Baker bill mandates juvie reps

By Mark Guydish mguydish@timesleader.comEducation Reporter

HARRISBURG – As the “kids-for-cash” scandal unfolded, one systemic failure emerged that evoked a stunned response from some of those appointed to unearth the causes: More than half the children who appeared before former Luzerne County Juvenile Court Judge had no legal representation.

“We were all struck by the collapse of the rule of law,” Judge John Cleland said when the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice released a report about the scandal in May. “Every check and balance that we fully anticipate would come into play to make sure the system works collapsed,” added Cleland, the commission’s chairman.

It’s a failure that state Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Lehman Township, attempted to address early with the introduction of Senate Bill 873, which would mandate legal representation for juveniles in state courts. The effort passed its first hurdle Tuesday, being moved out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a bipartisan vote of 13-1.

At first blush, it may seem like fast action: A commission tasked with scrutinizing the scandal issues a report in May recommending, among many other things, that a juvenile’s right to waive counsel should be restricted, and four months later the Senate Judiciary Committee pushes a bill forward that mandates counsel. But the history goes back longer … much longer.

Baker put her proposal on the table in April 2009, part of a rush by state lawmakers to respond as details of the scandal emerged after the initial announcement by the U.S. attorney that Ciavarella and fellow Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan agreed to plead guilty to corruption charges. They later withdrew those pleas and were indicted. Conahan has since entered a new guilty plea, but Ciavarella awaits trial.

Considering that the law forming the Interbranch Commission wasn’t passed until June 2009, does that mean Baker was prescient? Hardly. While the commission became a public forum for the airing of many issues involving the scandal, the lack of legal representation for juveniles appearing before Ciavarella had been exposed a year before Baker’s bill was submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In April, 2008, the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center filed a petition asking the state Supreme Court to intervene in hundreds of cases that had come before Ciavarella, citing the fact that at least half of those youths had no attorney.

“Luzerne County’s juvenile court proceedings represent the most egregious violation of children’s constitutional rights in Pennsylvania,” JLC Legal Director Marsha Levick said at the time. “When more than half of all youth appear in court without legal representation ... something is seriously wrong and it must be stopped.”

Lack of representation became a key factor in the decision by the state Supreme Court to vacate about 5,000 rulings handed down by Ciavarella in juvenile cases over a five-year stretch dating back to 2003.

That decision followed recommendations first proposed in February 2009 by Berks County Senior Judge Arthur Grim, who had been appointed “special master” to review Ciavarella cases.

Specifically, Senate Bill 873 says “a party is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings ... and if he is without financial resources or otherwise unable to employ counsel, to have court provide counsel.” The bill adds the sentence “counsel for the child cannot be waived at any stage of a proceeding.”

In an e-mail, Baker’s Chief of Staff Jennifer Wilson said the bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee “to determine if there are any financial impacts.” If it is voted out of that committee, it would come to a full Senate vote. Wilson said there is no companion legislation in the state House, so if the Senate approves the bill it would have to undergo the whole approval process there as well.

There are, Wilson noted, only eight days scheduled in the current Senate session.

In a written statement, Baker noted her bill goes beyond recommendations of the Interbranch Commission, which stopped short of suggesting mandated legal counsel.

“I have listened to the stories of kids who were railroaded through the juvenile system of Luzerne County into detention, some for minor offenses, some for actions that should never have landed them in court. I have listened to the anguish of parents who helplessly watched this travesty of justice unfold, and have been wracked by guilt ever since.

“A major contributing factor was the prevalent absence of counsel. Families were misled, cajoled, or intimidated into routinely waiving the right to counsel. With legal representation missing, so were justice and constitutional protections.”

Baker cites another recent move designed to prevent any similar problems in the future -- Luzerne County Chief Public Defender Al Flora’s announcement Aug. 24 that a new unit dedicated solely to juvenile cases will be formed. Vowing it will be a model for the state, Flora said the unit will have three attorneys, a secretary and a social worker all committed to juvenile cases.

The move is designed to address several other problems revealed during a probe of the scandal. In many cases, a juvenile met the attorney minutes before a hearing. Under Flora, attorney Cheryl Sobeski-Reedy was assigned to handle those cases full-time, and she has made it policy to meet with children and their parents before hearings.

The county has also set aside separate space for juveniles waiting to talk to Sobeski-Reedy. Previously, they sat in the same waiting room as adults.

Only one member of the Judiciary Committee voted against Senate Bill 873 – Jane Earll, R-Erie. She did not return a call seeking comment Tuesday.

Baker concedes her bill, if enacted, would require additional spending in a struggling economy, but she argues “it is impossible to shake the belief that waiving counsel may be dollar wise, but it is fairness foolish.

Mark Guydish, a Times Leader staff writer, can be reached at 829-7161