It applies to “all services, programs and activities provided or made available by public entities." 28 CFR §35.102(a) and §35.130(b)(7).
This may mean that DCFS would be required to provide reasonable accommodations to assist disabled parents in order to meet their burden of providing reasonable efforts (or active efforts under ICWA).
Here are some additional resources to assist you in representing parents with disabilities.
In order to effectively advocate on behalf of our clients we need to determine if they have special needs beyond the normal case. We should review the circumstances of the case and our clients’ abilities to determine if we need to ask for additional services.
If necessary, we can refer the court and DCFS to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title II prohibits discrimination by public entities against individuals by reason of disability. It further prohibits exclusion from participation or denial of benefits. It requires “reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures . . . when necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability." It applies to “all services, programs and activities provided or made available by public entities." 28 CFR §35.102(a) and §35.130(b)(7).
This may mean that DCFS would be required to provide reasonable accommodations to assist disabled parents in order to meet their burden of providing reasonable efforts (or active efforts under ICWA).
Here are some additional resources to assist you in representing parents with disabilities.
- The TASP (The Association for Successful Parenting) Web site (http://www.achancetoparent.net) for information about membership, conferences, and ways to connect with others on this area of interest.
- The Web site of Through the Looking Glass (http://www.lookingglass.org), one of the first agencies in the U.S. to serve parents with disabilities.
- Determine if your client is entitled to accommodations, here is the ADA http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_regulations.htm#a35107
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

