Now, here’s an interesting (and seemingly improper) practice – inviting the prosecuting attorney to a human services (Walworth County) department staff meeting to discuss what the department’s recommendation should be related to waiver to adult court for a youth. The Wisconsin Supreme Court just issued an opinion in a case (State of WI vs. Tyler T) ruling that this apparently did not violate the rights of Tyler T (age 15 at the time of the offense(s)) or constitute some form of ex parte communications that would render the department’s report inadmissible. Interestingly, neither Tyler T. nor his attorney were invited to participate in that formal meeting, and even then in the end the department opted not to make a recommendation, one way or the other, related to waiver.
The details of the offense are of some interest in a case like this, but more to the point for this post is the issue of what is proper practice in terms of both gathering information and/or communicating information to other parties, particularly the adversary attorneys. What should be the department procedure for conducting an independent investigation and making a recommendation in a waiver case – and really in all cases? The role of the department is to assess risks and needs and make an independent recommendation to the court as to the outcome that best meets the goals of the juvenile code, particularly regarding what is most effective in meeting the youth’s needs in a way that reduces the likelihood of reoffending behaviors.
Aside from the fact that all research points to better outcomes from juvenile court than adult court, I have to reflect the concern that too often the relationships and practices that develop in the court process can overshadow the difficult independent role that social workers are supposed to play. Social workers should take pride in their important role in the court process, even as we may recognize that the process and the inherent power attorneys have in the legal setting can sometimes skew that role in ways that harm the outcomes of a given case as well as undermine the process. It’s not clear from this case whether this was an exception to the process or how it came about – but, it does seem clear, as the minority opinion points out, that allowing one party substantially different access to the process is patently unfair. By Jim Moeser
