LilMtnCbn
02-03-2005, 04:41 AM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-ffoster03feb03,0,428013
..story?coll=sfla-news-florida
Court voids rule shielding DCF from adoption reviews
By Maya Bell
Orlando Sentinel
Posted February 3 2005
Foster parents hoping to adopt children in their care scored a legal victory
this week when an appellate court voided a rule that forbids them, or anyone
else, from challenging adoption decisions made by the state Department of
Children & Families.
The agency quietly eliminated a long-established procedure for challenging
adoption placements in 2003, enraging child advocates who charged that the
agency acted illegally to insulate its decisions from review.
In a 13-page opinion issued Monday, the 1st District Court of Appeal in
Tallahassee agreed. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the department
overstepped its authority by changing its adoption rules to bar would-be
adoptive parents from filing what's known as an administrative appeal if DCF
turned down their application to adopt a particular child.
A Volusia County couple, Denise and Ivar Baklid, challenged the rule after the
department removed a baby boy they hoped to adopt from their home after 16
months, awarding him to a distant cousin instead.
Grief-stricken, the Baklids appealed to an administrative judge, asking her to
make sure the department followed it own rules in placing the child with
another family. In response, the department, citing its new rule, argued the
couple was not entitled to seek such an appeal and asked that it be dismissed.
The administrative judge, Suzanne F. Hood, agreed with the Baklids' lawyers
that the new rule was invalid because the department had no authority to exempt
the selection of adoptive homes from administrative review. It was her decision
that the appellate court upheld Monday.
A Volusia County circuit judge has since ordered the Baklids' foster child
returned to them, a decision that's under appeal in state court but made their
administrative appeal moot. Still, Denise Baklid expressed delight Wednesday
that their battle will help protect the rights of other perspective adoptive
parents.
"It is an honor to be part of history," she said. "They tried to take our
constitutional right to be heard away, but now the rights of everybody to be
heard are protected."
Her attorney agreed, saying the ruling also helps keep the agency in check.
"The department wanted to anoint itself God, making them the only one who can
make decisions," said Richard D'Amico, a Daytona Beach lawyer. "Well, let me
tell you, their decisions can be antiquated and cruel."
A spokesman for the department declined to address D'Amico's comments. Neither
could she say whether the agency would appeal. But Lotta Mapp issued a
statement from Alan Abramowitz, district administrator in Volusia and Flagler
counties, saying the department was exploring its legal options and the
implications of the opinion.
At issue was the system of administrative hearings the Legislature created in
1974 to give people "substantially affected" by a state agency's ruling the
right to challenge the decision. Such challenges are heard by independent
administrative judges who preside over hearings that resemble traditional
trials.
Until the department overhauled its adoption rules in 2003, lawyers said,
foster or custodial parents who applied to adopt a child in their care but were
turned down in favor of another family could challenge the decision
administratively, and routinely did so.
DCF officials argued that adoption applicants never had a right to appeal
adoption decisions, and the new rule simply made that clear. Child advocates
countered they always had the right.
"It's bad enough kids don't get lawyers before being removed from homes in
which they've lived for years," Miami lawyer Alan Mishael said, in applauding
the appeal court ruling. "But it's intolerable that DCF can place itself above
the law in how it makes these decisions."
-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown
..story?coll=sfla-news-florida
Court voids rule shielding DCF from adoption reviews
By Maya Bell
Orlando Sentinel
Posted February 3 2005
Foster parents hoping to adopt children in their care scored a legal victory
this week when an appellate court voided a rule that forbids them, or anyone
else, from challenging adoption decisions made by the state Department of
Children & Families.
The agency quietly eliminated a long-established procedure for challenging
adoption placements in 2003, enraging child advocates who charged that the
agency acted illegally to insulate its decisions from review.
In a 13-page opinion issued Monday, the 1st District Court of Appeal in
Tallahassee agreed. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the department
overstepped its authority by changing its adoption rules to bar would-be
adoptive parents from filing what's known as an administrative appeal if DCF
turned down their application to adopt a particular child.
A Volusia County couple, Denise and Ivar Baklid, challenged the rule after the
department removed a baby boy they hoped to adopt from their home after 16
months, awarding him to a distant cousin instead.
Grief-stricken, the Baklids appealed to an administrative judge, asking her to
make sure the department followed it own rules in placing the child with
another family. In response, the department, citing its new rule, argued the
couple was not entitled to seek such an appeal and asked that it be dismissed.
The administrative judge, Suzanne F. Hood, agreed with the Baklids' lawyers
that the new rule was invalid because the department had no authority to exempt
the selection of adoptive homes from administrative review. It was her decision
that the appellate court upheld Monday.
A Volusia County circuit judge has since ordered the Baklids' foster child
returned to them, a decision that's under appeal in state court but made their
administrative appeal moot. Still, Denise Baklid expressed delight Wednesday
that their battle will help protect the rights of other perspective adoptive
parents.
"It is an honor to be part of history," she said. "They tried to take our
constitutional right to be heard away, but now the rights of everybody to be
heard are protected."
Her attorney agreed, saying the ruling also helps keep the agency in check.
"The department wanted to anoint itself God, making them the only one who can
make decisions," said Richard D'Amico, a Daytona Beach lawyer. "Well, let me
tell you, their decisions can be antiquated and cruel."
A spokesman for the department declined to address D'Amico's comments. Neither
could she say whether the agency would appeal. But Lotta Mapp issued a
statement from Alan Abramowitz, district administrator in Volusia and Flagler
counties, saying the department was exploring its legal options and the
implications of the opinion.
At issue was the system of administrative hearings the Legislature created in
1974 to give people "substantially affected" by a state agency's ruling the
right to challenge the decision. Such challenges are heard by independent
administrative judges who preside over hearings that resemble traditional
trials.
Until the department overhauled its adoption rules in 2003, lawyers said,
foster or custodial parents who applied to adopt a child in their care but were
turned down in favor of another family could challenge the decision
administratively, and routinely did so.
DCF officials argued that adoption applicants never had a right to appeal
adoption decisions, and the new rule simply made that clear. Child advocates
countered they always had the right.
"It's bad enough kids don't get lawyers before being removed from homes in
which they've lived for years," Miami lawyer Alan Mishael said, in applauding
the appeal court ruling. "But it's intolerable that DCF can place itself above
the law in how it makes these decisions."
-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown
