CHILD ADVOCATES by Nancy Burnett Simply put, a child advocate is someone who advocates for children. I am considered a child advocate because I am a Law Guardian -- a lawyer who represents children in court. In other states, a lawyer who represents children might be called a Guardian A Litem or by some other title. The title "Guardian Ad Litem" is also used in some states for non-lawyers who represent children. It is also an expression that is used for lawyers or non-lawyers who represent adults in court proceedings where the court determines the adult is not legally competent (suffering from profound retardation or mental illness or unconscious, for example). As a Law Guardian, my advocacy for children is usually in court (rather than advocating for changes to the law) or involves working with parents to help them resolve family problems. Most often, I am appointed to represent children in custody cases. Sometimes, I represent children who have allegedly been abused or neglected. In other cases, I represent children who are alleged to be persons in need of supervision due to failure to attend school, running away or other behavior that is non-criminal or children who are accused of conduct that would be a crime if the child were older. In advocating for children, it is my job to be sure the court knows what the child I represent wants. It is also my job to look out for the child's best interests both in terms of protecting the child as much as possible from negative consequences related to the process of litigation (e.g. advocating to protect a child from testimony in open court where appropriate or to prevent parents involved in custody battles from using tactics that place their children at risk) and in terms of the ultimate result of the litigation (e.g. advocating for the custody/visitation arrangement I believe is in the best interests of the child or the most appropriate placement for a child that must be removed from the home due to abuse or unmanageable behavior). Depending on the age of the child, one of my jobs is to explain the legal process to the child. What this explanation involves varies from case to case. Some children are very curious and want to see the court room and have the roles of the various players explained to them. If a child is going to testify (whether in the court room or in the judge's chambers), I offer them a tour of the court house to show them where they would likely be sitting and where others will be sitting and what people will be doing. In other cases, my explanation is less extensive. For some children all that is needed is some reassurance. For example, in custody cases, it is important to make sure they understand it is not an "all or nothing" contest. I try to reassure them (assuming circumstances -- such as one parent expressing an intent to abandon the child -- do not dictate otherwise) that they will see both of their parents regularly. I also try to make sure that they know that they do not have to choose between their parents. Many children who come to meet me think that they have to tell me which parent they want to live with. But I don't think that's fair. I don't think any child should be forced to choose and I will protect their right to not choose between the two people they naturally love most. Of course, if they have a preference, its my job to make sure the Court knows about it. But if they would rather be kept out of the middle of their parents dispute, I will work hard to help them do so. One of the questions that people often ask me is "Aren't you supposed to advocate for the child's best interests?" This question usually arises when I am advocating for something a child wants. This can be difficult sometimes for a number of reasons. In some cases, the child has told me his or her preference but has not authorized me to reveal what he or she said to anyone else. My relationship with the children I represent is like any other attorney-client relationship. A child who has expressed a preference but does not want his or her parents to know the preference is as entitled to confidentiality as an other client. Another reason this can be difficult is that children's wishes can be manipulated. Depending upon their age or maturity, a child may be manipulated by offers of toys, attention, negative remarks made about one of the parents by the other parents, a desire to protect a parent that the child perceives to be victimized, etc. Protecting a child from such manipulation is extremely difficult. Yet another reason that advocating for a child's wishes is difficult is that it is hard to reconcile what a child says he or she wants with what I think would be best for the child in some cases. The role of wishes versus best interests will vary depending on the nature of the case and the age and maturity of the child. For example, I have often represented infants. Clearly, they cannot articulate any wishes they may have. In these cases, my role is to represent what I perceive to be in the best interests of the infant However, with older children and teens and in cases such as juvenile delinquency cases which are criminal in nature, what the child wants becomes increasingly more important. When I have represented older teens or children who are unusually mature, my work with the child becomes similar to my work when I represent an adult. With any child who is old enough to articulate his or her wishes, I will talk to the child about what I think is best for him or her if the stated wishes conflict with what I think is best. Ultimately, if the child continues to state a preference for something I think is contrary to his or her best interests, I will express both points of view (the child's wishes and my recommendation as to the child's best interests) to the Court. For it is the Court that is the neutral party who looks at the various needs, rights and interests of the parties and the child and makes a decision. Another curious aspect to "best interests" is that not everyone agrees about what result would be in the child's best interests. In a child protective case, for example, the caseworkers have sometimes been surprised that I did not automatically support their position. I will independently investigate the case rather than just assessing the accuracy of the caseworker's petition in every case because they are not always accurate -- caseworkers are as capable of making a mistake, misunderstanding a situation, having their judgment colored by values, being prejudiced, or even lying as anyone else. Some caseworkers take this investigation personally and seem to feel offended by my actions. However, I am bound to exercise independent judgment on behalf of my client and my judgment cannot possibly be independent if I depend on one of the parties for critical facts about the case without question. I also tend to come into conflict with child protective officials on issues of removal of a child from the home and terminating parental rights. I believe a child in foster care, even if the system does not consider him or her to be "adoptable" is entitled to be freed for possible adoption where the parents have abandoned the child , repeatedly abused the child, neglected to resolve the circumstances that create the need for the child's stay in foster care, etc. With regard to removal of a child from the home, I think a removal is a very traumatic event for a child whether the allegations of abuse or neglect prove to be true or false. Children who have been removed from the home as a result of abuse or neglect allegations often feel that they have been guilty of misconduct. Furthermore, removal from the home also almost always rips the child from every potential source of support (e.g., friends, teachers and other professionals at school - removal often involves a change of schools, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings - siblings are not always placed in the same foster home) at a time hen the child is probably in greatest need for support. It is a terrible thing to do to a child unless there is no other way to keep the child safe. That is not to say that there are not cases where the need to protect the child from abuse or neglect outweighs the trauma that the removal may cause. However, I will often investigate options for protecting the child without placing him or her in foster care (e.g., placing the child with a relative or removing the alleged offender from the home) first. (Note: Child protective workers in the United States are legally required to investigate relative placements where a child must be removed from a home but I have found that they often do not fulfill this obligation.) Another question I am often asked is whether I am supposed to be neutral when I represent children in a custody case between their parents. The answer is both "yes" and "no". When I first meet the family, I strive to approach the case with a neutral point of view. I do not know anything yet except the allegations that one or both parents made in the court papers that resulted in my appointment as Law Guardian. Sometimes, these allegations are true. Sometimes, they are false. Often, they are a mixture of truths, half-truths, exaggerations, and distortions. Where possible, I try to be sure I have spoken with both parents before I meet the child. However, after I have met the child, learned of the child's wishes, spoken with the parents, seen both homes, perhaps spoken to others such as grandparents, teachers, etc., reviewed any available psychological reports or other records about the family, I will (and should) form an opinion about what would be in the child's best interests. Once that opinion has been formed, I am no longer neutral. At that point, I am an advocate for the child's wishes and best interests. Throughout the process of forming that opinion, I usually work actively with the parents in an effort to help them resolve the issue themselves because I believe children involved in custody cares are usually best served when their parents reach an agreement about the custody/visitation arrangement rather than having the court impose one upon the family. Anyone can be a child advocate. Parents are often advocates for their children with schools, physicians and other professionals and agencies. Child protective caseworkers are also advocates for children when they counsel parents on how to be better parents or bring cases to court asking the court to issue orders designed protect children. Ordinary citizens fighting for changes to laws to improve our care of children are also advocates. If you are interested in becoming an advocate for children, here are some ways you can: Become a CASA volunteer - CASA stands for Court Appointed Special Advocate. CASA volunteers
often work with abused children who have been removed from their homes, helping the family make
the changes that need to be made so that the child can go home or helping the professionals assure
that the steps are taken to promptly free the child for adoption. For more information, see the
CASA site on the Internet. Review safety issues for the children in your life. Does your child know basic skills to keep
himself or herself safe? Do your nieces, nephews, step-children, and other children you love know
these skills? For more information about how to do this, visit the Rate A Child's Safety site on
the Internet. Find out about and advocate for pending legislation that helps children. In the United States,
one good resource for information about how to do this is Pandora's Box. Educate others about immunization for children. You can order a poster and parent brochure from
Children Now. Educate others about shaken baby syndrome. For more information, see the prevention feature I
wrote about shaken baby syndrome. In the United States, contact your legislator to support the Victims Rights Amendment. For more
information about the Victims Rights Amendment, see the feature I wrote on the subject. ------------------ (c) 1997 Nancy Burnett (http://incestabuse.miningco.com), all rights reserved. Used by
permission per license to The Mining Company
|
