Outrageous Fortune

Regarding the "Dependancy Cases,Maricopa County", I personally, am not an Attorney at Law, but on the other hand, I have hands on experiance with Juvenile Dependancy and Criminal Juvenile cases (court appointed cases), as far as the statement made"going through the motions", this is so true in some (alot)of court appointed cases, no contact w/your client, meet and greet, then on the other hand, as in Ms. O'Connor, who I believe is NOT over paid, she lives and breathes these cases, why do I say this?, the Attorney I was employed with, started out as a Public Defender (under-paid)and went out on her own, me tagging along. We (she) specialized in Juvenile cases, not choice, but that was what she was GREAT at, yes her case load was heavy, (county contract) yes she and I both worked really late and very early, lots of hours, lots of frustration, lack of time in a day, and under paid but, Ms. DAL made it possible for us to make a difference, the point of Dependancy is someone needs help. If the Attorney is saving a child from hunger,pain or filth, PAY the Attorney, If the effort is there, pay the Attorney. We as in the State of Arizona, need to look out for our Future. I did alot of foot work, paperwork, telephone calls and shed alot of tears, all for our clients and it's not like there is a line of Attorney's trying to take these cases, I am willing to bet, Ms O'Connor has done a few Pro-Bono cases also, my boss did, so leave the Attorney willing to take the "not so easy or not the best cases alone and be happy to pay the Dependancy Attorney's. Our Future has alot to do with who and how our children are raised. I'm a tax payer too. Try and go over some of those cases, or better yet, read the entire report, then ask if the money really matters to a point, try and look or listen, these cases need help and willing to help is better than being appointed a Public Defender who does not want the case. Thank you Ms DAL and Thank Ms O'Connor for all the effort.

I have a great way to save money here---simply do away with dependency hearings as CPS ALWAYS WINS as they have such brilliant minds and learned jurists to make the final decisions.

OK OK, I will admit my first comment was on the "flip" side, but it is true==CPS always wins initial dependency hearings--the author should have included this in his facts....but in truth the ballooning of money collected by people who do CPS stuff is only the result of the Govenor's "take the child and run" edict given to CPS which has resulted in a near 40% increase in dependency cases since she took office. Kudos to the author for disclosing that all this is kept secret as no one connected with the CPS Foster Care Panic want light shed on their incompetency---an incompetency that even CPS admits in its latest reports. I say more articles like this one and LET THE LIGHT SHINE IN.

This was an eye-opening story, and I hope that you write more about the juvenile system because we have had our own experience there with a son that was nothing like we expected. The judge was good and our son's lawyer was okay, but the whole thing was like a blur with all the fancy language and so on.
Thank you.

My daughter lost both her children to this process and I was amazed at how unorthodox everyone involved was. No one really cared about what needed to be done or what was best for my grandchildren. I complied with every thing CPS and the court wanted and still was discounted as a placement because of false accusations made by my x-mother in law 15-20 years ago. I hired a private attorney to the tune of $4000.00, made many complaints and fought for visitation. They have these little old ladies who have nothing better to do in their retirement than hang out and give input on dependency case, THE CASA. These women are worthless! They are out of touch with society and modern day problems young parents face daily, they make their opinons about the parents without spending time with them and mostly on the basis of what the placement or case manager states. This whole system needs revamped desparatly, someone should step in and help keep our ARIZONA FAMILIES TOGETHER. Someone should also remind everyone involved that these kids have lots of family and need to have contact with grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts/uncles and cousins.

This was a very good article, shedding light into what for most of us is a dim and murky aspect of contemporary society, and the author is to be congratulated for the thorough examination and presentation of this issue. Yet I would add a comment about the portrayal of these contract attorneys as money grubbers who take little interest in the process beyond the pay they receive. I knew Patricia O'Connor years ago and we have drifted apart, to my regret, but the Patricia O'Connor I knew was one of the most dedicated and caring attorneys I have ever met. The woman lives and breathes her work, caring deeply about the situations of these neglected children, and I have known her to wipe a quiet tear from her eyes in an unguarded moment as she reflects upon what she was able to do for these kids, and what she was not able to do. In my opinion the woman is a saint, the Mother Theresa of guardianship proceedings in this valley, and though the countless children she has saved through her work will not be remembered, the work she has done for all of us as a society certainly should be remembered. She deserves every dime of the pay she receives for her representation. She is there for those kids when nobody else will stand up. And for that she should be applauded.

The $1000 contract counsel are paid for the first year’s work would seem like good money to a person who has absolutely no concept of what attorneys typically charge. The vast majority of attorneys have minimum retainer fees that far exceed $1000. As for the $250 for each subsequent year, I find that amount laughable. You should know that many attorneys charge $250 an hour!

The real story here is why are there so many cases in Juvenile Court in Maricopa County. Why do parents think it is okay to lock their children in cages? Or starve them to death? Or smoke meth or crack while they are pregnant, or give birth to infant drug addicts? Or whore their 6-year-old daughter out for drug money?

There are several points from your article that deserve further review. Apparently you found no individual who said Patricia O’Connor does not represent her clients well. Quite the contrary, Judge Araneta said she is a strong advocate for her clients and does what is needed. Are you implying these clients deserve any less? Furthermore, you compare her to attorneys in the Attorney General’s office and CPS caseworkers. According to your very own article, Ms. O’Connor employs at least 4 individuals. This means her income must pay their salaries, in addition to all of the overhead expenses for her office, health insurance, taxes, maintaining her bar accreditation, malpractice insurance, and more. Assistant Attorney Generals do not have these expenses, and neither do CPS caseworkers. They do not work 7 days a week year round as Ms. O’Connor does either. It would appear that your article is merely attacking these attorneys for doing their jobs.

There is no gravy train here, and shame on you for saying so. As for your thinly veiled jab by calling Ms. O’Connor a case whore, once again you are misguided. Does it not concern you there are this many cases for contract counsel to be appointed to? It is seriously disturbing to me. The better question is why has the Office of Contract Counsel not hired more attorneys to divide the workload? In my mind that explains the backlash from Mark Kennedy, it seems that he is deflecting responsibility. Has it occurred to you these few attorneys are part of a very select group that are willing to take these contracts and continue on them? Has it occurred to you the contract does not pay enough in comparison to the work so other attorneys simply will not take the cases? Your article was repugnant, and seriously misguided. Shame on you Paul Rubin.

Man, you've got some angry people writing in on this one, Mr. Rubin. Must have struck a nerve. I suspect that those writing in are the lawyers or their friends. If they would read the story, I don't think you trashed the lawyers for being bad lawyers, just for having too many cases and making an awful lot of money. But, having worked at the Mesa courthouse for a long time, I can tell you that lawyers don't like anyone saying ANYTHING about them, especially when it's even a little bit critical. I've been reading your stories for a long time, and keep up the good work.

A conversation with Terry Goddard, 04.22.2007 by The Arizona Daily Star

http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/179315.php" STAR: Can we talk about Child Protective Services for a minute? There's been a lot of activity in the Legislature, a lot of talk about what, if anything, needs to be done about CPS.

The Legislature may want to conduct closed hearings on CPS because most members of the Legislature don't really understand what CPS does.
GODDARD: I did an opinion. I am afraid it didn't get any attention because it was issued the Friday before Easter.

We did a precomprehensive, which goes to the Brandon Williams (the 5-year-old autistic boy who died March 21) cases, which is the obligation of health-care providers and others in the community under current state law to report any incident of abuse.

It was a reply to a legislator. Clearly there was failure of a number of different agencies to report what could have been, and actually was, evidence of abuse, and they didn't do it.

STAR: What did they ask you to do?

GODDARD: I would refer you to the letter. It's on our Web site at azag.gov under "opinions."

It does try to articulate what I think many people have misunderstood in the past, which is exactly what the reporting obligations are. They're very extensive under state law. Basically, if you had seen young Brandon with bandages, that should have been reported.

I can't argue with somebody who wants to raise the Legislature's understanding of what CPS does and what pressures they're under. If the only question is getting a Legislature more up to speed, I would certainly support it. I think that's a great idea.

STAR: Is there anybody who measures the success of CPS?

GODDARD: I tend to doubt it because the standard of success keeps changing.

I've heard the governor talk entirely in terms of child welfare. Some legislators talk entirely of family unification.
And CPS is constantly in a pingpong match between those two separate poles.

Right now — this has been my experience — they're leaning toward family unification as the primary obligation. And child welfare is there, but as a secondary objective.

We represent CPS in every case of dependency and severance. Right now, there are 7,000 in the process that I'm aware of. The AG's office has won 99 percent of the cases for both severance and dependency.

That is not normal in a contested legal situation. I mean, there's a lawyer on the other side of every one of these cases, usually state-appointed but nonetheless a competent lawyer is handing the interest of the parents, the family.We should not be winning 99 percent of anything.

We're good. We have some very dedicated attorneys; they're not that good. I would be happy with a 70 percent or 80 percent win rate because then it would mean that some of the close calls were coming through the system.

STAR: So you're saying that's because you're only getting the worst cases?

GODDARD: We get the worst of the worst."================================================================
EndGame's opinion...

it's obvious Arizona's public defenders are nothing more than public pretenders...CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPING PROGRAM....

BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...

The salient question in this saga is: What QUALITY of representation are these clients receiving? I believe that an HONEST canvass of the clientele represented in D&N cases would quickly reveal that these attorneys barely make contact with the client, rarely know the case issues, and nearly always advise them to just admit guilt and agree to a punitive, often inappropriate and nearly always irrelevant treatment plan offered by DES. THEN, the OTHER money suckers come out of the woodwork to get THEIR share of the pie.. the mental health workers, substance abuse counselors and monitors, the parent aides, the visitation supervision specialists, the medical doctors, the parenting class teachers, and the list is literally infinite. Richard Wexler said once that at least 25 people derive their considerable payroll checks directly from the child protection INDUSTRY. That is a fact. So, um... show me the incentive for even one of those people to come clean and admit that this system is about money, not about saving kids and their families? Show me the incentives for any one of them to do the RIGHT thing instead of the expedient thing. As some wise person once said, "If you want to understand a problem, follow the money." AMEN. The AZ DES system is ALL about money, and appearances. It's a sham. When will the people of Arizona finally have enough of DES stealing and abusing their children? When will the taxpayers tire of funding this nightmare and demand some QUALITY for their sizeable investment? Rep. Hershberger wants the Sec of State and the Atty Gen to go after Robin Scoins for voicing her opinions, challenging the money flow, shining light on the truth. I didn't hear one word about the CONTENT of her reports to the committees, not one word about being concerned that the taxpayers are being bilked out of millions. Is Arizona asleep???
CMK

William J Crimmins II

back when he was keeping drunks on the road in Tempe he was notorious unethical as the following from azbar.org still reports:
"a) prior disciplinary offenses, (i) substantial experience in the practice of law and (j) indifference to making restitution."

Given this he was eventually drummed out to Payson/Yuma, where clients couldn't reach him, where the state would never seek it's money back, and where he finally caught the eye of an also 'imperfect' but fundamentally outclassing Kessler.

Kessler mentors kids, but that didn't stop him from mocking the conduct of 'Jr.' to the point of causing a crisis much greater then the article published here.

It is as though someone got to Kessler, as though he didnt' want to join the 'crimins's' in Hell town preferring to be downstairs from the Supremes a little while longer at least."

Why has no one objected to the following language ......

Well I'm trying to object!

Stay tuned.

It's too urgent perhaps.

If you have this lawyer.... do more then bring up "run for the hills" on your verizon phone! (even though it's free there, do much more!)
censured for conduct in violation of his duties and obligations as a lawyer. The Discipline Commission and the Supreme Court approved the Discipline by Consent for censure and restitution. Mr. Crimmins was also ordered to pay costs and expenses incurred by the State Bar of $999.60 with interest at the legal rate from the date of the judgment. Mr. Crimmins represented a client in a DUI criminal proceeding and a Department of Motor Vehicles administrative proceeding. Mr. Crimmins accepted a $1,000 retainer and then failed to adequately represent the client by failing to interview two potential witnesses. In addition, Mr. Crimmins failed to promptly return a portion of the client’s retainer. Although Mr. Crimmins agreed to return $400, he immediately returned only $100 and he delayed refunding the remaining $300. There were three aggravating factors found pursuant to the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, section 9.22: (a) prior disciplinary offenses, (i) substantial experience in the practice of law and (j) indifference to making restitution. There were three mitigating factors found pursuant to Section 9.32 of the ABA Standards: (b) absence of dishonest or selfish motive, (e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceeding, and (g) character or reputation. Mr. Crimmins’ conduct violated Rule 42, Ariz.R.S.Ct., particularly, ER 1.1, ER 1.3, ER 1.4, ER 1.16(d), ER 8.4(d). "

If your reading this article you are not alone. Please check by from time to time in the comments for updates!

This same problem has just been addressed in California by a special commission. The attorneys do not care. Many of them also handle adoptions which make the child disappear forever for mucho bucks. It's all about the money.
See article:
State panel calls for change to fix dependency court system -
PANEL SEEKS PROTECTIONS FOR PARENTS, FOSTER KIDS
Article Launched: 03/15/2008
By Karen de Sá, Mercury News
Contact Karen de Sá at kdesa@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5781
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_8583115?nclick_check=1
Confirming the Mercury News findings, the commission reported that children and parents afforded court-appointed lawyers "do not meet their attorneys until moments before their hearings." The typical time for hearings is as short as 10 minutes, a far cry from the 30- to 60-minute hearings recommended.
"If we truly are intent on doing better by children and families, we can't ignore the courts and the legal process," said Myriam Krinsky, a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission and a state courts consultant. "The commission's recommendations acknowledge that we have to do business differently, and that children and families will continue to pay the price if we don't start to turn the corner."

The recommendations in the commission's 20-page report aim at reducing the number of children in foster care, a system believed to poorly serve the children it is designed to protect. Key recommendations include:
• Removing children from their homes should be a last resort, and children temporarily separated from parents should be returned home by the courts as quickly as possible. If the state does take custody, children in long-term foster care should receive financial and other support through age 21, rather than ending foster care at age 18 as is the current practice.
• Local trial courts should prioritize the often-shunned dependency courts. All dependency cases should be heard by judges, not the court-appointed referees and commissioners who now hear most cases.
• All court clients - including children - should have an opportunity to participate in their hearings; with the exception of cases in Los Angeles County, children are routinely absent. Clients should get help with rides to court, and hearings should be set at specific times, so that school and work conflicts for parents can be accommodated.

Attorneys' role
To improve the quality of representation in dependency court, the commission calls for attorneys to meet with clients "before the initial hearing and in advance of all subsequent hearings," a basic communication now lacking in most courtrooms.
The commission also wants higher pay and lowered caseloads for lawyers who now carry as many as 600 cases in some regions. This is hundreds more cases than competent attorneys can reasonably manage, experts say.

THE COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS DONT CARE ,WOULD YOU IF YOU GET PAID TO DO NOTHING ?,
ONLY HAVE TO LOOK THE PART,
CPS IS TO POWERFUL FOR ANY ONE TO FIGHT ,WE HAVE NO CHOICE.....
WE ARE ALL TO SCARED,PARENTS LOOSE ,
CHILDREN LOST
THE REST GET THERE PAY CHECKS ..IT MAKES ME SICK THAT I AM STUCK IN THE MIDDLE WITH MY CASE ,ALL TO DO WITH A TEEN HAVING MENTAL ISSUES ,SHE LOVES DRAMA AND SHE FEEDS CPS WHAT THEY ARE PROGRAM TO HEAR AND DO ,DONT MATTER IF THERE IS NO FINDINGS ON YOUR BEHAFE,AND THAT ATTORNEY THAT STANDS BESIDE YOU REALLY LOOKS THE PART ,THATS ALL HE IS PAID TO DO ,WARE DO WE APPLY FOR THIS JOB ,
COME ON PEOPLE
CPS IS IN NEED FOR HELP ,ITS TIME TO HELP THEM ,LETS GET THEM INTO A CASE PLAN AND GET THOSE SERVICES STARTED FOR THEM ,DONT LET THEM THINK THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELFS,NOBODY CAN HEAR THE CRYS,JUST READING OUT THE LIES ,THERE IS ALOT OF BAD BAD CASE'S ,ITS TIME TO PUT CPS TO REST ,
,LETS GIVE THE POLICE BACK THERE JOB AND LET THEM DECIDE IF CPS IS NEEDED,THAT S HOW IT USE TO BE ,AT LEAST A TAD HAIR BETTER,I DONT NEED A ATTORNEY ,I DO MORE THEN HE CAN EVER THINK ABOUT DOING ......BUT HE SURE GOT PAID ,