Update - Amicus Curiae: Sam M. v. Carcieri, 610 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D.R.I. 2009)

Amicus Curiae: Sam M. v. Carcieri, 610 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D.R.I. 2009)

Last year NACC filed a brief, authored by NACC Board of Director member Erik Pitchal, with the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Fourteen organizations signed on in support of the brief. The case was a class action law suit, brought by Children’s Rights and the Rhode Island Child Advocate on behalf of a class of Rhode Island foster children in state child welfare custody, alleging myriad violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. Specifically, the action alleged that deficiencies in the current state foster care system were causing them harm. The federal district court in Rhode Island dismissed the action, holding that the foster children’s next friends were deficient because they had failed to establish that they had a sufficiently significant relationship with the foster children. The court further held that the foster children had no need for next friends to serve as their representatives because the GALs and CASAs, who had been appointed to represent the children in their dependency cases, were the children’s all-purpose general representative. Therefore, according to the court, it was only through the GAL or CASA that the children could appear in a federal lawsuit.

The NACC brief argued that the district court’s decision was a serious error of law and an abuse of discretion. The brief made the additional point that whether you call them GAL’s, minor’s counsel, law guardians, or something else, the work of NACC members is that of lawyers, and it is improper to make these lawyers the gatekeeper to federal court for their clients. On June 18, 2010 the First Court reversed remanded the original decision. Mr. Pitchal provided the following update on the outcome.

"The First Circuit has ruled in the Sam M. case, giving a resounding victory to plaintiffs. Thanks again to everyone who signed on to the NACC amicus brief, which the court cited a couple times in its decision. Justice Souter was a member of the panel.  In my opinion, footnote 11 is of the utmost importance. The court concluded that a GAL or child's attorney appointed by the state dependency court is not the "general representative" under FCRP 17(c)(1) [at least not in Rhode Island, but I can't imagine such a thing in any other state], BUT that this does not preclude such a person from being appointed the Next Friend under 17(c)(2), as has been done in many cases. In other words, there is great flexibility, all in the child's favor-- if their GAL is in a position to be the next friend, then great, they can do that; but if the GAL is too overwhelmed with cases or unwilling or unable to get involved in the federal suit, then someone else can be the next friend instead.”

The full decision can be viewed here.