Proposal 40 doesn’t put our children’s best interests first

Was a mistake made in the drafting of Florida Constitution Revision Commission Proposal 40? It would require that every child in Florida’s dependency system be appointed an attorney.

When I first read Proposal 40, I was excited because I thought the Constitution Revision Commission might be putting the Guardian ad Litem Program into the state Constitution. After all, by statute every child who comes into dependency court is already appointed a GAL volunteer and an attorney who together advocate for his or her best interests. If we had a constitutional amendment guaranteeing children advocacy and legal representation through the GAL Program, that would be amazing.

Then I learned that the goal of this initiative was to hire a private attorney for every dependent child. If it passes, the proposed amendment would guarantee that a child’s expressed wishes — as opposed to his or her best interests — would be pursued by a private attorney who is directed by the child.

In other words, the child would have final say in what his or her attorney could tell the dependency judge. There would be no GAL volunteer or attorney looking out for the child’s best interests.

What’s more, the child could choose to keep key information confidential — such as whether he or she was in a dangerous situation — and the attorney would have no choice but to comply, even if that meant the child was in jeopardy.

Under Florida law, a GAL attorney is appointed to advocate for the child’s best interests. This protects his or her safety. And if a child wants or needs a private attorney, the judge has the authority to appoint one. Florida law already requires the appointment of a private attorney for children with five categories of special needs.

Right now, judges have the duty and flexibility to decide what is appropriate for each child. Proposal 40 creates a one-size-fits-all approach that assumes every child can and should direct an attorney in an attorney-client relationship. Choosing the objectives of legal representation should not be the responsibility of children. It would be a fiction for younger children, and could even be dangerous for some older ones.

Abused and neglected kids deserve someone looking out for their best interests, not their expressed wishes. Vote no on Proposal 40.

Choosing the objectives of legal representation should not be the responsibility of children.