School: Emory University School of Law

I'd like to preface this reflection with gratitude for the training the Barton clinic provided at the beginning of the summer. In a (very full) week, we were given a thorough introduction to Georgia's juvenile system, including the perspectives of children, parents, lawyers, advocates, healthcare providers, foster parents, and legislators. For my placement at the Office of the Child Advocate, this balanced training proved particularly helpful; I was regularly asked to work with people who work in these different roles. While most everyone I met this summer works very hard and with great dedication, each is also most committed to his own niche in the system. In a system lacking sufficient people and resources, those whose work should knit together to form a cohesive system of advocacy and care are competing for limited resources and sometimes treat one another as competitors, rather than as allies. It was thus important for me to be able to see the value of each role even when the person I was working with was convinced that his role was most important, most deserving of additional resources, etc. My placement called me to keep a bird's eye view, as well as to interact regularly with individuals in their particular jobs. I felt well-prepared to do so. Also, because this placement allowed for a broad view, I had excellent opportunities to reflect on individual successes as well as needed systemic changes. This placement enabled policy-centered thinking, and I have learned much about how Georgia's system works, which children are at-risk, how they are treated, what those who work in the system would like to see changed, and how I would like to work on behalf of Georgia's kids.

Second, because the OCA is a state-wide organization, I was able to see how several Georgia counties' juvenile systems are maintained, as well as how they differ. I was also able to see contrasts -- both real and perceived -- between Atlanta and the `rest' of Georgia as decisions are made and manpower allotted among the counties. As an observer of several working sessions of the juvenile code re-write committees, I was able to see how input and experience are gathered and how change -- however small -- is implemented in legislation impacting juveniles. I was often surprised in these sessions -- sometimes pleasantly, sometimes unpleasantly -- but I was always glad to have seen the process.

As an OCA intern, my regular duties were three: I participated on audit teams, conducted case investigations, and researched issues for upcoming legislative proposals. Audit teams spent 2-4 days at the office of a county's Department of Family and Children Services, examining a set of randomly selected files to make sure federal standards and time requirements were being met. After conducting interviews with stakeholders in the counties, the OCA compiled a report, made suggestions for change where needed, and returned to present findings to the counties' personnel. These audits highlighted the desperate situations of many of our state's children, but I was routinely impressed with the work being done on behalf of those children. Our examination of files reflected the shortages of caseworkers, SAAGs, exceptional foster homes, and even juvenile court judges. But we only rarely found a case where someone in DFCS was truly neglecting his or her duties on behalf of children.

Second, I was assigned investigative duties. The OCA receives complaints directly from those who believe children have been wrongly placed, wrongly declared deprived, wrongly returned to their parents, etc. In such cases, the OCA essentially makes a review of the handling of the case. Trying to access case files, caseworkers' notes and records and records of parent's compliance or non-compliance with case plans proved very frustrating. I was astounded at just how difficult it was to create a thorough picture of all a child in the state system had experienced. I also found this frustration hard to reconcile with the generally good experiences we had in county audits. Because our time was largely spent elsewhere, I closed few cases over the course of the summer. Of these, however, half had been appropriately closed and half led to OCA recommendations for change in the county DFCS office. I dare not say this reflects a half-successful system, but if the state Office of the Child Advocate struggles to identify the specific breakdowns in a system or in the case of an individual child, I wonder how those breakdowns can be avoided…

Finally, the majority of my time was spent researching the issue of granting jurisdiction over adoptions of foster children to juvenile courts (rather than superior courts). I learned much from this research, but was again surprised to find that information about children in our state is woefully inadequate. Statistics are kept sporadically, if at all, and there is no centralized tracking system whatsoever. The seemingly small task of finding out how many children are adopted in which courts in our state and how long their adoption processes took was a huge challenge. I was also surprised to learn that though the juvenile law community is very small, practitioners do not always consult with one another when making policy decisions. It would seem that this sort of communication could have good results for children. In the end, I believe the research we performed will have some good result, but we encountered many unnecessarily time- and energy-consuming obstacles along the way.

In sum, I am grateful for this summer experience and for having had the opportunity to learn from so many who work on behalf of children. In my career, I hope to continue to lend my education and energy to this state's children.