The Kids Aren't Alright: Every Child Should Have an Attorney in Child Welfare Proceedings in Florida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each report, and the Senator's comments, focused on the shortcomings by DCF and the community-based agency which came into existence as a result of Florida's move towards privatization of its child welfare system.'oIt is significant that neither the reports, nor the Senator's comments, focused on or analyzed the role of Florida's Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Program in the Barahona case.It is unclear from the available information whether the GAL Program carried out its responsibilities over the time period the children were in care.Arguably, an independent attorney for the children would have produced a different result for the Barahona children.This article is a continuation of a discussion as to why, as a matter of Florida constitutional law, public policy, and professional ethics, Florida's children need independent attorneys from the inception of all dependency and termination of parental rights cases to their completion."It is based upon events which have occurred since the authors' last article on this topic in the Nova Law Review, including the Barahona case, the resolution by the 10.See BARAHONA CASE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY, supra note 1, at 5; BLUE RIBBON PANEL, supra note 1, at 5-10; Menzel, supra note 7; MIAMI-DADE GRAND JURY REPORT, supra note 1, at 3-4.Florida privatized its child welfare system in the late 1990s.See FLA.STAT.§ 409.1671(1)(a) (2011); Michael J. Dale & Louis M. Reidenberg, Providing Attorneys for Children in Dependency and Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings in Florida: The Issue Updated, 35 NOVA L
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".