Republican Bill Slams Courthouse Door in the Face of the Poor

So there is a political movement to stop individuals who cannot afford to hire legal counsel to litigate child welfare cases when our children are Legally Kidnapped, abused, raped and murdered in foster care.  Wow.

Just another example of forces attempting to cover up Medicaid fraud in child welfare.

Tell your U.S. Representative what you think about another piece of legislation welding the iron curtain of child welfare shut again.

For Immediate Release

Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011

Contact: Matthew Morgan – 202-226-5543

Republican Bill Slams Courthouse Door in the Face of the Poor   

(WASHINGTON) –  Today at a markup held by the House Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) opposed the passage of  H.R. 1996, the “Government Litigation Savings Act.”  The bill prohibits groups and individuals seeking to protect important rights and interests threatened by unreasonable government action from recovering attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).  The EAJA allows a court to award attorney’s fees when a citizen, non-profit organization, or small business wins a case against the federal government in which the government’s actions are proved unjustifiable.  The Alliance for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, National Consumer Law Center, Sierra Club, and over one hundred other consumer, environmental, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations oppose H.R. 1996 because the bill undermines the EAJA, making it more difficult for low income people and other parties that cannot obtain free legal counsel from securing quality legal representation in a wide range of cases.

“Contrary to the title of the bill, H.R. 1996 is a thinly disguised effort to prohibit litigation against the Government by the needy and public interest groups,” said Conyers.  “  Under current law, the Equal Access to Justice Act enables the needy to recover attorneys fees, which makes it easier for them to obtain legal representation.  Without the ability to recover fees, it is doubtful that many low income people, including seniors and veterans, will be able to secure legal representation.

“In addition, H.R.1996 also unnecessarily restrict eligibility for awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act.  The EAJA already limits who is eligible for awards.  For example, businesses with a net worth of $7 million or more are ineligible while individuals with a net worth of $2 million or more are also ineligible.  However, H.R. 1996 contains new ill-conceived eligibility standards and prohibits some non-profit organizations from recovering awards under the Act.

“Specifically, H.R. 1996 requires the prevailing party to have a direct and personal interest in the action.  Thus, public interest groups and others could be deterred from pursuing litigation that serves the public good because those actions may not provide a direct relief to these groups.  For example, we could see fewer cases brought on behalf of individuals with physical disabilities as well as fewer suits to enforce federal laws that protect our health.

“Furthermore, I am concerned that this bill is purely aimed at restraining environmental groups and is an attack on those groups who have been awarded fees under the Act.  Most, if not all, environmental groups are non-profit organizations.  Many file lawsuits for injunctive relief to enforce laws and protect the public health.  As a result of this bill, however, many of these organizations will be deterred from bringing such actions if they cannot recover full attorney’s fees.

“Finally, this bill eliminates the possibility of increased fees, which are particularly appropriate for complex and highly specialized adjudications involving environmental law.   By eliminating the possibility of increased fees for specialization, this bill creates yet another hurdle that will make it more difficult to find competent legal representation to enforce complex environmental laws.”

Letter outlining public interest group opposition:

Letter of Opposition to the “Government Litigation Savings Act” (H.R. 1996) November 16, 2011

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Here Are $1,066,477,070.74 Reasons Why Child Abuse Is Such A Problem

I have taken the liberty of converting the currency to U.S. dollars to give my U.S. readers an idea of the levels of fraud, waste and abuse which runs rampant in the child welfare industry.

Remember, it's not a shock, it's an industry.

Lawyers claim £645 million family breakdown legal aid bill

Legal aid lawyers are making £645 million from taxpayers over family breakdowns each year - £28 for every household in England and Wales.

By Rebecca Lefort 8:30AM BST 17 Apr 2011

4 Comments

New figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent on legal advice to divorcing couples, helping parents fight child custody battles, or trying to restrain violent partners.

Warring families are also using the civil legal aid system to sue over contested wills, argue between siblings over inheritance and even argue in court about the names of their children after divorces.

Critics said the figures revealed the true cost of "broken Britain", and how lawyers were profiting from family separations.

The cost of family breakdowns has risen dramatically over recent years. Lawyers representing parents in child custody cases against each other or the state now charge £468 million in legal aid fees each year.

In total just over £2.1 billion is paid to lawyers from the legal aid budget, £1.2 billion of it to defend criminals, the rest to advise people on civil cases, which as well as family law include aid for immigrants trying to stay in the country, people suing over alleged mistreatment at the hands of the NHS or the police, and prisoners upset at jail conditions.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Legal aid clampdown will save £300 million 
  13 Nov 2010
• Mother whose children were taken for adoption joins class action 
  19 Jun 2010
• Britain pays child benefit for 50,000 children living abroad 
  31 Oct 2009

Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, has promised to dramatically cut the total amount spent in the teeth of major opposition from lawyers.

Many lawyers are almost entirely dependent on legal aid work and a list released by Mr Clarke's department shows that some firms make millions each year from charging the state for their clients.

The ten biggest recipients of legal aid, all of them large law firms, received £45.6 million.

Jonathan Djanogly, the justice minister, said: "At more than £2 billion a year, we pay far more per head than most other countries for legal aid.

"The current system encourages lengthy, acrimonious and sometimes unnecessary court proceedings, at taxpayers' expense, which do not always ensure the best result for those involved.

"We need to make clear choices to ensure that legal aid will continue to be available in those cases that really require it, the protection of the most vulnerable in society, and the efficient performance of the justice system.

"Our proposals aim to radically reform the system and encourage people to take advantage of the most appropriate sources of help, advice or routes to resolution - which will not always involve the expense of lawyers or courts."

The figures show that in total £645 million was spent on family law - out of a total of £940 million spent on civil cases and advice.

And most of that - £468 million - was spent on custody disputes over children, which can be extremely bitter and lengthy.

The total number of children involved is unknown but there are around 55,000 divorces each year where the couple have children - although not all will mean a state-funded custody dispute.

And the number of custody battles arising from legal separations or cases involving unmarried parents is not known, but is likely to account for a significant part of the £468 million legal bill.

The taxpayer is also paying £25 million for lawyers' fees in divorce cases - and £350,000 for lawyers seeking to have children's names changed in the aftermath of disputes.

Before gaining power Conservative politicians frequently warned that Britain's broken families were putting a strain on public finances and pledged to tackle the problem, including then opposition leader David Cameron.

Mr Cameron said: "Actually we need to have a more pro-family country, we need to get behind marriage and commitment and fatherhood and we need to have much more discipline in our schools and we need to have a revolution in the way that we provide welfare and education that will really mend the broken society."

The Government announced in November that it considered many of the claims to be unreasonable, and drew up plans to cut the civil legal aid bill dramatically.

It promised restrictions on the type of family cases that would receive support, and said couples would be forced to undergo mediation before becoming eligible for legal aid.

The changes will mean child residency disputes between parents, or arguments over money, including divorce settlements, will no longer be funded unless domestic violence is involved.

Cases of children being taken into care, forced marriages, and international child abduction will still be funded, but the rules about who is entitled to legal aid will be tightened, meaning no homeowner will be able to claim support.

Currently to qualify for either civil or criminal legal aid claimants need to provide evidence that they have less than £8,000 in cash and savings.

Even with large cuts the cost of family cases is still expected to reach more than £450 million annually.

One area of expenditure which will raise concern that taxpayers' money is being used to help individuals become wealthier is the more than £2 million spent on inheritance disputes and relatives suing each other over the outcomes of wills.

The plans, which are currently being finalised, will also see all assistance withdrawn in areas including clinical negligence claims, consumer disputes, and arguments about welfare payments.

The figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that as well as family law, £89 million was given to lawyers for immigration and asylum work, virtually all of it to help immigrants stay in the country, £52 million was handed over to sue the NHS and healthcare providers, £60 million to aid tenants arguing over housing, much of it public-sector, and £33 million for fighting against clients' debts, £28 million for disputing welfare payments and £1 million for taking action against police forces and prisons.

Emma Boon, campaign director at the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "Our legal aid bill is excessive and needs to be better controlled.

"The gigantic family cases figure reveals the true cost of broken Britain and shows that too many lawyers are profiting at taxpayers' expense."

In the last recorded year Duncan Lewis Solicitors recorded the highest claims for civil legal aid, making £9.9 million.

Adam Makepeace, the firm's practice director, defended the income, saying: "Two million people depend on legal aid for access to justice, a democratic right first enshrined in Magna Carta.

"Whilst undoubtedly savings can be made in the budget, taking certain types of family and children cases out of scope will not necessarily achieve this. Representation in person - without the aid of a lawyer - will add considerably to the courts time and costs."

It was brought to my attention that the big bad legal system does no justice to individuals who have been victims of fraud.


There was no fraud in this case.  The issue that was presented before SCOTUS was one of attorney fees.


In reading the actual opinion below, one shall see that damages were not the matter at hand.  Damages were decided previously.


In the previous 9th Circuit Court Opinion, the case was bifurcated on specific questions. 


Injunctive relief was to have the County declare that its Central Registry for Child Abuse and Neglect was inadequate in providing due process.  Done.


Damages are just what it says, damage.  That was previously remanded to the District Court and decided.  How much, we will never know.


Prospective relief is with the attorney fees.  SCOTUS denied $60,000 for attorney fees.  Attorney fees are part of that whole conundrum called due process, sort of a reimbursement scheme.  Someone should argue that due process is entirely denied to individuals who have diligently sought competent counsel who would take on a due process issue under indigent status.  Hmm.....


Stay tuned.

Court says county doesn't have to pay for mistake

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that Los Angeles County does not have to pay attorney fees to a couple listed as child abusers even though they were declared innocent years ago.

By JESSE J. HOLLAND

Associated Press

WASHINGTON —

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that Los Angeles County does not have to pay attorney fees to a couple listed as child abusers even though they were declared innocent years ago.

Craig and Wendy Humphries were arrested by sheriff's deputies nine years ago after their rebellious daughter accused them of abuse. State courts ruled the allegation was false but they remain on California's Child Abuse Central Index.

In 2008, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco found the system unconstitutional because there's no way for the innocent to clear their names. It ordered the state to come up with a new system and the county to pay $60,000 in attorney fees to the Humphries.

The high court reversed and remanded that decision, saying Los Angeles County does not have to pay.

Los Angeles County argued that it could only be held liable and pay damages if a county policy or custom caused a violation of a constitutional right under a 1978 Supreme Court decision in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services.

The Child Abuse Central Index was a state policy, the county argued.

The federal appeals courts had also split on whether Monell applies only to damages, or if it also applies to prospective relief as well like injunctions or declaratory judgments such as the 9th Circuit's decision to give the Humphries attorney fees.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the 8-0 opinion for the court, said that it does.

"We conclude that Monell's holding applies to claims against municipalities for prospective relief as well as to claims for damages," Breyer said.

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the consideration and decision of the case because she worked on it while in the solicitor general's office.

The ruling addressed only a narrow technical question - whether Monell applied to non-monetary prospective relief - and doesn't affect the appellate court ruling that the Humphries' constitutional rights were violated, said Andrew J. Pincus, a Washington, D.C., attorney who argued the couple's case before the Supreme Court.

"That finding of a constitutional violation remains in full force," Pincus said in an e-mailed statement.

The Humphries still contend that the county "acted, and failed to act, pursuant to its policies and customs," Pincus said. "That issue will be litigated before the district court."

The case was Los Angeles County v Humphries, 09-350.

Los Angeles County v Humphries, 09-350.

It's Not a Shock, It's an Industry

I really do not understand why fraudulently billing the state attorney fees in child welfare is such a shock.


Everyday, across the country, in many a courtrooms you will have what is called "court-appointed" attorneys representing child abuse cases.


Here is how it works:


You pass the bar.  You ask around to find out if you know someone who is or knows a dependency court judge.  You submit your billing information, and BAM!!!, you are on the list as a $55.00 an hour court-appointed attorney to represent parents in child abuse cases.


All you have to do is, hopefully show up, but it does not matter if you are on time.  You meet the parent right before you walk into the court room and speak down to them as a form of intimidation to make it look like you know what you are doing.  Chastising works well in the event the parent asks questions or just starts telling you details to the case.


Once you walk into the courtroom and sign in, you will get the case file.  This is when you pay the utmost attention to the name of your client, the parent.  There is no need to read much further than that because the case worker will testify as to the contents of her report to keep the kids in the system.  You have just made $110.00, because you always bill for travel to and from the court and all you had to do was roll out of bed.


Then, as you know the routine in child abuse cases, you will have to go to multiple hearings.  This is when the difficult work comes into play.  You will have to submit billings.


See, every time you think about the case, you have to bill, as this is your strategy.  When trying to remember a court date, bill.  When trying to remember the client's name, bill.  


You will never have to call your client so there is no reason to call.  In the event the parent calls your office/cell phone, just make up some fancy, hope-ladened lie and tell them you are about to go into chamber with the judge and will tell you about the decision at the next hearing.  Make sure to bill.


You never have to file motions.  Filing motions or actually representing your clients will give cause for the judge to not appoint you to future cases, shutting down your gravy train.


The reason why you will get away with this pattern of practice is because court-appointed attorneys are appointed due to the fact the client is indigent.  Child abuse case funding is based on the poverty means test otherwise there is no money involved.  In that situation, parents can afford real, experienced and professional civil rights attorneys, not child abuse attorneys, and place the child with relatives.  


I will drive this home again.  Poverty is considered child abuse.  Just look at the national rhetoric against entitlements.   No one cares about the poor.  That is why there is despicably horrific representation for parents in child welfare, all paid by your hard earned taxpayer dollars. That is why there is fraud in child welfare and that is why no one will do anything about it.


It's not a shock, it's an industry.

Johnston lawyer accused of professional misconduct

01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, October 24, 2010

By Gregory Smith

Journal Staff Writer

The state official who investigates alleged misconduct by lawyers has charged former Johnston Town Solicitor Milan T. Azar with violating three rules of professional conduct.

Azar is accused of deliberately overbilling the state Department of Children, Youth and Families for a guardianship, lying about it to the DCYF and to the chief disciplinary counsel of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and improperly soliciting clients.

Azar has denied the bulk of the case. But in a formal answer to the charges, he admitted that he submitted to the DCYF the bills that are under scrutiny, and that he falsely blamed a helper for the initial submission.

The charge has been made by David D. Curtin, chief disciplinary counsel, and will be considered at a hearing by a three-member subcommittee of the Supreme Court’s disciplinary hearing board, composed of two lawyers and one public member who is not a lawyer. The hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Azar, according to Curtin’s complaint, represented a woman who was seeking to become guardian of three nieces and a nephew and whose legal expenses were eligible for reimbursement by the DCYF. Azar submitted four invoices for $2,000 apiece, or a total of $8,000, to the DCYF. But the department will only reimburse a guardian for reasonable non-recurring expenses — including lawyer’s fees — not to exceed $2,000 for an entire case, not per individual.

When the DCYF challenged the bill, Azar allegedly submitted revised invoices claiming that he had worked 63.25 hours on the case, including 14 hours in court. But the four guardianships had been heard all at once in a court proceeding that lasted no more than one-half hour, according to Curtin.

Subsequently, Azar sent an e-mail to the DCYF saying that his staff mistakenly had sent in a billing software template with placeholder figures rather than the correct figures. He submitted a revised bill for $8,000 that charged for 12 hours of court time.

After the DCYF complained to Curtin about the billings as well as Azar’s alleged improper solicitation of clients, Azar submitted another revised bill for $8,000 and insisted that it was accurate.

In a meeting with Curtin, Azar allegedly said that he had delegated the billing to his staff person, Tina Araujo. But Curtin said he learned that Araujo was an Azar client and not an employee.

After that meeting, Azar submitted still another revised bill, for more than $8,000. The new bill included a charge for five hours of post-guardianship work for each child, but Curtin alleged that there had been no post-guardianship work at that time.

In a letter in July, according to Curtin, Azar admitted that he had sent all the bills to the DCYF and that he tried to blame a helper because he was too proud to admit that he had mistakenly sent in the template.

Brian Peterson, associate director of the DCYF, notified the state police as well as Curtin about the alleged irregularities. State police Detective Lt. John Lemont said Tuesday that his agency will await the outcome of Curtin’s complaint and then, if appropriate, open a criminal investigation.

In other matters, Azar is alleged to have twice solicited guardianship business from people he was not allowed to solicit under the rules of professional conduct. Azar said in a reply to the DCYF complaint that he often approaches distressed people in the courthouse in an effort to help and to make sure they know that affordable legal representation is available.

Azar is charged with violating rules regarding fees, honesty and client solicitation.

“I am working with” Curtin “to try to get a just solution,” Azar said. Due to client confidentiality, he said, he does not want to publicly address the complaint in detail.

If the subcommittee concludes that discipline is warranted, by “clear and convincing evidence,” then it would recommend punishment to the full board, which in turn would make a recommendation to the Supreme Court, which would make a final determination.

Penalties could include a requirement of community service or pro bono legal service, public censure, suspension of his law license or disbarment. Restitution is an option, too, but it would not apply in this case, according to Curtin.

The complaint is at least the second time that Azar has been officially challenged regarding the amounts of his billings in Family Court. In 2007, then-Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. referred Azar and another lawyer for criminal investigation by the state police regarding their state-paid work on behalf of indigent defendants.

Both lawyers were cleared of criminal misconduct and returned to good standing on a list of lawyers eligible to be appointed by the court to represent indigents. Jeremiah had billing practices tightened up.

Azar, 43, of Johnston, has a law practice consisting mostly of juvenile and family law such as guardianships. He was solicitor for former Johnston Mayor Louis Perrotta from 1995 to 1999, a former member of the Johnston Democratic Town Committee and a former legal counsel to the Rhode Island House of Representatives Labor Committee.

He has been an unsuccessful candidate a number of times for elective public office in Johnston, most recently in last month’s Democratic primary in Senate District 25.

Who said this was only in Missouri?  Michigan is the worst in the nation for accessing defense lawyers.  This is why the Medicaid fraud schemes are so powerful in child welfare.  There is nothing anyone can do about it...or is there?

Budget Woes Hit Defense Lawyers for the Indigent

OZARK, Mo. — Some public defenders in Missouri say the stressed state budget is interfering with their ability to provide poor defendants with their constitutional right to a lawyer.

Amber Arnold/Springfield News-LeaderJudge John S. Waters of Christian County insisted that the lawyers take Mr. Blacksher’s case.

They say they are so overworked and underfinanced that they have begun trying to reject new cases assigned to them late in the month, when, they say, their workloads are already beyond capacity.
Concerns about a deteriorating, overwhelmed public defender system in this country have been around for decades, but they have ballooned recently as state budgets shrink and more defendants qualify for free legal counsel.
“This has been a problem in good economic times, and now it’s only worse,” said Jo-Ann Wallace, president and chief executive of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. “What you have is a situation where the eligible pool of clients is increasing, crime rates are potentially increasing, while the resources often for public defenders are going down.”
Missouri’s per capita spending on public defense ranks 49th in the nation (only Mississippi spends less), Ms. Wallace’s group says. State officials say the defenders system, with its 570 employees, is expected to receive more than $34 million this year. The state public defender’s office says a true solution would require 125 more lawyers, 90 more secretaries, 109 more investigators, 130 more legal assistants and more space — all of which would cost about $21 million a year — a seemingly impossible suggestion, given the fiscal climate.
In the meantime, they say, fiscal constraints are colliding with the requirement set forth in a 1963 Supreme Court decision, Gideon v. Wainwright, that poor people accused of serious crimes be provided with lawyers paid for by the government.
Last week, Jared Blacksher found his case sent to the Missouri Supreme Court — not over the accusations that he had stolen prescription pain pills and a blank check, but over the issue of whether the state’s public defender system is in such dismal shape that it ought not be forced to represent him.
The public defender’s office had pleaded with the judge, repeatedly, not to assign it Mr. Blacksher’s case. It was just the latest example of public defenders, charged with representing the poor and indigent, saying they cannot take a case because they have too many already and not enough staff to handle them all. Public defenders in jurisdictions from Florida to Minnesota to Arizona have either sued over their caseloads or refused to take new cases.
The judge in the Blacksher case rejected the public defender’s pleas not to be forced to take it. “It flies in the face of our Constitution,” Judge John S. Waters told his Christian County courtroom here last month. “It flies in the face of our culture. It flies in the face of the reason we came over here 300 and some-odd years ago to get out of debtors’ prison.”
“I’m not saying the public defenders aren’t overworked,” Judge Waters said, but, “I don’t know how to move his case and how to provide him what the law of the land provides.”
But last Friday, the Missouri Supreme Court issued an order temporarily rescinding the assignment of public defenders in Mr. Blacksher’s case, at least until the court can consider legal briefs on the question of the public defenders’ latest demand to refuse cases.
Mr. Blacksher’s case, which could now be delayed for several months, has become the center of a debate that long predates it in this state. To some, the signs of stress on the public defender system here have become overwhelming, even frightening: almost all the public defenders’ 35 trial division offices lately carried caseloads that would require more than the total number of staff hours available in a month — in some cases, more than two times the hours available, said Cat Kelly, deputy director for the Missouri State Public Defender System.
“Missouri’s public defender system has reached a point where what it provides is often nothing more than the illusion of a lawyer,” an outside report asked for by the Missouri Bar concluded last year.
Yet some county prosecutors here are deeply skeptical of the defenders’ complaints. With the state facing $550 million less in general fund revenues than a year ago, they say, defenders are no more burdened than the next department...more

SCOTUS Cuts Children's Rights Money

Oh my, looks like Children's Rights lost a substantial part of their funding scheme.

Justices Put Curbs on Payment for Lawyers
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it a little harder for civil rights lawyers to be paid extra for exceptional results.

In most American lawsuits, each side pays for its own lawyers whether they win or lose. But Congress occasionally allows the winning side to claim its legal fees from its adversaries, notably in cases involving claims of civil rights violations.

The question in the case decided Wednesday, Perdue v. Kenny A., No. 08-970, was how judges should determine how much the losing side has to pay.

The case arose from a successful class-action suit on behalf of 3,000 children in Georgia that helped reform the foster-care system there.

The trial judge awarded the lawyers $6 million using a conventional way of calculating legal fees — hours worked times the local hourly market rate for lawyers of comparable experience and skill. The judge then added $4.5 million for what he said was work of exceptionally high quality.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, writing for five justices, said that some additional payments may be proper in rare cases but that the judge here had not given good enough reasons for increasing the basic payment by 75 percent...more

See, every time Children's Rights files a class action, it files on behalf of children in foster care to provide them more services and to expedite the process of adoption. Children's Rights does not advocate for the children who have been improperly and unnecessarily removed form the family, nor does it advocate for the child victims who have been legally kidnapped. Children's Rights does not advocate for damages to the children who have been harmed in foster care, not even to the children were able to get the class certification on the case. Children's Rights brings forth these class action law suits because they know they have a guaranteed money making cash cow.

See, there is no why, shape or form a state can meet the requirements of any of the settlement agreements.

Even though it is admirable that this organization has taken the initiative to protect children from the horrific conditions in the foster care system, Children's Rights fails to consider that these children are mostly being placed in foster care due to poverty and fraud.

I have loosely developed my own hypothesis for these class action events. When the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General comes out with extremely poor audits of a state child welfare systems, Children's Rights gears up to file because the money to be had does not come from the settlement agreement of the case, it comes from the settlement agreement of the attorney fees and the likelihood that the state will not meet the criteria for compliance, meaning the state will breach the settlement agreement and there shall be more attorney fees incurred.

Actually, this is quite brilliant, so I do not fault, as I am only here to inspire people to do more through education.

Of these attorney fee settlement agreements, not one single penny will go to the children of these cases. Not one penny will even remain in the state of where the agreement was entered. Not one penny will go to a family to prevent a placement in foster care for lack of resources such as housing or medical care.

In the end, the children still loose until someone stands up and takes action to stop the fraud in child welfare.

Childrens Rights Attorney Fees

$6.2 million reasons why we continue to celebrate...

Children's Rights Attorney Fees SCOTUS Decision

Happy Child Abuse Propaganda Month!