School: Emory University School of Law

My internship working for Michelle Barclay and Beth Locker at the Georgia Supreme Court's Child Placement Project has been a rich and rewarding experience. I was definitely nervous about the summer as I had not yet officially started law school. Fortunately, the week of orientation did much to familiarize myself with the terms, processes, and standards of the child deprivation court system. After the last day of orientation I felt excited, and a little more confident, to begin this work.

Having spent the past 10 years working with youth, three of those specifically with juvenile delinquents, I came to law school specifically to work at solving the failures in the child welfare and deprivation court systems. This summer's experience provided the perfect introductory and inside perspective for me to begin to understand how all the pieces and persons operate. On my first day, Michelle asked me what my goal was for the summer, what was it I wanted to gain. What I wanted most was to understand how the different agencies, courts, and parties communicate. I wanted to know who made which decisions, and how these decisions were made. I had spent enough years seeing the results; the children harmed by broken court, school, and child welfare agency systems; I wanted to find out where these dysfunctions occurred and what could be done to fix them. Two days later I was sitting at a table with SAAG's, parent attorneys, child advocates, DFCS caseworkers, and juvenile court judge Michael Key at the Troup County Stakeholders Meeting.

At that first meeting with Michelle, she outlined the four projects I would be working on during the summer. Two of them were for Beth Locker: doing a research project on Substituted Judgment as a model of representation for children, and drawing out the specific requirements in the OJJDP Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines and organizing them into a bullet point format. The two projects for Michelle involved researching and putting together a proposal on recommendations for improved SAAG representation of DFCS; and to participate in the Summer County Court Assessment as part of the Court Improvement Initiative. Along with these four projects I was given various research assignments Michelle or Beth needed for the numerous presentations and conferences they led throughout the summer. It seemed every time one of them came back from one of these conferences there was a new statistic or study or a program in another state that someone had mentioned or referred to that Michelle and Beth wanted more information.

These research projects were a fun part of the job. It was rewarding to be able to hunt down some obscure statistic or study, find out who did it, how they were using it, and what this meant for our research. One of the more substantial projects that came from this type of research was a report on the Pew Foundation's Fostering the Future:Safety, Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care. The main area I examined was their recommendations for strengthening the court's role, specifically with regards to making children's voices heard in courts.

One of the things that has struck an emotional chord with Michelle is hearing repeatedly from children that have come through foster care the complaint that they were never given a chance to speak, that they were never asked for their opinion or for what they wanted. As a result, one of the things we paid particularly close attention to during our court observations was the quality of representation for children, and the presence of children in the courtroom. Unfortunately, our findings at this point only confirm the experiences of those children who feel they have little or no say in what happens to them. GAL's were present in fewer than half of the cases; only once did I hear a GAL expressly state the child's wishes, and then he made another recommendation; children were rarely in court; only twice was a child allowed to speak during court, and only one of those times was the child asked for her opinion, and that one time it was the judge who asked for her opinion, not the GAL. Michelle shared with me her dismay, even disgust, at having a GAL say that it is not her (the GAL's) responsibility or her obligation to meet or see the child she is representing. She added, as a GAL the child is not her "client". This is precisely why we need to institute a best practices model in Georgia that includes defining the child as the client.

Other significant projects included research on open courts; considered judgment and when a child can stand as competent; and a national survey from other states on the role of courts in directing placements, as a result of the Tidwell Appeals case. A side benefit from these research projects was the conversations I had with persons throughout the country. Particularly significant was the contact I had with Mimi Laver and Jennifer Renne from the ABA's Center on Children and the Law. I also had significant networking opportunities as Michelle invited me along on numerous luncheons with Supreme Court, appeals court, and juvenile court justices. I definitely understood the privileged opportunities I was giventhis summer as I spoke about my SAAG report before Justice Hines, and from having met Judges Tilley and Morris enough times throughout the summer that I could have a casual conversation with them at the Savannah GAL conference. Beth was equally conscientious and gracious to invite me along at every opportunity to various meetings throughout the summer.

One of the valuable results from all these meetings, and the candor with which Michelle and Beth sharedinformation with me, was an understanding of the personalities behind the positions, offices, and agencies. As is often the case, personalities have as much to do with why things are or are not getting done as does the efficiency and the quality of the systems in place. It is good that there are real emotions and passions behind this work. It is unfortunate that personality limits cooperation and a synergizing of efforts. But understanding where people are coming from, and where their interests lie can do much to improve the working relationships between all the persons and parties. Even though it seems there are a few contentious persons (and it seems most of them are outside the juvenile court system) I am impressed with the integrity and the quality of most of the persons involved.

Every county we visited the judge welcomed us into his chambers, often for an extensive discussion on the latest eventswithin the juvenile court system. Michelle and Beth are so well respected and so knowledgeable I have seen most judges genuinely ask for suggestions on how they can improve. It is also good to hear the particulars of each county, what they do differently and why. For instance, one county has a difficult County Commissioner, limiting the funds they have available for SAAG's and GAL's. The judge is as distressed by this as anyone and wanted to know what he could do about it. This prompted a later discussion by Beth and Michelle on how to resolve this problem through improved legislation. This is precisely what I wanted to learn this summer; how the different persons and agencies communicate, where the problems lie and what can be done to fix them.

This is what Michelle and Beth do everyday. Of all the experiences I have had this summer the greatest highlight is the working relationship and even friendship I have developed with both of them. They inspire me. I see how their work is making a difference now and how it will continue to make an even more significant impact in the future. It has been a tremendous privilege to work with them. The experience and perspective I have gained is invaluable. I am amazed at how thorough a picture I have been given of Georgia's, and even the federal, child welfare system. This summer has only served to inspire and confirm my desire to work in juvenile law and child advocacy. Now I just have to actually go to law school.