24-7 - Lola and Bill Bailey of Friendly, West Virginia, are grandparents' rights ambassadors who travel the country in a 2005 Gulfstream, advising grandparents raising grandchildren on setting up grandparents groups and spearheading legislative efforts to further the interests of their "grandfamilies." Founders of Grandchildren/Grandparents, Inc. of West Virginia, the Baileys travel and speak under the auspices of the National Committee of Grandparents for Children's Rights, an umbrella group that assists grandparents raising grandchildren with program referrals and advocates grandparent-headed family-friendly legislative action.
The Baileys speak on behalf of the 2.6 million grandparents raising grandchildren in this country, a number that has increased 4 percent since 2007 according to census data. These grandparents, who step in to fill a family need for surrogate parents, fill a pressing social need as well: they raise 6 million children who would otherwise be in foster care. And the number of children raised by grandparents dwarfs those raised by foster parents. Only 500,000 children live in formal foster care arrangements in the United States, according to the National Committee of Grandparents for Children's Rights, one-twelfth the number who reside with grandparents.
Yet, the system that benefits so heavily from grandparents' willingness to step in and raise their grandchildren often discriminates against them, giving them less funding than is given to formal foster parents. The New York Times reported that in Florida, grandparents receive only half the amount of financial assistance received by foster parents. The disparity between funds available to grandparents raising grandchildren and foster parents is primarily the result of the 80 percent of grandparents who raise grandchildren without legal custody arrangements. Without legal custody, they don't qualify for benefits available to assist legal custodians with children's expenses. Yet obtaining formal legal custody typically requires legal assistance that can be cost-prohibitive and may create ruptures in already strained family relationships.
Grandparents who step in to stabilize the lives of their grandchildren often do so at the expense of their own financial stability. Many elderly people live on fixed incomes that don't easily accommodate the demand from additional family members. National Committee of Grandparents for Children's Rights says that 19 percent of grandparents raising grandchildren nationwide live in poverty.
And the numbers of grandparents risking impoverishment to rescue grandchildren from troubled situations seems likely to increase. Amy Goyer, an American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) expert, predicts that substance abuse, teen pregnancy and mental illness will continue to fuel the establishment of grandfamilies.
While the number of grandparents taking on responsibility for raising grandchildren has increased, funding for services to assist them, which has never been ample, has begun to dwindle as the economic recession forces social service program cuts. Even the National Committee of Grandparents for Children's Rights has suffered program cuts, with its New York office losing a state grant this year that constituted about 8 percent of its funding, according to The New York Times.
The outlook for grandparents raising grandchildren is not entirely bleak, however. While many social service program funds have been cut, some communities are developing innovative new solutions to problems faced by grandfamilies. In Boston, Hartford, the Bronx and Baton Rouge, apartment housing built specifically for grandfamilies has appeared. These units meet the need for modestly priced housing large enough to accommodate children and simultaneously create a support group for the grandparents coping with the issues of raising the next generation. Some of the apartment buildings house subsidiary services such as after-school programs and social workers to assist the grandfamilies.
Some government assistance programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly AFDC) will provide funding for children living with grandparents despite the absence of a legal custodianship, and those with low incomes may qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamps). In addition to financial help, grandparents may find solace in connecting with similarly situated grandparents and receiving advice from those who have walked the same road. Grandparents' rights organizations can provide such assistance and help by advising grandparents to obtain notarized statements from the children's parents authorizing them to sign for necessary medical care.
Lately, Lola and Bill Bailey have stationed themselves in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia, allowing Lola to take the train to Washington once or twice a week to meet with members of Congress to and seek legislative solutions to some of the issues facing relative caregivers.
Article provided by Breeden Law
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Opinion: The Losing Battle Over Indigent Defendant Rights in Georgia
In 1963, the US Supreme Court held in the landmark case Gideon v Wainwright that the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution requires state courts to provide attorneys to any criminal defendant who is unable to afford one. In the past 46 years, however, many states have been unable -- sometimes even unwilling -- to meet this important obligation.
Right now Georgia is facing a crisis in the funding of its public defender program. The state has been unable to pay attorneys representing indigent clients, simply because the funds are not there. Many are quick to point their fingers at the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council, which is in charge of allocating the money set aside by the state for appointed lawyers. Some argue the Council has made unwise funding decisions and poured too much money into too few cases.
Proponents of this view point to the Brian Nichols case. In 2008, Nichols was sentenced to a life sentence without the possibility of parole for murdering four people and brutally beating a guard at the Fulton County Courthouse where he was on trial for rape. The capital murder case quickly ate up more than $1.5 million of the annual $4.5 million dollar budget for indigent defense. It was later revealed that the judge appointed to the case, Senior Judge Hilton Fuller, signed a secret order in 2007 that earmarked for the Nichols case the remainder of the state's budget for defending death penalty cases -- leaving the fund penniless for other defendants facing death penalty charges for the remainder of the 2007-2008 fiscal year.
Others point to the overzealous state prosecutor in charge of bringing the case against Nichols for running up the costs of his defense. The case was supposed to be a "slam-dunk" case, complete with a taped confession to the murders by Nichols. But the Fulton County District Attorney assigned to the case, Paul Howard, brought more than 50 charges against the defendant and had 400+ witnesses, all of which dramatically increased the costs of the appointed defense team representing Nichols.
One thing is certain: the state has not allocated enough money to provide indigent people charged with crimes the legal representation that they not only deserve, but are entitled to under the US Constitution. As a fundamental right under the constitution, the right to council must be held above the vagaries of partisan politics and held to a higher standard than other funding decisions such as deciding to spend more or less on road repair.
To date, the battle for acquiring the necessary funding has not been successful. In 2008, the Governor proposed an additional $3.6 million for indigent defense. The state senate, however, eventually only approved a little over $500,000. In fact, the amount of money allocated for indigent defense in Georgia has steadily decreased over the last four years. In 2005, the state allocated $9 million for the fund. By 2007, this amount had been reduced to $4.5 million.
And these numbers are expected to decline further as the tough economic conditions force the state to choose where cuts must be made. Unfortunately, one of the areas where some legislators have been more than willing to make these concessions is the indigent defense fund. One state senator in particular, Sen. Preston Smith (R-Rome), has been a vocal advocate against indigent defense and has worked hard to ensure additional state money is not allocated to this important cause.
The problems facing Georgia are not unique. States throughout the country are having difficulty providing sufficient funding for public defenders. As a result, public defenders are being forced to take more cases than they can handle at one time, meaning defendants may wait weeks before meeting with their attorneys, if they meet with them at all. According to the Southern Center for Human Rights some criminal defendants in Georgia have waited as long as 6 months before having an attorney assigned to their case. Currently, there are on-going lawsuits in several states where the lawyers are claiming the state is violating indigent defendants' rights to an attorney.
Additionally, public defenders are asking the courts to be removed from cases because they are not being paid and cannot afford to adequately prepare a defense for their clients for free. Private attorneys who once would agree to take indigent clients are now refusing to do so because they know the state has no way to pay them.
As legislators fight over money, the constitutional rights of those who cannot afford their own legal representation are completely forgotten in the struggle.
These rights are not dependent on whether the defendant is wealthy or poor, has the most expensive defense attorney in town or a state appointed public defender. Georgia has a constitutional obligation, moreover a moral obligation, to ensure that every single criminal defendant who is unable to afford an attorney will have one provided to them.
Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Right now Georgia is facing a crisis in the funding of its public defender program. The state has been unable to pay attorneys representing indigent clients, simply because the funds are not there. Many are quick to point their fingers at the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council, which is in charge of allocating the money set aside by the state for appointed lawyers. Some argue the Council has made unwise funding decisions and poured too much money into too few cases.
Proponents of this view point to the Brian Nichols case. In 2008, Nichols was sentenced to a life sentence without the possibility of parole for murdering four people and brutally beating a guard at the Fulton County Courthouse where he was on trial for rape. The capital murder case quickly ate up more than $1.5 million of the annual $4.5 million dollar budget for indigent defense. It was later revealed that the judge appointed to the case, Senior Judge Hilton Fuller, signed a secret order in 2007 that earmarked for the Nichols case the remainder of the state's budget for defending death penalty cases -- leaving the fund penniless for other defendants facing death penalty charges for the remainder of the 2007-2008 fiscal year.
Others point to the overzealous state prosecutor in charge of bringing the case against Nichols for running up the costs of his defense. The case was supposed to be a "slam-dunk" case, complete with a taped confession to the murders by Nichols. But the Fulton County District Attorney assigned to the case, Paul Howard, brought more than 50 charges against the defendant and had 400+ witnesses, all of which dramatically increased the costs of the appointed defense team representing Nichols.
One thing is certain: the state has not allocated enough money to provide indigent people charged with crimes the legal representation that they not only deserve, but are entitled to under the US Constitution. As a fundamental right under the constitution, the right to council must be held above the vagaries of partisan politics and held to a higher standard than other funding decisions such as deciding to spend more or less on road repair.
To date, the battle for acquiring the necessary funding has not been successful. In 2008, the Governor proposed an additional $3.6 million for indigent defense. The state senate, however, eventually only approved a little over $500,000. In fact, the amount of money allocated for indigent defense in Georgia has steadily decreased over the last four years. In 2005, the state allocated $9 million for the fund. By 2007, this amount had been reduced to $4.5 million.
And these numbers are expected to decline further as the tough economic conditions force the state to choose where cuts must be made. Unfortunately, one of the areas where some legislators have been more than willing to make these concessions is the indigent defense fund. One state senator in particular, Sen. Preston Smith (R-Rome), has been a vocal advocate against indigent defense and has worked hard to ensure additional state money is not allocated to this important cause.
The problems facing Georgia are not unique. States throughout the country are having difficulty providing sufficient funding for public defenders. As a result, public defenders are being forced to take more cases than they can handle at one time, meaning defendants may wait weeks before meeting with their attorneys, if they meet with them at all. According to the Southern Center for Human Rights some criminal defendants in Georgia have waited as long as 6 months before having an attorney assigned to their case. Currently, there are on-going lawsuits in several states where the lawyers are claiming the state is violating indigent defendants' rights to an attorney.
Additionally, public defenders are asking the courts to be removed from cases because they are not being paid and cannot afford to adequately prepare a defense for their clients for free. Private attorneys who once would agree to take indigent clients are now refusing to do so because they know the state has no way to pay them.
As legislators fight over money, the constitutional rights of those who cannot afford their own legal representation are completely forgotten in the struggle.
These rights are not dependent on whether the defendant is wealthy or poor, has the most expensive defense attorney in town or a state appointed public defender. Georgia has a constitutional obligation, moreover a moral obligation, to ensure that every single criminal defendant who is unable to afford an attorney will have one provided to them.
Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
